Re: [OT] oddball enrivonment questions

Ray Forsythe wrote (and Brian Bell wrote something similar):

> >Tac Missile Launcher (GMS/P)
>
>Right out unless they have steering jets instead of fins.  If you have
a
>beastie, not sure if the extra mass for steering jets and prooellant
would
>offset the gain from lower G, especially as you also lose any
atmospheric
>lift effects.

Whether the vector thrusters take up more mass (and cost more) than
movable 
fins depends very much on the intended range of the weapon. For 
shorter-ranged weapons it's pretty much a toss-up today as to which of
fins 
and thrusters to use; thrusters may be slightly more expensive but allow
a 
considerably lower muzzle velocity than fins do for the same accuracy. 
(Lower muzzle velocity = smaller launch signature = A Good Thing
tactically 
speaking).

Oh, and a rocket-powered missile launcher has very little kickback
whether 
in an atmosphere or in vacuum. (A recoill-less gun would have problems
with 
recoil, but I suspect that it'd be kick-forward rather than kick-back.)

> >Plasma Gun (Man-portable)
>
>No air resiatance + lower grav gives flatter trajectory as projectile
>weapons above.  No atmosphere means the plasma bolt will not lose
energy to
>the surrounding air as it travels towards the target.	Longer effective
range.

Much more importantly, the plasma bolt won't break up due to air 
resistance. *MUCH* longer effective range in vacuum.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."