Graser replacement

JohnRoth wrote:The earliest reference I can find to "micro-fusion" reactors is in At All Costs, where it's said that they were developed for Ghost Rider, and that the drones, EW platforms and so forth all use them. They're not just for missiles.

Cool thanks for digging that up.

I do still wonder if they're basically scaled down (and less rad shielded) versions of one of the two reactor types we've already seen of it they invented a 3rd basic approach in order to achieve micro=fusion reactors.


We know modern starships use a grav pinch (Changer of Worlds: Ms Midshipwoman Harrington, Storm from the Shadows, House of Steel) And HoS provided a bit more and an acronym/name for them; while comparing them to Grayson's pre-alliance reactor designs.

House of Steel wrote:Simply put, pre-Alliance Grayson fusion plants were not gravitically/electro-magnetically compressed (aka GRAVMAKs). They operated purely on electromagnetic principles and were enormous when compared to a modern GRAVMAK of similar output.

And small craft don't use that gravity based reactor (Ashes of Victory

Ashes of Victory wrote:The little hip-pocket fusion plants we put into small craft couldn't even begin to power an all-up wedge for a ship the size of a LAC. Which is just as well, because they use old-fashioned mag bottle technology and laser-fired fusing that's not a lot more advanced than they were using back on Old Earth Ante Diaspora. We've made a hell of a lot of advances since then, of course, in order to shoehorn the plants down to fit into pinnaces, but the way they're built puts a low absolute ceiling on their output.

My personal speculation is that the GRAVMAK, specifically the gravity portion didn't scale efficiently into something so low power and physically small as a pinnace. That also how I rationalize why LAC fusion plants were so inefficient; the GRAVMAK design probably started hiting scaling problems somewhere around the power needs of a CL and to get smaller than that you presumably started running into serious diminishing returns. Maybe keeping the gravity pinch powered up and stabilized has a fixed minimum energy requirement, regardless of how little power the reactor is generating, so as you need less power a greater and greater percentage of the output is being eaten just keeping the reactor going (making it a fuel hog compared to its usable power output). But if my speculation is correct then I don't think micro-fusion would be using GRAVMAK tech; conversely if we do discover they're using ultra-miniaturized GRAVMAKs then my speculation is wrong and there must be some other reason LAC reactors are such fuel hogs.

runsforcelery wrote:

(Stupid nested quote rule. . . [grumble, grumble, grumble] What idiot designed this site?! I mean ---- What? Oh. Oh, yeah, that's right. Forget I said anything. )

In fairness, and while all the reasons which have been adduced for why you can't generate very long "bursts" from weapons as powerful as grasers in the HV are completely correct, the ability to do so (if possible) would have some advantages for fire control. In essence, it would let you create a larger version of what the USN called the "danger zone" for BB gunnery. If you have a projected volume in which your target might be, the ability to sweep clear across that volume (or a largish chunk of it) with a single shot would increase your chance of scoring a hit as opposed to using a weapon which can target only a single point within that volume.

My thought exactly. I feel that some r&d investment night be worthwhile. After all, who has ever heard of a drone with fly comms. Strap a fusion plant to a Frazer, or laser. And yes, they would be a second or 3 behind on targeting but that is easy enough adjusted for once you calculate trajectory.
I know it is imperfect but a cool thought, at l east I thought so.

Commodore Oakius wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:

(Stupid nested quote rule. . . [grumble, grumble, grumble] What idiot designed this site?! I mean ---- What? Oh. Oh, yeah, that's right. Forget I said anything. )

In fairness, and while all the reasons which have been adduced for why you can't generate very long "bursts" from weapons as powerful as grasers in the HV are completely correct, the ability to do so (if possible) would have some advantages for fire control. In essence, it would let you create a larger version of what the USN called the "danger zone" for BB gunnery. If you have a projected volume in which your target might be, the ability to sweep clear across that volume (or a largish chunk of it) with a single shot would increase your chance of scoring a hit as opposed to using a weapon which can target only a single point within that volume.

My thought exactly. I feel that some r&d investment night be worthwhile. After all, who has ever heard of a drone with fly comms. Strap a fusion plant to a Frazer, or laser. And yes, they would be a second or 3 behind on targeting but that is easy enough adjusted for once you calculate trajectory.
I know it is imperfect but a cool thought, at l east I thought so.

Ok, but waving your energy beam around to cover the targeting "uncertainty zone" just guarantees that a non-trivial percentage of the beam hits nothing and the RFC said you'd need to step down the power to get the duration, so the period when it is hitting the target it's doing less damage and that damage is further dissipated due to its sweep; instead of concentrated and smashing deep into the vitals.

Ok, a SD using grasers to sweep away LACs even a lower power beam sweep should fry any LAC it touches. But that's a fairly rare scenario. (Well for that matter, so is any energy range combat these days)

Against a ship of the same magnitude though basically just scorching the armor doesn't seem to be the best strategy. (Though I guess if you can retrofit this lower power sweep as a optional usage mode (with acceptably small impact on size, cost, and maintenance) then it might be nice to have the option. But definitely not (to my mind) at the expense of being able to throw the most powerful beams you can when you need to.

Vince wrote:Has anyone calculated how much recoil the ship that mounts this KEW experiences when it fires it? One of the nice things about lasers and grasers is they have practically no recoil. (They do have some - see the problems that satellites with very high precision pointing requirements have with the momentum imparted by sunlight striking their solar panels <an example of this is the Kepler telescope in its current degraded state with only 2 gyroscopic wheels operational> - but the recoil of a laser or graser is extremely small compared to accelerating a normal mass to incredibly high speeds.)

Would it exceed the capacity of the inertial compensator (instant anchovy paste for the crew)? (We have textev of the crew feeling the recoil of the broadside missiles when they are fired from the tubes. Might not be realistic from a technical point of view, but it's there.)

Would the recoil exceed even the ability of Honorverse materials to stand up to the forces involved?

The momentum (and thus the recoil) of a graser is E/c, where E is the energy of the graser. If we consider a kinetic weapon with equal energy E, the recoil of the weapon will be E/v, where v is the launch velocity. It is easy to see that the ratio of the kinetic recoil to the graser recoil is c/v. The suggestion was that these weapons be launched at relativistic velocities (which we have already shown to be impossible in the Honorverse). As an example, if it were possible to launch this weapon at 0.5 c, the kinetic weapon would have twice the recoil of the graser. The higher the launch velocity, the lower the recoil.

Bottom line is, grasers already have a significant recoil. Presumably the inertial compensator takes care of this. A kinetic weapon launched at relativistic speeds (as opposed to a powered weapon such as a missile) would have a recoil not much worse than grasers do.

The micro-fusion reactors aren't the grav-pinch/GRAVMAK types. The minimum size of those is impractically big even for LACs, which is why they went to fission LACs.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/si ... gton/145/1

" The second type of fusion reactor is that used in pinnaces, assault shuttles, recon drones, etc. It relies on less esoteric technology, using lasers to intiate fusion, but is also less efficient and produces much less power on a per-ton basis"

Ghost rider, EW and missiles are all missiles. It, how big is the ghost rider missile and is it tube fired? Can they be pod fired?

Lord Skimper wrote:Ghost rider, ...

"Ghost Rider" is a whole group of advances from the Ghost Rider secret weapons program. FTL Comm is Ghost Rider, Dazzler and Dragon's Teeth EW Missiles are Ghost Rider, Recon Drones with long duration, improved stealth and FTL comm are Ghost Rider. Etc Etc Ad Nauseum.

Some Ghost Rider products fit in missile tuubes, some only fit in pods -- eg the Mk23E Apollo ACM -- some are pods, some are much bigger than pods. Take your pick.

The pre great resizing chart shows the Ghost Rider missile, which is that?

Since the energy is the same, while the graser loses effectiveness with range, wouldn't the KEW maintain that energy regardless the range.

Thus assuming the graser has power enough to slice through the sidewall the Kew should impart similar energy to likewise slice through the sidewall. Being a physical thing it should also impart more physicality than the graser.

Might be a world killing weapon if it hit a planet?

Lord Skimper wrote:The pre great resizing chart shows the Ghost Rider missile, which is that?

That would be the first generation multi-drive missile Alice Truman used at Second Hancock.