How would you handle rolled pods?

Endurance extension due to nodal endurance either for or against compared to energy availability is completely assumed.

And no we have no true "clues" which is which. We do have common sense though.

They took a standard CM body, and causally added literally TONS of mass to the same impeller ring. Maybe upwards of 50% or greater, so total POWER output through the impeller ring is much greater and yet it maintains the exact same acceleration profile and flight time.

Don't know about you, but usually, adding an immense amount of power drain without issues to a system, means there is an immense amount of headroom to work with and the engineers in question are not using this headroom.... Why? Do they like throwing money and performance away? Uh, no. That gets your ass fired because another company outbid you. Now, what you do with that headroom till a hard physical limit is hit, is obviously up to the engineer.

If you are at a hard physical limit, why the, #*$@)()#)! are you making super expensive non optimal delux maneuverable suicidal bombs? Either increase acceleration, increase endurance, or decrease the CM impeller rings/capacitors.

It's like civilian ships running without a compensator, which means they have things like a 10,000 ton fusion plant sitting on a deck under 400+ gravities. Why would you possibly design the decks of a 4 million ton ship to handle a 4 million ton concentrated load?

Or designing residential buildings to handle contact nukes?

There are some very strange and not at all obvious to me underlying assumptions to the Honorverse.

Relax wrote:Endurance extension due to nodal endurance either for or against compared to energy availability is completely assumed.

And no we have no true "clues" which is which. We do have common sense though.

They took a standard CM body, and causally added literally TONS of mass to the same impeller ring. Maybe upwards of 50% or greater, so total POWER output through the impeller ring is much greater and yet it maintains the exact same acceleration profile and flight time.

Don't know about you, but usually, adding an immense amount of power drain without issues to a system, means there is an immense amount of headroom to work with and the engineers in question are not using this headroom.... Why? Do they like throwing money and performance away? Uh, no. That gets your ass fired because another company outbid you. Now, what you do with that headroom till a hard physical limit is hit, is obviously up to the engineer.

If you are at a hard physical limit, why the, #*$@)()#)! are you making super expensive non optimal delux maneuverable suicidal bombs? Either increase acceleration, increase endurance, or decrease the CM impeller rings/capacitors.

That assumes that the nodes follow such basic concepts in physic like moving more mass at the same acceleration requires more power input

Actually given that none of the missile performance numbers we're given pay any attention to relativity I'm not sure RFC is treating them that way. [For example - we're told an MDM accelerating at 1/2 power (46,000g for 9 minutes) will reach about 65.5 million km. But if you factor in relativity I'm coming up with more like 31.6 million km]. One the handwavy explanation is that wedges may ignore mass (say, the wedge magically getting any increased power necessary to maintain acceleration in the face of relativistic mass from its siphon effect off the alpha wall; rather than through the nodes)

But if wedges magically ignore mass then strapping a warhead and a lasing rod to the nose wouldn't require more power fed into the nodes...

How about a crippler made to work against missile wedges.

A cm canister pod that uses box fire defense rather than guidance.
mounted on BC(P).

A Nike sized and armoured Ship using Massive box fired SD Laser PD Clusters and counter missiles. with a couple hammerhead "Roland" fore aft mounted missiles. Either Mark 16 or 23's. And a few Grasers for anti ship defense.