Honorverse ramblings and musings

Somtaaw wrote:http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Space_Weapons_Technology#Keyhole the wiki is saying Keyhole was in WoH, I'm now double-checking the battle for Marsh to see the exact wording since searching 'keyhole' isn't turning up results.

Edit: ok, I can't seem to find anything specifically refering Keyhole, although there is the little snippet about:

Active defenses engaged the weapons which slashed their way through the screen of electronic protection. The latest generation Manticoran counter missiles had increased their effective intercept range to just over two million kilometers, although the probability of a kill in excess of one and a half million was low. Shannon Foraker's best efforts, even with reverse-engineered Solarian technology, had a maximum intercept range of little more than one and a half million. That meant Honor's missile defenses had sufficient depth for two counter missile launches to engage each incoming missile before the attacking birds could reach effective laserhead range.

Which is almost exactly what Keyhole does, it's just not specifically stated to be Keyhole.

That says nothing about about a towed electronics platform. All it does say is CMs have gotten long enough to ranged to now get off two salvoes.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:You'd get twice the missile capacity from one point source in space and a significant increase in energy batteries that can be brought to bear. Presumably, you'd also get twice the throw weight?

OTOH, you'd lose twice everything with a golden bb. I'd like to know what the WDB would actually say about it. Then cross reference it with Harrington.

Can a single SD be built at twice the size, faster than two normal sized SDs? What will the cost comparison yield between a double-sized SD and two current sized?

In an era of Superior Manty missile range paired with Apollo missiles and a screen, diminished acceleration isn't going to matter as much.

A lion will slow down for a cheetah any day. A lion that can project its power as an Apollo armed SD will slow down for several.

Perhaps the untapped tactical potential of Apollo is great enough to offset a decrease in acceleration advantage.

First, one of the earlier posters was incorrect; it's compensators not impellers that limit acceleration above 8-9 mtons. Even a 16 mton fort uses impellers; however it has to use grav plates to counter the acceleration as its way off the edge of the compensator effeciency cliff. Once you go past that inflection point a compensator loses something like 1g if acceleration for ever extra 2500 tons.

That was me. Oops. Anyway - so if it's the compensator, is the reason for optimism about far larger capital ships of the near future an application or furtherance on the Grayson-based compensator improvements? That'd be better than nothing, I suppose, but it's been quite some time and the latest monster capital ships aren't that much larger than the 30 year old monster capital ships, which suggests that those compensator developments may be about tapped out for radical improvements out at the edge of the efficiency drop-off.

Pushing compensators has advanced in a way too, in that going at 90%+ of nominal compensated efficiency instead of 80% is the new Haven Sector standard. But that's not directly to bear on the efficiency cliff.

A remaining ray of hope - maybe - might be much better grav plates. Power miniaturization may help with that; so might Alignment research to make the spider ships work, though that's not in anyone else's toolbox yet. Is that it?

Now one issue with building a 16-18 mton Apollo ship is that while the volume to carry missile pods went way up the surface area to mount fire control antenna, PDLCs, CM tubes, sensors, etc grows much slower than the volume. A pair of Invictus SD(P)s can together probably fire and control more point defense than a singe double-sized super-SD(P).

There may be other sources of hope, in that you would have so much more tonnage to support parasite surface area, in the form of many more than two Keyhole's, for instance. Or similar systems deployed from the pod bay. They're not as durable as sensors and control links on the ship's hull, but still, they could be something for compensation.

Jonathan_S wrote:Now one issue with building a 16-18 mton Apollo ship is that while the volume to carry missile pods went way up the surface area to mount fire control antenna, PDLCs, CM tubes, sensors, etc grows much slower than the volume. A pair of Invictus SD(P)s can together probably fire and control more point defense than a singe double-sized super-SD(P).

Ah, but how many Keyhole-IIs could that Apollo fort deploy? Probably eight, not four, since it has four broadsides exposed in bubble sidewall mode. Their docking cradles would be less vulnerable due to the additional mass for armouring schemes.

Possibly those cradles could even be combined with a pod deployment point. The KH2 is parked on top of the outer hatch.

A pair of those forts could then control as many missiles as a full battle squadron for half the tonnage investment of said battle squadron.

munroburton wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Now one issue with building a 16-18 mton Apollo ship is that while the volume to carry missile pods went way up the surface area to mount fire control antenna, PDLCs, CM tubes, sensors, etc grows much slower than the volume. A pair of Invictus SD(P)s can together probably fire and control more point defense than a singe double-sized super-SD(P).

Ah, but how many Keyhole-IIs could that Apollo fort deploy? Probably eight, not four, since it has four broadsides exposed in bubble sidewall mode. Their docking cradles would be less vulnerable due to the additional mass for armouring schemes.

Possibly those cradles could even be combined with a pod deployment point. The KH2 is parked on top of the outer hatch.

A pair of those forts could then control as many missiles as a full battle squadron for half the tonnage investment of said battle squadron.

Hmm, we're talking about an actual fort (and hence not moving much) does it actually need docking cradles for its KH2s?
You'd still need the data links, beamed power emitters, and tractors. But instead of hard dock g them when you're just orbiting could you just let the KH2 float in formation?

That should free up some broadside surface area.


Hmm, more KH2 means more fire control and also gives you more chances to play games by rotating control to keep the enemy from locking up and taking out your relay from its active FTL emissions. So yeah, Apollo capable forts might make sense to mount more keyholes.

Jonathan_S wrote:Hmm, we're talking about an actual fort (and hence not moving much) does it actually need docking cradles for its KH2s?

You'd still need the data links, beamed power emitters, and tractors. But instead of hard dock g them when you're just orbiting could you just let the KH2 float in formation?

When you start talking about free-floating KHII platforms, you're talking about the Mycroft system being installed at Beowulf. You don't need the fort at that point because Mycroft platforms are apparently about CA or BC size and the Apollo pods they control are distributed in shoals in various places around the system.

Weird Harold wrote:When you start talking about free-floating KHII platforms, you're talking about the Mycroft system being installed at Beowulf. You don't need the fort at that point because Mycroft platforms are apparently about CA or BC size and the Apollo pods they control are distributed in shoals in various places around the system.

Yup. A network of unmanned and automated platforms controlling thousands of if not tens of thousands of extremely deadly missiles. Not that I'm saying its Skynet, but it's Skynet.

kzt wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:When you start talking about free-floating KHII platforms, you're talking about the Mycroft system being installed at Beowulf. You don't need the fort at that point because Mycroft platforms are apparently about CA or BC size and the Apollo pods they control are distributed in shoals in various places around the system.

Yup. A network of unmanned and automated platforms controlling thousands of if not tens of thousands of extremely deadly missiles. Not that I'm saying its Skynet, but it's Skynet.

The Mycroft [uu]relays[/u] are unmanned and automated. But they are described as relays, not as autonomous fire control platforms; similar to an FTL version of Haven's Moriarty system (which we know had a manned fire control platform at the heart of the inner-system wide web of fire control relays).
So I'm pretty sure there's still a fort or missile control base in the loop somewhere with Mycroft; making the decision to fire and originating the fire control info that gets relayed out to the dispersed Apollo missiles. . You just need the FTL relays because your missiles can fly much further, with still reasonable control lag, that a single FTL fire control transmission can reach. (If they had 30 light minute un-relayed FTL control they almost certainly wouldn't need to bother with Mycroft.

But I guess by speculation about non-docking keyholes was more aimed towards ones used by the pre-Mycroft Apollo capable forts; like the ones we're told exist now to defend the Lynx terminus. They'd need nearby keyhole IIs; but do they need (or I guess, more to the point, have) how many does each fort have and do they have docking cradles for each.

Squeezing Compensator Efficiency

Ok you guys. Slow down for the snotty. Max accel of an SD is currently 600+ Gs, IIRC. An SD double the size would reduce the accel significantly < 300 gravities? Because 300 Gs would still be an impressive acceleration for that much firepower. Especially in the hands of the correct CO. In fact, IINM regarding a max accel of 300 Gs, these double-sized SDs would be perfect additions to Home fleet. Home fleet can never uncover beyond a skeleton fleet anyways. Touting the existence of two SuperSDs in Home Fleet's OOB would be impressive.

I would post them further out from the planet towards any likely axis of attack. Their much lower accel would play perfectly with their natural Apollo armed stand-off range.

Regarding the likelihood of larger ships being limited by compensator efficiency. There's one thing that's not clear in my head. First, let's grab the 'meat & 'tatoes' from the wiki...

While the gravity generators of a starship were capable of reducing felt acceleration up to 50 Gs, this limited the starship's acceleration to perhaps 51 Gs. A compensator prevented the crew and delicate equipment like computers from being squashed beyond any possibility of recovery at higher acceleration. If the compensator failed while the ship was under significant acceleration, all the crew aboard would be killed instantly.

A compensator generated a field which turned a vessel's impeller wedge into an inertial sump, greatly reducing the effect of acceleration inside that field. A compensator's efficiency depended on two items; 1) the volume enclosed in its field and 2) the strength of the gravity wave in its sump. Compensators could function in the absence of an impeller wedge, but at greatly reduced effectiveness; a 150 G acceleration could only be reduced to an apparent 5 Gs.

I'm sure it doesn't work this way, and I'm even more sure that someone has already considered it. But, just in case, (and to suffer bringing my-mere-mortal self up to speed should you not mind), concentrating effort on the first limiting factor from above 1)volume overhead - since current ship designs enjoy a significant decrease in manned crew and since compensator efficiency depends on the two items above, why can't a double sized SD be designed where only the necessary areas of a ship are brought under compensator effect -- manned and computer sections? Since humans and computers are what seems to be effected. Why does the volume of the entire ship have to be covered? Design a new generation SD where only the crew and computers are contained within sections that will be under compensator effect. As akin to when less than 100 % of early ships were pressurized or 'spin-gravitized'.

Am I barking up the wrong gravity well?

cthia wrote:Squeezing Compensator Efficiency

Ok you guys. Slow down for the snotty. Max accel of an SD is currently 600+ Gs, IIRC. An SD double the size would reduce the accel significantly < 300 gravities? Because 300 Gs would still be an impressive acceleration for that much firepower. Especially in the hands of the correct CO. In fact, IINM regarding a max accel of 300 Gs, these double-sized SDs would be perfect additions to Home fleet. Home fleet can never uncover beyond a skeleton fleet anyways. Touting the existence of two SuperSDs in Home Fleet's OOB would be impressive.

I would post them further out from the planet towards any likely axis of attack. Their much lower accel would play perfectly with their natural Apollo armed stand-off range.

Regarding the likelihood of larger ships being limited by compensator efficiency. There's one thing that's not clear in my head. First, let's grab the 'meat & 'tatoes' from the wiki...

While the gravity generators of a starship were capable of reducing felt acceleration up to 50 Gs, this limited the starship's acceleration to perhaps 51 Gs. A compensator prevented the crew and delicate equipment like computers from being squashed beyond any possibility of recovery at higher acceleration. If the compensator failed while the ship was under significant acceleration, all the crew aboard would be killed instantly.

A compensator generated a field which turned a vessel's impeller wedge into an inertial sump, greatly reducing the effect of acceleration inside that field. A compensator's efficiency depended on two items; 1) the volume enclosed in its field and 2) the strength of the gravity wave in its sump. Compensators could function in the absence of an impeller wedge, but at greatly reduced effectiveness; a 150 G acceleration could only be reduced to an apparent 5 Gs.

I'm sure it doesn't work this way, and I'm even more sure that someone has already considered it. But, just in case, (and to suffer bringing my-mere-mortal self up to speed should you not mind), concentrating effort on the first limiting factor from above 1)volume overhead - since current ship designs enjoy a significant decrease in manned crew and since compensator efficiency depends on the two items above, why can't a double sized SD be designed where only the necessary areas of a ship are brought under compensator effect -- manned and computer sections? Since humans and computers are what seems to be effected. Why does the volume of the entire ship have to be covered? Design a new generation SD where only the crew and computers are contained within sections that will be under compensator effect. As akin to when less than 100 % of early ships were pressurized or 'spin-gravitized'.

Am I barking up the wrong gravity well?

Repairs, maintenance, and damage control of every thing on a ship.

cthia wrote:Squeezing Compensator Efficiency

Ok you guys. Slow down for the snotty. Max accel of an SD is currently 600+ Gs, IIRC. An SD double the size would reduce the accel significantly < 300 gravities? Because 300 Gs would still be an impressive acceleration for that much firepower. Especially in the hands of the correct CO. In fact, IINM regarding a max accel of 300 Gs, these double-sized SDs would be perfect additions to Home fleet. Home fleet can never uncover beyond a skeleton fleet anyways. Touting the existence of two SuperSDs in Home Fleet's OOB would be impressive.

I would post them further out from the planet towards any likely axis of attack. Their much lower accel would play perfectly with their natural Apollo armed stand-off range.

Regarding the likelihood of larger ships being limited by compensator efficiency. There's one thing that's not clear in my head. First, let's grab the 'meat & 'tatoes' from the wiki...

While the gravity generators of a starship were capable of reducing felt acceleration up to 50 Gs, this limited the starship's acceleration to perhaps 51 Gs. A compensator prevented the crew and delicate equipment like computers from being squashed beyond any possibility of recovery at higher acceleration. If the compensator failed while the ship was under significant acceleration, all the crew aboard would be killed instantly.

A compensator generated a field which turned a vessel's impeller wedge into an inertial sump, greatly reducing the effect of acceleration inside that field. A compensator's efficiency depended on two items; 1) the volume enclosed in its field and 2) the strength of the gravity wave in its sump. Compensators could function in the absence of an impeller wedge, but at greatly reduced effectiveness; a 150 G acceleration could only be reduced to an apparent 5 Gs.

I'm sure it doesn't work this way, and I'm even more sure that someone has already considered it. But, just in case, (and to suffer bringing my-mere-mortal self up to speed should you not mind), concentrating effort on the first limiting factor from above 1)volume overhead - since current ship designs enjoy a significant decrease in manned crew and since compensator efficiency depends on the two items above, why can't a double sized SD be designed where only the necessary areas of a ship are brought under compensator effect -- manned and computer sections? Since humans and computers are what seems to be effected. Why does the volume of the entire ship have to be covered? Design a new generation SD where only the crew and computers are contained within sections that will be under compensator effect. As akin to when less than 100 % of early ships were pressurized or 'spin-gravitized'.

Am I barking up the wrong gravity well?

pnakasone wrote:Repairs, maintenance, and damage control of every thing on a ship.

For the sake of argument, if a ship enjoys 75 % compensator coverage. And if that 75 % does not have to be contiguous - problem solved...

"Captain, we are requesting compensator support from beam section 423 - 495 to effect repairs."