?

Sometimes my notions seem to be a bit too cerebral. And it perplexes me. Still … perplexes me.

“Houston, the only thing that can kill the project is if it is “cost” prohibitive. We think a small bank of capacitors could power the detonation sequence for several microseconds.

Is the amount of power needed “cost” prohibitive for a small bank of capacitors? Every objection you've given thus far is not cost prohibitive."

tlb wrote:More like too little gain for the added complexity. As in, no gain at all has been identified.

Incoming message: Header: Bolthole

See me in my office. Stat. You might need a transfer.—SF

penny wrote:Again, too cost prohibitive?”

tlb wrote:Again, that is the wrong question. Every proposed feature for a missile has to undergo a cost vs benefit analysis. So if a feature adds a significant benefit; then it is probably worthwhile, no matter how expensive it may be. Conversely if the feature degrades performance; then it is probably not worthwhile, no matter how cheap it may be. Finally, if the feature does not affect performance, but makes the missile cheaper or easier to build or use; then it is probably worthwhile.

Your checkbook is not needed. Wrong kind of cost analysis.

Why would you even bring that up anyway? Didn't Honor teach you anything about costs vs life? Besides, do you have ANY IDEA at all what the enormous bottom line of Apollo and its subsystems are? (I don't either, the bills are still rolling in.)

Which is totally irrelevant against the mortality rate of an entire Star system. You disagree with Honor as well? … White Haven, is that you?

penny wrote:Also, why simply separate the stage containing the reactor. It should immediately self destruct. It might mess with enemy sensors. IOW, if the reactor blows after separating, it might have an ECM like effect.

tlb wrote: I wondered who would take Lord Skimper's place.

Poor Skimper.

Although I hardly think Skimper would confuse cost analysis for the rating of a bank of capacitors for the monetary cost of the missile.

tlb wrote:But let's assume that the wedge is dropped minutes before the warhead explosion. During that time the missile is just coasting, so what does it matter how much it weighs when there is no acceleration in any direction?

The wedge is dropped within a single second before the warhead detonates. Not minutes. Timing is important.

The tactic is not concerned with weight, although a smaller volume might help it achieve a higher acceleration and an added benefit of making the missile quicker, and more nimble. The project is concerned with volume. A smaller footprint should be more difficult to target. Please follow the discussion.

tlb wrote:If the reactor were to separate and immediately explode, then the missile might be hit by shrapnel.

Not a problem. After the reactor separates, the firing sequence follows quickly on its heels. Any shrapnel from missile will also fall on deaf ears. Again, it is like a phaser beam fired inside the transporter beam after it is well into the sequence. All about timing. Everything happens inside of a single second.

tlb wrote:No, I simply do not understand what you have gained during those microseconds that is worth the cost of all the things added to achieve the "ejection".

It cannot be maneuverability, because with the wedge down the main motive system is gone.

It cannot be spin rate, because spin is unimportant when the wedge is down.

What, please, do you think that you have gained? It seems to me that the missile is coasting, which it would do no matter what the weight.

I guestimate up to a third of the missiles has been shed up to this point after two stages or drives have been used up in a redesigned missile. If I am also correct that a different drive setting can be preselected since the volume compensated has changed enroute, then the missile might enjoy more acceleration and maneuverability.

tlb wrote:What, please, do you think that you have gained? It seems to me that the missile is coasting, which it would do no matter what the weight.

Coasting is not a problem a second before detonation. If the missile has already shed a third of its volume enroute to this point, it might already be much nimbler. Quicker.

Jonathan_S wrote:Okay - if you really want to you could build a missile that could separate the warhead much earlier that they do now. Of course without a wedge that won't give you the improved final acceleration you where hunting for a few posts back.

Yes you'd now have a much smaller / lighter missile body. But one without any drive; meaning it can only continue balletically along the course it had when it separated from the rest of the missile. And without a wedge of its own it can't get very far away from the missile body. Oh, also, without an active wedge the warhead wouldn't have any particle/rad shielding; and so would be vulnerable to proximity kills. If the other warheads going off didn't fry it your idea of blowing up the missile's reactor certainly would!

Up to this point, a third of the missile has been shed along the way after two drives or stages have been spent. That allowed a higher drive setting and higher acceleration along the way.

Rad shielding is not a problem after dropping wedge. Detonation will follow fractions of a second after. Range from separated missile body containing the reactor that will soon detonate is also not a problem. Timing. Like shooting a phaser in a transporter beam well into its sequence.

“Houston,” (crackle on the channel) “say again. Is it “cost” prohibitive? Over.”


Quick Review

penny wrote:About those multistage missiles. Why aren't they currently designed to separate when a stage is spent like our very own booster rockets? Since missiles are no longer used as kinetic weapons.

The result could be more acceleration, and there certainly would be a much smaller target at the end.

Jonathan_S wrote:However given how missile wedges work (in particular their built in compensation capability) it's unclear if physical staging would actually provide performance advantage.

penny wrote:Even if it doesn't result in a performance boost, it might result in a survivability boost by being a smaller target at the end of its run if redesigned.

penny wrote:

Where is the microfusion reactor in the missile located again? And what volume of the missile does it occupy?

Thinksmarkedly wrote:The reactor is somewhere that can't and won't be separated, because that would leave the missile without power, which is pointless.

The enormous power requirement of the ECM has been met. At this point, the missile only needs to detonate. Without a reactor, a power supply will need to be added. I think a specialized bank of smartly packed high density instant discharge capacitors can be substituted.

The capacitors only need to power the detonation for several microseconds.[/quote]

Is the power requirement of the missile at this point too cost prohibitive for a small bank of capacitors?

cost prohibitive = capacitor powered detonation

We do not know if the entire bulk of the previous capacitor banks were needed to power the detonation sequence for only several microseconds.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:The reactor must travel with the missile to the end and detonation.

Does it? Are you certain the reactor is needed for microseconds of detonation? Is the entire previous bank of capacitors needed for only several microseconds of detonation!?

Thus weekend Iowa played Washington in college football. Iowa has a running back named Kaleb Johnson. He was told that he could not be a running back because he was too slow. But he is quick. He changes direction very quickly, and has become one of the best running backs in college football today. Quickness is important. He changes direction faster than anyone else. The importance of quickness. That translates to reaction time for a missile.

“Houston. Be advised. Cost prohibitive is the only thing that can kill the project. Your stated objections are not “cost” prohibitive. We do not have a problem. I say again Houston, we do NOT have a problem. Check calculations again. Over.”

A spacer arguing with HOUSTON. Only an Alpha, right?


If you were stranded in space in Sandra Bullock's place, would you still be stranded now?

penny wrote:Again, too cost prohibitive?”

tlb wrote:Again, that is the wrong question. Every proposed feature for a missile has to undergo a cost vs benefit analysis. So if a feature adds a significant benefit; then it is probably worthwhile, no matter how expensive it may be. Conversely if the feature degrades performance; then it is probably not worthwhile, no matter how cheap it may be. Finally, if the feature does not affect performance, but makes the missile cheaper or easier to build or use; then it is probably worthwhile.

penny wrote:Your checkbook is not needed. Wrong kind of cost analysis.

Why would you even bring that up anyway? Didn't Honor teach you anything about costs vs life?

--- skip ---

You disagree with Honor as well? … White Haven, is that you?

So you did NOT understand the interplay between Honor and White Haven over the new missiles etc. He was arguing about the costs and she pointed out that the benefits outweighed the costs. The Weapons Board had done a cost/benefit analysis, exactly as I described.

At this point things have bounced around so much I think I've lost the plot.

At one point it was the (unproven) theory that smaller missiles must necessarily have higher acceleration (despite the large range of missile sizes with identical acceleration) -- and so to take advantage you wanted missiles that physically staged in order to have greater terminal maneuverability.
Okay - IF the theory is true, and if a significant reduction in missile volume could be achieved, then there's some benefit. (We don't know how much benefit, and we don't know what the tradeoffs would be [how much bigger would the missile have to start out out, meaning could it be carried by existing ships and how many fewer would fit in your magazines and pods]

At an earlier point it was that dropping the wedge very early would make a missile hard to see and it might slip past the defenses. Then you seem to move on, but then you were talking about dropping the impellers along with the fusion reactor - giving a missile with zero terminal maneuverability. Which seems like a complete 180, but I must have missed if you'd articulated a theory of why this new unmaneuverable warhead was a good thing.

And now apparently the wedge wouldn't be dropped until just before detonation (back to how missiles have been working; so I guess you had discarded that early wedge lowering idea; but if so I missed the memo - which is why I was pointing out the rad shielding issue. It wouldn't mater for a fraction of a second; but would matter to your earlier idea, which I wasn't sure if you'd dropped, or having a relatively long wedgeless approach)

(I swear at time it seems like you have a complete beautiful idea in your head and manage to get less than a third of it into a post; leaving us confused and guessing as to what you're going for or why you are sure it works. Or, for that matter, when you've changed track)



But no, unless you're taking an extraordinarily broad view of "cost", being cost prohibitive isn't the only thing that can kill a project. Not being technically possible can kill it, pissing off the wrong powerful person (say by going against their beliefs or competing with their own pet project) can kill a project, failing to provide an actual benefit can kill a project.

And even whether something is cost prohibitive would mean actually can't be afforded, or simply costs too much for the benefit. We don't get much insight into why you thing we're wrong when you just seem to claim it isn't cost prohibitive without elaborating. (Actually I can't tell if you're claiming it isn't cost prohibitive or just saying that our responses aren't proving that it is cost prohibitive)

Then blowing the fusion reactor was going to blind the point defense (maybe it would), but now you're saying that this would happen less than a second before warhead detonation -- and that the laserhead would go off before being affected by that explosion. But since it's vulnerable to the EMP of the explosion (which moves at the speed of light) that the warhead would go off before the light of the explosion could affect any defensive sensors. So is there some other reason you're visualizing for blowing the reactor, or has that now become pointless?



But sure, taking an extraordinarily broad view of "cost" the cost of a missile with staging might include monetary (it's more expensive), time (it's more complex and takes longer to build so you get fewer of them), size (it's bigger so you need time and money to refit ships to carry an launch them; and can fit fewer into your magazines and pods). But, frankly, talking of cost seems pointless since it isn't clear what benefit it confers. Without clearly showing it would be better then it wouldn't be taken up not matter how cheap it was.

(An no, saying "Bolthole" isn't demonstrating a reason why your current idea makes for a more effective missile. Can you please just clearly share what the current idea is any why it'd be effective?)

So, like I said, I think you've changed track so many times I've lost the plot

penny wrote:The wedge is dropped within a single second before the warhead detonates. Not minutes. Timing is important.

The tactic is not concerned with weight, although a smaller volume might help it achieve a higher acceleration and an added benefit of making the missile quicker, and more nimble. The project is concerned with volume. A smaller footprint should be more difficult to target.

Yes, the target is smaller, so that is a possible benefit during the split-second period when the wedge is down.

But the missile cannot achieve greater acceleration when the only acceleration had been supplied by the wedge (which is now down). Neither can it be made quicker nor more nimble to any effect, because it is coasting and not accelerating at all, once there is no motive force (since the wedge is down).

The point is that you are trying to achieve some benefit that only lasts a split-second and yet somehow outweighs the cost of the additional things you have introduced. Wouldn't a better solution be to reduce the time between dropping the wedge and the warhead explosion (because then nothing needs to be added)?

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:Again, too cost prohibitive?”

tlb wrote:Again, that is the wrong question. Every proposed feature for a missile has to undergo a cost vs benefit analysis. So if a feature adds a significant benefit; then it is probably worthwhile, no matter how expensive it may be. Conversely if the feature degrades performance; then it is probably not worthwhile, no matter how cheap it may be. Finally, if the feature does not affect performance, but makes the missile cheaper or easier to build or use; then it is probably worthwhile.

penny wrote:Your checkbook is not needed. Wrong kind of cost analysis.

Why would you even bring that up anyway? Didn't Honor teach you anything about costs vs life?

--- skip ---

You disagree with Honor as well? … White Haven, is that you?

So you did NOT understand the interplay between Honor and White Haven over the new missiles etc. He was arguing about the costs and she pointed out that the benefits outweighed the costs. The Weapons Board had done a cost/benefit analysis, exactly as I described.

Sigh, and you throw shade at Skimper?

tlb wrote:So you did NOT understand the interplay between Honor and White Haven over the new missiles etc. He was arguing about the costs and she pointed out that the benefits outweighed the costs.

Yes, I understood. The benefits outweighed the costs. The benefits will always outweigh the costs. Even if the project fails, because what is important is the research. But if the project is a success and it saves lives, it will always outweigh any cost. Honor will always be right. So why did you bring up costs? Especially when a monetary value is not what I am asking at all. At any rate, do you think Sonja Hemphill or Shannon Foraker ever worried about financial costs when they are trying to save a nation?

Don't answer. It is irrelevant because you still do not grasp what I am referring to when I say the only thing that can kill the project and its success is whether it is “cost” (beware quotation marks) prohibitive.

I'll dumb it down.

Since I am going with separating the reactor from the missile before detonation, the project needs a small bank of capacitors with a very small footprint to power the detonation sequence for several microseconds.

The question ‘Is it cost prohibitive’ is asking whether or not the power requirement for detonation is too much for a small footprint bank of capacitors to produce.

A cost analysis of the amount of power required vs power available is the question.

tlb wrote:The Weapons Board had done a cost/benefit analysis, exactly as I described.

That isn't what is required here.

This project needs a cost analysis of available power not available currency.

Cost analysis = power required vs power available

Used in a frequently heard question at Bolthole.

“How much power is that capability going to cost us?”

penny wrote:“How much power is that capability going to cost us?”

Yes, research does yield benefits. And of course capacitors can supply enough power to explode a warhead, that is what was used before the fusion reactor was introduced to missiles.

However, does this capability yield a benefit to the missile? You have identified smaller size so harder to hit, having higher acceleration and being quicker and more nimble because of the lower weight as the benefits from the missile ejecting the reactor in the split-second between dropping the wedge and exploding the warhead.

To achieve this you have made the missile more complicated and then heavier during the time that the wedge is up. Then being smaller (so harder to hit), is the only thing that is actually achievable once the wedge is down and the reactor is ejected, since acceleration, quickness and nimbleness all require motive power to be realized.

The stuff about "having higher acceleration and being quicker and more nimble because of the lower weight" are things that you have carried over from the discussion of dropping spent stages in a multi-stage rocket and were interesting then because there was still a powered final stage, which could experience the benefits of losing weight. But here they do not apply, because the only important activity after the final drop of the wedge is the explosion of the warhead.

penny wrote:This project needs a cost analysis of available power not available currency.

Cost analysis = power required vs power available

Used in a frequently heard question at Bolthole.

“How much power is that capability going to cost us?”

The electrical power to set off the warhead is going to be much higher than any of today's warheads; as instead of triggering a set of carefully shaped explosives around subcritical sphere of fissionable material (to generate the xrays to bombard the lithium to create the fusion explosion) the Honorverse warheads require a massive, if very brief, gravitational force to compress the fuel enough to trigger fusion without the fission booster - and so require a non-trivial amount of power to run the grav implosion generator.

That said, it's still probably pretty small compared to the energy needed to run the wedge. A total (n)SWAG is you might need a capacitor 1/10th the size of an SDMs just for the warhead.


However that's all beside the point. You haven't explained what benefit the attack gets by dropping the reactor and switching to another power source "several microseconds" before triggering the warhead. (In just microseconds you'd be lucky to have managed even fractions of a mm of separation)

You claim the benefit will always outweigh the costs -- but if there's no benefit then it can't outweigh even the smallest cost. What is the benefit of this extremely short (and very small) separation?


Yes, IF it saves lives, then it's worth it (well, unless due to its costs it prevented doing something else that would have saved more lives).

And certainly I'm not saying don't do R&D -- that's the only way to find out if something works. Though before you didn't seem to be talking about this as an R&D proposal but as if it was settled that this was (in some way I didn't see you specify) better than the status quo and thus should be deployed.

Though even in R&D there there are opportunity costs to be considered -- you don't have enough people to research literally everything all at once; so someone has to decide which projects look the most promising and focus most of the effort on those.


Also I think Sonja Hemphill or Shannon Foraker are practical people and so yes, I think they consider financial costs of production when considering research projects to pursue or advocating for adoption of new designs (or at least the financial costs as a proxy for required production effort).
Something that can't be build built in sufficient numbers to be effective is impractical and either needs to be made more affordable, or abandoned in favor of something that can be built in sufficient numbers.
A missile that's 5% more effective but requires so many resources that you can only build half as many of them isn't actually a benefit; the result of its high production "cost" is that it actually makes you less effective despite the higher "per round" effectiveness.

You've got a similar issue if that 5% more effective missile is so large that a ship can only carry and fire 80% as many of them per salvo -- it's not actually more effective per salvo.

So it isn't at all clear what the benefit is, how this could be more effective, or how it might save lives

If I recall the sequence correctly with modern laser head missiles, just as the weapon is about to clear an obstruction such as a wedge, it kicks out the laser rods to (massively quickly since the missile is already moving a conciliable speed and under power as is it's target) the detonates the warhead of which a relatively small amount of the energy (it's a nuclear explosion and doesn't seem to be gradationally focused) enters the "rods" and directed in a coherent light beam at the target......ejecting the engine/power plant would add a step, take time and shift the missile/warhead into ballistic mode to cover whatever distance it is going to take so it have itself and the laseing rods in the correct positions to receive and direct the energy. Time.......you throw the rods "this way" and they the explosion has to be close enough to push energy into the rods to direct it at the target but far enough so the warhead going off isn't going to destroy or change the planned direction for catching and directing the energy at the target.
Kick out the rods, and . tick tick BOOM. No dropping the motor.
Besides, you also want the detonation to destroy the propulsion and power source so nobody comes along and salvages it for research and reverse-engineering.

Brigade XO wrote:If I recall the sequence correctly with modern laser head missiles, just as the weapon is about to clear an obstruction such as a wedge, it kicks out the laser rods to (massively quickly since the missile is already moving a conciliable speed and under power as is it's target) the detonates the warhead of which a relatively small amount of the energy (it's a nuclear explosion and doesn't seem to be gradationally focused) enters the "rods" and directed in a coherent light beam at the target......ejecting the engine/power plant would add a step, take time and shift the missile/warhead into ballistic mode to cover whatever distance it is going to take so it have itself and the laseing rods in the correct positions to receive and direct the energy. Time.......you throw the rods "this way" and they the explosion has to be close enough to push energy into the rods to direct it at the target but far enough so the warhead going off isn't going to destroy or change the planned direction for catching and directing the energy at the target.
Kick out the rods, and . tick tick BOOM. No dropping the motor.
Besides, you also want the detonation to destroy the propulsion and power source so nobody comes along and salvages it for research and reverse-engineering.

I am quite certain that the blast does have gravitational focusing to put more energy into the rods, so it does require more energy than just triggering the explosion would take. From Storm from the Shadows:

Chapter 12 wrote:"This is the system-defense variant, the Mark 23-D, for the moment, although it's probably going to end up redesignated the Mark 25. It's basically an elongated Mark 23 to accommodate both a fourth impeller drive and longer lasing rods with more powerful grav focusing to push the directed yield still higher

tlb wrote:I am quite certain that the blast does have gravitational focusing to put more energy into the rods, so it does require more energy than just triggering the explosion would take. From Storm from the Shadows:

Chapter 12 wrote:"This is the system-defense variant, the Mark 23-D, for the moment, although it's probably going to end up redesignated the Mark 25. It's basically an elongated Mark 23 to accommodate both a fourth impeller drive and longer lasing rods with more powerful grav focusing to push the directed yield still higher

And there's Mark 16G from Shadow of Freedom

Shadow of Freedom wrote:The Mark 16’s original fifteen-megaton warhead had been more destructive than any destroyer or light cruiser missile ever previously deployed
[...]
Tristram and her sisters were equipped with the Mod G version, with a forty-megaton warhead and improved gravity generators. That increased its effectiveness by a factor of over five

(And it's clear from a bit later that it's talking about effectiveness when using the lasing rods).
So ~2.6x more warhead power but 5x increase in effectiveness; presumably the better grav lensing accounts for the rest of that improvement.

And then, the weapon and armor essay in In Fire Forged talks about the old Mark 13's "multifunction gravitational lens array (MGLA)" and how

In Fire Forged wrote:GRAVITIC LENS ARRAY AMPLIFICATION
Generally, the more tightly focused the grav lens array pattern is, the more intense the resulting laser beam becomes

So grav lensing is very important for laser head performance