Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Skills and Story Points (07/08/19)

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]

Author Topic: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses  (Read 20890 times)

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #165 on: August 29, 2018, 12:47:25 PM »

it'd be like imagining the current world except all the cars are running on a tank full of nitro glycerin that'll det if you so much as hit a speed bump
So... movie physics?
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #166 on: August 29, 2018, 03:05:18 PM »

Just read Space Vikings; good book.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 14444
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #167 on: August 29, 2018, 03:06:19 PM »

Just read Space Vikings; good book.

Excellent :D
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #168 on: August 30, 2018, 05:08:08 PM »

it's antimatter chief, i don't know if you could even make it stable (as it's instability is a fundamental physical property) anything that makes it stable would probably result in it being useless.
Logged

Voyager I

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #169 on: August 30, 2018, 08:55:22 PM »

What is your motivation for being this much of a contrarian?  Why are you acting this way?

The entire design process of the game has always been "identify desired player experience > design mechanics to promote that experience > come up with just enough lore to give a veneer of plausibility to those mechanics".  Starting an argument about how 'actually, this vaguely-defined futuristic space magic should work like this' is never going to result in meaningful changes to the game design because the design always takes priority over the technobabble and nobody is trying to get specific enough about how this stuff works to tell you how many Midichlorians a Hound has or whatever.
Logged

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #170 on: August 31, 2018, 01:22:44 AM »

It's not even valid realism arguments either.

"Antimatter is fundamentally unstable" is meaningless technobabble. An unstable particle decays, antimatter is not more prone to decay than the equivalent normal matter is. To greatly, greatly simply things, antimatter and matter annihilate each other, but other than that antimatter behaves the same as normal matter; just with the opposite charge. It is already possible to contain antimatter by ensuring it doesn't get in contact with normal matter, e.g. with electromagnetic fields. Not a huge jump to containment through esoteric quantum fullerene physics (now that is technobabble).
Logged

imperialus

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #171 on: September 01, 2018, 08:37:23 AM »

Just read Space Vikings; good book.

Excellent :D

Just wanted to pop in and say the Space Vikings reference caught my eye too.  I've got a dogeared copy that I've probably read more than a dozen times.
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #172 on: September 01, 2018, 09:10:58 AM »

it's antimatter chief, i don't know if you could even make it stable (as it's instability is a fundamental physical property) anything that makes it stable would probably result in it being useless.

a vacuum. You suspend the antimatter in a vacuum vessel that makes it not touch the sides of the vessel -- this is actually already not that hard to do. It was in a dan brown book
Logged

Deeplurker

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #173 on: September 01, 2018, 08:05:50 PM »

Looking nice.

If nobody's said it: PLEASE add an "are you sure" confirmation for bombardments.
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #174 on: September 01, 2018, 09:41:06 PM »

it's antimatter chief, i don't know if you could even make it stable (as it's instability is a fundamental physical property) anything that makes it stable would probably result in it being useless.

a vacuum. You suspend the antimatter in a vacuum vessel that makes it not touch the sides of the vessel -- this is actually already not that hard to do. It was in a dan brown book

that's not stable, that's just "not exploding at this very moment"

it makes it usable, but not exactly safe. strong jolt hits the canister? kaboom. power failure? kaboom. you get the picture.
Logged

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #175 on: September 01, 2018, 11:12:41 PM »

esoteric quantum fullerene physics

*Waves hand* You can stop now. If you're starting to argue about the validity of antimatter containment, which is actually possible and theoretically scalable in real life, why aren't you arguing about hyperdrives and "drive fields" which have completely no basis in real world physics? You're just tunnelling into an ox's horn at this point.
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #176 on: September 02, 2018, 01:46:20 AM »

it's antimatter chief, i don't know if you could even make it stable (as it's instability is a fundamental physical property) anything that makes it stable would probably result in it being useless.

a vacuum. You suspend the antimatter in a vacuum vessel that makes it not touch the sides of the vessel -- this is actually already not that hard to do. It was in a dan brown book

that's not stable, that's just "not exploding at this very moment"

it makes it usable, but not exactly safe. strong jolt hits the canister?

not an issue, the suspended antimatter is repulsed by the walls of the canister, magnetically. Now, power failure is an interesting one but it wouldn't be hard to place the storage in the spine of the ship with the plant on a contained power circuit with a backup power source, self-feeding power source that will run the antimatter containment off of the antimatter until it runs out and then... has no more to blow up.
And that's assuming powered magnets are used, they don't need to be powered, all placed in the reactor so any shot that makes it that deep into the heart of the ship is probably a killshot anyway.
Also the containers could just be made of passive magnets, and the antimatter made out of a magnetically reactive element
Logged

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #177 on: September 02, 2018, 02:40:41 AM »

Since antimatter in StarSector is kept in fullerene shells it could simply be a proton shell caging antiprotons. Electrostatic forces keep them apart and it doesn't need an external power source.

As to how to get antiprotons into (and out of) their proton cages, well that's where eldritch Domain tech comes in, no? Some sort of quantum/phase tech that works on the same principles as the Phase Skimmer/Teleporter, for instance.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #178 on: September 02, 2018, 08:39:26 AM »

Antiprotons are negatively charged, so they would not be repelled by protons.
Logged

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #179 on: September 03, 2018, 01:24:32 AM »

Antiprotons are negatively charged, so they would not be repelled by protons.

You're right. An anion shell is what I should've said.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]