Guys, thanks for taking the time to give me your opinions. This was a difficult build for me as I had no template to go by.
Tim, you pointed out that the power spike would leave evidence, blown fuses, melted wiring and the like. On reading your post I got to thinking that maybe this very evidence would lead an investigation team to believe that a severe power spike from the ships own power plant caused the ship to go down, especially if they was no other evidence to the contrary, in effect they shot themselves down with poor maintenance?
Todd, I agree. Deploying in secret is the key to avoid having Coalition marines showing up at your doorstep the next day with shoot on sight and shoot to kill orders. I idea for deployment would start with jumping in system in an area of null space where no one would see me. I would load up a UCAV (I love the one in BARD) with one or two weapons and send it towards the target planet. Well outside the planetary sensor grid and away from shipping routes the UCAV would slow down to sub-G speeds and release the weapons to drift into orbit. You had a good point about a sky sweep program. I never gave that a thought. I believe that A, B and C starports and F space ports would have an active sweep programs the other ports most likely would not. Here I imagine they would if they spotted the debris would have to rely on a passing ship to close on, identity and shoot the debris down. Your right about a couple of pieces of debris showing up might get peoples attention. It still might work if left in a larger debris field like an old space battle. The intent being to mess with rescue craft and salvagers. I'm thinking that maybe if instead of human - made space junk if the satellite resembled a chunk of asteroid debris, especially if in a slowly decaying orbit that at best a warning to shipping would be sent to avoid the "rocks".
Leonard, you are right ships would need shielding from the wash of a stars radiation, but would a ships hull "skin" do this? Much like a car's body protecting it's passengers from a lighting strike? I'm thinking that a focused EMP burst would be more like a millisecond bullet rather than a continuous wave of energy. I also think the pulse could be focused much like the X-ray rods on a space nuclear missile focuses the energy of the blast down a narrow beam. In Brilliant Lances a PAW can force s system reset to a target ships computer effectively shutting down a ship for a one or two 30 minute period. I'm thinking that this might be a mild kind of EMP, a side effect of the weapon?
Please keep the ideas coming!!!
Thanks Again
Roger
Roger,
in military vehicles that get slammed by EMP they have a "battle-over-ride" switch that bypasses the fuses etc so that they can get operational again. I suspect that there's something similar in navy ships as well although there they have a full up maintenance capability. The overall idea being to get some capability back as soon as possible, and then, of course, work on getting the rest of it back while getting ready for the enemy's follow on assault...
With a starship and its inherent shielding hmmm I suspect that would be like the difference between a fuze and a lightning arrestor (its been nearly 30 years so I may have the wrong term on the latter) basically the former may blow, and blow quickly but the surge its intended to counter is still relatively small and slow to build compared to lightning, and so the special build types used there. Something built to withstand (hardened) EMP would have to be faster, much faster still. And to be truly effective it would have to be able to self-recover within a short period of time, its insane to expect a crewman to suit up and go out on the hull to change fuzes when something like that is happening.
Another comment in this thread was self-defeating/contradictory ... at one point it was mentioned that EMP would by virtue of the atmosphere be directed downward to the planet only and not toward satellites or ships in orbit, shortly later in the comment he mentions that EMP is 360 degree effect. The latter statement is more accurate, while the EMP is greatly enhanced by the interaction between a nuke and the atmosphere, it remains a 360 (globally) effect. (until or unless they've determined a way to focus the energy) so within the constraints of the energy being disperssed by range satellites could be affected.
Another point in the thread revealed that a nuke is not required to generate an EMP, I didn't know how they did that, only that it had been achieved - interesting, thanks for the info
T
>________________________________
From: roger
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2012 6:24 AM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Satellite Based EMP Weapon
>
>
>
>Guys, thanks for taking the time to give me your opinions. This was a difficult build for me as I had no template to go by.
>Tim, you pointed out that the power spike would leave evidence, blown fuses, melted wiring and the like. On reading your post I got to thinking that maybe this very evidence would lead an investigation team to believe that a severe power spike from the ships own power plant caused the ship to go down, especially if they was no other evidence to the contrary, in effect they shot themselves down with poor maintenance?
>Todd, I agree. Deploying in secret is the key to avoid having Coalition marines showing up at your doorstep the next day with shoot on sight and shoot to kill orders. I idea for deployment would start with jumping in system in an area of null space where no one would see me. I would load up a UCAV (I love the one in BARD) with one or two weapons and send it towards the target planet. Well outside the planetary sensor grid and away from shipping routes the UCAV would slow down to sub-G speeds and release the weapons to drift into orbit. You had a good point about a sky sweep program. I never gave that a thought. I believe that A, B and C starports and F space ports would have an active sweep programs the other ports most likely would not. Here I imagine they would if they spotted the debris would have to rely on a passing ship to close on, identity and shoot the debris down. Your right about a couple of pieces of debris showing up might get peoples
attention. It still might work if left in a larger debris field like an old space battle. The intent being to mess with rescue craft and salvagers. I'm thinking that maybe if instead of human - made space junk if the satellite resembled a chunk of asteroid debris, especially if in a slowly decaying orbit that at best a warning to shipping would be sent to avoid the "rocks".
>Leonard, you are right ships would need shielding from the wash of a stars radiation, but would a ships hull "skin" do this? Much like a car's body protecting it's passengers from a lighting strike? I'm thinking that a focused EMP burst would be more like a millisecond bullet rather than a continuous wave of energy. I also think the pulse could be focused much like the X-ray rods on a space nuclear missile focuses the energy of the blast down a narrow beam. In Brilliant Lances a PAW can force s system reset to a target ships computer effectively shutting down a ship for a one or two 30 minute period. I'm thinking that this might be a mild kind of EMP, a side effect of the weapon?
>Please keep the ideas coming!!!
>Thanks Again
>Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> in military vehicles that get slammed by EMP they have a
> "battle-over-ride" switch that bypasses the fuses etc so that they
> can get operational again. I suspect that there's something similar
> in navy ships as well although there they have a full up maintenance
> capability. The overall idea being to get some capability back as
> soon as possible, and then, of course, work on getting the rest of
> it back while getting ready for the enemy's follow on assault...
Thing is, EMP won't blow *fuses* except at *insane* levels.
Fuses protect against excessive *current*. EMP induces excessive
*voltage*. Which blows diodes, transistors and all sorts of ICs.
> With a starship and its inherent shielding hmmm I suspect that would
> be like the difference between a fuze and a lightning arrestor (its
> been nearly 30 years so I may have the wrong term on the latter)
> basically the former may blow, and blow quickly but the surge its
> intended to counter is still relatively small and slow to build
> compared to lightning, and so the special build types used there.
> Something built to withstand (hardened) EMP would have to be faster,
> much faster still. And to be truly effective it would have to be
> able to self-recover within a short period of time, its insane to
> expect a crewman to suit up and go out on the hull to change fuzes
> when something like that is happening.
Lightning arrestors try to divert the lightning by providing an
"easier" path than the house (or whatever) wiring.
BUT EMP damage and lightning damage are very different. Lightning is
huge voltages *and* huge current.
EMP is high voltages (how high depends on the length *and
orientation* of the conductor the EMP is inducing the voltage in. But
is generally fairly miniscule current.
That's why EMP kills semiconductor based electronics so easily. A
mere 50 volts at **millamps* of current is enough to fry junctions
inside an IC.
You can *literally* kill an IC by touching it after scuffing your
shoes across the carpet. And withouit having built enough voltage to
even feel the resulting static "shock".
So it doesn't take much of an EMP to kill something that uses ICs or
even transistors or diodes.
There's a gizmo some folks like to play with called a "violet wand".
Originally a quack healing gadget, but stil sold for use by beauty
salons and the like. And for "kinky" uses.
It creates really high voltages (100kV or more) and they go thru a
glass tbe filed with krypton and other gases (which makes the tube
glow purple, hence the "violet wand".
ou some nice sparks (maybe a millimeter or so) and a shock from it.
But the current is *way* microscopic. Like I said, milliamps.
A violet wand will kill (woithout leaving any marks) digital watches,
cell phones, PDas, pocket calculators etc if used "too close" to
them.
But it can't "burn out" a hair fine wire used as a fuse. Not enough
power/current.
> Another comment in this thread was self-defeating/contradictory ...
> at one point it was mentioned that EMP would by virtue of the
> atmosphere be directed downward to the planet only and not toward
> satellites or ships in orbit, shortly later in the comment he
> mentions that EMP is 360 degree effect. The latter statement is
> more accurate, while the EMP is greatly enhanced by the interaction
> between a nuke and the atmosphere, it remains a 360 (globally)
> effect. (until or unless they've determined a way to focus the
> energy) so within the constraints of the energy being disperssed by
> range satellites could be affected.
You misread what I said. I said that to get *widespread* EMP, you had
to detonate a nuke in a planet's ionisphere. And that it'd affect a
moderate sized chunk opf the planet under it (that's how we
*discovered* EMP, when a high altitude nuclear test took out stuff in
Hawaii.
It may or may bot affect stuff farther out (in orbit) as well. I'm
not certain.
But the same nuke detonated farther out *won't* create an EMP as big.
The "full sphere" effects is a *seperate* factor. If was noting that
you can't *focus* the effects.
Detonating n the ionisphere create a huge EMP because the bomb is
surrounding by charged particles, and they are somewhat trapped in
the planetary magnetic field.
Probably get similar results up in the Val Allen belts (and this is
why solar storms like the one the other day can disrupt
communications, because a lot of communications rely on either
reflecting off the ionisphere, or being able to pass *thru* it. Which
the changes disrupt)
TLDR: setting off a nuke in the ionisphere magnifies the EMP a *lot*.
And EMP effects are generally full sphere, not focused.
> Another point in the thread revealed that a nuke is not required to
> generate an EMP, I didn't know how they did that, only that it had
> been achieved - interesting, thanks for the info
Yeah, but the EMP bombs are fairly limited effect. A briefcase sized
unit might take out stuff within a few hundred feet (if you are
lucky). A few *dozen* feet is more likely)
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com
> Leonard, you are right ships would need shielding from the wash
> of a stars radiation, but would a ships hull "skin" do this? Much
> like a car's body protecting it's passengers from a lighting strike?
No. The hull (or shielding between the hull and the crw, cargo and
equipment spaces) *has* to be able to stop the high energy protons
from solar flares, as well as the particle radiation in the radiation
"belts" of gas giants or the crw & passengers will rapidly acquire a
*lethal* dose of radiation. Might not do the cargo any good either
(depending on what it is) and likely won't do non-rad hard
electronics any good either.
The required shielding needs to be *light* elements, preferably stuff
with lots of hydrogen. So LH2 may help. Water, some plastics, that
sort of thing.
Note that for flare shielding above earth's magnetic field it takes
several *meters* of water. Or a meter or more of some plastics
(polyethylene?)
You don't want heavy stuff like lead because they high energy
particles will create *multiple* lower energy particles when they hit
a nucleus. These result in *higher* radiation doses!
Cosmic rays are an issue as well, but much longer term.
Flares and solar "storms" tend to include masses of plasma with
trapped magnetic fields. Those can give EMP type effects. So you'll
need some degree of shielding against those too.
> I'm thinking that a focused EMP burst would be more like a
> millisecond bullet rather than a continuous wave of energy. I also
> think the pulse could be focused much like the X-ray rods on a space
> nuclear missile focuses the energy of the blast down a narrow beam.
Alas, EMP is not likely to be focusable. It's a temporary (hence
"pulse") spike in the magnetic field. And magnetic fields can't be
*externally* focused to any great extent.
Also, you'll either need a huge amount of energy (because the ship is
so far away) or you'll have to be almost on top of the ship.
Neither is exactly subtle.
The huge energy version is going to have a *very* detectable
signature at hundreds or thousands of times the range it'll do damage
at.
The "almost on top of the ship" is very hard to pull off. There's an
*insane* amount of space out there. So if they device can kill the
ship at 100 miles, the odds are *trillions* to one against the ship
being that close. Especially since they'd be trying to *avoid* space
junk.
> In Brilliant Lances a PAW can force s system reset to a target ships
> computer effectively shutting down a ship for a one or two 30 minute
> period. I'm thinking that this might be a mild kind of EMP, a side
> effect of the weapon?
Charged particles hitting you in those numbers tends to create all
sorts of electrical effects, which can disrupt stuff.
Getting hit by a CPAW beam has some effects similar to a lightning
strike. And others that are very different.
NPAW strikes won't have the "lightning" effects as much. But either
way the blast effects will tend to mess stuff up anyway.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com
Shadow wrote in part:
"You don't want heavy stuff like lead because they high energy
particles will create *multiple* lower energy particles when they hit
a nucleus. These result in *higher* radiation doses!"
This is the working principle behind "neutron" bombs ... a 'small' a-bomb triggers the enhanced nuke which then does nasty things of metal in the area - which thoughts in turn may lead to ships being constructed of ceramics, poly, and other attempts to reduce too much metal ...
Tim
I.e. medical level particle stream hitting metal produces energy needed for dental X-Rays. Larger particle stream hitting metal produces through-container X-Rays.
Military grade charged particle beams hitting a ship will cause the metal to emit military grade X-Rays. So if you have a probe on the far side of an enemy ship and hit it with a charged particle beam, it can view the X-Rays and watch the crew on the targeted ship collapse and die from the X-Rays.
--- On Fri, 3/9/12, Tim O'Reilly wrote:
Shadow wrote in part:"You don't want heavy stuff like lead because they high energy
particles will create *multiple* lower energy particles when they hit
a nucleus. These result in *higher* radiation doses!" This is the working principle behind "neutron" bombs ... a 'small' a-bomb triggers the enhanced nuke which then does nasty things of metal in the area - which thoughts in turn may lead to ships being constructed of ceramics, poly, and other attempts to reduce too much metal ...Tim
Also remember that this is all based on a TL 8 view of physics and the
universe. at TL12 or 15 things 'could' be much much different. So use what
works for your Campaign is my suggestion. :)
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Tim O'Reilly <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Shadow wrote in part:
> "You don't want heavy stuff like lead because they high energy
> particles will create *multiple* lower energy particles when they hit
> a nucleus. These result in *higher* radiation doses!"
>
> This is the working principle behind "neutron" bombs ... a 'small' a-bomb
> triggers the enhanced nuke which then does nasty things of metal in the
> area - which thoughts in turn may lead to ships being constructed of
> ceramics, poly, and other attempts to reduce too much metal ...
> Tim
>
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.