tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post7291483425301323172..comments2024-03-28T16:08:53.493+00:00Comments on ToughSF: Cold, Laser-Coupled Particle BeamsMatter Beamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-70648294888074382382022-10-23T19:50:15.971+01:002022-10-23T19:50:15.971+01:00Yep, it would work to remove the atmosphere in the...Yep, it would work to remove the atmosphere in the path of the beam, however you wouldn't get a 'cold' beam at the end.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-16283099281877149512022-10-23T03:12:39.885+01:002022-10-23T03:12:39.885+01:00Wouldn't that also allow particle beam in atmo...Wouldn't that also allow particle beam in atmosphere ? With these 2 laser profiles in succession: 1- max-low-max, Ionize atmosphere and push the ion on the side to create a void tunnel, laser induced acceleration must compensate the air particle acceleration due to atmospheric pressure. 2- max-low-max-low-max. the center low-max-low is the classical coupling guiding the particle beam. The sides max, maintain the atmospheric ionization and side pushing to maintain the void.Mr. Lonekindnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-66681563513131866812020-08-21T20:42:54.556+01:002020-08-21T20:42:54.556+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Greg Prosmushkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06469085569109130005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-28077545190077972632019-09-18T01:22:52.003+01:002019-09-18T01:22:52.003+01:00I'm glad to hear that. Good luck with your pro...I'm glad to hear that. Good luck with your projects and feel free to ask more questions here!Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-39490639700583933002019-09-17T13:48:02.956+01:002019-09-17T13:48:02.956+01:00Ah of course! I hadn't thought of that; the be...Ah of course! I hadn't thought of that; the beam can just be moved around, and then there's the fact the ship being shot at is moving as well... So in fact if you do just point slightly ahead of the ship, and the beam arrives just in time to hit the nose of the ship, with a long enough pulse that it lasts approx 1 ship length, you might very well cut the whole thing in half!<br /><br />Thanks for the swift response!<br /><br />And also, just thanks for going over all this stuff in general. I love my sci-fi worldbuilding but always want my equations to work in some way, so it's amazing to have such a detailed resource! Sometimes I find that somewhere like Project Rho is a bit of an overload (the conventional weapons page particularly is... long), but the way you have everything laid out on this site is great, with the focused articles. Also,combined with your other particle beam article with its equations, I finally have a justification for having a 500m long Dreadnought with an absurdly high powered and high velocity spinal mount particle beam, so that's also good.Mechanivalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-82040824138145748972019-09-17T08:32:59.589+01:002019-09-17T08:32:59.589+01:00With very powerful LCPBs, you could finally recrea...With very powerful LCPBs, you could finally recreate the scifi trope of beams slicing through spaceships. Making circular movements with the beam can remove armor and internal structures from spaceships very efficiently, at least when compared to having to melt that same armor or structures.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-83009817593184513522019-09-17T04:15:54.289+01:002019-09-17T04:15:54.289+01:00Given the absurdly tiny radius of the LCPB at smal...Given the absurdly tiny radius of the LCPB at small distances (like 2cm at 100,000km), resulting in stabbing clean through enemy warships with little needle holes, might it be possible to deliberately not turn on the laser if a relatively close ship wanders into the right place, so as to do the usual massive damage to a decently large area, rather than just sticking a pin through the target?<br /><br />Obviously it's not going to be a massively frequent occurrence, given that these LCPB ships would be huge and not exactly in position to deftly manoeuvre, but if you have a 0.5c beam at a range of a bit under a light second or so, you've a pretty damn good shot and the wider burst might do more damage - that is assuming of course the lower intensity is still enough to burn through their armour in the first place.Mechanivalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-79146455169481560192019-08-25T13:50:12.395+01:002019-08-25T13:50:12.395+01:00The range depends on the scale of the device and t...The range depends on the scale of the device and the coupling duration. A relativistic proton beam guided by a laser beam could maintain its initial radius for millions of kilometers. Just coupling the two for a single minute could get you 18 million km before the beam starts diverging again. One hour and you get a billion km!<br /><br />Because the beam does not diverge within that time period, you don't need features which increase the size of the magsails. <br /><br />The problem is, I have been discussing with a physicist the possibilities of this beam. While the PROCSIMA study has moved to Phase II of NASA's NIAC program and we hope to get a proper white paper on the concept, we are worried that the interplanetary medium will interfere with the beam sooner than later. It might not be possible to couple a laser and particle beam for an hour, or even a minute, unless you fire it in very 'clean' space you might only find at the edge of the Solar System. Remember that the Sun is pumping out solar wind and filling interplanetary space with about 5 to 100 particles per cm^3. In mass, this is 8*10^-21kg/m^3 to 1.6*10^-19kg/m^3. Not much, but it could be enough to disturb the beam over long ranges.<br />Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-30331495561440627152019-08-25T05:40:16.107+01:002019-08-25T05:40:16.107+01:00I'm wondering what kind of practical range we ...I'm wondering what kind of practical range we could get out of this kind of technology.<br /><br />I've been looking into magsails and have found out that there's a few interesting aspects of them that give them advantages over laser powered photon sails when powered by high power particle beams. There are also plasma augmented magsails, massively increasing the potential area of the sail. So since this technique reduces the divergence immensely I was wondering how it might apply to high powered magsail vehicles. To me this lifts the performance limitations to some extent, the primary one being the effective range of the particle beam. If this concept can improve that effective range then higher mission delta-v may be possible, enabling rapid interplanetary transport and fairly high speed interstellar vehicles - provided the magsail can still slow down from such high velocities at a reasonable acceleration in the interstellar medium.BillPhilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01843292941195258105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-70659584748783947762019-08-14T09:35:03.226+01:002019-08-14T09:35:03.226+01:00Why so much energy ? The atmosphere is 10 tonnes/m...Why so much energy ? The atmosphere is 10 tonnes/m2 or 1000g/cm2. With your penetration formula, the penetration for a 3 GeV proton beam is 3715g/cm2 more than the atmopshere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-91073053684478455632019-08-13T20:17:00.960+01:002019-08-13T20:17:00.960+01:00It is a complicated question, but I would say in e...It is a complicated question, but I would say in excess of 1 PeV.<br />Half of that energy, 450 TeV, is still not enough to penetrate the atmosphere (https://physicsworld.com/a/cosmic-gamma-ray-energy-record-shattered-by-high-altitude-observatory/).Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-41108250150442315512019-08-13T07:13:19.994+01:002019-08-13T07:13:19.994+01:00How much energy do you need for the particle beam ...How much energy do you need for the particle beam weapon to be use to attack target (and kill with radiation, the crew or electronics) on the ground on earth ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-85934347741782938772019-06-14T10:08:49.834+01:002019-06-14T10:08:49.834+01:00Yes... so long as the laser is intense enough to o...Yes... so long as the laser is intense enough to overcome the thermal motion of the particles. There is an upper limit to this intensity - too much and the particles would ionize and repulse each other. So, you are restricted to cold particles. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-79755123394666420582019-06-13T20:56:31.580+01:002019-06-13T20:56:31.580+01:00How does a laser coupled system function when usin...How does a laser coupled system function when using quasi neutral particle beams(overall neutral charge), can the laser still be used?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-73870740277896815862019-06-07T02:47:17.842+01:002019-06-07T02:47:17.842+01:00Thank you again, M B. This sounds to me more like ...Thank you again, M B. This sounds to me more like a Cold War Triad/MAD-scenarios than a naval battle-one.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Keith<br />Keith Halperinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841504651752178493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-91292600485147268482019-06-05T23:16:54.677+01:002019-06-05T23:16:54.677+01:00If they are optimally deployed, then they are pred...If they are optimally deployed, then they are predictably deployed. This means that it is somewhat easy to narrow down or even pinpoint the location of AWSs by using the collected data over days, weeks, or months of observation. This is assuming that they have really good stealth.<br /><br />Then, with that location information, the defenders will pre-position countermeasures. These can be big lasers, missiles, big guns and so on. The moment a war is declared, you activate your AWSs and they fire their countermeasures.<br /><br />The battles will be conducted using the survivors of that initial rush to action. If you managed to sneak by a few AWSs in non-optimal positions, or if they got enough of their own weapons to avoid your attacks, then you are able to move against targets that do not have their defenses already set up.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-43205403545504973042019-06-05T22:21:31.994+01:002019-06-05T22:21:31.994+01:00Hello Matter Beam, et al,
Would the following sce...Hello Matter Beam, et al,<br /><br />Would the following scenario be logical/feasible?<br />Very few military ships/"stars" but lots of autonomous weapon systems (AWS):<br /><br />A number of factories/beam-launch facilities manufacture and launch large quantities of various weapons (PG, Casaba, kinetic, laser, LCPB) with AI and moderate-maneuverability capabilities and optimally deploy them. <br />At what distances could these various types of weapons be detected prior to being used?<br /><br />KeithAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-69819080898609745922019-05-28T06:38:58.381+01:002019-05-28T06:38:58.381+01:00Sorry, just realized the earlier question did have...Sorry, just realized the earlier question did have my query, just not in detail. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-69564120402377629502019-05-28T06:37:35.285+01:002019-05-28T06:37:35.285+01:00Well, thank you for your answer. But it appears t...Well, thank you for your answer. But it appears that a question of mine was deleted for some reason. It was if you could point to some sources that could help with setting and technology since everyone says all these ideas but rarely goes into the effects of say a new technology.<br /><br />I know a few sources already, just wondering if you know any others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-19162025569109389932019-05-27T23:18:04.868+01:002019-05-27T23:18:04.868+01:00Well, it would be reasonable to assume that the ra...Well, it would be reasonable to assume that the radiator wires don't extend past the end of the nozzle then!<br /><br />The ships will be sized according to the needs of the mission, and the crew sized do indeed depend on automation.<br /><br />It is the author or worldbuilder who decides the technology of a setting. There is no 'correct' answer for this. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-36850665130677078952019-05-26T21:12:58.910+01:002019-05-26T21:12:58.910+01:00Wouldn’t the radiators get caught up in the exhaus...Wouldn’t the radiators get caught up in the exhaust? (Making humped armour to hide the wires more viable)<br /><br />How big would the crews and the ship be? Assuming there are gas core torches, it would really depend on automation, I assume?<br /><br /> Also, could you point out some sources to help with establishing the technology of the setting.<br /><br /><br />P.S you make a post dedicated to drones:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-75839551232936221222019-05-26T03:47:17.087+01:002019-05-26T03:47:17.087+01:00Gas core engines as we know them allow for rapid i...Gas core engines as we know them allow for rapid interplanetary travel, but they're not really 'torchships' because they don't allow for continuous high acceleration. This doesn't exclude future advances in uranium plasma technology that turns them into true torchships.<br /><br />For example, gas core engines with 1MW/kg power density and let's say, 10,000s Isp, representing 20% of a spaceship's dry mass and loaded with enough propellant for a mass ratio of 5 would be able to accelerate at 0.14g on average for 32.5 hours in total and accumulate 157.8km/s of deltaV. That allows for interplanetary travel at 78.9km/s, which is... very fast!<br /><br />If we go even higher, with 10MW/kg engines and 25,000s Isp, we could get 0.28g acceleration for 40 hours and a total of 394.7km/s. That's proper torchship performance!<br /><br />How ships look depends on your technological assumption and the specifics of the setting. <br /><br />That said, I could expect missile carriers to be nothing more than stacks of tubes, like a truck carrying logs, that ferry ammunition to a beam-equipped craft. The laser or particle beam warship has a sharp cone of armor that allows it get close to targets if necessary. There is no real need for it to have internal ammunition stores if the missiles are only being accelerated from outside beam ranges. It is very much like artillery, as you say. <br /><br />At very long distances, you only need to move your nose by a few degrees to catch any and all targets within your firing line. All big beam weapons would be spinal-mounted, with lenses making the tiny adjustments needed for aiming. You would want shutters to close your lens from counter-fire or kinetic attack too.<br /><br />Anti-missile/projectile defense would be done most of the time by you main beam weapon. As they get closer, you can split up you laser beam into multiple turrets that have an easier time tracking the projectiles. Similarly, RF generators could divert their energy to powering shorter, lower energy defensive particle beams. <br /><br />You would never want to use kinetic impactors like pellet guns to intercept energy projectiles, as it is extremely wasteful. If you want to stop something dead in its tracks, put a net, plate or stack of lightweight foils in its path - this is what I mean by interceptor drones. <br /><br />LCPBs are a bit more advanced technology, but they would only be useful at extreme ranges and would likely not be flexible enough for defensive use. <br /><br />Wire radiators are an option if you want better kW/kg values for your waste heat management system than flat panels but find droplet radiators unsuited for the rapid accelerations during combat. They'd look like spider silk webs glowing red to orange, trailing behind the spaceship. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-66132227634712427352019-05-26T02:09:52.340+01:002019-05-26T02:09:52.340+01:00So what who are saying, is that gas core engines a...So what who are saying, is that gas core engines are 1G Torchships? Neat.<br /><br />So I’ve been wondering. How big are they. How would these ships look? I know that the Stealth ship (dark star) would look like a tube in a tube; but how all the other ships look? Missile busses looking like great leviathan (ie fat whales) with a LCPB at the front while missiles unload from the back waiting there turn to accelerate (the way you describe it makes it sound like artillery). Great swords of pellet ships and laser stars with quivers (space aircraft carriers?) loosing fighting daggers into space? <br /><br />How would the laser/pellet/particle weapons be protected? Would the weapons be keel mounted or would they turreted or something in between?<br /><br />What would AAA Defense look like? Lasers dividing their beams, miniature pellet guns, or the active protection armour that would make some parts of the ship look scales. <br /><br />And lastly, would the cold particle beams used (since everyone seems to be gushing over the LCPB)<br /><br />This is all with wires radiators( how much heat do they radiate?)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-18557615480273067772019-05-24T23:45:14.732+01:002019-05-24T23:45:14.732+01:00No worries! I love answering these questions.
You...No worries! I love answering these questions.<br /><br />You would accelerate the missiles from outside the effective range of your beam, or else you'd be using it as a weapon directly. So, for example, if you can deal damage at 100,000km, you'd start shooting missiles from 300,000km away.<br /><br />These distances gives you plenty of time to accelerate the missiles to very high speeds. You can simply drop the missiles behind you and have them use their maneuvering thrusters to position themselves in front of your beam one by one. With beamed propulsion systems, you can get high Isp and high thrust. This means you can quickly accelerate missiles to high speeds. By staggering the launch velocities, you can get many missiles accelerated in series to converge onto a single strike on the target. <br /><br />Stealth techniques definitely help the missiles cross the large distances between beam-equipped ships. Sudden maneuvers in the terminal phase of their flight can help avoid interceptors.<br /><br />If you know that a large number of missiles coming at you at high velocity will pop up on your sensors at relatively short distances, then you can't just have a simple warship equipped with a huge beam weapon survive for long. It would need kinetic interceptors, anti-kinetic armor, even anti-missile missiles. Its best anti-missile weapon is its giant beam, but it would have to prioritize between shooting down missiles endlessly and trying to hit its enemy, perhaps with its own missiles. There are a lot of moving parts here, with plenty of choices to make regarding optimization. <br /><br />A laser weapon web is another layer of complexity on top of everything. It greatly increases beam ranges, but also means missiles can be accelerated from farther out and become gigantic missile waves that can overwhelm any sort of defense. Part of the missile wave could be more mirror relays, either as a second stage of acceleration for missiles or to shoot down incoming anti-missile missiles... it's quite fun to think about.<br /><br />Hydrogen steamers are not invulnerable. A planet that suspects their presence can spend months scouring the sky for the slightest trace of them, and pre-aim huge ground-based lasers to smother their general position with energy to detect and/or destroy them the moment they slip up and reveal themselves.<br /><br />Ideally, a fleet is composed of ships that can break all types of defense and handle any sort of offense. A pellet streamer, laser beamer and particle sniper would join a missile arsenal, mirror web deployer and phased array interptor to become all-rounded in effectiveness. In reality, you are most likely going to have one aspect more powerful than all others (for example, superbly long ranged LCPBs) and several holes in the defensive capability (like no anti-missile missiles). Fleet commanders must work to their strengths and avoid facing their weaknesses. <br /><br />Fighters still work when LCPBs are involved, if you just increase the distances which you consider short range! I consider a 'fighter' to be a smaller craft with a shorter ranged weapon that gets close thanks to its smaller cross-section and ability to dodge weapons.<br /><br />For example, a 2m wide ship will only be hit 1/50 times with a 0.5C beam weapon at 200,000km if it accelerates at just 2m/s^2. It can afford to have 50x less armor than a 14m wide ship accelerating at the same rate, or 10m wide ship that only manages to sustain 1m/s^2.<br /><br />Gas core reactors are pretty impressive. Their Isp of 2000s without radiators means that with a mass ratio of 5, that fighter in the previous example can sustain their acceleration for a whole 4.4 hours. They can increase their Isp to 5000s with radiators, and even further if you manage to create an electromagnetic confinement system for the uranium plasma. An interplanetary ship with a mass ratio of 10 would be able to zip to Mars in 11.3 days at the closest approach, 46.5 days if it had an Isp of 5000s. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-68173063016265456702019-05-24T21:16:18.586+01:002019-05-24T21:16:18.586+01:00Thank you!
So what you are saying is that you can...Thank you!<br /><br />So what you are saying is that you can accelerate or boost a missile via a LCPB or laser? That would actually by rather interesting. How would this look though? would you have tubes in the front of the ship to minimise surface area? Or would someone go full broad side and use the same LCPB or lasers of point defence as well. Perhaps you boost the missiles and then have a on board rocket to propel it and cause random 'jinx' movements to avoid defences? or is stealth the better option. And what war head would they use (asides from Casaba Howitzers), kinetic, sand, nukes?(doubt it)<br /><br />How would laser web ways fit into all of the? PGoDs would just obliterate any mirror that it hit, (and missiles...) meaning that you would need a self proplled fleet of ships to protect the relays. Or just have Hydrogen streamers near the enemy planet for first strike capability (then how is there a war after both sides have been nuked?). <br /> <br />And would the fleets of independent ships (if there are any) be arranged in the Laser, Fire, Kinetic etc Stars system that appears to popular on this forum (would PGoD be...Uh...Pellet...Stars? That's lame) or would they more than one function? (Perhaps economics are something to consider?)<br /><br />Also, are the "fighters" of the PGoD post possible in such a setting? I mean, in that post, you were assuming that the PGoD would rain supreme. But with laser webs, Howitzers, and LCBPs all over the place, I am left scratching my head on how the "fighters" could compete.<br /><br />And lastly, to get this interesting but most likely improbable idea out of my head, is it possible to make a torchship from a nuclear gas core engine. We are already coming up with nuclear engines that have torch like qualities. But I feel that an actual fission torchship is asking for to much. and is it ridiculous to have a setting where fusion is available but is to big to fit on ships and thus fission is the better option?<br /><br />P.S. Sorry if I am being a bit too...naggy, So many questions in my head! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com