NationStates Jolt Archive


Realistic Space RPG

19-09-2003, 03:56
Okay, okay. New American recently moved to Side L5. Now in this RPG, there is no faster than light travel, and settlement is limited to colonies in translunar space. Plus, lasers aren't used as weapon...it's nukes and particle accelerators on the battleships, and missiles and small particle accelerators on the fighters and bombers. Also, vehicles are powered by fusion rocket engines.
19-09-2003, 03:57
---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---
19-09-2003, 04:00
Fusion rocket engine.
Right. I'll pretend like it makes sense.
Well, it does. A fusion reaction is created, expending incredible heat and energy, channeled out the rear end of a rocket with a magnetic nozzle.
19-09-2003, 04:01
lol right, realistic, funny...
Steel Butterfly
19-09-2003, 04:03
lol right, realistic, funny...

How can anything futuristic without proof be realistic in today's time?
19-09-2003, 04:05
lol right, realistic, funny...

How can anything futuristic without proof be realistic in today's time?It can't...

And btw, if this were "realistic" then FTL would be able to be used, and LASERs can do plenty of damage. It depends on your definition of "realistic"
19-09-2003, 04:08
---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---
19-09-2003, 04:08
lol right, realistic, funny...

How can anything futuristic without proof be realistic in today's time?It can't...

And btw, if this were "realistic" then FTL would be able to be used, and LASERs can do plenty of damage. It depends on your definition of "realistic"
I see your point. My reality is a land made entirely of chocolate.
19-09-2003, 04:10
lol right, realistic, funny...

How can anything futuristic without proof be realistic in today's time?It can't...

And btw, if this were "realistic" then FTL would be able to be used, and LASERs can do plenty of damage. It depends on your definition of "realistic"
I see your point. My reality is a land made entirely of chocolate.In NS, some people like to think "elves" and "demons" and "vampires" are real :)
19-09-2003, 04:11
Rockets are basically giant sticks of fuel inside a wrapper. You light one end, and you go forward because the exhaust comes out at that end. If you try to apply this to thermonuclear explosions, you either have to use some kind of ubermagnetism or adamantium-skinned rockets.
Well, fusion isn't an explosion. It's called fusion. Explosion is a type of combustion. Combustion needs oxygen. Fusion does not.
19-09-2003, 04:12
---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---
19-09-2003, 04:17
Well, fusion isn't an explosion. It's called fusion. Explosion is a type of combustion. Combustion needs oxygen. Fusion does not.

What? When did I mention oxygen?

And fusion isn't an explosion. That's why you can't have an explosion-based engine using it.

You said "thermonuclear explosion" in reference to a fusion rocket. As I stated (and you restated) fusion is not an explosion. You are confusing yourself.
19-09-2003, 04:21
Well, fusion isn't an explosion. It's called fusion. Explosion is a type of combustion. Combustion needs oxygen. Fusion does not.

What? When did I mention oxygen?

And fusion isn't an explosion. That's why you can't have an explosion-based engine using it.

You said "thermonuclear explosion" in reference to a fusion rocket. As I stated (and you restated) fusion is not an explosion. You are confusing yourself.Yes. That would be called Fission now wouldn't it :)
19-09-2003, 04:30
Well, fusion isn't an explosion. It's called fusion. Explosion is a type of combustion. Combustion needs oxygen. Fusion does not.

What? When did I mention oxygen?

And fusion isn't an explosion. That's why you can't have an explosion-based engine using it.

You said "thermonuclear explosion" in reference to a fusion rocket. As I stated (and you restated) fusion is not an explosion. You are confusing yourself.Yes. That would be called Fission now wouldn't it :)
What? Are you people insane? Let me define:
1)Combustion - A chemical reaction between an element and oxygen.
a)Explosion - Regular combustion (A fire)
b)Detonation - Supersonic combustion (A bomb going off)
2)Fission - The spliting of an atom, releasing energy. (A nuclear powerplant)
3)Fusion - More efficient than fission, it combines atoms to relase energy. (What the sun does)
19-09-2003, 04:36
Well, fusion isn't an explosion. It's called fusion. Explosion is a type of combustion. Combustion needs oxygen. Fusion does not.

What? When did I mention oxygen?

And fusion isn't an explosion. That's why you can't have an explosion-based engine using it.

You said "thermonuclear explosion" in reference to a fusion rocket. As I stated (and you restated) fusion is not an explosion. You are confusing yourself.Yes. That would be called Fission now wouldn't it :)
What? Are you people insane? Let me define:
1)Combustion - A chemical reaction between an element and oxygen.
a)Explosion - Regular combustion (A fire)
b)Detonation - Supersonic combustion (A bomb going off)
2)Fission - The spliting of an atom, releasing energy. (A nuclear powerplant)
3)Fusion - More efficient than fission, it combines atoms to relase energy. (What the sun does)So... the energy released from fusion can be turned into 'pushing' energy if you do it right. Like say, powering an Ion engine or something like that
19-09-2003, 04:44
Yes, but unfortunately, it's not realistic in a chocolate world.
Kanuckistan
19-09-2003, 05:29
Okay, okay. New American recently moved to Side L5. Now in this RPG, there is no faster than light travel, and settlement is limited to colonies in translunar space. Plus, lasers aren't used as weapon...it's nukes and particle accelerators on the battleships, and missiles and small particle accelerators on the fighters and bombers. Also, vehicles are powered by fusion rocket engines.

Lasers are the most realisticly viable weapons for space combat; long range, they propigate at lightspeed, are avalible now, and if you have fusion reactors on your ship, the large amounts of energy needed to power military-grade lasers is most likly avalible in large quantities.

Particle accelerators are basicly railguns that fire handfulls of atoms at very high speeds; not enough mass there to do damage, even at relativistic velosities. Not a viable weapon.

Nukes are good, kinda, depending on how good your tech base's point deffence is; space is big, computers effectivly react instantiously, and missiles have a lot of ground to cover(you can't hug the terrain to hide from enemy sensors in space). I can see several viable implimentations, depending on how things ballance out.

Fusion rockets are also good, but I'd mix them with more efficent ion drives; the rockets'll give you more thrust in a given time, but burn fuel faster, and over time you can get the same delta Vee out of an ion engine, for less fuel.


Anyway, if you want a realistic RPG, you should probally sit down and outline what can and can't be used, and what it can do; leaving things open to interpretation means you'll get a plethora of different tech bases.
20-09-2003, 00:46
These particle accelerators take ambient neutron radiation (that's what the fission reactor is for) and clump it toghether, until the energy level is very very high (94,789) joules. Then, they fire it at C. Also, I'll make C-speed travel enabled. However, there is no way of going faster than C at the moment.

Of course, provided you aren't just godmoding, you can build reasonably powerful fighters and bombers.

Mine are as follows:

F-96A Able Archer

The AA is the mainstay fighter of the New American space forces. It is capable of cruising at 'C' for extended periods of time. It is equipped with twin particle accelerator cannons and dual missile hardpoints. Usually, the missiles can travel at 'C' and are tipped with 500-mgt nuclear warheads.

B-64A Thunderbolt

The Thunderbolt is a strike bomber. It is twice as large as the AA and can cruise at 'C' as well. It is equipped with quadruple particle accelerator cannons and eight missile hardpoint, topped off with twin 'Bomb' hardpoints...The 'Bombs' are ultra-high yield (1 gt) antimatter devices.
20-09-2003, 00:55
ROTFLOL

First off, C Speed IS impossible. And second, no, particle accellerators can't fire at C :) just close to C.

It is much more realistic to go faster than C Relative than C... if you know what I mean.
Santa Barbara
20-09-2003, 03:04
Fusion rocket engines aren't all that unrealistic. They'd be easier than a fusion electric power plant.

The only unrealistic part, as far as today's technology goes, is creating a magnetic field powerful enough to contain the fusion reaction. But if you're on some other planet and are doing space RPing, that should be no problem given enough research and money.

Otherwise there's always fission thermal rockets, which are like fusion ones except not as good. But cheaper and well within today's science. NERVA, anyone?
23-09-2003, 02:03
Alright, alright. The F-96 and B-64 can move at or very close to the speed of light, for extended periods of time. For some reason, when you go really fast, the inertia allows you to go at the same speed for a long time.