Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2020, 04:20 PM   #101
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polkageist View Post
Kind of like other exhibitions of wanton villainy, a player that posits using a fast-moving spaceship to smash a (typical inhabited) planet would probably call for a pause of the game and a sidebar about what's going on man. Especially if that's the response to some non-existential problem. It's a hell of an escalation! It's like getting some McDonald's, the fry order is wrong, and concluding that the appropriate response is to set fire to the restaurant.
And the odd person does consider that a useful response and burn down the restaurant, shoot it up, etc. It's a feature of the 'real world' setting that we live in. Likewise, if space-drives allow people to recreate the twin towers attack on a grander scale, people in that setting would be aware of it, and might well take precautions against it, especially if it had happened in the past. In a setting where groups of people like your typical PC party can get hold of a ship fairly easily, you can bet it's happened before, and that stopping it is a major consideration for traffic control and defence organisations.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2020, 05:24 PM   #102
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polkageist View Post
I suppose when it really comes down to it, it's probably best dealt with by labeling it "Atrocity-not-appearing-in-this-game".

Or, reserved for the really evil villain's villainous plot that the players stop. Why hasn't anyone done it before? Because it's an act so heinously vile that no one seriously considers it. Until this baddie. That you're going to stop, heroes. Get to it.
If you are considering the destruction of The world, yes. If there are eleven thousand worlds, destroying one of them is well this side of unthinkable.

Besides which, as Fred Brackin points out, destroying a planet is hyperbole. But destroying a city is a very real possibility. And destroying a city with the people in it is
  • demonstrably not unthinkable, because I can list ten examples of it being done or earnestly attempted, and
  • fully sufficient as an incentive for strict control of the possession, operation, or control of, or access to, Jon's-Law-compliant spacecraft.
If you want PCs jauntering around in private spacecraft like Han Solo or Kirth Gersen, you need either
  • spaceships that are somehow not compliant with Jon's Law (which is tough to arrange because a dumb rod merely in low orbit can exceed the explosive scale of the 9/11 aircraft with no magic physics whatsoever),
  • a firm convention that the campaign will just never mention OKK or RKK weapons, Jon's Law, terrorists or hackers crashing hijacked spaceships into targets, or anything else that strongly suggests the use of that tactic, nor rate kinetic energy in Rics, or
  • a steady trickle of civicidal attempts and incidents, prevented or not from time to time by harsh men/women/small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri making mass-lethal decisions.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.

Last edited by Agemegos; 03-03-2020 at 02:28 AM.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2020, 06:20 PM   #103
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

I think that authorities could act with extreme prejudice. A TL10 SM+20 space station could have a tertiary weapon battery with 30 100 GJ VRF ultraviolet laser turrets to keep the peace (dealing 2d×50 (2) burn damage up to 100,000 miles away and costing $6T). With six of such stations guarding a planet, costing an average of $30T each, you could have complete protection for $180T (67% of the economy of the average TL10 world with 4 billion people). Of course, each station could hold millions of people without difficulty, so they would have their own economies as well.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2020, 07:02 PM   #104
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
A ship that used no reaction mass but didn't violate conservation of energy might be not really much more interesting to adventure writers than a hard scicne one that did use reaction mass.
If it doesn't violate conservation of energy, it's pushing on something (you can't violate conservation of momentum without also violating conservation of energy), and while it isn't likely to create near-c rock problems, it's hard to avoid the dropping rocks from orbital altitude problem.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2020, 07:25 PM   #105
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
you can't violate conservation of momentum without also violating conservation of energy
You can't conserve energy in all inertial frames without thereby conserving momentum.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2020, 07:36 AM   #106
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
a steady trickle of civicidal attempts and incidents, prevented or not from time to time by harsh men/women/small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri making mass-lethal decisions.
This bit really seems (recurrently) over-sold on the 'harsh' and 'mass-lethal'.

Blowing the Millennium Falcon into dust-bunnies is arguably harsh (it's a small private warship operating in such a way as to threaten a population center in this scenario so...) but it's not mass-lethal. Most of the time that ship has only two people onboard.

You only get 'shoot down the airliner' drama on the subset of kinetic attack incidents where your civicidal types are able to have their way with a sizable shipload of hostages, rather than just a ship.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2020, 08:26 AM   #107
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
This bit really seems (recurrently) over-sold on the 'harsh' and 'mass-lethal'.

Blowing the Millennium Falcon into dust-bunnies is arguably harsh (it's a small private warship operating in such a way as to threaten a population center in this scenario so...) but it's not mass-lethal. Most of the time that ship has only two people onboard.

You only get 'shoot down the airliner' drama on the subset of kinetic attack incidents where your civicidal types are able to have their way with a sizable shipload of hostages, rather than just a ship.
What?

By the time a spaceship is traveling at any appreciable fraction of c, 'shooting it down' is hardly something you can do, certainly not if you imagine it anywhere equivalent to shooting down an airliner.

If you disable the spaceship completely, it's still the same mass heading in the same direction.

The way to prevent the attack might involve the preemptive use of military means to topple a government or to strike against a terrorist organization inside the borders of another polity.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2020, 08:39 AM   #108
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

A sand caster missile might be a good option against a RKK weapon. With 30 kg of sand released by an explosive a fraction of a second before impact, a 24cm missile would do horrible things to a RKK weapon (at 10% c, it's payload is the equivalent 6.6 megaton of TNT when hit by the RKK weapon, which would vaporize most spacecraft).
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2020, 08:53 AM   #109
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
What?

By the time a spaceship is traveling at any appreciable fraction of c, 'shooting it down' is hardly something you can do, certainly not if you imagine it anywhere equivalent to shooting down an airliner.

If you disable the spaceship completely, it's still the same mass heading in the same direction.
Several things here.
A) You probably should look at the context. This is not specifically or primarily about relativistic attacks.

B) Yes, you absolutely can shoot down a relativistic ship. It's really easy, put something of any remotely significant size in front of it and boom. No ship, and the mass is going to spread itself out quite quickly after the high-energy event of collision. Some of it may still spray the planet at c-fractional speed, but vastly less than the original impactor. This does of course require you see it coming, which is why depending on your assumptions r-bombers diving out of interstellar space may be infeasible to defend against, but if the attacker started out as a civilian vessel in-system seeing it well ahead of the attack is not a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
The way to prevent the attack might involve the preemptive use of military means to topple a government or to strike against a terrorist organization inside the borders of another polity.
But that trick never works, Bullwinkle.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2020, 10:01 AM   #110
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Coolant [Spaceships]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
B) Yes, you absolutely can shoot down a relativistic ship. It's really easy, put something of any remotely significant size in front of it and boom. No ship, and the mass is going to spread itself out quite quickly after the high-energy event of collision. Some of it may still spray the planet at c-fractional speed, but vastly less than the original impactor. This does of course require you see it coming, which is why depending on your assumptions r-bombers diving out of interstellar space may be infeasible to defend against, but if the attacker started out as a civilian vessel in-system seeing it well ahead of the attack is not a problem.
I wonder if the remnants would indeed impact the target, considering the target is in motion. An obstacle that is struck by an RKK is going to generate a large explosion, which is going to impart thrust onto the RKK. Said thrust will be only for a moment, but will be of sufficient force to turn the RKK into rubble. If the obstacle impacted the RKK dead-center, the thrust is going to slow it; if it impacted at a bit of an angle, it's going to slow it less but also push it off-course. Either case may well mean that, when the RKK's debris field reaches the planet's orbit, the target planet may well not be there anymore. A path for the RKK that is more tangential to the target's orbit (rather than perpendicular) would undoubtedly give it a better margin for error, but in theory so long as you hit the RKK soon enough, it should outright miss the target.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
sci fi, spaceships

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.