[Rheyah]

"Alliance analysts have no explanation for this weapons system. The Sathanas' main beam cannons discharge kilotons of magnetically confined plasma at .9998 lightspeed."

I still make a Sathanas class beam as well within the gigatons per shot range using this and that's being insanely generous and assuming they are using pure hydrogen.  Which they won't be since fusion plasma is very rarely anything smaller than deuterons.  I am, however, going to check my maths anyway because the relativistic correction factor is 50 or so and that should be fairly substantial for heavy ions.

Even so, a kiloton relativistic plasma beam is incredibly high energy.

EDIT:  Yep, it was fine.   Something like 100 gigatons a shot or more.  Planet cracking

[emkay]

My understanding is that subspace is the quantum septic-tank of inconveniences in the universe, everything that goes there turns into a protanopia rainbow.

I want to know, given the ridiculous firepower of the mx-50 (16.5 Kt!), how are they gonna handle atmospheric fighting in act 4?

By ignoring the stupid numbers like that one.

Sorry if I'm mistaken, but are you assuming the 16.5Kt being the TNT equivalent? That's slightly more than the Hiroshima bomb had. So, unless we assume a new form of (nonnuclear) exothermic reaction, this weapon would in fact be a fission or fusion bomb.
As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong), a fair amount - if not most - of the energy from a nuclear detonation results in a matter shockwave, but only in atmospheric environments.
In space however, energy dissipation of a "shockwave type" (i.e. kinetic) could only apply to the few actual components of the bomb (casing, core etc.). That means that in space, most energy of a nuclear explosion is just radiated away (also because there is nothing which could absorb the radiation), while only a small amount of it results in a (probably very high) acceleration of the bomb's fragments.

The same applies for a (hypothetical) TNT detonation in space, but as the radiation of such an explosion is of much less energy, the relative fraction of kinetic energy "blown away" should be much higher there.

Now, to get to the point: For a space weapon in the 24th century, the statement of "16.5Kt" may rely to a TNT detonation in the Earth's atmosphere - but it could also refer to a TNT explosion in space, or even something completely different. If so, the MX-50 would be of much higher power than the Hiroshima bomb. That would make atmospheric fights fairly interesting.

But then, of course, it it isn't TNT equivalent, it doesn't necessarily have to be a nuclear weapon...

Now, I'm confused. :

[Aesaar]

A TNT explosion would release the same amount of energy in space as it would in atmosphere.  The only difference is how that energy is transferred.  And I see no reason to assume explosive kiloton measurements aren't in TNT.

There is atmospheric combat in Act 4, and I can guarantee that the ordnance thrown around doesn't have a payload anywhere near 16.5KT.  Whenever FS (especially FS1) tries to throw around numbers, they're nonsensical, and we're ignoring them completely.  If you really want a ballpark figure for the power for a typical anti-fighter missile, assume something close to modern air-surface antitank missiles like the Kh-25 or the AGM-65.

[JerichoDeath]

When talking about atmospheric combat in act 4, were not talking about the same kind of fight as in Act 3's "tank mission", are we? I'm not sure where the information on that is (if there is any).

[Mars]

The videos that have been posted involved tanks, fighters, and ground facilities.

[JerichoDeath]

The videos that have been posted involved tanks, fighters, and ground facilities.

I see.
Reminds me of Descent 3, in a slightly ironic way.

Now, to look up those videos...

[Mars]

Although there were some similarities - despite how slow FS2 and even BP fighters are they are ludicrously faster than the venerable Pyro GL

[Alzurana]

First of all, very nice! One note on the "fusion cooling system".
The big problem here, is that your turrets won't heat up beyond 1000 kelvin, maybe. The melt down if they get hotter. That also means that you can not heat up your coolant beyond 1000 kelvin. Therefor storing energy by fusing atoms together is impossible, because you'd need a lot of energy to create that gradient. Again, more energy is needed as investment than you could dissipate and that's why this idea won't stand against physics.

In space however, energy dissipation of a "shockwave type" (i.e. kinetic) could only apply to the few actual components of the bomb (casing, core etc.). That means that in space, most energy of a nuclear explosion is just radiated away (also because there is nothing which could absorb the radiation), while only a small amount of it results in a (probably very high) acceleration of the bomb's fragments.

The same applies for a (hypothetical) TNT detonation in space, but as the radiation of such an explosion is of much less energy, the relative fraction of kinetic energy "blown away" should be much higher there.

Well, don't forget the expanding gas of your warhead. All your TNT turns to gas during it's reaction phase and that gas usually expands at sound-speed if it's in a vacuum. (Note: Sound speed for this one specific gas, it can be far more or even less than just 330m/s) So you'd still have an kinetic effect with a hot particle wave hitting your hull.
Rather a "bug" than a feature. But think about this: Warheads in FreeSpace only damage a spaceship properly if they directly hit the hull. If you shoot them just meters away from the hull the damage by the shockwave is trivial. Suits the explanation but as far as it goes for things like "16.5Kt per MX-50". Just ignore those numbers, they are bogus and no one at Volition actually did the math on those. They're supposed to sound cool. Let's take the Tsunami bomb, for example:

Intelligent tracking similar to GTA targeting system - prior to launch, communicates with ship computer, gathering data about enemy target types and whereabouts - slow, low maneuverability - antimatter warhead (500 tonne3 mass-to-energy conversion) - due to instability of antimatter, no more than 10 may be carried on board a GTA bomber at any given time, unless pilot is granted a special permit by an appropriate governing body.

500t mass to energy. First of all, it is pretty clear that this bomb does not weigh 500 tonnes! But it would have to for this yield. Antimatter and matter explosions convert their full mass to energy in form of radiation. Electromagnetic radiation. Let's do the math, here:
1kg ~ 89875517873681764 Joule
or 89.876 Peta Joule
Why?
E=mc^2
E = 1kg * 299792458 m/s * 299792458 m/s
E = 1kg * 89875517873681764 (m/s)^2
E = 89875517873681764 Joule
As conversion:
1kt of TNT = 4168000000 Joule
or 4.168 Tera Joule
That is, one kiloton worth of energy is released in the conversion of 0.04658 grams (46.58 mg) of mass.
Little Boy yielded a 13 kt of TNT equivalent.
The amount of energy if just 1kg of mass is transformed into energy is incredible and can be compared to 1.6 million Hiroshima bombs (Little Boy). Keep in mind that antimatter warheads don't create a shockwave as we know it but an expanding sphere of dense radiation (heat, gamma radiation and so on) which travels at light speed and would kill any crew member on the battlefield practically instantly. There is no known material which can absorb these amounts of energy and radiation. If it does, it would melt down as well, instantly turning into plasma. (And this comes from only 1kg). The Tsunami yields 500 tonnes. Do the math, yourself! Not even "special armor materials" would withstand that. Nothing in our universe does. A real planet cracker!
These bombs would incinerate the whole battlefield in one blow just with their radiation output. It's pure fiction, not true and not even reasonable canon because even though this flavor text exists, it's not present like that in the game itself.

There is atmospheric combat in Act 4, and I can guarantee that the ordnance thrown around doesn't have a payload anywhere near 16.5KT.  Whenever FS (especially FS1) tries to throw around numbers, they're nonsensical, and we're ignoring them completely.

Which is a good thing to do. Hit an F15 or B2 bomber with a Hiroshima Bomb at point blank range (10m) and ignore the shockwave in your calculations. Just take the heat from that explosion. You'd still end with a puddle of molten metal. I'm sure a GTF Hercules wouldn't react differently if the MX-50 really had 16kt. ^^

[Rheyah]

A TNT explosion would release the same amount of energy in space as it would in atmosphere.  The only difference is how that energy is transferred.  And I see no reason to assume explosive kiloton measurements aren't in TNT.

There is atmospheric combat in Act 4, and I can guarantee that the ordnance thrown around doesn't have a payload anywhere near 16.5KT.  Whenever FS (especially FS1) tries to throw around numbers, they're nonsensical, and we're ignoring them completely.  If you really want a ballpark figure for the power for a typical anti-fighter missile, assume something close to modern air-surface antitank missiles like the Kh-25 or the AGM-65.

You have a fair amount of BPs canon to rewrite then I am afraid.  Between the mass production of antimatter warheads and the absurd 100 gigaton Shivan beam weapons I would just stick to the stupid numbers and pretend that they are shaped charges tbh.

Further, in a setting where we have solved fusion power to the point we can put reactors on fighters and where ships march around with collapsed core neutronium armour, 16kt explosions are not really the biggest problem with the setting.

[Rheyah]

I should also note while i am occupying that pedantry corner - the bulk of the damage caused by any explosion in atmosphere is caused by the overpressure wave.  Not by the fireball or flash.  As such, a nuclear explosion in space is actually much more like a high energy radiation bombardment than an explosion.  This is especially true of antimatter bombs which deliver virtually all of their energy in the form of photons.

The result would be an extremely quick flash followed by a rapid heating/ablation of the targets outer layers.  The actual explosion itself would not be that big - the fireball would mostly be absent as it would simply be the missile components flash vapourising.

Larger explosions would force the radiation to have a harder edge and would blast layers off the target.  Provided you had adequate methods for cooling or ablating damaged hull sections it isnt that hard to deal with nukes in space.

[Aesaar]

A TNT explosion would release the same amount of energy in space as it would in atmosphere.  The only difference is how that energy is transferred.  And I see no reason to assume explosive kiloton measurements aren't in TNT.

There is atmospheric combat in Act 4, and I can guarantee that the ordnance thrown around doesn't have a payload anywhere near 16.5KT.  Whenever FS (especially FS1) tries to throw around numbers, they're nonsensical, and we're ignoring them completely.  If you really want a ballpark figure for the power for a typical anti-fighter missile, assume something close to modern air-surface antitank missiles like the Kh-25 or the AGM-65.

You have a fair amount of BPs canon to rewrite then I am afraid.  Between the mass production of antimatter warheads and the absurd 100 gigaton Shivan beam weapons I would just stick to the stupid numbers and pretend that they are shaped charges tbh.

So?  The production of WMDs isn't a problem.  Both the GTVA and UEF have 0 problems doing it.  That isn't why they aren't being used (much).  Both parties are trying to avoid civilian casualties.  Throwing nukes around in atmosphere isn't a way of accomplishing that.  They could do it.  They don't want to for the same reason the USA isn't throwing nukes around the Middle-East.  But the Shivans would.

Bombs and torpedoes have multi-kiloton explosive payloads.  Anti-capital beam weapons do as well.  Anti-fighter missiles don't.

[emkay]

I should also note while i am occupying that pedantry corner - the bulk of the damage caused by any explosion in atmosphere is caused by the overpressure wave.  Not by the fireball or flash.  As such, a nuclear explosion in space is actually much more like a high energy radiation bombardment than an explosion.  This is especially true of antimatter bombs which deliver virtually all of their energy in the form of photons.

The result would be an extremely quick flash followed by a rapid heating/ablation of the targets outer layers.  The actual explosion itself would not be that big - the fireball would mostly be absent as it would simply be the missile components flash vapourising.

Which is why it would actually be better to deliver considerably more antimatter than matter towards a target, so that the former can directly react with the target's hull... But, of course, that's not the point here.

Larger explosions would force the radiation to have a harder edge and would blast layers off the target.  Provided you had adequate methods for cooling or ablating damaged hull sections it isnt that hard to deal with nukes in space.

So, apart from the small amount of energy resulting in a more or less equally distributed sphere of fragments flying away, there is really "only" the radiation, right?
Why can't we just assume, that there's advanced material which basically reflects most part of the radiation away? At least for the visible range of light, I already have something like that hanging in my bathroom...

[Rheyah]

Like I said.  Your own tech room gives Shivan beams gigaton payloads.  I don't think you realize just how damaging a relativistic particle beam actually is.  When we do it experimentally (we accelerate particle beams to around 40-50 MeV by explosive radiation pressure acceleration) we dump 50-500J into a solid target size less than 10 microns across and 10 nanometers deep  and the resulting shockwave explosively disassociates the target.  If a human was stood in that room, they would receive a fatal dose of radiation poisoning in a fraction of a second, even standing off axis.

The resulting particle beam scaled up to the sizes you're talking about (kilotons of plasma slurry) is over 200 megatons a second.

That's at 50 MeV.  Human achievable.  Shivan beam weapons, according to your tech room, is several hundred times more powerful than that.

If you are gonna go with that (I don't know why you would rip up such cool figures, but it's your mod) then you need to scale those beams down hugely.  By a factor of a million or more.  I am not being a knob when I say this, I hope, but when you say that FS1/2 throw around nonsense figures and that BP ignores them and all someone has to do is look up your own tech entry and there are figures even more ridiculous, it just seems...  a bit off.

I'm sorry if I sound like a dick for saying it.  I really am.  I am just really pedantic about acceleration science.  I work with this stuff all day.  For what its worth I think a narrative where every ship in the GTVA fleet isn't capable of singlehandedly wiping out planets is probably a good thing.  I just have to be pedantic about tech entries.

The offending tech entry can be instantly resolved by replacing kilotons with tons and the offending lightspeed quote with "relativistic".  Relativistic in physics terms just means anything between 0.3c and about 0.9c.  Super relativistic and ultra relativistic are much higher, gamma factors of 10-100+.

[Rheyah]

I should also note while i am occupying that pedantry corner - the bulk of the damage caused by any explosion in atmosphere is caused by the overpressure wave.  Not by the fireball or flash.  As such, a nuclear explosion in space is actually much more like a high energy radiation bombardment than an explosion.  This is especially true of antimatter bombs which deliver virtually all of their energy in the form of photons.

The result would be an extremely quick flash followed by a rapid heating/ablation of the targets outer layers.  The actual explosion itself would not be that big - the fireball would mostly be absent as it would simply be the missile components flash vapourising.

Which is why it would actually be better to deliver considerably more antimatter than matter towards a target, so that the former can directly react with the target's hull... But, of course, that's not the point here.

Nah, the reaction is the same.  The way an antimatter spray would work would be to erode the target piece by piece and shove hard radiation through the gaps causing ionisation in the target and destroying chemical bonds.  Further, since antimatter is generally produced in a charged form and is quite light, it could be deflected away from the target without any real difficulty.

Your problem then becomes delivery.  You need the target to be hit for it to be effective.  If all you are doing is spilling anti-matter on the target, it is best to do it using a relativistic beam.  As I previously mentioned, relativistic beams are in themselves incredibly destructive in a way far, far worse than antimatter can be by itself.  An anti-matter beam at 0.998c only contributes around an increased factor of two over a plasma beam of a similar nature.

The advantage antimatter has over fusion weaponry, purely hypothetically, is mass and energy density.  A weapon the size of Tsar Bomba (27 metric tons for which a sizeable amount was the fusion explosive itself) requires no trigger, generates purely hard radiation and is over 1,000 times more destructive.  A 27 tonne antimatter explosion would be in the mid gigaton range.

Larger explosions would force the radiation to have a harder edge and would blast layers off the target.  Provided you had adequate methods for cooling or ablating damaged hull sections it isnt that hard to deal with nukes in space.

So, apart from the small amount of energy resulting in a more or less equally distributed sphere of fragments flying away, there is really "only" the radiation, right?
Why can't we just assume, that there's advanced material which basically reflects most part of the radiation away? At least for the visible range of light, I already have something like that hanging in my bathroom...
[/quote]

Okay, so basically reflectivity is a function of the electron density of the target material.  The more electron dense the material, the more reflective it is to a given wavelength.  The problem with antimatter explosions and space based nuclear explosions is that they are primarily neutron radiation or hard xray or gamma radiation.  Neutron radiation cannot be deflected by anything other than nuclear density within a target and almost always causes secondary fission or fusion of heavy materials.  Hard xray and gamma radiation is staggeringly hard to reflect.

The caviat to this is if you have some bull**** powered tech (ie subspace shields) it hardly matters at all.  You can explain what you like as a plasma wash and say that early GW ships were just radiation hardened.

[Alzurana]

I wouldn't even go for antimatter if you're trying to explain normal anti fighter missiles, anyway. TNT loads are MUCH cheaper in production and deliver enough destructive energy to rip fighters apart. If you think about the speed and acceleration of a fighter one can assume that shields get an equal amount of energy from the internal reactor. 10kg of TNT would be enough to do the damage a Harpoon or Tornado actually does. Yes, the shockwave is gone but these warheads only damage the ship upon contact. You can assume that they are hollow explosive charges or armor-piercing charges which explode within the target for maximum damage.
I'd assume the BP team does a good job in ignoring most original tech room descriptions. Just think about it, people, most of them make no sense. Of course beams are a different story, all together. It would be better to find a new explanation for beam weapons because the original ones are planet crackers, as well. Same as the Tsunami bomb.

The advantage antimatter has over fusion weaponry, purely hypothetically, is mass and energy density.  A weapon the size of Tsar Bomba (27 metric tons for which a sizeable amount was the fusion explosive itself) requires no trigger, generates purely hard radiation and is over 1,000 times more destructive.  A 27 tonne antimatter explosion would be in the mid gigaton range.

Oh yes, a 27 metric tons to energy conversion is very big:
E = (27000 kg *c^2) / (4.168 TJ/kt of TNT)
E = 582207 gigatons of TNT
OR: 12 million Tsar Bombs
OR: 45 billion Hiroshima Bombs (Little Boy)

Okay, so basically reflectivity is a function of the electron density of the target material.  The more electron dense the material, the more reflective it is to a given wavelength.  The problem with antimatter explosions and space based nuclear explosions is that they are primarily neutron radiation or hard xray or gamma radiation.  Neutron radiation cannot be deflected by anything other than nuclear density within a target and almost always causes secondary fission or fusion of heavy materials.  Hard xray and gamma radiation is staggeringly hard to reflect.

A material which reflects any wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum? Good luck in finding that. As Rheyah said, neutron radiation is a big problem. If you're able to deal with that, good, but there's still a cocktail of electromagnetic radiation. Gamma, x-ray, microwaves, infra red and even visible light. Reflecting all of these is virtually impossible and your material will always absorb a percentage of that radiation. Your hull heats up and incinerates eventually. Especially with those ridiculous values like "500 metric tons mass to energy". Volition meant it well and back in the 90s such values were fancy. Don't take them for granted, though.

[emkay]

Well, Rheyah, it seems like you really are an expert on this matter - and antimatter. 

I never meant to justify anything, let alone some fantastic numbers. I was well aware that my thoughts would never stand against some serious scientific examination.
Yet, what I wanted to achieve is someone having a critical look on some more or less new ideas- just as you did. So honestly: Thank you for that.

As for the BP tech room note on the Sathanas: I agree with you that if one claims not to absurdly throw around numbers that make a Hiroshima bomb out of anti-fighter missiles, his own figures on other topics should very well hold against the same criticism. No offense to the BP guys here, of course. Everyone just tries as best as he can, and since BP is an absolutely brilliant mod with much work and effort put in it, I have no right to accuse or criticise anyone of anything.


Still, a question to the BP maintainers: Should / would / could it be possible to change or remove the "obviously wrong" numbers from the tech room even if it violates the original canon? (Only after some broad discussion and consensus on that, of course.)

[niffiwan]

Firstly, I've been enjoying this discussion a lot, thank you all!

Secondly, I wish to join Rheyah in the pedantry corner for a second:

But think about this: Warheads in FreeSpace only damage a spaceship properly if they directly hit the hull. If you shoot them just meters away from the hull the damage by the shockwave is trivial.

Yes, the shockwave is gone but these warheads only damage the ship upon contact.

Actually, in the Freespace 2/Open engine any secondary weapon tabled to have a shockwave does non-trivial damage to the target even if it's shot down just metres away from the hull (e.g. Rockeyes and Harpoons). The tabled damage is applied to the hull on a direct hit, the same tabled damage (unless overridden by "Shockwave Damage") is also applied by the shockwave in a radius up to the 'Inner Radius' (20m for both Rockeyes & Harpoons).

i.e. the warheads damage at various distances is:
Contact: 2x
Within Inner Radius: x
Outside Outer Radius: 0 

(& in a pendantry fail, I can't remember if the Inner/Outer Radius are "less than" or "less than and equal"  )

[Aesaar]

Like I said.  Your own tech room gives Shivan beams gigaton payloads.  I don't think you realize just how damaging a relativistic particle beam actually is.  When we do it experimentally (we accelerate particle beams to around 40-50 MeV by explosive radiation pressure acceleration) we dump 50-500J into a solid target size less than 10 microns across and 10 nanometers deep  and the resulting shockwave explosively disassociates the target.  If a human was stood in that room, they would receive a fatal dose of radiation poisoning in a fraction of a second, even standing off axis.

The resulting particle beam scaled up to the sizes you're talking about (kilotons of plasma slurry) is over 200 megatons a second.

That's at 50 MeV.  Human achievable.  Shivan beam weapons, according to your tech room, is several hundred times more powerful than that.

If you are gonna go with that (I don't know why you would rip up such cool figures, but it's your mod) then you need to scale those beams down hugely.  By a factor of a million or more.  I am not being a knob when I say this, I hope, but when you say that FS1/2 throw around nonsense figures and that BP ignores them and all someone has to do is look up your own tech entry and there are figures even more ridiculous, it just seems...  a bit off.

I'm sorry if I sound like a dick for saying it.  I really am.  I am just really pedantic about acceleration science.  I work with this stuff all day.  For what its worth I think a narrative where every ship in the GTVA fleet isn't capable of singlehandedly wiping out planets is probably a good thing.  I just have to be pedantic about tech entries.

The offending tech entry can be instantly resolved by replacing kilotons with tons and the offending lightspeed quote with "relativistic".  Relativistic in physics terms just means anything between 0.3c and about 0.9c.  Super relativistic and ultra relativistic are much higher, gamma factors of 10-100+.

I don't see the problem.  That's the tech entry for the goddamn BFRed.  That thing chews through anything and everything in a matter of seconds.  Why are you assuming it tells you anything about the firepower of GTVA ships? 

The BFRed is far, far, far beyond anything the GTVA can do.  It's beyond lighter Shivan beams.  It's the end-all be-all of direct fire weaponry.  Stop assuming other beams are anywhere near it.

And 16.5KT for a 50 year old light anti-fighter missile isn't a cool figure.  It's a stupid one that doesn't even come close to matching in-game effects, whether you say it's a shaped charge-ish warhead or not.  It makes absolutely no sense.

[CKid]

I don't know. I always thought it would take a massive amount of fire power to destroy a fighter. Just look at the Hercules in the opening cut scene of FS2. It survived an un-controlled impacted from outer space. Burning through the atmosphere, slamming into the ground nose first upside down, and the whole damn thing is intact. Hell, even the pilot survived the crash. I think you would need a couple KT warheads to crack open such a durable craft.

[Phantom Hoover]

Like I said.  Your own tech room gives Shivan beams gigaton payloads.  I don't think you realize just how damaging a relativistic particle beam actually is.

We definitely do, we've specifically made fun of the insane yield of the BFRed on IRC in the past. The figures aren't there to be calculated with; they're flavour text. They could be removed or toned down, but ultimately I think the team's approach is that you shouldn't be thinking about the BP universe like this in the first place.