New Technology: Project Ursa
Reasearch and Development have nearly completed project Ursa, which should be our best bet at defeating the Shivan Lucifer Destroyer. For those of you that haven't been keeping up, Project Ursa is an attempt to make a new type of Heavy Bomber capable of carrying the Harbinger bomb.
We expect that a wing of Ursas will be available to you on your return trip from Altair.
Fusion bomb surrounded by 3 salted fission bombs - propulsion unit is a half-size version of a regulation GTA fighter thruster (Class II) - given the weight of the payloads, the missile is slow despite the power of the thruster - as the Harbinger is exceptionally large, GTA bombers are limited to carrying 6 of these weapons at any given time - the resultant shock wave from this weapon is potentially deadly, due to the size of the payloads (5000 Mt in total) - use near allied installations or allied ship groupings is strongly discouraged by the GTA - most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.It means that either the Ursa is capable of carrying more than six of these bad boys, or that there was/is a different bomber in GTA service that was also able to do it.
The Harbinger is our best chance of destroying the Lucifer.
Really? Aside from the briefing clip of an ursa firing fury rockets, I don’t really see how.
Unless you are implying that the ursa was a previous bomber modified to carry the n1 instead of a brand new creation maybe?
Also note that:QuoteFusion bomb surrounded by 3 salted fission bombs - propulsion unit is a half-size version of a regulation GTA fighter thruster (Class II) - given the weight of the payloads, the missile is slow despite the power of the thruster - as the Harbinger is exceptionally large, GTA bombers are limited to carrying 6 of these weapons at any given time - the resultant shock wave from this weapon is potentially deadly, due to the size of the payloads (5000 Mt in total) - use near allied installations or allied ship groupings is strongly discouraged by the GTA - most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.It means that either the Ursa is capable of carrying more than six of these bad boys, or that there was/is a different bomber in GTA service that was also able to do it.
The Harbinger is our best chance of destroying the Lucifer.
I'm generally thinking that what ships and weapons you've witnessed in FS1 main campaign aren't really everything that was used by the GTA - not only you're seeing the conflict in its ending stages, so you don't really see the previous 14 years of military technology, you also are set to experience it in only a thin part of the battlefield.
I think you'd have to start building military space assets as soon as two things became true: interstellar travel and nuclear weapons. In fact they'd probably be the first things built.
Maybe the previous harbinger wasn’t developed as a tactical tool, but rather strategical, like the meson bomb in FS2, which was housed in a container.
Are you talking about FS or sci-fi in general? I think you'd need something more exotic than nukes anyway.
Remember, reliable beats powerful - and nuclear fission is comparatively reliable to other forms of Sci-Fi WMDs as far as the technical requirements go - with the notable exception of the asteroid strike of course. No vaccum or magnetic containment required.
Of course a weapon that never hits is useless, but if you have one that kills everything in 1 hit changes everything as long as you can make sure that 1 does find its target.
We’re talking about whether you would need military spacecraft, not the upper limits of imaginary bombs.
We’re talking about whether you would need military spacecraft, not the upper limits of imaginary bombs.
:confused:
I legit have no idea what this discussion's about. The title kinda implies that it *is* about the upper limits of imaginary bombs; then it was something like "are nukes powerful enough to fight advanced civ in sci-fi settings", now it appears like some meshup.
My personal guess is that neither PVN nor GTA had any significant military/space navy assets before fighting that war, simply because there was no real necessity for it.
Yeah my guess was that they did not have much of navy assets; so they had no actual bomber to carry really big bombs like the Harbinger - the only ones being the Apollo bomber variant (if we assume it's canon) and the Athena that only carries Stilettos.
Of course it would be rational to decide to stop space exploration once it comes to interstellar travel until you have means to defend yourself; but history often went in a way that "safety" and "progress" are not being treated as equally important, especially since you don't know what you have to prepare for - even if the Terrans had contained themselves to Sol they could have bumped into something like the Ancients (or just more powerful Vasudans) and still get stomped.
I was wondering that: it is stated that the harbinger was already used before the deployment of the ursa.
My question is, how would it have been deployed? By capital ships? Transports?
Although to be fair, I don't think any ship in Freespace has got enough actual effective thrust to "nudge" an asteroid onto a collision course easily enough, at least not something that wouldn't simply burn down in the atmosphere.
stuff burning up in the atmosphere is the best planet-killer, since you can superheat the atmosphere and cook everything above the topsoil
From a purely fluff-writing standpoint I always felt like the Tsunami and Harbinger descriptions would make more sense if they were switched. I mean what sounds more like a devastatingly-powerful ultimate weapon: "Crazy complicated and dangerous matter-antimatter warhead," or "It's a nuke, but bigger!"?
stuff burning up in the atmosphere is the best planet-killer, since you can superheat the atmosphere and cook everything above the topsoil
Also note: in FS1, the cruisers carrying Tsunami prototypes have really huge explosions. That's fine, after all, they're loaded with antimatter bombs. But now let's consider the bombers carrying the warheads, they should explode violently like that as well...
Someone might make a mechanic out of this. :P
"Above the topsoil" actually does mean "above the topsoil", not "including the topsoil." Burrowing animals would probably be fine, seeds too.
Listen, it doesn't matter if you can potentially destroy a planet, it matter if by doing so you actually achieve someting. Making a planet uninhabitable for generations or even permanently generally doesn't get you things you want from control of planetary body - starting with an economical way of exploiting its mineral ressources, and ending with having space to put a population (which, you know, should be able to sustain itself in new envoirment - preferably in a manner that produces more than it cost the rest of your civilisation)As someone that has been playing the heck out of Stellaris, including some nasty genocidal factions, I have yet to destroy a planet, or even wipe out the pop from orbit for exactly that kind of reason :)
Also, regarding all the people jacking off to "well you can just RKV/asteroid strike a planet so nothing else matters", 1. y u no fun, 2. there's no reason to actually do that, because you usually lose more that way than gain. Unless you are or you face some super xenocidal species, but that's an edge case.
A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet
A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet
Absolutely not. You can just use material with a short half-life and it'll be down to tolerable levels in a year or two.
Uhhh, I don't think there is any way to prevent antimatter from making a big boom if it gets its containment breached, which presumably happens nearly every single time when a bomber gets blown up.
A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet
Absolutely not. You can just use material with a short half-life and it'll be down to tolerable levels in a year or two.
A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet
Absolutely not. You can just use material with a short half-life and it'll be down to tolerable levels in a year or two.
Contaminating an area for the the whole foreseeable future (hundreds of years+) is actually the very point behind "salted" nuclear weapons like the Harbinger.
Still, I kinda doubt that Terrans or Vasudans would be highly interested in setteling on a planet that has "managable contamintion in 100 years".
Also, regarding all the people jacking off to "well you can just RKV/asteroid strike a planet so nothing else matters", 1. y u no fun, 2. there's no reason to actually do that, because you usually lose more that way than gain. Unless you are or you face some super xenocidal species, but that's an edge case.
Find/replace 'city' for 'planet' and you'll realize exactly why this logic would predominate.
Still, I kinda doubt that Terrans or Vasudans would be highly interested in setteling on a planet that has "managable contamintion in 100 years".
I get the distinct impression that you need to read up on some of the basics of how radioactivity and radioactive decay actually work.
A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet
Absolutely not. You can just use material with a short half-life and it'll be down to tolerable levels in a year or two.
Contaminating an area for the the whole foreseeable future (hundreds of years+) is actually the very point behind "salted" nuclear weapons like the Harbinger.
According to the tech description, the Harbinger existed for a considerable time before 2335. I would presume that it was used as a weapon for orbital bombardment to render planets uninhabitable instead of "only" destroying everything on the surface (except maybe machine-based mining to a degree); because AFAIK there's no other advantage from having a salted nuke instead of a non-salted one apart from causing more contamination.
You said "A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet."
This is not true.
Of course there is: killing people!
You said "A bomb that contains enough radioactive material to contaminate wide areas is probably enough to end the colonisation effort on a planet."
This is not true.
Yeah, a single bomb probably won't do.
That said I do agree, why be aggressive with an alien civilization in the first place?
Still, I kinda doubt that Terrans or Vasudans would be highly interested in setteling on a planet that has "managable contamintion in 100 years".
I get the distinct impression that you need to read up on some of the basics of how radioactivity and radioactive decay actually work.
:wtf:
there's no other advantage from having a salted nuke instead of a non-salted one apart from causing more contamination.
Just to throw in my two cents, but big giant nukes in an era of big giant nukes are probably meant for shock and awe than anything resembling tactical efficiency. If this was developed during the TV war then it just sounds like Terrans had it really deep against the Vasudans to outright get rid of them, resources be damned, probably because they expect to just move on to other systems.
Spoiler:Yes, I am going give GTA its Doomsday Machine in one of my campaigns