Tom Rux wrote:
 > I do not know how much stress igniting a reactionless thruster
 > would have on the launch rail or as detailed in SS3 the launch
 > container.

"Reactionless" equals magic anti-gravity. No exhaust plume of reaction
mass to cause problems.

Open the hatch, press the "go" button and the missile canister opens,
the clamps holding it in place release and the missile floats down the
launch tube and out the hull. Once the missile clears the launching
ship's hull, it accelerates towards the target.

 > Of course SS3 does away with reactionless thrusters
 > for missiles.

Special Supplement 3 implies absurd energy densities for missile
propellants, hence my comment about metallic hydrogen-antihydrogen
combinations for that earth-shattering 'kaboom', or the required massive
levels of delta-v.

Bruce Johnson wrote:
 > Per the CT pdfs a turn is 1000 seconds, or just over 16 minutes.

OK. Megatraveller has 20 minute combat rounds, TNE has 30 minute turns
for 'Brilliant Lances' and 'Battle Rider'.

 > One G of acceleration for one turn moves an object 100 millimeters.”
 > ...
 > I think what they REALLY mean is "sufficient fuel to move the missile
 > 10,000km in 16 minutes, and do it over and over to the max G-turn
 > number of the missile” which is a hella different thing than “1G
 > thrust”.

Not all that different.

If
s = (0.5)at^2

10 million metres = (0.5)(10 metres per second squared)(1000 seconds,
squared)?

Oops for Special Supplement 3.

 > This also means ranges of missile combat are absurdly small on
 > interplanetary scales...

Sigh. The phrase 'Practically eyeball' didn't make it to the digest.

Vehicle speeds and sensor capabilities need to be thought about
carefully before designing space combat rules.

 > Note this is pretty much why TNE moved to nuke-det xray laser
 > warheads, which also gave PC’s nuclear weapons, but hey what’s a few
 > WMD among friends...

If tech levels scale with per capita energy consumption, then why not?

Multi-megawatt grav runabouts, multi-gigawatt space-craft, and weapons
to suit.

"I gotta permit for these antimatter warheads, officer, honest!"

Phil Pugliese wrote:
 > Isn't it wonderful/amazing how much conventional munitions tech will
 > advance in thousands & thousands of years? ;-)

In the Far Future "Conventional weapons" aren't limited by the chemical
properties of matter. The conventions are way broader :-P

Pleading for better handwaves,
Rob O'Connor