On 3/13/2016 6:03 AM, Richard Aiken wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Ethan McKinney
> <xxxxxx@gmail.com <mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     It also depends on the shape of the weapons. If they're guns like
>     those on wet navy battleships, a sphere will let you mount more of
>     them for firing forward. You can't minimized exposed area and
>     maximize mountable weapons at the same time, unless The weapons fire
>     at right angles to their length (not impossible).
>
>
> For lasers and partical accelerators (maybe fusion guns as well), you
> could "pipe" (via mirrors or magnetic channels) the beams to whichever
> side of the sphere was engaged (depending on whether you are the one
> chasing or the one being chased). For missiles, you could have a central
> magazine that feeds to launch tubes both fore and aft, at least if you
> are using relatively small missiles.

I'm skeptical that weapons-grade lasers, particle beams, etc etc can be
as easily "piped" as their much-lower-power lab-grade equivalents.
Every angle or bounce will inevitably deposit SOME amount of heat on the
internal mechanisms, and when a deflector degrades under continued fire
(as it eventually will), it is likely to do so explosively.  This is not
something you can do with magic hand mirrors.

(Yes, the power output - and input - of CERN et al is considerable, but
that beam has literally miles in which to make the turn, and I hesitate
to even speculate as to the maintenance requirements of the entire
apparatus.)

--
---------------
Kelly St. Clair
xxxxxx@efn.org