Remove ads

Shepard Quest Mk VI, Technological Revolution

Reader mode
DakkaMania said:
Also, we have tremendous clout within the Alliance and Mindoir in particular. We could check about securing our patents some more. Either by insisting that the database is located on Mindoir or Earth. Both are hard to reach for Reapers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmmm but I'm also wondering about security for the database
We want an air gap, that goes without saying.
We'd like the file to destroy itself if something attempts to copy it to another system/dataslate/whatever.
What else is standard/ideal? How can we improve it?
 
Dark as Silver said:
Hmmm but I'm also wondering about security for the database
We want an air gap, that goes without saying.
We'd like the file to destroy itself if something attempts to copy it to another system/dataslate/whatever.
What else is standard/ideal? How can we improve it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

How about we design a new standard for secure databases?

Could be part of an overall push to make stuff hacking proof (unless you have direct physical access). That way, AI are much less scary.
 
TheEyes said:
Actually, @Hoyr has previously ruled that we can't make arrays of small repulsors, since they're basically Arc Reactors in reverse, and we can't make arrays of Arc Reactors otherwise the Industrial Scale version was pointless. I don't know if we ever made an official ruling, but more than 9-10 in a 2 meter sphere is probably going to start causing interference issues.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Actually there are good reasons to have single large Arc Reactors rather then massive arrays of small ones.

The first is simplicity; with one Arc Reactor all you need to do is plug her in and you're good to go. With an array you have to create a system for switching the various Arc Reactors on/off depending upon power drain as well as having throttle controls on all of them rather then just the one large reactor.

The second is volume; A single industrial scale reactor takes up the same volume as an equal power number of small ones. However each reactor requires cabling to connect it into the power system, room for maintenance personnel to get at it, ect. So in effect a single large reactor will require less space then a thousand small ones.

The third is security; It is very obvious if your one and only reactor disappears. If you have a thousand small Arc Reactors meanwhile noticing that once has disappeared is a lot harder.

So in general you are better off with a single large reactor then a bunch of smaller ones. There are specific cases in which arrays of smaller reactors are useful, damage control for example, however I think I have a solution to that.

Instead of designing the Pynda to have the ability to fit a ton of Arc Reactors for easy adjustment of it's changing power demands I think it would be better to simple incorporate a dedicated Arc Reactor into the various power hungry systems.

They are small enough that it won't really increase the size by much, it significantly reduces the chance of system failure due to the connecting cables being cut or the main reactor being damaged, it makes dealing with the different power demands of the various of loadouts far easier, and probably other advantages I'm missing.


Hoyr said:
Er... no, sorry still hammering that out with UberJJK and anyone else that wants to chime in. I think we're close to done though. I may be able to give a loose estimate, but that's all it would be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would have designed an Excel sheet to do all of that two days ago but I've being too sick to get out of bed. I seem better today (Hurrah for 16 hours of sleep!) so hopefully I'll get that done today.
 
Yog said:
Very unlikely that I could, but if I recall correctly @Esbilon was doing a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. Maybe he could try writing it up?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so I'm not entirely sure exactly what it is you're talking about. But I do have a PhD in theoretical physics and could in principle write up a paper. That said, some of the "journals" will take anything (There are several mathematics journals that have actually published non-sense papers generated by algorithms). And some of the serious ones have published fun papers. One of my favourites is this one: Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 228701 (2013) - Collective Motion of Humans in Mosh and Circle Pits at Heavy Metal Concerts
 
Esbilon said:
Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so I'm not entirely sure exactly what it is you're talking about. But I do have a PhD in theoretical physics and could in principle write up a paper. That said, some of the "journals" will take anything (There are several mathematics journals that have actually published non-sense papers generated by algorithms). And some of the serious ones have published fun papers. One of my favourites is this one: Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 228701 (2013) - Collective Motion of Humans in Mosh and Circle Pits at Heavy Metal Concerts
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, yeah, some journals will take anything.

The current topic of discussion is this: we know that the scale of effect of a mass effect field is exponentially dependant on the total (base) mass inside the field and on the power applied to the eezo generating the field. Now, assuming that the mass inside the field changes (ie something enters it, or a laser is shot into it), and that the change in field strength propagates at the internal lightspeed (as that's what makes sense), how would that work? Basically, we know that C_int=C*const*exp(-M*k), where C_int - internal lightspeed, M - total mass in the field, C - speed of light in vacuum, const, k - proportional coefficients. Now, assuming that M=integral(density(r,t))dV, and that we know density (r,t), how would C_int(r,t) look? Both for PME and NME, ie for cases where C_int<C and C_int>C.

Yeah, full on nerditry.
 
Yog said:
Well, yeah, some journals will take anything.

The current topic of discussion is this: we know that the scale of effect of a mass effect field is exponentially dependant on the total (base) mass inside the field and on the power applied to the eezo generating the field. Now, assuming that the mass inside the field changes (ie something enters it, or a laser is shot into it), and that the change in field strength propagates at the internal lightspeed (as that's what makes sense), how would that work? Basically, we know that C_int=C*const*exp(-M*k), where C_int - internal lightspeed, M - total mass in the field, C - speed of light in vacuum, const, k - proportional coefficients. Now, assuming that M=integral(density(r,t))dV, and that we know density (r,t), how would C_int(r,t) look? Both for PME and NME, ie for cases where C_int<C and C_int>C.

Yeah, full on nerditry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That seems like a relatively straight forward problem, assuming that the density is an integrable function. Generally, the real complication is in how the mass is distributed and how it is disturbed. Does the speed of, say, a 20 kg ferrous slug shot by an Everest Class Dreadnaught, change as it moves through the ME field? And how does impact on the already present mass distribution alter it?.
 
Esbilon said:
That seems like a relatively straight forward problem, assuming that the density is an integrable function. Generally, the real complication is in how the mass is distributed and how it is disturbed. Does the speed of, say, a 20 kg ferrous slug shot by an Everest Class Dreadnaught, change as it moves through the ME field? And how does impact on the already present mass distribution alter it?.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True. If you have slowly moving objects you'll have no problems. Just say that the field strength changes instantly. Actually, yeah, now that I think of it, it's probably not a big issue at all. For a strength at a given point of the field at a given time, you simply have to integrate the mass as seen by it, accounting for light speed delay, where C is also a function of time and coordinate. Yeah, in principle it shouldn't be hard to write down integral equations, I think. Sorry to have bothered you.

Still, it could lead to some interesting situations, I think. Especially with lasers and highly relativistic particles.

I'll post a link to a Google doc with an equation in an hour or so for review.

EDIT: Ok, not in an hour and not while I'mat an airport. Probably tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
TheEyes said:
Yeah, thrust density is already sort of absurd, and they're already vacuum-rated and don't develop problems at high velocities, unlike say the Stark Transcendent ones. It just seems like there should be some way to upgrade our engines, beyond just making bigger ones.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The game designer in me is equally offended, but frankly I had to scramble to make repulsors not just break everything the first time... I'm not keen on upgrades because you got an end-game tech nearly fully developed for 150 points. The St setup much closer to what I would have liked. Introduce one BS function per upgrade, not five or so all at once.

DakkaMania said:
@Hoyr

How does Revy handle reverse engineering? Could she take a look at the Citadel and figure out how it works? The Keepers would represent a pretty interesting subject as the Protheans used them to keep Sovereign out of the Citadels systems. If we figure them out, we could get a clue about Reaper control systems.

Or we make a more direct study of the Mars Archive to figure out Prothean IT architecture, then use that to make that archive actually accessible. Probably add translation software as well, while we are at it. (And a hidden part that messages us everytime it is used and where, so the Athame beacon gets revealed.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It would be a research project of some sort. There was a project to turn on an old Prothean data pad a while a ago that lead to finding the message in the box. Revy isn't a Prothean expert though.. you should hire one or something.

UberJJK said:
I would have designed an Excel sheet to do all of that two days ago but I've being too sick to get out of bed. I seem better today (Hurrah for 16 hours of sleep!) so hopefully I'll get that done today.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Cool... well have to hammer out a few things I imagine by a lot of that comes down to pick a variable and then see if it breaks things.
 
Hoyr said:
It would be a research project of some sort. There was a project to turn on an old Prothean data pad a while a ago that lead to finding the message in the box. Revy isn't a Prothean expert though.. you should hire one or something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmmm, who do we know that's a Prothean expert?
It would probably help we got along with them... being a blue space girl might help too...
If only there was someone...
 
Last edited:
Hoyr said:
Cool... well have to hammer out a few things I imagine by a lot of that comes down to pick a variable and then see if it breaks things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I actually got a 80% completed sheet done a couple hours ago. All that's left is mapping out Repulsor growth to ship size, figuring out how the various components map to power requirements, and adding in the cost -> production conversions.

The first was simply a a matter of me not feeling like doing the math then, the last was me kinda forgetting about it, but the middle is something that needs discussing.

Lasers and Repulsors I already have a good system for (length/5 = GW and Force/25,000*0.7 = GW respectively) but MACs, Anti-Matter Engines, all the FTL Drive types, and all the kinetic barrier types still need doing.

I kinda don't have anything to go on there so your thoughts would be appreciated.
 
UberJJK said:
I kinda don't have anything to go on there so your thoughts would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think I can offer a full treatment, as I'm planning on writing, but I mumble some ideas.

UberJJK said:
Lasers and Repulsors I already have a good system for (length/5 = GW and Force/25,000*0.7 = GW respectively) but MACs, Anti-Matter Engines, all the FTL Drive types, and all the kinetic barrier types still need doing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Okay so MACs...

As we've discussed... eezo isn't the biggest factor. That said they're giant precision machines and they take a lot of superconductors (which are still expensive in space future land).

I'd suggest that the spinal be around 10% of the ship cost. Enough to not include many, but small enough that the SA's choice to include two spinal cannons on its larger ships is sane and makes sense with their "small" fleet size. A cost formula can be calibrated from there. 5500*L3​ to 8500*L3​ maybe good.

Anti-Matter Engines... most of the cost is in the complex barrier system that keeps that anti-matter from well... reacting in the wrong place along with all the safeties. At the same time though ignoring the fuel cost... the parts of the system don't use much expensive material eezo for barriers yes, but the barriers don't need to be rated for weapons fire, they just need to be redundant as hell so they don't fail and can be cycled to discharge static. I'm really not sure on cost here... I've got something like 5-10%, but hell could be more or less depend on left over I could be sold on a large verity of values, depending on other values... they should probably cost more that the standard armor though.

FTL Drives this is a little ugly due to the way it was engineered... maybe It can be cleaned up:
C(L,T,P)=(662,500/27 * (L)3​) * 5000((T-15)/10)​ * (P/0.14)
L=Ship Length
T=Top "Normal Speed" in ly/day
P=Maximum relative fraction of Lightspeed

I think the last bit with P may break something...

Barriers... should cost a bit more than spinals as they can endure spinal fire from an equivalent size ship. Or at least in the same neighborhood.

Edit: Reading? What's that?
 
Last edited:
Here are my thoughts on the power requirements:

AM engines: minimal power consumption because they us AM, not energy, as a power source. maybe only the cost for the containment of the AM

MACs: Power use = Kinetic Energy imparted to ammo * K where K is a constant that represents any inefficiency of the acceleration process. shouldn't need to be much more complicated than this.

FTL: dependent on mass of the object being propelled, probably involving Mass^3 as to make sense of the cubic amount of Eezo needed to create the core : more eezo = more power needed

Kinetic Barriers: dependent on the volume of the space protected and the amount of energy they can dissipate before they fall.
 
Last edited:
Actually, can we hire her? Because I want to hire her.

And didn't you mention she was going to be showing up a while ago?
 
DarknessSmiles said:
@Hoyr He was asking for power requirements, not cost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

UberJJK said:
I think you should probably take a cup of coffee or two before writing. Because I've already got all the price numbers down. I was talking about how much power those components consumed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wow... reading fail... :oops:.

Okay power...uhg as much as it'll annoy Yog... MACs are more or less just take their firepower in joules per shot maybe 10% more to account for the eezo/ineffeciency? Stand designs get 1 shot per 2 seconds... PI designed ones... ten shots per second? (Yes that's twenty times better)

Anti-matter engines... not a lot... not sure really. Maybe only even hundreds of megawatts in the base multiplier.

FTL drive... well woo.
W(L,T,P)=(39,062.5 * (L)3​) * 5000((T-15)/10)​ * ((P/0.14)-1)*1.1
W=Watts
L=Ship Length
T=Top "Normal Speed" in ly/day
P=Maximum relative fraction of Lightspeed

As a very quick well what ever may that'll work guess.

Barriers, when actively being used? x1.25 a spinal of the same size at a I haven't diagrammed this guess.
 
Hoyr said:
Wow... reading fail... :oops:.

Okay power...uhg as much as it'll annoy Yog... MACs are more or less just take their firepower in joules per shot maybe 10% more to account for the eezo/ineffeciency? Stand designs get 1 shot per 2 seconds... PI designed ones... ten shots per second? (Yes that's twenty times better)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So first up, PI = Awesome.

Secondly there is a simple answer here. A while back when you demonstrated just how little Eezo was required to make MACs work:
Hoyr said:
Known:
Speed = 4,025km/s
Rest Mass = 20kg
Length = 800m
Current Rail gun force= ~9MN (This is from an old ~1987 gun... it is hard to find the stats need to compute this for railgun projects :(, anyone know more?)


Math:
Target Acceleration = (Vf2-Vi2) /(2d)=4,025,0002/(2*800)=10,125,390,625
Target Mass = Available Force/Target Acceleration = ~8.939e-4 kg
Mass Effect = Target Mass/Rest Mass=~22,373
Speed of light multiplier* = SQRT(Mass Effect) = 149.576

*(I'm using the E=mc2 transform here)

Ship multiplier ~10957.5.

Eezo cost is pretty small.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Now if we just remove the Eezo from the equation:

800 = 0.5 * 450,000 t^2
v = 450,000t
v/450,000 = t
t^2 = v^2/202,500,000,000

800 = 0.5 * 450,000 * v^2/202,500,000,000
800 = v^2/900,000
v^2 = 800 * 900,000
v^2 = 720,000,000
v = 26,832.8m/s

Ke = 0.5 * 20 * 26,832.8^2
Ke = 7,199,991,558.4J = 7,200MJ

At a rate of 10 shots per second that gives us 72GW of power consumption.

Of course that is for dreadnoughts but from there it's simply a matter of scaling it down to Frigate size.

Anti-matter engines... not a lot... not sure really. Maybe only even hundreds of megawatts in the base multiplier.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sounds about right to me. The power is mostly in containing the Anti-Matter and it's reaction.

FTL drive... well woo.
W(L,T,P)=(39,062.5 * (L)3​) * 5000((T-15)/10)​ * ((P/0.14)-1)*1.1
W=Watts
L=Ship Length
T=Top "Normal Speed" in ly/day
P=Maximum relative fraction of Lightspeed

As a very quick well what ever may that'll work guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'll have to run some numbers, in a bit, but it should work as a start.

Barriers, when actively being used? x1.25 a spinal of the same size at a I haven't diagrammed this guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Makes sense since they have to deflect multiple shots from a spinal.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top