Comment on Michael by William-Black
The thought occurred to me, the nuclear pulse units will have to be specially designed.
Standard Orion-drive units channel 80% of the x-ray upwards, to flash the propellant into a jet aimed at the pusher plate.
But the Michael's pulse units are also used to pump the spurt bombs with x-rays. So the pulse units will have to direct some of their x-rays at the spurt bombs.
Standard Orion-drive units channel 80% of the x-ray upwards, to flash the propellant into a jet aimed at the pusher plate.
But the Michael's pulse units are also used to pump the spurt bombs with x-rays. So the pulse units will have to direct some of their x-rays at the spurt bombs.
Absolutely,
After the conversation with Ken Burnside on the subject of bomb pumped X-ray lasers, I wonder it the drive-bomb pumped version is even practical.
Niven and Pournelle didn't go into great detail, and I suspect they assumed conventional nuclear bombs rather than the shaped charge nuclear device. I wounder if the spurt-bomb carries a self-contained conventional nuclear device at the core of the (Ken Burnside described) "sea-urchin" array of whisker-thin attenuating rods? I rather got the idea during that particular conversation (several months back) that the device was integral and self contained.
Of course it is not exactly "drive-bomb" pumped, it is merely bomb-pumped, the bomb being thrown aft and detonated behind the pusher.
Another point from that particular conversation, Ken was fairly clear on, is that the bomb-pumped X-ray laser does not generate a highly collimated beam, the effect is isotropic, it's a wide-area effect weapon rather than the hair-thin beam, which is what most people think of when confronted with the word "laser."
So, two separate systems? One delivering pulse-units for thrust, the other pouring out "spurt bombs."
Although I do wonder if one wouldn't be better off mounting the weapon on a missile to be aimed at specific clusters of targets.
After the conversation with Ken Burnside on the subject of bomb pumped X-ray lasers, I wonder it the drive-bomb pumped version is even practical.
Niven and Pournelle didn't go into great detail, and I suspect they assumed conventional nuclear bombs rather than the shaped charge nuclear device. I wounder if the spurt-bomb carries a self-contained conventional nuclear device at the core of the (Ken Burnside described) "sea-urchin" array of whisker-thin attenuating rods? I rather got the idea during that particular conversation (several months back) that the device was integral and self contained.
Of course it is not exactly "drive-bomb" pumped, it is merely bomb-pumped, the bomb being thrown aft and detonated behind the pusher.
Another point from that particular conversation, Ken was fairly clear on, is that the bomb-pumped X-ray laser does not generate a highly collimated beam, the effect is isotropic, it's a wide-area effect weapon rather than the hair-thin beam, which is what most people think of when confronted with the word "laser."
So, two separate systems? One delivering pulse-units for thrust, the other pouring out "spurt bombs."
Although I do wonder if one wouldn't be better off mounting the weapon on a missile to be aimed at specific clusters of targets.
As I understand it, in order to get a meaningful ZAP out of a nuke-pumped X-ray laser, the nuke has to be very, very close to the lasing elements. So the X-ray lasers described in the book would seem to have a very poor chance of working, assuming they are inert devices pumped by the drive pulse units.
If they work by simply collecting some of the nuclear energy (xray or otherwise) and converting that energy into a laser beam... being near the rim of the pusher means they'll be at least 185 feet from the nuke. If the collectors are 1 square meter and they're 185 feet/56.3 meters from the detonation, the collector will receive approximately 1/40,000 of the total energy of the nuke. If the nuke is a healthy 50 kilotons, that works out to each laser unit getting the equivalent of 1.25 *tons* of yield. Then, with undoubtedly massive losses in the conversion process, the total energy delivered to the target would be the equivalent of perhaps dozens to several hundred kilos of TNT. Nothing to sneeze at. But it might be more mass-conscious to simply chuck several-hundred-kilo shaped charges at the enemy.
Zero time of flight has its appeal, of course.
If they work by simply collecting some of the nuclear energy (xray or otherwise) and converting that energy into a laser beam... being near the rim of the pusher means they'll be at least 185 feet from the nuke. If the collectors are 1 square meter and they're 185 feet/56.3 meters from the detonation, the collector will receive approximately 1/40,000 of the total energy of the nuke. If the nuke is a healthy 50 kilotons, that works out to each laser unit getting the equivalent of 1.25 *tons* of yield. Then, with undoubtedly massive losses in the conversion process, the total energy delivered to the target would be the equivalent of perhaps dozens to several hundred kilos of TNT. Nothing to sneeze at. But it might be more mass-conscious to simply chuck several-hundred-kilo shaped charges at the enemy.
Zero time of flight has its appeal, of course.
I think the spurt bombs move away from the rim of the pusher plate before being used, but I take your point.
Firing nuclear pulse units and spurt bombs so they precisely rendezvous close to the detonation point at precisely the correct time flies in the face of the quick-and-dirty imprecise rough-and-ready philosophy around the rest of the Michael.
Just strap the spurt bombs onto a frame around a spare nuke and be done with it. That's the way Teller wanted it.
Firing nuclear pulse units and spurt bombs so they precisely rendezvous close to the detonation point at precisely the correct time flies in the face of the quick-and-dirty imprecise rough-and-ready philosophy around the rest of the Michael.
Just strap the spurt bombs onto a frame around a spare nuke and be done with it. That's the way Teller wanted it.
If you can assume a halfway decent rate of conversion of nuclear yield to laser power... a W54 warhead (used in the Small Atomic Demolitions Munition (as close as we got to a "backpack nuke" as well as the Davy Crockett and also the basis of the 10-meter Orion pulse unit) would seem a good way to go. It weighed in at around 50 pounds and could produce up to about one kiloton. Even one percent of that yield converted into a "beam" would be 10,000 kilograms of TNT equivalent of Xrays (and probably gamma rays) which would penetrate into large enemy vessels and cause all kinds of havoc.
The W54 was filthy as hell. But under the circumstances... who cares? So, so long as the US military is stamping out big pulse unit nukes by the truckload... putting the W54 back into production to be bundled into unified Xray laser packages would seem easy.
How to explain the apparent need to set off the drive unit to get the Xray unit to go off? As memory serves, the systems are described not by the designer of the system, but Just Some Guy. So he might not have the "need to know" the specifics. So, the system *may* be argued to be designed to go off simultaneous with a drive unit to fool the enemy into thinking that the Xrays need drive units. This would provide two things:
1) It'd probably be both impressive and confusing ("how are they able to funnel that distant blast into such a powerful beam? It's *magic!*)
2) It would be a bit of misdirection. If the Xray lasers need the drive units to be a threat, then if the drive system isn't running the Xray lasers are harmless. So the idea *might* be that if the Michael is wounded and the drive system damaged/destroyed, it'd be spilling it's guts out, spewing Xray lasers out into a cloud of debris. Enemy ship comes in for the kill.... ZZZZZZZAP.
The W54 was filthy as hell. But under the circumstances... who cares? So, so long as the US military is stamping out big pulse unit nukes by the truckload... putting the W54 back into production to be bundled into unified Xray laser packages would seem easy.
How to explain the apparent need to set off the drive unit to get the Xray unit to go off? As memory serves, the systems are described not by the designer of the system, but Just Some Guy. So he might not have the "need to know" the specifics. So, the system *may* be argued to be designed to go off simultaneous with a drive unit to fool the enemy into thinking that the Xrays need drive units. This would provide two things:
1) It'd probably be both impressive and confusing ("how are they able to funnel that distant blast into such a powerful beam? It's *magic!*)
2) It would be a bit of misdirection. If the Xray lasers need the drive units to be a threat, then if the drive system isn't running the Xray lasers are harmless. So the idea *might* be that if the Michael is wounded and the drive system damaged/destroyed, it'd be spilling it's guts out, spewing Xray lasers out into a cloud of debris. Enemy ship comes in for the kill.... ZZZZZZZAP.
"1) It'd probably be both impressive and confusing ("how are they able to funnel that distant blast into such a powerful beam? It's *magic!*)
2) It would be a bit of misdirection ..."
1. precisely fits the reaction of the Fithp in the novel, they don't have a clue what's killing their ships or how Michael is generating the effect, and they are clearly panicked.
2. Misdirection. The invaders are grabbing humans and interrogating them for intelligence all through Michaels construction. All manner of misdirection would be in play.
2) It would be a bit of misdirection ..."
1. precisely fits the reaction of the Fithp in the novel, they don't have a clue what's killing their ships or how Michael is generating the effect, and they are clearly panicked.
2. Misdirection. The invaders are grabbing humans and interrogating them for intelligence all through Michaels construction. All manner of misdirection would be in play.
Misdirection is something inherent in most humans! See events leading up to D-Day.....
Maybe casaba howitzer warheads on the missiles?
Why did you choose to use MK 41 VLS rather than, say, boomer type missile tubes? Seems the Trident C4 RV bus could be modified to be steerable, and the warheads could come "off the shelf."
Why did you choose to use MK 41 VLS rather than, say, boomer type missile tubes? Seems the Trident C4 RV bus could be modified to be steerable, and the warheads could come "off the shelf."
Excellent point: Casaba howitzer seem like a natural, especially for Michael.
Only problem is Niven and Pournelle didn't include it in the novel.
Why Niven and Pournelle didn't consider/include/describe this as a weapon Michael would carry is beyond me. You'd have to ask them. Frankly its a real puzzler.
I'm not rewriting Footfall, that's just not my purpose here. Nor am I completely redesigning Michael, except for the parabolic pusher plate—which must be redesigned because, as I point out in the text above, a parabolic plate simply will not work — aside from that, my purpose is to model a version of Michael which is true to the text of the novel.
Missile Launchers.
The only thing that is clear from the text of the novel is that Michael fires a variety of missiles from four ports "on the sides." Exact location of the missile launchers is not described. The explicit types of missile are not described. I extrapolated "port" to describe a bank or array of launching tubes and placed them so missiles could be fired even before the secondary spacecraft detach, which follows from the text of the novel.
My read on boomer type launchers is that missile tubes are designed specific to the missile type carried, they are not generic missile launch tubes. For example, the US Navy has a total of 18 Ohio-class submarines which consist of 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), and four cruise missile submarines (SSGNs). Each SSBN submarine is armed with up to 24 Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). Each SSGN is capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads. The first eight Ohio-class submarines were armed at first with 24 Trident I C4 SLBMs.[4] Beginning with the ninth Trident submarine, USS Tennessee (SSBN-734), the remaining boats were equipped with the larger, three-stage Trident II D5 missile.[
It seems it's an either/or choice with boomer type missile tubes.
I was looking for a launch system already designed to house several missile types. Also a launch-system contemporary with the time frame of the story (1995). This pretty much pointed to the Mk 41.
Now, this could be the MK 41 VLS, it could be the Mk 57 variant. In either case, the inner works, would be entirely modified, these launchers are re-loaded while Michael is in flight. There would be loading elevators and conveyors in behind the launchers, the entire top half of the brick is described as housing missile stowage. So these really wouldn't be off-the-shelf Mk 41, or Mk 57 launchers anyway. Its a reference point.
Only problem is Niven and Pournelle didn't include it in the novel.
Why Niven and Pournelle didn't consider/include/describe this as a weapon Michael would carry is beyond me. You'd have to ask them. Frankly its a real puzzler.
I'm not rewriting Footfall, that's just not my purpose here. Nor am I completely redesigning Michael, except for the parabolic pusher plate—which must be redesigned because, as I point out in the text above, a parabolic plate simply will not work — aside from that, my purpose is to model a version of Michael which is true to the text of the novel.
Missile Launchers.
The only thing that is clear from the text of the novel is that Michael fires a variety of missiles from four ports "on the sides." Exact location of the missile launchers is not described. The explicit types of missile are not described. I extrapolated "port" to describe a bank or array of launching tubes and placed them so missiles could be fired even before the secondary spacecraft detach, which follows from the text of the novel.
My read on boomer type launchers is that missile tubes are designed specific to the missile type carried, they are not generic missile launch tubes. For example, the US Navy has a total of 18 Ohio-class submarines which consist of 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), and four cruise missile submarines (SSGNs). Each SSBN submarine is armed with up to 24 Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). Each SSGN is capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads. The first eight Ohio-class submarines were armed at first with 24 Trident I C4 SLBMs.[4] Beginning with the ninth Trident submarine, USS Tennessee (SSBN-734), the remaining boats were equipped with the larger, three-stage Trident II D5 missile.[
It seems it's an either/or choice with boomer type missile tubes.
I was looking for a launch system already designed to house several missile types. Also a launch-system contemporary with the time frame of the story (1995). This pretty much pointed to the Mk 41.
Now, this could be the MK 41 VLS, it could be the Mk 57 variant. In either case, the inner works, would be entirely modified, these launchers are re-loaded while Michael is in flight. There would be loading elevators and conveyors in behind the launchers, the entire top half of the brick is described as housing missile stowage. So these really wouldn't be off-the-shelf Mk 41, or Mk 57 launchers anyway. Its a reference point.
Agreed, bringing the elements to precise rendezvous seems problematic. And, if Michael is maneuvering with its reaction control jets while simultaneously dropping thrust bombs and array's of lasing rods ... the number of failed connections would be high.
Alas it is true. The beams from an "Excalibur" bomb pumped x-ray laser is poorly collimated. There is no easy way to focus the beam.
I have some notes here (which you've probably already seen)
www.projectrho.com/public_html…
Yes, in Teller's version, the bomb was internal. I think Niven & Pournelle were thinking in terms of approximating an internal bomb with a frame holding the laser rods, but omitting the frame. The nuclear pulse unit and the spurt bombs are launched so they reach the same configuration when the pulse goes off.
That would solve the problem of "bomb-jiggle". If the laser rods are attached by a frame to the bomb, when the explosive lenses detonate the jiggle will throw the rods off target. So when the fissionable is squeezed to ignition, the rods are aimed in the wrong direction. If the rods are not physically attached to the bomb, there will be no jiggle.
I have some notes here (which you've probably already seen)
www.projectrho.com/public_html…
Yes, in Teller's version, the bomb was internal. I think Niven & Pournelle were thinking in terms of approximating an internal bomb with a frame holding the laser rods, but omitting the frame. The nuclear pulse unit and the spurt bombs are launched so they reach the same configuration when the pulse goes off.
That would solve the problem of "bomb-jiggle". If the laser rods are attached by a frame to the bomb, when the explosive lenses detonate the jiggle will throw the rods off target. So when the fissionable is squeezed to ignition, the rods are aimed in the wrong direction. If the rods are not physically attached to the bomb, there will be no jiggle.
Neutron pumped uranium laser?
www.ippe.ru/podr/tpl/pub/html/…
www.ippe.ru/podr/tpl/device/la…
From Russia with Love! <3
www.ippe.ru/podr/tpl/pub/html/…
www.ippe.ru/podr/tpl/device/la…
From Russia with Love! <3