First off, great books. Wanted to give a bit of feedback.
Within battles your battles take place over very small distances, hundreds of km or less, which in space terms is dangerously close. For perspective a ship moving 0.1c faster than another relative object would close that distance in ~0.01 seconds. Considering the speed of the ships described, them traveling at fractions of the speed of light and the closing distances required, you would only have fractions of a second to fire or the ships would have the maneuverability to dodge most weapon fire.
On the weapons front, for the weapons described, you are using the speed of those weapons in an atmosphere. In an atmosphere the speed is limited by friction and drag. In addition, with more energy those speed could and would be drastically increased, the exponential increase of E=mc^2 only begins to take effect at fractions of the speed of light. At those speeds any weapon would impact in a fraction of a second. Energy weapon would be a huge strategic advantage with a greater range and speed (see the Spanish - American war where the US had a huge range advantage and obliterated the Spanish fleet).
+1 on manufacturing and fabrication technology.
One more note on energy technology, specifically anti-matter reactors, you are greatly over-estimating the energy released. 1 lb of anti-matter is roughly 20MTons (or a large nuclear weapon). To destroy a planet you would need at least a million pounds of anti-matter. For explosions in space you need to remember that the energy is released in 3 axis and shrinks quite quickly. For example going from 1 to 2 miles out would decrease the energy by 8x, going to 3 miles would be a 27x decrease. You need to be very close to the explosion to feel the impact.
You are correct on all counts, Curt. Which is exactly why I am usually quite vague about the actual numbers such as speed, rate of closure, etc... You're assuming that just because the Aurora CAN travel very fast (sublight) that they are doing so during battle. Fact is, they aren't. In one of the episodes (slips my mind which) they talk about how sublight speed and/or acceleration is no longer a factor. They also discuss mention reducing their speeds during battle for the very reason you describe. Closure rates would make it impossible to fire more than a shot or two before you're gone. You'll also notice that very few attacks use opposite direction fly-by shootings, for that very same reason.
As to the antimatter thing, no one destroyed a planet. They destroyed an inhabited moon. And we never said that the antimatter destroyed that moon, but rather that the moon was gone as a result of the antimatter event. For all we know, the antimatter event broke the moon apart enough to allow other volcanic forces within to finish the job. Also, since the battleship was sent down to crash into the moon as its antimatter containment was allowed to fail, there may have been additional forces. (Munitions, ways of increasing the reaction, who knows? I mean, we invented a fictional way to jump ten light years in an instant.) In addition, no one has said how many antimatter cores are on board a Jung battleship, let alone how much antimatter each one contains.
As for the effect of explosions, I stay away from blast waves, as there is nothing to make a "wave" out of in space. Instead, its all that damned debris flying at you at who knows what speed! (Not to mention radiation.)
I try as much as possible to stay within the realm of "known" physics, however, this IS science "fiction". Personally, I've read a few books that kept the science completely in line with known physics, and frankly, I find them boring as all hell. For a swashbuckling, ongoing, interstellar space opera, you've got to take some liberties.
Well, depending on the size of the moon and its age, there are no volcanic forces any more. Our moon sure doesn't have anything like volcanism any more, neither do Mars or Mercury, as far as I know. Just saying.
There is no way to predict what the properties of planets, moons, and other objects in space will be. We once believed that our system was the model only to discover that all bets were off. They have found planets in positions and orbits that they never believed possible. So, using the Earth's moon, or any of the moons in our system as an example just doesn't work.
And what do you call it when the habitable world is orbiting a moon orbiting a gas giant orbiting a star? Like you said, all kinds.
Personally, I’ve read a few books that kept the science completely in line with known physics, and frankly, I find them boring as all hell. For a swashbuckling, ongoing, interstellar space opera, you’ve got to take some liberties.
Ryk, I agree with you 100%! When I read science fiction I enjoy plausible technological explanations based "loosely" in known physics. Most important to me is a good plot, loads of action, and a lot of imagination to fill in the technological explanations. (That's why I can't wait for your next episode)
I remember Gene Rodenberry saying in an interview that he came up with the transporter because he didn't have the budget to build the sets needed to use the space shuttles every time they went planet side. Now that's good imagination!
I’ve read all 13 of the stories so I suppose that implies I’ve enjoyed them to date. That’s true. Some interesting concepts. I’m a long time SF reader and would like to think I have a lot of experience in the field.
One think keeps grating on me every time I come across the term in the stories. Nothing to do with the stories or settings, just word use. Reference is made to “dampening,” as in acceleration dampening. The correct word is “damping.” “Dampening” is what happens when you spray water on something. A shock absorber in a car’s suspension system damps vibration, it doesn’t dampen it. As a consulting engineer in sound and vibration analysis and control I know something about the terminology.
I just had to say it, Ryk!
I appreciate the thought, but...
dampen
1. make slightly wet.
2. make less strong or intense.
I can imagine Captain Picard turning fittfully in his bed (because he deserves a late morning) at the idea of Gordi trowing buckets of water on Fields of Grass at his order to increase the dampening fields...
Thinking about it, Scotty would have replied, "Damn it Captain! I'm an Engineer, not a farmer!"
Oh the things that happen in the mind of a man starved of good books to read!!!
