We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

	Subtopic	Started By	Posts
	Archive through Aug 13, 2003 Last Post: Oct 02, 2003, 01:35 am		20

Posted By: Axzazz De`Nyde Aug 14, 2003 - 08:24 am

Or maybe ranged weapons will be rendered obsolete. The state of the art infantry weaponry will be spacer swords, neural disruptor maces, chainsaw poleaxes, and electrospears...

heh Not likely, but possible. A far-future culture might even ritualize combat to a contest involving foam boomerangs and rubber mallets. Perhaps if life truly were precious due to some genetic experiment or radiation disaster making births extremely rare. A dwindling race facing extinction might really be able to agree that combat's not worth the cost.

Posted By: bladesplit Sep 03, 2003 - 08:07 am

this is all good lads but you know what if we just use a tiny drone send him on to the ship and set the detonator..........

get away and then boom and see ya sometime later (if i go back in time ) that gives me another idea use time travel send them back to the big boom and if the big boom ever existed then their ship will be star dust if that

Posted By: Ding_man Sep 04, 2003 - 02:36 am

I don't trust time travel. For some reason I believe if you did one thing in time travel you could kill thousands of people or change big events. Say sending their ship to the big boom. Well in my opinion if you died in the past then you never existed therefore none of the children hes had and things hes done would ever have happened, but then that could be bad but it could make hundreds of babies unborn... heh I've thought about this a lot so down with time travel!

Posted By: Nomad Sep 04, 2003 - 05:49 am

Yup...so if you think about it ... this reality or timeline that we are in right now may very well exist only because some person or persons manipulated time before this. Mind boggling isn't it? Quantum time theory is a subject I try to stay away from.

Posted By: poppie Oct 02, 2003 - 01:35 am

Rail guns. Already in the experimentation phase at an Air Force facility in Florida. Theory (and practice) is thus: long tube, magnetic suspension of projectile. Electromagnetic rings along the tube provide propulsion. In atmosphere, the velocity is phenominal, to say the least. I would imagine that a space-based RG (in vacuum; zero air resistance), the velocity would be even greater, possibly .7 C. Scenario: two space craft, approaching head on. Velocity of each craft on the order of .05 C. RG fires at .7 C. Add vectors to impace velocity of projectile at .8 C. Anybody want to do the math on the energy transferance of a half ounce projectile striking at .8C? Range? With zero media resistance, range would be virtually unlimited. Or, to change the scenario slightly, add in orbital velocity of a planet or satellite. Heavy spacecraft with dorsal mounted heavy RG (think several hundred yards of electromagnetic acceleration of a heavy projectile (up to 5 pounds?). Possible initial velocity of up to .9C. Vector in the orbital mechanics of the planet or satellite, and the vectored impact velocity could very well exceed the speed of light. That is to say, the velocity of the projectile, plus the velocity of the target (moving toward the projectile), added together would exceed that of lightspeed, while neither the projectile nor the target would be in excess of lightspeed, the vectored impact speed WOULD be in excess of lightspeed. I believe the formula mass times velocity squared would give the actual energy release of the impact. This is the basis of kinetic energy weapons, and was initially proposed under Reagan's Star Wars proposal for space based weapons (see Project Thor). And the beauty of it? Its not hi-tech, and can be built using off the shelf components available today. The Air Force project uses 12 volt car batteries linked in series for its power source. Interesting, no?

Posted By: Aldan Oct 02, 2003 - 10:42 am

Interesting, yes.

One thing to keep in mind is that rail guns mounted on ships would probably be like unguided torpedo launchers - immovable, firing in one direction only (probably from the front), so if you "cross the T", the other guy'd be completely unable to fight back.

Posted By: poppie Oct 02, 2003 - 09:39 pm

Interesting point, Aldan. I agree, the big planet buster would be directed dead ahead. However, anti-ship sizes would be much smaller, probably measuring in feet instead of yards, depending on the raw power available, and could be mounted in battery, possibly similar to the cannon mounted on ships-of-the-line in the Napoleonic Wars. I would imagine that combat spacecraft would have a power source other than a bunch of car batteries linked in series. Unfortunatly, that would bring us back into a semi-two dimensional combat scenario. BUT, with the total length of the launch tube being measured in feet, the possibility arises of turret mounted batteries, something along the lines of an Imperial Star Destroyer, with either tandem or quad-mounts in the turrets. And I'm sure that the boffins with the electronic slide rules would determine projectile mass/power ratios to come up with the optimum damage potential. As to aiming, with velocities in a significant percentage of C, leading the target wouldn't be nearly as difficult as swinging the old 12 guage after a terrified bird, now would it? Depending on the range, of course.

poppie

Posted By: Adam Jan 06, 2004 - 11:09 pm

Railguns: http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/programs/pulsed_ac.html

Posted By: Chemically Impaired Jul 08, 2004 - 10:14 pm

Ok just a general question for anyone who happens to know - can anybody explain to me the basis of Stephen Baxters Xeelee "Starbreaker" weapons? Or same from Revelation Space by that dude whose name I dont remember. I dont get that whole concept of Gravity wave/soliton weapons. Any clues?