maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:12 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 11381
Reputation points: 15300
Anthropoid wrote:
EUBanana wrote:
Having done a little digging, due to the lack of atmosphere radiation effects in space from nuclear weapons would be very roughly ten times the effect they would have in an atmosphere. If you're talking multi-megaton warheads that would mean a lethal radiation zone of hundreds of miles.


Are you active on that games board? If you are, you should post that with a link to some of the tailings from your digging expedition. Watch the fanbois go apeshit! :P


I am not.

But here is the site I was reading :- https://history.nasa.gov/conghand/nuclear.htm

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:38 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11237
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 14720
Message conveyed!

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:00 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7792
Reputation points: 17050
EUBanana wrote:
Having done a little digging, due to the lack of atmosphere radiation effects in space from nuclear weapons would be very roughly ten times the effect they would have in an atmosphere. If you're talking multi-megaton warheads that would mean a lethal radiation zone of hundreds of miles.


I'm interested especially on the effects of the highly penetrating ionizing radiation. In atmospheric conditions much of that is simply absorbed, in space it isn't just heating up that causes damage, if gammarays etc. are of sufficient strength they could wreak havoc on the crews and electronics in a vast area.

In fact I'm not saying that nuclear weapons are the way to annihilate a ship. I'm saying that they can be used as an important part of your toolbox to win the battle. Mission kill and all. As with main battle tanks we know well that you don't have to vaporize every last inch of the tank to kill it. Any of the number of critical components can be damaged to kill a tank. For certain purposes merely getting one thread all wonky can mean that the tank is neutralized - when on defense, if the tank is now unable to reach a firing position then it is neutralized. If it's barrel is stuck for bad elevation again it's mostly neutralized.

Space ships have an enormous amount of systems, many of these systems can throw a cascade failure if hit. Redundancy can't mitigate having all primary and secondary circuitry melt and fuse on you during battle while losing all control on the reactor.

But they do have one special function - smaller ships can be more vulnerable to the heat effects. Simply, the bigger the ship the less the percentage that gets vaporized with a hit. Swarms of small ships in relatively close proximity are a great target for nuclear weapons.


The number game itself was merely to show that upscaling nuclear weapons can be efficient in space, certainly more so than in atmospheric conditions. It also points out that you'd rather have a few very big warheads than a large number of small ones. The big ones can hit with the same strength from much further away while the smaller ones can indeed interfere with each other. Hence the mixed volley of kinetic missiles and a few very big warheads.

The point of showing the distances was that for purposes of evading and defending against nuclear missiles, you will need ranges that are approaching and beyond 15km to avoid most of the damage, but that even at 15km range a big weapon can still hit you hard. For a hit that is equivalent to 500 kilotons immediate proximity hit is no joke. Czar Bomba was originally designed as 100 megaton yield but they feared it would vaporize the plane carrying it. Just saying, once you are building a fleet of space warships, putting 100 megaton missiles to them is not a big deal, well, it is but it's certainly affordable. The main reason why US and USSR mostly avoided such big weapons wasn't affordability - it was the lack of efficient delivery methods and the fact that you achieved all the same results with two orders of magnitude smaller warheads. Two 1 megaton bombs could in fact achieve more than one 100 megaton yield.*

*not necessarily 100% accurate but that's the gist of it

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 11381
Reputation points: 15300
I mention numberwang because consider real world warships.

A Harpoon missile does about the same damage as an 8 inch shell. Not a lot, really, a WW2 battleship could easily withstand an 8 inch shell hit, especially when you consider most modern warships only have between 8 and 32 missiles usually.

Thing is if you put heavier armour on ships it would be very easy to build a weapon that could take them out easily. It's actually that that makes battleship armour obsolete, not the current armaments that you see. There was no point putting armour on it because there's always a bigger bomb. As ship designers know this they dont bother and focus on things like CIWS instead, and therefore the warhead of a Harpoon doesn't need to be more deadly than it already is.

This is why I'm hesitant about definitive statements regarding things like nukes. You really need to know what the target is before you can make a decision - and even then you need to do some cost analysis to find out what you would need, just like the cost analysis that led to a Harpoon having such a historically relatively puny warhead, yet being the primary anti-ship weapon for many decades. CoaDE, with it's diamond ships being cheaper than steel ships, sure doesn't handle that.

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:07 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7792
Reputation points: 17050
EUBanana wrote:
I mention numberwang because consider real world warships.

A Harpoon missile does about the same damage as an 8 inch shell. Not a lot, really, a WW2 battleship could easily withstand an 8 inch shell hit, especially when you consider most modern warships only have between 8 and 32 missiles usually.

Thing is if you put heavier armour on ships it would be very easy to build a weapon that could take them out easily. It's actually that that makes battleship armour obsolete, not the current armaments that you see. There was no point putting armour on it because there's always a bigger bomb. As ship designers know this they dont bother and focus on things like CIWS instead, and therefore the warhead of a Harpoon doesn't need to be more deadly than it already is.

This is why I'm hesitant about definitive statements regarding things like nukes. You really need to know what the target is before you can make a decision - and even then you need to do some cost analysis to find out what you would need, just like the cost analysis that led to a Harpoon having such a historically relatively puny warhead, yet being the primary anti-ship weapon for many decades. CoaDE, with it's diamond ships being cheaper than steel ships, sure doesn't handle that.


I've actually written an article on why battleships are no longer used; why more armor is no longer the way to go in naval battles.

It was exactly that, you hear some guy is building a battlecruiser, it'll be out in 4 years. You make a 2 year upgrade program and put slightly bigger engines and warheads on your current missiles.

He wants to build a fleet of battleships, it's going to take him 10 years. In 4 years you'll be going through final testings of a new super missile, even if you equip your whole navy with them you're still not even breaking sweat when compared to the BB guy's costs.


Diamond manufacturing and machining - we could see that as a nanomanufacturing produce, it could be analogous with any nanomaterial but just assuming diamond was what we wanted to go after as many of the nanomaterials themselves are based on carbon, so yea, why not call it diamond?

Anyway, there is a point where the prevalence of nanomanufacturing in industry became so standardized that it would completely alter the cost structures of industrial processes. We can fantasize an imaginary situation where all the processing from iron ores to high grade steels costs more than the production of nano-diamond-structures for same purposes, even assuming the increased demand pressures for such materials and so. It seems like a far fetch and could very well be it and likely is, but it could be that space ships would at some point primarily be made of currently exotic materials, at least some of the warships.

Which again stresses the arbitrary nature of underlying assumptions regarding future technology. If it were that cheap, there would not be just a space elevator - there would be multiple space elevators and their existence would naturally lead to dyson ring around Earth. Sheer proximity and population pressure could easily lead to a number of people having made it to Moon to live there, given how it would not only be a tourist destination and source for solar power, it would also be an important space port for Earth, especially in regards of shipbuilding and supporting industries, possibly making it the natural fleet headquarters for any Earth navy.

It could be that traveling to Moon could only cost, say, 4 times the cost of flying from New York to Tokyo.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11237
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 14720
Geebus, space warfare will be fucking deadly, and difficult.

Best to just be friends and share. :lol:

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 11381
Reputation points: 15300
Anthropoid wrote:
Geebus, space warfare will be fucking deadly, and difficult.

Best to just be friends and share. :lol:


It will certainly be absolutely awful for everybody involved, and it seems pretty likely that it'd be a death sentence even for the guys who win. And it would all be fought in slow motion essentially, too. Battles taking days. Dying taking months. What a barrel of laughs.

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:09 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7792
Reputation points: 17050
Incorrect. In fact it seems warfare is the only logical outcome once you become an interstellar species, simply due to First Strike Doctrine.

Imagine that you have almost fully utilized a number of star systems and are pushing your borders outwards, you come across a species that is doing the same.

The newfound species is definitely a threat.

Case A
It's smaller than you, they see you as an existential threat to their entire species. Can two different species ever truly trust each other? It's not like you're simply going to fly a colony ship to their habitable world either and start reproducing like rabbits so you can learn to live together while trying to overpopulate each other.

The bigger species will seek to maintain it's superior position while further ensuring that the other cannot land decisive and devastating attacks into it's own territory. Any relative and alarming growth by the smaller one is seen as potentially existential threat - going from a position where you can crush them and survive to a position where they can crush you. Unacceptable.

Case B
You find a more powerful civilization that can wipe you out. If they haven't already you must work tirelessly to remedy the situation unless you simply accept to be vassalized and fall under their control to ensure they can keep you from becoming a threat. This could eventually develop into slavery where your species is not allowed to travel to space and will be reduced to their current areas to provide tribute for the other species' fleets. Or else you can hope they will ignore your attempts to rise to challenge them.

Case C
You are both too big to be able to wipe each other out initially as you're too far flung and unaware of the extents of each other's far lying systems.

Just in case both sides start developing means to strike deep in case of a war, gathering intelligence and developing weapons that can take out the other's industrial centers and energy production. Mutually the other's efforts will be seen as hostile and aggressive.




Whatever the case or whatever we imagine the situation to be, once the factions or sides are interstellar it means that the warfare once entered will be enormously devastating also. As you are attacking another star system.

The distrust isn't just about whether they will attack you tomorrow. The distrust is also about whether they have a plan to eradicate you over the next 1,000 or 5,000 years. The scopes of time are staggering. While talking of peace, there could be relativistic shots already traveling towards your planets.


Quote:
All the energy put into achieving that velocity had transformed the Intruder into a kinetic storage device of nightmarish design. If it struck a world, every gram of the vessel's substance would be received by that world as the target in a linear accelerator receives a spray of relativistic buckshot. Someone, somewhere, had built and was putting to use a relativistic bomb -- a giant, roving atom smasher aimed at worlds...

The gamma-ray shine of the decelerating half was also detectable, but it made no difference. One of the iron rules of relativistic bombardment was that if you could see something approaching at 92 percent of light speed, it was never where you saw it when you saw it, but was practically upon you...

In the forests below, lakes caught the first rays of the rising Sun and threw them back into space. Abandoning the two-dimensional sprawl of twentieth-century cities, Sri Lanka Tower, and others like it, had been erected in the world's rain forests and farmlands, leaving the countryside virtually uninhabited. Even in Africa, where more than a hundred city arcologies had risen, nature was beginning to renew itself. It was a good day to be alive, she told herself, taking in the peace of the garden. Then, looking east, she saw it coming -- at least her eyes began to register it -- but her optic nerves did not last long enough to transmit what the eyes had seen.

It was quite small for what it could do -- small enough to fit into an average-sized living room -- but it was moving at 92 percent of light speed when it touched Earth's atmosphere. A spear point of light appeared, so intense that the air below snapped away from it, creating a low-density tunnel through which the object descended. The walls of the tunnel were a plasma boundary layer, six and a half kilometers wide and more than 160 deep -- the flaming spear that Virginia's eyes began to register -- with every square foot of its surface radiating a trillion watts, and still its destructive potential was but fractionally spent.

Thirty-three kilometers above the Indian Ocean, the point began to encounter too much air. It tunneled down only eight kilometers more, then stalled and detonated, less than two-thousandths of a second after crossing the orbits of Earth's nearest artificial satellites.

Virginia was more than three hundred kilometers away when the light burst toward her. Every nerve ending in her body began to record a strange, prickling sensation -- the sheer pressure of photons trying to push her backward. No shadows were cast anywhere in the tower, so bright was the glare. It pierced walls, ceramic beams, notepads, and people -- four hundred thousand people. The maglev terminal connecting Sri Lanka Tower to London and Sydney, the waste treatment centers that sustained the lakes and farms, all the shops, theaters, and apartments liquefied instantly. The structure began to slip and crash like a giant waterfall, but gravity could not yank it down fast enough. The Tower became vapor before it could fall half a meter. At the vanished city's feet, the trees of the forest were no longer able to cast shadows; they had themselves become long shadows of carbonized dust on the ground.

In Kandy and Columbo, where sidewalks steamed, the relativistic onslaught was unfinished. The electromagnetic pulse alone killed every living thing as far away as Bombay and the Maldives. All of India south of the Godavari River became an instant microwave oven. Nearer the epicenter, Demon Rock glowed with a fierce red heat, then fractured down its center, as if to herald the second coming of the tyrant it memorialized. The air blast followed, surging out of the Indian Ocean -- faster than sound -- flattening whatever still stood. As it slashed north through Jaffna and Madurai, the wave front was met and overpowered by shocks rushing out from strikes in central and southern India.

Across the face of the planet, without warning, thousands of flaming swords pierced the sky...


http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#relativistic

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:09 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7792
Reputation points: 17050
Quote:
But a civilization that does gain the ability to create relativistic kinetic-kill weapons becomes a deadly threat to any and all alien civilizations in range.

From The Killing Star by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebrowski (you really should read this book):


The great silence (i.e. absence of SETI signals from alien civilizations) is perhaps the strongest indicator of all that high relativistic velocities are attainable and that everybody out there knows it.

The sobering truth is that relativistic civilizations are a potential nightmare to anyone living within range of them. The problem is that objects traveling at an appreciable fraction of light speed are never where you see them when you see them (i.e., light-speed lag). Relativistic rockets, if their owners turn out to be less than benevolent, are both totally unstoppable and totally destructive. A starship weighing in at 1,500 tons (approximately the weight of a fully fueled space shuttle sitting on the launchpad) impacting an earthlike planet at "only" 30 percent of lightspeed will release 1.5 million megatons of energy -- an explosive force equivalent to 150 times today's global nuclear arsenal... (ed note: this means the freaking thing has about nine hundred mega-Ricks of damage!)

I'm not going to talk about ideas. I'm going to talk about reality. It will probably not be good for us ever to build and fire up an antimatter engine. According to Powell, given the proper detecting devices, a Valkyrie engine burn could be seen out to a radius of several light-years and may draw us into a game we'd rather not play, a game in which, if we appear to be even the vaguest threat to another civilization and if the resources are available to eliminate us, then it is logical to do so.

The game plan is, in its simplest terms, the relativistic inverse to the golden rule: "Do unto the other fellow as he would do unto you and do it first."...

When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say with certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them, all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:

THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.
If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self-sacrificing.

WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.
No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.

...

Your thinking still seems a bit narrow. Consider several broadening ideas:

Sure, relativistic bombs are powerful because the antagonist has already invested huge energies in them that can be released quickly, and they're hard to hit. But they are costly investments and necessarily reduce other activities the species could explore. For example:
Dispersal of the species into many small, hard-to-see targets, such as asteroids, buried civilizations, cometary nuclei, various space habitats. These are hard to wipe out.
But wait -- while relativistic bombs are readily visible to us in foresight, they hardly represent the end point in foreseeable technology. What will humans of, say, two centuries hence think of as the "obvious" lethal effect? Five centuries? A hundred? Personally I'd pick some rampaging self-reproducing thingy (mechanical or organic), then sneak it into all the biospheres I wanted to destroy. My point here is that no particular physical effect -- with its pluses, minuses, and trade-offs -- is likely to dominate the thinking of the galaxy.
So what might really aged civilizations do? Disperse, of course, and also not attack new arrivals in the galaxy, for fear that they might not get them all. Why? Because revenge is probably selected for in surviving species, and anybody truly looking out for long-term interests will not want to leave a youthful species with a grudge, sneaking around behind its back...


http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/aliens.php#killingstar

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Small Arms?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:16 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11237
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 14720
Thanks Kamel! I will check out those books!

For my first project, I'm going with: "We are the precursors and we still have 150,000 years before we attain demi-god status.

The interstellar twist is really for "other motives" than the typical Sci Fi. Motives I will leave unexplained until I have a prototype for you guys to check out in 1 to 2 years.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group