These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

SO.... Hybrid weapons are a thing.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Keno Skir
#21 - 2016-01-13 09:13:45 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Quote:
I find it neat.

I find it spiteful.

Where are technologies enabling comfortable and fast space travel and colonization, where are technologies enabling humanity to thrive, rather than to destroy itself?


Often the same technologies, rather what we choose to do with them. :)

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Skoomer
#22 - 2016-01-13 10:55:44 UTC
Bael Vulpes wrote:

The US Navy has an operational railgun that they're going to put on destroyers.


Hope the destoryer isnt called "catalyst." Otherwise I think the US Navy is going to gank some **** in the future
Bael Vulpes
The Diogenes Club
#23 - 2016-01-13 11:10:12 UTC
Skoomer wrote:
Bael Vulpes wrote:

The US Navy has an operational railgun that they're going to put on destroyers.


Hope the destoryer isnt called "catalyst." Otherwise I think the US Navy is going to gank some **** in the future


I believe it's scheduled to be called "Rokh and roll."
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#24 - 2016-01-13 17:01:49 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Quote:
I find it neat.

I find it spiteful.

Where are technologies enabling comfortable and fast space travel and colonization, where are technologies enabling humanity to thrive, rather than to destroy itself?


That's mostly an issue with politics, not the science, when you really think about it. Most of the scientist, chemists, and theoretical physicist who worked on the science behind mankind's first nukes weren't likely hoping to build one of the most powerful and devastating weapons in human history. In fact it's probably not uncommon for scientists to be opposed to their **** being used in strictly military applications. So, to answer those questions directly in one word: government.

Most, if not all, of the really dangerous weapons -- you know, the stuff that would make you cringe and really question the morality and ethics behind it -- could easily be used in far better, humane, and more agreeable applications. Problem is, we humans are too busy trying to figure out bigger, better, and more interesting ways to kill each other, along with anything else human or otherwise that gets caught in the crossfire. When we're not doing that, we're still too busy trying to justify the killing in the first place.

Just be glad nature made sex as pleasurable as it is. It's the perfect incentive to procreate, or our species wouldn't still be here. Even then, it's still a wonder.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2016-01-13 17:51:11 UTC
What's up with the talk about high boiling point? Past the fusion point, you are shooting a liquid already. Tungsten isn't used in projectiles and space system because it does not boil before 5930C but because it does not melt/fuse before 3244C. If the ablative of your space shuttle turn to liquid, I'm pretty sure no one will be "Meh, it's not vapor yet so it's ok."...
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2016-01-13 17:55:44 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
Quote:
I find it neat.

I find it spiteful.

Where are technologies enabling comfortable and fast space travel and colonization, where are technologies enabling humanity to thrive, rather than to destroy itself?


That's mostly an issue with politics, not the science, when you really think about it. Most of the scientist, chemists, and theoretical physicist who worked on the science behind mankind's first nukes weren't likely hoping to build one of the most powerful and devastating weapons in human history. In fact it's probably not uncommon for scientists to be opposed to their **** being used in strictly military applications. So, to answer those questions directly in one word: government.

Most, if not all, of the really dangerous weapons -- you know, the stuff that would make you cringe and really question the morality and ethics behind it -- could easily be used in far better, humane, and more agreeable applications. Problem is, we humans are too busy trying to figure out bigger, better, and more interesting ways to kill each other, along with anything else human or otherwise that gets caught in the crossfire. When we're not doing that, we're still too busy trying to justify the killing in the first place.

Just be glad nature made sex as pleasurable as it is. It's the perfect incentive to procreate, or our species wouldn't still be here. Even then, it's still a wonder.


It's also much easier to design something that will project an object in a designated direction (any weapon with a projectile) than it is to design a system to project another object in a desired direction with the intent of that object being able to come to a stop without destroying anything. It is literally easier to design a free fall rocket than it is to design a rocket system with a living quarter in it that can come back to earth without following the law of gravity in it's purest form of "you will accelerate toward the core of the earth until you encounter an object solid enough to break your path"... It's not just a question of wanting to design just weapon. There are much more constraint to designing those good stuff. Whose fault it is that destroying things is so damn much easier than building/preserving them...
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2016-01-13 18:11:03 UTC
Space travel has very little to do with politics and more to do with trying to replicate a biosphere that wont suffer cascade failure for decades or centuries. This is why we are massively interested in FTL solutions.

In short.. if the speed of light is as fast as we are ever going to travel all space flight systems must exist for the long haul. This isnt easy. Cryo isnt remotely a thing or even possibly a thing. This means generation ships. Fixed "earths" with a minute fraction of the biosphere packed into a synthetic hull... without a handy star nearby to power them. This is such a massive and scary task it will literally crush your intellect when you start diving into it. And no.. regardless of what you hear on the news we do not understand the biosphere or weather systems well enough to predict them efficiently. The whole AGW debate is a prime example of this.. its an arena of 15% real scientists, 75% scientists who have lost their objectivity, and 10% nutballs or politically purchased opinions. (and no im not saying AWG doesn't exist. It does. Dont be stupid. Just that there is a massive sh*tton of bad science being thrown around right now on both sides)

Additionally nuclear tech has been so hobbled that our one true ticket to the stars isnt socially acceptable yet. People today hear the world "nuclear" and think the old 1970s terribly designed barely controlled bombs that we used to call reactors. Modern material science has made things so utterly safe that you can hit one with a 350 car freight train and have it survive intact and safely functional. Even the radiation concerns are laughable.. you dump more radiation into the atmosphere burning coal than you do using a modern reactor.

It also doesn't help that wind and solar are jack and useless outside of a solar system ;). So kids... want eve to be real? Scream yell and support your local nuclear(unless its a local US plant... jesus christ get rid of thoses things already and build some CANDUs.
Valacus
Streets of Fire
#28 - 2016-01-13 18:26:22 UTC
Hal Morsh wrote:
I came to this about EVE when trying to figure out how they fire aluminum. Because it ain't magnetic.

I imagined this is really just that "electrical Jacobs ladder" (science toy) turned into a weapon.


Either using a magnetic carrier plate or magnetic shell. The rail gun would be a really silly device if it could only load magnetic ammunition. The better kinds of ammo, the hard stuff like iridium and uranium, are not particularly magnetic. You'd only be able to fire softer metals, and those just wouldn't stand up to the heat caused by the air resistance they're going to meet at the speeds rail guns can reach. Thankfully, you can either carry or wrap anything in a magnetic metal and boom, there she blows.
Hal Morsh
Doomheim
#29 - 2016-01-13 22:35:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Hal Morsh
Nafensoriel wrote:
Space travel has very little to do with politics and more to do with trying to replicate a biosphere that wont suffer cascade failure for decades or centuries. This is why we are massively interested in FTL solutions.

In short.. if the speed of light is as fast as we are ever going to travel all space flight systems must exist for the long haul. This isnt easy. Cryo isnt remotely a thing or even possibly a thing. This means generation ships. Fixed "earths" with a minute fraction of the biosphere packed into a synthetic hull... without a handy star nearby to power them. This is such a massive and scary task it will literally crush your intellect when you start diving into it. And no.. regardless of what you hear on the news we do not understand the biosphere or weather systems well enough to predict them efficiently. The whole AGW debate is a prime example of this.. its an arena of 15% real scientists, 75% scientists who have lost their objectivity, and 10% nutballs or politically purchased opinions. (and no im not saying AWG doesn't exist. It does. Dont be stupid. Just that there is a massive sh*tton of bad science being thrown around right now on both sides)

Additionally nuclear tech has been so hobbled that our one true ticket to the stars isnt socially acceptable yet. People today hear the world "nuclear" and think the old 1970s terribly designed barely controlled bombs that we used to call reactors. Modern material science has made things so utterly safe that you can hit one with a 350 car freight train and have it survive intact and safely functional. Even the radiation concerns are laughable.. you dump more radiation into the atmosphere burning coal than you do using a modern reactor.

It also doesn't help that wind and solar are jack and useless outside of a solar system ;). So kids... want eve to be real? Scream yell and support your local nuclear(unless its a local US plant... jesus christ get rid of thoses things already and build some CANDUs.



I think Monsanto has proven human stupidity with science well enough in modern times. It would also help a whole lot if things like the Fukashima disaster stopped happening.


Valacus wrote:

Thankfully, you can either carry or wrap anything in a magnetic metal and boom, there she blows.


Someone needs to make a bow and arrow with a circle of magnets in the end to help propel the arrow forward. I've seen someone rapid fire a handheld magnetic pistol with enough force to crack a computer screen pretty good, before that it had to charge like those old flash cameras each shot. So it is getting compact enough to be practical.

ALSO going to leave this here.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/12/new-graphene-carbon-nanotube-supercapacitor/

I heard about carbon nanotube powerstorage speculation before 2014. Some Tv show or science video from youtube. It's always been stuck in my head since. The article has earlier dates.

Oh, I perfectly understand, Hal Morsh — a mission like this requires courage, skill, and heroism… qualities you are clearly lacking. Have you forgotten you're one of the bloody immortals!?
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#30 - 2016-01-14 00:06:42 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

It's also much easier to design something that will project an object in a designated direction (any weapon with a projectile) than it is to design a system to project another object in a desired direction with the intent of that object being able to come to a stop without destroying anything. It is literally easier to design a free fall rocket than it is to design a rocket system with a living quarter in it that can come back to earth without following the law of gravity in it's purest form of "you will accelerate toward the core of the earth until you encounter an object solid enough to break your path"... It's not just a question of wanting to design just weapon. There are much more constraint to designing those good stuff. Whose fault it is that destroying things is so damn much easier than building/preserving them...


While I don't disagree with any of that, convenience has never been a very good excuse. My dad never let me get away with that when I was growing up, and thank God he didn't, he was right to stay on my ass about it. Preservation is always easier that destruction, no doubt. That doesn't suddenly shift the responsibility away from it, though.

Anyways, I'll shut up from this point as I'm derailing. In fact, I wouldn't blame ISD for removing my posts in this thread, just wanted to get my point across I guess and got a little carried away. So, my apologies.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2016-01-14 00:46:14 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

It's also much easier to design something that will project an object in a designated direction (any weapon with a projectile) than it is to design a system to project another object in a desired direction with the intent of that object being able to come to a stop without destroying anything. It is literally easier to design a free fall rocket than it is to design a rocket system with a living quarter in it that can come back to earth without following the law of gravity in it's purest form of "you will accelerate toward the core of the earth until you encounter an object solid enough to break your path"... It's not just a question of wanting to design just weapon. There are much more constraint to designing those good stuff. Whose fault it is that destroying things is so damn much easier than building/preserving them...


While I don't disagree with any of that, convenience has never been a very good excuse. My dad never let me get away with that when I was growing up, and thank God he didn't, he was right to stay on my ass about it. Preservation is always easier that destruction, no doubt. That doesn't suddenly shift the responsibility away from it, though.

Anyways, I'll shut up from this point as I'm derailing. In fact, I wouldn't blame ISD for removing my posts in this thread, just wanted to get my point across I guess and got a little carried away. So, my apologies.


Convenience is a pretty good excuse for stuff A being invented before stuff B when stuff B need stuff A to happen with many additional constraint. We learned how to patch holes in the human body before we though about opening new holes in it to fix something inside. We have to complete the "move metal stuff with magnetic field" before we go for the "move useful things inside of a metal casing with a magnetic field". They made a weapon because it happen that slinging metal at really high speed in a direction has an application in military. That also mean the military funded that part of research and we are done with that step that much faster than if it had no application for them.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2016-01-14 05:09:01 UTC
Hal Morsh wrote:
Nafensoriel wrote:
Space travel has very little to do with politics and more to do with trying to replicate a biosphere that wont suffer cascade failure for decades or centuries. This is why we are massively interested in FTL solutions.

In short.. if the speed of light is as fast as we are ever going to travel all space flight systems must exist for the long haul. This isnt easy. Cryo isnt remotely a thing or even possibly a thing. This means generation ships. Fixed "earths" with a minute fraction of the biosphere packed into a synthetic hull... without a handy star nearby to power them. This is such a massive and scary task it will literally crush your intellect when you start diving into it. And no.. regardless of what you hear on the news we do not understand the biosphere or weather systems well enough to predict them efficiently. The whole AGW debate is a prime example of this.. its an arena of 15% real scientists, 75% scientists who have lost their objectivity, and 10% nutballs or politically purchased opinions. (and no im not saying AWG doesn't exist. It does. Dont be stupid. Just that there is a massive sh*tton of bad science being thrown around right now on both sides)

Additionally nuclear tech has been so hobbled that our one true ticket to the stars isnt socially acceptable yet. People today hear the world "nuclear" and think the old 1970s terribly designed barely controlled bombs that we used to call reactors. Modern material science has made things so utterly safe that you can hit one with a 350 car freight train and have it survive intact and safely functional. Even the radiation concerns are laughable.. you dump more radiation into the atmosphere burning coal than you do using a modern reactor.

It also doesn't help that wind and solar are jack and useless outside of a solar system ;). So kids... want eve to be real? Scream yell and support your local nuclear(unless its a local US plant... jesus christ get rid of thoses things already and build some CANDUs.



I think Monsanto has proven human stupidity with science well enough in modern times. It would also help a whole lot if things like the Fukashima disaster stopped happening.


~snipsnip~.

That particular disaster had absolutely zero to do with the suggested design of the plant or the quality of the science or engineering being done. It was a purely political clusterf*ck of bad management by people who know about as much about a nuclear reactor as a dog. That said that is a problem all in itself and yes a very real one. The actual disaster was incredably tame and low impact.. Most of the areas affected are perfectly livable now(the human body has an amazing ability to handle radiation..)

As to monsanto.. Well i know several people there. For all the terrible decisions made by accountants and businessmen.. the science being done in their labs has positively impacted pretty much the entire worlds set of lives. Science is kinda weird like that.. As much as people try to abuse what we create.. the science itself, on the majority, is good and done by people who actually want to discover new and beneficial things.

Both companies bad businessmen have done their part in ruining public perception about very critical paths of discovery though.. and that in itself is a terribly and disgustingly sad story all its own.
Pookoko
Sigma Sagittarii Inc.
#33 - 2016-01-14 08:05:12 UTC
In the armed forces & defense industry you are always looking to identify potential threats, and the new weapons are often developed to counter such potential threats. Of course this goes in cycles because one nation acquiring a new technology means that other nations need to develop counter to that technology, and so on and so on.

I understand there are people who resent the idea of investing into technology for destruction, but sometimes you need to possess destructive power to stop someone else from trying to destroy you.


Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2016-01-15 00:43:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Zozoll Neblyn
Hal Morsh wrote:
I came to this about EVE when trying to figure out how they fire aluminum. Because it ain't magnetic.

I imagined this is really just that "electrical Jacobs ladder" (science toy) turned into a weapon.


Electromagnetism is a different thing from natural magnetism. A moving electron always creates a magnetic field, so if you can get a bunch of electrons all moving in the same direction through a wire, there will always be a magnetic field around that wire.

Magnetism gets created a lot of different ways, so it can be confusing when you're familiar with one kind of magnetism and then someone starts talking about another. I mean: it's always the same effect, but sometimes results from different causes.

The reason the projectile usually vaporizes is because a very strong electrical current is running through it. Any material, except a superconductor, that has a strong electric current running through it will heat up. (But superconductors respond wierdly to magnetism so a railgun might not work with them.) That's how the burners on an electric oven work. It's also how lightbulbs work. The wire in the filament of a lightbulb is usually made of tungtsen, and it radiates bright light from it for no other reason than because it has an electric current flowing through it making it super hot. Not red hot, but white hot (causing it to radiate white light).

The projectile completes the circuit between the two rails, so it has a lot of electric current flowing through it. It only continues to accelerate so long as that is true. If it transitions to liquid form or vaporizes or something, and no longer can complete the circuit, then it can't continue to accelerate.
Chekov Nikahd
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2016-01-15 06:16:01 UTC
Mephiztopheleze wrote:
Hal Morsh wrote:
So if high boiling points are usefull, Does hybrid ammunition in EVE have high boiling points. Would it relate? They are all at plasma based on the descriptions, and some of them are things like "Iron" and "Tungstun".....


Just FYI: Tungsten has the highest boiling point of any element at a whopping 5,555C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten

Which is why it's suitable for use in orbital kinetic bombardment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment and such projects as the Rod From God and it's been used in Discarding Sabot tank shells for yonks and yonks.


It's suitable in the mentioned circumstances because of its density.

Depleted uranium is also used as a penetrator because of its density, self sharpening capability, and the fact that once cut into small enough pieces it spontaneously combusts.

The reason you'd want something with a high melting point in a railgun - I can only surmise is in case of plasma arcing when you have current running across gaps between the armature holding the bullet and the rails.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2016-01-15 13:25:46 UTC
Partially correct. In both General Atomics and BAEs railgun prototypes use a shuttle containing the physical round. This is for two reasons:
1] The round itself MUST be aerodynamic for high velocity flights. A standard bullet shape is insufficient. This is why railgun "rounds" typically look like the old scifi space ship rockets. Its a basic design to handle high velocity atmospheric flight.
To keep things short just assume that the faster you go the more the substance you are moving thru becomes water(in atmosphere) or atmosphere(in space). Air=water for purposes of flight. Only significant difference is amount of "water" you can push over flight surfaces for control or lift and how much stress the frame will suffer in movement. For railguns the round is subjected to enough stress to physically melt and deform the shell itself during natural flight.. Hence the reason for strange materials and launch shuttles. The latter is more used to keep weaker but magnetically optimal materials out of the shell since they are no longer needed after the launch and end of the acceleration phase.

2] DU and other heavy dense metals are used for railguns less for their traditional penetration power and more for their natural resistance to deformation and ability to operate at extremely high stress and temperature. It's cheap, simple, and effective
Expected velocities and energy of battle ready naval railguns automatically gain a penetration effect due to the speed they are traveling. Anything they hit will have a sudden and massive conversion to gas at the impact point and the round has a similar effect to a traditional RPG by nature of physics.

Current railgun designs skirt the magical high energy part of physics where a nuclear physicist friend of mine once said: "**** gets weird and everything blows up!".
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
#37 - 2016-01-16 11:25:16 UTC
The challenges with a working plasma weapon in atmospheres is maintaining the integrity of the magnetic field holding the ionized mass together while it travels towards its target. In space, you don't necessarily need a magnetic field, even though that could provide for higher densities of mass.
Zozoll Neblyn
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2016-01-16 14:31:52 UTC
I wasn't going to go into this part, but then suddenly I remembered that this is Eve, and nearly everyone here knows math. So there is no need to hold back on that stuff.

Magnetic force is the cross product: " qv X B" B, is the magnetic field strength. q is the charge (usually an electron). V is the speed that charge is moving.

Basically, the strength of the field itself, multiplied by the speed that an electron in that field is moving in a perpendicular direction to the field.

So the electron needs to be moving in a direction that is sideways to the magnetic field, and the faster the electron is moving the stronger the force the magnetic field pushes on it with. Or pulls. That depends on which direction it is moving sideways at (using the "right hand rule" which I won't go into right now.)


Railguns are based on the fact that both things matter. Both the strength of the field matters, AND the speed the electrons are moving at in a sideways direction. So the electric current flowing through the projectile itself is EXTREMELY important to this effect.


As you run electric current at high speed through the projectile, that and that alone, is sufficient to heat it up (even if it weren't actually moving anywhere at all) As the projectile heats up, it loses conductivity. When it liquifies, the circuit breaks altogether.
Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2016-01-16 20:10:23 UTC
I think Faster than Light travel and huge combat spaceships will eventually be implemented...... like the Alcubierre Drive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Because most things from science fiction 50 - 60 years ago has become true today. A few decades ago, combat lasers and rail guns were only science fiction, but now they are operational.

So I think quite a few number of things in science fiction today are gonna be true a few hundred years from now.
Hal Morsh
Doomheim
#40 - 2016-01-18 02:00:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Hal Morsh
Logan Revelore wrote:
The challenges with a working plasma weapon in atmospheres is maintaining the integrity of the magnetic field holding the ionized mass together while it travels towards its target. In space, you don't necessarily need a magnetic field, even though that could provide for higher densities of mass.



Plasma cutters shoot gas or liquid around the arc (separate) as a shield. I've read into plasma stuff and there is talk of atmosphere containment fields, so I assume it's in the works. I can't imagine plasma would be anything more than a fancy flamethrower as a weapon. Lots of burnt people.

I do remember reading rumors of melted things in the Middle East and expirmiental weapons, but all I heard was rumors off google or some video years back. Google turns up... Not much besides Israel using white phosphorus and some really nasty shrapnel bombs.

Oh, I perfectly understand, Hal Morsh — a mission like this requires courage, skill, and heroism… qualities you are clearly lacking. Have you forgotten you're one of the bloody immortals!?
Previous page123Next page