EVE Search - Real Space Battleships....when?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Real Space Battleships....when?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
masternerdguy Gallente Caldari Naval Reserve	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:22:00 - [1] To make a simple interplannetary or local (around earth orbit for example) battleship is well within our current capabilities. We have viable weapon systems such as 1. Missiles 2. Artillary We also have viable technologies for propulsion over short (chemical and nuclear rockets) and long (ion engine/plasma engine) trips. We have reactive and reflective armor to defend against impacts and lasers. We have the ability to construct objects in space. We also have a fleet of ships on the ground (the cancelled shuttle) that can refuel and resupply them. We also have long-term power options such as solar panels, fission reactors, etc. We have emerging technologies such as carbon nanotubes that could make the structures not only stronger but lighter and therefore less expensive to make. Only two problems.... 1. Cost 2. Nobody cares about this for some reason...
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:25:00 - [2] we don't have the engines
Swiftgaze Elysium Trading Company Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:26:00 - [3] I'll give you 20k if you stop posting.
Obsidian Hawk RONA Legion	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:27:00 - [4] Ok you poasting rights are being revoked now.
Leaving Eve Boo Hoo Federation	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:28:00 - [5] Someone take the new thread button away from this guy.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:29:00 - [6] The UK already has one. It is currently on a 5 year mission to explore strange new places. To meet new life and offer fantastic oppertunities for small scale maufacturing at a Grimsby industial estate.
Barakkus Caelestis Iudicium	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:31:00 - [7] Originally by: Swiftgaze I'll give you 20k if you stop posting. Originally by: CCP Dropbear rofl edit: ah crap, dev account. Oh well, official rofl at you sir.
Swiftgaze Elysium Trading Company Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:35:00 - [8] I'd say we continue with my interpretation of "Mother and child reunion" by Paul Simon.

CCP Adida	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:37:00 - [9] Moved from General Discussion Adida Community Rep CCP Hf, EVE Online

Trustworthy Joe Minmatar	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:45:00 - [10] Originally by: CCP Adida Locked. Spam OP. Fixed it for you. want a sig? thats great! post it in response to my posts!
Slade Hoo Amarr Corpse Collection Point	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:46:00 - [11] In Stargate: Atlantis they already have spaceships. And the scenario is situated in present time. So we don't really have to wait that long. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum!
Creepy Goat Schindlers Ignore List	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:54:00 - [12] Originally by: Slade Hoo In Stargate: Atlantis they already have spaceships. And the scenario is situated in present time. So we don't really have to wait that long. SG1 ftw! Hated Atlantis Also, Dragonfly fighters look like F-302s <3 Signature removed for editing moderator warning. Zymurgist
Slade Hoo Amarr Corpse Collection Point	Posted - 2010.03.16 23:04:00 - [13] Originally by: Creepy Goat SG1 ftw! Hated Atlantis SG:Atlantis has Jewel Staite aka Dr. Jennifer Keller aka Kaylee from Firefly. SG:SG1 only has Amanda Tapping who looks like my mom ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum!
Kara Sharalien	Posted - 2010.03.16 23:09:00 - [14] Key problem: Shielding. There is one hell of a lot of radiation in space. You have to be ready for a solar flare pointed in your direction. I know of only three methods for interplanetary shielding, none without horrible drawbacks. 1. Magnetic. Create a huge magnetic field to deflect high energy particles/radiation Problem: sticking your head in a field that large does horrible things to your health. 2. Electrical. Create a huge electrical field on the hull to divert charged particles. Problem: not all dangerous particles are charged. 3. Physical. Surround the ship with heavy water. Problem: lots is needed, and you need equal cover all over. Which means a very massive spherical ship, plus you need some way of hefting hundreds of tonnes of water into orbit without it freezing. Secondary problem: life support. We know a lot about biospheres, but not enough that we are ready to throw one out into space without any support. The only artificial biosphere I know of is on earth, specifically because if it all goes to ** they want to be able to get people out. Originally by:** Thuul'Khalat WHY YOU VIOLENCE MY BOAT?!
Creepy Goat Schindlers Ignore List	Posted - 2010.03.16 23:13:00 - [15] Edited by: Creepy Goat on 16/03/2010 23:20:41 Originally by: Slade Hoo Originally by: Creepy Goat SG1 ftw! Hated Atlantis SG:Atlantis has Jewel Staite aka Dr. Jennifer Keller aka Kaylee from Firefly. SG:SG1 only has Amanda Tapping who looks like my mom True, Keller is HAWT. But would still tap tapping , also Claudia Black isn't too bad but she's only in the later episodes. EDIT: back on topic, it is possible to create a spacefaring battleship capable of orbitting the planet, and reigning firey death down onto those below, oh and popping the odd shuttle and satelite. However it would require ridiculously huge amounts of money, time and manpower for something that would be terribly cost-ineffective and pretty much useless. It would be a kick-ass peen for the country whos flag it flew though Signature removed for editing moderator warning. Zymurgist
Tameris Khan	Posted - 2010.03.16 23:24:00 - [16] Edited by: Tameris Khan on 16/03/2010 23:25:59 Originally by: Slade Hoo SG:Atlantis has Jewel Staite aka Dr. Jennifer Keller aka Kaylee from Firefly. SG:SG1 only has Amanda Tapping who looks like my mom Originally by: Slade Hoo Amanda Tapping who looks like my mom WTB milf fone number! Edit: if OP ship toasts again wardec incoming
Lt Forge Pilots From Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.03.16 23:37:00 - [17] Guys, it's the money that prevents us from reaching the stars. So I'd recommend to go the Star Trek way: Ban all currencies!
M'ktakh	Posted - 2010.03.16 23:42:00 - [18] Well, there is one real-life example to armed spaceflight I am avare of: the Soviet Almaz - Mil Soyuz programme.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.03.17 00:18:00 - [19] We will have space battleships when you (MNG) permanently delete all of your EVE accounts and never come back. The governments of the world are waiting on you, so do your patriotic duty and delete yourself for the glory of the space navy! -----------
Lashnar Caldari New Eden Recon Force Beyond-Control	Posted - 2010.03.17 00:58:00 - [20] Edited by: Lashnar on 17/03/2010 00:59:01 Problem 1: Life support? Problem 2: Shielding, this has already been stated. Problem 3: Since when did we have Ion and Plasma engines... no 360 for you. Problem 4: All the world leaders seem to think: "Hey! Why wisely try to colonize other planets when we have one right here, already taken, and dieing, AND being fought over!" C'mon! We have a friggin' GALAXY! I blame the leaders. They want war, not peace. Too them, it's a giant version of RISK. Edit: And don't tell me Earth is the only habitable planet in the galaxy, A; there's terraforming, B; I believe that is utter bullcrap. Maybe even propaganda... (:D) Welcome to EVE.
WarlockX Amarr Free Trade Corp	Posted - 2010.03.17 01:11:00 - [21] Originally by: Lashnar Edited by: Lashnar on 17/03/2010 00:59:01 Problem 1: Life support? Problem 2: Shielding, this has already been stated. Problem 3: Since when did we have Ion and Plasma engines... no 360 for you. Problem 4: All the world leaders seem to think: "Hey! Why wisely try to colonize other planets when we have one right here, already taken, and dieing, AND being fought over!" C'mon! We have a friggin' GALAXY! I blame the leaders. They want war, not peace. Too them, it's a giant version of RISK. Edit: And don't tell me Earth is the only habitable planet in the galaxy, A; there's terraforming, B; I believe that is utter bullcrap. Maybe even propaganda... (:D) Uhh. It's not the only habitable planet but who wants to sign up to a 300+ yr trip stuck on a spaceship that you won't even be able to see the end of. Maybe if you can get a crew of totally selfless ppl who want their grand kids to have a better life but noone from earth will ever know what happens to them. ----------------------------------------------- Free Trade Corp - Flash page
Kijo Rikki Caldari Swarm of Angry Bees	Posted - 2010.03.17 01:28:00 - [22] What about lead shielding? also someone said something to the effect of 'lol plasma drives? ******' so I is gonna link This. > WHILE SIG<AWESOME DO LOOP there is no escape from my crappy sig.
Lashnar Caldari New Eden Recon Force Beyond-Control	Posted - 2010.03.17 01:32:00 - [23] Originally by: WarlockX Originally by: Lashnar Edited by: Lashnar on 17/03/2010 00:59:01 Problem 1: Life support? Problem 2: Shielding, this has already been stated. Problem 3: Since when did we have Ion and Plasma engines... no 360 for you. Problem 4: All the world leaders seem to think: "Hey! Why wisely try to colonize other planets when we have one right here, already taken, and dieing, AND being fought over!" C'mon! We have a friggin' GALAXY! I blame the leaders. They want war, not peace. Too them, it's a giant version of RISK. Edit: And don't tell me Earth is the only habitable planet in the galaxy, A; there's terraforming, B; I believe that is utter bullcrap. Maybe even propaganda... (:D) Uhh. It's not the only habitable planet but who wants to sign up to a 300+ yr trip stuck on a spaceship that you won't even be able to see the end of. Maybe if you can get a crew of totally selfless ppl who want their grand kids to have a better life but noone from earth will ever know what happens to them. Well, I'd sign up just to go... I mean, c'mon, space! Don't tell me you don't want to go there. Welcome to EVE.
Magnus Nordir Caldari Nordir Industries	Posted - 2010.03.17 02:10:00 - [24] Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 17/03/2010 02:10:44 Originally by: Lashnar Well, I'd sign up just to go... I mean, c'mon, space! Don't tell me you don't want to go there. A trip to the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, would take 40 years at 0.1 times the speed of light. Anything that uses chemical/nuclear/ion propulsion is more likely to travel around ten times slower than that, so 1% the speed of light - 400 years to our nearest star. In other words, you'd be condemning 10 generations of people to confinement in a claustrophobic environment, on the off chance they find a colonisable environment there. If you ask me, that amounts to a crime against humanity. Remember this would be a generation ship, so you would first need it to have above 500 crew to prevent inbreeding. It can't just be navy/air force types either, you'll need someone to educate the future generations, which means dragging civilians along - otherwise the crew that arrives at Proxima Centauri would be uneducated and wouldn't even know where they came from, what their starship is or what they're supposed to do. The second problem is the mass and volume ratio - basically, to propel a spaceship at 0.01 times the speed of light, it would take the volume of the Empire State building to propel a human habitat the size of a coffin. Reduce that by an order of magnitude for nuclear propulsion. Less, but still huge. Then there's the issue of interstellar matter - remember, at 0.01c, even dust particles a few miligrams in size have the kinetic energy of detonating a kilogram of TNT. "current manned spaceflight technology" has progressed little to zero in the last 30 years. We still don't know how to shield ourselves from radiation, much less micrometeorites at relativistic velocities. We still can't maintain a closed-loop life support system for longer than a few months. We don't have a way to meaningfully negate the effects of microgravity on the human body. Development of space habitation technologies and space industry is still restricted by idiotic treaties from the cold war. The general public is still ignorant about space exploration in general. --------------------------- Only those who surrender are lost
masternerdguy Gallente Caldari Naval Reserve	Posted - 2010.03.17 02:21:00 - [25] Originally by: Magnus Nordir Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 17/03/2010 02:10:44 Originally by: Lashnar Well, I'd sign up just to go... I mean, c'mon, space! Don't tell me you don't want to go there. A trip to the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, would take 40 years at 0.1 times the speed of light. Anything that uses chemical/nuclear/ion propulsion is more likely to travel around ten times slower than that, so 1% the speed of light - 400 years to our nearest star. In other words, you'd be condemning 10 generations of people to confinement in a claustrophobic environment, on the off chance they find a colonisable environment there. If you ask me, that amounts to a crime against humanity. Remember this would be a generation ship, so you would first need it to have above 500 crew to prevent inbreeding. It can't just be navy/air force types either, you'll need someone to educate the future generations, which means dragging civilians along - otherwise the crew that arrives at Proxima Centauri would be uneducated and wouldn't even know where they came from, what their starship is or what they're supposed to do. The second problem is the mass and volume ratio - basically, to propel a spaceship at 0.01 times the speed of light, it would take the volume of the Empire State building to propel a human habitat the size of a coffin. Reduce that by an order of magnitude for nuclear propulsion. Less, but still huge. Then there's the issue of interstellar matter - remember, at 0.01c, even dust particles a few miligrams in size have the kinetic energy of detonating a kilogram of TNT. "current manned spaceflight technology" has progressed little to zero in the last 30 years. We still don't know how to shield ourselves from radiation, much less micrometeorites at relativistic velocities. We still can't maintain a closed-loop life support system for longer than a few months. We don't have a way to meaningfully negate the effects of microgravity on the human body. Development of space habitation technologies and space industry is still restricted by idiotic treaties from the cold war. The general public is still ignorant about space exploration in general. the topic was orbital, local, or interplanetary space flight.
Zyck Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.17 02:24:00 - [26] Edited by: Zyck on 17/03/2010 02:28:34 We need a rule that people who want to theoretically engineer large warships for space have to actually be engineers. We do not have the engines for this. Fuel is one of the biggest issues with space flight right now and the acceleration that would be needed for speed and evasive maneuvers would very quickly destroy a ships fuel stocks. We do not have the shielding or armor capability. We do not have the capability to make anything with carbon nanotubes that isn't extremely tiny. And if we could, they are NOT cheap. We also do NOT have computer or mechanical systems that are anything even near reliable enough to get humans to mars, let alone put on a warship for permanent space habitation. We do not have life support systems that are efficient enough to have a completely closed circuit in terms of oxygen and water. It would cost an absolute **** ton to construct any large spacecraft in space, and would be near impossible to do it on the ground. Without something like an orbital elevator this is a dream even with the rest of the problems worked out. Edit: Artillery is also pretty much useless in space, as are missiles. You'd need to completely redesign missiles. All modern day missiles fly like planes- they use the atmosphere to steer. In space not only would they have to be much more massive to be able to actually hold enough fuel to turn to keep on target, but you would basically need a direct hit. A missile that blows up in space is nothing more than a bunch of gas molecules that will do little if any damage to another object unless it's VERY close. Artillery itself would only be useful over very small distances. At the speeds of space travel even the slightest change of course would render your artillery shells many kilometers off target. That and all the other stuff that's been posted already.
Jin Nib Resplendent Knives	Posted - 2010.03.17 02:34:00 - [27] Lets bomb mars from orbit. Just in case. Also we really need space battle ships, because... uh... (I was seriously hoping and assumeing that you would stick to one area of the forums posting your inane FW bull***. Why did you have to branch out?) -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00*
Cikulisuy Amarr The Maverick Navy IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.17 03:06:00 - [28] we don't have anything to shoot at, spending billions and billions of dollars on a space warship for what -_- nub> you cant mine so you kill.
Pr1ncess Alia Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2010.03.17 03:07:00 - [29] Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 17/03/2010 03:07:23 we will get spaceships the same time we get a ton of other meaningful advancements to society the moment we stop feeding and capitalizing off of each other in useless rat races and start working together towards meaningful goals and advancements basically when we are no longer the species we are currently. I wouldn't hold your breath. My money is on a depressing ending on a stripped planet, crying at the futility of our own will to survive in a completely unsustainable manner
Culmen Caldari Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.03.17 04:30:00 - [30] We will get space battleships the moment we get significant stuff outside of earth orbit. Like lunar colonies mining helium-3 or something like that. Simply put why bother sending up 1) Control systems 2) Life support 3) Weapons etc When you can just fire an ASAT missile from the ground. PS: if you stretch the definition enough... we already have Salyut 3 had a 23 mm cannon, and shot it at a test satellite. Those ruskies are crazy. and further more why do i even need a sig?
Epegi Givo Amarr Araja clan	Posted - 2010.03.17 04:42:00 - [31] And doesn't the Geneva Convention have rules against weapons in space? __________________________ My other alt is A Ferrari
Tavren Darknigh Griefer-B-Gone Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.17 04:55:00 - [32] I forget where I heard it but a nuclear explosion in space will supposedly cause a chain reaction that will destroy most of our solar system if not further objects. Kinda puts a damper on those kinds of weapons. captain:"detonate the nuclear warhead" lieutenant:"sir target destroyed but the shock wave is coming back at us" captain:"oh shi...." =TRANSMISSION END=
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2010.03.17 05:42:00 - [33] Originally by: Tavren Darknigh I forget where I heard it but a nuclear explosion in space will supposedly cause a chain reaction that will destroy most of our solar system Being as the US alone detonated five nuclear warheads in space (not to mention that the sun itself is an ongoing thermonuclear reaction), we're not going to explode the solar system _____________________ Horrors! Demons in the deep!
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.03.17 05:43:00 - [34] Originally by: Tavren Darknigh I forget where I heard it but a nuclear explosion in space will supposedly cause a chain reaction that will destroy most of our solar system if not further objects. Kinda puts a damper on those kinds of weapons. That would be in a bad science fiction story. There is nothing even close to realistic about that scenario, especially since nuclear weapons have been tested in space already. Originally by: Zyck We do not have the engines for this. Fuel is one of the biggest issues with space flight right now and the acceleration that would be needed for speed and evasive maneuvers would very quickly destroy a ships fuel stocks. Correction: we don't have the engines to make an "interesting" warship. We have the engines to do it right now, it just isn't "fun" enough to have your battleship spending multiple years to intercept the target, as realistic as it would be. Quote: We do not have the shielding or armor capability. This is true. Shields are pure scifi, and armor is not efficient. A real space warship's defenses will be based around not getting hit at all and multiple redundant backup systems, much like modern military airplanes. Quote: We also do NOT have computer or mechanical systems that are anything even near reliable enough to get humans to mars, let alone put on a warship for permanent space habitation. We do. Unfortunately, the political willpower just isn't there to invest the money and time required for a Mars mission. However, once we finally decide to do it, the technology is either already there or will be with a reasonable amount of R&D work. Quote: Edit: Artillery is also pretty much useless in space, as are missiles. You'd need to completely redesign missiles. All modern day missiles fly like planes- they use the atmosphere to steer. In space not only would they have to be much more massive to be able to actually hold enough fuel to turn to keep on target, Well, obviously you wouldn't just put some AA missiles on the shuttle and call it a fighter, but we already know how to build space missiles. As for fuel needs, the fuel needs are actually more forgiving for a missile because the missile only needs enough delta-V to intercept the target, while any delta-V the target expends needs to be repeated up to 3x (burn away, cancel velocity, burn back to original course, cancel velocity) get it back on course to return home. This suggests that space warfare will be conducted with "warships" which are little more than a storage rack and targeting system for long-range missiles. The missiles will be the only part to engage in combat, the launching ship will remain safely away from the fight. Quote: but you would basically need a direct hit. A missile that blows up in space is nothing more than a bunch of expanding gas molecules that will do little if any damage to another object unless it's VERY close. Even in atmosphere much of the damage done by missiles and torpedo's is from very rapid pressure changes, which obviously will not occur in vacuum. Correction: a missile that blows up in space is nothing more than a cloud of expanding kinetic energy weapons. In space the combination of delicate targets and high velocities makes an explosive warhead irrelevant, space missiles will either be nukes or fragmentation warheads with only a small bursting charge to properly spread out the cloud of shrapnel. -----------
Lt Forge Pilots From Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.03.17 07:30:00 - [35] Having trouble with improving technology? Don't worry, go the Star Trek way: Ban all religions
bff Jill	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:09:00 - [36] Because nobody else has one so there is no reason for any country to invest into making one. Maybe if we pool all our isk...
M'ktakh	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:37:00 - [37] Actually, if these warships have enough inertia (and they will), then dead reckoning artillery isn't such a bad idea. The problem with anything that does not hit the target is that its going to fly of into space forever, so its safe to assume that all projectiles are going to have a "dead end switch" that destroys them if they did not hit a target, as to minimize the size of the debris field. Contrary to EVE space, real space is empty, and this gives a hell of a lot of problems. As for fuel needs: rocket equation
Sazkyen	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:38:00 - [38] And who the heck would be the enemy? It's probably a very old argument, but anyone who has the sufficient technology to actually come here could probably vaproize us in two seconds. It's two seconds because the guy would probably have to reach for the button.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:50:00 - [39] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 17/03/2010 09:50:56 Originally by: M'ktakh Actually, if these warships have enough inertia (and they will), then dead reckoning artillery isn't such a bad idea. The problem with anything that does not hit the target is that its going to fly of into space forever, so its safe to assume that all projectiles are going to have a "dead end switch" that destroys them if they did not hit a target, as to minimize the size of the debris field. It's a terrible idea except at very close ranges. Sure, acceleration will be low, but the flight time for an unguided shell is going to be so long that even very small changes in the target's velocity will be enough to cause a miss. Meanwhile, since your shell is unable to move, the target can effortlessly track it and immediately know if it will hit or not (remember, there is no stealth in space). If it will hit, the target shoots down the threat with one of various point defense options. If it won't, well, you just wasted your shot. In a real space war, weapons will either be guided missiles or light-speed lasers/particle beams/etc. -----------
M'ktakh	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:57:00 - [40] Originally by: Merin Ryskin It's a terrible idea except at very close ranges. Should have clarified, I meant close range weapons.
Gunfugue	Posted - 2010.03.17 10:05:00 - [41] due to light speed lag even weapons that move at the speed of light are going to miss. The only real way to ensure you hit a target into space is to shoot it with a shotgun, with a spread that covers the entire possible area the ship could maneuver to with out killing its crew due to g-force And you can do that with regular old bullets A depressing situation then to see you've been fired at, and its going to hit, and moving out of the way would kill you. So you just wait the minutes or hours it will take for the projectiles to impact, almost certainly destroying your ship.
WarlockX Amarr Free Trade Corp	Posted - 2010.03.17 12:26:00 - [42] Originally by: Tavren Darknigh I forget where I heard it but a nuclear explosion in space will supposedly cause a chain reaction that will destroy most of our solar system if not further objects. Kinda puts a damper on those kinds of weapons. captain:"detonate the nuclear warhead" lieutenant:"sir target destroyed but the shock wave is coming back at us" captain:"oh shi...." =TRANSMISSION END= You heard wrong. A nuke in space is actually less deadly then on earth because of the lack of shock wave due to atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------- Free Trade Corp - Flash page
Zyck Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.17 12:53:00 - [43] Originally by: Epegi Givo And doesn't the Geneva Convention have rules against weapons in space? I doubt it. It was written long before it was an issue. I believe you're thinking of the "Outer Space Treaty." Though it is a bit dated.
Zyck Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.17 13:07:00 - [44] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Correction: we don't have the engines to make an "interesting" warship. We have the engines to do it right now, it just isn't "fun" enough to have your battleship spending multiple years to intercept the target, as realistic as it would be. No, it has nothing to do with interesting. Lack of speed means it is not practical, economically or even physically (in terms of the human body). Fuel consumption being one of the main issues, the other being the effects of long-term exposure to space environments on the human body, and life support systems are not efficient enough right now to make this work. Medicine in space is also greatly effected by the 0g and lower pressure environment in spacecraft. Quote: This is true. Shields are pure scifi, and armor is not efficient. Pretty much. While EM shielding has been theorized as a practical means to deflect small particles away from spaceships and even moon colonies, actually making it work on a spacecraft is a whole different ball game. Of course it wouldn't be stopping lasers or missiles like we imagine, but it could keep off the smallest of particles, which are probably the most dangerous ones. Quote: We do. Unfortunately, the political willpower just isn't there to invest the money and time required for a Mars mission. However, once we finally decide to do it, the technology is either already there or will be with a reasonable amount of R&D work. I agree we could, but we don't now. Computers that go into space right now are massively inferior to even the lowliest EVE running desktop or laptop- they need to be hardened against radiation, and have multiple back up systems running anyway. This causes them to be well behind the main development curve. The other main issue would be, has anyone here EVER gone even just 8 months (the approx. travel time to mars for those who don't know) with any computer issues? Not one blue screen, crash, or freeze? Because what's a minor inconvenience on earth could be fatal elsewhere. Quote: Well, obviously you wouldn't just put some AA missiles on the shuttle and call it a fighter, but we already know how to build space missiles. As for fuel needs, the fuel needs are actually more forgiving for a missile because the missile only needs enough delta-V to intercept the target, while any delta-V the target expends needs to be repeated up to 3x (burn away, cancel velocity, burn back to original course, cancel velocity) get it back on course to return home. This suggests that space warfare will be conducted with "warships" which are little more than a storage rack and targeting system for long-range missiles. The missiles will be the only part to engage in combat, the launching ship will remain safely away from the fight. The missile won't only need delta V, they need constant acceleration due to course changes to remain on target. If their target doesn't move you would be right of course, but I can't imagine any ship seeing a missile incoming and not moving at all. They also need to be able to accelerate to their target to begin with, and may not always be launched from a ship moving as fast or in the same direction as the target. This burns a lot of fuel. Quote: Correction: a missile that blows up in space is nothing more than a cloud of expanding kinetic energy weapons. Even these would need to be close. As the "bubble" of shrapnel, for lack of a better term, expands, the chances of a hit drastically decrease. The only way to guarantee damage is to hit very close to the target. A nuke would be in the same situation. After the first split second of the initial explosion the only thing dangerous about it would be the radiation and the tiny pieces of shrapnel. Most spaceships are/would be hardened against radiation far worse than a nuke puts off unless very close. I'm not saying missiles can't be used, but they would need to be rethought completely.
Flap jak Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.03.17 13:21:00 - [45] Originally by: Lashnar Edited by: Lashnar on 17/03/2010 00:59:01 Problem 1: Life support? Problem 2: Shielding, this has already been stated. Problem 3: Since when did we have Ion and Plasma engines... no 360 for you. Problem 4: All the world leaders seem to think: "Hey! Why wisely try to colonize other planets when we have one right here, already taken, and dieing, AND being fought over!" C'mon! We have a friggin' GALAXY! I blame the leaders. They want war, not peace. Too them, it's a giant version of RISK. Edit: And don't tell me Earth is the only habitable planet in the galaxy, A; there's terraforming, B; I believe that is utter bullcrap. Maybe even propaganda... (:D) fyi, we already have ion engines. NASA has for some time. They just suck cuz, they just increase momentum over a long period of time. source __
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2010.03.17 15:00:00 - [46] Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 17/03/2010 15:03:08 Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 17/03/2010 15:02:36 Originally by: M'ktakh Originally by: Merin Ryskin It's a terrible idea except at very close ranges. Should have clarified, I meant close range weapons. A space battle isn't going to be anything like 2 slow, lumbering battleships in the ocean raining shells at each other. They'd be moving far too fast and be far too distant for any unguided weapons to hit. Just look at modern aircraft combat - you need missiles. - Malyutka (The Virus) -
bff Jill	Posted - 2010.03.17 16:59:00 - [47] no, because you will be moving so fast that you only have a limited amount of maneuvering you can do with out splattering everyone against the wall. If a ship is traveling in one direction at a certain speed, it only has a number of possible locations within a fixed timeframe. It would be a cone shape centered along the ships last observed course and speed. The faster the ship is going, the longer and narrower the cone. Further, missiles that want to travel the vast distances between ships are only going to be able to correct their own course many times as it gets new information, and if its not aimed at the right general area of the cone from the start it may still not be able to hit the target. A guided missile could tear itself apart if it tried to correct beyond its own cone. While a guided weapon could certainly have a better chance of hitting than a single dumb projectile, i think the idea of just filling the entire cone with random fire would be better. Remember the ship is moving very fast also, you just need to have something solid intercept it, its own forward movement speed would be enough to kill it. I assume we are talking about ships with crews who live their lives conditioning for sustained 3g combat maneuvering while firing relativistic weapons at each other over distances of thousands of kilometers.
Vogue Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.17 17:20:00 - [48] Edited by: Vogue on 17/03/2010 17:21:50 Edited by: Vogue on 17/03/2010 17:20:48 My best guess is a main ship that can launch many drones. These drones can launch missiles that have 'wobbly' trajectories to evade anti missile lasers. The general idea is to open as many different attack vectors on an enemy ship. A lot of these motherships (actual size er about twice the size of a submarine) would fly in a very large formation net that would be up to 3 light minutes away from another ship. They would use a tactical threat management system similar to US Aegis one that has lots of assets to create a live battlespace picture of what is going on. Once a threat has been found in the big less than real time net attack assets would tighten the net around it hopefully on all axes to create a real time target profile. For armor it would be reactive similar to a concept i think the Isrealis tried a few years ago. If a warhead struck the armor it would make two charged metal plates make contact which would make an explosion in reverse direction to the warhead. A mesh of plates could cover the ship and be replaced. Rabble, rabble making this up
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.03.17 17:35:00 - [49] Edited by: Grimpak on 17/03/2010 17:35:23 only way to get out of the solar system is either: a: developing cryo-suspension systems: cheaper, and I do believe that the tech for such thing isn't far off in the future. b: sub-space/hyperspace/whatev: OMFG SCI-FI GALLORE! unless we find a way to get a wormhole working or summat. this is pretty much tech that we would need no less than a millenium to develop. solution: atm best bet is to just colonize the solar system, which will probably happen in the next 500 years or so. if we don't manage to put ourselves back into the stoneage that is. cryo-suspended colonization teams brings about problems of sociological and psychological order, but probably solvable. problem is number of people and resources to create a self-sustained colony light-years away from solar system. in sum: unless we manage to find a way to break or bend physical laws, we're stuck on this star for the forseeable future. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Culmen Caldari Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.03.17 17:42:00 - [50] Edited by: Culmen on 17/03/2010 17:43:36 Originally by: WarlockX Originally by: Tavren Darknigh I forget where I heard it but a nuclear explosion in space will supposedly cause a chain reaction that will destroy most of our solar system if not further objects. Kinda puts a damper on those kinds of weapons. captain:"detonate the nuclear warhead" lieutenant:"sir target destroyed but the shock wave is coming back at us" captain:"oh shi...." =TRANSMISSION END= You heard wrong. A nuke in space is actually less deadly then on earth because of the lack of shock wave due to atmosphere. WarlockX is correct. The worst that could happen is a temporary deformation of a the radiation belts. Generating an Electromagnetic Pulse that would screw up some of the more sensitive/unshielded electronics on the ground. Originally by: Epegi Givo And doesn't the Geneva Convention have rules against weapons in space? It's not the Geneva Convention, but the Outer Space Treaty and further more why do i even need a sig?
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.03.17 18:07:00 - [51] Edited by: Grimpak on 17/03/2010 18:08:15 Originally by: Tavren Darknigh I forget where I heard it but a nuclear explosion in space will supposedly cause a chain reaction that will destroy most of our solar system if not further objects. Kinda puts a damper on those kinds of weapons. captain:"detonate the nuclear warhead" lieutenant:"sir target destroyed but the shock wave is coming back at us" captain:"oh shi...." =TRANSMISSION END= we are landblasted by the equivalent of several orders of magnitude of hiroshima-level nuke blasts per second. detonating the highest payload nuke we have in proximity of the earth (probably even close orbital space), would only be the equivalent of a very bad solar storm, with probably some circuitry going the way of the dodo. Atmosphere would probably abosorb part of the radiation, while the rest would be dissipated into space. actually, nukes in space doesn't really work that well, since it's basically a large thermal/radiation bomb, which, if sending manned ships to outer space, would be harmless, since such ships would be proprely shielded vs radiation (solar wind most specificaly). a railgun would do more damage. that or some sort of directed plasma container, high-powered lasers or high-payload projectiles. or even missiles, if they manage to impact on the armor. ...wait, I just described the reasoning behind EVE's weapon systems! --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Daphne Mezereum Caldari	Posted - 2010.03.17 19:24:00 - [52] Originally by: Grimpak actually, nukes in space doesn't really work that well, since it's basically a large thermal/radiation bomb, which, if sending manned ships to outer space, would be harmless, since such ships would be proprely shielded vs radiation (solar wind most specificaly). Yes, because we all know that solar radiation has both exactly the same flux and energy composition as the primary and secondary radiation released by a nuclear explosion. I am kind of tempted to write a relatively long-winded analysis of possible space combat mechanics in this thread, but as long as 90% of posters have no clue about inertia (or impulse, or however your teachers called m*v, acceleration, and the laws of conservation (notably energy and inertia), its rather pointless. :physics rage:
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.03.17 19:51:00 - [53] Edited by: Grimpak on 17/03/2010 19:52:03 Originally by: Daphne Mezereum Originally by: Grimpak actually, nukes in space doesn't really work that well, since it's basically a large thermal/radiation bomb, which, if sending manned ships to outer space, would be harmless, since such ships would be proprely shielded vs radiation (solar wind most specificaly). Yes, because we all know that solar radiation has both exactly the same flux and energy composition as the primary and secondary radiation released by a nuclear explosion. it's more because they are radiation/thermal bombs. their range is also quite short. most of the nuke's damage comes from shockwaves, something that it can't be made in outer space. tbh nukes in space really don't work that well, since their AoE in space is like a 10th or so of what is at earth's surface. ..but that's sorta talking out of my ass, and I do agree that my statement contains fallacies --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Daphne Mezereum Caldari	Posted - 2010.03.17 20:08:00 - [54] :hands Grimpak a sarcasm detector: You know, I'd love to see the material that stops the 10MeV gamma-radiation of a nuke without completely degrading. 5-10 meters of heavy concrete will do that, but thats hardly spaceship material. Also, in space, heat is your main enemy, as the only way to get rid of it it by heat radiation, which is rather inefficient. Any heat you give to a spaceships hull will eventually find its way into the internal parts of it. Now, lets imagine the power of a megaton-level explosion (even when quartered/decimated because of the radian difference) absorbed by said shielding material. The material will be **ing hot (essentially rendering it a big **ing welcome party for any IR tracking system), and this heat will be dissipated into the interiors of the ship, cooking the crew alive, even if the gamma radiation did not do that already.
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.03.17 21:16:00 - [55] Edited by: Grimpak on 17/03/2010 21:16:59 Originally by: Daphne Mezereum stuff never said radiation wasn't going to be a problem about making armor plates red hot, only way to make it sorta work for some time, that I know of, is to actually put them away from whatever you are protecting. kinda like having plates strapped on the ship with some space between them and the ship itself (something like plate<--------------x meters of nothing--------------->ship). It still doesn't protect the ship entirely, but it gets harder for the heat itself to approach the ship, altho there's still the IR tracking to worry about as for radiation itself... hmm... having the armour plating of the ship kinda far away from the ship itself might open up for the ability of having magnetic shielding of sorts attached to the plate itself, making it somewhat resistant to radiation. wouldn't trust on such stuff to hold it for long periods of time however, making it still yet another temporary solution. all in all, while death by radiation cooking is quite feasible by blasting a nuke in close quarters to a ship, physical destruction of said ship implies such nuclear device to be either inside said ship or actually very close of it. and by close, I mean less than 1 metre. so nuke deployment for installation/ship demolition purposes on outer space only viable in 2 methods: either high-velocity piercing missile, with delayed detonation (shoot missile -> missile perforates outer plating hitting insides of ship -> detonate), or torpedo-like barrage. another, less feasible method is to actually add some sort of inert mass around the warhead, so that it behaves like shrapnel. problem with such method is, would the shrapnel even survive the blast? --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Guillame Herschel Gallente NME1	Posted - 2010.03.17 21:37:00 - [56] Originally by: masternerdguy Only two problems.... 1. Cost 2. Nobody cares about this for some reason... Perhaps no one cares because there is nothing to shoot at. -- Nah, that's just my Asperger's kickin' in.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.17 22:11:00 - [57] So chicken and egg problem, as soon as we make a space battleship, others will also make them to shoot at. Quote: remember, there is no stealth in space Why not? Granted you should have very good visibility, but i wouldnt call it impossible to at least make something that is hard to detect. Otherwise you for sure dont have to worry about lasers, since i would just make every surface reflective.
M'ktakh	Posted - 2010.03.17 22:17:00 - [58] Originally by: Furb Killer So chicken and egg problem, as soon as we make a space battleship, others will also make them to shoot at. Quote: remember, there is no stealth in space Why not? Granted you should have very good visibility, but i wouldnt call it impossible to at least make something that is hard to detect. Otherwise you for sure dont have to worry about lasers, since i would just make every surface reflective. WTB 0K balckbody coating. WTB 100%, all-angle, all wavelength reflecting material.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.03.17 22:18:00 - [59] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 17/03/2010 22:18:41 Originally by: Furb Killer Why not? Granted you should have very good visibility, but i wouldnt call it impossible to at least make something that is hard to detect. Otherwise you for sure dont have to worry about lasers, since i would just make every surface reflective. Short answer: thermodynamics. Space is cold. Spaceships are not. If your spaceship is doing anything (including having functioning life support for the crew, running electronics, etc) you are generating heat, which means your spaceship can be seen at incredibly long ranges. Long version: read this page. Actually, if you're interested in realistic space travel and warfare, read the entire site. -----------
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.03.17 22:22:00 - [60] Edited by: Grimpak on 17/03/2010 22:22:00 Originally by: Furb Killer Quote: remember, there is no stealth in space Why not? Granted you should have very good visibility, but i wouldnt call it impossible to at least make something that is hard to detect. Otherwise you for sure dont have to worry about lasers, since i would just make every surface reflective. relying on optics in space is bad. you can really see stuff up close. that leaves either detection by radar (can be masked), or by heat source (nigh impossible, since you're masking something above the freezing point of water vs very negative temperatures or sun-heated surfaces). --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.17 22:30:00 - [61] Edited by: Furb Killer on 17/03/2010 22:36:20 Originally by: M'ktakh Originally by: Furb Killer So chicken and egg problem, as soon as we make a space battleship, others will also make them to shoot at. Quote: remember, there is no stealth in space Why not? Granted you should have very good visibility, but i wouldnt call it impossible to at least make something that is hard to detect. Otherwise you for sure dont have to worry about lasers, since i would just make every surface reflective. WTB 0K balckbody coating. WTB 100%, all-angle, all wavelength reflecting material. Granted temperature would be a problem indeed, although i wouldnt call it impossible that fast. The largest problem would be firing a projectile (since we were talking about projectiles) without it heating up too much. But besides that with some liquid helium around the actual projectile for example, it should be possible to keep it at a few kelvin, and background radiation should be sufficient to mask that. And WTB all wavelength laser. Not every wavelength would result in usefull laser, so no need to reflect them all. But since you were asking, any superconductor would do (yeah i realise that would be a bit of a problem, but since we already have liquid helium i would say we could finish that before our battleship is ready for launch). Edit: Personall i would also fill space with cheap decoys.
M'ktakh	Posted - 2010.03.17 22:37:00 - [62] Space is ~3K. Everything above 3K is going to get detected fast. As for lasers: any wavelength that gets absorbed (in a ship deep enough, this will mean 100% of any beam do to distortion and such) is useful.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.17 22:39:00 - [63] Originally by: M'ktakh Space is ~3K. Everything above 3K is going to get detected fast. As for lasers: any wavelength that gets absorbed (in a ship deep enough, this will mean 100% of any beam do to distortion and such) is useful. EM waves cannot possibly penetrate a spherical superconductor. And liquid helium is around that temperature too...
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.03.17 22:50:00 - [64] Originally by: Furb Killer And WTB all wavelength laser. Not every wavelength would result in usefull laser, so no need to reflect them all. Here's the problem: mirrors aren't 100% efficient. The non-zero percentage of the beam that your mirror absorbs will damage the mirror and remove its reflective properties. Quote: Edit: Personall i would also fill space with cheap decoys. Decoys don't work. Once you have a decoy that can match the heat output and thrust to mass ratio (your exhaust is visible, a little math gives you the total thrust the engine is producing, divide observed acceleration by thrust to get the mass of the object) of a real ship, you've got something so large and expensive that you might as well just add some weapons and turn it into a full warship. That said, the decoy equivalent of anti-missile flares will still be useful, but only for the extremely short-term purpose of fooling an incoming weapon long enough to cause it to miss. Originally by: Furb Killer And liquid helium is around that temperature too... So now you have a liquid helium coated un-guided (guidance system = electronics = heat = no more "stealth") that has severely limited velocity (because your launch mechanism can not produce any heat) and probably won't be able to hide from active sensors. When you're talking about something that expensive and complicated, why not just add a guidance system and turn it into a missile? -----------
M'ktakh	Posted - 2010.03.17 23:02:00 - [65] I think "Gauss weapons" might solve the "no heat from weapons" problem. Or at least mitigate it. No need to stick with chemical accelerators.
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.03.17 23:04:00 - [66] how much heat would a rail or coil gun produce in an environment like space? --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.03.17 23:18:00 - [67] Originally by: Grimpak how much heat would a rail or coil gun produce in an environment like space? Railguns: tons of it. In fact, friction between the rails and the projectile is one of the major problems with railguns right now, there's so much heat that you either weld the projectile to the rails, or have to replace the rails after every shot. Needless to say, you aren't going to be hiding your glowing hot railgun projectiles from anyone. Coil gun: in theory, none, as there is no contact between the projectile and the weapon. This of course assumes that you have a way of keeping your projectile cooled to the background temperature until it is fired. However, it doesn't really matter since active sensors will probably spot the incoming projectile anyway. To the firing ship: who cares. You can't stealth it anyway, and your radiators and heat sinks have been designed to match the heat output of your systems. -----------
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.18 07:34:00 - [68] Quote: So now you have a liquid helium coated un-guided (guidance system = electronics = heat = no more "stealth") I would more worry about the thrusters required for guidance. The heat from electronics only will be very little, and with some insulation + your liquid helium it should stay long cold long enough. (Also why the claim from the link you posted earlier that masking heat is impossible due to your living area being 300K is a bit weird. I dont say it is realisticly possible, but theoretical with very good insulation you only have little eat (the amount produced by the electronics, humans, etc) that needs to be radiated into space) And like i said before, a superconductor acts as mirror for EM waves of every frequency (that is if i did pay enough attention when i had that subject).
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.03.18 08:05:00 - [69] Originally by: Furb Killer I would more worry about the thrusters required for guidance. Obviously that gives it away, but the advantage of a guided weapon is that it's much harder to kill. Not only can it dodge un-guided point defense shots, but you need to actually kill it to stop it, not just knock it off course a bit. That means a lot more time with the point defense laser to stop each incoming shot, and much higher chances of the other missiles getting through. Quote: The heat from electronics only will be very little, and with some insulation + your liquid helium it should stay long cold long enough. The problem is ANY heat will show up, and not only will your electronics be generating waste heat, but those delicate systems probably don't work too well at the temperature of liquid helium. If your projectile is anything other than an inert lump of helium-coated rock, you're going to be producing heat, and heat breaks stealth. Quote: (Also why the claim from the link you posted earlier that masking heat is impossible due to your living area being 300K is a bit weird. I dont say it is realisticly possible, but theoretical with very good insulation you only have little eat (the amount produced by the electronics, humans, etc) that needs to be radiated into space) The problem with this idea is that insulation only slows the transfer of heat, it doesn't eliminate it entirely. Without active cooling, eventually your insulation reaches 300k (or at least well above background temperature). And if you try to use some kind of active cooling system, congratulations, you just generated a bunch of waste heat that has to be removed somehow. Now the area around the crew section is a nice .001k, but your radiators are glowing red hot. Worse is the problem of keeping the temperature from going ABOVE 300k. Especially with this awesome insulation working both ways, all the heat generated in the crew section is just going to stay there. Add in waste heat from electronics, your reactor, etc, and you either need to dump the heat (goodbye stealth) or bake your crew. Quote: And like i said before, a superconductor acts as mirror for EM waves of every frequency (that is if i did pay enough attention when i had that subject). Again, the problem is efficiency. Even if the superconductor mirror is 99% efficient, it's still absorbing energy. This is a huge problem, because at the power levels required to make a laser a useful weapon, that 1% is going to damage the mirror, at which point your mirror's efficiency drops even more, producing more damage, etc. -----------
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.18 08:28:00 - [70] Super conductors would get quite a bit above that probably, and should be able to absorb some without too much issues. Downside would be that it doesnt matter that much what you do with your heat signature, since you would light up anyway on every radar screen. And with insulation you of course need to obtain equilibrium, so in the end you need to radiate some heat from electronics, humans, etc like i said. However theoretically you should be able to make it that no additional heating is required for humans. Regarding the operating temperature of electronics, obviously normal components cant be used, but cryogenic electronics are already used (granted i dont think cooled to only a few kelvin, but at least cooled to very low temperatures). Advantage is that thermal noise is minimised (which is something you probably want anyway in your sensor systems). Anyway what we obviously learn from this, it is just easier to hide your super secret battleship armada behind the moon.
Kara Sharalien	Posted - 2010.03.18 09:28:00 - [71] Originally by: Kijo Rikki What about lead shielding? also someone said something to the effect of 'lol plasma drives? ****' so I is gonna link This. Um, how much lead were you planning on lofting into space? Originally by:** Thuul'Khalat WHY YOU VIOLENCE MY BOAT?!
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.03.18 11:57:00 - [72] Originally by: Furb Killer Anyway what we obviously learn from this, it is just easier to hide your super secret battleship armada behind the moon. or active electronic countermesures, like sensor scrambling or chaff or flares of sorts. I've noticed that the more we talk, the more clsoe we get to EVE gameplay there are cloaks in game yes, but they come up very restrictive or in need of specialized hulls, and then the best way to knock someone out of the fight is to make him unable to lock on to anyone. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Yesh SandStorm.	Posted - 2010.03.18 12:48:00 - [73] Originally by: masternerdguy To make a simple interplannetary or local (around earth orbit for example) battleship is well within our current capabilities. We have viable weapon systems such as 1. Missiles 2. Artillary 3. Railguns
Leviathan9 Gallente Astrophysical Engineering War and Pestilence	Posted - 2010.03.18 19:11:00 - [74] Originally by: masternerdguy We have emerging technologies such as carbon nanotubes that could make the structures not only stronger but lighter and therefore less expensive to make. I'm pretty sure carbon nanotubes are pretty expensive to make. They only make strands of it as far as i'm aware, correct me if i'm wrong. Anyway it would probs be more expensive to make something out of carbon nanotubes than titanium and steel and w/e normally materials they use to make space craft.
SkyLordUK Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2010.03.21 04:20:00 - [75] Edited by: SkyLordUK on 21/03/2010 04:24:10 Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Grimpak how much heat would a rail or coil gun produce in an environment like space? Railguns: tons of it. In fact, friction between the rails and the projectile is one of the major problems with railguns right now, there's so much heat that you either weld the projectile to the rails, or have to replace the rails after every shot. Needless to say, you aren't going to be hiding your glowing hot railgun projectiles from anyone. ... Your wrong the whole issue with replacing the rails has been minimized to the extent that there are practical for use the USNavy have their first batch coming out with their new designed crusiers in around 2020-2025 edit: oh yea Specs: Range 220+ nautical miles (1.1miles per 1 NM) Accuracy: 5 meter target at maximum range Muzzle Veloicty: around the Mach 6-7 area Damage: Solid slug > Tomahawk Cruse Missile ROF: 10 shells a minute Alternative ammo: Shrapnel rounds for soft land targets (1000's of ball barrings ) Sky. ---------------------------------------------- Jumping Gates is like a box of sweets You just dont know were the sour one is
Kijo Rikki Caldari Swarm of Angry Bees	Posted - 2010.03.21 05:22:00 - [76] Originally by: Kara Sharalien Originally by: Kijo Rikki What about lead shielding? Um, how much lead were you planning on lofting into space? ALOT. Look, I read it in a Michael Crichton novel, leave me alone! more stupid musings: what are the odds of throwing a phalanx missle point defense system on these things...I bet a single missile wouldn't get through but I bet that's an overwhelming heat generating source. > WHILE SIG<AWESOME DO LOOP there is no escape from my crappy sig.
masternerdguy Gallente Caldari Naval Reserve	Posted - 2010.03.21 05:28:00 - [77] Originally by: Kijo Rikki Originally by: Kara Sharalien Originally by: Kijo Rikki What about lead shielding? Um, how much lead were you planning on lofting into space? ALOT. Look, I read it in a Michael Crichton novel, leave me alone! more stupid musings: what are the odds of throwing a phalanx missle point defense system on these things...I bet a single missile wouldn't get through but I bet that's an overwhelming heat generating source. an alternative might be to use a laser based AMS

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.