Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
BIZZAROSTORMY
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 10:03:00 -
[1]
It seems Autocannons have already been flown in space (apologies if this has ben posted before)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Rikhter_NR-23
The Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 Single-barrel Autocannon. In one of the more bizarre applications, published accounts state that a Nudelman-Rikhter gun, either the 23 mm or the 30 mm, was installed on the Almaz military variants of the Salyut space stations.
The station successfully remotely test-fired an onboard aircraft cannon at a target satellite while the station was unmanned. Salyut-3 was deorbited in January 1975.
|
Flynn Fetladral
Brutal Deliverance
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 10:49:00 -
[2]
I'd say the Russians, and USA have done a lot of space weapon RND and testing over the last few decades. China has also been doing some. The US has always talked about 'Full Spectrum' dominance. Land, Sea, Air and Space. The thing is, do we really want to rush to weaponise space? Many programs we know about have been cancelled over the years, but what about the ones we don't know about. We do know that there is a lot of money going into rail guns and lasers, electric rapid fire projectile weapons also would be better than traditional autocannons and gunpowder. I think the biggest issue is not the weapons themselves but how do we power them? Non gunpower weapons use huge amounts of power, and right now the solutions powering them on the ground is not practical in space.
|
Ran Khanon
Amarr Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 10:54:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Flynn Fetladral I'd say the Russians, and USA have done a lot of space weapon RND and testing over the last few decades. China has also been doing some. The US has always talked about 'Full Spectrum' dominance. Land, Sea, Air and Space. The thing is, do we really want to rush to weaponise space? Many programs we know about have been cancelled over the years, but what about the ones we don't know about. We do know that there is a lot of money going into rail guns and lasers, electric rapid fire projectile weapons also would be better than traditional autocannons and gunpowder. I think the biggest issue is not the weapons themselves but how do we power them? Non gunpower weapons use huge amounts of power, and right now the solutions powering them on the ground is not practical in space.
Solar powered death rays with the use of large mirrors or ... spaceship robots hooking up to small asteroids and directing them slowly but steadily on a crash course with a country of your choice (with a slight error margin) ^_^
Recruiting! |
Flynn Fetladral
Brutal Deliverance
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 10:59:00 -
[4]
Lol yeah! furthermore, I think the USA needs to maybe spend the money on getting a new launch system, as apposed to shooting lasers in space. rocket/scramjet runway takeoff launch systems for the win!
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Amicus Morte Shock an Awe
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 11:23:00 -
[5]
Nice find.
I especially appreciated the paragraph about the dangers of bullets intersecting your own orbit later on Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenĘt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie
|
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 11:36:00 -
[6]
The United States has maintained a policy of not weaponizing space since the cold war ended, for fear of the military and civilian satellites it and its allies rely on (and have an edge in) becoming considered legitimate targets by the rules and customs of war.
|
Noemie
Caldari Dark Sacred Night
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 12:46:00 -
[7]
And it seems that the most effective space weapon ....
Sand Shreds everything -------
|
Flynn Fetladral
Brutal Deliverance
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 13:04:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Flynn Fetladral on 11/10/2010 13:09:26
Originally by: Emperor Cheney The United States has maintained a policy of not weaponizing space since the cold war ended, for fear of the military and civilian satellites it and its allies rely on (and have an edge in) becoming considered legitimate targets by the rules and customs of war.
They still do RnD on the weapons and the theory, they just never put them 'in space'. ASAT projects are more tangible and cheaper, the last demonstrations being in 2008 (and China in 2007). The issue is you can blow up satellites in low and polar orbits right now, today (and for like the last 20 or so years). So, if Russia, China, and the US can blow up civil and or military satellites right now (India is also developing its own ASAT program), then how long does it take these countries to develop methods to protect their military (comms/imaging) satellites themselves. Most deploy some form of light ballistic armour today, but obviously that is pretty insufficient. Ladies and gentlemen, the arms race of the future. To be honest, I'd rather see the money going towards civil projects to make space access cheaper, seems more useful than spending it on how to blow up satellites, or repel a interception.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |