EVE Search - How powerful are the weapons in EVE?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

How powerful are the weapons in EVE?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:06:00 - [1] Edited by: DubanFP on 22/08/2007 18:07:55 I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Even the cruiser sized heavy missiles have to be multi-megaton warheads easily capable of leveling cities. Even the torpedo arsenal of 1 Raven would be capable of leveling an entire planet with warheads ranging in the hundreds of megatons. And never mind sieged citadels. They would probably be multi-gigaton warheads. The soot from 1 salvo alone would probably be enough to render an entire planet uninhabitable. The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Ather Ialeas Amarr Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:09:00 - [2] Considering lasers have enough power to form only a few meter long and few cm thick beams, stargates have mass which is more than a dozen singularities in one, nothing ever orbits anything and flying physics are basically zero-G submarines submerged in water...yep, fits perfectly to the picture [ insert fancy sig here ]
Arknox Minmatar Darkadians	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:16:00 - [3] imagine getting with by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm ---------- Originally by: JeanPierre You need to examine Minmatar ships bro. No kidding, I tried to Salvage one last night. Took me 20 cycles before the pilot convoed me and told me to stop it.
Illyria Ambri RennTech	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:16:00 - [4] Originally by: DubanFP Edited by: DubanFP on 22/08/2007 18:07:55 I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Even the cruiser sized heavy missiles have to be multi-megaton warheads easily capable of leveling cities. Even the torpedo arsenal of 1 Raven would be capable of leveling an entire planet with warheads ranging in the hundreds of megatons. And never mind sieged citadels. They would probably be multi-gigaton warheads. The soot from 1 salvo alone would probably be enough to render an entire planet uninhabitable. The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Ok.. your point? ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek Here come the Drums!! - The Master
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:18:00 - [5] Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Well, that depends. Given the miniaturization that 40,000 years of technological development could bring, it's conceivable that very small nuclear warheads could be more effective than their equivalent weight in chemical-based explosive, and only nuclear warheads are capable of producing a significant EM shockwave. I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 400 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:18:00 - [6] Edited by: Tarminic on 22/08/2007 18:28:42 Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Well, that depends. Given the miniaturization that 40,000 years of technological development could bring, it's conceivable that very small nuclear warheads could be more effective than their equivalent weight in chemical-based explosive, and only nuclear warheads are capable of producing a significant EM shockwave. I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about ~~400~~ 20 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. EDIT: Manage to confuse 400 kilotons with 20 kilotons. Whoops! ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:22:00 - [7] Originally by: DubanFP The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Not true actually! In space there's no real concussion from a missile explosion, so the primary damage is a factor of the surface of the ship exposed to the blast (think sig radius). So missile weapons are actually fairly well-focused in space. Blasters might not work well in atmosphere, unfortunately. And given their limited range they may have a hard time reaching all the way through the atmosphere from upper orbit. If they could, however, they would have a devastating effect on a civilian populace. It would basically blanket a couple square acres with plasma. Railguns and Artillery would function much like standard weapons do now, and as for lasers...they could be terrible weapons of mass destruction. Battleship-sized lasers piercing an atmosphere would burn off oxygen and other atmospheric components in huge volumes. It's not completely unrealistic to think that a sustained bombardment of many laser-wielding battleships could render a planet's atmosphere significantly less habitable. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:22:00 - [8] Originally by: DubanFP The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Not true actually! In space there's no real concussion from a missile explosion, so the primary damage is a factor of the surface of the ship exposed to the blast (think sig radius). So missile weapons are actually fairly well-focused in space. Blasters might not work well in atmosphere, unfortunately. And given their limited range they may have a hard time reaching all the way through the atmosphere from upper orbit. If they could, however, they would have a devastating effect on a civilian populace. It would basically blanket a couple square acres with plasma. Railguns and Artillery would function much like standard weapons do now, and as for lasers...they could be terrible weapons of mass destruction. Battleship-sized lasers piercing an atmosphere would burn off oxygen and other atmospheric components in huge volumes. It's not completely unrealistic to think that a sustained bombardment of many laser-wielding battleships could render a planet's atmosphere significantly less habitable. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Nachshon Caldari Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:24:00 - [9] Edited by: Nachshon on 22/08/2007 18:25:53 I imagine that the phalanx rocket is even smaller than the smallest modern tac-nukes. Nuclear weapons have a far greater yield:size ratio than conventional explosives, so it makes sense to develop smaller nukes. Light missiles are probably on par with the smallest tac-nukes - the kind you use to level tank columns. Heavy missiles are around Hiroshima scale. Cruise missiles and torpedoes would be in the multi-megaton range - a single stealth bomber could easily level a city in one salvo. Citadel torpedoes - well, they use noxcium warheads, not nuclear. That is on the level of a volcanic eruption. And several salvoes could probably cripple a planet's agriculture with all that ash. This is probably the same as the yield for projectiles. Railguns are more precise, but damage a smaller area. Bombarding a city with capital railguns would not necessarily turn it to parking lot, but it would make it very unpleasant. ____________________________________ Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship. The True Meaning of Freedom
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:24:00 - [10] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Well, that depends. Given the miniaturization that 40,000 years of technological development could bring, it's conceivable that very small nuclear warheads could be more effective than their equivalent weight in chemical-based explosive, and only nuclear warheads are capable of producing a significant EM shockwave. I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 400 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. Dude i don't know where you got your numbers from. But the bomb that was dropped on hiroshoma was only about 20 Kt. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Nachshon Caldari Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:24:00 - [11] Edited by: Nachshon on 22/08/2007 18:25:53 I imagine that the phalanx rocket is even smaller than the smallest modern tac-nukes. Nuclear weapons have a far greater yield:size ratio than conventional explosives, so it makes sense to develop smaller nukes. Light missiles are probably on par with the smallest tac-nukes - the kind you use to level tank columns. Heavy missiles are around Hiroshima scale. Cruise missiles and torpedoes would be in the multi-megaton range - a single stealth bomber could easily level a city in one salvo. Citadel torpedoes - well, they use noxcium warheads, not nuclear. That is on the level of a volcanic eruption. And several salvoes could probably cripple a planet's agriculture with all that ash. This is probably the same as the yield for projectiles. Railguns are more precise, but damage a smaller area. Bombarding a city with capital railguns would not necessarily turn it to parking lot, but it would make it very unpleasant. ____________________________________ Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship. The True Meaning of Freedom
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:24:00 - [12] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Well, that depends. Given the miniaturization that 40,000 years of technological development could bring, it's conceivable that very small nuclear warheads could be more effective than their equivalent weight in chemical-based explosive, and only nuclear warheads are capable of producing a significant EM shockwave. I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 400 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. Dude i don't know where you got your numbers from. But the bomb that was dropped on hiroshoma was only about 20 Kt. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:26:00 - [13] But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:26:00 - [14] But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:28:00 - [15] Edited by: Tarminic on 22/08/2007 18:28:00 Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DubanFP Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 400 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. Dude i don't know where you got your numbers from. But the bomb that was dropped on hiroshoma was only about 20 Kt. Wikipedia confirms my error. Whoops. I'll correct my post accordingly. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Snake Jankins But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. Explosion radius seems more to me how far away from the target the missile explodes, or it's accuracy. At 400M a target "with shields/armor" I would think would stand a good chance of surviving considered these things ARE armored. That and i always figured armor has to have some sort of energy field running through to to keep it's integrity. There's no way a standard chemical bond could hold together under a frickin nuke. No matter how small. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:31:00 - [17] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Snake Jankins But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. Explosion radius seems more to me how far away from the target the missile explodes, or it's accuracy. At 400M a target "with shields/armor" I would think would stand a good chance of surviving considered these things ARE armored. Also, in space there's no concussion so the damage dealt is completely a factor of the amount of the ship exposed to the blast. A small ship would indeed take more damage simply because they would be exposed to a very small subset of the blast's actual damage. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Soratah Amarr The Aegis Militia Aegis Militia	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:35:00 - [18] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Snake Jankins But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. Explosion radius seems more to me how far away from the target the missile explodes, or it's accuracy. At 400M a target "with shields/armor" I would think would stand a good chance of surviving considered these things ARE armored. That and i always figured armor has to have some sort of energy field running through to to keep it's integrity. There's no way a standard chemical bond could hold together under a frickin nuke. No matter how small. Of course they can we're dealing with a blanket effect from a nuclear detonation that loses all of it's energy in the first few meters of the explosion. The damage is coming from heat (In a realistic nuclear effect) Also becase it's large volumes of energy released we're dealing with energy in wave form with those properties. To break the bonding at the atomic level the atom itself needs to be hit with another atom carrying an energy level of the detonation. On the whole, not much would survive damage from the ship's weapons IF in the atmosphere because force can be transposed through atmosphere. In space, none so weaponry is significantly reduced in scope (for this time period) In regards to scale. One of the Titan's weapons would be like a meteor hitting the planet (if projectile) If laser or Blaster then it would literally burn away huge holes in the atmosphere as well as pretty much glass the ground. A single shot from one of those would be BAD news for people living there. So I would guess there must be something to protect against that kind of bombardment.
Nocturnal Avenger The Ankou The Reckoning.	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:36:00 - [19] RL calcs used in a fictive world are bound to fail. - Carebear Pirate -
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:39:00 - [20] Originally by: Nocturnal Avenger RL calcs used in a fictive world are bound to fail. If the world itself is fictional, how can they fail? You can't dispute their accuracy. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:46:00 - [21] think of getting hit by a minicooper packed full of nuclear weapons thats 1400 mm arty Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums: Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Sicarri Covenant	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:56:00 - [22] Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 22/08/2007 18:57:02 Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking ~Liz Kali
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:00:00 - [23] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 22/08/2007 18:57:02 Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile You gotta realize the size of the projectile increases by a poewr of 3. Twice the the caliber, 8x the physical volume. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:04:00 - [24] Well a weapon discharge from an Avatar royally screwed over a planet (storyline from some months ago), kind of on the 'mass extinction event' which implies at least hundreds of thousands of MT range, if not Millions of MT range. Other than that you don't really know, there are references to large artifical canyons being gouged by tachyon siege lasers, and some rather nice fan art (Iron Tide) depicting large detonations on the surface of a planet. ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Kharadran Sullath Caldari IntoXication Inc	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:07:00 - [25] Edited by: Kharadran Sullath on 22/08/2007 19:07:35 3500mm dpu round. I can imagine a good few people would become quite discontent if that landed anywhere on the same continent ------ --Don't get saucy with me Bernaise!--
Illyria Ambri RennTech	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:13:00 - [26] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 22/08/2007 18:57:02 Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile 155mm howitzer shell can be picked up by 1 strong person. Though 2 ppl to move them is the norm. 109mm howitzer shell has a diameter smaller then a basketball.. actually its about the diameter of a football (and I'm talkin American football.. not soccer :P ) and is about 1.5 - 2 feet long. This is laymans experience.. though I haven't had to load a 109mm howitzer in a few years.. those are basic size comparisons. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek Here come the Drums!! - The Master
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:15:00 - [27] Edited by: Matalino on 22/08/2007 19:20:08 Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile Yet a single round will take less cargo space than a 40 US-gallon (151.4 litres) barrel. Not only that, but it only weighs 1 kg. Originally by:* CCP Prism X P.S. If you think you're reading some information through the lines here, you're wrong. I'm actually just bored.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:17:00 - [28] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Well a weapon discharge from an Avatar royally screwed over a planet (storyline from some months ago), kind of on the 'mass extinction event' which implies at least hundreds of thousands of MT range, if not Millions of MT range. Based on my previous calculations a Doomsday Device would a yield somewhere between 20 and 40 megatons, so certainly enough to have some climate-altering properties. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:21:00 - [29] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Gabriel Karade Well a weapon discharge from an Avatar royally screwed over a planet (storyline from some months ago), kind of on the 'mass extinction event' which implies at least hundreds of thousands of MT range, if not Millions of MT range. Based on my previous calculations a Doomsday Device would a yield somewhere between 20 and 40 megatons, so certainly enough to have some climate-altering properties. The largest ever nuclear bomb detonated was along the lines of 50 Megatons the Tsar Bomba. There's no way in hell the titan's Blast was only 20 to 40 Megatons. You can see the think from several AU away. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Sicarri Covenant	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:26:00 - [30] Originally by: Matalino Edited by: Matalino on 22/08/2007 19:20:08 Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile Yet a single round will take less cargo space than a 40 US-gallon (151.4 litres) barrel. Not only that, but it only weighs 1 kg. that's cause it's THE FUTURE!!!! Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking ~Liz Kali
maria stallion Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:26:00 - [31] I think the firepower of the guns in the early days of eve was much stronger :P
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:34:00 - [32] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Gabriel Karade Well a weapon discharge from an Avatar royally screwed over a planet (storyline from some months ago), kind of on the 'mass extinction event' which implies at least hundreds of thousands of MT range, if not Millions of MT range. Based on my previous calculations a Doomsday Device would a yield somewhere between 20 and 40 megatons, so certainly enough to have some climate-altering properties. no no no... we're talking mass extinction event... There have been over five hundred atmospheric nuclear weapon tests including the 57 MT Soviet monster - they are totally insignificant, feeble even, next to a genuine mass extinction event such as a large asteroid impact. Hundreds of thousands of MT is a lower limit. I don't think you could really infer much from game numbers either- they're for game balancing, for 'realistic' numbers you'd have to look into the backstory ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:41:00 - [33] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Gabriel Karade Well a weapon discharge from an Avatar royally screwed over a planet (storyline from some months ago), kind of on the 'mass extinction event' which implies at least hundreds of thousands of MT range, if not Millions of MT range. Based on my previous calculations a Doomsday Device would a yield somewhere between 20 and 40 megatons, so certainly enough to have some climate-altering properties. no no no... we're talking mass extinction event... There have been over five hundred atmospheric nuclear weapon tests including the 57 MT Soviet monster - they are totally insignificant, feeble even, next to a genuine mass extinction event such as a large asteroid impact. Hundreds of thousands of MT is a lower limit. I don't think you could really infer much from game numbers either- they're for game balancing, for 'realistic' numbers you'd have to look into the backstory Hrm...you make a good point actually. In that case my calculations cannot safely apply to a Doomsday Device. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Dracborne Mining Bytes Inc. Mass Destruction.	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:43:00 - [34] Considering the 16" guns on Iowa class battleships are only 406.4 millimeters and weigh between 1900 and 2700 pounds, the 1400mm Arties would be roughly 55" in diameter and weigh something ungodly. The destructive power of the 1400mm would be off the carts as well considering the payload in the descriptions of some of the Large Projectile ammo. Your signature image exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tOde keimetha tois keinon rhTmasi peithomenoi.
Shaikar Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:58:00 - [35] Originally by: DubanFP The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Random nuclear power station, courtesy of google, total rated output 1220MW. T1 Megapulse, base required power source, 2500MW. Some silly numbers there.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:02:00 - [36] Edited by: DubanFP on 22/08/2007 20:04:52 Originally by: Nachshon This is probably the same as the yield for projectiles. Railguns are more precise, but damage a smaller area. Bombarding a city with capital railguns would not necessarily turn it to parking lot, but it would make it very unpleasant. Well think about the immense "but precise" railguns for a moment. Wouldn't an iron rod going at 1/10th the speed of light tend to create a rather significant seismic event? I would think the shockwave would travel through the ground and collapse the foundation of pretty much any building in a pretty wide radius. No foundation = no building. Also when you think about cap usage and PG i always thought that PG isn't an amount of energy that flows through everything, rather then the Grid the power flows on. A megathron is only capable of throwing out soo much energy from the capacitor so fast. You can't have your modules using more Power then your systems can transfer around. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:06:00 - [37] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Nachshon This is probably the same as the yield for projectiles. Railguns are more precise, but damage a smaller area. Bombarding a city with capital railguns would not necessarily turn it to parking lot, but it would make it very unpleasant. Well think about the immense "but precise" railguns for a moment. Wouldn't an iron rod going at 1/10th the speed of light tend to create a rather significant seismic event? I would think the shockwave would travel through the ground and collapse the foundation of pretty much any building in a pretty wide radius. No foundation = no building. Agreed. The Railguns the US navy is going to start using in the next five years or so will have the same impact of a 21-inch battleship-mounted weapon from WW2. The kinetic impact of a projectile travelling at 3500 meters a second is incredible, even if it is just a relatively small metal slug. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Maaku	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:06:00 - [38] Originally by: Tortun Nahme think of getting hit by a minicooper packed full of nuclear weapons thats 1400 mm arty Borrowing from http://www.omgrawr.net/ here: <Cro_Magnus> what I don't get is why people bother with "mm" as a caliber after 1000... I mean... 1400mm, why not call it "Mobile car launcher" and have done with it? <Cro_Magnus> 1400mm shells basically equate to the ship firing volksvagens at high speed <Cro_Magnus> knowing minmatar that's probably what they are firing too <Wrangler> except they are projectiles, not cars, and explosive <Cro_Magnus> car @ several thousand meters per second = projectile <Cro_Magnus> car loaded with fuel impacting ship = explosive <Cro_Magnus> your point? <Fenria> GAAAAH Captain... there is a beetle heading our way at 18kps <Wrangler> OMG! We're being attacked by volkswagens!"! <Fenria> DAMN THOSE GERMANS * Wrangler fires counter measure trabants
Mamarto Minmatar Dead Pirates' Society	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:17:00 - [39] Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm That's pretty much a fuel tanker truck! That actually makes sense you know, now we know how they make xl phased plasma rounds.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:18:00 - [40] Edited by: DubanFP on 22/08/2007 20:18:10 Originally by: Mamarto Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm That's pretty much a fuel tanker truck! That actually makes sense you know, now we know how they make xl phased plasma rounds. You forgot to mention that the shell is nuclear tipped. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Illyria Ambri RennTech	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:26:00 - [41] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Nachshon This is probably the same as the yield for projectiles. Railguns are more precise, but damage a smaller area. Bombarding a city with capital railguns would not necessarily turn it to parking lot, but it would make it very unpleasant. Well think about the immense "but precise" railguns for a moment. Wouldn't an iron rod going at 1/10th the speed of light tend to create a rather significant seismic event? I would think the shockwave would travel through the ground and collapse the foundation of pretty much any building in a pretty wide radius. No foundation = no building. Agreed. The Railguns the US navy is going to start using in the next five years or so will have the same impact of a 21-inch battleship-mounted weapon from WW2. The kinetic impact of a projectile travelling at 3500 meters a second is incredible, even if it is just a relatively small metal slug. Not sure where you are getting your information but there are nor were there ever any guns on a boat larger then the IJN Yamato's 18.1 inch guns. The Gustav Gun, circa WWII,(rail car mounted) The biggest gun ever built, it weighed a crushing 1344 tons, including its railway carriage. With its breech block, the entire machine stood 4 stories tall, 20 ft. wide and 140 ft. long. Moving, positioning, loading and maintaining this monster required a 500-man crew commanded by a major general. The Gustav's 800mm bore accepted two giant projectiles: a 10,584-pound high-explosive shell and a 16,540-pound concrete-piercing shell. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek Here come the Drums!! - The Master
Stitcher Caldari legion of qui Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:31:00 - [42] Edited by: Stitcher on 22/08/2007 20:33:05 Edited by: Stitcher on 22/08/2007 20:32:38 The largest gun ever fired in human history thus far was a German 800mm artillery cannon. It fired a total of 14 rounds throughout its career, and completely leveled 14 buildings. The American "Big Bertha" howitzer was larger at 830mm, but was never fired. The Minmatar "Hurricane"-class battlecruiser can fit seven 720mm artillery cannons. By the standards of EVE,therefore, the largest and most insanely powerful weapons ever devised by the human arts of war are cruiser-grade weaponry, give or take. - The game is not the problem. The problem is that you are not adapting to the game.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:32:00 - [43] Originally by: Illyria Ambri Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Nachshon This is probably the same as the yield for projectiles. Railguns are more precise, but damage a smaller area. Bombarding a city with capital railguns would not necessarily turn it to parking lot, but it would make it very unpleasant. Well think about the immense "but precise" railguns for a moment. Wouldn't an iron rod going at 1/10th the speed of light tend to create a rather significant seismic event? I would think the shockwave would travel through the ground and collapse the foundation of pretty much any building in a pretty wide radius. No foundation = no building. Agreed. The Railguns the US navy is going to start using in the next five years or so will have the same impact of a 21-inch battleship-mounted weapon from WW2. The kinetic impact of a projectile travelling at 3500 meters a second is incredible, even if it is just a relatively small metal slug. Not sure where you are getting your information but there are nor were there ever any guns on a boat larger then the IJN Yamato's 18.1 inch guns. You're right. I was referring specifically to the guns on the Yamato, but I have no idea why I thought 21 instead of 18. I'll correct. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Grez Minmatar Sybrite Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:33:00 - [44] There was a super old discussion about this a few years ago, and I believe the Tachyon Beam came out on top as the most powerful weapon in EVE if it were ever to come to fruition. Some serious math was done to get the result too... ---
Illyria Ambri RennTech	Posted - 2007.08.22 20:43:00 - [45] Originally by: Grez There was a super old discussion about this a few years ago, and I believe the Tachyon Beam came out on top as the most powerful weapon in EVE if it were ever to come to fruition. Some serious math was done to get the result too... Is a TackyOn anything like a StickIt? or a PostIt? ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek Here come the Drums!! - The Master
Tarazed Aquilae	Posted - 2007.08.22 21:25:00 - [46] Originally by: Dracborne Edited by: Dracborne on 22/08/2007 19:57:01 Considering the 16" guns on Iowa class battleships are only 406.4 millimeters and weigh between 1900 and 2700 pounds, the 1400mm Arties would be roughly 55" in diameter and weigh something ungodly. The destructive power of the 1400mm's would be off the carts as well, considering the payload in the descriptions of some of the Large Projectile ammo. From memory your numbers are right. If you double the diameter of a shell but keep the proportions the same you have eight times the volume. 1,400mm artillery would be roughly 3.5 times the diameter of a 16ö gun and that means it would have over 42 times the volume. (The proportions on the shell might change so IÆm rounding some.) That means the shell would weigh about 113,400 pounds. Only about half of a shells weight is explosive though so that means you have 56,700 pounds of HE in that shell. ThatÆs over 28 tons. We are talking about enough to level city blocks. A Minmatar battleship might have 6 of these and be able to fire them every 20 seconds. That translates into being able to drop over thirty thousand tons of explosives into a target in an hour. (It would need some serious hauler support to supply the ammo.) All of this is assuming itÆs using conventional chemical explosives. As a minimum then, an Eve battleship has enough firepower to cripple any city in minutes, any nation in hours, and an entire planet in a day.
Grez Minmatar Sybrite Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.22 21:28:00 - [47] Originally by: Illyria Ambri Originally by: Grez There was a super old discussion about this a few years ago, and I believe the Tachyon Beam came out on top as the most powerful weapon in EVE if it were ever to come to fruition. Some serious math was done to get the result too... Is a TackyOn anything like a StickIt? or a PostIt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon ---
Jimer Lins Gallente Sanctuary	Posted - 2007.08.22 21:36:00 - [48] Modern land-based artillery can be 203mm (8-inch) quite easily, and there have been tactical nuclear devices launched by artillery shells. Nobody uses them, but they do exist. Naval guns can be 16 inch or even larger. The shells they fire weigh as much as a small car, hence the old joke of saying something like "Volkswagens in effect". The biggest issue with the use of artillery and solid projectile-based weapons in a space game is simply that the shells have to travel to the target, and that takes time, which would make them pretty much impractical in real life. Still, it's fun to think about a ship launching solid shells more than a foot across. ;) SEARCh- we find sites for you!
DJ P	Posted - 2007.08.22 21:59:00 - [49] There is one parameter you forgot. Gravity and gravitational fields. The bigger the bullet on Earth the more propelant/explosives you need. In space a significal smaller amound of propelant/explosive can sent a 1400mm car eeer bullet, faster, farther and with more accuracy in straight line :) So 3500mm is still fine. :)
Jimer Lins Gallente Sanctuary	Posted - 2007.08.22 22:12:00 - [50] Originally by: DJ P There is one parameter you forgot. Gravity and gravitational fields. The bigger the bullet on Earth the more propelant/explosives you need. In space a significal smaller amound of propelant/explosive can sent a 1400mm car eeer bullet, faster, farther and with more accuracy in straight line :) So 3500mm is still fine. :) The fastest-traveling projectiles we can currently produce would take several seconds to travel the shortest distances most combat occurs at in this game. Tamount of energy required to make projectiles move at near relatvistic speeds, which would be required to achieve the instant impact we see in the game, is impractical to be able to apply; no substance could survive the application of that much power, and certainly no devices such as a nuclear warhead. Also, the amount of energy required to launch something at those speeds would be problematic for the launching ship. SEARCh- we find sites for you!
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 22:23:00 - [51] Edited by: DubanFP on 22/08/2007 22:23:56 Originally by: Jimer Lins Originally by: DJ P There is one parameter you forgot. Gravity and gravitational fields. The bigger the bullet on Earth the more propelant/explosives you need. In space a significal smaller amound of propelant/explosive can sent a 1400mm car eeer bullet, faster, farther and with more accuracy in straight line :) So 3500mm is still fine. :) The fastest-traveling projectiles we can currently produce would take several seconds to travel the shortest distances most combat occurs at in this game. Tamount of energy required to make projectiles move at near relatvistic speeds, which would be required to achieve the instant impact we see in the game, is impractical to be able to apply; no substance could survive the application of that much power, and certainly no devices such as a nuclear warhead. Also, the amount of energy required to launch something at those speeds would be problematic for the launching ship. 1st. this game is futuristic. 2nd. They can launch railgun rounds up to speeds where it compares with nuclear missiles in damage. I think there's no problem with "enough projectile force". 3)Who's to say shells aren't projected by weaker railguns? Just they have explosive shells rather then kinetic ones. Then you could reach pretty high speeds. I mean if you can launch a rail at a speed to create comparable energy to a nuke it's sure going to beat the hell out of anything we have today. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Arakidias Murky Inc. FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.22 22:38:00 - [52] Originally by: Tarazed Aquilae Originally by: Dracborne Edited by: Dracborne on 22/08/2007 19:57:01 Considering the 16" guns on Iowa class battleships are only 406.4 millimeters and weigh between 1900 and 2700 pounds, the 1400mm Arties would be roughly 55" in diameter and weigh something ungodly. The destructive power of the 1400mm's would be off the carts as well, considering the payload in the descriptions of some of the Large Projectile ammo. From memory your numbers are right. If you double the diameter of a shell but keep the proportions the same you have eight times the volume. 1,400mm artillery would be roughly 3.5 times the diameter of a 16ö gun and that means it would have over 42 times the volume. (The proportions on the shell might change so IÆm rounding some.) That means the shell would weigh about 113,400 pounds. Only about half of a shells weight is explosive though so that means you have 56,700 pounds of HE in that shell. ThatÆs over 28 tons. We are talking about enough to level city blocks. A Minmatar battleship might have 6 of these and be able to fire them every 20 seconds. That translates into being able to drop over thirty thousand tons of explosives into a target in an hour. (It would need some serious hauler support to supply the ammo.) All of this is assuming itÆs using conventional chemical explosives. As a minimum then, an Eve battleship has enough firepower to cripple any city in minutes, any nation in hours, and an entire planet in a day. Actually the bursting charge for a battleship gun was much less than 50%. For example, a Type 0 18" japanese high explosive shell weighed 1360kg and had a bursting charge of 61.7kg. That's about 4.5%. It was half of that for the armor piercing shell. The percentage was somewhat higher for smaller calibre shells and some foreign shell types, but never exceeded 10% for battleship calibre shells.
Atama Cardel GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.08.22 22:46:00 - [53] Originally by: Nachshon Edited by: Nachshon on 22/08/2007 18:25:53 I imagine that the phalanx rocket is even smaller than the smallest modern tac-nukes. Nuclear weapons have a far greater yield:size ratio than conventional explosives, so it makes sense to develop smaller nukes. Well, you can really only make a nuclear weapon so small you need a certain amount of mass, this is called critical mass, to be able to start the chain reaction. I think the smallest nuclear weapon that has been able to be made was in a 60 mm (correct me if I'm wrong)shell during the cold war. Then again eve is not real life so whatever floats your boat
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 22:46:00 - [54] Originally by: Jimer Lins The fastest-traveling projectiles we can currently produce would take several seconds to travel the shortest distances most combat occurs at in this game. Tamount of energy required to make projectiles move at near relatvistic speeds, which would be required to achieve the instant impact we see in the game, is impractical to be able to apply; no current substance could survive the application of that much power, and certainly no devices such as a current nuclear warhead. Also, the amount of energy required to launch something at those speeds would be problematic for the launching ship. Fixed. While the amount of energy needed and quality of materials needed certainly seems insane by today's standards, this IS at least 40 thousand years in the future. Remember that a few hundred years ago someone calculated the energy needed to escape earth's gravitational field and wrote it off because there was no way someone could ever produce that much energy in a single location. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.22 22:48:00 - [55] everything used to be impossible, someday, nothing will be Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums: Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
Jimer Lins Gallente Sanctuary	Posted - 2007.08.22 22:54:00 - [56] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Jimer Lins The fastest-traveling projectiles we can currently produce would take several seconds to travel the shortest distances most combat occurs at in this game. Tamount of energy required to make projectiles move at near relatvistic speeds, which would be required to achieve the instant impact we see in the game, is impractical to be able to apply; no current substance could survive the application of that much power, and certainly no devices such as a current nuclear warhead. Also, the amount of energy required to launch something at those speeds would be problematic for the launching ship. Fixed. While the amount of energy needed and quality of materials needed certainly seems insane by today's standards, this IS at least 40 thousand years in the future. Remember that a few hundred years ago someone calculated the energy needed to escape earth's gravitational field and wrote it off because there was no way someone could ever produce that much energy in a single location. While it's true that any sufficiently advanced technology shall be indistinguishable from magic- and I should avoid making absolute pronouncements, I think it's safe to say that there's certain things that just won't work unless the laws of physics change. I mean, we know now that the universe isn't truly newtownian, but actions have reactions, and the amount of energy required to accelerate an object is going to produce an effect by the platform doing the acceleration. There's a practical upper limit to the mass of any object you can move or the amount of energy you can impart to it, simply because past a certain point you'll push yourself away or more likely, destroy your ship. ;) I need to find someone to crunch the numbers on how much energy would be required to launch a 1400mm projectile fast enough to reach a target 50km away at a speed so fast that a human being couldn't detect any lag between shot and impact. That would be useful for determining how much mass the firing platform would require and how strong the projectile would have to be in order not to be reduced to plasma. Of course, maybe that's how it works. ;) SEARCh- we find sites for you!
Sleepkevert Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.22 22:58:00 - [57] Quote: <Cro_Magnus> what I don't get is why people bother with "mm" as a caliber after 1000... I mean... 1400mm, why not call it "Mobile car launcher" and have done with it? <Cro_Magnus> 1400mm shells basically equate to the ship firing volksvagens at high speed <Cro_Magnus> knowing minmatar that's probably what they are firing too <Wrangler> except they are projectiles, not cars, and explosive <Cro_Magnus> car @ several thousand meters per second = projectile <Cro_Magnus> car loaded with fuel impacting ship = explosive <Cro_Magnus> your point? <Fenria> GAAAAH Captain... there is a beetle heading our way at 18kps <Wrangler> OMG! We're being attacked by volkswagens!"! <Fenria> DAMN THOSE GERMANS * Wrangler fires counter measure trabants Thats how you play eve! Original quote here. Originally by: CCP Prism X It's better to be safe than sorry: This is a joke, TQ is not actually run by hamsters! We use bunnies, they reproduce faster and can utilize bigger running-wheels.
Illyria Ambri RennTech	Posted - 2007.08.22 23:02:00 - [58] Originally by: Jimer Lins Originally by: DJ P There is one parameter you forgot. Gravity and gravitational fields. The bigger the bullet on Earth the more propelant/explosives you need. In space a significal smaller amound of propelant/explosive can sent a 1400mm car eeer bullet, faster, farther and with more accuracy in straight line :) So 3500mm is still fine. :) The fastest-traveling projectiles we can currently produce would take several seconds to travel the shortest distances most combat occurs at in this game. Tamount of energy required to make projectiles move at near relatvistic speeds, which would be required to achieve the instant impact we see in the game, is impractical to be able to apply; no substance could survive the application of that much power, and certainly no devices such as a nuclear warhead. Also, the amount of energy required to launch something at those speeds would be problematic for the launching ship. You do realize that the entire premise behind rail guns is the use of magnets to launch the projectile.. And there would be problems in atmosphere due to fritcion with the air which would melt more projectiles. In space however.. no friction. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek Here come the Drums!! - The Master
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 23:07:00 - [59] Originally by: Jimer Lins While it's true that any sufficiently advanced technology shall be indistinguishable from magic- and I should avoid making absolute pronouncements, I think it's safe to say that there's certain things that just won't work unless the laws of physics change. I mean, we know now that the universe isn't truly newtownian, but actions have reactions, and the amount of energy required to accelerate an object is going to produce an effect by the platform doing the acceleration. There's a practical upper limit to the mass of any object you can move or the amount of energy you can impart to it, simply because past a certain point you'll push yourself away or more likely, destroy your ship. ;) True, but I think we need to take into account advances in technology and our understanding of the laws of physics to make those limits a little easier to push. Not unlike the concept of heavier-than-air flight in the late 1800s. Quote: I need to find someone to crunch the numbers on how much energy would be required to launch a 1400mm projectile fast enough to reach a target 50km away at a speed so fast that a human being couldn't detect any lag between shot and impact. That would be useful for determining how much mass the firing platform would require and how strong the projectile would have to be in order not to be reduced to plasma. The human bran can generally detect and react to 1/4 of a second intervals. Based on what a previous poster said, the projectile in question would weigh approximately 120,000 pounds, or about 55,000 Kilograms 50KM in .25 seconds = 200KM/second = 720,000KMH So does anyone know the amount of energy it would take to accellerate a 55K Kilogram shell to 720K Kilometers per hour? I'll do the calculations myself if someone can point me towards the correct formula. It would also be interesting to know if the artillery shells in question have propellant of their own to perhaps aid in the acceleration. Hrm. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2007.08.22 23:34:00 - [60] Originally by: Nocturnal Avenger RL calcs used in a fictive world are bound to fail. so true - NPC Vendetta system, Local rehash, Probe decoys
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.22 23:41:00 - [61] Originally by: DubanFP Edited by: DubanFP on 22/08/2007 18:07:55 I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Even the cruiser sized heavy missiles have to be multi-megaton warheads easily capable of leveling cities. Even the torpedo arsenal of 1 Raven would be capable of leveling an entire planet with warheads ranging in the hundreds of megatons. And never mind sieged citadels. They would probably be multi-gigaton warheads. The soot from 1 salvo alone would probably be enough to render an entire planet uninhabitable. The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Well, the guns of a battleship are 406mm. Thats about the circumference of an extra large pizza. So the 1400s on a tempest would be...I am guessing the shells would be the size of a diesel locomotive with a nuclear warhead. So the autocannons would be like an machine gun that shoot ICBMs (If you had nuclear ammo of course) _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Acacia Everto Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.22 23:59:00 - [62] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Jimer Lins While it's true that any sufficiently advanced technology shall be indistinguishable from magic- and I should avoid making absolute pronouncements, I think it's safe to say that there's certain things that just won't work unless the laws of physics change. I mean, we know now that the universe isn't truly newtownian, but actions have reactions, and the amount of energy required to accelerate an object is going to produce an effect by the platform doing the acceleration. There's a practical upper limit to the mass of any object you can move or the amount of energy you can impart to it, simply because past a certain point you'll push yourself away or more likely, destroy your ship. ;) True, but I think we need to take into account advances in technology and our understanding of the laws of physics to make those limits a little easier to push. Not unlike the concept of heavier-than-air flight in the late 1800s. Quote: I need to find someone to crunch the numbers on how much energy would be required to launch a 1400mm projectile fast enough to reach a target 50km away at a speed so fast that a human being couldn't detect any lag between shot and impact. That would be useful for determining how much mass the firing platform would require and how strong the projectile would have to be in order not to be reduced to plasma. The human bran can generally detect and react to 1/4 of a second intervals. Based on what a previous poster said, the projectile in question would weigh approximately 120,000 pounds, or about 55,000 Kilograms 50KM in .25 seconds = 200KM/second = 720,000KMH So does anyone know the amount of energy it would take to accellerate a 55K Kilogram shell to 720K Kilometers per hour? I'll do the calculations myself if someone can point me towards the correct formula. It would also be interesting to know if the artillery shells in question have propellant of their own to perhaps aid in the acceleration. Hrm. I may not remember the formula or be using the right one, but here's what I got: E = 1/2mv^2 0.5 * 55000 * (200*1000)^2 = 1,100,000,000,000,000 joules = 1.1 petajoules 1.1 petajoules is made by approximately 7,722,953.55 US gallons of jet fuel.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.23 00:39:00 - [63] Originally by: Acacia Everto I may not remember the formula or be using the right one, but here's what I got: E = 1/2mv^2 0.5 * 55000 * (2001000)^2 = 1,100,000,000,000,000 joules = 1.1 petajoules 1.1 petajoules is made by approximately 7,722,953.55 US gallons of jet fuel. Anyone care to turn that into output per hour for the average nuclear power plant? ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You* Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Sicarri Covenant	Posted - 2007.08.23 00:50:00 - [64] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Acacia Everto I may not remember the formula or be using the right one, but here's what I got: E = 1/2mv^2 0.5 * 55000 * (200*1000)^2 = 1,100,000,000,000,000 joules = 1.1 petajoules 1.1 petajoules is made by approximately 7,722,953.55 US gallons of jet fuel. Anyone care to turn that into output per hour for the average nuclear power plant? Can we make a hybrid engine for that? Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking ~Liz Kali
VinnyTheBull	Posted - 2007.08.23 01:38:00 - [65] Quote: It would also be interesting to know if the artillery shells in question have propellant of their own to perhaps aid in the acceleration. Hrm. I believe the description of the artillery cannons say that the shells are rocket assisted.
Entreri Finwe Raptus Regaliter Pride - Honor - Duty	Posted - 2007.08.23 01:40:00 - [66] Originally by: Acacia Everto I may not remember the formula or be using the right one, but here's what I got: E = 1/2mv^2 0.5 * 55000 * (2001000)^2 = 1,100,000,000,000,000 joules = 1.1 petajoules 1.1 petajoules is made by approximately 7,722,953.55 US gallons of jet fuel. "1.1 petajoule! What the hell were I thinking?!?" "Relax Doc, all we need is 7,722,953.55 US gallons of jet fuel." "I'm sure that in the Eve-region you come from you can just buy jet fuel in any station, but here in Solitude it's a comletly different story!" Originally by:* jarack I de-synced in my bathroom once, now i have no where to wash my hands
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.23 01:42:00 - [67] Originally by: Entreri Finwe Originally by: Acacia Everto I may not remember the formula or be using the right one, but here's what I got: E = 1/2mv^2 0.5 * 55000 * (200*1000)^2 = 1,100,000,000,000,000 joules = 1.1 petajoules 1.1 petajoules is made by approximately 7,722,953.55 US gallons of jet fuel. "1.1 petajoule! What the hell were I thinking?!?" "Relax Doc, all we need is 7,722,953.55 US gallons of jet fuel." "I'm sure that in the Eve-region you come from you can just buy jet fuel in any station, but here in Solitude it's a comletly different story!" Or you can use nuclear power, whole lot more effecient. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Toru Sataki	Posted - 2007.08.23 02:32:00 - [68] i'd be more afraid of railguns than of anything you shot out of a projectile weapon... the reaction between matter and antimatter is a hell of a lot more energetic than any nuclear reaction, so a 425mm charge full of the stuff would probably make your volkswagen-sized nuke look like a popgun...
Devilish Ledoux Caldari Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.08.23 03:08:00 - [69] Originally by: Toru Sataki i'd be more afraid of railguns than of anything you shot out of a projectile weapon... the reaction between matter and antimatter is a hell of a lot more energetic than any nuclear reaction, so a 425mm charge full of the stuff would probably make your volkswagen-sized nuke look like a popgun... This is pretty much what I see happening during the Gallente bombardment of Caldari Prime: Hyperaccellerated 425mm slugs of antimatter, iridium, plutonium and other fun-loving metals fired from orbit. There goes the neighborhood. As for speculation about what a doomsday device would do to a planet, it's already happened. _
cal nereus Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 03:14:00 - [70] Game Mechanics > Physics. --- Grismar.net
Summer Ellisune	Posted - 2007.08.23 03:19:00 - [71] just to add, ive heard alot of people say the 1400mm would be a small car... the US battleships hurled shells the size of a voltswagon. so a titan would be like firing a 4 story building. just a guesstimate.
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.23 03:24:00 - [72] you misunderstand the volkswagon comment refers to the mass/weight, not size, 1400mm car comparison is size not mass Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums: Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2007.08.23 03:31:00 - [73] What I'd like to know is why, when a smartbomb, doomsday device etc.. goes off, the ship firing doesn't take damage :( If i have a frigate literally parked on top of the ship firing the AOE device, it blows up, but the ship firing,,,,, it's in the epicenter of all that,,, stuff,,, how doesnt it get hurt :( Improve Market Competition!
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.23 03:35:00 - [74] because its not an explosion per se, its an expanding sphere weapon emitted from the ship Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums: Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
Summer Ellisune	Posted - 2007.08.23 03:37:00 - [75] Originally by: Tortun Nahme because its not an explosion per se, its an expanding sphere weapon emitted from the ship beat me to it. but to add on, the blast is moving away, outside the ship, not emitting from the inside out.
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.23 03:39:00 - [76] Post Reply is my IWIN button! someone needs to sig that Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums: Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2007.08.23 04:13:00 - [77] Edited by: Matalino on 23/08/2007 04:17:08 Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Acacia Everto I may not remember the formula or be using the right one, but here's what I got: E = 1/2mv^2 0.5 * 55000 * (2001000)^2 = 1,100,000,000,000,000 joules = 1.1 petajoules 1.1 petajoules is made by approximately 7,722,953.55 US gallons of jet fuel. Anyone care to turn that into output per hour for the average nuclear power plant? That is 1 hour's output from all of the world's modern nuclear power plants. You looking at about 12 days output from a single plant. Originally by:* CCP Prism X P.S. If you think you're reading some information through the lines here, you're wrong. I'm actually just bored.
aiaakii	Posted - 2007.08.23 04:25:00 - [78] Originally by: Tarminic The human bran can generally detect and react to 1/4 of a second intervals. 1/20th of a second is the perception threshold for humans. Anything faster will seem simultaneous. Reaction times vary a good bit.
F'nog Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.08.23 05:59:00 - [79] Having not read the thread, but considering that even rockets have nuclear warheads, I'd say pretty damn powerful. I used to get It. Then It changed. Now I don't even know what It is.
Filthy Pierre Gallente Laughing Fox Enterprises	Posted - 2007.08.23 06:10:00 - [80] Nice speculating, folks! That got me wondering about what it'd be like if someone designed a game that was similar to EVE but was based on timelines much closer to ours and using technology that would have existed had we done space properly or stuff that will exist in the next forty-odd years. Ships using NERVA class engines, ORION-based craft, X-ray pumped one shot lasers, haulers being used to disrupt disrupt Kuiper objects (instead of hauling ore) and send them slowly spiralling in to smack an enemy's installation.... Kinetic weapons'd probably be the big hitters in something like that one. Man, I'd love to play that one if it ever came into being. FP
SpaceMoose GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.08.23 07:04:00 - [81] Originally by: aiaakii Originally by: Tarminic The human bran can generally detect and react to 1/4 of a second intervals. 1/20th of a second is the perception threshold for humans. Anything faster will seem simultaneous. Reaction times vary a good bit. Hence why PAL/NSTC television formats have a framerate of 25-30fps.
Nasair	Posted - 2007.08.23 11:44:00 - [82] A 425mm antimatter slug fired at relatavistic velocities. I think that says it all really.
Eben Rochelle Gallente Free Mercenaries Union FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 12:14:00 - [83] Edited by: Eben Rochelle on 23/08/2007 12:15:28 a 425mm wide shell filled with antimatter then accelerated to reletavistic speeds by a railgun... or a plasma comprised of animatter spat out of a blaster. ridiculously high powered weapons that make nuclear tipped missiles look like fire****ers edit: bah beaten too it by loads of people
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.23 12:36:00 - [84] Originally by: Summer Ellisune just to add, ive heard alot of people say the 1400mm would be a small car... the US battleships hurled shells the size of a voltswagon. so a titan would be like firing a 4 story building. just a guesstimate. The New Jersey's shell is about the size of a chubby 14 year old kid. However, its made mostly of steel with High Capacity Explosive. The wieght of it is 2000lbs which is close to the wieght of a volkswagon. The Armor Piercing rounds are 2700lbs. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
1pwnjoo	Posted - 2007.08.23 12:47:00 - [85] I loved the flying submarine quote... just felt i had to say that. =)
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 12:54:00 - [86] Edited by: Splagada on 23/08/2007 12:54:45 ships have the mass of small mountains so you need that :p ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence
Cornucopian Gallente Dutch Omega United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:00:00 - [87] Edited by: Cornucopian on 23/08/2007 13:02:31 Originally by: Summer Ellisune just to add, ive heard alot of people say the 1400mm would be a small car... the US battleships hurled shells the size of a voltswagon. so a titan would be like firing a 4 story building. just a guesstimate. Yamato class Country: Japan Displacement: 65,000 tons Armament: 9 x 460 mm (18.2 inch) guns, 12 x 155 mm guns, 12 x 127 mm guns, 24 x 25 mm AA guns, 4 x 13 mm AA guns Aircraft: 2 x catapults with 7 x seaplanes Armor: 410 mm belt, 200 mm deck, 650 mm turret Speed: 27 knots Range: 11,500 km at 16 knots Ships in class: 3: Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano Commissioned: 16 December 1941 Fate: Shinano converted to an aircraft carrier, Musashi sunk 1944, Yamato sunk 1945 The bismarck had 15 inch guns, modern day BSes have 16 inch guns. these are not muzzles a volkswagon can fit in. even the yamamoto, which had HOOOG guns is only half a metre wide. you MIGHT JUST fit a volkswagen in the 1400MM range, but no WAY do battleships, modern or ancient, fire 1400MM shells. ----------------------------------------------- "post with your main. delete your alt, you sad little exploiting metagamer."
Cornucopian Gallente Dutch Omega United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:06:00 - [88] Originally by: Cornucopian Edited by: Cornucopian on 23/08/2007 13:02:31 Originally by: Summer Ellisune just to add, ive heard alot of people say the 1400mm would be a small car... the US battleships hurled shells the size of a voltswagon. so a titan would be like firing a 4 story building. just a guesstimate. Yamato class Country: Japan Displacement: 65,000 tons Armament: 9 x 460 mm (18.2 inch) guns, 12 x 155 mm guns, 12 x 127 mm guns, 24 x 25 mm AA guns, 4 x 13 mm AA guns Aircraft: 2 x catapults with 7 x seaplanes Armor: 410 mm belt, 200 mm deck, 650 mm turret Speed: 27 knots Range: 11,500 km at 16 knots Ships in class: 3: Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano Commissioned: 16 December 1941 Fate: Shinano converted to an aircraft carrier, Musashi sunk 1944, Yamato sunk 1945 The bismarck had 15 inch guns, modern day BSes have 16 inch guns. these are not muzzles a volkswagon can fit in. even the yamamoto, which had HOOOG guns is only half a metre wide. you MIGHT JUST fit a volkswagen in the 1400MM range, but no WAY do battleships, modern or ancient, fire 1400MM shells. Also: The Second World War saw the final use of the railway gun, with the massive Schwerer Gustav 800 mm gun, the largest artillery gun to be fired in anger, deployed by Germany. 8oo mils seems to be the biggest gun.... maybe that iraqi gun built on the side of a mountain, meant for sending shells into Israel was bigger, but meh. Fact is, in modern day warfare such large calibre guns are impractical, since you can use missiles, to greater effect. ----------------------------------------------- "post with your main. delete your alt, you sad little exploiting metagamer."
Cornucopian Gallente Dutch Omega United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:09:00 - [89] now if we're talking WEIGHT of shells, thats a whole other ballgame. I think the larger shells easily average small cars in weight. ----------------------------------------------- "post with your main. delete your alt, you sad little exploiting metagamer."
Lady Trade	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:09:00 - [90] A question while we are talking about weapons: Why is Void and Null called that? I mean Antimatter or Iridium i can understand (the warhead has a different component that gets fired) but what would be inside a Void or Null charge and what makes them so much more powerful then say antimatter?
Cornucopian Gallente Dutch Omega United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:17:00 - [91] also as a reference, the schwere gustav 800mil gun fired 7 ton shells. for comparison: this is an african elephant, in weight. ----------------------------------------------- "post with your main. delete your alt, you sad little exploiting metagamer."
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:20:00 - [92] Edited by: Splagada on 23/08/2007 13:20:39 Originally by: Cornucopian also as a reference, the schwere gustav 800mil gun fired 7 ton shells. for comparison: this is an african elephant, in weight. fetchez la vache!!! ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence
DarthMopp Gallente I.O.S. - I.D.I.O.T.s in outer Space	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:57:00 - [93] Ok...lets go for the Maths 1 cm = 100mm so a 1400mm Charge would be 140 cm in Diameter That 1 metre and 40 Centimeter and the 3500mm charge would then be 3 Metres and 50 centimeters. Not that much ...and absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) Same to Missiles and Torpedos....no impact.. So unless you are able to fire small Mountain sized Rounds i guess not much will happen to the planets at all. Though i dont want to see the damage of a 3500mm round impacting with x-thousand kps into a ship....as theres no friction in space the round would maintain its initial speed until hitting something... "Alea iacta est"
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:05:00 - [94] Originally by: DarthMopp absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) What leads you to believe they'd disintigrate before impact? ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
torswin Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:06:00 - [95] kps? Use the standards: km/s --- Signature radius: 150 mm Unless explicitly stated, this post does not represent my alliance, corporation, my own, or any other living organism's view.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:10:00 - [96] Edited by: DubanFP on 23/08/2007 14:12:28 Originally by: DarthMopp Ok...lets go for the Maths 1 cm = 100mm uhm, i'm failing to see even 1 change/mistype that could make that correct. 1000mm = 1m. 1 cm = 10mm 100cm = 1m Other then that you're correct except for 1 thing. The shuttle columbia could have survived the ride through the atmosphere had there not been a failure point in it's heat shielding. Who's to say these rounds are unprotected for such use? The rapid accelleration out of of the cannon alone would require some REALLY powerful resistance to heat, I really can't see how the decent in earth could beat that. Also the 1 round that would be guarenteed to make it would be the tungsten rounds for the railguns. Those things would make one wicked seismic event when it crashed into the ground. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Marine HK4861 Caldari Seoltachd	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:26:00 - [97] Originally by: Sharupak Actually, that is not entirely true. The U.S. Navy is developing guns that shoot missles. I could shoot aircraft, shore targets, other ships and believe it or not missles (although, only certain types of missles and it would probably be your last option). This sounds like a good replacement for defender missiles. A high slot small turret with negligible damage, but insane ROF and range.
DarthMopp Gallente I.O.S. - I.D.I.O.T.s in outer Space	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:37:00 - [98] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DarthMopp absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) What leads you to believe they'd disintigrate before impact? Ever saw a falling Star ? Thats why i believe they would disintegrate....and they would disintegrate even faster the higher their velocity is ! And yes..the Discovery would have made it if the plating would have been intact. I assumed the projectiles we are talking about wouldnt have such resistances :D lol My fault ! :-)) "Alea iacta est"
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.08.23 15:20:00 - [99] Originally by: Illyria Ambri Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 22/08/2007 18:57:02 Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile 155mm howitzer shell can be picked up by 1 strong person. Though 2 ppl to move them is the norm. 109mm howitzer shell has a diameter smaller then a basketball.. actually its about the diameter of a football (and I'm talkin American football.. not soccer :P ) and is about 1.5 - 2 feet long. This is laymans experience.. though I haven't had to load a 109mm howitzer in a few years.. those are basic size comparisons. A 300-400 mm shell, whitout the propellant, would reach waist heigh if placed tail down on a pavement and no one would move it without a crane (the advantage of some WW I relic before the militar HQ near home ). The problem is that it will not use 0.05 m3, more like 0.2 m3 for 1 shot or so.
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.23 15:24:00 - [100] Originally by: Atama Cardel Well, you can really only make a nuclear weapon so small you need a certain amount of mass, this is called critical mass, to be able to start the chain reaction. Reminds me of Red Mercury, which was in the press over 20 years ago and spread fear, because it was a material supposed to reduce critical mass and make it possible to build nuclear bombs maybe even in the size of a pen. ( Bah, I notice, how old I am. ^^) ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.23 15:32:00 - [101] Originally by: Snake Jankins Originally by: Atama Cardel Well, you can really only make a nuclear weapon so small you need a certain amount of mass, this is called critical mass, to be able to start the chain reaction. Reminds me of Red Mercury, which was in the press over 20 years ago and spread fear, because it was a material supposed to reduce critical mass and make it possible to build nuclear bombs maybe even in the size of a pen. ( Bah, I notice, how old I am. ^^) Actually there are 2 ways to reach a critical mass in a fission weapon. X amount of mass, or you compress the fissile material into a much smaller area "resulting in more nuetrons hitting their mark". Given a proper way to compress the fissile material you could probebly make it pretty small in theory. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.23 15:50:00 - [102] Edited by: Snake Jankins on 23/08/2007 15:50:05 Originally by: DubanFP Given a proper way to compress the fissile material you could probebly make it pretty small in theory. Ok, maybe that was the idea. But quite funny: Noone knew, what it is and if it even exists, but the tv and press was full of it and people got arrested, who tried to buy it or sell some red powder pretending it was Red Mercury. Anyway, back to topic. ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
Vertex Eisenstein Gallente The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.08.23 16:10:00 - [103] Edited by: Vertex Eisenstein on 23/08/2007 16:17:23 Edited by: Vertex Eisenstein on 23/08/2007 16:16:35 Edited by: Vertex Eisenstein on 23/08/2007 16:13:08 Quote: The human bran can generally detect and react to 1/4 of a second intervals. Of course it can, that timeframe is far too slow. The shortest interval visually detectable (the flicker fusion frequency) is usually about 16Hz (62.5 ms). This is for a white light strobe though. For moving images 30Hz flicker is sometimes detectable, hence TVs operating at 60 or 70 Hz and mains AC current operating at 50Hz. If mains current cycled slower the lights would appear to flicker. I'm pretty sure this is a function of the photoreceptors rather than the visual cortex, although I'm guessing a bit here. The evidence that makes me think this is the fact that a strobes have a colour illusion associated with them, whereby the flash has a colour tint depending on frequency. This is due to the different latencies of the 3 species of cones in the retina. If the processing pathways were the culprit then the variation if receptor latency shouldnt cause this effect. Someone else said this guy was wrong because of reaction times, but that is a different problem - here we need to know the shortest possible time able to be observed, which is a perceptual thing, and so not a function of the motor system. As an aside, leaving vision out of it, the brain can detect much shorter intervals than those able to be seen. The bearing sound is coming from is largely calculated by the time difference between detection at one ear and the other - the intraaural time difference. The maximum ITD is 0.63 milliseconds, that is when a sound originates from 90 degrees. Humans can discriminate to within about 3 degrees of azimuth so we can certainly detect times MUCH smaller than this. Of course ITD is not the only factor involved, but it is the most important. Apologies for the wall of text, but I'm very very bored... edit: assuming the 16Hz flicker fusion figure, I get 4 million M/s as the speed required to cover 250Km in that timeframe. I may be wrong though - I'm a biologist not a physicist!
Vertex Eisenstein Gallente The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.08.23 16:31:00 - [104] using the E = 1/2MV equation I get 1.1 X 10 to the 11 Joules for kinetic energy alone using the new velocity for 1400 arty.
Sessho Seki	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:27:00 - [105] Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Even the cruiser sized heavy missiles have to be multi-megaton warheads easily capable of leveling cities. Even the torpedo arsenal of 1 Raven would be capable of leveling an entire planet with warheads ranging in the hundreds of megatons. And never mind sieged citadels. They would probably be multi-gigaton warheads. The soot from 1 salvo alone would probably be enough to render an entire planet uninhabitable. The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Well, oddly enough, from the perspective of a physics and energy yield perspective, all the weapons in all of EVE ever used and that ever will be used is nothing compared to the amount of energy that would be required to warp space, as per faster than light travel within the bounds of relativity. You see, while it is possible to distort space through exertion of energy (see also: gravity), to distort space enough to in effect 'move faster than light' like the ships do in the game, it would take more energy than the entirety of every star in the Milky Way. In comparison, the total power output of a million doomsday devices are more akin to a party-popper than that amount of power contained within the warp drive of even the most humble shuttle.
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:42:00 - [106] Originally by: DarthMopp Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DarthMopp absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) What leads you to believe they'd disintigrate before impact? Ever saw a falling Star ? Thats why i believe they would disintegrate....and they would disintegrate even faster the higher their velocity is ! And yes..the Discovery would have made it if the plating would have been intact. I assumed the projectiles we are talking about wouldnt have such resistances :D lol My fault ! :-)) Got me curious...what keeps ICBMs from burning up in the atmosphere? Do they just not go high enough? _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:44:00 - [107] Originally by: Marine HK4861 Originally by: Sharupak Actually, that is not entirely true. The U.S. Navy is developing guns that shoot missles. I could shoot aircraft, shore targets, other ships and believe it or not missles (although, only certain types of missles and it would probably be your last option). This sounds like a good replacement for defender missiles. A high slot small turret with negligible damage, but insane ROF and range. Or this Phalanx Although your idea would look way cooler, and probably be easier to balance ingame. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:49:00 - [108] Originally by: Sharupak Originally by: DarthMopp Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DarthMopp absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) What leads you to believe they'd disintigrate before impact? Ever saw a falling Star ? Thats why i believe they would disintegrate....and they would disintegrate even faster the higher their velocity is ! And yes..the Discovery would have made it if the plating would have been intact. I assumed the projectiles we are talking about wouldnt have such resistances :D lol My fault ! :-)) Got me curious...what keeps ICBMs from burning up in the atmosphere? Do they just not go high enough? UHM LOL. Things burn up in the atmosphere because of the immense speed they fall at. Then as the atmopshere thickens as they get closer to the earth. As it barrels tword earth the molocules in the air rub against it "like when you rub your hands together for warmth but on sterioids". This immense friction burns it up. ICBMs fly above & outside the Earth's atmosphere. They also tend to detonate in the air for maximum effect too "if it detonated on the ground the blast would be directed up because of the curvature of the earth". ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:52:00 - [109] yes, I get that! LOL! But they go out of the atmosphere and come back in without burning up. They dont have retro rockets to slow them down and they still detonate well inside the atmosphere. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Jizuonme Chin	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:59:00 - [110] ... and to reiterate the 'advanced-ness' of the Eve Universe. - MultiGigaton Missles - Huge masses - Non-orbiting planets. - Cloning technology basically lets you evade death - more... On top of all that, our ships only travel ~300m/s... Which is the equivalent of what... 670mph? Geez, a 747 can do that! Even with MWD, maybe 3km/sec? Space shuttle beats that... You'd think speeds would be faster huh? .. of course they have jumpgates... and unlimited fuel. </sigh>
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.23 18:22:00 - [111] Originally by: Sharupak But they go out of the atmosphere and come back in without burning up. They dont have retro rockets to slow them down and they still detonate well inside the atmosphere. If I remember correctly, ICBMs fall back to earth at a relatively shallow angle, so they don't gain the kind of momentum that would lead to a failure in their outer hulls. I could be wrong though. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Rake Mizar Freelance Assassins	Posted - 2007.08.23 19:18:00 - [112] a railgun shell let's just say will move at 50 miles per second, that's about cometary speed. At that speed it would be in the amosphere (if shot straight at the planet) for about 2 seconds, hardly enough time for it to burn up. Consider that comets are made of ice and enough of them make it to the ground to wipe out dinosaurs or flatten huge chunks of siberia. Maybe we should make the railgun shells out of ice... WTB: T2 Exotic Dancers
Haradgrim Caldari The Wild Bunch	Posted - 2007.08.23 19:45:00 - [113] Edited by: Haradgrim on 23/08/2007 19:45:56 Originally by: Toru Sataki i'd be more afraid of railguns than of anything you shot out of a projectile weapon... the reaction between matter and antimatter is a hell of a lot more energetic than any nuclear reaction, so a 425mm charge full of the stuff would probably make your volkswagen-sized nuke look like a popgun... Where exactly does antimatter come into the equation? A rail gun uses metal and electro magnetic forces to send an iron (or other material) slug traveling at hyper-sonic velocities (or relativistic velocities in the case of EVE rails). The Concussive force from a BS sized rail gun would be similar to being hit by a comet. If one were to impact a planet, the dust alone from one impact would likely start an ice age. Edit: Ok I'm stupid, I just realized your talking about ammo types /bong - Haradgrim [-WB-] That.which.does.not.bend.breaks
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.23 20:04:00 - [114] Originally by: Jizuonme Chin ... and to reiterate the 'advanced-ness' of the Eve Universe. - MultiGigaton Missles - Huge masses - Non-orbiting planets. - Cloning technology basically lets you evade death - more... On top of all that, our ships only travel ~300m/s... Which is the equivalent of what... 670mph? Geez, a 747 can do that! Even with MWD, maybe 3km/sec? Space shuttle beats that... You'd think speeds would be faster huh? .. of course they have jumpgates... and unlimited fuel. </sigh> Oh maaaaaaaaaan!!!! why did you have to come up with that post! You know, some of us are blissfully ignorant and still like to "Pretend" stuff! I hope there isnt anymore "Realities" that I am oblivious too. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2007.08.23 20:41:00 - [115] I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) the smallest nukes taht can be made will fit into a 155mm arty shell and they really are pathetic little fire*****ers of just a few kt. physical laws do not permit them to be built any smaller than that and the suckers are heavy. a 155 round is about 43 kg and the nuke rounds are about double that. if you look at the weight that rocket you find out it's way too small to carry a nuke warhead. you can also generate emp effects without using nukes i've read. you might also want to look at the 1400 mm arty round and consider a 405mm round weighs a ton or so and the weight goes up far faster than the diameter of the shell. a 1400 mm arty shell is going to weigh nearly 40 tons for instance. making real world comparisons to eve and vice versa does not work. that said my favoured whine is why arty is instant damage when missiles are delayed damage. this confuses me because the max speed for a missile in eve is a couple times what an arty shell moves at. look it up sometime arty shells are fairly leisurely in their travel.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2007.08.23 20:47:00 - [116] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny [ Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile 120 mm smoothbore gun. think it's actually a german gun.
Aleric Vikyz Shadow Of The Light R i s e	Posted - 2007.08.23 21:50:00 - [117] Originally by: Sharupak Got me curious...what keeps ICBMs from burning up in the atmosphere? Do they just not go high enough? The missile itself does not reenter the atmosphere, rather it releases induvidual atmospheric entry vehicles which each contain a warhead. The entry vehicles themselves are specificaly designed to survive atmospheric reentry through use of thermal protection systems and even the basic shape of the vehicle itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icbm#Modern_ICBMs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle#Mode_of_operation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry
Maridius Secundus	Posted - 2007.08.23 22:04:00 - [118] Ok, we've established that our toys are very powerful so imagine when we can land on planets, kill a couple deer with a 125 mm slug and come back home in time for dinner. Or if the planets orbit is oval and you prefer circles you can blow that bastard out of existance. (Imagine the locking time....)
xS0u1zx	Posted - 2007.08.24 01:38:00 - [119] Originally by: Jizuonme Chin ... and to reiterate the 'advanced-ness' of the Eve Universe. - MultiGigaton Missles - Huge masses - Non-orbiting planets. - Cloning technology basically lets you evade death - more... On top of all that, our ships only travel ~300m/s... Which is the equivalent of what... 670mph? Geez, a 747 can do that! Even with MWD, maybe 3km/sec? Space shuttle beats that... You'd think speeds would be faster huh? .. of course they have jumpgates... and unlimited fuel. </sigh> hmmm let's see 300 m/s x 60 x 60 is 1080 km/hr you know there's 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour and second 3,000m/s x 60 x 60 or the last answer times 10 is 10,800 km/hr. Yes you know we currently may be able to go faster than that, however look at the ship size differences, sure a fighter plane can go like mach 4, a space shuttle can probably go like 18,000 km/hr but you think we can get a ship say several million kilograms to go that fast not m3 people I don't even wanna add in that factor, I don't think so.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.08.24 01:48:00 - [120] I'm always curious in posts like these. Do people have inside information about technology in the year 23,000 AD? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.24 01:55:00 - [121] Originally by: xS0u1zx hmmm let's see 300 m/s x 60 x 60 is 1080 km/hr you know there's 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour and second 3,000m/s x 60 x 60 or the last answer times 10 is 10,800 km/hr. Yes you know we currently may be able to go faster than that, however look at the ship size differences, sure a fighter plane can go like mach 4, a space shuttle can probably go like 18,000 km/hr but you think we can get a ship say several million kilograms to go that fast not m3 people I don't even wanna add in that factor, I don't think so. Isn't the shuttle's speed based on it's ground speed? I'm not sure that's a good frame of reference to use when comparing speeds. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Oak Rayven	Posted - 2007.08.24 02:00:00 - [122] Originally by: Matalino Edited by: Matalino on 23/08/2007 04:17:08 Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Acacia Everto I may not remember the formula or be using the right one, but here's what I got: E = 1/2mv^2 0.5 * 55000 * (200*1000)^2 = 1,100,000,000,000,000 joules = 1.1 petajoules 1.1 petajoules is made by approximately 7,722,953.55 US gallons of jet fuel. Anyone care to turn that into output per hour for the average nuclear power plant? That is 1 hour's output from all of the world's modern nuclear power plants. You looking at about 12 days output from a single plant. Per Shot.
DarthMopp Gallente I.O.S. - I.D.I.O.T.s in outer Space	Posted - 2007.08.24 04:33:00 - [123] Originally by: Maridius Secundus Ok, we've established that our toys are very powerful so imagine when we can land on planets, kill a couple deer with a 125 mm slug and come back home in time for dinner. Instant Chop-suey.....thats what i call technological progress.... oh and by the way...for anyone who is interested how modern 120mm shells are designed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_L44nullModern MBT Guns and Shells[/url] "Alea iacta est"
Sessho Seki	Posted - 2007.08.24 05:50:00 - [124] Edited by: Sessho Seki on 24/08/2007 05:53:07 Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Sharupak Originally by: DarthMopp Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DarthMopp absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) What leads you to believe they'd disintigrate before impact? Ever saw a falling Star ? Thats why i believe they would disintegrate....and they would disintegrate even faster the higher their velocity is ! And yes..the Discovery would have made it if the plating would have been intact. I assumed the projectiles we are talking about wouldnt have such resistances :D lol My fault ! :-)) Got me curious...what keeps ICBMs from burning up in the atmosphere? Do they just not go high enough? UHM LOL. Things burn up in the atmosphere because of the immense speed they fall at. Then as the atmopshere thickens as they get closer to the earth. As it barrels tword earth the molocules in the air rub against it "like when you rub your hands together for warmth but on sterioids". This immense friction burns it up. ICBMs fly above & outside the Earth's atmosphere. They also tend to detonate in the air for maximum effect too "if it detonated on the ground the blast would be directed up because of the curvature of the earth". It's clear that a LOT of people are allowing themselves to be confused by how atmospheric friction works and how detrimental it is to an body entering it at high speed. First, typically things entering the atmosphere do indeed tend to bounce off or burn up based mostly upon angle and relatively small mass. However, it is incredibly easy for even relatively small objects, depending on their makeup, to penetrate the atmosphere and impact the planet. For instance, the barringer crater in Arizona was made by an object 50m across and was going more than a dozen km/s. Even as recently as 1908 was the 'Tunguska Event' where another meteorite struck in the Russian wilderness penetrated the atmosphere quite easily but due to instability within the meteorite itself it exploded about 5km from a surface impact, but none the less leveled a tremendous area of land and unleashed a blast upwards of 1,000 times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy). Now the size has a great deal to do with the potential of a foreign body penetrating the atmosphere successfully, but more than anything it's what's inside that counts (see, your Mom was right!). An asteroid of heavy metals like iron, nickel, and so on can actually penetrate quite easily compared to those of mostly mineral. Beyond that, speed has a very large factor as well, as once the object is traveling at incredible speeds well in excess of 5-10km/s the atmospheric friction effect literally only effects the impacting meteorite for a very few seconds if it is directly plunging into the atmosphere. Which leads to yet another factor, angle of entry, if it's very oblique (like a space shuttle entry is supposed to be) then the atmosphere can have a far higher effect over a much longer time and will therefore more readily burn up anything entering the atmosphere, however the more acute the angle is perpendicular to the horizon, the higher the potential of negating much of the atmosphere's ability to prevent an impact of the planet. As far as ICBM's go, they do enter a full strategic orbit should they wish/need to based on range to the target, however upon re-entry due to the material, shape, speed, and angle which are all carefully calculated, the warhead has little difficulty coming back into the atmosphere with no significant damage to the actual functioning of the weapon.
DarthMopp Gallente I.O.S. - I.D.I.O.T.s in outer Space	Posted - 2007.08.24 06:00:00 - [125] Now THAT was a nice explanation of how friction works... I guess a 3500mm projectile could penetrate the Atmosphere if fired in an accurate angle, with matching speed and being made out of the right components. All carefully calculated. BUT...how powerful would the impact be ? Would it be that devastating as stated in this thread ? Would it be able to lead to complete extinction ? I seriously doubt that. "Alea iacta est"
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.08.24 06:03:00 - [126] Originally by: DarthMopp Now THAT was a nice explanation of how friction works... I guess a 3500mm projectile could penetrate the Atmosphere if fired in an accurate angle, with matching speed and being made out of the right components. All carefully calculated. BUT...how powerful would the impact be ? Would it be that devastating as stated in this thread ? Would it be able to lead to complete extinction ? I seriously doubt that. it might, 3500mm.... with gravity.. I'm an artist damn it :P so yes in my artist mind it would work but that is backed by nothing other than it would be cool to animate :) ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
DarthMopp Gallente I.O.S. - I.D.I.O.T.s in outer Space	Posted - 2007.08.24 06:22:00 - [127] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: DarthMopp Now THAT was a nice explanation of how friction works... I guess a 3500mm projectile could penetrate the Atmosphere if fired in an accurate angle, with matching speed and being made out of the right components. All carefully calculated. BUT...how powerful would the impact be ? Would it be that devastating as stated in this thread ? Would it be able to lead to complete extinction ? I seriously doubt that. it might, 3500mm.... with gravity.. I'm an artist damn it :P so yes in my artist mind it would work but that is backed by nothing other than it would be cool to animate :) WELLLLL....in game i would love to see a HUUUUUUUGE explosion too To be honest i often tend to waste my precious ammo shooting on structures just to see them explode...my personal New_Years-EvE "Alea iacta est"
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.08.24 06:25:00 - [128] Originally by: DarthMopp Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: DarthMopp Now THAT was a nice explanation of how friction works... I guess a 3500mm projectile could penetrate the Atmosphere if fired in an accurate angle, with matching speed and being made out of the right components. All carefully calculated. BUT...how powerful would the impact be ? Would it be that devastating as stated in this thread ? Would it be able to lead to complete extinction ? I seriously doubt that. it might, 3500mm.... with gravity.. I'm an artist damn it :P so yes in my artist mind it would work but that is backed by nothing other than it would be cool to animate :) WELLLLL....in game i would love to see a HUUUUUUUGE explosion too To be honest i often tend to waste my precious ammo shooting on structures just to see them explode...my personal New_Years-EvE and then the number one thing that people at my school ask about when I first tell them about eve and more importantly titans, comes to mind... can you blow up planets hehe, oh the millions of problems blowing up a planet would bring :P I think blowing up a moon would be cool, then you could like mine it still or something lol. I love my classmates :P ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
DarthMopp Gallente I.O.S. - I.D.I.O.T.s in outer Space	Posted - 2007.08.24 06:47:00 - [129] Thats because of StarWars....Deathstar ftw! I want to have one in EvE too....and X-Wings which i could fly with a joystick... Geez...guess i turned away from topic a little... Hmm..i guess CCP wont let us destroy their carefully designed Planets at all.... Anyone remembering the super-weapon from WingCommander III where you could destroy the kilrathi Homeplanet ? "Alea iacta est"
Kolatha	Posted - 2007.08.24 06:47:00 - [130] Originally by: Cornucopian guns that shoot missiles :-) awesome..... next will be missiles with gun turrets on em ;-) Already in Eve Linkage From the description. Quote: Rocket-assisted artillery projectiles designed for longe-range combat.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.08.24 06:55:00 - [131] Originally by: DarthMopp Thats because of StarWars....Deathstar ftw! I want to have one in EvE too....and X-Wings which i could fly with a joystick... Geez...guess i turned away from topic a little... Hmm..i guess CCP wont let us destroy their carefully designed Planets at all.... Anyone remembering the super-weapon from WingCommander III where you could destroy the kilrathi Homeplanet ? have you read the resent interview? they talked about joystick control fighting with fighters that are launched out of carriers. they also talk about this in eve TV1. the ten year university interviews. Basicly they both talk about how eve is a one dimensional game, and it can be more. much more. for anyone going I'll leave rawr, don't worry they won't put it in or else we'll be hit by the lagstick winterblink but yes it's coming. and eve as we know it will fade. but hell mmorpgs fade away all the time. I think it rocks that a game company is thinking about expanding inwards for once. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
DarthMopp Gallente I.O.S. - I.D.I.O.T.s in outer Space	Posted - 2007.08.24 07:08:00 - [132] "Who wants to rent a "Class-A-TopGun" WingCommander/X-Wing vs. Tie-Fighter hardened Fighter Pilot ?" or : "Will fly for isk" Now then we start talking about skills And not somethign everybody can achieve with enough time "Alea iacta est"
vanBuskirk Caldari	Posted - 2007.08.24 07:25:00 - [133] Well... First of all, as someone mentioned there is a starting point for weapon power in EVE. There is (or was) a real world 280mm artillery with nuclear shells, and its warhead was around 15 kilotons. Weapon yield does not go up in EVE as the cube of the calibre as it possibly should; IIRC each size class goes up by roughly 2x so a capital-class XL shell only does 8x the damage of a small one. Considering that the capital artillery is a quad 3500mm, this ought to be more like 7800 times the yield - or about 120 megatons. Nasty, but not a world-wrecker - especially since quite a lot of its mass is tritanium, stated to be unstable in atmosphere. In other words, it would burn up. Maybe this is one of the reasons why it uses tritanium - after all, the BPs come from the empires, and they hardly want any BS pilot of 3 months' experience to level cities at a whim, do they? A couple more things - AM shells; how much of its mass is actually antimatter? Probably not a lot. And for nuclear rounds smaller than the nuclear S described; well, uranium and plutonium are not the only fissile materials. I believe that if you could get hold of enough californium, it could make a nice small nuke. ---------------------------------------------- "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Cornucopian Gallente Dutch Omega United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.24 07:32:00 - [134] Originally by: Kolatha Originally by: Cornucopian guns that shoot missiles :-) awesome..... next will be missiles with gun turrets on em ;-) Already in Eve Linkage From the description. Quote: Rocket-assisted artillery projectiles designed for longe-range combat. noooo these are guns that fire missiles.... NOT missiles with guns on them still cool though. ----------------------------------------------- "post with your main. delete your alt, you sad little exploiting metagamer."
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.08.24 07:35:00 - [135] Originally by: Cornucopian Originally by: Kolatha Originally by: Cornucopian guns that shoot missiles :-) awesome..... next will be missiles with gun turrets on em ;-) Already in Eve Linkage From the description. Quote: Rocket-assisted artillery projectiles designed for longe-range combat. noooo these are guns that fire missiles.... NOT missiles with guns on them still cool though. ever wondwer why minmtatar have such sick fall off range? ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
Marine HK4861 Caldari Seoltachd	Posted - 2007.08.24 07:55:00 - [136] Originally by: Jizuonme Chin On top of all that, our ships only travel ~300m/s... Which is the equivalent of what... 670mph? Geez, a 747 can do that! Even with MWD, maybe 3km/sec? Space shuttle beats that... You'd think speeds would be faster huh? Oh? A freighter does about 0.6 AU/second while in warp, which is approximately 89.8 gigametres (1 Gm = 1 million km) a second. Interceptors and interdictors go in excess of 13.5 AU/second. That fast enough for you?
cuteboylookingatyou	Posted - 2007.08.24 10:41:00 - [137] Powerful enough that if some ships came to orbital flight and hit you with a civilian blaster with the lowest possible damage your entire house would blow up and the house across the street from you would start burning.
asgghsfdgsgsg	Posted - 2007.08.31 12:37:00 - [138] Originally by: MotherMoon ever wondwer why minmtatar have such sick fall off range? No friction?
Sessho Seki	Posted - 2007.09.01 00:34:00 - [139] Originally by: asgghsfdgsgsg Originally by: MotherMoon ever wondwer why minmtatar have such sick fall off range? No friction? it's space, it's called 'space' because there isn't much or any 'stuff' there to cause friction on anything, so there would be no (appreciable) friction on the projectile fired by anyone and especially not in the relatively minuscule ranges that they are fired in this game... it being 'space' and all, it tends to not only be empty, but there is a lot of empty out there... however it's also a video game, so some corners are clearly 'cut'.
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.01 02:31:00 - [140] Edited by: Sharupak on 01/09/2007 02:31:54 Originally by: DarthMopp Now THAT was a nice explanation of how friction works... I guess a 3500mm projectile could penetrate the Atmosphere if fired in an accurate angle, with matching speed and being made out of the right components. All carefully calculated. BUT...how powerful would the impact be ? Would it be that devastating as stated in this thread ? Would it be able to lead to complete extinction ? I seriously doubt that. Well as was said, the crater in arizona was caused by an object 50m across. In my previous post, I know the Navy is working on a rocket assisted projectile that by the time it hits the target, it will be doing mach5 which has enough kinetic energy to put a piece of steel rebar through 20 ft of concrete. This projectile weights a mere 50lbs or less Now imagine a 3500mm projectile probably weighing in the neighborhood of 100,000 lbs going 20,000 mph I think planetary extinction would be imminent! _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:54:00 - [141] Originally by: Marine HK4861 Originally by: Sharupak Actually, that is not entirely true. The U.S. Navy is developing guns that shoot missles. I could shoot aircraft, shore targets, other ships and believe it or not missles (although, only certain types of missles and it would probably be your last option). This sounds like a good replacement for defender missiles. A high slot small turret with negligible damage, but insane ROF and range. both the russians and americans have had tube launched atgm for decades now. the americans pretty much gave up on the idea but the russians pushed ahead with theirs and the americans are returning to the idea lately.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2007.09.01 17:07:00 - [142] Well as was said, the crater in arizona was caused by an object 50m across. In my previous post, I know the Navy is working on a rocket assisted projectile that by the time it hits the target, it will be doing mach5 which has enough kinetic energy to put a piece of steel rebar through 20 ft of concrete. This projectile weights a mere 50lbs or less Now imagine a 3500mm projectile probably weighing in the neighborhood of 100,000 lbs going 20,000 mph I think planetary extinction would be imminent! given the rock that caused the crater in arizona was far larger and going about the same speed you are a very long ways from a planetary extinction event. to get to that kind of energy release you need a mass on the order of a hundred tonnes moving a a high fraction of C say .8 or .9. had a nice chat about that in the david weber newsgroup one time complete with math.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [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.