Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

(thread changing direction again)

The problem is that, if you want to launch a satelite using a railgun, you're facing some serious inertial forces trying to crush the packet. There might be no squishable humans inside, but anything getting accelerated from 0 to 7km/s over a short distance(lenght of rails) needs to be really sturdy to survive. I wouldn't exactly expect Hubble telescope to be in working shape after such a launch.

That could be solved by making the rails very, very long. I think we know what to do with the LHC complex once the VLHC is built! And eletromagnetic forces can be sheilded against, so that isn't an issue. Although, I personaly think we should go with a space elevator. Ah, the joys of carbon nanotubes, strongest substance ever.

[Phmcw]

It's also that they may actually be way cheaper then cruse missiles in the long run.
But, well they don't work right now so...
The question of the combat techniques shift is relevant : light hight power canon could forbid large ship.

[RedWarrior0]

Although, I personaly think we should go with a space elevator. Ah, the joys of carbon nanotubes, strongest substance ever.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

It's true that a ribbon of nanotubes is strong against some forces and not others. Has anyone seen a feasibility study of a design for a cable instead of a ribbon?

Again, though, it would be such a tempting target for terrible people.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Ah yes, the obligitory xkcd strip. Not that that would work in reality.

It's true that a ribbon of nanotubes is strong against some forces and not others. Has anyone seen a feasibility study of a design for a cable instead of a ribbon?

Again, though, it would be such a tempting target for terrible people.

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/28/48517/nanotube-cable-has-20000-cores.htm Bingo.

[Duke 2.0]

 To return to railguns, remember when the technology becomes practical it won't be a one-shot barrel. And as such would be cheaper and much more stealthy and much more specific(In the sense that there isn't much collateral damage) than missiles. And impossible to intercept. And depending on how easily a supersonic slug is to detect one could launch it over other countries and no-missile zones without much political backfire. Granted it would need to be a small nation. And relatively close to water...

 But still, it does being the same promise as the space race: good spinoff technology. I imagine gravlev trains would become either more efficient or cheaper through this.

[RedWarrior0]

Maglev trains, you mean?

Also, if what I saw on wikipedia is right and railguns can shoot at Mach 10, then I imagine the air resistance might cause a slug to melt. That would suck. For them.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I don't know about impossible to intercept. Missiles already go pretty fast, and I've heard antimissile defenses described as trying to shoot a bullet at a bullet (even with the guidance systems, otherwise there would be zero chance).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't know about impossible to intercept. Missiles already go pretty fast, and I've heard antimissile defenses described as trying to shoot a bullet at a bullet (even with the guidance systems, otherwise there would be zero chance).

Yes, but missiles are complex and propeled by an onbord device. Smart missiles even have computers on them. Railgun projectiles would be nothing but a chunk of metal.

[RedWarrior0]

Besides, the awesome.

[Duke 2.0]

Maglev trains, you mean?

I goddam mean antigravity trains.

[Heron TSG]

Maglev trains, you mean?

I goddam mean antigravity trains.

antigravity trains or trackless floating car-bullets?

[Jackrabbit]

Not specifically no, but for nerddom's sake, yeah you're kind wrong.  Sailing ships were not replaced by steamships until well after the American Civil War - there was a long transition period where ships had steam-paddles for maneuvering and sails for travel, but even that was after Napoleon's time.  Ships didn't have turrets then either, because they just couldn't build heavy turret mechanisms that you could put in a ship like that, along with the crowded deck problem.

Well, I know squat about steamships, so thank you for the explanation. Nice to hear that I didn't bork it up about the turrets though.