Print

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

[10ebbor10]

All those high electricity things are highly improbable from a scientific perspectif. The Tesla coil's sparks would just take the shortest way to the ground. Probably through units tnaks and buildings on the ground and not towards things in the sky. You can't target with electricity, unless you use wires( would be unwieldy) or manages to elecrocharge the objects you want to hit. What you could try to do is make one in space, where one ship bombards another ship with electrically charched particles and then turns on the power before they disspate. SInce there's no other path the charge would target and destroy most of the ships electronical systems.( Won't work in air though because you can't get a coherent path).

How about tesla missiles ?The missiles would have intense energy generated inside and it would be released once it hits the target.

Like emps? A nuke acts as an EMP. If we used one of our nukes in the upper atmosphere or stratosphere it would fry any electrical grids for like miles. Although it would have to be built differently than our regular boomers or nukilites.

Including our own. Also there would be a lot of radiaton.

Tesla coils simply require to much electricity , try something else.

What I think we need is point defence.

Yup, lasers tend to be good for this in space. Very fast, accurate and deadly against misseles.

Also a suggestion for another space weapon. Plasma shots. Consists of a strong magnetical generator keeping a core of hot plamsa around it. When it hits the target the electrically charged particles fr any systems and the heat melts the hull. ( Very costly and hard to make though)

[Gotdamnmiracle]

And that's provided by ICBMs!

Conventional, not nuclear.

Really? I thought ICBMs were generally nukes but just took the form of an InterContinental Ballistic Missile. Although if you say that a regular explosion can do it the bully for us.

[Dragor23]

And that's provided by ICBMs!

Conventional, not nuclear.

Really? I thought ICBMs were generally nukes but just took the form of an InterContinental Ballistic Missile. Although if you say that a regular explosion can do it the bully for us.

Oh, they can be stocked with regular explosive material.
ANd I just took ICBMs for the range. After all, we must hit something outer space.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

Railguns anyone? 

[Xeron]

Directed-energy weapon

Later in life, Tesla made remarkable claims concerning a "teleforce" weapon.[94] The press called it a "peace ray" or death ray.[95][96] In total, the components and methods included:[97][98][dubious – discuss]

    An apparatus for producing manifestations of energy in free air instead of in a high vacuum as in the past. This, according to Tesla in 1934, was accomplished.
    A mechanism for generating tremendous electrical force. This, according to Tesla, was also accomplished.
    A means of intensifying and amplifying the force developed by the second mechanism.
    A new method for producing a tremendous electrical repelling force. This would be the projector, or gun, of the invention.

Tesla worked on plans for a directed-energy weapon from the early 1900s until his death.[dubious – discuss] In 1937, Tesla wrote a treatise entitled "The Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-dispersive Energy through the Natural Media", which concerned charged particle beams.[99][dubious – discuss] Tesla published the document in an attempt to expound on the technical description of a "superweapon that would put an end to all war." This treatise describing the particle beam is currently in the Nikola Tesla Museum archive in Belgrade. It describes an open-ended vacuum tube with a gas jet seal that allows particles to exit, a method of charging particles to millions of volts, and a method of creating and directing nondispersive particle streams (through electrostatic repulsion).[99][dubious – discuss]

His records indicate that the device is based on a narrow stream of atomic clusters of liquid mercury or tungsten accelerated via high voltage (by means akin to his magnifying transformer). Tesla gives the following description concerning the particle gun's operation:

    [The nozzle would] send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks.[100]

Tesla described the weapon as being able to be used against ground based infantry or for antiaircraft purposes.[101] Tesla tried to interest the US War Department in the device.[102] He also offered this invention to European countries.[103] None of the governments purchased a contract to build the device. He was unable to act on his plans.[104]

[Gotdamnmiracle]

And that's provided by ICBMs!

Conventional, not nuclear.

Really? I thought ICBMs were generally nukes but just took the form of an InterContinental Ballistic Missile. Although if you say that a regular explosion can do it the bully for us.

Oh, they can be stocked with regular explosive material.
ANd I just took ICBMs for the range. After all, we must hit something outer space.

But we arent fighting gravity. We could have a guy wearing a space suit pick up our nuke and throw it out of our shuttle bay and detonate it when it gets close. The nukes needn't be aerodynamic, light, or have much thrust, just enough to get going.

[10ebbor10]

Doubt It'll have worked. FOr one thing the energy needed would be gigantic, the heat produced would melt down the machine and the electromagnetical effect would do more damage to yourself then to the enemy. While the concentrated beam might work in space, I doubt it'll remain coherent long enough to reach it's target.

P.D. Systems in space should either be done by laser or massdrivers.

[Dragor23]

Or ICBMs

[Xeron]

You do know we have nothing to lose if we try anyway right ?And even if they can't be used as weapons.Tesla coils would work as great energy generators.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

more like Space Based Missiles. SBMs.

[Dragor23]

Outer Space Defence Missiles.

OSDM
Based on the planet or a satellite?


Oh, oh, we can build a weapon station!

[Gotdamnmiracle]

Outer Space Defence Missiles.

OSDM
Based on the planet or a satellite?


Oh, oh, we can build a weapon station!

Ships. Or a station yeah. They would be for ship to ship conflicts.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

OSDM works for me.

[Dragor23]

Nah, they would be a little bit too big for a ship.

[10ebbor10]

Or ICBMs

ICBM
Pro:
Can steer a little
Contra:
- higher resource cost
- Fuel will explode when hit, destroying the misille

Mass driver
Pro:
A little lower resource cost( No need to take food with you)
Heavier shells can't be shot down
Contra:
Initially higher cost( We already have these build, so no need to worry about them)
No steering after launch
Laser
Pro:
As accurate as you can get
Blows up missiles and ships
No resource cost
COntra
Higher initial resource cost(Laser+ power plant)
Energy use

You do know we have nothing to lose if we try anyway right ?And even if they can't be used as weapons.Tesla coils would work as great energy generators.

No they don't. Nothing can create energy and they aren't burning any fuel. SO in the end you'll put more energy in than you get out. If they do you want power powerplants which are cheaper and more efficent