Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: new weapons  (Read 2851 times)

AceSV

  • Bay Watcher
  • [SUPER_VILLAIN]
    • View Profile
Re: new weapons
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2015, 09:19:47 am »

Before you start taking this seriously, you might want to examine some of the more serious weapons topics:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149993 

This is already reminding me of this suggestion:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=149730
Logged
Quote
could God in fact send a kea to steal Excalibur and thereby usurp the throne of the Britons? 
Furry Fortress 3 The third saga unfurls.  Now with Ninja Frogs and Dogfish Pirates.

BoredVirulence

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: new weapons
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2015, 03:20:46 pm »

... A satellite that drops tungsten telephone poles?...

This is totally not the place, but the tungsten poles of doom theory has always bothered me. If it releases the same amount of energy as X explosion on impact, its going to require the same amount of energy to get it in orbit, actually more! The cost just isn't worth it until we have space elevators and can not waste energy on lifting the propellant...

Not an attack on you AceSV. I just needed to let that out...
Logged

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: new weapons
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2015, 03:46:30 pm »

Not to mention the energy required to get it out of orbit.

BoredVirulence

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: new weapons
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2015, 03:48:55 pm »

Not to mention the energy required to get it out of orbit.

Yeah forgot about that. It really bothers me, thank you for making it even less realistic and bother me more.
Logged

StagnantSoul

  • Bay Watcher
  • "Player has withdrawn from society!"
    • View Profile
Re: new weapons
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2015, 07:36:35 pm »

It'd be easier to put a ship Halo style up in orbit covered in cruise missiles.
Logged
Quote from: Cptn Kaladin Anrizlokum
I threw night creature blood into a night creature's heart and she pulled it out and bled to death.
Quote from: Eric Blank
Places to jibber madly at each other, got it
Quote from: NJW2000
If any of them are made of fire, throw stuff, run, and think non-flammable thoughts.

AceSV

  • Bay Watcher
  • [SUPER_VILLAIN]
    • View Profile
Re: new weapons
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2015, 08:12:09 pm »

... A satellite that drops tungsten telephone poles?...

This is totally not the place, but the tungsten poles of doom theory has always bothered me. If it releases the same amount of energy as X explosion on impact, its going to require the same amount of energy to get it in orbit, actually more! The cost just isn't worth it until we have space elevators and can not waste energy on lifting the propellant...

Not an attack on you AceSV. I just needed to let that out...

No, you're right, this is why the orbital hammer doesn't exist yet.  (though there's conspiracy talk that the USA has launched and tested one)  The orbital hammer is not an economic weapon, it's supposedly super-fast, super-accurate and almost indefensible, except that satellites themselves are incredibly vulnerable.  Basically what you're doing is taking the amount of energy it would take to launch a rocket full of tungsten into space and then storing it as potential energy until you push a button that drops it on an unsuspecting dictator.  De-orbiting the tungsten bars is just a matter of pushing it out the door and letting gravity do the work.  A man-made meteor, essentially. 
Logged
Quote
could God in fact send a kea to steal Excalibur and thereby usurp the throne of the Britons? 
Furry Fortress 3 The third saga unfurls.  Now with Ninja Frogs and Dogfish Pirates.

Solarius Scorch

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Intergalactic Radio Station
Re: new weapons
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2015, 12:10:45 am »

Basically what you're doing is taking the amount of energy it would take to launch a rocket full of tungsten into space and then storing it as potential energy until you push a button that drops it on an unsuspecting dictator.

Yeah, I'd just add that it's not as simple as mechanically releasing the tungsten for it to fall down to the surface. A satellite does not use engines to remain in place, but instead it is parked on a stable orbit - which means it has a certain angular velocity that is related to its altitude. Therefore, if you simply release the load, it will not fall down, but will continue orbiting the Earth together with the satellite. Of course satellites normally have rudimentary engines for course corrections while free-falling loads do not, so the tungsten will eventually lose the altitude and fall to Earth, but it'll likely take a long time and cannot be aimed with any reasonable efficiency at anything, even a particular continent.

The solution? The tungsten bomb must be fired with an explosion that will give it high velocity towards the planet (probably by blowing up the entire satellite). Which makes the entire idea much more complicated than it seemed initially.

[Disclaimer: I am not an engineer, and I possess no specific knowledge about orbital bombardment at all. :P I used simple logic here.]
« Last Edit: June 23, 2015, 12:12:53 am by Solarius Scorch »
Logged
Dwarf Fortress: Strike the earth for all it's worth!

StagnantSoul

  • Bay Watcher
  • "Player has withdrawn from society!"
    • View Profile
Re: new weapons
« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2015, 12:21:33 am »

I happen to be studying an aeronautical engineer course. You are correct, unless the "satellite" was purposely destabilized and thrown off course, even with engines, there'd be no way to promote accuracy. Losing mass would draw the satellite closer to the Earth, making any armed satellite a potential hazard. An armed ship, however, would be more controllable, if it had a large enough mass that one pole would mean nothing. A railgun, however, would be the perfect solution. Easier to control, no need for useless fuel, less mass needed, faster shot, more destructive. It's an all around better idea for a militarized space platform. Hence why I said earlier a Halo style approach would be more useful. The only thing you'd need to do is stabilize the ship with it's boosters, which is already one with verniers. The current idea of an accurate tungsten phone pole launching satellite it impossible without it being a single shot device.
Logged
Quote from: Cptn Kaladin Anrizlokum
I threw night creature blood into a night creature's heart and she pulled it out and bled to death.
Quote from: Eric Blank
Places to jibber madly at each other, got it
Quote from: NJW2000
If any of them are made of fire, throw stuff, run, and think non-flammable thoughts.

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: new weapons
« Reply #23 on: June 23, 2015, 12:32:10 am »

Of course satellites normally have rudimentary engines for course corrections while free-falling loads do not, so the tungsten will eventually lose the altitude and fall to Earth, but it'll likely take a long time and cannot be aimed with any reasonable efficiency at anything, even a particular continent.
They're supposed to have small fins for mid-fall guidance.
Logged
Reading his name would trigger it. Thinking of him would trigger it. No other circumstances would trigger it- it was strictly related to the concept of Bill Clinton entering the conscious mind.

THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. This was inevitable (Y/y)?

BoredVirulence

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: new weapons
« Reply #24 on: June 23, 2015, 08:49:40 am »

The "eventually" falling to Earth thing is going to be a long time. Weeks, months, maybe even years depending on the particulars of the orbit and how it was released. If it was mechanically released with no force, it may stay in orbit indefinitely, or for several years. If it has a small rocket booster to nudge it, weeks or months. There really is no accuracy, or speed. An ICBM with a tungsten rod would do much better, except, you know, propellant. But if we're gonna bother getting it in orbit, we can throw it on an ICBM, get it to an unstable low earth orbit, and let gravity do the trick much faster than from a satellite.

Good thing the Navy is working on rail guns. So I can have peace about my orbital bombardment mega-weapons of the future. Sorry to derail the thread, but this has always been a subject that has intensely bothered me. I'm glad to know I can always go to Bay12 to talk about how to correct other peoples malformed mega-weapons.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]