Custom Military Technology

[Maelstrom Vortex]

First off, there are literally no official online sources of such a weapon existing.

I know you can't keep up with everything I post, but if you go back to the gm hall and look I've provided numerous source on the weapons platforms. The X-37B exists, there are pictures of it landing, it's all over the news. The gun exists.

Here's info on the gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikhter_R-23
Here's a picture of it:

http://i2.minus.com/imV4UlddpgATZ.JPG

 

Here's info on the space plane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

It includes pictures of it.

 

Here's info on the boom arm, which can vary by size depending on the bay it is deployed in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_Boom_Sensor_System

 

You will notice it handles things much larger than the gun with ease. The boom can literally fold within the bay along side the gun. If the space plane could not survive a little vibration it would not withstand re-entry or exiting earth's atmosphere. If I took one shot at the satellite, then re-stabilized with thrusters and gyros, then shot again, each shot would be accurate. It's not like the target's going to evade, they're not even aware of the craft's presence.

 

The orbit of a given craft is purely dependent upon the delta-v fuel expended to change its orbit. Given the craft has been in orbit for over 2 years, it should have plenty to operate LEO, MEO, and GEO with relative ease.. even if not, I could simply fire at the sats in GEO from Leo. It's not like there's much in the way of friction in space to stop the bullet. Just a matter of angling the shot right and running mass calculations to score a hit.. after all. GEO's sit still compared to other sats, just moving enough to keep tis position above earth.

 

 

Also "Modular tech is not the same as custom technology. Example, my space plane, all the parts work individually, I just bolted them together in a way they wil not interfere with each other and compliment each other." I'm pretty sure thats the definition of custom (made or performed according to personal order - meriam webster)  :P

 

If that's the case, then every bomb payload on every aircraft is a custom build. Because they're all held on by nuts and bolts til fired pretty much. That's my point.. the X-37 b is just another aircraft basically this one just happens to be able to enter and return from space. By the rules it is a modern piece of technology and I'm in the range to use it.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Evangeline Anovilis]

The orbit of a given craft is purely dependent upon the delta-v fuel expended to change its orbit. Given the craft has been in orbit for over 2 years, it should have plenty to operate LEO, MEO, and GEO with relative ease.. even if not, I could simply fire at the sats in GEO from Leo. It's not like there's much in the way of friction in space to stop the bullet. Just a matter of angling the shot right and running mass calculations to score a hit.. after all. GEO's sit still compared to other sats, just moving enough to keep tis position above earth.

LEO goes up to 2,000 km at most, GEO starts at over 35,000 km. You are firing at objects 33,000+ km away. Let's for a moment assume your Russian-made autocannon has any kind of decent accuracy at 1 MOA. You'd have a spread over an area of almost 29,000 square kilometres (or a circle with around 95 km radius). You could fill the rest of your spaceplane with ammunition belts, chances are, you won't hit what you are aiming at.

 

And that is just one of the many issues...

[Maelstrom Vortex]

LEO goes up to 2,000 km at most, GEO starts at over 35,000 km. You are firing at objects 33,000+ km away. Let's for a moment assume your Russian-made autocannon has any kind of decent accuracy at 1 MOA. You'd have a spread over an area of almost 29,000 square kilometres (or a circle with around 95 km radius). You could fill the rest of your spaceplane with ammunition belts, chances are, you won't hit what you are aiming at.

 

And that is just one of the many issues...

 

Ballistic accuracy improves in space.. no wind.. no atmosphere.. gravity, mass, and momentum equations become easier. Lots of variables out of the way. Half of what causes ballistic inaccuracy on Earth is gone. The bullet projectile exit velocity and mass is known, so is the orbit of the satellite. it' just becomes a matter of calculating when a projectile of that mass at its speed would occupy the same position as the satellite.. and blammo, impact. If a train leaves Chicago heading south.. and one from Cincinnati is heading north on the same line.. how long til collision if moving at x and y speeds? :P

 

It's not like the space plane is breathing with its engines off idling in orbit. if it did have lungs then I'd have to program it how to hold its breath while it shoots.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Triyun]

No gravity... do you even physics bra

[Captain Enema]

Voting poll options.

Should we allow custom military tech?

Yes.
No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really do not think we need a polling option for allowing existing stats for designs with funky space agey pictures. That's a common sense thing and I don't see it needing a vote. 

 

Use whatever picture you want, just link the stats to a wikipedia page, or something like it, in your factbook. 

[Hereno]

in complete agreement with voodoo/kevin/tbm

$%&@ custom tech

if you want it, figure it out yourselves with the other people you'll be warring with

and yes that includes missiles and everything else

KISS

Edited October 28, 2014 by Hereno

[Maelstrom Vortex]

No gravity... do you even physics bra

 

You need to re-read that sentence. I just said gravity mass and momentum calcs become easier. I did not say "no gravity".

[Generalissimo]

I support Voodoo's proposal for sake of expediency.

Wars really shouldn't be solely about nitpicking technology.

[Mogar]

Personally, I dont think technology should play much into wars anyway, a bunch of acronyms along with numbers isn't really a story line.

[Captain Enema]

I put it to the GM team that we have enough community support for a vote. 

 

Myself, Generalissmo, hereno, kevin, and any others I might have missed have voiced support for Voodoo's proposal. The voting options seem pretty simple, straight up yes or no vote.

[Triyun]

 

You need to re-read that sentence. I just said gravity mass and momentum calcs become easier. I did not say "no gravity".

 

I'm sorry, so you mean a bullet fires from a gun 120 kilometes from the surface of he Eath which still has a significant gravitational pull acting on it constantly to degrade its speed, and is moving with the vector motion that enables the LEO orbit, to then hit a moving object 22000 kilometers away away even when both objects are likely moving perpendicular, and if you even had the kinetic force to do this (which again I don't think you do) you'd have to shoot at the exact instant in order to hit something from a distance you could literally fit an entire second Planet Earth between that's the size of a school bus.  Is that correct?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Triyun

[Maelstrom Vortex]

 

I'm sorry, so you mean a bullet fires from a gun 120 kilometes from the surface of he Eath which still has a significant gravitational pull acting on it constantly to degrade its speed, and is moving with the vector motion that enables the LEO orbit, to then hit a moving object 22000 kilometers away away even when both objects are likely moving perpendicular, and if you even had the kinetic force to do this (which again I don't think you do) you'd have to shoot at the exact instant in order to hit something from a distance you could literally fit an entire second Planet Earth between that's the size of a school bus.  Is that correct?

 

Someone hasn't heard of the 4 fold rule. With every doubling of distance from the planet's surface, gravity gets 4 times weaker.Thus why GEO has such a low orbital velocity requirement. Given that the bullet starts out with an initial velocity of 842 m/s a tremendous amount of speed for those particular orbits and the higher orbits require less and less orbital momentum, yes.. it could probably make it to GEO. And yes, if you did the calculations very precisely, you could probably hit the sat. Very fundamental gravitational mechanics. It's the same reason you can dock with a space station. If you couldn't hit a bullet with a bullet.. you wouldn't be able to hit a docking port with a docking port. Given most of these procedures are automated.....shouldn't be a problem at all. It would arrive on target in about 6 hours or less. You see you also have to factor in a couple of other things. Not only is it carrying its firing velocity, it is also carrying the velocity of the body it is fired from in its orbit as well. Combined exit speeds and relative velocities could very well exceed 2.8 km/second depending on craft orientation and position in the lower orbit at firing.

 

I love discussing orbital mechanics :)

Edited October 28, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Triyun]

Uh no....  Geo's not slow at all.  Geo completes a huge ring around the earth once every 24 hours.  Its just slow in view with the Earth, the same way the asshole driving 53 in a 55 zone slowing up my passing lane is slow to me driving 60.  That's not the same thing. And the distances between a space shuttle/ space station and the Earth and GEO and the Earth/ space shuttle aren't even comparable.  

 

Further, LEOs gravity is not that low.  LEO creates the illusion of weightlessness because you're moving around the Earth once every 90 minutes.  That creates an illusion of weightlessness.  An object with no outward vector motion in LEO would come down real fast.  

 

Its also notable LEO includes both the space shuttle and space station, and can control their movement to adjust in order to dock and line up.  A bullet is a one shot deal.  We can't even hit an object with a course correcting ASAT without a specially designed manuverable warhead if its 120 kilometers above us, you're talking shooting something while you're moving around the Earth at a speed of 90 minutes per rotation 183 times further away that's also moving around the Earth at an orbital speed of that huge circumference once every 24 hours.  Give me a break.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Uh no....  Geo's not slow at all.  Geo completes a huge ring around the earth once every 24 hours.  Its just slow in view with the Earth, the same way the !@#$%^& driving 53 in a 55 zone slowing up my passing lane is slow to me driving 60.  That's not the same thing. And the distances between a space shuttle/ space station and the Earth and GEO and the Earth/ space shuttle aren't even comparable.  

 

Further, LEOs gravity is not that low.  LEO creates the illusion of weightlessness because you're moving around the Earth once every 90 minutes.  That creates an illusion of weightlessness.  An object with no outward vector motion in LEO would come down real fast.  

 

Its also notable LEO includes both the space shuttle and space station, and can control their movement to adjust in order to dock and line up.  A bullet is a one shot deal.  We can't even hit an object with a course correcting ASAT without a specially designed manuverable warhead if its 120 kilometers above us, you're talking shooting something while you're moving around the Earth at a speed of 90 minutes per rotation 183 times further away that's also moving around the Earth at an orbital speed of that huge circumference once every 24 hours.  Give me a break.

 

GEO is very slow compared to lower orbits which circle the earth once every few minutes whereas GEO never does at all. Relative surface velocity of a GEO is static while relative surface velocity of a LEO is massive. Maybe I should have been more specific by what I meant as "slow". As for your last paragraph, the reason you need course correction has nothing to do with gravity. It has everything to do with the fact that ASATs must exit the atmosphere when fired. The ASAT must remain on course while on its atmospheric exit path and then course correct to come into the proper trajectory to hit the satellite once outside the atmosphere. After that, terminal guidance could be mere inertia and Gyros. Bullets spin, they already stabilize themselves. Also, I guarantee you the amount of gravity (not the constant, it is staic, but the net sum) being applied to roughly 180 grams of mass is far lower than that being applied to say.. the shuttle or the space station.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Triyun]

That's just... no. 

 

Just because the relative speed to Earth is Zero doesn't make the speed zero, and an object in LEO isn't locked into that Earth relative zero speed either, its moving at a velocity and vector of LEO speed.  

 

You're also flat out wrong about the ASAT, it has very little to do with the fact that the ASAT encounters difficulty moving out of the atmosphere, it has to do with the fact that its damn hard to launch a rocket that precisely, space or not.  That's one of the reasons Brilliant pebbles went for a shotgun approach, the program that we had to actually do missile defense in space with a kinetic kill.  

 

Further, no I won't take your word for it about the bullet not being pulled down, and no that's also not how gravity works.  If you drop a bowling ball and an anvil in a vacuum environment straight down at the earth, the force pulling the object and Earth together are equal.  Earth's greater mass and its relation to other objects in the universe mean, Earth's not going to move much, relative to any other object of considerably less mass, but Earth and the object exert equal pull.  

 

Newton's Third Law bro.  

 

Also just an FYI the astronauts in LEO on the ISS experience 90% the gravity you and I currently experience.  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle

 

You're just wrong.  

[Generalissimo]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/121514-procinctia-armament-mark-iv-arm-harder/

I am going to lose my lulz technology here  :(

You have no idea how difficult building a nonsensical and useless technology base was.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

That's just... no. 
 
Just because the relative speed to Earth is Zero doesn't make the speed zero, and an object in LEO isn't locked into that Earth relative zero speed either, its moving at a velocity and vector of LEO speed.

You are correct. Nor did I say the speed was O. I said relative surface velocity was 0, and that was accurate. The relative surface velocity of LEO orbits is much greater than zero. What I'm trying to communicate here is that the lower orbits have the higher overall velocities. To get to a higher orbit, you spend some delta v, but your relative surface speed falls while your orbital speed increases due to the fact you're on the outer periphery of a larger circular trajectory. Therefore, on a LEO orbit if you fired at the correct moment in the orbit you could add additional speed to the approach of the bullet fired from an orbital platform towards another object in a higher orbit, a kind of sling shot.
 

You're also flat out wrong about the ASAT, it has very little to do with the fact that the ASAT encounters difficulty moving out of the atmosphere, it has to do with the fact that its damn hard to launch a rocket that precisely, space or not.  That's one of the reasons Brilliant pebbles went for a shotgun approach, the program that we had to actually do missile defense in space with a kinetic kill.

Brilliant Pebbles was also designed to counter avoidance maneuvers, thus the shotgun effect. If they didn't have to be concerned the enemy ICBM would in some manner evade, didn't have to worry about both re-entry and atmospheric exit conditions both the target and their interceptor would encounter, didn't have to worry that they could potentially be intercepting an icbm at any number of stages in its re-entry path depending upon detection times, then the shotgun effect may be required. There were a lot of reasons for a scatter projectile approach, accuracy was one of many concerns.
 

Further, no I won't take your word for it about the bullet not being pulled down, and no that's also not how gravity works.  If you drop a bowling ball and an anvil in a vacuum environment straight down at the earth, the force pulling the object and Earth together are equal.  Earth's greater mass and its relation to other objects in the universe mean, Earth's not going to move much, relative to any other object of considerably less mass, but Earth and the object exert equal pull.  
 
Also just an FYI the astronauts in LEO on the ISS experience 90% the gravity you and I currently experience.  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle
 
You're just wrong.

So lets do some math.. see how wrong I am. 10% of earth's surface gravity in orbit. I'll give you that. Not sure if it's accurate. My stake in this argument isn't so immense that I seriously care to look... that's going to be .98 m/s of speed loss on a projectile with up to 2.8km/s of velocity towards its target. I put to you that by the time it starts falling again, it will have already hit its target.

I'm not even factoring into the equation that every time distance doubles from its firing point the grav drag on the bullet quarters. Edited October 29, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Triyun]

You apparently read 90% as 10%, the gravitational effect on a static object in LEO is 90% of what it is on Earth.

[Mogar]

The Earth's gravity is only slightly weaker at the altitude of the ISS than at the surface. However, objects in orbit are in a continuous state of freefall, resulting in an apparent state of weightlessness. 

[Triyun]

Yes.... either you don't understand that sentence or I don't understand your point.  You feel a sensation of weightlessness when you go down a hill on a roller coaster too, that doesn't mean gravity isn't pulling you down.  In the astronauts case they are constantly being pulled by vector motion to the side, even as the Earth pulls them down thus creating the effect of weightlessness.  This is why you can create weightlessness in an airplane too...