LeVentNoir Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 <snip> ICBMs reach 7km/s easy. Next, its infintatly easier to shoot down a think skinned missile rather than a solid 'bullet' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 OOC: Let's just let this project proceed. It's theoratically possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 ooc: Its not a ballistic as far as I can tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 The door into the room opened, and seven Dutch Military designers, all of whom worked for Kingdom Arsenal, the largest military manufacturer in the Republic, walked into the room. All of them were dressed the same, with black suits and white shirts, and ties which reflected seven different provincial emblems from both the Netherlands and France. They all carried with them briefcases which bore the logo of Kingdom Arsenal on the face. They walked to the meeting, and six sat down. One of the men remained standing, shook hands with the Kaiser, and whipsered in his ear, introducing himself as Prins of the Republic, then going to the front of the room, and making an announcement. "Gentlemen, I come bearing gifts. I bring ten billion dollars in Federal funds from the Second Republic. All are to be used for the development of this weapon for the betterment of both of our arsenals. Along with me I have brought the most experienced military designing team in the Netherlands, who will help us all to design this new superweapon." He walked to his left, and stood, awaiting the continuation of the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 OOC: ...if it's a nuclear explosion launching a projectile, I call godmod. There is no chamber design that can survive an internal nuclear explosion like that, it VAPORISES material around it. ooc: Actually, you are completely and utterly wrong. There are some elements that won't even vaporize in the core of stars.. mostly the much heavier ones, like Lead. Therefore it is completely probable and doable with the right engineering to have a nuclear detonation chamber to use to launch projectiles. Although, due to the scale of the engineering involved, yield would have to be highly controlled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 ooc: Actually, you are completely and utterly wrong. There are some elements that won't even vaporize in the core of stars.. mostly the much heavier ones, like Lead. Therefore it is completely probable and doable with the right engineering to have a nuclear detonation chamber to use to launch projectiles. Although, due to the scale of the engineering involved, yield would have to be highly controlled. OOC: The problem then mael is stuff also melts in the immense heat a nuke produces, and we havn't even got to the blast wave. To be effective it has to be contained tightly. Honestly there is no possible way to contain the detonation pressures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) ooc: Yes there is, you simply have to use enough metal and assume that portion of the gun's blast chamber is going to sustain significant liquification every time the weapon is fired. In other words, you're going to have to replace the blast chamber every time the weapon is fired. I don't think the design is practical, but it is doable at extreme expense. With sufficient technology, one could theoretically design an electromagnetic containment chamber for the blast with one opening and also an electromagnetic channel down the barrel of the gun to vent the blast and plasma... but that would take.. oh.. way beyond the tech we work with right now I theorize and a few quadrillion dollars to afford and operate such a structure. Edited March 9, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 ooc: I don't think the design is practical, but it is doable at extreme expense. OOC: Exactly why I suppor this weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 ooc: Actually, you are completely and utterly wrong. There are some elements that won't even vaporize in the core of stars.. mostly the much heavier ones, like Lead. Therefore it is completely probable and doable with the right engineering to have a nuclear detonation chamber to use to launch projectiles. Although, due to the scale of the engineering involved, yield would have to be highly controlled. OOC: ... From what I know, lead boils at below 2000 °C. The interior of stars has millions of degrees Celsius, and the center of a nuclear explosion isn't much cooler. There is no material that survives that, Mael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) OOC: ... From what I know, lead boils at below 2000 °C. The interior of stars has millions of degrees Celsius, and the center of a nuclear explosion isn't much cooler. There is no material that survives that, Mael. ooc: Actually, there is a "material" that can "survive" it.. but no one on earth has it or it would immediately fall through their hands and straight into the surface of our planet as well as probably causing an inter-planetary nova as the neutronium would no longer have the gravitational pressures required to keep it cohesive and it'd go off like a neutron start that suddenly lost its gravity. Edited March 9, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) OOC: then its godmod in the economic sense that no one was the money to spend making a blast chamber strong enough, never the less multiple times. Even NORAD, buried in a mountain, isn't rated to survive a direct nuclear strike. Edited March 9, 2009 by Tahsir Re Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) OOC: then its godmod in the economic sense that no one was the money to spend making a blast chamber strong enough, never the less multiple times. Even NORAD, buried in a mountain, isn't rated to survive a direct nuclear strike. ooc: Whether or not a structure survives depends on how well yield is controlled. The big question here is, "What is the smallest nuclear detonation sustainable.. and would that detonation still radically alter a containment structure?" I do not know the answer to 1, but if it is small enough, 2 would fall into step accordingly. Ninja Edit: It appears the Davy Crocket warhead sustains a 10-11 tons of TNT equivalent blast when fired. Such a detonation might successfully power such a weapon. Especially so if the blast chamber is magnetically shielded. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002997.html ^ The Davy Crocket Edited March 9, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 OOC: The smallest nuclear detonation I can think of only blows 25 foot wide holes in the ground. They use it for extreme bunker busting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing Well, if you have a 27kt weapon, it will blow a hole about 12 to 36 m in radius. Most interesting for trying to contain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 ooc: That's why I suggest using davy-crocket yields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 OOC: ... From what I know, lead boils at below 2000 °C. The interior of stars has millions of degrees Celsius, and the center of a nuclear explosion isn't much cooler. There is no material that survives that, Mael. Correction Iron. It cannot be fissioned or fused. It will melt through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Correction Iron. It cannot be fissioned or fused. It will melt through. OOC: It can still melt, boil and be turned into plasma from what I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasili Markov Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 (edited) OOC: It can still melt, boil and be turned into plasma from what I know. OOC: I can confirm that this is correct, all matter has 4 states (solid,liquid,gas & plasma). There are no exceptions, just differing melting/boiling points. So yes you can boil iron if you get it hot enough. Edited March 9, 2009 by Vasili Markov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 OOC: Lets just say its not feasable/not worth the price then. You can make it, but in an actual war you'll get f***'ed over because the enemy spent their money on things that you can get alot more of, and with good-to-better effectiveness. I.e. This "cannon" would not be very accurate at the suggested ranges (if its a damned milimeter in either direction, and even with satalites the cannon is still the problem...), it would be costly to make (I would never field a multi-billion-dollor piece of equipment!), and others that you guys will find to argue about. I don't really care too much about if it works or not. It just won't be worth the price in military terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 OOC: First act against these super cannons in an act of war "HAR HAR NUKEZ UR CANNONZ NO MORE SUPER GUNZ!" Then you're left with most of your long range military stockpile without a gun to shot it from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 ooc: This is why I'm using a rail gun that uses shells carried on a magnetic levitation system from holding chamber to end of barrel. Just makes a lot more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 ooc: This is why I'm using a rail gun that uses shells carried on a magnetic levitation system from holding chamber to end of barrel. Just makes a lot more sense. ooc; Thats impossible. On the basis, in a railgun, the projectile has to touch the rails.... Maybe in a coilgun you can get a contact-less projectile path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 ...Which thusly has a clear path to which it can be done. Your "Atomic Cannon", for lack of a better term, has no such possible alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.