Kankou Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Not saying it's impossible, more like sort of out of the usual scale of how we do things, and I rather not have to actually deal with it with all the other stuff we have to take care of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) The technology is pretty crude if you are popping nukes off behind a large plate of metal tied to a chunk of whatever. Not sure it's a point worth fussing over. Edited March 19, 2012 by Tidy Bowl Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1332126374' post='2940075'] The Verne gun (singular, by the way) uses what's proposed by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29"]Project Orion[/url], the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion"]Nuclear Pulse Drive[/url], except on a considerably larger scale. Note that on 'interplanetary scale', the nuclear bombs used would have a yield of 0.35 kilotons to propel a ship with the mass of 10,000 tons. Also note that a far larger vessel had been proposed, a so-called 'Super Orion', with a total mass of around 8,000,000 tons. Compare 10,000 kilotons propelling 280,000 tons into low LEO (80-160 km), to 800*0.35=280 kilotons propelling 10,000 tons into LEO (160-480 km). It's not as impossible as you think. [/quote] Is there no difference between using one time 10 mt or 800 times 0.35 kt? Also, the payload of the 10,000 ton spacecraft is about 6,100 tons, as the rest are bombs that are used and the craft slowly gets lighter. Also of the 8,000,000 tons of the Super Orion over 3,000,000 tons are just the propulsion unit. It may not be impossible, but I doubt the use of nuclear propulsion on a sustained rate is not completely translatable to a nuclear propulsion in a space gun. At least, your underground explosions don't produce as much fallout as if it were sustained explosions, though the use of 10 mt compared to 280 kt may create still a good quantity of fallout that gets blown out the tube with the spacecraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Why does it matter? Go RP. Stop arguing about the feasibility of tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1332149667' post='2940162'] The technology is pretty crude if you are popping nukes off behind a large plate of metal tied to a chunk of whatever. Not sure it's a point worth fussing over. [/quote] Basically, that's what happens. It's slightly more complicated (large hole, shaped detonation, specially prepared plate of metal, etc), but the gist is that. Popping nukes behind a large plate of metal. [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1332156221' post='2940173'] Is there no difference between using one time 10 mt or 800 times 0.35 kt? Also, the payload of the 10,000 ton spacecraft is about 6,100 tons, as the rest are bombs that are used and the craft slowly gets lighter. Also of the 8,000,000 tons of the Super Orion over 3,000,000 tons are just the propulsion unit. It may not be impossible, but I doubt the use of nuclear propulsion on a sustained rate is not completely translatable to a nuclear propulsion in a space gun. At least, your underground explosions don't produce as much fallout as if it were sustained explosions, though the use of 10 mt compared to 280 kt may create still a good quantity of fallout that gets blown out the tube with the spacecraft. [/quote] 10 MT are around 35.7 times the power of 280 KT. 280,000 tons is - obviously - 28 times what 10,000 tons is. Please note I never said that the 280,000 tons do not include the propulsion unit. I only said 'x tons of material', which can and does include that unit. The only difference between the two propulsion units is that for one, all power get applied all at once, the detonation chamber shaped to get as much as possible at the plate. For the other, less than 50% of the nuclear detonation's power is actually applied unless shaped charges are used, in which case a lot -less- than 800 nukes would have to be utilised. I would say that the difference between one shaped or multiple non-shaped warheads, even if there is one, is negligible. Fallout... Funny thing, larger, more powerful bombs have less fallout in comparison, largely thanks to using fusion reactions instead of fission for their devastating power. [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1332164567' post='2940199'] Why does it matter? Go RP. Stop arguing about the feasibility of tech. [/quote] Unlike some, I like elaborating about the possibility of everything I do. As always, my only limit generally is time, or money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1332164567' post='2940199'] Why does it matter? Go RP. Stop arguing about the feasibility of tech. [/quote] Well, as it is not detrimental to anyones national security, I don't think it matters too much, but some people still like to be called at least somewhat realistic. [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1332172516' post='2940237'] 10 MT are around 35.7 times the power of 280 KT. 280,000 tons is - obviously - 28 times what 10,000 tons is. Please note I never said that the 280,000 tons do not include the propulsion unit. I only said 'x tons of material', which can and does include that unit. The only difference between the two propulsion units is that for one, all power get applied all at once, the detonation chamber shaped to get as much as possible at the plate. For the other, less than 50% of the nuclear detonation's power is actually applied unless shaped charges are used, in which case a lot -less- than 800 nukes would have to be utilised. I would say that the difference between one shaped or multiple non-shaped warheads, even if there is one, is negligible. Fallout... Funny thing, larger, more powerful bombs have less fallout in comparison, largely thanks to using fusion reactions instead of fission for their devastating power. [/quote] The difference is mostly in that the sustained explosions are used to smooth out the process so that manned flight is possible. Though I guess the Verne Gun will be used just for wares anyway. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 [quote name='EvangelineAnovilis' timestamp='1332192287' post='2940339'] The difference is mostly in that the sustained explosions are used to smooth out the process so that manned flight is possible. Though I guess the Verne Gun will be used just for wares anyway. Right? [/quote] The launch loops are used to send people to space. The Verne Gun is purely for cargo launches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1332192287' post='2940339'] Well, as it is not detrimental to anyones national security, I don't think it matters too much, but some people still like to be called at least somewhat realistic. The difference is mostly in that the sustained explosions are used to smooth out the process so that manned flight is possible. Though I guess the Verne Gun will be used just for wares anyway. Right? [/quote] I direct you to [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106348&view=findpost&p=2844091"]this[/url] post, in which it says, >>Now, I say "sails into orbit", but of course it is more like "slammed by thousands of gs of acceleration", so this has to be unmanned - any human beings on board would instantly be converted into a thin layer of bloody chunky salsa covering the deck plates.<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Using the advanced technologies of the early 90's. . . What would it take to make the Iraqi Project Babylon in CNRP? Project Babylon is fun 90's technology! Project Babylon is fun Iraqi technology! Should we allow such a weapon in CNRP? Even if it's entirely feasible with 90's technology? Is Project Babylon a tank or cruise missile slot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Cruise missile, and you can build it. Its impossible to hide though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1333158943' post='2945830'] Cruise missile, and you can build it. Its impossible to hide though. [/quote]Not True! It's only impossible to hide once fired. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 My next weapon will be Project HARP mounted on a NASA Crawler. . . What could make this work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Your imagination. I've always wanted to make a nuclear power landcruiser similar in size to the NASA crawler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 make sure you put big mud flaps on it yo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1333172956' post='2945968'] make sure you put big mud flaps on it yo. [/quote] [img]http://atlasclubbed.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/omar-indeed.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1333172956' post='2945968'] make sure you put big mud flaps on it yo. [/quote] But which ones? Reclining lady or Yosemite Sam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 Yosemite Sam in a thong of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1333271654' post='2946628'] Yosemite Sam in a thong of course. [/quote] Thong? That's just wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 So is a harp cannon on a nasa shuttle crawler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 How can mixing NASA shuttle crawler with HARP cannon be wrong? Allow me to present Generalissimo’s advanced schematic of the concept. [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1333159652' post='2945838'][center][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Crawler-Transporter.jpg/320px-Crawler-Transporter.jpg[/img] + [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Project_Harp.jpg[/img] = ? ? ?[/center][/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 No. Landcruiser that can manufacture tanks on the fly. [img]http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/009/4/3/UEF___Fatboy_1_by_Napseis.jpg[/img] [img]http://images.wikia.com/supcom/images/4/4f/UEFT4Fatboy.jpg[/img] Can also double as a mobile fire base, and refuel/re-arm helicopters and VTOL aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 And this is why instead of the BS logic that MOBs and landcruisers can be "common sense", they should be linked to the FAFB wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 Well, im not sure about MOBs (they seem almost stupidly vulnerable to even a half-assed attack) but my landcruiser would be purely noncanonical in a semi-canon thread. Unless they're actually allowed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1333372004' post='2947282'] Well, im not sure about MOBs (they seem almost stupidly vulnerable to even a half-assed attack) but my landcruiser would be purely noncanonical in a semi-canon thread. Unless they're actually allowed [/quote] That would indeed be [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/awesome.gif[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 Something I've been trying to choose: Teak or aluminum deck? 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.