The Physics of Space Battles
Moderator: Moderators
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
The way I see it, these nanobots are going to have to be pretty imaginative and powerful in each single bot, how else would they survive the various conditions of this planet and how else will thye know how to use the cast quantities of resources that do not fit into their highly specialized design, after all most nanobot designs for the foreseeable future would be nuked by simple sunlight, and they have to compete with bacterium too.
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
Fortunately yes, the...
HOLY SHIT WE GOT A NEW EMOTICON!!!
Its code is "regret" but that's not what it looks like it's expressing to me.
HOLY SHIT WE GOT A NEW EMOTICON!!!
Its code is "regret" but that's not what it looks like it's expressing to me.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 2464
- Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=21045Caydr wrote:HOLY SHIT WE GOT A NEW EMOTICON!!!
Its code is "regret" but that's not what it looks like it's expressing to me.
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
Well whose to say we can't have frigates made of depleted uranium. Modern battleships are capable of stopping your 9mm scenario.whose to say we can't make the ship itself in space and power it the same way we power modern battleships
- BrainDamage
- Lobby Developer
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 13:56
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
the fact that the uranium has huge mass density so you'd need quite powerful engine and waste lot of fuel to move it given same armor thickness ?Muzic wrote:Well whose to say we can't have frigates made of depleted uranium.
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
True. But on a positive note, the recoil from large guns won't throw your ship to fast from the opposite direction. I mean battleships are nuclear powered iirc, large space craft would probably require the same ammount of energy. But also you could say that large hull plating could be useless as in a modern battleship fight, the first one hit basically sinks anyways, so to have hull plating so thick to witdhstand main gun fire is redundant
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
A 9 mm DP shell traveling relativistically at hundreds or even thousands of kilometers an hour? I don't know whether the kinetic force would cause a huge explosion or whether it would tear right through it like paper, but it wouldn't just ping off.
edit: the "large guns" you're talking about would probably be recoilless rail guns, so mass isn't an issue.
edit 2: Also, it's interesting to note that there has never actually been a "modern" battleship fight. Two modern large ships on opposing sides haven't actually managed to get into firing range of each other more than once or twice, even if you factor in WW2. Aircraft carriers and relatively tiny support ships are the only things that make any difference now, which I think would extend to space battles as well because of the distances involved. That's why I think that "tie fighters with missiles" is the only likely system to be employed in anything but the demolition of a large target like an asteroid base or something.
edit: the "large guns" you're talking about would probably be recoilless rail guns, so mass isn't an issue.
edit 2: Also, it's interesting to note that there has never actually been a "modern" battleship fight. Two modern large ships on opposing sides haven't actually managed to get into firing range of each other more than once or twice, even if you factor in WW2. Aircraft carriers and relatively tiny support ships are the only things that make any difference now, which I think would extend to space battles as well because of the distances involved. That's why I think that "tie fighters with missiles" is the only likely system to be employed in anything but the demolition of a large target like an asteroid base or something.
- BrainDamage
- Lobby Developer
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 13:56
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
you don't want a lone troop with minimum equipment to be able to kill a huge strategical unit thoMuzic wrote:But also you could say that large hull plating could be useless as in a modern battleship fight, the first one hit basically sinks anyways, so to have hull plating so thick to witdhstand main gun fire is redundant
if by "relativistically" you mean at speeds where relativity theory applies, then you're off by several orders magnitude too smallCaydr wrote:A 9 mm DP shell traveling relativistically at hundreds or even thousands of kilometers an hour?
there is no such thing as "recoilless", you can try storing the energy in springs, etc but ultimately the 3rd principle of dynamics still appliesCaydr wrote:edit: the "large guns" you're talking about would probably be recoilless rail guns, so mass isn't an issue.
in space where there is no ground friction/anchor to dissipate the momentum, you'll still need engines to counterbalance recoil
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
We could coat our ships in gigantic woven layers of 'foam' to slow down bullets couldn't we? We could have HUGE light weight layers of this stuff, bullets would probably go through it, but thered be that much of it that you would have to fire a lot at a target to shred enough for its impact to have been negated, and the space craft could turn too.
You could put magnetic fields in the foam too by wiring it, causing allsorts of interference with scanners and targetting using metalic rounds.
One other tactic could be deploying a huge umbrella or sail in the direction of the target, concealing your actions and tangling up any small aircraft that come your way...
You could put magnetic fields in the foam too by wiring it, causing allsorts of interference with scanners and targetting using metalic rounds.
One other tactic could be deploying a huge umbrella or sail in the direction of the target, concealing your actions and tangling up any small aircraft that come your way...
Re: The Physics of Space Battles
I meant "relativistically" as in, relative speed as opposed to... well everything's relative, but I mean both the target and the targetter are both moving towards each other probably at no small speed. Then on top of that, the bullet or whatever will be fired at great velocity. All three might also possibly be affected by gravity to some considerable extent.if by "relativistically" you mean at speeds where relativity theory applies, then you're off by several orders magnitude too small
It's not like running into a wall riding a bike, it's like two cars running into each other coming from opposite directions on a highway. The three speeds add together to be much greater than just the bullet being fired and the impact damage is on a totally different scale.