[QUOTE=bravehat;26629412]Well in that case a tungsten rod the size of a telephone pole would be similar to a small nuclear warhead, Rods from God man, rods from god.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't really even need to shoot it. You could just "drop" it.
That comparison is a bit blown out of proportion, though. It's not like one rod would level a city, but the combined energy of impact in joules would be roughly similar to a small warhead's burst energy. Could probably level a large building from top to bottom.
Why the projectile was so square? Isn't it, like, easier to avoid air friction with more streamlined ones?
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;26629475]Wouldn't really even need to shoot it. You could just "drop" it.[/QUOTE]
you can't just "drop" things from orbit
[QUOTE=qwerty000;26629478]Why the projectile was so square? Isn't it, like, easier to avoid air friction with more streamlined ones?[/QUOTE]
Probably to fit the barrel better and maximise the effect of the magnetic field, they'll fix it all out in time.
For now though, big magnets big capacitors big shell = good.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26629537]you can't just "drop" things from orbit[/QUOTE]
This.
You have to actually get rid of their orbital momentum.
[QUOTE=qwerty000;26629478]Why the projectile was so square? Isn't it, like, easier to avoid air friction with more streamlined ones?[/QUOTE]
Because they can
[QUOTE=qwerty000;26629478]Why the projectile was so square? Isn't it, like, easier to avoid air friction with more streamlined ones?[/QUOTE]
at those sorts of speeds it doesn't even matter
also I'd imagine that a square shape would increase the efficiency at which it's propelled by the magnetic field, don't quote me on this though
[editline]11th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;26628866]So this is basically a tactical ICBM?[/QUOTE]
no, shorter range
the difference is that icbms propel themselves during flight, this thing just gets so much energy from its initial launch that it doesn't need to
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26629537]you can't just "drop" things from orbit[/QUOTE]
You can give things a little push toward Earth and that's all they need. In fact, that's the theory surrounding rods from god - tungsten rods released from an orbiting satellite, not even launched, just pushed down slightly. It accelerates on its own.
Launching things downward at the speeds we're looking at from a railgun would definitely pack a lot more punch.
I could be wrong, though, but this is what I've gathered from reading about the subject.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;26629475]Wouldn't really even need to shoot it. You could just "drop" it.
That comparison is a bit blown out of proportion, though. It's not like one rod would level a city, but the combined energy of impact in joules would be roughly similar to a small warhead's burst energy. Could probably level a large building from top to bottom.[/QUOTE]
Can't you theoretically propel it to the (okay jesus, NEAR) speed of light at which point a five meter long 0.5m long rod could destroy the fucking fuck out of a city?
[QUOTE=RayDark;26629634]propel it to the speed of light[/QUOTE]
:downs:
[QUOTE=bravehat;26629551]Probably to fit the barrel better and maximise the effect of the magnetic field, they'll fix it all out in time.
For now though, big magnets big capacitors big shell = good.[/QUOTE]
Square and then dildo shaped at the front?
[QUOTE=teh pirate;26629614]You can give things a little push toward Earth and that's all they need.[/QUOTE]
except that isn't how it works.
at all.
[QUOTE=RayDark;26629634]Can't you theoretically propel it to the speed of light at which point a five meter long 0.5m long rod could destroy the fucking fuck out of a city?[/QUOTE]
No...
Sit back down buddy you need your rest.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26629709]except that isn't how it works.
at all.[/QUOTE]
v:v:v
Point stands that railgunning the rods at the surface of the Earth would be really dangerous to anything near the impact zone
[QUOTE=bravehat;26629718]No...
Sit back down buddy you need your rest.[/QUOTE]
Ah, I thought I read that somewhere.
[QUOTE=RayDark;26629850]Ah, I thought I read that somewhere.[/QUOTE]
Honestly accelerating something with that much mass to near c in the earths atmosphere raises a most likely wrong and inaccurate problem, but couldn't that set the atmosphere on fire? Or is that just the vodka clouding my mind?
[QUOTE=bravehat;26629892]Honestly accelerating something with that much mass to near c in the earths atmosphere raises a most likely wrong and inaccurate problem, but couldn't that set the atmosphere on fire? Or is that just the vodka clouding my mind?[/QUOTE]
it wouldn't set the atmosphere on fire, it would just release an inordinate amount of energy
it would be visible for hundreds of miles and would kill basically everyone directly below it. it would also cause some pretty weird temporary weather patterns because you've now got a column of air stretching from the ground to space that has suddenly been heated up to millions of degrees
lol cool
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26623648]So instead of putting more money on NASA, general science research, schools e.t.c, they spend it on finding better ways to bomb the arabs?[/QUOTE]
when you put it that way it sounds bad, but it's for defense of the people
I'm not dumb and you can't disagree with question. I'm just surprised that it took them that long to make a rail gun. It's just electromagnetic technology after all.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;26629733]v:v:v
Point stands that railgunning the rods at the surface of the Earth would be really dangerous to anything near the impact zone[/QUOTE]
yeah, my point was that if you just "let go" of something in orbit it will continue along the same path as before. you need to rob it of its angular momentum so that it falls
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26629965]it wouldn't set the atmosphere on fire, it would just release an inordinate amount of energy
it would be visible for hundreds of miles and would kill basically everyone directly below it. it would also cause some pretty weird temporary weather patterns because you've now got a column of air stretching from the ground to space that has suddenly been heated up to millions of degrees[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't the near-unlimited amount of kinetic energy from an object going with the speed of light be enough to cause massive heat all over the Earth?
Not an expert on this, so correct me if I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;26629998]I'm not dumb and you can't disagree with question. I'm just surprised that it took them that long to make a rail gun. It's just electromagnetic technology after all.[/QUOTE]
they've made railguns before, this is just the most powerful one yet
[editline]11th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26630013]Wouldn't the near-unlimited amount of kinetic energy from an object going with the speed of light be enough to cause massive heat all over the Earth?[/QUOTE]
depends on how big it is
basically yes, now that I think about it
disregard my earlier post I completely underestimated how much energy something travelling at relativistic speeds has
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26629965]it wouldn't set the atmosphere on fire, it would just release an inordinate amount of energy
[highlight]it would be visible for hundreds of miles and would kill basically everyone directly below it. it would also cause some pretty weird temporary weather patterns because you've now got a column of air stretching from the ground to space that has suddenly been heated up to millions of degrees[/highlight][/QUOTE]
[img]http://knowyourmeme.com/i/4762/original/dat_ass.jpg?1246830944[/img]
Can we please do this, I actually wanna see this so much, can we do it over the DRC? It's a shit hole anyway.
[QUOTE=bravehat;26629892][b]Honestly accelerating something with that much mass to near c in the earths atmosphere raises a most likely wrong and inaccurate problem[/b], but couldn't that set the atmosphere on fire? Or is that just the vodka clouding my mind?[/QUOTE]
Still possible to accelerate it to NEAR c right?
I don't think all of the atmosphere would burn, maybe a large reaction and massive air wave or something, but really, I have no clue, since no one has launched a five meter long godrod into the atmosphere yet.
[QUOTE=bravehat;26630051][img_thumb]http://knowyourmeme.com/i/4762/original/dat_ass.jpg?1246830944[/img_thumb]
Can we please do this, I actually wanna see this so much, can we do it over the DRC? It's a shit hole anyway.[/QUOTE]
read my above post, the effects would actually be even more extreme
I'm not sure what would even happen if a piece of metal the size of a coin enters the atmosphere at 0.99c
one thing is for certain - the ground is certainly not going to stop it
[editline]11th December 2010[/editline]
[quote]A 1 kg mass traveling at 99% of the speed of light would have a kinetic energy of 5.47×1017 joules. In explosive terms, it would be equal to 132 megatons of TNT or approximately 32 megatons more than the theoretical max yield of the tsar bomba, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. 1 kg of mass-energy is 8.99×1016 joules or about 21.5 megatons of TNT.[/quote]
thank you wikipedia
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26623648]So instead of putting more money on NASA, general science research, schools e.t.c, they spend it on finding better ways to bomb the arabs?[/QUOTE]
come on man this is cool, don't be like that
[QUOTE=cqbcat;26629998]I'm not dumb and you can't disagree with question. I'm just surprised that it took them that long to make a rail gun. It's just electromagnetic technology after all.[/QUOTE]
The technology isn't really the problem ; it's the weapon itself.
I can't remember exactly , but after[b] a few [/b]shots the barrel starts to wear and tear , greatly decreasing the efficiency of the gun. They've probably got a material which can withstand hundreds of shots.
lets hope they don't make the railgun a 1hit KO weapon. that shit was so cheap in quake 2
Hey the railgun was my favorite weapon in quake 2 fuck you buddy
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
