Railgun Test Successful - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26632258]Hey the railgun was my favorite weapon in quake 2 fuck you buddy[/QUOTE] camper noob. go hide in a corner about it

I will, thanks

"Guys! There is nations in hunger, the economy is shit, north korea is bombing south. What shall we do?" "Build, railgun"

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26629537]you can't just "drop" things from orbit[/QUOTE] Thats why I put drop in quotes. A tiny tiny shove doesn't really fit the literary terms for *shoot* [editline]12th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26632258]Hey the railgun was my favorite weapon in quake 2 fuck you buddy[/QUOTE] They made it really gay looking in Quake 3 :saddowns:

[QUOTE=Tovleman;26632357]"Guys! There is nations in hunger, the economy is shit, north korea is bombing south. What shall we do?" "Build, railgun"[/QUOTE] Uh wouldn't the railgun help greatly with the North Korea problem

[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] They're not bombs.

[QUOTE=Tovleman;26632357]"Guys! There is nations in hunger, the economy is shit, north korea is bombing south. What shall we do?" "Build, railgun"[/QUOTE] Says the man who has most likely not done any volunteer work to help ease the pain the poor feel. Take the moral high ground when you have the right too.

[QUOTE=kirderf;26623576]How are they planning to power them on-board ships?[/QUOTE] Nuclear Reactors. The Nimitz class Aircraft carriers don't HAVE to refuel but once every 20 years

You are being short sighted everyone. This technology can introduce so many other things.

[QUOTE=Bluesummers;26634205]You are being short sighted everyone. This technology can introduce so many other things.[/QUOTE] this technology is two big rails, a projectile, and an application of the Lorentz force there's really not much new here

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26634795]this technology is two big rails, a projectile, and an application of the Lorentz force there's really not much new here[/QUOTE] The efficiency of batteries and capacitors is really what would define the efficiency of a railgun (at least on infantry-scale). Either way, there are design difficulties to overcome when designing a railgun. Sounds like the biggest problem they had was the rails taking heat damage from the projectile, not entirely sure how they resolved that, but if the process of design was really that simple it would have been done a long time ago. Ultimately the troubleshooting for the railgun could create new and interesting technologies (though probably for more use on weapons). As said earlier, really the only non-destruction related thing that could come out of it would be a way to launch stuff into space, seems like at least that could be quite useful.

Christ, it might as well shoot bombs, that much kinetic energy slamming down in one spot is going to make the planet shit itself.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;26635126]Christ, it might as well shoot bombs, that much kinetic energy slamming down in one spot is going to make the planet shit itself.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't a bomb explode just after being shot?

[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] 1. NASA was founded for military purposes, and it's a terribly inefficient organization anyway. 2. This qualifies as general science - If you think projectile acceleration is only good for bombing people, you've got no imagination. 3. A gigantic number of important inventions were originally intended for military use - nuclear energy? The internet? Seatbelts? etc etc etc. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26634795]this technology is two big rails, a projectile, and an application of the Lorentz force there's really not much new here[/QUOTE] That must be why the navy is already using them because they're fully developed because they're so simple

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;26628866]So this is basically a tactical ICBM?[/QUOTE] No, it's a solid slug of ferrous metal, not a rocket. Did you even read the article?

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;26635126]Christ, it might as well shoot bombs, that much kinetic energy slamming down in one spot is going to make the planet shit itself.[/QUOTE] Might cause localised earthquakes actually. Hmmm, interesting idea that should be exploited.

[QUOTE=bravehat;26635464]Might cause localised earthquakes actually. [/QUOTE] no, it would not.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26634795]this technology is two big rails, a projectile, and an application of the Lorentz force there's really not much new here[/QUOTE] Actually, from what I've seen, there have been some major obstacles to overcome with rapid heat dissipation, actually storing that much energy, and things like that. This could have massive implications.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26635492]no, it would not.[/QUOTE] Big enough slug going at mach 8 is gonna transfer a lot of energy to the target and the surrounding ground, could collapse any weak tunnels near it quite easily.

ITT: Lets look at a cannon that we're calling a railgun.

[QUOTE=bravehat;26635656]Big enough slug going at mach 8 is gonna transfer a lot of energy to the target and the surrounding ground, could collapse any weak tunnels near it quite easily.[/QUOTE] So can a normal explosive. The average earthquake, on the other hand, has far more energy than any nuclear bomb. Keep in mind, naval railguns would exert the same force to both the ship and the target. If a non-explosive shell would cause an earthquake on land, it would completely fuck up the ship it was fired from.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26635401]That must be why the navy is already using them because they're fully developed because they're so simple[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEBfMREi-tY[/media]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26635967][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEBfMREi-tY[/media][/QUOTE] my point was that making railguns practical is a lot more difficult than making railguns.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26635923]So can a normal explosive. The average earthquake, on the other hand, has far more energy than any nuclear bomb. Keep in mind, naval railguns would exert the same force to both the ship and the target. If a non-explosive shell would cause an earthquake on land, it would completely fuck up the ship it was fired from.[/QUOTE] A system of shock absorbing rails will likely be installed. Since there's no need for a very complex loading system, and no need to contain an explosion, setting up recoil absorbing mechanics would be pretty easy.

[QUOTE=bravehat;26629046]War drives science. Better was to find and get to people to kill them in ever more awesome ways has a trickle down effect. Fuck DARPA gave us the internet after all. [editline]11th December 2010[/editline] Since forever actually.[/QUOTE] Not to mention nothing improves Medical Science like a good War.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26636077]my point was that making railguns practical is a lot more difficult than making railguns.[/QUOTE] Making them practical is hardly the same thing as making them practical for surface warfare where we already 18-inch bore guns Anything requires advanced technology if you make it gigantic enough [editline]11th December 2010[/editline] Making a car the size of a city block is certainly harder than making a car, my point is that any component you need to make it super efficient can be developed independently. Railguns don't have special parts nothing has ever required that we can apply elsewhere or anything

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26636299]Making them practical is hardly the same thing as making them practical for surface warfare where we already 18-inch bore guns Anything requires advanced technology if you make it gigantic enough [editline]11th December 2010[/editline] Making a car the size of a city block is certainly harder than making a car, my point is that any component you need to make it super efficient can be developed independently. Railguns don't have special parts nothing has ever required that we can apply elsewhere or anything[/QUOTE] Exactly - there's more to it than two big rails, a projectile, and an application of the Lorentz force - which is why this research has wide applications.

Difficulty with 18 inch bore guns is they are immensely heavy, the ammunition is also very heavy, and as such the ship needs to be designed to carry the large volume of large, heavy ammunition. A ship utilizing rail-guns could be made lightweight and fast, the gun itself could be very powerful, extremely accurate, and make good use of recoil absorbers. A fast ship with an extremely accurate, fast firing and powerful gun would be incredibly deadly. This tech at least for the Navy, would be a big advancement.

Not the point I was making with that statement

I thought you meant that they weren't worthwhile for the navy to develop in comparison to existing gun technology. I guess you meant the other thing. Either way, shoot shit into space, sounds like fun!