From: nuny@bid.nes   
      
   On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 11:57:02 AM UTC-8, Thomas Koenig wrote:   
   > Damien Valentine  schrieb:   
   >    
   > > Also, because everybody's moving around at kilometers-per-second   
   > > speeds, your ammunition doesn't actually need to be all that   
   > > heavy.  See the Atomic Rockets website, where -- I believe on   
   > > the "conventional weapons" page -- the author proposes using   
   > > kitty-litter as ammunition.   
   >    
   > That has to be a joke.   
   >    
   > In order to be useful as a ballistic weapon, and unless your enemy   
   > obliges you by not dodging, you'll have to accelerate your   
   > "bullets", probably with a fairly high acceleration.  Kitty   
   > litter doesn't have the mechanical strength for this.   
      
    What part of kms/s relative velocities didn't you notice? No need to   
   accelerate it, just get it into the enemy's trajectory and let them smack into   
   it. Kitty litter is stealthy too- it reflects radar poorly.   
      
     And yes, it's quite frangible. Still, at several kms/s, it will do some   
   damage to your hull, portholes, sensors, RCS rockets and other stuff hanging   
   out while being franged (is that a word? it should be).   
      
   > > (Presumably an actual weapon would use sand, ball-bearings,   
   > > flechettes, or something similar.)  You don't need huge honkin'   
   > > artillery shells.   
      
     Or buckets of gravel which in space is free for the taking in some places.   
      
   > Some sort of shrapnel might be likely - accelerate towards your   
   > target, with a killing delta v, and separate into multiple small   
   > pieces before impact, to maximize probability that you would hit   
   > something vital.   
      
     Weapons have specific uses. What sort of "vital" target did you have in   
   mind? Which of your own have you not armored with layers of kevlar and   
   aluminum? Why would you expect the other guy not to armor his? By the way, a   
   few hundred pounds of kitty    
   litter will abrade the living shit out of that kind of armor, softening it up   
   for the metal/explosive bits which cost way more money.   
      
   > At close quarters, some sort of high-velocity machine-gun would   
   > also be likely, to kill the enemy's shrapnel agents at a safe   
   > distance and to punch holes in enemy ships.  Of course, this   
   > could also be done by some sort of "grenade".   
      
     The problem with all projectile weapons is that the ones that miss, may come   
   around and shoot you down later depending on the battlespace. Bullets,   
   shrapnel, kitty litter, grenades, all the same problem.   
      
   > Lasers might well play an important role, but probably more to   
   > blind sensors and to damage electronics.   
      
     Misses tend not to come back and bite you later though.   
      
      
     Mark L. Fergerson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)