From: tkoenig@netcologne.de
nuny@bid.nes schrieb:
> 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?
Which part of "your enemy obliges you by not dodging" was unclear?
To bring it into the enemy's path requires acceleration, and
ammunition which changes its shape a _lot_ depending on the
acceleration simply makes no sense.
>> 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?
On a spaceship: Power source. Drive. Weapons. Thrusters. Command &
Control. If your ship uses antimatter as energy source, above all
else: The antimatter containment.
> Which of your own have you not armored with layers
> of kevlar and aluminum?
Depending on your mass limitation. Problem is that, at high relative
velocities, any impact will be problematic. If mass limitations
allow and particle weapons are in use, I'd expect some kind of
multi-layer armor: A standoff layer which is supposed dissipate the
energy of high-velocity impacts, plus one or more layers to absorb
the energy.
Another, more important point is probably deception. If you see 1000
metallized balloons coming your way on a ballistic trajectory, 10 of
which may contain enemy spaceships or torpedo pods, what do you do?
And assuming that you can find that out, where in the balloon will
the actual target be situated?
>Why would you expect the other guy not to
> armor his?
No armor is infallible - just use bigger, harder projectiles.
> 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.
The cost of, let's say, steel balls is reather low. I'm assuming
that shipping something into space is probably more expensive
than the few dollars you save on the material itself. Also, if
you can ablate armor, why not penetrate it in the first place?
>
>> 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.
That is a valid point. However, space is big. You could try to make
sure that anything you fire will exceed escape velocity of whatever
body you happen to be close to.
Alternatively, if you plan to stick around, you could try ice
or dry ice pellets. They would evaporate over time, but their
mechanical strenght would be much lower than that, for example,
of steel.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
