Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:34 am
by Grudge
You can build a huge railgun in orbit and use a series of small nuclear explosions to propel a solid slug the size of a shipping container to relativistic speeds. That would put a pretty big dent into basically anything it hits. It would be a one-shot weapon though.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:43 am
by Canis
Now you only have to figure out how to synchronize a series of nuclear explosions such that they propel the object in the same direction upon each blast.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:59 am
by Grudge
I think that's a comparatively small concern.
If you know the exact yield of the nuclear devices you can calculate the speed of the slug after each explosion, timing each one to go off right after the slug has moved past it.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:23 am
by [xeno]Julios
how would the energy of the nuclear explosion transfer into kinetic energy of the projectile?
If we wanted to do it efficiently, we'd probably end up destroying the projectile in the first place.
Now if all the energy from nuclear explosions was somehow harnessed into a form which could provide non-destructive forces (such as electromagnetic fields), then I could see it working.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:39 am
by l0g1c
You mean, kind of like an EMP?
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:47 am
by MKJ
i was going to say "just ask kracus, he knows all about this stuff" but then toxicthug came around to answer all your questions
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:52 am
by [xeno]Julios
l0g1c wrote:You mean, kind of like an EMP?
electromagnetic pulse?
well i was just thinking of a railgun or guass gun - i don't know much about the technology, but isn't the idea that you accelerate a projectile using a force field which acts as an acceleration force?
or are you suggesting that a nuclear explosion would cause an EMP?
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:58 am
by l0g1c
[xeno]Julios wrote:l0g1c wrote:You mean, kind of like an EMP?
electromagnetic pulse?
well i was just thinking of a railgun or guass gun - i don't know much about the technology, but isn't the idea that you accelerate a projectile using a force field which acts as an acceleration force?
or are you suggesting that a nuclear explosion would cause an EMP?
Yep. Just pointing out that the two aren't exclusive. I'm not sure if there is anything more effective at producing an EMP, but a nuke would do the job just fine. Just speculation and conjecture, though.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:04 am
by Grudge
Nuclear blasts won't generate an EMP outside the Earth's magnetic field.
The nuclear railgun would rather work by using shaped nuclear charges and a slug with an Uranium backside (which is opaque to electromagnetic radiation) to catch the blast.
Railgun in this context would just mean that the projectile is guided by rails as it is subjected to a series of accelerations.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:13 am
by [xeno]Julios
Grudge wrote:
The nuclear railgun would rather work by using shaped nuclear charges and a slug with an Uranium backside (which is opaque to electromagnetic radiation) to catch the blast.
the opacity will protect it from heat damage then? What about the shockwave - wouldnt' that compromise the structural integrity of the projectile?
Grudge wrote:
Railgun in this context would just mean that the projectile is guided by rails as it is subjected to a series of accelerations.
ahh - makes sense.
so do you think controlled nuclear explosions along a rail would be the most powerful way to accelerate an object along a controlled trajectory (forgetting questions of efficiency)?
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:14 am
by l0g1c
Grudge wrote:Nuclear blasts won't generate an EMP outside the Earth's magnetic field.
Cool. Did a quick Google search to see what actually causes the EMP and learned something. :icon14:
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:20 am
by Grudge
[xeno]Julios wrote:
the opacity will protect it from heat damage then? What about the shockwave - wouldnt' that compromise the structural integrity of the projectile?
About 90% of the energy of a nuclear blast (in vacuum) would be x-rays, and the remaining 10% would be neutrons. This will hit the Uranium shield of the slug and accelerate it. Of course you would have to adapt the yield of the nuclear device and the trigger timing so that it won't destroy the slug, only give it a push.
[xeno]Julios wrote:
ahh - makes sense.
so do you think controlled nuclear explosions along a rail would be the most powerful way to accelerate an object along a controlled trajectory (forgetting questions of efficiency)?
Well, if you want to accelerate a very heavy object very quickly (i.e. use it as a weapon), I can't really think of anything more powerful. Sure, a chemical rocket could also accelerate it pretty fast, but not as fast.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:46 am
by hax103
turns out some research labs are making prototypes at
20,000 m/s
" The propulsion speed of a railgun developed at Sandia National Laboratory is 20 km/sec."
omg.
naturally the military is interested
besides, i need one to go with my portable rocket launcher.
linkage (looks legit to me...):
http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/05_23_2 ... s_ben.html
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:48 am
by [xeno]Julios
Grudge wrote:
About 90% of the energy of a nuclear blast (in vacuum) would be x-rays, and the remaining 10% would be neutrons. This will hit the Uranium shield of the slug and accelerate it. Of course you would have to adapt the yield of the nuclear device and the trigger timing so that it won't destroy the slug, only give it a push.
...
Well, if you want to accelerate a very heavy object very quickly (i.e. use it as a weapon), I can't really think of anything more powerful. Sure, a chemical rocket could also accelerate it pretty fast, but not as fast.
interesting stuff - but what about a very powerful electromagnetic that accelerates an object along a rail? I think that's gauss stuff right? Wonder how powerful that would be versus nuclear.
gnite