The ultimate weapon
- Thread starter Carlobrand
- Start date
What?? Aperture science???
I don't know what you mean by aperture science exactly, but here's how the Ancients' planet-busting devices worked. (Note: this is from GDW's SOTA and not from the MgT version.)
Ancient teleportation technology utilized
Spoiler:
A planet-buster was
Spoiler:
Hope that helped.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
FWIW and FYI Aperture Science is the institution from the console/computer game series Portal and the namesake portals of the game that AS created work pretty much just like the Ancients' versions and play a role in solving maze like puzzles to escape via various portal combinations. It's not a bad game.
Unless there's simply a distinct lack of terrorists in the OTU, I think that there must be pretty good defenses against this kind of attack, simply because while governments might not use them, to avoid retaliation, I can't think of anything that would stop a terrorist from doing it, unless either it's too hard/impossible or it can be stopped. In the last case, they might try anyway, but at least it prevents swaths of uninhabitable planets...
Well - it ain't that simple even if one makes no other assumptions... it requires a ship that is then operated for extended periods of acceleration, jump plotted, jumped (may come first if 'run up' is in same system), navigated to target - lots of skills (and hard to fool anyone who has such). Then there is the need for a ship to begin with - valuable assets even if not rare. Oh yeah, and the crew (or one) with those skills also needs to be a suicidal maniac or have an automated ship that they have the skills to program.
Not unlike the RW - we've had planes for decades, even hijacked, long before they were used in terrible ways... and there are still plenty of them today.
Not unlike the RW - we've had planes for decades, even hijacked, long before they were used in terrible ways... and there are still plenty of them today.
Indeed. (To both!)
As mentioned upthread - a system's magnetic field protects the system from galactic cosmic rays - perhaps as high as 90% of them (IIRC) - so velocity ramp ups that exceed such protection expose a ship to a much higher risk of sensitive equipment failures. Of course, the counter measure could be a very intense magnetic 'shield'.
Natural processes manage to accelerate particles to near c (over 99% c have been measured) - so we know it can be done. Of course, generally, protons and atomic nuclei (all stripped of electrons), though all manner of subatomic particles are found - but not molecules and macroscopic chunks of matter. Blazers spew massive gas jets to be sure, but I don't believe we've any evidence of say a star moving at near-c.
In the OTU, unless someone is planning to make a world uninhabitable while wiping out large populations, frac/near-c impactors would be major overkill - and perhaps more prone to failure than simply thrusting in from orbit (despite the effort required for 'sneaking' in/'surviving' to objective).
Yeah - they didn't have Google calculator!
I tend to do most math in my head - but have to double check with a calculator nowadays. Accidentally 'discovered' Google calculator today -
in the search field you can enter things like: (2.9 days * 60 m/s^2) / c = and Google will reply with a solution: ((2.9 days) * 60 (m / (s^2))) / c = 0.0501466918
(This is great - now I can screw up faster!)
There is also the physics of the impactor's energy being in velocity, mass density of the impactor vs the mass density of the atmosphere and the reflection of energy. The impactor may either disintegrate harmlessly or ricochet off due to the density of the atmosphere acting as an impenetrable solid. Most meteorites explode on impact with atmosphere, the ones that do not, have mass to burn, literally; and most of their energy is in mass, not velocity. In one of my later physics classes my prof used the problem of armor density vs mass x velocity in APBC rounds and the development of APCR ammo to overcome the effect of reflected energy shattering the ballistic cap.
Far Trader wins the Black Forest Cake! If there is one.
{We do what we must, because we can.}
Since you all seem to be having so much fun with this:
We're dealing with man-made objects. However fast they are, they have miniscule mass and cross-sectional area compared to a planet. We've been thinking in terms of meteor impacts, massive energy release near the surface, dinosaur-killer events, but at some point this begins to look more like the difference between getting hit by a fast rock and getting hit by a 5.56 round - which is to say, it's expending a lot more energy inside of you than at the surface.
I'm thinking only so much energy is going to be transferred to the atmosphere (and transmitted to the surroundings as a rather hot and deadly shock wave) before the thing hits ground, and only so much energy will in turn be transferred to the ground (with admittedly deadly effects over a certain radius) before the ground in turn is penetrated and the thing's decelerating in magma. Now, while that's also likely to be an uncomfortable result for those in the near-vicinity of the impact, the real question is: is there so much magma that the remaining energy would be absorbed with only mild additional effects to those of us hugging the rest of the surface, or would the results be more ... ummm ... dramatic? Or, would we instead be looking at more long-term effects - increased volcanism, increased seismic activity - as the core reacted to the energy absorbed? Or a combination?
Is it possible that human-scale C-punchers aren't as cataclysmic as we germs crawling on the surface think, that most of that energy would get swallowed by the core and expressed instead over long geologic periods?
{We do what we must, because we can.}
Since you all seem to be having so much fun with this:
We're dealing with man-made objects. However fast they are, they have miniscule mass and cross-sectional area compared to a planet. We've been thinking in terms of meteor impacts, massive energy release near the surface, dinosaur-killer events, but at some point this begins to look more like the difference between getting hit by a fast rock and getting hit by a 5.56 round - which is to say, it's expending a lot more energy inside of you than at the surface.
I'm thinking only so much energy is going to be transferred to the atmosphere (and transmitted to the surroundings as a rather hot and deadly shock wave) before the thing hits ground, and only so much energy will in turn be transferred to the ground (with admittedly deadly effects over a certain radius) before the ground in turn is penetrated and the thing's decelerating in magma. Now, while that's also likely to be an uncomfortable result for those in the near-vicinity of the impact, the real question is: is there so much magma that the remaining energy would be absorbed with only mild additional effects to those of us hugging the rest of the surface, or would the results be more ... ummm ... dramatic? Or, would we instead be looking at more long-term effects - increased volcanism, increased seismic activity - as the core reacted to the energy absorbed? Or a combination?
Is it possible that human-scale C-punchers aren't as cataclysmic as we germs crawling on the surface think, that most of that energy would get swallowed by the core and expressed instead over long geologic periods?
Last edited:
I wouldn't be suprised if it lost most of it's energy hitting the atmosphere; near C in the atmosphere? Reflection will cause it to absorb most of the energy itself and could air molecules move quick enough for it to burrow through?
I will admit to laziness about doing the math (a cigar and vodka tonic is occupying more of my attention at the moment as I surf through the T5 draft), these are just musings from the physics end. At some point, velocity works against what it is trying to do.
I will admit to laziness about doing the math (a cigar and vodka tonic is occupying more of my attention at the moment as I surf through the T5 draft), these are just musings from the physics end. At some point, velocity works against what it is trying to do.
Indeed, there are multiple scales being discussed. Cosmic rays bombard us all the time - proportionately, some really have a massive scope: stripped down atomic particles causing secondary events that span kilometers at ground level. Extrapolating from that, an object billions and billions of times more massive - ex: something the size of a commercial airliner or 100dton ship - and the effects would be quite drastic - and that is assuming most of the energy is not 'absorbed' by the target.
Atmo, assuming there is one (ala UWP), would become a plasma - it would, I suspect, exhibit both incompressible and compressible characteristics. Thus multiple pressure fronts and secondary boundary atmospheric effects would not be negligible.
As to borrowing into the crust - I can definitely see a good portion of the 'mass' not only doing that but even going all the way through - since basically the impactor would be turned into cosmic rays (i.e. stripped of electrons no longer molecules, but independent atoms and subatomic particles).
At some scales, it easily becomes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event.
(Personally, 'near c' to me is way too much stretching on the old suspenders of disbelief, actually. Even handwaving with gravitics, I still see issues re electron binding. But I'll let frac c pass when tapping into 'gravity' - as gravity itself holds the energy to make stars and move galaxies, afterall.)
Atmo, assuming there is one (ala UWP), would become a plasma - it would, I suspect, exhibit both incompressible and compressible characteristics. Thus multiple pressure fronts and secondary boundary atmospheric effects would not be negligible.
As to borrowing into the crust - I can definitely see a good portion of the 'mass' not only doing that but even going all the way through - since basically the impactor would be turned into cosmic rays (i.e. stripped of electrons no longer molecules, but independent atoms and subatomic particles).
At some scales, it easily becomes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event.
(Personally, 'near c' to me is way too much stretching on the old suspenders of disbelief, actually. Even handwaving with gravitics, I still see issues re electron binding. But I'll let frac c pass when tapping into 'gravity' - as gravity itself holds the energy to make stars and move galaxies, afterall.)
I'm sorry to sound noobish, but why does the thread have stars on it now?
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Somebody thought it was cool and hit the Rate Thread button at the top
...we used to be able to rate users similarly, but that ended badly.
Last edited:
Rigel Stardin
SOC-13
Somebody thought it was cool and hit the Rate Thread button at the top
...we used to be able to rate users similarly, but that ended badly.
Thank god, that doesn't happen anymore... My ego gets crushed too often as it is... My wife is very good at doing that... ;0
Yes, this is ten years too late.
But, you've just given Regina (and by extension, ALL important Imperial worlds) a perfect defense against any attacking fleet.
If you can destroy something with significant blue-shift at ranges of 2AU, then no possible attacking fleet can harm you, since you can destroy it within seconds.
So, why bother having an Imperial Navy again?
It should also be noted that there is a disconnect between "detected a few minutes after jump emergence" and "destroyed 18 light-minutes out". Mesons do, after all, move at less than lightspeed.
The sole purpose of a mobile military force is generally not to 'defend the heartland'. Otherwise, why have planetary defenses if one has an Imperial Navy?
A mobile military serves as projection of force, an interdiction and long arm deployment resource - they could only ever serve limited defensive roles when it comes to planet scale objects...
Also, as implied, not all planets would have such resources. And don't neglect force in numbers and that ultimately no one method of defense or attack is perfect.
Indeed, Mesons can only be 'near' lightspeed... however, no disjoint unless one makes the wrong assumptions as to the locations of the terminating weapons.
A mobile military serves as projection of force, an interdiction and long arm deployment resource - they could only ever serve limited defensive roles when it comes to planet scale objects...
Also, as implied, not all planets would have such resources. And don't neglect force in numbers and that ultimately no one method of defense or attack is perfect.
Indeed, Mesons can only be 'near' lightspeed... however, no disjoint unless one makes the wrong assumptions as to the locations of the terminating weapons.
I don't believe this kind of weapon could emerge from jump at such high speed. Even if rules allow to carry on your momentum while in jump (as I've read on several threads, that's not clear, nor is that the object of discussion here), I guess it could be quite difficult to make an accurate jump at those speeds, and any time inaccuracy in jump (you need to be quite lucky to exit jump just at the right time) will put you off course, and just half a minute late at those speeds (let's say 0.3 C) may mean missing your target by 3 million kilometers (about eight times the distance from earth to moon).
As I envision the possibility for this weapon, the acceleration should be done in normal space, after jumping, giving the defending fleet some time to react, if they detect the incoming ship/missile.
One of the topics of this thread
OP actually gave an explicit example, which is what the above quoted post referred to.
Jump re-entry, long duration accelerations and near-c are all only loosely defined.
No reason and none in the various rules that requires looking at it in a black and white context - there is plenty of room for grey. In RL, just because one can rob a neighbor, doesn't mean one is going to (for moral or even just 'odds' of getting caught reasons). Planetary attacks of the nature of the OP's example (or worse) may or may not be 'possible' in a TU, but even if possible can still be extremely unlikely...
OP actually gave an explicit example, which is what the above quoted post referred to.
Jump re-entry, long duration accelerations and near-c are all only loosely defined.
No reason and none in the various rules that requires looking at it in a black and white context - there is plenty of room for grey. In RL, just because one can rob a neighbor, doesn't mean one is going to (for moral or even just 'odds' of getting caught reasons). Planetary attacks of the nature of the OP's example (or worse) may or may not be 'possible' in a TU, but even if possible can still be extremely unlikely...
Early on, someone mentioned micrometeorites, space dust, whatever. What sort of threat would these really pose to vehicles at high velocity? How does the impact of these things at fractions of C compare to being attacked by various ship weaponry?
Much less powerful?
About as powerful?
More powerful?
at
Very small fractions of C?
One percent of C?
Many percents of C?
Much less powerful?
About as powerful?
More powerful?
at
Very small fractions of C?
One percent of C?
Many percents of C?
O
Omnivore
Guest
First, a couple good references: kinetic weapons and relativistic weapons. Use the simpler kinetic equations below 14% C, the error will be insignificant.
A couple highlights; at 3000m/s a projectile impacts with the same energy as a bundle of TNT with the same mass, at 86.6% C a projectile impacts with the same energy as if it were antimatter with the same mass.
The book Flying to Valhalla by Pelligrino has a fair coverage of the problems associated with dust and micro meteorites at relativistic speeds. Obviously its not textbook coverage, but it is a hard scifi treatment of the subject.
From what I recall, even with the best defenses (Whipple shield and/or droplet shield) the top speed in the solar system would be around 80%, perhaps 92% for interstellar. This of course assumes your trajectory stays away from the ecliptic plane where the dust density is higher and micro meteorites are more common.
Trying to get a more exact answer runs into two issues: first, no one is entirely sure of the mechanics involved in a very high speed kinetic impact; second, the density and composition of dust and the distribution of micro meteorites is variable depending on region.
Its an interesting subject
Its an interesting subject
It most certainly is and the prospect of highly damaging "dust" impacts at high fractions of c could be a good "soft" explanation for why travel at those velocities doesn't seem to be a regular occurrence in the OTU; i.e. "Yeah we could thrust for that long if you don't mind the hull eroding along the way..."
IIRC, a protagonist in one of Niven's Known Space series alludes to this very problem. While investigating an odd system he advises caution by telling the more reckless "flatlander" in the crew a historical anecdote concerning one of the first manned missions to Sol's Belt. Apparently the spacecraft was launched on a course which had it passing through one of Luna's Lagrange points. A crew member suspects something is wrong when the craft's windows begin to "fog" on the outside...
Similar threads
