Which weapon is best on a starship?

[jaeger115]

I'm saying that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and you've obviously taken their marketing literature and exaggerated it to hell and back. But by all means, please find me the scientific research papers showing that it is feasible to ignore Conservation of Energy. I would love to see yet another techno-wank fanboy justify his web-research science claims, particularly when they ignore the most fundamental concept in all of fucking science.

All right, all right. I don't have any, period. That article in Popular Science had no scientific support whatsoever. Jeez, I need to remember my physics...

[jaeger115]

Wait a minute, I remember it talking about exotic matter to achieve what it does. Does that violate physics too?

[The Dark]

(sigh) your hypothetical device, in order to not violate conservation of energy, would have to supply 100% of the electromagnetic potential energy that is lost when it "turns off" electromagnetism. You gain nothing, except a lot of complexity and worthless technobabble.

So are you saying these people who's working on it in NASA and reporting about it in PopSci are mindless wankers? That's hard to believe, since NASA depends on professionals.

I'm saying that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and you've obviously taken their marketing literature and exaggerated it to hell and back. But by all means, please find me the scientific research papers showing that it is feasible to ignore Conservation of Energy. I would love to see yet another techno-wank fanboy justify his web-research science claims, particularly when they ignore the most fundamental concept in all of fucking science.

Have they conclusively disproven Miguel Alcubierre's Negative Energy Warp Drive, as theorized in The Warp Drive: Hyper-Fast Travel Within General Relativity (1994, Classical and Quantum Gravity) (or Van Der Broeck's improved version)? Actually, never mind. That doesn't require violation of CoE. It just uses the fact that GR and SR are separate.

[jaeger115]

Now I remember. The article mentioned using exotic matter's unusual properties to accomplish motion. My bad.

[Sea Skimmer]

Just use Gridfire and fuck the excess technobabble. I guess you missed the "Assume plausible tech" bit.

Wheres the evidence of the grid? Altering existing physical properties is more probable then inventing a magic energy grid thats not been theorised in any legitimate paper ever. NASA is thinking about ways to literally alter laws of physics. Theres nothing impossible about this. There is, however, something impossible about the grid.

And mike, altering laws of physics doesnt violate conservation of energy and such, because that in itself is a law of physics. But this is all hypothetical ofcourse.

If a law of physics can be altered then the law is not in fact a law and it was a mistake to ever call it one.

[The Dark]

Just use Gridfire and fuck the excess technobabble. I guess you missed the "Assume plausible tech" bit.

Wheres the evidence of the grid? Altering existing physical properties is more probable then inventing a magic energy grid thats not been theorised in any legitimate paper ever. NASA is thinking about ways to literally alter laws of physics. Theres nothing impossible about this. There is, however, something impossible about the grid.

And mike, altering laws of physics doesnt violate conservation of energy and such, because that in itself is a law of physics. But this is all hypothetical ofcourse.

If a law of physics can be altered then the law is not in fact a law and it was a mistake to ever call it one.

None of the laws are truly laws in the sense most people think of them. They are theories that have held the test of time so well that it's virtually unfeasible that they could ever be disproven.

A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.

However, if an observation is different (and can be repeatedly proven to be different by unbiased experimenters and observers), than the law is flawed and gets thrown out like any other theory. That's assuming I remember correctly from my last physics course four years ago.

[jaeger115]

All right, let's shut the fuck up and get back on topic. Describe why would nukes be more practical for space combat than lasers and particle beams.

[The Dark]

Lasers are easily ablated; simple materials can be designed that will become a plasma when heated by a laser, creating a cloud that disrupts the rest of the laser. Over time this armor will become useless, but it does take time.

I forget the defense against charged particle beams, but I do recall reading about one.

OTOH, nukes provide the following (in vacuum, I'm assuming no real blast damage): heat, radiation, and EMP. Any one of these three can be deadly to a ship not properly protected against it (or, more properly, they can cripple the hull, the crew, or the electronic equipment). Additionally, nuclear bombs can pump X-Ray lasers, which are known to be able to shatter metal and cannot be ablated.

[jaeger115]

OTOH, nukes provide the following (in vacuum, I'm assuming no real blast damage): heat, radiation, and EMP. Any one of these three can be deadly to a ship not properly protected against it (or, more properly, they can cripple the hull, the crew, or the electronic equipment). Additionally, nuclear bombs can pump X-Ray lasers, which are known to be able to shatter metal and cannot be ablated.

And I thought lasers were wimpy.

[jaeger115]

Nobody voted for neutrally-charged particle beams. Why?

[Ghost Rider]

Depends on which one are used.

Nukes provide pretty much a nasty all around package is why they would be desirable as a weapon.

[Darth Wong]

Neutron beams are technologically feasible today (they're used for heating plasmoids in toroidal fusion reactors). But they're much less efficient than lasers.

Lasers have the benefit of superior speed, while nuke missiles have the benefit of area effects. Lasers can be used near planets without fear of environmental collateral damage, while nuke missiles can be used in environments where you have a low chance of hitting the target directly.

[jaeger115]

I think nukes would be wasteful in terms of energy released. Only a fraction of the energy would go into the target, while the rest radiate off into space.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Unless there was a way to focus a nuclear explosion ( kinda like a proton torpedo) I'd have to say lasers. Of course if that fails, then you can abandon ship and autopilot the ship at your target like a nuclear missle. In the end, that's what a starship is ( With guns attached).

[AdmiralKanos]

Unless there was a way to focus a nuclear explosion ( kinda like a proton torpedo) I'd have to say lasers. Of course if that fails, then you can abandon ship and autopilot the ship at your target like a nuclear missle. In the end, that's what a starship is ( With guns attached).

Actually, nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs bear very little resemblance. Neither a fission reactor or fusion reactor will blow up like a bomb.

[jaeger115]

Actually, nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs bear very little resemblance. Neither a fission reactor or fusion reactor will blow up like a bomb.

Reminds me of something my friend said about fusion power.

[jaeger115]

What about a particle accelerator that shoots a stream of antineutrons at the target?

[Warspite]

What about a particle accelerator that shoots a stream of antineutrons at the target?

The neutron is it's own anti-particle (no charge, remember?).

[XaLEv]

What about a particle accelerator that shoots a stream of antineutrons at the target?

The neutron is it's own anti-particle (no charge, remember?).

No, it's not. Neutrons are composed of three quarks: two down quarks and one up quark. The charges of these three negate each other to produce the neutron's neutral charge. In an antineutron, these quarks would be replaced with anti-quarks of the same flavors as in the neutron.

Besides, if neutrons were really their own antiparticles, one could expect any nucleus containing more than one to be rather unstable.

[Xon]

Unless there was a way to focus a nuclear explosion ( kinda like a proton torpedo) I'd have to say lasers. Of course if that fails, then you can abandon ship and autopilot the ship at your target like a nuclear missle. In the end, that's what a starship is ( With guns attached).

Actually, nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs bear very little resemblance. Neither a fission reactor or fusion reactor will blow up like a bomb.

A fission reactor can meltdown if your dumb enought to lets it, and have a really fucked up design. But it sure as hell doent explode like a nuclear warhead

But how the hell do you cause catastrophic failure in a fusion reactor? All you have to do is cut the fuel lines and the entire reaction stops.

[Morat]

What about a particle accelerator that shoots a stream of antineutrons at the target?

Can we build particle accelerators that work on uncharged particles?

[SirNitram]

The fusion of a bomb-pumped X-ray laser and a nuclear missile. Basically, a smart missile whose warhead is an X-ray laser boosted by a nuclear device. Thus, we combine the best of both worlds: Course correction over extreme range, firepower without having supply 100% of it from your main reactor, and the ability to remain at long range for standoff(What point defense would be at a lightsecond out to block this missile?).

[Pu-239]

What about a particle accelerator that shoots a stream of antineutrons at the target?

Can we build particle accelerators that work on uncharged particles?

I think to shoot neutrons they shoot deuterium at a target, then pull away the proton at the last minute.

[HRogge]

The fusion of a bomb-pumped X-ray laser and a nuclear missile. Basically, a smart missile whose warhead is an X-ray laser boosted by a nuclear device. Thus, we combine the best of both worlds: Course correction over extreme range, firepower without having supply 100% of it from your main reactor, and the ability to remain at long range for standoff(What point defense would be at a lightsecond out to block this missile?).

Other missiles ?

[Darth_Shinji]

I'll go with nukes myself. Though it would be cool as hell if we find one of these "weird" laws in sceince that allows for the creation of the uber technobabble weapon like the one you guys are talking about or gridfire. Unlikly, but cool.