Which weapon is best on a starship?

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:07pm

Which weapon is best for space combat? Assume plausible tech (possible according to the laws of physics but doesn't have to exist today. Anything that bends or goes around the laws of physics is allowed.)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-13 10:09pm

Nuclear missiles, but ones which work by concerting there X rays into a beam to allow for heavy damage but with considerable standoff.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:14pm

Nuclear missiles, but ones which work by concerting there X rays into a beam to allow for heavy damage but with considerable standoff.

Where did you get that from? I'd like to see your sources.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-13 10:17pm

force modification or space-time fabric alteration.

force mod: if you could shut off all electromagnetic forces or make all particles exhibit the same charge within a given radius, that would have MASSIVE possibilities. you could literally cause the entire target to explode in a single instant because the particles would either not have anything to keep the electrons around the protons, or would make the object into a giant ball of mutually repulsive particles that would blast away from one another.

skein alt: if you could, say, separate the target from the fabric of space, they would have affect on anything in space from that point on, they would drift in hyperspace. or, if you could cause the space within the object to suddenly tear (assuming the electromagnetic force doesnt operate in the fourth dimension) then the object would effectively be cut in two. If you did this to a planet, and could stretch the space and effectively add space between the two halves of the planet, when space reconnects (which it probably would) the planet would pull together and everything would be catastrophically jolted.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-01-13 10:27pm

jaeger115 wrote:
Nuclear missiles, but ones which work by concerting there X rays into a beam to allow for heavy damage but with considerable standoff.
Where did you get that from? I'd like to see your sources.

Nuked-powered X-ray lasers. I heard of them. Idea I think was proposed during the SDI under Reagan.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:29pm

force modification or space-time fabric alteration.

force mod: if you could shut off all electromagnetic forces or make all particles exhibit the same charge within a given radius, that would have MASSIVE possibilities. you could literally cause the entire target to explode in a single instant because the particles would either not have anything to keep the electrons around the protons, or would make the object into a giant ball of mutually repulsive particles that would blast away from one another.

skein alt: if you could, say, separate the target from the fabric of space, they would have affect on anything in space from that point on, they would drift in hyperspace. or, if you could cause the space within the object to suddenly tear (assuming the electromagnetic force doesnt operate in the fourth dimension) then the object would effectively be cut in two. If you did this to a planet, and could stretch the space and effectively add space between the two halves of the planet, when space reconnects (which it probably would) the planet would pull together and everything would be catastrophically jolted.

That would make a weapon even more terrifying than the Death Star. Imagine entire fleets being violently torn apart to atoms and entire planets being taken care of this new weapon. Pulling a planet apart and letting it fall back together will cause the magnetic field to fail, letting harmful UV radiation bombard the surface. The massive panic that results would be far more powerful than what the DS superlaser could achieve.

drifter god · Post by **drifter god** » 2003-01-13 10:40pm

hmmm.... rather than destroy the planet outright, you destroy its magnetic fields, sounds like the upcoming movie, the core, yes, i like the sound of this weapon, we cook the people with microwaves, yes, i really like this weapon

Damaramu · Post by **Damaramu** » 2003-01-13 10:42pm

jaeger115 wrote:
force modification or space-time fabric alteration.

force mod: if you could shut off all electromagnetic forces or make all particles exhibit the same charge within a given radius, that would have MASSIVE possibilities. you could literally cause the entire target to explode in a single instant because the particles would either not have anything to keep the electrons around the protons, or would make the object into a giant ball of mutually repulsive particles that would blast away from one another.

skein alt: if you could, say, separate the target from the fabric of space, they would have affect on anything in space from that point on, they would drift in hyperspace. or, if you could cause the space within the object to suddenly tear (assuming the electromagnetic force doesnt operate in the fourth dimension) then the object would effectively be cut in two. If you did this to a planet, and could stretch the space and effectively add space between the two halves of the planet, when space reconnects (which it probably would) the planet would pull together and everything would be catastrophically jolted.
That would make a weapon even more terrifying than the Death Star. Imagine entire fleets being violently torn apart to atoms and entire planets being taken care of this new weapon. Pulling a planet apart and letting it fall back together will cause the magnetic field to fail, letting harmful UV radiation bombard the surface. The massive panic that results would be far more powerful than what the DS superlaser could achieve.

I LIKE IT!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-13 10:44pm

kojikun wrote:force modification or space-time fabric alteration.

force mod: if you could shut off all electromagnetic forces or make all particles exhibit the same charge within a given radius, that would have MASSIVE possibilities. you could literally cause the entire target to explode in a single instant because the particles would either not have anything to keep the electrons around the protons, or would make the object into a giant ball of mutually repulsive particles that would blast away from one another.

skein alt: if you could, say, separate the target from the fabric of space, they would have affect on anything in space from that point on, they would drift in hyperspace. or, if you could cause the space within the object to suddenly tear (assuming the electromagnetic force doesnt operate in the fourth dimension) then the object would effectively be cut in two. If you did this to a planet, and could stretch the space and effectively add space between the two halves of the planet, when space reconnects (which it probably would) the planet would pull together and everything would be catastrophically jolted.

Why not just call it a "Laws of Physics Nullifier" device?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-13 10:46pm

Why not just call it a "Laws of Physics Nullifier" device?

Hey, NASA wants to alter gravitational constants to push ships through space.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:48pm

Hey, NASA wants to alter gravitational constants to push ships through space.

Yeah, that was on Popular Science a few ago.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:48pm

(years) ago. My bad.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-13 10:50pm

(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.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-13 10:52pm

kojikun wrote:force modification or space-time fabric alteration.

force mod: if you could shut off all electromagnetic forces or make all particles exhibit the same charge within a given radius, that would have MASSIVE possibilities. you could literally cause the entire target to explode in a single instant because the particles would either not have anything to keep the electrons around the protons, or would make the object into a giant ball of mutually repulsive particles that would blast away from one another.

skein alt: if you could, say, separate the target from the fabric of space, they would have affect on anything in space from that point on, they would drift in hyperspace. or, if you could cause the space within the object to suddenly tear (assuming the electromagnetic force doesnt operate in the fourth dimension) then the object would effectively be cut in two. If you did this to a planet, and could stretch the space and effectively add space between the two halves of the planet, when space reconnects (which it probably would) the planet would pull together and everything would be catastrophically jolted.

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

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2003-01-13 10:54pm

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

jaeger115 wrote: Anything that bends or goes around the laws of physics is allowed.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:55pm

(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.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:56pm

All right, let's get back to the three options on the poll. Please. I don't want a flamewar.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-13 10:56pm

(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? It would still be more efficient then pumping all the energy into the target by means such as lasers or explosives.

And that is, ofcourse, assuming that altering properties of matter requires the energy to counteract existed properties to produce similar end results.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:58pm

So? It would still be more efficient then pumping all the energy into the target by means such as lasers or explosives.

Prove it.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-13 11:01pm

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.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-13 11:02pm

Prove it.

PROVE that chemicals dont burn 100% efficiently? PROVE that no process is 100% efficient? Prove what/ Theres nothing to prove.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 11:14pm

PROVE that chemicals dont burn 100% efficiently? PROVE that no process is 100% efficient? Prove what/ Theres nothing to prove.

What about the energy required to alter the laws of physics?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-13 11:37pm

well, thats an unknown there isnt it? it could be anywhere from 1 watt to maintain the alteration to infinity joules for a one time change all permanent change. This is fill in the blank here. Tho there is a good possibility (almost guaranteed) that any given number is lower then the required energy/power (since theres always an infinite more above that number then below it). But this is still fill in the blank.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-13 11:40pm

jaeger115 wrote:
(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.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-13 11:41pm

By the way, saying that they'll find a way to ignore conservation of energy is no less absurd than saying that they'll develop a "math modifier engine" to make 2+2=8, so they can generate more reactor output.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Which weapon is best on a starship?

Which primary weapons would be best on a space warship?

Which weapon is best on a starship?