We have the Technology (Railguns)

[Eosin]

How is armor going to fare against a weaponized version of this badboy?

 

I assume that the machine is huge and unwieldy but 30 kilometer per second is an ugly speed. Anyone want to take a stab at writing it up?

[Markdoc]

Re: We have the Technology (Railguns)

 

Well given that the "weapon" is the size of a largish office building, has a firing arc of a tiny fraction of a degree, fires submicrogram missiles and has a range of a few inches, I reckon your average suit of leather armour should give reasonable protection, as long as you don't walk up and stick your finger right against the accelerator (actually you can't because it's inside a containment vessel, but you get the idea.)

 

Real railguns do exist however: google Maxwell Laboratories' 32Megajoule accelerator - it's real tankbuster if you overlook the fact that it's only good at very short ranges (and the fact that's it's as large as a battleship gun). However, railguns are a long way from being deployed as weapons. There's a few reasons.

 

#1 Ridiculously high energy requirements. Right now, to give an reasonbale size projectile an exciting degree of acceleration requires enough energy to light a small town for a year.

 

#2 Arcing - the magnetic forces needed to accelerate a metallic projectile (and no other kind can be accelerated, natch) ALSO work on the railgun itself, which of course also has to be made of conducting metal. Most railguns are only good for a couple dozen shots at most (getting less and less accurate with each shot), and the larger ones usually melt/explode/ablate after each shot. That's a pretty expensive (and rather dangerous) one shot weapon

 

#3 Momentum versus kinetic energy. The many, varied and wonderful debates about firearm efficiency on these boards almost inevitably concentrate on muzzle velocity and kinetic energy but ignore momentum, which is actually the more important component when it comes to doing harm. The railguns that exist accelerate accelerate relatively small missiles to high velocity. Result? Buttloads of kinetic energy, but little momentum. Shoot that at someone and you'll give them a nasty (and probably self-cauterising) surface wound, but it probably wouldn't be as lethal as an old fashioned slug since the vaporised target actually ablates faster than a wave can propagate in most solids (any solids? Not sure) so you would not expect huge hydrostatic shock

 

#5 The faster you fire something the more friction effects you can expect. Most railguns end up not firing not a missile as such but a jet of plasma as the missile basically melts away. You can see that here:

 

http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm

 

This means that high speed rail guns essentially function as extremely short range, expensive, one shot flamethrowers (though they would essentially melt almost anything within that range!)

 

It might work pretty well in a vaccuum though...

 

Cheers, Mark

[Eosin]

Re: We have the Technology (Railguns)

 

Well given that the "weapon" is the size of a largish office building' date=' has a firing arc of a tiny fraction of a degree, fires submicrogram missiles and has a range of a few inches[/quote']

 

I think this one has a range of 0.5 inches Even still, railguns are something of a holy grail in weaponry and I think it is kinda spiffy. I still don't know how I would write up a rail gun in champions terms.

 

On the whole weapon damage issue --- I will add another twist from a trauma nursing class. I read a rather lengthy article in the class on the extent of cavitation damage caused by HVPW. I think it is where the lay person gets the term "hydrostatic shock." Very interesting stuff and I wish I had the gun & physics terms to relay it into english alas we will be forced to suffer with a paltry "kinda like this" explaination.

[gewing]

Re: We have the Technology (Railguns)

 

Well given that the "weapon" is the size of a largish office building, has a firing arc of a tiny fraction of a degree, fires submicrogram missiles and has a range of a few inches, I reckon your average suit of leather armour should give reasonable protection, as long as you don't walk up and stick your finger right against the accelerator (actually you can't because it's inside a containment vessel, but you get the idea.)

 

Real railguns do exist however: google Maxwell Laboratories' 32Megajoule accelerator - it's real tankbuster if you overlook the fact that it's only good at very short ranges (and the fact that's it's as large as a battleship gun). However, railguns are a long way from being deployed as weapons. There's a few reasons.

 

#1 Ridiculously high energy requirements. Right now, to give an reasonbale size projectile an exciting degree of acceleration requires enough energy to light a small town for a year.

 

#2 Arcing - the magnetic forces needed to accelerate a metallic projectile (and no other kind can be accelerated, natch) ALSO work on the railgun itself, which of course also has to be made of conducting metal. Most railguns are only good for a couple dozen shots at most (getting less and less accurate with each shot), and the larger ones usually melt/explode/ablate after each shot. That's a pretty expensive (and rather dangerous) one shot weapon

 

#3 Momentum versus kinetic energy. The many, varied and wonderful debates about firearm efficiency on these boards almost inevitably concentrate on muzzle velocity and kinetic energy but ignore momentum, which is actually the more important component when it comes to doing harm. The railguns that exist accelerate accelerate relatively small missiles to high velocity. Result? Buttloads of kinetic energy, but little momentum. Shoot that at someone and you'll give them a nasty (and probably self-cauterising) surface wound, but it probably wouldn't be as lethal as an old fashioned slug since the vaporised target actually ablates faster than a wave can propagate in most solids (any solids? Not sure) so you would not expect huge hydrostatic shock

 

#5 The faster you fire something the more friction effects you can expect. Most railguns end up not firing not a missile as such but a jet of plasma as the missile basically melts away. You can see that here:

 

http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm

 

This means that high speed rail guns essentially function as extremely short range, expensive, one shot flamethrowers (though they would essentially melt almost anything within that range!)

 

It might work pretty well in a vaccuum though...

 

Cheers, Mark

 

 

The navy is working on weaponizing one that would fire 15kg (iirc) projectiles fast enough to reach out 500 miles. I posted a link to a discussion on it a while ago.

 

If that could be used in a direct fire mode...

[Guest darthvegita666]

Re: We have the Technology (Railguns)

 

i raed the article and you guys are wrong

 

that gun had a range greater than .5 inches but it hit an object aftre that distance so we dont know how far itd go if it didnt have something in the way

[Nolgroth]

Re: We have the Technology (Railguns)

 

i raed the article and you guys are wrong

 

that gun had a range greater than .5 inches but it hit an object aftre that distance so we dont know how far itd go if it didnt have something in the way

That's assuming that the discs that it's firing are able to stay solid for more than .25 inches.

 

Now in game terms, if these discs were so-called Unobtanium or Questionite or whathaveyou, then they might not be destroyed by the hyper-velocity this "cannon" can propel them at. Also, how do we track energy delivered? I'm not a math wizard or a physics guru, but if striking an object created 15 million (wow) times atmospheric pressure, then ouch.

 

I just wonder what that would do to; a human, a car, a tank, a battleship, etc. I wish I had anywhere near the knowledge to try to write this up.