Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Yuna Lily
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:26:00 -
[1]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4udI5xxzRkw
Eve tech in real life!
|
Zindela
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:29:00 -
[2]
3 things
1) wrong forum
2) It's actually been around for a while now
3) It's pretty freaking awesome. -------------------
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Guess what I'm wearing.
|
Xolornem Srrpep
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:31:00 -
[3]
That's not new technology, and it's not something EVE invented.
|
Saju Somtaaw
Gallente Department of Defence Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:31:00 -
[4]
the navy? YOU can build one yourself if you have the materials and some basic understanding of whats involved. Both of which can be found where else but on the internet.
---- --- ---
|
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:33:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Culmen on 11/12/2010 02:36:35 Old new. Not EVE related
But the video is AWESOME, it's also relatively new. It contains footage from an Oct 19,2010 firing. and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:40:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Saju Somtaaw the navy? YOU can build one yourself if you have the materials and some basic understanding of whats involved. Both of which can be found where else but on the internet.
You could build one, but I doubt it the projectile would reach Mach 7. and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Joss56
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:42:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Culmen You could build one, but I doubt it the projectile would reach Mach 7.
you can't realise from where come some special things has that one and with what they're made of
|
Zindela
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:44:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Zindela on 11/12/2010 02:44:26
Originally by: Culmen
You could build one, but I doubt it the projectile would reach Mach 7.
A few friends and I were actually going to... then StarCraftII came out. IIRC, the velocity of the projectile increases linearly with the capacitance.
Theoretically you COULD build one that goes that fast, you'd just need a small projectile, and a metric ****load of capacitors.
edited for spuling. -------------------
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Guess what I'm wearing.
|
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:46:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Zindela Edited by: Zindela on 11/12/2010 02:44:26
Originally by: Culmen
You could build one, but I doubt it the projectile would reach Mach 7.
A few friends and I were actually going to... then StarCraftII came out. IIRC, the velocity of the projectile increases linearly with the capacitance.
Theoretically you COULD build one that goes that fast, you'd just need a small projectile, and a metric ****load of capacitors.
edited for spuling.
Thing is.. with that much energy, the electric arcs would pretty much ruin the barrel on the first shot. Assuming you got enough capacitors together that is.
Also when you said that, I could almost hear Aura saying "The capacitor is empty" and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Zindela
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:52:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Culmen
Thing is.. with that much energy, the electric arcs would pretty much ruin the barrel on the first shot. Assuming you got enough capacitors together that is.
Also when you said that, I could almost hear Aura saying "The capacitor is empty"
Well... I did say theoretically, after all. Certainly not feasibly.
I, for one, would not like to pay the electric bill for a railgun capable of mach 7. -------------------
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Guess what I'm wearing.
|
|
CHEERWlNE
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:55:00 -
[11]
Extremely huge, Extremely inefficient and Extremely expensive all for what is basically a slightly more powerful tank cannon.
Not impressed - call me then they make a railgun that doesn't need a warehouse to power it.
|
Nimbat
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:58:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Nimbat on 11/12/2010 02:59:30
Originally by: Joss56 you can't realise from where come some special things has that one and with what they're made of
What...?
edit: failed quoute
|
Zindela
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 03:07:00 -
[13]
Originally by: CHEERWlNE Extremely huge, Extremely inefficient and Extremely expensive all for what is basically a slightly more powerful tank cannon.
Not impressed - call me then they make a railgun that doesn't need a warehouse to power it.
You VASTLY underestimate the power in that railgun. 33 MegaJoules is a huge amount of energy. If you think that it's a "slightly more powerful tank cannon", show me the main battle tank in operation now that can utterly annihilate it's target at a range of 110 miles? -------------------
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Guess what I'm wearing.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 03:16:00 -
[14]
Obviously they didn't get the memo about Gallente weapons. -
I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes |
Katja Saitou
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 03:19:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Culmen Edited by: Culmen on 11/12/2010 02:42:37
Old new. Not EVE related
But the video is AWESOME, it's also relatively new. It contains footage from an Oct 19,2010 firing.
But the navy is testing a new one today. Heres the article
That article has a link to the same video footage as posted by the OP.
|
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 03:21:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Culmen on 11/12/2010 03:21:22
Originally by: Zindela
Originally by: CHEERWlNE Extremely huge, Extremely inefficient and Extremely expensive all for what is basically a slightly more powerful tank cannon.
Not impressed - call me then they make a railgun that doesn't need a warehouse to power it.
You VASTLY underestimate the power in that railgun. 33 MegaJoules is a huge amount of energy. If you think that it's a "slightly more powerful tank cannon", show me the main battle tank in operation now that can utterly annihilate it's target at a range of 110 miles?
Zindelas right, the rail gun hits almost twice as far then a conventional artillery shell. And strikes with with the force of a 33-ton semi truck traveling at 100mph. With pinpoint precision and little collateral damage.
Also power it with a nuclear reactor and you'll never have to waste fuel, time and money transporting explosive material all over the place. The military estimates it'll provide cruise missile like effects at a fraction of the cost. and further more why do i even need a sig? |
digitalwanderer
Gallente DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 03:26:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Zindela
Originally by: CHEERWlNE Extremely huge, Extremely inefficient and Extremely expensive all for what is basically a slightly more powerful tank cannon.
Not impressed - call me then they make a railgun that doesn't need a warehouse to power it.
You VASTLY underestimate the power in that railgun. 33 MegaJoules is a huge amount of energy. If you think that it's a "slightly more powerful tank cannon", show me the main battle tank in operation now that can utterly annihilate it's target at a range of 110 miles?
Especially when a modern tank can fire to maybe 3 miles at most,and the 16 inch main guns of an iowa class battleship are good to about 35 miles while still being effective against their target,and have to use hundreds of pounds of explosives to propel a single 2700 pound shell that far,or that a railgun,as the article states,eliminates the need to have high explosives aboard a ship in the first place,which is kinda bad when they get hit where the explosives are stored in the ship,no matter how secure ...:p
Obviously,the minmatar didn't get that memo....
|
Arkanor
Gallente Ixion Defence Systems
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 03:31:00 -
[18]
Originally by: digitalwanderer
Originally by: Zindela
Originally by: CHEERWlNE Extremely huge, Extremely inefficient and Extremely expensive all for what is basically a slightly more powerful tank cannon.
Not impressed - call me then they make a railgun that doesn't need a warehouse to power it.
You VASTLY underestimate the power in that railgun. 33 MegaJoules is a huge amount of energy. If you think that it's a "slightly more powerful tank cannon", show me the main battle tank in operation now that can utterly annihilate it's target at a range of 110 miles?
Especially when a modern tank can fire to maybe 3 miles at most,and the 16 inch main guns of an iowa class battleship are good to about 35 miles while still being effective against their target,and have to use hundreds of pounds of explosives to propel a single 2700 pound shell that far,or that a railgun,as the article states,eliminates the need to have high explosives aboard a ship in the first place,which is kinda bad when they get hit where the explosives are stored in the ship,no matter how secure ...:p
Obviously,the minmatar didn't get that memo....
Which is why we use missiles instead of battleships, there's not much reason for guns that big when missiles and aircraft strike much accurately from hundreds or thousands of miles.
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 03:45:00 -
[19]
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 11/12/2010 03:46:54 Edited by: digitalwanderer on 11/12/2010 03:46:08
Originally by: CHEERWlNE
Which is why we use missiles instead of battleships, there's not much reason for guns that big when missiles and aircraft strike much accurately from hundreds or thousands of miles.
Missiles are expensive though,while artillery fire is relatively cheap by comparison,and while battleships became outdated with the advent of aircraft carriers and airplanes,the sight of several of those battleships 20~30 miles off a coast doing constant bombardments on that coast for days or even weeks before troops step on the beach for the ground assault phase is a scary sight indeed.
One of the iowa's is still kept on reserve even to this day,ready to deploy if needed,and that's not too shabby for a ship built in the 1940's,although it's been upgraded constantly and the current configuration also has missile launchers....Tomahawk missiles,some of wich have nuclear warheads....She's still one scary ship no matter what.
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 03:51:00 -
[20]
Here's a cool pic of it firing a full broadside from all 9 main turrets...
http://img.kyon.pl/img/11642,uss_iowa,battleship,fire,hi_res,water,photo,ship,.html
|
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:01:00 -
[21]
Actually I would have thought a railgun application would be first used as some sort or regional defense against ICBM's and Submarine fired missiles and whatnot. Size of the components wouldnt matter then. Oh look, a river, free energy and cooling. Make a big enough one and you could hit satelites too.
|
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:04:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Soporo Make a big enough one and you could hit satelites too.
Or boost one a good portion of the way into orbit. Provided you could build one durable enough.
and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Shaalira D'arc
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:04:00 -
[23]
Sure that railgun has range, but, by the looks of it, the tracking is horrible. Just get close to the warehouse and orbit.
|
Shaalira D'arc
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:12:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Culmen
Originally by: Soporo Make a big enough one and you could hit satelites too.
Or boost one a good portion of the way into orbit. Provided you could build one durable enough.
From Earth to the Moon.
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:17:00 -
[25]
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 11/12/2010 04:21:42
Originally by: Culmen
Originally by: Soporo Make a big enough one and you could hit satelites too.
Or boost one a good portion of the way into orbit. Provided you could build one durable enough.
Acceleration is the main problem there,as G-forces from the brutal acceleration would kill a human or destroy any cargo you're trying to launch into orbit,hence why rockets launch fairly gently and keep acceleration to within 3G's,low enough for humans to survive the trip and not damage any cargo going aboard....
As a satellite killer though,it would be awsome as you already know the trajectory of the satellite,it's altitude and relative speed,plus we know the speed at which the round is fired off the rail itself...Mach 7 for this one,so the calculations aren't hard for a precise hit on a hostile satellite.
Now that i think about it,this one already could with it's 110 mile range,as it's already considered space at the 100 mile mark above the earths surface....
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:22:00 -
[26]
Yeah and you don't even need a huge projectile as satelites are very soft targets. Might make a good AA weapon too.
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:42:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Soporo Yeah and you don't even need a huge projectile as satelites are very soft targets. Might make a good AA weapon too.
It's the sheer velocity of the round that does the most damage,not it's physical size or weight or even it's shape...
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente DF0 incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:46:00 -
[28]
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 11/12/2010 04:46:55 Whoops...
|
Blacksquirrel
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 05:01:00 -
[29]
I believe the plan was to mount this on the new DDX and get between 200-300 miles outta it.
|
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 05:04:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Soporo Yeah and you don't even need a huge projectile as satelites are very soft targets. Might make a good AA weapon too.
Note to CCP. BUFF TRACKING ON RAILGUNS!!
Though to be honest... the one they're trying to build right now is frigate sized... and further more why do i even need a sig? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |