|
Modern armor technology would get really wild with that kind of mass budget.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
Godholio posted:I took the question to mean a modern replacement for the Iowas, not a literal new-build Iowa. Interesting either way, though. That's usually what people mean, I just thought it would be fun to dig down on what making an actual new "Iowa" would entail. Once you start swapping out components for modern versions you pretty much end up with a vaguely Iowa-shaped ship that's a completely new design and probably only a single order of magnitude more expensive than an equivalent clean-sheet design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
I feel like those cruise-refit Ohio subs are a better deal.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
I liked that one anime that had a fight between a shell throwing battleship and a laser shooting mech and the laser actually couldn't hit the battleship due to the range being far enough that the curvature of the earth protected the battleship and each laser shot would cleanly miss by a few meters while it could slam the mech with shells no problem since they fired in an arc and they had an advance team of scouts I think doing range finding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:If you had 1 trillion dollars of clean money it would massively distort the economy in your area, with the potential to generate considerable inflation if you actually tried to spend all of it. Aka the Mansa Musa. Kinda like how everyone pretends Putin doesn't have 200b+ squirreled away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I liked that one anime that had a fight between a shell throwing battleship and a laser shooting mech and the laser actually couldn't hit the battleship due to the range being far enough that the curvature of the earth protected the battleship and each laser shot would cleanly miss by a few meters while it could slam the mech with shells no problem since they fired in an arc and they had an advance team of scouts I think doing range finding. Was it good and worth watching and if so what was it called?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Memento posted:Was it good and worth watching and if so what was it called? Aldnoah.Zero Basic premise is that the hero is a super genius and uses strategy to overcome a massive technology gap to win battles, mostly because the bad guys will only ever do honorable single combat. I can't say whether or not it's worth watching, but since I usually rate my animes based on how creeped out I am I think it's mostly safe in that regard but it's been a while since I've watched it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Does "Take advantage of my enemies crippling stupidity" really count as strategic genius though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:Does "Take advantage of my enemies crippling stupidity" really count as strategic genius though? I meant to put strategy in quotes, because yes, the bad guys are stunningly incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Aldnoah.Zero First season was pretty watchable and entertaining from what I remember, mostly by counter troupes normally seen in similar shows. Second season is hot garbage that is basically a more retarded version of Gundam, complete with the "I not going to fight for war, I'm going to fight for peace to last schmaltz schmaltz blah blah." Don't watch it. That I do remember distinctly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Aldnoah.Zero Sounds like BattleTech and the clans. Which reminds me: particle-beam weapons. Why did they fall off? We've made a lot of progress on lasers and ion engines and I'm guessing the decline of SDI has something to do with it, since they probably aren't useful in an atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Sounds like BattleTech and the clans. From what I remember on the Atomic Rocket "how to write hard scifi" site they rely on a lot of science that is still mostly-theoretical, they would need a shitton of power, and firing them would irradiate anybody near the gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:From what I remember on the Atomic Rocket "how to write hard scifi" site they rely on a lot of science that is still mostly-theoretical, they would need a shitton of power, and firing them would irradiate anybody near the gun. And specifically the Pentagon stopped funding research into them last year because lasers are actually working now, and it wants to spend money on lasers instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 08:36
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:From what I remember on the Atomic Rocket "how to write hard scifi" site they rely on a lot of science that is still mostly-theoretical, they would need a shitton of power, and firing them would irradiate anybody near the gun. If you have a compact laser that powerful enough send a jet of metallic/plastic bits at speeds several orders of magnitude faster than the seed of sound, you don’t really need anything other than the laser. Research into ion drives is still on-going, but they’ll probably never be used for anything practical due to extremely bad power to weight ratio. They’re a first step however, as research could lead to massive break-throughs with EMI and plasma engines. E: Freaking beaten. 
Back Hack fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
There are electronic rocket engines with acceptable thrust, but they will require power input in the hundreds of kilowatt range. Until someone is willing to launch a real live nuclear reactor and the huge radiators that will necessarily go with it electric engines will be limited to low thrust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:If you have a compact laser that powerful enough send a jet of metallic/plastic bits at speeds several orders of magnitude faster than the seed of sound, you don’t really need anything other than the laser. Ion drives have an excellent power to weight ratio, it's just a matter of when you get that power. Rockets produce a little bit of delta V all at once. Ions produce a whole lot more stretched out over weeks, months, or years for the same weight. For manned missions, and missions to and from the surface, they don't make any sense, for deep space automated missions where you need a lot of course changes without the benefit of gravity assists, Ions are currently the only way to go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
No one refers to delta v as “power”.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Sounds like BattleTech and the clans. The short and sweet version is that nobody has yet come up with a way to collimate beams of neutral particles to anything remotely like the required precision. Lasers inherently practically collimate themselves. With modern advances in power, beam quality, and beam control there's no reason to bother with particles unless there's some unexpected conceptual breakthrough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
That Works posted:I feel like those cruise-refit Ohio subs are a better deal. Speaking of, is there anyplace that can give the annual operating cost of an Ohio class vs. an Iowa class? Postwar you hear all about how SSBNs and aircraft carriers are the modern battleships, and I'm curious if you could work out some kinda cost comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Research into ion drives is still on-going, but they’ll probably never be used for anything practical due to extremely bad power to weight ratio. You don't consider the uses to which ion drives are put right now every day to be practical? They're routinely used in spacecraft propulsion and stationkeeping. There are things you can't use them for due to extremely bad thrust:weight ratios, but there are practical uses where thrust:weigh ratio is not your primary concern and we use them in those applications.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Speaking of, is there anyplace that can give the annual operating cost of an Ohio class vs. an Iowa class? Postwar you hear all about how SSBNs and aircraft carriers are the modern battleships, and I'm curious if you could work out some kinda cost comparison. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/20pres/OMN_Vol1_book.pdf good luck digging the info out of there though I'm pretty curious how it stacks up
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
Also are you talking annual cost as reactivated, or the annual cost as in WWII service? All those AA crew salaries add up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Also are you talking annual cost as reactivated, or the annual cost as in WWII service? All those AA crew salaries add up. I'm thinking annual cost in WW2 service, since even then, it was a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Actually Magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters have both good thrust and impulse and would be generally how we expect to explore the solar system with human crews. Also I think season 1 of Aldnoah Zero is worth watching, season 2 was definitely quite bad and failed to live up to the world building and premise/potential of season 1. And yeah the enemies are incompetent, but the technology gap is wide enough that it's still an interesting challenge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Actually Magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters have both good thrust and impulse and would be generally how we expect to explore the solar system with human crews. They have good thrust in the context of electric propulsion. Several dozen Newtons, max, is still feeble compared to chemical rockets. The rocket used to get two guys in a 5-ton spacecraft back off the Moon was 16kN.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
VASIMR thrusters are basically proven technology, with working demonstrators that do what they're supposed to. The issue is that a VASIMR thruster that might replace a chemical rocket would require a naval nuclear reactor and accompanying radiators in the hundreds to thousands of square meter range.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:VASIMR thrusters are basically proven technology, with working demonstrators that do what they're supposed to. The issue is that a VASIMR thruster that might replace a chemical rocket would require a naval nuclear reactor and accompanying radiators in the hundreds to thousands of square meter range. Unless you use a liquid heatsink that you then dump overboard, possibly under high pressure through a nozzle at the back of the ship. Not saying having large tanks of heat absorber onboard doesn't defeat the entire purpose of not-chemical rocket-spaceship design, but it is an alternative and rocket scientists have Cold war science was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They have good thrust in the context of electric propulsion. Several dozen Newtons, max, is still feeble compared to chemical rockets. The rocket used to get two guys in a 5-ton spacecraft back off the Moon was 16kN. My understanding is the current limitations are because of power and a lack of funding and development, but that they could go much further given time, funding, and improved material sciences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Ion drives and chemical rockets are for wimps and communists. nuclear salt-water rockets are where it's at, because why have a nuclear explosion pulse rocket like the Pluto suggestion when you can just have a continuous fission reaction right in the goddamn nozzle? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Ion drives and chemical rockets are for wimps and communists. Rocket science: Cold war scientists:  = Cold war rocket science  21st century people: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
So was cackling maniacally a skill cold war-era rocket scientist learned in school or is it something that comes about naturally after a hard day of figuring out how to make everything have a nuclear reactor or explode. Or both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:So was cackling maniacally a skill cold war-era rocket scientist learned in school or is it something that comes about naturally after a hard day of figuring out how to make everything have a nuclear reactor or explode. Or both. It's when one of your hellprojects, that you only came up with on a dare to begin with, actually gets funded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
You guys seen this? https://twitter.com/kyruer/status/1184018510835568641?s=21 Russian (SF? merc?) unit entering a US base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You guys seen this? That gate thing that's in the post after that one makes some great noises.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:That gate thing that's in the post after that one makes some great noises. https://twitter.com/Kyruer/status/1184019400032210949 We cannot allow a foley gap!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Ion drives and chemical rockets are for wimps and communists. Need to race that vs a project Orion spacecraft, see who can make it to proxima Centauri first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
What's the chances that this are real? I assume since they're showing it off sitting on the ground the answer is "literally none." That said, I'd love to see one http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1166591.shtml
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:What's the chances that this are real? I assume since they're showing it off sitting on the ground the answer is "literally none." That said, I'd love to see one It can be done. There's a manned version the US made back in the day with some poor lunatic piloting by standing just above the propeller axis. I forget the name but there's one in the Udvar-Hazy museum. With modern control theory it would be much easier, but why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
Yeah, I remember seeing footage of that on the History channel ages ago, though I might have been remembering Neil Armstrong's ejection from the Luner Lander thing for the description of the crash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 04:36
|
|