open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked US Navy builds real railgun!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.12.11 05:36:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Culmen
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...


It needs 33 megajoules... you not going to get that out of a battery pack Razz

Kierlana Vosk
Posted - 2010.12.11 05:46:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
Originally by: Culmen
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...


It needs 33 megajoules... you not going to get that out of a battery pack Razz
Pfft, frigate capacitor works fine, and they fit all kinds of other stuff in there. YARRRR!!

Baenus
Posted - 2010.12.11 05:48:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Baenus on 11/12/2010 05:49:30
Originally by: digitalwanderer
Here's a cool pic of it firing a full broadside from all 9 main turrets...Shocked


http://img.kyon.pl/img/11642,uss_iowa,battleship,fire,hi_res,water,photo,ship,.html


Not even. That picture is actually just one single round firing out of the 2nd and 3rd turret at 0 elevation. In fact you can see that by looking at the rear turret and comparing the ripple effect from front to rear

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.12.11 05:58:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 11/12/2010 06:03:42
Originally by: Culmen
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.

The FN-P90 shoots bullets that weigh between 7.5 and 9.5 grams at a muzzle velocity of between 300 and 410 m/s, with muzzle kinetic energy between 430 and 640 Joules.
So let's say you want to accelerate one projectile at Mach 7 muzzle velocity (so, around 2400 m/s, call it a nice round 2500 m/s), and you want to have a comparable muzzle kinetic energy (call it 500 Joules, or 1/66000 of what the video test fire was)... and you only need a projectile that weighs 0.08 grams !
A single cubic centimeter of iron could provide you with almost 100 shots. A magazine the size and weight of a gunpowder-propelled bullet gun magazine could easily house thousands of shots.
There are LAPTOP BATTERIES that can provide in excess of 65 Joules per second equivalent energy, and even assuming 87% losses for capacitor charging and firing mechanism, that's one shot per minute at the "punching power" of a real projectile weapon. I am sure more compact and more powerful batteries are quite possible, at a price, of course.

I likegirls
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.12.11 06:33:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Shaalira D'arc
Sure that railgun has range, but, by the looks of it, the tracking is horrible. Just get close to the warehouse and orbit.


The united states navy needs webs!

Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.12.11 06:56:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Aiwha on 11/12/2010 06:57:28
Not a railgun.


That beast looks like its actually effective.

Zindela
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.12.11 07:04:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 11/12/2010 06:03:42
Originally by: Culmen
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.

The FN-P90 shoots bullets that weigh between 7.5 and 9.5 grams at a muzzle velocity of between 300 and 410 m/s, with muzzle kinetic energy between 430 and 640 Joules.
So let's say you want to accelerate one projectile at Mach 7 muzzle velocity (so, around 2400 m/s, call it a nice round 2500 m/s), and you want to have a comparable muzzle kinetic energy (call it 500 Joules, or 1/66000 of what the video test fire was)... and you only need a projectile that weighs 0.08 grams !
A single cubic centimeter of iron could provide you with almost 100 shots. A magazine the size and weight of a gunpowder-propelled bullet gun magazine could easily house thousands of shots.
There are LAPTOP BATTERIES that can provide in excess of 65 Joules per second equivalent energy, and even assuming 87% losses for capacitor charging and firing mechanism, that's one shot per minute at the "punching power" of a real projectile weapon. I am sure more compact and more powerful batteries are quite possible, at a price, of course.




This is, more or less, the premise of the weapons in Mass Effect. Tiny solid slugs, shaved off of solid ammo 'blocks', then accelerated to extreme velocities with magnets.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.12.11 07:20:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 11/12/2010 07:24:46
Originally by: Zindela
This is, more or less, the premise of the weapons in Mass Effect. Tiny solid slugs, shaved off of solid ammo 'blocks', then accelerated to extreme velocities with magnets.

Yeah, but there, they use the mass effect of Element Zero to radically lower the mass of the slugs before acceleration, an effect which ceases as soon as the slug leaves the muzzle, basically creating a truckload of kinetic energy out of absolutely nowhere.

P.S. True, the basic principle would be mostly the same anyway Very Happy

Zindela
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.12.11 07:47:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Akita T

Yeah, but there, they use the mass effect of Element Zero to radically lower the mass of the slugs before acceleration, an effect which ceases as soon as the slug leaves the muzzle, basically creating a truckload of kinetic energy out of absolutely nowhere.

P.S. True, the basic principle would be mostly the same anyway Very Happy


hehe... The whole conservation of energy/mass and the laws of thermodynamics and all that. Who needs those when you have pseudoscience? See, it has the word SCIENCE in it therefore it MUST be correct.


Physics exam on a lot of this stuff tomorrow... and now your links are going to keep me from studying more... not like I was much anyway. Very Happy

Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.12.11 07:51:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Zindela
Originally by: Akita T

Yeah, but there, they use the mass effect of Element Zero to radically lower the mass of the slugs before acceleration, an effect which ceases as soon as the slug leaves the muzzle, basically creating a truckload of kinetic energy out of absolutely nowhere.

P.S. True, the basic principle would be mostly the same anyway Very Happy


hehe... The whole conservation of energy/mass and the laws of thermodynamics and all that. Who needs those when you have pseudoscience? See, it has the word SCIENCE in it therefore it MUST be correct.


Physics exam on a lot of this stuff tomorrow... and now your links are going to keep me from studying more... not like I was much anyway. Very Happy


So basically it boils down to "thing moves in a direction pretty fast?"

Don't know why people have to complicate everything

ghost st
Posted - 2010.12.11 08:00:00 - [41]
 


Vinya Az'riel
Posted - 2010.12.11 08:31:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 11/12/2010 06:03:42
Originally by: Culmen
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.

The FN-P90 shoots bullets that weigh between 7.5 and 9.5 grams at a muzzle velocity of between 300 and 410 m/s, with muzzle kinetic energy between 430 and 640 Joules.
So let's say you want to accelerate one projectile at Mach 7 muzzle velocity (so, around 2400 m/s, call it a nice round 2500 m/s), and you want to have a comparable muzzle kinetic energy (call it 500 Joules, or 1/66000 of what the video test fire was)... and you only need a projectile that weighs 0.08 grams !
A single cubic centimeter of iron could provide you with almost 100 shots. A magazine the size and weight of a gunpowder-propelled bullet gun magazine could easily house thousands of shots.
There are LAPTOP BATTERIES that can provide in excess of 65 Joules per second equivalent energy, and even assuming 87% losses for capacitor charging and firing mechanism, that's one shot per minute at the "punching power" of a real projectile weapon. I am sure more compact and more powerful batteries are quite possible, at a price, of course.


Two things i would like to nitpick about.

First, i didnt't know they made ammo for the P90 from depleted uranium, since the regular cartridge itself weighs about 6.0g, and the bullets from 1.2g to 1.6g. And the muzzle velocity is 716m/s for the cartridges in use.

Second, the fact that you cant have a conversion from chemical energy to kinetic energy at 100% efficiency means that your laptop powered gun would fire maybe once per 20 minutes, or once a minute with less power than a bb gun.

I'll go back to the doghouse now.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.11 08:56:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: digitalwanderer
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....

Wrong, the reason rockets start slow is that it saves a bit of fuel.

Most of the cargo we want up in space and is keeping us from further exploration are quite capable of being built to survive the acceleration... Electronics is already quite capable of surviving much higher G-forces, and fuel for e.g. in-orbit refueling stations could be cheaply filled enabling e.g. Mars missions at much lower launch costs.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.12.11 12:40:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Vinya Az'riel
Two things i would like to nitpick about.
First, i didnt't know they made ammo for the P90 from depleted uranium, since the regular cartridge itself weighs about 6.0g, and the bullets from 1.2g to 1.6g. And the muzzle velocity is 716m/s for the cartridges in use.

Ungh. You're right, but in a different way, and humorously, in a way that doesn't really matter.
I was incorrectly using the stats of the ammo for the class of weapons the FN-P90 was supposed to replace, and I might have also miscalculated the grains-to-grams conversion.
Still, the relevant factor here (and the only one I actually took into account) was approximate muzzle energy, which is quite similar, thanks to noticeably higher muzzle velocity for the P90 shots.
So, basically, a guesstimation of 500 J per shot was quite accurate.

Quote:
Second, the fact that you cant have a conversion from chemical energy to kinetic energy at 100% efficiency means that your laptop powered gun would fire maybe once per 20 minutes, or once a minute with less power than a bb gun.

I actually calculated using 87% LOSSES, that means only 13% efficiency. With 100% efficiency, it would have been around 6 shots per minute.
~15 Volt, ~4.5 Ah laptop batteries exist, and that's ~67 Watt, or 67 Joules/second, I rounded it down a bit to 65. Granted, such high-power batteries are not the cheapest ones, but still, even my cellphone battery can supply 3 Watt.
Anyway, 65 Watt * 60 seconds = 3900 Joules, and I selected 500 Joules (as shown in the paragraph above) as "target level", so I only needed roughly 13% efficiency for 1 shot per minute.

Ejit
Amarr
STD contractors
Posted - 2010.12.11 12:57:00 - [45]
 

That's nothing. You should see what they test in the Australian outback.

Check out this vid. Title refers to a Laser, others to a missle. But further analysis seems to concur that it's a rail gun fired from the surface.
Rail Gun shooting at UFO.

Just the weapon to chase off pesky UFO's in orbit...Very Happy

Rusty Waynne
Caldari
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2010.12.11 14:37:00 - [46]
 

The U.S. Navy has been working on this technology for awhile now.

I think they're supposed to have rail gun equipped navy ships by 2011/2012 that's going to see service.

I love the U.S., always making badass guns. YARRRR!!

CCP StevieSG

Posted - 2010.12.11 14:39:00 - [47]
 

Moved to Out Of Pod from EVE General.

Aunty Nora
Posted - 2010.12.11 15:13:00 - [48]
 

no wonder your country is so broke, crap like this doesnt come cheap.

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2010.12.11 15:33:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Grimpak on 11/12/2010 15:37:06
Originally by: Arkanor
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....Laughing


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.


it might signal a return of the battleship, with coastal bombardment.

difference is, they will be doing this from beyond the horizon

it's still something hard to pull up tho. rails need to be aligned with microns of tolerance, which means re-checks every shot, nevermind replacing any circuitry or part of a rail that went "boom" on the shot. and the "other" alternative (coil guns) are, theoredically, much more maintenance needy due to having basically high-powered magnets at a set distance that are constantly repelling (or attracting) each other, on top of having to keep the power balance of said magnets equal along the barrel.


it is cool tho: with the advent of railguns, you can kiss goodbye to the tomahawks, since the slug itself is no more than a simple iron/any kind of magnetizable alloy slug with no kind of payload xcept itself.

Shiho Weitong
Caldari
Koa Mai Hoku
Posted - 2010.12.11 16:40:00 - [50]
 

Slighly off topic, but electric powered weaponry is the ****.

ADWS

Handgun of Pimpness

digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
Posted - 2010.12.11 17:31:00 - [51]
 

The direct competition to rails would obviously be lasers,and they seem to be coming along nicely...

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/rtn10_fas/features/directedeng/

First 100 kw solid state laser(not a chemical based one),mounted on a phalanx turret and shooting down an UAV.

Jenn aSide
Posted - 2010.12.11 17:42:00 - [52]
 

Any U.S. Navy Railgun would be useless. Rails do Kin/therm, both North Korea and Iran have EM as their weakest resist. Everyone knows that.

William Cooly
Sol Enterprises
Posted - 2010.12.11 19:03:00 - [53]
 


Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2010.12.11 20:04:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: digitalwanderer
The direct competition to rails would obviously be lasers,and they seem to be coming along nicely...

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/rtn10_fas/features/directedeng/

First 100 kw solid state laser(not a chemical based one),mounted on a phalanx turret and shooting down an UAV.


That's kind of pathetic.

This laser is obviously better.

illford baker
STK Scientific
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.11 20:12:00 - [55]
 

pros: the shot travels so fast, it ignites the atmosphere behind it.
cons: the rails melt.

digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
Posted - 2010.12.11 23:56:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Templar Dane
Originally by: digitalwanderer
The direct competition to rails would obviously be lasers,and they seem to be coming along nicely...

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/rtn10_fas/features/directedeng/

First 100 kw solid state laser(not a chemical based one),mounted on a phalanx turret and shooting down an UAV.


That's kind of pathetic.

This laser is obviously better.



LOL,true,but still,one has to start somewhere and it's pretty impressive that in just 50 years,we've gone from prototype lasers that couldn't even set fire to a piece of paper,to one that can knock down multiple UAV's in flight and is mounted on it's own turret,so it's not hard to imagine something dozens if not hundreds of times more powerfull in the next 50 years....

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2010.12.11 23:59:00 - [57]
 

Quote:
no wonder your country is so broke, crap like this doesnt come cheap.


You're just mad cause your country blows all it's money on social programs, and thus can't go broke from something so awesome. Dont hate us because we have cool guns to mount on our ships.

digitalwanderer
Gallente
DF0 incorporated
Posted - 2010.12.12 00:33:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: digitalwanderer on 12/12/2010 00:35:39
Edited by: digitalwanderer on 12/12/2010 00:34:45
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Wrong, the reason rockets start slow is that it saves a bit of fuel.

Most of the cargo we want up in space and is keeping us from further exploration are quite capable of being built to survive the acceleration... Electronics is already quite capable of surviving much higher G-forces, and fuel for e.g. in-orbit refueling stations could be cheaply filled enabling e.g. Mars missions at much lower launch costs.


Yes and no for a simple reason....While you're right that equipement in general can be made much tougher to resist higher acceleration figures well beyond the limits that human beings can resist,as combat oriented missiles clearly prove it on jet fighters,there the issue that launch costs to go all the way up to orbit cost anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000$ per pound,so it isn't cheap to say the least,therefore the satellites are made as light as possible to simply resist the trip to orbit and do their functions once there,in order to make the launch costs as cheap as possible,even to the point of using the smallest possible rocket to get into orbit whenever possible,or using a larger launch vehicle,but with multiple satellites to deploy in orbit...Every ounce of weight counts for something basically.

Until we reach the point where we either develop a space elevator,or at least a vehicle that is totally reusable after each launch with a 1 week turnaround between launches,getting stuff into space is always going to be horrendously expensive endevour if you have to build a new rocket for each launch....

Tora Nevaal
Posted - 2010.12.12 01:44:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Tora Nevaal on 12/12/2010 01:52:16
Originally by: Rusty Waynne

I think they're supposed to have rail gun equipped navy ships by 2011/2012 that's going to see service.


Unfortunately these won't be fielded for quite some time yet. It's going to take decades to build a suitable platform around this system and work the myriad of bugs out. The Navy's been discussing replacing the standard steam catapults on the USS Gerald Ford (CVN-78), which is being built right now, with electromagnetic ones, but event that's starting to look like a pipe dream. There's simply too many technical hurdles to overcome to make it practical.

The greatest issue that I see with any system of this nature is properly shielding the immense magnetic fields created. Otherwise the first time they fire this bad boy the whole damn ship will tweak the hell out.

Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.12 16:15:00 - [60]
 

New Technology?

Yes AND no.

Guns were not new on the day that the MP-44 was first made, but the MP-44 (the first PRACTICAL assault rifle) was very new technology, even if guns themselves were not 'new'.

Worth installing on a warship??

HELL YES!!! (at least if they get the economy performance they are shooting for...)

Warships still carry artillery for a reason. There are many situations where artillery is much preferable to missiles. If they can make the Railgun they want to make, it will shoot several times farther, for vastly more impact, and for a vastly improved rate of fire. The vastly improved impact makes it a vastly better weapon for hitting hard targets (penetrator rounds hit harder). The rate of fire increase makes it vastly better for softer targets (more explosive rounds per minute). Oh, and from a defensive point of view, a few explosives on your own ship (not that more capacitors are exceedingly safe, but capacitors are not explosives.)


So...

Vast increase in range.
Vast increase in ability to penetrate hard targets.
Vast increase in rate of fire.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only