On the topic of MAC cannons, the ones in the Halo universe are hilariously overpowered. Mount an AK-47 on the front of your spacecraft and you'll have more than enough firepower to defeat anything that's out there now. Projectiles on the order of tons would be impractical, even against a fictitious "capital ship" type of spacecraft. If I were to design a space-based weapon to combat a heavily armored spacecraft, it would probably be a high-powered laser. If I had to use a MAC cannon, I would fire sharp, dense, needle-like projectiles on the order of 10cm. Less mass at a higher velocity will require the same impulse, but it will be more effective.
The Halo orbital defense super MAC cannon should blow up the entire solar system if you ever fired them, if you want a game that's done its homework try mass effect.
On the topic of MAC cannons, the ones in the Halo universe are hilariously overpowered. Mount an AK-47 on the front of your spacecraft and you'll have more than enough firepower to defeat anything that's out there now. Projectiles on the order of tons would be impractical, even against a fictitious "capital ship" type of spacecraft. If I were to design a space-based weapon to combat a heavily armored spacecraft, it would probably be a high-powered laser. If I had to use a MAC cannon, I would fire sharp, dense, needle-like projectiles on the order of 10cm. Less mass at a higher velocity will require the same impulse, but it will be more effective.
The Halo orbital defense super MAC cannon should blow up the entire solar system if you ever fired them, if you want a game that's done its homework try mass effect.
sounds fun, I would love to see that from space on a planet, heavier shots will be needed to accomplish every sycopath's dream, destroying a plannet, that should make one heck of a weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Warning, Care not given. Click it, cuz I am bored:
I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet, but how much of our day-to-day technology is funded partly (if not fully) by the advancements in space technology. Our time on this planet -is- limited, no matter how you look at it (>5 Billion years is still a count-down) and space travel is required to survive outside our solar system. Moving to the moon or Mars is a fine test experiment, but honestly we need a way out of the solar system, and then the galaxy.
On the idea of global warming; the climate -is- changing (nevermind if it is getting warmer or cooler). this change is having heavy impact on our ecosystems (faster than ever recorded outside an eco-collapse). If we are not causing some of the problems, we are -definately- not helping the situation.
The Halo orbital defense super MAC cannon should blow up the entire solar system if you ever fired them, if you want a game that's done its homework try mass effect.
I remember that scene. It made me smile.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This enlightening post brought to you courtesy of a serious overabundance of free time.
know what I would love too see, you know those movies where earth gets invaded and taken over by aliens, if ironicly if we invade and conqure an alien race that was at the same technological level as we where in the 1980's, just like all those old movies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Warning, Care not given. Click it, cuz I am bored:
On the topic of MAC cannons, the ones in the Halo universe are hilariously overpowered. Mount an AK-47 on the front of your spacecraft and you'll have more than enough firepower to defeat anything that's out there now. Projectiles on the order of tons would be impractical, even against a fictitious "capital ship" type of spacecraft. If I were to design a space-based weapon to combat a heavily armored spacecraft, it would probably be a high-powered laser. If I had to use a MAC cannon, I would fire sharp, dense, needle-like projectiles on the order of 10cm. Less mass at a higher velocity will require the same impulse, but it will be more effective.
At the UNSC's current technological level, lasers are just out of reach. Even an orbital MAC cannon will ave trouble with Covenant ships. They not only have plasma weapons that can melt through titanium armor plates like butter, but also energy shields capable of repelling multiple MAC rounds. Compared to the weapons and defenses of a Covenant Capital Ship, the UNSC ships are hilariously underpowered.
On the topic of MAC cannons, the ones in the Halo universe are hilariously overpowered. Mount an AK-47 on the front of your spacecraft and you'll have more than enough firepower to defeat anything that's out there now. Projectiles on the order of tons would be impractical, even against a fictitious "capital ship" type of spacecraft. If I were to design a space-based weapon to combat a heavily armored spacecraft, it would probably be a high-powered laser. If I had to use a MAC cannon, I would fire sharp, dense, needle-like projectiles on the order of 10cm. Less mass at a higher velocity will require the same impulse, but it will be more effective.
A huge slug does more damage if fired at the same speed as a smaller one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch MLP: FiM. It's awesome.
Quote from Mitsuka »
High-fives are a renewable resource, so there shall definitely be more.
At the UNSC's current technological level, lasers are just out of reach. Even an orbital MAC cannon will ave trouble with Covenant ships. They not only have plasma weapons that can melt through titanium armor plates like butter, but also energy shields capable of repelling multiple MAC rounds. Compared to the weapons and defenses of a Covenant Capital Ship, the UNSC ships are hilariously underpowered.
I'm aware. This thread, however, isn't about Halo. It's about real life. And with current technology, we do have lasers capable of breaching the hull of a spacecraft. With further thought though, I think a .50 cal. gun would be the best compromise in terms of spacecraft armament. Such a system wouldn't weigh very much, but would pack a powerful enough punch to penetrate the hull of any unfriendly spacecraft. Now remind me why we're arming our spacecraft?
Quote from Biglulu »
A huge slug does more damage if fired at the same speed as a smaller one.
Indeed, but firing a huge slug at velocity "v" requires a huge amount of energy. Firing a small slug at velocity "v" requires a small amount of energy. It makes more sense to make energy constant than it does to make velocity constant. With energy constant, you can fire a smaller projectile at a higher velocity. This not only makes the projectile harder to dodge, but also increases its ability to penetrate. The shape of the projectile also plays a role. A needle-like projectile will pierce the hull while a blunt object will spread its force over a larger area, possibly just bouncing off.
Think of it this way: you have a gallon jug of water. It constantly exerts the same downward force due to gravity. Put your hand on a table and put the jug on your hand. See how it feels. Now imagine attaching a needle to the bottom of the jug. It has the same force distributed over a much smaller area. I don't recommend putting the needle-jug on your hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This enlightening post brought to you courtesy of a serious overabundance of free time.
And with current technology, we do have lasers capable of breaching the hull of a spacecraft. With further thought though, I think a .50 cal. gun would be the best compromise in terms of spacecraft armament. Such a system wouldn't weigh very much, but would pack a powerful enough punch to penetrate the hull of any unfriendly spacecraft.
The main disadvantage is that if you only have a projectile velocity of 1,000 m/s a somewhat agile ship 50 km away could doge most of them just by accelerating randomly and if we have no magic energy shields the ship with longer effective weapon range is going to win.
At the UNSC's current technological level, lasers are just out of reach. Even an orbital MAC cannon will ave trouble with Covenant ships. They not only have plasma weapons that can melt through titanium armor plates like butter, but also energy shields capable of repelling multiple MAC rounds. Compared to the weapons and defenses of a Covenant Capital Ship, the UNSC ships are hilariously underpowered.
I'm aware. This thread, however, isn't about Halo. It's about real life. And with current technology, we do have lasers capable of breaching the hull of a spacecraft. With further thought though, I think a .50 cal. gun would be the best compromise in terms of spacecraft armament. Such a system wouldn't weigh very much, but would pack a powerful enough punch to penetrate the hull of any unfriendly spacecraft. Now remind me why we're arming our spacecraft?
So the Russians can't take out our moon base, or whatever. Say the enemy has tank-grade armor on their ships. What now?
Space exploration will probably be the 2011-2012 debate topic.
What are some arguments against it?
There's only a legitimate argument if the government continues to fund research. Space exploration is dangerous and very costly, but it's not a problem if it's voluntarily funded.
I theorize a perfectly 'sustainable' Earth is not possible. Space exploration and colonization is not a 'if' but a 'when'. It is unrealistic to assume that we will be willing to engage in the mass population control necessary to restrict the population to the point at which it is stable. Whatever point that might be!
Ultimately I'm assuming that a certain limited population will remain on Earth, but that the cities and their life will move to other places.
I theorize a perfectly 'sustainable' Earth is not possible. Space exploration and colonization is not a 'if' but a 'when'. It is unrealistic to assume that we will be willing to engage in the mass population control necessary to restrict the population to the point at which it is stable. Whatever point that might be!
Ultimately I'm assuming that a certain limited population will remain on Earth, but that the cities and their life will move to other places.
You raise interesting, yet valid, points.
Like in Jack McDevitt's books... "Everyone wants to see the home world. They go, they look around, and they leave."
Yep, with colonization of other planets, you will inevitably end up with millions who have never seen Earth, and hardly consider themselves a citizen of whatever government sent their ancestors. I predict rebellion and eventual formation of many different factions across the stars. Sort of like MechWarrior, for those who have played the game.
Yep, with colonization of other planets, you will inevitably end up with millions who have never seen Earth, and hardly consider themselves a citizen of whatever government sent their ancestors. I predict rebellion and eventual formation of many different factions across the stars. Sort of like MechWarrior, for those who have played the game.
Is rebellion the right word? I thought rebellion was violent. I would imagine it more peaceful like South Carolina seceding from the US.
The Halo orbital defense super MAC cannon should blow up the entire solar system if you ever fired them, if you want a game that's done its homework try mass effect.
sounds fun, I would love to see that from space on a planet, heavier shots will be needed to accomplish every sycopath's dream, destroying a plannet, that should make one heck of a weapon.
On the idea of global warming; the climate -is- changing (nevermind if it is getting warmer or cooler). this change is having heavy impact on our ecosystems (faster than ever recorded outside an eco-collapse). If we are not causing some of the problems, we are -definately- not helping the situation.
Rockin' High Check it out!
sigg'd :3
I remember that scene. It made me smile.
At the UNSC's current technological level, lasers are just out of reach. Even an orbital MAC cannon will ave trouble with Covenant ships. They not only have plasma weapons that can melt through titanium armor plates like butter, but also energy shields capable of repelling multiple MAC rounds. Compared to the weapons and defenses of a Covenant Capital Ship, the UNSC ships are hilariously underpowered.
A huge slug does more damage if fired at the same speed as a smaller one.
We shall never make it that far in our current state.
Praise the ipad while you can
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
Ah yes, the ipad is the bestest thing ever :tongue.gif:
I'm aware. This thread, however, isn't about Halo. It's about real life. And with current technology, we do have lasers capable of breaching the hull of a spacecraft. With further thought though, I think a .50 cal. gun would be the best compromise in terms of spacecraft armament. Such a system wouldn't weigh very much, but would pack a powerful enough punch to penetrate the hull of any unfriendly spacecraft. Now remind me why we're arming our spacecraft?
Indeed, but firing a huge slug at velocity "v" requires a huge amount of energy. Firing a small slug at velocity "v" requires a small amount of energy. It makes more sense to make energy constant than it does to make velocity constant. With energy constant, you can fire a smaller projectile at a higher velocity. This not only makes the projectile harder to dodge, but also increases its ability to penetrate. The shape of the projectile also plays a role. A needle-like projectile will pierce the hull while a blunt object will spread its force over a larger area, possibly just bouncing off.
Think of it this way: you have a gallon jug of water. It constantly exerts the same downward force due to gravity. Put your hand on a table and put the jug on your hand. See how it feels. Now imagine attaching a needle to the bottom of the jug. It has the same force distributed over a much smaller area. I don't recommend putting the needle-jug on your hand.
The main disadvantage is that if you only have a projectile velocity of 1,000 m/s a somewhat agile ship 50 km away could doge most of them just by accelerating randomly and if we have no magic energy shields the ship with longer effective weapon range is going to win.
So the Russians can't take out our moon base, or whatever. Say the enemy has tank-grade armor on their ships. What now?
What are some arguments against it?
There's only a legitimate argument if the government continues to fund research. Space exploration is dangerous and very costly, but it's not a problem if it's voluntarily funded.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/
Ultimately I'm assuming that a certain limited population will remain on Earth, but that the cities and their life will move to other places.
You raise interesting, yet valid, points.
Like in Jack McDevitt's books... "Everyone wants to see the home world. They go, they look around, and they leave."
Is rebellion the right word? I thought rebellion was violent. I would imagine it more peaceful like South Carolina seceding from the US.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/
If that could even be called peaceful. Ever heard of the Battle of Charleston?