I've heard that nuclear weapons suck in space because there's no atmosphere to carry the force of their detonation. If so, would it be viable then to tamp a nuclear warhead with a highly compressed or even liquefied inert gas so that the energy of the warhead may turn it to plasma?
I've heard that nuclear weapons suck in space because there's no atmosphere to carry the force of their detonation...
Sebastian Wilson
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Jason King
>Jow Forumsommando invents space nuke plasma bomb; saves earth from intergalactic space faggots
truly a magical place
Christian Wood
That's not far from what they planned to do.
Luke Barnes
>I've heard that nuclear weapons suck in space because there's no atmosphere to carry the force of their detonation
its less that they suck, its more that they require far closer detonations to have a significant effect a 1 megaton nuke going off 1km from a ship is still going to be unpleasant, with a nasty radiation pulse probably fucking things up for the ship.
is more or less correct what was invented was more or less a nuclear powered shaped charge, capable of firing essentially a jet of star hot plasma
Jeremiah Clark
>I've heard that nuclear weapons suck in space because there's no atmosphere to carry the force of their detonation. If so, would it be viable then to tamp a nuclear warhead with a highly compressed or even liquefied inert gas so that the energy of the warhead may turn it to plasma?
You are MASSIVELY overthinking this. If we assume spaceships that can travel at near-light speeds, there is no reason for a warhead charge at all. Let me explain; The large hadron collider is basically a huge, underground electromagnetic tube that uses large magnets to accelerate a particle to close to the speed of light. When that particle hits another particle, it splits the atom. You know what else splits the atom? A nuke. Literally if you have ships that travel at close to the speed of light, the logical deduction is that you must have missiles and rail-guns that shoot projectiles at close to the speed of light. If a lead slug hits an object at near the speed of light, the atoms split, and you have a nuclear blast already.
So honestly at those speeds, blocks of solid Tungsten slugs would be ideal, no need to even use Uranium or Beryllium or anything fancy, no need for a detonator core or critical mass. Literally just hit the target that relativistic speeds and even a block of cement shot at the enemy becomes a fucking nuke.
Matthew Butler
>If we assume spaceships that can travel at near light speeds
That’s a massive assumption. Space warfare doesn’t have to include near light speed travel, and unlike nuclear weapons and spacecraft, neither the physics nor the technology exist to allow for travel at any significant fraction of light speed. Even the Orion Drive has a theoretical max velocity of like .2C.
Jaxson Barnes
when was the last time we had an Oppenheimer thread or last he posted?
Matthew Martin
Probably a /pfg/ thread.
Christian Flores
Nukes are still useful because you needn't hit the target precisely; i.e. if it jukes to a side enough to barely dodge a solid slug, the nuclear detonation may still hit it.
Adrian Foster
what for? Just make an atomic grenade.
Nathaniel Gray
>If we assume spaceships that can travel at near-light speeds
Ah yes, let's start with assuming bullshit SciFi tech levels, that'll let us make a reasonable analysis of how things will work.
>When that particle hits another particle, it splits the atom. You know what else splits the atom? A nuke.
In a great surprise to absolutely no one, it turns out your grasp of nuclear physics is only marginally better than my niece's. We celebrated his first birthday last month, what's your excuse?
>If a lead slug hits an object at near the speed of light
But if f you miss this apparently ridiculously fast moving target if yours that may be an outright astronomical distance away then it does nothing what so fucking ever. What a great payload!
Cameron Robinson
>my niece
>his first birthday
Michael Kelly
Somebody played too much Halo.
Nathan Nelson
It’s 2019 user
Josiah Mitchell
>begging for cancerous namefags
kill yourself
inb4
>but he's a genius and I can't stop sucking his cock
That's exactly why
Connor Martin
Alright,
Here.
Lets begin. There is ONE count it ONE habitable planet in this solar system. Thats it. Forget about Martian colonies or Europa mining corporations, that will NEVER happen. If it does it will all be automated robots. There is literally NO REASON EVER to establish human populated colony anywhere outside of Earth, unless someone finds another habitable planet somewhere.
I ASSUME then that off-world colonies will take the form of habitable planets in OTHER solar systems, which are EXTREMELY far away, and would require near-light speed travel of some sort to reach them. Only when such a colony was large enough in size to build spaceships of it's own, and able to reach Earth in a matter of months/years rather than centuries, would any kind of conflict be able to erupt.
Unless you actually think a colony on Pluto could reach a size where they could build warships and start threatening Earth.
Never played it, was born in '86, so it always seemed like a kid's game. Too colorful looking to be realistic.
Caleb Jackson
>not going out to the Black to get away from all the niggers and jews infesting the earth
Not making it user.
Anthony Howard
If you’re into believable space weaponry, look up Children of a Dead Earth on steam. Super in depth, but it might be your thing.
Andrew Reyes
>>I ASSUME then that off-world colonies will take the form of habitable planets in OTHER solar systems, which are EXTREMELY far away, and would require near-light speed travel of some sort to reach them.
wrong
the vast majority of humanity will reside in constructed spinning habitats (o'neill cylinders) in space which are have TREMENDOUSLY higher area/mass than planets since the gravity is simulated by spinning instead and you can literally build billions if not trillions of them just from the material found in asteroid belts (which is a tiny fraction of mass in the solar system)
there really is no need to colonize planets for massive settling
Colton Davis
Nuclear accelerated kinetic projectiles are optimal.
Noah Taylor
This is still pretty unrealistic to expect, but at least the physics needed to make O’Neil cylinders already exists. Near light, much less FTL, travel is not feasible with our current understanding of science. Best you’ll get from understood phenomena like nuclear pulse or fusion is .2-.4c.
Noah Lopez
Trisolaran droplet ?
Josiah Campbell
Nuclear-pumped XRASER.
en.wikipedia.org
Basically, surround the nuclear warhead with lasing tubes with independent targeting lenses. Initiate the nuclear explosion, channel the energy through the lasing tubes, creating incredibly powerful X-ray laser that cannot be safely done in conventional ways.
Anthony Anderson
Theres still a giant plasma ball so you'll just have to be closer to the target
Zachary Hughes
It still exerts all of its energy as photons. The delivered radiance at a close burst exceeds tens of millions of joules per square meter. Better than an inert damper is a laze medium that can directionalize your energy output, it lets you miss with the burst and distribute a non-trivial portion energy through an entire volume of the enemy ship.
Semiconductors do not like ionizing radiation. Chemistry does not like ionizing radiation. Nothing likes ionizing radiation or, if you could swing it. A neutron pulse.
Jace Flores
>nuclear weapons in space
>nuclear bombs (meh)
>nuclear shaped charges (good)
>nuclear pumped xray laser clusters (basically worthless compared to KKVs after the 1990s)
Nuclear lasers are the big one, and they seem to go unmentioned.
Use a gas core nuclear reactor where the gas doubles as the lasing medium. Boom, now you're immune to anti-mirror counter-battery lasers. And while the theoretical efficiency is slightly lower than conventional lasers, it scales much better at high power so it's ultimately a better power/mass ratio.
Ayden Cook
Sounds like something someone would say that got BTFO by him.
Grayson Baker
Explains why the hadron collider was mysteriously destroyed by a nuclear explosion right after it was completed
Christopher Peterson
Depressing, hate everything that is not Chinese, book...hillarious, ideal interstellar weapon.
Jace Garcia
>NO NEVER EVER NUH UH NOT GONNA HAPPEN NOPE
convincing argument
Easton Williams
He doesn’t post here, even as user, anymore. He didn’t mind being doxxed multiple times, but some asshole decided to go after his wife. That crossed a line. I still trade emails with him occasionally, when I have a question relating to his field.