PDA

View Full Version : Weapons for the 303's and Daedulus



Col. Newman
May 17th, 2005, 01:48 PM
I have what I think is a great idea for a weapon on the 303. a rail gun not a small point defense gun like the ones defending Atlantis but an artillery rail gun (like the ones there working on for the us navy), the shells would be Naqauda or Naqaudria enhanced nuclear warheads. Rail gun artillery would be almost impossible to intercept because it is so fast.

Wass
May 17th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Even better why not get some plasma weapons from the asgard they would be much more effective against the wraith.

Col. Newman
May 17th, 2005, 01:59 PM
But wouldn't a nuke cause more damage. I mean one hit and a unshielded ship would be just a memory

Elite Anubis Guard
May 17th, 2005, 02:17 PM
But wouldn't a nuke cause more damage. I mean one hit and a unshielded ship would be just a memory
but then youd need the ship to be unshielded and thatd need some cool energy weapons!

_Owen_
May 17th, 2005, 02:31 PM
It is a good idea. To bypass the shield problem you could have phase shifting technology on the warheads. Fire a warhead, phase it out, it would go strait through the shields, then you could phase it back in either inside the shields before it hit the ship or inside the ship, this could all be automated.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
May 17th, 2005, 02:33 PM
hey Elite Anubis Guard ur sig pic is making me dizzy

_Owen_
May 17th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Me too, it just keeps going and going, and it is moving fast.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
May 17th, 2005, 02:37 PM
It is a good idea. To bypass the shield problem you could have phase shifting technology on the warheads. Fire a warhead, phase it out, it would go strait through the shields, then you could phase it back in either inside the shields before it hit the ship or inside the ship, this could all be automated.

You r really smart and i thought i was smart

_Owen_
May 17th, 2005, 02:41 PM
Oh, thank you very much, I don't think I am that smart, there are probably people smarter than me. You seem smart as well, it was your idea for the naquadah or naquadria enhanced warheads being fired out of railguns. On this subject I think naquadria would be a better choice seeing as it is a far more unstable element.

Owen Macri

6thMonolith
May 17th, 2005, 04:47 PM
But Naquadria's expensive... Why not just use Anti-matter?... :D

_Owen_
May 17th, 2005, 04:57 PM
It is true, Antimatter would provide a much larger explosion, just one kilogram of matter and one kilogram of antimatter would equal roughly 5000 times that of the hiroshima bomb. However with antimattter you would contantly need a forcefield around it when it is on your ship, because if it was just lying on the ground it would anhilate the matter, and the matter would anhilate it and bang! It would be easier to use naquadria, however antimatter would be much more deadly.

Owen Macri

6thMonolith
May 17th, 2005, 05:08 PM
Well, the small machine guns that are on the 302's now are pretty cool. I'm happy with them, but rail guns would be neat. Anti-matter would just flame the arguement in the other thread.

_Owen_
May 17th, 2005, 05:21 PM
Good point, well originaly the Atlantis rail guns were slated for the prometheus. Good point, I don't want to carry that discussion into this thread.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
May 17th, 2005, 05:50 PM
Well it depends if it is a Naqaudria enhanced Hydrogen bomb and depending on how big the warhead itself is. But i think i remember in some episode that when apothis attacks earth that they lunched a couple of ISBMs that were enhanced with Naqauda or Naqaudria at the ships and they said that they were like 1000 megaton warheads and thats big. but they were ISBMs of coarse and a artillery shell even if it was a big own its very small in comparison but it still would do ALOT of damage most likely leaving nothing left.

_Owen_
May 17th, 2005, 05:52 PM
You are right, both would be effective.

Owen Macri

Panther
May 18th, 2005, 01:59 AM
True, have three main turrets to house a triple or double mount and you'd have yourself a neat package.

dennycrane
May 18th, 2005, 11:53 AM
i'm a traditionalist, just hitch naquadah enhanved nukes on mini hyperdrive engines as to "jump" throught the sheild of a ship and then boom.

_Owen_
May 18th, 2005, 12:56 PM
The nukes could not have mini hyperdrive engines because they would need to use a power source, naqudah is not powerful enough and naquadria is to unstable. Phase shifting technology is alot easier without equiping a hyperspace window generator and some sort of power generator that we have not seen yet, but have the ability to mass produce, to every one of your nukes. With phase shifting technology you would tape a tollan, or equivilent, arm box thing to the side of your nuke, it would be no problem.

Owen Macri

Panther
May 18th, 2005, 05:27 PM
I do believe Anubis' sheilds stop phase shifting weapons, so the hyperspace option looks better. I'm sure seeing as the missiles will only make short jumps, will only need a small hyperspace window generator.

_Owen_
May 18th, 2005, 06:08 PM
I don't know if this was stated in an episode, but it is possible.

The window generator would need to be incredibly small, then you would also need incredibly small naquadah reactors for each of them too. For every missile you loose a hyperspace window generator and a naquadah reactor. With phase shifting you only loose one piece of technology that looks easy to mass produce. Also if you were short for time, just strap a tollan armband like device onto the missile and fire it as it is, I'm sure it has somekind of timer. With the hyperspace idea you would need pretty much everything built into the missile.

In the long run both ideas would work, and the only way to determine which one is more effective is the amount of effort that would be needed to build each, which could also be the same, with the asgards matter replication technology.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
May 18th, 2005, 06:42 PM
The hyper drive would need a Naqaudria reactor. That is what they use on the F-302's for short hyperspace jumps. Naqauda does not produce enough energy for a hyperspace window. Also if Anubis had better shields then he probably used his knowledge of the ancients to build them. I don’t think they will be up against any tech that is that advanced for a while. The Wraith don’t even have shields as far as we know.

_Owen_
May 18th, 2005, 06:48 PM
The hyperspace window generators would have to be much smaller.

The Wraith don't seem to advanced, this could be partly because they haven't had a real enemy for ten thousand years.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
May 18th, 2005, 06:54 PM
If u mean smaller than the one on the 302's, then yes i would agree

_Owen_
May 18th, 2005, 07:01 PM
Ya, definetly smaller.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
May 18th, 2005, 07:11 PM
Ya, definetly smaller.

Owen Macri
You took the words right out of my mouth

_Owen_
May 18th, 2005, 08:15 PM
Lol, that seems to happen a lot around here.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
May 18th, 2005, 08:34 PM
maybe you can type alot faster than most of us that might be one of the reasons

_Owen_
May 18th, 2005, 08:41 PM
I don't think that I can type very much faster than anyone else, there are probably a bunch of people that can type a lot faster than me.

In this particular case it was simply that I saw the post first, your post came 10 minutes after mine, if you do not know, and are wondering, you can see the time and date of the post in the top left hand corner.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
May 18th, 2005, 08:48 PM
well u got a good point i forget to look sometimes

Nurgle
May 19th, 2005, 10:27 AM
I like the idea of hyperspace torpedos.... you wouldn't really need a warhead (just detonate the powersource), plus they could follow ships as they try to fleeeeeee.

As to the feasability, I suspect the power required to open a hyperspace window is directly propertional to the mass of the object being moved, so a "small" (say, 7 feet long) torpedo probably wouldn't need an overly large generator anyway.

Hudson
May 19th, 2005, 12:35 PM
What about some upgraded phlanx cannons for anti fighter usage?

_Owen_
May 19th, 2005, 12:52 PM
The required power is directly proportional to the layer of hyperspace that you wish to enter.

In respone to Hudsons' post, that could work.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
July 17th, 2005, 08:45 PM
What about some upgraded phlanx cannons for anti fighter usage?that wouldn't work because normal bullets need oxygen

kryon22
July 18th, 2005, 04:54 AM
I posted this on one of the general topics, but i thought it was pertinent, so I'll repost it here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, I was just reading some of the gateworld forum topics and it
occurred to me that there is an inherent problem with incorporating
advanced energy weapons onboard the battlecruisers, ie the Prometheus
and the Daedalus. This was actually addressed many years ago on the
show Babylon 5 and its spinoff Crusade (tragically cancelled before it's
time). Energy weapons (depending on the design, make and discharge) are
good for two things. Wiping out your foes and draining power. We are
never told what power sources both ships use, so I assume that it's a
combination of naquadah, naquadria generators and probably Asgard
neutrino ion power generators (at least for the Daedalus). We know that
both ships have shield generators as well as beam technologies. Not to
mention ring transporters as well as hyperdrive engines. All of these
require massive amounts of power to utilize and sustain. There is a
theoretical limit to how much power we can actively channel to each of
these functions and a limit to the fuel source and how much energy we
can safely channel simultaneously to all of these outputs. I do not
believe that Earth's understanding of starship technology is
sufficiently mature enough to build and maintain just such a starship
safely and without too much incident, unlike the Asgard or even the
Goa'uld. Having energy weapons might mean that the moment it is fired
at full strength, the concomittant loss of power to other needed
starship functions might be a little severe, and in a firefight like
what we saw in The Siege Part III, that could be deadly. I draw
attention to the Bablon 5 movie and lead into Crusade where the
Excalibur's forward main gun draws such an excessive drain on power that
it takes a full minute to recharge and regain full starship
functionality. Having the alternative of expendable ordnance like rail
guns or nuclear warheads definitely takes the strain of power drain off
the ship. In a situation where your shields and maneuvarability are more
important to surviving a scenario, energy weapons seem like an
unnecessary luxury.

_Owen_
July 18th, 2005, 04:59 AM
Nice idea, but I don't believe there is a theoretical limit, the universe is filled with energy, we just need to harness it.

Owen Macri

kryon22
July 18th, 2005, 05:20 AM
I have no doubt that the universe has no theoretical limit of energy, that is not in question. What I am referring to are the various fuel sources used by the batteships from Earth and how the resulting energy is channeled to powering the starship functions, be it electrical lighting, artificial gravity, ring transporters, beam technology etc etc. Given that raw materials and consumables are always the limiting factor in availability, any starship that is using our current level of technology has to prioritize which functions are most needed and make allowances for them. If you have an energy weapon that is marginally useful, but exerts a real strain on power reserves that are not necessarily easily replenished, you'd think twice before either incorporating it into your design or using it overly much. You'd probably also think of alternatives that maximize other consumables that do not take away from other essentials like life support etc etc...

Chachi
July 18th, 2005, 11:23 AM
that wouldn't work because normal bullets need oxygen

Sorry, but I have to say you're wrong here. True, the explosive reaction for a bullet requires oxygen, but the explosive in casings of bullets provide their own oxydizers so the oxygen of the atmosphere is not needed. Bullets can be fired in space. This environment would probably be the best place to fire a bullet as there is no atmospheric drag to slow it down. Kinetic energy at impact would be the same as KE at the moment the bullet leaves the barrel.

-Chachi

6thMonolith
July 18th, 2005, 12:13 PM
No wonder Big Honkin' Space guns seem to be so effective... :P

Halo
July 18th, 2005, 03:26 PM
electromagnetic railguns be developed in real life dont need a explosive war head to damage a target cause they go at like mach 6 or 7...so i think the deddy or prommie could be armed with a bigger railgun that fires a bigger slug..

_Owen_
July 19th, 2005, 09:22 PM
Now, if you could refit a rail gun to take proximity triggered atomic bombs, you would have a big honkin space gun. An nuclear weapon designed to explode when it comes in contact with something solid, either energy or matter, that is fired at mach 5-6.

Owen Macri

EDIT: Forgot to mention, they are naquadah enhanced!

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
July 19th, 2005, 09:36 PM
Energy weapons would not draw power directly, they would use a buffer :D and yes we need energy weapons but we also need my LNASRG (large nuclear artillery shell rail gun) if someone would make a better abbreviation thing it would be appreciated

_Owen_
July 20th, 2005, 06:15 PM
SFNLRG, lol, that is longer, Super Fast Nuke Launching Rail Gun. I guess we could settle for ARG, Atomic Rail Gun, that sounds cool too!

Owen Macri

ColonelWilliams
July 20th, 2005, 06:32 PM
that would be cool but it might be difficult to achieve high speeds with a nuke payload ( http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?p=4369992#post4369992 ). you might just want a huge rail-magnet ammo combo. at high enough velocities, they can deliver high kiloton energies as potent if not more so than any nuke. just my thought, i think this is right.

Col. Newman
July 21st, 2005, 01:00 AM
so it is Offical my rail gun idea is called ARG, good thinking Owen :D

Lord §okar
July 21st, 2005, 01:23 AM
Or even better, anti matter projectiles, with phase shifting capabilites so they can pass right through a ships shields.

Owen Macri
How is it possible that I can quote a post that is after mine?

_Owen_
July 21st, 2005, 01:27 AM
How is it possible that I can quote a post that is after mine?
There is a problem with GateWorld. We are calling it time dialation. Somehow, people are able to post before others, while others posts are already there. As well, it seems that the time and date stamps are incorrect. I came to this thread because it said you had posted last, when clearly my post succeeded yours Lord Sokar. I can tell you something is seriously screwed. This forum happens to use the same time zone that I am in, yet it says I posted today at 6:14 a.m. when it is not even 6:14 yet, it is 4:27. So apparently, I am posting from the future.

Owen Macri

_Owen_
July 21st, 2005, 01:29 AM
See, I posted the last post in this thread from the future, then I can back to now, and am posting before it, even though I have not posted it yet, but it still apears. RELATIVITY IS SO FREAKING COOL!!!!!

Owen Macri

_Owen_
July 21st, 2005, 03:14 AM
Or even better, anti matter projectiles, with phase shifting capabilites so they can pass right through a ships shields.

Owen Macri

nimitz
July 21st, 2005, 03:55 PM
Why dont we just fire missiles because if they missed they could return and keep on attacking till they hit.A shell would just go on forever untill it hit a moon or something else.

6thMonolith
July 21st, 2005, 04:01 PM
Anti-matter missiles would be pretty sweet. The only problem with missiles would be how expensive they would be, but heck, this is TV after all!

Col. Newman
July 21st, 2005, 04:12 PM
Why dont we just fire missiles because if they missed they could return and keep on attacking till they hit.A shell would just go on forever untill it hit a moon or something else.*Bangs head against wall* I already explain this we don't use missiles because they are slow and very easy to intercept, this is demonstrated in “The Siege Part 3” (also Shells could be at least a little guide since they are working on guided shells for the U.S. Army well maybe I don’t know if that part would work in space but it doesn’t really matter)

ColonelWilliams
July 21st, 2005, 11:47 PM
Why dont we just fire missiles because if they missed they could return and keep on attacking till they hit.A shell would just go on forever untill it hit a moon or something else.

because they travel relatively slow and a single shell from a big enough rail gun can easily deliver the power of a nuke more efficiently (nukes are expensive)

whoops he already said that :)

valha'lla
July 22nd, 2005, 07:55 AM
K first of the rail gun idea is wicked. But I say just leave as solid ammunition if they would develop a rail gun which has the rate of fire of the smaller ones with lager shells (a faster speeds would be nice) just stick them on the bc-303 in batteries as they should be able to over power shields cause of the rate of fire and the tremendous energy on impact fire a 1 kg of projectile at 3 km/s (approximately mach 9) and it will tear a tank to pieces in a single shot. So imagine the power of a battery of automatic rail guns firing larger shells.

_Owen_
July 22nd, 2005, 11:13 AM
You could fire solid antimatter. Antimatter has phases just like regualr matter, solid, liquid, gas, plasma.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 22nd, 2005, 01:24 PM
K first of anti-matter is extremly unstaible and explosive and would require lots of research. Also the eletical charge used to fire the rail could make it explode second the matterial has to conduct electricty does anti matter and thirdly soild ammo can not add extra damage so that a sabature can not just set of the magazine and destroy the whole ship.

_Owen_
July 22nd, 2005, 01:43 PM
Antimatter can be just as stable or unstable as regular matter. For example, the element plutonium, is unstable, so its' opposite, anti-plutonium, would be just as unstable. However, anti-oxygen, would be just as stable as oxygen. You view anti-matter in general as unstable because it cannot exist simultaneously with matter. Seeing as our universe is predominantly matter, antimatter usually cannot exist. When antimatter meets with matter, there is a process of mutual anhilation, the matter and antimatter will destroy equal amounts of eachother, converting into energy completley. Anti-matter, in general is not unstable, but it cannot exist along with matter.

As for the problem of sabatoge, you are right, sabatoge is always a possibility, but it is a possibility anywhere. Someone could sabatoge a nuclear power plant, by mixing in some weapons grade plutonium and causing an overload. Someone could cause a nuclear power plant meltdown, someone could sabotage a plane by cutting its' wings of or altering the turbines causing them to stop in mid air. Yet, we still use all of these things. As long as precautions are taken we can be safe.

If we instead of stroing anti-matter in the ships provided the rail guns with antimatter generating devices, as well, and matter the anti-matter would have contact with would be shielded by a forcefield, until it left the ship, then it would be out of phase until it reached the opposing ship or enemy. It is a chance we are taking but it is a reasonable one.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 22nd, 2005, 02:18 PM
suppose but i still say at lest for the moment with earths tech it would be solid ammo as generating anti matter would be complicated and would need even more power than the normal rail gun which would take some power to do and thirdly the matter would have to be solid and conductive which i dont think is posible as u say normal matter would cause anti matter to be consumed and visa versa causing an explotion sounds to me like the gun would just explode as electricty is conducted via normal matter electrons so i doubt it would be even possible.

_Owen_
July 22nd, 2005, 03:48 PM
Obviously we couldn't allow the anti-matter to come in contact with regular matter until it reaches the traget, that is why, the inside of the ral gun could have a protective forcefield to keep the matter from touching the antimater projectiles, the forcefield could transfer the electrical current to the projectile.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 22nd, 2005, 04:08 PM
actualy in that case only the force feild would need to be conductive but it would still be a hell of a job to insure the charge did not touchthe anti matter

_Owen_
July 22nd, 2005, 05:12 PM
No, the charge could touch the anti-matter, it wouldn't react because it is not matter. So we couldn't have a problem there.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 23rd, 2005, 12:59 AM
K i see your point still with earths tech knolewdge at the mo i think it would be solid ammo as the goualds weapons use energy sheild around plasma so i think the promethuse would have those by now if we had the ability to build that kind of sheilding but still it would be a cool idea.

iBorg
July 23rd, 2005, 04:05 PM
What the Daedalus (and future Terran warships) need against the Wraith : missiles, missiles and more missiles.
As seen in The Siege 3, Daedalus' missiles could potentially kill a Wraith hive ship... IF they could hit. We saw thoses missiles launched by the DD intercepted by Wraith darts.
Of course, since DD launched only 2 missiles per salvo, it wasn't that hard for the Wraith to intercept them. But this is a classical problem in military tactics : see the Soviet doctrine of launching heavy missile salvoes at US carrier groups, and its counter, the Aegis system. Military sci-fi fans should also know the Honor Harrington series by David Weber which are heavy in missile engagements.
Now : what if the Daedalus could launch not 2 puny missiles, but 200 in a single salvo directed at a single Wraith ship ? I bet the suckers would have some trouble defending against such a wave of destruction and at least one warhead would go through the defensive fire, with unfortunate consequences for our Wraith friends.
So, bolt some VLS launchers on Daedalus' hull and voilà, nuclear mayhem for the Wraith fleets :cool:

valha'lla
July 23rd, 2005, 05:05 PM
k well 200 odd missles of the nucleare varity would be mega expensive and if most of them r shot down a waste of ammo missles are slow and rail gun ammo is not and can cause the same amount of damage for less effort than 200 nucleare weapons and a sheilded ship could survive long anoth to shoot down our ships if it shoots down most of the missles the earth ship is done for. pluse the fact 200 nucleare weapons would take up lots of room!

_Owen_
July 23rd, 2005, 07:25 PM
Unfortunatley, I disagree, while they were able to trick the Wraith, the few times by beaming the weapons into the ships, the Wraith eventually compensated, the missiles cannot even penetrate the Wraith shields, however other weapons, possibly Asgard, may be able.

A possibility though if we were to use weapons, would be to adapt phase shifting technology to them, I know I have mentioned this hundreds of times before, but it would help for a while, the Wraith sensors probably wouldn't be able to detect the weapons until they blew up. If this technology was adapted, then yes, missiles missles and more missles would be perfect for the Daedalus, however, some larger ordinance might be cool too. The other possibility is, if the Wraith ever figured out how and what we were doing to allow our weapons to pass through the shields, they could asapt their shields inter-phasaly, to protect against matter from all phases. This would put a dent in our plan, perhaps a back-up as well?

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
July 23rd, 2005, 07:55 PM
Unfortunatley, I disagree, while they were able to trick the Wraith, the few times by beaming the weapons into the ships, the Wraith eventually compensated, the missiles cannot even penetrate the Wraith shields, however other weapons, possibly Asgard, may be able.

A possibility though if we were to use weapons, would be to adapt phase shifting technology to them, I know I have mentioned this hundreds of times before, but it would help for a while, the Wraith sensors probably wouldn't be able to detect the weapons until they blew up. If this technology was adapted, then yes, missiles missles and more missles would be perfect for the Daedalus, however, some larger ordinance might be cool too. The other possibility is, if the Wraith ever figured out how and what we were doing to allow our weapons to pass through the shields, they could asapt their shields inter-phasaly, to protect against matter from all phases. This would put a dent in our plan, perhaps a back-up as well?

Owen Macrithe Wraith don't have sheilds as far as we know. Missiles are slow and using 200 missile just to blow up one ship is the stupidist idea i have every heard of, sure phase shifing ammo would be nice but at the moment it is not even needed

Chachi
July 23rd, 2005, 09:48 PM
Unfortunatley, I disagree, while they were able to trick the Wraith, the few times by beaming the weapons into the ships, the Wraith eventually compensated, the missiles cannot even penetrate the Wraith shields, however other weapons, possibly Asgard, may be able.

Sorry, but have we seen any evidence of the Wraith having shields of any kind? To my recolection (which could be flawed) all the missiles that were fired were intercepted by either weapons fire from the hive ships or by darts. This would mean that we have not seen the fabled wraith shields of gateworld mythology.

-Chachi

_Owen_
July 23rd, 2005, 10:03 PM
Oh, I appoligize, I may be incorrect, I actually can't remember that well, but I will re watch the episode, possibly today or tommorow. No need to be sorry, I am very tired, so who knows if I can remember right. lol.

Owen Macri

SAS
July 24th, 2005, 12:06 AM
Dont forget the only reason the Missiles did alot of damage because they were transported inside the ship bays where all the darts are crearing a secondary blast causing alot of damage. FACING missiles would be a great idea like the clocking on the puddle jumpers. invincible to scanners and naked eye.

iBorg
July 24th, 2005, 12:55 AM
Well. Price is not an issue, we're talking about a frigging sci-fi show with starships ;) Seriously, missiles can be mass-produced and series production drives the cost down.
Phase-shifting would be very nice, but it was a Tollan tech, and the Tollans are kaputt, no more Tollana, remember. So bye-bye phase-shifting unless somebody manages to reinvent it (and if this someone is not Terran, he might not want to give it away to us).
There's also the matter of energy. I read suggestions about using anti-matter. Nice idea, but you have first to create anti-matter. You could build the AM ammo in a big honking facility, then transport it to the ship's magazines. But then, combat damage could make the AM containment fail, and bye-bye warship. Or you could make AM as it is needed by the weapons. But at what energy cost ?
That's the problem : even with sci-fi power sources, power isn't infinite. Every system needs its share, and this share gets very big with BFG-like weapons. Missiles only need to be launched and targeted, the power requirement for their use is minimal.

Of course, the best would be to mix missiles and cannons (of various kinds).

valha'lla
July 24th, 2005, 04:14 AM
I think u forget ur suggesting packing 200 nuck's into the ship well actualy alot more than that inoder to take out more than one wraith ship and if a nuck went of inside the ship it would be bye bye ship let alone 200+ of them so it would be about as hazardus as storing antimatter lol. Any way unless some one cracks the tech behind the drone weapon that can allow missles to get through shields(we have other enmies beside the wraith) then missles r not the best weapon the drones are small farst high explosive and work in tandom great missle weapons r's our slow big and not monovable and the wraith ships were destroyed by them from the inside for all u know against the surface they would fail. personally if the way forward is going to be missles i would say that we should figure out how to store large amounts of energy (none nucklear) in a small device wich should then be mass produced as small missles which would decrease the chances of intercept slightly but these missles should be lanched at higher speeds using rail tech in oder to allow them to reach their target (NASA wants to use rail tech to launch shuttles) and then earth scientist would have find out how to get them through sheilds.

_Owen_
July 24th, 2005, 12:05 PM
It is true that the Tollans developed possible phase shifting technology, but that does not mean that others are not capable of it. I am almost certain that the Asgard could do it. Or we could ask the Ree'tou for help. We know the Goa'uld did it, so we can't be very far away. The actual technology could proabably be created by a number of races.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 24th, 2005, 01:47 PM
It is true that the Tollans developed possible phase shifting technology, but that does not mean that others are not capable of it. I am almost certain that the Asgard could do it. Or we could ask the Ree'tou for help. We know the Goa'uld did it, so we can't be very far away. The actual technology could proabably be created by a number of races.

Owen Macri
yes it may exsit out side the tollan but seriously i doubt that we could do it at the mo its more than likely that the gouald stoll the tech of a race they defeated or experimented on, and the Ree'tou ability is natural is it not so they may not have looked into it that deppely as for the asgard i think this might fall into the catagoury of offensive weaponry so i doubt they would help us and other races would not trust us anothe to give it to use. More likely to crack the energy pericing secrets of the drones before that of the phase shift technology.

Col. Newman
July 24th, 2005, 02:22 PM
yes it may exsit out side the tollan but seriously i doubt that we could do it at the mo its more than likely that the gouald stoll the tech of a race they defeated or experimented on, and the Ree'tou ability is natural is it not so they may not have looked into it that deppely as for the asgard i think this might fall into the catagoury of offensive weaponry so i doubt they would help us and other races would not trust us anothe to give it to use. More likely to crack the energy pericing secrets of the drones before that of the phase shift technology.
The Ree'tou's phase shifting ability is natural but it is not the same kind of phase shifting, there kind of Phase shifting makes them invisible and I believe that is the same kind of phase shifting technology that the Goa'uld Nirrti used (I believe that is the Phase Shifting you are talking about)

iBorg
July 24th, 2005, 03:00 PM
Mmm, not bad, this idea of cannon-launched missiles. A bit like soviet tanks firing anti-tank missiles from their main gun.
Concerning the vulnerability of missiles magazines, it's exaggerated. First, nukes are safe. You can't detonate one unless specifically activating the firing mechanism. You can shoot a nuke, it won't go off. Of course you may have radioactive material drifting around, but in space... not a problem.
Now of course the missile drives themselves may explode. But if you put the launchers outside the main hull, the blast will spend itself harmelessly in space, not inside the ship.
We've seen in The Siege 3 the Daedalus coming very close indeed of the hive ships. If flushing a large salvo (I mean tens of them) at the nearest hiveship, I doubt the wraith could intercept them in time. And several nukes detonating in contact of the hull would definitively not be harmless.

_Owen_
July 24th, 2005, 03:38 PM
The Asgard could easily replicate the technology for us, and with all that we have done for them, I am sure they could be persuaded.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
July 24th, 2005, 03:57 PM
cannon-launched missiles.
I believe I have already suggested this

valha'lla
July 24th, 2005, 03:59 PM
yeah ur points about the safty of nucks is true but i still say u should look into firing them at high speed rather than just realing on numbers alone a nuck fired at mach 9 at a wraith ship should improve the odds of a kill as u have to add in the knetic force of the impact as well as the actual blast itself. After all geting close to a wraith ship is not recomended better to be able to take them down at a distance. Larger versions of the rail cannon combined with some for of rail launch weapon of mass disruction should make our ships outclass the wraith. The rail batteries should be able to take down cruisers while the main rail launched missle weapons in a pair if standard nucks at mach 9 should be able to take out a wraith hive ship espicaly with the added effect of the impact of the missle at those kind of speeds. or we could do it drone style with a wave of smaller missles either of the tacticle nuck or some form of high power energy like plasma could just use the speed of the rail launch and size to make them extremly hard to take down.
Ps yes nucks are safe i know but theres allways the sabatge option or the fact that its a hell of alot of radioactive matterial so the crew would die of that instead of an explosion.

ColonelWilliams
July 24th, 2005, 04:52 PM
I think all these ideas are very good, but they seem like overkill. a large enough projectile from a rail gun can deliver as much if not more power than a tactical nuke, and would be more than enough to tear up an unshielded wraith ship. i say strap some bigger rail guns on the deddy and bye bye wraith

_Owen_
July 24th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Yes, firing at higher speeds would be very effective too.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 24th, 2005, 05:21 PM
K it may sound like overkill but the factored in missles firing at mach 9 with advanced war heads is taking in to acount that to take down a shield u have to overwelm it and the more energy u through at it the better and for the use of any sheild bypassing tech it would be have to be missle based cause of the power requirements. So im going for a ship that could take on a wraith fleet or sheilded ships if it ever hat to. The rail guns give u a automatic weapon that can deal out significant damage and a rail fired nuck or advanced energy weapon gives u a more effective weapon against sheilding the ability to upgrade if there was a advancement in sheild perentration tech just shange the missles round both cheap and quickly, cause the ship does not need additional systems.

_Owen_
July 24th, 2005, 06:15 PM
I have no problem with overkill, it is better to be safe than sorry, so if I had to pick between a standard rail gun and a enhanced to mach 9 rail gun altered to fire nuclear warheads, I would take the enhaced one

Owen Macri

Halo
July 25th, 2005, 04:38 AM
you should relize that a railgun fires thousands of shots...we dont have 1000's and 1000's of nukes just sitting around and ready for space. so like many have said me included. just make a bigger rail gun that goes faster and has bigger slugs and bye bye wraith as Colonel Williams said.

valha'lla
July 25th, 2005, 05:00 AM
Yeah but a rail gun and a rail launcher use the same tech but the laucher is not atomuatic due to the fact that it would be a one shot kill weapon firing a large object with alot of mass where as a larger rail gun still amtoumatic is a bonbardment weapon muiltipul shots in order to kill but uses its speed to deliver them quichly in succestion.

_Owen_
July 25th, 2005, 08:21 AM
you should relize that a railgun fires thousands of shots...we dont have 1000's and 1000's of nukes just sitting around and ready for space. so like many have said me included. just make a bigger rail gun that goes faster and has bigger slugs and bye bye wraith as Colonel Williams said.
We don't need ten thousand nukes per rail gun, instead of using a the customized rail guns as actually multiple shot per second guns, we could use them as launchers to fire nukes. With the technology that we have encountered it would be no probelm to build billions of nukes almost effortlessly, the Stargate could be used to do so.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 25th, 2005, 11:28 AM
We don't need ten thousand nukes per rail gun, instead of using a the customized rail guns as actually multiple shot per second guns, we could use them as launchers to fire nukes. With the technology that we have encountered it would be no probelm to build billions of nukes almost effortlessly, the Stargate could be used to do so.

Owen Macri
yeah we could but with the rail launch tech and larger railguns we would not have to build that many as we would have two very effective wepons allowing time to be concentrated on sheild penatration technology.

_Owen_
July 25th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Well, I would say that shield penetration technology or phase shifting technology could be built into all of the weapons to allow effortless sheild penetration.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 25th, 2005, 01:34 PM
Well, I would say that shield penetration technology or phase shifting technology could be built into all of the weapons to allow effortless sheild penetration.

Owen Macri
when the tech becomes available so these weapons systems are a long term not a short term messure.

_Owen_
July 25th, 2005, 01:57 PM
I guess, they could be long term, however temporary weapons would not hurt until the technology has been near perfected.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 25th, 2005, 02:08 PM
i meant it would not be difficult to ugrade the tech just change the ammo in the rail gun and launchers to that fited with the sheild penertration tech.

Major Tyler
July 25th, 2005, 02:38 PM
Just make a rail gun that fires buckyballs filled with anti-matter. Generate anti-carbon and encase it in a spherical fullerene (buckyball) and you don't have to worry about magnetic containment fields or anything else. Because fullerene repels all carbon atoms, the anti-carbon would never make contact with matter and no energy would be released. Since the anti-matter would be in a fullerene sphere, it would hover harmlessly in the center of the buckyball. You could shake that thing like a Magic 8-Ball and it wouldn't blow.

Fullerene is extremely strong so it would be very unlikely that the ordnance would lose containment...at least until it collided with the hull of a Wraith or Goa'uld ship, of course. :)

valha'lla
July 25th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Umm well is this fullerene a strong conductive material?

_Owen_
July 25th, 2005, 03:46 PM
That is a very good idea Major Tyler! Nice thinking.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
July 25th, 2005, 05:08 PM
That is a very good idea Major Tyler! Nice thinking.

Owen Macri
lol thats a suprise that u think its good idea;) .
Anyway if the material is highly conductive it should still be produced as standard shells for penertation purposes so it can do more damage to the ship as the futher in its is when the antimatter comes into contact with matter the more energy that will hit the hive ship. If the matterial is not conductive u could allways take a miisle that can be fired using rail tech and then put ur incased anticarbone in the war head so that when it is trigered the casing is exploded exsposing the anti-matter to matter and theirs ur explosion

aAnubiSs
July 25th, 2005, 05:43 PM
Somehow I doubt a fullerene-mesh of any kind would stop any particles from touching the fullerene if a large enough force decided to hit the ship... oh lets say weapons fire?

valha'lla
July 25th, 2005, 05:55 PM
Quite possibly thats why i would say an energy or nuck warhead is alot more practicle and can be safly handled and launched at mach 9 out of a rail weapon.

_Owen_
July 25th, 2005, 05:58 PM
lol thats a suprise that u think its good idea;) .
Anyway if the material is highly conductive it should still be produced as standard shells for penertation purposes so it can do more damage to the ship as the futher in its is when the antimatter comes into contact with matter the more energy that will hit the hive ship. If the matterial is not conductive u could allways take a miisle that can be fired using rail tech and then put ur incased anticarbone in the war head so that when it is trigered the casing is exploded exsposing the anti-matter to matter and theirs ur explosion
lol. I will say it is a good idea, if it is a good idea, I don't care what points we disagree on, this is science not highschool. lol. Anyways, it is a good idea, but it would be safer to go with a nice force field, it is energy to the antimatter would have no reaction with it what so ever. Just to be safe.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
July 25th, 2005, 05:58 PM
Quite possibly thats why i would say an energy or nuck warhead is alot more practicle and can be safly handled and launched at mach 9 out of a rail weapon.it is a nuke not a nuck

Col. Newman
July 25th, 2005, 06:02 PM
lol. I will say it is a good idea, if it is a good idea, I don't care what points we disagree on, this is science not highschool. lol. Anyways, it is a good idea, but it would be safer to go with a nice force field, it is energy to the antimatter would have no reaction with it what so ever. Just to be safe.

Owen MacriJust go with a nuke people; gosh why complicate something that doesn't need to be complicated

Major Tyler
July 25th, 2005, 06:12 PM
Somehow I doubt a fullerene-mesh of any kind would stop any particles from touching the fullerene if a large enough force decided to hit the ship... oh lets say weapons fire?I can understand your doubts, but let me assure you that fullerene fundamentally repels carbon at the atomic level. It would take much more than a few bumps and shakes from weapons fire to overcome it. If you're talking about a direct hit, sure, that might do the trick, but presumable the ordnance would be in a very well-protected part of the ship. If the ship is so damaged that the enemy is able to directly target the antimatter, you're probably frelled anyway.
It would be safer to go with a nice force field, it is energy to the antimatter would have no reaction with it what so ever. Just to be safe.There's no reason why we couldn't do both. Whatever container the fullerene-encased antimatter rounds are stored in could utilize a force field or magnetic bottle for additional safety. Even if the worst-case scenario happened and the containment field failed, at least the antimatter wouldn't immediately make contact with matter. Once the buckyballs are fired, containment isn't a priority.

valha'lla
July 25th, 2005, 06:15 PM
Yeah that way it could only really be deployed using a missle for tacticle and safty reasons (such as powering the force feild and making it a one shot kill weapon) and could easily do some damage to a hive ship and take down sheilds. The larger rail weapons could be used for bomardment of plannets or to keep crusers at bay while the main ships r taken out of comision as i think from the design the BC-303 class is designed as an all purpose ship and this would help it forfill that role.

Major Tyler
July 25th, 2005, 06:37 PM
Yeah that way it could only really be deployed using a missle for tacticle and safty reasons (such as powering the force feild and making it a one shot kill weapon) and could easily do some damage to a hive ship and take down sheilds.I agree that anti-matter would be a way for us to take down shields without energy weapons, but I disagree that they could only be used in missiles. Using a Rail Cannon to fire smaller rounds would be better now simply because our missiles are too slow. They would also be less expensive to manufacture, more could be stored on a ship, and you could better regulate how much of a punch you want to pack.

You could put the buckyballs in any kind of shell you wanted. I'm not sure how big a magnetic bottle has to be, but it might even be possible to make the round out of a small mag bottle to have more control over when they explode...plus they would be safer to handle (although I still maintain that they are relatively safe even without electromagnetic safeguards). Even if the mag bottle shell isn't feasible, the rounds could still be in a containment field until they are fired, and, like I said earlier, once they are fired we want them to explode, so containment isn't a priority.

valha'lla
July 25th, 2005, 07:01 PM
okay i see ur point but, im talking about rail fired missles of a reduced size if neccary so they can make it to the ship. The missle fired at mach 9 should make it to the wraith ship if nuck sized but u could always do it drone style with muiltpul samaler missles launced at thoes speeds would be be imposible to intersept all of them. As i think it would be better to do this and keep standard rail guns but larger as these would have a extremly safe magazine and could keep their automatic function which is their strenght.

_Owen_
July 25th, 2005, 07:10 PM
I can understand your doubts, but let me assure you that fullerene fundamentally repels carbon at the atomic level. It would take much more than a few bumps and shakes from weapons fire to overcome it. If you're talking about a direct hit, sure, that might do the trick, but presumable the ordnance would be in a very well-protected part of the ship. If the ship is so damaged that the enemy is able to directly target the antimatter, you're probably frelled anyway.There's no reason why we couldn't do both. Whatever container the fullerene-encased antimatter rounds are stored in could utilize a force field or magnetic bottle for additional safety. Even if the worst-case scenario happened and the containment field failed, at least the antimatter wouldn't immediately make contact with matter. Once the buckyballs are fired, containment isn't a priority.
You are right, we could even have a small forcefield generated between the antimatter and the fullerene, while it is inside the rail gun, the generator would be inside the rail gun, once it is fired the forcefield wouldn't be required because in a matter of seconds the projectile would be miles away. The forcefield would just be a precaution while around us, so we don't have it blow up in our collective face.

Owen Macri

_Owen_
July 25th, 2005, 07:13 PM
I agree that anti-matter would be a way for us to take down shields without energy weapons, but I disagree that they could only be used in missiles. Using a Rail Cannon to fire smaller rounds would be better now simply because our missiles are too slow. They would also be less expensive to manufacture, more could be stored on a ship, and you could better regulate how much of a punch you want to pack.

You could put the buckyballs in any kind of shell you wanted. I'm not sure how big a magnetic bottle has to be, but it might even be possible to make the round out of a small mag bottle to have more control over when they explode...plus they would be safer to handle (although I still maintain that they are relatively safe even without electromagnetic safeguards). Even if the mag bottle shell isn't feasible, the rounds could still be in a containment field until they are fired, and, like I said earlier, once they are fired we want them to explode, so containment isn't a priority.
Well the only way for antimatter to take down a shield is if it has an equal amount of matter to react with so inside a missile you could include oh say 5 kg of antimatter and 5kg of matter separated by a forcefield or fullerene that will shut down either on impact or command. As a bonus we could use phase shifting technology, to enhance the warheads so they could not be intercepted.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
July 25th, 2005, 07:21 PM
okay i see ur point but, im talking about rail fired missles of a reduced size...Okay, I understand now. I think you're confused about the difference between a "missile" and an artilliary shell. Missiles are characterized by being able to move under their own power. A "rail-fired missile" isn't really a missile, because it is rail-fired...does that make sense? A smart bomb or any such ordnance with limited ability to control it's trajectory kind of blurs the distinction.

Also, I would never advocate getting rid of conventional rail guns because they are the ideal close-in armament, and are extremely effective against fighters and un-shielded targets. The Magnetically-Accelerated Antimatter Cannons (MAAC) I am proposing would be used as a primary weapon against larger, shielded targets.

Major Tyler
July 25th, 2005, 07:23 PM
You are right, we could even have a small forcefield generated between the antimatter and the fullerene, while it is inside the rail gun, the generator would be inside the rail gun, once it is fired the forcefield wouldn't be required because in a matter of seconds the projectile would be miles away. The forcefield would just be a precaution while around us, so we don't have it blow up in our collective face.Exactly.

_Owen_
July 25th, 2005, 07:25 PM
Using my amazing powers of deduction, I am going to assume that a Magnetically-Accelerated Antimatter Cannon, would fire anti-matter. If this is the case they would have very little effect on shielded ships seeing as they would not explode because they have no matter to react with, so it would be like firing a regular rail gun at a shielded ship. If you wanted to include matter in the projectiles, then they would have a stronger effect.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
July 25th, 2005, 07:31 PM
Using my amazing powers of deduction, I am going to assume that a Magnetically-Accelerated Antimatter Cannon, would fire anti-matter. If this is the case they would have very little effect on shielded ships seeing as they would not explode because they have no matter to react with, so it would be like firing a regular rail gun at a shielded ship. If you wanted to include matter in the projectiles, then they would have a stronger effect.It's just semantics..."Magnetically-Accelerated Antimatter Cannon (MAAC)" sounded better to me than "Magnetically-Accelerated Matter/Antimatter Cannon (MAMAC)."

Besides...what's in a name? Would not a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?

aAnubiSs
July 25th, 2005, 07:39 PM
It's just semantics..."Magnetically-Accelerated Antimatter Cannon (MAAC)" sounded better to me than "Magnetically-Accelerated Matter/Antimatter Cannon (MAMAC)."

Besides...what's in a name? Would not a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?
Actually tests have shown that if you mislabel something and have a group of people smell it it smells worse/better then if it was correctly labeled :)

Major Tyler
July 25th, 2005, 07:45 PM
Actually tests have shown that if you mislabel something and have a group of people smell it it smells worse/better then if it was correctly labeled :)LOL, well I can assure you, whatever we call it, those buckyballs are going to make a big boom! ;)

aAnubiSs
July 25th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Most likely they'd explode on their way out from the barrel because of the extreme G-forces the acceleration would cause :)

_Owen_
July 25th, 2005, 08:40 PM
It's just semantics..."Magnetically-Accelerated Antimatter Cannon (MAAC)" sounded better to me than "Magnetically-Accelerated Matter/Antimatter Cannon (MAMAC)."

Besides...what's in a name? Would not a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?
No, ok I was just wondering if you had just named it that, or if it actually fired only antimatter. I agree MAAC does sound better, and Magnetically-Accelerated Antimatter Cannon, does sound really cool.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
July 25th, 2005, 09:12 PM
Most likely they'd explode on their way out from the barrel because of the extreme G-forces the acceleration would cause :)Sorry, I forgot to mention the inertial dampers in the shells. :cool:

In all honesty I'm not sure if the G-forces and acceleration would be enough to force the anti-carbon to make contact with the fullerene, but I doubt it...

iBorg
July 26th, 2005, 12:42 AM
Well, many interesting contributions here.
Be it missiles, railguns or giant exploding evil rubberducks, the goal here is to swamp the Wraith ships' defenses, that is, as seen in The Siege, darts acting as interceptors. It does not seem the Wraith have significant shields, but they have some jamming abilities able to impede Asgard transporters. Their hull is probably armored somehow (maybe regenerative as they're "live ships" of a sort). And of course, they're huge.
So you basically need to bypass the defense (darts) and hit with something energetic enough to inflict heavy damage.
You could flood the defense with enough missiles packing powerful warheads.
You could fire relativistic cannon projectiles. Since Earth arguably master artificial gravity, cannons may use not electromagnetic forces, but gravitational devices to accelerate rounds (grav-guns).
The ultimate choice is what works best, and here only TPTB can tell :rolleyes:

However for our speculations, we should keep to technologies currently mastered by Earth. In SGA it means missiles, nukes and railguns basically. We can fantasize on antimatter, death rays, phase-shifting devices (that only the Tollans had as far as we know) and whatever, but here and now in the show Earth doesn't have them. We have to keep it inside the actual SGA universe, not take whatever looks or sounds hot in general Sci-Fi. Or we may as well start building Death Stars to kick Wraith butt :D

aAnubiSs
July 26th, 2005, 12:53 AM
EM-forces are much stronger then gravity and hence better to use to accelerate things. A combination does work ofc :)

Gargen
July 26th, 2005, 01:03 AM
what you could do is get something that would automatically detect targets and beam nukes aboards

Major Tyler
July 26th, 2005, 01:17 AM
what you could do is get something that would automatically detect targets and beam nukes aboardsThe Wraith have developed a countermeasure to Asgard transporter technology.

valha'lla
July 26th, 2005, 04:11 AM
OK I get u the reason I said missile rather than smart bomb as it would need a propulsion system to manoeuvre which bombs do not also it could acheive greater speeds if it was a missle as u have to add in the speed that the engen can acheive on to the speed given by the launch by the rail tech.
So I say lets have two systems one is an enlarged standard version of the rail gun with automatic fire which we can call a rail cannon if we r being boring or something like KNRADS kinetic rail automatic defence system and a rail launched missle or equivalent, called something like ROMA, rail ordance missle of annihilation . These weapons can use existing tech for the time being but could receive upgrades like shield penetration tech and energy war heads if they become available (basically be turned into ancient drones fired via rail tech).

_Owen_
July 26th, 2005, 10:15 AM
Sorry, I forgot to mention the inertial dampers in the shells. :cool:

In all honesty I'm not sure if the G-forces and acceleration would be enough to force the anti-carbon to make contact with the fullerene, but I doubt it...
Fullerene is indeed an amazing substance. C60, is by far the most common, it has been mentioned several times in this thread, it is also known as a "Buckyball" but it is huge! On an atomic scale that is, C60 is made up of 60 carbon atoms, 60! A Buckyball actually looks like a ball, its atomic structure is made up like the outside of a soccer ball, using the pentagon shape between each atom. However I think Major Tyler may be just slightly mistaken, C60 repels carbon dioxide, but not just any carbon dioxide, it must be presurized enough to turn "supercritical" it will then occupy a state of matter between a gas and a liquid. It would still work, except in the projectiles, we would need to include, supercritical carbon dioxide, and anti-supercritical carbon dioxide, if the Buckyball will repel the anti-supercritical carbon dioxide, then we will be back in business.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
July 26th, 2005, 03:10 PM
Fullerene is indeed an amazing substance. C60, is by far the most common, it has been mentioned several times in this thread, it is also known as a "Buckyball" but it is huge! On an atomic scale that is, C60 is made up of 60 carbon atoms, 60!If you think that's big, scientists have found larger naturally occuring fullerenes with as many as 540 carbon atoms!
I think Major Tyler may be just slightly mistaken, C60 repels carbon dioxide, but not just any carbon dioxide, it must be presurized enough to turn "supercritical" it will then occupy a state of matter between a gas and a liquid. It would still work, except in the projectiles, we would need to include, supercritical carbon dioxide, and anti-supercritical carbon dioxide, if the Buckyball will repel the anti-supercritical carbon dioxide, then we will be back in business.Oh, cool. My source just said carbon in general, but it could very well have been over-simplified or incomplete. This new information gives me more to research. If anti-supercritical carbon dioxide is what we need, anti-supercritical carbon dioxide is what we'll get! :)

_Owen_
July 26th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Lol, instead of a buckyball we could use a nano tube, which is still fullerene just instead of a ball it is rolled into a cylinder, this might be better as a projectile, in fact we might have to tie a whole bunch of them together, they might be to light. But we could still make it work. Well, yes I was wrong you weren't mistaken. This definetly has potential.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
July 26th, 2005, 03:50 PM
Lol, instead of a buckyball we could use a nano tube, which is still fullerene just instead of a ball it is rolled into a cylinder, this might be better as a projectile, in fact we might have to tie a whole bunch of them together, they might be to light.Well, I wasn't advocating firing only one matter/antimatter-filled buckyball at a time. I would fill the round or the shell with as many as would fit. Conceivably we could even design the ordnance so that the fullerene would stay together to concentrate the explosion, or so that the buckyballs would be released before impact and spread out the explosion like pellets from a shotgun shell.

Using nanotubes would work, too...in particular, multiwall nanotubes would allow us to put more than one substance in a single tube if we had any reason to do so. Alternating the matter and antimatter in each tube (whether it be simply carbon or supercritical carbon dioxide) would ensure that there would be an equal amount of matter and antimatter in each rail-fired round. When it comes down to practicality, I'm not sure if buckyballs would be easier to handle than "buckytubes," but it's worth looking into.

_Owen_
July 26th, 2005, 04:00 PM
Well on the other hand we could put together a fullerene sturcture as large as a projectile, on an atomic scale it would be huge, you would probably need billions if not trillions of carbon atoms.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
July 26th, 2005, 08:11 PM
Well on the other hand we could put together a fullerene sturcture as large as a projectile, on an atomic scale it would be huge, you would probably need billions if not trillions of carbon atoms.I'm not sure how difficult it would be to create a fullerene on such a large scale, but at this point I imagine it would be more trouble than it was worth. Also, when it somes to flexibility, fullerenes only give us two choices for shapes and structure (that we know of). If we stuck with using many C540 buckyballs, for instance, we could put them in any kind of ordnance or object that we wanted. It's not like we are loosing anything by using multiple buckyballs rather than just one large one. In fact, on the off-chance that a fullerene did rupture accidentally, the collateral damage might not be as devastating.

Star_Lord
July 26th, 2005, 09:17 PM
Anubis, I think it was Anubis used Ancient tech to block Tollan Phase-Shift Technology weapons, so if you were going to use phase shift weapons on Wraith Ships considering the defeated the Ancients it is likely that they would also have shields that repel phase shift technology.

Also as for using nanotech tubes, Shepard destryed the nano virus in Atlantis with a crude EMP from a overloaded Naquda generator, so any advanced civilisation such as the wraith would have quick and effective ways of neutralising Nanotech, probably still with a concentrated EM field.

Major Tyler
July 26th, 2005, 10:17 PM
Also as for using nanotech tubes, Shepard destryed the nano virus in Atlantis with a crude EMP from a overloaded Naquda generator, so any advanced civilisation such as the wraith would have quick and effective ways of neutralising Nanotech, probably still with a concentrated EM field.We are talking about fullerene "buckytubes," not "nanotech tubes" in the way that you are describing. Fullerene is, fundamentally, just carbon...EMP would have no effect on it.

_Owen_
July 26th, 2005, 10:58 PM
Ya you are right, a fullerene structure of that magnitude would be stupid to try to make it would be incredibly flimsy unless rinforced and probably rupture easier.

In response to Star Lord: You are right, it is relativley simple to defend against phase shifting technology, extend your shield inter-phasaly, however the wraith only beat the ancients because of their brute force and numbers, thier technology was far inferior, in fact we don't even know if they have shields, yet if they could extend them between phases.

Major Tyler is right about the other point, the way I said it did make it sound like nanotechnology though. I appoligize.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
July 26th, 2005, 10:59 PM
Anubis, I think it was Anubis used Ancient tech to block Tollan Phase-Shift Technology weapons, so if you were going to use phase shift weapons on Wraith Ships considering the defeated the Ancients it is likely that they would also have shields that repel phase shift technology.Anubis used ancient technology to make it so that tollan Ion canons couldn't penetrate it on there phase shifting tech

Star_Lord
July 27th, 2005, 02:24 AM
Sorry that thing with nanotubes was my fault.

I realised you were refering to fullerene nanotubes but didn't have time to reply with a correction.

As for using Antimatter/Matter Reactions
If the target had shields than the reaction would have to be timed to avoid simply hitting the shield and be destroyed as they are still solid weaponry not energy weapons. Since you are talking about using it in a rail gun like projection system this timing would have to be precise to avoid slamming the projectile in to any shields that exist if they exist.

If the Wraith have so little advanced technology that they don't have basic shield systems, wouldn't you say that it would be unlikely that they would have weaponry capable of destroying very advanced Ancient Warships? They have stated that 1-1 an Ancient ship is superior yes but we don't know how many Wraith ships it takes to beat an Ancient ship so they may have more advanced Technology than we know of, including shield systems.

Loaf
July 27th, 2005, 04:09 AM
maybey the anchents lost becasue they didn't have the stomach for war an they never had that much to fight with in the first place. an they simply left an it had nothing to do with how good their technology is

Major Tyler
July 27th, 2005, 11:41 AM
maybey the anchents lost becasue they didn't have the stomach for war an they never had that much to fight with in the first place. an they simply left an it had nothing to do with how good their technology isThat would be a subject for a different thread. This thread is discussing possible weapons systems for BC-303s and the Daedalus.

_Owen_
July 27th, 2005, 11:53 AM
As for using Antimatter/Matter Reactions
If the target had shields than the reaction would have to be timed to avoid simply hitting the shield and be destroyed as they are still solid weaponry not energy weapons. Since you are talking about using it in a rail gun like projection system this timing would have to be precise to avoid slamming the projectile in to any shields that exist if they exist.

I'm sorry, I don't see your point, the projectiles would hit either the shields or the ship at mach 5+ they would rupture and the fullerene structures within would also, releasing the anti-supercritical carbon dioxide and supercritical carbon dixode, they would be imediatley attracted to eachother and the mutal anhilation would take place, causeing multiple massive explosions which are so concentrated they would apear as one large explosion. The energy released from the explosion would be released in all direction either doing significant damage to the shields or significant damage to the ship itself.

Owen Macri

Loaf
July 27th, 2005, 12:54 PM
why not mount some anti matter warheads on some drone wepons

Ohper
July 27th, 2005, 12:55 PM
why not mount some anti matter warheads on some drone wepons
Because drone weapons can kill anything and they don't need antimatter.

Loaf
July 27th, 2005, 01:11 PM
i don't think One drone weapon could destroy an entire hive ship. even a small anti matter warhead should have the power a meduim sized nuclear weapon

_Owen_
July 27th, 2005, 01:15 PM
Ya with a nuke sized conatiner of antimatter, you would likley only need one drone, it would probably be overkill even at that.

Owen Macri

Loaf
July 27th, 2005, 01:18 PM
i read that 1 gram of anti matter reacted with 1 gram of matter can produce the same energy that is use to put the space shuttle in orbit so maybey only 50 grams at most

Major Tyler
July 27th, 2005, 01:18 PM
i don't think One drone weapon could destroy an entire hive ship. even a small anti matter warhead should have the power a meduim sized nuclear weaponWhy would we need to use a drone weapon as a delivery system, anyway? A rail-fired round would work just as well and be much, much easier and cheaper to manufacture. If you're talking about taking advantage of the drone's ability to penetrate shields, only the drone part would make it through...any modifications we made to it would hit the shield. In fact, the warhead would probably end up destroying the drone on impact before it had a chance to do any damage.

Loaf
July 27th, 2005, 01:21 PM
the drones aren't affected by sheilds though the wraiths sheilds might stand the blast of a rail launched shell

Major Tyler
July 27th, 2005, 01:23 PM
the drones aren't affected by sheilds though the wraiths sheilds might stand the blast of a rail launched shell(See above)

Loaf
July 27th, 2005, 01:26 PM
dismantle the drone an then stick it inside then put it back together

Major Tyler
July 27th, 2005, 01:36 PM
dismantle the drone an then stick it inside then put it back togetherIf we had the technical skill to "dismantle," add components, and "put back together" a weapon as powerful as a Lantean drone, we might as well just build out own.

Look...we only have a finite amount of drones, drones can only be controlled by someone with the ATA gene, and they are much more valuable in their present form. Using them as a delivery system would be a grossly unnecessary misuse of resources given that we have perfectly viable delivery systems of our own, it is tactically ridiculous to propose making a weapons system that we could never replace and can only be fired by people with a certain gene, and the idea that we could "modify" Ancient drones is completely ludicrous.

_Owen_
July 27th, 2005, 02:20 PM
Now if we discovered some nice matter replication technology, we could have as many drones as we want. However we could always reconfigure the stargate to create matter.

Owen Macri

Col. Newman
July 27th, 2005, 02:26 PM
Now if we discovered some nice matter replication technology, we could have as many drones as we want. However we could always reconfigure the stargate to create matter.

Owen Macriwell ya but we need to use the stargate as a stargate, also it would be much more practical to modify one of the transporters, also i would bet every thing i own that the anceint have replicator tech, we just haven't found it or maybe just haven't turned it on yet, also that would be too easy the TPTB what things to be interesting, not logical

Major Tyler
July 27th, 2005, 04:29 PM
Now if we discovered some nice matter replication technology, we could have as many drones as we want. However we could always reconfigure the stargate to create matter.Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and we've seen no evidence that we could "always" reconfigure the Stargate to do it. This isn't Star Trek...if they introduced replication technology that would be obscene.

Col. Newman
July 27th, 2005, 04:57 PM
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and we've seen no evidence that we could "always" reconfigure the Stargate to do it. This isn't Star Trek...if they introduced replication technology that would be obscene.Replicators don't create matter, they rearrange the atoms, of other substances duh

valha'lla
July 27th, 2005, 05:36 PM
Well as for the drone idea if it aint broken and it can anilate r enemy why try to improve it when u could end up making it worse. As for the rail weapon its shells no matter what should be standard shape as this will give them penatration and if they have an explosive of any kind in them this will mean that more of the explosion hits the enemy ship as the projectlie will go futher into the ship instead of going of in to space and wasting that potetional desructive power.

Major Tyler
July 27th, 2005, 09:04 PM
Replicators don't create matter, they rearrange the atoms, of other substances duhI never said they did duh.

_Owen_
July 27th, 2005, 10:47 PM
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and we've seen no evidence that we could "always" reconfigure the Stargate to do it. This isn't Star Trek...if they introduced replication technology that would be obscene.
Ok, obviously I am not stupid, and didn't mean "create" in its absolute most literal sense I meant convert energy into matter, therfore creating it. Energy is not matter so you could see converting energy into matter as creating it, from energy. Do you understand where I am going.

I disagree it would not be obscene it would be stupid not to. Building matter from other matter is effective but not efficient many times it must be broken down and then put back together to form new shapes, creating matter from energy as a replicator does, is far more efficient, you can create large structures, allready put together, it is almost effortless, you would just have to push buttons.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
July 27th, 2005, 11:18 PM
Ok, obviously I am not stupid, and didn't mean "create" in its absolute most literal sense I meant convert energy into matter, therfore creating it. Energy is not matter so you could see converting energy into matter as creating it, from energy. Do you understand where I am going.Okay, thanks for clarifying. I still don't see how you could make the claim that we could "always" do that with the Stargate. Where or when on the show have they even entertained that notion, much less made it sound like they could "always" do it?
I disagree it would not be obscene it would be stupid not to. Building matter from other matter is effective but not efficient many times it must be broken down and then put back together to form new shapes, creating matter from energy as a replicator does, is far more efficient, you can create large structures, allready put together, it is almost effortless, you would just have to push buttons.I'm not debating the efficacy or utility of Star Trek-style replication technology, but from a marketing point of view I think it would be a mistake for TPTB to "borrow" more ideas from Star Trek. I want Stargate to retain it's uniqueness. I always felt that the replicators in Star Trek were such a copout.

Col. Newman
July 27th, 2005, 11:27 PM
but from a marketing point of view I think it would be a mistake for TPTB to "borrow" more ideas from Star Trek. I want Stargate to retain it's uniqueness. I always felt that the replicators in Star Trek were such a copout.why does every one think that the TPTB copyed the replicators from the Borg god it is so annoying they might have got the idea from that but hey the reppys are totally different from the borg

_Owen_
July 27th, 2005, 11:47 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "always." I simply said that, in theory it could be done, you just simulate the actual matter going through the gate. You deactivate either the event horizon or scanning properties of it. Then you transfer the information that would normaly be transfered to the recieveing gate detailing the matter that has entered as well as sufficient energy to complete the structure.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
July 28th, 2005, 12:08 AM
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "always."I was referring to this quote...
Now if we discovered some nice matter replication technology, we could have as many drones as we want. However we could always reconfigure the stargate to create matter.The way this is phrased made it sound like what you are proposing is easy and almost commonplace at the SGC. You can understand why I was perplexed because, having seen every single episode to date of both Stargate series, I have never heard anyone once even mention the possibility of using the Stargate to "create matter."

_Owen_
July 28th, 2005, 12:12 AM
Oh, ok, no I just meant always in the context of, if worst comes to worst we could use the Stargate because it is possible, not they allways do it at the SGC. Sorry about that.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
July 28th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Oh, ok, no I just meant always in the context of, if worst comes to worst we could use the Stargate because it is possible, not they allways do it at the SGC. Sorry about that.Okay, I got ya. I've said it many times...text-only communication is very imprecise.

_Owen_
July 28th, 2005, 12:25 AM
Ya, now if someone could create a speech forum where you can leave audio posts, that would be cool I would join in no time!

Owen Macri

nimitz
August 1st, 2005, 03:01 PM
ive got an idea for a weapon the ags drone as the omnipedia calls it. if you had 20 at the front that would be scary.Bye bye wraith.

valha'lla
August 1st, 2005, 04:39 PM
U mean the AG-3 drone the statilet weapon that danille sees in that episod when shifu is trying to teach him a lesson if so no one knows whether that tech can be created or if it was just to prove shifus point.

_Owen_
August 1st, 2005, 06:59 PM
Lol, that network was pretty cool, but don't forget to phase shift your drones, as well as install multiple redundant shield systems, and flawless inertial dampners, even though there is no one inside, you wouldn't want the liquified naquadah to be shaken around. lol.

Owne Macri

nimitz
August 2nd, 2005, 05:09 AM
On aphophis supership they had the ag-3 drone.Why do you need to phase shift them just give them a cloak.

valha'lla
August 2nd, 2005, 06:05 AM
Really where did u read that?

nimitz
August 2nd, 2005, 07:22 AM
If you watch it when the weapon powers up it looks suspicously similiar and all the beams combine to form a superbolt like in the dream and finnaly the bolt is increadily powerful the same type of powerful you would expect from the ags.

_Owen_
August 2nd, 2005, 02:53 PM
On aphophis supership they had the ag-3 drone.Why do you need to phase shift them just give them a cloak.
A cloak can shield them from most eyesight, and from some sensors, but it will not protect, or stop weapons fire, phase-shifting would.

Owen Macri

nimitz
August 3rd, 2005, 08:11 AM
So would a shield but good point Owen i didnt think of that.

_Owen_
August 3rd, 2005, 08:27 PM
Well, yes, a shield would always be a good back up, but if it ever failed it would leave you completley open, however, all systems have thier bugs but if they are combined the chance of failure is much, MUCH smaller.

Owen Macri

valha'lla
August 4th, 2005, 08:46 AM
Yes So have a sheild and a phase shift system that r completly seperate just incase on goes wrong u have a back up, so there's less chance that ur expensive AG-s system.

_Owen_
August 4th, 2005, 01:17 PM
Exactly, you've got it.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
August 4th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Well, yes, a shield would always be a good back up, but if it ever failed it would leave you completley open, however, all systems have thier bugs but if they are combined the chance of failure is much, MUCH smaller.
Yes So have a sheild and a phase shift system that r completly seperate just incase on goes wrong u have a back up, so there's less chance that ur expensive AG-s system.I agree that this would be a marvelous weapon, but it's hardly feasible given Earth's (in the SG universe) level of technology. We can't even make a laser for the Daedalus and Prometheus. You might as well propose we put a "make bad guys go boom" button on the weapons console. If we could do it and make it work, we would...but we can't.

_Owen_
August 4th, 2005, 04:06 PM
Lol, we don't need a "make the bad guys go boom" button, we just beam Harry Potter over to the enemy ships and tell him that everyone on them is Lord Voldemort. lol.

Owen Macri

Major Tyler
August 4th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Lol, we don't need a "make the bad guys go boom" button, we just beam Harry Potter over to the enemy ships and tell him that everyone on them is Lord Voldemort. lol.You don't even need to beam him over...just say Avada Kadavra and then salvage the ship. We'll have a huge fleet in no time! :)

_Owen_
August 4th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Lol, that is what I was thinking but I wasn't sure if he could hit it from Earth. lol. Good thinking!

Owen Macri

ColonelWilliams
August 6th, 2005, 01:12 PM
okay...i'm lost... (never read harry potter)

_Owen_
August 6th, 2005, 01:38 PM
Oh you really should they are very good books.

Owen Macri

ColonelWilliams
August 6th, 2005, 01:46 PM
that's what my friend keeps telling me, i just finished discourse on method by renee decartes so maybe i'll give harry potter a look.

_Owen_
August 6th, 2005, 03:39 PM
Ok, just read it from the begining and don't read any spoilers at all!

It is really good!

Owen Macri

nimitz
August 8th, 2005, 01:32 PM
She has good ideas but shes technicly not very good.

_Owen_
August 8th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Who has good ideas? J.K. Rowling?

Owen Macri