PDA

View Full Version : Naquadah Nuke Delivery



zintradi
August 22nd, 2005, 12:35 PM
It seems as though by watching the season premere of Atlantis that the Daedelous has very powerfull naquadah enhanced nukes that are delivered via a chemical rocket which is easily intercepted because a chemical rocket can only go as fast as the junk it spits out the back.
It would be better if they made a rail gun type of delivery method in which they turn the bomb into a rail gun slug and fling it at a very high velocity. the thing would be damn near impossible to detect as it would just free fly through space untill it detonates.
I don't know the particulars, but i would think you could get somthing like that to work.

either that or just make bigger progectiles that smash heavier for fighting capital ships.

Eoin
August 22nd, 2005, 01:10 PM
agreed, a rail gun type nuke launcher would do some serious damage :D

dennycrane
August 22nd, 2005, 02:19 PM
Why not create a hyperspace field around the misile as you launch it and equip it with a thing-a-magik to take it out of hyperspace just inbetween the shield and the ship. Insta-boom!!!

6thMonolith
August 22nd, 2005, 03:13 PM
It's TV. Anything can happen...

Why not use Anti-matter? :D

nimitz
August 22nd, 2005, 03:38 PM
I think everyones ignoring the vast differences involved in these battles just because it seems small doesnt mean it invarably is.
Maybe the railguns would fire the nukes slower and also the electromagnetic forces would destroy the computers inside making them useless.
And we have never actually met anti-matter in the stargate universe so maybe it doesnt exist, cant be built very quickly, very expensive to create large amounts.Though if it did exist what a power source and also a highly effective weapon.

_Owen_
August 22nd, 2005, 03:42 PM
Yes, a fast delivery system such as this would be a good idea. In fact, we have discussed this in several other threads as well. Well, not so much discussed as mentioned. So a dedicated thread is a good idea.

Owen Macri

Lord ┬žokar
August 22nd, 2005, 05:18 PM
A fast launcher is an incredibly bad delivery system for a nuke. They're fired slowly because they need to accelerate slowly. Sput them out at extreme force and the delicate fission core will become deformed.

dennycrane
August 22nd, 2005, 05:41 PM
the em pulse you mention wouldn't affect a mothership if it is engaged outside of the shield because when apophis invades Earth, they fired two nukes, which also create a em pulse(gotta thank Ocean's Eleven for that one) and nothing happened.

_Owen_
August 22nd, 2005, 05:57 PM
A fast launcher is an incredibly bad delivery system for a nuke. They're fired slowly because they need to accelerate slowly. Sput them out at extreme force and the delicate fission core will become deformed.
Two simple but not so simple when you think about them words: inertial dampeners.

Owen Macri

Avatar28
August 22nd, 2005, 06:15 PM
Not really. Fission cores really aren't all that delicate for starters. Certainly no more so than any other bomb. Also if that were the case bunker buster nuclear weapons would be impossible considering the g-forces they're subjected to on impact and yet they're able to survive. Yes, I realize that we don't have any of those (supposedly at least) at this time, but it is something that the military wishes to pursue and I have yet to read a single thing that suggests they would have problems from the g-forces involved and we DO have plenty of non-nuclear bunker busters in our arsenal and not a single one has problems due to the g-forces involved. We have also, in the past, developed nulcear artillery shells which are fired from a gun and must survive high g-forces. And before someone suggests that a railgun would have to undergo still higher forces, that's not true. It would probably be significantly less since you would have a much longer "barrel" to fire it out of; meaning that it doesn't have to accelerate as quickly to reach a high velocity.

_Owen_
August 22nd, 2005, 07:21 PM
Well, I am sure that a couple inertial dampeners would be no problem to conjure up, just in case something does happen. So I doubt that would be a significant problem either way.

Owen Macri

EnigmaNZ
August 22nd, 2005, 09:04 PM
God, what did I put in the other threads on this subject. Basically, SG space battles are fought at close quarters, 10 to 100 Km for capital ship to capital ship, we want a delivery time of 1 second to 100 Km to minimise counterattack possibilities. Railgun problems are high power needs and wear on the rails, plus distortions from the magnetic fields. We have the power(naquada generators) a superstrong superconductor (naquada), a strong material to build the mounts from (trinium) so it's all go. The Mk 9 is very small for a multigigaton warhead, it is smaller than the current W-88 nuke used on the MX, Minuteman, Trident, Tomahawk etc, amazing.

The 175mm howitzer was used to fire nuclear shells, though using a gun type rather than implosion type fission core.

On another note, in Beachhead the Prometheus was mentioned to have a "main (or primary) RG". A mistake or a prototype :)

_Owen_
August 22nd, 2005, 11:27 PM
Well, the high power needs can be deemed unimportant if there are a couple ZPMs on board.

Owen Macri

Auralis
August 23rd, 2005, 06:10 AM
Well, there ARE/WHERE missiles with a nuclear warhead that accelleratated at over 400g in RL. Tested as ICBM interceptors.

http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/Sprint.html

and considered that those where buld in the late 60's, it stands to reason that in Stargate time earth would be able to build them pretty easy and much like much better too.

Eoin
August 23rd, 2005, 06:24 AM
A fast launcher is an incredibly bad delivery system for a nuke. They're fired slowly because they need to accelerate slowly. Sput them out at extreme force and the delicate fission core will become deformed.
i thought that there was no gravity in space and hence no g-forces??
it seems that you could fire a nuke as fast as you want in space and nothing woud hapen to it.
of course i could be wrong, im probably wrong, so i agree with owen macri throw inertial dampners onto it

aAnubiSs
August 23rd, 2005, 06:27 AM
There are always forces of gravity. Inertia due to the mass of the vessel is one source :)

Eoin
August 23rd, 2005, 06:29 AM
There are always forces of gravity. Inertia due to the mass of the vessel is one source :)
oh :o , ahwell atleast i tried :)

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 07:48 AM
oh :o , ahwell atleast i tried :)
Lol, good try anyways. Hypothetically, there is gravity everywhere, seeing as any two objects with mass will attract each other. So while the gravity between Earth and some planet in the Andromeda galaxy, is not very significant at all. However in theory, they are both attracting each other.

Owen Macri

EnigmaNZ
August 23rd, 2005, 05:39 PM
Here's a good analogy I think. Gravity pulls down towards the center of the mass creating the gravity. Think of a gravity well as being like a trampoline with a heavy weight in the middle, anything getting close enough is going to roll towards that mass in the middle, if something is moving past it, it is going to be caught and well travel around the upper part of the curve, as it slows it will take a spiral path to the center. Thats kinds like gravity. In the case of a black hole, the well may be so steep that the escape velocity is greater than C, hence everything gets trapped.
Now for inertia. Gravity in pulling down, so if you accelerate or brake heavily in your car, does it effect the downwards pull, no, you accelerate and get thrown back, or brake and get throw forward. Actually you don't get thrown anywhere, inertia of your body means it acelerates slightly slower than the car, so the car pulls ahead and your body gets momentarily left behind. In braking your body is traveling at the speed of the car, you brake, the car slows but your body, due to inertia, continues to travel at the previous speed, hence you get thrown forward, until it catches up with the braking. In space the same accurs, no need for gravity to be present.

_Owen_
August 23rd, 2005, 07:04 PM
Yes, that is a good analogy.

Owen Macri

dennycrane
August 23rd, 2005, 07:12 PM
anyway putting inertial dampeners in every nuke will eventually take its toll, especially if it takes more than one nuke.

Lord ┬žokar
August 23rd, 2005, 09:12 PM
the em pulse you mention wouldn't affect a mothership if it is engaged outside of the shield because when apophis invades Earth, they fired two nukes, which also create a em pulse(gotta thank Ocean's Eleven for that one) and nothing happened.
I seems that I can't say this too few times: there is no EMP in space. EMP is high energy photons ionizing air via the Compton effect. You only get EMP through massive release of short wavelength light, such as that from a nuclear detonation. The "pinch" device in Oceans Eleven was fiction.

it seems that you could fire a nuke as fast as you want in space and nothing woud hapen to it.
of course i could be wrong, im probably wrong, so i agree with owen macri throw inertial dampners onto it
There is a difference between weight and mass. In deep space (or free fall) your weight is neglegible but your mass remains constant. Inertia is related to mass, not weight.

zintradi
August 24th, 2005, 10:08 AM
you could build shielding to dampen the effect if a magnetic field....
Also, you oculd make the nuke rail the entire length of the ship to lessen the acceleration stresses.
maybe also a high speed powered tether sling to 'throw' the nuke, that might be a more viable option if the em field disrupting the nuke cant be fixed.

I just hope they write somthing like this into the show so the nukes can be used against the wraith and other ships instead of being destroyed in transit.

dennycrane
August 24th, 2005, 11:43 AM
I have conceived the perfect weapon. It is relatively cheap when compared to a nuke, it is lightweight, non hazardous, and we, unfurtunately have it on earth in too much supply.
Whenever the Daedalus is confronted by an alien spacecraft, we beam abord a tv with a dvd player playing Gigli. Two seconds later the entire jaffa contingent will suicide. (their aliens, they don't know how to use a remote) If we do that on the wraith, since their minds are linked, the entire species dies instantly.

EnigmaNZ
August 24th, 2005, 04:49 PM
Railgun launcher so missile exits at speed, goa'uld personal cloak so ya can't hit what ya can't see. Hmm, the exhaust plume is a giveaway though. Hmmm. We do now have the goa'uld scientist.

Mk 2 missile - medium range engagements, glider propulsion system (3,000,000 kph), cloak, Mk 8 warhead, shield piecing tech, secure update link to pass lastest data on enemy shield frequency just prior to contact, trigger to detonate warhead if it hits the sheild.

Mk 3 missile - long range engagements, ion propulsion + mass reduction tech (110,000 kps), Mk 9 warhead, personel shield, proximity detector and violent maneuvoring capable, secure update link, sheild piecing tech, multimode detonation trigger.

Earlier programs have established that a glider can travel at 2,000,000 mph iirc, prosumably due to it's lack of shielding to protect it from space dust etc. It has also established that the Prometheus with it's ion propulsion can travel at 110,000 kps.

Short range engagements would fall to railguns firing Mk 8 warheads and goa'uld level directed energy weapons.

_Owen_
August 24th, 2005, 09:48 PM
I have conceived the perfect weapon. It is relatively cheap when compared to a nuke, it is lightweight, non hazardous, and we, unfurtunately have it on earth in too much supply.
Whenever the Daedalus is confronted by an alien spacecraft, we beam abord a tv with a dvd player playing Gigli. Two seconds later the entire jaffa contingent will suicide. (their aliens, they don't know how to use a remote) If we do that on the wraith, since their minds are linked, the entire species dies instantly.
LOL, that might just work!

Owen Macri