Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Working On Arthur C. Clarke Weapon Idea
holy_calamity writes "DARPA is working on a weapon which is similar to one first described by Arthur C. Clarke in his 1955 novel Earthlight — firing jets of molten metal using strong electromagnetic fields. The Magneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition (MAHEM) will function on a smaller scale than Clarke's fictional blaster. DARPA's write-up says it could be 'packaged into a missile, projectile or other platform and delivered close to target for final engagement and kill.' Clarke is also widely credited with suggesting geostationary communications satellites — what other ideas of his will come to pass?"
Slight correction to posted URL, dropped trailing slash.
:-P
Link is here.
Posted as AC to prevent karma whoring.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
A magnetically propelled version of the shaped charge.
I don't understand how it would be useful as active armor - can they make them small and cheap enough to cover a warship?
Questionable.
Being scorched by molten metal at high velocity is not how I'd want to go. I wonder if this would be ruled inhumane. As if it's any worse than a nuke, just on a smaller scale.
Have flamethrowers and napalm been ruled inhumane?
In any case, molten high velocity metal is already widely in use in anti-armor weapons. In the case of spalling, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spall, the molten metal is from your own vehicle not the weapon.
...and while you're getting ready to fire the RPG, a sniper takes you out. That's not the point. There's no setup. The entire package is supposed to fit in a missile or the like. MAHEM is supposed to be - judging from the FA and press release - an upgraded version of your standard HEAT round. The listed benefits are better control over the jet; multiple, quasi-aimable jets; and more energy on target.
We've been using molten metal as a weapon since World War II. The most prevalant example is probably the shaped charge rocked fired by RPG-7's.
Did you read the second link?
"Current technology uses chemical explosive energy to form the jets and fragments. This is highly inefficient and requires precise machining of the metal liners from which the fragments and jets are formed. Generating multiple jets or fragments from a single explosive is difficult, and the timing of the multiple jets or fragments cannot be controlled. MAHEM offers the potential for higher efficiency, greater control, the ability to generate and accurately time multiple jets and fragments from a single charge..."
For what it's worth, Clarke wasn't the first science fiction writer to briefly outline the idea of geostationary satellites - Herman Potonik did so, much earlier. The realized version was much different than his scheme of large manned outer-space outposts. Additionally, the creators of geostationary satellites did not reference Clarke's outline, nor were they even aware of it. Clarke was merely in a position to effectively self-promote his half-similar sci-fi concepts.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Explosively Formed Penetrators are different from regular High Explosive Anti Tank rounds, which do form a molten jet. In the EFP, the charge is in the shape of a shallow dish, and it forms the lining into a solid penetrator. It works at a much greater standoff distance than a regular HEAT, and is not as much subject to disruption by reactive armor. It is not as good at penetrating the armor of a main battle tank, but is quite good at destroying vehicles and emplacements with lighter armor.
In a conventional HEAT, the charge is in the form of a narrow cone, and the liner is projected as a narrow jet of molten metal. It must explode at the correct standoff distance and the correct angle to be effective, but when it works it works quite well against even heavily armored vehicles.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No. In the U.S., the government can file for trademarks and patents and the only way they can be used by the general public is if they are licensed. The money then (currently) goes into the general fund. It is not public domain.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
There was an F-117 Nighthawk, and an SR-71 Blackbird. Two very different aircraft.
Best Slashdot Co
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium Some info about depleted uranium. Interesting stuff.
I am that much more enlightened and proportionally disillusioned
I take it you've never actually tried that? It's really hard to hurt something with a sawed-off shotgun at much beyond 20 feet, and really hard to get that close to a rabbit (unless the rabbit is a pet). Try a .22 instead.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yes. The EU and china both are in positions to become superpowers, even if they aren't nearly there yet, and the US is certainly losing its tech edge and strong economy.
"plausible"
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Your claim that science is a belief system is to fundamentally misunderstand science. Science is a method of inquiry into the natural world, the only one we know of, that can identify objective truths. It takes zero faith or belief or anything like that to accept the outcomes of the scientific method.
Finally, you are also making an argument from ignorance in your discussion of the big bang. The bottom line is we don't know how it all happened. We don't know what there was before. We don't even know IF there was a "before" at all. If time began then then most of your assertions disappear. Just because you don't understand something isn't a reason to say "god did it".
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
You do realize that something like a Cesna could hardly carry enough explosives to bring down a building, right? Do you remember the World Trade Center bombing in the 90s? That was a truck loaded with explosives, and it didn't bring down the building. A Cesna couldn't carry a fraction of the explosives in that truck, and doesn't run on jet fuel. The risk of a Cesna taking out a building, or even causing substantial damage, is somewhere between zero and nil.
Rhapsody in Numbers
I'd like to know where the military is going to get "molten metal". The stuff isn't just laying around... you need lots of metal & lots of heat.
Perhaps the concept will be similar to the uranium-tipped anti-tank weapons that impact the external armor. The pressure of the impact instantly vaporizes the metal, and splatters the interior occupants with the resulting vapor (turning them into ash).
(shrug) Who knows. I've seen the military come-up with some whacky ideas like an airplane carrier that, instead of airplanes, was filled with 1000 tomahawk missiles, but most of these ideas never come to fruition.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Actually, no. Its "thou shall not commit murder". Some old translations used the word "kill", but few modern ones do. The hebrew word used in most of our originals is the word for murder. I'm not precisely certian how they defined "murder" at the time, but I'd bet it was at least as loose as "most rational people" feel about it. Probably a bit too loose. I wouldn't be suprised if killing a non-Jew, or perhaps even a badly misbehaving family member, was considered not to count.
Actually, its a bit of a misnomer to talk about "The 10 Commandments" anyway. The "The" is wrong, because they appear slightly differently in two different places in the bible. Also, different sects translate them differently. Even within the translations, the words are interpreted very differently by different groups.
The "10" is arguable too, as the Exodus version actually has 14 or 15 imperitive statements. Different sects divide these up into 10s differently, so there's no agreement on what numbers go with which statements either.
Many Christians also feel that Jesus essentially obsoleted them with his own two commandments.
All this of course means that anyone who wants to post "The 10 Commandments" somewhere is nessecarily taking sides in a religous dispute and promoting their version over the others.
The Wikipedia's entry on this is pretty good, but for all its length it doesn't begin to cover everything.