Slashdot Mirror
Navy Debuts New Railgun That Launches Shells at Mach 7
Jeremiah Cornelius writes: "The U.S. Navy's new railgun technology, developed by General Atomics, uses the Lorentz force in a type of linear, electric motor to hurl a 23-pound projectile at speeds exceeding Mach 7 — in excess of 5,000 mph. The weapon has a range of 100 miles and doesn't require explosive warheads. 'The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy,' says Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy's chief engineer. 'This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons.' Sea trials begin aboard an experimental Navy catamaran, the USNS Millinocket, in 2016."
...but at least part of the future is here already.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
...Can someone who is explain where the big fiery explosion out of the railgun is coming from, if this thing is electromagnetically driven?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Can it be efficiently powered, though? It always seemed like the power draw was the main issue with these kinds of guns, effectively limiting them to a few shots.
It'd be worth the court marshal...
Would any of our resident physicists care to compare the "cost" in terms of energy for firing the railgun vs firing shells with conventional guns? Just curious.
I hear they're going to be testing this on the Fox Archipelago off the coast of Alaska. I hope everything works out and that this doesn't have any nuclear proliferation implications at all.
It's a "Small-waterplane-area twin hull" or SWATH, not a catamaran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
"They are firing, sir!"
"Prepare the counte...."
Seriously... 100 mile range? At 5000mph? That range doesn't add up to me, but regardless, whoever is on the receiving end of this bad boy doesn't stand a chance to defend themselves
That's not even a 75mm railgun size. Can I fit it on my Velator? :)
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
As in can it shot down missiles or not? And if so which ones?
Just speculation but, when you propel something to mach 7, friction becomes a real issue. The SR-71 had a titanium body if I recall correctly, to help deal with temperatures it encountered at Mach 3. It is quite possible that the projectile is very hot and is igniting materials that have lower ignition temperatures.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
2.38 km/s or 5324 mph. In vacuum and lunar gravity, this probably do it. Put it on the moon, solar power it, change out the shell with buckets with high-g transponders and Gerald O'Neil's vision of a mass driver to throw moon stuff to build a L5 colony is a reality! IMHO, it's much higher priority that any mission to Mars. Or restarting the fracking Cold War.
Since the navy already runs nuclear reactors on ships I don't think they are that worried about them. However, the capacitor bank exploding could be interesting. I guess they would have to put it somewhere armored on the ship. I would also think that they might have trouble providing cooling for all the electrical equipment as well.
We can take on kaiju...
Mount a downsized version on the A10.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
At last the US Navy, for so long the joke of the high seas, will become a force to be reckoned with.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
With these sort of weapons, how does the navy effectively target something? It's ridiculous to think the Navy would be targeting say, a truck. Would they just stay offshore and throw these at a building or something?
23lb = 10.43kg
5000mph = 2235m/s
1/2 * m * v^2 > 26 MJ
Put into perspective, 26MJ / 3600s ~= 7.2kWh, or about $1 worth of electricity.
How much does 100lbs of black powder cost? (or however much they use to launch shells from battleships?)
I see a huge cost saving for the military depending on how many shells they fire every year in training.
Well, judging form the pictures, this is the one disposable razor I wouldn't want to be shaved with.
Ezekiel 23:20
The the projectile leaves the barrel, it is with a fiery explosion behind it. If this is from a rail gun, shouldn't the projectile be push purely by magnetic force, and there be no flames from the barrel?
The railgun might fit, but where are you going to put the nuclear reactor to power it?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Not to nitpick (well.....yah, I'm nitpicking), but both General Atomics and BAE Systems Railguns will be tested on the USNS Millinocket. BAE Systems actually got the Phase II contract, whereas General Atomics did not.
Link: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/navys-magnetic-super-gun-to-make-mach-7-shots-at-sea-in-2016-adm-greenert/
Full Disclosure: I nearly got to work on the GA RailGun system and I know some people who are on it. It's a better design than the BAE one but BAE got the contract.
Intercontinental ballistic railgun emplacements may end up replacing nuclear ICBMs since a patterned barrage may be more effective, particularly for excavating bunkers to decapitate command and control. The ground penetration problem may soon be licked and the Iranian nuclear threat can be settled through negotiations from a position of strength. Nice work Dalgren!
Whats the recoil on this thing?
NO SIG
I recall a proposal (at this point very hypothetical) to have a huge railgun arranged in a loop, which would be situated somewhere in the continental US. The projectile would go around and around in the railgun loop, accelerating each time, like a slingshot, until it's flung out toward the target. The projectiles would go so fast that they'd fly out into orbit before coming back down. This would allow us to "shell" any country on earth from some railgun in the US. The "shells" in this case would have so much kinetic energy that they'd level a city block from the shock wave they'd create upon landing.
WHY DON'T WE HAVE THIS ALREADY? It's the ultimate homeland defense.
Actually, do we know that there's any burning going on at all? I believe the light from a fire is not directly emitted by the chemical reaction, it's a result of the combustion gasses glowing from the heat. In which case just heating even an inert gas sufficiently will cause it to glow similarly. And the immense high-speed compression from a mach-7 projectile traveling down a confined tube should generate plenty of heat.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So we're back to throwing rocks.
We just throw them very, very fast. :)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
IMPRESSIVE
Perhaps one of the big benefits of a naval railgun is that it's so difficult to defend against. Old-fashioned anti-ship missiles can be disabled or destroyed by the defending ship's close-in defenses. This is because the incoming missile is filled with sensitive electronics, guidance systems, explosives, fuel, turbojet engines, stabilizing fins, etc, and is very likely to be damaged or destroyed if hit by a 20mm round from the defending ship's CIWS missile defenses.
However, how do you shoot down a hunk of metal traveling at mach 7 toward your ship? It wouldn't make any difference if you hit it with a 20mm round from the goalkeeper or phalanx. The projectile would just keep flying toward the ship and strike it anyways. Besides, how would you even hit something which is so small and traveling at mach 7.
It doesn't seem there would be any good defense against this.
Cooling for a Ship weapon...wonder where there is a unlimited supply of 80deg water that has be boiled for cooking/drinking/showers?
Many!
Imagine if you didn't need to handle explosives like Cordite as propellents anymore. This will reduce storage space and make a battleship's gun turret a while lot safer place to work. One small spark won't set off a magazine anymore.
"Muzzle velocity" is higher, so the distance you can throw something is a bit further, like 5x further. If you can fire further, you have a huge advantage because you can hit your opponent before he can shoot at you. Or if you are doing ground support, you can fire further inland.
I'm assuming a rail gun will be faster to reload. Might take some time to recharge the power supply, but surely we can fire faster than a Mark 7's 2 rounds a minute. More pounds and rounds on the target than your opponent is always better.
Finally, it may be possible to more strictly control forces on the shell when firing it, which may make it possible to put more technology IN the shells, and still get very high velocity. Imagine a shell that can adjust it's flight path, even slightly, which means you can fire in the general direction you want, then fine tune the aim in flight. (I assume they don't do that now..)
Issues to watch out for: First, Rail guns tend to have tracks (rails) and said rails usually have difficulty with wear due to the huge forces and high speeds involved. Hopefully they have engineered the better materials. Second, power supplies for rail guns have to be designed to provide HUGE impulse powers with power generation systems wanting to be running at steady state. You have to match the two. Finally, weapons like this usually mean you have to redesign the whole weapons system, a process that literally takes decades.
Go Navy, this is worth the R&D money..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Why the hell does an inert slug encased in a discarding sabot cost twenty grand?
Are the defence contractors taking the piss or what?
Instagib gamemode!
is there a recoil on rail guns? or is this a joke?
according to the experts at yahoo answers, there isn't recoil in the traditional sense, but there is recoil because physics and also it somehow forms babby.
I doubt the capacitors are actually much of a risk either - after all there's no need to have them charged until right before you fire. It'll only be that brief window when they've got a large charge but haven't yet fired that they'll be dangerous. Unlike missiles, conventional explosives, propellants, and fuel which are all a continuous danger as long as they're on board.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
F=MA. M = big, A = very fast, therefore F = big very fast!
So, teaching in current mathematics has come to this?
We're doomed.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I see that they are using a discarding sabot to keep from welding the projectile to the rails.
I don't see why there would be a red explosion at the end of the barrel when the projectile was launched if this was truly a railgun.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
If they were any smart, they'd speed up the development of such things as precision time-fused grenades for hand-held grenade launchers, such as the ones used in the XM25. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit in such humble endeavors.
Ezekiel 23:20
This is a technololgy that's almost there. Like laser weapons. Big chemical lasers that could shoot down shells or small missiles were built two decades ago, but they were building-sized installations, used huge amounts of hazardous chemicals, and took a long time to cool between shots. A decade ago, the THEL laser system had that down to three semi-trailers, but it still used big tanks of hazardous chemicals. Recently, big arrays of solid-state lasers have been used to shoot down shells and small missiles, and that system fits on a medium sized truck. The current version is only 10KW, and the consensus is that about 50KW to 100KW is needed to be really effective.
I believe the 'recoil' here would be experienced by the gun itself. The Lorentz force causes the opposite force to be directed at a right angle to the projectile. So there would be very little recoil in the traditional sense but the forces acting on the barrel would be much greater than in a traditional gun.
Info here, official visuals here. And look, there's another!
(That's last bit's a pun -- but believe me, you most likely didn't get it..)
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
let's see 23lbs @ 7333 fps is about 169,000 ft lbs or about 229,000 joules each second. If the projectile hits the target for about 1/500th of a second that's more or less 1.2 GigaWatts.
I'm curious how they've addressed the issues of these sorts of things tearing themselves apart. The article doesn't go into details. One has to assume since the overall price per projective was determine that this was factored into things. And the video seems to show something rather purposely placed there that gets destroyed in the launch process.
Anyone find further details?
The flames/fireball are similar to the the effects of say, a meteor entering Earth's atmoshere at high velocity...no fuel involved.
No trick here, just super heated air and plasma caused by friction, and maybe some 'fuel' from ablation of sabot and possibly projectile. ...
Similar principals enable deisel engines to combust fuel without a spark plug...compression causes friction, friction causes heat,
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Cooling generally is not an issue on ships. Nuclear reactors need a better cooling system than the capacitors do.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
F=MA. M = big, A = very fast, therefore F = big very fast!
So, teaching in current mathematics has come to this?
We're doomed.
If somebody asks whether accelerating a 23-lb mass to Mach 7 would push the thing accelerating it backward, we may have to go back to F=ma. And defining m=big and a=very fast seems appropriate. So, yeah, F=big very fast. Not perfect grammar, but at least it paints a picture for our friend who has yet to hear of Newton.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
is there a recoil on rail guns? or is this a joke?
The recoil is lower than a conventiomal chemical gun for the same projectile and speed because no gas is accelerated with the projectile.
However, rail guns tend to be immensely heavy beasts to withstand recoil and transversal electromagnetic forces.
No. There is always an opposing force. The 90 degree bit you are thinking of with the Lorentz force is the angle between the force generated and the magnetic field used to generate it. If the gun is applying a force on the projectile to launch it out, there is a force being applied backward on the gun.
I'm betting that $25K per shot includes the cost of launcher maintenance.
Even for military use, 10kg of solid projectile material shouldn't bill out at $25K.
The real purpose of these guns, is to entertain Slashdot, while siphoning Federal monies into private pockets for exciting boondoggles.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I just got a Slashdot Alpha page!!! Worse than the beta, it's Facebook comments!
I was expecting Quake 3 Arena's railgun type. :/
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
It looks scary, let's ban it !
Newtonian Physics 101: For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. So you want to launch a slug of metal at Mach 7, there's going to be an equivelant force pushing back on the gun and whatever it's mounted on. A plane just isn't going to survive those forces yet.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
The same reason that space vehicles and meteors burn the atmoshere when they encounter 'air' at high velocities.
The same thing that destroyed the space shuttle "Columbia"with damaged heat tiles on the wing edge when it re-entered.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
BAE had another contract for building more of these. How did GA get this? Do not get me wrong. I am happy to see this since rail guns are about the sanest approach to weapons. BUT, GA had lost the contract.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not really old news. THis is the winner of all that work. Prior to this, BAE and GA were competing to make these, which is not easy. And DDX has been gutted, so now, the focus is on putting railguns on current ships. Personally, I wish that they would make the DDX, but make it nukes so that it can have plenty of power to run motor, lasers and multiple railguns.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Keep in mind that while most of these shells are dummies, some of them will be smart shells with the ability to move a bit.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
https://imgur.com/gallery/TzwvO
The gun is off center so that the barrel firing is perfectly lined up with the center of the plane, otherwise it would crash. Not that it turns it.
You mean the A-10 that's going away?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
yup. However, far more likely, is that a smart warhead will be developed so that it can steer a bit around.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not quite. You can bet on it that they will ahve a smart shell that has fins/electronics so that it can move a couple of degrees around, which would be enough to handle moving targets.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well they better get the 'babby on board' signs up pronto! Who know what could happen if one of these ships gets rear ended.
That's true of the broader scene.
This project in particular seems to have some odd implications as well. I believe it's poor policy, contrary to our national interest, but nonetheless Washington is committed to encircling China with the Navy, and clearly this tech is intended to help with that. But I have to project the Chinese copying the tech rapidly. And this sort of weapon is going to be easier and cheaper to implement (not to mention much more accurate!) if you mount it on land instead of on a ship.
I suspect by the time the US Navy has a number of these weapons in operational use, the Chinese will counter with much larger number of similar, if less sophisticated, versions in fixed emplacements along their coast, and their position will be better, not worse as a result.
That is to say, it appears to be tech that swings the balance of power toward defense. Not necessarily a bad thing that, but if the governments purpose in developing this technology was defensive, they would not have gone to all the trouble to specifically implement this as a ship-portable weapon.
It's very neat tech, and I can understand some enthusiasm on a purely technical level, but on the level of 'good use of taxpayers money' I am afraid it is pure fail.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
In particular, for the ships, they need a replacement for Phalanx. Basically, imagine a gattling gun with these at say 8 megajoules rather than 64 mj that this uses. Simply fire small rounds to take out an incoming missile or plane that comes within 20 miles.
In addition, the house republicans need to allow the DOD to stop production on the M1A2. They want to upgrade the system so that it will have better protection from IEDs, but also so that the main gun can be replaced with this. A tank that can shot shells like this just 10 miles, but in particular, can do it with 3 second bursts, would be a major change in warfare.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm sure at some point, someone thought the same of missiles, cannons or even bow & arrows. Eventually, a defense will be discovered.
Likely doesn't matter if the ship you are bolting it to has a nuclear reactor on board. May birth a new type of nuclear ship, with a rail gun specialization.
Likely not usable without such a power source I would think. With that source, I doubt energy reserve will be the issue.
I think the issue will be one of materials. Subjecting a barrel to that kind of force and heat repeatedly is going to have a negative effect on it. If you take too many shots too quickly, you will likely damage it. I wonder how they cool it without causing additional hot/cold stress. Not to mention expansion issues.
From the vast majority of /. posts on this weapon the community resembles a bunch of 10 year old boys playing war and comparing and contrasting all kinds of minutiae without considering what are arguably the more important issues: Why do we need yet more efficient means of destruction? What purpose does it achieve? Instead of being raving fanboys have you considered the opportunity cost of the resources expended in such programs?
After all, isolationism worked so well in WWII ...
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
and now...and now...and now...it just keeps coming
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
The huge energy storage is ultimately the ship's diesel fuel, or what variant of heavy fuel oil it uses. That makes the logistics and storage easy (more accurately, already done).
Rear ending babby? Are you a Catholic priest?
That's a myth, look it up. Besides the GAU-8 cannon has always been off center with the firing barrel being at centerline.
Big Ass, Long Range, Overkill Gun.
Now, if it takes 60 seconds to charge and the bridge crew needs to don goggles to fire it... ;-)
that it will be very difficult or even impossible to make it a "smart" projectile. I'm guessing that even the most advanced electronics and guidance mechanics can not stand up to that G force. Anyone with expertise in these things please comment.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
We need shells that can reach 25,000 Mph... enough to reach low earth orbit. Correct me if I'm wrong on that number...
Then we can translate electricity directly into orbital launch capability.
Obviously useless for moving human beings or sensitive equipment. But for bulk supplies... fuel, air, structural material... maybe food... Suddenly we launch such things for a fraction of cost which means orbital habitats might be sustainable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The recoil is lower than a conventiomal chemical gun for the same projectile and speed because no gas is accelerated with the projectile.
The subjective perception of recoil is really a function of (given constant mass) jerk not acceleration.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
More accurate than an artillery shell, since it's moving faster and less effected by wind direction.
Amazing how long WWII is being milked to keep patriotism and massive military complex alive. Hell, it was before I was born! I wonder how may decades 9/11 will be used as a propaganda cry.
<Sarcasm>
Why are you all friendly towards Canada? They burnt down the White House!!!
Where is your hatred for Mexico? Don't you remember Alamo?!
Traitor!
</Sarcasm>
The fun part of these is because they travel so fast, when they finally hit something strong enough, they convert all their kinetic energy into thermal energy via compression, and then explode into a white hot mass of flying molten metal that looks pretty much like an explosion. Its pretty much the next best thing to having a kinetic bombardment satellite.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
When I was young, we had a pre-printed pad on the fridge for keeping track of chores and errand and whatnot. It was pre-printed:
Things to remember:
1. The Alamo
2. _________________
3. _________________
4. _________________
(etc).
But seriously, we really didn't want to get involved in WWII until it was far too late. Prevention is simply cheaper than emergency care, even in world politics. But it's been long enough that we've forgotten now, and while we'll save a few bucks gutting our military, it will cost us more if there's a major war in Asia, even if we don't get involved directly, when the global economy craters for a decade.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Thanks! so General Atomics won.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II is being retired very soon I believe.
I don't know whether to be happy that another science fiction article has become science fact; or, horrified at the future capability it represents. I know someone in a back room is wondering, "How large will this scale and still be viable inside the atmosphere?"
I'm unclear how widespread deployment of this weapon would have altered the course of any of the wars we've waged during my lifetime. And I'm 68 years old.
I'm pretty sure I saw that in Captain America: Winter Soldier last night. Now they just need to get it flying! :)
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
There is a youtube video where the weapon is initiated (fired isn't quite appropriate as there is no fire involved) and you can definitely see the barrel recoil within the gun base. The M114, 155mm howitzer firing the M107 he projectile masses at 43Kg and has a muzzle velocity of 564 m/s resulting in at least 24252 Kg*m/s of recoil; the railgun fires a 10 Kg projectile with a muzzle velocity of 2235 m/s resulting in 22350 Kg*m/s or 8% less recoil (power) than a howitzer; 1.3678128e7 J vs. 4.995225e9, but 365 times more energy.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
30MJ is about 2,000kW electrical for one round per second. Not that much power at these energy levels.
...A plane just isn't going to survive those forces yet.
William Gibson suggested mounting it in a blimp. Who cares about the blimp?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
That's a stupid way of phrasing it. The recoil is identical to a chemically propelled projectile. In other words the recoil is proportional to the mass and acceleration of the projectile and associated matter. The gun pushes on the projectile, the projectile pushes on the gun.
If the projectile goes one way, the gun goes the other. Lorentz forces happen in addition.
It's not about being the world's police. It's about stopping something that is clearly evil. Looking the other way is just as evil as cutting off someone's hand.
well, I do not understand this. Back in Dec, the DOD announced that BAE won. Now, they are testing GA's system. I have to wonder if BAE is going on to develop something else.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, they only need to do about 8MJ for the A10. Ideally, make a gattling gun type approach to it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What threat do you face when you spend alone 50% of worldwide military expenses? And it skyrockets to 80% if counting NATO allies.
And like I said, it's a stupid way of phrasing it. The physics are exactly the same.
Seems like a barrage should be able to form a wave that can capsize a boat. Go back in and salvage and you get an addition to your own navy. Our first naval battle did exactly that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
The plan is to protect ourselves with... uh... patents?
You mean the consequences of theft?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I just got a freedom boner.
My first thought was far too geeky - "mach 7 - I wonder if this could be used as a cheap way to test scramjet models".
A scramjet model I saw as far back as 1987 probably wasn't much bigger than the size of these projectiles. Progress has been so slow because shock tunnels give limited time at speed and testing via rocket is expensive and time consuming.
WTF are you talking about. Seriously. Lay off the weed.
The State of the American prison system where rape seems to be common and glorified as just punishment, torture in the form of solitary confinement is also common, 1 in a 100 American adults are there and you still have the medieval concept of felon where civil rights are removed permanently forming a segregated society.
Barbarianism comes in many forms though often with self righteousness.
(apologies if you're not American)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
1. How loud is it?
2. How hot does the projectile get after a mile at Mach 7?
I'm guessing:
1. Really loud.
2. Really hot.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Not much room needed for the projectiles, less danger of a powder room exploding, fine. But none of this seems to even mention: what is generating the massive amount of electrical energy required per shot? Not to mention rate of fire - how much time is needed to generate that power for each shot? That this is a very quiet elephant in the room implies it's pretty bad on both counts.
Between the dictators the US props up and the civilians it kills, and way the military industrial complex robs you blind, how about you OPEN your eyes?
"But I don't need to, it's already obvious!" -- every moron, ever
Perhaps you should watch few HBO TV shows. Oz wasn't real, only in your homoerotic fantasies.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
True, but in the general sense, "recoil" is usually the label given to the force applied to the gun moving in the opposed direction of the projectile, caused by an extremely rapid burn of propellant.
With this, there is no propellant - only magnetic force, applied in increasing amounts rather than all at once. And, you have an apparatus that weighs several tons to exert that magnetic force on something that weighs 23 pounds. Any opposed force (which exists) is completely mitigated by the construction of the thing, and how it's bolted / welded to the ship.
It's the same idea as using a spring in a ball point pen to launch the ink barrel a few feet - there is an opposed force from the spring trying to expand in both directions, but it's so minute compared to what it's pushing against, that it might as well not exist.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Am i the only one who finds our race to destryoy more shit more quickly disturbing?
All I'm saying is if we're going to be 'stopping evil', how about we finish up in our own country first before we force our military, and the taxes that pay for it, into someone else's business.
And we've got a long fucking way to go.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Yeah - Go pedantics! Big can be size, weight, importance, etc... Knee-jerking "big"=="size" is like saying that the "shortest" route home means plowing through walls, cars, etc, rather than going to my car and taking the "quickest" route home. Yes, "fast" is "speed", but when you're referencing F=ma, I think that "getting something big to move fast" implies changing the velocity of a given mass. How close to Kindergarten do we need to get?
Well, I'm arguing with an AC on an article a day old that will probably never be read. Maybe a day of Kindergarten is what we all need.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
If you are confused because it can't travel further, it's the end result of wind resistance on the projectile.
The danger of high explosives maybe offset if you would need a nuclear reactor onboard
There are few organizations that have more experience with, and a better operating record of nuclear power than the United States Navy.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Did you reply to the right post?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Being 100 miles away, it is likely difficult for a truck full of [assholes|explosives|fuel|supplies] to know that there is a 10.5kg tungsten lump flying at them. You can't do evasive maneuvers against something you don't know is there.
Also, bridges, runways, radar installations, and electrical infrastructure don't move a whole lot.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Wrestling holds to avoid:
1> Half Nelson
2> Full Nelson
3> Father Nelson
No brain, no pain.
Sure is.
Also a big difference between watching a beating and acting to stop it.
No brain, no pain.
To entertain Slashdot, wouldn't it be more economical to skip the railgun and go straight to the pr0n?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Refit the USS Missouri and USS New Jersey with railguns and nuke propulsion systems Imagine the broadside coming down on your position... Now my son asks if the railguns could put something in LEO? Help! BTW... Battlewagons rule!
I'd rather seem them launched at Windows 8.
Is that more or less than 100megaton yeild at PoI?
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Whoops, no not 100megaton only about 16 pounds of TNT, I guess that is equal to a bomb vest, but far more specific targeting.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?