Jump to content

cool breeze

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cool breeze

  1. Ok there s one of em in theater we need em in -game STAT!
  2. I like that theory! I mean chemical rockets are, like, why would you choose sub 400 ISP over 10,000+ ISP? As if the brass were really afraid to use nukes... This idea also explains how super cool Freeman Dyson's explanation is off. But still gives reason for the guys in the documentary to be disappointed, they wanted to publicly colonize the stars with massive rockets, not do a clandestine exploration mission. Hmmmmmmm. Did you come up with that one? maybe you should write a book Oh and for those of you who don't know, ISP is about how fast you shoot out the exhaust. Since rocket engines throw stuff out the back to push themselves forward, their speed is limited by how much stuff they have to throw out the back and how hard/fast they throw it. Chemical rockets barely throw the stuff out fast enough to get into orbit, almost all of the weight of the vehicle has to be used up as fuel to get there. Other rockets, like an ion drive, have high ISP, but they have terrible thrust to weight ratios so they can't do anything but send small probes on super long missions. But these nuclear pogostick ships have huge thrust to weight and huge ISP. They throw the stuff out over 20 times faster so they can use less than 1/20th the fuel for the same amount of acceleration. So if you were to use it for example to get to orbit you could get there with most of it still left instead of almost all used up. But it helps just as much once you are up there.
  3. Turns out I focused on some of the more extreme versions, they made plans for a smaller one that could ride a Saturn 5 to orbit. It would detonate a bomb every .86 seconds. edit to add. actually both 10m diameter and 20m diameter designs looked at in this study used a bomb every .86 seconds. The 20m design was expected to give a thrust to weight ratio of 3 or 4, and an ISP of 10,000 to 20,000. vs the 400 ISP we are working on approaching with chemical rockets.
  4. Thanks for the upload! I'm reading it for my first time, I just saw a documentary on it before. Whuddya think?
  5. Speaking of people getting too scared of nukes, have any of you heard or read about Project Orion? basically the coolest thing ever and a good reason to not be a big fan of NASA. Before NASA and the space shuttle, we were working on building a huge super heavy, submarine style construction, spaceship that used nuclear explosions for exhaust instead of rocket fuel. It had a big steel plate on the bottom, mounted to a huge shock absorber, so that you could detonate a bomb right bellow it and the explosion would push up the heavy plate which would push up the space ship. kind of like a pogo stick into space, doing not a double jump, but 800 jumps, into orbit. The bombs go off ever 3 seconds or so. The calculated back then that with their not as clean bombs it would kill 0-1 person world wide via radiation poisoning. One of the really cool things about it is that the size/weight of the ship doesn't really effect the amount of radiation and nuclear material required. The bombs have enough energy that basically no matter how much extra mass you put in em, the specific thrust is still going to be Extremely high, so to lift a bigger ship you just put more chemical explosives and plastic filler or whatever filler to make the bombs bigger but not particularly more powerful. By adding mars or titan rocks to the bombs for the return trip, you can go there and back with 100 people or more and lots of equipment, and back, all with the single stage giant space ship. It also hold the solution to this whole Ukraine, Russia, US, West, extended cold war thing we have going. Ukraine used to be the heart of the soviet space program. Everything's kinda f@#%ed now, but all we need to do is stop fighting and do a joint US, Russia, Ukraine and maybe whoever else modern Project Orion 2.0, main base Ukraine, and have Russia and US and anyone else turn some or all of their nukes into rocket powering mini bombs.
  6. Yeah, I've read a few pieces now on how the energy output of the storms is too big to be effected by the nuke but its seems like a pretty lazy way to say it wont work and it seems like its kind of ignoring the mechanism for how it is proposed to work. People keep talking about hourly energy outputs of the whole hurricane. Doesn't seem all that relevant to me, its not about overpowering the hurricane with an hour long process, its about destroying the structure of the hurricane. Seems almost like saying " you cant destroy a tanks engine with a 120mm sabot round because the tank can shoot 30 of those within an hour"
  7. The breaching kits arn't for doors, all doors are considered unlocked/easily broken in the game
  8. I thought the main thing we used the concrete bombs for was the air campaign in Iraq in order to hit the AA guns that would be place right NEXT to the buildings.
  9. Its hard to believe that was a real thing that they spent substantial money on.
  10. I also hear wheels are soon to be obsolete as we fly around in hovercars
  11. I've got a lot more respect for slat armour after seeing it work, Thanks! Watched a related youtube video after the simulation about the Philippines army using wood to protect against HEAT, the end of the clip showed a test where it apeared to work! who'da thunk?!
  12. Meanwhile Germany continues to impress the world with their level of commitment to a united defense. Wait is Lucas really german or am I thinking of someone else
  13. As off the mark as Sparks is on a lot of things.... I think he has some good idea's in there. If for some reason we ever wanted/needed tons of APC/IFV fast for cheap upgrading the m113 seems like it might work. I also think the containerized force/ "battle-box" concept or whatever he calls it has some merit. And while it seems unworkable in most cases, the idea of making an alternative road network during an occupation is at least an interesting idea.
  14. Ah so thats the real reason for those warhammer 40000 ork tanks to have all the choppers and such, gotta cut down the trees for the wood burners as they drive!
  15. Omg Pansersourkrout, your secrets out...... you are secretly a big Gavin fan! I knew it Edit: Or maybe I mean Sparks
  16. MikeyD, mostly right but you are either using some nomenclature I'm not aware of or you are missing the one that's actually being talked about, the recon m113, whatever its called. You start the first mission of the battle pack with a recon platoon that has the big a$$ camera next to the weapon.
  17. Kulik's quick and dirty seems legit but otherwise I for my 2 cents think its fine as is.
  18. frag density is squared but blast goes one power up since the pressure decreases as the volume increases.
  19. I think people just feel they are over modelled cause it feels bad to have that big tank n big gun not work
  20. I think that if BFC does ever change the artillery/tank and especially airburst/tank relationship, at this point they probably owe HerrTom a line in the credits and at least a free copy of the next game Its amazing how close your results were to the test.
  21. All this work you guys have been doing is SO impressive!! Thanks!
  22. That about matches my intuition on it. I imagine your already on it but I'd love to see the penetration estimates on those big fragments.
  23. Sometimes not all your assets should be used offensively.
  24. Thanks for the amazing work HerrTom. Sorry for being a jerk CptMiller, was just having a rough day didn't mean to take it out on you.
  • Create New...