Macross - Mecha, Weapons, and Technology

[Ithekro]

Brings up the question: is it a matter of "dodging laser" or more in effect dodging fire control computers and or mechanisms that move said laser's firing aperture (assuming they are not fixed (or relatively fixed) emplacements due to size)?

[Daigo]

It's easier for a laser turret to aim at a target, than it is for a fighter to miraculously dodge a laser pulse moving at the speed of light. The size of the hardware for the laser isn't a problem, since the turret mounting doesn't have to rotate that hardware, it just redirects the beam.

Some articles of note, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_...h-Energy_Laser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser

Both turrets have huge firing arcs, and can target anything in those arcs, and the beams hit at the speed of light (in an atmosphere). Both have demonstrated shooting down artillery and missiles in mid-flight.

In the future, it may even be easier to aim at targets, because you could just use a phased array. We don't know how to build one for lasers yet, but it's theoretically possible.

[Ithekro]

Laser as weapon question: Since a laser is basically light, wouldn't a reflective surface deflect a laser weapon's beam?

If that were to become standard, then a laser would be an ineffective weapon in space combat, thus bringing things back down to potential beam weapons (possibly slower than light), that would probably require a heavier mount, thus move slower (because any mass movement has an effect in space).

Macross weapons seems to fit the description of beam weapons more than lasers anyway. Thus if we go on that level, we are talking dodging beam emplacements, rather than lasers.

[Daigo]

No, mirrors won't work as armor. From the Atomic Rocket website that I've linked to a few times,

"The best finish you can reasonably expect to keep on an exterior surface, will still absorb 10-20% of the incident energy, which will be enough to burn through the outer layer on the first pulse. And the rough and now hot interior will be even less reflective."

Beam weapons hit at a touch lower than the speed of light. For our purposes, the difference is negligible.

[Tri-ring]

Again showing ignorance.
One thing is right, no mirror will not be able to defend against weapon grade lasers because basically mirrors are just sheet of metal with a glass coating, but in space size does matter since it is nearly impossible to make visual contact. So the smaller the vehicle the more difficult to track and more difficult to distinguish between decoys and the real thing.
One more difficulty in space is that larger vehicles needs to be gaurded 360 degrees.
Unlike on the sea there is no up or down so an attack can come from ANY direction.
Another problem is lasers can not be shot indefinitely because it builds up heat which is difficult to dissipate in space and speed does have advantage over turrents because although light travels at 300,000Km/s the turrents does not and once at close range the turrents and tracking mechanism will need to keep up with the speed of small vehicles flying around.
Prism assisted targeting can only do so much in terms of angle correction.

By the way you really do not understand what I am pointing at concerning projectiles from orbital railguns do you.
A projectile shot out from a rail gun will behave like a charged particle since inherently they need to be charged to be shot out and velocity of the projectile will be around mache 10.
Thus lorentz force applied to the projectile will be;



F is the force (in newtons)
E is the electric field (in volts per meter)
B is the magnetic field (in teslas)
q is the electric charge of the particle (in coulombs)
v is the instantaneous velocity of the particle (in meters per second)

Meaning torque applied to the projectile to veer off becomes stronger with velocity. The earth's magnetic field B is also under constant flux so the projectile is moving at constant studder.
It's not just the conductivity of the projectile's material that pulls the projectile but combination of various factors that works in conjuction that makes rail guns in orbit inherently inaccurate to be ever used as a "sniper weapon" in the sky.

[Ithekro]

Hense why a friend and I were working on the concept of a "Bus Gun". Basically a railgun/mass driver, that fired objects the mass (or perhaps size) of a bus in a projectory (or from orbit) to strike cities. Mass and velocity you know. No nuclear radiation, no biological warfare, no chemical warfare...just straight up conventional-like weapon of mass destructon. A mass that size aimed against a stationary target that large can afford a little inaccuracy.

However the Macross Cannons are more effective that such a weapon.

[Daigo]

Tri-ring, saying I'm showing ignorance is not a good way to score points with me. I already said I will ignore any points you make if you levy a personal attack. We're having a discussion, be polite, and phrase your points in a more polite manner.

Hense why a friend and I were working on the concept of a "Bus Gun". Basically a railgun/mass driver, that fired objects the mass (or perhaps size) of a bus in a projectory (or from orbit) to strike cities. Mass and velocity you know. No nuclear radiation, no biological warfare, no chemical warfare...just straight up conventional-like weapon of mass destructon. A mass that size aimed against a stationary target that large can afford a little inaccuracy.

Someone already beat you to it.

See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_kill_vehicle
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#rbomb

And a novel which deals with these so called, R-Bombs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Star

To give you an idea of how powerful these weapons are, a 1kg mass traveling at 99% of the speed of light would have a kinetic energy of 5.47×1017 joules. In explosive terms, it would be equal to 132 megatons of TNT. The largest atomic bomb ever detonated had an explosive yield of about 57 megatons, with a theoretical max of 100 megatons. It had a mass of 27 tonnes or 27,000kg!

Incidentally, you can hit and kill small targets with hypervelocity weapons or relativistic weapons just by shattering the slug into swarms of particles, all moving at almost the same relative velocity.

[Ithekro]

Responding to scientific critizism by not responding in more arrogance ,is it not? The responces may not be to your liking because they seem to be personal, but that does not invalidate the science.

Rather than ignore, it might be better to either discuss, or admit the err in one's own logic. Just brushing it off without either makes one look worse in most situations.

This is not about scoring points. I'd rather have an answer than a brush off.

(Though it isn't much about Macross either, but the laws of physics can be addressed when one is taking about weapons systems that are on the Macross. It does have railguns and there effect would be most interesting if viable. The Macross Cannon does more, but it's recharge rate and.or power consumtion makes it limited us, does it not.)

[Tri-ring]

There are ways to compensate inaccuracy of projectiles shot from rail guns from space once it enters earth's atmosphere like the JDAM system and/or systems utilized within the XM982 Excalibur but it will need extended field testing since the difference in velocity of gravity bombs and a projectile that travels at mache 10~20 is off the chart.
Returning to the original point it maybe alot cheaper to just drop bombs from a carrier.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Again showing ignorance.
One thing is right, no mirror will not be able to defend against weapon grade lasers because basically mirrors are just sheet of metal with a glass coating, but in space size does matter since it is nearly impossible to make visual contact. So the smaller the vehicle the more difficult to track and more difficult to distinguish between decoys and the real thing.

The real thing is the one hot from propulsion and life support.

One more difficulty in space is that larger vehicles needs to be gaurded 360 degrees.
Unlike on the sea there is no up or down so an attack can come from ANY direction.
Another problem is lasers can not be shot indefinitely because it builds up heat which is difficult to dissipate in space and speed does have advantage over turrents because although light travels at 300,000Km/s the turrents does not and once at close range the turrents and tracking mechanism will need to keep up with the speed of small vehicles flying around.
Prism assisted targeting can only do so much in terms of angle correction.

By the way you really do not understand what I am pointing at concerning projectiles from orbital railguns do you.
A projectile shot out from a rail gun will behave like a charged particle since inherently they need to be charged to be shot out and velocity of the projectile will be around mache 10.
Thus lorentz force applied to the projectile will be;



F is the force (in newtons)
E is the electric field (in volts per meter)
B is the magnetic field (in teslas)
q is the electric charge of the particle (in coulombs)
v is the instantaneous velocity of the particle (in meters per second)

Meaning torque applied to the projectile to veer off becomes stronger with velocity. The earth's magnetic field B is also under constant flux so the projectile is moving at constant studder.
It's not just the conductivity of the projectile's material that pulls the projectile but combination of various factors that works in conjuction that makes rail guns in orbit inherently inaccurate to be ever used as a "sniper weapon" in the sky.

From a quick look at wikipedia on railguns - projectiles aren't charged. They're just conductive. The electrons moving inside, of course, are charged, and your Lorentz force moves it all forward.

Also, in flux or not, Earth's magnetic field is weak.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

From a quick look at wikipedia on railguns - projectiles aren't charged. They're just conductive. The electrons moving inside, of course, are charged, and your Lorentz force moves it all forward.

Also, in flux or not, Earth's magnetic field is weak.

Any and all conductive material contains an electrical charge.
The earth's magnetic field is around 24,000 - 66,000 nT or 0.000024-0.000066T the strongest magnetic field by a magnet by the way is around 1.38T.
The speed of mach 10 is approx. 3400M/s, q is larger than 1.
so it is around 0.22 Newton;

or up to 0.22G as a lateral force constantly nudging the projectile sideways.
Multiply that with the time square it reaches the target and you have an approximation of the distance it moves in a lateral direction.(not knowing whether it be north, south, west or east of course)

To give you an idea of how powerful these weapons are, a 1kg mass traveling at 99% of the speed of light would have a kinetic energy of 5.47×1017 joules. In explosive terms, it would be equal to 132 megatons of TNT. The largest atomic bomb ever detonated had an explosive yield of about 57 megatons, with a theoretical max of 100 megatons. It had a mass of 27 tonnes or 27,000kg!

Oh, I forgot although I will not say it is impossible but with current knowledge it is improbable that we will be able to accelerate Kilogram of mass to the speed of 0.99c due to special theory of relativity.
Long story short the faster the velocity more mass we need to accelerate.
With present technology we are only capable of accelerating a Hydrogen to that velocity using the newly built particle accelerator.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Any and all conductive material contains an electrical charge.

Didn't know that.

The earth's magnetic field is around 24,000 - 66,000 nT or 0.000024-0.000066T the strongest magnetic field by a magnet by the way is around 1.38T.
The speed of mach 10 is approx. 3400M/s, q is larger than 1.

Where did you get that number? For what mass of projectile?

so it is around 0.22 Newton;

or up to 0.22G as a lateral force constantly nudging the projectile sideways.
Multiply that with the time square it reaches the target

OK, I admit, that does add up to a lot.

and you have an approximation of the distance it moves in a lateral direction.(not knowing whether it be north, south, west or east of course)

If Earth's magnetic field was that random, compasses would be useless.

And what about using a conductive sabot around a projectile that won't carry a strong charge?

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Didn't know that.


Where did you get that number? For what mass of projectile?


OK, I admit, that does add up to a lot.

If Earth's magnetic field was that random, compasses would be useless.

And what about using a conductive sabot around a projectile that won't carry a strong charge?

All written within Wiki as gerneral information.
I haven't incorporated mass within the calculation which does act as resistance from the torque force but the equation to obtain lateral torque does not require mass within the equation.

As you can see within the picture below magnetic force varies within regions but (generally) it flows from north to south so compass will work.



There are locations on earth that a compass does not work at all because of a regional magnetic hot spot making the needle spin.
Here is the page on Earth's magnetic field in Wiki who are interested.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

All written within Wiki as gerneral information.

Not the charge of the projectile.

I haven't incorporated mass within the calculation which does act as resistance from the torque force but the equation to obtain lateral torque does not require mass within the equation.

First Law of Inertia. For the same force, twice the mass means half the acceleration.

As you can see within the picture below magnetic force varies within regions but (generally) it flows from north to south so compass will work.



There are locations on earth that a compass does not work at all because of a regional magnetic hot spot making the needle spin.
Here is the page on Earth's magnetic field in Wiki who are interested.

I can't read that map. I mean, what does "-20T" mean? That the magnetic field there is 20nT below some average? In that case, considering that the considered field is of the order of 50µT, that's pretty negligible. It also doesn't say how much it varies at any given time. If it's easy to get an up-to-date map, all it does is complexify a bit the computation.

And about the "magnetic hotspots"... Aren't those caused by the presence of iron or some such? While it does have an influence while you're right in the middle of it, from a few kilometers away, they become a non issue.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Not the charge of the projectile.


First Law of Inertia. For the same force, twice the mass means half the acceleration.



I can't read that map. I mean, what does "-20T" mean? That the magnetic field there is 20nT below some average? In that case, considering that the considered field is of the order of 50µT, that's pretty negligible. It also doesn't say how much it varies at any given time. If it's easy to get an up-to-date map, all it does is complexify a bit the computation.

And about the "magnetic hotspots"... Aren't those caused by the presence of iron or some such? While it does have an influence while you're right in the middle of it, from a few kilometers away, they become a non issue.

As I wrote. the equation to obtain lateral torque force does not require Mass as a variable and that Mass acts as a resistance as you have explained.
As for flux within a given time, you'll have to read about the dynamo effect and counter effect from solar flares to fully understand.
Tesla is a unit to explain magnetic flux density,　whenever there is a positive charge there will always be a negative charge. So instead of a push you'll have a pull effect thus a major swing in the equation.
As for conductive material read here.

[Ithekro]

Interesting.


Actual defense of a craft in space would be 720 degrees however. All arcs.

Heat can probably be either masks, simulated, or applied to decoys and small craft to fool sensors, thus returning to the use of small warcraft against larger warcraft.

Numbers of smaller warcraft could overwhelm the defense systems of a larger vessel depending on how much heat the defense systems generate verses how much heat the vessel can stand in combat. While the smaller warchraft can't take much heat or damage verse the larger craft, if their onboard weapon system is effective enough to use against the larger vessel, they will be a threat. This in combination with the smaller warcraft's mother ship, and escort vessels, would make for a dire situation against a smaller number of large warships depending on the level of technology, number of weapons, types of weapons, and ability to sustain damage and put out damage in multiple arcs of fire.

The smaller craft may be cheaper to produce than the larger warships as well, thus a possible cost saving measure, both in money and materials.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

As I wrote. the equation to obtain lateral torque force does not require Mass as a variable and that Mass acts as a resistance as you have explained.
As for flux within a given time, you'll have to read about the dynamo effect and counter effect from solar flares to fully understand.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

Tesla is a unit to explain magnetic flux density,

Yes.

　whenever there is a positive charge there will always be a negative charge.

What are you talking about?

So instead of a push you'll have a pull effect thus a major swing in the equation.

OK, I have no idea what you're talking about.

As for conductive material read here.

Nowhere in that does it say conductive materials are charged. It says they contain movable electric charges. That's not the same thing at all. Just because a metal wire's full of free electrons doesn't mean it doesn't have the corresponding number of protons.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Interesting.


Actual defense of a craft in space would be 720 degrees however. All arcs.

Heat can probably be either masks, simulated, or applied to decoys and small craft to fool sensors, thus returning to the use of small warcraft against larger warcraft.

If the enemy sees how much heat you're using on propulsion and how much you accelerate, they'll have an idea of your mass. Passing as a bigger ship may prove difficult. Same thing for the decoys. If you want to pass for a big ship, you practically have to be a big ship. I guess that, at a distance, one non-accelerating hot spot may look like another. But that's of dubious use.

Numbers of smaller warcraft could overwhelm the defense systems of a larger vessel depending on how much heat the defense systems generate verses how much heat the vessel can stand in combat. While the smaller warchraft can't take much heat or damage verse the larger craft, if their onboard weapon system is effective enough to use against the larger vessel, they will be a threat. This in combination with the smaller warcraft's mother ship, and escort vessels, would make for a dire situation against a smaller number of large warships depending on the level of technology, number of weapons, types of weapons, and ability to sustain damage and put out damage in multiple arcs of fire.

The smaller craft may be cheaper to produce than the larger warships as well, thus a possible cost saving measure, both in money and materials.

Missiles are cheaper and faster than small crafts. No need for life support, or for enough fuel to come back.

[Ithekro]

Angles and force multiplication. Small craft can carry missiles as well. The effectiveness of said missile is what would need to be deturmined. Sure your large vessel could generate as many missiles as there are small craft plus missiles. But does it have the weapon mounts to launch that number at one time? And can it do so from multiple angles on the main target at once? Probably not.

And who said anything about making a smaller ship seem like a larger one? The point is to make the real ship and decoy look the same on sensors. If one is operating small craft, then the decoys would be roughly the same size as the small craft. The alternative is to use the decoys as a weapon as well, thus all targets are a threat, just that one is a greater threat hidden with the rest of them.

[Anh_Minh]

Considering the distances that would probably involved in space combat, I do not believe that "mount points" would be an issue. You'd see the enemy coming from a long way away, and would then both work hard to get close enough to hurt each other. That would leave you all the time in the world to launch your missiles one by one and program them to arrive on target at the same time.

Also, you shouldn't compare missiles and small craft one for one. You should take into account how much one small craft weight, and how much volume it takes. How many missiles could you cram with that?

As for decoys... They'd have to have the same weight and power as a small craft. So forget the small craft, make your decoys missiles, and go ram the enemy with them. What's the point of sending a guy to die in a tin can? As I said... a manned small craft is a smaller threat than a missiles. And more expensive to boot.

[Ithekro]

You may be correct. However I still thing such a vessel type will have its uses and promoters within the military.