Author Topic: How they might destroy the Gargant  (Read 34346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
The sensors will be susceptible to them if nothing else is (as is proven in missions occurring in volatile nebula). If you can do nothing else with EMP missiles, you can drown your own EM signature onto the EMP. Of course this would effectively screw your own sensors too. It could be useful if you had dumbfire missiles and a capital ship to shoot at, and you wanted enemy interceptors not to get a lock on you.

I always wondered why can't you launch Cyclops and Helios missiles in dumbfire mode. Would be useful if you could press the button to toggle Aspect Locking On/Off. It'd be On by default to prevent mistakes, but the pilot should be able to embty the belly of the bomber without gaining lock, at least if the target is as big as a Ravana or so.

Anyway, the point is that if you shield your sensors for EMP's they won't be seeing very much anything else either. Thus at least one part of ship will always be prone to EMP's.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
First load up the stilletos and disable the beast.

second disarm it.

third destroy all subsystems.

THEN use

The Reflex cannon from Robotech powered up with naquadria from Stargate would be be a good energy weapon to use against Gargant.

Use antimatter/ meson warhead missiles.

if it still survives, start considering magic (Ultima sounds goood)
It's hard to see the moral high ground if you're standing in the mud.-NeoBSG

Wise man say: No such thing as overkill, only "FIRE!" and "RELOAD!"

TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO DIE!

 
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
Or track into substace, then destroy both ends by detonating 2 destroyers filled with meson/antimatter/extremely powerful explosive.
It's hard to see the moral high ground if you're standing in the mud.-NeoBSG

Wise man say: No such thing as overkill, only "FIRE!" and "RELOAD!"

TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO DIE!

  
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
Woomeister has already said "no collapsing jump nodes".

Do you have ANY idea how many Stiletto III's it would take to disable the Gargant? I don't know how many engines it has, but I'm assuming it's something like the Sathanas in that respect, which means multiple engines to destroy, and then little missiles like Stilettos have almost no effect. Even Helios bombs on the engines would probably not work. It would take forever... and the Gargant would have plenty of opportunity to leave during that time, like if it noticed that some damage had been done.

I just checked back a few pages and Woomeister said "Gargant has no engine subsystem to destroy." So I'd forget about disabling it.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2006, 10:06:11 am by Dark Hunter »
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -DEATH, Discworld

"You can fight like a krogan, run like a leopard, but you'll never be better than Commander Shepard!"

 

Offline Woomeister

  • Infyrno Missile
  • Moderator
  • 213
    • Inferno SCP
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
Woomeister has already said "no collapsing jump nodes".

Do you have ANY idea how many Stiletto III's it would take to disable the Gargant? I don't know how many engines it has, but I'm assuming it's something like the Sathanas in that respect, which means multiple engines to destroy, and then little missiles like Stilettos have almost no effect. Even Helios bombs on the engines would probably not work. It would take forever... and the Gargant would have plenty of opportunity to leave during that time, like if it noticed that some damage had been done.

I just checked back a few pages and Woomeister said "Gargant has no engine subsystem to destroy." So I'd forget about disabling it.
If I gave it an engine it would be a 5% of hull one which means you would need 144230 Stiletto III's to destroy the subsystem.

 
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
 :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

*in a small voice* we could use white holes
« Last Edit: April 06, 2006, 01:24:45 pm by 214 »

    |[===---(-         
    ||
 =(||==)_
    ||_____|
 =(||==)
    ||                   
    |[===---(-                             

"Take my love. Take my land. Take me where I cannot stand. I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me. Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back. Burn the land boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me. There's no place I can be since I've found Serenity. But you can't take the sky from me." - Ballad of Serenity

 
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
That is a random comment. :rolleyes:

How exactly did you arrive at that number?
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -DEATH, Discworld

"You can fight like a krogan, run like a leopard, but you'll never be better than Commander Shepard!"

 

Offline Woomeister

  • Infyrno Missile
  • Moderator
  • 213
    • Inferno SCP
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
(5% of Gargant hull strength) divided by (Damage missile does*subsystem damage factor*Gargant armour class)

 

Offline Woomeister

  • Infyrno Missile
  • Moderator
  • 213
    • Inferno SCP
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
and if I calculated that one right it would take 167 Apocalypse bombs to destroy the subsystem. It would take 10010 Apocalypse bombs to destroy the Gargant taking into account the new armour values. (since the subsystem damage of that bomb is far greater than the hull damage)

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
GTVA duplication of the Shivan induced-supernova technology. Blow up the star when it comes into Ross 128 and see how well it does.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Woomeister

  • Infyrno Missile
  • Moderator
  • 213
    • Inferno SCP
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
Oh if you want an estimate of how many shots from the Icanus main gun you would need to destroy it, it's around 250.

 
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
wowzers!!!! um, can you tell us exactly how you ARE going to blow it up (assuming that 1. you're going to use it, and 2. you are going to have it destroyed)?

and btw, I tried telling Dark Hunter how to calculate the damage, but naturally, he didn't listen. . . .

    |[===---(-         
    ||
 =(||==)_
    ||_____|
 =(||==)
    ||                   
    |[===---(-                             

"Take my love. Take my land. Take me where I cannot stand. I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me. Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back. Burn the land boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me. There's no place I can be since I've found Serenity. But you can't take the sky from me." - Ballad of Serenity

 

Offline Woomeister

  • Infyrno Missile
  • Moderator
  • 213
    • Inferno SCP
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
I didn't say we were going to blow it up.

 

Offline Mehrpack

  • 28
  • Flying Monkey
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
actually, the term "warp" in star trek is only loosely related to actual warping. How do you explain the stars flying by the side of the ship, a tear in normal space wouldn't have those. . . .   :D

also, sorry about the emp flub-up, it was a guess, I should have said that on the other post. . . .  :mad:

hi,
heh, doesnt ask me :D.

maybe the subspace in Startrek are transparent  ;7 i ask me that too, but in the books are no really explain, only that it´s like that.

Nukes dont create EMP's unless there is a magenetic feild and an atmosphere present.

Either way, the cyclops is probably an antimatter bomb.

mhh doesnt know that, but i think then it need only a magenetic field.
if then need an atmosphere too, to create an EMP, why the USA and CCCP plan to use mini-nuke to disable satellites in the orbit of the earth?

Mehrpack
Nobody is Perfect.
attention: this english is dangerours and terrible, runaway so fast you can!

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
As far as I'm concerned, every nuke produces an EMP regardless of conditions.

If the nuke goes off in an atmosphere, there is a boost in EMP, because the bomb heats and ionizes the air around the center of explosion, and when the mechanical energy of the shockwave causes the charged particles (ions) to accelerate, they emit electromagnetic radiation.

Thus a nuke exploding in a vacuum doesn't have as strong an EMP effect than a nuke going off having some gas around it. The atmosphere converts a part of the mechanical energy onto radiation, whereas in vacuum it would be "spare energy".
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
In reply to Mehrpack: umm, we only need mini-nukes on satellites, because teh satellites are so stinkin' small. Heck, in "James Bond: Die Another Day," they were *going* to blow up a satellite with an ICBM with a nuke on the tip. . . . .

    |[===---(-         
    ||
 =(||==)_
    ||_____|
 =(||==)
    ||                   
    |[===---(-                             

"Take my love. Take my land. Take me where I cannot stand. I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me. Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back. Burn the land boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me. There's no place I can be since I've found Serenity. But you can't take the sky from me." - Ballad of Serenity

 
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
I don't think it's about mechanical energy or shockwave accelerating charged particles.
EMP in low altitude nuclear explosion is produced when gamma- and X-rays hit electrons away from gas atoms through Compton scattering causing charge separation in atmosphere. Ground on the other hand absorps gamma rays and this scattering effect doesn't happen in ground. Now the charge separation is asymmetric and we have a strong electric field which induces electric currents and that causes intense electromagnetic emissions. This whole thing is over in fractions of microseconds, long before hydrodynamic separation occurs. Thus mechanical shockwave doesn't play a role in the formation of EMP.

High altitude EMPs are produced when Compton recoil electrons in high atmosphere are trapped in Earth's magnetic field causing them to spiral (probably horizontally if they were travelling vertically in the first place). This movement of electrons creates an electromagnetic pulse directed downwards.

Then there are weaker magnetohydrodynamic EMPs, that for example can be caused when plasma or ionized fireball from the explosion travels through Earth's magnetic field. This distorts the magnetic field and can induce voltage spikes in long conductors like power transmission lines.

 
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
first off, when you post on a topic, make sure that you read one page ahead before posting, if not two.      :hopping: :hopping: :hopping:

We were not talking about EMPs rocketing through space, we were talking about projectiles rocketing through space. . . .

and in response to an early post, we use EMPs in the atmosphere because thatis the easiest way to spread the "shield" if you will.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2006, 09:35:32 pm by 214 »

    |[===---(-         
    ||
 =(||==)_
    ||_____|
 =(||==)
    ||                   
    |[===---(-                             

"Take my love. Take my land. Take me where I cannot stand. I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me. Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back. Burn the land boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me. There's no place I can be since I've found Serenity. But you can't take the sky from me." - Ballad of Serenity

 
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
Huh...? :wtf:
I was replying to Herra Tohtori who implied that EMPs are caused by mechanical energy of the shockwave accelerating charged particles. In that context my post was relevant.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: How they might destroy the Gargant
Agreed.

Now, this will be my last off-topic message about EMP's, but here goes:

-The effects of EMP in electronics are caused by, well, electromagnetic pulse. Which is, essentially, an intense burst of electromagnetic radiation. Rapidly changing electromagnetic field induces electric current onto closed circuits, which causes erratic behaviour or, if the current is strong enough, damages components permanently.

What then causes the pulse itself? I've always thought it was the radiation from the explosion itself. If I understood youre last message right, nukephile, it would say that EMP is caused by radiation ionizing the particles in atmosphere asymmetrically, which causes differences in amounts of free charged particles in atmosphere and resulting in strong electric fields.

I think this is somehow related to what I wrote, except that I wrote my message a tad bit unclear so let me make it a bit more clear.

Let's first consider a nuke going off in vacuum, right? In nuclear reaction fissionable material releases some fotons, usually of gamma/röntgen wave lengths. Some part of the energy also goes onto kinetic energy of reaction result particles; this can also be seen as thermal energy. The gamma/röntgen burst itself counts as an EMP, though its main effects are not on electric circuits...

If there's an atmosphere around the bomb, intense radiation heats the matter around the bomb so much that it effectively ionizes quite a bit. When these particles in close proximity to bomb go through multiple absorption-emission-cycles, they change much of gamma/röntgen radiation onto more reasonable wavelengths, ie. infra-red and visible light. Also some amount of radiowaves is emitted at little further from the center of the explosion.

Also, when you detonate a nuke in upper atmosphere in the part which is called ionosphere you have to remember that the gas there is already effectively ionized. So, the punch of gamma/röntgen burst heats the ionosphere around the bomb, which causes the ions as charged particles emit electromagnetic radiation. To my knowledge, this is the phenomoneon that makes the EMP especially strong hen a nuke detonates in ionosphere.

Compton scattering on the other hand is yet another phenomenon, that relates to Röntgen diffraction and stuff... I don't think it's necessary to pull that to this matter, it just complicates things. Basically, the whole stuff is as simple as this: accelerating charged particles emit electromagnetic radiation. The bomb's intense radiation heats a wide area of ionized gas to tremendous temperatures, resulting in very fast acceleration of the charged particles in bomb's proximity. Which then shows itself to us as

a. mechanical energy in form of fast increase of the volume of the gas (shockwave)
b. Thermal energy radiating as elecromagnetic radiation of multiple wavelengths (infra-red, visible light, radio waves, microwaves and stuff).

We can continue the debate in another thread if necessary, but physically accurate portrait of EMP generation is not necessary to discuss of means to possibly destroy the Gargant, I daresay.  :p
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.