Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Further, the damaing principal of the nuke in atmosphere is the intense heat and pressure wave. heats needs a medium to travel through, and so does pressure. Not that the radioactive blasts would do nothing, but with nothing to concuss the in orbit ships with, the larges to parts of the nuke will be neutered, and need more or less a direct hit to do damage.

Heat does not need a medium. If it did the Earth would be very, very cold right now.

And getting a direct hit on a spaceship which is multiple kilometres in size sitting in orbit around our planet is a piece of cake. We managed to land a probe on a comet of a similar size recently, which is a lot more complex than hitting something in orbit due to having to account for multiple large shifts in the strength of the gravitational forces acting upon the probe as it travelled through the solar system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pumaman1 wrote:


and again, the farther out it is, the longer they have to "redirect energy to the forward shields!" or just move, because our missiles out of atmosphere are going to be hard pressed to make a fairly tight turn.

A large ship has a large mass. A large mass means a large force is required for a large acceleration. A large acceleration is required for a tight turn. In our physical world, large ships are not going to have the engine power required to evade a nuclear missile and would instead have to rely on shooting them down. Which will be pretty tricky when a load of MIRVs are headed their way. Finding small objects in space is pretty difficult, then having the accuracy to shoot them, even more so.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Just gonna repost this about comparing those ships to near orbit satellites (the kind we shot down)

1 thing i find interesting is the frequent use of Nukes as an argument in this thread. We would not want to use nukes on orbiting ships for 1 simple reason. EMPs, detonating a nuke in orbit is well within the ionosphere, that thing protecting us from space death wind, so the full EMP effect would cover all the land in LOS underneath it (whole continents in this case) and fry all those precious electronics we love using and communicate with. all but the hardest shielded that is. So by nuking an orbiting ship, we would destroy ourselves.

if the ship was farther out, they can just scoot out of the way in time.

also if heat needed a medium, then tell me how did our ships travel to the moon? unless you mean fire, but fire is a wholly different situation then heat in that aspect.

you do realize with no atmosphere to slow the explosive force down, it would expand very fast? its like well the movie Wall-E when he used the fire extinguisher to move around in space, there was no friction, no slowing him down or the expulsion of the fire retardant it just shot him around, same happens with an explosion, in fact its one theory of potential space travel exploding a small nuclear bomb behind the ship and using the energy to push the ship thru space, you have a missile launched from high atmosphere bombers at said ships they will have low evasion time if they even notice the small blips and know what they are, and if just one of those nukes hits the ship and lodges a hole in it, when it explodes it will tear the ship apart due to the atmosphere in the ship and the explosion needing to expand.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
A large ship has a large mass. A large mass means a large force is required for a large acceleration. A large acceleration is required for a tight turn. In our physical world, large ships are not going to have the engine power required to evade a nuclear missile and would instead have to rely on shooting them down. Which will be pretty tricky when a load of MIRVs are headed their way. Finding small objects in space is pretty difficult, then having the accuracy to shoot them, even more so.

mass in space is almost a non-eligible factor, in fact these designs of sleek ships and such are not needed since mass is not effected much in space, now if the ship is in the Ionosphere like he suggests then yes Mass would play a critical effect in the ship and a simple non-nuclear explosive would be enough to destroy the ship from the energy output of said explosion.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And getting a direct hit on a spaceship which is multiple kilometres in size sitting in orbit around our planet is a piece of cake. We managed to land a probe on a comet of a similar size recently, which is a lot more complex than hitting something in orbit due to having to account for multiple large shifts in the strength of the gravitational forces acting upon the probe as it travelled through the solar system.

No, it's much simpler to land a probe on a comet. The math of the trajectory is complicated, but all of the effects are known. Once you calculate all of the relevant information you know exactly where you're going, and you just have to execute the path correctly. But starships have a key difference: they can dodge. ICBMs are not homing weapons, even a relatively modest evasive maneuver will dodge one entirely.

A large ship has a large mass. A large mass means a large force is required for a large acceleration. A large acceleration is required for a tight turn. In our physical world, large ships are not going to have the engine power required to evade a nuclear missile and would instead have to rely on shooting them down. Which will be pretty tricky when a load of MIRVs are headed their way. Finding small objects in space is pretty difficult, then having the accuracy to shoot them, even more so.

40k ships are not real-world ships. We know that they have a lot of raw power from their engines, and that MIRV salvo is completely unguided. For example, just the very briefest of searches turns up this source for a Lunar-class cruiser being capable of 2.5g sustained acceleration. That's obscenely high by real-world standards.

Also, finding small objects in space is pretty easy. Much easier, in fact, than finding them on a planet.

While I am glad that I asked such a popular question, I can't but help to feel that we have drifted away from the intent of my question. Yes, any civilization that has an orbital weapons platform that is several kilometers long would be able to flatten the planet of earth in a matter of minuets. And the way that I worded my question allows for that.
But, my intent was to focus on ground combat. I want to know how many ground slogging SM or CSM or Tau infantry would be needed to take earth. I had wanted to hear about how the M240 and M2 Browning stacked up against a heavy stubber. I wanted to here about what you guys though of the Mk 19 full auto-gernade launcher and if the SM or IG would want to keep it for their own. I wanted to know if the M242 Bushmaster was equal to an autocannon and, if so, where that put the Gofors 40 mm. Can a SM take a shell from a 120mm smooth-bore canon and walk it off?
I'm an IG guy, I could care less about space ships. Yeah, they are cool and all, but how are the ground forces going to work?

Asterios wrote:
you do realize with no atmosphere to slow the explosive force down, it would expand very fast?

...

Explosive force does not exist without an atmosphere. The damage from an explosion is done by a high pressure wave, without an atmosphere (or equivalent medium, such as an underwater explosion) to carry the wave you get nothing at all. There might be a very very small pressure wave carried by the vaporized material of the warhead itself, but this will almost immediately drop to zero as that limited amount of material spreads out to insignificance.

 Peregrine wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And getting a direct hit on a spaceship which is multiple kilometres in size sitting in orbit around our planet is a piece of cake. We managed to land a probe on a comet of a similar size recently, which is a lot more complex than hitting something in orbit due to having to account for multiple large shifts in the strength of the gravitational forces acting upon the probe as it travelled through the solar system.

No, it's much simpler to land a probe on a comet. The math of the trajectory is complicated, but all of the effects are known. Once you calculate all of the relevant information you know exactly where you're going, and you just have to execute the path correctly. But starships have a key difference: they can dodge. ICBMs are not homing weapons, even a relatively modest evasive maneuver will dodge one entirely.

A large ship has a large mass. A large mass means a large force is required for a large acceleration. A large acceleration is required for a tight turn. In our physical world, large ships are not going to have the engine power required to evade a nuclear missile and would instead have to rely on shooting them down. Which will be pretty tricky when a load of MIRVs are headed their way. Finding small objects in space is pretty difficult, then having the accuracy to shoot them, even more so.

40k ships are not real-world ships. We know that they have a lot of raw power from their engines, and that MIRV salvo is completely unguided. For example, just the very briefest of searches turns up this source for a Lunar-class cruiser being capable of 2.5g sustained acceleration. That's obscenely high by real-world standards.

Also, finding small objects in space is pretty easy. Much easier, in fact, than finding them on a planet.

you really do not know about Gyroscope technology? or systems guidance? really? with all the smart bombs flying about? also landing on a comet is not as easy as you say it is, hell our attempt even screwed that up considering a comet is effected by anything and everything from gravitational forces brought on by planets and such, we put the probe in the ball park but it still missed its planned target it got on the comet but not in the spot we wanted it too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
you do realize with no atmosphere to slow the explosive force down, it would expand very fast?

...

Explosive force does not exist without an atmosphere. The damage from an explosion is done by a high pressure wave, without an atmosphere (or equivalent medium, such as an underwater explosion) to carry the wave you get nothing at all. There might be a very very small pressure wave carried by the vaporized material of the warhead itself, but this will almost immediately drop to zero as that limited amount of material spreads out to insignificance.

really then all those scientists planning on using explosive force as an optional way of space travel know nothing? you are smarter then NASA and all of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

oh wait did you just prove how wrong you are? and ignorant of how explosions work in space?

Asterios wrote:
no we just crashed all those ships that got too low in our atmosphere

Or you did absolutely nothing to those ships. EMP is not a magic auto-win, it is possible to harden electronics against EMP even with real-world technology. The primary threat of EMP is to civilian systems. Knocking out the civilian power grid and billions of dollars in civilian electronics is a major loss even if the military doesn't see much disruption.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
no we just crashed all those ships that got too low in our atmosphere

Or you did absolutely nothing to those ships. EMP is not a magic auto-win, it is possible to harden electronics against EMP even with real-world technology. The primary threat of EMP is to civilian systems. Knocking out the civilian power grid and billions of dollars in civilian electronics is a major loss even if the military doesn't see much disruption.

whos talking EMP's ? i'm talking the ships burning up since they would have to expand so much energy to stay in the atmosphere they would not be able to do anything. The bigger the item is the faster it falls down and without course corrections to adjust altitude they would plummet within a couple hours in the upper Ionosphere.

Actually Peregrine, modern MIRVs are all capable of independent targeting, using their own propellant, of each individual warhead over a spread of around a couple hundred kilometres.

Asterios wrote:
you really do not know about Gyroscope technology? or systems guidance? really? with all the smart bombs flying about?

Do you understand the difference between "guided" and "homing"? A GPS-guided bomb can very precisely hit a pre-programmed location. It can not maneuver to keep up with an evading target. If the target evades the GPS-guided weapon will continue on and very precisely hit the original target. ICBMs are in the same situation: they can be guided to hit a pre-programmed target, but they have no homing capability at all. If the target is not where you told an ICBM to deliver its warheads they will all miss.

also landing on a comet is not as easy as you say it is, hell our attempt even screwed that up considering a comet is effected by anything and everything from gravitational forces brought on by planets and such, we put the probe in the ball park but it still missed its planned target it got on the comet but not in the spot we wanted it too.

I didn't say it was easy in an absolute sense, I said it was simpler than hitting an evading starship. It requires very precise calculations and the ability to very precisely execute the calculated trajectory, but from a physics point of view it's a very straightforward problem. It's much simpler than hitting an evading target with a ballistic weapon, especially when that evading target is capable of acceleration well beyond any real-world spacecraft.

really then all those scientists planning on using explosive force as an optional way of space travel know nothing? you are smarter then NASA and all of them?

No, because nobody at NASA would argue that you can have an explosion in space. This is just basic physics. Explosions require a medium to carry the pressure wave. End of discussion, if you argue otherwise you are simply wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Did you even read that article? Orion works because each nuke carries its own reaction mass. An ICBM warhead is not going to be carrying a huge pile of tungsten as reaction mass, nor is it going to use a "shaped charge" nuke intended to focus as much energy as possible into that reaction mass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Actually Peregrine, modern MIRVs are all capable of independent targeting, using their own propellant, of each individual warhead over a spread of around a couple hundred kilometres.

Again, targeting and homing are not the same thing. A MIRV warhead can precisely aim itself onto a ballistic trajectory that will hit a target location, and each warhead in the cluster can be given its own target (within a fairly small divergence from the original course). It doesn't carry, for example, an infrared seeker to home in on a target's thermal signature and enough additional fuel to make course corrections to follow that target. To hit a 40k ship in orbit you'd have to program each MIRV missile to disperse its warheads across a wide area of space and hope that your target ends up maneuvering into one of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
i'm talking the ships burning up since they would have to expand so much energy to stay in the atmosphere they would not be able to do anything. The bigger the item is the faster it falls down and without course corrections to adjust altitude they would plummet within a couple hours in the upper Ionosphere.

{citation needed}

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
you really do not know about Gyroscope technology? or systems guidance? really? with all the smart bombs flying about?

Do you understand the difference between "guided" and "homing"? A GPS-guided bomb can very precisely hit a pre-programmed location. It can not maneuver to keep up with an evading target. If the target evades the GPS-guided weapon will continue on and very precisely hit the original target. ICBMs are in the same situation: they can be guided to hit a pre-programmed target, but they have no homing capability at all. If the target is not where you told an ICBM to deliver its warheads they will all miss.

also landing on a comet is not as easy as you say it is, hell our attempt even screwed that up considering a comet is effected by anything and everything from gravitational forces brought on by planets and such, we put the probe in the ball park but it still missed its planned target it got on the comet but not in the spot we wanted it too.

I didn't say it was easy in an absolute sense, I said it was simpler than hitting an evading starship. It requires very precise calculations and the ability to very precisely execute the calculated trajectory, but from a physics point of view it's a very straightforward problem. It's much simpler than hitting an evading target with a ballistic weapon, especially when that evading target is capable of acceleration well beyond any real-world spacecraft.

really then all those scientists planning on using explosive force as an optional way of space travel know nothing? you are smarter then NASA and all of them?

No, because nobody at NASA would argue that you can have an explosion in space. This is just basic physics. Explosions require a medium to carry the pressure wave. End of discussion, if you argue otherwise you are simply wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Did you even read that article? Orion works because each nuke carries its own reaction mass. An ICBM warhead is not going to be carrying a huge pile of tungsten as reaction mass, nor is it going to use a "shaped charge" nuke intended to focus as much energy as possible into that reaction mass.

lets see missile crashes into ship, exposing it to ships innards, missile explodes hmm sounds like NASA would disagree with you. especially considering the puncture of the ship (no explosion needed) would be enough to cause a loss of atmosphere explosion, and yes read the article saw the film and all that, and you do know nuclear missiles have tungsten cores right? and really those missiles going after jets and such, are just one shots and will miss? hmm me thinks a simple heat guided system going after the biggest heat object in orbit would work.

your argument is utter fail.

Asterios wrote:
lets see missile crashes into ship, exposing it to ships innards

More like "missile crashes into ship, hits armor plating designed to stop 40k-level weapons, and detonates outside the hull". That is, if the warhead isn't instantly destroyed on impact. A "hit" with nukes in space combat really means a proximity detonation close enough to damage the target. ICBM warheads are not typically armor-piercing bullets.

specially considering the puncture of the ship (no explosion needed) would be enough to cause a loss of atmosphere explosion

You do understand that 40k ships have sealable internal compartments, right? Even a hull breach is not going to result in a total loss of atmosphere because the area around the breach can be sealed off.

and you do know nuclear missiles have tungsten cores right?

Do you understand the difference between having tungsten parts and carrying additional reaction mass? There's nothing special about tungsten, it's just good for reaction mass in this case because Orion is limited more by size than mass. Tungsten is (relatively) cheap and lets you carry a lot of reaction mass in a small volume. ICBM warheads, on the other hand, are designed to have the absolute minimum possible mass to maximize performance of the rocket. There is no additional reaction mass carried because it makes no sense in the context of

and really those missiles going after jets and such, are just one shots and will miss?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask here.

hmm me thinks a simple heat guided system going after the biggest heat object in orbit would work.

ICBMs do not have infrared guidance. Nor do they have sufficient extra fuel to make major course changes. Of course it is theoretically possible to make a guided weapon for space combat (such as existing anti-missile missiles), but no such system for ICBMs exists right now. And a war against a 40k invasion is going to be over long before anyone can attempt to design a new guided ICBM to shoot at 40k ships.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
lets see missile crashes into ship, exposing it to ships innards

More like "missile crashes into ship, hits armor plating designed to stop 40k-level weapons, and detonates outside the hull". That is, if the warhead isn't instantly destroyed on impact. A "hit" with nukes in space combat really means a proximity detonation close enough to damage the target. ICBM warheads are not typically armor-piercing bullets.

specially considering the puncture of the ship (no explosion needed) would be enough to cause a loss of atmosphere explosion

You do understand that 40k ships have sealable internal compartments, right? Even a hull breach is not going to result in a total loss of atmosphere because the area around the breach can be sealed off.

and you do know nuclear missiles have tungsten cores right?

Do you understand the difference between having tungsten parts and carrying additional reaction mass? There's nothing special about tungsten, it's just good for reaction mass in this case because Orion is limited more by size than mass. Tungsten is (relatively) cheap and lets you carry a lot of reaction mass in a small volume. ICBM warheads, on the other hand, are designed to have the absolute minimum possible mass to maximize performance of the rocket. There is no additional reaction mass carried because it makes no sense in the context of

and really those missiles going after jets and such, are just one shots and will miss?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask here.

hmm me thinks a simple heat guided system going after the biggest heat object in orbit would work.

ICBMs do not have infrared guidance. Nor do they have sufficient extra fuel to make major course changes. Of course it is theoretically possible to make a guided weapon for space combat (such as existing anti-missile missiles), but no such system for ICBMs exists right now. And a war against a 40k invasion is going to be over long before anyone can attempt to design a new guided ICBM to shoot at 40k ships.

and you keep going with ICBMs I already said we don't need ICBM's, satellite hunter killers will work just as well. which we already have in our arsenal and are launched from low orbit bombers.

Asterios wrote:
and you keep goiung with ICBMs I already said we don't need ICBM's satellite hunter killers will work just as well. which we already have in our arsenal and are launched from low orbit bombers.

The anti-satellite missile you're thinking of has a purely kinetic warhead and would be irrelevant against 40k ships. And they aren't launched from low-orbit bombers, as no real-world aircraft can get anywhere near orbit. If you want even a desperate prayer of damaging a 40k ship in orbit you need ICBMs and nuclear warheads.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and you keep goiung with ICBMs I already said we don't need ICBM's satellite hunter killers will work just as well. which we already have in our arsenal and are launched from low orbit bombers.

The anti-satellite missile you're thinking of has a purely kinetic warhead and would be irrelevant against 40k ships. And they aren't launched from low-orbit bombers, as no real-world aircraft can get anywhere near orbit. If you want even a desperate prayer of damaging a 40k ship in orbit you need ICBMs and nuclear warheads.

well upper atmosphere low orbit and yeah you need to do so much more research, like the X-37B, the Silverbird project, or the BlackStar project hell going old school the SR-71 reached a height of almost 26 kilometers, and with the Ionosphere starting around 40 Kilometers, furthermore we do have systems designed to launch satellite hunter killers which are guided to hit their target since space is a junk pile, seriously you would not believe the amount of space junk we have up there, so said missiles have to be guided to avoid the other space junk flying around, which is also why space craft being launched also has to be launched during certain windows to avoid a lot of that junk. but as to the missile going after a space craft a simple rocket system with a magnetic coupler system and a directional cone to direct the energy of the blast towards the object. using maybe Tungsten core rods for shrapnel effect.

now dealing with explosions as stated the ship is in the Ionosphere, which is a medium, there is force and density there, which is why satellites and such (like the ISS) constantly have to adjust their altitude or burn up, for some reason I keep thinking your thinking of hollywood fireballs in space, if such a thing happened in space it would be very quick and over with very quickly but the explosive shockwave would still exist and keep going till it encountered a force to resist it, its like certain gamma-ray bursts from exploding stars which continue forever:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst



and for your reading pleasure:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-explosions-in-space-look-like

"Admiral, there is an incoming continuously accelerating projectile."
"Thank you Ensign. It must be an emissary from the planet. Prepare for it to make contact."

Y'all are dumb. A single missile would be laughed out of space. A couple thousand though, may be a little harder for the point defenses to engage, and may require moving the ship.

Asterios wrote:
well upper atmosphere low orbit

Upper atmosphere and low orbit have about as much in common as walking out to your mailbox and getting on a 5000 mile airline flight.

like the X-37B, the Silverbird project, or the BlackStar project hell going old school the SR-71 reached a height of almost 26 kilometers, and with the Ionosphere starting around 40 Kilometers

The X-37B is an unarmed test vehicle and about as relevant as "we'll pull the space shuttles out of storage". Silverbird never got past the theoretical stage and is 70+ years old. BlackStar is a rumored project that hasn't even been proven to exist. The SR-71 was an unarmed spy plane that never got anywhere near orbit. None of these things would provide any help against a 40k starship.

furthermore we do have systems designed to launch satellite hunter killers which are guided to hit their target since space is a junk pile

Yes, we do have anti-satellite missiles. They are even guided, in the sense that they can fine-tune their path to hit a target (but don't carry nearly enough delta-V to keep up with a 40k ship accelerating at multiple g's). However, they use a purely kinetic warhead and wouldn't even scratch the paint on a 40k ship.

seriously you would not believe the amount of space junk we have up there, so said missiles have to be guided to avoid the other space junk flying around

Uh, no, this is not true. At all.

but as to the missile going after a space craft a simple rocket system with a magnetic coupler system and a directional cone to direct the energy of the blast towards the object.

You are using words, but none of them make any sense. Nothing about this problem is simple, and there is no hope of anyone building an anti-starship weapon before the war is over.

using maybe Tungsten core rods for shrapnel effect.

IOW, "we can't even scratch the paint with a direct hit, let's throw some shrapnel at the target so we do even less damage".

the explosive shockwave would still exist and keep going till it encountered a force to resist it, its like certain gamma-ray bursts from exploding stars which continue forever:

...

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Gamma-ray bursts and explosion pressure waves have absolutely nothing to do with each other. What you're saying is the equivalent of "my AR-15 could penetrate a Land Raider's armor, just like this pizza I had for dinner was really tasty".

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
well upper atmosphere low orbit

Upper atmosphere and low orbit have about as much in common as walking out to your mailbox and getting on a 5000 mile airline flight.

like the X-37B, the Silverbird project, or the BlackStar project hell going old school the SR-71 reached a height of almost 26 kilometers, and with the Ionosphere starting around 40 Kilometers

The X-37B is an unarmed test vehicle and about as relevant as "we'll pull the space shuttles out of storage". Silverbird never got past the theoretical stage and is 70+ years old. BlackStar is a rumored project that hasn't even been proven to exist. The SR-71 was an unarmed spy plane that never got anywhere near orbit. None of these things would provide any help against a 40k starship.

furthermore we do have systems designed to launch satellite hunter killers which are guided to hit their target since space is a junk pile

Yes, we do have anti-satellite missiles. They are even guided, in the sense that they can fine-tune their path to hit a target (but don't carry nearly enough delta-V to keep up with a 40k ship accelerating at multiple g's). However, they use a purely kinetic warhead and wouldn't even scratch the paint on a 40k ship.

seriously you would not believe the amount of space junk we have up there, so said missiles have to be guided to avoid the other space junk flying around

Uh, no, this is not true. At all.

but as to the missile going after a space craft a simple rocket system with a magnetic coupler system and a directional cone to direct the energy of the blast towards the object.

You are using words, but none of them make any sense. Nothing about this problem is simple, and there is no hope of anyone building an anti-starship weapon before the war is over.

using maybe Tungsten core rods for shrapnel effect.

IOW, "we can't even scratch the paint with a direct hit, let's throw some shrapnel at the target so we do even less damage".

the explosive shockwave would still exist and keep going till it encountered a force to resist it, its like certain gamma-ray bursts from exploding stars which continue forever:

...

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Gamma-ray bursts and explosion pressure waves have absolutely nothing to do with each other. What you're saying is the equivalent of "my AR-15 could penetrate a Land Raider's armor, just like this pizza I had for dinner was really tasty".

you do know gamma ray bursts are explosive pressure waves from an exploding star? did you read the extra credit from a NASA member? or about gamma-ray bursts? as to Blackstar well you go ahead and think what you want, better that way, as to an AR-15 penetrating a Land raider's hull nothing in the fluff says it can't. also you do know what a magnetic coupler is? it is something we do have, and you do know what it does? or do you know anything about the Aries rocket system ? and thats an old system no longer used.

as it goes why don't we agree to disagree I believe we have the technology to remove an enemy spaceship in ionospheric orbit since it will be unable to use any defensive shields without destroying itself, nor would it be able to sustain the force necessary to move it out of range or from being targeted due to the extent of force that would be required for a ship of its size in ionospheric orbit and you do not think we can.

Asterios wrote:
you do know gamma ray bursts are explosive pressure waves from an exploding star?

...

Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. They have nothing to do with explosive pressure waves. Seriously, you keep making basic factual errors and stubbornly insisting that you are right.

as to Blackstar well you go ahead and think what you want

I will. Tinfoil hat theories about secret military projects with no evidence to support them are completely irrelevant here.

also you do know what a magnetic coupler is? it is something we do have, and you do know what it does?

It's a device to couple rotating shafts without a physical connection. I fail to see what it has to do with this topic.

or do you know anything about the Aries rocket system ? and thats an old system no longer used.

It is a test target for anti-balllistic-missile systems. It isn't relevant here.

as it goes why don't we agree to disagree

Because you're wrong. You're making blatant factual errors and posting weird theories that make no sense at all.

I believe we have the technology to remove an enemy spaceship in ionospheric orbit since it will be unable to use any defensive shields without destroying itself

{citation needed}

40k void shields work just fine in an atmosphere, and 40k ships have vast amounts of armor plating to stop 40k-scale weapons even once the shields are down.

nor would it be able to sustain the force necessary to move it out of range or from being targeted due to the extent of force that would be required for a ship of its size in ionospheric orbit and you do not think we can.

A Lunar-class cruiser is capable of 2.5g sustained acceleration. That's a level of engine power vastly beyond anything that exists in the real world.

Im pretty sure they can just leave us alone and we'll kill ourselves.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
you do know gamma ray bursts are explosive pressure waves from an exploding star?

...

Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. They have nothing to do with explosive pressure waves. Seriously, you keep making basic factual errors and stubbornly insisting that you are right.

as to Blackstar well you go ahead and think what you want

I will. Tinfoil hat theories about secret military projects with no evidence to support them are completely irrelevant here.

also you do know what a magnetic coupler is? it is something we do have, and you do know what it does?

It's a device to couple rotating shafts without a physical connection. I fail to see what it has to do with this topic.

or do you know anything about the Aries rocket system ? and thats an old system no longer used.

It is a test target for anti-balllistic-missile systems. It isn't relevant here.

as it goes why don't we agree to disagree

Because you're wrong. You're making blatant factual errors and posting weird theories that make no sense at all.

I believe we have the technology to remove an enemy spaceship in ionospheric orbit since it will be unable to use any defensive shields without destroying itself

{citation needed}

40k void shields work just fine in an atmosphere, and 40k ships have vast amounts of armor plating to stop 40k-scale weapons even once the shields are down.

nor would it be able to sustain the force necessary to move it out of range or from being targeted due to the extent of force that would be required for a ship of its size in ionospheric orbit and you do not think we can.

A Lunar-class cruiser is capable of 2.5g sustained acceleration. That's a level of engine power vastly beyond anything that exists in the real world.

you do know what G-Force is? or that you can get 2.5G's from certain carnival rides like the Gravitron? or that many world war I air craft could do about 10G's in a dive? seriously 2.5 G's is rather slow heck our Space shuttle does better then that and a sprint missile can do up to 100G's.

and yes void shields could work in the atmosphere, but sadly not the Ionosphere due to the Electrical charge.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
you do know gamma ray bursts are explosive pressure waves from an exploding star?

...

Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. They have nothing to do with explosive pressure waves. Seriously, you keep making basic factual errors and stubbornly insisting that you are right.

as to Blackstar well you go ahead and think what you want

I will. Tinfoil hat theories about secret military projects with no evidence to support them are completely irrelevant here.

also you do know what a magnetic coupler is? it is something we do have, and you do know what it does?

It's a device to couple rotating shafts without a physical connection. I fail to see what it has to do with this topic.

or do you know anything about the Aries rocket system ? and thats an old system no longer used.

It is a test target for anti-balllistic-missile systems. It isn't relevant here.

as it goes why don't we agree to disagree

Because you're wrong. You're making blatant factual errors and posting weird theories that make no sense at all.

I believe we have the technology to remove an enemy spaceship in ionospheric orbit since it will be unable to use any defensive shields without destroying itself

{citation needed}

40k void shields work just fine in an atmosphere, and 40k ships have vast amounts of armor plating to stop 40k-scale weapons even once the shields are down.

nor would it be able to sustain the force necessary to move it out of range or from being targeted due to the extent of force that would be required for a ship of its size in ionospheric orbit and you do not think we can.

A Lunar-class cruiser is capable of 2.5g sustained acceleration. That's a level of engine power vastly beyond anything that exists in the real world.

you do know what G-Force is? or that you can get 2.5G's from certain carnival rides like the Gravitron? or that many world war I air craft could do about 10G's in a dive? seriously 2.5 G's is rather slow heck our Space shuttle does better then that and a sprint missile can do up to 100G's.

and yes void shields could work in the atmosphere, but sadly not the Ionosphere due to the Electrical charge.

The ionosphere is part of the atmosphere. And there is literally zero reason to believe that it would have any effect on void shields because that's not how void shields work. Void shields intercept incoming projectiles and teleport them into the warp. Why would ions disable them?

Asterios wrote:
you do know what G-Force is? or that you can get 2.5G's from certain carnival rides like the Gravitron? or that many world war I craft could do about 10G's in a dive?

Yes, of course I know what it is, it's just a scale for measuring acceleration. And there is a huge difference between pulling out of a dive or spinning a carnival ride and spacecraft engine performance. In the context of spacecraft engine performance 2.5g sustained acceleration for a 5km brick is orders of magnitude better than anything we have in the real world.

seriously 2.5 G's is rather slow heck our Space shuttle does better then that and a sprint missile can do up to 100G's.

The shuttle only does it for a short time and at the cost of a huge fuel to payload ratio. Sprint had insane acceleration, but only for a few seconds before it ran out of fuel. That Lunar-class cruiser has 2.5g sustained acceleration. It isn't just a momentary engine burn, it can keep doing 2.5gs all the way across the solar system.

and yes void shields could work in the atmosphere, but sadly not the Ionosphere.

{citation needed}

Please provide a 40k source, not your own personal theories about how it should work.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
you do know gamma ray bursts are explosive pressure waves from an exploding star?

...

Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. They have nothing to do with explosive pressure waves. Seriously, you keep making basic factual errors and stubbornly insisting that you are right.

as to Blackstar well you go ahead and think what you want

I will. Tinfoil hat theories about secret military projects with no evidence to support them are completely irrelevant here.

also you do know what a magnetic coupler is? it is something we do have, and you do know what it does?

It's a device to couple rotating shafts without a physical connection. I fail to see what it has to do with this topic.

or do you know anything about the Aries rocket system ? and thats an old system no longer used.

It is a test target for anti-balllistic-missile systems. It isn't relevant here.

as it goes why don't we agree to disagree

Because you're wrong. You're making blatant factual errors and posting weird theories that make no sense at all.

I believe we have the technology to remove an enemy spaceship in ionospheric orbit since it will be unable to use any defensive shields without destroying itself

{citation needed}

40k void shields work just fine in an atmosphere, and 40k ships have vast amounts of armor plating to stop 40k-scale weapons even once the shields are down.

nor would it be able to sustain the force necessary to move it out of range or from being targeted due to the extent of force that would be required for a ship of its size in ionospheric orbit and you do not think we can.

A Lunar-class cruiser is capable of 2.5g sustained acceleration. That's a level of engine power vastly beyond anything that exists in the real world.

you do know what G-Force is? or that you can get 2.5G's from certain carnival rides like the Gravitron? or that many world war I air craft could do about 10G's in a dive? seriously 2.5 G's is rather slow heck our Space shuttle does better then that and a sprint missile can do up to 100G's.

and yes void shields could work in the atmosphere, but sadly not the Ionosphere due to the Electrical charge.

The ionosphere is part of the atmosphere. And there is literally zero reason to believe that it would have any effect on void shields because that's not how void shields work. Void shields intercept incoming projectiles and teleport them into the warp. Why would ions disable them?

not sure you udnerstand Void shields or how Electric chargs can disrupt them, like what exists in the Ionosphere.

Asterios wrote:
not sure you udnerstand Void shields or how Electric chargs can disrupt them, like what exists in the Ionosphere.

{citation needed}

Please provide a 40k source for this claim, not your personal theories about how it should work.

No, Asterios, I asked you to prove that void shields can be disrupted by free ions. The same free ions that exist across the galaxy. That the Imperial Navy has dealt with for 10,000 years without any known issue.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
you do know what G-Force is? or that you can get 2.5G's from certain carnival rides like the Gravitron? or that many world war I craft could do about 10G's in a dive?

Yes, of course I know what it is, it's just a scale for measuring acceleration. And there is a huge difference between pulling out of a dive or spinning a carnival ride and spacecraft engine performance. In the context of spacecraft engine performance 2.5g sustained acceleration for a 5km brick is orders of magnitude better than anything we have in the real world.

seriously 2.5 G's is rather slow heck our Space shuttle does better then that and a sprint missile can do up to 100G's.

The shuttle only does it for a short time and at the cost of a huge fuel to payload ratio. Sprint had insane acceleration, but only for a few seconds before it ran out of fuel. That Lunar-class cruiser has 2.5g sustained acceleration. It isn't just a momentary engine burn, it can keep doing 2.5gs all the way across the solar system.

and yes void shields could work in the atmosphere, but sadly not the Ionosphere.

{citation needed}

Please provide a 40k source, not your own personal theories about how it should work.

yeah but how long you think it will take for say a sprint missile to catch up to a slow snail moving at "2.5G's" ?

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Void_Shield

closest think you can find to 40K info on the net but it states that the Void Shield is a special form of gravitic or electrically-charged energy field employed by the Imperium of Man's various military forces to protect super-heavy vehicles like starships and Titans from enemy attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No, Asterios, I asked you to prove that void shields can be disrupted by free ions. The same free ions that exist across the galaxy. That the Imperial Navy has dealt with for 10,000 years without any known issue.

yes the Ionosphere contains Ions, but also contains Electrons too which cause it to have a high electrical discharge field which is why a nuclear missile going off in the Ionosphere which would cause an ECM burst to fry circuits in the area around it.

Did you read the rest of the article? Because if you did it explicitly says that void shields protect against "radiation, interstellar dust and particle showers...".

Asterios wrote:
yeah but how long you think it will take for say a sprint missile to catch up to a slow snail moving at "2.5G's" ?

Quite a while, given that Sprint's maximum altitude was ~20 miles, while the ionosphere (the place you insist on putting the target ship) starts at ~50 miles. That's why sustained acceleration matters. If you can deliver a Sprint missile equipped with an appropriate homing system to within range of a 40k ship you probably have enough acceleration to hit it. But no such method to bring a Sprint missile exists. In fact, Sprint doesn't even exist anymore. None of this speculation about Sprint has anything to do with the scenario of modern Earth vs. 40k.

closest think you can find to 40K info on the net but it states that the Void Shield is a special form of gravitic or electrically-charged energy field employed by the Imperium of Man's various military forces to protect super-heavy vehicles like starships and Titans from enemy attacks.

Which says nothing about it being disrupted by the ionosphere.

yes the Ionosphere contains Ions, but also contains Electrons too which cause it to have a high electrical discharge field which is why a nuclear missile going off in the Ionosphere which would cause an ECM burst to fry circuits in the area around it.

That is not how EMP works.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Did you read the rest of the article? Because if you did it explicitly says that void shields protect against "radiation, interstellar dust and particle showers...".

which are not Electrical charges, go read up on what HAARP does to the Ionosphere which produces an electrical field in the Ionosphere.

@ peregrine then how about the shuttle? lasts much longer then a sprint missile and moves much faster then the SM ship. or better yet go with any number of current missiles which go farther then a sprint missile and faster then 2.5 G's. face it you know your wrong, you are fighting with outdated technology which even our own outdated technology is faster then.