HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ib09@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:35:08 GMT

In article <5ki4TB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP>, joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:
> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>>    Using antimatter is pretty spectacular, but also pointless when
>> we're talking about particulate matter.  Ballistically, microscopic
>> particles are useless even at 'very fast' speeds; look how much damage
>> Skylab and Soyuz absorbed from micrometeorites without ill effect.
> 
>Spectacular seems to be a pretty mild word. If I'm doing my calculations
>correctly, then a single GRAM of antimatter, striking normal matter,
>would yield as much energy as 7.2 kilotonnes of TNT. About as much as a
>tactical nuclear weapon. I suspect the X-rays from the explosions would
>fry all the human and electronics in the target. Shucks antimatter
>projectiles as small as a milligram would be very hard to detect and would
>take out most targets.

Why not make the antimatter particles very much smaller? I could imagine
that a cloud of microgram particles could be very effective to interdict a
large volume of space. Releasing a sufficient quantity of those in low
planetary orbit, for example, ought to make the planet unapproachable
for some time; the timescale would probably depend on the altitude.
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ib09@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ui0t@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
diagram.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: FTL
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:57:30 GMT

In article <Bxn0I7.6xF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas) writes:


>   So
>   when the field was turned on it threw the antimatter *at* the ship, converting
>   the entire thing into photons, which then sped off at *exactly* the speed
>   of light!  :^)

he he he...  In many directions...
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:37:00 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel) writes:

> Larry Niven, "The Borderland of Sol" (may not be exact title): sling a
> small black hole in the direction of thine foe, who being unaware of its
> approach shall fall into it.

Unfortunately, black holes are now known to emit Hawking radiation.  A 
black hole with a mass of 10^12 kg would be emitting Hawking radiation 
at a rate of 10^10 W.  That makes it quite visible.  The radiation would 
kill you long before tides or anything else could come get you.

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas)
Subject: Re: FTL
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:56:58 GMT

gwilliam@crc.ac.uk (Gary Williams x3294) writes:

>In article <BxM47x.19B@cen.ex.ac.uk> cs92mjd@cen.ex.ac.uk (M.J.Davis) writes:
>>
>>_How to accelerate a spacecraft to c_
>>
>>Fill said containment system with anti-matter, until the net mass of the 

>Didn't Robert Forward produce some theory about *negative* matter? That
>is, matter that actually has negative mass and gravity.  Your idea
>probably still wouldn't work because nature abhores a smartass, but I
>can't immediately see the flaw. Anyone?

Dr. Forward believes that if you placed a blob of negative matter
(hypothetically -- there isn't even any *theoretical*  evidence for
its existence) next to a blob of positive matter they would accelerate
off to infinity.  The reasoning?  The positive matter would pull on the
negative matter while the negative matter (since it's negative) would
*push* on the positive matter.  Sounds like pulling yourself up by your
bootstraps, no?  He even justified it by saying the negative matter would
have negative kinetic energy so the total energy of the system would not
change.  Fortunately, however, he didn't quite have the guts to say they
would instantaneously accelerate to c since the total mass of the system
is zero.  :^)
-- 
___-Tom_Maciukenas_(tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)______________________________

Lisa : Perhaps there *is* no moral to this story.
Homer: Exactly!  It's just a bunch of *stuff* that happened.  -The Simpsons
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:42:33 GMT

I think you have to split kinetic weapons into three:

Slow (< 10km/s) massive, possibly guided, explosive and/or stealthed

Fast (10-100 km/s) light, probably inert

Superfast (relativistic) and extremely light

Tactically the three are very distinct

Slow weapons can be dodged or counterattacked, but can change course noticeably
during an attack and can home. They can be launched using chemical propellants at
only hundreds of Gs

Fast weapons might be dodgable, or at least you could see them coming fast enough
to get an ablative shield into place. This is where gravel comes in. They could
gain their velocity from orbital geometries or from a railgun type launcher. The
missile would have to survive thousands of Gs, so it probably won't contain any
active components.

Superfast missiles are almost impossible to dodge unless you see the launcher
aiming. On the other hand the launcher is bulky for the actual energy sent.
Antimatter might be available in sufficient quantities (dust grain) to use that
for projectiles, since the launcher has to be EM.
From: cs92dy@cen.ex.ac.uk (D.Young)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Electric Cars
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:09:30 GMT
Distribution: rec.art.sf.science
Organization: Computer Unit. - University of Exeter. UK


   Having read the latter part of the discussion about power sources for 
electric cars, one question springs to mind - have none of you read 
"The roads must roll" ?
--
    _/_/_/   _/     _/   
   _/    _/ _/     _/    "All the important lessons in life are learned
  _/    _/   _/_/_/      just a few seconds too late to be really useful."
 _/    _/     _/
_/_/_/       _/
-- 
    _/_/_/   _/     _/   
   _/    _/ _/     _/    "All the important lessons in life are learned
  _/    _/   _/_/_/      just a few seconds too late to be really useful."
 _/    _/     _/
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Teleporting Things into Other Things (was Re: Star Wars)
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:07:38 GMT
	<!_c18gj@rpi.edu> <1992Nov02.112308.144136@zeus.calpoly.edu>
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics

In article <1992Nov02.112308.144136@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:

>      Neutronuim, definately not. The energy density is to high.
>  Neutronuim can not exist in a free state.

This I'll agree with.  However, purhaps something stable could be formed
with an even higher density?  The real question is could we form a large
stable system of quarks and gluons with transporter technowledgy?  I
really don't know, but I do know I wouldn't want to be in the same solar
system where they were trying this experiment.

                              Bill
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: 13 Nov 92 07:39:33 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <6yPZTB9w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
]I've been thinking about combat in space, and am wondering if anyone has 
]come up with any novel weapons/delivery systems.
]
]So far I have:
]
]    o laser beams
]    o particle beams
]    o kinetic weapons (shells)

I don't know about this. Maybe for close up work (boarding actions :)

]    o missiles
]    o torpedos (nuclear missiles)

I take this to mean that missiles are small, fighter mounted weapons while
torpedos are capital warship-mounted weapons?

]
]Anything else pop into mind?
]

      -Plasma projectors  (From 
      -Meson Guns           Megatraveller) 

Obligatory anime rip-offs:
      -Minovski Particle generator? :)
      -Beam Sabers :)
      -Wave Motion Gun :)




-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller)
Subject: Re: Star Wars
Organization: AL/HRTI, Brooks AFB
	<1992Nov5.000437.308@ugle.unit.no>,<1decb6INNge1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	<1992Nov6.195208.10997@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:26:31 GMT

On Fri, 6 Nov 92 19:52:08 GMT, baylor@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com said:

 b> Now the bad news: some kind of congressional panel just backed off
 b> on the "women in fighter a/c thing".  This means lousy promotions,
 b> lack of respect & general inequality, over something that it doesn't
 b> take any particular endowment of testosterone or upper body
 b> sterength to do.

	Where did you hear this?  Last report I saw had the panel for
women's role in combat recommending that women still be withheld from
ground combat roles but be permitted to fly air combat.

	In addition, fighter pilots pump iron to build muscle precisely
because the increased muscle mass is a significant aid in resisting
G-induced red/black out.  

-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:56:09 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Wanganui Amigans, Wanganui, NZ

In article <6yPZTB9w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
>I've been thinking about combat in space, and am wondering if anyone has
>come up with any novel weapons/delivery systems.

>    o kinetic weapons (shells)

There are several different ways of launching these. BTW, "shells" is probably
the wrong term if you're talking about pure kinetic-energy weapons.

(1) Chemical propulsion (i.e. conventional guns). Probably impractical for
space combat -- the projectile speed would be too low. The best modern
CPR guns (chemically propelled rounds, to borrow Marc Miller's term) have
muzzle velocities on the order of 1 km/s.

(2) Mass drivers. A series of ring-shaped electromagnets, triggered in series,
hurl a magnetically susceptible projectile at high speed (classic fictional
source : Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress").

(3) Railguns. Two parallel rails, with a very high current running out one
rail, through the projectile, and back the other. Much simpler than a mass
driver, but the mechanical tolerances are much finer, and you can lose energy
to friction (not to mention possibly welding the projectile to the rails if
anything goes wrong).

Other kinds of weapon? Hmmm...

How about electromagnetic pulse weapons? The RAF is currently working on an
"EMP bomb", which uses a shaped charge (conventional, not nuclear) inside a
special tube to produce a powerful, directional pulse. I can imagine some
kind of "gun" producing a similar effect, given future technology.

"Brilliant pebbles" -- the current favourite of the American SDI project,
in which a missile releases a cloud of tiny, fairly intelligent projectiles.
Regardless of your opinions on the SDI project in the context of the present
day, it could be a good idea given 21st-century technology.

And then, of course, there's always the thought of using computer viruses
as weapons...


--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
             "If there is ever a war between men and machines,
         it is easy to guess who will start it." (Arthur C Clarke)
From: d2jonas@dtek.chalmers.se (Jonas Olsson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Teleporting etc.
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:00:17 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

I'd like to return to the original idea of teleporting things into things
in order to destroy or severely damage an enemy ship:

Let's assume that somebody (somehow) managed to produce larger portions
of anti-matter (I hear they can only make a few atoms these days) and
also has figured out a safe way of handling and storing it (The few atoms
mentioned above only lasted for parts of a second).
How about teleporting something like that into another craft!! Pretty neat!

--
Jonas Olsson		d2jonas@dtek.chalmers.se           
                        Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Have a good one!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:52:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.102619.22004@nwnexus.WA.COM>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov11.004233.23064@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
|>      Nov10.165701.3496@linus.mitre. writes:
|> 
|> >I think you have to split kinetic weapons into three:
|> >
|> >Slow (< 10km/s) massive, possibly guided, explosive and/or stealthed
|> >Fast (10-100 km/s) light, probably inert

Thinko here, I meant more like 10-30000 km/s

|> >Superfast (relativistic) and extremely light
|> 
|> >Slow weapons can be dodged or counterattacked, but can change course
|> >noticeably during an attack and can home. They can be launched using
|> >chemical propellants at only hundreds of Gs.
|> 
|>    They can also intervene in the path of a much faster-moving vehicle
|> of given sufficient warning (i.e. sensor capability vs. weapons
|> capability).  We also have not discussed possible warheads that such
|> KKV (Kinetic Kill Vehicles) might carry.
|> 
|> >Fast weapons might be dodgable, or at least you could see them coming
|> >fast enough to get an ablative shield into place. This is where gravel
|> >comes in. They could gain their velocity from orbital geometries or
|> >from a railgun type launcher. The missile would have to survive
|> >thousands of Gs, so it probably won't contain any active components.
|> 
|>    Orbital geometries and the like wouldn't influence the internals of
|> such a weapon appreciably, at least not in terms of acceleration.
|> Given integral maneurvering, the _acceleration_ a KKV uses has little
|> to do with it's terminal velocity.  A bussard ramjet probably starts
|> out very slowly...
|> 
On the other hand the battle might be over before it got there.
Orbital maneouvering does make the distinction between slow and fast  a bit
blurred, if the combatants are in very different orbits. Of course if delta-v is
limitted this may not be an option and everything not launched froma  rail-gun
(or taking long periods to accelerate, or finding a cunning gravity well
maneouvre) will be 'slow'.


|> >Superfast missiles are almost impossible to dodge unless you see the
|> >launcher aiming. On the other hand the launcher is bulky for the
|> >actual energy sent. Antimatter might be available in sufficient
|> >quantities (dust grain) to use that for projectiles, since the
|> >launcher has to be EM.
|> 
|>    Using antimatter is pretty spectacular, but also pointless when
|> we're talking about particulate matter.  Ballistically, microscopic
|> particles are useless even at 'very fast' speeds; look how much damage
|> Skylab and Soyuz absorbed from micrometeorites without ill effect.
|> 
Those were moving at at most tens of km/s. I'm talking abot dust specs at a good
fraction of the speed of light or protons at such high energies that they mass as
much as dust specs.
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Commercial value of 3He
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:14:33 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>Can someone drop me a note explaining how to get a kilowatt-hours per
>gramme figure for He 3 fusion?  I'd like to calculate a dollar value of
>helium 3 for a luinar colonization story.

The relevant reaction is

D + He3 --> He4(3.6MeV) + p(14.7MeV),

[Nuclear Data Tables, 1969 and 1970, cited in the NRL Plasma Formulary,
1983] where MeV, mega electron volts, refers to the kinetic energy
carried off by each particle. Note you need both the D and the He3 in
your costs. The masses are roughly 1900 MeV (that's the mass times the
c squared) for the D and 2850 for the He3, so at perfect efficiency
you get 18.3/4750, or approx 0.38 per cent of rest energy liberated.
This translates to about 3.5 x 10^18 ergs per gram of He3. There are
10^7 ergs in a watt-sec, so the final figure is roughly 100,000 kw-hr
per gram of He3. Factor in your story on efficiency at this point.
(Note that this is accurate to 1 sig fig, go for a calculator to get
closer; with the efficiency uncertainty that was unnecessary in my
case:)

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: whelal@engr.UVic.CA (Wael  Helal)
Subject: Re:  Star Wars
Reply-To: whelal@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 20:58:52 GMT

Canada currently has two female fighter pilots flying F-18's.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:09:00 EST

----- sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton) writes:

>missile would have to survive thousands of Gs, so it probably won't contain 
>any active components.

Au contraire.  1000's of G's is probably reasonable for solid-state
components.  The U.S. government specifies and buys components that
can withstand and function in 100,000 G.  In fact, many AA & SA missles
in use today accelerate to mach 3 or 4 in a few seconds.  (What does
that work out to?  Too lazy to calculate.)

On another note.  I still maintain that stealth will be the most
important factor, once your theatre encompasses interplanetary
distances.  Finding something like like an asteroid is very
challenging, even if they're miles wide, and reflect sunlight.  What
about something a few-dozen feet wide that doesn't reflect or emit
hardly anything at all?  (At least in your direction.)  

If such a device spent its time accelerating toward you, by the time
it could be easily detected by starlight occlusion, it might be too
late to stop the thing.  (A fraction of a percent of c should do the 
trick.)  How would you protect, say, a permanent orbital installation 
from such a missle?  (Assume it has homing capability.) 

Any takers?

--Peter Kwangjun Suk
From: rdosser@martha.utcc.utk.edu (rdosser)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Non-nuclear explosive
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:20:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: utkux1.1992Nov12.042010.12324
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center

First, take a verrrry thin disk of metallic hydrogen, that is, hydrogen
compressed until it assumes a solid, metallic structure. Cool it damn
near absolute zero so it doesn't want to do anything.
Now, surround it with as perfect an insulator as you can get. The trick
here is the insulator must (at least on one side) disintegrate in the
presence of extreme heat.
Put this in a chamber and wait. At the moment of truth, pump the chamber
full of extremely high temperature plasma as fast as you can, as
uniformly as you can. The insulation disintegrates, and the extremely
dense solid hydrogen suddenly is superheated, (hopefully) going from
solid to gas or even plasma in a very short period of time. This should
lead to quite a drastic increase in volume, which I think is the name of
the game.
Okay, it'll never work. But why?
Just posting out loud.


***********************************************************************
* Ralph Dosser       rdosser@utkux.utk.edu                            *
* The University of Tennessee Computing Center                        *
* Do you think I'd be working here if I could afford a real snake?    *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: eswedin@cs.weber.edu (Eric G. Swedin)
Subject: Re: Forgotten Story
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Distribution: rec.arts.sf.science
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 03:02:42 GMT

Right story name "The Midas Plague," wrong author, it was Fredrick Phol.  He talks about the story in an introduction to it in "The Best of Fredrick Phol" and 1970s paperback from Dell or Bantam or someone like that.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:37:04 GMT
Organization: preferably none
Keywords: space combat weapons

In article <BxKMy3.G6u@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>, neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
|>   [...] Choke points are a bit harder
|> to come by when you have three dimensions of motion available and few or
|> no physical objects. You might want to interdict the approach to a
|> fortress or ship. [...] Just tossing mines out in interplanetary
|> space in the hopes that one of the bad guys will run into it seems like a
|> vast waste of funds.

But *combat* is a vast waste of funds {:-)

If the enemy is likely to use planets for gravity-well manoeuvring, or
smaller bodies near your base for hiding behind, these become choke
points.  But you're right, they're wider (and fewer) than oceanic choke
points.  The mines would need some homing ability.  Could be quite
useful against cargo vessels (low acceleration, no armour/defences) or
troop transports.

Another thought: put a lot of mines in circular 23.9 hour equatorial
orbits around the Earth.  If enemy sets up his HQ in geosynch orbit,
pretty soon				KABOOM!

		- Richard
From: wixer!cactus.org!wixer!pro-smof.cts.com!rfletcher@cactus.org (Robert Fletcher)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: The Philadelphia Experiment (?)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 08:21:55 -0600
Organization: The SMOF-BBS: Science Fiction Online Since 1985 [512-467-7317]
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

  "The entire thing is fiction." is not totally true. There was a project
called Philadelphia Experiment
----
ProLine:  rfletcher@pro-smof
Internet: rfletcher@pro-smof.cts.com
UUCP:     crash!pro-smof!rfletcher
ARPA:     crash!pro-smof!rfletcher@nosc.mil