nike shoes,men's nike shoes,women's nike shoes,
nike football shoes,nike shox shoes, men's nike shox, women's nike shox, nike airmax shoes, nike airmax 180, nike airmax 2003, nike airmax 2009, nike airmax 360, nike airmax 87, nike airmax 88, nike airmax 89, nike airmax 90, nike airmax 91, nike airmax 90, nike airmax 95, nike airmax 97, nike airmax tn, nike air stab shoes, nike air yeezy shoes, nike airmax ltd, Air Jordan 1 , Air Jordan 10 , Air Jordan 11 , Air Jordan 11.5, Air Jordan 12 , Air Jordan 13, Air Jordan 14 , Air Jordan 15.5, Air Jordan 16, Air Jordan 17, Air Jordan 18, Air Jordan 19, Air Jordan 2.5, Air Jordan 20+AF1, Air Jordan 23, Air Jordan 24,Air Jordan 25, Air Jordan 3, Air Jordan 4, Air Jordan 4.5+13 Fusion,Air Jordan 5, Air Jordan 6, Air Jordan 6+AF1 Fusion, Air Jordan 7 , Air Jordan 8 , Air Jordan 9, Air Jordan Embroidery 4.5, Air Jordan Fusion 11+23, Air Jordan Fusion 12, Air Jordan Fusion 23, Air Jordan Fusion 5, Air Jordan Gold, Air Jordan Fusion 9, Air Jordan Six Mixed One, Air Jordan Three Mixed One, Air Jordan+Obama 11.5, Jordan Six Rings+Obama, Air Jordan Six Rings 11, Jordan True Flight

Posted by: any at June 25, 2009 02:09 AM

弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批发 http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产品 http://www.xqt007.cn
成人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪板机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
卷板机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三面翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混合机 http://www.85399888.cn
搅拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼吸阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻火器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html

Posted by: 弩 at November 12, 2008 09:24 AM

It was my pleasure to visit your blog. It is really a mirecle to visit your blog in this wide world. And I also have the feeling that it was really a pity that we didn't meet each other earlier. Because the kindness and warmth in your blog can make me completely relaxed and happy. I hope that you will visit my blog too to see if you can have the same feeling.

afake rolex watch replica shoes

http://www.lowestmall.com
http://www.easyforbuy.com
http://www.ecforshop.com
http://www.gomykick.com
http://www.onestoptown.com
http://www.rolex8u.com
http://www.watchinstyle.com
http://www.yourshop.cc
http://www.instylewatch.com
http://www.sellbestshoes.com
http://www.buynikeshoes.com
http://www.PICKHANDBAG.COM
http://www.PICKMYWATCH.COM
http://www.PICKTHEBAG.COM
http://www.ROLEXWATCHFORU.COM
http://www.REPLICAWATCHFORU.COM
http://www.wearmyrolexnow.com

Posted by: replicashoes at October 23, 2008 09:30 PM

Not even the distant marches of our home could mask a terror like this for long. I'm afraid even of your brief comment here in this obscure little media, ages from the humanity you have seen. Remember Oppenheimer. Learn from what demons you have already created. Do not bring them with you. There is violence enough among the stars, and anyway they are not fitting dreams of such mysterious children.

Posted by: Fredricksburg at September 12, 2008 06:27 PM

A really interesting ultimate kind of rail gun would entail a system capable of accelerating charged particles to an energy at which they would become black holes based on the particle’s Lorenz length contraction and the reduction of their wave function cross section based on the inverse dependence of the wavelength of the particle with mass.

Imagine that somehow, a subatomic charged particle could be accelerated to an energy of 10 EXP 35 electron volts very quickly. Such a particle would be a black hole with a kinetic energy of ~ 10 EXP 16 Joules; the equivalent of 100 grams of mass. Such a black hole would not decay quickly with respect to the back ground reference frame (perhaps defined by the cosmic microwave background radiation as a universal reference frame) due to relativistic time dilation. A proton accelerated to 10 EXP 35 eV would obtain a relativistic gamma factor of about 5 x 10 EXP 25. Such a particle, I could imagine, could punch through any conceivable physical machine or element of infrastructure although it might not interact much with it because of its small cross-section for interaction.

However, a beam of such particles produced by a mechanism of unheard of power production, perhaps powered by latent energy extracted from the zero point vacuum fields, could be a near ultimate death ray.

One could imagine a human civilization in the far distant future capable of accelerating a particle to a kinetic energy equal to the mass of the Earth. Note that an Earth massed black hole would have a diameter of about 1 centimeter and so a black hole accelerated to have a relativistic mass of the Earth could do great damage to any planet, satellite, or space craft it would pass through, even given its relatively small cross section. No technology in the universe could stop this baby!

Even if the equations of special relativity do not break down at ultra-relativistic velocities, the absolutely limiting value of C only limits the kinetic energy of projectiles to infinity with infinite destruction capability.

The possible violation of special relativity such as has been proposed in the Theory of Doubly Special Relativity might even permit particles to be accelerated beyond the speed of light to enable superluminal velocity death rays. In double special relativity, the speed of a photon in a vacuum is related to its energy. Accordingly, the difference in velocity of an optical light photon and a nuclear reaction energy level gamma ray would be so small the gamma ray would outrun the optical light photon by only milliseconds after having traveled a distance of a billion light years. However, as the energy of a photon approaches the Planck Energy Level, its speed increases dramatically. In at least some versions of Doubly Special Relativity, the limiting value of the speed of a photon is infinite; an infinite number of light-years per second. I would not be surprised if sufficiently energetic baryonic particles could reach superluminal velocities as well.

The point to all of this is that I think massive projectiles will always be used as an instrument of armed conflict, whether offensive or defensive. Whether we like it or not, the proverbial gun is here to stay. But we need to be careful as a civilization both now and far into the future of what sort of weapons systems we construct.

Posted by: James M. Essig at September 4, 2008 11:24 PM

Use of now retired battleships has come up a few times below.. I went through and figured some basic costs on it. Pretty interesting: Refitting the USS Missouri, for example, with suitable equipment to be an effective rail platform [nuclear plants, necessary electronic suite, native defensive systems, and three large turret systems] came out to somewhere in the range of $2 billion dollars. With systems bloat and the turret design figured an actual project would probably exceed $3 billion. Worth it? This is the United States Navy were talking about; you bet your ass.

With several Iowa class boats being maintained in decent condition we could theoretically have 3 or 4 very large rail equipped battleships in service late 20's or early 30's for $20 - $40 billion. As for the cost effectiveness; as stated below the R&d is the major outlay and is already attached to other projects. With maintained hulls readily available, I think the return on investment would be very high and very secure, especially since these old boats were designed to take a major pounding by extremely heavy ordinance.

Speaking of that, not included in the cost is a servicing or possible refit of the various armor belts. It might be worth the expense if a next generation weapon system were mounted, but I have no idea what the actual work would entail.

Drawbacks would be antiquated hull design [though I think it was fast for its day], general age of core systems [B-52] and massive crewing requirements. Also, we'd have to retrain everyone on proper maintenance of a beautiful and historic wooden deck.

Silly idea; one can dream. If me and five or six hundred friends win the lottery, you now know where the money will go.

Posted by: Barton Foley at September 2, 2008 05:07 PM

Hi LtSmith 82nd;

That is an interesting conjecture considering that even non-classified public daily newspapers often made reference to the brilliant pebbles concepts. Once the hardware were to be fully designed, assembled, and lofted into orbit, I can see that such a program could be very cost effective for the defensive purposes it would serve.

Regards;

Jim

Posted by: James M. Essig at April 7, 2008 03:24 AM

I would not be so surprised to find the US Military in contoll of such kinetic weapons on platforms in orbit already. The brilliant pebbbles program was in progudtion in the mid 80's, and has not since been heard from. So what are the odds?? Pretty good. Have we used them??? thats a good question.

Posted by: LtSmith 82nd. at April 4, 2008 10:38 PM

Rail guns? I don't think Amtrak should posses offensive weapons.

Posted by: noodle at January 31, 2008 04:44 PM

Another interesting development or should I say field of research regarding very high kinetic energy munitions involves research into rocket projectiles which presumably could carry conventional or nuclear warheads that would accellerate to such a high velocity and to such so quickly that the targeted enemy would not have a chance to react to provide countermeasures or counter strikes.

The concept involves ungoing research, according to non-classified open sources, into rocket propellents that are based of nanoparticles of flamible metals such as aluminum, titanium, magnesium and the like with a oxidizing agent. Accordingly, the surface configurations of these flamable nanoparticles are such that the rate of burn can be much faster than that of traditional solid rocket fuels and with higher specific impulse thus permitting higher terminal velocities which can be reached much quicker.

I can well imagine how effective a rocket munition could be if fired at a target 100 miles away and then reaching the target after only 10 seconds of flight. This would be awesome from a military standpoint. A rocket that could reach a target 2 miles away in 1/5 of a second after being fired would leave an enemy no time to react or take defensive nor offensive countermeasures.

If such rockets can be produced, and can be directed with precision, then the yield of missiles designed to take out missle silos could be greatly reduced. Defense reports that are available online state that missle silo doors that are 30 feet thick will be vaporized by the surface contact detonation of a 5 kiloton nuclear device which is much lower in yield then the much less accurate warheads designed to do the same job with yeilds 1 to 2 orders of magnitude greater thus reducing the amount of fallout injected into the atmosphere and reducing collateral damage such as to surrounding civilian populations.

Still five kilotons is very destructive at about 2/5 the yield of the 12.5 kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima which killed about 80,000 persons immeadiately and another perhaps 140,000 within the following years, many of these later casualties of whom died agonizing deaths due to fatal third and fourth degree burns in the days after the bombing after being exposed to the bombs blinding thermal pulse. So a rocket projectile that could take out a missle silo door with all of its hardened alloy construction and super hardened concrete could be ideal for minimizing collateral damage and the resulting spread of radioactivity associated with even a low yield nuclear device. Even a nuclear device detonated a ground level with a yield of only a fraction of that of the low yield device used over Hiroshima can kill hundreds of thousands of persons by radioactive fallout if detonated in a densely populated area.

Best Regards;

Jim

Posted by: James M. Essig at December 17, 2007 05:56 AM

Best sites for you!:
http://zipo3.hit.bg
http://www.dubhot.port5.com
http://airfare1.white.prohosting.com

Bye!

Posted by: Vovan at December 16, 2007 04:30 AM

Best sites for you!:
http://tone1.741.com
http://tone3.hit.bg
http://buy-valium.awardspace.com
http://buy-tramadol-1.100webspace.net
http://balancecred.bravehost.com

End ^) Goodbye.

Posted by: Denny at December 7, 2007 06:41 PM

Best sites for you!:
http://zipo3.741.com
http://lumberwood.tripod.com
http://tone3.741.com
http://zipo3.hit.bg
http://cheaplaptop.freewebspace.com

End ^) Goodbye.

Posted by: Barbara at December 7, 2007 01:12 PM

Best sites for you!:
http://cingular.741.com
http://dragonballz1.freewebspace.com
http://wedding1.8k.com
http://zipo1.741.com
http://budgetcar.741.com

End ^) Goodbye.

Posted by: Vovan at December 6, 2007 08:13 PM

Best sites for you!:
http://vendingcandy.tripod.com
http://toothwhitening.freewebspace.com
http://zipo2.hit.bg
http://cardonation.tripod.com
http://wedding1.8k.com

End ^) Goodbye.

Posted by: Eric at December 6, 2007 08:13 PM

Best sites for you!:
http://suzukigrandvitara.tripod.com
http://christmas-nightmare.hit.bg
http://tone2.741.com
http://christmas-nightmare.hit.bg
http://hotelinvenice.freewebspace.com

End ^) Goodbye.

Posted by: Kennedy at December 6, 2007 02:39 PM

Hi Jim;

Thanks for the info on re-entry weapons with impact velocities of 6.5 km second. Also, it never occurred to me that the material out of which the projectile was made could be used as a component of a fuel air explosion upon vaporization.

One can imagine numerous 1 million metric ton space darts assembled in orbit over long periods of time made from such materials having a diameter of less than 100 meters. The kinetic energy of impact would be around 5.25 megatons of TNT. Add to this the fact that fuel air explosives typically have peak yields of up to ten times greater than traditional conventional explosives and one obtains a yield per vaporized dart at about 15 megatons. For a single 10 million ton dart, the resulting yeild could be a staggering 150 megatons. However, both of these yeild values probably represent overkill since the typical yield of a modern strategic nuclear warhead is in the 100 kiloton to 450 kiloton range.

Perhaps the material for such darts could be more economically derived from the surface or subsurface mineral deposits on the moon or from near Earth orbiting asteriods.

Another option would be to develope numerous space dart interplanetary orbiting stations with orbits that are antiparallel to that of Earth. The resulting collision velocity would be about twice the orbital velocity of Earth (about 30 km/sec) around the sun thus yeilding a collision velocity of 60 km/sec.

A one million metric ton dart with this collision velocity would yeild about 500 megatons. A 10 million metric ton dart would yield about 5,000 megatons or 5 gigatons which would probably be more than overkill. Very hard facilities buried underneath 2 or 3 miles of the Earth's crust would perhaps be the only concievable targets for impactors in the several hundred megatons to 5 gigatons range. A 5 gigaton surface burst nuclear explosion would be expected to blast a crater about 7/8 mile deep in solid granite and so I can imagine that the directed kinetic energy effects of a 5 gigaton kinetic energy range impacter would demolish any such very deeply buried sites.

Note that the NORAD facility under Cheyenne Mountain is only about 1,700 feet below the mountain's surface.

If additional velocity was required, perhaps non-nuclear rocket options for accellerating such huge projectile could entail deployment of huge solar sails made of very high mass specific solar energy reflecting membranes while the projectiles are a ways off in order to allow significant mass specific kinetic energy gains of the impactor(s).

At any rate, impactors with kinetic energy ranges of one megaton are probably sufficient to hold any deeply buried hard targets at risk. In fact, impactors with 100 kilotons of kinetic energy may be all that is required to hold any deeply buried hard targets at risk becuase of the directed energy effects of such impactors and also because of the sheer power of the shockwave transmitted by such impacts to the subsurface material of Earth's crust.

Best Regards;

Jim Essig

Posted by: James M. Essig at October 22, 2007 04:27 PM

1.If you have something in orbit, a simple retro rocket will cause it to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere and eventually hit the earth. If aerodynamically designed and if it is heavy enough, it will hit with a terminal velocity of about 6.5 kilometers per second. The terminal effects can be enhanced by making the projectile out of aluminum or some other refractory metal that will vaporize and become part of a fuel-air explosion. The big problem is getting to hit precisely where you want, which requires smart projectiles.

2.Electronics are routinely fired out of artillery with accelerations of +10,000 Gs and -9,000 Gs. In fact, the 155mm Copperhead round (homes in on laser designator) uses a mechanical gyroscope to stabilize the round. This was done with 20+ year old technology. As has been stated,it was done in WW II using vacuum tubes.

3.If you use re-entry type weapons, the mass of the round has a very high upper limit, heavier that an electromagnetic launched round.

This concept was part of Reagan’s Star Wars plans.

Posted by: Jim DiGris at October 21, 2007 11:47 AM

An interesting set of concepts regarding space-based electromagnetic guns occurred to me as I was pondering the defensive potential of such systems.

One can imagine huge facilities built in low Earth Orbit to orbits further out then geosynchronous orbit wherein very long barreled electromagnetic guns would fire projectiles on the order of 10 metric tons at velocities of up to about 85 kilometers per second thus giving them a kinetic energy of 10 kilotons of TNT or about the same energy as the energy released in the explosion of the atomic bomb dropped over Hiroshima.

One possibility for allowing these projectiles to be able to withstand atmospheric reentry might be to give the projectiles very smooth and UV light reflective, highly refractive outer casings with a very elongated and sharp point made out of the very most refractory and UV light reflective material(s)known to man whether the material(s) is classified or not. Additionally, the projectile could be made to have a length 10 to 30 times its diameter for decreased atmospheric air resistance. The projectile might additionally have an on board magnetic field generator of the requisuite configuration to reflect and/or otherwise divert the super hot plasma of reentry away from the missiles surface so that it does not make contact with the outer surface of the projectile.

Other methods of reducing the destructive effects of atmospheric friction include potentially firing a laser beam or particle beam in advance of the launched missle in such a manner that the air infront of the incomming missle would be greatly rarified by thermal expansion induced by atmospheric heating of this air and within the flight path of the projectile. A 10 to one hundred fold reduction in ambient atmospheric density along the flight path of the launched missle could help prevent its distintigration by atmospheric friction and heating effects. The required laser or particle beam could originate from the same platform that the missles are launched from.

The energy required to power such a missle electromagnetic gun could come from a 10,000 metric ton electromagnetic turbine or perhaps better yet, from two 5,000 metric ton counter-rotating turbines rotating at about 3 km/sec.

Note that the development of turbines of such mass made of the strongest carbon nanotubes might enable turbine rotational velocities of 10 km/sec since such carbon nanotubes are 10 times stronger than the best available high strength polymers such as Zylon which is twice as strong as Kevlar. Kevlar is three times stronger than typical high strength steels. A 10,000 metric ton turbine of this material composition rotating at 10 km/sec would be able to launch 10 ten metric ton 85 km/sec missiles for a total impact kinetic energy of 100 kilotons. A number of such stations could be assembled in orbit with perhaps few hundred such stations being a long range time frame optimal number comparable with the number of ships within the U.S Navy. If each station was stocked with 1,000 missles, each capable of a ten kiloton collision energy, the total yield capability would be about 300 x 1,000 x 10 kilotons or about 3,000 megatons which is roughly the yield of the current on alert U.S. stategic nuclear stockpile. This would provide the U.S. and its allies a robust stategic deterant without all of the potential radio-active fallout associated with nuclear weapons.

Such stations could have defensive systems such as extremely reflective and refractive surfaces to protect against ground based lasers, intercepter missiles to protect against ground based projectiles, and laser or particle beams for the same purposes.

The power to supply the energy for the turbines may come from solar energy collectors wherein the solar energy is converted to electrical energy to spin up the turbines. Alternatively, space-based nuclear reactors could provide the energy requirement.

In the event that solar energy is utilized, very large inflatable solar energy collectors could be deployed to focus solar energy on compact high incident power density capable and heat resistant PV panels, thermal electric cells, or turbo-electric systems to reduce the mass requirement of the over all space-stations. Additionally, additional inflatable very low mass reflectors could be provided in stored from for redundancy incase the first ones are destroyed or otherwise rendered inoperable by either war or natural causes.

No doubt that such ships would require a very massive construction effort and a requisite highly evolved ability to launch vast quantities of construction materials into orbit as well as a large manned and/or robotic space construction corp and plenty of military personel willing to man the stations, but if we can figure out how to build a settlement on the Moon and/or Mars and I think we will ultimately do such, then the problem of such battle-station construction should prove surmountable.

One might ask why go through the trouble of turning Earth orbit into an armed camp? My answer is that we now have the ability to end all life on Earth in a grave yard of nuclear fallout to paraphrase a statement made by, I believe, the late great Pope John Paul II. Thus shifting long term strategic defense away from dirty nuclear weapons may be our only chance for survival as more and more countries aquire nuclear weapons or have the ability to produce and deploy them in combat or by terrorism.

Who knows, there might be other technological payoffs. One can imagine a very very long electromagnetic gun able to launch 1 to 10 kilogram interstellar probes into space with a velocity of 0.1C to 0.2 C thus permitting all of the stars within a 10 light year radius of Earth of which are numerous to be visited within 50 to 100 years. Launch velocities of .2C to .4C would permit these same stars to be visited by probes from Earth in half the time. Recall that the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes were still fucntioning as they traveled to the edge of the heliopause or outer reaches of our solar system 25 years after they were launched so the public should not be adversed to the wait time to get real close up observational data from such stellar flybys.

Best Regards;

Jim Essig

Posted by: James M. Essig at October 10, 2007 12:15 AM

Actually during WW2 they developed crude proximity fuzes that used miniature vacuum tubes, for god's sake!

They survived the shock of being fired from explosively propelled cannon, I'm certain modern electronics could survive the shock of firing from a gauss accelerator!

BTW, don't forget that some countries would build even more massive versions of these to keep out battleships away from their shores.

Posted by: Professor Tanhauser at October 9, 2007 01:08 AM

Another notion occurred to me regarding the usefulness of electromagnetic guns.

Suppose that there existed 1,000 electromagnetic guns sights located within the continental U.
S. and that these electromagnetic guns were capable of launching 1,000 10 metric ton projectiles each within every one hour period on an emergency basis. Further, suppose that each projectile was composed of a dense refractory high strength core surrounded or encased in an even more refractory shell or coating and that the target collision velocity was on the order of 6 km/sec and the projectiles functioned as ICBM kinetic energy projectiles. That works out to be 40 megatons of collisional explosive energy in one hour or about 1,000 megatons delivered in 1 day or about 7,000 megatons delivered in one week of continuos firing. Bear in mind that 7,000 megatons is roughly 1/2 an order of magnitude greater explosive energy then our currently on active alert strategic nuclear stockpile. Moreover, the deploying of such a large number of smaller warheads would mean that at least for soft targets, the explosive energy would be distributed much more efficiently such as against general military base infrastructures, naval bases, population centers, economic targets, factories,etc.

How might the electrical power be generated and/or stored to power such a huge kinetic energy round stockpile? The energy could in theory be stored in one 10,000 metric ton electrodynamic turbine with a rotational velocity on the order of 3 km/sec at each of the thousand stations wherein the turbine can be recharged with kinetic energy every 15 minutes upon firing of the salvos. This would yield 40 kilotons per hour of energy release per station. The turbines might be maintained in a spun up condition so that they can be utilized in an emergency situation.

The turbines could be resupplied with kinetic energy by electrical motor drivers ultimately powered by vast gas turbine mechanisms which could utilize vast reserves of liquified natural gas whether the natural gas is extracted geologically or whether it is produced from our vast coal reserves, oil shale etc.. The turbines might alternatively have their electric motor drivers powered by coal, gasified coal, petroleum, alcohol or other biofuels, nuclear power, and/or solar energy to electrical energy conversion facilities.

Now, granted, all of this is a little far out, but in theory, with proper economic incentive and the political will to move the backbone of our strategic defense away from a virtually entirely nuclear weapons based mode to a mixed mode utilizing kinetic energy based ICBMs and perhaps a couple of thousand nuclear warheads, some of which could be robust earth penetrating single nuclear warheads (preferably clean) of very high yield perhaps approaching 100 Megatons each for very hard, very deep target destruction if required, we might begin to shift our strategic deterent from the dangerously high nuclear stockpiles that we now maintain and for which the effects of radioactive fallout could still be far more destructive causualty-wise than the immeadiate effects of blast, thermal pulse, immeadiate ionizing radiation etc.

The kinetic energy ICBM bases could be maintained in secured arrangements just as current U.S. Airforce based strategic assets are maintained.

If we need stategic defense and we probably will require such for several to many decades to come, it is better that we reduce our ability to kill our own countrymen through radiation plumes generated by the impact of our nuclear weapons on the territories of our opponents. In the end, the survival of the human race may ultimately be at stake.

Best Regards;

Jim Essig

Posted by: James M. Essig at October 7, 2007 05:40 PM

It is interesting to note the hypersonic projectiles, be they of the size being investigated for the Navy's new destroyers or the conjectured 1 metric ton projectiles I suggested, could probably be used to take out flush to surface missle silos. Given that the approximately 5 to 10 kg antitank "dart" fired from an M1-A2 Abrams Tank can punch its way through probably any tank armour on Earth, I can well imagine the directed kinetic energy effects and extremely high momentum effects of a hypersonic round within the rough order of magnitude mass range of 100 kg to 1,000 kg. I can even envision that a suitably hard and dense hypersonic 1,000 kg projectile hitting a flush to surface or a slightly buried hardened shelter like those built by Saddam in pre-war Iraq could be demolished or at least rendered inoperable by the impact of one of these proposed rounds. A suitable 100 kg round impacting at 3 km/sec should be able to do the same becuase of the highly directional nature of the rounds kinetic energy to target transmission.

Best Regards;

Jim Essig

Posted by: James M. Essig at October 6, 2007 09:39 PM

One further comment I might add regarding naval electromagnetic guns.

Perhaps the energy storage mechanism for rapid energy release to power the rail guns inorder to send a barrage of heavy projectiles toward a given hard but dispersed target in a timely nearly simultaneous manner would be to have a stored energy mechanism composed of counter-rotating flywheels with outer rotational velocities on the order of a few kilometers/second wherein the flywheels would each have a mass in excess of a few hundred metric tons.

For a softer flywheel, in case of partial disintegration, the materials of construction could of a Kevlar/Graphite fiber construction or perhaps even the new material called Zylon which I believe has a tensile strength of at least twice that of Kevlar.

Now granted, a complete distintegration of a turbine rotating at that speed would be like 100 tons of TNT exploding and thus would be catastropic for the vessel and its crew, however, I think properly designed turbines made of zylon could operate within safety parameters at those rotational velocities. If not, then perhaps a material with a greater strength to wieght ratio could be or will be developed in the future for such a purpose.

Note that a turbine with a mass of say 300 metric tons having an outer rotational velocity of about 3 km/sec should be utilizable to launch 300 1 metric ton projectiles at a target wherein all of these projectiles could be launched in a matter of a dozen or so seconds. Obviously, the projectiles could have flight paths designed for simultaneous impact on a single target or for simultaneous lighting strikes on several to dozens of key targets. Talk about warship combat altering paradynms!!

Given the great potential of electromagnetic naval guns, I can see why the U.S. Navy is very interested in this subject. In an era of evolving terrorist strike methods and mobility, such ships could be a valuable asset to our national security, and ultimately to the security of the global community as well.

Best Regards

Jim Essig

Posted by: James M. Essig at October 4, 2007 08:21 PM

The U.S. Navy seems really interested in electromagnetic guns for its next generation destroyers. I have no doubt that they will be able to field an effective system as such sometime next decade.

An interesting take on electromagnetic guns would be to develope projectiles reminescent of the approximately 1 metric ton projectiles fired from the 16 inch guns of the WWII era battleships. A 1,000 kilogram projectile hitting a target with pin-point precision at hypersonic velocities would be quite formidable.

One might ask, for projectiles of that size, why not simply use a ballistic missle which can deliver such projectiles at a speed of several miles per second (about 4 miles per second in the case of a submarine launched ICBMs). The answer to this question is that a 1 metric ton electromagentic gun projectile as such would require no powder or chemical propellants thus enabling many more rounds to be stored within the ship's magazine(s) thus promoting safe storage and handling while greatly enhancing the lethality of the ship by allowing it to destructively engage many more targets without the need to resort to the dangerous use of nuclear weapons.

As a thought experiment, or really simply just a thought concept, as the limits of ability of the projectile to handle accelleration induced stress approaches infinity or the ability to uniformly accellerate the projectile so that it experiences no net accelleration induced stresses becomes perfect, the intensity of the electromagnetic fields (i.e., electrodynamic and/or magnetodynamic forces) accellerating the projectile approaches infinity, and the energy to accellerate the projectile reaches infinity, then the velocity of the projectile approaches and equals C, the velocity of light.

Now obviously, there is probably little hope of humanity or any other existant intellegent civilizations within the universe of actually harnessing literally infinite quantities of energy, one can see that as improvements in the parameters for which the hypothetical limits suggested above were given continue to be made via improvements in material science, the ability to improve the uniformity of projectile accelleration induced stresses to reduce stress induced forces on the projectile, the ability to generate ever more intense electrodynamic and/or magnetodynamic fields, and the capacity to generate greater overall power levels within electrodynamic and magnetodynamic systems, the kinetic energy of projectiles in the atmosphere or in space as well as their rest mass specific kinetic energy densities will continue to improve.

Now, it will be along time before we can launch macroscopic projectiles in an electromagnetic gun at velocities approaching C, but I would not be surprised if we can reach muzzle velocities of between 10 and 20 kilometers/sec over the next few decades especially for space based systems where air friction is non-existent.

As for encasing the projectile in some sort of material such as diamond or some other material of high bulk modulous, high elastic modulous, and of high strain properties, carbon nanotubes might be the perfect answer espcially with improvements in industrial output of high quality materials.

That's all for now.

Best Regards;

Jim Essig

Posted by: James M. Essig at September 24, 2007 11:55 PM

About what John Doe said up the top of the page, well doesn't Pi=Pf? So if you fire a rail gun from a sattelite in space, theres no friction whatso ever around it and it will be launched off somewhere. This would actually be good for a probe travelling as it could get very fast with a rail gun attached to the back of it.

Posted by: Someone at September 5, 2007 07:55 PM

Um if you have a non explosive kinetic round going down range at mach 7 it will have one hell of a range but the trajectory will be so flat that it will be usless against land based targets unless they are on very flat land with no hills infront to lob the shell over. You would have to have a HE, guided round for land based targets. These would be prone to failure from the high acceleration as pointed out earlier. Sounds like a sea/sea or surface to air weopon to me

Posted by: adon at August 18, 2007 12:43 AM

Good thing we are putting our new technology out for the whole world to know about.

Posted by: 502 at May 17, 2007 08:52 AM

you guys are not seeing the bigger picture with a rail gun. no chemicals or oxygen or gravity needed to fire it. this is a weapon that could be applied to satelites or used in space easily. with all the solar energy available it would be perfect for a satelite to use if needed.

Posted by: john doe at May 3, 2007 10:10 AM

That time frame appears to have been compressed. The Navy just test-fired an 8 Mj demonstration gun and has awarded a contract for a 32 Mj gun. http://www.ga.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1151686612&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/012007/01172007/251373
As to nuclear missiles, if you can hit any target in N. Korea with a guided mach 7 artillery round, why not make an anti-missile version.

Posted by: Jeff_F_F at January 19, 2007 01:16 AM

As for the refit BB's argument it would be quite costly, when we last updated them there was a possible plan to replace on of the turrets with a VLS system, never got off the accountants book's just added some box launchers.

As for the use more powder, answer look at HARP
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smartlet.htm

which also shows the the G load of a EM round is not an insurmountable problem

one great thing about EM vs Chem lauch will be a much higher magazine storage capacity and reduced change of magazine or turret fires.

Posted by: Nestor at January 18, 2007 11:34 AM

Smashing things, and threatening to smash things with guns of any sort is a poor way to create workable relationships with nations, no wonder the NKs are working on gadgets! In the atomic era the ability to blast an Nth area, with powder guns, rail guns, or fission bombs, can create only a standoff. So why build rail guns? follow the money...

Posted by: Phaedrus at December 22, 2006 05:37 PM

Would it surprise anyone to know that I have a Geography book from the late 19-teens with a conceptual picture of soldiers firing a rail gun on French forces (if I remember correctly)? I was dumbfounded to find out that the rail gun concept had been around that long. I scanned the picture to send to a friend if anyone wants to see it.

Posted by: Bill K at December 22, 2006 09:38 AM

I grew up during the depression and was still a kid in WW11 then served in the Korean War. You young guys have learned nothing about history and especially communism. These people are enslaved and only live at the whim of the idiot running the nut house. Give them the food and only those of the Commuist Party (especialy the Military) will get it while the rest starve (like now). Don't give me the garbage that the UN could over see the food program! The UN showed how corrupt it was in the oil for food program. The UN can not be trusted. UN corruption has gone back many, many years. For too many years we have forgotten how to fight. What was it that General George Patton said? The purpose of war is too kill more of their bastards than they kill of our bastards! We have the fire power to due it, we are just worried about some elses opinion.

Posted by: Roger Warren at December 20, 2006 03:36 PM

Um, actually your ill-informed. Propellant for artillery comes in charges known as "bags" so you can regulate the bang behind the boom. FYI

Posted by: Surfed on at November 6, 2006 12:49 PM

The military.com article (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html) did not have a date, but it said that the Army was going to have a test system in 2005. I wonder what the current date for that test is. (Yes, I just assumed that it did not meet the test date.)

Posted by: Matt S at July 16, 2006 12:52 PM

I beleve X at is a fucking retard, hey, have you ever heard of a TACTICAL strike buddy? the american method of just going in and blowing the shit out of everything is rapidly being proven innefective these days,so why not take shit out from a distance and cause no american casualties?

Posted by: PsyKosiS at June 27, 2006 04:14 PM

"Or, we could just give them some GODDAMN FOOD! The current, belligerent policy towards North Korea is a total failure.

Yes, because they are hungry and that is why the NK are a military threat.

Have you learned nothing from history? Little, if any, of the food ever gets to those who are starving. Not that that is even the issue here. Do you think if we airdrop some Big Macs to NK that they suddenly would be unwilling to launch a nuclear missile at US forces? WTF?, over.

Weapons like rail guns will give us the ability to surgically remove a military threat rapidly even better than cruise missiles and laser guided bombs. If it allows our military to get the job done more efficiently and effectively then I'm all for it.

Posted by: shaun at June 26, 2006 07:28 PM

Or, we could just give them some GODDAMN FOOD! The current, belligerent policy towards North Korea is a total failure.

Posted by: Guest at June 25, 2006 03:25 PM

Correction:

How about one rail gun shot aimed directly at "Dear Leader" "Great Leader" or "Dork Leader" as they savages North of the 38th name their leader[s]? Pity is, as brain damaged as he is, the USA cowers at his every utterance and then submits to his blackmail with money, technology, or worse. So whether he's done in with a "rail gun" or a .44 Magnum, let's deal with him. Mickey Mouse would make a great replacement for this little runt.

Posted by: ralph at June 24, 2006 10:23 AM

How about one rail gun shot aimed directly at "Dear Leader" "Great Leader" or "Dork Leader" as they savages North of the 38th name their leader[s]. Pity is, as brain damaged as he is the USA cowers at his every utterance and then submits to his blackmail with money, technology, or worse. So whether he's done in with a "rail gun"of a .44 Magnum, let's deal with him. Mickey Mouse would make a great replacement for this little runt.

Posted by: ralph at June 24, 2006 10:18 AM

Let's spend a 5 billion dollars so we can take out people with AK-47s and Scuds. Cause no one will ever mess with us if we have a better military than them.

Posted by: x at June 24, 2006 12:55 AM

This is not quite the same as a cannon. The energy transfer is not instantanious. And we can always make a mile long track, accelerating the shuttle within suitable stresses. The Track can then curve upwards, perhaps along the side of a mountain. And if we only use it on un-maned missions it would be worth it. And even if it can't get us all the way there we can strap on a rocket booster. It's still better than burning millions of gallons of fuel. It can work like a bullet train, if that is more efficient, then transfer over to a more powerfull rail gun type track.

Posted by: jimbo at June 24, 2006 12:28 AM

M-M-M-MONSTER KILL KILL KILL

Posted by: ch4rm at June 23, 2006 10:02 PM

1) Is the physics problem for putting a rail launched person into space, "How long would the rail need to be at a constant 9g acceleration, to acheive orbit?"

2) If such an orbit was acheived, could you then use chemical rockets to obtain the correct orbit?

And no, I won't talk about wonder diamond alloys, but it occurs to me if the module has to touch the rail gun, you're gonna get a lot of heat.

My science fiction book would invent the mag-lev really long rail gun to get Tom Swift into space.

The first two questions were serious, the last two statements acknowledge the fact I need to ask, 'cause I don't know.

Posted by: Jay at June 23, 2006 09:13 PM

The physics he describes is right, but the conclusion isn't. Sure the round is moving fast, but the mass of the round is so small relative to the mass of the ship that firing the round won't affect the ship much.

Posted by: Nick at June 23, 2006 08:52 PM

idintdoit, have you ever heard of the law of conservation of momentum? Within a system, the sum of the products of the velocities and masses of each of the objects will always remain constant. Now, given that the battleship is many, many orders of magnitude more massive than even a huge artillery shell, the negative change in the velocity of the battleship resulting from the positive change in velocity from the shell will be far less than negligible.

Posted by: Robert Bieber at June 23, 2006 08:15 PM

Anyone else think they've been playing too much metal gear solid?

Posted by: Daniel at June 23, 2006 08:01 PM

idintdoit, Joe Doe: If you know nothing, it's best to just keep your mouth shut.

idintdoit: Current 127mm naval arty shells travel at about Mach 3. Do you see many ships flying backwards when firing their guns? So why would doubling the speed of the shell make any difference?

Joe Doe: I have no idea what you're even trying to say here.

Posted by: angrycat at June 23, 2006 08:00 PM

Isn't 6km/s 17.6 mach, not 7?

Posted by: Joe Smith at June 23, 2006 06:53 PM

Regarding using a rail gun as a space launcher, another problem besides the tremendous acceleration that the payload would need to endure is that such a scheme would result in an orbit whose perigee is the launch point. You need to fire a rocket when the payload is on the other side of the earth (aka at apogee), in order to raise the perigee.

Posted by: ++Don at June 23, 2006 06:39 PM

The gun shoots metal pellets at mach 7 - that's a hell of a lot of momentum even for small projectiles. If they're too massive, the entire ship will get such a recoil it'll wind up hitting Taiwan.

Posted by: idintdoit at June 23, 2006 06:22 PM

in response to penetrode:

and why on earth would the chinese want to do that? the US is worried about a north korean missile launch, not a chinese launch. or did u confuse chinese with north koreans because they're all just a bunch of sneaky asians?

Posted by: wongba at June 23, 2006 06:07 PM

Funny thing is... while ships can carry railguns which will be pretty destructive in the future... the land based one's will make those look like a pea shooter. This is because they will not be constrained by space and layout limitations. when other countries develop these weapons no destroyer will be able to get near them... that's why we are really already building them in subs :)

Posted by: Lewis at June 23, 2006 05:55 PM

If they really wanted to,

couldn't the chinese just fire one of their "sunburn" missles at a US naval ship?

Posted by: penetrode at June 23, 2006 05:34 PM

"why don't we build a big bulky one first to shoot rockets ('er non-rocketed rockets) into space?"

Do you have any idea how much accelleration you're talking about? It's one thing to accellerate a hunk of metal from 0 to mach 7 in under a second, but humans or sensitive electronics? There'd be nothing left.

I believe Jules Verne purposed a similar system for reaching space using cannons. It's now a homework problem in Physics 101 textbooks -- the question being, "Would the accelleration of being launched into space by a cannon kill you?". If you do the math (which is amazingly simple), the answer is "Yes. Many times over." We're talking about forces on the order of 200 G's. Just about the only thing that can survive that is a hunk of iron.

Posted by: . at June 23, 2006 05:32 PM

Why does this have to be a weapon? If the technology is here and understood, and the only problem is making it smaller and cheaper; then why don't we build a big bulky one first to shoot rockets ('er non-rocketed rockets) into space? We have plenty of space on land. We can have a nice spacious nuclear reactor with acres of capacitors; and with no fuel being carried into space the "space capsules" would be massively smaller and lighter. And on top of that the rail gun technology will have a chance to prove itself and develope. Lets think outside the box soldier guys. It's not all about the biggest gun.

Posted by: jimbo at June 23, 2006 04:02 PM

>"Keep in mind that the they will still need to >keep some of their big artillery guns on board, >for the same reason that infantry squads need a >m203 grenade launcher. A rail gun is a line of >site weapon only, and they will still need >something that can be 'lobbed', considering how >mountainous North Korea is."

Um... no. A rail gun projectile will follow a curved path.

>"Im surprised that Military has not yet found a >way to coat the electromagnetic railgun so it >could withstand the pressures of shooting >projectiles. With advances in nanotechnology >and the ability to create diamonds in 12 hours >I'm pretty sure a revolutionary form of alloy >could be produced that would enable the >electromagnetic properties to still function at >the same time protecting it from the intense >stress. A good example is the fusion reactor >where they recently put a coil wire to control >the perturbation from within the reactor. Maybe >the design even though the most practical is >not the correct design with the technology we >currently have."

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

A railgun needs two things... a way to keep the projectile aligned while it's accelerated, and two different conductor rails to provide the EM field. Way too complex for a gun tube which would need to be cylindrical and rifled (if not a smoothbore).

Posted by: Not A Dumbass at June 23, 2006 12:45 PM

I've work for the defense industry - The Air Force has had a slow launch, high velocity rail gun for about a decade, the problem has always been putting the package into a usable form. It takes an immesne amount of electricity to launch any projectile with EM forces, so its very expensive. The last I read up on it, they were discussing using chemical laser technology to produce instant electrical discharge into the rail gun. But it is a working device, with a tungsten dart and alumnium-alloy cartridge. it was discovery channel a while back. And while the Navy may put money into a project like this, remember they also control NASA to some degree, making this project a bit more interesting if you consider putting one of these into space. The potential for firing a non-explosive dart from space is quite disturbing, but effective. I think the hard part is getting additional payloads of ammunition into space cheaply before we ever implement any kind of space based weapons program above and beyond the existing systems we've got in place. As for putting an EM gun on a ship. That will take some doing, and could easily fry a ship's circuitry. the whole thing is steel, and the EM forces required to launch will disrupt the steel, and all the electronics around it temporarily, unless they make the whole thing hardened. Very very expensive.

Posted by: Jerry at June 23, 2006 12:15 PM

Other thing people tend to forget is the soldier factor we need more masturbation time to fight well and this rail guns will give us that much needed extra masturbation time . Thank you.

Posted by: Connor at June 23, 2006 11:21 AM

Ok, sounds cool and all, and I'd love to see it and keep in mind I'm not a military expert, but...

Destroyers are small ships right?
5000 rounds a minute is pretty quick and depending on the size of the rounds, that could take up alot of space. How many minutes of that could they do with out having to resupply the ship?

Oh, and the NK's are nuts if you ask me, by the time this rolls around, who know's if they'll even be there.

Posted by: Postie at June 23, 2006 10:10 AM

The previous two comments are quite ill-informed.

1) Yes Virginia, you CAN lob a rail gun round. If anything, it's a hell of a lot easier to lob it than it would be a conventional round. It's still just a piece of metal going forward, so you can lob it just as you would a normal shell. However, you've got an advantage because you can regulate the amount of electricity going into the gun, thus allowing you complete control over the speed at which it leaves the barrel. You can't do that with a conventional shell unless you want to take it apart and remove propellant before you shoot.

2) An old battleship has far higher maintainance and operations costs than a DDX. Even if you use automated guns, you've still got a far larger crew operating the battleship. That means more paychecks to sign, and more retirements and benefits you'll have to pay. Not only that, but the electrical systems, engine systems, and space availability on a battleship are WOEFULLY inadequate for the needs of a rail gun system. There's a reason the DDX uses an all-electric engine. It'll need that power for the rail gun to operate. You'd have to strip EVERYTHING out of the battleship and put in a brand new power and propulsion system for a rail gun to have even a hope of functioning. Finally, part of the cost on the DDX is that it's a tech development platform. The Navy has already made the decision to develop the new tech, and the DDX is merely the system that gets saddled with the bill. They're going to reuse much of the design (and thus save a lot of money) on later ships. If you simply refit a battleship, you don't get that benefit.

Posted by: Brian at June 21, 2006 11:13 PM

Keep in mind that the they will still need to keep some of their big artillery guns on board, for the same reason that infantry squads need a m203 grenade launcher. A rail gun is a line of site weapon only, and they will still need something that can be 'lobbed', considering how mountainous North Korea is.

Posted by: Eizu at June 21, 2006 01:15 PM

So you think one of these rail guns would fit on a world war two Battleship? Then again if your going to bombard North Korea could you think of anything better than a battlewagon? After all you could refurbish the five inch guns with the same automated guns the DDX will be carrying, increase the 18 inch gun range to over two hundred miles or more! Remove the cruise missile box launches with vertical launchers increasing the number by a factor of three.

It will cost one third the price of a DDX and not be sunk by one silk worm cruise missle as the thin skinned DDX would.

Posted by: davids at June 20, 2006 07:12 PM

"What about stronger barrals, more powder?"

Been done. Saddam was trying for that, actually.

The problem is, it takes longer barrels, not just stronger ones, if you're going to burn more powder in them. EM gives you a few orders of magnitude of velocity/weapon size.

Also, one really nice thing about EM guns is that the shells shrink. Instead of a big shell and lots of powder, you use a small shell and a few gallons of gas to generate the electricity for it. That means you can carry a heck of a lot more ammo with less danger.

Posted by: Big D at June 20, 2006 06:37 PM

What about stronger barrals, more powder? :D

Posted by: Mike at June 20, 2006 01:54 PM

Im surprised that Military has not yet found a way to coat the electromagnetic railgun so it could withstand the pressures of shooting projectiles. With advances in nanotechnology and the ability to create diamonds in 12 hours I'm pretty sure a revolutionary form of alloy could be produced that would enable the electromagnetic properties to still function at the same time protecting it from the intense stress. A good example is the fusion reactor where they recently put a coil wire to control the perturbation from within the reactor. Maybe the design even though the most practical is not the correct design with the technology we currently have.

Posted by: Joe Doe at June 20, 2006 01:36 PM