Randal, the quoting is pretty easy once you get used to it. Here's a "How To" thread that shows how to do it.I don't know how to quote you like you did me...will figure it out one day.
Select Highlights to Quote!
Randal, the quoting is pretty easy once you get used to it. Here's a "How To" thread that shows how to do it.I don't know how to quote you like you did me...will figure it out one day.
My thought was to the pressure buildup not the burning. But yes, A rifle down a barrel is kinda similar except the launch tubes are never depicted as smooth barrels and the projectile is not a solid slug.If you burnt the fuel,,how can the exhaust be Flammable/Explosive?
That is the good thing about Science Fiction. It doesn't have to be real. Creating a clip should be your own fantasy. You can manipulate any detail you want. But understanding the actual science of real physics might help create better science fiction.Its these things that Often make me stumble on trying to create a clip.
Vipers that launch into space would also need a protection against micro-meteors.
Imagine you have a tube going to your consciousness..and this tube carries thoughts. The tube usually only allows one thought at a time..often you can pause and hold this thought and think about it with other thought tubes. With myself..what is usually going on..is that 12-15 thoughts are jamming each tube. And the tube has no choice but to allow then thru..and loses the ability to stop,pause,or reflect on any thought at all. Then the thoughts go thru the tube unimpeded...then they are gone and can't be retrieved. So....you have multi sparks of thoughts flashing thru your thought tube. And you are anguishing over trying to retain a few,while being bombarded without end.
In Air but there is no air in space. There is no buoyancy. No buffering agent.For comparision WWII bombers can provide some reference. The big boys B-17 & B-29 were little effected by firing the 50-cals, they barely moved. On the other side of the coin is the B-25 medium bomber. The 75-mm recoilless bounced it all over the sky. My point is the relative mass of the projectile v mass of the ship matters a lot. Recoil absorption or dissipation systems will help also.
The R-23M was based on the tail gun of the Tupolev Tu-22 "Blinder" bomber. It weighed 37 pounds and had a fire rate of above 950 rounds per minute, Zak reported, "blasting 200-gram shells at a velocity of 690 meters per second (1,500 miles per hour). According to veterans of the Almaz project, the space cannon successfully pierced a metal gasoline canister from a mile away during its ground tests."
But there were a few problems with firing the cannon. First, to aim the weapon, the entire space station had to be turned into position to fire—meaning that the crew had to have plenty of early warning to use it. An onboard optical site provided fire control. The ship also had to burn up fuel-firing thrusters to counter the recoil of the cannon. And firing the gun caused considerable shaking aboard the station.
First, to aim the weapon, the entire space station had to be turned into position to fire—meaning that the crew had to have plenty of early warning to use it. An onboard optical site provided fire control.
what fire looks like in space
US Navy’s first laser weapon cleared for combat, blows up a boat, a small plane (video) | ExtremeTechYes, but not as a weapon.
Lasers are used as targeting
So its 360 x 360 x a billion or more.