• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Sand as a weapon?

>...even "dragon" rounds - powdered magnesium incendiary "flame thrower."

Flamers? Hey, I've got one of those.
http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/maint/combat/hyp_wpn/misc_mil.htm#Spooktek

>"A starship engine the size of a walnut?! That's impossible!"

"Not if you've seen the size of our walnuts..."

I've fired the real thing. It's more a flame-burst than a flame thrower. About a 10m burst of white-hot fire. Like a really intense but short ranged flare. It did NOT cycle the semi-auto 12ga. Hell on the barrel, too. (Massive fouling.)

Should trigger a morale check in both sides... :oo:
 
Back on the original topic, I just finished reading Ian Douglas' (William H. Keith) novel Earth Strike in which defensive missiles loaded with sand are reprogrammed and accelerated to near-c speeds and used as offensive weapons against starships. His missile drives use different technology than Traveller and can get up to near-c speeds, making sand a nasty weapon.
 
I'm pretty sure that in one of the Planet Tschai series there is a weapon that accelerates a grain of sand to near c velocities. I think it is a Chasch weapon used on their grav-sleds but I can't be sure. Have to go check the books...
 
Real shotgun shells nominally use literal round balls as the default; flechettes are not used that much. (They tend to have better penetration, but you get FAR fewer of them in the round.) Solid slug is also available. (So also are HEAP, tear gas, flare, and even "dragon" rounds - powdered magnesium incendiary "flame thrower.")

I know that flechettes trade number for penetration; so do using 000 buck shots rather than #4 buck and those are a lot less numerous than #9 bird shots for the same weight. But isn't the whole point here is to figure what warhead could trade off the reflective value (actually, diversified shaff effect)used in defensive fire for "hurt" value? You did quite well the case about the relative lack of penetration of sand dust. Fine, so we need bigger pellets, or "terminal effect" projectiles. They will hurt more per hit in offensive fire but the lesser density mean less chance to dampen the laser beam or foil the missile guidance systems in defensive fire. Basically, you can't have everything.

So if you are the warhead designer for a low pressure, low velocity "projector" (the picture I always had of the sand caster) What types of warheads would you design?

First the obvious given CT: something that generate a cloud of reflective material against laser. Hopefully it will also be reflecting whatever wave lenght the guidance system of missile use. Some thermite or high heat could also be in there to foil heat sensitive seeker (a hell of a heat generator to brake a lock on a spaceship engine). May be a different warhead for each job? the flare could be generating a shower of flaming dust, with a substantial collateral damage potential against unprotected infantry (if we are to explain some TU where that happen, of course)

As to the offensive I say that massive low velocity slug working on kinetic energy would not be my projectile of choice, even if shotgun use those. Not that I dislike them when hunting. After all, short of having HEAT or HESH slugs for bear hunting:devil:, I will certainly use slug. For ship size projectors striking at one target, I will be more happy with Heat of Hesh. For short range work against infantry, "Dragon" round and/or whatever flechette/buckshot does the work. Beyond that range (that is at minimum safety range for shell), high fragmentation shell (low pressure allow a relatively thin casing with layers of optimized fragmentation sleeves making up the specified weight of metal). Maybe dust up the schrapnell concept for some gaming universe that have Sandcaster only as a form of shot gun (litterally here, -shot- gun, not smooth bore gun for slug or shots)

Selandia
 
I'm pretty sure that in one of the Planet Tschai series there is a weapon that accelerates a grain of sand to near c velocities. I think it is a Chasch weapon used on their grav-sleds but I can't be sure. Have to go check the books...

Someone with physics help me on this please.

Grain of sand near C - by whatever means, for whatever reason - hits object at rest (with respect to the C sand). Grain of sand converts to a high speed high temperature "grain" of plasma, doing same to matter at the point of impact - and continuing to do same to matter as it encounters it, penetrating deeper into the target, vaporizing a path through it until it exits out other side of object, taking a fair chunk of its energy with it? Is this the high-energy equivalent of a rapier thrust, or is it more like a dum-dum bullet with a small entry wound and big ol' exit wound?

The problem I'm seeing is that while there's fantastic energy in the tiny little thing, getting it to transfer all or most of that to the target might be tricky. At those speeds, your ordinary principals of mechanics get overridden by other basic rules of physics, no?
 
Can't help with the physics, but that novel Earth Strike I mentioned in my last post paints an extremely colorful and graphic picture of what happens. :D
 
The limit on impact energy is the plasma energy of the item - as in, that amount of energy that turns it into plasma. The remaining energy pretty much turns into radiation. I don't know how to calculate that point, but I know that it's WELL below C for most materials. They are able to obtain that for steel BB's at NASA. 2mm steel balls turning to plasma on impact with the copper "armor"...

Likewise, the impactor tests have shown that a low-mass, high volume multi-layer "armor" can and will stop chunks that would blow right through the layers stacked solidly together - the vapor wave has distance to be dissipated rather than melting the next layer by direct contact. The initial impact layer converts the impactor to plasma, absorbs a bunch by deforming, more by gas dissipation on the plasma, and then hits the next layer much weaker.

Note that I'll apply what I know -
Steel's specific heat runs about .47 kJ/kg per Kelvin (or °C)
The nickel within vaporizes around 3000 K (the others, lower)
We want at least 4000 K.

a 3mm BB is about 80 mg ... 0.000080 kg, so it needs about 37.6 J per degree. We'll need about 3800° ... or about 143 kJ ... plus the latent heat of melting and of vaporization. Call it around 145kJ ... about 42 kps should do that. Yes, each one WILL make a crater. but a lot of its energy will be simple heating at that point, and a lot of splash .
 
Someone with physics help me on this please.

Grain of sand near C - by whatever means, for whatever reason - hits object at rest (with respect to the C sand). Grain of sand converts to a high speed high temperature "grain" of plasma, doing same to matter at the point of impact - and continuing to do same to matter as it encounters it, penetrating deeper into the target, vaporizing a path through it until it exits out other side of object, taking a fair chunk of its energy with it? Is this the high-energy equivalent of a rapier thrust, or is it more like a dum-dum bullet with a small entry wound and big ol' exit wound?

The problem I'm seeing is that while there's fantastic energy in the tiny little thing, getting it to transfer all or most of that to the target might be tricky. At those speeds, your ordinary principals of mechanics get overridden by other basic rules of physics, no?

Yes, well it was in a science fiction story and so why would physics be involved? If you are familiar with Vance's work it has FTL travel and all sorts of other tropes that, well, sound rather Traveller-esque in some ways and RL physics are not invited.

But yes, the resulting impact form the c-plus sand is pretty similar to say, that of a fused-plasma projectile launched from a shoulder-fired portable energy weapon. Does anyone have the physics on how that is possible?
 
If "sand" canister were intended to be used against infantry, the specific "anti-personnel" canister loaded for the task would likely be designed not as the Shaff pod that come to mind when thinking Sandcaster, but as something intended to cause harm as its main effect (rather than as a welcome colateral damage). Likely either as a flechettes (real shotgun effect) or air bursting shells. While Shrapnells shell went out of fashion when properly fragmenting High Explosive shell with reliable time fuze became available, it is possible (to contrive something that preserve the shotgun like zone of efficiency) that a "flying shotgun shell" reminescent of the Shrapnell might be in use in that TU.

Selandia

"Intended" isn't the point. It is quite common for weapons to be used in a manner other then the way they were "intended". Tank destroyers were almost never used to destroy tanks and almost always used as close infantry support platforms.
 
Yes, well it was in a science fiction story and so why would physics be involved? If you are familiar with Vance's work it has FTL travel and all sorts of other tropes that, well, sound rather Traveller-esque in some ways and RL physics are not invited.

Because ... it's science fiction? I've got no problem accepting certain necessary tropes to keep the plot moving forward, but:

1. I don't think near-C sand falls into that category - at least not for a setting that plays more like Firefly than like Star Wars;
2. there's all these nice helpful people here who can maybe answer questions like that, so why not rely on them;
3. it'd get awful quiet around here if we didn't ask such questions;
4. it's an entertaining thought exercise; and
5. when I want to play science fantasy, I play Gamma World; when I want to play sci-fi, I play Traveller.

There's no rule against doing science fantasy in Traveller; it's just not my thing.

Aramis' explanation is thought-provoking from the standpoint of our Traveller ships encountering hypervelocity space dust or some such. I'm not sure how much it speaks to the near-C grain's situation. Viewing it on the atomic level, the grain's a dense collection of near-C atoms encountering a dense collection of atoms at rest - at least from the viewpoint of the near-C atoms. "Dense" is a relative term where atoms are concerned - there's more space there than atoms. The grain becomes plasma on the power of uncounted numbers of these tiny atoms bumping into the "at rest" atoms and: 1) being slowed and deflected, 2) accelerating the atom they bumped into (and possibly breaking said atom as well as themselves, I think), and 3) releasing a lot of energy in a manner akin to a particle accelerator impact. Much of that energy is in x-ray, no?

An aspect of the near-C grain's situation is that, unless the impact turns most of that kinetic energy into radiation, the near-C grain - or the superheated bit of plasma formerly known as near-C grain - traverses the distance between outer hull and inner hull that Aramis was talking about, indeed potentially traverses the entire width of the ship, in millionths of a second. Is there opportunity for the near-C bit of plasma to expand significantly in millionths of a second, or will it simply vaporize and accelerate a tiny column before it as it moves along?

Someone pointed out an interesting aspect of the C-grain interaction, that little grain is experiencing relativistic effects: the individual atoms are many times more massive than the "resting" atoms they encounter, therefore more likely to continue on their way with only a slight deviation in course, like a baseball striking a golfball in flight.

What I'm seeing, I think, is a narrow cone being drilled through the ship along with a blast of X-rays and possibly other radiation radiating out from the drill-path. The question then is the balance point - is most of that energy blasting out as X-rays, or is most of that energy exiting out the other side of the ship?
 
Grain of sand near C - by whatever means, for whatever reason - hits object at rest (with respect to the C sand). Grain of sand converts to a high speed high temperature "grain" of plasma, doing same to matter at the point of impact - and continuing to do same to matter as it encounters it, penetrating deeper into the target, vaporizing a path through it until it exits out other side of object, taking a fair chunk of its energy with it? Is this the high-energy equivalent of a rapier thrust, or is it more like a dum-dum bullet with a small entry wound and big ol' exit wound?

Granted, it's talking about a baseball, which is a bit more massive than a grain of sand, but this seems likely to help with figuring that out.
 
Granted, it's talking about a baseball, which is a bit more massive than a grain of sand, but this seems likely to help with figuring that out.

Ooof!

So, now we have a rapier thrust that emits a flash of gamma instead of x-ray as it passes through, fusing or smashing the atoms it impacts? Which radiation is then absorbed by the surrounding matter in a rather, ummm, dramatic fashion. This is starting to look very boomie.
 
Chipping a windshield in space is pretty dangerous, though...

Not really, it's 3 layers with a total thickness of about 6.5cm (2.5"). A chip is really no worry. I expect it would take a lot more than that impact to crack or penetrate. And that's the shuttle windshield, Traveller ship viewscreens are made of even tougher and/or thicker materials.
 
Note that a similar hit on the Shuttle, at orbital velocity, merely chipped a windshield and startled a crewman.

Chipping a windshield in space is pretty dangerous, though...

Not really, it's 3 layers with a total thickness of about 6.5cm (2.5"). A chip is really no worry. I expect it would take a lot more than that impact to crack or penetrate. And that's the shuttle windshield, Traveller ship viewscreens are made of even tougher and/or thicker materials.

If it is a viewscreen, then it is an electronic display mounted inside the hull!

I don't see very many Traveller floor plans that designate an actual clear panel mounted in the hull allowing direct passage of light energy (windshield/window), but I suppose it is likely there are some.
 
If it is a viewscreen, then it is an electronic display mounted inside the hull!

I meant it as a clear see through part of the hull, I think that's in the definition of "viewscreen" as well, but maybe not.

I don't see very many Traveller floor plans that designate an actual clear panel mounted in the hull allowing direct passage of light energy (windshield/window), but I suppose it is likely there are some.

I think every (or almost) official and unofficial deckplan for Traveller has the windshield, and portholes. Some specify blast shields that cover them and some views show the blast shields so it might look like they have no windows but they do ;)

Windows in space ships is a classic trope :) Traveller didn't pass it up ;)
 
If it is a viewscreen, then it is an electronic display mounted inside the hull!

I don't see very many Traveller floor plans that designate an actual clear panel mounted in the hull allowing direct passage of light energy (windshield/window), but I suppose it is likely there are some.
You mean apart from:

the far trader

the safari ship

express boat tender ;)

Then there are the illustrations which show windows..
 
Of course the AHL has them all beat in both size and vulnerability with the huge forward clear dome over the bridge :) I think it's big enough to fly some of the above mentioned ships through!

I'm still trying to think of one ship that doesn't have huge windows to see where you're going...
 
Back
Top