3 ms·
"We're also eliminating explosives from the ship, which brings significant safety benefits and logistical benefits," Ellis said. In other words, there is less d
by gvb 16y ago
"We're also eliminating explosives from the ship, which brings significant safety benefits and logistical benefits," Ellis said. In other words, there is less danger of an unintended explosion onboard, particularly should such a vessel come under attack.
The first half (logistics benefits) is a good statement. The rephrasing the the second half is bogus.
Joules are joules the world over. If the enemy fire hits the caps full of joules, it ain't gonna be good for the good guys even if there are no conventional explosives involved.
- 1053r 16y agoJoules are joules, but what you are failing to account for is the form the joules might take. If the enemy hits the caps and they explode, an amount of energy equal to one projectile launch is liberated. If, on the other hand, you take out a magazine, you liberate an amount of energy equal to all the shots the ship is capable of taking ALL AT ONCE. The energy necessary to fire all those shots is probably still on board, but it is likely in the form of a nuclear pile in the reactor, which is shielded up the wazoo. Even if the ship is running a conventional generator, diesel fuel doesn't have a tendency to explode in quite the same way as gunpowder.
- bigiain 16y agoThat's true, but 33megajoules is almost exactly the amount of energy in 1L or 1/4Gal of gasoline. I don't know how much explosive a typical ship mounted canon requires for propellant and payload, but even given all the inefficiencies turning gasoline into electricity Id be quite surprised if there's quite a bit less energy on board to supply the rail gun.
- zitterbewegung 16y ago200 pound of tnt is 30.2 mJ in the M107 round you have 14.6 lbs of tnt in that shell. So basically 14 shells would equal about that many mJ. I'm sure that the ship has more than 14 shells.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoThe mechanism of storage makes all the difference. If I store my Joules as, say, wood that has dramatically different failure mechanisms than if I store it as RDX. Even if the difference is just diesel vs. RDX. It's easier to prevent an explosion hitting diesel fuel from destroying a ship (it's been done since WWII) than it is to prevent an explosion hitting a stockpile of explosives from destroying a ship. Even more so if the energy is coming from a fission reactor. Since the energy source is comparatively more compact and can be protected with armor more effectively.