Whoa Navy!

[Skipjack]

If the govt ever really did actually keep a secret then sorta by definition, we'd never know about it. Saying that it 'always leaks' is an act of faith.

Well, looking at all the shit that has actually leaked... I would say that nothing stays burried for very long.

[choff]

Back in the 90"s I read the director of Skunkworks brag they'd kept some things under wraps for over 40 years, and given how little new we've heard out of that place since then, now over 50 years.

[palladin9479]

Seeing how the current greenies are going after any and all viable long term power sources, If I was working on something I'd be sure to keep it under wraps if it even had a remote chance of working out. Do not estimate the power that greenies wield, they'll find a reason, something anything to shut down your project and make darn sure you never succeed.

Just remember, their after a total decrease in power generated / used by humanity not an increase. They don't want a viable long term power solution to exist. They want massive loss of human life, to them the animals and plants are more important then humans. From their point of view, the absolute worst that can possible happen is a perfectly clean inexhaustible cheap power supply to be found. Something like that would usher in an age of human growth and expansion, which by default means more land usage by humans and less land available for wild animals and plants. When / If we start building fusion plants, expect the #1 enemies to be greenies.

[bcglorf]

Seeing how the current greenies are going after any and all viable long term power sources, If I was working on something I'd be sure to keep it under wraps if it even had a remote chance of working out. Do not estimate the power that greenies wield, they'll find a reason, something anything to shut down your project and make darn sure you never succeed.

Just remember, their after a total decrease in power generated / used by humanity not an increase. They don't want a viable long term power solution to exist. They want massive loss of human life, to them the animals and plants are more important then humans. From their point of view, the absolute worst that can possible happen is a perfectly clean inexhaustible cheap power supply to be found. Something like that would usher in an age of human growth and expansion, which by default means more land usage by humans and less land available for wild animals and plants. When / If we start building fusion plants, expect the #1 enemies to be greenies.

Very insightful. The majority of greens would object to the characterization, but it is the collective thrust and theme that unites them as a whole.

[toddzilla]

Just remember, their after a total decrease in power generated / used by humanity not an increase. They don't want a viable long term power solution to exist. They want massive loss of human life, to them the animals and plants are more important then humans. From their point of view, the absolute worst that can possible happen is a perfectly clean inexhaustible cheap power supply to be found. Something like that would usher in an age of human growth and expansion, which by default means more land usage by humans and less land available for wild animals and plants. When / If we start building fusion plants, expect the #1 enemies to be greenies.

Real people are not caricatures. I do appreciate the irony, however, in the concept of a "greenie" straw man -- seems appropriate.

[scalziand]

Just remember, their after a total decrease in power generated / used by humanity not an increase. They don't want a viable long term power solution to exist. They want massive loss of human life, to them the animals and plants are more important then humans. From their point of view, the absolute worst that can possible happen is a perfectly clean inexhaustible cheap power supply to be found. Something like that would usher in an age of human growth and expansion, which by default means more land usage by humans and less land available for wild animals and plants. When / If we start building fusion plants, expect the #1 enemies to be greenies.

Real people are not caricatures. I do appreciate the irony, however, in the concept of a "greenie" straw man -- seems appropriate.

That is sadly not a caricature. In the Ecat thread I posted a link to a TOD discussion on the ecat.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7942#comment-805932

No.

I'm saying that I would rather see humans live, forever more, in a constrained energy environment than in a world of effectively-unlimited cheap energy.

Much rather.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7942#comment-804726

Here here. We'd torch the place. No question.

We're not smart enough as a species to handle anything but contemporary solar -- and often not even too good with that.

If this is true, which i highly doubt it is. It would be game over for every other species of life on this planet other then a few 'pet' species and humans. we would utterly consume the planet making it into a world wide city that might look like corasaunt from space but on the surface more like a never ending slum like in blade runner. or from the cut out beginning scenes of avatar.(co-worker showed me it from the blue ray version he bought.) If it is true i will pour what little money i have into the first ride off the planet. even if it means i would die without my meds.

OTOH, if humans pass the energy torch from fossil fuels to cold fusion, will they suddenly gain the wisdom to reduce their population, conserve other non-renewables, live in peace with the planet and each other? Look at what the fossil fuel age gave us.

Children, playing with fire...

[hanelyp]

Sounds like the Malthusians don't think humanity is fit to pass the nuclear safety valve. Sadly, there are pockets of the species, such as in the mideast, where that's true. Sadder, we currently get much of our energy resources from such areas.

I have higher hopes for the rest of the species.

[JoeStrout]

Yes, let's please not take the extreme nuts (in either political direction) and use them to paint the majority of people, who are generally quite reasonable.

I for example am a member of the Sierra Club, consider myself an environmentalist, and want to see an end to fossil fuels as soon as practical. I also fully expect (and desire) to see our standard of living continue to increase, and for humanity to settle the solar system and eventually the rest of the galaxy. I also run this website on Polywell fusion.

Cheers,
- Joe

[Nik]

"We are crazy precise about barrel wear as it affects ballistics quickly."

When this issue came up on another forum, it was pointed out that the ranges expected of such a weapon would *demand* terminal guidance. ie you're chucking 'smart rocks' that can steer themselves to a pre-set co-ordinate within the 'ellipse of error'.

Another point made, IIRC, was that the design of missile launchers which swivel to vertical to be re-loaded from below deck lend themselves to replacing the entire barrel. After all, you don't have a complex breech assembly to worry about, blast dissipation is simpler, and recoil is less due to the higher efficiency...

[hanelyp]

Recoil is a direct response to the momentum of whatever exits the canon. If the canon can fire without ejecting hot gasses with the projectile, it will have less recoil.

[ladajo]

"We are crazy precise about barrel wear as it affects ballistics quickly."

When this issue came up on another forum, it was pointed out that the ranges expected of such a weapon would *demand* terminal guidance. ie you're chucking 'smart rocks' that can steer themselves to a pre-set co-ordinate within the 'ellipse of error'.

Another point made, IIRC, was that the design of missile launchers which swivel to vertical to be re-loaded from below deck lend themselves to replacing the entire barrel. After all, you don't have a complex breech assembly to worry about, blast dissipation is simpler, and recoil is less due to the higher efficiency...

As I understand, the wear in the rail gun barrell affects dumb rounds (agree on the guided point) but more importantly it affects the effectiveness of energy transfer to the sabot.

In regard to recoil, that was an interesting discussion in another thread regarding railgun recoil and how it manifests.

[zapkitty]

Remember, the "barrel wear" referred to here is not the gradual erosion found in the barrels of chemical weapons... instead it is the result of an extremely high-powered electrical arc stripping material from the relatively limited surface area of a pair of rails.

And that does make a big difference in the performance of the weapon.

[ladajo]

Agreed again. And as the material ablates away in uneven stripping, it also has affects on the ballistic trajectory and stability of the projectile.

Rail guns are funny animals, and one of the proben techiques to extend barrel life is to inject the projectile at an initial velocity (using gas, or even a small chemical charge), however, the current navy designs do not do this. I personally do not understand why not.

Even the Blitzer design does not do this, but rather depends on expensive engineering of the barrel to get extensions of bore life.

[Joseph Chikva]

Rail guns are funny animals, and one of the proben techiques to extend barrel life is to inject the projectile at an initial velocity (using gas, or even a small chemical charge), however, the current navy designs do not do this. I personally do not understand why not.

Because US Navy is going to equip new DDG-1000 class destroyers with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DD(X) ... System.jpg
In fact barrel wear certainly is a significant problem.
But rail guns need very roomy pulse energy storages (and costly).
Yes, theoretically they will allow higher velocities of projectiles, and so - longer ranges.
But then accuracy issue will play. And so, you need guided projectiles. Have the artillery guns any advantage vs. missiles at long ranges?

[Joseph Chikva]

[]