130 réponses à ce sujet

[JowyXXV]

We humans are so crazy. If we ever develop FTL ships I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone uses one to blow up earth.

[Archereon]

JowyXXV wrote...

We humans are so crazy. If we ever develop FTL ships I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone uses one to blow up earth.

We don't even need FTL to do it.  We really only need to achieve 40% of light speed or so to do enormous damage.  

Also, it depends on the FTL system.  If its one of the theoretical ones such as wormhole or alcubirre drive, we wouldn't have that problem since neither one imparts velocity to the craft.  Wormholes just provide a shortcut between point A and point B, and Alcubirre drive moves space around you.

[JowyXXV]

But don't you need element zero to travel FTL because it reduces mass so greatly?



This is assuming that reaching near-FTL speeds w/out eezo is even possible.



Gah, I'm confused, so what did that Turian terrorist do with his ship anyway?

[Archereon]

JowyXXV wrote...

But don't you need element zero to travel FTL because it reduces mass so greatly?

This is assuming that reaching near-FTL speeds w/out eezo is even possible.

Gah, I'm confused, so what did that Turian terrorist do with his ship anyway?

When you get into negative mass FTL, things get REALLY weird. 

1. You travel backwards in time.  (possibly)
2. Forces acting on an object with negative mass push the system in the opposite direction of the force.  (An attractive force pushes an object with negative mass away.)


JowyXXV: Its theoretically possible to achieve near light speeds without alcubirre drive (which can work at sublight speed), mass reduction, or any other exotic forms of propulsion.  It just takes a LOT of energy.  (As in, around 60 gigawatts of energy in a solar sail beamed power system for every kilogram.). 

The problem with using a mass effect'd ship as a weapon is that its kinetic energy is no greater than it would be outside of a mass effect field (at least, that's what the conservation of energy would suggest, otherwise an ME field would be creating free energy).

Modifié par Archereon, 03 septembre 2010 - 12:20 .

[JowyXXV]

Argh, the science is getting confusing....



To sum it up though, what would happen if a ship were to smash into something at FTL speeds while tripping on eezo?

[HTTP 404]

hitting a stationary object is one thing, hitting an object that can also move FASTER than LIGHT would be exponentially difficult. I dont think its a plot hole.



However, the science in space combat in any science fiction film is way off base and unrealistic. whole nother topic really, I could go on and on about it.

[Deflagratio]

"Near FTL speeds" is the key here. if it was going FTL, it wouldn't have impacted, but sailed right through the solid matter, as the Biotic Vanguard does.



Anyway, the most obvious reason not to use ships as Super-Kamikaze in fleet battles is Kinetic barriers. at Near-FTL speeds, the ship will impact the barrier as a mass accelerator slug would. Kamikaze strikes on planets are not uncommon, often refered to as "Kinetic Impactorrs" asteroid drops and de-orbiting space stations were used by Krogan Forces in the Rebellions. Unless the ship is traveling at FTL speed (not "Near") they would normally be detected and intercepted before a strike. This was likely just a lapse in security.



My question is, how big was the ship? a Fight-sized suicide strike would likely only take out a tenth of a city, assuming they don't bounce off the atmosphere or explode on the way. A Cruiser or a Dreadnought sized ship would easily obliterate a city and poison a huge portion of land with Element Zero.

[Phaedon]

Archereon wrote...

Guys, this is a serious plothole. Get a dreadnought, hell, any ship, up to 99.999999% of the speed of light and crash it into a planet, and you will literally destroy the planet (or at least, all life on it). The kinetic energies involved with those speed are staggering.

At 70% of the speed of light, every kilogram of your craft contains the energy of about 300 grams of matter converted into energy. Now that might not sound so staggering, but you have to realize that a typical nuclear bomb releases about 4x10^15 joules of energy. 300 grams of matter converted into energy releases about 3x10^16 joules of energy, nearly 10 times more than a nuke.

If your craft weights about as much as the space shuttle, 100,000 kilograms I believe (or was it metric tons...), an impact gives off the energy of 700,000 nuclear bombs.


However, none of this is relevant so long as objects accelerated in a mass effect field velocity drops when they leave the field, which would mean kinetic energy is conserved (as the mass of the system increases, its velocity decreases as per the conservation of energy).

Why would someone do that ? Why destroy a planet ? Even if you want to destroy all life in the planet you can bombard with nuclear bombs, without having to lose any ships. It might make more time, but it makes more sense to me.

[Archereon]

Phaedon wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Guys, this is a serious plothole. Get a dreadnought, hell, any ship, up to 99.999999% of the speed of light and crash it into a planet, and you will literally destroy the planet (or at least, all life on it). The kinetic energies involved with those speed are staggering.

At 70% of the speed of light, every kilogram of your craft contains the energy of about 300 grams of matter converted into energy. Now that might not sound so staggering, but you have to realize that a typical nuclear bomb releases about 4x10^15 joules of energy. 300 grams of matter converted into energy releases about 3x10^16 joules of energy, nearly 10 times more than a nuke.

If your craft weights about as much as the space shuttle, 100,000 kilograms I believe (or was it metric tons...), an impact gives off the energy of 700,000 nuclear bombs.


However, none of this is relevant so long as objects accelerated in a mass effect field velocity drops when they leave the field, which would mean kinetic energy is conserved (as the mass of the system increases, its velocity decreases as per the conservation of energy).

Why would someone do that ? Why destroy a planet ? Even if you want to destroy all life in the planet you can bombard with nuclear bombs, without having to lose any ships. It might make more time, but it makes more sense to me.

If you built a dedicated relativistic bomb (a ship mass weapon accelerated to near light speeds), it would be more economical then constructing millions and millions of nukes and transporting them through space, with the added benefit of being absolutely, completely unstoppable.  (the amount of momentum a relativistic bomb has, plus the fact that light lag makes detecting such a weapon, much less accurately stopping it, nearly impossible.)

[Archereon]

Deflagratio wrote...

"Near FTL speeds" is the key here. if it was going FTL, it wouldn't have impacted, but sailed right through the solid matter, as the Biotic Vanguard does.

Anyway, the most obvious reason not to use ships as Super-Kamikaze in fleet battles is Kinetic barriers. at Near-FTL speeds, the ship will impact the barrier as a mass accelerator slug would. Kamikaze strikes on planets are not uncommon, often refered to as "Kinetic Impactorrs" asteroid drops and de-orbiting space stations were used by Krogan Forces in the Rebellions. Unless the ship is traveling at FTL speed (not "Near") they would normally be detected and intercepted before a strike. This was likely just a lapse in security.

My question is, how big was the ship? a Fight-sized suicide strike would likely only take out a tenth of a city, assuming they don't bounce off the atmosphere or explode on the way. A Cruiser or a Dreadnought sized ship would easily obliterate a city and poison a huge portion of land with Element Zero.

A dreadnought (estimated at 20,000,000 metric tons) would do the damage of 200,000,000,000 nukes at 70% light speed, somewhere in the magnitude of 10^24 joules, which exceeds the output of the sun.

[Phaedon]

 ^ I think we just found a way to defeat the Reapers. 

[The Grey Ranger]

It's really best not to over analyze sci fi games, books and movies. You can almost always find issues with the science involved, without very much trouble.

[Dean_the_Young]

Has anyone brought up the minor point of actually hitting another ship? Try throwing a rock to hit a particular grain of sand on the beach.



Space is big, after all. Ships are small. You can't do it too far away because of light-lag for aiming, too close and you're already well within the defensive envelope of conventional weapons, and the speed buildup for such an attack would require an obvious acceleration in a single, interceptable direction.



You can hit planets, true... but planet are big and relatively stationary and move in entirely predictable ways.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Archereon wrote...

JowyXXV wrote...

But don't you need element zero to travel FTL because it reduces mass so greatly?

This is assuming that reaching near-FTL speeds w/out eezo is even possible.

Gah, I'm confused, so what did that Turian terrorist do with his ship anyway?

When you get into negative mass FTL, things get REALLY weird. 

1. You travel backwards in time.  (possibly)
2. Forces acting on an object with negative mass push the system in the opposite direction of the force.  (An attractive force pushes an object with negative mass away.)


JowyXXV: Its theoretically possible to achieve near light speeds without alcubirre drive (which can work at sublight speed), mass reduction, or any other exotic forms of propulsion.  It just takes a LOT of energy.  (As in, around 60 gigawatts of energy in a solar sail beamed power system for every kilogram.). 

The problem with using a mass effect'd ship as a weapon is that its kinetic energy is no greater than it would be outside of a mass effect field (at least, that's what the conservation of energy would suggest, otherwise an ME field would be creating free energy).

Regardless of the facts, how would mass reach negativity?

To my knowledge, the closer you are to light speed, the more mass you have. At the light speed, the mass is said to be infinite. So, how would you reach negative mass at all, if your mass is in fact increasing as you approach light speed? I also find it a bit ironic how photons are said to have zero mass, even though their natural speed is the speed of light itself. I know there is something I'm not really understanding here.

That said, it fascinates me when I think about the bizarre properties of a negative-mass object, and how those properties would potentially provide the perfect space travel.

[nikki191]

what would applying element zero to rail gun rounds do?

[Dean_the_Young]

Give you exactly what they already use in Mass Effect?

[Wraith_of_Dawn]

WWII.



I think that about sums it up.

[Archereon]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Archereon wrote...

JowyXXV wrote...

But don't you need element zero to travel FTL because it reduces mass so greatly?

This is assuming that reaching near-FTL speeds w/out eezo is even possible.

Gah, I'm confused, so what did that Turian terrorist do with his ship anyway?

When you get into negative mass FTL, things get REALLY weird. 

1. You travel backwards in time.  (possibly)
2. Forces acting on an object with negative mass push the system in the opposite direction of the force.  (An attractive force pushes an object with negative mass away.)


JowyXXV: Its theoretically possible to achieve near light speeds without alcubirre drive (which can work at sublight speed), mass reduction, or any other exotic forms of propulsion.  It just takes a LOT of energy.  (As in, around 60 gigawatts of energy in a solar sail beamed power system for every kilogram.). 

The problem with using a mass effect'd ship as a weapon is that its kinetic energy is no greater than it would be outside of a mass effect field (at least, that's what the conservation of energy would suggest, otherwise an ME field would be creating free energy).

Regardless of the facts, how would mass reach negativity?

To my knowledge, the closer you are to light speed, the more mass you have. At the light speed, the mass is said to be infinite. So, how would you reach negative mass at all, if your mass is in fact increasing as you approach light speed? I also find it a bit ironic how photons are said to have zero mass, even though their natural speed is the speed of light itself. I know there is something I'm not really understanding here.

That said, it fascinates me when I think about the bizarre properties of a negative-mass object, and how those properties would potentially provide the perfect space travel.

I don't know.  Most scientists don't believe negative masses can exists.

The premise behind ME FTL is that it reduces the mass of the matter inclosed within the field.  By the conservation of kinetic energy, for a moving object, this would increase the velocity.  If you achieved perfect masslessness, you could travel at the speed of light, and time would stop in your frame of reference to an outside observer.  However, to be able to travel faster than light, you would need to have a negative or imaginary mass, and that's where stuff starts to get really weird.

[Archereon]

nikki191 wrote...

what would applying element zero to rail gun rounds do?

You mean an ME field?  Absolutely nothing of relevence to the weapon's power if Mass Effect abides by the conservation of energy.

Phaedon wrote...

 ^ I think we just found a way to defeat the Reapers. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

Note that you'd need the energy of 200 million nukes to get a ship going that fast without using mass effect fields.  (And the problem with that is, if the mass effect follows the conservation of energy, the overall kinetic energy of an object in a mass effect field is exactly the same as it would be outside of a field.)

Modifié par Archereon, 03 septembre 2010 - 04:29 .

[Aradace]

JowyXXV wrote...

So I've read all the codexes and Cerberus News.

While interesting, what I don't get is....

what's to stop armies or forces from using FTL-moving ships as kamikaze super-bombs?

That one ftl ship caused an insanely large amount of damage on that Turian planet.  Couldn't a small handful of FTL ships crashing into a dreadnaught be enough to destroy it?

You realize that the Japanese LOST that war right? lol.  Kamakaze pilots didnt help them and it sure as hell wouldnt help armies in this game now .

[Archereon]

Aradace wrote...

JowyXXV wrote...

So I've read all the codexes and Cerberus News.

While interesting, what I don't get is....

what's to stop armies or forces from using FTL-moving ships as kamikaze super-bombs?

That one ftl ship caused an insanely large amount of damage on that Turian planet.  Couldn't a small handful of FTL ships crashing into a dreadnaught be enough to destroy it?

You realize that the Japanese LOST that war right? lol.  Kamakaze pilots didnt help them and it sure as hell wouldnt help armies in this game now .

There's a difference between a kamakaze plane that destroys maybe one wet navy ship, and one that destroys all the life on a planet.

[Aradace]

Archereon wrote...

Aradace wrote...

JowyXXV wrote...

So I've read all the codexes and Cerberus News.

While interesting, what I don't get is....

what's to stop armies or forces from using FTL-moving ships as kamikaze super-bombs?

That one ftl ship caused an insanely large amount of damage on that Turian planet.  Couldn't a small handful of FTL ships crashing into a dreadnaught be enough to destroy it?

You realize that the Japanese LOST that war right? lol.  Kamakaze pilots didnt help them and it sure as hell wouldnt help armies in this game now .

There's a difference between a kamakaze plane that destroys maybe one wet navy ship, and one that destroys all the life on a planet.

I think you miss the principle Im trying to point out lol....By using Kamakaze pilots, they were wasting not only planes and resources, but manpower as well....Not to mention the ship would have to be AI or VI controlled because if you're willing to jump on your own proverbial sword in this day and age, you're just ****ing crazy.  And no, by doing so does NOT make you a patriot or a hero...It makes you STUPID lol.

Patton said it best when he said "We never won a war by dying for our country....We win them by making the other S.O.B die for his."  So unless it was somehow AI or VI controlled, a Kamakaze ship would be a pretty silly idea.

[Archereon]

Aradace wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Aradace wrote...

JowyXXV wrote...

So I've read all the codexes and Cerberus News.

While interesting, what I don't get is....

what's to stop armies or forces from using FTL-moving ships as kamikaze super-bombs?

That one ftl ship caused an insanely large amount of damage on that Turian planet.  Couldn't a small handful of FTL ships crashing into a dreadnaught be enough to destroy it?

You realize that the Japanese LOST that war right? lol.  Kamakaze pilots didnt help them and it sure as hell wouldnt help armies in this game now .

There's a difference between a kamakaze plane that destroys maybe one wet navy ship, and one that destroys all the life on a planet.

I think you miss the principle Im trying to point out lol....By using Kamakaze pilots, they were wasting not only planes and resources, but manpower as well....Not to mention the ship would have to be AI or VI controlled because if you're willing to jump on your own proverbial sword in this day and age, you're just ****ing crazy.  And no, by doing so does NOT make you a patriot or a hero...It makes you STUPID lol.

Patton said it best when he said "We never won a war by dying for our country....We win them by making the other S.O.B die for his."  So unless it was somehow AI or VI controlled, a Kamakaze ship would be a pretty silly idea.

Building a dedicated relativistic bomb that was remotely piloted, or piloted by a non-sentient computer (since using an AI isn't much different than using a person) would be far cheaper than building a ship, even an unmanned one, meant to reach those speeds.  No need for life support, no need to worry about the ship being reusable and all that pesky stuff.

However, such weapons would benefit the Reapers far more than it would us, since, you know, they want to destroy us all.

[Phaedon]

Archereon wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Aradace wrote...

JowyXXV wrote...

So I've read all the codexes and Cerberus News.

While interesting, what I don't get is....

what's to stop armies or forces from using FTL-moving ships as kamikaze super-bombs?

That one ftl ship caused an insanely large amount of damage on that Turian planet.  Couldn't a small handful of FTL ships crashing into a dreadnaught be enough to destroy it?

You realize that the Japanese LOST that war right? lol.  Kamakaze pilots didnt help them and it sure as hell wouldnt help armies in this game now .

There's a difference between a kamakaze plane that destroys maybe one wet navy ship, and one that destroys all the life on a planet.

I think you miss the principle Im trying to point out lol....By using Kamakaze pilots, they were wasting not only planes and resources, but manpower as well....Not to mention the ship would have to be AI or VI controlled because if you're willing to jump on your own proverbial sword in this day and age, you're just ****ing crazy.  And no, by doing so does NOT make you a patriot or a hero...It makes you STUPID lol.

Patton said it best when he said "We never won a war by dying for our country....We win them by making the other S.O.B die for his."  So unless it was somehow AI or VI controlled, a Kamakaze ship would be a pretty silly idea.

Building a dedicated relativistic bomb that was remotely piloted, or piloted by a non-sentient computer (since using an AI isn't much different than using a person) would be far cheaper than building a ship, even an unmanned one, meant to reach those speeds.  No need for life support, no need to worry about the ship being reusable and all that pesky stuff.

However, such weapons would benefit the Reapers far more than it would us, since, you know, they want to destroy us all.

Well kamikaze pilots can exist, as fighter  or interceptor pilots, but that wouldn't be in FTL speeds. So yeah, it's a stupid idea imho. Ramming other ships while on FTL would make perfect sense, if your plotter was that accurate and there was no light lag. Which are impossible in the ME universe,

[Archereon]

Phaedon wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Aradace wrote...

JowyXXV wrote...

So I've read all the codexes and Cerberus News.

While interesting, what I don't get is....

what's to stop armies or forces from using FTL-moving ships as kamikaze super-bombs?

That one ftl ship caused an insanely large amount of damage on that Turian planet.  Couldn't a small handful of FTL ships crashing into a dreadnaught be enough to destroy it?

You realize that the Japanese LOST that war right? lol.  Kamakaze pilots didnt help them and it sure as hell wouldnt help armies in this game now .

There's a difference between a kamakaze plane that destroys maybe one wet navy ship, and one that destroys all the life on a planet.

I think you miss the principle Im trying to point out lol....By using Kamakaze pilots, they were wasting not only planes and resources, but manpower as well....Not to mention the ship would have to be AI or VI controlled because if you're willing to jump on your own proverbial sword in this day and age, you're just ****ing crazy.  And no, by doing so does NOT make you a patriot or a hero...It makes you STUPID lol.

Patton said it best when he said "We never won a war by dying for our country....We win them by making the other S.O.B die for his."  So unless it was somehow AI or VI controlled, a Kamakaze ship would be a pretty silly idea.

Building a dedicated relativistic bomb that was remotely piloted, or piloted by a non-sentient computer (since using an AI isn't much different than using a person) would be far cheaper than building a ship, even an unmanned one, meant to reach those speeds.  No need for life support, no need to worry about the ship being reusable and all that pesky stuff.

However, such weapons would benefit the Reapers far more than it would us, since, you know, they want to destroy us all.

Well kamikaze pilots can exist, as fighter  or interceptor pilots, but that wouldn't be in FTL speeds. So yeah, it's a stupid idea imho. Ramming other ships while on FTL would make perfect sense, if your plotter was that accurate and there was no light lag. Which are impossible in the ME universe,

We've already established a hypervelocity weapon would not use FTL, it wouldn't even use ME fields, since it makes no difference how fast a ship in a ME field is going, overall, its kinetic energy will be just as low as if it were not in an ME field.

Also, note that I'm generally refering to ship vs planet, instead of ship vs ship.  It would be overkill to unleash the force of millions of nukes against a single ship, a waste.