The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:34 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:44 am 
but the mesh has to be complete. you cant have sections that aren't covered by it. vents break the seal with to big of a hole. remember, mesh is a lot of very small holes, not one big one. even if you can make a tereport cage with mesh, it has to be small holes, not large ones.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:02 am 
The vent grilles could form a small enough mesh that air/schlock can pass through, but not TAD.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:46 pm 
Hi, I'm new here. I really enjoy Schlock Mercenary greatly, but I discovered it in the weirdest way-- I was looking up "Weapons In Science Fiction" on Wikipedia, and the entry for "Relatavistic Kill Vehicle" used two strips from S.M. as examples. Since then I read the strip all the way from the beginning.


By the way, if you're going to hand me a weapon, can I have a coilgun with adjustable muzzle velocity and exploding rounds?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:04 pm 
archemedes_rex wrote:
Hi, I'm new here. I really enjoy Schlock Mercenary greatly, but I discovered it in the weirdest way-- I was looking up "Weapons In Science Fiction" on Wikipedia, and the entry for "Relatavistic Kill Vehicle" used two strips from S.M. as examples. Since then I read the strip all the way from the beginning.


By the way, if you're going to hand me a weapon, can I have a coilgun with adjustable muzzle velocity and exploding rounds?


certainly. all your rounds explode into whipped cream. It's a favorite at frat parties.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:23 pm 
I'd add that there have been revisions of the teraport standard and the older revisions may be more disruptive even by feel than the newer revisions.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:26 pm 
Thanks, now I own a pistol that fires exploding whipped cream.

Imagine shooting somebody with one of these. Not only is their shirt ruined, they have to lick it off themselves.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm 
An anti matter grenade would be a rediculous weapon, u could never throw it far enough away to be safe. Seeing as antimatter causes complete annihilation of matter when they meet u get a hell of a lot of energy. When the equation to work out that energy includes c^2 then there is no other option. I am assuming that the grenade only contains a few atom of antimatter seeing as nuclear weapons only cause a few grams of matter to be annihilated and you know how big their kill radius is. Think about trying to throw a grenade 30 odd miles- it doesnt work, in the strip it show him flying about 60 odd meters away, if that were an antimatter grenade of that size then he wouldnt be incinerated, hed be atomised along with every other piece of flora/fauna for around 20 miles.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:06 pm 
Most of the grenade is containment and gravitics for shield-breaching, NOT antimatter. Notice how both Keyn's epaulets are the same size but #2 provides about 14 kilotons more "bang" in the first use. ;)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:49 pm 
14 kilotons is still way too small for an antimatter grenade of that size, I suppose you could write the rest off as electro magnetic containment for the anti matter but with schlockverse technology that could be so much smaller.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:57 pm 
six6six wrote:
14 kilotons is still way too small for an antimatter grenade of that size, I suppose you could write the rest off as electro magnetic containment for the anti matter but with schlockverse technology that could be so much smaller.


Its an epaulet. Its 'main' function is to indicate Keyvn's rank, so making it smaller doesn't fullfill any real purpose. Actually the strip *says* how much AM is in the big one: 320 milligrams.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:10 pm 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 4:15 pm
Posts: 1460
six6six wrote:
14 kilotons is still way too small for an antimatter grenade of that size, I suppose you could write the rest off as electro magnetic containment for the anti matter but with schlockverse technology that could be so much smaller.
Perhaps you are confusing "Antimatter Grenade" with "Grenade made of Antimatter"

The warhead does not have to be anywhere close to a majority of the mass of the grenade.
And it is best that it is NOT, since the epaulets are supposed to be stealthy. Also, it is usually in your best interests to not render the planet you're standing on uninhabitable.

The size of the warhead is a tactical decision. Anti-tank and fortress demolition were the choices. Planet killer was an option, albeit a bad one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:50 pm 
SuicideJunkie wrote:
The size of the warhead is a tactical decision. Anti-tank and fortress demolition were the choices. Planet killer was an option, albeit a bad one.

Planet-killer, not so much.

I'm going to assume you mean "Has a significant impact on the climate of a planet", not "Can destroy a planet." If it's the latter, then the math is easier to do, but the amount of anti-matter needed is large enough to make it's own moon.

So, the former. If we take the Chicxulub meteor (The one that likely wiped out the dinosaurs) to be the amount of explosive needed (it wiped out 95% of all life, so that's probably enough to count as "plant-killer")

Well, that explosion was 1.52 x 10^24 Joules (Use the numbers given to calculate the impact).

1.52x10^24 = (m)3x10^16 [3x10^16 is c^2]
m = 50 700 000kg of antimatter.
A wee bit much.

Let's assume that the heaviest his epaulets are likely to be is 1kg, that gives us a 3x10^16j explosion. Now, that's lots of energy, but not quite on the order of 'planet killer'. (For reference, that's a 7 megaton explosion, the largest nuke ever detonated was 50 megatons)


[/end pedantic rant (complete with math!)]

Edit: The math to blow up a planet is easier because the amount of energy needed to blow it apart is known, the amount needed to destroy the environment isn't (Or, if it is, I've been unable to find it despite extensive searching.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:19 pm 
It would have been 100 Megatons, but...

1) They cut the fusion-able material in half to prevent excessive fallout
B) So the chase plane didn't become a suicide drop plane.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:44 pm 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:26 pm
Posts: 1479
Location: R'lyeh
Vikedal wrote:
They cut the fusion-able material in half to prevent excessive fallout

Fusion produces no appreciable fallout. It was to limit fission (and its byproducts) that the tamper was changed and the bomb tuned down to 50 Mt.

_________________
Living in a state free from the burdens of privacy and democracy since 2008-06-18.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:03 am 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:12 am
Posts: 371
GDwarf wrote:
Edit: The math to blow up a planet is easier because the amount of energy needed to blow it apart is known, the amount needed to destroy the environment isn't (Or, if it is, I've been unable to find it despite extensive searching.)


And I'm sure the search got you on some fascinating watch lists. :shocked!:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:50 pm 
The russians may have detonate a 100 megaton bomb underground, or at least thats what they claim. They definately made a 100 megaton bomb as well as the one they detonated, so whether you think they detonated it or not depends on who you believe.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:07 am 
GDwarf wrote:
SuicideJunkie wrote:
The size of the warhead is a tactical decision. Anti-tank and fortress demolition were the choices. Planet killer was an option, albeit a bad one.

Planet-killer, not so much.

I'm going to assume you mean "Has a significant impact on the climate of a planet", not "Can destroy a planet." If it's the latter, then the math is easier to do, but the amount of anti-matter needed is large enough to make it's own moon.

So, the former. If we take the Chicxulub meteor (The one that likely wiped out the dinosaurs) to be the amount of explosive needed (it wiped out 95% of all life, so that's probably enough to count as "plant-killer")

Well, that explosion was 1.52 x 10^24 Joules (Use the numbers given to calculate the impact).

1.52x10^24 = (m)3x10^16 [3x10^16 is c^2]
m = 50 700 000kg of antimatter.
A wee bit much.

Let's assume that the heaviest his epaulets are likely to be is 1kg, that gives us a 3x10^16j explosion. Now, that's lots of energy, but not quite on the order of 'planet killer'. (For reference, that's a 7 megaton explosion, the largest nuke ever detonated was 50 megatons)


[/end pedantic rant (complete with math!)]

Edit: The math to blow up a planet is easier because the amount of energy needed to blow it apart is known, the amount needed to destroy the environment isn't (Or, if it is, I've been unable to find it despite extensive searching.)

Your math is off. My calculations give about 8 million kilos of antimatter for that much energy. Still a lot.
I'm wondering, though. How did you calculate the energy of that meteor?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:09 pm 
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

Sorry about that, I assumed that the page I linked too earlier would have a link back to the calculator.


Anyways, my math was off, evidently I was under the impression that 3 squared was 16...

So, re-doing the math I get. 17 000 000 kilos (Or so). (1.52x10^24 / 9x10^16)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:45 pm 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 4:15 pm
Posts: 1460
Indeed I meant Kill as in remove life, rather than blast the corpse of the planet to escape velocity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:30 pm 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:36 pm
Posts: 38
Btw, do we have a quote clearly stating annie power scales with volume, or is it just extremely heavily implied?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:46 pm 
Q99 wrote:
Btw, do we have a quote clearly stating annie power scales with volume, or is it just extremely heavily implied?


A little of both. When the Athens was being refitted, Kevyn fitted it with a number of small plants that had the same overall volume but less power. Apparently it worked for everything except the ship's gravy-guns.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:02 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:34 pm
Posts: 225
Whitehawke wrote:
Updated the number of generations of TAD from 4 to 9 as per today's comic.


That may have been incorrect: I have the impression Howard refers to 4 generations of TAD (Teraport Denial) systems, whereas Kevyn is refering to Mark IX Teraport, not teraport denial. So we still have indications of only 4 TAD generations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:09 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 11:33 am
Posts: 1277
Location: San Francisco, USA
Cybermaus wrote:
Whitehawke wrote:
Updated the number of generations of TAD from 4 to 9 as per today's comic.


That may have been incorrect: I have the impression Howard refers to 4 generations of TAD (Teraport Denial) systems, whereas Kevyn is refering to Mark IX Teraport, not teraport denial. So we still have indications of only 4 TAD generations.


Whoops! You're absolutely correct. Fixed.

_________________
After 3 long, weaponless years, I became the wielder of the Doobie/Dobie gun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:17 am 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:47 pm
Posts: 40
Location: Newz York.
Edit: Whoops, my post turned into too much of a speculation/discussion post to be here, so I moved it to a seperate thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:23 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
SuicideJunkie wrote:
Indeed I meant Kill as in remove life, rather than blast the corpse of the planet to escape velocity.


Right, no need for a Death Star or Freeza kill (complete planetary disintegration) when a Dr. Strangelove kill (nuclear winter) will suffice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:02 am 
Offline
Aquarium Exhibit
Aquarium Exhibit

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:19 pm
Posts: 23
two things on my mind.

1, re antimater: either its less powerfull than you are imagining, or atoms are far smaller than you think they are. in 2002 they collected several anti-hydrogen atoms from CERN, and they think it wouldnt be enough to heat a cup of coffee. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1957

if you can controll your payload to the atomic level, you could conceivably make an antimater grenade with a yield equivilant to a firecracker, up to something more like a strategic nuke.

i had some really lame laymans math taking the known yield of one mole of anti-neutrons, and looking at the mole weight of neutrons, and comparing the components of a neutron to that of a hydrogen atom, and thus deriving the yield of a few grams of antihydrogen and.. well, the holes in that are probably obvious. but it does lead to an order of magnitude sort of guestimation that isnt valid enough to ramble on about further...


2, re schlock technology user interfaces: when and why did all of the computer displays change from yellow jagged electrical fields into lowtech flatscreen displays? no more holography and field effects? back in the beginning, everything was about field manipulators and such, from Enesby's maser to the special weapons on Haban's armor to.. well.. everything. they seem less common now in favor of more familiar technology that you can "grab a hold of"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:30 am 
Cars used to have giant fins on them, to make them look more futuristic. How often do you see cars with those now? "neat looking" and "practical" aren't always the same thing. Being able to move your screen without needing the ship's AI to help you might have been a big cause of that. Its kind of common to try to guess what will be popular later and make it now, but how often does it work out? They could have moved back to solid viewers simply because the fad wore out.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:58 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
firedragongt wrote:
They could have moved back to solid viewers simply because the fad wore out.


...or because straight lines are easier to draw, but eh.

Heck, I didn't even notice that, and look what you made me do--I went hauling through the archives to find the change.

As a part of the art, field-effect screens were last seen in late 2001: the Kitesfear and the cruise ship had them-and so did Petey as a Thunderhead, for about halfway. A gooseneck flatpanel is visible behind Kevyn on Nov 29, 2001, and the Uniocs are seen to be using them on Dec 10, 2001. After that, everybody is...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:56 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:03 am
Posts: 1187
puke wrote:
2, re schlock technology user interfaces: when and why did all of the computer displays change from yellow jagged electrical fields into lowtech flatscreen displays? no more holography and field effects? back in the beginning, everything was about field manipulators and such, from Enesby's maser to the special weapons on Haban's armor to.. well.. everything. they seem less common now in favor of more familiar technology that you can "grab a hold of"

I think this is because there's a wide variety of age ranges and manufacturers of Schlockiverse technolergies. Some technolergies are really old: Jails made from brick walls with metal bars on them: This is outdated even by the standards of today's technolergies. Others are much newer and more advanced. There seems to be an extremely large range of technological preferences involved, and it often varies widely by the people doing the manufacturing of the parts. All of the equipment on TAG, for instance, seems to have a distinctly "old" feel with all the computer equipment bearing similarities to 60s and 70s equipment. It is quite possible that the ship itself is actually quite old, being that it is probably second or third-hand technology, and the "aged" look of the equipment is a subtle way of conveying this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:59 am 
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20060604.html
Another thing about terraporting and TAD. TAD doesn't prevent terraporting, it disrupts it causing destruction of the terraporting object.

Such disruption is not instantanous, and is quite painful, and it is obvious without machinery to sapient being disrupted, and at least for a specific time period, it is possible to abort it "commit us to the terraport". The destruction can also be aborted. That is, after the terraport has been commited to but before the object is destroyed, the TAD may allow it to pass.

All this info comes from the one episode where the toughes were loosing their license, they pretended to be boarded and tried to terraport out of TAD, and eventually they were let go (only to be intercepted by a battleplate instead). "Please not an ironic death, please not an ironic death!"


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Barmaglot and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group