Rail Gun

[Hermes]

According to a recent article about the development of the rail gun by the US NAvy, "The railgun has been a featured weapon in many science fiction universes, such as the new "Battlestar Galactica" series." Which weapons are they talking about? The large guns on Galactica?
http://www.livescience.com/technology/080201-electromagnetic-record.html

[pagad]

For some reason the weapons shown in BSG seem to keep being confused with railguns.

They're not railguns. Railguns fire projectiles at phenomenal speeds - it would look instantaneous to the naked eye.

None of the weapons shown in BSG display that characteristic.

[Sparrow]

Oh no.. this will bring again the debate about if the KEW are or not rail-guns..

i think tought that at least the Viper guns are gauss ones

[Shane]

I asked the BSG Science guy, with no response yet. At the time, he was very busy. I will try to get in contact with again.

[pagad]

I don't see what the issue is. They look like shells, they behave like shells. Why can't they be shells? :lol:

[Dzonatas]

Video of "Firing a Railgun" (http://www.vuze.com/details/F3HINOPAMCIW42EIWN52STMRBKXJRKOD.html)

superhot! In space, it probably wouldn't have such massive friction

The shell is literally disintegrating -- pause or slow play it

[pagad]

...

I want one of those.

Although apparently the gun has to be heavily repaired after each shot.

[Sparrow]

That looks suspiciuously similar to Galactica main guns.. only the later are slower

[Dzonatas]

It's obvious we have the technology to make rail-guns, but the ordinances and ammunitions for it needs to be of a quality that is too expensive.

There is a demo of the "world's fastest gun" somewhere on youtube. It has like 32 barrels arranged in a figure 8 (squarish). It kinda look like a box with holes on one side. I think they said it is a partial rail-gun, where it uses heavy BB like ammunition. The didn't get into how it is only a partial rail-gun.

It fires up to a million shots per second.

[Dwyn2435]

There is a demo of the "world's fastest gun" somewhere on youtube. It has like 32 barrels arranged in a figure 8 (squarish). It kinda look like a box with holes on one side. I think they said it is a partial rail-gun, where it uses heavy BB like ammunition. The didn't get into how it is only a partial rail-gun.

It fires up to a million shots per second.

Ah. The Metal Storm, what a crappy idea.

[Sparrow]

Ah. The Metal Storm, what a crappy idea.

You mean that crap that they claimed could work to kill fires too?

It was embarrasing to watch the comertial

[FullyAutomaticKid]

ok lets just be clear on the use of terminology here

Rail guns:
fire conductive projectiles using magnetic rails, at varying speeds. they can be as slow as and bb gun or super sonic.

while it is possible for galactica to have these i think its unlikely as there are muzzle flashes when her guns fire, much like the chemical projected guns we use today.

Guass Gun :- AKA Coil Gun
also use magnetic principles to accelerate the projectile and also do not produce the muzzle flash we see when the guns are firing.

[Sparrow]

while it is possible for galactica to have these i think its unlikely as there are muzzle flashes when her guns fire, much like the chemical projected guns we use today..


Dunno... still there is that charging noise that preceeds every shot... maybe the writers intend they to be rail-guns but they didnt research that much..

[pagad]

Dunno... still there is that charging noise that preceeds every shot... maybe the writers intend they to be rail-guns but they didnt research that much..

Might not be a conventional method of projectile propulsion, but one that requires charging up.

In any case, sound in space should mostly be considered an irrelevant indulgence on the part of the production team.

[barnmaddo]

Perhaps they are a mix between rail guns and conventional guns. Explosives are used to accelerate the slug some and then the rail gun takes over and adds a little more speed to the slug and/or helps to aim the slug very accurately.

My guess is the weird 4beam cage that seems to make up the last half the barrel is the rail gun, which is primed with a shell shot from a conventional artillery. Similarly fission bombs are triggered using an initial chemical explosion, fusion bombs are detonated with a small fusion bomb, C4 is detonated with a primer (since a normal match isn't hot enough to cause it to explode), airplanes that are catapulted off a carrier...

[Sharon.Valerii]

Let me offer another suggestion on Galacticas Weapons. Maybe they are am Kombination of Old School Gun Barrels and Rockets. That mean, that the guns are firing High-Velocityself propelland Rocket Procectiles. That would explain the "smoke" around the Barrels when the guns are firing, and it explains the high firing speed of the Projectiles. The weapons are called "kinetic energy weapons" So it could mean, that by further propelling the Projectiles with an internal Chemical Thruster ( or something similar ) the projectiles got a high kinetic impact energy.

[Osprey]

this thread really needs the "Nerdy Debate" flag in the title ...
:-)
:-)

[Sharon.Valerii]

You think so, I´m sorry for that.....^^

But I´m only a stupid Toaster ..;-)

[Osprey]

oh, no worries, it's just, imo, that this has become one of the top geek debates we've had -- it's right up there with our attempt at a viper census and/or the previous discussion re: the mechanics of the bucket's main batteries ...

[Sharon.Valerii]

No prob there, i only tried to be funny ^^
And i like discussion of that kind

[FullyAutomaticKid]

Dunno... still there is that charging noise that precedes every shot... maybe the writers intend they to be rail-guns but they didn't research that much..

hmm not quite sure i know what you mean by charging noise, the sound just before the gun hammers away i take as being the hydraulics reseting the gun

i cant find a good video but ive always thought that colonial guns used a form of autoloader (like on the Russian T-72). the mussle flash and fire trail makes me think its just conventional chemically propelled, and probably rocket assisted; shells.

[Hermes]

I must be a geek because I enjoyed reading this discussion. Thanks for all of the thoughts on this.

[pagad]

Perhaps they are a mix between rail guns and conventional guns. Explosives are used to accelerate the slug some and then the rail gun takes over and adds a little more speed to the slug and/or helps to aim the slug very accurately.

I don't think it can be as simple as that - I don't think you can mix the principles behind each method of propulsion.

Besides, doing so would be counter-intuitive. A true railgun would be more powerful anyway.

Since the weapons in BSG take no characteristics from either railguns or coilguns I think it is safe to say they are standard projectile weapons scaled up for use on spacecraft.

EDIT: whoops, old post ¬_¬

[PLAAND88]

Oh no.. this will bring again the debate about if the KEW are or not rail-guns..

i think tought that at least the Viper guns are gauss ones

Viper guns are not likely gauss guns since the ammunition shown in Epiphanies is conventional 20-30mm chemically propelled ammunition.

[Sparrow]

they were full of some chem wich may be the explosive compound to make it explosive rounds


sorry . im an ass and i like to think of them as rail guns.. thats a bound to fail combination here :D

[BSG-27 CinC]

There might be another reason why Railguns might not be used in case of Battlestars. As it so happens, railguns exert very high forces to push the bullet (or shell, if you will) to such high velocities. There is an equal and opposite force exerted back on the turret. In addition, railguns exert a lot of side forces as well (based on what I understand, but open to correction here)

These kinds of forces will lead to structural issues on naval ships but will lead to a different kind of result on space vehicles. There, the force will tend to push the battlestar in the opposite direction of the gunfire as also exert a moment about the ship's three body axes (longitudinal,lateral and vertical) depending on the angle at which the turret is firing with respect to these axes.

If left uncontrolled, the ship will start rolling, pitching or yawing (usually a combination of the three). This is similar to the effect of the Nuclear attack on the Galactica in the miniseries when Gaeta reports that they are in a lateral uncontrolled counterclockwise spin. Of course the forces are much smaller.

To counter this the battlestar would have to fire reaction control thrusters for every round it fires and adjust that thrust depending on exact relative turret angles. But all of this uses fuel.

So a conventional gun that exerts a smaller force would need less fuel to balance out the force and moments whereas the railguns would require more fuel. I would think this is an open question of compromise between fuel usage, navigation control and firepower requirements. You take your choice and live with them.

[Shane]

Ok all! I got the official answer! To the issue on "Weapons in the Re-imaging Series".

To be absolutely clear we can consider most of the "show" of the Battlestar Weapon system a gaff from the created "explosion" when "rounds" are fired off. From Kevin R. Grazier:
RE:> In fan circles, the battlestar and Viper weapons are
> sometimes called
> railguns. However this has never been stated on screen and
> a lot of
> evidence, like the use of chemically propelled rounds,
> points to them
> being conventional guns. Indeed, the exact nature of these
> weapons is
> still being discussed by the production team (some like
> Gary Hutzel want
> them to be based on railgun technology, while some in the
> writing staff
> feel that they are not railguns) (note 2).
AND> Now what is your take of the weapons system. This would
> every much help
> us and put to rest some questions raised by everyone.
>
Ron has said that Galactica's main guns are, in fact, rail guns.
I've certainly always assumed this (despite the fact that we
see evidence of some sort of combusion when they fire).

The Viper cannons are obviously NOT rail guns, as evidenced
by the fact that Tyrol made direct mention of the "gunpowder"
in the rounds -- when Kat's gun exploded (interesting aside:
when I got the script for the episode, I had a friend staying
with me who once worked in an ammunition plant :) . So Kat's
gun exploded because one round was under-loaded. It doesn't
clear the barrel, and the next round comes along and... BOOM.
Clearly this is technology not dissimilar to traditional
"bullets".
Anyway..... I think that pretty much settles the issue.

[Sparrow]

Anyway..... I think that pretty much settles the issue.


Any link where i can red Ron's words about?

is funny because i feeled that the Vipers guns where rail guns .. and that the chemical inside was explosive so when the round hits it explodes ..not the propelant one..
but is still totally logical.. the big guns being rail guns .. while small 20mm guns in the Vipers and the Vipers themselves may be too small to fit the electrical systems needed to power the rail gun ..and choose clasic standard guns instead

If tyrol mentions gunpowder thats it.. Viper guns are classic 20mm autocannons like the guns of the Eurofighter or MIG/Sukhois.. (wich have lower firing rate but are more precise than barrel guns)

[pagad]

Any link where i can red Ron's words about?


Yeah, source on that?

I'm highly dubious because of Ron Moore's fixation on "naturalistic science fiction" in BSG. Calling the weapons in BSG railguns is as inaccurate as calling the weapons in Star Wars lasers.

[Sluggmeister]

its not railguns even if they or someone wants them to be they can not be and they dont act like it they dont behave like it :D
railguns do not fire conventional rounds they can not. to haul shells the size of small cars away with a railgun... you would need a fusion powerplant per coil and the guns as far as i know have no coils. unless some magical wiz made circular tubes work the same but then again if you could make a railgun out of a tube and still establish an electromagnetic field that strong... in that case were talking bacis plasma weaponry. and they also act like any tank turret gun would do the backblast from the severe recoil the obvious trails of either shells or some sort of super fast missiles. a railgun has no recoil atleast not a "proper" railgun thats half the thing with it like maglev trains. its forced motion.

[archivis]

The flash seen from the Galactica rail gun batteries when they fire is most likely molten metal, melted from friction and electrical resistance from the rails and the projectile itself, that has bounced around in the gun itself to emerge as a "flash" of way too hot to mess with metal.

Railguns have contact between the rails and the projectile over the entire acceleration path in the barrel. The electrical current passing though the rails, across the projectile, and out through the other rail to provide acceleration heats the metal in all three due to resistance. Also, the projectile MUST be in contact with the rails for the electrical acceleration technology that is the defining characteristic of railguns to work - and this means friction, adding to the heat of the already electrically heated materials. RL railguns have serious maintenance requirements and go through replacement rails very very quickly as hunks of them get scraped off every time you fire the gun.

[Vespasian]

Just a few comments:



I think that the push factor on a ship of that size, as a result of firing a kinetic round, would be relatively insignificant and easily checked. This is especially true when they are not in orbit of a planet, because realistically they are only going to get pushed away from the enemy. I think it could be easily checked with thrusters.




I agree that the visual affect of back-blast could easily be caused by friction and melting. Watch the video link from page 1 on the US Navy's rail gun, and you will see some serious fire.




Someone had suggested a hybride theory, in which fuelled-round are accelerated through an electromagnetic chamber. It would be completely redundant to get the projectile moving with fuel, and then speed it up again. Ultimately, the system can only reach a certain velocity, so why waste the fuel.




Finally, I wanted to point out the elephant in the room. That elephant is the FTL Drive. If a ship that size can harness the power to move faster than the speed of light, I think it can manage the logistics behind launching a projectile at a mere 7*343.14mps

Speaking of that elephant, does anyone happen to know what sort of megajoules that FTL Drive is drawing?

[UrsusArctos]

Just a few comments:

I think that the push factor on a ship of that size, as a result of firing a kinetic round, would be relatively insignificant and easily checked. This is especially true when they are not in orbit of a planet, because realistically they are only going to get pushed away from the enemy. I think it could be easily checked with thrusters.

Yep, thrusters would easily do the job. Real-life battleships had substantially larger weapons for their size than Galactica did, and they could handle their guns just fine.

I agree that the visual affect of back-blast could easily be caused by friction and melting. Watch the video link from page 1 on the US Navy's rail gun, and you will see some serious fire.

Those weapons turn a copper wire into plasma and use a magnetic field on the electrically conductive plasma to shove the round out at terrific speeds, if I remember right. Good reason to have serious fire.

Someone had suggested a hybride theory, in which fuelled-round are accelerated through an electromagnetic chamber. It would be completely redundant to get the projectile moving with fuel, and then speed it up again. Ultimately, the system can only reach a certain velocity, so why waste the fuel.

The fuel would have to form a highly conductive plasma for it to work like a railgun. But that's not too bad an idea. People have tried out gun-missile combos, which were failures for practical reasons. The colonials may have perfected such a system, and the Battlestar Valkyrie fired missiles out of its turrets. The downside might be rounds that are very large and heavy due to the extra propellant. It's possible that Galactica and Pegasus can fire fuelled rounds (implying a wide range of ammunition) or even guided missiles like Valkyrie when available.(Modern Russian tanks and the Israeli Merkava fire AT missiles out of their gun barrels.)

Finally, I wanted to point out the elephant in the room. That elephant is the FTL Drive. If a ship that size can harness the power to move faster than the speed of light, I think it can manage the logistics behind launching a projectile at a mere 7*343.14mpsSpeaking of that elephant, does anyone happen to know what sort of megajoules that FTL Drive is drawing?

Accelerating something to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy. The FTL drive gets around this limitation by "bending space" (That was the term, right?) There are no real figures for how much energy such high-tech voodoo consumes.