Say, Carl...

Braden Campbell · Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:05 pm

What's the blast radius on a Singularity missile? I have it at 300', but if they are meant to weapons of mass destruction, should it not be even greater, like a couple of miles?

Since you made them up, I figured I'd ask you.

Carl Gleba · Unread post by **Carl Gleba** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:22 am

Good question. Consider those the mark 1's. There are going to be some bigger and badder version latter on with a much larger blast radius.

When I initially wrote it it was meant for single ship say something along the line of a Protector Class.

Carl

DhAkael · Unread post by **DhAkael** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:36 am

Carl Gleba wrote:Good question. Consider those the mark 1's. There are going to be some bigger and badder version latter on with a much larger blast radius.

When I initially wrote it it was meant for single ship say something along the line of a Protector Class.

Carl

and the other question is; do those bad-boys damage everything in the blast radius equaly? or is it more like point-singularity?

Inquiring minds wanna know!

Carl Gleba · Unread post by **Carl Gleba** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:41 am

DhAkael wrote:
Carl Gleba wrote:Good question. Consider those the mark 1's. There are going to be some bigger and badder version latter on with a much larger blast radius.

When I initially wrote it it was meant for single ship say something along the line of a Protector Class.

Carl

and the other question is; do those bad-boys damage everything in the blast radius equaly? or is it more like point-singularity?
Inquiring minds wanna know!

I'd would say anything in the blast radius takes full damage, everything in the next 300 feet takes half, and the last 300 they take a quarter.

Carl

Braden Campbell · Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:56 am

works for me. that's going in the article....

900' blast radius all told, with varrying damages.

Cool.

glitterboy2098 · Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:40 am

it's probably only a couple of tons mass.

that means the singularity would be Quantum, or hundreds of times smaller than an electron.

a singularity of that mass wouldn't be stable, and would evaporate instantly the moment whatever scifi tech devices that contained it were turned off.

and when a singularity evaporates, it's like setting off a small nova.. in theory. :-D

Carl Gleba · Unread post by **Carl Gleba** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:05 pm

glitterboy2098 wrote:it's probably only a couple of tons mass.

that means the singularity would be Quantum, or hundreds of times smaller than an electron.

a singularity of that mass wouldn't be stable, and would evaporate instantly the moment whatever scifi tech devices that contained it were turned off.

and when a singularity evaporates, it's like setting off a small nova.. in theory.

Yep, its on that scale :ok:

Carl

Carl Gleba · Unread post by **Carl Gleba** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:29 am

darkmax wrote:Cool. That would mean that the singularity component can be sized into a micro/mini missile.

Well the singularity would have to me very small like atomic size. Only because I would think what ever type of containment field is somewhat large.

I mean look at todays modern particle colliders. Those things are huge and all they do is accelerate a few particles so they can smash them together.

Darkmax its your game so do what you want, but I would think the singularity missiles would be limited to cruise missiles because part of the missile is the containment system for the singularity, or what ever creates the singularity.

Thats why the missiles don't have a long shelf life.

Carl

MADMANMIKE · Unread post by **MADMANMIKE** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:09 pm

..I would think a singularity generator would be the bulk of the missile, and the singularity would be generated instantly on impact, instead of already existing and being carried by the missile.

..Just speaking of plausible theory that is. Plausible being based on no real quantum mechanics education, other than Techno-babble.

-Mike <8]