View Thread
 Nano-disassembler Weapons Discussion
|
|
| CIWS |
Posted on 27-09-2005 05:43
|
 Posts: 54 Joined: September 09 2005 |
Quote Glacialis wrote: Nanotechnology simply means very small technology. Wouldn't you say that assembling a ship molecule by molecule qualifies as nanotechnology? Yeah.. but why would you want to do that? It's far more economical to simply stamp out the parts in conventional manufacture. If the fireball can't be seen from orbit you obviously aren't trying hard enough.
There is no 'overkill' only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'. -Schlock Mercenary |
|
|
|
| MDD |
Posted on 27-09-2005 07:21
|
 Posts: 32 Joined: September 26 2005 |
I think that there is an implied use of nanotech. I mean how were the hyperspace cores assembled? It seems likely that something so solid as to be able to withstand the Bentusi harbor ship going critical is not going to be welded or bolted together. The use of nanotech can enable that sort of super-dense construction. As to the reference of gunship assembly in the cutscene, why on earth would you want to use nantecnology to assemble an entire ship? That would take ages and likely be cost prohibative. If you use assembly line methodology, the nanites could assemble all the smaller components which can then be assembled in to larger pieces as theyre needed. I also want to address somones comment about planet sterilization. Nanites are not the only way to sterilize a planet. Any weapon ever developed can sterilize a planet. Some just take longer. It would be simpler to just bombard the planet with nukes or redirect the path of a comet. Nanites are more insidious perhaps but not really more effective. I also dont think that nanites are particulalry fragile. What is the chance that something small enough to manipulate atoms is going to be hit by an autocannon shell or particle beam? Edited by MDD on 27-09-2005 07:23 |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 27-09-2005 15:04
|
 Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
What are the chances nanites are going to be able to do much damage if they're that small? |
|
|
|
| tan79 |
Posted on 27-09-2005 17:49
|
 Posts: 9 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Hi folks, As a researcher / PhD student in nanotechnology, I though I might add a few thoughts. First, nanotechnology is the science of assembling things on the molecular scale. However, it is not making little "nanobots" and the like, simply because many of those functions can be replicated through more efficient means, i.e. naturally occuring enzymes and compounds that can be manipulated through nanotech. The beauty of nanotech is what we call "self-assembly bottom-up" fabrication, where components can basically assemble themselves through molecular reactions, such as DNA binding. As mentioned by MDD, nanotech is implied in the Homeworld universe. Nanotech can produce extremely strong materials or very good heat dissipation methods, thus making possible directed energy weapons, fusion reactors, or autocannon that can fire continuously without heat build-up or need for ammunition resupply. Nanotech can also make possible nanocircuits thousands of times more efficient than current silicon-based technology (which is part of the research I'm working on). Making little nanobots to dissolve a ship's hull is an inefficient use of the technology - think of nanotech as a tool to make more efficient, neat stuff just as plastics, or composite materials, or integrated circuits are tools. Nano-diassemblers is somewhat akin to using advanced carbon-fiber and depeted uranium materials to manufacture a really nice sword. It is a nice idea, though, but nanobots are not really practical or useful. Nanites probably won't do that much damage, and a simple current passed through a ship's hull can bast them off. Even a strong acid or genengineered bacteria can probably do more damage - but it's still probably better just to blast the ship with cabon-nanotube reinforced (ultra-dense) shells or energy fire. Hope that helps, sorry about the long post. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 27-09-2005 18:26
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Quote tan79 wrote:or autocannon that can fire continuously without [...] need for ammunition resupply. Interesting though NT is it doesn't create matter out of nothing.  |
|
|
|
| maw3194 |
Posted on 27-09-2005 18:35
|
|
Posts: 66 Joined: September 02 2005 |
My science is limited, but from what I know about fusion (which is practically nothing) fusion loses its useful energy output at around Iron, I wondered what they would use it for. The Nano Robots probably use it to manufacture the ammunition and use it for repairs. |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 27-09-2005 19:18
|
 Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
By not needing resupply, I think he means that you don't have to change cartridges or stop to reload. Very good post, tan79. This is the kind of thing we need more of: not specifics of a technology, but the logistics surrounding the uses to which it may be put. |
|
|
|
| tan79 |
Posted on 27-09-2005 19:59
|
|
Posts: 9 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Sorry about being unclear - yes, a turret can fire continuously without having to lug ammunition around or wait for the barrel to cool down. Thanks, Glacialis - the logistical implications are really interesting. As maw3194 mentioned, even raw materials can be used to manufacture ammunition. I think this is one of the most interesting concepts in the HW universe - onboard PDAs that can turn raw materials from space into missiles, ammunition, basic spare parts, etc. This can really change military strategy. A HGN or Vaygr commerce raiding squadon can operate completely independently, using enemy munitions or raw materials to supply themselves. Or a long siege, in which the defenders can supply themselves and not lose through lack of maintenance (like the Siege of Hiigara). Leaving enemy bases isolated to "wither on the vine" might take a much longer time, as it needs the nanotechnology-based repair and manufacturing systems to give out first. |
|
|
|
| Methuselah |
Posted on 27-09-2005 20:29
|
|
Posts: 53 Joined: September 07 2005 |
On a tangent, the idea of nanotechnology does not need to be applied for every esoteric and wonderful material used in the construction of a HW2 warship. More likely, a large-scale *force effector would be used to shape alloys and other materials out of constituent parts. More efficient and capable of working on a greater scale. Also more internally consistent with the advanced energy weapons technology of PDS. However, to go onto a further tangent discussing the PDA, the PDA is intended to be a disassembler of raw materials. Not a magical transformation device capable of creating missiles from rocks. The idea that a PDA creates the missiles and so forth found during an engagement is somewhat preposterous as it would lead to extreme warships designed solely around PDAs rather than ships containing magazines. For the sake of argument, assume HW2:PDS warships have both large magazines and easy access to resupply vessels. I know this doesn't explain how a carrier can magically build a frigate in the space of minutes, nor does it give us an answer to where the crew for an endless stream of frigates comes from but never-the-less, we should view the PDA as a wonder-device much in the same way we have postualted nanotechnology to be the glue that binds everything we need to understand together. * by Force I mean either electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear or weak nuclear. Or any other elementary forces unknown to current physics. Edited by Methuselah on 27-09-2005 20:30 |
|
|
|
| MDD |
Posted on 27-09-2005 21:59
|
|
Posts: 32 Joined: September 26 2005 |
The entire point of nanotech is that it is a "magical transformation device". Nanotechnology can build missles from rocks in much the same way that a tree grows from a seed. The nanites are essentially very specialized artificial cells. I don't think that we can assume there are resupply vessels. If there were, they would have been included in the game, no? The magazines on say the hydrashark frigate can't hold more than maybe 40 torpedoes. Many more than 40 would be required for an extended engagement of any sort. So i think that the only viable explanation for ammunition ressuply and ship production are multiple nano-foundries that are capable of taking raw materials and processing them into parts which can then be assembled robotically very quickly. Then the only suplies that would be required would be the raw materials from the asteroids. A question that has puzzled me from H1 on is the ability of the mobile refineries to somehow get the resources to the production facilities. The only explanation i found satisfying would be the generation of small hyperspace gates through which the rwa material is passed. This possiblity is touched upon in the DFG thread. So i think that the idea of nanotechnology as a direct attack weapon is not a viable concept. I do maintain that they could still be useful for some highly specialized role. |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 27-09-2005 23:19
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
http://well-of-souls.com/homeworld/hw...roller.htm (Please, everyone read this, it will help a lot.) As for ammunition resuply, it has been generally accepted that there are lesser construction bays capable of manufacturing ammunition. Resources to construct ammunition are transferred the same way resource controllers transfer resources to the mothership/carrier. There is no need for nanotechnology to construct a fusion warhead missile nor a 300mm projectile. Only fighters and corvettes have stored ammunition. |
|
|
|
| Methuselah |
Posted on 28-09-2005 00:03
|
|
Posts: 53 Joined: September 07 2005 |
MDD: My point is thus however. If you have a complex manufacturing system in place that you can feed with raw materials, then surely you would not have a fleet in the conventional sense, instead having 'seed ships' which grow fat (or thin) as they are needed. If nanotech can make a high-technology item like a missile, then why not a ship, and who knows where from there? I am in agreement with Inert's points on construction bays, and think it's safe to assume that the complicated components ofmateriel such as guidance systems are likely present on te ship already in sgnificant numbers, needing only their more simple components (fuel, chassis, explosive) for final assembly. |
|
|
|
| CIWS |
Posted on 28-09-2005 00:43
|
|
Posts: 54 Joined: September 09 2005 |
Quote MDD wrote: The entire point of nanotech is that it is a "magical transformation device". Nanotechnology can build missles from rocks in much the same way that a tree grows from a seed. The nanites are essentially very specialized artificial cells. Nanotech isn't a magic transformation device though. Quote So i think that the only viable explanation for ammunition ressuply and ship production are multiple nano-foundries that are capable of taking raw materials and processing them into parts which can then be assembled robotically very quickly. Then the only suplies that would be required would be the raw materials from the asteroids. If you want speed you're better off with conventional manufacture. If the fireball can't be seen from orbit you obviously aren't trying hard enough.
There is no 'overkill' only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'. -Schlock Mercenary |
|
|
|
| MDD |
Posted on 28-09-2005 02:34
|
|
Posts: 32 Joined: September 26 2005 |
"magic tranformation device" was my failed attempt at being clever. Sorry. Well i guess nanotechnolgy is best left in the biomedical field then. Although... What is are the relative speeds of conventional manufacture and nanotech fabrication? What if the speed was equal? What then would be the advantage of either side? Cost? Size of the facility? Maintenance(sp?)? |
|
|
|
| Zane |
Posted on 28-09-2005 02:44
|
 Posts: 26 Joined: September 08 2005 |
i see a nice use for these in the capture frigates. when at unit cap dismantle and have collectors get it after that.
Attention higarian command. This is Commander Zane Solomon, of the 3rd fleet. We are online and ready to assist you.
|
|
|
|
| CIWS |
Posted on 28-09-2005 03:01
|
|
Posts: 54 Joined: September 09 2005 |
Quote MDD wrote: "magic tranformation device" was my failed attempt at being clever. Sorry. Well i guess nanotechnolgy is best left in the biomedical field then. Indeed. This keeps your nanites in a nice environment where they don't have to worry about being cooked by being too close to somebody's microwave. Quote What is are the relative speeds of conventional manufacture and nanotech fabrication? What if the speed was equal? What then would be the advantage of either side? Cost? Size of the facility? Maintenance(sp?)? Nanotech construction is going to be an inherently more complex process because of the massive increase in moving parts. Then there's the logistic problems inherent in nanomachines- How are they coordinating? Your space is extremely limited and in addition to all the things it needs to do its work on its own the nanobot needs at bare minimum a reciever so it can recieve outside instructions from whatever central mechanism is coordinating their efforts (coordination being both vital and difficult in this instance). What's powering them? Any onboard energy source is going to be literally microscopic and thus severely limit the lifespan of the nanobot. Beaming power to them has its own problems, not least of which is the fact that you're pumping energy into something that's going to have low structural integrity. Etc. etc. I remember I site somewhere that had a good article regarding nanotech myths, I'll try and dig up a link. Of course you have to remember the world is rife with nanotech produced objects, humans being one.. of course generally speaking whoever did quality control on us should be sacked considering that the average DVD is manufactured to tighter tolerances than we are. If the fireball can't be seen from orbit you obviously aren't trying hard enough.
There is no 'overkill' only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'. -Schlock Mercenary |
|
|
|
| 90-8742 |
Posted on 28-09-2005 03:42
|
|
Posts: 12 Joined: September 06 2005 |
I allways thought that the ships had nanotech foundrys to make the sheet metal and then had a automated process to forge the (input whatever is needed here). Then the scraps where broken down into there little pieces to be recycled. but then again this is my idea in my little corner of the universe  |
|
|
|
| Methuselah |
Posted on 28-09-2005 08:28
|
|
Posts: 53 Joined: September 07 2005 |
One thing that we're doing here that isn't tied to the real world is that we're assuming nanotechnology means microscopic robots. Nanotechnology can mean microscopic anything, particularly particles. So I suppose you could have a vat of nanotech acid or metal-consuming enzymes. But as previously stated, we're better off assuming that HW tech has mastered the art of large-scale field effectors when it comes to breaking down and building up. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 28-09-2005 09:02
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Also consider small scale offensive use of nanotech weaponry - imagine being able to set nano-disassembler particles onto a door lock today. (Potentially) Faster than lockpicking and quieter than using explosive or heavy physical force. On that note, you can also sabotage machinery (say, weaken running components of a vehicle) with the same implementation of nanotech mentioned in this post. Someone runs the machine without ever knowing anything, stresses it, and bam. That's the new topic you may wish to explore, based on the context set by the two posts preceding mine. Edited by TelQuessir on 28-09-2005 09:02 |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 28-09-2005 15:30
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Acid... or any form of acid that would be subjected to space even within a fraction of a second would freeze almost instantly. Afterall, an acid missile would deal its damage from the dissolving over time, and when you have about 10 microseconds, it's not going to do much. So that leaves you with the kinetic impact and about 10 microseconds of dissolving acid. |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |