The Factory Floor

JDługosz

10:46

Nobody around? 15 hours is the largest gap I recall seeing for a while.

Separatrix

11:43

There's nobody here but us chickens

Gryphon

Chickens?

Why chickens?

Separatrix

Ain't Nobody Here but Us Chickens

"Ain't Nobody Here but Us Chickens" is a 1946 song, with music and lyrics by Alex Kramer and Joan Whitney. It was recorded by Louis Jordan and his Tympany Five. The single hit number one on the US Billboard Rhythm and blues Juke Box chart for seventeen weeks and number six on the pop chart. The B-side, "Let the Good Times Roll," peaked at number two on the R&B Juke Box chart. The song was featured on the soundtrack for L.A. Noire and was then included on a remixed version of the soundtrack with production by DJ Premier. Gonzo the Great and various Muppet characters performed the song on an episode...

It turned up again in some pop-culture thing a few years ago

Gryphon

Ok. So it's a song reference.

Makes sense.

Separatrix

The song is a reference to an earlier joke, but the song is probably what made it stick

Future Historian

@Gryphon? Rate of fire is 4 rounds per second, with the equivalent of a 12.7x108 mm round used by the USSR's heavy machine guns being used by Shredders, except they are using a different material and yes, it can fire explosive ammunition, if necessary. Most of the time, that is not the case.

So, to speak, I need some ideas for what the cartridge is composed of.

That way, we can determine the bullet's mass using the 12.7x108 mm size and the density of the bullet.

Future Historian

12:22

@Gryphon? Any ideas for the bullet's mass based on the cartridge size and the composition?

Which I will say is composed of tungsten carbide just to see what happens.

After all: I need it to penetrate tank armour as well.

And........kinetic energy released is ~11,000,000 joules of energy.

Which is........NOT that bad, actually.

Wait, is it?

Hmmmmm.

11 MJ of kinetic energy + ionised particles igniting the surrounding air = ??????????????????????????????????????????

Nzall

12:48

I'm trying to find one particular question which I'm fairly sure I read on WB.SE before. It was related to technological advances and which ones were the biggest bottlenecks. I think one of the answers was blast furnaces for high grade steel. I can't find it anymore... does anyone have an idea what question it could have been?

Future Historian

13:07

@Gryphon? Anything for how much damage 11 MJ of kinetic energy + ionised plasma surrounding the projectile (per its high velocity) could cause?

Wait. Would something at 5 km/s ionise particles in the atmosphere as the projectile heads towards its target?

And one more thing: if it is capable of wiping out most of a US Army squad and two fireteams' worth of riflemen in a squad, how much firepower would it take just to blow up a Shredder?

Gryphon

I don't think 5km/s would build up too much plasma (just a guess). 11 MJ of kinetic energy... A lot? I don't know how to visualize that. I found this, but it's not that informative about damage estimates. And the muzzle velocity of that is about half of yours.

Sorry, it took a bit to respond there. I lost internet for an hour.

Future Historian

Still, would it ionise the surrounding atmosphere as it accelerates?

And how much damage can it cause to infantry and tanks?

One-shot kills for both?

Gryphon

Definitely one-shot kill for infantry (at any range inside maximum achievable, really.

Probably also one-shot for a tank. Definitely can take out the main gun if aimed right.

Future Historian

What about reactive armour system tanks, though?

Is that a two-shot kill or still a one-shot kill?

Gryphon

It's probably going too fast for reactive armor to make much of a difference. If I understand reactive armour correctly.

Future Historian

13:18

Well, still. Is it enough to at least withstand one shot or still a one-shot kill?

Gryphon

And, without air resistance or earth's curve, maximum range is over 1,000 km. That's a gross oversimplification, but it gives an indication.

Future Historian

Because I thought for a second that reactive armour systems = two-shot kill for these bastards.

Gryphon

Does it matter? You can shoot 4 rounds per second.

Future Historian

And taking into account both?

What is the furthest range when taking air resistance and Earth's curve into consideration?

Because..........50 km is......already giving me PTSD.

Even more PTSD at 1,000 km.

Gryphon

And that's for half the muzzle velocity.

The 50 km I mean

Future Historian

13:20

Oh.

So, how far can this thing go if taking air resistance and Earth's curvature into consideration?

Gryphon

I'll have to find a calculator somewhere. I have no idea how to do the math for that.

Maybe I'll ask Monty Wild. He did some stuff like that for his rail guns.

They were a bit more powerful, but you should be able to use the same stuff.

Just checked, 7 km/s is sufficient to hit any place on the planet. According to his post here

So the range on that thing shouldn't be too far off 1,000 km.

Which is, frankly, terrifying.

With satellite targeting, a couple of those could essentially control Russia. So, yeah.

Wait, how are you getting 4 rounds per second with a railgun. How are they cooling that? (Or is it just unexplained alien technology)

Imagine a military convoy 150km away from any enemy that starts getting attacked (seemingly from the sky) at 4 rounds per second. It'd be dead/scattered in under a minute.

Future Historian

13:37

@Gryphon. I need to figure that one out.

Any ideas?

@Gryphon? Within current physics, that is? Because otherwise, I will just reduce the amount of rounds fired per second.

Because this is meant to be an anti-infantry and anti-tank autonomous mini-tank, not some long-range artillery gun.

Er......? Hello?

Gryphon

Yeah, this is currently essentially a massive artillery cannon. Maybe if you use liquid air to cool the barrel, run along channels inside, expel it out the end as a gas again. Sorry it's taking a bit to answer, I'm doing other stuff at the same time.

Make the liquid air inside the shredder.

And maybe reduce to 1 round per second, and reduce the muzzle velocity a bit.

Future Historian

Well, fine.

So, how much reduction in muzzle velocity?

To basically make it more infantry-shredding and tank-shredding (hence the name)?

Gryphon

Maybe all the way down to 2.5 km/s, to match the military one in the link. Gives it a max range of 50 km, which is still kinda crazy, but it's a lot better.

Future Historian

Agreed.

What about the heavy machine gunner versions, though?

Gryphon

Decrease muzzle velocity a bit, give them much smaller ammo, and give them a rate of fire of about 10 rounds per second. That would literally shred a brick wall.

And with smaller ammo, you're accuracy decreases more, so it's even less effective as a long range artillery weapon.

Future Historian

14:02

Recommended muzzle velocity for the heavy machine gunner versions?

Gryphon

1.5-2 km/s Sufficient to destroy infantry and light vehicles with a single shot, and tanks with a bit of sustained fire. It'd probably be more effective against infantry, but able to take on a few tanks quite easily too.

Future Historian

That makes sense.

1.7 km/s is a good moderate range.

Gryphon

Yeah, that'd work. Not super excessive heat, so it can be semi-reasonably cooled, but sufficient velocity to punch through tank armour.

Future Historian

@Gryphon? What about the Shredders, though?

Gryphon

2.5 km/s. Still gives them a scary amount of range, but you need that much to be able to punch through tanks easily. Still, at longer ranges, it'd be a lot easier to find cover. Is there any way to hide effectively from satellite?

Future Historian

14:15

I am not sure.

But I think you need to conceal your infrared signatures or visuals, depending on the satellite.

Either way, it is going to be tricky.

You might want to ask @FerretCivilization, though.

Gryphon

If you can hide infrared, just staying under cover, dashing from spot to spot, etc. might be enough. Infrared would be harder. Especially if you have vehicles, their engines tend to get hot. It depends on how much computer time the visitors are willing to dedicate to satellite data analysis.

Maybe the Visitors were stupid and didn't put up satellites?

Future Historian

Unlikely.

They would NOT be that stupid.

In fact, their spacecraft is possibly a satellite in and of itself, given its sensors could be used in a similar way we use satellites.

In addition to a self-sustaining colony.

Gryphon

Yeah, but it wouldn't give too much coverage. And you could see it. So you could just attack when it's in another part of its orbit. You need at least 3-4 satellites to get reasonably constant coverage, and at least 24 to ensure that at least 3 are in the sky at all times from any place (for triangulation).

Could some of our satellites still be operational?

Or would the Visitors shoot them all down.

Hey @FerretCivilization, any effective way to hide from a satellite?

PatJ

14:35

@Gryphon just get behind it.

Future Historian

Well, probably shoot down most satellites and leave a few for their own use.

Basically, use our own satellites against us until they outlive their usefulness.

Gryphon

@FutureHistorian Could we shoot their satellites down? You could recalibrate an ICBM to do that. Probably. Do we have some nuclear subs left?

Future Historian

Well, perhaps.

We still have mobile ICBM launchers, nuclear submarines, a few strategic bombers and tactical nuclear weapons.

As well as anti-satellite weapons.

The main spacecraft is 1,500 km above the surface of Earth, which stretches our own resources to the limit when attacking the Visitor spacecraft, not to mention they will be vapourised by point defence lasers.

The satellites on the other hand...........not sure.

Gryphon

Yeah, ignore the spacecraft. Focus on the satellites. We can't do anything to their ground forces while those are up.

Future Historian

Exactly. Well, they have satellites on reserve, but those are until OUR satellites outlive their usefulness.

So, we have to destroy our own satellites, because they stole our satellites.

And are using them against us.

Gryphon

14:44

Yeah. And then we have to destroy their satellites. I feel like we're going to run out of missiles rather before they run out of satellites.

Future Historian

Good point.

@Gryphon? How long do you think it will be before Earth gets conquered, if two months is too generous at this point?

PatJ

It feels like it would be easier to make opaque clouds than to shoot down all those satellites.

Future Historian

Well, how do you make them if they can shoot down the space junk using the same point defence lasers?

PatJ

Detonate bombs on earth, put a lot of dust in the atmosphere.

dot_Sp0T

@sphennings well, made it a question. Let's hope people want to answer it

Future Historian

14:52

@PatJ, that would work for OUR LEO satellites.

The satellites in higher altitudes would have more of a problem, not to mention that the Visitors have their own satellites on reserve.

Back to the Shredders, though.

@Gryphon? What do we do about Sikes having to deal with one of those things?

@FerretCivilization? Remember that time when we came up with a spider mecha design for use as heavy artillery and urban combat support?

Well, turns out that the bloody thing will be nicknamed the urban combat support variant the "Shredder A" and the artillery variant the "Viper", since......well, it can strike at longer ranges of up to 1,000 km and can accelerate projectiles at up to 5 km/s.

The base Shredder will be the mini-tank still.

Gryphon

17:02

@FutureHistorian Umm, some sort of satellite interference is necessary to prevent him dying at long range, you'd have to either kill it from far enough out that it's infrared sensors don't pick you up (unlikely), or disguise your heat signature (difficult), or disable the sensors somehow (also difficult). I'm not seeing anything realistic here. Maybe if he gets into some sort of heavily armored bunker he could wait until it left?

I'm not seeing any realistic way to get close enough to see it before it kills you.

How about if he's in some kind of bunker, and the thing starts trying to shoot through the outside. He waits inside until it goes away, comes out, sees the damage to the exterior, and correctly deduces the presence of the railgun.

I know he doesn't actually beat it, but he survives, which is pretty impressive when you're talking about a shredder

He'd also have some knowledge about the projectile size (holes), and rate of fire (you could definitely hear the impacts from inside). If the bunker has cameras on the outside he could even get a good look at it, see the railgun in action.

Do Shredders have any additional weaponry? (Not that they really need any)

dot_Sp0T

18:17

Any tips on how to make people understand that i want numbers?

Secespitus

18:48

@dot_Sp0T I expect calculations in the answers to this question.

Future Historian

Not sure.

@Gryphon. Oh and this scene opens up during the Battle of San Diego during the initial landing.

Which happens post-kinetic bombardment.

dot_Sp0T

19:27

@Secespitus I thought that I said that :(

Gryphon

19:44

Ok. So no handy bunkers then. Not really sure an encounter with a Shredder, under those circumstances, is really survivable. Unless... Maybe the satellites aren't up yet, they haven't had time to get them out. Might help a little. Of course, you still have to deal with infrared, but, as there are probably a bunch of people running around in a panic, the Shredder might ignore him until he gets close enough to destroy it. Or far enough away to escape.

dot_Sp0T

19:58

@Secespitus think I should make it hard-science?

Should probably also link it

Ferret Civilization

How to hide from our satellites? Simply be the same target you always are, small. This isn't the Red Scare anymore were the idea was satellites could see the font of your newspaper from space.

dot_Sp0T

Oh, it's that american holiday today

Bellerophon

Which one?

@dot_Sp0T You haven't said you want calculations as far as I can tell.

You said you'd like graphs.

dot_Sp0T

20:49

@Bellerophon yeah and numbers, efficiencies and stuff - there's a whole list of things :(

How can you back up anything you claim without numbers? It's like saying: This is the best bread you can get for your money without explaining why and expecting people to actually believe it

I mean graphs would be amazing but are merely making a good answer a great answer

But thing's like acceleration cannot be used without numbers.

Mithrandir24601

@dot_Sp0T Except you can't quantify 'best bread' objectively

dot_Sp0T

21:06

@Mithrandir24601 yeah, that's wh it works for the bread. I am really bad with all that giving bad examples thng

Shalvenay

21:22

hey there @Mithrandir24601

hey there as well @Green

Future Historian

21:39

@FerretCivilization? So, could he survive a Shredder while they are still.......well, you know.

And @Gryphon. They are kind of using OUR satellites in the meantime.

Mithrandir24601

@Shalvenay Rytsas! How're things?

Secespitus

@dot_Sp0T If you need calculations and numbers because everything else would be to unreliable for your usecase then you could make it hard-science.

Shalvenay

@Mithrandir24601 alright here, as for you?

Secespitus

@dot_Sp0T It's more like "What is the biggest bread you could make?" "A metre" "What makes you think that?" "Just a guess."

Shalvenay

hey there as well @Secespitus and @dot_Sp0T

Secespitus

21:46

Good evening @Shalvenay

Shalvenay

how're things going?

Secespitus

Okay. And you?

Mithrandir24601

@Shalvenay Same; been a hectic couple of weeks but everything seems to have calmed down a bit now :)

Shalvenay

@Secespitus OK here

dot_Sp0T

@Secespitus the thing is I see no way to judge answers other than them providing something to actually judge them by :(

@Shalvenay sup

Shalvenay

21:57

not a whole lot over here

dot_Sp0T

same here, classy evening. Made some curyr and watching spiderman

Shalvenay

ah

dot_Sp0T

and debating with myself if there is a point in making my question hard science just to force people to frikkin read

Secespitus

@dot_Sp0T Theoretically you could mark everything as "Not an answer" if you specifically asked for numbers and they didn't provide any.

It sounds like making it hard-sci would be the best so that you could get the kind of answers that you are searching for.

dot_Sp0T

@Secespitus yeah but I didn't specifically, I tried to imply it very strongly but did not want to write something like 'Answers must give numbers and hard data'

Mithrandir24601

22:03

@dot_Sp0T ... My suggestion would be to stop beating round the bush and just ask what you want to ask so you get the answer you want instead of a large number of answers that you don't want. You want a hard-science answer, so just use the tag!

dot_Sp0T

@Secespitus I guess it might be for the better

Shalvenay

@Mithrandir24601 seconding that motion

dot_Sp0T

@Mithrandir24601 it's hard going against one's nature :)

Mithrandir24601

@dot_Sp0T The best time to start is always 'now' ;)

Shalvenay

@Mithrandir24601 on a different note -- I wonder which of the Westerosian nobles would be most confused by being picked up and dropped into this world, and what place would confuse our poor ~~noble~~ subject the most

Mithrandir24601

22:05

@Shalvenay Somewhere with lots of advanced technology - silicon valley or Tokyo or something? As for who... ¯_(ツ)_/¯

dot_Sp0T

I might really need to work on being more direct and a tad more aggressive probably

Green

@Shalvenay hey! How's it going?

Shalvenay

@Mithrandir24601 haha. Arya or Brienne would probably quickly learn the hard way that there are some things that get rather...even at folks who poke a sword into them

@Green alright here, as for you?

Mithrandir24601

@Shalvenay Yeah, true that :P

dot_Sp0T

btw I can really recommend the new spiderman

Shalvenay

22:07

@Mithrandir24601 I can only imagine the look on either of their faces after they made the horrific mistake of sticking their sword into something full of live electrical bits...

Green

22:43

@Shalvenay too much food. US Thanksgiving is kind of excessive.

dot_Sp0T

@Green what do you folks eat?

Shalvenay

@Green I know, I just returned from absolutely stuffing myself

@Green (and having leftovers from my plate to shove into the fridge for later)

on a different note @Green -- I've always wondered what's with the "struggle over the weapon" trope in media (and how someone with limited strength, armed with a knife, can best avoid getting into such a struggle to begin with when facing an opponent who is much physically stronger than they are)

Transcript for