Timeline for answer to Can spacecraft defend against antimatter weapons? How? by geometrian
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 26, 2021 at 1:08 | comment | added | geometrian | @ZizyArcher The question explicitly stipulates that the weapons system itself produces the antimatter. It's a little peculiar for you to come up with an irrelevant context, then claim my answer is irrelevant inside of it. However, you are correct: as I explained in my answer, antimatter is not a good ship-to-ship weapon. If you must have antimatter, (again, as stated) generate it up-front and use it in bombs. | |
| Sep 22, 2021 at 11:27 | comment | added | Zizy Archer | If AM is generated by an AM plant in a stable orbit around a sun, most of your complaints are irrelevant. You won't fight near your AM plant to blast enemies with those AM generating beams - if you do, you already lost. Your ship would pick AM there, then fire it way later at an enemy. Most likely taking part of that same AM to propel the rest (as well as move your ship and run everything inside). | |
| Jan 6, 2021 at 23:20 | comment | added | Shawn V. Wilson | Fair enough. That's a problem with edited responses. Thanks for clarifiying. | |
| Jan 5, 2021 at 23:43 | comment | added | geometrian | @ShawnV.Wilson The OP's admission that you mention was added in an edit made after my answer was written.¶ That said, I might write this answer rather differently today. Antimatter is still a bad idea for weapons (ultrarelativistic electron beams are the current "hard sci-fi" ship-to-ship weapon meta instead; the electrostatic spreading is mitigated with surprising effectiveness by SR effects) and I maintain that challenging the frame of an ill-posed question is much more useful to the asker than trying to answer it, but I could have been clearer and more constructive about these points. | |
| Jan 5, 2021 at 0:39 | comment | added | Shawn V. Wilson | -1 for being a spoilsport. The OP has basically admitted that the assumptions are hand-waving, so why not just go with it? | |
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 13, 2016 at 1:14 | history | answered | geometrian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |