bidump... ^ ^

Jim, you've posted quite a few old ideas. just to let you know bud.

"Our Allies have launched a Nuclear Missile"

What allies?

moldy?

I think I remember that quote. Wasn't it Starcraft?

NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED!

To be fair, we already have a nuke in-game: its commonly referred to as BioCom mine. They're technically called "Teller-Ulam Devices", which is a type of nuclear device.

Now, to nitpick, terrestrial nukes won't do much other than to scratch the paint in space. In hard vacuum, there's nothing to propagate a shock-wave, and the raw energy released is pretty wimpy (EMPs, though a common side-effect of nuclear detonations, only occur under certain conditions). I won't say that its impossible to modify such devices to work in such an enviroment (we must assume this is the case with VO), but its not like you're gonna be using the bombs dropped against Hiroshima and Nagasaki against a spaceship. =^p

As someone that has witnessed the wholesale destruction wrought by Avalon Torpedoes, I must say that they are horrendously overpowered weapons for VO in it's present state (one reason the Dev's yanked them).

That said, I do think that capital-class WMD would make sense, it would be the natural evolution to overcome shields and take out entire squadrons of hostile fighters at once (granted, they'd lose theirs in the process). But I think that a smaller yield would be more than enough, and they should be completely unguided.

As for the scientific question of nuclear weapons effectiveness in space, I concur with Visitor's assessment that there will be no blast or heat (due to there being a cold vacuum with no fluid for the shock wave to propagate (Air is a fluid, yes)).
However, a nuclear blast would be an incredibly lethal weapon due to irradiation of the target. Because there is no atmosphere to slow or dilute the radiation, the only check against the intensity of the initial discharge is distance.
EDIT: Changed "Liquid" to "Fluid" to be scientifically correct. Thank you diqrtvpe

For more: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/conghand/nuclear.htm

Note: This link jumps you to only one page of a multi-page study conducted on nuclear arms in space. You can read the full article by clicking "Next" or "Prev" at the bottom of that page.

Air is a fluid. Being gaseous, it is not a liquid. It is generally correct (but not always) to call a liquid a fluid, and always correct to call a gas a fluid, but never correct to call a gas a liquid. The seeming interchangeability of the words doesn't make it very easy. :/ And technically the heat comes in the form of the radiation (heating can be caused by conduction, convection, or radiation, and this falls into the third category). But the gist of it was correct.

(No offense is meant by the correction, but as a physicist I can't let such things past. Probably a good indication that I chose the right path...)

The monicker 'nuke' was not given to the Avalon because of its inner workings. I guess for correctness' sake, a different term should be coined once it is in-game again.

OT: @diqrtvpe
When is a liquid not a fluid? I appreciate the distinction you made, but I can't find any examples (even wikipedia, which I suppose you quoted on this, does not mention any).

I saw that in Wikipedia. I'm thinking that perhaps it is referring to non-Newtonian fluids, which meet the criteria for being a liquid (loose particles, able to form free surfaces when unconstrained but distinct surfaces at boundaries), but do not meet the criteria for a Newtonian fluid (which are the ability to flow and little to no resistance to deformation). This is all simplified for the sake of this discussion.

An example would be wet sand, or that cornstarch and water gloop. Those meet the criteria of a liquid, but are not Newtonian fluids because both significantly resist rapidly-applied pressure.

That's my guess, but then again, isn't a non-Newtonian fluid still technically a fluid?

And they say that playing online doesn't teach you anything? Liars I say:)

lol, well anyway, back on topic NUKES! woohoo!

A basic name for the Avalon Torpedo x'ed-out by guild should be check-marked for a second try with a smaller yield, possibly a new type of damage done to vessels (nuclear fall-out) in radiation, and a high purchase price. Also, Players should be able to buy one and use it with a moth or something huge. The ship should have an attachment put on it to hold it in place, and the attachment should cost a ridiculous amount of money, and should require you to perform certain tests using the weapon in different situations for your "Nuke Certification". The Certification should test you on the two ways the bomb can be used: Proximity, or timed Explosion. Once an attachment is installed, you're free to carry Nukes. The nuke, from a VO dev standpoint, is in all effects a ship. It can take damage, and therefore be destroyed before it blows up, and yes destroying it will not set it off, ever. The radius of damage should be huge, like say 1000m. And the damage itself at the center should be like 30,000, and that the outer edges at 1000m = 0 damage. It should be exponential as the distance decreases, like I'm sure the explosions' damage are currently set anyway.

However, nukes should only be available in Grey space due to the fact that the matter that is used to create the explosion is only found in Sedina...

I also see some serious weapons transporting in the future. The c.u. requirement for each should be like 90 or so. And the purchase price should be hovering between 500,000cr. and 1,000,000cr. depending on the initial reaction to the re-introduction of this weapon. The purchase price could be circumvented, by building the "nuke" yourself of course, and I suspect the P.C.C. would be more than happy to create some interesting new scenarios for this special weapon.

Whistler: That is a possibility. Reading up on non-newtonian fluids makes this likely, but there is no explicit mentioning of 'fluids that are not liquids', on the contrary, the article on NNF uses the adjective 'liquid' for such a fluid (as an aggregate state).

Confusing, to me.

At least going by the Wikipedia definition of what a fluid is, i.e. that it continuously deforms under a shear force, it is possible that some superfluids would be liquids that are not also fluids. Superfluid Helium-3 supports shear stresses, and thus would not qualify as a fluid under that definition. Superfluids also have no viscosity, which further separates them. It is possible that the term superfluid refers to the fact that these liquids have exceeded the boundaries of being a fluid, or something to that effect, but I am unfamiliar with the full history of the word.

Who cares, this threads about nukes you reeree's. Go talk on like "scienceargument.com" or some shit...

I am not of the opinion that Avalon torpedoes merit much discussion at this point in time.

Then DO NOT POST HERE, numbnuts...

you're an asshole Jim Kirk.
I guess you liked that Star Trek movie so much you made that your name on this forum.
But I like your ideas about the new high yield weaponry. Keep 'em comin till the devs cave.