Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6167308" data-attributes="member: 13107">Actually, the question of launching a fist using a rocket vs. the rocket powered punch as seen in the move seems to be a good question.I am led to the question of what is different about what a Mecha delivers compared with what could be delivered by rocket.  Both would applications of raw force.  I fail to see a difference in character.  Small differences are problems of aiming, and problems of delivery.  Still, a medium sized rocket, laser guided by a spotting plane, seems most practical.For delivery speeds, I'd think that bullets are limited by a combination of aerodynamics plus the materials necessary to contain the initial explosion (that propels the bullet).  A rocket should be able to exceed this, especially if there were a final stage acceleration just before impact.  But, even then, the rocket velocity would be less important than the payload, which could deliver the final kick using a shaped charge.  In any case, the size and shape of the missile seem to provide aerodynamics orders of magnitude greater than what is possible for a bullet.This has some interesting answers: <a href="http://www.frfrogspad.com/miscellb.htm" target="_blank">http://www.frfrogspad.com/miscellb.htm</a>With:Compared with typical air-to-air missiles:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_missile" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_missile</a>152 kg     Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM      United States     2008     18 kg     Blast/fragmentation     180 km     Mach 4One mach is about 1,125 fps, so mach 4 gives about 4500 fps.That is for a typical missile.  There are experimental missiles which are much faster.  For example:<a href="http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21578522-hypersonic-weapons-building-vehicles-fly-five-times-speed-sound" target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21578522-hypersonic-weapons-building-vehicles-fly-five-times-speed-sound</a>Mach 9.68 is about 10,800 fps.  I'd imagine that such a missile is larger by a factor of 10 or more than the AIM-120D, but perhaps not as dense.Going completely kinetic, "Project Thor":<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment</a>That is 8 metric tons (8K kilograms, 9 tons of Tungsten) at Mach 10, or about 11,250 FPS.I'm thinking the issue becomes a concentration of force problem: Getting the force concentrated into a small surface area.  That is, since drop a 10 ton bomb seems a lot easier than orbiting and dropping and a Thor kinetic kill package.Edit:Still figuring what are typical velocities for penetrators, e.g., depleted uranium anti-tank projectiles.This has figures of 1.5 to 3.0 Km/s:<a href="http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo4/no1/research-recherch-eng.asp" target="_blank">http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo4/no1/research-recherch-eng.asp</a>Here is a more detailed link:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator</a>With:Thx!TomB</blockquote>

Verification