Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Secure Login (lost password?)

 
Michael58 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Apprentice

Registered: 09-2007
Posts: 48
Reply  Quote
Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


Speaking of starting a new thread....

I got the idea for this topic after reading Dark Meadows' and BaneBlade's posts about ballistics. I remember reading a few SF stories and of course watching several movies and TV shows where projectile weapons were the standard, rather than energy weapons. Someone once told me that's because projectile weapons are actually more practical, especially in space (whereas energy weapons would be more useful in space than on Earth ... hmmm). Offhand, this sounds right, but I really don't know the specifics of why that is, so I was hoping someone could explain the idea in more detail.

Before I go, I wanted to bring up an interesting concept used in a SF game I've played recently called Mass Effect. In the story, the "ammunition" for weapons was simply a block of metal, and when fired the weapon "chipped" off a piece from the block. This would make projectile weapons very practical at least when it comes to ammunition supply. I though that was a very interesting idea.

---
Tower of Light Fantasy
2/6/2009, 6:10 pm Link to this post Email Michael58   PM Michael58
 
QS2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Shepherd

Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


It should be remembered that energy weapons are a relatively new development, which means they've had far less refinement that projectile weapons. Actually now that I think about it, we've had a discussion about energy weapons before.

Still to help you along a bit for real world energy weapons in development for actual warfare you might find this, this or this as a few examples. Or for a hand held type or a vehicle mounted idea.

Due to this, I personal suspect our bias to projectile weapons is partially thus due to the times we live in. This doesn't mean they'll one day be completely obsolete, but they might not always be quite as important. Like say how we still use knives, but only in niche applications. Ofcourse, maybe all these laser weapons will never amount to anything significant and they'll be the ones relegated to a niche instead... (Though I personally don't think that will be the case)
2/6/2009, 11:02 pm Link to this post Email QS2   PM QS2
 
Michael58 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Apprentice

Registered: 09-2007
Posts: 48
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


So it's more a matter that we're used to projectile weapons and haven't made much of energy weapons yet? Like saying, "I'm not using those new-fangled computers. My trusty old typewriter is much simpler and makes more sense!"

There's also a book I read called The War in 2020 by Ralph Peters that used a variation of a projectile weapon, which was fired from a combat helocopter. In the story, one side used lasers weapons, which was described as an advance because they'd never worked "within the atmosphere" before, and the other side responded by developing a new type of projectile weapon. I can't remember the details, but I think it was some sort of "disc" fired at a supersonic speed?

Aww ... I need to read the book again...

Last edited by Michael58, 2/8/2009, 4:11 am


---
Tower of Light Fantasy
2/6/2009, 11:54 pm Link to this post Email Michael58   PM Michael58
 
QS2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Shepherd

Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


Well at the least we can expect lasers to complicate matters further, to give an example of this. In air to air combat, missiles are by far the dominant weapon. They'll lock on to targets and then just pretty much keep on going for them all by themselves and have pretty good kill ratings as well, despite the best countermeasures can do. But a laser is so fast compared to a missile that in principle atleast if it is high power enough it should be able to just shoot them from the sky. But then..., what will air to air combat do to evolve to this new threat? emoticon
2/7/2009, 6:46 am Link to this post Email QS2   PM QS2
 
Blitzen Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Squire

Registered: 12-2004
Location: falkirk
Posts: 596
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


quote:

I got the idea for this topic after reading Dark Meadows'



Someone knows David very well...

---
My Amazon Author Page

[url=]http://dun-scaith.blogspot.com/[My Blog[/url]
2/8/2009, 12:22 am Link to this post Email Blitzen   PM Blitzen
 
Michael58 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Apprentice

Registered: 09-2007
Posts: 48
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


quote:

Blitzen wrote:

Someone knows David very well...



Haha! No, not really, but...

---
Tower of Light Fantasy
2/8/2009, 3:46 pm Link to this post Email Michael58   PM Michael58
 
Blitzen Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Squire

Registered: 12-2004
Location: falkirk
Posts: 596
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


quote:

One of the problems with space-based lasers is that they would have to be fixed to a moving satellite as they tried to hit another moving object moving at thousands of miles per hour. Imagine trying to shoot a bird from aboard a supersonic jet.



Got that from how stuff works...

The US are looking at developing lasers, but they're also interested in particle beams, shooting subatomic particles at near the speed of light.

They just need to invent a power source...

 

---
My Amazon Author Page

[url=]http://dun-scaith.blogspot.com/[My Blog[/url]
2/8/2009, 9:55 pm Link to this post Email Blitzen   PM Blitzen
 
Blitzen Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Squire

Registered: 12-2004
Location: falkirk
Posts: 596
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


This is interesting, too.

Electric Bullets


---
My Amazon Author Page

[url=]http://dun-scaith.blogspot.com/[My Blog[/url]
2/8/2009, 10:19 pm Link to this post Email Blitzen   PM Blitzen
 
QS2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Shepherd

Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


High speed tracking is far from impossible, so yeah, lasers will work in space. To make an example of how possible it really is, spy sats can make very high resolution images of very specific points on Earth. So if you can aim that precisely for making pictures, you can be pretty sure you can aim that precisely as well. emoticon
2/8/2009, 10:48 pm Link to this post Email QS2   PM QS2
 
Blitzen Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Squire

Registered: 12-2004
Location: falkirk
Posts: 596
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


How good are spy satellites, though? There was a program on TV the other week... I think Richard Hammond was in it? Or james May? and anyway, they were saying satellites really weren't that specific and the close-up images on something like google earth was from aeroplane photos. I think they said satellites could pick up something the size of six football fields, but I might be wrong there.

Anyway, so far we're only talking about space to earth weapons. What about space to space weapons?

Oh, and finally, for more widespread destruction than a laser, would it be possible to make something like a giant slingshot that would fire comets at an a location on earth you choose? I mean, look at Tunguska, and the devastation there.

---
My Amazon Author Page

[url=]http://dun-scaith.blogspot.com/[My Blog[/url]
2/9/2009, 12:35 am Link to this post Email Blitzen   PM Blitzen
 
QS2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Shepherd

Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


It's almost trivial to induce Tunguska like events, all you need is plenty of patience. With a few nukes, some science data on asteroids and using already available rocket tech, you could get something bigger then Tunguska to hit in a decade or two.

As for the spy sats, well obviously that's somewhat classified, though persistent rumours I've heard as well as peaking at data on wikipedia on the older ones indicates they can probably get atleast 10 cm resolution. That would be as good if not better then the best you can find on google. Some speculation of new ones implies even something like 4 cm resolution might be possible, which would be enough to make out rather much detail. So in all seriousness they are really rather good. And this is just spy sats, there are so many applications which need very precise tracking really... None of this changes in space either of course, so there is no reason to think space tracking is any different. So if it was somehow implausible, it most certainly isn't due to tracking which is truly fantastically good.

As for space-space weapons... well I guess you'd use fast stuff like lasers and powerful stuff like nukes and probably guided missiles. Space is such a large volume that combat will be a bit like with aircraft, except dogfighting is pointless as there is nothing to manoeuvre in, so making tight banking corners is highly unlikely. So I guess it would be mostly a long range slugging match. You could even perhaps range lasers at such large distances by launching mirrors towards the opponent and using them to deflect your lasers towards an enemy spacecraft once they get close.
2/9/2009, 7:33 am Link to this post Email QS2   PM QS2
 
David Meadows Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Squire

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 693
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


quote:

Blitzen wrote:

quote:

I got the idea for this topic after reading Dark Meadows'



Someone knows David very well...



It works for me emoticon



---
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
-- Juvenal
2/9/2009, 3:03 pm Link to this post Email David Meadows   PM David Meadows
 
David Meadows Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Squire

Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 693
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


One interesting idea from the Hammers Slammers books is that the reason projectile weapons are preferred is because the ammunition load can be better tailored to the mission.

The idea was this:

If a bullet weighs a few grams, a man can carry enough ammunition for several hundred shots on his back. If he is in a place where he expects a protracted fight -- maybe he's in a trench or bunker under seige -- then he can pile enough bullets for several thousand shots next to him. If he's going in to assassinate one man he can carry a gun with six bullets in it, hidden away, with no extra encumberance to stop him moving fast. The point is, he only need to carry as much or as little as the mission needs.

Whereas a powerful energy weapon needs a portable fusion reactor. These give you a near-infinite number of shots but they weigh 100kg. Now a near-infinite number of shots sounds fantastic, and for that you probably won't mind carrying 100kg on your back. But sometimes you don't need infinite shots, and 100kg is a huge weight to carry round if you don't need it. Try infiltrating a crowd to assassinate the president with a nuclear reactor on your back! And you can't get 50kg reactors with half-an-infinite number of shots, the technology just doesn't work like that.


That's just one example of how you can rationalise projectile weapons being preferred (at least as personal weapons -- you will quickly realise that 100Kg is nothing to a tank... and indeed, Hammers Slammers is about tank warfare). Of course it depends entirely on the "rules" of your technology, but there are ways to rationalise it if you want to.



---
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
-- Juvenal
2/9/2009, 3:20 pm Link to this post Email David Meadows   PM David Meadows
 
Reythia Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Knight of Honor

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


quote:

Michael58 wrote:
So it's more a matter that we're used to projectile weapons and haven't made much of energy weapons yet? Like saying, "I'm not using those new-fangled computers. My trusty old typewriter is much simpler and makes more sense!


Or maybe more like saying, "I'm not using those new-fangled computers because they are not as robust as my trusty old typewriter. Until they get all the bugs worked out of them, I'd rather use a slightly less-powerful device that I know is going to work every time I need it."

Huh... Come to think of it, that reads pretty well when talking about computers directly, too, not just as a placeholder for energy vs. projectile weapons!! emoticon

quote:

One of the problems with space-based lasers is that they would have to be fixed to a moving satellite as they tried to hit another moving object moving at thousands of miles per hour. Imagine trying to shoot a bird from aboard a supersonic jet.


Ah, but remember two things. First off, the laser is a light-speed weapon, meaning that the enemy won't know you've fired it until it hits them. So there's no way they can predict where or when you're aiming, which makes evasion something of a different art. And secondly, remember that in space, if things AREN'T maneuvering (ie: evading or changing to a new course), then they're going in a very predictable orbit. It's just not economically feasible not to.

So if you combine the fact that most space vehicles / objects will be travelling on a path that anyone can predict (given not too many observations) and the fact that an enemy won't know you're shooting at them until the laser's already hit, you have for a very different kind of battle than what we're used to here on the ground, given sub-light-speed weapons. But my original point is that the tracking problem really isn't much of one, especially not if the ships/objects are moving at significantly less than light speed.

---
  -- YAR!
2/9/2009, 5:11 pm Link to this post Email Reythia   PM Reythia AIM MSN
 
Michael58 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Apprentice

Registered: 09-2007
Posts: 48
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


Okay, David. Cool, thanks!

quote:

David Meadows wrote:

If a bullet weighs a few grams, a man can carry enough ammunition for several hundred shots on his back. If he is in a place where he expects a protracted fight -- maybe he's in a trench or bunker under seige -- then he can pile enough bullets for several thousand shots next to him. If he's going in to assassinate one man he can carry a gun with six bullets in it, hidden away, with no extra encumberance to stop him moving fast. The point is, he only need to carry as much or as little as the mission needs.



So how about the Mass Effect idea? If your ammo is a simple block of metal, you can hold a thousand rounds in the palm of your hand!

And Blitzen: The electric bullets are interesting!

Wow, this thread really has grown into a very interesting discussion.

Last edited by Michael58, 2/11/2009, 7:30 am


---
Tower of Light Fantasy
2/11/2009, 7:27 am Link to this post Email Michael58   PM Michael58
 
Reythia Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Knight of Honor

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


quote:

Michael58 wrote:
So how about the Mass Effect idea? If your ammo is a simple block of metal, you can hold a thousand rounds in the palm of your hand!


True. But how do you break the metal apart -- and in a predictable and equal-sized fashion -- to use it as bullets? That's either going to require some relatively large mechanical apparatus (aparatus? both spellings look wrong! ARGH!) or some sort of splitter based on energy -- and then we're back to the "big generator in a backpack" scenario.

Anyone have any idea how to chip solid metal in a useful and repeatable way?

---
  -- YAR!
2/11/2009, 4:48 pm Link to this post Email Reythia   PM Reythia AIM MSN
 
QS2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Shepherd

Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


Well I do have one idea, just make the metal be pre broken and only weakly linked together. Then you wouldn't need all that much force. Also in the real world I'm sure we could just use nuclear batteries to power such rifles, then they could run for months on one charge, if not longer yet. emoticon

On a side note, such a power source would make most energy weapons rather feasible. emoticon In specific you should probably be thinking of not all to long lived alpha emitters, you'd admittedly have to produce them yourself then, but that seems acceptable enough to me...., maybe you could even design it, that it only really emits much if certain conditions are met even, thus allowing long term storage.
2/11/2009, 5:21 pm Link to this post Email QS2   PM QS2
 
Reythia Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Knight of Honor

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


quote:

QS2 wrote:
Well I do have one idea, just make the metal be pre broken and only weakly linked together.


Isn't that really just a bullet? Or, maybe, a chunk of bullets packed tightly together? I realize that the exact shape of a current-day bullet is critical, both for trajectory mapping and so as to not ruin the inside of your weapon, but still. And actually, as long as we're on that topic, how WOULD you prevent a "tiny metal chunk" weapon from ripping out its own guts on awkwardly-shaped pseudo-bullets?

quote:

Also in the real world I'm sure we could just use nuclear batteries to power such rifles, then they could run for months on one charge, if not longer yet.


 emoticon Absolutely! Nuclear batteries are A-OK in MY "real" world! How about in yours?

---
  -- YAR!
2/11/2009, 11:13 pm Link to this post Email Reythia   PM Reythia AIM MSN
 
QS2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Shepherd

Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


They are fine in my world as well. emoticon More seriously, pure alpha emitters aren't quite as dangerous either and so in theory atleast might actually be safe enough for general usage. Admittedly if it got vaporised you might have a bit of a problem. But then anything that will vaporise it in the first place is probably a rather large health hazard as well. emoticon
2/12/2009, 7:06 am Link to this post Email QS2   PM QS2
 
Michael58 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Apprentice

Registered: 09-2007
Posts: 48
Reply  Quote
Re: Projectile vs. Energy Weapons in SF


Hmm. I don't know. I sometimes think it might be best to keep the nuclear power off the planet. But if I get into that we'd have to start yet another thread... emoticon

I never thought about needing that kind of power source to make it work, or the idea that the same power source could probably make energy weapons feasible anyway. I'd just never seen the idea used before playing Mass Effect and it sort of tickled my fancy.

---
Tower of Light Fantasy
2/16/2009, 6:39 am Link to this post Email Michael58   PM Michael58
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)