Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: NeonShivan on August 09, 2012, 06:49:21 pm
-
From a general point of view. If you so to say, had the ability to choose what is best for your future military whether it be army or space navy would you rather have.
A: Kinetic Weapons such as Rail Guns, Gauss Cannons etc
(http://images.wikia.com/halofanon/images/b/b2/800px-Mac.jpg)
or B: Energy Weapons such as Photon or Plasma based weaponry
(http://img.rpgonline.com.br/4/games/eve-online/eve_online_abaddon_nave_de_batalha_amarr_atirando_contra_piratas.jpg)
hail amarr
-
Why not combine both? Plasma-state Uranium, energized railgun slugs...
-
Why not combine both? Plasma-state Uranium, energized railgun slugs...
Technically you can combine both but I'm talking from a general point of view, would u focus mainly on the manipulation of energy to be used as a weapon or depend on giant ass slugs launched at 3 km/s
-
I would depend on missiles that mount shield-shattering energy weapons, like the Cataclysm missile from Nexus. Sure, they will be expensive to make, but the end result of being able to destroy a battleship with a single shot is worth it.
-
I would depend on missiles that mount shield-shattering energy weapons, like the Cataclysm missile from Nexus. Sure, they will be expensive to make, but the end result of being able to destroy a battleship with a single shot is worth it.
Never played Nexus but that sounds terrifying
-
It depends far more on your technology base. If you can't actually build substantial, effective, and relatively efficient energy weapons, you would be a fool to choose them over kinetic projectiles.
-
It depends far more on your technology base. If you can't actually build substantial, effective, and relatively efficient energy weapons, you would be a fool to choose them over kinetic projectiles.
Say your on a technological base par with the GTVA.
-
I would depend on missiles that mount shield-shattering energy weapons, like the Cataclysm missile from Nexus. Sure, they will be expensive to make, but the end result of being able to destroy a battleship with a single shot is worth it.
Never played Nexus but that sounds terrifying
Yeah, it's the type of weapon that should only ever be given to the bad guys and not the good guys.
It depends far more on your technology base. If you can't actually build substantial, effective, and relatively efficient energy weapons, you would be a fool to choose them over kinetic projectiles.
If we are looking at hard science fiction, then kinetic weapons will be more energy-efficient then energy weapons.
However, I can easily picture a fleet that is transitioning from kinetic weapons to energy weapons. Their warships mount energy weapons as their main weapon systems, but all the secondary weapon systems are kinetic or missile-type weapons.
-
Someone once told me that plasma weapons are kinetic in nature...
-
Someone once told me that plasma weapons are kinetic in nature...
From a certain standpoint, projectile weapons are energy weapons. You have propellant (chemical or electrical energy), a warhead (chemical or atomic energy), and the projectile itself which is just a means of transferring kinetic energy to the target.
I'd put a vote for kinetic weapons myself, especially in space where there's no air resistance. It's also easier to justify being able to see the projectiles and need to lead a target with them.
I'd go with coil/rail guns and particle cannons, and rockets and bombs.
-
Someone once told me that plasma weapons are kinetic in nature...
Plasma is a physical state beyond gas that usually is a perfect electrical current. Plasma can be used as a kinetic weapon (as what Alex said before) but generally in science fiction games, shows, and movies, plasma is usually used as a weapon itself for instance, plasma beams or plasma torps.
-
Realistically it will usually be cheaper to accelerate a slug than it will be to create beam. Energy weapons have certain advantages, most notably speed, though.
-
Realistically it will usually be cheaper to accelerate a slug than it will be to create beam. Energy weapons have certain advantages, most notably speed, though.
How about precision? A warship could use lasers to blow out the weapon systems on enemy warships, while using kinetic weapons to outright destroy the ship.
-
Lasers at long range, railguns at medium and nuclear missiles at short. Lasers have a speed and precision advantage, not to mention they can't be shot down, but they can be reflected using right armor and have high energy requirements. Railgun slugs fly so fast that they'd be impossible to neutralize at medium range, and they'd deal greater damage that's harder to armor against. Nukes are good at ranges where a missile has little chance of missing (due to ECM) or being shot down, but they can do devastating damage, especially if we're talking fusion-based shaped charges.
Plasma weapons have a few disadvantages, most notably:
Plasma cools. This limits it's range to short-medium.
It's easily deflected by magnetic fields.
It requires a lot of power compared to other weapons.
Plasma could be used at extremely short range (essentially a glorified plasma cutter), but space battles have little chance of going into it. Alternatively, a plasma shield could be used for ramming, but that'd be absolutely a last ditch tactic.
-
Realistically it will usually be cheaper to accelerate a slug than it will be to create beam. Energy weapons have certain advantages, most notably speed, though.
How about precision? A warship could use lasers to blow out the weapon systems on enemy warships, while using kinetic weapons to outright destroy the ship.
Another few questions to ask here
What are we fighting exactly? Are they more advanced in technology, or fellow comrades basically? Are there shields? How do the shields react to energy or projectile weaponry? (Some cases, projectiles being more effective, other cases energy being more effective)
Off the bat, I'd say Kinetic due to the simple fact it's cost effective and most likely easier to create. This shortens the build time and increases your possible fleet size and replacement rate. It'd also make ships easier to repair.
However, the research into energy weapons would also open up possibilities for more efficient engines, shields and power supply. It'd open up more avenues to explore rather than a singular purpose that kinetic weapons would give you. It may even increase the effectiveness of your kinetic weapons
Kinetic to start while researching energy based. As your understanding continues, you'll be able to outfit your fleet with upgraded kinetic weaponry and possibly shields while building completely new ships solely based on an energy weapon system
-
Realistically it will usually be cheaper to accelerate a slug than it will be to create beam. Energy weapons have certain advantages, most notably speed, though.
How about precision? A warship could use lasers to blow out the weapon systems on enemy warships, while using kinetic weapons to outright destroy the ship.
Another few questions to ask here
What are we fighting exactly? Are they more advanced in technology, or fellow comrades basically? Are there shields? How do the shields react to energy or projectile weaponry? (Some cases, projectiles being more effective, other cases energy being more effective)
Off the bat, I'd say Kinetic due to the simple fact it's cost effective and most likely easier to create. This shortens the build time and increases your possible fleet size and replacement rate. It'd also make ships easier to repair.
However, the research into energy weapons would also open up possibilities for more efficient engines, shields and power supply. It'd open up more avenues to explore rather than a singular purpose that kinetic weapons would give you. It may even increase the effectiveness of your kinetic weapons
Kinetic to start while researching energy based. As your understanding continues, you'll be able to outfit your fleet with upgraded kinetic weaponry and possibly shields while building completely new ships solely based on an energy weapon system
You have no specific enemies but if you wish to make up an enemy then go ahead.
This forum post is to see what is your personal favorite type of weapon, kinetic or energy. So its basically like saying which do u like more a Mass Driver or a BGreen.
-
My weapon of choice? That would probably be power brokering and loan sharking, done on a galactic scale. That way, if a war starts, both sides will have to come to me if they want cash for weapons and ships. ;7
If some star nation or other refuses to be in debt to me, then I pull a few strings to get that nation attacked by a different nation. Then the defeated nation has to loan money from me in order to rebuild!
Best part is that I will be enjoying my private terraformed vacation planet the whole time. War is a racket. :pimp:
-
My weapon of choice? That would probably be power brokering and loan sharking, done on a galactic scale. That way, if a war starts, both sides will have to come to me if they want cash for weapons and ships. ;7
If some star nation or other refuses to be in debt to me, then I pull a few strings to get that nation attacked by a different nation. Then the defeated nation has to loan money from me in order to rebuild!
Best part is that I will be enjoying my private terraformed vacation planet the whole time. War is a racket. :pimp:
Question is, how will u beable to start a business with that kind of magnitude.
-
My weapon of choice? That would probably be power brokering and loan sharking, done on a galactic scale. That way, if a war starts, both sides will have to come to me if they want cash for weapons and ships. ;7
If some star nation or other refuses to be in debt to me, then I pull a few strings to get that nation attacked by a different nation. Then the defeated nation has to loan money from me in order to rebuild!
Best part is that I will be enjoying my private terraformed vacation planet the whole time. War is a racket. :pimp:
Question is, how will u beable to start a business with that kind of magnitude.
Well, I'd probably have to form a cabal with other wealthy social elite types. Beyond that, I can pay off politicians to have regulations passed that benefit me and keep anyone who is not already part of my cabal from competing with me.
-
My weapon of choice? That would probably be power brokering and loan sharking, done on a galactic scale. That way, if a war starts, both sides will have to come to me if they want cash for weapons and ships. ;7
If some star nation or other refuses to be in debt to me, then I pull a few strings to get that nation attacked by a different nation. Then the defeated nation has to loan money from me in order to rebuild!
Best part is that I will be enjoying my private terraformed vacation planet the whole time. War is a racket. :pimp:
Question is, how will u beable to start a business with that kind of magnitude.
Well, I'd probably have to form a cabal with other wealthy social elite types. Beyond that, I can pay off politicians to have regulations passed that benefit me and keep anyone who is not already part of my cabal from competing with me.
Good luck with that because owning a monopoly organization is illegal in the US :)
...nevermind I wish you luck!
-
My weapon of choice? That would probably be power brokering and loan sharking, done on a galactic scale. That way, if a war starts, both sides will have to come to me if they want cash for weapons and ships. ;7
If some star nation or other refuses to be in debt to me, then I pull a few strings to get that nation attacked by a different nation. Then the defeated nation has to loan money from me in order to rebuild!
Best part is that I will be enjoying my private terraformed vacation planet the whole time. War is a racket. :pimp:
I have to wonder if you've seen/read Legend of the Galactic Heroes, since that sounds remarkably like a certain awesome character in it. :D
-
I would go Kinetic, energy can be used for other interesting things aboard the ship like powering radar/ecm/othertechnicalflufffromthefuture.
I guess.
-
I would go Kinetic, energy can be used for other interesting things aboard the ship like powering radar/ecm/othertechnicalflufffromthefuture.
I guess.
If you have capacitors-from-the-future installed, you will be able to power your energy weapons even if your reactor doesn't have enough power for all of your ship's systems (at least until your ship's power cells run dry or take a hit). Even failing that, you can just divert all power to guns.
-
slugs of antimatter. kinetic energy AND it annihilates into pure energy. (http://i1.ifrm.com/10072/112/emo/yeah.gif)
-
slugs of antimatter. kinetic energy AND it annihilates into pure energy. (http://i1.ifrm.com/10072/112/emo/yeah.gif)
Only if it's the anti-material-of-other-dude's-hull.
-
slugs of antimatter. kinetic energy AND it annihilates into pure energy. (http://i1.ifrm.com/10072/112/emo/yeah.gif)
Antimatter is exceedingly volatile. Do you want to risk a containment breach from a lucky laser shot? Think about what a containment breach might do to OTHER ships flying in formation with you, let alone your own ship.
-
Positron beams? :shrug:
-
You have no specific enemies but if you wish to make up an enemy then go ahead.
This forum post is to see what is your personal favorite type of weapon, kinetic or energy. So its basically like saying which do u like more a Mass Driver or a BGreen.
My favourite type of weapon is the one most effective against that of which I am shooting
-
All of this kinda assumes that both sides are physical entities. Combat dynamics suddenly change when dealing with stuff like energy beings, remote viewing, nanotechnology, mind control, the sort of stuff that puts the FICTION back in science fiction.
Nanotechnology alone would greatly alter both society and warfare. One one hand, it is capable of wondrous things. Free food, free clothes, sublime health care, pollution cleanup, the list goes on.
On the other hand, nano-disassemblers could prove to be an absolutely terrifying weapon the likes of which have never been seen since the atom bomb. Everything is equally vulnerable - people, cities, nations, governments. (Just using it for technobabble is a complete and total waste of its potential)
Imagine a mothership that mines out entire planets and converts them into tools of peace or war. A practically unlimited supply of warships, equipped with nanotech-tipped weapons. So-called "Culture Stones", that can colonize distant planets through nanotechnology creation, without the need for on-board life support or, indeed, any of the usual problems associated with deep-space travel.
--------------------------------------------------
My favourite type of weapon is the one most effective against that of which I am shooting
That would probably be somewhere along the lines of disinformation, mind control, and terror. The best weapons are not the sort that get mounted on a battleship.
-
"The best weapon is the one you only need to fire once" - Tony Stark
Hence the Sathanas fleet blowing up Capella. There is virtually no form or scale to energy weapons, while the barrels for launching slugs can only be this big to be of any use.
-
I'd just boost the annular confinement beam and be done with it.
-
There is virtually no form or scale to energy weapons
Yes, there is, actually. In real-life physics, anyway, but I gather that this thread has about as close a relationship to reality as judgefloro.
-
Yes, there is, actually. In real-life physics, anyway, but I gather that this thread has about as close a relationship to reality as judgefloro.
Hey, be nice to the judge. He actually links real things.
-
I always thought which of the two were easier to transport? Of course their's manufacturing and cost of course. But, there's also the cost of transporting. Which costs more to transport. In money and fuel. Whether it be a weapons transport transporting these weapons all the way to a whatever ship was meant to carry them. In this scenario, i'm considering weight, and even compactness (how much more of what can you carry in a smaller space aside from power, of course, not the only aspect).
Perhaps there's a balance between these weapons. But, we need to realize that they are too entirely different weapon platforms. Which brings the question aside from cost to what i think should be the focus should be; what will these different weapon platforms be used for that the other can't. That would be the deciding factor in which is the choice. Not everything is balanced after all.
We've only got examples from video games and sci fi shows. I don't think we can gain quite a good understanding for use of energy weapons when all we see the use for them being the same as kinetics. What can you do with the one that you can't do with the other and vice verse?
-
Torpedoes with nuclear Warheads for Stealth Strikes at long range.
Railguns for medium distances - with different kind of ammunition depending on the situation:
slug: direct hit needed, but devastating
fragmentation: Flak / area effect, low damage but high change of hitting critical equipment
or nuclear = long range / area effect - getting near the target counts only in nuclear Warfare and Petting ;)
Both type of weapons can be used without giving away the own position with an outbrust of light and radiation.
Lasers and Plasma only for point defence, with conventional Gatlingguns as last line of defence.
All based on a Hard SciFi Scenario were Space Combat is like today's submarine warfare, with stealth & decoys against sensors.
Oh, fighters will be primary used in conditions were big ships can't work: Asteroid fields, Debris rings of Planets, high/low/medium atmosphere & ground support. They also have a small nice as force multiplier (convoy escort) and strikeships. If they can get near without noticed they are even a thread against big ships.
-
Hard Sci-Fi with space stealth? http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php Sorry, reality is killing those dreams again, it always does.
-
not to mention the lack of atmosphere plays havoc with shockwaves meaning you nuke while will have some short range shockwave damage from the material inside. What little shrapnel survives the blast will have a lot of kinetic energy but there wont be much of it. in short a Nuke's area of effect damage will be very limited. best used as a point of impact or to get best use as the payload in a hull penetrator.
-
I always thought which of the two were easier to transport? Of course their's manufacturing and cost of course. But, there's also the cost of transporting. Which costs more to transport. In money and fuel. Whether it be a weapons transport transporting these weapons all the way to a whatever ship was meant to carry them. In this scenario, i'm considering weight, and even compactness (how much more of what can you carry in a smaller space aside from power, of course, not the only aspect).
Traditional kinetic weaponry rely on the usage of a chemical propellant to accelerate and transfer energy to a bullet or slug, which then transfer what energy it has to the target (or otherwise punch right through it). Therefore, traditional kinetic weapons "consume" mass from the propellant, the slug, and for rapid fire weaponry, the shell. The shell or case is used to conveniently hold the propellant and bullet together, as well as serve as a heat sink for any wasted energy from the propellant's discharge.
Railguns and coilguns use electromagnetic force to propel bullets or slugs, thereby reducing the amount of mass consumed to just the bullet. However, depending on the technology used to generate and store the electrical energy, the net amount of mass of these weapons may be greater than the traditional counterparts.
Armor against traditional kinetic weaponry (including railguns and coilguns) seeks to either absorb all of the kinetic energy of the slug without penetration, or to divert/reflect the slug away. Even if there was a hypothetical armor that could absorb all of the kinetic energy of any slug that hits is, sustained fire at a single point in the armor will eventually heat it up, perhaps even to a melting/softening point at which the armor will fail.
Energy weapons, namely lasers, beams, and electromagnetic wave weaponry (such as a Microwave gun or a X-ray gun) seek to destroy material by raising its internal temperature or otherwise alter the molecular bonds so that the material's molecules will unravel themselves.
EMW weaponry (including lasers) all travel at the speed of light, so their precision is phenomenal and is not affected by gravitational forces for sub-AU distances (like all types of kinetic energy weapons are).
Beam weaponry (including lightning-type weaponry) for the most part behave exactly the same as kinetic energy weaponry, but have the capability of being a continuous stream. Additionally, beam weaponry can have the same effect as laser and X-ray weaponry on the temperature and molecular stability of material.
Just like traditional kinetic weaponry, Beam weaponry requires the "consumption" of mass in order to create the bolts. Lightning-type weaponry require a conduit of some sort in order to transfer the electricity from weapon to target, and this conduit is usually a stream of conductive particles (a.k.a. a beam). Lastly, as with the Laser and EMW weaponry, depending on the technology level of power creation and storage, Beam weaponry can have much more mass than laser and traditional kinetic weaponry combined.
However, if the consumed mass of Beam weaponry is fissile, like radioactive materials such as plutonium and uranium, then the energy requirements of beam weaponry would be mitigated to only the amount of energy needed to start the chemical reaction of the beam material. Read: controlled nuclear blasts in the form of a beam.
TL;DR:
Chemically Propelled Kinetic:
Pro's: Low tech requirements; Light-weight guns; Resistant to atmospherics
Con's: Ammunition limited to amount of materials for bullets, shells, and propellant; Fired munitions go on forever, potentially hazardous for non-combatants; Fired munitions are affected by gravity; Consumes mass
Magnetically Propelled Kinetic:
Pro's: Higher precision and range than Chem propelled; Resistant to atmospherics
Con's: High tech/energy demands; Fired munitions go on forever; Munitions affected by gravity; Consumes mass
Electromagnetic Wave Weaponry:
Pro's: Highest precision; Highest speed; Continuous operation; Unaffected by gravity; Can be "harmless" after a specific range out of focus; Doesn't consume mass
Con's: Potentially slow in transferring necessary energy to destroy target; High tech/energy demands; Vulnerable to atmospherics/ablative armor
Particle/Beam Weaponry:
Pro's: Good precision; Semi-continuous operation; Fast in melting or otherwise destabilizing material on contact; Munitions can destabilize after a specific range
Con's: High tech/energy demands; Speed limited to type of particle used; Munitions affected by gravity; Vulnerable to atmospherics/ablative armor; Consumes mass
Disclaimer: I disclaim any and all information here from being 100% accurate, partially because energy weaponry is not widely known in their operation. :P
-
Eh, one point I've always disagreed with in that "no stealth in space" thing...
"Well FINE!!", you say, "I'll turn off the engines and run silent like a submarine in a World War II movie. I'll be invisible." Unfortunately that won't work either. The life support for your crew emits enough heat to be detected at an exceedingly long range. The 285 Kelvin habitat module will stand out like a search-light against the three Kelvin background of outer space.
I guess Nyrath never heard of insulation? :doubt:
-
Hard Sci-Fi with space stealth? http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php Sorry, reality is killing those dreams again, it always does.
Nice article.
The other alternative is Star Trek SciFi with Stealth & Shields... ;)
The benefit in this setting is want you don't have to create rules how the stuff should work. You can beam any time to planet, except the story needs a situation in witch the Beam Chamber doesn't work.
Same goes for Stealth and Shields...
not to mention the lack of atmosphere plays havoc with shockwaves meaning you nuke while will have some short range shockwave damage from the material inside. What little shrapnel survives the blast will have a lot of kinetic energy but there wont be much of it. in short a Nuke's area of effect damage will be very limited. best used as a point of impact or to get best use as the payload in a hull penetrator.
If you miss the target even by an inch a pure kinetic penetrator doesn't deal any damage.
Even a limited area of effect is better than none. But the thing with the payload on the hull penetrator is a good point.
It would sensible to load every kinetic weapon with a small Nuke. If you score a direct hit, it's devastating, in a near miss it will triggered automatically and will deal at least some damage.
-
Eh, one point I've always disagreed with in that "no stealth in space" thing...
"Well FINE!!", you say, "I'll turn off the engines and run silent like a submarine in a World War II movie. I'll be invisible." Unfortunately that won't work either. The life support for your crew emits enough heat to be detected at an exceedingly long range. The 285 Kelvin habitat module will stand out like a search-light against the three Kelvin background of outer space.
I guess Nyrath never heard of insulation? :doubt:
The heat has to go SOMEWHERE eventually, though. Insulation will work for a while for stealth purposes, but at some point you're going to have to dump heat into space before you're roasted like a chicken.
-
Not to mention that the enemy ships' crew will notice that you just disappeared off of sensors, and have your last known position and your last known trajectory.
...Wait, you can dump heat into space? I thought heat could only be transferred through matter, which there is a distinct lack of in open space.
-
Roasted like a chicken :confused: The engines are off, and the crew is at a chilly 12 degrees Celsius. Or are you saying that if you had perfect insulation, the temperature inside the crew module would rise over time, just from the crew being warm-blooded?
-
With good enough insulation, this can indeed hide you for a while. For how long, depends on the insulation and on whatever you're using to store heat. You can't stay hidden forever, but nobody says you need to. All you need is to get to a good hiding place where you can dump heat unnoticed (like behind an asteroid, or in atmosphere.
-
Not to mention that the enemy ships' crew will notice that you just disappeared off of sensors, and have your last known position and your last known trajectory.
...Wait, you can dump heat into space? I thought heat could only be transferred through matter, which there is a distinct lack of in open space.
many materials emit EM radiation such as Infra Red and visible spectrum light when heated sufficiently while many need large amounts of heat to do this others dont.
Roasted like a chicken :confused: The engines are off, and the crew is at a chilly 12 degrees Celsius. Or are you saying that if you had perfect insulation, the temperature inside the crew module would rise over time, just from the crew being warm-blooded?
Humans give off heat at fairly consistant rates, if this energy is not diverted somewhere it accumulates, also you cant shut down all power sources as air still needs to be circulated and refreshed along with lighting, sensors, computer systems etc so the ship will always be generating some heat on top of that created by the crew so yes they will fry if you dont get rid of the heat
-
Not to mention that the enemy ships' crew will notice that you just disappeared off of sensors, and have your last known position and your last known trajectory.
...Wait, you can dump heat into space? I thought heat could only be transferred through matter, which there is a distinct lack of in open space.
There are three types of heat transfer: convection, conduction, and radiation. Convection and conduction are both dependent on having matter to transfer the heat to. Radiation works in a vacuum, but transfers heat much more slowly than the other two.
To answer the initial question, missiles with bomb-pumped lasers. You can get a much more powerful laser by focusing the x-ray flux of a nuclear detonation than you can with any sort of weapon you can actually mount on a spaceship, and mounting it on a homing missile means that you can engage at ranges where the guys using lasers or railguns will be crippled by lightspeed lag. If you have the missile doing random zig-zags the last few light-seconds to the target and detonate at a couple tens of thousands of kilometers, it would require a statistical miracle for point defenses to shoot your missile down.
This is assuming a lightspeed cap on travel, sensors, and communications. If you're using FTL, pick whichever type of weapon looks coolest and continue to warp reality until it become most effective. :p
-
Humans give off heat at fairly consistant rates, if this energy is not diverted somewhere it accumulates, also you cant shut down all power sources as air still needs to be circulated and refreshed along with lighting, sensors, computer systems etc so the ship will always be generating some heat on top of that created by the crew so yes they will fry if you dont get rid of the heat
Note, if you have a slab of metal specifically meant to store heat, and you can dump it there fairly efficiently, you can go quite long without the atmosphere getting hot enough to be a problem. Of course, the heat will build up, and will eventually become an issue, but if your slab is big enough, it can buy you enough time.
-
Humans give off heat at fairly consistant rates, if this energy is not diverted somewhere it accumulates, also you cant shut down all power sources as air still needs to be circulated and refreshed along with lighting, sensors, computer systems etc so the ship will always be generating some heat on top of that created by the crew so yes they will fry if you dont get rid of the heat
Note, if you have a slab of metal specifically meant to store heat, and you can dump it there fairly efficiently, you can go quite long without the atmosphere getting hot enough to be a problem. Of course, the heat will build up, and will eventually become an issue, but if your slab is big enough, it can buy you enough time.
true but brings about a couple of questions.
firstly, how do you deposit the heat in the metal slab once it is heated to the same temp as the rest of the ship?
secondly, how does it help if using non subspace magic inter system travel? That's a lot of dead metal.
-
Humans give off heat at fairly consistant rates, if this energy is not diverted somewhere it accumulates, also you cant shut down all power sources as air still needs to be circulated and refreshed along with lighting, sensors, computer systems etc so the ship will always be generating some heat on top of that created by the crew so yes they will fry if you dont get rid of the heat
Dumping any kind of heat when trying to be stealthy will make you easier to detect.
With good enough insulation, this can indeed hide you for a while. For how long, depends on the insulation and on whatever you're using to store heat. You can't stay hidden forever, but nobody says you need to. All you need is to get to a good hiding place where you can dump heat unnoticed (like behind an asteroid, or in atmosphere.
How do you plan on getting to that hiding place when your engines are offline, and the enemy vessel has your last known location and last known trajectory recorded? All you are doing is stalling for time, and hoping that your enemy will think you are too stupid to actually try stealth in space.
If you have the missile doing random zig-zags the last few light-seconds to the target and detonate at a couple tens of thousands of kilometers, it would require a statistical miracle for point defenses to shoot your missile down.
This is assuming a lightspeed cap on travel, sensors, and communications...
There's a little something called inertia that can and will keep ships and missiles from doing zigzags in space. A missile or ship that is moving at high speed will take some time to slow down or change trajectory.
Also, if the target ship is moving slowly relative to the missile, the target ship might be able to manage a major trajectory change, resulting in the missile not being able to correct its trajectory in time and overshooting its intended target.
Additionally, missile tracking systems just won't be as sophisticated as a starship sensor package (at least not without making the missile really expensive). A missile could actually be spoofed by decoys and ECM. Those same anti-missile systems won't spoof a sophisticated ship sensor package, but at least the missile didn't hit.
If I do have an FTL drive, I could always use that as a last-resort missile dodging technique. All I need to do is jump a relatively short distance and all the missiles will be on a completely incorrect trajectory to hit me.
-
Humans give off heat at fairly consistant rates, if this energy is not diverted somewhere it accumulates, also you cant shut down all power sources as air still needs to be circulated and refreshed along with lighting, sensors, computer systems etc so the ship will always be generating some heat on top of that created by the crew so yes they will fry if you dont get rid of the heat
Dumping any kind of heat when trying to be stealthy will make you easier to detect.
thats the point i was making :cool:
-
How do you plan on getting to that hiding place when your engines are offline, and the enemy vessel has your last known location and last known trajectory recorded?
The point of cutting the engines isn't to make yourself disappear once they've spotted you, it's to keep them from spotting you. Once you've been spotted, you stay spotted.
-
How do you plan on getting to that hiding place when your engines are offline, and the enemy vessel has your last known location and last known trajectory recorded? All you are doing is stalling for time, and hoping that your enemy will think you are too stupid to actually try stealth in space.
That's assuming they have your last known location and velocity. If you're already detected, why bother with stealth?
true but brings about a couple of questions.
firstly, how do you deposit the heat in the metal slab once it is heated to the same temp as the rest of the ship?
secondly, how does it help if using non subspace magic inter system travel? That's a lot of dead metal.
For the first, it needs to be insulated so it doesn't transfer the heat to the rest of the ship. I don't remember the exact explanation now, but there's a clever abuse of thermodynamics laws that allow you to transfer any amount of heat from a colder place to a hotter one (and it works, surprisingly enough).
For the second, if you get the slab moving (and the rest of your ship along with it) and set the right course, and your only goal is stealthy travel, you can seem like a pretty convincing asteroid. You can drop the slab (or vent it if it's already vaporized, in case of a really long travel) before you start decelerating.
-
The point of cutting the engines isn't to make yourself disappear once they've spotted you, it's to keep them from spotting you. Once you've been spotted, you stay spotted.
Then it becomes a question of how far can sensors see. Granted, nebulas and asteroids are often portrayed as sensor-blocking despite anything that hard sci-fi might say, but in open space your sensors should be able to see quite a distance.
-
It's less about how far (Mk.1 Eyeball can see as far as 2 billion LY, last time I checked), but about how precisely. Telling a ship from an iron-rich asteroid or a piece of space junk floating around isn't that easy from a distance.
-
And if you are hoping to lose your tiny heat signature in the vastness of the sky, I've got some bad news for you. Current astronomical instruments can do a complete sky survey in about four hours, or less.
Ken Burnside said:
❝
A full spherical sky search is 41,000 square degrees. A wide angle lens will cover about 100 square degrees (a typical SLR personal camera is about 1 square degree); you'll want overlap, so call it 480 exposures for a full sky search, with each exposure taking about 350 megapixels.
Estimated exposure time is about 30 seconds per 100 square degrees of sky looking for a magnitude 12 object (which is roughly what the drive I spec'd out earlier would be). So, 480 / 2 is 240 minutes, or about 4 HOURS for a complete sky survey. This will require signal processing of about 150 gigapizels per two hours, and take a terabyte of storage per sweep.
That sounds like a lot, but...
Assuming 1280x1024 resolution, playing an MMO at 60 frames per second...78,643,200 = 78 megapixels per second. Multiply by 14400 seconds for 4 hours, and you're in the realm of 1 terapixel per sky sweep Now, digital image comparison is in some ways harder, some ways easier than a 3-D gaming environment. We'll say it's about 8x as difficult - that means playing World of Warcraft on a gaming system for four hours is about comparable to 75 gigapixels of full sky search. So not quite current hardware, but probably a computer generation (2 years) away. Making it radiation hardened to work in space, and built to government procurement specs, maybe 8-10 years away.
I can buy terabyte hard drive arrays now.
I can reduce scan time by adding more sensors, but my choke point becomes data processing. On the other hand, it's not unreasonable to assume that the data processing equipment will get significantly better at about the same rate that gaming PCs get significantly better.
Now, this system has limits - it'll have trouble picking up a target within about 2 degrees of the sun without an occlusion filter, and even with one, it'll take extra time for those exposures.
It won't positively identify a target - it'll just give brightness and temperature and the fact that it's something radiating like a star that moves relative to the background.
On the other hand, at the thrusts given above, it'll take somewhere around 2 days of thrust to generate the delta v to move from Earth to Mars, and the ship will be in transit for about 1-4 months depending on planetary positions.
Nicoll's Law:
It is a truth universally acknowledged that any thread that begins by pointing out why stealth in space is impossible will rapidly turn into a thread focusing on schemes whereby stealth in space might be achieved.
-
If I ever create a sci-fi world, I'm going to create a technology that converts heat energy directly back into electricity.
-
First off, the answer is NO, you cannot solve the problem by using a thermocouple to convert the heat into electricity.
Ken Burnside said:
Most of the arguments on thermo and space detection run through a predictable course of responses:
"Space is dark. You're nuts!"
"OK, there's no horizon, but the signatures can't be that bright?"
"OK, the drive is that bright, but what if it's off?"
"But it's not possible to scan the entire sky quickly!"
"OK, so the reactors are that bright, what if you direct them somewhere else..."
"What if I build a sunshade?"
"OK, so if I can't avoid being detected by thermal output, I'll make decoys..."
"Arrgh. You guys suck all the fun out of life! It's a GAME, dammit!"
Seriously, the site actually has a long list of reasons why YOU CAN'T DO THAT STAR FOX.
-
How effective would ye olde chaff and flares be in space? ECM/jamming equipment?
-
And to forestall your next question, decoys do not work particularly well either. More specifically, a decoy capable of fooling the enemy would wind up costing almost as much as a full ship.
Just to make sure that we are both on the same page here, I am talking about time frames of weeks to months. Such as found when a task force weeks or months away from their target, attempting to fool the enemey observers into thinking that your are a force of twenty warships, when you are actually a force of one warship and nineteen decoys.
I am not talking about time frames of a few seconds. Such as found when a combat spacecraft, with a hostile heat-seaking missile attempting to fly up its rear, dumps off a couple of decoy thermal flares hoping the missile will be confused.
First off, a decoy needs to emit a similar amount of radiation and heat as the ship it is pretending to be. This means each decoy needs a power source comparable in size to a full ship, the same goes for radiator area.
If the decoy and the real ship thrusts, it becomes worse. The exhaust plume has to be the same, which means both the decoy and the real ship has to have the same thrust. This means the decoy has to have the same mass as a real ship, or it will accelerate faster, thus giving itself away. If you down-rate the decoy's thrust, the dimness of the exhaust plume will give it away.
So if each decoy needs a spaceship sized engine in a spaceship sized hull with a spaceship sized mass isn't much of a decoy. Why not add weapons an make it an actual spaceship?
And you'd better add defenses as well. Otherwise the decoy is nothing more than an unusually expensive, unusually easy to destroy missile.
Isaac Kuo points out that all of this assumes that the decoy and the warship are using rocket propulsion. It does not apply if they are using solar sails, laser light sails, magnsails, or other non-rocket propulsion.
But I repeat: while it is more or less impossible to use decoys to fool distant observers, it may be possible to use something like decoys in a dog-fight to protect your ship from enemy short-range antiship missiles. In the latter case, you are not trying to make a fake image of your ship so much as you are trying to break the target lock the hostile missiles have on your ship's vulnerable posterior.
So in resume:
Dog-fight flares? Possible.
Long range decoys? Nope.
-
Regardless of any argument of sci-fi hardness, submarine warfare in space does kinda sound like it would make for a fun, tactical game.
Edit: How effective would ye olde chaff and flares be in space? ECM/jamming equipment?
A decoy capable of spoofing starship sensors would cost almost as much as an actual ship. I suppose you could always sacrifice a spare ship if you were desperate to get away...
On the other hand, it's not really economical for missiles to have the same sensor package that starships have. So missiles CAN be spoofed by ECM and countermeasures (unless someone REALLY wants you dead and has the cash for expensive missiles hardened against ECM)
-
Solution to your stealth problems
Open up your ship to space. Heat problems are gone and so long as you've got a nice oxygen supply and a suit, you're good to go. No insulation required
On a different note: You bring your entire ship out of phase. Take a look at Stargate SG-1. You can't detect what is on a different wavelength/dimension altogether
-
On a different note: You bring your entire ship out of phase. Take a look at Stargate SG-1. You can't detect what is on a different wavelength/dimension altogether
Because you would create a new tactic without creating a counter to it? If you have a technological advantage over your enemies, by all means exploit it, but societies on par or above your technological level probably have extra-dimensional sensors or somesuch.
-
1 - Invent subspace (whateveretsis)
2 - Make close range attacks at enemy using jumps (They will never see that coming)
3 - Watch as they adapt by making their ships short range and develop subspace.
4 - End up needing to develop a new strategy.
-
On a different note: You bring your entire ship out of phase. Take a look at Stargate SG-1. You can't detect what is on a different wavelength/dimension altogether
Because you would create a new tactic without creating a counter to it? If you have a technological advantage over your enemies, by all means exploit it, but societies on par or above your technological level probably have extra-dimensional sensors or somesuch.
Take a look at Stargate SG-1. Despite all the technology and knowledge given to the Ori Priests, they couldn't use any of the stuff the Ori (Ascended beings). Not only that, but any matter that exists in the other dimension, cannot affect the other, and vice versa. (Not only that, but not even the Ancients [other ascended beings] could see Merlin [who is one of them] when he used the device that he created to accomplish the out of phaseness)
That would be the downside to it. Stealth goes through the roof, but being able to use said stealth would involve coming back into the visible wavelength of your enemies
-
Somehow I just noticed that I never shared my personal choice. Energy weapons is mine for some very good reasons:
-While they aren't the best choice in terms of economics a combination of laser and plasma weaponry would be very useful. For instance, when faced against an enemy on a technological level equal to that with the GTVA: the use of magnetics for a defensive purpose is lacking making it easy to burn through the hulls of GTVA ships with plasma cannons or beams. While lasers could virtually be used at any range if you have the significant power to generate the laser and the ability to magnify the laser X amount of times to reach the significant distance required. Overall, your opened to more strategic options with energy weapons then you are with Kinetic Weapons where its basically point and shoot.
-
Take a look at Stargate SG-1. Despite all the technology and knowledge given to the Ori Priests, they couldn't use any of the stuff the Ori (Ascended beings)....
Mind re-wording that? Seems like you were saying something significant but you failed to finish your sentence. :( If you had realized your mistake you would of edited it by now :blah:
That would be the downside to it. Stealth goes through the roof, but being able to use said stealth would involve coming back into the visible wavelength of your enemies
Again, why would you not develop a counter to your new capability? If there's isn't any one piece of technology that solves the problem, then what counter-tactics could you perform?
-
I don't remember the exact explanation now, but there's a clever abuse of thermodynamics laws that allow you to transfer any amount of heat from a colder place to a hotter one (and it works, surprisingly enough).
Um...
-
Can I ask why we need to still be fighting one another if we have the resources to colonize space?
Weapons are just going to get more and more destructive. On the flip side, new technologies will make basic necessities far more plentiful, greatly reducing conflict over resources.
If we reach the point where we have nanotech factories on street corners creating free food and clothes from garbage, what justification for conflict could there be besides someone wanting power and control at the expense of others (and circumstances related to this)?
-
what justification for conflict could there be...?
Oh! I got this one!
...someone wanting power and control at the expense of others (and circumstances related to this)
;)
-
the parameters of this discussion are changing with nearly every post.
-
the parameters of this discussion are changing with nearly every post.
Nope. Thread's been hijacked from "Kinetic vs. Energy Weapons" into "Stealth in Space" and some sort of debate as to how thermodynamics should be applied.
For some reason I think most of the debaters have completely ignored my wall of text about 3 pages back. :lol:
-
The thread was doomed from the get-go. "If you had to choose between <magic> and <magic>, which type of <magic> do you prefer?" isn't a good starting point.
-
the parameters of this discussion are changing with nearly every post.
(http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/14010259.jpg)
-
The thread was doomed from the get-go. "If you had to choose between <magic> and <magic>, which type of <magic> do you prefer?" isn't a good starting point.
Well in that case, I pick the one that looks the pretiest when it's making fantastic destruction.
-
Take a look at Stargate SG-1. Despite all the technology and knowledge given to the Ori Priests, they couldn't use any of the stuff the Ori (Ascended beings)....
Mind re-wording that? Seems like you were saying something significant but you failed to finish your sentence. :( If you had realized your mistake you would of edited it by now :blah:
That would be the downside to it. Stealth goes through the roof, but being able to use said stealth would involve coming back into the visible wavelength of your enemies
Again, why would you not develop a counter to your new capability? If there's isn't any one piece of technology that solves the problem, then what counter-tactics could you perform?
"Gave them to counteract this technology". That's the ending to that sentence
I'm taking an idea from a television show and applying it's lore to the conversation. How can I develop a counter to something that I didn't create?
EDIT: Think of it this way. The humans utilizing the technology didn't create it, but discovered it and put it to use.
http://www.gateworld.net/wiki/Merlin%27s_computer
However, there is the Sudan cloaking device which acts similarly to the computer. It's cloaking field takes the user out of phase, and thus can interact with whoever is in the computer affected range. Problem being, it's for personal use and harmful to humans
-
Traditional kinetic weaponry rely on the usage of a chemical propellant to accelerate and transfer energy to a bullet or slug, which then transfer what energy it has to the target (or otherwise punch right through it). Therefore, traditional kinetic weapons "consume" mass from the propellant, the slug, and for rapid fire weaponry, the shell. The shell or case is used to conveniently hold the propellant and bullet together, as well as serve as a heat sink for any wasted energy from the propellant's discharge.
Railguns and coilguns use electromagnetic force to propel bullets or slugs, thereby reducing the amount of mass consumed to just the bullet. However, depending on the technology used to generate and store the electrical energy, the net amount of mass of these weapons may be greater than the traditional counterparts.
Armor against traditional kinetic weaponry (including railguns and coilguns) seeks to either absorb all of the kinetic energy of the slug without penetration, or to divert/reflect the slug away. Even if there was a hypothetical armor that could absorb all of the kinetic energy of any slug that hits is, sustained fire at a single point in the armor will eventually heat it up, perhaps even to a melting/softening point at which the armor will fail.
Energy weapons, namely lasers, beams, and electromagnetic wave weaponry (such as a Microwave gun or a X-ray gun) seek to destroy material by raising its internal temperature or otherwise alter the molecular bonds so that the material's molecules will unravel themselves.
EMW weaponry (including lasers) all travel at the speed of light, so their precision is phenomenal and is not affected by gravitational forces for sub-AU distances (like all types of kinetic energy weapons are).
Beam weaponry (including lightning-type weaponry) for the most part behave exactly the same as kinetic energy weaponry, but have the capability of being a continuous stream. Additionally, beam weaponry can have the same effect as laser and X-ray weaponry on the temperature and molecular stability of material.
Just like traditional kinetic weaponry, Beam weaponry requires the "consumption" of mass in order to create the bolts. Lightning-type weaponry require a conduit of some sort in order to transfer the electricity from weapon to target, and this conduit is usually a stream of conductive particles (a.k.a. a beam). Lastly, as with the Laser and EMW weaponry, depending on the technology level of power creation and storage, Beam weaponry can have much more mass than laser and traditional kinetic weaponry combined.
However, if the consumed mass of Beam weaponry is fissile, like radioactive materials such as plutonium and uranium, then the energy requirements of beam weaponry would be mitigated to only the amount of energy needed to start the chemical reaction of the beam material. Read: controlled nuclear blasts in the form of a beam.
TL;DR:
Chemically Propelled Kinetic:
Pro's: Low tech requirements; Light-weight guns; Resistant to atmospherics
Con's: Ammunition limited to amount of materials for bullets, shells, and propellant; Fired munitions go on forever, potentially hazardous for non-combatants; Fired munitions are affected by gravity; Consumes mass
Magnetically Propelled Kinetic:
Pro's: Higher precision and range than Chem propelled; Resistant to atmospherics
Con's: High tech/energy demands; Fired munitions go on forever; Munitions affected by gravity; Consumes mass
Electromagnetic Wave Weaponry:
Pro's: Highest precision; Highest speed; Continuous operation; Unaffected by gravity; Can be "harmless" after a specific range out of focus; Doesn't consume mass
Con's: Potentially slow in transferring necessary energy to destroy target; High tech/energy demands; Vulnerable to atmospherics/ablative armor
Particle/Beam Weaponry:
Pro's: Good precision; Semi-continuous operation; Fast in melting or otherwise destabilizing material on contact; Munitions can destabilize after a specific range
Con's: High tech/energy demands; Speed limited to type of particle used; Munitions affected by gravity; Vulnerable to atmospherics/ablative armor; Consumes mass
Disclaimer: I disclaim any and all information here from being 100% accurate, partially because energy weaponry is not widely known in their operation. :P
It's a start, but what could energy weapons be used for other than what solid projectiles offer? If you're going to use energy weapons for the equivalent as solid projectile weapons, then what's the point?
There's still too much balance on something that is otherwise, i don't see should be balanced. I rephrase the question. What can energy weapons be used for other than point and shoot (and of course still be used as a weapon) compared to their solid projectile brother?
A weapon that can accomplish most if not all tasks from one fuel/source (imagining gas being used for plasma weapons that accomplishes everything from nuking cities to a hand held blaster) is what is desired.
And no, i don't have many ideas of what energy weapons could still be used for other than just point and shoot and still be a weapon (i've got like two ideas, but both would require some serious advancement in energy weapons to work). It's hard to think of; point and shoot is pretty effective in standard warfare.
-
Aaaaaaand now we're back to square one of the topic. I must say I'm impressed by this thread for its ability to brutally rip itself away from thread drift and back to the main topic.
Tried making another Darth Vader reference with "The circle is now complete" but couldn't figure out how to make it fit. :(
-
@S-99
I think the main thing with EM weaponry like lasers is the greater accuracy and reduced reaction time for your enemy. The advantage projectile based weapons is 1) the greater flexibility in how you deliver the damage 2) improved range in gas/dust clouds 3) using gravity to bend your shot around say a planet is presumably easier, though gravity can work against you in that it take a lot more energy to fire out of a gravity well.
-
It's a start, but what could energy weapons be used for other than what solid projectiles offer? If you're going to use energy weapons for the equivalent as solid projectile weapons, then what's the point?
There's still too much balance on something that is otherwise, i don't see should be balanced. I rephrase the question. What can energy weapons be used for other than point and shoot (and of course still be used as a weapon) compared to their solid projectile brother?
Here:
Energy weapons, namely lasers, beams, and electromagnetic wave weaponry (such as a Microwave gun or a X-ray gun) seek to destroy material by raising its internal temperature or otherwise alter the molecular bonds so that the material's molecules will unravel themselves.
EMW weaponry (including lasers) all travel at the speed of light, so their precision is phenomenal and is not affected by gravitational forces for sub-AU distances (like all types of kinetic energy weapons are).
Beam weaponry (including lightning-type weaponry) for the most part behave exactly the same as kinetic energy weaponry, but have the capability of being a continuous stream. Additionally, beam weaponry can have the same effect as laser and X-ray weaponry on the temperature and molecular stability of material.
Note that energy weapons may also be area effect weaponry, such as traditional bombs. However, these types of energy weapons have far higher energy demands (equivalent to the cubed amount of energy needed for directional weaponry, I think) as well have curious methods of detonation (self-destabilizing plasma grenade, anyone?)
A weapon that can accomplish most if not all tasks from one fuel/source (imagining gas being used for plasma weapons that accomplishes everything from nuking cities to a hand held blaster) is what is desired.
Ironically, that's pretty much how gunpowder works. Granted there's a whole slew of differences in the chemical compisitions of the different types of gunpowder, you could have an entire arsenal that uses gunpowder as its primary propellant. However, the main disadvantage to using only one fuel source for al[l/i] your weaponry is that you make the propellant/energy source production plants a fat target. Diversification guarantees that, even if one source of propellant/energy is denied, you still have a large number of other weaponry that doesn't use it.
As an aside, Beam and EM (rail- and coilgun) weaponry could be the next shotgun, whereas a number of different types of ammunition will give unique effects and tactical advantages/disadvantages. (EMW weaponry can't do that)
And no, i don't have many ideas of what energy weapons could still be used for other than just point and shoot and still be a weapon (i've got like two ideas, but both would require some serious advancement in energy weapons to work). It's hard to think of; point and shoot is pretty effective in standard warfare.
Point-and-shoot almost guarantees that the stuff your firing doesn't hit any friendlies or otherwise would-be neutrals. Area-of-effect weaponry destroy's anything within its killzone, so surgical strikes with AoE weaponry is impossible and has a high probability of collateral.
-
One major problem with guns in space, especially sidearms. The extreme temperature ranges will cause the barrel of the weapon to expand and contract. This will probably affect energy rifles in addition to assault rifles.
Now, I am sure that there are ways around this problem, but I suspect that shotguns are going to be popular among spacers, at least until technology catches up. (And yes, gunpowder will work in space. Gunpowder contains oxygen, and ammunition made to work in space will use a special gunpowder blend that includes extra oxygen)
-
One major problem with guns in space, especially sidearms. The extreme temperature ranges will cause the barrel of the weapon to expand and contract. This will probably affect energy rifles in addition to assault rifles.
Now, I am sure that there are ways around this problem, but I suspect that shotguns are going to be popular among spacers, at least until technology catches up. (And yes, gunpowder will work in space. Gunpowder contains oxygen, and ammunition made to work in space will use a special gunpowder blend that includes extra oxygen)
Even shotguns will have a problem with dumping waste heat. :P
But, as I mentioned before in my wall of text, traditional bullets come with a nice shell case that acts as a heat sink for a large amount of waste heat. All of the other type of weaponry will have to resort to using a coolant system and/or figure out a way to make a strong, thermally non-conductive material (maybe nano-tube materials?).
Interesting side note: thermocouples could be attached/embedded in the skin of spacecraft to convert some of that thermal energy into electrical energy.
-
Energy weapons, namely lasers, beams, and electromagnetic wave weaponry (such as a Microwave gun or a X-ray gun) seek to destroy material by raising its internal temperature or otherwise alter the molecular bonds so that the material's molecules will unravel themselves.
EMW weaponry (including lasers) all travel at the speed of light, so their precision is phenomenal and is not affected by gravitational forces for sub-AU distances (like all types of kinetic energy weapons are).
Beam weaponry (including lightning-type weaponry) for the most part behave exactly the same as kinetic energy weaponry, but have the capability of being a continuous stream. Additionally, beam weaponry can have the same effect as laser and X-ray weaponry on the temperature and molecular stability of material.
Note that energy weapons may also be area effect weaponry, such as traditional bombs. However, these types of energy weapons have far higher energy demands (equivalent to the cubed amount of energy needed for directional weaponry, I think) as well have curious methods of detonation (self-destabilizing plasma grenade, anyone?)
A weapon that can accomplish most if not all tasks from one fuel/source (imagining gas being used for plasma weapons that accomplishes everything from nuking cities to a hand held blaster) is what is desired.
Ironically, that's pretty much how gunpowder works. Granted there's a whole slew of differences in the chemical compisitions of the different types of gunpowder, you could have an entire arsenal that uses gunpowder as its primary propellant. However, the main disadvantage to using only one fuel source for al[l/i] your weaponry is that you make the propellant/energy source production plants a fat target. Diversification guarantees that, even if one source of propellant/energy is denied, you still have a large number of other weaponry that doesn't use it.
As an aside, Beam and EM (rail- and coilgun) weaponry could be the next shotgun, whereas a number of different types of ammunition will give unique effects and tactical advantages/disadvantages. (EMW weaponry can't do that)
And no, i don't have many ideas of what energy weapons could still be used for other than just point and shoot and still be a weapon (i've got like two ideas, but both would require some serious advancement in energy weapons to work). It's hard to think of; point and shoot is pretty effective in standard warfare.
Point-and-shoot almost guarantees that the stuff your firing doesn't hit any friendlies or otherwise would-be neutrals. Area-of-effect weaponry destroy's anything within its killzone, so surgical strikes with AoE weaponry is impossible and has a high probability of collateral.
I disagree with the gunpowder point to an extent. Energy weapons have the potential to simplify weaponry. What brings to mind is balls of plasma being hurled at a target. Hell, if you can nuke a city with a big ball of plasma, and then channel that down to something less destructive like intercepting missiles or smaller targets. That's pretty multi-use. In todays world we use different materials for different kinds of uses for weapons (we don't rely on only one thing to get the job done because we can't currently at least). However, also in the real world, energy weapons will definitely be just as diverse.
Reminds me of star wars where the primary weapons are lasers powered by gas easily harvested from around everywhere. And they do just about everything with lasers, the fuel, and energy required for these energy weapons in star wars. Everything from personal blasters to destroying planets. One energy source and fuel for a weapon can be better than the other in versatility (then again, i brought up star wars, that's funny enough, even still, something like this is a long way off; it may not be the best way to go either(my opinion of star wars weapons is as follows...bigger laser, bigger laser, bigger laser bigger laser, it's really tiring with almost zilch weapon diversity in a sci-fi fantasy universe)).
If you can nuke a city with a big enough plasma ball, and make a plasma blaster, and make plasma turrets for taking out ships. That's pretty cool then. Of course certain uses will require more fuel and energy than others, but you could be dealing with less different materials to get the job done. If you could do all of that with plasma (theoretically), then you wouldn't need plutonium for nuking, bullets for other uses, and standard explosive bombs and missiles for others. Anyway, some fuels are more multi-use than others. If plasma could be used for all of that cool stuff, that'd be nice. For now there's different propellant fuels for different uses. Gun powder for bullets, and a myriad of different fuels for jets and rockets.
As far as what energy weapons could be used for other than point and shoot; that's a toughie. I'm sure the human who invented the bow and arrow had a great brain **** for all of the other humans who didn't think of other ways of attacking. Sure you can make point and shoot a lot more efficient and effective. But, what about non point and shoot applications for weapons? An area attack is a great idea indeed.
As far as anything goes. I'd rather stick with non energy weapons. It's tried, true, works, and will keep working. I would only go to energy weapons if it simplified everything. However, that doesn't mean that moves to simplify non energy weapons can't be done (not insisting people were saying it couldn't be). Research into kinetic energy weapons could easily reduce or eliminate air dropped bombs. In that scenario, i see more of an equivalency in energy expenditure to using a railgun from a distance compared to transporting the weapons, the bombs, the bomber jet, and fuel for the bomber, and the bomber getting to it's target to do it's job. One just saves you from needing to send in a human directly over the other as far as i'm concerned for the advantage.
But, yeah, i myself would rather stick with non energy weapons. Beam cannons and plasma weaponry does sound really handy though, for space battles; too bad atmosphere gets in the way of range for lasers and plasma. Aside from being handy in space, in the area of point and shoot these energy weapons do supply damage in a different way that is more or less desired.
-
Plasma is not an energy source, it's a state of matter. :P
-
Also, beam cannons can in fact be kinetic weapons :P A particle beam is a weapon that bombards a target with tiny particles moving at near-light speed.
Although, with all these high-tech means of death, I don't think I would even want to see a space war.
-
Also, beam cannons can in fact be kinetic weapons :P A particle beam is a weapon that bombards a target with tiny particles moving at near-light speed.
Nothing new to see here, move along. :P
Although, with all these high-tech means of death, I don't think I would even want to see a space war.
Sure you do, that's why there's so many Gundam and anime movies about space wars.
-
Although, with all these high-tech means of death, I don't think I would even want to see a space war.
Sure you do, that's why there's so many Gundam and anime movies about space wars.
FS :warp:
-
Sure you do, that's why there's so many Gundam and anime movies about space wars.
Bandwagon approach, much? "It's popular, everyone else does it, so therefore you should too!"
All this discussion about fiction and such is just that - discussion about fiction. I would expect the power of space-age weapons to vastly outpower any kind of armor or defenses, resulting in massive potential for death and destruction. (Any of you nerds out there willing to discuss the effects of what a particle beam weapon would do to any alloys we may be likely to use in space?)
-
Sure you do, that's why there's so many Gundam and anime movies about space wars.
Bandwagon approach, much? "It's popular, everyone else does it, so therefore you should too!"
All this discussion about fiction and such is just that - discussion about fiction. I would expect the power of space-age weapons to vastly outpower any kind of armor or defenses, resulting in massive potential for death and destruction. (Any of you nerds out there willing to discuss the effects of what a particle beam weapon would do to any alloys we may be likely to use in space?)
So what, we develop these awesome beams of absolute destruction without making sure we can have a ship to survive (for a while anyhow) our own weaponry? That's similar to pumping iron, without doing any cardio. You end up with big guns, but no stamina.
Chances are, while we develop these weapons, we also develop a counter to them. Afterall, they're most likely going to be used against us, or similar
-
Sure you do, that's why there's so many Gundam and anime movies about space wars.
Bandwagon approach, much? "It's popular, everyone else does it, so therefore you should too!"
No, the statement was meant to convey the fact that fictional stories involving/including space wars is popular, not whether or not you should like it just because it is popular. (which would be a rather stupid thing to do)
All this discussion about fiction and such is just that - discussion about fiction. I would expect the power of space-age weapons to vastly outpower any kind of armor or defenses, resulting in massive potential for death and destruction. (Any of you nerds out there willing to discuss the effects of what a particle beam weapon would do to any alloys we may be likely to use in space?)
For every attack, there is a defense. Not just armor, but tactics as well can be a good defense. Particle beam weaponry would likely melt or otherwise destabilize any alloy (read: make brittle). There's also the chance of making the afflected material radioactive or even self-detonating. Fun!
-
With the likes of particle beam weapons about, I would think that the only winning tactic would be to avoid any kind of open fighting. Cold war, all over again.
-
You say any alloy yes?
What if it isn't an alloy that it's trying to penetrate
-
You say any alloy yes?
What if it isn't an alloy that it's trying to penetrate
Then my particle beam will be tearing apart a ship that is not made of alloys the same as one made of alloys. Historically, the general trend with regards to weapons and defenses has been an ever-widening gap between the destructive ability of weapons and the ability of armor and other defenses to (not) defend against weapons. If weapon research continues, we will reach a point where defenses become almost completely ineffective.
(Although, to be fair, there have been times where the armor technology surpassed weapon technology, such as early ironclad ships)
-
Plasma is not an energy source, it's a state of matter. :P
Me being retarded and mixing terminology. Hydrogen can indeed be used as a fuel, but not in plasma form :lol:
I was thinking of the gas provided for the plasma would not only be the projectile, but could also give power to the weapon. You'd want a separate power source in that case, otherwise you'd run out of ammo faster :D
-
It's refrigeration cycles by the way. Whoever was talking about moving heat from low to high temperature regions was probably thinking of refrigeration cycles. The "cheating" comes from the fact that phase changes happen at constant temperature, but still require heat transfer. Always kind of felt like a nature hack to me. There's a limit to how much heat you can move though.
-
It's refrigeration cycles by the way. Whoever was talking about moving heat from low to high temperature regions was probably thinking of refrigeration cycles. The "cheating" comes from the fact that phase changes happen at constant temperature, but still require heat transfer. Always kind of felt like a nature hack to me. There's a limit to how much heat you can move though.
By then you can hopefully dump off the waste heat somewhere (possibly illegally, if you are a pirate or other outlaw). Heat sink limits will just be accepted as a common limiting factor, in the same way as oxygen, fuel, and munitions.
-
Um... you'll still ultimately have to radiate the heat away as far as spaceships are concerned. You'll never be able to perfectly insulate your hot reservoir/heatsink, so eventually the heat in it will leak back into parts of your ship you're trying to cool, or the thing will just melt.
-
It's refrigeration cycles by the way. Whoever was talking about moving heat from low to high temperature regions was probably thinking of refrigeration cycles. The "cheating" comes from the fact that phase changes happen at constant temperature, but still require heat transfer. Always kind of felt like a nature hack to me. There's a limit to how much heat you can move though.
Thanks. That's what I had in mind, but I forgot what it was called. And it indeed does feel hack-ish, like it shouldn't work, but it does. Of course, even refrigeration cycles have their limits, but with a good enough heat sink it might be a while before they're reached.
Um... you'll still ultimately have to radiate the heat away as far as spaceships are concerned. You'll never be able to perfectly insulate your hot reservoir/heatsink, so eventually the heat in it will leak back into parts of your ship you're trying to cool, or the thing will just melt.
The key word here is "eventually". My idea for stealth in space would require careful planning of flight trajectories in order to be able to dump heat in a safe hiding place (like planetary atmosphere), and take up new coolant. Of course, it might be quite a logistical challenge to arrange the flight like that, but there aren't many alternatives. The system can't work infinitely, though there are no theoretical problems with making it work "long enough".
-
The key word here is "eventually". My idea for stealth in space would require careful planning of flight trajectories in order to be able to dump heat in a safe hiding place (like planetary atmosphere), and take up new coolant. Of course, it might be quite a logistical challenge to arrange the flight like that, but there aren't many alternatives. The system can't work infinitely, though there are no theoretical problems with making it work "long enough".
Heat production would be relative low outside actual combat. If the engines are running on very low or no thrust and only the life support is active.
If a captain is able to bring a cover between his ship an the target he might change the trajectory and radiate the heat behind the cover.
Covers could be moons, asteroids or ( in low orbit ) a planets horizon.
In a high populated system this will be difficult, because the defender would have a sensor net - and even some kind of ground defence.
The advantage of the defender would also the possibility to hide his ships - floating with only the life support active these ships would only delectable with an active radar.
In a setting with shield and sub/hyperspace a cloaking field may be possible. Like a small subspace bubble that hide your ship in subspace and allows limited manoeuvring.
-
damn it. why do all the good topics poke up when im off the grid?
three words:
Nuclear Gatling Railgun
-
damn it. why do all the good topics poke up when im off the grid?
three words:
Nuclear Gatling Gun
That could mean:
- Gatling gun that fires nuke-tipped bullets propelled by a chemical propellant
- Gatling gun that fires nuke-tipped bullets propelled by magnetic force (Gauss/Coil or Rail)
- Beam Gatling gun that fires particle beams made by micro-nuke explosions
-
damn it. why do all the good topics poke up when im off the grid?
three words:
Nuclear Gatling Gun
That could mean:
- Gatling gun that fires nuke-tipped bullets propelled by a chemical propellant
- Gatling gun that fires nuke-tipped bullets propelled by magnetic force (Gauss/Coil or Rail)
- Beam Gatling gun that fires particle beams made by micro-nuke explosions
or knowing Nuke a Gatling gun that fire nuke tipped shells using nukes for propellant
-
1. that was what i originally meant (before i edited the thread to imply #2)
2. railguns operate by lorentz force where as coilguns use magnetics, get it right people. nuke tips were definatly the plan though.
3. no point in doing a gatling configuration for a beam weapon. the whole point of the gatling arrangement is to do a few things. the first of which is to spread the heat to multiple barrels, meaning you can fire longer bursts before overheating. the second thing is to ease the process of loading ammunition and removal of spent casings, which (in addition to reduced heat buildup) reduces jamming issues greatly (especially when using a linkless feed). the feed system is geared directly to the gun rotation, so if its spinning its firing. most video games get this completely wrong. they dont spin up and then start feeding ammo that would increase mechanical complexity and increase the potential for jamming.
there is no point in having a gatling assembly for an energy weapon at all. you can have multiple emitters in a chain fire setup to maximize heat dissipation. there is no ammo or feeding problems to worry about, so theres no need for a rotating barrel assembly. id even say gatling guns will at some point be rendered obsolete by using arrays of electronically controlled tandem ceaseless ammunition. prototypes are capable of fire rates over a million rounds per minute. a hundred times faster than the fastest gatling gun. they have a much wider profile than a gatling gun so i doubt the configuration would be suitable for aircraft usage, but its well suited to land, naval, and especially space applications, though more barrels means higher gun mass, and its ammo requirements would be astronomical, so gatling guns may prove to be a better solution for all vessels but heavy warships.
-
as for all the space stealth nonsence.
1. first of all space is nor empty, its full of the interstellar medium. its not all that much but its there. you would have to match the appearance of this medium to achieve any hope at stealthiness.
2. if you could create a perfect black body, you could still use starfield interference as a means of detection. if starts that are supposed to be there arent, you could detect an object there, and even possibly determine range with multiple scans from different positions.
3. it would be very difficult to make active camoflauge work as well. it is very unlikely that you could create active camo capable of outputting the complete spectra that can be observed in the universe.
4. even if you could accomplish 3, you still wouldn't be able to fake the parallax. if a ship is moving and takes 2 scans a minute, for example, it would only take 2 scan passes to notice that the objects in that part of the starfield are at the wrong distance than they should be.
-
there is no point in having a gatling assembly for an energy weapon at all. you can have multiple emitters in a chain fire setup to maximize heat dissipation.
Beam weaponry may actually require more than just energy to create the beam in the first place. An idea that I've been playing with is that a beam could be created from a fissile material that's slowly evaporated in the barrel and chamber, which would more or less mean that a galting configuration of a beam weapon would make sense if the material/plasma core was in small portions and therefore created a "short" beam unpon firing. The FSO type beams, being continous, would make a gatling configuration quite pointless.
EMW weaponry (lasers, masers, xasers, etc.), however, would be very pointless if put in a gatling configuration. :P
-
there is no point in having a gatling assembly for an energy weapon at all. you can have multiple emitters in a chain fire setup to maximize heat dissipation.
Beam weaponry may actually require more than just energy to create the beam in the first place. An idea that I've been playing with is that a beam could be created from a fissile material that's slowly evaporated in the barrel and chamber, which would more or less mean that a galting configuration of a beam weapon would make sense if the material/plasma core was in small portions and therefore created a "short" beam unpon firing. The FSO type beams, being continous, would make a gatling configuration quite pointless.
EMW weaponry (lasers, masers, xasers, etc.), however, would be very pointless if put in a gatling configuration. :P
our current weapons grade lasers are mostly chemical based. their equivalent feed systems would be tank and valve fed, so would reduce the need for complex machinery to drive them. thats just based on my understanding of current technologies though. ive always had a perception where by sci-fi writers grossly underestimate the capabilities of real modern weapons technology. i tend to avoid treading into technobabble in this kind of discussion, since im more instrested in what we can do than what we might be able to do in the future.
however if an energy weapon required a physical cartridge to be loaded in order to fire, then the gatling arrangement facilitates that loading process. i can imagine a lot of fusion based energy weapons that need to load an amount of fuel, say a frozen deuterium target (something used a lot in icf research), to provide the energy neccisary to pump a laser or other energy weapon. i once read about project marauder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER), a military project to develop a ppc like weapon which would fire a toroid of plasma which would be magnetically projected and would provide its own containment. of course they had containment issues and the project was canceled. it would have had a strong emp effect on its target as well as some thermal and explosive properties as well. i believe this kind of weapon would use a confinement target, though the project is highly classified so idk.
-
3. no point in doing a gatling configuration for a beam weapon. the whole point of the gatling arrangement is to do a few things.
Rule 1: Gatling Guns are always better than ordinary guns.
It's the same principle that indicates that a red car is faster ;)
-
Um... you'll still ultimately have to radiate the heat away as far as spaceships are concerned. You'll never be able to perfectly insulate your hot reservoir/heatsink, so eventually the heat in it will leak back into parts of your ship you're trying to cool, or the thing will just melt.
By then you can just swap out your heat sinks for fresh ones. Carrying a few spare heatsinks in your cargohold is no different then carrying other spare supplies (jettison the used ones if you have to). And if your ship isn't equipped to swap out heat sinks on its own, then the nearest spaceport is.
-
it would be better just to mount all the heat sinks (i prefer the term radiators, because its the term nasa uses, and it more specifically defines the operation of the device), so you can get maximum heat dissipation. weapon systems create heat, there is no way around it.
-
I believe the thread is now ready to enter the "Sharks... with frigging lazer beams!" stage.
P.S.: The sharks would require metallic neck collars to allow rail gun assisted shark launching in space.
P.P.S.: The lazers are required to penetrate the shields and hull and allow the shark to get inside the enemy craft.
P.P.P.S.: Here is a proof of concept picture: http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/shark-with-lazors-550.jpg
-
How will the shark survive getting hit with point defense weapons? The logical thing to do when one sees a shark incoming would be to shoot it full of hot lead and plasma. Anything that could protect your shark from such would probably also be able to protect my ship from your shark.
-
Um... you'll still ultimately have to radiate the heat away as far as spaceships are concerned. You'll never be able to perfectly insulate your hot reservoir/heatsink, so eventually the heat in it will leak back into parts of your ship you're trying to cool, or the thing will just melt.
By then you can just swap out your heat sinks for fresh ones. Carrying a few spare heatsinks in your cargohold is no different then carrying other spare supplies (jettison the used ones if you have to). And if your ship isn't equipped to swap out heat sinks on its own, then the nearest spaceport is.
Swapping heat sinks if possible wouldn't solve the problem. And jettisoning used heatsinks would be like launching a giant beacon saying "We're here!"
-
Swapping heat sinks if possible wouldn't solve the problem. And jettisoning used heatsinks would be like launching a giant beacon saying "We're here!"
Well, would you rather be cooked alive in your own ship? If you are jettisoning heat sinks, that means you have reached the limits of your stealth attempt and have to face death by laser cannon in order to avoid a more certain death by being cooked alive.
-
Encapsulate it in something with very very low heat transfer rate. May delay them detecting the jettison, IDK.
-
heat sinks don't work like mass effect 2 guys. they aren't consumables. they are devices to aid in the dissipation/removal of heat, not absorb and store it.
-
heat sinks don't work like mass effect 2 guys. they aren't consumables. they are devices to aid in the dissipation/removal of heat, not absorb and store it.
There's a confusion somewhere between "heat sinks," "radiators," and "heat reservoirs."
-
Yeah, but everyone (I assume) knows the difference, we're just abusing the terminology. xD
-
really you can drop the whole stealth in space thing. unless you do something rather drastic like rip a whole in the universe or go into subspace or whatever (thus entering into the realm of technobabble). even with very good heat storage/dissipation/transfer technologies available you still could not achieve stealth. so im posting this again, since you all just ignored it.
as for all the space stealth nonsence.
1. first of all space is nor empty, its full of the interstellar medium. its not all that much but its there. you would have to match the appearance of this medium to achieve any hope at stealthiness.
2. if you could create a perfect black body, you could still use starfield interference as a means of detection. if starts that are supposed to be there arent, you could detect an object there, and even possibly determine range with multiple scans from different positions.
3. it would be very difficult to make active camoflauge work as well. it is very unlikely that you could create active camo capable of outputting the complete spectra that can be observed in the universe.
4. even if you could accomplish 3, you still wouldn't be able to fake the parallax. if a ship is moving and takes 2 scans a minute, for example, it would only take 2 scan passes to notice that the objects in that part of the starfield are at the wrong distance than they should be.
-
Stealth in space would rely on your enemy thinking that you aren't stupid enough to actually try it. In other words, it is a
risky suicidal tactic that will never work once, unless you are the story's main character, in which case you can forget about trying it a second time. Of course, giving the intelligence level of certain types of evil minions...
But again, it bears repeating that a missile won't be as smart as a starship sensor array without driving up the cost of the missile by a massive amount.
-
I am going to post this again:
"Nicoll's Law:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that any thread that begins by pointing out why stealth in space is impossible will rapidly turn into a thread focusing on schemes whereby stealth in space might be achieved."
No one will stop coming with a magical way to have spacetealth, it's about as prevalent as comparing X to Nazis/Hitler.
-
you might be able to use tactics to fool sensor arrays and avoid detection. you could probibly hide in dark spots and stuff like that, but its hard to do when both objects are moving and even harder if there are multiple scanners looking at you from different positions and velocities. but in open space (which most of it is), there is no one magic bullet to prevent you from being seen.
as for missiles, it is likely they would receive sensor data from the ship that fired it. you could try jamming the signal (though this will make your ship look much brighter on the scopes). it would have its own sensors locked onto its target as well as information about where its going. this of course enters into the realm of electronic warfare.
-
Aaaand we're back to stealth in space.
-
as for missiles, it is likely they would receive sensor data from the ship that fired it. you could try jamming the signal (though this will make your ship look much brighter on the scopes).
And I would care about being brighter on the scopes why? No point in trying to be stealthy anyway, the enemy starship will find me no matter what. But at least I can actively do stuff to keep the enemy missile boat from being able to kill me. (besides, if the enemy ship is shooting at me, then that obviously means I have been spotted, right?)
And depending on the time period, I may actually be looking at space warfare fought exclusively with missiles and electronic warfare. Space lasers and railguns take time to develop, but missile technology would be relatively easy to adapt for use in space.
On the other hand, human stupidity can never be ruled out as a potential factor in not locating an enemy ship. I can't rely on stupidity on the part of the enemy, but I can certainly take advantage of it.
-
Aaaand we're back to stealth in space.
id say we stepped into the realm of electronic warfare, not stealth.
And I would care about being brighter on the scopes why? No point in trying to be stealthy anyway, the enemy starship will find me no matter what. But at least I can actively do stuff to keep the enemy missile boat from being able to kill me. (besides, if the enemy ship is shooting at me, then that obviously means I have been spotted, right?)
no point in not turning on the jammers, but it may be a bad choice if you are trying to spoof the warhead with a fake target signature, like from countermeasures. you could also have deployable jammers as well so its not your ship that is lighting up the board. the possibilities here are endless. i feel that a lot of scifi neglects to dip into the electronic warfare concept.
And depending on the time period, I may actually be looking at space warfare fought exclusively with missiles and electronic warfare. Space lasers and railguns take time to develop, but missile technology would be relatively easy to adapt for use in space.
we already have done considerable research in high powered lasers, coil and rail guns. and i figure these technologies will be in a far more developed state by the time we have established a major presence in space. and thats the research we know about, not the top secret stuff. so you never know what the military is developing right now. let alone what we will have in a few hundred years when we get enough of our species out of the gravity well to fight wars in space.
On the other hand, human stupidity can never be ruled out as a potential factor in not locating an enemy ship. I can't rely on stupidity on the part of the enemy, but I can certainly take advantage of it.
sounds like something sun tzu would say.
-
Just because hard sciences such as physics says that space-stealth is impossible doesn't mean that soft sciences like psychology will say the same. If I can't hide my mission-critical commando transport through fancy technology, then I might have to take a more tactical approach.
There's a distinct difference in a ship's sensors being able to see my commando transport, and the ship's crew actually noticing AND responding to the transport's presence - fighters and other single pilot ships in particular suffer from a major drop in situational awareness when caught in a pitched or lengthy battle. For ships with proper bridge crews, damaging the enemy's sensor systems might hinder their ability to notice and track every single ship in the system. Ships that are already heavily engaged can't afford to break off towards my transport.
Being completely invisible and merely going unnoticed are two distinctly different things. If something's that dang important, then it's worth expending other assets to ensure its survival, and there are ways of ensuring that it stays intact.
-
now its all about psychological warfare. nice.
-
I've always considered stealth in space to mean less "avoid all detection" than it is "avoid revealing your exact location to the enemy". Once in range, detection is almost assured. That does not mean that it is impossible to make yourself a very difficult target for enemy weapons systems.
-
Question, is it possible for thermal radiation to be done point to point in a manner akin to lasers?
-
Question, is it possible for thermal radiation to be done point to point in a manner akin to lasers?
I do know it's possible to reflect, focus IR light/radiation, which is a primary product of thermal radiation.
-
could you make an infra-red laser? certainly. channel all the isotropic IR radiation being given off by the hull in a single direction? probably not. to do it passively, you'd need some ridiculous system of mirrors/lenses/whatever else you use to focus IR (i'm envisioning a MASSIVE parabolic mirror "sail" kind of thingy with the ship at its focus). if you just make an IR laser, you're not getting rid of heat, which i assume is where you were going with that thought.
-
"Thermal radiation" isn't anything special, it's just lower frequency EM radiation, aka light. So like Klaus said, you could totally make an IR laser, as well as a UV laser, microwave laser, x-ray laser and so on. Everything emits EM radiation over a range of frequencies (unless it's at absolute zero, I guess) with most of the emitted radiation being at a certain "peak wavelength" depending on the temperature. So when something glows red hot, it's because it's temperature has increased enough that the spectrum of emitted radiation is overlapping the visual range, and as the temperature increases further and the peak wavelength gets into the visual range, the object will glow even brighter red, then orange, yellow, etc. So like, incandescent lightbulb filaments glow "yellow hot" and most of the stuff around you is only glowing "infrared hot."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law
-
Like Klaus was speculating, I was just wondering if you could redirect your heat signature in a specific vector.
I didn't want to simply build a laser that outputted infrared.
-
There's a little something called inertia that can and will keep ships and missiles from doing zigzags in space. A missile or ship that is moving at high speed will take some time to slow down or change trajectory.
Also, if the target ship is moving slowly relative to the missile, the target ship might be able to manage a major trajectory change, resulting in the missile not being able to correct its trajectory in time and overshooting its intended target.
Additionally, missile tracking systems just won't be as sophisticated as a starship sensor package (at least not without making the missile really expensive). A missile could actually be spoofed by decoys and ECM. Those same anti-missile systems won't spoof a sophisticated ship sensor package, but at least the missile didn't hit.
If I do have an FTL drive, I could always use that as a last-resort missile dodging technique. All I need to do is jump a relatively short distance and all the missiles will be on a completely incorrect trajectory to hit me.
Inertia in one direction in no way inhibits ships and missiles from performing unpredictable acceleration in directions perpendicular to their direction of travel. They'll just keep moving toward their target at the same velocity as before they started their evasive maneuvers.
Decoys and ECM in space battles are largely BS for reasons relating to heat emissions, as already discussed.
If you have an FTL drive, my missiles have unicorn-powered death rays that can destroy your ship from the other side of the universe.
-
If you have an FTL drive in the first place why not put it on missiles?
-
If you have an FTL drive in the first place why not put it on missiles?
Size and cost, probably. Violating physics ain't cheap.
-
If you have an FTL drive in the first place why not put it on missiles?
Cost? Same reason why you won't put starship-grade sensors on a missile.
-
Why not? If we are to imagine magical devices is it that much of a stretch to imagine cheap magical devices?
-
Inertia in one direction in no way inhibits ships and missiles from performing unpredictable acceleration in directions perpendicular to their direction of travel.
"Unpredictable" acceleration? Huhwha? Inerita is the sort of thing that should be predictable. Do you mean that the missile will most likely be faster and more maneuverable then my ship, like air-to-air missiles currently are? Probably, but that alone doesn't guarantee a hit.
They'll just keep moving toward their target at the same velocity as before they started their evasive maneuvers.
If the missile and the target ship are moving at a similar relative speed, yes. But slow-moving missiles are more easily shot down then fast moving ones. A faster moving missile runs the risk of overshooting its target due to inertia and relatively stupid navigation AI, but that might be the way to increase hit ratio.
Decoys and ECM in space battles are largely BS for reasons relating to heat emissions, as already discussed.
Again, a missile sensor system is NOT a complete sensor package by any means, nor does it have an intelligent human or advanced AI operating it. Yes. my ship is lit up like a christmas tree, but just picture for a moment the kind of heat emissions that would result from dozens of ships duking it out with energy weapons. Needle in a haystack, anyone? A normal starship sensor system could probably sort through it, but a cheapy missile sensor system might have more difficulty.
Why not? If we are to imagine magical devices is it that much of a stretch to imagine cheap magical devices?
In other words, being able to blast anything from anywhere? I could drop nukes onto the Shivan homeworld from Alpha Centuari? Combined with the raw destrctive power future weapons would have, that...seems rather scary.
But hey, it could be used to eradicate any pirate problem, as you would be able to blast their base while sitting at home. It could also be used to eradicate ANY form of armed resistance, which is rather scary as that has loads of potential for abuse.
This is why we don't normally see cheap magical devices in sci-fi. Technological improvement radically alters both society and warfare, moving the plot away from big space battles towards something entirely different.
-
Why not? If we are to imagine magical devices is it that much of a stretch to imagine cheap magical devices?
In other words, being able to blast anything from anywhere? I could drop nukes onto the Shivan homeworld from Alpha Centuari? Combined with the raw destrctive power future weapons would have, that...seems rather scary.
But hey, it could be used to eradicate any pirate problem, as you would be able to blast their base while sitting at home. It could also be used to eradicate ANY form of armed resistance, which is rather scary as that has loads of potential for abuse.
This is why we don't normally see cheap magical devices in sci-fi. Technological improvement radically alters both society and warfare, moving the plot away from big space battles towards something entirely different.
See the Lensman series (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LensmanArmsRace) for how ridiculous you can make things up in sci-fi.
-
Quick thought about shielding systems and cloaking devices. Instead of using them for protection or stealth, what if I used them to mask my ship so you can't identify what type of ship I am in? That way I appear as a giant blue bubble instead of an identifiable ship.
While a setup like this would have too much of an energy output to possibly hide, there's a distinct advantage in the enemy not knowing if my ship is a cruiser, carrier, freighter, or corvette wolfpack. In fact, you won't even be able to target individual components on account of not being able to see them! No more torpedoes taking out the flight deck or main guns. Only when I start shooting do you get a rough idea of what ship I am, and even then you won't know if I am using all my weapons.
The bubble's geometry will be randomized, so you can't just fire into the middle and expect a hit. My ship could easily be off to one side, and there might be multiple ships in the bubble. If/when a lucky shot DOES hit, I move my ship to a different position within the shield in order to avoid getting hit with follow-up shots aimed at the same spot. Weapons that don't rely on a direct hit will still damage me, but you won't know how much damage I have taken.
The shield doesn't even need to block projectiles to be effective. In fact, I would prefer it if it didn't block projectiles, as that means you can't just take it offline with conventional weapon fire.
Knowing where my ship is and knowing what kind of ship I am are two distinctly different things.
-
I would expect to see disguised warships. A warship that looked like the asteroid miners that are already common in the system would be able to get to it's target relatively easily.
An alternative would be an equivalent of dazzle paint, where the sensor returns identify that there is something out there, but some of the information returned (usually heading, range or speed,, as these would cause weapons to be inaccurate) is confused or erroneous. In a high ECM environment, such as when fleets are already engaged in combat, this could be as effective as being invisible.
As for my choice of weapon, it would have to be guided. I would expect space combat to take place at extremely long ranges.
For example at a combat range of 3 times the distance to the earth to the moon. This is four light-seconds away. But due to the time that the sensor light takes to get from the target to the attackers sensors, the attacker is effectively firing at where the target was 8 seconds ago. If immediately after being detected the target initiates a 1G burn (after detection so that the firing ship knows nothing about it), it will have moved 313 metres away from the position estimated from it's state when detected. As it is likely that the ship is smaller than twice this in length, the laser would not only be guaranteed to miss in this case, but also be highly likely to miss at any time, as a ship in combat would be expected to be constantly changing it's acceleration to avoid being hit.
There would be a place for other weapons to defend against missiles and to get first strike against ships that are not evading (although how are you going to suprise them? This goes back to the lack of stealth is space again).
For these I would prefer Lasers as they are almost inertialess, and if a weapon has recoil then firing a particular pattern of missiles against it would result in a particular acceleration which a good captain would take advantage of.
In this combat there would be one method of dazzle which would be very effective. Fit engines in multiple directions, and set them up to give the same signiature whether they are producing thrust or not. Now approaching missiles cannot predict your ships acceleration even at close ranges. This could be enough to cause them to miss.
The really scary form of this combat would happen when the combatants have been fighting for centuries, and relativistic asteroids start hitting planets, having been fired from other star systems.
-
relativistic asteroids? :wtf:
the amount of energy that would require makes my head hurt.
-
relativistic asteroids? :wtf:
the amount of energy that would require makes my head hurt.
At least they aren't firing relativistic antimatter stars at you.