Guns, Firearms, and Boomsticks

[Psion]

What about a titanic "conventional" gun (a long tube, closed at one end, from which a projectile is propelled by an explosion) using a neutronium shell and matter/antimatter propellant?
It's not the most practical of weapons, but as far as I know it certainly counts as novel.

Novel indeed, I like it. Probably will never use it but I like it.

[DigitalEcho]

It's a good start sounds like an interesting concept for a new weapon.

[Kesslan]

Exactly... actually, it would actually be easier to hotwire a field of enemy drone mines then it would be to take over an automated sentry wouldn't it? .

Not necessarily.

If you made the drones hard wired to an IFF, or at least unable to be reprogrammed remotely, the only way they could hack the drone in question is to some how reproduce that IFF so they could even get close enough. If you put in anti tampering circuits on top of that.. then there's a high risk that just trying to open the mine to change the IFF would cause it to detonate.

[Psion]

Not necessarily.

If you made the drones hard wired to an IFF, or at least unable to be reprogrammed remotely, the only way they could hack the drone in question is to some how reproduce that IFF so they could even get close enough. If you put in anti tampering circuits on top of that.. then there's a high risk that just trying to open the mine to change the IFF would cause it to detonate.

true, software engineering isn't particularly my forte. But those counter-measures could just as easily be added to a automated sentry loaded with rockets and long range missles couldn't they?

[Kesslan]

true, software engineering isn't particularly my forte. But those counter-measures could just as easily be added to a automated sentry loaded with rockets and long range missles couldn't they?

Yes, but arguably the mines would be individually cheaper. Also space 'mines' are not always mines in the traditional sense. Some are in some settings, missiles with advanced sensors, signature masking, a coat of non reflective black paint and enough fuel to reach it's target in short order with maybe a few orientation jets to line itself up.

In an advanced enough setting you could basically have a relatively short range, heavy payload missile be your 'mine'. Something gets close enough it locks on, checks the IFF and then rotates to line up it's trajectory and fires up, potentially too close in for point defences to be warned in time to stop it.

It could even be something as simple as magnetic mines that have no IFF and are just dumped out, activate after a certain period of time and just go after what ever is large enough and gets too close.

The main issue for anything with any notable sensory systems is longevity. They need a power source, and eventually that would arguably run out unless you took the added step of giving them solar panels or something. Largely depends on tech setup in the universe you have mixed with the amount resources one wants to sink into a minefield.

In the end, non guided space mines are not terribly practical unless you unleash billions of the damn things or drop them in the expected path of ships coming out of jump gates/points etc.

Flip side, anything with active sensors is open to kinetic kills from outside it's engagement envelope. You could kill it with mass drivers firing cheap ferrous metal slugs at extreme range so long as the things are not mobile they most likely wont pick up something small moving at mach speeds through space.

There are trade offs, no matter what route you go.

[Fenryx]

Gods of Light and Darkness, what a geek fest, there are times around here I am truly amused at all the speculation flying back and forth.

[Psion]

Yes, but arguably the mines would be individually cheaper. Also space 'mines' are not always mines in the traditional sense. Some are in some settings, missiles with advanced sensors, signature masking, a coat of non reflective black paint and enough fuel to reach it's target in short order with maybe a few orientation jets to line itself up.

In an advanced enough setting you could basically have a relatively short range, heavy payload missile be your 'mine'. Something gets close enough it locks on, checks the IFF and then rotates to line up it's trajectory and fires up, potentially too close in for point defences to be warned in time to stop it.

It could even be something as simple as magnetic mines that have no IFF and are just dumped out, activate after a certain period of time and just go after what ever is large enough and gets too close.

The main issue for anything with any notable sensory systems is longevity. They need a power source, and eventually that would arguably run out unless you took the added step of giving them solar panels or something. Largely depends on tech setup in the universe you have mixed with the amount resources one wants to sink into a minefield.

In the end, non guided space mines are not terribly practical unless you unleash billions of the damn things or drop them in the expected path of ships coming out of jump gates/points etc.

Flip side, anything with active sensors is open to kinetic kills from outside it's engagement envelope. You could kill it with mass drivers firing cheap ferrous metal slugs at extreme range so long as the things are not mobile they most likely wont pick up something small moving at mach speeds through space.

There are trade offs, no matter what route you go.

Yeah... thank you, very educational. I generally don't use drones OR sentries so the discussion was useful for figuring out the pros and cons of both. Clever enemies could circumvent both of them for the price of some metal slugs or a wily hacker; making them potentially useless compared to how much you might have paid in R&D, construction, and maintainance.
I guess in the end, space is still the domain of the ever mobile spaceship.

Gods of Light and Darkness, what a geek fest, there are times around here I am truly amused at all the speculation flying back and forth.

Speculation is how plausible technobabble is born.

[macrorufus]

As part of this weapon's discussion, I just thought I'd add low tech weapons too. A crossbow would be just as good as a rifle in a vacuum. After all, as mentioned above, a nick is all it takes. And it's not as if spacesuits are made to deflect projectiles anyway.
To be honest, space being what it is, any weapon suffices as all weapons are equally deadly on unarmoured targets. Although for safety reasons, it'd make more sense for low tech crossbows etc. Less punch, less likely to ricochet wildly indoors, and less likely to cause serious damage. Problem with space habitats etc etc, is that they are finely tuned often, and require serious care. So... running indoors with an automatic weapon isn't going to make you friends with the engineers.

Course if the target is armoured, the rifle, crossbow doesn't matter. Then you need something a bit bigger!

Just a small bit on practicality, a hand-held firearm is chosen to defend you from the average threat. E.G you won't have a hand-held plasma rifle if the standard enemy that you expect to face doesn't wear heavy armor. To use a contemporary analogy, it'd be easier for me to say, you wouldn't arm yourself with a .50 cal machinegun for your everyday situation. To be honest you'd expect the majority of concerned citizens and peoples to carry a small sidearm, probably slug throwing in nature. For warfare purposes, would you even use infantry anymore? All you need in space is a breach, heck! Robots would make better combat infantry, on the basis that they don't need air.

Following my convoluted and non-sensical assessment, I'd point out that as a living person you're more likely to pick a weapon suited for your slot of life. Regardless of how useful it is in other situations, e.g soldiers carry rifles, 'thugs' carry concealable pistols etc etc. So I'd reckon you'd find normal slug weapons in the future, just because, we know 'em, they're cheap-ish, they function in space and atmosphere equally well.

Another question to consider perhaps, is the purpose of the weapon. The average weapon of today is designed to throw out large ammounts of lead as fast as possible. I know today's militaries stress accuracy, but the Germans from WW2 figured out fast, that our guns are used to supress an enemy to get in range to kill. (Hence why the Germans produced the earliest combat SMGs during the war). So I want to ask, in a vacuum, with no sound, there would be less impulse to take cover, less awareness of the depth of fire being recieved. With a lack of pinning and suppression would this change our weapons back to more accurate single shot rifles?

Regarding spaceships, we've learnt from precedent that small craft function better than larger. Space warfare, though miles more costly and advanced probably wouldn't be too different from contemporary naval warfare. I.E Submarines (stealth ships) having a strong raiding/attack preference, large numbers of carrier-style vessels (Fighters + Bombers proven to vastly outmanouvre 'battleships' and smaller vessels).
And of course a form of destroyer required to detect those stealth ships.

I guess overall, it depends on who and what is behind it all, but for humans at least, we like to deal with warfare in economic terms. The more cost efficient it is, the more likely we'll use it. In desparate times we will start to build purpose built weapons, and re-use old antiques (i.e end war of Japan and Germany in WW2, where the Germans began producing self-propelled guns, and Japan built cheap purpose designed kamikaze fighters). In times of success we won't bother advancing our technology, as we're winning. During attrition warfare, we will advance the fastest as we need to lower cost, and we can do that by developing something new (be it tactic, weapon, etcetc).
It's kinda said to say so, but as sci-fi fans we hope to see advancement, but to be honest, as humans we probably will approach problems the same way we do now. Maybe other species out there won't be so tightwad as us eh?

[macrorufus]

I'll also add that humanity has many nukes. They would excel in space combat given a few alterations. High destructive power, and the benefit of an EMP blast after the detonation. It's not unfeasible to concieve huamnity using long range nuclear weapons as missiles.

[Kesslan]

Well when you go as far as nukes there's the potential for bomb fed xray lasers. They'd be one shot warheads but if I understand the whole thing completely it's something that could be technically done with today's tech. It's certainly something I've seen done in various sci-fi books. David Webber for example has used such things for his Honor Harrigan series.

As to infantry, I cant see it ever going away. You cant (generally speaking) hack flesh and blood. You can hack a robot. Or it can go on the fritz, or unless it's a true AI, would lack the unpredictability of actual sentients.

Also, using things like mass drivers, is going pretty stone age for an advanced setting, and yet their not likely to loose too much of their destructive ability. If anything they would become more energy efficient, capable of greater rates of fire to even higher velocities.

For that matter, if ships are traveling at high enough speeds you could set terribly destructive traps made up of nothing but debris. Sand, scrap metal etc.Anything traveling fast enough would get shredded or at least badly damaged.

In the event of using Lasers (relatively cheap and simple in any high tech setting) you can counteract some of the damage with reflective surfaces, including throwing up screens of reflective particles between you and your target. The downside being it would work both ways.

However if your using rockets/missiles and the other guy is using lasers, it would give you a notable advantage so long as you had about the same degree of mobility and engagement envelopes.

[Rys]

I had an interesting idea a while ago. Bomb-pumped lasers are great, but you pretty much only get one shot. However, if you already have a nuclear power plant aboard your ship, why not put that radiation to work and make a reactor-pumped laser?

[Kesslan]

I had an interesting idea a while ago. Bomb-pumped lasers are great, but you pretty much only get one shot. However, if you already have a nuclear power plant aboard your ship, why not put that radiation to work and make a reactor-pumped laser?

If I understand things correctly, it's the nuclear explosion itself that generates most of the power. Hooking up a lone reactor to a laser would only give it more power to draw from, and allow it to be more powerful, but doesn't really amount to the same thing.

At least not if I properly understand the theory behind such a concept.

[DigitalEcho]

It kind of depends on what kind of laser, since laser is light and not an actual mass, it would probably work to make a 'radiation laser' of some kind lol

[Kesslan]

It kind of depends on what kind of laser, since laser is light and not an actual mass, it would probably work to make a 'radiation laser' of some kind lol

Looking into it a little more, they have been making x-ray lasers that don't require a nuke for some time now, however their usefulness as a weapon is likely questionable as they were created as a research tool, and at least for the 'table top' X-ray lasers that I've found mention of, they apparently wouldn't penetrate a piece of paper much less ship armor.

[macrorufus]

That's cause X-rays by nature of being an X-ray emit Beta and Alpha radiation. Alpha can penetrate 5cm of air, before being disappated, and Beta can penetrate around 5cm of steel. Not much at all. Gamma radiation is the third type of radiation that a nuclear device emits, (as well as the other two). Gamma radiation cannot be disappated easily. It's output only diminishes by half after penetrating several feet of lead. Ironically though, Alpha radiation is the most dangerous as it doesn't penetrate easily. Gamma is ... 'less' dangerous, but you wouldn't want either of them to be honest. Alpha radiation due to it's short short range is used most commonly in fire detectors. As it doesn't take much to block alpha, and smoke does it for you.

[Psion]

That's cause X-rays by nature of being an X-ray emit Beta and Alpha radiation. Alpha can penetrate 5cm of air, before being disappated, and Beta can penetrate around 5cm of steel. Not much at all. Gamma radiation is the third type of radiation that a nuclear device emits, (as well as the other two). Gamma radiation cannot be disappated easily. It's output only diminishes by half after penetrating several feet of lead. Ironically though, Alpha radiation is the most dangerous as it doesn't penetrate easily. Gamma is ... 'less' dangerous, but you wouldn't want either of them to be honest. Alpha radiation due to it's short short range is used most commonly in fire detectors. As it doesn't take much to block alpha, and smoke does it for you.

I remember that, I forget the title of the book but it was some alternate history novel where the Three Mile Island incident did go total and irradiated all of Pennsylvanian. At some point (the book takes place twenty years after the reactor meltdown) a tourist reporter is having a conversation with one of the locals about their diet and alpha radiation comes up. Basically, the line of thinking was that if you kept eating containminated food, the alpha and beta radiation would be unable to leave your body and wreck havoc on your cells. Not sure how true it is but it's something to think about (and probably a topic for another thread.)

[Brome Teks]

The EMP of a Nuke is actually produced when the electrons produced by Gamma Rays react with the Earth's magnetosphere. (Source: Wikipedia) Therefore, it would be unlikely that an EMP would occur in a deep space nuclear blast. It may occur in low earth orbit, but not say, mars, open space, or lunar orbit.

In addition to that, I would imagine that Warships would be shielded against EMPs with a Faraday cage in the outer hull, both to stave off man-made EMPs and EMPs from Solar flares and other such phenomenon.

[Kesslan]

Would it not be possible though, to counteract the shielding with an even stronger EMP device? Say.. specifically an EMP generating 'bomb' of sorts? (Basically a one shot, burn out EMP generator)

[Brome Teks]

A Faraday cage made with reasonable specifications would be able to completely block an EMP.

It's not like it's an energy shield or anything.

[Kesslan]

Yeah, while I understand that it's not like a shield, I've never looked into Faraday cages enough to get a grasp of what their limitations may, or may not be. Especially when there is no actual 'ground' for the cage to be attached to. My understanding, is that the energy is nto negated, but redirected elsewhere?

If that's the case any space ship would have to have some sort of capacitor or the like to soak up the brunt, and as such, any blast large enough should theoretically be able to overload it.

Though, by all means correct me if I'm wrong on that one. That is however the impression I get from looking them over on Wikipedia. Also the shielding effect would, it seems to me, only be effective so long as the cage was intact, if you blasted holes in the hull, the ship would then be left far more vulnerable.

[Brome Teks]

Not quite. First off, that's nowhere near close to what capacitors are used for. Second, the cage is capable of working without a ground, as soon as the external EM field wears off, the charges within the cage will redistribute themselves to neutral. In addition, when the field is acting upon the Faraday cage, the charges redistribute themselves on the inside and the outside of the cage, creating an overall neutral charge. (Source: Wikipedia)

As for the holes: They'd likely have to be in line with the electronics that you want to be fried and the sources of the explosion. Imagine if you will, shining a flashlight into the hole. It'll diffuse outwards a bit, but it wouldn't be the full force. Given how electrons have in particle-wave properties like photons, this analogy is roughly accurate.

In addition, the Faraday cage doesn't even have to be that complex. A bag wrapped in aluminum foil acts as a Faraday cage even.

[Kesslan]

Using the capacitor example was really.. more of a poor choice of wording. I just honestly don't recall what you'd call something that extra charges like that could get dumped into. Though I seem to recall there being something capable of handling such effects without being an actual fuse that would burn out. Also the wiki entry you referenced is the same one I had previously looked over.

Also, while yes, tinfoil can act as a Faraday Cage, it all depends, going by what I"ve read of them, what you are trying to prevent. Blocking EMP, from what I understand will have different requirements than say.. blocking out radio signals or other electronic signals.

Wiki at least seems to state: they also shield the interior from external electromagnetic radiation if the conductor is thick enough and any holes are significantly smaller than the radiation's wavelength

But I don't know how true that is. I'll be the first to admit I've hardly studied such things in any real detail etc. I'm simply trying to figure out what limitations they may have in such instances.

Also on the whole flashlight thing, if you had a warhead that burrowed in past the hull, and then 'detonated' an EMP, wouldn't that have more or less the same effect (Provided there was no other shielding deeper in, which I'd think is likely in a warship designed to counter just such a possibility) as an EMP set off near the exterior of the hull?

Even if it only causes temporary disruption, that could be more than enough to kill point defenses and external sensors for a short period of time, potentially a large enough gap that missile fire and the like could exploit. Sort of like how flash bangs are used to blind/disorient an enemy during room clearing/breaching operations.

[Brome Teks]

If you had a warhead past the hull and inside the Faraday cage, then any electronics that were supposed to be protected by the Faraday cage would be completely exposed and subject to the full EMP.

As for outside the hull, if the warhead is EMP only and doesn't blast a hole in the ship, and the Faraday cage is intact, then the Faraday cage would still do it's job and block the EMP.

As for holes: Those are normally to allow for air circulation on an earth based cage. I wouldn't imagine you want to circulate air between the inside and outside of your ship.

And to note: Light, radio waves, radiation, and electromagnetic pulses are all forms of electromagnetic energy. The principle of blocking it to prevent an EMP from destroying your electronics would be the same for both radio waves and magnetic fields.

As for needing a place to send the energy: It's the difference in voltage potentials across the cage that actually cancels out the magnetic field within the cage. An ungrounded Faraday cage is equally effective as a grounded one. The charge exists on the cage itself, and the strength is based on the size of the field outside of the cage. No matter how strong the magnetic field outside the cage, the cage can block it.

Point is, you don't need a place to dump the charge, because the charge is how the Faraday cage works.

[Psion]

*takes notes furiously* Nice, very nice indeed.

[Brome Teks]

*Takes a bow*

Just an aspiring physics major at your service.