Laser battles in space.
POSTED BY: Hjermsted
UPDATED: Monday, March 22, 2004 21:20
VIEWED: 21470
PAGE 1 of 1
I like that Firefly wasn't overly reliant on laser battles between ships in space. I can recall only a single energy beam of any kind (The Alliance cruiser destroying the reaver-infected colony ship). Laser battles in space indeed look cool, but they're kinda silly if you think about it.
What happens to those energy beams that miss their targets? We're talking about concentrated light here, correct? So those beams keep traveling until reflected/deflected, yes?
So laser battles that take place just outside of a planet's atmosphere can easily (and inadvertantly) cause a great deal of damage to the planet surface and any lifeforms there.
And planets much further away who suddenly find themselves bombarded by laser blasts from a distant battle they know nothing of... what do the inhabitants there think/do when that happens? Blame an angry god? Sue the local government? Construct deficit inducing space shields ala SDI?
I think there is at least one story that could be milked from this question. Firefly (with it's silent outerspace and lack of aliens) would have been the perfect show to explore what happens to this errant laser fire.
mattro
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, generally speaking it's safe to assume that most laser/energy based weapons have an effective range before they dissapate to the point where they're not really harmful, so planets further away than a few hundred kilometers probably wouldn't experience any damage at all. Like a laser pointer, no beam of light goes on indeffinately- dust, gasses, and whatever else gets in the way will weaken it, plus no matter how tightly you focus it it's going to spread out eventually over a few thousand kilometers.
As for fighting just above the atmosphere, it's possible that they could miss their targets and inadvertantly bombard the planet's surface... though when you think about it the likelyhood of hitting anything is pretty low. Hell, on an Earth-like planet, 70% of the time you'd hit water, and it's probably only half likely to hit a populated area. Most planets in the Firefly universe seem to be only a fraction as populated as Earth is, with the exception of the Core worlds, so that's even less of a threat. Plus, as I said above, gasses and dust would weaken a laser based weapon.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Way back in the olden days I used to play the space battles expansion for Traveller that assumed beam weapons were relatively easy to defend against with reflective coatings or particle clouds. Hence projectiles and missiles were still used a great deal.
The other thing I've notice conspicuously absent from the Firefly universe is advanced computer technology. I'm guessing Joss has some historical reason in mind for this, but it has been 500 years - I'd expect see AI as a more realistic possiblity as well as advance robotics involved in space travel/exploration. But we've really only been given a close few of the frontier worlds where advanced tech is sparse.
SergeantX
"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I really don't think the settler's ship from Bushwhacked was destroyed using lasers. It's looks more like missiles of some type or another. In regards to lasers missing their intended target and zipping through space, after a while the beam would start to spread and lose energy. Back in the seventies, astronomers bounced a laser beam off reflectors on the Moon left by the Apollo astronauts. The beam spread out a fair amount after leaving Earth. Granted weapons in the future would solve this problem, but I don't think anyone would be worried about being struck by a stray laser shot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In a continuation of this train of thought- bullets would actually be worse, as they will continue on their errant trajectories until caught by a gravity well (which would speed them up until impact)... and they don't dissipate.
The thing that confused me about Out of Gas, is why did the ship stop moving when the engine blew out? In space the ship would rely on momentum, not constant thrust, and one having reached it's speed it would continue at that speed with no further input from the engines.
I really like that they showed this in Objects in Space, when Early EVAed from his ship to Serenity while underway at what must be incredible speeds. One well-placed piece of space junk could have blew him apart.
There are also no "deflector dishes" or shields, it seems. So I wonder how they deal with running into dust and things in space. Even our primitive Space Shuttles take damage from hitting paint chips, nuts, bolts, and other "space junk" caught in orbit.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When traveling between systems the ships use a system of googly hops, whereby 3dimensional space is transversed by means of a subspace phase modulator. The resultant n-gravity wave actually moves the ship and the surrounding space across vast areas of space without concern for the intervening substances. Or so I have heard.
SergeantX
"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RiskEverything:
The thing that confused me about Out of Gas, is why did the ship stop moving when the engine blew out? In space the ship would rely on momentum, not constant thrust, and one having reached it's speed it would continue at that speed with no further input from the engines.
Mal opened the front bay to let out the fire, along with a significant amount of rushing atmo. This might have been enough to slow down Serenity by providing force opposite their course heading.
"Let's moon 'em!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On what assumption do ya base the idea that she wasn't movin ?
Most visible stars are Soooooooo far away that you'd really have to be haulin ass to get any kind of perspective where they even seem to move a little, so unless you were going really, really fast...
"dead in the water" is a relative term, cause in space once ya start movin, ya tend to *keep* movin, see...
However, if you don't have the fuel/reaction mass to burn to change course (and apparently my impression is that Mals routes use a lot more course changes than the norm, being that he likes to stay away from other folk) well, then you're "dead in the water" - ya might be movin, but not in any kinda helpful direction, often as not... space is a BIG place yanno.
Most of the 'movement' we see Serenity do is in relative to close range, fixed-position objects or cameras, and thus, without a fixed point relatively close to her, how would you tell ?
They make give the impression, but it's likely a false one.
-frem
diefuxdie
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You also have to remember there are no visible laser beams in space. They only appear as a beam in air or other types of matter.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The other thing I've notice conspicuously absent from the Firefly universe is advanced computer technology. I'm guessing Joss has some historical reason in mind for this, but it has been 500 years - I'd expect see AI as a more realistic possiblity as well as advance robotics involved in space travel/exploration. But we've really only been given a close few of the frontier worlds where advanced tech is sparse.
I think part of this can be explained by the fact that the show simply didn't have the time to explore a lot of things like this. With the 14 episodes we had, most of them were focused on character development, etc.
Another possible reason is that I think it was made fairly clear that some places were "flush with the new technologies" and "some not so much".
There were some definite class issues established that would probably been explored more in-depth if the show had lasted. I think technologies just weren't available equally - those with money and power probably had the most access. Mal & the Serenity crew lived on the fringe of society, so they probably didn't have access to a whole lot in terms of cutting-edge computers.
We only saw the alliance two or three times, so we don't really know the extent of the technology at their disposal. The hospital episode did show some pretty fancy imaging technology.
But I think the first reason is most important - simply not enough time. Who knows where the show might have gone.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of the reason's there aren't a lot of laser battles, or space battles of any kind, is that Serenity has no armament.
Regarding AI and Aliens, I think that Joss' didn't want any in the 'verse. There are references to the "Cortex" though, but I think that's more like a "super internet" than anything else.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
There are references to the "Cortex" though, but I think that's more like a "super internet" than anything else.
That's what I thought too! Glad I wasn't the only one. And yeah - I think Joss wanted to explore a space story with no aliens.
But I could see him working AI into his story - not saying he definitely would - but who knows? It wouldn't totally surprise me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think if he had introduced AI into Firefly, it would have had to be very basic, nothing like Data from Star Trek or anything like that. More likely, it would be intelligent enough to perform menial tasks or regulate things, but it just doesn't seem like a fully sentient AI would fit in the Firefly world. The show is about human drama more than science fiction, so I don't think AI would play much of a part. As for computers, they are obviously far more advanced if space travel, paper thin screens, neural imagers, etc. are available; we just don't see much of it because it's only available to the rich.
Also, bullets would be more dangerous over long distances while lasers would be more dangerous to a close planet, but the chance of anything hitting a planet in the vastness of space is very slim. Planets are so incredibly miniscule compared to the distances between them that I doubt people would worry much about being hit unless ships were fighting in orbit of their planet.
Book: I'd forgotten - you're moonlighting as a criminal mastermind now.
Simon: No, but I'm thinking about growing a big black mustache. I'm a traditionalist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Never understood why people would use Lasers in space anyway? If you've got the power use it to run a Railgun/Mass Driver
You get infinite range and imagine the damage you could cause with a steel ball say 250mm across moving at tens of thousands of miles an hour
The Ammunition is cheap to make (pour the right mass of molten asteroidal iron in space and it's surface tension pulls it into a perfect sphere) and if you've got the power why use something that can be reflected or else takes time to burn through
Now stray Railgun Rounds hurtling through the 'Verse would be a hazard but statistically the chances of running into one would be really small. They'll be going way above escape velocity so you wouldn't find them in orbit they'll just be going somewhere random... really fast
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well Hotpoint weapons tech always depends on what kind of defenses you are going to be facing. To put in modern terms if your enemy has very good anti-missile capabilities (Aegis cruisers and such) you should consider using torpedoes.
So it’s possible that a ship the size of an Alliance Cruiser could have thousands of defensive weapons, their equivalent of the CADS-N-1 (A Russian 30mm Gun and SAM system), or CIWS or SM-1/2/3 missiles.
A Missile/Projectile can be intercepted or deflected by another even at close range, a laser beam not so much.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
Well Hotpoint weapons tech always depends on what kind of defenses you are going to be facing.
A Missile/Projectile can be intercepted or deflected by another even at close range, a laser beam not so much.
To intercept you need to be able to see it. A totally inert projectile would be difficult to see coming especially since you could coat the thing in RAM (Radar Absorbant Material) to drastically lower it's detectability. In any case unlike a missile it would be a bitch to shoot down and it's inertia means you'd need to apply a hell of a lot of force directly to it to stop the gorram thing
Getting hit by a CIWS round would be like trying to stop an express train by hitting it with a baseball. The impact would hardly register and it would just keep going, think about the momentum the projectile would have
Lasers on the other hand take time to burn through by which time you're firing back. Kinetic Energy Weapons don't have that drawback they hit like a wrecking ball
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
[BIn any case unlike a missile it would be a bitch to shoot down and it's inertia means you'd need to apply a hell of a lot of force directly to it to stop the gorram thing
Well you don't need to stop it just slow it down so your;
A) in a different spot when it would have intercepted you
or
B) give time for your lasers to melt the thing.
or
C) give time for your own mass drivers/rail guns to lock on and destroy it.
Most likely a ship would have Lasers, Mass Drivers, Rail Guns, Missiles, Torpedoes, Bombs, Mines, Spears, Rocks, Harsh Language etc to provide total weapons coverage. If your ships are armed with one weapon its back to the days of sailing ships, the most guns wins, but with multiple systems tactics become the deciding factor.
A small, fast and agile, ship with a few anti-mass driver systems and some big torpedoes can cause some serious havoc to a big ship armed with only mass divers.
Or two big cruisers one with batteries of rail guns another with point defense lasers can hold off the enemy’s weapons fire so its anti-ship lasers can have time to cut though.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, you are assuming that there wouldn't be an increase in defensive technology as well. Against projectiles, it is possible that some form of Aegis system could be developed that can reduce or negate that weapons system. The same is true for laser and beam weapons.
I think the best use of beam weapons in scifi was on Babylon 5 where instead of just pointing the laser at the target to punch a hole, they would slash with them to cut a ship.
The other benefit of beam weapons over projectiles is no need for ammunition. No chance of a stray shot igniting a magazine and detonating the ammo. There would probably be higher energy consumption to deal with.
Personally, I would expect a mix of the two technologies in a fighting ship.
Simon: I've never shot anyone before.
Book: I was there, son. I'm fair sure you haven't shot anyone yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In reference to the AI issue
THIS is why I have such a problem with the whole "Love-bot" thing in the 'leaked' audition list. . .
If there's sufficient technology in the FF universe to come up with "Love bots". . .then why the hell do they use SLAVES? And I mean on the ADVANCED worlds, like Persephone. . .not the rim worlds.
Think about it. We're at the year 2004, and we only JUST NOW have a gorram automated VACCUM cleaner. A robot capable of taking the place of a human lover. . .that's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY beyond the 'tech standard' that Joss has already given us.
Laser weapons? We've seen ONE laser weapon in the show. . .it was bulky, awkward and the battery died after three or four good shots. I sit in the cutting edge of combat technology for hours every day and I can tell you. . .the more you over-think the plumbing, the easier it is to clog the drain. Nothing beats a good ol' slugthrower for doin' damage. More efficient, more effective.
==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
Well you don't need to stop it just slow it down so your;
A) in a different spot when it would have intercepted you
or
B) give time for your lasers to melt the thing.
or
C) give time for your own mass drivers/rail guns to lock on and destroy it.
Even slowing it down would require an enormous amount of energy and in any case you'd fire a salvo of Railgun rounds in slightly different trajectories to allow for manoevering (they're cheap)
Gotta detect it to melt/intercept it. Easier said than done if it's steathy and inert. Chances are you'd first see it just before it arrived. Last words "Oh shi..."
CLANG!
Ship is either holed or has one heck of a dent in it
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
Most likely a ship would have Lasers, Mass Drivers, Rail Guns, Missiles, Torpedoes, Bombs, Mines, Spears, Rocks, Harsh Language etc to provide total weapons coverage.
No arguments there but it just irritates me that Lasers are used so much in Sci-Fi when they are largely inferior as a ship-killing weapon to a good old fashioned metal ball
Lasers or particle-beam weapons for knocking out small vessels with light armour might be okay but for Capital Ships you'd use something with a lot more "punch"... as it "punch right through"
I must admit I'm a sucker for Mass-Drivers as as weapon system. They're just so darn unsubtle! It's like chucking big unguided rocks... totally without finesse but very effective
Anyhow this is definitely a debate removed from Firefly
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Prime Advantage to Lasers:
Lasers travel at the speed of light.
Railguns will not ever be able to propel anything at the speed of light. Particle accelerators can scarcely do the job. But you're talking about throwing SLUGS, not individual atoms or electrons.
In Slower Than Light applications, Lasers leave almost no room to maneuver. There is no way to evade or intercept a laser. Only armoring systems would be useful.
A slug from a railgun could take several seconds to impact a target, and thus be evadable or interceptable. THAT is why people use lasers in Sci-Fi shows in space. They are FAST, virtually instantaneous impact weapons.
--Anthony
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Cartagia:
Also, you are assuming that there wouldn't be an increase in defensive technology as well. Against projectiles, it is possible that some form of Aegis system could be developed that can reduce or negate that weapons system. The same is true for laser and beam weapons.
Ye canne change the laws of physics Captain. Once an object starts going it requires an equal and opposite force to stop it. A ball of metal is not like a missile it has a lot of mass to stop and doesn't explode if hit
It would be easier to "upgun" a mass-driver to fire a faster or more massive projectile than it would be to design something to stop one
Eventually ships would just be built around the darn things I'd think
Quote:
Originally posted by Cartagia:
I think the best use of beam weapons in scifi was on Babylon 5 where instead of just pointing the laser at the target to punch a hole, they would slash with them to cut a ship.
To "slash" a ship you need to be able to cut through the hull very fast which means a very powerful beam weapon
If you've got the wattage why not chuck something that will total the ship with one blow rather than take time carving it up giving it time to fire back?
They did use Mass-Drivers on B5 by the way. I think the Centauri used them to pulverise the Narn homeworld from orbit. They'd be better suited for that than directed energy weapons and unlike nukes don't leave fallout
Quote:
Originally posted by Cartagia:
The other benefit of beam weapons over projectiles is no need for ammunition. No chance of a stray shot igniting a magazine and detonating the ammo. There would probably be higher energy consumption to deal with.
Mass-Driver ammo wouldn't explode, it's just inert metal. Actually if you were creative you'd have the spare ammunition stored just under the hull or around the powerplant because it could actually be considered supplementary armour
Oh good grief I'm really going to get carried away with this now
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, incidentally...
No slug is more stealthy than a laser, which must actually strike you before you can detect it. No stealth coating, no nothing. It hits you, and you know its there.
No radar or sensing apparatus can detect it before impact.
--Anthony
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Never understood why people would use Lasers in space anyway? If you've got the power use it to run a Railgun/Mass Driver
You get infinite range and imagine the damage you could cause with a steel ball say 250mm across moving at tens of thousands of miles an hour
Also, remember that at a fast enough speed even a speck of dust is a danger in space. Instead of your 250mm steel ball, instead fire a 2.5mm ball. If your rail gun can fire enough of these at a very high speed and velocity then it would make a very dangerous weapon. Try hitting a cloud of those with a laser! The only problem is that such a small warhead might be effected by local gravity fields (which perhaps could be compensated for), making it a short range weapon.
Also, since artificial gravity exists in the Firefly universe, perhaps they have some sort of deflector system (NOT "shields") used to alter gravity around incoming warheads or missiles, causing them to veer off course and miss.
Hans
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Quote:
If you've got the wattage why not chuck something that will total the ship with one blow rather than take time carving it up giving it time to fire back?
Because throwing a slow moving boulder at a ship is useless if the ship can evade it. In the world of space travel, even a high speed massdriver is a turtle compared to light. Incidentally, you do know that we have terawatt range lasers currently in operation, right?
Quote:
They did use Mass-Drivers on B5 by the way. I think the Centauri used them to pulverise the Narn homeworld from orbit. They'd be better suited for that than directed energy weapons and unlike nukes don't leave fallout.
You are right about massdrivers being suitable to planetary bombardment. Both for the reasons you mentioned, and because they are slow, cumbersome weapons best used against large, stationary targets.
Once again, remember that we are not speaking of hitting tanks or navy ships. We are speaking of hitting objects traveling at fractions of the speed of light, at possible ranges of tens of thousands of kilometers.
--Anthony
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The Prime Advantage to Lasers:
Lasers travel at the speed of light.
A slug from a railgun could take several seconds to impact a target, and thus be evadable or interceptable. THAT is why people use lasers in Sci-Fi shows in space. They are FAST, virtually instantaneous impact weapons.
Well you have to see the slug coming for a start to evade it and as I said you'd fire lots of them to allow for manoevering.
If you were facing ships with very high drive output relative to their mass they are likely to be lightly armoured so fire canister shot from the Railgun that shatters into a cloud of ballbearings all still going roughly the same direction.
Time the charge in the cannister so the cloud is several miles across say by the time they reach where the target is expected to be to allow for attempted evasion
Like I said. It's unsubtle but it would work
Cannister shot in a defensive role would also render missile technology a bit obsolete. You could chuck storms of the stuff out to knock out incoming missiles which unlike big inert metal balls would explode when hit. The Russians use a similiar idea on a current tank design to take out incoming Anti-Tank Missiles
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Instead of your 250mm steel ball, instead fire a 2.5mm ball. If your rail gun can fire enough of these at a very high speed and velocity then it would make a very dangerous weapon. Try hitting a cloud of those with a laser!
Hans
Smaller = easyer to melt away with a laser. So you set your ship's defensive lasers to a wide beam and fire at close range, the balls melt, impact the hull and cool forming new armor on your ship.
Or you just head right for the cloud, and punch a hole in it for you ship to get though.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Canister shot may seem like a great idea, until you realize some fundamental realities about space.
Space is huge. If you use canisters that disperse over an area of miles, there will be hundreds of meters of space that are safe for travel within the dispersion 'cloud.' Plus, this would only be effective if the canister is detonated close to the target. Once again, the canister becomes evadable.
You *might* be able to make a massdriver weapon undetectable, but a laser weapon is by definition both undetectable and un-evadable.
Can you imagine the frustration at chasing an enemy ship, trying to pummel them with massdriver shells, and all they have to do to evade you is accelerate? They don't even need to dodge. And God Forbid that you accelerate to match their speed... and impact your own previously fired massdriver ammunition. (This has actually happened to jet planes firing cannon at an enemy jet.)
You can't accelerate faster than light, without using some special FTL technology.
While agree that massdrivers may be useful Sci-Fi weaponry, I don't see them as inherently superior to lasers, most especially not in the area of ship-to-ship combat. I'd rather have a particle accelerator.
--Anthony
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Cannister shot in a defensive role would also render missile technology a bit obsolete. You could chuck storms of the stuff out to knock out incoming missiles which unlike big inert metal balls would explode when hit.
Not if missiles are equiped with counter-anti-missile defense systems. Equip a big ship kill'in torpedo/missile with defensive lasers and mass drivers, give it a real time remote link to its mother ship so it can be guided around and/or throgh any intercepion mesures.
This may sound excessive (building what abounts to a small ship with a bomb on it) but in reality it isn't, after all a modern UGM-109 Tomahawk is just a small plane with a bomb, and a preditor UAV is a small combat plane.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Also, incidentally...
No slug is more stealthy than a laser, which must actually strike you before you can detect it. No stealth coating, no nothing. It hits you, and you know its there.
No radar or sensing apparatus can detect it before impact.
"Captain somebody is warming up our armoured hull with a Laser"
"Fire back"
OR
"Captain there's a Mass-Driver round incoming! Impact in 3, 2..."
"Crap!"
Sorry couldn't resist that one. As for Terrawatt powered Lasers well for the foreseeable future (next few centuries) I don't see us having that kind of power-output
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Once again, remember that we are not speaking of hitting tanks or navy ships. We are speaking of hitting objects traveling at fractions of the speed of light, at possible ranges of tens of thousands of kilometers.
Hmmmm. I'd think any decent design would be stealthy enough that engagements wouldn't be at a fraction of that range because you can't actually see or target the damn things until they're a lot closer
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What people often forget is that people who use lasers, blasters, ion weapons and whatnot tend to have energy shields (and "overpowered" reactors to power the gorram things).
While a solid projectile might bounce off an energy shield, an energy weapon would cause a disruption. Ideally, you'd hold any kinetic warheads in reserve until the shields are down and your target is bare-hulled.
Also, note the difference between lasers and plasma "blaster bolts" (as seen in Star Wars, B5, and Battlestar Galactica). They're slower than lasers, and, while they can't get inside a target and rattle around like bullets can, they do tend to be explosive. Which can be useful when it comes time to take out a target but leave it relatively intact for salvage.
The old "rescue the hostages by blasting the hell outta their ship" strategy. Only tends to work with ion or EMP weapons.
Also, as easy as it may be to make kinetic railgun ammo, charging up an energy weapon from your reactor is still easier when you're under fire and can't call time out to eat an asteroid.
But yeah, in the Firefly-verse, with no deflector shields, and what appear to be relatively weak generators, kinetic weapons are the way to go.
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Also, incidentally...
No slug is more stealthy than a laser, which must actually strike you before you can detect it. No stealth coating, no nothing. It hits you, and you know its there.
No radar or sensing apparatus can detect it before impact.
--Anthony
What really matters is how stealthy the platform is. A big lumbering battleship armed with lasers can be avoided, but a small stealthy fighter craft can sneak in and deliver some less-stealthy slugs and ruin your day.
Stealth wins over firepower, just ask the crew of the General Belgrano.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Can you imagine the frustration at chasing an enemy ship, trying to pummel them with massdriver shells, and all they have to do to evade you is accelerate?
While agree that massdrivers may be useful Sci-Fi weaponry, I don't see them as inherently superior to lasers, most especially not in the area of ship-to-ship combat. I'd rather have a particle accelerator.
If you read my FanFics here you'll see I invented a warship which had Lasers, A Particle-Beam Weapon and a Railgun precisely because I see a use for all three (the warships an AI btw)
(All right it's a blatant plug. Read the Death or Glory/Wolf-Pack/Here be Dragons Series found in the Blue Sun Room)
In terms of sheer stopping power I don't think you can beat a kinetic energy weapon, but for fast moving targets that know it's coming beams have the edge (I have my fictional ship evading railgun fire by velocity/course changes as you say) however if you don't know it's coming a big metal ball is one hell of a surprise
Good debate by the way
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wait wait wait... are we actually debating whether energy-based weapons are less desirable than munitions?
Really? Seriously?
Wow.
Allow me to bring up the question of payloads. Allow me to mention combat endurance. Allow me to point out point-defence applications. Need I go on?
Energy/laser-based systems are infinitely more sought-after than physical slug-throwers. Which is why the USN is developing it's first laser-cruiser.
Cheers
Carl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DELETED due to double post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stealth?
We know how stealthy Firefly ships are. Not very. Alliance cruisers are gleaming cities in space, and a powered down Firefly can't escape a sensor sweep.
The most stealthy craft yet seen in Firefly is the ship employed by Jubal Early, and even that ship, travelling in the wake of the Serenity's exhaust, is detected. Detected and dismissed.
In Firefly, ships were detectable BEYOND visual range. We are indeed speaking of detection at thousands of kilometers.
What we really lack to make this debate useful is the operating speed of spacecraft in the Firefly universe. Hell, we don't know what their propulsion method is, or even if they have FTL capability.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BluebloodUK:
Wait wait wait... are we actually debating whether energy-based weapons are less desirable than munitions?
Really? Seriously?
Wow.
Allow me to bring up the question of payloads. Allow me to mention combat endurance. Allow me to point out point-defence applications. Need I go on?
Energy/laser-based systems are infinitely more sought-after than physical slug-throwers. Which is why the USN is developing it's first laser-cruiser.
THE USN is also experimenting with fitting Railguns to its ships as well. Kinetic Energy weapons are more shattering
Various Armies are working on Mass-Driver armed Tanks too
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Stealth?
We know how stealthy Firefly ships are. Not very. Alliance cruisers are gleaming cities in space, and a powered down Firefly can't escape a sensor sweep.
I see Alliance Cruisers as being there to intimidate and would therefore be designed to be big and easily seen
They are a weapon of Terror not a Weapon of War (to coin a phrase many may recognise)
IIRC The Alliance (Fighter?) that fired at Serenity during The Message was not detected before it started shooting
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
THE USN is also experimenting with fitting Railguns to its ships as well. Kinetic Energy weapons are more shattering
Various Armies are working on Mass-Driver armed Tanks too
Yes. However, pure battleships were out-moded by the development of guided missile systems, because of their stealth factors inherent in a small, powerful warhead. The development of mounted naval lasers takes this step again - infinitely stealthier. Done correctly, comparatively damaging. Unimaginabley harder to avoid.
Apply this to 'space' batttles, and you can see why kinetic weapony may be mooted. If you were right, then battleships should be making a come-back around about... *glances at watch*....
Mass-Driver Tanks are being considered, its true, but this works in the case FOR laser weaponry; tanks are slow, and easier to nail with a 2kg slug travelling at MACH 4. Less energy-expensive to run compared to it's size.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, it's true that they didn't notice the Alliance (Fighter? Gunship?). But after Objects in Space, I'm inclined to blame Wash for that.
Especially since the Alliance fighter was amply detectable by simple visual observation. It wasn't even painted to blend with its surroundings.
I did like their use of missiles and EMP bomb weapons, though. Very nice.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, this is an interesting thread.
Let me ask some questions:
Beam weapons and electro magnetic guns exist, right?
Artificial Gravity (Which is just a convention to prevent having to deal with freefall in space for cheaper television making), Energy shields, deflector shields and the like do not exist, right?
So, are we disussing the realities or the fantasies here?
For reality, the slug thrower would seem to work exceptionally well. You can't change the trejectory of a high mass object like a ship without squashing its passengers under a high-gee load.
The slug on the other hand is moving very fast comparitively and has little surface area to reflect off of radar or its equivalent. Without the ability to quickly evade or detect, I see no advantage to lasers because they would be easier to deflect. A highly polished exterior would do the job nicely allowing only a portion of the energy to burn through.
From a cost point of view slugs would seem to be much less expensive unless electricity is somehow free and greatly storable.
As to the fantasy discussions, well, the potentials are as limitless as our imaginations.
Person 1: They could use antimatter beams.
Person 2: Yeah, but with a gravimetric shield...
Anyhoo, that's just my two cents worth...
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Alliance cruisers are gleaming cities in space, and a powered down Firefly can't escape a sensor sweep.
In both 'Serenity' and 'Bushwhacked' Alliance Cruisers seem to get very close, very fast to Serenity with out being detected.
...ok in 'Serenity' it kinda was the dinosaur’s fault.
Also I think those Cruisers were on a patrol footing; in combat they probably have extensive ECM systems that can jam any sensors that could detect them.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BluebloodUK:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
THE USN is also experimenting with fitting Railguns to its ships as well. Kinetic Energy weapons are more shattering
Various Armies are working on Mass-Driver armed Tanks too
Yes. However, pure battleships were out-moded by the development of guided missile systems, because of their stealth factors inherent in a small, powerful warhead. The development of mounted naval lasers takes this step again - infinitely stealthier. Done correctly, comparatively damaging. Unimaginabley harder to avoid.
Apply this to 'space' batttles, and you can see why kinetic weapony may be mooted. If you were right, then battleships should be making a come-back around about... *glances at watch*....
B]
Lasers are Line-Of-Sight Mass-Drivers are not. A Laser only armed naval vessel would be pulverised by a Mass-Driver armed one firing over the Horizon
The best idea would be a vessel armed with both systems which is likely where we are going
Actually Mass-Drivers would render batleships obsolete in themselves. Easier to up the railgun velocity than increase armour thickness
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BluebloodUK:
The development of mounted naval lasers takes this step again - infinitely stealthier.
Not as stealthy as a submarine, can't hit what you can't see, plus 3000 feet of water makes a good anti-laser shield. Hopefully super cavatating point defenses will even the odds.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Lasers are Line-Of-Sight Mass-Drivers are not. A Laser only armed naval vessel would be pulverised by a Mass-Driver armed one firing over the Horizon
LOS can be avoided by using a aircraft with a mirror to direct the laser over the horizon. Kind of like a targeting helo/UAV off a modern ship.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wait.. are you saying that a light laser cruiser would be nailed by a light mass-driver cruiser? Are are you bringing armour into the equation now? Which applies to either system ad infinitum. Arms Race, anyone?
These days, you can't shell Destroyers or Frigates. Their Over-The-Horizon Radar systems are too efficient, their turning circle/acceleration too good. Which is why we use guided-missiles.
Yes, range, in planetary conditions, are a factor to laser-weapons, considering the curvature of the Earth, however once that range has been reduced (and lets face it, you have absolutely no guarentee of a hit in the interim), then the battle swings towards the laser-weapon.
However, in space, these disadvantages are removed from the outset. Lasers have clear line of sight. At the speed of light. Mass-Drivers hang around in the MACH-speed range. And once fired, they are incapable of in-flight path alterations (unless they become guided missiles, invalidating the mass-driver concept there and then).
Your mass-driver cruiser is toast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A submarine is only as good as the quietness of it's reactor, and the lack of sophistication of a ASW sonar system - both of which are struggling against each other all the time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SciFido:
Wow, this is an interesting thread.
Let me ask some questions:
Beam weapons and electro magnetic guns exist, right?
Artificial Gravity (Which is just a convention to prevent having to deal with freefall in space for cheaper television making), Energy shields, deflector shields and the like do not exist, right?
So, are we disussing the realities or the fantasies here?
For reality, the slug thrower would seem to work exceptionally well. You can't change the trejectory of a high mass object like a ship without squashing its passengers under a high-gee load.
The slug on the other hand is moving very fast comparitively and has little surface area to reflect off of radar or its equivalent. Without the ability to quickly evade or detect, I see no advantage to lasers because they would be easier to deflect. A highly polished exterior would do the job nicely allowing only a portion of the energy to burn through.
From a cost point of view slugs would seem to be much less expensive unless electricity is somehow free and greatly storable.
As to the fantasy discussions, well, the potentials are as limitless as our imaginations.
Person 1: They could use antimatter beams.
Person 2: Yeah, but with a gravimetric shield...
Anyhoo, that's just my two cents worth...
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Well SciFido, Antigravity does exist within the universe of the show, and ships can change direction quite suddenly without squashing passengers. They can also accelerate quite suddenly without squashing passengers.
So, if we're discussing the reality of the show, slugthrowers may only be effective against large/slow targets or at extremely close range.
I do, incidentally, believe that in Bushwacked the Alliance Cruiser used a slugthrower of some kind to destroy the non-mobile ship that had been the victim of Reaver attack. That doesn't suggest viability in a dogfight.
As for energy being free... no, it must cost something. They do refuel from time to time.
But railguns don't get their power from a mystery universe filled with unicorns and pink bunny rabbits. They get their power from the same place a laser would.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BluebloodUK:
A submarine is only as good as the quietness of it's reactor.
Easily rectified, Collins or Amur Diesel-Electric submarines anyone?
Anyways new sub launched SAMs will become a serous threat to Helos and ASW aircraft (the real threats to subs) in the 21st century.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Diesel/Electric? Better not be in open seas then. Our (sorry, Royal Navy) Upholder-class subs were primarily designed for medium-range patrols. You dont deploy them in deep open waters these days if you can help it. It looks bad when you have to surface or snort during prolonged engagements.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:Quote:
Originally posted by BluebloodUK:
A submarine is only as good as the quietness of it's reactor.
Easily rectified, Collins or Amur Diesel-Electric submarines anyone?
Anyways new sub launched SAMs will become a serous threat to Helos and ASW aircraft (the real threats to subs) in the 21st century.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
I don't think that lasers or railguns will be effective against subs. How did they get involved in this debate again?
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
LOS can be avoided by using a aircraft with a mirror to direct the laser over the horizon. Kind of like a targeting helo/UAV off a modern ship.
As soon as the aircraft is in the target vessels LOS it would likely get shot down since it would be using Lasers too and as everyone says you can't dodge them
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueBloodUK:
Wait.. are you saying that a light laser cruiser would be nailed by a light mass-driver cruiser? Are are you bringing armour into the equation now? Which applies to either system ad infinitum. Arms Race, anyone?
If I knew I had the ability to hit the other side if I stayed out of LOS but they didn't I'd stay out of line-of-sight
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueBloodUK:
These days, you can't shell Destroyers or Frigates. Their Over-The-Horizon Radar systems are too efficient, their turning circle/acceleration too good. Which is why we use guided-missiles.
You've got to take into account velocity. The Mass-Driver round is going many times the speed of any conventional projectile so manoevering wouldn't help. You haven't moved far enough before it hits you
It's going a lot faster than a missile too and isn't likely to be stopped by CIWS unlike an Exocet or equivalent
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueBloodUK:
However, in space, these disadvantages are removed from the outset. Lasers have clear line of sight. At the speed of light. Mass-Drivers hang around in the MACH-speed range. And once fired, they are incapable of in-flight path alterations (unless they become guided missiles, invalidating the mass-driver concept there and then).
The maximum velocity of a rail-gun is only determined by the amount of current you put into it. You could get a round going a good percentage of light-speed if you put enough current in
Also in the vacuum of space a railgun has infinite range whereas a Laser doesn't. They grow less focused over distance
You're also assuming the other side knows the railgun slug is actually coming...
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Well SciFido, Antigravity does exist within the universe of the show, and ships can change direction quite suddenly without squashing passengers. They can also accelerate quite suddenly without squashing passengers.
But railguns don't get their power from a mystery universe filled with unicorns and pink bunny rabbits. They get their power from the same place a laser would.
--Anthony
Oh, Now I get it, the realities of the show. So why all of the submarine, detroyer, and stuff we have today talk.
And, in your no pink bunny rabit universe, lasers take an enourmous amount of energy, remember the 'low battery' warning on the bulky laser pistol from HoG?
Accelerating a low mass slug requires much less output. And, everything in FF has been missiles and bullets, a different discussion altogether.
Of course, maybe in the reality of Firefly, Joss just thought lasers and blasters were done to death elsewhere.
SO, back to first question is this a real discussion or a pseudo-technobabble one?
Back to you...
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The maximum velocity of a rail-gun is only determined by the amount of current you put into it. You could get a round going a good percentage of light-speed if you put enough current in
It seems to me that a LASER with that much juice put into it would be even more effective. Once again, instantaneous impact and complete undetectability prior to impact.
[quote[Also in the vacuum of space a railgun has infinite range whereas a Laser doesn't. They grow less focused over distance.
A railgun may have infinite range in theory, but there is something called 'effective range.' Effective range is controlled by things like accuracy. At extreme range, a railgun would be no more effective against a moving target than a laser would be. The target would literally have several seconds or (if you want to shoot from REALLY far away) possibly minutes to move before the slug would strike them.
Quote:
You're also assuming the other side knows the railgun slug is actually coming...
Let's say they DON'T know anyone is attacking them. A laser is still the stealthier weapon. It is also the more likely to strike a target before they change course. For whatever reason.
Scenario: Attacking vessel assaults target at a range of 30,000 kilometers.
Firing Solution A: Attacking vessel fires a railgun slug at Mach 10. Slug travels at 12,255 kilometers per hour. Impact occurs in 2.44 hours.
Firing Solution B: Attacking vessel fires a laser at c. Laser travels at 299,896.943 kilometers per second. Impact occurs in .1 seconds.
2.44 hours is a LONG time to move out of the way. .1 seconds isn't.
--Anthony
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SciFido:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Well SciFido, Antigravity does exist within the universe of the show, and ships can change direction quite suddenly without squashing passengers. They can also accelerate quite suddenly without squashing passengers.
But railguns don't get their power from a mystery universe filled with unicorns and pink bunny rabbits. They get their power from the same place a laser would.
--Anthony
Oh, Now I get it, the realities of the show. So why all of the submarine, detroyer, and stuff we have today talk.
Quite right SciFido, the discussion should be confined to the realities of the show.
Quote:
And, in your no pink bunny rabit universe, lasers take an enourmous amount of energy, remember the 'low battery' warning on the bulky laser pistol from HoG?
Actually, I was quite impressed that a laser power source capable of cooking a building's wall was able to be stored inside a pistol.
Quote:
Accelerating a low mass slug requires much less output. And, everything in FF has been missiles and bullets, a different discussion altogether.
Accerating a tiny bullet to the speed of sound requires a little gunpowder. Accelerating a cannon shell to a speed ten times the speed of sound would likely require as much energy as a comperable laser system. Unless you're suggesting a conventional cannon in space? That would likely be as useful at close range as a railgun would be.
Quote:
Of course, maybe in the reality of Firefly, Joss just thought lasers and blasters were done to death elsewhere.
I agree, he probably did think that. Kudos to him for trying something different. I even think that slugthrowers are more efficient as far as man-portable weaponry is concerned.
Quote:
SO, back to first question is this a real discussion or a pseudo-technobabble one?
Actually, this isn't a question so much as a discussion about a statement:
Quote:
Laser battles in space indeed look cool, but they're kinda silly if you think about it.
I thought about it. Laser battles in space make a lot of sense to me. Much more so than slugthrower battles in space.
Quote:
Back to you...
And to you. Do you object to the discussion itself, or merely to the conclusions I'm reaching?
--Anthony
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It seems to me that a LASER with that much juice put into it would be even more effective. Once again, instantaneous impact and complete undetectability prior to impact.
But less instantly devastating and far more easy to deflect (or rather reflect)
One good railgun strike out of the blue (or rather the black) and it's bye-bye target
Mass-Drivers are a more efficient way of transmitting energy in a big lump to the target and when you come right down to it weapons fire is just the process of moving energy from one place to another
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Let's say they DON'T know anyone is attacking them. A laser is still the stealthier weapon. It is also the more likely to strike a target before they change course. For whatever reason.
But its not stealthy because you know who fired it and where they are. If you fire a railgun you can be somewhere else when it arrives even if it's only a short distance away
The same principle is used in artillery. Shoot and Scoot before the counter-battery fire arrives
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SciFido:
For reality, the slug thrower would seem to work exceptionally well. You can't change the trejectory of a high mass object like a ship without squashing its passengers under a high-gee load.
But the gravity/anti-gravity generators presumably can compensate somehow, as evidenced by the crew not ending up as messy red splotches after the 'Crazy Ivan'
RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sort of off to one side, but this just reminded me of various episodes of Star Trek where baddies with some sort of personal shield proof against phasers would transport onto the ship and everyone would fight them with swords, clubs, batlefs(?) etc. Always wondered why somebody didn't run over to the replicator had have it whip up a Remington 1100 and some 00 buckshot rounds. If a club could hurt someone, 1.5 oz of fast lead should too.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I remember reading an article about anti-missle laser systems back in the late 80's or early 90'a. The point of the article was to discuss the unbelievable lethality of a high power laser. A very powerful laser does not burn or cut through the target. It is not like holding a really hot torch up to something until it melts. It is more like hitting a target with an incredibly powerful projectile made of light.
Many people are under the impression that if the target is mirrored or if the target is spinning that the laser will not be able to burn or cut through. A spinning target is protected from a terawatt laser blast about as much as a spinning ballerina is protected from a point blank shotgun blast. The sheer impact of the photons in a large enough laser blast are enough to blow the ever lovin' crap out of just about anything.
I do not know what the state of the art is in the Firefly universe. Maybe there was some catastrophe that led to the abandonment of Earth and the subsequent loss of much technology in the 'backwaters.'
Perhaps the planets visited by the crew of Serenity are on the outer reaches of the diaspora that has spread mankind out into the stars. And just like many places in the world today, technology is not evenly distributed. The state of the art in the United States is not the same as the state of the art in a tribe in the middle of the Brazilian rainforest.
What I do know is that just like most of us do not carry a howitzer in our cars on the way to work neither does the crew of Serenity pack huge anti-ship weapons on their little cargo ship. Kind of raises the attention of the Alliance cops the same way a howitzer on your car would probably upset your local sheriff.
Okay, to bring this back to the discussion at hand, I believe a mix of weapons would be desirable, but energy weapons would have to be the weapon system of choice. In space the distance to engage a target with a kenitic weapon would be so short that you would have to literally get right on someone's back in order to hit them. Energy weapons do not have that deficit. You can fire from a greater disctance with greater precision and after a protracted firefight you don't leave your current orbit littered with debris that will endager everyone in the area (can you say friendly fire?).
Well that is my way too long-winded $.02
Hanover Fist
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HanoverFist:
I remember reading an article about anti-missle laser systems back in the late 80's or early 90'a. The point of the article was to discuss the unbelievable lethality of a high power laser. A very powerful laser does not burn or cut through the target. It is not like holding a really hot torch up to something until it melts. It is more like hitting a target with an incredibly powerful projectile made of light
It does burn through it just burns through so damn fast against unarmoured targets like missile boost stages it appears like a projectile hit (but it isn't)
During the work on SDI it really was shown that rapidly spinning an incoming warhead AND making it highly reflective meant you needed a Laser that was many times more powerful than it would need to be otherwise (I watched a documentary on the subject which showed some of the Laser Test-Firings which were often rigged to make Lasers look more effective than they were. In a couple of occasions a small explosive charge was planted on the missile "target" so it came apart spectacularly for the guest politicians and military)
If lasers were in common use you could use armour backed up by head-superconductors and heat-sinks to drastically increase the time taken to burn through a ships hull. You just need enough time to start spinning the ship and/or shoot back
Quote:
Originally posted by HanoverFist:
Okay, to bring this back to the discussion at hand, I believe a mix of weapons would be desirable, but energy weapons would have to be the weapon system of choice. In space the distance to engage a target with a kenitic weapon would be so short that you would have to literally get right on someone's back in order to hit them. Energy weapons do not have that deficit. You can fire from a greater disctance with greater precision and after a protracted firefight you don't leave your current orbit littered with debris that will endager everyone in the area (can you say friendly fire?).
Kinetic Energy weapons have an infinite range. The problem is the target moving whilst the round is in flight. That's why you would try for an ambush at Long Range. Use Lasers at medium range and go back to Kinetic Energy weapons at point-blank
It terms of damage a Kinetic Energy hit is far more devastating
Think of it this way. You have a 1 Gigawatt Power-Plant. You can use this to fire a beam but you would need to keep it on target for ten minutes to project the same energy to the target that you would if you charged capacitors for ten minutes to fire a single Railgun Round to a really high velocity
The Railgun round will likely disable the target with one hit whereas the Laser takes time to do the job (during which it fires back)
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to admit that Kinetic Energy weapons have a lot of appeal from the 'let's knock the crap out of something' perspective, but I have my doubts about how well they could be implemented in an actual firefight. No projectile in space is going to travel in a straight line. I find it hard to believe that a battle would take place in interstellar space. So most likely any fight is going to take place in a planetary system where you have very complicated orbital mechanics to worry about.
You also have the travel time of a projectile to worry about. Just like in combat now, whoever strikes first, hardest, and most accurately will usually win. (Especially considering the harshness of a space combat environment.) The effective range of an well collimated energy weapon would be far longer than an equivalent KE weapon.
I just do not believe that these two problems could be overcome from a practical standpoint.
Let me just clarify one thing. I am talking about 'dumb' projectiles, not some sort of torpedo or guided missle. I just think that given the distances you are going to have to cross in space combat, I do not think simple projectiles will get the job done.
Now let me muddy the waters a bit...What about a guided missle that contained an h-bomb pumped laser? (ala Niven and Pournelle in Footfall) You have a large torpedo that contains a laser and a small hydrogen bomb as the power source. The torpedo gets within close range and then the bomb explodes supplying the laser with power which then punches a nice hole in the offending ship. In Footfall the lasers were X-ray lasers and I thought it was kind of funny/disturbing how the stupid aliens were becoming sick and dying and at first they weren't sure why.
What do you think?
Hanover Fist
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HanoverFist:
I have to admit that Kinetic Energy weapons have a lot of appeal from the 'let's knock the crap out of something' perspective, but I have my doubts about how well they could be implemented in an actual firefight. No projectile in space is going to travel in a straight line. I find it hard to believe that a battle would take place in interstellar space. So most likely any fight is going to take place in a planetary system where you have very complicated orbital mechanics to worry about.
Orbital mechanics isn't hugely tricky in itself the maths is actually quite easy assuming that computer technology in the Firefly Verse isn't actually much worse than ours
I read once that one of the Voyager probes ended up within 10 metres of where it was aimed when it reached Jupiter. And that was using 1970's calculations!
Quote:
Originally posted by HanoverFist:
You also have the travel time of a projectile to worry about. Just like in combat now, whoever strikes first, hardest, and most accurately will usually win. (Especially considering the harshness of a space combat environment.) The effective range of an well collimated energy weapon would be far longer than an equivalent KE weapon.
Like I said you would want to get in a sneak attack with a Kinetic Energy weapon. If it was stealthed it would be very hard to detect until it arrived as it is completely inert in itself
Quote:
Originally posted by HanoverFist:
Now let me muddy the waters a bit...What about a guided missle that contained an h-bomb pumped laser? (ala Niven and Pournelle in Footfall) You have a large torpedo that contains a laser and a small hydrogen bomb as the power source
That was an idea mooted by Edward Teller (who invented the Hydrogen Bomb by the way). They never could get it to work but if you could develop a crystal lattice to absorb and funnel a nuclear blast into a coherent blast of X-Rays it would be one heck of a directed energy weapon
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Kinetic Energy weapons have an infinite range. The problem is the target moving whilst the round is in flight. That's why you would try for an ambush at Long Range. Use Lasers at medium range and go back to Kinetic Energy weapons at point-blank
I agree that a railgun would be good for a long range shot against a stationary object, or one whose flight path is absolutely certain over a course of minutes or hours. So, it's good for attacking a space station.
I also feel that a railgun would be good for point-blank shots against moving targets that do not exceed the speed of the railgun munition. (Targets in the process of accelerating beyond railgun munition speed could not be hit.)
Quote:
It terms of damage a Kinetic Energy hit is far more devastating
I do not agree.
Quote:
Think of it this way. You have a 1 Gigawatt Power-Plant. You can use this to fire a beam but you would need to keep it on target for ten minutes to project the same energy to the target that you would if you charged capacitors for ten minutes to fire a single Railgun Round to a really high velocity
The Railgun round will likely disable the target with one hit whereas the Laser takes time to do the job (during which it fires back)
I think this argument is fallacious. You are proposing that storing energy and transferring it to an object, and then using that object to transmit the energy to a target is more 'devastating' than storing energy and transmitting it directly to a target.
Surely it has occurred to you that if a Gigawatt power plant can charge capacitors for ten minutes to launch an impressive railgun slug, it can also charge capacitors for ten minutes to deliver a Petawatt+ range laser pulse? A laser pulse of such power so as to not require lengthy burn times? A laser pulse capable of explosively vaporizing matter on contact?
There may be applications for railguns in space. I simply do not think that the railgun is THE weapon of choice for Space Combat, and it is certainly not inherently superior to a laser or other directed energy weapon.
--Anthony
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Surely it has occurred to you that if a Gigawatt power plant can charge capacitors for ten minutes to launch an impressive railgun slug, it can also charge capacitors for ten minutes to deliver a Petawatt+ range laser pulse? A laser pulse of such power so as to not require lengthy burn times? A laser pulse capable of explosively vaporizing matter on contact?
Of course you could use your capacitors to do this but then you are looking at a much larger Laser Weapon to fire it which would have to be able to withstand actually firing the pulse without disintegrating itself
I'll think you'll find from an engineering standpoint it is easier to pump additional wattage into a mass-driver than a Laser Emitter you just up the field strength within the Driver
Also I am not sure how waste heat might effect a seriously powerful Laser. Heat is a bitch to get rid of when you have no atmosphere to conduct it away and you have to rely on radiation(The only Laser I ever got to play with used to get hot with continual use but I can't say I'm an expert on the things)
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The same issues of heat, stress, cooling, and size apply to a railgun that would apply to a laser. I'm not sure how the railgun is superior in this aspect.
For instance, a railgun designed to operate at 1 GW would have to be redesigned to operate at 1 TW. It would need heavier gage wire and bigger transformers and better magnets, improved cooling, etc. The same applies to a laser. A laser designed to do more would of course necessitate re-engineering.
So I'm still not understanding the point of the argument in that respect.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Incidentally, according to my research
http://www.ee.ust.hk/~eekwok/publications/2001/AP_2001_73_45.pdf.
A 25 Watt, dual pulse industrial laser arrangement can cut through a 1/8 inch thickness of stainless steel in 36 milliseconds.
I have no data on what a kilowatt, megawatt, or terawatt range laser might be capable of, but the short answer suggests itself: A lot.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The same issues of heat, stress, cooling, and size apply to a railgun that would apply to a laser. I'm not sure how the railgun is superior in this aspect.
For instance, a railgun designed to operate at 1 GW would have to be redesigned to operate at 1 TW. It would need heavier gage wire and bigger transformers and better magnets, improved cooling, etc. The same applies to a laser. A laser designed to do more would of course necessitate re-engineering.
So I'm still not understanding the point of the argument in that respect.
Mass-Drivers do not I believe get hot when in use like Lasers do. Which is where I was coming from it terms of scaling up
They do produce waste heat (everything does it's basic thermondynamics) but they do not get as hot as a Laser of equivalent wattage would and would therefore not require as much cooling gear
I would have thought that a very powerful Laser would be in danger of destroying itself because its own waste heat would be bad news for whatever it was made from surely?
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lasers use electromagnets, capacitors, transformers, and all the assorted other components that a massdriver might use.
I don't know that a laser creates more waste heat than a railgun of equivelant capability. Do you have data on this? I don't. I wouldn't even know where to go to find it. Railgun technology seems a bit more secret than laser technology.
This is probably because lasers have so many commercial uses, whereas railguns are more specifically military.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is a really good discussion, good points all around. As usual, I enter it late. Personally, I think that a mix of weapons seems fun, but I'm not sure if it would work out if one weapon was a lot better. If a medieval person predicted that we'd be using a mix of arrows and bullets today, they'd be wrong.
In Firefly, however, we don't see any space combat except for the alliance cruiser destroying the derelict, most likely with their short-range boarding-type weapons, and Jayne shooting with Vera. So we really don't know what their main space weapons are.
One important thing you're missing is that none of the lasers in sci-fi are really lasers, as someone pointed out earlier. A real laser you can't see, because:
a) It's going the speed of light.
b) Being made of light, it can't reflect light.
You can only see it dust, fog, etc., and it's only a line, not a beam that moves forewards.
Yet in every sci-fi, including Firefly, you can clearly see the beams. My explanation is that when we invent a "plasma-based beam weapon" or whatever, people will call them laser beams because they've seen all the sci-fi shows, and the companies marketing them will want people to have an instant mental image of their weapon and what it does.
The bottom line to all this rambling is that in most sci-fi reality, laser weapons are really just generic energy beams, explainable only by meaningless technobabble.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Getting rid of heat is big. Even a broad low power laser is going to cause a ship far far away to get hot. It doesn't have to be lethal, just bale to create a mission kill, if the crew is in trouble you win either way.
This discussion is overlooking some things.
Firstly, there is some kind of gravity tech being used. I think we can assume that the unit is not larger than a Firefly class ship. That right there is a terrific weapon- a directed gravity beam that creates a steep gravity gradient could wreak havoc on a ship, or cause projectiles or lasers to warp in space and become deflected. The tech is there, we just haven't seen the weapon version of it yet.
The whole electronic aspect of commo, nav and other things is seen at the level of an old, clunky ship. The state of the art must be terrific, so Alliance crusiers may very well be able to disappear if they need to, by going stealthy and deploying decoys or some such stuff.
It could very well be that long range stuff is impossible to do because of this. I would also point out that aircraft made battleships obsolete, not missiles. Therefore any sufficiently lethal weapon carried by a fighter obviates that type of ship in existence. So the Alliance cruisers are probably carriers.
"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't know that a laser creates more waste heat than a railgun of equivelant capability. Do you have data on this? I don't. I wouldn't even know where to go to find it. Railgun technology seems a bit more secret than laser technology.
I recall reading that heat build-up is more of a problem for Lasers than mass-drivers but I cannot for the life of me remember where I got it from
It's been a long time since I studied Physics at College so I'll put my hands up and say no data available here I'm afraid
I do know people who work in military R&D but I bet they won't tell me if I ask (but I'll try) if I go missing it was very secret
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kugelblitz:
That right there is a terrific weapon- a directed gravity beam that creates a steep gravity gradient could wreak havoc on a ship, or cause projectiles or lasers to warp in space and become deflected. The tech is there, we just haven't seen the weapon version of it yet.
Directed Gravity Beams. Now there's a high-tech weapon and no mistake. I've seen them called "Grasers" and "Gravy Guns" in different sci-fi
The only problem is that it would likely be easier to generate a Gravity Field than a coherent Gravity Beam. You could have the former a darn long time before mastering the latter I would think?
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would, postulating that the grav generator is not dependent on the main engine working (see OoG) then if it IS a machine then it can be amplified somehow. I also noted that the grav worked when the airlock closed up. Interesting. So there is some kind of coils or gizmo that does that, AND it doesn't worj through the hull. Yet the physics on the flight deck and living spaces are normal, usually. Some kind of local gradient there. Could that be pumped up really high before the grid burned out? Perhaps it would be spherical maybe?
Could be an expensive tech, but then again AIM-54 air to air missiles are expensive too-like 50 mil plus. The Alliance could afford it, or the Independents for that matter. So there could be a gravitic mine type object, or there could be planet based grasers too. They would just be rarely used. Those are shipkillers and probably either a whopping big weapon (e.g. on a cruiser) or some kind of big pulse warhead (a big missile). Not to be wasted on freighters.
All suppositional of course, but this doesn't leave the canon of defined tech for the show.
"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As usual, I come late to good threads....
Reviewing most of the posts, there seems to be an assumption that lasers would be powerful weapons at extreme range. This seems to me to be a fallacious assumption. Lasers beams, no matter how powerful, are going to spread over distance. Over several light-seconds, we could be talking an area equal to one hemisphere of the Moon. Unless the FF universe has seen some major advances in the degree of coherence you can achieve with a beam of light, and major power increases, so that a laser beam retains sufficient power to do damage. More likely to my mind is the possibility that lasers would be short-range weapons, esp. useful in point defense.
Someone up-thread mentioned that Joss probably didn't use lasers in the show for ship weapons because they've been "done to death" in scifi. I agree, but even more than that, they're traditional-- movie and TV scifi latched on to them because they came the closest to the old Buck Roger's/Star Wars "blaster" or "energy beam", and could be easily rendered by pre-CGI special effects.
I agree that a gravitic weapon would be the most logical ship-killer in the FF 'verse; in the future as now, almost any technology can be weaponized and will be if it provides good kill-to-power expended ratios. A graser or a "gravitic imploder lance" (see Lois McMaster Bujolds "Miles" series) would be a fearsome weapon, ripping enemy ships (and personnel) apart in horrifying ways. Again, as noted, this would be a big-ticket item not to be wasted on small fry like Firefly.
And just because I'm a contrarian (but generally nice about it) I want to put in a friendly word for guided or smart missiles. Properly stealthed and fabricated to absorb or resist existing sensor technology, a smart missile could lie in wait for a target, or attack with a full range of its own drones, counter-measures and point-defenses. For a cruiser the size of those in FF, when you talk missile, you don't necessarily need to be thinking of something you can fit in a Volkswagen. Try school-bus sized or larger.
The real problem is that we saw too little of the FF 'verse to make really sound judgments on the tech and its capabilities. At least, so far.
Just my two cents....
Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The weapon the Alliance cruiser used to destroy the transport in "Bushwhacked" to me looked like a plasma weapon. If you look it was 2 round green orbs that left a "smokey" green trail on the way to the ship and they had a definitive travel time meaning they would be effective against large slow or unmoving objects as opposed to small fighter craft. Once these orbs impacted with the transport, they reacted violently with the O2 in the ship causing the explosions and subsequent buckeling of the ships hull. A plasma weapon in ship based engagements makes sense to me since even if they missed the plasma would in a relativly short time frame, be exhausted.
The Alliance fighter in "The Message" used missles and EMP bombs as stated eariler in the thread. I believe this to be their only weapon system or perhaps they have lasers of sorts but we have not seen lasers used in any engagements outside of atmo.
In "Heart of Gold" the hand held laser was selectable between a short burst duration and a sustained beam type of fire. As to the visibility of laser fire we all know that the frequency necessary to cause any damage is out of our visible range.
My supposition on visibility of laser fire is that at the same time the weapon is fired, it "projects" a pulse or beam of visable light just prior to the release of the actual damage inducing beam. This would aid the operator of the weapon in sighting just as tracers do for machine gunners today. I realize the "visibility issue is still a problem to an extent depending on dust in the air etc. Perhaps its an issue of ionizing the air that causes the look.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Therefore any sufficiently lethal weapon carried by a fighter obviates that type of ship in existence. So the Alliance cruisers are probably carriers.
We only see one kind of Alliance capital ship, the city-like cruiser. We know they can launch gunships, from Serenity, and we know they have laser/plasma cannons, from Bushwhacked.
Quote:
I want to put in a friendly word for guided or smart missiles.
As I said before, the weapon of choice for destroying a derelict would be the cheapest possible. So guided missiles/torpedos could be in wide use, for all we know. I imagine that they would at least have some uses, like chasing down agile fighters.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would assume that the best defence technology for any ship would be the artificial gravity they produce.
Firefly has artificial gravity so I'd have to assume its pretty common.
This artifical gravity could project outwards to varying degrees to deflect incoming objects and particles. It would work as an exellent deflector shield for basic space junk. Other larger objects would probably require more energy to deflect, but that would show the balance of power.
Of course we've never seen a space battle in the firefly 'verse, so we don't know.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Never understood why people would use Lasers in space anyway? If you've got the power use it to run a Railgun/Mass Driver.
Yeah, but railguns/mass drivers require you to throw away mass of some description, mass that it cost you reaction mass/fuel to loft into space in the first place. Not to mention adding random thrust to your vehicle whenever you fire (Newton's third, remember.)
Lasers have drawbacks, but at least you don't get recoil from a flashlight.
RocketJock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Lasers have drawbacks, but at least you don't get recoil from a flashlight.
RocketJock
Actually, come to think of it, you would get recoil from a laser-- photon pressure is as real as any mechanical impulse. There have been proposals to use high powered lasers as propulsion devices (tech is a bit out of our reach at the moment, though). If a laser is ground based its not very noticeable-- the laser's pushing against the whole mass of the planet. In a microgravity environment, though, this might be a serious consideration. There's a math assignment for somebody-- figure out the light pressure/recoil exerted by a one-terawatt laser (my physics texts are buried in my attic, I think).
Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
In reference to the AI issue
THIS is why I have such a problem with the whole "Love-bot" thing in the 'leaked' audition list. . .
If there's sufficient technology in the FF universe to come up with "Love bots". . .then why the hell do they use SLAVES? And I mean on the ADVANCED worlds, like Persephone. . .not the rim worlds.
Think about it. We're at the year 2004, and we only JUST NOW have a gorram automated VACCUM cleaner. A robot capable of taking the place of a human lover. . .that's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY beyond the 'tech standard' that Joss has already given us.
Laser weapons? We've seen ONE laser weapon in the show. . .it was bulky, awkward and the battery died after three or four good shots. I sit in the cutting edge of combat technology for hours every day and I can tell you. . .the more you over-think the plumbing, the easier it is to clog the drain. Nothing beats a good ol' slugthrower for doin' damage. More efficient, more effective.
==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."
So, what're you saying Static, no Love-Bots??
They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....
Oh yeah,
you, FOX TV!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In "Out of Gas" we simply don't see the ship move because the camera is moving with the ship. We see nothing that tells us the ship is moving or not. The fact is the ship is moving to slow to see any stars moves and the only other thing to tells us if Serenity is moving is the other ship and it is matching the movement of the Serenity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The ship destroyed in "Bushwacked" is seen getting hit by glowing green speres which leave some kind of gas behind. They appear to move slowly.
We could only be able to see the drive transients of whatever weapon that is. By which I mean that there could be a missile/pod in front of the green orb, which is not visible at the distance shown. It could be a very thin little sliver of black, or a little black sphere*. So the weapon could NOT be the green orb, or it could be that the orb WAS the weapon and we seeing at all armed up and ready to detonate. So the there could be a plasma field generator inside that orb, but I beg to differ.
(*The missiles used by the fighter were atmospheric missiles, they needed to be aerodynamic)
'Space' Missiles, by which I mean guided anti ship weapons, should probably be very stealthy and fairly smart. They should be able to lie in wait for a target, stealthed, with only passive sensors operating. They would then activate when their target was inside their range, based upon the velocity of that target (like would they be capable of altering their relative velocity to match that of tthe target enough for their payload to be effective). That implies that they would need to be smart to do this, and have fairly good sensors that could detect a target in time for them to intercept it.
Of course the faster a target is going the narrower their intercept window. This isn't SF level stuff though anti aircraft missile batteries do this now. Yet it could be that a sufficiently fast ship could be traveling too fast for a stealthy missile/mine to kill it, unless that ship had the extreme misfortuine to essentially run into the detonation radius of the missile/mine. Like a direct hit from a flak gun in WWII. Rare. Given the volume and distances in space, very, very rare.
Since the missile/mine may in fact be directed at a maneuvering target, BY a maneuvering target, or sewn near a likely avenue of approach, or deployed from a moving ship in the general direction of an area of space that should be denied to an enemy, they may be in several shapes or sizes to accommodate the mission parameters. They would probably be as spherical as possible, so that they could move in any direction without stressing any major components, and stow easier when they were, umm, stowed. Hmm, littlel cigar shapes stack the best in contained environments. They COULd be little cigar shpaes then, or maybe M&M shapes. Mmm, M&MS.
Or they could simply be multi mission munitions, all the same size and shape. The user would simply dial in the necessry mission profile (or the munition would) and let fly. A close in taget that is moving slowly could be a profile wherein the missile would move slowly also, ensuring maximal weapon effects.
Why slowly? Well, this is suppositional, but I think that such a weapon would eat itself as it moved. The net energy effects would depend upon how much energy was left in the weapon plus its velocity upon impact, in one type of scenario. So at short range, my missile would move slowly (non moving target and slow moving firing platform-the Alliance cruiser) still have lots of Balonium left in its engine core/tanks/ magnetic bottle, and then make a nice biiig energy transfer when it reached its lethal radius (the ship that was shot in Bushwacked)
The same weapon may have to expend energy to pursue a faster target but would or could have collateral effects related to its velocity -shrapnel if it is an area effect weapon or atraight up impact if it needs to be contact with something solid and THEN detonate whatever Balonium was left in its tanks.
So at extreme velocities, it would simply be a chunk of mass, with very little maneuvering ability since it expnded all of its Balonium getting there.
Considering the distances that engagements could occur in space (and they are orders of magnitude over what we see in any conflicts here on earth) there should be two arming modes-area effect and point impact. The deadliness of a given detonation would be related to how much energy+B
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nice ideas Kugelblitz. That's a possibility we never considered before. Though I can't see the use in having a big green trail on a missile, or a laser, for that matter. While it would help you target, you could just give all gunners, pilots and commanders a monoculer that would fill in the weapon trails along with tactical information, like Apache helicopter pilots use today. Though it certainly wouldn't look as cool, and this is a TV show. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Absolutely, launch transients are a big no no.
Yet they look reeeeally cool to the laymen.
"We are exporting democracy because we have all of this unused democracy lying around at home. Why not make some money doing it?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME