Laser battles in space.

POSTED BY: Hjermsted
UPDATED: Monday, March 22, 2004 21:20
VIEWED: 21470
PAGE 2 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

VETERAN

Sunday, December 7, 2003 3:45 AM

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.

SAMUS

Sunday, December 7, 2003 7:02 AM

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.

EPRESSMAN617

Friday, March 19, 2004 8:18 AM

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.

HOTPOINT

Friday, March 19, 2004 12:35 PM

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

GUNRUNNER

Friday, March 19, 2004 1:40 PM

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

HOTPOINT

Friday, March 19, 2004 1:59 PM

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

GUNRUNNER

Friday, March 19, 2004 2:59 PM

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

CARTAGIA

Friday, March 19, 2004 3:14 PM

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.

STATIC

Friday, March 19, 2004 3:18 PM

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."

HOTPOINT

Friday, March 19, 2004 3:22 PM

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE