Bullets going bye bye?

[TransformerRobot]

Another thing is that, if your opponent is a manned spacecraft, all you would have to do is poke a hole in it and depressurization will take care of the rest. Now, though lasers can be powerful, they would have to be focused on a single spot for a long period of time, and if the enemy moves, your laser would have to move at the same rate in the same direction in order to keep it's target. Not easy to do. Compared to that, mass propelled weapon could be led ahead of time, fired and then the opponent could attempt to maneuver out of the way of the incoming object before it impacts the hull. With the fact that currently, mere flecks of paint are causing severe damage to spacecraft, (source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html) items not intended to do damage in the first place, imagine the damage an object which was hurtled into space with the intention of causing severe damage to spacecraft would be capable of.

So, all I have to do to destroy the ship is to puncture it with a 9mm bullet?

But what if they have deflector shielding? Remember, it's the distant future, and I don't think Master Chief could easily take out an enemy fighter ship with just a shotgun.

 

[ceacar99]

The momentum of firing a shell is negligible upon a space ship, because the space ship is much more massive than the artillery.

considering how little of a thruster is needed to correct the course on a ship i would doubt you. also considering that a cannon like the 120mm on a m1 abrams exerts roughly 12 million joules of energy when fired we know there is going to be some sort of a push back. i mean the gun does cause the massive tank to move a little on its tracks. it should certainly effect most spacecraft.

 

[Kosdu]

The momentum of the projectile alone is irrelevant, it does not matter whether a missile hits a car or a car hits a missile.

What matters is the relative momentum as compared to the target, and vice versa.

 

[ceacar99]

The momentum of the projectile alone is irrelevant, it does not matter whether a missile hits a car or a car hits a missile.

What matters is the relative momentum as compared to the target, and vice versa.

You worded that strangely.... Did you mean that all that matters is the momentum of the impact. It doesnt matter if a man runs onto a spear or the spear thrusts into him, all that matters is the actual momentum involved?

I wonder if that's actually true... Energy is 1/2mass*velocity^2. That should translate to the kinetic energy contained within an object as far as I understand. If that is true then should the speed be the same on impact then the lighter object doing the "thrust" in the two experiments should result in a lighter hit.

Also one thinks about a situation where projectile A is flung at object B. Projectile A is traveling straight along the X axis and object B is traveling at high speed along the Y axis. In this situation should not the speed of object B act much the same as sloped armor reducing the ability of projectile A to penetrate? Basically a possible theory is the faster one moves in in the opposite axis of the projectile the less the kinetic energy that the projectile will be able to exert. Of course this effect may actually exist but may requires such a speed difference that its pointless.

essentially the idea is that its like swatting at a projectile from the side, overriding and redirecting the energy of the projectile.

 

[Pipsqueak]

Really the idea is simply to direct as much energy as you can onto your opponent, as quickly as you can, on as concentrated a location as you can. If your laser has a good amount of diffusion over the distance of a million kilometers simply because your optics aren't that good then you've got a problem. Unless you have an extremely powerful laser which can cause instant damage (And that is possible, a powerful enough laser will literally shatter metal. Needless to say, we cannot make those) you're going to have a hell of a time killing him. Why? Well you've got to continuously hit a target which is very much trying NOT to get hit. He is going to be very far away, which means you are not going to be able to optically track him. Meanwhile he's going to be maneuvering unpredictably and throwing out a HUGE amount of electromagnetic energy in the hopes that it will make it that much harder for your radar, IR tracking, whatever to get a firm lock. The result is that your target is not a 100m image on your radar screen, it's a 2km wide blob of jamming that you're trying very hard to see through. That's not going to be easy to maintain a solid laser lock on, much less trying to hit a target with a shell at a million klics.

In any sort of long distance contest you either need very, very good aim or a guided projectile. Which of course is where missiles come into play. A nuclear missile doesn't require a direct hit, and focused nuclear weapons to direct the blast towards an enemy are possible. Not only that but as the missiles sensor gets closer, it will have an easier time seeing through your opponents jamming.

Now say you've decided that you want to throw a 55kg slug of a metal at an opponent. Cool! Now all you have to do is hit the guy. Or you could hedge your bets and throw a 55kg tactical nuke at your opponent so that you now just need to hit a 10km bubble of space around him instead of a 100m area that is your opponent. Better odds, still not great.

Point is, until we develop very very accurate systems, and dramatically more powerful lasers, combat at range is going to consist of trying to get a nuke close to your opponent before he can do that to you.

 

[ArielMT]

Another huge problem is that, besides being farther apart than the Earth and Moon are, a million kilometers is 3.3 light seconds. That means relativistic effects take over. That means your passive scan readings are more than 3 seconds old, your active scan readings are almost 7 seconds old, and you have to aim at where your target will be 3 seconds after you fire your laser beam.

The only practical alternatives are sending in recoverable drones with bullets, conventional weapons, laser weapons, or all three for closer, more conventional strikes, or sending in expendable drones to Juggernaut the target.

 

[ceacar99]

Another huge problem is that, besides being farther apart than the Earth and Moon are, a million kilometers is 3.3 light seconds. That means relativistic effects take over. That means your passive scan readings are more than 3 seconds old, your active scan readings are almost 7 seconds old, and you have to aim at where your target will be 3 seconds after you fire your laser beam.

The only practical alternatives are sending in recoverable drones with bullets, conventional weapons, laser weapons, or all three for closer, more conventional strikes, or sending in expendable drones to Juggernaut the target.

or doing the old fashioned "close with the target and when you think your close enough get closer". light drones actually may be a common option though because they could actually be VERY cheap in space. once your actually out there flight and navigation isnt as hard as in an atmosphere.

 

[Duality Jack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-beam_weapon

Seriously, if you send the particles out in enough frequency and at a high enough speed you can cut a craft in two using shearing mechanics, so you can evade the issues of sending much mass. It has a massively higher lethality than laser weaponry and most armor and shielding would not be noticeably relevant.

 

[RockerFox]

close up

I must find this weapon and use it for my own nefarious purposes

 

[TransformerRobot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-beam_weapon

Seriously, if you send the particles out in enough frequency and at a high enough speed you can cut a craft in two using shearing mechanics, so you can evade the issues of sending much mass. It has a massively higher lethality than laser weaponry and most armor and shielding would not be noticeably relevant.

So, like a rail gun?

 

[RockerFox]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_GZnrr1nw
Did somebody say space laser?

 

[Artillery Spam]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-beam_weapon

Seriously, if you send the particles out in enough frequency and at a high enough speed you can cut a craft in two using shearing mechanics, so you can evade the issues of sending much mass. It has a massively higher lethality than laser weaponry and most armor and shielding would not be noticeably relevant.

Or you could just set it to a certain frequency that the beam itself just fries all of the electronics of the vehicle you're shooting at.

The only real things that'll save you from the ferocity of a particle beam are electromagnetic fields (you seriously better pray it's a charged partial beam, because if the enemy is firing neutralized particles at you, your EM field is more or less useless), some sort of ablative surface armor or a thick cloud of particulates. If it strikes a metal force, whatever is behind that surface (like the crew of a tank) will probably instantly succumb to the ravaging effects of radiation.

Though to be real, it's gotten to the point where traditional armor has been substituted for hard-kill defense systems (like the CIWS), soft-kill defense systems (like ECM), agility, speed, and stealth systems on account of the potency of modern weaponry.

Kind of OT: Someone needs to revive the gyrojet.

 

[Belluavir]

Couldnt you reflect a laser weapon with a mirror? Wear mirror armor and coat you spaceship in a reflective material. Problem solved.

 

[Kosdu]

Couldnt you reflect a laser weapon with a mirror? Wear mirror armor and coat you spaceship in a reflective material. Problem solved.

Modern space craft is pretty much impervious to all laser weaponry.

It works on heat. Exiting/entering the atomosphere is hot.




Just use a railgun, it's low tech and powerful.

 

[TransformerRobot]

Or you could just set it to a certain frequency that the beam itself just fries all of the electronics of the vehicle you're shooting at.

The only real things that'll save you from the ferocity of a particle beam are electromagnetic fields (you seriously better pray it's a charged partial beam, because if the enemy is firing neutralized particles at you, your EM field is more or less useless), some sort of ablative surface armor or a thick cloud of particulates. If it strikes a metal force, whatever is behind that surface (like the crew of a tank) will probably instantly succumb to the ravaging effects of radiation.

Though to be real, it's gotten to the point where traditional armor has been substituted for hard-kill defense systems (like the CIWS), soft-kill defense systems (like ECM), agility, speed, and stealth systems on account of the potency of modern weaponry.

Kind of OT: Someone needs to revive the gyrojet.

How fast are most particle beams? And can you see them normally? If you can see them in space and if your ship is faster than they are, that should mean you have a slightly better chance of avoiding them.

 

[Fallowfox]

considering how little of a thruster is needed to correct the course on a ship i would doubt you. also considering that a cannon like the 120mm on a m1 abrams exerts roughly 12 million joules of energy when fired we know there is going to be some sort of a push back. i mean the gun does cause the massive tank to move a little on its tracks. it should certainly effect most spacecraft.

The mass and relative velocity of the shell to the space ship will determine how important the effect is. Bullets coming out of a ship are not very massive, despite being fast, so only small amounts of fuel need be expended to negate the momentum they impart. This is why their effects can be considered negligible.

Larger shells may not be, but in such a case a guided shell that is deployed at low velocity, and then fires its own engines is a likely alternative.

 

[Artillery Spam]

Modern space craft is pretty much impervious to all laser weaponry.

It works on heat. Exiting/entering the atomosphere is hot.




Just use a railgun, it's low tech and powerful.

Well, you need to pick the right weapon for the right job. If you're fighting in space, a light speed weapon like a laser might come in handy, since military-grade spacecraft are going to be moving about at incredibly high speeds that may (or may not) enable them to effectively evade incoming railgun rounds. Though, I guess this is where delta-v/conservation of momentum comes in (which makes using single shot 'dumb' munitions relatively useless) , which would point to shotgun-like railguns (harder to dodge) and smart munitions (more likely to score a hit). Lasers can also be fairly potent, like UV lasers, x-ray lasers or gamma ray lasers.

How fast are most particle beams? And can you see them normally? If you can see them in space and if your ship is faster than they are, that should mean you have a slightly better chance of avoiding them.

Modern particle accelerators normally have particles moving about at 99.9 percent the speed of light. I believe you could also see them.

 

[Inpw]

I like the particle beam idea and for large projectiles the railgun accelerates stuff pretty effectively. Read up now that a 3.2 kg thing was accelerated to Mach 7. Definitely technology to work on still to make them any useful in the combat environments you guys are discussing here.

There is however one giant problem. Energy requirements.

Particle accelerators also uses electromagnetism to accelerate stuff and requires an immense amount of energy to do so even with just a narrow stream of protons. It's really so ineffective considering the damage you want to do.

I'm not sure about the energy efficiency of a railgun but can assure you that packing a mobile electric source that will give the projectiles the same amount of energy as a bullet is larger than a shell casing.

 

[Gnarl]

Alright here is what I think, for what it is worth. first, the space craft that are capable of traveling out there for all purposes would have to be able to withstand the impacts of small meteors and other space debri so our regular guns would be worthless. bullets would do nothing but bounce off.
second lasers are a concentrated form of light and can be altered by mere electromagnetic fields around the ship.
Third particle energy weapons can not be hand held as they require a massive electro-magnetic coil (such as an excellerator) to do any good.
No the weapon of the future was developed by the british about 15 years ago. Now all they have to do is make it small enough to be hand held and a larger version to mounted as a cannon on a ship. It uses light or rather neutrino's to excelerate particles of antimatter and destroy any matter they come in contact with. the English used this method to prove the existence of antimatter, originally. Who knows what technology will do in the years to come. Just remember when I was a young adult, these computer things you all take for granted did not exist!

 

[Fallowfox]

Please correct me if this is not correct. Photons, which are the electromagnetic force-carrier, do not interact/get deflected with 'mere' magnetic fields. Think of the situation like waves on a pond. The waves pass through each other. They do not bounce off one another.

The rest of your comment is...incomprehensible. 'Light or rather neutrinos' does not make sense. The two are not interchangeable terms. Light is a stream of photons, the particle that mediates the electromagnetic force. Neutrinos do not interact via the electromagnetic force.

I can not find any material to confirm this story about English scientists proving anti matter's existence 'with neutrinos'. It's completely wrong.

Anti matter's existence was confirmed by the American Carl David Anderson in 1932, via his discovery of the positron/antielectron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_David_Anderson

He proved it by observing the tracks of ionised atoms in a cloud chamber, as energised photons from space interacted with the regular matter in the chamber, resulting in nuclear reactions that liberated antimatter.

 

[Oshy]

To me it sounds possible. I mean yeah, it probably is possible. But it would probably be expensive. Like, really expensive. ._.

I personally like bows, crossbows, etc. Guns will eventually be redone, wont they? I think it sounds scary >_< Maybe its only me, but with that much power..

Yep, we'r screwed! Nope.

 

[TransformerRobot]

Well, I don't know. If we're at this stage in developing laser weaponry, they might have a fairly big presence alongside bullets and artillery shells.

 

[Duality Jack]

Or you could just set it to a certain frequency that the beam itself just fries all of the electronics of the vehicle you're shooting at.

The only real things that'll save you from the ferocity of a particle beam are electromagnetic fields (you seriously better pray it's a charged partial beam, because if the enemy is firing neutralized particles at you, your EM field is more or less useless), some sort of ablative surface armor or a thick cloud of particulates. If it strikes a metal force, whatever is behind that surface (like the crew of a tank) will probably instantly succumb to the ravaging effects of radiation.

Though to be real, it's gotten to the point where traditional armor has been substituted for hard-kill defense systems (like the CIWS), soft-kill defense systems (like ECM), agility, speed, and stealth systems on account of the potency of modern weaponry.

Kind of OT: Someone needs to revive the gyrojet.

Em fields would have to be sent out with more force than the projected beam to have a significant effect. and given the fact that Particle weapons could be aimed via magnetic field, the aim is fast as computing is possible. It would be all about spotting foes first and using soft kill tech.

So, like a rail gun?

Think more like beam weapon that functions like cutter potent enough to break compounds into base elements from afar.

 

[Torrijos-sama]

Some Mylar or iron chaff will be enough to disrupt any particle weapon in a hard kill system like the Drozd or Iron Fist APS.

 

[CerbrusNL]

Okay, I never thought of the cost-ineffectiveness of lasers.

But is there some sort of last resort scenario they would be used for? What could be something too powerful for our beloved slugs and shells?

What about explosive bullets... With rocket engines. Y'know, nukes. (Or other, less drastic missle weapons)

There's a third category of weapons people seem to be forgetting about.

Sure, nukes would be as little cost-inefficient if the target is just a single invader on your space station, but in that case, bullets would be just fine.
When fighting a alien mothership on the other hand...