Could some Sci-Fi weapons work IRL?

[Nuke]

most laser based anti-personnel weaponry would violate the geneva convention. im sure a diode pumped solid state laser and appropriate battery packs could fit in a pack and be wielded by a soldier with current technology.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Nuke

[PB666]

Oh geeze, back to weapons again, haven't we learn weapons and space are self-defeating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_laser

This is the only weapon you will need in space, pulse ruby laser will have the best targeting, you'll need a varient because metals can be designed to resist particular frequencies. 3 frequency variants should suffice. No pesky debris field to deal with, simply cut the wires to solar panel, external coolant lines, or pit the docking ports - the will force the crew to need to evacuate on the escape pods and you can bide your time to puncture the hull.

 

 

[fredinno]

16 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

YES. No SRBs, though.

Michael Name	Pre-Michael Name
Shuttle 1	(Can't find it in my copy)
Shuttle 2	(Can't find it in my copy)
Shuttle 3	Challenger*
Shuttle 4	Atlantis

* Book was released in 1985, takes place ~1995

I would anticipate the others to be Columbia and Discovery, but Columbia is heavier, so maybe they'd build Endeavor. Or rate Enterprise for space use. Which brings me to the question of why you'd need 4 space shuttles with ETs on a battleship? Those are pretty useless and OP for fighters.

Also, wouldn't using 2 existing shuttles (or even up to 4) pretty much end the Shuttle Program? Wouldn't it be better (not to mention lighter) to build new Shuttles for the Orion Drive, or new Shuttles for the Earth-to-space fleet?

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Tested by time. Works in any medium. Energy-independent. Environment-friendly. Always ready to use. Teach yourself to use in 10 minutes.

  Hide contents

 

It can't go to space...

 

12 hours ago, WestAir said:

Why is this a weapon and not a cool cylindrical space station?

It MIGHT have something to do with the Orion drive at the bottom...

8 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

Fun stuff, in 1984, the Soviet used to develop a laser pistol:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/10/08/soviet-laser-pistol/

Nope, it doesn't burn a hole in anything, just enough to disable optics of satellites, which is what it is intended for.

I wonder if you can make one today with the necessary power density to burn through metal (at least cast iron), or if you would just need a battery pack strapped onto your back to make that realistic.

And what was that pistol supposed to be used at/with? Almaz? Why?

7 hours ago, Nuke said:

most laser based anti-personnel weaponry would violate the geneva convention. im sure a diode pumped solid state laser and appropriate battery packs could fit in a pack and be wielded by a soldier with current technology.

Why would it violate the Geneva Convention?

6 hours ago, PB666 said:

Oh geeze, back to weapons again, haven't we learn weapons and space are self-defeating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_laser

This is the only weapon you will need in space, pulse ruby laser will have the best targeting, you'll need a varient because metals can be designed to resist particular frequencies. 3 frequency variants should suffice. No pesky debris field to deal with, simply cut the wires to solar panel, external coolant lines, or pit the docking ports - the will force the crew to need to evacuate on the escape pods and you can bide your time to puncture the hull.

 

 

I wouldn't just go make that conclusion. I would want conventional (possibly supersonic) bullets in case the power system was damaged, or possibly space mines carrying a bomb and spiky debris...

[PB666]

18 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I would anticipate the others to be Columbia and Discovery, but Columbia is heavier, so maybe they'd build Endeavor. Or rate Enterprise for space use. Which brings me to the question of why you'd need 4 space shuttles with ETs on a battleship? Those are pretty useless and OP for fighters.

Also, wouldn't using 2 existing shuttles (or even up to 4) pretty much end the Shuttle Program? Wouldn't it be better (not to mention lighter) to build new Shuttles for the Orion Drive, or new Shuttles for the Earth-to-space fleet?

It can't go to space...

 

It MIGHT have something to do with the Orion drive at the bottom...

I wonder if you can make one today with the necessary power density to burn through metal (at least cast iron), or if you would just need a battery pack strapped onto your back to make that realistic.

And what was that pistol supposed to be used at/with? Almaz? Why?

Why would it violate the Geneva Convention?

I wouldn't just go make that conclusion. I would want conventional (possibly supersonic) bullets in case the power system was damaged, or possibly space mines carrying a bomb and spiky debris...

From bad ideas to worse. Do you know how mines work? If they have disabled your electrical system, its better to abandon ship, before they disable your escape pods. Spikey space mines would make you the world enemy #1.

Think about it, in space that conventional gun has a range of maybe 1/2 mile, well calibrated maybe a kilometer. The laser can self target up to 10,000 miles, we can laser target stuff on the moon, the intensity per unit area drops, but that can be compensated by multiple devices and increased intensity.

The other problem, at a 1/4 mile you blast a pressurized craft with a bullet, you have no idea which way the debris is going to go if the pressure hull cracks, the debris could come right back at you. In fact a good defense would create an interior pressure sensitve bag of ball bearings, so that if anyone cracks your hull they are going to be pummeled by chaff.

The best strategy is to disable the craft and force any inhabitants to abandon it. then you can tow it off to someplace safe and destroy it or scrap it.

Remember the wrath of khan, two dimensional thinking in a three dimensional nebula. You don't want to use conventional logic in space.

Edited March 25, 2016 by PB666

[HebaruSan]

11 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Also, wouldn't using 2 existing shuttles (or even up to 4) pretty much end the Shuttle Program? Wouldn't it be better (not to mention lighter) to build new Shuttles for the Orion Drive, or new Shuttles for the Earth-to-space fleet?

Circumstances in the book

Spoiler

had already ended the Shuttle program in practical terms, not to mention all life in India. Humanity was desperate and racing to build whatever it could to go fight the aliens.

 

[StrandedonEarth]

13 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Also, wouldn't using 2 existing shuttles (or even up to 4) pretty much end the Shuttle Program? Wouldn't it be better (not to mention lighter) to build new Shuttles for the Orion Drive, or new Shuttles for the Earth-to-space fleet?

I don't think what I have to say is much of a spoiler, but what the hey. Bear in mind that this was a novel,

Spoiler

where Earth was under siege by an alien race, and Micheal was built hush-hush with what they could scrounge together at the time. Extra crafts were needed as fighters and distractions, and they were only going to get away with one launch. Shuttle orbiters were the only spacecraft available at the time, with heat shields to armor against the lasers the aliens were using, and they needed the ET's (which could also soak up a lot of laser energy) to have any decent dV and TWR available. Yes, a lot of the difficulties of igniting the SSME's were ignored since, again, fiction and all. 

Another thing about Orion drives is that heavier is actually better, to absorb the shocks

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

From bad ideas to worse. Do you know how mines work? If they have disabled your electrical system, its better to abandon ship, before they disable your escape pods. Spikey space mines would make you the world enemy #1.

Think about it, in space that conventional gun has a range of maybe 1/2 mile, well calibrated maybe a kilometer. The laser can self target up to 10,000 miles, we can laser target stuff on the moon, the intensity per unit area drops, but that can be compensated by multiple devices and increased intensity.

The other problem, at a 1/4 mile you blast a pressurized craft with a bullet, you have no idea which way the debris is going to go if the pressure hull cracks, the debris could come right back at you. In fact a good defense would create an interior pressure sensitve bag of ball bearings, so that if anyone cracks your hull they are going to be pummeled by chaff.

The best strategy is to disable the craft and force any inhabitants to abandon it. then you can tow it off to someplace safe and destroy it or scrap it.

Remember the wrath of khan, two dimensional thinking in a three dimensional nebula. You don't want to use conventional logic in space.

And escape pods are already a bad idea, except maybe for important people, like the commanders, or highly important cargo. On a military ship, you would honestly rather save mass and have people fight to the death, or fight and retreat with the ship whole (which is also hugely expensive).

And the bullets were for short range fire with a damaged radiator or power supply. I would imagine you'd have multiples to make sure it won't be so bad if damaged. Another reason you would want to use guns instead of lasers is to make yourself less visible in the infrared via power radiation being decreased- good infrared detectors can detect everything, but need to be cryo-cooled, making their use limited to large vessels. Smaller vessels with basic infrared sensors might not detect a battleship until it is too late.

 

And I was thinking space mines as defensive procedures, for, say a space station, or around an asteroid base, and the spikes all being deployed in one direction. It might actually be better to just ignore the bombs, and make a spike "wall" instead. More a shield than a weapon, but ok.

Also, you can use space brooms to get rid of the debris from a space battle once it is over

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom

49 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I don't think what I have to say is much of a spoiler, but what the hey. Bear in mind that this was a novel,

  Hide contents

where Earth was under siege by an alien race, and Micheal was built hush-hush with what they could scrounge together at the time. Extra crafts were needed as fighters and distractions, and they were only going to get away with one launch. Shuttle orbiters were the only spacecraft available at the time, with heat shields to armor against the lasers the aliens were using, and they needed the ET's (which could also soak up a lot of laser energy) to have any decent dV and TWR available. Yes, a lot of the difficulties of igniting the SSME's were ignored since, again, fiction and all. 

Another thing about Orion drives is that heavier is actually better, to absorb the shocks

The Shuttle TPS is pretty weak, as shown on STS-27 and STS-107. I don't think it would take many laser fires, if any.

[StrandedonEarth]

37 minutes ago, fredinno said:

The Shuttle TPS is pretty weak, as shown on STS-27 and STS-107. I don't think it would take many laser fires, if any.

Lasers transfer energy, heating what they are shone on. The tiles can withstand and re-radiate the heat, while insulating what lies underneath. What the tiles can't take is kinetic impacts, which a laser cannot impart.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Lasers transfer energy, heating what they are shone on. The tiles can withstand and re-radiate the heat, while insulating what lies underneath. What the tiles can't take is kinetic impacts, which a laser cannot impart.

Tiles are not completely solid, well placed pulse laser could blast paticles and erode the tiles, no problem, they reflect radiant heat as long as the energy density is not to high, if you exceed surface energies to vaporize the surface atoms its just like any other material. 

[kiwi1960]

Lasers and rail guns... modern weapons would not violate the Geneva convention...

 

But putting them into space would... I think its only good for the USA and Soviet Union (Russia) but it may well be a universal agreement that most nations have sign ed now, but there is a ban on putting weapons into space.... having said that... China deployed a satellite hunter killer into space and it worked... was immediately condemned by other nations for being idiots.... that and making the Kessler problem worse.....

 

[StrandedonEarth]

2 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Tiles are not completely solid, well placed pulse laser could blast paticles and erode the tiles, no problem, they reflect radiant heat as long as the energy density is not to high, if you exceed surface energies to vaporize the surface atoms its just like any other material. 

Hey, nothing is perfect, but I'm sure they'd last longer than other materials. And in the context of the novel, it's a readily available somewhat 'protected' vehicle..

[Nuke]

6 hours ago, fredinno said:

Why would it violate the Geneva Convention?

because of the potential for blinding civilians. sure you could issue laser goggles to your soldiers. but stray beams and spots would blind anyone else who looks in their general direction.

[PB666]

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Hey, nothing is perfect, but I'm sure they'd last longer than other materials. And in the context of the novel, it's a readily available somewhat 'protected' vehicle..

But a pulse rubidium laser would be effective a miles and has little gravitational effect, railguns do. 

[cantab]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

Blinding as collateral damage of a weapon designed to have another effect is not prohibited.

[insert_name]

6 hours ago, cantab said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

Blinding as collateral damage of a weapon designed to have another effect is not prohibited.

That makes sense, if I stabbed you in the right places I could blind you, but sharp objects aren't banned by Geneva

[magnemoe]

On 24.3.2016 at 11:27 PM, kiwi1960 said:

Lasers and rail guns... modern weapons would not violate the Geneva convention...

 

But putting them into space would... I think its only good for the USA and Soviet Union (Russia) but it may well be a universal agreement that most nations have sign ed now, but there is a ban on putting weapons into space.... having said that... China deployed a satellite hunter killer into space and it worked... was immediately condemned by other nations for being idiots.... that and making the Kessler problem worse.....

 

Soviet put an canon in space once, both they and China has tested satellites who blow up. US prefer to launch the interceptor on an ballistic trajectory. Harder to defend against but far harder to make and can not hit stuff in high orbits.

[kiwi1960]

3 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Soviet put an canon in space once, both they and China has tested satellites who blow up. US prefer to launch the interceptor on an ballistic trajectory. Harder to defend against but far harder to make and can not hit stuff in high orbits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

It does not ban conventional weapons in space.

[magnemoe]

58 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

It does not ban conventional weapons in space.

Yes, my point, main issue is lack of need for space weapons. 

 

[kiwi1960]

27 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, my point, main issue is lack of need for space weapons. 

 

Space weapons is any weapon put into space, be it nuclear (not allowed) or TNT.... or lasers or a rail gun.

The only weapon banned, it seems, is nuclear and not for any real reason militarily... more of a concern about what happens if it fall out of orbit in a mishap. Can you imagine that landing on New York city, it probably won't explode, but that stuff can still kill thousands just by the nature of its existence, namely, being radioactive.

Any weapons in space would be a nightmare. The fact remains that under U.N. space law, if any nation interferes with a nations satellite, )dead or alive) it can be considered and act of war... its one reason why no one has ever seriously dealt with all the space junk in orbit.

As for need, well, knock out the U.S. Military satellites and you disable its communications AND access to drones, meaning, its the first thing you would want to knock out in a war... so... need? Depends how badly you wanted to win a war?

Edited March 27, 2016 by kiwi1960

[PB666]

ALot of junk is not satellites, it parts of satellites, which I think is fair game.

We have ground based stuff that can, in a pinch take out and rogue acting satellites.

 

[pincushionman]

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

ALot of junk is not satellites, it parts of satellites, which I think is fair game.

We have ground based stuff that can, in a pinch take out and rogue acting satellites.

The thing about weapons with the ability to affect the stuff that's "fair game," and the stuff that belongs to you, is that you are then perfectly capable of affecting everyone else's stuff, too.

[magnemoe]

11 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

Space weapons is any weapon put into space, be it nuclear (not allowed) or TNT.... or lasers or a rail gun.

The only weapon banned, it seems, is nuclear and not for any real reason militarily... more of a concern about what happens if it fall out of orbit in a mishap. Can you imagine that landing on New York city, it probably won't explode, but that stuff can still kill thousands just by the nature of its existence, namely, being radioactive.

Any weapons in space would be a nightmare. The fact remains that under U.N. space law, if any nation interferes with a nations satellite, )dead or alive) it can be considered and act of war... its one reason why no one has ever seriously dealt with all the space junk in orbit.

As for need, well, knock out the U.S. Military satellites and you disable its communications AND access to drones, meaning, its the first thing you would want to knock out in a war... so... need? Depends how badly you wanted to win a war?

Nuclear bombs require an triggering sequence to go of.
One issue with nuclear weapon in space is that if you put the orbits just right you could do an fast surprise attack by doing an hard deorbit burn. 
However as you have to wait for the orbit to pass over target you could not use it for an fast counter strike.
This make it pretty useless compared to missiles on submarines 

None has bothered with space junk as it would be very expensive and its not an serious problem. 

[kiwi1960]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Nuclear bombs require an triggering sequence to go of.
One issue with nuclear weapon in space is that if you put the orbits just right you could do an fast surprise attack by doing an hard deorbit burn. 
However as you have to wait for the orbit to pass over target you could not use it for an fast counter strike.
This make it pretty useless compared to missiles on submarines 

None has bothered with space junk as it would be very expensive and its not an serious problem. 

The problem isn't nuclear weapons, its the radioactivity .... that is BAD stuff.... an explosion would be worse, but to cover a vast area with an invisible killer?

A Russian bird did hit Canada... the clean up cost a fortune....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

Further... space junk "not a problem"?????????? Where do you live? Mars?

http://www.space.com/28288-space-junk-problem-conference.html

Have you never heard of the Kessler Syndrome?

 

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, kiwi1960 said:

Further... space junk "not a problem"??????????

Edit: Let me rephrase this: This is  My reply is getting off topic, and there's a better thread for the space junk discussion, so I'll respond in that thread.

Edited March 27, 2016 by StrandedonEarth

[kiwi1960]

10 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

This is getting off topic, and there's a better thread for the space junk discussion, so I'll respond in that thread.

Actually its all connected.... space weapons of any kind is going to create a lot of space junk... and by saying its off topic is why the kessler problem is so bad now....

I could even argue that a recon satellite like Kosmos 954 is a space weapon and look at what happened there... or rather, maybe it wasn't a nuclear weapon, but it contained over 100 pounds of radioactive material....

But..... I won't argue the point.