Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Considering Jules Verne is considered the Father of Hard Science Fiction, it's not much of a surprise. I'm more partial to Larry Niven, myself. He did all the math for the Ringworld and when someone pointed out he was wrong, he wrote a whole new book just to fix it.^ Basic concept is all you need. Edited March 8, 2012 by Lloyd: the White Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShellHead Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) And theres nothing wrong with that but we can't realistically predict anything beyond the spirit of the idea after about 30 years give or take. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Okay, since this is going nowhere...How 'bout them spacefaring warships? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShellHead Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Actually much more practical then we think soon. I was reading about this electromagnetic wave they can send out infront of a ship that would prevent radiation and small particles from harming the crew/ship. Pretty much all we need now is some form of artificial gravity which is also well on it's theoretical way. OH and for power there' helium nuclear reactors that cycles super heated gas but since helium is inert it never becomes radioactive unlike water and doesn't need to be pressurized with the added bonus of never being able to have a critical meltdown. The US military has a doctrine called "Space, the Ultimate High Ground." Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Ah, yes, SUSTAIN. Very cool plan. I also like Project Thor.Artificial gravity can only come in one way known to current physics, and that is spinning the habitable zones to simulate gravity. The existence of gravitons has not yet been proven. I personally am fond of lasers as a weapon, or particle beams. Both travel close enough to the speed of light that they're effectively undodgeable. Particle beams would be a tad slower but would pack more punch.As stimulating as this conversation is, it's getting late here and I have a class early tomorrow morning, so I must bid thee adieu and I will answer whatever has cropped up tomorrow. Edited March 8, 2012 by Lloyd: the White Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShellHead Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Electricity weapons while laughable in earths thick atmosphere are batflip terrifying in the vacuum of space. Literally all you need is an ultraviolet laser to create a nice little beam of ions and something like a tesla tower and you've got a plasma beam that not only travails just under the speed of light but is also so scaleable power-wise it could be used as a blow torch like cutter or even a form of communication. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 From what I'm familiar of plasma weapons, they're like the flamethrower of space--devastating at close range, but blooming prevents them from reaching very far. And since there's nothing to hide behind and flight paths are often quite predictable in space.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) As Lloyd said above, plasma weapons aren't quite as effective in space as what most people make them out to be. Problem is you simply can't keep said ions knit closely together for long periods of time without a massive EM generator. Seeing as magnetic fields follow the exponentially decreasing in power idea, not that practical in space battles, which would be fought over the distance of thousands of kilometers.Now, railguns on the otherhand, would if we strapped a fission or fusion generator on, and would even be able to double as a propulsion system if so needed.Lasers would be pretty cool too, but effectively do the same thing a different way; railgun punches a hole through your hull, lasers burn a hole through your hull. Both require lots of maintenance though, with lasers needing their mirrors constantly checked and replaced after hard battles, and railguns needing their rails replaced after too many uses. Edited March 8, 2012 by Gaius Alex Humvus Augustus Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShellHead Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) As Lloyd said above, plasma weapons aren't quite as effective in space as what most people make them out to be. Problem is you simply can't keep said ions knit closely together for long periods of time without a massive EM generator. Seeing as magnetic fields follow the exponentially decreasing in power idea, not that practical in space battles, which would be fought over the distance of thousands of kilometers.Ah very true, and if youre using that much power to create an ion trail you may as well just cut out the middle man and shot for a partial beam instead.A rail gun would be much easier . Space dust and various other environmental forms of damage make lasers expensive and hard to maintain.I feel nuclear shaped charges will be used heavily the same way traditional shaped charges are used by ships and tanks against other ships and tanks. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Problem is, you need some sort of delivery system; railguns are too explosive, missiles are too easy to shoot down, and conventional gunpowder charges could be knocked out of the sky/space with a well aimed railgun or other gunpowder weapon. Nuclear charges only work if you can get them there first.Also, while we do have nuke charges for ships and tanks, I feel it's worth pointed out we've never actually used them to this date. Edited March 8, 2012 by Gaius Alex Humvus Augustus Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShellHead Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) You could use a smart system to get a missile just close enough for the explosion to damage the ship. In space there no where to hide and unless you have a ship that's absolutely massive, like cosmically huge, something like an one atomic annie should knock it out. There's also the option of using nuclear bombs as a sort of "flack" weapon where the heat and radiation is the true weapon and not the actual explosion.Edit: to clear up any confusion I meant the same way we use conventional explosive shaped charges. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Yeah, I tried that a while back in a COTRPG and the local physicist guy Rover told me just how bad nukes are for that. Problem is, while there's no where to run in space, you have to get the nuke really, really, close for any real damage, if not just hit the ship directly. With no pressure wave you're relying entirely on the EM produced, and that stuff fades away rapidly in space; solar winds that come from our sun are several thousands or not millions of times more powerful when they leave Sol then when they get here. A nuke in cosmic terms is pretty feeble, so against a properly shielded spacecraft, the heat would disperse too quickly to have any effect and the more deadly radiation would be a non-factor. You'd have to get the nuke to have a direct impact or be within spitting distance for it to have much effect. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShellHead Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Ohhhh I didn't think about that. Nukes are only devastating on earth due to pressure and the confide area where as in space it'd be like just a fizzle of radiation. Nuclear mines could work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hexann Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 From what I'm familiar of plasma weapons, they're like the flamethrower of space--devastating at close range, but blooming prevents them from reaching very far. And since there's nothing to hide behind and flight paths are often quite predictable in space.... I heard that laser currently exist now that just need laser guns! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Perhaps, but it'd be bloody expensive. Space is pretty large, and because of the proximity needed, the costs would quickly start to add up.With railguns though they give off enough energy that once you hit 3 km/s it's worth it's weight in TNT. Getting hit by a ten kilo round at 3 km/s means it releases the same energy as ten kilos of TNT. Nasty stuff when you can fire several dozen in a minute. A nuke is overkill really; all you need is a lot of hull breaches, and the ship becomes a coffin. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I'm rather fond of the Casaba-Howitzer concept, myself. A nuclear shaped charge that turns the blast into a directed-energy weapon could do fairly unpleasant things to a target.Of course, you still have to get the charge in the right place for the beam to strike the target, which leads you back to the same problems that exist with other weapons. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Nukes are really impractical in space. They're pretty much a guaranteed kill, but there are a lot of other things that can do the same job and it's like trying to hit a pinhead from a mile away, if you want to use a rough scale.I'm personally fond of interstellar RKVs myself, little to no warning and nothing can shield sufficiently except something hitting it going the same speed in the opposite direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transcendence Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 But why focus on weaponry? Wouldn't focus on travelling at higher speeds using as little fuel as possible be more practical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It'd be just as practical as talking about weaponry, it's just that weapons are more interesting. :w: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transcendence Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Barbarians! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I like to call us realists.But yeah, maneuvering won't do you much good in space--everyone can see your thrust vector and direction, so they know where you'll be before you get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Bar bar bar bar bar bar bar.I generally prefer kinetic weaponry over nuclear weapons, but the Casaba-Howitzer concept could be very viable for targets that are unlikely to move erratically while you're launching your weapon. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transcendence Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I like to call us realists.But yeah, maneuvering won't do you much good in space--everyone can see your thrust vector and direction, so they know where you'll be before you get there. Whosaid we were competing against/trying to kill each other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Kinetic weaponry is good when you're attacking really hardened targets, and I do like to keep it around, but lasers are effectively the ultimate sniper weapon, which is the fighting style I prefer.^I highly doubt we're going to have perpetual peace in space. Edited March 8, 2012 by Lloyd: the White Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It's almost certain that space-based weaponry will eventually be developed, which means it's absolutely fair game for us to speculate on it. Bar bar bar bar.Lasers are cool, but until we find a way to keep them from sucking up unreasonable amounts of energy, I don't see them being very practical. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 In space we don't have to account for atmospheric effects, so that is something. And considering that we'll pretty much need to have fusion reactors (or solar sails, but they bring their own problems) to move at a decent pace anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I think it's quite likely that we will reach another planetary system long before we achieve nuclear fusion, if for no other reason than the fact that, while we have technology capable of getting us to another planet (albeit not very quickly), we are nowhere near building a working fusion reactor. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Well, not one we can take into space anyway. I'm pretty sure we can get a Tokamac (sp?) running. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 A Tokamak is a means of containing plasma, and will likely be useful in eventually creating a fusion reactor, but it is not, by itself, a fusion reactor. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Hm, I recall hearing that we'd made prototype fusion reactors. Thank you for correcting me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 From what I understand we have stable fusion reactors; they simply take more energy than they produce. The trick is starting a reaction and then keeping it going without too much interference, so you get the full raw power instead of a sliver of it. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShellHead Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Yeah theyve been able to prove the concept is possible, which was a big thing. They've created fusion reactions but not a functional fusion reactor that just needs to be fed the proper elements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Oh, there's no question we can do fusion--we have nukes that can do that. A sustained, controlled fusion is a whole different issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShellHead Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I mean prove we can do it in a "hey this can be kept going in a little pressurized tube" and not just a "I am become shiva god of death" exsplosiony way.We pretty much want to put like a fraction of that exsplosiony version into a bottle and use it to boil water/heat gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transcendence Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 BTW isn't L. Ron Hubbard the father of science fiction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lara White Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Heck no. He's a cheap hack.Some ivory-tower critics consider Poe the father of science fiction, but the people most commonly credited with it are Jules Verne (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), H.G. Wells (War of the Worlds), or Robert A. Heinlein (Starship Troopers). From where I'm sitting, Verne invented hard science fiction, Wells invented soft science fiction (The Time Machine) and Heinlein popularized them both and made the genre what it is today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Yeah, Hubbard was just some guy who was sort of involved in sci-fi, but not really instrumental to its development.I count Jules Verne as the father of science-fiction overall, with Wells and Heinlein playing the roles outlined by Lloyd. Arthur C. Clarke was also very important. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyrd Bid Ful Araed Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 L. Ron Hubbard is the guy who invented Scientology and is directly responsible for Battlefield Earth being inflicted on us isn't he? Yeah, not sure I really want to read anything he's written... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaru Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 BTW isn't L. Ron Hubbard the father of science fiction?I see what you did there. I think. Quote Spoiler Alert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyrd Bid Ful Araed Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Can someone tell me more about x-ray lasers (or Xasers)? I heard they're hotter than regular lasers but don't stay together as well, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.