Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

Yes, but as I said, no sane navy engages at a shorter distance than they absolutely have to unless they're either certain of victory, or have some reason for doing so.

"Wires? I had imagined thick steel girders and support struts, attached with heavy-duty rivets or temporary welds, with modules only able to be detached once the ship reached a friendly dock."

There is a trade-off in propeller designs between the size of the total structure and the rotational speed (and consequently the structural tension on the supports). Most such designs measure the diameter of the rotating modules in kilometers. Otherwise, to get even half normal gravity, you have to spin the structure too fast. At that diameter, I tend to think that rigid supports like you suggest wont be practical.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention the greatest drawback to a spinning ship: changing orientation is extremely... complicated. What we have done here is effectively created a kilometer wide gyroscope, and gyroscopes are extremely stable with respect to orientation.

Besides, you really dont want to go into battle using that configuration. You make a bigger target, the spinning makes target acquisition and tracking more difficult, weapons cant remain locked on a specific target, and you become much more vulnerable to damage to the support structures. It just makes sense to release the modules, turning them into independent ships for the duration of the battle, then reconfigure the array after hostilities end.

edited 18th Sep '14 9:07:15 AM by demarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Kilometers? Oh my. I'd have thought military vessels would want to be compact.

Now everyone pat me on the back and tell me how clever I am!

A question for those with more sci fi knowledge than me:

In a story I'm working on the main characters are fighting eldritch abomination like aliens which normal bullets are very ineffective against. In a story set in the near future (the world is mostly the same but some tech, mainly stuff involving alternative dimensions/teleportation, is much more advanced) what sort of technology could I incorporate into small to mid sized guns to make them more damaging? Lasers are out because while they exist, they require large power sources so exist only on vehicles or non portable weapons. Preferably it would be something which could also be incorporated into melee weapons. As you can guess the setting is very soft sci fi.

edited 18th Sep '14 10:55:51 AM by aoide12

Miniaturized FTL engines on the bullets so they Tele-Frag the enemy (which would actually work wonders for the Astronomical Distance Battle scenario we were debating; there's no need to get your shots going super fast when you can hyperwarpjump them into the enemy's hull).

Secondary detonation chambers to increase bullet velocity (two blank charges fire when the bullet passes by).

Electromagnetic catapult coils which would also increase the velocity and superheat the bullet (if you used steel bullets)

edited 18th Sep '14 11:16:45 AM by dvorak

Now everyone pat me on the back and tell me how clever I am!

"Kilometers? Oh my. I'd have thought military vessels would want to be compact"

Precisely. During battle they definitely would want to be. Othertimes, not so much.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Perhaps the big, cumbersome Propeller Ships could be used as cargo ships to refuel and rearm the more compact combat vessels.

I'm not married to the concept by any means. One concept I had been toying with when I was contemplating sublight/relativistic Generation Ships was having a skeletal framework containing cylindrical habitation modules, with a Boussard Ramjet down the middle and asteroid defense railgun turrets on the outside. Adapted for combat, the framework (and hab mods) could be covered in armor plates, with other weapons systems embedden in them. The ramjet could be replaced with watever FTL device the author uses. Or just keep it, whatever.

edited 18th Sep '14 3:11:17 PM by dvorak

Now everyone pat me on the back and tell me how clever I am!

Remove the habitation modules (all but one) and replace with weapons, ammo and additional fuel, and you're good to go.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

dvorak

So assuming an understanding of FTL it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to teleport a small explosive round inside a target?

edited 18th Sep '14 3:28:49 PM by aoide12

The problem is that for most versionsl of semi-plausible FTL, the energy requirements are huge, hence it's would usually be more cost-effective just to use a propellant of some kind.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

In the research I've been doing on sci fi weapons I keep finding references to a kind of non laser energy weapon which works by disrupting a target's molecules. Is such a weapon feasible and what would be the pros and cons vs traditional lasers? By using a weapon with multiple working in sync could you heat a target to the point of explosion while not having any kind of beam (like a microwave gun)?

edited 18th Sep '14 4:09:49 PM by aoide12

@ aodie 12

It would be possible to do so, depending on what kind of FTL you had. A jump drive could teleport a bomb into the enemy's bridge or engine room or life support (or a vital organ, in the case of those Eldritch Abominations you mentioned) as long as the jump drive doesn't need specific points in spacetime to enter and exit. A hyperdrive would get the bomb into the other ships gravity well, close enough that the point defense guns couldn't shoot it down in time. A warp drive would give you a Relativistic Kill Vehicle.

As for the Disruptor/Disintergrator weapon, they usually do use beams, but it usually some type of energy signature that disrupts molecular bonds rather than light. Lasers focus all their energy into a pinprick sized dot on the target-very little is wasted. Also, you don't need to make your target explode, just make it's armor soft enough that the internal pressure exceeds the strength of the material. This causes a breached hull, with a few little globules of metal floating away like soap bubbles.

edited 18th Sep '14 7:00:03 PM by dvorak

Now everyone pat me on the back and tell me how clever I am!

@aoide 12: Are you talking about a particle beam?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Demarquis: I was thinking of the same kind of weapon.

I am not sure what to think of a modular space ship as a war ship. On one hand you could theoretically swap out damaged modules for a new one in fairly short order possibly even "in the field" with the aide of a tender ship hauling replacements. On the other it adds more complexity and increases maintenance demands as a whole. Also what about bulk? It is comparatively easier to armor and protect a whole unit then it is to do a series of individual units. I would imagine you would need a key central component that houses the core parts with everything else being "bolt on".

It is an interesting idea in itself.

Who watches the watchmen?

There's pros and cons. Most of the modules would be automated, no human complement, so they could be very light and fast. The humans will be confined to the "command module", the only one that really needs armor or heavy point defense. They can coordinate the battle from the rear. The rest will be mostly drones, unless AI has advanced to the point that they can operate independently. Drones do not need much armor, or even thick hulls.

There's less additional bulk than one might think. Most any spaceship is going to have redundant systems anyway- in space there is little reason not to give each system the capability to operate independently. Space is going to have a profoundly revolutionary effect on weapons systems design and deployment- I think the dividing line between "ship" and "module" and "weapon platform" will get very blurry.

Maintenance does get somewhat more complicated, but it's more a matter of redundant parts than mechanisms that are inherently more complex. Scaling up the number of parts that need to be hauled along is a cost, but a manageable one, and I think the advantages are worth it.

You gain a lot of flexability in terms of weapon deployment and tactical options. The modules make smaller targets, potentially more nimble and quick. By separating, you gain some defense in depth, some offensive manuverability, and the enemy cant know, at least at first, where the command unit or the main weapons are.

Long range transport, by contrast, becomes easier. It's a lot simpler to push one large object long distances through space than dozens of smaller ones. They can share power and fuel while connected.

Think about it- no matter what size and number of independent warships you think is idea for a space battle, it makes more sense to attach them to one another while cruising long distances. So some modularity is probably going to be inevitable. Just take that line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion.

edited 18th Sep '14 9:08:26 PM by demarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Now are we talking about modules that are a part of a ship or we talking about smaller separate ships that attach to a central ship?

Who watches the watchmen?

6 of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

Now everyone pat me on the back and tell me how clever I am!

IIRC, there was a Star Wars novel that centered on a ship with that basic idea. They took a half dozen smaller ships and attached them in a ring arrangement to go on an extragalactic colonization voyage. Basically Star Wars doing a Star Trek story. They made it almost to the edge of the galaxy, ran into another (unknown) group's territory, and were shot down, because Star Wars can be like that.

@ demarquis I believe so, i'll admit my understanding of the physics behind this types of weapon is poor so I'm not sure what the practicalities of a particle beam weapon would be or how they would behave.

At this stage I'm not really tied to any technology type, I'm just looking for some near future alternatives to handguns/rifles with higher damage outputs for use against roughly human sized targets.

edited 19th Sep '14 4:10:22 AM by aoide12

"6 of one, half-a-dozen of the other." Precisely. What's the difference?

@aoide 12: Have you read this yet? If not, stop whatever you are doing and read it. Make sure that you include the sub-topics "Slugthrower", "Energy" and "Exotic" (found in the sidebar). It will be enlightening.

Particle beams are interesting weapons. The larger versions, mounted on ships, will have relatively short range yet high damage within that range. That would make them good point-defense weapons. The energy cost is rather high. Whether they will be more cost-effective than lasers isnt really known.

As for using them as sidearms, here is what Atomic Rockets says about it: "What about particle-beam sidearms? Well, their minor draw-back is the fact that each shot you fired would have the side effect of exposing you to a lethal dose of radiation. But other than that they would be quite spectacular weapons."

There is a long and very technical discussion between Anthony Jackson and Luke Campbell on the topic.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Oh this tripe again? They have it all wrong. For one, an LIPC is considered a particle beam (electrons are particles). Same thing with its natural equivalent the lightning bolt. (Which actually makes anti-matter particle beams!)

Neither of those exposes you to anything resembling above background radiation levels. I mean Hell, the number of lightning strikes you'd have to take to die by radiation from it is so high you'd be killed many times over by the heat, electrical discharge and kinetic force alone.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Actually, if you read the technical discussion, they agree with you. Some interesting stuff there.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Thanks for the link, very interesting (the parts I understood at least).

So if I'm willing to accept that a sufficient power source exists a particle beam weapons would be possible? If I understand correctly a particle beam gun would look like straight lightning and would vaporise tissue by superheating the target and any survivor would have a damaged targets nervous system?

Is there any consensus on what a particle beam gun would look like, are there any features I need to be aware of?

You appear to have understood the technical discussion quite well ;)

I have no clue what it would look like, though.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Proably like a regular gun but with focusing equipment for the beam, such as a rangefinder linked to a computer to manipulate the magnetic lenses for maximum energy transfer.

Now everyone pat me on the back and tell me how clever I am!