Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

This is actually Marvel's explanation of how Vibranium works. It stores kinetic energy in the empty space of Vibranium atoms.

The exact method of how they this energy is then manifested and released isn't said.

So in that case would energy storage be better? Reading that thinks the information storage would have some Unfortunate Implications I wouldn't want to explore in depth as that's not the point of the story

Edited by Jasaiga on Nov 11th 2018 at 1:46:31 PM

Bear in mind that information storage and computational capacity are two dufferent things. You would need some way to manipulate the energy state of a plank volume, and some way of scanning and communicating the configuration of an array of such volumes, before one could do anything useful with it.

I also suspect that there is an upward bound to the amount of complexity that can be processed in a coordinated fashion (that is to say, used as a form of computation). IQ may have a max value.

The problem is more the amount of energy required to confine all that information in such a dense space. There's also the issue of building the hardware necessary to process, store, and retrieve it. Look at quantum computers for an example of how much effort it takes to operate below the atomic scale.

The reason for the Planck length isn't some arbitrary divisibility we decided to impose on the universe as a form of measurement. Rather, it has to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: the relationship between the simultaneous knowability of a particle's position and momentum. Specifically, to measure to a precision of below the Planck length requires expending enough energy that you would create a black hole.

Building a computer that could store information more compactly than the size of an atom would require an enormous amount of energy, which would distort the information thus stored. Building an energy storage device at that scale would similarly require more energy than you'd get out of it, asymptotically as you approach the Planck length.

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 11th 2018 at 5:41:31 AM

Since we're talking the unreal with Vibranium

So I've been thinking about the Minvosky Particle from Gundam and its implications, obviously humanoid mecha wouldn't be the answer but I'm wondering what would be.

It is a byproduct of safe fusion reactors and forms inside the walls of said helium-3 fusion reactors as a byproduct, but it basically gobbles up (read: nullifies) non-visible radiation, thus making the reactors completely radiation free. Side effect being that radar doesn't work in a Minovsky dense zone (until it all dissipates outwards), infrared doesn't work as well anymore, and long range communication is pretty much out save for Laser Line which needs line of sight.

Add in the fact that these particles often carry electrical charges that interact with metal, delicate electronics are fried thus forcing everything to be radiation shielded to protect which isn't cheap. This is why guided drones and missiles apparently don't work and humans need to run things as it would become too expensive to outfit every autonomous missile with radiation shielding and proper guidance systems.

But I'm wondering, does it? The details are here as to how it works and while I'm a huge Gundam Fanboy, I sometimes wonder. What alternatives are there to space combat with this particle in mind.

So a little thought experiment, no commenting on how it's unreal or how it would never happen. What would change in spaceship design and ship to ship combat with this? As displayed in The Origin the visual range is still goddamn kilometers out with massive distances and particle beams being tossed everywhere.

We all know that realistically fighters and mecha would never happen in response, but say that something like this did happen how would that affect ship design philosophy, especially military wise.

Did everyone forget about lidar?

I think it exists but due to the fact that even laserbeam messaging still gets fuzzy and poor audio quality in a high enough minovsky density it's probably considered less effective.

I guess you could just use mostly missiles. Give them dual mode seekers that use lidar or whatever else for a fuzzy lock at long range and then use electro-optical or IR for terminal guidance. As far as I know Minskovy fields aren’t able to fully block light (you can see into and out of them) so even if you can’t get a weapons grade lock at range with lidar you can get close enough to get a weapons grade lock with something else.

For comms you could just shoot buoys out of the denied space, beam a message to them with a laser and have them send it wherever it needs to go.

A particle that absorbs radiation without re-emitting it would have a really strong effect on space combat. Heat ceases to be a factor. Weapons no longer overheat. Radiators are no longer an achilles heel. And stealth becomes possible in space.

You wouldnt end up with mecha or space fighters. What you would get are the equivalent of submarines, playing cat and mouse in the dark.

Stealth being possible in space is basically why combat went visual range in Gundam, and the lack of overheating explains why the ships don't appear to have radiators.

What about the particle beam weapons?

Also would guided missiles become more expensive to make due to needing to shield the internals from Minovsky density since they fry delicate electronics.

I have never seen Gundam, but submarine-style warfare isnt limited to visual range because active sensors still work perfectly well. You just have to be very strategic when, where, and which units use them, as they give the position of the emitting platform away (free floating radar "buoys" can be a thing). There are also certain passive sensors that can work under certain circumstances, such as star occlusion. It's still unlikely that a capital ship can get within a hundred kilometers without being detected.

No radiators means go crazy with armor, the only limiting factor being the thrust to weight ratio of the drive. This will emphasize the advantage of larger capital ships over smaller, more lightly armored ones. This is going to lead to a scenario where massive ships of the line are continually trying to ambush each other under advantageous circumstances.

Another implication of these particles is their use as a smoke screen. You could conceal a drive plume behind a sufficiently dense cloud of such particles, and although it would occlude the stars behind it, and the enemy will know something is going on behind it, they wont know how many ships, what types they are, where they are going or how fast.

Again, I've never seen the show, but Im betting this is a very different tone and feel.

To explain, the advent of the Minovsky particle forced combat into closer ranges (which is still pretty far but when you got thermonuclear thrusters) as a lot of active sensors became less effective past what I call "Particle clouds" of the Minovsky particle itself which must be actively dispersed from the ships and are generated by the He-3 reactors they use. Ships themselves are quite large and can typically take quite a bit of punishment from standard rounds.

Radar doesn't work as the radiowaves get "gobbled" up by the M-Particle, Lidar and other laser based tools become far less effective at certain distances, thermal and infrared can be used but aren't likely to be able to pick anything out specifically through the field. Though radiation is also gobbled up so reactors have become safer to work with, as far as I last recall.

Yeah, I don’t think that would necessarily force combat into visual range. Minskovy particles never seem to fully block EM radiation or light even at long range, and the effect seems to clear up at closer ranges. Weapons with more intelligent seekers, or dual mode seekers, would do just fine.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 11th 2018 at 6:38:37 AM

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion over Minovsky particles, as they are explicitly fictional. I will just observe how telling it is that you have to make up fictional particles in order to justify close-range combat in space.

Mass Effect did the same to justify Ftl, artificial gravity, handheld railguns, psychic powers, and so on. This is nothing new for writers and so long as it remains consistent it does wonders for immersion.

This is why level 3 Hardness is called "Minovsky Physics" after all.

All it's "telling" of is one writer wanted to tell a story and opted to create a clever way to do so, giving us the Real Robot genre of Mecha.

Edited by EchoingSilence on Nov 12th 2018 at 7:56:02 AM

Oh, I get it. I'm not judging those works on their realism, but a pet peeve of mine is when people try to use realism to justify them.

Thankfully Gundam isn't that. Tomino wanted to use giant robots to tell a war story and do something with more adherence to physics than the super robots on the market at the time. He knew though that it would never work for the semi hard setting since space battles would take place at extreme distances and never even touch each other.

Thus he invented the Minovsky particle to do so, providing it a in universe appearance and method, thus making the giant robots seem less unbelievable.

I myself am a fan of "semi-hard" settings so long as they remain consistent. Mass Effect being one, Cowboy Bebop being another. So I don't really have that pet peeve.

The discussion right now is just a thought experiment to say "with all the rules remaining consistent, what would we do different for space combat instead of building fighters and mechs"

Edited by EchoingSilence on Nov 12th 2018 at 8:39:15 AM

One of the main reasons I dropped physics as a major in college. Not because I found the material hard (more boring math than difficult), but mainly because I knew it was gonna suck the enjoyment out of the stuff I like and i'd have some sort of resentment for it.

Super Petty, but ehhh for the best.

You can try to hide from physics, but physics will find you...

I love physics and I love speculative fiction. As I said before, my main concern is when a work (or someone discussing a work) tries to explain how a plot element works in terms of real-world physics, in which case I feel like I have no choice but to argue the point.

If you start out with the understanding that you are just making stuff up, then there's no problem.

I have a "Tactical Fox's Law."

"My insistence on nitpicking a work is inversely related to how much said work is giving me genuine entertainment."

Really? I nitpick the more I like it. When something sucks I just give up.

So, there's this emerging technology called Plasma Wakefield Acceleration. It's a new method of accelerating particles in particle collider experiments that is many times more efficient than the typical kilometers-long radiofrequency accelerator method that is used at CERN.

I figured that it was only a matter of time before someone had the bright idea of considering the possible propulsion applications of this technology, and I was not disappointed. This is a paper I came across that discusses the concept, under the title "Spacecraft Propulsion Utilizing Ponderomotive Forces".

What do you folks think?

It looks like it has promise but still runs into two common issues. It still uses an expendable material and requires a fair bit of power. Pretty much everything is held back by either consumables, power requirements, or possibly both. Still, I would like to see more work on it to see what they can do with it.

I didn't read enough into it admittedly, but isn't this basically a scaled up version of an ion drive?