Sci-Fi Space Battles: Lasers or Projectiles

Lasers or Projectile Weapons in Space?


  • Total voters
    28
I was thinking about what you were saying about Tunnel Launch would be disastrous....
I got to thinking of how a Rifle works...or any bullet...those gases are what propels the projectile.

--I couldn't find the quote to use--- eyes are going bad...or are bad due to Brain dysfunction hehe

maybe it would work without being detrimental to the ship/object/projectile.
After burning the material fuel for propulsion,,the exhaust gases would help propel.
If you burnt the fuel,,how can the exhaust be Flammable/Explosive?

Just some more thoughts.

Regards,
RRR.

...
 
If you burnt the fuel,,how can the exhaust be Flammable/Explosive?
My thought was to the pressure buildup not the burning. But yes, A rifle down a barrel is kinda similar except the launch tubes are never depicted as smooth barrels and the projectile is not a solid slug.
Perhaps their technology is advanced enough to make material fatigue and craftsmanship errors impossible?
Even a gun barrel has kickback. Launching fighters like that in space would be the same as firing a projectile weapon. The recoil would affect the ships attitude and would need to be compensated for on every firing sequence. Launching fighters from tubes on opposite sides of the ship at the same time might reduce that recoil but would increase pressures on the ships hull.

In space there is no buoyancy. Its not like air or water. Attitude must be constantly adjusted. In actual space where your battles are likely to take place its not the same as orbital space of the ISS. As long as you are in the gravitational range of the parent star you are not in zero G you are in Micro-gravity. Essentially you are falling in a vacuum towards the nearest source of mass that is larger than your own. Even thrusting on a vector must compensate for the changes in local masses. When your fighters are launched, Your mothership changes its mass (thrust amounts must change for the decrease in mass) the recoil pushes the mothership (if launched from the side it vectors the MS to the side) but these changes are not straight line changes. There is no up/down in space. Nothing to hold a craft from spinning in any direction except maneuvering thrusters.

So if you fire two fighters from equal but opposite sides of the ship, both must fire with the same force, both pilots must weigh the same, both ships must have the same equipage (the weight not the articles) and upon exit both must travel the same vector away from the ships center mass. (remember the fighters thrust is going to hit the MS upon exit). Even if everything is exactly equal, the mothership will still twist and change its attitude. The recoil of the launch will be transmitted thru the metal at different rates causing a distortion as it transmits.

You have a bomb in the shape of a ball. It has been constructed to separate its shell when activated so each piece of the shell is exactly the same. The explosive inside is designed to initiate reaction at the exact center of the device. You explode the bomb. The force seems to be equal on all arcs of a sphere but with close examination the explosion moved slightly to one direction. That is because the rate of expansion from the explosion is not exactly the same throughout. The mass of the shell fragments contained the reactive mass slightly more in one direction than the other. In space there are no forces to contain movement.
Explode your bomb against the side of a ship and the ship will deflect most of the bomb's energy away from the ship. It will move the ship but aside from some slight damage to the hull that will be it.

Could you launch fighters from a mothership in space - Yes.
Would you want to in a space battle - NO (All your mothership targeting would be compromised)
 
many of those things you mention,,I have wondered about so often when doing 3d animation..space battles.
Zero-G and inertia never seem to be a part of films and TV shows......
The reality of 1(one) light source.....the look of real space from a camera etc etc.
I have thought that films and TV depicts what it must be like in a way that it cannot be.....if that makes sense.

I always find myself thinking..it cannot work that way...or it cannot look this way if I were really there..
and then the AE ( After Effects and VFX ) make it look more impressive with glares/glints/reflexes and coloring/filtering etc.

Some really good points you make. you are a one man think tank hehehe

May be why its called science fiction... but I really like seeing them anyway :D
it's just neat.

Its these things that Often make me stumble on trying to create a clip. I think of how it really must be while making it.
how interactions would be..even the explosions we see are so used to would not look like they do..or even how I have made them.
Interesting Subject.

Real Space works nothing like Hollywood Space....and that includes weapons...:D
Mass Mind Manipulation it seems....I suppose you can blame the guy who invented the Death Ray.

thanks and regards,
RRR.
 
Its these things that Often make me stumble on trying to create a clip.
That is the good thing about Science Fiction. It doesn't have to be real. Creating a clip should be your own fantasy. You can manipulate any detail you want. But understanding the actual science of real physics might help create better science fiction.

There is a ton of real physics that can be depicted to make any science fiction more realistic. The physics of space battles can create great story elements as your characters try to overcome the physical limitations. You can work the story so it holds true to known physics or you can 'invent' a device that allows for your scenario.

'Commander James fired "the Gun" and deep inside the ship you could hear the mass stablizers whining loudly.'

'The ship's AI was already tasked to its limits when the vipers launched. The ship lurched sideways and started to roll which lined us up for a clean shot at the mothership.'

The movie Velocity Trap used extended physics to launch stasis tubes to a rescue ship using a mass gun that was for unloading cargo. They also used it to 'push' their ship closer to their rescue since they were out of fuel. By ejecting cargo.

I designed an emergency system for spaceships that lose their artificial gravity and oxygen supply. (No thought was given to pressure loss tho.) Pro-pulps I called them. Pro-pulps were little cannisters equipped with chemicals that when activated mixed and formed pure oxygen. The oxygen then pressurized in the cannister and could be trigger released for breathing or propulsion. The ship was equipped with pull straps that ejected from the roof upon loss of gravity that could be used as handholds to pull you to the pro-pulp storage boxes. The system had many physical flaws but it solved some real physical science.

I've seen pressurized gas containers used in fights in space as projectile weapons. Release cannister A so it discharges as a rocket so it hits person B and knocks them from their securement and makes them tumble out into space.

Vipers that launch into space would also need a protection against micro-meteors. Without a defllector sheild like in Star Trek the viper would need a hefty hull to prevent being exploded when flying into a storm. Skinning a rendition of a Viper might include dents and patched holes to show meteor damage. The fighters in Babylon 5 failed in this respect.

But how much realism is actually required? Do you have to be practical in every aspect? If so, there would be no epic space battles depicted. Artistic license allows you to ignore the physics to a point. The problem is that as 'known' science becomes commonplace it becomes harder and harder to satisfy the audiance. The suspension of disbelief is becoming more difficult to display.
 
Vipers that launch into space would also need a protection against micro-meteors.

oh..how often I have thought this.... and on the big ships..there would have to be some sort of protection for the hulls.
There are a lot of objects in the heavens and many traveling at incredible speeds.

those canister ideas sound interesting....wonder if I could allow myself the time to look into more and maybe add some of the elements and things spoken in this thread into my video/animations

BSG
I think that may be what, though I am unsure, Starbuck is referring to in NuBsg
as hearing nothing but the rain while in a Viper cockpit.
either the mico meteors or the debris of blown up spacecraft.
Not really sure..and the Cat? got no clue bout dragging in the cat..lol.
but .there was a scene in which she points her viper and thrusts into Apollo and sticks her gun
ports into his inlets and drags him back to the landing deck....
Humor-
--or was it sexual innuendo? as much of NuBSG had a sexual orientation that never made any sense to me.





off topic- ....I kind of added this so I would not forget it.
I had some other things I had thought about to say..but cannot retrieve them at this time....bi-polar,manic depressive,
Which,,to any real sufferer knows,, these rob you of everything,,,will,desire,ambition emotions,appetite..etc.
You tend to shut out and shut down.

A description I wrote ...of one of the aspects of the symptoms.
Racing thoughts
Imagine you have a tube going to your consciousness..and this tube carries thoughts. The tube usually only allows one thought at a time..often you can pause and hold this thought and think about it with other thought tubes. With myself..what is usually going on..is that 12-15 thoughts are jamming each tube. And the tube has no choice but to allow then thru..and loses the ability to stop,pause,or reflect on any thought at all. Then the thoughts go thru the tube unimpeded...then they are gone and can't be retrieved. So....you have multi sparks of thoughts flashing thru your thought tube. And you are anguishing over trying to retain a few,while being bombarded without end.

Regards,

Randal R.
 
Imagine you have a tube going to your consciousness..and this tube carries thoughts. The tube usually only allows one thought at a time..often you can pause and hold this thought and think about it with other thought tubes. With myself..what is usually going on..is that 12-15 thoughts are jamming each tube. And the tube has no choice but to allow then thru..and loses the ability to stop,pause,or reflect on any thought at all. Then the thoughts go thru the tube unimpeded...then they are gone and can't be retrieved. So....you have multi sparks of thoughts flashing thru your thought tube. And you are anguishing over trying to retain a few,while being bombarded without end.

When I was fighting for my life with depression my doctor prescribed me some meds that slowed down those racing thoughts. It did wonders for my treatment because I could actually think clearly.
Venafaxine I think was the drug.
 
For comparision WWII bombers can provide some reference. The big boys B-17 & B-29 were little effected by firing the 50-cals, they barely moved. On the other side of the coin is the B-25 medium bomber. The 75-mm recoilless bounced it all over the sky. My point is the relative mass of the projectile v mass of the ship matters a lot. Recoil absorption or dissipation systems will help also.
 
For comparision WWII bombers can provide some reference. The big boys B-17 & B-29 were little effected by firing the 50-cals, they barely moved. On the other side of the coin is the B-25 medium bomber. The 75-mm recoilless bounced it all over the sky. My point is the relative mass of the projectile v mass of the ship matters a lot. Recoil absorption or dissipation systems will help also.
In Air but there is no air in space. There is no buoyancy. No buffering agent.
Even huge ships floating in space will be affected by small forces.
A real life example is the Hubble telescope repair mission.

In space there is no cushion to absorb the equal and opposite reaction. Even the recoiless 75mm has mass displacement. The recoil is absorbed by the mechanism and thus transmitted to the mounting, the aircraft and in the end the air.
A rail gun even has some reactive mass displacement.
 
I came across a recent news article about Russian armed manned satellites and immediately thought of this conversation. :D

It turns that going back to at least the 70's the Russians armed some of their satellites with an R-23M automatic canon. These manned satellites were essentially space based observation decks. Supposedly they stopped being used in the 90's in favor of unmanned satellites.

What caught my attention was this part, in particular what I highlighted in bold.

The R-23M was based on the tail gun of the Tupolev Tu-22 "Blinder" bomber. It weighed 37 pounds and had a fire rate of above 950 rounds per minute, Zak reported, "blasting 200-gram shells at a velocity of 690 meters per second (1,500 miles per hour). According to veterans of the Almaz project, the space cannon successfully pierced a metal gasoline canister from a mile away during its ground tests."

But there were a few problems with firing the cannon. First, to aim the weapon, the entire space station had to be turned into position to fire—meaning that the crew had to have plenty of early warning to use it. An onboard optical site provided fire control. The ship also had to burn up fuel-firing thrusters to counter the recoil of the cannon. And firing the gun caused considerable shaking aboard the station.

So, until some type of automatic dampeners can be applied to compensate for the firing recoil it looks like an energy weapon would be the better choice. I'm still curious how a railgun would fare in space but, at this rate, it looks like we'll have to wait about 50 years for something to be accidentally leaked out.
 
First, to aim the weapon, the entire space station had to be turned into position to fire—meaning that the crew had to have plenty of early warning to use it. An onboard optical site provided fire control.

This would be a common issue with any weapon system. Granted the updated systems probably would use gyro tech and computer assisted targeting. The greatest issue with lasers would be time on target. A rail gun displaces mass, I think, so the firing platform would react to the mass load being fired.

Firing on atmosphere or ground based targets from space would be much easier than a space battle between ships. Distances between ships would render projectile weapons ineffective due to the travel time to target - they would simply move the ship when a projectile is detected. Again, laser attacks would need to have time on target to heat the target to destruction. If a laser attack is detected, simply move the ship.

Mines and proximity detonations could be effective against fighters near the mothership. The blast might not destroy the fighter but it could send it careening into the mothership with force. A bomb would need to be embedded into the hull to cause any significant damage. A projectile that penetrates the hull then explodes would be a useful weapon if it can arrive undetected. Possibly launching multiple projectiles that are piercing/exploding over a wide range could luckily damage a mothership.

Space is very different than atmosphere. A shockwave is going to radiate outward on the plane of least resistance. When it hits something the wave will affect the object but will bounce off the mass. The further the distance the less displacement the shockwave will have on any mass it encounters. A round bomb will produce a flat radial shockwave because the housing will not be equal in all directions from the explosion. Thus the blast will take the path of least resistance.

A wave of a destructive element might be released. A pulse if you will. A pulse of radiation that melts all matter or breaks the atomic bonds of molecules or atoms. Anything caught in the pulse will be destroyed. The pulse can be radiated to any plane at any angle. The ship in the center would be unaffected because the pulse radiates outward. Not only radially, the pulse might be focused toward an enemy ship. The pulse would be conical and direct-able, expanding and losing effectiveness as it travels outward.
 
Interesting..previous post.
Whenever I am making one of these Scifi space genre videos....I always am thinking
of these things in trying to think of how to do it.
--I usually do not use reference images or animations-- I think them up.
--if I were making money at it..it would be the the Hype of Hollywood to be sure..but I am not.

Your assessments seem to be logical and right along with how I often think of space weapons.
How space weapons in reality would work ..imho ,should be how it is portrayed..but never is.

Curious to see what will evolve as space weapons in the future. If civilization can survive humans....Hehehe.
if we indeed ..can reach for the stars civil like.

I am always at odds with making them when doing any shooting.What is accepted and expected
just does not really work if it were reality..Your last post puts out some examples that I may try to adapt or use in future animations and videos.

Addendum:
was just thinking of explosions too. does any one know what fire looks like in space? how it behaves?

--A mushroom cloud needs a lot of material/gas and heat with gravity..yet..watch a real explosion vs an
explosion in Star Wars or others.Most of the time..it is flamesmoke behaving in a twister/mushroom fashion....one of the pinnacles of modern animation/vfx/gfx/3d is creating a vortex and or a mushroom
effect with either particles or other means.
Thoughts that never end... :D


Thanks and Regards,
 
Last edited:

Always thought it would look gaseous like...that is so cool looking....if Ican make a particle puff look like that..
then throw in millions of more puffs...we might start a fire. <evil grin>

oh..saw that Borg Sphere post.....it's a mini death star! :D
---always have thought any space weapon would have to be 360x360 in coverage and motion...
it is 3d space after all.
thanks Tom for adding that.
 
Something people often forget is that a sphere, which is a ball, can roll in any direction. Not just 360 x 360. Take a ball and draw a line around it. Now draw another line around it so it looks like it is in quads. Now draw lines around it at every angle until the ball is black with lines. But Wait... you're not done yet. Turn the ball on its side and do the same thing. Then move the top of the ball a fraction of an inch and do the same thing. Keep doing that until every point on the ball is a starting point. Depending upon the precision of your marking instrument there are billions if not trillions of starting points for the lines. So its 360 x 360 x a billion or more.
In space there is no up or down. There is no surfaces for the ball to roll on. There is no atmosphere to deflect its motion. An object in space can be deflected in a billion different ways depending upon where the deflection contacts the object. Each point renders a different direction.
NASA uses thrusters at a very limited thrust to affect great attitude adjustments and even those adjustments require sequential counter thrusts to maintain the desired direction. That is why the docking is such a slow process. They might call for a thrust now at a certain push at a certain angle for a line up an hour from now. A small puff of thrust has large implications over duration.
That will be an issue with any weapon used in space. If you are moving at 1/3 c, even causing a heat transfer could affect the attitude controls of your ship. Granted the ship is massive but even the small deflection will have an affect if you are traveling those distances that fast. Wings and stabilizers will have no effect because there is nothing to grab to stabilize against. A Borg Cube is just as space dynamic as a Viper. There is no need for streamlining in space. Projectile weapons don't have to be shaped like bullets, they can be globs of material.
Planets and moons are round because gravity forces that shape.
Micrometeors are a serious issue with space travel. Projectiles don't have to be large to do damage. You could use your ship as a gravity net (if its large enough) and gather meteors and meteorites from the interplanetary void and drive them towards a fleet of enemy ships then veer away at a tangent and let the reaction mass do the rest. The 'payload' will pepper the ships with material traveling at high velocity. You can set the payload on coarse days ahead of time so the fleet runs into the rain of death you unleashed. Release some proximity mines into the debris and you have exploding rain of death. You wouldn't need to propel the mines, just let go of them at the proper time.
If your target is a space station or planetary defense satellite, it will target the largest impactors but the small stuff will get thru. If the small stuff is first, there is a better chance of taking out the targeting mechanics so the larger stuff can make it to target.
For stationary targets, you could park near the moon or an asteriod and laze a beam onto the target from distance. You could also employ a combination of both tactics. FOR STATIONARY TARGETS. Moving targets is a whole new tactic.
 
So its 360 x 360 x a billion or more.

Incredible reply. I understand all that about thrustering.....360x360 < I was trying to imply
a rotational turret aspect of field of fire (360x360)....and yeah it would have so many Points on the cogs of its gearing.
---this may explain why lasers seem to miss a lot : lol < A joke on films and scifi

some heady stuff here.I just cannot keep a train of thought for too long.


and btw..have added Alien Soup to posts and am thinking of adding this site to the video
am working on..Battlestar 2015 the Arrival....got more info here on side discussions
than any post ever at SciFi.
- well at least to my knowledge :D

Free Advertising!
Best and Regards,
 
Back
Top