Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Isn't one of the 'traditional' ways of weaponizing plasma to encase it in some kind of force field? I recall that that's the method they used in Total Annihilation. Of course, that would either require a shell containing a generator or some means of projecting the field over a distance.

Hmm...at really short ranges you could create some kind of force-field tube, project it against the hull of an enemy ship and dump a bunch of plasma into it. That could be quite nasty.

The question would be 'why would you want to'? What exactly can you achieve with this over-complicated and expensive application of plasma that you can't already accomplish with lasers, particle weapons, or even ol'-fashioned nukes?

Because plasma is awesome?

I seem to recall that the same game made mention of a plasma-based 'flamethrower'. Given the discussion so far, it seems like the ideal way to deploy plasma, so far as you can apply 'ideal' to a contraption which places a large tank of plasma on your back in the middle of a firefight.

[Sertian]

Isn't one of the 'traditional' ways of weaponizing plasma to encase it in some kind of force field? I recall that that's the method they used in Total Annihilation. Of course, that would either require a shell containing a generator or some means of projecting the field over a distance.

Hmm...at really short ranges you could create some kind of force-field tube, project it against the hull of an enemy ship and dump a bunch of plasma into it. That could be quite nasty.

The question would be 'why would you want to'? What exactly can you achieve with this over-complicated and expensive application of plasma that you can't already accomplish with lasers, particle weapons, or even ol'-fashioned nukes?

Because plasma is awesome?

I seem to recall that the same game made mention of a plasma-based 'flamethrower'. Given the discussion so far, it seems like the ideal way to deploy plasma, so far as you can apply 'ideal' to a contraption which places a large tank of plasma on your back in the middle of a firefight.

Actually, they wouldn't have to 'carry' plasma around at all. They could just carry around hydrogen or other fusion fuel around (preferably not as explosive as hydrogen though). When the weapon is 'used', it just compresses the fuel together into a fusion reaction and then uses the power generated by fusion to shape a magnetic field that propels the reactant (plasma) outwards in a flame thrower isque fashion.

[The Cosmic Balance]

I was going to say...

I thought the standard MO for plasma weapons was to produce the plasma as needed and then hurl it at the enemy. That's pretty much how it was supposed to work in the Traveller RPG, which is generally my guidebook for such things.

[Sskiss]

What about a plasma warhead? Wouldn't that work?

[L3 Communications]

Isn't one of the 'traditional' ways of weaponizing plasma to encase it in some kind of force field? I recall that that's the method they used in Total Annihilation. Of course, that would either require a shell containing a generator or some means of projecting the field over a distance.

Hmm...at really short ranges you could create some kind of force-field tube, project it against the hull of an enemy ship and dump a bunch of plasma into it. That could be quite nasty.

The question would be 'why would you want to'? What exactly can you achieve with this over-complicated and expensive application of plasma that you can't already accomplish with lasers, particle weapons, or even ol'-fashioned nukes?

Because plasma is awesome?

I seem to recall that the same game made mention of a plasma-based 'flamethrower'. Given the discussion so far, it seems like the ideal way to deploy plasma, so far as you can apply 'ideal' to a contraption which places a large tank of plasma on your back in the middle of a firefight.

Actually, they wouldn't have to 'carry' plasma around at all. They could just carry around hydrogen or other fusion fuel around (preferably not as explosive as hydrogen though). When the weapon is 'used', it just compresses the fuel together into a fusion reaction and then uses the power generated by fusion to shape a magnetic field that propels the reactant (plasma) outwards in a flame thrower isque fashion.

Argon? Neon?

One of the noble gases?

[Sertian]

Isn't one of the 'traditional' ways of weaponizing plasma to encase it in some kind of force field? I recall that that's the method they used in Total Annihilation. Of course, that would either require a shell containing a generator or some means of projecting the field over a distance.

Hmm...at really short ranges you could create some kind of force-field tube, project it against the hull of an enemy ship and dump a bunch of plasma into it. That could be quite nasty.

The question would be 'why would you want to'? What exactly can you achieve with this over-complicated and expensive application of plasma that you can't already accomplish with lasers, particle weapons, or even ol'-fashioned nukes?

Because plasma is awesome?

I seem to recall that the same game made mention of a plasma-based 'flamethrower'. Given the discussion so far, it seems like the ideal way to deploy plasma, so far as you can apply 'ideal' to a contraption which places a large tank of plasma on your back in the middle of a firefight.

Actually, they wouldn't have to 'carry' plasma around at all. They could just carry around hydrogen or other fusion fuel around (preferably not as explosive as hydrogen though). When the weapon is 'used', it just compresses the fuel together into a fusion reaction and then uses the power generated by fusion to shape a magnetic field that propels the reactant (plasma) outwards in a flame thrower isque fashion.

Argon? Neon?

One of the noble gases?

Anything in atomic number lower than iron can undergo a fusion reaction and still emit energy, although the lower the atomic number the more energy you get. Helium would probably be your best bet. Light weight, stable, and the second best fusion fuel after hydrogen.

[L3 Communications]

Isn't one of the 'traditional' ways of weaponizing plasma to encase it in some kind of force field? I recall that that's the method they used in Total Annihilation. Of course, that would either require a shell containing a generator or some means of projecting the field over a distance.

Hmm...at really short ranges you could create some kind of force-field tube, project it against the hull of an enemy ship and dump a bunch of plasma into it. That could be quite nasty.

The question would be 'why would you want to'? What exactly can you achieve with this over-complicated and expensive application of plasma that you can't already accomplish with lasers, particle weapons, or even ol'-fashioned nukes?

Because plasma is awesome?

I seem to recall that the same game made mention of a plasma-based 'flamethrower'. Given the discussion so far, it seems like the ideal way to deploy plasma, so far as you can apply 'ideal' to a contraption which places a large tank of plasma on your back in the middle of a firefight.

Actually, they wouldn't have to 'carry' plasma around at all. They could just carry around hydrogen or other fusion fuel around (preferably not as explosive as hydrogen though). When the weapon is 'used', it just compresses the fuel together into a fusion reaction and then uses the power generated by fusion to shape a magnetic field that propels the reactant (plasma) outwards in a flame thrower isque fashion.

Argon? Neon?

One of the noble gases?

Anything in atomic number lower than iron can undergo a fusion reaction and still emit energy, although the lower the atomic number the more energy you get. Helium would probably be your best bet. Light weight, stable, and the second best fusion fuel after hydrogen.

Yes but you would still need a second gas to use as a plasma, rite? o: A dual tank-system, with argon and helium would probably be the best one, right?

Argon is probably the most favoured primary plasma gas and is usually used with a secondary plasma gas (hydrogen, helium and nitrogen) to increase its energy. Argon is the easiest of these gases to form a plasma and tends to be less aggressive towards electrode and nozzle hardware. Most plasmas are started up using pure argon. Argon is a noble gas and is completely inert to all spray materials.

Source: England, Gordon. "Plasma Flame Theory". Surface Engineering Forum. 10/20/2009 <http://www.gordonengland.co.uk/pft.htm>.

[-Raysia-]

Meh, plasma is a waste of energy. With the energy I could put into a plasma weapon, I might as well just slice the enemy in half with a 200kg x 100km/s Vulcan rail cannon array ^_^ BUURRRRRRRRUUHHHHHHHHH

ok, couldn't resist

Anyway, I -do- use Ion weaponry, which operates the same as an ion thruster, a blooming stream of deuterium, or some noble gas or off whatever I feel like stripping the electrons, flung toward the enemy in a massive flood that would suck all the power from their circuits, stalling or shorting out their electronics. This, of course, is used in an attempt to disable the enemy and capture their vessel, always fun.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Torpedoes and railguns all the way

I figure it's all really just a matter of putting enough energy in one spot. Eventually something will have to give out. I'm sure some people have shields/armor made to defeat kinetic weapons, but that's what the torps and HE shells are for.

Of course, most of my ships and weapons are tiny by FT standards, the Imperator Pyotr is my biggest operable ship and clocks in at ~1/2 mile. The upcoming Suvurov's are about a mile long, though. Most of them are between 600 and 1,000 feet, though. And I consider an 18" gun to be a real monster, those thing's are pretty much a 1-hit kill against an unprotected Earth ship's hull. Of course, thanks to my totally awesome and cool mastery of magnetism and suchlike I can rely on my weapons to sufficiently pwn most anything they come up against.

I figure that anybody who lets me pull off standard naval engagement doctrine, that is, the torpedo boats all rush forward and fire everything they have at the enemy before pulling off, following up with the big ships' big guns, is going to be a really sorry camper. Really, anything that gets hit by a 22" torpedo is not going to have a nice day.

Of course, the issue comes with hitting things with those big, slow torpedoes which is, of course, why they have to be fired point-blank. I should come up with a cloaking device for torpedoes, something that makes them more difficult to track, forcing people to rely on visual tracking, maybe. That'd be amusing, given how many FT nations' crews probably suffer from shortsightedness thanks to staring at display screens all day.

That does bring up some interesting possibilities. Maybe a semi-FTL torpedo? Figure out a way to phase it just far enough out of reality that it's a pain to find with sensors, but still solid enough to hit (and be hit by) things in realspace.

Hmm...Futuretech space-submarines?

[-Raysia-]

If it's in realspace, and it's visible, it's on sensors... that simple, sorry ^_^

You could use "skipper" missiles like in Wing Commander




Ahh... 18" guns.. or... 500" guns.... hmmm...



*whistles innocently*

[TRIAD Enterprises]

Hmm...at really short ranges you could create some kind of force-field tube, project it against the hull of an enemy ship and dump a bunch of plasma into it. That could be quite nasty.

This is the basic principle behind a plasma "beam". It *might* be possible to project a coherent magnetic waveform which will contain the pressurized plasma in a similar fashion to the magnetic containment found in toroidal fusion reactors. This is not to say that such a confinement beam would loose effectiveness over range, but it could be just enough "oomph" to allow plasma weapons to maintain effectiveness over the longer ranges most beam weapons have.

Can you use this for "bolt" weapons? Not a chance.

[-Raysia-]

Why can't you shoot a force field? Most people have force fields that can be projected at range, why not just wrap the bolt in a force field and kafire?

[Morningstar Coalition]

Why can't you shoot a force field? Most people have force fields that can be projected at range, why not just wrap the bolt in a force field and kafire?

Most people? May I ask how you came to that conclusion? Even from canon-fiction sources, about the only one that comes to mind is Trek, which also sported tech that changed it's operational principles on an episode-to-episode basis.
I won't say it's not possible in NS. Hell, not much really is impossible here. However, to say that most people can do it seems a little... Off to me. Neither of my incarnations (TRIAD or Morningstar) are able to project what you would consider force-fields at ranges longer than perhaps a few hundred meters from the generator/origin point. This includes the gravitic barrier technology TRIAD used as combat shields. Electrostatic barriers can be used as atmospheric "forcefields". Plasma windows can serve the same trick. Neither can be projected over long ranges.

Once again. I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself. I would however like to know how you came to this conclusion?

Most people have force fields that can be projected at range

[-Raysia-]

Trek was the prime example, with their 'bubble shields' in TNG... that's what I use for Capsule Corporation... but don't ask me to back -anything- there with a scientific explanation

As for other SFs that use bubble shields... hmm... Star wars has some (the thing that protected DS II, that one even counted as "at range"), and anyone who has a planetary shield system on NS is usually dealing with a single giant bubble, except for those smart enough to use a grid.

[UNIverseVERSE]

(this yoinked from another thread, where it was somewhat irrelevant).

Yes I wrote a long post on what you are speaking of and the fact that it isn't present in rail guns. Some say the momentum is largely contained in the exhaust. Its not ignoring physics to say we may have had it wrong because of new advances in technology that let us actually test new things. In fact Anders Wistrom and V. M. Khachatouria have essentially claimed that conservation of energy is wrong. It will of course be to others to determine if they are right or wrong but just because someone thought it was right 150 years ago doesn't mean it is.

They're wrong. Claiming that energy is not conserved is equivalent to claiming that the entirity of modern physics, including all of the bits nicely confirmed by experiment, is wrong. That's how fundamental it is.

For instance the Feynman lectures contain many questions regarding physics issues concerning momentum flux in systems with moving conductors. The Naval Postgraduate School did a research paper on measuring the recoil forces in a rail gun and failed to find any measurable recoil within experimental error. Then there is your formula above which when applied to the navy rail gun doesn't add up.

I happen to be sitting at a fairly good university, with several friends who are students of physics (I myself am a mathmo). I shall get them to do the experiment, shall I?

Or, of course, here are some of the experts. Note in particular how this is actually a sourced claim to a scientific paper, not a vague handwave about uncited material.

The US Navy prototype rail gun in test fired a 3.35 Kg projectile with a muzzle velocity of 2520 meters/sec. This gives a momentum in excess of 8000 Kg-meters/sec, enough to send a 200 Kg rail gun backward at over 40 meters per second. Yet there is no movement from the rail gun. According to the laws you quote the rail gun had to kick. But it doesn't and I am not sure if that says the law is wrong or if the operation of the device simply exposes some new aspect of the law that we previously misunderstood.

Well, from looking at a picture of their railgun, that's because it's the size of a small room, built out of structural I beams, and bolted to the floor. Nothing* kicks under those circumstances, unless the forces are sufficient to shear the bolts out, and I suspect they might have accounted for that.\

Also, of course, your mass is phenomenally low. Given that a normal 5" naval gun is 10x that mass, and that railguns have rather a lot more solid metal than a typical gun design, you're already reducing it (in a friction free environment) to 2-4 m/s at most. Once you remember friction, or simply being bolted to the floor, that's easily erased.

And I am no physicist I just read a little here and there. But I have never heard of a rail gun or gauss gun that kicked. I have never seen real live rail guns kick. My understanding has always been that they work sort of like recoiless rifles.

Your understanding is, in that case, completely wrong.

A 'recoilless rifle' is actually a type of rocket launcher. It achieves minimal recoil on the weapon by venting all the gases directly out the back. That momentum is conserved is rather fundamental to its operation, however, because that's what drives the rocket forward in the first place.

A railgun is an electromagnetic accelerator, based on very large opposing magnetic fields. By any and every model of physical reality, the forward force exerted on the projectile will be balanced by a force on the weapon. However, the relative mass of a railgun tends to be extremely high, in comparison to the momentum of the projectile, and so the force on it is easily absorbed by friction (in the case of small weapons) or simply by attaching it to the ground (for large ones).

*Or more accurately, the opposite part of the momentum is absorbed by the Earth.

[Balrogga]

Remember, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. You launch a projectile containing an impact of X energy you have to add that energy into the stationary projectile to get it moving. If you are on a ship that can withstand that (or have the weapon bolted to a planet or artificial moon) then you don't have to worry as much.

For example - If you try to fire a projectile somehow containing real neutronium (mass of 120 million metric tons per teaspoon volume or a billion times more massive than iron is a figure I once saw) you will have the projectile standing still and your ship flying backwards. Of course moving a ship with that aboard would also be tricky, not to mention stopping or taking evasive maneuvers.

The end result there is a recoil that has to be accounted for when using railguns.

[Auman]

If it's in realspace, and it's visible, it's on sensors... that simple, sorry ^_^

You could use "skipper" missiles like in Wing Commander




Ahh... 18" guns.. or... 500" guns.... hmmm...



*whistles innocently*

How many times have you posted this bullet trap in the thread anyway?

[Axis Nova]

Hard FT is boring and not many people are interested in RPing it.

Thus, most arguments about realism outside of hard FT are silly.

[Morningstar Coalition]

Hard FT is boring and not many people I don't think many people are interested in RPing it.

Thus, most arguments I think most arguments about realism outside of hard FT are silly.

There ya go! That's better right?
I have seen at least four or five players here on NS who have stated that they prefer harder science in their fiction.

I don't happen to believe that hard FT/Sci-fi is in any way boring, though it may be less "flashy" than softer sci-fi.

I am more of a middle-ground person. I don't require hard science, but I prefer plausibility; meaning anything current science hasn't proven impossible. Please note that current science has not proven that FTL of any kind is flat out impossible, only highly unlikely or impractical. There are several theories which while they have not been proven useful, also have not been proven impossible by the math. As such, they classify as plausible.
Another thing I personally require for my fiction is internal self-consistency. Which means if I make a rule for it, I stick to that rule no matter what.

[Axis Nova]

Hard FT is boring and not many people I don't think many people are interested in RPing it.

Thus, most arguments I think most arguments about realism outside of hard FT are silly.

There ya go! That's better right?

I posted what I meant. Most FT people do not RP hard FT.

[Bryn Shander]

Hard FT is boring and not many people I don't think many people are interested in RPing it.

Thus, most arguments I think most arguments about realism outside of hard FT are silly.

There ya go! That's better right?

I posted what I meant. Most FT people do not RP hard FT.

Says the guy that doesn't RP at all.

[Morningstar Coalition]

I posted what I meant. Most FT people do not RP hard FT.

Yeah see, now we've got a problem. This is your opinion, not fact.
First off, the term "most" is subjective to begin with. It does not provide any clarity as to how many people it applies to. Second, this statement has you speaking for a large number of people who are not... Well, who are not you.
Second, let's take a look at the end of your statement. Just what the hell is "Hard FT" anyway? It's an undefined, subjective term again. Ask ten published science fiction authors to strictly define "Hard Sci-Fi", and you may very well get eight or more different answers.
Finally, if you were to fully read this very thread, there have been numerous arguments against X handwavium or Y techwank as "unrealistic" or Impossible. This suggests that people care more about harder science than your statement implies.

Again, these are just my opinions. Without citing details, references, or sources, it cannot be construed as fact.

And just because you've irritated me, I'll share another of my personal opinions. Dissecting your statement above, I can make a guess why you think it's true. There are a rather large number of FT players here on NationStates which have thrown RL science to the win and use "Because I say so" technology. As pure handwavium as you can get.
If these are your "Most people", then I have another amendment to make to your statement. I believe that this type of player, who do not care about hard FT at all, are not roleplaying. These people are simply playing to "win", whatever the hell that means here.

[The Fedral Union]

*munches on popcorn*

Whats the point of debating this any way, people will think what they will about hard scifi verses soft scifi. This entire argument is silly, and people getting offended by it makes me wonder about the future of future tech. One side is going my science is always right and I'm never ever wrong! I should note that hard scifi shouldn't be shoved down peoples throat, that's saying its either my way or the high way, the same with soft scifi.

So in essence this is my opinion of this argument:

[Auman]

As a guy that likes character writing, even though I've not really gotten the chance to do it the way I'd like, I like the harder side of FT because it keeps the people in the story more down to home. Machine guns, reaction mass and battle tanks are awesome things. Now, some of you guys would say "Why not just play MT?" Well, I'd say I also like bizarre locations and space battles too. The majority of the people that feel the way I do are usually Battlestar fans... Or, in the case of Bryn Shander and myself, amateur history buffs that also like space ships and giant robots.

[Auman]

*munches on popcorn*

Whats the point of debating this any way, people will think what they will about hard scifi verses soft scifi. This entire argument is silly, and people getting offended by it makes me wonder about the future of future tech. One side is going my science is always right and I'm never ever wrong! I should note that hard scifi shouldn't be shoved down peoples throat, that's saying its either my way or the high way, the same with soft scifi.

So in essence this is my opinion of this argument:

This debate has being going on since the holy ghost created Nationstates, bro. Yut wouldn't play with ESUS because they thought they were too soft. ESUS wouldn't play with Yut because, well, I won't discuss this further because I'm bound to use inappropriate language. Point is, the Arthur Clarke V. Robert Cooper debate has been going on for a very long time, since science fiction was first a twinkle in Orson Welles' balls.