gun
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by gun on Oct 14, 2017 10:38:03 GMT
|
|
gun
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by gun on Oct 14, 2017 10:40:56 GMT
|
|
gun
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by gun on Oct 14, 2017 10:44:06 GMT
|
|
elukka
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by elukka on Oct 14, 2017 11:14:47 GMT
Just like in real life, there's a wide range of escalations from armed robbery to covert operations passing through gang wars and Private Military Corporation operations that don't involve shooting everything with a CIWS gun. but you have to use all your guns or you might lose... why would you not use every weapon you can? Why won't you drop a tactical nuke on New York to thwart a bank robbery? As an example of a situation where I could see infantry being of use, imagine a military spacecraft at dock, with friendly civilian and military targets all around in close quarters. Extremely impractical for the warship to make use of its weapons there, quite possibly to the point where the enemy might get physically close to it. A USS Cole ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing) situation in space.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Oct 14, 2017 13:00:26 GMT
but you have to use all your guns or you might lose... why would you not use every weapon you can? Why won't you drop a tactical nuke on New York to thwart a bank robbery? As an example of a situation where I could see infantry being of use, imagine a military spacecraft at dock, with friendly civilian and military targets all around in close quarters. Extremely impractical for the warship to make use of its weapons there, quite possibly to the point where the enemy might get physically close to it. A USS Cole ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing) situation in space. Counterpoint: lasers. Lasers can project as much or as little force you need. This is why I imagine every combat spaceship will have lasers on board, lasers offer a flexibility and scalability of force unmatched by other weapon systems. And about your argument about someone smuggling a firearm on the ISS: true, there wouldn't be a combat drone on board, but neither would there be infantry on board. If anything, the best solution would be to disable some radiators with a lasers to degrade life support sufficiently to knock out anyone on board, after which you board the station.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Oct 14, 2017 13:04:05 GMT
Why won't you drop a tactical nuke on New York to thwart a bank robbery? As an example of a situation where I could see infantry being of use, imagine a military spacecraft at dock, with friendly civilian and military targets all around in close quarters. Extremely impractical for the warship to make use of its weapons there, quite possibly to the point where the enemy might get physically close to it. A USS Cole ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing) situation in space. Counterpoint: lasers. Lasers can project as much or as little force you need. This is why I imagine every combat spaceship will have lasers on board, lasers offer a flexibility and scalability of force unmatched by other weapon systems. And about your argument about someone smuggling a firearm on the ISS: true, there wouldn't be a combat drone on board, but neither would there be infantry on board. If anything, the best solution would be to disable some radiators with a lasers to degrade life support sufficiently to knock out anyone on board, after which you board the station. (Of course they also have that option to blow themselves up, too.)
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Oct 14, 2017 13:05:17 GMT
Counterpoint: lasers. Lasers can project as much or as little force you need. This is why I imagine every combat spaceship will have lasers on board, lasers offer a flexibility and scalability of force unmatched by other weapon systems. And about your argument about someone smuggling a firearm on the ISS: true, there wouldn't be a combat drone on board, but neither would there be infantry on board. If anything, the best solution would be to disable some radiators with a lasers to degrade life support sufficiently to knock out anyone on board, after which you board the station. (Of course they also have that option to blow themselves up, too.) Then it doesn't matter whether you send infantry or not.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Oct 14, 2017 13:12:20 GMT
(Of course they also have that option to blow themselves up, too.) Then it doesn't matter whether you send infantry or not. Worse, they might set a program that all of their bombs or nukes will set off once you board.
|
|
gun
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by gun on Oct 14, 2017 15:28:08 GMT
As I mentioned in my second post, again, by space infantry I don't necessarily mean an organized military infantry division of an armed force. By "infantry" only referring to "armed people using weapons against one another in space" (extra vehicular conflict with personal weapons in vacuum, microgravity, or zero-G), in other words civilians, police, military-police, military, criminals, freedom fighters, insurgents, rebels, terrorists, and so on. Someone will die by shooting in space, before someone dies by an entire spacecraft being destroyed by another spacecraft, I reckon, for any of countless reasons.
But as I wrote, my intention was not to discuss too deeply whether "infantry" in space is viable. I assume it is. As someone argued above, you wouldn't nuke a station because there's a criminal on it and you wouldn't necessarily nuke a spacecraft, station, research station or orbital weapon, if you can capture it instead. I think practical economics also comes into play.
Instead, I've been having more thoughts about how someone might deliver death unto another in space.
- Are there any real-life prototypes of bulletproof, or rather, "microasteroid-proof", space suits?
- Are gas-powered conventional guns the only alternative? Are coilguns, railguns, or lasers possible as personal weapons?
- What about grenades? I know there's some mention of it on Atomic Rockets. Are they viable indoors/outdoors? What about weapons like grenade launchers, rocket launchers? I assume they are not very viable.
- Is staying attached to surfaces generally necessary to manage recoil? The suit could compensate for recoil I guess. Also, how would you attach to surfaces? The conventional solution is magnetic boots. Wouldn't weak thrust also work well, for non-magnetic surfaces? Many Earth-weapons recoil up, which would send you spinning, which is a part of why I don't think Earth weapons would work in space.
- Also, what about light machine guns? On Earth, it's my understanding that they get very warm. In space, would they overheat extremely easily, or can they sufficiently dissipate the heat by radiation?
- Weapons in space wouldn't have any bullet drop, without the gravity. So, they wouldn't have to be factory-zeroed to a certain distance, or manually zeroed, which in combination with the lack of wind and a Coriolis force may significantly affect how snipers operate in space, wouldn't you think?
- You would still have to lead moving targets. Maybe weapons could automatically do it with radar, similarly to how it works in fighter jets?
- And what about the material strength of the ISS? If you shot the ISS, from the inside or outside, say a wall or a radiator, with an M1911, would it penetrate? And if so, perhaps space weapons (especially for lawkeeping in space stations and peackeeping on moons without an breathable atmosphere) would be modified to not be strong enough to penetrate it, killing everyone? Maybe tasers are the only viable weapons for lawkeepers to have aboard space stations or colonies?
- On a similar note of safety, in Shattered Horzion, you can't accelerate to infinite speeds. It's obviously done for gameplay purposes and to create an analogue of walking and sprinting (by using a booster that allows you to temporarily reach a higher maximum speed), but I think it can also be explained as a safety feature. The makes sense for the space suit to limit your velocity relative to the combat area of operations, such as a space station, to stop you from accidentally blasting off into infinity.
- Also, Shattered Horizon has simulated sound, which Star Citizen does not as far as I know. Any idea how that could work? A sensor could produce an artificial sound when you pull your trigger and it could be communicated to other people around you as well, while a small 360 degree sensor could look for muzzle flashes or thrust cones. Something like that, maybe? If I remember correctly, there was real-life research on this that was declassified some time ago.
Basically, what considerations went into the making of Star Citizen, Shattered Horizon, The Expanse, Planetes, and other fiction that shows people shooting at each other in space and how could they improve?
Then it doesn't matter whether you send infantry or not. Worse, they might set a program that all of their bombs or nukes will set off once you board. Sorry, but I think I missed when the U.S. armed the ISS with nukes. Say what?
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Oct 14, 2017 15:29:58 GMT
As I mentioned in my second post, again, by space infantry I don't necessarily mean an organized military infantry division of an armed force. By "infantry" only referring to "armed people using weapons against one another in space" (extra vehicular conflict with personal weapons in vacuum, microgravity, or zero-G), in other words civilians, police, military-police, military, criminals, freedom fighters, insurgents, rebels, terrorists, and so on. Someone will die by shooting in space, before someone dies by an entire spacecraft being destroyed by another spacecraft, I reckon, for any of countless reasons.
But as I wrote, my intention was not to discuss too deeply whether "infantry" in space is viable. I assume it is. As someone argued above, you wouldn't nuke a station because there's a criminal on it and you wouldn't necessarily nuke a spacecraft, station, research station or orbital weapon, if you can capture it instead. I think practical economics also comes into play.
Instead, I've been having more thoughts about how someone might deliver death unto another in space.
- Are there any real-life prototypes of bulletproof, or rather, "microasteroid-proof", space suits?
- Are gas-powered conventional guns the only alternative? Are coilguns, railguns, or lasers possible as personal weapons?
- What about grenades? I know there's some mention of it on Atomic Rockets. Are they viable indoors/outdoors? What about weapons like grenade launchers, rocket launchers? I assume they are not very viable.
- Is staying attached to surfaces generally necessary to manage recoil? The suit could compensate for recoil I guess. Also, how would you attach to surfaces? The conventional solution is magnetic boots. Wouldn't weak thrust also work well, for non-magnetic surfaces? Many Earth-weapons recoil up, which would send you spinning, which is a part of why I don't think Earth weapons would work in space.
- Also, what about light machine guns? On Earth, it's my understanding that they get very warm. In space, would they overheat extremely easily, or can they sufficiently dissipate the heat by radiation?
- Weapons in space wouldn't have any bullet drop, without the gravity. So, they wouldn't have to be factory-zeroed to a certain distance, or manually zeroed, which in combination with the lack of wind and a Coriolis force may significantly affect how snipers operate in space, wouldn't you think?
- You would still have to lead moving targets. Maybe weapons could automatically do it with radar, similarly to how it works in fighter jets?
- And what about the material strength of the ISS? If you shot the ISS, from the inside or outside, say a wall or a radiator, with an M1911, would it penetrate? And if so, perhaps space weapons (especially for lawkeeping in space stations and peackeeping on moons without an breathable atmosphere) would be modified to not be strong enough to penetrate it, killing everyone? Maybe tasers are the only viable weapons for lawkeepers to have aboard space stations or colonies?
- On a similar note of safety, in Shattered Horzion, you can't accelerate to infinite speeds. It's obviously done for gameplay purposes and to create an analogue of walking and sprinting (by using a booster that allows you to temporarily reach a higher maximum speed), but I think it can also be explained as a safety feature. The makes sense for the space suit to limit your velocity relative to the combat area of operations, such as a space station, to stop you from accidentally blasting off into infinity.
- Also, Shattered Horizon has simulated sound, which Star Citizen does not as far as I know. Any idea how that could work? A sensor could produce an artificial sound when you pull your trigger and it could be communicated to other people around you as well, while a small 360 degree sensor could look for muzzle flashes or thrust cones. Something like that, maybe? If I remember correctly, there was real-life research on this that was declassified some time ago.
Worse, they might set a program that all of their bombs or nukes will set off once you board. Sorry, but I think I missed when the U.S. armed the ISS with nukes. Say what? I couldn't remember, when did ISS entered the conversation?
|
|
gun
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by gun on Oct 14, 2017 15:32:41 GMT
As I mentioned in my second post, again, by space infantry I don't necessarily mean an organized military infantry division of an armed force. By "infantry" only referring to "armed people using weapons against one another in space" (extra vehicular conflict with personal weapons in vacuum, microgravity, or zero-G), in other words civilians, police, military-police, military, criminals, freedom fighters, insurgents, rebels, terrorists, and so on. Someone will die by shooting in space, before someone dies by an entire spacecraft being destroyed by another spacecraft, I reckon, for any of countless reasons.
But as I wrote, my intention was not to discuss too deeply whether "infantry" in space is viable. I assume it is. As someone argued above, you wouldn't nuke a station because there's a criminal on it and you wouldn't necessarily nuke a spacecraft, station, research station or orbital weapon, if you can capture it instead. I think practical economics also comes into play.
Instead, I've been having more thoughts about how someone might deliver death unto another in space.
- Are there any real-life prototypes of bulletproof, or rather, "microasteroid-proof", space suits?
- Are gas-powered conventional guns the only alternative? Are coilguns, railguns, or lasers possible as personal weapons?
- What about grenades? I know there's some mention of it on Atomic Rockets. Are they viable indoors/outdoors? What about weapons like grenade launchers, rocket launchers? I assume they are not very viable.
- Is staying attached to surfaces generally necessary to manage recoil? The suit could compensate for recoil I guess. Also, how would you attach to surfaces? The conventional solution is magnetic boots. Wouldn't weak thrust also work well, for non-magnetic surfaces? Many Earth-weapons recoil up, which would send you spinning, which is a part of why I don't think Earth weapons would work in space.
- Also, what about light machine guns? On Earth, it's my understanding that they get very warm. In space, would they overheat extremely easily, or can they sufficiently dissipate the heat by radiation?
- Weapons in space wouldn't have any bullet drop, without the gravity. So, they wouldn't have to be factory-zeroed to a certain distance, or manually zeroed, which in combination with the lack of wind and a Coriolis force may significantly affect how snipers operate in space, wouldn't you think?
- You would still have to lead moving targets. Maybe weapons could automatically do it with radar, similarly to how it works in fighter jets?
- And what about the material strength of the ISS? If you shot the ISS, from the inside or outside, say a wall or a radiator, with an M1911, would it penetrate? And if so, perhaps space weapons (especially for lawkeeping in space stations and peackeeping on moons without an breathable atmosphere) would be modified to not be strong enough to penetrate it, killing everyone? Maybe tasers are the only viable weapons for lawkeepers to have aboard space stations or colonies?
- On a similar note of safety, in Shattered Horzion, you can't accelerate to infinite speeds. It's obviously done for gameplay purposes and to create an analogue of walking and sprinting (by using a booster that allows you to temporarily reach a higher maximum speed), but I think it can also be explained as a safety feature. The makes sense for the space suit to limit your velocity relative to the combat area of operations, such as a space station, to stop you from accidentally blasting off into infinity.
- Also, Shattered Horizon has simulated sound, which Star Citizen does not as far as I know. Any idea how that could work? A sensor could produce an artificial sound when you pull your trigger and it could be communicated to other people around you as well, while a small 360 degree sensor could look for muzzle flashes or thrust cones. Something like that, maybe? If I remember correctly, there was real-life research on this that was declassified some time ago.
Sorry, but I think I missed when the U.S. armed the ISS with nukes. Say what? I couldn't remember, when did ISS entered the conversation? Perhaps you referred to the USS Cole part and not the ISS part of the post!
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 14, 2017 16:04:17 GMT
if you are attacking a disabled ship, send drones so the suicide charge doesn't kill any of your guys when the ship turns into a megaton range thermonuclear fireball, when attack a pirate ship, same thing, when doing smuggling ops, dock them on a pole and guard the entrance.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Oct 14, 2017 18:09:35 GMT
... Someone will die by shooting in space, before someone dies by an entire spacecraft being destroyed by another spacecraft, I reckon, for any of countless reasons.
Spacecraft tend to be modular, and people are dependent on life support. Cut of life support to a section until agressors are knocked out, then tie them with zip ties. No personal weapons required.
But as I wrote, my intention was not to discuss too deeply whether "infantry" in space is viable. I assume it is. As someone argued above, you wouldn't nuke a station because there's a criminal on it and you wouldn't necessarily nuke a spacecraft, station, research station or orbital weapon, if you can capture it instead. I think practical economics also comes into play. Lasers allow for precise disabling of specific components, like the radiators of the life support. Wait until everyone is knocked out or dead, and your mostly intact spaceship/spacestation/colony is ripe for the taking. I imagine you give them a chance to surrender.
Instead, I've been having more thoughts about how someone might deliver death unto another in space.
- Are there any real-life prototypes of bulletproof, or rather, "microasteroid-proof", space suits?
AFAIK, no. Spacesuits are bulky as is, adding armour would make them even more impractical. - Are gas-powered conventional guns the only alternative? Are coilguns, railguns, or lasers possible as personal weapons?
It's a matter of energy generation. Coilguns, railguns and lasers require too much energy to be easily portable in a usable format. Conventional guns, gyrojets, compressed gas guns, portable ram accelerators, crossbows, spring guns, ... seem more practical. - What about grenades? I know there's some mention of it on Atomic Rockets. Are they viable indoors/outdoors? What about weapons like grenade launchers, rocket launchers? I assume they are not very viable.
Outdoors, 'infantry' has no purpose. Assume all man-to-man fighting is indoors and in close quarters. Fragmentation grenades cause too much damage (and risk depressurising the hull), non-lethal grenades (concussive, smoke, teargas, flashbang) would seem the norm. Gas grenades, HE, incendiary and thermobaric might see occasional use in peculiar niches. - Is staying attached to surfaces generally necessary to manage recoil? The suit could compensate for recoil I guess. Also, how would you attach to surfaces? The conventional solution is magnetic boots. Wouldn't weak thrust also work well, for non-magnetic surfaces? Many Earth-weapons recoil up, which would send you spinning, which is a part of why I don't think Earth weapons would work in space.
Weapons with low recoil would be used: gyrojets, ram accelerators and flechette guns. Bracing would probably be still necessary. Zero-g environments probably have plenty of handholds. An armguard mounted metal storm system controlled by finger gestures launching flechettes at high velocity would allow you to keep your hands free to grab on to handholds with whatever arm you're not shooting with at that moment. - Also, what about light machine guns? On Earth, it's my understanding that they get very warm. In space, would they overheat extremely easily, or can they sufficiently dissipate the heat by radiation?
They'll overheat even more easily. - Weapons in space wouldn't have any bullet drop, without the gravity. So, they wouldn't have to be factory-zeroed to a certain distance, or manually zeroed, which in combination with the lack of wind and a Coriolis force may significantly affect how snipers operate in space, wouldn't you think?
Yes, but infantry is unlikely to operate outdoors. And machines can aim faster and better. Humans are good for CQC, where tings can be messy and human versatility is more useful than robotic accuracy. - You would still have to lead moving targets. Maybe weapons could automatically do it with radar, similarly to how it works in fighter jets?
Letting machines do all the aiming at long range would be more accurate and faster. Why bother with humans? - And what about the material strength of the ISS? If you shot the ISS, from the inside or outside, say a wall or a radiator, with an M1911, would it penetrate?
Yes. And if so, perhaps space weapons (especially for lawkeeping in space stations and peackeeping on moons without an breathable atmosphere) would be modified to not be strong enough to penetrate it, killing everyone? Maybe tasers are the only viable weapons for lawkeepers to have aboard space stations or colonies? For law enforcement, tasers, tear gas and the like seem the safest bet. Messing with the ventilation/air is another way to subdue agressors/stop riots. - On a similar note of safety, in Shattered Horzion, you can't accelerate to infinite speeds. It's obviously done for gameplay purposes and to create an analogue of walking and sprinting (by using a booster that allows you to temporarily reach a higher maximum speed), but I think it can also be explained as a safety feature. The makes sense for the space suit to limit your velocity relative to the combat area of operations, such as a space station, to stop you from accidentally blasting off into infinity.
Relative to what would that velocity be though? What if there are multiple objects at varying orbital velocities? This would limit your infantry, and would be turned of ASAP. - Also, Shattered Horizon has simulated sound, which Star Citizen does not as far as I know. Any idea how that could work? A sensor could produce an artificial sound when you pull your trigger and it could be communicated to other people around you as well, while a small 360 degree sensor could look for muzzle flashes or thrust cones. Something like that, maybe? If I remember correctly, there was real-life research on this that was declassified some time ago.
Simulated sound seems technobable, but using audio cues for various sensors is a nifty idea. And what your probably thinking of was the reverse: microphones would detect the sound of a gunshot and indicate from where the shot came.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Oct 14, 2017 20:59:08 GMT
The US military, with its love of high-tech low-human-risk (for their own troops) solutions, did experiment with ground drones to replace infantry patrolling Irak. The tech is there, and if I remember correctly they even built a few prototypes. However, they dropped the idea. Not for any technological or logistical reason, but because if one side is a guy with a gun and the other is a killer robot sent and controlled by strangers, people will side against the Terminator. This is also why occupation forces don't always patrol on full heavy gear, and sometimes even with berets instead of helmets. Worse, what happens when children throw stones at it? With human soldiers, they can de-escalate the situation in many ways. Against the robot, it's harder. And what if the children fire at the robot with actual weapons? Does it retaliate and kill the children? No human was ever at risk, and now you have a PR disaster. They may not have even fired against actual human beings instead of a machine in the first place.
Independently from the Marine or Air Force infantry that could be replaced by drones in high-intensity conflicts, there are many cases where you want actual human beings instead of drones out there.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 14, 2017 23:30:08 GMT
Also, Shattered Horizon has simulated sound, which Star Citizen does not as far as I know. Any idea how that could work? A sensor could produce an artificial sound when you pull your trigger and it could be communicated to other people around you as well, while a small 360 degree sensor could look for muzzle flashes or thrust cones. Something like that, maybe? If I remember correctly, there was real-life research on this that was declassified some time ago. Simulated sound seems technobable, but using audio cues for various sensors is a nifty idea. And what your probably thinking of was the reverse: microphones would detect the sound of a gunshot and indicate from where the shot came. [/li][/ul][/quote][/quote]simulated sound is: suit sees muzzle flash, plays gunshot sound
|
|