Atomic wrote:Actually the main issue about guns is wether they'd be able to fire at all or not. In our atmosphere it certainly works, but can you say the same about the ever-changing conditions of space warfare?
Yes. The atmosphere is quite irrelevant to the operation of a firearm, unless it's so dense that it actually poses a direct obstacle or so thin that it provides inadequate cooling, in which case you're probably not running around shooting a standard firearm in the first place, and most certainly aren't going to be using energy weapons in preference to projectile weapons.
Atomic wrote:Also, the accuracy and control you can have over slugs is rather limited when compared to missiles (they can home and lock on) and laser beams (unless you're a near biiiig massive object, they travel on straight lines).
They're completely different weapons. Bullets with some degree for tracking a target have been in development for a while now, and the accuracy is not much of an issue in close combat, while the acceleration time of a missile may be. Missiles have payload and range that bullets can't duplicate, but take up more room.
Atomic wrote:Here's also food for thought: Have you ever considered when Humanity will invent the particle cannon?
SpoilerShow
We actually invented it waaay back in 1858. Cathodic Beams. They are the first known electron accelerators. Known uses of said accelerators: Vaccuum Valves, Old style-particle beam TVs. X-ray generators. Radiotherapy. Accelerator research.
With the useful range of particle beams in atmosphere, you're better off using the weapon as a club. Collisions with air molecules very quickly defocus and sap energy from the beam.
Atomic wrote:Actually the main issue about guns is wether they'd be able to fire at all or not. In our atmosphere it certainly works, but can you say the same about the ever-changing conditions of space warfare?
Yes. The atmosphere is quite irrelevant to the operation of a firearm, unless it's so dense that it actually poses a direct obstacle or so thin that it provides inadequate cooling, in which case you're probably not running around shooting a standard firearm in the first place, and most certainly aren't going to be using energy weapons in preference to projectile weapons.
Atomic wrote:Also, the accuracy and control you can have over slugs is rather limited when compared to missiles (they can home and lock on) and laser beams (unless you're a near biiiig massive object, they travel on straight lines).
They're completely different weapons. Bullets with some degree for tracking a target have been in development for a while now, and the accuracy is not much of an issue in close combat, while the acceleration time of a missile may be. Missiles have payload and range that bullets can't duplicate, but take up more room.
Atomic wrote:Here's also food for thought: Have you ever considered when Humanity will invent the particle cannon?
SpoilerShow
We actually invented it waaay back in 1858. Cathodic Beams. They are the first known electron accelerators. Known uses of said accelerators: Vaccuum Valves, Old style-particle beam TVs. X-ray generators. Radiotherapy. Accelerator research.
With the useful range of particle beams in atmosphere, you're better off using the weapon as a club. Collisions with air molecules very quickly defocus and sap energy from the beam.
Same case as plasma, and yet, they use it.
However, the inverse is also true in space. With vacuum in front of it, a particle beam becomes a deadly weapon.
Atomic wrote:Actually the main issue about guns is wether they'd be able to fire at all or not. In our atmosphere it certainly works, but can you say the same about the ever-changing conditions of space warfare?
Charges usually have their oxidant "on board", so it´s no matter of atmosphere, rather of rate of pressure.
Well, the pressure conditions you mention are caused by the atmosphere. Also the temperature conditions. We all know the reaction happens at 298-300 K, but how about with temperatures as little as 3K, which is the standard vacuum temperature?
For blackpowder quite good, it isn´t very temperature-sensitive. The main issue is pressure compensation or enclosure/sealing for the charge itself.
For more advanced propellants you´ll have to see each case. But you don´t go to space-war with improper gear.
I see more problems in different enviroments like higher temperature or potentially corrosive atmospheres/enviroments on other planets.
Mjolnir wrote:They might not have developed black powder...
Atomic wrote:Well, the pressure conditions you mention are caused by the atmosphere. Also the temperature conditions. We all know the reaction happens at 298-300 K, but how about with temperatures as little as 3K, which is the standard vacuum temperature? or as high as 650K, which is the surface temperature of Mercury?
No, the pressure conditions are caused by the propellant. That's why it's called propellant.
3 K is the background temperature of the universe, not "standard vacuum temperature" (there's no such thing), and given that the wielder of the weapon won't survive at 3 K or 650 K, why would we care if the weapon doesn't? Any weapon designed for such environments will have the same temperature regulation systems that a suit would have.
Atomic wrote:Same case as plasma, and yet, they use it.
However, the inverse is also true in space. With vacuum in front of it, a particle beam becomes a deadly weapon.
...and that's where they use plasma/particle beam weapons. Your point? We're talking about weapons equivalent to slug-throwing firearms, not starship guns.
Mjolnir wrote:They might not have developed black powder...
Unlikely, BP is very basic chemistry.
The chemistry is trivial, the practical issues of getting it to burn well are less so (details like porosity of the charcoal and milling processes to work the components together, etc...you don't just toss the ingredients together and stuff them in a gun), and there's plenty of other compositions they could have used instead. They could even have just started out with some form of nitrated cellulose or something.
Well, i don't know. I just saw on the topic on what mankind could offer, and for a moment i thought you were going to offer guns (also in space).
Slug throwers. I'm sure both sides have them, because if they have missiles, they know about explosives, and thus they would know how to make a cannon. It's -very- unlikely that they didn't attempt this at one point.
Last edited by Atomic on Wed Sep 07, 2011 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Good one, Beliskner. If Loroi have found Soia energy weapons, before their development of explosion powered projectiles, then they may think our guns as chemically powered slingshots.
But they have blisters, so they aren't using only energy weapons. Also, it is bossible that fracmentation is more lethal to passengers than actual energy blast and armor is designed according with that in mind.
The superiority of one type of weapon & armor aren't constant. It is more like very complex game of rock, paper and scissors.
I can't tell if either is better for maintenance or temperature tolerance. You can build either one from plastic.
Atomic wrote:With vacuum in front of it, a particle beam becomes a deadly weapon.
Atomic wrote:With vacuum in front of it, a particle beam becomes a deadly weapon.
Oh no! He is armed with deadly television! [/quote]
The word is Brehmsstrahlung. In normal conditions, air would stop the electrons and soak the radiation. But on vacuum, it suddenly stops against a hard target, emitting in the X-ray and the gamma spectrum. And if you raise the voltage on a TV you got an x-ray machine, sort of. (If it's your flesh there's no brehmsstrahlung, but you'd get a nasty burn anyway.)
Mjolnir wrote:They might not have developed black powder...
Unlikely, BP is very basic chemistry.
The chemistry is trivial, the practical issues of getting it to burn well are less so (details like porosity of the charcoal and milling processes to work the components together, etc...you don't just toss the ingredients together and stuff them in a gun),
Mind the steps: Mankind also didn´t make high-performance guns right from the start. First some druids mixed stuff together that went ka-boom when ignited, only later other people tried to "tune" (milling processes etc) it.
Mjolnir wrote:They could even have just started out with some form of nitrated cellulose or something.
Discovery of pure acids and their exact processing before grinding some coal, sulfur and potassium nitrate?
Atomic wrote:Well, i don't know. I just saw on the topic on what mankind could offer, and for a moment i thought you were going to offer guns (also in space).
Yeah, why not? Still suitable in some situations.
Atomic wrote:Slug throwers. I'm sure both sides have them, because if they have missiles, they know about explosives, and thus they would know how to make a cannon. It's -very- unlikely that they didn't attempt this at one point.
Yes, but they are on a higher tech-level now, and there´s no funding for research for low-level tech anymore, even if it is obvious from a later point in time how easy improvements on other fields could boost that old tech.
It´s like HiFi or High-End Audio these days: No funds to improve eg tapedecks or turntables anymore (and it is obvious how easy they could be improved), cause everybody has a cheap mp3 now.
Trantor wrote:Mind the steps: Mankind also didn´t make high-performance guns right from the start. First some druids mixed stuff together that went ka-boom when ignited, only later other people tried to "tune" (milling processes etc) it.
More of a "fwoosh", and again, my point is that it wasn't the only way to do the job.
Trantor wrote:
Mjolnir wrote:They could even have just started out with some form of nitrated cellulose or something.
Discovery of pure acids and their exact processing before grinding some coal, sulfur and potassium nitrate? 8-)
The alchemists responsible didn't have much of an understanding of what they were doing with them, but they used reasonably strong mineral acids...nitric acid in particular was described in the 13th century (Pseudo-Geber, in De Inventione Veritatis), it's entirely conceivable that nitration of organic compounds (and thus smokeless propellants and high explosives) could have been discovered before practical gunpowder. The Loroi and Umiak both had more advanced civilizations to learn about chemistry from, which could have helped them in this. They also could have gotten basic electrical technology from the same sources, and might have found chlorates and perchlorates easier to come by (via electrochemistry) than saltpetre. They might not even have had a source of charcoal with suitable porosity, or they might have settled on a volatile component other than sulfur. Black powder's just one particular pyrotechnic composition, and is far from the only way to achieve the desired effect.
Trantor wrote:Discovery of pure acids and their exact processing before grinding some coal, sulfur and potassium nitrate?
The alchemists responsible didn't have much of an understanding of what they were doing with them, but they used reasonably strong mineral acids...nitric acid in particular was described in the 13th century (Pseudo-Geber, in De Inventione Veritatis), it's entirely conceivable that nitration of organic compounds (and thus smokeless propellants and high explosives) could have been discovered before practical gunpowder. The Loroi and Umiak both had more advanced civilizations to learn about chemistry from, which could have helped them in this. They also could have gotten basic electrical technology from the same sources, and might have found chlorates and perchlorates easier to come by (via electrochemistry) than saltpetre. They might not even have had a source of charcoal with suitable porosity, or they might have settled on a volatile component other than sulfur. Black powder's just one particular pyrotechnic composition, and is far from the only way to achieve the desired effect.
That would be like inventing a racecar before the wheel.
Trantor wrote:That would be like inventing a racecar before the wheel.
Not much like that at all...the wheel is a required component of a racecar, you can not have the latter without the former. Black powder isn't any kind of required component of or prerequisite for alternative propellants.
Trantor wrote:That would be like inventing a racecar before the wheel.
Not much like that at all...the wheel is a required component of a racecar, you can not have the latter without the former. Black powder isn't any kind of required component of or prerequisite for alternative propellants.
Are you seriously arguing that every civilization will use black powder because it's there on some timeline? Tech level is only a very rough and extremely simplified way of looking at technological development...not a linear, immutable schedule that all civilizations must follow.
Even the Gurps admit that technology don't always follow tech levels.
And knowledge of technology don't means that it will be in use.
Egyptians knowed eletricity, by spark when you rub amber and bossibly haved knowledge of how to make acid-batteries, because they had used electrolysis.
If good Roman doctor could timetravel to first world war and put on to hospital, he would recognize every instrument in use.
Inka has wheels only on toys, but their post was so fast, that only railways could break the record.
Explosions were known before black powder, and it was known by alchemists early that smaller particles will react more feisty and also that even mixture of air and dust of grain could explode.
Etc.
That is because the highly efficient systems of the loroi have the unforeseeable consequence of leaving chemically unstable waste behind. Or something.
As for Umiak...maybe they spontaneously explode as part of their reproductive cycle?
Trantor wrote:That would be like inventing a racecar before the wheel.
I was under the impression that "car" pre-existed the automobile by a very large margin and referred to "the box part of a vehicle," so the box that a charioteer stands in would be the chariot's car, and the box that people sit in in a carriage would be the carriage's car, and the analogous structure on a one-horse open sleigh is the sleigh's car.
So it'd be pretty easy to imagine a society that developed sled-racing, possibly involving teams of dogs, long before they'd need wheels, provided weather conditions and terrain were more conducive to sledding than to wheeled transport.
Now, developing automobiles without knowledge of the wheel, that would take some doing.
I mean, how would the engine even work, without gears and such things that work on the wheel's principles?
I love how a thread about the state of various unmentioned fields of human technology in Outsider turned into an argument on how black powder got developed. Protip: It doesn't mean shit if you've developed guns and the other guy didn't when he can gain space superiority and bomb your ass from orbit any day of the week. Besides, I highly doubt Arioch is going to have Outsider become some bizzaro version of Guns of the South.
That book was terrible, for one thing.
"Optical computers, genetic catalogs, nanorepair modules--forget all of that. It's when you see a megaton of steel suspended over your head by a thread the thickness of a human hair that you really find God in technology."
