Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    First Lieutenant Sci-Fi's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lost in the Neutral Zone
    Posts
    938

    Wink Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    From Hollywood North Report:

    Tech Blog

    Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    By Dr. Kevin Grazier, BSG Science Advisor
    September 11th 2005

    Click on the link to read the full article. Some excerpts:

    When HNR asked what my first topic would be, it was a no-brainer -- primarily because it stems from a question that friends have asked me numerous times since I started work on the show. In fact, I've even been confronted with the topic at a convention by a fan who said (paraphrased), "I have a bone to pick with you guys...":

    "Why do you guys use bullets instead of lasers? That's so...boring!"

    So, let's start the TECH BLOG off with a BANG, and take aim at that question.

    I would argue from the onset that projectile weapons (bullets) are no less interesting than directed energy weapons, simply because of how poorly directed energy weapons have traditionally been portrayed in science fiction. For the Galactica miniseries, Executive Producers Ron Moore and David Eick made the decision to use projectile weapons, bullets, instead of LASERS. Because I was not associated with Galactica until it became a series, I don't know why they made the choice. Had I been asked, though, I would have said that this was a good call.

    Directed energy weapons, of which LASERs are a subset, have rarely been depicted accurately in either TV or movies. Let's use the original Battlestar Galactica as both a good and bad example of how accurately directed energy weapons have been portrayed on TV and cinema.

    When we speak of directed energy weapons, the energy being directed is in the form of electromagnetic radiation, or EM radiation (visible light, microwaves, radio waves, and X-rays are a few of the forms). In a vacuum electromagnetic radiation is the fastest thing in the Universe -- it travels at 186,000 miles per second (or 300,000 kilometers per second), and represents a sort of universal "speed limit". Nothing that has mass or carries information can travel faster. The speed of EM radiation in air, glass, water, or other media is a bit slower, but very fast nevertheless.

    Therefore, when an energy beam is fired, it would seem to "connect" from weapon to target as soon as activated, then instantly disconnect when turned off. It's exactly like a LASER pointer, as soon as the button is pressed, the LASER light appears on the wall -- or the viewscreen, the ceiling, the family cat... What you would NOT see is the traditional "bolt" of energy -- appearing much like a solid tracer round -- from the weapon as we saw from all the spacecraft in the original Galactica (Star Wars, Stargate, and Farscape all also bad examples here). Even with the phasers of Star Trek, which are realistically depicted as continuous energy beams, the viewer can still see "front" of the beam radiate to the target at a finite speed, and the terminus of the beam propagate in a similar fashion. A very good example of how directed energy weapons are depicted realistically, at least from this standpoint, can be seen in Babylon 5, in particular the Shadow Vessels.

    Then again, all of this presupposes you could see the beam at all! In order to see anything, light emitted by, or reflected from, that object has to interact with a sensor (i.e. your eye). Since a directed energy beam is, well, directed it is not visible unless it is shot directly into your eye. That is, of course, unless there is a medium to scatter the beam, like dust or smoke particles and/or water droplets in air. So rock bands use LASERS at concerts because they know full-well that the hall will be filled with tobacco (or other vegetable matter) smoke to scatter the beam and make it visible. If you've attended a Laserium, or other LASER light show -- often held in planetaria or other venues which do not allow smoking--the beam is much harder to see, except where it reflects off the ceiling.

    ....There is an irony here. People who have asked me why the current Galactica uses bullets instead of LASERs seem to feel that LASERs seem more...lethal. Interestingly enough, while Battlestar Galactica has gone retro and uses projectile weaponry instead of directed energy, the United States military has been in the news of late (see this link as well) for taking the opposite approach -- using directed energy weapons as nonlethal alternatives to bullets in Iraq. The Active Denial System, part of Project Sheriff, is slated for use in area denial and crowd control in the very near future.


  2. #2
    Second Lieutenant @Li3n's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2005
    Location
    As close 2 hell as U can get without actualy being dead...
    Posts
    307

    Zat Re: Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    Wait, are all Directed Energy Weapons invisible? Wouldn't particle beams be visible (like lightning?)!

    Almost forgot: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...g/roberds.html
    Last edited by @Li3n; September 13th, 2005 at 05:33 PM.

  3. #3
    Chief Master Sergeant pliepl's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    132

    Default Re: Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    Isn’t it a little early to say (considering that we’ve only scratched the surface of science and understanding of the universe) directed energy weapons are implausible? Their usage and portrayal in shows and movies can at times be somewhat exaggerated but that’s the liberty that is taken by the filmmakers to tell the stories. If physics in those stories were confined or limited to only what we know at present, the sci fi genre would probably not exist or be drastically different than what it is today (more boring perhaps).

    Though it is true that we haven’t (to my knowledge) produce effective directed energy weapons to replace the projectile weapons of today, that’s not to say that it couldn’t or wouldn’t be done. Especially if a more efficient energy production and storage containers is invented that is able to storage large amounts of energy in a compact space.

    Lasers pens (especially green) can be bought that are plainly visible (the beam trail not just the end dot) without smoke. The realm of possibility is there that directed energy of more power and size would also be visible.

  4. #4
    Captain Avenger's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Berkeley, Ca
    Posts
    1,935

    Default Re: Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    I don't really care if energy weapons aren't portrayed accurately in terms of real world physics or if they're plausible. It's science fiction we're talking about here.
    I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

  5. #5
    First Lieutenant Iguana775's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Lincoln, NE
    Posts
    662

    Default Re: Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    well, at least they dont rehash that same old 3-barrell shotgun looking thing you see a lot on Stargate Atlantis and many many other sci-fi shows seen on Sci-Fi. lol

  6. #6
    Lieutenant Colonel Ouroboros's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,846

    Default Re: Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    In terms of efficiency it usually requires a lot less effort in terms fo energy use to damage a target with something like a mass driver or explosives than it does with a pure DEW like a laser.

    In a more realistic galactica type universe the only sort of energy weapon I'd likely want to bother with would be some sort of extremely high energy radiation beam that would just kill scores of people on the enemy ship, largely regardless of the protection afforded by conventional metallic hulls.

  7. #7
    Chief Master Sergeant
    Member Since
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    198

    Default Re: Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    What do you think would happen if they got to Earth as they have little advantage in technology.

    Particularly personal weapons

  8. #8
    Probie
    Member Since
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    I always thought that a PHASER is some sort of directed particle beam. Is is "sublight" because is contains things like proton, electron, bubbletron, tachyon, you get the picture. These little bastrds collide in the beam and emit light. That's why you can see it traveling through space.

    You need "fuel" (say water), convertor (water -> bubbletrons & protons), energy (bubbletrons & protons => target and shoot at high velocity).

    But than again, you can take a bucket filled with water, put it into a shell casing, add "unstable" convertor and a guidance system. You just made projectile weapon that can guide itself and deliver brief shower of bubbletrons that could be more lethal than the beam.

    I would take both to my own ship, oh wait - that's StarTrek - never mind.
    Last edited by Antilope; February 2nd, 2007 at 04:48 PM.

  9. #9
    Staff Sergeant FlightPod's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    59

    Default Re: Projectile Weapons vs. Directed Energy Weapons

    Well for us in real life i think rail guns are more likely to mature first, firstly theres already working examples of such weapons, and they likely don't need the cooling that high energy lasers or particle cannons would need due to heat.

Similar Threads

  1. Battlestar Galactica Does anyone know...
    By cathy in forum Battlestar Galactica
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 31st, 2004, 10:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •