# What Weapons work in Space?



## libelula (Sep 9, 2003)

Since space isa vacuum and doesn't have the same natrual laws as on earth. I suppose lazers would work since visible light can travel through a vacuum and any other non visible light waves would work too ex. gamma, ultra violet. What about nuclear weapons? Fusion happens in stars. Could a fusion weapon work in a vacuum?


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 9, 2003)

A lot of things work in space, at least in theory;

Lasers, of course (though you can't see them), plus as you said things like gamma rays.

Any sort of physical projectile could be deadly - all you have to do is open a ship up to the vacuum outside + it'll die. So, bullets, rockets (doesn't have to be subtle). Plus, of course, with no air-resistance, they're even more powerful.

You mentioned fusion weapons - not sure what you mean, but I'll do my best. We already have 'fusion weapons' in the H-bomb. More complicated stuff I don't know about, but if you're far enough in the future, who's to argue?

I can think of a few more exotic ideas as well - using big nukes to create huge EMPs (electro-magnetic pulses - fry all a ship's electronics), for instance. Also, you could use huge concave mirrors to melt ships. You could also superheat metals into gasses, then use magnets to squish them up and squirt them at enemies which had got in close (have to be short ranged because space is so c-c-cold).

Yeah, there are plenty of weapons which would work, some of them quite simple. Travel is more of a problem. And that, I improvise and leave realism to greater minds.

Rik


----------



## libelula (Sep 11, 2003)

Actually I had the idea that projectiles when lauched into space would just float. I was looking at space debre and big rocks that hang around our solar system. I'm not very good at physics. If you got an object in motion like a bullet or torpedo would it gain more momentum in a vacuum? Tell me more about the metal gas idea it sounded very interesting.


----------



## Shaun (Sep 11, 2003)

Projectiles in space keep travelling at the same speed (and momentum) as when they were fired until they hit something.
I'm pretty sure we have protection against EMP's already for circuits, so that might not work.
Nuclear weapons (fission, at least) would work, they just wouldn't have nearly the same impact. Atomic weapons have most of their destructive power by the imense heat and shockwaves created in the atmosphere when they explode. They gamma radiation created would be pretty deadly though, if no protection against it was used.


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 11, 2003)

Projectiles launched in space only appear to float because you have no frame of reference against which to judge their movement.

The metal gas idea I nicked straight out of an Arthur Clarke story (Earthlight). With some REALLY BIG magnets, you squeeze the metal and heat it. Eventually (as I understand the physics, you wind up with a sort of plasma, which you then chuck at the enemy with more big magnets. Has to be short-range, though, because space is very cold.

Rik


----------



## libelula (Sep 13, 2003)

someone moved my thread. Though I am still a little confused about the heated metals I will look into more of it. I know from astronomy class about short wave vs. long wave rays. Medicine can make lasers strong enough to cut, but is it possible to make light strong enough that it would blow stuff up?


----------



## ray gower (Sep 13, 2003)

Broadly weapons that rely upon the activities of Sir Isaac Newton have problems.

Weapons that rely upon blast effect e.g. explosives, to cause damage will have limited effect. There is nothing for them to react upon and against. Explode a stick of dynamite on the floor and detonate it and the hole it creates is not very big. Bury it a foot or two underground and things are a lot more promising.
The same rules apply to the bang of a nuclear weapon. The EMP pulse can be protected against, which only leaves the poisoing problem.

Weapons that use momentum e.g. bullets, will work provided they have the kinetic energy required to penetrate whatever they hit and the range is almost unlimited. 
The problem is how to fire the thing. If one is floating in space and fires a gun, the bullet will leave the muzzle at the right speed. But because of Newton, one will also be disappearing in the opposite direction at much the same velocity. This could be undesirable.

Lasers are promising. You need surprisingly little power to create a beam that can cut metals. Our laser cutter at work uses about 15KW to cut 3mm steel.
On Earth the problem is maintaining a concentrated beam that is powerful enough to do damage over any distance. The beam is defracted and dispersed by air. It is one of the reasons why SDI did not work. In space the problem is much reduced.
Unfortunately they are comparitively easy to negate.

Plasma, the mot metal gas, also works in a vacumn and is, I think, more promising. It uses even less power than a laser (a 15KW industrial CO2 plasma cutter will easily chew up 12mm of armour at better then  8M/min).
Ultimately it is a simple kinetic weapon.

Above those perhaps we can look at the use of ultra-shortwave beams of radiation that can upset the bonds between molecules, a little like microwaves.

Nuclear power, in the shape of fusion, not fision as we currently use, will have to provide the power, unless we discover Trek like anti-matter reactors


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 13, 2003)

Wow - lots of interesting ideas. I'd better get scribbling.....

Actually, the weapons and technologies that really interest me reside a few hundred years further in the future; the so-called 'Space-drive' and various other ideas I've had regarding the manipulation of the so-called 'exotic matter' (and various other things). For instance, it may become possible to drop one end of a wormhole into the middle of enemy ships and leave the other hanging in a vacuum (sort of a modern version of holing a ship below the waterline), or maybe manipulate the fabric of space itself, using it to squash enemy ships or push/pull them into planets or stars. It might even be possible to push planets at ships, or to change the behaviour of space-time, creating pockets where time doesn't exist and thus we can move through them without time passing outside them - a sort of instantaneous travel.

Someone, reading this, is yelling about the laws of physics, but the laws of physics don't apply to everywhere in nature (two words; black holes), so why should they be taken as anything other (cliche alert) than guidelines? If nature can break them, why shouldn't we?

A good way to get around the problem of how to get these into stories is to have advanced alien races 'give' them to us - another cliche, but hey, it works.

That black hole has just given me a whole bunch more ideas, but this post is getting wayyy too long + I have a whole bunch of new story ideas. Hope I've helped a bit.

Rik


----------



## ZachWZ (Sep 14, 2003)

Their no air in space, so how can expolsie get the oxygen to form the spark which starts the process?

ZachWZ


----------



## Dave (Sep 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ray gower _
> *Weapons that use momentum e.g. bullets, will work provided they have the kinetic energy required to penetrate whatever they hit and the range is almost unlimited.
> The problem is how to fire the thing. If one is floating in space and fires a gun, the bullet will leave the muzzle at the right speed. But because of Newton, one will also be disappearing in the opposite direction at much the same velocity. This could be undesirable.*



Gauss Weapons overcome this problem of Newton's Third Law of Motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.)

The Gauss Weapon uses a strong electromagnetic field to propel the projectile between two rails, in much the same way as a monorail train works. Velocity is directly proportional to barrel length; with enough power and a long enough barrel, in a vacuum it is possible to accelerate projectiles even to relativistic velocities. This is all Science-fact, though the power generation and the length of barrel necessary might be a problem in actually getting one to work successfully.

In Science Fiction, there are two types of Gauss weapons: railguns and massdrivers. Railguns fire high-density metal projectiles at extremely high velocity, while massdrivers fire a conventional explosive shell at a velocity which is about the same as a shell fired from a conventional artillery piece.

Minature Railguns firing needle-like bullets could replace a present-day handgun, while larger Railguns could replace a Cannon.



> _Originally posted by ZachWZ _
> *Their no air in space, so how can explosive get the oxygen to form the spark which starts the process?*



The explosive could have it's own Oxidiser, in the same way that rockets work -- they usually carry liquid Oxygen and mix it with the fuel (usually Gasoline or liquid Hydrogen.) Anyway you could concievably design a shell which contained two stable reactants which are safe until they mix together on impact and go KABOOOOM!


----------



## ray gower (Sep 15, 2003)

The electro-magnetic rail gun solution has been tested for possible use on the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier as well as by the American Navy for point defence of ships. So the technology works there.

As for oxygen. Almost all explosives produce oxygen when fired.


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 15, 2003)

One small further idea regarding the oxygen problem - it might be possible to design a device that uses the oxygen contained in an enemy ship as its source, thus saving space for more explosives.

Just a thought

Rik


----------



## ray gower (Sep 16, 2003)

Rather assumes whoever you are shooting at uses Oxygen and not something more inert


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 16, 2003)

True, but in man-on-man battles (which I see as being the most likely, at least early on in man's exploration of space), all ships will have oxygen-rich environments. There is a scientific theory that life can only evolve in oxygen atmospheres, so it is possible that all ships will have oxygen atmospheres.

Rik


----------



## libelula (Sep 17, 2003)

Not true as I recall the creatures that survive on the methane vents in the ocean do not require oxygen to survive. Or at least I heard something like that. Besides the laws that require a planet or environment to sustain life are changing. Bacteria samples that were left on the moon during the first moon landing were brought back to earth and it was discovered that the bacteria was still alive. And it has been discovered that some mico-animals can survive in the vacuum of space by going into stasis. NOT only is it possible for life to exist without oxygen, but life could evolve to exist in the vacuum of space.


----------



## libelula (Sep 17, 2003)

I was wrong about the methane vent sea creatures they do need oxygen to survive, but I was right about  methane creatures. Article http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/iceworms.htm


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 17, 2003)

I said it was only a theory. Plus, of course, there is the question of whether sentient life can evolve in a vacuum. Fighting against creatures that can exist in a vacuum would involve a totally different style of fighting anyway.

Just a thought

Rik


----------



## libelula (Sep 20, 2003)

YOu may be right. Would the creatures have some sort of blood? Could they have some sort of blood? Is it possible that they live off of gasses that exist as a normal part of the scenery or eat rocks then digestion releases the gasses that way? I would think creatures would have to have developed really thick tough skin or what not to prevent from radiation and solar storms.


----------



## libelula (Sep 20, 2003)

Going back on topic. I just had a thought about the plasma weapons. Plasma being the fourth stage of matter only exists in stars where (to be an understatement) it is very hot. What would be used to contain and generate the plasma for the weapons? Also plasma does not work the same way light does how could one force it to act like a lazer.?


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 20, 2003)

Plasma doesn't only exist in stars, and I'm not suggesting using it like a laser. What I suggested was using magnets to chuck large quantities of metal at enemy ships, after first having squashed the metal up very small with said magnets, using the pressure to generate heat.

Rik


----------



## libelula (Sep 21, 2003)

Okay other than stars wherein nature does plasma exists, I am pretty sure volcanos and the center of the earth doesn't count because thats molten rock. It exists in hotter than molten state and last time I checked not much solid matter be it metals or poly can contain things hotter than a molten state. Would't you have to have something to contain or store the plasma while its being generated by said magnets?


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 21, 2003)

As strange as it sounds, the magnets do all the containment. And it is possible to create plasma artificially, it just takes a helluva lot of energy. This is essentially what fusion power involves, and it has been acheived (albeit briefly) in the H-bomb, so we're okay for possibility. Viability takes work, though - a few years of advancement technologically to make it possible, and at least a hundred before it becomes desirable.

But now I'm verging on sociology, so I'll drop the thread there.

Just a thought,

Rik


----------



## libelula (Sep 22, 2003)

It sounds like creating plasma based weapons involves more of an energy input than output. On a starship or whatever that needs the energy it creates to essentially exist would that be feasable?


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 22, 2003)

Plasma weapons rely on a technology very like that of fusion reactors. Fusion reactors provide vast amounts of energy. I find it unlikely that we will construct plasma weapons before we have fusion reactors, so power should be available. I think.

Rik


----------



## ray gower (Sep 23, 2003)

The Daystrom Institute Technical Library, all be it a Star Trek site, does have some very practical comments on how plasma based weapons can be used and their problems


----------



## libelula (Sep 24, 2003)

Duhh of course we would have fusion power before we would harness the power of plasma. Humans would have fusion before we have intersteller travel. Even if we did do the whole crogenic sleep we would still have to have an unceasing power supply to run the technology to moniter the situation.


----------



## libelula (Sep 24, 2003)

I sent an email to NASA to see if they could lend us any more expertise. I am not hoping for much of a reply so I am planning to email my old Astronomy Professor. He has a phd in physics and is pretty smart.


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 24, 2003)

Not meaning to upstage you or anything, but fusion power is not a limitless resource - like anything, it needs fuel, just not as much as almost anything else, so fusion power wouldn't last a ship forever. And cryogenic sleep doesn't work for long enough to get us to nearby stars. We won't be able to travel between stars without a way of skipping around the distance. But that's not what we're here to discuss.....

Power isn't a problem for plasma weapons (or won't be by the time we need them). I think that's resolved that discussion. I still like the idea of getting an extra thousand years' worth of technology and staring to manipulate black holes and stuff. Now that would be a technology to base a story on......

*runs off in a daze of new ideas*

Just a thought,

Rik


----------



## Dave (Sep 24, 2003)

I found this: Space Weapons Kinds and their Capabilities

It's a .pdf file so you need acrobat reader to open it.

We've discussed Gauss Weapons, Fusion and Plasma Guns, and Lasers, but there are other directed Energy weapons and particle weapons.

Particle weapons are a scifi staple. Star Trek uses them, usually the villains have them. I'm not sure they would be that dangerous.

Ray??


----------



## ray gower (Sep 25, 2003)

*Power Sources*

Fuel for a fusion reactor is not a problem. Hydrogen is floating free in space, and even if not freely available, it can still be manufactured using any number of sources.

Anti-matter sounds like a possibility. Mix an ounce of matter with an ounce of anti-matter, shake well and get a bang that will obliterate a major planet. 
It does work, they have a 5km torus ring at Cern dedicated to that sort of playing about. The limitation at present is that it takes more power to create an anti-matter hydrogen atom than you get from it.

Only when that is perfected will harnessing blackholes become a theoretical possibility. It will take rather more re-writing of the rules of quantum physics and far more than an electro-magnetic field to hold it.

Thinking of weapons and battles. I think it will all be a rather liesurely affair. Conventional whizz-bangs, for all their long range and destructive power, are going to take hours to traverse any distance and energy weapons although quicker to arrive, are going to take minutes to do any damage. So battles are going to be similar to the old sailing ship era, where ships spend hours approachng and trying to gain a small edge on their opponent before slugging it out toe-to-toe.


----------



## L. Arkwright (Sep 27, 2003)

I have a book called to the stars by Harry Harrison. In it two ships have to do battle. They use, of all things, cannon balls. Their computers sit and work out where the target will be in relation to where they are at that time and fire in that direction. In a timeline where space travel has developed realistically (IE no anti projectile fields, debris sheilds etc) ten or twenty metal alloy 12 inch diameter projectiles travelling at mach 1 are gonna seriously do you some damage.


----------



## libelula (Sep 28, 2003)

Hmmm something you said caught my attention. No debris sheilds. Realistically I would think it would not be even in this day in age that difficult to imagine and create sheilds for debris. I would think it would be a nessesity for any long term space mission. Yes its true astroid belts are not like in star wars they are more like open star clusters spread apart. But for meteors and other random rocks and magnetic interferance some sort of sheild would have to be in play. 
Does exotic matter have  same properties as anti-matter?

ps: I know that fusion power isn't perpetual energy. But it was the closest thing I can think of and it would only need to last for a few million years. It was in this article I saw where if humans set their minds to it we could colonize the galaxy in like four million years. Just go from planet to planet in wheely space ships like the Gundum colonies. Provided we don't run into hostile alien species.  Which if you think about the possibility is very possible.


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (Sep 28, 2003)

As it stands, unless debris is magnetic, it can't be repulsed. The only debris shields you could get would be thick armour on the ships. And some asteroid belts can get quite dense - planet graveyards + the like. Exotic matter isn't like anti-matter (actually, we don't know this for certain - no-one really knows the properties of exotic matter, as it's harder to get hold of than anti-matter).

On the hostile aliens thing; I don't think that if we develop the technology with which to explore the galaxy, hostile aliens will have technology to match ours, because I think that beyond a certain point, you can't advance without some sort of cultural bias against hostility - I think we're getting there (maybe in fifty years or so, society will collapse and whatever is built on top of it will learn from our mistakes).

Just a thought

Rik


----------



## ray gower (Sep 28, 2003)

Actually we can repulse quite a range of non-iron materials with electro-magnetic fields. 
The Cern test ring for instance contains its anti-hydrogen atom in a magnetic field and it is technology that is starting to find a place in industry for filtration of dust.
Not counting what they do with it in hospitals.

Nor is armour plating and/or funny forcefields the only protection. A high gloss finish will provide protection from lasers, energy absorbing coatings against pure energy beams, more physical weapons are already countered by reactive armour and kevlar. 

Ultimately cannonballs could well be the most cost effective. Punching a good hole in a vessel is always going to be the simplest. The forces inside the enemy (i.e. air pressure) will then be helping not resisting


----------



## libelula (Sep 29, 2003)

Never under estimate the power of duct tape.
On a more serious thought puncturing a hole in someones ship is a good effective way to damage them. Cannon balls or otherwise. But even such things can be helped. By simple closing off of a decompressed area would do the trick or instant repair. They have nano technology that can prevent stains on kaki pants I'm sure its not such a far cry to say that nanobots could be designed to repair holes as they happen. Unless the holes are gaping monsters the size of a dump truck then sealing off the area would be the best option. Works on a sub.


----------



## Dave (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ray gower _
> *The electro-magnetic rail gun solution has been tested for possible use on the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier as well as by the American Navy for point defence of ships. So the technology works there.*



I didn't realise this before, but you can actually get recoiless gauss hand-guns. This Russian site has some:

http://www.pskovinfo.ru/coilgun/indexe.htm

They have another advantage to the assasin of being silent. We can always find new ways of killing each other!


----------



## libelula (Oct 29, 2003)

The site even shows you how to build a table top coilgun.


----------



## Dave (May 16, 2004)

I've found this interesting site:  Space Weapons Earth Wars concerning a book on research carried out by RAND.


----------



## Rik_the_Riff (May 22, 2004)

An oversight.....

In the discussion about how recoil is a problem, we missed one simple, already-existing solution; the self-propelled missile. All you have to do is pop one out of a hatch, press the ignition and bam - no recoil, just one payload of unpleasantness on its way to meet Joe enemy. Then we jump to radio-controlled missiles (or whatever you'd use in space - was never quite clear on radio in vacuum). Just imagine - you could do a psychological thriller about a gunner who went insane from VR-piloting missiles and constantly crashing on the side of ships.... *runs off with ideas again*

just a thought,

Rik


----------



## Dave (Jul 4, 2004)

I don't think anyone has mentioned the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) as a weapon itself. Such pulses are produced as a by-product of some nuclear explosions, but they can be produced on their own. Magnetic fields, suitably increased in power and directed at a spacecraft, would cripple it. It isn't just something out of 'The Matrix' they have been used already:

The E Bomb 

Such intense magnetic fields also have biological effects too. Although not lethal, they affect brain impulses.

Rik_the_Riff -- I now have a new theory about the Reavers from 'Firefly'. They were subjected to EMPs and had their brains scrambled. What do you think?


----------



## Dave (Aug 9, 2005)

*Weaponizing Space*

It seems that although the 'Star Wars' programme may be dead, the weaponizing of space using projectile weapons is still an option:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3119

The â€œrods from Godâ€, when used together with satellite photography, sounds like very bad science fiction, but it could be a reality soon.


----------



## Trouble (Aug 11, 2005)

The U.S Army is developing a rail-gun to replace the conventional projectile weapons in armored vehicles (Tanks).  Currently (publicly anyway) the Weapon takes up a large amount of space, actually the problem is the power required to launch the projectile.  Railguns are nice because of course they are silent, no smoke, and very little recoil.  They can be built now, as a matter of fact, in space it would be easier (lots of power from the sun).  Gunpowder and cordite for that matter are oxidizers, but remember if you are not braced when you fire a gun in space you are going in the opposite direction that you fired (equal and opposite reaction doncha know).  The problem I think with relying on the radiation from nukes to harm people is that any spacecraft is necessarily going to be hardened against radiation, and an EMP can be defeated by a farraday cage.  Personally I love the kinetic projectiles.  You have a lot of momentum in space, impart that into a depleted uranium (really, really dense) slug, pull away, and fling it at your target.  Should make a really really big hole.


----------



## The Ace (Oct 18, 2006)

I went into history and mucked about with two ideas;
  Longgun= 2 assault rifles back-to back, the rear one firing a frangible counterweight to counter the recoil (Davis Gun).
  Spigot gun works on spigot-mortar principle to reduce (but not eliminate ) recoil.
Both later improved by being fitted with a tapered bore.


----------



## Joel007 (Oct 19, 2006)

Asimov has written my favorite space battles. Long periods of waiting (and maths), followed by short periods of excitement. Followed by long periods of being dead.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Oct 19, 2006)

One of the most viable weapons in space is a piece of paper to make paper cuts.


----------



## Parson (Oct 21, 2006)

One of the major weapons that gets relatively little play in Sci Fi and none here is whatever propulsion system that ship is using. Almost anything I can think of that could be used to propel a ship through space would make a fearsome weapon when pointed at another ship, station, or perhaps even a planet. But planets are paricularly vulnerable to kinetic weapons. Any civilization advanced enough to mount a fleet of ships could wipe out a planet with relatively little trouble by "firing" space rocks at it.


----------



## Dave (Oct 21, 2006)

Parson said:
			
		

> One of the major weapons that gets relatively little play in Sci Fi and none here is whatever propulsion system that ship is using.


Have you ever read Larry Niven's first Kzin story (and the first short story he tried to sell) called "The Warriors"?

The peace-loving humans who have banished violence with the use of drugs from auto-docs unexpectedly make first contact with a race of feline carnivores who live only for battle and for the kill. The human ship is equipped with no weapons.


----------



## Parson (Oct 22, 2006)

One thing that seems to have been missing in this discussion is that any foreseeable space drive would have some horrific implications as a weapon in space. Rarely do I read a SF novel that even considers the effect the drive would have on any ship or station in the vincinity of the "tail wash." 

The "tail wash" could in some cases be an effective weapon against a planet. But then again any group who could mount a fleet could literally wipe out a planet's civilization simply by "throwing" space rocks at it.


----------



## Parson (Oct 22, 2006)

Dave,

In fact I have read it -- I believe -- I've read some of those stories anyway. The more I think about it, I picked up somewhere after the first story. It was an interesting premise, but I found it grew old over time.  

*I hope I have been able to delete my redundant post, but if not excuse me please.*


----------



## Tau Zero (Oct 22, 2006)

Particle beam weapons would work well only in space.  Any beam, especially a coherent one, would make a devastating weapon.  The problem is that in proton and electron beams, the particles repulse each other, so the beam spreads out with distance.  Also a magnetic field would bend the beam and a nuclear explosion would disperse it.  These could be used as point defenses against beam weapons.  So a neutron beam would be preferable.  Here, the problem becomes how to aim and focus the beam.  Since the particles are neutral, you can't use magnetic fields for this purpose.  Figure out how to focus a neutron beam and you've got a real space weapon!


----------



## sidewinder (Nov 12, 2006)

Brute force and ignorance works best you don’t need to be precise when throwing something the size of a London bus at your enemy.


----------



## Tau Zero (Nov 13, 2006)

sidewinder said:


> Brute force and ignorance works best you don’t need to be precise when throwing something the size of a London bus at your enemy.


 
It depends.  It is not a good weapon for ship-to-ship space battles.  Throwing a 10 ton block at another ship is not easy.  Recoil from moving that mass affects your movement through space.  Another ship can easily see a large mass coming at them and avoid it.  Even if the block has an engine to move it, acceleration of that large a mass is slow and guiding it is slower.  

Throwing a large mass at a planet could have serious effects if you can give the mass enough velocity.  Enough, that is, for it to survive passing through the atmosphere, while maintaining enough velocity to do kinetic damage.  The added problems are targeting; you need some way of guiding you object through space and the atmosphere at high speed to hit relatively close to your target.  You'll need a guidance system that can survive atmosphere entry and be capable to maneuver the object to some degree.

I think that throwing a large block at anything is not really a very good weapon.


----------



## Off-worlder (Nov 17, 2006)

I am always under the impression that using projectile weapons, bullets, artillery rounds, etc. would never do any good in space especially if they are none explosive sabot type rounds. As the vacuum of space (technically a void not a vacuum) is full of rocks ranging from less than a mm up to many km, whizzing around at many hundreds, if not thousands, of meters per second that have enormous impact energy and we can already proctect our space vessels from these pretty well, anti-ballistic glass, etc. Well, at least from the small ones. So apart from HE or nuke rounds I am not sure what use projectile weapons would be? 

Self propelled projectile rounds, missiles, etc. Are a different kettle of fish.

I also think the reveres reaction of a projectle weapon being fired into space is being taken a little too seriously. The ship that fired the projectile would only go shooting off at the same speed as the projectile _if_ it weighed the same as the projectile. Since the vessel doing the firing is likely to be many hundreds, if not thousands of times of greater mass than the projectile it is firing the reaction will be proportional. Though I think rapid firing weapons would pose a stability problem.

Maybe self propelled rounds with some form of HESH (high explosive squash head, used by tanks today) that use some form of chemical\metal energy to punture a hull with a stream of shaped charge molten metal that would be devastating, even against the strongest armour.

If you remember the _Sulaco_ from Aliens, then there is a military tactics guide I saw somewhere on the web concerning this ship, and how it was used in battle. It said there would be no such thing as Star Trek style phaser battles at a thousand yards, but more stealth techniques such as radar invisible nets, 10km wide that ensnared ships and hindered movement and sensors. Plus it used emp\plasma weapons to fry electronics and projectile weapons for close support. Missiles were also included, but I cannot remember the specifics it was a long time ago.

I think energy weapons will be limited to stations and capital ships due to their power demands and relative size of power units, support structures, cooling plants, etc.

Oh, and never forget the old mention of a thousand missiles.  Have a thousand ships fire a missile at 'any' other ship, or 500 fire two missiles each, so'on and so forth, there is nothing that can protect itself from such an assault.

update - some info on the Sulaco on Wikipedia, but cannot post the link. I stand corrected on some things.


----------



## Paige Turner (Nov 17, 2006)

Spearguns work in space.


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 17, 2006)

Paige Turner said:


> Spearguns work in space.


 
Absolutely. ANy sort of projectile has no air hence no friction losses and will continue at the same speed until it is stopped by an object. You could fire a spear gun through a thin enough hull or space suit from 10,000 miles away and not lose any velocity if you could aim it accurately.


----------



## Paige Turner (Nov 17, 2006)

Only problem is that in a vacuum, there would be no stabilizing drag, and if any rotational enertia was applied to the spear, it would slowly flip end-over-end as it went along. So you'd have a pretty good chance of it striking its target sideways. It would still leave a mark, but wouldn't have the murderous penetrating effect we were probably hoping for.


----------



## Off-worlder (Nov 17, 2006)

Spear guns?  In space?  What are you hoping to hit,  a star fish?

God I crack myself up.

I have been working on that all day.


----------



## Paige Turner (Nov 17, 2006)

Off-worlder said:


> Spear guns?  In space?  What are you hoping to hit,  a star fish?
> 
> God I crack myself up.
> 
> I have been working on that all day.



Oh, okay. I had to read that a few times. Star, because it's in space, and fish, because it's a speargun, right? Okay… okay.

That's pretty funny.


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 18, 2006)

Paige Turner said:


> Oh, okay. I had to read that a few times. Star, because it's in space, and fish, because it's a speargun, right? Okay… okay.
> 
> That's pretty funny.


 
It would have been it he [(she or it.) (Check profile information)] hadn't overexpalined the punchline. Remember less is more


----------

