Rant: Our Future Generations :]

[Pulse95]

You know how our future will look like. Some people see everyone becoming the next Bill Gates Or Steve Jobs.

Imagine if you tell a kid "guns are good and without them everything sucks" "It sucks because it doesn't have guns! more guns!" sound familiar? It sounds like some of our politicians. You might think "oh he is just a kid" yes, you are correct, however that mentality might stick with him forever. Here is the point I am trying to get across- Kids can be told anything by their parents or other people and believe that said thing is true. For example, If I tell a kid "guns are good they keep bad people away." He might, if he doesn't find the logic part of his brain, start to believe it to be true. If one day he becomes some kind of Senator or Congressman he might just pass those points across.

This is just my theory of why people are getting dumber and dumber by the years- Stupid people telling stupid things just so those stupid things can be passed down as even stupider things. I would do something about it, But I am too busy screwing one of my fans http://imgur.com/ZYz5Y to do anything about it. Maybe you people can explain to me why people have been slowly becoming stupider.

[DemonCrusher36]

Theres dumbass's in any generation, yet there will be the bright ones. My life has been too short to comment on past, current and future.

[Xylord]

Theres dumbass's in any generation, yet there will be the bright ones. My life has been too short to comment on past, current and future.

Even if there are dumbasses in every generation, I find the proportion to go more and more toward a majority of dumbasses. I'm just wondering when was born this mentality of "Stupid is cool". Just think about hings like MTV, YOLO, "Reading is for the weak". I'm young so I don't know for sure how it used to be, but it seems to me that knowledge is more and more ridiculed. I know loads of "friends" (More like people going to my school) of my age, I simply can't see at all where they'll be in a few years. Of course, there's a good deal of exceptions, but if for example you just try going around a bit on facebook... Sometimes, I feel like I'm drowning in the stupidity.

[warpspeed10]

You will only ever see a dramatic shift in governmental structure and social policy if there is actually a gargantuan physical boundary between competing ideals. Just look at what happened between the civilizations of the Sahara, the Mediterranean, and the Americas. Any time a physical body barred easy travel between locations, things changed. Usually for the better.

If you are hoping to see a drastic change in US policy this century, don't hold your breath. The next big governmental reform will come when the colonists on Mars rebel from their distant, yet ever controlling, mother Earth. That will truly be a giant leap forward for human kind.

The oceans and mountains cannot stop the stifling of revolutionary ideals, with our current technology, that attribute lies only in the vacuum of space.

[Xylord]

You will only ever see a dramatic shift in governmental structure and social policy if there is actually a gargantuan physical boundary between competing ideals. Just look at what happened between the civilizations of the Sahara, the Mediterranean, and the Americas. Any time a physical body barred easy travel between locations, things changed. Usually for the better.

If you are hoping to see a drastic change in US policy this century, don't hold your breath. The next big governmental reform will come when the colonists on Mars rebel from their distant, yet ever controlling, mother Earth. That will truly be a giant leap forward for human kind.

The oceans and mountains cannot stop the stifling of revolutionary ideals, with our current technology, that attribute lies only in the vacuum of space.

I'm pretty sure we will colonize the moon before going to Mars. But maybe when we do so, communications will still be easy between Earth and moon. Also, can you even imagine the proportions of an inter-stellar conflict? Now that I think about it, it would do for an epic movie. BRB calling my bro Cameron.

[Adlersch]

The best we can really do right now is teach our own descendants what we believe is right and hope it is. Then we hope they pass that on to their descendants. We can try to spread our ideals to our peers or convince them to spread the ideals they hold if we agree with them, but you can't force anyone to do anything and it borderlines on control-freak-it's-my-child-not-yours-don't-come-visit-againness.

I have more to say on this subject, but I simply cannot find the words right now after several minutes of trying.

[Pulse95]

By the way, space battles would be very boring since there is no sound in space you can't record it or anything unless you add your own sounds. Oh and there is also the fact that if a ship gets even one small hole in it there is a chance all the ships air will be sucked out so quick (Space is such a whore; Always sucking things) it will implode the ship. Though it would be nice to see some Battlestar Galactica/Star Wars fights from Earth; Like a movie in your backyard. By the way we really should think about colonizing something else other than Earth, I mean, 1 giant rock the size of Texas and all human work and life is wasted and lost forever.

[Adlersch]

By the way, space battles would be very boring since there is no sound in space you can't record it or anything unless you add your own sounds. Oh and there is also the fact that if a ship gets even one small hole in it there is a chance all the ships air will be sucked out so quick (Space is such a whore; Always sucking things) it will implode the ship. Though it would be nice to see some Battlestar Galactica/Star Wars fights from Earth; Like a movie in your backyard. By the way we really should think about colonizing something else other than Earth, I mean, 1 giant rock the size of Texas and all human work and life is wasted and lost forever.

Not to mention the fact that the only effective weapons at the moment would be rail guns (Unwieldy superelectromagnetic tubes which shoot out metal rods at insanely high speeds), and even if people were to get out of their ships to fight or escape implosion, one hit not only can fatally wound you, but it'd simply ruin your protection against the vacuum of space, simultaniously boiling your blood and crystalizing your cells.

Explosive death followed by frozen chunks of human meat floating around... Eww.

[Xylord]

Not to mention the fact that the only effective weapons at the moment would be rail guns (Unwieldy superelectromagnetic tubes which shoot out metal rods at insanely high speeds), and even if people were to get out of their ships to fight or escape implosion, one hit not only can fatally wound you, but it'd simply ruin your protection against the vacuum of space, simultaniously boiling your blood and crystalizing your cells.

Explosive death followed by frozen chunks of human meat floating around... Eww.

I seriously don't see what's wrong with rail guns, those things are badass as hell. Plus, a spatial vessel isn't the same as a pirate boat, I frankly don't think jumping on the enemy ship would be an appropriate strategy.

However, we do have a problem with the sound. A battlefield without the symphony of explosions just doesn't work.

By the way, space battles would be very boring since there is no sound in space you can't record it or anything unless you add your own sounds. Oh and there is also the fact that if a ship gets even one small hole in it there is a chance all the ships air will be sucked out so quick (Space is such a whore; Always sucking things) it will implode the ship. Though it would be nice to see some Battlestar Galactica/Star Wars fights from Earth; Like a movie in your backyard. By the way we really should think about colonizing something else other than Earth, I mean, 1 giant rock the size of Texas and all human work and life is wasted and lost forever.

Tss, you forgot the most important part of any sci-fi (In other words, indisputable future technology), SHIELDS. Electro-magnetic to be precise. A directed, extra-ordinarily powerful magnetic field could slow down projectiles considerably and make their impact literally harmless against a good conventional shielding.

[Adlersch]

A directed, extra-ordinarily powerful magnetic field could slow down projectiles considerably and make their impact literally harmless against a good conventional shielding.

Solution: Boarding craft. Get on a smaller ship, get closer, use plasma cutters to open the ship's hull (I'm talking really big. Like starship big, if we're going sci-fi), get inside, try to disable the shields or wreak enough havoc so that the shields can't be directed or otherwise used effectively.

Alternatively, just get close with a small vessel and just fire from an unprotected or less-protected angle.

Edit: Funny how this went from our children and how people are being raised to discussion of how sci-fi space battles could be done in reality.

[Xylord]

Now that I think about it, we totally rejected lasers. Lasers with extremely high intensity can be made, even today, and could soon be used as weapons. There are even some handheld lasers that can cut through wood.

Plus, I've also heard about anti missile lasers that track down incoming ballistic weapons and beam them with enough energy to make them explode. Not only that, but lasers travel at the speed of light, so they could be used at very big distances without having to adjust the aim to follow the trajectory of the target. They would be great as spatial weapons.

[Adlersch]

I wonder about the implications of lasers. I'm curious if shielding systems (Conventional or new) would be invented. Simply put, would shields meant to resist lasers and reflect light be made? Military-grade mirrors. That's a scary thought. Anyways, I also wonder if there would be any solar-panelesque shields that somehow harness the light produced and resist it, although that mostly stays in fantasy as I have neither the desire nor ability to think of anything practical at all - basically the arms race between shielding and weaponry would have to be extremely intense, and shielding would have to outrun weaponry by miles. Something that generally doesn't happen.

[Xylord]

I wonder too, what would happen if one of those metal cutting lasers was sent against a mirror. Would the laser generate enough energy to melt the mirror, even though he is reflected?

I find it beautifully ironic that we went from a rant against telling kids guns are good to how cool spacial warfare is .

[Pulse95]

Well if my sci-finess is correct if there are shields involved we just need a mass driver which goes right through them .

[hoho]

Why lasers and railguns? Plain-old gunpowder-powered bullets work excellently in space: In fact they work waaaay better there than in Earth atmosphere. Take a high-power sniper rifle. That 10g+ of metal travelling at 1km/s+ is pretty nasty. Add to that the vehicles moving at several km/s relative to each other themselves.

[Adlersch]

Except for the fact that for gunpowder to ignite, one would need oxygen for the reaction to occur. If we're waaaay out of the Earth's atmosphere, rail guns, lasers, and other 'alternative' weapons would be much more practical. Not to mention that railguns are already far more powerful (And expensive) than almost any conventional firearm.

Edit: Although I could see supplying oxygen from inside the ship or something similar, it wouldn't be something I would want to use for fighting, but rather for use for myself.

[Neowulf]

A chemical oxidizer would work, it's how solid fuel rockets keep going in a vacuum.

Though it still saddles you with dealing with the casings and combustion residue.

Railguns are currently quite destructive due to the physical tolerances of the parts. With sufficient meterials research it should be possible to create rails that don't warp or corrode from the current running through them.

A coilgun would be a better space weapon. Currently limited also by material properties, with enough research someone will find the room temperature superconductor needed for the coils and an alloy with a sufficiently high flux saturation point. Since the projectile need never touch the barrel there is no friction to create wear on the gun that requires servicing.

[Xylord]

Not only that, but conventional weapons need a shell, or a casing for the bullet to be into, and this casing needs to be ejected with a specific mechanism. A railgun only needs the bullet by itself, so it would be a much more efficient fast shooting weapon. However, the recoil would be tremendous, but the future soldiers could probably adapt to this.

In parenthesis, I just saw something pretty incredible. The US military has plans for a gigantic mass driver posed on moon, that would be able to shoot meteoric-like projectiles (In terms of speed and mass) on the earth, making for a non-nuclear mass destruction weapon that could aim for any place in the globe, as long as it faces the moon. This is scary and horrible, but I also can't help but find it epic. By has plans, I mean it is a possibility among their others world-control project, not like they're going to start building it in ten years.

[hoho]

Except for the fact that for gunpowder to ignite, one would need oxygen for the reaction to occur.

Good thing that oxygen is inside the gunpowder then!

Not to mention that railguns are already far more powerful (And expensive) than almost any conventional firearm.

And significantly more prone to problems as well.

I agree that rail/coilguns are more powerful than traditional firearms per-projectile but you won't be able to strap one to a single soilder and have him/her fly around with it due to the MASSIVE energy requirements. Also, you don't really need that much power in space to really mess up someones day. Without air resistance traditional bullets will pack significantly more punch in space than they do on Earth.

Ejecting casings isn't really all that much of a problem and there are caseless bullets and extremely fast shooting guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition

<- show me a railgun capable of covering nearly as big area with projectiles in that amount of time.

[Xylord]

Good thing that oxygen is inside the gunpowder then!

And significantly more prone to problems as well.

I agree that rail/coilguns are more powerful than traditional firearms per-projectile but you won't be able to strap one to a single soilder and have him/her fly around with it due to the MASSIVE energy requirements. Also, you don't really need that much power in space to really mess up someones day. Without air resistance traditional bullets will pack significantly more punch in space than they do on Earth.

Ejecting casings isn't really all that much of a problem and there are caseless bullets and extremely fast shooting guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition

<- show me a railgun capable of covering nearly as big area with projectiles in that amount of time.

Sure, this thing shoots fast. But I would like to know if we could obtain the muzzle speed of the bullets. As for the railguns, it can attain tremendous speeds, attaining as much as 6000 m/s for a ten kg weight. For smaller weights, comparable to heavy conventional bullets, 20 km/s were attained. This means that, friction aside, the bullet rounds the earth in 1000 seconds, or about the third of an hour.

I also know that the highest muzzle velocities we can get with chemical propulsion is around 1700 m/s. Quite a big difference uh? This becomes especially important in space, where the ships themselves can go as fast as bullets. If the velocity of your projectile is too slow, the enemy can literally "dodge" the bullets. After all, it will probably be extremely rare combats happen at less than multiple kilometers of distance; in space there is nowhere to hide.

[hoho]

Yeah, distances in space will likely be closer to several hundreds of km when doing battles. Also I'm almost certain majority of them will be fought while orbiting something, not in open space so figuring out the path your projectile takes will need quite a bit of brainpower. In those conditions you'll be far better off with a guided missiles than any kind of non-guideable projectile and keep projectile weapons for close-quarter fighting.

Those rail/coilgun speeds you cited are most likely from huge ship-based things that eat up tremendous amounts of power and have very low rate of fire. Unless we send up nuclear reactors I don't see them being feasible for usage in space.

[Xylord]

Yeah, distances in space will likely be closer to several hundreds of km when doing battles. Also I'm almost certain majority of them will be fought while orbiting something, not in open space so figuring out the path your projectile takes will need quite a bit of brainpower. In those conditions you'll be far better off with a guided missiles than any kind of non-guideable projectile and keep projectile weapons for close-quarter fighting.

Those rail/coilgun speeds you cited are most likely from huge ship-based things that eat up tremendous amounts of power and have very low rate of fire. Unless we send up nuclear reactors I don't see them being feasible for usage in space.

Of course we'll be using nuclear fission up there, petroleum will be long depleted and solar energy isn't even an option with the quantities of energy needed, it's even probable that when we get there we will finally have developed nuclear fusion, which is even more productive, efficient and compact, and could probably provide energy in quantities permitting things such as rail/coilguns. However, I didn't think about the guided missiles you mentioned; they would indeed be a great solution. But the counter defense would be relatively easy; you just have to shot down the missile before it's too close, after all. And there is still the lasers that I talked about earlier. As they go at the speed of light, they won't have the problems of projectile shooting weapons. But they might lack in destructive power.

[hoho]

Of course we'll be using nuclear fission up there

Any ideas how to cool the stuff down? Generally reactors produce about as much or even more heat than energy. Using just radiation to get rid of excess heat won't be easy.

However, I didn't think about the guided missiles you mentioned; they would indeed be a great solution. But the counter defense would be relatively easy; you just have to shot down the missile before it's too close, after all. And there is still the lasers that I talked about earlier. As they go at the speed of light, they won't have the problems of projectile shooting weapons. But they might lack in destructive power.

I have an easy "fix" for that:

fill your missile with a bunch of pellets. You can shoot down the missile but the pellets will keep moving your direction. Combine that with orbital velocities (likely the shooter and target are on different orbits with quite big relative speed) and you'll still be screwed :)

[Xylord]

Any ideas how to cool the stuff down? Generally reactors produce about as much or even more heat than energy. Using just radiation to get rid of excess heat won't be easy.

I have an easy "fix" for that:

fill your missile with a bunch of pellets. You can shoot down the missile but the pellets will keep moving your direction. Combine that with orbital velocities (likely the shooter and target are on different orbits with quite big relative speed) and you'll still be screwed

As for the the cooling problem, you're right... Unless... We could take snowman and compress the snow they produce into ice cubes to cool the reactor down? Oh wait...

The pellet idea is pretty good actually. It all comes down to ancient weaponry. Ancient AA (Anti-Aviation) wouldn't use normal guns, because the planes were too fast to be targeted efficiently by hand. They would use "flak" weaponry. Those shells were timed to explode fairly near the target and shower it with smaller projectiles. This is the same principle as yours, the missiles are like the flak shells, and when they explode fairly near the enemy target, they send a bunch of smaller projectiles on the enemy. At extremely high speed too. If two satellites orbiting in opposed directions were to hit each other, the impact would be incredible; imagine, two bodies travelling at an average of 5 km/s hitting each other. Quite the bang.

[Adlersch]

There will always be defensive counters to any form of combat, it doesn't matter if we use bullets, rail guns, lasers, or nuclear warheads. There will always be a way to either neutralize or even deflect attacks. The defending ship could launch two smaller missles (Used for defensive purposes or close-range [<5 km] combat), one to detonate the enemy missle, one more high-explosive missle to detonate slightly closer to the defending ship so the force would push back, slow, or even stop any debris or shrapnel to the point where conventional shielding would hold up.