c07afe No.587349
I've been wondering why nobody's mentioned caseless ammo for guns in space. Of course, this would be useless anywhere with a significant gravity well, but I'd expect brass to make one hell of a mess in orbit and on places like Phobos or Deimos.
Don't shit on the hype for this. A lunar mass driver works as a weapon, and the army can't help using camo that only blends in with the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voere_VEC-91
b5c822 No.587353
Make mechs, use their limbs to spin without using fuel.
c07afe No.587354
>>587353
I'm sick of you gundam queers.
d7c010 No.587361
we will never go to space
d50284 No.587362
>>587361
If we didn't waste money on niggers we'd have tourist trips to on Mars available to upper-middle class already.
f69251 No.587368
>>587349
>Caseless ammo
>known for its problems with heat buildup, often leading to spontaneous firing as the rounds cook off.
<Space
<An area where heat management is a huge problem because the two main causes of heat transfer (conduction and convection) no longer happen
Are you planning a nice, couple of square meters in surface area, radiator as part of your rifle design there?
Space combat is going to be dominated by missiles, which have the decency to generate most of their heat when they're a few kilometres away from the vehicle that launched them. Human scale combat is incredibly unlikely to take place in a vacuum, and if they combatants are on an atmosphere bearing planet it's likely that conventional firearms would work as well as they do on Earth.
c1535a No.587375
>>587349
Rifles aren't long ranged enough to be of use in space. Knife fighting range is like 10km.
Any EVA to EVA suit combat is going to take place with MANPAD sized missiles.
fbbf95 No.587401
>>587349
>the US spend billions of dollars developing new gun that doesn't litter
>Soviets Russians use a revolver
inb4 ">but that story is fake news" - I know, but it's a great meme
2e1a43 No.587434
>>587368
>missiles
Or rockets
We gyrojet nao
f69251 No.587443
>>587434
Missiles can correct for any inaccuracy on launch, and as you're shooting at a target that's a few hundred kilometres away (at least) launching your rockets or gyrojets just 0.0000001 degree off course would lead to a complete miss. Even a basic, Gen 1 Stinger level, IR homer should be enough in space, given that the target is almost certainly the only warm anything in a few thousand square km of basically nothing.
062f96 No.587454
likely because the space force, will just be satilite babystitting, like the airforces space activities are now
ffea2a No.587476
>>587368
>Are you planning a nice, couple of square meters in surface area, radiator as part of your rifle design there?
Are you saying you don't want your space-future space-gun to be covered with cooling fins on every conceivable surface like a sci-fi raygun?
c07afe No.587479
>>587368
Air is an insulator, so I don't see your point. Any heat in the chamber would more easily be radiated away.
c01332 No.587481
>>587362
It's more because the only thing NASA cares about is proving global warming.
765048 No.587484
>>587479
>Any heat in the chamber would more easily be radiated away.
WRONG, you doublenigger, because radiation happens regardless of the medium. Air provides a medium for convecting the heat away, something that isn't present in space, so heat dissipation is much slower.
c07afe No.587485
>>587484
Ok, now tell me how convection helps for the chamber. Almost none of that heat is transferred to the surrounding air.
0e29c6 No.587497
>>587485
Almost all of the heat is transferred to the surrounding air by convection after being conducted through the rest of the gun. Kind of like how the heat in your PC's CPU is being conducted into the heatsink first before being removed by a fan, so the CPU stays cold even though it isn't in contact with any air. Are you following or do I need to break this down some more?
f69251 No.587499
>>587476
>Are you saying you don't want your space-future space-gun to be covered with cooling fins on every conceivable surface like a sci-fi raygun?
I don't particularly want my gun to become red hot in my hands as I shoot it. Call me a pussy if you like, but I tend to prefer not having 3rd degree burns on my palms. It makes wanking a lot less fun
c07afe No.587513
>>587497
That makes sense for the barrel, but the chamber isn't exposed to that much air. My point is that the exposed polymer barely heats up, so how does air cool the chamber if it's not transferring enough heat to the outside? You're overestimating the heat dissipation in atmosphere.
b648f3 No.587520
I think someone already mentioned this but isn't a gyro-jet the ideal space gun
>no case
>heat is concentrated in the ammo reducing the need to radiate heat
f69251 No.587521
>>587513
Where do you think the heat goes, out of interest?
c07afe No.587540
>>587521
It stays in the chamber. Change my mind.
c07afe No.587542
>>587520
You'd need a guidance system so that they hit the target. They don't spin fast enough at the muzzle to stay stable.
842d45 No.587551
>>587542
I don't think ballistics works quite the same in vacuum, certainly as far as spin is assumed.
842d45 No.587552
b648f3 No.587558
>>587542
If you install a guidance system it's a missile, those things are rather large. This is specifically a thread about small arms.
6d8af7 No.587561
>>587499
>3rd degree burns on my palms
How are you gong to get third degree burns through your EVA suit?
Or we could go old school and make all the guns water cooled.
0e29c6 No.587563
>>587540
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a system must increase over time, unless the system has already reached equilibrium. A gun with a hot chamber and a cold exterior is not in a state of equilibrium. In order for the heat to remain in the chamber, the chamber would have to be a perfect insulator. A perfect insulator would violate the second law of thermodynamics. But the chamber and most of the parts touching the chamber, being made of steel which has extreme thermal conductivity, are the exact opposite of insulators. The heat cannot stay in the chamber because that doesn't make any fucking sense nigger. QED.
f69251 No.587628
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>587561
>go old school and make all the guns water cooled
I suppose there's no need to worry about weight up there, give every man a twin barrelled Vickers gun.
>>587540
>It stays in the chamber
Dude, the laws of thermodynamics are hardly new or obscure. If you're new to them then have a basic (but rather fun) primer on the subject in vid related.
6d8af7 No.587740
>>587628
>I suppose there's no need to worry about weight up there
Let's assume that was sarcasm and move on.
You're going to have water on hand anyway for life support / neutron shielding / reaction mass / whatever. Put a thin little shell around the barrel and receiver, abuse the fuck out of capillary action to keep the water in contact with the metal, capture any steam with a one way valve and condensing reservoir, use another one way valve to refill the water jacket, and there you go.
18c1ce No.587752
16f7b3 No.587755
Depends greatly on your goals.
If you don't care about Kessler syndrome HE frag / shaped charges is the way to go, accelerate copper to ~6,000 m/s in a fraction of a second and you have a light easily stabilised weapon that closes fast.
If you do care about Kessler then lasers are a good choice but of course are useless against anything more armoured than an EVA suit.
For the middle ground explosive projectiles that are 100% explosives (case, primer, detonator ect.) are a way to stop missed shots putting crap in orbit, have a simple time delay fuse as well as an impact fuse so misses turn to gas after X range.
Now if we forget the "small" part of small arms then we can have fun with neutron bombs, kill everything that lives without adding anything to orbit.
>>587542
Spin rate could easily be increased with modern manufacturing, the issue 50 years ago was drill bits weren't strong enough to drill at steep angles but thanks to CNC mills we have gotten much better at making cutting bits.
5583cc No.587756
>>587368
Last I checked the "heat management" problem is actually an issue of INSULATION, not conduction/convection. Space is not a vacuum like people think it is, it's just filled with microgasses. It's closer to call it a nitrogen vacuum rather than an empty vacuum. It's fucking cold in space which is why heat management is an issue- you need to retain heat properly, not expel heat. They had to develop an entire new set of conductors that operate at almost absolute zero without becoming a superconducting material for the James Webb Telescope because of this issue and they still have to vent heat to its dark side to prevent freezing the panels. It's why the moon reaches really fucking cold temperatures on the dark side or how Mercury goes back and forth between molten rock and frozen tundra (the reason habitablr planets don't have this problem is a combination of atmosphere, magnetosphere, and heat radiating from the core). All you would need for any gun system in space is a thin umbrella to temporarily blot out the sun for a little bit and your weapons system would damn near freeze even if it's red hot.
98659d No.587760
>>587354
This. Macross > Gundam.
16f7b3 No.587762
>>587756
>Space is not a vacuum
Not a perfect vacuum bit close enough for all purposes.
>nitrogen vacuum
Why nitrogen? Hydrogen is much more common but the bulk of matter stopping space from being a total vacuum in LEO is the upper atmosphere and rock.
>It's fucking cold in space
It's both cold and hot, in the sun anything that isn't a near perfect reflector will get hot, in the shade anything that isn't well insulated will get very cold.
>you need to retain heat properly, not expel heat
The ISS is heated entirely by the sun and waste heat from electronics, it is kept at a reasonable temperature by radiating excess heat as IR.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1
>Mercury goes back and forth between molten rock and frozen tundra
It gets hot but not that hit, Venus is actually hotter due to the atmosphere keeping the heat in.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/solar-system/mercury/
>All you would need for any gun system in space is a thin umbrella to temporarily blot out the sun for a little bit and your weapons system would damn near freeze even if it's red hot
Ignoring the fact that it would take a long time to lose heat unless specifically designed to do so you know how long a tiny RTG could keep that thing warm? I'll give you a hint, Voyager still hasn't frozen.
6b3c08 No.587777
>>587756
> It's fucking cold in space which is why heat management is an issue- you need to retain heat properly, not expel heat.
>All you would need for any gun system in space is a thin umbrella to temporarily blot out the sun for a little bit and your weapons system would damn near freeze even if it's red hot.
You severely overestimate how powerful thermal radiation is. Your understanding of engineering challenges in space is comical.
d6372f No.587778
>>587542
>They don't spin fast enough at the muzzle to stay stable.
yeah i am sure solar winds will change the trajectory of the bullets greatly. we should put them in faraday cages or something to prevent this
d6372f No.587791
oh fuck what happens if we put sterling engine based generators in space? they will work forever for free, the longer they work the more haet they produce the more power they produce
6d8af7 No.587830
>>587791
Heat engines, stirling cycle, thermoelectric, whatever, work on heat differential, not just heat. You'd still need radiators on the 'cool' side.
16f7b3 No.587980
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>587791
Titan is a great option for a sterling engine as it's so cold just the waste heat produced by whatever you are running would provide a large temperature differential.
59bfc6 No.587995
>>587778
>>587551
These. How can you guys be so well informed and yet so retarded?
e8c9c7 No.591762
>>587349
>caseless ammo
Why, though? There's literally no reason to use caseless ammo whatsoever. Not even in the future. Cased ammo will always be superior no mater what.
>brass would make a mess in orbit
How? Do you even know how much shit is already up there? A handful of casings 13,000 miles apart won't make a difference.
>>587375
>rifles aren't long ranged enough for space
Did you forget the part where space has no atmosphere and gravity is basically not a factor unless you're fighting over hundreds of miles?
Rifles are perfect, better optics and perhaps guided ammunition. You don't need much for penetration or effect-on-flesh as a small rupture can disable a space suit and even a non-penetrative hit can cause severe damage due to transference of kinetic energy(read: blunt force trauma). EVA also carries the risk of spalling if rounds hit hard surfaces. Nothing says "my day is fucked" like a facefull of translucent plastic flakes.
>missile launchers
Overkill for suit-to-suit. You'd also be wasting weight with explosive warheads, kinetic energy is where it's at.
>>587375
>unguided rockets
>in space
I mean if you're trying to never hit anything, sure.
>>587485
>metal doesn't get hot
>hur dur plastic gun
>plastic doesn't get hot
Are you retarded?
>>587520
>gyrojet
Why, though? No case is not a positive. What do you gain by reducing heat management? A projectile that's too slow to get anywhere in a respectable amount of time.
>>587542
>guidance system
Why? Targeting solutions can be computed by the a computer on the suit.
>>587561
>water cooling
Weight problem. You need to get all that extra weight to space, and weight is at a premium to begin with.
>>587628
>twin barrelled Vickers gun.
1: see the above.
2: recoil.
The ideal solution for space is something that moves very fast and has very little recoil. As it stands that's either low-caliber, high velocity cased ammo, some sort of missile system or energy weapons. Energy weapons is probably going to win, though.
e8c9c7 No.591768
>>591762
Forgot to clarify something: small arms combat between infantrymen is just not an option for space combat. It's entirely impractical.
Even for boarding actions it's a lot more effective disable their craft electronically, dock, gas them and move in with CW suits or EVA suits(although probably too clunky to be practical in the next 50-100 years).
Realistically, 99% of space combat is going to be done electronically - at least in the next hundred years or so. Maybe some use of vessel-to-vessel kinetic energy weapons/balistics but that's it.
The problem of space combat gets more interesting for the distant future, though. We're probably going to see something akin to submarine warfare with stealth, first-to-fire and forward planing are going to be king. The viability of electronic warfare will certainly drop significantly once ships develop completely isolated internal networks with separate coms systems that must be engaged and operated manually and into which information would be fed through the use of physical drives.
Thus long range balistics are going to come back big, potentially supported by directed energy weapons - especially in the defensive role.
Marine tactics are another matter entirely, though. I'd expect dudes with rifles firing cased ammo for…oh, well, who can say? Possibly for as long as there will be a need for infantrymen - which should be until the foreseeable end of time.
It's certainly going to be interesting.
75afef No.591769
>>587980
im glad you know this channel too
e8c9c7 No.591780
>>591769
I like the way he can't pronounce many consonants.
0c2f11 No.591835
Biofag here. I've spoken about space conquest before on this board. In order to colonize space we'd need to improve our species with genetic enhancement, not only so we can fight whatever we encounter in the vastness of the milky way but also to make it easier for us to survive. Making ourselves larger and stronger would be easy enough, but the tricky part would be making us immune to alien disease. The best option would be to implant a gland within the spleen that produces a virus that would be programmed to kill any foreign bacteria. It would use biochemical markers to differentiate between your cells, beneficial bacteria, and pathogens.
e91e26 No.591843
>>591835
As a Biofag, you should know that viruses mutate stupidly quick. Your gland would be a ticking timebomb. Besides, what you have just desribed are white blood cells. And: A virus can't kill a virus.
I don't know what makes you think you're a biofag, but you don't seem to know all that much about human biology.
>bigger
why? The tallest people usually aren't the most long lived and after a certain height get joint problems earlier than their peers, due to higher sustained weight. This may be not so easily observed in the US, but the concept of more weight killing joints more quickly definitely should be something you've heard about.
>>591762
Gyrojets are ideal because they lack recoil. The guns are extremely light as well, as they have no real pressure bearing surfaces.
The issues with gyros down here is that they lack the speed at the barrel to be easy to adjust for in sidewinds.
That's not an issue with gyros in space.
Recap: No recoil, lighter guns. none of the disadvantages.
finally, space battles are going to be quick movement and lots of expended rounds. suppressive fire doesn't really make sense in empty space. There is no cover to suppress the other side in to.
That also means that in case of shell ejecting firearms, you're going to have a lot of empty shells wafting around the battlefield, possibly throwing off shots, as well as the volume of fire making the amount of micrometeors you're creating with projectiles and casings becoming an issue.
Besides, guided small arms projectiles at a few km are already a thing. Darpa made laser homing .50 BMG Raufoss. I see no reason why there shouldn't be laser homing gyrojets.
>inb4 who is going to lase the target
Suit systems. Ride the beam projectiles. I don't care where the other guy deflects my beam to, my projectile only cares about the beam its on.
0c2f11 No.591850
>>591843
White blood aren't all that great. There's many pathogens that can't be killed by them.
>A virus can't kill a virus
No shit, but viruses in the wild target only specific species, or at least a groups of closely related species that have similar metabolism. You're probably not going to catch a virus from an alien since you wouldn't be genetically compatible with it. It would be like trying to impregnate an animal with your sperm. The only time we would need to worry about viruses would be bioweapons.
>Viruses mutate quick
Normal viruses don't use DNA polymerase to correct errors when multiplying, and artificial virus could.
>Tall people get joint problems
No, fat people get joint problems. A genetically enhanced man with increased bone density, ligament,tendon, and muscle strength would be fine. You can observe this when you look at weighlifting. It strengthens your joints; many doctors know that weightlifting can prevent arthritis when done properly. Anabolic steroids also do incredible things for your joints since they increase the strength of ALL of your bodily tissue. With increased testosterone levels and bone density they can easily handle being 6'5" and up with no problem. The only people who get health problems from being tall are people with gigantism, which is caused by a fucked up pituitary. Their fucked up pituitaries are the cause of most of their health problems due to out of whack hormones. A guy between 6'5"-7'2 with high bone density and testosterone should be fine. I thought you krauts were smart? I guess the mass slavic rape did a number on your gene pool.
af6db2 No.591859
>>591850
Even if you have joint problems, nothing a few implant cannot be fixed.
STEEL KNEES, nigger.
051b1d No.591967
2000 hrs in kerbal space program here, ya'll fags know nothing about orbit and less about the environment of space.
You assholes worrying about brass polluting orbit are fucking retarded. Everything in orbit below around 1,000 kilometers will come back to earth in less than 50 years; the oldest satellites in high orbit are just starting to come down. Things below 4-600 km fall back in less than 15. See: taingong & ISS decay rates.
The other thing; no human will *ever* be able to hit something in orbit outside of roughly 2 kilometers. Mostly because both parties are moving at around mach 20, usually in different directions, and that momentum is transfered to the projectile as well. Do you have any idea how far ahead you will have to lead a target goin mach 20?
The other thing you faggots don't know about: de-orbit maneuvers.
A 1% drop in speed will take you from a 500km orbit to 30km above the surface, burning up in the atmosphere. The recoil impulse from your weapon will need to be countered(if fired vaguely prograde) with either fuel or another shot. Recoilless rifles will fix this quite effectively, and in my opinion, will be much more accurate than gyrojets. Spin-stabilization is a time-honored concept in spacecraft going as far back as the Voyager probes, but gyrojets are essentially just unguided rockets. I think there is too much random-ness n the exhaust path for it to follow the same path 100% of the time. The other advantage about recoilless rifles is that the gas spends less time transferring heat to the barrel, therefore less heat management issues.
Another factor: Micrometeorites. All spacecraft are protected at least somewhat from micrometeorites. This means your low-mass, high-velocity projectiles(.223) are *already armored against on modern space equipment*.
One interesting fact about space rifles would be the normal rules on optimal barrel length no longer apply, as what determines that is the chamber pressure vs. atmospheric pressure. When the pressure behind the bullet(still in the barrel) is less than the atmospheric pressure, the bullet slows down. Space doesn't do that. In a non-recoilless design, the optimal barrel lenght is theoretically infinite; in a recoilles rifle, the optimal barrel length will depend on how long the gases remain in the barrel, propelling the projectile.
The first advance we need to see for space combat is an atmospheric re-entry suit. I'm expecting a fully hard suit for this, re-entry isn't easy. We could also see inflatable personal heat shields, rather than a suit coated in Starlite. There are a few ideas being tossed around, mostly involving infatable heat shields. Picrel, general electric's proposal in the '60s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE
One other thing, space cannons will happen first. Space telescopes like the Hubble are already self-contained spacecraft designed for highly precise aiming of the entire craft. The tech for a space cannon for anti-sat warfare is already all there, it would bew incredibly simple and relatively cheap to construct a space cannon.
>>591762
All modern EVA suits have water cooling loops onboard already.
6fa7a2 No.591992
>All these people talking about small arms space combat with anything that isn't a recoil-less/coil/rail gun design with its own coolant system
bf1f81 No.592002
In space a EVA suit facing off an EVA suit can spot each other with lightweight onboard sensors at ranges of 50km easy.
This is what a "space small arm" would look like.
Imagine it stapled to a EVA suit, minus the rain shield and the street shitter.
A MANPAD in atmosphere has a range of about 2-4km. In space, with no air resistance or gravity to fuck with it, it could have a powered range of 10km easy. And with no water in air, the heat seeker would be useful to that range as well. It has no recoil, it can track the enemy through any maneuvers he tries, and the fragmentary warhead ensures a one-hit-kill even if there's a near miss. It's the perfect weapon for man-on-man space combat.
Now… the real space missile might be slightly different, they might carry a pack of them, and ECM like flares/chaff might make a one-hit-kill less likely…. but there will be no guns. This is the thing no one understands…. The cannons on Russian space stations were there to prevent boarding, not for attack…. orbital combat is too long range to be carried out with guns.
Even individual orbital combat.
If an army of 10,000 space suited guys faces off against 10,000 space suited guys, the outcome will be determined before they can even see each other with the unaided eye. Imagine them launching thousands of missiles at each other, maneuvering and throwing flares out to try to avoid getting hit, while forcing the enemy to expend his countermeasures so you can kill him first.
bf1f81 No.592003
>>591843
Mate that was pathetic. A virus that's adapted to killing bacteria would never mutate the ability to kill humans, viruses don't have the same ability to evolve that living things do. Second, an alien virus would never be capable of killing humans, again, because viruses are highly specific in what they can target.
The only thing you were right about is the height issue. If we want to get in and out of gravity wells quickly, then selecting for midget traits would be better. Shorter people can handle more G-forces, and don't weigh as much so it costs less to throw them out of a gravity well. In fact picsrel would make the best kind of spaceman, the head is large enough to hold a normal human brain, but the body is shrunk to make it easier to actually travel in space.
In fact given that babies have the largest head per body size, advanced humans would look like little gray men, or like babies.
bf1f81 No.592004
>>592003
>>592002
Basically the future of warfare is a formations of millions of nazi babies launching tens of millions of missiles at a formation of millions of tranny babies, macross style.
051b1d No.592006
>>591992
Coolant systems won't be as prevalent as you think. In 90% of scenarios, only one or two shots are fired. Everything will be calculated beforehand, and precision will be everything. It will be possible, for example, for a geostationary space cannon to take out satellites in any position in low earth orbit with a single, precise airburst recoilless rifle shot. There will simply not be much more heat to dissipate than the electronics and propulsion systems would generate, and if there was, the barrel will be a giant heatsink. It will be able to absorb the heat of the 1-3 shots necessary and dissipate it over time.
>>592002
>orbital combat is too long range to be carried out with guns
LMAO
>pic rel
>.0003 arcseconds(not MOA/minute of angle/arcminute, 1 arcsecond is 1/60th of an MOA) aiming precision
this is (roughly) what the first space cannons will look like, but slimmer. Precision is far better in space.
On top of this; ballistic trajectories are FAR easier to determine in space. A space cannon in geostationary orbit will be able to knock out just about any satellite with a single shot. Unless the defending satellite realizes it is under attack and adjusts its trajectory, but detecting a .20mm object flying on a curved trajectory towards you from far enough away to maneuver(sat thrust-weight ratios are stupid low) out of the way will be a severe(but, eventually, overcome-able) challenge.
>>592004
>formations of millions of soldiers
>what is an airbust nuke
you goddamn canadian stop shitting up a decent conversation
bf1f81 No.592007
>>592006
>a spacesuit can carry a hubble telescope
>ballistic trajectory in space
>hurrr you can hit anyone! …. unless they maneuver even slightly… but they won't! not in combat!
>air burst nukes in space
Nigger you can sit 500m from a multi megaton nuke in space and a military grade EVA suit would probably survive it.
Get the fuck out of this thread it's not for you.
d7e6da No.592008
>>591967
>KSP makes me an expert of orbital mechanics
Yeah go bring that up on your resume.
>You assholes worrying about brass polluting orbit are fucking retarded
The GAU-8 pops out 3,900 rpm. A Goalkeeper pops out 4,200 r/m. You have, say, four goalkeeps firing for thirty seconds. That's a solid line of brass which poses a deadly obstacle for any spacecraft for >50 years.
> no human will *ever* be able to hit something in orbit outside of roughly 2 kilometers
The discussion about small arms assumes a boarding situation, otherwise there is no reason for it to happen. Ship-mounted weaponry will not be human controlled.
>A 1% drop in speed will take you from a 500km orbit to 30km above the surface
<And he claims to know anything about de-orbiting
This doesn't even need to be addressed, you're a retard trying to act smart.
> recoil impulse from your weapon will need to be countered
There's already term for this, free recoil. 5.56 has a recoil of 1.5 to 2 J and large-bore cartridges have 12-20 J. While there of course would need to be corrections eventually, it is not immediately needed and does not necessitate the far inferior speed of recoil-less weaponry.
> All spacecraft are protected at least somewhat from micrometeorites.
Micrometeorites does not mean 85 grain projectiles, it means mass particulate the size of a sand grain. No, they are not armored against ballistics.
> space cannons will happen first
There are already anti-sat missiles. There have been for a while. Why would you mount a cannon onto a satellite, the entire nature of space warfare, as you even acknowledged above, would render anything firing slower than ten times a second moot.
0e29c6 No.592016
>>592007
>ballistic trajectory in space
>thinking gravity disappears when you leave the atmosphere
Ever heard of an ICBM, faggot?
bf1f81 No.592024
>>592016
>moving under force of gravity only
If youre dumb enough to not give your guys thrusters, then yeah maybe guns could work as weapons in space.
Just stop posting.
0c2f11 No.592037
>>591850
>Normal viruses don't use DNA polymerase to correct errors when multiplying, and artificial virus could.
I oversimplified that a bit. There are viral polymerases, but they are usually just a single protein with multiple functions. They do not have proof reading activity like the multiple polymerases in our cells.
>Viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases do not have a proofreading nuclease activity, which leads to high rates of misincorporation of nucleotides during genome replication. The mutation rates are estimated to be on the order of one mutation per 103–107 nucleotides, resulting in approximately one error per replicated genome (Drake 1991). In comparison, the mutation rate in E. coli or S. cerevisiae, where cellular polymerases benefit from an error-correcting mechanism, is on the order of one mutation per 109–1010 nucleotides. Diverse viral genomes resulting from high mutation rates by viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases may provide an evolutionary advantage for virus survival. For example, mutations in the viral surface protein could lead to new viruses that can evade the host antiviral responses or resist antiviral compounds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4711277/
4129e8 No.592048
>>587760
>idolshit, aliens, and space whales > actually well thought out setting
0e29c6 No.592050
>>592024
I won't stop posting as long as a morsel of obviously incorrect bullshit remains uncontested in this thread. Bullets fired in space would follow a ballistic trajectory, or continue to orbit the Earth.
As for your argument in general, you have not given even remotely satisfactory evidence that guns wouldn't be viable in space. That is because your reasoning is only puddle-deep. You came up with a very specific context - a large battle between individual EVA suits at long range - which would arguably never happen in a real space war because it fundamentally makes no sense. In your mind that somehow proves guided missiles would set the overall paradigm for personal space weapons. In what context would a fight like that ever actually occur? One spaceship matches orbit with another and what, the crews jump out the airlock and start launching heatseekers at each other instead of using the vehicle's weapons? Why?
53240c No.592064
>>592062
*also, if that gun is from memewatch, I have no idea
bf1f81 No.592125
>>592050
A giant stinking pile of obviously incorrect bullshit in this thread wants to correct morsels of what it thinks is obviously incorrect bullshit.
Comedy on steroids.
>you have not given even remotely satisfactory evidence that guns wouldn't be viable in space
lol ok how about this - The fastest railgun we have fires at about 2-3km/s. In order to be generate a miss the enemy just needs to be in a ship that can change vectors the size of the ship itself in one second at 3km, or in three hours at 30,000km. - And the three hour time frame is what your "space cannon in geostationary orbit" would be facing if it tried to shoot even directly down at someone in low earth orbit, let alone trying to shoot from geostationary orbit to geostationary orbit.
In fact even lasers are barely fast enough to work in orbital combat.
6fd56a No.592127
>>592048
>any transformer biped mecha dead weight
>not utter shit
Yukikaze had aliens but it's still the best love story ever MADE IN JAPAN.
12329d No.592140
>>592002
If we're taking the targets (possible) ECM into account wouldn't it be more cost effective to launch a few waves of dummy missiles (minimal cost KKV sort of things) at the target/formation first? Make sure the dummy missiles match the heat and radar profile of the real thing as closely as possible, and stagger out the wave as much as you can (flares will only burn for so long) to eat up as much of the hostile countermeasures as possible. Would hard kill AMS be more practical? If you could build a (gamma-ray) laser *just* powerful enough to burn a missile sized target through a few km of vacuum that could dramatically improve your situation - even if it had to be on a separate class of ship.
e91e26 No.592152
>>592003
>>591850
A virus does mutate rather quickly and can jump species, as the influenza strains show.
I would instead opt for viral phages, now that I've had some time to think about this. I read that the soviet union experimented with them as an alternative to antibiotics, but I can't recall how far they got. It's definitely an interesting option, as the phages would replicate like mad due to the presence of targetable bacteria as long as they were available. What I don't know is how the immune system would deal with their presence or whether they destroy it, since most of the cells making it up are in theory prime phage food.
44fb48 No.592153
>>587481
Or maybe the fact that they're underfunded as fuck and regularly have their funding cut even more. Nice try though retard.
000000 No.592171
>muh LEOrbital mechanics
But what about boarding an enemy O'Neill cylinder at L4/L5?
What about using Io's volcanic electromagnetism to hide a NVCT-equipped spacecraft from the enemy?
Genociding the enemy via mildly weaponized Kuiper belt objects?
Space piracy?
Interplanetary russian hackers?
0c2f11 No.592181
>>592152
> What I don't know is how the immune system would deal with their presence or whether they destroy it, since most of the cells making it up are in theory prime phage food.
Bio chemical markers that tell it what to attack.
000000 No.592187
>>592152
Phage therapy has been a thing prior to the antibiotic meme.
It werks really well in principle and from what I've read as even the toughest MRSA have at least one phage specific to them.
Phages do a great job at killing bacteria being naturally evolved viruses and all, they also only go for a single specified species of bacteria and don't cause collateral damage like antibiotics.
However their extreme specifity coupled with the fact that the human immune system develops antibodies against them upon exposure makes them entirely unsuitable to strictly regulated (((Western))) medicine even though one could cure a shit ton of bacterial diseases simply by cultivating some suitable phages from nearby soil or evolving them ad hoc in a lab through assissted natural selection.
Georgia is the only country in CY+3 to use Phage therapy outside of clinical or scientific study AFAIK, Soviets used them too but idk if the Russian Federation dies.
051b1d No.592190
>>592008
you obviously didn't pay attention to what i posted. There will be no need fore a high fire rate(and heat dissapation on a gatling will be ridiculous) in space. There's nothing to throw a single ballistic shot off course; it's path could be predicted for a couple astronomical units.
>the nature of space warfare means anything firing slower than 10 times per second is moot
>fucking implying i said this
nigger i said most situations will be handled with 1-3 individual shots
Give me a single situation in space combat where a high fire rate is necessary compared to a few of something like pic related. It's an old soviet fighter-satellite concept, single shot.
>objecting to the 1% speed drop
Gonna be honest, i pulled that info from the shuttle. I didn't do the math myself. But it's completely real. Nigger.
>The vehicle began re-entry by firing the Orbital maneuvering system engines, while flying upside down, backside first, in the opposite direction to orbital motion for approximately three minutes, which reduced the Shuttle's velocity by about 200 mph (322 km/h). The resultant slowing of the Shuttle lowered its orbital perigee down into the upper atmosphere.
>he vehicle started encountering more significant air density in the lower thermosphere at about 400,000 ft (120 km), at around Mach 25, 8,200 m/s (30,000 km/h; 18,000 mph).
>322 km/h is 1.1% of 30,000
Micrometeorites go from 1cm down. And you're right about the weight, but micrometoerites can be travelling much faster than a bullet in relation to the target. They could be in a retrograde orbit and hit your craft head-on, which would be a roughly 1cm, 5g object impacting your ship/suit at 60,000 km/h as a worst-case scenario that NASA armors the space station for.
>recoil impulse
>giving me numbers in joules
get the fuck out of here stalker
>>592024
>implying 99% of a trip to space isn't spent on a ballistic trajectory
are you implying ballistic trajectories are irrelevant? To a conversation on space?
>>592125
I am the faggot who said space cannon in GEO. And yes. That shot would hit, because the defending satellite will not be able to see our GEO cannon fire from 35,000km away, or detect an incoming shot until far too late.
Unless you can tell me how they would detect a .20mm recoilless rifle shot from 35,000 kilometers away. Because right now we can barely track 1m objects in space. 10cm cubesats have gotten lost on radar trackers. Actually, the sat only needs to detect this
>>592171
>genociding the enemy via weaponized Kuiper belt objects
Just use an asteroid from the belt. It'll take a lot less time to arrive.
Also, i read a short story about mars-earth war where mars threw deimos at the South Pole and wiped 1/3 of earths population.
Boarding an O'Neill cylinder is another matter entirely. It'll probably be somewhat close to modern urban combat, except everyone is in space/pressure suits in case some asshole depressurizes the whole thing. Though depressurizing a cylinder will probably be akin to nuking a city; you kill the civilian population and render the area uninhabitable(until you get more air in somehow).
0e29c6 No.592194
>>592125
>The fastest railgun we have fires at about 2-3km/s
You mean in the lowest, densest part of the atmosphere where anything going faster will turn into plasma? You are clinically retarded beyond any hope of recovery if you think that limitation applies in space. Arbitrary limitation you pulled out your ass. That dismantles the rest of your argument as well, since everything you just said hinges on the performance of today's 3km/s railgun. We don't have a laser capable of causing structural damage at 30,000km today. You are literally comparing today's terrestrial railgun with a complete fantasy laser that would require a terawatt power supply and radiators the size of football fields. I wonder what kind of performance a railgun would achieve with that energy supply. More than enough, is the answer.
>In order to be generate a miss the enemy just needs to be in a ship that can change vectors the size of the ship itself in one second at 3km, or in three hours at 30,000km.
Now you're making another retarded assumption, that the railgun would fire one single shot at the exact position of the target. It would be firing thousands of rounds a minute and saturating the entire space where the ship has a probability of being. And it would do so in far less than three hours at a distance of 30,000km - more like one tenth of that. Especially with equivalent energy to a laser capable of mission killing a spaceship at 30,000km. Again, you're applying double standards to lasers and railguns because you're a retard.
>In fact even lasers are barely fast enough to work in orbital combat.
You are severely overestimating the ability of spacecraft to make rapid trajectory changes. Any realistic spacecraft would take minutes to make changes in their vector the size of the ship itself. Spacecraft main drives only face in one direction and RCS thrusters - even very powerful fantasy RCS thrusters - would turn spacecraft at a snail's pace because of their high moment of inertia.
Try saying a single correct thing for once, anon.
051b1d No.592198
>>592190
Actually, i lied the ISS isn't protected from the worst-case scenario i posted, it's protected from HALF that speed. Pic related, a 7g object impacting aluminum.
Other pic is an entry hole in a Shuttle radiator. Looks almost exactly like a large-caliber bullet hole to me. Entry hole is 1/4 inch, exit hole is 1/2 inch.
>the sat only needs to detect this
The sat only needs to detect this shot early enough to escape its kill radius at the expected burst distance. Even if the burst radius is small, say 10 meters, normal modern satellites have *extremely* low thrust-weight ratios. This is because a single, tiny burn has a greatly magnified effect on the opposite side of your orbit, so with proper planning, there is no need to add extra weight just to accelerate faster. tl;dr the earlier the defending sat detects the incoming attack, the higher chance he has to dodge effectively.
>>592194
>thousands of rounds per minute
>not implying radiators the size of football fields
You still have not explained why that is better than a single, well-placed burst shot with a shotgun-like kill area. You could also place your shot to hit the satellite at a certain angle, to counter a predicted inclination change dodge or an orbital elevation change dodge if you want.
051b1d No.592199
>>592198
>impacting aluminum
at 30,000km/h
000000 No.592200
Can we get a space railgun projectile to reach speeds approaching 1c?
t. brainlet
051b1d No.592202
>>592200
a railgun won't do it, but a scaled-up particle accelerator-type-thing the size of the moon that accelerates ball bearings(or similiar) might *maybe* get it to .1c. That said, im pulling these numbers out of my ass. It's probably impossible.
0e29c6 No.592203
>>592198
Actually I was implying radiators the size of football fields. If that other guy is going to compare a fuckhuge laser to a railgun, I expect it to be a fuckhuge railgun.
>You still have not explained why that is better than a single, well-placed burst shot with a shotgun-like kill area.
Because the probability of any single shot hitting a maneuvering target is very low, even in the case of a shotgun-like kinetic. A single bulk trajectory change would be enough to avoid it. You may as well ask why every antiaircraft gun in existence has opted for a high rate of fire. It makes planning evasive maneuvers more complicated: the maneuvers have to be more frequent, which spacecraft are quite poor at.
I didn't realize you were talking about assassinating a satellite at first but after looking at your previous posts I understand. In that scenario a single accurate burst would be sufficient. But it's the space equivalent of seal clubbing.
d7e6da No.592208
>>592190
Your fundamental issue is that you think aiming is 100% precise. A one-hundredth of a degree off guarantees a miss from anything farther than 10km. A high rate of fire corrects that issues, these are absolute basics you dumb nigger. If you want to tout your KSP hours allow me to tout my hours in CDE, you know, an actual simulation.
>But it's completely real
Again you miss the point, even further proving yourself to be a nigger. You played KSP right, you know when you're coming back into Kerbin and you have to lower your descent to practically free-fall if you want to minimize how much you go through the atmosphere? Yeah, that's different than a horizontally launched missile or projectile, and can of course be corrected by 1%. If you're in free-fall you need 0% correction. If you're in a circular orbit at 400,000 instead of falling, 1% does jack shit.
>Micrometeorites go from 1cm down
The largest recorded according to wikipedia is 2mm. The armor panels on the ISS are 2.5cm thick. Again, you swarthy lip-smacking nigger, a 5.56 could easily go through that, let alone some larger handgun round.
>get the fuck out of here stalker
Did you even google the term I gave you?
<Free recoil denotes the translational kinetic energy (Et) imparted to the shooter of a small arm when discharged and is expressed in joule (J) and foot-pound force (ft·lbf) for non-SI units of measure. More generally, the term refers to the recoil of a free-standing firearm, in contrast to a firearm securely bolted to or braced by a massive mount or wall.
It is the fucking measurement. Fuck, I wouldn't call you no-guns, you're so fucking dumb you probably were given one and chewed on it. I don't expect a literal baboon to understand this, but recoil is not like in vidya games where it sends you linearly backwards without any upper body movement.
bf1f81 No.592213
>>592194
>>592140
Im too retarded to imagine the entire families of missile / counter-missile tech that would have to be introduced. All I know is dumb projectiles are only useful against planet like targets, which cant maneuver even a bit.
>>592187
Only issue with phages is they are relatively large compared to a single molecule antibiotic, so phages have trouble penetrating into some tissues. Great treatment otherwise.
>>592190
>are you implying ballistic trajectories are irrelevant? To a conversation on space?
Look at this nigger trying to pull himself further and further into a cocoon of faggptry. You started out claiming warships had a ballistic trajectory, then when you got told off for being wrong you brought up ICBM and now fucking payload rockets.
Ballistic trajectories arent helpful if the target can maneuver and change their trajectory by non ballistic means.
>>592194
>You mean in the lowest, densest part of the atmosphere where anything going faster will turn into plasma?
No i mean in the vacuum chamber that a modern railgun is made of. The 3km/s is an optimistic muzzle velocity, real world railguns are lower in speed.
>railgun
>200 mach
>1000s of rounds per second
You know fuckall about engineering. If you had such a device you wouldnt need an orbital cannon you tranny cunt. Thats waaaaay beyond escape velocity, you could shoot things in orbit from the ground.
Quad negro.
I look forward to you madposting about leafs in every random thread for the next six months :^)
0e29c6 No.592260
>>592213
>Ballistic trajectories arent helpful if the target can maneuver and change their trajectory by non ballistic means.
This already happens every time someone gets shot. QED.
>No i mean in the vacuum chamber that a modern railgun is made of. The 3km/s is an optimistic muzzle velocity, real world railguns are lower in speed.
Here we go, more bullshit arguments based on the current state of the art in railguns rather than the technology's future potential. There is no theoretical limit to the muzzle velocity of a railgun in space. Power supply/heat rejection and the length of the railgun are the only limitations. Your 3km/s figure is asspull and you can stop using it now. Repeated reminder that if the baseline is today's technology, that means lasers are equally useless as weapons. They could never vaporize target material at the distances involved in space combat, while even the shittiest railgun could deliver a disabling hit at those distances given enough attempts.
>200 mach
Not an issue, see above.
>1000s of rounds per second
Never said that, read the post again faggot.
>If you had such a device you wouldnt need an orbital cannon you tranny cunt.
I never said anything about an orbital cannon. Try looking at post IDs you pozzed dindu.
>Thats waaaaay beyond escape velocity, you could shoot things in orbit from the ground.
At that speed, a kinetic slug would vaporize in the atmosphere before it reached space. But even so this isn't connected to my argument in any way. My one and only claim is that kinetic weapons will be an essential part of space combat in general for fundamental physical reasons.
And don't worry, I won't hold your appalling ignorance against all Canadians.
b9b7be No.592311
>>592200
Something along the lines of a casaba howitzer might get it to a meaningful percentage of c, I can't find it right now but I know I saved a screencap of anon talking about a soviet memeweapon what was basically a nuke floating in a concrete chamber with a copper projectile on top
049e46 No.592350
>>592008
One, the GAU-8 uses aluminum casings to save weight. Two, the GAU-8 does not eject spent casings. It simply keeps them on the belt and runs them back into the magazine because ejecting runs a risk of ingesting your own casings.
bf1f81 No.592382
>>592260
Oh I'm sorry, my mistake
>railgun
>200 mach
>1000s of rounds per minute
You are still retarded.
A single round at 200 mach would melt any barrel material known to man, or hypothesized by man. A fucking 50-100 years in the future we expect railguns to launch six rounds per minute with a thousand round shelf life. And this at velocities a fucktonne below 200 mach.
So how far in the future are you looking to find railguns firing a thousand rounds per minute of two hundred mach projectiles? A thousand fucking years?
>At that speed, a kinetic slug would vaporize in the atmosphere before it reached space.
Oh I'm sure you could make it out of some imaginary material that can shoot through a black hole you fucking faggot.
IF YOU PUT YOUR RETARDED DEVICE ON CERES AND FIRED IT CONTINUOUSLY, YOU COULD INDUCE A FUCKING SPIN TO A PLANETOID.
The fuck out of this thread.
>>>/strek/
e9ee27 No.592431
>>592382
>A single round at 200 mach would melt any barrel material known to man,
Where's your proof?
051b1d No.592519
>>592208
Aiming isn't 100% precise, but it's damn close. The Hubble telescope achieved an aiming precision of .002 arcseconds(I used .005 in my math to make it a bit easier) at its peak, which according to this site, is the width of a hair at 1 mile. Thats .00008 MOA. At one mile, thats the width of a human hair. At 30,000 kilometers, thats 27.34 inches.
==27.34 inch group at 30,000 miles== when i used 1.5x the actual maximum accuracy of the Hubble telescope
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/HST_overview/documents/multidrizzle/ch42.html
My point with re-entry was to stress how important accounting for recoil was.
Google 'recoil impulse'. Unit is lb-sec. Kinetic energy measurements alone are USELESS when talking about space maneuvers. Momentum change is whats important.
My micrometeorite number was pulled from the wiki page on the ISS's space debris shielding. The size doesn't matter all that much, its mass and speed.
>>592213
You're confusing the americans in this convo, there are three of us. I never used the word warship, i said spacecraft. Other anon brought up icbms. Stop being such an enormous fucking faggot canadian.
Yes, there will be 6 months of anti-canadian shitposting because of you.
>>592431
This isn't a 'proof?' thing, you're just as retarded as the canuck. Heat from atmospheric friction goes up with velocity cubed, not squared. I can't find/remember the exact equation rn, but reentry heating in the upper atmosphere at mach 20 is in excess of 6,000 degrees. While atmospheric reentry friction and rail friction are different, it should give you an idea on the amount of heat energy that will end up in those rails.
nobody has told me how a defending satellite will know it's even under attack, let alone from what direction or by what
b9b7be No.593115
>>592317
That's the one, thanks anon
98659d No.593136
>>592048
Too bad Gundam doesn't have well thought out stories. Tomino is too autistic to write characters that act like real people. Also Gundam's setting is mostly a ripoff of Robert Heinlein novels.
I still love Gundam, but Macross is better. Patlabor is better than both, but it's not a space anime and therefore irrelevant to this thread.
113189 No.593207
>>592062
I want to see this vs kevlar
bf1f81 No.593219
>>592431
I hid it in an artillery shell fired at 199 mach, go find it.
>>592519
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA NOT EVEN A DOZEN POSTS LATER
Does every pathetic loser respond with the same fun memes?
c9f599 No.593871
>>593219
Nice admittance of defeat, you fucking leaf.
Rake yourself.
971123 No.594541
How many simultaneous 100mt thermonuclear surface detonations would it take to disrupt a Mars-sized planet's orbit enough to make it crash into another planet Theia style?
cffc46 No.594548
>>593219
>Screencaps his own posts
>calls other people losers
bf1f81 No.594577
>>593871
>>594548
>being this predictable
>being this butthurt
>a fucking week later
411b79 No.594656
>caseless
<useless
Split single stack magazine, empty casings aren't ejected but refed into the magazine for later repacking using some sort of mechanism.
>inb4 what mechanism
Prolly some crazy german shit.
Magazine would also work as a radiator and rounds would be a special low-grain/low power type. They only need to puncture a suit in a couple of places to disable an enemy combatant.
(Most likely subsonic like rounds as they work better against kevlar and fabric armor)
Muzzle gases would have to be compensated for in some way, shit these weapons might not even be firearms but some Co2 based shit.
Ammunition is waste atmo from your suit, instead of carrying cartridges.
aaa46b No.594677
>>594656
>caseless
>empty casings
What? Unless I misunderstood your use of >implying
1b2b2c No.594678
411b79 No.596491
>>594677
I gurped, 3am posting is not of good quality.
ce2cb9 No.606392
>>587368
The heat problems with caseless are only cookoff problems not overheating problems and are predominantly because of the propellant directly contacting the hot chamber wall. Its solvable by using more stable propellant like the G11 did with HMX. The actual heat voided by the case is almost negligible anyway. Single digit percentages.
I'd provide an actual citation but I'm out of country for work so no resources on hand. Look for the calspan reports if you're interested
That said if heat was a serious issue, which it shouldn't be for anything less than a SAW, switching to polymer cased has benefits in both thermal characteristics and weight savings over brass.
3372bb No.606394
>>587368
>>606392
I forgot to mention that you don't need fuck huge radiators because you're not trying to keep it at room temperature like the ISS or spacecraft. You can let it run a little hot, and at the temperatures that will actually effect a firearm radiation makes up the majority of your temperature loss, even here on Earth with an atmosphere.
7ce00f No.606399
>>587401
>Americans develop revolver with multiple cyclinders for larger capacity
<Russians use a brass-bag and AK
>Americans use a brass-bag with complex geometry to ensure that cases don't float upwards and into the ejection port
<Russians use steel cases and a magnet
>Americans develop mechanism that indicates to the shooter when their bag has reached capacity and must be changed
<Russians attach the bag to the magazine, bag can take as many cases as there are rounds in a mag
>Americans develop new high orbit tracking system to ensure that they cannretrieve dropped bags
<Russians keychain the bags to the cosmostreloski
c70d1d No.606423
>>606399
Here's one that actually happens.
>America develops the most technologically advanced space suit for the ISS.
>Russia develops a space suit you can fix while aboard the ISS.
>While aboard the ISS the crew uses whichever suit they want.
5939aa No.606433
>>606399
As usual hopes lie in neither in Russia or USA, it's in Europe.
8b2d40 No.606512
If we are talking about guns in space I am suprised nobody brought up gauss guns or rail guns. They use magnetism so they wouldn't need lubricants, cleaning, or oxidizers. They would just need a strong enough magnet and enough juice to get it going.
2d351c No.606524
>>606512
>A railgun is completely useless, it is not cheap to have to carry around dozens of replacement barrels because each is only good for a few shots. Or to carry hundreds of tons of capacitors and reactors and thousands of tons of coolant just to use this inefficient system of launching a dumb rock at an enemy that can evade with a freaking solar sail. I don't know where you got a hardon for railguns but my suggestion is to do equations in your head.