When will we replace missiles/bullets?

[Deleted]

The ultimate end of the world.

:s Isn't the universe supposed to start shrinking again and collapse on itself at some point, after which the next big bang happens and everything starts over? :s

[zorkuus]

Pff if they had had bullets instead of lasers in Star Wars all the jedi would have been dead long ago...

Lasers fire at the speed of light, bullets do not, so it would be even easier for a jedi to react. And even if they did, a beam of hot plasma (or whatever the lightsaber is made of) would still cut through a bullet like a hot knife through butter.

:s Isn't the universe supposed to start shrinking again and collapse on itself at some point, after which the next big bang happens and everything starts over? :s

At the moment the scientific consensus is that we live in a ever expanding universe.

[Heathy]

i think we really need to discover a hostile alien race to battle with, finally put our insignificant differences aside and tackle a common enemy seeing as this topic is just proof that no one really cares about the consequences of continually erasing each other over belief and resources.

how ever much i'd like to see an energy weapon simply for the 'wow' factor, witnessing some science fiction become reality would be quite interesting, although maybe we should try to focus on unlimited energy sources first before creating things that need it. also with unlimited energy you don't have to kill each other over it, because its unlimited so long as its not exploited there shouldn't be the need to war over it..

the topic has probably been answered though, projectiles are cheap to make, and effectively kill, there is only so much improvement you can make. but so far no one can really survive being shot without armour so there is no need to make anything that costs more and is less effective.

[Deleted]

At the moment the scientific consensus is that we live in a ever expanding universe.

Well that's not very good! One thing i've often wondered about was if it would be possible for an insanely advanced technological specie to SURVIVE the big bang, by like.... hiding in a wrinkle of timespace. Or temporarely hop over to a different reality. Or take your space-fleet really really far away from where the big bang takes place, so that they're not blown up by it. Or kick-ass shields that would hold the "ships" together. If a specie in our current universe would be able to get to that technological level, and survive the next big bang, and the billions upon billions of years it would take after that for a planet like earth to have formed with a specie like humans, those original creatures would truely be gods. They would be older than time itself, more powerfull than any force of nature even the big bang.

I'm gonna go with the big bang being a repetitive event, for now. Fits my imagination better.

[PACOX]

Why build energy weapons, should like some sort of sci-fi fantasy when you can have this:

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

Nothing like ramming one object into another at super high speeds. Its how we got here.

The US has also been testing laser weapons for awhile now. Can't figure how to make them energy efficient and weaponize them though.

[Deleted]

When the army realises that swords are just much more fun.

[Tomana]

A quote from MGS3 always stuck with me, "Weapons technology is always 10 years ahead of standard-issue equipment.". I don't know how true it is, but it is certainly an interesting notion. Who knows what arms manufacturers have in the works.

By far and large, this is no longer the case. Most weaponry used at the moment was designed quite some time ago (during Cold War, mostly).

[Deleted]

When the army realises that swords are just much more fun.

Says you, war up close is gruesome and savage. I have seen the damage a bayonet can do and how using it messes up the mind of the person that used it. No thanks.

[Defengar]

Once batteries technology catches up.
We have weapons grade lasers, they just eat up an assload of energy. eventually though, batteries will make small battle field lasers viable. I could imagine soldiers replacing rechargeable battery cartridges like they replace bullet clips now.

[Adam Jensen]

By far and large, this is no longer the case. Most weaponry used at the moment was designed quite some time ago (during Cold War, mostly).

But that was his point.

The weapons used are far behind, while the weapons in development are far ahead.

The F-22 was in development since the 1980s. Consider that for a moment. Our newest and hottest aircraft began its life almost 30 years ago. It makes you wonder just what Lockheed is working on now.

[xylophone]

Star Wars blasters aren't lazers, they're plasma blasts.

[Gheld]

How many decades or centuries do you think until we replace projectiles like bullets,missiles etc?

Guns still pretty much work the same way they did a few hundred years ago....only that they shoot much faster,further,accurate and deadlier.


What I am interested in is when will we completely have replaced them with some type of laser/energy/plasma weapons that range in size from a side-arm to a full battleships big guns that carry either an extreme amount of uses or even unlimited (powered by nuclear energy or something) that is safe and clean to use for humans so we don't give ourselves cancers by just being around these weapons for too long.


Do you think by the 2100+ that we'll have stopped using projectile based weapons for high powered plasma/laser type weapons ( I am talking a FULL fucking replacement...not just a new advanced laser-battleship, I am talking about a complete replacement from the smallest to the biggest weapons) ie When rockets/bullets will be phased out completely.

The whole idea of completely replacing projectile weapons with pew-pew lazors is a silly sci-fi fantasy and here is why:

Energy. The potential damage of your attack will always be relative to the amount of energy it carries to the target.

When calculating the energy of a photon E=h*c/L h being a constant on the order of 10^-34. (c being the speed of light, and L being the wavelength.)
Calculating the kinetic energy of a projectile: KE=1/2mv^2

As you can see a projectile weapon has far more destructive potential than a pew pew lazor ever has. Also, with a laser weapon your options for upgrading it are entirely limited to adding more photons to the beam, because the energy of each photon is fixed thanks to relativity.

With a projectile weapon even relativity has nothing on you (because as acceleration becomes less efficient mass increases).

So a projectile weapon is far more energy efficient (Contrary to popular belief) and there is literally no limit as to how powerful you can make one.

Particle weapons such as a plasma rifle or perhaps an ion cannon are a possibility in the future, but are different than lasers. But again, the more the mass the greater the damage, and both plasma rifles and ion cannons use individual particles (or clusters thereof) as projectiles, which have that much less potential than a large projectile.

Projectile weapons are the past, present, and future of the most destructive weaponry available.

Star Wars blasters aren't lazers, they're plasma blasts.

That's just stuff made up by Star Wars fans who feel inadequate about the poor science behind Star Wars canon. The light saber is impossible too, but it's distinctly called the LIGHT saber in the movie; not the Plasma Saber.

[Adam Jensen]

The whole idea of completely replacing projectile weapons with pew-pew lazors is a silly sci-fi fantasy and here is why:

Energy. The potential damage of your attack will always be relative to the amount of energy it carries to the target.

When calculating the energy of a photon E=h*c/L h being a constant on the order of 10^-34. (c being the speed of light, and L being the wavelength.)
Calculating the kinetic energy of a projectile: KE=1/2mv^2

As you can see a projectile weapon has far more destructive potential than a pew pew lazor ever has. Also, with a laser weapon your options for upgrading it are entirely limited to adding more photons to the beam, because the energy of each photon is fixed thanks to relativity.

With a projectile weapon even relativity has nothing on you (because as acceleration becomes less efficient mass increases).

So a projectile weapon is far more energy efficient (Contrary to popular belief) and there is literally no limit as to how powerful you can make one.

Particle weapons such as a plasma rifle or perhaps an ion cannon are a possibility in the future, but are different than lasers. But again, the more the mass the greater the damage, and both plasma rifles and ion cannons use individual particles (or clusters thereof) as projectiles, which have that much less potential than a large projectile.

Projectile weapons are the past, present, and future of the most destructive weaponry available.



That's just stuff made up by Star Wars fans who feel inadequate about the poor science behind Star Wars canon. The light saber is impossible too, but it's distinctly called the LIGHT saber in the movie; not the Plasma Saber.

I wonder if that was the reason why Firefly (BRING BACK FIREFLY) used projectile weapons, or if that was just a stylistic decision by Joss Whedon.

Mal Reynolds always had bullet-firing pistols.

[Gheld]

I wonder if that was the reason why Firefly (BRING BACK FIREFLY) used projectile weapons, or if that was just a stylistic decision by Joss Whedon.

Mal Reynolds always had bullet-firing pistols.

Now you're just giving sci-fi writers too much credit.

[Adam Jensen]

Now you're just giving sci-fi writers too much credit.

Heh, probably.

[Deleted]

I wonder if that was the reason why Firefly (BRING BACK FIREFLY) used projectile weapons, or if that was just a stylistic decision by Joss Whedon.

Mal Reynolds always had bullet-firing pistols.

Cheaper to use projectile weapons on the set, He used G36's, AK's and SA80's, AUGs..... much cheaper to use those and fire blanks than to pay for expensive special effects.

[Gheld]

Cheaper to use projectile weapons on the set, He used G36's, AK's and SA80's, AUGs..... much cheaper to use those and fire blanks than to pay for expensive special effects.

He also accidentally made the show more realistic in the process. Win/Win

[Verdugo]

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Bolter#.T1pFwvWJqj4

Who needs lasers.

[Logonov]

That's just stuff made up by Star Wars fans who feel inadequate about the poor science behind Star Wars canon. The light saber is impossible too, but it's distinctly called the LIGHT saber in the movie; not the Plasma Saber.

yes cause you know, we dont call something by a certain name, when in truth it's really just something else that achieves the desired result.

[Sills]

soon i hope! I want a real life lightsaber! xD