LibriumArcana.Games

In part, I just wanted an excuse to post my Battletech numbers here, but why not make this an all-inclusive thread? What weapons in Science Fiction just make no damn sense at all, or end up being just utterly hilarious when you start looking at the actual numbers for them?

Additionally, what techs are just so outrageous that they make no sense whatsoever?

To start, I'm going to list the Battletech Kinetic weapons, which are a whole level of ridiculous all their own. This is what happens when game developers decide to make highly detailed games but never bother to check to see if any of the numbers make any sense at all.

To preface this, each "shot" of a kinetic weapon in BTech tends to be a burst of ammunition. Machine Gun Arrays, for example, fire 48 rounds every time you fire them, while Autocannons fire 10 rounds. Gauss Cannons fire a single shot, of course.

A while ago, I did some calculations concerning the density of the ammunition. The results, unfortunately, were not pretty.

Assuming a mere 10% of the total mass of an ammo box in BTech consists of loading mechanisms and structure, we're still left with the fact that less than 50% of the shells are, in fact, the projectile. Using the caseless ammunition as a model, removing the cases from the equation reduces mass and size enough to fit twice as much ammo in the box with no change in mass. Add to that the fact that there still has to be significant powder charge behind the projectile, and, well. Assuming another mere 10% remaining mass in powder, that leaves the projectile with
1000*0.9 = 900 (total mass of projectiles after removing loading gear)
900/2 = 450 (total mass of projectiles after removing casing)
450/5 = 90 (total mass of one "burst")
90*0.9 = 81 (total mass of one "burst" after removing propellant)
81/10 = 8.1 (total mass of a single projectile)

8.1 kg for a single, 200mm projectile. Take in mind this is assuming only 5% of the mass of the total shell is made up of propellant.

Assuming this is a 200mm cube (which it's not, but makes for an easier analysis, and is generous to the BTech side as a shell would tend to be much longer than it is wide), this gives us a density of 1012.5 kg/m^3. Right between water and sea water (1000 and 1025, respectively).

Even assuming 100% of each shell's mass is included in the projectile, this gives us 20kg to work with. The density of the projectile is 2500 kg/m^2. This is slightly less dense than aluminum. Iron has a density of 7870.

Assuming one shot instead of a burst, but still assuming we lose weight for reasonable purposes gives us 81kg. This gives the cube a density of 10125 kg/m^3. This is much more reasonable, and gives us a density which is considerably greater than iron, but still less than that of silver (or lead).

Assuming one shot of the full 200kg, we have a density of 25000 kg/m^3, which is denser than the most dense than iridium (which is far denser than Uranium).

Take in mind, of course, that these densities are all greater than what would normally be expected from a properly shaped shell. If the first example is true, that's a pretty bad sign.

By the way, AC/2 rounds, assuming 50mm is the average, work out as such:
Maximum value:
1000/45 = 22.2
22.2/10 = 2.22
2.22/0.05^3 = 17760 (a good number, but assumes 100% of the shell, including casing, loading mechanism, and propellent are included in the mass)

Realistic value, having removed shell casing and minimal mass for propellant:
1000*0.9 = 900
900/45 = 20
20/2 = 10
10*0.9 = 9
9/10 = 0.9
0.9/0.05^3 = 7200 (not bad, but still lower than iron)

Let's assume, again, that we have 20mmx20mmx20mm shells. Yeah, I know, not realistic, but it saves time, and as we all know, rounds like this are longer than they are wide, so this tends to be a generous comparison. You have stated in the past that the MG fires 48 rounds in a burst. One ton of ammunition is 200 "bursts", half a ton being 100 "bursts".

500kg = 100*48 = 4,800
500kg/4800=~0.1042kg=104.2g

That's the entire round, including feed mechanism, ammo box, shell casing, and powder charge. Using the values I've used in the past, let's see what the actual projectile comes out to.
So here we go:
104.2g*0.9=93.78g
93.78g/2=46.89g
46.89g*0.9=42.201g
42.2g, give or take, is what we end up with.

20mm = 0.02m (0.02^3=0.000008) and 42.2g = 0.0422kg. This gives us 0.0422kg/0.000008m^3 = 5275kg/m^3

That's between titanium and tin.

Maybe it's better if we shoot the whole thing, 104.2g? 0.1042kg/0.000008m^3 = 13025kg/m^3

Better, between Lead and Mercury.

Now, if, say, the round is more realistic, say, rounded, 20mm wide and 40mm long, say, what does that change?

pi*0.02^2=3.1416*0.0004=~0.00126m^2
0.00126*0.04=0.0000504m^3

0.0422kg/0.0000504m^3=~837.3kg/m^3

Whole thing:
0.1042kg/0.0000504m^3=~2067.46kg/m^3

We either have something slightly less dense than ice being fired, or something slightly more dense than magnesium.

Finally, I did a brief calculation of the high-end stats for a Gauss Rifle, using a 114kg slug fired at Mach 5.5. As you can see, it got more than a little crazy.

100,195,312,500 N
or 1*10^11

An inelastic collision with a 100 ton mech, well...
F/m=a
100,195,312,500/100000 = 1001953.125

2*1001953.125(0.002) = v^2
4007.8125 = v^2
v ~= 63 m/s
63m/s = 226.8 kph

Something that accelerates the heaviest mech to a speed faster than it can get to under its own power is not supposed to knock it over, yet the stream of water fired from an AC/20 does? Welcome to WTF-World.

Gridfire could be called silly. If only for how ridiculously powerful it is.

That, and Dimensionally Transcendental Police Boxes (but they're a part of classic sci-fi even more than saucer-vessels with an engineering hull and two nacelles slapped on, so you can't really complain)

Kricket Bombs?

Probability Manipulation. Absurd.

Gridfire is actually sensible, given the premise that there is a layer of 'energy' above and below space. It's nothing more than a controlled hole.

Do technologies that are intentionally silly count?

I don't know. Once someone writing fanfic for SW contrived a mechanism to use a flamethrower in space. Whether this was meant to be a joke or whether he was actually serious about this concept I will never know.

I was thinking along the lines of Infinite Improbability Drive, Bistromatic Drive, and Other People's Problem Field, actually.

Let's break out the phasers briefly, mention that yes, they're utterly silly, then put them back where they belong.

Coming back to Battletech, there's the fact that the 'missiles' amount to little more than dumb rockets with inferior performance to modern-day missiles both in range and guidance.

And is it just me, or is it kind of weird how the shortest-ranged lasers are also the most powerful, pound for pound?

In B5, in the final book of the Bester trilogy, Garibaldi's PPG scatters and backwashes on him from impacting on airborne raindrops. That makes for a very limited-utility weapon.

Star Wars places a premium on manually-directed weaponry for space combat that is highly improbable, given the speeds involved.

Petrosjko wrote:Let's break out the phasers briefly, mention that yes, they're utterly silly, then put them back where they belong.

Why are they silly? They're used in silly ways but that's just because of writers. If you get a good writer then phasers are presented well - they're a weapon first and foremost. It's when bad writers take over that they're used to power shuttlecraft (WTF?) or look like a women's shaver.

In B5, in the final book of the Bester trilogy, Garibaldi's PPG scatters and backwashes on him from impacting on airborne raindrops. That makes for a very limited-utility weapon.

Lame.

Star Wars places a premium on manually-directed weaponry for space combat that is highly improbable, given the speeds involved.

Star Wars has fighters in space too. Realism isn't really something to look for in Wars.

EDIT: Forgot to add about the various stupid doomsday weapons. The Death Star is all you really need, but the EU gave us galaxy guns and suncrushers. It's just stupid.

Yeah, things that are intentionally silly, like the Noisy Cricket or anything from Hitch-Hiker's Guide are pretty much right out. This is largely for things that try to take themselves seriously and end up being laughable.

Stofsk wrote:Why are they silly? They're used in silly ways but that's just because of writers. If you get a good writer then phasers are presented well - they're a weapon first and foremost. It's when bad writers take over that they're used to power shuttlecraft (WTF?) or look like a women's shaver.

I'm knocking the design on the TNG models- the abysmal ergnomics. Not to mention the oft-lamented lack of penetration.

Star Wars has fighters in space too. Realism isn't really something to look for in Wars.

EDIT: Forgot to add about the various stupid doomsday weapons. The Death Star is all you really need, but the EU gave us galaxy guns and suncrushers. It's just stupid.

Don't forget the Darksaber!

In B5, in the final book of the Bester trilogy, Garibaldi's PPG scatters and backwashes on him from impacting on airborne raindrops. That makes for a very limited-utility weapon.

This is kinda silly. But consider why the PPG was designed. B5 is not a military ship. it does not have the hull armor that an earthforce warship does. It depends on intercepting incomming fire, and was almost taken down by earth force fighter weaponry alone. In some sections of the hull, you dont want a slug thrower, because it could puncture the hull, or a bulkhead and damage equipment, gas lines, sewage etc etc etc.

A PPG is not powerful enough to do that. It takes a concerted effort do bring down a door.

Now granted, it is a shity weapon to use on land. it has limited penetrative power, and is stopped by some environmental effects. But in the controlled environment of a ship or space station...

Tortoise, with respect, that's BS. What happened is that a writer decided to not have the PPG work for plot reasons and nerfed it in rain. That's just stupid. Your attempt to rationalize it doesn't save it, especiallysince we see everyone use PPGs on space and on worlds. A weapon that's won't work in rain? Or when the sprinklers are on? Just dumb.

Cynical Cat wrote:Tortoise, with respect, that's BS. What happened is that a writer decided to not have the PPG work for plot reasons and nerfed it in rain. That's just stupid. Your attempt to rationalize it doesn't save it, especiallysince we see everyone use PPGs on space and on worlds. A weapon that's won't work in rain? Or when the sprinklers are on? Just dumb.

I am suspending disbelief... and B5 wanking. Dont interupt, I am enjoying myself!

Comrade Tortoise wrote: I am suspending disbelief... and B5 wanking.

You're not allowed to do that in a silly weapons thread. The trekkies have to suck down the TNG phaser suckage, the Btechers have to suck down the autocannon problems, and the Fivers have to suck down. . . . . a piece of silliness that wasn't even in the shows or movie. That's getting off easy.

Pretty much what CC said. I understand the rationale behind PPGs (and as I recall, they weren't designed specifically for usage aboard B5, but rather for shipboard usage in general). Furthermore, the whole 'puncturing the hull' thing always seemed like a silly rationale to me anyway. More realistically the concern would probably be ricochets.

In any event, I love B5 too. In the book, it's even a pretty funny scene. (Garibaldi being a Marsie, he goes on about how dangerous and unsanitary rain is, then his PPG backflashes on him and he's all all like 'See! I told you this stuff is dangerous!')

Now, what else is there... Andromeda, worst offender ever in the 'complete lack of surge protection aboard ships' category. Every episode... "Captain Hunt, a small boy is banging on the hull with a hammer."

(Three panels explode and sparks shower across the bridge.)

"I know, Romy, I know."

used to power shuttlecraft (WTF?)

When the hell was this?

Ra wrote:

used to power shuttlecraft (WTF?)

When the hell was this?

'The Galileo Seven'. TOS episode #14. They drain the power cells of several phasers to get a crashed shuttle flying again.
As for the phasers' lack of penetration I fail to see why this is a concern for them any more than for PPGs. They're freaking sidearms for the most part.
The silly part is that the blasted Type IIIs don't seem to have any more firepower than the Type IIs (unlike rifle PPGs which cut through a metal door on short notice in 'Endgame') and of course the ergonomics of the dustbuster.
As for the BTech missiles sucking they are in the 57mm/FFAR category both by weight and explicitely stated to be such in the novels. Those aren't guided in the real world, either, you know.
Their range still sucks (especially for the later, guided variants) but comparing them to modern day full size missiles is unfair.
No wait it's not. They're supposedly more advanced than we are.
BTech jump sails. Nuff said.

With Star Trek, there are different issues vis a vis penetration. It's established time and again that hull integrity isn't maintained by structural strength, but rather by integrated force fields. Furthermore, phasers are supposed to have adjustable intensity, and given the number of shootouts Starfleet personnel get into around loading areas, I'd figure that somebody would recommend a 'blow through crate' setting.

Oh yeah, and any science fiction series that has ship design which includes a prominent, easily-targeted bridge. Star Trek and Star Wars both fall into that category.

The 'blow through crate' setting might simply use too much of the phasers charge even if it were available and given the technobabble nature of phasers it's entirely possible that such high settings inevitably result in NDF'ing the crate away while doing zilch to whoever is hiding behind it.
Not that hand phasers fare all that well against metal to begin with.
While we're at it how does one measure structural integrity in percentiles?
'Structural integrity is down to 67 percent.' What, pray tell, does that mean?

'Structural integrity is down to 67 percent.' What, pray tell, does that mean?

Structural integrity fields. Kind of like a second shielding layer beneath the main shields that keeps the ship together under pressure, instead of flying itself apart the first time it touches an asteroid... y'know, like it realistically should.

I know what SIF is thank you very much. Let's just replace 'structural' with 'hull'. DO tell me how you can measure hull integrity in percentages.
And why in Valen's name should the ship fly apart the moment it touches an asteroid?

And why in Valen's name should the ship fly apart the moment it touches an asteroid?

Structurally, they're not the most stable of vessels. A very crappy design which looks, and probably is, very, very flimsy and impractical.

Batman wrote:Let's just replace 'structural' with 'hull'.

Well, that is not what Star Trek is talking about, but let's humour it.

DO tell me how you can measure hull integrity in percentages.

There would be a set amount of stress or strain (I am not an engineer and forget the terms) that a material could take under certain conditions. Different temperatures would change this, and probably other things too (again, I am not an engineer).

Maybe it refers to it heating up or taking more stress as a percentage of that breaking point.

And why in Valen's name should the ship fly apart the moment it touches an asteroid?

If the ship was going fast relative to the asteroid and they collided, that would be a lot of energy and force.