American Civil War fought in the space future

[quote="C. O. Thompson"]

Personally, I wonder why we need to go to the Andromeda Galaxy with the last remnants of "The south shall rise again" even if you want to give Robert E Lee a light saber that he does not have to surrender when his army lost.

But... hey, I have been wrong before

All a world has to be is ... internally consistent. Everybody has X drive, Somebody has finally made the scientific breakthrough to enable the Y drive, but NOBODY suddenly shows up with the Z drive that they found on an ancient spaceship in a caldera on the planet Roswell. Deus ex Machinae are reserved for when you are 750,000 words in and find yourself boxed in a corner.

Thats what made Harry Potter so compelling. Good v evil always a good theme, Oliver Twist always an audience favorite likeable kid, the search for the Holy Grail. Your enemy turns out to be the creepy guy that was always crushing on your mom plot twist.

The reason for the Andromeda Galaxy is that I nee my Human Colonies far away for Earth when contact back Mother Earth I need some chaffing.


I will not be giving my CSA space solider's Lightsabers, but I will be giving them Space Opera type of Firearms.

LW

lwhitehead wrote:The reason for the Andromeda Galaxy is that I nee my Human Colonies far away for Earth when contact back Mother Earth I need some chaffing.

What was the reason for colonists to even came so far?

lwhitehead wrote:I will not be giving my CSA space solider's Lightsabers, but I will be giving them Space Opera type of Firearms.

Frankly, I think guided gyrojet rockets would be pinnacle of personal firearms development. Seriously, what could possibly compete with bullet-size guided (by laser beam, probably) rocket? Plasma is just absolutely useless as atmospheric weapon (and not much better in space). Lasers are power hogs, depend greatly on atmospheric conditions, and frankly - if you could make anti-infantry laser as practical as automatic rifle, then you just swipe infantry off the battlefield. Particle beam weapon have a nasty habit of spraying gunner with backscatter radiation, and probably would be rather bulky (and power-demanding).

No, I personally consider that nothing could compete with guided gyrojet rockets.

Dilandu wrote:Frankly, I think guided gyrojet rockets would be pinnacle of personal firearms development. Seriously, what could possibly compete with bullet-size guided (by laser beam, probably) rocket? Plasma is just absolutely useless as atmospheric weapon (and not much better in space). Lasers are power hogs, depend greatly on atmospheric conditions, and frankly - if you could make anti-infantry laser as practical as automatic rifle, then you just swipe infantry off the battlefield. Particle beam weapon have a nasty habit of spraying gunner with backscatter radiation, and probably would be rather bulky (and power-demanding).

No, I personally consider that nothing could compete with guided gyrojet rockets.

Normal bullets can, though

In theory at least, gyrojets are great, but without guidance and without a launcher that can give them a really high initial velocity, they're not going to be as effective as a guided (but propulsionless) projectile; to overcome these drawbacks (which killed the concept in reality; as it turns out, gyrojets in reality are really really inaccurate because even a slight cross-wind will get the "bullets" to drift off-target) means cramming so much tech into the bullet that, unless you're in some sort of post-scarcity wonderland, you're not going to be able to afford firing the damn things.

The E wrote:
Normal bullets can, though

In theory at least, gyrojets are great, but without guidance and without a launcher that can give them a really high initial velocity, they're not going to be as effective as a guided (but propulsionless) projectile; to overcome these drawbacks (which killed the concept in reality; as it turns out, gyrojets in reality are really really inaccurate because even a slight cross-wind will get the "bullets" to drift off-target) means cramming so much tech into the bullet that, unless you're in some sort of post-scarcity wonderland, you're not going to be able to afford firing the damn things.

Please, we are talking about the future. All those flaws are only purely technical, not fundamental. There are already "smart bullet" prototypes for sniper rifles; so basically guided gyrojet projectile is within the next 50 years at most.

And with guided projectiles, the inaccuracy problem is solved automatically, and gyrojet advantages kick in.

means cramming so much tech into the bullet that, unless you're in some sort of post-scarcity wonderland, you're not going to be able to afford firing the damn things

Seriously? Why, I heard about an intriguing piece of technology called "microchip", which is, basically, crammed with so much tech that we could not afford it... oh wait, they are literally everywhere.

some sort of post-scarcity wonderland,

Any space opera is post-scarity wonderland by definition. Interstellar travels required so much energy, and interstellar colonization - so much resources and engineering, that by definition the society, capable of that, also capable of providing all its citizens basic needs. Sorry to disappoint Honorverse fans, but povetry-striken Haven and slums of Old Chicago make literally no sence when we are talking about industrial power, capable of building kilometer-long space warships in dozens.The prosperity level of modern day middle-class US citizen in space opera should be taken as granted for any citizen of future space opera world

It makes much more sense to build all that tech into the rifle and scope, and shoot cheap bullets. A laser can measure range, wind speed and air temperature, the computer factors in cartridge and barrel temperatures, calculates the trajectory, and takes the shot when the rifle is pointed in exactly the right direction. You pull the trigger, but the gun decides when to shoot.

If you suspect the enemy will detect the laser you could make do with passive optical targeting, or flood the area with lasers from multiple sources so they can't pick out yours.
———————————
Firepower is one bullet that hits, not a thousand bullets that miss.

Imaginos1892 wrote:It makes much more sense to build all that tech into the rifle and scope, and shoot cheap bullets. A laser can measure range, wind speed and air temperature, the computer factors in cartridge and barrel temperatures, calculates the trajectory, and takes the shot when the rifle is pointed in exactly the right direction. You pull the trigger, but the gun decides when to shoot.

No, because the rifle would still have recoil, long barrel, no ability for bullet to "chase" the enemy (which may be quite useful against small military drones, that already common even on small-scale conflicts). And the bullet speed would drop with distance.

The future guided-projectile gyrojet would:

* Have very little recoil, which basically made possible any weapon handling system - even stucking your rifle on selfie stick to shoot from cover.

* The lenght of weapon would be pretty small (because you don't need the long barrel to achieve bullet speed) and it could be made pretty compact and lightweight. Basically, you could have handgun-size weapon with the projectile energy of M2 Browning point-blank.

* The bullet guidance would allow precise firing on the move, from the covered position, blind firing by outside guidance - basically in any situation.

* With some advances in propulsion, the projectile could be made jet-propelled (we already have ultracompact jet engines, like that -

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JTcjXqnHJuU/maxresdefault.jpg

- so the gyrojet projectile would NOT slow down after launch. It could either move at constant speed or make speed bursts near target - for example, for better armor penetration. And since the powered armor is also the thing that may be avaliable in 50+ years, the better armor penetration is much more effecitve.

* And, considering the space future - the rocket-powered projectile simply are more suited for different atmospheres of different planets)

Dilandu wrote:Please, we are talking about the future. All those flaws are only purely technical, not fundamental. There are already "smart bullet" prototypes for sniper rifles; so basically guided gyrojet projectile is within the next 50 years at most.

And with guided projectiles, the inaccuracy problem is solved automatically, and gyrojet advantages kick in.

No, not really. The problem is that traditional guns are really really good these days. There are over a hundred years of experience and research that tell us how to make guns more accurate, harder hitting, more comfortable to use or cheaper to make, and making a new kind of gun that changes a fundamental aspect of how a gun works has to offer not just incremental but overwhelming advantages in several of these areas in order to make sense to pursue.
As an example, a laser gun offers a real advantage over traditional rifles: It is, for any practical purpose, a true "point and shoot" gun; there's no accounting for ballistics that the shooter has to do. Logistically, they also have a theoretical advantage in that all you need to run them are battery packs; if you can manage to make batteries that have a high power density and are rugged enough for field use, lugging them and a generator around is probably more economical than having to distribute bullets.

Gyrojets, even if their historical disadvantages can be overcome, offer no compelling advantage over traditional rifles. In fact, the fact that you need to equip every soldier with a cheap gun and hundreds of very expensive rounds of ammo (as opposed to the "traditional" model where each soldier gets a single, expensive gun that fires dirt-cheap ammo), makes it very unattractive to the boring accounting types that every organization has to have.

Seriously? Why, I heard about an intriguing piece of technology called "microchip", which is, basically, crammed with so much tech that we could not afford it... oh wait, they are literally everywhere.

Yes, they are. But Microchips alone aren't a solution. A guided gyrojet needs: A sensor package to receive guidance information, a processor to generate command instructions, a guidance mechanism to actually guide the projectile, an engine, fuel for said engine and a power source to provide all the power needed.
If you remove the need to have an engine and fuel it and let the launching mechanism take care of the issue of providing the velocity, this becomes more manageable, as the Excalibur artillery system proves.

And, no matter how advanced your tech is, putting less of it into a high-volume item will reduce costs immensely.

Any space opera is post-scarity wonderland by definition. Interstellar travels required so much energy, and interstellar colonization - so much resources and engineering, that by definition the society, capable of that, also capable of providing all its citizens basic needs. Sorry to disappoint Honorverse fans, but povetry-striken Haven and slums of Old Chicago make literally no sence when we are talking about industrial power, capable of building kilometer-long space warships in dozens.The prosperity level of modern day middle-class US citizen in space opera should be taken as granted for any citizen of future space opera world

You do know that that's a non-sequitur, right

Dilandu wrote:* The lenght of weapon would be pretty small (because you don't need the long barrel to achieve bullet speed) and it could be made pretty compact and lightweight. Basically, you could have handgun-size weapon with the projectile energy of M2 Browning point-blank.

No, you couldn't. The main impetus behind gyrojet weaponry is to move the point where the bullet has the most kinetic energy out, away from the shooter and towards the target; at point-blank, a gyrojet weapon is at its weakest. No amount of spacefuture tech can change this, it's a fundamental issue of how these things work.

* The bullet guidance would allow precise firing on the move, from the covered position, blind firing by outside guidance - basically in any situation.

Also doable with traditional rifles firing guided ammunition. Or by putting guns on drones.

* With some advances in propulsion, the projectile could be made jet-propelled (we already have ultracompact jet engines, like that -

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JTcjXqnHJuU/maxresdefault.jpg

And this gives you what advantage, precisely?

- so the gyrojet projectile would NOT slow down after launch. It could either move at constant speed or make speed bursts near target - for example, for better armor penetration. And since the powered armor is also the thing that may be avaliable in 50+ years, the better armor penetration is much more effecitve.

How much fuel do these magic bullets of yours carry? How many moving parts? How large are they, and how many can a soldier carry? How large does the firing mechanism have to be?

* And, considering the space future - the rocket-powered projectile simply are more suited for different atmospheres of different planets)

And traditional firearms aren't "suitable" in different atmospheres why, exactly?

The E wrote:
No, not really. The problem is that traditional guns are really really good these days. There are over a hundred years of experience and research that tell us how to make guns more accurate, harder hitting, more comfortable to use or cheaper to make, and making a new kind of gun that changes a fundamental aspect of how a gun works has to offer not just incremental but overwhelming advantages in several of these areas in order to make sense to pursue.

Basically the same was told about muzzle-loading smoothbores, which were perfected for several centuries... and then in span of just fifty years rifles come and make them all but extinct.

As an example, a laser gun offers a real advantage over traditional rifles: It is, for any practical purpose, a true "point and shoot" gun; there's no accounting for ballistics that the shooter has to do. Logistically, they also have a theoretical advantage in that all you need to run them are battery packs; if you can manage to make batteries that have a high power density and are rugged enough for field use, lugging them and a generator around is probably more economical than having to distribute bullets.

In theory yes, but on practice - lasers have penetration problems, lasers are bulky (the size of mirror is a problem), they are not power-efficient.

Gyrojets, even if their historical disadvantages can be overcome, offer no compelling advantage over traditional rifles. In fact, the fact that you need to equip every soldier with a cheap gun and hundreds of very expensive rounds of ammo (as opposed to the "traditional" model where each soldier gets a single, expensive gun that fires dirt-cheap ammo), makes it very unattractive to the boring accounting types that every organization has to have.

Exactly the same was said about Minie balls, you know. The rifle bullets in logistical therms were absolutely "no-no-no" for "boring accounting types". For the smoothbore musket, the soldier could made lead bullets by himself, if needed. For the rifle, bullets needed to be machined and distributed.

I'm sorry, what was the last smoothbore musket adopted for US army?

Yes, they are. But Microchips alone aren't a solution.

They are the example of thightly-packed microtech that is basically dirt-cheap.

If you remove the need to have an engine and fuel it and let the launching mechanism take care of the issue of providing the velocity, this becomes more manageable, as the Excalibur artillery system proves.

One problem. Excalibur DOES have a base-bleed propulsion system. Essentially it is jet-powered, albeit the "jet" component is very small.

And modern rocket artillery are just... more capable. The USA never were as good in MRLS (I did not say that your systems are bad, no!) as USSR/Russia and China.

You do know that that's a non-sequitur, right

No, this is just logical. If you have enough resources you could threw on building thousands of interstellar dreadnoughts, you simply could not have your population live on the level below some point. Look at modern high-developed nations; compare the relative peoples prosperity with, say, 200 years ago. The difference is... staggering.

No, you couldn't. The main impetus behind gyrojet weaponry is to move the point where the bullet has the most kinetic energy out, away from the shooter and towards the target; at point-blank, a gyrojet weapon is at its weakest. No amount of spacefuture tech can change this, it's a fundamental issue of how these things work.

You absolutely wrong. This depend only of how fast your rocket could accelerate. Wich is PURELY technical.

Also doable with traditional rifles firing guided ammunition. Or by putting guns on drones.

Doable, yes, but guided un-powered bullet have the problem that it bleed a lot of velocity doing turns. Bullet is light, after all, and air friction could slow it down pretty fast.

And this gives you what advantage, precisely?

That the bullet have speed and kinetic energy ALL path, and would not lost most of its velocity during maneuvering)

How much fuel do these magic bullets of yours carry? How many moving parts? How large are they, and how many can a soldier carry? How large does the firing mechanism have to be?

1. Depend of fuel and design -i.e. pretty much of technology avaliable.

2. Depend on design, again.

3. Probably as many as modern trooper could, because the launcher mechanism is several times lighter than rifle of same power.

4. Basically it could be size of matchbox. For self-propelled projectiles.

And traditional firearms aren't "suitable" in different atmospheres why, exactly?

Because they rely on powder explosion which is tightly packed with the atmosphere compression effects, speed of sound, ect.

Dilandu wrote:Basically the same was told about muzzle-loading smoothbores, which were perfected for several centuries... and then in span of just fifty years rifles come and make them all but extinct.

The last significant development in firearms technology was the StG 44. Even there, it was more a development in terms of tactics than it was in technological terms; the recognition of the benefits of outfitting every soldier with the capability to both do precision engagement over standard distances but also to provide high volumes of automatic fire when required.

Ever since then, most developments have been in the area of optics and gun accessories to make guns more useful; the basic mechanisms haven't changed at all.

This is something we're seeing today whenever a military tries to adopt a new gun: Even decades old designs like the AR-15 are still so good that finding something to do with the gun or put on the gun to make it fundamentally better is really hard.

New technologies, like lasers, railguns, coilguns or gyrojets, need to offer compelling benefits to offset the drawbacks that their lack of decades of use and iteration produce. In the case of rifles and spitzer bullets, they offered a clear advantage in accuracy, and it still took a long time before they were universally adopted, because it took time for manufacturing capabilities to improve to make it practical to put them into large-scale production.

Your hypothetical gyrojet weapon (which you're now telling us is basically half-way to a Banksian knife missile) is too costly. As you said, you need something very close to post-scarcity conditions to even think about manufacturing them, at which point you kinda need to ask yourself why you're still thinking about sending out infantry. If you can build a weapon as capable as that in a form factor that would fit into a magazine that a soldier can carry, why aren't you building a drone that carries "dumb" weapon systems like a traditional rifle?

Exactly the same was said about Minie balls, you know. The rifle bullets in logistical therms were absolutely "no-no-no" for "boring accounting types". For the smoothbore musket, the soldier could made lead bullets by himself, if needed. For the rifle, bullets needed to be machined and distributed.

Even penny items, if bought a million times, will add up to very real costs. We can accept these costs if the benefits are there to justify them, but in your case, they just aren't: By the time you can make these miracle gyrojets of yours, you can very easily make cheaper weapon systems (like the aforementioned gun-carrying drones) that provide much of the capabilities you want to have.

You do know that that's a non-sequitur, right

No, this is just logical. If you have enough resources you could threw on building thousands of interstellar dreadnoughts, you simply could not have your population live on the level below some point. Look at modern high-developed nations; compare the relative peoples prosperity with, say, 200 years ago. The difference is... staggering.

And yet, homelessness is still a thing even in the most prosperous nations.

How much fuel do these magic bullets of yours carry? How many moving parts? How large are they, and how many can a soldier carry? How large does the firing mechanism have to be?

1. Depend of fuel and design -i.e. pretty much of technology avaliable.

2. Depend on design, again.

3. Probably as many as modern trooper could, because the launcher mechanism is several times lighter than rifle of same power.

4. Basically it could be size of matchbox. For self-propelled projectiles.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were trying to have a discussion on a level beyond pure handwavium. You're literally just waving your hands and positing that magic will happen to make all your dreams come true without thinking through the consequences of said magic.

This is pretty hilarious in a thread that started off as a question of worldbuilding, to be honest.

Because they rely on powder explosion which is tightly packed with the atmosphere compression effects, speed of sound, ect.

And jet or rocket engines aren't? Or is this more of your spacefuture magic that ~somehow~ makes your gyrojets immune to environmental effects?