Space Warfare and Space Weaponry

File: sovietlaserpistolah9.jpg (40KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x480px

>>34553698
Soviet laser pistol, meant for disabling of optical sensors on Capitalist pig dog craft
Magazine fed pyrotechnic flashbulb technology

File: A19980011000cp05.jpg (374KB, 1087x916px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1087x916px

Mercury: Tiny knife
Gemini: Tiny Knives
Apollo: Machete

I know space corps is mostly going to be repairs and science shit, but if we where to make a standard issue weapon for them what would it be?

>>34553808
G11

>>34553808
Mossberg Shockwave with 3 inch high brass magnum slugs.

>>34553817
It can finally return from whence it came

>>34553825
The thing is there is no weight, so could the heaviest weapons and armor could be used.

>>34553863
There's no weight, but there's still plenty of mass.

File: Talon E-9 Carbine Final Iron Sights.png (108KB, 1500x500px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1500x500px

>>34553698
I found this guys design, tho it seems like bullshit it's interesting. The handle though looks like it would hurt.

>>34553863
>Use handheld M2 Browning
>Wind up in deep space after a short burst

>>34553698
Lasers are going to be the name of the game.
They pretty much have to.
Space opens up the engagement distance to huge levels. If you see someone fire, you can just move out of the way of the shells.
Laser is the only thing that will hit the target before the target knows its been engaged.

I guess that's only for non-orbital space combat.
For orbital space combat, chaff clouds would be enough. I guess you'd want them also to self-destruct somehow so you don't clog up the orbit.

>>34553863
recoil still exists, equal and opposite reactions

>>34553866
that actually does raise one thought - if it is a projectile (as opposed to gyrojet or energy) weapon, would additional mass in 0-g be advantageous as a measure to resist recoil, even if the weapon is slower to manoeuvre?

>>34553911
Depends whether we're talking about a free floating weapons platform or a mounted weapon.

Obviously the best way to reduce recoil would be to mount the weapon on something that is very massive, like an asteroid.

But if it's a free floating weapon that controls recoil with thrust, then it wouldn't really matter. You're gonna need to "undo" all that force anyways.
I guess a heavier platform would mean you'd could soak a few shots in inertia before needing to reposition. A lighter platform would need to reposition after every shot.

Get this though, what if you have two barrels facing opposite directions? Fire a shot, then spin 180 and fire again, nullifying the energy of the first shot...

File: m6_with_22_hornet_and_410.jpg (56KB, 600x442px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x442px

>>34553863
Spacecraft need to keep their mass as low as possible. The Apollo machete was aluminum for crissakes. A decent spacecraft weapon would be some kind of aircrew survival rifle.

>>34554012
>Spacecraft need to keep their mass as low as possible
That's because getting shit into orbit is stupid expensive.

Once spacecraft are built outside of a gravity well, then things can get real interesting

File: 1376084491097.gif (933KB, 250x125px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 250x125px

>>34554022
No, they still need to be able to maneuver. And F still equals m*a.

File: hole.jpg (40KB, 700x464px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 700x464px

>>34553698

Well for ship-based weapons, lasers are the obvious choice because they work so much better in a vacuum. Individual astronauts would assume a similar role as navy divers, being used to either move/maintain equipment or doing stealth attacks on enemy vehicles using planted explosives.

The need for individual arms isn't as important as a result, although if weapons were developed they'd have to be frangible bullets (eg what air marshals are issued) otherwise every single round would risk blowing holes in the vehicle and creating a maintence problem (not always desirable, especially if you're trying to do self-defense inside an orbital hotel or something). Smaller rounds like subsonic .22 or .17 would probably be the calibers of choice, because they're lighter weight and have low recoil (a bigger issue in zero gravity). Things like space jet skis would probably be developed to quickly ferry attacking soldiers from station to station.

Also it's unlikely spaceborne vehicles would actually be totally pressurized, only the helmets on each individual solider. This allows the ship itself to sustain lots and lots of damage without giving everyone inside the bends. It also makes things like evacuation (say down to the surface via an escape capsule) possible in the event the vehicle is rendered a total loss.

File: dry combat submserisbles being loaded.jpg (103KB, 640x363px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 640x363px

>>34554058

It really can't be understated how comparble submarine ops are to space ops. Both require the same workflows, in the sense that air pressure/flow is a constant concern.

https://phojo-frog.smugmug.com/Military/Naval-Special-Warfare/SDV-Team-ONE/Dry-Deck-Shelter-Subtrap/i-hQHR7rs/A

>>34554045
>they still need to be able to maneuver.
Not really.
Nothing happens fast in space. There are very rarely any surprises.

Yes, F=m*a, but with asteroid mining comes plentiful fuel.
Right now, all our thinking about spacetravel comes with the bottleneck of getting everything we need into orbit first.
That means things HAVE to be as light as possible.
We're still in the canvas and balsa wood portion of spaceflight.

Once we're making spacecraft that have never and will never feel gravity, then the playbook can be expanded.

Maybe a heavier robust spacecraft that carries a shit ton of fuel is better than an ultra-light skeletal one.

Also consider possible Orion drive spacecraft. That needs a very massive pusher plate.

>>34554095

>Nothing happens fast in space. There are very rarely any surprises.

the ISS travels at 4.8 miles per second, You might have greater visibility, but once something gets close, its all over

>>34554095

>Nothing happens fast in space. There are very rarely any surprises.

Not unless the entire vehicle makes it's temperature comparable to the ambient temperature outside.

>>34554114
>You might have greater visibility, but once something gets close, its all over
Of course.
But you're mistaking how much visibility you get.
It doesn't really matter how fast you're going if you can see something coming days in advance.

Juno went as fast as 70+ km/s on its way to Jupiter
But it was all hands off, preprogrammed flight.

>>34554139
Star occlusion will always be a thing.

And that doesn't defeat my point. I'm saying that ultralight spacecraft may not be the only way to go. Out of all possible means of construction, ultralight is not a strict a design law as the speed as light.

Maybe beefier space warships will be advantageous for the possibility of returning fire.
Or maybe a heavier spacecraft can disguise weapons heat easier than one with less mass.

All I'm saying is that it's not a fundamental law of the universe that all spacecraft must be light as possible.

>>34554187
This. Also it's not like we HAVE to build space craft on earth. We can gradually send supplies up into orbit to a ship yard to construct a vessel up there.

>>34554234
>We can gradually send supplies up into orbit to a ship yard to construct a vessel up there.
Why bother with that?

Far better to hook a near Earth asteroid and use that for raw materials.

File: file.png (426KB, 640x506px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 640x506px

>>34553698
Soviet made a 23mm space autocannon
they fired it one before the space ship got decommissioned

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18187/here-is-the-soviet-unions-secret-space-cannon/

>>34554260
Don't forget that Soviet super laser that unfortunately blew up on the launchpad

>>34554260
What was even the point of this?
To shoot down American docking craft?

>>34555156
There really was no reason beyond "what if?"

Nobody here is thinking spacey enough. For long range combat on a craft or from a stabilized platform it would have to be lasers or railguns. For Man to Man in a stabilized environment it would be standard ballistics with some specialized weapons.

For man to man in space I suggest recoilless mini rockets.

For fun, I suggest a sticky rocket. Sticks to the target and then just keeps going until out of fuel, and the asshole you just shot is stranded in space.

>>34555743
Why rail guns?
Why bother?

They'll be beat out by lasers any day of the week.
Whenever you fire something slower than light, whoever you fired upon can see that you engaged them, which gives them enough time to move slightly out the way.

For infantry space warfare I'd probably get an air gun. You just need to be able to punch holes into a suit, also the air rifle would have minimal recoil, it wouldn't generate heat, and there's no air resistance in space, so the projectile would be going reasonably fast.

>>34555902
>You just need to be able to punch holes into a suit
That's assuming that self-sealing material isn't prioritized or that non-inflating counter-pressure suits don't take off

>>34553808

f35

>>34555902

> The garment was made from thirteen layers of material which were (from inside to outside):rubber coated nylon, 5 layers of aluminized Mylar, 4 layers of nonwoven Dacron, 2 layers of aluminized Kapton film/Beta marquisette laminate, and Teflon coated Beta filament cloth.

An air rifle wouldn't touch it

This is like 4 layers of buffalo hide

>>34556144
That's not taking in account the pressure differential.

File: IMG_2873.jpg (58KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 700x525px

Gyrojets, anyone? Technology has improved since the 60s.

>>34556271
I've been toying around with the idea of something like a gyrojet. Would fire hobby tier rockets made with cardboard coin rolls and have an ignition system. Really just a hobby grade thing, more like a fireworks launcher, but cooler looking.

Problem is I'm slightly lazy and haven't gotten around to even making the rockets to test.

>>34556271
Basic projectile weapons would be even more effective in micrograv/zero g.
No wind, air resistance, or gravity to change your projectile's path.

Unless you make your gyrojets "smart" in some way, they're even more useless in space than on Earth

>>34555809
Because lasers can't deliver a warhead?

>>34556373
You need a warhead to destroy a ship.

Heating up their fuel tanks too much would do it.
A laser can do that

>>34554095
Every ounce of mass you carry must be accelerated by your engines, requiring energy. The mass ratio of a spacecraft, that is to say the ratio of the fuel's mass when fully loaded to the dry mass, is vital for increasing the delta-v of the craft, which is essentially how much it is able to maneuver. While getting into orbit does require a lot of delta-v, getting from planet to planet in a reasonable amount of time requires even more. Asteroid mining isn't a magic bullet, just reaching an asteroid would take time (and therefore exposes the crew to radiation and expends the food supply if the vessel isn't able to produce its own food at a sufficient rate), then the process of mining and producing fuel, which requires more time and some specialized equipment, could begin. Afterwards, you would still need to have enough delta-v from the fuel carried to reach your actual destination, since you can't exactly bring an asteroid with you without completely killing your mass ratio.

>>34556271
convince me to not drop several months paychecks on a gyrojet right meow...

>>34556271
Someone tell me slot about these, they seem interesting.