Hard sci-fi adventures?

[DocMan]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

I was leafing through the old Star Frontiers module Crash on Volturnus which starts off with space pirates hijacking the starship the PCs are traveling in. I don't have any space pirates in my campaign' date=' but there can be other reasons for a group of men hijacking a passenger spacecraft (on the run, terrorist action). The hijackers would have automatic pistols and magnetic boots to help negate the recoil from firing their guns. The PCs would have to get their guns somehow, which were stored away when they boarded the spacecraft. If the hijackers are losing the firefight, one of them will try to crash the vessel into a moon or asteroid, possibly into a colony. The PCs will have to take him out and steer the ship to safety.[/quote']

 

Projectile weapons inside a space ship are problematic at best. That's why a lot of stories use energy weapons, on the theory that they are less destructive in the terms of hull breaches and ricochet damage.

 

Doc

[Spence]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Projectile weapons inside a space ship are problematic at best. That's why a lot of stories use energy weapons, on the theory that they are less destructive in the terms of hull breaches and ricochet damage.

 

Doc

 

Back in the day I remember a lot of scifi had starship crews using hand to hand weapons and swords instead of guns or beam weapons when aboard ship to avoid inadvertent damage that could kill the entire crew.

[tkdguy]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Projectile weapons inside a space ship are problematic at best. That's why a lot of stories use energy weapons, on the theory that they are less destructive in the terms of hull breaches and ricochet damage.

 

Doc

True, but my campaign doesn't have energy weapons, so I'll have to figure out how much the ship can take and how much "insulation" there is to prevent tragedies. The hijackers could be armed with knives and other weapons. They may even have a grenade to scare the passengers into compliance. Whether or not they actually use the grenade (or their guns) is another matter.

[DocMan]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

This is where the concept of the flechette gun comes from. It is a gun that shoots projectiles that move fast enough to shred flesh, but are too small to pierce bulkheads or damage ships systems.

 

Or just design your own lethal, but non-destructive projectile weapons.

 

Doc

[Cancer]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Tear gas would work fine, too.

[Spence]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

This is where the concept of the flechette gun comes from. It is a gun that shoots projectiles that move fast enough to shred flesh, but are too small to pierce bulkheads or damage ships systems.

 

Or just design your own lethal, but non-destructive projectile weapons.

 

Doc

 

My problem with flechette guns is the concept was developed before computers and electronics reached the development they have now. Any flechette powerful enough to kill or incapacitate would also do a number on modern data hardware and interconnection.

[Nyrath]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Projectile weapons inside a space ship are problematic at best. That's why a lot of stories use energy weapons' date=' on the theory that they are less destructive in the terms of hull breaches and ricochet damage.[/quote']

Well, as it turns out, holes in the hull will let air leak, but it will be some time before it becomes a problem

 

whooshTime = ( gaspFactor * vol) / holeArea

where

gaspFactor = 1.4 for 80% pressure, 4.3 for 50% pressure, 29 for 1% pressure.

whooshTime = time for cabin pressure to drop to specified fraction of initial value (seconds)

vol = volume of air in the cabin (yards^3)

holeArea = area of the breach (inch^2)

 

It will be the better part of an hour before the pressure drop from a single bullet hole becomes a problem.

 

James Borham has another often overlooked concern: Speaking of bangs, one thing that virtually every sci-fi writer ignores is the fact that any boarding party is going to need hearing protection. Loud noises (like gunshots) are bad for ones hearing, and narrow metal corridors make great echo chambers, increasing the effect. A modern SWAT team uses suppressed weapons not for stealth, but to protect their own hearing. Anyone firing a weapon on-board a starship is going to have the exact same problem, only many times worse.

 

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3l.html

[Nyrath]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

This is where the concept of the flechette gun comes from. It is a gun that shoots projectiles that move fast enough to shred flesh' date=' but are too small to pierce bulkheads or damage ships systems.[/quote']

 

Mike Van Pelt says that if protecting the spacecraft from clumsy shots has priority, frangible rounds may be the answer. These have been suggested for use by armed airline pilots, who also worry about the damage done by stray rounds. The Glasser Safety Slug was invented back in the 1970's, the current state of the art is the MagSafe. The good news is that they affect human targets far more effectively than spacecraft hulls. The bad news is that the penetration is reduced to a point where the space pirate's arms can offer their torso significant protection. And if the pirate is wearing body armor your handgun has become almost worthless. To make it worse, certain types of space suits are almost as good as body armor.

 

Nightcrawler points out that revolvers might be popular in free fall, since other weapons eject their spent cartridges. Hot brass flying around the compartment could cause all sorts of problems. A cartridge floating inside a control panel and shorting out a critical component could ruin your entire day.

[Nyrath]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

There's a scene in Risen Empire where what at first appears to be a space battle turns out to be an encounter between microscopic remote controlled listening devices' date=' (bugs), and microscopic drones intended to destroy such devices.[/quote']

I remember that scene! You are correct, that would make a nifty scenario.

 

Imagine the epic journey across the dirty floor, trying to reach a critical component. Watch out for the cockroaches and the Ship's Cat.

 

Imagine a variant that was based on the ancient movie "Fantastic Voyage." Our Heroes are miniaturized to microbe size, and are injected into the patient. Instead of minature people, they could be teleoperated virtual reality microscopic drones, like the ones in Risen Empire.

[ajackson]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Mike Van Pelt says that if protecting the spacecraft from clumsy shots has priority' date=' frangible rounds may be the answer.[/quote']

The basic problem is that any weapon with adequate penetration to penetrate flesh to a reasonably lethal depth (generally, you need 6-8" penetration in flesh to reliably be able to hit important stuff) also has adequate penetration to shoot through most unarmored walls and gear cases.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Define 'important stuff'. A brain? Three, four inches. The heart? Again, three to four inches. Hell, a person is only 6-8" thick anyhow. A frangible round -- poor penetration, near-complete transfer of energy -- isn't going to penetrate your 6-8", no. The hydrostatic shock and near-complete transfer of energy into that area of the target (instead of, y'know, exiting out the other side) means that yeah, the pirate might 'block' that frangible round with his arm, but having your arm slammed with the full energy of that charge is going to either a) damn near rip your arm off or make you think it was. Either of which are going to c) drop the pirate idiot enough to block a bullet with his arm.

 

And yes, hard armor would protect against penetration, but you still have a large portion of the energy transferred -- which means getting shot in the chest is still going to hurt like a son of a bitch. 1 Shotgun + 1 Frangible + 1 Target = 2 Ouch.

 

Still, ouch != damage. Which means that gel rounds (that transfer ALL the energy), chemical loads (which splatter/soak in around the 'hard' armor), all that sort of stuff (which we COULD have today, if we wanted) start becoming viable options...

[Nyrath]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

The hydrostatic shock and near-complete transfer of energy into that area of the target...

ohno...he said the "H-S" phrase...

[Spence]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

The basic problem is that any weapon with adequate penetration to penetrate flesh to a reasonably lethal depth (generally' date=' you need 6-8" penetration in flesh to reliably be able to hit important stuff) also has adequate penetration to shoot through most unarmored walls and gear cases.[/quote']

 

Define 'important stuff'.

 

ohno...he said the "H-S" phrase...

 

Yep, and he is addressing garnish of the statement rather than the meat

 

That being, any distance weapon that can damage a person can also damage sensitive equipment enough to cause malfunction. Electronics would be especially vulnerable and with the need to minimize weight/volume I doubt cabinets would be metal. In a contested boarding collateral damage from a lively firefight could be more deadly than the battle itself.

[Kristopher]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

And so your boarding actions go back to melee weapons and fisticuffs and short-range weapons that can stun without doing a lot of physical damage.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Tasers! Tasers!

[ajackson]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Define 'important stuff'.

High probability of reaching a depth adequate to stop the target, from most angles, on a torso shot. Including the possibility that you may need to shoot through an arm that's in the way.

A brain? Three' date=' four inches. The heart? Again, three to four inches. Hell, a person is only 6-8" thick anyhow. A frangible round -- poor penetration, near-complete transfer of energy -- isn't going to penetrate your 6-8", no.[/quote']

In fact, it's probably not even going to penetrate your 3", though individual pellets might (not necessarily with enough force to kill, though; typical frangible rounds probably have similar penetration to birdshot).

The hydrostatic shock and near-complete transfer of energy into that area of the target (instead of' date=' y'know, exiting out the other side) means that yeah, the pirate might 'block' that frangible round with his arm, but having your arm slammed with the full energy of that charge is going to either a) damn near rip your arm off or make you think it was.[/quote']

Hydrostatic shock is basically irrelevant until you reach extremely high energy levels, at which point frangible rounds won't save your fragile components. As for ripping the arm off, the momentum transfer is very small -- if the weapon won't rip your arm off when you fire it, it won't rip the arm off the target. It will take a big hole out of the arm that will hurt plenty, but that's about it.

And yes, hard armor would protect against penetration, but you still have a large portion of the energy transferred -- which means getting shot in the chest is still going to hurt like a son of a bitch. 1 Shotgun + 1 Frangible + 1 Target = 2 Ouch.

The energy transfer through a rigid vest is very small -- again, it generally won't be significantly more than the recoil.

Still' date=' ouch != damage. Which means that gel rounds (that transfer ALL the energy), chemical loads (which splatter/soak in around the 'hard' armor), all that sort of stuff (which we COULD have today, if we wanted) start becoming viable options...[/quote']

Gel rounds (and baton rounds, and the like) are also likely to be ineffective against hard armor. Chemical loads are pretty well guaranteed to be totally ineffective against anything sealed against vacuum.

[Cancer]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Gel rounds (and baton rounds' date=' and the like) are also likely to be ineffective against hard armor. Chemical loads are pretty well guaranteed to be totally ineffective against anything sealed against vacuum.[/quote']

 

Yup. That's why I suspect that if it is to be successful in actually securing a more or less intact and functional vessel (or capturing live personnel from a ship), spaceship boarding has to be done by surprise or while so much other stuff is going on the defenders can't prepare effectively enough. Boarders in vacuum armor seem likely to be hurt only by measures that will cause much collateral damage. That collateral damage will be lethal to the defenders, unless they have got into their vacuum armor as well.

 

And I expect that vacuum armor will be like spacesuits today: you don't want to stay in it more than 6 hours at a stretch. Suiting up is likely to be a multi-minute process if the suits are flexible enough so you have any kind of dexterity while in the suit. And, suits will be bulky, and space is always going to be at a premium in a spaceship, so defenders will have to go to the lockers where suits are held, break out the suits, get into them. A few more seconds in the "general quarters" drill.

 

A mitten suit -- one more suited for bludgeoning combat -- could be faster to get into, but since the whole crew would have to suit up and remain functional at the helm and other systems controls, the suits for the guys who actually have to push buttons or type commands on a keyboard will still remain relatively delicate and slow to get into.

 

Boarding combat among spaceships is hard to imagine happening quickly, simply because you have to match velocity vectors very well before any physical contact or both ships and boarders get blown to shrapnel, since useful (and natural, for stuff like ships in different planetary orbits) space velocities are all far in excess of common handgun projectile velocities. How such combat might come about depends sensitively on the space tech you have posited in your fictional world. If a goal in your world design is to make it so such combat happens often, well, that is likely to have ramifications all through the rest of your game-world.

[ajackson]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Yup. That's why I suspect that if it is to be successful in actually securing a more or less intact and functional vessel (or capturing live personnel from a ship)' date=' spaceship boarding has to be done by surprise or while so much other stuff is going on the defenders can't prepare effectively enough.[/quote']

Or you can simply use overwhelming force and intimidate the defenders into giving up without a firefight.

 

Oh, for other SF options: flash attacks won't damage most equipment and can incapacitate an opponent for long enough that he can be captured or finished off by other means. Things like glue or web grenades may be possible and won't penetrate surfaces though they'll likely do a number on exposed keypads and the like.

[Spence]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

And so your boarding actions go back to melee weapons and fisticuffs and short-range weapons that can stun without doing a lot of physical damage.

 

IMO that isn't as far fetched as one might think. There were a few old scifi series from the 50-60's I remember reading that had the sword returning because of spacers. I wish I could recall more, like and author or title, but one story (series?) had the a short sword based on the gladius as the prevalent primary weapon on starships.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

Hydrostatic shock is basically irrelevant until you reach extremely high energy levels

 

According to recent research (you can read summaries and find the details of the original papers on Wikipedia), if a projectile can deposit 600 foot-pounds (810 joules) of energy in a distance of a foot (30 cm), it can create easily observable remote neural effects which contribute to rapid incapacitation. In plain English, the pressure wave is transmitted through the blood vessels and causes the brain to glitch.

 

600 foot-pounds is more than most "normal" handguns can deliver, but well within the capabilities of light rifles. Bullet design also plays a part here, since the energy has to be "dumped" in a short distance to create the pressure wave.

 

Also note that this isn't a true shock wave, in the technical sense.

 

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in. Feel free to discuss or critique!

[Kristopher]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

According to recent research (you can read summaries and find the details of the original papers on Wikipedia), if a projectile can deposit 600 foot-pounds (810 joules) of energy in a distance of a foot (30 cm), it can create easily observable remote neural effects which contribute to rapid incapacitation. In plain English, the pressure wave is transmitted through the blood vessels and causes the brain to glitch.

 

600 foot-pounds is more than most "normal" handguns can deliver, but well within the capabilities of light rifles. Bullet design also plays a part here, since the energy has to be "dumped" in a short distance to create the pressure wave.

 

Also note that this isn't a true shock wave, in the technical sense.

 

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in. Feel free to discuss or critique!

 

This is one of those topics that eventually comes up whenever there's long discussion of the effectiveness of various firearms. The hydrostatic shock concept seems very popular still, even though AFAIK it's been disproven. Is it back again? (As in, what's "recent"?)

[ajackson]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

The hydrostatic shock concept seems very popular still' date=' even though AFAIK it's been disproven. Is it back again? (As in, what's "recent"?)[/quote']

The references look recent. There's a shortage of good studies of the immediate effects of gunshots on humans (pesky ethics), so various ideas have a tendency to come up again and again.

[Nyrath]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

IMO that isn't as far fetched as one might think. There were a few old scifi series from the 50-60's I remember reading that had the sword returning because of spacers. I wish I could recall more' date=' like and author or title, but one story (series?) had the a short sword based on the gladius as the prevalent primary weapon on starships.[/quote']

It was also popularized in the ancient RPG "Traveller." The weapon of choice for boarding actions on a starship was a cutlass.

[Nyrath]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

This is one of those topics that eventually comes up whenever there's long discussion of the effectiveness of various firearms. The hydrostatic shock concept seems very popular still' date=' even though AFAIK it's been disproven. Is it back again? (As in, what's "recent"?)[/quote']

I just knew that the thread was doomed once somebody mentioned "hydrostatic shock."

 

There have been some flamewars on the topic that have gone on for years.

[Kristopher]

Re: Hard sci-fi adventures?

 

I just knew that the thread was doomed once somebody mentioned "hydrostatic shock."

 

There have been some flamewars on the topic that have gone on for years.

 

Well, I have on intent of dooming it, I was just curious.