Handheld energy weapons

[Avalancheon]

In the real world, there are three types of energy weaponse that are feasible: Laser beams, particle beams, and plasma bolts. While all of these types have potential for military use in the future, they have serious limitations when applied to handheld designs. Even within the OA universe, energy weapons are more fragile and temperamental than regular projectile weapons. They require a higher tech base and cannot be made soldier proof. Worse yet, their advantages in firepower and range aren't enough to overcome their disadvantages in other areas. (This is probably why rail-guns will never become standard issue among ordinary soldiers)

So my question to you is: What types of energy weapons are there apart from the 'big three', I.E, laser-particle-plasma beams? Do any of them have potential for real world use, or do the laws of physics rule them out of the question (as it does with ion cannons)? Will 'unpredictable' technology of the future enable the creation of weapons like disruptors or blasters? By 'unpredictable', I mean stuff that qualifys as an unknown unknown. Projectrho has a paragraph about this in their futurology section, and how difficult it is to make predictions even 50 years into the future.

''Each new surge is 90 percent what you might have expected from the last one, plus 10 percent magic (in its Clarke’s Law sense). So from the viewpoint of 1920, 90 percent of the gadgets of the (roughly) Manhattan Project through Apollo Project boom would be imaginable (indeed, some, like TV, were abortively available in the previous boom). But 10 percent (lasers, nuclear power, transistors) would be absolutely incomprehensible—magic.''

[Worldtree]

Laser Weapons
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48fddaf46dc97
Handheld laser weapons
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48fddc50c8880
Portable Laser weapons (should this be combined with the Handheld laser weapons article?)
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4c597ee31fac3
Particle beam weapons
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48fddeba8bc05

here's some of the EG particle beam and laser weapon articles to begin the discussion. We have a resident laser expert, Luke Campbell, who may or may not be around to answer any farther reaching questions, but there's quite a bit of material already written in the EG.

I'll also just put this article about OA military strategy, and the related articles at the bottom, if that's needed.
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4bad5ba9074ce

While I agree that there are plenty of technologies in OA that could be apparently magical in OA to current people, i'm not so sure that lasers and particle weapons are a great example of that- and physics does still allow us to predict what will actually be impossible. The aiming systems will be pretty incredible though.

at least compared to most uses of lasers in Science fiction, I really like how OA mentions more peacetime uses for lasers and beams of light. Thinking about personal beam weapons is limiting when, at minimum, it's possible in OA to shoot someone with a laser from across the solar system, or use the same technology for a peaceful purpose like propulsion.

beamed energy propumsion
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/460c36555a8d7

[Drashner1]

In the real world, there are three types of energy weaponse that are feasible: Laser beams, particle beams, and plasma bolts. While all of these types have potential for military use in the future, they have serious limitations when applied to handheld designs.

In OA, those limitations have been solved, at least for laser and plasma weapons. See the articles that Dfleymmes1134 has posted as well as the article on Hellbores (which do come in a handheld version if you're willing to augment the hands in question sufficiently.

Even within the OA universe, energy weapons are more fragile and temperamental than regular projectile weapons. They require a higher tech base and cannot be made soldier proof. Worse yet, their advantages in firepower and range aren't enough to overcome their disadvantages in other areas. (This is probably why rail-guns will never become standard issue among ordinary soldiers)

What are you basing these assertions on? Please point to the specific EG articles that support your assertions here.

The truth of the matter is that energy weapons are common within the setting and can be made tremendously durable, reliable, self repairing, programmable, and various other useful things, when so desired. There are also various advanced projectile weapons, but it isn't clear that they consistently offer general advantages over energy weapons (although there are probably specific situations where one type of weapon or the other has an advantage).

A more fundamental issue is your mention of a 'soldier'. In OA human (or biont, more generally speaking) soldiers are almost completely obsolete. I say 'almost' only because with sufficient and sufficiently advanced augmentation, a biont can operate in some specialized combat operations.

However, under general circumstances, bionts are utterly obsolete in combat. In Terragen civilization there is no task of any kind at which a machine cannot vastly outperform a biont in every way - and that includes warfare. Able to move faster than a human eye can follow and human reflexes can react, equipped with virtually perfect aim, superhuman strength, advanced camouflage, and a total lack of such concepts as fear, mercy, compassion, or guilt, OA combat automation can wipe the floor with any biont soldier, usually rendering them all dead or incapacitated before their nervous systems even have time to react to the notion that a fight has started.

This of course is assuming that the fight doesn't involve dropping a guardweb on the enemy or infecting them all with Binding systems or the like. Or memetically convincing them to form an alliance instead of fighting you in the first place.

So my question to you is: What types of energy weapons are there apart from the 'big three', I.E, laser-particle-plasma beams? Do any of them have potential for real world use, or do the laws of physics rule them out of the question (as it does with ion cannons)? Will 'unpredictable' technology of the future enable the creation of weapons like disruptors or blasters? By 'unpredictable', I mean stuff that qualifys as an unknown unknown.

By definition, 'unpredictable' technologies are unpredictable, so it really doesn't logically follow that you can turn around and predict them. Such an exercise seems likely to rapidly degenerate into an exercise in handwavium - which really isn't what we are about here.

As the existing laser pages discuss, a laser can do a very credible imitation of a 'blaster' (and without the silly season bit of an energy bolt that moves so slowly that a human can dodge it). It can even, potentially, act as a 'stunner', using the laser to ionize the air in the beam and then act as a 'wireless taser' to run a disabling current into the target. We haven't really decided if we want that in the setting yet, but it has been discussed in the RL and here.

My 2c worth,

Todd

[Avalancheon]

Laser Weapons
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48fddaf46dc97
Handheld laser weapons
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48fddc50c8880
Portable Laser weapons (should this be combined with the Handheld laser weapons article?)
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4c597ee31fac3
Particle beam weapons
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48fddeba8bc05

here's some of the EG particle beam and laser weapon articles to begin the discussion. We have a resident laser expert, Luke Campbell, who may or may not be around to answer any farther reaching questions, but there's quite a bit of material already written in the EG.

I'll also just put this article about OA military strategy, and the related articles at the bottom, if that's needed.
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4bad5ba9074ce

I've read alot of luke campbells work, its certainly interesting stuff but I don't know whether his designs (if they were ever implemented in the future) would pass the cost/benefit analysis of a military. If OA were a regular 'soft' science franchise, that caveat wouldn't even be a problem. But since the OA is all about hard sci fi, you do have to pause somewhat. Not to be contrarian, but I find it somewhat unlikely that even mature energy weapons would be competitive with regular small arms. I honestly can't see the average soldier (whether they be human or not) a century or two from now carrying a laser into battle. Their strengths aren't enough to overcome their weaknesses, IMHO.

While I agree that there are plenty of technologies in OA that could be apparently magical in OA to current people, i'm not so sure that lasers and particle weapons are a great example of that- and physics does still allow us to predict what will actually be impossible. The aiming systems will be pretty incredible though.

at least compared to most uses of lasers in Science fiction, I really like how OA mentions more peacetime uses for lasers and beams of light. Thinking about personal beam weapons is limiting when, at minimum, it's possible in OA to shoot someone with a laser from across the solar system, or use the same technology for a peaceful purpose like propulsion.

beamed energy propumsion
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/460c36555a8d7

What I meant was that there are certain concepts that seem absurd at the time of their inception, but later turn out to become feasible. If you lived back in the 30s and thought up something like an optical disk, people of the time would say: 'Thats interesting and all, but how do you read information off the disk?' The idea would seem totally impractical because no one in the 30s had imagined lasers: They were an unknown unknown.

So when I read articles written by engineers and scientists (usually the type who don't read sci fi!) claiming that certain classes of futuristic technology can't work, I have to wonder whether there is something they aren't taking into account. Maybe there is an 'enabler' device that no one has even conceived of yet?

In OA, those limitations have been solved, at least for laser and plasma weapons. See the articles that Dfleymmes1134 has posted as well as the article on Hellbores (which do come in a handheld version if you're willing to augment the hands in question sufficiently.

What are you basing these assertions on? Please point to the specific EG articles that support your assertions here.

The truth of the matter is that energy weapons are common within the setting and can be made tremendously durable, reliable, self repairing, programmable, and various other useful things, when so desired. There are also various advanced projectile weapons, but it isn't clear that they consistently offer general advantages over energy weapons (although there are probably specific situations where one type of weapon or the other has an advantage).

No offense, but that kindof feels like handwaving. Okay, energy weapons in the OA have been stated to be as reliable as anything else out there. But that doesn't make alot of sense, because great engineering (at the hands of expert systems or super brights) can only take your gadgets so far. An automatic rifle can never be as reliable as a bolt action rifle, for instance. With certain exceptions, more advanced weapons require more moving parts, which have a higher chance of failure. The simple nature of a laser weapon makes it inherently more fragile and finicky than a projectile weapon. The lens can be cracked, obscured with dirt, etc, and these failure modes are more common than what a rifle would experience.

Then theres the issue of requisite technology. In order for my beloved plasma cannon to work, it requires 1) cyrogenically frozen hydrogen, which must be 2) superheated to a plasma, then 3) forced down a magnetically sealed barrel, and 4) follow a vortice tunnel created by a laser beam. How can something like that ever be as reliable as a simple projectile weapon? Its more of a portable laboratory than anything else! I just don't see how it can be soldier proofed, even with future infrastructure.

A more fundamental issue is your mention of a 'soldier'. In OA human (or biont, more generally speaking) soldiers are almost completely obsolete. I say 'almost' only because with sufficient and sufficiently advanced augmentation, a biont can operate in some specialized combat operations.

However, under general circumstances, bionts are utterly obsolete in combat. In Terragen civilization there is no task of any kind at which a machine cannot vastly outperform a biont in every way - and that includes warfare. Able to move faster than a human eye can follow and human reflexes can react, equipped with virtually perfect aim, superhuman strength, advanced camouflage, and a total lack of such concepts as fear, mercy, compassion, or guilt, OA combat automation can wipe the floor with any biont soldier, usually rendering them all dead or incapacitated before their nervous systems even have time to react to the notion that a fight has started.

For the most part, I agree. Human soldiers are already showing their limitations as fighters in the 21st century. In the mid term, though, I don't think they will be replaced by drones or robots en masse. That would be prohibitively expensive, militarily unwise, and change the nature of war in an undesirable way. What I do think will happen is that soldiers will be given minor genetic enhancements and cybernetic technology to make them more competitive. But as more and more time passes, and we head into the far future, the demands placed on a soldier will become so great that they will need to replaced by creatures that are either full cyborgs or bioborgs. They will not be cheap or disposable, either.

By definition, 'unpredictable' technologies are unpredictable, so it really doesn't logically follow that you can turn around and predict them. Such an exercise seems likely to rapidly degenerate into an exercise in handwavium - which really isn't what we are about here.

As the existing laser pages discuss, a laser can do a very credible imitation of a 'blaster' (and without the silly season bit of an energy bolt that moves so slowly that a human can dodge it). It can even, potentially, act as a 'stunner', using the laser to ionize the air in the beam and then act as a 'wireless taser' to run a disabling current into the target. We haven't really decided if we want that in the setting yet, but it has been discussed in the RL and here.

My 2c worth,

Todd

Yes, I touched on this with Dfleymmes. But what I'd like to know is, what classes of weapon can be safely ignored for the purposes of OA? We know that phasers won't ever become a reality, since they require particles that don't exist and can't exist (for they defy the laws of physics). But would this be true of stuff like ion cannons, liquid bullets, etc? They aren't impossible per say, but are currently impractical due to things like electrical charge, air density, etc.

[selden]

Don't forget that in an angelnetted region, a pervasive u-fog could simulate the actions of otherwise impossible weapons. Gladiatorial interactions, for example, could be ... interesting.

[Rynn]

I've read alot of luke campbells work, its certainly interesting stuff but I don't know whether his designs (if they were ever implemented in the future) would pass the cost/benefit analysis of a military. If OA were a regular 'soft' science franchise, that caveat wouldn't even be a problem. But since the OA is all about hard sci fi, you do have to pause somewhat. Not to be contrarian, but I find it somewhat unlikely that even mature energy weapons would be competitive with regular small arms. I honestly can't see the average soldier (whether they be human or not) a century or two from now carrying a laser into battle. Their strengths aren't enough to overcome their weaknesses, IMHO.

We don't give a date for handheld beamweapons coming into the setting but it's entirely possible they would be later than a few centuries. They may mature in a time when A) "human" soldiers aren't a thing anymore and B) machinery can be built as complex as an organism.

No offense, but that kindof feels like handwaving. Okay, energy weapons in the OA have been stated to be as reliable as anything else out there. But that doesn't make alot of sense, because great engineering (at the hands of expert systems or super brights) can only take your gadgets so far. An automatic rifle can never be as reliable as a bolt action rifle, for instance. With certain exceptions, more advanced weapons require more moving parts, which have a higher chance of failure. The simple nature of a laser weapon makes it inherently more fragile and finicky than a projectile weapon. The lens can be cracked, obscured with dirt, etc, and these failure modes are more common than what a rifle would experience.

What is more reliable: a mechanical pump or a human heart? When we talk about technology in OA we're often talking of machines as complex as biological systems with the capability to self monitor, self repair, built with a lot of independent redundancy etc. It's not always true that more complexity is less reliable.

Then theres the issue of requisite technology. In order for my beloved plasma cannon to work, it requires 1) cyrogenically frozen hydrogen, which must be 2) superheated to a plasma, then 3) forced down a magnetically sealed barrel, and 4) follow a vortice tunnel created by a laser beam. How can something like that ever be as reliable as a simple projectile weapon? Its more of a portable laboratory than anything else! I just don't see how it can be soldier proofed, even with future infrastructure.

You're also making a bit of a false assumption that even if an item had relatively more failure modes that it is of lower utility. A modern fighter plane is hideously more complex than a spit fighter but that increase in complexity, failure modes and maintenance is more than balanced out by increased performance. In the case of beam weapons (which are not the only type of handheld weapon in the setting) the near instant muzzle velocity, immunity to most environmental conditions and ability to carry a lot of "ammunition" in the form of superconductive batteries (or even a backpack conversion reactor) more than makes up for their complexity.

For the most part, I agree. Human soldiers are already showing their limitations as fighters in the 21st century. In the mid term, though, I don't think they will be replaced by drones or robots en masse. That would be prohibitively expensive, militarily unwise, and change the nature of war in an undesirable way. What I do think will happen is that soldiers will be given minor genetic enhancements and cybernetic technology to make them more competitive. But as more and more time passes, and we head into the far future, the demands placed on a soldier will become so great that they will need to replaced by creatures that are either full cyborgs or bioborgs. They will not be cheap or disposable, either.

Are you talking about real life or OA? Because OA's history spans ten thousand years. For the vast majority of it combat bots that are as adapted to warfare as sharks are to the sea have been the norm. And as for cheap/disposable OA manufacturing technology could easily pump out billions from the template and raw material. Hell most bots could be neumanns that self replicate. The ROI for using those over a greater number of simpler machines would almost always pay off.

[stevebowers]

Handheld laser weapons wouldn't really be suitable for combat until more than a couple of hundred years from now; they will have to wait until compact, high density power sources are available. Luke didn't really put a timescale on the development of laser weapons- but we can assume that good laser blasters won't be available until the mid- to late-First Fed era.

Plasma cannons have the problem that the plasma expands thermally over time, so they have a limited range. In the meantime projectile weapons will also be improving- some of the best guns in OA are actually explosive bullets (like Boom Bullets) which contain tiny amounts of antimatter (presumably in shockproof traps of some sort). I'd venture to say that smart or hyper-powerful projectile weapons will be the weapon of choice for a great many uses.,

[Drashner1]

I've read alot of luke campbells work, its certainly interesting stuff but I don't know whether his designs (if they were ever implemented in the future) would pass the cost/benefit analysis of a military. If OA were a regular 'soft' science franchise, that caveat wouldn't even be a problem. But since the OA is all about hard sci fi, you do have to pause somewhat. Not to be contrarian, but I find it somewhat unlikely that even mature energy weapons would be competitive with regular small arms. I honestly can't see the average soldier (whether they be human or not) a century or two from now carrying a laser into battle. Their strengths aren't enough to overcome their weaknesses, IMHO.

This paragraph raises multiple questions and sort of illustrates the point I'm about to make. Specifically:

You're making a lot of declarative sentences about things, and not explaining what you mean by them, which is muddying the waters and making it hard (if not impossible) to have a real discussion. In order to discuss your points and questions properly, we all first need to get 'on the same sheet of music' so we aren't talking past each other.

Back to your statements above:

a) Pass the cost/benefit analysis of the military - what do you mean by this? Are you claiming some level of knowledge of how military cost benefit analysis is conducted? What is the context for the analysis in question? What starting assumptions are you (or the hypothetical military people performing the analysis) making as part of this?

b) It being 'somewhat unlikely that even mature energy weapons would be competitive with regular small arms' - What is your reasoning that leads you to this conclusion? Define 'mature energy weapon' in this context. What is the basis for this conclusion? Do you bring actual knowledge of small arms to the discussion or is this just a 'gut feeling'?

c) You not being able to see a laser weapon being carried into battle a century or two from now - Ok, but why not? Please explain what leads you to this view.

d) Lasers strengths not being enough to overcome their weaknesses - What strengths and weaknesses are you referring to? We can't think about or respond to the statement effectively if we don't even know what you are talking about.

What I meant was that there are certain concepts that seem absurd at the time of their inception, but later turn out to become feasible. If you lived back in the 30s and thought up something like an optical disk, people of the time would say: 'Thats interesting and all, but how do you read information off the disk?' The idea would seem totally impractical because no one in the 30s had imagined lasers: They were an unknown unknown.

I see what you're saying here (I think), but as mentioned earlier, I think this is an area in which you can make a statement like this above, but rather by definition you can't go on to proactively provide specific examples. You could potentially speak in terms of desired or potential effects or end results, but part of the reason lasers and such were so unexpected was that they resulted from observations or effects that no one was planning on. Based on your defining concept (unknown unknowns) we would need new observations or unexpected observed effects to lead us to that kind of tech - at which point we've moved out of the realm of trying to imagine it and instead into the realm of reacting to those observed things.

So when I read articles written by engineers and scientists (usually the type who don't read sci fi!) claiming that certain classes of futuristic technology can't work, I have to wonder whether there is something they aren't taking into account. Maybe there is an 'enabler' device that no one has even conceived of yet?

This is somewhat of a horse-splice of a different color

OA used to do this a lot and still does this from time to time when someone is inspired to do so. What you're describing here is the process of trying to figure out how an imagined technology might actually work. OA has a fair number of these, with airwalls being an example that springs to mind. If you want hangerbays open to space with a forcefield of some kind holding in the air - you're probably out of luck (although back when Star Wars was new there were some articles on how this might be done - they pointed out lots of challenges). OTOH, if what you really want is a method of getting in/out of a spacecraft that works better than an airlock and works a lot like a force field to the end user - we can set you right up

Often the first step in doing this kind of thing is to look at what the desired end result is and work backwards toward achieving it instead of the other way round.

No offense, but that kindof feels like handwaving. Okay, energy weapons in the OA have been stated to be as reliable as anything else out there. But that doesn't make alot of sense, because great engineering (at the hands of expert systems or super brights) can only take your gadgets so far.

Fair enough - but please explain how you are determining how far that is and that this distance is cannot be 'traveled' by expert systems and superbrights and just ongoing improvements in the state of the art?

Again, you're making pretty firm declarative statements without providing any reasoning to back them up.

An automatic rifle can never be as reliable as a bolt action rifle, for instance.

Why not?

With certain exceptions, more advanced weapons require more moving parts, which have a higher chance of failure. The simple nature of a laser weapon makes it inherently more fragile and finicky than a projectile weapon. The lens can be cracked, obscured with dirt, etc, and these failure modes are more common than what a rifle would experience.

Please provide proof for these declarative statements. Not only regarding the current state of the art, but also demonstrating that it is physically impossible for laser weapons to ever be improved to the point that these issues can be made to go away. We generally prefer online references and journal articles whenever possible.

BTW solid-state lasers with no moving parts are already a thing.

I just don't see how it can be soldier proofed, even with future infrastructure.

Please define 'soldier proofed'. Also, what you mean by 'future infrastructure'.

Coming at this from another direction, are you asking us how such a device might work or stating it as equivalent to a law of physics that such a device can't be made?

For that matter, what is the context you are talking about? Are we talking about using such a weapon (or any energy weapon for that matter) in space? On the ground? Underwater? Etc. Some weapons can be tremendously effective in one environment, but not much good in another. So the desired operating environment needs to be specified.

For the most part, I agree. Human soldiers are already showing their limitations as fighters in the 21st century. In the mid term, though, I don't think they will be replaced by drones or robots en masse. That would be prohibitively expensive, militarily unwise, and change the nature of war in an undesirable way.

More declarative sentences and fuzzy definitions. How are you defining 'mid-term' and what reasoning or expertise are you bringing to these statements that should make the rest of us believe you?

Yes, I touched on this with Dfleymmes. But what I'd like to know is, what classes of weapon can be safely ignored for the purposes of OA? We know that phasers won't ever become a reality, since they require particles that don't exist and can't exist (for they defy the laws of physics). But would this be true of stuff like ion cannons, liquid bullets, etc? They aren't impossible per say, but are currently impractical due to things like electrical charge, air density, etc.

What is a phaser for purposes of this discussion? Yes, I know what they are in a general way in the context of Star Trek. But I (and probably many other people here) have no idea what you're talking about when you mention particles that don't/can't exist. Please unpack your statements like this or we can't really address them constructively.

Getting back to my earlier point above, are you talking about a literal phaser that works exactly the way they are described in fiction? Or a device that basically does the same thing but may operate on very different principles?

Terms like 'phaser' or 'disrupter' don't really mean anything in this context and so can't be taken at face value.

Again, we can't really consider something constructively until we are all on the same sheet of music.

I await your clarifications with interest

Todd

[stevebowers]

Another alternative to 'hand-held' laser weapons is the 'full-body phased-array suit'; a modosophont can wear a light-emitting layer which acts as a large aperture laser. This system might not be capable of delivering a very high-powered beam, because the waste heat would inconvenience the wearer; but it could focus a significant fraction of its energy on a single small point a long way away, because the whole suit acts as an aperture for focusing purposes.

[Rynn]

Another alternative to 'hand-held' laser weapons is the 'full-body phased-array suit'; a modosophont can wear a light-emitting layer which acts as a large aperture laser. This system might not be capable of delivering a very high-powered beam, because the waste heat would inconvenience the wearer; but it could focus a significant fraction of its energy on a single small point a long way away, because the whole suit acts as an aperture for focusing purposes.

As the combat bot article suggests wearable weapons could be far more common in the terragen sphere. What looks like a stylish hat could also be an OPA capable of automatically targeting and shooting dozens of enemies in seconds.