Bullets are not a bad idea!

Some people have complained about the bullets, but those bullets, properly explained, could actually be a triumph of realism.

You want lasers instead? The lasers would have to be WAY more powerful than any laser we have now. Any contemporary laser would only punch a thin hole a short distance into ordinary steel, and only at very close range, well under a mile. No good for space battles.

You say that Caprica will have a much more potent energy source than we have now? Great! Let's use bullets instead. Magnetically accelerated to, oh, half the speed of light. That would take a huge amount of energy, which is exactly what we want. We will allow the source of the energy to remain mysterious at present.

First, there is range. A bullet that fast could be useful against a target thousands of miles away. Perfect. Then there's the size of the bullet. Imagine something roughly the size of a BB. Say, 360 bullets per pound, for ease of calculation. If the bullet travels a little over one half c, or say 100,000 miles per second, how much inertial energy does it pack? Assuming that kinetic energy is proportional to mass times speed, then one such bullet would pack the same wallop as a 500 pound projectile traveling at 2000 miles per hour. Work it out!

Possible problem: would the potential energy be released suddenly and destructively on impact, or would the bullet punch a tiny hole right through the target? Here I invite a professional physicist to contribute his/her thoughts, but I suspect that the bullet would vaporize instantly, and I am guessing that the vapor would expand rapidly enough to punch out a conical hole with a fairly large exit crater, several inches across at least, as it pushed the volatilized resistance mass of the target ahead of it. Pretty destructive. Benefit? The "Rambo Effect" is actually realized. (The RE occurs when a single Huey shoots enough bullets to destroy an entire prison facility, even though in real life it would take at least a C130, maybe two, to lift that much ammunition into the air.) If a Viper fired these bullets at a leisurely 100 rounds per second, or 3600 per minute, that's only ten pounds per minute. Give the Viper a 600 pound ammo tank and the pilot can squeeze the trigger for a solid hour without letting up. That should be enough. That also explains how the Galactica can shoot a solid curtain of bullets for as long as it did escaping Ragnor, without depleting its reserves appreciably, even if the Galactica's heavy weapons shot a much more massive bullet.

No, BSG2003 had a few glaring believability holes, but the bullets were not among them. :light:

[Dawg]

"Friendly Fire."

I am
Dawg

There is a good thread somewhere in this forum where they discuss this subject pretty good. Your best modern anti armor weapons are very small dart like projectiles that do all their damage with kinetic energy not high explosive. As a super bullet as seen in the mini went through an object it would melt the metal it goes through. Although some damage would be caused by the actual bullet the majority would be caused by the superheated metal of the object it hit as that metal is imparted with the kinetic energy. This is why most armored vehicle casualties are burned (incinerated) by molten metal not torn by the actual projectile. The space rail gun concept is a natural projection of the always evolving arrow.

LASARs may be a good weapon in the future. The Air Force has a modified 747 going into service that can destroy up to 18 targets before recharge with a chemical lasar. Whether you can attenuate the effects of lasars in the future or if the power issue can be resolved is another story. You can't see with the naked eye the lasars we use today for range finding. I wonder if you would see the combat lasar in the future. If you can't the special effects person would probably rather deal with tracer bullets or pretend a lasar is visible. The TOS "lasars" on the vipers looked more like tracer rounds in flight than any real lasar. A space based tracer would need to be coated with a glow in the dark substance since I don't think current phospherous based tracers would burn in the airless vacum of space.

I think most of the anti-bullet crowd is argueing over semantics. They could have called them plasma balls and the guns plasma cannons. The shaking and "bullet like" things done in the vipers are a great way to inpart realism to the audience whether such would happen in a future weapons system firing bullets or plasma balls who knows. If the "bullets" are fired by magnetic force I don't think the viper pilot would feel any recoil at all.

I liked the way they did it. What happens in the future God only knows. I hold out hope we don't have such weapons in 1,000 years but I bet we will.

[callsignfalcon]

The only problem is... where are they gonna get all the metal to supply those guns while on the run O.o There's something to explain in a continued series!

[dec5]

Metal is always plentiful in this universe. Lasers are fine..but no matter how powerful it is...it still acts like light it can be deflected or or lose it's strength at long distances......where as matter still packs a big punch...

[The Rain]

Originally posted by dec5
Metal is always plentiful in this universe. Lasers are fine..but no matter how powerful it is...it still acts like light it can be deflected or or lose it's strength at long distances......where as matter still packs a big punch...

BINGO

[Dawg]

I am not a big fan of the idea of bits of metal being flung all over a weightless, airless battle zone. Too many opportunities for them to run into friendly ships.

I have a sneaking suspicion recoil from weapons like that would also be an issue in a space-based fighter craft. I am no physicist, however.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but bullets no more added to the "realism" of the mini than Ellen Degeneris' voice added to the "realism" of Finding Nemo.

There are a couple of things that people conveniently forget. First is that the term "lasers" was used in 1978 because it still sounded other-worldly to most of the general public. Now, of course, we know lasers are used as surgical tools, they read CDs and DVDs, and we're much more familiar with the technology.

The other thing forgotten in discussions like this is that, in the terms of space opera (and BSG in particular), there is nothing suggesting that the technology of the colonials was based on anything familiar to us on Earth. "Laser Torpedoes" is, to us on Earth in 2004, a meaningless term - we know that lasers are beams of coherent light (depending on the source, of course - CO2 lasers are invisible). You can't possibly make torpedoes out of laser beams.

But what if the colonial "laser torpedoes" were based on a completely different, unknown-to-us-on-Earth technology? Energy weapons with parameters completely alien to us.

What's so hard to accept about that, science fiction fans?

No, bullets didn't add one iota of "realism" to the mini.

Next case, please!

I am
Dawg

[dec5]

It kinda did give BG2003 more realism IMO ....After 50 or 60 years of seeing just noisy beam weapons in space wars in film.......It is quite refreashing to see silent ammo fly though a vacuum and blow something to pieces......

[The One]

I just realized that "What happens to the bullets that don't hit their target?" "Do they just keep on traveling into space, accelerlating in speed, to infinity?"

The bullet's speed would keep on accelerating unless it hit something...hmmm...interesting...

Also, wouldn't an object (eg: metal) implode rather than explode due to the vaccum of space?

That would be an interesting visual effect...having the spaceships implode within itself...

I like the idea of bullets in space just because it is *ORIGINAL*

We have all seen the so-called laser weapon...there is nothing new to this type of futuristic weapon, although, I guess it is not too futuristic anymore...

It is interesting that Hollywood seems to portray *science fiction* as having to do with *Outer Space*...

I have heard that Bonnie Hammer is trying to direct the SCI FI Channel away from Space oriented shows...and she is right in doing it...

Science Fiction: n. a literary genre that makes imaginative use of scienctific knowledge.

[Darth Marley]

A projectile would not continue to accelerate. There are some different factors to concider depending on what means is used to propel the slug. Chemical charges would burn up, and any "rail gun" concept would impart a finite amount of energy to the projectile as well.
It would not likely slow down very much, only being slowed by a few small particles in its way.
It would likely be captured in the gravity of a more massive space body.

Implosion, hmmm... I don't think it should implode. The "vacuum" of space is pulling the walls out toward it. An explosion that would weaken the structure would allow the pressure to equalize outward.

[The One]

I think that you might be right about the accelerating issue I brought up...I think that a projectile would actually stay at a constant speed rather than accelerate...yes...stupid me...(bonk)

The Vipers in this new reimagined "Battlestar Galactica" was the first time that I have seen a space show drama portray space and space travel realistically!

I loved it!

Even the zero sound was absolutely awesome!

Anyways, back to the accelerating issue!

I was reading about space travel and traveling at light speed and it was explained that light travel could be possible because of the accelerating progression from a continued source of energy...

If the projectile had a continued source of pushing energy...the projectile would accelerate faster and faster and faster...

Hmm...

What about the issue of bullets missing their targers?

Would the bullets continue to travel into space to infinity unless obviously it had a collision...right?

[Darth Marley]

An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by some other force.
A torpedo sized space missile will only be slightly slowed by micro-meteor size particles.
Collision with obects more massive will absorbe some kinetic energy,and likely change both object's course.
Gravity effects would big the big vacuum cleaner for these kinds of space trash. Getting caught by a planetery or stellar gravity source would keep such items from wandering too far, and would cause the most significant deceleration effects.

[The One]

Implosion...

I think I might be getting mixed up with depth of water...

[Darth Marley]

Yes, a submersed submarine would implode.

[The One]

I remember the scene in "The Abyss" where Michael Biehn's character's submersivable sinks and Mary Elizabeth's character watches...and then it implodes! Remember that...

And then, I remember the scene in Alien Resurrection where the *Creature* gets sucked out of that small hole...remember...towards the end...

Yes...yes...it is all coming back!

Originally posted by Darth Marley
An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by some other force.

So bullets travelling at 1/2 c will travel at that speed *forever*, thus creating a hazard to navigation that never goes away. Oooo. . .that makes my head hurt. Let's just pretend that the bullets are biodegradable and after about a week they disappear.

Originally posted by Thomasbombadil
So bullets travelling at 1/2 c will travel at that speed *forever*

They will not travel at that speed "forever". Eventually, they will be swept into a gravity well.

[Soulmage]

Yes, bullets would continue to travel practically forever. However, people concerned with the navigation hazards they present don't really understand the scale of the universe.

Space is so incredibly vast that even given a star-trek like galaxy teaming with interstellar flight capable races, the chances of a ship actually every being hit by a "stray bullet" are statistically next to zero.

It is true that gravity wells would tend to suck-up stray bullets fired in a stellar system, and this would keep the intra-planetary spacelanes clear, but in interstellar space, such bullets would most likely travel for billions or even trillions of years before happening to intersect a gravity well that could suck them in. But it wouldn't matter since there would be virtually no chance of them hitting anybody.

In the BSG universe as presented, interstellar space is pretty much devoid of any ship traffic anyway due to the space-folding technology being used for FTL travel.

Originally posted by Dogface and Soulmage
They will not travel at that speed "forever". Eventually, they will be swept into a gravity well.
* * * * *
Yes, bullets would continue to travel practically forever. However, people concerned with the navigation hazards they present don't really understand the scale of the universe.

Yes, that's the problem with SciFi. Genuine reality often just isn't interesting. How often do we hear lines like, "If we jump without careful calculations, we could end up in the center of a star, or. . ."

Not gonna happen. The volume of stars, compared to the volume of interstellar space, is a percent so small as to be invisible without a miscroscope. [That's a mixed-metaphor joke, for our Rio Linda lurkers]. Bullets travelling even at 100,000 mps will almost certainly never hit anything for millions of years, if at all. Not even an extended gravity well belonging to, say, a large galaxy-core black hole. Odds are against the bullet coming anywhere near the center of any galaxy.

So the trick is to write script stuff that has a believable veneer, and let the impossible parts be easy to ignore. Unlike, say, a human hacker writing in five hours a virus for a computer that no human has ever seen before.

Still, you gotta like the idea of "biodegradable bullets" that don't contaminate the fragile environment of interstellar space. (What kinda "bio"? I figure vacuum-inhabiting microbes that usually metabolize cosmic energy, but will "eat" metal and emit tiny little molecules of microbe excrement that are still travelling at 100,000 mps but are too small to damage anything unless they score a direct hit somebody's DNA.)

[The One]

I would think that the same principle would apply to a misfiring of a laser bolt...meaning missing the target and firing off into space...into infinitiy just like a star giving off it's illuminating glow...thousands of years into the vast reaches of space...until it hits...well, whatever is in it's path...

Wouldn't that happen to?

I still really like the concept of bullets...it is really neat and I would like to do some research into the validity of this neat weapon...

I am sure that Ron Moore has done such research. He seems like that kind of a guy to do diligent information seeking to stay true to scientific truth!

Originally posted by The One
I would think that the same principle would apply to a misfiring of a laser bolt...meaning missing the target and firing off into space...into infinitiy just like a star giving off it's illuminating glow...thousands of years into the vast reaches of space...until it hits...well, whatever is in it's path...

Wouldn't that happen to?

Actually, no. Yes, the light would travel forever, but the beam of light gradually broadens, just like a flashlight beam only less rapidly. The more the beam spreads out, the less destruction it does. The laser beam that they first used to get an exact range to the moon lit up a circle about ten miles across on the moon's surface (which was far, far more focused than a searchlight beam would have been). I assume the Capricans would have a better-focused laser if they chose to use one, but even a super-focused laser would be extremely spread out after only a few seconds, or perhaps minutes, of travel. A spaceship pilot millions of miles away, looking directly into the path of the laser beam, would see a pinpoint of bright light, but it wouldn't hurt him/her any. Depending on the exact range, of course. A few more millions of miles and he/she wouldn't even notice the light.

[thomas7g]

Bullets or light beams. To me it don't really matter. Its whatever floats your boat.

Bullets make alot of sense. But lasers aren't bad. Bullets will never replace phaser beams in Star Trek cause phasers make perfect sense on that show. And they look cool. But if you like bullets, they work fine too.

Its not so much what is real, but what works visually.

Its like seeing stars wizzing by your cockpit. We all know that if the camera is stationary relative to the ship, and the ship ain't turning, no matter how you film it, the ship looks like its sitting still in space. But that's boring. So we have stars wizzing past the cockpit.

its like the old show always had three cylons in each raider. Why? Not because they needed to. After all you should only need one. My PC would do fine. But you had three because as your scene edits cut from lone viper pilot, to three cylons, and back, subconciously the scene edits felt more threatening. Three against one. Don't make alot of real world sense. But it added to the fun.

Real dogfights have no sound effects in a vacuum. Ships look like they ain't moving. There ain't no god up there cranking out exciting background music during the battle. And most space battles will happen with the ships so far apart you couldn't get the two ships to appear on camera at the same time.

its not a matter of reality. Its what makes you enjoy it.

[Gemini1999]

Originally posted by conundrum7g
its like the old show always had three cylons in each raider. Why? Not because they needed to. After all you should only need one. My PC would do fine. But you had three because as your scene edits cut from lone viper pilot, to three cylons, and back, subconciously the scene edits felt more threatening. Three against one. Don't make alot of real world sense. But it added to the fun.

Tom -

This reminded me of an old joke that a friend told me in the TOS days:

A: "Why does it take 3 Centurians to fly a Raider?"

B: "I don't know, why does it take 3?

A: " One to steer and two to hum...."

I know, it's kinda dumb, but it used to crack me up!

Later,
Bryan
________
VAPIR OXYGEN RECHARGEABLE