Slashdot Mirror


Celebrating the Sci-fi Ray Gun

brumgrunt submitted the latest Den of Geek compilation story: this week it's the the science fiction ray guns. From Han Solo's blaster to the Forbidden Planet, there's a lot of nostalgia to get your pew pew out.

24 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. DL-44 Mauser? by meburke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the Han solo weapon looks more like a mauser than a Luger.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    1. Re:DL-44 Mauser? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep, it's based on the Mauser C-96. http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/de/mauser-c-96-e.html

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:DL-44 Mauser? by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 2

      So are many of the guns in Doctor Who. The ones used in The Impossible Planet/Satan Pit are barebones P90s, the ones in The Doctor's Daughter have a small flamethrower-like attachment to generate muzzle flash.
      Why is the P90 so popular with sci-fi writers?

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    3. Re:DL-44 Mauser? by Kielistic · · Score: 2

      I believe I may have seen once in a special feature on a Stargate DVD that they are convenient in how they fire. The casings fall straight down as opposed to off to the side. If they go to the side the other actors can be hit with them and I guess that just doesn't look as good.

  2. BSG chose bullets over lasers by rishistar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can't find the original article but I recall reading the BSG creators did feasibility studies on bullets or rayguns for the series and came up with laser powered handguns just not being as effective as bullets.

    --
    Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    1. Re:BSG chose bullets over lasers by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Funny

      How would one conduct such feasibility studies? I'm guessing it starts with stocking up on cheetos and jolt, calling a pizza joint, making sure Wikipedia isn't down...

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    2. Re:BSG chose bullets over lasers by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      I really liked Mass Effect's approach of basically what amounts to grains of sand as bullets moving at near light speed.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:BSG chose bullets over lasers by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not exactly in orbital bombardment, the full title was "Mining the Moon? - Dilemmas of Space Law". One of the topics explored was the use of space for warfare, and inside this, I showed that even the Shuttle can (could, by now...) carry a requisite satellite into orbit: it has a lifting capacity of 22 tons of cargo, a 20 ton projectile (ten meters long, half a meter radius cone) is well inside this limit, even if I'm generous with the support structure.
      Ideally, the satellite needs no maneuvering, nor targeting, the only thing it needs to do is house the round, then drop it when ground control tells it to. It may include a large capacitor bank and a railgun assembly to give it more punch (since it fires only once anyway, rail erosion can be ignored), and maybe some additional processing power to select targets for itself, and maybe maneuvering capacity to change orbits. The strike is the ultimate tactical weapon: fully anonymous (the course cannot be traced back to a launch point, unlike a ballistic missile), devastating, undetectable and indefatigable (the launch generates no observable signature and the round descends too fast to even come up on radar before it's too late to do anything about it. Not quite relativistic, but taking into account today's reaction times for weapons, it's like "By the time you see it coming, it's already too late".), and ultimately targetable (with the proper inclination, it will eventually fly over all points of the planet. At this point, it's just choosing the time of release to hit any nation you want).

      It can also be aimed precisely, though I only did rough mock-ups in Satellite ToolKit, but those indicated that the descent path is roughly like the cot(x) function, and the ground path is predictable at any latitude, so it can theoretically be aimed with pinpoint precision, discounting signal lag.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    4. Re:BSG chose bullets over lasers by blair1q · · Score: 2

      500 J from a laser with picosecond pulses is a lot of juice. It's like turning that umbering, tumbling, energy-dispersing clod of bullet into a thin, light, fast-moving knife. Ooh! like the sword in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, if it was 40 meters long and all the mass was in a few inches of blade at the far end.

      Arms, all over the place.

    5. Re:BSG chose bullets over lasers by QuantumPion · · Score: 2

      Ideally, the satellite needs no maneuvering, nor targeting, the only thing it needs to do is house the round, then drop it when ground control tells it to.

      Someone needs a lesson in Newtonian physics. Being in orbit is not like Wylie E. Coyote where you can just magically stop where you are and fall straight down. You have to precisely slow down using rockets, just enough so that your orbit shifts you into the atmosphere so that the drag can decelerate you down the rest of the way right where you want to end up.

    6. Re:BSG chose bullets over lasers by Chrontius · · Score: 2

      Your 5kW pulse laser will cause severe looking, but superficial injuries. Remember, incapacitation requires destroying the nervous system, or disconnecting it from the body - either directly, or indirectly by depriving it of the blood it requires. Also, remember that bullets and kinetic energy destroys tissue efficiently, and lasers have to boil water, one of the liquids most resistant to boiling in order to create steam explosions to damage tissue. If you're trying to cut things, you need a big beast of a capacitor bank, in order to instantly and deeply penetrate a target and sustain that effect for some significant fraction of a second. Gunpowder stores energy in a much denser form than capacitors, and practical firearms can extract up to 25% of the chemical energy in that powder. Lasers have theoretical efficiencies of up to 65-80% at present, but most modern lasers are closer to 20%. The lack of fragile optics, the reliable, storable energy source, and other similar factors mean firearms are king... for now. Once semiconductor lasers can be mass produced around 20%, diamond optics can be lab-grown, and battery technology catches up, that might change. The most appropriate battery right now is the lithium-spinel ion technology, 42 kilojoules in a pistol-sized battery is pretty practical, assuming two 18650 cells. A laser rifle could carry a rather larger pack, of rather larger cells. Using prismatic IMR cells, a 1 megajoule battery the size of a conventional rifle magazine should be achievable. At that point, proper death rays should be quite possible, even practical.

  3. The Ray-Gun: A Love Story by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    If we're going to be talking about the celebration of ray guns, someone should really mention James Alan Gardner's Hugo and Nebula nominated short story, "The Ray-Gun: A Love Story" which can be read online here. Since TFA didn't do it, i guess that someone has to be me.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  4. Phasers by feidaykin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I love Star Trek, a lot. I'm sure I fit every possible stereotype of a Trek nerd, including ones that are contradictory. But there was one thing that always, always bugged me about Star Trek, even as a kid.

    Phasers are essentially inferior to contemporary firearms. For starters, they are actually slower than bullets. You cannot dodge a bullet (in real life, anyway). But there are several examples of the Enterprise crew dodging phaser/disrupter blasts in TNG. Granted, it's possible to retcon this by saying it's some sort of charged plasma that doesn't travel at the speed of light blah blah. But my point is not that it doesn't travel at light speed (which is obvious) but that it's actually SLOWER than a bullet. Which raises the question, why on Earth (or in the Alpha Quadrant, for that matter) would they use essentially inferior technology? If our present day firearms are superior to phasers, why the switch? It defies all logic.

    And don't even get me started on the horrible scene in Star Trek: First Contact where the Borg have adapted to Picard's phaser so he lures them into the holodeck and mows them down with a tommy gun. So, 1940s machine gun > 24th century phaser. And they don't keep a stash of machine guns in a weapon's locker? Hell, they can't even replicate a few dozen? Sigh.

    Really, it's easier to suspend disbelief about Warp Drive even though that violates everything we know about relativity and modern physics than it is to accept the concept of the phaser replacing the superior firepower we already have in this century.

    Anyway, angry Trek nerd rant mode off. Sorry about that.

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    1. Re:Phasers by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IANASTN, but here's my angle: phasers are something that the Borg encountered often enough to warrant an adaptation, but slugthrowers are something so ancient the Borg don't even remember them, therefore saw no reason to ever adapt to it. If Picard was slower to pick them off, they might have, eventually.
      Also, I recall that the phasers are not full-time weapons, but multipurpose tools that can cut, weld, heat, stun, kill, etc. Typical jack-of-all-trades, acceptable in all, great in none. Our guns, however, have one purpose: to kill. And being the single-minded things they are, they perform this task admirably.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    2. Re:Phasers by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      Phasers are essentially inferior to contemporary firearms.

      Depends on what you're trying to do with them.

      Phasers could be "set" to stun or kill an opponent, something that normal firearms cannot do. Phasers also seemed to be able to shoot far more rounds than contemporary firearms. It was rare that you heard about a phaser being "drained" in a battle--I'm not that knowledgeable about TNG, but in "The Omega Glory," Captain Tracy claims to have killed "thousands" with only four phasers. Furthermore, phaser power-packs could be rigged to explode like a grenade. Phasers could also be used to drill holes, warm rocks, etc.

      While arguably less effective than a Tommy Gun at killing, it was certainly a better all-around tool for explorers than a Tommy Gun.

      So, 1940s machine gun > 24th century phaser.

      Perhaps the Borg had never dealt with a Tommy Gun before. Remember that phasers were effective until the Borg managed to adjust their shielding. I'm sure that a Tommy Gun wouldn't work a second time, just like a phaser tended to be ineffective as the Borg learned to deal with it.

    3. Re:Phasers by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Perhaps I missed the episode but I don't really recall people dodging phaser beams. People may have ducked for cover and moved out of the aim point prior to the phaser firing but once the beam was "in flight" there was no ducking, much as with a bullet. The key to ducking is the time lag between the decision that the weapon is on target and the trigger finger moving far enough to fire the weapon.

      Well there is a scene in the ST:TOS episode Wink of an Eye where Deela, Queen of the Scalosians, dodges a phaser beam. To be fair, though, she was in an "accelerated" time frame.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Phasers by SheeEttin · · Score: 2

      I recall one episode of the original series, in which the crew ends up on one of those "fantasy worlds" (you can imagine it, you get it), and Sulu ends up with some old firearms. Others' reactions are basically "I haven't seen one of those since they banned such-and-such weapons so-and-so years ago!".

      So basically: projectile weapons were banned, I guess. Because they're much more deadly than phasers (which are designed to incapacitate).

  5. Han Shot first! by digitaldc · · Score: 2

    The most important fact in this whole article of fiction.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  6. Klono's Whiskers! by EdZ · · Score: 2

    No mention at all of Lensman, the root node of Space Opera, and the classic DeLameter? Or even the Stendish, a combined semiportable energy weapon/firearm? Pah!

  7. Kill-o-Zap by AftanGustur · · Score: 2

    The Kill-O-Zap gun is a long, silver mean-looking device, the designers of which decided to make it totally clear that it had a right end, and a wrong end, and if that meant sticking blacked and evil-looking devices and prongs all over the wrong end, so be it.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:Kill-o-Zap by camperdave · · Score: 2

      The Kill-O-Zap gun is a long, silver mean-looking device, the designers of which decided to make it totally clear that it had a right end, and a wrong end, and if that meant sticking blacked and evil-looking devices and prongs all over the wrong end, so be it.

      You've got to love a good design ethic.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  8. Re:Phasers: How about longbows? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

    Big difference is it takes years of training to be able to use a longbow effectively, whereas anyone could aim and operate a musket effectively.

  9. Re:Phasers: How about longbows? by Guppy · · Score: 2

    The weapons at the time were cannon and musket. Muskets were iron, hard to make, heavy to carry, hard to operate, dangerous to the user (they could explode), had a horrific rate of fire, noisy, created a lot of smoke to obscure the battleplace, etc. Ben Franklin, I think it was, argued for the longbow as it could be manufactured anywhere, was light, safer to operate, had a massive rate of fire, was silent, and just as deadly as the musket - the ideal weapon for the Americans.

    The problem is, Longbows require extensive training to fire effectively. Firearms allowed you to get away with cheaper, less well trained troops.

  10. Ray gun trickery by steveha · · Score: 2

    When I was a teen, I read a science fiction novel which contained a nifty subplot involving a ray gun.

    I believe the novel was The Secret of the Martian Moons by Donald A. Wallheim.

    Our hero, a young spaceman from Earth, is crewman on the first spaceship from Earth to land on one of the moons of Mars. He is involved with the humanoid aliens who live there. He is pretty sure there is something odd going on, and he doesn't entirely trust them. A faction of these aliens gives him a ray gun, and tells him that it is a harmless stunner, and it is vitally important that he use it to stun some person (I think the person was an alien but I'm not even certain). Because he is suspicious of them, he wonders whether the ray gun might not be as advertised; perhaps it is a lethal weapon. Perhaps, even, it emits some sort of horrible radiation that would kill the user. So, when the moment of truth comes, he doesn't pull the trigger; instead he throws the ray gun with great force against the head of his target, knocking the target out. Later it is revealed that the gun is a convincing prop, not a working ray gun at all; and the faction he didn't trust was setting him up to fail. But instead he succeeded, throwing their evil plans into disarray. Moral: don't trifle with spacemen from Earth.

    If anyone else has read this and can confirm any details, or if this is from some other book, please post a follow-up here. I would actually like to get a copy of this book and re-read it. It probably isn't as good as I remember, but I still want to re-read it.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely