What-If 0021: "Machine Gun Jetpack"

What if there was a forum for discussing these?

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Daimon
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:24 pm UTC

What-If 0021: "Machine Gun Jetpack"

Postby Daimon » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:47 am UTC

Link to the What-If

Clearly I have as much to say about this edition of "What If" as all my friends and family have to say about me.
Last edited by Daimon on Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Caffeine
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:06 am UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Caffeine » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:03 pm UTC

I'm reminded of Yosemite Sam...

Edit: Like this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... iwrg#t=22s

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby peewee_RotA » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:09 pm UTC

Any chance this can be improved using MetalStorm?
http://www.metalstorm.com/content/view/64/109/
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby peewee_RotA » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:19 pm UTC

Oh and if anyone else was wondering, here's a weapon that will fire 61 pound bullets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_60_pounder_gun
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Klear » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:34 pm UTC

And then there's Project Orion.

Thorbard9
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:42 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Thorbard9 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:42 pm UTC

AK-47.
A-10 Warthog.
5" Artillery.
MetalStorm.
Nuclear Bombs.

Yep, that's a pretty terrifying arms race right there.

User avatar
LittleMikey
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:10 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby LittleMikey » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:58 pm UTC

The bit that intrigues me is the fact that the GAU-8 mounted on an A-10 produces so much recoil.

What I'd like to know is how much this can slow the plane down while it's flying. I'm guessing that the plane already lowers it's speed for a strafing run, but if the gun was fired in a sufficiently long burst would it be enough to cause the plane to loose so much speed it would stall? Or can the A-10 maintain flight even at very low speeds?

If anyone knows I'd be delighted to find out the answer!

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:01 pm UTC

By the time you're using rapid-fired nuclear bombs as propulsion, you're not really talking about a jetpack any more - at least not for people significantly smaller than the average skyscraper...

project2051
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:20 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby project2051 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:13 pm UTC

How about a Schwerer Gustav?

Firing rate might be a problem though.

Vroomfundel
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:36 am UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Vroomfundel » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:30 pm UTC

LittleMikey wrote:The bit that intrigues me is the fact that the GAU-8 mounted on an A-10 produces so much recoil.

What I'd like to know is how much this can slow the plane down while it's flying. I'm guessing that the plane already lowers it's speed for a strafing run, but if the gun was fired in a sufficiently long burst would it be enough to cause the plane to loose so much speed it would stall? Or can the A-10 maintain flight even at very low speeds?

If anyone knows I'd be delighted to find out the answer!


I think aviation experts are reluctant to give out any numbers about stall speeds as it depends on too many parameters. First of all, air density is crucial - the denser the air the less speed you need to maintain altitude. So, for close air support missions (for which A-10 is designed) stalling shouldn't be a problem. It also has "self-sustaining combustion section" which, I would guess, helps maintain the engines in operating condition during firing, although it's designed to prevent them from choking on the gases emitted when firing.
lexicum.net - my vocabulary learning platform

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Klear » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:38 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:By the time you're using rapid-fired nuclear bombs as propulsion, you're not really talking about a jetpack any more - at least not for people significantly smaller than the average skyscraper...


Who cares? We need more power!

atomfullerene
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:58 am UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby atomfullerene » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:39 pm UTC

It's like the Kzinti lesson in reverse....the better a weapon is, the more efficient a reaction drive it makes...

Beltayn
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:54 am UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Beltayn » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:46 pm UTC

"An AK-47 clip holds 30 rounds.""

It's a magazine, not a clip.

-A magazine is an insertable container filled with rounds that can be removed, refilled, and re-used when it runs empty. An AK-47 and M-16 use magazines.
-A clip is a disposable attachment of several rounds together that simply gets ejected automatically when the last round is fired, following which you just insert a new one. There is nothing to remove or reuse. An M-1 Garand, such as was used in WW2, used clips. The clip being ejected was what made that distinctive CA-CHING noise when you ran out of ammo.

Also, there's some nominclature confusion in the article between "rounds" and "bullets". The two are not interchangable.
The bullet is just the projectile, the lead slug that is shot out of the rifle. The casing and charge, along with the bullet, all add up to being a round.
Last edited by Beltayn on Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:49 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby cellocgw » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:48 pm UTC

Vroomfundel wrote:
LittleMikey wrote:The bit that intrigues me is the fact that the GAU-8 mounted on an A-10 produces so much recoil.

What I'd like to know is how much this can slow the plane down while it's flying. I'm guessing that the plane already lowers it's speed for a strafing run, but if the gun was fired in a sufficiently long burst would it be enough to cause the plane to loose so much speed it would stall? Or can the A-10 maintain flight even at very low speeds?

If anyone knows I'd be delighted to find out the answer!


I think aviation experts are reluctant to give out any numbers about stall speeds as it depends on too many parameters. First of all, air density is crucial - the denser the air the less speed you need to maintain altitude. So, for close air support missions (for which A-10 is designed) stalling shouldn't be a problem. It also has "self-sustaining combustion section" which, I would guess, helps maintain the engines in operating condition during firing, although it's designed to prevent them from choking on the gases emitted when firing.


Well, wikipedia quotes 120 kt design stall speed. You should be able to calculate the "initial speed" vs. "length of firing burst" from the info Randall provided. :mrgreen:
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

OK Whatever
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:54 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby OK Whatever » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

As a full-time professional technical consultant for the firearms industry, I applaud the author for making essentially no glaring technical errors (other than the clip/magazine mistake), as would be rampant with typical journalists.

I also would suggest a system that jettisons depleted machine guns, like "up goer five."

Perhaps even using different stages, with first stage optimized for pure thrust, and later stages optimized for lighter weight.
Last edited by OK Whatever on Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

kurukkan
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby kurukkan » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:11 pm UTC

Metagun.

Registered to say this.

JReynolds
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:33 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby JReynolds » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:28 pm UTC

Interesting. In the excellent book Ragamuffin by Tobias Bucknell, the main characters have to escape from some baddies using exactly this method (it's even shown on the cover art). It helps that they're in zero g. They could even shoot at the bad guys and keep accelerating.

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby peewee_RotA » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:40 pm UTC

JReynolds wrote:Interesting. In the excellent book Ragamuffin by Tobias Bucknell, the main characters have to escape from some baddies using exactly this method (it's even shown on the cover art). It helps that they're in zero g. They could even shoot at the bad guys and keep accelerating.


lol

Image


This has been explored in video games as well. There are laser jumps in halflife (1), megaman 9 has a level where you move around in gravity by firing the buster. I'm sure there's more examples but I know that this is something I try routinely in FPS's to try to get higher jumps. Although rocket jumping is more common, every so often you get lucky with kickback.
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby AvatarIII » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:45 pm UTC

Beltayn wrote:"An AK-47 clip holds 30 rounds.""

It's a magazine, not a clip.


I blame Doom, the ammo you pick up in doom is called a clip and it looks like a magazine.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Klear » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:45 pm UTC

JReynolds wrote:Interesting. In the excellent book Ragamuffin by Tobias Bucknell, the main characters have to escape from some baddies using exactly this method (it's even shown on the cover art). It helps that they're in zero g. They could even shoot at the bad guys and keep accelerating.


I believe this is a (perhaps often forgotten) reason why you often have lasers and such in sci-fi settings - so you don't have to deal with the recoil in zero g.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:56 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
JReynolds wrote:Interesting. In the excellent book Ragamuffin by Tobias Bucknell, the main characters have to escape from some baddies using exactly this method (it's even shown on the cover art). It helps that they're in zero g. They could even shoot at the bad guys and keep accelerating.


I believe this is a (perhaps often forgotten) reason why you often have lasers and such in sci-fi settings - so you don't have to deal with the recoil in zero g.


Not that that would work - photons have momentum too.

MrT2
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:02 am UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby MrT2 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:07 pm UTC

LittleMikey wrote:The bit that intrigues me is the fact that the GAU-8 mounted on an A-10 produces so much recoil.

What I'd like to know is how much this can slow the plane down while it's flying. I'm guessing that the plane already lowers it's speed for a strafing run, but if the gun was fired in a sufficiently long burst would it be enough to cause the plane to loose so much speed it would stall? Or can the A-10 maintain flight even at very low speeds?

If anyone knows I'd be delighted to find out the answer!

I don't know any relevant figures, but the A-10 does automatically go to full throttle power while the gun is firing. Additionally as it will be aiming at ground targets, the angle of attack will be negative, which helps pick the speed back up once it stops firing.

Edit: a bigger issue than recoil stalling with large calibre weapons on jet aircraft is compressor stalling of the engine, caused by propellant gases from the munitions entering the engine - so it's quite likely that the length of bursts allowed is limited by the gas produced before the recoil has a substantial effect on airspeed.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:39 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Klear wrote:I believe this is a (perhaps often forgotten) reason why you often have lasers and such in sci-fi settings - so you don't have to deal with the recoil in zero g.
Not that that would work - photons have momentum too.
Yes, it will still work, in the sense that there's not enough recoil to need to "deal with" with a photon weapon. You'd need a 17GW laser weapon to produce the recoil calculated for an AK-47. For the same amount of recoil, meanwhile, the AK only puts out a bit over 20kW (which would produce 68 micronewtons of thrust from the laser weapon).
Last edited by gmalivuk on Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Klear wrote:I believe this is a (perhaps often forgotten) reason why you often have lasers and such in sci-fi settings - so you don't have to deal with the recoil in zero g.
Not that that would work - photons have momentum too.
Yes, it will still work, in the sense that there's not enough recoil to need to "deal with" with a photon weapon. You'd need a 17GW laser weapon to produce the recoil calculated for an AK-47.

What's the power-level required to burn a 1mm diameter hole through someone in a tenth of a second?

The standard SyFy blaster does at least equivalent damage to a conventional firearm - so a 9mm hole might be more accurate - the goal being to incapacitate or kill the target, not to give them a localised sunburn...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:What's the power-level required to burn a 1mm diameter hole through someone in a tenth of a second?
Less than 17GW.

Atomic Rockets says 1J pulses in 5 microsecond intervals is ideal against soft tissue, so 200kW average. Which produces about 2/3 of a millinewton.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Whizbang » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:27 pm UTC

The damage from a bullet is not always from the size of the entry point. Bullets often bounce around inside the body, ripping organs to shreds. A "through and through" is usually not very serious, unless it is through an organ. A laser would always be a through and through, and so require more accuracy. You'd always have to hit the heart, lungs, or head. A gut shot would be messy, and probably lead to death eventually, but would give the victim plenty of time (assuming they tolerate the pain) to shoot back at you.

Bullets, FTW.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:33 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:What's the power-level required to burn a 1mm diameter hole through someone in a tenth of a second?
Less than 17GW.

Atomic Rockets says 1J pulses in 5 microsecond intervals is ideal against soft tissue, so 200kW average. Which produces about 2/3 of a millinewton.


Okay, so realistic laser weapons (intended for use against unarmored targets) would produce a bit less than one microgee of thrust for a human wielder. That sounds like manageable recoil :)

Meanwhile, back at the article, I'm not sure why the cop pulled Cueball over either - speeding, reckless endangerment, aggravated property damage, manslaughter, possession of an illegal weapon...

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby J Thomas » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:43 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Meanwhile, back at the article, I'm not sure why the cop pulled Cueball over either - speeding, reckless endangerment, aggravated property damage, manslaughter, possession of an illegal weapon...


I wonder if he chased the car down from behind with his siren on. Pretty gutsy if so, since the slightest little hill would leave him only a thin smear of blood and tissue coating a bunch of bullets.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

Beltayn
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:54 am UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Beltayn » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:The damage from a bullet is not always from the size of the entry point. Bullets often bounce around inside the body, ripping organs to shreds. A "through and through" is usually not very serious, unless it is through an organ. A laser would always be a through and through, and so require more accuracy. You'd always have to hit the heart, lungs, or head. A gut shot would be messy, and probably lead to death eventually, but would give the victim plenty of time (assuming they tolerate the pain) to shoot back at you.

Bullets, FTW.


This. Most of the damage from a ballistic impact on tissue is caused by either fragmentation bouncing around inside the chest cavity within the rib cage and shredding the organs, or the shock of the exit wound.

As any medic or doctor would tell you, the Human body is both astonishingly fragile, and at the same time astonishingly resilient.
In the military, they teach us that a hit anywhere except directly through the brain stem (known in marksmanship as the "T box") is potentially survivable. The main killer is not the punctures or tissue/organ damage, but rather bleeding out.

Additionally, ballistic exit wounds are often a lot worse than the entry wounds. As the projectile enters the tissue, basically causes a bow wave of force that blows out the back of the body.

A laser weapon would not have any of these advantages. It would leave a nice, perfect burn incision that would likely cause little damage unless it severed a major artery or hit the brain stem.
Last edited by Beltayn on Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:56 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:51 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:The damage from a bullet is not always from the size of the entry point. Bullets often bounce around inside the body, ripping organs to shreds. A "through and through" is usually not very serious, unless it is through an organ. A laser would always be a through and through, and so require more accuracy. You'd always have to hit the heart, lungs, or head. A gut shot would be messy, and probably lead to death eventually, but would give the victim plenty of time (assuming they tolerate the pain) to shoot back at you.

Bullets, FTW.


Hitting just one lung would generally be non-lethal - the lethality of a lung-shot comes from all the blood and other fluids getting into in the wrong places (and out of the right places) - you can survive pretty much indefinitely with just one lung.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

Plus the laser will neatly cauterize the wound, which is kind of the opposite of killing through bleedout.

I'm not suggesting that laser weapons would actually be useful, but they wouldn't cause significant recoil, photon momentum notwithstanding.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Klear » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:37 pm UTC

What if the laser doesn't fire pulses (think phasers in Star Trek) and is capable of slicing the target in half, though? ;)

User avatar
neremanth
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:24 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby neremanth » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

Presumably if you were good enough at aiming you could blind someone with a laser gun - that'd have to severely reduce their capacity to continue firing at you. Or would that take long enough that they'd be able to turn/move their head out of the beam before the damage was done?

(I suppose there'd also be the freak possibility that you might instead correct any pre-existing shortsightedness...)

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby ahammel » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:52 pm UTC

Lasers would also be presumably be better weapons in a space combat setting where if you get a hole of any size in your space car or your space clothes you are having a bad problem and it may be a bad thing that you are in space today.

Recoil is presumably a worse problem in free-fall/vacuum as well.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:52 pm UTC

Klear wrote:What if the laser doesn't fire pulses
Then it will be even less effective, because the gas from vaporizing the material will get in the way of the beam.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

Considering 1W lasers have serious accidental blinding potential, I'd say it happens too fast to close your eyes or move out of the beam. But of course going without eye protection into a fight where you know people will be shooting lasers is a seriously stupid thing to do.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:10 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Considering 1W lasers have serious accidental blinding potential, I'd say it happens too fast to close your eyes or move out of the beam. But of course going without eye protection into a fight where you know people will be shooting lasers is a seriously stupid thing to do.


Would make for an interesting warning panel on your laser: "Eye protection is required at all times laser is in use, especially military engagements."
I looked out across the river today …

charonme
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:18 am UTC

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby charonme » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:12 pm UTC

The GAU8 is not mounted on the A10 plane. The plane is built around the gun :)

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby Klear » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:22 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Klear wrote:What if the laser doesn't fire pulses
Then it will be even less effective, because the gas from vaporizing the material will get in the way of the beam.


Ok, have several pulse laser next to each other, so that they'd in effect make a long hole capable of severing limbs... or some other shape capable of taking chunks of meat off your enemies. Or would that make the recoil no longer negligible?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: What-If 0021: Machine Gun Jetpack

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:28 pm UTC

Just multiply the recoil per laser by the number of lasers to get the total recoil.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “What If?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests