Future non-leathal hand held weaponry

[biostem]

As others mentioned, I think the answer to prevent hull damage is fairly straightforward - simply design the hull with a minimum durability regarding internal damage, and only use that caliber of weapon or lower. They could use something akin to "pancake" bullets, which flatten on impact, instead of penetrating, (of course, this could cause issues in hostile combatants are wearing armor that can defeat it).

I wonder if a better solution would be to have the vessel be able to erect emergency barriers and simply confine the hostile person or people, and either remove the atmosphere/pump in a sedative agent or simply jettison the compartment in extreme cases.

Heck, you could super heat the enclosed space or pump in any of a number of agents to subdue those inside...


Sorry for the Fox News Link: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/01/04/ ... 565046943/

[Very_big_ship]

I'm sorry about the trillion number. It was obviously a joke and a bad one. My main point really was just that if in germany the police need to fire their guns only 85 times per year then a gunshot is really rare situation. When that number is combined with the fact that a gunshot in spaceship or spacestation has really really low chance to do an major damage the issue of conventional firearms on board of spaceships and spacestations is not really an issue. Maybe the conventional firearm is actually a good choise even in the future.

However modern police forces are currently using more and more these non-leathal weapons like pepper sprays, tasers and other electric equipment so at least at the moment I'd see that these things are getting more and more used. However these same things are also a lot easier to misuse and the number of cases where tasers for example are used just for lols or because of anger, just to inflict more pain or revenge (you get the idea) or to just prevent getting your clothes dirty are increasing as well. So from that perspective electric non-leathal weapons could actually vanish or be disallowed for the simple reason that they are so open for abuse.

As for those future weapons I think there are some combinations of different weapons that could already work. Net gun which also shoots some gas or sticky foam could be more effective than any of those components separately. The foam spray also has the negative effect for the officers that they need to clean their mess afterwards so the chances of misusing them is lower. You can taser a guy and get your "fun" without any direct negative consequences but with sticky foam+net+gas gun you probably need to do some cleaning afterwards which could be enough deterrent so that the weapon is not used lazily.

[Eternal_Freedom]

If you're building a spacecraft or space station where you even suspect that there may be gunfire aboard, you build it to cope with it. The outer hull should be relatively strong anyway, to avoid meteorite damage (or enemy weapons fire) and the internal compartments all need to be (at least) air tight and fire-resistant. So build each bulkhead out of a suitably strong/light metal and you're set.

You kept mentioning bullets damaging nuclear reactors. Just what kind of shitty reactor design are you envisaging that can be seriously damaged by small-arms fire? Some of the bigger rounds maybe but let's face it, the police (or whoever) aren't going to be using .50 BMG rounds in close-quarters fighting. They'll be using 9mm or .22s or something else small. a 9x19mm bullet is not going to damage a nuclear reactor.

On a different note, I do love the idea of using psychedelic drugs to incapacitate people. Such a weapon actually exists in Dark Heresy, in the form of a grenade, and it's great fun to use.

[Formless]

I should correct myself: even a .50 BMG round cannot penetrate 1 inch steel plate.

And that is why I don't really worry much about penetrating the hull of a ship with small arms.

However modern police forces are currently using more and more these non-leathal weapons like pepper sprays, tasers and other electric equipment so at least at the moment I'd see that these things are getting more and more used. However these same things are also a lot easier to misuse and the number of cases where tasers for example are used just for lols or because of anger, just to inflict more pain or revenge (you get the idea) or to just prevent getting your clothes dirty are increasing as well. So from that perspective electric non-leathal weapons could actually vanish or be disallowed for the simple reason that they are so open for abuse.

Even if you had phasers that magically knock people out, its kinda hard to prevent the cops from kicking you while you are down. Less lethal weapons aren't really the solution to abuse of force; stronger enforcement of brutality laws, surveillance of cops while they are on the job, and better training/discipline are pretty much the only way to prevent the 'ol "those bruises were caused by the suspect falling on his ass" type of lie from working when cops cross the line.

On a different note, I do love the idea of using psychedelic drugs to incapacitate people. Such a weapon actually exists in Dark Heresy, in the form of a grenade, and it's great fun to use.

Oh, speaking of this, I actually found a better chemical since I first posted the idea: 5-MeO-DMT. Apparently Erowid specifically states that there are no true visual hallucinations with that chemical, but also that it causes "unconsciousness / nonresponsiveness lasting 5–20 minutes" which is friggen perfect. Its almost like having a magic knockout drug, only its not a knockout drug.

[Sea Skimmer]

Powered armor seems like the logical future solution. If the user is protected and very strong they can simply overpower anyone not equipped with a firearm or other major weapon like a welding torch you'd just shoot with a real bullet anyway. Its not like you'd need to beat the person up either, you can just grab them. Problems like limited power wouldn't matter nearly as much for police work as they do for say military use where anything under 72 hours is a major restriction on operations.

[Very_big_ship]

You kept mentioning bullets damaging nuclear reactors. Just what kind of shitty reactor design are you envisaging that can be seriously damaged by small-arms fire? Some of the bigger rounds maybe but let's face it, the police (or whoever) aren't going to be using .50 BMG rounds in close-quarters fighting. They'll be using 9mm or .22s or something else small. a 9x19mm bullet is not going to damage a nuclear reactor.

I should have been more clear. I did not mean a bullet could damage the reactor directly. Just like when shooting at a car engine it is very unlikely to break it with one shot. You can hit the radiator which causes it to lose radiator liquid. Not a problem on spaceship as you have backups for that. You can hit and damage the electric wiring. Even modern passenger jets have backup lines for that. You could hit a part like the starter motor which makes it impossible to start unless you change the part. For spaceship you have backup for similar parts. My point is you can still damage the reactor by hitting some other parts around it. A fusion reactor on a passenger space ship is a very complex thing and with bad luck a gun shot can break something that could cause the reactor to become inoperable at least for short time if the broken part is replaceable.

I should correct myself: even a .50 BMG round cannot penetrate 1 inch steel plate.

And that is why I don't really worry much about penetrating the hull of a ship with small arms.

As for spaceship protection the ISS for example uses ceramic fabrics that apparently can protect it from meteroids hits of 1cm or smaller:
http://www.universetoday.com/84482/keep ... eteoroids/
From that pov it seems guns do have very tough time getting through the walls of spaceships if we assume that future space ships do have at least comparable protection as the current ISS.

The thing is those walls are designed to protect the inside of the space ship from meteoroids hitting the ship from outside. When a gun is fired from inside the ship there is a lot more vulnerable stuff that it can hit.

I don't even know why people are so keen about pointing out it to me that a bullet has really hard time penetrating or damaging anything on a future spaceship. I admit and have admitted already several times such thing is extremely extremely unlikely. But it is possible.

Please can we talk more about non-leathal weapons and less about shooting guns inside spaceships?

[Darmalus]

Powered armor seems like the logical future solution. If the user is protected and very strong they can simply overpower anyone not equipped with a firearm or other major weapon like a welding torch you'd just shoot with a real bullet anyway. Its not like you'd need to beat the person up either, you can just grab them. Problems like limited power wouldn't matter nearly as much for police work as they do for say military use where anything under 72 hours is a major restriction on operations.

Crisis Resolution Hug-Suit! Looks like the michelin man armed with a net. Big soft bullet soaking exterior with power assist so you can just run up and grab/net the guy.
I could actually see something like this working, as funny as that mental image is.

[Sky Captain]

Spacecraft in size range typically found in sci fi would need massive structure simply to survive acceleration without failure. Shooting holes in a hull that has to be strong enough to support itself and rest of the multi thousand ton spacecraft against accelerations of one G or more should be pretty much impossible by design. Any other piece of equipment that has potential to cause disaster if damaged should have backups. A breakdown can happen anyway even if no one is shooting guns around.

[Borgholio]

Just what kind of shitty reactor design are you envisaging that can be seriously damaged by small-arms fire?

Federation Galaxy Class warp core?

[Eternal_Freedom]

You know I was going to point out that real-world reactors (even fusion ones) are not warp cores, but I figured that was obvious since he specifically mentioned "nuclear reactors."

[Borgholio]

True but we're talking sci-fi here. Doesn't have to be limited to what we know as a nuclear reactor.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'd worry more about putting holes in an AC condenser releasing the refrigerent or setting a tablecloth on fire with a taser then making holes in a reactor. The engine room you know, should be secured, and an untypical place for problems. On the other hand on the passenger decks fires and gas releases and heck even flooding from mere water leaks are serious safety concerns. You have a sealed environment and are like a sub or bunker more so then a surface ship. Any police weapon for everyday use should have an utter minimal of contamination potential. Stuff like CS gas could be fatal in closed compartments ect... you wouldn't even want to use conventional firearms if you could avoid it for the reason of gun gasses. This might be a reason to use those silenced cartridges the Russians produce with an internal piston for gas entrapment. The gas leaks out later, but it'd slow down the release. Less noise inside a metal walled hull is also highly desirable.

[Formless]

Huh. I would have never thought of the gasses a gun makes being a problem. I'm doubtful even as I type. But the rest are certainly better reasons to limit gun use in a spacecraft cabin. Or any other weapon that is that loud.

[Very_big_ship]

Huh. I would have never thought of the gasses a gun makes being a problem. I'm doubtful even as I type. But the rest are certainly better reasons to limit gun use in a spacecraft cabin. Or any other weapon that is that loud.

Calculating what and how much gases a handgun produces when it fires in one shot should be easy to calculate if you know the composition of the gun powder and the amount in one shell.

Loudness is not really a problem when you can use silencers.

[Formless]

Silencers are properly called 'suppressors' because they are a shitload louder than in James Bond movies, dude. Inside a tight cabin they may not cut it without taking additional measures like special ammo (say, for instance, subsonic rounds).

[Very_big_ship]

Silencers are properly called 'suppressors' because they are a shitload louder than in James Bond movies, dude. Inside a tight cabin they may not cut it without taking additional measures like special ammo (say, for instance, subsonic rounds).

Silencer is still better than no silencer.

[madd0ct0r]

on the other hand, could you actually have a gas gun? empty cartridge, just fires a shockwave of air to knock the person over?

[Borgholio]

on the other hand, could you actually have a gas gun? empty cartridge, just fires a shockwave of air to knock the person over?

If you did, it'd have to be a stationary weapon. Otherwise it'd knock YOU back too.

[Formless]

That would actually create more noise than a slugthrower. Not only are blanks and short barreled guns notorious for their increased muzzle blasts (the due to the bullet absorbing less of the energy of the gas to propel itself), but in order to have a gun that knocks people down with wind alone you are talking about something with the power of a small grenade. That's DEFINITELY not something you would use inside a cabin, even if it was theoretically less lethal in other environments (and I'm not sure that it would be).

[Zeropoint]

What kind of threat are we trying to take down? If it's just some random passenger on a drunken rampage, I would think that you could just have your security squad put on some lightweight "power armor"--like a really basic exoskeleton and riot gear, basically--and just tackle him and cuff him. Against someone with a gun, you'd just need to beef up the armor enough to be bulletproof, maybe add a shield, and then rush the guy.

If your security team is tough enough to shrug off pistol fire and take multiple rifle hits, and strength-boosted enough to move normally while carrying that armor, "walk up and grab him" is a viable tactic. If they're geared up like that and the opponent is still a serious threat to them, it seems to me that deadly force would be appropriate.

[Zeropoint]

I had another idea for a non-lethal takedown recently. You could have a swarm of thousands of little spider bots that would crawl all over the perp, and then when there were enough on him, they'd start linking their legs together and form strands and sheets that could contract, binding legs and arms.

Obviously, this isn't a near-future solution, because they'd need better actuators and coordination than what we've got today, but there's no physical reason why it wouldn't work.

[jwl]

Why not have microrobots that you chuck to physically restrain the guy? Maybe something like the net idea, a carbon nanotube net (to allow a thinner net size) with tiny motors woven in whilst being able to intelligently wrap itself around someone.