Anti proton guns for point defense in space ?

[Sarevok]

Lets consider the point defense scenario on a hard scifi setting combat spaceship. Lasers are highly accurate but may not be powerful enough to destroy all incoming missiles in a short time frame. Missiles and CIWS guns can be powerful but they lack the accuracy of a laser. Can a particle beam of anti protons be the answer since it can be really fast and very powerful ? If anti matter can be produced on mass scale can a spaceship be fitted with anti proton guns to shoot down missiles ?

[Rye]

A load of similarly charged particles will repel one another.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, but in scientifically ignorant Trek writer land, you can make "absolutely pure" antiproton beams and they will remain coherent.

[Alyeska]

There is also the issue that any anti-matter is extremely difficult to make and, well, doesn't last very long.

[SyntaxVorlon]

That and a bit of backdraft from an antimatter plasma = you vaporized.

[Plushie]

My favorite idea for point defense involves mines placed at different areas around the ship that launch and explode in a cloud of super-hot plasma. Not only does it have inherent EW properties, but it has a chance of exploding any type of incoming missile before it hits, if not outright destroying it.

Of course, then you have to work out a system for replacing mines from the inside, which shouldn't be too hard.

[Surlethe]

Furthermore, when the antimatter hits the missile, you're going to get even more energy from the resulting BOOM than if the missile had detonated itself.

[Sarevok]

A load of similarly charged particles will repel one another.

True but will it be possible to make a very short range weapon for point blank range (a few km at most) defense or will the beam go kaput along with the ship as soon as it leaves the barrel ?

[ClaysGhost]

Can a particle beam of anti protons be the answer since it can be really fast and very powerful ?

It can?

[Zor]

My favorite idea for point defense involves mines placed at different areas around the ship that launch and explode in a cloud of super-hot plasma. Not only does it have inherent EW properties, but it has a chance of exploding any type of incoming missile before it hits, if not outright destroying it.

Great, you have just...

1-Completly Fucked up your own sensors (Burning them out and such)
2-Made yourself incapable of comunicating with the rest of the fleet.
3-Let every other Motherfucker within the system know were you are
4-Potentially inflicted massive damage on your ship/crew
5-Did something that would have less effect on high velocity Kinectic Energy Weapons and no effect on Beam (Laser or Partical).

(Terran Imperial mode)With Rouges using such abismal tactics and defencive weapons, the Imperial Terran Star Navy will have quite an easy job adding this sector of space to the Benevolent Rule of Parliament and Humanity. Hail Terra, Hail the United Human Race, Hail the Imperium! (Terran Imperial mode)

Zor

[Shroom Man 777]

The problem is that the lasers aren't powerful enough to kill all missiles? I don't think you really need a powerful laser to kill a missile, and laser power isn't an issue when you're killing all (or just a lot of) missiles. Its how fast your laser can shoot, or how many laser cannons you've got. And that's still gonna be a factor with your anti-matter blaster. Unless your AMB makes a big ass boom. But then, a big ass boom AMB is nothing more than an overcomplicated, expensive (today, AM is VERY expensive) nuke.

To make a cheaper but just-as-good big boom (unless your AMB makes a VERY big boom) just use a nuke, a proximity nuke. In the future, nukes will still be cheaper than AM.

[Shroom Man 777]

4-Potentially inflicted massive damage on your ship/crew

Well, that could be solved by having the plasma bomb mine thing detonate far away from your ship. Launching it to intercept the missiles before they get too near, so the explosion will be big enough to kill the missiles but still far away enough to not hurt the ship.

He did say that the mines could be launch. And if that doesn't work, apply technobabble and make the plasma mines have "shaped plasma charges" or some shit.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There's no reason the lasers can't have the same power, or more for that matter, than the PB weapons. That's just silly logic backing up the argument by saying so. If you were shooting down missiles, you need only set off the warhead and the whole thing goes boom, or the propellant even if it's a kinetic kill missile. Of course, anti-protons are a bad idea for many reasons, least of all because they aren't bloody neutrally charged and somewhat hard to make and keep.

[Winston Blake]

AFAIK an antiparticle PBW isn't going to be that different in behaviour to a usual one, it just reduces how much energy you need to put in to get a certain amount of damage.

The idea with PBWs is that you accelerate a low mass (a small number of particles) up to extreme velocities, and with a velocity of say, 0.95c, an antiproton already has over twice as much kinetic energy as mass-energy.

An antiproton weapon would have to be neutralised with positrons to prevent electrostatic beam spreading, and since both are much, much harder to produce and handle than protons and electrons, all up you're better off just using a conventional neutral PB.

PBs are also much harder to deflect and aim in order to target stuff compared to a laser, and since its simpler and easier, laser weapon tech is probably going to continue to stay ahead of PBWs regardless of their theoretical superiority. For a hard scifi setting, i'd say laser point defence is your best bet. Though of course you can create realistic conditions which favour other methods.

[Shroom Man 777]

Nukes. A swarm of missiles? Nuke them. Carpet nuke. Single nuke. Whatever. Heck, engineer a nuke in such a way that when it blows up, it makes a huge mega flak explosion or something, showering the place with super-fast shrapnel.

[Tiger Ace]

Nukes. A swarm of missiles? Nuke them. Carpet nuke. Single nuke. Whatever. Heck, engineer a nuke in such a way that when it blows up, it makes a huge mega flak explosion or something, showering the place with super-fast shrapnel.

And how is this supposed nuke supposed to catch missles spread over dozens of kilometers? If your firing off a spread of nukes to catch them all how is it more efficent then using something else.

[Il Saggiatore]

My favorite idea for point defense involves mines placed at different areas around the ship that launch and explode in a cloud of super-hot plasma. Not only does it have inherent EW properties, but it has a chance of exploding any type of incoming missile before it hits, if not outright destroying it.

And how do you keep the plasma dense enough for long enough to actually work as a defense?
We can get probes through our ionosphere and Van Allen belts wihtout very thick shielding.
Your super-hot plasma will not stick around for long in a vacuum.
And you could put nice super-conducting coils on the incoming missiles, whose magnetic field could sweep the charged particles in the plasma out of the way.

[Sriad]

Nukes. A swarm of missiles? Nuke them. Carpet nuke. Single nuke. Whatever. Heck, engineer a nuke in such a way that when it blows up, it makes a huge mega flak explosion or something, showering the place with super-fast shrapnel.

And how is this supposed nuke supposed to catch missles spread over dozens of kilometers? If your firing off a spread of nukes to catch them all how is it more efficent then using something else.

By using the nuke to power anti-missile GRASERs.

[Chmee]

Missiles and CIWS guns can be powerful but they lack the accuracy of a laser.

Why would a projectile weapon be less accurate than a laser in a zero-gee vacuum?

[aerius]

Missiles and CIWS guns can be powerful but they lack the accuracy of a laser.

Why would a projectile weapon be less accurate than a laser in a zero-gee vacuum?

Tolerances. Tiny variations in the mass, shape, and finish of the projectiles as well as the propellant will throw off the aim of each individual projectile. And of course the tolerances in the aiming mechanism.

The laser weapon only has to worry about the tolerances of the aiming mechanism.

[Il Saggiatore]

Missiles and CIWS guns can be powerful but they lack the accuracy of a laser.

Why would a projectile weapon be less accurate than a laser in a zero-gee vacuum?

Tolerances. Tiny variations in the mass, shape, and finish of the projectiles as well as the propellant will throw off the aim of each individual projectile. And of course the tolerances in the aiming mechanism.

The laser weapon only has to worry about the tolerances of the aiming mechanism.

Instead of using one bullet, you might use more, like in a machine-gun.
Or instead of one big bullet, you use lots of smaller bullets.

[Shroom Man 777]

Relativistic buckshots. Has a catchy ring to it, doesn't it?

And how is this supposed nuke supposed to catch missles spread over dozens of kilometers? If your firing off a spread of nukes to catch them all how is it more efficent then using something else.

If the missiles are dumb, each MIRV will intercept each missile at its general proximity. And I'm sure that carpet nuking is much more cost-efficient than freaking anti-matter space guns.

Of course, this is if we're talking about making a big explosion that'll kill missiles. Which, I assume, is what the AM is for. Anyway, my original post also talked about lasers. Which I would say are best for this stuff. Plasma weapons, or particle cannons, or whatever you call them, are the coolest. And nukes, well, The Shep Solution... IN SPAAAACE!

[Chmee]

Missiles and CIWS guns can be powerful but they lack the accuracy of a laser.

Why would a projectile weapon be less accurate than a laser in a zero-gee vacuum?

Tolerances. Tiny variations in the mass, shape, and finish of the projectiles as well as the propellant will throw off the aim of each individual projectile. And of course the tolerances in the aiming mechanism.

The laser weapon only has to worry about the tolerances of the aiming mechanism.

Fair enough ... we'd just be guessing about whether that difference in accuracy would be significant in point-defense scenarios, but that's a logical explanation.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, when the missile gets close enough for these tolerances to not-matter, you open up with your space-shotgun and WHAM! No more missile.

[Adrian Laguna]

Ah, but in scientifically ignorant Trek writer land, you can make "absolutely pure" antiproton beams and they will remain coherent.

Wasn't the beam fired from the Doomsday Device shaped like a cone? As in, "not coherent"?