Laser canon power or potential properties of organic armour

[WATCH-MAN]

The facts:

1. Mike Wong wrote:
   
   • • Organic technology
       • In sci-fi nowadays, virtually all truly advanced technology seems to be "organic". From Tin Man in Star Trek to the Vorlons and Shadows in B5 and now, the latest additions to the Star Wars "extended universe" (which has obviously been polluted by sci-fi chic), the theme is omnipresent and inescapable: bio-technology is vastly superior to primitive heavy metal technologies. The motivation for this theme is tinged with human conceit; could it be that we simply want to believe that organic life is vastly superior to any piece of technology, because we refuse to accept that we are an insignificant organic speck in the history of the universe? Because like it or not, we are an insignificant speck in the history of the universe. If the time between the Big Bang and the formation of our solar system were one day, the entirety of human history would take place in less than one second, before lunch on the second day.
         
         Either way, the popularity of the organic technology myth is somewhat baffling. One of the most baffling parts is the fact that it is assumed to be more "advanced". Here's a question for you: when did we produce the first armoured vehicle? Was it in World War 1, with the tank? Or was it centuries earlier, with the mounted knight? Did you know that the mounted knight was made possible through selective horse breeding (ie- organic technology), which produced horses big and strong enough to carry the heavy armoured riders into battle? Do you believe that sheepdogs were always like that? Dogs and horses could both be described as examples of bio-technological tools, engineered by humans for specific tasks through the use of applied evolutionary scientific principles (even if they didn't have a name for them at the time). Bio-weapons are nothing new either, having been used since at least medieval times (besieging armies would catapult diseased carcasses into a fortress). And what about bio-armour? Sorry, but all I can say is "been there, done that". Wooden ships had bio-armour, remember? Would you seriously want to pit bio-armour against the 120mm smoothbore gun of an M-1 Abrams? There is a reason we switched to steel, people! Think about it.
         
         At no time have we ever seen a shred of evidence that biological systems can realistically supplant wholly artificial technologies in applications such as large-scale power generation, armour, naval or aircraft propulsion, military weaponry, bridges and buildings, etc. In fact, all of those technologies were developed to replace biological systems! Biological systems are chemically reactive and structurally feeble in comparison to metals and ceramics, and both of these characteristics can spell doom for a starship. Furthermore, there are strict limits to how much this will ever change, because chemical reactivity is a prerequisite for life! Moreover, living cells requires a constant supply of nutrients, which means that all living cells must always be semi-permeable. Compare this to a massive, inert piece of metallic or ceramic/metal composite armour, and you can quickly see the problem for organics.
         
         "But biological organisms can self-repair!" some might say. However, they are far more easily injured in the first place, and the kind of attack that a biological organism can repair won't even scratch the surface of a metallic armoured vehicle. "But biology is the most powerful force this planet has ever known!" some might say. Sorry, but that's one of those non-literal figures of speech, like "the pen is mightier than the sword" or "faith can move mountains". Nuclear fusion (particularly from the Sun) is far more powerful. "But the roots of a tree can push up sidewalks!" some might say. Sorry, but it's no big deal to push up a sidewalk. A sidewalk is just stones laying on gravel and dirt, and the routine thermal contraction and expansion of the ground every winter destroys more sidewalk slabs and miles of pavement than tree roots ever could.
         
         Organic technology is good for medical applications (obviously, since we are organic) and bioweapons are certainly dangerous (although they're also fraught with difficulties). However, the idea of organic space combat vehicles and high-powered propulsion and/or weapons systems is just silly. Even organic computers are a highly questionable idea in sci-fi, since we are already researching quantum computing today, and quantum computing operates on a smaller scale than organics can. Sci-fi writers and fans who tout the omnipotence of organic technology tend to identify areas in which it is superior, while ignoring all of the areas in which it is vastly inferior. As usual, they simplify variables out of the equation, and the remaining oversimplified idea becomes a brain bug.
         
         • • "Captain, I'm picking up an approaching ship."
             
             "What can you tell me about it?"
             
             "Oh my God, it's organic! What are we going to do, Captain?"
             
             "There's not much we can do, Ensign. Organic technology is so far beyond our grasp that we can't even imagine the power they must have. All we have is high-powered guns, nuclear missiles, and our primitive metallic armour. What are you reading from their incredibly advanced bio-ship?"
             
             "Their ship is soft and flexible. Its construction materials are semi-permeable and laced with a network of delicate circulation passages. Instead of using impermeable high-density materials, it's made from countless tiny thin-walled cells which tend to rapidly break down in the presence of corrosive chemicals or radiation."
             
             "What? And we were supposed to be afraid of this? Open fire!"
             
             SQUISH ...
2. Wookieepedia states
   
   • • that the Ghost is armed with
       • 1 dorsal laser cannon turret
       • 1 nose laser cannon turret
       • 1 Taim & Bak MS-2B twin laser cannon
       • 2 proton torpedo launchers
3. In the Star Wars Rebels episode "The Mystery of Chopper Base"
   
   • • we saw Ezra, Kanan, and Zeb using the ship's laser cannons to blast Krykna, a predatory, spider-like creatures native to Atollon, without "squishing" them.
       

Conclusions?

[Lord Revan]

We've seen Blasters against organic matter back in ANH and it wasn't pretty (I'm talking Greedo getting shot btw). so any conclutions here are unconclusive.

It's no big secret that a lot of scifi has creatures that are more durable then they got any right on being, as most writers aren't physicists and therefore don't know the implications of the stuff they depict. if you want a simple in-universe explanation they could be Silicon based lifeforms (there fore in-organic as "organic"="hydro-carbon based").

[Esquire]

Plus, the point of that article is that organic technology as portrayed is stupid, not that it isn't so portrayed.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

We've seen Blasters against organic matter back in ANH and it wasn't pretty (I'm talking Greedo getting shot btw). so any conclutions here are unconclusive.

It's no big secret that a lot of scifi has creatures that are more durable then they got any right on being, as most writers aren't physicists and therefore don't know the implications of the stuff they depict. if you want a simple in-universe explanation they could be Silicon based lifeforms (there fore in-organic as "organic"="hydro-carbon based").

The Krykna are innately strong in the Force, maybe?! Which, I realize, is the go-to cop out, but that might explain why they can turn aside laser cannon bolts.

[Lord Revan]

We've seen Blasters against organic matter back in ANH and it wasn't pretty (I'm talking Greedo getting shot btw). so any conclutions here are unconclusive.

It's no big secret that a lot of scifi has creatures that are more durable then they got any right on being, as most writers aren't physicists and therefore don't know the implications of the stuff they depict. if you want a simple in-universe explanation they could be Silicon based lifeforms (there fore in-organic as "organic"="hydro-carbon based").

The Krykna are innately strong in the Force, maybe?! Which, I realize, is the go-to cop out, but that might explain why they can turn aside laser cannon bolts.

maybe, we don't know as the episode in question doesn't provide an explanation. Regardless the "why" is secondary as we shoot blaster hit an organic target and it was like a bomb had went of inside Greedo (well a poorly made puppet pretending to be Greedo but we can dismiss that as limits of the budget SW had in 1976 and say it was Greedo), so the idea that a ship mounted weapon would have inferior performance to a pistol sized blaster doesn't seem logical now does it?

It would like saying that the massive phaser strips on the Enterprise (NCC-1701-C, NCC-1701-D or NCC-1701-E) are weaker then a hand phaser as we've seen hand phasers "vaporize" their targets but never seen a ship mounted strip do that. Regardless what you might think Starfleet is nowhere close to stupid enough to waste material on something as big as full sized phaser strip if they would get better firepower from simple mounting a hand phaser on the ship instead, it just isn't logical at all.

[WATCH-MAN]

Something to consider:

• • organic matter
    • • • • • • ≠
    • • • • • • • organic matter
    
    
    
    a cuticle made of chitin and proteins
    • • • • • • ≠
    • • • • • • • skin, muscles and bowels

Or with other words:

• • There is a difference between
    
    
    (a turtle shell)
    and
    
    
    (meat)

[Esquire]

... What? That's not 'something to consider,' it's a tautology. Stop trying to be cute with formatting and make a point, if you've got one. If you mean something along the lines of 'space spiders could very well have laser-resistant exoskeletons,' why not just say so outright?

[Galvatron]

This is hardly unprecedented in Star Wars. Hell, they made an entire episode of TCW about a laser/lightsaber resistant kaiju.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Zillo_Beast

[Batman]

Plus they were shooting on targets sitting right next to/ON their ship. Maybe they were somewhat conservative with the firepower they used ?

[Adam Reynolds]

Plus they were shooting on targets sitting right next to/ON their ship. Maybe they were somewhat conservative with the firepower they used ?

Not to mention that the ship was unpowered at that point. Whatever power their guns had was purely residual charge, for the same reason that Slave One cannon had a smaller impact than the missile from Jango Fett's jetpack in AOTC.

In any case, Star Wars creatures are massively stronger than any real life equivalent, as with everything in the setting. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that that everyone uses energy weapons and certain creatures had evolved resistance to blaster bolts over evolutionary history. It might be easier for a life form to absorb blaster bolts than it would be to absorb the kinetic impact of firearms, even if they are otherwise more powerful.

[Lord Revan]

Well you don't even have to have creatures that are blaster resistant per say but rather have strong thermal resistance due to the local conditions and as result are more blaster resistant (since the primary effects of blaster bolts are thermal in nature).

That said the thermal properties of bone/chitin isn't drastically different from that of flesh and other soft tissue. A bolt that can turn an adult sized body into a burnt husk thru sheer thermal effects will cause massive damage to bone as well and as I stated before it makes no logical sense to equip space craft with guns that are inherently weaker then a pistol sized weapon.

That said the incident in question has a crap ton of unknows in it, so we can't really make any conclusive determinations from it until we gain more information.

[Joun_Lord]

It's no big secret that a lot of scifi has creatures that are more durable then they got any right on being, as most writers aren't physicists and therefore don't know the implications of the stuff they depict. if you want a simple in-universe explanation they could be Silicon based lifeforms (there fore in-organic as "organic"="hydro-carbon based").

Its that or sometimes guns themselves being incredibly weak or a combo.

In alot of sci-fi guns are practically useless. I'm not talking about like 40k where everyone is so roided out and fight in such massive numbers that even a .50 caliber explosive rocket launcher that is a Bolter seems kinda puny but even in relatively normal settings. Guns be it our current projectile weapons or future phaser and lasers and ray guns just don't pack a punch.

Later Star Trek with the exception of DS9 is a good example of this. Being shot was something a person could walk off. Fred, Amelia Earhearts co-pilot was shot in the 37s in the chest and seemed more winded then anything by it. Reed on Enterprise was shot with a dressed up future MP5 that fired bullets and barely seemed hurt. Compare that to TOS where dudes were vaporized when shot and DS9 where Nog got shot in his leg and lost it.

A Brit show I watched a little of called Primeval seemed to particularly take this trope to heart. It has dudes fighting dinosaurs with modern firearms but apparently modern airsoft firearms.

Wars is not immune either. While in the movies blasters are pretty powerful it seems like in atleast what I saw of the Clone Wars tv series blasters were extremely weak. Now I can assume that blasters are dial-a-yield to explain it but I haven't watched enough of TCW to see whether there was different yields for blasters. Presumably if TCW did portray all blasters as weak then Star Wars Rebel Scum might do the same, made by the same people after all, thus explaining why the monster thing couldn't be taken down so easily even with heavy weapons.

There is probably a out of universe explanation for blasters seeming so weak assuming its universal. I doubt a kids show can get away with showing people getting pasted as you would expect a blaster to do.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. Basically, you can never depend on producers of visual media to be willing to show realistic effects of modern (or post-modern) weapons on a living target.

The extreme example of this is "A-Team firing" in which two sides blaze away at each other madly with automatic weapons and no one gets hit. Or where a gunshot wound (and injuries equivalent to gunshot wounds) is basically just an 'ouchie' that can be walked off via sheer willpower like a sports injury.*

Even when the show isn't intended for children, it's rare to see special effects money being spent on the sheer messiness of what powerful weapons can do to bodies. Nor is it common to see any plot-important character dealing with the serious consequences of such injuries (months in the hospital, physical destruction of body parts).

So every type of weapon will show grossly understated effects when we analyze its effect on people (or even organic monsters) in visual media.
________________

*Yes, I know that you can't actually walk off a sports injury as such. Not trying to trivialize sprains, strains, and the like, let alone worse injuries. The point being, these types of injuries are generally in a whole different category than a gunshot wound, which unleashes massive, concentrated forces upon the body in a way that human flesh simply cannot withstand.

... What? That's not 'something to consider,' it's a tautology. Stop trying to be cute with formatting and make a point, if you've got one. If you mean something along the lines of 'space spiders could very well have laser-resistant exoskeletons,' why not just say so outright?

Because he's trolling. This is the third or fourth such thread where he's used intentionally bizarre formatting, cryptic assertions, and (I can see it any minute now) broken record tactics to ramble on about some pet theory of his. I honestly can't think of an explanation for it except "he likes pushing our buttons."

[NecronLord]

It's no big secret that a lot of scifi has creatures that are more durable then they got any right on being, as most writers aren't physicists and therefore don't know the implications of the stuff they depict. if you want a simple in-universe explanation they could be Silicon based lifeforms (there fore in-organic as "organic"="hydro-carbon based").

Its that or sometimes guns themselves being incredibly weak or a combo.

In alot of sci-fi guns are practically useless. I'm not talking about like 40k where everyone is so roided out and fight in such massive numbers that even a .50 caliber explosive rocket launcher that is a Bolter seems kinda puny but even in relatively normal settings. Guns be it our current projectile weapons or future phaser and lasers and ray guns just don't pack a punch.

Rough tough manly 40K would never be so silly as to have technical weapons fail to kill an organic beast, right? - Pshaww, it's as silly as this. These could be a 40K thing.

Later Star Trek with the exception of DS9 is a good example of this. Being shot was something a person could walk off. Fred, Amelia Earhearts co-pilot was shot in the 37s in the chest and seemed more winded then anything by it. Reed on Enterprise was shot with a dressed up future MP5 that fired bullets and barely seemed hurt. Compare that to TOS where dudes were vaporized when shot and DS9 where Nog got shot in his leg and lost it.

It came up occasionally.

A Brit show I watched a little of called Primeval seemed to particularly take this trope to heart. It has dudes fighting dinosaurs with modern firearms but apparently modern airsoft firearms.

The concept there was that they don't want to alter the past by killing anything from it - there's a whole lot of 'mankind might be destroyed if this thing isn't returned to its proper point in the past' concerns - so they use tranquiliser darts. They later on develop a stun-gun. Occasionally something shrugs off actual firearms, but usually they're not actually using firearms.



This is an example where you can pretty clearly see that it's meant to be a stun gun.

Sometimes things do survive bullets, but in the real world there's a reason the phrase 'loaded for bear' exists - some things actually can survive bullets intended to kill humans.

Wars is not immune either. While in the movies blasters are pretty powerful it seems like in atleast what I saw of the Clone Wars tv series blasters were extremely weak. Now I can assume that blasters are dial-a-yield to explain it but I haven't watched enough of TCW to see whether there was different yields for blasters. Presumably if TCW did portray all blasters as weak then Star Wars Rebel Scum might do the same, made by the same people after all, thus explaining why the monster thing couldn't be taken down so easily even with heavy weapons.

Ahahah, you are joking right?

The most prominent examples of powerful blasters come from Clone Wars.



And low-low-low damage exists in the classic movies too, like the stormtrooper blaster pecking a little cigarette burn on Leia's arm in Jedi.

Rebels shows blaster technology as changeable as ever.

There is probably a out of universe explanation for blasters seeming so weak assuming its universal. I doubt a kids show can get away with showing people getting pasted as you would expect a blaster to do.

Usually they want to kill humans or human like targets?

And of course, TV producers always think that packing crates should provide hard cover, so they do in Star Trek and in Rebels.