PDA

View Full Version : Shooting Wars in space



greenfeather
2007-Jul-01, 12:52 AM
I just rented the Battlestar Galactica miniseries premiere I and wondered about those world war II - style dogfights in space. They were on some kind of asteroid or space station shooting big ol' cannons with big 'ol torpedo things at the Cylones. I said "is this really possible?"

If you are in a small jet-fighter in space and you shoot projectiles, isn't the kick-back going to slow your momentum or even throw you off course?

Secondly, how about those fiery explosions? Would any sort of incendiary weapon really burn in vacuum?? Would those fiery 'tracer bullet' type patterns really occur?

When the projectile hits the target, is it the oxygen atmosphere inside the target ship that causes the fiery explosion? If a Cylon ship gets hit, does it burn? Do the Cylons breathe oxygen, or anything at all?

I'm new to the series, I'm going to rent all the DVDs. It's a dull summer....

But ever since I saw Star Wars something about space battles bothers me. I'm pretty sure you couldn't hear the explosions go "WHUMP.." in vacuum.:confused:

Noclevername
2007-Jul-01, 12:59 AM
I just rented the Battlestar Galactica miniseries premiere I and wondered about those world war II - style dogfights in space. They were on some kind of asteroid or space station shooting big ol' cannons with big 'ol torpedo things at the Cylones. I said "is this really possible?"

If you are in a small jet-fighter in space and you shoot projectiles, isn't the kick-back going to slow your momentum or even throw you off course?

Secondly, how about those fiery explosions? Would any sort of incendiary weapon really burn in vacuum?? Would those fiery 'tracer bullet' type patterns really occur?

When the projectile hits the target, is it the oxygen atmosphere inside the target ship that causes the fiery explosion? If a Cylon ship gets hit, does it burn? Do the Cylons breathe oxygen, or anything at all?

I'm new to the series, I'm going to rent all the DVDs. It's a dull summer....

But ever since I saw Star Wars something about space battles bothers me. I'm pretty sure you couldn't hear the explosions go "WHUMP.." in vacuum.:confused:

Well, no to almost all of them.

Shooting a projectile would cause a reaction, but it would depend on the mass of the projectile. For a bullet, the reaction wouldn't be very much, and for a ship under thrust like a Viper it would probably not be visibly noticeable.

Fire in space; no. Just no. Purely a visual convention. An explosion in space would be spherical, and dim. It also would not happen from a bullet, unless you hit both a fuel tank and pure O2 tank at the same time, and something caused a spark.

As for sounds in space, hey, that's just one of the perks of the Omniscient Audience Viewpoint.

loglo
2007-Jul-01, 01:37 AM
I'm not sure there has ever been a realistically portrayed space battle on-screen. It would be too dull for most people.

Delvo
2007-Jul-01, 02:24 AM
The gun on the front of an A-10 fires 30mm-diameter uranium bullets at 70 per second. Its recoil force is somewhat greater than the maximum thrust from one of the plane's two jet engines.

The solution: the firing system is connected to the throttle control in such a way that the jet engines, which normally cruise at a fraction of their potential anyway, increase output to cancel the recoil whenever the gun fires and then throttle back down when it's not firing, without the pilot having to do anything.

JustAFriend
2007-Jul-01, 02:36 AM
Space shows portraying WWII-style dogfights is no different than any action show portraying a car "vaulting" over the back of another one, cheap security cameras 'magically cleaning up the video and zooming into someone a quarter-mile away', or martial-artists flying over buildings.

'Course its not real .... it's called 'theater'....

And you would be bored by the real thing. Even in todays dogfights the jet pilots rarely see each other and mostly push a button at a blob on a screen.

(I always hated in Star Trek where they protrayed all the nuclear-charged battles taking place at a range of 100 yards!!)

greenfeather
2007-Jul-01, 03:17 AM
(I always hated in Star Trek where they protrayed all the nuclear-charged battles taking place at a range of 100 yards!!)

And speaking of nuclear scenes that aren't realistic.

There is a scene where the fighter pilots land in a field just after the Cylons have nuked the planet. It is a nice green field and there are several large mushroom clouds just standing there nearby like big ol' trees. Hello??!!! First the mushroom clouds would expand very Evil-ly and then there would be a great big blast of force knocking everything over. Mushroom clouds don't just "stand there". At least not any of the ones I'm familiar with from back in the 60's "nuclear scare' times.

Movies: just something to focus your eyes on while you eat popcorn.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 03:47 AM
The gun on the front of an A-10 fires 30mm-diameter uranium bullets at 70 per second. Its recoil force is somewhat greater than the maximum thrust from one of the plane's two jet engines.

The solution: the firing system is connected to the throttle control in such a way that the jet engines, which normally cruise at a fraction of their potential anyway, increase output to cancel the recoil whenever the gun fires and then throttle back down when it's not firing, without the pilot having to do anything.

The A-10's are based here at D-M AFB. I've heard them described as a "plane built around a gun".

Delvo
2007-Jul-01, 03:58 AM
(I always hated in Star Trek where they protrayed all the nuclear-charged battles taking place at a range of 100 yards!!)I just figure we're being shown a display of the scene in which the ships are represented with symbols that look like the real ships but are blown up in size so that the "real" thing would be just a point somewhere inside the middle of its symbol, as if the ship were projecting a giant image of itself in space and we were watching THAT. It's just a more graphically sophisticated version of blips on a radar screen, or generals pushing statues around on a table with a map on it to represent army movements, or videos converted from infrared or ultraviolet to visible light, or night-vision light-enhanced videos of dark scenes... or maybe even videos taken by cameras mounted on robots going someplace humans can't go.

This handles the problems of distance between them, speeds (possibly including phaser/laser travel speed as well as ship travel speed), visibility of coherent energy beams (because the representation could be set up to show us weapons fire in a visible form), visibility of the ships themselves even when they're not very close to a star and even on the shaded side (because the representation wouldn't work if we couldn't see the ships), and possibly even sound in space (because the representation could be set up to give us audio cues about events as well as video cues).

Romanus
2007-Jul-01, 04:48 AM
<<I'm not sure there has ever been a realistically portrayed space battle on-screen. It would be too dull for most people.>>

"No weeeeeeow? No boom-boom? What is this #$&#37;!@ ?!"

:D

novaderrik
2007-Jul-01, 06:35 AM
I just figure we're being shown a display of the scene in which the ships are represented with symbols that look like the real ships but are blown up in size so that the "real" thing would be just a point somewhere inside the middle of its symbol, as if the ship were projecting a giant image of itself in space and we were watching THAT. It's just a more graphically sophisticated version of blips on a radar screen, or generals pushing statues around on a table with a map on it to represent army movements, or videos converted from infrared or ultraviolet to visible light, or night-vision light-enhanced videos of dark scenes... or maybe even videos taken by cameras mounted on robots going someplace humans can't go.

This handles the problems of distance between them, speeds (possibly including phaser/laser travel speed as well as ship travel speed), visibility of coherent energy beams (because the representation could be set up to show us weapons fire in a visible form), visibility of the ships themselves even when they're not very close to a star and even on the shaded side (because the representation wouldn't work if we couldn't see the ships), and possibly even sound in space (because the representation could be set up to give us audio cues about events as well as video cues).
so, every space battle scene in Star Trek was actually just a simulated recreation in a holodeck? even the cool battle scenes where the Borg cube was tearing thru the federation fleet on it's way towards earth?

Noclevername
2007-Jul-01, 10:34 AM
(I always hated in Star Trek where they protrayed all the nuclear-charged battles taking place at a range of 100 yards!!)


Another convention for the benefit of the viewers. Even when the ships are described as being so-and-so thousand kilometers away, they still show them close, because otherwise it would look boring.

"See that tiny dot of light? Fire!"

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-01, 05:26 PM
so, every space battle scene in Star Trek was actually just a simulated recreation in a holodeck? even the cool battle scenes where the Borg cube was tearing thru the federation fleet on it's way towards earth?The whole of Star Trek is a simulation. ;)

darkhunter
2007-Jul-01, 05:42 PM
The whole of Star Trek is a simulation. ;)
All stories provided by the Ministy of Information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Information) so the Federation [middle class] Citizens will accept their lives. . . . ;)

Doctor Know
2007-Jul-01, 07:54 PM
I always got a kick out of the old Japanese anime series Starblazers where they sent the resurrected Japanese naval battleship Yamato up into space to duke it out among the stars. So you got this warship with in line gun turrets designed for the relatively flat trajectory environment of the ocean fighting in the three-dimensional environment of space. What the hell. Looks cool anyway. :D

Noclevername
2007-Jul-01, 07:56 PM
I always got a kick out of the old Japanese anime series Starblazers where they sent the resurrected Japanese naval battleship Yamato up into space to duke it out among the stars. So you got this warship with in line gun turrets designed for the relatively flat trajectory environment of the ocean fighting in the three-dimensional environment of space. What the hell. Looks cool anyway. :D


Well, as long as they had the Wave-Motion Gun, you never had to wonder how an episode would end... ;)

Doctor Know
2007-Jul-01, 08:01 PM
Well, as long as they had the Wave-Motion Gun, you never had to wonder how an episode would end... ;)

Ah yes...the wave motion gun. Sorry captain...gotta point the entire ship at the enemy. Just a minute.

Come to think of it I think that ship had anchors too. :lol:

Noclevername
2007-Jul-01, 08:04 PM
Ah yes...the wave motion gun. Sorry captain...gotta point the entire ship at the enemy. Just a minute.

Come to think of it I think that ship had anchors too. :lol:

And firing it depowered the entire ship, so they had to save it for the last minute. What, they never thought of putting in a backup generator??

Doctor Know
2007-Jul-01, 08:10 PM
And firing it depowered the entire ship, so they had to save it for the last minute. What, they never thought of putting in a backup generator??

Probably made for great drama for Japanese kids...they've deployed their "trump card"....will they recover in time? :)

m1omg
2007-Jul-01, 08:16 PM
Well, no to almost all of them.

Shooting a projectile would cause a reaction, but it would depend on the mass of the projectile. For a bullet, the reaction wouldn't be very much, and for a ship under thrust like a Viper it would probably not be visibly noticeable.

Fire in space; no. Just no. Purely a visual convention. An explosion in space would be spherical, and dim. It also would not happen from a bullet, unless you hit both a fuel tank and pure O2 tank at the same time, and something caused a spark.

As for sounds in space, hey, that's just one of the perks of the Omniscient Audience Viewpoint.

Fire in space might exist when you use chemical explosives with oxidiser in it.
Then the explosion would be same as normally when bomb explodes on Earth.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-01, 08:23 PM
Fire in space might exist when you use chemical explosives with oxidiser in it.
Then the explosion would be same as normally when bomb explodes on Earth.


But it wouldn't look quite the same. It's been tested, by NASA and others, IIRC. The explosion was spherical, no shockwave, no cavitation (swirling when mixing with air) so no fireball, just an expanding sphere of light which fades as it gets larger.

I wish I could remeber where I saw it, it looked cool.

Hokie
2007-Jul-01, 08:33 PM
The A-10's are based here at D-M AFB. I've heard them described as a "plane built around a gun".

Yep the GAU-8A Avenger cannon is quite large and due to the recoil thrust had the had to be positioned so the firing barrel is on the center line of the plane so as not to be moved off target when firing.


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Herold_UraniumWars_files/image004.jpg

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Jul-02, 12:21 PM
I enjoyed the description of space battles in Peter F. Hamilton's "The Night's Dawn Trilogy". It seemed "realistic" to me, but it would make a rather boring film.

Some of the points about combat I liked:
The distances involved are vast. Often measured in light-seconds.
Lasers are "short ranged" weapons. Presumably their technology cannot create a beam that doesn't disperse significantly over these huge distances.
Missiles are thus the primary offensive and defensive weapons.
Speeds are never quoted, only acceleration, e.g. a 20G missile is less dangerous than a 40G one.
Maneuvering of ships has relatively little impact once battle has been joined. Missiles will always out-maneuver human-rated ships, unless they're launched way out of range. And there's usually nothing to hide behind.
Missile warheads are diverse - including nuclear bombs, X-Ray lasers, and kinetic impactors.
There are no mysterious "shields" around space vessels. If an enemy nuke goes off close to your ship, you will be fried by radiation. If a kinetic impactor strikes, your ship will be utterly destroyed. The concept of a "damaged ship" is unknown - you're either in perfect working shape, or you're a rapidly expanding radioactive dust-cloud, after one hit.


So combat consists of launching a number of missiles at the enemy, and then waiting. The only decision a ship's captain has to make, is how many missiles to launch versus how many to hold in reserve, and how many missiles to set to engage the enemy and how many to set to defend against the enemy's missiles.

If you have the better/more numerous defending missiles, you live to launch the next volley. If you have the better/more numerous offensive missiles, the other guy is dead. And now you have to hope that you have enough missiles left to engage the next target.

So it's a very intense encounter for the ship crews, but kinda boring as a "spectator sport" or movie.

Doodler
2007-Jul-02, 05:48 PM
And firing it depowered the entire ship, so they had to save it for the last minute. What, they never thought of putting in a backup generator??

A plot device brought back to some annoying effect in Babylon 5: A Call to Arms and the resulting Crusade spin off.

Quite possibly the most annoying feature on the Excalibre. That, and the "lets telegraph what we're doing by channeling gigaschmaltz of power across the EXTERIOR of the ship, so that anything with a reasonably effective reaction control system can see it coming ten seconds ahead of time and adjust its position by a few feet to avoid the beam" system.

Doctor Know
2007-Jul-03, 12:46 AM
So combat consists of launching a number of missiles at the enemy, and then waiting. The only decision a ship's captain has to make, is how many missiles to launch versus how many to hold in reserve, and how many missiles to set to engage the enemy and how many to set to defend against the enemy's missiles.

So it's a very intense encounter for the ship crews, but kinda boring as a "spectator sport" or movie.

Sounds a lot like modern naval warfare without the aircraft carriers. Modern surface warships have been described as "eggshells armed with hammers." Although armed with missles, they have very little armor and limited point defense weapons which would probably be overwhelmed by any major attack. Whoever gets in the first blow wins.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-03, 01:00 AM
Sounds like a good design for a space warship would be a big cluster of missiles with attached disposable large thrusters and a well-shielded control pod inside. Plus a zillion decoy drones.

If the manned* portion of the ship is to have even a slight chance of surviving the battle at all, it'll have to do a lot of randomized dodging. No problem if the missiles and countermissiles are radio-controlled, but then jamming and decoding might be a major problem. Laser communication would be complicated by the control unit's random movement.

* Obviously these things would all be happening at computer speeds. Not even sure if humans would be necessary.

Delvo
2007-Jul-03, 02:34 AM
I enjoyed the description of space battles in Peter F. Hamilton's "The Night's Dawn Trilogy". It seemed "realistic" to me, but it would make a rather boring film...

Lasers are "short ranged" weapons. Presumably their technology cannot create a beam that doesn't disperse significantly over these huge distances.Even if it did, it would still be useful only out to a maximum distance with a moving target. Otherwise, even though the target can't dodge because it can't see the beam coming, you can't really aim at it either because it wouldn't still be in the same place by the time the beam got there.

What you described is, essentially, the way combat worked in the TV show "Andromeda", at least for the first season and a half or so when the show still made some sense. Episodes that prominently featured battles got a bit like submarine movies with the ships lurking at the edge of each others' sensor ranges or missile ranges or in sensor-obscuring locations they'd deliberately sought out for the purpose (like relatively low and close to a sun) waiting for another chance to shoot and hoping not to get shot at first. And the long distances came up in other ways, too, like when they saw something happen and wanted to help, but knew that they were watching something that had already happened several minutes ago instead of being happening now.

novaderrik
2007-Jul-03, 03:37 AM
about the projectile weapons in space- if you are in the middle of a battle, with small ship zinging around and shooting bullets off in every direction at high velocities- what happens when the battle is over, and you want to leave? every where you go, there's gonna be bullets flying off at the same velocity as they were traveling when they left the gun.. this could be a dangerous area to navigate for centuries or even millennia.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-03, 03:48 AM
about the projectile weapons in space- if you are in the middle of a battle, with small ship zinging around and shooting bullets off in every direction at high velocities- what happens when the battle is over, and you want to leave? every where you go, there's gonna be bullets flying off at the same velocity as they were traveling when they left the gun.. this could be a dangerous area to navigate for centuries or even millennia.

If they move at speeds high enough to be useful in space battles, most projectiles would travel out of the area rather quickly. Only items which went into orbit around a large body would hang around and be a navigational menace.

ADDED: Fragments and debris from destroyed space vehicles, manned or unmanned, would probably be a much greater danger.

ineluki
2007-Jul-03, 12:07 PM
Well, no to almost all of them.


At least, BSG Fighters don't use their wings to bank etc.

ineluki
2007-Jul-03, 12:14 PM
what happens when the battle is over, and you want to leave? every where you go, there's gonna be bullets flying off at the same velocity as they were traveling when they left the gun.. this could be a dangerous area to navigate for centuries or even millennia.

Leaving is easy, just slow down when you catch up with them.

Creating a dangerous area would be actually realistic, just like it is done today with landmines.

Ronald Brak
2007-Jul-03, 12:19 PM
Wait a little while and the fragments will spread out until you are much more likely to be hit by a naturally occuring chunk of rock. Of course if you are blowing up things the size of the death star or are in orbit around a planet, yeah, that could cause some problems, like being shot by your own bullets after they do an orbit or three.

m1omg
2007-Jul-03, 01:50 PM
Wait a little while and the fragments will spread out until you are much more likely to be hit by a naturally occuring chunk of rock. Of course if you are blowing up things the size of the death star or are in orbit around a planet, yeah, that could cause some problems, like being shot by your own bullets after they do an orbit or three.

If these bullets have an escape velocity...
And I will use nothing less than relativistic hi calibre bullets and big salted hydrogen and neutron bombs against the target of the size of Death Star.
That will evaporate it.
The best strategy would probably be piercing and exposing the places where are the crew.
Air will leak, shoot a few salted and neutron bombs + some H bombs and relativistic projectiles and goodbye DS....
Then hijack the control system, navigate it into the sun at hyperspeed >:-)

Damburger
2007-Jul-03, 05:07 PM
The 100-yard-nuke battle convention isn't universally observered. Take a look at the Narn vs Shadow battle in the 2nd Series Babylon 5 episode 'The Long Twighlight Struggle'. The (huge) Shadow ships are little more than dots when we see things from the perspective on the Narn fleet.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-03, 05:57 PM
If these bullets have an escape velocity...
And I will use nothing less than relativistic hi calibre bullets and big salted hydrogen and neutron bombs against the target of the size of Death Star.
That will evaporate it. Why salted? Salted bombs do not have any more explosive power than thermonuclear, just more radioactive debris, which is the opposite of what you'd want near a planet.

And enough energy to totally vaporize the Death Star would also do far more damage to any nearby planet than any mere orbital debris.



The best strategy would probably be piercing and exposing the places where are the crew.
That's true of any manned space vessel. Explosions are just for the viewers at home!


Then hijack the control system, navigate it into the sun at hyperspeed >:-)

I would say, navigate it into someone else's Sun. Or better yet, into a black hole.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-03, 06:15 PM
Don't be crass. Spaceships are expensive. If you've managed to kill the crew, then you'll want to board the ship and claim it for yourself.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-03, 06:16 PM
Don't be crass. Spaceships are expensive. If you've managed to kill the crew, then you'll want to board the ship and claim it for yourself.

The crass is always greener on the other side.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-03, 06:25 PM
Don't be crass. Spaceships are expensive. If you've managed to kill the crew, then you'll want to board the ship and claim it for yourself.

With something the size of the DS, the Rebels could never be sure they got the whole crew, so rather than waste lives in room-to-room fighting, they took it out of the conflict entirely. A sound tactical decision, as it forced the Empire to divert resources into rebuilding. Also, the Rebs might not have had enough trained personnel to man the thing.

If they had captured the DS, the Empire might have recaptured it ; then they'd have the Death Star and all the Rebel personnel on board. Bad scenario.

m1omg
2007-Jul-03, 09:57 PM
Why salted? Salted bombs do not have any more explosive power than thermonuclear, just more radioactive debris, which is the opposite of what you'd want near a planet.

And enough energy to totally vaporize the Death Star would also do far more damage to any nearby planet than any mere orbital debris.


That's true of any manned space vessel. Explosions are just for the viewers at home!



I would say, navigate it into someone else's Sun. Or better yet, into a black hole.

Ok I did not mean it that way.
I mean, just evaporate the DANGEROUS DEBRIS with the H bombs.
Cobalt and neutron bombs will flood that ship with deadly radiation while leaving that ship relatively undamaged.
Then hijack it and hurl into the local sun (and flee from it ofc) to ensure no repair.

m1omg
2007-Jul-03, 09:59 PM
Don't be crass. Spaceships are expensive. If you've managed to kill the crew, then you'll want to board the ship and claim it for yourself.

No.I will not copy evil.
DS is a hated monster for rebel.
And I will not pilot a ship that was used to kill 10 billion innocent eople.
Have some human morale man.
HURL IT INTO SUN!

m1omg
2007-Jul-03, 10:02 PM
With something the size of the DS, the Rebels could never be sure they got the whole crew, so rather than waste lives in room-to-room fighting, they took it out of the conflict entirely. A sound tactical decision, as it forced the Empire to divert resources into rebuilding. Also, the Rebs might not have had enough trained personnel to man the thing.

If they had captured the DS, the Empire might have recaptured it ; then they'd have the Death Star and all the Rebel personnel on board. Bad scenario.

I agree.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-03, 10:08 PM
No.I will not copy evil.
DS is a hated monster for rebel.
And I will not pilot a ship that was used to kill 10 billion innocent eople.
Have some human morale man.
HURL IT INTO SUN!


It's an object, nothing more. That it was used badly means nothing. It's a thing. The people who used it for murder are evil and monsters. An inanimate object is not.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-03, 10:13 PM
In the Star Wars universe, where animate beings can embody Pure Good or Pure Evil, you never know. :D

But I hadn't realised you guys were talking about SW only. We already know how that story ends.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-03, 10:14 PM
In the Star Wars universe, where people can embody Pure Good or Pure Evil, you never know. :D

Right, I forgot about Yoda's "haunted" cave.



But I hadn't realised you guys were talking about SW only. We already know how that story ends.

Just using it as an example of unrealistic space warfare.

m1omg
2007-Jul-03, 11:34 PM
It's an object, nothing more. That it was used badly means nothing. It's a thing. The people who used it for murder are evil and monsters. An inanimate object is not.

Oh, ok, but It just sounded to me to be like making a bakery from Autzwitz death camp.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-03, 11:40 PM
Oh, ok, but It just sounded to me to be like making a bakery from Autzwitz death camp.


Nope. It's a weapon. No different from the X-Wing fighters used by the Rebels; one could point them at legitimate enemies, or at innocent civilians. Either way, blame the pilot, not the ship.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-04, 01:29 AM
Oh, ok, but It just sounded to me to be like making a bakery from Autzwitz death camp.

Let's put it this way, if the Allies in World War two captured Peenemunde intact with all its rockets before the war's end, wouldn't they have used them against the Nazis instead of saying, "They bombed London, rockets are evil, destroy them all!"

ADDED: And in fact the Allied powers went ahead and hired the scientists who worked there after the war. Which is how we got to the Moon, and so forth.

Second edit: Who knows, giant superlasers could also somehow be adapted for peaceful purposes after Star Wars.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-04, 04:31 AM
A realistic deep-space battle might involve hundreds or thousands of stealthed semi-autonomous drones, some spread out over a vast region of space in multiple concentric defensive shells, and the offensive mobile weapons spread even further.

agoetz
2007-Jul-04, 04:35 AM
Second edit: Who knows, giant superlasers could also somehow be adapted for peaceful purposes after Star Wars.


I believe in post-Return of the Jedi Imperial proganda, the Death Star was classified as an industrial mining platform, that the Rebels (boo, hiss) had taken and were threatening to use on inhabited planets (oh the horror!) when the Emporer sacrificed himself to destroy it (oh, that great man, he will be missed).

Or some such load of garbage.

As for weapons being a danger after the battle, the best exmaple I can think of is the space battles from (I think it was) a series by Elizabeth Moon (Winning Colours, first book? been a while). The ships had tactical FTL, so they jumped around the battle field a lot, and the tactical department was always working over time to track every single weapon fired by all players so that they wouldn't jump into their own fire.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-05, 08:28 PM
Most TV and film portrayals of "space battles" are, IMO, not meant to be realistic, they're meant to invoke a response in the viewer. And using familiar imagery is a way to do so.

Of course, most of the time it's due to ignorant writers and directors, and not intentionally meant to do anything but "look cool." But so be it. ;)