|
Post by pokington on Sept 25, 2016 12:28:07 GMT
I've done some playing around with the ship designer now, and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the efficacy of the dozens of materials that can be used for armor.
The stock ships... basically all have different types of armor, so it's hard to tell what might be effective by looking at them.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Tom on Sept 25, 2016 13:43:27 GMT
The damage modeling mechanisms are very complex, so I've only scratched the surface with the armor. I do know that graphite is the best vs lasers due to its high thermal conductivity and high heat of vaporization, so I equip my drones and missiles with graphite armor.
With regards to anti kinetic and anti-nuclear armor, I'm a lot less sure. I've been meaning to read the paper that the dev got his hyper-velocity impact damage model from, but I haven't had the time yet.
|
|
|
Post by pokington on Sept 25, 2016 14:09:02 GMT
Something that I'm particularly interested in is anti-nuclear armor. Thin layers of it around relatively unarmored ships that are not designed to see direct combat could be useful protection against missile barrages.
I presume you are referring to amorphous carbon for laser resistance -- I see that on a lot of ships.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Tom on Sept 25, 2016 14:14:22 GMT
I presume you are referring to amorphous carbon for laser resistance -- I see that on a lot of ships. Nope. Graphite. Graphite has a higher thermal conductivity which is useful for preventing long range laser kills(when the intensity of the beam isn't too high).
|
|
|
Post by nerd1000 on Sept 27, 2016 1:32:43 GMT
I'm pretty sure that the main factors in resisting lower velocity projectiles are strength, hardness and toughness. The material needs to be strong to withstand the high forces involved, hard to deform or shatter projectiles (distributing the force across a wider area) and tough enough to avoid shattering itself.
Most of the stock ships use reinforced carbon-carbon armour, which is fairly strong and lightweight but isn't particularly hard or tough. On the plus side it is an excellent material for resisting lasers and nukes due to its high heat resistance. I've been experimenting with making the RCC much thinner and adding a layer of Aramid fiber (which is very tough) behind it, which seems to perform slightly better. Maybe the hardness side of things could be helped by a layer of very hard ceramic (Silicon carbide or boron carbide) over the RCC. So far I think my results have been messed up by the fact that I've been testing against a squad of 15 stinger drones- the huge number of rounds hitting the ship probably causes cumulative damage to the armour until it fails, even when it is thick enough to resist the individual rounds.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Sept 27, 2016 17:51:45 GMT
I use boron a lot--decently light and strong, and quite cheap (and much better against lasers) compared to the more exotic composites. My worry would be its extreme stiffness; I suspect that it may tend to shatter faster than a somewhat weaker but more flexible material. Sometimes I will add a thin fiber backing layer, in the hope that it will catch spalling from the boron (while it is lighter, and thus I am less concerned if it spalls). But that may not be optimal; if you back a stiff material with a more flexible one, the outer material will fail before the inner layer contributes its full strength.
As far as Whipple shields go, I have read that high-strength fibers do better than aluminum (IRL, for micrometeorite protection), but their extreme vulnerability to lasers is offputting. I have been using amorphous carbon a lot, but again do not know how well it is working.
I wish that there was a proving ground that you could use to observe weapon/armor matchups under controlled conditions...
|
|
|
Post by domfluff on Sept 27, 2016 17:54:30 GMT
Yes, expanding the sandbox mode to allow for proving grounds, shooting ranges and the like would be a huge benefit.
You could always make a dummy ship with no weapons etc. though.
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Sept 27, 2016 20:53:21 GMT
I use boron a lot--decently light and strong, and quite cheap (and much better against lasers) compared to the more exotic composites. My worry would be its extreme stiffness; I suspect that it may tend to shatter faster than a somewhat weaker but more flexible material. Sometimes I will add a thin fiber backing layer, in the hope that it will catch spalling from the boron (while it is lighter, and thus I am less concerned if it spalls). But that may not be optimal; if you back a stiff material with a more flexible one, the outer material will fail before the inner layer contributes its full strength. As far as Whipple shields go, I have read that high-strength fibers do better than aluminum (IRL, for micrometeorite protection), but their extreme vulnerability to lasers is offputting. I have been using amorphous carbon a lot, but again do not know how well it is working. I wish that there was a proving ground that you could use to observe weapon/armor matchups under controlled conditions... I generally end up splurging on the expensive composites, S-Glass is a current favorite for the combination of high strength, hardness, and low weight. Needs some sort of laser-resistant material as well though. Proving ground would be very good for testing weapons and armor effectiveness. Probably just being able to observe the effect of particular projectile and impact velocity, nuclear detonation with particular range, and a laser burn with given energy and size would be enough to get a grasp of how well an armor composition holds up under fire.
|
|
|
Post by beta on Sept 28, 2016 4:04:51 GMT
I have had excellent results with a layer of graphite or amorphous carbon followed by a thick layer of graphite aerogel. The outer armour transfers the heat to the aerogel (which itself has extremely high thermal conductivity) and allows the armour to last a lot longer against lasers. This combined with a thick "nose cap" on missiles and reduced sidewalls allows for better armoured missiles with high delta v and thrust.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 30, 2016 12:51:05 GMT
there is a thread somewhere (steam or here) where the OP was testing armour vs lasers on missiles and due to a misclick found that a certin fiber (not spider silk) was VERY good at stopping lasers
|
|
|
Post by WafflesToo on Sept 30, 2016 13:26:11 GMT
there is a thread somewhere (steam or here) where the OP was testing armour vs lasers on missiles and due to a misclick found that a certin fiber (not spider silk) was VERY good at stopping lasers I read that one too; basalt fiber, so basically asbestos.
|
|
tuna
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by tuna on Sept 30, 2016 13:36:02 GMT
|
|
joker
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by joker on Oct 1, 2016 19:02:53 GMT
I'm wandering what armor is good against heavy coilgun, like 1.50kg slug at 7-10km/s. I accidentally made such a coilgun whose slug shatters after penetration and cause massive internal damage.
|
|
|
Post by quarkster on Oct 1, 2016 21:33:50 GMT
For nukes you want high specific heat and high thermal conductivity. For lasers you want high specific heat and low thermal conductivity (lasers with large spot sizes aren't worth thinking about).
|
|
|
Post by blothorn on Oct 1, 2016 23:36:04 GMT
Hm. In my experience nukes tend to heat up just about everything, which makes thermal conductivity less relevant. On the other hand, I usually deliver nukes at a rate of about 8 a second.
Joker, the solution to high-velocity projectiles is always Whipple shields (with good enough armor behind them). As I understand it, for best effect the shield needs to be strong enough to cause complete disintegration of the projectile, but beyond that point additional mass is bad (because it impacts the armor too), until it starts to meaningfully resist penetration. Once you cause disintegration, a greater standoff distance spreads the force over a greater portion of the inner armor. It seems to follow that you want some sort of balance between shield and main armor; you want anything large enough to pass through the shield mostly intact to also pass through the main armor, but also anything that is broken up by the Whipple shield to be stopped by the main armor.
Of curiosity, how repeatable is that effect against other armors? My offhand guess is that either you have found the magic projectile for that armor that penetrates the Whipple shield mostly intact, and then completely penetrates the inner armor (while disintegrating), or you are causing mass spalling off the back of the armor (a lot of the ceramics have poor tensile strength, which makes them quite vulnerable to spalling. But that situation is heavily armor-dependent; a stronger shield would break it up enough for the armor to handle, and weaker armor would lead to intact penetration.
|
|