|
Post by ๐ญ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on Nov 10, 2017 17:59:24 GMT
its not very hard, and will have a hard time shattering projectiles though Any projectile moving above 12km/s will vaporize upon impact, anything below wouldn't be that worthwhile using in CDE style space warfare. not nessicarily. most projectiles that I use are about a meter long and are 1-4 mm wide and go about 100 km/sec I don't think that they even think about shattering at those speeds and go straight into the long rod penetrator equations
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Nov 10, 2017 18:04:59 GMT
Any projectile moving above 12km/s will vaporize upon impact, anything below wouldn't be that worthwhile using in CDE style space warfare. not nessicarily. most projectiles that I use are about a meter long and are 1-4 mm wide and go about 100 km/sec I don't think that they even think about shattering at those speeds and go straight into the long rod penetrator equations That's interesting; some years ago (well before CDE) I calculated that such projectiles (I was thinking diamond at the time) would be a good choice for overwhelming laser point defense. Of course in CDE currently lasers can't vaporize/deflect incoming slugs at all, which many player designs in principal seem capable of doing. I'd be very curious to see the weapon system in question...
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 10, 2017 18:07:42 GMT
Any projectile moving above 12km/s will vaporize upon impact, anything below wouldn't be that worthwhile using in CDE style space warfare. not nessicarily. most projectiles that I use are about a meter long and are 1-4 mm wide and go about 100 km/sec I don't think that they even think about shattering at those speeds and go straight into the long rod penetrator equations Are you using the game to confirm? By that logic 100000% Coilguns were feasible. I doubt that a discussion about self fixing holes and super duct tape has much connection to the gameplay. Your meter long penetrator would just ablate. the question is, can the path clear within 10ยตs to the point where 100km/s impact velocities with plasma don't vaporize the rod?
|
|
|
Post by ๐ญ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on Nov 10, 2017 18:11:55 GMT
not nessicarily. most projectiles that I use are about a meter long and are 1-4 mm wide and go about 100 km/sec I don't think that they even think about shattering at those speeds and go straight into the long rod penetrator equations Are you using the game to confirm? By that logic 100000% Coilguns were feasible. I doubt that a discussion about self fixing holes and super duct tape has much connection to the gameplay. Your meter long penetrator would just ablate. the question is, can the path clear within 10ยตs to the point where 100km/s impact velocities with plasma don't vaporize the rod? what is a 100000% coilgun?
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 10, 2017 18:13:15 GMT
Are you using the game to confirm? By that logic 100000% Coilguns were feasible. I doubt that a discussion about self fixing holes and super duct tape has much connection to the gameplay. Your meter long penetrator would just ablate. the question is, can the path clear within 10ยตs to the point where 100km/s impact velocities with plasma don't vaporize the rod? what is a 100000% coilgun? A relict of ye olde day in CDE.
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Nov 12, 2017 3:08:19 GMT
Are you using the game to confirm? By that logic 100000% Coilguns were feasible. I doubt that a discussion about self fixing holes and super duct tape has much connection to the gameplay. Your meter long penetrator would just ablate. the question is, can the path clear within 10ยตs to the point where 100km/s impact velocities with plasma don't vaporize the rod? what is a 100000% coilgun? The number refers to the typical efficiency levels calculated with coilguns attained in a past version. Coilgun ships basically had death beams.
|
|
|
Post by lucubratory on Jan 16, 2018 2:08:11 GMT
It would take many, many years for a hole in the shell of an O'Neill cylinder or Rama to leak enough atmosphere that the population would notice the drop in atmospheric pressure for habitability purposes. Presumably it would be repaired reasonably quickly, within a week at least.
Although I don't think the O'Neill cylinders windows were a great design, they were never to be a single pane. They would have been a metal latticework with spaces filled in by glass panes. If a pane shatters completely it's even less of an issue than a hole in the ground, because there's nothing nearby for the pressure differential to damage and they can just wheel and reel a drone or window repair dude out to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ญ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on Jan 22, 2018 7:08:15 GMT
It would take many, many years for a hole in the shell of an O'Neill cylinder or Rama to leak enough atmosphere that the population would notice the drop in atmospheric pressure for habitability purposes. Presumably it would be repaired reasonably quickly, within a week at least. Although I don't think the O'Neill cylinders windows were a great design, they were never to be a single pane. They would have been a metal latticework with spaces filled in by glass panes. If a pane shatters completely it's even less of an issue than a hole in the ground, because there's nothing nearby for the pressure differential to damage and they can just wheel and reel a drone or window repair dude out to fix it. but dont forget that the escaping air would affect the ship's velocity through thrust. and you dont want to loose air on any occasion because over the course of a hundred years, there's no way to get it back
|
|
|
Post by lucubratory on Jan 24, 2018 2:03:33 GMT
It would take many, many years for a hole in the shell of an O'Neill cylinder or Rama to leak enough atmosphere that the population would notice the drop in atmospheric pressure for habitability purposes. Presumably it would be repaired reasonably quickly, within a week at least. Although I don't think the O'Neill cylinders windows were a great design, they were never to be a single pane. They would have been a metal latticework with spaces filled in by glass panes. If a pane shatters completely it's even less of an issue than a hole in the ground, because there's nothing nearby for the pressure differential to damage and they can just wheel and reel a drone or window repair dude out to fix it. but dont forget that the escaping air would affect the ship's velocity through thrust. and you dont want to loose air on any occasion because over the course of a hundred years, there's no way to get it back Air at 1 atmosphere escaping into vacuum would have terrible thrust, the vernier thrusters you would need for stationkeeping would be incredibly small relative to the station. There will be leaks in any habitat and resupply will be a reality for a very, very long time. It would take a lot of over-engineering to proof a station for a hundred year period. Life on stations will just get shipments of water, nitrogen, and carbon to replace slow leakage of atmosphere. Pretty sure carboniferous asteroids have everything required to generate breathable atmosphere, so it shouldn't be expensive.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ญ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on Jan 27, 2018 9:11:55 GMT
but dont forget that the escaping air would affect the ship's velocity through thrust. and you dont want to loose air on any occasion because over the course of a hundred years, there's no way to get it back Air at 1 atmosphere escaping into vacuum would have terrible thrust, the vernier thrusters you would need for stationkeeping would be incredibly small relative to the station. There will be leaks in any habitat and resupply will be a reality for a very, very long time. It would take a lot of over-engineering to proof a station for a hundred year period. Life on stations will just get shipments of water, nitrogen, and carbon to replace slow leakage of atmosphere. Pretty sure carboniferous asteroids have everything required to generate breathable atmosphere, so it shouldn't be expensive. if you are doing interstellar travel, it would not need to affect the velocity by much. a 1 meter per second change will mess up everything. good luck asteroid farming for a station full of thousands of people.
|
|
|
Post by lucubratory on Jan 27, 2018 11:30:59 GMT
Air at 1 atmosphere escaping into vacuum would have terrible thrust, the vernier thrusters you would need for stationkeeping would be incredibly small relative to the station. There will be leaks in any habitat and resupply will be a reality for a very, very long time. It would take a lot of over-engineering to proof a station for a hundred year period. Life on stations will just get shipments of water, nitrogen, and carbon to replace slow leakage of atmosphere. Pretty sure carboniferous asteroids have everything required to generate breathable atmosphere, so it shouldn't be expensive. if you are doing interstellar travel, it would not need to affect the velocity by much. a 1 meter per second change will mess up everything. good luck asteroid farming for a station full of thousands of people. I wasn't considering interstellar travel, just large space stations of the rotating variety. A leak will definitely mess up an interstellar travellers' trajectory if it's not detected and corrected. That's why you build vernier thrusters and have sensors looking at any of the millions of points of light you can use to navigate. To reduce leakage on such a ship, as well as for other reasons, you would have a double-walled hull, with the inner hull rotating to provide gravity and the other a stationary shield that's still airtight. You'll want at least two counter-rotating segments in the hull to keep the outer shield still and prevent spin destabilisation. If you don't think asteroid mining is feasible, then you would be correct in extrapolating that large space habitats aren't feasible. If you do think asteroid mining is feasible, then asteroid mining can support stations of millions of people, not just thousands. There's enough bite-sized (not gravitationally difficult to extract) asteroid mass in the solar system for habitats with trillions of individuals, once they're all exploited. Things might be different by the time we get anywhere close to running out, though.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ญ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on Jan 27, 2018 22:00:39 GMT
if you are doing interstellar travel, it would not need to affect the velocity by much. a 1 meter per second change will mess up everything. good luck asteroid farming for a station full of thousands of people. I wasn't considering interstellar travel, just large space stations of the rotating variety. A leak will definitely mess up an interstellar travellers' trajectory if it's not detected and corrected. That's why you build vernier thrusters and have sensors looking at any of the millions of points of light you can use to navigate. To reduce leakage on such a ship, as well as for other reasons, you would have a double-walled hull, with the inner hull rotating to provide gravity and the other a stationary shield that's still airtight. You'll want at least two counter-rotating segments in the hull to keep the outer shield still and prevent spin destabilisation. If you don't think asteroid mining is feasible, then you would be correct in extrapolating that large space habitats aren't feasible. If you do think asteroid mining is feasible, then asteroid mining can support stations of millions of people, not just thousands. There's enough bite-sized (not gravitationally difficult to extract) asteroid mass in the solar system for habitats with trillions of individuals, once they're all exploited. Things might be different by the time we get anywhere close to running out, though. even if there was enough asteroid mass to feed the ship's needs for the next thousand years, it would take an insane amount of DV to get to them, or it would take an insane amount of time to get to them if you were not going to spend a ton of DV to get there fast.
|
|
|
Post by lucubratory on Jan 28, 2018 11:00:25 GMT
I wasn't considering interstellar travel, just large space stations of the rotating variety. A leak will definitely mess up an interstellar travellers' trajectory if it's not detected and corrected. That's why you build vernier thrusters and have sensors looking at any of the millions of points of light you can use to navigate. To reduce leakage on such a ship, as well as for other reasons, you would have a double-walled hull, with the inner hull rotating to provide gravity and the other a stationary shield that's still airtight. You'll want at least two counter-rotating segments in the hull to keep the outer shield still and prevent spin destabilisation. If you don't think asteroid mining is feasible, then you would be correct in extrapolating that large space habitats aren't feasible. If you do think asteroid mining is feasible, then asteroid mining can support stations of millions of people, not just thousands. There's enough bite-sized (not gravitationally difficult to extract) asteroid mass in the solar system for habitats with trillions of individuals, once they're all exploited. Things might be different by the time we get anywhere close to running out, though. even if there was enough asteroid mass to feed the ship's needs for the next thousand years, it would take an insane amount of DV to get to them, or it would take an insane amount of time to get to them if you were not going to spend a ton of DV to get there fast. Ceres alone has enough material to form habitats which are equal in area to 100-1000 times the surface area of the earth plus their atmospheres and biospheres (the variation is based on conservative and optimistic estimates of how much mass would be required for a given surface area). If you didn't want to expend any mass as fuel, you could just build the habitats all where Ceres is now. As for long the habitats could run, that depends on how long you design them to run. If you use solar power and make them large enough that maintenance and repairs which can't be automated are done in-house, then they can last as long as the sun gives off a good amount of power and isn't turning into a red giant. If you have fusion power workable, and you're using hydrogen as the most mass-equivalent radiation and micrometeoroid shielding for your space habitat, then the hydrogen you store in your radiation shielding could produce the power needs of your population for billions of years, not a thousand years. Fusion power has a lot of power available, so either way we use it (whether it's using the sun's fusion or artificial fusion power plants) we won't be starved for energy. If you can use fusion, you can use MPD thrusters and take a very long time to move the habitat, which is fine because it houses millions of people and it's self-sufficient. If you can build mirrors and photovoltaics, you can use solar power at almost any distance from the sun, and power MPD thrusters and take a very long time to move the habitat, which is fine because it houses millions of people and it's self-sufficient. If neither of those work (for example because you positively must have a station in the Oort cloud and fusion isn't yet feasible), then you can use fission power, it's just really expensive and hard and it will almost always make more sense to spend delta-v or time getting a habitat close enough to use solar power.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Aug 12, 2019 17:40:00 GMT
Not an engineer at all, so no idea if this is coherent. But supposedly the idea of the glass panes in O'Neill's orginal design was that it would comprise hundreds of thousands of small panes, perhaps 30 cm hexagons? This way, if any single pane were blown out, the actual venting relative to the total volume of the sphere would be slow enough that damage control or repairs could ensue.
|
|
|
Post by dragon on Aug 13, 2019 11:12:58 GMT
First of all, unless fired directly at something, the fate of any kinetic slug is drifting through deep space forever. And yes, that means the much celebrated rant from Mass Effect 2 is a load of bull. If you fire a mass accelerator slug and miss, you can be pretty sure that's the last you've seen of it, because space is just that big. Even with a big colony cylinder, unless there's a battle right next to it, doesn't really have much chance of being hit. At round velocities we see in COADE, if they don't exit the solar system altogether, they'll end up in highly unusual orbits unlikely to be run into by anything. Not to mention high mass slugs are rare and most weapons derive their power from sheer number of them, but dispersion means that even if you do run into a single slug, the rest of the salvo is most likely kilometers away. Normal MMOD protection is all you need.
The bottom line is, space is big, bullets are small.
|
|