|
Post by dichebach on Oct 28, 2017 19:58:24 GMT
Ah thanks for all the responses folks! Love getting all the gaming brainiacs going on the technical subjects of games like this; good times
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 28, 2017 20:40:25 GMT
wtf are you gonna use Iron or Titanium for when Steel (any type) and Beta Titanium are superior? U-235? Plutonium in general? RCC? Boron? Gadolinium? UHMWPE? etc. I imagine most of the materials are going to be pointless to you if you still don't care about cost. Titanium is good for reaction wheels and pumps. Iron has applications for reaction wheels and chemical gun projectiles. Most of the steels are very cost ineffective, along with Beta Titanium. U-235 and Plutonium are admittedly novelties, along with RCC and Boron (rip). Gadolinium can be used for lightweight forcers in launchers. UHMWPE is the most cost and mass effective option for high power blast launchers. Most materials have some situation where they outperform everything else. These situations may be incredibly niche, but they do exist. UHMWPE is like 3x more expensive then boron fiber or Vanadium steel in blast launchers. cost is not something I thought about, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 28, 2017 20:59:57 GMT
I'm sure it is much more complicated than I presently can see (I have yet to unlock the module design). However, a quick attempt to create a high endurance civilian ship using Hydrogen deuteride NTR design just cannot compare (in delta-V, which is all I'm really trying to get: maximum flight time). Ship "Hydro D" cost 27.5 Mc (million credits?) 2000 tons of Hydrogen Deuteride, and pretty much everything else built around that to minimum specs (just enough crew, just enough reactor, just enough NTR thruster, just enough radiation shielding and radiator capacity etc.) Gives me 16.1 km/s dV Ship Strider Q costs 10.3 Mc 2000 tons of Xenon gives me 22.1 km/s. I selected 2.0 t because, that seems to be the smallest stock Xenon tank and as I said, I cannot design modules yet Comparison shot Is the fact that the acceleration on Strider Q more than an order of magnitude lower important? Does this mean that Strider Q will use 10+ times a much propellant to achieve the same velocities and thus require more dV to perform the same manuevers? I thought delta-V always took account of that sort of thing and was a "standardized value" that was convenient for comparing the "total maneuver capacity" or endurance of any given vessel or journey?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 28, 2017 21:04:41 GMT
I imagine most of the materials are going to be pointless to you if you still don't care about cost. Titanium is good for reaction wheels and pumps. Iron has applications for reaction wheels and chemical gun projectiles. Most of the steels are very cost ineffective, along with Beta Titanium. U-235 and Plutonium are admittedly novelties, along with RCC and Boron (rip). Gadolinium can be used for lightweight forcers in launchers. UHMWPE is the most cost and mass effective option for high power blast launchers. Most materials have some situation where they outperform everything else. These situations may be incredibly niche, but they do exist. UHMWPE is like 3x more expensive then boron fiber or Vanadium steel in blast launchers. cost is not something I thought about, thank you. Ahh, I meant to say UHMWPE Fiber. It seems like it is only the most mass effective, not cost effective.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Oct 28, 2017 21:13:55 GMT
Rocket Witch duuude that avatar gave me chest pain stahp dichebach if you're just looking for performance Apophys's Standardized Modules are very close to optimal min-max for price & mass.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 28, 2017 21:41:45 GMT
dichebach Acceleration means how much velocity you gain per second. Delta-v shows how fast you'll be when you used all your fuel. Strider Q takes 10x longer for the same gain in velocity. But it also uses less fuel per second. You can skip doing all the missions and get module design instantly via the settings. Mc stands for megacredit, million credits. The same as gram-kilogram or megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 28, 2017 21:57:19 GMT
dichebach Acceleration means how much velocity you gain per second. Delta-v shows how fast you'll be when you used all your fuel. Strider Q takes 10x longer for the same gain in velocity. But it also uses less fuel per second. You can skip doing all the missions and get module design instantly via the settings. Mc stands for megacredit, million credits. The same as gram-kilogram or megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte. "how fast you'll be going when you used all your fuel" Ha! Never heard it expressed that way and it is perfect! So Strider Q DOES have more "endurance," meaning it can achieve a net greater change in velocity. Acceleration only seems to be salient for combat then? If all you are trying to do is make a long trip in as short of time as possible, do not anticipate combat (and want to have maximum capacity to evade combat if it is threatened), do not need to carry cargo (and only need to carry one passenger in addition to your crew, i.e., do the Thermis to Mars "Homecoming" mission) it seems to me maximum dV is the only important criterion, no? I am getting the impression that either in latter stages of the campaign, else in other playmodes, or modded/edited versions of the campaign, designing a whole navy along with fleet doctrine, etc. (and logistics!? do we get logistics!?) becomes a thing? With that in mind, I wanted to begin my ship designs with one that maximizes the "gold standard" of all space craft: how fast will you be going if you expend all your propellant going in one direction continuously!
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 28, 2017 22:24:34 GMT
dichebach Acceleration means how much velocity you gain per second. Delta-v shows how fast you'll be when you used all your fuel. Strider Q takes 10x longer for the same gain in velocity. But it also uses less fuel per second. You can skip doing all the missions and get module design instantly via the settings. Mc stands for megacredit, million credits. The same as gram-kilogram or megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte. "how fast you'll be going when you used all your fuel" Ha! Never heard it expressed that way and it is perfect! So Strider Q DOES have more "endurance," meaning it can achieve a net greater change in velocity. Acceleration only seems to be salient for combat then? If all you are trying to do is make a long trip in as short of time as possible, do not anticipate combat (and want to have maximum capacity to evade combat if it is threatened), do not need to carry cargo (and only need to carry one passenger in addition to your crew, i.e., do the Thermis to Mars "Homecoming" mission) it seems to me maximum dV is the only important criterion, no? I am getting the impression that either in latter stages of the campaign, else in other playmodes, or modded/edited versions of the campaign, designing a whole navy along with fleet doctrine, etc. (and logistics!? do we get logistics!?) becomes a thing? With that in mind, I wanted to begin my ship designs with one that maximizes the "gold standard" of all space craft: how fast will you be going if you expend all your propellant going in one direction continuously! I remember faintly that you need a minimum acceleration to perform certain manouvers, your ship still has to overcome gravity in orbit. It depends wheter or not you want to play this realistic. You should know that an spacecraft with 4.3 snails worth of acceleration can't perform a 100,000g manouver which brings it to 40km/s in a minute of ingame time. Logistics wouldd be nice, but no. As a combat tip, the simplest and often the most effective weapon is the missile. Acceleration and Delta-v are both important. And the smaller the better, preferbly long and narrow.
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Oct 28, 2017 22:42:27 GMT
dichebach Acceleration means how much velocity you gain per second. Delta-v shows how fast you'll be when you used all your fuel. Strider Q takes 10x longer for the same gain in velocity. But it also uses less fuel per second. You can skip doing all the missions and get module design instantly via the settings. Mc stands for megacredit, million credits. The same as gram-kilogram or megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte. "how fast you'll be going when you used all your fuel" Ha! Never heard it expressed that way and it is perfect! So Strider Q DOES have more "endurance," meaning it can achieve a net greater change in velocity. Acceleration only seems to be salient for combat then? If all you are trying to do is make a long trip in as short of time as possible, do not anticipate combat (and want to have maximum capacity to evade combat if it is threatened), do not need to carry cargo (and only need to carry one passenger in addition to your crew, i.e., do the Thermis to Mars "Homecoming" mission) it seems to me maximum dV is the only important criterion, no? I am getting the impression that either in latter stages of the campaign, else in other playmodes, or modded/edited versions of the campaign, designing a whole navy along with fleet doctrine, etc. (and logistics!? do we get logistics!?) becomes a thing? With that in mind, I wanted to begin my ship designs with one that maximizes the "gold standard" of all space craft: how fast will you be going if you expend all your propellant going in one direction continuously! Mostly, not quite. There are a few situations where it matters (mostly Oberth effect, if you want to Google), especially when you're maneuvering in a gravity well. It's not a big deal out around asteroids et al., but getting in or out of orbit of major planets with such low acceleration could be tricky.
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 28, 2017 23:12:49 GMT
Interesting stuff!
I had noticed sometimes when I was attempting to perform extreme maneuvers with missile or drone fleets (mostly intercepts of enemy missile or drone fleets with my own missile or drone fleets at 10 or more degrees off of perfect retrograde) that a tool tip warning would often say "Maneuver failure. Gravity overwhelmed . . . " or something along those lines.
I bet that is this minimum necessary acceleration factor coming in to play, though I have yet to see it with a crew-served spaceship so far.
So . . . one could in theory, have two propulsion systems a long-distance "cruising" system" for performing burns while one is sufficiently outside gravity wells that high acceleration is unnecessary, and a limited-use "overdrive" system with a propellant with significant thrust. Since the game allows you to activate and deactivate modules during play: Turn on the overdrive system when more acceleration is necessary!
I think I'll try that, maybe use Hydrogen Deuteride as the "overdrive" system . . . I see you can place hydrazine thrusters in some semblance of orientation thrusters, and I suppose the game takes account of that so the craft might even derive from lateral acceleration from (for example) one prograde oriented thruster and three positioned radially away from the central axis of the ship? Also I would think these should speed up turning time? I would hope that, in the behind the scenes "dodging" that is taking place during combat, having a set of active and fueled thrusters like this would increase dodging?
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 28, 2017 23:45:08 GMT
Looks like LOX Methane might be a good choice for the "overdrive" system. Pushes the acceleration up into the 130 micro g ballpark which is on par with the stock "Passenger Liner." Knocks the "total burn time" down from like . . . 4 years to 25 minutes! but yeah . . . might work. Just gotta be on the ball with turning that LOX Methane thruster on ONLY when the additional acceleration is needed. What btw is the appropriate ratio of oxygen to methane? Gut intuition (and deep memory from Kerbal days) tells me 3 or 4 to 1 Lox : Methane so I guess that is what I'll cruise with for now: 10 t of Methane and 40 t of Lox
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 29, 2017 1:20:09 GMT
Looks like LOX Methane might be a good choice for the "overdrive" system. Pushes the acceleration up into the 130 micro g ballpark which is on par with the stock "Passenger Liner." Knocks the "total burn time" down from like . . . 4 years to 25 minutes! but yeah . . . might work. Just gotta be on the ball with turning that LOX Methane thruster on ONLY when the additional acceleration is needed. What btw is the appropriate ratio of oxygen to methane? Gut intuition (and deep memory from Kerbal days) tells me 3 or 4 to 1 Lox : Methane so I guess that is what I'll cruise with for now: 10 t of Methane and 40 t of Lox You should see the appropriate chemical ratios while designing the combustion rocket. They should be somewhere on the left. The ideal ratio is 3.99 LOX to 1 methane.
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Oct 29, 2017 1:28:48 GMT
It is indeed 4:1. Looking at engine design will tell you, not sure how you can tell with module designer locked. (I guess you could do the chemistry: products will be CO2 and H2O, so four oxygen for each CH4, atomic mass 16, 12, 1 for O, C, H.). Assuming complete combustion; you could build the engine to have an excess of methane - this would be very bad for delta-V but increase thrust. Do note that the dV calculations will be wrong for ships with more than one engine type. Looks like LOX Methane might be a good choice for the "overdrive" system. Pushes the acceleration up into the 130 micro g ballpark which is on par with the stock "Passenger Liner." Knocks the "total burn time" down from like . . . 4 years to 25 minutes! but yeah . . . might work. Just gotta be on the ball with turning that LOX Methane thruster on ONLY when the additional acceleration is needed. What btw is the appropriate ratio of oxygen to methane? Gut intuition (and deep memory from Kerbal days) tells me 3 or 4 to 1 Lox : Methane so I guess that is what I'll cruise with for now: 10 t of Methane and 40 t of Lox
|
|
|
Post by dichebach on Oct 29, 2017 2:51:09 GMT
I would say the "Strider" experiment was a failure. Very high dV but very low acceleration is not an option for making a transit from Themis to Mars on a short time frame. I watched a couple Youtubes where guys were using the Methane and/or Hydrogen tankers and I was able to very closely match their trajectories using those craft. I was NOT able to match those trajectories using the Strider design I posted up above. Arrived much later and some manuevers just were not possible "Overwhelmed by gravity."
I would guess that something in the 50 to 100 micro [correction, I should have said milli] g is a minimum for a ships acceleration.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Oct 29, 2017 3:04:30 GMT
I would say the "Strider" experiment was a failure. Very high dV but very low acceleration is not an option for making a transit from Themis to Mars on a short time frame. I watched a couple Youtubes where guys were using the Methane and/or Hydrogen tankers and I was able to very closely match their trajectories using those craft. I was NOT able to match those trajectories using the Strider design I posted up above. Arrived much later and some manuevers just were not possible "Overwhelmed by gravity." I would guess that something in the 50 to 100 micro g is a minimum for a ships acceleration. If you're skilled, a few tens of microgees shouldn't be much problem. The trick is to decelerate early so the ship is slow enough once it's within the planetary SOI.
|
|