|
|
Post by goduranus on Oct 16, 2016 18:16:39 GMT
Flare decoys are rarely used, since the best way to destroy incoming missiles is from a distance. But if you did have to use them, you'd wish they lasted longer So here's a longer lasting replacement for the 100MW nitrocellulose flare. It's cheaper and lighter, but bigger, requiring a larger launcher.  Swapping chemical for fission heat source  |
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Oct 17, 2016 1:58:14 GMT
That's...
That's genius.
How well did work?
|
|
|
|
Post by beta on Oct 17, 2016 2:16:14 GMT
It seems somewhat ridiculous that a nuclear reactor is cheaper than a pyrotechnic flare ...
Perhaps complexity to assemble is required for cost metrics?
|
|
erin
Junior Member
Smash Mouth Plays From The Depths Of Hell As You Traverse A Deep, Rat-Infested Cave
Posts: 57 
|
Post by erin on Oct 17, 2016 2:57:07 GMT
Yeah, the infrastructural worldbuilding of the setting really needs to be clarified a lot better beyond "3D printing simplifies all manufacturing"
Nice work though, OP.
|
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Oct 17, 2016 3:04:58 GMT
Just noticed that reactor is an old screenshot, change the Tantalium to Molybendum and it will be cheaper, i think.
Oh and it wasn't actually cheaper than the stock flare, i was thinking of my custom iridium flare when i wrote that, but it's almost as cheap.
|
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 17, 2016 4:40:43 GMT
Couldn't all of this be solved by a resistor flare? Like a missile with a very inefficient radiator set up combined with a flare or battery that burned and then dumped the energy into the radiators?
|
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 17, 2016 17:38:21 GMT
Oh I love this  . Might as well try to glue it on a missile  . |
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Oct 17, 2016 18:03:25 GMT
Technically, an actual "fission flare" would be much simpler than the reactor flare.
You'd just have the nuclear pile in a thermally conductive container, rigged to run barely below meltdown temperature. Other than a trigger to get the reaction going (probably by ejecting a separator plate that kept the pile barely sub-critical) it could be an entirely passive system with no moving parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 17, 2016 18:06:30 GMT
Technically, an actual "fission flare" would be much simpler than the reactor flare. You'd just have the nuclear pile in a thermally conductive container, rigged to run barely below meltdown temperature. Other than a trigger to get the reaction going (probably by ejecting a separator plate that kept the pile barely sub-critical) it could be an entirely passive system with no moving parts. That would actually be very nice! I mean it would be fairly costly but as you get into the bigger flares in the 10s of gigawatt range it would almost definitely be cheaper and it would last for a whole heck of a lot longer. And as you said while it doesn't currently exist in real life it should be really easy to implement as it would just be a lump of really really hot and radioactive nuclear fuel. |
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Oct 17, 2016 18:10:47 GMT
Yep, it would basically work like the infamous screwdriver incident, but without irradiating any physicists. |
|
|
|
Post by coaxjack on Oct 18, 2016 2:35:02 GMT
Also the cost of an Chicago Pile Flare would pale in comparison to the supposed ship it would be launched to protect...If you need that many MW of output to distract a missile, you're probably doing something important with something very expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by redparadize on Oct 18, 2016 3:45:56 GMT
lol. did it work ? because if it do, then you only need 1 of these per missile volley. Reactor last 5 years!
|
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Oct 18, 2016 3:48:51 GMT
Actually it doesn't work in game, at least it doesn't make missiles jump around to retarget it. There may have been some sort of code that only makes missile retarget actual flares rather than just the hottest thing you launched. Though, may have luck if I were to combine this thing with an actual flare component? I'll try that later.
|
|
|
|
Post by nivik on Oct 18, 2016 20:14:24 GMT
Regarding pyro flares, I've found lead to be a decent middle-ground between density and cost for long-burning flares. However, most of ships use a low amount of power, so 25 MW is enough output for them.
This is awesome, but man, I really hate to dump reactors everywhere. It just seems wrong somehow. I need to see if I can do something with high-flow, low-expansion rocket engines; I'm almost 100% sure that rocket fuel is gonna be more energy-dense than nitrocellulose. If I can get a big waste-heat-under-propulsion from a chemical rocket, it may be a good option.
|
|
. Might as well try to glue it on a missile 
.
