|
Post by sage on Feb 21, 2022 20:14:43 GMT
Here's my take on armor (thicknesses are just indicative): Outermost - 5 mm Titanium Carbide (with 5 cm gap if you use the Whipple shield): super-hard and heat-resistant ceramic, great anti-nuke and sand-bouncer layer
- 5 mm Aluminum: optional Whipple shield, turns high-velocity projectiles/shrapnel into plasma (I don't know if realistically it would melt from radiators/nukes heating the Titanium Carbide layer, and this in turn heating the Whipple shield)
- 9 dm (9.5 dm if you don't use either the Whipple shield or the UHMWPE Fiber layer, 1 m if you don't use them both) Graphite Aerogel: for stuffed Whipple shield
- 7.5 mm UHMWPE Fiber with 5 cm gap: optional, the high speed of sound means that the armor material has a greater chance of reacting like a solid to incoming projectiles/shrapnel rather than a liquid, so it should help in slowing incoming projectiles/shrapnel down
- 7.5 mm Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide: outermost layer of the bulk armor, heat-resistant in order to catch hot plasma and anti-laser layer (realistically speaking: the damage model is broken with organic fibers, and Amorphous Carbon might not have realistic properties)
- 5 mm Ceramic Matrix Composite: optional, someone claimed it worked, maybe because of its low Poisson's ratio
- 3 cm Boron Filament: innermost layer of the bulk armor, meant to stop kinketic penetrations
- 7.5 mm PBO Fiber: spall-liner, it stops spall from the bulk armor
Innermost
You said that "realistically speaking: the damage model is broken with organic fibers". What is your reason for that? Also, I see you have posted new ships with new armor. I have some questions about them while I work on fixing my armor. I see you use Nickel Phosphorus Microlattice, instead of Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide, is there a reason for that. I was doing the math for Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide vs amorphous carbon and found that Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide was stronger than amorphous carbon in J/m^3 needed to destroy it. So why the change? Also, I see you use Magnesium Aluminum Zinc as a Whipple shield and cover it with Zirconium Caride. I was reading thought the forum and came across Magnesium Aluminum Zinc. I would like to know what material properties makes it a good Whipple shield. Also why did you change from Titanium Carbide to Zirconium Caride?
|
|
|
Post by sage on Feb 21, 2022 23:51:07 GMT
By the way how do you know what counts as organic fibers? I don't see a section for organic fiber. Only for Organic Compounds and other for just fibers.
|
|
Echo
Full Member
Posts: 141
|
Post by Echo on Mar 21, 2022 11:55:45 GMT
You said that "realistically speaking: the damage model is broken with organic fibers". What is your reason for that? By the way how do you know what counts as organic fibers? I don't see a section for organic fiber. Only for Organic Compounds and other for just fibers. That statement isn't very correct, allow me to re-state it: current laser armor damage model is broken because 10 lasers that output 1/10 of the power of one other laser deal 10 times the damage of that other laser, if all of them reached their ablation cap. The worst offenders are the materials with very low thermal diffusivity (which game uses to calculate ablation cap; see: childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/post/39929/thread and sources). Among them, the most (ab)used is Aramid Fiber, which happens to be an organic fiber. If you keep in mind the definition of organic compound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound) and look in the text files (see: childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/post/25586), you'll be able to see which fibers are organic and which are not. I see you use Nickel Phosphorus Microlattice, instead of Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide, is there a reason for that. I was doing the math for Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide vs amorphous carbon and found that Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide was stronger than amorphous carbon in J/m^3 needed to destroy it. So why the change? Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide (the first material you meet if you order the materials by decreasing thermal energy per mass that has not-shitty specific yield strength and that isn't a dubious material) should be good at catching plasma without getting too hot, but I had a very tight mass budget, so I skipped this armor layer. Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide is also my go-to laser armor. I don't find any reason to armor ships against lasers though, so I had even less of a reason to use that in these two mass-limited ships in particular. It's true that Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide has greater toughness than Amorphous Carbon (assuming that the slope of a stress-strain curve in the plastic deformation region stays equal to the Young's Modulus), however after some tests I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that the prime metric to determine how good a material is against kinetics is it's specific yield strength (or maybe specific ultimate tensile strength). At the time when I released those ships, the material with the highest specific yield strength I knew of was Nickel Phosphorus Microlattice, and the effectiveness of 25 cm of it is greater than an entire Garuda's armor scheme (Garuda being Atom's published ship with the heaviest armor scheme), while 20 cm was less effective than it (me using 20 or 25 cm is a matter of how much coverage do I want and how much sloped the nose is). Since I discovered that, I started armoring my ships with Nickel Phosphorus Microlattice. However, due to its very high cost, I was forced to limit the armor to the nose-cone. Recently I discovered that UHMWPE Fiber has x1.43 the specific yield strength at x0.0613 the cost of Nickel Phosphorus Microlattice, so I'll test its effectiveness and possibly switch to that. Also, I see you use Magnesium Aluminum Zinc as a Whipple shield and cover it with Zirconium Caride. I was reading thought the forum and came across Magnesium Aluminum Zinc. I would like to know what material properties makes it a good Whipple shield. I switched from 5 mm of Aluminum to 1.5 mm of Magnesium Aluminum Zinc because of two reasons: 1) it's much lighter, 2) I stole that from Garuda. I don't know how much less effective it is, but I needed something light, so... Regarding material properties, ultimately we don't know because we don't have access to the code, and I also haven't tested. If I was forced to say something though, I'd say high ductility, low melting point and/or low thermal energy per mass. Magnesium Aluminum Zinc happens to be more ductile than Aluminum. Also why did you change from Titanium Carbide to Zirconium Caride? Because Zirconium Carbide has higher specific yield strength and melting point than Titanium Carbide, although unfortunately it has higher density and lower thermal energy per mass (I don't know whether melting point or thermal energy per mass is best against nukes). Zirconium Carbide happens to be more ductile than Titanium Carbide.
|
|