|
Post by nerd1000 on Oct 30, 2016 14:21:32 GMT
Yea, your problem is that you have maxed out the ingame sliders for power from a nuclear thermal rocket. You are now in the shitty trade space between throwing more mass out the engine on the same power, or not. It sounds like the request for the dev is: "Can we please have more than 500kg of fissiles in the nuclear thermal rockets?" Yeah that is exactly what I asked for in the first post and the point of the thread. I want bigger NTRs then are currently possible. I should note that, in my experience, the bigger you make your thruster the harder it is to keep the thing from melting or cracking from thermal expansion. I guess this is caused by the square cube law- the thruster dissipates heat through its surface area, while it generates heat through its volume, so bigger thrusters are harder to cool. I guess you could circumvent the problem by making the chamber from one of the ultra-refractory ceramics that melts at a higher temperature than the reactor, but those materials are weak and very dense so the engine would be extremely heavy. There may be an upper bound on the size of an effective NTR, at least for our purposes. Related topic- has anyone else noticed that regenerative cooling has no effect on engine weight or cost?
|
|
|
Post by oprean on Oct 30, 2016 19:05:51 GMT
what sort of turn about time are you aiming for?
|
|
|
Post by lawson on Oct 30, 2016 19:27:16 GMT
Can't you just use more efficient engine like 20 of them together or is that still not enough? How heavy is that ship by the way? Oh it just weighs in at 2,800,000,000 kg and has 20 Decane 3.58km/s 551MN NTRs. It is really a silly ship that cost an insane amount and has no use but I really like messing around with it with the assumption that cost and mass and delta v are no issue and as it stands I have the max amount of decane thrusters and I really do not want to ditch more of the very little exhaust velocity I have left. So not really needed for any other type of ship but it is needed with this level of ludacris. As it stands it has .4gs of acceleration 31.8 second turn around time and 28.2 second roll about time but I want more While I can only match your monster engine's thrust, my engine is only 38 tons and 2.57Mc. Next is optimized for efficiency while still making 336MN. Finally a cost and efficiency optimized option. Any screen shots of your Mega-battleship captinjoehenry?
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 30, 2016 19:52:13 GMT
Oh it just weighs in at 2,800,000,000 kg and has 20 Decane 3.58km/s 551MN NTRs. It is really a silly ship that cost an insane amount and has no use but I really like messing around with it with the assumption that cost and mass and delta v are no issue and as it stands I have the max amount of decane thrusters and I really do not want to ditch more of the very little exhaust velocity I have left. So not really needed for any other type of ship but it is needed with this level of ludacris. As it stands it has .4gs of acceleration 31.8 second turn around time and 28.2 second roll about time but I want more While I can only match your monster engine's thrust, my engine is only 38 tons and 2.57Mc. Next is optimized for efficiency while still making 336MN. Finally a cost and efficiency optimized option. Any screen shots of your Mega-battleship captinjoehenry? This is the latest iteration of my super dreadnaught the Mk 8.4: This is the rest of the side stats: The internals: This thing has 8 4mm CWIS railguns per broadside throwing a 1 gram round downrange at 45.4 km/s every 3.95ms with 2,000,000 rounds stored, 18 500 MW green lasers per broadside, 8 1.6 megaton nuke coil guns throwing one each down range at 11.5 km/s every 195ms with 40,000 rounds , 9 7mm railguns throwing a 50 gram round downrange at 15.7km/s every 14m/s with 800,000 rounds. 50 coilgun drones which each have a coil gun throwing a 1 kg round downrange at 11.6km/s every 18.1ms with each drone having 500 rounds. 2,000 70.9GW flares. 400,000 CWIS missiles with a 100 ton yield nuke and 10km/s delta v. 14,000 Micro Flack with 120kg flack warhead and 6.18km/s delta v. 9,000 Micro Nukes Mk4.1 with a 1.6 megaton nuke and 9.5km/s of delta v. 80,000 Nano Flack Mk2.0 with 3.26 km/s delta v and a 30kg flack warhead. 2,400 Ultra Flack Mk3.2 with a 2 ton flack warhead with 5km/s of delta v. All turrets are protected by 1 meter of basalt fiber composite and the 4 mm CWIS railguns have 1 meter of Microlattice for armor. Each of the missile launchers has quite a bit of osmium armor. All of the fuel tanks have 5cm of boron armor. Each crew box has 30cm of boron and all of the ammo has 10s of cm of basalt fiber composite armor. In addition there are various radiation shields in place to attempt to act like bulkheads. If you want any of the details on the weapons feel free to ask and also not that almost all of the cost of this vessel is from the Nickel Phosphorus Microlattice which I could replace. And yes that is right this thing is .85 KILOMETERS long! It is stupidly huge! And it can turn around really fast which makes me wonder what the crew is like. Also there are 3 times as many crew as needed. The ship has redundancy in all things
|
|
|
Post by lawson on Oct 30, 2016 20:04:06 GMT
Jeeze, That gun alone is enough to melt whole fleets! I like it
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Oct 31, 2016 4:51:45 GMT
That kind of output would certainly require a way bigger power draw than it's pulling. Can't wait for rail and coil guns to get fixed.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 31, 2016 5:08:12 GMT
Captain, am I reading this right, your ridiculously expensive super dreadnought has only 1.55km/s delta V? This is more of a mobile fort than a battleship.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Oct 31, 2016 5:40:01 GMT
I'm guessing the decane MPDs are used for main thrust out of combat, so that it can actually go places. Slowly.
It would probably be better to edit it with a double line of broadside-oriented main thrust, which can actually be efficient because it isn't limited to a count of 20.
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 31, 2016 11:24:17 GMT
Captain, am I reading this right, your ridiculously expensive super dreadnought has only 1.55km/s delta V? This is more of a mobile fort than a battleship. Yeah it only has 1.55 km/s of delta v. It does have some resistor jets that give it over 3km/s of delta v and the ion engines if I want to spend forever changing orbit has 25km/s of delta v.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 31, 2016 17:29:14 GMT
Captain, am I reading this right, your ridiculously expensive super dreadnought has only 1.55km/s delta V? This is more of a mobile fort than a battleship. Yeah it only has 1.55 km/s of delta v. It does have some resistor jets that give it over 3km/s of delta v and the ion engines if I want to spend forever changing orbit has 25km/s of delta v. Well then this is not a bad setup at all, I may try it , but why not ditch the the resistojets and just jump from 1.55 to 25 ? Btw are your MPDs using the same propellant as the resistojets and the NTRs ? Edit: Stupid question they are , its visible on the shot above . Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 31, 2016 17:35:43 GMT
Yeah it only has 1.55 km/s of delta v. It does have some resistor jets that give it over 3km/s of delta v and the ion engines if I want to spend forever changing orbit has 25km/s of delta v. Well then this is not a bad setup at all, I may try it , but why not ditch the the resistojets and just jump from 1.55 to 25 ? Btw are your MPDs using the same propellant as the resistojets and the NTRs ? Everything runs on decane and the reason is the horrific acceleration the MPDs can give :/ it takes a lot of passes to do any sort of orbital maneuver with them
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 31, 2016 17:39:13 GMT
I still don't get why not use NTRs for the RCS thrusters in the first place. The effectiveness your are getting from the resistojets is nothing to write about, they are almost at the level of your NTRs and they are way below what is possible with decane. Why not build small NTRs and use them for RCS ?
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 31, 2016 18:21:11 GMT
I still don't get why not use NTRs for the RCS thrusters in the first place. The effectiveness your are getting from the resistojets is nothing to write about, they are almost at the level of your NTRs and they are way below what is possible with decane. Why not build small NTRs and use them for RCS ? Ah you are only seeing the RCS reistorjets. They basically don't get used. The orbital ones are non gimbaled and mounted on the side of the ship so 90 degrees from the guns on both side and each has over 6km/s of exhaust velocity which is the same or a bit better than NTR. And those engines are there just for orbital maneuvers.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 31, 2016 18:25:38 GMT
I still don't get why not use NTRs for the RCS thrusters in the first place. The effectiveness your are getting from the resistojets is nothing to write about, they are almost at the level of your NTRs and they are way below what is possible with decane. Why not build small NTRs and use them for RCS ? Ah you are only seeing the RCS reistorjets. They basically don't get used. The orbital ones are non gimbaled and mounted on the side of the ship so 90 degrees from the guns on both side and each has over 6km/s of exhaust velocity which is the same or a bit better than NTR. And those engines are there just for orbital maneuvers. Not to derail the thread here, but unless I'm gravely mistaken I thought it was thrust itself and not exhaust velocity that determined a thrusters usefulness?
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 31, 2016 18:30:02 GMT
Ah you are only seeing the RCS reistorjets. They basically don't get used. The orbital ones are non gimbaled and mounted on the side of the ship so 90 degrees from the guns on both side and each has over 6km/s of exhaust velocity which is the same or a bit better than NTR. And those engines are there just for orbital maneuvers. Not to derail the thread here, but unless I'm gravely mistaken I thought it was thrust itself and not exhaust velocity that determined a thrusters usefulness? exhaust velocity determines how much delta v you'll get and thrust determines how much acceleration you get. Usually you would talk about ISP (Specific Impulse) for how efficient the engine is but as we are measuring the amount of stuff being thrown out the back of the engine in mass ISP is the same as exhaust velocity. So if I wanted I could ditch a lot of thrust from my ships main NTR to get more exhaust velocity and therefore delta v or I could get more thrust by lowering exhaust velocity and losing even more of the already pathetic amount of combat delta v the ship has already
|
|