|
Post by sage on Mar 30, 2022 20:01:16 GMT
OK next set of results consolidated # hits to kill crew module -
Monolithic Elements 101 samples ;
Material 5mm @ 1m
| Hotspot # Panels
| Min | Max | Range
| Mean | Median | Aluminium (Al)
| ~2
| 14
| 88
| 74
| 49.22
| 49
| Aluminium Tempered
| ~2
| 17
| 78
| 61
| 48.90
| 49
| Copper Tempered (Cu)
| ~2
| 21
| 90
| 69
| 52.19
| 53
| Magnesium (Mg)
| ~1.5
| 12
| 88
| 76
| 46.92
| 46
| Titanium (Ti)
| ~2
| 18
| 81
| 63
| 49.72
| 49
|
Alloys 101 samples ; Material 5mm @ 1m | Hotspot # Panels | Min | Max
| Range
| Mean | Median
| α2-Titanium Aluminide
| ~15
| 19
| 91
| 72
| 48.67
| 48
| ß-Titanium
| ~1
| 18
| 99
| 81
| 50.97
| 49
| γ-Titanium Aluminide
| ~10
| 15
| 105
| 90
| 49.60
| 48
| Titanium Aluminium Tin
| ~2
| 16
| 97
| 91
| 50.41
| 51
| Aluminium Zinc Magnesium
| ~1.5
| 10
| 98
| 88
| 48.62
| 47
|
Hotspot # panels is just a rough average to compare the sizes of the spread material. For next steps I will make new a new table for Ceramics/non-metals, then I can just add to them as I go. I think maybe 10 materials total in each group would be a good number, and maybe a 4th table for hard Fibers/organics later. and then possibly increase sample sizes on anything that seems significantly better.
Tempered Copper is leading at the moment but it's heavy. Magnesium appears to be less effective in this setup which I think (hope) is pointing at fairly realistic results.
One thought I'm having now is that my .30" projectiles are pretty large for the test, It would be good to try the .20" which is 3.5g - as well as perhaps the 1 gram .132" although I would need to redesign the base armour to keep the counts down. I don't fancy counting past ~100 for each sample. As it stands now I can do 101 samples in about an hour if I work intensively. Which is just about the limit I'm willing to do in one go.
And here is my end of the data Name of | material | Thermal conductivity | Yield Strength | Ultimate Tensile Strength | Density | Specific Heat | Melting Point | Specific Thermal | units | SI | w/ (m*K) | MPa | MPa | kg / (m3) | kJ/ (kg * K) | K | kJ / (m3) | Aluminum | Metal | 237 | 20
| 300 | 2700 | 0.9 | 933 | 2,267,190 | Aluminum Tempered | Metal | 237 | 152 | 165 | 2700 | 0.9 | 933 | 2,267,190 | Copper Tempered | Metal | 369 | 333 | 344 | 9000 | 0.385 | 13558 | 4,705,470 | Magnesium | Metal | 156 | 110 | 200 | 1740 | 1.02 | 923 | 1,628,140 | Titanium | Metal | 21.9 | 830 | 1040 | 4500 | 0.525 | 1941 | 4,585,613 |
Name of | material | Thermal conductivity | Yield Strength | Ultimate Tensile Strength | Density | Specific Heat | Melting Point | Specific Thermal | units | SI | w/ (m*K) | MPa | MPa | kg / (m3) | kJ/ (kg * K) | K | kJ / (m3) | Magnesium Aluminum Zinc | Alloy | 84 | 275 | 380 | 1810 | 1.05 | 833 | 1,678,142 | Alpha-2 titanium Aluminide | Alloy | 22 | 990 | 1140 | 4200 | 2.97 | 1873 | 23,363,802 | Beta Titanium | Alloy | 6.7 | 1520 | 1600 | 4690 | 0.508 | 1875 | 4,467,225 | Gamma Titanium Aluminide | Alloy | 28 | 650 | 800 | 3910 | 2.97 | 1733 | 20,124,809 | Titanium Aluminum Tin | Alloy | 7.8 | 827 | 861 | 4500 | 0.787 | 1863 | 6,597,815 |
Name of | material | Thermal conductivity | Yield Strength | Ultimate Tensile Strength | Density | Specific Heat | Melting Point | Specific Thermal | Units | SI | w/ (m*K) | MPa | MPa | kg / (m3) | kJ/ (kg * K) | K | kJ / (m3) | Titanium Carbide | Ceramic | 330 | 119 | 258 | 4930 | 0.873 | 3433 | 14,775,254 | Zirconium Carbide | Ceramic | 20.5 | 743 | 874 | 6730 | 0.368 | 5370 | 13,299,557 | Boron Carbide | Ceramic | 42 | 350 | 569 | 2520 | 1.29 | 2073 | 6,738,908 | Reinforced Carbon-Carbon | Ceramic | 40 | 700 | 700 | 1750 | 0.76 | 2273 | 3,023,090 |
Now you are asking what is "Specific Thermal". Specific Thermal is a term I came up with that is related to the thickness of you armor and Detonation fluence of Nuclear Ordnance. Take the thickness of you armor in meter and multiply it by Specific Thermal to get the Detonation fluence needed to melt your armor. Detonation fluence is in some unit of J / (m 2) , Specific Thermal is in kJ / (m 3), and your armor is in units of meter. If you have layers of armor, just add the Detonation fluence you get for each layer till the only thing left is the modules underneath. Now my of you are say that nuke look like one kill weapons, after doing all the math. But there is something that you are not taken into account. Missile, be them explosive or nuclear near detonate at point blank range, which is what normally given for each nuclear weapon. Normally everyone sets their "Detonator: Hard Range" to 0. Which makes the nuke detonate at "The closest point of approach". Meaning if the nuke starts to move away from the target, instead of closer it will Detonate. Unless you hit the enemy ship at point black range, the Detonation fluence given will never be the same. To see at what range an enemy nuke will melt though your armor "change" the hard range under Detonator for the nuke. It maxes out at 10Km Example: A Beamcraft has a armor layer of 1.50 cm Reinforced Carbon-Carbon, and then a 5mm layer of Aluminum Reinforced Carbon-Carbon Specific Thermal is 3,023,090 kJ / (m 3) Aluminum Specific Thermal is 2,267,190 kJ / (m 3) 3,023,090 kJ / (m 3) *0.015 m + 2,267,190 kJ / (m 3) * 0.005 m =56,682.3 kJ / (m 2) of Detonation fluence need to melt though the armor. The in-game Striker Nuclear missile use a 2.45kt Pure Fission Nuke. At point blank it has a Detonation fluence of 81,500 kJ / (m 2), but at a range of 120 m (Hard Range setting) we get a Detonation fluence of 56,600 kJ / (m 2). Note that this also works for laser as their intensity at Range is in W/(m 2). W is 0.001 KJ/s. So, our laser intensity at range becomes 0.001 kJ / (s*m 2). Then all you have to do is solve for time, to know how long it takes for you laser to melt thought any given armor. example Beamcraft again 56,682.3 kJ / (m 2) is needed to melt though the armor. and lets use a 13.0 MW in game Nd:YAG Green Laser at a intensity range of 100km, which is 2.40 MW/m 2. 2.40 MW/m2 converted to kJ / (s*m 2) is 2400 kJ / (s*m 2). Now take 56,682.3 kJ / (m 2) and divded it by 2400 kJ / (s*m 2) and you get about 24 seconds to melt thought the armor.
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Apr 2, 2022 19:47:14 GMT
OK next set consolidated. All at 101 samples # hits to destroy Crew Module.
Element 5mm @ 1m
| Hotspot
| High-Low=Range
| Median | Mean
| Aluminium
| 2
| 91 - 19 = 72
| 49
| 49.22
| Aluminium Tempered
| 2
| 78 - 17 = 61
| 49
| 48.90
| Copper Tempered
| 2
| 90 - 21 = 69
| 53
| 52.19
| Magnesium
| 1.5
| 88 - 12 = 76
| 46
| 46.92
| Titanium
| 2
| 81 - 18 = 63
| 49
| 49.72
|
Alloy 5mm @ 1m
| Hotspot | High-Low=Range
| Median | Mean | Aluminium Zinc Magnesium
| 1.5
| 98 - 10 = 88
| 47
| 48.62
| Magnesium Aluminium Zinc
| 1.5
| 91 - 15 = 76
| 46
| 48.14
| Alpha 2 Titanium Aluminide
| 15
| 91 - 19 = 72
| 48
| 48.67
| Beta Titanium
| 1
| 99 - 18 = 81
| 49
| 50.97
| Gamma Titanium Aluminide
| 10
| 105 - 15 = 90
| 48
| 49.60
| Titanium Aluminium Tin
| 2
| 97 - 16 = 91
| 51
| 50.41
|
Ceramic 5mm @ 1m
| Hotspot
| High-Low=Range
| Median
| Mean | Boron Carbide
| 6
| 88 - 11 = 77
| 47
| 49.10
| Reinforced Carbon-Carbon
| 1.5
| 105 - 9 = 96
| 50
| 52.21
| Titanium Carbide
| 6
| 89 - 22 = 67
| 51
| 50.03
| Zirconium Carbide
| 3
| 109 - 16 = 93
| 52
| 51.29
|
Everything is so similar with this test. Only interesting thing so far is that Zirconium Carbide produces purple sparks, RCC produces deep red sparks. All the others are yellow orange as far as I can remember. Might be worth double checking, it gave me an idea for a different test. Using Zirconium Carbide for a bulk layer, then using a smaller projectile, starting with a whipple material at 5mm thickness then decreasing it until the purple sparks become visible, or starting with 0.5mm and increasing until the purple sparks stop. This should? give an idea of the thickness of a material required to completely vapourise the small projectile, and might be a quicker thing to test. I'm still gonna add some more to these initial tests, but as you can see even RCC appears to be pretty good so when it comes to weight saving in game from this test it would suggest that's the best one so far. Still all too similar to be within a margin of error though I think, without doubling the samples (which I really don't want to do - counting shots to kill crew module takes too long as it is), the advantage with the new test idea is I take a few shots and look at the sparks, then just change the thickness of the whipple in steps. For completeness I would like to add elements; Copper, Nickel, Tin & Zinc. For alloys I think Austenitic & Martensitic Nitinol, Zirconium Copper, Zirconium Tin and possibly Magnesium Zinc Zirconium. For Ceramics perhaps Silicon Dioxide/Nitride, Titanium Dioxide/Nitride & Boron Nitride. After that maybe a short table for some Organics / Fibers / Non metals. I will have a look this week and see if the new idea for testing is workable, If it gives clearly differentiated results it may be I cut the old test short.
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Apr 2, 2022 19:56:19 GMT
Heh so my smallest Molten Gold arclamp pumped Ce:LLF laser is 15 MW, puts down 34.8 MW/m² @ 1000km
So that would be 56,682.3 kj/m² divided by 34800 kj/(s*m²) gives me about 1.63 seconds to melt through the armour
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Apr 2, 2022 20:46:55 GMT
Aaaarggh OK so I tried out the new idea for a whipple test. same target ship, only with 30mm Zirconium Carbide bulk. Using a 5.08x7.62mm (.2") 3.49g Osmium projectile travelling at 33 km/s carrying 1.90 Mj energy - First I tried with a tempered copper whipple at 1m spacing. Turns out you need 2.19mm thickness to vapourise the projectile and stop it kicking purple sparks off the bulk layer, 2.18mm is not enough, purple sparks every time, 2.19mm no purple sparks unless the guns hits the same spot again.
Awesome, I thought. Lets change material, to Magnesium which is significantly less dense than the Copper. Oddly, it's 2.19mm exactly again. Hmmm Ok then, Titanium? 2.19mm. Graphite Aerogel? 2.19mm. Platinum? 2.19mm.
It looks very much like it doesn't matter at all what material the whipple is made from, only the thickness is relevant, and the relevant thickness will be the same for every material.
Is this evidence of a very basic and overly simplified simulation of whipple shielding in game? is there any point testing this any further?
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Apr 3, 2022 14:09:25 GMT
Right. There's definitely no point continuing with the old test of counting shots to kill crew module.
After testing for colour sparks and finding that the material makes no difference, only the thickness - I went back to the old test using Graphite Aerogel as the 5mm whipple;
101 samples -
Hotspot 2 panels. High 99 - Low 22 = Range 77 Mean 50.42 Median 49
No discernable difference from any other material. People using stuffed whipples are probably getting the same effectiveness as a monolithic plate of the same overall thickness, whether it is made from Osmium or Graphite aerogel. Which is mildly dissapointing.
To my mind now the only things to test are thickness and spacing, I might play around with laminates to find out if the overall required thickness changes, multiple spaced layers to see if the total thickness of all whipples has any relation to the required thickness for one whipple. Projectiles could be categorised in calibres and weights with a table of what thickness whipple should effectively vapourise which projectile category etc. All of my railgun projectiles are roughly pistol bullet dimensions (Length = 1.5 x Calibres) because I dislike the idea of firing super thin discs wide face on as much as it is easy to make super high velocity sandblasters using that method in game. My coilguns all fire long rod or needle type projectiles (Length = 100 x Calibres) which I assume is unrealistic but it helps to get the velocities and energies to make a reasonable weapon that compliments the uber lasers and high velocity railguns. The smallest fires a .3" (7.62 mm x 76.2 cm) 255 g magnetic metal glass projectile at 14 km/s carrying 25 Mj energy I don't think fine whipples are going to do much to that.
I tend to treat the railguns like small arms, where the coilguns are more like artillery. But ultimately both weapons systems are pretty much redundant when it comes to missiles and lasers.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 4, 2022 2:20:04 GMT
OK next set consolidated. All at 101 samples # hits to destroy Crew Module.
Element 5mm @ 1m
| Hotspot
| High-Low=Range
| Median | Mean
| Aluminium
| 2
| 91 - 19 = 72
| 49
| 49.22
| Aluminium Tempered
| 2
| 78 - 17 = 61
| 49
| 48.90
| Copper Tempered
| 2
| 90 - 21 = 69
| 53
| 52.19
| Magnesium
| 1.5
| 88 - 12 = 76
| 46
| 46.92
| Titanium
| 2
| 81 - 18 = 63
| 49
| 49.72
|
Alloy 5mm @ 1m
| Hotspot | High-Low=Range
| Median | Mean | Aluminium Zinc Magnesium
| 1.5
| 98 - 10 = 88
| 47
| 48.62
| Magnesium Aluminium Zinc
| 1.5
| 91 - 15 = 76
| 46
| 48.14
| Alpha 2 Titanium Aluminide
| 15
| 91 - 19 = 72
| 48
| 48.67
| Beta Titanium
| 1
| 99 - 18 = 81
| 49
| 50.97
| Gamma Titanium Aluminide
| 10
| 105 - 15 = 90
| 48
| 49.60
| Titanium Aluminium Tin
| 2
| 97 - 16 = 91
| 51
| 50.41
|
Ceramic 5mm @ 1m
| Hotspot
| High-Low=Range
| Median
| Mean | Boron Carbide
| 6
| 88 - 11 = 77
| 47
| 49.10
| Reinforced Carbon-Carbon
| 1.5
| 105 - 9 = 96
| 50
| 52.21
| Titanium Carbide
| 6
| 89 - 22 = 67
| 51
| 50.03
| Zirconium Carbide
| 3
| 109 - 16 = 93
| 52
| 51.29
|
Based on all the data so far, it seems just having a Whipple shield increase are ships survivability by 3 times. Normally it takes 16 hits to destroy our ships, but no matter the material it requires 48 or more. And there is not that much of a difference from 48 to 53 in number of hits it takes to destroy our ships. So, all that seems to matter at this point is which material can take last that longest against laser, or take the largest nuke hits. Alpha-2 titanium Aluminide Gamma Titanium Aluminide Titanium Carbide Zirconium Carbide seem to be the best material so far, with Alpha-2 titanium Aluminide being the best. You bring up good question here, that I would like to know as well, but I think we should check one more thing. I have always told people that adding Whipple shield armor increase your ships survivability by 5 time. And that the first thing that anyone that is new to the game should work on, is armor. With this data I can prove that the Whipple shield alone increase the number of hits that you can take by 3. This bring up a new question, what if we use stuffed Whipple shields for our armor? And was going to ask you to see if changing the size of the projectiles changed how effective the material was against them. But you beat me to it.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 4, 2022 2:36:38 GMT
Heh so my smallest Molten Gold arclamp pumped Ce:LLF laser is 15 MW, puts down 34.8 MW/m² @ 1000km
So that would be 56,682.3 kj/m² divided by 34800 kj/(s*m²) gives me about 1.63 seconds to melt through the armour Yes, as long as you stay at a range of, wait how are you getting 34.8 MW/m² @ 1000km? I can only get that if I make the Aperture Radius 63.4 cm. What is the efficiency of your laser? And yes, you got the math right. Your laser is 14.5 times more powerful at a range that is 10 times more then the in game 13 MW laser.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 6, 2022 20:47:17 GMT
OK next set of results consolidated # hits to kill crew module -
Monolithic Elements 101 samples ;
Material 5mm @ 1m
| Hotspot # Panels
| Min | Max | Range
| Mean | Median | Aluminium (Al)
| ~2
| 14
| 88
| 74
| 49.22
| 49
| Aluminium Tempered
| ~2
| 17
| 78
| 61
| 48.90
| 49
| Copper Tempered (Cu)
| ~2
| 21
| 90
| 69
| 52.19
| 53
| Magnesium (Mg)
| ~1.5
| 12
| 88
| 76
| 46.92
| 46
| Titanium (Ti)
| ~2
| 18
| 81
| 63
| 49.72
| 49
|
Alloys 101 samples ; Material 5mm @ 1m | Hotspot # Panels | Min | Max
| Range
| Mean | Median
| α2-Titanium Aluminide
| ~15
| 19
| 91
| 72
| 48.67
| 48
| ß-Titanium
| ~1
| 18
| 99
| 81
| 50.97
| 49
| γ-Titanium Aluminide
| ~10
| 15
| 105
| 90
| 49.60
| 48
| Titanium Aluminium Tin
| ~2
| 16
| 97
| 91
| 50.41
| 51
| Aluminium Zinc Magnesium
| ~1.5
| 10
| 98
| 88
| 48.62
| 47
|
And here is my end of the data Name of | material | Thermal conductivity | Yield Strength | Ultimate Tensile Strength | Density | Specific Heat | Melting Point | Specific Thermal | units | SI | w/ (m*K) | MPa | MPa | kg / (m3) | kJ/ (kg * K) | K | kJ / (m3) | Aluminum | Metal | 237 | 20
| 300 | 2700 | 0.9 | 933 | 2,267,190 | Aluminum Tempered | Metal | 237 | 152 | 165 | 2700 | 0.9 | 933 | 2,267,190 | Copper Tempered | Metal | 369 | 333 | 344 | 9000 | 0.385 | 13558 | 4,705,470 | Magnesium | Metal | 156 | 110 | 200 | 1740 | 1.02 | 923 | 1,628,140 | Titanium | Metal | 21.9 | 830 | 1040 | 4500 | 0.525 | 1941 | 4,585,613 |
Name of | material | Thermal conductivity | Yield Strength | Ultimate Tensile Strength | Density | Specific Heat | Melting Point | Specific Thermal | units | SI | w/ (m*K) | MPa | MPa | kg / (m3) | kJ/ (kg * K) | K | kJ / (m3) | Magnesium Aluminum Zinc | Alloy | 84 | 275 | 380 | 1810 | 1.05 | 833 | 1,678,142 | Alpha-2 titanium Aluminide | Alloy | 22 | 990 | 1140 | 4200 | 2.97 | 1873 | 23,363,802 | Beta Titanium | Alloy | 6.7 | 1520 | 1600 | 4690 | 0.508 | 1875 | 4,467,225 | Gamma Titanium Aluminide | Alloy | 28 | 650 | 800 | 3910 | 2.97 | 1733 | 20,124,809 | Titanium Aluminum Tin | Alloy | 7.8 | 827 | 861 | 4500 | 0.787 | 1863 | 6,597,815 |
Name of | material | Thermal conductivity | Yield Strength | Ultimate Tensile Strength | Density | Specific Heat | Melting Point | Specific Thermal | Units | SI | w/ (m*K) | MPa | MPa | kg / (m3) | kJ/ (kg * K) | K | kJ / (m3) | Titanium Carbide | Ceramic | 330 | 119 | 258 | 4930 | 0.873 | 3433 | 14,775,254 | Zirconium Carbide | Ceramic | 20.5 | 743 | 874 | 6730 | 0.368 | 5370 | 13,299,557 | Boron Carbide | Ceramic | 42 | 350 | 569 | 2520 | 1.29 | 2073 | 6,738,908 | Reinforced Carbon-Carbon | Ceramic | 40 | 700 | 700 | 1750 | 0.76 | 2273 | 3,023,090 |
Name of | material | Thermal conductivity | Yield Strength | Ultimate Tensile Strength | Density | Specific Heat | Melting Point | Specific Thermal | Units | SI | w/ (m*K) | MPa | MPa | kg / (m3) | kJ/ (kg * K) | K | kJ / (m3)
| Amorphous Carbon | Non Metal | 235 | 800 | 1800 | 2100 | 2.04 | 3915 | 16,771,860 |
Name of | material | Thermal conductivity | Yield Strength | Ultimate Tensile Strength | Density | Specific Heat | Melting Point | Specific Thermal | Units | SI | w/ (m*K) | MPa | MPa | kg / (m3) | kJ/ (kg * K) | K | kJ / (m3) | Graphite Aerogel | Fiber | 26.3 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 8.5 | 1.73 | 1573 | 23,131 | PBO Fiber | Fiber | 1.17 | 550 | 5800 | 1540 | 0.65 | 823 | 823,823 |
Name of | material | Thermal conductivity | Yield Strength | Ultimate Tensile Strength | Density | Specific Heat | Melting Point | Specific Thermal | Units | SI | w/ (m*K) | MPa | MPa | kg / (m3) | kJ/ (kg * K) | K | kJ / (m3) | Nitrile Rubber | Organic Compound | 240 | 2.83 | 24.1 | 1140 | 1.35 | 383 | 589,437 |
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 6, 2022 21:04:50 GMT
Heh so my smallest Molten Gold arclamp pumped Ce:LLF laser is 15 MW, puts down 34.8 MW/m² @ 1000km
So that would be 56,682.3 kj/m² divided by 34800 kj/(s*m²) gives me about 1.63 seconds to melt through the armour Yes, as long as you stay at a range of, wait how are you getting 34.8 MW/m² @ 1000km? I can only get that if I make the Aperture Radius 63.4 cm. What is the efficiency of your laser? And yes, you got the math right. Your laser is 14.5 times more powerful at a range that is 10 times more then the in game 13 MW laser. You must also take into account Thermal Conductivity. At the melting point of Aluminum, the thermal conductivity is 221,121 W/m and for Reinforced Carbon-Carbon it is 90,920 W/m Now what does this mean? Well it means that the laser energy is going to material that the laser is not shining on. But I don't know where to go from here yet
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 6, 2022 22:01:10 GMT
Aaaarggh OK so I tried out the new idea for a whipple test. same target ship, only with 30mm Zirconium Carbide bulk. Using a 5.08x7.62mm (.2") 3.49g Osmium projectile travelling at 33 km/s carrying 1.90 Mj energy - First I tried with a tempered copper whipple at 1m spacing. Turns out you need 2.19mm thickness to vapourise the projectile and stop it kicking purple sparks off the bulk layer, 2.18mm is not enough, purple sparks every time, 2.19mm no purple sparks unless the guns hits the same spot again. Awesome, I thought. Lets change material, to Magnesium which is significantly less dense than the Copper. Oddly, it's 2.19mm exactly again. Hmmm Ok then, Titanium? 2.19mm. Graphite Aerogel? 2.19mm. Platinum? 2.19mm. It looks very much like it doesn't matter at all what material the whipple is made from, only the thickness is relevant, and the relevant thickness will be the same for every material. Is this evidence of a very basic and overly simplified simulation of whipple shielding in game? is there any point testing this any further? I have been looking more into our Whipple Shield problem, and found two paper may explain why the game is reacting this way. First is the paper Which talk about all the way the simulation for the Whipple shields work. But based on the cost of the game of $20. I don't think we us for this game. When I was in engineering school, mesh modeling programs like solid works would have license that would cost near $1000 per year. Then it got me think that there must be some underline math that there are using to solve these problems, as this game must take heat into account as well. Then I found a paper that went into the math of Whipple shields in the shatter regime, and it from NASA. Characteristics of Whipple shield performance in the shatter regimeSee page 3 to 4 for the math. From what I understand it only covers metallic Whipple shields, and you must use two different eqations, based on if it is low velocity or hypervelocity,
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on Apr 10, 2022 13:42:27 GMT
Sorry for the late reply, am really busy at the moment but hopefully by next weekend I should have the time for more tests, slowly formulating a series of things to try with laminates and stuffed whipples, changing impact angles, projectile sizes and velocities etc.
Actually looking forward to these sorts of tests should be a lot quicker and more varied.
Yeah my small laser has a 63.5cm aperture, it's actually 35.1 MW / m2 at 1000 km the last thing I did to get the extra 300 kW was change the output coupler from fused quartz to Beryllium Oxide.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 11, 2022 2:09:13 GMT
Sorry for the late reply, am really busy at the moment but hopefully by next weekend I should have the time for more tests, slowly formulating a series of things to try with laminates and stuffed whipples, changing impact angles, projectile sizes and velocities etc. Actually looking forward to these sorts of tests should be a lot quicker and more varied. Yeah my small laser has a 63.5cm aperture, it's actually 35.1 MW / m2 at 1000 km the last thing I did to get the extra 300 kW was change the output coupler from fused quartz to Beryllium Oxide. I'm having the same problem and will not be able to work on it till next week. I being to think that we have something like the ablation cap for laser, only with material here. But the work we have done so far, all most allows for us to master space warfare armoring.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 21, 2022 2:02:54 GMT
Based on the info so far, it would seem that 1mm of Alpha-2 titanium Aluminide is equal to 1 meter of Graphite Aerogel. I will test it next week to make sure, as there seems to be limitation to the in-game modeling engine.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 27, 2022 23:52:23 GMT
Just a question can you also change the thickness of the crew module again. There seems to be some effect on how many rounds it can take. But I what to check to see if changing the thickness of the crew modules armor, changes how think we need the Whipple shield to be.
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on May 5, 2022 20:08:16 GMT
Hello again, Apologies for not being around to do testing for the time being. My work restarted properly this year after the pandemic and I work intensively. This means I am away from my desktop rig for now, probably for most of the time until late September. My laptop is OK for 2D games with an integrated intel GPU but not for this. Moreover I only have a few hours each evening to eat, shower etc. then sleep. So that's me out for a long while. Regarding the tests, I was intending to use my standardised Osmium railgun projectiles which are 1.5 calibres long, the smallest is 1 gram and is roughly 3.3 x 5mm they're measured in imperial just because... and they step up to .577 inch at the largest but for these tests I would select the small set, 0.132 inch up to 0.30 inch (the same 7.62mm projectile I used for the initial tests) their speeds diminish as they get bigger so say;
Dimensions (rounded)
| Mass
| Speed
| Energy
| 3.35 x 5.03 mm (0.132 inch)
| 1 gram
| 34.5 km/s
| 595 kj
| 3.81 x 5.72 mm (0.15 inch) | 1.47 grams
| 34 km/s
| 849 kj
| 4.57 x 6.86 mm (0.18 inch) | 2.54 grams
| 33.5 km/s
| 1.42 Mj
| 5.08 x 7.62 mm (0.2 inch) | 3.49 grams
| 33 km/s
| 1.9 Mj
| 5.65 x 8.48 mm (0.223 inch) | 4.8 grams
| 32.5 km/s
| 2.54 Mj
| 6.35 x 9.53 mm (0.25 inch) | 6.81 grams
| 31.5 km/s
| 3.37 Mj
| 7.11 x 10.67 mm (0.28 inch) | 9.57 grams
| 30 km/s
| 4.3 Mj
| 7.62 x 11.43 mm (0.30 inch)
| 11.8 grams
| 29.5 km/s
| 5.14 Mj
|
Then test with a single Aluminium whipple (since material doesn't appear to matter) above a Zirconium Carbide bulk layer at a set of angles (10°,15°,20° etc. up to 45° at first) and just finding the exact thickness needed to stop the projectile hitting the bulk layer as indicated by the purple sparks. Past that I'm a little unsire about where to head next. Possibly testing multiple whipples with combined thickness, possibly laminates of differeing materials to see if there is any difference at all other than the precise thickness etc. Maybe it would be a good idea to standardise the projectiles at constant speeds, maybe slower speeds?
Again, sorry for dipping out I will come back eventually but it will be a while. Hope you all have a good summer season (or winter if you're in the South)
|
|