|
Post by The Astronomer on Jan 1, 2017 15:53:53 GMT
Also: relativistic effects on kinetic energy. There wouldn't be any real relativistic effects at 1%c would there? *Facepalm*Okay, okay, you won. I thought I was dealing with 0.1c.
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Jan 4, 2017 22:50:53 GMT
1g traveling at 3Mm/s would hit with 4.5GJ of energy... the sheer kinetic stress of something like that passing through your ship would shatter everything it hit like glass... not to mention every pressurised compartment in the ship would burst due to hydrostatic shock . It wouldn't really pass through your ship though, I doubt it would survive impact with a sheet of paper at that relative velocity. It would be more like an explosion than the impacts we see from bullets on earth, pressure waves, sudden thermal changes and secondary effects would do most of the damage. I don't think anything known to us could make spaceships entirely safe from that kind of impact though. Theoretically the best defence against that kind of thing is having a thick atmosphere
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jan 5, 2017 1:37:29 GMT
1g traveling at 3Mm/s would hit with 4.5GJ of energy... the sheer kinetic stress of something like that passing through your ship would shatter everything it hit like glass... not to mention every pressurised compartment in the ship would burst due to hydrostatic shock . It wouldn't really pass through your ship though, I doubt it would survive impact with a sheet of paper at that relative velocity. It would be more like an explosion than the impacts we see from bullets on earth, pressure waves, sudden thermal changes and secondary effects would do most of the damage. I don't think anything known to us could make spaceships entirely safe from that kind of impact though. Theoretically the best defence against that kind of thing is having a thick atmosphere We need a hydrogen tank that spew enough gas to slow them down!
|
|
|
Post by midnightdreary on Jan 7, 2017 11:10:53 GMT
It wouldn't really pass through your ship though, I doubt it would survive impact with a sheet of paper at that relative velocity. It would be more like an explosion than the impacts we see from bullets on earth, pressure waves, sudden thermal changes and secondary effects would do most of the damage. I don't think anything known to us could make spaceships entirely safe from that kind of impact though. Theoretically the best defence against that kind of thing is having a thick atmosphere We need a hydrogen tank that spew enough gas to slow them down! Meh, I'd want something really thick and non-explodey, like water tanks strapped to the outside of the ship to take some of that energy away before it even hits the hull. Of course this would have no shortage of its own problems too, espically since there would probably be another zillion rounds coming at you right behind it. Maybe that's what we need in the game: Firing range mode where it's just your weapon, set a distance, then a sheet of armor (or whatever shape you want) at the other end and press the "fire" button. Would help standardize our testing too.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jan 7, 2017 11:16:08 GMT
We need a hydrogen tank that spew enough gas to slow them down! Meh, I'd want something really thick and non-explodey, like water tanks strapped to the outside of the ship to take some of that energy away before it even hits the hull. Of course this would have no shortage of its own problems too, espically since there would probably be another zillion rounds coming at you right behind it. Maybe that's what we need in the game: Firing range mode where it's just your weapon, set a distance, then a sheet of armor (or whatever shape you want) at the other end and press the "fire" button. Would help standardize our testing too. 1. It's not effective at all, since you would need very thick layer of water to stop relativistic projectile, and eventually it has one use (assuming sole punch, and water leaks). My gas cloud technique is much better. 2. Go see the "Artillery Mode" suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 7, 2017 16:42:50 GMT
We need a hydrogen tank that spew enough gas to slow them down! Meh, I'd want something really thick and non-explodey, like water tanks strapped to the outside of the ship to take some of that energy away before it even hits the hull. Of course this would have no shortage of its own problems too, espically since there would probably be another zillion rounds coming at you right behind it. Maybe that's what we need in the game: Firing range mode where it's just your weapon, set a distance, then a sheet of armor (or whatever shape you want) at the other end and press the "fire" button. Would help standardize our testing too. Water tanks technically have a higher chance of causing an explosion in space than lone hydrogen tanks do. While not super likely under extremely high temperature water does decompose into H2 and O2 which would then provide free hydrogen and oxygen to react and explode. Hydrogen on its own doesn't ignite (no oxygen to oxidize). The Hindenburg only went down due to the oxygen in the air around it. The only way to get hydrogen to react would be to supply enough energy to cause fusion to helium or supply oxygen for ignition (if this much power was applied water would also fuse to helium most likely causing the same problem). Mostly irrelevant though as anything powerful enough to split water will be providing enough energy that the ignition of gas is the least of your concerns.
|
|
|
Post by midnightdreary on Jan 7, 2017 23:01:22 GMT
I would like to test that some time. See what a 1g projectile going some %c hits a huge tank of water (among other interesting materials).
I see you point on breaking down the water, but that plasma ball / mini nuke would happen while still inside more water, which would boil and soak up much of that heat, then actually has to still pierce ship armor. Although the depressurization of the tank and water turning in to steam might spin the ship really fast and kill everyone anyway.
I hear ya on the hydrogen thing, but I'm not sure how someone could bring enough for it to really matter. Or deploy it ahead of time in a cloud in front of the projectile.
Or maybe go for reactive armor... a ship strapped with thousands of very low-yield nukes or NEFP designs. lol
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jan 8, 2017 3:28:54 GMT
I would like to test that some time. See what a 1g projectile going some %c hits a huge tank of water (among other interesting materials). I see you point on breaking down the water, but that plasma ball / mini nuke would happen while still inside more water, which would boil and soak up much of that heat, then actually has to still pierce ship armor. Although the depressurization of the tank and water turning in to steam might spin the ship really fast and kill everyone anyway. I hear ya on the hydrogen thing, but I'm not sure how someone could bring enough for it to really matter. Or deploy it ahead of time in a cloud in front of the projectile. Or maybe go for reactive armor... a ship strapped with thousands of very low-yield nukes or NEFP designs. lol By the time there's a relativistic projectiles, there should be nanodrones there too. I think several nanoswarm clouds can just blast off at similar speed and dissemble the projectile before it can even get near your ship. The nanoswarms can continue on the route and attack the enemy ship.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jan 8, 2017 3:50:16 GMT
Stupendously thick aerogel or micro-lattice layers are probably the best defense against a relativistic kinetic weapon.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jan 8, 2017 4:20:34 GMT
Stupendously thick aerogel or micro-lattice layers are probably the best defense against a relativistic kinetic weapon. Mine (nanoswarm) is an active version of theirs (thick aerogel).
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 8, 2017 6:06:00 GMT
Stupendously thick aerogel or micro-lattice layers are probably the best defense against a relativistic kinetic weapon. Mine (nanoswarm) is an active version of theirs (thick aerogel). Here's my thinking on it, assuming that both defenses are even capable of stopping a relativistic KKV (and I have severe doubts as to that). The nanoswarm requires an active power draw as compared to zero power draw for the armor, can easily be fried by a small nuke or even unfiltered solar radiation if they're small enough, and has very little internal space for reaction mass to move into the way of an incoming shot. To be completely honest, if you want to run with standoff active defenses, and I'm of the opinion that no reasonable amount of armor would be able to survive an incoming 0.01cee impactor in any case so you'd need to, you'd probably be better off using a larger, bulkier Kirklin mine instead of nanotech.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 8, 2017 7:15:45 GMT
'Whipple Shield' like disk launchers firing at a significant fraction of C themselves
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 8, 2017 7:42:18 GMT
'Whipple Shield' like disk launchers firing at a significant fraction of C themselves In general the best idea we've come up with is to disperse the incoming impactors at enough distance away from the ship that the damage is minimized, yes?
|
|
|
Post by midnightdreary on Jan 8, 2017 8:22:34 GMT
I hope we stay with existing tech... We can "what if" science fiction arguments all day.
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 8, 2017 8:26:26 GMT
I hope we stay with existing tech... We can "what if" science fiction arguments all day. If we're staying with the tech levels displayed in-game, then I think the answer comes out to "we can't really practically make a relativistic missile, defining relativistic as 0.01cee or greater velocity, because the damn thing is going to be on the order of tens of kilometers long and need several years to accelerate to speed and would therefore be useless for hitting anything aside from the broad side of a planet". EDIT: which kinda renders the argument moot.
|
|