|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 30, 2016 8:14:52 GMT
The other alternative I can think of is to stagger the launch times a bit more - that means downgrading your coolant system on the launcher itself as much as possible. It'd be nice if they let us set manual ROF caps at some point, but there are many higher priority targets to resolve first.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 30, 2016 5:10:52 GMT
What sorts of ships are you bruising? 3 kilos of plastic and a remote control can pierce both sides of the stoutest vanilla kit, at least in my experience.
Having an example of the target defenses will help us figure this out.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 29, 2016 18:11:17 GMT
U-233 dioxide trumps all other reactor fuels, since it's cheap and you can make it as hot as you like with enrichment and neutron flux. U-233 is usually the best material for bombs, since it's cheaper, but some people prefer plutonium 239 for small bombs, honestly not worth it imo, since small bombs are less efficient. 13kg bombs are 3kt, but 90kg bombs are 800kt, with 6 times the mass you can 200 times the yield, which can achieve equivalent flux from 14 times further. That being said, there are certainly applications where you need a weapon of a given mass or less - high performance missiles, cannon launched charges, etc. Not every use case has the ability to soak 90, or even 13, extra kilos of dry mass.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 29, 2016 17:08:19 GMT
Was the 'Dodging' toggle (left side of the unit bar) active? A fair number of posters have had their ships or munitions intransigent behavior explained that way.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 29, 2016 2:17:04 GMT
154 tons per second... good grief.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 29, 2016 1:18:18 GMT
Heavy projectiles are believed to be the least affected by Whipple shields, yes. Low mass, hyper-velocity threats are where they work best, relative to traditional armor.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 29, 2016 1:06:43 GMT
Hopefully when fuses work more consistently we'll be able to ascertain things like the effective standoff range of NEFP weapons, because that will have ramifications for what defenses can even attempt to defeat them. So far, armor seems to be a miss...
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 28, 2016 2:57:15 GMT
I've been using LO2-LH2 at a very oxygen heavy mix to maximize fuel density (and thus mass ratio) at the expense of velocity - 19:1 fraction gets my missiles 5km/s with 10.7 mass ratios.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 26, 2016 19:41:27 GMT
Well, that might be a pretty solid argument for (once RCS behavior is calmed down a bit) mounting maneuver engines on the missiles. I can't imagine they'd need to do more than 100m/s or so of jostling, and at a decent circa 1.2 km/s out of dime a dozen, sub-kilogram Hydrazine engines (my model is <18Cr and 153 grams <3Cr and 150 grams for 240N at 1.17km/s) you wouldn't be adding an unfeasible amount of 'dead' mass.
Edit: Did a little more material ops on that thruster - I'd left it using UHMWPE for the pump from when I'd had a much higher mass flow, swapping back to standard PE produced dividends.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 26, 2016 17:12:20 GMT
Well, the PTFE is on the materials list for a reason. Funny, I thought it was so I could barbecue spherical beef on my radiators without using excessive amounts of oil. The best tools are multi-purpose.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 26, 2016 6:52:48 GMT
I think so, but I'm not sure why you'd want to? The ability to get chamber temperature higher than an NTR exists, but not by much, and it's introducing the inefficiency of needing to cycle the energy through a thermocouple on the way. As far as I can tell the upsides to them are propellant flexibility (because it doesn't need to be a good reactor coolant) and that the engines themselves are very small and light, so you can use many in different locations with minimal weight change (good for 6DOF, not overly useful for single cluster).
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 26, 2016 5:54:00 GMT
Yes, but you have to keep them in a vacuum. Don't forget to keep it frictionless, too! Well, the PTFE is on the materials list for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 26, 2016 0:33:23 GMT
Well, at present people have gotten (no modding required) explosively formed penetrators propelled by nuclear warheads to do some incredible damage - it's unknown how much is accurate and how much is bugged, but it certainly produces dramatic results. Meters of armor pierced through with reckless abandon.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 25, 2016 23:58:49 GMT
Each ship is equipped with a few cows for constant in-situ methane production. Have they perfected spherical cow technology? Yes, but you have to keep them in a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 25, 2016 18:16:54 GMT
Are there any mass+cost expedient armor plans which could actually necessitate something like a long rod, in your experience, or are those just overkill?
|
|