|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 14, 2017 5:32:13 GMT
For all intemts and purposes its been replaced by various iterations of glass and synthetic fibers.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 13, 2017 8:21:40 GMT
Deuterium and Helium...just saying. 😎
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 13, 2017 7:00:38 GMT
High explosives ratios are needed if you want to make contact frag payloads function. But....fusing 😐
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 12, 2017 20:47:18 GMT
So this is the drone and carrier version of the trumpeter: drone internals : price is 3.26Mc and it could be further optimized. Missile payload is decresed from the manned version to 130 M 9Cs 200 Bs and 200 As. Guns have been cut to modest 15km/s 565kg mounts that are not going to win any awards for speed or rate of fire, but are cheap, light and relatively accurate. Defensive laser drones have been cut to only 3, a newer decane fueled version to be able to refuel them from the capital drone. I added something that I was missing on the manned version - a laser. And the carrier itself: Price is 82Mc, mainly because of the drones. Ship itself is just a drone taxi, has minimal armor and no weapons. Its been ready for days now but I was going in circles with the new propellant. Methane, as good of a ballance as it was offering me for NTR, just wasn't cutting it for thrust for MPDs. Especially on low power. I tried Neon, Argon, Water but for the moment the best ballance I've got is with decane. Initially I tried switching to decane for the missiles too but for the moment I switched only the A version : even if its 10kg heavier it still a bit better in everything else. Not the same story for the B and C versions however: as you can see the mass and the price quickly escalated with the fuel amount and since there wasn't any armor around the drop tanks I wasn't really winning anything so for the moment I'll stick with methane for the longer legged versions. I rarely refuel missiles anyway. Both the drone and the carrier can do 1.8mg with the new MPDs and even if its hideously inneficient (for MPD) the drone's engines still give up to 30km/s delta V. The other thrusters there are NTRs with 8.4km/s delta V and modest 460mg acceleration. The carrier has another engine arrangement, since there was more power available the mpds there are much better, giving her about 57km/s delta V. I also gave her 5 relatively large resistojets for better delta V compared to NTRs. I tried the same arrangement with the drones, that gave me 10km/s delta V with 2x50mw resistojets but I prefered to be able to fire the laser while dodging so I stayed with the NTRs. This decane development was largely due to discussions in this forum after my last post. Peon...my warship has 1200 km/s dV.....at .35g Fusion 4tw!
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 12, 2017 10:00:16 GMT
The thinnest possible missile. I expect Hydrogen Peroxyde - RP1 to be the best combination for this kind of compactness. The engine has something like 0.5° of gimbal, as anything more causes the missile to go derp. Careful remote control settings may help, but this engine is more or less the smallest possible anyway, and it needs to stay below 1° to avoid increasing its radius too much. This is the KKV version, but it is trivial to add a small flak charge, or even a small <100t nuke for a small mass and dV price. View Attachmentedit: comparison for size and export file View AttachmentView AttachmentNice1...looks decent to counter enemy missiles. Any specific guidance changes on the controller?
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 12, 2017 5:23:26 GMT
Ah, yep, they were gimballed, and you could see how it oscillates pretty badly as a result. I was over-estimating its ability to correct for its own thrust. I swapped in a non-gimballed NTR and some weaker chemical rockets. Then added some radiators for more of a cross-section. It's surprisingly effective now, if it hits just right. also, you can have gimballed thrusters if you just turn their speed down A 3 or 4 winged radiator set should ensure an increased profile no matter how it hits.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 6, 2017 18:05:32 GMT
It would only work as a KKV in that configuration. And that limits it to taking out a single missile, requiring a 1 to 1 trade in a best case scenario (highly unlikely). Which should be fine; all other things being equal, a stripped down version of a missile can theoretically always catch and therefore mission-kill the base model from which it is derived, for less than what the original cost. The trade isn't really 1:1, more like a 3:2 ratio minimum in terms of cost & mass expended, favouring the lighter & cheaper interceptor missile. As long as an interceptor has at least the same delta-v and manoeuvrability as its target (technically a little more to account for reaction time), it is a threat that the target must attempt to evade or be destroyed, wasting at least its own terminal phase propellant which is very likely to render it unable to penetrate final defence layers. At its most rudimentary (but versatile) you could build antiship missiles with a removable payload module so they can be modified in-situ for interception duty, while unused payloads are saved or fed into the carrier's own point defence weapons compatible with the same payload. By contrast, a dedicated kinetic interceptor could be vastly lighter and cheaper than any antiship missile it's designed to kill, to the extent that 2+ could be spent per target missile, since the interceptors will always be lighter/cheaper as they are not required to penetrate capital-level point defences at medium-short range. This seems to suggest that anticapital missiles are ultimately useless without even invoking laser arguments, simply thanks to other missiles. Interceptors would still need to carried though; they end up being like military gas masks, issued not because gas is an actual battlefield threat, but because if soldiers stopped receiving that protection then gas would immediately become a threat again. I fully expect that there may be something wrong with my line of thinking that I haven't considered, so fire away. Yesterday I designed a missile escort drone designed to counter countermissiles, but I haven't tested it yet. Most of my missile cost and mass is propellant and the engine and some armor. Actual explosive payload is a very low %. Only heavy nukes have a significant % of mass dedicated to the payload.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 5, 2017 15:57:48 GMT
Coilguns are slightly better for heavy loads (say 50g) around 8kms. They are never light though.
1g railguns around 20kms beat them all to hell though.....range is much better.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 4, 2017 17:48:54 GMT
Doubling the melting point allows for about a 33% decrease in throat size. With a minor loss in thrust. Overall a success because it reduces the profile of a torch ship by a large margin.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 4, 2017 12:06:35 GMT
The Soviet Trumpeter, sort of a cheap missile frigate with strong emphasis on delta V - both for the ship itself and the missiles. It has around 13 km/s with the droptanks without its a bit above 10. Main weaponry are 3 variations of my current "reasonable" missile - that is to say reasonably effective, reasonably priced and with a reasonable mass and survivability : Variation A is without droptanks, delta V 10km/s , carries 2000 of those. B is A + 4x15kg droptanks , 16km/s delta V, 600 carried. C is the largest 3x40kg droptanks , 19km/s delta V, 400 carried. Missile defense is handled by upgraded version of my prepatch anti missile laser drone: As you can see it got fatter since missiles got significantly faster and it needed a larger laser... I suspect it will soon get a powerplant upgrade too, but for the moment it works. Also it has 2x50km/s railguns 6x10km/s railguns both purely secondary, its not supposed to rush anything just pound from a distance with missiles. What is in those missiles ? Methane NTR ?
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 4, 2017 11:41:25 GMT
At first add something like magnetic nozzle before modding the fusion reaction in the rocket chamber. Personally I would mod something like amorphous carbon or RCC base stats; increase the density to about 25000 kg/m3 and add 50% to 75% the melting point and add 10% of that figure to get the boiling point. Magnetic confinement would effectively imcrease the melting point of the supporting material as well as being heavy. Technically we should bleed of some energy from the reaction to simulate energy input to start fusion.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on May 31, 2017 10:03:54 GMT
5 MC ?
Is this the beggars tournement?
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on May 26, 2017 22:24:17 GMT
I keep repeating if you use a single missile the payload will teleport.
Its easily verifiable ...if you use a small 97tonner or so the nuke will explode inside the target ship and the inside will glow without harming the exterior armor. NO BLACK ARMOR WHATSOEVER. How *DID* the target get heated from the inside ?
I just repeated some tests again with a NFP warhead, some results as ever.
1 missile = deals damage at any range and flak at missile origin. More than 1 missile = no damage.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on May 26, 2017 20:59:43 GMT
Make a missile with a stack of 50 x 50 cm thick Osmium plates under a suitcase nuke. Furthermore I am going to make a ship with a massive number of spacers to see how surviveable a hull is. a good kilo-range flak burst went through a meter of armour and tore up the far side Single missile ?
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on May 26, 2017 13:17:23 GMT
Make a missile with a stack of 50 x 50 cm thick Osmium plates under a suitcase nuke.
Furthermore I am going to make a ship with a massive number of spacers to see how surviveable a hull is.
|
|