|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 5, 2016 18:37:00 GMT
Also I really hope they don't start using the term spacey as it sounds kind of silly. Yeah it's pretty silly, but most common terms have either air or naval connotations which makes them a bit specific, there is not really a name for space craft groups that really separates them.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 5, 2016 17:56:58 GMT
Please to not take the serious science diagram too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 5, 2016 16:11:59 GMT
Can ISRU be used in aerobraking? Like for example, an attacking fleet aerobrakes into orbit around Uranus, then utilising a ram scoop picks up methane from the atmosphere, while also slowing down. Would this be effective? I can see this as a huge boost for the current model of ideal Methane for fighting/Hydrogen for moving model of ship design. Like for instance(depending on the efficiency and engines available) the following situation occurs: 1 A ship inserts into the Uranus sphere, 2 It uses Hydrogen for the main trip 3 It Aerobrakes and switches out the H for CH4 colleting it with a ram scoop 4 It switches to CH4 NTR and moves out of close orbit to fight 5 fighting I see this as an interesting work around for the engine debate, though it could be improved by several major adjustments in the design: A) A universal fuel tank rated to both hold hydrogen and Methane B) A sabre like conjoined engine that can use both H and CH4 as propellants, or switch between them. This system would eliminate the need to hold drop tanks at all as the ideal fuel is waiting there for pick up, likewise the disadvantage of the extra secondary engine weight is balanced out by not needing to carry the heavy propellant.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 5, 2016 4:45:23 GMT
I'm going to have to agree with boomertiro here. The military, as a framework, has spent centuries evolving into what it is now. The modern naval rank structure came out of Medieval nobility commanding ships and commoners crewing them, much like modern ground military rank structure came from patrician commanders and plebeian soldiers forming legions in Rome. Whatever else, we seem stuck with that structure, unless someone were to impress another on us from without. The facts on the ground is that a military vehicle cannot be a democracy. A single commander will hold final responsibility, and will have assistance from a staff of officers - be they commissioned or not. Teams of specialists will handle tasks aboard ship according to capabilities, and answer upwards in a hierarchy that ends with the ship's CO in a pattern that'll look familiar to crews of either a modern sub or large complex-role aircraft. Whether that CO holds the rank of captain or colonel is irrelevant, but the structure will remain - else you don't get a functioning warship. I don't know, i feel like the sheer extreme situation that is combat in interplanetary space demands skills over prestige. There will still likely be a command structure and a captain, but i think the campaign highlights giving spoiled brats several kiloton kill cylinders, specifically the mission the Jovian Lunar Tour. But acatalepsy makes a fair argument, there simply isn't enough mass or room for extra stratification of the crew. So chains of command will be there, but i would not imagine a command crew doing only command, pulling double duty as astrogation or doctors etc would help justify their existence.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 4, 2016 19:04:58 GMT
I don't think the operation of a spacecraft necessitates a naval style structure. The idea that they do is something of a pet peeve of mine; the maintenance of a spacecraft is not like the maintenance of a boat, it's like the maintenance of a spacecraft, with its own idiosyncrasies and rhythms and logic. Similarly, the crewing strategy for a spacecraft is different from the crewing strategy of a boat, it's like the crewing strategy of a spacecraft. If you squint and ignore all the ways in which they are different, sure, being in a metal box for a long time is similar...but only if you squint and ignore all the ways in which they are different. Second, my main thought was that, for example, the distinction between officer and enlisted ranks might be completely superfluous, if every member of a spacecraft crew needed to be the equivalent of an officer (ie, college graduate) anyway. That changes things significantly. Also, how the RFP's military might divide itself; the existence of Admirals implies to me the existence of generals, but the actual size of the spacy might be comparatively tiny - simply because nuclear spacecraft are expensive. Maybe the spacecraft combat division of the RFP's military are more like the Army Air Force (a branch of the army) rather than its own equal division? It doesn't seem likely, but it does seem possible. In that case maybe ranks for the military only diverge above a certain rank. Now hold on a second... what the heck do you think having naval rank titles actually means? You seem to be rather married to an idea of how you think military structures work. All that the ship needs is a chain of command and a proper assignment of ship jobs. I think he means that the chain of command is no longer as nicely divisible, less jobs=less stratification of the work force. So the idea that there might be a job like general(boss) and Admiral(biggerer boss) becomes superfluous amongst such a relatively tiny staff. Likewise there is no longer a thing as a casually enlisted man, because everyone is an officer now(and needs to be). In regards to the decision, i think the sheer superiority of spacecraft in regards to being the new top of the food chain in relation to warfare dictates a dedicated service division for them to specialise in. Namely the Spacy, or Space Force etc, i think that a majority of the forces are gonna be the proverbial bow and shaft to the arrowhead of the ships themselves. There is likely a supply chain never before seen by the likes of man in number and scale, everything from fuel station managers, observation satellite coordinators, medical support staff etc.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 4, 2016 18:55:39 GMT
I thought it would be useful for folks to have a concise colour list in regards to tracer types. All tests were done on a 33mm turreted machine gun, not sure if variance in payload or heat effects the tracer. New list compiled(post 1.1.0) by David367th big thanks!
Metals
Aluminum - Dark Orange
Beryllium - White-Purple
Bismuth - Cream-White
Cadmium - Light Red
Calcium - Cream-White
Cobalt - Yellow
Copper - Green
Gold - Red-Orange
Iridium - Light Blue
Iron - Yellow
Lead - Spearmint
Magnesium - White-red
Molybdenum - Lime
Nickel - Lime
Potassium - White-red
Samarium - That blue color we've been hunting for for months
Silver - Really Green
Tantalum - White-Orange
Tin - Yellow but like really yellow
Titanium - White-Orange
Tungsten - Pure White
Zinc - Beige
Non-Metals
Amorphous Carbon - Red
Diamond - Red
Graphite - Still Red
Phosphorus - Green-Yellow
Pyrolytic Carbon - Red
Silicon - Red-Orange
Sulfur - Beige
Ceramics
Aluminum Nitride - Light Orange
Aluminum Oxide - Red
Aluminum Oxynitride - Red
Beryllium Oxide - Pink
Boron Carbide - Red
Boron Nitride - White-Yellow
Borosilicate Glass - White-Red
Fused Quartz - Red
Hafnia - Purple
Hafnium Carbide - Purple
Sapphire - Red
Silicon Carbide - Red
Silicon Dioxide - Light Red
Silicon Nitride - Yellow
Tantalum Carbide - Orange
Tantalum Hafnium Carbide - Light Red
Titanium Carbide - Light Red
Titanium Diboride - Light Red
Titanium Dioxide - Light Red
Tungsten Carbide - Beige
Zinc Oxide - White-Red
Fusiles
Boron - White Red
Lithium - Very lightly pink, mostly white
Li-6 - Very lightly pink mostly white
Barium Nitrate - White-Red
Barium Oxide - Red
Cadmium Selenide - White-Red
Calcite - White-Red
Copper Carbonate - Red-Orange
Copper(I) Chloride - Green
Copper(II) Chloride - Green
Gallium Nitride - White-Purple
Hematite - Orange
Indium Antimonide - White-Orange
Indium Gallium Arsenide - Pink but with no bloom for some reason
Lead Sulfide - Pale Yellow
Mica - Red
Potassium Chloride - Really Pale Yellow
Sodium Chloride - Yellow-Green
Strontium Nitrate - Red
Tenorite - Pale-Yellow
Tetrafluorohydrazine - Red
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hull Colouration list
Elements:
Aluminium-White reflective
Beryllium-Light grey reflective
Bismuth-Light brown, opaque
Cadmium-Black extremely opaque
Calcium-Black/Very dark Grey lightly opaque
Cobalt-Light grey reflective
Copper-Light brown/brassy reflective
Gold-Fucking Gold duh
Iridium-Light dark grey reflective from certain angles
Iron-Dark grey very reflective
Lead-Lighter grey than Iron very reflective
Magnesium-Whitish light grey reflective
Molybdenum-Middle grey opaque
Nickle-Very lightly brown grey reflective
Osmium-Dark black lightly reflective
Platinum-light grey reflective
Potassium-Black extremely opaque
Rhenium-Light/whitesh grey reflective
Silver-Uh silver?
Tantalum-lightly pinkish medium grey opaque
Tin-solid middle grey reflective
Titanium-dark grey reflective
Tungsten-Dark grey lightly reflective
Zinc-Black opaque
Nonmetals:
Amorphous Carbon-lightly brown grey opaque
Diamond-Black lightly reflective
Graphite-lightly brown grey opaque
Pyrolitic Carbon-Same tone as graphite, lighter opaque
Selenium-Dark grey opaque
Silicon-A great blue, opaque
ALLOYS:
Alpha2 Titanium Alumnide-middle grey lightly reflective
Aluminium Copper Lithium-VERY white grey reflective
Aluminium Nickle Cobalt-Light middle grey reflective
Aluminium Silicon Magnesium-White grey reflective
Aluminium Zinc Magnesium-Identical to AlSiMa/\ above
Austenetic stainless steel-Dark grey reflective
Beryllium Copper-Darker version of copper reflective
Carbon steel-Medium grey opaque
Cobalt Chromium Nickle-Light middle grey opaque
Constantan-Delightful sandy reddish brown lightly opaque
Ferratic stainless steel-middle grey very reflective
Gamma Titanium Alumnide-middle darkish grey reflective
Magnetic metal glass-lightly reflective middle grey
Miraging steel-Middle grey opaque
Martensitic stainless steel-Dark grey mostly opaque
Nickel Chromium Cobalt-Middle brownish grey very reflective
Nickel Chromium Iron-Middle brownish grey mostly opaque
Nickel Iron Molybdenum-Middle mostly brown grey opaque
Platinum Molybdenum-Light middle grey opaque
Titanium Aluminium Tin-Light middle grey slightly lighter than above
Tungsten Rhenium-Middle grey opaque
Vanadium Chromium Steel-Blue/Blue grey opaque
Zirconium Copper-Slightly lighter version of copper more opaque
WILL COMPLETE LATER.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 4, 2016 17:42:21 GMT
Maybe i was looking for an excuse to post Strangelove, granted as cool as "space weed" is as an idea, Hemp is actually a legitimately super adaptive construction material in regards to it's use as an organic plastic. From what i have read all you have to do is heat and do some injection moulding and you have grow-able fibre glass. Back on subject though here is a rough crew cross section of some 35 member ship. Break down is pretty straightforward. -8 Crew for Engineering(Nuclear expertise included) The single largest chunk, which makes sense given the importance. two four person shifts can be managed for low key non combat periods. -2 For Life support, Air conditioning, water etc, can be supplemented with engineers as needed. -5 Sensors (A) and 5 (B) staff, shifts of 6 hours on watch, 6 hours rest,6 hours astrogation, 6 hours other various tasks, the only "constant job" next to engineering perhaps, extra time can double as cooks and secondary jobs to break up monotony of sensor watching. -5 Weapons specialists, gun mechanics, missile technicians, loaders. A more sequential job that mostly involves checking the equipment every day. Can also act as cooks, extra maintenance staff (general technical background should be applicable) Likely at least one or two specialists per weapon, with a head mechanic. -5 Weapons officers, the guys who pull the trigger so to speak, as much of the final guidance in general is computer controlled id imagine these guys would also help the weapons specialists with maintenance. Also cook, clean etc. As they are only all on station during battle stations these guys will be helping out allot with other various tasks. -3 Bridge crew, finalised astrogation and course setting, each one acts as a refined overseer for their respective staff, so one for guns, engines and sensors. During battle they directly relay information to the final two and are likewise on prioritising information and organising staff. -1 Co-Pilot/First officer, relays orders from captain, organise the whole ship, act as "secretary" for general organisation, holds secondary nuclear key, also acts as a liaison for the crew in terms of conflicting orders or ideals with the Startain -1 Startain, chief on the ship acts as commander and pilot, charged with receiving general weapons/engineering/sensor data and forming tactical and strategic plans with subsidiaries. Also maintains crew morale, receives orders from GrndCmd etc. I think this is a pretty good set up for the average ship. I merged astrogation into sensors and cmd because i think that if your burn is a month and a half long to get to Saturn for example, unless combat arises everything should be more or less the same when you left it the day before. Monitoring enemy movement and fleet positioning is far more important in my books. Then when high intensity combat arises your sensors (B) team would be committed to astrogation. I Eliminated cook and doctor because most food in space is just heat plated to prepare anyway(seeing as burning oxygen to cook and generate carbon seemed frivolous) and perhaps steamed. Not to mention that i have read about most submarine crews getting their own snacks and making their own coffee as needed. Doctor seemed strange as well, seeing as you would have full medical records, you would know their past history, likewise as long as no one brought a flue bug on board the microbiology of a ship should stay consistent, Granted perhaps one of the bridge crew or a weapons operator could be trained in providing first aid and basic surgery, or a robotic doctor could be provided instead. Alternatively you could train each member of the crew in one specific area of anatomic expertise and distribute the load evenly. That way loosing the Dr in combat would not physiologically cripple the crew, and as long as a majority are alive they could supervise a robotic surgery as necessary.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 4, 2016 16:42:56 GMT
Can you have drop tanks outside the armored envelope full of hydrogen? Then you negate the problem with low density entirely. Have a single hydrogen fueled nuclear engine and all the rest run off methane, disabled except in combat. hmm, that would be pretty useful, unfortunately even as best i tried drop tanks are not really feasible at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 4, 2016 16:07:09 GMT
I think you bring up some interesting points in regards to space personnel assemblage. I do think that the traditional false equivalence of Navy-Ships=Space-ships, so navy-names=space-names is a convenience for quickly surmising the importance or role in a story. That being said i fully agree that an air force/naval force hybrid is probably closer to actuance. I still think crew numbers are overly large, with even the command roles taking up what feels like far more room than necessary. From my personal waxing on the philosophy involved: -1, I think that a ship crew is closer in general to something like an AWACS plane, albeit with a gunnery staff aboard as well. Much of the same work goes on, engineers maintain equipment, a large sensors staff monitor information, and a combat staff is around for those few precious minutes of intense intercept, or the tenuous long hours of missile guidance and drone piloting. The command staff i feel should be comparatively small, or well integrated, as managing the the three vital groups of mechanical,combat and sensors staff on a ship with only thirty five people should take no more than three i think ideally. -2, in regards to professionalism, the whole job of space ship crew is pretty much only made for 60's style science ubermench's. Everything about this role is stressful on the normal ideas of human life, long periods of isolation save for your crew, a highly technically skilled job(by default) that one also now needs military proficiency in, limited personal belongings, highly stressful and intense combat, etc. Finding the people for this job sounds worse than finding the one or two percent who can become fighter pilots. One needs to be smart but not a theoretical math-head with no pragmatism, one needs to both be patriotic or psychopathic enough to get over the whole "ending sentient beings lives" part, without becoming perversely blood lusting, one needs also to be nearly Taoist monk like in ones ability to be stuffed into a can with other such individuals for months or years on end and remain calm. -3,What this leads creates is some unfortunate side effects. Firstly, if you are intelligent enough to hold a doctorate in say, reactor engineering, you have probably also considered the moral shit house that is war, so if you are somehow still ok with that then, well let's just say there might be some black souled individuals on board. Secondly, this means crew selection and compatibility is paramount to success, especially if they are all such strange characters, and especially if they also need to function as a team for months on end. What this means that much like aircraft warfare, crews are arguably the most precious components, as a good working crew THAT ALSO has experience will be intensely valuable. Arguably even as the ships themselves might be the single most expensive combat vehicles ever created, their construction might only take a few months to a few years were as ideal crew training could take a decade for the necessary degrees and military ranks. What all of this leads to is very much a German pilots in ww2 scenario, were long term space warfare will tax the forces involved not in space craft numbers, but in trained crew composition and life span. -4, Similar issues arise in the training of new crews, swapping out people in such tight knit working conditions is harrowing to say the least. While not impossible, new crews would likely be trained as a pack towards using a particular ship and becoming experts in regards to it's use. This also has the unfortunate(but obvious) side effect that you will not likely find any old shmuck of the street who could replace lost personnel. So much like fighter squadrons many pilots would simply be trained as back up crews and wait until they are needed or the previous ships crew is relieved. This leads me to... -5, A decision must be made, most humans cannot withstand prolonged social environments without some measure of privacy or rest(outside of sleeping obviously) so this leads us to the choice, either A, we can just swap out the crews at long range bases such that no tour is longer than six months, orrrr the crews could consist of some very VERY special individuals with whom this entire idea of a high stress, long duration, intellect taxing lifestyle is perfect. Of course saying all that does lead me to think of... -6, now given the high stress, low privacy, high technicality environment of a ship, there is a seemingly obvious solution to relieving stress, growing intimacy, trust, physical comfort and ambient crew happiness. Needless to say a plentiful form of birth control would have to be present and crews would now have to also be appropriately selected for sexual preference as well, with an emphasis perhaps on "flexibility". But the benefits MY GOD the benefits are almost entirely perfect for this solution!, save for some liquid loss no extra equipment is needed, so no more mass is spent. Thus the crew becomes less a rigid stressful hierarchy of military order, and more like a happy sixties commune that also happens to pilot a death cylinder of aluminium. Some other possible offsetting materials for such long haul environments are of course narcotics, though they do take up some amount of mass, i have a possible solution: By breeding or genetically engineering, a lowering of CBD (which cancels hallucinogenic effects) and increasing THC production Hemp could provide a hundredfold benefit to on board life. One of the fastest growing crops available, perfect for dynamically solving a variety of on board construction needs, while at the same time possibly relieving stress(ideally through vaporisation so as to minimise fire risks) it can also obviously used to filter air and water. It structurally is stronger than wood in fibre form, i can imagine when combined with a sealant, being a quick and easy patch job for leaks and ruptures.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 3, 2016 1:19:46 GMT
So ever since it was mentioned in the game readings i found the idea of drop tanks absolutely fascinating. This is one of the places were space combat would overlap with jet fighter techniques and strategies. After all flying with a tanker is never as efficient, because you always then have to waste Delta-v on the tankers power supply, crew, radiators etc. However the game itself does not really have actual drop tanks, which is disappointing seeing as they would be a big plus to any "invasion style" missions, especially for gas giants. Here are my attempts at a work around: 1 Explosive Bisection Attachment DeletedSo this one is pretty blunt ill admit, it basically went something along the lines of "Well if the game wont blow off extra tanks, i'll damn well do it. " Unfortunately at best the entire ship explodes (namely from flare type payloads auto detonating). At worst the ship has some moral disagreements with mounting people and a (mostly) harmless payload onto the same frame. Needless to say this design does not really work. However if one were to say launch a harmless missile and then have a very slow flare launcher spit out a flare next to a large spacer between the stages of the fuel tank, then that might work. 2:Internally mounted Attachment DeletedThis one arguable works the best(as in it works at all) Essentially it involves mounting a Drop tank launcher, then inside loading the drop tank as a single payload. When needed it then launches the drop tank and your ship can siphon off the fuel with a refuelling node. While functional it has some serious drawbacks. 1: heavy launcher is non disposable, 2: You now need to have a refueler and it's radiator available for use, as well as stuffing this inside your armour, making yet more weight. Namely the biggest problem is that unlike an ideal system where fuel is drawn from drop tanks first, then once under a certain limit you switch to on-board containers, and ditch the external tanks, this system is reversed, were the on-board tanks are used first, and then one needs to switch to drop tanks. 3:Finally this was more of a hybrid system Attachment DeletedThe idea is that the "drone" would ferry a payload of the manned Mobile Armour, then launch it, essentially using the far lighter remote controlled carrier as a super first stage, then the manned internal stage is used. This however does not work because the game will not start a mission with a drone, even if it is technically carrying the appropriate amount of crew for the ship as well. I will continue exploring designs that maximise fuel efficiency and can be easily mounted on a ship.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 2, 2016 18:25:31 GMT
I would pay $cashmoney for a proper box launcher. Basically a box, possibly retractable into the hull, open at both ends, full of missiles. Light them off one at a time and there you go. Launch costs dV, but you can output 3-4 birds a second. Make a launchable payload with this on it, and you have Honorverse style 'podnoughts'... So basically one of these "rocket pods"
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 2, 2016 8:12:37 GMT
Zirconium copper super guns were fixed sure, but now various other materials are being broken.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 2, 2016 8:06:08 GMT
Try decreasing the gimbal amount? Maybe there is a threshold that it needs to exceed for it to be used for main thrust. Currently the main engine is determined first as the engine on the "bottom" of the rocket stack. If none such exists, it defaults to the highest thrust engine, as well as any engines roughly in the same direction. Hmm that might be what is doing it, my hydrogen RCS have better thrust with a far lower exhaust velocity, it makes sense seeing as they are for sharp quick adjustments. I do have the min engine butt mounted, and the issue is now resolved, though im not entirely sure what did it, i will continue to experiment with gimbaled/non gimbaled designs. In general though i would say the best option is the previously mentioned main thruster/RCS or Vernier check box idea. This would allow people to pretty directly assert what is where and needed. Might resolve peoples horizontal ship builds.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 1, 2016 23:48:50 GMT
I do think the nature of the civilisations in game are purposefully overplayed so as to enforce the necessity of war. Like i feel more and more like we are playing a very hypothetical what if situation between actual states. As most of us know, in real life militaries are more so a technology and money industry, actual combat between world powers is fundamentally limited to non existent. Like wise i do think the scale of destruction and fact that a war is outright had needed to be justified by a dark manipulative political world in order for it to occur at all. So in brief i think we are playing a very dark cold war gone hot kind of scenario were the typical financial and diplomatic trends are ignored so we can half a system to smash our spaceships around in.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 1, 2016 19:05:22 GMT
If I was to take a wild guess it is because that one uses a fairly large amount of reaction mass per second compared to your main thruster, while yielding a small amount of thrust? 75.6 tonnes per minute assuming you have four thrusters. Maybe there should be a checkbox when you add a thruster: "use for attitude control only". Yes that would be very useful for design purposes. I know the difference in Dv is due to the difference in engines, it just seems certain ships have an invisible "use for attitude control only" box that gets automatically checked for them.
|
|