|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 21, 2017 9:05:53 GMT
Combining 200 nanometer sheets of Graphene with monoatomic layers of other materials should resolve that. But your rail gun is 84 cm thick , which require billions of sheet of graphene to build. That's why this would only work in game. We have, as I stated in the main post, "near perfect atomic assembly".
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 21, 2017 8:31:01 GMT
Well Graphene is a 2D material so you should use carbon nanotube , the 3D version of Graphene instead. Combining 200 nanometer sheets of Graphene with monoatomic layers of other materials should resolve that.
|
|
|
SIM
Feb 21, 2017 7:53:24 GMT
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 21, 2017 7:53:24 GMT
I was under the impression that once created EDM was metastable outside a white dwarf.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 21, 2017 5:42:42 GMT
Try it with a 2.31g armature but no payload. Doubt it will behave remotely the same. Quite right. I made an even stronger version.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 21, 2017 4:48:57 GMT
Graphene is quite silly when combined with near perfect atomic assembly. You can create some very stupid weapons with it, like the railgun below. You can also make massive radiators that weigh next to nothing and super-thin engine bells. In modern times we cant do this because graphene loses its properties when assembled into large sections but in CoaDE we have seemingly perfect manufacturing techniques that may allow us to bypass this issue. Edit: This should probably go under the science and technology board. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 17, 2017 5:50:13 GMT
Here's the missile I use on my current iteration: And here's the boost stage (well, the KKV version of the boost stage, only difference is the warhead on the missile, stats otherwise identical): I've adjusted my KKV and NEFP micromissiles to be the same weight, so they can be completely interchangeable. The drone isn't armored at all, because it doesn't enter engagement range. I set up an intercept, preferably using a retrograde orbit so I don't have to mess with a straight-line burn, launch the missiles, then break away. The missiles make small adjustments to correct for any error introduced by the launch, and hit the engagement envelope at a screaming 6km/s with full tanks to burn. They can cross a million-meter engagement envelope in under two minutes. I haven't gotten NEFP to work for me, can you tell me the settings on that 95t nuke and the material in the radiation shield payload?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 16, 2017 20:15:23 GMT
He's my first attempt at a Drone Missile Bus (DMS)/MIRV and Drone launched micro Missile (DM) (after all the imput from this thread. Needs a lot of work but I'm excited about the ideas and the possibilities. It's set to close within about 10 km, then it launches 1000 DM as fast as it can. Need to find a way to do more with less. THe cost is about what a small stock ship would cost, so it needs work. I recommend making a smaller system. If you can get your missile diameter below 10 cm (7 cm being the hardcap) It should significantly improve your survival rates. I don't think you need so many missiles per carrier either. 20-100 work fine against Gw arrays.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 16, 2017 19:18:23 GMT
Once you attach guns to it its more of a bomber than a missile.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 14, 2017 22:35:32 GMT
What kind of micro missiles do you all use in your MIRV/Bus systems? I use 500g boron flak warheads atop a Fluorine-Lithium-Hydrogen combustion rocket. It only gets ~2 km/s d/v but weighs 3 kg and costs ~60 c.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 14, 2017 20:01:04 GMT
MIRV/Missile Bus systems seem to be the most effective way to destroy a ship with heavy directed point defense. Have a carrier drone accelerate to a few Km/s and dump the payloads once they enter weapons range. If you use super thin missiles overly focused lasers can't even hit them let alone shoot them down and they are too small to be reliably hit by kinetic PD. The main counter to this kind of system seems to be nuclear interceptor missiles but you can just direct one of the payloads to intercept the interceptor turning it into a numbers game of who has the most missiles at their disposal.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 12, 2017 6:52:38 GMT
Yeah, P-NTRs can easily be made into Bimodal systems. Though the power would come in rapid pulses and not continuously.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 11, 2017 23:31:34 GMT
Here's the paper: u.nya.is/lxewyl.pdfIt doesn't look very promising. From table 1, at least 93% of the energy is going into the fuel instead of the propellant (via the fission fragments, which don't, AFAIK, easily pass through solid matter). So to get the propellant hotter than the fuel, you have to get rid of that heat somehow. Up to the max service temperature of the fuel, you could use regenerative cooling. But that would only get the propellant a little hotter (about 7.5% hotter) than you could in a conventional NTR. To get a substantial improvement in Isp, you'd have to get rid of the fission fragment heat somewhere else, i.e., with radiators. You can still use some regenerative cooling, but the higher you want to push the Isp, the more of the heat going into the propellant has to come from neutron collisions. This could make a decent hybrid design, if you used the heat to generate power and run an MPD. Assuming you design such that the MPD and the pulsed NTR have the same ISP, it looks like half again as much thrust than the MPD alone. But we have magical near-Carnot efficiency thermoelectrics, so IRL it would probably be a lot more useful. The paper claims this could be used to increase thrust as well, by increasing the average power of the reactor and using greater mass flow, but I don't see why that's better than running the reactor at higher power in stationary mode. Either way you have to to get the heat out of the fuel and into the propellant. The documentation I have seen describes an active cooling system separate from the propellent flow.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 8, 2017 19:19:58 GMT
Alternatively, shippers could buy insurance from the laser broom operators. Any laser that can vaporize bolts in high orbit is going to be dangerous at interplanetary distances, especially if lots of sites gang up on the pirates. (worst case, they just slow roast them...) Note: the civilian shippers will also probably be operators of laser brooms because of the synergy between large lasers, large telescopes, and high Delta-V MPD drives. I think that anything that is dangerous at interplanetary distances is going to be operated by the military, but aren't even TW lasers are nothing but flashlights at even 'meager' hundred thousand kilometers? We have 10 Gw lasers that can kill ships at that range. A Tw military laser instillation might have Km sized apertures.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 7, 2017 20:29:26 GMT
That might be an issue. Maybe the escorts could launch nuclear anti-missiles to disperse the swarm and use their lasers to destroy the stragglers and they arrive?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Feb 7, 2017 20:17:53 GMT
I would not want to be a civilian trader in CoaDE. Cheap micro drones (200 cr) operating out of an MPDT/NTR carrier could easily destroy entire convoys with relative ease, necessitating escorts. I propose that any civilian shipping would travel together in large groups so that the fewest amount of escort ships would be needed for their defense.
TL:DR Civilian ships should travel in groups with laser armed escorts.
|
|