|
Post by srbrant on Nov 18, 2019 0:09:10 GMT
If you can manipulate gravity you have a warp drive or at least reactionless drive. In the story, paragravity only works if it has something to push itself off of. Sort of like an invisible hand pushing against another object. So any vehicle that uses anti-gravity can go only so high off the ground before it craps out. And just about every faction in the story is drop-dead terrified of reactionless drives, so the people who try to build them have a habit of "disappearing."
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 17, 2019 23:34:41 GMT
Allow me to clarify: I believe that a handwavium "anti-grav coil" would be better because it would "squeeze" the plasma together and force it out at a higher velocity, as opposed to a magnetic field that would simply contain it otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 14, 2019 2:54:38 GMT
can a magnetic nozzle really contain something over 25,000K? Any physical reason why it can't? I mean, if the " stuff" is susceptible to deflection by magnetic field, why not then? True. Just worried about really low thrust. Any non-handwavium way to fix that?
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 12, 2019 20:06:38 GMT
Electrode erosion? You mean like neutron embrittlement? Elektrodes have nothing to do with neutrons.EDIT: Also, arcjets tend to suffer a lot in the thrust department. I figured that the combination of superheated plasma being safely contained by handwavium antigravity coils that are accelerated further outwards by the same system would push the thrust-to-mass ratio off the charts. How does that sound? Why not use a regular nozzle? With some additional cooling, it should be fine. If you really can't use a physical nozzle, a magnetic nozzle doesn't really need any handwaving, unlike antigravity.My apologies. Brain fart. But can a magnetic nozzle really contain something over 25,000K?
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 11, 2019 17:48:17 GMT
Try looking up arcjets. They're just like resistojets with the heating element made of plasma. They might have other limits though. For fusion, though, it doesn't work. Heating propellant up with a fusion reaction is what works. Then you have a "normal" fusion thermal engine. Really, just use that. Arcjets tend to suffer from elektrode erosion IIRC. They're also in a bit of an awkward spot in regards TWR and I sp when compared to NTR's and electromagnetic drives. Electrode erosion? You mean like neutron embrittlement? EDIT: Also, arcjets tend to suffer a lot in the thrust department. I figured that the combination of superheated plasma being safely contained by handwavium antigravity coils that are accelerated further outwards by the same system would push the thrust-to-mass ratio off the charts. How does that sound?
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 11, 2019 1:37:45 GMT
Try looking up arcjets. They're just like resistojets with the heating element made of plasma. They might have other limits though. For fusion, though, it doesn't work. Heating propellant up with a fusion reaction is what works. Then you have a "normal" fusion thermal engine. Really, just use that. That’s kind of like what I meant, but I imagined the story’s paragravity technology being used to make a coil that pushes the superheated propellant out at a greater velocity, drastically improving the vessel’s thrust-to-mass ratio. Like the offspring of a rail gun and a fusion engine.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 8, 2019 22:25:46 GMT
This just came to me. You know how partial armor is “weaker” and more prone to splitting? Thought of an interesting way to fix that. The “unarmored” sections of that ship would wrapped in a shield made of aerogel held together with a thin aramid fiber mesh. Helps hold the armor together and gives the ship a cool “plastic-wrapped” look. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 8, 2019 20:55:05 GMT
It's a fusion thermal engine, in other word. If you want decent thrust, any fusion engine will have to work like that. With magnetic containment you can jack the temperature up quite a bit. Thing is, how would it function? In my story, there’s FTL travel, so torch drives are very rare. In my eyes, a fusion resistojet would be perfect for making a ship more than just a cabin strapped to a rocket, able to complete a cis-lunar tour and back without refueling but without the relativistic travel speeds that makes every nearby world soil itself. I can get some damn good thrust-mass ratio if I can get a resistojet coil to not melt at temperatures over 5000K.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 8, 2019 20:50:38 GMT
It's a fusion thermal engine, in other word. If you want decent thrust, any fusion engine will have to work like that. With magnetic containment you can jack the temperature up quite a bit. Thing is, how would it function? In my story, there’s FTL travel, so torch drives are very rare. In my eyes, a fusion resistojet would be perfect for making a ship more than just a cabin strapped to a rocket, able to complete a cis-lunar tour and back without refueling but without the relativistic travel speeds that makes every nearby world soil itself.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 8, 2019 6:04:18 GMT
While I was tinkering around with module design, listening to the same main menu music over and over again, a thought struck me: If a fusion reaction is magnetically-contained and the resistojet coils can only get so hot...why not use the heat of an isolated fusion “beam?”
I definitely know that there are holes to this theory, but I don’t know exactly what and where. And that it will most-likely require a bit of carefully-applied handwavium. So...what’s wrong and what’s right with this?
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Aug 1, 2018 20:31:31 GMT
- Fusion engines are closed-circuit and incredibly efficient; so much so that it consumes only half the propellant necessary. If only half the propellant necessary is actually necessary then, by definition, the propellant necessary is not the propellant necessary because it's twice the propellant necessary.
The point is that there's never a reason to add dead mass to a spaceship. If you don't want to go as fast, you lift your foot off the gas pedal once you hit desired speed. The only possible reason to add dead mass to a spaceship is when you have more delta-v AND acceleration than you know what to do with, so you no longer give a flying fuck.
Given current RL and CoaDE's state of the art in spacecraft propulsion such a situation is nowhere in sight.
Anyway, the ships are as big as they need to be and not bigger.
You might want a bigger ship if: - It is needed to accommodate large singular components for some reason.
- It is needed to house your state of the art weapon or the powerplant it needs.
- It allows you to remove redundancies created by housing different parts of your fleet's equipment on their dedicated ships.
- Your best space-drive doesn't scale down very well.
- You benefit more from armour than from manoeuvrability or throwing more targets at the enemy or simply need certain minimum armour thickness.
You might want a smaller ship if: - Acceleration or having spare ships is the best armour you have.
- Spreading out is tactically or strategically important.
- You have limited resources.
What I meant was a more efficient propellant-to-payload ratio, where you get an engine that would propel more thrust for every gram. Still, a little more breathing room within reason shouldn't hurt.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Aug 1, 2018 20:09:41 GMT
The point is that there's never a reason to add dead mass to a spaceship. If you don't want to go as fast, you lift your foot off the gas pedal once you hit desired speed. Duly noted. Sorry I wasn't too clear, I made this thread really late at night.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jul 28, 2018 4:31:26 GMT
Seeing how the game has a serious audio issue in which only two music tracks are available, who knows of some proper music for leaving USTA scum to die in the void?
Because if you ask me, any song from Laika Come Home is perfect.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jul 27, 2018 15:59:52 GMT
And if you decide to sneak off and take a nap during a combat engagement, you'd probably rather be converted to pink mist quickly by a 7 km/s stream of rail sand, because the boatswain on duty will convert you to a pink mist very slowly if the ship survives. And in front of the entire crew.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jul 27, 2018 4:28:28 GMT
Exactly how big does a ship have to get before it becomes inefficient or even dangerous in any particular way? Is an armada of much smaller ships better than one very large vessel? How big can a ship get until it begins wasting propellant, becoming a serious collision danger to planets or taxing its own structural integrity?
To help answer the questions I'm looking for, here are some relevant details about my story's universe.
- New, exotic materials have been invented through fusion-based metallurgy (fancifully called "Neo-alchemy") and other processes, most of them being supertensile solids and fibers. Things like plasteel, arachnite, etc. - Fusion engines are closed-circuit and incredibly efficient; so much so that it consumes only half the propellant necessary. In fact, some ships have heavy aesthetic additions simple for the sake of increasing mass so that they don't approach relativistic speeds!
|
|