|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 17, 2018 17:58:17 GMT
It's hard to make conventional gun armour that wouldn't be prohibitively heavy, though. So I was thinking about this and a thought just occurred to me. If tiny railguns projectiles are so effectively countered by whipper shields and heavier slower slugs are that much harder to armor against, why not use heavier slower slugs over smaller faster grains? It puts your opponent in an uncomfortable situation. At the very least, have a primary and secondary battery so that ships have both types. For slower slugs, it's a matter of acceleration of the target. If the target can move so fast that you can't reasonably lead accurately with the gun, you aren't going to actually hit anything, save for some exceptional luck. Sandblasters are effective because they're exceptionally hard to dodge.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 16, 2018 5:35:50 GMT
Magnesium reacts with a lot of stuff, so it depends on what you're piping through it.
Calcium is also rather "chalky" for lack of a better term, so it might actually disintegrate with the fluid pressure.
I think most of the carbide type of materials are actually used as radiators.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 10, 2018 22:22:01 GMT
Stuffed whipple works great against extremely tiny hypervelocity projectiles. It's almost pointless against conventional guns though. It's hard to make conventional gun armour that wouldn't be prohibitively heavy, though. True, but that's a factor to consider, it's why the stinger drone is so effective (at crashing the game due to lag). It's why I really like chemguns, even though they definitely aren't "meta".
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 10, 2018 19:19:37 GMT
Armor is actually not as hard and pretty fun to get into. I encourage you to start at least basic modification with stuffed whopper shields at least. Stuffed whipple works great against extremely tiny hypervelocity projectiles. It's almost pointless against conventional guns though.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 10, 2018 3:37:23 GMT
I'm probably going to be prevented from uploading for a week to so, but I had a fairly high velocity chem gun getting almost up to 3.4 km/s.
There's no requirement for bore size or projectile mass? I was originally trying to replicate the 7mm Browning MG, and it turned into that.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 9, 2018 23:04:10 GMT
I don't really know if RCC is suitable. I know of a few designs using Tantalum Carbide though.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 8, 2018 23:46:35 GMT
60 km/s? could we have a link please? It's some third hand information I heard about from one of Scott Manleys recent videos about someone drilling a hole into one of the space capsules. I'm unable to pull it up at the moment, but the comet trail event happened in '06 or '09. Sorry, I can't remember in the break room at work. Edit: It was the Giotto spacecraft. The particle that hit it was the size of a pea, not a quarter.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 8, 2018 21:03:09 GMT
info@childrenofadeadearth.com
That's the support email that comes up when you query steam support.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 8, 2018 20:57:41 GMT
- Was "immediately" on the first shot?
- Is your 1cm (diameter, not radius!) projectile the same mass as 1cm (diameter again) sphere?
- Was there any mention of inner side indentations to limit the spallation?
Yeah, first shot or so, maybe the second. It's my first gun and I'm guessing it's all kinds of wrong.
By the way, according to a NASA powerpoint, the average micrometerorite speed is about 25 km/s, but it goes as high as 70 km/s. However, no information on average mass or density.
Well, my example of 60 km/s was based on some tail debris of Halies comet hitting a satellite. It withstood a few impacts prior to that, until there was a piece the size, of I think a quarter impacting the ship.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 8, 2018 17:19:21 GMT
On 5 and 6. Lithium is a bit "wobbly" and reactive with a lot of different types of coolants you might consider using. High acceleration will end up bending, if not completely snapping it off, if it's just monolithic lithium of not very good thickness. Whipple shields are the current norm for spacecraft. Partially because it's cheap, and works, partially because aerogel will probably end up shifting if it's not contained, again depending on the acceleration. Aerogel alone won't stop a micrometeor either, you're going to need something to shock the incoming rock to disperse it's energy. What's a realistic anti-micrometeorite only armour? In fact, what's a great way to model micrometeorite impacts? Googling, it appears NASA uses approximately 1 cm aluminium spheres going 7 km/s... I made a gun that shoots it and it ate through a 5 cm aluminium monolith immediately even though that's supposed to stop it according to NASA. If micrometeorites are a concern for interplanetary spaceships?
There are multiple realistic micrometeor armor types. Layers of aluminum sheets with a RCC lowest layer is one example. Another example would be a single aluminum sheet with Kevlar (para-aramid I think) in front of some sort of steel plate. I'd personally be testing this with a 60 km/s disk of 1cm carbon steel as the projectile, since there have been impacts of that speed with a similar density and hardness metal in actual (unmanned) space craft. You only need the projectile to hit once. If you live, you pass. If it penetrates internal components or spins the ship so hard it's going to kill the crew, you fail.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 8, 2018 0:45:51 GMT
On 5 and 6.
Lithium is a bit "wobbly" and reactive with a lot of different types of coolants you might consider using. High acceleration will end up bending, if not completely snapping it off, if it's just monolithic lithium of not very good thickness.
Whipple shields are the current norm for spacecraft. Partially because it's cheap, and works, partially because aerogel will probably end up shifting if it's not contained, again depending on the acceleration. Aerogel alone won't stop a micrometeor either, you're going to need something to shock the incoming rock to disperse it's energy.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 2, 2018 21:06:55 GMT
How realistic are these materials? Polyethylene is plastic... won't that become brittle or degrade or something in space, from vacuum, solar radiation, or the air on the inside, or soften from the internal pressure, or anything like that? I also cannot find any references to potassium as a construction material. I mean, you can make plastic bottles, why can't you put a few crewmium units into it? Plastic deforms when heated (or poked too hard) but I don't see why you can't use it if it's thick enough.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Sept 1, 2018 0:11:09 GMT
So I was screwing around with the rail-gun editor (can't for the life of me get a coil-gun to work.) I tweaked the barrel to the point where it was short but strong enough to shoot the 1 gram projectile without shattering the projectile or the barrel. A red error popped up saying the weapon would suffer excessive meltage. I think that means it is turned to plasma. Still not sure if the metlage is caused by the spike in acceleration or from the total power output but I think the former because power output is simulated in overheated weapons and as barrel length increases the meltage lowers. Given how well Graphogel is at insulating plasma from a whipple plate the fact that it is such a good barrel armor makes sense to me. Meltage has to do with the conductivity of the thing being shot, and it's peak temperature. So, shooting a piece of silver with a lot of wattage will inevitably cause the shot to melt, unless you lessen the speed of the wattage being applied with a longer barrel. Things with higher melting temperature are less likely to melt. Things which are more resistive tend to melt more though.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 30, 2018 22:28:16 GMT
Try polyethylene to minimize mass. (Or make it a drone, rather than include a crew compartment.) I thought raw potassium was the go to crew module if you wanted light?
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 30, 2018 6:51:33 GMT
If you dont care at all about lasing, diamond is pretty cheap and reliable for the sheet thickness.
|
|