|
Post by Hicks on Jun 18, 2017 7:46:06 GMT
So, you already know how realistic starships operate, they're skyscrapers with engines in their basements; the Burj Khalifa- IN SPACE. By 5525, torch ships are a thing and you don't need to worry about spin gravity or anti gravity or long-ways decks, you need to worry if the passengers can survive the constant, high acceleration thrust the engines are capable of as they brachistochrone from orbit to orbit. Weirdly, slow ships @1g constant acceleration are the luxury, super posh, expensive affairs. everybody else is packed like sardines, strapped into a G-couch with auto-catheters for the 4-6g "human limited" freight line. In CoaDE we can talk about solar sails slow-boating freight across the solar system; in 3,500 years the fast boat accelerates at the limit of the freight it carries. No gravity? no problem. That just makes everything easier to load, as you are only limited by inertia and not supporting freight against the deck.
Container ships are engines, reaction mass, and a stack of a few kilotons of freight balanced on top of it. Space is weird, but one of the main appeals is that it is so *unlike* terrestrial shipping. we get to explore how stuff works when there are at the same time less and more restrictions on how things operate. But if you take anything away from this, use the Sky Scraper model, which makes it way easier to grok and gives your audience something familiar in a setting so completely devoid of similarities from our own.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 18, 2017 6:47:11 GMT
So I've just submitted my ship. It may not win, and it may not be pretty, but I'll always have this:
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 17, 2017 11:46:39 GMT
No. A volume of Space-time can be moved faster than light, but within that volume nothing is actually moving at superluminal velocities. Warp drives distort the space around the vessel instead of moving the vessel through space; they don't accellerate you, they move space around you. If you stop distorting space by turning off the drive, you still have all your momentum you origionally started with.
There is a secondary application where if you can control the distortio of space-time you basically have a gravity drive. Vessels would be built like sky-scrapers and fall toward their destinations under where their foundations would be.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 17, 2017 11:34:03 GMT
So, uhh, just gona place this here:
Step 1: mass distorts space-time
Step 2: mass moving near the speed of light distorts space-time more than that same mass at rest.
Step 3: electrons have mass.
Step 4: the more current applied the more electrons move.
Step 5: superconductors have negligible resistance to electric current.
Step 6: through either direct motion of electrons between atoms within the superconductor or by inducing a torque in a plasma magnetically coupled to the superconductor, control the ammount of distortion in space-time.
Step 7: that's a warp drive.
Step 8: boldly go.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 17, 2017 10:37:00 GMT
That planet haven't been confirmed yet. Can't we just mine the star? A brown-dwarf is in most way an oversized gas giant. Well, not right now, but with a... sufficient ammount of solar industrialization you could start Star Lifting.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 16, 2017 21:42:04 GMT
So your MPD inspired me to switch over to CO2, and it - is - nutz.
98.2km/s dV with an MPD. Cost dropped down to 25Mc. HoW did that happen? THE WHOLE SHIP SUCKED IT'S GUT IN and has a cross section of 1650m^2! The density is real. The CO2 NTR can get ~4.75km/s dV. It's down to 5.1kt! Man that stuff is addicting. And most importantly, my fleet is no longer farting through space! Now it's more like a very angry wheeze...
Damn. Now I gotta reclassified that battleship as a CO2 destroyer with a gigawatt laser, the damn thing is cheaper and smaller than half of my destroyer iterations. Thanks for shining me on to CO2.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 16, 2017 15:54:14 GMT
So I checked, and I've been slightly unfair to you. Because it is shot out of a cannon, my missile costs an additional 1,555c for 50kg of TNT, which brings the ordinance package up to 2,049c. Geez, TNT is expensive!
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 16, 2017 15:42:51 GMT
Whelp, on further study, and by study I mean screwing around in the module designer, I will not be converting from Methane to CO2. Even though CO2 is like 1/3 the cost of Methane, the performance hit is just too great: carbon dioxide gets me half the dV in MPDs for the same wattage. Now I'm just playing with 1.01 Gw, so maybe something amazing happens if I strap a thousand reactors to one another and start messing with Terrawatts, but that's not something I wish to design. anyhoo, here's a battleship, the ".txt" should be attatched. So I'm currently running a destroyer/battleship combination navy; methane is my reaction mass of choice [*removed text about the destroyer*] The BB-LCmn-001 Gigawatt is the 4th iteration of battleship, designed after the last update broke my cannon BB line. Although is masses 6.1 Kt and costs 41.1 Mc, it exceeds the destroyer in range and firepower due to it's 1.01 Gw reactor. It shares the same kind of dual drive, but supersized; getting either 72.6 Km/s dV or 1.39g acceleration. It shares the same armor scheme with the destroyer (500um of diamond,1cm amorphous carbon, 1m graphite aerogel, 2cm boron, and 8cm Boron under the first 40% of the vessel, plus a pointed bow. It has the same nuclear missile cannon, but carries a thousand missiles, and the largest difference is the 1 GW ventral extruded near ultraviolet laser turret, which hits for 105 MW at 1000 Km, which totally out classes the destroyer. Every turret is armored with 20 cm of amorphous carbon; the cannons are driven by neodymium electronic motors while the lasers use momentum wheels, boron for the 100 Mw and polyethylene for the 1 Gw. The 316 mm missile has, as previously stated, a 1.02 Kt boosted fission warhead. It's armor scheme is 500 um of diamond over 5 mm of amorphous carbon. Each has 4x800 g methane tanks, and are propelled by a miniature NTR that accelerate at 1.39g for just over a minute. Each masses 20.5kg and costs 485c. They get their initial boost from 50kg of TNT from the dorsal extruded cannon turret. The nuke is set to arm within 20 Km of an enemy vessel, drone, or missile, and will detonate at closest approach. Standard doctrine is to coast into laser range surrounded by a cloud of 20-200 missiles, open up with the long range laser, and start shooting missiles from the cannon. Range really isn't an issue the destroyer can go anywhere in the solar system, and the battleship can come back after. In a perfect world, the missile cannon would be used to boost a constellation of nukes across orbits, but in practice they just fly off in a random direction unless it's set to NOT split the fleet, then it magically kills the 2 Km/s relative velocity and somehow flies in formation with the destroyer/battleship. Overview External and dV/acceleration (the numbers are weird because it's a dual drive Methane NTR/MPD combination) Internals and cost breakdown Dorsal extruded cannon turret Cannon's guided ordinance, 1.02 Kt boosted fission nuclear missile Ventral extruded 1.0 Gw laser Laser cost, mass, and turret composition
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 16, 2017 5:49:52 GMT
The issue I see with your rocket cannon is range. If the enemy is more than 3 km/s away from you you can't attack with it. This makes it quite difficult to use around jupiter. Can I get the code for you missile and cannon? I may be able to improve the effective dV. Sure! It'll take a bit cuz I'm posting from a phone. On the one hand, there are at least 2 improvements: firstly I could've used a fluorine rocket instead of a methane NTR, but I have a personal distaste for fluorine and wanted my entire fleet on a single type of reaction mass. Secondly I could reduce the armor package, which would also help in reducing cost but lower survivability. BUT I DISAGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE, MY GOOD SIR. Although the missile only has 1 Km/s dV, and it gets a 2 Km/s kick from the cannon, it is mounted on vessels with a 39.7 or 72.6 Km/s dV MPD, which, although NOT the docteine i subscribe to, would be sufficient to intercept nearly anywhere in the solar system. Plot your intercept with the ship, boost with the cannon, fine tune/terminal with the missile; the destroyer/battleship could expend 15~30 dV to boost the missiles anywhere. BUT EVEN THAT PREMISE IS FALLICIOUS, GOOD SIR. In the context of missile and drone interception, an interceptor missile's dV is nearly irrelevant. You are intercepting an attack that already expended the dV to intercept you! Your choices are to expend more dV than the incoming ordinance or shoot it down. All interception missiles need is a boost to encounter the incoming ordinance first and enough dV for terminal guidance. Which is weirdly, mostly due to how I haven't figured out how to aim a conventional cannon on the map screen with any accuracy, is best done in the encounter screen at 1Mm range. In closing, due to their mass and cost, my missiles are supposed to be used to favorably trade with enemy drones and missiles. The vessels they were designed for (the DD/BB) close the distance, strip the enemy with a big-ass laser (not too big, 100Mw/1Gw respectively), and the cannon launched missile is used to actually kill enemy vessels. Like I said. I'm posting from a phone, but as soon as I'm able I'll post the stuff in the design thread.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 15, 2017 16:21:57 GMT
You didn't. aiyel was the one who off handedly mentioned using a 5TT warhead as an anti-missle sweeper. More like an anti-everything sweeper.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 15, 2017 16:18:31 GMT
I'll try to be more clear in the future. 1.02 Kt yield, masses 20.5 kg, costs 485c. They only have 1kps dV, but there's five hundred to a thousand of them, depending on whether we're talking about my destroyer or battleship. And they come with a free 2km/s boost from a conventional cannon. Nobody with an NTR, MPD, or Resistor jet has +500km/s dV to dodge that.
Now there are breakpoints. My 85t yield mini nuke costs 98c, but the square-cube law bites pretty hard and harsh language would be more effective for everything other than a near contact detonation. The 1.02kt yield is more economical in yeild/c, which is still large enough to not need a contact detonation, still small enough to slip past most CIWS, armored enough to tank most laser fire, and comes at a price point where you can just toss a few hundred in series and not worry if most of them get through; you only need to get ~30 near to take down a gunship. Out of hundreds.
I found that for nukes, less is more as long as you have more of less. I just don't see how a multi-Kc missile is supposed to survive or be cost effective in the micro-missle/drone meta.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 15, 2017 15:49:34 GMT
Still, a CO2 NTR should have a better TWR, which is the entire point of the NTR in a dual drive setup; MPDs don't have the thurst to doge anything in terminal guidance. Hmmmmm... and a resistor jet would model a bi-modal NTR... but then I'd have to choose between thrust and the laser... GAH! I'm gonna have to learn resistor jets now. Oh well, it's a good problem to have.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 15, 2017 6:55:08 GMT
So the 5 Teraton nuke interceptor. Dude, that is like 500,000x more powerful than the 10 Megatron nukes I've been able to make. Did you edit your limits.txt or did you use the wrong metric prefix? That is a hundred thousand times more powerful than the largest bomb ever built; That is not an interceptor, that is the most fearsome weapon ever designed by man. Srsly. my interceptor costs 610kc, not much for me, I haven't gotton flak anti-missile to work Sir, my main 1.02 Kt missile costs 485c. It's shot out of a cannon at 2km/s every second (so 2km spacing). I only carry a thousand missiles on the battleship, but my missiles are also fused to go off on closest approach against everything. Your missile vs. my missile? I'll take that trade everyday. And furthermore the megameter laser on the battleship means that I can engage your interceptor at extreme range and take one or 2 pot shots for every giant "interceptor" sent my way.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 14, 2017 17:23:05 GMT
CO2 huh? I gotta test that in my fleet for the NTR/MPD combo. Hmmmmm, maybe I'll buckle down and make a CO2 resistor jet. Do NTR/resistor jets get better than 6km/s dV with CO2? I've been a methane NTR/MPD girl since October, but CO2 is intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 13, 2017 2:53:54 GMT
Don't know; I just mathed the burn time from the stated dV and accelleration.
Edit: yay! 2 stars!
|
|