|
Post by jageriv on May 8, 2017 8:32:43 GMT
I have, for a different setting, ships in the 20,000 ton range which can land on planets, and then move around. They have two engine types: a nuclear thermal type with high acceleration for taking off and battle maneuver, and an electronic type drive (probably not technically an Ion drive, if I understand the distinction) for space manuvers and long slow acceleration.
My question is, what would be the effects of using these two systems in the atmosphere as weapons (the way their mounted mean they can be aimed). I assume the NTRs would basically be some truly awful flamethrowers in practice, shooting very hot particles very fast (the fuel for both systems is either water or some methane/decane/other fuel) and could also shoot a lot of it, though I'm unsure what kind of range they would have dangerous effects.
The ion engine could also potentially have particle gun like effects, though that one I'm less sure of. I like the idea of it being an ion cannon like thing, but I'm unsure of the practicality of such a system.
So, since this is all beyond my knowledge, I turn to you guys to see if you've got any better-educated guesses than mine.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on May 8, 2017 10:18:22 GMT
The exhaust from propulsion systems of any type represented in game spread extremely fast. The range at which these systems are capable of doing any damage to the armor we use is a few dozen meters. By the time two ships have gotten that close, one would have been destroyed by longer range weapons.
|
|
|
Post by jageriv on May 8, 2017 17:08:29 GMT
The exhaust from propulsion systems of any type represented in game spread extremely fast. The range at which these systems are capable of doing any damage to the armor we use is a few dozen meters. By the time two ships have gotten that close, one would have been destroyed by longer range weapons. Ah, I see part of the confusion. The plan isn't to use these against enemy ships: the question is their utility against land forces, like infantry and tanks. These ships land and then can move around on their own power (they're like giant snakes/worms kinda thing, with the space rockets in their "head") I'm wondering what happens to ground targets if the ship points its head at them and fires in an earth-like atmosphere. This would probably be helped if I had some example of the kind of engines and power being discussed, so I go into the editor and see what I can whip up.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 8, 2017 17:19:04 GMT
tanks have thicker armour then what we use
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 8, 2017 17:28:58 GMT
I have, for a different setting, ships in the 20,000 ton range which can land on planets, and then move around. They have two engine types: a nuclear thermal type with high acceleration for taking off and battle maneuver, and an electronic type drive (probably not technically an Ion drive, if I understand the distinction) for space manuvers and long slow acceleration. My question is, what would be the effects of using these two systems in the atmosphere as weapons (the way their mounted mean they can be aimed). I assume the NTRs would basically be some truly awful flamethrowers in practice, shooting very hot particles very fast (the fuel for both systems is either water or some methane/decane/other fuel) and could also shoot a lot of it, though I'm unsure what kind of range they would have dangerous effects. The ion engine could also potentially have particle gun like effects, though that one I'm less sure of. I like the idea of it being an ion cannon like thing, but I'm unsure of the practicality of such a system. So, since this is all beyond my knowledge, I turn to you guys to see if you've got any better-educated guesses than mine. Exhaust gas disperses too easily, even high pressure, high temperature, high velocity gas. The sound vibrations from your roaring engines is a lot more threatening (think the distance a Saturn V's engines can shatter glass). Still, this ranges is pitiful against armoured vehicles, especially ones anticipating this. Furthermore, spacecraft are powerful, yet fragile things. Blasting foes from orbit before deploying troop transport shuttles/pods while the main ships provide fire support makes more sense. That capital ships can land on and take off from planets doesn't mean it makes sense to do so. Putting relatively expendable shuttles in danger is better than risking the capital ships that have to ferry troops and material between planets, provide orbital fire support (which they can't do from the surface) and cost a lot more than a few shuttles.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 8, 2017 17:45:27 GMT
yes lasers and atomic strikes are the only way space capital ships can influence ground combat, I suppose kinetic impactors could work to, but you can pack a lot more energy into a nuclear bomb
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on May 8, 2017 19:37:00 GMT
KInetic strikes have the advantage of being more targeted and producing no fallout, though - which is useful if you want to avoid collateral damage. Also, I think with the same total energy at impact/detonation, a kinetic strike is more penetrating than a ground-detonated nuke - due to having quite a lot of downwards momentum. For example, a 1 m diameter tungsten sphere (mass ~10 tonnes) entering Earth's atmosphere vertically at 30 km/s impacts at 16 km/s, delivering 304 tonnes TNT equivalent and making a crater 118 meters wide and 25.2 meters deep in crystalline rock. Air blast, thermal and seismic damage is negligible at 500 m distance - only windows will shatter.
To compare, a 304 tonne nuke surface burst will make, according to Nukemap, a negligible crater. The airblast will shatter windows out to 660 meters, the thermal flash will give people burns out to 820 m, and people will receive a more than 50% dose of radiation within 680 meters.
So, kinetics will be better than nuclear strikes, I think, against small, hard targets. Not to mention that a few tonnes of tungsten rod plus the energy to accelerate it is probably cheaper than a nuke, even a small one (IRL at least).
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 8, 2017 19:44:32 GMT
yeah but I can airblast nukes, and use them to make large craters if I get them under ground
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on May 8, 2017 21:11:46 GMT
I have, for a different setting, ships in the 20,000 ton range which can land on planets, and then move around. They have two engine types: a nuclear thermal type with high acceleration for taking off and battle maneuver, and an electronic type drive (probably not technically an Ion drive, if I understand the distinction) for space manuvers and long slow acceleration. My question is, what would be the effects of using these two systems in the atmosphere as weapons (the way their mounted mean they can be aimed). I assume the NTRs would basically be some truly awful flamethrowers in practice, shooting very hot particles very fast (the fuel for both systems is either water or some methane/decane/other fuel) and could also shoot a lot of it, though I'm unsure what kind of range they would have dangerous effects. The ion engine could also potentially have particle gun like effects, though that one I'm less sure of. I like the idea of it being an ion cannon like thing, but I'm unsure of the practicality of such a system. So, since this is all beyond my knowledge, I turn to you guys to see if you've got any better-educated guesses than mine. Most of our spacecraft have a high-thrust burn time under 15 minutes. You'd never use the main drive torch as a weapon, even if (as others have stated) it would be practical. Space-warfare Capital ships getting into a planetary atmosphere is unfeasible. You'd clear the landing zone and suppress orbital/ground-to-space defenses, then use SSTO airbreathing liquid air-condensing nuclear spaceplanes; and off the top of my head you'd only deploy these on Earth or Venus. One thing to note is that space-combat optimized ultra-high velocity sandblasters and super high frequency lasers are of dubious use in Orbit-to-Ground strikes; a 100km/s 1 grain VanChrome pellet will vaporize in any thick atmosphere far before hitting the target. Likewise, thick atmospheres are not at all transparent to our frequency quadrupled UV superlasers. Hyperoptimized micromissiles with millimetre thick skins will not survive re-entry, though heavy capital ship missiles with thick composite armor will easily double as Orbit-to-Ground munitions. You'd probably clear the orbital space using Space-to-Space warships, with a dedicated Invasion/Siege ship equipped with anti-planet weapons (kinetics firing slow, sub-10/20 km/s heavy shells that can survive reentry, long wavelength lasers) and invasion troops. The only way an invasion could be plausible between near-equal entities would be the liberal usage of WMDs; otherwise the defender's numerical advantage is too ridiculously high.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on May 9, 2017 0:07:06 GMT
Could you have dual-mode lasers by removing frequency doublers? Also, missile ships may have light missiles with dedicated atmospheric KKV noses - those can be used in a space engagement, but would not be as good. They could even be a modular warhead, with extra inert mass (and control surfaces?) for atmospheric shielding at the expense of dV. Heavy cannons could similarly have multiple ammo.
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on May 9, 2017 1:44:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 9, 2017 5:10:39 GMT
Could you have dual-mode lasers by removing frequency doublers? Also, missile ships may have light missiles with dedicated atmospheric KKV noses - those can be used in a space engagement, but would not be as good. They could even be a modular warhead, with extra inert mass (and control surfaces?) for atmospheric shielding at the expense of dV. Heavy cannons could similarly have multiple ammo. Or use a free-electron laser and shift from microwave to X-ray as needed. (From infrared to extreme UV is probably more credible though.)
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on May 9, 2017 5:59:23 GMT
For ground bombardment, nukes and KEPs are the way to go. Lasers lose to much of their already terrible energy efficiency. A mix of nukes and KEPs allows for both efficiency and tactical versatility. KEPs and nukes allow both precision strikes with concentrated fire and wide scale destruction with distributed fire. They are also significantly harder to counter than lasers.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on May 9, 2017 6:02:31 GMT
What is KEP
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on May 9, 2017 6:04:06 GMT
Kinetic energy projectile (or penetrator, if used in an anti armor context).
|
|