|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 29, 2017 23:45:30 GMT
Just ran a series of tests and I think the venerable Whisker III is done. Introducing Whisker IV.  |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 30, 2017 0:11:20 GMT
 AKVS pounce on the wounded Jefferson Davis through a storm of tracers. |
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Aug 30, 2017 1:59:53 GMT
Kerr: Nice design, but watch out for the rocket equation. It is also a kinetic energy to propulsive potential energy ratio. If you accelerate the missile with propellant, you increase the velocity for more kinetic energy, but you reduce overall mass. There are other practical considerations, I agree, but this is especially critical for your chemfuel submunitions. Here's an example with your 25kg projectile. 450s isp LH2/LOX fuelled rocket is used. Mass ratio 1.5, we get a deltaV of 1789m/s and a final mass of 16.7kg. Impact energy is 26.75MJ. Mass ratio 2, we get a deltaV of 3059m/s and a final mass of 12.5kg. Impact energy is 58.48MJ. Mass ratio e, we get a deltaV of 4414m/s and a final mass of 9.19kg. Impact energy is 89.56MJ. Mass ratio 4, we get a deltaV of 6119m/s and a final mass of 6.25kg. Impact energy is 117MJ. Mass ratio 8, impact energy is 131MJ. Mass ratio 10, impact energy is 129MJ. The optimal mass ratio is between 8 and 10. Anything higher and you start sacrificing impact energy for more velocity. Another point is that it is always cheaper to equip with your submunitions with deltaV to catch a target than it is to cover the area with flak. For example, your 450kg charge approaching at 800km/s takes 375 seconds to reach a target at one light-second. 10000m^2 is a disk with a radius 56 meters. A target 10m wide can escape this flak with room to spare by adjusting its trajectory by only 0.15m/s after the missile bus shuts down. Isn't it vastly cheaper to add 0.15m/s of deltaV to the Flak Charge? ironclad6: Z-pinch is an electromagnetic compression technique. It 'pinches' the fusion fuel to ignition temperatures and pressures. OMGitsWTF hasn't made a copyright claim on his work displayed on this public forum, nor did he publish those numbers. I must remind you that laser-powered rockets are perfect for the scale you are looking for. Don't have the complexity of a fusion reactor while providing the same levels of power, don't have the vulnerability of metallic hydrogen while having the same simplicity of design. Shine your GW laser beam up the tail pipe of a laser-thermal rocket and you can deliver gigawatts of power to a projectile of only a few kilograms mass. NSWR outperforms fusion by not requiring any heavy cooling or heavy secondary systems like magnets, supercapacitors and flywheels. It would be like the diesel-electric submarine compared to the nuclear submarine: they are both deadly and play on the same field.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 30, 2017 2:52:39 GMT
Kerr: Nice design, but watch out for the rocket equation. It is also a kinetic energy to propulsive potential energy ratio. If you accelerate the missile with propellant, you increase the velocity for more kinetic energy, but you reduce overall mass. There are other practical considerations, I agree, but this is especially critical for your chemfuel submunitions. Here's an example with your 25kg projectile. 450s isp LH2/LOX fuelled rocket is used. Mass ratio 1.5, we get a deltaV of 1789m/s and a final mass of 16.7kg. Impact energy is 26.75MJ. Mass ratio 2, we get a deltaV of 3059m/s and a final mass of 12.5kg. Impact energy is 58.48MJ. Mass ratio e, we get a deltaV of 4414m/s and a final mass of 9.19kg. Impact energy is 89.56MJ. Mass ratio 4, we get a deltaV of 6119m/s and a final mass of 6.25kg. Impact energy is 117MJ. Mass ratio 8, impact energy is 131MJ. Mass ratio 10, impact energy is 129MJ. The optimal mass ratio is between 8 and 10. Anything higher and you start sacrificing impact energy for more velocity. Another point is that it is always cheaper to equip with your submunitions with deltaV to catch a target than it is to cover the area with flak. For example, your 450kg charge approaching at 800km/s takes 375 seconds to reach a target at one light-second. 10000m^2 is a disk with a radius 56 meters. A target 10m wide can escape this flak with room to spare by adjusting its trajectory by only 0.15m/s after the missile bus shuts down. Isn't it vastly cheaper to add 0.15m/s of deltaV to the Flak Charge? ironclad6: Z-pinch is an electromagnetic compression technique. It 'pinches' the fusion fuel to ignition temperatures and pressures. OMGitsWTF hasn't made a copyright claim on his work displayed on this public forum, nor did he publish those numbers. I must remind you that laser-powered rockets are perfect for the scale you are looking for. Don't have the complexity of a fusion reactor while providing the same levels of power, don't have the vulnerability of metallic hydrogen while having the same simplicity of design. Shine your GW laser beam up the tail pipe of a laser-thermal rocket and you can deliver gigawatts of power to a projectile of only a few kilograms mass. NSWR outperforms fusion by not requiring any heavy cooling or heavy secondary systems like magnets, supercapacitors and flywheels. It would be like the diesel-electric submarine compared to the nuclear submarine: they are both deadly and play on the same field. Laser rocket? Like a laser sail? Also I'm removing metallic hydrogen from the SC line up, while retaining it for the Adamites. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 30, 2017 5:23:00 GMT
Kerr: Nice design, but watch out for the rocket equation. It is also a kinetic energy to propulsive potential energy ratio. If you accelerate the missile with propellant, you increase the velocity for more kinetic energy, but you reduce overall mass. There are other practical considerations, I agree, but this is especially critical for your chemfuel submunitions. Here's an example with your 25kg projectile. 450s isp LH2/LOX fuelled rocket is used. Mass ratio 1.5, we get a deltaV of 1789m/s and a final mass of 16.7kg. Impact energy is 26.75MJ. Mass ratio 2, we get a deltaV of 3059m/s and a final mass of 12.5kg. Impact energy is 58.48MJ. Mass ratio e, we get a deltaV of 4414m/s and a final mass of 9.19kg. Impact energy is 89.56MJ. Mass ratio 4, we get a deltaV of 6119m/s and a final mass of 6.25kg. Impact energy is 117MJ. Mass ratio 8, impact energy is 131MJ. Mass ratio 10, impact energy is 129MJ. The optimal mass ratio is between 8 and 10. Anything higher and you start sacrificing impact energy for more velocity. Another point is that it is always cheaper to equip with your submunitions with deltaV to catch a target than it is to cover the area with flak. For example, your 450kg charge approaching at 800km/s takes 375 seconds to reach a target at one light-second. 10000m^2 is a disk with a radius 56 meters. A target 10m wide can escape this flak with room to spare by adjusting its trajectory by only 0.15m/s after the missile bus shuts down. Isn't it vastly cheaper to add 0.15m/s of deltaV to the Flak Charge? ironclad6: Z-pinch is an electromagnetic compression technique. It 'pinches' the fusion fuel to ignition temperatures and pressures. OMGitsWTF hasn't made a copyright claim on his work displayed on this public forum, nor did he publish those numbers. I must remind you that laser-powered rockets are perfect for the scale you are looking for. Don't have the complexity of a fusion reactor while providing the same levels of power, don't have the vulnerability of metallic hydrogen while having the same simplicity of design. Shine your GW laser beam up the tail pipe of a laser-thermal rocket and you can deliver gigawatts of power to a projectile of only a few kilograms mass. NSWR outperforms fusion by not requiring any heavy cooling or heavy secondary systems like magnets, supercapacitors and flywheels. It would be like the diesel-electric submarine compared to the nuclear submarine: they are both deadly and play on the same field. Laser rocket? Like a laser sail? Also I'm removing metallic hydrogen from the SC line up, while retaining it for the Adamites. As in Laser-Thermal or Laser ablative. You use your ships lasers to superheat the inert fuel of your missile. Isp can vary. An 20GW laser can provide 19,000 Isp to your missile if you use an Laser-kinetic conversion efficiency of 90%. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 30, 2017 5:38:11 GMT
Kerr: Nice design, but watch out for the rocket equation. It is also a kinetic energy to propulsive potential energy ratio. If you accelerate the missile with propellant, you increase the velocity for more kinetic energy, but you reduce overall mass. There are other practical considerations, I agree, but this is especially critical for your chemfuel submunitions. Here's an example with your 25kg projectile. 450s isp LH2/LOX fuelled rocket is used. Mass ratio 1.5, we get a deltaV of 1789m/s and a final mass of 16.7kg. Impact energy is 26.75MJ. Mass ratio 2, we get a deltaV of 3059m/s and a final mass of 12.5kg. Impact energy is 58.48MJ. Mass ratio e, we get a deltaV of 4414m/s and a final mass of 9.19kg. Impact energy is 89.56MJ. Mass ratio 4, we get a deltaV of 6119m/s and a final mass of 6.25kg. Impact energy is 117MJ. Mass ratio 8, impact energy is 131MJ. Mass ratio 10, impact energy is 129MJ. The optimal mass ratio is between 8 and 10. Anything higher and you start sacrificing impact energy for more velocity. Another point is that it is always cheaper to equip with your submunitions with deltaV to catch a target than it is to cover the area with flak. For example, your 450kg charge approaching at 800km/s takes 375 seconds to reach a target at one light-second. 10000m^2 is a disk with a radius 56 meters. A target 10m wide can escape this flak with room to spare by adjusting its trajectory by only 0.15m/s after the missile bus shuts down. Isn't it vastly cheaper to add 0.15m/s of deltaV to the Flak Charge? ironclad6: Z-pinch is an electromagnetic compression technique. It 'pinches' the fusion fuel to ignition temperatures and pressures. OMGitsWTF hasn't made a copyright claim on his work displayed on this public forum, nor did he publish those numbers. I must remind you that laser-powered rockets are perfect for the scale you are looking for. Don't have the complexity of a fusion reactor while providing the same levels of power, don't have the vulnerability of metallic hydrogen while having the same simplicity of design. Shine your GW laser beam up the tail pipe of a laser-thermal rocket and you can deliver gigawatts of power to a projectile of only a few kilograms mass. NSWR outperforms fusion by not requiring any heavy cooling or heavy secondary systems like magnets, supercapacitors and flywheels. It would be like the diesel-electric submarine compared to the nuclear submarine: they are both deadly and play on the same field. The Submunition has the Dv budget to adjust their flight path. 450 Isp can only be achieved with LOX-Hydrogen. Which has an terrible dendity and would increase size. The Flak would most likely won't have sensors precise enough to track the ship. Also the Flak type is meant to be used in moderate numbers. Covering most of the possible paths. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 30, 2017 5:41:31 GMT
Since I have to remove metallic hydrogen from the Royal Navy I am looking for alternatives. Preferably clean burning and cheap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 30, 2017 5:46:33 GMT
Since I have to remove metallic hydrogen from the Royal Navy I am looking for alternatives. Preferably clean burning and cheap. Either Laser-Thermal or NTR. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 30, 2017 6:03:31 GMT
Since I have to remove metallic hydrogen from the Royal Navy I am looking for alternatives. Preferably clean burning and cheap. Either Laser-Thermal or NTR. Laser-thermal would be the cheaper option. NTR's still require some fissiles. The advantage of laser thermal is that the expensive and heavy part (reactor, laser and radiators) stay on your capital ship, which would probably have them anyway. That way, you can use your lasers to first boost missiles with a laser thermal first stage to several dozen km/s, have the missiles/submunitions use chemical thrusters for terminal course correction once too far from the laser to use the laser thermal drive, and your capital ships can use the lasers for point defense. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 30, 2017 6:20:23 GMT
For cultural reasons the SC wouldn't go for NTR and laser boosting missiles means you can't use drones to engage targets you can't see. My working their is that it'll be LOX/LH2 for the Systems Commonwealth and NSWR/Metallic hydrogen for the Adamites. Laser thermal rockets actually show up as part of the interplanetary transport network in the settles parts of the Commonwealth. They double as planetary defence emplacements, effectively turning hub world's into fortresses. That said, they are unsuitable for use driving ships like Morokweng for reasons I can't explain without divulging too much of the plot. I'd considered laser boosted munitions but I don't know if they are workable yet
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 30, 2017 6:31:34 GMT
For cultural reasons the SC wouldn't go for NTR and laser boosting missiles means you can't use drones to engage targets you can't see. My working their is that it'll be LOX/LH2 for the Systems Commonwealth and NSWR/Metallic hydrogen for the Adamites. Methane leaks less (and thus stores longer) than hydrogen. Hydrogen leaking is one of it's downsides CoaDE doesn't model. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 30, 2017 6:33:24 GMT
For cultural reasons the SC wouldn't go for NTR and laser boosting missiles means you can't use drones to engage targets you can't see. My working their is that it'll be LOX/LH2 for the Systems Commonwealth and NSWR/Metallic hydrogen for the Adamites. It kinda sounds weird if you have wormholes and perfected fusion drives but you still use chemical fuel on your missiles. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 30, 2017 6:35:41 GMT
For cultural reasons the SC wouldn't go for NTR and laser boosting missiles means you can't use drones to engage targets you can't see. My working their is that it'll be LOX/LH2 for the Systems Commonwealth and NSWR/Metallic hydrogen for the Adamites. Methane leaks less (and thus stores longer) than hydrogen. Hydrogen leaking is one of it's downsides CoaDE doesn't model. LOX Methane has worse Isp. Tyranny of the rocket equation sets in early. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 30, 2017 6:41:58 GMT
For cultural reasons the SC wouldn't go for NTR and laser boosting missiles means you can't use drones to engage targets you can't see. My working their is that it'll be LOX/LH2 for the Systems Commonwealth and NSWR/Metallic hydrogen for the Adamites. It kinda sounds weird if you have wormholes and perfected fusion drives but you still use chemical fuel on your missiles. Only for terminal homing where I have hundreds of super agile KSOWS maneouvering so as to make lasing them difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 30, 2017 7:10:39 GMT
It kinda sounds weird if you have wormholes and perfected fusion drives but you still use chemical fuel on your missiles. Only for terminal homing where I have hundreds of super agile KSOWS maneouvering so as to make lasing them difficult. Sounds familiar, so what is the propulsion of the carrier drone now? And maybe you should use Flourine-Lithium Hydride rockets. Very flexible, compact and it has an even better isp than LOX-LH2. |
|
