|
|
Post by oscaroscarmike on Dec 6, 2021 21:29:59 GMT
(This sentence is Google Translate)
I have recently been testing the armor of modules repeatedly.
It turns out that even if the module is covered with RCC / aramid fiber over 10 cm, it can be easily neutralized.
Is this realistic?
It's unbelievable that a single shot kills the entire crew of the command module and neutralizes avionics.
Can the holes in the propeller tank be self-sealed or repaired?
Is it presumed that the missile launcher can easily cause mechanical failure even with heavy armor?
|
|
|
|
Post by sage on Dec 7, 2021 0:42:11 GMT
(This sentence is Google Translate) I have recently been testing the armor of modules repeatedly. It turns out that even if the module is covered with RCC / aramid fiber over 10 cm, it can be easily neutralized. Is this realistic? It's unbelievable that a single shot kills the entire crew of the command module and neutralizes avionics. Can the holes in the propeller tank be self-sealed or repaired? Is it presumed that the missile launcher can easily cause mechanical failure even with heavy armor? Could you tell us which weapon was used against the module? Based on the weapon the answer may be yes. There is a reason why all our spaceships use Whipple shielding as armor. Armor on a module cannot be made into a Whipple shield as of the current build of the game. See Orbital debris threats for more info A 7-gram object (shown in centre) shot at 7 km/s (23,000 ft/s), the orbital velocity of the ISS, made this 15 cm (5.9 in) crater in a solid block of aluminium. |
|
|
|
Post by oscaroscarmike on Dec 7, 2021 6:11:35 GMT
This is what I used for the target. imgur.com/a/XWBnGTaimgur.com/IpdXGGeThe weapons tested are: 13.0 MW 3mm Sniper Coilgun 13.0 MW 11mm Autofire Railgun 22mm TurretedCanon The test result is that any weapons seems to be able to easily destroy the command module. I also tested a 100cm RCC hull armor without a whipple shield for comparison, but it seemed to be as robust as invincible. Modular armor and hull armor do not appear to have the same protection in the same configuration. |
|
|
|
Post by sage on Dec 10, 2021 1:36:02 GMT
This is what I used for the target. imgur.com/a/XWBnGTaimgur.com/IpdXGGeThe weapons tested are: 13.0 MW 3mm Sniper Coilgun 13.0 MW 11mm Autofire Railgun 22mm TurretedCanon The test result is that any weapons seems to be able to easily destroy the command module. I also tested a 100cm RCC hull armor without a whipple shield for comparison, but it seemed to be as robust as invincible. Modular armor and hull armor do not appear to have the same protection in the same configuration. I see your question now, sorry about that. The modular armor does not seem to be the same as the hull armor. First off, I have pointed out that there seems to me something wrong with the crew modules themselves, in the number of crew they can hold. Also, I have point out that you don't get a sieverts error message if the armor on the crew module is too thin to stop the per annum does for deep space. 50mSv is the limited and a 6-month trip to Mars would be 250mSv. But I have never got an error message for the walls brings too thin. So there seems to be a lot of things wrong with the crew module, beyond the armor not acting the same. The Crew modules may be bugged in general. Second, I noted that the armor on your crew module is Reinforced Carbon-Carbon. That a bad armor for a crew module. Reinforced Carbon-Carbon lacks impact resistance. Though it is less brittle than many other ceramics. Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed during atmospheric re-entry after one of its RCC panels was broken by the impact of a piece of polyurethane foam insulation that broke off from the Space Shuttle External Tank. See link above for more info. Reinforced Carbon-Carbon has high spalling. Meaning it break easy against kinetic weapons. use Boron Filament or better aramid Fiber. You can also use Ceramic Oxide Fiber and S-glass Composite. |
|
|
|
Post by sage on Dec 16, 2021 23:22:10 GMT
You can also use Carbon fiber and Vanadium chromium Steel.
|
|
