|
Post by sage on Jan 10, 2023 2:26:26 GMT
I just added a Tread for my notes that I will updating before I leave this forum.
It is called "[Blog] Sage's final notes".
|
|
|
Post by sage on Jan 15, 2023 23:08:05 GMT
I want to go on record that I have yet to finish my notes, even though I am trying to put them all into one book.
I am currently working on why we use methane for our NTR engines.
The one thing that methane NTR engine do different than other NTR engines, is that they normal have a 100% dissociation rate. I'm trying to figure out why that leads to us using them over other NTR engines.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Jan 21, 2023 22:30:37 GMT
Ok I'm back with a better understanding of dissociation. dissociation means that the atomic bounds in our coolant breakdown, resulting in them becoming individual atoms. Some recombine into new molecules based on their bounds respected enthalpy. Breaking bonds is endothermic and making bonds is exothermic. Meaning that breaking bounds take energy but making them release it. Recombining atoms into new molecules after breaking them out of their old ones, lowers the energy cost to break them. Now here where the magic happens. Methane dissociation leads to one carbon atom and two Hydrogen molecules(H2). It should be noted that at high enough temperatures, the hydrogen itself will go thought dissociation. But it is as rare, or I should say the same as that of a hydrogen NNTR engine.Now why is it important. Will the carbon atom and two Hydrogen molecules, changes the exhaust velocity of the engine.
Using the same engine here are the results of that change.
0 % | 3.12 km/s | 100% | 5.90 km/s |
And there is another fuel that has 100% dissociation and that is Hydrogen Deuteride.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Jan 26, 2023 5:15:07 GMT
ok I will have to work on re-streamline my engines and other parts of the ships, mostly getting them to even numbers. I am also going to talk with someone who worked on nuclear reactors and am hoping to get some of my questions on NTR engines and radiation safety answered.
But there has been one problem that has been bothering me. And that has to do with the medium range lasers and their short high output counter parts. There is no reason for me to set the 375 nm lasers at less than the 1Mm range I set the medium range lasers at. Also, based on the armor of the enemy ship, the ablation cap will affect both lasers the same.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Jan 28, 2023 1:29:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sage on Jan 30, 2023 6:15:01 GMT
This should highlight the importance of good notes. I was just looking thought my old notes, and just noted that none of my laser out of the largest ones, hit the ablation cap under realistic ranges.
my zone defense laser is:
(1 km): 1.30 GW/m2 (10 km): 1.30 MW/m2 (100 km): 130 kW/m2 (1000 km): 1.30 kW/m2
Note that the 1MW Ruby Red laser when mounted is:
(1 km): 1.24 GW/m2 (10 km): 1.24 MW/m2 (100 km): 124 kW/m2 (1000 km): 1.24 kW/m2
my zone defense laser is 2.50 tones instead of 10.9 tones, 25.0 cm instead of 40 cm and uses 500kW instead of 996 kW
4 of the lowest ablated caps are:
Polyethylene: 3.76 MW/m2 Aramid Fiber: 2.39 MW/m2 Nitrile rubber: 2.50 MW/m2 Selenium: 4.83 MW/m2
The missile would have to be under 10Km to hit the Ablated cap for any of these.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Feb 2, 2023 22:07:06 GMT
Ok for some time I have been reworking some of my work that I did on AV:T in CoaDE. Right now my lasers are Name of Laser | Aperture Radius | Effective aperture | Zone Defense Laser | 25 cm | 50 cm | 2 Medium Range Laser | 40 cm | 80 cm | 2 Short Range Laser | 40 cm | 80 cm | 3 Medium Range Laser | 60 cm | 1.20 meter | 3 Short Range Laser | 60 cm | 1.20 meter | 4 Medium Range Laser | 80 cm | 1.6 meter | 4 Short Range Laser | 80 cm | 1.6 meter | 5 Medium Range Laser | 100 cm | 2.0 meter | 6 Short Range Laser | 120 cm | 2.4 meter |
the number in front of the word is it size in AV:T. Here is the size of infrared space telescope for scale. Name | Aperture Radius | Effective aperture | Wavelength Coverage | James Webb | 325 cm | 650 cm | 0.6-28.5 um | Herschel Obs. | 175 cm | 350 cm | 60-672 um | Hubble | 120 cm | 240 cm | 0.2-1.7 um | Spitzer | 42.5 cm | 85 cm | 3-180 um | Akari | 34.25 cm | 68.5 cm | 2-200 um | ISO1 | 30cm | 60 cm | 2.5-240 um | IRAS | 28.5 cm | 57 cm | 5-100 um | NEO Surveyor | 25 cm | 50 cm | 4-5.2 & 6-10 um | WISE/NEOWISE | 20 cm | 40 cm | 3-25 um | MSX | 16.5 cm | 33 cm | 4.3-21 um | Spacelab Irt | 7.6 cm | 15.2 cm | 1.7-118 um
| Human Eye | ~0.5 cm | ~ 1 cm | 0.39-0.75 um |
Here are the sizes for AV:T Name of Laser | Effective aperture | Zone Defense Laser | | 2 Medium Range Laser | 3.06-meter, 3.02-meter, 2.24-meter,3.19-meter, 3.48-meter, 3.15-meter, 2.2-meter,3.08-meter, 2.94-meter | 2 Short Range Laser | 3.13 meters | 3 Medium Range Laser | 3.55-meter, 3.42-meter, 3.66-meter, 3.48-meter,3.1-meter ,3.5-meter | 3 Short Range Laser | 3.55-meter, 3.38-meter | 4 Medium Range Laser | 4.11-meter | 4 Short Range Laser | 4.50-meter | 5 Medium Range Laser | 4.29-meter, 4.54-meter | 6 Short Range Laser | 6.5-meter |
You can see my problem. And for another note Terra invicta lasers are Laser Weapon | Hull slots (size) | Nose Slots (size) | Point defense | 1 |
| 60 cm | 1 |
| 120 cm | 2 |
| 240cm |
| 1 | 360 cm | 4 |
| 480 cm |
| 2 | 720 cm |
| 3 | 960 cm |
| 4 |
From this I take it that the point defense laser must have a 60 cm Aperture or a 30 cm Aperture Radius. CoaDE Name of Laser | Aperture Radius | Effective aperture | 400 kW Nd:YAG | 32.1 cm | 64.2 cm | 1 MW Ruby Red | 55.1 cm | 110.2 cm
| 13 MW Green | 40 cm | 80 cm | 60 MW Violet | 40 cm | 80 cm | 300 MW NIR | 65.0 cm | 1.3-meter | 1.000 GW Ultra | 1.6-meter | 3.2-meter |
|
|
|
Post by sage on Feb 13, 2023 2:19:02 GMT
Ok my talk with a nuclear physics and Astronomers were both a bust. No real advice or facts were added to what I already knew.
Now back on topic of the designs for the weapons systems. AV:T uses it Coil-guns as light missile launchers. These light missile force the enemy ship to use power, or use delta-V. Which leads to the ship making a kill interception, or for a larger missile to do that indeed.
The Ship on the book called the "Rafik" is pretty much a Siloship with lasers (both anti-ship and anti-missile). And a skirmisher with lasers is pretty much a the vast majority of other ships.
As you can see this is why I was having problems with the coil guns. I needed a system that could launch small missiles in large numbers with a muzzle velocity to match the coilguns from the game.
At first I used Carrier modules as a stand in for the coilguns, and blast launchers as missile launchers for larger missiles.
I was thinking about why nothing was good enough to solve the problem, and then it hit me. I had it backwards. I should of used the blast launchers as stand in for the coilguns and used the carrier modules for the large missile as they are as big as small drones.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Feb 26, 2023 0:52:01 GMT
I just found out that I made a mistake, while double checking my coilgun designs. I was using 750 nm laser for the 2400nm laser form AV:T and 375nm laser for the 1200 nm laser.
Now that not the problem. the problem is that the 2400nm laser are the SRLS and the 1200nm laser are the MRLS laser.
I was using the 750 for the MRLS laser and the 375 for the SRLS. As you can see, I made the backwards.
Also, I had it right the first time when I was using the sandcasters for stand in for Zone Defense Beam weapons system. Carrier launchers for the coilguns and blast launchers for the missile launchers.
I am rebuilding the rounds to make them work right this time.
I will update my notes with the final builds when they are done.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Mar 10, 2023 3:13:36 GMT
Noted that I have updated my "Final Notes" under Suggestions, as it is immune to bot post.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Mar 24, 2023 17:18:39 GMT
While I have always had problems with the coilguns form AV:T, I have never liked the ideal of short and medium range lasers. There is no reason, not to fire your weapon at max range. Yes the damage is small, but it is still damaging your target.
After much thought I think answer is to use the sandcaster in place of the short range laser. The short range laser have a much higher power usage, which helps my slow firing sandcaster fire at the normal rate of everyone else sandcasters(they call them sand blasters).
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 29, 2023 13:32:32 GMT
While I have always had problems with the coilguns form AV:T, I have never liked the ideal of short and medium range lasers. There is no reason, not to fire your weapon at max range. Yes the damage is small, but it is still damaging your target. After much thought I think answer is to use the sandcaster in place of the short range laser. The short range laser have a much higher power usage, which helps my slow firing sandcaster fire at the normal rate of everyone else sandcasters(they call them sand blasters). Wow amazing work! Growing up on Star Trek and Red Dwarf, I never even realized how unrealistic they were not even accounting for Warp and other miracles. When I found COADE I was hooked even though my science knowledge is not quite up to snuff. It's great that there is still some activity in this game. Maybe one day it will be revived.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 2, 2023 5:39:32 GMT
While I have always had problems with the coilguns form AV:T, I have never liked the ideal of short and medium range lasers. There is no reason, not to fire your weapon at max range. Yes the damage is small, but it is still damaging your target. After much thought I think answer is to use the sandcaster in place of the short range laser. The short range laser have a much higher power usage, which helps my slow firing sandcaster fire at the normal rate of everyone else sandcasters(they call them sand blasters). Wow amazing work! Growing up on Star Trek and Red Dwarf, I never even realized how unrealistic they were not even accounting for Warp and other miracles. When I found COADE I was hooked even though my science knowledge is not quite up to snuff. It's great that there is still some activity in this game. Maybe one day it will be revived. Happy to that people are reading my post. For the longest of time, I thought all the view came from bot programs. Hell I didn't even know that you could like a post on this board. now for my update, I would like to say that it takes some time to become skilled with anything. This for example has show me how many time I can make mistake when my notes are all over the place. Hell I found out how little I knew about subject that I thought I understand while going over my note. I will let you know that I am still working on them. I got some things worng with my AV:T notes and redid them to fix them. You should take a look again at them now to see the fixes. For those who have not seen my notes here are some tables form there. Coilgun information
Weapon information | Power requirement | Muzzle velocity | 2 CG[N] 1(+1) 1 | (62.5 MW) | 2.50 km /s | 3 CG[N] 2(+1) 2 | (125 MW) | 3.75 km /s | 4 CG[N] 4(+1) 4 | (250 MW) | 5.00 km /s |
Note the reason why the Muzzle Velocity is so low is that 2 CG fire 50kg rounds, 3 CG fire 50 kg or 100 kg rounds and 4 CG fires 200 kg rounds. Big Missile information
Weapon Information | Final Speed | Burn time | acceleration | Burn 2 | 2.50 km/s | 32 seconds | 8 g | Burn 3 | 3.75 km/s | 48 seconds | 8 g | Burn 4 | 5.00 km/s | 64 seconds | 8 g | Burn 5 | 6.25 km/s | 80 seconds | 8 g | Burn 6 | 7.50 km/s | 128 seconds | 8 g | S-16 | 2.50 km/s | 16 seconds | 16 g | s-24 | 3.75 km/s | 16 seconds | 24 g |
Note they use 9.765625 m/sec^2 for the g. my coil gun 50 kg an acceleration of 8.00g (note we us 9.81 m/s^2 and not 9.765625 m/sec^2) and burn time of 30.3 s. Which gives a delta-V of 4.14 km/s Now while I was working I check my missile code to make sure they fit these numbers. What I am using right now is the Code for AV:T Missile type | AV:T code | Warhead | Tri-Missile | T-3[Nk2][ARM2][-5] | 3.5MT nuke | Big Missile | B-4[Nk3][ARM4][-5] | 7.0MT nuke |
|
|
|
Post by sage on Apr 21, 2023 6:03:16 GMT
Ok, for some time I wished to write about the changes to my designs in CoADE after looking into the intersection between it and AV:T.
Before I begin my work into AV:T , I mostly designed two types of ships. They were the Battlestar and the Gunstar.
The Battlestar was a ship that was design to fight other warships, and the Gunstar was a just a armed spacecraft that was given missions that targeted non-warships, like supply ships.
Other way to put that is the Battlestar was made to fight other Battlestars and gunstars, and the gunstar was made to fight everything else.
What AV:T thought me was the ideal of different fighting styles for warships. Before we go into the different fighting styles. Let tell you how I see combat range in the intersection between the two games. I divided them into three areas. The realistic missile range, which is how fare we can turly target other ships with our missiles. Which I found to be the missiles launchers max range of 10 Mm or less. Then there is the realistic Laser range, which can limit to the games max range of 1 Mm based on laser turrets stabilizer ability to counter the vibrations of the warship that the laser is mounted on. The last range and the lowest is based on the Range Estimation of projectile weapons. These weapons be it railguns, coilguns or conventional cannons suffer from barrel deformation, leading to muzzle spread or the projectile falling into a limited arc based on the weapons center line. I mostly use sand casters, as there range is 245 km to 180 km, but I do have 1kg coilguns with 57 km ranges.
Just as a recap the ranges are
10Mm max missiles (long) 1Mm max laser (medium) Range Estimations (short)
There are a number of warship fighting styles which are kind of like Boxing styles and technique.
The first fighting style normally is based on long range fights with two set of missile weapons. The ideal is to deliver a killing punch with a tri-missile or big missile. Meaning that they use nuclear missiles to one punch their opponents. The only problem is the low number of these missile do not allow form them to be used to endure a extended engagement or to constrain the maneuverable of an enemy warship. that is why it needs a second Kinetic kill missile to add endures and constrained ability to this type of warships. After that they will have a number of anti-ship lasers to uses for targeting and self-defense at max laser range. But will not have projectile weapons for close range defense.
If this warship type was a boxer, it would be a brawler. I normally call them the "one-punch" as the point of this ship is to finish off it enemy with one killing punch.
The second fighting style is based on using alpha strike of anti-ship lasers at max laser range. The normally, but not always have a small number of fixed lasers, paired with a large number of turret lasers. This ship will also have a small number of 50kg 8g kinetic kill missiles to constrain maneuvering enemy warships, so they cannot dodge an interception. When they get to laser range they fire as many lasers as they can with ideal to destroy the enemy ship before it can enter projectile range.
If this warship type was a boxer, it would be an out-boxer. I normally call this ship the "alpha-strike" as it is build around a alpha strike weapons package.
The third fighting style is designed to fight at all ranges, with the end goal to finish the fight at projectile range. The open the engagement with a salvoes of kinetic kill missiles at long range. Then switch to anti-ship laser when entering laser range with their target, followed with finishing the fight with projectile weapons at close range. Normally, but not all ways most their fire power is at close range, in order to finish the fight.
If this warship type was a boxer, it would be a Swarmer. I normally call this ship the "all-ranger", as it fights it entire battle form all ranges, from long, to medium to short.
It should be noted that there is no rock paper scissors relationship between these fighting styles. The ship that carries it fighting style out better than their opponent will always win, regardless of type. A one-punch that finish it fight, with one punch can beat a one-punch, an alpha-strike, and all-range, just as easy as a alpha-strike can beat a one-punch, an alpha-strike, and all-range, with a alpha strike. The same can go for the all-range as well.
If you can think up better names, I would like to hear them.
|
|
|
Post by sage on May 7, 2023 2:30:04 GMT
There is two more fighting styles that I'm not sure of.
One would be called the multi-punch. It like the One-punch, but instead of using a small number of 1Mt or above nuclear missiles, this ship uses a large number of ton-yield nuclear missiles or large Kinetic kill missile in it place.
The second is just a laserstar with a large number of point-defense laser.
At the end I not sure if they are variants on the three main style, styles in themselves, or styles that need more work put into them. Hell the first style may be one bad one and one good one, or could be two different variants put together.
|
|