|
|
Post by gedzilla on Mar 9, 2017 6:09:35 GMT
a small fixed laser on the nose fixes that problem, mostly. if an AI uses it set the range lowish but longer then other guns, if you are using set it to a Mm and disable it outside of combat That makes the nose at least as wide as twice the armor thickness, though, which throws away most of your armor sloping with thick armor. View AttachmentView AttachmentWhy is the second layer of armor set so far away from the first ? That's gotta be like a 5m gap !? |
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Mar 9, 2017 7:38:00 GMT
That makes the nose at least as wide as twice the armor thickness, though, which throws away most of your armor sloping with thick armor. Why is the second layer of armor set so far away from the first ? That's gotta be like a 5m gap !? The second layer of armor is over 9 m thick. Only the outside surface is rendered. |
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Mar 9, 2017 8:47:28 GMT
Why is the second layer of armor set so far away from the first ? That's gotta be like a 5m gap !? The second layer of armor is over 9 m thick. Only the outside surface is rendered. Holy crap! What is it ? Why so thick ? |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Mar 9, 2017 8:52:36 GMT
The second layer of armor is over 9 m thick. Only the outside surface is rendered. Holy crap! What is it ? Why so thick ? Even my thickest practical armor is just one-and-a-half meters thick. This is too absurd, unless you are building an asteroid ship. |
|
|
|
Post by Argopeilacos on Mar 9, 2017 8:57:08 GMT
Edit: I thought about the spinning problem and why its so exotic for me and seems other members are very concerned about it. My working hypothesis is that its the large tanks, they should expel a lot more mass when punctured and will be much more likely to send the ship spinning. On the other hand I'm not using any of those, all my tanks are subdivided to smaller ones so a puncture usually results only in a minor jink not a spin. I don't see it very often and I have not tracked the cause of the issue (I use small tanks for redundancy too), it's just the one vulnerability I could think of. Broadside designs are probably much more vulnerable to this, and since we got these extruded turrets I think we won't see it anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 9, 2017 12:09:50 GMT
Holy crap! What is it ? Why so thick ? Even my thickest practical armor is just one-and-a-half meters thick. This is too absurd, unless you are building an asteroid ship. funny, my thickest armour is half as thick as you're thickest |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Mar 9, 2017 12:16:27 GMT
Edit: I thought about the spinning problem and why its so exotic for me and seems other members are very concerned about it. My working hypothesis is that its the large tanks, they should expel a lot more mass when punctured and will be much more likely to send the ship spinning. On the other hand I'm not using any of those, all my tanks are subdivided to smaller ones so a puncture usually results only in a minor jink not a spin. I don't see it very often and I have not tracked the cause of the issue (I use small tanks for redundancy too), it's just the one vulnerability I could think of. Broadside designs are probably much more vulnerable to this, and since we got these extruded turrets I think we won't see it anymore. While also designed for possible head-on engagements, my ship relies mainly one broadside combat, mainly because all of the lasers will get blinded literally instantly if I go head-on. |
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Mar 9, 2017 14:18:57 GMT
The second layer of armor is over 9 m thick. Only the outside surface is rendered. Holy crap! What is it ? Why so thick ? Graphogel. I played with the equations on this page (http://panoptesv.com/RPGs/Equipment/Weapons/Projectile_physics.php) for the doubly hydrodynamic regime (deforming projectile, high velocity), and found that the best mass efficiency was had by minimizing sqrt(density). I tried replacing the gunship's armor scheme with an equal mass of various things, and it seemed to hold. Lithium was good. Graphogel was better. I'm not sure it's entirely realistic, since graphogel is non-homogeneous. But a closed-cell foam full of hydrogen could work on the same principle. The ship in that screenshot from a couple posts back is actually modified from the old gunship, but I've tried graphogel with the new one (without the sloped nose). It clobbers the stock gunship fairly easily without taking any armor penetrations. The only risk is to the radiators. The sloped nose version is extremely resistant to high-velocity, low-mass kinetics. Big heavy shells can get through, as can nuclear missiles that punch through the armor and detonate inside the hull. And NEFP, of course. It's not quite so good against lasers, but that can probably be papered over with an inner layer of nitrile or aramid. It has to be really thick to work, so graphogel's no good for missiles or drones. But capital ships don't have to fit anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Mar 9, 2017 14:24:27 GMT
Holy crap! What is it ? Why so thick ? Graphogel. I played with the equations on this page (http://panoptesv.com/RPGs/Equipment/Weapons/Projectile_physics.php) for the doubly hydrodynamic regime (deforming projectile, high velocity), and found that the best mass efficiency was had by minimizing sqrt(density). I tried replacing the gunship's armor scheme with an equal mass of various things, and it seemed to hold. Lithium was good. Graphogel was better. I'm not sure it's entirely realistic, since graphogel is non-homogeneous. But a closed-cell foam full of hydrogen could work on the same principle. The ship in that screenshot from a couple posts back is actually modified from the old gunship, but I've tried graphogel with the new one (without the sloped nose). It clobbers the stock gunship fairly easily without taking any armor penetrations. The only risk is to the radiators. The sloped nose version is extremely resistant to high-velocity, low-mass kinetics. Big heavy shells can get through, as can nuclear missiles that punch through the armor and detonate inside the hull. And NEFP, of course. It's not quite so good against lasers, but that can probably be papered over with an inner layer of nitrile or aramid. It has to be really thick to work, so graphogel's no good for missiles or drones. But capital ships don't have to fit anywhere. Is graphogel graphite aerogel? I can't remember that well. |
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Mar 9, 2017 14:27:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Mar 9, 2017 14:57:07 GMT
Yep. Some tests showed Graphogel is basically a superior Vacuum for stuffing whipple shields.
My problem with whipples of any kind is the cross section and aspect increase; adding a few meters of spaced armor on a conical design can double the cross section and make the difference between outranging the opponent and getting outranged yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 9, 2017 15:05:41 GMT
meters is overkill, with stuffing I would be comfortable with as little as 8 inches.
|
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Mar 9, 2017 15:34:24 GMT
Yep. Some tests showed Graphogel is basically a superior Vacuum for stuffing whipple shields. My problem with whipples of any kind is the cross section and aspect increase; adding a few meters of spaced armor on a conical design can double the cross section and make the difference between outranging the opponent and getting outranged yourself. Who adds a few Meters ? my usual wipple shield distance is like 40cm |
|
|
|
Post by beta on Mar 9, 2017 15:38:47 GMT
The image is a bit blurry, but you can still read it: www.nap.edu/openbook/0309056306/xhtml/images/20003269003201.jpgThe specs for the whipple shields on various parts of the ISS. Between 3cm to 23cm, average of about 11cm for gap between layers. I couldn't re-find it in my brief search, but there are some youtube videos out there that explain the exact spacing and materials used in some stuffed whipple shields, and if you input the numbers, they perform quite well in COADE. However, these shields aren't designed for projectiles much over 7.5km/s and 1 gram. Would be interesting to see an actual stuffed whipple shield test with aerogel, as it is used to capture particles for study in space. Probably too expensive I guess? |
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Mar 9, 2017 15:40:36 GMT
Yep. Some tests showed Graphogel is basically a superior Vacuum for stuffing whipple shields. My problem with whipples of any kind is the cross section and aspect increase; adding a few meters of spaced armor on a conical design can double the cross section and make the difference between outranging the opponent and getting outranged yourself. Who adds a few Meters ? my usual wipple shield distance is like 40cm I usually have at least a meter of Graphite Gel. It seems to work alright against both flak and KE from decent enough distances and repels nukes when coupled with a cm of diamond. |
|
