|
Post by L5Resident on Apr 25, 2019 3:17:32 GMT
Is there any chance MON-25 and Aerozine-50 could be added?
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Apr 18, 2019 9:05:20 GMT
What we have in game are solid state lasers operating at a very high temperature. It's not an error in the model (the author is a physicist whose expertise involves lasers), but rather a consequence of what we're doing with them. We're also not able to use any of the precision-tuning and other tricks used to get high-efficiency lasers, but IMO it's OK, given the lore. TBH, if anything, the game underestimates the problems with actually constructing lasers and optics of the physical dimensions we're working with in game. While we're at it, conventional cannons don't really underperform, as far as I've seen (though again, we're limited in design options for them). I was even able to replicate Yamato's naval gun pretty closely, given the stock materials available. The only thing that didn't work out was the turret. The real model issues are found in coilguns. Well the “Solid state” lasers are crude arc lamp pumped lasers compared to the diode pumped/fiber lasers. Having sub 5-10% efficiency lasers is kind of Silly IMO when the current lasers used as directed energy weapons have a demonstrated minimum efficiency of 30%.
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Aug 29, 2018 13:34:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Aug 29, 2018 13:14:14 GMT
After the most recent patch I noticed that all my nuclear payload from my missiles are removed and that every time I add them back on they will disappear once I quit the game and restart it. Modules also seem to move after each restart causing to fix my ships each time I start game. I have materials mod installed with the fusion/future thrusters pack and this hasn't happened before.
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Jul 3, 2018 22:09:57 GMT
Thank you! I never noticed them on the workshop until now with all the other workshop items!
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Jul 3, 2018 0:44:08 GMT
Can't the whole list of modded elements be uploaded to the steam workshop?
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Apr 26, 2018 13:52:00 GMT
All of this leads me to suspect that CoaDE is simply not sufficient for simulating real space combat -- we'd probably see largely automated ships fighting with lasers at translunar ranges, cooking systems and crew slowly until one side surrenders. Realistic missiles would almost always be too slow to cross the kill-zone of laser countermeasures... really the only non-laser combat looks like it'll be Q-ships and similar surprise attacks from supposedly allied or civilian vessels. Maaaaybe stealth missiles would be a thing, with the idea being not so much to hide the existence of the missile, rather just make it hard to target until it gets close enough for the neutron flux to be fatal. In the next 10 years if Mike Griffin gets his way we'll see Megawatt class space based laser www.defensedaily.com/dods-griffin-eyes-using-directed-energy-space-based-missile-defense/ We'll hopefully see space based ASAT/ABM lasers by the mid 2030's. That also means we could see laser launch becoming a thing after that.
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Apr 3, 2018 22:17:24 GMT
Other nuclear powers will have to respond and improve or expand their arsenals to compensate for the defenses, or they risk a situation where their opponent could conceivably win a nuclear war. It's not really a place you'd want to go to. What do you think this is if not a response? The arms race is back on. But honestly, I don't think nukes are what will end up deciding this one - whoever gets general AI first wins this fight and all the fights to come. Yup this is our response to Russia and China's actions and frankly the spinoffs that will occur from all of the R&D being done on high energy lasers will greatly benefit future space exploration IMO.
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Mar 26, 2018 14:25:47 GMT
From an Article from Aviation Week!
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Mar 21, 2018
The Pentagon’s under secretary of defense for research and engineering wants to bring particle-beam weapons back into vogue.
A type of directed-energy weapon, neutral particle beam accelerators were a key component of the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative of the late-1980s before falling out of favor. Despite some exploratory programs in the mid-1990s, the U.S. Defense Department (DOD) has not fully exploited this technology, says Michael Griffin.
Speaking at the Booz Allen Hamilton/Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Directed Energy Summit in Washington on March 21, Griffin announced that he intends to expand the range of directed energy weapons the department pursues, to include technologies pioneered in the 1980s and 1990s.
“Directed energy is more than just big lasers,” Griffin says, while specifically calling out particle-beam devices that accelerate atomic and subatomic particles close to the speed of light. When weaponized, those particles are directed toward a target, which overheats and breaks down through mass bombardment.
“In the heyday of directed energy, we were working on high-power microwaves, several flavors of lasers, and neutral particle beam weapons. Each of these systems has its own advantages and disadvantages,” he said.
Griffin has been charged with shaping the DOD’s technology strategy and says his mission is to restore the technological advantage to the U.S. after years of erosion.
Having served under the first three directors of the former Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (now the Missile Defense Agency), Griffin’s approach to his new role is shaped by years of cutting-edge work on technologies that had previously been considered science fiction.
“We won’t win in a man-to-man fight. We need to have the technological leverage,” Griffin says. “We should not lose our way with the other technologies that were pioneered in the late-1980s and early-1990s and now stand available for renewed effort.”
Griffin says the DOD dropped the ball with directed energy development. But that is now changing as the world enters a new era of “superpower competition,” in which China and Russia seek to undermine the U.S.’s position. He says the department is ready to “put its money where its mouth is” and will identify 10 core technologies for greater investment. One of those is light-speed directed energy weapons for kinetic and non-lethal effects, including high-power microwave energy weapons.
Griffin is uneasy with the pace of technology development overseas, particularly in China, saying the U.S. has fallen behind in some areas. He encourages the U.S. scientific and industrial community to “work harder and run faster” to regain lost ground.
During his presentation, Griffin addressed several others issues, including the department’s choice of lasers. He recalls that within hours of assuming office in February, factions within the military scientific community began lobbying him about whether to back the diode-pumped alkali laser (DPAL) championed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or the fiber beam-combining type being pursued by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory. Both sides want continued funding.
Griffin says the military should continue to pursue both types, since they each continue to increase in power and efficiency.
“I’ve looked at both and find them both promising,” he says. “I’d urge us to keep a lot of arrows in our quiver as we go forward.”
On laser weapons for boost-phase missile defense, Griffin says that technology is still a long way from delivering operational capability. Nearer-term, he says there may be opportunities to use air-launched interceptors to destroy threatening missiles as they ascend through the atmosphere. This could require the U.S. to maintain airborne patrols that can rapidly respond to threats around nations such as North Korea or Iran.
“I’m concerned about exactly how high you have to be in the atmosphere to have a laser beam with sufficient intensity to score a kill at a reasonable range. Some say you can, some say you can’t. The jury is still out,” he explains. “I’m not uninterested in boost-phase directed energy. It’s just not right here, right now.”
In an apparent signal to the department, Griffin says the U.S. does not have to go down this path alone, and there are opportunities to collaborate with allies and partners on directed energy programs, with the right authorizations and approvals.
“We want to take advantage of the brainpower that our traditional allies and partners can offer in the development of these technologies,” he says. “Where there are opportunities, I’ll be looking for careful and measured, but very real, cooperation. In the long run, that will benefit us.”
SDI is coming back effectively and there will be some amazing new technologies coming in the 6-10 years!
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Mar 24, 2018 6:34:50 GMT
I mean there's also UCLR Swift, a 622 mm long, 127 mm diameter nuclear shell, weighing in at 43.5 kg. It says it had a 190 ton initial fission explosion but a 1970's design could do a kiloton. Of the W82 that was a 155mm shell that had a yield of 2 kilotons.
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Aug 28, 2017 7:28:43 GMT
Seriously great design and lore! I suppose the ships come from the Anglo-sphere given the RR powerplants? I would suppose for a more US centric design would include GE reactors, Lockmart fusion drives, General Atomics Drones/Railguns, etc
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Aug 28, 2017 0:49:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Aug 28, 2017 0:13:12 GMT
The setting I'm writing in uses a sort of hybrid system. Interstellar travel is accomplished using Visser non-rotating wormholes on branching space/time networks. I was originally setting myself a D/V budget of 3000km/sec but as I wrote I realized that this was actually pretty inadequate. The D/V budget is a matter of endurance. Ships like Morokweng need to be able to operate for cruises of many months with minimal support. But for what do you need so much Dv for? You still have to replenish your food and other vital ressources every few months. Most of the time you won't cruise around at dozens to hudred kilometers per second in the system. Creating Stable orbits cost few dozens km/s at most. Though if you have wormholes nanotech should be advanced and cheap enough to generate p-B11 out of Seawater and borax at prices similar to tap water. I mean having so much dV you can make a constant acceleration round trip from Earth to mars in 4 days or make it pluto in a couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Aug 26, 2017 6:36:38 GMT
With the new fusion overhaul I can't make torch missiles anymore :C Torch missiles are possible if you give them radiators large enough to cool the entire thing. If realism's not your problem, please tell me why. Thanks. Wait so the overhaul adds a mechanic that allows the engine bell to be cooled via radiators?
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Aug 26, 2017 0:55:08 GMT
Can QSwitched check this out?
|
|