|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 23, 2017 7:14:44 GMT
I’m well aware of the fact that a superconductor cannot withstand a magnetic field beyond a certain point. However I still have problems with the implications of the skin effect in regards to superconductors. The problem I have is this: the skin effect shows that the current flows primarily in a layer on the surface with a depth inversely proportionate to the conductivity. Since conductivity is achieved through moving electrons. The smallest possible depth is thus the width of an electron. This is a non 0, non infinitesimal width, meaning that the conductivity is finite. This obviously isn’t the case in superconductors. This is seen (as far as I’m aware) in the AC skin effect in superconductors, where it is observed when the excitation and thermal energy are enough to break some of the cooper pairs, causing the superconductor to act like a mix of classical and superconductor, thus allowing for a skin effect.
I could, of course, still be wrong, however to convince me that the skin effect is relevant here I need some reason why infinite conductivity still allows for a non infinitesimal skin n depth or why the the projectile traveling along the rails would break up cooper pairs. Otherwise, simply saying the classical model still applies, when that statement is very obviously not trivial, isn’t a good argument.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 19, 2017 4:48:20 GMT
That makes little sense to me. As far as I’m aware, the diffusion of a magnetic field in a superconductor with no resistance would either be infinite, considering the argument in question, or as close to instant as it gets in physics, because the field is expelled as fast as light speed allows. That is if magnetic fields can even exist inside a superconductor. To put it simply: I imagine that applying logic from normal conductors to superconductors is going to work about as well as applying the logic of normal fluids to superfluids.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 18, 2017 12:57:08 GMT
Seeing as the argument for more resistivity comes from the dispersion time of a magnetic field, I have difficulty seeing how the argument would translate well (if at all) to superconductors, considering that they expell all magnetic fields (ignoring for a moment the added complexety of type 2 superconductors).
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 18, 2017 12:46:28 GMT
I would say (and this is my opinion. It is a somewhat informed opinion, but an opinion non the less) that infantry in space are the equivalent to knives for modern infantry: they are there and they are usefull in very specific situations, but they aren't particularily relevant to how combat works in the relevant era.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 17, 2017 6:33:33 GMT
Well, that just further demonstrates how bad penny shaped armatures are. Still, most of my railguns use superconducting rails, does the skin effect still apply to them?
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 13, 2017 20:14:45 GMT
How well a missile tracks depends greatly on acceleration. So it's basically trial and error because the acceleration profile of most missiles is drastically different. For me, it will take as much as 2 to 10 times the time to optimize the guidance as it takes to completely design a missile.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 13, 2017 6:25:40 GMT
Well, another problem (even with robots) is that any permanent installation or warship (and probably most civilian ships, too) is going to have a laser with at least a few megawatts of power as point defense in order to destroy any object on a collision course that's slightly larger than a pebble. So actually getting anyone near anything is going to be more of a covert action than actual military action.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 12, 2017 22:38:14 GMT
Games like shattered horizon look cool and all with a bunch of "realistic" stuff, and yes star citizen has "infantry", but that is only really possible by ignoring som blatent facts. Lets summarize the point I'm going to make here: if space infantry were to be viable, such infantry should be possible in less hostile environments. Thus we should see equivallent tactical units in less hostile environments such as in atmospher or on the ocean. Considering this is not the case, it is highly unlikely that infantry like units will be seen in the more hostile space environment.
Heres why: space is the most hostile environment known to man. To be able to fill the role an infantryman actually has (not just the runy shooty bang bang stuff most video games show) a suit must be capable of sustaining the combatant and maintaining mobility for at least 10 hours (really more to be realistic) while needing to be small and form fitting enough to still be considered a suit and not a space craft. Beyond that, their combat capability must be great enough, that they can still be effective. Considering the mass needed to just sustain a human in space for that amount of time, let alone make them combat viable, it would be fairer to call the result a spacecraft than a suit.
As for your examples: Star citizen: star citizen is not a space sim in the sense that dcs is a flight sim, rather its a sim in the sense that the spore is a sim of evolution. It uses alot of tech thats more magic than science in order to achieve its expieriance.
Shattered horizon: is more authentic than realistic. Sure, alot of thought went into what running around in space with guns would feel like, but not whether or not that would be viable. The reason any of this would seem viable is due to a misunderstanding of how combat in general, not just in space works. This is because combat is more like several hours of manuevering with a few optimistic long range shots or barrages and then a few minutes of actuall combat. The combat in shattered horizon only works the way it does because of the way the map and game mechanics are set up. If you want to get more of a feel of how combat actually flows play some squad.
As far as the boat infantry and boarding is concerned: Its suicide, because if you get in (after burning past the several km/s relative velocity) the enemy will simply blow up the ship.
and finally: sure, armed police and malitia forces will still exist, but they will operate mostly the same as today. Look at american police officers: many still carry a model 1911 browning, a gun thats 100 years old. Police and malitias are only good for installation internal conflicts, and we've already invented all the weapons that would be relevant in those kinds of conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 12, 2017 20:38:49 GMT
I recommend switching to a better fuel source. Ethylene Oxide is a flat improvement over nitromethane, and Bi-propellants like oxygen-hydrogen or fluorine-hydrogen are significant better. Additionally, making the nose pointed and using a more mass effective material like polytetrafluoroethylene will provide a huge increase the survivability of the missile. A pointed nose won't help, because the terminal phase isn't blend with a pure guidance law and its always colliding sideways. I sure will try the fuel and armor options though. If at all possible, you should attempt to stop missiles from doing this. Most of my missiles used to do this, but I've managed to get about 1km/s of extra relative velocity and a second less TTI out of my KKVs after stoping them from going sideways.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 12, 2017 20:25:44 GMT
On earth, infantry are relevant as because they are the minimum selfsufficient tactical unit. Basically, a human with a gun is the smallest, lightest and cheapest unit capable of independant and sustained tactical action. What makes a human viable as such a unit is capability of independant action to effect the current tactical situation in both cognatively and physicaly and the ability to sustain such actions for an extended period of time without needing to be resupplied. Considering that the setup needed to maintain this capability in a human in space is bassically the same as a spacecraft (you would need life support, engines, reactors, fueltanks, radiators and weapon systems) you may as well build a spacecraft. These spacecraft may be small, barely larger than a human even, but they will be spacecraft for all intents and purposes if they are to be valid combat units.
That being said, some form of suit that enables boarding would pass for space infantry, but considering the futility of boarding a ship I don't see something like that being developed.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 5, 2017 10:07:30 GMT
As I said, with proper hit distribution and considering that there would be coolant/fuel pipes and powerlines going through the hull, one missile would be crippling in reality. The reason it isn't is because the game doesn't account for these things. Which is the reason KKVs are the most effective missiles: the game doesn't account for the mass and energy of the missile once the payload detonates, wasting most of the energy in a frag missile and nukes don't work like they're supposed to, so they aren't really effective either. In reality, I would use frag missiles that choose point of detonation depending on the targets armor, going full KKV for heavy armor, or blanketing the ship in shrapnell for lightly armored craft.
Reasons why KKVs aren't as effective as flak/nukes: -Always hit predictable point (simulation limitation) -Do very little actual damage to a ship (simulation limitation)
Reason whay KKVs are better than flak/nukes: -kinetic energy of the missile disapears (simulation limitation) -1kg guidance package (simulation limitation) -Limited payload flexibility in regards to detonation timeing (simulation limitation)
I, for one, have the most succes with KKVs because nukes small enough to be micro are ineffective against even moderately armored targets and flak (inside the constraints of a micro missile) either can't penetrate moderately armored targets either unless the spread is so tight that it has the same problem as KKVs. Not to mention the fact that I can use the mass freed up by not having a payload other than guidance in order to improve armor, allowing me to use smaller salvos to defeat point defence ultimately making KKVs more cost effective.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 4, 2017 21:56:42 GMT
Just as an example, heres the exit wound of an "overpenetration" on a gunship from one of my M11 Micro Vipers: Sure it overpenetrated, but thats still significant damage, considering the thing only costs 29.5c. Considering that you could fire 33 of them for less than a kilocredit, any real ship would be crippled by the impacts. Beyond that, if guidance was sofisticated enough to allow distribution of impact points (witch it should be, since it weighs a kilogram), such a salvo would practically guranty a kill on a gunship (hell, 15 would be enough for that).
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 4, 2017 10:37:03 GMT
I've found some isues with the skin effect argument. Primarily, the skin effect occurs in high frequency AC systems. With pulse times in the range of 10s to 100s of milliseconds (effectively meaning switching on and off again during firing with a "frequency" somewhere around 100 to 10 herz) I'm not sure if the skin effect is that much of an issue. Beyond that, the skin effect is highly dependant on the geometry of the current flow. With railgun armatures shaped as they are, the skin effect may be significantly weakened.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 4, 2017 7:09:53 GMT
My KKVs overpenetrate. Thing is they transfer enough energy to be deadly.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 3, 2017 14:56:33 GMT
I've thought of that, but in reality coolant pipes would need to run from the radiators to the reactors. These would be destroyed by an impacting KKV. Especially my KKVs, since they tend to leave half the entirior of the target glowing nicely after impact (indicating at least half the internal coolant pipes having been destroyed). The idea of simply having radiators over empty space for no extra weight and then having no negative effect when that space is damaged games the system in my opinion so I do not consider it.
|
|