Author Topic: Impact Physics  (Read 27807 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2012, 03:55:08 PM »
Yeah, but that would require a very limited in-system hyper jump.
Which is why I suggested it in the first place, though I got convinced it's not in the spirit of realism.

I suppose all this construct relies on super-efficient fuel.
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2012, 04:32:45 PM »
Yeah, but that would require a very limited in-system hyper jump.
Which is why I suggested it in the first place, though I got convinced it's not in the spirit of realism.

I suppose all this construct relies on super-efficient fuel.
No, it would just slow the game's pace even more.  I'm pointing out that the massive kinetic overkill is a natural consequence of Steve's design decisions.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2012, 06:22:11 PM »
That's called a missile.
Missiles don't shoot railgun shells.  Although fragmentation missiles might do the job just as well.  Railguns might have enough of a velocity boost to increase firing solutions significantly though. 

Maybe it might be time to design those *really* huge missiles.  2-stage 50ton missile, fuel efficiency on first stage for long boosting times and massive delta-v. 

With a powered flight range of pluto orbit, payload of a couple of thousand shells, max delta-v of "you're dead". 
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #48 on: February 02, 2012, 08:39:54 PM »
Missiles don't shoot railgun shells.  Although fragmentation missiles might do the job just as well.  Railguns might have enough of a velocity boost to increase firing solutions significantly though. 

Maybe it might be time to design those *really* huge missiles.  2-stage 50ton missile, fuel efficiency on first stage for long boosting times and massive delta-v. 

With a powered flight range of pluto orbit, payload of a couple of thousand shells, max delta-v of "you're dead". 
It was the "suicide fighter" idea I was talking about.  Though I'm all in favor of drones.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #49 on: February 02, 2012, 08:52:42 PM »
It was the "suicide fighter" idea I was talking about.  Though I'm all in favor of drones.
Well, depending on how the game engine goes, might need to make suicide fighters after all. 

Drones might not be able to mount railguns (where's the firecontrol going to go?).  And if they could, might not be able to change targets.  And perhaps not operate in squadrons for remote active sensors.  (this bit is actually the bit I think is most likely to be possible)

Might need to rely on suicide fighters.  But the principle is the same. 
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2012, 04:38:33 AM »
So, it comes down to automation so you can build that 200 ton fighter without any crew at some point^^
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2012, 05:20:06 AM »
So, it comes down to automation so you can build that 200 ton fighter without any crew at some point^^
Huh?  Why would you need automation?

It's a suicide fighter, yeah?  =D
 

Offline sublight

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Captain
  • *
  • s
  • Posts: 592
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2012, 08:12:45 AM »
Speaking of impact physics, conventional missiles ought to replace the warhead with concrete and become guided kinetic kill vehicles.

The 5ton sample conventional missile does a little over 10GJ on contact, and must make contact to do damage.
However, 3.5 tons moving at 1200 km/s (missile mass minus fuel mass at roughly 50% max deltaV) would contain 2,520,000 GJ of energy. The actual warhead seems a little frivolous.

No wait, here's a better idea: build a 10 ton anti-ship kinetic kill vehicle that has a nuclear 2.5 ton anti-anti-missile where the old warhead once was.  :D
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2012, 09:07:50 AM »
Well, depending on how the game engine goes, might need to make suicide fighters after all. 

Drones might not be able to mount railguns (where's the firecontrol going to go?).  And if they could, might not be able to change targets.  And perhaps not operate in squadrons for remote active sensors.  (this bit is actually the bit I think is most likely to be possible)

Might need to rely on suicide fighters.  But the principle is the same. 
So it's a kamikaze railgun fighter.  Earlier, you said something about a suicide fighter, which I interpreted as a "ram the target" thing.  Which would make it a missile.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #54 on: February 03, 2012, 05:12:04 PM »
So it's a kamikaze railgun fighter. 
Yes, that.  The railgun is engineered to be the biggest thing you could fit on the fighter, to improve the possible firing solutions. 

I called it the suicide fighter because it probably won't survive contact and it won't have enough fuel to slow down.  Given that the proposed use was for it to be based on carriers and intercept targets appearing at hyperlimits, odds are that the fighters will go sailing out of the system after the attack run is done. 

Whether it does so as an intact fighter or a rapidly expanding cloud of plasma depends on whether the enemy is pissed at having died. 


The concept itself might need some fine-tuning.  Instead of building a big railgun, it might be easier to simply mount small railguns and have a few smaller fighters.  Depends on how small you can them (and thus how much mass you waste on crew life support etc.)
 

Offline procyon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • p
  • Posts: 402
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2012, 10:09:44 PM »
Quote from: jseah
I called it the suicide fighter because it probably won't survive contact and it won't have enough fuel to slow down.  Given that the proposed use was for it to be based on carriers and intercept targets appearing at hyperlimits, odds are that the fighters will go sailing out of the system after the attack run is done.  

Whether it does so as an intact fighter or a rapidly expanding cloud of plasma depends on whether the enemy is pissed at having died.  


The concept itself might need some fine-tuning.  Instead of building a big railgun, it might be easier to simply mount small railguns and have a few smaller fighters.  Depends on how small you can them (and thus how much mass you waste on crew life support etc.)

This is pretty much what I have been looking at for system defense.  I think I will try the smaller railgun and try to pack in as many as I can to maximize 'target saturation'.  Unless the speeds are reduced, a small railgun hitting like a nuke will be just as good as a big one hitting like a larger nuke.

Ships that go from system to system won't be able to use this design, but as a system defense unit I believe it will be hard to beat.
... and I will show you fear in a handful of dust ...
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2012, 05:26:18 AM »
Unless the speeds are reduced, a small railgun hitting like a nuke will be just as good as a big one hitting like a larger nuke.
I'm not getting a big railgun for the larger damage.  In fact, smaller railguns will allow for smaller fighters or more delta-v, hence smaller railguns will actually hit harder. (sorium fuel is more energy dense per ton than railgun power)

The big railgun is for a bigger window of 'intercept' where you have firing solutions.  If you make "iron bombers" with a 1ton railgun, your window of firing solutions might be <1s...

Your enemy will be trying to maneuver out of your way, and going at insane speeds means you might have a problem trying to turn fast enough. 
 

Offline Panopticon

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 883
  • Thanked: 37 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2012, 02:11:42 PM »
As far as railgun defense goes, has anyone looked at the possibilities for shields? Based on the stats Steve has provided us (and I don't recall if he gave us shield stats) would it be possible to design a shield that can stop railgun impacts?
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2012, 03:12:36 PM »
Yes, by having it about one ship length away from the hull (given sufficiently big ships), and able to withstand at least the base energy of the railgun.
The shot would dissipate, letting only a small part hit the ship, which gets a chance to absorb it with it's armor.
Still requires a think belt, and it'll owrk only once, while increasing the chance of being hit significantly.
I wonder if that's a good prospect.
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Impact Physics
« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2012, 06:53:36 PM »
Besides impacting on hull, have we talked about impacting on planets?

For a small 1kg ball of generic metal, 1000km/s relative is 0.5TJ, which I would expect to generate a nuke-like explosion in the upper atmosphere. 

But as the speeds increase and the chunk gets heavier (mass driver is 1kg, fragment missile might be 1-10kg, kinetic strike missile could be 10tons), you could get some obscene energies, and then what happens?

10 tons (15tons full load) at 10 000 km/s relative (say a missile burning all delta-v, tech based off geosurvey vessel) is 500PJ.  Even if it turns into plasma in the upper atmosphere, that's alot of air heading downwards very fast. 

Besides, a long-range anti-planet missile could be fine-tuned for maximum energy yield with a really long burn time (high efficiency engines).