Author Topic: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities  (Read 16388 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #60 on: July 18, 2016, 12:16:11 PM »
I found an interesting article on the USN mothballing program after WWII:
Part 1 and Part 2.

The main point is that water is the primary killer of mothballed ships (not surprising) and that's not really a problem in space. 
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #61 on: July 18, 2016, 09:19:47 PM »
The main point is that water is the primary killer of mothballed ships (not surprising) and that's not really a problem in space.
On the contrary, there is quite a lot in space that behaves like water. Take micrometeorites and other microscopic space debris for example (which I mentioned before but I will expand this time. And yes, there is quite a lot more than you would think out there). While they cant punch through tough armor they still sandblast it away given enough time, just like how water will rust away steel given enough time. While not a constant chemical process like water with steel, it is a kinetic process of exchanging energy. While tougher armor would stand up better from them, it would still slowly erode (even if just an atom at a time).
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #62 on: July 19, 2016, 02:45:35 AM »
Even the most basic shield can take a decent-sized nuke every few minutes.
I'm sure something sufficient to keep space debris away could me made in a way that's maintenance-free.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #63 on: July 19, 2016, 09:34:36 AM »
On the contrary, there is quite a lot in space that behaves like water. Take micrometeorites and other microscopic space debris for example (which I mentioned before but I will expand this time. And yes, there is quite a lot more than you would think out there). While they cant punch through tough armor they still sandblast it away given enough time, just like how water will rust away steel given enough time. While not a constant chemical process like water with steel, it is a kinetic process of exchanging energy. While tougher armor would stand up better from them, it would still slowly erode (even if just an atom at a time).
I'm quite familiar with the micrometeorite threat.  The ISS started going up in 1999.  In the past 17 years, they have had no serious trouble, and I don't recall seeing erosion of their shielding being a major threat.  The armor of ships in Aurora is strong enough to deal with near-miss nuclear weapons.  You're looking at decades to see even the smallest effect.  And note that I'm not claiming there will be no degradation.  But ships rot on a timescale of months to years, and in space it will be much, much longer.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #64 on: July 20, 2016, 01:10:09 AM »
And on top of that, it'll only really affect external components anyway, such as... armor.
Though, you probably could just coat the entire ship in a relatively cheap whipple-shield of sorts as part of the mothballing process, and only have to repair the shield once every decade or so. Even a whipple shield worth 1 layer of armor would tank micrometeorites for who knows how long.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #65 on: July 20, 2016, 01:40:27 AM »
Also, micrometeorite would hit the whole surface of the ship, while for sea vessels rusting concentrate right after the floating line, where salt is deposited. That's a LOT of armor to erode. It would take decades to erode even a single tile of armor I'd say.

If we could see enemy armor, it would be nice if old, precursors ships had armor pockmarked by meteor though, since they've presumably been hanging around for millenias or more.
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #66 on: July 20, 2016, 05:02:38 AM »
Also, micrometeorite would hit the whole surface of the ship, while for sea vessels rusting concentrate right after the floating line, where salt is deposited. That's a LOT of armor to erode. It would take decades to erode even a single tile of armor I'd say.

If we could see enemy armor, it would be nice if old, precursors ships had armor pockmarked by meteor though, since they've presumably been hanging around for millenias or more.
Though, assuming that some ships aren't actually stored planetside, which I'd imagine it could be a possibility for the precursors to keep their ships in hermetically sealed caskets of some sort, and we might do the same with our ships if we're willing to pay the cost to assemble such a structure. (AKA hangars? though, probably not something that'd work out if we're going by the new maintenance rules...)
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #67 on: July 20, 2016, 01:34:30 PM »
Given how resilient armor in Aurora is per unit mass, I'm not sure that micrometeorites would be a threat even on precursor timescales.  It's like trying to cut a steel plate with a sandblaster.  The sand takes more damage than the plate does.  A lot more.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #68 on: July 20, 2016, 02:05:08 PM »
You'd need to put them up to AMM levels of damage.

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #69 on: July 20, 2016, 02:34:06 PM »
Yeah, I agree.  Its kindof absurd to say that micrometeorites would erode/corrode nuke-proof armor to any meaningful extent whatsoever.
 

Offline DaMachinator

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #70 on: July 20, 2016, 03:32:51 PM »
It's probably interior systems that would degrade more. Agroponics, air purifiers, CO2 scrubbers, water purifiers; any moving parts including control equipment, switches, and levers; lighting and electrical systems, radiation shielding (depending on what kind of shielding they use), cooling systems, seals on airlocks and bulkheads, etc.
The maximum speed of any ship or missile with a given engine technology is the speed of a ship composed only of one engine of that technology with the highest power to weight ratio possible with current technology, and nothing else.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #71 on: July 20, 2016, 03:57:50 PM »
Why would they?

 

Offline DaMachinator

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #72 on: July 20, 2016, 04:26:53 PM »
Because the exterior systems are very overbuilt, as mentioned previously, and duranium is very strong.

The maximum speed of any ship or missile with a given engine technology is the speed of a ship composed only of one engine of that technology with the highest power to weight ratio possible with current technology, and nothing else.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #73 on: July 20, 2016, 04:29:35 PM »
It's probably interior systems that would degrade more. Agroponics, air purifiers, CO2 scrubbers, water purifiers; any moving parts including control equipment, switches, and levers; lighting and electrical systems, radiation shielding (depending on what kind of shielding they use), cooling systems, seals on airlocks and bulkheads, etc.
Yes, but only very slowly.  Fill the ship with nitrogen, which keeps things from oxidizing and kills off almost any potential life which could cause problems.  No humidity and no oxygen means things last a very long time indeed.  We're talking years to decades with very little upkeep.

Because the exterior systems are very overbuilt, as mentioned previously, and duranium is very strong.
???
His question was 'why would the interior systems degrade', not 'why wouldn't the outside'.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline DaMachinator

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Considering Change to Maintenance Facilities
« Reply #74 on: July 20, 2016, 04:49:04 PM »
Water is not nice to things. Drain the hydroponics systems.

Also, for some reason I though we were talking about what would need maintenance during overhaul.
The maximum speed of any ship or missile with a given engine technology is the speed of a ship composed only of one engine of that technology with the highest power to weight ratio possible with current technology, and nothing else.