Aurora Oddities - Nuke repellent wall paint and 3d transnewtonium printers

[Vandermeer (OP)]

Sometimes the mechanics of Aurora introduce some strange observations that are not covered by the mere fluid space explanation.
1
One such oddity is related to the strength of nuclear warheads. Though the extreme endurance of the unknown/untested Duranium and Neutronium materials could wave aside why the hulls can withstand multiple large nuclear impacts, what about the rest of the ship? If any attack manages to get through the hull, even the insides can withstand considerable damage, where for example an 8 HTK engine might just survive a strength-4 10ton missile impact unscathed 50% of the time.(..if 10ton really means 10 ton that is, which is in official position actually vague and more to read as "for the praxis of spacetravel => 10tons", so not necessarily the same)
More interesting even, the shipboard magazines could be hit and henceforth detonate a whole belly of nukes inside the ship, and yet, sometimes, -more often with smaller magazines- the ship will still survive.
If those were normal missiles, ok, one could with luck perhaps survive, but the technology text and planetary fallout aftereffects make it very clear on every tech level, that we are dealing with nuclear warheads exclusively.
So if this is not the hull resisting, because there is no hull inside, and we know that the mass of the ship isn't actually wholly transnewtonian, but mostly classical elements, what kind of feng shui magic allows the energy of multiple indoor nukes to be channeled out the air vents to such a degree that the sailors can just end up filing a MSP requisition order to maintenance while continuing on their merry way? Is it nuke repellent spray?

Or perhaps just the will to live?

In a serious way, I could imagine that the fluid space transition that makes those missiles, who can otherwise send whole planets into winters, much less impressive. Perhaps the fluid dimension is just a good shock absorber, though that also raises questions then if lasers too are incredibly high powered, or how massive the gauss and rail projectiles actually are to keep up with the needed violence profile..
..Anyway. Not that I am complaining, because I don't want it changed in any way. This is just about the funny observations that result.


2
Another thing for strategy and exploit that fell in my lap recently. In my current game I am rather cut off from resources outside of Sol and have to somehow subsist against my enemies on the dwindling resource supply there. Most stressing is an Uridium shortage that could actually reign me in over time given that it is used in maintenance constantly.
..Luckily though, I have started with 2+1 friendly NPRs in the same system, who have found the philosophers stone.(..his name is Transnewtonius) Laughing away what is supposed to be total isolating system siege by the invaders, their NPR shipyards operate like a clowncar and have no issue producing around 50 battlecruisers in just a few years each on complete dirth, which they then proceed to occasionally haul against our common enemy. Though the supply isn't very steady, scouring through the resulting wreckage actually now makes up about 70-80% of my nations Uridium income, which lets me participate in their wondrous practice. Praise be Transnewtonius.

[nuclearslurpee]

On the first one, it's been discussed a number of times, and the answer to this is actually quite physical. Basically, nuclear missiles do not explode directly on their target but within a certain range, so only a fraction of their energy actually impacts the target to deal damage. How much damage this actually is depends a lot on the assumptions you make about ship and missile design but suffice to say there is a lot of leeway here. I think Steve has said that he considers the damage profile of missiles a gameplay fudge, and really a more accurate model would be for missiles to just strip entire armor layers instead of having any penetration... interesting to think about for sure.

It is a pretty necessary assumption too; at the speeds and sizes in Aurora, a missile directly impacting its target wouldn't need to be nuclear as the kinetic energy of the missile itself at relativistic speeds far exceeds anything a nuclear explosion can put out. Imagine AMM spam with each missile having 0.1% change to hit but 1000x damage? Scary stuff.

As far as magazines go, frankly the bigger strangeness is that nuclear missiles explode in the magazine at all, that is simply not how they work in real life, but in Aurora as in most sci-fi we must make some concessions to the golden rule of science fiction: nuclear explosions are badass. 

[Vandermeer (OP)]

As far as magazines go, frankly the bigger strangeness is that nuclear missiles explode in the magazine at all, that is simply not how they work in real life, but in Aurora as in most sci-fi we must make some concessions to the golden rule of science fiction: nuclear explosions are badass. 

I've been thinking about that too, but waved it towards that gravity bombs exist, and perhaps there is some necessity to still have that around. On another route you could propose that perhaps only their engine fuel exploded, but then you'd have to explain why magazine explosion strength is still related to warhead sizes.

I guess, since these warheads are made with Tritanium, there might just be a whole new set of 4th dimension physics involved. Note to engineers: 1) 4th dimension fission is nitroglycerin. 2) But 4d nitroglycerin is no stronger than gunpowder.

[Droll]

As far as magazines go, frankly the bigger strangeness is that nuclear missiles explode in the magazine at all, that is simply not how they work in real life, but in Aurora as in most sci-fi we must make some concessions to the golden rule of science fiction: nuclear explosions are badass. 

I've been thinking about that too, but waved it towards that gravity bombs exist, and perhaps there is some necessity to still have that around. On another route you could propose that perhaps only their engine fuel exploded, but then you'd have to explain why magazine explosion strength is still related to warhead sizes.

I guess, since these warheads are made with Tritanium, there might just be a whole new set of 4th dimension physics involved. Note to engineers: 1) 4th dimension fission is nitroglycerin. 2) But 4d nitroglycerin is no stronger than gunpowder.

I believe some missile warhead technology involve antimatter of some form so it could be an internal containment failure in the missile warhead that causes premature annihilation.

Also many older nuclear weapons use a more conventional component to detonate the fission component, whereas modern thermonukes use a fission bomb to trigger a bigger fusion bomb. So you could argue perhaps that there's some new fangled detonation mechanism that isn't quite nuclear but still a substantial explosion to suffer from the inside.

[gpt3]

It's entirely possible that the fission, fusion, and antimatter warheads are all triggered by conventional explosives.

• Modern-day fission bombs are triggered by chemical explosives
• This blog post covers (theoretical) ways to trigger fusion using chemical explosives
• Antimatter warheads are likely to require some sort of violent, immediate trigger action (i.e. an explosion). If you combine matter and antimatter slowly, then you might end up reacting only the surface layer of antimatter and sending the rest of your antimatter recoiling off into space.

[Migi]

As far as magazines go, frankly the bigger strangeness is that nuclear missiles explode in the magazine at all, that is simply not how they work in real life

Tell that to the Moskva.

[Andrew]

While conventional explosives are the trigger for fission weapons which serve as the trigger for modern fusion weapons a magazine detonation is unlikely to initiate an nuclear reaction as the explosives e have to detonate in a very controlled sequence, so an initiation of nuclear warheads in a magazine his is exceptionally unlikely , unless the neutron flux from a detonating warhead managed to initiate the nuclear reaction before the other effects destroy them.
It seems likely that magazine explosions are actually the ignition and explosion of the Sorium fuel stored in the missiles as we know fuel tanks can explode, it is possible that the detonation of the Sorium produces a particle flux which also initiates a chain reaction in the warheads explaining why magazines explode more ferociously than fuel tanks.

Historically with magazines containing explosive shells detonation of the shells has historically been fairly rare and not the main cause of magazine explosions in the Arizona for instance salvage teams had to remove a lot of unexploded shells from the forward hull area after the detonation. What usually explodes is the large amount of propellent stored in these area's and particularly the primer charges intended to ignite that propellent even though these are kept seperate , if enough of them go off the explosion spreads and quite handily wrecks the ship involved

[brondi00]

As far as magazines go, frankly the bigger strangeness is that nuclear missiles explode in the magazine at all, that is simply not how they work in real life

Tell that to the Moskva.

So wait, are you contending that the Moskva was transporting nuclear weapons and that those were set off by an attack and then there was a nuclear explosion inside the Moskva that sunk it!

[nuclearslurpee]

As far as magazines go, frankly the bigger strangeness is that nuclear missiles explode in the magazine at all, that is simply not how they work in real life

Tell that to the Moskva.

So wait, are you contending that the Moskva was transporting nuclear weapons and that those were set off by an attack and then there was a nuclear explosion inside the Moskva that sunk it!

Yeah, that is a load of... it. Even if the Moskva was carrying nukes, it is assured that any ammo explosion would have been from the dozens of conventional missiles she was also carrying.

[Andrew]

The observed damage to the Moskva is fire damage caused by the missile hits and their spare fuel.  The aft SAM's definetly did not explode as there is no sign of structural damage in the pictures and clear shots of that area. The forward area has heavy fire damage so the SSM's could have caught fire but given their huge conventional warheads there should probably be more structural damage if one of them went off, same for the forward ASW Mortars and Gun magazine not enough signs of structural damage forward for a major explosion but the pictures I have seen of the forward hull are not comprehensive enough to rule out some explosion forward.
The fire and the missile hits low on the hull are enough to explain the sinking particularly if watertight integrity not well maintained and hatches not sealed,  then the crew abandoned quickly with minimum attempts at damage control , ship sinks no need for a magazine or missile explosion onboard.

Theoretically the forward SSM's are nuclear capable in case you really want to try hard to kill an American CVN which is their designed job , however there would be no pressing reason for nuclear warheads to be carried and it would actually make sense not to have the SSM's onboard as there is nothing in the Black sea for them to be fired at and certainly nothing the Ukraine owns.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

...certainly nothing the Ukraine owns.

Side note, interesting piece of etymology. The preferred modern usage is "Ukraine" not "the Ukraine," because the old styling "the Ukraine" is derived from the fact that "ukraina" is a word for a border region. So, much like the way we in the US refer to "the Netherlands" (the lowlands) we would historically talk about "the Ukraine" (the borderlands...of Russia!). But the modern Ukrainian state prefers to drop the "the" as part of reasserting their independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

I only learned this when the current crisis spawned a bunch of newspaper articles that didn't have the definite article. I thought it was a typo, but then it kept happening!

[Migi]

Yeah, that is a load of... it. Even if the Moskva was carrying nukes, it is assured that any ammo explosion would have been from the dozens of conventional missiles she was also carrying.

Fortunately I never claimed the Moskva was carrying nukes so you can ignore the troll.

The news article I read said that the Moskva suffered a fire and a magazine explosion, but if that's not correct then either I misremembered the article, or the article was incorrect, or I didn't notice when the article ventured into speculation rather than sticking to factual reporting.

You stated that IRL magazines never suffer from explosions, which I rebut by referring you to the HMS Hood.

It seems likely that magazine explosions are actually the ignition and explosion of the Sorium fuel stored in the missiles as we know fuel tanks can explode, it is possible that the detonation of the Sorium produces a particle flux which also initiates a chain reaction in the warheads explaining why magazines explode more ferociously than fuel tanks.

This is contrary to the actual game mechanics, and therefore cannot be correct.
The amount of fuel on the missiles plays no role in determining the size or likelihood of a magazine explosion.
Additionally ship fuel tanks don't explode in Aurora, they just break like most other components.

[Andrew]

You stated that IRL magazines never suffer from explosions, which I rebut by referring you to the HMS Hood.

Exactly what blew up on the Hood is still uncertain , almost certainly not a main magazine, as the were not near the bit which blew up. Torpedo's or secondry/AA magazines are possible but
HMS Invincible and USS Arizona certainly had detonations or partial detonations of a main battery magazine from bomb or shell hits, the two other British BC's at Jutland died from magazine explosions probably not caused by magazine penetration but flash from turret hits and incompetent dangerous shell handling procedures
USS Maine, IJS Mutsu and numerous other ships over the years have blown up from spontaneous detonation of a Magazine

I was certain I had seen expolsions in fuel tanks in Aurora , I must be wrong oops

[JacenHan]

You stated that IRL magazines never suffer from explosions, which I rebut by referring you to the HMS Hood.

They stated that nuclear missiles do not explode in their magazines, not that magazines in general do not explode, hence the inference that you were also discussing the same topic.

IMO this is a "rule of cool" thing that I highly enjoy: magazine explosions are more fun than no magazine explosions. It would be interesting if fuel acted the same way, though I feel like that might make it too easy to cause these kinds of critical hits.

[Droll]

You stated that IRL magazines never suffer from explosions, which I rebut by referring you to the HMS Hood.

Exactly what blew up on the Hood is still uncertain , almost certainly not a main magazine, as the were not near the bit which blew up. Torpedo's or secondry/AA magazines are possible but
HMS Invincible and USS Arizona certainly had detonations or partial detonations of a main battery magazine from bomb or shell hits, the two other British BC's at Jutland died from magazine explosions probably not caused by magazine penetration but flash from turret hits and incompetent dangerous shell handling procedures
USS Maine, IJS Mutsu and numerous other ships over the years have blown up from spontaneous detonation of a Magazine

I was certain I had seen expolsions in fuel tanks in Aurora , I must be wrong oops

IIRC the most common theory for the HMS Hood is that the Bismarck got lucky and started cooking off the secondary battery magazine, which then found a way to cook into a nearby main battery magazine, heating that magazine up and cooking that off too.