Author Topic: Ammunition  (Read 4659 times)

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2105
Re: Ammunition
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2014, 05:09:11 pm »
And the argument was that since such a ship would have far more mass than today's ships, it would actually be a smoother ride.

I think I recall there being discussion about fuel volatility, using the LC engine. Obviously that's a good ways off, but it seems a good way to deal with the power core / magazine issue.

It'd also be easy to have a 'fuel' or 'fuel-container' block that explodes when some amount of damage is done to it (TNT), and it's explosion radius is based off of how much energy it is still storing. Or you could just need X amount of them for Y engines to preform such and such a way.
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: Ammunition
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2014, 01:00:54 am »
When we're probably also talking about using lasers, mass-drivers, and nuclear bombs, the magazine is not likely to blow up either. A nuclear fission power plant is probably not likely to blow up, but I can't imagine that taking enemy fire is good for it. Do we have any data showing what happens under such a situation? Maybe that's a question for XKCD...

Chernobyl: cooling rods were inserted too late IIRC, fission reaction multiplied out of control, began to melt fuel rods and build steam pressure in main reactor; eventually blew the very heavy (many many tons of concrete and other materials) top off the reactor chamber thanks to steam pressure; fuel rods without coolant melted even faster and sank down to bedrock and kept burning.

tl;dr the explosion was thanks to massive steam pressures, all that surface damage was from vaporized water.
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."

theallmightybob

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 921
  • Sleep is for the weak.
Re: Ammunition
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2014, 04:42:00 pm »
When we're probably also talking about using lasers, mass-drivers, and nuclear bombs, the magazine is not likely to blow up either. A nuclear fission power plant is probably not likely to blow up, but I can't imagine that taking enemy fire is good for it. Do we have any data showing what happens under such a situation? Maybe that's a question for XKCD...

Chernobyl: cooling rods were inserted too late IIRC, fission reaction multiplied out of control, began to melt fuel rods and build steam pressure in main reactor; eventually blew the very heavy (many many tons of concrete and other materials) top off the reactor chamber thanks to steam pressure; fuel rods without coolant melted even faster and sank down to bedrock and kept burning.

tl;dr the explosion was thanks to massive steam pressures, all that surface damage was from vaporized water.

I have a feeling you could easily design reactors to vent steam into space without damaging much around the reactor section of the ship. what i would be more worried about is the glowing ball of hate all the fissile material would likely make in zero G.
would you buy a toaster shaped like an f22 with an eject button on it? cause thats what i'm going for.

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2105
Re: Ammunition
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2014, 05:25:30 pm »
Chernobyl: cooling rods were inserted too late IIRC, fission reaction multiplied out of control, began to melt fuel rods and build steam pressure in main reactor; eventually blew the very heavy (many many tons of concrete and other materials) top off the reactor chamber thanks to steam pressure; fuel rods without coolant melted even faster and sank down to bedrock and kept burning.

tl;dr the explosion was thanks to massive steam pressures, all that surface damage was from vaporized water.

I have a feeling you could easily design reactors to vent steam into space without damaging much around the reactor section of the ship. what i would be more worried about is the glowing ball of hate all the fissile material would likely make in zero G.

But could you vent the steam when I've shot and damaged your mechanisms that control the vents/fuel rods? When all you have to cool the reactor with is hot water and the vacuum of space, overheating seems like a pretty big risk.
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

Holy Thunder

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 655
Re: Ammunition
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2014, 06:03:40 pm »
In The Lost Fleet, the Kicks (Killer Cows) designed their ships with many power substations throughout the ship, none large enough individually to cause a critical overload--power generation was distributed evenly enough to prevent catastrophic failures. It wasn't very efficient, but it was safe.

I probably would opt for a safe-fail mechanism that explosively ejects the entire core in the event that it melts down. With several decent-sized cores, you have redundancy, safe-fail, and a healthy surplus of energy. But that's not likely to happen in-game. 

Weighted ammunition will be pretty awesome. I envision a cruiser-sized high-speed bomber releasing  several dozen heavy, delay-ignition missiles on an initial high-speed run, thereby gaining substantial mobility due to the decreased mass.
--Trespassers will be promptly riddled with bullets and other unpleasant projectiles.

--Survivors will treated with apologies, steak dinner, and a VIP tour of our facilities.

theallmightybob

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 921
  • Sleep is for the weak.
Re: Ammunition
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2014, 06:31:06 pm »
Chernobyl: cooling rods were inserted too late IIRC, fission reaction multiplied out of control, began to melt fuel rods and build steam pressure in main reactor; eventually blew the very heavy (many many tons of concrete and other materials) top off the reactor chamber thanks to steam pressure; fuel rods without coolant melted even faster and sank down to bedrock and kept burning.

tl;dr the explosion was thanks to massive steam pressures, all that surface damage was from vaporized water.

I have a feeling you could easily design reactors to vent steam into space without damaging much around the reactor section of the ship. what i would be more worried about is the glowing ball of hate all the fissile material would likely make in zero G.

But could you vent the steam when I've shot and damaged your mechanisms that control the vents/fuel rods? When all you have to cool the reactor with is hot water and the vacuum of space, overheating seems like a pretty big risk.

you could also operate with liquid salt fuel self moderating reactors with very limited fail states.  The thing is there doesn't have to be an explosion, just an insane radiation risk hah.

many fail safes could also be passive, as in designing the hull for a steam blow out to happen in such a way the rest of the ship is unharmed, or mostly just superficial damage. you would still likely have a glowing ball of hate that was the reactor core sitting there being an issue, radiation risk and source of heat, which is my point.  Being able to eject the whole reactor passively wouldn't be easy, but mitigating the immediate risk would be. you would need to clean it all up after the fight, and it wouldn't be fun.   

....
Weighted ammunition will be pretty awesome. I envision a cruiser-sized high-speed bomber releasing  several dozen heavy, delay-ignition missiles on an initial high-speed run, thereby gaining substantial mobility due to the decreased mass.

yeah i really like the idea of ammunition having a variable mass, it could add for a lot of interesting meta with ship design.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 06:32:53 pm by theallmightybob »
would you buy a toaster shaped like an f22 with an eject button on it? cause thats what i'm going for.