Discussion in 'Civ4 - Unit Graphics' started by MightyToad, Mar 6, 2020.
If brute force ain't working you just aren't using enough of it.
In the show they have a fictional fuel with an energy density that rivals antimatter. Also fictional technology that creates artificial gravity/repulsors. So, with that much hand waving things like fuel economy and aerodynamics are a thing of the past.
What program is that?
Hm..Well, even the entire current production of uranium (if we learn how to safely burn it "in kerosene mode") is simply not enough for a significant fleet of such ships. Thermonuclear-that's something. But for the same "inertial" synthesis, you need a large pile of powerful lasers, and when using brute force, you will need a second large pile. It is much more pleasant to shoot from the second pile at the enemy. In general, cunning and intrigue are good. Especially if they weigh less than at least twice the weight of the reactor and engines.
By the way, I don't remember anyone doing such calculations even in science fiction.
Fusion power could do it though. Assuming we ever get that to work. A fusion powered electric propeller could produce all the lift you ever need.
Well, neglecting power savings requires not only light fuel, but also light energy sources/ engine. So far, we need literally kilometers of lasers to get a couple of tens of kilojoules of energy. It is unlikely that a thing capable of creating a temperature of billions of degrees and holding such a plasma will be light enough in the foreseeable future that the mass of the lifting system can be ignored. It will be seriously "subtracted" from the horizontal speed, etc. In addition, we need to not break the base at the start.In general, many generations of early thermonuclear ships will be economical schemers anyway.
Horizontal speed is easy. Just get up real high and than fall at an angle. You can strap some ICBM sized rockets to the side to help with the first part.
Hmm, to do this, you need to start at an angle, preferably 45 degrees. At the same time, the Minuteman is 40 times heavier than the warhead, which it accelerates to an average speed of about 25,000 km / h. Even if you count incorrectly and directly, for 5000 km / h you will need 8 "Yamato" or 1800 ICBMs. And this is for a one-time flight, which is 1/10 of the range of the battleship. Rockets are an extremely uneconomical thing. By the way, the lunar "Saturn" with the mass of a destroyer (3000 + tons) delivered a module weighing several tons to the Moon.
Not really. You start off vertical and than apply horizontal thrust once you reach your desired altitude. Ideally this will be at some height where gravity is fairly low and air resistance minimal so that you can get to orbital velocity fairly quickly.
I did say some, as in multiple. Again, if brute force ain't working that only means you ain't using enough of it. I am sure you could get it to work with enough rockets. Or just use a pusher plate and set off nukes under the ship.
This said, I am totally envisioning an orbiting Yamato stuck in perpetual low earth orbit firing off atomic shells to bomb cities rather than a battleship flying at aircraft speeds and altitudes. But that is MORE COOL anyway.
In reality, rockets fly almost vertically only at the very beginning. According to the results of the first stage, exactly the same 45 degrees are obtained. This is important, because...
...because to accelerate in an airless space, even with the help of a thermonuclear device, you will have to carry a reactive mass/working fluid with you.
If you use only rockets to achieve orbital velocity, you will need a mass of 20 Yamato, even if you use liquid rocket engines.
1 million 500 thousand tons of liquid rockets, to be exact.
Then we will need for a piece of 3 "Yamato" (220 thousand tons) and what is much worse about 9,800 nuclear charges in 5 kt. 2450 Hiroshima
Deep Space Bombardment Force, 1959. 1. For each warhead launched into space, you will spend two 2. You will have such ships in single quantities. Instead of a huge fleet of atmospheric ships in the opposite direction. At the same time, 3. their location will not be hidden and they will be vulnerable. And, finally, 4. is of little use as a tactical weapon, since they are above the target at most once every hour and a half. It is as bad a substitute for the air fleet as satellite AWACS aircraft
This I did not know. Makes sense though. It's easier to go with the curve than to try and apply directional thrust all at once.
To be fair though you could loose a lot of mass by dropping the stuff you don't need from the design such as armor. It's not like all that plate is going to be terribly useful against modern weapons anyway. Same with a lot of the secondary armaments, optical rangefinders and other stuff.
The good part about using nukes for a liftoff boost is that you can set them off on the ground and don't have to carry them as your reaction mass. You just need a really, really, really sturdy launch pad and a piece of land you don't mind loosing forever.
The good old days. Back when people still said "atomic" instead of "nuclear" and radiation was our friend.
But they are COOL.
And as we all know ∀n=> COOL > n
Its mass is about 21 thousand tons out of 73, 30%. In principle, everything will remain approximately the same. At the same time...
At the same time, the problem is precisely that 1. at cosmic speeds, any small piece of iron is dangerous 2. After the simultaneous spread of anti-missile lasers and rail guns, even on Earth, kinetic weapons will again become one of the most important threats. 4. The same lasers in space are extremely dangerous for unprotected ships. An expensive and large battleship will have to be protected in every possible way. At the same time, modern uranium-ceramic is about 2.4 times better than steel in terms of resistance to kinetics.
It is unlikely that the rangefinders are too heavy even compared to the "Aegis" (66 tons), and at space distances, heavy-duty sensors will be required
Nuclear explosive ships also carry a reactive mass. It just looks like a Large Iron Plate (in early designs) or very similar.
Well, those who are more or less versed in biology are now aware of the level of radioactivity on Brazilian beaches and know that 20 microrentgen per hour or 200-500 -there is no difference.
Yes. Аnd they will also be needed, but the army/navy/aviation/space must be balanced.
Every kilo you can shed is a kilo you should shed. Nobody likes a fattie. Unless you are one of those that do.
But let's be real, you will be trying to shoot this thing down with nukes and not small pieces of metal. We already have hypersonic atomic tipped anti ship missiles from the 60's and 70's that can make a mockery of any armor short of building your ship in the middle of the moon. And they are undoubtedly too cool not to use in an engagement with one of these.
That's why you have anti missile missiles on your missiles so that your missiles can shoot down enemy missiles fired to shoot down your missiles by the enemy missiles coming in to attack your battleship.
No but they are utterly useless on account of being devices designed to measure the distance of enemy ships by visually matching their silhouettes as highlighted on the horizon. So it pays to swap them out.
Than again, those high powered optics must be great for peeping on the people bellow.
Not if the atomic bomb is sitting on the ground at the moment of detonation. Of course, this does mean your launch site is going to resemble Semipalatinsk after a while. But hey, got to crack a few eggs right?
True. Unfortunately Radiation has really changed since the 50's. Like, back than she was all happy and bubbly and ready to show the world to a new era of prosperity, free energy and the occasional man made solar eruption within our urban centers. But than the anti atomic lobby came along with all their mean slogans and activism and it just broke her heart.
Now she only ever walks around muttering to her cats and giving people cancer.
So what you are saying is we need a moon base?
Tens of percent is a lot - but not when it comes to tens of times.
And these are large thin-walled "planes", quite vulnerable. After the appearance of anti-missile lasers and railguns, their chances of reaching anything will be extremely small, even on the Ground. At the same time, space is not the sea, here the situation is impossible "a low-flying rocket is hiding behind (radio)horizon".
At the same time, just a moderately close explosion did not work well on heavy ships, even on the Ground, and in space, in the absence of a shock wave, the effect will be even an order of magnitude lower.
So yes - in the future, the main threat to an unarmored ship is lasers, for an unprotected one - kinetic ammunition. There are a lot of them, they are fast and there is almost nothing to break down in them.
Nuclear shells are also possible, but they generally could not be shoved into a caliber smaller than 6 dm. And these are low-power charges of 2.5 kt. This means that the armor will be effective against them in space at the smallest distance. The plate of the same explosive-flying Orion had to withstand 1400 nuclear explosions twice as powerful at a distance of 50 m. With a thickness of 4 m, how easy is it calculate
No, they measured the distance at the expense of parallax, for which and 15 m in span. At the same time, in space, the optics are no worse than radar, so it would be necessary to put something like Hubble on the battleship. And radar.
In fact, the explosion ship was planned to be sent into orbit not with one explosion of 7 megatons, but 1400 in 5 kt. I don't suppose I need to explain why?
With an explosion capable of throwing 73 thousand tons into orbit in one fell swoop, Semipalatinsk will NOT resemble the whole Earth, because there is nothing particularly terrible in Semipalatinsk right now.
The fact that a planet with a first space velocity less than that of a sub - caliber projectile of a bad tank gun is an ideal springboard for a near-space countertrol. And the far one, of course.
Well actually 10% would get me a good portion toward my weight loss goal for the end of the year. So I disagree.
Yes and no. We are talking hypersonic stuff here. As in stuff flying so fast that you have seconds to respond. And no matter what you say atomic weapons are cooler than lasers and stuff. And if not, you always have the option of an ICBM with a big set of lenses on it for a massive atomic bomb pumped laser to end all lasers. Because why do things half way?
Well sure. But a direct hit with a nuke is still going to be orders of magnitude more horrible for your health than a regular naval shell.
Depends on the model. There were ones where you had to match the image up vertically and in those the horizon plays a big part as a point of reference. Especially since it's like not a dark thing on a dark background with nothing to outline it. Either way I'd take radar over anything else. Although a spinally mounted telescope for observation and aiming is just too cool not to include.
Because it's more efficient. But efficiency pales in comparison to building a giant concrete shaft and using it to direct a multi megaton shaped charge plume to the edge of space to shove your ship up to orbit. Bonus point if you can make it a giant space gun firing these things out like some insane potato cannon powered by the might of the atom.
There is. You have stuff like areas where you really, really don't want to camp and that one lake that you probably don't want to bathe in. But that's today after decades of the place just rotting sad and lonely like I am. Back in the good old days when it got the love and attention it deserved from uncle Joe it was positively glowing.
And remember, you will be detonating a lot of nukes. You need your nukes to launch your warships and nukes to slow you down for landing. You'll want nukes to fire up supplies and and munitions. And of course atomic shuttles for the replacement crew. And you'll probably want to detonate some just because, preferably at night so that the locals know their tax money isn't going unused.
Well yes. Although personally I was thinking of something along the lines of hollowing the thing out to make a giant shipyard war complex to make the largest shipyards on earth look like a kid playing with rubber duckies in his bath. Because why not go big?
Plus, if you aren't building so many giant space warships that their mass in orbit visibly effects the earth to the point where you have to hollow out the moon to compensate you are doing something wrong.
Oh boy! Somehow I was unsubscribed from this thread and almost missed the wonderful Star Gate stuff
Great job. Very cool work
I'm going to skip a long debrief on the units. Here they are. No warranty, or returns.
I find myself in an ancient cave, finding the secrets of a cosmic gate. I just want to go home, but I know Ra has taken a human form.
No, of course not. Hypersound, even on the Ground , is high altitudes, so the reaction time is about 10 minutes or more. It is banal because a rocket at an altitude of 25 km is visible for 600 km If it happens in space, then there are practically no physical restrictions on the detection range, the only question is the power of the sensors.
This thing (if you're talking about nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers) successfully converted 30 kilotons into 134 kilojoules (1/1000 000) and then smeared them over an impressive area. А six-inch armor-piercing shell would have been more convincing. Laser never even learned how to destroy ICBM warheads, let alone burn through 40 cm of armor. And when they do, the battleship will have exactly the same missile defense. The difference is that it will work much further, for the armor.
=Well sure. But a direct hit with a nuke is still going to be orders of magnitude more horrible for your health than a regular naval shell.=
But the difference is that an unarmored or lightly armored ship does not require any direct hit.
=There were ones where you had to match the image up vertically and in those the horizon plays a big part as a point of reference.=
In the middle of the 19th century, parallax was already in full use. The silhouette was not important for measuring range, but for determining the target's COURSE
=But efficiency pales in comparison to building a giant concrete shaft and using it to direct a multi megaton shaped charge plume to the edge of space to shove your ship up to orbit. =
If you get a cumulative jet-and with a nuclear charge, this is quite difficult - it will not send the ship into orbit, but will make a hole in it. Well, a huge starting acceleration, even if you are lucky.
=and that one lake that you probably don't want to bathe in.=
In this lake, quite normal fish have been swimming for a long time, and the radioactivity is lower than in some resort Ramsar,
Separate names with a comma.