Well, i'm a hard sci-fi fan, and enthusian for the technical and background details. The two together easly make me very anoyying in such forums. ^^
What i dont know with this issues i remain in this topic or relocate the main VIA-topic.
After all, sometime i try to understand how the Via-verse ships lasers are working, and encounter a quite interesting problem.
If the lasers are energy based, they are most likely some sort of solid-state ("light pumped") lasers. If they still have problems with the cooling (wich is quite understandable because of the high energy-density), then an other kind of lasers are emerging from the shadows. Currently the most powerfull mobile lasers are chemical reaction based. The 1MW laser of the (now cutted) YAL-1A Airborne laser are COIL laser (Chemical Oxide-Ionid Laser), they use chemicals (chlorine, molecular iodine, hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide) to generate laser beam. This way have some advantage, and some drawback too. In one side, this kind of laser are wont need too much energy input, and wont have really serious heat problems (well, if the reaction gasses are discharged, they throw the heat out too - too bad the COIL are using highly toxic materials, so it's wont wise to dump those into the atmosphere, but we are talking about in space warfare, so we dont need to be care such things). The drawbacks are easly can be spottet, even the YAL-1A large COIL laser can shoot 7 (or 12, sources variing) times with the large amount of "laser-fuel" she carried, and on other hand, the laser need exotic fuel, wich is not simply reachable perhaps in the outer colonies. In first sight it's seems useless, but i fimd interesting the possibility to use such type for example in low-cost local-patrol crafts.
The other point is first seems to be oblivius, but i wont spotted tough. If the RA frigate 1TW laser are too powrfull for anti-missile use (as Stonecold mentioned, it's merely overkill), then only can be provide a "low-power" settings for example 10 or 100MW level, where the laser cooling systems are not pushed to their limits, so the laser can fire more frequently, and become more potent for such role.
As for lasers, at first I wanted to use chemical lasers, to avoid extensive heat buildup and energy draw. However, after some rough calculations, it was found, that both lasers, firing non-stop mode, will produce about 1/10 of total waste heat of the ship. Main waste heat produsers are the thrusters. Due some "magic" efficiency issues, thrusters in VIA use up to 2/3 of produced energy for propulsion purpose (in real life - 20% seems to be extremely good), some waste heat is recycled back into electricity, and only a fraction of "realistic" waste heat, really have to be wasted. But still it is more, then lasers in normal mode produce
So, after some studies about the problems of chemical lasers, that you mentioned, I`ve decided to go with solid state lasers instead. They don`t use "ammunition", they can be cooled by the same lithium coolant as the rest of the ship, so no need of providing separate cooling cirquits.
BTW, in space, it is not much problem to jettisson the coolant/"laser fuel". The problem is - "where to get it from?" Your ship tankage is quite limited, after all, and lighter then water "gundamium alloy" was never invented.
The other point is first seems to be oblivius, but i wont spotted tough. If the RA frigate 1TW laser are too powrfull for anti-missile use (as Stonecold mentioned, it's merely overkill), then only can be provide a "low-power" settings for example 10 or 100MW level, where the laser cooling systems are not pushed to their limits, so the laser can fire more frequently, and become more potent for such role.
Lets see. Yes, you can fire main lasers at 1/10 or 1/100 of their power. And they would have far superior to common point defence systems precision, due to a large lenses. However, you have to rotate and pivot quite a huge ass "turret" with lens on top of it, instead of rotating relatively small and light point defence laser. So, I guess the speed of reaction will suffer. Using those lasers as "very long range point defence" is possible, its just most likely won`t be needed, save for emergency situations.
As for lasers, at first I wanted to use chemical lasers, to avoid extensive heat buildup and energy draw. However, after some rough calculations, it was found, that both lasers, firing non-stop mode, will produce about 1/10 of total waste heat of the ship. Main waste heat produsers are the thrusters. Due some "magic" efficiency issues, thrusters in VIA use up to 2/3 of produced energy for propulsion purpose (in real life - 20% seems to be extremely good), some waste heat is recycled back into electricity, and only a fraction of "realistic" waste heat, really have to be wasted. But still it is more, then lasers in normal mode produce
I was noticed this, the VIA-ships have quite little (or even none) radiators for the desired power output, but i was quickly overstep on this,because only on the Moscow-class seen deployable radiator, so somehow carry on it... But now as you mentioned, it's real shocking to realize we are talking about Terrawatts of power (if i'm correct), but almost none about the waste heat. Perhaps the VIA-verse have very advanced energy system, or very effective energy-transformators... Or perhaps the cooling are mostly solved by cooling liquid? Well, radiate such level of heat means *gigantic* radiators, wich are heavy, hard to conceal, etc., so in relative short term, the cooling liquid discarge the most effective way to dump the waste heat.
So, after some studies about the problems of chemical lasers, that you mentioned, I`ve decided to go with solid state lasers instead. They don`t use "ammunition", they can be cooled by the same lithium coolant as the rest of the ship, so no need of providing separate cooling cirquits.
And if i get the picture right, the ships have relative power-rich environment, so the lasers energy dependence are not a big issue at all.
BTW, in space, it is not much problem to jettisson the coolant/"laser fuel". The problem is - "where to get it from?" Your ship tankage is quite limited, after all, and lighter then water "gundamium alloy" was never invented.
Well, as i mentioned above, in this case the cooling liquid is still easier and (at least in short "off-shore" time) more effective in my opinion, than big and heavy radiators... Perhaps the Moscow-class have radiator because of the "ancient" desing compared to the other ships?
Lets see. Yes, you can fire main lasers at 1/10 or 1/100 of their power. And they would have far superior to common point defence systems precision, due to a large lenses. However, you have to rotate and pivot quite a huge ass "turret" with lens on top of it, instead of rotating relatively small and light point defence laser.
Well, it's a double edge knife. In a big laser, you have larger mirrors and lenses, so with the same energy-level you gain much fewer heat. OK, there is a big question the percentage of the heat build up from the laser generating, and how many gained on the mirror and lenses.
On the reaction time... well, if the incoming missiles are coming the same direction there is quite little change needed to the turret orientation, so i belive this only can be problem if the ship encounter a massive incoming missile barrage from different directions (read: the ship are encircled by numerous enemy ships).
But now as you mentioned, it's real shocking to realize we are talking about Terrawatts of power (if i'm correct), but almost none about the waste heat. Perhaps the VIA-verse have very advanced energy system, or very effective energy-transformators... Or perhaps the cooling are mostly solved by cooling liquid? Well, radiate such level of heat means *gigantic* radiators, wich are heavy, hard to conceal, etc., so in relative short term, the cooling liquid discarge the most effective way to dump the waste heat.
Yep. Heat is wasted somewhat "magicaly". And yes, we are talking about terawats of waste heat, just from working thrusters. And yes, every ship in VIA-universe, actually should carry huge (i mean REALLY huge!) and unarmored radiators. For example, if we use droplet radiator system (wich is by far more efficient and damage-resistant to normal ratiators, but completely unusefull in combat) to dispose 1 TW of heat we`ll need 10m X 10m radiator frame. Here`s the calc. The data is for lithium droplets, I think. Conventional radiator, will give you about 1/6 of this efficiency. http://www.5596.org/cgi-bin/dropletradiator.php
Another method to drop heat a bit - use armor itself as secondary radiator. I mean - just run hot coolant through the armor, and it will loose some heat. Also, heating up propellant before it`s use is a good idea, I think. And of course - internal heat-sink banks are required. Also, most ships are equipped with some retractable radiators, to cool down after the combat, they just aren`t pictured.
And if i get the picture right, the ships have relative power-rich environment, so the lasers energy dependence are not a big issue at all.
Yes. Most civilian ships dont even need separate reactors. All their onboard needs are covered by resycling some of the waste heat from the thrusters.
Well, as i mentioned above, in this case the cooling liquid is still easier and (at least in short "off-shore" time) more effective in my opinion, than big and heavy radiators... Perhaps the Moscow-class have radiator because of the "ancient" desing compared to the other ships?
Yes, It`s quite ancient, and cooling technology made a few breakthrough since that time. Additionaly, Moscow-class can cool-down more rapidly, then other ships, due to the deployed radiators, or even continue fire allmost infinitely, if radiators are left deployed (very unlikely, since the radiator construction would break from the first combat maneuver).
Well, it's a double edge knife. In a big laser, you have larger mirrors and lenses, so with the same energy-level you gain much fewer heat. OK, there is a big question the percentage of the heat build up from the laser generating, and how many gained on the mirror and lenses.
I have used 80% efficiency for lasers. That`s sort of "magic" too, but seems to be achievable with near-future technologies (50-60% is a reality). So, roughly, the larger the lens, the more powerfull beam you can focus without vaporising the lens. Everything else is just an assumption, based on some experiments with laser calculator.
On the reaction time... well, if the incoming missiles are coming the same direction there is quite little change needed to the turret orientation, so i belive this only can be problem if the ship encounter a massive incoming missile barrage from different directions (read: the ship are encircled by numerous enemy ships).
That`s good for conventional missiles. However, FTL missiles follow the same rules as fighter. It can fold-in in some sphere around the planned exit point, and not necessary, that two missiles will fold-in on the same side of the target.
Yep. Heat is wasted somewhat "magicaly". And yes, we are talking about terawats of waste heat, just from working thrusters. And yes, every ship in VIA-universe, actually should carry huge (i mean REALLY huge!) and unarmored radiators. For example, if we use droplet radiator system (wich is by far more efficient and damage-resistant to normal ratiators, but completely unusefull in combat) to dispose 1 TW of heat we`ll need 10m X 10m radiator frame. Here`s the calc. The data is for lithium droplets, I think. Conventional radiator, will give you about 1/6 of this efficiency...
Another method to drop heat a bit - use armor itself as secondary radiator. I mean - just run hot coolant through the armor, and it will loose some heat. Also, heating up propellant before it`s use is a good idea, I think.
One of my fancy idea is to use the armour as radiator, as you mention, but as large, thick extra panels, wich can be dropped if necesarry. But this method have a little problem, when you encounter laser weapons. The lasers are effectively overheat the armour, so you wont really want to pre-heat the armour, instead you really want to cool down, as you can, and if a laser hit happen, then quickly pump more cool liquid under them.
And of course - internal heat-sink banks are required. Also, most ships are equipped with some retractable radiators, to cool down after the combat, they just aren`t pictured.
Razer sharp method to cut the gordian knot.
I have used 80% efficiency for lasers. That`s sort of "magic" too, but seems to be achievable with near-future technologies (50-60% is a reality). So, roughly, the larger the lens, the more powerfull beam you can focus without vaporising the lens. Everything else is just an assumption, based on some experiments with laser calculator.
Thats okay, my point is a 100MW laser with 3 meter mirror/lenses are take up roughly half as much heat, than with a same output, but with 2m diameter mirror/lenses if i'm correct. So the larger aperture needs less cooling unit.
That`s good for conventional missiles. However, FTL missiles follow the same rules as fighter. It can fold-in in some sphere around the planned exit point, and not necessary, that two missiles will fold-in on the same side of the target.
Well, this is a tricky thing, i don't even brother how can be effectively use the FTL missiles, how they work.
As i learn now, the FTL missiles are try to close the target in FTL speed as they can, then switch to normal engines, and the final approach happen in normal engine and speed?
The lasers are effectively overheat the armour, so you wont really want to pre-heat the armour, instead you really want to cool down, as you can, and if a laser hit happen, then quickly pump more cool liquid under them.
I don`t think that would matter. Laser simply vaporises some metal in 1ms. Surrounding metal won`t even heat up too much, I think.
As i learn now, the FTL missiles are try to close the target in FTL speed as they can, then switch to normal engines, and the final approach happen in normal engine and speed?
Yes, much like that. Some sort of 3-stage system. 1st stage - single-use FTL booster. Wen the missile emerges in norma space, it discards the booster, locks the target and perform initial acceleration toward the target. Then the second stage is discarded and either separate guided warheads or other munitions are launched.
To break our technological discussion a bit, here are some updated renders of the new frigate. Changes are mostly cosmetic, since I like how it looks as is. Also, lot of internal work to lighten the moddel and to fix some SU bugs. Some geometry errors still visible, but I guess, I have to live with them. Still no name on the ship and no kill marks yet. Last image is mostly for size comparison - ships would move so close, only for docking purpose (and not on parallel course).
Battlefrigate should wear it too, that was one of my mistakes It`s hard to spot, but on Moscow -class destroyer, there is also an image of "Andreevsky Flag".
My thoughts were - if naval aviation wear the blue cross, instead of air force`s "sunrise", then why space navy should not continue the traditions of their predcessors. That begins as a joke, actually (sort of quote from "Space Battleship Yamato" anime), but later, I desided to go with this style.
BTW, if you have good eyes, on the second and third image you can note the astronaut figure near the airlock of smaller frigate, for scaling purpose
Outstanding work Stonecold, a real beauty. Well, apart the shark eyes and jaws, that's a bit too much for me.
Oh, I actually quite like the shark mouth. And at work today when I took a quick look at the three new pictures I didn't get to really take a good look so I completely missed the figure outside the airlock. Thanks for putting that in Stoncold, it really did give me a sense of scale. Now I can picture how much room the habitat ring would have. What kind of simulated gravity are you going for with a ring of that size? 1/6th or 1/4 G?
Its 25 meters radius, so, there`s full 1G. And actually, internal sealed space in main hull is very small, despite the size of the ships.
As for shark mouth, I was following the Cifu`s thought, that the frigate is more like large and advanced torpeedo boat of WW II. I draw the inspiration from the same era, so, the frigate somewhat resemble the diesel subs of that times. and the shadow shields give the ship a definite ichthian look. So, it was natural for a veteran crew, to paint something like this on their ship. After all, camouflage is meaningless, any way.
Battlefrigate should wear it too, that was one of my mistakes It`s hard to spot, but on Moscow -class destroyer, there is also an image of "Andreevsky Flag".
My thoughts were - if naval aviation wear the blue cross, instead of air force`s "sunrise", then why space navy should not continue the traditions of their predcessors. That begins as a joke, actually (sort of quote from "Space Battleship Yamato" anime), but later, I desided to go with this style.
BTW, if you have good eyes, on the second and third image you can note the astronaut figure near the airlock of smaller frigate, for scaling purpose
And thanks to the notice, i can't spot the cosmonaut in first place.
One question: on the battlefrigate side, what are written? And then those red stars below the RE flag, are battle victory notes (3 capital and 5 fighter shooted down?)
As for shark mouth, I was following the Cifu`s thought, that the frigate is more like large and advanced torpeedo boat of WW II. I draw the inspiration from the same era, so, the frigate somewhat resemble the diesel subs of that times. and the shadow shields give the ship a definite ichthian look. So, it was natural for a veteran crew, to paint something like this on their ship. After all, camouflage is meaningless, any way.
Hehe, in this case forget my first impression, it's understandable to make such unique feature.
Now I can picture how much room the habitat ring would have. What kind of simulated gravity are you going for with a ring of that size? 1/6th or 1/4 G?
There is an dispute about what is the desirable minimum radius for 1G.
I think you familiar Nyrath great webpage too, in the Artifical Gravitation section, there is a nice information:
However, the data on artificial gravity is a bit out of date. The original research into it had subjects sick at 3 RPM and incapacitated at 6 RPM+. However, more recent research suggests that, by using incremental increases in rotation and making a few limb movements, adaptation can occur with almost no feelings of nausea. The old research (done on about 30 subjects) simply went from zero to full rotation. Moreover, the adaptation can be simultaneous with non- rotational adaptation. So, moving in and out of the rotating habitat for maintenance or whatever is no problem. It's thought that rotation rates of up 7.5 to 10 RPM are possible. This makes Discovery's 5.5m radius centrifuge a real possibility. In fact, with 10 RPM, you could crank it up to a handsome 0.61 G, or 0.34G if you want to play it safe at 7.5RPM.
OFC the real hard evidence only become when someone actually build a rotating artifical gravity test system in microgravity enviroment, but until then we can suggest a 25m radius section with 6 RPM can generate a 1 g, and most person can endure that.
If you check in the Spincalc, linked earlier by Stonecold, even that page say it's 'maybe too high' the 6 RPM, authors disagree. This 25m radius / 6 RPM are seems to be a popular (and wise) compromise, Klavs81 use such numbers on hes Cerberus / Trident desing too.
Well, one thing sure, the naval flag has cooler looks than the Russian Space Forces flag.
I liked it more, when it was with stylysed rocket. Anyway, that`s an "age of rockets", when space forces are operated from the ground to orbit. In VIA - Space Forces, are an independant branch that "sails" the space and operate from orbit to ground if need be. I Guess, the change of flag is possible, to reflect the change of meaning.
One question: on the battlefrigate side, what are written? And then those red stars below the RE flag, are battle victory notes (3 capital and 5 fighter shooted down?)
Actually, the first thought was "participated in 5 engagements, 1 solo kill and 2 assist kills". Large stars are a bit different. But I guess, I can go with your version as well Both ships are veterans, that passed through RE/GEGD war. The whole war is in early stages of research yet .
As for gravity - my idea was, that at 6 RPM it could be unsuitable for some people (motion sickness) but most military personal, should be able to feel themselves comfortable enough. For pasanger liner, the radius should be 50 meters at least.
WOW! These latest designs are just bloody fantastic Stonecold!!!!!! Bravo!! They have a great Macross meets Homeworld feel to them...Well thought out too and satisfies my never-ending preference for work that properly addresses "suspension of disbelief!"
Actually, the first thought was "participated in 5 engagements, 1 solo kill and 2 assist kills". Large stars are a bit different. But I guess, I can go with your version as well Both ships are veterans, that passed through RE/GEGD war. The whole war is in early stages of research yet .
Well, it's your ship, your ideas, i'm just curious. ^^
I like the idea of different, more complex battle honor system painted on the ships, especially if seems to be well developed.
My guess only coming from the well know II.WW and later used "flag" paintings on fighter and bomber planes.
As for gravity - my idea was, that at 6 RPM it could be unsuitable for some people (motion sickness) but most military personal, should be able to feel themselves comfortable enough. For pasanger liner, the radius should be 50 meters at least.
Well, it's much better to endure some sickness, than endure the consenquences of the microgravitation. But personally i belive this RPM-based sickness are only question of the acclimazitation. If you live regurally in such conditions, your body (well at least most people body) are get the habit to live with it. There is many examples to peoples endure very uncomfortable living conditions, and with times they even take it as an ordinary everyday situation (namely like miners, submariners (in the old times), deep sea divers, etc.).
Well, it's your ship, your ideas, i'm just curious. ^^
I like the idea of different, more complex battle honor system painted on the ships, especially if seems to be well developed.
My guess only coming from the well know II.WW and later used "flag" paintings on fighter and bomber planes.
Well, the kill-mark systems used during WW II, by Soviet pilots and one, used by other countries are a bit different. As far as I know, most other countries paint either plane shilhouette, of the flag of downed plane (namely - german cross). In case of USSR pilots, the kilmarks were allways a star: small star - one victory. If there were no more space for new killmarks, large stars were used for every 10 victories. Sometimes, assisted victories and solo victories were painted differently. Commonly, with different colour, or with some edging. After war, stars became rare, and small stars were used to mark participation in combat missions.
Note the difference in assisted and solo victories. Assisted are without edging.
So, I`ve put both sets togather and made some sort of a mix. Small stars mark combat missions performed, large stars without red edging - assisted victories. Large star with red edging - solo victories. Fighters are not counted, I guess
Well, it's much better to endure some sickness, than endure the consenquences of the microgravitation. But personally i belive this RPM-based sickness are only question of the acclimazitation. If you live regurally in such conditions, your body (well at least most people body) are get the habit to live with it. There is many examples to peoples endure very uncomfortable living conditions, and with times they even take it as an ordinary everyday situation (namely like miners, submariners (in the old times), deep sea divers, etc.).
That was my idea, exactly. For military vessel you have to minimise the habitat size, so, minimum comfortable radius/RPM are chosen.
I know what it is like to have to operate in high sea states and do so regardless of being sea sick or just feeling out of sorts. Done that lots but I always got acclimated to it. I would start a year of sailing and I could feel when we started to leave the jetty even if I was below decks. But after a few months I could take state 6/7 seas without feeling too bad. When the whole ship was confined below decks that is when we would start working on deck! Launching the helicopter Still I think I would bump up my own designs to 30 or 40 meters with a slightly slower spin. It was the rate of spin that I was concerned about anyway. You can manage to function remarkably well when you feel horrible but it isn't something you really want to do for long.
Well, motion sickness should be rare for military astronauts, who passed through the training. And, it is better to feel uncomfortable for a year o so, then to receive kinetic penetrator from enemy missile, because your spin habitat was too large, or you had no time to retract it.
Thats just my opinion of course.
Still thinking about the name for a frigate (and the whole class), so, no new renders, sorry. Menwile, working on light civilian shuttle.
So, I`ve put both sets togather and made some sort of a mix. Small stars mark combat missions performed, large stars without red edging - assisted victories. Large star with red edging - solo victories. Fighters are not counted, I guess
Good to know, i wont familiar the soviet type marking, and thanks for the link!
Well, motion sickness should be rare for military astronauts, who passed through the training. And, it is better to feel uncomfortable for a year o so, then to receive kinetic penetrator from enemy missile, because your spin habitat was too large, or you had no time to retract it.
On other hand, with a larger rotating section, you can be more forgiving in the crew selection (it's a waste to drop a very capable officer just because he/she can't really stand the sickness of a small rotating section), and make a comfortable ship in long duration, wich mean less stress enviroment. In VIA seems to be a good example of the 'new' Kapitolo class UOE cruiser.
In case of Kapitolo class - it`s size, that matters. I mean, for a ship of that size, making large spin-habitat won`t be a problem.
Meanwhile, I`m working on a civilian light shuttle. Here are a few of early sketches.
By the way, I`ve got a few questions about spin habitats. For example, we have an orbital station with a ring radius of a 250 meters or so. We got 1 G via spinning of the ring. Question is - do we actually need the "roof" for this ring? Won`t atmosphere be held inside by the same spin gravity?
In case of Kapitolo class - it`s size, that matters. I mean, for a ship of that size, making large spin-habitat won`t be a problem.
Depending of the desing, i think, for example, the Moscow class has around 35m radius section in deployed? Most US carrier and cruiser ships has 50m radius (same around the Kapitolo, but on arm-placed, not enclosed), etc. I just realize the Sabre class have only ~15 meter radius section. :S
Meanwhile, I`m working on a civilian light shuttle. Here are a few of early sketches.
Nice desing, i'm like it! I'm i seeing right, there is no intake for the engines, or only not be finish the modell?
By the way, I`ve got a few questions about spin habitats. For example, we have an orbital station with a ring radius of a 250 meters or so. We got 1 G via spinning of the ring. Question is - do we actually need the "roof" for this ring? Won`t atmosphere be held inside by the same spin gravity?
I belive you can't simply make enough force to counter of the pressure-difference (zero vs. sea level). On a planet the planet gravitation force and the atmosphere sheer weight counter the space vacuum. If the planet wont have enough gravitation force, or their atmosphere not dense enough, the vacuum sooner or later win - like in the case of the Mars. The smaller Titan have a very dense atmosphere, but he can keep it because of that (the Titan atmosphere are heavier than the Earth atmosphere, tough the Titan are less than half the size of the Earth, and has only 1/50 of the mass).
I think you need a *very* dense atmoshpere to keep inside the spin section with from the spining force.
If i call my memory for help, even with large spinning habitats (like the 8km diameter O'Neill Cylinder) have enclosed interior to keep the pressure.
Only such enviroment are seem myself is the Halo ringworld in the Halo computer game, there the ringworld's have 5000km radius (10.000km diameter), and the spining created artifical gravitation keep the atmosphere inside the ring interrior. I wont sure this scientifically accurate, but i have my doubts about it...
Only such enviroment are seem myself is the Halo ringworld in the Halo computer game, there the ringworld's have 5000km radius (10.000km diameter), and the spining created artifical gravitation keep the atmosphere inside the ring interrior. I wont sure this scientifically accurate, but i have my doubts about it...
Larry Niven wrote about a giant ring world with side walls 1000 miles tall to keep the atmo from disapearing.
Nice desing, i'm like it! I'm i seeing right, there is no intake for the engines, or only not be finish the modell?
Yes, no intakes so far. Probably, will make the front part of the thruster with some sort of "shutters" for intakes.
Only such enviroment are seem myself is the Halo ringworld in the Halo computer game, there the ringworld's have 5000km radius (10.000km diameter), and the spining created artifical gravitation keep the atmosphere inside the ring interrior. I wont sure this scientifically accurate, but i have my doubts about it...
Original "Halo" from the book, was the ring structure around the star, and have the radius of Earth`s orbit. Sort of "poor mans Dyson sphere". I guess, the idea of "open structure" for space station originates from there.
Larry Niven wrote about a giant ring world with side walls 1000 miles tall to keep the atmo from disapearing.
Mkay, let's say it, to a Dyson-sphere level, or at least on a Halo level there is a good chance to keep the atmosphere inside the habitat only by the spinning force. But you talk about 250m radius level. I don't really belive that's enough for keep inside, without fully enclosed section.
But, if we come down this road, then we can build for example a tube, as a spinning section, the tube lower circular base are the 1g habitat, the tube sidewalls are have to be very tall, but then the upper circular base are can be abandoned, serve as "open roof". And we still need some sort of counterbalance (a similar section or so), and some sort of connection arm, where the spin can be achieved. What sizes are we talking about? Well, the 1g is 1g, thats a fixed number, the atmosphere can't be too dense, because we still want it easly breathable, so the only question is how tall have to be the tube side to keep the atmosphere. Cavebear mention 1'612km, lets calculate "just" 10%, so our 161km tall, we need at least the same radius (well, a little over at least, because we dont want to the two spinning tube are connect eacother), then we are still talking about a *huge* megastructure, not a "tiny" (well at least scale to the above mentioned structures) station...
Posts
What i dont know with this issues i remain in this topic or relocate the main VIA-topic.
After all, sometime i try to understand how the Via-verse ships lasers are working, and encounter a quite interesting problem.
If the lasers are energy based, they are most likely some sort of solid-state ("light pumped") lasers. If they still have problems with the cooling (wich is quite understandable because of the high energy-density), then an other kind of lasers are emerging from the shadows. Currently the most powerfull mobile lasers are chemical reaction based. The 1MW laser of the (now cutted) YAL-1A Airborne laser are COIL laser (Chemical Oxide-Ionid Laser), they use chemicals (chlorine, molecular iodine, hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide) to generate laser beam. This way have some advantage, and some drawback too. In one side, this kind of laser are wont need too much energy input, and wont have really serious heat problems (well, if the reaction gasses are discharged, they throw the heat out too - too bad the COIL are using highly toxic materials, so it's wont wise to dump those into the atmosphere, but we are talking about in space warfare, so we dont need to be care such things). The drawbacks are easly can be spottet, even the YAL-1A large COIL laser can shoot 7 (or 12, sources variing) times with the large amount of "laser-fuel" she carried, and on other hand, the laser need exotic fuel, wich is not simply reachable perhaps in the outer colonies. In first sight it's seems useless, but i fimd interesting the possibility to use such type for example in low-cost local-patrol crafts.
The other point is first seems to be oblivius, but i wont spotted tough. If the RA frigate 1TW laser are too powrfull for anti-missile use (as Stonecold mentioned, it's merely overkill), then only can be provide a "low-power" settings for example 10 or 100MW level, where the laser cooling systems are not pushed to their limits, so the laser can fire more frequently, and become more potent for such role.
So, after some studies about the problems of chemical lasers, that you mentioned, I`ve decided to go with solid state lasers instead. They don`t use "ammunition", they can be cooled by the same lithium coolant as the rest of the ship, so no need of providing separate cooling cirquits.
BTW, in space, it is not much problem to jettisson the coolant/"laser fuel". The problem is - "where to get it from?" Your ship tankage is quite limited, after all, and lighter then water "gundamium alloy" was never invented.
Lets see. Yes, you can fire main lasers at 1/10 or 1/100 of their power. And they would have far superior to common point defence systems precision, due to a large lenses. However, you have to rotate and pivot quite a huge ass "turret" with lens on top of it, instead of rotating relatively small and light point defence laser. So, I guess the speed of reaction will suffer. Using those lasers as "very long range point defence" is possible, its just most likely won`t be needed, save for emergency situations.
I was noticed this, the VIA-ships have quite little (or even none) radiators for the desired power output, but i was quickly overstep on this,because only on the Moscow-class seen deployable radiator, so somehow carry on it... But now as you mentioned, it's real shocking to realize we are talking about Terrawatts of power (if i'm correct), but almost none about the waste heat. Perhaps the VIA-verse have very advanced energy system, or very effective energy-transformators... Or perhaps the cooling are mostly solved by cooling liquid? Well, radiate such level of heat means *gigantic* radiators, wich are heavy, hard to conceal, etc., so in relative short term, the cooling liquid discarge the most effective way to dump the waste heat.
And if i get the picture right, the ships have relative power-rich environment, so the lasers energy dependence are not a big issue at all.
Well, as i mentioned above, in this case the cooling liquid is still easier and (at least in short "off-shore" time) more effective in my opinion, than big and heavy radiators... Perhaps the Moscow-class have radiator because of the "ancient" desing compared to the other ships?
Well, it's a double edge knife. In a big laser, you have larger mirrors and lenses, so with the same energy-level you gain much fewer heat. OK, there is a big question the percentage of the heat build up from the laser generating, and how many gained on the mirror and lenses.
On the reaction time... well, if the incoming missiles are coming the same direction there is quite little change needed to the turret orientation, so i belive this only can be problem if the ship encounter a massive incoming missile barrage from different directions (read: the ship are encircled by numerous enemy ships).
Yep. Heat is wasted somewhat "magicaly". And yes, we are talking about terawats of waste heat, just from working thrusters. And yes, every ship in VIA-universe, actually should carry huge (i mean REALLY huge!) and unarmored radiators. For example, if we use droplet radiator system (wich is by far more efficient and damage-resistant to normal ratiators, but completely unusefull in combat) to dispose 1 TW of heat we`ll need 10m X 10m radiator frame. Here`s the calc. The data is for lithium droplets, I think. Conventional radiator, will give you about 1/6 of this efficiency.
http://www.5596.org/cgi-bin/dropletradiator.php
Another method to drop heat a bit - use armor itself as secondary radiator. I mean - just run hot coolant through the armor, and it will loose some heat. Also, heating up propellant before it`s use is a good idea, I think. And of course - internal heat-sink banks are required. Also, most ships are equipped with some retractable radiators, to cool down after the combat, they just aren`t pictured.
Yes. Most civilian ships dont even need separate reactors. All their onboard needs are covered by resycling some of the waste heat from the thrusters.
Yes, It`s quite ancient, and cooling technology made a few breakthrough since that time. Additionaly, Moscow-class can cool-down more rapidly, then other ships, due to the deployed radiators, or even continue fire allmost infinitely, if radiators are left deployed (very unlikely, since the radiator construction would break from the first combat maneuver).
I have used 80% efficiency for lasers. That`s sort of "magic" too, but seems to be achievable with near-future technologies (50-60% is a reality). So, roughly, the larger the lens, the more powerfull beam you can focus without vaporising the lens. Everything else is just an assumption, based on some experiments with laser calculator.
That`s good for conventional missiles. However, FTL missiles follow the same rules as fighter. It can fold-in in some sphere around the planned exit point, and not necessary, that two missiles will fold-in on the same side of the target.
One of my fancy idea is to use the armour as radiator, as you mention, but as large, thick extra panels, wich can be dropped if necesarry. But this method have a little problem, when you encounter laser weapons. The lasers are effectively overheat the armour, so you wont really want to pre-heat the armour, instead you really want to cool down, as you can, and if a laser hit happen, then quickly pump more cool liquid under them.
Razer sharp method to cut the gordian knot.
Thats okay, my point is a 100MW laser with 3 meter mirror/lenses are take up roughly half as much heat, than with a same output, but with 2m diameter mirror/lenses if i'm correct. So the larger aperture needs less cooling unit.
Well, this is a tricky thing, i don't even brother how can be effectively use the FTL missiles, how they work.
As i learn now, the FTL missiles are try to close the target in FTL speed as they can, then switch to normal engines, and the final approach happen in normal engine and speed?
I don`t think that would matter. Laser simply vaporises some metal in 1ms. Surrounding metal won`t even heat up too much, I think.
Yes, much like that. Some sort of 3-stage system. 1st stage - single-use FTL booster. Wen the missile emerges in norma space, it discards the booster, locks the target and perform initial acceleration toward the target. Then the second stage is discarded and either separate guided warheads or other munitions are launched.
The smaller frigate are wear the wet russian navy flag?
My thoughts were - if naval aviation wear the blue cross, instead of air force`s "sunrise", then why space navy should not continue the traditions of their predcessors. That begins as a joke, actually (sort of quote from "Space Battleship Yamato" anime), but later, I desided to go with this style.
BTW, if you have good eyes, on the second and third image you can note the astronaut figure near the airlock of smaller frigate, for scaling purpose
Oh, I actually quite like the shark mouth. And at work today when I took a quick look at the three new pictures I didn't get to really take a good look so I completely missed the figure outside the airlock. Thanks for putting that in Stoncold, it really did give me a sense of scale. Now I can picture how much room the habitat ring would have. What kind of simulated gravity are you going for with a ring of that size? 1/6th or 1/4 G?
As for shark mouth, I was following the Cifu`s thought, that the frigate is more like large and advanced torpeedo boat of WW II. I draw the inspiration from the same era, so, the frigate somewhat resemble the diesel subs of that times. and the shadow shields give the ship a definite ichthian look. So, it was natural for a veteran crew, to paint something like this on their ship. After all, camouflage is meaningless, any way.
Well, one thing sure, the naval flag has cooler looks than the Russian Space Forces flag.
And thanks to the notice, i can't spot the cosmonaut in first place.
One question: on the battlefrigate side, what are written? And then those red stars below the RE flag, are battle victory notes (3 capital and 5 fighter shooted down?)
Hehe, in this case forget my first impression, it's understandable to make such unique feature.
There is an dispute about what is the desirable minimum radius for 1G.
I think you familiar Nyrath great webpage too, in the Artifical Gravitation section, there is a nice information:
However, the data on artificial gravity is a bit out of date. The original research into it had subjects sick at 3 RPM and incapacitated at 6 RPM+. However, more recent research suggests that, by using incremental increases in rotation and making a few limb movements, adaptation can occur with almost no feelings of nausea. The old research (done on about 30 subjects) simply went from zero to full rotation. Moreover, the adaptation can be simultaneous with non- rotational adaptation. So, moving in and out of the rotating habitat for maintenance or whatever is no problem. It's thought that rotation rates of up 7.5 to 10 RPM are possible. This makes Discovery's 5.5m radius centrifuge a real possibility. In fact, with 10 RPM, you could crank it up to a handsome 0.61 G, or 0.34G if you want to play it safe at 7.5RPM.
OFC the real hard evidence only become when someone actually build a rotating artifical gravity test system in microgravity enviroment, but until then we can suggest a 25m radius section with 6 RPM can generate a 1 g, and most person can endure that.
If you check in the Spincalc, linked earlier by Stonecold, even that page say it's 'maybe too high' the 6 RPM, authors disagree. This 25m radius / 6 RPM are seems to be a popular (and wise) compromise, Klavs81 use such numbers on hes Cerberus / Trident desing too.
I liked it more, when it was with stylysed rocket. Anyway, that`s an "age of rockets", when space forces are operated from the ground to orbit. In VIA - Space Forces, are an independant branch that "sails" the space and operate from orbit to ground if need be. I Guess, the change of flag is possible, to reflect the change of meaning.
Actually, the first thought was "participated in 5 engagements, 1 solo kill and 2 assist kills". Large stars are a bit different. But I guess, I can go with your version as well
As for gravity - my idea was, that at 6 RPM it could be unsuitable for some people (motion sickness) but most military personal, should be able to feel themselves comfortable enough. For pasanger liner, the radius should be 50 meters at least.
Well, it's your ship, your ideas, i'm just curious. ^^
I like the idea of different, more complex battle honor system painted on the ships, especially if seems to be well developed.
My guess only coming from the well know II.WW and later used "flag" paintings on fighter and bomber planes.
Well, it's much better to endure some sickness, than endure the consenquences of the microgravitation. But personally i belive this RPM-based sickness are only question of the acclimazitation. If you live regurally in such conditions, your body (well at least most people body) are get the habit to live with it. There is many examples to peoples endure very uncomfortable living conditions, and with times they even take it as an ordinary everyday situation (namely like miners, submariners (in the old times), deep sea divers, etc.).
Well, the kill-mark systems used during WW II, by Soviet pilots and one, used by other countries are a bit different. As far as I know, most other countries paint either plane shilhouette, of the flag of downed plane (namely - german cross). In case of USSR pilots, the kilmarks were allways a star: small star - one victory. If there were no more space for new killmarks, large stars were used for every 10 victories. Sometimes, assisted victories and solo victories were painted differently. Commonly, with different colour, or with some edging. After war, stars became rare, and small stars were used to mark participation in combat missions.
Note the difference in assisted and solo victories. Assisted are without edging.
rechkal6..jpg
Taken from here (don`t know if this will help you >.<):
http://www.airaces.narod.ru/all1/rechkal.htm
So, I`ve put both sets togather and made some sort of a mix. Small stars mark combat missions performed, large stars without red edging - assisted victories. Large star with red edging - solo victories. Fighters are not counted, I guess
That was my idea, exactly. For military vessel you have to minimise the habitat size, so, minimum comfortable radius/RPM are chosen.
Thats just my opinion of course.
Still thinking about the name for a frigate (and the whole class), so, no new renders, sorry. Menwile, working on light civilian shuttle.
Good to know, i wont familiar the soviet type marking, and thanks for the link!
On other hand, with a larger rotating section, you can be more forgiving in the crew selection (it's a waste to drop a very capable officer just because he/she can't really stand the sickness of a small rotating section), and make a comfortable ship in long duration, wich mean less stress enviroment. In VIA seems to be a good example of the 'new' Kapitolo class UOE cruiser.
Meanwhile, I`m working on a civilian light shuttle. Here are a few of early sketches.
By the way, I`ve got a few questions about spin habitats. For example, we have an orbital station with a ring radius of a 250 meters or so. We got 1 G via spinning of the ring. Question is - do we actually need the "roof" for this ring? Won`t atmosphere be held inside by the same spin gravity?
Depending of the desing, i think, for example, the Moscow class has around 35m radius section in deployed? Most US carrier and cruiser ships has 50m radius (same around the Kapitolo, but on arm-placed, not enclosed), etc. I just realize the Sabre class have only ~15 meter radius section. :S
Nice desing, i'm like it! I'm i seeing right, there is no intake for the engines, or only not be finish the modell?
I belive you can't simply make enough force to counter of the pressure-difference (zero vs. sea level). On a planet the planet gravitation force and the atmosphere sheer weight counter the space vacuum. If the planet wont have enough gravitation force, or their atmosphere not dense enough, the vacuum sooner or later win - like in the case of the Mars. The smaller Titan have a very dense atmosphere, but he can keep it because of that (the Titan atmosphere are heavier than the Earth atmosphere, tough the Titan are less than half the size of the Earth, and has only 1/50 of the mass).
I think you need a *very* dense atmoshpere to keep inside the spin section with from the spining force.
If i call my memory for help, even with large spinning habitats (like the 8km diameter O'Neill Cylinder) have enclosed interior to keep the pressure.
Only such enviroment are seem myself is the Halo ringworld in the Halo computer game, there the ringworld's have 5000km radius (10.000km diameter), and the spining created artifical gravitation keep the atmosphere inside the ring interrior. I wont sure this scientifically accurate, but i have my doubts about it...
Larry Niven wrote about a giant ring world with side walls 1000 miles tall to keep the atmo from disapearing.
Yes, no intakes so far. Probably, will make the front part of the thruster with some sort of "shutters" for intakes.
Original "Halo" from the book, was the ring structure around the star, and have the radius of Earth`s orbit. Sort of "poor mans Dyson sphere". I guess, the idea of "open structure" for space station originates from there.
Yep - that one!
But, if we come down this road, then we can build for example a tube, as a spinning section, the tube lower circular base are the 1g habitat, the tube sidewalls are have to be very tall, but then the upper circular base are can be abandoned, serve as "open roof". And we still need some sort of counterbalance (a similar section or so), and some sort of connection arm, where the spin can be achieved. What sizes are we talking about? Well, the 1g is 1g, thats a fixed number, the atmosphere can't be too dense, because we still want it easly breathable, so the only question is how tall have to be the tube side to keep the atmosphere. Cavebear mention 1'612km, lets calculate "just" 10%, so our 161km tall, we need at least the same radius (well, a little over at least, because we dont want to the two spinning tube are connect eacother), then we are still talking about a *huge* megastructure, not a "tiny" (well at least scale to the above mentioned structures) station...
Here`s a new render.