Advanced Question Starship Weaponry

[PhantomCruiser]

That's Jean-Luc, and I'm pretty sure we all know who he is.
That's what makes the picture so funny.

If I can find you some specs on our dry cask storage units I'll post them for you. Perhaps thase may help you. They are currently in existance, and they work.

 

[ThatGuy]

Solar radiation is the only type of radiation the ship should encounter once it leaves the Earth's magnetic field.

Where do you get that from.

And wouldn't the immense pressure rupture the ships main layers of armor?

Pressure from what exactily?


PS Good one Hielor

 

[TCR_500]

You know, Orbiter doesn't simulate the reaction of materials to pressure/heat. So for Orbiter, it realy doesn't matter does it? Just make sure it's flyable and wait until I'm ready to build the real thing.

The pressure would be from the vaporised radiation proofed phoam.

 

[Nerull]

Solar radiation is the only type of radiation the ship should encounter once it leaves the Earth's magnetic field.

I'm going to give you a chance to guess, before I point it out, and assuming someone else hasn't already in a later post.

You've got large antimatter weapons. Antimatter annihilation emits something in massive quantities. Guess what it is?

 

[TCR_500]

You just gave it away that antimatter emits radiation. If that's the case, the starship needs to travel faster than the radiation spreads or deploy the plasma shield.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Question - If I'm standing next to a spent fuel rod (screaming all kinds of radiation), how fast do I have to move to out run said radiation if the rod in question is under a foot of water?

Answer - I don't, instead I wander over to the elevator and head back to the shop.

I can't say much for antimatter, as far as I know it can only be created by the microgram. But that's all hearsay.

 

[Nerull]

And how fast do gamma rays travel?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Pretty fast, for all practical purposes it’s the speed on light. But I’m more concerned about how far it can penetrate due to such a short wavelength. If the water in the spent fuel pool were to evaporate (or shudder the thought, leak), I don’t think there is a person within 5 miles of the place that could move fast enough to avoid a miserable death.

We also have a neutron concern, but we measure neutron to calculate reactor power.

Far more common is alpha and beta particles, both of which can be stopped by a layer of clothing.

I think our spent fuel pool is about 20 feet or so from waterline to the top of the spend rods (which are stored vertically at the bottom of the pool). But when we finally ship the rods off for long-term storage, reclamation or whatever, I think they are only “insulated” with a foot of water or so.

That Cerenkov radiation I mentioned earlier is a result of electrons traveling faster than the speed of light underwater. When the lights are off on our refuel floor, the bottom of the pool has this really cool blue neon glow. But the area “lit up” is concentrated at the bottom of the pool, so it’s not enough light to read by. But it is neat to see.

Which is still more information for dude here to consider, while he builds his starship.

 

[Nerull]

The question was for TCR. Antimatter annihilation emits gamma rays, among other things, depending on the type of antimatter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Ah, OK. I get you. I thought you were asking me...

I am anxious to see what this super-duper ship is going to look like. Once it gets released.

 

[garyw]

You know, Orbiter doesn't simulate the reaction of materials to pressure/heat. So for Orbiter, it realy doesn't matter does it? Just make sure it's flyable and wait until I'm ready to build the real thing.

The pressure would be from the vaporised radiation proofed phoam.

Good, good! Make sure you upload it to Orbit Hangar when you are done.

 

[TCR_500]

Good, good! Make sure you upload it to Orbit Hangar when you are done.

I don't have an account there and I'm not sure if an account there will interfere with my account here. When I first came, I saw this message about orbithanger accounts being merged with orbiter-forum accounts.

You might be surprised to find out, that the ship is relatively small. It has to be small enough to land on a runway and light enough to travel into space and large enough to hold all eight of the six-person escape pods. There are going to be three decks. The upper deck is for the living quarters, the mid deck is for the escape pods, and the lower deck is for cargo to build the Mars Bases. Below that deck, is the landing gear and hovering thrusters that will be used to slow down the airspeed of the ship and the landing gear compartment.

 

[the.punk]

Do you know when you want release it?

 

[TCR_500]

I'm not sure of the release date yet. I'm still working on the bridge. Then the main body of the ship, then the escape pods, then the stage one booster. Plus I'm working on about 40 race tracks, and 3 different racing series for my simulator.

 

[Hielor]

I don't have an account there and I'm not sure if an account there will interfere with my account here. When I first came, I saw this message about orbithanger accounts being merged with orbiter-forum accounts.

No, it won't interfere.

You might be surprised to find out, that the ship is relatively small. It has to be small enough to land on a runway and light enough to travel into space and large enough to hold all eight of the six-person escape pods. There are going to be three decks. The upper deck is for the living quarters, the mid deck is for the escape pods, and the lower deck is for cargo to build the Mars Bases. Below that deck, is the landing gear and hovering thrusters that will be used to slow down the airspeed of the ship and the landing gear compartment.

And that huge thing will fly like a fighter? Hah.

 

[TCR_500]

The larger the control surfaces (in comparision to the wing), the more menuverable the thing will be. The stunt plane can rotate 400 degrees in one second because the control surfaces take up the entire width of the wings. However, if you try that in a 747, you'll loose 2,000 feet in altitude during the attempt. I have a flight simulator and I was experimenting with the menuverability of different aircraft. All I have to do is make sure that the control surfaces take up most of the wing span and it will be able to menuver like a fighter. Although I'll have to put the flaps under the wings instead of behind them. So far, the ship is only 23 feet wide. If it stays that way and I put large control surfaces on it, it will be able to menuver like a fighter.

 

[Hielor]

The larger the control surfaces (in comparision to the wing), the more menuverable the thing will be. The stunt plane can rotate 400 degrees in one second because the control surfaces take up the entire width of the wings. However, if you try that in a 747, you'll loose 2,000 feet in altitude during the attempt. I have a flight simulator and I was experimenting with the menuverability of different aircraft. All I have to do is make sure that the control surfaces take up most of the wing span and it will be able to menuver like a fighter. Although I'll have to put the flaps under the wings instead of behind them. So far, the ship is only 23 feet wide. If it stays that way and I put large control surfaces on it, it will be able to menuver like a fighter.

Except that large airliners also use their spoilers when they bank to lose more lift on the wing that's going "down", greatly increasing the wing area used for the control surface, and they still don't maneuver like fighters.

If it were as simple as making the control surface cover the whole wing, designers for large bomber aircraft (ie, the B-52) would obviously be doing that, since the manueverability of a fighter would be highly advantageous.

You're also forgetting that size (and mass) do matter. The wingspan of a 747-100 is about 60 meters, so 30 meters center->wingtip. By your reasoning, if we gave this thing huge control surfaces it would be able to perform like a fighter (and roll 400 degrees in one second). Except, that's asking your wingtips to be going 200m/s around in a circle, which is ridiculous. The wings would snap off.

Moreover, the larger the wing surface area, the more drag you have to deal with when rotating.

If making bomber-sized vehicles fly like fighters was as easy as you think, plane designers would be doing it in real life.

 

[Artlav]

However, if you try that in a 747, you'll loose 2,000 feet in altitude during the attempt.

Mass inertia, man.
If a 747 do a 400 degrees per second barrel roll, the wings will snap off at near-supersonic speed.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

The larger the control surfaces (in comparision to the wing), the more menuverable the thing will be. The stunt plane can rotate 400 degrees in one second because the control surfaces take up the entire width of the wings. However, if you try that in a 747, you'll loose 2,000 feet in altitude during the attempt. I have a flight simulator and I was experimenting with the menuverability of different aircraft. All I have to do is make sure that the control surfaces take up most of the wing span and it will be able to menuver like a fighter. Although I'll have to put the flaps under the wings instead of behind them. So far, the ship is only 23 feet wide. If it stays that way and I put large control surfaces on it, it will be able to menuver like a fighter.

Sigh...

There is much more to flight dynamics than you believe. As good as flight simulators can be, they are not a good tool for designing a new craft. You've got lift/drag coefficients, thrust to weight ratios, wing loading criteria, center of gravity (which will change as fuel is consumed)... This list can be very long indeed.

So your going to have a craft three decks deep, carry eight 6-man escape pods, 23 feet wide with barn door control surfaces that will maneuver like a stunt plane?

From what I've gathered from some earlier postings, you want future tech, and there seem to people here who want to help you, but you seem awful hard-headed about aerodynamics and physics. If you listen (and read) instead of argue you may see your dream craft take flight (with some real-world physics in play).

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

...if we gave this thing huge control surfaces it would be able to perform like a fighter (and roll 400 degrees in one second). Except, that's asking your wingtips to be going 200m/s around in a circle, which is ridiculous...

Exactly. I don't remember for sure, but is this "aerodynamic twisting moment"? It's been a long while ago that I switched from aviation to power.

 

[TCR_500]

It took me about 15 to 25 seconds to complete that barrel roll. I've taken into consideration of the fact that the wing slows is roll speed down. So, I'll simply make the control surfaces take up more of the wing front to back and re-enforce the wing with support structures inside the wing. I'm not going to try to make it do 400 degrees in one second, but 200 should be good enough.