Technology Stats Help

[Kevin Kingswell]

Is there anyway to create earth's gravity on a space station by any means. For example could you somehow get the station to rotate in such a way as to naturally create that gravity level?

If you can't what would be the long term effects of remaining in space for say twelve months?

Thank you in advance to anyone who answers this.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1293395166' post='2554561']
Is there anyway to create earth's gravity on a space station by any means. For example could you somehow get the station to rotate in such a way as to naturally create that gravity level?

If you can't what would be the long term effects of remaining in space for say twelve months?

Thank you in advance to anyone who answers this.
[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity

From what I understand, if you wish to have a section of a space station operate with gravity similar to the Earth's you could design it so that the compartment is essentially a giant centrifuge, the people walking around inside.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1293395589' post='2554571']
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity

From what I understand, if you wish to have a section of a space station operate with gravity similar to the Earth's you could design it so that the compartment is essentially a giant centrifuge, the people walking around inside.
[/quote]

Would it be possible to have the whole station spinning in such a way though so that the gravity is the same everywhere not just in one section.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1293396119' post='2554582']
Would it be possible to have the whole station spinning in such a way though so that the gravity is the same everywhere not just in one section.
[/quote]

Basically what i get from that article, is this.

"As long as its spinning, it'll have your gravity."

Which implies if you made your station entirely a cylinder around which it is spinning like a centrifuge, then yes, it would have gravity throughout.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='King Timmy' timestamp='1293391738' post='2554494']
One thing I would say is how is it that much lighter with a larger gun, which will then use larger ammunition, and also a larger engine which will need to carry more fuel?

Also, I don't think speed is directly proportinal to bhp/ton. The power required is related to the increase in speed cubed. For example if you want to increase speed by 10%, that would be 1.1^3 which is 1.331, so 33% extra power which is about what you have there.
[/quote]
It uses a 185mm cannon (60 shells/missiles) with autoloader and a turbine engine. Fuel capacity is only 190 gallons. To offset the extra weight from the ammunition, the material used in the armoring of the tank is much lighter than the material usually used in modern tanks' armoring.

I redid the calculation after increasing hp up to 2100:

2100hp/1479hp=1.419878296hp difference

1.419878296/(1.331)=1.066775579

1.066775579*(68.6739947 tons/55 tons)=1.33199528 total hp/ton increase

1.33199528*45 mph of Leopard 2 tank=59.9397876 mph of my tank

Edited December 26, 2010 by HHAYD

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293398626' post='2554626']
It uses a 185mm cannon (60 shells/missiles) with autoloader and a turbine engine. Fuel capacity is only 190 gallons. To offset the extra weight from the ammunition, the material used in the armoring of the tank is much lighter than the material usually used in modern tanks' armoring.

I redid the calculation, a bit rougher though:

2100hp/1479hp=1.419878296hp difference

1.419878296/(1.331)=1.066775579

1.066775579*(68.6739947 tons/55 tons)=1.33199528 total hp/ton increase

1.33199528*45 mph of Leopard 2 tank=59.9397876 mph of my tank
[/quote]

A 185mm cannon on an MBT's rotating turret? That's almost as large as the Pion's gun.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1293398709' post='2554631']
A 185mm cannon on an MBT's rotating turret? That's almost as large as the Pion's gun.
[/quote]
Would dropping it to 175mm or 155mm be better? I planned on having tanks that are very fast but with powerful cannons.

[King Timmy]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293398846' post='2554633']
Would dropping it to 175mm or 155mm be better? I planned on having tanks that are very fast but with powerful cannons.
[/quote]

Fast
Powerful
Good

Choose two

[HHAYD]

[quote name='King Timmy' timestamp='1293399075' post='2554638']
Fast
Powerful
Good

Choose two
[/quote]
Fast
Powerful

OR:

Fast
Powerful
Hard to kill
Budget busting (I would have to RP 25% less tanks)


I can't decide which one to pick.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293398846' post='2554633']
Would dropping it to 175mm or 155mm be better? I planned on having tanks that are very fast but with powerful cannons.
[/quote]

There is a reason atm that there are few MBTs with main guns of caliber 125mm and above. 175mm is way too much still, 155mm would be better, yes... but you're getting into turreted mobile artillery range.

The main reason i say no for the 185mm or 175mm guns is the shell weight. The Pion uses 200mm shells and can only carry FOUR ready to use. In comparsion, the M1 Abrams which uses 120mm can carry anywhere from ~40 to 50 rounds i believe.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1293399218' post='2554644']
There is a reason atm that there are few MBTs with main guns of caliber 125mm and above. 175mm is way too much still, 155mm would be better, yes... but you're getting into turreted mobile artillery range.

The main reason i say no for the 185mm or 175mm guns is the shell weight. The Pion uses 200mm shells and can only carry FOUR ready to use. In comparsion, the M1 Abrams which uses 120mm can carry anywhere from ~40 to 50 rounds i believe.
[/quote]
Standard 155mm shells weight about 96lb, a bit more if it uses high density material such as depleted uranium or tungsten carbide.

96*60=5,760lb

5,760/2,000lb per ton=2.88 tons

A 179mm shell is right between 203mm and 155mm shells' diameter. Assuming the weight is also right between the two shells...

(220.462262 lb+96 lb)/2=158.231131 lb for 179mm shell.

158.231131*60=9493.86786

9493.86786/2000=4.74693393 tons


But I'm going to stick with 155mm shells.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293401179' post='2554678']
Standard 155mm shells weight about 96lb, a bit more if it uses high density material such as depleted uranium or tungsten carbide.

96*60=5,760lb

5,760/2,000lb per ton=2.88 tons

A 179mm shell is right between 203mm and 155mm shells' diameter. Assuming the weight is also right between the two shells...

(220.462262 lb+96 lb)/2=158.231131 lb for 179mm shell.

158.231131*60=9493.86786

9493.86786/2000=4.74693393 tons


But I'm going to stick with 155mm shells.
[/quote]

Are you counting on carrying 60 179mm shells in your theoretical tank?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1293402544' post='2554690']
Are you counting on carrying 60 179mm shells in your theoretical tank?
[/quote]
No, I plan on my tanks carrying 60 155mm shells.

Edited December 26, 2010 by HHAYD

[Margrave]

I need advice on small crafts that could be used in lieu of a naval force until I get the tech level for one. I'm talking about boats; sea-worthy, deployed in masse, perhaps even submersibles of some kind. I need something to fill that gap for rp purposes; and I'm sitting at 58 tech. Anyone got ideas?

[Uberstein]

HHYD, you're forgeting that barrel length factors in as well.

You want a L55 gun usually, do you realize how LONG a 155mm L55 gun is? It's BIG. That's 8 and a half METERS.

The Germans tested a 140mm on the Leopard 2, it had major issues with recoil simply breaking the tank. There is a reason I stopped at 125mm on the Steinhammer-H.

Edited December 26, 2010 by BaronUberstein

[HHAYD]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1293407285' post='2554741']
HHYD, you're forgeting that barrel length factors in as well.

You want a L55 gun usually, do you realize how LONG a 155mm L55 gun is? It's BIG. That's 8 and a half METERS.

The Germans tested a 140mm on the Leopard 2, it had major issues with recoil simply breaking the tank. There is a reason I stopped at 125mm on the Steinhammer-H.
[/quote]
The Leopard 2 was designed for the 120mm L/44-55 cannon; I don't think the designers bothered to make the tank compatible with a 140mm cannon. You don't slap on a 80mm cannon on an AH-64 Apache helicopter and expect it to not be destroyed or thrown back by the recoil without upgrading the support frame and engine.

I can drop the length of the barrel down to 7 meters long, though tank's main role is to pulverize enemy armor from mid to long distance away while staying outside of 120mm/125mm cannons' range. That includes M1 Abrams or any other tanks that RPers went insane with armoring them.

If it has to be in a close combat situation; I would send infantry and lighter (cheaper) vehicles to take care of it while having the tanks boot out any ground enemies that are in a tank-friendly area and serve as artillery support.

Edited December 27, 2010 by HHAYD

[Uberstein]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293411119' post='2554776']
The Leopard 2 was designed for the 120mm L/44-55 cannon; I don't think the designers bothered to make the tank compatible with a 140mm cannon. You don't slap on a 80mm cannon on an AH-64 Apache helicopter and expect it to not be destroyed or thrown back by the recoil without upgrading the support frame and engine.

I can drop the length of the barrel down to 7 meters long, though tank's main role is to pulverize enemy armor from mid to long distance away while staying outside of 120mm/125mm cannons' range. That includes M1 Abrams or any other tanks that RPers went insane with armoring them.

If it has to be in a close combat situation; I would send infantry and lighter (cheaper) vehicles to take care of it while having the tanks boot out any ground enemies that are in a tank-friendly area and serve as artillery support.
[/quote]
You can kill an Abrams w/ 125mm rounds, and you lose a lot of range with Sabot rounds anyway.

I remember hearing somewhere that the Abrams can hit a basketball from 3 miles away. But anyway, I'd just send helicopters to take out your tank with missiles, and seeing how everyone uses ETC guns now (without factoring in the size of capacitors and batteries and how that would limit ammunition capacity), you can't outrange them with just a bigger caliber.

Honestly I'd stick to crew survivability and a gun that isn't so specialized. No plan survives contact with the enemy, why design a tank that can't fight once it gets in close?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1293414720' post='2554849']
You can kill an Abrams w/ 125mm rounds, and you lose a lot of range with Sabot rounds anyway.

I remember hearing somewhere that the Abrams can hit a basketball from 3 miles away. But anyway, I'd just send helicopters to take out your tank with missiles, and seeing how everyone uses ETC guns now (without factoring in the size of capacitors and batteries and how that would limit ammunition capacity), you can't outrange them with just a bigger caliber.

Honestly I'd stick to crew survivability and a gun that isn't so specialized. No plan survives contact with the enemy, why design a tank that can't fight once it gets in close?
[/quote]
Try hitting an Abrams at the frontal armoring, lets see how many hits it will take to destroy it. Plan on bringing in helicopters? AA missile launchers and equal thickness throughout the tank's main armoring (except for the bottom) as a counter. I seriously doubt a tank can get close enough to harm an enemy tank that is more than 10 mph faster than the tank unless if the tank's crew used a shortcut.

After looking up ETC, would a 135mm ETC cannon is feasible assuming the tank has enough room in the turret to accommodate a larger recoil absorption system?

Edited December 27, 2010 by HHAYD

[Lynneth]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293415478' post='2554860']
Try hitting an Abrams at the frontal armoring, lets see how many hits it will take to destroy it. Plan on bringing in helicopters? AA missile launchers and equal thickness throughout the tank's main armoring (except for the bottom) as a counter. I seriously doubt a tank can get close enough to harm an enemy tank that is more than 10 mph faster than the tank unless if the tank's crew used a shortcut.

After looking up ETC, would a 135mm ETC cannon is feasible assuming the tank has enough room in the turret to accommodate a larger recoil absorption system?
[/quote]
ETC guns are so powerful you don't need more than 120mm to penetrate almost any conceivable armour reliably.
Also, more armour on the top, sides and back slow the tank considerably.
Also, longer barrel->higher accuracy and slightly better range. Shorter barrel, the opposite.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1293415876' post='2554869']
ETC guns are so powerful you don't need more than 120mm to penetrate almost any conceivable armour reliably.
Also, more armour on the top, sides and back slow the tank considerably.
Also, longer barrel->higher accuracy and slightly better range. Shorter barrel, the opposite.
[/quote]
Isn't there a certain limit where if you make the barrel too long, the shell loses muzzle velocity?

Edited December 27, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Margrave' timestamp='1293406119' post='2554729']
I need advice on small crafts that could be used in lieu of a naval force until I get the tech level for one. I'm talking about boats; sea-worthy, deployed in masse, perhaps even submersibles of some kind. I need something to fill that gap for rp purposes; and I'm sitting at 58 tech. Anyone got ideas?
[/quote]

Until you have naval ships IG you could always RP coast guard and light brown water units. I dont know about midget submarines, but there is no reason why you should not have squadrons of missile boats and offshore patrol crafts. However one on one they still should not stand a chance against the lightest IG warship, ie corvette.

Want to buy some missile boats and coast guard vessels from me?

[Kankou]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1293415876' post='2554869']
ETC guns are so powerful you don't need more than 120mm to penetrate almost any conceivable armour reliably. [/quote]

Probably why Rheinmetall decided to ditch their project, right? The main problem is that it's hard for ETC to be faster than 2,000 m/s using current chemicals, so you're better off just getting a 140m gun.

I don't expect people who just looks at "wow, new tech!" and then goes on "develop" something without understanding the actual science behind it to give good advice.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1293416889' post='2554887']
Isn't there a certain limit where if you make the barrel too long, the shell loses muzzle velocity?
[/quote]
And that's probably why most everyone uses L55 barrels.

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293422657' post='2554963']
Probably why Rheinmetall decided to ditch their project, right? The main problem is that it's hard for ETC to be faster than 2,000 m/s using current chemicals, so you're better off just getting a 140m gun.

I don't expect people who just looks at "wow, new tech!" and then goes on "develop" something without understanding the actual science behind it to give good advice.
[/quote]
From what I know, the project was ditched because there's practically nothing a good Kraut gun can't kill nowadays.
Once someone gets tanks that resist that cannon, we'll make better things.

But meh, I don't care about the maths behind it. I know it can be made to work, so durr.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Lynneth

[Kankou]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1293422741' post='2554965']
From what I know, the project was ditched because there's practically nothing a good Kraut gun can't kill nowadays.
Once someone gets tanks that resist that cannon, we'll make better things.

But meh, I don't care about the maths behind it. I know it can be made to work, so durr.
[/quote]

The 140mm was ditched because currently, there is no need for better guns. The ETC project was ditched because it could not be made more powerful than the L55 EVEN when the caliber was the same. Don't mix things up.

[HHAYD]

Hm, I looked a bit more into the ETC articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology#Background

[quote]ETC technology offers a medium-risk upgrade and is to the point, currently, where changes for maturity are so minor that [b]it can be considered as a realistic replacement for current solid propellant guns within the next two decades.[/b]The lightweight American 120 mm XM-291 came close to achieving 17 MJ of muzzle energy, which is the lower-end muzzle energy spectrum for a 140 mm gun. [b]However, the success of the XM-291 doesn't imply the success of ETC technology as there are key parts of the propulsion system that are not yet understood or fully developed, such as the plasma ignition process.[/b][/quote]

http://www.powerlabs.org/electrothermal.htm

[quote]ET/ETC Gun Barrels serve the exact same purpose as conventional gun barrels; they hold back pressure generated at the breech, and allow that pressure to guide a projectile down the length of the barrel. Due to the much higher temperatures generated at the breech, Electrothermal guns are a lot more demanding on barrels, and barrels tend to last a lot fewer shots. The main problem is erosion, followed by the structural limitations of the material, which can easily be exceeded once the breech energy levels become substantial.[/quote]

[quote]Corrosion resistance is important since the ETC gun will be constantly exposed to electrolytes.[/quote]
------------------
[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1293423088' post='2554970']
The 140mm was ditched because currently, there is no need for better guns. The ETC project was ditched because it could not be made more powerful than the L55 EVEN when the caliber was the same. Don't mix things up.
[/quote]
The 140mm cannon was ditched due to handling issues, aka reloading, and possibly due to recoil. The tank they tested the cannon on was not designed to handle the 140mm's recoil. Had they designed a new tank with the turret specifiably designed to handle a 140mm cannon's recoil and have an autoloader fitted inside, it would have been feasible. But designing and building brand new tanks is expensive.

Edited December 27, 2010 by HHAYD