Re: Space station impact shielding.

delt0r <greg.ewing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:On Apr 4, 2:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> delt0r <greg.ew...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>
:> :On Mar 30, 3:50 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> True, but something similar to Blazer might actually save weight when
:> :> compared to metal or ceramic offering the same protection.
:> :>
:> :> I know that Blazer is actually intended to work against Munroe Effect
:> :> warheads, but it seems to me something similar could be used to help
:> :> slow down projectiles. Rather than explosive blocks intended to
:> :> disrupt plasma jets, perhaps a 'honeycomb' of small shaped charges
:> :> that would rapidly decrease particle velocity normal to the protected
:> :> surface, leading to generally smaller velocities of impact with the
:> :> spaced protection underneath.
:> :>
:> :> I believe there has been research done on explosive 'sandwiches' that
:> :> would cause rapid lateral displacement between two adjacent layers of
:> :> spaced armor to help protect against long-rod penetrators. That sort
:> :> of approach might work here, too.
:> :>
:> :> Probably be hideously expensive to fabricate, though, as well as being
:> :> a safety concern for anything outside the station. Not to mention
:> :> having to replace a section every time you get a strike and the
:> :> explosive is triggered.
:> :
:> :I think you are underestimating the differences. A long needle
:> :penetrator has a velocity in the 1.6km/s range. much faster and they
:> :tend to shatter or deform unfavorably for amour penetration. While in
:> :orbit we are getting up to 14km/s and even higher for objects with
:> :earth escape velocity. Forget reactive amour, that speck of paint or
:> :nut has a lot more energy than explosive per kg (23x TNT) and will
:> :have a lot more momentum than any reactive plate can hope to get.
:> :
:>
:> But that's not necessarily so. An explosive with a sufficiently high
:> detonation velocity would radically reduce (or outright eliminate) the
:> velocity vector of the impinging particle normal to the bulkhead
:> surface. Explosives like Octanitrocubane have detonation velocities
:> above 10 km/sec.
:
:The "velocity" of dentonation is not the same as the gas or shock
:velocity ...
:

Yes, I know.

:
:... and is more a mesure of chemical reaction speed.
:

Not so. It is the speed at which the detonation shock wave passes
through the explosive. Composition certainly comes into play, but it
is largely a product of explosive density (packing), particle size,
charge diameter, and degree of confinement.

:
:The velocity
:of the shock wave and gases are generally less by a large amout ...
:

For some potentially small definition of "large amout [sic]".

:
:... and is
:strongly dependend on the physical configuration.
:

Quite so, which sort of disagrees with your earlier statement about it
being a measure of chemical reaction speed.

:
:It also does not
:tell you anything about the momentum or energy.
:

Well, it tells you SOMETHING. It just doesn't tell you everything,
which is why concepts like brisance exist.

:
:The claims I made are supported by research and some of this
:information is publicy avalible. Ultra High velocity projectiles are
:much harder to stop with tradtional armour ideas ...
:

This is unsurprising, since they are "much harder to stop", period.

:
:... and is a active area
:of resurch with the military.
:

Yes, I know, which is why I mentioned the 'explosive lateral plate'
idea that has been floated for stopping high speed penetrators.

:
:Well stop is not the right word.
:Bascialy that energy has to go somewhere, as does that momentum.
:

Gee, conservation of energy and momentum. Who'd a thunk it?

:
:That
:momentum tends to mean the energy is going to end up in the target.
:

Well, it certainly is unless you somehow divert it or cause it to be
used up prior to arrival at the target. Remember, it is the energy
and momentum OF THE SYSTEM that is of concern, which is why the idea
of explosive armor is workable. It adds opposite momentum, reducing
the momentum of what arrives at the target.

:
:This is not a new idea which is why there is work on things like rail
:guns.
:

It's also why there is work on things like the lateral explosive plate
armor I mentioned.

:> :But otherwise there really is no equivalent with earth based amour.
:> :They do totally different things.
:> :
:>
:> Not so much. 'Armor' is armor and the principles are quite similar.
:>
:> There are reasons why 'Blazer' for spacecraft probably isn't a great
:> idea, but your objections are not among them.
:
:Why do you think reactive "Blazer" armour, which may be very effective
:agaist RPGs, is going to be any good in this setting? Its not that
:effective agaist long neddle penetrators for a start.
:

Let's try repeating what I started with, which renders your preceding
paragraph rather moot:

"I know that Blazer is actually intended to work against Munroe Effect
warheads, but it seems to me something similar could be used to help
slow down projectiles."

See what I mean? One is left wondering who you're asking your
question of, since my very first statement said "something similar"
and pointed out that Blazer itself is only intended to be effective
against Munroe Effect warheads.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

.

Relevant Pages