Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Sluggy Related Forums » Reactions




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:37 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:51 pm
Posts: 221
Location: Timeless Space
migB wrote:
Pied Typer wrote:

The ISS had no armor earlier than 2007. Which means that it survived 9 years without it.
NASA is known to be "better safe than sorry" so I don't think the armor upgrade means that there is an overwhelming risk of collisions in the short run.
One hole was found after 9 years of operation, so I wouldn't think twice about taking a one-day trip in an inflatable spaceship.

As I also stated, the ISS generally tends to get out of the way of asteroids that its armor won't soak up. Also, the article mentions that they were replacing old armor from 2002.
migB wrote:
Pied Typer wrote:
An asteroid large enough to create 10 cm holes would not be a relatively small asteroid. It would also be large enough to detect and track via radar.

Also, the proper procedure for a hull breach would not be to evacuate the station. The correct actions would be "close the nearest blast doors, then have someone go on EVA to fix it".

No, they don't have tools for that on the station. Also, the REASON they don't have tools for large holes is that the station would decompress so fast that the crew is expected to die before they can seal the blast doors. I read that in an article some years back, NASA could have changed it's mind since of cause.

Actually, I would expect an onboard computer to be able to detect the rapid pressure loss from a hull breach and react accordingly.

And, once again, the ISS tends to get out of the way of the asteroids that can cause hull breaches in the first place.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:43 am 
Offline
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:43 am
Posts: 740
garyfritz wrote:
migB wrote:
One hole was found [in the ISS] after 9 years of operation, so I wouldn't think twice about taking a one-day trip in an inflatable spaceship.

On the other hand, the (hard metal) exterior of the ISS would be a lot more resilient to smaller hits. A minor micrometeor that would just ping off the ISS might pop the XT-34...

The main problem with inflatable tech is sharp objects. I don't expect micrometeors to be sharp, though a sharp piece of sattelite debris might be an issue.
A balloon-like construction would be quite resilient to blunt impacts, the dp/dt will be reduced by a huge factor because the construction yields. Like hitting a trampoline.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:13 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:59 pm
Posts: 2150
Location: In "Still" waters...
The XT-34 has to be pretty resilient - physics or no (it is after all, a comic) remember that it survived Riff (as we are reminded by the stray screw floating around).

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:39 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:47 am
Posts: 1859
No, micrometeors won't usually be all that sharp. But neither is a bullet. Velocity would do the job just as well as pointiness. Your point about bouncing is valid, but only up to a certain point. A bullet has more than enough velocity to pierce a trampoline, but maybe/probably not a metal wall.

And yes, the XT-34 survived Riff. But he also went through a lot of duct tape. :-)

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:16 pm 
Offline
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:43 am
Posts: 740
garyfritz wrote:
No, micrometeors won't usually be all that sharp. But neither is a bullet. Velocity would do the job just as well as pointiness. Your point about bouncing is valid, but only up to a certain point. A bullet has more than enough velocity to pierce a trampoline, but maybe/probably not a metal wall.

The single hole that was found had a diameter the size of a bullet.
Meaning that bullet-sized micrometeors are not that common.

Also, a bullet isn't sharp like a needle. But unlike micrometeorites, it is pointy. And being pointy is the key factor in being able to penetrate a target. Armor-piercing bullets are made pointy and extra hard, so the point don't break or deform during penetration. A hollow-point bullet is the opposite: it only penetrate the target to a short depth, but deliver its kinetic energy to that volume. Which cause quite a lot more damage to a biological target than those deep-piercing bullets does.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:52 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:51 pm
Posts: 221
Location: Timeless Space
migB wrote:
garyfritz wrote:
No, micrometeors won't usually be all that sharp. But neither is a bullet. Velocity would do the job just as well as pointiness. Your point about bouncing is valid, but only up to a certain point. A bullet has more than enough velocity to pierce a trampoline, but maybe/probably not a metal wall.

The single hole that was found had a diameter the size of a bullet.
Meaning that bullet-sized micrometeors are not that common.

Also, a bullet isn't sharp like a needle. But unlike micrometeorites, it is pointy. And being pointy is the key factor in being able to penetrate a target. Armor-piercing bullets are made pointy and extra hard, so the point don't break or deform during penetration. A hollow-point bullet is the opposite: it only penetrate the target to a short depth, but deliver its kinetic energy to that volume. Which cause quite a lot more damage to a biological target than those deep-piercing bullets does.

Actually, the key factor of armor-piercing bullets is being long and dense—that's why the US uses depleted uranium for them. Have you heard of this?

Top 
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 

Board index » Sluggy Related Forums » Reactions


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: