Ceramics as hull

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-03 12:55pm

I wonder about this since long before the Columbia-incident, but somehow never managed to ask the question(s):

How would a starship-hull made of ceramic compare to

-a hull of (ordinary) steel.

-SW-steel (neutronium-impregnated, if necessary).

And how would it behave, if hit by light, medium and heavy turbolaser-fire?

Do you think it possible, that a ceramic strong enough to withstand multi-gigaton-fire can be made?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-08-03 12:58pm

It would shatter from the KE.

Luke Starkiller · Post by **Luke Starkiller** » 2003-08-03 01:14pm

Or burn through in a very small area, instead of conducting energy across a large area or ablating.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-03 01:25pm

Heh. Timothy Zahn in his Conqueror's Trilogy universe had the main alien race's ships being made of ceramics.

Luke Starkiller · Post by **Luke Starkiller** » 2003-08-03 02:27pm

Vympel wrote:Heh. Timothy Zahn in his Conqueror's Trilogy universe had the main alien race's ships being made of ceramics.

Yes uber unbreakable ceramics.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-03 03:24pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:It would shatter from the KE.

KE from an energy-weapon?

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-08-03 03:29pm

The costs from the giant turntable alone would make the technology very inefficient.

Luke Starkiller · Post by **Luke Starkiller** » 2003-08-03 03:58pm

FTeik wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:It would shatter from the KE.
KE from an energy-weapon?

Turbolasers have KE: barrel recoil, knocking ships around when they are hit, etc.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-08-03 04:43pm

FTeik wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:It would shatter from the KE.
KE from an energy-weapon?

page 248, Slave Ship wrote: the laser cannons being mounted into the open skeletal frames required bracing and recoil-dissipation casings that would have withstood explosions measured in the giga-tonnage range. Anything less, and a single shot fired in battle would rip a destroyer or battle cruiser in two, a victim of its own lethal strength.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-03 04:55pm

Well, at least ONE of the questions asked should now be answered.

Any ideas about the rest?

Come on, if SW-tech is able to impregnate ordinary steel-hulls with neutronium, shouldn´t they be able to create some superdense ceramics (as structures for their kilometer-high starscrapers perhaps)?

Besides TTT and HoT i have read the Cobra-novels and Backleash from TZ. How good are those Conqueror-books?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-08-03 05:00pm

Wong is an engineer and knows much about material science. I recall him commenting on why ceramic is a poor armor and structural material, IIRC.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-03 05:12pm

Would be his "Size does matter"-essay on the science page.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-08-03 09:20pm

FTeik wrote:Would be his "Size does matter"-essay on the science page.

In part. The problem with ceramics is that they tend to be very inflexible, which causes them to crack and shatter if they're hit with a large impactor. Instead, you want the armor to flex and "give," helping it absorb and distribute energy, before snapping back into place.

In regards to the argument that SW "should" be able to make really good ceramics, just because you can make a very strong structure out of one kind of material does not mean that all other forms of structural engineering are equally advanced. There are physical limitations as to how strong ceramics can be, and structural knowledge regarding metals and alloys does not equate to understanding and being able to improve ceramics.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-08-03 09:21pm

Ceramics aren't ductile (they're brittle - they don't "bend" very well the way steel can - you can't make a spring out of a ceramic the way you can with certain metals like steel.) This means they can break/fracture relatively easy (relative to say, a metal).

This means if you can subject them to severe stress ( with a high-momentum impact, for example. Though there are ways that a low-momentum energy attack can damage a ceramic - stress imparted through rapid expansion or contraction due to heating and cooling, for example.) you can make it break. This isn't neccesarily a disadvantage I believe (Tank armors employ ceramics, or have in the past, I believe) - you just want to make sure your armor incorporates some elements that give some bend to it to offset the brittle nature of the ceramic.

At least I think that's mostly correct.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-08-03 09:22pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
FTeik wrote:Would be his "Size does matter"-essay on the science page.
In part. The problem with ceramics is that they tend to be very inflexible, which causes them to crack and shatter if they're hit with a large impactor. Instead, you want the armor to flex and "give," helping it absorb and distribute energy, before snapping back into place.

In regards to the argument that SW "should" be able to make really good ceramics, just because you can make a very strong structure out of one kind of material does not mean that all other forms of structural engineering are equally advanced. There are physical limitations as to how strong ceramics can be, and structural knowledge regarding metals and alloys does not equate to understanding and being able to improve ceramics.

Dammit, you would post that just before I would

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-08-03 10:20pm

What about a mosaic of small ceramic pieces with metal underneath? Or a metal skin with a mosaic of small ceramic pieces underneath?

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-08-03 10:53pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Wong is an engineer and knows much about material science. I recall him commenting on why ceramic is a poor armor and structural material, IIRC.

Nice 6 page discussion on ceramics, steel, and other hull metals as well as nuke effects can be found here. Mike Wong, myself, and a couple others educate the unwashed masses on the joys of steel.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-03 11:51pm

Wouldn't a solid piece of ceramic also explosively fracture if heated too quickly?

Perhaps a ceramic hull would be possible if it werent't just ceramic but instead made of ceramic powder held together by room temp superconducting fabric on the exterior. the exterior superconducting sheet could be connected to the main hull by metal or by ceramic. being a superconductor, the outside fabric wouldnt overheat and burn off as quickly and would allow the heat to be transferred into the ceramic. perhaps you could also include superconducting fibers in the ceramic to improve heat absorption. also because of the superconducting fabric, heat would spread evenly across the hull/armor and radiate away. the powder nature of the ceramic would, ofcourse, provide impact absorption.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-08-04 04:20am

Slartibartfast wrote:The costs from the giant turntable alone would make the technology very inefficient.

I love that we can always count on good ol' Slartibartfast for an absolutely kickass answer. Well played, sir!

ClaysGhost · Post by **ClaysGhost** » 2003-08-04 06:28am

kojikun wrote:Wouldn't a solid piece of ceramic also explosively fracture if heated too quickly?

Perhaps a ceramic hull would be possible if it werent't just ceramic but instead made of ceramic powder held together by room temp superconducting fabric on the exterior. the exterior superconducting sheet could be connected to the main hull by metal or by ceramic. being a superconductor, the outside fabric wouldnt overheat and burn off as quickly and would allow the heat to be transferred into the ceramic. perhaps you could also include superconducting fibers in the ceramic to improve heat absorption. also because of the superconducting fabric, heat would spread evenly across the hull/armor and radiate away. the powder nature of the ceramic would, ofcourse, provide impact absorption.

A thermal superconductor?! Where's that coming from?

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-04 07:16am

Self-healing metals and conductors that transfered incoming (hostile) energy-fire to the own systems were introduced in DEII.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-04 04:40pm

ClaysGhost wrote:A thermal superconductor?! Where's that coming from?

Same place everything else comes from in Wars: Someones ass.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-08-04 07:54pm

kojikun wrote:
ClaysGhost wrote:A thermal superconductor?! Where's that coming from?
Same place everything else comes from in Wars: Someones ass.

In this case your's.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-04 07:56pm

YT300000 wrote:In this case your's.

Precisely.

Actually, aluminium foil might be considered a thermal superconductor, seeing as how it can be heated to a few hundred degrees and then conduct the heat away ridiculously fast.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-08-04 08:50pm

Luke Starkiller wrote:
FTeik wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:It would shatter from the KE.
KE from an energy-weapon?
Turbolasers have KE: barrel recoil, knocking ships around when they are hit, etc.

That is largely momentum. ANd the recoil isn't the momentum from the shot, it's from the plasma/gases that create teh shot being released afterwards according to the blurb about the geonosian starfighter in ICS

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:
FTeik wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:It would shatter from the KE.
KE from an energy-weapon?

page 248, Slave Ship wrote: the laser cannons being mounted into the open skeletal frames required bracing and recoil-dissipation casings that would have withstood explosions measured in the giga-tonnage range. Anything less, and a single shot fired in battle would rip a destroyer or battle cruiser in two, a victim of its own lethal strength.

Recoil is momentum, not KE