> You can have a mirror which reflects exactly one or two specific
> frequencies extremely well, but no mirror will be extremely
> reflective across a broad range of frequencies. =A0
> Against infrared
> to visible to near UV lasers, I actually think the best defense
> may be to let the light through. =A0Diamond-like carbon is very
> tough and very transparent.<snip>
That's interesting, diamond ****ps. So that would require that any
desired quantity of this carbon modification can be created
industrially (at low cost). The side effect would be that diamonds
would be treated just by their economic value, which will be low.
They'd be a dime a dozen. Reminds me of this classic SF story where
humans and aliens trade in a greenhouse for a machine that produces
gold. <g>
Anyway, that would amount to quite some mass. You say "thick shell",
so how thick, 10cm? Since in the diamond modification, the density of
carbon is 3.5g/ccm, a square metre would be 350kg, i.e. 0.35 tons (per
10cm thickness). I suppose you need real behemoths to lug that around.
But the idea is certainly interesting.
Two problems I see with that:
a) the molten aluminum will expand, so the question is, where will it
go if it is sandwiched between layers of diamond carbon?
b) if the laser heats up the aluminum sufficiently (>1300K?), it will
convey the heat to the diamond and may turn it into graphite.
But I'd really like to know what ****p sizes and m***** you are talking
about. ^^
>=A0This is because wavelengths as small or smaller than the size of atoms
s=
ee the smoothest
> of all possible mirrors as bumpy.
In that light, wouldn't a low-wavelength beam like that go straight
through the target without doing much damage? Sorry if the question
sounds naive.
> To get really awesome reflectivities, you need to go with
> multi-layer dielectric coatings with spacings tuned to
> specific frequencies at specific incidence angles. =A0
I see. Well in that case, it's certainly not worth the bother. Pity.
> There are two armor schemes I tend to favor. =A0My favorite
> is no armor at all. =A0From a mass budget perspective, it
> seems to make more sense to use every gram for more
> offensive weapons platforms, rather than invest anything
> in defensive armor.
Ah, the Admiral Graf Spee in space.
As I see it, the mileage varies with the techlevel, corresponding to
the power available for the non-propulsion systems. If the weapons are
not very powerful, you have a chance to minimize their effect by
defensive measures. If the weapons are indeed powerful, any non-
magical defense is futile anyway, so you can just as well leave it
altogether. On the other hand, very powerful weapons will produce
awesome waste heat, so you can't scale it up indefinitely.
Actually, this is pretty much like what happened at the transition
from middles ages to renaissance. During the late middle ages, there
had been an arms race between ever heavier armour and stronger muscle-
powered weapons (like the crossbow). Then came the firearms, rendering
any type of armour useless (since an armour strong enough would have
been too heavy). So body armour was eventually dropped altogether, and
everyone focussed on better firearms. Today, we can again build body
armour that can stop a few rounds of milspec ammo (i.e. FMJ), but it
is very rarerly used, because mobility and endurance are valued more
highly than ruggedness.
> X-ray lasers could be rather compact and 300,000km would actually
> be short range for them.
Focus-wise maybe, but at that distance you will still have 2 seconds
lag. Hitting a 300 metre ****p must be sort of like hitting a 1mm(!)
target at 1000m distance with a rifle (bullet travel time ~2s for
special long-range ammo like the Grendel). A target trying to evade.
And an x-ray laser must produce enormous amount of waste heat, so you
get only a few shots before the damn thing overheats.
But nevertheless: what effect would kinetic slugs have on this diamond-
carbon armour?
|
