Re: Vacuum (and other) resistance

Robert S. Dean [email removed] writes:
>	A 100ft diameter cylinder (ship sized) would require a wall thickness
> of 0.44 inches, about Traveller armor value, between Traveller armor values 3
> and 4.  50,000psi mild steel would be the equivalent of armor type A (soft
> steel).
>
> The result of this little investigation would suggest that vacuum resistance is
> not a valid reason to retain an Armor 40 minimum for spacecraft.  Is anyone out
> there capable of figuring out how thick a cylinder has to be to support its
> own weight at up to 6Gs?

There's another reason for armouring the ship.   Let's take a ship and
accelerate it at 1G for one day.  At the end of the day, its speed is
9.8 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 846720 m/s.  Now let's assume that a small bit of
rock hits it.  Unless it's fairly well armoured, the small bit of rock
will pass through it and its occupants with somewhat greater ease than
a gauss rifle needle would pass through a piece of paper.

- - --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]