What future space combat would really look like

Re:What future space combat would really look like by Nick_C on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:44PM (#3410069)

You are using averages where the min and max are extremely wide apart. For example, the Moon is not actually at -25C, it is either +130C or -110C (or transiting between). We know the time when those temps occur, so we can look for other objects not at those temps at that time. Same goes for the other objects.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What future space combat would really look like by dalke on Saturday December 31, 2011 @12:03PM (#3411247)

I am definitely using averages because if you have an ship which is 300+ meters across then you can leave the top few meters for insulation, so the surface of your ship has the expected extreme temperature ranges.

I should restate what I said: instead of "that's assuming the entire asteroid is at 290K", I mean, "except the insulation layer", which you need anyway to keep the near-surface area livable.

If you need 20 meters for that, then your living volume is 21 million cubic meters, or a reduction of about 20%.

That's not to say that there's no contribution. More that I believe the calculations from that linked-to page ignore the difficulties of differentiating between the internal heat (cooled through black-body radiation) from surface heat from the sun.

For example, from Stefan-Boltman, cooling goes as T * * 4, which means if you have a cooling radiator on the sun-side which is at 150C, or 20C above "normal", then it's about 6 times more effective than a -90C radiator on the cold side. I suspect it's easier to stop the 20C delta on the cold side than the warm side.

[ Parent | on HN ]