Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: New Planets  (Read 29831 times)

Offline Betaray

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2897
New Planets
« Reply #100 on: November 17, 2006, 09:54:46 PM »
the op1 ship did had strap on chemical rockets, but the cinematic for op2 shows it using the fusion engine, it may have enough thrust to escape orbit, but in doing so it would have to use a lot of hydrogen to increase the mass of the exhaust so it could get the necessary thrust, that would deplete the storage very fast, and thus would necessitate the need to go to the gas giant
 
Logged
I am the nincompoop, I eat atomic bombs for breakfest, fusion bombs for lunch, and anti-matter bombs for dinner

I just hope they don't explode

Offline Freeza-CII

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
New Planets
« Reply #101 on: November 17, 2006, 09:58:51 PM »
Yes chemical rockets to get out of earth gravity well.
Logged

Offline Skydock Command

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
New Planets
« Reply #102 on: November 18, 2006, 05:45:39 AM »
We could strap a ring of them on the top half circle or something then.
Logged
Savant Computer: Communications link established.
Skydock: This is Skydock Command. We have received your message.

Offline White Claw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
New Planets
« Reply #103 on: November 18, 2006, 09:23:35 AM »
Since we have gotten completely off subject...

Here is a fairly good article on the basics of Fusion drives.
How Stuff Works

An Ion drive works in a similar manner but is not quite as sophisticated. (Ion drives are a reality, fusion drives are still theoretical and even more efficient.)

In any case, the drawback to both of these is that it takes some time to get up to speed. So if we're talking about travel from Cythera to it's moon(moons?), then it's impractical. Additionally, you can't use ion or fusion drive modules to escape the surface of a mars/earth/venus sized planet. It doesn't have enough umph...

An interstellar space ship wouldn't require any solid fuel rockets because that weight in fuel would be better spent on fuel for the ion drive. If you're going to argue to me that it would be needed to separate from the sky dock, I would say that the solid rockets could be attached to the sky dock and not the star ship.

Yes, solid fuel is cheaper and easier to deal with. But its not the most efficient for long term use.

Edit: I forgot to talk about this...
Quote
the op1 ship did had strap on chemical rockets, but the cinematic for op2 shows it using the fusion engine, it may have enough thrust to escape orbit, but in doing so it would have to use a lot of hydrogen to increase the mass of the exhaust so it could get the necessary thrust, that would deplete the storage very fast, and thus would necessitate the need to go to the gas giant

While this statement is true, it's not completely accurate. You're going to use the same amount of thrust to escape wether you use chemical or fusion/ion. If you say that a lot of the hydrogen would be used up to escape the gravity of Earth, then we have the same problem when we stop at a gas giant for fuel. Actual orbital mechanics wouldn't require you to break orbit in the first try. You can slowly work the orbit away from the planet until you finally break free. (Sort of the reverse of aerobraking.)
« Last Edit: November 18, 2006, 09:29:55 AM by White Claw »
Logged

Offline Skydock Command

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
New Planets
« Reply #104 on: November 18, 2006, 09:37:38 AM »
Do you need to keep an engine running in space to keep it the same speed? There isnt much to slow the ship in interstelar space so why would they need to keep the engine pouring out hydrogen matter to keep it going?
Logged
Savant Computer: Communications link established.
Skydock: This is Skydock Command. We have received your message.

Offline White Claw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
New Planets
« Reply #105 on: November 18, 2006, 11:41:13 AM »
No, you don't need to keep putting out matter to keep the speed going because there aren't any drag forces to slow it down (like air). This isn't completely true either, but for the basic idea it's a really safe assumption.

The reason why you would still want to use an ion/fusion drive that burns much longer is that you can achieve much higher speeds that using the same amount (mass) of a chemical type of engine. It takes the same amount of force to propel the same amount of mass no matter how you push it. So you want the most energy efficient storage available.

Its like the difference between a coal power plant and a nuclear power plant. You get more energy out of nuclear fuel than from the same amount of coal. But the coal burns up a lot faster. (sorry, this is a really loose analogy)
« Last Edit: November 18, 2006, 11:42:58 AM by White Claw »
Logged

Offline Freeza-CII

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
New Planets
« Reply #106 on: November 18, 2006, 02:42:34 PM »
Since people are in cryostatis they have all the time in the world.

Chemical Booster rockets would would have there own fuel tank they wouldnt taken from the main.  Plus i think They were to get the ship moving and get it to the local Gas giant then fuel up then get moving.  Because there isnt enough Hydrogen to fuel the ship from the planet.
Logged

Offline Skydock Command

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
New Planets
« Reply #107 on: November 18, 2006, 03:58:35 PM »
I think that was said some where already.
Logged
Savant Computer: Communications link established.
Skydock: This is Skydock Command. We have received your message.

Offline Skydock Command

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
New Planets
« Reply #108 on: November 18, 2006, 05:15:53 PM »
If we do at least have a little more space capability, id like to post my idea for an agristation. (Ill make a new thread)
Logged
Savant Computer: Communications link established.
Skydock: This is Skydock Command. We have received your message.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up