Author Topic: New Planets (Read 29428 times)

lordly_dragon · « **Reply #75 on:** November 14, 2006, 12:07:18 AM »

Seconded.

For curious people FTL (faster than light as stated in battlestar gallactica) speed is said, until contradiction occur, to be impossible. THe more you approach the speed of light the more heavy you are so you move more faster in time. Example X go to A FAST SPEED for one hour. Y on the other hand stayed on earth. X came back from is speed trip and realise that Y is now 1 year older (random numbers to explain the damn thing). The more you approach the speed of light, the more energy you need to keep going faster because the faster you go the more heavy you are.Even the light seem to be traveling NEAR C constant value but, not beeing equal with C.

Quote

Most individuals are accustomed to the addition rule of velocities: if two cars approach each other from opposite directions, each travelling at a speed of 50 km/h, one expects that each car will perceive the other as approaching at a combined speed of 50 + 50 = 100 km/h to a very high degree of accuracy.

At velocities at or approaching the speed of light, however, it becomes clear from experimental results that this rule does not apply. Two spaceships approaching each other, each travelling at 90% the speed of light relative to some third observer between them, do not perceive each other as approaching at 90% + 90% = 180% the speed of light; instead they each perceive the other as approaching at slightly less than 99.5% the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_...cial_relativity for more info

Hope you guys understand my explanation.

Rags · « **Reply #76 on:** November 15, 2006, 06:59:41 AM »

yes my lord that was so easy to understand. Thank you so much

White Claw · « **Reply #77 on:** November 15, 2006, 06:55:37 PM »

FTL and warp drives (for the Trekkies out there) work on a different theory than relativity. What you said is correct, but it doesn't apply to FTL and Warp. Those are space bending theory and not "pushing" matter up to the speed of light.

Chandler · « **Reply #78 on:** November 15, 2006, 08:29:48 PM »

Yes. FTL is merely moving in Normal Space faster than the speed of light, whereas Warp (AKA Hyperspace, Wormholes, etc) bends space, making the two points (source and destination) closer together, meaning that the distance between them and hence the time it takes to travel between them is much less. Try the old folded paper trick: draw two points, and draw a line between them. The line is the distance you need to travel from A to B. What if you bend the paper? Instantaneous translation. This form of travel has not been disproven as much as moving FTL has.

Anyone here played I War or read the Nights Dawn Trilogy. I war had quite a good physics in it, and both the game and book's jump system was quite detailed and believable. In I War, jumps had to be made at a Lagrange Point (a point in space where all the gravitational fields cancel each other out - one exists very close to us between the earth and moon), they also had an LDS (linear displacement s...) drive for speeds up to the speed of light (but not including). The Night's Dawn Trilogy had drives that tear a wormhole in space, with the length of the tunnel dependent apon the amount of energy you put into making it, hence jumps had to be made when travelling in the direction of the destination.

White Claw · « **Reply #79 on:** November 15, 2006, 08:50:20 PM »

I was just stating that the FTL drives used in BSG are not normal space drives. They are space bending.

Space bending (unified theory) was the one thing Einstien was upset with himself for. He never explained it to his satisfaction. He certainly proved that you can't travel faster than the speed of light (without bending space/time). As far as I know, nobody has disproven space bending. It just requires absurd amounts of energy.

Rags · « **Reply #80 on:** November 15, 2006, 09:58:28 PM »

like the philidelpha experiment. lol

Freeza-CII · « **Reply #81 on:** November 15, 2006, 10:00:49 PM »

When it comes to a Space craft that is going to carry the human race. You want some thing that is
1. Reliable
2. Wont have a reactor leak and turn every one into mutants.
3. Easy to use
4. Fuel can be found for it easy.
5. Some that is sturdy and can take some hits before you have to land.

FTL and Warp drives are nice and all but they dont exsist and as above would require so much power that 75% of your ship would have to be the reactor/power suply. And concidering the ship has to hold People and Resources for a new colony. thats a rather large ship. Which would need more power to stay in orbit. Because of Mass vs gravity.

The ION Drive is the best way because all you have to do is stop and fuel at a gas giant and there going to be in almost every Solar System. And yes I realize hydrogen can explode most violently.

lordly_dragon · « **Reply #82 on:** November 16, 2006, 07:51:41 AM »

*cough* challenger *cough* H bomb *cough*

Indeed...I just began to read about modern physics so there are things that I have yet to find out about it

Betaray · « **Reply #83 on:** November 16, 2006, 01:30:23 PM »

for one, for hydrogen to explode, there has to be oxygen, because this is a fusion reactor and not a chemical one there is no oxygen to burn, so the worst that could happen is the hydrogen leaks out

another thing is that you could consider the ships in op2 to be sleeper ships, they travel much slower then light for hundreds of years carrying the people in suspended animation, thus more realistic engines can be used (at the cost of more advanced and fictional medical technology stasis systems and all that) so no ftl needed

BlackBox · « **Reply #84 on:** November 16, 2006, 02:05:39 PM »

I'm thinking more of a pressure explosion than anything. Hydrogen is not very energy dense so you need a massive amount of it.

This means that you need to store the hydrogen at spectacular pressures, on the order of 30 MPa (earth atmosphere = about 101~102 kPa) or higher. The chance of a bad explosion if there was a fault in the container storing the hydrogen at that pressure would be very high.

Betaray · « **Reply #85 on:** November 16, 2006, 02:15:37 PM »

in reality they store hydrogen in the form of a liquid, so the chance of a freak explosion is pretty low

Freeza-CII · « **Reply #86 on:** November 16, 2006, 05:04:31 PM »

Yes Explosive Decompression would be the big thing and leaks but those two go hand in hand some times. But Hydrogen leak could explode hehehe.

by the way Challenger was a Rocket Booster the skinny white ones on the side. That has the critical O-ring failure. The Big orange tank holds Liquid O2.

Skydock Command · « **Reply #87 on:** November 16, 2006, 05:51:59 PM »

Quote

WARP DRIVE DISCLAIMER
It should first be noted that warp drive relies on not one but several leaps of faith and suspensions of disbelief. Even though it can and has been argued by leading modern physicists that warp drive works in theory, any plausible explanations involve more energy than could possibly be generated by even a matter-antimatter reaction. Additionally, several of the key components of warp travel - subspace, warp fields, warp energy, and the like - have multiple and contradictory definitions and descriptions, even within the episodes themselves. There are, therefore, several points where we will simply have to guess or assume how something works, or simply pass it off as the work of the magical Paramount Field, which defies the comprehension of, or manipulation by, mere mortals such as ourselves who are grounded in the realm of 21st century physics. I believe the following footnote from the Next Generation Technical Manual, page 64, says it best:

"Early in the series, Patrick Stewart came up and asked how warp drive worked. They explained some of the hypothetical principles described in the sires, but added that such a device is far beyond present-day physics. We emphasized that no one has any real idea how to make a ship go faster than light. "Nonsense," Patrick declared. "All you have to do is say 'Engage.'" And he was right..."

Just as a note, why not? Engage.... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! (other side of galaxy) lol

White Claw · « **Reply #88 on:** November 16, 2006, 06:57:06 PM »

The O-ring failure on the Challenger caused a jet of hot gasses to slice into the external fuel tank (the big orange one). The fuel tank exploded and caused most of the damage. (It contains both Oxygen and Hydrogen) The boosters continued to fly out of control for a short while afterward (as seen in the video). They had about than a minute left to burn.

Warp drive is theoretical but then again, so are a lot of things in OP2. (Tok?)

When you reduce the temperature of a gas to a very cold level, the pressures required are not very high.

Chandler · « **Reply #89 on:** November 16, 2006, 08:22:35 PM »

Quote

The ION Drive is the best way because all you have to do is stop and fuel at a gas giant and there going to be in almost every Solar System. And yes I realize hydrogen can explode most violently.

If I am correct, you don't NEED to stop off at a gas giant to recharge your ion drives. An ion drive works by blasting a jet of ions out the back. These ions could practically be any atom (obviously some work better than others).

TIE fighters in Star Wars (TIE = Twin Ion Engine) used their solar panels to provide the power for their ion engines. As for the atoms? In system, solar winds tend to give you enough crap to pick up, but as for out system, you'd need to have a fuel tank.

Most books/games I've read/played use helium (He3 - tritium?) for their fusion drives, so expoloding hydrogen would not be a problem. And we're only using the fusion drive for the initial kick in the pants, the constant acceleration to maintain speed will be done by the ion drives.

Freeza-CII · « **Reply #90 on:** November 17, 2006, 02:09:09 AM »

Yes you need to stop at Gas giants to fuel you ION drive Intergalatic travel would burn up alot. Solar panels collect energy not solar wind particles. Solar wind out side of the Solar system isnt as abundant. Plus Solar wind slows down after a while. As for a fusion drive i dont know i would suspect they had fussion or fission reactors on the ship to keep power to the life support. I dont think they used it as a interstellar drive. Be much simpler to use some kinda chemical engine to take off.

Skydock Command · « **Reply #91 on:** November 17, 2006, 08:57:20 AM »

lol. Chemical engines? lol. Why would that be better? There no where near as efecient or powerful as a Fusion Drive would be. lol, chemical.... lol

Betaray · « **Reply #92 on:** November 17, 2006, 10:44:48 AM »

the fusion drive uses D-He3 reactions, because that produces the most energy, it uses the engine directly during in system maneuvers because of its high thrust, and once it gets into interstellar range the fusion reactor becomes the power source for the ion drive

a fuel stop at the gas giant is needed because the amount of D-He3 would be huge and I doubt either one would be abundant on New Terra (deuterium might, but He3 would not)

Freeza-CII · « **Reply #93 on:** November 17, 2006, 01:57:51 PM »

Because chemical based rockets are powerful and there rather cheap to make.

Skydock Command · « **Reply #94 on:** November 17, 2006, 03:30:33 PM »

Like the SULV. It used some didnt it?

Freeza-CII · « **Reply #95 on:** November 17, 2006, 03:40:10 PM »

the RLV and SULV both did

Skydock Command · « **Reply #96 on:** November 17, 2006, 05:32:03 PM »

The starship didnt though.

Betaray · « **Reply #97 on:** November 17, 2006, 06:27:32 PM »

Chemical rockets are used for taking off a planets surface due to the high thrust generated, this is because the reaction mass is also the fuel mass, so the more you dump in the more thrust you get.

Even though nuclear or ion rockets are more efficient they are not able to produce such high thrusts because the density of plasma or ions is so little.

So launching from a planets atmosphere will probably always be done by chemical rockets, its not a matter of technology its a matter of physics.

Skydock Command · « **Reply #98 on:** November 17, 2006, 06:33:09 PM »

I understand, but the ship is in a high orbit isnt it?

Freeza-CII · « **Reply #99 on:** November 17, 2006, 09:40:52 PM »

Yes in Orbit i would assume there first thrust would be from a chemical rocket because they have to undock from the skydock i think.

News:

Author Topic: New Planets (Read 29428 times)