 | | | | | |
Hi all,
I have just finished disassembling all of my models and had my sights set on
a big dropship. I started trying to build it but it just isn't happening. I
don't yet have the skill to beef it out properly. Having a small brick
collection ddoesn't help, either.
Can anyone please give me some tips on how to build the bigger models. I
think for now I'll go down a size and make something else...
Thanks,
ZaC Soden
---------
www.ozbricks.com/battlespace
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Zac Soden" <zac_soden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GF3DH9.HCy@lugnet.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I have just finished disassembling all of my models and had my sights set on
> a big dropship. I started trying to build it but it just isn't happening. I
> don't yet have the skill to beef it out properly. Having a small brick
> collection ddoesn't help, either.
> Can anyone please give me some tips on how to build the bigger models. I
> think for now I'll go down a size and make something else...
Hehe...this after just spending a weekend building on two different large
spaceships using two different building techniques. Let me try to answer :-)
Ok, the way I see it, is there are two ways to build big. Both of those ways
need one thing though - structural stability. When you design a large ship, you
need it to withstand the forces of gravity we are subjected to here on Earth,
because, even if you don't design a ship to land, fact is, we're on Earth and so
is your model. I'll give the two extremes as I see them, and then my happy
medium at the end.
1) Bricks, bricks, bricks. These large models use mass quantites of larger
bricks (2xn) to stay together. It usually ends up looking rather blocky unless
you put what I like to call 'space crap' or what others call 'greeblies' on the
outer surface. These are parts to make the ship look high tech, they're easy to
do but there's also an art to them. When you have a large ship, you must have a
strong base (which the ship sits on), and a strong way of supporting the upper
deck(s). Brick walls are the strongest way to do that, and the thing that
strengthens brick walls is ribbing them with supports.
Basic ribbing the way I do it is lay a 2x4, then lay a 2x3 rotated 90 from the
2x4, so it sticks out 1 stud from that 2 wide surface, lay another 2x4 and
repeat. The next layer, brick the 2xn wall over the 2x3 so it leaves a 1x2
footprint exposed, fill with a 1x2 there and then go back to the way you did the
first layer. So, it alternates and gets this 2x3 support integrated into the
wall. Doing this every 4 studs makes an incredibly strong wall (the master
builders use a variation of this technique on their large buildings). You'll
see that on the shuttlebay (brick enclosure) of my latest capship probably
coming out in a couple weeks (half done)
2) Panels and hinges. Here's the opposite extreme - have a few brick structures
tying in a bunch of panels and hinges to build the outer skin of the ship. You
still need structural stability, but that's often hidden inside. Having panels
and using hinges to mount them gives a much more interesting shape, and lends to
the SNOT or 'Studs Not On Top' building style. These ships are very lightweight
compared to the brick ships, but they don't take a beating like the brick ones
do. You have to be very careful to keep the panels on and if its on display you
might have to fix it often due to inquisitive hands. This style lends to the
most interesting ship designs, but often the weakest, unless done right.
--
This weekend, I worked on a primarily brick ship (the one I'm building with best
friend Brandon Grifford), and a much smaller panel ship (one I helped build with
Scott Sanburn and Trevor Pruden). I learned a lot about large ship building
from Scott and Trev, because they use a technique I haven't seen a lot in
person. Brandon's a very heavy brick user, and I've been struggling to break
away from that to give more interesting shapes to my creations.
I think that ships look and function the best when they use both bricks and
panels. This means sacrificing a little from both extremes - ships having some
studs-up brick walls, along with panel walls. This still gives the interesting
shapes panel ships have, but it gets more of the strength and stability of a
brick ship as well.
Example - Joel Kuester's Benevolent Grace [1]. Aside from the size of this
thing (I could lay down inside of it - its 8ft long!!!!) - I am impressed with
the techniques he built it with. Joel designed this ship using a lot of bricks
for an exoskeleton of sorts -- there are big black brick beams that wrap around
the ship. Then he filled in the gaps with panels, and almost all of them fold
out, come off, or flip up to get access to the inside. They serve a double
purpose, access to the interior by humans for this 4 deck monster, and
interestingly sloped sides to create a pleasing shape.
The real challenge of modeling space (or anything) in LEGO is that it has a
tendency to become very blocky. I think this is the best way to overcome that.
Unfortunately, it requires a lot of parts, including plates, which are uncommon
in sets and expensive on ebay and Brickbay. You either have to part out a lot
of sets or buy a lot online to get the quantities needed.
With the panel ship I worked on this weekend, we had the extreme luxury of a
collection of several hundred thousand pieces and also went out to the store and
loaded up on sets for parts and opened a lot more unopened sets in the
collection. This gave us the plates in the quantites needed to build a ship
like this.
With large ships, I think that one of the fundamentals is building it stable, so
it can be moved, or so it can be 'wooshable.' To me, having a large ship and
not being able to fly it around the room (unless its simply too big, like
Joel's) is a waste. Its possible, if you spend more time and thought on it, to
build a ship that's both strong and pleasing to the eye, and to have a lot of
fun with it when it is finished.
(for comparison, the ship I am working on with Brandon is 150 studs long and 30
wide, the one with Scott and Trev is <90 studs and about 30 wide as well. The
150 stud one will have three decks, and the <90 stud will have 2.5 decks.
Neither are finished).
Hope this helps! I'd love to hear comments on what I wrote.
-Tim
[1] http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3797
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Zac Soden" <zac_soden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GF3DH9.HCy@lugnet.com...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have just finished disassembling all of my models and had my sights set on
> > a big dropship. I started trying to build it but it just isn't happening. I
> > don't yet have the skill to beef it out properly. Having a small brick
> > collection ddoesn't help, either.
> > Can anyone please give me some tips on how to build the bigger models. I
> > think for now I'll go down a size and make something else...
>
> Hehe...this after just spending a weekend building on two different large
> spaceships using two different building techniques. Let me try to answer :-)
>
> Ok, the way I see it, is there are two ways to build big. Both of those ways
> need one thing though - structural stability. When you design a large ship, you
> need it to withstand the forces of gravity we are subjected to here on Earth,
> because, even if you don't design a ship to land, fact is, we're on Earth and so
> is your model. I'll give the two extremes as I see them, and then my happy
> medium at the end.
>
> 1) Bricks, bricks, bricks. These large models use mass quantites of larger
> bricks (2xn) to stay together. It usually ends up looking rather blocky unless
> you put what I like to call 'space crap' or what others call 'greeblies' on the
> outer surface. These are parts to make the ship look high tech, they're easy to
> do but there's also an art to them. When you have a large ship, you must have a
> strong base (which the ship sits on), and a strong way of supporting the upper
> deck(s). Brick walls are the strongest way to do that, and the thing that
> strengthens brick walls is ribbing them with supports.
>
> Basic ribbing the way I do it is lay a 2x4, then lay a 2x3 rotated 90 from the
> 2x4, so it sticks out 1 stud from that 2 wide surface, lay another 2x4 and
> repeat. The next layer, brick the 2xn wall over the 2x3 so it leaves a 1x2
> footprint exposed, fill with a 1x2 there and then go back to the way you did the
> first layer. So, it alternates and gets this 2x3 support integrated into the
> wall. Doing this every 4 studs makes an incredibly strong wall (the master
> builders use a variation of this technique on their large buildings). You'll
> see that on the shuttlebay (brick enclosure) of my latest capship probably
> coming out in a couple weeks (half done)
>
> 2) Panels and hinges. Here's the opposite extreme - have a few brick structures
> tying in a bunch of panels and hinges to build the outer skin of the ship. You
> still need structural stability, but that's often hidden inside. Having panels
> and using hinges to mount them gives a much more interesting shape, and lends to
> the SNOT or 'Studs Not On Top' building style. These ships are very lightweight
> compared to the brick ships, but they don't take a beating like the brick ones
> do. You have to be very careful to keep the panels on and if its on display you
> might have to fix it often due to inquisitive hands. This style lends to the
> most interesting ship designs, but often the weakest, unless done right.
3) Buid a frame out of technic! I think I'd always do this, but I'm biased -
well over 90% of my collection is technic (but that is changing!)
Regards
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Ross Crawford" <rcrawford@csi.com> wrote in message
news:GF3Jn4.7pI@lugnet.com...
> 3) Buid a frame out of technic! I think I'd always do this, but I'm biased -
> well over 90% of my collection is technic (but that is changing!)
>
> Regards
>
> ROSCO
I'd love to have enough technic to build a frame first. I've always wanted to
design a ship this way. I still integrate technic beams with the bricks and
keep them exposed for the design - it looks like big exposed girders, especially
in colors like yellow.
And again, I want bulk large technic beams available!
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
<big snip>
> 2) Panels and hinges. Here's the opposite extreme - have a few brick structures
> tying in a bunch of panels and hinges to build the outer skin of the ship. You
> still need structural stability, but that's often hidden inside. Having panels
> and using hinges to mount them gives a much more interesting shape, and lends to
> the SNOT or 'Studs Not On Top' building style. These ships are very lightweight
> compared to the brick ships, but they don't take a beating like the brick ones
> do. You have to be very careful to keep the panels on and if its on display you
> might have to fix it often due to inquisitive hands. This style lends to the
> most interesting ship designs, but often the weakest, unless done right.
<snip>
> I think that ships look and function the best when they use both bricks and
> panels. This means sacrificing a little from both extremes - ships having some
> studs-up brick walls, along with panel walls. This still gives the interesting
> shapes panel ships have, but it gets more of the strength and stability of a
> brick ship as well.
>
> Example - Joel Kuester's Benevolent Grace [1]. Aside from the size of this
> thing (I could lay down inside of it - its 8ft long!!!!) - I am impressed with
> the techniques he built it with. Joel designed this ship using a lot of bricks
> for an exoskeleton of sorts -- there are big black brick beams that wrap around
> the ship. Then he filled in the gaps with panels, and almost all of them fold
> out, come off, or flip up to get access to the inside. They serve a double
> purpose, access to the interior by humans for this 4 deck monster, and
> interestingly sloped sides to create a pleasing shape.
Another good example of using lots of panels and lots of bricks would be my
160 stud long big ship:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=41339 Which is as of now
still unnamed and unpublished. The interior is full of brick walls and
technic beams. I first built the ship with just technic beams holding up all
the floors, but when interior detail was added, the walls that seperated the
various rooms helped stregthen it a great bit.
A good strong base is also very important, and my ship has a set up of:
a layer of plates,
a layer of technic beams and regular bricks,
and another layer of plates.
Another important method I used was to attach the techinc beams that are
supporting different levels together with more technic beams. This has made
it VERY sturdy. It has been sitting on the floor being supported by 2 stacks
at the extreme far ends of the ship of those weird 6x6x2 parts in the TIE
fighters for about a month now. And it has yet to buckle in the middle. I
can pick it up with 2 hands rather easily but I'm very nervous holding it
cause it's so big, heavy, and ackward to move. That's also the reason why it
has yet to venture out of my basement.
If anyone is wondering how I got all that grey, It's mostly from 5 Sith
Infiltrators( grey plates pack!), and 3 X wings (most bought on sale of
course), and then I got some grey bricks off brickbay.
My collection is 'only' about 30k (
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/mlist.cgi?m=791) so I think that shows you dont
need 'tons' of parts to go big...
<snip>
Nice tips timmah, I totally agree.
HTH
--Kyle
http://hvl.cjb.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
<snippity-snip-snip>
>
> My collection is 'only' about 30k (
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/mlist.cgi?m=791) so I think that shows you dont
> need 'tons' of parts to go big...
<snip>
>
> --Kyle
> http://hvl.cjb.net
ahhhh..just make it out of old fabuland and duplo bricks.
Actually, I agree with Tim. Tim and I had a lot of fun helping Scott with
building his capital ship this past weekend. Particularly while we watched
"Cooking with Jon" and his "how to make synthetic turkey stuffing" show
(inside joke). :^D
As for the building technique, I have traditionally made the first brick
style because I was show plate deficient. My point is this: If you don't
have the plates to do the other suggestions, don't let it stop you. If it
has to be blocky, then so be it. At least you will have fun building it.
However, if you can go with a combination of plates and bricks, you can have
parts angling off in all directions, which looks so cool. On Scott's ship I
had the escape pods angling off about 30 degrees from the ground, and this
technique actually opened up our options for what we could place on the body
of the ship. So in the future I will start to moving in that direction now
that I can see the results when you have the right number of plates. :^)
aahhhhh...if only you guys could have SEEN the mountain of elements to pick
from. We were practically swimming in bricks and plates and other
specialized elements.
Tim, we have to get together and build again this summer if we can!
~Trev
Astro Lift Co.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> <big snip>
>
> > 2) Panels and hinges. Here's the opposite extreme - have a few brick structures
> > tying in a bunch of panels and hinges to build the outer skin of the ship. You
> > still need structural stability, but that's often hidden inside. Having panels
> > and using hinges to mount them gives a much more interesting shape, and lends to
> > the SNOT or 'Studs Not On Top' building style. These ships are very lightweight
> > compared to the brick ships, but they don't take a beating like the brick ones
> > do. You have to be very careful to keep the panels on and if its on display you
> > might have to fix it often due to inquisitive hands. This style lends to the
> > most interesting ship designs, but often the weakest, unless done right.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think that ships look and function the best when they use both bricks and
> > panels. This means sacrificing a little from both extremes - ships having some
> > studs-up brick walls, along with panel walls. This still gives the interesting
> > shapes panel ships have, but it gets more of the strength and stability of a
> > brick ship as well.
> >
> > Example - Joel Kuester's Benevolent Grace [1]. Aside from the size of this
> > thing (I could lay down inside of it - its 8ft long!!!!) - I am impressed with
> > the techniques he built it with. Joel designed this ship using a lot of bricks
> > for an exoskeleton of sorts -- there are big black brick beams that wrap around
> > the ship. Then he filled in the gaps with panels, and almost all of them fold
> > out, come off, or flip up to get access to the inside. They serve a double
> > purpose, access to the interior by humans for this 4 deck monster, and
> > interestingly sloped sides to create a pleasing shape.
>
> Another good example of using lots of panels and lots of bricks would be my
> 160 stud long big ship:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=41339 Which is as of now
> still unnamed and unpublished. The interior is full of brick walls and
> technic beams. I first built the ship with just technic beams holding up all
> the floors, but when interior detail was added, the walls that seperated the
> various rooms helped stregthen it a great bit.
>
> A good strong base is also very important, and my ship has a set up of:
> a layer of plates,
> a layer of technic beams and regular bricks,
> and another layer of plates.
>
> Another important method I used was to attach the techinc beams that are
> supporting different levels together with more technic beams. This has made
> it VERY sturdy. It has been sitting on the floor being supported by 2 stacks
> at the extreme far ends of the ship of those weird 6x6x2 parts in the TIE
> fighters for about a month now. And it has yet to buckle in the middle. I
> can pick it up with 2 hands rather easily but I'm very nervous holding it
> cause it's so big, heavy, and ackward to move. That's also the reason why it
> has yet to venture out of my basement.
>
> If anyone is wondering how I got all that grey, It's mostly from 5 Sith
> Infiltrators( grey plates pack!), and 3 X wings (most bought on sale of
> course), and then I got some grey bricks off brickbay.
>
> My collection is 'only' about 30k (
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/mlist.cgi?m=791) so I think that shows you dont
> need 'tons' of parts to go big...
>
> <snip>
>
> Nice tips timmah, I totally agree.
>
> HTH
>
> --Kyle
> http://hvl.cjb.net
I have five questions for you, Kyle. The first question is do you have a
real picture available of your ship and not a picture drawn on the computer?
The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft. I
am not saying that your space craft is ugly but I am saying that this is a
problem that many people fail to recognize in their designs. I do not have
the experience in the larger ship category but my Gaea Federation Galaxy
Destroyer is a seventy three stud length space craft and the Nomadic Empire
Infiltrator is a seventy eight stud long space craft. The logic in the
minds of these people would say that I should combine these ships but these
people also fail to recognize that I only own about ten or fifteen thousand
Legos, perhaps not even that many Legos. I like the designs of your ship
but there is a lack of some wings on the sides of your space craft. If I
was given more Legos, I would easily build five hundred stud or longer Lego
space craft but as my situation is right now, I am content with the Legos I
have built right now in my life. The third question is why does Legoland
Space and Futuron/Futureworld share the same logo yet they are considered to
be two different systems? I believe that there is a Futuron/Futureworld I
and a Futuron/Futureworld II as with the Space Police and Blacktron Lego
sets. Do you consider my opinion to be wrong in this question to you, Kyle?
The fourth question is why is there not an Exploriens section on the Lugnet
Space section? The Exploriens were part of Lego Space so I believe that
they should have a part on the Lugnet Lego space bulletin boards. The fifth
question is I am looking for a particular Lego piece that has a two stud
width and a two stud length, is cylinderical in shape, and has fins on the
side that suggest that these pieces were used as either motors or the bases
to a rocket. Do you know how I can obtain some of these pieces and the
names of these pieces, Kyle? Thank you for helping me, Kyle.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
> The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
> for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft.
[...]
Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
power of wings is useless.
Wings are necessary for vehicles that travel in an atmosphere. The
air pressure difference in air flowing above and below the wing
generates lift, which keeps the vehicle from crashing into the ground
due to the pull of gravity. However this is not relevant or required
in outer space. For example, the Space Shuttle has wings only becuase
it is needed for re-entry. If you look at the Apollo spacecraft that
went to the moon and back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, they
have no streamlining or wings, and did not disintegrate.
You may find that wings are good from a visual point of view, and I
won't argue with that. Also, they provide useful mounting points for
weapons or for maneuvering jets. However, the purpose of wings on
aircraft is to provide lift - to use the flow of air over and under
the wings in order to fight the pull of gravity. However, in outer
space there is neither air nor gravity to fight, so it is not
necessary to put wings on space-only ships. Of course, like the Space
Shuttle, it may be desirable to allow your ships to land on Earth, in
which case wings would be useful.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> [...]
> > The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
> > for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> > one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> > Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> > wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> > space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> > space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft.
> [...]
>
> Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> power of wings is useless.
>
> Wings are necessary for vehicles that travel in an atmosphere. The
> air pressure difference in air flowing above and below the wing
> generates lift, which keeps the vehicle from crashing into the ground
> due to the pull of gravity. However this is not relevant or required
> in outer space. For example, the Space Shuttle has wings only becuase
> it is needed for re-entry. If you look at the Apollo spacecraft that
> went to the moon and back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, they
> have no streamlining or wings, and did not disintegrate.
>
> You may find that wings are good from a visual point of view, and I
> won't argue with that. Also, they provide useful mounting points for
> weapons or for maneuvering jets. However, the purpose of wings on
> aircraft is to provide lift - to use the flow of air over and under
> the wings in order to fight the pull of gravity. However, in outer
> space there is neither air nor gravity to fight, so it is not
> necessary to put wings on space-only ships. Of course, like the Space
> Shuttle, it may be desirable to allow your ships to land on Earth, in
> which case wings would be useful.
>
> --Bill.
The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space. The
fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
die from your trip to the moon. The comment on the antennas is still true
because there are millions of tons of space debris that is flying around
that could damage such equipment on a ship. There are two other points that
you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies. The
second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
asteroids hurtle through space? The only way that I know of in my mind that
gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory. Space has less
gravity than a planet, star, galaxy, asteroid, or comet and space does not
nave a lack of gravity inside that realm of the universe.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi Jesse:
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
> live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
> for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space. The
> fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
> from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
> with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
> earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
> either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
> die from your trip to the moon.
A distinction must be made between controlled and uncontrolled re-entry.
In the case of the Apollo (and various other pre-shuttle craft) entry was
controlled, to an extent, as you indicate. Of course friction was still
intense, but the Apollo craft didn't drop like a stone to the
Earth--parachutes were used to slow the descent, and even the angle of entry
was calculated to maximize the survivability of re-entry.
> There are two other points that
> you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies. The
> second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
> not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
> but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
> asteroids hurtle through space?
Gravity exists, to be sure, though at small (and to the unaided observer,
undetectable) levels, and indeed it does govern the motion of stellar
bodies. However, the wings that we are discussing, in the manner of
aircraft, provide lift against gravity through the motion of air (or some
similar fluid medium). Wings are therefore not needed--and more importantly
are of no use--in an airless environment such as space. As I believe you
mentioned, space is not a true vacuum, but neither does it have any sort of
atmosphere to support or require wings. If wings were required for motion
through space, then how could asteroids and planets move about?
Regarding the streamlined structure of spacecraft, this would mainly be
necessary for purposes of atmospheric insertion, in which case the vessel
might fly much like an aircraft, or for aesthetics. It might also be
posited that some science fiction phenomenon like "hyperspace" requires a
streamlined craft, but that's obviously just speculation. Regardless, in an
environment with no "up" or "down," such as space, then vessels can engage
in combat front to back, side to side, upside-down, or any other
combination. A streamlined craft would only present a small target for a
head-on attack; seen from overhead, even the B-2 Stealth Bomber is a big vessel!
> The only way that I know of in my mind that
> gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory.
? I think you mean that gravity can't be simulated in the lab, but
certainly it exists, or all the microscopes would float away!
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Dave Schuler writes:
> Hi Jesse:
>
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
> > live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
> > for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space. The
> > fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
> > from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
> > with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
> > earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
> > either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
> > die from your trip to the moon.
>
> A distinction must be made between controlled and uncontrolled re-entry.
> In the case of the Apollo (and various other pre-shuttle craft) entry was
> controlled, to an extent, as you indicate. Of course friction was still
> intense, but the Apollo craft didn't drop like a stone to the
> Earth--parachutes were used to slow the descent, and even the angle of entry
> was calculated to maximize the survivability of re-entry.
>
> > There are two other points that
> > you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> > horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> > space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies. The
> > second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
> > not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
> > but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
> > asteroids hurtle through space?
>
> Gravity exists, to be sure, though at small (and to the unaided observer,
> undetectable) levels, and indeed it does govern the motion of stellar
> bodies. However, the wings that we are discussing, in the manner of
> aircraft, provide lift against gravity through the motion of air (or some
> similar fluid medium). Wings are therefore not needed--and more importantly
> are of no use--in an airless environment such as space. As I believe you
> mentioned, space is not a true vacuum, but neither does it have any sort of
> atmosphere to support or require wings. If wings were required for motion
> through space, then how could asteroids and planets move about?
> Regarding the streamlined structure of spacecraft, this would mainly be
> necessary for purposes of atmospheric insertion, in which case the vessel
> might fly much like an aircraft, or for aesthetics. It might also be
> posited that some science fiction phenomenon like "hyperspace" requires a
> streamlined craft, but that's obviously just speculation. Regardless, in an
> environment with no "up" or "down," such as space, then vessels can engage
> in combat front to back, side to side, upside-down, or any other
> combination. A streamlined craft would only present a small target for a
> head-on attack; seen from overhead, even the B-2 Stealth Bomber is a big vessel!
>
> > The only way that I know of in my mind that
> > gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory.
>
> ? I think you mean that gravity can't be simulated in the lab, but
> certainly it exists, or all the microscopes would float away!
>
> Dave!
Dave, you are correct in observing a small mistake concerning the rockets.
There were parachutes that helped the rockets land in the ocean but even so,
in a unique way, the parachute acted not only with but against the retro
rockets because air is required to help an object to land safely on the
ground or, in this instance, the ocean. The parachute helped the retro
rockets not burn as much fuel and withstand as much gravitational friction
as they would if there was not a parachute on the rocket. The comment about
the total lack of gravity in a laboratory is that a special type of room has
to be built in order to not contain any gravity and, at least from the
perspective of this era, any facility that contains such a quality would
probably be used for some type of space research lab or a test area by a
space organization. The answer to your question, which was a response to a
question, is that if these objects are able to move through space, then they
must be moved by some sort of either controlled or internal gravity inside
their mass.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dave, you are correct in observing a small mistake concerning the rockets.
> There were parachutes that helped the rockets land in the ocean but even so,
> in a unique way, the parachute acted not only with but against the retro
> rockets because air is required to help an object to land safely on the
> ground or, in this instance, the ocean. The parachute helped the retro
> rockets not burn as much fuel and withstand as much gravitational friction
> as they would if there was not a parachute on the rocket.
There are no retro rockets used in an Apollo re-entry to Earth. Only
the heat of friction and the parachutes slow the ship down from
orbital speeds to the slow speed required for a safe splashdown.
> The comment about
> the total lack of gravity in a laboratory is that a special type of room has
> to be built in order to not contain any gravity and, at least from the
> perspective of this era, any facility that contains such a quality would
> probably be used for some type of space research lab or a test area by a
> space organization. The answer to your question, which was a response to a
> question, is that if these objects are able to move through space, then they
> must be moved by some sort of either controlled or internal gravity inside
> their mass.
If there was such a laboratory it would be quite a boon to NASA.
Unfortunately the current theories of physics state that it would be
impossible to create such a room.
To simulate lack of gravity, there are two techniques used. Both of
these are used by NASA as part of their astronaut training program:
1. Put astronauts in a big swimming pool, wearing their spacesuits.
The buoyancy in the water acts against gravity so that the effect is
somewhat similar to zero-G.
2. Fly in the "vomit comet" - an airplane that goes very high up
into the atmosphere, and then dives straight down, so that the
occupants experience free-fall. This can only continue for about 30
seconds, because otherwise the plane would crash. They then climb
back up and repeat the cycle several times.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
>
> To simulate lack of gravity, there are two techniques used. Both of
> these are used by NASA as part of their astronaut training program: • [snip]
> 2. Fly in the "vomit comet" - an airplane that goes very high up
> into the atmosphere, and then dives straight down, so that the
> occupants experience free-fall. This can only continue for about 30
> seconds, because otherwise the plane would crash. They then climb
> back up and repeat the cycle several times.
<Chuckle> Well, this is close, but not entirely correct :] The
airplane goes into a climb, and then in one fluid motion levels
and enters a dive. It's during the arced portion of the flight
that the occupants experience zero-G. It's the same idea as when
you drive over a hump in the road at a decent speed. You get
a little light and your stomach may feel funny. This is because
the arc makes you want to fly up, which counter-acts gravity
pulling you down. That's not a very good explanation, but without
pictures is about the best I can do. Another similar experience
is riding a roller coaster over the top of one of the hills.
The altitude doesn't matter. It's your speed and the radius of the
arc. Also, the arc has to be pretty "flat" to experience zero-G
for a decent amount of time. I believe they generally start with
about 15 degrees nose-up and progress to 15 degrees nose-down.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Dave, you are correct in observing a small mistake concerning the rockets.
> > There were parachutes that helped the rockets land in the ocean but even so,
> > in a unique way, the parachute acted not only with but against the retro
> > rockets because air is required to help an object to land safely on the
> > ground or, in this instance, the ocean. The parachute helped the retro
> > rockets not burn as much fuel and withstand as much gravitational friction
> > as they would if there was not a parachute on the rocket.
>
> There are no retro rockets used in an Apollo re-entry to Earth. Only
> the heat of friction and the parachutes slow the ship down from
> orbital speeds to the slow speed required for a safe splashdown.
>
> > The comment about
> > the total lack of gravity in a laboratory is that a special type of room has
> > to be built in order to not contain any gravity and, at least from the
> > perspective of this era, any facility that contains such a quality would
> > probably be used for some type of space research lab or a test area by a
> > space organization. The answer to your question, which was a response to a
> > question, is that if these objects are able to move through space, then they
> > must be moved by some sort of either controlled or internal gravity inside
> > their mass.
>
> If there was such a laboratory it would be quite a boon to NASA.
> Unfortunately the current theories of physics state that it would be
> impossible to create such a room.
>
> To simulate lack of gravity, there are two techniques used. Both of
> these are used by NASA as part of their astronaut training program:
> 1. Put astronauts in a big swimming pool, wearing their spacesuits.
> The buoyancy in the water acts against gravity so that the effect is
> somewhat similar to zero-G.
> 2. Fly in the "vomit comet" - an airplane that goes very high up
> into the atmosphere, and then dives straight down, so that the
> occupants experience free-fall. This can only continue for about 30
> seconds, because otherwise the plane would crash. They then climb
> back up and repeat the cycle several times.
>
> --Bill.
I think I was possibly referring to the "vomit comet" when I was talking
about the laboratory, Bill. I do appreciate the fact that you made me
consider an attempt on weightlessness I never thought of in my mind when you
mentioned the swimming pool. I always thought that the action of friction
would cause an object to conduct more heat and energy as it would enter the
atmosphere and I am only twenty one years old so I do not know very much
about the Apollo space rockets so thank you for correcting that mistake I
made in my reply, Bill. I have wrote on a different reply to a different
person why I built the wings on my space craft.
Jesse Long
P.S. I appreciate the wonderful system known as the public school system
for filling my mind with such wonderful knowledge, if I have any knowledge
in my mind that these people have not tried to destroy in my life.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
(snipped some stuff)
> The comment on the antennas is still true
> because there are millions of tons of space debris that is flying around
> that could damage such equipment on a ship. There are two other points that
> you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies.
(snipped the rest of the scientific discussion)
I think you've failed to consider that a bulky ugly craft with lots of
antennas and other pointy pieces would be very handy when encountering those
space monsters that live inside the asteroids and have the huge mouths that
are disguised as caves. All those pieces sticking out of the ship would
poke the monster in the sensitive areas of its gums and the roof of its
mouth. And if that didn't stop it then the bulkiness would make it hard for
the monster to swallow the craft.
What's the good of wings if you're sitting in the belly of the beast being
slowly dissolved by gastric juices?
G.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
lol....
> I think you've failed to consider that a bulky ugly craft with lots of
> antennas and other pointy pieces would be very handy when encountering • those
> space monsters that live inside the asteroids and have the huge mouths • that
> are disguised as caves. All those pieces sticking out of the ship would
> poke the monster in the sensitive areas of its gums and the roof of its
> mouth. And if that didn't stop it then the bulkiness would make it hard • for
> the monster to swallow the craft.
>
> What's the good of wings if you're sitting in the belly of the beast being
> slowly dissolved by gastric juices?
>
> G.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I think you've failed to consider that a bulky ugly craft with lots of
> antennas and other pointy pieces would be very handy when encountering • those
> space monsters that live inside the asteroids and have the huge mouths • that
> are disguised as caves. All those pieces sticking out of the ship would
> poke the monster in the sensitive areas of its gums and the roof of its
> mouth. And if that didn't stop it then the bulkiness would make it hard • for
> the monster to swallow the craft.
And what happens if you need to detect that undetectable tachyon pulse
signature and you've left off the tachyon pulse antenna?! It makes me sick
the way that spaceships have got so fashionable now that everybody buys one
but never actually takes them out of earth's atmosphere.
A spacecraft should be like a Swiss army knife, a gadget ready for every
unforeseeable occasion!
Kerry
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kerry Raymond writes:
> It makes me sick
> the way that spaceships have got so fashionable now that everybody buys one
> but never actually takes them out of earth's atmosphere.
:)
Yes. People should buy much more economical atmospheric craft if they're not
going into outer space. Just think of the extra fuel used by dragging those
hyperspace drives around with your atmospheric thrusters.
Sure, you can see over the atmospheric vehicles, but these large space ships
have been produced under completely different design rules and they're not
nearly as safe in a collision as people think. And you can't see out of the
back properly.
And have you seen the damage that a star-trek type deflector shield can do
to a parachutist?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
Patrician of Brick-Morpork
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kerry Raymond wrote:
> A spacecraft should be like a Swiss army knife, a gadget ready for every
> unforeseeable occasion!
I'm getting this image of a gargatuan space ship, rapidly approaching
and decelerating. As it draws near, the large tachyon pulse antenna
switchblades out from the port side...
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In article <0vj4jtk6fmkntqugjf67381rp3be5um9u6@4ax.com>, Steve Bliss
<steve.bliss@home.com> wrote:
> > A spacecraft should be like a Swiss army knife, a gadget ready for every
> > unforeseeable occasion!
>
> I'm getting this image of a gargatuan space ship, rapidly approaching
> and decelerating. As it draws near, the large tachyon pulse antenna
> switchblades out from the port side...
...In the heat of battle, the captain presses the wrong button to
engage the maxi*zappo ray gun, and out pops the intergalactic corkscrew
and fish scaler.
<duck and run>
jk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Greg Perry writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> (snipped some stuff)
>
> > The comment on the antennas is still true
> > because there are millions of tons of space debris that is flying around
> > that could damage such equipment on a ship. There are two other points that
> > you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> > horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> > space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies.
>
> (snipped the rest of the scientific discussion)
>
> I think you've failed to consider that a bulky ugly craft with lots of
> antennas and other pointy pieces would be very handy when encountering those
> space monsters that live inside the asteroids and have the huge mouths that
> are disguised as caves. All those pieces sticking out of the ship would
> poke the monster in the sensitive areas of its gums and the roof of its
> mouth. And if that didn't stop it then the bulkiness would make it hard for
> the monster to swallow the craft.
>
> What's the good of wings if you're sitting in the belly of the beast being
> slowly dissolved by gastric juices?
>
> G.
Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
Empire and they flew inside a space monster? I thought that the Sarlacc Pit
Monster (which was in Return of the Jedi, not Star Wars, to those people at
JVC for making the Star Wars video game trilogy) was large but that monster
made the Sarlacc Pit Monster seem as though it was an earthworm being
compared to an anaconda. My space craft is very handy because it has two
support craft that are by themselves very well armed and the engines can
also double as guns and I believe I have around forty weapons total on my
space craft or possibly more than forty weapons and it is only seventy three
Lego studs long, or in the case of human measurements, about the size of the
Galactic Mediator, which is about two feet in length so I think that I do
not need to poke the monster, I think I need to make some nice space monster
burgers and space monster steaks. My space craft is known as a Gaea
Federation Galaxy Destroyer not because it is a good name but the fact that
a destroyer is equipped with many guns but not as many as a battleship, or
in the context of space, a battle cruiser. The primary function of a
destroyer is not only to provide support for reconnaissance teams but to
also patrol the enemy territory for signs of terrorism, violence, and other
threats and to destroy smaller vessels as well as defending the larger
vessels of the representative space fleet, or protecting the bigger space
craft in the space fleet. Some of the features on my wings also are part of
my DualFire (IGTM) technology and this technology allows the nine engines,
three main engines, two auxillary engines/intergalactic ballistic missiles,
and four guns/teritary auxillary engines, to act as either thrust or as a
weapon andevery engine is controlled individually so that they change their
functions at the press of a button on the control panel inside of the ship.
Have I answered your question correctly, G?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
No I'm not familiar with that motion picture. That's keen that they
featured an Asteroid Cave-Mouth Monster in a movie. I just hope that it
wasn't a comedy because the danger posed by these creatures to space ships
is very real and no laughing matter.
(Snipped some stuff about a "Sarlacc Pit Monster" which quite frankly to me
sounds like something that is made up and therefore has no place in a
serious scientific discussion such as the ones being carried on in this
forum in response to the dictate that "space ships must have wings." Let's
try and stay on topic.)
> My space craft is very handy because it has two
> support craft that are by themselves very well armed and the engines can
> also double as guns and I believe I have around forty weapons total on my
> space craft or possibly more than forty weapons and it is only seventy three
> Lego studs long, or in the case of human measurements, about the size of the
> Galactic Mediator, which is about two feet in length so I think that I do
> not need to poke the monster, I think I need to make some nice space monster
> burgers and space monster steaks.
I'm sorry - it's been many years since my class on Faulkner so I'm a little
rusty on interpreting the meaning of run-on sentences with multiple layers
of ideas attempting to be expressed so I'm left a little confused by this
statement. Could you perhaps clarify how an engine can also be a gun? Are
the bullets fired out the exhaust pipe? I must admit that a "forty weapons
total...or possibly more than forty weapons" to "seventy three Lego studs
long" ratio sounds very impressive. I must confess my ignorance though
about this "Galactic Mediator" you've mentioned but if it is only two feet
long I'd have to say that I don't see how much mediating could be
accomplished in the galaxy or how this negates the need to "poke the monster".
> My space craft is known as a Gaea
> Federation Galaxy Destroyer not because it is a good name but the fact that
> a destroyer is equipped with many guns but not as many as a battleship, or
> in the context of space, a battle cruiser.
I applaud you for not choosing a name just because it is "good" - too often
those who don't know any better make this fatal mistake in the naming of
there vessels. My ship is known as "Ralph" - also not because it's a good
name but because I once saw a documentary on TV about folks who worship a
head of lettuce named Ralph and I figure if it's good enough for a leafy,
spherical god then it's certainly good enough for a space ship. I'm not
quite sure why the "Gaea Galaxy Federation" part is required because it is a
destroyer but I'll take your word for it. However, you've also left me with
another question - If a destroyer has 40 weapons per 73 studs then what is
the weapon to stud ratio for a battle cruiser (sticking with the context of
space though I am tempted to start speaking in the context of time which for
me has always been the more attractive half of the whole space-time duo).
> The primary function of a
> destroyer is not only to provide support for reconnaissance teams but to
> also patrol the enemy territory for signs of terrorism, violence, and other
> threats and to destroy smaller vessels as well as defending the larger
> vessels of the representative space fleet, or protecting the bigger space
> craft in the space fleet.
If the destroyer is patrolling in the enemy terriory and spots signs of
"terrorism, violence and threats" does it help to encourage these
activities? After all these are exactly the kinds of activities I would
think one would wish upon an enemy. Also I think your use of the word
"patrol" is a little deceptive - if the destroyer is in enemy territory
isn't "invade" a more appropriate description of its action?
> Some of the features on my wings also are part of
> my DualFire (IGTM) technology and this technology allows the nine engines,
> three main engines, two auxillary engines/intergalactic ballistic missiles,
> and four guns/teritary auxillary engines, to act as either thrust or as a
> weapon andevery engine is controlled individually so that they change their
> functions at the press of a button on the control panel inside of the ship.
Wow! From your many posts I kniew that you weren't simply some guy playing
with LEGO toys and I was right. I can only hope (being the patriotic U.S.
citizen that I am) that your Dualfire (IGTM) technology does not fall into
the hands of some rogue enemy nation such as England or New Zealand. I'm
particularly impressed by the fact that these dual purpose engine/weapons
are all controlled by a the presse of a single button - AND you've actually
but that button inside the ship. And I thought I was hot stuff because my
ship Ralph is completely controlled by telepathy from a lay-z-boy and the
only buttons inside of it are the ones holding my space trousers up (I have
this thing about zippers and velcro and don't even get me started on belts).
> Have I answered your question correctly, G?
What was my question again? I forgot. Oh well, lets just say that you
answered it correctly - I'll give you a B+ which is a respectable passing
grade by any standard.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Greg Perry writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> > where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> > Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
>
> No I'm not familiar with that motion picture. That's keen that they
> featured an Asteroid Cave-Mouth Monster in a movie. I just hope that it
> wasn't a comedy because the danger posed by these creatures to space ships
> is very real and no laughing matter.
>
> (Snipped some stuff about a "Sarlacc Pit Monster" which quite frankly to me
> sounds like something that is made up and therefore has no place in a
> serious scientific discussion such as the ones being carried on in this
> forum in response to the dictate that "space ships must have wings." Let's
> try and stay on topic.)
>
> > My space craft is very handy because it has two
> > support craft that are by themselves very well armed and the engines can
> > also double as guns and I believe I have around forty weapons total on my
> > space craft or possibly more than forty weapons and it is only seventy three
> > Lego studs long, or in the case of human measurements, about the size of the
> > Galactic Mediator, which is about two feet in length so I think that I do
> > not need to poke the monster, I think I need to make some nice space monster
> > burgers and space monster steaks.
>
> I'm sorry - it's been many years since my class on Faulkner so I'm a little
> rusty on interpreting the meaning of run-on sentences with multiple layers
> of ideas attempting to be expressed so I'm left a little confused by this
> statement. Could you perhaps clarify how an engine can also be a gun? Are
> the bullets fired out the exhaust pipe? I must admit that a "forty weapons
> total...or possibly more than forty weapons" to "seventy three Lego studs
> long" ratio sounds very impressive. I must confess my ignorance though
> about this "Galactic Mediator" you've mentioned but if it is only two feet
> long I'd have to say that I don't see how much mediating could be
> accomplished in the galaxy or how this negates the need to "poke the monster".
>
> > My space craft is known as a Gaea
> > Federation Galaxy Destroyer not because it is a good name but the fact that
> > a destroyer is equipped with many guns but not as many as a battleship, or
> > in the context of space, a battle cruiser.
>
> I applaud you for not choosing a name just because it is "good" - too often
> those who don't know any better make this fatal mistake in the naming of
> there vessels. My ship is known as "Ralph" - also not because it's a good
> name but because I once saw a documentary on TV about folks who worship a
> head of lettuce named Ralph and I figure if it's good enough for a leafy,
> spherical god then it's certainly good enough for a space ship. I'm not
> quite sure why the "Gaea Galaxy Federation" part is required because it is a
> destroyer but I'll take your word for it. However, you've also left me with
> another question - If a destroyer has 40 weapons per 73 studs then what is
> the weapon to stud ratio for a battle cruiser (sticking with the context of
> space though I am tempted to start speaking in the context of time which for
> me has always been the more attractive half of the whole space-time duo).
>
> > The primary function of a
> > destroyer is not only to provide support for reconnaissance teams but to
> > also patrol the enemy territory for signs of terrorism, violence, and other
> > threats and to destroy smaller vessels as well as defending the larger
> > vessels of the representative space fleet, or protecting the bigger space
> > craft in the space fleet.
>
> If the destroyer is patrolling in the enemy terriory and spots signs of
> "terrorism, violence and threats" does it help to encourage these
> activities? After all these are exactly the kinds of activities I would
> think one would wish upon an enemy. Also I think your use of the word
> "patrol" is a little deceptive - if the destroyer is in enemy territory
> isn't "invade" a more appropriate description of its action?
>
> > Some of the features on my wings also are part of
> > my DualFire (IGTM) technology and this technology allows the nine engines,
> > three main engines, two auxillary engines/intergalactic ballistic missiles,
> > and four guns/teritary auxillary engines, to act as either thrust or as a
> > weapon andevery engine is controlled individually so that they change their
> > functions at the press of a button on the control panel inside of the ship.
>
> Wow! From your many posts I kniew that you weren't simply some guy playing
> with LEGO toys and I was right. I can only hope (being the patriotic U.S.
> citizen that I am) that your Dualfire (IGTM) technology does not fall into
> the hands of some rogue enemy nation such as England or New Zealand. I'm
> particularly impressed by the fact that these dual purpose engine/weapons
> are all controlled by a the presse of a single button - AND you've actually
> but that button inside the ship. And I thought I was hot stuff because my
> ship Ralph is completely controlled by telepathy from a lay-z-boy and the
> only buttons inside of it are the ones holding my space trousers up (I have
> this thing about zippers and velcro and don't even get me started on belts).
>
> > Have I answered your question correctly, G?
>
> What was my question again? I forgot. Oh well, lets just say that you
> answered it correctly - I'll give you a B+ which is a respectable passing
> grade by any standard.
I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
then go to http://www.starwars.com . The following sentence that you
snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
will rephrase my information about my space craft.
The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
vessel. I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
defense robot. I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
engines. I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
Greg. I named this vessel the Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer because this
vessel is made for the Gaea Federation, a story I have built for around six
years using my Legos. The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
the native forces of that region of space.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
> wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
> Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
> then go to http://www.starwars.com .
I really don't think you confused him. Maybe I'm giving it away, but it was
all well crafted sarcasm.
> The following sentence that you
> snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
> this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
> Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
> pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
AMAZING! Those movies sound pretty neat. I wonder why I haven't seen those
before, being a space nut and all. Are they in theatres or do I have to
rent them? I sure hope they're in theatres, but knowing my luck, they were
made in the late 70s or something, meaning I wasn't born yet.
> I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
> will rephrase my information about my space craft.
> The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
> the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
> length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
> Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
> vessel. I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
> had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
> defense robot.
Geez! 80 weapons? Is there even room for a spacehip with that many guns?
Maybe I should just stop building ships. I'm used to engineering sopme
pretty cool realistic military vessels, with detailed interiors and all.
But, I'm no match for a little (yes, little) ship with 80 frikkin weapons on
it. I think I'll retire early. But 80...seriously, there's no room to
store ammo, much less capacitors big enough for them to be all energy
weapons. Wait let me guess, you suck the energy from interstellar medium,
or use the abundance of gravity in space to charge it?
> I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
> monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
> steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
> destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
> ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
Ree-hee-hee-heeallly? Wow, you're the man. Maybe we should all stop
building ships.
> You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
> the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
> and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
> guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
> engines.
Your weapons must be extra specially shielded too to survive being shot out
an engine. Hats off to you.
> I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
> pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
> Greg.
That's ok, looks like you're doing just fine with 80 weapons on a little
ship like that.
> The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
> is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
> patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
> unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
> exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
> invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
> the native forces of that region of space.
Why not invade and explore at the same time?
-Tim (added loc.au back, cause they're loving this discussion)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
> wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
> Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
> then go to http://www.starwars.com . The following sentence that you
> snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
> this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
> Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
> pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
I believe there is also an Episode I: The Phantom Menace (recently
released), and there may also be sequels to Episode I, called Episode II and
Episode III, forming a prequel trilogy. Who knows what types of Freudian
Symbol Monsters might appear in those movies?
> I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
> will rephrase my information about my space craft.
> The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
> the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
> length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
> Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
> vessel.
Jesse, do you think that LEGO people are really that small in their own
universe? In other words, when we build a LEGO model is it 1:1 scale or 1:36
scale (or something else)?
> I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
> had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
> defense robot. I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
> monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
> steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
> destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
> ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
Why do you need to make space monster burgers and/or steaks? Do they taste
nice? And is it ethical to cook space monsterss when there are so many
delightful soy products in the universe? I generally think it's a bad idea
to "poke the monster" anyway -- some people grow hair on the palms of their
hands...
Concerning 200-300 stud long capital ships. If they were as heavily armed as
your space craft they might have at least 120, maybe as many as 360, exhaust
weapons which would be a lot more than the 40-80 wepaons on your space ship.
Again this is ethically dubious, in my opinion. I am also interested in the
defense robot you have. Is it armed?
> You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
> the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
> and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
> guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
> engines.
Is this dangerous at all? What if you want to move and fire your weapons at
the same time?
> I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
> pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
> Greg. I named this vessel the Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer because this
> vessel is made for the Gaea Federation, a story I have built for around six
> years using my Legos. The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
> Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
They are LEGO blocks, not Legos, Jesse, please see my post here:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=29565
I am interested in the names of your factions. Is Gaea a name for the Earth
based faction? Does it relect the Mother Earth? Is it peaceful and nurturing
or patriarchal and menacing? Is it a Federation like the US or a Federation
like the EU? Are Aliens allowed in the Federation? Is it a democracy like
the US or a democracy like Iraq?
Are the Nomads nomads, ie do they travel around with no fixed settlements?
Or does the whole Empire travel around to different planets? Are they good
or evil? Do they have an Emperor? Are they Humans or Aliens? I hope you can
help with my questions, Jesse.
> The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
> is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
> patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
> unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
> exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
> invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
> the native forces of that region of space.
To take a contemporary example: What about the US spy plane that was
disabled in _contested_ airspace near China, and landed in China? Was it on
patrol, or invading? What if the "native forces" consider the mere presence
of your space craft an attack?
Anyway, I'm interested in hearing more about your creations Jesse. Thanks.
--DaveL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
> > wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
> > Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
> > then go to http://www.starwars.com . The following sentence that you
> > snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
> > this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
> > Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
> > pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
>
> I believe there is also an Episode I: The Phantom Menace (recently
> released), and there may also be sequels to Episode I, called Episode II and
> Episode III, forming a prequel trilogy. Who knows what types of Freudian
> Symbol Monsters might appear in those movies?
>
> > I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
> > will rephrase my information about my space craft.
> > The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
> > the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
> > length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
> > Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
> > vessel.
>
> Jesse, do you think that LEGO people are really that small in their own
> universe? In other words, when we build a LEGO model is it 1:1 scale or 1:36
> scale (or something else)?
>
> > I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
> > had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
> > defense robot. I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
> > monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
> > steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
> > destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
> > ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
>
> Why do you need to make space monster burgers and/or steaks? Do they taste
> nice? And is it ethical to cook space monsterss when there are so many
> delightful soy products in the universe? I generally think it's a bad idea
> to "poke the monster" anyway -- some people grow hair on the palms of their
> hands...
>
> Concerning 200-300 stud long capital ships. If they were as heavily armed as
> your space craft they might have at least 120, maybe as many as 360, exhaust
> weapons which would be a lot more than the 40-80 wepaons on your space ship.
> Again this is ethically dubious, in my opinion. I am also interested in the
> defense robot you have. Is it armed?
>
> > You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
> > the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
> > and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
> > guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
> > engines.
>
> Is this dangerous at all? What if you want to move and fire your weapons at
> the same time?
>
> > I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
> > pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
> > Greg. I named this vessel the Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer because this
> > vessel is made for the Gaea Federation, a story I have built for around six
> > years using my Legos. The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
> > Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
>
> They are LEGO blocks, not Legos, Jesse, please see my post here:
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=29565
>
> I am interested in the names of your factions. Is Gaea a name for the Earth
> based faction? Does it relect the Mother Earth? Is it peaceful and nurturing
> or patriarchal and menacing? Is it a Federation like the US or a Federation
> like the EU? Are Aliens allowed in the Federation? Is it a democracy like
> the US or a democracy like Iraq?
>
> Are the Nomads nomads, ie do they travel around with no fixed settlements?
> Or does the whole Empire travel around to different planets? Are they good
> or evil? Do they have an Emperor? Are they Humans or Aliens? I hope you can
> help with my questions, Jesse.
>
> > The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
> > is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
> > patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
> > unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
> > exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
> > invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
> > the native forces of that region of space.
>
> To take a contemporary example: What about the US spy plane that was
> disabled in _contested_ airspace near China, and landed in China? Was it on
> patrol, or invading? What if the "native forces" consider the mere presence
> of your space craft an attack?
>
> Anyway, I'm interested in hearing more about your creations Jesse. Thanks.
> --DaveL
I believe that your comment about those monsters in Episode II and Episode
III of the new Star Wars Trilogy. The monsters near the city of Otoh Gunga
were scary enough for me. The comment about the stud length is a generally
accepted standard for Lego Space builders with their space craft. The stud
is a bump on a Lego brick or plate that is measured in the amount of these
studs long and wide on a space craft. The height of space craft is
generally measured by Lego brick height, that is how many Lego bricks equal
the height of the space craft. The opinion that I share with you about the
scale of the space craft is that Lego space craft are measured in stud
length and that there does not exist, as far as my limited knowledge of Lego
building is concerned, a general standard for the scale of these space ships
but that the scale is determined by the individual Lego builder of space
craft. There will probably exist replies to the contrary to this comment
but as I stated earlier, I do not know if there is a standard measurement of
scale for Lego space craft and if I am wrong with my statement, please
inform me with your information to my comment.
The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
on my space monster steaks.
The defense robot that you mentioned in response to my post is indeed armed,
and quite heavily as well so if my defense robot was not armed then why
would I refer to my robot as a defense robot? The robot that I have on my
space craft has 12 guns that mastly point in a upward direction and they
serve as wings for the robot. The arms have two huge cannons as well as two
huge claws that once held magnets to a long destroyed M-Tron vehicle, a
Celestial Forager if my memory is correct in this letter. The head of the
robot has a gun and so does the tail of my robot and my robot vaguely
resembles a scorpion in the structure of the body. The intake valves on my
engines can always fire but my exhaust valves have to stop in order to fire
but since I have plenty of guns to fire on the enemy without the exhaust
valves, it is not a problem with my space craft. I also not that my space
craft is constructed of both bricks and plates, as is the usual standard of
Lego space craft and so it becomes exhausting to say Lego bricks and plates
in every sentence so I simply say Legos to indicate that I am meaning Lego
bricks and plates but I do appreciate the effort of your response to my letter.
The construction of the Gaea Federation is similar to a intergalactic
European Union but without the antisemetic overtones that are rampant in
that organization. The organization was led by what we refer to as the
planet Earth but other members are also a part of this organization. This
organization is an open organization so the individual members have to
comply with certain standards in order to belong to the Gaea Federation. I
do not, however, have a certain political structure for my Gaea Federation
but the Nomadic Empire is certainly similar to a hybrid of the Muslim
Federation in the Middle East, Africa, and into Central Asia and the
Galactic Empire.
The last three questions I will answer to you now, Dave. The first question
is about poking the monster causing hair to grow on the palms of your hands.
I think that question should be answered in another place, like the romance
rooms and the adults only rooms on Yahoo, that is, if you are talking about
some subject that originates from those rooms and thankfully I do stay away
from those rooms. The second question that I will answer is let the
photgraphs tell the story to you, Dave. I am not lying about the numerous
guns on my space craft and the photographs will prove the truth about the
space craft, Dave. The third question that I will answer is I do not know
who is right, the United States of America of Communist China. I do believe
that it was wrong for China to let that pilot disable that plane but if
China is right, there should have been a different way of telling the
American forces that they were in violation of Chinese air space and the
Americans should have complied with the Chinese government but if the
American government ignored the Chinese government, then it was the fault of
the American government. I, personally, do not know the truth about that
situation so I have tried to answer as many of your questions as humanly
possible and if there are any question you feel a need to ask, then ask me,
Dave.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> valves, it is not a problem with my space craft. I also not that my space
> craft is constructed of both bricks and plates, as is the usual standard of
> Lego space craft and so it becomes exhausting to say Lego bricks and plates
> in every sentence so I simply say Legos to indicate that I am meaning Lego
> bricks and plates but I do appreciate the effort of your response to my letter.
I have posted this message by accident---please ignore it everyone.
Thanx ;]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> who is right, the United States of America of Communist China. I do believe
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Y'know, if I think about the world as a glorified "Civ" game, then
I believe this will be the outcome ;]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Like Jon Palmer already kindly asked, could you please separate your LONG
paragraphs.
You do this by pressing a button on your keyboard called _ENTER_ or _RETURN_.
Hope you understand and use this advice.
Mladen Pejic, over and out!
http://members.attcanada.ca/~milovan/index.htm
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Dave Low writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > I am sorry that I confused you on the motion picture Star Wars but if you
> > > wish to know more about Star Wars, there is a seperate discussion board on
> > > Lugnet for Star Wars Lego sets and if that does not satisfy your interests,
> > > then go to http://www.starwars.com . The following sentence that you
> > > snipped was a comparison between two monsters in two different movies of
> > > this trilogy. The Star Wars Trilogy consists of the motion pictures Star
> > > Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. These motion
> > > pictures are commonly referred to as Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI.
> >
> > I believe there is also an Episode I: The Phantom Menace (recently
> > released), and there may also be sequels to Episode I, called Episode II and
> > Episode III, forming a prequel trilogy. Who knows what types of Freudian
> > Symbol Monsters might appear in those movies?
> >
> > > I apologize for also confusing you about my weaponry on my space craft. I
> > > will rephrase my information about my space craft.
> > > The Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer is seventy three Lego studs long or, in
> > > the case of human measurements, about twenty one and three quarter inches in
> > > length. The size of this vessel is almost the same size as the Galactic
> > > Mediator, which is a Space Police II vessel and the largest Space Police II
> > > vessel.
> >
> > Jesse, do you think that LEGO people are really that small in their own
> > universe? In other words, when we build a LEGO model is it 1:1 scale or 1:36
> > scale (or something else)?
> >
> > > I counted the weapons on my vessel again and I discovered that I
> > > had closer to eighty guns on my vessel if I included my support ships and
> > > defense robot. I said in this response that I do not need to poke the
> > > monster, I need to make some nice space monster burgers and space monster
> > > steaks and with the many weapons I have on my space craft (which could also
> > > destroy some of the big two hundred and three hundred stud long capital
> > > ships), accomplishing such a task would be very easy for my space craft.
> >
> > Why do you need to make space monster burgers and/or steaks? Do they taste
> > nice? And is it ethical to cook space monsterss when there are so many
> > delightful soy products in the universe? I generally think it's a bad idea
> > to "poke the monster" anyway -- some people grow hair on the palms of their
> > hands...
> >
> > Concerning 200-300 stud long capital ships. If they were as heavily armed as
> > your space craft they might have at least 120, maybe as many as 360, exhaust
> > weapons which would be a lot more than the 40-80 wepaons on your space ship.
> > Again this is ethically dubious, in my opinion. I am also interested in the
> > defense robot you have. Is it armed?
> >
> > > You also said that some of the guns are shot through the exhaust pipe and
> > > the answer is that some of the guns are indeed shot through the exhaust pipe
> > > and they are also shot through the front as well, at least on my wing
> > > guns/auxillary engines and intergalactic ballistic missiles/auxillary
> > > engines.
> >
> > Is this dangerous at all? What if you want to move and fire your weapons at
> > the same time?
> >
> > > I only have a collection of about eight to ten thousand Lego
> > > pieces so I can not build an acceptable capital class cruiser at this time,
> > > Greg. I named this vessel the Gaea Federation Galaxy Destroyer because this
> > > vessel is made for the Gaea Federation, a story I have built for around six
> > > years using my Legos. The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
> > > Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
> >
> > They are LEGO blocks, not Legos, Jesse, please see my post here:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=29565
> >
> > I am interested in the names of your factions. Is Gaea a name for the Earth
> > based faction? Does it relect the Mother Earth? Is it peaceful and nurturing
> > or patriarchal and menacing? Is it a Federation like the US or a Federation
> > like the EU? Are Aliens allowed in the Federation? Is it a democracy like
> > the US or a democracy like Iraq?
> >
> > Are the Nomads nomads, ie do they travel around with no fixed settlements?
> > Or does the whole Empire travel around to different planets? Are they good
> > or evil? Do they have an Emperor? Are they Humans or Aliens? I hope you can
> > help with my questions, Jesse.
> >
> > > The question of my space craft encouraging violence, terrorism, and threats
> > > is false because it is used to discourage such actions from occuring in the
> > > patrolled region of space and when a space craft such as the Voyager enters
> > > unknown or hostile space, are they invading that part of space or are they
> > > exploring space? The only way that my space craft could be considered an
> > > invading space craft is that my space craft commits an unprovoked attack on
> > > the native forces of that region of space.
> >
> > To take a contemporary example: What about the US spy plane that was
> > disabled in _contested_ airspace near China, and landed in China? Was it on
> > patrol, or invading? What if the "native forces" consider the mere presence
> > of your space craft an attack?
> >
> > Anyway, I'm interested in hearing more about your creations Jesse. Thanks.
> > --DaveL
> I believe that your comment about those monsters in Episode II and Episode
> III of the new Star Wars Trilogy. The monsters near the city of Otoh Gunga
> were scary enough for me. The comment about the stud length is a generally
> accepted standard for Lego Space builders with their space craft. The stud
> is a bump on a Lego brick or plate that is measured in the amount of these
> studs long and wide on a space craft. The height of space craft is
> generally measured by Lego brick height, that is how many Lego bricks equal
> the height of the space craft. The opinion that I share with you about the
> scale of the space craft is that Lego space craft are measured in stud
> length and that there does not exist, as far as my limited knowledge of Lego
> building is concerned, a general standard for the scale of these space ships
> but that the scale is determined by the individual Lego builder of space
> craft. There will probably exist replies to the contrary to this comment
> but as I stated earlier, I do not know if there is a standard measurement of
> scale for Lego space craft and if I am wrong with my statement, please
> inform me with your information to my comment.
> The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
> Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
> or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> on my space monster steaks.
> The defense robot that you mentioned in response to my post is indeed armed,
> and quite heavily as well so if my defense robot was not armed then why
> would I refer to my robot as a defense robot? The robot that I have on my
> space craft has 12 guns that mastly point in a upward direction and they
> serve as wings for the robot. The arms have two huge cannons as well as two
> huge claws that once held magnets to a long destroyed M-Tron vehicle, a
> Celestial Forager if my memory is correct in this letter. The head of the
> robot has a gun and so does the tail of my robot and my robot vaguely
> resembles a scorpion in the structure of the body. The intake valves on my
> engines can always fire but my exhaust valves have to stop in order to fire
> but since I have plenty of guns to fire on the enemy without the exhaust
> valves, it is not a problem with my space craft. I also not that my space
> craft is constructed of both bricks and plates, as is the usual standard of
> Lego space craft and so it becomes exhausting to say Lego bricks and plates
> in every sentence so I simply say Legos to indicate that I am meaning Lego
> bricks and plates but I do appreciate the effort of your response to my • letter.
> The construction of the Gaea Federation is similar to a intergalactic
> European Union but without the antisemetic overtones that are rampant in
> that organization. The organization was led by what we refer to as the
> planet Earth but other members are also a part of this organization. This
> organization is an open organization so the individual members have to
> comply with certain standards in order to belong to the Gaea Federation. I
> do not, however, have a certain political structure for my Gaea Federation
> but the Nomadic Empire is certainly similar to a hybrid of the Muslim
> Federation in the Middle East, Africa, and into Central Asia and the
> Galactic Empire.
> The last three questions I will answer to you now, Dave. The first question
> is about poking the monster causing hair to grow on the palms of your hands.
> I think that question should be answered in another place, like the romance
> rooms and the adults only rooms on Yahoo, that is, if you are talking about
> some subject that originates from those rooms and thankfully I do stay away
> from those rooms. The second question that I will answer is let the
> photgraphs tell the story to you, Dave. I am not lying about the numerous
> guns on my space craft and the photographs will prove the truth about the
> space craft, Dave. The third question that I will answer is I do not know
> who is right, the United States of America of Communist China. I do believe
> that it was wrong for China to let that pilot disable that plane but if
> China is right, there should have been a different way of telling the
> American forces that they were in violation of Chinese air space and the
> Americans should have complied with the Chinese government but if the
> American government ignored the Chinese government, then it was the fault of
> the American government. I, personally, do not know the truth about that
> situation so I have tried to answer as many of your questions as humanly
> possible and if there are any question you feel a need to ask, then ask me,
> Dave.
> Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Whoa hoss, slooooowwww dooooowwwwwn. You're rambling a TON here. Why not
take the time to think about a reply and write it into nice paragraphs, so
we can all read it. Better yet, why not go do something more productive?
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I believe that your comment about those monsters in Episode II and Episode
> III of the new Star Wars Trilogy. The monsters near the city of Otoh Gunga
> were scary enough for me.
I'm sorry to be rude, but you're _really bad_ about picking up sarcasm. The
last few replies made to you in this group have been 110% sarcastic. I
usually don't fly off the handle (this is nothing) like this, but your stuff
is driving me to the nuthouse. (no, its not putting me in the car, steering
the wheel, going down the road, towards an insane asylum. Its a figure of
speech. Just like 'baiting' is, it doesn't mean you're a fish)
The thing here is, you tried parcticipating in the discussion, but you are
unwilling to have a rational conversation. Everything is the way it is,
becaue you say it is. That's not the way things work, sorry. Also, try not
to take things so literally. I don't care about Levitical food laws, I
don't care about the origin of the idea of money. This is a space
discussion (or was, now its a sarcastic humor-fest and a critique on writing
styles), not a Jesse-Tell-Everyone-How-Things-Work discussion. (afterall,
I'll bet we're all stupid and uneducated and have no idea how the world
works. That's why we can type messages, discuss things, and wow, use a
computer!)
> There will probably exist replies to the contrary to this comment
> but as I stated earlier, I do not know if there is a standard measurement of
> scale for Lego space craft and if I am wrong with my statement, please
> inform me with your information to my comment.
But if you were wrong, would you listen if you were corrected?
> The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> other Lego creations.
Awww.
> There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
Do you believe everything everyone tells you? Oh wait, you believe
everything people tell you, outside this discussion group. Just cause
someone's on tee vee, doesn't mean they know everything.
> Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> depending on what you usually put on those foods.
Tell me, have you actually had a space monster burger?
> I prefer to use ketchup,
> or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> on my space monster steaks.
Oh let me guess, your mommy cuts the steak in the shape of a space monster.
> The defense robot that you mentioned in response to my post is indeed armed,
> and quite heavily as well so if my defense robot was not armed then why
> would I refer to my robot as a defense robot. The robot that I have on my
> space craft has 12 guns that mastly point in a upward direction and they
> serve as wings for the robot.
Guns that are engines, guns that are wings. Bitchin' technology.
> The arms have two huge cannons as well as two
> huge claws that once held magnets to a long destroyed M-Tron vehicle, a
> Celestial Forager if my memory is correct in this letter. The head of the
> robot has a gun and so does the tail of my robot and my robot vaguely
> resembles a scorpion in the structure of the body. The intake valves on my
> engines can always fire but my exhaust valves have to stop in order to fire
> but since I have plenty of guns to fire on the enemy without the exhaust
> valves, it is not a problem with my space craft.
You must rule the universe. I worship you.
> The last three questions I will answer to you now, Dave. The first question
> is about poking the monster causing hair to grow on the palms of your hands.
> I think that question should be answered in another place, like the romance
> rooms and the adults only rooms on Yahoo, that is, if you are talking about
> some subject that originates from those rooms and thankfully I do stay away
> from those rooms.
This is the funniest thing I think I've heard in a long time.
> The second question that I will answer is let the
> photgraphs tell the story to you, Dave.
Where are the photographs? Guess they can't tell a story if you can't see em.
(at least I have not seen them posted, if they are and I missed them, I
apologize)
> I am not lying about the numerous
> guns on my space craft and the photographs will prove the truth about the
> space craft, Dave.
I think we know that you're not lying. But I think we know that in a
realistic spacecraft, there literally could not exist that many guns. But,
I don't have the energy to debate that with you, especially cause I know
you'll insist you're right.
> The third question that I will answer is I do not know
> who is right, the United States of America of Communist China. I do believe
> that it was wrong for China to let that pilot disable that plane but if
> China is right, there should have been a different way of telling the
> American forces that they were in violation of Chinese air space and the
> Americans should have complied with the Chinese government but if the
> American government ignored the Chinese government, then it was the fault of
> the American government. I, personally, do not know the truth about that
> situation so I have tried to answer as many of your questions as humanly
> possible and if there are any question you feel a need to ask, then ask me,
> Dave.
I need to ask you, do you believe everything a communist totalitarian
government says? If you do, you're more of a sucker than I thought you were.
Disclaimer: I'm not a mean person. I'm just very very frustrated at your
no-brainer responses that are poorly communicated, ramble, and make little
sense. I've been patient (and so has everyone else), but they kept up (if
you started talking sense and it was logical, hey we'd be having a cool
chat). Now I'm a little nutty cause of them.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jesse Long wrote:
<snip>
> The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
> Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
> or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> on my space monster steaks.
Sorry to interrupt guys, bu this is the *funniest* thread I faced for a
long time..:-D
Is this Jesse character is real? I mean does he really exist?
I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my attitude was
same to this conversation, but I really started to believe that Jesse is
a fiction.
I'm sure he is not the Jesse Long that we know from RTL and early days
of Lugnet.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
>
> Jesse Long wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> > perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> > certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> > with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> > first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> > insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> > most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> > other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> > 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> > buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> > and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> > and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
> > Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> > depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
> > or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> > K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> > on my space monster steaks.
>
> Sorry to interrupt guys, bu this is the *funniest* thread I faced for a
> long time..:-D
> Is this Jesse character is real? I mean does he really exist?
>
> I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my attitude was
> same to this conversation, but I really started to believe that Jesse is
> a fiction.
>
> I'm sure he is not the Jesse Long that we know from RTL and early days
> of Lugnet.
>
> Selçuk
There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
do you indicate by that statement? The second question is was there another
person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
person has my name on Lugnet.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> >
> >
> > Jesse Long wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > The comment about soy that you present to me presents to my mind that you
> > > perceive me as evil for eating meat. The Orkin man fumigates insects yet
> > > certain bugs are acceptable to eat under Levitical standards. The problems
> > > with the fumigated bugs, however, would present a problem to my mind. The
> > > first problem to my mind is that I hate insects and especially eating
> > > insects and the second problem is that the insects are poisoned and would
> > > most likely cause me to die and so I could not build any space craft or any
> > > other Lego creations. There was a man named Pat Robertson who says on that
> > > 700 Club all of the benefits of soy in our bodies and I can not afford to
> > > buy soy and products that are made from soy because they are too expensive
> > > and I think I may be allergic to soy and soy products so I do not buy soy
> > > and soy products because I may have allergies or I may die from the soy.
> > > Space monster burgers and space monster steaks actually taste nice,
> > > depending on what you usually put on those foods. I prefer to use ketchup,
> > > or to some people, catsup, on my space monster burgers while I prefer some
> > > K.C. Masterpiece, Lea and Perrins, Heinz 57 Steak Sauce, or A-1 Steak Sauce
> > > on my space monster steaks.
> >
> > Sorry to interrupt guys, bu this is the *funniest* thread I faced for a
> > long time..:-D
> > Is this Jesse character is real? I mean does he really exist?
> >
> > I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my attitude was
> > same to this conversation, but I really started to believe that Jesse is
> > a fiction.
> >
> > I'm sure he is not the Jesse Long that we know from RTL and early days
> > of Lugnet.
> >
> > Selçuk
> There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
> not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
> humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
> seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
> his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
> are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
> seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
> on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
> understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
> beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
> do you indicate by that statement? The second question is was there another
> person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> you speak of, Selcuk?
RTL stands for Rec.Toys.Lego a news group that existed before LUGNET.
> I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> person has my name on Lugnet.
> Jesse Long
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jesse Alan Long wrote:
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> >
> > Sorry to interrupt guys, bu this is the *funniest* thread I faced for a
> > long time..:-D
> > Is this Jesse character is real? I mean does he really exist?
> >
> > I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my attitude was
> > same to this conversation, but I really started to believe that Jesse is
> > a fiction.
> >
> > I'm sure he is not the Jesse Long that we know from RTL and early days
> > of Lugnet.
> >
> > Selçuk
> There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
> not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
> humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
> seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
> his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
> are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
> seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
> on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
> understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
> beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
> do you indicate by that statement?
It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
At first, I thought that you were a teen, just were rambling around, and
there was no need to be harsh to you.
But after this much weird and funny postings, and reading that you were
21, I started to believe that this comical "Jesse Long" character that
you presented here in lugnet is either fictional, created to make some
fun with us, (so I said I believed "Jesse long" is not real, I already
know that there is someone hitting the keys in front oh his/her PC) or
you are really a child trying to sell him/herself as an adult.
I still believe the same thing.
> The second question is was there another
> person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> person has my name on Lugnet.
> Jesse Long
Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
(rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
"ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
"x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Heya Selçuk-
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
> Jesse Alan Long wrote:
> > There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
> > not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
> > humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
> > seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
> > his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
> > are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
> > seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
> > on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
> > understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
> > beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
> > do you indicate by that statement?
>
> It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
> At first, I thought that you were a teen, just were rambling around, and
> there was no need to be harsh to you.
>
> But after this much weird and funny postings, and reading that you were
> 21, I started to believe that this comical "Jesse Long" character that
> you presented here in lugnet is either fictional, created to make some
> fun with us, (so I said I believed "Jesse long" is not real, I already
> know that there is someone hitting the keys in front oh his/her PC) or
> you are really a child trying to sell him/herself as an adult.
>
> I still believe the same thing.
No comment, except that this has been a most interesting
week and a half on LUGnet.
> > The second question is was there another
> > person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> > you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> > have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> > also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> > was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> > kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> > person has my name on Lugnet.
> > Jesse Long
>
> Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
> (rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
> still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
I remember that Jesse--has anyone spoken with him in the last
year or so? And as for that Pokemon thing (I think Team Rocket
is a Pokemon thing)...hmmm.
> "ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
> "x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
best
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> Heya Selçuk-
>
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> >
> >
> > It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> > attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
>
> I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
> quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
> wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
Needless to say it is very appearent to me. Do I undesrtand your own language
better than you or what?..:-)
Anyway, the thing I tried to express (and couldn't, by looking the respose) is:
* I really don't appreciate beating (kicking, slapping, attacking, etc.) the
"innocent clueless" (clueless, but innocent at the same time, as in children).
* And I didn't appreciate the tone of this conversation (this tread) at the
beginning since it was looking like people were beating an innocent clueless.
My English still needs to much work..:-)
> > At first, I thought that you were a teen, just were rambling around, and
> > there was no need to be harsh to you.
> >
> > But after this much weird and funny postings, and reading that you were
> > 21, I started to believe that this comical "Jesse Long" character that
> > you presented here in lugnet is either fictional, created to make some
> > fun with us, (so I said I believed "Jesse long" is not real, I already
> > know that there is someone hitting the keys in front oh his/her PC) or
> > you are really a child trying to sell him/herself as an adult.
> >
> > I still believe the same thing.
>
> No comment, except that this has been a most interesting
> week and a half on LUGnet.
>
> > > The second question is was there another
> > > person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> > > you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> > > have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> > > also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> > > was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> > > kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> > > person has my name on Lugnet.
> > > Jesse Long
> >
> > Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
> > (rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
> > still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
>
> I remember that Jesse--has anyone spoken with him in the last
> year or so? And as for that Pokemon thing (I think Team Rocket
> is a Pokemon thing)...hmmm.
Look:
http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=11247
>
> > "ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
> > "x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
>
> It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
> don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
> communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
>
> best
>
> LFB
Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything and laugh
hard to his face...
:-)
Since you already know everything (1) I will not explain you anything related
to Turkish alphabet..:-)
Selçuk
(1) http://www.lugnet.com/faq/~88/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
> Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything and >laugh hard to his face...
>
> :-)
Hopefully that smiley means you were kidding... you guys are both respected
contributors, and I think LFB was just trying to help clarify why your
wording may have been confusing.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
> > Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything and >laugh hard to his face...
> >
> > :-)
>
> Hopefully that smiley means you were kidding... you guys are both respected
> contributors, and I think LFB was just trying to help clarify why your
> wording may have been confusing.
>
> ++Lar
Easy Larry, we are just making some fun..:-) No hard feelings involved
in anyway.
Thanks, though..:-)
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hey Selçuk
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > >
> > > It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> > > attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
> >
> > I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
> > quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
> > wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
>
> Needless to say it is very appearent to me. Do I undesrtand your own language
> better than you or what?..:-)
Well, you're not an American, so it's entirely possible. :)
> Anyway, the thing I tried to express (and couldn't, by looking the respose) is:
>
> * I really don't appreciate beating (kicking, slapping, attacking, etc.) the
> "innocent clueless" (clueless, but innocent at the same time, as in children).
Okay. The "the" was missing, which is what screwed me up.
Three little letters, a world of comprehension. I got all
the words, but couldn't separate the sentence out into its
constituent parts.
> * And I didn't appreciate the tone of this conversation (this tread) at the
> beginning since it was looking like people were beating an innocent clueless.
>
> My English still needs to much work..:-)
"All your base are mine!" Nah, your English is quite good,
even more so given that you're not in an English-speaking
country. A few months in the US or England (or maybe even
Australia...hi, .loc.au) and you'd be speaking better than
most of the natives...actually, you already are, what am I
saying?
Remind me to share the "bizarro language" I've seen in papers
sometime. It's totally incomprehensible.
> > > > The second question is was there another
> > > > person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> > > > you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> > > > have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> > > > also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> > > > was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> > > > kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> > > > person has my name on Lugnet.
> > > > Jesse Long
> > >
> > > Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
> > > (rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
> > > still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
> >
> > I remember that Jesse--has anyone spoken with him in the last
> > year or so? And as for that Pokemon thing (I think Team Rocket
> > is a Pokemon thing)...hmmm.
>
> Look:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=11247
Wow! He's out there! Watch your step, everyone...and
make sure you CLOSE THOSE SENTENCE FRAGMENTS! :)
> > > "ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
> > > "x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
> >
> > It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
> > don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
> > communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
>
> Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
> Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything
> and laugh hard to his face...
No, no, no. Just add a STRONG backwoods accent, and it makes
*perfect* sense, a-yawp.
> Since you already know everything (1) I will not explain you anything related
> to Turkish alphabet..:-)
That Ottoman stuff is beyond me, anyways.
> (1) http://www.lugnet.com/faq/~88/
*BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA* When the hades heck did THAT
show up there? Shiri, when I see you at Brickfest, you're in SOOO
much trouble!(1) ;)
best
LFB
(1) Assuming, of course, I can get my now over-inflated head
through the door...and no, I'm not yet a PhD.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
<snip>
> > > Lindsay wrote:
> > > It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
> > > don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
> > > communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
> >
> > Selçuk wrote:
> > Yeah, go on... talk like that... just make fun of this poor English retarded
> > Turk by making him staring at your sentences without getting anything
> > and laugh hard to his face...
>
> No, no, no. Just add a STRONG backwoods accent, and it makes
> *perfect* sense, a-yawp.
LOL! You may not find it hard to believe that I speak much worse English
after two years in the good ol' US of A.
As for that sentence, I just pretended Chris was saying it. ;-) Here's a
translation!
"I think it's more the cedilla [the mark below ç - Lindsay misspelled its
name!] than the letter. We don't like French over here. Are you and your
friends communist or something?"
<grin>
> > (1) http://www.lugnet.com/faq/~88/
>
> *BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA* When the hades heck did THAT
> show up there? Shiri, when I see you at Brickfest, you're in SOOO
> much trouble!(1) ;)
The night of the 24th-25th. I was suffering from horrible insomnia and
decided it would be a good occupation.
I'm thinkin of adding many more "name pronounciation" keys. I'd like to know
how to say Larry's last name, for example, and there are many more I have no
clue how to say. (Chris teases me for how I say Dave Low and Dave Schuler's
last names, especially. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone except me...)
> (1) Assuming, of course, I can get my now over-inflated head
> through the door...and no, I'm not yet a PhD.
Sorry, my mistake. I was inferring that you were on your post-doc all this
year, but I guess it was a pre-doc? ;-) Good luck with all that!
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
>
> LOL! You may not find it hard to believe that I speak much worse English
> after two years in the good ol' US of A.
8?) Even in my short trip (~5 weeks) I found myself pronouncing things with
an accent, just to get the Murkans to understand!!
> I'm thinkin of adding many more "name pronounciation" keys. I'd like to know
> how to say Larry's last name,
Didn't actually ask the Pieniazeks how they pronounce it, but I say it like
Peen-yart-sik, accent on the 2nd syllable. Or maybe even Pin-yart-sik. Lar?
> for example, and there are many more I have no
> clue how to say. (Chris teases me for how I say Dave Low and Dave Schuler's
> last names, especially. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone except me...)
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> Didn't actually ask the Pieniazeks how they pronounce it, but I say it like
> Peen-yart-sik, accent on the 2nd syllable. Or maybe even Pin-yart-sik. Lar?
Close. No R.
pin-yacht-sick (yachts are big boats so that's the syllable that gets the
accent)
My Polish relatives say it "more correctly" as pin-o-scheck.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > Since you already know everything (1) I will not explain you anything related
> > to Turkish alphabet..:-)
>
> That Ottoman stuff is beyond me, anyways.
Then...:-),
Turkish alphabet is a completely different thing than anything Ottoman. It was
introduced in 1928 by Atatürk, based on the Latin alphabet that you already
knew and been using for centuries. It has some "weird" characters like "ÜüÖöÇç"
and some others (that you can't see if I type) like dotless small "i", dotted
capital "I", soft "g" (g with an umlaut above), and "s" with cedilla. And it
doesn't have "x", "q" and "w". There was also a soft "a" (a with an umlaut
above), just added to pronounce Arabic words in our language (There are *too*
many Arabic words in our language, still) but it is mostly not used now, and
excluded from the alphabet.
Before that we were using Arabic alphabet, beginning from the acceptance of
Islam as the religion of Turkish People, at the times we were still living in
central Asia (around 9th century, IIRC). I still can't believe using this
awkward and inconvenient alphabet for centuries. Do you know that you can't
type letter "p" in Arabic alphabet? Besides that several other natural sounds
of Turkish language cannot be represented by arabic alphabet. It is very hard
to learn, at the same time. Ther are some complexities like letters changing
their appearances according to their places in a word, and vowels changing
their sounds with added small signs around them.
It was a very very big step for the proceeding cultural revolution to change
the Arabic alphabet with the new one. And a very brave one at that time, since
the first response was "they are changing the alphabet of Kouran with the
devil's alphabet". Perfect medieval thinking, except being at the beginning of
20th century. But you couldn't get better from a culture who didn't accept the
use of Gutenberg's machine till 300 years after its invention, by fearing to
use "devil's apparatus". Even then, it was forbidden to copy Kouran with
it..:-)
Selçuk
P.S. IANAH, you know..:-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
>
> > > Since you already know everything (1) I will not explain you anything related
> > > to Turkish alphabet..:-)
> >
> > That Ottoman stuff is beyond me, anyways.
>
> Then...:-),
>
> Turkish alphabet is a completely different thing than anything Ottoman. It was
> introduced in 1928 by Atatürk, based on the Latin alphabet that you already
> knew and been using for centuries. It has some "weird" characters like "ÜüÖöÇç"
> and some others (that you can't see if I type) like dotless small "i", dotted
> capital "I", soft "g" (g with an umlaut above), and "s" with cedilla. And it
> doesn't have "x", "q" and "w". There was also a soft "a" (a with an umlaut
> above), just added to pronounce Arabic words in our language (There are *too*
> many Arabic words in our language, still) but it is mostly not used now, and
> excluded from the alphabet.
>
> Before that we were using Arabic alphabet, beginning from the acceptance of
> Islam as the religion of Turkish People, at the times we were still living in
> central Asia (around 9th century, IIRC). I still can't believe using this
> awkward and inconvenient alphabet for centuries. Do you know that you can't
> type letter "p" in Arabic alphabet? Besides that several other natural sounds
> of Turkish language cannot be represented by arabic alphabet. It is very hard
> to learn, at the same time. Ther are some complexities like letters changing
> their appearances according to their places in a word, and vowels changing
> their sounds with added small signs around them.
>
> It was a very very big step for the proceeding cultural revolution to change
> the Arabic alphabet with the new one. And a very brave one at that time, since
> the first response was "they are changing the alphabet of Kouran with the
> devil's alphabet". Perfect medieval thinking, except being at the beginning of
> 20th century. But you couldn't get better from a culture who didn't accept the
> use of Gutenberg's machine till 300 years after its invention, by fearing to
> use "devil's apparatus". Even then, it was forbidden to copy Kouran with
> it..:-)
>
> Selçuk
>
> P.S. IANAH, you know..:-)
You think that Turkish or Arabic is hard, try learning how to speak AND
write Japanese, and I am not even from Japan! The Japanese language has
over 1,400 different characters known as kanji and there are two different
subcategories for each system and I believe that they are referred to as
hirigana and katagana. (If I am wrong in that aspect, then it is either a
mistake in the book I am reading about learning Japanese or a mistake that I
have personally made in my mind so please correct me, Dori-san.) Katagana
is the more commonly used form of the Japanese text but hirigana is also
used but then again I am only beginning to learn that language.
So, do you not believe that I am real, Selcuk, or do I have to show you a
photograph of myself with some identification (and you are not going to see
my Social Security number so sorry, Selcuk)? Are you still angry at me, Selcuk?
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> Heya Selçuk-
>
> In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> >
> > Jesse Alan Long wrote:
> > > There was a man who asked me about eating soy and I simply said that I did
> > > not like soy because I am not exactly a vegetarian, that and I decided to be
> > > humorous (as opposed to being annoying or rude, which many people on Lugnet
> > > seem to think I am in life, which is certainly not true) in my response to
> > > his letter because his letter was also humorous in structure and besides,
> > > are you real or just another of the chorous of the voices in my mind? I
> > > seem to be real enough to type this message so it appears that I must exist
> > > on some plane of existence in life. There are two messages that I do not
> > > understand in my mind. The first message was, 'I really don't appreciate
> > > beating innocent clueless, and my attitude same to this conversation.' What
> > > do you indicate by that statement?
> >
> > It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> > attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
>
> I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
> quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
> wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
>
> > At first, I thought that you were a teen, just were rambling around, and
> > there was no need to be harsh to you.
> >
> > But after this much weird and funny postings, and reading that you were
> > 21, I started to believe that this comical "Jesse Long" character that
> > you presented here in lugnet is either fictional, created to make some
> > fun with us, (so I said I believed "Jesse long" is not real, I already
> > know that there is someone hitting the keys in front oh his/her PC) or
> > you are really a child trying to sell him/herself as an adult.
> >
> > I still believe the same thing.
>
> No comment, except that this has been a most interesting
> week and a half on LUGnet.
>
> > > The second question is was there another
> > > person with my name on the early days of Lugnet and what is this RTL that
> > > you speak of, Selcuk? I spologize that the computer that I use does not
> > > have one of those weird marks underneath the "c" in your name and I have
> > > also not known how to write one of those marks on my computer, Selcuk. Who
> > > was this other Jesse Long? Is he an evil alien clone of me that is out to
> > > kill me? I share a name with the girl of Team Rocket and now some other
> > > person has my name on Lugnet.
> > > Jesse Long
> >
> > Yes there was a Jesse Long, before this Lugnet thing, during RTL days
> > (rec.toys.lego, a news group created to discuss things about Lego, which
> > still exists) and he is still here lurking around.
>
> I remember that Jesse--has anyone spoken with him in the last
> year or so? And as for that Pokemon thing (I think Team Rocket
> is a Pokemon thing)...hmmm.
>
> > "ç" is not weird by the way. At least not much weird than letters like
> > "x, q and w" that we don't have in our alphabet..:-)
>
> It's more the sedilla than the letter, methinks. ;) We-all's
> don't go for that thar Frenchie stuff down he-ah. Y'all a
> communist or sumthin'? (Don't ask how they react to umlauts.)
>
> best
>
> LFB
I think that you do not understand that sentence, either, Lindsay? The
problem is that you respond with the sentence, 'I think that's what Jesse
wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).' What do you
mean by that sentence, Lindsay? I knew that the name for that mark started
with the letter 's' but the name of the word escaped my mind and thank you,
Lindsay, for making me remember that word in my mind. The last answer to
your question is yes, Jesse is from Pokemon but she is the girl from Team
Rocket and her name is J-E-S-S-I-E and the guy is named James. The problem
that has irritated me even more is that some people have the NERVE to spell
my name that way, especially government people. This has been a mistake
that has happened ever since I was born into this world. :.(
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > > It was 'I really don't appreciate beating innocent clueless, and my
> > > attitude *was* same to this conversation.'
> >
> > I'm actually sort of stumped at that line too--it doesn't
> > quite compute grammatically. I think that's what Jesse
> > wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).
>
> [snip snip]
>
> I think that you do not understand that sentence, either, Lindsay? The
> problem is that you respond with the sentence, 'I think that's what Jesse
> wasn't getting (that's definitely what I'm not understanding).' What do you
> mean by that sentence, Lindsay?
Oh, it just seemed to me that the sentence wasn't fully clear
because of the way it was worded, and I posited that this might
have been the same reason you asked for a clarification.
Granted, it's faaaaaaaaar better than I'd ever do in Turkish. :)
> I knew that the name for that mark started
> with the letter 's' but the name of the word escaped my mind and thank you,
> Lindsay, for making me remember that word in my mind. The last answer to
> your question is yes, Jesse is from Pokemon but she is the girl from Team
> Rocket and her name is J-E-S-S-I-E and the guy is named James. The problem
> that has irritated me even more is that some people have the NERVE to spell
> my name that way, especially government people. This has been a mistake
> that has happened ever since I was born into this world. :.(
Believe you me, I know alllll about having one's name slaughtered.
best
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In article <GFCos3.DxM@lugnet.com>, Jesse Alan Long
<joyous4god2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The other side of my conflict is known as the Nomadic
> Empire, or, more simply, the Nomads.
I've always envisioned an empire as a large, sprawling governmental
body that tended to stay put, at least until the natives got restless.
It must be stressful to return from a long range deep penetration
preemptive "patrol" and find your home has wandered off.
jk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
<snip>
> > G.
> Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
Ahem I dont know if any one has corrected you, and I hate to be nit picking
but the M.F. flew into a "cave" not a crater in the SECOND MOVIE called The
Empire Strikes Back.
thank you
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Kai Brodersen writes:
> <snip>
> > > G.
> > Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> > where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> > Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
>
> Ahem I dont know if any one has corrected you, and I hate to be nit picking
> but the M.F. flew into a "cave" not a crater in the SECOND MOVIE called The
> Empire Strikes Back.
>
>
> thank you
By quite a coincedence, my library has the Star Wars Trilogy and I would
like to rent those movies but my parents would probably stop me because I
have seen each movie about five times in two years and possibly as many as a
dozen times in my life. If I am right, I will tell you, according to the
timer on my video cassette recorder, when the eact moments of the motion
picture that the event occurs in that particular section of the Star Wars
Trilogy.
Jesse Long
P.S. You can obviously indicate from my letter that my parents are NOT
really interested in the Star Wars Trilogy.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kai Brodersen writes:
> > <snip>
> > > > G.
> > > Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> > > where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> > > Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
> >
> > Ahem I dont know if any one has corrected you, and I hate to be nit picking
> > but the M.F. flew into a "cave" not a crater in the SECOND MOVIE called The
> > Empire Strikes Back.
> >
> >
> > thank you
> By quite a coincedence, my library has the Star Wars Trilogy and I would
> like to rent those movies but my parents would probably stop me because I
> have seen each movie about five times in two years and possibly as many as a
> dozen times in my life. If I am right, I will tell you, according to the
> timer on my video cassette recorder, when the eact moments of the motion
> picture that the event occurs in that particular section of the Star Wars
> Trilogy.
> Jesse Long
> P.S. You can obviously indicate from my letter that my parents are NOT
> really interested in the Star Wars Trilogy.
Stop. you are both technically right.
Although it is hard to justify the usage of the term "flying into a crater"
inasmuch as you can fly into a cave.
The giant worm-like creature was inside a cave-like hole that was located in
the center of a giant crater. I don't need a copy of the movie to remember
that.
Jesse, the attitude has got to go, man. No one is interested in the timer
measurments things happened at in Star Wars Trilogy movies. As for your
parents stopping you from renting a movie... I will resist the urge to
comment on someone in college who lets his parents have that much control in
his life. I'm not judging you, I'm just very surprised.
cheers!
Joel Kuester
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> Stop. you are both technically right.
Actually not!
What REALLY happened was that the MF flew into a crater/cave and then
monkeys flew out my butt!
=oP
-- Hop-Frog (The Giant Thread Killer)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> > Stop. you are both technically right.
>
> Actually not!
>
> What REALLY happened was that the MF flew into a crater/cave and then
> monkeys flew out my butt!
"No way, Wayne!"
LFB (who beats the dead threads...*thump* *thump*)
XFUT -> .o-t.fun
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> > Stop. you are both technically right.
>
> Actually not!
>
> What REALLY happened was that the MF flew into a crater/cave and then
> monkeys flew out my butt!
>
> =oP
>
> -- Hop-Frog (The Giant Thread Killer)
So that's where they went! Call off the search party fellow Oz-simians, that
amphibious phreak Hop-Frog was the kidnapper!
--DaveL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Richard Marchetti writes:
> What REALLY happened was that the MF flew into a crater/cave and then
> monkeys flew out my butt!
No, I think you'll find that the flying monkeys are from The Wizard of Oz. ;-)
> -- Hop-Frog (The Giant Thread Killer)
It's not dead yet. :-)
Cheers
Richie Dulin
Patrician of Brick Morpork
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
snip
> > G.
> Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
Ahem the M.F. flew into the monster, which is technically called a space
slug by George Lucas, in the Second movie not the first. The first starwars
movie was over That whole Death Star thing. The second (Empire Strikes
Back) is where the M.F. outruns an Imperial Star Destroyer.
thanks
kai
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kai Brodersen writes:
> snip
> > > G.
> > Did you ever see the Millennium Falcon in the first Star Wars motion picture
> > where that space craft travelled inside a crater to hide from the Galactic
> > Empire and they flew inside a space monster?
>
> Ahem the M.F. flew into the monster, which is technically called a space
> slug by George Lucas, in the Second movie not the first. The first starwars
> movie was over That whole Death Star thing. The second (Empire Strikes
> Back) is where the M.F. outruns an Imperial Star Destroyer.
>
> thanks
> kai
You are correct about the Super Star Destroyer comment but I know that it
was in Star Wars that they ended up inside the space slug (which I believe
appears to be an early ancestor of those worms in another science fiction
story named Tremors) and not The Empire Strikes Back, Kai. I apologize for
correcting your statement, Kai.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> The Apollo space craft were essentially rockets that allowed for humans to
> live inside of them in a small compartment and your fuel was primarily used
> for sending you into outer space and not necessarily down from space.
It's more complicated than that. The rocket was a several-stage
affair; the first few stages would drop off and burn up as you head up
through the atmosphere; by the time you reach orbit only a small
amount of rocket is left. The Lunar Module (LEM) was very much not
streamlined or rocket-shaped, and was stored inside the rocket. Once
they got into Earth orbit, the LEM was removed from the rocket, which
was then dropped into the atmosphere, leaving only the command module
and LEM. These units then left Earth orbit together for the moon,
propelled by the command module's rocket engine.
When they got to lunar orbit, the LEM was detatched and two of the men
went to the surface while the third orbited in the command module.
The LEM's rocket was used to soften the lunar landing. Since the
moon's gravity is only 1/6 that of Earth's, and there is no atmosphere
on the moon to cause friction, the LEM did not need to be streamlined,
or have wings, or a heat shield. After the mission was complete, the
LEM then divided in half - the part with landing gear and the main
engine was left on the moon, and the part with the astronauts took off
using yet another rocket engine up to meet with the command module.
When the crew returned to earth, the only part of the whole spacecraft
which survived was the crew compartment of the command module.
Instead of using wings to provide lift, the module was equipped with a
heat shield which took the friction from the Earth's atmosphere and
kept the resulting heat away from the astronauts. The friction on the
heat shield slowed the module to a reasonable speed, and finally
parachutes were used to slow it further, until it landed in the ocean.
> The
> fuel that was left from the trip into outer space provided the protection
> from entering into the atmosphere too fast by using retro rockets but even
> with the use of retro rockets, you were accelerating so fast towards the
> earth that you has to land in the ocean or else you would disentigrate
> either from the heat or the impact on the earth and either way, you would
> die from your trip to the moon.
This is not true - retro rockets were used for landing on the moon,
since there is no atmosphere to provide the friction which would slow
the craft down. But when returning to Earth, the atmosphere was used
as a brake, using a heat shield. No rockets were used at all on Earth
re-entry. The friction slowed down the craft enough that they could
then deploy parachutes for a soft landing in the ocean.
Also, the term "accelerate" means to speed up. When re-entering the
atmosphere, you are slowing down, not speeding up. Physicists would
call that reverse acceleration, but in common use you wouldn't use the
term "accelerate".
You are speeding so fast towards the Earth that you have a lot of
friction when you hit the atmosphere, and need to find a way of
dealing with the friction. The Apollo craft (and Mercury and Gemini
before them) used a round, mostly flat heat shield. The Space Shuttle
is covered with special tiles which dissipate the heat - the bottom of
its wings and fuselage act as a heat shield. Once you have slowed
down enough that you don't have so much friction, you can then use
wings, parachutes, retro rockets, or other methods to slow down even
more so that you can make a soft landing. But in the initial phase of
re-entry, the atmospheric friction would burn up the wings (unless
specially built, like the Shuttle's), rockets, or parachutes.
Also, landing in the ocean really isn't that important: the Russians
built similarly designed craft, although they never went to the moon,
but they land on the ground! The Soyuz craft that they used for their
space missions (and still do, to resupply the International Space
Station, and Mir before that) operate on the same principle - a rocket
launches it into orbit, and a heat shield and parachute are used to
slow it down on re-entry - the difference is, they land on the ground
instead of in the water. Landing in the ocean is easier for the USA
as we have a more advanced Navy, and more sea ports. Russia doesn't
really have any good ports, and most of their Navy is in the form of
submarines. So they chose to land on the ground instead.
If you've ever done a bellyflop into a swimming pool, you know that
water doesn't necessarily make a soft landing. If you've ever jumped
off a rock high above the water and landed wrong, it can hurt almost
as much as landing on the ground. People commit suicide by jumping
off bridges, because the impact on the water from 200 feet up will
kill most people. Landing on water doesn't really help very much -
it's the parachutes that kept the astronauts alive, not the ocean.
> The comment on the antennas is still true
> because there are millions of tons of space debris that is flying around
> that could damage such equipment on a ship.
Antennae and other items can be damaged in re-entry. But in orbit,
interplanetary travel, etc., the debris is very uncommon. You are
correct that there are millions of tons of debris. However, space is
just so huge that the odds of finding a piece of debris and being
unable to steer around it is very unlikely. Satellites, space
stations, Apollo ships, NASA's robotic probes to the outer planets,
etc. all have antennas and solar panels and similar things sticking
out in all directions. They are almost never hit by debris.
> There are two other points that
> you fail to consider and the first point is some of these space craft are
> horribly bulky and therefore not very streamlined in their structure. These
> space craft would be considered very easy targets by their enemies.
If you are talking about a scenario where there are enemies, then this
may be a valid concern. Streamlining is not really what would make
you a more difficult target, however - moving very fast and being very
small is more effective. The shape is not so important as the size -
you want to make a small target.
However, there are not necessarily any enemies in space. I design
spaceships in a peaceful universe where Earth has colonized the near
planets and moons, and has some orbiting space stations. Commercial
cargo ships, mining ships, pleasure craft, etc. are the types of ships
I prefer to build. None of my ships are armed for combat. But not
everyone builds for my universe :-)
> The
> second point that you failed to consider is if the concept of gravity did
> not exist in space, then what not only holds the planets into their orbits
> but also holds the stars and galaxies in their orbits and makes comets and
> asteroids hurtle through space? The only way that I know of in my mind that
> gravity can not exist is within a scientific laboratory. Space has less
> gravity than a planet, star, galaxy, asteroid, or comet and space does not
> nave a lack of gravity inside that realm of the universe.
OK, to be more precise: gravity does exist, but you don't feel the
same kind of pull that you feel on Earth. If you are in orbit, you
are actually falling all the way around the body you are orbiting.
An airplane needs to have wings to keep from crashing into Earth. A
helicopter's rotors blow air downwards to push it upwards. But in
space, the gravitational pull does not have the same kind of effect.
If you are orbiting, you do not need to do anything to stay in orbit:
you can turn the engines off, and wings are not required. If you are
flying to the moon, for example, you basically set a course, burn the
rocket to accelerate enough to pull free of Earth's gravity, and then
shut off the engine and drift in the right direction. When you get
closer to the moon its gravity will start to pull you away from a
straight line, and if you've set your course correctly, a slight burst
from the retro-rocket will put you in lunar orbit.
So you are right - there is gravity in space. But it doesn't have the
same sort of effect as on a planet: so wings are not necessary (and
there's no air for them to operate against anyway), and you don't need
to constantly run the engines as you would in an airplane.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On 20/6/01 5:54 AM, "William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote:
> Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> power of wings is useless.
Actually, if you're travelling at near-light velocities, the density of the
interstellar medium becomes high enough (especially within solar systems, so
I guess that would be intrastellar medium) that a streamlined shaped would
become essential. Even then, there would be both heavy erosion of whatever
impact-shielding you have, and heavy drag on the ship.
Unless of course you have a star-trek type deflector shield that pushes all
the gunk away from your ship. :)
Later,
David Drew
Famous quote from a convention...
Q: How do the inertial dampeners work on Star Trek?
A: Very nicely, thank you.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I thought the quote was asking how the Heisenberg Compensators work? Oh
well... same sentiment. ;^)
~Mark "Web Interface, now with 50% more fat!" Sandlin
In lugnet.space, David Drew writes:
> Famous quote from a convention...
> Q: How do the inertial dampeners work on Star Trek?
> A: Very nicely, thank you.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > Famous quote from a convention...
> > Q: How do the inertial dampeners work on Star Trek?
> > A: Very nicely, thank you.
> I thought the quote was asking how the Heisenberg Compensators work? Oh
> well... same sentiment. ;^)
I just figured the Heisenberg Compensators worked by dampening inertia.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin writes:
>
> > > Famous quote from a convention...
> > > Q: How do the inertial dampeners work on Star Trek?
> > > A: Very nicely, thank you.
>
> > I thought the quote was asking how the Heisenberg Compensators work? Oh
> > well... same sentiment. ;^)
>
> I just figured the Heisenberg Compensators worked by dampening inertia.
I think there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding their function. ;)
XFUT -> o-t.pun (uhhh, o-t.geek.pun? :) )
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
David Drew writes:
> On 20/6/01 5:54 AM, "William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> > few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> > friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> > craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> > power of wings is useless.
>
> Actually, if you're travelling at near-light velocities, the density of the
> interstellar medium becomes high enough (especially within solar systems, so
> I guess that would be intrastellar medium) that a streamlined shaped would
> become essential. Even then, there would be both heavy erosion of whatever
> impact-shielding you have, and heavy drag on the ship.
That may be true, but I don't think anyone knows for sure, because we
haven't tried going that fast yet. My spacecraft follow a very "hard
SF" policy - no FTL travel, no artificial gravity, etc. But that's
not to say that it's the only way...
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> David Drew writes:
> > On 20/6/01 5:54 AM, "William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> > > few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> > > friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> > > craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> > > power of wings is useless.
> >
> > Actually, if you're travelling at near-light velocities, the density of the
> > interstellar medium becomes high enough (especially within solar systems, so
> > I guess that would be intrastellar medium) that a streamlined shaped would
> > become essential. Even then, there would be both heavy erosion of whatever
> > impact-shielding you have, and heavy drag on the ship.
>
> That may be true, but I don't think anyone knows for sure, because we
> haven't tried going that fast yet. My spacecraft follow a very "hard
> SF" policy - no FTL travel, no artificial gravity, etc. But that's
> not to say that it's the only way...
>
> --Bill.
There has existed artificial gravity for years in the space programs, most
notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
as early as the year 2003. I believe that all of these responses were from
a letter that I wrote Tuesday and I built my wings for five reasons on my
space craft. The first reason for building those wings was so that I could
have a stable weapons platform for the rear section of my space craft. The
second reason for building those wings is that, as in the case of the
Galactic Mediator, I needed some place on the space craft to transport
prisoners so the wings were the only logical place to transport the
prisoners. The third reason for building those wings is that four of the
guns, two on each side, are part of my exclusive DualFire (IGTM) technology.
These guns, which are located near the tips of the wings, are auxillary
boosters and additional weaponry on my space craft. The fourth reason for
those wings is that, as the case with the giant panels that are currently
located on the International Space Station, they are sources for power, or
in this case, auxillary power, for the space craft. The space craft is
powered by three main fusion core reactors and two auxillary fusion core
reactors. My vessel also has a supply of plasma as an alternate energy
source and reserve ammunition for the space craft. The fifth reason for
building those wings is that there does exist many particles of cosmic dust
but asteroids, meteors, comets, rogue moons, and the occasional small planet
float around in space as garbage and therefore I built my ship in a
streamlined shape with wings for the above mentioned reasons so that it will
not suffer heavy damage to the space craft. I hope this message will help
you understand why I prefer to build wings with my space craft and Lego has
been building wings on their space craft ever since the Legoland space sets.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> > That may be true, but I don't think anyone knows for sure, because we
> > haven't tried going that fast yet. My spacecraft follow a very "hard
> > SF" policy - no FTL travel, no artificial gravity, etc. But that's
> > not to say that it's the only way...
>
> There has existed artificial gravity for years in the space programs, most
> notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> as early as the year 2003.
The only form of "artificial gravity" that is currently possible is to
use a centrifuge structure to simulate gravity. If you've seen the
film "2001: A Space Odyssey" you will remember the doughnut-shaped
room where the men worked and excercised - the rotation of that room
caused a simulated gravitational pull outwards from the center of the
ship using centripetal force. Another design involves pods which
rotate around a central axis.
In Star Trek, Star Wars, and other TV and movie depictions of
spacecraft, the people are always walking around on flat surfaces,
just as if they were on Earth. This is of course because zero-gravity
is very difficult to simulate for the purposes of filming the show.
So they make up a technology of "artifical gravity" which is part of
the story, that the Enterprise or Millennium Falcon, or whatever, has
"gravity generators" that pull people towards the "floor". However,
this is a gross violation of the laws of physics. In a real space
ship like the Shuttle, there is no perceptible gravity and people just
float around. It makes things like eating, sleeping, and going to the
bathroom somewhat complicated as you might imagine...
The problem with zero-gravity is that human bodies don't handle it
well. Our bodies evolved with the need to constantly pump blood up to
your head, and your bones and muscles are built to constantly fight
the pull of gravity. In a zero-G environment, these body systems
weaken, and when you return to Earth after an extended stay, it
requires several weeks or even months of rehabilitation before you can
be accustomed to Earth gravity again. So on Mir and the ISS,
astronauts and cosmonauts need to exercise frequently to minimize this
effect. However, it doesn't seem to be possible to eliminate it with
current technology.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> > In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> > > That may be true, but I don't think anyone knows for sure, because we
> > > haven't tried going that fast yet. My spacecraft follow a very "hard
> > > SF" policy - no FTL travel, no artificial gravity, etc. But that's
> > > not to say that it's the only way...
> >
> > There has existed artificial gravity for years in the space programs, most
> > notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> > working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> > propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> > some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> > as early as the year 2003.
>
> The only form of "artificial gravity" that is currently possible is to
> use a centrifuge structure to simulate gravity. If you've seen the
> film "2001: A Space Odyssey" you will remember the doughnut-shaped
> room where the men worked and excercised - the rotation of that room
> caused a simulated gravitational pull outwards from the center of the
> ship using centripetal force. Another design involves pods which
> rotate around a central axis.
>
> In Star Trek, Star Wars, and other TV and movie depictions of
> spacecraft, the people are always walking around on flat surfaces,
> just as if they were on Earth. This is of course because zero-gravity
> is very difficult to simulate for the purposes of filming the show.
> So they make up a technology of "artifical gravity" which is part of
> the story, that the Enterprise or Millennium Falcon, or whatever, has
> "gravity generators" that pull people towards the "floor". However,
> this is a gross violation of the laws of physics. In a real space
> ship like the Shuttle, there is no perceptible gravity and people just
> float around. It makes things like eating, sleeping, and going to the
> bathroom somewhat complicated as you might imagine...
>
> The problem with zero-gravity is that human bodies don't handle it
> well. Our bodies evolved with the need to constantly pump blood up to
> your head, and your bones and muscles are built to constantly fight
> the pull of gravity. In a zero-G environment, these body systems
> weaken, and when you return to Earth after an extended stay, it
> requires several weeks or even months of rehabilitation before you can
> be accustomed to Earth gravity again. So on Mir and the ISS,
> astronauts and cosmonauts need to exercise frequently to minimize this
> effect. However, it doesn't seem to be possible to eliminate it with
> current technology.
>
> --Bill.
Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi.
Gravity generators per se are not in violation of the laws of physics.
However, they are far in advance of any current technology that we have. In
order to generate an artificial gravity field, without the use of
centrifugal force, we'd have to create and manipulate graviton particles.
For each of the fundamental forces, there is a fundamental boson which
carries the 'information' from one particle to another. How do two electrons
know how to react to each other? The photon 'carries' information from one
electron to the other, 'telling' it about the existence of the other
particle. How do two bodies know that the other exists, and that it's
attracted to it? The graviton 'carries' that information.
The only problem is, we haven't even seen the graviton in an experimental
situation. We are not even vaguely close to some method of generating or
manipulating gravitons, in order to create an artificial gravity field in
space, or on the earth. Our very first application would be some method of
'blocking' the gravitons, so that we could create zero gravity on earth. The
possibilities of that would be endless, and whoever could make such a device
would swiftly be Richer Than God.
Since no such device is currently being fitted to 747's, I think it's a safe
bet to say that artificial gravity in any form does not exist. Apart from
using centrifugal force to 'fake' it. Even that isn't in use in space
situations.
later,
David Drew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:01 AM
Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, David Drew writes:
> Hi.
> Gravity generators per se are not in violation of the laws of physics.
> However, they are far in advance of any current technology that we have. In
> order to generate an artificial gravity field, without the use of
> centrifugal force, we'd have to create and manipulate graviton particles.
>
> For each of the fundamental forces, there is a fundamental boson which
> carries the 'information' from one particle to another. How do two electrons
> know how to react to each other? The photon 'carries' information from one
> electron to the other, 'telling' it about the existence of the other
> particle. How do two bodies know that the other exists, and that it's
> attracted to it? The graviton 'carries' that information.
>
> The only problem is, we haven't even seen the graviton in an experimental
> situation. We are not even vaguely close to some method of generating or
> manipulating gravitons, in order to create an artificial gravity field in
> space, or on the earth. Our very first application would be some method of
> 'blocking' the gravitons, so that we could create zero gravity on earth. The
> possibilities of that would be endless, and whoever could make such a device
> would swiftly be Richer Than God.
>
> Since no such device is currently being fitted to 747's, I think it's a safe
> bet to say that artificial gravity in any form does not exist. Apart from
> using centrifugal force to 'fake' it. Even that isn't in use in space
> situations.
>
> later,
> David Drew.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:01 AM
>
> Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
> letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
> think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
> already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
> developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
> am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
> physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
> Jesse Long
The first issue in this reply is no person can become richer than God
because God gave people the concept of money and currency in their minds. I
could devote a whole other letter about this situation but I am not talking
about religion in this letter. What is the difference between a photon and
a proton and did you mean to say "proton" in the space where you said
"photon?" I also have another question, what is a graviton particle? I am
not very experienced in the laws of physics because I have not taken these
courses in college. Please explain these concepts to me, David.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
> letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
> think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
> already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
> developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
> am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
> physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
> Jesse Long
To clarify: the centrifuge technique is more of a gravity simulator,
rather than the sort of gravity generator that is imagined for Star
Trek or such.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Thank you, Bill, for telling me what the name of that technology was in my
> > letter. There is a fatal flaw in your response, however, Bill. You seem to
> > think that it is impossible to conduct this type of technology yet you
> > already answered how people, at least with the technology that we have
> > developed in society, could develop such an "artificial gravity" system. I
> > am not sure how that the gravity generators are a violation of the laws of
> > physics so please explain this logic to me, Bill.
> > Jesse Long
>
> To clarify: the centrifuge technique is more of a gravity simulator,
> rather than the sort of gravity generator that is imagined for Star
> Trek or such.
>
> --Bill.
Thank you, Bill for clarifying that response to my reply letter. Could
there exist a way that a gravity generator be used for some sort of gravity
simulator? I am not very experienced in the laws of physics and I am sorry
for causing so many people pain in their heads and the consumption of many
white pills.
Jesse Long
P.S. I am simply trying to understand how physics operates in life. I
believe that many of these statements that you say to me are correct but
many have also never been truly tested under ideal circumstances in outer space.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> as early as the year 2003.
Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
that are currently in production are rockets. There are liquid-fuelled
rockets, which can be turned on and off ("throttled"), and there
are solid-fuel rockets which cannot be turned off once started. Examples
of liquid-fuelled rockets are the main engines on the Space Shuttle,
and the manoeuvring thrusters on the Space Shuttle (actually, somebody
please check me on that, are they really rocket thrusters, or just
pressurized gas?). Examples of solid-fuel rockets are the two boosters
on the side of the Space Shuttle.
There are a variety of engine concepts being researched for the future,
but none are in use. These include SCRAMjets (no good in space, only
in the atmosphere), nuclear power, etc. Most of these concepts only
change what the engine uses for energy or "fuel", and not how they
generate the thrust to move a ship---they still rely upon a rocket
nozzle for the thrust. Most of these engine ideas, including "ion
drives" are still the stuff of science fiction, and it will be a very
long time before we see them in use..., *if* they ever see use.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Wrong! Ion rockets are in use now, and have been for 30 years. They're just
not big enough to for sub-orbital work.
See
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/08/18/deep.space.1/index.html
later,
David Drew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca>
To: <lugnet.space@lugnet.com>; <lugnet.loc.au@lugnet.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of • which
> some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> as early as the year 2003.
Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
that are currently in production are rockets. There are liquid-fuelled
rockets, which can be turned on and off ("throttled"), and there
are solid-fuel rockets which cannot be turned off once started. Examples
of liquid-fuelled rockets are the main engines on the Space Shuttle,
and the manoeuvring thrusters on the Space Shuttle (actually, somebody
please check me on that, are they really rocket thrusters, or just
pressurized gas?). Examples of solid-fuel rockets are the two boosters
on the side of the Space Shuttle.
There are a variety of engine concepts being researched for the future,
but none are in use. These include SCRAMjets (no good in space, only
in the atmosphere), nuclear power, etc. Most of these concepts only
change what the engine uses for energy or "fuel", and not how they
generate the thrust to move a ship---they still rely upon a rocket
nozzle for the thrust. Most of these engine ideas, including "ion
drives" are still the stuff of science fiction, and it will be a very
long time before we see them in use..., *if* they ever see use.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, David Drew writes:
> Wrong! Ion rockets are in use now, and have been for 30 years. They're just
> not big enough to for sub-orbital work.
>
> See
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/08/18/deep.space.1/index.html
>
> later,
> David Drew
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca>
> To: <lugnet.space@lugnet.com>; <lugnet.loc.au@lugnet.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
>
>
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> > working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> > propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of • which
> > some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> > as early as the year 2003.
>
> Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
> that are currently in production are rockets. There are liquid-fuelled
> rockets, which can be turned on and off ("throttled"), and there
> are solid-fuel rockets which cannot be turned off once started. Examples
> of liquid-fuelled rockets are the main engines on the Space Shuttle,
> and the manoeuvring thrusters on the Space Shuttle (actually, somebody
> please check me on that, are they really rocket thrusters, or just
> pressurized gas?). Examples of solid-fuel rockets are the two boosters
> on the side of the Space Shuttle.
>
> There are a variety of engine concepts being researched for the future,
> but none are in use. These include SCRAMjets (no good in space, only
> in the atmosphere), nuclear power, etc. Most of these concepts only
> change what the engine uses for energy or "fuel", and not how they
> generate the thrust to move a ship---they still rely upon a rocket
> nozzle for the thrust. Most of these engine ideas, including "ion
> drives" are still the stuff of science fiction, and it will be a very
> long time before we see them in use..., *if* they ever see use.
>
> KDJ
> _______________________________________
> LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Perhaps I was referring to the fact that they may have been trying to build
larger ion engines for space travel? I know that these engines are a
defininte possibility and I apologize for my error, David.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, David Drew writes:
> Wrong! Ion rockets are in use now, and have been for 30 years. They're just
> not big enough to for sub-orbital work.
>
> See
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/08/18/deep.space.1/index.html
Okay, I got smoked on that one! :] Serves me right for
A) saying something based on assumption, and
B) venturing out of atmospherics ;]
In retrospect though, JAL seemed to
imply that these things were going to be installed on the Shuttle
or something in 2003 and I said "no way". When I think space
propulsion for the most part I only look at lift systems. Shoot,
I just can't get out of atmospheric propulsion no matter how hard
I try ;] From the links posted here on ion drives it seems they're
not applicable to atmospheric ops.
Anyhow, thanx for setting me straight. I need to go turn in my
aero degree now, been meaning to do that for some time. I've
been working in automotive for too long and it's made me stupid ;]
If an ion drive shows up in your next car, you know who to
blame now :]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In article <GFD24A.Mz@lugnet.com>, Kyle D. Jackson
<flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca> wrote:
> In retrospect though, JAL seemed to
> imply that these things were going to be installed on the Shuttle
> or something in 2003 and I said "no way". When I think space
> propulsion for the most part I only look at lift systems. Shoot,
> I just can't get out of atmospheric propulsion no matter how hard
> I try ;] From the links posted here on ion drives it seems they're
> not applicable to atmospheric ops.
Why do you say with your words that ion engines will not be used on the
Space Shuttle in 2003, Kyle. What you fail to realize is that ion
drives were invented in society long ago. Do not argue with me on this,
Kyle, because just last week I saw this great documentary film on my
JVC television set that showed me with my own eyes that there are
already space defense fighters with twin ion engines and wings and they
fly through space and make a great roaring sound when they fly by and
shoot and it would make a great video game for my Sony Playstation 2
but not for Super Nintendo GameBoy because the screen is too small and
they would have to change it so it wouldnt be as good in my mind, Kyle.
;-)
jk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, John Kornhaus writes:
> In article <GFD24A.Mz@lugnet.com>, Kyle D. Jackson
> <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca> wrote:
>
> > In retrospect though, JAL seemed to
> > imply that these things were going to be installed on the Shuttle
> > or something in 2003 and I said "no way". When I think space
> > propulsion for the most part I only look at lift systems. Shoot,
> > I just can't get out of atmospheric propulsion no matter how hard
> > I try ;] From the links posted here on ion drives it seems they're
> > not applicable to atmospheric ops.
>
> Why do you say with your words
Um, because he tried saying it with his toes and it didn't work out? I used
to try typing with my toes and it made a big mess. My big toe was too big to
work the backspace key right.
> that ion engines will not be used on the
> Space Shuttle in 2003, Kyle.
Because everyone knows that we are all going to be abducted by aliens in
2002 which will put a crimp in shuttle operations. Among other things. Have
you ever been abducted by an alien? I have. It's kind of different. They
have these big ships and they come up and go whoosh and then they dissect
you. I didn't like the dissection part.
> What you fail to realize is that ion
> drives were invented in society long ago. Do not argue with me on this,
> Kyle, because just last week I saw this great documentary film on my
> JVC television set that showed me with my own eyes that there are
> already space defense fighters with twin ion engines and wings and they
> fly through space and make a great roaring sound
But, but... in space, no one can hear you scream! Sigourny Weaver said so.
Don't you think she'd make a great Lego builder? Anyway, I saw it in some
movie about monsters and, um, aliens. on my RCA television set, too! RCA
comes after JVC in the alphabet so it must be better.
But I guess screaming isn't roaring so we're OK on that. Screaming, no,
roaring yes. Got it. Please read my next letter when I write it where I will
discuss whooshing and why you can hear that.
> when they fly by and
> shoot and it would make a great video game for my Sony Playstation 2
> but not for Super Nintendo GameBoy because the screen is too small
Ya but have you tried Game Boy Advance yet? it costs more so it must be
better. Someone from Lego told me they are developing virtual bricks that
you can use on your gameboy but only in the sunlight because the silly
engineers at nintendo didn't use active matrix. Just last week Gabe from
penny arcade was complaining about that. He's so funny, don't you think? I
wonder if he ever played with legos? He has a pacman on his shirt you know,
and pacmen are round, kind of like the, what do you call them, um, dots, on
the top of the bricks.
> and
> they would have to change it so it wouldnt be as good in my mind, Kyle.
Defiantly (1) trimming loc.au from this post as I don't want to help them
gain on the pomies. Heck, maybe I should put loc.uk in??? What is with those
guys anyway, saying I'm funny? The very nerve.
1 - Hi Greg, I think this is your favorite typo, right?. What is it with
typos anyway? I think microsoft should invent something that automatically
corrects your speling when you make misteaks. maybe they could put little
red squiggly lines under your words kind of like this squiggle: ~~~~~~~ but
underneath. I think that would be a great idea and I am going to write bill
gates about it as soon as I get done putting my legos away.
larry o pieniazek
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, John Kornhaus writes:
>
> Why do you say with your words that ion engines will not be used on the
> Space Shuttle in 2003, Kyle. What you fail to realize is that ion
> drives were invented in society long ago. Do not argue with me on this,
> Kyle, because just last week I saw this great documentary film on my
> JVC television set that showed me with my own eyes that there are
> already space defense fighters with twin ion engines and wings and they
> fly through space and make a great roaring sound when they fly by and
> shoot and it would make a great video game for my Sony Playstation 2
> but not for Super Nintendo GameBoy because the screen is too small and
> they would have to change it so it wouldnt be as good in my mind, Kyle.
I've got 3 words for you, buddy: Commodore-64!
> ;-)
He-he ;] That was pretty good!
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> > working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> > propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> > some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> > as early as the year 2003.
>
> Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
> that are currently in production are rockets.
Are you sure about this? I believe there are ion drives in use on some
research sats already. They are extremely low thrust mercury based but have,
again, been shown to work for stationkeeping, unless my memory is completely
fried.
I want to say Clementine had them but I can't remember.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > notably our space program, all over the world. These same companies are
> > > working with contractors to develop newer types of engines such as an ion
> > > propulsion system for the future replacements of the space shuttle, of which
> > > some people may say that they may be in production and used in outer space
> > > as early as the year 2003.
> >
> > Ion drives will not be in use in 2003. The only form of space engines
> > that are currently in production are rockets.
>
> Are you sure about this? I believe there are ion drives in use on some
> research sats already. They are extremely low thrust mercury based but have,
> again, been shown to work for stationkeeping, unless my memory is completely
> fried.
>
> I want to say Clementine had them but I can't remember.
Deep Space One, among others, but that was of course only the
testbed in 1999-2000. Isn't the service life only about six months
on the units being sent up now? (I know one has run longer, but the
expected life is only about 150-180 days.)
Boeing (Hughes) built DS1's unit, which can be seen here:
http://www.hughespace.com/factsheets/xips/nstar/ionengine.html
best
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, William R. Ward writes:
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> writes:
> [...]
> > The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
> > for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> > one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> > Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> > wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> > space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> > space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft.
> [...]
>
> Actually, this is false. Space is a vacuum - there is no air, only a
> few stray molecules of gas or cosmic dust. As a result, there is no
> friction and thus no need for wings or streamlined shapes on space
> craft. Also, there is very little gravitational pull, so the lifting
> power of wings is useless.
My spacecraft have wings if they're intended to enter the atmosphere, such
as my Sparrow, http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/sparrow.htm .
If they are strictly space (no atmospheric travel), they won't have wings,
but they will have things that look like wings, but are field vanes. I got
the idea from a recent WiReD article, the field vanes interact with field
properties in space. Depending on the applied charge, one side of the vane
will repel, the other will attract, giving a craft manueverability similar
to a winged craft flying through an atmosphere.
The alternative is to use thrusters and flywheels to change attitude,
orientation and velocity, which is harder to do, and doesn't look as spiffy.
I reserve this for lower tech spacecraft, such as my OTV
http://www.frontiernet.net/~ghaberbe/otv.htm .
George
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
<snip>
> I have five questions for you, Kyle. The first question is do you have a
> real picture available of your ship and not a picture drawn on the computer?
That is a real picture. It was taken with my digital camera, and the
background was inserted with photoshop.
> The second question is where are the wings on your space craft?
<snip>
Well, since there is no gravity (ok, very little) there is no need for them.
Wings are used for lift, so the aircraft can get off the ground. But with no
gravity, there is no need for lift, so there is no need for wings. But I
will admit, lots of us space builders but wings on our ships cause they just
look cool. :-) It is a fantasy world anyways right?
> The third question is why does Legoland
> Space and Futuron/Futureworld share the same logo yet they are considered to
> be two different systems? I believe that there is a Futuron/Futureworld I
> and a Futuron/Futureworld II as with the Space Police and Blacktron Lego
> sets. Do you consider my opinion to be wrong in this question to you, Kyle?
Hmm, this is kinda a hard one. I consider it Classic Space and Futuron. that
is pretty much the lugnet standard. As far as the logo, I think it is the
general logo for LEGO Space, not a one for any cetain sub-theme. Varations
of it can be found in the Ice Planet and Alpha Team(allthough not really
space) themes.
> The fourth question is why is there not an Exploriens section on the Lugnet
> Space section? The Exploriens were part of Lego Space so I believe that
> they should have a part on the Lugnet Lego space bulletin boards.
Like someone allready mentioned, those links are not to more specific
newsgroups, but to all the sets from that particular theme. Exploreins is
there, but the link is missing. Why, I dunno...
> The fifth
> question is I am looking for a particular Lego piece that has a two stud
> width and a two stud length, is cylinderical in shape, and has fins on the
> side that suggest that these pieces were used as either motors or the bases
> to a rocket. Do you know how I can obtain some of these pieces and the
> names of these pieces, Kyle?
All I can suggest is looking around in the Lugnet parts ref
(guide.lugnet.com) to find the name of the part. Then go to brickbay.com and
search for it. I bet youcan find some there.
> Thank you for helping me, Kyle.
> Jesse Long
No prob..
--Kyle
http://hvl.cjb.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> <snip>
> > I have five questions for you, Kyle. The first question is do you have a
> > real picture available of your ship and not a picture drawn on the computer?
>
> That is a real picture. It was taken with my digital camera, and the
> background was inserted with photoshop.
>
> > The second question is where are the wings on your space craft?
>
> <snip>
>
> Well, since there is no gravity (ok, very little) there is no need for them.
> Wings are used for lift, so the aircraft can get off the ground. But with no
> gravity, there is no need for lift, so there is no need for wings. But I
> will admit, lots of us space builders but wings on our ships cause they just
> look cool. :-) It is a fantasy world anyways right?
>
> > The third question is why does Legoland
> > Space and Futuron/Futureworld share the same logo yet they are considered to
> > be two different systems? I believe that there is a Futuron/Futureworld I
> > and a Futuron/Futureworld II as with the Space Police and Blacktron Lego
> > sets. Do you consider my opinion to be wrong in this question to you, Kyle?
>
> Hmm, this is kinda a hard one. I consider it Classic Space and Futuron. that
> is pretty much the lugnet standard. As far as the logo, I think it is the
> general logo for LEGO Space, not a one for any cetain sub-theme. Varations
> of it can be found in the Ice Planet and Alpha Team(allthough not really
> space) themes.
>
> > The fourth question is why is there not an Exploriens section on the Lugnet
> > Space section? The Exploriens were part of Lego Space so I believe that
> > they should have a part on the Lugnet Lego space bulletin boards.
>
> Like someone allready mentioned, those links are not to more specific
> newsgroups, but to all the sets from that particular theme. Exploreins is
> there, but the link is missing. Why, I dunno...
>
> > The fifth
> > question is I am looking for a particular Lego piece that has a two stud
> > width and a two stud length, is cylinderical in shape, and has fins on the
> > side that suggest that these pieces were used as either motors or the bases
> > to a rocket. Do you know how I can obtain some of these pieces and the
> > names of these pieces, Kyle?
>
> All I can suggest is looking around in the Lugnet parts ref
> (guide.lugnet.com) to find the name of the part. Then go to brickbay.com and
> search for it. I bet youcan find some there.
>
> > Thank you for helping me, Kyle.
> > Jesse Long
>
> No prob..
>
> --Kyle
> http://hvl.cjb.net
There are similar parts that only have one stud and there is one Space
Police II space craft that has a single stud version of that rocket piece
and that piece resembles the cylindrical single stud brick but it has four
fins on the side of the brick. I have seen those pieces for sale but the
piece that I want is two bricks high and is also two studs wide by two studs
long and it also has the fins similar to the Space Police II set #1890.
(The pieces that I was mentioning are the thrusters on each side of the
space craft.) This set also has another number but I do not know what that
number is in my mind. I have been to BrickBay but no person in BrickBay,
odd as this may sound to you, has these parts for sale and even stranger
still is that the LDraw program does not contain these rocket pieces. The
Space logo is the word "Space" in computer letters and it has some planets
and stars in the background. The Ice Planet 2002 logo has ice on the top
half of the planet and the Alpha Team has a grid view of the world. I am
somewhat unsure of what your answer is to my third question, Kyle, but are
you saying that I am right in saying that Legoland Space and
Futuron/Futureworld are the same Lego set? I am simply wanting to know what
your answer was to my question because you said, "Hmm, this is kind of a
hard one. I consider it Classic Space and Futuron. That is pretty much the
Lugnet standard. As far as the logo, I think that it is the general logo
for Lego Space, not a (logo) for any certain sub-theme. Variations of it
can be found on the Ice Planet (2002) and Alpha Team (although [the latter
is] not really [considered a part of the Lego] Space) themes."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
There are plenty on brickbay:
http://brickbay.com/search.asp?q=Brick%2C+Round+2+x+2+x+2+with+Fins+&p=Y&s=Y
The link might not work, so if it doesn't search for: "Brick, Round 2 x 2 x
2 with Fins "
THE space logo is the little planet with the 'ring' around it. The ice
planet log is the same thing, but with snow on the planet. The alpha team is
basically a grid veiw of the space logo. Classic space is all the space that
was not in any official sub theme. The sets from the years 1978 to about
1988). Futuron is the subtheme futuron and one of the first themes to
intrpoduce the modern helmet.
--Kyle
http://hvl.cjb.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> There are plenty on brickbay:
> http://brickbay.com/search.asp?q=Brick%2C+Round+2+x+2+x+2+with+Fins+&p=Y&s=Y
>
> The link might not work, so if it doesn't search for: "Brick, Round 2 x 2 x
> 2 with Fins "
>
> THE space logo is the little planet with the 'ring' around it. The ice
> planet log is the same thing, but with snow on the planet. The alpha team is
> basically a grid veiw of the space logo. Classic space is all the space that
> was not in any official sub theme. The sets from the years 1978 to about
> 1988). Futuron is the subtheme futuron and one of the first themes to
> intrpoduce the modern helmet.
>
> --Kyle
> http://hvl.cjb.net
I have found a place where they sell that particular piece but I have to
purchase five dollars of merchandise or else they will not sell the pieces
to me. I just want the two pieces and they expect me to buy the store! Can
the visors of Futuron fit on the Legoland Space figures? I just want to
know if they can fit on those people, Kyle.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The visors that can be found in many sets from the Futuron days up till now
will only work on those helmets. They DO NOT fit on Classic Space helmets or
any other helmet that was pre-Futuron.
--Kyle
http://hvl.cjb.net
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I have found a place where they sell that particular piece but I have to
> purchase five dollars of merchandise or else they will not sell the pieces
> to me. I just want the two pieces and they expect me to buy the store! Can
> the visors of Futuron fit on the Legoland Space figures? I just want to
> know if they can fit on those people, Kyle.
> Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> The visors that can be found in many sets from the Futuron days up till now
> will only work on those helmets. They DO NOT fit on Classic Space helmets or
> any other helmet that was pre-Futuron.
>
> --Kyle
> http://hvl.cjb.net
>
>
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > I have found a place where they sell that particular piece but I have to
> > purchase five dollars of merchandise or else they will not sell the pieces
> > to me. I just want the two pieces and they expect me to buy the store! Can
> > the visors of Futuron fit on the Legoland Space figures? I just want to
> > know if they can fit on those people, Kyle.
> > Jesse Long
I know that they are releasing the Lego Legends series and perhaps they will
reintroduce the Legoland Space series and maybe we can ask the people at
Lego to produce a special visor for the Legoland Space figures because
without air, they would die and the visors keep in the air in the suits of
the figures.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I know that they are releasing the Lego Legends series and perhaps they will
> reintroduce the Legoland Space series and maybe we can ask the people at
> Lego to produce a special visor for the Legoland Space figures because
> without air, they would die and the visors keep in the air in the suits of
> the figures.
Don't forget that the biggest problem isn't the lack of visors, it's the
ripping off of the head to get the airtanks on! :-)
Cheers
Richie Dulin
Patrician of Brick-Morpork
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Richie Dulin writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > I know that they are releasing the Lego Legends series and perhaps they will
> > reintroduce the Legoland Space series and maybe we can ask the people at
> > Lego to produce a special visor for the Legoland Space figures because
> > without air, they would die and the visors keep in the air in the suits of
> > the figures.
>
> Don't forget that the biggest problem isn't the lack of visors, it's the
> ripping off of the head to get the airtanks on! :-)
>
> Cheers
>
> Richie Dulin
> Patrician of Brick-Morpork
Ouch! They'd have a generally tough time of it without knees or elbows too,
and without shoulders that can move the arm in front of the body. I suppose
they can eat with appropriately long utensils but how do they dress or tie
their shoes? You'd have to use a bidday (no clue how to spell this) in the
bathroom too. How do have one of those in a weightless environment on a
spaceship?
;)
John
#388
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GFALvp.8nK@lugnet.com...
> I know that they are releasing the Lego Legends series and perhaps they will
> reintroduce the Legoland Space series and maybe we can ask the people at
> Lego to produce a special visor for the Legoland Space figures because
> without air, they would die and the visors keep in the air in the suits of
> the figures.
> Jesse Long
Then it wouldn't be true to classic space now, would it?
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.au, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> > I know that they are releasing the Lego Legends series and perhaps they will
> > reintroduce the Legoland Space series and maybe we can ask the people at
> > Lego to produce a special visor for the Legoland Space figures because
> > without air, they would die and the visors keep in the air in the suits of
> > the figures.
> > Jesse Long
>
> Then it wouldn't be true to classic space now, would it?
What about the helmets? Would new-style helmets be acceptable?
--DaveL (Bring on the classic astronauts in GREEN!!)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:GFALvp.8nK@lugnet.com...
>
> > I know that they are releasing the Lego Legends series and perhaps they will
> > reintroduce the Legoland Space series and maybe we can ask the people at
> > Lego to produce a special visor for the Legoland Space figures because
> > without air, they would die and the visors keep in the air in the suits of
> > the figures.
> > Jesse Long
>
> Then it wouldn't be true to classic space now, would it?
>
> -Tim
The current space/race/town helmets have been in existence since Futuron and
only until the existence of Life on Mars or U.F.O. did they build the larger
visors. I am not sure which theme introduced the larger visors but even the
old Super Mario series has changed in each of the games on Game Boy Color
and Game Boy Advanced so why should we have the exact same space men?
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GFCMtz.7w1@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
> >
> > "Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:GFALvp.8nK@lugnet.com...
> >
> > > I know that they are releasing the Lego Legends series and perhaps they • will
> > > reintroduce the Legoland Space series and maybe we can ask the people at
> > > Lego to produce a special visor for the Legoland Space figures because
> > > without air, they would die and the visors keep in the air in the suits of
> > > the figures.
> > > Jesse Long
> >
> > Then it wouldn't be true to classic space now, would it?
> >
> > -Tim
> The current space/race/town helmets have been in existence since Futuron and
> only until the existence of Life on Mars or U.F.O. did they build the larger
> visors.
Really??? <sarcasm> I've only been collecting these plastic pieces since I was
a wee one, I never realized that </sarcasm>
> I am not sure which theme introduced the larger visors but even the
> old Super Mario series has changed in each of the games on Game Boy Color
> and Game Boy Advanced so why should we have the exact same space men?
What the heck does Mario have to do with spacemen? And, if Classic Space sets
are re-released in the Legends series, they should be true to Classic Space.
Just as the current Guarded Inn is true to how they did Castle when that series
was in original production in the 1980s. Its a collector thing.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> The current space/race/town helmets have been in existence since Futuron and
> only until the existence of Life on Mars or U.F.O. did they build the larger
> visors.
<nitpick>
Actually, the larger visors were introduced first with Launch Command in the
mid 1990s, Life on Mars is just reusing them. And I don't remember U.F.O.
even having visored minfigs..
</nitpick>
greg
Disclaimer: It may seem like I am jumping all over you, Jesse, but you
really should know a little bit of background information before you post a
message.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes: • <big snip>
> The fifth
> question is I am looking for a particular Lego piece that has a two stud
> width and a two stud length, is cylinderical in shape, and has fins on the
> side that suggest that these pieces were used as either motors or the bases
> to a rocket. Do you know how I can obtain some of these pieces and the
> names of these pieces, Kyle? Thank you for helping me, Kyle.
> Jesse Long
Would this be in this family?
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=fins
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes: • <big snip>
> > The fifth
> > question is I am looking for a particular Lego piece that has a two stud
> > width and a two stud length, is cylinderical in shape, and has fins on the
> > side that suggest that these pieces were used as either motors or the bases
> > to a rocket. Do you know how I can obtain some of these pieces and the
> > names of these pieces, Kyle? Thank you for helping me, Kyle.
> > Jesse Long
>
> Would this be in this family?
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=fins
>
> -Duane
The second piece is exactly what I need for my Gaea Federation Galaxy
Destroyer. I need two of those pieces, preferrably the same color. Thank
you for knowing what I needed for my space craft.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'm probably gonna get flamed a little for this but here I go.
> I have five questions for you, Kyle. The first question is do you have a
> real picture available of your ship and not a picture drawn on the
computer?
His ship is oviously not a render. If Kyle had created this ship in LDraw he
would be God.
> The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I • apologize
> for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> wedge of cheese.
Ok this is a really weird comment. Others have adressed your the "wing" and
friction issue so I won't touch it. Whats so strange is your comment on the
Star Destroyers. To me these ships do look like they have "wings", with
their delta shape and all. Yet you seem to be speaking negatively about
them. Ummm.
> If I was given more Legos, I would easily build five hundred stud or • longer Lego
> space craft but as my situation is right now, I am content with the Legos • I
> have built right now in my life.
If you're gonna bust in here with some weird ideas please drop the "s" off
the word Lego.
The third question is why does Legoland
> Space and Futuron/Futureworld share the same logo yet they are considered • to
> be two different systems? I believe that there is a Futuron/Futureworld I
> and a Futuron/Futureworld II as with the Space Police and Blacktron Lego
> sets.
What the heck does this have to do with this thread?
> The fourth question is why is there not an Exploriens section on the • Lugnet
> Space section? The Exploriens were part of Lego Space so I believe that
> they should have a part on the Lugnet Lego space bulletin boards.
Again not relavent to this subject.
> The fifth
> question is I am looking for a particular Lego piece that has a two stud
> width and a two stud length, is cylinderical in shape, and has fins on the
> side that suggest that these pieces were used as either motors or the • bases
> to a rocket. Do you know how I can obtain some of these pieces and the
> names of these pieces, Kyle? Thank you for helping me, Kyle.
AAAAAAA!!!! You already asked all of these questions before. Once after your
facinating mistake about a Moulton post and also just yesterday.
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=9292
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=9190
Ok most importantly, please please break apart your text into paragraphs so
that it can be viewed easier. Its not fun to have to wade through a massive
block of text. Snipping off the bulk of the quoted text from the message you
are replying to will also look a lot better.
Thanks
-Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> friction in outer
what the flipping space monster burgers are
you talking about?
friction in space?
NOT, noway, nohow
wings are useless in space, dude.
i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
(i'm sure this has been said elsewhere
but hey i don't have time to look it up)
-paul
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer
>
> what the flipping space monster burgers are
> you talking about?
>
> friction in space?
>
> NOT, noway, nohow
>
> wings are useless in space, dude.
> i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
No! Surely not!
I had always thought all that space suit rubbish was about protecting soft
and squidgy spacedudes from the howling radioactive solar wind, encountered
near suns.
So if its not to protect them from the wind, why do spacedudes muck about
with space suits, or is that just Hollywood making everything unnecessarily
dramatic (like the guy falling onto the propeller in Titanic)?
Richard
Still baldly going...
(while being quietly comprehensively flabbergasted at what goes on in .space)
(and if any of the many builders who have millions of attennas is about, I'd
like to know what attennas are, and whether you could spare a couple of
hundred thou - I've never encountered a Lego piece I couldn't use for
something...)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
its for vaccum and sun. sun is lethal out in space without ozone to protect
you from ulkmate sunburn and blindness.
gonna need air up there too heh
--
And they said 'Computers will never be in general use'
"Richard Parsons" <richard_w_parsons@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GFEr0r.6rA@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there • is
> > > friction in outer
> >
> > what the flipping space monster burgers are
> > you talking about?
> >
> > friction in space?
> >
> > NOT, noway, nohow
> >
> > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
>
> No! Surely not!
>
> I had always thought all that space suit rubbish was about protecting soft
> and squidgy spacedudes from the howling radioactive solar wind, • encountered
> near suns.
>
> So if its not to protect them from the wind, why do spacedudes muck about
> with space suits, or is that just Hollywood making everything • unnecessarily
> dramatic (like the guy falling onto the propeller in Titanic)?
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
> (while being quietly comprehensively flabbergasted at what goes on in • .space)
>
> (and if any of the many builders who have millions of attennas is about, • I'd
> like to know what attennas are, and whether you could spare a couple of
> hundred thou - I've never encountered a Lego piece I couldn't use for
> something...)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Richard Parsons writes:
> > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
>
> No! Surely not!
Oh stop. You guys are just trying to drive the postcount of loc.au up
because the whinging poms might stay ahead of you, or something. :-)
Next you'll be asking why the sky is blue over in lugnet.town, then you can
ask if you have to hold RCX's upside down when programming them in the
southern hemisphere over in lugnet.robotics. And if that doesn't do the
trick. postwise, you can always put in a post or two in lugnet.lego.direct
decrying the lack of S@H... that should do the trick. (all crossposted to
loc.au of course)
GRIN.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.au, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.space, Richard Parsons writes:
>
> > > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
> >
> > No! Surely not!
>
> Oh stop. You guys are just trying to drive the postcount of loc.au up
> because the whinging poms might stay ahead of you, or something. :-)
Hahah nice one Larry, the only prob is that you have also added to it
yourself :) (oh and me too :)... anyway I am sure quite a few of us are
whinging poms anyway :P
> Next you'll be asking why the sky is blue over in lugnet.town, then you can
> ask if you have to hold RCX's upside down when programming them in the
> southern hemisphere over in lugnet.robotics. And if that doesn't do the
> trick. postwise, you can always put in a post or two in lugnet.lego.direct
> decrying the lack of S@H... that should do the trick. (all crossposted to
> loc.au of course)
The sky is for sure blue where I am right now...
Yes, the lack of S@H... are you suggesting that you will be our American
counter part and order things for us until we get the S@H ourselves? :P
Actually I have recently shipped a number of items that some American's
can't seem to find over there... so I guess we too have some 'wanted' goodies!
hehe :P
> GRIN.
*vegemite and cheese grin*
>
> ++Lar
Mel Brown Brick
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Richard Parsons writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > > friction in outer space
> >
> > what the flipping space monster burgers are you talking about?
You know, Like the one in some movie or other that nearly eats that
spaceship after they've landed in a cave on an asteroid which isn't a cave
but still has bat-things in it and an atmosphere of sorts and really squishy
ground and when they shoot the ground it's uh-oh time and they have to
escape quick between pointy teeth or esle they'de be crunched and munched
and generally unhappy, you know?
Ask Jesse, he reckons they make a good burger...
> > friction in space?
> > NOT, noway, nohow
> No! Surely not!
> I had always thought all that space suit rubbish was about protecting soft
> and squidgy spacedudes from the howling radioactive solar wind, encountered
> near suns.
> So if its not to protect them from the wind, why do spacedudes muck about
> with space suits, or is that just Hollywood making everything unnecessarily
> dramatic (like the guy falling onto the propeller in Titanic)?
It's cold in space, there's a raging wind-chill factor that does the
proverbials off of brass monkeys, (colder even than the Southern Highlands).
It's probably 'cause modern minifigs are really wussy and can't stand the
cold that they need to wear those visor thingies. I remember when I had a
smiley faced figure, he was kept warm by the glow of going where no 'fig had
gone before, he didn't need no visor or no enclosed cockpit with heated
leather chair.
> > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
I protest! Wings aren't useless, they serve the essential purpose of
increasing the sheer 'coolness' of the ship. A ship without wings isn't
funky, man, it hasn't got the mojo to cut it in a deep space mission. After
all, what self respecting 'fig is going to wander the galaxy, defeating
alien babes and winnin the affection of vicious enemies if his ship isn't
'cool'? It's got to have wings. And think of spiffy things you can do with
wings too, you could mount heaps of weapons on them. 'Cause there's no
gravity in space you don't have to worry about the wings snapping off under
the weight. Or you could strap political dissidents to the wings and watch
them shrivel with frostbite as you zoom through the cosmos. And to power all
those weapons some slick solar panels would come in handy, perhaps
tastefully decorated in your government's colours so others can see whether
you are a good guy or a target (or an alien-babe cruise ship). And finally
when threatened by pinko commie rouge mooners you can use the wings (and
political prisioners) to bat those rocks and garbage back at their sneering
faces.
Oh? You mean real life? Oh. Ignore all that then.
> (and if any of the many builders who have millions of attennas is about, I'd
> like to know what attennas are, and whether you could spare a couple of
> hundred thou - I've never encountered a Lego piece I couldn't use for
> something...)
Oh good, that means I can call dibs on a ton of bulky areas, just as long as
they're not glued together.
James (who is boggled at the thought of a tonne of LEGO bricks)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, James Howse writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > > > friction in outer space
>
> > (and if any of the many builders who have millions of attennas is about, I'd
> > like to know what attennas are, and whether you could spare a couple of
> > hundred thou - I've never encountered a Lego piece I couldn't use for
> > something...)
>
> Oh good, that means I can call dibs on a ton of bulky areas, just as long as
> they're not glued together.
>
> James (who is boggled at the thought of a tonne of LEGO bricks)
Being the geek I am I wondered how many 2x4s that would be. Not having any
to hand (or a scientific scale) I looked it up. It's amazing, everything
geeky I could think of asking has already been thought, asked and answered.
Anyway from http://news.lugnet.com/market/shipping/?n=362
a 1x8 weighs some 3.06g which means a (metric) tonne 1000kg is around
327,000 bricks.
Some more work with the calculator...
which is a block 160 studs long, 160 wide and 120 high
or 1.28m by 1.28m by 0.96m
or if built into a one thickness wall, 3.2m high, about 2.016m long.
or if laid end to end, 2.6km
James (who's going to do some real work now)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> (snip)
> wings are useless in space, dude.
> i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
Not if it's a small ship that can also fly in a planet's atmosphere. Someone
else who replyed to this said you can overload the wings with weapons, but if
you suddenly get near a planet's gravity, *snap* *snap*, and someones car gets
hit by 89 laser cannons.
NICK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> (snip)
> wings are useless in space, dude.
> i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
Not if it's a small ship that can also fly in a planet's atmosphere. Someone
else who replyed to this said you can overload the wings with weapons, but if
you suddenly get near a planet's gravity, *snap* *snap*, and someones car gets
hit by 89 laser cannons.
NICK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer
>
> what the flipping space monster burgers are
> you talking about?
>
> friction in space?
>
> NOT, noway, nohow
>
> wings are useless in space, dude.
> i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
>
> (i'm sure this has been said elsewhere
> but hey i don't have time to look it up)
>
> -paul
Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
sound logic, and the truth in life. You are an astrophysicist, you should
know that, as with the complete absence of gravity, that the complete
absense of friction can never truly exist in outer space. There is LESS
friction and gravity in space but it is wrong to say that there can not
exist friction and gravity in space. Remember the Newtonic laws, Paul.
People at one point in our history many centuries earlier said that the
earth was flat and that we would fall off of the edge of the earth and we
had to accept those ideas as facts in our lives but, as we already know in
this modern age, those ideas were proven false by reason, logic, science,
and the truth in our lives. Please do not tell me that this concept is
another flat earth idea, Paul, because many aspects of these ideas are
theories, not actual facts, Paul.
Jesse Long
P.S. My large guns have a hinge piece that folds back when my space craft
enters the atmosphere, Paul.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > > friction in outer
> >
> > what the flipping space monster burgers are
> > you talking about?
> >
> > friction in space?
> >
> > NOT, noway, nohow
> >
> > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
> >
> > (i'm sure this has been said elsewhere
> > but hey i don't have time to look it up)
> >
> > -paul
> Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
> people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
> but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
> aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
> sound logic, and the truth in life. You are an astrophysicist, you should
> know that, as with the complete absence of gravity, that the complete
> absense of friction can never truly exist in outer space. There is LESS
> friction and gravity in space but it is wrong to say that there can not
> exist friction and gravity in space. Remember the Newtonic laws, Paul.
> People at one point in our history many centuries earlier said that the
> earth was flat and that we would fall off of the edge of the earth and we
> had to accept those ideas as facts in our lives but, as we already know in
> this modern age, those ideas were proven false by reason, logic, science,
> and the truth in our lives. Please do not tell me that this concept is
> another flat earth idea, Paul, because many aspects of these ideas are
> theories, not actual facts, Paul.
> Jesse Long
> P.S. My large guns have a hinge piece that folds back when my space craft
> enters the atmosphere, Paul.
Jesse,
I have a couple of things to write about. The first is regarding friction in
space. I agree that there MUST be friction in space, otherwise anything held
together with a nut or bolt would come apart. The second is in regards to
your tone in your posts. I'm sure after reading most of you posts, that is
just the way you contruct your sentences, but it comes across as
condescending. Third, the way you construc your paragraphs. It becomes hard
to slog through a single block of text with no breaks. I know that several
people, myself included, have requested that you break up your text by
inserting a blank line between the paragraphs. Would you PLEASE humor the
Lugnet community by doing so? And the last point of my reply is your Lego
Universe. It seems to me that your universe is based heavily on real,
currently available technology. Not everyone who builds subscribes to that
notion. I personally have Faster-Than-Light speeds in my Lego Universe. Yes,
I know that it isn't possible, but growing up with Star Trek makes me want
it in my Universe. I'm sure that you wouldn't be taking as much flak about
your ship if we had something to look at. Remember, a picture is worth a
thousand words (and I'm sure we're waaaaaaaay beyond that point). Besides,
is it very descriptive to say that I currently have a six wheeled
terrestrial vehicle with fully articulated suspension and steering? How
about if I add that it has living quarters for four? What if I also add that
it carries two support vehicles with it? Working airlock? Hydroponics bay?
Cargo crane? Oh, it's also approximately 64 studs long and 20 studs wide.
I'm sure that you have a picture in mind, but as soon as I take some, you
can look and see for yourself and reform your opinion of what I've just
written. Talk to you later, Jesse.
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > > > Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > > > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > > > friction in outer
> > >
> > > what the flipping space monster burgers are
> > > you talking about?
> > >
> > > friction in space?
> > >
> > > NOT, noway, nohow
> > >
> > > wings are useless in space, dude.
> > > i'm an astrophysicist, i know whereof i speak.
> > >
> > > (i'm sure this has been said elsewhere
> > > but hey i don't have time to look it up)
> > >
> > > -paul
> > Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
> > people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
> > but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
> > aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
> > sound logic, and the truth in life. You are an astrophysicist, you should
> > know that, as with the complete absence of gravity, that the complete
> > absense of friction can never truly exist in outer space. There is LESS
> > friction and gravity in space but it is wrong to say that there can not
> > exist friction and gravity in space. Remember the Newtonic laws, Paul.
> > People at one point in our history many centuries earlier said that the
> > earth was flat and that we would fall off of the edge of the earth and we
> > had to accept those ideas as facts in our lives but, as we already know in
> > this modern age, those ideas were proven false by reason, logic, science,
> > and the truth in our lives. Please do not tell me that this concept is
> > another flat earth idea, Paul, because many aspects of these ideas are
> > theories, not actual facts, Paul.
> > Jesse Long
> > P.S. My large guns have a hinge piece that folds back when my space craft
> > enters the atmosphere, Paul.
>
> Jesse,
>
> I have a couple of things to write about. The first is regarding friction in
> space. I agree that there MUST be friction in space, otherwise anything held
> together with a nut or bolt would come apart. The second is in regards to
> your tone in your posts. I'm sure after reading most of you posts, that is
> just the way you contruct your sentences, but it comes across as
> condescending. Third, the way you construc your paragraphs. It becomes hard
> to slog through a single block of text with no breaks. I know that several
> people, myself included, have requested that you break up your text by
> inserting a blank line between the paragraphs. Would you PLEASE humor the
> Lugnet community by doing so? And the last point of my reply is your Lego
> Universe. It seems to me that your universe is based heavily on real,
> currently available technology. Not everyone who builds subscribes to that
> notion. I personally have Faster-Than-Light speeds in my Lego Universe. Yes,
> I know that it isn't possible, but growing up with Star Trek makes me want
> it in my Universe. I'm sure that you wouldn't be taking as much flak about
> your ship if we had something to look at. Remember, a picture is worth a
> thousand words (and I'm sure we're waaaaaaaay beyond that point). Besides,
> is it very descriptive to say that I currently have a six wheeled
> terrestrial vehicle with fully articulated suspension and steering? How
> about if I add that it has living quarters for four? What if I also add that
> it carries two support vehicles with it? Working airlock? Hydroponics bay?
> Cargo crane? Oh, it's also approximately 64 studs long and 20 studs wide.
> I'm sure that you have a picture in mind, but as soon as I take some, you
> can look and see for yourself and reform your opinion of what I've just
> written. Talk to you later, Jesse.
>
> -Duane
I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
I must disagree, however, about the comment that I view space craft from a
realistic point of view, Duane. I do want to know how space craft would
really operate but I am not conscribing to the current designs of the Space
Shuttle of the typical designs of LEGO space craft. I believe that you
should add some support vehicles and a working airlock but that is simply
because there may exist hostile environments that the vehicle will travel
and these enviornments may not support oxygen or explorers so an airlock,
even in a space craft, is a good idea if you happen to travel to one of
those planets, Duane.
I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
Yahoo News I heard the story. I believe that we must first work on the
current technology so that we can actually develop beter technology so that
we can actually produce better space craft. The reason that my ideas will
not probably work is because almost all that the politicians and
"scientists" in our government want is more money to produce more projects
that are destined to fail and because the government will not privitize the
space program, we will still probably use the Space Shuttle when I am 75
years old! I believe, however, that your vehicle is a very nice vehicle so
can you please show me your vehicle, Duane? Thank you and I hoipe that this
letter is to your standards, Duane.
Jesse Long
P.S. I also have craft that travel at speeds of faster than light speeds
and I have watched Star Trek (though Voyager was somewhat disappointing)
ever since The Next Generation was on television in the first season. I am
not sure what you mean by condescending but whatever that word means, I will
try not to become condescending to people. I also believe that adding some
living quarters would be considered a good idea because even large trucks,
the trucks that usually haul trailers, usually have a bed or two in the back
of their cabs and this is the reason why many of these vehicles are somewhat
large in structure, Duane. I am not saying that adding sleeping quarters is
a necessary idea, Duane, I am simply saying that maybe long missions require
some sleep.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
<snip>
> I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
I'm sure that there are TONS of other laws and theories that we aren't
looking at when trying to design a "realistic" space craft. That's why I
have my own Lego Universe - it allows me to be creative, but not have to
think as much.
> I must disagree, however, about the comment that I view space craft from a
> realistic point of view, Duane. I do want to know how space craft would
> really operate but I am not conscribing to the current designs of the Space
> Shuttle of the typical designs of LEGO space craft. I believe that you
> should add some support vehicles and a working airlock but that is simply
> because there may exist hostile environments that the vehicle will travel
> and these enviornments may not support oxygen or explorers so an airlock,
> even in a space craft, is a good idea if you happen to travel to one of
> those planets, Duane.
My mistake then, I've mis-interpreted.
>
> I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> Yahoo News I heard the story. I believe that we must first work on the
> current technology so that we can actually develop beter technology so that
> we can actually produce better space craft. The reason that my ideas will
> not probably work is because almost all that the politicians and
> "scientists" in our government want is more money to produce more projects
> that are destined to fail and because the government will not privitize the
> space program, we will still probably use the Space Shuttle when I am 75
> years old! I believe, however, that your vehicle is a very nice vehicle so
> can you please show me your vehicle, Duane? Thank you and I hoipe that this
> letter is to your standards, Duane.
> Jesse Long
There is currently a design that is being developed to replace the Space
Shuttle. I don't have specifics handy other than the NASA website, but
believe me, it has to be better than what we are using now. The current
shuttles seem to be held together with duct tape and bailing wire.
>
> P.S. I also have craft that travel at speeds of faster than light speeds
> and I have watched Star Trek (though Voyager was somewhat disappointing)
> ever since The Next Generation was on television in the first season.
I believe that there was an article in Popular Science on this subject not
that long ago. Unfortunately my copy is in my truck so I can't get too
specific right now. Maybe after I actually read it. Does anyone else reading
have information on the article?
> I am
> not sure what you mean by condescending but whatever that word means, I will
> try not to become condescending to people. I also believe that adding some
> living quarters would be considered a good idea because even large trucks,
> the trucks that usually haul trailers, usually have a bed or two in the back
> of their cabs and this is the reason why many of these vehicles are somewhat
> large in structure, Duane. I am not saying that adding sleeping quarters is
> a necessary idea, Duane, I am simply saying that maybe long missions require
> some sleep.
From Dictionary.com
con·de·scend
intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends
To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.
To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> <snip>
> > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
>
>
> I'm sure that there are TONS of other laws and theories that we aren't
> looking at when trying to design a "realistic" space craft. That's why I
> have my own Lego Universe - it allows me to be creative, but not have to
> think as much.
>
> > I must disagree, however, about the comment that I view space craft from a
> > realistic point of view, Duane. I do want to know how space craft would
> > really operate but I am not conscribing to the current designs of the Space
> > Shuttle of the typical designs of LEGO space craft. I believe that you
> > should add some support vehicles and a working airlock but that is simply
> > because there may exist hostile environments that the vehicle will travel
> > and these enviornments may not support oxygen or explorers so an airlock,
> > even in a space craft, is a good idea if you happen to travel to one of
> > those planets, Duane.
>
> My mistake then, I've mis-interpreted.
>
> >
> > I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> > impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> > earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> > FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> > Yahoo News I heard the story. I believe that we must first work on the
> > current technology so that we can actually develop beter technology so that
> > we can actually produce better space craft. The reason that my ideas will
> > not probably work is because almost all that the politicians and
> > "scientists" in our government want is more money to produce more projects
> > that are destined to fail and because the government will not privitize the
> > space program, we will still probably use the Space Shuttle when I am 75
> > years old! I believe, however, that your vehicle is a very nice vehicle so
> > can you please show me your vehicle, Duane? Thank you and I hoipe that this
> > letter is to your standards, Duane.
> > Jesse Long
>
> There is currently a design that is being developed to replace the Space
> Shuttle. I don't have specifics handy other than the NASA website, but
> believe me, it has to be better than what we are using now. The current
> shuttles seem to be held together with duct tape and bailing wire.
>
> >
> > P.S. I also have craft that travel at speeds of faster than light speeds
> > and I have watched Star Trek (though Voyager was somewhat disappointing)
> > ever since The Next Generation was on television in the first season.
>
> I believe that there was an article in Popular Science on this subject not
> that long ago. Unfortunately my copy is in my truck so I can't get too
> specific right now. Maybe after I actually read it. Does anyone else reading
> have information on the article?
>
> > I am
> > not sure what you mean by condescending but whatever that word means, I will
> > try not to become condescending to people. I also believe that adding some
> > living quarters would be considered a good idea because even large trucks,
> > the trucks that usually haul trailers, usually have a bed or two in the back
> > of their cabs and this is the reason why many of these vehicles are somewhat
> > large in structure, Duane. I am not saying that adding sleeping quarters is
> > a necessary idea, Duane, I am simply saying that maybe long missions require
> > some sleep.
>
> From Dictionary.com
>
> con·de·scend
> intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends
> To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.
> To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
>
> -Duane
By the way. Thanks for breaking out your paragraphs. It's much easier to read...
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea.
The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It
is a law, and going to space won't make it go away.
What you need to understand is how this law works. The friction that we are
used to calling drag is the friction of air particles on a jet, or water
particles on a submarine. The drag is much greater underwater because the
water is denser with particles. This is an operation of matter states, ie:
the density of a liquid state is more than the gaseous state, and the solid
state is greater than the liquid.
The reason drag is a moot point in space is because it is a near-vaccuum.
The amount of particles is so low that you rarely bump into them, and
therfore there is no effect. The lift a wing creates needs particles to
move around the wing (faster on the top and slower on the bottom, due to the
diffence in the surface areas of the top and bottom of a wing) and the
difference in speed this creates causes a pressure tension to literally pull
the wing up. I am just going by memory for this explaination right now...
there is a lot more to it than that, but thats the basic concept behind wings.
few particles in space = insignificant friction to the craft.
near vaccuum in space = no pressure and therefore no "lift" possible.
> I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> Yahoo News I heard the story.
We cannot make anything go that fast right now. What you may have heard
about is scientists isolating a particle that they believe traveled FTL in
an atom smashing experiment. There are a few different theories right now,
and I personally view super string to be the most possible. I really don't
like the squishy science concepts behind quantum mechanics. but that's a
whole different thread. (excuse the pun)
cheers!
Joel Kuester
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
>
> I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea.
>
> The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It
> is a law, and going to space won't make it go away.
> What you need to understand is how this law works. The friction that we are
> used to calling drag is the friction of air particles on a jet, or water
> particles on a submarine. The drag is much greater underwater because the
> water is denser with particles. This is an operation of matter states, ie:
> the density of a liquid state is more than the gaseous state, and the solid
> state is greater than the liquid.
I've been reading the bundle of posts on the subject, so I am aware of the
type of friction that he was talking about. I just wanted to make a
tangental point since the "type" of friction had been dropped from the post.
>
> The reason drag is a moot point in space is because it is a near-vaccuum.
> The amount of particles is so low that you rarely bump into them, and
> therfore there is no effect. The lift a wing creates needs particles to
> move around the wing (faster on the top and slower on the bottom, due to the
> diffence in the surface areas of the top and bottom of a wing) and the
> difference in speed this creates causes a pressure tension to literally pull
> the wing up. I am just going by memory for this explaination right now...
> there is a lot more to it than that, but thats the basic concept behind wings.
>
> few particles in space = insignificant friction to the craft.
> near vaccuum in space = no pressure and therefore no "lift" possible.
I tend to agree with you. After all, isn't that along the same line of
reasoning as to why propellor driven (or drug depending on your point of
view) aircraft don't perform well at high altitudes? Air pressure is less,
rendering the propellor less effective. (let's not even get into the type of
engine.)
>
> > I am not sure that the people who say that faster than light speeds are
> > impossible are correct because I thought I saw a story on Yahoo many months
> > earlier that said that scientists HAD, in fact, caused an object to travel
> > FASTER than light but I do not remember the context of the story or where on
> > Yahoo News I heard the story.
>
> We cannot make anything go that fast right now. What you may have heard
> about is scientists isolating a particle that they believe traveled FTL in
> an atom smashing experiment. There are a few different theories right now,
> and I personally view super string to be the most possible. I really don't
> like the squishy science concepts behind quantum mechanics. but that's a
> whole different thread. (excuse the pun)
That sounds like the article that I was thinking of. Thanks. That's one
particle FTL. Now, if we could just get a massive amount of particles FTL....
>
> cheers!
> Joel Kuester
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
You're not seen as evil. It's just that if you're unsure of what you're
saying, don't try to make out that it's absoulutely right, and people won't
mind if your opinion differs from theirs.
> I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea.
>
> The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It
> is a law, and going to space won't make it go away.
> What you need to understand is how this law works. The friction that we are
> used to calling drag is the friction of air particles on a jet, or water
> particles on a submarine. The drag is much greater underwater because the
> water is denser with particles. This is an operation of matter states, ie:
> the density of a liquid state is more than the gaseous state, and the solid
> state is greater than the liquid.
Just to add to this, possibly blurring the arguments but hopefully drawing
nearer to a consensus. There is friction in space between a moving body and
the occasional particles it meets, but in a fluid such as air or water there
is also friction between adjacent particles (molecules) in the fluid. Fluid
molecules can not just move anywhere at any time and speed - they are
dragged by surrounding molecules - this is an explanation of the viscosity
of a fluid. This leads to various pressure effects which both lift and drag
aircraft, and cause swirls of turbulence as the fluid tries to rush in
behind a moving body. Turbulent (moving) air is at a lower pressure,
causing yet more drag behind an aircraft.
In space, molecules distributed sparsely throughout a vacuum have very
little interaction, and so have negligible viscosity. No matter how fast
you go, the molecules are still spread out. Quite simply, they do not
behave fluidly - merely as individual particles. So, a moving body would
only really impact with each one individually. This might cause it to roll
along the hull causing friction, or it may bounce off. Either will impart
some energy onto the hull, but neither case counts as viscous drag from a fluid.
> The reason drag is a moot point in space is because it is a near-vaccuum.
> The amount of particles is so low that you rarely bump into them, and
> therfore there is no effect. The lift a wing creates needs particles to
> move around the wing (faster on the top and slower on the bottom, due to the
> diffence in the surface areas of the top and bottom of a wing) and the
> difference in speed this creates causes a pressure tension to literally pull
> the wing up. I am just going by memory for this explaination right now...
> there is a lot more to it than that, but thats the basic concept behind wings.
[Okay, this is the geeky bit, and it goes way off-topic, but that hasn't
stopped anyone so far:]
Well, it was good enough for the Wright brothers, and everyone else up to
about 50 years ago. It's actually down to viscosity, and the angle of the
wing to the airflow, not it's shape. Have you ever questioned how even the
old barnstormers used to fly upside-down, if the curve of the wing had to be
on top to get lift?
If you just angle up a flat plate with rounded ends in a slow airflow, in a
wind tunnel with smoke lines, you see something quite interesting. You'd
expect air to be deflected downward by the plate, but it isn't. Forcing air
downwards creates pressure to force it back up again. What actually happens
is the air moves up to the wing, just under the leading edge, then the
airflow splits to go rearwards, but also circulates forward, up and over the
front. The lower airflow then curls around the trailing edge and meets up
with the upper airflow before drifting off rearward at exactly the same
height as it arrived. Overall, the air behind the wing is moving at the
same height and speed as it was in front, and there is no overall force
up/down or forward/back on the wing.
But, as you sharpen the trailing edge, and speed up the air flow, the
viscosity of the air means it can no longer curve up around the rear edge.
The rear circulation is forced further back, dropping off the rear edge of
the wing and leaving some wash in its wake. The circular motion at the
front continues, and this is what gives you the speed (and pressure)
difference above and below the wing.
Not convinced? Look at footage of US Navy steam catapult launchers. You'll
see each aircraft leaving behind a roll of steam as it is launced, left by
the trailing edge of its wings. This is the rear circulation being left behind.
Now the really geeky / head-spamming bit is this. You also get circulation
around the wingtips (look at Concorde landing). This is the higher pressure
air under the wing leaking around the wingtip and onto the top. These are
all simple pressure effects, but they're desparately trying to restore the
air to a neutral position. These swirls actually link the leading edge
circulation with the trailing circulation left behind in one giant toroid,
like a smoke ring stretched out all the way from take-off to landing. In
reality, in our viscous fluid, it disperses behind the aircraft, but
mathematically that's what's happening.
Don't care? Ah well... :-)
> few particles in space = insignificant friction to the craft.
> near vaccuum in space = no pressure and therefore no "lift" possible.
Quite so. I'm amused by sci-fi that gets it horrendously wrong. Macross is
a great one - using air-brakes, and banking by about 30° to turn in space.
Jason J Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> I'm amused by sci-fi that gets it horrendously wrong. Macross is
> a great one - using air-brakes, and banking by about 30° to turn in space.
Well the A-wing flight control system doesn't discriminate between air and
space flight either so it's control surfaces move in space as well,
producing little affect except a little momentum.
I think as a Valkyrie has 2 widely spaced engines which use thrust vectoring
(certainly in Macross Plus if not earlier). Then a roll might be required to
get both engines onto the correct 'plane' for a vertical roll (in relation
to the craft, there being no vertical in space). By pointing both nozzles
upward simultaneously you could then affect the maximum continuous change in
pitch at full throttle. This should bring you up behind whichever craft
pursues you. And in dogfighting whoever can turn more tends to win (although
this concept is becoming more and more outdated these days).
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Lane writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> > I'm amused by sci-fi that gets it horrendously wrong. Macross is
> > a great one - using air-brakes, and banking by about 30° to turn in space.
>
> Well the A-wing flight control system doesn't discriminate between air and
> space flight either so it's control surfaces move in space as well,
> producing little affect except a little momentum.
>
> I think as a Valkyrie has 2 widely spaced engines which use thrust vectoring
> (certainly in Macross Plus if not earlier). Then a roll might be required to
> get both engines onto the correct 'plane' for a vertical roll (in relation
> to the craft, there being no vertical in space). By pointing both nozzles
> upward simultaneously you could then affect the maximum continuous change in
> pitch at full throttle. This should bring you up behind whichever craft
> pursues you. And in dogfighting whoever can turn more tends to win (although
> this concept is becoming more and more outdated these days).
>
> Steve
Yes, but the point is you'd roll by 90° to turn, not just bank a little bit.
Jason J Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> >
> > > I appreciate the fact that you do agree with me but I must truthfully say
> > > that I never considered the fact that friction does indeed keep together the
> > > bolts on a space craft. Are there any other sceintific laws that either me
> > > or Paul failed to consider in our thoughts about space craft, Duane? Thank
> > > you for not seeing me as evil in the LEGO space bulletin board, Duane.
>
> You're not seen as evil. It's just that if you're unsure of what you're
> saying, don't try to make out that it's absoulutely right, and people won't
> mind if your opinion differs from theirs.
>
> > I believe Paul was poorly communicating a correct idea.
> >
> > The scientific law of friction is applicable everywhere, even in space. It
> > is a law, and going to space won't make it go away.
> > What you need to understand is how this law works. The friction that we are
> > used to calling drag is the friction of air particles on a jet, or water
> > particles on a submarine. The drag is much greater underwater because the
> > water is denser with particles. This is an operation of matter states, ie:
> > the density of a liquid state is more than the gaseous state, and the solid
> > state is greater than the liquid.
>
> Just to add to this, possibly blurring the arguments but hopefully drawing
> nearer to a consensus. There is friction in space between a moving body and
> the occasional particles it meets, but in a fluid such as air or water there
> is also friction between adjacent particles (molecules) in the fluid. Fluid
> molecules can not just move anywhere at any time and speed - they are
> dragged by surrounding molecules - this is an explanation of the viscosity
> of a fluid. This leads to various pressure effects which both lift and drag
> aircraft, and cause swirls of turbulence as the fluid tries to rush in
> behind a moving body. Turbulent (moving) air is at a lower pressure,
> causing yet more drag behind an aircraft.
>
> In space, molecules distributed sparsely throughout a vacuum have very
> little interaction, and so have negligible viscosity. No matter how fast
> you go, the molecules are still spread out. Quite simply, they do not
> behave fluidly - merely as individual particles. So, a moving body would
> only really impact with each one individually. This might cause it to roll
> along the hull causing friction, or it may bounce off. Either will impart
> some energy onto the hull, but neither case counts as viscous drag from a fluid.
>
> > The reason drag is a moot point in space is because it is a near-vaccuum.
> > The amount of particles is so low that you rarely bump into them, and
> > therfore there is no effect. The lift a wing creates needs particles to
> > move around the wing (faster on the top and slower on the bottom, due to the
> > diffence in the surface areas of the top and bottom of a wing) and the
> > difference in speed this creates causes a pressure tension to literally pull
> > the wing up. I am just going by memory for this explaination right now...
> > there is a lot more to it than that, but thats the basic concept behind wings.
>
> [Okay, this is the geeky bit, and it goes way off-topic, but that hasn't
> stopped anyone so far:]
>
> Well, it was good enough for the Wright brothers, and everyone else up to
> about 50 years ago. It's actually down to viscosity, and the angle of the
> wing to the airflow, not it's shape. Have you ever questioned how even the
> old barnstormers used to fly upside-down, if the curve of the wing had to be
> on top to get lift?
>
> If you just angle up a flat plate with rounded ends in a slow airflow, in a
> wind tunnel with smoke lines, you see something quite interesting. You'd
> expect air to be deflected downward by the plate, but it isn't. Forcing air
> downwards creates pressure to force it back up again. What actually happens
> is the air moves up to the wing, just under the leading edge, then the
> airflow splits to go rearwards, but also circulates forward, up and over the
> front. The lower airflow then curls around the trailing edge and meets up
> with the upper airflow before drifting off rearward at exactly the same
> height as it arrived. Overall, the air behind the wing is moving at the
> same height and speed as it was in front, and there is no overall force
> up/down or forward/back on the wing.
>
> But, as you sharpen the trailing edge, and speed up the air flow, the
> viscosity of the air means it can no longer curve up around the rear edge.
> The rear circulation is forced further back, dropping off the rear edge of
> the wing and leaving some wash in its wake. The circular motion at the
> front continues, and this is what gives you the speed (and pressure)
> difference above and below the wing.
>
> Not convinced? Look at footage of US Navy steam catapult launchers. You'll
> see each aircraft leaving behind a roll of steam as it is launced, left by
> the trailing edge of its wings. This is the rear circulation being left behind.
>
> Now the really geeky / head-spamming bit is this. You also get circulation
> around the wingtips (look at Concorde landing). This is the higher pressure
> air under the wing leaking around the wingtip and onto the top. These are
> all simple pressure effects, but they're desparately trying to restore the
> air to a neutral position. These swirls actually link the leading edge
> circulation with the trailing circulation left behind in one giant toroid,
> like a smoke ring stretched out all the way from take-off to landing. In
> reality, in our viscous fluid, it disperses behind the aircraft, but
> mathematically that's what's happening.
>
> Don't care? Ah well... :-)
>
> > few particles in space = insignificant friction to the craft.
> > near vaccuum in space = no pressure and therefore no "lift" possible.
>
> Quite so. I'm amused by sci-fi that gets it horrendously wrong. Macross is
> a great one - using air-brakes, and banking by about 30° to turn in space.
>
> Jason J Railton
The first problem I have, Jason, is that I am not sure that everyone else is
right, either on these bulletin boards and I know for a fact that I am not
probably right in my ways of thought in my life. Would an overheated engine
become a problem in outer space because if it does become a problem in outer
space, you could always use some Castrol (variant GTX) and some Gumout Warp
Coil Cleaner (I saw that last product in an advertisement) on your
engine(s). I believe that poor communication leads to miscommunication
between people and this was certainly an example of this problem, Jason.
We have established that there is LESS friction and gravity in outer space
but now a new question occurs to my mind. You say that gas provides the
least friction and gravity, solids provide more gravity and friction, but
that liquids provide the most gravity and friction. (The increase of
gravity and friction therefore, at least to my mind, must also increase the
amount of drag that an object uses in that type of armosphere.) What
comprises of the most molecules in outer space and if outer space includes
particles from all three types of matter (five in you include gels and
plasmatic materials but they are more of a transitionatory element than an
actual object), then how would the mixed particles react to an object that
is moving through that domain of existence, that is how would a space craft
be affected in terms of drag in space if all three types of objects exist in
outer space?
I believe that the pilots of those old airplanes simply wanted to have fun
so they flew upside down in order to appear as though they were really some
big hot shot, that and bacck in those days, there were not that many ways to
impress women so these pilots flew upside down to get dates with women. I
am not sure that all of my information is correct on this subject but due to
those first pilots, stunt flying is a fairly large business today. The Blue
Angels (not to be confused with a Wing Commander squadron of the same name)
and the Thunderbirds are the most modern example of this type of flying with
aircraft.
I have three last questions to tell you, Jason. The first question is with
air pressure on space craft. Am I right by saying that the air spilts to go
under and over the wing but ends up meeting at the back of the wing or is it
more complicated than that conclusion to the information, Jason? The second
question is what happens as a result of the more sharpened trailing edge
creating a wake from the wing? The final question is are toroids those
white trails that we see in the sky when jet craft are in the sky that are
made of this steam and are also composed of those rear circulations behind
these aircraft? I thank you for answering my letter, Jason.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> The first problem I have, Jason, is that I am not sure that everyone else is
> right, either on these bulletin boards and I know for a fact that I am not
> probably right in my ways of thought in my life. Would an overheated engine
> become a problem in outer space because if it does become a problem in outer
> space, you could always use some Castrol (variant GTX) and some Gumout Warp
> Coil Cleaner (I saw that last product in an advertisement) on your
> engine(s). I believe that poor communication leads to miscommunication
> between people and this was certainly an example of this problem, Jason.
And I thought I'd drifted off the subject... :-)
I don't know of any form of reciprocating or rotating engine that could
propel you through space, so engine oil seems a bit pointless. As for
overheating, the only way to disperse heat in space is by radiating it -
there's nothing to conduct it away, and I don't know enough to say how you'd
improve a radiating heat exchanger. I can suggest that you would design
your engine to transfer as much heat as possible into your propellant.
> We have established that there is LESS friction and gravity in outer space
No. There is negligible friction, but there is plenty of gravity - at least
within the solar system. The only reason things stay up in space is because
they're orbiting at extremely high speeds. They're constantly pulled
towards the various bodies (sun, planets, moon), but they just keep going
round and round. To travel between bodies you have to carefully calculate
trajectories to take you on paths around them, not straight towards them.
Astronauts experience 'weightlessness' or 'microgravity' because they're
falling and moving at the same speed as their capsule, not because there's
no gravity acting on them. They're actually in 'free-fall'. If their craft
came to a dead stop, it would fall to Earth. As would the moon, if it came
to a halt in its orbit.
> but now a new question occurs to my mind. You say that gas provides the
> least friction and gravity,
I said nothing of the sort.
> solids provide more gravity and friction, but
> that liquids provide the most gravity and friction. (The increase of
> gravity and friction therefore, at least to my mind, must also increase the
> amount of drag that an object uses in that type of armosphere.)
Nor that. On what do you base these statements? Gravity depends on the
mass of an object. The more massive, the more gravity. As for friction, I
made no such comparitive statements. Friction depends on the properties of
both surfaces in contact. Some liquids are very viscous and some solids are
very hard and smooth.
> What
> comprises of the most molecules in outer space and if outer space includes
> particles from all three types of matter (five in you include gels and
> plasmatic materials but they are more of a transitionatory element than an
> actual object), then how would the mixed particles react to an object that
> is moving through that domain of existence, that is how would a space craft
> be affected in terms of drag in space if all three types of objects exist in
> outer space?
This is ridiculous. You're clearly aware of advanced states of matter such
as plasma, but write in a way that shows such a fundamental lack of
understanding of simple concepts such as friction and gravity. To answer
the point, liquids do not exist in space - with no pressure around them,
they boil instantly into gas. So, you either encounter gas molecules or
solid lumps - from specks of dust to asteroids and planets. Both are so
dispersed as to act like individual particles, impacting your vehicle one at
a time.
The heat of stars, or the compression around black holes can generate
plasma, but both of these areas are bad news for your spaceship.
> I believe that the pilots of those old airplanes simply wanted to have fun
> so they flew upside down in order to appear as though they were really some
> big hot shot, that and bacck in those days, there were not that many ways to
> impress women so these pilots flew upside down to get dates with women. I
> am not sure that all of my information is correct on this subject but due to
> those first pilots, stunt flying is a fairly large business today. The Blue
> Angels (not to be confused with a Wing Commander squadron of the same name)
> and the Thunderbirds are the most modern example of this type of flying with
> aircraft.
The point was physically how the wing continues to fly inverted, given the
schoolboy model of airflow over a wing. You seems to have missed this
entirely, and I suspect deliberately.
> I have three last questions to tell you, Jason.
That's 'ask you', not 'tell you'.
> The first question is with
> air pressure on space craft. Am I right by saying that the air spilts to go
> under and over the wing but ends up meeting at the back of the wing or is it
> more complicated than that conclusion to the information, Jason?
If it's in an atmosphere, and if it's got wings, then yes. But, obviously
the air has to go over and under the wing - it's not going to pass right
through it. The point is the way the pressure is distributed, and how the
ideal balanced flow is altered by the air's viscous behaviour.
Fundamentally though, there's no force that links a point in the air above
the wing with one underneath it, so there's no reason why the air above
should keep pace with the air below - which is what the 'it has further to
go around the curve' explanation relies on.
> The second
> question is what happens as a result of the more sharpened trailing edge
> creating a wake from the wing?
You get a wake - downwash and turbulence behind an aircraft, which makes
flying another one behind it much harder. In Newtonian mechanics, you force
air downward and so get lift upward. It doesn't work out exactly, but it's
close. So, a Harrier jump-jet creates roughly as much downdraft from its
engines when hovering as you get from its wings when its flying forward. An
aircraft flying behind, in the downdraft, must generate even more lift to
stay up because the air it is flying through is moving downward.
Helicopters have a hell of a time staying up, because each rotor blade is
passing through the downwash of the one in front.
> The final question is are toroids those
> white trails that we see in the sky when jet craft are in the sky that are
> made of this steam and are also composed of those rear circulations behind
> these aircraft? I thank you for answering my letter, Jason.
> Jesse Long
Not exactly. A toroid is just a donut shape. A smoke ring is a toroid.
It's just a cylinder bent around so that the ends meet up and enclose a
space, shaped like a donut. The air flows around the front edge of a wing,
leaves two swirls in a long trail behind the aircraft, and a swirl on the
ground where it took off. If you think of these swirls as tubes of rotating
air, and join them up, you get a huge stretched out smoke ring or donut.
More like a rubber ring stretch out to several miles long, but still a loop.
You never really see a complete loop like this, as the swirling air
disperses after the plane has gone by. You only get it if you take a
snapshot of each bit of air as the aircraft passes through it. But, the
trails behind an aircraft are part of this phenomenon. Trails from the
wingtips are caused by water condensing in the middle of these swirls
('vortices' - plural of 'vortex', like a whirlpool), and the long trails you
see in the sky are water vapour from the engine exhaust condensing in the
wake of the aircraft.
Jason J Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > The first problem I have, Jason, is that I am not sure that everyone else is
> > right, either on these bulletin boards and I know for a fact that I am not
> > probably right in my ways of thought in my life. Would an overheated engine
> > become a problem in outer space because if it does become a problem in outer
> > space, you could always use some Castrol (variant GTX) and some Gumout Warp
> > Coil Cleaner (I saw that last product in an advertisement) on your
> > engine(s). I believe that poor communication leads to miscommunication
> > between people and this was certainly an example of this problem, Jason.
>
> And I thought I'd drifted off the subject... :-)
>
> I don't know of any form of reciprocating or rotating engine that could
> propel you through space, so engine oil seems a bit pointless. As for
> overheating, the only way to disperse heat in space is by radiating it -
> there's nothing to conduct it away, and I don't know enough to say how you'd
> improve a radiating heat exchanger. I can suggest that you would design
> your engine to transfer as much heat as possible into your propellant.
>
> > We have established that there is LESS friction and gravity in outer space
>
> No. There is negligible friction, but there is plenty of gravity - at least
> within the solar system. The only reason things stay up in space is because
> they're orbiting at extremely high speeds. They're constantly pulled
> towards the various bodies (sun, planets, moon), but they just keep going
> round and round. To travel between bodies you have to carefully calculate
> trajectories to take you on paths around them, not straight towards them.
> Astronauts experience 'weightlessness' or 'microgravity' because they're
> falling and moving at the same speed as their capsule, not because there's
> no gravity acting on them. They're actually in 'free-fall'. If their craft
> came to a dead stop, it would fall to Earth. As would the moon, if it came
> to a halt in its orbit.
>
> > but now a new question occurs to my mind. You say that gas provides the
> > least friction and gravity,
>
> I said nothing of the sort.
>
> > solids provide more gravity and friction, but
> > that liquids provide the most gravity and friction. (The increase of
> > gravity and friction therefore, at least to my mind, must also increase the
> > amount of drag that an object uses in that type of armosphere.)
>
> Nor that. On what do you base these statements? Gravity depends on the
> mass of an object. The more massive, the more gravity. As for friction, I
> made no such comparitive statements. Friction depends on the properties of
> both surfaces in contact. Some liquids are very viscous and some solids are
> very hard and smooth.
>
> > What
> > comprises of the most molecules in outer space and if outer space includes
> > particles from all three types of matter (five in you include gels and
> > plasmatic materials but they are more of a transitionatory element than an
> > actual object), then how would the mixed particles react to an object that
> > is moving through that domain of existence, that is how would a space craft
> > be affected in terms of drag in space if all three types of objects exist in
> > outer space?
>
> This is ridiculous. You're clearly aware of advanced states of matter such
> as plasma, but write in a way that shows such a fundamental lack of
> understanding of simple concepts such as friction and gravity. To answer
> the point, liquids do not exist in space - with no pressure around them,
> they boil instantly into gas. So, you either encounter gas molecules or
> solid lumps - from specks of dust to asteroids and planets. Both are so
> dispersed as to act like individual particles, impacting your vehicle one at
> a time.
>
> The heat of stars, or the compression around black holes can generate
> plasma, but both of these areas are bad news for your spaceship.
>
> > I believe that the pilots of those old airplanes simply wanted to have fun
> > so they flew upside down in order to appear as though they were really some
> > big hot shot, that and bacck in those days, there were not that many ways to
> > impress women so these pilots flew upside down to get dates with women. I
> > am not sure that all of my information is correct on this subject but due to
> > those first pilots, stunt flying is a fairly large business today. The Blue
> > Angels (not to be confused with a Wing Commander squadron of the same name)
> > and the Thunderbirds are the most modern example of this type of flying with
> > aircraft.
>
> The point was physically how the wing continues to fly inverted, given the
> schoolboy model of airflow over a wing. You seems to have missed this
> entirely, and I suspect deliberately.
>
> > I have three last questions to tell you, Jason.
>
> That's 'ask you', not 'tell you'.
>
> > The first question is with
> > air pressure on space craft. Am I right by saying that the air spilts to go
> > under and over the wing but ends up meeting at the back of the wing or is it
> > more complicated than that conclusion to the information, Jason?
>
> If it's in an atmosphere, and if it's got wings, then yes. But, obviously
> the air has to go over and under the wing - it's not going to pass right
> through it. The point is the way the pressure is distributed, and how the
> ideal balanced flow is altered by the air's viscous behaviour.
> Fundamentally though, there's no force that links a point in the air above
> the wing with one underneath it, so there's no reason why the air above
> should keep pace with the air below - which is what the 'it has further to
> go around the curve' explanation relies on.
>
> > The second
> > question is what happens as a result of the more sharpened trailing edge
> > creating a wake from the wing?
>
> You get a wake - downwash and turbulence behind an aircraft, which makes
> flying another one behind it much harder. In Newtonian mechanics, you force
> air downward and so get lift upward. It doesn't work out exactly, but it's
> close. So, a Harrier jump-jet creates roughly as much downdraft from its
> engines when hovering as you get from its wings when its flying forward. An
> aircraft flying behind, in the downdraft, must generate even more lift to
> stay up because the air it is flying through is moving downward.
> Helicopters have a hell of a time staying up, because each rotor blade is
> passing through the downwash of the one in front.
>
> > The final question is are toroids those
> > white trails that we see in the sky when jet craft are in the sky that are
> > made of this steam and are also composed of those rear circulations behind
> > these aircraft? I thank you for answering my letter, Jason.
> > Jesse Long
>
> Not exactly. A toroid is just a donut shape. A smoke ring is a toroid.
> It's just a cylinder bent around so that the ends meet up and enclose a
> space, shaped like a donut. The air flows around the front edge of a wing,
> leaves two swirls in a long trail behind the aircraft, and a swirl on the
> ground where it took off. If you think of these swirls as tubes of rotating
> air, and join them up, you get a huge stretched out smoke ring or donut.
> More like a rubber ring stretch out to several miles long, but still a loop.
>
> You never really see a complete loop like this, as the swirling air
> disperses after the plane has gone by. You only get it if you take a
> snapshot of each bit of air as the aircraft passes through it. But, the
> trails behind an aircraft are part of this phenomenon. Trails from the
> wingtips are caused by water condensing in the middle of these swirls
> ('vortices' - plural of 'vortex', like a whirlpool), and the long trails you
> see in the sky are water vapour from the engine exhaust condensing in the
> wake of the aircraft.
>
> Jason J Railton
I was only having some fun with the oil part of the letter, I knew that you
probably did not use oil in outer space, I mean, after all, the general
consensus in outer space would reflect that you would use environmentally
friendly materials when constructing the engines of a space craft, unless
maybe some engineers use some radioactive elements or a nuclear fusion
engine (speaking from a science fiction point of view), then maybe I am
wrong in that aspect in life.
The question about the aspects of an airplane wing was also having some fun,
or probably watching one too many episodes of "Pinky and the Brain (Perry
Saturn, right now is approaching the intelligence level of Pinky but that is
another story)." I knew that an airplane wing will continue to fly, even if
it was inverted but that is because, I believe, unless otherwise corrected,
that the plane has a curved surface and as long as it has the curved
surface, then no matter how you fly, you still receive lift from the air and
a downward force but the lift is stronger than the downward force because
more air goes down than it does going up on the airplane but it is not of
such an unbalanced ratio that it can not fly down to Earth because that
would violate the laws of gravity.
However, I do not understand what you mean by the term "negligable gravity."
I come from the public school system where you are fortunate if you know any
subject before you graduate because it is a bottomless pit of despair, or as
I personally refer to school, hell on earth, at least depending on what type
of school I am attending in life. I am also well aware about astronauts
experiencing microgravity or weightlessness but weightlessness, at least in
outer space or on the earth, is a misnomer so we should use microgravity for
the rest of the letter.
I was completely unaware that the space craft would immediately crash into
the Earth in outer space if it completely stopped in outer space. The space
program would probably never receive one red cent if that happened to a
space craft.
I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
outer space? I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
any such environment is possible on a space craft?
The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
mind, Jason.
Jesse Long
P.S. I some times produce bad grammar and miscommunication in my sentences
so I guess I confuse people. Thank you for catching my mistake, Jason.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
much clipped
> I was completely unaware that the space craft would immediately crash into
> the Earth in outer space if it completely stopped in outer space. The space
> program would probably never receive one red cent if that happened to a
> space craft.
Orbit is a balance between a spacecraft's velocity and the downward pull of
gravity. The vehicle's velocity pulls it outward, like centrifugal force in
a car turning a corner, and gravity pulls it in.
>
> I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
> heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
> outer space? I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
> craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
> explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
> space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
> present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
> any such environment is possible on a space craft?
Boiling a liguid is causing a change from liguid to solid, and this depends
on the air pressure the liquid is in. A pressure cooker can cook at
temperature higher than boiling, in the mountains boiling temperatures are
lower (check a brownie mix).
Think of it this way. Boiling a liquid makes the liquid molecules jump away
from the liquid. If there is air molecules in the way, they need more energy
to jump away.
>
> The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
> science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
> actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
> mind, Jason.
> Jesse Long
Well, if the Harrier type aircraft has a jet engine, no, a jet engine needs
air (or oxygen in the air) to work. The vectoring principle of HArrier would
work.
George
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, George Haberberger writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> much clipped
>
> > I was completely unaware that the space craft would immediately crash into
> > the Earth in outer space if it completely stopped in outer space. The space
> > program would probably never receive one red cent if that happened to a
> > space craft.
>
> Orbit is a balance between a spacecraft's velocity and the downward pull of
> gravity. The vehicle's velocity pulls it outward, like centrifugal force in
> a car turning a corner, and gravity pulls it in.
>
> >
> > I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
> > heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
> > outer space? I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
> > craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
> > explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
> > space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
> > present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
> > any such environment is possible on a space craft?
>
> Boiling a liguid is causing a change from liguid to solid, and this depends
> on the air pressure the liquid is in. A pressure cooker can cook at
> temperature higher than boiling, in the mountains boiling temperatures are
> lower (check a brownie mix).
>
> Think of it this way. Boiling a liquid makes the liquid molecules jump away
> from the liquid. If there is air molecules in the way, they need more energy
> to jump away.
>
> >
> > The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
> > science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
> > actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
> > mind, Jason.
> > Jesse Long
>
> Well, if the Harrier type aircraft has a jet engine, no, a jet engine needs
> air (or oxygen in the air) to work. The vectoring principle of HArrier would
> work.
>
> George
Thank you for the demonstration about the vehicle and the turning into a
curve, George. I finally grasp that concept in my mind. However, liquids,
if you boil them, changes materials from liquids to gases, just to let you
know, George. :.)
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Narf! You're welcome.
"Jesse Alan Long" <joyous4god2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GFnI8o.KF4@lugnet.com...
-snip-
> The question about the aspects of an airplane wing was also having • some fun,
> or probably watching one too many episodes of "Pinky and the Brain • (Perry
> Saturn, right now is approaching the intelligence level of Pinky but • that is
> another story)." I knew that an airplane wing will continue to fly,
even if
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I knew that an airplane wing will continue to fly, even if
> it was inverted but that is because, I believe, unless otherwise corrected,
> that the plane has a curved surface and as long as it has the curved
> surface, then no matter how you fly, you still receive lift from the air and
> a downward force but the lift is stronger than the downward force because
> more air goes down than it does going up on the airplane but it is not of
> such an unbalanced ratio that it can not fly down to Earth because that
> would violate the laws of gravity.
Well, it's more about the angle the wing is inclined to the airflow. Just
keep it tilted upward to the air flowing past you, keep your speed up, and
you should get some lift. Newton says you're deflecting air downwards.
Aerodynamics says a lot more but it's much harder to follow.
> I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
> heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
> outer space?
The boiling point of a liquid depends on the pressure of the environment
it's in. Under high pressure, like in a pressure cooker, water boils at a
higher temperature (that's the point of the cooker). Under low pressure, it
boils at a much lower temperature. High on a mountain, in thin air, it
takes a lot longer than 3 1/2 minutes to boil an egg, because the water
boils below 100°. In space, with zero pressure, liquids boil instantly.
Inside a pressurised space capsule, water sticks together in floating
bubbles - but outside, the molecules would just disperse. [There are
rumours of water droplets on surfaces in a depressurised section of Mir
following an accident, but these have yet to be confirmed or explained].
I wouldn't try tis with other liquids in your space capsule - water
molecules have a little stickiness (which gives us surface tension - how
insects can stand on the surface of water). It's possible to break this
down by adding detergents - so soapy water would probably go everywhere.
> I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
> craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
> explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
> space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
> present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
> any such environment is possible on a space craft?
Well, conventional propulsion is all about reaction thrust. You blow some
mass backwards, and you get a reaction pushing your mass forward. Jets,
rockets and propellors all use this trick. The difference with rockets is
they don't take anything in from the atmosphere. Propellors and jet engines
use air as their propellant. A rocket, and the combustion chamber inside a
jet engine, both use a chemical reaction (burning) to generate gas at a high
temperature. This causes rapid expansion, and the only vent for this is
rearwards. In a jet engine, it also heats the air, and that expands and
blows backward too. A propellor just pushes air (or water) backwards.
My knowledge of plasma is limited, but I guess it would be an extreme
example of the super-heated expanded gas. I believe it can be guided by
electro-magnetic fields, so maybe you could accelerate it even more with
such fields.
> The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
> science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
> actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
> mind, Jason.
Yes - if you had enough thrust you could go straight up - but you'd need to
keep the thrust on just to hover against the force of gravity. All our
spacecraft (Apollo, Shuttle, French and Russian satellite launchers) start
off going straight up, but soon tilt over into orbit. To get away from
Earth, they accelerate around and around, getting into higher and higher
orbits, until they're going fast enough to fly off ('escape velocity') -
though they still fly off in an arc, not in a straight line away from Earth.
It would take too much fuel for NASA to send a rocket straight up, but it
might be possible one day. Anti-gravity devices would help.
Jason J Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > I knew that an airplane wing will continue to fly, even if
> > it was inverted but that is because, I believe, unless otherwise corrected,
> > that the plane has a curved surface and as long as it has the curved
> > surface, then no matter how you fly, you still receive lift from the air and
> > a downward force but the lift is stronger than the downward force because
> > more air goes down than it does going up on the airplane but it is not of
> > such an unbalanced ratio that it can not fly down to Earth because that
> > would violate the laws of gravity.
>
> Well, it's more about the angle the wing is inclined to the airflow. Just
> keep it tilted upward to the air flowing past you, keep your speed up, and
> you should get some lift. Newton says you're deflecting air downwards.
> Aerodynamics says a lot more but it's much harder to follow.
>
> > I always thought that heat was able to boil liquids into gas but why does
> > heat not present a role into outer space? Why would pressure matter in
> > outer space?
>
> The boiling point of a liquid depends on the pressure of the environment
> it's in. Under high pressure, like in a pressure cooker, water boils at a
> higher temperature (that's the point of the cooker). Under low pressure, it
> boils at a much lower temperature. High on a mountain, in thin air, it
> takes a lot longer than 3 1/2 minutes to boil an egg, because the water
> boils below 100°. In space, with zero pressure, liquids boil instantly.
> Inside a pressurised space capsule, water sticks together in floating
> bubbles - but outside, the molecules would just disperse. [There are
> rumours of water droplets on surfaces in a depressurised section of Mir
> following an accident, but these have yet to be confirmed or explained].
>
> I wouldn't try tis with other liquids in your space capsule - water
> molecules have a little stickiness (which gives us surface tension - how
> insects can stand on the surface of water). It's possible to break this
> down by adding detergents - so soapy water would probably go everywhere.
>
> > I always thought that you could make a plasma powered space
> > craft in a similar manner as you would build a welding torch so please
> > explain to me why the plasma engine would present a terrible idea for my
> > space craft? I mean, I know that plasma, in a uncontrolled state, can
> > present a great danger but what about a controlled plasma environment, if
> > any such environment is possible on a space craft?
>
> Well, conventional propulsion is all about reaction thrust. You blow some
> mass backwards, and you get a reaction pushing your mass forward. Jets,
> rockets and propellors all use this trick. The difference with rockets is
> they don't take anything in from the atmosphere. Propellors and jet engines
> use air as their propellant. A rocket, and the combustion chamber inside a
> jet engine, both use a chemical reaction (burning) to generate gas at a high
> temperature. This causes rapid expansion, and the only vent for this is
> rearwards. In a jet engine, it also heats the air, and that expands and
> blows backward too. A propellor just pushes air (or water) backwards.
>
> My knowledge of plasma is limited, but I guess it would be an extreme
> example of the super-heated expanded gas. I believe it can be guided by
> electro-magnetic fields, so maybe you could accelerate it even more with
> such fields.
>
> > The final question I have to ask is could it be possible, either in a
> > science fiction realm or a realistic realm for a Harrier type space craft to
> > actually fly into outer space? I thank you for clearing the confusion in my
> > mind, Jason.
>
> Yes - if you had enough thrust you could go straight up - but you'd need to
> keep the thrust on just to hover against the force of gravity. All our
> spacecraft (Apollo, Shuttle, French and Russian satellite launchers) start
> off going straight up, but soon tilt over into orbit. To get away from
> Earth, they accelerate around and around, getting into higher and higher
> orbits, until they're going fast enough to fly off ('escape velocity') -
> though they still fly off in an arc, not in a straight line away from Earth.
>
> It would take too much fuel for NASA to send a rocket straight up, but it
> might be possible one day. Anti-gravity devices would help.
>
> Jason J Railton
You said in the last letter before this letter that some liquids (referring
to the reaction to friction of certain particles in outer space) are
viscious while some solids are very hard and smooth in reaction to friction
in outer space. If liquids boil in outer space, how is this possible in
outer space? Do you really mean that gases, not liquids, are very viscious
with the concept of friction in outer space?
I also must say that if the rumors (forgive my American dialect of the
English language) are true about Mir and the condensation of water droplets
on one of the observation windows, then the whole concept of boiling liquids
in different environments would be held in serious jeopardy and we may have
to reorganize our thoughts on condensation, the boiling points of liquids,
and air pressure in outer space and on our planet.
I do not understand why you say that it would be considered a terrible idea
for me to use plasma as a heated engine and yet you say that it could be
guided with electromagnetic fields. Would these electromagnetic fields not
only stabilize the plasma but also make the plasma increase in speed as
thrust or would the electromagnetic fields only provide a stable environment
for the plasma or would neither of these possibilities be true for my space
craft?
I have two more questions to ask you, Jason. The first question is would
Newtonian physics contradict or complement the laws of aerodynamics? If
there are any contradictions or further explanations from these rules,
please explain them to me, Jason. The second question is what would work
for an antigravity device for space craft, that is what materials and
options could we use for space craft? I am glad that the long ordeal about
the eternal space craft ethical war is almost over in Lugnet.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jesse Alan Long wrote:
>
> I have two more questions to ask you, Jason. The first question is would
> Newtonian physics contradict or complement the laws of aerodynamics? If
> there are any contradictions or further explanations from these rules,
> please explain them to me, Jason. The second question is what would work
> for an antigravity device for space craft, that is what materials and
> options could we use for space craft? I am glad that the long ordeal about
> the eternal space craft ethical war is almost over in Lugnet.
> Jesse Long
Laws of aerodynamics (aero*dynamics*) are nothing but Newtonian physics.
The whole governing equation of aerodynamics, the famous Navier-Stokes
equation, is just a different representation of our well known F=ma.
By the way, is it a miracle or what? Our dear Jesse the
Confused/Confusing Man finally posted a well organized and worded
message(1). Even, without any clue of misunderstandings of basic
science, and even with clues about "making fun before".
So were I right about non-existence of The Jesse Character portrayed in
previous weird posts, instead, a real Jesse (or whatever) was making fun
of us?..:-)
Selçuk
(1) http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=9629
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> You said in the last letter before this letter that some liquids (referring
> to the reaction to friction of certain particles in outer space) are
> viscious while some solids are very hard and smooth in reaction to friction
> in outer space. If liquids boil in outer space, how is this possible in
> outer space? Do you really mean that gases, not liquids, are very viscious
> with the concept of friction in outer space?
I didn't necessarily mean in space. I was just talking about liquids in
general (on Earth, in an atmosphere).
Clearly if you're trying to push your way through something, a gas is easier
than a liquid, which is easier than a solid. But, this isn't all down to
friction. If you run into a brick wall, that's not friction that stops you
- it's mechanics of a structure. You need to break the bonds in the
structure to cut through it, then force the parts apart. Liquids just have
looser bonds, making it easier to force your way through.
Friction comes into play as you start to move through - it's the rubbing of
the sides of your craft against what it's moving past. That may be gas (in
an atmosphere), liquid (underwater), or solid (snow under the skis of a
sled). This is what is referred to as 'surface drag' in aerodynamics -
friction of the air flowing past. The force of running into the air in
front (along with suction from the turbulence behind you) is know as
'pressure drag', and isn't caused by friction between your craft and the air.
> I also must say that if the rumors (forgive my American dialect of the
> English language) are true about Mir and the condensation of water droplets
> on one of the observation windows, then the whole concept of boiling liquids
> in different environments would be held in serious jeopardy and we may have
> to reorganize our thoughts on condensation, the boiling points of liquids,
> and air pressure in outer space and on our planet.
Yup.
> I do not understand why you say that it would be considered a terrible idea
> for me to use plasma as a heated engine and yet you say that it could be
> guided with electromagnetic fields. Would these electromagnetic fields not
> only stabilize the plasma but also make the plasma increase in speed as
> thrust or would the electromagnetic fields only provide a stable environment
> for the plasma or would neither of these possibilities be true for my space
> craft?
Well, you could. This is what is meant by an 'ion drive'. You super-heat
gas into ionised particles (plasma), then accelerate it backwards. It's
just a bit dangerous. I don't know much more than that, but it's feasible.
It just takes a lot of power for both the heating and the electromagnetic
fields. You'd need to carry your own nuclear power source to run it all,
and all the extra shielding increases the weight of your craft. Voyager
uses a very small nuclear power source on the end of one of its long arms,
but you'd need something much bigger. You'd have to take it up in bits and
build it all in space.
> I have two more questions to ask you, Jason. The first question is would
> Newtonian physics contradict or complement the laws of aerodynamics? If
> there are any contradictions or further explanations from these rules,
> please explain them to me, Jason.
No, they're complementary. It's just that neither completely explains
everything, because airflow is always chaotic. No matter how finely you
analyse it, there's always some tiny error creeps in.
There are further explanations, but I took a degree course at Loughborough
University in the UK, and I don't have them all. Maybe if you took the
course two or three times (to cover all the optional modules), then put in
some post-grad studies you'd have all the answers, but I doubt it. Only
joking - however much you study this, there's always something more you
don't know.
> The second question is what would work
> for an antigravity device for space craft, that is what materials and
> options could we use for space craft? I am glad that the long ordeal about
> the eternal space craft ethical war is almost over in Lugnet.
> Jesse Long
I have no idea. There have been a few reports of some obscure research lab
that claimed to have produced reduced gravity, then immediately retracted
their paper on the subject. Apart from that, there's no progress on
anti-gravity so far.
Jason J Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > You said in the last letter before this letter that some liquids (referring
> > to the reaction to friction of certain particles in outer space) are
> > viscious while some solids are very hard and smooth in reaction to friction
> > in outer space. If liquids boil in outer space, how is this possible in
> > outer space? Do you really mean that gases, not liquids, are very viscious
> > with the concept of friction in outer space?
>
> I didn't necessarily mean in space. I was just talking about liquids in
> general (on Earth, in an atmosphere).
>
> Clearly if you're trying to push your way through something, a gas is easier
> than a liquid, which is easier than a solid. But, this isn't all down to
> friction. If you run into a brick wall, that's not friction that stops you
> - it's mechanics of a structure. You need to break the bonds in the
> structure to cut through it, then force the parts apart. Liquids just have
> looser bonds, making it easier to force your way through.
>
> Friction comes into play as you start to move through - it's the rubbing of
> the sides of your craft against what it's moving past. That may be gas (in
> an atmosphere), liquid (underwater), or solid (snow under the skis of a
> sled). This is what is referred to as 'surface drag' in aerodynamics -
> friction of the air flowing past. The force of running into the air in
> front (along with suction from the turbulence behind you) is know as
> 'pressure drag', and isn't caused by friction between your craft and the air.
>
> > I also must say that if the rumors (forgive my American dialect of the
> > English language) are true about Mir and the condensation of water droplets
> > on one of the observation windows, then the whole concept of boiling liquids
> > in different environments would be held in serious jeopardy and we may have
> > to reorganize our thoughts on condensation, the boiling points of liquids,
> > and air pressure in outer space and on our planet.
>
> Yup.
>
> > I do not understand why you say that it would be considered a terrible idea
> > for me to use plasma as a heated engine and yet you say that it could be
> > guided with electromagnetic fields. Would these electromagnetic fields not
> > only stabilize the plasma but also make the plasma increase in speed as
> > thrust or would the electromagnetic fields only provide a stable environment
> > for the plasma or would neither of these possibilities be true for my space
> > craft?
>
> Well, you could. This is what is meant by an 'ion drive'. You super-heat
> gas into ionised particles (plasma), then accelerate it backwards. It's
> just a bit dangerous. I don't know much more than that, but it's feasible.
> It just takes a lot of power for both the heating and the electromagnetic
> fields. You'd need to carry your own nuclear power source to run it all,
> and all the extra shielding increases the weight of your craft. Voyager
> uses a very small nuclear power source on the end of one of its long arms,
> but you'd need something much bigger. You'd have to take it up in bits and
> build it all in space.
>
> > I have two more questions to ask you, Jason. The first question is would
> > Newtonian physics contradict or complement the laws of aerodynamics? If
> > there are any contradictions or further explanations from these rules,
> > please explain them to me, Jason.
>
> No, they're complementary. It's just that neither completely explains
> everything, because airflow is always chaotic. No matter how finely you
> analyse it, there's always some tiny error creeps in.
>
> There are further explanations, but I took a degree course at Loughborough
> University in the UK, and I don't have them all. Maybe if you took the
> course two or three times (to cover all the optional modules), then put in
> some post-grad studies you'd have all the answers, but I doubt it. Only
> joking - however much you study this, there's always something more you
> don't know.
>
> > The second question is what would work
> > for an antigravity device for space craft, that is what materials and
> > options could we use for space craft? I am glad that the long ordeal about
> > the eternal space craft ethical war is almost over in Lugnet.
> > Jesse Long
>
> I have no idea. There have been a few reports of some obscure research lab
> that claimed to have produced reduced gravity, then immediately retracted
> their paper on the subject. Apart from that, there's no progress on
> anti-gravity so far.
>
> Jason J Railton
I understand now in my mind that atoms are what makes the structure of all
living organisms and the structure of all living organisms depends on the
density and class of materials in the constructuion of space craft. It is
obbvious to me that you do need a sturdy set of materials and compounds in
order to produce a space craft yet we have not produced an inexpensive,
reasonable, safe, profitable, enduring, and long range propellant engine for
space craft. We need a successor to the rocket engine or else we will not
be able to make the large strides in space travel as we had done up to two
decades earlier in this world.
I have a proposal to not only increase the power of these ion drives but
reduce the radiation of the engines and the answer, at least from theory, is
to use a fusion engine on the space craft. The concept of fusion power
currently, at least to my mind, only exists in my video game referred to as
SimCity2000 but that does not mean that such a power source could not exist
in our lives. The problem, however, is to make this source of power a
reality for humanity so that we can travel further into outer space. What
are your thoughts on alternate methods to construct ion drives without using
such a massive amount of power in the space craft?
I would consider taking the courses that you are taking right now but for
six reasons, I am unable to do so right now in my life. The first reason
why I can not take these courses is that in algebra and any form of
mathematics beyond algebra, I am horrible at keeping information and am
unable to accomplish the equations in the books unless a tutor could help me
to become able to learn these subjects in my mind and to become able to
accomplish this goal in my life. The second reason is that I do not know if
you have any online courses for that college. The third reason is that I do
not live in England, or any place in the European Union for that matter so I
do not know if, even if this college has online courses, I could attend
these courses or not attend these courses in my life. The fourth reason is
that I soon will become enrolled in a community college (what most people
around this part of the world refer to as a junior collge, though we have
five general types of college, which are junior colleges, community
colleges, technical colleges, vocational colleges, and vocational and
technical colleges) in my town. The fifth reason is that I also am enrolled
(or will soon enroll) in some online courses at my school. The sixth reason
is that I have about thirteen or fourteen hours of class every week so that
may become a burden to my mind. I want to learn but I do not want to become
tired from learning and become irritable, mean, rude, paranoid, and
generally stressed from learning too many subject at one specific period of
time in my life. Please let me know what you think of this message and let
me have some more information about your college and any world wide web
pages that your college contains in their address. Thank you, Jason, for
your cooperation in my life.
Jesse Long
P.S. I apologize for that last paragraph being extremely long, it is merely
the simple fact that I have several reasons why I can not attend your
college at this moment in my life.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> overheating, the only way to disperse heat in space is by radiating it -
> there's nothing to conduct it away, and I don't know enough to say how you'd
> improve a radiating heat exchanger. I can suggest that you would design
I guess it would be based on the surface material properties. Different
materials have different thermal emissivities, so picking one with a
high value would be better for cooling directly to space. Of course
these materials may be impossible to use for some reason or other, but,
whatever, that's for somebody else to figure out ;]
> came to a dead stop, it would fall to Earth. As would the moon, if it came
> to a halt in its orbit.
Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
(tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
(*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > overheating, the only way to disperse heat in space is by radiating it -
> > there's nothing to conduct it away, and I don't know enough to say how you'd
> > improve a radiating heat exchanger. I can suggest that you would design
>
> I guess it would be based on the surface material properties. Different
> materials have different thermal emissivities, so picking one with a
> high value would be better for cooling directly to space. Of course
> these materials may be impossible to use for some reason or other, but,
> whatever, that's for somebody else to figure out ;]
>
>
> > came to a dead stop, it would fall to Earth. As would the moon, if it came
> > to a halt in its orbit.
>
> Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
>
> (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
>
>
> KDJ
> _______________________________________
> LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
What material would serve the best purpose for cooling off directly in space
and would this material work in space to prevent the plasma that powers my
space craft from overheating and making my space craft explode into a
million pieces?
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
>
> (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
I get 3.5 days, ignoring the motion of the earth toward the moon.
Don't worry about the cookie - LUGNET provides free cookies for us all. :)
Jeff J
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> >
> > (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
>
>
> I get 3.5 days, ignoring the motion of the earth toward the moon.
> Don't worry about the cookie - LUGNET provides free cookies for us all. :)
Holy cow, it's that long?! Man, cool or not, forget that..., too long!
Call me when the moon's an hour away. Now *that* would look cool, if
it was the first time you'd looked up in a few days.
Plus, the apparent gravity on the earth's surface in between them
would have dropped, and people would be setting all kinds of new
Olympic records :]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > > If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> > >
> > > (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
> >
> >
> > I get 3.5 days, ignoring the motion of the earth toward the moon.
> > Don't worry about the cookie - LUGNET provides free cookies for us all. :)
>
> Holy cow, it's that long?! Man, cool or not, forget that..., too long!
> Call me when the moon's an hour away. Now *that* would look cool, if
> it was the first time you'd looked up in a few days.
>
> Plus, the apparent gravity on the earth's surface in between them
> would have dropped, and people would be setting all kinds of new
> Olympic records :]
>
> KDJ
> _______________________________________
> LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
I never spotted this before, but it's further proof that there's negligible
friction in space. If there was, the Moon would have slowed down in it's
orbit and fallen to Earth, and the Earth would slow down and fall into the sun.
Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
(the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
shrinking...
Jason J Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > > In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > > > If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> > > >
> > > > (*) DISCLAIMER: cookie offer will not be honoured.
> > >
> > >
> > > I get 3.5 days, ignoring the motion of the earth toward the moon.
> > > Don't worry about the cookie - LUGNET provides free cookies for us all. :)
> >
> > Holy cow, it's that long?! Man, cool or not, forget that..., too long!
> > Call me when the moon's an hour away. Now *that* would look cool, if
> > it was the first time you'd looked up in a few days.
> >
> > Plus, the apparent gravity on the earth's surface in between them
> > would have dropped, and people would be setting all kinds of new
> > Olympic records :]
> >
> > KDJ
> > _______________________________________
> > LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
>
> I never spotted this before, but it's further proof that there's negligible
> friction in space. If there was, the Moon would have slowed down in it's
> orbit and fallen to Earth, and the Earth would slow down and fall into the sun.
>
> Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> shrinking...
>
> Jason J Railton
I have two questions to ask now because of the replies to this bulletin
board message I sent in response to many other messages on the Lugnet Space
bulletin board room. The first question is for Kyle D. Jackson and Jeff
Jardine and it is if we did not ignore the motion of the earth towards the
moon, then how long would it take for a person to watch the moon before it
landed on a person? (Have these people played The Legend of Zelda:
Majora's Mask one too many times in their lives?) The second question is
with a decreasing and more negligable friction and an always decreasing
amount of gravity in outer space, would space craft have the ability to
travel to places faster or slower than conventional aircraft on the planet
Earth? Thank you for answering my questions and the more questions a person
asks about the world, the more the person knows about the world.
Jesse Long
P.S. The people who do not know what The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is
about, please go to http://www.nintendo.com and you will find every part of
information that you can about this video game.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> shrinking...
Whoa, that's something I never thought of before! It kind of raises
an interesting idea, too. If this is always a trend for the
satellite (i.e., "moon") of any planet with large amounts of
liquid on the surface, then maybe over time there is a general
tendency for the satellite's orbit to decay. As the satellite comes
closer to the planet the gravitational effects begin to wreck havoc
on life habitats (relatively speaking). That could be yet another
time limit for the survival of life on a planet, aside from stars
going supernova, 3rd-object impacts, etc. The moon(s) increasing
proximity alters (or destroys) the environment such that the lifeforms
become extinct. Or perhaps such that it never gets to form in the
first place, which could be another factor that reduces the theoretical
number of "habitable" planets in a galaxy.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> shrinking...
Actually, you have this backwards. The friction of Earth's oceans against
its solid parts is slowing the Earth's rotation down. This translates into
a loss of angular momentum for the Earth. But angular momentum must be
conserved. The angular momentum is transferred to the moon, so the moon is
actually gradually moving *farther* from the Earth. IIRC the increasing
separation of the Earth and Moon has been measured quite accurately by
bouncing lasers off of the mirrors left behind by the Apollo missions.
When the Earth has slowed enough so that its period of rotation equals the
period of the moon's revolution, there will be no more tidal friction. The
Earth will cease to slow, and the moon will cease to move farther away.
Interestingly, at this point one side of the Earth will always point towards
the moon -- just as, right now, one side of the Moon is always pointed
towards the Earth. This state of affairs is known as "tidal locking." When
this finally happens, one Earth day will be somewhat longer than 28 current
Earth days.
This tidal locking will take a pretty long time. In fact, some recent
studies suggest that increasing solar radiation will cause Earth's oceans to
evaporate in the next 500 million to 1 billion years, sooner than tidal lock
is expected to be achieved. Tidal lock can also occur with an ostensibly
solid body (e.g., Jupiter's moons), but it's a slower process.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore MD 21218
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi,
Long time no see, John! Have you just been lurking about?
(I'm finally back from Europe myself.) Coming to Brickfest?
How's JHU?
In lugnet.space, John J. Ladasky, Jr. writes:
>
> > In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> >
> > Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> > (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> > tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> > gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> > shrinking...
>
> Actually, you have this backwards. The friction of Earth's oceans against
> its solid parts is slowing the Earth's rotation down. This translates into
> a loss of angular momentum for the Earth. But angular momentum must be
> conserved. The angular momentum is transferred to the moon, so the moon is
> actually gradually moving *farther* from the Earth. IIRC the increasing
> separation of the Earth and Moon has been measured quite accurately by
> bouncing lasers off of the mirrors left behind by the Apollo missions.
Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
the international meter standard is based on the speed of
light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
> When the Earth has slowed enough so that its period of rotation equals the
> period of the moon's revolution, there will be no more tidal friction. The
> Earth will cease to slow, and the moon will cease to move farther away.
> Interestingly, at this point one side of the Earth will always point towards
> the moon -- just as, right now, one side of the Moon is always pointed
> towards the Earth. This state of affairs is known as "tidal locking." When
> this finally happens, one Earth day will be somewhat longer than 28 current
> Earth days.
I wasn't aware both faces had to be locked for the term
"tidal lock" to be valid. For example, I've heard the
statement made that Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun--
true in that the same face of Mercury is sunward, but not
true for the Sun, if you can really call that a "face".
And locking is not fixed tight--both Mercury and the moon,
like Jupiter's satellites, and presumably Pluto and Charon
(which *are* a tidally-locked double planetoid system, like
Hector in the Belt) too, "librate"--they basically wobble.
But whether this is the settling of a golf ball in the cup
or it's being powered from outside, I don't know offhand.
> This tidal locking will take a pretty long time. In fact, some recent
> studies suggest that increasing solar radiation will cause Earth's oceans to
> evaporate in the next 500 million to 1 billion years, sooner than tidal lock
> is expected to be achieved. Tidal lock can also occur with an ostensibly
> solid body (e.g., Jupiter's moons), but it's a slower process.
Of course, this does assume that no weird momentum-altering
things happen (collisions, the unexpected expulsion of a
gaseous shell from the Sun, etc). But all of those kinds of
things might make our discussion a little bit, um, "academic."
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Re: the oceans evaporating: I wonder if we can look at solar
output in past aeons? It may be that Earth was only warm
enough for multicellular life at a certain point--and that it
may be different enough *now* that if one brought, say, an
eryopsid labyrinthodont (big, giant, mega-amphibian) to the
present day, it would cook or suffocate somehow. I know that
there's a lot of work being done on the sheet-of-ice planet
idea--where only the equator regions were ice-free, sort of
a super Ice Age.
rambling,
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
> sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
> the international meter standard is based on the speed of
> light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
> in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
> measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders of magnitude in
difference) matter?
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
> > sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
> > the international meter standard is based on the speed of
> > light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
> > in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
> > measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
>
> Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
Not quite. There's a good comparison here
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question396.htm talking about speed radar
versus laser. Basically the laser is more accurate, but requires more
accurate aiming by the operator.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
> > > sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
> > > the international meter standard is based on the speed of
> > > light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
> > > in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
> > > measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
> >
> > Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> > enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> > different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
>
> Not quite. There's a good comparison here
> http://www.howstuffworks.com/question396.htm talking about speed radar
> versus laser. Basically the laser is more accurate, but requires more
> accurate aiming by the operator.
More accurate at measuring *speed*. We were talking about distance. Careful
reading of both articles reveals no claimed difference in accuracy for
distance measurement, since it's the same technique being used. (the speed
difference is because one is measuring doppler shift and the other is
measuring difference in distance from one pulse to the next, but distance in
both cases is measured by the time for signal return)
Great site, thanks for the ref., my kids will love it! However my question
still stands.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
>
> Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders of magnitude in
> difference) matter?
Isn't the theory behind rainbows (or light spectrums in general)
that the different wavelengths refact by differing amounts, and
so white light is "spread" into a spectrum of colours? If that's
the case then radar and laser energy would refract by differing amounts,
meaning one would end up being more likely to deviate from a
straight line in our atmosphere, and add errors to the measurement.
It would also presumably scatter more so the "signal" loses "power"
more.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> > enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> > different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
> >
> > Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders of magnitude in
> > difference) matter?
My first inclination is that there should not be a difference. When measuring
distances with light, the accuracy *can* be limited by the wavelength. I think
one can measure accurately down to roughly half the wavelength of the light
used. I would expect a laser in the visible spectrum (hundreds of nanometers)
to be used, because the atmosphere is quite clear in that range and the moon
obviously reflects some visible light. Radar wavelengths are much longer than
those of lasers, but both are insignificant compared to the distance to the
moon. I would expect that the technique used to measure the time for the
light to reflect would be a much larger source of error.
But...
> Isn't the theory behind rainbows (or light spectrums in general)
> that the different wavelengths refact by differing amounts, and
> so white light is "spread" into a spectrum of colours? If that's
> the case then radar and laser energy would refract by differing amounts,
> meaning one would end up being more likely to deviate from a
> straight line in our atmosphere, and add errors to the measurement.
> It would also presumably scatter more so the "signal" loses "power"
> more.
One could arrange their experiment so that their beam would travel straight up
through the atmosphere and eliminate any refraction. However, this raises an
interestiong point - refraction is caused by different wavelengths travelling
at different speeds through a medium. So, the laser and radar beams would
travel at different speeds until they left the atmosphere. Again, I think
any error introduced by this would be negligible compared to the timing
mechanism. It could be accounted for mathematically, anyway.
The amount of scattering also depends on the wavelengths. However, the loss
of power isn't really important, as long as there is enough power remaining
in the reflected beam to be measureable. A weak faint beam travels just as
fast as an intense one.
And aren't radio frequencies affected by the ionosphere? I seem to recall
something about how AM and short wave radio frequencies bouncing off the
ionosphere, allowing them to travel further along the surface of the earth.
Finally, most existing radar technology has been designed to cover a range of
space (although I sure someone will correct me on this). Lasers, by
definition, travel in a straight beam and are not as affected by the inverse
square relationship between distance and intensity.
I think I would lean toward using a laser for the measurement.
Jeff J
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not
> > > enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just
> > > different wavelengths of the same thing, right?
> > >
> > > Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders of magnitude in
> > > difference) matter?
>
> My first inclination is that there should not be a difference. When measuring
> distances with light, the accuracy *can* be limited by the wavelength. I think
> one can measure accurately down to roughly half the wavelength of the light
> used. I would expect a laser in the visible spectrum (hundreds of nanometers)
> to be used, because the atmosphere is quite clear in that range and the moon
> obviously reflects some visible light. Radar wavelengths are much longer than
> those of lasers, but both are insignificant compared to the distance to the
> moon. I would expect that the technique used to measure the time for the
> light to reflect would be a much larger source of error.
>
> But...
>
> > Isn't the theory behind rainbows (or light spectrums in general)
> > that the different wavelengths refact by differing amounts, and
> > so white light is "spread" into a spectrum of colours? If that's
> > the case then radar and laser energy would refract by differing amounts,
> > meaning one would end up being more likely to deviate from a
> > straight line in our atmosphere, and add errors to the measurement.
> > It would also presumably scatter more so the "signal" loses "power"
> > more.
>
> One could arrange their experiment so that their beam would travel straight up
> through the atmosphere and eliminate any refraction. However, this raises an
> interestiong point - refraction is caused by different wavelengths travelling
> at different speeds through a medium. So, the laser and radar beams would
> travel at different speeds until they left the atmosphere. Again, I think
> any error introduced by this would be negligible compared to the timing
> mechanism. It could be accounted for mathematically, anyway.
>
> The amount of scattering also depends on the wavelengths. However, the loss
> of power isn't really important, as long as there is enough power remaining
> in the reflected beam to be measureable. A weak faint beam travels just as
> fast as an intense one.
>
> And aren't radio frequencies affected by the ionosphere? I seem to recall
> something about how AM and short wave radio frequencies bouncing off the
> ionosphere, allowing them to travel further along the surface of the earth.
> Finally, most existing radar technology has been designed to cover a range of
> space (although I sure someone will correct me on this). Lasers, by
> definition, travel in a straight beam and are not as affected by the inverse
> square relationship between distance and intensity.
I think most of this sounds reasonable, but I'd guess that laser still
follows the inverse square "law".
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> I think most of this sounds reasonable, but I'd guess that laser still
> follows the inverse square "law".
I thought that the whole point of a laser is that it doesn't - it's a
directed beam of parallel waves of light.
The inverse square law is for a diverging beam. As distance from the source
increases, the area the beam is spread over increases (with the square of
the distance), so that intensity at any one point is less (by an inverse
square). With a laser, the area it covers is constant, hence no loss of
intensity.
If you were to shine a small torch at someone across a football pitch, you
can imagine that they might notice you as the source, but it wouldn't
noticeably illuminate them because the light isn't intense enough. If you
shine a laser pointer though, they could see the spot of light on them,
regardless of the distance.
Now, lasers aren't perfect, and there may be some divergence over the
Earth-Moon distance. I guess this would have to be inverse-square related
then, but with a much narrower angle of divergence. Anyone know for sure?
Jason J Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
<snip>
>
> And aren't radio frequencies affected by the ionosphere? I seem to recall
> something about how AM and short wave radio frequencies bouncing off the
> ionosphere, allowing them to travel further along the surface of the earth.
I'll address this point to fill in a bit of a hole, as a lot of the other
concerns are past me.
Yes, radio waves are affected by gravity which is why they travel along the
surface, so in a sense they "bend". It's a phenomenon commonly termed as
"groundwave" and it's how AM mainly propagates during the day when there's
oodles more ions in the air. But as you increase the frequency, the waves
travel in more of a straight line - so they can leave the earth's curved
surface. Also, as you substantially increase frequency, they're not AM waves
anymore, which means the waves can go through the ionosphere.
Groundwave occurs all the time during medium/shortwave broadcast. But at
night the signal can travel further because at night the sun's energy isn't
usually making as many ions in our atmosphere. So the resulting ionosphere
layer is much thinner which makes its underside much higher in the air. So
as you increase the distance to i'sphere (assuming that its underside is
more or less flat thereby keeping the angle of reflection more or less the
same) the destination distance of the wave is also increased. Think of it as
a triangle: if you keep all the angles the same, and increase the length of
the two sides of a triangle, its base (the ground distance away from the
station) also increases.
> Finally, most existing radar technology has been designed to cover a range of
> space (although I sure someone will correct me on this). Lasers, by
> definition, travel in a straight beam and are not as affected by the inverse
> square relationship between distance and intensity.
I'm not sure I agree with that. (But so what? :) PCMIIW[1] It'd be nice if
everything stuck to its definition, but light, and thus any photon, can have
it's trajectory bent, even however slight, in a gravitational field. Yet
it's proven that higher frequencies travel in more of straight line than
lower frequencies. Radar, which is in the microwave part of the spectrum, is
a higher frequency wave than visible light, so it's less "bendable" than
visible light.
Assuming that we're talking about a laser of visible light, it would be
still subject to the same degree of bending and distance's inverse square
law as any other visible light because of the wavelength used. Individual
photons in a laser generally don't possess any different characteristics
than any other photons of identical wavelengths other than a common
trajectory. But the effects can be quite different.
> I think I would lean toward using a laser for the measurement.
What would be the best of both worlds is if you made a laser of radar waves.
But be careful of frying things :)
-Tom McD.
[1] Please Correct Me If I'm Wrong
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> Long time no see, John! Have you just been lurking about?
I've posted a few times this year, but mostly I've been lurking. And trying
to build something that truly satisfies me. I keep buying more parts and
experimenting... patience now...
> (I'm finally back from Europe myself.)
Welcome home. Is the dissertation in the can?
> Coming to Brickfest?
Travelling to DC tries my five year-old's patience sorely. We've done it a
few times, and he's always cranky. I will, however, take him to the LEGO
Life On Mars exhibit truck when it visits Baltimore next week.
> How's JHU?
I like it well enough here. I have a boss who treats me well. Science
treats me however it wants to treat me. One day my experiments work,
another day they don't. Ugh.
> In lugnet.space, John J. Ladasky, Jr. writes:
> >
> > > In lugnet.space, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > >
> > > Actually, I seem to remember that the moon's pull on the tides is mutual
> > > (the moon is affected by the gravity of water on the Earth), and because
> > > tidal waters drag across the surface (thus slowed by friction), this is
> > > gradually decelerating the moon's orbit. So, it's orbit is very slowly
> > > shrinking...
> >
> > Actually, you have this backwards. The friction of Earth's oceans against
> > its solid parts is slowing the Earth's rotation down. This translates into
> > a loss of angular momentum for the Earth. But angular momentum must be
> > conserved. The angular momentum is transferred to the moon, so the moon is
> > actually gradually moving *farther* from the Earth. IIRC the increasing
> > separation of the Earth and Moon has been measured quite accurately by
> > bouncing lasers off of the mirrors left behind by the Apollo missions.
>
> Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not
> sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, given that
> the international meter standard is based on the speed of
> light (as of the 1980s, I think). Somehow using radar sticks
> in my mind, but that might just be a holdover from earlier
> measurement in the 1940s and 1950s.
I don't know anything about other methods of measuring the Earth-Moon
distance, besides laser ranging. I do remember hearing that Earth-based
radar was used to infer the existence of ice at the lunar poles, a finding
which was later corroborated by the Lunar Prospector mission in 1998. Could
you be thinking of this?
> > When the Earth has slowed enough so that its period of rotation equals the
> > period of the moon's revolution, there will be no more tidal friction. The
> > Earth will cease to slow, and the moon will cease to move farther away.
> > Interestingly, at this point one side of the Earth will always point towards
> > the moon -- just as, right now, one side of the Moon is always pointed
> > towards the Earth. This state of affairs is known as "tidal locking." When
> > this finally happens, one Earth day will be somewhat longer than 28 current
> > Earth days.
>
> I wasn't aware both faces had to be locked for the term
> "tidal lock" to be valid.
It's not a requirement. Sorry if I was unclear. The Moon is already
tidally locked to the Earth. Eventually the Earth will also be tidally
locked to the moon.
> For example, I've heard the
> statement made that Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun--
> true in that the same face of Mercury is sunward, but not
> true for the Sun, if you can really call that a "face".
Actually, Mercury is weirder than that. It orbits the Sun in 88 days, but
its period of rotation is 59 days. Mercury is in what is called a 3:2
resonance. For every two of its revolutions around the Sun, Mercury rotates
three times around its axis.
> And locking is not fixed tight--both Mercury and the moon,
> like Jupiter's satellites, and presumably Pluto and Charon
> (which *are* a tidally-locked double planetoid system, like
> Hector in the Belt) too, "librate"--they basically wobble.
> But whether this is the settling of a golf ball in the cup
> or it's being powered from outside, I don't know offhand.
>
> > This tidal locking will take a pretty long time. In fact, some recent
> > studies suggest that increasing solar radiation will cause Earth's oceans to
> > evaporate in the next 500 million to 1 billion years, sooner than tidal lock
> > is expected to be achieved. Tidal lock can also occur with an ostensibly
> > solid body (e.g., Jupiter's moons), but it's a slower process.
>
> Of course, this does assume that no weird momentum-altering
> things happen (collisions, the unexpected expulsion of a
> gaseous shell from the Sun, etc). But all of those kinds of
> things might make our discussion a little bit, um, "academic."
> Not that there's anything wrong with that.
>
> Re: the oceans evaporating: I wonder if we can look at solar
> output in past aeons?
They're trying to infer this from paleoclimatological data and models of
stellar evolution. I don't believe there is a way to measure the Sun's
historical output directly.
> It may be that Earth was only warm
> enough for multicellular life at a certain point
The Earth's surface, maybe. We have every reason to believe that the
thermal deep-sea vents have been around for a long time.
> --and that it
> may be different enough *now* that if one brought, say, an
> eryopsid labyrinthodont (big, giant, mega-amphibian) to the
> present day, it would cook or suffocate somehow. I know that
> there's a lot of work being done on the sheet-of-ice planet
> idea--where only the equator regions were ice-free, sort of
> a super Ice Age.
>
> rambling,
Feel free! But maybe we should FUT .off-topic.geek?
> LFB
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
I get 1 hour, 13 minutes. Or 2 hours, 26 minutes. If I could remember the
derivitive of y = x^2, I'd be more precise.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
>
> > Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> > looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> > towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
>
> I get 1 hour, 13 minutes. Or 2 hours, 26 minutes. If I could remember the
> derivitive of y = x^2, I'd be more precise.
That'd be dy/dx = 2x. (I knew that calculus'd come in handy one day!)
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> >
> > > Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> > > looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> > > towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> >
> > I get 1 hour, 13 minutes. Or 2 hours, 26 minutes. If I could remember the
> > derivitive of y = x^2, I'd be more precise.
>
> That'd be dy/dx = 2x. (I knew that calculus'd come in handy one day!)
Then it should be 2:26. Assuming that the relative acceleration between the
Earth and the Moon is the sum of their local accelerations due to gravity.
And assuming that acceleration is directly proportional to the force of
gravity. Ie, when it's said that the Moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth,
that means the acceleration due to gravity on the Moon is 1/6 of the
acceleration on Earth.
Earth 1G = 9.8m/s^2
Moon 1/6G = 1.63m/s^2
Combined = 11.43m/s^2
Ack! I made a mistake. Drat. Well, let's go on, and see what new answer I
find.
a = 11.43 m/s^2
v = 11.43t m/s
d = 5.717t^2 m
And the average Earth-Moon distance is 38440100 meters.
So, at d = 38440100 meters, t = 2593 seconds. Joiks! That's only 43 minutes!
So there's my new answer. Now you can all poke holes in my work.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > > Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> > > > looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> > > > towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> Then it should be 2:26. Assuming that the relative acceleration between the
> Earth and the Moon is the sum of their local accelerations due to gravity.
> And assuming that acceleration is directly proportional to the force of
> gravity. Ie, when it's said that the Moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth,
> that means the acceleration due to gravity on the Moon is 1/6 of the
> acceleration on Earth.
> Earth 1G = 9.8m/s^2
> Moon 1/6G = 1.63m/s^2
> Combined = 11.43m/s^2
> Ack! I made a mistake. Drat. Well, let's go on, and see what new answer I
> find.
> a= 11.43 m/s^2
> v = 11.43t m/s
> d = 5.717t^2 m
> And the average Earth-Moon distance is 38440100 meters.
> So, at d = 38440100 meters, t = 2593 seconds. Joiks! That's only 43 minutes!
> So there's my new answer. Now you can all poke holes in my work.
Umm... It's not a poke. honest.
Your value for the Earth-moon distance is off by a factor of ten.
which means your answer should be 2.25ish days.
And...
The force of the moon's gravity doesn't really enter into this.
We know
Force = -Gravitationalconstant x Mass(Earth) x Mass(moon) / (seperation)^2
GravitationalConstant = 6.67259x10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2
Mass(Earth) = 5.98x10^24 kg
From Newton's first law,
Force = mass x acceleration
so acceleration = Force(moon)/mass(moon)
Acceleration = -G x Me / r^2
hence, the acceleration at the start of the problem is more like 0.002m/s^2
rather than 11.43!
Although the acceleration is dependent on the distance (making the problem
very hideous) we can assume that it is constant for some 95% of the trip. at
the value given above.
From the working above
a=0.002
d=0.001t^2
for d=384,400km = 384,400,000m
t=620,000s = 7.17 days.
You'd notice this after about half a day, when the moon would be around
twice as big. After a day, it'd appear four times as big.
At 3hrs before impact, people below would be weightless (i.e between two
bodies exerting equal gravitational forces).
James (who's up past his bedtime figuring numbers.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, James Howse writes:
> From Newton's first law,
>
> Force = mass x acceleration
>
> so acceleration = Force(moon)/mass(moon)
>
> Acceleration = -G x Me / r^2
>
> hence, the acceleration at the start of the problem is more like 0.002m/s^2
> rather than 11.43!
> Although the acceleration is dependent on the distance (making the problem
> very hideous) we can assume that it is constant for some 95% of the trip. at
> the value given above.
Actually, when calculating the acceleration and taking the distance into
account, it's not so bad. For my first attempt at solving this, I tried
converting gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. The resulting
integral was definitely hideous.
I used the gravitational acceleration that you mentioned: a = G x M / r^2
We also know that acceleration, a = dr/dt^2
If you integrate (and ignore constants, since we know we are starting with
zero velocity), you get:
t = [ 2 x R^3 / (3 x G x M) ]^0.5
which we can use to find out how long it would take any distant body to fall
from rest into another, much more massive body.
If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
of the earth toward the moon).
Jeff J
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I should probably try to solve the problem myself, it'll help as prep for my
college entrance exam. ;-)
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
> time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
> of the earth toward the moon).
Hmm, not bad at all - that gives people time enough to *realize* it's
happening, broadcast it all over the world, and let everyone go completely
bananas. Fun!
(Although honestly, I *would* like to know the wrold was coming to its end a
few days early, to go see old friends and family, etc...)
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
> I should probably try to solve the problem myself, it'll help as prep for my
> college entrance exam. ;-)
>
> In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
> > time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
> > of the earth toward the moon).
>
> Hmm, not bad at all - that gives people time enough to *realize* it's
> happening, broadcast it all over the world, and let everyone go completely
> bananas. Fun!
> (Although honestly, I *would* like to know the wrold was coming to its end a
> few days early, to go see old friends and family, etc...)
>
> -Shiri
Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
> > I should probably try to solve the problem myself, it'll help as prep for my
> > college entrance exam. ;-)
> >
> > In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > > If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
> > > time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
> > > of the earth toward the moon).
> >
> > Hmm, not bad at all - that gives people time enough to *realize* it's
> > happening, broadcast it all over the world, and let everyone go completely
> > bananas. Fun!
> > (Although honestly, I *would* like to know the wrold was coming to its end a
> > few days early, to go see old friends and family, etc...)
> >
> > -Shiri
> Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> Jesse Long
Jesse,
What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> > Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> > know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> > are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
> joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
> builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
> to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
What's the deal with that Shiri person? She never has a bad thing to say
about anyone, she's always got some positive contribution to make, and her
posts are uniformly well-reasoned. I'm tired of her consistency and
good-spiritedness--she's making the rest of us look like cranky old folks.
What's her problem, anyway!? 8^)
Dave!
FUT OT-FUN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
> > > I should probably try to solve the problem myself, it'll help as prep for my
> > > college entrance exam. ;-)
> > >
> > > In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > > > If we plug in 3.8e08m for R, and 6e24kg for the mass of the earth, we get a
> > > > time ~ 3.5 days (ignoring the radii of the earth and moon, and the motion
> > > > of the earth toward the moon).
> > >
> > > Hmm, not bad at all - that gives people time enough to *realize* it's
> > > happening, broadcast it all over the world, and let everyone go completely
> > > bananas. Fun!
> > > (Although honestly, I *would* like to know the wrold was coming to its end a
> > > few days early, to go see old friends and family, etc...)
> > >
> > > -Shiri
> > Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> > know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> > are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> > Jesse Long
>
> Jesse,
>
> What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
> joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
> builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
> to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
>
> -Duane
I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
of their work, their LEGO sets.
I guess I should have responded to the other messages but I am somewhat
pressed for time because of the holidays, that and yesterday there was some
severe weather which prevented me from going to the library so I have to see
all of the past messages from Lugnet. The sky was so dark at noon that it
resembled the sky at five or six in the evening. The rain fell from the sky
in such a great amount that you thought that the ground was Louisiana.
There was plenty of flash floods yesterday because some places received as
much as three inches of rain an hour and the winds were at least fifty miles
an hour so needless to say, the weather yesterday was quite terrible.
As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, Duane.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > > Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> > > know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> > > are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> > > Jesse Long
> >
> > Jesse,
> >
> > What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
> > joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
> > builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
> > to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
> >
> > -Duane
> I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> of their work, their LEGO sets.
Shiri is a woman who hangs out in the Castle sub-theme more than Space. You
can check over there to see what she's made. I haven't made a castle in
years....
> I guess I should have responded to the other messages but I am somewhat
> pressed for time because of the holidays, that and yesterday there was some
> severe weather which prevented me from going to the library so I have to see
> all of the past messages from Lugnet. The sky was so dark at noon that it
> resembled the sky at five or six in the evening. The rain fell from the sky
> in such a great amount that you thought that the ground was Louisiana.
> There was plenty of flash floods yesterday because some places received as
> much as three inches of rain an hour and the winds were at least fifty miles
> an hour so needless to say, the weather yesterday was quite terrible.
Sounds like severe weather indeed. However, you need to pay closer attention
to the thread when you are responding. Post a follow-up to the message that
the follow-up pertains to. Things like this tend to sidetrack a
conversation. I know that Lugnetters have been referred to as
"compartmentalized dorks", but it makes things easier.
> As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
I understand, however this part of the thread is discussing the approximate
time it would take the moon to collide with the Earth if it's motion stopped.
> Jesse Long
Do you read Lugnet via e-mail, newsreader or web?
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> > > > Am I evil or annoying, Shiri? I am simply wanting to know and I want to
> > > > know if you have built any LEGO sets of your own in your spare time. (We
> > > > are evil! In-deed! Kaientai, WWF)
> > > > Jesse Long
> > >
> > > Jesse,
> > >
> > > What does this have to do with the current thread? I also hope that you are
> > > joking (in which case you should be posting to .fun). Shiri is a good
> > > builder and a large contributor to the community. I'm a little confused as
> > > to where this post is taking this thread. Please enlighten me.
> > >
> > > -Duane
> > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > of their work, their LEGO sets.
>
>
> Shiri is a woman who hangs out in the Castle sub-theme more than Space. You
> can check over there to see what she's made. I haven't made a castle in
> years....
>
> > I guess I should have responded to the other messages but I am somewhat
> > pressed for time because of the holidays, that and yesterday there was some
> > severe weather which prevented me from going to the library so I have to see
> > all of the past messages from Lugnet. The sky was so dark at noon that it
> > resembled the sky at five or six in the evening. The rain fell from the sky
> > in such a great amount that you thought that the ground was Louisiana.
> > There was plenty of flash floods yesterday because some places received as
> > much as three inches of rain an hour and the winds were at least fifty miles
> > an hour so needless to say, the weather yesterday was quite terrible.
>
>
> Sounds like severe weather indeed. However, you need to pay closer attention
> to the thread when you are responding. Post a follow-up to the message that
> the follow-up pertains to. Things like this tend to sidetrack a
> conversation. I know that Lugnetters have been referred to as
> "compartmentalized dorks", but it makes things easier.
>
> > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
>
> I understand, however this part of the thread is discussing the approximate
> time it would take the moon to collide with the Earth if it's motion stopped.
>
> > Jesse Long
>
> Do you read Lugnet via e-mail, newsreader or web?
>
> -Duane
I read them in an electronic mail account but not necessarily the messages.
I simply type on Lugnet, then they send me a copy of the letter and I post
the letter, then I take the Yahoo copy of the letter and I delete that copy
of the letter (remember, I am not the only person to use the mail account)
so that my mother will have more room in her account.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > > I guess I should have responded to the other messages but I am somewhat
> > > pressed for time because of the holidays, that and yesterday there was some
> > > severe weather which prevented me from going to the library so I have to see
> > > all of the past messages from Lugnet. The sky was so dark at noon that it
> > > resembled the sky at five or six in the evening. The rain fell from the sky
> > > in such a great amount that you thought that the ground was Louisiana.
> > > There was plenty of flash floods yesterday because some places received as
> > > much as three inches of rain an hour and the winds were at least fifty miles
> > > an hour so needless to say, the weather yesterday was quite terrible.
> >
> >
> > Sounds like severe weather indeed. However, you need to pay closer attention
> > to the thread when you are responding. Post a follow-up to the message that
> > the follow-up pertains to. Things like this tend to sidetrack a
> > conversation. I know that Lugnetters have been referred to as
> > "compartmentalized dorks", but it makes things easier.
> >
> > > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
> >
> > I understand, however this part of the thread is discussing the approximate
> > time it would take the moon to collide with the Earth if it's motion stopped.
> >
> > > Jesse Long
> >
> > Do you read Lugnet via e-mail, newsreader or web?
> >
> > -Duane
> I read them in an electronic mail account but not necessarily the messages.
> I simply type on Lugnet, then they send me a copy of the letter and I post
> the letter, then I take the Yahoo copy of the letter and I delete that copy
> of the letter (remember, I am not the only person to use the mail account)
> so that my mother will have more room in her account.
> Jesse Long
The reason I asked was because the way that you read can influence how you
reply. With the web interface, following a thread is easy. With mail it's
still easy, but not quite so easy. With a newsreader, I unfortunately don't
have any experience. At least those are my opinions, yours may differ. I
would suggest reading through the web for a day or two when you get the
chance. It will give you a much better grasp of how things work andhow they
inter-relate.
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me.
I think it is safe to say that Shiri (she's of the female persuasion) does
not hate you. I doubt that she hates anybody, actually.
Since this seems to be the "isn't Shiri great" subsection of the thread, let
me add my kudos, she does a lot of neato stuff around here to keep things
moving along, (the FAQ work, her part in castle.org and other stuff) she's
always sweet, kind and reasonable, (1) and her creations are pretty terrific.
Nose around in the castle newsgroup for the URLs to them if you like.
1 - except when she's disagreeing with ME of course (2) in which case she's
ornery and stubborn and wrong.
2 - "that's a joke, son" - Foghorn Leghorn
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jesse Alan Long writes:
>
> > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me.
>
> I think it is safe to say that Shiri (she's of the female persuasion) does
> not hate you. I doubt that she hates anybody, actually.
>
> Since this seems to be the "isn't Shiri great" subsection of the thread, let
> me add my kudos, she does a lot of neato stuff around here to keep things
> moving along, (the FAQ work, her part in castle.org and other stuff) she's
> always sweet, kind and reasonable, (1) and her creations are pretty terrific.
>
> Nose around in the castle newsgroup for the URLs to them if you like.
>
> 1 - except when she's disagreeing with ME of course (2) in which case she's
> ornery and stubborn and wrong.
> 2 - "that's a joke, son" - Foghorn Leghorn
>
> ++Lar
I like the LEGO Castle set but I do not have the time (today) to speak with
her. Maybe I can later? Please tell Shiri I said hello, is that
acceptable, Larry? Thank you, Larry.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> of their work, their LEGO sets.
I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
<snipped the forecast>
> As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
Math is confoozing. In my mind. :-)
-Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > of their work, their LEGO sets.
>
> I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
I think that unless we can find a specific point at which Shiri is not a
man, then we cannot demonstrate conclusively that she is a woman. Either
Shiri occupies a spectrum of man-ness and woman-ness with no distinction, or
a distinction exists, even if we can't define it precisely. DaveE and I
have been bandying around exactly this sort of thing for days.
So what's the answer, Shiri? Why are you suddenly so silent on this
pressing issue?
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > of their work, their LEGO sets.
>
> I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
>
> <snipped the forecast>
>
> > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, >Duane.
>
> Math is confoozing. In my mind. :-)
> -Chris
Have you met Shiri before in your life?
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > > of their work, their LEGO sets.
> >
> > I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
> Have you met Shiri before in your life?
> Jesse Long
I would say yeah, he has, after looking at this
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/fun/?n=6051 =)
~Nathan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > > of their work, their LEGO sets.
> >
> > I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
> >
> > <snipped the forecast>
> >
> > > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, • Duane.
> >
> > Math is confoozing. In my mind. :-)
> > -Chris
> Have you met Shiri before in your life?
> Jesse Long
I think they met once or something...
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=18602
Jude
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jude Beaudin writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > > > I am simply wondering why Shiri hates me. I was joking in part of the
> > > > letter, which also means I also probably watch too much wrestling. I also
> > > > have never seen any of the work that Shiri has made and simply wanted to
> > > > know if Shiri (not sure whether Shiri is a man or woman) would show me some
> > > > of their work, their LEGO sets.
> > >
> > > I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
> > >
> > > <snipped the forecast>
> > >
> > > > As for the other people, all I see is mathematical formulas that I do not
> > > > comprehend in my mind at all and I appreciate the help but if I do not know
> > > > what any of these formulas mean, then I do not know what you are talking
> > > > about to me. I am sorry but I am not very good in mathematics. :.( I hope
> > > > this response will help you to understand the letter that I wrote to you, • Duane.
> > >
> > > Math is confoozing. In my mind. :-)
> > > -Chris
> > Have you met Shiri before in your life?
> > Jesse Long
>
> I think they met once or something...
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=18602
>
> Jude
How sweet. ;.) Love, unfortunately, has eluded me for every moment of my
life. :.(
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, James Howse writes:
> You'd notice this after about half a day, when the moon would be around
> twice as big. After a day, it'd appear four times as big.
> At 3hrs before impact, people below would be weightless (i.e between two
> bodies exerting equal gravitational forces).
As regard the math, I wouldn't know where to start, but surely even if the
moon we're sitting on the earths surface the earth would still exert more
force than the moon so you wouldn't be weightless.
I don't know if you mean't, at the point where the moon was three hours away
you'd be able to jump into the air, break free from earth and land on the moon.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> >
> > > Sweet! That would be *so cool*! Imagine sitting out on the deck
> > > looking up at the full moon, and all of a sudden it starts falling
> > > towards you. If we ignore the gravitational damage to the earth
> > > (tides, crust stresses, etc) and the fact that the earth is still
> > > rotating, how long would you get to watch the moon before it landed
> > > on you? The first person to answer will get a cookie(*)!
> >
> > I get 1 hour, 13 minutes. Or 2 hours, 26 minutes. If I could remember the
> > derivitive of y = x^2, I'd be more precise.
>
> That'd be dy/dx = 2x. (I knew that calculus'd come in handy one day!)
>
> ROSCO
Calculus, yet another form of mathematics that I am unable to do in my life.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Why is it that whenever YOU think, MY head hurts? I really wish this were clear
enough to follow, because it sounds semi-interesting, but as it is, I'm just
painfully confused.
Take care,
Soren
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
> people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
> but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
> aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
> sound logic, and the truth in life.
Spare the attitude man, until you do, don't go wondering why people post
harsh replies to your stuff. You come off as a know-it-all, even if someone
who has education in a particular field counters your statement, you find a
way to try to make their words seem insignificant. That's not appreciated
by me, at least.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > Does your title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such
> > people as Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people
> > but then again, neither have you so I think I will become skeptical of every
> > aspect of outer space travel until it has been proven as a fact by science,
> > sound logic, and the truth in life.
>
> Spare the attitude man, until you do, don't go wondering why people post
> harsh replies to your stuff. You come off as a know-it-all, even if someone
> who has education in a particular field counters your statement, you find a
> way to try to make their words seem insignificant. That's not appreciated
> by me, at least.
>
> -Tim
Tim, in this statement, his words ARE insignificant because they are
incorrect, even though he IS an astrophysicist. This is what Mister Paul
Hertzog said to me, 'What the flipping space monster burgers are you talking
about? Friction in space? NOT, noway, nohow. Wings are useless in space,
dude. I'm an astrophysicist, I know whereof I speak (I'm sure this has
been said elsewhere but hey, I don't have the time to look it up.)
-Paul (Hertzog)'
If he was even concerned in the slightest part of his mind in disproving the
fact that there is friction in space he should at least TRY to make some
evidence disproving what I say, Tim. I am not a harsh person but I hate
stupidity and his reply is another prime example of stupidity, Tim.
Education does not necessarily mean a degree but rather using the degree to
a point where you actually know what you mean in your area of expertise and
people have graduated from high school without being able to read so he
should at least know about the aspects of gravity and friction in outer
space if he became an astrophysicist.
I feel insulted that he says that I am wrong and yet can not even prove his
own words and that, to my mind not only makes his reply appear stupid but
also lazy and cowardly, Tim. I work this way in life and so do you so
please do not argue this point to me but these people, as well as you, do
not know is that I AM willing to change my thoughts if people can, without
the shadow of a doubt, change my mind and show me their evidence for their
ideas in life. This is my way of saying that when I am proven wrong that I
will change the way that I think and I will have become the better person
for changing my ways of thought in life.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Tim, in this statement, his words ARE insignificant because they are
> incorrect, even though he IS an astrophysicist. This is what Mister Paul
> Hertzog said to me, 'What the flipping space monster burgers are you talking
> about? Friction in space? NOT, noway, nohow. Wings are useless in space,
> dude. I'm an astrophysicist, I know whereof I speak (I'm sure this has
> been said elsewhere but hey, I don't have the time to look it up.)
>
> -Paul (Hertzog)'
>
> If he was even concerned in the slightest part of his mind in disproving the
> fact that there is friction in space he should at least TRY to make some
> evidence disproving what I say, Tim.
Well then, politely ask him for evidence, don't disrespect him by trying to
diminish his experience in a field with smarta** remarks (eg. Does your
title of an astrophysicist amuse me? Have you worked with such people as
Carl Sagan or Issac Asimov? I have not worked with these people but then
again, neither have you...)
Those kind of comments are not appreciated around here in the least,
speaking for myself, and with the knowledge that others are annoyed at them
as well.
> I am not a harsh person but I hate
> stupidity and his reply is another prime example of stupidity, Tim.
Who are you to call his reply an example of stupidity? You don't know Paul
at all, you don't know his experience, etc. Yet you come here and ask
questions of everyone, then shoot them down with no proof yourself - like
you're right solely on the basis that you said so.
> Education does not necessarily mean a degree but rather using the degree to
> a point where you actually know what you mean in your area of expertise and
> people have graduated from high school without being able to read so he
> should at least know about the aspects of gravity and friction in outer
> space if he became an astrophysicist.
Uhm, this makes absolutely no sense at all.
> I feel insulted that he says that I am wrong and yet can not even prove his
> own words and that, to my mind not only makes his reply appear stupid but
> also lazy and cowardly, Tim.
Whatever. Its just you not wanting to be told you're wrong, IMNSHO.
> I work this way in life and so do you so
> please do not argue this point to me but these people, as well as you, do
> not know is that I AM willing to change my thoughts if people can, without
> the shadow of a doubt, change my mind and show me their evidence for their
> ideas in life.
We don't know you're willing, because you certainly haven't shown that
you're willing.
> This is my way of saying that when I am proven wrong that I
> will change the way that I think and I will have become the better person
> for changing my ways of thought in life.
Its kinda nice to say something, but its a bit harder to do it. As for my
opinion on your willingness to be proven wrong, I'll take your attitude --
I'll believe it when I see it.
Perhaps if you could communicate better in writing, you would be understood
better here. I know of many people (because I've talked to them) who are
frustrated at your posts and the attitude contained within them. I've been
harsh too (and if you continue to be ignorant of others here, I'll still be
harsh, but if you show you're willing to learn here, I'll help you).
In general, Lugnet is a pretty welcoming place. People are patient with
newbies here. But when newbies don't respond to gentle correction or
suggestions and consistently keep up acting ignorantly of others, we don't
lie down and take it either.
For example, you continued to argue the point about Classic Space/Futuron,
when EVEYRONE here is at a concensus on an explanation of them. We've been
at that concensus for YEARS. Arguing the point on that when people tell you
the way it is here just gets people riled.
Since you said you don't subscribe to the 'normal' way of building LEGO
spaceships, I won't begin to argue the point on your space technology. Just
keep in mind the way you have described your ships is considered well in the
realm of fantasy versus reality based spaceships here (ie. weapon count/size
ratio, exhaust weapons, etc).
Anyways, my suggestion to you (if you're willing to learn how to carry
yourself here) is to take some time to formulate ideas. Don't go off on
tangents that make little sense to others too - this just throws people off
and gets them going 'WTF?' - from the people I've talked to.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
> Well then, politely ask him for evidence, don't disrespect him by trying to
> diminish his experience in a field with smarta** remarks
> [...]
> Those kind of comments are not appreciated around here in the least,
> speaking for myself, and with the knowledge that others are annoyed at them
> as well.
Tim, (and all),
I've come into this discussion late, and it occurs to me that this is the
best part of it so far. It is great advice, which most everyone involved in
this thread would to well to take.
i.e. if you don't want to perpetuate disrespect, then consider reigning in
your own disrespect first. There's been a hefty amount of it being flung
around from all sides, and it's getting pretty childish. Just a thought.
Cheers,
- jsproat
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> [...] then consider reigning in [...]
And I would do well to consider spell-checking before I hit "send", but alas...
Cheers,
- jsproat
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> I've come into this discussion late, and it occurs to me that this is the
> best part of it so far. It is great advice, which most everyone involved in
> this thread would to well to take.
>
> i.e. if you don't want to perpetuate disrespect, then consider reigning in
> your own disrespect first. There's been a hefty amount of it being flung
> around from all sides, and it's getting pretty childish. Just a thought.
Jeremy,
Thanks for posting this. I think you got it exactly right.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
>
> > I've come into this discussion late, and it occurs to me that this is the
> > best part of it so far. It is great advice, which most everyone involved in
> > this thread would to well to take.
> >
> > i.e. if you don't want to perpetuate disrespect, then consider reigning in
> > your own disrespect first. There's been a hefty amount of it being flung
> > around from all sides, and it's getting pretty childish. Just a thought.
>
> Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for posting this. I think you got it exactly right.
>
> Steve
All I simply said was I got tired of the same basic designs in large space
craft. I have seen these same, cigar shaped designs ever since the science
fiction serials on television around six or seven decades earlier in our
country. I like the features, the compartments, the engines, the technology
but I simply do not like the styles of most of these space craft. These
space craft are too open for weapons, at least some of these space craft,
for the enemy space craft to simply blow the space craft into oblivion. If
you wanted a part in this discussion, then please do not assume that I am
immature because I am not the instigator of all of the immaturity of these
letters, I am simply discussing flaws with the elemental designs of most
space craft and I can not help that with some of these letters that I view
some of these responses as hostile and that with some of the information
that I do not understand the views of some of these people and that is what
frustrates me about this bulletin board.
Jesse Long
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> All I simply said was I got tired of the same basic designs in large space
> craft. I have seen these same, cigar shaped designs ever since the science
> fiction serials on television around six or seven decades earlier in our
> country. I like the features, the compartments, the engines, the technology
> but I simply do not like the styles of most of these space craft. These
> space craft are too open for weapons, at least some of these space craft,
> for the enemy space craft to simply blow the space craft into oblivion.
That's neither here nor there. Simply build them. Some people will like
them, some will dislike them. But that's not what I'm annoyed by...
> If
> you wanted a part in this discussion, then please do not assume that I am
> immature because I am not the instigator of all of the immaturity of these
> letters, I am simply discussing flaws with the elemental designs of most
> space craft and I can not help that with some of these letters that I view
> some of these responses as hostile and that with some of the information
> that I do not understand the views of some of these people and that is what
> frustrates me about this bulletin board.
Uh, yeah. Against my better judgement, which I'm having to temporarily shut
down because it's screaming so loud, I'm going to throw in another word or ten.
Folks, take a breather. This discussion is getting worse by the minute.
Sit back, be quiet for a week or so, and let this thread die the horrible
shuddering death it deserves. No one else seems to want to, so take the
initiative to do so yourself. I think we all need a reminder of how to be
civil.
Certainly, some here need to remember to think twice before hitting "send".
Jeez, and people wonder why Moulton gets so much attention -- we're so
damned EAGER to prove that someone else is somehow the lesser.
Cheers,
- jsproat
/me puts .space into my skip filter
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> > All I simply said was I got tired of the same basic designs in large space
> > craft. I have seen these same, cigar shaped designs ever since the science
> > fiction serials on television around six or seven decades earlier in our
> > country. I like the features, the compartments, the engines, the technology
> > but I simply do not like the styles of most of these space craft. These
> > space craft are too open for weapons, at least some of these space craft,
> > for the enemy space craft to simply blow the space craft into oblivion.
>
> That's neither here nor there. Simply build them. Some people will like
> them, some will dislike them. But that's not what I'm annoyed by...
>
> > If
> > you wanted a part in this discussion, then please do not assume that I am
> > immature because I am not the instigator of all of the immaturity of these
> > letters, I am simply discussing flaws with the elemental designs of most
> > space craft and I can not help that with some of these letters that I view
> > some of these responses as hostile and that with some of the information
> > that I do not understand the views of some of these people and that is what
> > frustrates me about this bulletin board.
>
> Uh, yeah. Against my better judgement, which I'm having to temporarily shut
> down because it's screaming so loud, I'm going to throw in another word or ten.
>
> Folks, take a breather. This discussion is getting worse by the minute.
> Sit back, be quiet for a week or so, and let this thread die the horrible
> shuddering death it deserves. No one else seems to want to, so take the
> initiative to do so yourself. I think we all need a reminder of how to be
> civil.
>
> Certainly, some here need to remember to think twice before hitting "send".
> Jeez, and people wonder why Moulton gets so much attention -- we're so
> damned EAGER to prove that someone else is somehow the lesser.
>
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
>
> /me puts .space into my skip filter
The paragraph that I made in that letter, upon further review, did not need
to be made into that letter but I guess I was simply angry at many aspect of
my life and certain family members, friends, and other people. I,
personally, am tired of the thread as well but I simply do not understand
how people build their space craft so it will have to take some time (and
many apologies) for me to be used to constructing the types of space craft,
mecha, hovercraft, and other vehicles that I want in my life. (I should
make a note to myself, open my mouth and insert my foot, at least do not
take the shoe OFF of my foot.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Actually, the problem is one of inertia. If you accelerate
the ship with more force than the "gripping" force of the
antenna, it will pop off. This happens even if there is no
atmosphere.
Also, minifigs need visors to protect against ultra-violet
radiation, which makes ABS plastic brittle and faded.
-gyug
Lugnet Member #9
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> space.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
<snip>
> The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
> for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft. I
> am not saying that your space craft is ugly but I am saying that this is a
> problem that many people fail to recognize in their designs.
<snip>
> Jesse Long
I'll leave the real world technical discussion to the remainder of the
thread but I think it's worth mentioning that you can't criticize the lack
of wings in a Star Wars design without recognizing the frame of reference
they were designed within. The SW universe contains things like repulsor
lifts and particle shields. If you have repulsor lifts then you don't need
wings for atmospheric lift, and if you have particle shields then the fabric
of your ship does not encounter friction no matter how thick the cosmic dust.
Why shouldn't a Star Destroyer look like a wedge of cheese? Maybe the
Emperor is fond of cheese. Sith Cheese, Inc. That has a nice ring to it...
John
#388
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, John Radtke writes:
> <snip>
> > The second question is where are the wings on your space craft? I apologize
> > for not being able to appreciate some of the larger space craft but I was
> > one of those people who thought that the Star Destroyer and the Super Star
> > Destroyer in the Star Wars saga resembled a hybrid of a battleship and a
> > wedge of cheese. Almost every builder has millions of attennas and tons of
> > bulky areas on these ships and none of these people realize that there is
> > friction in outer space and were these systems to be really existent in
> > space that about half of the ship would disintegrate while travelling in
> > space. I am simply saying that you need some wings on your space craft. I
> > am not saying that your space craft is ugly but I am saying that this is a
> > problem that many people fail to recognize in their designs.
>
> <snip>
> > Jesse Long
>
> I'll leave the real world technical discussion to the remainder of the
> thread but I think it's worth mentioning that you can't criticize the lack
> of wings in a Star Wars design without recognizing the frame of reference
> they were designed within. The SW universe contains things like repulsor
> lifts and particle shields. If you have repulsor lifts then you don't need
> wings for atmospheric lift, and if you have particle shields then the fabric
> of your ship does not encounter friction no matter how thick the cosmic dust.
And if one needs any object lesson on how little wings matter
on a real spacecraft, one need only look at the fastest craft ever
created by mankind--Voyager 2. Wow, that's one streamlined
space dragster, isn't it? It didn't even come close to failing,
given the conditions prevalent in interplanetary space (which is
much, much, MUCH more particle-rich than interstellar space).
Now, some systems did go awry, but how many of us can say we've
owned a vehicle that's worked flawlessly for 20+ years? Even
my *bicycle* hasn't held up that well. ;)
> Why shouldn't a Star Destroyer look like a wedge of cheese? Maybe the
> Emperor is fond of cheese. Sith Cheese, Inc. That has a nice ring to it...
Would that be young or old cheese? I'd prefer some of the
Alderaan my bagel...what'll *you* be Yavin'?
Sorry. Doesn't a da go bah that I don't pun...
best
Lindsay
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:GFGJJz.9Ar@lugnet.com...
>
> And if one needs any object lesson on how little wings matter
> on a real spacecraft, one need only look at the fastest craft ever
> created by mankind--Voyager 2.
Uhh... I thought that Pioneer 10 held that record[1], being slightly faster
than Voyager 2 - but I might have been told that before a couple of crucial
gravitational slingshots in Voyager's journey. If anyone has a reference to
some reasonably definitive and relevant material that'd be great.
--
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
[1] Of course, Voyager holds the *gold* record..... ;-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Paul Baulch wrote:
>
> [1] Of course, Voyager holds the *gold* record..... ;-)
That's nice....:-)
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> Another good example of using lots of panels and lots of bricks would be my
> 160 stud long big ship:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=41339 Which is as of now
> still unnamed and unpublished. The interior is full of brick walls and
> technic beams. I first built the ship with just technic beams holding up all
> the floors, but when interior detail was added, the walls that seperated the
> various rooms helped stregthen it a great bit.
Heh. I've always liked that ship, but I finally figured out why
today: It makes me think of a platypus! :) Okay, a platypus
bedecked with cannon and engines, but still...
Nice job with the photo, btw!
best
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Thanks! This reminds me I really need to finish the pics. Maybe next week.
But it still needs a name...
Hmm, whats the scientific name for a platapus?
I allways new NASA would come in handy some day! So to NASA thanks for the
background pic!
--Kyle
http://hvl.cjb.net
> Heh. I've always liked that ship, but I finally figured out why
> today: It makes me think of a platypus! :) Okay, a platypus
> bedecked with cannon and engines, but still...
>
> Nice job with the photo, btw!
>
> best
>
> LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> > Heh. I've always liked that ship, but I finally figured out why
> > today: It makes me think of a platypus! :) Okay, a platypus
> > bedecked with cannon and engines, but still...
> > Nice job with the photo, btw!
> Thanks! This reminds me I really need to finish the pics. Maybe next week.
> But it still needs a name...
>
> Hmm, whats the scientific name for a platapus?
Platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus
See, there was a reason all these posts were appearing in loc.au
James (who now knows more about platypi than he ever needed to)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> Thanks! This reminds me I really need to finish the pics. Maybe next week.
> But it still needs a name...
>
> Hmm, whats the scientific name for a platapus?
Uh, thats plat-y-pus, and it's scientific name is Ornithorhynchus anatinus.
Dunno if you can get a neat name outta that!!
Regards
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> > Thanks! This reminds me I really need to finish the pics. Maybe next week.
> > But it still needs a name...
> >
> > Hmm, whats the scientific name for a platapus?
>
> Uh, thats plat-y-pus, and it's scientific name is Ornithorhynchus anatinus.
> Dunno if you can get a neat name outta that!!
Literally, it's "bird-nose of duck quality". Rather descriptive.
But not exactly awe-inspring for a deadly piece of military hardware.
Unless, of course, it's got a poisoned spur on its hind feet...;)
best
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > Thanks! This reminds me I really need to finish the pics. Maybe next week.
> > > But it still needs a name...
> > >
> > > Hmm, whats the scientific name for a platapus?
> >
> > Uh, thats plat-y-pus, and it's scientific name is Ornithorhynchus anatinus.
> > Dunno if you can get a neat name outta that!!
>
> Literally, it's "bird-nose of duck quality". Rather descriptive.
> But not exactly awe-inspring for a deadly piece of military hardware.
> Unless, of course, it's got a poisoned spur on its hind feet...;)
Personally I'd go for the spaceship _Monotreme_ (which lends itself to a nice
etymological nickname too).
--DaveL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > > Thanks! This reminds me I really need to finish the pics. Maybe next week.
> > > > But it still needs a name...
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, whats the scientific name for a platapus?
> > >
> > > Uh, thats plat-y-pus, and it's scientific name is Ornithorhynchus anatinus.
> > > Dunno if you can get a neat name outta that!!
> >
> > Literally, it's "bird-nose of duck quality". Rather descriptive.
> > But not exactly awe-inspring for a deadly piece of military hardware.
> > Unless, of course, it's got a poisoned spur on its hind feet...;)
>
> Personally I'd go for the spaceship _Monotreme_ (which lends itself to a nice
> etymological nickname too).
I love it! :) Now you just need an egg-shaped shuttle.
best
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.space, Dave Low writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > > > Thanks! This reminds me I really need to finish the pics. Maybe next week.
> > > > > But it still needs a name...
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, whats the scientific name for a platapus?
> > > >
> > > > Uh, thats plat-y-pus, and it's scientific name is Ornithorhynchus anatinus.
> > > > Dunno if you can get a neat name outta that!!
> > >
> > > Literally, it's "bird-nose of duck quality". Rather descriptive.
> > > But not exactly awe-inspring for a deadly piece of military hardware.
> > > Unless, of course, it's got a poisoned spur on its hind feet...;)
> >
> > Personally I'd go for the spaceship _Monotreme_ (which lends itself to a nice
> > etymological nickname too).
>
> I love it! :) Now you just need an egg-shaped shuttle.
Just ask Paul Baulch.....
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
> I love it! :) Now you just need an egg-shaped shuttle.
>
> best
>
> LFB
Oddly enough, there is hatch/airlock on the rear ventral area of the ship
that comes equipped with a roundish white matenince craft!
Maybe when I was building it I was subcontiously making it look like a
platypus. Weird...
--Kyle
http//hvl.cjb.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Kyle Keppler writes:
> >
> > I love it! :) Now you just need an egg-shaped shuttle.
>
>
> Oddly enough, there is hatch/airlock on the rear ventral area of the ship
> that comes equipped with a roundish white matenince craft!
>
> Maybe when I was building it I was subcontiously making it look like a
> platypus. Weird...
Fnord, mate, fnord.
--DaveL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
> Uh, thats plat-y-pus, and it's scientific name is Ornithorhynchus anatinus.
> Dunno if you can get a neat name outta that!!
Platapus platypus, whats the difference?
We'll see, we'll see...
--Kyle
http://hvl.cjb.net
>
> Regards
>
> ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In article <GF3F1r.KIH@lugnet.com>, "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com>
wrote:
> Example - Joel Kuester's Benevolent Grace [1].
> [1] http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3797
My word. That is truly a thing of beauty. Joel, if you're reading this
(and even if you're not), I bow to your talent. I can only dream that
one day I might construct something one-hundredth as impressive as that.
--
Mark D. McKean - The Quantum Panda - qpanda@quantumpanda.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hey Zac! I don't know how big you we're planning on going but I've found big
baseplates helpful. And as Ross suggested, a technic frame also works well
as far as sturdiness with the panel method Tim (T-Bird) described.
This is a pic of my carrier:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=19960
This is an exploded pic to reveal the different sections on different plates:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=16694
This is a pic of my carrier's main flight deck without the
baseplates--ignore the cat:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=19956
Notice the technic crossbeams and castle walls and BURPs that make up the
sides of the ship. My design is not as sturdy and "whooshable" as T-Bird's.
But it achieves my purpose of having a big ship to show off ;^) Have fun!
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Zac Soden writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I have just finished disassembling all of my models and had my sights set on
> a big dropship. I started trying to build it but it just isn't happening. I
> don't yet have the skill to beef it out properly. Having a small brick
> collection ddoesn't help, either.
> Can anyone please give me some tips on how to build the bigger models. I
> think for now I'll go down a size and make something else...
If your collection doesn't stretch to an American size you're probably
contimplating something along the size of
Richard Parson's Saucy Slayer
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=49881
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=42716
(warning, Richard uses Megabrickium in his hulls...)
Richie Dulin's Wasabi
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=49873
or for something a little different, Pete White's Brikiney Spears Tourbus
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=49876
All are examples of brick-building mentioned earlier. My own ship isn't
featured in the list since I haven't any pics to show off yet. It's
somewhere in size between the Slayer and the Wasabi.
I worked by having a general idea of the size and shape I wanted, building,
rebuilding and rebuilding again. Don't worry if it doesn't whoosh the first
time through, each rebuild is a lesson in making LEGO(bricks) work together.
James (who thinks the 'Sword' was the largest model he's ever made)
| | | | | | |
