Subject:
|
Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:38:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
889 times
|
| |
|
|
> Can a 'capital ship' land on a planet?
>
>
> Can it take off again?
Why would you even WANT to set a capital ship down? Assuming a mass
of 90,000 (American) tons, you would have to expend roughly 4.91*10^18
joules to get a Nimitz class carrier into space. That's equivalent to
about 1.174 megatons of TNT. To generate 4.91*10^18 joules with hydrogen
fusion, you would have to use 7.8 tons of hydrogen. It's simply not
worth the expenditure of energy and material.
--
For the Cause!
http://www.ozbricks.net/solarianempire/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
| (...) What I meant to say was 1.174 gigatons (1.174 million kilotons, 1,174 megatons). If my memory serves me correctly, that's more than half of America's nuclear firepower. (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
| For the sake of this discusion, all LEGO ships refered too should be minifig scale. What is the minimum length (studs) of a 'capital ship'? Can a 'capital ship' land on a planet? Can it take off again? Does a 'capital ship' have to carry smaller (...) (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
