 | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Jordan D. Greer
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Jordan D. Greer
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship" —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) One heavy turbolaser bolt on a Star Destoyer has a blast of 200 gigatons. Lets not even get into the insane amount of power required for hyperspace. (Which is far more than would be required to "take off" from a planet.) Or how about this one: (...) (22 years ago, 1-Sep-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
