Subject:
|
Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:04:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
875 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <aurora-A76569.16385130082002@news.lugnet.com>,
"Jordan D. Greer" <aurora@psicorps.com> wrote:
> > 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.
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.
--
For the Cause!
http://www.ozbricks.net/solarianempire/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
