Subject:
|
Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Sep 2002 05:00:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
891 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jordan D. Greer writes:
> 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.
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: The Death Star's blast is roughly the energy output of the earth's sun for
about 7000 years all at once. (At least that is how much energy would be
required to overcome an Earth sized planet's gravitational cohesion and blow it
apart like Alderaan.)
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
