 | | Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
Both these articles are very interesting as well as informative to all the spacers here. The first link leads to a listing and description of ALL proper names for space vessel designations by size and duty. I thought this was very informative. (URL) (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) The catagories are interesting. I'm not sure weight is the way to go since it's dependant upon the gravitational effect of the current location. If you think converting between US and metric is bad, just wait until you have to convert Mars (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: .space FAQ??
|
|
(...) and make a .space FAQ or something. That would be really useful to builders i think. imho -p (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) That's a good site, but I don't like the fact that he sets definite masses for different classifications of spacecraft. We really have no idea as to how large space vehicles in real life would be. (...) in the Lego world, making carriers is (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) arguments rely on a number of key assumptions that are not directly stated in his discussion. The key to the carrier's role in history, IMHO, has been two fold: versatility and protection. Large ships engaging eachother (Battleship vs. (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
Ah, some fascinating dicussion possibilities... (...) that his definitions are "proper", implying that other definitions should be ignored. I recently posted my views on this here: (URL)This article is very well written and brings up a good (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
<snip> (...) I think this is an excellent question to ask in the face of Space Warfare. Why in space? I've asked myself that, and this is what I came up with: Obviously planets and planetoid structures (asteroids, etc) would be the key territory to (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Probably not, actually. Fighters/bombers are expensive peices of equipment and getting them into (and out of) an atmosphere is a problem. If you want to bomb a territory, just drop rocks on it. Cheap, easy, accurate, utterly devastating, and (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) True, somewhat. This is exactly what battleships and dreadnoughts can provide: off-shore bombardment. This is the purpose of the CIG (Celestial Impact Generator) on my own Armegeddon Class battleships (it is essentially a non-explosive rocket (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) At an SF convention when I was in college, one fellow gave his theory of what first contact would be like: A large rock hurtling towards Earth at relativistic speeds. Boom! Flash! His theory was that once you develop the capability to easily (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Fascinating. Although one interpretation of this is to say that any society is inherently a threat due to their very existance, and thus all societies should be erradicated. This type of logic is dangerous because it opens up the possibility (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Tony, Regarding the first site, I urge you to be careful with extremes. There is no way that this could possibly describe ALL proper names for space vessel designations, except in Mr. Morris' own fictions. Space travel is as yet a new (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Not according to Star Trek. Space is relatively planar, so you essentially have borders. Everyone knows you can't go around a temporal anomoly...you have to go straight through. And all spaceships face up. Peace, Long Life, and Giggles, Tony (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) One of my favorite products from Ad Astra games (who make games that actually use science) is a T-Shirt, with the front showing: "Give a person a relativistic rock, and they will shatter a planet today. Teach them to do the math, and they will (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Ahh, but that assumes you have the technology. His theory is that you will get blasted to oblivion before you get the technology. There's also the time factor. You don't have all that blasted much time to react to something approaching at (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) True. I always find it unsettling that when I see a documentary on SETI and there is invariably an interview with some scientist who says something like, "Surely if there are advanced alien societies, then they will want to communicate with us (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) I'm strangely reminded of Pierce Brosnan's character in Mars Attacks. (...) Not being that familiar with scientists in general, I can only guess that even the godless need something to believe in. Besides, the warmongers surely have enough (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Yeah, I understand his premise, I just don't buy it. :) Even stipulating 1 possibility for a technological culture per say 10,000 stars that's still 50 million sites (half a trillion stars in our galaxy alone) you need to check. Further (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) I agree that the numbers seem staggering. On the other hand, clearly the number of interstellar civilizations is below some threshold. Of course part of the premise is also that the first civilization to make it to interstellar capability (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) The utility of a fighter craft in space is inversely proportional to the cost of energy, and magnitude of distances and velocities involved in space combat, and directly proportional to the acceleration rates of which your fighter craft are (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
Ahh, but that assumes you have the technology. His theory is that you (...) also (...) Unless acceleration is almost instantaneous, the waste energy of whatever accelerates the rock to light speed will reach you long before the rock does. Assuming (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
Hi Jordan, If I may respond to a few of your comments... (...) I believe this to be true in modern day fleets. I am sure fuel and energy usage are calculated into a mission. (...) If you take a look at the history of technology, it is filled with (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) *When great distances are involved*, Yes, and this is precisely why there would be a place for carrier ships in SF space warfare. Although who ever said anything about cubical fuel tanks? Liquid and solid fuels are quite low-tech for some (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Holy Moly! You sure know your physics! :) I would add though, that if the attacker in this scenario were concerned with "expenditure of resources" then they would be very unwise to ever consider killing a planet known to harbor life. Let's for (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Hypothetical Space Warfare
|
|
After reading some of the really cool discussions and points of view raised in responce to this post, I have been lead to an new conclusion: Meaningful discussion about the nature of space warfare is immeadiately bound by the technology used. This (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) I assumed we were talking about actual space warfare, not science fiction.. Anyhow, you misunderstood me, I did not mean to imply that future space vehicles would utilize primitive chemical propellants, I was referring to hydrogen or (...) (22 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) That too requires the target civilization to recognize it (the energy wastage) for what it is. If there *is* wastage to detect in the direction of the target--again, not something we can be sure of, necessarily; it may be that one has to be, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Drake Equation (was: Re: Some great Space info and dicussion)
|
|
(...) A minor tangent, but it's got a pointer to a neat toy. The Drake Equation (1961) is the classic articulation of the potential for technological--and communicative--civilizations. There's a neat toy at www.seti.org, too, that lets you plug in (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Drake Equation (was: Re: Some great Space info and dicussion)
|
|
I thought the Drake Equation was: Massive Collection + Endless Aquisition = Tha' Original Freak ;) In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: (snippage of great stuff) (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Drake Equation (was: Re: Some great Space info and dicussion)
|
|
(...) That could actually apply to quite a few of us. *cough cough* ;) best LFB PS: The Takao site's almost ready to go up. (22 years ago, 22-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Drake Equation (was: Re: Some great Space info and dicussion)
|
|
(...) You must be joking, right? Intelligence has already done immeasurable things for our species. If you're talking about our capacity for conflict and self-destruction, blame our million-year-old instincts. IMO, intelligence is about the only (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Drake Equation (was: Re: Some great Space info and dicussion)
|
|
(...) Depends on how you look at it. Yes, there are some great things to being intelligent at this level. However, LFB said that it is "an evolutionary dead-end". If you think about it, that is somewhat true. We are less likely to evolve from our (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jordan D. Greer writes: [ le snip ] (...) Indeed, but you seem to assume that there will be only one kind of combat in space. I can think of several situations where it might be useful to have the larger craft transporting smaller (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Small spacecraft dependent upon larger craft for long-range transport likely would have much greater utility in peaceful purposes than in warfare. Sure, we're talking about usefulness, of which energy costs are a great factor in space. If a (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Drake Equation (was: Re: Some great Space info and dicussion)
|
|
(...) Redemption is, of course, an ethical concept, not an evolutionary one. Yes, our propensity towards violence is rooted in the competitive nature that very probably *gave* us our intellects to begin with; but that aggressive nature in itself (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Drake Equation (was: Re: Some great Space info and dicussion)
|
|
(...) There's some analogy here about blaming the gun rather than the wielder, but it's a little too late in the night for me to tell whether it changes the argument... (...) So would I! I hope I didn't unintentionally imply otherwise. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Drake Equation (was: Re: Some great Space info and dicussion)
|
|
Ahhh...to one day be part of that lofty crowd. 'Sigh'. I've gotta earn more money :) -G (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
Go play. You need to lighten up. Let me dream my dreams and play with possibilities; if you want to do the math, have fun. Maybe one day we can build something together. I understand your point, and know that there are some laws you can't break. I (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
<snip> (...) the problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes future travel will be based acceleration and deceleration in normal space. simply traveling at light speed has a whole bunch of problems associated with it, which is why most (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Waaaaaitasecond. A lot of us who are politically to the left are in fact extremely supportive of interplanetary travel--because we consider ourselves "progressives," and what could be more pro- gressive than pushing the frontiers of humanity (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
|
(...) Yes, I would think liberals would support things like SETI and future space missions, since truly conservatives would argue that there is nothing out there to waste so much money on (especially when such money could go to military spending). (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetical Space Warfare
|
|
(...) DING! DING! DING! This is what I was trying to say... Thanx, Lenny, for being so succinct. I have this problem with knowing what I want to say, but having it come out incompletely and sometimes incorrectly. Thanx for summing it up. "I don't (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
