 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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: 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)
|
