Subject:
|
Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:55:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
778 times
|
| |
|
|
> I'd have to disagree. The logic is flawed. The usefulness of a
> carrier configuration still would exist in space, and need not be limited to
> warships; exploratory and scientific pursuits would also benefit from having
> this type of platform. The variety of mission types available, as well as
> the support community housed on the carrier, would give it unique
> capabilities that I think could only enhance space life. While I believe
> the design idea to be still useful for spacebound warfaring, I'd also be
> interested in the possibilities of peaceful, exploratory, and colonization
> missions. The possibilities have only really begun to be explored.
> Bigger may be better, but it's also a hell of a lot more expensive; a
> carrier with a number of different subcraft would be a far more varied and
> versatile use of the same resources than a single large ion cannon in space.
> Yuen Kit Mun makes some interesting points, but I think they are far
> from authoritative.
>
> Just my 50th of a buck.
>
> Peace and Long Life,
> Tony Alexander
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 capable.
Since the amount of energy necessary to effect a change in velocity
increases with the square of a change in velocity (as derived from the
sub-relativistic kinetic energy equation), and since fuel capacity
(volume) increases with the cube of the increase of length (for cubical
fuel tanks), larger craft have a natural advantage over fighters if
great distances are involved.
What several posters seem to have forgetten, or not known, is that
every single joule of energy has to be accounted for. Energy costs in
space combat will be paramount. Many of the hypotheses which some of you
have thrown out contradict the logical mathematical realities, which is
upon what much of space combat would be based. One only has to possess a
basic understanding of physics and know the necessary equations to
understand this.
--
Long live the Empire!
http://www.ozbricks.net/solarianempire/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
42 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
|
|
|
|
