Subject:
|
Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:10:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
804 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <H92Lty.5GK@lugnet.com>,
"Hendo (John P. Henderson)" <hendo@valyance.com> wrote:
> *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 Sci-Fi scenarios.
>
> -H.
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 antimatter. Chemical propellants have a
much too low energy/mass yield. If one wanted to use fighters in space,
the only known energy source that would make fighters usable would be
antimatter. I simply used cubical fuel tanks as an example, I did not
intend to make it seem as if cubical fuel tanks would actually be used
in a space fighter. For a sphere, the volume increases with the cube of
the radius, for cylinders, volume increase with the square of the radius
and with the height.
If we're speaking of vehicles that magically travel faster than light
(FTL), distances will probably be determined by the accuracy of the FTL
drive.
--
Long live the Empire!
http://www.ozbricks.net/solarianempire/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
