Subject:
|
Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Jan 2003 04:09:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1004 times
|
| |
|
|
<snip>
> 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 craft deploys its fighters after it has decelerated to meet the
> enemy, the fighter craft will have to accelerate to get ahead of the main
> vehicle, deploy their weapons, and then either decelerate in preparation for
> pickup, or continue to coast along at their new velocity. It would make more
> sense to deploy the craft before deceleration, so as to avoid unnecessary
> expenditure of fuel, and to add kinetic energy to the weapons which the
> fighters may employ for anti-shipping strikes. They again have to either
> coast along or decelerate.
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 scifi
invents some other way of traveling (either 'warping' or jumping to
'hyperspace' or whatever). when considering the usefullness of a carrier type,
you have to consider the new logistics of this FTL travel, which we obviously
don't know yet.
>
>
> > If America had just stuck to the rules instead of trying to do what
> > they were told was impossible, we'd never have gone to the moon. But in
> > dreaming of reaching new worlds, we discovered that creativity and faith can
> > work wonders where we think the laws are set in stone.
> > Isn't that kind of what Lego is all about?
>
> Well, we are talking about actual space warfare, yes? Space warfare would of
> necessity be largely determined by the cold, set-in-stone laws of physics.
> If one were to keep wasting energy as if there were no tomorrow, one would
> unnecessarily create a larger logistical train, which is a bad idea across
> interstellar or stellar distances.
excuse me, but what "set-in-stone laws" are we talking about? the ones outline
by newton that were then updated by einstein? i think it is perfectly
reasonable to assume that in the future some other genius will have access to
new data and new perspectives to formulate entirely new (or at least new
approaches) laws that expand upon the old ones.
i think any basic understanding of physics would highlight the slow evolution
these laws have taken over the course of history... and continue to evolve.
> Physics don't tell us that we ought to not experiment, but they do give us a
> basic guideline of what is or is not feasible, and most expedient for the
> purposes of conducting warfare in space.
> War, exploration, and all other fields of creative human endeavor will
> always be helped or hindered by the economic and political realities of the
> day, not exclusively creativity. Hell, since the '60s, we've had the
> technology to easily reach Saturn or Mars, or even launch an interstellar
> probe. However, politics and the feelings and outcrying of the liberal left
> have for the past few decades crushed any dreams of any such things.
being politically left, i have need to defend my colleages. For example, what
reason do we have to explore mars or saturn when billions continue to be
oppressed and starved here on earth?
i am reminded of the novel _Red Mars_ by some really good author, wherein
during the colonization of Mars, the politically and economically oppressed on
Earth rise up in quasi-rebellion and riots.
-lenny
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
