 | | Re: Hypothetical design question —George Haberberger
|
| | | (...) Sylvi, Aerodynamics is complex. One usually divides aerodymanic behavior into different categories, depending on the speed of the vehicle in comparison to the speed of the particle. If your vehicle is traveling under particle speed (the speed (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —Sylvia Tresto
|
| | | | | (...) Wow, that's quite a bit more complicated than I assumed... (...) Yup, I had those in mind for vehicles which actually travel through atmosphere. (...) No thank YOU, George, for clearing some things up. What about this, taken from the SF novel (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —Tom Bozzo
|
| | | | | | (...) -snip- (...) Sylvi, This is an interesting reference. I can only guess at Reynolds' inspiration, though it does sound like an extrapolation of designs based on hypersonic flow theory (on that front, see (URL) -- note how the optimal shape (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —Jonathan Mizner
|
| | | | | | (...) If I understand physics correctly, it doesn't make a difference whether it is the ship traveling at .9 c or the hydrogen atom. The energy released is the same. Thus, that atom is effectively dealing far, far more energy than 1.5E-10 watts. Not (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) That's essentially correct. Two cars hitting each other head-on at 30MPH is effectively the same as one car hitting a stationary vehicle at 60MPH. Obviously the two accidents would not be perfect mirror images of each other, but the level of (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —Jonathan Mizner
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'm not sure on the physics, but we can assume either to be interchangeable; the ship impacting a motionless particle at .9c, or a particle at .9c impacting the ship. Kinetic energy is derived from mass and velocity. So it is, in effect, a (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —Tom Bozzo
|
| | | | | | (...) You're right, though I read Jonathan's point as being that I didn't account for relativistic effects in the energy calculation, which is true. If I have the math right, the crossover point where the relativistic energy exceeds the rest mass (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yeah, one would hope that if we ever achieve the capability of moving that fast, we'd also have the capability of dealing with associated problems. And if it's comparable to a sports car's engine, I'd think heat buildup would be a bit of a (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —Jonathan Mizner
|
| | | | | | (...) But you're going at .95c, which means you're hitting lots of particles per second. If your ship has a frontal area of 9 sq meters, and 90000 square centimeters, that's 90,000 molecules you're running into for every centimeter forward in space (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —Tom Bozzo
|
| | | | | | (...) Jonathan, The craft would indeed contact a lot of particles (about 2.85x10^14 per second per square meter of frontal area at 0.95c) but the energy per particle is very small. So the total energy of those particles seems manageable in (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Hypothetical design question —Andrew Engstrom
|
| | | | (...) Well, it's only theoretical at the moment, but scientists believe that there's such a thing as "Dark Matter". It is invisible to all modern sensing systems (including the naked eye), but it is the only explanation for certain celestial events (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
