Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetical design question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:45:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
768 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Sylvia Tresto wrote:
| |
Okay, just something I thought of while fiddling with my LEGO: An aerodynamic
desigh is only handy in atmosphere and not necessary in space, right? I
remember it from physics lessons and some posts in this newsgroup. But space
is not a true vaccuum, is it? There is all sorts of stuff out there, even if
it is only on a molecular or atomic level. So if a spaceship had a
revolutionary drive which would allow it to travel close to lightspeed (let’s
stay true to Einstein and assume faster is no option) it should be very
aerodynamic or its would sustain heavy damage from even the smallest of
particles out there. Am I right or have I completely overlooked something?
|
I think the biggest problem for a ship accelerating towards light speed is not
particles, but energy consuption. remember, the faster you go, the more energy
you need to propell yourself, and this increases exponentially. essentially,
accelerating matter to light speed would require an infinite amount of energy,
so if you are going close to light speed, and already have the technology to do
that, you’d probably also have figured out how to deal with microparticles.
in my universe, aerodynamic (curved) designs are accepted for primarily
aesthetic, rather than technical, reasons.
i think once you start bending the rules in any one area (ie, able to accelerate
close to light speed, etc), you also have to bend rules in other areas, too.
and in the end the point is this: build for whatever reasons you want and make
up the physics that explain it. personally, i just try not to blatantly
contradict anything that is still accepted in physics (ie, light is constant,
light speed is the fastest you can go, etc).
-Jr.Mar.Hoffman
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hypothetical design question
|
| (...) True, of course. However, I was wondering about the most efficient design to make that large ammount of energy used effeciently! (...) In mine the situation is similar.. (...) Thanx! Love, Sylvi (22 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | Re: Hypothetical design question
|
| In lugnet.space, Leonard Hoffman wrote: -snip- (...) -snip- (...) Now I'm going to start this off with the fact I'm no physicist. I'm not an expert. And everything I'm about to say is relayed from endless conversations I've had with my father about (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Hypothetical design question
|
| Okay, just something I thought of while fiddling with my LEGO: An aerodynamic desigh is only handy in atmosphere and not necessary in space, right? I remember it from physics lessons and some posts in this newsgroup. But space is not a true vaccuum, (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jun-03, to lugnet.space)
|
57 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
|
|
|
|
