Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetical design question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:24:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
678 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, David Laswell wrote:
| |
When you want
to shoot someone on your six, you spin the ship around and fly backwards
instead of doing wide banking curves through, um, near vacuum.
|
If you spin anything around without curving or coming to a complete stop, you’ll
be sorry. Inertia still applies in space, and at the speeds probably used, a
180-degree spin will turn the entire crew into little puddles on the back of
their seats.
-Spencer Nowak
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hypothetical design question
|
| (...) You're forgetting four things. First, there's no atmosphere, and the main reason for making long banking curves like that is because you can't make abrupt vector changes in an atmosphere. That's not a concern in a near vacuum. Second, no, you (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | Re: Hypothetical design question
|
| (...) Nope. You're misapplying inertia. The whole ship, including contents, has inertia. If it is moving, say, 1.25 Km/s (pretty darn quick) in arbitrary direction A, it (and all it's contents will continue to move in direction A, and which (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hypothetical design question
|
| (...) Eesh. Star Trek script writers tend to accept hypothetical physics as gospel truth (with the result that much of Star Trek physics has since been disproven), and a lot of hard-core Trekkies do the same thing with any physics presented on Star (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
