 | | Re: Ship Power Core
|
|
(...) Hmmm...I operate with cabrionic engines, which operate on a slightly different theory--basically deriving energy from the 'flow' of spacetime in the gravity well of stars. Between the stars, energy loss isn't an issue--the superluminal drives (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Ship Power Core
|
|
There really is something at the end...scroll down. (...) ...<snip>... (...) There are now .jpgs available. (URL) drive is mounted in a faux-bay of lattice grillework to give it that "operational" feel. These sit vertically, not horizontally as Z's (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Ship Power Core
|
|
(...) That's a neat idea on those. I just wish I could build a ship big enough to use it! Great idea! Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn CAD Operator Affiliated Engineers, Inc. Work Page: (URL) Page: (URL) LEGO Page: (URL) to come: Star Wars LEGO (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Ship Power Core
|
|
(...) try: (...) cylinder. (...) the (...) two (...) the (...) a (...) gravity). (...) different (...) gravity (...) superluminal (...) "cabrionic engines"? "matter hypercompressor generator"? Can someone please tell me what´s wrong with the good (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Ship Power Core
|
|
(...) To a certain extent, ramjets and ion drives are rocket-ish. The reasoning for alternate powerplants is because rockets are extremely high consumers of space, power, and so forth; if one can derive one's power from the fields all around them, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
Hi there, You've got to love these fantasy-tech discussions that spring out of the desire to model spaceships in Lego! To all of you who have posted pictures: love your designs. They have the no-nonsense look of real machines. (...) O.K., Tobias, (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
(...) Cool, thanks for the interesting propulsion discussion. It's been a while since I've thought about these things, but it's always been an interest of mine. Personally I'd like to see some work being done on nuclear propulsion again as well. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
I'm gonna go out on a limb here... and speculate that Tobias was only trying to call attention to the overly complex technologies and names people give there "LEGO" creations... I think Tobias (and please correct me if I'm wrong Tobias) was (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
(...) Going further up on the tree...... (...) Hmm.. Well, when I was younger, I bought the Star Trek Technical Manual for the U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC1701D. I named a lot of my technology on that, I always liked the more technical names, as in Warp (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
(...) I got that same book. It was okay, I guess, but I got really steamed when I found out that the manual didn't come with parts to build your own starship. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
Jeremy, (...) LOL! Yes, I was disappointed to. Some of the book made me want to vomit (Politics, etc.) but it was a neat book to see what the ST universe did. I still base a lot of my technology on it, simply because I like it. But I wish a (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
(...) This is due to the shape of the engine bell -- how gases tend to collect inside instead of just spewing out, increasingly so the farther you get from optimal pressure. This waste gas not only robs from the total thrust mass, but also (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
(...) Why fission? Just because it's easier for us right now to garner energy from fissionable heavy minerals rather than the fusion of light ones? The concepts for nuclear pulse propulsion for fission almost always have to be external to the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
(...) from (...) concepts (...) to (...) *inside* (...) momentum, (...) Why fission? It can be done -now-. The technology exists. :) I agree, in the long run fusion is much better, because of the theoretical effeciency, and the abundance of fuel (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
(...) Although fusion propulsion is far better than fission propulsion, there are still faster things. For example, light drives. They work by emitting light backward, as so to move foreward, an you know what the specific impulse in that case would (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core)
|
|
John J. Ladasky Jr.: (...) I think you have some miscalculations there. Assuming that the reaction mass is 99% of the total initial mass of the vessel, and that the peak exhaust velocity is 2*10^5 m/s, the peak velocity of the vessel will be (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
