Subject:
|
Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:11:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2155 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> In lugnet.space, Shiri Dori writes:
> > Zactly! Every little dust particle can be really harsh on the ship.
> >
> > -Shiri
> I have heard that space craft with wings would become torn apart by the
> impact of flying in space.
Okay, Jesse. I can't be a spectator to this anymore.
If anyone said a spacecraft with wings would have its wings torn off they
would be wrong obviously. The Shuttle model we use now has wings, but they
are only on it for its atmospheric capabilities. As people have tried in
vain to explain to you, wings are nearly useless in space (in their capacity
of creating uplift through pressure manipulation).
There has been conjecture that at a great enough speed, the minute amount of
solar and galactic dust *could* become a problem, but that kind of speed is
very far beyond our current technological abilities and hence we just don't
know yet.
Even IF there became a medium of travel so fast that space became "thicker"
to the ship, a wing would do nothing except create another surface of drag
on the craft. Think of a submarine. They could use a lot of rudders (ie
"water wings") to manouver better, but the drag would be too high to make it
practical. The speed lost in the trade-off would be detrimental to the
survival of the craft.
What we DO have to worry about right now in space travel is orbital junk and
meteriorites. They are usually small, but travel at such a high speed that
a shoebox sized hunk of solid debris could pretty much destroy an
unprotected ship. Again we have the problem that wings create more surface
area and that endangers the craft.
> How do you know that these conditions will exist
> in space?
"been there, done that" types of science. People used to think space was
filled with a gelatinous goo called ether. we know better now because we
have been there and came back with instrumental readings.
> People thought many centuries earlier that the earth is flat yet
> is is almost perfectly spherical in structure and the theory of relativity
> by Albert Einstein was almost considered a law until very recently when that
> theory was proven false by science. We have organizations that say that
> they are committed to sending people to space yet we give these people
> billions of dollars so they can fly this glorified airplane named the Space
> Shuttle. If we were really committed about sending people into outer space,
> we would have already colonized the moon and Mars.
I agree that there has been a lagging space program as of the last decade or
so, but they have many setbacks of a technical and a public relations view.
The last time I saw anyone excited about a shuttle liftoff was The
Challenger. That really hurt NASA and especially with the recent Mars
losses, they are having a really hard time getting funding from the government.
Not only that, but a great bulk of the space race was an overglorified
"peeing contest" between the US of A and the USSR. There is not a lot up
there for us to DO right now. There are few resources that we can tap, and
other than noble scientific altruism, not much of a reason to colonize
space. The next big push into space will probably be from the commercial
sector. Holiday trips into orbit will be the most likely first step,
especially since the Hilton has had a serious plan in the works for many
years to build a Hotel in orbit.
> I do not deny your
> intelligence but I do not find ease in your statements in response to my
> letters but I have also not applied for these courses in science yet at my
> college so maybe I am right or maybe I am wrong in my statements to you,
> Shiri and other people? The truth is even if wings were not needed in my
> space craft, the space craft would still be torn apart by particles in space
> and my space craft, as opposed to your space craft, not only use these wings
> as weapons platforms but as sources of power and to, as some people may have
> indicated in earlier letters, enter the atmosphere of planets. Your space
> craft do not possess this power of entering the atmosphere because there may
> be situations where hiding from the enemy may require a space craft to hide
> in the atmosphere of a planet. If your space craft do possess the power to
> hide in the atmosphere, please let me know how they enter the atmosphere. I
> am simply wanting to know more about space travel and how Lego space craft
> should be constructed by people.
What you should realize is, the critisizm that a lot of people will have of
a craft as you have described it is that is doesn't use a realistic resource
management system.
In order to help people appreciate your creations, you should scale back on
the zillions of guns, and focus on building techniques. The .space builders
will be far more impressed with features like escapepods, landing gear, and
docking ports, especially if design an ingenious new way to do something.
Naturally we all build differently, but these details help a ship to be more
realistic and that suspends disbelief. That suspension of disbelief is what
people are looking for here (I think) for the most part anyway.
to be honest, the most efficient design for outspace is the sphere, as the
shape of a sphere is dynamic and resistant to high tension and... well there
has been a lot of research into it and you'll just have to trust me. Space
ships made from spheres with very few "greeblies" on them would be highly
realistic, but really darn boring, therefore they are hard to find. The
only place I have seen use of that design technique recently is Outlaw Star*
(on their version of a capship)
> P.S. I do not want to be rude, Dori-san, but I want respect, not anger,
> from the rest of the people on the Lugnet bulletin boards.
The way you don't break up your thoughts into paragraphs is hard to follow,
and largely annoying. If you make that one step, I'd bet it would be a step
towards people here giving you some more respect. I don't think most of us
are angry at you, mostly I see people laughing at you for your strongly held
misconceptions of space and for alienating yourself through your poor
communication skills and bombastic personality.
cheers!
Joel Kuester - Lugnet #558
* Outlaw Star is a mostly decent Japanese animation show that seems largely
inspired by the far better and highly recommended anime "Cowboy Bebop".
Ignoring originality and plot maturity differences, I really like way both
shows represent future space travel and technology. Also, Outlaw Star goes
a little overboard with armed combat on ships, I just ignore that one
conceptual indulgence.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) I have heard of the anime "Cowboy Bebop" but I have never heard of the anime "Outlaw Star" and I have never seen either series (which is not quite uncommon since I live in rural Tennessee) but you fail to conside that because friction and (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) I have heard that space craft with wings would become torn apart by the impact of flying in space. How do you know that these conditions will exist in space? People thought many centuries earlier that the earth is flat yet is is almost (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
|
34 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
|
|
|
|
