Subject:
|
Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:14:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2109 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> 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.
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 gravity are in lesser amounts in space that the effects
of drag will become greatly reduced and you also did not see about the part
of my sentence where I plainly stated that, as with the Space Shuttle, my
space craft can enter the atmosphere.
The reasons I have wings on my space craft, as obviously stated in my
earlier post, is that my space craft can enter the atmosphere and hide from
enemies and it has many weapons on the wings, amybe not as many as a person
would believe but there are some support boosters/ weapons on the wings of
my space craft. I also have these wings on my space craft because I want
balance in the atmosphere and I do not want to spin endlessly in space
because without wings, a space craft would spin and spin in space forever
and the only alternative that I know that is possible to counteract the spin
is to use support thrusters on the space craft but these support thrusters
are designed for smaller craft and can not handle the large bulk of larger
space craft (unless there was a pratical way to build larger support thrusters).
You are correct in saying that wings can not provide lift into outer space
and if I have said any statement to the contrary, I apologize but my wings
also contain the two escape pods on my space craft, which was somewhat
borrowed from the idea of a Galactic Mediator, so that my crew can escape
from harmful invaders (and the other two escape pods are comprised of the
first two sections of my space craft). My space craft has these guns and
these wings to blast the meteorites and space debris into dust and, as
previously stated, they prevent the spiral through the asteroid fields and
meteor showers and it will provide more balance throughout the space craft.
There are exceptions to this rule, such as the space craft of Star Trek and
the Millennium Falcon of the Star Wars Trilogy and other such space craft of
that nature because they are round and the whole space craft generally acts
as a giant wing and the fact that their engines are located in a central
point. I also have two escape/escort space craft on my larger space craft
for my crew. I have a docking port in the middle compartment of my space
craft but the window doubles as the base for the most powerful weapon on my
space craft which is a giant plasma gun.
I am a person that contains enough intelligence to know that ether does not
exist in space but simply because we have readings from outer space that may
or may not negate ideas about the structure of space craft and theories does
not mean that these readings are correct nor do they mean that certain
aspects of space and space travel would become impossible for people. The
Carbon-14 tests that are so valuably prized by evolutionists have been
proven time after time ( I apologize to the reference of an Ozzy Ozzbourne
song of the same name) to become incorrect because of a myriad of reasons,
such as the simple fact that the layers of strata on the Earth are in a
different order than the indications of the Carbon-14 tests or the more
complex fact of certain later materials from one era on an object from
another era starts to confuse the Carbon-14 indicators into believing that
an object is of an earlier or later date than the object really is from in
time and so Carbon-14 is heavily unreliable in the nature of technology.
The reason I can not completely agree with you is that, as you said, we do
not know whether the conjecture about space and cosmic dust becoming a
problem at greater speeds due to our lack of attainment of these higher
speeds and these higher forms of technology is or is not true in outer space
because these theories have not been tested so I believe that many of the
aspects of astrophysics and other related topics in outer space are largely
based upon theories, superstitions, religious beliefs, and pure speculataion
and guessing in life but I do agree that a sphere is another good idea for a
perfect type of space craft but the space craft would have to be the size of
the Death Star.
Jesse Long
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) I urge all .space people to watch Cowboy Bebop. It is a great series, mostly because of the writing and characterization, but also because the designs and concepts are very good. You can get it in DVD or VHS format at places like Suncoast (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) Quick, someone alert NASA! How, oh how, will they ever dock with the ISS when it is spinning away like mad?! I guess Dennis Tito's reported illness when boarding the station wasn't due to weightlesness after all... <snip> (...) Oh, so *that's* (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.loc.au)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
