Subject:
|
Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:13:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2124 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jesse Alan Long writes:
> 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)
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 Video. I am lucky enough that I was able to rent it,
since I live near a local shop called Model Zone that imports subtitled and
Dubbed anime direct from Japan. You may find a local comic shop also rents
anime near you.
> 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.
actually, I did consider all that but I was trying to address the space
issue by itself. I did mention the space shuttle using wings for
atmospheric travel. I have no problems with wings for that purpose.
snip
> 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).
actually, the whole subject of wings steadying a craft in space is false.
Wings will do that for a craft in atmosphere, but they simply don't do it if
there is a vaccuum. The steadying effect of rudders and wings is from
particles passing over them and pushing against their surface. There is
nothing pushing against a wing in space.
All control of pitch roll and yaw on a space craft is created through
thrusters alone. These thrusters on a small craft are usually of a
different type than the main thrusters, but don't neccessarily have to be.
You can build them to whatever size needed to move the ship. Volume of a
ship is the same, but the mass is affected by the weaker pull of gravity and
even the smallest object seems weightless. Small bursts of air can and do
manipulate the position of even the largest orbital stations. This isn't
the most common or best way to do it, but I am supplying an extreme example
of why bulk really doesn't matter the way you think it does.
Keep in mind that I am only addressing this issue in space applications.
Atmospheric thrust is whole 'nother ball of cats.
> 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 must say that is sounds from description that a lot of detail has been
packed into your ship. I am curious to see it, but I am not here to discuss
the details of your ship, I am just trying to help you understand exactly
why people are reacting the way they did to your comments on wings on
spacecraft. I hope by explaining the science behind the way we design
things, you will come to understand our point of view, even if it has no
effect on your design esthetics.
> 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.
right, I wasn't trying to imply that you believed in ether anymore than you
were implying we believe the world is not a sphere in your previous post. I
was citing an example. I can tell that you are not a stupid person, but you
seem to have a very spotty understanding of astrophysics to which you are
coming off as very stubborn about.
> 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.
I do not understand why you bring this up. I am familiar with this subject
and while I am not a Christian*, I do agree that the Carbon 14 dating is
mis-used at times. The main crux of the Carbon 14 dating debate is a
science vs religion debate and I am not very interested in the age of the
Universe either way.
> 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
To what part of my last post do you disagree with? I wasn't really stating
many opinions. I definately made no judgements about your craft. You can
design it however you like and use whatever tech levels you like. Lots of
people here on Lugnet build with contrasting design esthetics. If we
disagree on an idea that someone else made we either ask them about it to
find out why it was made that way or we just agree to disagree. We all
build for ourselves ultimately, so you have to make ships that make YOU
happy. Coming on the group and making a grand statement that all of our
ships are fundamentally wrong because we don't have feature such-and-such
will get you no where fast.
I personally usually don't like to see craft that people have built using
tech from media sources because I am not fond of Star Wars or Star Trek
science. Of course, I myself have built many Star Wars craft, but I was not
interested in borrowing their technology, I was mostly inspired by their
forms. I love the way Star Wars craft look, but they are mostly terrible
from a hard science POV. My own ships have a very clean and greebly-free
look to them, and I don't use Star Wars tech in them, although I have
adopted some of the forms.
> 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.
Any reason? I am curious to know why you believe this.
I do not think a craft would have to be the size of a DS to be a workable
spherical ship.
cheers!
Joel K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) That's one reason I enjoyed Babylon 5 so much. The science wasn't perfect (you have to make *some* concessions for the sake of the story), but at least they made a darn good attempt. I've found the Jovian Chronicles RPG from Dream Pod 9 to be (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
| (...) It is great that YOU live near an anime store and Suncoast but, unfortunately, I live in Hicksville, or as better known to the local people, Savannah, Tennessee. There are only about seven to fifteen thousand people that live in this town so (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
