Subject:
|
Re: Wings [was: Re: Building big]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:38:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2090 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> 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
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 the demand for such a place mainly does not
exist in this town. The last comic book store that was in town went out of
business five years earlier so that is another reason I can not relate to
your life, Joel, that and my parents would probably kick me out of the
house. :.(
There does exist friction and gravity in space, Joel, as I have said on
numerous occasions, but the gravity and friction are a very small amount
when we compare the gravity and friction of outer space to our planet Earth.
You are correct that my knowledge of astrophysics is somehwat questionable
but so is the system of astrophysics and all realted fields in this area of
science. The concept of saying that outer space is a true vaccum is false
because of those two reason I stated earlier in this paragraph and were
vaccums in outer space true, then nothing will be able to move, no thrust
would exist on space craft, and nothing could keep the space craft from
flying apart into a million pieces.
The thrusters are of a different type than the three main thrusters and two
main auxillary thrusters on my space craft. I never argued about the size
of the thrusters and we both know that the size of the thruster to the size
of the craft has to be considered in a perfect ratio or otherwise the craft
will not be able to move in any direction in space, or at least it will take
the overworked thrusters somewhat longer and cause them to use more fuel to
accomplish more work than it is needed when the engineers can simply use
larger thrusters on their space craft. I built my thrusters on my wings in
a very similar manner to the Space Shuttle but I am not sure if the ability
to have four independent thrusters that are able to have an approximate
range of two hundred and forty five degrees of movement are scientifically
correct or possible in my space craft.
I appreciate that you are trying to understand my views on space craft but I
am trying to understand the views on every other person and their designs of
space craft but the problem is we still do not understand each other in our
designs of space craft. I still do not understand why people build their
space craft in the manner that they build their space craft because I do not
understand the logic of their space craft because, even though some of the
technology of these space craft sounds nice to my ears, these space craft
seem to mimic each other and I simply wanted to make a new kind of space
craft. I am starting to wonder that I should have simply waited for the
money to purchase the photgraphs from Wal Mart, went over to Shiloh, scanned
the picture to the computer that my grandmother owns and started to build a
computer site but none of these events has occured yet and I simply used an
inopportune moment to debate the laws of science in outer space. My space
craft are detailed but that is an undisputed rule in space craft. The
designer who would not include any amounts of detail in their space craft
would be considered a masochist.
The arguement concerning Carbon-14 was simply an example of an arguement
that is similar to the arguements being made on the Lugnet Space bulletin
boards. We have thousands of designers using thousands of different
standards and it confuses me. All I wanted to build was some pretty space
craft and if you bring in a wrestling ring and several objects around that
ring, you would capture the idea of what is happening in the Lugnet Space
bulletin boards at this moment. I have one last question before I send this
message, to borrow a quote from Paul Hertzog, what in the flipping space
monster burgers does greebly mean about space craft?
Jesse Long
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
