|
|
|
 |

March 26th, 2004, 05:52 PM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Newtonian ships or not?.
In order to 'maneuver like a plane' there would have to be an atmosphere for wings to work on. Or alternatively, you need to be moving at a signifigant fraction of the speed of light in order to get similar effects from the 'vacuum' of space (which is of course not an 'absolute' vacuum even between the galaxies). The maneuvering spaces would be seriously huge at those speeds, of course. Your turn radius would be larger than the solar system.
Did you know that they have estimated ships moving at around 70 percent of the speed of light between stars will heat up to several thousand degrees like an SR-71 due to the friction of interstellar gases? So even if they develop a means to accelerate near the speed of light they will have to develop a means of dealing with the heat buildup to actually travel that fast. In space all you've got for eliminating heat is radiation.
Now as for the 'Newtonian' movement question I think that what you are asking is will we ever have reactionless drives or will we always have to throw something out behind our ships to make them move... It's tricky to predict technology. If they ever figure out how gravity works they very well might find a way to manipulate it, and then we've got reactionless drives.
|

March 27th, 2004, 01:37 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: CHEESE!
Posts: 10,009
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Newtonian ships or not?.
your post stired up a thought...what if the heat generated by interstellar dust was used to pre-heat the reaction mass?
__________________
If I only could remember half the things I'd forgot, that would be a lot of stuff, I think - I don't know; I forgot!
A* E* Se! Gd! $-- C-^- Ai** M-- S? Ss---- RA Pw? Fq Bb++@ Tcp? L++++
Some of my webcomics. I've got 400+ webcomics at Last count, some dead.
Sig updated to remove non-working links.
|

March 27th, 2004, 03:57 AM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 2,325
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Newtonian ships or not?.
Quote:
Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
In order to 'maneuver like a plane' there would have to be an atmosphere for wings to work on. Or alternatively, you need to be moving at a signifigant fraction of the speed of light in order to get similar effects from the 'vacuum' of space
|
Ha, I knew saying plane, someone would think of spaceships with wings . Let me use examples to show what I mean. Hard Science ship, a ship that accelerates at a fraction of c and needs to do stuff like turn halfway through the journet to decelerate. Pulp ships, the good old Star Wars or Star trek ship. Disregarding their faster than light speed, when they move at sublight speed they can turn whenever they want and stop suddenly without regard to inertia.
|

March 27th, 2004, 05:55 AM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Newtonian ships or not?.
|

March 27th, 2004, 06:00 AM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,323
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Newtonian ships or not?.
Quote:
Originally posted by Randallw:
quote: Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
In order to 'maneuver like a plane' there would have to be an atmosphere for wings to work on. Or alternatively, you need to be moving at a signifigant fraction of the speed of light in order to get similar effects from the 'vacuum' of space
|
Ha, I knew saying plane, someone would think of spaceships with wings . Let me use examples to show what I mean. Hard Science ship, a ship that accelerates at a fraction of c and needs to do stuff like turn halfway through the journet to decelerate. Pulp ships, the good old Star Wars or Star trek ship. Disregarding their faster than light speed, when they move at sublight speed they can turn whenever they want and stop suddenly without regard to inertia. Planes don't move without inertia. You are talking about something completely unknown and probably impossible, but yes we do see that in many shows like Star Trek. This is 'simplified' SciFi for the sake of making a short and simple television show or movie.
|

March 27th, 2004, 07:34 AM
|
 |
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 1,894
Thanks: 5
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
|
Re: Newtonian ships or not?.
FTL via worm holes:
http://www.quantonics.com/Faster_Tha..._Discover.html
Good info:
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm
There should also be an article in the London Sunday Times on 4 Jan 2000 in which some US scientists managed to accelerate light pulses past the speed of light. I would have loved to include the link but the London Times charges for its archives. You guys just aren’t that important for me to start forking out my cash! Anyway I feel that one day we will have starships able to move faster than light. I am not saying that a human crew will be on it, maybe robots.
__________________
President Elect Shang; Tal-Re Republic of Free Worlds
Welcome to Super Vegeta’s Big Bang Attack… Welcome to OBLIVION!
“Don Panoz made an awesome car and… an incinerator” Bill Auberlen
|

March 27th, 2004, 07:42 AM
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 5,085
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Newtonian ships or not?.
Actually it is possible to go past the speed of light, just not the speed of light -in a vaccum-. IIRC the 2000 experiment didn't break c, just the speed of light elsewhere.
There's actually a specific type of radiation that you get when you break the local speed of light, much like the shock waves when you break the speed of sound.
cherenkov radiation
__________________
Phoenix-D
I am not senile. I just talk to myself because the rest of you don't provide adequate conversation.
- Digger
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|