DUST Search - Astrophysics

All Channels

The Locker Room

Astrophysics

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5126	Posted - 2014.08.15 12:46:00 - [1] - Quote I know a fair amount. I was wondering though, The massive ships we see in all sci fi would surely be the quickest ships because they have bigger engines right?. Or would their mass affect their speed and manoeuvrability?. A rolling nade is worth two in ambush.
Spademan The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 2993	Posted - 2014.08.15 13:42:00 - [2] - Quote Well that's the general gist with current seaborne ships. And there's less resistance in space. I have no idea if any of this is transferable. Note: Not an astrophysicist. I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special. Official Time Lord of the Scout Community
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 16988	Posted - 2014.08.15 16:06:00 - [3] - Quote The thing about space is that there's no friction. It all comes down to the raw momentum output of your engines. Mass wouldn't strictly affect speed - but it would affect acceleration. Unlike on a planet the speed limit is very high - you can just keep accelerating and accelerating. The higher the mass, the harder it'd be to accelerate your ship though, and manouevrability is essentially how fast you can cancel your momentum in one direction and accelerate in another. So manouevrability would be affected, but speed wouldn't be. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
Immortal John Ripper 23885	Posted - 2014.08.15 17:02:00 - [4] - Quote TechMechMeds wrote: I know a fair amount. I was wondering though, The massive ships we see in all sci fi would surely be the quickest ships because they have bigger engines right?. Or would their mass affect their speed and manoeuvrability?. Only Georgi LaForge can make a massive ship the quickest. With some help with that albino and wesley crusher... Vote Ripper 4 Goon.
General John Ripper 23984	Posted - 2014.08.15 17:02:00 - [5] - Quote TechMechMeds wrote: I know a fair amount. I was wondering though, The massive ships we see in all sci fi would surely be the quickest ships because they have bigger engines right?. Or would their mass affect their speed and manoeuvrability?. Only Georgi LaForge can make a massive ship the quickest. With some help with that albino and wesley crusher... Vote Ripper 4 Goon. Spoiler Alert Tenzin dies in legend of Korra today.
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1148	Posted - 2014.08.16 14:01:00 - [6] - Quote Well it's really your thrust to mass ratio. As for manoeuvrability it'd probably be equal. Every newton of force going in one direction has to be countered in order to stop travelling in that direction. If the Mass to Thrust ratio is the same it really just comes down to how quickly they can turn the vessel to then thrust in the other direction. Though sci-fi ship battles a-la EVE/Mass Effect/Star Wars/Battlestar etc is really just space submarines. Nobody takes into account orbital mechanics when fighting near a planet/star/other gravitational body. And small fighters making banking turns is ridiculous. This idea of travelling in space being point your nose at where you want to go and burn until you get there is completely counter to how actual space travel works. If you really want to get your head around how complicated trying to move things around in space is I suggest playing Kerbal Space Program. We'll bang, OK?
TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5142	Posted - 2014.08.16 14:06:00 - [7] - Quote Bayeth Mal wrote: Well it's really your thrust to mass ratio. As for manoeuvrability it'd probably be equal. Every newton of force going in one direction has to be countered in order to stop travelling in that direction. If the Mass to Thrust ratio is the same it really just comes down to how quickly they can turn the vessel to then thrust in the other direction. Though sci-fi ship battles a-la EVE/Mass Effect/Star Wars/Battlestar etc is really just space submarines. Nobody takes into account orbital mechanics when fighting near a planet/star/other gravitational body. And small fighters making banking turns is ridiculous. This idea of travelling in space being point your nose at where you want to go and burn until you get there is completely counter to how actual space travel works. If you really want to get your head around how complicated trying to move things around in space is I suggest playing Kerbal Space Program. All interesting posts. I was thinking about that as well aye. A rolling nade is worth two in ambush.
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1151	Posted - 2014.08.16 15:09:00 - [8] - Quote Well a basic example of the problem with flying straight at your destination: You have a space station in orbit over the Earth with a satellite in the same orbital path but about a mile behind. If you wanted to dock the satellite with the station and pointed the satellite at the station and did a quick burn, adding a few feet per second of velocity to try and catch up, the satellite wouldn't get closer to the station, it'd actually get further away. We'll bang, OK?
TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5159	Posted - 2014.08.16 17:43:00 - [9] - Quote Bayeth Mal wrote: Well a basic example of the problem with flying straight at your destination: You have a space station in orbit over the Earth with a satellite in the same orbital path but about a mile behind. If you wanted to dock the satellite with the station and pointed the satellite at the station and did a quick burn, adding a few feet per second of velocity to try and catch up, the satellite wouldn't get closer to the station, it'd actually get further away. Holy fk. You just fried the mind of some one who knows a lot about everything and 99.99% of my life have never had any problem understanding anything. I can also communicate with foreign people somehow if face to face even if I don't directly understand them, really really well. But this?, I thought I at least knew enough about this but damn. Let me think. 10 minutes elapse So, its because its already behind?.......and would need to go a lot faster?. Yeah I think I get it, would it need to go double the speed to catch up?, double the stations speed?. A rolling nade is worth two in ambush.
Monty Mole Clone Shiv M 171	Posted - 2014.08.16 22:06:00 - [10] - Quote didnt they recently prove the existence of the higs boson and higs field? if so all we need is a higs force field to renders anything inside massless and whamo speed of light baby. of course you would have to get over the fact that where ever you went, when you came back the dirty apes would be in charge because of relativistic effects and whatnot deader than A line flares with pockets in the knees

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17069	Posted - 2014.08.16 22:16:00 - [11] - Quote Monty Mole Clone wrote: didnt they recently prove the existence of the higs boson and higs field? if so all we need is a higs force field to renders anything inside massless and whamo speed of light baby. of course you would have to get over the fact that where ever you went, when you came back the dirty apes would be in charge because of relativistic effects and whatnot This is... not going to happen. There are a ridiculous number of problems with randomly making things massless. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
Monty Mole Clone Shiv M 171	Posted - 2014.08.16 22:19:00 - [12] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Monty Mole Clone wrote: didnt they recently prove the existence of the higs boson and higs field? if so all we need is a higs force field to renders anything inside massless and whamo speed of light baby. of course you would have to get over the fact that where ever you went, when you came back the dirty apes would be in charge because of relativistic effects and whatnot This is... not going to happen. There are a ridiculous number of problems with randomly making things massless. party pooper and here i was thinking someone would take me seriously the apes would still be in charge aye? deader than A line flares with pockets in the knees
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1170	Posted - 2014.08.16 23:41:00 - [13] - Quote TechMechMeds wrote: Let me think. 10 minutes elapse So, its because its already behind?.......and would need to go a lot faster?. Yeah I think I get it, would it need to go double the speed to catch up?, double the stations speed?. No, an object in orbit has a specific speed for that orbit. i.e. you cant have two objects in the same orbit going different speeds. An orbit is really just a controlled fall where your forward momentum is so high that by the time you've fallen to the centre point of the earths gravity you're already past it. An increase in velocity in the direction of travel would take you further from the earth and thus further from the orbit of the space station. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXOBe-CG4cw In this video after the 7 min mark he has to have his ship and the target in two slightly different orbits to allow the target to catch up. Another way of thinking of it is imagine a circular race track with multiple lanes. You have a car that when going at an exact speed (say 100mph) is unable to turn left any harder. If it is in the inside lane and it increases its speed to say 120mph it'll get forced into the next right hand lane for a bit allowing it to have a longer time to turn and then it can go back into the left lane for a bit but eventually that speed is going to be too much and it'll get forced back into the right hand lane. A car staying in the centre lane is still going to orbit the track faster as it is on the inside and has less distance to travel. Or, sit on one of those spinning office chairs, push yourself into a free spin and hold your legs out straight. with the momentum you have you might be spinning once every 2 seconds, then pull your legs in towards your body and you'll start spinning faster, maybe once per second. Same mechanic. We'll bang, OK?
Spademan The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 3047	Posted - 2014.08.16 23:43:00 - [14] - Quote I see what you're saying Bay, but let me ask, is there any way short of reversing the direction of the orbit for the satellite to intersect with, and dock at, the space station? I am part shovel, part man, full scout, and a little bit special. Official Time Lord of the Scout Community
TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5191	Posted - 2014.08.16 23:48:00 - [15] - Quote Bayeth Mal wrote: TechMechMeds wrote: Let me think. 10 minutes elapse So, its because its already behind?.......and would need to go a lot faster?. Yeah I think I get it, would it need to go double the speed to catch up?, double the stations speed?. No, an object in orbit has a specific speed for that orbit. i.e. you cant have two objects in the same orbit going different speeds. An orbit is really just a controlled fall where your forward momentum is so high that by the time you've fallen to the centre point of the earths gravity you're already past it. An increase in velocity in the direction of travel would take you further from the earth and thus further from the orbit of the space station. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXOBe-CG4cw In this video after the 7 min mark he has to have his ship and the target in two slightly different orbits to allow the target to catch up. Another way of thinking of it is imagine a circular race track with multiple lanes. You have a car that when going at an exact speed (say 100mph) is unable to turn left any harder. If it is in the inside lane and it increases its speed to say 120mph it'll get forced into the next right hand lane for a bit allowing it to have a longer time to turn and then it can go back into the left lane for a bit but eventually that speed is going to be too much and it'll get forced back into the right hand lane. A car staying in the centre lane is still going to orbit the track faster as it is on the inside and has less distance to travel. Or, sit on one of those spinning office chairs, push yourself into a free spin and hold your legs out straight. with the momentum you have you might be spinning once every 2 seconds, then pull your legs in towards your body and you'll start spinning faster, maybe once per second. Same mechanic. Right, I get you. There he goes. One of gods own prototypes.
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1171	Posted - 2014.08.17 00:11:00 - [16] - Quote Spademan wrote: I see what you're saying Bay, but let me ask, is there any way short of reversing the direction of the orbit for the satellite to intersect with, and dock at, the space station? You're not reversing the direction of the orbit, as that would be a massive waste of fuel never mind that now the intersecting orbits would be on a very high speed collision course (in the tens of thousands of miles per hour range). What your doing is, as I said above, pulling yourself into the inside lane so you're coming up beside the station at a nice slow speed of maybe a few feet per second. We'll bang, OK?
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.08.17 00:52:00 - [17] - Quote Monty Mole Clone wrote: didnt they recently prove the existence of the higs boson and higs field? if so all we need is a higs force field to renders anything inside massless and whamo speed of light baby. of course you would have to get over the fact that where ever you went, when you came back the dirty apes would be in charge because of relativistic effects and whatnot Oh sure we'll get right on that, might take a couple of days though. On second thought we already have a way of making things massless. It's called a nuclear bomb. E=MC2 and all that. The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima converted 600 to 860 milligrams (0.021 to 0.028 ounces) of matter into massless energy. We'll bang, OK?
Monty Mole Clone Shiv M 171	Posted - 2014.08.17 01:08:00 - [18] - Quote Bayeth Mal wrote: Monty Mole Clone wrote: didnt they recently prove the existence of the higs boson and higs field? if so all we need is a higs force field to renders anything inside massless and whamo speed of light baby. of course you would have to get over the fact that where ever you went, when you came back the dirty apes would be in charge because of relativistic effects and whatnot Oh sure we'll get right on that, might take a couple of days though. On second thought we already have a way of making things massless. It's called a nuclear bomb. E=MC2 and all that. The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima converted 600 to 860 milligrams (0.021 to 0.028 ounces) of matter into massless energy. yeah i was sort of hoping we could do it without annihilating innocent men, woman and children, but such is the price of progresion. deader than A line flares with pockets in the knees
Cass Caul 697	Posted - 2014.08.17 01:25:00 - [19] - Quote So, what you're saying is, those hybrid O.B.s do so much damage/have the largest AoE because they're about the size of your fist when they hit the ground :p Math is easy, you're just stupid. The Empress of Alts
GLOBAL fils'de RAGE Consolidated Dust 13	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:05:00 - [20] - Quote TechMechMeds wrote: I know a fair amount. I was wondering though, The massive ships we see in all sci fi would surely be the quickest ships because they have bigger engines right?. Or would their mass affect their speed and manoeuvrability?. Inertia

TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5254	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:13:00 - [21] - Quote Cass Caul wrote: So, what you're saying is, those hybrid O.B.s do so much damage/have the largest AoE because they're about the size of your fist when they hit the ground :p You can measure the impact by shooting a ball with the same mass and density of the earth relatively speaking. Its how we know the effects of asteroids if they hit the earth. If I remember right, all it takes is a 5 mile radius asteroid to annihilate 99% of life on earth. Sorry if that's vague, I'm flicking between work, the forums and a game of dust every now and then with coffee to boot lol. "Oh, look!, There's, uh, two women f ing a polar bear". "Don't tell me those things".
TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5256	Posted - 2014.08.20 16:14:00 - [22] - Quote GLOBAL fils'de RAGE wrote: TechMechMeds wrote: I know a fair amount. I was wondering though, The massive ships we see in all sci fi would surely be the quickest ships because they have bigger engines right?. Or would their mass affect their speed and manoeuvrability?. Inertia Yes, I slapped myself for not thinking of that lol. "Oh, look!, There's, uh, two women f ing a polar bear". "Don't tell me those things".
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17262	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:18:00 - [23] - Quote The most important thing for ship speeds and maneouvrability would be thrust to mass ratio. It'd be entirely possible for a larger ship to go faster than a smaller ship - if more of it, proportionally, was given over to engines than in the smaller ship. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5256	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:36:00 - [24] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: The most important thing for ship speeds and maneouvrability would be thrust to mass ratio. It'd be entirely possible for a larger ship to go faster than a smaller ship - if more of it, proportionally, was given over to engines than in the smaller ship. Very nice. Everything in this thread is very helpful and has filled in a lot of gaps. I obviously didn't know as much about astrophysics as i thought but everything that has been said has filled in many cracks. "Oh, look!, There's, uh, two women f ing a polar bear". "Don't tell me those things".
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17264	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:53:00 - [25] - Quote Well, in some cases in this thread it is rocket science, so... Also, my understanding of the term astrophysics was that it tended to be a bit more astronomical in nature than what we've been discussing - it thinks more about the nature of heavenly bodies like stars, black holes, etc rather than the actual motions of these things. Pedantic, probably, but the ideas with momentum, inertia, etc are very much Newtonian physics. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
mollerz 4957	Posted - 2014.08.20 18:57:00 - [26] - Quote Kind of relevant I suggest zooming out a bit and turning on milestones and show paths. Keep in mind that everytime the Rosetta passes a planet it gets a gravity assisted speed boost. They launched it in March of 2004 only for it to finally catch up to the Comet in 2014. BAMF Dingle Dust Berry.
TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5256	Posted - 2014.08.20 19:22:00 - [27] - Quote mollerz wrote: Kind of relevant I suggest zooming out a bit and turning on milestones and show paths. Keep in mind that everytime the Rosetta passes a planet it gets a gravity assisted speed boost. They launched it in March of 2004 only for it to finally catch up to the Comet in 2014. BAMF Yeah finally. I hope they land it eventually. "Oh, look!, There's, uh, two women f ing a polar bear". "Don't tell me those things".
mollerz 4959	Posted - 2014.08.20 20:04:00 - [28] - Quote TechMechMeds wrote: mollerz wrote: Kind of relevant I suggest zooming out a bit and turning on milestones and show paths. Keep in mind that everytime the Rosetta passes a planet it gets a gravity assisted speed boost. They launched it in March of 2004 only for it to finally catch up to the Comet in 2014. BAMF Yeah finally. I hope they land it eventually. Given our technological ability that is an extremely awesome feat and will surely pave the way to bigger an better things. Dingle Dust Berry.
TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5258	Posted - 2014.08.20 20:08:00 - [29] - Quote mollerz wrote: TechMechMeds wrote: mollerz wrote: Kind of relevant I suggest zooming out a bit and turning on milestones and show paths. Keep in mind that everytime the Rosetta passes a planet it gets a gravity assisted speed boost. They launched it in March of 2004 only for it to finally catch up to the Comet in 2014. BAMF Yeah finally. I hope they land it eventually. Given our technological ability that is an extremely awesome feat and will surely pave the way to bigger an better things. Defo. Whoever is in control of that when they try, my hat goes off to them. Is it one person or a few that are controlling it?. "Oh, look!, There's, uh, two women f ing a polar bear". "Don't tell me those things".
IVIaster LUKE Shadow Company HQ Lokun Listamenn 671	Posted - 2014.08.20 22:36:00 - [30] - Quote Immortal John Ripper wrote: TechMechMeds wrote: I know a fair amount. I was wondering though, The massive ships we see in all sci fi would surely be the quickest ships because they have bigger engines right?. Or would their mass affect their speed and manoeuvrability?. Only Georgi LaForge can make a massive ship the quickest. With some help with that albino and wesley crusher... I got an "astromech" droid that begs to differ. "Uu a'kings a riika pagh bagla bis kachata weenow con Bantha Poodoo" R.I.P. BENDECCO. 1970 - 2014.

Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 9107	Posted - 2014.08.21 18:44:00 - [31] - Quote I'll leave this right here. Take your time. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17331	Posted - 2014.08.21 22:16:00 - [32] - Quote TechMechMeds wrote: Defo. Whoever is in control of that when they try, my hat goes off to them. Is it one person or a few that are controlling it?. I'm pretty sure it's controlled by computers. It's an absolutely stunning work of calculation. Calculating the motion of objects being affected by several bodies that are affecting each other is insanely complicated and this level of precision is mind boggling. Imagine throwing a knife out of a window, having it bounce several times and then perfectly cut a fly in two. That's less precise than this. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
TechMechMeds Level 5 Forum Warrior 5274	Posted - 2014.08.21 22:21:00 - [33] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: TechMechMeds wrote: Defo. Whoever is in control of that when they try, my hat goes off to them. Is it one person or a few that are controlling it?. I'm pretty sure it's controlled by computers. It's an absolutely stunning work of calculation. Calculating the motion of objects being affected by several bodies that are affecting each other is insanely complicated and this level of precision is mind boggling. Imagine throwing a knife out of a window, having it bounce several times and then perfectly cut a fly in two. That's less precise than this. Damn, mind blown. "Oh, look!, There's, uh, two women f ing a polar bear". "Don't tell me those things".
Bayeth Mal OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1231	Posted - 2014.08.22 07:22:00 - [34] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Also, my understanding of the term astrophysics was that it tended to be a bit more astronomical in nature than what we've been discussing - it thinks more about the nature of heavenly bodies like stars, black holes, etc rather than the actual motions of these things. Pedantic, probably, but the ideas with momentum, inertia, etc are very much Newtonian physics. I had the same thought, but didn't want to get stuck in the details. Yeah, it's kinda crazy how complicated what we're discussing is but it doesn't use any math more complicated than what we had in the 17th century. Where as full blown astrophysics uses a lot of more recent developments, Relativity and all that. We'll bang, OK?
GLOBAL fils'de RAGE Consolidated Dust 17	Posted - 2014.08.22 18:59:00 - [35] - Quote TechMechMeds wrote: I know a fair amount. I was wondering though, The massive ships we see in all sci fi would surely be the quickest ships because they have bigger engines right?. Or would their mass affect their speed and manoeuvrability?. Inertia is going to stress the structure, and once you are outside of a planets magnetic fields protection you are going to get blasted by cosmic radiation (really nasty particles and radiation) your ship will need substantial physical protection again increasing mass. A fleck of paint at 45,000 mph is potentially lethal to and astronaut, a pebble at near light speed travel would be a mini nuke. travelling faster than the speed of light would cause you to go back in time.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 17359	Posted - 2014.08.22 20:54:00 - [36] - Quote GLOBAL fils'de RAGE wrote: Inertia is going to stress the structure, and once you are outside of a planets magnetic fields protection you are going to get blasted by cosmic radiation (really nasty particles and radiation) your ship will need substantial physical protection again increasing mass. A fleck of paint at 45,000 mph is potentially lethal to and astronaut, a pebble at near light speed travel would be a mini nuke. Yeah, this is why space junk is such a problem. It's ridiculously lethal if you're unlucky enough to hit some. There are some tiny pieces scattered all around orbit and if a piece the size of a fingernail collided with, say, the ISS, it would be as damaging as a grenade. Quote: travelling faster than the speed of light would cause you to go back in time. Well, theoretically, if it could be done. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. 'Lucent Echelon' - Gallente FW channel
GLOBAL fils'de RAGE Consolidated Dust 18	Posted - 2014.08.28 02:37:00 - [37] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: TechMechMeds wrote: Defo. Whoever is in control of that when they try, my hat goes off to them. Is it one person or a few that are controlling it?. I'm pretty sure it's controlled by computers. It's an absolutely stunning work of calculation. Calculating the motion of objects being affected by several bodies that are affecting each other is insanely complicated and this level of precision is mind boggling. Imagine throwing a knife out of a window, having it bounce several times and then perfectly cut a fly in two. That's less precise than this. Apollo 13 rentry?
GLOBAL fils'de RAGE Consolidated Dust 18	Posted - 2014.08.28 02:41:00 - [38] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: GLOBAL fils'de RAGE wrote: Inertia is going to stress the structure, and once you are outside of a planets magnetic fields protection you are going to get blasted by cosmic radiation (really nasty particles and radiation) your ship will need substantial physical protection again increasing mass. A fleck of paint at 45,000 mph is potentially lethal to and astronaut, a pebble at near light speed travel would be a mini nuke. Yeah, this is why space junk is such a problem. It's ridiculously lethal if you're unlucky enough to hit some. There are some tiny pieces scattered all around orbit and if a piece the size of a fingernail collided with, say, the ISS, it would be as damaging as a grenade. Quote: travelling faster than the speed of light would cause you to go back in time. Well, theoretically, if it could be done. theory? Damn your physic's and break the bonds of Photon's-we'll just gloss over power consumption needs for now. Photons and Gravity both described, but still not explained!
Killar-12 The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 3286	Posted - 2014.09.09 06:34:00 - [39] - Quote Immortal John Ripper wrote: TechMechMeds wrote: I know a fair amount. I was wondering though, The massive ships we see in all sci fi would surely be the quickest ships because they have bigger engines right?. Or would their mass affect their speed and manoeuvrability?. Only Georgi LaForge can make a massive ship the quickest. With some help with that albino and wesley crusher... http://votekhanpaul2008.ytmnd.com/ http://evil-guide.tripod.com/
Bayeth Mal Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1432	Posted - 2014.09.09 10:28:00 - [40] - Quote GLOBAL fils'de RAGE wrote: a pebble at near light speed travel would be a mini nuke. Depends on your definition of near light speed. 95% of light speed and "mini nuke" doesn't quite do it justice. I'd have to check the math but it might be more than the entire worlds nuclear arsenal. Google "XKCD What If" for a bunch of physics answers for random questions like this. We'll bang, OK?

Bayeth Mal Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1432	Posted - 2014.09.09 10:44:00 - [41] - Quote Also I forgot to mention for the OP. It depends on your definition of "quickest." Lets say you have two ships that weigh the same. One has a fuel burning engine that produces 10,000 pounds of thrust and has 200 seconds of fuel. And the other has a highly efficient ion engine producing 50 pounds of thrust but can keep going for 48 hours. 1st one can change course quickly etc, the other can attain a higher top speed and can produce more thrust over all. We'll bang, OK?
TechMechMeds KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 5525	Posted - 2014.09.09 13:23:00 - [42] - Quote Bayeth Mal wrote: Also I forgot to mention for the OP. It depends on your definition of "quickest." Lets say you have two ships that weigh the same. One has a fuel burning engine that produces 10,000 pounds of thrust and has 200 seconds of fuel. And the other has a highly efficient ion engine producing 50 pounds of thrust but can keep going for 48 hours. 1st one can change course quickly etc, the other can attain a higher top speed and can produce more thrust over all. An ion drive takes ages to speed up though doesn't it?. So the question would really be, for how long would the thrust engine maintain a higher speed than the ion drive. Right?. Iv been digging and I actually understand it now although I wouldn't be able to explain it in depth, nor can I be bothered right now even if I could lol. My hometown beat Manchester united. Git gud man utd. 4-0
TechMechMeds KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 5525	Posted - 2014.09.09 13:30:00 - [43] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: GLOBAL fils'de RAGE wrote: Inertia is going to stress the structure, and once you are outside of a planets magnetic fields protection you are going to get blasted by cosmic radiation (really nasty particles and radiation) your ship will need substantial physical protection again increasing mass. A fleck of paint at 45,000 mph is potentially lethal to and astronaut, a pebble at near light speed travel would be a mini nuke. Yeah, this is why space junk is such a problem. It's ridiculously lethal if you're unlucky enough to hit some. There are some tiny pieces scattered all around orbit and if a piece the size of a fingernail collided with, say, the ISS, it would be as damaging as a grenade. Quote: travelling faster than the speed of light would cause you to go back in time. Well, theoretically, if it could be done. Wouldn't you have to be certain of where you are going in space at the speed of light to ensure that you go back in time?. How do we even know which direction is going back in time if it is all relative?. We look at the early universe as going back in time, how do we know that it is not us who are in the older part of the universe for sure, gazing out to the fresh beginning s of our universe and we are in fact in the past! What if the cake was a lie man!. PS. Half of that is jokes. My hometown beat Manchester united. Git gud man utd. 4-0


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.