Stories w/ archers (bow & arrow) as protagonists / sidekicks
William F. Adams
I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
Already put
Rackhir the Red (Michael Moorcock)
Legolas (Tolkien)
Aillas & Yane (Vance)
Susan (C.S. Lewis)
on the re-read stack.
Did find a page in Wikipedia, but it was heavily biased towards comic
books....
William
Brenda Clough
Well Green Arrow is depressing, I have to agree, and best avoided.
Robin McKinley has written a couple books about archers -- someone will
chip in here with the titles. DEERSKIN, perhaps?
Brenda
PeterM
> Anyone have suggestions for such?
>
> I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
I had a library patron ask me for this type of story just this
afternoon, so I'm interested to see what recommendations
you get. He was looking for young adult stuff, but quite a
bit of YA stuff is good readin' for adults, too, so here's the
meager list I've come up with so far.
Nancy Springer has a series called the Tales of Rowan Hood.
Rowan is Robin Hood's daughter and dresses like a boy when
she sets out to look for him. I haven't read it, but it's pretty
popular.
The Ranger's Apprentice series by John Flanagan isn't just
pretty popular, it's ridiculously popular. The main character
wants to be a warrior but is apprenticed to a Ranger and
learns the ways of stealth and the bow and all that in order
to protect the kingdom. There are nine books so far, and
I would not bet against there being more on the way.
For non-fantasy, Gary Paulsen's Hatchet is a great read.
Brian is a young teen who ends up stranded in the Canadian
wilderness after a plane crash. The whole novel is about
how he learns to survive and even thrive. He makes and
uses a bow for fishing and hunting and even though he's
no Legolas and the bow itself isn't the focus of the story I
liked the way Paulsen showed how it opened up all sorts
of possibilities for Brian. There are several examples like
that, such as when Brian learns how to build a fire and
how to trap fish, and each of them makes his survival
that much more possible. It's kind of like watching
humanity's progress up to the stone age in fast forward.
For recommendations more on topic in this group, you
can't go too wrong with Gordon R. Dickson's The Dragon
and the George. The main character is a modern grad
student who gets his mind stuck inside a dragon's body
in a fantasy Europe. One of the supporting characters
is Daffyd, a welshman who's out to prove that Wales,
not England, produces the world's best bowmen. He's
not the focus of the story but he gets some good moments
in this and those of the sequels that I've read.
The original Wild Cards books had an archer character.
The series was about an alien plague that killed 90%
of its victims (drawing the Black Queen), horribly disfigured
90% of the survivors (turning them into Jokers) and gave
useful superpowers to 10% of the survivors (the Aces).
The series was at least partially based on a role-playing
group's game, which is pretty obvious when you think
about how many of the creators went out of their way
to come up with characters who have nothing to do with
the superpower background. The archer, for example,
calls himself Yeoman and has no powers. He's just
a martial arts and Zen archery master who decides to
use his skills to fight crime. He's the main character
of several of the chapters/storylines in the first few
books, though, so he definitely counts as an archer
character in an SF setting. Except when he goes
undercover and uses a gun.
David Goldfarb
William F. Adams <will...@aol.com> wrote:
>Anyone have suggestions for such?
>
>I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
Haven't there been a number of books about Robin Hood? McKinley's
_The Outlaws of Sherwood_ at least.
--
David Goldfarb |"'The truth will set you free.'
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | If you love the truth, you'll inevitably
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | come back!" -- Hitherby Dragons
Wayne Throop
: I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
: Already put
: Rackhir the Red (Michael Moorcock) Legolas (Tolkien) Aillas & Yane
: (Vance) Susan (C.S. Lewis) on the re-read stack.
:
: Did find a page in Wikipedia, but it was heavily biased towards comic
: books....
Well... the Codex Alera series had a memorable arching scene near the
end; one of the co-protagonists (and/or Tavi's sidekick, more or less)
being a very good archer. But it doesn't really get much screentime in
amonst the zillion other threads.
When he released with a short cry of effort, the reaction of the bow
nearly took him from his feet. There was a thundercrack in the air
before him, and the arrow leapt into the night [...]
--- Bernard vs the Vordbulk
( how many protagonists have an arrow go supersonic... )
"When I assume my Aspect," said Rudra, "and take up my great bow,
which was given me by Death himself, then can I send a heat-tracking
arrow whistling down the miles to pursue a moving target and strike
it like a thunderbolt, dead."
--- Lord of Light
( but again, archery doesn't really get much onscreen time,
and Rudra isn't even really a sidekick ... )
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
William F. Adams <will...@aol.com> wrote:
>
Well, there's _The Odyssey_ , of course :-)
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
tphile
William Tell and Tarzan of course.
nothing wrong with comic books, they are good reading too
and where else are you going to find boxing glove arrows?
Modesty Blaise especially Night of the Morningstar but reading all of
her adventures should be mandatory
Zelazny's Lord of Light had an archer scene
William George Ferguson
Possibly not the type of book you're looking for, but all of the Heralds in
Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books are archers, it's a required skill of the
position (That's why they are called Arrows of the Queen).
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
Mike Schilling
"William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e420920d-3a74-4908...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone have suggestions for such?
>
> I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
>
> Already put
>
> Rackhir the Red (Michael Moorcock)
> Legolas (Tolkien)
And Bard.
> Aillas & Yane (Vance)
> Susan (C.S. Lewis)
>
> on the re-read stack.
Surely there is SF about Robin Hood, but I can't think of any examples.
Michael Grosberg
Ferro Maljinn from Joe Abercrombie's _The first Law_ trilogy - though
she is only one of many viewpoint characters in that series.
Stephen Harker
> Anyone have suggestions for such?
>
> I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
Detritus and his siege bow in various Disk World novels.
For non-SF:
The Black Arrow: A Tale of the Two Roses, R L Stevenson
Bowman of Crecy, Ronald Welch
--
Stephen Harker s.ha...@adfa.edu.au
PEMS http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/
UNSW@ADFA
Greg Goss
>
>Surely there is SF about Robin Hood, but I can't think of any examples.
Well, there is on the small screen.
Worf: "I am NOT a merry man!"
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Michael Ikeda
news:i3d5ci$db6$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Deerskin isn't particularly about an archer.
Outlaws of Sherwood, on the other hand...
Robert Carnegie
> Zelazny's Lord of Light had an archer scene
There's a certain amount of archery in the Mahabharata. I think
there's a /lot/ of shooting to split the other guy's arrow /in
flight/, at least in the TV show...
_Henry V_, especially with Laurence Olivier...
There's an early Star Trek Next Gen. original novel where Wesley
Crusher has a Zen girlfriend (the Earth philosophy) but I don't
remember whether she's an archer. Zen comes into that because you put
your ego on hold. I think there's a scene where the telepathic bad
guys can't tell what she is doing because she's doing it the Zen way,
although maybe with a phaser gun.
Marvel Comics' Hawkeye is a lot less preachy than Green Arrow, but
kind'a tragic at times still. That's the guy: there is also a mainly
unconnected female Hawkeye in the "Young Avengers", but I think she
got hit badly in the Skrull Secret Invasion.
tphile
and don't forget the Ralph Bakshi cartoon series, Rocket Robin Hood
and with Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood (greatest
adventure movie
of all time) the bow master of the movie is Howard Hill The Worlds
Greatest Archer
Turner Classic Movies channel will occasionally show that movie as
well as some short
films of Howard doing trick shots.
IIRC The Osterman Weekend is another bow and arrow movie.
tphile
tphile
other movies
Kurosawa Throne of Blood and Seven Samurai
The Mouse That Roared a comedy masterpiece, Peter Sellers nuff said
Dungeon and Dragons cartoon series had an Archer
tphile
Robin Hood also shows up in Sir Walter Scotts Ivanhoe
tphile
There is one SF story I barely recall the details. Poul Anderson I
think
of a space ship crew stranded on a jungle planet. The children grow
up and go
native, using bows and arrows. One of the crew goes postal and there
is a scene
where one is shot by an arrow and of one of the kids shaving off the
head and removing
it. Some focus on survival of the fittest, not having an large
enough gene pool
sound familiar?
tphile
erilar
<e420920d-3a74-4908...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
"William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> wrote:
> Anyone have suggestions for such?
>
> I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
>
> Already put
>
> Rackhir the Red (Michael Moorcock)
> Legolas (Tolkien)
> Aillas & Yane (Vance)
> Susan (C.S. Lewis)
Well, there's a pair about Robin Hood by Jennifer Roberson, Lady of the
Forest and Lady of Sherwood
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
CCD Data Acquisition
tphile
of her books but I would be suprised that she didn't use
archery at some point.
btw for movies many would say Rambo but my vote
is for Woody Strode in The Professionals.
tphile
JohnB
b1c6-2c9...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:
How about Doc Smith's Spacehounds of the IPC - that one's on
Gutenberg...
JohnB
Robert Carnegie
> Kurosawa Throne of Blood and Seven Samurai
Oh, did we have "quite a lot of Westerns if you don't watch all the
way to the ending"?
Actually, what kind of inspiration are we trying to provide? Archery
is worth getting good at just for the cool, or archery trick shots
(c'mon! boxing glove arrow, must happen! like an automobile airbag
but the opposite - ), or "mass slaughter weapon with no pesky metal
parts"?
Chris
Gahzee in Charles de Lint's _Svaha_.
Chris
Michael Stemper
>"William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> wrote in message news:e420920d-3a74-4908...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>
>Surely there is SF about Robin Hood, but I can't think of any examples.
He wasn't the protagonist, but Wart and Kay do have an adventure with
him in the first book of _The Once and Future King_.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at:
http://www.leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written
Please read it before posting.
Robert Carnegie
> What about Andre Norton? I haven't been able to read all
> of her books but I would be suprised that she didn't use
> archery at some point.
I think The Beast Master has a bow.
We mentioned Robin Hood - did we include "Robin Hood, F.R.S." (by
Arthur C. Clarke)? Set on the moon... and if I remember right,
another trick shot used.
Chris
Oh, and Subotai in Conan, of course. I'd say he qualifies as a
sidekick.
Chris
Howard Brazee
There was a German killed in WWII by Jack Churchill using a longbow.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
W. Citoan
> tphile wrote:
> > What about Andre Norton? I haven't been able to read all
> > of her books but I would be suprised that she didn't use
> > archery at some point.
>
> I think The Beast Master has a bow.
_Daybreak - 2250 AD_ (_Star Man's Son_) definitely mentions bow & arrow
though I don't think it plays in the plot.
- W. Citoan
--
All things are artificial, for Nature is the art of God.
-- [Sir] Thomas Browne
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> tphile wrote:
>> Kurosawa Throne of Blood and Seven Samurai
>
> Oh, did we have "quite a lot of Westerns if you don't watch all the
> way to the ending"?
>
Well, if we're going to video, Tenku no Touma from Yoroiden Samurai
Troopers uses a bow. To immense effect.
And there was "The Archer", which featured the Heartbow, a bow that if
bonded to the wielder properly allowed you to fire arrows that appeared
to have the effect of a few kilos of C-4.
And there was... Rrrrh, can't quite recall the title... AH! Hawk the
Slayer! With the elf who could fire arrows at the speed of a machine gun!
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Rich Clark
> Anyone have suggestions for such?
>
> I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
>
> Already put
>
> Rackhir the Red (Michael Moorcock)
> Legolas (Tolkien)
> Aillas & Yane (Vance)
> Susan (C.S. Lewis)
>
> on the re-read stack.
>
> Did find a page in Wikipedia, but it was heavily biased towards comic
> books....
>
> William
Lots of archery (and Tolkien references) in Stirling's "Change"
series, starting with "Dies the Fire." Everything from bowmaking to
massed archers at war. Nearly every character in the series is an
archer.
Wes Struebing
>Anyone have suggestions for such?
>
>I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
>
>Already put
>
>Rackhir the Red (Michael Moorcock)
>Legolas (Tolkien)
>Aillas & Yane (Vance)
>Susan (C.S. Lewis)
>
>on the re-read stack.
>
>Did find a page in Wikipedia, but it was heavily biased towards comic
>books....
>
If you don't mind the soft-core porn, try andy offutt's "Crusader"
series, with, IIRC Guy "Kingsaver" (the last name because he saved the
king's [Richard?] life. He wields a bow strung with silver wire.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
David Mitchell
This is more of a YASID than helpful; but IMS I once read a story in
which our intrepid explorers (male and female) were trapped inside their
spacecraft by eeevil unarmed lizard men, who began stacking wood outside
it to burn them out.
She used her long hair, and two wooden staves, to make bows, with which
she promptly dispatched them.
Plus of course, there's the short about the ultimate weapon - the bow.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
JohnFair
>
> Surely there is SF about Robin Hood, but I can't think of any examples.
There are a couple of books in the Afterblight Chronicles that deal
with a Robin Hood like figure. 'Broken Arrow' is the sequel -
unfortunately I can't remeber the name of the first one.
The Afterblight Chronicles deal with the results of a plague that wipe
out the 90% of Humanity that have a particular blood type and are of
surprisingly high quality for a shared world scenario.
--
John Fairhurst
http://www.johnsbooks.co.uk
JohnFair
I've not read quite all of Norton's books but I admit I'm having some
difficulty recalling any where bows and arrows were a game changer -
the norbies in Beast Master, and sequels, used them but they're Native
American analogues even if they look like they'll do better than
Storm's ancestors.
Norm D. Plumber
>Anyone have suggestions for such?
For non-SF there's Louis L'Amour's _Last_Of_The_Breed_ (which might be
alternatively titled "How to escape from Russia across Siberia during
the winter while being pursued by the Russian Army"). It isn't
entirely bow'n'arry but as I remember there was some, and it's a good
read.
--
Murphy's Law? Never underestimate superstition that works!
Brian M. Scott
<will...@aol.com> wrote in
<news:e420920d-3a74-4908...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> Anyone have suggestions for such?
Moirin in Jacqueline Carey's _Naamah's Kiss_ and _Naamah's
Curse_; skill with the bow is far from her most striking
trait, but it plays a significant part in NC.
[...]
Brian
PeterM
Norm D. Plumber wrote:
> For non-SF there's Louis L'Amour's _Last_Of_The_Breed_ (which might be
> alternatively titled "How to escape from Russia across Siberia during
> the winter while being pursued by the Russian Army"). It isn't
> entirely bow'n'arry but as I remember there was some, and it's a good
> read.
That was a good one, yeah. Doesn't get nearly enough attention
from the L'Amour fans, in my opinion.
And it reminds me of a YASID for a mediocre sf novel. A forty-
something normal schlub gets transported from modern Texas
to prehistoric Texas. I think he was hit by lightning. All he has
going for him are his abnormally large for the time size/strength,
a decent pitching arm and the memories of making a bow and
arrow in camp when he was a kid. Bows hadn't been invented
yet, at least in that time and place, so it was a big deal. Not a
great book, by any means, but I don't regret having read it so
it's ahead of some of the stuff I've read.
And it's not a YASID anymore. It's Survivor by Robert
Steele Gray. It's out of print and probably not worth
tracking down, but worth a look if you come across a
copy.
tphile
I remember Last of the Breed as a really bad attempt to ride the
success wagon of
Firefox(Eastwood movie not the browser) and Clancy Technothriller.
Breed hit the shelves around that time. Another western with a little
military techno thriller
tacked on.
tphile
tphile
what was stackable wood doing on a spacecraft, presumably in space?
Was the space drive a wood burning stove?
tphile
Howard Brazee
had the mass to pointy surface to speed ratios to get through the
space suit's force fields.
tphile
that gives a whole new twist to that Longfellow classic
I shot an arrow into the air
It fell to earth I knew not where
tphile
Scott Lurndal
>
>
Brigitte in the World Of Time series.
scott
David Mitchell
> On Aug 6, 1:14 am, David Mitchell
> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is more of a YASID than helpful; but IMS I once read a story in
>> which our intrepid explorers (male and female) were trapped inside
>> their spacecraft by eeevil unarmed lizard men, who began stacking wood
>> outside it to burn them out.
>>
>> She used her long hair, and two wooden staves, to make bows, with which
>> she promptly dispatched them.
>>
> what was stackable wood doing on a spacecraft, presumably in space? Was
> the space drive a wood burning stove?
I'm fairly sure you're being facetious; but to aid the YASID I'll point
out that both ships had landed, (why our heroes didn't either take of, or
use their drive as a weapon escapes me. Plot Reasons, presumably).
Norm D. Plumber
The plot of Firefox is "go to Russia, steal an airplane, and drive it
home".
The plot of Last Of The Breed is "get shot down by Russians who want
to question you, escape, make your way home on foot".
Yeah, definitely remake material, both were set in Russia and had
fliers as protagonists. Both were no doubt updated remakes of Dr
Zhivago, it was set in Russia too.
Larry
@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, will...@aol.com says...
> Anyone have suggestions for such?
Sam Aylward, and just about every other character, in Steve Stirling's
Dies the Fire series.
Robert Carnegie
David Mitchell wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:39:35 -0700, tphile wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 1:14 am, David Mitchell
> > <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> This is more of a YASID than helpful; but IMS I once read a story in
> >> which our intrepid explorers (male and female) were trapped inside
> >> their spacecraft by eeevil unarmed lizard men, who began stacking wood
> >> outside it to burn them out.
> >>
> >> She used her long hair, and two wooden staves, to make bows, with which
> >> she promptly dispatched them.
> >>
> > what was stackable wood doing on a spacecraft, presumably in space? Was
> > the space drive a wood burning stove?
>
> I'm fairly sure you're being facetious; but to aid the YASID I'll point
> out that both ships had landed, (why our heroes didn't either take of, or
> use their drive as a weapon escapes me. Plot Reasons, presumably).
The lizards were spacemen?
I now guess that it's a planet where you can land (maybe hard) but not
take off, for instance because of some alien ray, or, as we recently
learned about Europe, volcanic ash. And then none of your tech works
either (you didn't pay for roaming).
Like that episode of Star Trek, lizard men, one anyway, and except
they didn't land, some godlike aliens intervened (did anyone write a
story where all of those were really Q?) and set up a no-guns fight.
Or that Andre Norton story with Dane Thorson (I guess he was
French? :-) Or, F.M. Busby had one in _The Proud Enemy_.
Anyway, the lizards were helpfully stacking wood around the Earther
spaceship maybe because they liked cooked meat. Or, indeed, the human
tech was disabled and they got wood for cookking, but indoors. If the
first, serves them right and I hope they taste like chicken.
Greg Goss
>tphile <tph...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>On Aug 6, 11:13 am, "Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de-pl...@non.com> wrote:
>>> For non-SF there's Louis L'Amour's _Last_Of_The_Breed_ (which might be
>>> alternatively titled "How to escape from Russia across Siberia during
>>> the winter while being pursued by the Russian Army"). It isn't
>>> entirely bow'n'arry but as I remember there was some, and it's a good
>>> read.
>>
>>I remember Last of the Breed as a really bad attempt to ride the
>>success wagon of
>>Firefox(Eastwood movie not the browser) and Clancy Technothriller.
>>Breed hit the shelves around that time. Another western with a little
>>military techno thriller
>>tacked on.
>
>The plot of Firefox is "go to Russia, steal an airplane, and drive it
>home".
>
>The plot of Last Of The Breed is "get shot down by Russians who want
>to question you, escape, make your way home on foot".
So you're saying LOTB is more like "Firefox Down", set about twenty
minutes after the end of the first novel.
>Yeah, definitely remake material, both were set in Russia and had
>fliers as protagonists. Both were no doubt updated remakes of Dr
>Zhivago, it was set in Russia too.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
It would stay in orbit.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Norm D. Plumber
>"Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de...@non.com> wrote:
>>tphile <tph...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>On Aug 6, 11:13 am, "Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de-pl...@non.com> wrote:
>
>>>> For non-SF there's Louis L'Amour's _Last_Of_The_Breed_ (which might be
>>>> alternatively titled "How to escape from Russia across Siberia during
>>>> the winter while being pursued by the Russian Army"). It isn't
>>>> entirely bow'n'arry but as I remember there was some, and it's a good
>>>> read.
>>>
>>>I remember Last of the Breed as a really bad attempt to ride the
>>>success wagon of
>>>Firefox(Eastwood movie not the browser) and Clancy Technothriller.
>>>Breed hit the shelves around that time. Another western with a little
>>>military techno thriller
>>>tacked on.
>>
>>The plot of Firefox is "go to Russia, steal an airplane, and drive it
>>home".
>>
>>The plot of Last Of The Breed is "get shot down by Russians who want
>>to question you, escape, make your way home on foot".
>
>So you're saying LOTB is more like "Firefox Down", set about twenty
>minutes after the end of the first novel.
I never read "Firefox Down"; after seeing the movie Firefox, I
wouldn't watch or read anything with that word in it--imo the Firefox
movie was right down there at the bottom of the slops bucket with
"Play Misty For Me" which was real close to "Gone With The Wind" in
its power to induce near-instant snoring. And I can't help but wonder
if anyone who calls LOTB "a really bad attempt" actually read the
book.
David Mitchell
> David Mitchell wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:39:35 -0700, tphile wrote:
>> I'm fairly sure you're being facetious; but to aid the YASID I'll point
>> out that both ships had landed, (why our heroes didn't either take of,
>> or use their drive as a weapon escapes me. Plot Reasons, presumably).
>
> The lizards were spacemen?
I believe so.
> Anyway, the lizards were helpfully stacking wood around the Earther
> spaceship maybe because they liked cooked meat.
No, because they couldn't get at them any other way, and wanted them dead.
Crunchy remains were, I suspect, at best an extra benefit.
Robert Carnegie
But where there isn't any air. So...
...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow, from orbit, down to
earth?
Or maybe they shot the nearest air supply / hose / breather.
erilar
<8ed369f0-868f-4ca9...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:55:01 -0700 (PDT), tphile <tph...@cableone.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Aug 6, 5:25?pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > >> I remember reading about archers used in orbit around the Earth. They
> > >> had the mass to pointy surface to speed ratios to get through the
> > >> space suit's force fields.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> > >> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> > >> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> > >>
> > >> - James Madison
> > >
> > >that gives a whole new twist to that Longfellow classic
> > >
> > >I shot an arrow into the air
> > >It fell to earth I knew not where
> >
> > It would stay in orbit.
>
> But where there isn't any air. So...
>
> ...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow, from orbit, down to
> earth?
Seems to me it would burn up.
>
> Or maybe they shot the nearest air supply / hose / breather.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Howard Brazee
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>But where there isn't any air. So...
>
>...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow, from orbit, down to
>earth?
Not likely. Certainly not from a high orbit. I wonder what would
be the best place to aim.
Mike Schilling
Luke Campbell
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:08:58 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>
> >But where there isn't any air. So...
>
> >...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow, from orbit, down to
> >earth?
>
> Not likely. Certainly not from a high orbit. I wonder what would
> be the best place to aim.
Orbital velocity is on the order of 7 km/s. A bow can impart to an
arrow on the order of 30 to 50 m/s of velocity. Thus, an arrow shot
in orbit will still have very nearly the same direction and speed, and
thus will continue along very nearly the same trajectory. You will
not be able to directly fire the arrow into a trajectory that will
intersect the earth's surface (you will need many km/s of change in
velocity to do that - not quite 7 km/s for an orbit that grazes the
earth's surface at perigee, but certainly far more than a bow can
impart).
However, if the arrow is fired directly backwards along the orbital
trajectory (with reference to earth), it would be in an orbit with a
slightly lower perigee. This will bring in to regions at closest
approach where the atmosphere is slightly less tenuous. This,
combined with the arrow's larger surface area relative to its mass,
will create a bit larger orbital decay than is present on the archer
and/or any spacecraft he is on. Eventually, over many orbits, this
will drag the perigee of the arrow down into the mesosphere (the part
of the atmosphere above the stratosphere), where it will burn up due
to its orbital velocity. In the process, it is possible for bits of
the arrow to survive and fall to the ground - likely a few small
fragments of the head if anything.
Luke
Wayne Throop
: Not likely. Certainly not from a high orbit.
Delta-v prolly less than 100 meters/sec.
Yes, "not likely" sums it up fairly well.
: I wonder what would be the best place to aim.
Why wouldn't it be directly anti-orbitwards?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Joe Pfeiffer
> :: ...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow,
> :: from orbit, down to earth?
>
> : Not likely. Certainly not from a high orbit.
>
> Delta-v prolly less than 100 meters/sec.
> Yes, "not likely" sums it up fairly well.
If you were up high enough...
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
David DeLaney
>
>But where there isn't any air. So...
>
>...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow, from orbit, down to earth?
Not unless you were shooting from an orbit rather far away, or one close enough
that you were ALREADY experiencing air drag yourself while choosing your shot;
you have to almost neutralize the orbital velocity to get an ellipse narrow
enough to intersect the Earth, from further away, or else intersect enough of
the atmosphere to airbrake the arrow enough that it curves into hit the Earth.
And either way you'd need an arrow that won't burn up in the atmosphere.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Robert Carnegie
Hey, it's just occurred to me that in space, what with one thing and
another, you could use what would otherwise be an unfeasibly large
longbow. Say, an "Extremely Long Bow". It's heavy, and you can't
carry it without bumping on the ground, but in space neither matters.
So, you hook a 100 metre long arrow into the string, then use
handholds all along the arrow to draw it back -
(Main danger: firing yourself with the arrow, if your foot slips on
the bow. Also getting clipped on the head by the tail stability-jets,
so remember to duck and cover.)
Jonathan Schattke
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>> :: ...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow,
>> :: from orbit, down to earth?
>>
>> : Not likely. Certainly not from a high orbit.
>>
>> Delta-v prolly less than 100 meters/sec.
>> Yes, "not likely" sums it up fairly well.
>
> If you were up high enough...
Then your velocity has to be that much HIGHER to be in orbit.
You really need to look up orbital mechanics.
"You canna' break the laws o' physics!"
- Scotty, while breaking the laws of physics
Wayne Throop
:: If you were up high enough...
: Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com>
: Then your velocity has to be that much HIGHER to be in orbit.
HuWAT? Srsly, dude? Srsly?
Wayne Throop
: Hey, it's just occurred to me that in space, what with one thing and
: another, you could use what would otherwise be an unfeasibly large
: longbow. Say, an "Extremely Long Bow". It's heavy, and you can't
: carry it without bumping on the ground, but in space neither matters.
: So, you hook a 100 metre long arrow into the string, then use
: handholds all along the arrow to draw it back -
Ah. Bernard could probably deorbit an arrow.
With his Bow Of Unusual Size.
There was a thundercrack in the air before him,
and the arrow leapt into the night [...]
--- Bernard vs the Vordbulk
: (Main danger: firing yourself with the arrow, if your foot slips on
: the bow. Also getting clipped on the head by the tail stability-jets,
: so remember to duck and cover.)
Heh. Duck. You're despicable.
"Hm. Sumpn amiss here. I'll run through it.
Ho, ha, guard, turn, parry, spin, thrust! <sproing>
Got it!"
--- Daffy Duck
Mike Ash
Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have nothing to say here, I just want to point out the above and
preserve it for posterity.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Luke Campbell
Really big bows allow you to shoot really big arrows at the same 30 to
50 m/s velocity. They do not let you shoot normal sized arrows at
very high velocity. The reason can be seen by considering what
happens when an archer releases the bowstring. As tension is released
on the bow limbs, they spring forward, pulling the string with them
and, subsequently, the arrow. At the moment when the arrow separates
from the bow string to continue on its way, not only the arrow is
moving, but also the limbs and string. Thus, the available elastic
potential energy originally stored as elastic deformations in the
bow's limbs is distributed between the kinetic energy of the arrow and
the limbs. As the arrow gets lighter, it imposes less and less of a
load on the limbs, and most of the energy ends up in the limbs. The
limit is firing no arrow at all, which puts all of the bow's energy
into the motion of the limbs. In this limit, the arrow's velocity is
determined by the dynamics of the nearly unloaded bow limbs, which
puts an upper limit on the speed of an arrow. With modern
engineering, this is somewhere around 70 m/s. A delta-V of 70 m/s
will not let you directly de-orbit an arrow.
Now, a really big bow could shoot, for example, a many meter long
tungsten arrow. With a proper shape, it would self-orient in the
mesosphere to present its point in its direction of travel. The arrow
would ablate at its front end, but a significant portion would survive
to impact the ground. This would allow you to shoot from near earth
orbit and wait for drag from the exosphere to lower the arrow's orbit
into the mesosphere. With the high mass and moderate surface area of
a very large tungsten arrow, however, this will take a long time.
This will make it difficult to predict what trajectory the arrow will
take once it does re-enter.
Luke
Andrew Plotkin
>
> Really big bows allow you to shoot really big arrows at the same 30 to
> 50 m/s velocity. They do not let you shoot normal sized arrows at
> very high velocity. The reason can be seen by considering what
> happens when an archer releases the bowstring. As tension is released
> on the bow limbs, they spring forward, pulling the string with them
> and, subsequently, the arrow. At the moment when the arrow separates
> from the bow string to continue on its way, not only the arrow is
> moving, but also the limbs and string. Thus, the available elastic
> potential energy originally stored as elastic deformations in the
> bow's limbs is distributed between the kinetic energy of the arrow and
> the limbs. As the arrow gets lighter, it imposes less and less of a
> load on the limbs, and most of the energy ends up in the limbs. The
> limit is firing no arrow at all, which puts all of the bow's energy
> into the motion of the limbs. In this limit, the arrow's velocity is
> determined by the dynamics of the nearly unloaded bow limbs, which
> puts an upper limit on the speed of an arrow.
Could you get more velocity with a multi-stage setup? You see those
physics-demo setups with several elastic balls, which you drop
together, and they put an unreasonable amount of their kinetic energy
into the smallest ball. So maybe you use your big bow to throw a
heavy, elastic projectile, and then that smacks into a secondary
projectile...?
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Robert Martinu
> Could you get more velocity with a multi-stage setup? You see those
> physics-demo setups with several elastic balls, which you drop
> together, and they put an unreasonable amount of their kinetic energy
> into the smallest ball. So maybe you use your big bow to throw a
> heavy, elastic projectile, and then that smacks into a secondary
> projectile...?
You could draw some inspiration from high velocity cannons.
Use a piston with a large diameter (the arrow) to compress a working
fluid/gas that pushes a small diameter projectile.
Howard Brazee
<lwc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>However, if the arrow is fired directly backwards along the orbital
>trajectory (with reference to earth), it would be in an orbit with a
>slightly lower perigee. This will bring in to regions at closest
>approach where the atmosphere is slightly less tenuous.
Firing directly back would be best at making the average orbit
lowest. But if the object is to scrape the atmosphere, then a more
elliptical orbit is what is desired.
Luke Campbell
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:09:18 -0700 (PDT), Luke Campbell
>
> <lwc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >However, if the arrow is fired directly backwards along the orbital
> >trajectory (with reference to earth), it would be in an orbit with a
> >slightly lower perigee. This will bring in to regions at closest
> >approach where the atmosphere is slightly less tenuous.
>
> Firing directly back would be best at making the average orbit
> lowest. But if the object is to scrape the atmosphere, then a more
> elliptical orbit is what is desired.
That's exactly what firing backwards does. Assume you are originally
in a circular orbit. After the arrow is launched, it's velocity is
tangent to the circle of the original orbit, but slower. This puts
the arrow at the apogee. Since the arrow is moving more slowly than
is necessary to keep it in an orbit at that altitude, it drops. As it
drops, it gains velocity until finally, at a lower altitude, it is
going faster than necessary to maintain that altitude and it rises
again. You now have an elliptical orbit with the same apogee but a
lower perigee.
You can repeat the same argument for launch from the apogee of an
originally elliptical orbit.
Luke
David DeLaney
>::::: ...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow,
>::::: from orbit, down to earth?
>
>:: If you were up high enough...
>
>: Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com>
>: Then your velocity has to be that much HIGHER to be in orbit.
>
>HuWAT? Srsly, dude? Srsly?
Agreed. The further away the orbit, the SLOWER it goes, and conversely.
Just outside atmosphere: 80 minutes. Moon: 29+ days...
Tim Little
>::::: ...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow,
>::::: from orbit, down to earth?
>
>:: If you were up high enough...
>
>: Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com>
>: Then your velocity has to be that much HIGHER to be in orbit.
>
> HuWAT? Srsly, dude? Srsly?
Thinkos aside, the delta-V required to deorbit for very low orbits is
rather small. The delta-V required in mid to high orbit is definitely
greater. Then for extreme orbits it reduces again - at least for an
isolated body. In practice for Earth there is no reasonably stable
orbit high enough for a bow to deorbit an arrow.
In a low orbit, if the bow could impart 100 m/s then it would reduce
perigee by about 160 km. That could easily be the difference between
a reasonably stable orbit and a fairly rapid aerobraking descent,
especially for something as light as an arrow. If it is to reach the
surface in more than fragments it had better be made of some seriously
heat-resistant substance.
- Tim
Howard Brazee
That sounds right . Then, let's say you want to keep a circular
orbit - but lower. Where do you aim?
Wayne Throop
:: launched, it's velocity is tangent to the circle of the original
:: orbit, but slower. This puts the arrow at the apogee. Since the
:: arrow is moving more slowly than is necessary to keep it in an orbit
:: at that altitude, it drops. As it drops, it gains velocity until
:: finally, at a lower altitude, it is going faster than necessary to
:: maintain that altitude and it rises again. You now have an
:: elliptical orbit with the same apogee but a lower perigee.
: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
: That sounds right . Then, let's say you want to keep a circular orbit
: - but lower. Where do you aim?
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean, if you are in a circular orbit,
how can you fire an arrow (of negligable mass compared to the platform
you shoot from) so that it ends in a circular orbit of smaller radius?
If so, then, "there is no such place to aim". Well... unless you mount
a rocket motor on your arrow, and arrange to fire it to give it another
boost when it reaches perigee. And that would be anti-orbitward also.
There are other ways to use such a rocket-assisted arrow to get a
circular orbit, but that's maybe the simplest.
Basically, if you're in freefall at a given height, you're always
going to return to that height. With certain simplifying assumptions,
which are mostly reasonable. Like, "you don't aerobrake or lithobrake"
(ie, you don't leave freefall) and "the objects involved other than the
primary have negligable gravity". Hence, to get an orbit that *stays*
lower than where you dropped the arrow from (which is to say, where
the arrow left the bow), the arrow has to leave free fall, ie, has
to encounter drag, or fire a rocket, or something.
Luke Campbell
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:57:09 -0700 (PDT), Luke Campbell
>
>
> orbit - but lower. Where do you aim?
You don't. You need two separate changes in velocity. First you
apply a delta-V opposite to your orbital velocity. This puts you on
an elliptical trajectory with a lower perigee. Then, at perigee, you
apply a second delta-V opposite to your orbital velocity that gives
you a velocity just equal to what is needed to keep your altitude.
You are now in a circular orbit at lower elevation.
Luke
Tim Little
> That sounds right . Then, let's say you want to keep a circular
> orbit - but lower. Where do you aim?
You can't.
- Tim
Greg Goss
>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:57:09 -0700 (PDT), Luke Campbell
><lwc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That's exactly what firing backwards does. Assume you are originally
>>in a circular orbit. After the arrow is launched, it's velocity is
>>tangent to the circle of the original orbit, but slower. This puts
>>the arrow at the apogee. Since the arrow is moving more slowly than
>>is necessary to keep it in an orbit at that altitude, it drops. As it
>>drops, it gains velocity until finally, at a lower altitude, it is
>>going faster than necessary to maintain that altitude and it rises
>>again. You now have an elliptical orbit with the same apogee but a
>>lower perigee.
>>
>>You can repeat the same argument for launch from the apogee of an
>>originally elliptical orbit.
>
>That sounds right . Then, let's say you want to keep a circular
>orbit - but lower. Where do you aim?
If you want to be in a lower circular orbit, you can't do it with one
action. That lower circular orbit doesn't include the place where you
are, so after the shot, you still can't be in that new orbit.
So you need a "transfer orbit". Anyone who has read enough Heinlein
or other "rivets" writers of the fifties knows that this is a Hohman
orbit. An ellipse with the high point on your current orbit and the
low point on the desired orbit. You need an arrow at each end of the
transfer, one to shift into the ellipse and another one to circularize
the orbit at the destination height.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Harri Tavaila
> Anyone have suggestions for such?
>
> I've taken up archery again and am looking for inspiration.
>
> Already put
>
> Rackhir the Red (Michael Moorcock)
> Legolas (Tolkien)
> Aillas& Yane (Vance)
> Susan (C.S. Lewis)
Do short stories count? Then
A C Clarke
Robin Hood F.R.S. (1956)
is an obvious.
H Tavaila
David DeLaney
>Luke Campbell <lwc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>You can repeat the same argument for launch from the apogee of an
>>originally elliptical orbit.
>
>That sounds right . Then, let's say you want to keep a circular
>orbit - but lower. Where do you aim?
Can't get there from here; you've got to go through an elliptical orbit (or
worse) in between. (You could technically use judicious air-braking to bleed
off speed at the lower extreme of the orbit ... BUT then you end up with an
orbit that's partly or completely inside the 'if you're here you're
air-braking' zone, so it's not at all stable.)
If you had a two-stage bow/arrow combo, you could do it. But that is rather
Goldbergian.
Norm D. Plumber
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>Luke Campbell <lwc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>You can repeat the same argument for launch from the apogee of an
>>>originally elliptical orbit.
>>
>>That sounds right . Then, let's say you want to keep a circular
>>orbit - but lower. Where do you aim?
>
>Can't get there from here; you've got to go through an elliptical orbit (or
>worse) in between. (You could technically use judicious air-braking to bleed
>off speed at the lower extreme of the orbit ... BUT then you end up with an
>orbit that's partly or completely inside the 'if you're here you're
>air-braking' zone, so it's not at all stable.)
>
>If you had a two-stage bow/arrow combo, you could do it. But that is rather
>Goldbergian.
>
>Dave
If you shot your arrow forward it would cause a slight braking effect.
--
Murphy's Law? Never underestimate superstition that works!
Wayne Throop
::: Where do you aim?
:: Can't get there from here; [...]
:: If you had a two-stage bow/arrow combo, you could do it. But that is
:: rather Goldbergian.
: "Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de...@non.com>
: If you shot your arrow forward it would cause a slight braking effect.
You mean, the archer would be decelerated slightly, and adopt a lower orbit?
That was the ambiguity of phrasing I was asking about elsethread. But
in that case, the archer would need a second shot, also "forward",
to circularize the lower orbit.
(of course, you could also mean "east takes you up, and up takes you west",
or something along those lines, hence the "you mean?" bit)
Robert Carnegie
> Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
> >::::: ...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow,
> >::::: from orbit, down to earth?
>
> >:: If you were up high enough...
>
> >: Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com>
> >: Then your velocity has to be that much HIGHER to be in orbit.
>
> >HuWAT? Srsly, dude? Srsly?
>
> Agreed. The further away the orbit, the SLOWER it goes, and conversely.
> Just outside atmosphere: 80 minutes. Moon: 29+ days...
Hi, me again, just to say there's no point in me trying to participate
here, because I always get it wrong. But it's grand fun to watch you
folks going at it.
Brian M. Scott
<d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in
<news:slrni613g...@gatekeeper.vic.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science:
> Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>>::::: ...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow,
>>::::: from orbit, down to earth?
>>:: If you were up high enough...
>>: Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com>
>>: Then your velocity has to be that much HIGHER to be in orbit.
>>HuWAT? Srsly, dude? Srsly?
> Agreed. The further away the orbit, the SLOWER it goes,
> and conversely.
True, but ...
> Just outside atmosphere: 80 minutes. Moon: 29+ days...
... this alone doesn't demonstrate the fact, since the moon
has further to go. But the period is proportional to
r^(3/2), while the orbital circumference is proportional to
r, so the speed is inversely proportional to sqrt(r) and
does indeed decrease with increasing distance. (And the
sidereal month is actually more like 27.3 days.)
Brian
William F. Adams
already had --- drat that uncertain organic memory).
Something I though of later was Burroughs' Pellucidar books which
often feature archery, though not in an especially interesting
fashion.
Here's a list of (most of) what was suggested and by whom for
posterity's sake, along w/ some commentary:
Non-SF:
Last of the Breed by Louis L'Amour --- Norm D. Plumber
- I'd had this suggested (for other reasons) in the past --- got it
from the library over the weekend and read it and _really_ enjoyed it.
Thanks!
Outlaws of Sherwood by Robin McKinley --- Brenda Clough and Michael
Ikeda and David Goldfarb
- I read this back when it first came out. Spoiler --- I didn't like
that vg unq n Ebova Ubbq jub qrfcvgr qvyvtrag cenpgvpr, pbhyqa'g trg
orggre. But will add it to the re-read stack.
Tales of Rowan Hood by Nancy Springer --- PeterM
- will look for this (and most of the other things which were
suggested). Thanks!
The Ranger's Apprentice series by John Flanagan --- PeterM
The Dragon and the George by Gordon R. Dickson --- PeterM
Wild Cards --- PeterM
- I read most of these when they first came out, but didn't get all
of the new series which is kind of irritating since they've gone out
of print and tend to sell for a premium --- had forgotten about
Yoeman, but can now recall that the author had him putting together a
compound bow quickly, a task which normally requires a specialized
``bow press'' and turning down a lot of hex bolts (and is kind of
antithetical to training as a Zen archer --- a Bear Victor / Kodiak
Takedown would make much more sense)
Heralds of Valdemar series by Mercedes Lackey --- William George
Ferguson
- I read the first two series when they first came out. Re-read the
first trilogy over the weekend. Interesting things were hollow arrows
to hide messages in and the ``Herald's Code'' which communicates
information by damaging fletchings and the arrows. Will have to try to
track down the balance of the books written since then.
Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher --- Wayne Throop
Lord of Light by Roger Zelzny --- Wayne Throop and tphile
- that's been on my to-be-read stack for a long while, will have to
move it up.
Tarzan by Burroughs --- tphile
- read most of these of course as a kid, and re-encountered him when
reading the Pellucidar series --- lots of fun.
Afterblight Chronicles:Broken Arrow --- JohnFair
The First Law Trilogy by Joe Abercrombie --- Michael Grosberg
Discworld character Detritus --- Stephen Harker
- My wife reads those, but I've been unable to get interested in
them.
Hunger Games by Collins --- CCD Data Acquisition
- My wife and kids have been reading these books and really enjoying
them.
Beast Master by Andre Norton --- Robert Carnegie and tphile
Star Man's Son by Andre Norton --- W. Citoan
Spacehounds of the IPC by Doc Smith --- JohnB
- I've had this on my Sony ebook reader for a while now --- will have
to move it up in the queue.
Svaha by Charles de Lint --- Chris
- Another one I'd read and will have to re-read.
Conan by Robert E. Howard --- Chris
- specifically Subotai - excellent point.
Dies the Fire by Stirling --- Rich Clark and Larry
- got burnt out on post-apocalyptic stuff and was turned off by
reviews which described the ending of the series as nuking the fridge.
Crusader series - Andy Offutt --- Wes Struebing
- noted.
Naamah's Kiss / Curse by Jacqueline Carey --- Brian M. Scott
- I don't think I want to explain to the kids why I'm reading
something w/ a cover like that….
World of Time series --- Scott Lurndal
- Brigitte -
Middle Earth archers which I failed to note:
Bard --- Mike Schilling
Beleg Strongbow
Books which feature Robin Hood:
Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott --- tphile
The Once and Future King --- Michael Stemper
Robin Rood F.R.S. by Arthur C. Clarke --- Robert Carnegie and H
Tavaila
Non-fiction:
Gary Paulsen's Hatchet --- PeterM
- interesting suggestion. My kids read it for school recently, but
archery never came up when discussing it w/ them. There was a nifty
new anniversary edition at a local bookstore which adds some lovely
art and insightful author commentary
William Tell --- tphile
Henry V --- Robert Carnegie
Mythology:
_The Odyssey_ --- Ted Nolan
Mahabarata --- Robert Carnegie
Movies/Video:
Kurosawa Throne of Blood and Seven Samurai --- tphile
Yoroiden Samurai --- Sea Wasp
The Archer --- Sea Wasp
Hawk the Slayer --- Sea Wasp
Star Trek:TNG --- Greg Goss noted the Robin Hood Q episode
Rocket Robin Hood --- tphile
The Adventures of Robin Hood --- tphile
The Osterman Weekend --- tphile
Erik Max Francis
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:46:47 -0400, David DeLaney
> <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in
> <news:slrni613g...@gatekeeper.vic.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science:
>> and conversely.
>
> True, but ...
>
>> Just outside atmosphere: 80 minutes. Moon: 29+ days...
>
> ... this alone doesn't demonstrate the fact, since the moon
> has further to go. But the period is proportional to
> r^(3/2), while the orbital circumference is proportional to
> r, so the speed is inversely proportional to sqrt(r) and
> does indeed decrease with increasing distance. (And the
> sidereal month is actually more like 27.3 days.)
If you think about it, for a variety of reasons, the limit of the
orbital speed had better tend to zero as the distance tends to infinity
or the Universe really doesn't make a lick of sense.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Guided by the blue light that takes you away / I'm on my way home
-- Neneh Cherry
David DeLaney
Just remember t^2 is proportional to d^3, and you'll get it right after some
thought.
Dave "I don't know, I've never Keppled" DeLaney
David DeLaney
>My thanks to everyone who made suggestions (many of which I'd read and
>already had --- drat that uncertain organic memory).
>Lord of Light by Roger Zelzny --- Wayne Throop and tphile
> - that's been on my to-be-read stack for a long while, will have to
>move it up.
Zelazny.
>Spacehounds of the IPC by Doc Smith --- JohnB
> - I've had this on my Sony ebook reader for a while now --- will have
>to move it up in the queue.
(no "the" in the middle there)
>World of Time series --- Scott Lurndal
> - Brigitte -
_Wheel_ of Time. (It just SEEMS like "World of Time" because the series was
taking so long to come out with each new book, which then covered a few more
days or months...)
Just noting these so you don't go searching for the misspelt ones.
Dave
Robert Carnegie
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 10, 12:46�am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> >> Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
> >> >Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com>
> >> >: Then your velocity has to be that much HIGHER to be in orbit.
> >>
> >> >HuWAT? �Srsly, dude? �Srsly?
> >>
> >> Agreed. The further away the orbit, the SLOWER it goes, and conversely.
> >> Just outside atmosphere: 80 minutes. Moon: 29+ days...
> >
> >Hi, me again, just to say there's no point in me trying to participate
> >here, because I always get it wrong. But it's grand fun to watch you
> >folks going at it.
>
> Just remember t^2 is proportional to d^3, and you'll get it right after some
> thought.
No-o, I believe I'll get it wrong again, after some thought. The
difference being, I'll also get a headache.
I don't want you to suspect that this is the real reason why I feel
that manned space flight is actually a bad idea, but, heck, maybe it
is.
By the way (a few articles over thataway), "Robin Hood" in person
doesn't appear, as far as I recall, in the Arthur C. Clarke story,
partly because it is set on the Moon. But if I remember right, a part
of the Moon with a distinctive name...
alie...@gmail.com
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:46:47 -0400, David DeLaney
> > <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in
> > <news:slrni613g...@gatekeeper.vic.com> in
> > rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science:
> >> Agreed. The further away the orbit, the SLOWER it goes,
> >> and conversely.
>
> > True, but ...
>
> >> Just outside atmosphere: 80 minutes. Moon: 29+ days...
>
> > ... this alone doesn't demonstrate the fact, since the moon
> > has further to go. But the period is proportional to
> > r^(3/2), while the orbital circumference is proportional to
> > r, so the speed is inversely proportional to sqrt(r) and
> > does indeed decrease with increasing distance. (And the
> > sidereal month is actually more like 27.3 days.)
>
> If you think about it, for a variety of reasons, the limit of the
> orbital speed had better tend to zero as the distance tends to infinity
> or the Universe really doesn't make a lick of sense.
(cough) Galactic rotation curves (cough)
Mark L. "I just had to say that" Fergerson
Dr J R Stockton
y.net>, Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:15:03, Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu>
posted:
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>> :: ...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow,
>> :: from orbit, down to earth?
>>
>> : Not likely. Certainly not from a high orbit.
>>
>> Delta-v prolly less than 100 meters/sec.
probably
>> Yes, "not likely" sums it up fairly well.
>
>If you were up high enough...
The maximum speed of a longbow arrow is or the order of 50 m/s, as can
be calculated from the ranges achieved. The moon's speed is about 1
km/s. Circular orbit speed is proportional to the reciprocal of the
square root of the radius, ISTM. Therefore, high enough would be about
100e6 km, well outside Hill distance.
OTOH, if you shoot from the lowest possible altitude which can be
considered an orbital altitude rather than a re-entry one (however you
define that), and slowing of the arrow will out into a re-entry track
(assuming its mass per unit frontal area is not significantly more than
that of the launching system).
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Basically, if you're in freefall at a given height, you're always
>going to return to that height. With certain simplifying assumptions,
>which are mostly reasonable. Like, "you don't aerobrake or lithobrake"
>(ie, you don't leave freefall) and "the objects involved other than the
>primary have negligable gravity". Hence, to get an orbit that *stays*
>lower than where you dropped the arrow from (which is to say, where
>the arrow left the bow), the arrow has to leave free fall, ie, has
>to encounter drag, or fire a rocket, or something.
I remember a short story "epicycles" illustrating this.
What I'm wondering if there is a way to maximize or minimize the
ellipse shape, and I'm not picturing it.
Andrew Plotkin
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:33:40 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
> >Basically, if you're in freefall at a given height, you're always
> >going to return to that height. With certain simplifying assumptions,
> >which are mostly reasonable. Like, "you don't aerobrake or lithobrake"
> >(ie, you don't leave freefall) and "the objects involved other than the
> >primary have negligable gravity". Hence, to get an orbit that *stays*
> >lower than where you dropped the arrow from (which is to say, where
> >the arrow left the bow), the arrow has to leave free fall, ie, has
> >to encounter drag, or fire a rocket, or something.
>
> I remember a short story "epicycles" illustrating this.
>
> What I'm wondering if there is a way to maximize or minimize the
> ellipse shape, and I'm not picturing it.
Fire the arrow straight forward or backward along your orbital path.
I'm pretty sure.
Bill Snyder
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>David DeLaney wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 10, 12:46?am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> >> Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
>> >> >Jonathan Schattke <wiz...@gmail.com>
>> >> >: Then your velocity has to be that much HIGHER to be in orbit.
>> >>
>> >> >HuWAT? ?Srsly, dude? ?Srsly?
>> >>
>> >> Agreed. The further away the orbit, the SLOWER it goes, and conversely.
>> >> Just outside atmosphere: 80 minutes. Moon: 29+ days...
>> >
>> >Hi, me again, just to say there's no point in me trying to participate
>> >here, because I always get it wrong. But it's grand fun to watch you
>> >folks going at it.
>>
>> Just remember t^2 is proportional to d^3, and you'll get it right after some
>> thought.
>
>No-o, I believe I'll get it wrong again, after some thought. The
>difference being, I'll also get a headache.
Then just remember that if you're really, really far way, you're
"almost in orbit" even standing still, in the sense that it would
take you a really, really long time to fall.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Wayne Throop
:: What I'm wondering if there is a way to maximize or minimize the
:: ellipse shape, and I'm not picturing it.
I don't know what "minize the elipse shape" in this context is supposed
to mean. The obvious way to "minimize the elipse shape" of an orbit an
arrow will have when fired from a platform in circular orbit, is to fire
it with as small a delta-v as possible. Which is zero. Which gives
you a circular orbit. For which the elipse shape is pretty minimal.
Somehow I suspect that's not what you meant.
: Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com>
: Fire the arrow straight forward or backward along your orbital path.
: I'm pretty sure.
I don't follow how that "minimizes the elispe shape".
Both of those give you an elipse. Pretty much as eliptical
as eliptical can be. Firing up or down also gives you an elipse;
just a different one.
Hm. OK. So. If the issue is, with a given delta-v, what direction
gives you the most circular orbit... hm... I'm not sure it matters.
If it does, it doesn't matter *much*.
Mike Ash
wrote:
> Hm. OK. So. If the issue is, with a given delta-v, what direction
> gives you the most circular orbit... hm... I'm not sure it matters.
> If it does, it doesn't matter *much*.
Sideways, at the proper angle such that the application of the delta-v
leaves you with exactly the same orbital speed as before. This will give
you a circular orbit at the same altitude but with a changed inclination.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Wayne Throop
:: gives you the most circular orbit... hm... I'm not sure it matters.
:: If it does, it doesn't matter *much*.
: Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
: Sideways, at the proper angle such that the application of the delta-v
: leaves you with exactly the same orbital speed as before. This will
: give you a circular orbit at the same altitude but with a changed
: inclination.
<palmface> Doy. Of course. "North and south bring you back".
Erik Max Francis
Presuming this is a dark matter crack, the speeds still tend to zero as
get sufficiently far away. It's just that the gravitating halo extends
well past the part you can see.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Since prehistoric man, no battle has ever gone as planned.
-- Donal Graeme
Chris
> On Aug 8, 10:09 pm, Luke Campbell <lwc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 1:30 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:08:58 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>
> > > <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > >But where there isn't any air. So...
>
> > > >...could you shoot an arrow, say from a longbow, from orbit, down to
> > > >earth?
>
> > > be the best place to aim.
>
> > Orbital velocity is on the order of 7 km/s. A bow can impart to an
> > arrow on the order of 30 to 50 m/s of velocity. Thus, an arrow shot
> > in orbit will still have very nearly the same direction and speed, and
> > thus will continue along very nearly the same trajectory. You will
> > not be able to directly fire the arrow into a trajectory that will
> > intersect the earth's surface (you will need many km/s of change in
> > velocity to do that - not quite 7 km/s for an orbit that grazes the
> > earth's surface at perigee, but certainly far more than a bow can
> > impart).
>
> > However, if the arrow is fired directly backwards along the orbital
> > trajectory (with reference to earth), it would be in an orbit with a
> > slightly lower perigee. This will bring in to regions at closest
> > approach where the atmosphere is slightly less tenuous. This,
> > combined with the arrow's larger surface area relative to its mass,
> > will create a bit larger orbital decay than is present on the archer
> > and/or any spacecraft he is on. Eventually, over many orbits, this
> > will drag the perigee of the arrow down into the mesosphere (the part
> > of the atmosphere above the stratosphere), where it will burn up due
> > to its orbital velocity. In the process, it is possible for bits of
> > the arrow to survive and fall to the ground - likely a few small
> > fragments of the head if anything.
>
> Hey, it's just occurred to me that in space, what with one thing and
> another, you could use what would otherwise be an unfeasibly large
> longbow. Say, an "Extremely Long Bow". It's heavy, and you can't
> carry it without bumping on the ground, but in space neither matters.
> So, you hook a 100 metre long arrow into the string, then use
> handholds all along the arrow to draw it back -
>
> (Main danger: firing yourself with the arrow, if your foot slips on
> the bow. Also getting clipped on the head by the tail stability-jets,
> so remember to duck and cover.)
Isn't that a ballista? And if you want to postulate fusion power
without firearms, istm that Niven's story (_Protector?_) could have
used longbows as easily as gunpowder firearms. That scene where they
do the weird orbit around the neutron star, IIRC, and the Protector
lays some lead slugs in their path.
The story I'm thinking of is the one in which the Belter becomes a Pak-
type Protector and has to fight several Pak scout ships. Did I get it
right?
Chris
Andrew Plotkin
> :: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> :: What I'm wondering if there is a way to maximize or minimize the
> :: ellipse shape, and I'm not picturing it.
>
> I don't know what "minize the elipse shape" in this context is supposed
> to mean. The obvious way to "minimize the elipse shape" of an orbit an
> arrow will have when fired from a platform in circular orbit, is to fire
> it with as small a delta-v as possible. Which is zero. Which gives
> you a circular orbit. For which the elipse shape is pretty minimal.
>
> Somehow I suspect that's not what you meant.
>
> : Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com>
> : Fire the arrow straight forward or backward along your orbital path.
> : I'm pretty sure.
>
> I don't follow how that "minimizes the elispe shape".
I thought the question was: how do I maximize the length of the
ellipse? That is, what direction do I shoot the arrow so that its
maximum altitude is maximal? To which my answer is, shoot straight
ahead along your path.
If that wasn't the question, then I have made up a question and
answered it, to my everlasting^H^H^H^H^H ten seconds' worth of shame.
George W Harris
>In article <12814...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>wrote:
>
>> Hm. OK. So. If the issue is, with a given delta-v, what direction
>> gives you the most circular orbit... hm... I'm not sure it matters.
>> If it does, it doesn't matter *much*.
>
>Sideways, at the proper angle such that the application of the delta-v
>leaves you with exactly the same orbital speed as before. This will give
>you a circular orbit at the same altitude but with a changed inclination.
That angle is 60 degrees to either side of straight
back. An elaborate means of shooting yourself.
--
Duke Basketball: We Crush Dreams
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
George W Harris
<gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:41:52 -0400, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <12814...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hm. OK. So. If the issue is, with a given delta-v, what direction
>>> gives you the most circular orbit... hm... I'm not sure it matters.
>>> If it does, it doesn't matter *much*.
>>
>>Sideways, at the proper angle such that the application of the delta-v
>>leaves you with exactly the same orbital speed as before. This will give
>>you a circular orbit at the same altitude but with a changed inclination.
>
> That angle is 60 degrees to either side of straight
>back. An elaborate means of shooting yourself.
D'oh, wrong angle (unless the arrow speed is equal
to orbital velocity). If you get the right angle, *then* it's
an elaborate means of shooting yourself.
Wayne Throop
:: delta-v leaves you with exactly the same orbital speed as before.
:: This will give you a circular orbit at the same altitude but with a
:: changed inclination.
: George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com>
: That angle is 60 degrees to either side of straight back. An
: elaborate means of shooting yourself.
Sixty degrees? Um. Vector addition of 7 or 8 kilometers/sec
and 50 meters/sec to preserve the absolute value of the vector
gives you 60 degrees? Possibly I'm rustier in visualizing
vectors than I seemed to myself to be.