Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Interstellar Aircraft Carriers and Science Fiction Naval Warfare
86 views
Skip to first unread message
Joe Osman
Nov 17, 2012, 10:34:50 AM11/17/12
to
I was looking in Forbes, my go-to site for future defense matters, and found:
Interstellar Aircraft Carriers and Science Fiction Naval Warfare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2012/10/01/interstellar-aircraft-carriers-and-science-fiction-naval-warfare/?partner=obtech
or http://tinyurl.com/ForbesSpace
Enjoy
Joe
Interstellar Aircraft Carriers and Science Fiction Naval Warfare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2012/10/01/interstellar-aircraft-carriers-and-science-fiction-naval-warfare/?partner=obtech
or http://tinyurl.com/ForbesSpace
Enjoy
Joe
Orval Fairbairn
Nov 17, 2012, 4:33:25 PM11/17/12
to
In article <65f6c411-10e1-41bd...@googlegroups.com>,
Interesting dissertation. One of the scenarios overlooked here is the
fact that, to perform interstellar travel, we must have breakthroughs in
physics and the attendant technology.
I would assume that this means something like wormholes or some other
command of the space/time continuum. In order to make war, the attacking
force must be able to project sufficient force to overcome defenses
and/or be able to maintain sanctuary, whether through technology or the
inability of defensive forces to reach them.
fact that, to perform interstellar travel, we must have breakthroughs in
physics and the attendant technology.
I would assume that this means something like wormholes or some other
command of the space/time continuum. In order to make war, the attacking
force must be able to project sufficient force to overcome defenses
and/or be able to maintain sanctuary, whether through technology or the
inability of defensive forces to reach them.
Grantland
Nov 18, 2012, 10:44:36 AM11/18/12
to
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:33:26 PM UTC+2, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <65f6c411-10e1-41bd...@googlegroups.com>,
They'd have to leave their civilization (and relatives) permanently behind, of course. These would be hundreds (thousands) of years in the past.
A one-way trip. Blind colonization. Quite feasible. A quick victory, and a new planet.
Grantland
> In article <65f6c411-10e1-41bd...@googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> Interesting dissertation. One of the scenarios overlooked here is the
>
> fact that, to perform interstellar travel, we must have breakthroughs in
>
> physics and the attendant technology.
>
>
>
> I would assume that this means something like wormholes or some other
>
> command of the space/time continuum.
Negative. FTL is currently quite possible for the colonizing fleet, given constant - conceivable (antimatter-powered ion drive? Bussard ramjet?) acceleration over time. A 1g acceleration could get to near light speed in less than a year, and then they could travel hundreds (or thousands)of light-years in just a few years.
>
> Interesting dissertation. One of the scenarios overlooked here is the
>
> fact that, to perform interstellar travel, we must have breakthroughs in
>
> physics and the attendant technology.
>
>
>
> I would assume that this means something like wormholes or some other
>
> command of the space/time continuum.
They'd have to leave their civilization (and relatives) permanently behind, of course. These would be hundreds (thousands) of years in the past.
A one-way trip. Blind colonization. Quite feasible. A quick victory, and a new planet.
Grantland
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Nov 18, 2012, 1:55:43 PM11/18/12
to
In article <0a8b8a62-e7ac-4397...@googlegroups.com>,
travel hundreds or thousands of light years would require hundreds or thousands
of years.
Not to mention that as you accelerate matter to light speed it kind of assumes
infinite mass...not good for the other grantlands in the universe
Grantland <grantla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Negative. FTL is currently quite possible for the colonizing fleet, given
> constant - conceivable (antimatter-powered ion drive? Bussard ramjet?)
> acceleration over time. A 1g acceleration could get to near light speed in
> less than a year, and then they could travel hundreds (or thousands)of
> light-years in just a few years.
If you get up to SOL, in one year you would have travelled one light year, so to
>
> Negative. FTL is currently quite possible for the colonizing fleet, given
> constant - conceivable (antimatter-powered ion drive? Bussard ramjet?)
> acceleration over time. A 1g acceleration could get to near light speed in
> less than a year, and then they could travel hundreds (or thousands)of
> light-years in just a few years.
travel hundreds or thousands of light years would require hundreds or thousands
of years.
Not to mention that as you accelerate matter to light speed it kind of assumes
infinite mass...not good for the other grantlands in the universe
Grantland
Nov 18, 2012, 2:21:06 PM11/18/12
to
Orval Fairbairn
Nov 18, 2012, 3:18:24 PM11/18/12
to
In article <6d8b5ddb-c8bc-4488...@googlegroups.com>,
You forget that they then have to decelerate by the same amount that
they accelerated to in order to land. There is also the matter of
encountering small (and large -- even planet-sized) objects while at
light speed. The result is the total conversion of particles from mass
into energy. A grain of sand has the mass energy of a nuclear weapon.
I'm not sure that a starship of this concept (or its occupants) would
survive the journey.
they accelerated to in order to land. There is also the matter of
encountering small (and large -- even planet-sized) objects while at
light speed. The result is the total conversion of particles from mass
into energy. A grain of sand has the mass energy of a nuclear weapon.
I'm not sure that a starship of this concept (or its occupants) would
survive the journey.
Steve Hix
Nov 18, 2012, 4:38:19 PM11/18/12
to
In article <atlas-bugged-BD57...@news.solani.org>,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <0a8b8a62-e7ac-4397...@googlegroups.com>,
> Grantland <grantla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Negative. FTL is currently quite possible for the colonizing fleet, given
> > constant - conceivable (antimatter-powered ion drive? Bussard ramjet?)
> > acceleration over time. A 1g acceleration could get to near light speed in
> > less than a year, and then they could travel hundreds (or thousands)of
> > light-years in just a few years.
>
> If you get up to SOL, in one year you would have travelled one light year, so
> to travel hundreds or thousands of light years would require hundreds or
> thousands of years.
But you won't care, given time dilation effects.
> In article <0a8b8a62-e7ac-4397...@googlegroups.com>,
> Grantland <grantla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Negative. FTL is currently quite possible for the colonizing fleet, given
> > constant - conceivable (antimatter-powered ion drive? Bussard ramjet?)
> > acceleration over time. A 1g acceleration could get to near light speed in
> > less than a year, and then they could travel hundreds (or thousands)of
> > light-years in just a few years.
>
> If you get up to SOL, in one year you would have travelled one light year, so
> to travel hundreds or thousands of light years would require hundreds or
> thousands of years.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Nov 18, 2012, 5:06:46 PM11/18/12
to
In article <orfairbairn-7A36...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > If you get up to SOL, in one year you would have travelled one light
> > > year,
> > > so to
> > >
> > > travel hundreds or thousands of light years would require hundreds or
> > > thousands
> > >
> > > of years.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not to mention that as you accelerate matter to light speed it kind of
> > > assumes
> > >
> > > infinite mass...not good for the other grantlands in the universe
> >
> > You are the observer. They are the travellers. They experience Newtonian
> > laws all the way; you are constrained by Einstein. Time dilation makes the
> > trip short and fast for THEM, not you.
>
> You forget that they then have to decelerate by the same amount that
> they accelerated to in order to land. There is also the matter of
> encountering small (and large -- even planet-sized) objects while at
> light speed. The result is the total conversion of particles from mass
> into energy. A grain of sand has the mass energy of a nuclear weapon.
>
> I'm not sure that a starship of this concept (or its occupants) would
> survive the journey.
An expensive way to deal with grantlands
> > > If you get up to SOL, in one year you would have travelled one light
> > > year,
> > > so to
> > >
> > > travel hundreds or thousands of light years would require hundreds or
> > > thousands
> > >
> > > of years.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not to mention that as you accelerate matter to light speed it kind of
> > > assumes
> > >
> > > infinite mass...not good for the other grantlands in the universe
> >
> > You are the observer. They are the travellers. They experience Newtonian
> > laws all the way; you are constrained by Einstein. Time dilation makes the
> > trip short and fast for THEM, not you.
>
> You forget that they then have to decelerate by the same amount that
> they accelerated to in order to land. There is also the matter of
> encountering small (and large -- even planet-sized) objects while at
> light speed. The result is the total conversion of particles from mass
> into energy. A grain of sand has the mass energy of a nuclear weapon.
>
> I'm not sure that a starship of this concept (or its occupants) would
> survive the journey.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Nov 18, 2012, 5:09:57 PM11/18/12
to
light year...humbug on time dilation, you'll never make it, not to mention that
you can only travel half the distance at SOL, you have to spend an equal amount
of time or more to brake
Andrew Chaplin
Nov 18, 2012, 6:18:21 PM11/18/12
to
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:atlas-bugged-51DC...@news.solani.org:
Where do I send my contribution?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
news:atlas-bugged-51DC...@news.solani.org:
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jim Wilkins
Nov 18, 2012, 7:01:50 PM11/18/12
to
"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
message news:atlas-bugged-
>
> a star 100 light years away and you travel SOL means it take a year
> to travel a
> light year...humbug on time dilation, you'll never make it, not to
> mention that
> you can only travel half the distance at SOL, you have to spend an
> equal amount
> of time or more to brake
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090425080114AAIsYZx
> a star 100 light years away and you travel SOL means it take a year
> to travel a
> light year...humbug on time dilation, you'll never make it, not to
> mention that
> you can only travel half the distance at SOL, you have to spend an
> equal amount
> of time or more to brake
You can accelerate close to the speed of light in a year and a half:
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1406
Grantland
Nov 19, 2012, 7:13:34 AM11/19/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 10:18:25 PM UTC+2, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Grantland <grantla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Negative. FTL is currently quite possible for the colonizing fleet,
>
> > > > given
> > >
> > > > constant - conceivable (antimatter-powered ion drive? Bussard ramjet?)
> > >
>
> > > > acceleration over time. A 1g acceleration could get to near light speed
>
> > > > in
>
> > >
> > > > less than a year, and then they could travel hundreds (or thousands)of
>
> > >
>
> > > > light-years in just a few years.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
> > > Grantland <grantla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Negative. FTL is currently quite possible for the colonizing fleet,
>
> > > > given
> > >
> > > > constant - conceivable (antimatter-powered ion drive? Bussard ramjet?)
> > >
>
> > > > acceleration over time. A 1g acceleration could get to near light speed
>
> > > > in
>
> > >
> > > > less than a year, and then they could travel hundreds (or thousands)of
>
> > >
>
> > > > light-years in just a few years.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > You are the observer. They are the travellers. They experience Newtonian
>
> > laws all the way; you are constrained by Einstein. Time dilation makes the
>
> > trip short and fast for THEM, not you.
>
>
>
> You forget that they then have to decelerate by the same amount that
>
> they accelerated to in order to land. There is also the matter of
>
> encountering small (and large -- even planet-sized) objects while at
>
> light speed. The result is the total conversion of particles from mass
>
> into energy. A grain of sand has the mass energy of a nuclear weapon.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure that a starship of this concept (or its occupants) would
>
> survive the journey.
Obviously they switch over at the half-way point.
>
> > laws all the way; you are constrained by Einstein. Time dilation makes the
>
> > trip short and fast for THEM, not you.
>
>
>
> You forget that they then have to decelerate by the same amount that
>
> they accelerated to in order to land. There is also the matter of
>
> encountering small (and large -- even planet-sized) objects while at
>
> light speed. The result is the total conversion of particles from mass
>
> into energy. A grain of sand has the mass energy of a nuclear weapon.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure that a starship of this concept (or its occupants) would
>
> survive the journey.
They'd need a shield of some type. (magnetic? nano-particle cloud accelerated with and before the ship by said field? Other unknown?)
Maybe their tech is a million years ahead of ours.
Grantland
Grantland
Nov 19, 2012, 9:06:31 AM11/19/12
to
On Monday, November 19, 2012 2:01:03 AM UTC+2, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090425080114AAIsYZx
>
>
>
> You can accelerate close to the speed of light in a year and a half:
>
> http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1406
Newton says .951 of a year to lightspeed.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090425080114AAIsYZx
>
>
>
> You can accelerate close to the speed of light in a year and a half:
>
> http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1406
Grantland
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Nov 19, 2012, 11:18:41 PM11/19/12
to
Joe Osman
Nov 20, 2012, 8:27:15 AM11/20/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 6:18:21 PM UTC-5, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:atlas-bugged-51DC...@news.solani.org: > In article > <orfairbairn-7A36...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>, > Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> > > If you get up to SOL, in one year you would have travelled one >> > > light year, >> > > so to >> > > >> > > travel hundreds or thousands of light years would require hundreds >> > > or thousands >> > > >> > > of years. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Not to mention that as you accelerate matter to light speed it >> > > kind of assumes >> > > >> > > infinite mass...not good for the other grantlands in the universe >> > >> > You are the observer. They are the travellers. They experience >> > Newtonian laws all the way; you are constrained by Einstein. Time >> > dilation makes the trip short and fast for THEM, not you. >> >> You forget that they then have to decelerate by the same amount that >> they accelerated to in order to land. There is also the matter of >> encountering small (and large -- even planet-sized) objects while at >> light speed. The result is the total conversion of particles from mass >> into energy. A grain of sand has the mass energy of a nuclear weapon. >> >> I'm not sure that a starship of this concept (or its occupants) would >> survive the journey. > > An expensive way to deal with grantlands Where do I send my contribution? -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Send it to the Tau Zero Foundation http://www.tauzero.aero/.
> "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:atlas-bugged-51DC...@news.solani.org: > In article > <orfairbairn-7A36...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>, > Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> > > If you get up to SOL, in one year you would have travelled one >> > > light year, >> > > so to >> > > >> > > travel hundreds or thousands of light years would require hundreds >> > > or thousands >> > > >> > > of years. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Not to mention that as you accelerate matter to light speed it >> > > kind of assumes >> > > >> > > infinite mass...not good for the other grantlands in the universe >> > >> > You are the observer. They are the travellers. They experience >> > Newtonian laws all the way; you are constrained by Einstein. Time >> > dilation makes the trip short and fast for THEM, not you. >> >> You forget that they then have to decelerate by the same amount that >> they accelerated to in order to land. There is also the matter of >> encountering small (and large -- even planet-sized) objects while at >> light speed. The result is the total conversion of particles from mass >> into energy. A grain of sand has the mass energy of a nuclear weapon. >> >> I'm not sure that a starship of this concept (or its occupants) would >> survive the journey. > > An expensive way to deal with grantlands Where do I send my contribution? -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Joe
0 new messages