Jump to content
The_Mather1

Prototype

Recommended Posts

And no, the CUI isn't overpowered, it's just that it's the brain of the ship, if you nerf the CUI, you nerf the ship, and in essence the game itself.

 

I never said it was, I said that it was annoyingly boring.

 

An AI that controls everything on the ship, one that can't be shut off or modified is just going to result in a load of people doing a chore. The idea of these games is so that you can do what you want, its not so you can be told what to do by the GM! The AI needs to change, you can't just have a unkillable thing telling everybody what to do.

Don't limit the players.


qTLQRuS.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AI controls only the systems that must never be highjacked by a single person, such as the piloting, the weapons and the life support. And the players still decide what to do with them, they must just do so as a majority or have an elected captain.


FaladorTavern-2.png

TheMather1.jpg

Twitter:

@TheMather1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. So basically it's just a system to keep the players from [bleep]ing themselves over.


FaladorTavern.png

Youtube account: Earthgragonsage; currently uploading not an effing thing.

[hide=Memorable Crossroads Quotes.]

Reigan: NO MOOSE CAN SAVE US NOW; ...Had that been taken out of context, it would have been comical... Right now, it's terrifying.

[/hide]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but it shouldn't be untouchable. I can understand it being made harder to destroy but making it completely indestructable is paramount to.


qTLQRuS.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not untouchable in the manner that a scientist can't upgrade it, but you can't deactivate it, as such would deactivate the ship, including the life support system as well.


FaladorTavern-2.png

TheMather1.jpg

Twitter:

@TheMather1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me repeat myself THIS IS NOT THE [bleep]ING FAR FUTURE! WE'RE JUST REACHING INTO SPACE! MICROSCOPIC FUSION REACTORS ARE NOT A THING THAT [bleep]ING EXIST, NOR ARE LASERS THAT ONLY NEED A FEW MILLIJOULES OF POWER TO CLEAVE A MAN IN HALF!

Lets compare 1900 to 2000...Yup, massive change...From Coal to Nuclear power, from Monarcy to extreme democracy, from Empire to UN, from church to TV....

Lets compare 2000 and 2100...Nope, everything is the same.

 

Microscopic Fusion Reactors? Where did you get this from? I don't think I have made any claim that they exist.

Lasers that require only a few millijoules of power to cleave a man in half? Pretty sure the Deuterium-Fluorine lasers are in the kilo-mega-watt range...So...

"In 1996, TRW Incorporated managed to get a continuous beam of hundreds of kilowatts of power that lasted for several seconds"

 

There's no way to create anything that allows your brain to interpret radio signals, because you know, if it could then your head would already be full of a deafening and blinding static that would drive you [bleep]ing insane! Radio signals induct electricity into conductors, your brain is a mess of organic conductors, do the math. There's a reason exposure to high powered radio signals is said to cause brain damage. As for radiation, the things that detect those are called geiger counters, they can only measure the intensity, nothing else, and they're hyper-sensitive. If you were to wear one of those on your head, and it detected something that wasn't pressed up against it, your vital organs would already be in the process of shutting down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapter

 

Here I am somewhat lost... 'Can I have a HUD' 'NO BECAUSE IT WOULD MURDER YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

I would recommend you actually read the VISOR article...

 

Gauss rifles exist as sniper rifles, because there you can take some time in between shots, and becasuse making an electromagnet propel a chunk of metal at high velocity does not even require a fraction of the energy it takes to sustain a high-powered laser, much less one that has an output far into the Giga-, if not Terrawatts.

Chemical Laser(or one type anyway):

The laser is fed with gaseous chlorine, molecular iodine, and an aqueous mixture of hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide. The aqueous peroxide solution undergoes chemical reaction with chlorine, producing heat, potassium chloride, and oxygen in excited state, singlet delta oxygen. Spontaneous transition of excited oxygen to the triplet sigma ground state is forbidden giving the excited oxygen a spontaneous lifetime of about 45 minutes. This allows the singlet delta oxygen to transfer its energy to the iodine molecules injected to the gas stream; they are nearly resonant with the singlet oxygen, so the energy transfer during the collision of the particles is rapid. The excited iodine then undergoes stimulated emission and lases at 1.315 µm in the optical resonator region of the laser.

No high energy requirement there....

The clue is in the name...Chemical Laser.

 

And no, there's no [bleep]ing way I'm going to calculate the size of the ships battery, because knowing that will only lead you back to what I said, it can power whatever you need as long as it's not [bleep]ing huge.

Sigh...

 

And since I have to spell it out for you, the thruster is, believe it or not, at the very aft end of the ship (big surprise), and the maglev is built into the hull, because, you know, where else could it possibly be without tearing all equipment inside the ship apart?

So basically...if we get shot out maglev system is compromised...Brilliant.

And if we are fleeing there is a large group of thrusters put together...I know it is a popular sci-fi concept, but, really, if a real craft was going to be built...and not get destroyed in combat...it would feature side mounted, retractable thrusters...So that when not in use (Or when in atomsphere) they could be retracted and not provide easy targets.

 

And no, robots aren't stupid, nor are they slow, they are just not [bleep]ing gymnasts, as it is we're having trouble making one that can walk on two legs without falling, making it capable of picking up a gun is worse, making it capable of aiming and firing is damn near impossible. What you're saying is "we had cars in 1880, so why can't our cars watch our kids, wake us up in the morning and go earn their own money to pay for the gas?"

Err....

ASIMO

Why would it need to pick up a gun...Just build it into the chasis....

As to automated firing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

 

The anology is rather inaccurate...More like saying "We have engines, and we have wings in 1880, so why can't we have planes in 2000?"

 

 

There's a thing called having a concept of time, you, apparently, do not have it. You're insulting the field of electronics with this belief of yours that one and a third century is pretty much the same as a millennium of intense research.

 

Random comment is random? Can't tell what this relates to.

 

I would say that you should read some of Daniel Bell's work pertaining to the speed at which Mathmatics, Agricultural Sciences, Momentum and general Human development over the past two hundred years...

The speed at which we have been developing has increased, on average, by 2% per year...I am sure Retech can tell you about compound interest, but in a nutshell, over the course of 100 years we should develop by approximately 700%.

This isn't related to Moore's Law or any other the other stuff about electronics, Daniel Bell's analysis occured in the 70s.

 

And no, I'm not giving you puzzles before the game even starts. Heck, I never even said that I could guarantee them at all, I implied rather heavily to the contrary in fact.

Thats fine, I just wanted to know if I could have them or not...Ignoring me when I ask isn't good.

 

Retech, the game was ready, still is, nothing has changed. I think this was just Archi trying (and failing spectacularly) to parody me.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ego

 

While it may seem I am just being difficult....And it is true that sometimes (specifically over the 'AN amount of energy') I am poking fun of you...But I am just genuinely asking questions for the most part.

 

And yeah, yeah, you can say the Gauss gun is technology we have today, but it's already 95 years since its inventor died, science moves slowly, the only exception is the computer.

And Atomic Power...

1898- Discovery of Uranium

1934- Nuclear Fission Theorised -36 years

1939- Nuclear Fission Proved -5 years

1945- Nuclear Bomb exploded -6 years

1949- Thermo-Nuclear Bomb exploded -4 years

 

And the Jet Engine...

1913- First Jet Engine proposed

1928- Jet Aircraft Proposed- 15 years

1937- First Jet Engine built- 9 years

1941- Jet Aircraft flown - 4 years

 

If you look at the social sciences then the development has been even faster than what we are seeing in Computers.

 

 

Gauss Technology is highly misleading, since it was theorised in the 18th century, built in the 19th century and then ignored.


Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military science excels in a time of war, mankind however just had its first period of complete peace, as such weapons-related would not have received a fraction of the funding they could have.

 

And tell me, I a person was wearing a ton of chemicals on his back, how would he not be a big, non-moving target, taking out whom would result in his entire squad going up in a fireball?

 

And let spell out to you why radiowaves and gamma radiation readings don't work that way;

Gamma radiation isn't detectable over large distances, so if you ever found the point where the detectore would notice the radiation and ut wasn't from debris in the air, you would be a dead man walking, killed by radiation poisoning, you just didn't know ut yet.

Radio waves however could be detected, it's impossible to use it to see, and it's pointless to show radio activity on an HUD, since you would only see the signals, not the point of origin, the destination or the data.

You can make a pair of sunglasses with built-in IR and UV cameras, but trying to make a VISOR is just a waste.

 

The hull of a ship means its external walls, not its shielding, it can refer to an area more than a meter thick and insulated with pretty much anything useful you can think of.

 

And yeah, that thing is half a meter tall, but you know, things don't actually always work the same way when the scale is upped. And also turrets don't translate into arm-mounted weapons.

 

Now shut up or get out.


FaladorTavern-2.png

TheMather1.jpg

Twitter:

@TheMather1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now shut up or get out.

I can see you are not going to tolerate discussion, and that the 'game' is going to end up being asking you if, by the grace of the all powerful Mather, we are allowed to control our characters....

 

 

Tell me when you are gonna run the movie...


Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also:

Military science excels in a time of war, mankind however just had its first period of complete peace, as such weapons-related would not have received a fraction of the funding they could have.

 

Sigh.

2012 is not a period of complete peace, and unless you are going to handwave social science 101 the next 10 years will not be complete peace either.

And given that the weapons we are talking about are already in testing, one assumes, unless you are going to handwave actual science and say all the current theories are wrong, that they could be developed with the next 10 years.

 

Also, both Atomic Power (not atomic weapons, obviously) and Jet Engines were developed largely as a result of individual research, which was nominally underfunded.

 

And tell me, I a person was wearing a ton of chemicals on his back, how would he not be a big, non-moving target, taking out whom would result in his entire squad going up in a fireball?

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower

Need I say more?

 

And let spell out to you why radiowaves and gamma radiation readings don't work that way;

Gamma radiation isn't detectable over large distances, so if you ever found the point where the detectore would notice the radiation and ut wasn't from debris in the air, you would be a dead man walking, killed by radiation poisoning, you just didn't know ut yet.

Radio waves however could be detected, it's impossible to use it to see, and it's pointless to show radio activity on an HUD, since you would only see the signals, not the point of origin, the destination or the data.

You can make a pair of sunglasses with built-in IR and UV cameras, but trying to make a VISOR is just a waste.

 

Combined microscope, telescope, IR-UV, Dataprocessing Center, Flash-shield, Scanner and covert communication system, which doesn't fall off your face if you start sweating/if you look down, is useless...Check.

 

Not all Gamma Rays are insta-death inducing...see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiography

 

Similarly, if there was a low dose of Gamma Radiation...say from a lump of Cobalt-60(Or Nickle-60, which is far more likely to come across) that someone picked up, then being able to look at it and go 'Radiation' would be very useful.

Or if there was some sort of radioactive container which had a hairline crack...Not enough to result in the internal material instantly and irrevocably killing everyone, but enough to cause long term damage....then it would be very useful.

Or if someone was poisioning my food was a radioactive isotope.

 

Could even just use Sodium Iodine Crystals as a Scintillator, rather than a Giger Counter.

 

Radio Waves...Why would you need to know the orgin or destination point of the data...Added to the fact that you could determine the approximate origin of the data by working out the radius of the burst, which could be deduced by measuring the angle (All done by the computer obviously, not saying that a human could see something that passed by for 0.000000001 of a second and instantly do the math) of the curve of the segment of the sphere that can be seen. Would be reasonably inaccurate, but still better than no idea at all.

Added to that it saves carrying around a radio detector if the enemy happen to be using radios..Or if we are exploring somewhere where we don't know there are enemies and they aren't operating radio silence.

Similarly, any remote-radio-operated turrets or cameras could be detected at distance.

 

And, as stated before, it could just recieve Radio Messages, process them for encryption (where applicable) and feed the data out as a stream of text.

 

The hull of a ship means its external walls, not its shielding, it can refer to an area more than a meter thick and insulated with pretty much anything useful you can think of.

 

Yes...But if any part of the hull was compromised then it would mean the magnet system would be compromised as well...

 

And yeah, that thing is half a meter tall, but you know, things don't actually always work the same way when the scale is upped. And also turrets don't translate into arm-mounted weapons.

Ok, have half meter tall robots with turrets welded to their head?

I was never overly interested (because sending robots into a situation spoils the fun) I was more concerned that we would just get androids randomly thrown at us.


Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason flamethrowers haven't been used for combat since WWII, when Germany attacked Russia.

 

You can't detect weak radiation over distance, if there was radiation strong enough to detect, you'd be dead.

 

Radio waves can't be translated without the key and the exact frequency at which to look at.

 

You can't fit a computer capable of processing all that on your head.

 

If your hull is breached, you can't enter an atmosphere anyways without tearing the ship apart.


FaladorTavern-2.png

TheMather1.jpg

Twitter:

@TheMather1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a reason flamethrowers haven't been used for combat since WWII, when Germany attacked Russia.

Flamethrowers are short range weapons, which are mostly used for clearing an enemy which is well entrenched, but where Grenades will not suffice.

There has not been a war where that is such.

 

You can't detect weak radiation over distance, if there was radiation strong enough to detect, you'd be dead.

Not even psudeo science, it is just plain innaccurate.

 

Radio waves can't be translated without the key and the exact frequency at which to look at.

Fundermental basis of Signals Intelligence is that there are ways to crack the key, and that you can search frequencies.

 

You can't fit a computer capable of processing all that on your head.

So even computers have not advanced in 130 years...Why is this game set in the future when it is clearly not the future.

Also, why not combine the computer into a belt, or an undershirt?

 

If your hull is breached, you can't enter an atmosphere anyways without tearing the ship apart.

Ok...So:

Hit with an explosive.

Maglev and hull fails.

Fall towards the planet because we can't use the maglev and the thrusters provide too little thrust to prevent it, unless you are handwaving them more powerful.

Are destroyed by the planet because of the hull breach.


Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never said the thrusters can't keep you airborne, you just can't use them to hover.

I think that it would be nice if the game was designed beforehand, instead of having a case of Schrodinger's game.


Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, that much was obvious, that thruster is responsible for bringing you around the solar system, of course it's strong enough to fly with.


FaladorTavern-2.png

TheMather1.jpg

Twitter:

@TheMather1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on, that much was obvious, that thruster is responsible for bringing you around the solar system, of course it's strong enough to fly with.

 

Spacecraft do not tend to be aerodynamic because it is a design flaw in a vaccum.

Further Ion Thrusters provide small energy, but provide it over a longer period than chemical propellent, and with a higher thrust to weight ratio.

Devices operating at 1.35 kW produce about 83 mN of thrust. High power models have demonstrated up to 3 N in the laboratory. Power levels up to 100 kW have been demonstrated by xenon Hall thrusters.

 

0.0083 Newtons of thrust...

 

Comparatively, the Pratt & Whitney F135, used in the F35/F88, generates upto 191,000 Newtons of thrust.

 

 

So even if we assume the spacecraft has, foolishly, been designed to be aerodynamic, you would need several million Hall Thrusters to allow the machine to actually fly within the Atomsphere...

 

 

 

 

 

So are you departing entirely from the realms of science with the magical variant on the Hall Thruster?


Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for those low levels is because currently ion thrusters aren't used for propulsion, they're used for maneuvering. They're small enough to carry by hand.

And no, it doesn't have to be aerodynamic, it uses the maneuvering thrusters to maintain stability and the propulsion thruster to fly.


FaladorTavern-2.png

TheMather1.jpg

Twitter:

@TheMather1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're small enough to carry by hand.

 

Compared to chemical rockets, the thrust is very small, on the order of 83 mN for a typical thruster operating at 300 V, 1.5 kW. For comparison, the weight of a coin like the U.S. quarter or a 20-cent Euro coin is approximately 60 mN.

 

Its quite irrelevant that they can be carried by hand because, unless they weigh less than 2 quarters they would require more lift than they consumed.

In space that is not a concern, but in atomsphere, or resisting gravity....

 

And no, it doesn't have to be aerodynamic, it uses the maneuvering thrusters to maintain stability and the propulsion thruster to fly.

I meant that Aerodynamic shapes produce lift as they move through the air...If the craft does not have an aerodynamic shape then it produces no, or little, lift in this manner, putting further stress on the engines.

 

The reason for those low levels is because currently ion thrusters aren't used for propulsion, they're used for maneuvering.

Where are these propulsion Ion Thrusters?

Hall thrusters are able to accelerate their exhaust to speeds between 1080 km/s (1000-8000 s specific impulse), with most models operating between 1530 km/s

Are we supposed to suppose that the 'Propulsion' Varient shoots out their exhaust at...let me see:

191,000/0.0083=23,012,048.2.

23,000,000 * 30 = 690,000,000,000 meters per second?

 

23 times the speed of light?

 

 

 

 

No. Ion Thrusters are uniquely suited to space, and are entirely unsuited to atomspheric flight, and short of Psudeo-Science justifications, I cannot see how they can be forced to work with current theory.


Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't shoot it out faster, it's just bigger so it shoots out more. Because you know, not even an idiot would use a thruster the size of a loudspeaker to propel a spacecraft.

If you want evidence that ion thrusters can provide decent lift, Google ionocraft, then you'll see a popular makeshift version capable of lifting itself.


FaladorTavern-2.png

TheMather1.jpg

Twitter:

@TheMather1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want evidence that ion thrusters can provide decent lift, Google ionocraft, then you'll see a popular makeshift version capable of lifting itself.

 

You are aware that these Ionocraft are only just capable of lifting themselves(And weigh very very small amounts), do not carry their own powersource, and are at an atomspheric pressure of 1 atomsphere...

 

A spacecraft trying desperately not to enter the atomsphere and thus not explode doesn't have any of those benefits...

I would further point out that saying 'Google such and such' is very imprecise...

 

It doesn't shoot it out faster, it's just bigger so it shoots out more. Because you know, not even an idiot would use a thruster the size of a loudspeaker to propel a spacecraft.

Why wouldn't you? (The size of it is entirely irrelevant...Its like saying 'Only an idiot would use a steam engine the size of a house to pump water out of a mine')

Ion Thrusters are intended to provide small amounts of thrust over long periods of time...Because everything in space is a long way away and if you can conserve fuel (The main benefit of Ion Thrusters is that they have a higher specific impulse than chemical thrusters).

 

 

But let us suppose we built your 23 million times the size thruster, suppose we fed it with 23 million times the number of joules, suppose we provided it with a fuel tank some 23 million times the size. (23 million to put it on par with the Pratt and Whitney Engine mentioned earlier)

 

Let us assume we are using a PPS-1350 style Hall Thruster* as our base.

It weights 29 Kilograms. It uses 350 volts (at 1 amp) so 350 Watts so 350 Joules. Its fuel tank carries 82 kilograms of Xenon and weighs 7.7 Kilograms itself.

This becomes:

Mechanism: 6.67 million tonnes

Power use: 9.1 billion Joules (Gigajoules)

Fuel Tank: 2.1 million tonnes (177.1 Million tonnes empty)

 

For total weight of 8.77 million tonnes.

 

So for the amount of weight that, just on its own, would have to expend is

8,770,000 * (9.80665/1)=

86,004,321 Newtons

 

Compared to its output of 191,000 Newtons of thrust.

 

In short, 450 times more thrust would be required to life the engine and fuel source, alone, than would be produced by it.

Assuming we removed the fuel source, so just the engine: 65,410,356 Newtons

Still 342 times more thrust required than provided.

 

*Requires purchase/University access to get.

 

 

 

No, I am still not seeing how you are working out how this system works...


Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even express the level on which those statements are false, you failed on such an elemental level that there's not even a proper term for it, because it has until now been unnecessary to mention. Ion thrusters don't have a locked power to weight ratio, the smaller something is, the weaker it is compared to its own weight. Just because you increase the size of the construct by a factor of 10 doesn't mean you increase it's mass by the same factor, since you don't need to make every surface 10 times thicker.

Rather at 100 times the size, the mass will be 10 times it's original value.

 

Also at 10 times the output, the device itself doesn't have to be 10 times as big, since large parts of the structure don't need to be resized, only the chamber, exhaust and fuel lines do. Just like if you want an engine to have twice the power, you don't double the size of the spark plugs and drive shaft, only the cylinders double, then the motor block is made slightly bigger if the cylinders become too big for its current size.

 

 

Added to that, I specifically stated improved Hall thruster, as in it has been improved during a few decades of space race, which means quite vast improvement really, because we all know how far we got from starting at nothing the last time.


FaladorTavern-2.png

TheMather1.jpg

Twitter:

@TheMather1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather at 100 times the size, the mass will be 10 times it's original value.
you failed on such an elemental level that there's not even a proper term for it, because it has until now been unnecessary to mention

 

Its a shame they aren't in the same paragraph. The irony would be entertaining.

 

Ion thrusters don't have a locked power to weight ratio, the smaller something is, the weaker it is compared to its own weight.
When a physical object maintains the same density and is scaled up, its mass is increased by the cube of the multiplier while its surface area only increases by the square of said multiplier.

 

Please attempt to understand the fundermentals of engineering...

 

While it is true that there is not a fixed ratio, there is the concept of optimisation. Ie:

If you increase a bird's wing sequentially and test its ability to fly, you reach the point where the bird can no longer fly.

 

I specifically stated improved Hall thruster

Ah, I see, so in the future only the things that benefit your argument have developed. :rolleyes:

Added to that there aren't that many ways to improve the speed at which ions are fired out of things...

 

because we all know how far we got from starting at nothing the last time.

Your lack of cogency, and basic historical knowledge(I exaggurate here) is remarkable.

Ion thrusters have been around, in one form or another, for 200 years, with the theory over 300 years old.

 

 

Also at 10 times the output, the device itself doesn't have to be 10 times as big, since large parts of the structure don't need to be resized, only the chamber, exhaust and fuel lines do. Just like if you want an engine to have twice the power, you don't double the size of the spark plugs and drive shaft, only the cylinders double, then the motor block is made slightly bigger if the cylinders become too big for its current size.
The Electric propulsion subsystem consists

of the following units:

Xenon tank

Bang-bang Pressure Regulation Unit

Xenon Flow Controller

Power Processing Unit

Electrical Filter Unit

Pressure Regulation Electronics

Thruster (Anode and Cathodes)

 

Fuel tank has already been noted

The pressure regulator is part of the fuel tank (Since the Xenon is held under 150 bars)

The flow controller, as you already stated needs to be increased.

Power processing unit. I would agree here, it probably only needs to be increased by a 10th...It, however, weights 0.8 kilograms.

Electrical Fliter unit. Again I agree, however this only weighs 0.2 kilograms.

Pressure Regulation Electronics. Part of the fuel tank.

Thruster:

An anode assembly, which includes magnetic winding, magnetic permeable path, discharge chamber with ceramic dielectric wall, propellant line voltage isolation, anode and plumbing for propellant distribution within the anode. (24.2 kilograms)

The second component is a athode-neutraliser assembly, which includes two redundant cathodes, each one having a heater, an emitter and an ignition device.(3.8 Kilograms)

 

With the exception of the ignition device I don't think there is anything there that would not need scaling up.

 

But even if we assumed that not EVERYTHING needed scaling up...if we arbitrarily said that only 10% needed scaling up, we are still left with a deficiet of 669,040 Newtons.

 

Even if we arbitrarily reduced it to only 1%, giving us 104,996 Newtons of thrust, we are still confronted by the vast energy cost(Since energy cost is directly proportional...if you contend otherwise then sorry, you are a lost cause)...about one and a half barrels of oil per second. Though it is the 'future' and I guess that we can arbitrarily waste this vast amount of energy.

So we now have these 104,996 Newtons of thrust, or 10.7 tonnes of lift capacity, we would need 3 Engines to lift the two Starfighters we have in out fighter bay alone...5 if they are loaded.

 

Beyond that it would be difficult to venture a guess since you have told us nothing about the ship...But it is safe to assume we will need at least 10 of them, more than likely over 50 of them.

 

Even if when then assume that they have only been increased in size by a factor of 230,000, in exchange for a factor of 230,000,000 increase in power, and that they only started out at 30* centimeters tall(Since, as you said, it only needs a larger exaust it seems pointless to increase its other dimentions), then that still comes to 69 Kilometers per engine.

 

We would have to say that you managed to achieve a factor of 230,000,000 increase in power with a relative increase in size of 0.001% for it to be a realistically managable size (69 meters).

Which really just isn't justified in any theory which could possibly be related to Hall thrusters...

 

In fact I have seen no justification for the idea that you can 'just scale up' the thruster and achieve considerably better results, just lots of 'Your ignorance is overwhelming' attacks.

 

But yeah, gonna stop now.

 

 

*I use 30 Centimeters because its how long the average ruler is and I once had cause to measure a loudspeaker and it was about the same length as a ruler...However some Ion thrusters are smaller, one of the Russian ones is 10 centimeters...Its not really overly important, since dividing 69 by 3 is 23, which, in kilometers, is still far too large. Even if it was 1 centimeters it is still 2.3 kilometers when scaled...


Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm out. This has gotten to the point of rediculousness. I can't stand this attempt to make another Space with no pseudo science. It's flipping difficult and not worth the time or energy. Sorry Mather.


FaladorTavern.png

Youtube account: Earthgragonsage; currently uploading not an effing thing.

[hide=Memorable Crossroads Quotes.]

Reigan: NO MOOSE CAN SAVE US NOW; ...Had that been taken out of context, it would have been comical... Right now, it's terrifying.

[/hide]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.