So this is a thing

http://btewiki.org/index.php?title=GEN1b

Funnily enough, I can't notice anything really wrong with it. If built, this thing could potentially work as advertised.
Bonus points for Skylon in the hangar.
[12:49] William "Tankman": yuri loli spaceshipgirls
[15:42] Jalern: I want to fuk r63 loli mao
«1

Comments

  • Posts: 0
    USS Fishterprise
    "I am sorry but if you don't like cake you're literally hitler
    Like I'm pretty sure an entire chapter of Mein Kampf is all about how much he loathes cake" - Kerlc, 2016

    [3:35:15 AM] Kerlc: they have boobs
    [3:35:18 AM] Kerlc: but they still have 12

    [10:00:19 AM] Kerlc: I actually prefer the penetration
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 0
    Isn't this kind of really huge? I don't understand how it could be built plausibly.
    "Gas giants don't discriminate. They have gas for everyone." -ASG
  • Posts: 0
    It would need an orbital asteroid shipyard, but it is plausible.

    If you want an implausible ship design, look up the idea of worldships/generation ships.
    "I am sorry but if you don't like cake you're literally hitler
    Like I'm pretty sure an entire chapter of Mein Kampf is all about how much he loathes cake" - Kerlc, 2016

    [3:35:15 AM] Kerlc: they have boobs
    [3:35:18 AM] Kerlc: but they still have 12

    [10:00:19 AM] Kerlc: I actually prefer the penetration
  • Posts: 0
    Now we just need warp, Gundams and space colonies, and then we will all be able to become newtypes.
    image
    image
  • Something over a kilometer long would not weight only 88kT. Battleships weigh more, and are much smaller. And a 100mW laser is cute. The US Navy's new Railgun uses 25mJ and it's a first generation.
    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
  • Posts: 1,259
    Joules are a measure of force, not power. Also railguns are a pain to use in space because their projectiles still have to obey orbital mechanics. Zappy lahzors do not.

    Anyway, this thing could concievably be built with a dry dock in-space. Might possibly be achievable with ferrying resources from Earth, though that'd be expensive.
    [12:49] William "Tankman": yuri loli spaceshipgirls
    [15:42] Jalern: I want to fuk r63 loli mao
  • Joules are energy, Newtons are force. Power is energy per second. 25mJ for a railgun is impressive because it is firing over quite less than a second so by dint is using more than 100mW for a brief moment.

    But yes, lazers do not have to deal with as much in orbital mechanics.

    And the only way this ship could get to space is if it was built in space, because at max thrust it only does 80kN, which is way too little to propel 88kT into space. I think it's even too little to propel the space shuttle around, but that's just my opinion.
    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 0


    And the only way this ship could get to space is if it was built in space

    Correct, orbital asteroid dry docks would be the best way.


    I think it's even too little to propel the space shuttle around, but that's just my opinion.

    VASMIR engines are vacuum rated. In space thrust matters little, as there is no resistance to fight against. The ship would burn until it intersects the target gravity well, then burn retrograde to slow down.

    At sizes like this it's either FTL or slowboating it with high ISP engines. One is feasible in the near-future, the other is not.

    But yes, lazers do not have to deal with as much in orbital mechanics.

    Lasers deal with literally none.

    Joules are energy, Newtons are force. Power is energy per second. 25mJ for a railgun is impressive because it is firing over quite less than a second so by dint is using more than 100mW for a brief moment.

    Joules are a measure of kinetic energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule#Megajoule
    I'm not even going to get involved in the whole "LAZERZ OR RAILZ" dickwaving.
    "I am sorry but if you don't like cake you're literally hitler
    Like I'm pretty sure an entire chapter of Mein Kampf is all about how much he loathes cake" - Kerlc, 2016

    [3:35:15 AM] Kerlc: they have boobs
    [3:35:18 AM] Kerlc: but they still have 12

    [10:00:19 AM] Kerlc: I actually prefer the penetration
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 1,259
    Pretty much what Tankman said. It is supposed to be assembled on-orbit, more this:
    image

    than this:
    image

    Which makes a lot of sense from a Star Trek point of view since near as I can tell, most star trek ships do not land on planets except in emergencies and use transporters or shuttles (Skylon for this particular concept)

    And in space, thrust doesn't really come into play much because you're not trying to fight gravity. As long as it's above 5 mN of thrust imparted, you can do maneouvers with it.

    As for the whole railgun/laser thing, I was merely pointing out that you don't compare megajoules to watts as they denote entirely different physical measurements.
    Also lahsorz go pewpew.
    [12:49] William "Tankman": yuri loli spaceshipgirls
    [15:42] Jalern: I want to fuk r63 loli mao
  • I realize thrust matters less in space due to the zero-friction environment. It's just that, well, if your ship could maintain a single gravity of acceleration for long periods of time, you could literally be at mars in less than a day (even whilst braking). And so, if you can't accelerate at any meaningful rate, it's not worth building.

    Joules are a measure of any type of energy. "The joule (/ˈdʒuːl/ or sometimes /ˈdʒaʊl/), symbol J, is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat in the International System of Units."

    And, Railguns are bigger than Laserguns (I can't think of what to call something that shoots lasers, help me?) and therefore would have bigger dicks!
    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
  • Posts: 1,259
    But, but laser guns have infinite reach D:

    Joules measure energy. Watts measure power. Measuring the impact of a lahzor with joules is kinda silly since you're delivering focused light onto a thing (but make no mistake, the effect is in fact mechanical, not thermal in nature). Makes more sense to have its output in watts or kilowatts. Railguns, on the other hand deliver an actual projectile so joules make more sense.

    As for acceleration, ain't no way ain't no how you're getting 1g of acceleration with ion engines, you'd need at least nuclear thermal for that. You also don't need a constant thrust of 1g to get you to mars in a matter of days, some VASIMR studies do it in 30 days and those things have comparatively tiny amounts of thrust to conventional rockets.
    Well, you do need to spiral out of low orbit to an earth-moon lagrange point which would take a while, but there's no reason why you couldn't just build the thing on the lagrange point.
    [12:49] William "Tankman": yuri loli spaceshipgirls
    [15:42] Jalern: I want to fuk r63 loli mao
  • I know about Vasimir. It's super cool and makes me happy in my pants. However, it needs some major scaling up before we can mount it in any meaningful sized spaceship. However sir, you miss my point. With 1g of acceleration, you don't get to mars in a matter of days. You get to mars, in one day. I did the math using the distance between mars and earth at closest approach. After something close to 12 hours, reverse thrust, and by the time you've "stopped" you should be in orbit around mars.

    But yes, the only thing cooler than Vasimir would be space manufacturing.
    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
  • Posts: 1,259
    Well, to get 1g of constant acceleration, you're basically talking about a torchship. Those allow for some pretty funky maneouvers in the solar system. Too bad they need fusion-powered engines at least.

    Unless we're talking Orion. That's an actual torchship that doesn't require fusion. Well, except in the form of H-bombs.

    We really ought to build an Orion one of these days. That thing is dope.
    [12:49] William "Tankman": yuri loli spaceshipgirls
    [15:42] Jalern: I want to fuk r63 loli mao
  • I'm too sleepy to read through the torchship page right now. All I know is that Ian Douglas took Heinlein too seriously in his Stellar Marines trilogy series. Picture large spaceships built like mushrooms. The front is where the "cap" is. The cap is filled with water, which is used for both reaction mass and radiation shielding. Behind the cap on a rotating ring are habitats. When the ship isn't accelerating, these habitats spin to create "out is down" gravity. When the ship needs to accelerate, these habitats stop, and fold up parallel to the direction of acceleration and axis of the ship. Behind, on the stem, is the engine. In the book universe, the engines started with fusion (good start), and then upgraded to antimatter. Eventually they went full reactionless drives and dropped the mushroom design when it became obsolete. These drives typically were mounted on ships a few hundred meters long, with the big ones topping out near a kilometer. They could go in and about 1g.

    However, he's recently started a new series called "Star Carrier" which instead of fusion drives, ships use projected gravitational singularities. These let ships achieve insane accelerations, without having to figure out inertics! Think about it. The only reason we need inertics is because the ship is accelerating whereas our inertia is trying to prevent us from following suit. However, with singularity drives, you accelerate with the ship. These drives let fighters be more practical, AND LETS THEM BANK IN SPACE! By the way, these fighters can go 50,000g! THAT'S FUCKING INSANE! Even capital ships accelerate at a few hundred g's.

    Singularity drives OP.
    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 0
    Looks like a triple post, a thousand apologies.
    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
  • Posts: 0
    Orion drives or riot.
    "I am sorry but if you don't like cake you're literally hitler
    Like I'm pretty sure an entire chapter of Mein Kampf is all about how much he loathes cake" - Kerlc, 2016

    [3:35:15 AM] Kerlc: they have boobs
    [3:35:18 AM] Kerlc: but they still have 12

    [10:00:19 AM] Kerlc: I actually prefer the penetration
  • I mean, moving your ship by nuclear explosions is cool and all, but why not a legit antimatter drive?
    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
  • Posts: 1,259
    Gravity projectors and reactionless drives do not make fighters plausible. Gravity manipulation opens up gravity-based weaponry (using tidal forces to tear apart other ships, anyone?) and reactionless drives open up relativistic weaponry which is basically planet-killers and return of the MAD at a planetary scale.

    Banking fighters are going to be at a disadvantage in a realistic space combat environment because
    a) lasers are instakill, if you can see it, it's dead. Unless it's more than a light second away but that's Stupendous range and you need some pretty major lasers to get there, which means they won't be stuck on one-man pods.
    b) newtonian maneouvering allows you to bypass many of the tactics used by aircraft ("He's on my tail!" "Well just turn around and shoot him. Your vector is unchanged.").
    c) the only concievable way of hitting someone in newtonian space, regardless of drives used, is having the same vector as them, which means if you can shoot them, they can shoot you right back. Unless you use lasers buut those come with a variety of stuff that makes them better suited for capital ships.

    Actual "fighters" as we know them right now would be very expensive and very fragile, not to mention the horrific mass penalty of having a manned system (life support is a bitch) and the G-limitations of having an actual pilot (yes, even with acceleration pods, 50000 gs will murderate you). If you something similar to fill their role, use a drone. Although there's nothing that prevents even bigger ships from having the same maneouverability as a fighter while delivering more firepower for a smaller price than equivalent amount of fighters and not suffering from as bad a mass penalty for life support because that doesn't scale linearly (also capital ships in a sensible space environment have like, 50 crew tops for the biggest classes. The rest is robots and automated systems).

    The only place where anything even remotely resembling a fighter would be useful would be in the clutter of low orbit, and even then only when station vs station warfare is considered (although given the peculiarities of low orbits you'd probably want to avoid warfare because debris fuck shit up for everyone so you'd probably want most of your warfare taking place inside stations, with space marines infiltrating regular shipments for maximum effectiveness). Also that environment makes gravity-based propulsion impossible because it'd play silly buggers with the satellites and stations.

    So yeah. Fighters in space (as we know them) make zero sense.

    Welp, that turned into a wad'o'text.
    Antimatter rulez.
    [12:49] William "Tankman": yuri loli spaceshipgirls
    [15:42] Jalern: I want to fuk r63 loli mao
  • Posts: 0

    I mean, moving your ship by nuclear explosions is cool and all, but why not a legit antimatter drive?

    One fuel can be produced in high quantities fairly cheaply.
    The other costs an entire countries GDP for less than a gram and is almost impossible to contain.

    Choose one.
    "I am sorry but if you don't like cake you're literally hitler
    Like I'm pretty sure an entire chapter of Mein Kampf is all about how much he loathes cake" - Kerlc, 2016

    [3:35:15 AM] Kerlc: they have boobs
    [3:35:18 AM] Kerlc: but they still have 12

    [10:00:19 AM] Kerlc: I actually prefer the penetration
  • Posts: 1,259
    Buuut taaaaaank, future SPAAAAAAAAACE TRAAAAAAAVEL

    also antimatter farms around Mercury. Because science.
    [12:49] William "Tankman": yuri loli spaceshipgirls
    [15:42] Jalern: I want to fuk r63 loli mao
  • Posts: 0
    Is Mercury tidal locked? I can't remember.

    If not that's going to be a pain in the ass to set up.
    "I am sorry but if you don't like cake you're literally hitler
    Like I'm pretty sure an entire chapter of Mein Kampf is all about how much he loathes cake" - Kerlc, 2016

    [3:35:15 AM] Kerlc: they have boobs
    [3:35:18 AM] Kerlc: but they still have 12

    [10:00:19 AM] Kerlc: I actually prefer the penetration
  • Well, it's not, it spins very slowly, but Kerlc probably meant in the same general orbit as mercury when he said
    Kerlc said:

    antimatter farms around Mercury

    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
  • Posts: 0
    In that case it would just melt.
    "I am sorry but if you don't like cake you're literally hitler
    Like I'm pretty sure an entire chapter of Mein Kampf is all about how much he loathes cake" - Kerlc, 2016

    [3:35:15 AM] Kerlc: they have boobs
    [3:35:18 AM] Kerlc: but they still have 12

    [10:00:19 AM] Kerlc: I actually prefer the penetration
  • Posts: 1,259
    Bitch please, thermal management systems from TEH FUTURE.

    But yes, I meant the general orbit of Mercury. Solar power is plentiful there which is good because antimatter production requires loads of power.

    Also stellar engines, anyone? Those are neat.
    [12:49] William "Tankman": yuri loli spaceshipgirls
    [15:42] Jalern: I want to fuk r63 loli mao
  • Is there any way known to get antimatter using the sun directly or indirectly?
    How do you say no to someone who asks you to say no?
    - Random Question Number 289

    These Random Questions were not paid for by anybody.
  • Is there any way known to get antimatter using the sun directly or indirectly?

    I believe it is possible using a pair of enlarged barbecue tongs.
    "Gas giants don't discriminate. They have gas for everyone." -ASG
  • Is there any way known to get antimatter using the sun directly or indirectly?

    I believe it is possible using a pair of enlarged barbecue tongs.
    How does it have to be barbecue related?
    How do you say no to someone who asks you to say no?
    - Random Question Number 289

    These Random Questions were not paid for by anybody.
  • Um, I think I once heard that antimatter naturally forms and becomes trapped in certain parts of planet's magnetospheres. However, these are pretty small amounts. Although, to be fair, it doesn't take much antimatter.

    1kg antimatter= ~50mT of TNT.

    This is why I have a pathological fear of antimatter.
    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
  • Posts: 1,259
    That hypothesis about antimatter getting trapped in magnetospheres is yet to be proven. We see no indication of it being correct.

    1 kg of antimatter is nigh impossible to contain, and it wouldn't produce nearly that bad of an explosion. Mostly because it would disperse after the initial blast.
    [12:49] William "Tankman": yuri loli spaceshipgirls
    [15:42] Jalern: I want to fuk r63 loli mao
  • It would disperse if it wasn't completely surrounded by matter, like in space. But if a kg of antimatter were to meet 1kg of matter, ~50mT.

    feeeeeeeear
    "Yae, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, 'cause I broughts a Minigun"
    ~The Bible of the Church of N
Sign In or Register to comment.