Space Opera Fans discussion
Reader Discussions
>
The Physics of Space Battles
Rion wrote: "...In a dog fighting situation, lets say you manage to destroy your enemies ship. Now you have to survive the debris field you just created, of which you do not have the energy to out run or the shielding to withstand..."Couple things wrong with this view:
1) Dog fighting is only viable in an atmosphere. The velocities of space ships precludes the ability to alter course in anything like a dog fight maneuver. How many g-forces can a pilot stand? Certainly not the 100s or 1,000s of g's needed to do dog fight maneuvers in space.
2) Ships in space do not need to mount their weapons facing forwards at all. Why do this? You can spin your ship an any direction you want relative to your forward motion...there's no air friction stopping you from doing this. Go play the old video game Asteroids and you'll see. No, weapons systems would more likely be placed in computer controlled turrets that can shoot in all directions, evenly scattered around the ship to provide full coverage. (Spinning a ship around to fire forward-facing weapons is possible, but why waste reaction mass?)
ERGO: Debris fields would only be an issue if you were dumb enough to annihilate your foe while traveling directly at them with no chance to alter your course.
Making battles in space realistic is really going to depend on the technology you choose to include (I'm no purist when it comes to SF tech). The important thing is to make them internally consistent within the tech you use.
Gaines wrote: "The thing that gets me every time, both in movies and TV and sometimes in novels or short fiction, is when an explosion in outer space (like a space ship blowing up, for example) goes "boom" :-p ....."--Lasers are invisible unless they're fired through something with a lot of particulate matter to diffract their beams (like smoke machines).
--Lasers also spread out over distance according to the same laws as regular light. (Laser range finders fired from Earth to the Moon are over 6km wide when they hit the lunar surface.) Their energies decrease in the same way.
Now, if you do not insist on super hard science for your spaceship tech ... for example if you allow FTL, and especially if you allow for "short-range" FTL hops, then things get a lot more interesting.For example, you pop your fleet into the outer solar system of your enemy. Let's say you're as far away as Neptune is from the sun. Well, since you just entered the system out of FTL, the light hitting your ships (and the heat signatures of your ships) will propagate toward your enemy's ships at the speed of light.
That is, they won't know you're even in the system for 2.66 hours.
However, the signatures of your enemy's fleet will already be available for you to see. It will be 2.66 hours old, but you'll see them instantly. Now you've got almost 3 hours to plot where their ships are likely to be.
Once you've done your math, you can jump close enough to where they're likely to be to drop your payloads, and perhaps to run away again ... All before they know you're there.
And lest we forget ...http://www.projectrho.com/public_html...
I know this is going start all you submarine lovers and cloaking device fans foaming at the mouth but THERE AIN'T NO STEALTH IN SPACE.
The only way ya gonna get anything close is by a strategically worthless "hiding behind a planet" maneuver, a Harry Potter cloak of invisibility large enough to cover an entire spacecraft, or something equally stupid.
Although, I must ad that invisibility cloaks are looking more and more feasible all the time, at pretty much all wavelengths of EMR. So...have at it.
Akshay wrote: "The previous comment I made actually brought a thought to mind that perhaps some of you could speculate on and answer:If you were in space and all outside is dead silent, but then there was a gas..."
As Trike said, sure, as long as there's enough gas to transmit the sound waves :-)
Trike wrote: "Related note: Astronauts can talk to one another without radio by touching helmets together. "...which, you gotta admit, it pretty cute.
Trike wrote: "Akshay wrote: "If you were in space and all outside is dead silent, but then there was a gas cloud, i.e, a dense cloud of literally gaseous particles/air, then would there suddenly be sound if the ..."Oh I like that! I didn't know about the touching-helmets thing. Nice little tidbit to keep at the back of ones mind! :D
Thanks!
Micah wrote: "Now, if you do not insist on super hard science for your spaceship tech ... for example if you allow FTL, and especially if you allow for "short-range" FTL hops, then things get a lot more interest..."This is one of the aspects of space battles that Jack Campbell does really well in his lost fleet books :)
Jemima wrote: "I've been puzzling over the problem of having a 'vacuum cleaner' to suck up the detritus from asteroid mining. Ordinary suction won't work, but a turbo thing might get the dust particles moving....like through some 'gills' on the spacecraft? It's a bit iffy, though.Then again, like using a solar sail, maybe it all happens v e r y s l o w l y ;) "
Static electricity -- or perhaps actual electricity -- might work. A gigantic electrified net moving around sweeping the area... more like a broom than a vacuum cleaner. Although you could have some characters actually call it a "vacuum cleaner". Nudge nudge wink wink.
Micah wrote: "Agreed. But REALLY faint. For example, the density of a nebula's gas cloud is on the order of tens of particles per cubic centimeter. Earth's sea level density is in the order of ten to the 19th power particles per cubic centimeter.Those big gas clouds out in space are REALLY spread out. Sound intensity will be proportionally diminished."
True. Although you could postulate a denser-than-usual nebula, or at least one with really dense areas. Maybe there's some small piece of rock in the there that has just enough gravity to locally condense the various gasses. Maybe something like Phobos. Over time you'd get a localized dense patch. Ooh, and with the weirdness of space, you could have all sorts of things concentrated there: helium or something combustible, maybe even an organic soup of sorts.
I'm totally going to use that for something.
Trike wrote: "Although you could postulate a denser-than-usual nebula..."Absolutely. You then just have to also make sure that your spaceships are essentially atmosphere ready. Flying into a nebula that dense at a significant percent of light speed could be ... colorful!
Micah wrote: "Trike wrote: "Although you could postulate a denser-than-usual nebula..."Absolutely. You then just have to also make sure that your spaceships are essentially atmosphere ready. Flying into a nebula that dense at a significant percent of light speed could be ... colorful! "
Ooh, good point. I'm using that, too!
I'm reminded of Niven's Smoke Ring, which was essentially the Ringworld without the structure. It even had floating spheres of water of various sizes. I'm pretty sure I've read that there are actual spheres of ice and water scattered throughout space. Imagine hitting one of those as you're zipping along. Might as well slam into a moon.
Micah wrote: "That is, they won't know you're even in the system for 2.66 hours.However, the signatures of your enemy's fleet will already be available for you to see. It will be 2.66 hours old, but you'll see them instantly. Now you've got almost 3 hours to plot where their ships are likely to be.."
Jack Campbell's 'The Lost Fleet' books use this problem as a major plot device throughout.
Trike wrote: "Micah wrote: "Agreed. But REALLY faint. For example, the density of a nebula's gas cloud is on the order of tens of particles per cubic centimeter. Earth's sea level density is in the order of ten ..."Oh wonderful - so my vacuum cleaner round the asteroid they're mining might just work anyway - especially as orichalcum ore seems to have some pretty strange properties anyway (in my universe).
Personally I don't think you'd get complete silence, because on a real spaceship there's a lot of machinery running all the time. When my Jane has to leave the ship where she lives for most of the time and spend a night at home this happens.Jane lay in bed in her apartment, far out on the Glendale side of Astropolis, at three in the morning, only too aware of why she couldn’t sleep. The building was silent, too silent. She missed the faint whisper and click of the orthodynamic drive, the faint whalesong of the fusion reactor, the quiet rush of the life support fans, and the occasional pings from the cabin liners as they expanded and contracted against the hull. All her senses were attuned to keeping an eighty-footer alive-- and in return it kept her alive for thousands of hours in the deadly vacuum of space. Sleeping in a building was far too tame.
It also comes up in "we're all going to die" situations when nobody speaks:
"I'm sorry," said Tom. "We're in a time loop, and it's a nasty one. the flicks are going to get faster until something breaks."
Jane began to push buttons. "How far away is a safe distance?"
Tom shook his head. "It's a time loop, distance won't help. Either it'll decay away or it'll break and we'll go with it. Just watch the station."
It grew very quiet. All I could hear was the faint rush of the life support system fans, and the odd metallic ping from the ship itself, as all of us watched the flicks become a continuous shimmer.
I broke the silence. "Tom, how bad is it?"
It was a long time before Tom answered. "It could hardly be worse. I'm sorry. I think we have sacrificed ourselves to save the Earth. We've only got a minute or two left."
It's a device I use several times.
Jemima wrote: "I've been puzzling over the problem of having a 'vacuum cleaner' to suck up the detritus from asteroid mining. Ordinary suction won't work,"You might do it electrostatically. If you could get a charge on the loose stuff an electric field would sweep it up, rather like the dust precipitators in chimneys.
Trike wrote: "Micah wrote: "Agreed. But REALLY faint. For example, the density of a nebula's gas cloud is on the order of tens of particles per cubic centimeter. Earth's sea level density is in the order of ten ..."Oh I'm completely referring to denser-than-normal Nebulae!
Mostly I was just curious about the probability and you guys have given me some good thoughts to help me figure out my own view on this.
The nature of the gases in the nebula would also of course be a concern. Scifi has already had instances of a nebula being pretty-much used as a weapon by igniting vague explosive/reactive gases with lasers and such.
Micah wrote: "Trike wrote: "Although you could postulate a denser-than-usual nebula..."Absolutely. You then just have to also make sure that your spaceships are essentially atmosphere ready. Flying into a nebu..."
Great point about the ships being atmosphere ready - I can see how that would create problems for a ship and in fact could come in handy strategically if the Nebula was dense enough.
I think your missing the point that even a 'dense' nebular would still be classified as a hard vacuum as far as we are concerned.
Inertialess drives, globe ships, and tractor beams :)
AndrewP wrote: "I think your missing the point that even a 'dense' nebular would still be classified as a hard vacuum as far as we are concerned."Yes and no. Nebulae vary in density, so it's conceivable to have areas within a nebula which would be concentrated enough to be as dense as a cloud of cigarette smoke.
A Dark Nebula, such as the Coalsack Nebula (which can be seen by the naked eye from Earth), is called that because it is dense enough to block light. Based on radio and infrared examinations of dark nebulae, they're probably made up of small dust motes which are coated with frozen nitrogen and helium.
Add a little heat to that and voila, instant gas cloud with a density more or less comparable to Mars' atmosphere, which is similar to Earth's at about 22 miles high.
I could easily buy a dark nebula that has a few chunks of rock in it which would be sufficient to concentrate the particles into something akin to a tenuous atmosphere. Especially if there's a star close enough to heat the stuff up. Given enough time, even a small asteroid or comet would gather up a decent amount of the stuff. Maybe even enough to create an amorphous version of Saturn's rings.
Well even if there wasn't much in it, if you were going .3light speed or really anything even remotely fast even the small amount of particles in a nebula would be intense.
AndrewP wrote: "I think your missing the point that even a 'dense' nebular would still be classified as a hard vacuum as far as we are concerned."Well this point has already been partly addressed I'd say - THANKS TRIKE!
But to you Andrew and to Aaron above here:
I was looking for scienctific insight but remember, this is for science fiction. License can be taken to create a theoretical scenario of a dense enough nebula without going into too much detail - it was just a curiousity in my mind of how that would look in a show/movie, silent space-race suddenly gets loud as hell as they barrel into a nebula (or something like that).
Plus! Particulate matter can be dealt with in scifi but some form of shielding that acts as the front of an ice-breaking ship, parting the waters before and around as you go through. Like a submarine if you will!
BUT that said, thank you for pointing it out, its worth keeping in mind that such small particles are a concern - it made me think of a shielding system being needed. :)
Thanks everyone!
...License can be taken to create a theoretical scenario of a dense enough nebula without going into too much detail - it was just a curiousity...It appears, from how erudite much of this entire discussion has gone, that most of Hollywood has been taking a ton of liberties with actual space physics :-)
Anna wrote: ".It appears, from how erudite much of this entire discussion has gone, that most of Hollywood has been taking a ton of liberties with actual space physics :-) "Hollywood takes a ton of liberties with everything. :p
Even in movies like Downhill Racer, which seem realistic, they have characters doing things which are physics-ly impossible.
Whenever someone points out that some movie or TV show gets the details of their profession wrong, I reply that Hollywood gets every profession wrong. They don't care about accuracy, nor does the audience. They care so little, in fact, that movies that are about making movies are completely inaccurate.
Trike wrote: "A Dark Nebula, such as the Coalsack Nebula (which can be seen by the naked eye from Earth), is called that because it is dense enough to block light. Based on radio and infrared examinations of dark nebulae, they're probably made up of small dust motes which are coated with frozen nitrogen and helium."Without knowing the nebula in question, I would venture to say that it doesn't have to be particularly dense, it just have to be wide enough for all photon to eventually hit something on their way through...
I would also imagine that nebulas only exist because their particles are so thinly spread out that gravitational forces over billions of years have not been able to coagulate them into stars and gass planets. So beyond looking pretty and causing accidents for FTL ships, I don't imagine they are particularly interesting from a plot-perspective...
What is interesting, however is interstellar space: We're used to hanging out in a part of space that has been pretty thoughoughtly vacuumed by sun and planets.
But outside the asteroid belts and the heliopause is the Oort-cloud filled with cold, dark objects such as rouge planets, comets, asteroids, dust, cosmic rays etc. streaches most of the way to our neighbouring star systems' heliopauses.
Thar be pirates, treasures, lost alien artifacts and hidden submarine-style warfare out there... and who knows, maybe even a bit of magic, because do the natural laws really work the same way out there? ;)
But if interstellar space is dense enough to contain interesting stuff you get this lethal bug on the FTL windscreen-problem if you actually go fast enough to get there.
Anna wrote: "It appears, from how erudite much of this entire discussion has gone, that most of Hollywood has been taking a ton of liberties with actual space physics ..."Hollywood and TV. The most often liberty is gun recoil.
The blanks they use in movies and TV don't produce realistic recoil. And actors are horrible at faking it (well, let's say they simply don't ever try.)
I won't hold my breath for Hollywood fixing the physics in SF movies until the recoil issue is taken care of...followed by the issue with unlimited ammunition.
;D
Niels wrote: "Without knowing the nebula in question, I would venture to say that it doesn't have to be particularly dense, it just have to be wide enough for all photon to eventually hit something on their way through..."Estimates I've seen place it at between 100 and 300 molecules per cubic centimeter. That's like 10 to 30 times greater than average for nebulae. (From my limited research.)
So let's do a thought experiment ... Imagine a spacecraft traveling at 17,000 kilometers per second (that's the speed of Voyager I, the fastest "heliocentric recession" speed of any spacecraft built by man to date).
This spacecraft hits a nebula as dense as the Southern Coalsack Nebula. And let's put its density at the mid-point of estimates: 150 molecules per centimeter. In one second of flight, that spacecraft would encounter 2.55 to the 8th power molecules per cubic centimeter of the craft's surface.
Now, let's compare that to a jet fighter cruising at 836.86 kph (520 mph, about the average cruising speed for a fighter jet). Its altitude is roughly sea level.
The density of Earth's atmosphere at sea level is, as stated up above, 10 to the 19th power. In one second of flight, this jet would encounter 2.3 to the 24th molecules (per cubic centimeter of its surface)
2.55 to the 8th vs 2.3 to the 24th ... that means the jet encounters 9,116,109,803,921,570 more molecules than the spacecraft!
Nebulae ain't very dense.
Aaron wrote: "Well even if there wasn't much in it, if you were going .3light speed or really anything even remotely fast even the small amount of particles in a nebula would be intense."It would certainly cause my spaceships some problems. Even though, when FTL, they move in an alternate universe called 'orthospace', the one thing that does come through the barrier and affect the ships is real world gravity. This can cause anything from a rough ride to a total drive shutdown.
There was a stinging jolt, and for a moment Jane caught a glimpse of gold lines. The tug vibrated with a screech of tearing metal, and the tail fin of the eighty-footer moved closer to the windows.
‘Ian, you're chewing up your own hull. Get your helmet on. Ian? You are in your pressure suit aren't you? Ian!’
‘There wasnae time for that, lassie. She'll hold pressure long enough.’
‘But she won't go into ortho. We're too close to the sun.’
I would suspect that even the tiny gravitation of the nebula would make the ride distinctly uncomfortable.
Micah wrote: "--Lasers also spread out over distance according to the same laws as regular light. (Laser range finders fired from Earth to the Moon are over 6km wide when they hit the lunar surface.) Their energies decrease in the same way. "I hadn't considered that! I wonder if Asimov brought that into play with his short story "Reason," because he really likes to focus on those sorts of details, but I don't remember the width of the beam being a factor.
AndrewP wrote: "Jack Campbell's 'The Lost Fleet' books use this problem as a major plot device throughout. "
I was just about to bring this series up! The way that Geary's intel is always a few minutes (or drastically more) behind what is happening in that moment is used to excellent effect, both as away to build tension (an enemy fleet that they are just now seeing has been in the system for hours) and to make the battles more dynamic. Relativity and the speed of ships are also taken into account.
Abby wrote: "Micah wrote: "--Lasers also spread out over distance according to the same laws as regular light. (Laser range finders fired from Earth to the Moon are over 6km wide when they hit the lunar surface..."I can't remember the details of combat in the Lost Fleet series, but it occurred to me that there would have been more emphasis on stealth and other tactics such as decoys by the fleet that arrived at an empty system, much like submarine warfare in the present day, as well as radical course changes when behind the sun or a planet.
Another tactic could be to remain outside of the system after the FTL jump and send in remote probes that would be launched by a scout ship from a different location from the main fleet so as to prevent the probe's drive path acting as a pointer, and the use of non emitting propulsion for the probes such as old fashioned explosive cannon, compressed gasses, or carefully shielded rail guns for the initial launch.
Micah wrote: "followed by the issue with unlimited ammunition."...but...but...but... Guns have magically endless supplies of bulletz!!! Zomg!!! ;-)
And on the subject of fiction vs. the reality of physics as we know it, my opinion is that as long as I can sufficiently suspend my disbelief while reading a book or watching a movie -- either because something has been well explained, or because I've been masterfully distracted by other elements of the story to the point that it doesn't really matter -- then I'm satisfied. Fake gravity on ships even without spinning ship parts? Sure! Why not? ...IF I'm able to ignore that disbelief for whatever reason, that is. But if there either isn't any explanation at all as to why this phenomenon has been made possible, or if I'm not otherwise very craftily distracted by something happening in the plot etc, then that physical impossibility will probably just nag at me and ultimately detract from my enjoyment of the story. *shrug*Physical impossibilities abound in (I'm guessing here, but might not be far off) 99% of "science" fiction -- and here I'm heavily crooking finger-quotes around the word "science." That doesn't stop a ton of it from being great sci-fi though :-) Props for those authors (such as Andy Weir, recently) who make a huge effort to get the science right, but that's not to say the science absolutely has to be right for a story to be great. Again, if the writer tells a good story and, using whatever method, allows me to suspend my disbelief, then I'm hooked, regardless of scientific accuracy or lack thereof.
Same is true of magic in fantasy, incidentally. If the story goes something like, "They were all about to die but then SUDDENLY BOOM the protagonist chanted a spell and ZOOM they all zipped away to safety!" -- then I need to be convinced why / how that worked, or sufficiently distracted so that I don't even need to wonder about it. Magic in fantasy works a lot like science in sci-fi. Sure, they are inherently different; I just mean they play a similar role in fiction.
Micah wrote: "So let's do a thought experiment ... Imagine a spacecraft traveling at 17,000 kilometers per second (that's the speed of Voyager I, the fastest "heliocentric recession" speed of any spacecraft bu..."
Damn! I am way out of my league here! :)
Gaines wrote: "And on the subject of fiction vs. the reality of physics as we know it, my opinion is that as long as I can sufficiently suspend my disbelief -- either because something has been well explained, or..."I know what you mean - I like clarity, I like things to not just "be" and take it on faith (so to speak), but I'm not fixated on it all being explained absolutely and factually 100% all the time.
If a story is good and compelling and characters are as well, then you can let a lot slide because it's a means to an end. It's getting the story out and the details can be... fluid.
V.W. wrote: "I can't remember the details of combat in the Lost Fleet series, but it occurred to me that there would have been more emphasis on stealth and other tactics such as (...) radical course changes when behind the sun or a planet."There was a rather famous example of this (in-universe) for Halo, though it was less about stealth and more about performing a slingshot loop to flank more powerful enemies.
In another Halo books - Shadow of Intent - a smaller ship actually uses the magnetic disturbances of a solar flare to avoid getting hit by plasma fire from a larger ship. Again, not really stealth, but do lie when space battles use natural events to their advantage.
"Another tactic could be to remain outside of the system after the FTL jump and send in remote probes that would be launched by a scout ship from a different location from the main fleet so as to prevent the probe's drive path acting as a pointer, and the use of non emitting propulsion for the probes such as old fashioned explosive cannon, compressed gasses, or carefully shielded rail guns for the initial launch."
While I like that idea for space battles in general, I don't think that was possible in the Lost Fleet universe because inter-system travel was dictated by jump points or hyper-space gates. There really wasn't a whole lot of options for where you could enter a system.
Akshay wrote: "I know what you mean - I like clarity, I like things to not just "be" and take it on faith (so to speak), but I'm not fixated on it all being explained absolutely and factually 100% all the time. If a story is good and compelling and characters are as well, then you can let a lot slide because it's a means to an end. It's getting the story out and the details can be... fluid. "
I heard something like this once called "story logic" that if it fits within the logic or rules set by the story, readers/viewers are more able to accept it, even if it isn't "realistic."
Every time space battle comes up I remember really liking Peter F. Hamilton's space battles in the Night's Dawn "trilogy" (in quotes because I read the paperback version, which came out as 6 books instead of 3!). The Reality Dysfunction
The Neutronium Alchemist
The Naked God
FTL jumps, IIRC could come into a system at any point and could be initiated by a ship as long as they were far enough away from a gravity well (a star, planet, or moon).
But jumps close to a gravity well could also be made as long as they were initiated at a Lagrange Point (a "positions in an orbital configuration of two large bodies where a small object affected only by gravity can maintain a stable position relative to the two large bodies." Essentially where the gravity of the two larger objects cancel each other out.)
We already use Lagrange Points as stable parking spaces for communication and experimental satellites (like the International Sun Earth Explorer 3, which uses Sun-Earth L1 where the satellite is never shadowed by Earth or the Moon).
Anyway, Hamilton takes inertia into consideration a lot, relying on semi-autonomous munitions that are essentially missiles with various different kinds of warheads (plasma, kinetic, energy beams, etc) that fly really fast (100G acceleration plus) to get as close as possible to the target before discharging their payloads. Maneuvers away from enemy munitions is tough and often requires trying to get behind a moon or planet (or dipping into atmosphere) before they get you, or making a hasty retreat to a Lagrange Point for an emergency jump out of battle.
Niels wrote: "Trike wrote: "A Dark Nebula, such as the Coalsack Nebula (which can be seen by the naked eye from Earth), is called that because it is dense enough to block light. Based on radio and infrared exami..."Hey!
I just came across this book and thought of you bringing up the Oort Cloud and all - thought in case you haven't seen it, might be of interest! :D
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Micah wrote: "So let's do a thought experiment ... Imagine a spacecraft traveling at 17,000 kilometers per second (that's the speed of Voyager I, the fastest "heliocentric recession" speed of any spacecraft bu..."
*busts out napkin
You are forgetting the energy each particle will place on the spaceship.
Lets take your example
800kph=.2325kps
Now with just the simple formula of K=(mv^2)/2
2.55e8*17000^2:2.3e24*.2325^2
17000^2/.2325^2=5.35e9
2.55e8*5.35e9=2.3e24
1.35e18=2.3e24
Well that number came up way closer, still 10^6 short in energy so it wouldn't be noticeable but crank that speed to .3-.4light and hit a denser spot of the nebula and you might run into serious issues.
Also, aerodynamics (and at higher speeds, fluid dynamics) directs most of the particulates around an aircraft, while a non-aerodynamic spacecraft would probably hit almost everything in its way.Strong enough magnetic fields could certainly substantially diminish, if not completely eliminate, collisions. But without that, the energy from impactors on a spaceship might actually be higher.
Gaines wrote: "Same is true of magic in fantasy, incidentally. If the story goes something like, "They were all about to die but then SUDDENLY BOOM the protagonist chanted a spell and ZOOM they all zipped away to safety!" -- then I need to be convinced why / how that worked, or sufficiently distracted so that I don't even need to wonder about it. Magic in fantasy works a lot like science in sci-fi. Sure, they are inherently different; I just mean they play a similar role in fiction..."I just sat on this panel at ConBust over the weekend (both Suspension of Disbelief and also the Magic panel). Yup, that about sums it up :-)
Aaron wrote: "*busts out napkin. You are forgetting the energy each particle will place on the spaceship. Lets take your example800kph=.2325kps
Now with just the simple formula of K=(mv^2)/2
2.55e8*17000^2:2.3e24*.2325^2
17000^2/.2325^2=5.35e9
2.55e8*5.35e9=2.3e24
1.35e18=2.3e24.."
This reminds me of the time I asked Great Aunt Edna how she was feeling and, three hours later, I knew everything there was to know about the human endocrine system 3:-)
Aaron wrote: "*busts out napkinYou are forgetting the energy each particle will place on the spaceship.
Lets take your example
800kph=.2325kps
Now with just the simple formula of K=(mv^2)/2
2.55e8*17000^2:2.3e24*.2325^2
17000^2/.2325^2=5.35e9
2.55e8*5.35e9=2.3e24
1.35e18=2.3e24"
Let's see that again using CORE Math :)
AndrewP wrote: "Let's see that again using CORE Math :) ..."Noooooo!!!!!
[*I've got kids who are taking MCAS tests this week using that crap. How the heck are you supposed to help them with their homework when it's incomprehensible to people with advanced graduate degrees?*]
Let's take a vote. Who wants to shoot the inventor of Common CORE out the nearest airlock?
AndrewP wrote: "Let's see that again using CORE Math :) ."Oh, in Common Core that's easy. It's 7.
Or giraffe.
Either way, where's my ribbon?
Aaron wrote: "You are forgetting the energy each particle will place on the spaceship..."**Applause!**
Yeah, I was mainly interested in seeing how dense things were.
When you're moving .3 or .4 C any attempt at maneuvering quickly is going to really mess your day up. Assuming you've got the power to actually change course drastically--assuming your ship can stand the g-force--you're body's likely to just be pink jam when you make that hard left turn.
Space Opera Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
The Reality Dysfunction (other topics)The Neutronium Alchemist (other topics)
The Naked God (other topics)
The Hunt for Red October (other topics)
Leviathan Wakes (other topics)
More...
Agreed. But REALLY faint. For example, the density of a nebula's gas cloud is on the order of tens of particles per cubic centimeter. Earth's sea level density is in the order of ten to the 19th power particles per cubic centimeter.
Those big gas clouds out in space are REALLY spread out. Sound intensity will be proportionally diminished.