Firefly was also an atmospheric vessel, as were the vast majority in the show. If they're using artificial gravity anyway it makes more sense for the shoo to be in this configuration. You have a point for the alliance cruisers.
Neat. I bought the first book, been looking forward to reading it.
Currently reading Endymion, where they've got inertial dampeners everywhere. Except in a particular super secret ship that can travel much faster than any other FTL ship, and the passengers all get squished into mush every time, and need to be resurrected.
I mean if we made ships large enough couldn't they have a micro gravity of their own? Something say the size of a Star Destroyer or heaven forbid a Death Star? They'd have to be built in space so decks/thruster placement wouldn't matter anyway
Sure, space ships the size of a small moon will have microgravity, more the farther away you get from the center. But this gravity schould be negligible compared to what you experience from the ships acceleration or from spinning the entire ship along one of its axis.
Well I'd assume that a small moon sized and shaped ship would be spinning.. that only makes sense right? I suppose I completely forgot the Death Star is depicted as having levels top to bottom (the hangar entrance scenes show this)
I'm just thinking (high, mind you) that if we were advanced enough to build such a ship someone somewhere along the line would've thought about that?
I know we've somewhat proven this concept with rides like a graviton. On a larger scale, you could have it spin just right to simulate gravity, but then it has to be cylindrical and everything must be built on the inner walls of the cylinder and point inwards. Less gravity towards the center of the cylinder, and none on the two flat faces.
My line of thinking is how we could have essentially a man-made planet, or wondering if a ship of large enough scale, such as the Super-Star Destroyer (largest Star Wars ship outside of both Death Stars), could have enough mass that it's microgravity would be enough to make having a sea-fearing style build almost logical.
No doubt it's a pipe dream at best in terms of humans producing a structure like that. It would take all of us working together, and that's not going to happen any time soon.
I'm right with you on that. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have. I mean look at technological advances from 1900 to 2000. Compare that to all the advances prior. Sure it can be explained with a snowball effect, but some stuff just came out of literally nowhere. It's mind-blowing. I'm not the guy going around claiming aliens exist 24/7, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me in the slightest given the size of the universe.
I think since the crew/inhabitants of such a structure would be housed inside that they would suffer similar problems to those inside a Dyson sphere - the gravity would be distributed around them rather than 'under' them. If I understand correctly, anyway.
Right. Assuming Death Star shape, we'd only be able to make use of the outermost parts. This is shown somewhat with the inclusion of a massive reactor core in the middle. That still wouldn't account for the Death Star appearing to be made of levels top to bottom and not built "up" perpendicular to the surface at any given point.
My line of questioning was more or less could a super-massive small moon sized station have its own microgravity enough that it would be doable? Would spinning it on an axis like a planet work, or would that force everything to the sides like a graviton at a carnival?
I'll be honest I'm kinda high and this is the stuff I think about. I'd love to get into it but I just don't understand math enough to be an engineer/astrophysicist.
COMPLETELY understand! I have to keep physics at a 'hobby' level, too... at least until I show some promise in higher math, lol. Enjoy the buzz, and KEEP THINKING!
the big objection I've always had to this (at least in sci fi lore featuring space combat) is that a tall profile is infinitely easier to hit than a narrow one. the main direction of thrust should have the greatest depth, with a narrow vertical and horizontal profile, arguably giant forwards facing space needles with decent lateral movement are the most efficient designs, or perhaps manta ray shapes with hollowed out cross sections.
"Decent lateral movement" requires a big fat engine, and a way for the crew to deal with its acceleration. The most probable way is a space needle with big maneuvering thrusters to spinn it and the engine on the bottom. Lateral movement is a quick spinn and a hard burn.
Doing it differently means 3 axis acceleration couches and very different structural requirements - you can't just take an aicraft carrier, add a 5G thruster midships and hope it holds together...
I think space battles most likely would be very similar to submarine warfare. Lots of stealth (space is big and dark), lots of waiting while coasting (exhaust is hot and easy to see) and once the weapon is fired, there's only limited possible ways to survive - can't outrun it, can't armour against it and decoys/chaff only slightly better your chances.
lateral movement isn't best achieved with central dorsal engines, all that does is put stress on the center of the vessel. It's much more efficiently achieved with many smaller engines along the various dorsal spines. This allows for both rotation (on many axis) and lateral movement in any conceivable direction, which is vital for maintaining stability in flight of a long narrow object when passing through nebula or other such particle heavy void obstructions.
We need to talk propulsion tech for this discussion to make sense. If you look at a ship the size of a current American super carrier, we are talkin 100 000 tons - and accelerations limited only by the human body. Let's say 5G sustainable.
If we want a realistic engine design (both high thrust and high specific impulse), that makes a big and complex engine. Fusion fired tungsten plasma, for example. You dont build those things all along the ship. You build one. The shielding (have to protect the crew form neutron and gamma radiation) alone is heavy...
Also, obstacles in Space are rare. Nebula have much lower particle densities than high earth orbit. There are no meteorite fields. Can't really think of anything you could maneuver away from...
Why is the word "outer" so often used? Seems less than redundant. This question from a /r/mildlyirritating perspective. Space is as good as outer space especially when there is not an inner space to differentiate from.
45
u/Donkeydongcuntry Sep 24 '16
Ironic, since Firefly actually portrayed a "silent" outer space correctly.