Streamlined?

[Woas]

I'm still not really getting it in a Traveller mindset. I understand what real aerodynamics do and why the spaceshuttle has wings and all. I understand how current real world jets and airplanes work.

What about air/rafts? They apparently zip all over the place. Are they streamlined? The description says they can enter/exit atmosphere. Why aren't ships that use the same anti-gravity techno-magic just bigger versions of that?

A ship comes flying into atmosphere. The ship is not streamlined at all. Pretend it's a big cube like a Borg ship. It can raise and lower it's altitude apparently on whim with grav plates. It doesn't need to coast in through the atmosphere for a landing. No ship does because any ship with grav tech can do this apparently. Assume the ship gets pushed around in some fierce wind. There is internal gravity that is separate from the planet's gravity. That tech-magic is part of why belly sitters work in the Traveller mindspace and why ships can be built like airplanes instead of skyscrapers. The ship could be spinning round and round the people inside would not feel any different cause to them the gravity in the ship is always 'right'.

 

[BP]

I'm still not really getting it in a Traveller mindset. I understand what real aerodynamics do and why the spaceshuttle has wings and all. I understand how current real world jets and airplanes work.

What about air/rafts? They apparently zip all over the place. Are they streamlined? The description says they can enter/exit atmosphere. Why aren't ships that use the same anti-gravity techno-magic just bigger versions of that?

I'd consider air/rafts pretty streamlined (generally even lifting bodies) - but they move real slow compared to spaceships (400 kph) and present much, much less surface area to be affected by winds. Personnally, I would add pilot checks when attempting such feats...

A ship comes flying into atmosphere. The ship is not streamlined at all. Pretend it's a big cube like a Borg ship. It can raise and lower it's altitude apparently on whim with grav plates. It doesn't need to coast in through the atmosphere for a landing. No ship does because any ship with grav tech can do this apparently. Assume the ship gets pushed around in some fierce wind. There is internal gravity that is separate from the planet's gravity. That tech-magic is part of why belly sitters work in the Traveller mindspace and why ships can be built like airplanes instead of skyscrapers. The ship could be spinning round and round the people inside would not feel any different cause to them the gravity in the ship is always 'right'.

MGT doesn't state that such a ship can't enter atmo - just that piloting becomes a greater issue. Hurricane plus force winds hitting a large flat surface are gonna cause problems. Gravitics aren't like rocket engines - while their virtual 'thrust' allows constant accelleration its not necessarily radical enough to overcome a sudden relative wind shift of 200 to 800 km/hr or more spread out over hundreds of square meters of hull. MGT accommodates this with Pilot checks with DMs. In the case of standard hulls, the 'effect' of this check is left solely to the Ref's judgement.

Additionally, for structures with lots of openings/projections - that's gonna mean a lot of wind/thermal damage - regardless of the control issues - so for distributed structures there is a damage condition for failed Pilot checks.

As for the people inside - MGT doesn't go into detail there as far as I know - though, again, sudden changes may not be accommodated by gravitics...

 

[AndrewW]

What about air/rafts? They apparently zip all over the place. Are they streamlined? The description says they can enter/exit atmosphere. Why aren't ships that use the same anti-gravity techno-magic just bigger versions of that?

I'd consider air/rafts pretty streamlined (generally even lifting bodies) - but they move real slow compared to spaceships (400 kph) and present much, much less surface area to be affected by winds. Personnally, I would add pilot checks when attempting such feats...

The air/raft in Civilian Vehicles is not streamlined.

 

[BP]

I'd consider air/rafts pretty streamlined (generally even lifting bodies) - but they move real slow compared to spaceships (400 kph) and present much, much less surface area to be affected by winds. Personnally, I would add pilot checks when attempting such feats...

The air/raft in Civilian Vehicles is not streamlined.

Don't have that book yet - the other illustrations I've seen are generally aerodynamic enough - hence I stated pretty streamlined, not explicitly streamlined - they are, after all, described as open-topped - so, they can't be optimal in high winds. Not to mention it'd be a real bear to keep your hat on at 400 kph.

In the context of comparing them to spaceships they are tiny and more aerodynamic than a box.

MGT states they 'can even reach orbit' - not that it is a wise thing or shouldn't require pilot checks just like standard or even distributed spaceships.

 

[Treebore]

Gravitics, as a workable science, is no where close enough to being understood to really say. Still, in my opinion, if Gravitics ever become a truly workable technology used for moving ships about, I would say the very nature of the technology would hold an object, such as ships, in a rock steady position in relation to the object (planetside) it is approaching. It would also stay very fixed along its flight path as well, due to the very nature of how the technology works.


Again, Gravitics is far from becoming a working technology for us, magnetic propulsion is far more likely in my opinion, but just due to how Gravitics will have to be based upon the Mass of the interacting objects, I seriously doubt something like winds are going to effect the flight path of a ship using Gravitic technology. Winds have extremely low mass in relation to multi ton ships.

 

[BP]

Gravitics, as a workable science, is no where close enough to being understood to really say. Still, in my opinion, if Gravitics ever become a truly workable technology used for moving ships about, I would say the very nature of the technology would hold an object, such as ships, in a rock steady position in relation to the object (planetside) it is approaching. It would also stay very fixed along its flight path as well, due to the very nature of how the technology works.

MGT pretty much works this way - except in atmo - especially with unstreamlined 100+ ton spaceships limited to only 6G...

Again, Gravitics is far from becoming a working technology for us, magnetic propulsion is far more likely in my opinion, but just due to how Gravitics will have to be based upon the Mass of the interacting objects, I seriously doubt something like winds are going to effect the flight path of a ship using Gravitic technology. Winds have extremely low mass in relation to multi ton ships.

Wind is part of an atmosphere - which has a huge mass in relation to mere multi-ton ships

 

[Treebore]

Gravitics, as a workable science, is no where close enough to being understood to really say. Still, in my opinion, if Gravitics ever become a truly workable technology used for moving ships about, I would say the very nature of the technology would hold an object, such as ships, in a rock steady position in relation to the object (planetside) it is approaching. It would also stay very fixed along its flight path as well, due to the very nature of how the technology works.

MGT pretty much works this way - except in atmo - especially with unstreamlined 100+ ton spaceships limited to only 6G...

Again, Gravitics is far from becoming a working technology for us, magnetic propulsion is far more likely in my opinion, but just due to how Gravitics will have to be based upon the Mass of the interacting objects, I seriously doubt something like winds are going to effect the flight path of a ship using Gravitic technology. Winds have extremely low mass in relation to multi ton ships.

Wind is part of an atmosphere - which has a huge mass in relation to mere multi-ton ships

Yes, but only the wind acting against the ship would count, not the entire atmosphere, so insignificant.

 

[BP]

Yes, but only the wind acting against the ship would count, not the entire atmosphere, so insignificant.

Gravitics 'holding' a flat sided ship against a significant wind is holding back the wind against that which is generating the wind - which is the opposed mass of wind in the atmo being moved by planet scale dynamics.

Streamlined ships divert the wind - avoiding the forces (or using them against gravity in the case of lift) - though there are still thermal issues to account for at high speeds - and control issues when moving against significant winds... i.e. winds which cause a greater instantaneous G-Force than the ship's gravitics are capable of. If an unstreamlined ship moves fast enough, its gravitics would be more effective but then thermal energy would tend to burn up the ship.

If the ship doesn't move and its not streamlined to allow the wall of wind to divert around it - then the wind must go thru it or repel the forces that are creating the wind... so upto the structural limits of the ship the hull must also withstand the thermal energy it is creating. As the ship maintains position - the pressure of the wind will build on the opposing side - requiring an equal force from the gravitics to maintain equilibrium. At some point either the ship moves (or disintegrates) - or a huge mass of atmo stops moving.

Infinite gravitic capablility may be able to hold the ship in place - but then the problem becomes holding the ship together .

Of course - this is refering to extremes - this would be trying to keep a ship stationary in the Jet stream - why not just move to a region of atmo with calm wind patterns. Granted - many planets may not have much of a calm atmosphere - but not the ones most Traveller's would visit...

IMHO MGT rules take these things into account pretty well - without being too detailed. The common idea is that because there are Pilot Checks and DMs that somehow the rules are stating that non-streamlined spaceships can't operate in atmo - and that is not the case at all. MGT is allowing for the fact that forces in nature can be extremely powerfull - and technology has limits. This is part of what seperates Sci-Fi from Fanatasy.

By all means - if you want gravitics to overcome all aerodynamics and any environmental factors - there is no reason not to as we are already assuming overcoming gravity and mysteriously creating gravitic acceleration - simply ignore one tiny section of the rules and piece of reality. If you and your players are happy to do so - that's all that really matters.

 

[Treebore]

I have to disagree, because fluid dynamics is applied to the atmosphere, because it is described as less dense liquids. So if you were right no ship would be able to move around the ocean. Since the same principles apply to the atmosphere, ships move fine.

Plus a larger part of this is how exactly will gravitics work? Presumably it will work on the mass/density of the relevant objects interacting, if so effects like the wind would not only have to overcome ship mass/density but of the mass/density of the planetary body the ship is interacting with, which may also take atmospheric density into account as well.

If this assumption is to be followed, especially if atmospheric density of the planet is also taken into account for the Gravitics technology, then the atmosphere will not effect the Gravitics powered ships since all those mass/densities are already accounted for.

Which is why Gravitics has yet to take off as a technology, because it has yet to be figured out how to have a 100, 400, 0r 500,000 ton ship overcome the mass/density of a planet, let alone planets like Jupiter or Saturn, or the sun.

Maybe once we fully understand how Black Holes do their thing Gravitics will take off as a technology. Not that I know, since no one has yet made solid Theories on how to make Gravitics work. At least none that I have come across. Since I certainly do not spend my time reading all the scientific journals out there, such Theories could certainly be out there.

 

[Beastttt]

the ST Enterprise style ships are not meant to go into the atmosphere
but with shields up can easily enter an atmosphere and leave at will with no damage
the Voyager was meant to land and take off if needed

I'm going to say that the Core book may have gotten it wrong, here - or rather, they oversimplified.

In my view, there are four classes of hull shape:

Antistreamlined: These are hulls that should not be brought into atmosphere, period; doing so offers a greater-than-50% chance of destruction. Good examples of these are dispersed-structure spacecraft, or anything where destructively-strong stresses will be put on joints or external protrusions. The U.S.S. Enterprise, from Star Trek, is Antistreamlined in all incarnations. Modular freighters are generally Antistreamlined.

Unstreamlined: These are hulls that should not be brought into atmosphere, but in an emergency, can survive the experience largely intact. A significant overhaul - probably more than an annual maintenance - will be required to make the hull spaceworthy afterward, and there will likely be damage caused by extreme heat from atmospheric friction. Externally-mounted sensors will be lost; gun turrets may be lost and will probably see significant damage. A Donosev-class survey ship is Unstreamlined.

Streamlined: These are hulls that can survive atmosphere, generally without serious structural damage. Some special preparations may be required. A 50-ton cutter with module is Streamlined; individually, the cutter and the module are both Unstreamlined. The Type S Scout/Courier, and the Empress Marava-class Trader, are also Streamlined. The X-boat is Streamlined, but without a maneuver drive, the question is moot; it's not likely to survive impact anyway. The X-Boat tender is Unstreamlined.

Antistreamlined and Unstreamlined hulls cannot be launched from the ground without grav lift; rocket lift will put damaging stress on the hull. Streamlined hulls can be launched with either rocket or grav, but not all streamlined hulls will necessarily be appropriate for rocket launch.

Airframe: These hulls are designed for atmospheric flight, and can even derive lift from such flight. Only normal maintenance will be required between atmospheric trips. Aircraft are by definition Airframes. The Enterprise-class Space Shuttles flown by NASA are technically Airframes, but just barely.

Disc, Wedge, Sphere, and Cone hulls are Streamlined; Block hulls are Unstreamlined, Dispersed hulls are Antistreamlined. A cylinder without a cone on the end is technically Unstreamlined, but very close to Streamlined; with the cone, it is Streamlined. Similarly a block with a wedge on the leading face.

Rounding of edges and corners isn't enough to convert from Unstreamlined to Streamlined, though it can reduce the damage caused by edge turbulence.

 

[Treebore]

the ST Enterprise style ships are not meant to go into the atmosphere
but with shields up can easily enter an atmosphere and leave at will with no damage
the Voyager was meant to land and take off if needed

I'm going to say that the Core book may have gotten it wrong, here - or rather, they oversimplified.

In my view, there are four classes of hull shape:

Antistreamlined: These are hulls that should not be brought into atmosphere, period; doing so offers a greater-than-50% chance of destruction. Good examples of these are dispersed-structure spacecraft, or anything where destructively-strong stresses will be put on joints or external protrusions. The U.S.S. Enterprise, from Star Trek, is Antistreamlined in all incarnations. Modular freighters are generally Antistreamlined.

Unstreamlined: These are hulls that should not be brought into atmosphere, but in an emergency, can survive the experience largely intact. A significant overhaul - probably more than an annual maintenance - will be required to make the hull spaceworthy afterward, and there will likely be damage caused by extreme heat from atmospheric friction. Externally-mounted sensors will be lost; gun turrets may be lost and will probably see significant damage. A Donosev-class survey ship is Unstreamlined.

Streamlined: These are hulls that can survive atmosphere, generally without serious structural damage. Some special preparations may be required. A 50-ton cutter with module is Streamlined; individually, the cutter and the module are both Unstreamlined. The Type S Scout/Courier, and the Empress Marava-class Trader, are also Streamlined. The X-boat is Streamlined, but without a maneuver drive, the question is moot; it's not likely to survive impact anyway. The X-Boat tender is Unstreamlined.

Antistreamlined and Unstreamlined hulls cannot be launched from the ground without grav lift; rocket lift will put damaging stress on the hull. Streamlined hulls can be launched with either rocket or grav, but not all streamlined hulls will necessarily be appropriate for rocket launch.

Airframe: These hulls are designed for atmospheric flight, and can even derive lift from such flight. Only normal maintenance will be required between atmospheric trips. Aircraft are by definition Airframes. The Enterprise-class Space Shuttles flown by NASA are technically Airframes, but just barely.

Disc, Wedge, Sphere, and Cone hulls are Streamlined; Block hulls are Unstreamlined, Dispersed hulls are Antistreamlined. A cylinder without a cone on the end is technically Unstreamlined, but very close to Streamlined; with the cone, it is Streamlined. Similarly a block with a wedge on the leading face.

Rounding of edges and corners isn't enough to convert from Unstreamlined to Streamlined, though it can reduce the damage caused by edge turbulence.

True, but I seem to remember Star Trek being around a TL 21 Traveller game.

So ship design will also definitely be affected by the power of the technology. Such as shields giving you all the "streamlining" you may need, as long as your power systems are functioning properly.

 

[BP]

I have to disagree, because fluid dynamics is applied to the atmosphere, because it is described as less dense liquids. So if you were right no ship would be able to move around the ocean. Since the same principles apply to the atmosphere, ships move fine.

If the examples where the same - i.e. the ship was under water and exposing a flat hundred meters plus surface to a significant water current and the water was not - at a macroscopic scale - treated as incompressible - and thermo dynamics is ignored - then yes they would be the same

Technically, from a fluid dynamics standpoint, while treated under the same theoretical umbrella - liquids and gases differ most notably in thier practical treatment as compressible or incompressible. Hence two of the branches of fluid dynamics - hydrodynamics and aerodynamics. Irregardless, since you brought it up, I'll use submarines for analogies...

Plus a larger part of this is how exactly will gravitics work? Presumably it will work on the mass/density of the relevant objects interacting, if so effects like the wind would not only have to overcome ship mass/density but of the mass/density of the planetary body the ship is interacting with, which may also take atmospheric density into account as well.

If this assumption is to be followed, especially if atmospheric density of the planet is also taken into account for the Gravitics technology, then the atmosphere will not effect the Gravitics powered ships since all those mass/densities are already accounted for.

The most valid presumption would be Gravitics would act on gravity or the force carrier thereof. Gravity is generally considered a property of matter - as is mass. Density is a function of space and mass. Gravity generally (when not tied up in extra-spatial dimensions) works over a distance. So there are relationships - but when speaking of the fictional 'gravitics' it is generally accepted that we are directly refering to the manipulation of gravity.
The force generated by wind is not directly gravitic in nature - therefore gravitics wouldn't be acting directly upon it (other than in reation to the gravitational attraction between the mass of wind and the ship - but this is not the force of the wind pressure). In the case of a spaceship in atmo - unlimited gravitics may overcome the motion - but not the structural pressure and thermal effects.

A typical sub can go to the bottom of the Marianas trench - if it doesn't mind being crushed by the pressure. Specially constructed subs can go that deep and come back. A similiar thing with damage to MGT ships due to wind pressure (thermal, structural and navigationally speaking). Hence streamlining and heat shielding and aerofin options.

To be succinct - In MGT - the limited gravitics thrust (typically 6G) would not be enough to overcome the wind in the same way a 13 knot capable submarine could not overcome a 40 knot current. Both can manuever within it - just as an airplane in a jet stream - using their control surfaces and propulsion. Streamlining reduces the induced drag and avoids structural damage... and heat shielding addresses thermal effects... while aerofins help maintain control.

Which is why Gravitics has yet to take off as a technology, because it has yet to be figured out how to have a 100, 400, 0r 500,000 ton ship overcome the mass/density of a planet, let alone planets like Jupiter or Saturn, or the sun.

Maybe once we fully understand how Black Holes do their thing Gravitics will take off as a technology. Not that I know, since no one has yet made solid Theories on how to make Gravitics work. At least none that I have come across. Since I certainly do not spend my time reading all the scientific journals out there, such Theories could certainly be out there.

Technology is the manipulation of nature (or the tools and skills to change and control one's environment) - Gravitics has not taken off as a Technology because we cannot yet control it. Thus it is fiction. Some theory exists as to the nature of Gravity - and a lot of theortical and applied knowledge of its properties - but nothing to say how we could control or change it outside these realms... (in fact, the theories basically say we can't - like the speed of light limit - but hey, they are just theories)

As to black holes - we 'created' then with theories based on how we understand gravity (and other forces) work - we 'think' we have observed their indirect effects - because our theories about gravity tell us how they 'do their thing'. What happens to matter and its properties is 'another thing'.

As to gravitics theories - its not an acknowledged disciple - pure fiction at this point - so their is the typical con job bunk out there on the internet - but no science.

There is, however, a lot of serious science - practical and theoretical behind understanding the nature of gravity. Einstien saw gravity as a feature of warped space-time. NASA has launched at least two satellites to test General Relativity (Gravity Probe A & B) the later was just a few years back - but the data is still being looked at I think.

Quantum theories have the concept of a graviton - a theoretical massless gauge boson mediating the force of gravity in QFT - that's a pretty old theory - I believe the math breaks down when dealing with Plank scales. String theory (superstring?) tries to overcome this with gravity as a property of strings - not a discrete particle. There is also the gravitino - in supersymmetry (sp?) - which some have considered for the candidate for dark matter.

For experimental stuff - MIT/Caltech have LIGO and Italy/France have an outfit (I think - don't recall the name) - these are designed to investigate gravity waves. Theories stating that individual gravitons would be nearly undetectable - but wave groupings from supernovaes and binary neutron star systems, etc. might be.

For Sci-Fi of a slightly scientific nature - Gravitics based on graviton/gravitino creation and control or space-time continum control - would probably be key areas of fictional speculation.

 

[FreeTrav]

the ST Enterprise style ships are not meant to go into the atmosphere
but with shields up can easily enter an atmosphere and leave at will with no damage
the Voyager was meant to land and take off if needed

The shields in Star Trek are clearly handwavium-based, and would seem to convert the effective hull configuration from Antistreamlined to Streamlined. I ignore the effect of shields; I'm looking at the 'naked-hull' configurations - and Voyager should still be Unstreamined AT BEST, and quite likely Antistreamlined, regardless of what Paramount says.

 

[Treebore]

I have to disagree, because fluid dynamics is applied to the atmosphere, because it is described as less dense liquids. So if you were right no ship would be able to move around the ocean. Since the same principles apply to the atmosphere, ships move fine.

If the examples where the same - i.e. the ship was under water and exposing a flat hundred meters plus surface to a significant water current and the water was not - at a macroscopic scale - treated as incompressible - and thermo dynamics is ignored - then yes they would be the same

Technically, from a fluid dynamics standpoint, while treated under the same theoretical umbrella - liquids and gases differ most notably in thier practical treatment as compressible or incompressible. Hence two of the branches of fluid dynamics - hydrodynamics and aerodynamics. Irregardless, since you brought it up, I'll use submarines for analogies...

Plus a larger part of this is how exactly will gravitics work? Presumably it will work on the mass/density of the relevant objects interacting, if so effects like the wind would not only have to overcome ship mass/density but of the mass/density of the planetary body the ship is interacting with, which may also take atmospheric density into account as well.

If this assumption is to be followed, especially if atmospheric density of the planet is also taken into account for the Gravitics technology, then the atmosphere will not effect the Gravitics powered ships since all those mass/densities are already accounted for.

The most valid presumption would be Gravitics would act on gravity or the force carrier thereof. Gravity is generally considered a property of matter - as is mass. Density is a function of space and mass. Gravity generally (when not tied up in extra-spatial dimensions) works over a distance. So there are relationships - but when speaking of the fictional 'gravitics' it is generally accepted that we are directly refering to the manipulation of gravity.
The force generated by wind is not directly gravitic in nature - therefore gravitics wouldn't be acting directly upon it (other than in reation to the gravitational attraction between the mass of wind and the ship - but this is not the force of the wind pressure). In the case of a spaceship in atmo - unlimited gravitics may overcome the motion - but not the structural pressure and thermal effects.

A typical sub can go to the bottom of the Marianas trench - if it doesn't mind being crushed by the pressure. Specially constructed subs can go that deep and come back. A similiar thing with damage to MGT ships due to wind pressure (thermal, structural and navigationally speaking). Hence streamlining and heat shielding and aerofin options.

To be succinct - In MGT - the limited gravitics thrust (typically 6G) would not be enough to overcome the wind in the same way a 13 knot capable submarine could not overcome a 40 knot current. Both can manuever within it - just as an airplane in a jet stream - using their control surfaces and propulsion. Streamlining reduces the induced drag and avoids structural damage... and heat shielding addresses thermal effects... while aerofins help maintain control.

Which is why Gravitics has yet to take off as a technology, because it has yet to be figured out how to have a 100, 400, 0r 500,000 ton ship overcome the mass/density of a planet, let alone planets like Jupiter or Saturn, or the sun.

Maybe once we fully understand how Black Holes do their thing Gravitics will take off as a technology. Not that I know, since no one has yet made solid Theories on how to make Gravitics work. At least none that I have come across. Since I certainly do not spend my time reading all the scientific journals out there, such Theories could certainly be out there.

Technology is the manipulation of nature (or the tools and skills to change and control one's environment) - Gravitics has not taken off as a Technology because we cannot yet control it. Thus it is fiction. Some theory exists as to the nature of Gravity - and a lot of theortical and applied knowledge of its properties - but nothing to say how we could control or change it outside these realms... (in fact, the theories basically say we can't - like the speed of light limit - but hey, they are just theories)

As to black holes - we 'created' then with theories based on how we understand gravity (and other forces) work - we 'think' we have observed their indirect effects - because our theories about gravity tell us how they 'do their thing'. What happens to matter and its properties is 'another thing'.

As to gravitics theories - its not an acknowledged disciple - pure fiction at this point - so their is the typical con job bunk out there on the internet - but no science.

There is, however, a lot of serious science - practical and theoretical behind understanding the nature of gravity. Einstien saw gravity as a feature of warped space-time. NASA has launched at least two satellites to test General Relativity (Gravity Probe A & B) the later was just a few years back - but the data is still being looked at I think.

Quantum theories have the concept of a graviton - a theoretical massless gauge boson mediating the force of gravity in QFT - that's a pretty old theory - I believe the math breaks down when dealing with Plank scales. String theory (superstring?) tries to overcome this with gravity as a property of strings - not a discrete particle. There is also the gravitino - in supersymmetry (sp?) - which some have considered for the candidate for dark matter.

For experimental stuff - MIT/Caltech have LIGO and Italy/France have an outfit (I think - don't recall the name) - these are designed to investigate gravity waves. Theories stating that individual gravitons would be nearly undetectable - but wave groupings from supernovaes and binary neutron star systems, etc. might be.

For Sci-Fi of a slightly scientific nature - Gravitics based on graviton/gravitino creation and control or space-time continum control - would probably be key areas of fictional speculation.

I am glad you picked submarines as your example, I was a Missile Tech on subs for about 6 years of sea time. Mainly the USS Simon Bolivar (gold). :lol:

Anyways, a big block of metal could move its way through water, or air, as long as its power/maneuver drive is sufficient to the job. Granted, not as easily, or as quickly as a nicely streamlined object can, which is what the rules do allude to. Streamlined means you can enter atmospheres and move around pretty rapidly and smoothly. Go in without a streamlined ship and you do it slowly, and probably roughly, and maybe even suffer damage, depending on how kick butt your hull is, and how large your ship is.

I believe your thinking of the CERN, the particle accelerator. Yeah, lots of potential research going to happen there, assuming they don't open a sustained black hole and they do collapse as fast as they are created. Who knows, maybe Gravitics will become a valid science before we die. A lot of things need to be learned before that happens, much of it via indirect observation. The partical accelerator (CERN) will allow us to get direct momentary observations, over and over again, so hopefully we will learn some mind bending new truths about how things work.

 

[AndrewW]

I believe your thinking of the CERN, the particle accelerator. Yeah, lots of potential research going to happen there, assuming they don't open a sustained black hole and they do collapse as fast as they are created. Who knows, maybe Gravitics will become a valid science before we die. A lot of things need to be learned before that happens, much of it via indirect observation. The partical accelerator (CERN) will allow us to get direct momentary observations, over and over again, so hopefully we will learn some mind bending new truths about how things work.

Well, CERN would be the agency that runs the accelerator... Probably mean the Large Hadron Collider.

 

[BP]

Nope - wouldn't be suprised if they do run gravity experiments though - but I was refering to specific instruments like LIGO - just Wikipedia'd it here. (Don't have time to read at the moment...)

That page had a link to the European one - Virgo (apparently run by the EGO consortium - European Gravitational Observatory - what a name ). And also to a German one (GEO 600). This linked to two upcoming - one in Japan and one that will be space based.

I believe they are all laser interferometer style detectors (designed to measure distance changes from gravity waves effecting the spacing)...

 

[Treebore]

Nope - wouldn't be suprised if they do run gravity experiments though - but I was refering to specific instruments like LIGO - just Wikipedia'd it here. (Don't have time to read at the moment...)

That page had a link to the European one - Virgo (apparently run by the EGO consortium - European Gravitational Observatory - what a name ). And also to a German one (GEO 600). This linked to two upcoming - one in Japan and one that will be space based.

I believe they are all laser interferometer style detectors (designed to measure distance changes from gravity waves effecting the spacing)...

Nice, I don't remember ever reading about those before.

 

[BP]

Nice, I don't remember ever reading about those before.

They have been in the works for a long time (over 15 years) - and are just or nearly just going live. The nature of them waiting on suitable cosmic events means that status will likely be very slow (plus the theories could be wrong or the experiments flawed by practical realities).

Unlike certain other high dollar 'pure research' projects they lack any known military value (bottom line - this is the biggest motivator for funding) - they also lack the glamor of many high energy physics experiments...

BTW: one of the questions observation of gravity waves might help with is the 'speed' of propagation of gravity (General Relativity assumes C). Exisiting observations put it near C - but the accuracy of the measurements is in question... They may also help determine if gravitons are spin-2/0 bosons (if they are odd spin number then anti-gravity could exist directly - even spin numbers always attract).


To bring this more back to MGT Gravitics - Given popular theories of gravitons - one could speculate on directionally generating/diverting gravitons to increase attactive force (thrust) and absorbing gravitons (neutralizing gravity) - but not repelling (anti-gravity). Of course, one could increase the gravity to some other stellar object - while neutralizing the gravitational attraction of the nearby object (thus creating 'gravitic thrust' - having an effect similiar to anti-gravity).

 

[cbrunish]

If a ship has the strength to withstand both the vacuum of space and micrometeors, wouldn't it have the strength to withstand the air pressure?

Just so you know, I have no really knowledge of science. Just political science (and I really don't consider that to be science) and emergency medical knowledge. So please don't think this a stupid question. 8)

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Surviving the vacuum of space is the ability to maintain a high pressure INSIDE the ship (like airplanes today).

Surviving micrometeors is more like armour. Your design has to protect against a point impact.

Surviving atmospheric reentry is more about what is on the outside of the hull. If you have antenna sticking up etc, then those could break off, regardless of how much armour you have on your ship.

Think of a modern naval warship. They have lots of antenna, radar dishes etc, at the top. Those get torn off and damaged during hurricanes.

Those hurricane winds are what a ship would have to go through whenever it entered an atmosphere.

Does that help?