RedDwarfIV wrote:Oddly, for a series so based in the Space Is An Ocean trope, spacecraft from the Honor Harrington series would work pretty well in space. At least, until they overheated from lack of radiators.
(it's called that because for two years the main character was thought dead, hence why she got a ship class named after her. The Graysons didn't feel like changing it back to Medusa.)
I always chuckle when I see HH ships. They look like sex toys.
Of course, I shouldn't be talking, since I made this:
@TrashMan HA! Freespace / Freespace 2 For the win! Shivan SJ Sathanas class shatting out a particle beam.
Update Edit: *** increases monitor brightness ** oh! now I see it, wow, that's terrible yet funny. I keep my monitor brightness + contrast low so couldn't really see the whole picture.
Last edited by pinheadh78 on Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Actually, yes. The speed of light is intrinsically linked to the passage of time. This is not an optical illusion, or a trick of perception. The ability to travel faster than the speed of light will allow travelers to break causality.
I'd argue you're misconstruing the mathematical concept of time itself with the act of observing time. Faster than light particles have been shown to exist theoretically according to the math by which, I believe I am correct in this, relativity is also defined as well as in actuality with the oddly behaving neutrino transformations measured, IIRC, earlier last year- or at least we believe we observed the neutrino operate in a FTL mode if the measurements are indeed correct, a second observation has delivered similar results and researchers are conducting a third similar experiment to add weight to that confirmation. Even further, the math on the Alcubierre warp drive seems like it is taken seriously enough that national resources are being devoted to reduce the theoretical energy cost of its operation. Moving space and the objects in it might be different from reaching a raw acceleration of c- which another thing I'm curious about, is the light-speed limit put at any particular reference frame? and does it apply to raw velocity or merely one's active acceleration away from a reference frame?
Causality always sounds like a ridiculous fantasy whenever someone tries to explain the damnable thing to me.
The scientists doing that experiment didn't think it was likely the neutrinos actually went faster than light, but the media went mad over it, claiming 'Einstein is wrong!' etc. Then when the scientists find proof that theneutrinos in fact definitely did not go faster than light, the media starts yelling about how Einstein was right all along and aren't modern scientists just the silliest?
I think you're basing your assumptions on something that's been known to be false, even in the media, for some time now.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.
National resources have been spent on trying to develop perpetual motion machines. It turns out that the United States congress is filled with people who don't know jack about science. Some of them are even on science committees.
Like Rep. Paul Broun, a member of House Science, Space and Technology Committee, who said:
All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.
No, he hasn't misconstrued the mathematical concept of time. Space and time are intrinsically linked; affect one, and you will affect the other. The constant in that relationship is indeed c. The speed of light is independent of any reference frame. All observers will measure it to be the same, no matter their own motion.
Faster-than-light particles, tachyons, have been hypothesized, but as yet remain undetected. I believe you are talking about the supposed FTL neutrino experiment from 2011? Icekatze links to it, but that experiment was shown to have a fault in its timing system. Further experiments bore out that neutrinos obey the lightspeed limit.
I'm curious as to how causality is being explained to you such that it sounds like a "ridiculous fantasy"? Our current understanding of physics depends upon it. That's not to say some new, acausal theory can't arise, but it would represent a paradigm shift.
I was doing some concept work today, and I was searching for some reference images, and I happened upon an old article about the IXS Enterprise warp drive concept. We had talked about the possible motivations for making the mockup like that, and I myself had suspected that it was an all dazzle, no substance attempt to secure funding, but this article provides a much more reasonable explanation in the creator's own words.
...the IXS Enterprise’s main goal is to encourage kids to take on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) careers.
((I was doing a search for mission patches, oddly enough.))
We may already have a determination on how it broke up, even if we don't know which part failed. The twin tail booms swing up into a high drag position for aerobraking on descent. There is a two step control process to enable that; a lock/unlock lever and an engage/disengage lever. Protocol is to only unlock the boom when it is needed, but it was unlocked during the powered ascent. The boom swung up without further input seconds later as the craft passed mach 1. This resulted in too much stress on the air frame, which was buffeted and ripped apart.
So a software or hardware glitch engaged the boom without input, and the pilot(s) disengaged the safety lock inappropriately.
It's unfortunate that one crewman died, Aviation pioneers tend to pay a very heavy price for any advancement. Fortunately, a single accident shouldn't put a damper on the project. It's unusual for any sort of advanced aircraft to make it through development without an accident.
The NTSB, or FAA will want a full investigation which will slow he project down for a bit..but they should be able to get moving again..unless some politician decides to jump on the incident.
reminds me of the disasters regarding the first JAS-39 a horrible accident caught live on tv, everyone called it a disaster...except the engineers, they went 'finally something went wrong! now what went wrong and how can we fix it?' because you do NOT want those kinds of bugs still around when it goes into production.
actually the JAS was very accident free, only two major incidents during the entire development phase, both caught live on tv with audience during official open show and tells, bad timing, and almost killed the project.
discord wrote:reminds me of the disasters regarding the first JAS-39 a horrible accident caught live on tv, everyone called it a disaster...except the engineers, they went 'finally something went wrong! now what went wrong and how can we fix it?' because you do NOT want those kinds of bugs still around when it goes into production.
actually the JAS was very accident free, only two major incidents during the entire development phase, both caught live on tv with audience during official open show and tells, bad timing, and almost killed the project.
A guest, and the host, on a national radio news show today expressed an opinion that the rocket industry should never have been privatized, that it should still be run by the government (all NASA controlled?). Needless to say I disagree with that. If the government wants to build rockets, let it do so, but they shouldn't restrict private companies from building rockets or space planes/shuttles either.
Considering that the rocket industry hasn't been privatized, that is a strange claim to make. But I guess there is a lot of confusion over who is running what, how, and why.
.. it was a easter egg hidden in my campaign.
