_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAre the designed
starship able to land on planets? Most likely in Water
I know More Thrust introduced streamlining, and it was continued on in FB1,
but there has not been any "designed" ships has streamlining rules included.
and a follow-up question:
Can Space Fighters, fly into the Atmosphere? Or are all fighters
considered Areospace crafts?
Have a Good One, DOC Agren    (Lurker on the Digest)
> DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
> Are the designed starship able to land on planets? Most likely in
> FB1, but there has not been any "designed" ships has streamlining
Streamlining is the bare requirements to survive atmospheric re-entry. A
ship with no streamlining will have the maneuvering charictaristics of a
brick, and will land once, and hard. Partial streamlining makes some
effort to allow a ship to re-enter, but the ship still needs thrust in
order to land safely, as it has little actual aerodynamic handling. It
can land dead-stick, but it will need some repairs to make it fully
functional again (excluding engine repairs), though this may differ on the
universe being simulated. Fully streamlined ships can safely land
dead-stick with no danger (assuming average conditions), and only need
refuling or repair to the engines (if needed) to resume flight.
Your points are only valid if in *your* universe ships don't have enough
power to not *require* streamlining. If "American engineering" is involved,
you *can* fly a brick. If a ship is designed which is not aerodynamic, the
only requirements become a) is the structure sufficiently
strong to withstand gravitational and acceleration/deceleration forces
and b) does it have enough raw power to land gently and safely? Given enough
power, my perception is that you can land ANYTHING.:)
J
--On Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:40 PM -0700 Sylvester Wrzesinski
> <xveers@gmail.com> wrote:
> DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
A
> ship with no streamlining will have the maneuvering charictaristics of
Yes, that could well be. In which case I withdraw my haughty remarks, and
thank you, Mr.Beast for pointing it out.:)
J
--On Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:02 PM -0500 Doug Evans
> <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> Your points are only valid if in *your* universe...
> Your points are only valid if in *your* universe...
I thought the question applied to the Tuffleyverse; not that I have a clue in
my reading, but thought that was how the answer was attempted.
The_Beast
On Fri, September 23, 2005 4:02, Doug Evans said:
> Your points are only valid if in *your* universe...
Is there even a fixed answer in the Tuffleyverse? It all depends on what units
people use for turn length and distance, which I've never seen official
figures for.
If thrust 1 = 1g, then (ignoring structural limitations) even a big lumbering
NSL superdreadnaught can land and take off from an Earth like world just on
raw thrust.
If thrust 1 = 0.25g, then only ships with a thrust > 4 are going to be able to
do so.
At some point I had streamlining adding to thrust for purposes of whether
something could land or take off in an atmosphere.
Sam schrieb'd:
> On Fri, September 23, 2005 4:02, Doug Evans said:
Ergo, my not having a clue, though if it's mentioned somewhere, it's part of
the universe rational. I know it's somewhere in the building rules, to
allow old-Trav-style adaptability(?), but I haven't found a case of it
mentioned in the ship designs.
> If thrust 1 = 1g, then (ignoring structural limitations) even a big
Not arguing this, though there's a difference between having enough thrust to
lift a weight and tossing it out of the atmosphere. Playing devil's advocate,
everyone, including moi, seems to agree that if a
hull/structure
can stand military maneuvering, it can stand passage through a planet's
envelope. This isn't necessarily a given, though, as I said, makes sense to
me. If it isn't, then John's comment kicks in:
> a) is the structure sufficiently strong to withstand gravitational and
as well as a positive pressure.
I'll admit it's a very weak example, and I won't try to defend, but a jet
fighter can take many-g stresses, and still be crushed by sinking in
several fathoms of water. Wait a min, at least I think it will be...
;->=
The_Beast
> On 23-Sep-05, at 7:41 AM, Doug Evans wrote:
It would be if the fuselage were watertight. This would only affect ships
landing on planets where the atmospheric pressure is greater than the
occupants' home planet. Areas of the ship open to vacuum would probably be
open to atmosphere as well, and pressurized areas to some nominal pressure
that makes the crew comfortable.
> On Friday 23 September 2005 16:31, Tony Christney wrote:
See 'Victory Unintentional' by Asimov (it's in "The Rest of the Robots"). They
need to send some ambassadors down to talk to the Jovians, but can't build a
ship capable of withstanding Jupiter's pressure. So they build a leaky ship
and stick some robots in it and just worry about making the robots pressure
proof.