Project Plannet Hopper - Interplanetary Vessel

[TCR_500]

Just a thought, have you considered rather than launching a plasma bolt alone, launch the 'bolt' and it's magnetic container? You wouldn't have to worry so much about dispersion. With this route, you'd also have a logistics problem (reloads for your mag-containers). Of course this is all future tech, but hey...

I haven't considered launching a plasma bult with a magnetic field, but I may put a magnetic field inside the shells that contain the plasma. For the reloads, we may be able to capture the solar radiation. It has a mass and in theory, if it has a mass, it can be contained. Again, in theory.

Hey Guys
How about before open warfare breaks out here you all peruse these articles and you will perhaps all have a better understanding of the whole space warfare subject.Then when you are all properly armed intelectually you can proceed to decimate each other here.I would think that with as few people as there are in the orbiter community willing to create add-ons and take an interest in the program that you would encourage their interest and not attack them at every turn.also on the other side the new addon developer should be open to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from other developers who obviously have much more experience and knowledge and he should be willing to learn from them.Just a thought.L8R

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050606/hunter-1-a.shtml

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050613/hunter-2-a.shtml

TonyZ

I am opened to suggestions, but I'm not opened to attacks.

I will be reading those artcals. Thank's for the links.

ROFL.

1/ at temperatures where the ship would be boiling even, plasma would recombine and become a gas.

2/ why? much better to use magnetic guides where the plasma doesn't physically contact the wall of the channel.

also, hydrogen is only explosive if you mix it with oxygen and when both of those are gasses. not plasmas. fire hydrogen plasma at a ship and all your going to do is heat damage and hydrogen embrittlement. there will be no explosion.

1. I am aware of the problem with using plasma. Solving this problem may take years of experiments. I figure that if I can hold a magnetic field a few inches from the space craft, I can keep the ship from melting (in theory). However, cold plasma is not yet a reality.

2. I never though of magnetic guides. I was going to use containers. And it does give me an idea. If the container ruptures before it should, a magnetic field in the barrel could save the ship.

If hydrogen only explodes with oxygen, then using hydrogen is pointless. Using oxygen is also pointless. The electrons are what keeps atoms held together. Common Oxygen (under the rule for naming molecules: dioxygen) is made up of two oxygen atoms. Take out the electrons, and the oxygen atoms seperate. Well, the theory was that the explosion would cause more thermal damage that just a splatter on the hull. Rats!

OK, I deleted my earlier post - self-censorship is something we should all practice from time to time

Hydrogen is explosive because it forms tight covalent bonds with other atoms - oxygen for example. Covalent bonds require atomically bound electrons so they can form - something you do not have in a plasma. Therefore, the protons and deuterons in your plasma weapon are not "explosive". They will however cause damage by thermal and kinetic effects as pointed out in the links that TonyZ2525 provided, but any plasma will do that.

I already knew about electrons being responsible for bonds between atoms. Thanks to a science book. But, that calls for another theory. If one plasma shell, or pulse hits a ship, the thermal damage would eventually breach the hull. One more could destroy the target.

(Not Contibuting) Congrats, you saw the Star Wars Special on the History Channel.

(Contributing) Okay, one question: Why don't you forget weapons at this point? Make the ship first, then you can add weapons. Right now it seems like the weapons are the most important part of the ship to you.

On the same channel or the Discovery Channel, I saw an explanation on gravity.

Good point. I'll put the weapon system on board the ship, but I won't put any weapons on board. For now anyways, the ship is going to be un armed.

 

[insane_alien]

If hydrogen only explodes with oxygen, then using hydrogen is pointless. Using oxygen is also pointless. The electrons are what keeps atoms held together. Common Oxygen (under the rule for naming molecules: dioxygen) is made up of two oxygen atoms. Take out the electrons, and the oxygen atoms seperate. Well, the theory was that the explosion would cause more thermal damage that just a splatter on the hull.

your chemistry is more horrible than your physics. please refrain from wild speculation as your more wrong than wrong.

also, cold plasmas do exist. just look at the intergalactic medium FILLED with plasma at only a few kelvin. infact, 99% of the universe is cold plasma.

the coldest plasma commonly encountered on earth are in fluorecent bulbs. as you can see, no melting.

other plasmas in every day usage are flames and plasma tellies.

 

[TCR_500]

Actually, I'm in chemistry. So, I'm not quite up to date on all of the latest technology. And I was not aware that there is a lot of plasma out there. But I'm a little sceptical about that 99%. And the oxygen we breath is made up of two oxygen atoms bonded together. Single oxygen atoms would be deadly. Actually, I forgot one part of that rule. I should have said "dioxide" if I went by the rule for naming molecules. There realy doesn't seem to be much tollerance for mistakes here.

 

[insane_alien]

well, your chemistry is very poor. you missed out completely on simple combustion. so i'm guessing your maybe round about 12 based on your knowledge level.

and no, oxygen as found in the atmosphere is never called dioxide. diatomic oxygen at a push but mostly just oxygen with single atoms reffered to as singlet oxygen and three atoms as ozone.

why we point out all your mistakes is because you are swanning around pretending you are an expert on plasma physics and so on when it is clear from your posts you have only the most very basic 'i glanced at wikipedia for 5 seconds' level of knowledge on the subject matter. and still you pretend you know it all.

we really don't mind if you don't know something as long as you admit you don't know it and try to learn rather than just going 'no! i know what i'm talking about! lalalalala!'

grow up, listen to the advice and learn something rather than being willfully ignorant.

also, fluorecent bulbs and especially fire are not new technologies. not sure where you got that from...

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I'm mostly wondering why bother with such a weapon system at all in the first place. Dealing with current tech (or future tech out to say maybe 50-75 years or so), unless we are suddenly surrounded by Independence Day aliens, why bother?

There is a really good book series by Jack McDevitt (Alex Benedict/Chase Kolpath) that does have weapons aboard a ship, but it's only for small meteorites in the vicinity of the ship that pose a threat. And it's purely automated. His other series hasn't mention armed ships at all, under the idea that any civ advanced enough for interstellar travel is advanced enough not to put weapons on their starships.

That being said, there I may see a reason to arm ships, but armed against small rocks, not other ships. Space is dangerous enough to begin with.

 

[Ghostrider]

under the idea that any civ advanced enough for interstellar travel is advanced enough not to put weapons on their starships.

Which unfortunately is only wishful thinking.

 

[Sky Captain]

For defense against small rocks best weapon would be fast response laser or particle beam slaved to targeting computer and very sensitive tracking radar.

Why bother with plasma weapons at all, if you have powerful high thrust high ISP engines you already have a plasma weapon. Any plasma weapon is going to suffer from low effective range since plasma will quickly disperse. Also what plasma canon would accomplish better than hypervelocity railgun, particle beam or laser?

 

[TCR_500]

well, your chemistry is very poor. you missed out completely on simple combustion. so i'm guessing your maybe round about 12 based on your knowledge level.

and no, oxygen as found in the atmosphere is never called dioxide. diatomic oxygen at a push but mostly just oxygen with single atoms reffered to as singlet oxygen and three atoms as ozone.

why we point out all your mistakes is because you are swanning around pretending you are an expert on plasma physics and so on when it is clear from your posts you have only the most very basic 'i glanced at wikipedia for 5 seconds' level of knowledge on the subject matter. and still you pretend you know it all.

we really don't mind if you don't know something as long as you admit you don't know it and try to learn rather than just going 'no! i know what i'm talking about! lalalalala!'

grow up, listen to the advice and learn something rather than being willfully ignorant.

also, fluorecent bulbs and especially fire are not new technologies. not sure where you got that from...

I don't really like doing this, but you give me no choice. WRONG! I've known that two oxygen atoms make up the oxygen in the atmosphere and I've known that three atoms make up ozone! And STOP trying to guess my age! You're way off par with that anyways and it's an invasion of privacy.

I know what I'm doing! And when I research something, I spend a lot more time than you think! Science is my best subject and that thing with the three oxygen atom forming a substance called ozone is too basic! As well as the laws of inertia!

I'm mostly wondering why bother with such a weapon system at all in the first place. Dealing with current tech (or future tech out to say maybe 50-75 years or so), unless we are suddenly surrounded by Independence Day aliens, why bother?

There is a really good book series by Jack McDevitt (Alex Benedict/Chase Kolpath) that does have weapons aboard a ship, but it's only for small meteorites in the vicinity of the ship that pose a threat. And it's purely automated. His other series hasn't mention armed ships at all, under the idea that any civ advanced enough for interstellar travel is advanced enough not to put weapons on their starships.

That being said, there I may see a reason to arm ships, but armed against small rocks, not other ships. Space is dangerous enough to begin with.

I'm not going to put the weapons on the star ship, but the systems will still be visible.

For defense against small rocks best weapon would be fast response laser or particle beam slaved to targeting computer and very sensitive tracking radar.

Why bother with plasma weapons at all, if you have powerful high thrust high ISP engines you already have a plasma weapon. Any plasma weapon is going to suffer from low effective range since plasma will quickly disperse. Also what plasma canon would accomplish better than hypervelocity railgun, particle beam or laser?

Lasers are not what I chose for defence. I could have just as easily chosen a nuke to do the same job.

Plasma won't disperse if it's contained in a shell. The shell ruptures against the target, splattering plasma everywhere on the target doing lots of damage before it finally disperses.

 

[Nerull]

You can't lie to people who know what they are talking about, TCR. Your BS won't fly here. You didn't even know what combustion was!

If all this stuff is 'too basic' why must it be explained to you in simple terms before you understand any of it?

 

[garyw]

A starship isn't a planet hopper.

You know what the best defense is against small rocks and dust? A meter thick ice shield at the front of the ship. It's been proposed for interstellar travel.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

For defense against small rocks best weapon would be fast response laser or particle beam slaved to targeting computer and very sensitive tracking radar.

I think that's what he used in the books, the whole system (as small as it was) was controlled by the onboard AI.

I think Garyw (and others) line of thinking is more along the lines of how we'll start out. Simple is better, cheaper and attainable. From my experience from working at a nuclear plant so far, the thing I've learned most is that you can over engineer something so much that it's a small wonder that the thing works to begin with.

 

[Artlav]

grow up
WRONG!
STOP
I know what I'm doing!
Your BS won't fly here.

I have an idea.
Let's stop it for a while, and check, if there are any misunderstandings in progress?

TCR_500, are you interested in learning new things?
Specifically, being proven wrong and accepting it, with a benefit of gaining knowledge?
Not in a sense of agreeing with what someone says, but as in if what happens in the world contradicts what you thought should have happened?

And, a question along - have you tried any of the simple experiments i or a few other people proposed to you over this month?

Which unfortunately is only wishful thinking.

Don't be so sure... Maybe we will live to learn the answer.

 

[RisingFury]

TCR, I would usually quote and correct people when it comes to flawed Physics... but 4 pages is just too much, so here's my advice to you:


Why don't you stop wasting time in this thread and go to work on your ship. Adding stuff to feature list and debating about who is right and wrong about particle physics won't get your ship built.

 

[garyw]

I think Garyw (and others) line of thinking is more along the lines of how we'll start out. Simple is better, cheaper and attainable. From my experience from working at a nuclear plant so far, the thing I've learned most is that you can over engineer something so much that it's a small wonder that the thing works to begin with.

I work in IT. I've seen too many over engineered solutions that I've had to support!

I also recently read [ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Centauri-Dreams-Imagining-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/038700436X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241559100&sr=8-3"]Centari Dreams[/ame]. Well worth reading if anyone is interested in our options for Intersteller flight in the immediate future.

 

[ThatGuy]

Why don't you forget weapons at this point? Make the ship first, then you can add weapons. Right now it seems like the weapons are the most important part of the ship to you.

Let me clarify. Make the ship with no weapons (visible or otherwise). Absolutely none whatsoever. After you finish the ship, hold it up proudly, upload it, whatever. Then add the weapons, code said weapons, and texture.

 

[Sky Captain]

Why would you want a fancy (read expensive) plasma containment gadgetry in your shells if a simple kinetic impact at dozens of km/s is more than enough to damage the target. What kind of combat mission your fancy plasma shells would accomplish better than a hypervelocity railgun firing cheap projectiles. 0,5 kg slug hitting the target with 20 km/s velocity would release roughly 50 times more energy than 0,5 kg of TNT exploding. No need for any warhead at all. If you still want to put a warhead on your shells or missiles then for best efficiency it`s going to be a shaped nuclear charge or even better a nuclear bomb pumped x ray laser.

 

[TCR_500]

I'm tired of doing experiments that have already been done before. Besides, I have a theory that I want to put to the test and I'm more likely to test that theory before doing any other experiments. And I will not allow any interferance with my chemistry course! In case you were wondering on why I'm so resistant to what's been going on.

For the star ship, the weapons weapons would only be their to defend the base. The star ship builds the base, re-supplies it, and defends it against asteroids. Well, the defend part is only until the bases defences are online.

I read the articles and it made a good point. But it left one thing out in the open. If you're traveling at say 180,000 mi/sec (light is 186,282 mi/sec), and time is slowed down so much, I'd feel sorry for anyone in the ship if the ship was moving right at a star. Although it might actually be 30 days before it hits that star, on board the vessel, it might be only 30 seconds. I don't think 30 seconds is enough to dodge something that is at least one light second in diamiter. Our sun is more than 5 light seconds in diamiter. And come on. Who would race a model plane with a turbo prop or even a Cecena. The model doesn't have the power it takes to go 110 kts. If it did, the air pressure on the air frame would tear that model plane apart.

Back to the Planet Hopper. Here are the features I'm going to put (controled from bridge).

Control Lockout: Locks out all menuvering controls by combination authurization (programable).
Collision Alarm
Stall Warning
Stress Warning
Surface Lockout: Locks out the control surfaces without interfering with thruster activity
Monitor: Readout of everything that has been done on the starship (copies to starship log).

And I'm sure there will be other things added.

 

[Artlav]

I'm tired of doing experiments that have already been done before.

If you don't do the experiments that was done before or similar ones to them, how do you expect to understand related concepts?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I've had a NAVY buddy that flew RC planes in competitions, he had a ducted fan (he called it Viper) that did 320mph. I've seen props do over 200mph. These were straight and level flight, just after decreasing from 300 feet or so to about eye level. So there was some altitude for airspeed tradeoff. For speed and maneuverability have you seen any pylon racers, those guys pull some serious g's

 

[Nerull]

For the star ship, the weapons weapons would only be their to defend the base. The star ship builds the base, re-supplies it, and defends it against asteroids. Well, the defend part is only until the bases defences are online.

When was the last time your house got hit by an asteroid? Last time one hit someone you knew?

Who would race a model plane with a turbo prop or even a Cecena. The model doesn't have the power it takes to go 110 kts.

Lots of people. Bringing up a reoccurring theme of your posts, just because you are ignorant of it doesn't mean it does not exist.