Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Quote
Originally posted by Coraxus: ** It's one atmosphere pressure inside the container in the assumption that it's totally sealed,**
? I'm not sure you understand. The greatest pressure differential that will ever exist between the inside of the ship and the outside will be one atmosphere.
but when a breach makes an opening exposing liquid oxygen to outer space, the pressure is radically compromised and has no choice but to escape the container and the quickest way is to litterally rip out of the container in a matter of seconds.
You're being overly dramatic. The rate of loss of air will be dependent on the size of the hole and the pressure differential. The more air that is lost, the lower the rate of loss will become. A small hole will not result in very rapid loss. And the container would only be ripped apart if it had weak walls. I imagine that a spaceship would be built to survive breaches.
Having small leaks between compartment can only happen within a container having two compartments,
I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be saying that you can only have leaks between compartments when you have more than one compartment.
but leaks going out to outerspace will result the total destruction of the container.
No. It is entirely possible to built a container that could take the pressure differential. A submarine with a small leak, even at high pressure, will not be destroyed, providing the hole is small enough. I use apparatus that create near-vacuum pressures at temperatures of around 1K. A leak would ruin the experiment and damage some of the equipment, but it wouldn't all be ripped apart.
Now, I'm not saying that you could have a leak the size of a pin on a NASA space shuttle to wreak a devastating result, I'm sure it would hold together, you would just have a super suction. But a breach doesn't need to be big, it just barely needs to be big enough depending how big the object is to do damage.
That's rather contrary to everything you were saying earlier. 'super suction' isn't a very quantitative term. A 1 atmosphere pressure differential on the other hand is.
Changes in pressure is too far greater, you would not even have time for it to freeze over to a solid matter. If what you say is true, how long would it take for oxygen to respond to solidifying in this dramatic change?
I'm not sure how long it would take. I just know that at the triple point, the melting and boiling temperatures are the same at zero pressure. If the temperature is below the triple point, the substance will be solid. If it is above, it will be a gas. Any heat the substance has will have to be radiated off, since there's no air for it to be lost any other way, therefore it would take a while for a substance to cool down. But cool down it would do and freeze.
------------------ (url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/jonathanboyd/evn/index.html")Classic4Nova plug-in(/url)
Well, to have guided range weapons in space will mean that weapons will have to track some kind of different energy source from whatever a starship emits, than what missles and rockets can detect in modern day warfare.
------------------ Nosumus Fortiolis Quad Volimus I'm the only guy in the universe that can make horses cry. (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/ddstation")DryDock Station(/url), look and download stuff, and....stuff!| Remember folks, an (url="http://"http://www.apple.com")apple(/url) a day, keeps Bill Gates away!
Originally posted by Kame: I'm kinda surprised that no one has really commented much on this yet and it's an area that used to interest me quite a bit so here's my quick comment.
I think some people did.
Pod mentioned it briefly about missle guidance systems but the truth is that there are already way more advanced means of guidance systems available. Why do you think that IR is the only one around. Radar and television guided missles (such as the AIM-120 Sparrow, AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-65 Maverick) have all been in use since the 70's. Radar guided technology is vastly superior to IR and TV and wire-guided systems are better than that in some instances - capable of choosing a specific target and being guided in either by hand or by it's AI. (There's a challange for mrxak - user guided missles). Today's weapon systems can target and track multiple instances and any IR or Radar missle is fire-and-forget.
Not entirely true. All IR missiles are fire and forget, but a lot of radar ones are SARH - semi-active radar homing. They rely on the launch platform guiding them in. The AIM-7 Sparrow and its variants would fall under this category, as would the SM series of missiles. Some missiles also use inertial guidance to get fairly close to where the target should be, then switch on their radar for the final approach.
As far as sensors go, if the one in the sidebar is ok, then what's the problem? The most common radar in use by aircraft and air defense systems picks up on the tranmission of other radar systems in use.
Not entirely true. Technically that's ESSM, not radar. Detects radar signals, but can only give you a bearing and strength.
And all radars/sonar essentially work the same by sending out a transmission and waiting for a response. The only thing that changes is the frequency and the angle. Fighter aircraft primarily use FLIR (foward looking infrared) radar systems
Infrared isn't radar. I think you're getting your sensors mixed up :^) Most fighters have radar which can only scan in a limited forward angle, which I think is what you meant to say. FLIR is an IR sensor system that is forward looking, but doesn't involve radar, IIRC.
that only look ahead of the aircraft since it's the most passive and undetectable radar trasmission.
No such thing as a passive transmission. Restricting the angle you scan in reduces the angles you can be detected at, but you're no less likely to be detected within the area you're scanning. What you're thinking of is LPI (low probability of interception) radar, which is used on fighters such as the F-22. It's also cheaper and less space/mass consuming to use restricted angle radars.
Other support aircraft use radars that actively scan 360 (those ones with the large rotating disk on top).
Correct. Fighters use active radar too though,
Submarines use a forward sonar system that actively "pings" for objecs that are ahead of it.
Not entirely true. The ping is emitted in a much wider angle. You're going to be heard for quite a few miles away in every direction when you ping. the sound energy goes everywhere. Passive sonar, which relies entirely on picking up sound from other ships/subs detects through a wide angle, but had trouble receiving from directly behind, due to the screws.
A towed array can be dragged behind that provides 360 coverage.
Correct. The array can also be placed at a different depth - very important for surface ships that carry them as there are thermoclines in water where the temperature very suddenly changes. Sound bounces off these, so if you're below then you can only hear things below and if you're above, you can only hear things above. A ship will tow its array below the thermocline to give maximum coverage.
Course submarines still rely on a person to hear what's being returned and interpret it - something not feasible in space, but the application still applies and when the time comes we'll develop radar systems for space that suit our needs.
There's also LIDAR, which uses the visible spectrum to scan with and MIDAR, which uses microwaves. Exactly the same principles as RADAR, except you use a different set of frequencies. LIDAR would probably use a very narrow beam to sweep small areas for very accurate target resolution.
Originally posted by Coraxus: Well, to have guided range weapons in space will mean that weapons will have to track some kind of different energy source from whatever a starship emits, than what missles and rockets can detect in modern day warfare.
Not in the slightest. EM radiation travels just as well in space as in the atmosphere. Radar and IR would still be effective. If a starship has a hot bit, IR missiles will be able to track it. If it reflects radio signals, then radar will be able to track it. The only thing that can't be used is sonar because there's no medium for mechanical vibrations to propagate through. EM waves don't need anything to propagate through.
Originally posted by Jonathan Boyd: ** <snip>**
Eh, it's been a long time since I was really into the subject. Guess I'm a little rusty For the most part though, I was just using "radar" as a generic term. It sounds better than saying "those little blips on the screen" even though it's not technically accurate. I was also just paraphrasing some things but I guess that's not exactly a good idea when you're trying to give more details to something. So now, correct me if I'm wrong but aircraft generally use several types of "radar" - a couple for ground and a couple for air. Each has their own level of signal strength that determines how easily they're seen by other systems. Using FLIR is more "passive" than using an "active" form of radar as it emits a lower signal making it more difficult to detect. Which then again depends on the angle and strength of the FLIR. And yes, submarines use passive sonar as well but this too is limited to the front and sides of the ship - hence the need for a towed array which is only useful at low speeds. I guess it would have been more appropriate to say that active sonar is a nearly 360 sonar system while passive is more restricted. Why I brought up passive systems like sonar I don't know since they'd be useless in space. I guess I was just trying to demonstrate that we adapt systems for the environment.
------------------ ((Ż'ˇ.¸(Ż'ˇ.¸Ť•-KAME-•ť¸.ˇ'´Ż)¸.ˇ'´Ż)) I used to jog but the ice kept falling out of my glass. (url="http://"http://www.0three0.net/l-1551/")L 1551(/url) - The official site of RONIN and The Way and the ten thousand things
'ˇ.¸(Ż
Originally posted by Kame: **Eh, it's been a long time since I was really into the subject. Guess I'm a little rusty:p **
Heh, the number of times I've had to say that :^)
For the most part though, I was just using "radar" as a generic term. It sounds better than saying "those little blips on the screen" even though it's not technically accurate.
Ah, fair enough. How about 'sensors'?
I was also just paraphrasing some things but I guess that's not exactly a good idea when you're trying to give more details to something. So now, correct me if I'm wrong but aircraft generally use several types of "radar" - a couple for ground and a couple for air. Each has their own level of signal strength that determines how easily they're seen by other systems.
Yep, among other diffences.
Using FLIR is more "passive" than using an "active" form of radar as it emits a lower signal making it more difficult to detect. Which then again depends on the angle and strength of the FLIR.
Active systems emit a signal and rely on the reflection to detect things. Passive systems simply receive transmissions from the target. FLIR detects infrared radiation from a target and is totally passive. It doesn't emit any signal.
And yes, submarines use passive sonar as well but this too is limited to the front and sides of the ship - hence the need for a towed array which is only useful at low speeds. I guess it would have been more appropriate to say that active sonar is a nearly 360 sonar system while passive is more restricted. Why I brought up passive systems like sonar I don't know since they'd be useless in space. I guess I was just trying to demonstrate that we adapt systems for the environment.
On the contrary, a great deal of warfare would likely be conducted with passive systems. generally speaking, you can detect someone using active sensors before they detect you, by using ESSM. Active sensors are very dangerous to use.
You guys are way out of my league. I can't read two sentences without getting lost. But, in my current project, I don't think radar will play a major role, and sensors can be forgotten entirely (note the "in my current project" ;)), I think. I need to do more research (as if I didn't have a TON to do already) on it...
------------------ The programmer's code of entomology: there's always another bug. Windows users: stop asking for plugins. (url="http://"http://www.aznt.com/EVN/EVNEW/")Make one yourself.(/url) (url="http://"http://www.cwssoftware.com")Sephil Saga Website(/url)
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: You guys are way out of my league. I can't read two sentences without getting lost. But, in my current project, I don't think radar will play a major role, and sensors can be forgotten entirely (note the "in my current project" ;)), I think. I need to do more research (as if I didn't have a TON to do already) on it...
Don't worry, you're still young. Plenty of education still to come. Unless you're in the US, in which case you have my condolences. Maybe you could emigrate and get a real education ;^)
Seriously though, which bits would you like explained more simply? I could give it a shot.
I used to be really into this type of stuff. Still am, but have other things to do.
For my plug-in Retribution, I'll probably want to have somebody look over the physics and stuff in the descs. There are quite a few qualified people here...if nobody wants to do graphics for me, does anyone want to at least take this up? Please?...
------------------ Retribution: An Upcoming Plug-in for EVN. Visit the (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number;=20&SUBMIT;=Go")Chronicles(/url) today! Be sure to read the short story ' (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/ubb/newsdisplay.cgi?action=topics &number;=20&forum;=*EV/EVO+chronicles&DaysPrune;=100&article;=000262&startpoint;=")Fiery Descent(/url)'! (url="http://"http://www.cwssoftware.com")Sephil Saga(/url): An upcoming TC, visit the web page today.| | | Both the best and the worst plug-in editor for Windows! (url="http://"http://www.aznt.com/EVN/EVNEW")EVNEW(/url)!
Originally posted by UE_Research & Development: **I used to be really into this type of stuff. Still am, but have other things to do.
For my plug-in Retribution, I'll probably want to have somebody look over the physics and stuff in the descs. There are quite a few qualified people here...if nobody wants to do graphics for me, does anyone want to at least take this up? Please?...**
I could take a look. Can't make any promises about how much time I'll be able to devote to it, seeing as I've got finals this year and I'm fairly busy with church-related stuff, but I'm sure I could fit in a few contemplative moments.
Originally posted by Jonathan Boyd: Don't worry, you're still young. Plenty of education still to come. Unless you're in the US, in which case you have my condolences. Maybe you could emigrate and get a real education ;^)
I'm screwed.
Umm...everything?
Anyhow, what I'm really interested in is what level we (the human race, that is) were at in the 1930s and 40s. I could give exact dates, but I think it's already fairly obvious what I mean and giving specific dates will just plain give it away. I'll shut up now, for fear of ruining my secret.
Cool- you've got the job. I'll remember you in the upcoming months. (It won't be anything too formal, but I'll probably get in touch with you.)
And by the way, thanks for hosting those hand-drawn landscapes that I did a while back. That was much appreciated.
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: **Umm...everything?:p **
Okay, what level of education have you had?
Anyhow, what I'm really interested in is what level we (the human race, that is) were at in the 1930s and 40s. I could give exact dates, but I think it's already fairly obvious what I mean and giving specific dates will just plain give it away. I'll shut up now, for fear of ruining my secret.;)
I think I can make a few guesses :^)
Originally posted by Jonathan Boyd: Okay, what level of education have you had?
Not near as good as yours, I guess...
Originally posted by Jonathan Boyd: I think I can make a few guesses :^)
I figured some people would be able to.
Anyhow, do you know how far humans were with radar and such back in the 30s and 40s?
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: Not near as good as yours, I guess...
Well, I'm in uni and you're cutting grass to save up for EVN so I'm thinking you're still at school. Which year? How much physics have you been taught? Or are you just beign taught general science at the moment? Done any calculus?
**I figured some people would be able to.:)
Anyhow, do you know how far humans were with radar and such back in the 30s and 40s?**
You may find these links helpful: (url="http://"http://www.penleyradararchives.org.uk/history/introduction.htm")Penley Radar Archives(/url) (url="http://"http://www.radarpages.co.uk/pgp/faq.htm")Radar Pages(/url) (url="http://"http://histru.bournemouth.ac.uk/Oral_History/Talking_About_Technology/radar_research/")Bournemouth Uni History of Technology(/url) (url="http://"http://www.radarworld.org/")Radar World(/url)
Originally posted by Jonathan Boyd: You may find these links helpful: Penley Radar Archives Radar Pages Bournemouth Uni History of Technology Radar World
Thanks!
Other reply: We're still doing general science at the moment (we're on motion, and I am so gonna fail the test :p), and no, I'm scared of the future where math will mean Calculus.
Cutting grass for EVN...that would be a true statement. Fortunately, after painstakingly mowing a way-too-big lawn five times, I now have a registered copy (I got it on Thanksgiving :p).
By the way, what letter did your guess start with?
Mowing the grass? I didn't have to do anything to get this game purchased; I was already due for a new game.
Calculus isn't too bad...unless you go to my school and have my teacher. But that's of no concern of yours :p.
What do you people think about technologies based on stuff you'd find in a nebula? Just a random query.
Originally posted by UE_Research & Development: Mowing the grass? I didn't have to do anything to get this game purchased; I was already due for a new game.
That was in reply to orca.
Calculus isn't too bad...unless you go to my school and have my teacher. But that's of no concern of yours:p.
Teacher make the world of difference.
In what sense? It's a bit of a vague question. Do you mean reliability? Quality? Likelihood of any being found?
Originally posted by orcaloverbri9: Thanks!
Google is your friend.
Other reply: We're still doing general science at the moment (we're on motion, and I am so gonna fail the test:p ), and no, I'm scared of the future where math will mean Calculus.
Ah. That's a bit of a step up then. For a start, the bits where I referred to dv/dx, I was talking about acceleration. What bits of motion have you done? Are you familiar with the precepts of Newtonian physics? Do you know what momentum is?
**Cutting grass for EVN...that would be a true statement. Fortunately, after painstakingly mowing a way-too-big lawn five times, I now have a registered copy (I got it on Thanksgiving:p ).
By the way, what letter did your guess start with? :)**
It resembles another letter repeated.
You can forget my question- it was a poor attempt to salvage my post. And yes, I knew you were talking to orca.
Physics is nice, but often one has to modify gameplay dynamics to differ from how things in the real world work for the sake of playability. In EVN, that would mean keeping in the concept of maximum speed, assuming that weapons have short enough ranges to make dogfighting feasible, and making up pseudo-scientific reasons explaining why hyperspace works the way it does in a particular story.