Project Plannet Hopper - Interplanetary Vessel

[TCR_500]

I was talking about how fast it can pitch, roll (bank), and yaw.

 

[Hielor]

For realism, I plan on testing the ship in every situation. The control surfaces are going to be large, but the weight and size of the star ship would mean significant drag when the ship tries to pitch or roll. And the stage one booster is going to make it harder to maneuver. But once in space, the ship should maneuver just like a fighter jet. I'll contact the beta testers when I'm ready to test the ship.

As DaveS pointed out, no, it won't "maneuver like a fighter jet." Something the size of a large "wet navy" patrol ship will never maneuever like a fighter jet, no matter what you do--and if it did, your crew would be splattered all over the inside of the craft from the rotational acceleration.

On a related note, sure, I'll beta test it for you.

 

[Nerull]

If you knew physics, you would know that your crew, out on the end of a 125 ft lever arm (We will assume CoG is in the middle) would be very dead if you 'pitch, roll (bank), and yaw' like a fighter.

 

[garyw]

The ship is coming with weapons. But the design of one missile tube would not balance the weight of the ship. There are three main engines. There is going to be a missile tube between each engine. For a release date, it's too early to tell, but I should have it out by the end of the year. I'd like to have it out by fall, because that's the best time to go to Mars.

How do you figure that autum is the best time to go to Mars?!

If you have missiles between the engines what happens if one fails to launch?

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

On the contrary, I do know the laws of physics and how to apply them to every day use.

Well, you have no choice. Gravity isn't going to ignore you because you don't know how it works.

Stop posting about what you think I don't know, because it isn't ture.

Well, one thing that is true is your lack of a spell checker or grasp on the English language. For someone allegedy so intelligent I would have expected your grasp of English and attention to detail to be better.

 

[TCR_500]

If a missile fails to launch, all I need to do is make sure the ship isn't rotating and fire up the main engines. The missile will come out one way or another. Or in the case of the front, fire the retro engines.

For the best time to go to Mars, 1, NASA is launching a probe this fall to Mars, and 2, if viewed from the sun, Earth and Mars would be at a 90 degree angle from each other, if I went then, I'd reach Mars in only 6 months and Earth and Mars would be aligned.

I do understand gravity. Do you know what a gravity unit is? Let me explain.
If you let go of something, it would fall 1 gravity unit. On Earth, it's 16 feet. The next second, it would fall an additional 3 gravity units. The next second, it would fall an additional 5 gravity units. That's 9 gravity units, on Earth that would be 144 feet. If you don't take into account the air resistance of the falling object. Which increases with speed.

Now stop with the attacks!

 

[Hielor]

I do understand gravity. Do you know what a gravity unit is? Let me explain.
If you let go of something, it would fall 1 gravity unit. On Earth, it's 16 feet. The next second, it would fall an additional 3 gravity units. The next second, it would fall an additional 5 gravity units. That's 9 gravity units, on Earth that would be 144 feet. If you don't take into account the air resistance of the falling object. Which increases with speed.

As I've mentioned before...use metric. The sooner you leave the American system behind you, the happier you'll be.

And I'll let someone else field the whole "gravity unit" thing, because...yeah.

 

[TCR_500]

You want metric! Fine! One gravity unit on Earth is 4.877 meters (rounding to nearest thousandth)!

 

[Hielor]

You want metric! Fine! One gravity unit on Earth is 4.877 meters (rounding to nearest thousandth)!

Congrats, you can use the google. Using metric is not for my benefit, it's for yours.

 

[DaveS]

And there's no such thing as "gravity units". You must mean G-force which is a unit of acceleration/deceleration which in the SI system is approximately 9.81 m/s².

Another unit of gravity is Newtons(N) which too is a unit of force. The force upon a 1 kg object is 9.81 N if I did the math right. So that is how much force it takes to lift a 1 kg object.

So you obviously doesn't know a jack thing about simple physics, so stop claiming you do! All you know is how to spout out a lot of hot air and this isn't a hot air balloon simulator!

 

[Artlav]

I do understand gravity.

Good, you memorized some facts and numbers. But, can you juggle three tangerines with them?

 

[garyw]

For the best time to go to Mars, 1, NASA is launching a probe this fall to Mars, and 2, if viewed from the sun, Earth and Mars would be at a 90 degree angle from each other, if I went then, I'd reach Mars in only 6 months and Earth and Mars would be aligned.

This year, yes.

But what about next year? Year after?

It isn't a matter of Mars being in the right place every Autum you know....

Besides with the sort of ship you are talking about why are you using a Hohmann transfer?

 

[Urwumpe]

I know what plasma it and I know what it can do. I just don't know how to obtain it.

Which is strange as the definition of plasma already gives many hints on how to obtain it.

 

[DaveS]

This year, yes.

Nope. No NASA Mars crafts this year. MSL was delayed to the next available Earth/Mars window, 2011. Earth/Mars launch windows only occur every 2 years.

List of recent launch windows and what was launched in them:
2003: MERs
2005: MRO
2007: Mars Phoenix Lander
2009: None - MSL was delayed to funding and technical problems
2011: MSL current launch window

 

[garyw]

So it was! I recall the NASA Watch article on it.

Mars will be in the right part of the sky this Autum for an Earth bound probe but as DaveS pointed out - we are not sending anything.

 

[TCR_500]

Congrats, you can use the google. Using metric is not for my benefit, it's for yours.

Wrong! I did not use the Google toolbar that time.

And there's no such thing as "gravity units". You must mean G-force which is a unit of acceleration/deceleration which in the SI system is approximately 9.81 m/s².

Another unit of gravity is Newtons(N) which too is a unit of force. The force upon a 1 kg object is 9.81 N if I did the math right. So that is how much force it takes to lift a 1 kg object.

So you obviously doesn't know a jack thing about simple physics, so stop claiming you do! All you know is how to spout out a lot of hot air and this isn't a hot air balloon simulator!

G-U (gravity unit), G-Force (Gravity Force). They explain the same thing. And enough with the attacks! For the second time.

Good, you memorized some facts and numbers. But, can you juggle three tangerines with them?

Why would I want to juggle fruit?

This year, yes.

But what about next year? Year after?

It isn't a matter of Mars being in the right place every Autum you know....

Besides with the sort of ship you are talking about why are you using a Hohmann transfer?

After I launch, I'm going to have to find a time to get back to Earth before I plan the next launch. It'll be well over a year, maybe two years for one mission. Once I get the ship back to Earth, I'll find a good launch window.

Which is strange as the definition of plasma already gives many hints on how to obtain it.

And what does it take to turn a substance into the plasma state? Don't answer that. I'm googling that one.

 

[Urwumpe]

G-U (gravity unit), G-Force (Gravity Force). They explain the same thing. And enough with the attacks! For the second time.

Wrong. You mix units and they are not equal at all.

Your gravity unit is nothing else but 1/2 * g with g being the local gravity acceleration. 0.5 is unit-free, so 0.5 * g is still an acceleration.

Force is related to acceleration by F = a* m or G=g*m

Expressing the same terms in your really stupid gravity units will result in:

G = 2 * GU * m (kg*m/s²)
g = 2 * GU (m/s²)

sure not identical.

integrate g over time (t) to get v(t):
v(t) = v0 + 2 * GU * t
integrate over time(t) again:
s(t) = s0 + v0 * t + GU * t²

Not really an improvement to classic Newtonian mechanics. If you would have to deal with Newtonian gravity and/or other forces, your GU is not existing at all.

F = G * m*M/r²
g = F/m = G * M/r²

Don't try to fake intelligence.

And what does it take to turn a substance into the plasma state? Don't answer that. I'm googling that one.

Yeah, you should do that from time to time before you post. Will save you a small bit of integrity.

 

[Hielor]

Wrong! I did not use the Google toolbar that time.

I said nothing about the google toolbar. And by your own admission, you don't understand metric, so I doubt that you did the conversion in your head.

G-U (gravity unit), G-Force (Gravity Force). They explain the same thing. And enough with the attacks! For the second time.

The problem is that you're making up your own terms for these things. That's not how science works.

 

[TCR_500]

During the first second of a fall on Earth, an object falls 16 feet. That's how I came up with the gravity unit. And I got the information about the distance in relavence to time from a science program. In after one second, an object falls 16 feet. After two seconds, it falls another 48 feet. That's 64 feet total. After 3 seconds, it falls an additional 80 feet. That's 144 feet total. After 4 seconds, an object falls 112 feet. That's 256 feet total. So after the 4th second, the distance the object has traveled is the square of what it traveled after the first second. This assumes no air resistance. When the distance squares again after second number 16, it will have traveled 4,096 feet. The theory I'm using is valid.

 

[garyw]

And what about terminal velocity?

 

[Hielor]

During the first second of a fall on Earth, an object falls 16 feet. That's how I came up with the gravity unit. And I got the information about the distance in relavence to time from a science program. In after one second, an object falls 16 feet. After two seconds, it falls another 48 feet. That's 64 feet total. After 3 seconds, it falls an additional 80 feet. That's 144 feet total. After 4 seconds, an object falls 112 feet. That's 256 feet total. So after the 4th second, the distance the object has traveled is the square of what it traveled after the first second. This assumes no air resistance. When the distance squares again after second number 16, it will have traveled 4,096 feet. The theory I'm using is valid.

Yes, but you're doing it in an inefficient and difficult way, and making up your own terms.

The real equation is:

x = .5at^2 + v[SIZE=1]0[/SIZE]t + x[SIZE=1]0[/SIZE]

This is one of the first equations you learn in a physics class. Although your intuitive understanding is accurate for the times you want it, it's not precise.