Tachyon Shields Sci Tech Questions Thread

[All Seeing Eye]

If you were able to cancel gravity, if it is a force that can be cancelled, (and relativity says it isn't),

So you believe anti-gravity as shown in sci fi is impossible?

 

[Kemaiku]

I'll dial it back.

It just strikes me as bizzare to give a poster his very own thread to post his outlandish ideas and questions when every single thread he's ever made here on that topic has resulted in people telling him it won't possibly work and he fights his side tooth-and-nail.

I'll dial it back, if not cut out my disdain for the allowance of this thread, but may still post occasionaly how outlandish his "ideas" are and how they'll never work.

QFFT

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I'll dial it back.

It just strikes me as bizzare to give a poster his very own thread to post his outlandish ideas and questions when every single thread he's ever made here on that topic has resulted in people telling him it won't possibly work and he fights his side tooth-and-nail.

I'll dial it back, if not cut out my disdain for the allowance of this thread, but may still post occasionaly how outlandish his "ideas" are and how they'll never work.

QFFT

So you don't think I should be allowed to post threads on a message board? that's certainly a very bizarre position to hold.
If I have Tachyon Shield removed from the thread title and have the thread open to anybody's questions would that better suit your approval? people are free to do that anyway so i'm not really sure what difference having my name removed from the title actually makes seeing as i'm the one that started the thread.

 

[Jadzia]

If you were able to cancel gravity, if it is a force that can be cancelled, (and relativity says it isn't),

So you believe anti-gravity as shown in sci fi is impossible?

I don't believe it is impossible, but our current understandings do not support your idea.

I accept that there is always possibility for our current theories and understandings to become reduced to a special case of a greater theory that has less constraints

 

[TerriO]

Guys, what happens outside of this forum needs to stay outside of this forum.

Taccy asked for the thread with the argument of not cluttering up the forum. I could see the logic in that, and agreed to it. If you asked as many questions as Taccy has, and asked me for a thread to consolidate everything? I'd probably do the same thing. Bringing a problem with another poster from another forum in here is not a Good Thing, guys. You should know that. Taccy's not getting any preferential treatment. I swear that to you. (Not that any of you would probably believe me, anyway.)

If you have a problem with the poster, either put him on ignore or stay the hell out of the thread. Okay? Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to click on a thread to read it. IMO, this is no different from Taccy setting up a table in a dealers' room. If you want a thread of your own, give me a good argument other than "because Taccy's got one," and I'll consider it. Although for the main complainers right now? It probably wouldn't be a good idea. Just to let you know.

Remember, the only stupid question is the one you don't ask. Asking questions is how we learn. If you're not here to learn something or contribute something, the door's right there.

Now, back to the subject at hand, please.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Question 4

Russia mulls rocket power 'first'
LINK
I'm not sure how such a craft could possibly be very efficient, more fuel needs to be carried for starters and in the event of a rocket malfunction not only could it be dangerous for the crew but also any people that may end up in it's path. With fuel on board there's always the chance of an explosion on re-entry.

4a) Is this method of bringing a capsule back to Earth more efficient and/or more effective than using a parachute?

4b) What's the downside of the rocket method if any?

 

[Bisz]

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Gravity is ready and more than willing to do the work for us, there is no reason (currently) to do it any other way then just fall back down to earth. Also, it costs tens of thousands of dollars to shoot a kg of something into space, having to take up extra fuel for the return trip makes no sense, again, in light of the fact that we got gravity, and its free.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Sounds dodgy to me but I guess they'll do due diligence on the risk assessment of the engineering design. Howevere, firing the retros 600-800m from the ground doesn't leave much margin for a backup system to work.

It's a pity Russia has pushed back on the Kliper design -- it'd be nice if one country were operating a lifting-body re-entry vehicle to keep the technology in play on a resonably sized craft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper

 

[Zachary Smith]

I have a quick sic/tech question that I hope someone can answer for me really easily (and I haven't been able to look it up on the 'Net cause it's the kind of question you virtually need to know the answer to in order to ask it in a way that gives you the answer).

There is a term that is used to describe the shadowed part of the moon when it is visible from Earth. I'm NOT referring to the "new moon" phase but rather the term that describes the dark part of the moon against the Earth's sky that can occur at different phases, depending on light conditions. Any one know it right off hand?

 

[David cgc]

You mean when you can actually see the outline of the shadowed half of the moon in the sky? That's "earthshine."

 

[Zachary Smith]

You mean when you can actually see the outline of the shadowed half of the moon in the sky? That's "earthshine."

That's what I'm talking about. I thought there was another term that describes it. Kind of how the "LaGrange" point describes the point of balance between the Earth and the moon's gravitational pull.

 

[Jadzia]

The light from the dark part of the moon's disc, (which is barely visible) is called ashen light or earthshine.

The arc separating the dark and light parts of the moon's disc is called the terminator.

 

[Trekker4747]

The light from the dark part of the moon's disc, (which is barely visible) is called ashen light or earthshine.

The arc separating the dark and light parts of the moon's disc is called the terminator.

And when we go to the New Moon the lack of a terminator is called the i'll be back.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Question 5. Since this question is related to a degree to Trek XI I will have to put it in Spoiler tags.

Spoiler: Trek XI

There's heavy debate about the planet Delta Vega and how Spock was able to view Vulcan and see it so large in the sky.
My argument was thus: Vulcan having a gravity greater than Earths means Vulcan would be larger in size, if the planet Delta Vega was considered slightly smaller than Earth but was at a greater distance from Vulcan than our Moon is from Earth then it should be able orbit the Vulcan star with minimal gravitational effect from Vulcan and Vulcan being larger than Earth would look larger in the Delta Vega sky than our Moon looks from Earth.
Therefore this would mean that Vulcan can look as large as it did and the planet they were on would not be gravitationally effected by Vulcan and therefore can be a planet in it's own orbit. Since the planet would also be so close to Vulcan it would explain why it's capable of harbouring life.

It would be something like this: Imagine that the distance between Earth and Mars is what it's supposed to be, well Delta Vega would sort of be between that distance.

4) Is it possible?

 

[FordSVT]

Your mental gymnastics in this case are in fact moving in the right direction, but the planet would still have to be further away than it was shown in order to leave Vulcan's orbit unaffected. For Vulcan to appear that large.... no, even if you were only 1/4 of the way from Earth to Mars in distance and Vulcan was twice as large as Earth it wouldn't appear to be that big in the sky. They should have just made the ice planet a moon of Vulcan and left it at that. In fact, I thought it was supposed to be a moon of Vulcan until someone here pointed out that it was not.

 

[Trekker4747]

We saw this in Spock's mind-meld with Kirk.

It's entire, and very, possible it was simply a visual trick used to show Spock's "emotional seeing" of the event occuring and not to suggest the planetary difficulties that would have to be in place.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

We saw this in Spock's mind-meld with Kirk.

It's entire, and very, possible it was simply a visual trick used to show Spock's "emotional seeing" of the event occuring and not to suggest the planetary difficulties that would have to be in place.

Spoiler: Trek XI

It's possible yes but in asking this question i'm trying to ascertain if it would be possible for there to be another planet, close to Vulcan that would allow him to see Vulcan that big and be outside the gravitational influence of Vulcan. I'm not debating whether it was just a visual representation or if he was actually on the planet, i'm asking whether it's scientifically or astronomically possible to have a world that close to Vulcan.

Basically let's say Vulcan in the sky of Delta Vega was about the size the moon is in our sky, now pretend the moon suddenly became bigger than the Earth (the size of Vulcan), how far could the Vulcan sized moon be moved away from Earth in order for it to once again become normal moon sized? and at that distance would it be free of gravitational influence? and orbit the sun.

 

[RobertVA]

Planets in independent orbits around the system's central star that pass close enough for a human (or hypothetical Vulcan) to see a disk would certainly be close enough so that both planet's gravity would affect the orbital path of the other. Both planets would end up with significant orbital eccentricity (apogee significantly different from perigee) resulting in extreme temperature fluctuation over the course of a year, a situation that wouldn't be conductive to the evolution or sustainability of life forms. To further complicate matters on each of the occasions when the two planets passed close enough so that any occupants could see the other as a visible disk the orbits would change.

Significantly more tolerable would be binary planets, a status which Earth and its moon approach. If the moon was closer to Earth's size and its origin was different enough to possess a iron core (to produce magnetic field to shield it from the sun's radiation) it might have developed oceans and life as well. If the mass of one planet of a binary pair were to suddenly disappear the fate of the remaining planet would depend on where it was in their mutual orbiting of each other when its partner disappeared. I think multiple iron core planets establishing a binary system like that would be rather improbable.

Imagine the incentives to fund space programs if two civilizations in such close proximity were watching each other trough telescopes and eventually communicating with each other through radio!

There's a theory that Earth's moon lacks a magnetic core because its an accumulation of the debris resulting when Earth and another planet collided early in the system's history. The iron cores of both planets theoretically merged to form the present day Earth with crust and mantle debris ejected in the collision accumulating over a relatively short period to form the moon.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Planets in independent orbits around the system's central star that pass close enough for a human (or hypothetical Vulcan) to see a disk would certainly be close enough so that both planet's gravity would affect the orbital path of the other.

OK OK OK, let's say the moon suddenly became a twin of the Earth, at what distance would the twin Earth have to be from Earth in order to be gravitationally free and orbit the Sun unhindered?

 

[Scout101]

At the distance Delta Vega is shown from Vulcan, why wouldn't it have ALSO been destroyed by the black hole? Seems like the second it finished eating Vulcan, Spock little icy paradise would have been up next...