ta_erog

For an analogy to work the relationship in the analogy has to work, if it does not then the analogy fails (I pointed out that the relationship in proposed analogy is wrong) “But there is a major difference in design” And I have stated in each post that design was not what I was talking about and design (unless so bleeding edge that forces everything to be custom and NOT mass producible) should not have any bearing on the discussion. <br

“TA, the fact that the oldest shipyard in the US is making the newest ships is because research was initiated to update it and make it better. Your argument is becoming more that the standard frigate shipyard should be upgradeable to the capship yard.” Not exactly, That shipyard along with upgraded nonmilitary shipyards all use the same modern construction techniques. (outside game), so yes most any shipyard with the ability to build a large modern ships

First Dell tends to be more conservative on the construction of there systems (save on repair in the long run), then other companies. That is why I used them as an example. . The higher quality is the stability not the performance. Also since they tend to make some custom destine changes upgrading must be done through them ( this is a business decision not a tech one) There are more “generic” mother boards and components out there then most people would think. And they fill the full gambit

Ya, these are great . . Niven does a good job with the ring world fiction though the story could have been better. The Alderson Disk and Dyson Sphere while rather interesting also . .are really out there. All 3 suffer from the fact that matter is just not strong enough to build these structures. (niven takes the least of the 3 and then nods at this problem) But great Sci-fi nonetheless

Ron Lugge You just did not follow what I have said at all . . And your Computer example is . . . way out there. . . and utterly wrong. I should know I make computer systems for both civilian companies and the military. Guess what . . THEY ARE THE SAME!! From workstation to server farm the only variance is normally the software that is picked or some peripherals. and mjl1817 got it totaly correct! "America's civilian factories

"small/medium sized passenger jet versus a B2 Stealth bomber" If you read what I wrote I already conceded that some (not the bulk by no means!) are different, and may require different construction techniques. And I also stated that these techniques often trickle to the common use quite quickly. So, I find this already a non issue and a corner case (how many B2 Stealth bombers are there VS. f16s or more general all ground attack planes? or the entire fl

I come here for excitement of course

But that is a rather large generalization, "designed completely differently” A more accurate way stating the difference is “They may be designed somewhat differently and constructed basically the same” Civilian ships do not have to worry about damage and need redundant systems? Damage control? Sealable compartments? Hard points?, even armored Hulls?? Want examples Of civilian ships with all of the above? (you may want to take a quick look first - it is quite interesting) <img sr

. . . well . . I wish. even though I have done allot of "fun" things . it is still often boring (why else would I check here during the day?) . Still some of the real life stories of some of my workmates are . . . wild. At least for a geek ;0

"ta erog what do you do for a living?" Not really at liberty to say here, But I can be general, I work at a large computer company (we make workstations to supercomputers) The systems I work on have lots of “0”s in the price tag , This is one of many different jobs I have had (all high tech). I can go down the hall and talk to people that have worked on just about any current “high tech” wea

It has been done in the past with both ships and aircraft (non combat versions turned into combat versions) Also, it does not stop there . . I also meant the ABILITY to build big ships is already there . . this is different then having to research the ability to make large hulls. . . this allows ships to be easily redesigned (putting in hard points, or different engines etc.) from existing known working hulls (ie a bunch of variants on one hull design) . . In fact navel ships are becom

I found it awfully odd that the TEC would have to research Cruisers and some Frigates, but somehow magically know how to make Capital Ships. Considering the power of a Capital Ship, and the inherent complexity of something that huge and with that many abilities--not to mention their upgradeability--it seems to me only logical that Capital Ships would have to be researched. No magic needed, you have a well established space faring culture that could make all

"Eh, radiation is quite real, its just people hear the word and go stupid " That is what I meant . .the word makes people go irrational (not that radiation does not exist?!? or can be dangerous?! That is crazy talk )

wow, how did we get here? I just meant that nothing you can do to a Nuclear or a Fusion "reactor" would create an explosion similar to a thermonuclear or fusion bomb. . . yet it is VERY popular in movies and books. So is exploding or instantly frozen people exposed to space . . . not going to happen. Or funny things like ships always meeting each other . . right side up in space movies/TV shows . . .really funny. . How about how close you need to be to soot each other in most spac

Yes what Ron Lugge said Movement in space is all about acceleration because of the effective practical lack of a top speed (light speed is a quite high and impractical cap). . You are constantly accelerating if using your engines and not reaching a top speed of the engines as do craft on the earth. For example you can accelerate at 1g for a year and get near the light speed cap and you could "coast

jc1ward I was interpreting from your comments to mean that Battleships were almost useless even in WWII and that was not the case. I may have overstated . . but I do see in my posts that I said not as designed or planed often . . Battleships were where not useless but did not play the pivotal role they where designed for or planed to take . . and I can't see it revive either. (but that is only my option due to current tech developments) <d

what I meant was no . . Nuke/fusion uncontrolled reaction . . .IE a reactor = a unexploded Nuke/fusion bomb. (ya I deserved that )

Ron Lugge "I'm using it as an example" Yes, but as I was looking the rather poor example (yes you did state that) that did not really move the discussion along . .but saw did allow me to highlight a basic problem with using any force other then gravity to affect inertia. "Some way to compensate for the effect inertia would have if you accelerated extremely rapidly, and the easiest way to do that would be to create a dev

Ah, I think you may want to look in to that closer . . powerful magnetic coils (even IF you ignore the health problems) used to “counter” extreme accelerations run into the same problems as everything else does . . .we are made of different materials of different properties . . IF you use a magnetic field (a very very localized effect at around 16+ teslas) to counter the inertia of a organism accelerating at some high rate that organism would be ripped apart. The magnetic field is

Yup, just make sure they are of the same density of the surrounding tissue But how to get them in the head . . . .sticking them up your nose and ears is just so undignified . .

Note it is very important that if you call on sci-fi tech or "waving" of some physical laws to move a story line or highlight a concept, to just make some good fiction. Please state what you are changing in detail. IE if you are changing physics in order for your concept of a fictional space battle should be like in your opinion, then that is fine as long as you list out what you are doing! What “universe” you are makeing! . . do not assume there is some over arching sci-fi way of thinking

jc1ward - I do not mean to be argumentative, but I do not have the fascination that allot of people have with BB’s as most people do. I have always been more interested in History, Naval battles as a whole, the roles of tech, tactics, personal, environment, and numbers had to play in the battles. . . . Unfortunately there is allot of misinformation, entirely wrong idea’s how things work, nationalistic bride and bias, propaganda, nostalgia, off popular views, and biased personal views .

The problem here is that people are mixing reality and different sci-fi's freely and making assumptions on that. . First some comments . . IF you remove inertia you are removing what mass is, inertia could be seen as a side effect of mass. to accelerate/decelerate something with mass you must expend energy [full stop] Inertia also <> gravity Artificial gravity if it had anything to do with "real" gravity would have some strange consequences. . Gravity has no rang

also, well beyond our current technology That part is wrong . . I should say I made a coilgun . . (but not man portable) "extremely durable alloys " this is very true . .but . . less so in space . .it is the air shockwave that is a real hindrance to a terrestrial rail-guns. Coilguns . .slightly different .. GalacticaCAG is right to harp on this stament . . the navy is very long on its way to be weaponiseing a rail-gun. <div class="Arti

"The anti-aircraft fire of New Jersey and the other screening ships proved virtually impenetrable." Ya, sucks that . . there airforce had no armor or self-sealing tanks. And I said "where on there way out" where was no switch thrown . . but the biggest threat to any ship where aircraft and they proved the demise of many BB's . . the threat of aircraft forced many ships to upgrade there antiair . . The Battle of Leyte Gulf was the only real action the Yamoto had (except t