Difference between revisions of "Talk:Transportation-old"

From USI-RPG
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: Is transpatial the proper spelling? I'm not sure, but I think it's spelled three different ways. ~~~~)
 
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Transspacial or Transpatial==
 +
 +
===Bob Asks===
 
Is transpatial the proper spelling? I'm not sure, but I think it's spelled three different ways. [[User:Bob|Bob]] 01:21, 9 May 2007 (MDT)
 
Is transpatial the proper spelling? I'm not sure, but I think it's spelled three different ways. [[User:Bob|Bob]] 01:21, 9 May 2007 (MDT)
 +
 +
===Kriss's Response===
 +
Neither of the Spellings are in the dictionary. I always had a misspell indication when using spacial in certain programs. Spatial was always preferred spelling despite that I've seen Spacial as an acceptable spelling by many dictionaries. So while both transpacial and transpatial should both be technically correct, we probably should pick one and stick to it. I think I've grown fond of transpatial spelling. [[User:Seccour|Seccour]] 09:21, 9 May 2007 (MDT)
 +
 +
===Additional===
 +
 +
I think that transpat(c)ial is a meta word of sorts. I need to remember to use it only when describing transpat(c)ial conduit system. When describing faster than light flight, i need to remember to use Translight, not transpat(c)ial.
 +
 +
[[User:Seccour|Seccour]] 09:32, 9 May 2007 (MDT)
 +
 +
==Acceleration vs Maxsublight==
 +
 +
===Jussi asks===
 +
Hmm... how 'bout acceleration as well as sublight velocity, or do we assume inertial control allows us to reach maximum speed instantly?
 +
 +
In fact, it's not about max sublight speed at all; you'll inch closer and closer to the speed of light if you only have fuel to burn and keep on accelerating. It's only a question of how fast you'll get there, so we might ditch the whole max sublight speed concept.
 +
 +
Thoughts? [[User:Jussi|Jussi]]
 +
 +
 +
===Kriss's Response===
 +
 +
I don't think we should assume instant acceleration, and it is another thing we could add to the spec articles. I've put a general limit or so of about .6c, which being a point which the energy started to increase more-so in order to go faster. <div style="float:right;">[[Image:emc2.gif|E=MC^2]]</div> the image indicates that we could probably be relaxed enough to accept .8c and .9c as perfectly acceptable, but I was thinking that like todays cars, the energy expenditure wouldn't be as economical. Thus the .6c standard.
 +
 +
Now the acceleration, we'll want to look at the distance traveled over time to see what makes sense, as I'm not sure ;) but clearly important.
 +
 +
The Max Sublight Velocities might be regulated by ship size simply and linked accordingly instead of specifying on a per ship class basis, and also defined as the point at which energy expendature isn't worth the velocity in normal situations.
 +
 +
We haven't even touched inertial systems yet. Inertia is compensated through a mix of technologies, the first and main one being a basis of the same string theories used for Artificial gravity and Translight Velocity Flight (Faster than Light Flight.)
 +
 +
[[User:Seccour|Seccour]] 09:24, 9 May 2007 (MDT)

Latest revision as of 16:28, 12 May 2009

Transspacial or Transpatial

Bob Asks

Is transpatial the proper spelling? I'm not sure, but I think it's spelled three different ways. Bob 01:21, 9 May 2007 (MDT)

Kriss's Response

Neither of the Spellings are in the dictionary. I always had a misspell indication when using spacial in certain programs. Spatial was always preferred spelling despite that I've seen Spacial as an acceptable spelling by many dictionaries. So while both transpacial and transpatial should both be technically correct, we probably should pick one and stick to it. I think I've grown fond of transpatial spelling. Seccour 09:21, 9 May 2007 (MDT)

Additional

I think that transpat(c)ial is a meta word of sorts. I need to remember to use it only when describing transpat(c)ial conduit system. When describing faster than light flight, i need to remember to use Translight, not transpat(c)ial.

Seccour 09:32, 9 May 2007 (MDT)

Acceleration vs Maxsublight

Jussi asks

Hmm... how 'bout acceleration as well as sublight velocity, or do we assume inertial control allows us to reach maximum speed instantly?

In fact, it's not about max sublight speed at all; you'll inch closer and closer to the speed of light if you only have fuel to burn and keep on accelerating. It's only a question of how fast you'll get there, so we might ditch the whole max sublight speed concept.

Thoughts? Jussi


Kriss's Response

I don't think we should assume instant acceleration, and it is another thing we could add to the spec articles. I've put a general limit or so of about .6c, which being a point which the energy started to increase more-so in order to go faster.

E=MC^2

the image indicates that we could probably be relaxed enough to accept .8c and .9c as perfectly acceptable, but I was thinking that like todays cars, the energy expenditure wouldn't be as economical. Thus the .6c standard.

Now the acceleration, we'll want to look at the distance traveled over time to see what makes sense, as I'm not sure ;) but clearly important.

The Max Sublight Velocities might be regulated by ship size simply and linked accordingly instead of specifying on a per ship class basis, and also defined as the point at which energy expendature isn't worth the velocity in normal situations.

We haven't even touched inertial systems yet. Inertia is compensated through a mix of technologies, the first and main one being a basis of the same string theories used for Artificial gravity and Translight Velocity Flight (Faster than Light Flight.)

Seccour 09:24, 9 May 2007 (MDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.usi-rpg.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Transportation-old&oldid=3554"