Difference between revisions of "Talk:Transportation-old"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == | + | ==Transspacial or Transpatial== |
===Bob Asks=== | ===Bob Asks=== | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===Kriss's Response=== | ===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) | 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) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Acceleration vs Maxsublight== | ==Acceleration vs Maxsublight== | ||
Revision as of 15:24, 9 May 2007
Contents
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)
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.
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 Transpatial Flight (Faster than Light Flight.)
Seccour 09:24, 9 May 2007 (MDT)
