Ryan_m_b. Maybe you are right I don't like the answer, so I want it to be what I want. All right then.
Remember as well this isn't just abstract maths, these conclusions are based on experimentally verified physical models of the world we live in.Ryan_m_b. Maybe you are right I don't like the answer, so I want it to be what I want. All right then.
The answer is yes and no.D H I wonder if the math of all that rocket fuel required to propel my ice ship takes into consideration a certain bizzare thing about matter. For example in a room full of warm air out of the cold there are particles that have very extreme temperatures both high and low. I mean to say that not all the air particles are a cozy 76 degrees farenheit.
Where does this energy come from? You cannot just wave a magic wand and have energy appear from nowhere. And sorry, zero point energy doesn't work. The energy of whatever reaction coupled with the masses of the particles that comprise the exhaust sets an upper limit on the exhaust velocity.So what if some of the particles in the exhaust of the rocket are very close to the speed of light. So that to consider the exhaust effectiveness you might multiply the exhausts over all relativity factor with the exhausts mass and velocity which would have to equal the rockets mass and velocity.
Then you ought to take some physics. Your gut feelings, fed by too much bad sci fi, are wrong.I just think that is something we should have to consider when making these rocket equations,and it is not something I can prove mathematically because I haven't gone through my college physics class yet but it is something I can feel with my gut.
There is nothing for the rocket to push against. Rocket propulsion is simple conservation of momentum. There can be no net chang in momentum. If you throw stuff out the back, the forward momentum has to increase to keep the net momentum zero.It is something for the rocket to push against because I really don't believe it would take that much mass to propell something through space like that.
That's what D H was describing with the antimatter photon rocket above.O.K. so what if I have a magical mass to energy converter converting all fuel mass to energy and could apply 100% of the energy to a photon drive. What's the best I could hope for?
Bingo. The MacGuffin Drive, or something like that. Even PhD physicists who write science fiction on the side do this. In fact, they know they have to do this because the only way to make science fiction compatible with known science is to write about spaceships that take generations to get from star A to star B, or write about races to whom a thousand years is but a blink of the eye, or just stop writing science fiction altogether. Amateurs who try to make their science fiction realistic typically end up with egg all over their faces.It is science fiction, so you just do what most authors do. Just give the engine/thruster some cool sounding name and just don't explain how it's able to obtain relativistic speeds.
Exactly. The best science fiction is about people, not machines. The thingy that lets the people in the story quickly flit from place to place is just a plot device, aka a MacGuffin. Hence my name the MacGuffin Drive. Plot devices help the writer write, and help keep the reader engaged. Done right and plot devices don't need a lot of motivation or justification. In fact, an author who feels a need to provide that motivation or justification should see that as indicating that the device is being used incorrectly.If you look at the most popular science fiction books, TV shows, movies; having a good story line and good characters is more important than the science.
It's a matter of taste but personally I think this is an example of the worst kind of science fiction. That doesn't mean that it's bad by any stretch, just that it's a plot made possible by science fantasy rather than an exploration of the consequences of various scientificesque plot devices.Exactly. The best science fiction is about people, not machines. The thingy that lets the people in the story quickly flit from place to place is just a plot device, aka a MacGuffin. Hence my name the MacGuffin Drive. Plot devices help the writer write, and help keep the reader engaged. Done right and plot devices don't need a lot of motivation or justification. In fact, an author who feels a need to provide that motivation or justification should see that as indicating that the device is being used incorrectly.
A few tips;See that's where I wanted to go with this. All I really was looking for is the possibility of using ice as a starship hull. I didn't want to have to justify how the ice ship moved through space. For that I was going to use simple physics numbers to say it has a superfusion engine with spacetime compressors that allow the ship to go through more densities of spacetime than it normally would in any given moment in uncompressed spacetime. That I already had worked out.
agreed... my all-time favorite science fiction short story was this simple oneExactly. The best science fiction is about people, not machines.
I know you're not writing a novel but the points stand for any science fiction media (and others who may read this thread later who may be writing could benefit too).Again you misinterpret me; I'm not writing a novel or choosing plot devices