Nuclear Winter

[capnvonbaron]

If you actually wanted to come close to making a decent estimation of the effects of impact you would need specialised computer software

Or at least more than windows calculator as I was stuck using

re: Kochman -- Valid points. But:

1) size of objects... particle of dust vs huge spaceship... versus titanic versus iceberg? Not really close to the same thing

Could a single bullet from a rifle take out a Zepplin if it hit it? I think so... a tiny object destroying a huge one is not so out of the question.

2) density of objects is still not considered... particle of dust vs huge spaceship that can travel through atmospheres and at 10% of light speed? compared to ice rock vs ship hull.

An ice rock would be less dense than an iceberg? Their densities would be the same really. I might also add, anything we send to another solar system is not going to be launched from Earth, but would rather have to be constructed in orbit (or low gravity environment, ie the Moon). The size of the ship simply wouldn't allow it to launch from the surface of Earth. The Civ4 SS is simply absurd in that respect.

3) Titanic was terribly flawed in its construction, it could have survived had it been constructed properly, as I would hope a huge spaceship would be

I would say a large hole letting in a lot of water would be equally serious to a small hole letting out a lot of your air

To put it in more understandable terms. If you dropped a small lead ball on your foot, it probably won't even hurt much and certainly won't do damage. If you shot that little lead ball out of a pellet gun, it would probably hurt a lot although it may still not do much damage. Now, shoot that small lead ball out of a shotgun? Well, I bet your foot would hurt AND not be useful for awhile. The faster a given object moves, the more damage it does on a exponential scale. If you start accelerating things to the speeds we are talking about, there is a crazy lot of energy involved.

I'm just saying that the weight and size of any kind of protection you would need on the front of your super-spaceship would be prohibitive to accelerate even to 10% the speed of light, and then decelerate back to the speed you could approach a planet at. Could we agree to that?

 

[kochman]

Could a single bullet from a rifle take out a Zepplin if it hit it? I think so... a tiny object destroying a huge one is not so out of the question.

No, not out of the question. But again, the example you choose is hardly a good one to demonstrate your point. A space vessel would surely be built better than a zeppelin.

An ice rock would be less dense than an iceberg? Their densities would be the same really. I might also add, anything we send to another solar system is not going to be launched from Earth, but would rather have to be constructed in orbit (or low gravity environment, ie the Moon). The size of the ship simply wouldn't allow it to launch from the surface of Earth. The Civ4 SS is simply absurd in that respect.

Not really, from my point of view, it is constructed in space. The parts are built by cities, but it is in space already... Hence the Space Elevator.

To put it in more understandable terms. If you dropped a small lead ball on your foot, it probably won't even hurt much and certainly won't do damage. If you shot that little lead ball out of a pellet gun, it would probably hurt a lot although it may still not do much damage. Now, shoot that small lead ball out of a shotgun? Well, I bet your foot would hurt AND not be useful for awhile. The faster a given object moves, the more damage it does on a exponential scale. If you start accelerating things to the speeds we are talking about, there is a crazy lot of energy involved.

I'm just saying that the weight and size of any kind of protection you would need on the front of your super-spaceship would be prohibitive to accelerate even to 10% the speed of light, and then decelerate back to the speed you could approach a planet at. Could we agree to that?

These are much more logical analogies. I am only questioning that it is impossible, as some seem to be stating. I don't agree that it is impossible.

As someone jokingly alluded to earlier... shields up.
There are mechanisms that could be put in place, besides only angles of deflection as TMIT brought up, that would add structural integrity... such as a kinetic shield.

 

[r_rolo1]

I'm just saying that the weight and size of any kind of protection you would need on the front of your super-spaceship would be prohibitive to accelerate even to 10% the speed of light, and then decelerate back to the speed you could approach a planet at. Could we agree to that?

I can definitely disagree with that. Even our current technology of aerogels could probably hold a lot of those particles ( c'mon, NASA used aerogels to catch comet dust particles some years ago ) even @ 0,1 c . And there is always the possibility of ionizing those particles in the path with a Laser/Maser ( for those who don't know, a maser is the equivalent to a laser that operates in sub-IV frequences ) and simply repel them electrostatically or using a magnetic field. You don't need a lot of energy to deflect a small particle enough to not hit the ship after all...

As kocham said, it is not a question of impossibility. It is, at top, a collection of engineering problems. Saying that you can't put a ship in AC based on that argument is like saying that you can't make a car to go to a land's end village because there is no road to get there...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The practical/cost barriers to progress are always the strongest ones . That is one expensive road.

 

[Willem]

I am only questioning that it is impossible, as some seem to be stating. I don't agree that it is impossible.

I wasn't trying to say it would be impossible, just that it would be a serious threat that a ship could face. On the other hand it's also not as simplistic as a bug hitting a windshield. We'd certainly need to come up with better technology in order to avoid any problems in that area.

 

[r_rolo1]

But again ( and trying to bring this thread to the tracks ), it is extremely diferent a thing being impossible or hard to happen/do . GW from nuke surface impacts is impossible, no matter how you twist it ... a ship that flies to AC with the current technology ( well, a litle ahead from what we have ... the engines of the SS need fusion after all ) is simply hard as hell and expensive . But not impossible.