03-20-2018, 08:22 PM | #31 | |
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
As part of my single "making wormholes ain't that hard" breaking of physical law I was sort of assuming a means of producing a "virtual mass" to create and stabilize the wormholes. Because otherwise they're impossible at less than TL(absurd), whereas I'm aiming at TL10. But, again, in my vision this method requires flat space so there are no planetary-surface wormholes.
Also: Quote:
__________________
I'd need to get a grant and go shoot a thousand goats to figure it out. Last edited by acrosome; 03-20-2018 at 08:30 PM. |
|
03-20-2018, 08:33 PM | #32 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: traveller
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
Quote:
I realize this is your area of expertise, but offhand I can't find anything in Visser's papers online or his book that describes what you're talking about. The traverseable wormholes in the literature I have access to are spherically symmetric and use an arbitrarily small amount of negative energy (and correspondingly large amount of regular mass-energy). |
|
03-20-2018, 08:52 PM | #33 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
Quote:
For this application, you can just ignore what is going on down on the ground. Sure, the engineers will need to take into account the forces produced by the rocket engine and on the groundside wormhole end and deal with it using proper bracing, but that's not the part that gets your other wormhole end out to where you want to go. There's no double thrust down on the ground, either - the rocket engine is getting pushed one way, the wormhole end is being pushed the other. Tie them together and neither is going anywhere since the forces exactly balance by Newton's third law of motion. With a low enough mass projected wormhole, you can even move it around by shining a powerful laser through it, using the emerging beam of light as a photon rocket. Luke |
|
03-20-2018, 08:58 PM | #34 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
Quote:
Luke |
|
03-20-2018, 09:18 PM | #35 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
So if you send spinning matter through them, the spin is reversed, there's nothing to absorb the difference, and we've broken conservation of angular momentum. Guess we don't actually need torch ships, it shouldn't be too hard to convert it into a reactionless thruster.
|
03-20-2018, 09:20 PM | #36 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
03-21-2018, 06:35 AM | #37 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
Is there any way to dictate that the small ship-board wormholes have some small maximum separation? You can't avoid FTL communications through the giant ship-transport wormholes, but there's a world of difference between radio through stationary wormholes and an ansible.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
03-21-2018, 09:34 AM | #38 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
Quote:
Luke |
|
03-21-2018, 09:38 AM | #39 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
Quote:
Luke |
|
03-21-2018, 08:37 PM | #40 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Dirt Cheap Torchships?
Would they collapse from use or from merely existing?
I'm imagining ships only rarely getting "too close", but avoiding their use until later and separated.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|