bbbb Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 Smaller ships indeed. I like the idea of speed boats. I wonder how long it would take to get to the moon with modern spacecraft technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killeravocado Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 Smaller ships indeed. I like the idea of speed boats. I wonder how long it would take to get to the moon with modern spacecraft technology? Well with the Space Shuttle traveling at speeds of 28,291KPH, in orbit, and the distance between the center of the earth to the center of the moon being 384,403 km, simple logic would dictate that it would take approx. 13.587465978579760347813792372132 hours. Of course with developing tech and ongoing research that time should be ever decreasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 Well with the Space Shuttle traveling at speeds of 28,291KPH, in orbit, and the distance between the center of the earth to the center of the moon being 384,403 km, simple logic would dictate that it would take approx. 13.587465978579760347813792372132 hours. Of course with developing tech and ongoing research that time should be ever decreasing. Approximately eh... right... Anyway, I'm affraid simple logic won't do, not as simple as you put in anyway, but that's something for another time and another thread. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Underscore Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 You also have to take into account orbiting speed of the moon around the Earth - plus the fact that a vessel would have to acheive a semi orbit before making a descent to the moon's surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 How fast do you think the good ol 1701 orbited planets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 How fast do you think the good ol 1701 orbited planets? I think it could vary depending on the need for geostationary orbits and just sight-seeing the new planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 What is the normal speed for a geostationary orbit? This second question may sound odd as well but does a probe have the same speed in that kind of orbit as a bigger/heavier object? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Underscore Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 The International Space Station is not very far up into orbit (comparatively), and it has no real engines to speak of (only boosters to maintain altitude). It's orbital momentum is somewhere in the 27000 kph area. I would imagine that any object would have to maintain a similar velocity (from a greater distance than the ISS, obviously) to keep a "Standard Orbit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 What is the normal speed for a geostationary orbit? This second question may sound odd as well but does a probe have the same speed in that kind of orbit as a bigger/heavier object? The speed required to maintain such an orbit is 3.07 km/s.. A quick google search yielded that one.. As for the second question, i don't know why i know, but i do.. and yes it would. The idea behind a geostationary orbit is for a satellite to appear stationary with respect to a fixed point on the rotating Earth, this then has advantages in dealing with communications. Thus, is the reason why we can global communications today. However when you mentioned the weight of the object, i assume you mean due to the gravitational pull from the earth... I don't think this would matter because it becomes all relative. We can say, because the orbit is stationary with respect to earth, that: F(g) [force Gravitational] = F© [force centripetal]. Equating this we have: Fg = Fc Ms x Ag = Ms x Ac [mass of satellite] x [acceleration due to gravity(9.81ms^2)] = [mass of satellite] x [acceleration due to centripetal forces] Because the mass of the satellite is on both sides of the equation it is independent of geosynchronous orbit. Meaning the mass of the object doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Unless it's 0. :p (there's still discussion on which specific particles may have mass and which don't, but somehow I think that's beyond the scope of what you intended :cyclops: ) [me=TetsuoShima]seems to be a smart**s today ^^[/me] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Unless it's 0. :p (there's still discussion on which specific particles may have mass and which don't, but somehow I think that's beyond the scope of what you intended :cyclops: ) [me=TetsuoShima]seems to be a smart**s today ^^[/me] Maybe just a little :P... my brain works on big things, It doesn't seem to work to well when it comes to things such as quantum physics.. As far as my universe is concerned everything has a mass. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Hayden thanks for answering my questions about this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Underscore Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 I am mathematicalled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Hayden thanks for answering my questions about this matter. No worries! :P I am mathematicalled out. Haha, too funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I can se we have a great trek community here. May we keep up the pace and set a new standard for trek forum discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 What did you have in mind, or were you being sarcastic! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Not at all. I have a history of saying how great this community is. Keeping it alive is a worthy goal for all concerned. Keeping forum activity high is also a good thing because we have something here that I have yet to see on other websites. We have a great community here and if I appear too enthusiastic I apologize. If I may go back on topic, I wonder if we'll see more adventures of the Enterprise-E if the new movie does well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Enterprise-E, new movie, ... *does not compute - error* Wasn't the new movie supposed to be about a pre-60's TOS Enterprise with Kirk & Co as youngsters? I don't think that would have any new productivity reflection on the Picardo's adventures. *giggle* You'd think I'm drunk, but believe me, I'm not. :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killeravocado Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Enterprise-E, new movie, ... *does not compute - error* Wasn't the new movie supposed to be about a pre-60's TOS Enterprise with Kirk & Co as youngsters? I don't think that would have any new productivity reflection on the Picardo's adventures. *giggle* You'd think I'm drunk, but believe me, I'm not. :cyclops: sounds like you are drunk... what bbbb is saying, is that if the new movie goes well, will we be able to see new adventures of Enterprise E... What i'm interesed in, is what kind of enterprise will be in the upcoming movie. Something between the nx01 and the 1701? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-NUKE Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 I have to say the D was surely my favorite, it was the most sleek and modern looking I think, but the E definitely earned my respect when they rammed the Scimitar in Nemesis. Takes a pretty tough ship to survive a ship to ship head-on in space, but I think it was too hard an attemp at looking more modern than the D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now