open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked What's in a Navy (name)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Gantak Indofani
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:16:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Gantak Indofani on 05/10/2009 15:16:37
So... there I was; getting towards the end of the Empyrean Age novel and it occured to me that both the Caldari and Gallante refer to their ships as the 'Navy'. So if a race has a Navy made of spaceships and they also have a planet with water on it... what do they call the 'Navy' on the water? They couldn't also call that a Navy.

President Foiritan: "Get me the Admiral of the Navy"
Presidential Aide: "errr which Navy Mr President?"

It's a conundrum. I have too much free time :)

Northern Fall
Minmatar
British Legion
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:19:00 - [2]
 

Minmatar faction ships are known as Republic Fleet. This sounds cooler and therefore gets rid of the aforementioned problem.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:27:00 - [3]
 

It's not so strange, there's the US Naval Space Command.

Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Global Economy Experts
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:29:00 - [4]
 

Ship = Navy

Suneai
Gallente
Space Tide Syndicate
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:30:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Suneai on 05/10/2009 15:32:24
Simple, if President Foiritan wanted the space navy he would ask for the Admiral of the Federation Navy but if he wanted the Navy on the planet he'd just say Navy.

Edit:
Caldari however is a whole different matter... if they're like Americans and split their land up into States I think there could be some mass confusion when a request for the Caldari State Navy is requested.

Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Global Economy Experts
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:38:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Suneai
Edit:
Caldari however is a whole different matter... if they're like Americans and split their land up into States I think there could be some mass confusion when a request for the Caldari State Navy is requested.


No, I think everything owned by the Caldari is the "Caldari State"

Gantak Indofani
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:40:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Northern Fall
Minmatar faction ships are known as Republic Fleet. This sounds cooler and therefore gets rid of the aforementioned problem.


'Fleet' is still pretty much a nautical term though eh?! Smile

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:44:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Gantak Indofani
Originally by: Northern Fall
Minmatar faction ships are known as Republic Fleet. This sounds cooler and therefore gets rid of the aforementioned problem.


'Fleet' is still pretty much a nautical term though eh?! Smile


gang then.

end of discussion Cool

Gone'Postal
Roast and Toast Inc.
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:46:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Gantak Indofani
Originally by: Northern Fall
Minmatar faction ships are known as Republic Fleet. This sounds cooler and therefore gets rid of the aforementioned problem.


'Fleet' is still pretty much a nautical term though eh?! Smile



Yeah, The large formations of spaceships that defend the Earth from alien attack are called something else at this time.

However I'm sure once there built, and Alien life (if it exists) drops us a visit.. that might change.

Washell Olivaw
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:46:00 - [10]
 

A single cruiser in orbit can handle the tasks of a dozen cruisers on the water. There won't be a wet navy once orbiting/de-orbiting becomes trivial.

Gantak Indofani
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:51:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Ship = Navy


Which confirms the 'problem'.

Water based ship = ship = Navy
Space based ship = ship = Navy

Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:53:00 - [12]
 

They should call it Cosy from Cosmonautic and because there's no softer bed than zero-g.

Or call them Spacey from spaceships and because your first trip off-world blows your mind (and some go insane).

Very Happy


Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:03:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Washell Olivaw
A single cruiser in orbit can handle the tasks of a dozen cruisers on the water. There won't be a wet navy once orbiting/de-orbiting becomes trivial.


There's also how anything that can move through space could probabaly do the same with water.

Amerilia
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:18:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Professor Tarantula
Originally by: Washell Olivaw
A single cruiser in orbit can handle the tasks of a dozen cruisers on the water. There won't be a wet navy once orbiting/de-orbiting becomes trivial.


There's also how anything that can move through space could probabaly do the same with water.


LOL

Esna Pitoojee
Amarr
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:20:00 - [15]
 

I've always thought that a practical "space navy" would make a seaborn navy more or less extinct. Just threaten to bombard any ships moving out of port from orbit. Hence, no sea navy, no navy confusion.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:28:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Amerilia
LOL


LOL indeed.

Not sure what you mean, but if you think the space shuttle is an example of a space going craft, with it's giant rockets and 60 year old tech, you're incorrect. It doesn't even really leave Earth's atmosphere, or go close to the deadly radiation belts surrounding Earth.

After you get into space itself you really just need it to be airtight with lots of shielding, and some kind of non combustion based propulsion, along with some kind of self contained life support. Which would work for travelling underwater also.

Advalary
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:34:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Professor Tarantula
Originally by: Amerilia
LOL


After you get into space itself you really just need it to be airtight with lots of shielding, and some kind of non combustion based propulsion, along with some kind of self contained life support. Which would work for travelling underwater also.


So then I guess that would work well as the ship plummeted to the bottom of the ocean as it wasn't made to be buoyant.

Yes, I suppose they might be able to make one that could do both, but I don't see any that CCP has put on the description of being able to do so.

Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Global Economy Experts
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:34:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Professor Tarantula
After you get into space itself you really just need it to be airtight with lots of shielding, and some kind of non combustion based propulsion, along with some kind of self contained life support. Which would work for travelling underwater also.


You are forgetting shape. Space is (mostly) empty. Water is not. The Heron, for example, would be a wholly inadequate ship to take into the water.

Also ships can be built for nothing to be around them. Propulsion is going to be a lot different with water around. Imagine having nuclear propulsion in a spacecraft. Put that underwater and you are going to have serious problems with the ecosystem and maybe with moving.

Even from an airtight perspective you could be wrong. In a space craft the only part that needs to be airtight is the cabin. You could expose other elements to the vacuum (provided they are built for it) and it would work fine. Dunk it under water and you have an expensive brick.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:51:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Abrazzar on 05/10/2009 16:52:45
Vacuum is a lot easier to deal with than with really high pressure. Drop a spaceworthy vessel on the bottom of a respectable ocean and you'll end up with a squished tin can.

It's also a matter of direction of the pressure. while a space ship needs to be constructed to resist bursting outwards, a deep see vessel needs to be reinforced against collapsing inwards.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:19:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Advalary
So then I guess that would work well as the ship plummeted to the bottom of the ocean as it wasn't made to be buoyant.


I had a feeling i shouldn't have breached this topic here. This will be way over most of your heads.

My opinions are based on the concept of gravitational propulsion, which isn't as crazy as it may sound to the layman. Using that means of propulsion would also nullify any effect gravity had, and remove any risk of sinking.

Originally by: Dretzle Omega
You are forgetting shape. Space is (mostly) empty. Water is not. The Heron, for example, would be a wholly inadequate ship to take into the water.


That's hydrodynamics, and thankfully the same shapes which work well aerodynamically work fairly well hydrodynamically too. As for space, any shape will do, so finding one to work in the three mediums isn't that tricky.

Quote:
Propulsion is going to be a lot different with water around. Imagine having nuclear propulsion in a spacecraft. Put that underwater and you are going to have serious problems with the ecosystem and maybe with moving.


Theres no way you'd ever need something as extreme as nuclear propulsion in space, tiny bursts of hydrogen are more than enough to reach incredible speeds, you don't have any other forces slowing you in a vacuum, you could slowly approach the speed of light with nothing but your own farts propelling you, if you wanted to develop tech that supported that. The main problem with space travel for us (the public) at this point is breaking the gravitational pull of Earth. If you could launch something from around where the ISS is, or simply remove any effect gravity had on you while getting up there, then you'd just have to cope with the deadly Van Allen Radiation belts and solar radiation by using extensive shielding, and the crafts would be quite different looking than a clunky old rocket ship.

Quote:
Even from an airtight perspective you could be wrong. In a space craft the only part that needs to be airtight is the cabin. You could expose other elements to the vacuum (provided they are built for it) and it would work fine. Dunk it under water and you have an expensive brick.


You are aware that they test all astronaut suits and space modules underwater extensively because it's the best way to simulate space conditions, right?

Trustworthy Joe
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:23:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Professor Tarantula
Originally by: Amerilia
LOL


LOL indeed.

Not sure what you mean, but if you think the space shuttle is an example of a space going craft, with it's giant rockets and 60 year old tech, you're incorrect. It doesn't even really leave Earth's atmosphere, or go close to the deadly radiation belts surrounding Earth.

After you get into space itself you really just need it to be airtight with lots of shielding, and some kind of non combustion based propulsion, along with some kind of self contained life support. Which would work for travelling underwater also.



you all fail. he was making a joke about how the eve physics engine behaves like a fluid based system, rather than a zero friction based system as it should.

you ever wonder why people call this the internet submarine game?

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:29:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Trustworthy Joe
you all fail. he was making a joke about how the eve physics engine behaves like a fluid based system, rather than a zero friction based system as it should.


It was a little of both tbh.

People should start seriously questioning the version of things presented to them by NASA after the India fiasco.
In case you didn't hear about it from US media outlets, India found traces of water over every inch of the moon, which put NASA on the spot because they've been saying for years they never found any. A couple days after that India annoucement, NASA announces they found water too now.

Much of what they've told you is bald faced lies, and the NASA space program, with it's 60 year old technology, is just a TV show for the tax payers. The military has much better tech that they don't want to show off on TV for various reasons.

Gallente Citizen1
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:34:00 - [23]
 

Navy means Blob in eve

zanopheer
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:36:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: zanopheer on 05/10/2009 17:37:32
Originally by: Professor Tarantula
Originally by: Trustworthy Joe
you all fail. he was making a joke about how the eve physics engine behaves like a fluid based system, rather than a zero friction based system as it should.


It was a little of both tbh.

People should start seriously questioning the version of things presented to them by NASA after the India fiasco.
In case you didn't hear about it from US media outlets, India found traces of water over every inch of the moon, which put NASA on the spot because they've been saying for years they never found any. A couple days after that India annoucement, NASA announces they found water too now.

Much of what they've told you is bald faced lies, and the NASA space program, with it's 60 year old technology, is just a TV show for the tax payers. The military has much better tech that they don't want to show off on TV for various reasons.



Summary: Using a NASA instrument housed on the Indian Chandrayyan-1 satellite, scientists have solved an Apollo-era mystery about water on the moon. The discovery could have profound implications for future human explorers on our nearest celestial neighbor.

Water on the Moon

The only thing India did was launch the rocket.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:41:00 - [25]
 

You don't find it unusual that NASA claimed to find no evidence of water in all the moon rocks and soil they've gathered over the last 60 years, but now it's found to be everywhere?

That what it boils down to. There's many groups at work, even within NASA itself. Some think the world has a right to know, and others are a bit obsessed with secrets.


Acid Flipper
Sock Robbers Inc.
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:47:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Suneai
Edited by: Suneai on 05/10/2009 15:32:24
Simple, if President Foiritan wanted the space navy he would ask for the Admiral of the Federation Navy but if he wanted the Navy on the planet he'd just say Navy.


A navy consisting of boats wouldnt leave the planet they're guarding, so the president should adress them with "Navy of planet X". if he wants to get the Federation navy on the line he would just say "Federaion Navy".

this of course only works if there isnt also a space navy of the planet X.

ohwell.

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:02:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 05/10/2009 18:06:00
It's also worth noting that NASA plans to bomb the moon on Oct 9th, claiming they're looking for water. Now that this recent news is out, about water being everywhere on it, they're still going ahead with it. Makes you wonder what they're really upto, doesn't it?


Korovyov
Cool Story Bro
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:10:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Gantak Indofani
They couldn't also call that a Navy.


Yes they can. They did it. It's done. Your feeble Gallente protesting won't stop the science fiction war machine from hijacking naval tradition. It's a tradition that will soon be as old as naval tradition itself.

Oh, and your make-up is a little off. Over in that spot. No, more to the right.

N'tek alar
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:43:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Acid Flipper

this of course only works if there isnt also a space navy of the planet X.

ohwell.


Ofc it works even if there's also a space navy of planet x.

Said space navy wouldn't be called "Federation Navy" as the navy of planet x represents planet x, Not the whole Federation.

The Federation Navy = the navy of the federation, ie, Not the navy of some random planet within the federation.

Washell Olivaw
Posted - 2009.10.05 20:26:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Professor Tarantula
claiming they're looking for water


They're not, they're hoping to determine the average quantity of water in the soil.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only