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.

Posted - 2009.10.05 15:29:00 - [4]

 

Ship = Navy

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"

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?!

---

gang then.

end of discussion

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.