Timeline for Does it make sense for these space ships to have turrets?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 3, 2016 at 5:14 | comment | added | Aron | @Delioth The guns do however give the projectile much more "reactionary mass". This does in fact give the projectile much more means to achieve higher velocity. | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 15:47 | comment | added | o.m. | @Daevin, that's what I meant by "initial velocity" in rthe first part of the answer. But a fixed mount would have the same effect. | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 15:04 | comment | added | Daevin | Turrets are also good for launching the projectile at the target before the rocket ignites, in addition to throwing it clear of the ship. For example, a turret firing towards the target has the projectile already on the direct path so the rocket's fuel is more for minor navigation, whereas a ship with the launching tube away from the target would require the projectile to navigate onto the direct path and require much more fuel to both get on the path as well as obtain collision speeds. It'd be faster by (likely, due to large distances in space) several-to-many seconds. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 17:14 | comment | added | o.m. | @Delioth, edited. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 17:14 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 17:06 | comment | added | Delioth | This is misusing "delta-V". The guns provide no acceleration to the projectile, they apply acceleration to the projectile, which provides velocity. It's really pedantic, but the guns don't give the projectile more means with which to accelerate itself. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 16:49 | history | answered | o.m. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |