Timeline for Are supersonic submarine trains necessary in a civilization that spans a galaxy
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2017 at 18:05 | comment | added | user | @Jeutnarg On the other hand, if you were to design something akin to the ISS with the intent of being able to add/remove modules and hook up engines to move it, that would certainly lead to some different design choices being made (reinforced support points at various places in the structure, for example), but it's hardly impossible. Remember that in space, once you are out of the worst of the gravity well, even plain old reaction drive (AKA: rockets) only need to make the accelleration vs time tradeoff for the given mass. Less engine, less accelleration, but with time you can still go places. | |
| Sep 22, 2017 at 16:28 | comment | added | Jeutnarg | @Jay yes - planes (and I assume, spacecraft) don't scale well with load/volume in any direction. Adding an additional train engine is safe and easy. Attaching two more engines to a plane would probably snap the wings off. Removing half the carts+weight on a train results in a run that takes roughly half the fuel. Removing half the cargo on an airplane still probably takes ~75% of the fuel it would have otherwise, since half the weight of a cargo plane's max capacity is its own weight. To adjust a plane for efficiency at half load - you'd basically just be building a new plane | |
| Sep 22, 2017 at 15:07 | comment | added | Jay | Agree except for point 4. Is there an inherent reason why a starship could NOT be modular? | |
| Sep 22, 2017 at 5:35 | history | answered | L.Dutch♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |