Do not underestimate dark asteroid belts.
- Thread starter Coccolino
- Start date
I was bounty hunting in a RES, left to go back to the station then returned and found it was on the dark side of the planet, this will be fun, I thought. And it was, but the problem with asteroids in the dark is you can only see them when they pass in front of stars, but there is a huge black planet blocking a large swathe of sky so sometimes you find yourself flying completely blind. Fun, as I said.
probably because their behaviour is realistic.. one tends to forget that you are 1-2 miles away, when you wonder why that flashlight doesn't work..
but then again we're in the future.. I think an upgrade to better headlights, maybe ones that automatic search objects you are moving toward using the radar.. I still have one slot free - I'd buy one..
those dark fields have cost me insurance twice already..
For the headlights to work, wouldn't they have to go FTL?
If your right, shouldn't the ships lights already be the size of spot lights? In which case they should be able to light up things from miles away. How many advancements have we made with LED's in the past few years? In over a 1000 years from now, we can't make any advancements leading to brighter lights?
Even if that is the case, why can't we simply map out objects in front of us with a 3d grid laser?
Something like this, but projected ahead of us in a grid:
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
What?....
Last edited:
How about getting a torch missile that illuminates the path that it takes (luminous exhaust gases) which will help you see in the dark and if it hits something then its luminous fuel gets splattered over the object making it a beacon for a period of time.
I was snake hunting in a asteroid belt today and it got dark..
Was frying a cobra and was using lateral thrusters down..
suddenly there was this loud noise of crushing metal and my canopy just went crack crack poof!
And there I was.. belly firmly planted on top of this asteroid
7.30 min it said my oxygen would last..
43% my Hull was at.. thrusters almost broken..
Then I figured it was best to go home for a bit..
luckily home was just 1.29ls away
Was frying a cobra and was using lateral thrusters down..
suddenly there was this loud noise of crushing metal and my canopy just went crack crack poof!
And there I was.. belly firmly planted on top of this asteroid
7.30 min it said my oxygen would last..
43% my Hull was at.. thrusters almost broken..
Then I figured it was best to go home for a bit..
luckily home was just 1.29ls away
No. The speed of light is a constant. Regardless of how fast you travel light will always travel away from you at the speed of light.
Thats wrong as far as i know the speed of light is the maximum speed, it doesnt go light plus your speed. So im no expert but if you travel at light the light coming from your lights wouldnt shine forward . But when you are flying in asteroids your speed isnt light so the point is moot....
Ps i may be wrong lol.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Wich is pretty much exactly what DogTailRed said so you agree with him..
Ahh yeah. So he should have said yes at the start lol you would need ftl headlights
In thruster mode you are going slower then C which I assume this thread is talking about as in frame shift mode insurance would mean a new ship if you hit an asteroid. In frame shift (which I assume the question was in reference too) mode you are able to go many times faster then C so then wouldn't your ship pass the light it projected once it escaped your "warp" bubble or what ever scifi is used to explain frame shift drives mechanics?
No, you got it, the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute maximum. Nothing can make it go faster, no matter how fast the emission source is moving.
He is actually right.. And so are you.
That's where relativity comes into play.
If you are doing 1C, and shine a light, the light will move away from you at 1C.
However, an outside observer would see the light moving at 1C, and you moving at 1C, and that's why most people can't understand relativity. The reason being that from your reference at light speed, you are effectively frozen in time. But the light you shined isn't, so it's free to tell you to get stuffed and leave.
But the speed limit is still 1c in a vacuum, plus or minus various gravitational anomalies that can slow down light ever so slightly, and the very expansion of the fabric of space-time which can cause light to travel a distance faster than light, but without going any faster.
It's all relative(!). If you're travelling at .99999c and you turn on a torch, the beam will instantly move ahead of you the same as it would if you were stood still. The reason you don't see it crawl away from you is that time alters depending on your speed, local to you - so the beam still appears to move forward at light speed. To an observer, both you and the beam would appear to be moving at roughly the same speed with the torchlight moving slowly head of you, though.
This is a known phenomenon - two clocks, one in orbit and one on the ground, will not keep the same time as the moving clock's experience of time changes as it moves faster.
It's a bit of a head-bender and no mistake... And don't ask what turning on a torch in Supercruise would look like!
Edit: Bah, Ninja'd
D.