[Retsof]

Now, before we start, no "its a game" replies.
Shouldn't the fighters, which tend to be more aerodynamic, move faster in the nebula, as the engines have something to push on, not just newtons law?  Also, the capships should be slowed down from the drag, as they are anything but aerodynamic.

[Herra Tohtori]

Now, before we start, no "its a game" replies.
Shouldn't the fighters, which tend to be more aerodynamic, move faster in the nebula, as the engines have something to push on, not just newtons law?  Also, the capships should be slowed down from the drag, as they are anything but aerodynamic.

All engines that work on reaction principle have ideal efficiency in vacuum.

That is because external pressure slows down and prevents the exhaust gases from reaching as high velocity as they would in vacuum. Thus, the gases get less momentum, and the rocket gains equally less opposite momentum. Pushing against something doesn't have any effect whatsoever, since the exhaust plume doesn't act like a hovercraft's air cushion against ground.

Regarding the existence of the nebulas in the first place - that's in the "it's a game" department. That kind of nebulas don't exist in space. The thickest gas clouds (apart from gas giants' atmospheres, or stars' thinnest outer layers), there simply isn't that dense gas concentrations in space that they would block the view after less than a kilometre. The gas clouds in space usually are really big and really thin when you get on-location. You would see objects "close" to you about as good as you can see, say, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and Mars from Earth. You wouldn't feel like sailing in strawberry jam.

The question about thrust and speed is valid to think about considering possible atmospheric flight support in some distant future, though.

[Mobius]

1) The plural form of "nabula" is "nebulae";

2) Herra, I think that in dense fields visibility can be poor. Many stars originate from the nebula left from a supernova, the gas concentrates and nuclear reactions start when the temperature has reached a certain value(i.e. density is incredibly high);

[Polpolion]

No, because the nebulas are still very much like a vacuum. A better question would be: "How can gas miners suck in gas from the nebula if the nebula's pressure is so low?"

[Jeff Vader]

1) The plural form of "nabula" is "nebulae";

Actually, both forms are acceptable.

[Mobius]

No, because the nebulas are still very much like a vacuum. A better question would be: "How can gas miners suck in gas from the nebula if the nebula's pressure is so low?"

How can a nebula dense enough to allow the birth of several stars be "very much like a vacuum"?

1) The plural form of "nabula" is "nebulae";

Actually, both forms are acceptable.

[size=8]No![/size][/i]

[castor]

Most nebulae are dense only in the relative way, i.e. compared to the nothingness (whatever that is) of empty space. (something/almost nothing == a lot) 

[Jeff Vader]

No!

noun [C] plural nebulae or nebulas

–noun, plural -lae,  -las.

nebula (plural nebulae or nebulas)

In your face.

[Herra Tohtori]

Plural of nebula can be either nebulae, nebulæ or nebulas, depending of preference.

In English, that is. Dunno about Latin or Italy.


Also, most nebulas are locally pretty much see-through. The exceptions would be planetary nebulae or supernova remnants immediately after the incident - but you wouldn't enjoy flying around those hot zones of gas for a very long time. As demonstrated in FS2 campaign ending. In these cases, it would take months or years for the gas to spread and cool down to the point where it wouldn't emit light itself, at which point it would become pretty much clear locally.

Protostars forming in emission nebulae belong to same category, but the other way round... you wouldn't like the radiation and heat conditions, and you can't really call it a nebula either.

Emissive nebulae might be bright, even locally, but in between the protostars, the matter itself would still not be as thick as the "fog" in FS2 seems to be. Not by a long shot.

[Mobius]

I criticize the English way to bastardize words and create multiple "acceptable forms".

Saying that both "nebulae" and "nebulas" are acceptable forms means that "nebulae" is the most correct and "nebulas" is acceptable only because its use is wide.

Saying "nebulas" is a logic consequence of ignorance. The use of that form became wide="acceptable".

What about the word "Wikipedia"? Most English speaking people misspell the "W" and I don't think there are going to be "two acceptable forms" because "wiki" is an hawaiian word with a certain pronunciation no one is able to change.

Back to the main subject of the discussion...after many years the gas should start comprising thanks to gravity.

[Retsof]

Explanation and more deplorable grammar  :
It was a brain fart, okay?  I knew that the proper plural is "Nebulae" but it's not really something I think about every day.  Also, say, for discussion purposes, that the nebula you fly into in Freespace is unusually dense or something.

[Mobius]

...and I said why it's "unusually dense".

[Flipside]

Remember that when you look at a Nebula, you are seeing something hundreds to thousands of light years in size, from hundreds of thousands of light years away, if nebulas were as dense as, say, water vapour, it would be gravitic and thermal chaos in there, you wouldn't get a few stars like the Pliades, you'd get the stars almost reforming into the proto-giant stars that are believed to be the source of some of the larger ones. The whole entropy thing prevents that from happening.

The Earth is travelling in a massive cloud of interstellar gas, which could, for all we know, look like a nebula from someone in, say, the Crab Nebula, but it's far too thin to show up as anything other than a few measurement errors here on Earth.

[Herra Tohtori]

You can criticize all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you don't really have any authority to define correct spelling of English language. If a form of a word is regularly used and comprehended, it has become part of the language due to cultural and lingual evolution. Languages evolve. It is the way of the Force world. If you want to act the grammar inquisitor, target all the ridiculous forms like "your" instead of "you're" and "cannon" instead of "canon" (the horror!), where the misspellings actually change the meaning of the words...

Back to the main subject of the discussion...after many years the gas should start comprising thanks to gravity.

Not if it gains escape velocity from it's own mass in the explosion. If, for example, you were to shoot a bullet straight up at velocity 11.2 km/s (ignoring the atmospheric friction), it would keep ascending forever, but it's velocity would get closer and closer to zero.

Mathematically, it's velocity would react zero after infinite time, at infinite distance from Earth, but that's neither here nor there (literally as well as metaphorically).

Which, unsurprizingly, it most often does in both nova and supernova types of explosions.

Of course, if there are structures formed into the expanding gas cloud, those can after time form local centers of gravity and compress into new stars.

[Flipside]

Look at it this way, why do you think all the inner planet are rock and metal, and all the outer planets are gas and water? It's to do with mass, everything is spinning, and the lighter materials end up on the outside. When a nebula, particuarly a Supernova-generated one is formed, much of that lighter material can actually be travelling too fast to be pulled back

[Mobius]

You can criticize all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you don't really have any authority to define correct spelling of English language. If a form of a word is regularly used and comprehended, it has become part of the language due to cultural and lingual evolution. Languages evolve. It is the way of the Force world. If you want to act the grammar inquisitor, target all the ridiculous forms like "your" instead of "you're" and "cannon" instead of "canon" (the horror!), where the misspellings actually change the meaning of the words...

That's pretty much what I was about to say. Soon "its" and "your" will become acceptable variants of "it's" and "you're".

Languages evolve but "evolution" doesn't necessarily mean "becoming better".

Not if it gains escape velocity from it's own mass in the explosion. If, for example, you were to shoot a bullet straight up at velocity 11.2 km/s (ignoring the atmospheric friction), it would keep ascending forever, but it's velocity would get closer and closer to zero.

Mathematically, it's velocity would react zero after infinite time, at infinite distance from Earth, but that's neither here nor there (literally as well as metaphorically).

Which, unsurprizingly, it most often does in both nova and supernova types of explosions.

Of course, if there are structures formed into the expanding gas cloud, those can after time form local centers of gravity and compress into new stars.

Yes but we're talking the nebula we see in FS2....wait...is there a sun in that nebula? I think I remember one!

[Retsof]

Look at it this way, why do you think all the inner planet are rock and metal, and all the outer planets are gas and water? It's to do with mass, everything is spinning, and the lighter materials end up on the outside. When a nebula, particuarly a Supernova-generated one is formed, much of that lighter material can actually be travelling too fast to be pulled back

Actually, the solar wind from the young sun blew all the lighter elements away.  The gas giants are too far away to be affected like that.

[jdjtcagle]

Nebula...

Nebulae...

Life goes on, is it really worth the big capital NO!

Spoiler:

please don't pull the big capital yes

[Mobius]

You mean:

Nebulae or Nebulas...this is the problem!

[Unknown Target]

On topic, please?