|
Post by darthroach on May 17, 2017 14:43:12 GMT
If it's the moon Iroquois resurgence occupy in the game, then it's a tongue in cheek reference to a certain high profile sci-fi movie of this decade.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on May 17, 2017 14:16:04 GMT
You mean her? Oh, not her... Wait, was this the moon with Iroquois resurgence? Might be he most subtle reference I've ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 21, 2017 17:20:17 GMT
There is no way it could ever be more economic to ship water to Mars from earth, than just about any other solution - if that's what you meant. As for asteroids and such, sure.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 21, 2017 16:12:47 GMT
1) Engine too hot: the game currently models only melting temperature and constant yield stress for materials as far as I know, so indeed - the effects of temperature on materials are not very accurate. No thermal expansion, no solid state phase transitions, etc. Then again, for most of the materials I don't think it's even possible to obtain this data easily - every mech engineer knows the iron-carbon phase diagram by heart, but for amorphous carbon? Boron Nitride? And so on. At least I think this is the case. Been a long time since I last designed a rocket of my own - stealing forumite designs is so much more efficient 2) Safety margins? What is this, airport tycoon? On a serious note, it depends. Pretty much everything we launch in space is fairly overengineered, particularly anything with people on board. Wartime generally loosens these constraints, but I still doubt anyone would be running gigawatt reactors 0.5k away from meltdown. You'd have to ask actual professionals in each field for what they consider appropriate safety margins. For mechanical stresses, most things are fine in the 1.5-3 range on earth, depending on how much you expect the thing to get knocked around, dropped and abused by 200lb trained gorillas. Space is easier, but I can't say by how much. I wouldn't make anything under 1.25 of max expected load myself. 3) Can we make x chemical thing out of y chemical thing? Short answer - yes, always, since this is a primarily nuclear powered setting, it's always possible from a purely thermodynamic point of view. All you need is the source chemicals and plenty of will to do it.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 21, 2017 15:44:22 GMT
I would not assume this blueprint is exactly to spec, however. Then again, considering how complicated explosive lensing is to begin with, I don't think it takes THAT much more effort to work around a tiny channel for gas. ETA: you might not even have to work around a tube for gas, explosive lenses are made up of fragments: www.okieboat.com/Copyright%20images/explosive%20lens%20assembly%201024%20C.jpgJust pluck one out, fill some baloon-type internal structure with gas, put it back in. But considering the fact that the Teller-Ulam device seems to hold concentric spheres and forcefields are still largely science fiction, I don't think stuff like baffles and struts hinders nuke design much.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 21, 2017 12:37:34 GMT
Y...you know what a gray goo is, right...? ...mostly fantasy. There are some hard thermodynamic limits on how quickly a gray goo can reproduce and how effective it can be at using the environment. If you want a good example of real life gray goo, look in the mirror. Life is gray goo.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 21, 2017 12:34:03 GMT
There is a recent news about a newly-discovered planet LHS 1140b. It is said to be one of the best place to look for alien life. From Wikipedia (20 Apr 2017): Any thoughts? I honestly don't understand why people care so much besides clickbait. By the time we can reach other solar systems, we don't really need planets to live on anymore. Sure, we might find life and it would be exciting, but we aren't going to find intelligent life barring an extremely improbable coincidence - due to the Fermi paradox.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 19, 2017 12:57:03 GMT
You don't need a really large mirror, you can make do with millions of smaller mirrors. If you have a perfect dyson swarm, all you have to do is make everything with mirrors on one side of the star shine the reflection toward a single point in the sky, and you have a laser with half the power of the star. It's a bit more complicated than this because there will realistically always be overlap and losses and such, but it's perfectly possible without needing gigantic mirrors. Maybe, but i just doubt if human need all these thing before the sun dead/too large to make earth and mars unhabitable... It's an exponential growth process. It would take about a decade to build the first permanent infrastructure in orbit - l5 shipyard and habitat is an often discussed example - but as you have one, you can build another, and then another and so on. Each new habitat makes it easier to build new ships, factories and habitats. Some estimates I've seen claim it's doable before the end of the millenium, starting tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 19, 2017 10:25:05 GMT
This is military situation I think we all know what an actual military necessity would create... i.imgur.com/Nfnu0YL.png
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 19, 2017 9:21:50 GMT
You could also use Nicoll-Dyson beams. If relativity-compliant wormholes can be created (something not forbidden by known physics, though it's not the same than it being possible), here is an example of non-Kardashev levels: http :// panoptesv. com/RPGs/Settings/VergeWorlds/TheVerge. php Note the part about causality warfare You meanĀ this stuff? Well it will requirement a huge amount of power and really large mirror (Maybe around ~thousands km wide) and prefect aiming system... You don't need a really large mirror, you can make do with millions of smaller mirrors. If you have a perfect dyson swarm, all you have to do is make everything with mirrors on one side of the star shine the reflection toward a single point in the sky, and you have a laser with half the power of the star. It's a bit more complicated than this because there will realistically always be overlap and losses and such, but it's perfectly possible without needing gigantic mirrors.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 3, 2017 2:21:40 GMT
Speak for yourself, matey they had to evacuate a city in ukraine because of a nuclear... issue They certainly evacuated it, but did they have to? Hundreds of people still live in the exclusion zone, and the powerplant itself only shut down 10 years after the meltdown. Don't get me wrong, radiation can be incredibly dangerous, but it is also far, far less deadly than the average person thinks. As someone from the former USSR, I can absolutely guarantee you that the plant having a meltdown in the first place, as well as the fatalities caused by the cleanup were 100% down to bureaucratic incompetence and complete disregard for human life, not inherent dangers of nuclear energy.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 3, 2017 2:06:37 GMT
you also don't want nuclear anywhere near cities Speak for yourself, matey
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Apr 3, 2017 2:00:36 GMT
Have fun figuring out how to turn a theoretical fusion reactor into a hypothetical propulsion system. Are there even any proposals or papers on fusion propulsion? It's probably the single most written-about theoretical form of propulsion. And it may just arrive before fusion power generation, since it's actually not too hard to make fusion happen with an external energy source. The difficult part is exctracting the energy to use as electricity. NASA has actually funded a team which is building one right now (not much news lately, sadly): Fusion Driven Rocket (warning, PDF)It uses magnets to collapse a bunch of lithium rings around a packet of plasma - aka a mini fusion bomb without the fission stage. The energy input is through capacitor banks. They are trying to sell it with solar, which is not going to work - but if someone stuck a decent fission reactor in there it would probably work.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 18, 2017 22:10:20 GMT
I understand how jamming/distraction/decoys work. So do the people designing drone guidance systems. The amount of jamming that can be done is massively limited by having the drones rely on tight beam maser/laser communications, giving them reasonable amounts of autonomy, and linking the data from as many tracking sensors as possible to prevent any single missile/drone being fooled by flashing a laser at its FLIR. Being in space removes a lot of the complications faced by guidance systems on earth, too. Honestly, it's hard for me to tell you how to defeat a hypothetical space based weapons platform using magic for communications. There are theories, but any theory you and I have will either not matter, or be defended against, as they were easy enough cases that we came up with them. The other half would be the ones that were beyond the current tech to solve. And I really don't understand the techbase these drones run on. I don't know how autonomous they are, how reliant on links they are, how they sense/communicate. So basically, with my understanding of CoaDE is that communications are magic, and sensors are magic. Directional communications are literally as simple as occluding the enemy fleet to your receiver. Instead of thinking about how to jam the drones' comms, how about investing the time and effort into means of destroying them? You could do things like shoot out nukes and detonate them in off positions to blind optical receivers, for example, but at that point you might as well explode the nukes close enough to knock things out too. Impairing enemy communications is always going to be a factor, but it's not significant in the tactical stages of battle.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 18, 2017 21:42:10 GMT
We do today though. Aircraft carry flares to confuse heat seekers and chaff to confuse radar based systems. EW methods attempt to swamp out control links. Not all attacks are based in software Taking control isn't need when denial/confusion is enough. I understand how jamming/distraction/decoys work. So do the people designing drone guidance systems. The amount of jamming that can be done is massively limited by having the drones rely on tight beam maser/laser communications, giving them reasonable amounts of autonomy, and linking the data from as many tracking sensors as possible to prevent any single missile/drone being fooled by flashing a laser at its FLIR. Being in space removes a lot of the complications faced by guidance systems on earth, too.
|
|