Jump to content

Spacescifi

Members
  • Content Count

    1,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Spacescifi

  1. So it's a new year, and I know that the only one who can ensure it is better than 2020 is me. So to that end, you won't see me for some time. When or if I do return, it will no longer be to ask scifi questions. Instead I would just post short stories or short multi-choice interactive short story posts. By now, I know enough to do orbital dynamics some justice as well as conservation of energy. Thank you all for your kindness,and answers. And I know I have said I would be gone and have come back within a month. I guess I enjoy the knowledge, and actually writing scifi i
  2. Thanks...I was looking for IRL plot enablers. There are none sufficient enough. So I guess I will use my version of a goauld sarcophagus....only it is a Biological Restoration Unit (BRU). Meaning you step in for your restore point BEFORE launch to space, and when space makes you sick somehow you restore by stepping in again. The price to pay? Memories. You're memories are reset to prelaunch too at the restore point. So crew would need to keep goid journals and records so they are not clueless once they reset. Bonus? Could live forever resetting...at the cost of memory
  3. [snip] It could work, but for Trek it would not fit, since their main engines are in the rear, not the bottom. They would have to flip over and point upright. I also see no glowy lights underneath that would indicate Trek engines. One could attribute the hovering to antigravity, but that too is never mentioned as a factor in Trek
  4. Probably more Brits who view the american use of the word football as the 'llegitimate son' of the the game they love which Americans call soccer. I guess since American English is descended from British english, they are probably right too LOL. Proper english. They should know. Properly. They use that word a LOT more than the USA too.
  5. SEP field? Do you mean structual integrity field like in Star Trek? That is pure fiction. I don't know what a SEP field is. Either way, conservation of energy is still a problem that is not addressed. Who cares about the Kzinti lesson when shuttles that are essentially nukes are landing in populated areas and people drive them around like flying cars? That's FAR more dangerous! All it takes is for one to go off and goodbye starfleet in San Francisco.
  6. You just went probably beyond scifi...since you love hyperbole. That is more or less similar to what Biblical angels did. Standing in fire or going into it unharmed.
  7. Amazingly...still not good. Or rather...too much of a good thing. On an earlier thread of mine I discussed how conservation of energy would make most scifi spaceships flying bombs. And by bombs I mean big ones, all the way up to nuke and beyond. Consider that the amount of energy to hover for hours at a time by sheer thrust, lifting a few thousand tons is...non trivial. In other words, we are talking bomb territory. And it would mean that every single ship they have, shuttles included, is likewise a flying mini nuke. Granted they do not blow up that way in canon,
  8. While I have no need for this, the fact that put yourself out to answer his question...that's impressive to me.
  9. Hmmm...perhaps the scifi answer would be greater atomic control? Like program the atoms of the suit to move to intercept radiation...that seems like too much to ask though. Perhaps mirrors? Gamma ray mirrors would be nice if we had them. I suppose if we had 100% reflective mirrors of EM that would also work...at the expense of slowly cooking the astronaut inside once or if the cooling system died. Neutron mirrors? Probably too much to ask LOL. Would be nice though. Thanks...I wanted to know if there was an IRL alternative. I am quite able and ready to use mak
  10. Answer? I want to say yes...but as you know, the universe is like: "Sure...you can do anything you want...if you are willing to PAY for it and you KNOW what to pay with." By pay the universe usually means mass and energy, and knowledge is required to know what specific combo of mass and energy to use. So what would a 100% proof radiation spacesuit look like? Not unlike this I presume: I know glass helmets are cool for scifi but they are anything but radiation proof. Radiation Proof Requirements: I want 100%. radiation protection, not 50%, and definitely
  11. Nukes of various yields would be needed...especially plenty of low yield ones for rendezvous and docking with other vessels or stations. Might wanna retract solar panels and rad fins on the receiving vessel when the mighty Orion begins blasting to slow down.
  12. Excellent information. Faster ships with significant cargo will be a no go forever until we find a way to overcome or cheat the rocket tyranny of propellant mass. Even antimatter won't help much since unless you plan on burning through plenty of it and making round trips back to AM producing industrial bases to refuel you can forget it. Since there are only a few places where making that stuff in quantity is viable according to research (Saturn orbit around rings) and probably a few more besides Earth. To be honest, even with hyperjump, without some form of medical miracle
  13. I was way off when I said 100 meters. At least a 1000 meters required. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/281/what-would-the-size-and-rotation-of-a-station-need-to-be-to-produce-1g-gravity-f
  14. Interesting thoughts. I was referring to the popular 1g centrifuges, which either require 100 meters of distance on a cable or beam, or a large spaceship to spin. To have 1g without disorientation due to the corolis effect.
  15. So we all know microgravity is bad and is more bad the longer we have to endure it. Initially you will 'liquid' (I know KSP censors biological elimination of fluids) a lot, since your body has smart auto mode and thinks it has WAAY too much fluid since it is in places it normally is'nt now. Your heart will eventually become more ball shaped, your vision will blur due to increased blood pressure, blood will thin to compensate, bone mass is lost...etc more bad stuff. Even a few days in space can present temporary health problems, as Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper discovered after spendin
  16. Yes...highly informative too. For me I started with Scott Manley vids, but later came here. I assume for the ISS that it is put in a rather stable high speed, so as to prevent premature deorbits. Faster orbiters would deorbit faster, but that would take longer than it takes to rendezvous if they do it right. Obviously one would be a fool to orbit a spacestation as close to the atmosphere as possible, so I am sure distance also plays a role, as atmosphere tends to deorbit stuff in flames.
  17. Are you? If so how does your significant other feel about your KSP time?
  18. I assumed there was a range of LEO orbits, otherwise vessels would have a harder time doing rendezvous with the ISS. Plus the game Space War shows as much. You can slow as much as you want, but it will only make you curve hard into the planet. If you have enough thrust you can even stop orbiting and fall straight down. I may not have KSP, but I was aware of extremely low orbits capable on airless bodies like moons.
  19. It would mainly be valuable in a scifi story setting where a ship does not have the delta v to leave orbit and a planet is trying to shoot it down (missiles/lasers). A rescue vessel will attempt to rendezvous with it and then use a jump drive to escape. IRL landing is always an option, and I suppose even in scifi, but if that makes you a fugitive and it is not even your homeworld...
  20. The first one LOL! But yeah....it is easy to forget that rocket exhaust does more damage in vacuum to solar panels since there is no air to slow it down. Thanks for the time tables...the possibilities in scifi could be some sort pf rescue mission without much time (because they are bring shot at).
  21. Obviously this is known. Astronauts take hours to catch up and dock with the ISS. Playing Space War (old gravity space sim) shows that slowing will make a vessel orbit a world faster until it falls right into it. Speeding up will slow orbital speed but also put you on course for deep space or a very high but slow orbit. So to intercept I presume means slowing to below LEO speed, while still not enough to fall into the atmosphere. Or perhaps they launch timed so that the ISS is passing by and they launch in its wake to catch up by lower orbits? What is most cost effecti
  22. In lieu of making a new thread (already have three on one page) I thought it best to post this here: Scifi Alternative To Constant Acceleration: It seems the more I know the more of a headache science gives me when it comes to scifi spaceflight. On the one hand, I find orbital and newtonian dynamics very attractive, even graceful. On the other....the tyranny of the rocket equation is more or less a show stopper for scifi tropes. High thrust constant acceleration drives seem like an attractive solution, but as I discussed in another thread, they would be far to
  23. It is really interesting that the greater part of scifi must be fiction to even justify a large presence of life where it is not supposed to live. It's not even 50% science, 50% fiction. Not even that amount would jusfify a large amount of folks risking their lives with a lower quality of life than they were born with. I suppose the ratio would need to be more like 10% science, 90% fiction, since if space is not made relatively safe, no large amount of folks will go.
  24. Thanks. I was unaware of heart problems. My prior concern was eyesight even though I did not state it. In LEO astronauts lose some visual sharpnesss over time, and the damage STAYS even when they go back to Earth. I want my space miners to have good enough tech to go mine in space, come back to homeworld, and be just like they were before they left. No worse for wear. I thought about going the fictional grav boot root (by increasing the gravity force attraction of whatever it touches), but I thought it good to see if there were any good IRL options first. Seems grav-boots
  25. Premise: Assume excellent lightweight scifi radiation protection is a given. Also assume the moon is a mining base. Dealing With Low Gravity: Since moon gravity is low, would it be reasonable for miners to wear heavy enough metallic or otherwise heavy suits even inside crew cabins just so they can be ALMOST as heavy as they would be on Earth? I dunno...make the suit with heavy lead plating and other dense heavy materials? Color Of Moon Concrete: Provided lunar ice is used to make lunar concrete, what color would it be? White? Or gray still? Are not all concretes naturally a ligh
×
×
  • Create New...