Spacescifi

Ya know, I tend to look at the logical application of any scifi technology in practice, and the results often surprise me, because it can be used in novel ways the source material does not use it. For example if a deflector shield worked in that manner, by spreading mass around and off to the sides away from it, then why not modify it for air flight? Seems to me that if you can deflect air behind you fast enough then all done is turn your massive shield bubble into a massive air propeller for flight. Am I right or did I just fail in my understanding of air flight physics for the upteenth time lol? If this works it will stall past a certain high altitude, but that's not really a problem since that is what rockets and external pulse propulsion drives are for as alternatives when air is thin or non-existent.

Elephants on average run faster than we do though lol. You would not want to get chased by an elephant, since at my best I was doing 12 mph and elephants can reach 15 mph I read. Running on the toes helps in that regard since for an elephant they can easily go into sprint mode, much how human runners bolt off on their toes at the start of a race. I guess push ups on the ground would be impossible or so awkward they would nit bother, since unlike us their feet would not bend like ours... or would it. Do elephant feet bend? Oops! They can! https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080822083211.htm

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiLtN2-2quLAxUhJkQIHSVAOIkQFnoECC8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fpics%2Fcomments%2F9wpp3g%2Felephant_foot_compared_with_human_foot%2F&usg=AOvVaw2Jzb8E20xOkMHA7LalakiT&opi=89978449 Amazingly, the bones look much like our own, just the outside is different. If a humanoid has elephant feet could they do all the same movements we do? Keep in mind they would be walking on their toes all the time as their feet bones would be tilted so only the toe bones were hitting the ground and the rest is just sole padding. Thoughts?

What? Are you saying you NEVER saw the full Babylon 5 series before? If so you really are in for a treat. It in my opinion is better than DS9 and Star Gate and all Star Trek shows after the original combined. Unlike Trek, the show does NOT pull it's punches. Consequences matter, and the effects follow characters afterward.

DC comic universe literally has had government sponsored and and created superheroes (and I don't mean justice league) made specifically to counter hero teams, and worse yet they have been known to go rogue. A nuclear powered car crashing would be mild compared to the latest superhero versus villain or superpowered goverment agent fight in the city (some are kryptonian level powerful). This happened quite a bit during the New Krypton story arc which was a massive crossover of multiple comicbooks and characters interconnected. Was like a nice ode to the DC universe of that era.

My headcanon says he uses two nuclear reactors for an electric engine lol. With some convential fuel to burn for extra speed.

Yep... Star Trek taught me wrong. Just cause a warp core can power everything does not mean a super duper nuclear rocket also can efficiently.

The way you put it so politely and nonchalantly even though I know you are being deadly serious as the moderator made me want to laugh. Why oh why do so many of my threads tend to get locked EVEN when I never intend from them to touch sensitive issues it almost always goes there lol? And I am not referring to the several times when I actually did broach sensitive issues when I should not have... thanks for putting up with me by the way : )

How do you keep the plate from going KA-BOOM?

So no advangtages of power generation over other methods? I was thinking it might produce power at a faster rate for a given period of time than other methods minus energy lost to heat that is not converted to power production somehow.

An easy way is to use the exhaust to push turbines and shelter the powerplant with enough mass to contain the radiation. Meanwhile a steady stream of uranium salts and water is pumped into the facility until you wish to pause it Or are nuclear reactors already better for power generation? Does using NSWR technology modified as a powerplant on Earth offer any advangtages over nuclear reactors, coal, and oil/gasoline as a power source. There are likely better ways to modify NSWR technology to be a powerplant, but I am counting on the forum to reveal that. Thoughts? Thanks.

An easy way is to use the exhaust to push turbines and shelter the powerplant with enough mass to contain the radiation. Meanwhile a steady stream of uranium salts and water is pumped into the facility until you wish to pause it Or are nuclear reactors already better for power generation? Does using NSWR technology modified as a powerplant on Earth offer any advangtages over nuclear reactors, coal, and oil/gasoline as a power source. There are likely better ways to modify NSWR technology to be a powerplant, but I am counting on the forum to reveal that. Thoughts? Thanks. Ooops I meant to put in science forum.

According to google AI: AI Overview +2 Does the sun rotate clockwise? Science of solar rotation | Space No, the Sun does not rotate clockwise; it rotates counterclockwise when viewed from the North Pole, meaning it spins from west to east, like most other planets in our solar system. Explanation: This counterclockwise rotation is a result of the initial spinning motion of the gas and dust cloud that formed our solar system. Key points about the Sun's rotation: Direction: Counterclockwise Reason for this direction: Conservation of angular momentum from the collapsing gas cloud that formed the solar system. Me: Basically it's the whole action/reaction thing happening. Cause and effect.

That's true, but I guess what I am saying is the modern offerings are inferior to the past because characters act so. .. well less Star Trek like? Unprofessional? Immature? It's ike they took Gene Roddenberry's utopia dream and said "Nah man... that's not dramatic or grungy like the future we want." Star Trek was not Disney's Marvel or Star Wars.. it was more... intellectual among other things besides being allegorical. Today's trek is often shallow or just on the nose.

I had no idea Harlan Eliison helped inspire B5, which is truly the greatest space opera series I had ever watched. As for my suspension of disbelief, that really is not a problem for me... I just have fun analyzing and learning what happens when brutal real physics collide with fiction and more often than not it seems, real physics wins out. I also agree current Trek is mostly... dreck. Although a parody, I have heard that even Lower Decks is at leaat closer to classic Star Trek than the abominations that shall not be named full of gore, crying, and political pandering. But beyond that I also entertainment at large is at risk of lower quality im the future because the bew generation is the stuck on their phone use AI generation. Some will rise above and prosper as usual, but it will be all too easy for the rest to wallow and promote flashy content that caters to polarizing views.

Well the thing about Star Trek is that yields onscreen rarely match what is shown because special effects cost money that the studio did not want to spend for one reason or another. I remember a DS9 episode where Jake and Bashir were running accross a field on a planet the klingons were attacking. Suddenly they began bombarding the planet... but all I saw was two guys running across a grassy field with smoke bombs blowing up here and there. Babylon 5 did a far better job at depicting the power scale of weapons and scifi technology even though they relied heavily on computer animation to do it which some say looks outdated today but I say still looks cooler than tiny smoke bombs. But I digress... the thing about Star Trek vessels is they have shields within shields as it were. A starfleet vessel has an intergrity field that holds the hull together under the strain of warp or flying into the sun lol etc, so it won't tear apart like any normal mass should. Contrast that with lower tech scifi trek races that get beat silly. I remember that TNG episode where the crew had memory loss and was tricked into fighting a war against a less advanced race. A phaser zap or two blew up an enemy warship, and their spacebase worf pointed out could be totally destroyed with a single photon torpedo. So you can chalk up the Reliant and Enterprise taking torpedoes to the bare hull either or both because of plot and trek scifi tech.

True but in Star Trek they have photon torpedos (antimatter missiles) and worse (quantum torpedos.... whatever that means), both of which could have enough force to transfer momentum well. So without inertial dampeners they would be worse off even if shields held.

I was about to mention hyperspace, subspace, or exospace drives, none of which travel through normal space, but you specified real space so good on you. For very short periods high g force is survivable. Stlll I would not recommend warping near the sun at light speed, as it is 3 light seconds wide (I think) and the surface gravity is 27g. So anything near that would be injurious or even lethal.

Wow. So I guess even if the scifi starship was 500 tons dodging would still be prudent... if possible. Otherwise she should sit down and put on a seatbelt while riding out the whiplash. Ouch... survived but still hurts.

Scenario: We have a scifi starship (which has a mass of 350 tons) that has surrounded itself with a scifi halo bubble like shield (halo boundary is visible but all else inside is clear and transparent as if the shield was not there even though it is). The starship is hovering in the sky on Earth and an Earth attack aircraft launches a modern USA tactical nuclear missile at it. Upon impact the air around the ship goes up in flames briefly before becoming shockwave shaped clouds. When the clouds clear up a bit the starship is shown to be floating backwards some distance from the sheer inertia of being hit by a nuclear air blast. Shield is still up because it held. Factors to consider: It is common in Star Trek for scifi Captains (especially Picard) to stand around and talk on the bridge (the starship control/command room). The difference here is this starship does NOT have scifi inertial dampeners. Which means inertia will be in play when the nuke impacts their shields. The Captain is standing in front of the view screen while scoffing at the incoming missile inbetween taking sips from his coffee mug, He has no idea it's a nuke. The ship, the crew, and it's Captain are facing a head on collision with a nuclear tipped missile. What happens when it hits? My guess is he gets thrown into the view screen and spills coffee all over the carpet. The crew get thrown to the ground if not holding on to anything. Few if any die but there are some injuries. Edit: Or maybe the inertia push from the nuclear blast would not be so bad? After all the starship weighs 350 tons, so although the nuke will provide some push via the blast, it may not be enough to impress the Captain. At most maybe spill his coffee and that's it lol? Or not? Your thoughts?

Maybe?

Yep... conductive linear plasma beam is how the electric shock would transfer. So grounding from the beam itself is not an issue... you point where you want it to shoot and it like magic does... just like Trek phasers. As for grounded armor... that could be beaten by ratcheting up the gun to max power. The burn through an inch of steel every half second setting. And given that it can be fired 100 seconds before the gun's powerbank's drain, armor won't save anyone wearing it. You could destroy a tank with relative ease with it... only problem would be dodging return fire as a bright beam coming from you tells everyone where to focus their fire. And yes they would be common enough weapons used by professionals. So civilians would not have access generally. The real area the gun gives advantages is against less scifi advanced civilizations... like us. All you would have to do is sweep your beam at the max setting accross the battlefield and you could literally cut down entire modern army squads at once. Granted... armor could mitigate this some, but the damage alone would mission kill a lot of military equipment in the process, to say nothing of all the casualties regardless if they survived.

Thanks for the reply. My long repeat post may have obcured it, but the scifi gun is a linear plasma beam (called lightning because it's the same effect until you go max power and start cutting through an inch of steel every half second). I see the linear atmospheric plasma (LAP) gun being useful when starship crew are low on or lack ammo. I know you prefer a gun that won't endanger you, but would you still prefer a normal gun if the LAP pistol provides you with 100 seconds of shooting non-stop before the powerbank drains? Also the LAP pistol would have no kickback since it merely ionizes a linear beam path of plasma 2 kilometers out in the air or less if the target is closer. Meaning aiming us simpler. Air fighters or shuttles would likely love the LAP gun. But I agree on the ground it is more problematic. I guess the crew of the enterprise would be brought up on war crimes for blinding so many aliens from their phasers lol.

Sorry I tried to edit this and ended up recopying most of it more than once.

I like seeing them in scifi, I grew up watching them. But once I understood the physics and the real risks that come with them, it kind of made them less cool and more like a looks cool but ultimately bad idea. Why? Scenario: Let's say we have a scifi lightning beam pistol gun. It fires a straight beam of lightning (by ionizing a linear path through the air with a pull of the trigger, no laser involved and don't ask how it's scifi lol) up to 2 kilometers long. At the end of the beam it scatters by spreading out into normal crinkled lighting bolts, Much the same way lighting spreads out and diverges at it's end in the sky. What can it do? Two things. It can stun someone via shock (star trek style), kill via electric shock, or cut through an inch of steel every half second at it's maximum setting, Main Concerns: I am aware flash blindness is an issue when it comes to high intensity light, whether temporary blurred vision or even permanent damage. Main Questions: 1. Would a linear lighting bolt fired from the scifi pistol that is powerful enough to stun a 180 pound man unconscious also be so bright that it would cause flash blindness to any onlookers without eye protection? If so, what would eye protection look like for the shooter? Goggles probably. Since shades have open spaces and unfiltered light can get through, what you want is full coverage protection to block flash blindness. At a distance this is less of a problem for onlookers, as many if not all of us have seen lightning without any harm to our vision whatsoever. 2. Would a linear lightning bolt powerful enough to actually kill a 180 pound man via electrical shock also cause flash blindness? My guess is that it would be nearly equal to the effect of a stun level beam, since there is not a huge difference in power between the level electrical power required to stun unconscious as opposed to the level required to kill. 3. Would the linear lightning beam's max setting which cuts through an inch ofsteel every half second be bright enough to cause flash blindness or even permanent eye damage to onlookers? I think so, most definitely. Because even real life lighning bolts do not concentrate enough energy to do that but the linear lightning beam pistol would. Again distance would factor in, but the shooter would either need to wear protective goggles or shoot with eyes closed lol. Conclusion: The appeal of beam pistols in scifi is not only how awesome they look but also their utility. No need to carry a bunch of heavy ammo around and having the option to stun from far distance rather than only having killing as an option. I still like scifi I like seeing them in scifi, I grew up watching them. But once I understood the physics and the real risks that come with them, it kind of made them less cool and more like a looks cool but ultimately bad idea. Why? Scenario: Let's say we have a scifi lightning beam pistol gun. It fires a straight beam of lightning (by ionizing a linear path through the air with a pull of the trigger, no laser involved and don't ask how it's scifi lol) up to 2 kilometers long. At the end of the beam it scatters by spreading out into normal crinkled lighting bolts, Much the same way lighting spreads out and diverges at it's end in the sky. What can it do? Two things. It can stun someone via shock (star trek style), kill via electric shock, or cut through an inch of steel every half second at it's maximum setting, Main Concerns: I am aware flash blindness is an issue when it comes to high intensity light, whether temporary blurred vision or even permanent damage. Main Questions: 1. Would a linear lighting bolt fired from the scifi pistol that is powerful enough to stun a 180 pound man unconscious also be so bright that it would cause flash blindness to any onlookers without eye protection? If so, what would eye protection look like for the shooter? Goggles probably. Since shades have open spaces and unfiltered light can get through, what you want is full coverage protection to block flash blindness. At a distance this is less of a problem for onlookers, as many if not all of us have seen lightning without any harm to our vision whatsoever. 2. Would a linear lightning bolt powerful enough to actually kill a 180 pound man via electrical shock also cause flash blindness? My guess is that it would be nearly equal to the effect of a stun level beam, since there is not a huge difference in power between the level electrical power required to stun unconscious as opposed to the level required to kill. 3. Would the linear lightning beam's max setting which cuts through an inch ofsteel every half second be bright enough to cause flash blindness or even permanent eye damage to onlookers? I think so, most definitely. Because even real life lighning bolts do not concentrate enough energy to do that but the linear lightning beam pistol would. Again distance would factor in, but the shooter would either need to wear protective goggles or shoot with eyes closed lol. Conclusion: The appeal of beam pistols in scifi is not only how awesome they look but also their utility. No need to carry a bunch of heavy ammo around and having the option to stun from far distance rather than only having killing as an option. I still like scifi beam pistols, but if I were to use them in scifi, they would be restricted to professionals. The public would be taught not to look directly at linear lightning beams as well as be allowed to buy protective goggles at an affordable price. So instead of everybody and their mom packing heat via scifi DEW pistols, everybody and their mom would be sporting DEW eye protective goggles lol. Likely ones with straps that could easily be strapped to the top of the head when there is no immediate need to use them. So ultimately you can still use them in a setting, but to respect the real dangers they pose the user and onlookers have to live and act in a way that shows they know them. Because if scifi taught me anything it is that the future is bright. Too darn bright in fact.