Spacescifi

Reasons to colonize no-man's land when Earth-worlds and FTL warp exist are: 1. Your terraforming is THAT good. 2. Strategic. If at war with Earth, colonizing Proxima Centauri planets is a good base of operations to launch supplies from. 3. Trade operations. Sometimes some systems really do have a surplus of valuable ore. Maybe there are shiny planets with so much gold dust in the dirt that it shines from space.

It does not have unlimited range. It's range is limited by how long it's engine can last before overheating or malfunctioning, something quite possible given the changes in weather tempertature as it travels for miles on end. Even nuclear reactors expire at some point. I will grant you that if the engine is made of sufficiently heat resistant materials that it will outlast all other rockets in the air.

Could not make myself read the entire mini-book of text... but I will try to see if I understand this... feel free to give me the Cliff (short form) notes version. Macrons? ??? Bits of sand shot at high velocity? Ok now it's starting to make sense. So you're saying it can be used on a rocket or as a weapon? The weapon I am less interested in, as just about anything with an engine can turned into a weapon in space. And if I understand it right... you're saying the sand can be shot across space propel spacecraft far away like some kind of propulsion beam? So it is a space only tech I gather? Not good enough thrust for launch to orbit, but orbit space speed is stackable so it's all good?

You make a valid point. With stuff like FTL hyperdrives being cheap enough for interplanetary trade in mere days, they probably are more challenged by massive planetary modifications and add ons. I would hardly be surprised if they had some type of vacuum reaction engine and stuck it on the backs of asteroids and small moons for thrust. Still... the real reason I consider this is basically how to find a way to beat gravity and get massive payloads up without cheating make believe. In space I don't mind making up stuff, as it is required to go anywhere interesting in a reasonable amount of time. But lifting off a planet like Earth can be done several ways, one way among them being an MHD... which strangely enough, if powered via antimatter and it rocket engines too, it could do a air rocket/air MHD combo to orbit. So any somewhat more grounded approach to the challenges of SSTO flight is a composite solution... which in any case will require burning less propellant since the MHD is helping with fligh in tandem with the rockets.

Setting has hyperdrives too... so go figure. Everything is justified by plot needs. But if anyone wishes to utilize SSTO's as common place in scifi it requires stuff we do not have. It is not safe otherwise and thus it's use cannot be justified as common enough to trade with across the starry heavens. Because with only known abilities what have ya got? Project Orion SSTO variants with all the fallout issues, and ludicrously expensive antimatter vessels that would make Kanye and Elon both go bankrupt.

I thought specific impulse was how long propellant lasted? Or is it a measure of how much thrust you can get out of your propellant?

The engine is. And how much atmospheric cooling you get depends on other factors like: How big are your intakes? How heavy is your vessel, as heavier vessels take longer to lift off, which means unless your vessel has a whole lot of intakes on it, it will have the least atmospheric cooling during the initial launch phase. As it speeds through the air it will get more cooling from oncoming air. But for the initial liftoff you should probably use propellant mixed with intake air. There is a certain sweet spot for air intake speed cooling, especially when using antimatter. I You need enough intake air otherwise your engine melts or you must inject cool liquid hydrogen.

This is purely for fun, as it won't affect my plot direction whatsoever. Which of my scifi created humanoid races would you prefer to work with and why? Which would you not want to and why? Based on their behavior only? Race 1: Take a positive view most all the time of situations, but can still adopt a negative view... it just takes considerably more to get them there than it would a human. Usually by the time they get negative a human will be inclined to tell them, "It's about time!" These aliens are mortal and therefore have adopted a negative view of death, but cushion it with the philosophy of dying a better person than they were, or no worse than they feared. They also have longer than human lifespans Race 2: Accept, support, and provide what is true. Everything that cannot be verfied is viewed as speculation or theory. They never assume anything, but still put their trust in others with the understanding that there will be consequences for failure to do as agreed upon via contracts. Contracts are sacred. They can theorize and speculate, but are incapable of lying. Rather than saying I can do this or that, they are more likely to show you awards they have received that can be verfied, or demonstrate their skill if they have the time. Lifespan is shorter than human, about that of a dogs. Which also means their bodies mature faster, but their minds mature at the same rate. So a 3 year old is actually in their late 20's. By the time they reach 16 human years they would be in their 80's. Race 3: Naturally inclined to repay debts owed, and not doing so means they hate you. Lifespan is very long, longer than race 1. Tend to prefer warm environments, since they are cold blooded. Race 4: View optimal physical fitness for one's occupation as the highest virtue. To do otherwise is considered sin. For example sumo wrestlers would be OK, since their job requires it, but anywhere else people that big would likely be frowned on or looked at with contempt. Indeed... that is actually a form of punishment... makng people fat in prison, which means they will work hard to work it off upon release. Lifespan is human. There you go... you may answer. Last

Good point. So an antimatter project pluto air breathing rocketship could work in theory. It is still thermally limited, which means pound for pound,, you can ship more payload via orion style than you could with rocketry of any kind currently known. Big advantages require greater risk. But I also assume the containment chambers are advanced enough to convert the AM back to normal matter... at least if I was making scifi. Making antimatter would be just as easy.

AM bombs beat nuclear bombs since you can scale down farther and still have high yields that equal or even surpass nukes. Rocketry is limited by the thermal limits of the engine walls, which limits the amount of thrust you can achieve with an SSTO. A pusher plate allows for even greater thrust since the reaction is not contained, but outside and pushing the ship away. Thus you do not worry about a melting engine. Even the plate can be protected from ablation damage by spraying it with oil between bomv detonations. AM bombs are an ideal form of orion pusher plate propulsion. Rockets have limits that pusher plates do not... so that is why I propose AM orion drive submarine SSTOs.

This idea is borne from our current understanding of what physics allows for. The SSTO: Imagine a submarine with a nuclear pusher plate at the rear... but with antimatter/matter bombs instead of nukes. It also has propeller engines for underwater propulsion on opposite sidewalls of the rear hull. I have read somewhere that AM bombs actually leave less fallout than fission based bombs (all 'known' nuclear bombs have a fission bomb trigger). Even though their power is greater. Max Payload: 40 tons cargo. Max Crew: 40. Launch scenario: The sub/SSTO leaves a coastal docking port until it is several kilometers from the coast (regulators will have work to do here). Then it releases a bomb, waits for it to sink far down enough for safe detonation, and then the ship rises from the water, nose skyward and emerging partially from the ocean using propellers only. Then it detonates the bomb. The thrust propels the pusher plate sub out of the water, and repeated detonations allow it to make orbit. Landing: Landing by detonating AM bombs is suicide, but landing with belly rocket thrusters using nuclear or AM heated chemical propellant mixed with,an air breathing system most certainly is not. Still... it's gonna land in the ocean. Then propel itself like a sub to the nearest dock, unload, and repeat the entire process. EDIT: Just one example of what we could do if we had working amounts antimatter and a reliable abd safe compact way of storing it. What you would not do... ever: Land on land. Unless you had to. Since the landing is not the problem, as you have propellant alloted for that. Relaunching is, since anything within a few kilometers will be obliterated. The ocean don't care... well PETA might be upset for the fishies... but we will have to ignore their wealthfare to do this... at least whoever is in the blast radius. Since I do not see any company herding out the fishies before launch. You may discuss.

If that is reality, then you can also nearly forget fusion rockets, as the magnetic fields to contain the reaction would be lab facility size anyway. You can also forget any MHD ionocraft drive scaled up for the same reason.

These are the limits of making uber electromagnets as listed below: Increasing current density is limited by Joule heating and increasing the magnetic field strength is limited by the cost, size and weight (as well as technological limitations) of electromagnets and the power available to feed them.[14][15] Cost is only an artificial factor, but the others are serious show stoppers. Why do I even care about magnets? Powerful magnetic fields can be used for many scifi technologies... like rocketry and maybe... just maybe... get a profitable fusion reaction going. One site claims scientists created a solid state electromagnet that can do 90 Tesla, although it will break itseld in time. So I thought... are magnetic fluids possible? Uber magnetic fluids? Does current physics understanding allow for it? Because if so perhaps that is what we will use in the future. Since I really don't know how you would break a super magnetic fluid beyond boiling it. You may discuss. EDIT: Wow.... I suspected as much. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-printed-droplets-of-permanently-magnetic-liquid-and-boy-is-it-trippy/amp

Only if taken to extremes... since such drives expend fuel so their are limits on range without refueling.

Scenario: Three types of scifi hyperdrives are available to you. Class I: A small drive that can be fitted on small vessels. Hyperspace travel time is a lightyear covered per 30 minutes. Yet in reality, outside 30 days passes for every 30 min of hyperspace travel. So about 2 hours would get you to Proxima Centauri, but when you arrive 4 months will have passed. Class II: A medium size drive for medium size vessels neither gigantic nor small. Hyperspace travel is a LY per 15 min, outside 15 days pass per LY traveled. Class III: Large hyperdrives for large vessels. Five min per LY in hyperspace, equal to 5 days passing outside per LY. Throttling down: You can also throttle down the hyperdrives to go lightspeed, in which there is no time variance. Useful mainly for interplanetary cruising. My analysis: Class I hyperdrives are best for explorers I think, and Class II hyperdrives could be used for cheaper shipping for longer wait times, but by and large the Class 3 hyperdrives would reign supreme in shipping. Big ships would be the fastest ever. Did I miss anything that you can add to my analysis? EDIT: I have no clue how close these travel times compare to modern sea shipping, but I have a feeling they are similar, and faster in some cases. EDIT 2: I think the ability to skip several months into the future within a few hours woukd be nice ability to have, if only to see rapid progress. Whoa... I just figured it out! Passenger ride fares would be a healthy source of income. Don't wanna wait months for your package to arrive? Hitch a ride in hyperspace and the wait will only be a few hours. Sure, months of time will pass outside, but who cares? You want your package ASAP!

Grinding on difficult games had more to do with pride for me, though I cannot speak for everyone. Grinding on games I enjoy means they must have goid character interaction Nonetheless, it is an illusory form of success even if and when someone wins. That is why I think games have become unhealthily long. Since unlike activities performed or progressing to 'levels' in real life, video games seldom give players any permanent 'buffs' in real life. At best they are a dopamine temporary happy boost that goes away in seconds. Ideally,I like games that are either intriguing, teach a lesson, or are an adventure. No mattee what they shoukd be short. This is one such game that can be beat in an hour and is intriguing. https://pinheadgames.itch.io/forever-space

The problem is most of that time is spent game grinding nowadays. Grinding JUST to beat the game. The alternative is pay to win instead of grind for days to win.... which is the STO and Star Citizen way apparently. No matter how good a game is though, 8 hours of gaming a week is arguably excessive.... but nowadays that and more is required.... or else you can't beat the game in some cases. For example, one guy did a speed run of No Man's Sky, skipping stuff he could explore just to beat the game. How long did it take him to beat the game? Over 30 hours, so basically almost 2 days! Playing virtually nonstop! That is ridiculous I say. But developers will continue this trend so long they still can...

The games that I am referring to that I admire are the console games of the 90's. The original 2-D Sonic series I think is a prime example of a game that is good that does not take too long to play. Other games of notable mention that had mutiple modes of play were the Star Wars series for the SNES. Unfortunately that series took a long time to actually beat. But it was notable for having 2-D platforming and 3-D flight in one game, albeit was just airplanes in space... but still it was a rare feature for it's time and still is as far as I know. The danger of video games nowadays is the theft of valuable time. I used to play Oolite, which is a modernized clone of the original elite with many upgrades. But I grew to dislike it since it is basically a huge grind. You can spend hours and still not get paid well enough. And even if you enable massive cheats then all you have left to do is kill stuff. As for game redesign in general, I think it would be a simple thing to include mutiple modes of play in a a game, since even old games did it in the past. The Star Trek TNG Sega Genesis game of the 90's (much better than the SNES clone) had RPG elements that allowed you to make choices that had some effect on the player's game. Basically, you had the option to at least talk your way out of starship scuffles, and if you chose to blast away every Romulan Warbird you ever encountered, you would run out of torpedoes sooner or later, your ship would accumulate damage, and you would pay by having to wait for repairs. On top of that, hostile vessels can warp in withput warning and fire on you during repairs... assuming your not orbiting a planet. The game rewards being diplomatic, since then enemies at least give you the choice to talk things out. Be hostile and they will shoot you on sight, no talking at all. The easiest thing to add in any game is a choice tree/rpg element. All it is is still screen pics with choices, which effect what level you go to. Simple. Or beyond that it could effect NPC behavior, which may be a bit harder to implement, but surely doable. Even TNG on the Sega Genesis did that... albeit in a very limited way. Be nice and enemies can be talked out of shooting you. Have a regular pattern of blowing then away on sight and they will start firing on your spaceship on sight. The game even allowed for a single save.

I prefer the games of decades ago to modern ones. Why? Time. In general, games of the past had to respect the gamer's time more because the computers had limited processing and graphics. Remember the days when you went to the video store for cartridges or Playstation CD's to rent and you could beat a game in only an hour's time? I also think graphics are overrated, some of the games I enjoyed most were only 16 bit machine games, but the game mechanics made me like them anyway. Imagine what a game could be if a designer went with 16 bit graphics while using modern computing processing to enhance the game overall? Imagine a space sim like elite dangerous but fully newtonian that did not waste your time needlessly, and had a plot to go with it? You could do it with time acceleraton enabled just fine. One could combine the best of still screen visual adventure novels while combining 2D platformer gameplay, and also 3D newtonian flight for different segments of the game. Some of my favorite games had features similar to this with mutiple nodes of play. You may discuss.

I really like the spaceship in the video. It is highly accurate of what a space freighter coukd look like... with cargo on the exterior. I will base some of my scifi freighters on the design, just rounding off the crew modules more, as well as the cargo pods to be mire cylindral. The Moon... should be more profitable than Mars for a long time coming... especially after we get a rail to orbit launching facility operational. Yes? The kind without humans, but with enough humanoid aliens to sub for them while still behaving differently in fundamental ways.

I think advertisements would be far more important, as would couriers. The supply chain is space traffic, and if you REALLY want to bury the competition then you must divert as much space traffic to your space food empire as possible. How? Several ways. 1. Stronger broadcast signals. 2. Pay courier vessels to intercept and dock with cruiser liners on their way to the competition. For that matter, you could intercept them with entire fleets of fastfood ships. They would not run out of food quickly that way.

Imagine if you will a fastfood company that has conquered so much of Earth that they want to expand their empire into space. Basically... space habitats at la grange points and also moon bases and LEO stations. Provided space traffic was good enough via constant acceleration thermal antimatter rockets, could a ruthless fastfood company conquer space? For example, the founder of mcdonalds drove the original creators of the restaurant out of business by building a mcdonalds right next to the original but renamed restaurant. Could all these shenanigans still happen? Since that implies a supply chain like no other, since last I checked, no cows are on the moon.

Provided that weight was not an issue and we had a torch drive rocket of sorts... could we avoid the fuel intensive artificial gravity method as well as the rotational gravity method by swimming inside pools in the spaceship? I know such is not viable IRL because of weight, but provided my OP scenario could swimming provide enough exercise to keep the body healthy enough while coasting? The good thing about swimming is that it exercises all the muscles, so combined with resistance weights and a breather, the crew could get a more effective workout while coasting. Without the hazards of rotation (it does have them) nor the waste of propellant via 1g acceleration. You may discuss.

The balloon network is tethered to the ground for several reasons... refilling gas among them. Several kilometer long hoses could pump fresh gas as needed. I believe the balloons could be pumped via hoses from a facility on the ground. Beyond that make the balloons of materials that leak the least.... if the balloons can be made to not leak at all make it so. And the balloons must be massive. Still easier than other non-rocket launch assist schemes I have seen... since the weight is so low weight it can actually work... nor does it have to fight the lower atmosphere.

Ouch... that stings.