Spacescifi

Thanks. The energy required seems like it would be more efficiently powered with an antimatter/matter reactor. A nuke reactor may take too long to generate the desired energy levels. Or perhaps not, at any rate it may not be possible to power it unless the energy powering it is more than the amount of energy that is being absorbed by the solid that the device is strengthening. So a nuclear reactor might be able to strengthen a rocket nozzle to survive the heat of over 7000 kelvin metallic hydrogen exhaust. But it would take hours to build up that amount of force I imagine using nuclear reactors. With antimatter it would not take near as long.

Huh? How heavy will the equipment be? Say I want to process a ton of ice every four hours? Is that asking for too much? In that the equipment would be so heavy I could only deorbit it in separate modules and launch it via staging onlly? Also what equipment to process ore into metals. I know centrifuges are great, but dealing with molten metal in orbit will be... interesting. Radiators and centrifuges here we come!

Wow. I have newfound respect for Troi. In that single minute she seemed smarter than all the other Trek ladies I know of combined. I thought she was just a lady in a catsuit, but in scenes like this I like her far more than T'pol or Seven, who both acted so arrogrant it was disturbing. Troi makes you doubt without any arrogance at all. I would prefer Troi as a teacher over Seven or T'pol anyday. That is besides the fact that T'pol would get fired as soon as she reaches Pon Farr season.

For most scifi humanoid aliens it would work. As for the others, they are usually rarer in scifi anyway. And if they did not use speech? The person sent would still learn how to communice after two years and pass that knowledge on. Sign language. I hope they have eyes and fingers for sign language.

Ah, the alien/human language barrier. Scifi often deals with it via a contrived universal translator but there is another way that is risky but effective. I looked up on Cortez and the Aztecs and learned that he rescued spainards who had been sent as missionaries and were held as slaves by the natives. These spaniards learned the native language, and in turn taught at least one native woman spanish, who ended up serving as Cortez' translator. So if fictional aliens wanna translate all they need is a reentry pod with a parachute and either an alien slave or volunteer. Maximize your chances by sending two or three to various regions with local sentient populations. Leave them there for two years. Return and take back your agent if still alive. Then use them as teachers/translators, or even as programmers for a universal translator communicator. Done. Thoughts?

I am still waiting for my Orion nuclear pusher plate launch movie. Because the premise is just too good not to. The USA decides to make Orion instead of mothball it, and your average movie goer will finally understands the true power of nukes and thrust to weight ratios. Really the public in general would be massively educated, and that just may be what it takes to get public/popular support for it. Just get a bunch of hot 20 somethings to play the astronauts and suddenly everybody will want project orion to happen IRL.

If we had a machine that could increase the strength of the strong force (holds atoms together), could we power it with a nuclear reactor? Or would it require massive amounts of electricty that an antimatter/matter reactor could give but we do not have it? I guess I am asking just how much energy it takes for an atom to hold itself together, since I will use that as a gauge to figure how much energy is needed to increase it. Applications? Rocket nozzles and nuclear reactors that won't melt while propellant is superheated. Thus nuclear SSTO's would possible with s higher TW ratio.

Acknowledged, but you still need processing equipment to extract fuel from the ice/rock, unless you have significant amounts of antimatter available to mix wiith it. My question is, what kind of machinery/processing equipment must future spaceships take with them if they plan on processing and refining space rocks, ices, and gases?

So lately methane is popular as a rocket fuel, but when and if we get a much larger space fleet plying the solar system, what will be the most likely fuel source we go after on other worlds? Furthermore what kind of processing equipment does one need on a spaceship to process their own fuel from space rock/dirt/ice. Namely to separate elements to get water or specific gases? Is such processing equipment large and heavy and taking up a lotta space on a spaceship? If so ships would have to specialize roles. Is gas giant skimmed gas easier to process into liquid fuel than space rock or space dirt? Here is what I surmise: Moon: Ground zero for fuel exploitation. Mars: It should not be ground zero for resource exploitation as far as I am concerned. Too far. Maybe later. But resources could definitely be taken here. Venus: Haha.... okay seriously, this is like a maybe if you get some airships to skim the upper atmosphere and somehow stage rocket or orion pusher plate gas back to orbit to transfer gases to the orbiting spaceship. Orion pusher plate shuttles with belly lander rockets and a tail pusher plate. Sounds crazy but could actually avoid the need for staging due to the high thrust to weigh ratio of a nuclear pulse unit vs tanks of liquid fuel,and any ship can carry dozens or hundreds of pulse bombs. All gas planets: Ditto. Your thoughts?

Personally I find reading Mcdonalds Yelp reviews entertaining. For fun, I want you to write a fictional yelp review for a mcdonalds run by Klingons. Use some real yelp reviews for inspiration: I come here coz it's close to home and since I dislike cooking, this is my go to. Mind you, there is a myriad of fast foods in the same area, but if I want a burger I come here because they say that the meat is cooked to order. But sometimes that's not always true. You can tell it's not freshly cooked if after you pay at window 1, and pick up your order within 2 minutes at window 2. And do you want fresh french fries from mc d's? Order them with no salt. You can always ask for salt on the side if you really need it. Just add some uniquely Klingon scenarios to make the yelp review actually stick. Have fun and humor!

You made my day with that comment. Brought a smile to my face. On the verge of laughing. Would work though. Though if I did this without informing anyone why or without consent... that would be like a trainwreck waiting to happen. Entertaining for others to watch, but not as much for me who would get plenty of stares and hate.

Surely you have heard that art imitates life and life imitates art? That is why this is in the science forum, to see how we could use real science to imitate the Trek experience. Realy even average car accelerations are good enough, as my back never is sucked back at 1g while driving, so it must be less than 1g acceleration.

Never enough propelkant for constant 1g, nor am I allowing exotics like antimatter here. Thus the rear engines.

What kind of rocket would give g-force low enough that you could sit in the chair comfortably without being pulled back a full 1g in orbit? If your rocket engines were at the rear like Trek? A methane NTR? Or just about anything? Ion won't do I already know. I say this because I have sat with my chair on the ground. It hurts. So bad idea. If you want a Trek experience with engines at the rear and you don't want to change your chairs to standing roller coaster seats, you need an acceleration lower than 1g.

Wow. Looks like we are getting serious here. Well... humans DO like stuff to go boom! I certainly do, although I would be happier with a high ascent.

Some claim that war is a necessary evil because it serves their evolutionary belief system and also advances technology. Fictionally the B5 shadows are famous for this, although there are IRL people who agree with them on some level. I really do not agree with the shadows though, and given their unwillingness to change their minds or destructive methods, I think the B5 universe would be better off if someone put them down permanently, since they are essentially like rabid dogs who won't stop attacking people. Though in canon they just leave the galaxy. As a counterpoint to the shadow idealogy, consider this, how fast technology would advance in a peaceful civilization without any wars. While impossible for us to achieve, I think that their level of tech would be higher than ours. Why? War is not the only motivator for technological development, and war actually can and does hinder technological developments at times due to all the death and destruction of minds involved that could be creating instead of destroying. It is easier to destroy than it is to build, so the less focused on killing a civilization is on killing each other, the more constructive they can be with other tech pursuits. For example, if humans were peaceful, we could already have project Orion up and running. The reason we have hindered it for decades? Humans kill humans.

Thanks. Currently I use a wine cork on for the cap, put on just so that the pressure builds for it to blast off. I use baking soda wrapped tightly inside a paper towel to delay immediate reaction so I can quickly place the cork on the cap hole. I was thinking though... what if I prick the bottle with a needle, insert a basket ball air needle, and start pressurizing the bottle with the wine cork fitted on tight. As I build more and more pressure either the bottle will explode or launch. The baking soda would have plenty of time to react here too. Good or potentially injurous idea? Same question to you.

I have a bicycle air pump, but I really am not sure how put compressed air into a 2 litre bottle without reenginering it with pressure valves. Unless that is what you're suggesting...

So for those of you that have tried it, you know you can make a rocket out of a 2 litre soda bottle with vinegar and baking soda. My question is, what if you want an even more powerful rocket? No I am not suggesting gasoline, but just household chemicals. Would adding hydrogen peroxide or rubbing alcohol to rhe mix increase the thrust to weight ratio? I want a rocket that can go higher than the 20 feet I reach with vinegar and baking soda. Thank you all you chemisty people in advance. I plan to really launch these things for fun, so please do not guve a mux of chemicals that might literally blow up in my face and injure me. Thank you.

What if I used methane hydrate powder ALONG with LOX, mix it and burn it with a NTR? Is this really good for launching as opposed to the tough to handle LH/LOX mix? Could this even serve as a substitute launch vehicle? Thanks for the chemistry knowledge. I find it fascinating that the chemical fuel to a large degree decides how good your rocket engine is, with nuclear thermal reactors only enhancing it to a specific degree. I also like that that everything hss a cost. It's like a game with clearly defined rules which can still be tweaked. High thrust equals short rocket burn, but long burn means low thrust. Anything different involves so much heat that it becones another engibeering issue to be solved.

Ironically, inflatable reentry pods with balloons would be another boon. Basically kind of like inflatable lifeboats... just more futuristic. Making them survive reentry would be a challenge to design an inflatable that won't burn up, but it would save on volume. Which is a limited resource on any realistic spaceship. From what I have read, liquid methane requires passive cooling, but. LOX requires active cooling for longer than a week missions. I have a question. If I wanted to go cheaper, can I not just make a methane powder (as metallic methane development is not cheap) and burn it with a NTR? No cryogenics required, or minimal ones at that? Or is their some innate benefit to using chemical over powdered methane and an NTR in orbit? Granted, for landing or take-off use LOX and liquid methane, but in space I do not know why powdered methane and a nuclear thermal rocket cannot work. Powdered methane is also being developed I read. https://www.hydrogenappliances.com/methane.html

Haha, goat haggis. One day I might try it.

True. I will add another: Guns vs laser pistols. Styro Pyro always wears eye protection, because even laser reflecting off the target or a wall can damage vision. Guns are lethal enough and won't hurt the user like a laser might. Plasma or particle beam pistols are also dangerous for users. Last I checked, plasma welders wear eye protection to protect their eyes. Also if the plasma coming out is hot enough to burn through a wall, it's hot enough to burn the guy firing the pistol. Heat is omnidirectional in the air and does not care about the guy shooting it. Particle beam pistols would likely not only require eye protection but radiation suits, since particle beams leave behind radiation that can give the person firing them cancer. Riker would very much need 23rd century tech to not go blind or get cancer as much as he fires his phaser particle beam pistol.

My solution would be liquid methane inflatable bladders with liquid oxygen. For deep space missions I would add more more inflated bladders to it while in orbit. It will basically look like a rocket with a bunch of balloons strapped to the side walls. Before the mission, I would send up a nuclear reactor, install it on the ship in orbit, and use NTR LOX/methane propelled rocketry for orbit to orbit transfer. If I wanna land I would just have to use smaller shuttles or pods. Actually, ot made me think of a ship composed of tons of pods fitted together that can detach, like the Suliban helix composed of many pids joined together. In real life each could be equpped with a parachute and landing thrusters so that gradually, the whole ship could land. Taking off again is not happening though, as it likely took several launches to assemble the thing.

It is ironic when real equipment can rival or even be better than scifi equipment for a ship. A list I will start and you may add to if you wish. Robotic arms vs tractor beams: Personally, if I want to grab an asteroid that has less mass than my ship, I would rather grab it with a foldable robotic arm. It would be cheaper to make and should cost less in waste heat and energy to operate than a kind of energy/plasma based towing beam often depicted in media scifi. Even if an asteroid was more massive than my ship, I would rather land and make an imporr/export base out of it, or perhaps a spaceship, as I slowly burn off rock as reaction mass. Your turn! What modern spacecraft equipment rivals or is even superior in someway to scifi starship equipment.