

Spacescifi
Members-
Posts
2,434 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Spacescifi
-
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.
-
For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread
Spacescifi replied to Skyler4856's topic in Science & Spaceflight
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!
-
Building a rocket for a Star Trek experience
Spacescifi replied to Spacescifi's topic in Science & Spaceflight
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. -
Building a rocket for a Star Trek experience
Spacescifi replied to Spacescifi's topic in Science & Spaceflight
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. -
Building a rocket for a Star Trek experience
Spacescifi replied to Spacescifi's topic in Science & Spaceflight
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.
-
Buiding a more EPIC baking soda rocket
Spacescifi replied to Spacescifi's topic in Science & Spaceflight
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.
-
Buiding a more EPIC baking soda rocket
Spacescifi replied to Spacescifi's topic in Science & Spaceflight
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. -
Buiding a more EPIC baking soda rocket
Spacescifi replied to Spacescifi's topic in Science & Spaceflight
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.
-
Realistic starship equipment vs scifi equipment
Spacescifi replied to Spacescifi's topic in Science & Spaceflight
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.
-
Depends on how advanced propulsion systems or transport methods are. If reueling is no longer an issue, or asteroid bases can literally base site to ship teleport fuel to a ship on a ranged flyby, refueling becomes easier. In the cases of teleport refueling, resource bases would have to be built beforehand for any future exploring ships. In that case, provided one had a moon base... export would be a more reasonable endeavor. You want the best fuel to weigh ratio ever? Use semi-rigid inflatable spacecraft. If we ever develop materials that are inflatable yet heat resistant, it could lead to some weirdly useful spaceship equipment. Imagine... inflatable NTR engine cores! Inflatable fuel bladders (tanks but inflatable). May be not possible now, but with science it seems the answer to many developments is often it depends, rather than a hard no. Powered flight was impossible for a long time since we lacked powered motors. Thus the necessary unknown technology path that only the future shall reveal.
-
You work with chemicals? Nice! I dunno... I just think in the mankind future will develop resources that we do not have now, which is what mankind has done in the past. We used to use bronze, then we developed our heating skills well enough for iron, and later steel. It seems that there is a definite tech development path that must be taken that sooner or later results in new materials. I really do find solid gases fascinating though. Read somewhere online where scientists made gas glass with interesting ( potentially useful) properties.
-
I wonder if it would be possible to make a metastable metallic gas alloy? Mix it with another element to make it stable without the pressure? Time will tell...
-
You misunderstand my point. The resources on a 2g, 3g, or 4g world are NOT the same as on a 1g world. Some resources under great pressure can exist in states we do not naturally have on Earth. Granted, you may have to dig for metallic gases, but I rest my case. That rests heavily on whether or not they stay metallic without the pressure. Mine them and process them elsewhere. As you definitely won't find some resources in abundant quantities on 1 g worlds that you will find in abundance on higher g worlds.
-
Playing with human emotions and fictional aliens
Spacescifi replied to Spacescifi's topic in The Lounge
It probably depends on Jules state of mind. Post 'miracle' him and Jack may become friends, as they both wish to make amends for being career killers. But at this point? Jules is likely a goner. Jack simply has wayy too much Vorlon tech for Jules to stand a chance. Back to the OP, I have found that making aliens not act human effects their way of life, making it fundamentally somewhat different than the normal human experience. For example, take love, joy, fear, and surprise only. What happens? Pros: Less war if it even exists between each other. Main emotional drivers are fear and love, and would likely occur with beligerent alien races. Cons; Hedonism may be popular, and those that were not would likely fear it, causing conflict based on both war and fear. So war could happen with each other, but it almost certainly would be about idealogy... not unlike the Vorlon vs Shadow war. And they would act dispassionate in battle, unless given reason to be fearful. They would never feel nor show anger, yet that won't mean they won't attack.