Spacescifi

Slit eyes have a greater up/down view (as the pupil is the part creatures see from). If you try hard enough, you can actually notice that your own field of view is circular, equal in all views. So long your pupil is normal/healthy. For an animal with slit or rectangular pupiled eyes their field of view is shaped accordingly. I notice that slit eyed creatures often are small and do a lot of climbing, jumping and hunting. Being exceptional at seeing above and below pays pff when you are trying to land from 6 feet up or higher. Rectangular pupils are great for predator detection. Also great for toads and frogs who zip their tongues out to catch prey.

Starlight wavelength vision basis? I mean... maybe? There is a point where if your range of vision is limited, there is a limit to the types of technology you can create. Unless your other senses massively offset your visual deficiencies. In animals they mostly do, even though there are some rather hard limits on them physically. In other words, even with human intelligence, an ape could never develop technoligy on a human scale. The hand lacks the flexibility of use the human hand has, and they also lack the endurance. There is a good reason why we see animals lounging around most of the time. And it is not because they have nothing better to do. They actually need to rest often. Arguably more than a human for the same 8 hour work period.

Well.. octopuses lack full color vision. So do goats. Humans have trichomat vision (something about three color combos) whereas goats have less (dichromats or something). Where most all animals have us beat is night vision because of tapetus lucidum, The shiny mirror that reflects light again into the eye and makes their eyes glow when near light at night. However their eyes do not process as many colors, and I have suspicion that if their eyes could process as many colors as us while also retaining night vision mirrors to reflect extra light into the eye it would either be akin to sensory overload during daylight, or perhaps lead to blindness quicker. That is not all. If we had eyes like this, you would have panoramic vision 24/7. Which works best at distance, as you can see more. Up close you would have to tilt your eyeballs more than you do normally to see above and below. It is perhaps no coincidence that I read that goats are commonly farsighted, meaning up close vision is blurry, but sharp as a tack at a distance. Not particular good for humans. Unless you modded them to be normal sighted. Problem is, I am not sure their pupils are even capable of normal humange clarity of vision. In fact animals tend to get by with a combo of advanced physical senses. Not just one. But we humans rely heavily on sight. More than animals, for whom it is often not their most relied on sense (it's smell for doggies).

Not having human eyes on humanoids is common in scifi. But, having done research, I have found that animal eyes are like job specific tools. Very good for doing whatever the creature does. For an advanced race like humanity. Human eyes tend to win out. Change skin and all else, just not the eyes. What you think?

Please consider, as I am considering it useful for scifi. 1. How would superluminal photons look? Very. Bright. Like a brillant god/sun ray in broad daylight that is bright as if not brighter than our sun. Do not look directly at it. Why? Photons emitted per second is MUCH higher due to their higher speed. Meaning in a short amount of time more photons will be reflected/absorbed/emitted. Uses: If one increases the speed of the photons high enough what you have is a photon rocket. Since the same amount of photons emitted from a spaceship converting mass into energy (photons) for thrust you can also get merely by increasing the rate at which they are emitted. All plans with antimatter basically just chucks out tons of photons at once, or injects them into propellant. Nothing has ever been practically done to increase lightspeed to get the same effect, although you could in scifi because of faster flow rates. Sadly, this idea is just as dangerous as normal photon rockets. Would still nuke all in it's wake. Since if you take an ordinary lightbulb and speed up it's photon emission rate high enough, the photon density of emission would be so high that it would turn into a mini photon rocket. What do you think? EDIT: Actually I found one advantage scifi superluminal photons have over both normal photon rockets and antimatter fuel injected propellant rockets. You do not have to store antimatter! Provided it is just a scifi device that does not take gobs of power to operate, one could use superluminal photon injection into propellant to get thrust rates/propelkant efficiency on par with an antimatter thermal rocket. Thrust at 1g for days! Buring only a few kilograms of propellant per second. Since a lot of photons emitted does not care whether it's source was superluminal photons or the conversion of matter into energy. It is still thrust.

Thanks for the insight. Well... you persuaded me. Antimatter it is! I can use it afterall for scifi. I was at first set on using vacuum jets that could not be throttled (1g only, 2g only and so forth).

I do not think KSP has a magnetic nozzle mod. Nor do I think they would show a realistic antimatter injected propellant plume (not much plume, just a bright light). Don't magnetic nozzles take thermal damage in vacuum? Or does the lack of air and the direction of the exhaust make thermal heating less of an issue than what it would be for conventional nozzles?

Lofting up the big ship to space is not an issue, it literally inverts gravity's effect on the vessel so that it falls up at 1g instead of down. Hovering is just another mode of the same device. I could use ducted fans, that would be simple. Or I could just put the antimatter energy into the electrical capacitors, and shunt the electrical power into the air to make a thermal jet using the same rocket nozzles. I think I will do that. Last question ( can't think of anymore). Barring scifi tech, how long would the nozzlws last before they need to be replaced? And would mahnetic nozzles be preferable? In space yes. In atmosphere? Not so much. Since the plume is going flame all over it in the atmosphere. Come to think of it, a ducted fan may be my only option to avoid wrecking the nozzle earlier than expected... assuming it is one of those fancy yet fragile magnetic nozzles.

One last question. Shoud I use bell shaped nozzles or jet fighter nozzles that can expand or narrow? Since the vessel is capable of hovering in the air or in space above a planet thanks to grav-inverter scifi tech? I was thinking due to the high velocity the nozzle type may not even matter in vacuum. But I was also thinking that the jet fighter nozzles would be optimal in an atmosphere. Mixing even a tiny amount of atmosphere in the air would make for a great propulsion system to move forward while hovering. Barring antimatter use inside atmospheres, metallic hydrogen could be used instead, as it gives plenty of thrust to make a good thermal jet too.

Are you saying it would not funnel out like normal plumes (get wider at the end)? Since space is a vacuum I am rather certain that it would fan out. Just a longer plume perhaps? However if they have scifi plasma bolt weaponry, then the plume could actually look like a jet fighter's. How in space? Scifi forcefields would be the only way I imagine to keep the exhaust plume from spreading out, which you can do if you have plasma bolt weapons, meaning shaped propelled plasma is possible. The benefit of beam exhaust is that more of the thrust goest into your forward momentum rather than being spread out to the sides.

Given how high the exhaust is moving, I doubt you would even see much of a plume in space. Not a long one anyway. What do you think?

Wow! Thanks. Did not realize how antimatter could give thrust for days on end. Which is more than good enough for orbiting planets and rendezvous. See, I do not have to worry about slowly cruising between worlds at all. That is what the translation jump drive is for. Getting close to planets in vacuum. The grav-inverters can be used to just hover in space above a planet, but if you wanna orbit you have to burn propellant. Yet about half my ship's mass is methane propellant, which brings the efficiency down from liquid hydrogen, but not by much. Since we are injecting antimatter into it! Math is my weakest subject, but it is nothing I could not fix by studying. EDIT: An exploration ship never knows what it will face, so yeah it needs the endurance/propellant. Liners on regular routes could get by with less, as they do not plan on the unexpected happening.

I tend to agree that antimatter infused propellant is awesome. However it is still a bomb. My fictional vessel will have a crew of 150, may be 150 meters long, may weigh 9,200 tons and will also have the translation drive, and grav-inverters for falling upward into space. I could use antimatter thernal rockets, since my spaceships only really need to use their rockets in space. However with the potential weight I listed, it will burn through propellant, even with antimatter. Granted, you could use less propellant for more thrust thanks to antimatter. I wonder how long it woul last? Probably an hour or so or less? EDIT: Wow. I think the antimatter may be good enough for several hours if my math is correct. 3600 seconds in an hour. Antimatter thermal has an ISP of 800,000 seconds with hydrogen you say? 800,000 seconds divided by 3600 seconds gives me 222 times. That means... 222 hours?! Of thrust?! That is more than good enough, assuming it could do 1g for hours on end, rather than using less thrust to get better ISP. Assuming I did not goof up the math royally. Did I?

Even if you are correct, rockets require a high propellant to cargo ratio. The only way to reduce it by much is with antimatter.... and antimatter infused propellant exhaust is hardly safe. My scifi constant acceleration drive does 1g acceleration with no fuel use (vacuum jet). The tradeoff is that it cannot be throttled, it only goes 1g. You could make a 4g or 10g one, but like the 1g, you cannot change/throttle the acceleration rate.

Not unstoppable. My current take on FTL is this: Galaxy drive: Can translate your trajectory and speed to match any light source in the universe, even if it is old and the object is no longer at that exact spot anymore. However close or far you want you can get to it. The closer you get to your destination the more accurate your translative jumps can get. Limits: The minimum range you can translate jump to is one lightsecond. This prevents the easy missile/vessel speed boost via translation that you devised. Constant acceleration drives: Allowed. Stopping relativistic attacks: Once you translate into a system, the fastest way to get from planet to planet is by translating in vacuum. If you translated above Earth, you would just drop, as your speed and trajectory would match earth via translation. You could launch an attack sure, but a relativistic one shot kill it is not. Assuming you did try to gradually build up speed for a relativistic attack, what's to stop nearby patrol ships from translating to you and fighting you? They could translate right in front of you, unless you had a big shield bubble, but that could translate just outside of that launch attacks from there too. The NTR is notorious for radiative exhaust. I do not know of a safe way to use them on an Earth-like world with regular space traffic. It would defy logic. Since not are only do they not jive with high tech like FTL translation, but they are'nt even safe to use on Earth-like worlds. I know, I know, space infrastructure. Elevators etc. Problem is... what if it's a new world and they don't have that? What are ya gonna do? Regular fusion or NTR down with SSTO's? Giving natives and colonists cancer? That is the best we can do in theory. All the high delta v/high thrust rocket engines I know of, even antimatter, spew out lethal cancer causing rays. Making your landing site another Chernobyl.

Sure. You really don't need FTL comms or sensors. All you really need for efficient space travel is an FTL drive that translates your speed and trajectory to match your target. You really do not even need constant acceleration drives, but having them does allow for SSTO's. I like SSTO'S.

I actually decided against FTL comms. And I have given thought to civilizations, but my mine are unique in that each one actually has a purpose, and not merely to fill a role of good or bad guy. Each fictional space faring race has a purpose, and they are aware of what that purpose is. Humans? They are kind of the oddballs, in that they cannot agree on their purpose, or indeed, many other things. One thing unique to humans that is less common is their brand of religion. To the point that some alien religions humans view as a joke, given the alien ones seem more about sticking to certain ideals rather than any sort of deity. But travel times by necessity will be shorter since how else can a ship travel anywhere it wants in the universe? Really, that still won't make it easy. If you're interested, read my last post regarding the deck for spaceships. Taljs about the travel scheme I intend to use.

Spoken like a true Kerbal player. I am glad you appreciate the intricacies of space travel. So do I. I have no intention of throwing it all away. 1. Constant 1g acceleration engines will be a must, only because we have nothing that good for traveling across the void. 2. In spite of what some ardently say, it is NOT aways better to have decks aligned with main engine thrust. Particularly if the vessel only has a scifi 1g acceleration engine that cannot be throttled down. In that case, the only way such a vessel could reach orbit would be by taking off like a plane. Since 1g acceleration can take a ship up to space once it builds up enough forward momentum before flying upward. 3. Rotating roller coaster chairs will be standard for the crew, as that way if the ship is massive and it rotates, they will always face g-force with their backs. 4. The main reason why I do not need decks aligned with gravity is because my FTL method transates both trajectory and speed to match tje vessel"s destination. At a relative dead stop. Constant acceleration engines are mostly good for maintaing an orbit anytime you want. Also for rendezvous and docking. 5. So you see... I have not dumped all the intricacies of space travel. Just some modern limitations that would prevent the scifi from happening if allowed

I am not sure any modern technology is suitable for a setting where vessels can casually descend/ascend from 1g gravity planets. Let alone warp/FTL. Take NTR for example. What cab you do with it? Just cruise slowly between the planets. Landing and take off again requires nothing less than an SSTO. Again, hard with modern tech though not impossible if you make it lightweight enough. Problem is, in space, lightweight stuff we currently have is... not fully protectuve against space radiation. If you want that to be the case, and if you want big business with casual space travel... fiction is necessary.

Indeed. I tend to agree with you. How about this? A simple, less rules drive that is still quite powerful. Galaxy drive: You can jump however close or far you want to any point of light you see in space. Even if it is old starlight. Know that you are jumping where the star was when the light first was emitted that is hitting you at this second. So if the star is thousands of LY away, that is a thousands of years old position in space. Try not to get lost... you can even jump to other galaxies. Upon reaching your jump point, your speed and trajectory is shifted to match the target's, whatever it was. Important rule: To shift jump, your target must be a lightsecond or more away. So that rules out getting easy free speed tbrough missiles or railguns. Takes a while to cross a lightsecond with limited rockets and raiguns. No FTL sensors: Yet one could still detect relativistic starships movin in space if scanned from the side. All you need is starships on patrol in star systens that are known to have high speed celestial bodies or gravities. However controls those has all tje relativistic firepower they want... for free. EDIT: Actuallu this system makes relativistic attacks hard if not impossible. Every jump shifts your speed and trajectory to the current target, so you cannot simply stack on more and more speed at will. Furthermore the fact thay a target must be a lightsecond or more to shift-jump to means that stacking speed with missiles becomes kinda impractical for homeworld attacks. Even if your ship had constant acceleration for months on end it would have a difficult time utlizing such speed. For one, what are you gonna do? Shift to Pluto and just accelerate your way to Earth? A fleet can and would shift to you, intecepting you long before you arrived. The best you could do is shift above Earth and let loose some epic bombs and shift out again. That kind of thing would be hard to prevent. I suspect either a planetary shield or a truly awesome orbtial defense grid would be in order. Perhaps both. EDIT: This drive does allow for hopping around systems as well as long jumps. For no other reason than to find your way. Kind of have to since old light jumps get more precise the closer you get.

Energy is mass and mass is energy. So yeah. That works for me.

Good points. I am inclined to just make a ship with super levels of vacuum thrust in space. Basically it can casually reach a lightsecond per min speed in ten seconds of acceleration. Grav-neutralizers included, so no g-force is felt. About the only way to get it is by rotation.FTL can be a simple displacement jump drive. Since even if jumped a few light hours out, a sublight drive this fast could still reach anywhere within a readonable amount of time. Planets people care about would be artificially shielded So near luminal ramming could ve defended against. Missiles with the super vacuum drive woould be common. Shields are included on ships. Want gravity? Hover over a planet without orbiting or just land.

Weird. So originally I had a saucer design. You are telling me that if I place the engines antywhere on the hull of my ship and turn them on, they will become artifical gravity wells? Gravity is omnidirectional too. Awesome! Never thought of that. Might need g-force dampeners after all, since this only adds to the g-load of normal acceleration.

LOL. She would be ripping him off for such conjecture. I hope her conscience bothers her.

Nope. Alcubierre does not accelerate you. It just moves the bubble of space tbe ship is within. Iy is useless for changing speed and orbital trajectories. It merely gets a vessel closer in space to the target. Course corrections from there are made with rockets if you have nothing better. My idea literally compresses space vacuum like air and expels it out the back for forward acceleration.