Spacescifi

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.

So Timmy is going to be in a lot more trouble than getting grounded because the fire department might need to get involved (because backyard/house<flames). Wow.

In Star Trek and to a lesser extent Star Wars settings, high energy power banks/batteries are common place. Especially with regard to the DEW pistols everyone and their mom is packing heat with. But I am thinking about something far more mundane. The vacuum. Yes the humble vacuum and it's annoying wire you have to worry about getting caught around corners as you work. Apply those energy dense batteries to that and boom, no more need for a long and frustrating cord. And yes, I know such already exist but I am talking about higher energy dense ones than exist in real life. As in charge it 4 hours and it can run for 4 days without a cord attached at all. Question: If such a vacuum powerbank (small enough to fit in one too because scifi) existed, and it become overheated for some reason (because little Timmy wants to set the powerbank on fire with burning wood outside because he likes seeing stuff go boom), how big of a boom would a house vacuum battery make that can run a vacuum for 4 days straight on a full charge? Is this grenade level? Is it going to leave a crater in the backyard and little Timmy is going to be grounded all summer long lol. Or did I exaggerate the power level too much? Also how much do you think high power portable banks would be used as opposed to wiring in a setting were obvious safety concerns are a thing? One thing that I found amusing is that TNG handheld Star Trek phasers could be set to overload and explode with enough force to blow a room apart like a bomb. Realistically if they contain that much energy already, do you really want to be taking them into firefights where they could get hit by high by high energy beams and possibly trigger an explosion? Unless triggering them much is much like a nuke, meaning just blowing it up won't do but it has to start a complex chain reaction only the weapon itself can typically do (kind of like the fact how nuclear reactors have more potential energy than their actual output, but to release it all at once would be a like a bomb, and they are not designed to do that anyway). Your thoughts?

Having read much of the New Krypton saga (a superman comic from years ago where 100,000 of his people returned and made their own planet in our solar system), one thing that struck me was how many advantages they had that we do not. Especially for a one world government system. 1. A single language. Without it, it makes governance more complex and difficult as well as separating people into groups you have less control over and vice a versa. 2. Superpowers mean they never tire and never have to sleep, which unfortunately the government abused and had the labor caste work 24/7 literally. Which caused them to get upset becauss they missed time with their families. Nearly caused an assassination and a civil war, which Superman skillfully negotiated a way out of both. Because his aunt was the leader about to get assassinated. 3. High technology and science understanding beyond our own. Like to a ridiculous level. Enough to use it to move planets around with... without using their superpowers but only scifi tech. Yet they also had internal problems (not counting enemies on Earth seeking to wipe them out, which they eventually suceeded in more or less) such as: 1. Corruption: Some high ranking officials betrayed their own kind for a chance to live lives of luxury on Earth as a favor for helping Earth wipe out their own kind. Also a few were deceived into thinking they were helping save their people when they were really helping to destroy them. Sad, but not all high ranking Kryptonians were noble or even cared about them existing as a species or a civilization. Basically imagine Superman but selfish and in it to win it for himself at the expense of ALL his people. He would not do that, but some of his people would. 2. Public discontent: Upset a group of people large enough, especially the working class and you will have problems that your government may not survive. Such as a possible civil war. 3. Disease: Despite gaving great power there was a mysterious disease effecting only the labor caste. Superman and Zod (Superman still dislikes him but Zod became his boss on New Krypton) researched it and learned it was a conspiracy brought on by a doctor who has working for Earth enemies for the reward of living in luxury on Earth after both New Krypton and Superman were destroyed. Superman and law enforcement arrested him but it was too late, plans to destroy New Krypton were already set in motion, leading to a direct war between Earth and New Krypton. So what is the point of me reciting all this? You can have a single language, high technology, and more or less a single culture and still have your one world government in danger of failing, and I am not even bringing in external threats as a consideration. In real life we have NONE of that so it would be virtually impossible. I had a conversation with a coworker who said the reason a bunch of different people in a workplace can work peacefully is because they have a common goal. I would add that they also are subject to the same rules and are rewarded for following them equally. So that would be how to do it with a world government, but realistically it is virtually impossible because there will always be corruption and the have nots VS the haves and they will want a place to go when they get fed up with the system. A one world government does not allow for that, so unless you want to be putting down rebellions all the time, a multi-national world where people can choose other options rather than having only one seems to be the only viable option. War is just a means to an end, not an end in of itself. It is by nature temporary, and is best avoided, which is why it usually is until other options are exhausted. This thread may get locked, so please try to keep politics out of it, thank you. Your thoughts? We do not live in the best world, we live in the only one that can practically exist right now.

This is simply an analysis of what a superman-like character would be like, at least from a durability standpoint. Inertia Man: His body (not including the hair which is normal as anyone elses) has the same inertia and imaginary density as if his weight per kilogram was converted into tons. So lets say he weighs 77.111 kilograms which means his inertia and imaginary density is equal to 77.111 tons. I say imaginary density because his body merely acts as if it has the density of 77.111 tons but is not actually 777.111 tons dense compacted into a human body... because he would overheat if it actually was. And this does not include his hair because his hair not blowing in the wind would look weird He also has the power of superman style flight, out of necessity really because I have a feeling any human sized object weighing 77 tons would leave craters everywhere they walk. Also inertia man can turn his inertia bending powers on and off at will, which allows him to lead an otherwise normal life when he wants to. When inertia bending is turned on typically he tries to stay airborne to avoid making craters or sinking his feet into the ground. So he hovers a lot when talking to people when his inertia bending is on. Durability: Could definitely take bullet shots without phasing him and fly through buildings with relative ease. Flying through mountains really fast though could injure and even kill him if done fast enough. He would be heat resistant but not heat proof, since a human sized objecf that is 77 tons dense will be a lot harder to burn through than any normal object. Fights: No human could ever pick him up, and anyone trying to fight him would fail at even pushing him even while he is hovering because of his imaginary density. Assuming he ever fought a villain with inertia powers like himself the excange of punches and kicks would be very loud. As you should expect when 77 tons or more hits 77 tons or more. A human touching inertia man's skin with their fingers could not make an impression mark anymore than they could do it with a statue. Walls: Could easily press his hand through them, also easily bend or break through steel. Nuclear bombs: He could likely survive one exploding in his face. Though it may or may not knock him out. That said he may suffer burn injuries if close enough as well as radiation damage. So did I get my analysis correct? Anything I miss? And exactly what could kill inertia man quickly besides crashing into stuff at really high speeds? Conclusion: In some ways he would seem more durable than classic Superman while weaker in others, since even Superman has been embarassed by Batman picking him up and throwing him (in the animated series). He could not do that with Inertia man.

Like if an astronaut is floating in a suit in outer space, he can spin on his own, flip on his own, etc without relying on his RCS from his suit. I guess we have biological reaction wheels or an equivalent. Maybe we can imitate whatever humans use and adapt it to spacecraft one day.

On scifi TV, movies, and videogames, virtually everybody and their mom is toting a DEW or laser pistol. However an analysis of their effects indicates that would not be the case if we had them. Safe Enough To Use Scifi Ionizer Beam Pistol: Somehow it ionizes air into a beam that does not diverge but only stops at the maximum distance the gun can project the ionization effect (2 kilometers). Beam is hot enough to cut through an inch of steel every half second, so a sustained beam could cut through 20 inches of steel in ten seconds. Basically we have a gun that does what Homelander's heat vision does more or less. Even so, you would still want to wear eye protection glasses or a visor because any reflected light from the beam could damage your vision. As we know, lasers tend to produce a lot of waste heat, and while the scifi ionizer beam pistol is not a laser per se (because it requires atmosphere to work and will not work in vacuum) it still produces a massive amount of waste heat. So what keeps the gun from melting? Scifi time warp field technology embedded into the gun's internals. The gun still generates enormous amounts of waste heat, but the relative time it takes to spread far enough across the gun's body to cause a critical failure (actually an explosion) is slowed dramatically due to time warping inside the gun frame. Basically once you fire the gun you have a few hours before you have to connect it's coolant chamber to water or coolant to run through the gun's body walls and bleed off the heat gradually. During heat bleed off the time warp delay of the heat absorption can be increased to speed up heat bleed off, but not too much or you would risk a critical failure. Because the gun has a potent power bank source that is basically like a bomb if overheated. A Slightly More Realistic Scifi Laser Pistol That Is Less Safe To Use: Like the scifi ionizer beam pistol, the scifi laser pistol also uses a powerbank that will explode like a bomb if overheated. Unlike the ionizer beam pistol, the scifi laser beam pistol actually fires a laser beam rather than magically ionizing the air into a beam that won't spread that also stops at a maximum range in air. As such the laser beam will spread and weaken in power over distance, but unlike the ionizer beam also works in vacuum. Like the ionizer beam the laser beam can also cut through an inch of steel every half second. Also the scifi laser beam also uses time warp technology to delay the heat absorption from waste heat until you can gradually cool it via coolant. Think of it like the sun. A nanosecond in front of the sun is actually survivable, and the gun's heat build up is much like that. Still, if you don't connect it to a coolant tank for heat bleed off within a few hours of firing your gun will go KA-BOOM! The safety difference: The laser beam spread is less safe than the ionizer beam which has a max range but won't spread (the ionizer beam is basically like an instant 2 kilometer long light saber lol). The laser beam spread means distant shots are imprecise due to beam spread. In other words... not really the best choice for a hostage rescue situation unless when fired you are close enough where beam spread is not a concern. Actual Practical Uses: Scifi Laser Pistol: Due to beam spread I cannot see police using it as it is essentially like a shot gun with distance and that means collateral damage they do not want. Soldiers may use it, but only for niche situations where they don't care about collateral damage. Scifi Ionizer Beam Pistol: Police SWAT teams might use it in niche situations. The only collateral damage is eye damage to onlookers of the ionizer beam in action, but sometimes if a situation is desperate enough it may warrant it. Mainly for barricade situations where burning through 20 inches of steel in ten seconds comes in handy. Or situations where you need to end a battle quickly and hostiles are barricaded. Conclusion: It is pure fantasy for scifi laser or any other DEW weapon to be wielded by common people so long eye damage and beam spread are both part of the package that come with the gun. DEW guns are more like a niche weapon used as a last resort, given how dangerous they still are even when I fixed a few issues they would have in real life via scifi make believe. Your thoughts?

There is IR thermal vison tech

Putting in a visual telescope mode for a camera should be possible. Even if you have to make the missile heavier or larger. What's a few more dollars for a missile that WON'T miss?