Spacescifi

Sometimes it is really obvious. Other times not so much. Want an example of the not so obvious? War. Two sides fighting... I am sure there are respectable guys on both sides who in their normal life hold the door open for others and pay their bills on time. The only thing that makes them fight each other is their leaders. Want an example where the difference between villainy and heroism is super obvious? The hero more or less tells the villain to care about others and not to drop them to their deaths ("Don't do it Gobby!") The villain, if he wanted to be sarcastic and chew the scenery more he could have replied, "Why? This is all your fault and you know it. You wanted to play hero so play!" I think there are many key differences that separate villains from heroes, so that there is no one size that will fit all villains so to speak. There are immoral villains like the Green Goblin who think they are accountable to no one, which leads them into battle against the hero who naturally will hold them accountable. There are also villains who are just doing their job, because it is their duty and that is all they feel. It's not personal. Any other villain types I may have missed?

Thanks... I am interested in all replies. Hmmm... well... I will level with you. As a kid I was athletic naturally. Even now I retain it, though not to the same degree. In school kids asked me to fight their bullies for them but I never did for two reasons. 1. My religious upbringing forbade it. 2. I had no desire to gain a following or entourage, which is what I feared may happen if I beat up the local big bad. I never wanted popularity for the sake of being popular even though I enjoyed being liked. I really only cared what my immediate friends and associates thought about me. Strangers? Not so much. In a Lord of the Flies scenario, I would work hard to get rescued, and sooner or later get on Jack's bad side. I am no leader per se, as I don't like to lead naturally, but neither am I a follower since I am naturally paranoid. I am no wannabe killer, but if it comes down to me versus a fear mongering murderous tyrant, Jack would have to go. My mercy has limits, and I think all humans can say that if they are honest with themselves.

Yeah... ideally boys and men would be like this song... but apparently that is only wishful thinking on a grand scale. At least individually we can be better. Since you posit that the Lord Of The Fiies Scenario was inevitable, what do you think a smart kid who wanted to mitigate the problems if not possible to avoid them altogether would do if stuck on the island with the boys from the story? What would you do if a boy and stuck with them?

Except the ones from IRL Tonga who did Lord Of The Flies for real.

Experienced? Able? Russia has survived multiple civil wars and invasions and has been around longer than the USA... they know hardship.

In real life something like this happened with boys from Tonga. Went the opposite way and they got along great, even cared for one that got injured. A rare case of real life having a rosy ending as opposed to pure fiction. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/13/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-mano-totau-survivor-story-shipwreck-tonga-boys-ata-island-peter-warner

That may be the Russian view, but it varies based on the culture. Russians... at least culturally, correct me if wrong, tend to be more willing to suffer hardship... I dare say more than us Murricans. I mean.. I have saw on the ISS that even the Russian toilet paper is rougher or thicker (cannot remember which) than the ones Americans use lol.

So am going to watch both movie versions and read the book too.... since I did not as a child snd only heard of it in passing. I find it fascinating. Interestingly in the old black and white original movie version, Jack seems kind of like a jock tough guy kid, who seems to want to help the group out. Yet he can be condescending and jerkish to those he thinks are inferior (the fat kid). Later he will prove to be the instigator of much that goes horribly wrong. I like this book/story because it shows that the greatest danger to us is and always will be... us. Jack ultimately will rule through fear and cruelty, as opposed to logic and compassion where possible, which is what should have occurred but did'nt. Fear and cruelty won. But it does not have to. We all have the choice. Each and everyday. Sure we will all fail from time to time... but I do think an overall positive pattern is better than a negative one.

Too bad. Maybe someone will make a mod later. I find it awesome that IRL allows for more 'cheats' than even a space sim like KSP2 would present.

Wow! I actually posted a semi-plausible SSTO design for once lol! Of course we are not going to talk about WHAT is in the fuel pellets (could be antimatter who knows). I presume ejecting and detonating the pellets before they clear the throat of the nozzle would work for thrust. Since last I checked detonating a high energy ANYTHING is a bad idea for an internal reaction chamber. What is happening instead is throat detonation before the pellet clears the nozzle, and the nozzle must be strong enough to funnel the blast instead of being blown to bits.

Lol... I am presuming the KSP 2 dev team is blissfully unaware of the weaksauce version of Orion that uses pure fusion triggered by high explosives/magnetic fields. Still effective though. https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2022/03/fusion-without-fissiles-superbombs-and.html?m=1 With this you CAN mine ice for fuel and and still process the hydrogen for fusion fuel.

So when thinking of a successful heavy SSTO, I am well aware that it's energy/power needs are high, since that is the price it pays for not relying on dropping used rocket stages. Scenario: A large and thick 2000 ton saucer with blunt edge walls, with a rear protruding 'bumper' just wide enough for a row of three large rocket nozzles. It sits on a short ice runway with a half loop ramp made of ice that points up skyward. The vessel has powerful rear main engines that pulse fire by igniting fuel pellets, which generate enough thrust to allow it to reach orbit simply by pulse firing. The idea is to fire a single pulse at somewhat reduced thrust to fly up the ramp into the sky and then use higher thrust pulses to reach orbit. Why an ice ramp? Easy to replace when damaged, as it will be on every launch no doubt. Also cheap. Benefits: The large saucer has belly engines capable of VTOL, but to spare them using precious and limited liquid propellant until absolutely necessary, that is why I propose the ice ramp. The liquid propellant engines could then be used for landing anywhere without infrastructure or runways. Secondary Question: Could you safely belly land the 2000 ton SSTO saucer without wheels on an ice runway? Like an airplane? I think you could so long the angle of attack was not too steep, only need to glide over and belly flop onto the ice. From there the ship could rotate laterally using thrusters and pulse blast main engines to slow to a stop.

Well... per the OP, the energy used would be 100% converted into hull integrity with zero waste heat (yes I know that breaks conservation of energy but so be it). The heat the crew might die from is from the heat of the nuclear blast being absorbed by the outer hull... which would cause it to flash cook the ship's innards and radiate and conduct heat inside until it cooled. Yet more likely, the crew would die from the sheer g-force of the equivalent of a multi-megaton hammer slamming down on them on the ground. Crew has a much better chance of survival if the ship is hit from behind while flying away in the air, though the heat would still present real problem. So in conclusion... yeah... the tech is of limited if any value against a nuke, but against bullets it would be awesome.

Those sparks are cancer causing plasma... no wonder they die lol.

This is just a fun scenario... perhaps to make fun of star trek or even to justify it... we will see either way. The usual solution to problems during TNG era was... route more power to this or that ship system, like shields etc. Scenario: The ship is on Earth on the ground. The ship's shields are down, but their engineer is so awesome he managed to route and convert the ship's main power to it's hull integrity. Let's assume the ship is carrying 500 tons of antimatter on board... and converts SOME of that into hull integrity force... to withstand the utter brutality of a direct nuclear atmospheric blast. The hull will still absorb heat but will stay intact instead of melting and being blown apart. Main Question: I know this is impossible as far as we know... but I was curious if a method like that WOULD work if it were possible? I presume a more powerful AM blast would push back a weaker nuke blast in the air. So by the same token, I presume a vessel which could convert the awesome power of AM into hull integrity would have durability on par with a superhero. Bullet proof and mostly missile proof. What do you think?

Perhaps if I just say the that the drive emits 'hyper-repulsive' photons, that way the momentum would be increased and also thrust at the same time... unless you're going to tell me that hyper-repulsive emitted photons should move at FTL or a higher top speed than light... but I only wanted them to have to light speed exhaust.

I see. I just assumed more pressure would provide more thrust because I can feel light when it flashes on me, and the pressure is quite weak I just though that if the pressure the light emitted was on par with a rocket engine, the momentum from rocket level pressure ray exhaust would be increased as it exits the nozzle. I am not saying shine out a high pressure ray and expect high thrust. I thought that speed of light ray exhaust with the pressure of rockets would increase the momentum of the nozzle as it exits it. In other words, I was thinking that high pressure light speed exhaust would have more energy than low pressure light speed exhaust, so therefore it should produce rocket level thrust. Are you saying that even if we made a high pressure ray that blew out high pressure rays of light on par with a chemical rocket, it would oddly STILL only give poor thrust? That seems... paradoxical... high enough thrust to kick up dust and blow a man away, but not high enough to transfer enough momentum to provide better thrust for the ship? I guess in a way to have greater pressure, high pressure rays would need 'imaginary mass', behaving as if they have more energy than a normal photon.

Actually I recall reading that at near light speeds, hydrogen atoms, though rare, when they hit an object going that fast they shower it with deadly radiation. Meaning that destroying a missile could actualky be easy. Just make an atomic cannon and fire bursts of hydrogen atoms at near light speed. Either the missiles electronics would fry, leaving unable to maneuver away from attacks, or... enough radiation could be used to blow it up outright. Light speed is not the speed limit, it's lower than even that if you do not want to be showered in deadly hard radiation.

In vacuum I doubt it. It's all radiation without the air blast. Granted, if you detonated every sundial on an orion all at once you get more range, even then, I am not sure it vaporizes everything within 1000 km in vaccuum... that is more than the distance to space from Earth!

I already looked at helicopter blades made of forcefield in another thread. The concept actually works if you ignore how in the world you make propeller shaped forcefield blades. I decided against it. Best to just go with what I like

Outsider webcomic has spaceships that can cruise at 30g for 100 hours max, and particle beam cannon that can hit a lightsecond out. Not infinite.... but close enough. I made much the same point you did in a discussion. The main reason why planets are not toast is that enemy spacecraft are blown up or chased away usually before they ever get in range of a planet... since the main aliens of the story... space amazon elves basically, specialize in uber fast ships with uber long range blaster beam cannons. Usually outnumbered and still win often. Just cannot keep killing faster than their enemy can churn out replacements.

Because satelites would notice and send word for reenforcements. You do not need FTL weapons. All you need is FTL portal radio... instant communication channel. And of course FTL methods that drop you some distance away far enough from a planet that you could not just FTL warp ram them. With early warning satelites orbiting around the solar system the very strength of RVK's would become it's weakness. It too is more susceptible to damage, and thanks to insta-comms every fleet and big gun in the solar system will be raining fire down ahead of it. Only takes one hit to blow it up at that speed.... and if you have long range partice beam from orbital defense stations that can hit a light second out reliably... you would scatter them out so that you could buy a planet a few extra seconds as it's last line of defense. Assuming fighters and missiles do not kill it first. It is important to note that when traveling at uber high speed it is quite possible to miss your target. Especially if dodging fire at the same time.

If light emitted from the drive could be modified to be high pressure rather than low pressure, then thrust generated from pushing a reflective nozzle could be on par with a rocket... but unlike a rocket it would not be subject to the tyranny of the rocket equation since it would not rely on exhausting propellant.... only power.

For years I was frustrated over the fact that the ideal space drive... something that allowed for high thrust constant acceleration, would also be a terribly powerful weapon. I thought it would be absurd for any planetary authority in their right mind to allow hundreds of vessels to come and go as they please that are capable of THAT. Until now... turns out the answer was obvious all along. Let's go extreme... and presume all common space drives can accelerate virtually indefinitely (so long it's powered), even for missiles. That does not mean big heavy ships are obsolete. What it means is that fleets of fighter craft that escort it are the ONLY thing that will save it in battle. Space fighters with particle beams and missiles of their own could intercept and destroy incoming missiles... just spamming missiles would not ensure a definite win even if you could. The idea of big ships with big guns is frankly... unnecessary. Looks cool but it's a bad idea unless you're attacking a nearly stationary target. Even then fighters and missiles could do the same job with less risk to the main vessel they escott. Since if fighter drones can outrun a large manned vessel, they will simply overwhelm it before it can use it's big gun effectively against them. I do not see any real area for large vessels with powerful long range guns where fighters in this setting could not supercede them. Especially in the OP setting where high thrust acceleration is virtually infinite. Do you?

Good point and taken.