Spacescifi

Inertia is the tendency for an object at rest or in motion to stay at rest or in motion. The greater the mass, the more energy is required to counter it's inertia. Inertia negators would lower the energy required for this. What does that mean? Something you have probably never seen in scifi since scifi tropes are easier to follow than going down the what if rabbit hole of science VS scifi. What Actually Happens If You Turn On The Inertial Negators: Your vessel has a mass of 100 tons. With inertial negators on, it's inertia will be countered as if the vessel was only 100 kilograms... meaning that when you light up those rocket engines.... hahaha! Bwahaha! Fun times were had by all! What does this mean? You can go farther and faster with ORDINARY chemical or solid rocket engines. How much I don't know, but quite a bit if you do the math. Take SpaceX Starship for example with it's methalox engines (the second stage). It weighs about 100 tons right? Install and activate inertial negators and that baby's boost will be increased about a hundred fold or more (did not do the math so I am likely off but the point still stands that the engine boost will be much higher than normal). In practice what this means is IF we actually had inertial negators, we would probably not need a dozen rocket engines for a lift off when just a few could give the same thrust without the complications that come with fusion or antimatter. Also... the fabled small scifi SSTOs like the millenium falcon could actually be possible. Unlike the movies, to conserve propellant main engines would be pulse fired a lot, since the inertia resistance would be relatively low compared to the sheer amount of thrust the rocket is putting out. If we want to do calculations here is the Merlin rocket engine's abilities: How much thrust does a Merlin engine have? Specifications MERLIN – SEA LEVEL Thrust (Sea Level) 854 kN / 190,000 lbf Specific Impulse 283 sec Chamber Pressure 10.8 MPa Throttle Capability Yes (100% to 57%) So if a vessel is 100 tons with Merlin engines, and has inertial negators working then it could probably pulse fire SSTO to orbit, since it's thrust would be increased as the engines would move it as if it were ONLY 100 kilograms. Thoughts? Not exactly a torchship, but it does make getting to and off planets much easier.

For superheavy SSTO launch it is theoretically possible to use spin launch on external pulse propulsion SSTOs with pusher plates at the rear, dropping advanced pure fusion bombs for propulsion that can be scaled up or down in yield. A lighter version of the craft could even SSTO on it's own off an Earth world, at the expense of fusion bombing the launch site.

So you are saying with a super battery you could make an ion thruster as thrusty as a chemical or solid rocket? With the same inefficiency? Meaning you would still burn through your propellant in minutes at good thrust.

Unless we figure it out that is. Chemical and solid combustion are both chemical reactions that release lots of energy, the same kind of thing that powers automobiles. The main reason electric can even compete with gas cars is because they have a road to push off of, but a rocket has nothing but it's own propellant to push off of. To me the requirements for a thermal combustion rocket that uses heat rather than chemical reactions to burn the propellant hot enough to give equivalent thrust os not impossible.... just wildly inefficient. Since chemical reactions give more energy per pound than the massive batteries that would be required to give the same energy for thrust. To do that we would need batteries that are compact and not massive that can discharge chemical level power discharges of energy. If we could do that then we could actually have thermal combustion rockets that could compete with chemical and solid rockets. Question: Is it not true that even if we had compact super batteries, the discharge of electrical energy needed to combust propellant on par with a chemical or solud rocket would cause X-rays? It's a guess, since I read somewhere online that in Back to the Future the Time Machine car is really a death mobile, since the sheer number of watts it is putting out would give off X-rays and kill the passengers. Now if this is true for a thermal electric combustion rocket on par with chemical or solid rockets for thrust, the obvious solution would be to use reflectors to reflect and concentrate the X-rays into the propellant exhaust to heat it for extra thrust. But nothing is free.. The mirrors can be made of glass, ceramic, or metal foil, coated by a reflective layer. The most commonly used reflective materials for X-ray mirrors are gold and iridium. Even with these the critical reflection angle is energy dependent. Mirrors add weight, and that decreases overall thrust because of extra mass. So I am not saying thermal electric combustion engines will never rival chemical or solid rockets for thrust. What I am saying is that some fusion rocket or some NSWR is actually easier to pull off than a pure electric thermal combustion rocket, since we do not have to make a super dense energy storage medium, we are simply unlocking it and directing it out the back with fusion.

I never saw it beyond Youtube vids as well as Redletter Media having fun mocking it to death. I was annoyed that the Federation seemed too much like our Earth... only worse, with Admirals throwing F-bombs like they are going out of style. It has been said by some fans that season 3 was the best, season 1 was like an action flick more than Trek, and season 2 was plodding but had Q and the borg queen so that was cool.

Often in scifi the only part of a rocket engine the audience ever sees is the nozzle. IRL the engine is attached to the beginning of the nozzle and a tank feeds it. I am going to make an assumption... correct me if wrong please. Every nozzle has a rocket engine behind it typically. You could actually make rocket engine feed multiple nozzles but I think it is more common if you need good thrust to use mutiple engines. Since one engine has a limit on power, which can be increased with more engines of similar or greater power. Main Question: What happens if your chamber pressure is too high and your nozzle is too small? I have been told that bigger nozzles are needed for higher chamber pressures, but was not told the reason why. Lemme guess. Secondary Question: Higher chamber pressure equals more thrust right? But there is a limit on how high the chamber pressure can be too right? Third Question: Can you have multiple rocket engines on ONE nozzle? Or is that just silly and no good reason for it because you will probably melt the nozzle trying that?

There is only one place where it would not be obvious.... ouch and yuck lol.

Or we might discover something we can exploit and develop. Imagine if we found a way to manipulate quarks or gluons for example, or the quantum level more efficiently. There would be definitely more things we could do. The more you can control or adjust at small scales, the greater effect you can have at greater scales.

To do super stuff? Let's say that without charging up this budget version of Superman is only human. So how much electrical energy would he need to charge up with in order to say... fly around for an hour? Let's say Superman weighs 200 pounds of muscle and wants to do the simple feat of flying around for an hour no faster than your average passenger jet. He can charge up by putting his hand on an electrical source that can conduct electricity to him. My guess: He is going to have to drain the entire electrical grid or nuclear power plants if he really wants to be super, and even then I don't think that's enough to make him super durable, but flight I actually think he could power, just for a limited time.

Which unfortunately we have no good way of containing it unless we make the reaction chamber big enough that the heat won't melt it down. Definitely more a powerplant than for a spaceship.

Oh. Okay... so what we really would like is is a nuclear collider that was really efficient about colliding nuclei. If we had that... then what could we do with it?

Particle colliders do not count because they have a low hit rate and arguably miss far more than they hit. If had a scifi atomic collider which could collide atoms with great efficiency... what could we do? Science? Technology,

Thanks! I am not sure whether I should buy new or used. If I buy new I won't have to worry about repairs and by the time I do need them I hope to have an actually place to stay. If I buy used I will have to repair it and when this is my main place to live it means overnight leaving car in shop is a no go unless I rent another car. Expensive.

So you are suggesting a van? I was thinking of that too, ir maybe a mini-van. I have never driven a van or mini-van before though.

I meant to say new instead of used. Fixed it.

The skeleton has interfaces links that allow for HUD overlay over normal vision to give the user extra information the computer can assist them with. The person is in the brain. The cyborg skeleton is just an assistant of sorts. Has data already installed and allow for internet or wireless network browsing HUD when eyes are closed if using WIFI. Cyborg skeleton can record things the eyes see for future viewing or uploading to an actual computer wirelessly. It also features a HUD translator for all languages installed, as well as several knowledge bases with imstructions on how to work or operate tools and equipment, and can quite literally guide a person's body to make the precise movements do a task they have never done before if it is downloaded. Basically the person may not know how to do something, but if the AI has the program for it can take automatic control of their body to do the task as optimally as their body will allow them to. EDIT: Translator can also use precise muscle control to speak languages the user may not know, but the computer will if installed.

So a little about me first:

Imagine an adult human body grown over a cyborg skeleton that is part computer/part machine. With some interface links to the body inner computer access etc. All the cyber communications of a computer or robot, as literally part of you. Pros: Stronger bones than normal Also computer abilities are a part of the cyborg skeleton Cons: Bones won't grow or regenerate. Unless body is naturally cancer resistant then that is a risk what with the cyborg skeleton using electricity to function as well connect to wireless networks. Thoughts? Edit: Bones help create more blood, so whatever organs boneless animals use to regenerate/grow or replace blood they would need an analogue for.

I betcha the Russians have. They are willing to try mad rocket scientist stuff. I still remember that radioactive disaster a few years ago that on the forums people suspected was a nuclear powered rocket of sorts. Ha! I was right! Before I even bothered to check kerbaloids link lol. Reputation precedes lol.

If you wanted to increase thrust while keeping some simplicity could these next ideas be viable? 1. For extra thrust shunt the plasma and X-ray exhaust into a reaction chamber with molten lead (because lead absorbs X-rays). Like an afterburner mode... less efficient but more thrust when you need or want it. 2. Probably a single main engine exhaust nozzle would make engine design somewhat simpler. Since as is we are talking about relativistic plasma, reflected X-rays, and shunting all of that into an auxilliary reaction chamber with molten lead. While the main engine reaction chamber would be simply for plasma and X-rays to leave in the exhayst together.

So you are saying the original idea is at least somewhat viable, only with real constraints cyclotrons have? I wonder how good a space drive it would be? From orbit to orbit only?

Another method would be to use a large vacuum chamber to detonate a fusion reaction which is contained and directed with magnetic fields. Come to think of it, if we had scifi magnetic beams we could shoot like laser beams, you woul not even need a magnetic nozzle... would you? You could fire off two fusion pellets to smash at a prescribed distance and then fire magnetic beams to push off the plasma.... like a magnetic pusher plate. Or you could rotate the beams fast like a spiral so that you had a ridiculously long magnetic funnel/nozzle at a distance to fire your fusion pellets down before you detonate them. Coincidentally, this would also enable the plasma bolt weapons in space that we often see in scifi, only the bolts would be moving so fast you would not see them with the naked eye unless it was directly ahead of you OR if you were far enough away to watch the plasma travel the distance. I guess it would look like project Orion, but minus the pusher plate, and a flash that keeps moving.away from the ship and expanding until it disappears.

I see... lots of power virtually always means radiation if you go small. The key is to utilize what would be energy losses by making them strengths. Lots of radiation/waste heat? That is ALSO a source of energy if you can harness it Either absorb it with lead and conduct the heat into your exhaust, or reflect and focus it into your exhaust using scifi ray mirrors. It would be really nice if we could change a short wave ray into a longer wave length by passing it through a force field, but that sounds more like make believe. Ray conversion (RC) fields would be incredibly useful, but would not always save you, but would enable you to always find a way to make use of high energy rays by reflecting, focusing, or radiating them.

Plasma rockets are known for low thrust despite high exhaust speeds because plasma is low mass to begin with. The only way I know of to get higher thrust out of low mass exhaust is to put more energy into shooting it out. I remember how spin launch spins a projectile rocket at high speeds for a period of time before launch, and wondered if much the same could be done with plasma. I don't know if plasma accelerators are a thing or if this is more a particle beam kind of thing. I was thinking that if plasma could be rotated at high speed for a long time and then released in pulses it could make for a good space drive. Thoughts? Question: Would the plasma necessarily get hotter the faster it is rotated? My gut tells me probably, which would put a limit on how fast you could rotate it before shooting it out as exhaust Obviously we cannot SSTO with it, though a scifi version could at the expense of turning the ground onto molten lava with relativistic speed plasma exhaust.

It's my understanding that just like the pusher plate, you need the magnetic nozzle big enough to cover the rear end from the casaba howitzer plasma spear that is directed at the nozzle. Or else you will burn the hull fir no good reason. I am correct?