Spacescifi

Really I think we live in a timeline that could have been much worse. Imagine if Hitler waited to have WW2 until his scientists figured out nukes? Imagine if he held off persecuting the Jews until his henchmen figured out how to make nukes on their own? German tech was ahead of it's time, so they would have probably still lost due to lack of resources but putting atom bombs in V2 rockets headed for both eastern Europe and the UK could have happened at worst. More likely they would just use it to wipe out enemy armies so they would not have to use and lose their own.

Here is where you can ask them. I will go first. Life Insurance and death benefits: If one has no family at all why bother? How doea it even work? I presume it's just another profit generator, they want everyone to pay for life insurance whether they need it or not. How does it work? When you die and are none the wiser anyway? Or is there more to it? Yes I live in the US of A. California.

True that. I read an interesting fanfic based on the outsider universe that has the Loroi and humanity teaming up to explore an unexplored part of the galaxy to find and help neutralize a huge threat. Along the way they met a hyperadvanced old race that preexisted the Loroi. Naturally the human present asked this super advanced alien why they did not help younger races become more advanced. The higher race said that they used to... and it becomes a hot mess when such races destroy themselves. So instead they just watch and let nature take it's course. If a race is meant to survive it will, and if not it should be allowed to die like it is going to do anyway. Survival is like you said.... not of the fittest, but the best behaving..

Is that it is inevitable with mankind. As long as man exists, he/she will continue to craft and develop new tools. A weapon is really just a tool, a tool of destruction but still a tool. I am no prophet, but based on mankind's history there is reason to believe that humanity will continue to find and exploit greater forms of power than we currently do. For example, humanity of the 40th century, barring they are not recovering from an apocalypse, should have access to greater power sources than we do now. At some point mankind will venture into space and try to live there, but barring warp or FTL to Earth 2.0 or really good terraforming we are mostly going to be stuck here on the planet we grew up on. What drives technology development? Two things come to mind. Necessity and profit. In the case of Oppenheimer they needed an atomic bomb to end the war in a fantastic manner. In the case of more common inventions maximizing profit via utility or convenience is a driving force. So it would seem to me that technology development, for better or worse, is inevitable. If it can make a significant profit it WILL exist. If we need it it will exist. Whether man continues to make WMD in the 40th century is anyone's guess.... but I think we can always be sure of one thing. Humanity will always be capable of making WMD anyway as they develop their tech, so we need not fear technology development BECAUSE we cannot stop it anyway. If Oppenheimer had not made the atom bomb someone else would have as it was an international arms race. So long humans fear and are vigilant abouut the misuse of technology that will save us from our own self-induced apocalypse. We have survived this far and will continue to so long this holds.

You may direct message me if you like, but I almost wonder if it's a genetic thing too? Granted, lighter skin can more easily be penetrated by the sun's rays and heat everything inside, but I wonder if at least some nationalites are more prone to cancer than others.... even if they are all majority white. What I am implying is that perhaps, though whites are arguably more vulnerable to skin damage from the sun than more pigmented humans, their resistance to cancer varies with their genetic history. Meaning Johnny and Bob can both spend the same amount of time in the sun and Johnny may not get cancer while Bob does. All because Johnny's genetic code and health is strong enough to resist but Bob's not in one way or another.

I have always tended to favor whatever is natural. Going all the way back to childhood. Why? Because it always worked out... for me anyway. So I learned to trust it. I tend to prefer what is natural in other areas of life over what is artificial. Dangerous though the sun may be, I honestly would rather take my chances with the sun than some manmade UV lamp. Besides, as someone who favors what is natural, I am all about being who you are and being proud of it. Being the best version of you does not necessarily mean you need to radically alter the way you look, especially if it is only temporary and also dangerous. So while I will never really symphathize with the desire for UV lamps to tan the skin in record time (compared to natural sunlight), I do understand why it's popular. Still... I am pretty much anti-death and also think smokers are... unwise... to say the least. Our body is the most precious thing we possess besides the relationships we build with real people. "Where there is life there is hope." -Tyr Anasazi

Exercise literally recycles your blood. It's like an oil change for your blood. Cancer is when blood and or other cells mutate and become unhealthy. A good diet and moderate exercise is good as a help to prevent cancer. If you really, really, want cancer though: 1. Eat red meat every day while drinking large cup of soda. 2. Don't eat fruits or veggies. 3. Don't exercise. 5. Spend a lot of time unprotected in the sun. Realistically, some other disease might kill a person doing all this first, but if not and they live long then cancer will likely come someday.

Omitting the vampire part, what you said is true... besides, if it were true that would make you one as well if I am not mistaken.

You are absolutely right. In moderation it's fine, but too much is lethal. In California it is so hot you need only to put your arm out the window as you drive to feel a burning sensation on your skin. You could cook eggs without power if you have a cast iron pan and put it outside where the sun hits hardest.

Oh I get that (I understand). Maybe the difference between a tanned face and a pale body is so jarring to look at in the mirror that they rather just do the full body tan. Maybe that's it? Since for anyone with naturally tan colored skin, the difference is no where near as pronounced.

Help me understand please. I am at the gym and have seen several people walk into the tanning rooms. As I am not white I have no need for tanning, but I tend to wonder why they want it knowing there are dangers/risks. So perhaps you could enlighten me? My thoughts on why: 1. A perception of beauty. Women dye their hair blond and tan to get that Barbie or Baywatch look at the beach or gym. Guys? I dunno really, I guess they like the look. Even my boss says he needs a tan when he looks at his pale legs when wearing shorts. 2. They either minimize the danger of UV lamps in their heads or think a few times won't kill them. Or they know a Barbie-like friend who tans all the time and they are'nt dead so it must be OK right? 3. I dunno, but maybe some dislike how pale their skin is and wish it were golden or orange, thus the tanning booth popularity. Ironically in some Asian countries lightening their skin to make it pale is what they do to look beautiful. 4. They are fine with pale skin but like having the option of changing their skin and hair color like a chameleon. Since I am not white but know my mindset, I can say honestly I would not use tanning booths if I was. And if friends mocked ne for being pale and I grew tired of it I would just work outside, mow the lawn or go outside more. Or I would just ignore it or say "So? Cancer and me are not exactly BFFs." Thoughts?

Interesting that you mention 3d printing... that sounds more gross than a maturation chamber but also kind of cool. Like a body assembly line line with ready made parts you just attach already made. Cool. Horrifically cool!

Interesting.... and no I did not even know about the book... I was just brainstorming. Strangely, without even knowing about the adult dummy syndrome you just mentioned I already had a baked-in solution of sorts.

Scenario: How many times have you seen birthing/maturation chambers that grow an infant to an adult body in a matter of hours or days at most? In scifi? Do you think this is remotely possible? My thoughts: Yes.... a remote yes though. Factors involved: 1. God mode bio-engineering. The ability to create whole new designer species is a prerequisite. Whatever body made must be DESIGNED for rapid maturation inside the chamber but somehow go back to normal aging time when released. 2. No human size normal body has the energy or nutrients to grow from infancy to adulthood in hours or even days. The chamber must supply all of that, and the bioengineered body must be designed to take such concentrated energy and nutrients inside a relative short window of time. Doubts: Perhaps a body of flesh could absorb all the nutrients and energy required to grow it to adulthood in hours... but I reckon it would need cooling to avoid overheating. Thoughts on this subject?

I know a little already... suffice to say he relies on pure fiction scifi shields to compensate... without which missile swarms could and would make all his battleships virtually obsolete and little more than missile buses.

Thing is, that fundamentally changes the battle. Probably makes it kind of one sided too. Assuming the enemy fleet has competent command and running out of fuel is not an issue then there is almost no way in which they will lose against a foe who has limited fuel supply that will run out sooner than later in battle. How does fuel no longer being an issue effect the battle? 1. Repeat strafing. The fleet could split up into multiple divisions or wings and laser anything in range at a light second out. This is an optimal strategy too since the defenders cannot really afford to chase down an enemy fleet with virtually unlimited fuel. 2. What this means is the enemy can do drive-by laser zapping all day long and at a range where the defenders are unlikely to hurt them. In the scenario where both offender and attacker have both have virtually unlimited fuel then what that does to effect the battle depends on whether or not missiles also have unlimited fuel. If they do then space battleships become extinct like dinosaurs since missile swarms would outrun and overwhelm them as well as be cheaper. If only ships have unlimited fuel then what happens is fleets can chase each other indefinitely across the solar system, and spaceships also become massive RKVs that make moon bases nearly undefendable from attack as well as make leaving on a planet less safe.

Scenario. You have torchships. So does the enemy fleet you are fighting. However once they have warped into your solar system you really have no idea how much propellant the enemy fleet has in their tanks left, and if you knew that you could plan your attacks to exploit it. What you know: Classified intelligence from ten years ago shows that the enemy has torchships that can burn through their propellant at 1g in 4 hours. You currently have torchships that will burn all their propellant at 1g in 1 hour. They have 200 torchships, you have 188. They have FTL jumped near Mercury and are headed toward your fleet which is orbiting Mars. Enemy vessels are known to have and use Ravening Beam Of Death laser cannons that can burn through steel a light secomd out. Your vessels use mainly use macron (dust) cannon and missiles, as well as railguns. What you don't know: If the enemy has vessels more advanced since your intel is a decade old. What do you do? A: "Hey guys, it's just a misunderstanding? Can't we all just... get along?" B: "Let's get our most brillant minds and think up some solutions and win this thing!" C: Attack and hope for the best . Maim Question: Is the unknown delta V factor not a big deal, especially for long range combat?

Okay then. This definitely should have a bearing on scifi SSTO design then. Reaction Control System rockets in scifi may be higher thrust especially with high mass vessels like the battlestar galactica or a star destroyer. I know they don't use or show it onscreen, but given their mass, would not their RCS have to be throttled just like main engines? Due to the sheer mass being pushed (9000 tons or so). Also I assume with torchdrive rockets, toggling full thrust on and off might be easier. Why? Less propellant is required for thrust, which means less pressure on the turbopump etc right when full thrust is toggled on and off right?

I often see large heavy rockets like what Elon is doing gradually throttle down instead of just shut off. Is it possible to just shut down a rocket at fulk thrust or do you have to gradually throttle it down? RCS thrusters are usually not made to be throttled and have static thrust so they are made to be turned on and off at will.

I have given much thought to the look of RCS on space vessels and the reasons behind it. Specifically for large classic scifi SSTO vessels. At first I wondered why often RCS is shown as nozzles dotted into the hull itself spaced apart, or sometimes in rows, but never clustered into some circular port. Why? Two reasons come to mind. 1. RCS may draw it's propellant from a main tank that feeds all of them... even if they have a few smaller auxilliary tanks nearby. 2. For large SSTOs, you may want to cover the nozzles on the roof of your hull to protect against hail, snow, and debris while landed on a planet. This is easier to do with metal doors if nozzles take up less space such as with linear ports or simply spacing out nozzles embedded into the hull. But a circular port with a cluster of nozzles would by extension require a broader door to cover it from rain/hail/dust on the rood while landed. IRL I never see a cluster of nozzles used for RCS, only main engines, but if you are using multiple nozzles anyway for RCS, why not cluster them in their respective areas? Probably for aesthetics? I dunno? Looks ugly? Any functional reason? Like if you have 4 thrusters each for yaw, roll, and pitch, is there any advantage/disadvantage of clustering them in their areas VS spreading out their thruster locations more? Maybe it has to do with maneuverability I dunno and COM.

If they were real and just as incompetent, then they would inadvertently cause a The Road Not Taken scenario to occur as we assimilate their technology and conquer the stars with it after stomping them with a mere Windows virus.

My scifi q-laser is not visible from the sides, since most of it's energy is exotic and extreme repulsive force. Only if you look straight at a beam can you see it but you would literally be blown up anyway if not at a far enough distance for the beam to spread out and weaken. It's a messy way to go as it desposits virtually all it's energy as repulsive force.

Well... I don't have to work.. I could live on the streets and eat out of garbage cans... but I don't want to. I work because the benefits outweigh any conflicts or dumpster fires I have to deal with around abrasive personalities at work. In the same way, the benefits of being connected to the greater galactic community must outweigh the unevitable conflicts that arise from simply being connected to a wide range of personalities and interests. You see... the poor are at the mercy of the wealthy... that is why they beg so often. The way I see it, life is made of the haves and the have nots, and it is always better to have than not. Some aspire to work to have what they want legally, others want to take it by force.

Scenario: We have a scifi Q-laser blaster. It fires an exotic laser beam which has extremely high repulsive force. Sounds like a loud crack since lasers obviously break the sound barrier but this one is far more interactive with mass. Because of the smaller size of the power supply, the discharge of it's energy occurs faster than larger power supplies that spaceships use. 30 seconds of continous zapping will drain your power completely, so pulse firing is recommended. How powerful is a single zap? Same power as a grenade blowing up on something at point blank range. Cannot be throttled down. Note of caution: If your gun is somehow blown up it will detonate your remaining energy supply in the gun. Question about utility: How and when would such a gun be used? I do not see it being standard issue because it is dangerous. Maybe only special tactical forces would use it or specially trained military but that's it. I don't see them used in random fire fights where you care about collateral damage. If you don't care about collateral damage and leaving craters then this is the perfect weapon though.

Let's look at this as a microcosm shall we? At work there are people we tolerate only because we have to, and people we actually like. War in nature with animals is often about dominance, who gets to have control over this or or access over that. For animals and humans the two great drivers are a desire for food and the desire to reproduce to continue the species (pretty nifty that we are made to enjoy the very thing that keeps us around and not extinct). Yet humans are more complex and have wars of dominance simply to decide who is on top. Even at work we face this... new guy on the job does well and as all of a sudden is trying to show dominance to guys who have been there before him by trying to make them obey or follow his lead. Me? I don't follow anyone unless it makes sense to me... and I don't care if they whine and get annoyed at me in the process of failing to dominate me. I may not be on friendly terms with coworkers who would love to dominate me instead, but I am no one's lapdog nor doormat and if they have a problem with that so be it. War is like that. On a macro scale. Bring. It. On.