Spacescifi

Someone with funds like Elon. Could they develop it in secret before launch? Without government help? Like is it possible to mine your own uranium and develop your own 'thrust units' (sounds nicer than H-bombs) in a 'storage warehouse' (actually an undercover uranium enrichment facility)? Russia I hear has uranium ore, plus other places. If covert development is not possible... What countries would actually allow a launch on their soil if this cannot be done covertly? Funny replies are okay, since I know there is not likely a single billionaire considering doing this. It's risky... even for someone almost untouchable like them.

Antimatter bombs are arguably more efficient than nukes (assuming you already have enough safely stored away for use). What is the fallout of antimatter bombs compared to nuclear bombs? I remember reading somewhere that it left less fallout than a nuke, which I found surprising. I guess if you wanted to you could make only nuclear size blasts using small amounts of antimatter to reduce the fallout. Is this correct about antimatter or did I misread? Since from what I read, antimatter/matter annihilation releases mostly gamma rays, whic plain air absorbs as a horrific fireball anyway. What do you say?

Seriously folks. I enjoy spaceflight because it is like the ultimate physical challenge for mankind, but I think in a lotta ways we hold ourselves back. I am not about colonization like Zubrin, I just would like the ability to visit and come back in one piece. Tech to that end is all I want. So nuclear lightbulbs.... why are they not flying? Is it... A: Powers that be are: B: Nuclear lightbulbs do not work as well as advertised. C: Too much of: D: A combo of all three. C: Something else. Really, I do not care if is an SSTO or not, would a nuclear lightbulb offer any advantages in space? In atmosphere it can potentally if is boosted to ramjet speeds first with boosters. With said ramjet, and closed cycle nuclear heating of the air before being expelled. What do you say to this?

Amusing. I would have added, "Especially the cute ones. They make me sick!"

Meh. The fusion stuff we have done is not self sustaining nor does it pump out enough energy to make it worth mass production. And it will be that way so long we have leaky magnetic fields and power gained<power spent is fusion. From wikpedia: Fusion ignition is the point at which a nuclear fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining. This occurs when the energy being given off by the fusion reactions heats the fuel mass more rapidly than various loss mechanisms cool it. At this point, the external energy needed to heat the fuel to fusion temperatures is no longer needed.[1] As the rate of fusion varies with temperature, the point of ignition for any given machine is typically expressed as a temperature. Ignition should not be confused with breakeven, a similar concept that compares the total energy being given off. The key difference is that breakeven ignores losses to the surroundings, which do not contribute to heating the fuel, and thus are not able to make the reaction self-sustaining. Breakeven is an important goal in the fusion energy field, but ignition is required for a practical energy producing design. In nature, stars reach ignition at temperatures similar to that of the Sun, around 15 million Kelvin (27 million degrees F). Stars are so large that the fusion products will almost always interact with the plasma before it can be lost to the environment at the outside of the star. In comparison, man-made reactors are far less dense and much smaller, allowing the fusion products to easily escape the fuel. To offset this, much higher rates of fusion are required, and thus much higher temperatures; most man-made fusion reactors are designed to work at temperatures around 100 million degrees, or higher. To date, no man-made reactor has reached breakeven, let alone ignition. Ignition has however been achieved in the cores of detonating thermonuclear weapons.

Earth is unique compared to any other planet we have seen so far. In that it has life in abundance. Whether life arises at random or whether it does not will effect the odds of us ever finding another world like Earth. So the answer will either be: A: Yes! Because I think Earth worlds appear randomly by accident so we cannot be the only one. Or... B: Not likely.

I know. But such fusion schemes so far are energy hogs that produce less energy than the energy spent on them. Really... fusion seems not like it's worth it if the energy produced is low. I would rather engineer more efficient fission reactors. Fusion and nuclear lightbulbs are similar, onky fusion is a lot harder due to higher temperatures and leaky magnetic fields. Trying to hold plasma with a magnetic field is like trying to hold water in a bucket with holes. So far anyway.

Why? Is it fun to see the responses? Are you hoping to find one that fits yours? I can tell you that the internet is arguably more polarized than people truly are in real life, so every site is a virtual echo chamber with moderators enforcing which echoes occur. Even Kerbal forums is this way. Echo chambers are not bad per se... but the message may or may not be an 'echo' you wanna hear.

What you are asking will give you a million answers. Is there a right and a wrong answer? Does it even matter? The meaning of life matters not to you nor anyone unless someone will commit to do something about it. Meaning matters not until you're ready to commit. Until then... it's whatever. Are you that someone?

Fusion ignition is a self sustaining fusion reaction because the heat is so high that any cooling that does happen due to radiation or loss of mass will not stop the fusion reaction. This is really the key to the dream of endless energy, since fusion will give you electrical power forever.... until the fusion stops, which will happen if the heat lowers somehow or if magnetic holding fields loosen. Right now we are not even close to that, the closest we get is by detonating nukes (if the explosion could be contained rather than expanding into the air without destroying everything). So the actual question is... how do you scientifically contain a nuclear blast in atmosphere? We cannot do it, but if we could what scientific means could we use? Magnetic fields with some super high strength, more than anything we have done to date. You would need a magnetic field at least as strong as the energy released in a nuclear blast if not greater. I do not know how many Tesla that is, but I know it's a lot! So I wager to bet that if we ever figure out a way to actually contain a self sustaining fusion reaction, we will also have a way to shield against nuclear blast waves in atmosphere. In vacuum it would be even easier to do, since any blast waves would be much smaller. Hello scifi shields! Won't shield against the radiation though, so a lot of mass will be required to soak up thermal energy without melting the entire spaceship. In other words... only truly massive spaceships shoud have a selfsustaining fusion reaction onboard. Small spacecraft would overheat too fast. What do you think? How can mankind use science and physics to contain a self sustaining nuclear fusion reaction (AKA nuclear blast, closest we have reached)? EDIT: Fun fact, if containment of self sustaining fusion fails the result will be bad. Why? It's a contained nuclear blast wave... what do you think will happen when it is released from captivity?

Actually.. here is a slight fix. No need for an airplane flight mode. Just have propellantless momentum shift mode in addition to normal newtonian. Example: So you ran out of propellant... no problem, you're CMG's allow ship to flip (albeit slower than with thrusters if you exhausted that too) and point the direction you want to fly to. So it is point and fly, with all momentum shifted, although you cannot accelerate in this mode. This momentum shift mode would only last seconds anyway, so it would be hard to abuse it tp extremes, although it woukd make combat interesting. Since with momentum shifting you could pull off some really fast escapes and fly bys.

I could add tech buffs you buy that increase shield recharge rate for rate of fire shields, and tech buffs that increase the amount of kinetic energy shields can take too at the expense of cargo space. Plus hull armor would matter, but kinetic projectiles would tend to make armour a mute point at some speeds. A speed cap is necessary but I would do it based on propellant carried. It would be like delta v. You can reach a max speed and burn all your fuel newtonian style. That would be your speed cap. You would also have an flight mode that allows for airplane pitch, yaw, and roll, but no change in speed, so you could only raise or lower your speed using newtonian maneuvers while burning limited propellant. Airplane flight mode is fueless so you would just bank turns based on speed. Even if not incorporated into all ships, these would challenge the status quo for PVP.

It would make the game more interesting and demonstrate those players who have newtonian knowledge vs those that do not. Shields could even be more varied. For example: Rate of fire shields: Laughs at DPS. Every hit is a hitpoint no matter the kinetic energy or blast. So weaker but rapid fire weaponry would work great on this, but slow firing high damage weapons would be far from optimal. Even stock lasers work great on it. Kinetic energy matters shields: Less damage for less kinetic energy, lasers need high energy to do any DPS. Timed Invulnerable shields; Like old arcade game shields. Raise shields but they drain with use and only last seconds (expensive one last the most seconds). So you would alternate betwern raising shields a letting them recharge while dodging a lot. Fighters would love it, but in-game it would be terribly expensive to buy.

I am not counting the portals, as they are a plot device. Let's say portals are cheap. So all main cost goes into the chain link fleet of spacecraft holding the portals. EDIT: Mars us usually farther than 3 LM away. More like over twenty minutes at lightspeed. Which would mean the fleet chain link every 7 light seconds would need to be.... massive in numbers. If we wanted an Earth to Mars direct line.

You can. But I put the 7 light second range for a reason. Just to make rocketry and ISRU still relavent. In order to portal people from Earth directly to Mars would be expensive. Mars at closest orbital approach is about 3 light minutes away. So you would need a whole fleet of ships to chain portals every 7 light seconds to mars. You would need over 30 vessels. Possibly 80 in the chain. And they would have to fly into position first. Which would take months of coasting.

Realistically you will be putting moon regolith product in your propellant tank. Why? Imagine we have portals that link propellant supply depots on Earth or elsewhere to spaceships in space. Max range of portals is 7 lightseconds. Which is fine for Earth to moon constant acceleration travel... just feed the tank. But past the moon you would need to set up a moon supply base first with a portal. Extending range beyond the moon for 7 light seconds. After that your on your own. Coast away and use propellant judiciously. Bonus question: How fast could we get to Mars with this tech setup? I know it makes SSTO's easy so long you are wiling to foot the propellant bill. But it also means that moons are now looked at as bases for propellant processing facilities. I guess one could in theory send up spacecraft to orbit every 7 lightseconds from Earth with portals. Extending portal range and therefore constant acceleration range dramatically. Just chain portal swap propellant from Earth to any constant accelerating ships in range and continue the chain. This would even allow astronauts to just wait out the trip on Earth until they get in low orbit of Mars for landing.

Good point you added. To add to this, the creature could even have rocket mode out the rear like the bombardier beetle. For times when ot wanted to go as fast as possible to get away. Actually, the cool thing about rocketry is if the creature has nozzles spaced appropriately... it can retroburn to slow down. The kick leg as you called it could be two at least, used for steering like a rudder or even pivoting, something even a car cannot do. WOW! I think you're on to something, mankind can actually build a vehicle or car with these abilities. The selling point would be this... never have to back up again if in a wide and clear lot. Just rotate and set her back down and drive. Cool!

Well... most space sims ignore the differing orbital velocities anyway. You can fly to some distant star in Elite dangerous and not have to spend time accelerating to match a 100 km per sec orbital speed difference. For all intents and purposes, spacecraft and planets in elite dangerous are standing still relative to the player until a spaceship moves I think. Thus the speed difference does not have to be real high, since it's a newtonian slug fest at best. Wanna do more damage? Come at a distance. Know what the funny thing is? If engine heat was not an issue, we have materials that can survive a 1000 g acceleration. 1000g missiles would make all projectile and even laser weapons obsolete in Elite dangerous since battles happen at relative close range (can't hit beyond range of eyesight for player). With the sheer yield of those missiles' kinetic energy, it would probably near one shot Anacondas!

IRL we know that in general, the greater the speed of an object on collision, the mote DPS it does. Not so in many space sims. It does not matter that the missile you fired accelerated at long range and hit it's target, it will still do a set amount of DPS. What if Elite dangerous implemented kinetic energy into DPS? Would it be too hard to implement for computer power? How would it change tactics? Long range missile spamming in volleys everywhere probably. Maybe even fleet volleys.

In the long run any prolonged human presence in space will require artificial gravity by spinning. Still, there may be niche may be a niche market for foods prepared in weightlessness. Shape? Cylindral or spherical or blobish. Since spinning works with cooking too in space (only way to keep stuff attached). Alteranately you can boil stews and soups just fine... but keep it contained. What you won't see.. anything crumbly. Just too much of an eye/cleaning hazard.

Actually, I was somewhat wrong. Here is my modified view. Using current science understanding and current physucs limits. Deep space battle? Big ship is preferred. Why? Propellant, little ships will take forever to get anywhere unless they are mini orion pusher plates (which don't scale down too super small levels). Either way in deep space, a big propellant laden ship can afford to manever a lot more than a smaller one with a smaller propellant budget. I deep space distances are likely to be so huge between combatants that you may as well trade fighters for missiles. Low orbit space battle? This is a total kill zone. Since spacraft orbit Earth every 90 min. It is relatively easy to shoot down satellites, and spaceships are much bigger targets. Did you know their are jet aircraft that can fire a missile into space a hit a satellite? Imagine what a whole volley of missiles would do to Star Destroyer WITHOUT scifi shields flying AGAINST the direction of the orbit? Hitting stuff flying toward ya at 8 km per sec is serious business. And much worse can be done (nukes). So all those scifi tropes of Earth not having legit space defense just because they lack orbital weapons platforms are untrue. The only way Earth won't be a problem for a big spaceship in LEO is if: A: The ship has lots of propellant and thrust to jyst dodge missiles for days. Umfortunately... Earth has lots of missiles, so you may run out of propelkant before Earth runs out of missiles. B: Scifi shields that can somehow tank missiles hitting you as slam into them,at 8 km per sec or higher. C: Your cooling mechanisms are so good you can vaporize missiles regularly before they hit with lasers. So you need one of those in LEO or if you're a big ship you're dead. Fighters are better for LEO actually. Scifi scenarios: Often spaceships jump out of warp/hyperspace with a speed and trajectory autoshifted to match other nearby spacecraft. Thus relative tp each other they are standing still. In that case which ship is better deoends purely on DPS and range and nothing more. Can you jump within a few kilometers or a few meters? If a few meters... big ships are preffered, as they can take more DPS and dish it out too. If several kilometers is the jump range then fighters and missiles can rule again... why? The kinetic enegy they gain from acceleration alone will increase their DPS to kill big ships anyway.

Provided we never figure a way to cheat gravity, spaceships will always favor lower mass on launch. That said, you can still get scifi looking spaceships! Send a rocket looking spaceship up to orbit, and have it inflate the habital section that can look like a scifi vessel of your choice. Preferably any with curves (saucers, eggs, spheres, etc). If money were no object, are there ANY good reasons not to stuff rockets with inflatables to expand space inlnfrastructure and volume for less mass? Are hard modules better than inflated? Seems not to be the case to me, since inflated modules can be designed to self-repair (like scabs on skin). Try doing that with solid metal.

Only ih the shielding aspect. As stated, at long range it becomes difficult to impossible to zap using the full 3-D space (fire from above or.below would require traversing great distance if facing the front line) especially at a fleet that is only exposing a single column line to you. Space is a unique battle field in that you can pick up debris and reuse it When zapping fighters in front at long range, theyare unlikely to blow up even if disabled, something scifi gets wrong. Lasers need absurd power levels to blast anything. Requiring an uber big spaceship of sorts to handle that firepower. So disabled. fighters may get skewered many times over,, but fighters in the rear will keep holding them as shields, minimizing the damage tbey take from weaker long range lasers. In fact, increased surface area is what you want against lasers, since it spreads out the damage instead of concentrating it. At close range formation flight would be a bad idea since any kinetic weapon could bulldoze it, but at long range they are a preferred formation over the scattered swarm...generally.

Won't destroy enough of them in time because they re-use fightrr wreckage as shielding. Long range sniping makes firing along one plane easy, but along a all three planes hard. You would litterally need your fleet scattered out in three dimensions to hit anything but the scrap shield. Your basically hitting this at long range, and they just switch the scrap around to protect fighters at the rear.

Fighters can disable or destroy even missile swarms at long range with laser beams. If enough missiles can man make it across the gap to hit their target... well and good. Otherwiss they get wasted. At close range missiles work great.