Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

[G-Tech Corporation]

I'm leaning towards a binary star system, with two stars of very similar mass.

How could I go about calculating the habitable zone? I read the useful post by Kyrusia (thanks a lot) and saw the calculator, but is there a formula which I can use for a binary star?

Thanks.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. To be frank, no one is going to care about the exact distance from your star that your worlds orbit, and the same number will care about whether your worlds lie in the habitable zones.

Indeed.

Honestly, you can slap your orbital worldship in a tenth of Mercury's orbit and it'll just be a more interesting setting as your characters comment on the beauty of the star's CMEs.

[Ardoki]

Do I not have to worry too much about the gravitational relationship between stars and planets either?

[SquareDisc City]

I'm leaning towards a binary star system, with two stars of very similar mass.

How could I go about calculating the habitable zone? I read the useful post by Kyrusia (thanks a lot) and saw the calculator, but is there a formula which I can use for a binary star?

Thanks.

Two plausible setups:

The planet orbits one star, and the other star is much further away. The planet's primary star is normally the sole influence on habitability, though the companion star is likely to be a bright "nighttime" light source and may modulate the climate. Alternatively it should be possible, though less common, for the more distant star to be the dominant source of heat and light.

The stars are in a tight orbit and the planet is in a wider orbit round both, known as a circumbinary planet. The habitable zone is the same as for a single star with the combined luminosity of the multiple. The stars will probably eclipse each other as seen from the planet and that may affect the weather. And you get the double-sunsets.

Either of those setups should be stable. You can look up Hill Spheres and whatnot, but as long as you have the stars either much closer together or much further apart than the radius of the planet's orbit it ought to be OK.

EDIT: In the circumbinary case, Wiki sez "The minimum stable star to circumbinary planet separation is about 2-4 times the binary star separation". Wider than I thought, and wide enough that the seasons could be interesting on a circumbinary planet. In the planet-round-one-star case "if a planet's distance to its primary exceeds about one fifth of the closest approach of the other star, orbital stability is not guaranteed".

[G-Tech Corporation]

Do I not have to worry too much about the gravitational relationship between stars and planets either?

Depends how handwavey you want to get. Some folks here use gravitics for orbital stabilization. Some people strap giant rocket engines to their planets and bake half a hemisphere to alter orbital patterns. Others frown and shake their heads at such shenanigans.

[Escalan Corps-Star Island]

Do I not have to worry too much about the gravitational relationship between stars and planets either?

As a number of people have said, the details of such things are wonderful to have if you plan on letting them influence your writing/ define elements of your story. The short of it is that what you define of your civilisation ought always enhance your world-building and ability to collaborate with others.* As Kyru always says, plot is king: if using the conflicting gravitational influences of binary stars allows you to develop the stories you want to tell, then by all means go for it. If not, don't worry about it. Everyone in the community will agree that the beauty of science fiction writing and NSFT is that you aren't bound by realism, you're bound by your creativity and your ability to listen to advice, accept criticism, and explore the unexpected twists your own creations can take.

*An anecdote from my end: I once attempted to port elements of the civilisation I'm using in my own novel to the FT community, and it didn't work. Why? Not because I hadn't carefully and exhaustively developed the details of my state(s), but rather because I had boxed myself into a corner by having too expansively defined and nailed-down a canon and set of rules. In short, I was thinking of working on my lore and canon for the sake of writing it in isolation, not being open to the changes that needed to occur for me to use it in a friendly and collaborative manner. In the end, I spent a year re-developing what I wanted to use for FT, recognising that the be-all and end-all of working within this community is the community. Your systems, fleets, species, and grand political intrigues are in the end just the backdrop against which personal and character interactions, both in-character and out, are painted and developed.

[Lubyak]

Do I not have to worry too much about the gravitational relationship between stars and planets either?

You can worry about it as much as you want to, or as little as you don't. Frankly, I don't think I have ever thought about the gravitic relationship between any of my stars or planets. If you want to make a plot point or key thing about your civilisation out of their interaction, then go ahead--that's great, and it could be really cool--but don't feel like you have to calculate your orbital period or something else, and then map out every detail about everything. Just craft the basics of your civilisation, and grow from there.

[Ardoki]

I'm leaning towards a binary star system, with two stars of very similar mass.

How could I go about calculating the habitable zone? I read the useful post by Kyrusia (thanks a lot) and saw the calculator, but is there a formula which I can use for a binary star?

Thanks.

Two plausible setups:

The planet orbits one star, and the other star is much further away. The planet's primary star is normally the sole influence on habitability, though the companion star is likely to be a bright "nighttime" light source and may modulate the climate. Alternatively it should be possible, though less common, for the more distant star to be the dominant source of heat and light.

The stars are in a tight orbit and the planet is in a wider orbit round both, known as a circumbinary planet. The habitable zone is the same as for a single star with the combined luminosity of the multiple. The stars will probably eclipse each other as seen from the planet and that may affect the weather. And you get the double-sunsets.

Either of those setups should be stable. You can look up Hill Spheres and whatnot, but as long as you have the stars either much closer together or much further apart than the radius of the planet's orbit it ought to be OK.

EDIT: In the circumbinary case, Wiki sez "The minimum stable star to circumbinary planet separation is about 2-4 times the binary star separation". Wider than I thought, and wide enough that the seasons could be interesting on a circumbinary planet. In the planet-round-one-star case "if a planet's distance to its primary exceeds about one fifth of the closest approach of the other star, orbital stability is not guaranteed".

Yeah, I think the circumbinary is what I'm looking for. How many habitable planets should I include in such a system (that is including planets which can be terraformed)?

[Tharwatine]

Two plausible setups:

The planet orbits one star, and the other star is much further away. The planet's primary star is normally the sole influence on habitability, though the companion star is likely to be a bright "nighttime" light source and may modulate the climate. Alternatively it should be possible, though less common, for the more distant star to be the dominant source of heat and light.

The stars are in a tight orbit and the planet is in a wider orbit round both, known as a circumbinary planet. The habitable zone is the same as for a single star with the combined luminosity of the multiple. The stars will probably eclipse each other as seen from the planet and that may affect the weather. And you get the double-sunsets.

Either of those setups should be stable. You can look up Hill Spheres and whatnot, but as long as you have the stars either much closer together or much further apart than the radius of the planet's orbit it ought to be OK.

EDIT: In the circumbinary case, Wiki sez "The minimum stable star to circumbinary planet separation is about 2-4 times the binary star separation". Wider than I thought, and wide enough that the seasons could be interesting on a circumbinary planet. In the planet-round-one-star case "if a planet's distance to its primary exceeds about one fifth of the closest approach of the other star, orbital stability is not guaranteed".

Yeah, I think the circumbinary is what I'm looking for. How many habitable planets should I include in such a system (that is including planets which can be terraformed)?

It definitely depends on your preference, including what level of technology you have to terraform other planets to be habitable for your people. For reference, though, you might want to check out this video addressing a more methodical approach to designing such a system.

[SquareDisc City]

It's generally thought that more than two or three naturally-habitable planets orbiting a single heat source is unlikely. There are possible arrangements involving moons and trojans and whatnot to add more "worlds", but technically they're not planets. But when you start talking about terraforming, well given sufficient time, resources, and technology anything can be terraformed, but some things will be easier than others.

In general, as some people have said if you wants to ignore scientific plausibility and just write whatever you like then you can. But equally if you want to pay attention to science and write something you think is realistic, you can too.

[Sunset]

Or simply keep the details in the background as something percolating - especially if nothing strikes your fancy at the moment. Go with the binary pair, have three planets in the Goldilocks zone, and leave the why or when up in the air. Heck, you could even keep the why / how a secret! Suppose all three are not from your home solar system and instead they - like your homeworld - was moved to the system by a giant alien machine sometime in the ancient past. Then stuff starts to happen in the system again, scientists figure out the cause, and a mad dash by various interstellar powers ensues.

...resulting in the destruction of said machine but the discovery of a lost alien species. A cute alien species.

Just one example, but my point is that not all stories must be already told. The Who/What/When/Where/Why/How of any particular background element could also become a foreground roleplay if it is of sufficient interest!

[Azura]

... Just one example, but my point is that not all stories must be already told. The Who/What/When/Where/Why/How of any particular background element could also become a foreground roleplay if it is of sufficient interest!

This, absolutely this. Some of the best aspects of Future Tech comes in the brainstorming, or the natural flow of ideas to answer those questions. Don't worry too much about micromanaging to start just focus on aspects that interest you, and ultimately you'll find that your concept sort of 'flows out' as a natural extension of the ideas you put to paper. Once you get a feel for your mythos and how you want it to evolve, the aesthetics actually fall into place pretty easily.

[The Imperium Empires]

For realistic future tech is weapons that use guns with buckets more realistic.

[Kyrusia]

For realistic future tech is weapons that use guns with buckets more realistic.

I assume this is a typo for "bullets." If so: weaponry which still utilize bullets (or other kinetic projectiles) are fine in FT and are decidedly common, regardless of whether they utilize chemical propellants, ETC, electromagnetic propulsion, etc.

[The Imperium Empires]

For realistic future tech is weapons that use guns with buckets more realistic.

I assume this is a typo for "bullets." If so: weaponry which still utilize bullets (or other kinetic projectiles) are fine in FT and are decidedly common, regardless of whether they utilize chemical propellants, ETC, electromagnetic propulsion, etc.

One yes that was a typo and two thank ou.

[Neornith]

For realistic future tech is weapons that use guns with buckets more realistic.

When I first read this as buckets I thought you meant like an ammo drum until Kyrusia clarified it as a typo

Absolutely though and there are several different types of kinetic weaponry that are future tech, caseless rounds come first to mind, basically just a bullet with a small propellent dot on the back which is activated by an electric charge produced from the gun, ramjet rounds are another type of kinetic bullet that'll upgrade your firearms into future tech, compacting coilguns and railguns into something that can be utilized by power armor troops are another possibility, you could also create your own type of kinetic weaponry if you fancy putting in a little research and effort into it

[Kassaran]

I see the Kassaran as using traditional kinetic weapons up until the early 25^th Century when finally prototype PEWs (Particle Acceleration Weapons) begin to become more wieldy and powerplants more stable and capable of sustaining a PEW Beam for longer than a few milliseconds. To that extent, it moves into the Star Trek 'phaser' range with the PEWs starting as large and clunky as early firearms were and then quickly evolving and miniaturizing over the course of the late 2400's to become a mainstay weapon in use in space-warfare and boarding actions. PEWs at that point have minor electronic disruption capabilities and using them in a seemingly concentrated manner is much like a laser in which it will effect solid material and set aflame or burn straight through most organic objects.

PEWs have a high radiation output though, so using them often requires shielding or special handling equipment to avoid receiving cell mutations to exposed parts of the body whilst handling. Kinetic weapons in that regard have remained the mainstay in the Kassaran Armories and likely will for a great many more years if not Millennia. That's how I see the advancement of weapons via Kassaran, how it's done by others is up to them.

[Dinake]

I was wondering what yall's thoughts on FT human biodiversity(as in, colonists adapt into separate species/subspecies to adapt to a new planet)? Specifically, I'm trying to justify an FT nation made primarily of latex foreheadians, as I want some sort of alienness but don't think I could pull off starfish aliens.

[Sunset]

I'd just go with latex foreheadians because you want them. The idea of biodiversifying is a fun one - and I've done it myself - but the 'reality' will be highly advanced robotics that are remotely operated while the people stay safe and sound in their vaults. Which would also make a good story.

[Neornith]

I was wondering what yall's thoughts on FT human biodiversity(as in, colonists adapt into separate species/subspecies to adapt to a new planet)? Specifically, I'm trying to justify an FT nation made primarily of latex foreheadians, as I want some sort of alienness but don't think I could pull off starfish aliens.

Completely up to you and what you're comfortable with doing, if you want to take a basic human and add some stuff to it and they're all human except in appearance that's perfectly fine

[Heavonia]

Some queries on spehs combat:

• What would people say is the typical ranges of spehs combat?
• Is there any real point to fighters or other 'aircraft' in space, or is it better to have small corvette-like pickets to provide long ranged 'CIWS'-style cover, and long-ranged sensors?
• What is it that fundamentally makes stelf in space difficult? OTOH it's heat emissions, yus? What other methods would a spehswarship use to detect opposing craft?
• Would it be plausible to use heatsinks which can reduce heat emissions to a 'stealthy' level, and then emit the heat in a pulse to try and either screw-up, or act as a decoy for any munitions which uses heat as a targeting mechanism?

[G-Tech Corporation]

Some queries on spehs combat:

• What would people say is the typical ranges of spehs combat?
• Is there any real point to fighters or other 'aircraft' in space, or is it better to have small corvette-like pickets to provide long ranged 'CIWS'-style cover, and long-ranged sensors?
• What is it that fundamentally makes stelf in space difficult? OTOH it's heat emissions, yus? What other methods would a spehswarship use to detect opposing craft?
• Would it be plausible to use heatsinks which can reduce heat emissions to a 'stealthy' level, and then emit the heat in a pulse to try and either screw-up, or act as a decoy for any munitions which uses heat as a targeting mechanism?

1) Depends who you RP with. Very few people will engage outside of a system or so, and most inside of an AU or so. Others will only engage at what would be considered knife-fight ranges, with broadsides within kilometers and whatnot. So, basically anywhere from tens of kilometers to millions.
2) Again, depends who you RP with. Lots of folks hate fighters with a passion, and indeed corvettes, based on hard interpretations of their capabilities. Others love them because they give a place for characters to sit during space operas, and drop torpedoes through shields and whatnot.
3) The main difficulty related to 'realistic' stealth has to do with how stealth works in the modern day- we don't hide our ships/troops/aircraft, we simply make them harder to find against the background of a planet, whatever that planet is. In the hard vacuum, you don't have anything to hide your ships against. You have to actually hide them, as opposed to making them harder to find, because being harder to find means nothing when they're still the only object of notable heat/mass/luminescence for a hundred thousand klicks in any direction. As for how you might detect ships, realistically if vessels are moving at a reasonable fraction of c at sublights, you can't do much in the way of detection without significant handwavium.
4) As far as heatsinks, it depends how you crunch them. Thermal radiation is tough to shunt anywhere in particular without circulating mass, which obviously has its own issues. As far as releasing heat in a 'pulse', my admittedly vague knowledge of thermodynamics would point towards a 'pulse' being rather difficult to justify.

[Heavonia]

Some queries on spehs combat:

• What would people say is the typical ranges of spehs combat?
• Is there any real point to fighters or other 'aircraft' in space, or is it better to have small corvette-like pickets to provide long ranged 'CIWS'-style cover, and long-ranged sensors?
• What is it that fundamentally makes stelf in space difficult? OTOH it's heat emissions, yus? What other methods would a spehswarship use to detect opposing craft?
• Would it be plausible to use heatsinks which can reduce heat emissions to a 'stealthy' level, and then emit the heat in a pulse to try and either screw-up, or act as a decoy for any munitions which uses heat as a targeting mechanism?

1) Depends who you RP with. Very few people will engage outside of a system or so, and most inside of an AU or so. Others will only engage at what would be considered knife-fight ranges, with broadsides within kilometers and whatnot. So, basically anywhere from tens of kilometers to millions.
2) Again, depends who you RP with. Lots of folks hate fighters with a passion, and indeed corvettes, based on hard interpretations of their capabilities. Others love them because they give a place for characters to sit during space operas, and drop torpedoes through shields and whatnot.
3) The main difficulty related to 'realistic' stealth has to do with how stealth works in the modern day- we don't hide our ships/troops/aircraft, we simply make them harder to find against the background of a planet, whatever that planet is. In the hard vacuum, you don't have anything to hide your ships against. You have to actually hide them, as opposed to making them harder to find, because being harder to find means nothing when they're still the only object of notable heat/mass/luminescence for a hundred thousand klicks in any direction. As for how you might detect ships, realistically if vessels are moving at a reasonable fraction of c at sublights, you can't do much in the way of detection without significant handwavium.
4) As far as heatsinks, it depends how you crunch them. Thermal radiation is tough to shunt anywhere in particular without circulating mass, which obviously has its own issues. As far as releasing heat in a 'pulse', my admittedly vague knowledge of thermodynamics would point towards a 'pulse' being rather difficult to justify.

I'm thinking of equipping my space ships predominantly with rail-accelerated torpedoes/missiles, so they can accelerate to sufficient velocity to be effective at that range, while I imagine engines would be necessary to in some way alter their course to counteract evasive manoeuvres on the part of the enemy.

[Vocenae]

Some queries on spehs combat:

• What would people say is the typical ranges of spehs combat?
• Is there any real point to fighters or other 'aircraft' in space, or is it better to have small corvette-like pickets to provide long ranged 'CIWS'-style cover, and long-ranged sensors?
• What is it that fundamentally makes stelf in space difficult? OTOH it's heat emissions, yus? What other methods would a spehswarship use to detect opposing craft?
• Would it be plausible to use heatsinks which can reduce heat emissions to a 'stealthy' level, and then emit the heat in a pulse to try and either screw-up, or act as a decoy for any munitions which uses heat as a targeting mechanism?

1. As G-Tech said, it depends on who you RP with, but Collaboration and Compromise will typically solve most issues concerning ship to ship combat.

2. While G-Tech is mostly correct, I'd like to amend the statement by saying that the FT community doesn't so much hate space fighters as it does the "Space Fighter Argument", wherein people typically go to great lengths to try to justify/invalidate the realism of a fighter craft in space. Most people, while they may not use space fighters personally, will generally accept them if you have them so long as you are Creative and Consistent with them. And, of course, not godmod with them. After all, it's not too far a stretch to say that most of the FT community at one time enjoyed Star Wars.

3. Stealth is space is just one of those things, like FTL travel, that you have to handwave if you want it, for many of the reasons G-Tech stated. And detection would, again, come down to communicating with your RP partner(s) to determine if your ship would be detectable or not.

4. Se above. My suggestion is to not even try to explain it, because typically the more technological description you inject into your stealth system, the more open it is to either A: Being picked apart by people who actually understand the science and engineering behind it and don't refrain from doing so and B: Breaks the suspension of disbelief for those that either know the science but can typically look past it, and those that don't get the science and don't really want to read about how it works because they simply have no interest in it.

Remember, in FT, technology is the window dressing. It is a stage prop. It is designed to facilitate the advancement of the plot, not be the plot. So if you want stealth in space, then have stealth in space. Don't attempt to explain it in any great detail. Remember: Screw the Causes, show me the Effects.

[Sunset]

Some queries on spehs combat:

• What would people say is the typical ranges of spehs combat?
• Is there any real point to fighters or other 'aircraft' in space, or is it better to have small corvette-like pickets to provide long ranged 'CIWS'-style cover, and long-ranged sensors?
• What is it that fundamentally makes stelf in space difficult? OTOH it's heat emissions, yus? What other methods would a spehswarship use to detect opposing craft?
• Would it be plausible to use heatsinks which can reduce heat emissions to a 'stealthy' level, and then emit the heat in a pulse to try and either screw-up, or act as a decoy for any munitions which uses heat as a targeting mechanism?

1. As G-Tech said, it depends on who you RP with, but Collaboration and Compromise will typically solve most issues concerning ship to ship combat.

2. While G-Tech is mostly correct, I'd like to amend the statement by saying that the FT community doesn't so much hate space fighters as it does the "Space Fighter Argument", wherein people typically go to great lengths to try to justify/invalidate the realism of a fighter craft in space. Most people, while they may not use space fighters personally, will generally accept them if you have them so long as you are Creative and Consistent with them. And, of course, not godmod with them. After all, it's not too far a stretch to say that most of the FT community at one time enjoyed Star Wars.

3. Stealth is space is just one of those things, like FTL travel, that you have to handwave if you want it, for many of the reasons G-Tech stated. And detection would, again, come down to communicating with your RP partner(s) to determine if your ship would be detectable or not.

4. Se above. My suggestion is to not even try to explain it, because typically the more technological description you inject into your stealth system, the more open it is to either A: Being picked apart by people who actually understand the science and engineering behind it and don't refrain from doing so and B: Breaks the suspension of disbelief for those that either know the science but can typically look past it, and those that don't get the science and don't really want to read about how it works because they simply have no interest in it.

Remember, in FT, technology is the window dressing. It is a stage prop. It is designed to facilitate the advancement of the plot, not be the plot. So if you want stealth in space, then have stealth in space. Don't attempt to explain it in any great detail. Remember: Screw the Causes, show me the Effects.

1. As will blatant window-dressing and good writing. Realistically, even at a few thousand kilometers that Admiral standing on the bridge won't be able to see the enemy through those enormous glass windows... Solution?

"Maximum magnification!" And the Admiral's order was instantly followed, showing the array of enemy ships comfortably within the window of the enormous view screen. "Destroyer section six... Target those cruisers. I want to draw them away from the flagship. Destroyer section two, move to accompany six on the attack run..."

And now the range - any range - doesn't matter. Which also eliminates the need to list things like weapon ranges, damage output, ordinance numbers... Which helps to eliminate contentions over who's weapons are better and brings it back to the question of what will best serve the plot, stories, and characters. The more you can focus in all matters on questions of plot, story, and character the more integrated and thus alive your nation will feel.

3-4. Couldn't agree more. In my experience, stealth is best used as a story element rather than as a technological 'point'. Think of any submarine movie you can name; Das Boot, The Hunt for Red October, K-19, or even 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (Definitely more my style.) and the question is not 'how' that submarine is stealth but 'why' and what is it accomplishing? There are few scenes as tense as when that submarine crew stands perfectly still, holding their breath, waiting to see if they will escape the dull thud of the depth charge or whether they will perish, forever lost beneath the crushing depths. Although yes, some times that does mean that 'stealth' can be the plot but not the 'how' but the 'why, where, who, when...'

[Dreadful Sagittarius]

[*]What would people say is the typical ranges of spehs combat?

I. Range is something dependent on the attitudes of both writers, and what they feel the story calls for. If I use myself as an example, the Phanite Nautikon typically regard the 'normal' range for combat in space as being when the enemy is a distant speck on the myriad cameras dotting the hull. For someone like Feazanthia, it's typically measured in light-seconds. So we'd have to mesh together our attitudes with what the story requires; it may demand that I have to try and play the range game as best I can, or it may be the case that I hold the upper hand and he has to come to me.

[*]Is there any real point to fighters or other 'aircraft' in space, or is it better to have small corvette-like pickets to provide long ranged 'CIWS'-style cover, and long-ranged sensors?

II. As others have pointed out, this is a style or science choice. Science says bad, style says awesome. It depends really on what you want them for; I went with fighters since mine were hybrid space/air-breathing fighters which the Republic needed for the Unification War, and at the time they didn't have the extra capacity to go building whole new ship classes. Generally though I will say that if it comes down to using fighters or actual CIWS for shooting down enemy munitions, I'd go with the latter. Otherwise all you're doing is building mobile combat platforms and then limiting their actual potential by tying them down in one spot.

[*]What is it that fundamentally makes stelf in space difficult? OTOH it's heat emissions, yus? What other methods would a spehswarship use to detect opposing craft?

III. If we're talking in terms of realism, then it's issues with heat generation and dispersing (you have a ship vent its radiators and it's going to be showing up on someone's screens), and also the fact that without any kind of mimetic camo in space, all it takes is someone just looking out a window, or as I like to call it, a fatal flaw in the structural integrity of the hull. On the other hand if we're talking in terms of soft sci-fi, then there's the issue of at some point the power system will need recharging or cooling or maintenance.

In terms of detection, we've got thermal sensors, EM sensors, active sensors, Mk I eyeball/scope, and that's off the top of my head. I'm sure others can add to this list.

[*]Would it be plausible to use heatsinks which can reduce heat emissions to a 'stealthy' level, and then emit the heat in a pulse to try and either screw-up, or act as a decoy for any munitions which uses heat as a targeting mechanism?

IV. In order to do that, you'd have to have the heatsinks detached from the ship that's using them, and have some way of transferring the heat from the ship to the sinks without the cabling showing up on a heat-seeker's scans. Cheaper and more effective to just throw out an old-style nuke to act as a flare.

Edited to clean up quotes.