Balrogga wrote:
Are you sure that is the right link?
It appears to be surface ships/sub/torpedo for an MT navy and not any FT ships.
Not space FT. Ship FT so yea its the right link.....
Advertisement
by Noders » Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:42 am
Balrogga wrote:
Are you sure that is the right link?
It appears to be surface ships/sub/torpedo for an MT navy and not any FT ships.
Socialdemokraterne wrote:Noders: Only the finest books and pizza. And books about pizza. Not so much their book-flavored pizzas, though.
by Michael Kenmore » Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:58 am
Mike the Progressive wrote:Goob? Can I call you Goob?
Look Ralph, it's like a good porno. Idiotic plot, excessive moaning, and it's unreal as shit. But at the end of the day: Who cares?
New Amerik wrote:Each share represents a single hair on your Manly Moustache of Manliness.
The more shares you've collected, the more follicles you've got and the more luxurious your luscious, gentlemanly, simply outstanding Moustache of Manliness will be.
For comparison, Max Barry currently has about the same level of Moustacheness as Theodore Roosevelt.
by Feazanthia » Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:04 am
Derscon wrote:Axis Nova wrote:Of course, how EASILY it can be done depends on your tech level, but really, if you have interstellar travel this should be a pretty basic thing.
Well, when you're deciding what you're going to do with your nation, how you're going to find shit, etc, then ease is always a factor. We, now, can do a lot of the things in sci-fi, but it isn't easy nor feasible considering all of the other factors that would go into pulling said thing off. If you're going for flavor, then the ease-factor isn't necessary, but it's only unnecessary if flavor is your only concern.
@Feaz: I do keep forgetting about fusion torches <_<
On the whole, though, how efficient is asteroid mining, really? They have a tendency to bump into each other a lot, they're all small and spread out, many of the resources on them could be found in higher densities on a planet or a moon, etc. Admittedly, this is a question, not a charge (I don't actually know the answer), but it just intuitively strikes me as utterly wasteful.
In 2004, the world production of iron ore exceeded a billion metric tons.[4] In comparison, a comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron-nickel ore,[5] or two to three times the annual production for 2004. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019
kg of nickel-iron, which could supply the 2004 world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also contain precious metals. In 2006, the Keck Observatory announced that the binary Trojan asteroid 617 Patroclus,[6] and possibly large numbers of other Jupiter Trojan asteroids, are likely extinct comets and consist largely of water ice. Similarly, Jupiter-family comets, and possible near-Earth asteroids which are defunct comets, might also economically provide water.
by Noders » Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:08 am
Michael Kenmore wrote:Noders wrote:Not space FT. Ship FT so yea its the right link.....
Not unheard of, but here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46067
This is an example of an FT storefront I made. Per product it shows a picture, a description containing some incentive to buy the product, as well as some stats that make it sound great.
But, Noders, you forgot the most important thing of all.... the prices.
Socialdemokraterne wrote:Noders: Only the finest books and pizza. And books about pizza. Not so much their book-flavored pizzas, though.
by Michael Kenmore » Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:11 am
Feazanthia wrote:No. No they don't bump into each other at all. Asteroid collisions are major events.
If you're standing on an asteroid, and can see another asteroid, this is unusual. Fields like those shown in Star Trek, Star Wars, even Battlestar? Complete bullshit. They're nothing like that.
Mike the Progressive wrote:Goob? Can I call you Goob?
Look Ralph, it's like a good porno. Idiotic plot, excessive moaning, and it's unreal as shit. But at the end of the day: Who cares?
New Amerik wrote:Each share represents a single hair on your Manly Moustache of Manliness.
The more shares you've collected, the more follicles you've got and the more luxurious your luscious, gentlemanly, simply outstanding Moustache of Manliness will be.
For comparison, Max Barry currently has about the same level of Moustacheness as Theodore Roosevelt.
by Feazanthia » Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:41 am
by Noders » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:58 am
Socialdemokraterne wrote:Noders: Only the finest books and pizza. And books about pizza. Not so much their book-flavored pizzas, though.
by Michael Kenmore » Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:02 pm
Feazanthia wrote:True, we don't know for absolute certain, but we have a very high degree of certainty.
Know why? Because an asteroid field that dense would have them constantly being attracted and sheared by each others' tidal forces, a high (on a astronomical scale) rate of collision, and other nasty things.
Any field that dense would quickly be reduced to gravel.
Mike the Progressive wrote:Goob? Can I call you Goob?
Look Ralph, it's like a good porno. Idiotic plot, excessive moaning, and it's unreal as shit. But at the end of the day: Who cares?
New Amerik wrote:Each share represents a single hair on your Manly Moustache of Manliness.
The more shares you've collected, the more follicles you've got and the more luxurious your luscious, gentlemanly, simply outstanding Moustache of Manliness will be.
For comparison, Max Barry currently has about the same level of Moustacheness as Theodore Roosevelt.
by Axis Nova » Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:47 pm
by Bavin » Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:19 pm
Michael Kenmore wrote:Feazanthia wrote:No. No they don't bump into each other at all. Asteroid collisions are major events.
If you're standing on an asteroid, and can see another asteroid, this is unusual. Fields like those shown in Star Trek, Star Wars, even Battlestar? Complete bullshit. They're nothing like that.
Just nitpicking, but as far as we know asteroid fields close to our system are not like that. We live on the galaxy edge. Most of the heavy fields of stuff might be found towards the galactic center. I see no problem with someone inventing a solar system and shoving a ton of rocks in it so long as they have a plausible excuse for the gravity that's keeping all that debris there, and a reason something got pulled apart at that point.
by Khandosia » Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:07 am
by OMGeverynameistaken » Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:23 am
Khandosia wrote:And you thought Bear Cavalry was bad. Possible? Discuss.
by Auman » Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:32 am
Michael Kenmore wrote:Noders wrote:er well the ships are based of Sup Com so there robotic.....
If you're trying to sell a product, promote the good sides. Say: Features the latest, snazziest, ultra-whambang-positronic-gravo-hopper robotic technology! (Don't actually, but you get the point.)
Say that it's a low, low price for limited time. Say that it's got enormous pwnage power. And then fix up some shiny stats like length, cargo capacity, crew, etc.
by Allanea » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:08 am
OMGeverynameistaken wrote:Khandosia wrote:And you thought Bear Cavalry was bad. Possible? Discuss.
The main armament is facing the wrong way. And assuming you turn that beasty around to fire the gun, the tail armor is basically useless due to the way it's applied.
by Zepplin Manufacturers » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:17 am
by The Steampunk Empire » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:13 am
Zepplin Manufacturers wrote:The main problem is you have put your reasonably expensive anti tank gun, light howitzer or whatever and not a little armour on something that basically has no interest at all in warfare and wasn't in any way relevant designed for it save for its payload and even that is questionable.
Now if you were as is the obvious path train your beastie from birth (expense) feed it (expense) you still have problems. Oh sure it can wander around but that recoil will do bad things to it over time and puts a definitive limit on how large a recoiling weapon it can carry.
It has a natural wastage, it has no upgrade paths in the way of payload, speed or survivability and its replacements require training time and handlers, it is not in any way reliable and may simply die at any time to any number of natural and non war related causes. It requires a VAST amount of foliage (look up the amount of feed the huge numbers of unused cav and used gun horses in world war one required, we are talking millions of tons) and live with its miserably slow speed, limited cruise range, and strict viable environments. If it grows ill it cannot be swiftly returned to duty, its wounds require a great deal of care and it can simply go lame at the wrong moment. Unlike a machine which you may just have a spare tire, tread or drive sprocket for getting a new leg isnt as easy.
It has a huge and very basically biological vulnerability to shell fragments, reasonably large calibre machine guns and ANY calibre of cannon, any rocket, mortar, mine or reasonable grenade. Indeed its large size will mean just like horses it will suffer brutally from canister and shell fragments. Fire will override any training you try to instil in it, and there is the in this case not so small problem of dung.
Never work with children or animals.
by Galla- » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:27 am
Khandosia wrote:And you thought Bear Cavalry was bad. Possible? Discuss.
Fashiontopia wrote:Look don't come here talking bad about Americans, that will get you cussed out faster than relativity.
Besides: Most posters in this thread are Americans, and others who are non-Americans have no problems co-existing so shut that trap...
by Zepplin Manufacturers » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:49 am
The main problem is you have put your reasonably expensive anti tank gun, light howitzer or whatever and not a little armour on something that basically has no interest at all in warfare and wasn’t in any way relevant designed for it save for its payload and even that is questionable.
Now if you were as is the obvious path train your beastie from birth (expense) feed it (expense) you still have problems. Oh sure it can wander around but that recoil will do bad things to it over time and puts a definitive limit on how large a recoiling weapon it can carry.
It has a natural wastage, it has no upgrade paths in the way of payload, speed or survivability and its replacements require training time and handlers, it is not in any way reliable and may simply die at any time to any number of natural and non war related causes. It requires a VAST amount of foliage (look up the amount of feed the huge numbers of unused cave and used gun horses in world war one required, we are talking millions of tons) and live with its miserably slow speed, limited cruise range, and strict viable environments. If it grows ill it cannot be swiftly returned to duty, its wounds require a great deal of care and it can simply go lame at the wrong moment. Unlike a machine which you may just have a spare tire, tread or drive sprocket for getting a new leg isn’t as easy.
It has a huge and very basically biological vulnerability to shell fragments, reasonably large calibre machine guns and ANY calibre of cannon, any rocket, mortar, mine or reasonable grenade. Indeed its large size will mean just like horses it will suffer brutally from canister and shell fragments. Fire will override any training you try to instil in it, and there is the in this case not so small problem of dung.
Never work with children or animals.
by Shuggy555 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:54 am
by The Fedral Union » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:05 am
by Shuggy555 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:31 am
The Fedral Union wrote:Because FTL takes a fuck-ton of energy. You're either going to another dimension (Ie punching a hole through space time) or folding space. Either or that's an incredible amount of power. In-fact you'd need huge fusion reactors to power FTL. Plus you also have shields, weapons life support, sub light drives.
That and fusion doesn't tend to explode or release as much radiation as a fission core. Most plasmas dissipate with in a short time of a containment breach. I mean in the worst case scenario I can see someone venting their engine room in to space in case of accident or damage.
by Feazanthia » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:56 am
by Arthropoda Ingens » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:18 am
by The Steampunk Empire » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:32 am
Zepplin Manufacturers wrote:As on occasion one posts with ones iphone one does not spell check and if thats all you can find wrong with the previous post then Im okay with it. Even so..
**Snipped for space**
Happy?
Feazanthia wrote:Don't listen to TFU he's full of it. Fission power is perfectly feasible.
You're right. There's no reason fission can't be used. Most people don't because fission is seen as "too primitive". You could power a ship with coal-burning plants (and I think some of the E:E people do, just for lulz) but why would you?
Fusion also has the advantage of being remarkably easy to fuel. Deuterium-Tritium fusion, for instance, uses isotopes of Hydrogen, which is the most abundant element in the known universe.
As to the fission vs fusion size debate, I'm not sure where you're getting it. I'm not dismissing it outright, it's just the only time I've ever heard "fission plants are smaller than fusion plants" is in the Honorverse novels, and they're not exactly hard sci fi.
I will give TFU some credit in that, yes, a fusion reactor will not "go critical". If containment gets breached, you get a short and relatively small burst of plasma and the thing shuts down. It will not crack your warship in two unless you're completely retarded. If a fission plant goes up, it's the same as setting off a low-yield nuclear device inside your hull. THAT is why most people go with fusion.
Also...greater energy densities. Sorry, but you just get more energy out of a fusion reaction than a fission reaction.
Arthropoda Ingens wrote:Though of course, the usefulness of fusion's energy density comes down mostly to 'I can have bigger pewpew' (Which in turn requires a pretty spiffy materials science, otherwise fission is technically enough, if logistically disadvantageous, for reasons pointed out by Feazanthia).
Claims that 'FTL requires fucktons of energy' are of course bullshit. An FTL variant I made up myself, and for which I'm saying that it requires a fuckton of energy', yes. But there's nothing, absolutely nothing, that stops people from saying that their FTL/ Timetravel/ Teleport/ Whatever method requires only miniscule amounts of energy. Say, the heat energy you get from rubbing your hands together for five seconds.
by Zepplin Manufacturers » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:57 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement