Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[Michael Kenmore]

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.....

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.

[Feazanthia]

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.

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.

As for its efficiency?

I'm pulling from wikipedia here...

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.

Their resource densities per sq.km really would be no different than a planet or moon, since they're made from the same stuff, and here's why asteroid mining would be more attractive than planet or moon mining.

Gravity.

Asteroids have very little of it. Moons have a lot. Planets have shittons. Gravity lowers your efficiency, as you're fighting it all the time. You spend more energy, more resources, to mine on moons and planets; this lowers your net gain in resources.

[Noders]

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.

........I know......... .......no....Idea what to chrage

[Michael Kenmore]

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.

[Feazanthia]

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.

[Noders]

Last time guys sorry hope its ok
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=108848

[Michael Kenmore]

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.

Gravel, or microasteroids, are very dangerous in themselves. Stargate Atlantis is the only common TV sci fi I can think of that pointed this out.

But still, a system where gravity is constantly pulling in huge bodies and breaking them down into good-sized asteroid chunks and smaller seems to me like an atrocious "food processor" hazard in itself, and I am in FT a good deal for the melodrama.

[Axis Nova]

Asteroid processing is all fairly macro scale stuff for FT Axis Nova rather than nanoscale. Smaller roids can just be stuffed right into the refinery ship for processing (for certain definitions of asteroid, anyways), the rest get chopped up into chunks and tossed in. Then stuff is separated out in any number of ways both mundane and fantastical. From there raw materials are condensed into a more compact and transportable form (which varies depending on the material) and moved to a factory complex elsewhere in the system aboard a freighter.

[Bavin]

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.

Those dense asteroid belts tend to form into planets after a while. Jupiter is really the only thing keeping our belt from becoming a planet. What an ass.

[Khandosia]

And you thought Bear Cavalry was bad. Possible? Discuss.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

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.

Besides, the Allies have a superior weapon:
http://westofthewest.files.wordpress.co ... nazis1.jpg

[Auman]

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.

Talk 'em up on the locking rear differential.

[Allanea]

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.

Main gun is clearly an indirect-fire weapon.

[Zepplin Manufacturers]

The main problem is you have put your reasnably expensive anti tank gun, light howitzer or whatever and not a little armour on something that basicly has no intrest at all in warfare and wasnt 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 basicly biological vunerability to shell fragments, reasnably large calibre machine guns and ANY calibre of cannon, any rocket, mortar, mine or reasnabe grenade. Indeed its large size will mean just like horses it will suffer brutally from cannister and shell fragments. FIre will override any training you try to instill in it, and there is the in this case not so small problem of dung.

Never work with children or animals.

[The Steampunk Empire]

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.

You're right, its imperfect... It needs more steam....

And dorfs...

Also, you need spell-check...

[Galla-]

And you thought Bear Cavalry was bad. Possible? Discuss.

I almost bought that game, but I got Killing Floor instead. $9.99 on Steam iirc.

Oh and I'm p sure a gun that big would snap the dinosaur's back from the recoil forces.

[Zepplin Manufacturers]

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..

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.

Happy?

[Shuggy555]

hi im not sure if this has come up yet or not becuase im not going to read all 440 pages of this thread to find out but for some reason in almost all sci fi movies, books, etc they use fusion reactors or what not for power generation and i can't help but think what does every body have against puting say a Fission reactor as the power source of there spaceship and what not.

what do you guys think?

[The Fedral Union]

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.

[Shuggy555]

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.

the thing is fission reactors preduce basicly the same amount of power as fusion and takes up less room, plus so far all explosions from a fission powerplant were related to the coolent not the actuel reaction that means a fusion plant can have the exact same explosions and it may not seem it but fusion is many times more radioactive then fission 80% of the realesed energy in most fusion reactions are in the form of nuetron radiation and the worst case scenerio would probably be a explosion of the superconducting magnets tied in with a coolent explosion and seeming most fusion powerplant designs doesn't have a containment building there would be a large amount of radioactive debree spread over a large area

so back to the question why isn't fission ever used lol

[Feazanthia]

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]

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.

[The Steampunk Empire]

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?

Didn't realise it was from a phone, that explains a lot. And here with information technology at the level its at you'd think they'd include spell-check software on stuff like that... Oh well, capitalism at work, you'd probably have to pay 15.99 to get it.

But in all seriousness, its an epic idea, for the same reason bear cavalry is epic. Yeah, it has a number of drawbacks. But just look at it! Its bloody epic!

Still think it needs more steam...

...and dorfs...

But that's just me...

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.

Then there's solar heated molten salt and steam. Recharged by the waste heat of our ships weapons and systems.

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.

See above, I achieve FTL by having a propeller that treats space-time the same way a wet navy ship's prop treats water. Faster it spins, the faster you go! All powered by molten salt and steam! >:3

[Zepplin Manufacturers]

I see one small problem with this concept.. One tiny chink in an otherwise splendid steam punk aether treading star ship with great reflective sails and masts.. Im sure youve considered it.

When far away from a star such a ship shall need to put on exponentially more and more sail, indeed without a real..jump its going to get mighty ah ..Slow to change V once you’ve gone past your sail mass/ power / delta v ratio, and indeed somewhere there there’s going to be a limit. While having a space prop could possibly give you as much thrust as you want (indeed precisely as much thrust as you want) (and even FTL) than just a thermal solar rocket or straight light sail there’s going to be points that get hard to ..Um navigate. of course that could and would add to the fun of it buuut

There are some mighty dark gaps between some stars and even in the outer planets light tends to get a little ..scarce and then we get to the other thing..

"Now entering planetary totality, coasting and on remaining boiler temperature and coal dust turbines for the next 4 minutes. "

Which means that engagements in the dark will be ..Interesting especially if someone figures out that deploying a few serious light sails is a hoot.

[The Fedral Union]

I never claimed it wasn't feasible only that most types of theories regarding FTL require more power than a fission reactor could ever provide. In NS of course you have all sorts of wacky inventions but the key is safety. Though its not bad as antimatter.