Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[Kilrany]

Oh I got nothing wrong with hard science fiction, but I personally prefer to lean more towards the speculative side and not worry about how it all works, just that it does. It doesn't really bother me if realistically its not possible, so long as it's not detrimental to the RP, IE done merely to try and win, I don't really care. I just want to have some fun writing a story with my characters and not have to worry about a couple months of research I really don't have time for.

[Polish Worlds]

LOL I play SF pretty hard, but the idea of artifical gravity had to be a given... there was NO WAY I was going to send people on space campaigns on the most advanced ships I've ever heard of, without so much as a gravity toilet? "Yes, you have the most powerful weapons known to man, you can travel faster than light, you will see and conquer many new civilizations... but you must piss into this tube and have your poop scraped into a bag"

Uhhh no... I'm going to say I don't have tractor beams or inertial dampeners, but I have -somehow- managed to get artificial gravity.. it's one of the few things I'm soft on.

Design the decks at a perpendicular plane to the plane of the engine thrust(rather than like in wet navy ships where they are in a parallel plane to the plane of thrust), and keep a 1g linear acceleration. Easily done artificial gravity this way.

As for Hard Sci-Fi, I never managed to get this idea into a real RP/story, but it shows the potential:

http://forums.joltonline.com/showthread.php?t=552228

http://wiki.esusalliance.co.uk/index.ph ... d_War_Four

In Solar Communes story the "Eternal War" was a Hard Sci-Fi conflict that lasted almost 3000 years.

[Capsule Corporation]

Oh, and you used the wrong one, it's:

[Capsule Corporation]

LOL I play SF pretty hard, but the idea of artifical gravity had to be a given... there was NO WAY I was going to send people on space campaigns on the most advanced ships I've ever heard of, without so much as a gravity toilet? "Yes, you have the most powerful weapons known to man, you can travel faster than light, you will see and conquer many new civilizations... but you must piss into this tube and have your poop scraped into a bag"

Uhhh no... I'm going to say I don't have tractor beams or inertial dampeners, but I have -somehow- managed to get artificial gravity.. it's one of the few things I'm soft on.

Design the decks at a perpendicular plane to the plane of the engine thrust(rather than like in wet navy ships where they are in a parallel plane to the plane of thrust), and keep a 1g linear acceleration. Easily done artificial gravity this way.

As for Hard Sci-Fi, I never managed to get this idea into a real RP/story, but it shows the potential:

http://forums.joltonline.com/showthread.php?t=552228

http://wiki.esusalliance.co.uk/index.ph ... d_War_Four

In Solar Communes story the "Eternal War" was a Hard Sci-Fi conflict that lasted almost 3000 years.

hah... I'm an Aeronataucial/Astronautical Engineering Student... I think I know how to create netwonian gravities The problems with the idea are:

My ships are transatmospheric
My ships don't accelerate in just one direction
And of course, your idea doesn't work at all in orbit... because.. you're in orbit.... no accelerating allowed

And... I like Einstein better... I'd rather bend space a little inside my ship, or biomagnetically suck the crew down onto the deckplates, or use a fhqwhgads field to make everyone gravitationally attracted to the floors... It doesn't really matter.. it's one of 3 things I've decided to go soft on:

Force fields
Zero-Point Energy
Artifical Gravity

The above three, really just the first 2, is what all my tech is based around ^_^

[Feazanthia]

*shrug* I always saw artificial gravity as very easy to circumvent with reality. I try to use as little fluff as possible.

[Sskiss]

Actually, artificial gravity does have some theory to it. I would consider it "intelligently postulated" future science. It is essentually plausable.

[Feazanthia]

Well then. Once this whole Hermes foolishness is settled, I may have to buy the technology from someone.

[Capsule Corporation]

Actually, artificial gravity does have some theory to it. I would consider it "intelligently postulated" future science. It is essentually plausable.

Most NSers seem to believe in "gravitions" or some other form of "gravity particle" that, when emitted, attracts to its source... I, like many scientists, don't believe in it... but whatever.

I believe Einstein's theories... that mass-energy curves space... and that gravity is like the effect seen when you put a bowling ball on a trampine full of marbles, all the marbles will fall towards the bowling ball.

Anti-gravity is in the same realm as all these "graviton" theories, and I have elected not to include it in my tech base, but everyone else is more than welcome to use it when RPing against me.

Technically, my ships do not defy gravity when in-atmo... they are simply airships ^_^

EDIT: I will also throw "repulsorlifts" into this argument, meaning an engine that emits a particle that repels the source from the surface below.. also not to be used by my nation

[Feazanthia]

I would question the wisdom of making your entire navy transatmospheric. Wouldn't ships that were designed from the very start to work in interplanetary space be more efficient than those that have to transition between space and atmosphere? Seems like a bunch of mass that could be put towards something more useful.

Plus, larger vessels would have difficulty in atmosphere, so that would put a damper on your navy unless you're using swarmer tactics.

[Arthropoda Ingens]

Well, lets see.

• I've no idea what my IC population is, and I don't particularly care
• Ditto military numbers
• However, the fraction of the population in the military should be somewhere between 'High' and 'Absurd'. We're looking at something upwards of 50% - at times counting pre-adult population segments (A little species-specific, there). Not that this helps a lot, given point #1
• I ruthlessly abuse teleportation and FTL to blow up shit from anywhere between a few lightseconds and a couple lightyears away. And I'm lovin' it
• Balance is for suckers. I don't care about 'Balanced' technologies or anything else that could be 'Balanced'. I care about whether it fits the nation's character and my personal bias. If it's an advantage, great. If it's a weakness, I don't care
• I absolutely, positively don't give a flying fuck about how old a nation is, how many posts it has, how awesome it thinks its spaceships are, how much time it has spent variously stealing pictures and ripping off star wars, or how much time it has spent making up stats about its fictional internet spaceboats and its cobbled-together DOGA renderings. My sole concerns, pre-interaction, are 'How does it write' and 'Does it have to feed its cyberspace-ego wth its imaginary spaceboats or does it get laid IRL and can compromise?'

amidoinitrite?

[Arthropoda Ingens]

Actually, artificial gravity does have some theory to it. I would consider it "intelligently postulated" future science. It is essentually plausable.

Most NSers seem to believe in "gravitions" or some other form of "gravity particle" that, when emitted, attracts to its source... I, like many scientists, don't believe in it... but whatever.

I believe Einstein's theories... that mass-energy curves space... and that gravity is like the effect seen when you put a bowling ball on a trampine full of marbles, all the marbles will fall towards the bowling ball.

Anti-gravity is in the same realm as all these "graviton" theories, and I have elected not to include it in my tech base, but everyone else is more than welcome to use it when RPing against me.

Gravitons are predicted by general relativity.

lrn2physics

[Sskiss]

There are truths within truths Capsule Corp. Once Newtonian physics was the "truth", the "ultimate" explenation of things and how everything worked. Einstein found a new and greater truth. And one day, someone else will discover yet another "greater truth".

Science always build upon itself, its foundation. What has existed before. Science is the seeking of reality.

[Feazanthia]

Well, lets see.

• I've no idea what my IC population is, and I don't particularly care
• Ditto military numbers
• However, the fraction of the population in the military should be somewhere between 'High' and 'Absurd'. We're looking at something upwards of 50% - at times counting pre-adult population segments (A little species-specific, there). Not that this helps a lot, given point #1
• I ruthlessly abuse teleportation and FTL to blow up shit from anywhere between a few lightseconds and a couple lightyears away. And I'm lovin' it
• Balance is for suckers. I don't care about 'Balanced' technologies or anything else that could be 'Balanced'. I care about whether it fits the nation's character and my personal bias. If it's an advantage, great. If it's a weakness, I don't care
• I absolutely, positively don't give a flying fuck about how old a nation is, how many posts it has, how awesome it thinks its spaceships are, how much time it has spent variously stealing pictures and ripping off star wars, or how much time it has spent making up stats about its fictional internet spaceboats and its cobbled-together DOGA renderings. My sole concerns, pre-interaction, are 'How does it write' and 'Does it have to feed its cyberspace-ego wth its imaginary spaceboats or does it get laid IRL and can compromise?'

amidoinitrite?

Show me on the doll where the bad spaceman touched you.

[Capsule Corporation]

I would question the wisdom of making your entire navy transatmospheric. Wouldn't ships that were designed from the very start to work in interplanetary space be more efficient than those that have to transition between space and atmosphere? Seems like a bunch of mass that could be put towards something more useful.

Plus, larger vessels would have difficulty in atmosphere, so that would put a damper on your navy unless you're using swarmer tactics.

You didn't read my post about my military... I don't -have- a fleet. I don't even have a structured military... I have a militia! Those trans-atmos ships... I have like 7... And probably won't have more than 18 or so once my "fleet" is finished. There are a couple of dedicated space-only ships... But I really could not find a use for a
ship that -wasn't- transatmospheric.

My ships can enter "FTL" from atmosphere, and often do jump from one planet straight over to another planet. The only time we fly the ships in space is for long distance journeys, orbital work, or interception. In space, these ships are slow. They get around by being maneuverable (they're loaded with engines from atmospheric capabilities) and by use of short-range FTL.

What works for you doesn't work for me.

[Feazanthia]

Hey man. Whatever works.


...
...
...

*plots to annex Keflek and Raysia*

[Capsule Corporation]

Hey man. Whatever works.


...
...
...

*plots to annex Keflek and Raysia*

Ahem, -Keflek- has a military. Keflek has a kick-awesome military. They can put up a fight.

Raysia, however, is completely neutral, and not capable of fighting off a fleet of invaders by conventional means.

When I say We, I speak as Raysia, the prime world of Capsule Corp. Keflek was created solely for the purpose of being an IRON affiliate... I haven't put too much thought into them.

So, as for Raysia, we are new to space and don't have the capability of having a space military of insane proportions, and they don't really feel like it.

There's nothing I can do with a massive fleet that I can't do with a small militia and civillians

[OMGeverynameistaken]

On the subject of mecha...

I feel that, as usual, the old equivalence principal applies.

One giant robot is, roughly equivalent to one tank. There may be some differences, for instance, a mecha can climb up a sheer cliff whereas, unless it's equipped with jets, a tank cant. Mecha can use melee weapons if it suits the fancy of the designer, but tanks (because of rule #315: I will not mount bayonets on crew serviced weapons) normally cant. This of course excepts super-awesome-doombots, the same as super-awesome-doomtanks.

After all, their weapons and general mission purpose are usually basically the same.

[Polish Worlds]

*plots to annex Keflek and Raysia*

You forgot something...

http://www.stanford.edu/~suky/WW2/Poland.gif

*edit

Mecha can use melee weapons if it suits the fancy of the designer, but tanks normally cant.

http://spankthetank.files.wordpress.com ... closer.jpg

[Capsule Corporation]

As much as I love mecha... Most of the design points seem to be used to fight -other- mecha. Melée weapons? Really?

This is why the F-22 is being canned IRL... It's only built to fight other advanced fighters... Doesn't excel at much else.

I prefer an armored gunship that has the mass of 4 or 5 tanks, and can fight on ground, air, or space. What good is a tank or a mecha if it had to be hauled around everywhere? Get in, fight, get out. Mecha and tanks have to progress over long distances... Useless! Especially when the fight is mobile!

In star wars, the only reason they sent in the AT-ATs was because they couldn't send in bombers. Why? Because their bombers are horrible in atmosphere... And hoth had its shields up... Sending in flying space tanks covers all these...

The ability to be multi-theatrical means less specialization... Less need for unnecessary personell, or hangars full of stuff you probably will never get to use.

Why did the rebels use airspeeders to fight the AT-ATs? Because their fighters sucked in atmos and they wouldn't have enough room to maneuver under the shield... and their weapons were all
fixed... Nothing on turrets...

So why not just mix them all together?

Sure, you'll have drawbacks... But it's worth the benefits.

[The Great Lord Tiger]

Wow, this page blew up in post count...

Anyways, points I've seen:

Stellar Navy: Big and burly. Kinetic weapons but for directed-energy CIWS type weaponry. Definitely knife fighters, although our long-range missiles do come fully equipped with nuclear warheads.

On 'Mechs: My army currently contains BattleTech universe battlemechs (MechWarrior). That's my only ground vehicle. Yes, I've conceded, both ICly and OOCly, that there is a tradeoff for armor and weaponry; but the story goes that we have high-strength nanomaterials that have allowed us to get to the point where our 'Mechs (called "Walking Armored Combat Units (WACU)" ICly) are about as powerful as an equivalent IFV -- it would be like comparing a M1A2 to a M2A3. They also are able to mount missiles and can thus function as artillery, the high launch angle facilitating this. But I would never consider mecha, with full human-type movements... no. Battletech's 'Mechs, being walking tanks, are good enough.

[The Kafers]

On artificial gravity: If you use warp drives, you have artificial gravity. Bending spacetime will affect local gravity, allowing you to create the needed acceleration in any direction you wish.

Besides, if your technology in any way relies on any of the various GUT's (Grand Unified Theories) being true, then you have the scientific basis for artifical gravity, since if any GUT is true, gravity can always be generated by conversion from other forces (electricity, magnetism, etc.).

My primitive (early FT) starships use counter-rotating habitats to simulate gravity. You need two of them, rotating in opposite directions, to avoid torque effects. Such habitats are stopped before battle, of course.

---------------------------------

How many ships are too many? It comes down to this: if you have more than a few dozen ships on a side, your battles begin to resemble land battles as opposed to sea or air battles. With thousands of ships, the individual units cease to matter, and mass combined-arms tactics prevail. That reduces the appeal of such battles for me, so I prefer low ship counts. That's probably why I almost never get into ship-to-ship action here in II.

[Capsule Corporation]

So if you don't use warp fields or gravitons then you're out of luck?

I think I'll just keep artificial gravity as my soft concept

[Capsule Corporation]

I am still really curious to find the principle of science upon which anti-gravity is based... That one doesn't make sense outside of graviton particle theories... Is there an anti-grav theory that doesn't involve gravitons?

[The Kafers]

I am still really curious to find the principle of science upon which anti-gravity is based... That one doesn't make sense outside of graviton particle theories... Is there an anti-grav theory that doesn't involve gravitons?

Absolutely. Any Grand Unified Theory will necessarily imply that artificial gravity can be generated, simply because all forms of energy are really just different manifestations of the single cosmic force such theories postulate. Generating it would be like using magnetism to produce electricity, or electricity to produce magnetism; what is actually happening, of course, is that you are bending space-time to create the gravitational field you want. Hence the close connection between artificial gravity and warp drives.

(Well, actually, there really isn't any such thing as anti-gravity. There's artificial gravity; what you do is simply generate a field that attracts things in whatever direction you want, and then take care not to shred things with the tidal forces.)

[TRIAD Enterprises]

I am still really curious to find the principle of science upon which anti-gravity is based... That one doesn't make sense outside of graviton particle theories... Is there an anti-grav theory that doesn't involve gravitons?

Yes. It's a loose theory, but as far as RL physics goes it's just as potentially valid as 'Graviton' physics.
Essentially, what we perceive as gravitation fields are interactions from further 'mass shadows' projecting from N-Space (N-Space being a numerical sequence of spatial dimensions. Time is *not* the 4th dimension in this cosmology, and there are a total of nine dimensions). Only a very small portion of these N-space mass shadows actually project into 3-space, which is why gravity as we see it is so dammed weak compared to the other three fundamental forces.
According to this theory, if you can alter the local spatial topography in more than three dimensions, you could cause more or less of the mass shadow to project into 3-space. With sufficient refinement, you could potentially even project gravitic fields with no corresponding 3-space mass. True artificial gravity, not just simulated gravity.

This is the theory I use for TRIAD's grav tech. I do this because I personally don't subscribe to the particle interaction theory of gravity, but I prefer to believe that the field-interaction theory will win out. I might be wrong in time, but for now either theory is just as valid for elaboration in FT.