Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Gliese 581 d and e. Recent discovery indicates we should send in Kevin Costner

1235»

Posts

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Yeah. I'd rather die in space then underwater if something horrible happens. Drowning is just awful.

    Besides, what is a better way to go then die in space?

  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Yeah. I'd rather die in space then underwater if something horrible happens. Drowning is just awful.

    Besides, what is a better way to go then die in space?

    Then your final thought could be "at least none of my ancestors went like this!"

    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • FendallFendall Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Don't worry, getting crushed by a kilometre of water above you would be a lot quicker than dying of simultaniously freezing,boiling and asphyxiating.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Fendall wrote: »
    Don't worry, getting crushed by a kilometre of water above you would be a lot quicker than dying of simultaniously freezing,boiling and asphyxiating.
    Space has a feeling of exploration to it, whereas submarines are difficult to make interesting. If they could make submarines with big glass cockpits that I could fly around in like in Aqua Nox I'd be down for that too.

  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Yeah. I'd rather die in space then underwater if something horrible happens. Drowning is just awful.

    Besides, what is a better way to go then die in space?
    To die quietly in bed in your moon house?

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Yeah. I'd rather die in space then underwater if something horrible happens. Drowning is just awful.

    Besides, what is a better way to go then die in space?
    To die quietly in bed in your moon house?

    Nah, that's boring.

    You have to die in space while setting off the nuke that destroys the asteroid.

    That's the best way.

    sigeb2.png
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    Fendall wrote: »
    Don't worry, getting crushed by a kilometre of water above you would be a lot quicker than dying of simultaniously freezing,boiling and asphyxiating.

    Fun fact: Freezing wouldn't play a part in it at all. As in space you can only loose temperature due to it radiating away (slowly), as there is no matter (basically) to absorb the temperature from your body via contact.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    Fendall wrote: »
    Don't worry, getting crushed by a kilometre of water above you would be a lot quicker than dying of simultaniously freezing,boiling and asphyxiating.

    Fun fact: Freezing wouldn't play a part in it at all. As in space you can only loose temperature due to it radiating away (slowly), as there is no matter (basically) to absorb the temperature from your body via contact.
    However all the gases in your body and many of the liquids would be spontaneously taken from +1 atmosphere to 0, and the resultant attempt to reestablish a vapor pressure would freeze you.

    It's like how if you put a vacuum on the headspace of a body of water, it'll freeze.

  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited April 2009
    It's like how if you put a vacuum on the headspace of a body of water, it'll freeze.
    Well, a large portion of it will boil, the rest will freeze

    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Hurrah, I've figured it out. Thanks to Cyclone ranger for making me think about it a bit clearer. I had neglected to consider the enormous effect the changing mass of the ship has on the effectiveness of its drive system. A specific ship and fuel type does indeed have a maximum speed, however a specific fuel type does not, since you get the same push from each piece of fuel and each subsequent piece of fuel operates on a less massive remaining ship. So if you have a ship made of kg bricks of fuel, and a 1kg package to accelerate burning the first package gives 1/100 of its energy to the payload, whereas burning the last gives 1/2 of its energy to the ship. This is innacurate of course, but if you change from summation to integration you can solve to get...

    Maximum Attainable KE density of ship = ln(total mass/final mass) * engine efficiency * energy density of fuel
    KE density to travel at V = KE = (c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 - c^2

    The changing mass of the ship really makes a surprisingly huge and helpful difference. I think my confusion was that all the rocket equations you provided where to do with rockets with conventional exhausts in classical reference frames, which isn't what we have with any of these super ships. Most of them are effectively being accelerated by collisions with gamma rays on the pusher plate in the same direction as them.

    This system doesn't work for a ship which can somehow operate without a mass loss, such as a bussard ramscoop. I'm fairly confident that it has to obey my previous equation since you effectively won't get any extra energy once it takes the same amount of energy to grab a particle from the vacuum and speed it up as that particle can liberate in energy.

    Adding this factor for a reasonable ship (90% fuel) effectively bumps the KE up by a factor of 2.3, which doesn't help much for our antimatter super ship, but means fission or fusion drives get to a better speed.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Yeah. I'd rather die in space then underwater if something horrible happens. Drowning is just awful.

    Besides, what is a better way to go then die in space?
    To die quietly in bed in your moon house?

    Nah, that's boring.

    You have to die in space while setting off the nuke that destroys the asteroid.

    That's the best way.

    No way, riding your spaceship into a Sun is a better way.

    Or a black hole.

  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous WALK 3X FASTER New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Yeah. I'd rather die in space then underwater if something horrible happens. Drowning is just awful.

    Besides, what is a better way to go then die in space?
    To die quietly in bed in your moon house?

    Nah, that's boring.

    You have to die in space while setting off the nuke that destroys the asteroid.

    That's the best way.

    No way, riding your spaceship into a Sun is a better way.

    Or a black hole.
    Into the mouth of the giant space monster is the best.

    STDoomsDay.jpg

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: WaffleMous#1483
  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2009
    fjafjan wrote: »
    It's like how if you put a vacuum on the headspace of a body of water, it'll freeze.
    Well, a large portion of it will boil, the rest will freeze

    We'll just have to test this then so we'll know for sure what'll happen.

    Any volunteers?

  • MolotovCockatooMolotovCockatoo Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Quick, everyone keep debating tbloxham's equations - at this rate we'll have tricked him into constructing a fully functional prototype rocket in about 3 weeks!

    Killjoy wrote: »
    No jeez Orik why do you assume the worst about people?

    Because he moderates an internet forum

    http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User
    edited April 2009
    tbloxham wrote: »

    The changing mass of the ship really makes a surprisingly huge and helpful difference. I think my confusion was that all the rocket equations you provided where to do with rockets with conventional exhausts in classical reference frames, which isn't what we have with any of these super ships. Most of them are effectively being accelerated by collisions with gamma rays on the pusher plate in the same direction as them.

    All rockets are powered by collisions with a pusher plate. Super ships will still obey the rocket equation in a classical frame, which is the kind of frame we're discussing. Just thought you should know.

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Honk wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    It's like how if you put a vacuum on the headspace of a body of water, it'll freeze.
    Well, a large portion of it will boil, the rest will freeze

    We'll just have to test this then so we'll know for sure what'll happen.

    Any volunteers?

    Not really, I've seen this done (well, low pressure, not vacuum). Thing is in water the molecules have different speeds, so the faster ones, as pressure decreases, can 'get away', ie boil, meanwhile the slower ones will stay, untill that they freeze.

    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    It's like how if you put a vacuum on the headspace of a body of water, it'll freeze.
    Well, a large portion of it will boil, the rest will freeze

    We'll just have to test this then so we'll know for sure what'll happen.

    Any volunteers?

    Not really, I've seen this done (well, low pressure, not vacuum). Thing is in water the molecules have different speeds, so the faster ones, as pressure decreases, can 'get away', ie boil, meanwhile the slower ones will stay, untill that they freeze.
    Well they don't stay until they freeze - it's a Boltzmann distribution. If you remove the high energy elements then slowly the distribution re-asserts itself with a lower mean. Keep upping the vacuum and eventually you've removed so much energy that there isn't much left.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    It sucks not being able to travel space. All that shit there is to see and the best we get are enhanced photos and CG.

    I mean, I WANT to see a black hole up close, that shit is just infinitely interesting to me.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    An interesting essay on this subject by science fiction writer (it's not what you think) Charles Stross. Warning, it's long. And kind of a downer.
    Spoiler:

    http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html

    currently playing LoL: Polymath
    a fading melody - my indie platformer for the xbox 360
  • SkutSkutSkutSkut Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    So would a perputual motion device help, maybe a micro blackhole engine or something? I'm waiting in patience for the LHC to kick science in the junk.

  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Fucking I'll write it again.
    STOP AGAIN (probably way easier than building 0.9x c rocket engines) ==> Space travel of 100-200 years IS NOT A HUGE PROBLEM. So we can get to the other planets, we just need to stop our cells from dying, there are other cells that do this (or close enough anyhow), so we just need to copy, we don't need to invent the wheel.

    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    If we come up with a way to allow effective immortality within my lifetime, I'll eat a sock. You know, on my death bed. But then I'll get my immortality treatment, so that will be cool.

    Of course, if we do come up with that technology, extra-terrestrial colonization will immediately become much more important.

    currently playing LoL: Polymath
    a fading melody - my indie platformer for the xbox 360
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited April 2009
    OremLK wrote: »
    If we come up with a way to allow effective immortality within my lifetime, I'll eat a sock. You know, on my death bed. But then I'll get my immortality treatment, so that will be cool.

    Of course, if we do come up with that technology, extra-terrestrial colonization will immediately become much more important.
    It's far far easier than the dreamed up shit people are talking about here. You know, building space ships big enough, and more importantly, fast enough to get to another solar system. Like, it's crazy hard. How would we even communicate? Each signal takes 20 years! and it needs to be incredibly strong to reach them in a comprehensible manner.
    And I'm not talking immortality, I am talking stopping aging. Aging is really only a few processes that our cells go through that causes them to die, and us to grow old. Stopping that means living untill a couple hundred won't be too hard, and that means space travel will be way way easier, since we don't need super magical engines or energy sources, since we don't need to get there in less than 50 years, suddenly a 200 year trip is reasonable and we can go at speeds we've already managed (though for smaller ships).

    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I'd just be content if we could start launching some interstellar probes sometime soon. I figure you'd send a stream of them at regular intervals so they could act as relays for each other to report back (as well as be multiply redundant for the mission).

    It'd blow my mind if we could get fly by images of planets in another star system. Blow my mind even more if we could get a probe which could decelerate and establish orbit. Even more if we could send landers.

    I mean, seriously - taking images of planets in other star systems. That right there would be an AMAZING accomplishment.

  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited April 2009
    fjafjan wrote: »
    I am talking stopping aging. Aging is really only a few processes that our cells go through that causes them to die, and us to grow old. Stopping that means living untill a couple hundred won't be too hard

    Its really not that simple. You stop cells from aging quickly and you know what happens? they all start getting cancer. So its like the reverse of what you actually want to happen. Long life will be attained when we can figure out how to stop our bodies repair mechanisms from breaking down.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    SkutSkut wrote: »
    So would a perputual motion device help, maybe a micro blackhole engine or something? I'm waiting in patience for the LHC to kick science in the junk.

    Micro blackhole engine (ie an engine which is a blackhole somehow suspended behind the ship which evaporates at the exact rate you put fuel into it) would be just as as good as an antimatter engine, and allow us to simply use normal matter rather than antimatter + matter. The black hole itself would have a tiny mass, but you'd still face a maximum speed set by your fuel energy density and the fuel/ship ratio of your ship.

    A 90% fuel antimatter/black hole ship still tops out at 0.77 c. A 99 % fuel ship can make it up to a scorching 0.88 c. A dynamically evaporating black hole drive is both safer (even if you dropped it in the earth it wouldn't suck in mass fast enough, this thing would be tuned to need to be fed like a bastard. The lighter the hole, the faster you need to feed it to stay stable, and we would want to feed it fast for high accelerations) and 'easier' than an antimatter drive. However we have no idea really how to make either. Black hole energy at least allows us to do direct matter to energy conversion, but at least we have a basic idea how to make anti matter.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User
    edited April 2009
    tbloxham wrote: »
    SkutSkut wrote: »
    So would a perputual motion device help, maybe a micro blackhole engine or something? I'm waiting in patience for the LHC to kick science in the junk.

    Micro blackhole engine (ie an engine which is a blackhole somehow suspended behind the ship which evaporates at the exact rate you put fuel into it) would be just as as good as an antimatter engine, and allow us to simply use normal matter rather than antimatter + matter. The black hole itself would have a tiny mass, but you'd still face a maximum speed set by your fuel energy density and the fuel/ship ratio of your ship.

    A 90% fuel antimatter/black hole ship still tops out at 0.77 c. A 99 % fuel ship can make it up to a scorching 0.88 c. A dynamically evaporating black hole drive is both safer (even if you dropped it in the earth it wouldn't suck in mass fast enough, this thing would be tuned to need to be fed like a bastard. The lighter the hole, the faster you need to feed it to stay stable, and we would want to feed it fast for high accelerations) and 'easier' than an antimatter drive. However we have no idea really how to make either. Black hole energy at least allows us to do direct matter to energy conversion, but at least we have a basic idea how to make anti matter.

    How would you drag the hole behind you?

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    SkutSkut wrote: »
    So would a perputual motion device help, maybe a micro blackhole engine or something? I'm waiting in patience for the LHC to kick science in the junk.

    Micro blackhole engine (ie an engine which is a blackhole somehow suspended behind the ship which evaporates at the exact rate you put fuel into it) would be just as as good as an antimatter engine, and allow us to simply use normal matter rather than antimatter + matter. The black hole itself would have a tiny mass, but you'd still face a maximum speed set by your fuel energy density and the fuel/ship ratio of your ship.

    A 90% fuel antimatter/black hole ship still tops out at 0.77 c. A 99 % fuel ship can make it up to a scorching 0.88 c. A dynamically evaporating black hole drive is both safer (even if you dropped it in the earth it wouldn't suck in mass fast enough, this thing would be tuned to need to be fed like a bastard. The lighter the hole, the faster you need to feed it to stay stable, and we would want to feed it fast for high accelerations) and 'easier' than an antimatter drive. However we have no idea really how to make either. Black hole energy at least allows us to do direct matter to energy conversion, but at least we have a basic idea how to make anti matter.

    How would you drag the hole behind you?
    Black hole pulls on the mass of the ship while pushing on the ship with the energy it's releasing (as well as itself since it's omnidirectionally doing it).

  • YannYann Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    This is the fastest space craft we've ever made according to wikipedia.

    Another source.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    SkutSkut wrote: »
    So would a perputual motion device help, maybe a micro blackhole engine or something? I'm waiting in patience for the LHC to kick science in the junk.

    Micro blackhole engine (ie an engine which is a blackhole somehow suspended behind the ship which evaporates at the exact rate you put fuel into it) would be just as as good as an antimatter engine, and allow us to simply use normal matter rather than antimatter + matter. The black hole itself would have a tiny mass, but you'd still face a maximum speed set by your fuel energy density and the fuel/ship ratio of your ship.

    A 90% fuel antimatter/black hole ship still tops out at 0.77 c. A 99 % fuel ship can make it up to a scorching 0.88 c. A dynamically evaporating black hole drive is both safer (even if you dropped it in the earth it wouldn't suck in mass fast enough, this thing would be tuned to need to be fed like a bastard. The lighter the hole, the faster you need to feed it to stay stable, and we would want to feed it fast for high accelerations) and 'easier' than an antimatter drive. However we have no idea really how to make either. Black hole energy at least allows us to do direct matter to energy conversion, but at least we have a basic idea how to make anti matter.

    How would you drag the hole behind you?

    Well, err, wizards. I mean, just making and maintaining the black hole would be an act of near insane technology. I guess you could somehow charge the black hole by injecting a net negative charge, and set up an electric field to precisely match the acceleration force of the ship. Another option might be to inject the matter with a slight asymmetry, so the hole continually accelerated forward towards the ship while the radiation would be ejected uniformly, causing the same acceleration on hole and ship. The momentum asymetry needed to accelerate the tiny hole by the same as the massive ship would be insignificant and wouldn't really slow the ship that much.

    I mean, its kinda like asking how the warp drive can be cooled due to the heat it creates. Or how we would address the manufacturing problems with making Flemitronioum Core elements en masse. We don't even know anything about how to practically create and tune the mass of a black hole, let alone transport and move one. The only thing we do know is that it would be an eminently useful power source if we could build one.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    zakkiel wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    SkutSkut wrote: »
    So would a perputual motion device help, maybe a micro blackhole engine or something? I'm waiting in patience for the LHC to kick science in the junk.

    Micro blackhole engine (ie an engine which is a blackhole somehow suspended behind the ship which evaporates at the exact rate you put fuel into it) would be just as as good as an antimatter engine, and allow us to simply use normal matter rather than antimatter + matter. The black hole itself would have a tiny mass, but you'd still face a maximum speed set by your fuel energy density and the fuel/ship ratio of your ship.

    A 90% fuel antimatter/black hole ship still tops out at 0.77 c. A 99 % fuel ship can make it up to a scorching 0.88 c. A dynamically evaporating black hole drive is both safer (even if you dropped it in the earth it wouldn't suck in mass fast enough, this thing would be tuned to need to be fed like a bastard. The lighter the hole, the faster you need to feed it to stay stable, and we would want to feed it fast for high accelerations) and 'easier' than an antimatter drive. However we have no idea really how to make either. Black hole energy at least allows us to do direct matter to energy conversion, but at least we have a basic idea how to make anti matter.

    How would you drag the hole behind you?
    Black hole pulls on the mass of the ship while pushing on the ship with the energy it's releasing (as well as itself since it's omnidirectionally doing it).

    That would work too, although the hole would need to be enormous. The pull on the ship of the hole and vice versa goes up with mass, the power output of the hole goes down with mass, you'd need to pick the crossover point and it might mean a very low acceleration.

    Although, now I do the calculations our black hole ship faces another problem. To achieve a low enough conversion rate, say a few kg per second of mass means the black hole needs to weigh a few hundred tonnes. It actually means we want our ship to be titanically huge so we can use an enormous mass of fuel each second and get our black hole mass low.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    tbloxham wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    SkutSkut wrote: »
    So would a perputual motion device help, maybe a micro blackhole engine or something? I'm waiting in patience for the LHC to kick science in the junk.

    Micro blackhole engine (ie an engine which is a blackhole somehow suspended behind the ship which evaporates at the exact rate you put fuel into it) would be just as as good as an antimatter engine, and allow us to simply use normal matter rather than antimatter + matter. The black hole itself would have a tiny mass, but you'd still face a maximum speed set by your fuel energy density and the fuel/ship ratio of your ship.

    A 90% fuel antimatter/black hole ship still tops out at 0.77 c. A 99 % fuel ship can make it up to a scorching 0.88 c. A dynamically evaporating black hole drive is both safer (even if you dropped it in the earth it wouldn't suck in mass fast enough, this thing would be tuned to need to be fed like a bastard. The lighter the hole, the faster you need to feed it to stay stable, and we would want to feed it fast for high accelerations) and 'easier' than an antimatter drive. However we have no idea really how to make either. Black hole energy at least allows us to do direct matter to energy conversion, but at least we have a basic idea how to make anti matter.

    How would you drag the hole behind you?
    Black hole pulls on the mass of the ship while pushing on the ship with the energy it's releasing (as well as itself since it's omnidirectionally doing it).

    That would work too, although the hole would need to be enormous. The pull on the ship of the hole and vice versa goes up with mass, the power output of the hole goes down with mass, you'd need to pick the crossover point and it might mean a very low acceleration.
    Well if we're deriving power from the blackhole by it's Hawking radiation, then strictly speaking any mass going in is being omnidirectionally emitted as energy. If we're reflecting most of it off the ship, then since the mass of the black hole is so small I don't think it's completely impossible to presume that we could design a ship with a reaction chamber such that we can reflect some of it's own energy back at it to accelerate the black hole as well. The ship would slow down in doing so, but the ship would be many many times more massive then the black hole so we could keep it moving in the same direction as the ship.

1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.