37 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

generalazure, on 03 October 2015 - 02:48 AM, said:

@Blastman: I think it's hilarious that you talk about building a useful interstellar spacecraft in the near future but think controlled fusion is too hard. One of these things has existing experiments, the other does not even work in theory...

Fusion exists but it is unsustainable and I fear we have a long, long way to go to figure out how. Learn about the complexities, please. The Sun is a gigantic gravity well, which helps it tremendously in both the subatomic compression and plasma cycling (see: quantum mechanics) and even then--with all that, we still can't fully grasp it due to quantum irregularities. Plus--the sun has insane amounts of mass to bottle up all that heat to sustain the reaction. We depend on inputting heat using electromagnetism (and other means) to run ours. Like I said, a long way to go. We'll probably find a better way through particle physics and quark/boson manipulation but that's... well we aren't there.

There are multiple ways to build an interstellar spacecraft. Interstellar is just a merging of word components.

Adjective: interstellar
1. Between or among stars.

We are not limited by one single method. Don't get hung up on that. Just because someone says interstellar... It doesn't mean they mean warp drive like Marack mentioned. Oh...

Marack Drock, on 03 October 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

Warp propulsion is not even hypothetically possible. Negative mass, and relativity alone prevent its existence. Lightspeed would theoretically turn anyone who reached that speed into energy. So unless there was something to re-materialize them, light speed itself is impossible.

I could see a Fission reactor long before interstellar travel, as Fission power would be necessary to even generate enough power to run one of those interstellar drives. The negative mass power of a warp drive is more than all of Earth generates in a century.

Science doesn't allow for interstellar travel in the next 2 centuries or until a fission reactor is possible.

Don't get hung up on there being only one way. Please. You've got to think broader than that. There is not just one way. Just like a boat that sails across an ocean--it isn't the only way to get from one side to the next. Paddles, propellers, steam engines, oil engines, nuclear reactors... aircraft. Just because one sci-fi show or movie says it is this way, make no mistake, it isn't the only way.

You write sci fi, man, read up on some of the classical authors such as Asimov, Clarke or Heinlein. There are answers there... and there are other ones. You'll see.

The emdrive, for instance, could run on a fission reactor. If it is ever fully proven to be true--which positive progress (with skepticism) had been made.

http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html

Remember, fusion and fission generate power in the same way--through steam/liquid turbines. They both are methods of producing heat. Nothing more. There isn't some magical electric plasma that comes from them. Fusion has the advantage of it using a harmless fuel (which is also explosive). Fusion isn't a magical answer to everything. It is another way to do something... and when spacecraft are involved, it has different risks which influence the ship design.

I dare say fusion and fission as we know them will evolve immensely or we'll end up using something completely different at some point in the future we can't even recognize or believe is possible right now.

As for warp drives (one of many theoretical ways), read up some on Doctor Sonny White, among other scientists. I read real studies, real data--from real scientific minds who do this for a living. The information is a lot more useful than from a sensationalized article somewhere.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov...20110015936.pdf

For more... well, you'll have to read my books.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 03 October 2015 - 10:30 AM.

[Gremlich Johns]

I find the number of species which have gone extinct to be specious. Why?

Species definition:
1. BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., **** sapiens.

The op says that over 5,000 species have gone extinct. That would mean whole lines of fish, etc.. are now gone. Affected maybe, but extinct? Alarmist misdirection. All sources of information should be considered - sounds like PETA propaganda.

[S3dition]

Well, I live in Washington. Fishing hasn't been banned. Pike Place Market still sells locally caught fish with their skin on. No lesions. Not sure how radioactive matter washed into the ocean ended up on our mountain tops. The only massive fish die-off was in California and they're blaming it on a chemical spill, which is far more likely considering the fish all died at once, instead of slowly over time with hemorrhaging like radiation would indicate.

I think you need a new source of news if you buy into the OP.

[Mister Blastman]

Marack Drock, on 03 October 2015 - 10:03 AM, said:

There are two possibilities to Interstellar travel that I can see:
1.Magnetic Propulsion (look up Tesla's theories on magnetic propulsion)
2.Folding Space (i.e. A dimensional rift folding space and time over to form a wormhole between two points in the universe, enabling them to travel across the universe instantly, if you don't know what Folding Space is then look up a scene from Event Horizon where they explain it very well and simply).

Time Dilation, negative mass, power needed to generate fuel the drives, etc prevents 90% of all lightspeed drives or warp drives from existing in any foreseeable future. I'd be more inclined to believe in Magnetic Propulsion (which is what is used in my book, along with Light speed gateways), because it is just more achievable. Not to mention you wouldn't have a nuclear bomb in your space craft.

The emdrive is the most positive progress made so far IMO. I could also see ION Drives being made (using ION propulsion, I know they were making a small drive in Japan and at NASA). But garnering the power for a spacecraft with one may be troublesome again.

That's what I get for writing a reply within five minutes of waking up. Heh, "right." LOL I'm laughing at myself right now. Hahahaha. It takes me two to three hours to wake up. So I'm impressed I was able to write it at all.

Otherwise I think we understand things along the same lines--perhaps to varying degrees but folding space and magnetic drives are promising. The warp drive, or, to borrow a scientific term, the alcubierre drive, folds space too. Unfortunately, I am having some doubts about it due to some studies on gravity propagation. I don't want to believe that gravity propagates at the speed of light--but one study done in the last decade does suggest it.

But that is only one study. The biggest clue that would indicate that is so are gravity waves--and, well, we haven't found them--well, there was another study that thought they found them... but... a few months later they started doubting themselves and in January, declared those results dead.

http://www.nature.co...ly-dead-1.16830

Oh well. That gives me hope! I've not played with the calculations enough myself and unfortunately, proving or disproving the speed of gravity is more complicated than running a computer simulation. It must be observed in the real universe, our universe. One way to do so is to observe orbital characteristics of planets around stars and those stars around galaxies--and how the orbital movement influences the orbital geometry of the satellites. The ideal case would be to find a planet orbiting something hyperdense like a neutron star or a black hole which itself is orbiting a hyperdense object to achieve orbital velocities large enough to influence their own satellites' geometry.

Now I'm rambling. As you say, folding space and propellant-less drives, such as magnetic drives, are the most promising. But I hold out for the alcubierre drive as being possible. There are also other ways... beyond these three that use even more advanced technologies--more elegant and in a way, simplistic methods. But I'm saving those for my books.

Remember--man always does something the hard way, first. We brute force our way into anything. It is only later that we understand how to simplify things.

[S3dition]

What do warp drives have to do with Fukishima and dead fish?

[Mister Blastman]

No, the alcubierre drive does reshape the geometry of space-time. It absolutely changes space around it--there is a bubble of sorts, yes, but the front and the back are manipulated with extension and compression. This is why there is a theorized maximum velocity of the drive due to the planck length.

http://www.andersoni...warp-drive.html

It does not "fold" space in the way a wormhole does--but it does re-shape it. I think the power requirements are overblown depending on the method used to do it. You can model it in your head, if you'd like with a thought experiment--the geometry, methods and results. Once again, brute force vs. elegant solution.

The problem with observing the speed of gravity is the velocities needed to influence the orbit of the satellite. If we could step back and observe our own system, for instance, we might see some evidence--but it would not be perfect. Consider the Earth orbits at something like 66k miles per hour, the Sun orbits the Galaxy at 483k miles per hour. Given the distance the Earth is from the sun--~500 light seconds, there should be some deformity of our orbit--we do have en elliptical one but there should be some other tell-tale signs.

The great Magellanic Clouds are a more local way to observe star clusters around our own. They could even be the remnants of another galaxy that collided with the Milky Way. But velocities and distances are key--and then the resolution to perceive what we need to detect.

There's just so much we don't know yet! Good thing we have our imaginations.

S3dition, on 03 October 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

What do warp drives have to do with Fukishima and dead fish?

We're off-topic.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 03 October 2015 - 11:22 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Marack Drock, on 03 October 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

This drive does have a lot more potential but I would be to keen on the Time Dilation that it would cause. One year in that thing would be like a decade outside depending on the speed.

It wouldn't really create any time dilation. Your ship is hardly moving relative to the gravity lengthening and contraction around it. It is hard to grasp but your velocity in the bubble might be fifty or a hundred thousand miles an hour (or less--nobody has done it) while the true external velocity is something like C or 10x C. So you on the ship--wouldn't dilate time at all. When you arrive, it'd be like you drove from here to the store or whatever--depends on how long it actually takes.

That's how I understand it from everything I have read, at least. It is what makes the drive so compelling.

[JSmith7784]

I just know I've seen the movie Event Horizon and folding space didn't end well.

Would the concept of mass relays like from the Mass Effect games be possible? If so who would travel to the other end to make the 2nd relay?

Very interesting stuff and so far I've enjoyed the 2nd half of this thread. The 1st half sounds a little "out there". I was just in California, from San Francisco to the Redwoods up North, and didn't see or hear anything even close to what the 1st post talks about. Fishing was everywhere and the seals in San Francisco seemed healthy and happy. Hmm.... I think I might go add an extra layer to my tin foil hat, just in case.

[Kyone Akashi]

Mister Blastman, on 02 October 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

Nuclear power is useful, safe and a necessity for our survival.

... according to the nuclear lobby.

But I don't think anyone argues that it is useful. Safe and necessary, however? No. Absolutely not.

In an ideal world, companies operating nuclear facilities would invest into the best safety available, and there would be clear laws and regulations in place enforced 100% of the time. This is not, however, how it works. In our economy, private corporations are interested first and foremost in profit, and that means trimming down budgets to the smallest possible package. Likewise, government agencies and politicians are influenced by corporate lobbies promising either economic support for their region or "investing" directly via party donations or generous gifts.

Fukushima is merely the latest example of what happens when such a mindset collides with anything other than day-to-day standard operations. As Tchernobyl has shown, not even socialist countries, where such facilities are run directly by the government, are actually safe. Once you introduce profit-oriented thinking, it should become obvious that the risks only grow.

Here's the thing: Nothing in the world is 100% safe, and this includes nuclear technology. The risks are comparatively small, as safety standards are still very high, with backups and often even backups for backups. Yet we still continue to hear about accidents and irregularities (often months after they have occurred -- one might almost assume that certain powers are interested in keeping the public in the dark), so realistically, it is only a matter of time until something happens. And the problem with nuclear technology is not so much the likelihood of an accident, but rather that IF it happens, single incidents can **** up entire regions for generations to come, to say nothing of the hard to track long-term effects on the populace.

To me, that's not a risk worth taking. By now, suitable renewable alternatives are available, so it is entirely a question of re-shifting the existing government subsidiaries between those sectors.

And most notably, this is before we even get to the issue of hazardous nuclear fuel extraction, the dumping of nuclear waste, or that ultimately it is the taxpayer who gets to cover the cost of nuclear disasters (in addition to getting a portion of their country and possibly a number of relatives contaminated).

If you just want to put these things on spacecraft, on the other hand ... sure, that's the one thing where I doubt they can do much harm (as long as we can reasonably rule out these vehicles crashing on Earth). If something happens, they'd not glow nearly as "hot" as our sun, after all.

[Mister Blastman]

Kyone Akashi, on 03 October 2015 - 08:28 PM, said:

In an ideal world, companies operating nuclear facilities would invest into the best safety available, and there would be clear laws and regulations in place enforced 100% of the time. This is not, however, how it works. In our economy, private corporations are interested first and foremost in profit, and that means trimming down budgets to the smallest possible package. Likewise, government agencies and politicians are influenced by corporate lobbies promising either economic support for their region or "investing" directly via party donations or generous gifts.

Fukushima is merely the latest example of what happens when such a mindset collides with anything other than day-to-day standard operations. As Tchernobyl has shown, not even socialist countries, where such facilities are run directly by the government, are actually safe. Once you introduce profit-oriented thinking, it should become obvious that the risks only grow.

lol

The government makes things more dangerous, not safer. Why on Earth would a Socialist country be safer than a capitalist one?

The oligarchy is strong--be it socialist or republic. The countries in Europe--controlled by the rich. The United States--controlled by the rich. Communism--controlled by a dictator.

Any system of government that allows a handful of people to exercise absolute control is problematic--and likewise, a pure democracy is also problematic because well... the stupid breed faster than the smart. So democracies will fail, too. The only good government is one with limited power and scope. And in order to fix the corporate and oligarchy angle... currency must be abolished. But that's another thread.

The government hires the dumbest workers possible in order to save on costs. Smarter folks work in the private sector because there is more opportunity for advancement and better pay. I do not trust the government, no matter what system is in place, to keep me safe or do a better job than myself or some other privately run organization can do.

Fukishima happened because of stupidity. Stupid design plans. It didn't happen because nuclear is unsafe--it happened because of a dumb concept to begin with. Don't put stupid people in charge of projects and you can alleviate a lot of the problems.

The truth of the matter is modern nuclear power designs are incredibly safe and when you place them below ground like the most promising projects are proposing--you alleviate most of the risk.

Nuclear reduces pollution, is cheaper in the long run and satisfies our power needs for years to come. The only thing stopping it right now is fear.

[Kyone Akashi]

Mister Blastman, on 03 October 2015 - 09:15 PM, said:

The government makes things more dangerous, not safer. Why on Earth would a Socialist country be safer than a capitalist one?

In theory, a socialist government would have greater control and be less susceptible to corporate machinations, as well as having greater ability to mobilise resources and direct them wherever they are needed -- such as nuclear facilities.

Of course, in practice you could still have things such as incompetence or corruption as well as limited budgets competing with other sectors (Tchernobyl did occur during the Cold War), but at least the potential for failure is a little less inherent in the system. If you look at the nuclear regulatory organisations in contemporary capitalist nations, they are effectively the industry's bootlickers, enforcing only the barest minimum of safety standards. Again, as Fukushima has demonstrated.

And that was not stupidity, but sheer and simple greed for profit blinding people who ought to have known better, just like it exists in any "big money" corporation. Regardless of whether you're looking at banking/finance like Lehman Brothers or automobile companies like VW. And how could you truly fault those responsible? They don't have to pay for the mess they make.

The fact remains, it doesn't matter if nuclear energy is 99.9% safe when that 0,1% is still enough to ruin half a country. No-one in their sane mind would take such a gamble if they would be directly affected by these risks! How many more accidents does it take?

It doesn't even matter if you just want to continue telling yourself that it's just down to "stupidity" if it just keeps happening. Every single time we're told how safe everything is, and then it'll happen never again. Until it does. And the cycle starts over.

Nuclear certainly does not reduce pollution, especially taking accidents into account that contaminate entire regions for centuries. Pro-nuke people often like to argue that the creation of renewable energy power plants would cause so and so many tons of pollution, but this argument also ignores the pollution created by mining for nuclear fuel, to say nothing of the non-existing means of disposing of all radioactive waste. The best we can do is spend millions of dollars on carving out giant subterranean dumps, until it turns out that the containers are beginning to erode and we have to spend millions more to get them back out again or risk contamination of ground water. I guess this, too, could be attributed to the stupidity you mentioned?

And lol @ cheaper. We don't even know how much Fukushima will cost yet, but most of it will have to be paid by the average citizen, not the managers and politicians who were responsible.

Even if you're just talking operating costs, though ...
https://en.wikipedia...e#United_States

[e] And another edit just because I saw this pop up in my newsfeed. I swear I did not know this article would run today, but the timing is uncanny.

http://www.japantime...shima-disaster/

Excerpt: It blamed the March 2011 triple meltdowns at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 power plant on a blind belief in “the nuclear safety myth.” In other words, the myth that Japan’s “nuclear power plants were so safe that an accident of this magnitude was simply unthinkable.”

Edited by Kyone Akashi, 04 October 2015 - 01:18 AM.