What do you call a space setting where the technology isn't

>>44471489
>symmetrical

Isn't symmetry good design for realistic space ships? So that thrust is balanced with the centre of mass and whatnot
Of course this means a lot less on immobile stations, like in your pic related

>>44471796
Most of these ships are immobile or move only short distances. The setting takes place around Earth, there is no warp/lightspeed form. Travel ships are smaller and symmetrical but I'm focused on slow-moving dwelling ships and living stations that generate their own power (sometimes their own food) and receive resources from smaller ships.

File: 12075067_902203659817432_440988864780684566_n.jpg (56KB, 960x567px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 960x567px

>>44471489
Cyberpunk.

>>44471489

shut up and don't call it anything before some idiot attaches pu...>>44471936

damnit

>>44471489
Ships like that only look that way because they're a mess of ground-launched modules developed over the course of decades.

By the time we're actually looking at casual interplanetary travel, orbital construction will be a thing, and ships will be at least Firefly level in appearance.

hard science fiction

>>44472101

It's a station, not a ship.

>>44471489

Realistic.

The least common kind of SF.

>>44471489

Rocketpunk.

>>44472153
It's also a fictional cgi pic. The real ISS doesn't have a huge dish-style antenna on the back or a pair of cannons on the front.

If the ships are based on planet surface there probably must be some aerodynamic design.

However, one could imagine a type of bulky ship assembled in orbit and only used for interplanetary travel. And then another type of more aerodynamic vessels optimized for transporting things between the surface and the ships in orbit.

>>44472251

I thought it was a shot of that god-awful ship from that space opera movie The Martian.

>>44472251
sure it doesn't.

retro-futurism

the age of pulp sci-fi collections, early computers, unironically killer AI, star trek, space opera, 2001, and solaris

>>44472251
>The real ISS doesn't have a huge dish-style antenna on the back or a pair of cannons on the front.
Yet.

>>44472447

You mean stuff from when a space age still seemed possible?

It's called Rocketpunk.

File: Solaris-©-1972-Mosfilm.jpg (69KB, 1000x564px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1000x564px

>>44472447
whoops

see also: silent running

File: Tysononspace.jpg (25KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x322px

>>44472501

ever. the thing's going to be dropped in 4 years.

It's a waste of money, the iss that is.

File: 1208-Beyond-The-Stars-1-hardback-book.jpg (42KB, 344x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 344x500px

>>44472503
x-punkers please just kill yourself, the words don't even stick to their original meanings now

but it's true, it's the era I'm talking about. God damn, 70's sci fi was so sexy

>>44472072
You're a fucking moron. Cyberpunk did add the grittiness to technology and space tech, just look at Vacuum Flowers or The Shockwave Rider or Red Star Winter Orbit.

>>44472614
You'd wish someone's death over a sci-fi term?

I'm glad space isn't in humanity's future, with people like you running around.

>>44472447
see >>44472503
retro-futurism can be applied to other "punk" genres like steam and diesel, or anything where you are trying to recreate what people from past eras envisioned the future would look like.

>>44472648
4chan overdose is very very real friendo

space is the future incontrovertibly at this point unless we all kill ourselves

>>44472667
I am railing against the "punk" labeling, when really it means -nothing-. Anyways if you don't think it's retro-futurism what else could it be. Brocky-space-colonization neologism?

>>44472752
I actually kind of agree with you about that "punk" label. Whereas I think the solution to the mislabeling should be making them actually punk, better terminology would be better.
so.... retro-pulp-scifi/fa.

File: Image0010.jpg (342KB, 1200x1725px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1200x1725px

Fine, let's decide right now that we're all of us going to refer to it as Rocketfun instead of Rocketpunk.

>>44471796

I'm sure the goddamn rocket scientists, of all people, can figure out where to put the thrusters such that the vector of thrust passes through the center of mass regardless of how bizarre or asymmetric the ship is.

>>44472959
But, you see, it's easier to do that if the ship has some sort of symmetry. Preferably cylindrical.

>>44472752
>space is the future incontrovertibly at this point unless we all kill ourselves

Your point?

>>44472915

Rocketpunk is the term. Project Rho Said So.

>>44473038
poster was suggesting it wasn't

>>44473090
>google project rho
>open up the homepage
>vomit

>>44473116
No, i'm that poster, and i agree with you and that statement fully.

I just don't think you realize it.

File: 1451266145099.jpg (533KB, 900x900px)

533KB, 900x900px

>>44472915
rocket-fi

>>44471489

realism

>>44472607
>b-but it isn't profitable

With our current technological level (and for many decades or centuries in the future), space exploration is just made for the sake of science, outside any economic advantage. But watch this twist: if we don't waste our money now, the future generations will need to do it, so let's pave the way to be more easier for them, shall we??

In short, space exploration is a very long-term investment.

>>44473152
oh great holy grognard of grognards, karma 9999+ 7 year veteran of tg, designer of project rho, fanfiction author of bestseller works, PHD in imaginative game design: thou art so incontrovertibly witty!

File: 199367.png (621KB, 498x672px)

621KB, 498x672px

In the case of the term rocketpunk the "punk" is at least vaguely suitable, as many rocketpunk settings imply a proliferation of suitably low-tech space travel, rather than keeping it solely in the hands of governments or billionaire techies.

It's at least somewhat more punk-acceptable than that other name for cogfop, as far as I'm concerned.

>>44473220
Too long for humanity. It's already too late.

Like an inmate on death row, i'll leave you to cling to your singularity.

>>44473245
fucking lol, the mad in this post.

>>44471489
Bulky messes in space aren't "realistic" (see 40k.)

What you're thinking of is a design choice, not a genre.

>>44473269
>the end is nigh!
Sure thing. I'll leave you to your sandwich board.

>>44473298
fag the op

>>44473496
>>44473455
>muh religion is true damn it space is the future kurzweil said!

>>44473510
what the devil does this have to do with kurzweil or by implication the singularity?

>>44473550
>by jove gubnor!

>>44473510
>against all possible evidence, man will never make it into space
I don't know what apocalyptic branch of the Amish you're from, but please go back.

>>44473550
There's no point in discussing things with religious people. Nothing can defeat faith-based reasoning like "space is inevitable"

Come back when you have something approaching a scientific mindset.

>>44473598
What evidence? Companies? Nasa? Books and TV? Articles on the internet? Go ahead. Tell me your precognitive evidence of the future.

Oil is finite, nothing in the universe can replace it. You can either live on a flat earth or accept it.

Don't expect me to engage you.

>>44473646
in a planet full of resources, you're seriously telling me it's too expensive to launch a single rocket?

motivation and incentive, those are good reasons. But you're implying the resources are going to dry up so fast nobody has time to hoard it

>>44473646
People have the want and the means, what more evidence do you need?
It's pretty a much a given that at some point someone with both will decide to into space, and that will be that.

>>44473646

Hydrocarbons are easily synthesized, so I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about. It sounds like you might be retarded.

>>44473603
You've not got a scientific mindset either.

>>44473751
>It sounds like you might be retarded.

He has been doing this since summer, every thread, same clickbait apocalypse narrative, same non sequitur deflections, for six months.

You tell me Anon.

File: Jawasandcrawler.jpg (30KB, 620x330px)

30KB, 620x330px

this aesthetic is basically what influenced early star wars, innit?

>>44473017

Making the ship a cylinder of uniform weight distribution might sound nice, but I'd imagine that goes right the fuck out the window as soon as you start filling it will all the goodies that make it work.

Calculating the center of mass of a complex shape is a trivial task compared to bundling together all the parts of a spaceship in a configuration that puts them all where they need to be while minimizing the amount of unnecessary structure, piping, wiring, etc.

>>44472318
>god-awful ship
What?
>space opera movie The Martian
u wot m8

>>44473690
>you're seriously telling me it's too expensive to launch a single rocket?
What does have to do with colonizing other planets? We launched a shitload of rockets already.

>>44472614
>literally can't deal with words evolving

>>44472959
Yeah but there's literally no reason to design it that way. Especially since you'd need to have multiple sets of thrusters (main, RCS, and possibly hover and/or retro), and you'd want to maintain maneuverability as best as possible even with several non-functional, not to mention changes in center of mass with different loading conditions, etc.

>>44471796
>>44471895
>>44472959
>>44473017
>>44475244

Lets not be forgetting that the center of mass moves as fuel gets consumed, unless you're using a propellant-less drive (Fuck that Newton guy, right?). So even if your center of thrust is perfectly inline with your center of mass at the beginning, if your vehicle is asymmetrical they'll shift out of line with one another. Unless you have some way to move you engine back in line or move your center of mass (both a waste of energy and needlessly complex) you're going to find yourself accelerating around your center of mass every time you set thrust to greater than zero.

This means you're going to, at the least, want your fuel storage and engine clusters to be symmetrical unless you want to waste fuel and energy keeping yourself pointed straight.

And if your going to put time and effort into that, might as well make the rest of the ship symmetrical too.

This guy gets it >>44479084

>>44471489
Hard Science Fiction.

>>44473646
You don't need oil to get to space...

>>44479202
What do you plan on using as fuel then?

File: Hermes.jpg (188KB, 1915x1032px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1915x1032px

>>44478262
>What?
This is what it was meant to look like.

>u wot m8
The entire plot hinges on something that cannot happen on mars.

Not that you care, of course.

File: space shuttle.jpg (192KB, 800x1253px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 800x1253px

>>44479104
Well, that does depend on your engines as well. It's very true for Ye Olde chemical rockets, and still pretty relevant for most nuclear-thermal rockets, but for stuff like plasma or ion drives, you're not going to be spending fuel at any rate that will make a difference in your center of mass.

>>44479084
>Yeah but there's literally no reason to design it that way. Especially since you'd need to have multiple sets of thrusters (main, RCS, and possibly hover and/or retro), and you'd want to maintain maneuverability as best as possible even with several non-functional, not to mention changes in center of mass with different loading conditions, etc.

I can think of one example right off the top of my head why you're wrong, pic related. it's got left/right symmetry, sure, but it's up/down symmetry is all sorts of fucked at every stage of it's flight.

The main engines are pointed away from the center of mass of the big external tank, while the solid boosters face straight up, so at launch, the thing is actually blasting away diagonally. And once the drop tank is released, the little orbital manuvering thrusters on the back are still pointed upward to face through the center of mass of the shuttle orbiter, honestly not sure where the monopropellant for them sits inside the thing.

The RCS thruster blocks are all sorts of an asymmetrical mess, since they can't be on the bottom or pointed directly down or re-entry would fuck them.

>>44479211
Magic, obviously. Nothing is impossible, obviously. If someone says it's impossible, that just means it's possible, obviously.

So one day we will make perpetual motion machines, since they're impossible, and we'll fly to the farthest ends of the universe on ftl drives, since they're impossible, with bigfoot and santa claus at the helm, obviously.

>>44479211
Not RP-1 if he can help it.

LOX and LH2 preferably.

>>44479244

won't it be grand? then we'll look down and laugh at all those who doubted! what fools! what faggots! we'll shout.

and we'll be off to make a perfect universe of rainbows and kittens!

Only a fool would doubt such a future! Now i must be off in my flying car to my moonbase!

>>44479256

oh and of course we'll have an infinite supply of helium because magic because technology because magic because Clarke said!

>>44479281

What's the helium for?

>>44479295

helium, hydrogen, same difference. it all comes from god and zeus and kurzweil.

let me guess, moon mining? like that movie you like? because reality is movies?

ahh it's so adorable how man keeps in his endless circles of folly and death.

you know how they said we'd be living on the moon a decade ago? it doesn't matter! because it's inevitable! television said so! that's all that matters!

>>44479202
>>44479211
I'd like to see grid-power as the base.

A space elevator being powered by a laser-transfer.

Or a space-loop which is lifted by the ground station.

Google that shit.

oh and don't forget how we'll invent god from a machine to make everything better!

why even bother today? why bother with anything? god will save us all! infinite technoheavens and space ages and faster than light travel for all the faithful!

>>44479343

space elevator? hahaha might as well ask rapunzel to let down her hair so that we may climb to the heavens!

praise be god of technology! limitless is your bounty!

File: 1447564422210.gif (50KB, 228x228px)

50KB, 228x228px

>>44479306

oh man

look at all that edge

>>44473973
He also claims anyone with even a glimmer of intelligent response is a Redditor.

He samefags something awful, too. Just ignore him, he'll tripcode eventually.

so who here doesn't believe in perpetual motion machines? YOU'RE FOOLS! Everyone who has EVER said that ANYTHING was impossible was WRONG!

That is the basis of everything you hold sacred, fools! Doubt whatever you feel! Science can NEVER BE RIGHT!

>>44479371

Ah! my faithful dog! come to bark at my heels yet again? Ahhh you hate me but you feed at my table whenever i call!

>>44479371

it is only by my shadow that the world comes into clarity for you? hah!

File: orbital.jpg (59KB, 367x524px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 367x524px

>>44471489
Hard sci fi or near-future

Orbital is this

>>44479410
>>44479392
>>44479382

does your penis get chafed with how much you stroke your dick

>>44473220
It doesn't follow. Most of the issues with space travel begin with the fact that we don't have the technology to magically solve ALL PROBLEMS yet. Once we've MAGICALLY SOLVED ALL PROBLEMS, we can worry about space travel.

For one thing, figuring out a way to survive in a radioactive hostile environment with shit heat dispersion and next to no food or energy sources, in a tiny area, for decades at a time.

Once you've solved that issue, you're a hell of the way there, but this sort of thing would absolutely revolutionize life on Earth as well.

I'm not anti space research, we should definitely throw money at space corporations etc., but most innovations needed for space travel would be awesome for all things.

>>44479429

Why would i have to touch it when you're there within moments of hearing my voice? you spread my tale like the best scribe anyone could ever hope for.

Will you curse me as your power fades and your stomach growls? Haha i bet you will!

>>44479232
>but for stuff like plasma or ion drives, you're not going to be spending fuel at any rate that will make a difference in your center of mass.

Thank you for making it clear you have no understanding of the subject. As long as an engine uses a propellant the center of mass is going to shift in some direction as the fuel gets consumed. With low thrust, high ISP engines like the NSTAR, you still need enough fuel to leave orbit (11 or so km/s for earth) and to to slow down relative to your target and enter orbit around it (if you can).

This means you're still bringing a fuckton of fuel. Especially if your craft is large enough to carry four to eight adult humans, supplies, and a re-entry vehicle to say, Mars.

>pic related.
There's a whole list of reasons we no longer use the shuttle, big one being it was expensive as fuck to maintain and use. You'll notice how the main shuttle engine is angled. Guess what this does? It wastes fuel.

You'll also notice how the Shuttle never left Low Earth Orbit. It wasn't designed to. It couldn't even survive a round trip to the moon and back.

Now if you want to talk about a spacecraft that looked asymmetrical (and was slightly) we can talk about the wonder that was the Lunar Module.


>>44479306
Did you never take chemistry in grade school? like, between fourth and sixth grade?

What is water made of? H2O?

What is earth covered in? H2O?

What do we currently use as fuel for a large number of upper stages? LOX and LH2?

>>44479432

shhhhhhh you'll draw their ire! for they only believe what makes them happy!

they know EXACTLY how the future will unfold! they have NO DOUBT! THey KNOW PERFECTLY!

SPACE ELEVATORS, FUSION, AI, GODHOOD. IN THAT ORDER. NO QUESTIONS. ONLY THE FAITHFUL SHALL BE REWARDED WITH PERPETUAL ENERGY!

>>44479455

See? Doubting the gospel gets you shunned. That is all there is to it. The faithful and the HEATHENS.

ahahaha we have infinite energy! Separate ALL THE WATER JUST LIKE THE MEME SAID

>>44479462
It'd be cool if we could get back on topic, shitposter.

Lets just keep ignoring everything. resources, the climate, EVERYTHING!

Why?

BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS FINE! KEEP BUYING THINGS, KEEP SHOPPING! NOTHING BAD CAN EVER HAPPEN BECAUSE WE IS A SMART! AND SPACE AND OUR FUTURE IS PREDESTINED!

You think i sound mad? LISTEN TO YOURSELVES.

>>44479486
It tends to work better if you actually stand on a street corner when you scream about the end times, mate. That way it's harder for people to ignore you.

>>44471489
Planetes

>>44479486
I'm pretty sure seeing everyone who disagrees with you about anything as a single monolithic block is one of the signs of schizophrenia

>>44479486
Just get a fucking tripcode so we can filter you

>>44479610
What i don't get is the need to reply to the same post multiple times without it even being samefagging since there's no pretending to be a different person. Just... a bunch of posts where one would do.

>>44479561
Top taste Anon, top taste

>>44479628
He's a massive shitposter, probably some assblasted /lit/eral who is upset scienice fiction has a following.

Anything that even remotely implies space travel is possible (or could fix real-world issues) triggers his fatal/autism.

>>44479825
But space travel is possible. We've done it, and we're still doing it.

And we fix real world issues all the time.

I don't get it.

Maybe he's upset he won't personally live long enough/achieve enough to earn a position on a voyage to Mars or Jupiter?

>>44479221
Artificial gravity though. Thought the design was actually pretty good.

>The entire plot hinges on something that cannot happen on mars.
What? Growing crops in salt perchlorate and abiotic soil? Also, that doesn't make it space opera.

Care to develop?

>>44479825
>>44479851
To be honest, it's the current zeitgeist. Getting in and out of gravity wells is extremely prohibitive.

>>44479851
>Maybe he's upset he won't personally live long enough/achieve enough to earn a position on a voyage to Mars or Jupiter?
To be real, this kind of bums me out too.

>>44479966
Well yeah, but that doesn't justify shitting all over someone's thread.

>>44480044
If he was less of a shitposter, I'd think it would be pretty acceptable.

Because to be honest, I'm thinking like him. There is a difference between launching probes that don't even have to come back and launching a manned mission to our closest neighbour. Let's not even talk about colonization and terraforming.

>>44479937
When the book was written it was thought that storms like the one that forces the evac were possible/common on Mars.
Between the book being written and the adaption being made more data from our rovers and shit has shown that actually Mars doesn't have storms like that.

At least, that's what I assume he was talking about, and part of why he specifically called out the movie, since, yes the book was also incorrect about that, but it was accurate given what we knew/the common theories were at the time, while the movie just went "fuck it, we'll stick with what the book says, even though now we know that to be incorrect"

>>44480089
>Observation since the 1950s has shown that the chances of a planet-wide dust storm in a particular Martian year are approximately one in three.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/92JE02936.shtml

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/PIA16450-MarsDustStorm-20121118.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/PIA16454-MarsDustStorm-20121125.jpg

To be honest, I see nothing but corroboration for planet-wide dust storms on Mars. It's even said that Martian dust storms are the biggest in the entirety of the solar systems.

>>44480031
Well, get/stay in shape, go get a Doctorates or three, and I'll see in a hundred years.

I have faith that the future is going to be fucking rad, and I am going to do what I can to make it so and be a part of it.

>>44480085
Completely agreed. The energy requirements to maneuver within our solar system in a timely manner are absurd. That's why this thread is about a realm of science -fiction- not science.

To be honest I believe that spaceflight will never open to the general population until we find a way to shut off and/or reverse gravity. Chance's of that ever happening? I don't know.

>>44480085
I have a bit of hope. I don't want to resummon the asshat, but something's gotta give. It [x resource] was found in conflict-ending abundance, I'm willing to bet on some crazy shit being developed for the journey there.

Also, why don't we just use power grids and cells?

>>44480176
>Also, why don't we just use power grids and cells?
What do you mean?

>>44480288
Just build fuckhueg batteries, dump copious amounts of energy in them, then deplete said charges going out of orbit? Warhammer 40K it, and just build a city's worth of power cells the size of houses.

>>44480406
Power cells are very heavy.

>>44480150

How do those work, anyway? Mars' atmosphere is like 1% as thick as earth's. There's not much air to make wind with, i'd think.

>>44480406
Yeah, no. Doesn't work like that.

>>44480421
That, and they don't actually hold all that much energy too.

>>44480467
i figured that was implied, heavy for the amount of power they held. If they were heavy but held a shitload of power it wouldn't be a problem.

>>44480421
Fair point. I guess you would need to massively scale down the storage of said power if simply scaling down the entire process couldn't be done.

Small-scale fusion when?

>>44480489
Scaling down the storage is generally going to be less efficient because proportionally more space will be taken up by the not-power-containing-bits.

If you've got fuckhuge amounts of power to toss around you're probably best off using it to synthesize fuel rather than tossing it directly at liftoff.

>>44472648
>You'd wish someone's death over a sci-fi term?
You wouldn't?

>>44480820
>Canadarm3

That's a hell of an upgrade.

LEO Space Tech

>>44480450
There are 100mph storms on mars but due to the thin atmosphere it'd barely be feel like a light breeze. The thing about them is that they can be FUCKHUEG and pick up a lot of very fine dust which can cause mechanical failures and such.

>>44481186
It isn't certain what the particular properties of Martian regolith are. But if it's anything like that of the moon it's probably very abrasive and much more chemically reactive than normal dust. So repeated exposure to Martian dust storms will probably seriously affect equipment.

>>44472620
That's not exclusive to cyberpunk.
Example : Alien.

And besides, cyberpunk isn't about aesthetics.

File: ffFZnz5.jpg (273KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 900x1200px

>>44481278
And likely chew a hole in your hulls as well. Best to bury your major infrastructure underground, and have anything above ground protected by easily replaced plating.

Picture is from a grain chute. 1/4" of steel. To give you an idea of what would happen to an aluminum-steel hull exposed to years of Martain dust storms without maintenance.

>>44481186

So is it less "Darude:Sandstorm" and more "everything gets covered in shitty dust"?

>>44481278
I'd imagine it's more like earth dust than moon dust because there's an atmosphere that blows it around occasionally.

Lunar regolith is literally igneous rocks pulverized into powder by the impact of meteors. It's all tiny jagged shards. I'd expect mars dust to have the edges rounded off.

>>44471489
Watched Moon yesterday, and really enjoyed the lack of touchscreens, holograms and stuff like that. All keyboards have actual keys, all screens are convex. It's beautiful.

>>44479306
Is this an ironic parody of pretentious Internet douchebags, or the real thing taken to a comical extreme? It's hard to tell sometimes.

>>44481349
Thing you need to remember with lower gravity and a thinner atmosphere is that while, yes, the wind applies less force to the surface, a thinner atmosphere and weaker gravity means less energy is required for particles to pick up speed and their terminal velocity is also going to be much higher.

Higher relative velocity, the stronger the impact.

File: minmatar ships.png (7MB, 1920x1080px)

7MB, 1920x1080px

OP should look into Minmatar designs

>>44481850
Well now I wanna go dust of my Hound, thanks.

>>44481869
>Hound
>Thrasher
>Rifter
>Fenrir
>Hurricane
>Typhoon

Minmatar confirmed for sweetest ships

>>44481924
Don't forget the fucking Panther.

I just loved the whole stealth lineup.

>>44471489
Anon, sorry to break your bubble; but spacecraft have wings; they are called radiators.

>>44481988
Then they aren't wings.

The radiators on the ISS and Soyuz would be terrible wings.

The same goes for solar panels.

File: fxSGLmXh.jpg (171KB, 1024x846px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1024x846px

>>44482017
>tfw the space craft discovery on the movie "2001: a space odissey" got his radiators pulled because of executives not wanting to explain to people why "spacecraft have wings"

Spacecraft can also have fueltanks shaped like wings to use surface tension to suck fuel instead of having to use ullage boosters.

also contributing pics for the thread; some drawings from a Free design space fighter called Nera.

>>44482177
I always hate how things get simplified for the general population.

I want movies and games that make me open up wikipedia or google and try to figure out just want the fuck I'm looking at or understand what happened.

Instead I get stuck with the same easy to consume crap.

These are the reasons I read history books as opposed to going to the movies.

File: xIxhbav.jpg (2MB, 2091x1768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2091x1768px

Refueling space station.

File: planetes[1].jpg (79KB, 500x388px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 500x388px

>>44471489
Check out Planetes OP

>>44482328
KSP fuck yea!

>>44471796
>Isn't symmetry good design for realistic space ships? So that thrust is balanced with the centre of mass and whatnot
>Of course this means a lot less on immobile stations, like in your pic related

It's mass that's important.

Doesn't matter if the craft is symmetrical in shape. If the left side is living quarters and the right side is fuel storage, then it's still not evenly distributing mass.

So you can have asymmetrical designs- so long as the mass of the various structures is comparable in relation to the your source of thrust.

That's why it's okay to have something that looks like it sticks way out of the side of the craft- so long as its relatively lower in mass compared to stuff on the rest of the craft.

File: Twilight B.jpg (143KB, 1280x756px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x756px

>>44471489
I always called it "used future," myself, as everything's all junky.

Think Star Wars, in terms of pure aesthetics and ignoring the complete lack of science.

>>44482777
I don't think it's necessarily used future. It could look brand new, as long as it looks practical.

>>44480697
Did anyone else ever read as a kid a series of sci-fi books with art just like this and spaceships just like this?

>>44480848
Avatar's design work was on point, and this spaceship exemplifies that.

File: kabedon.jpg (205KB, 295x850px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 295x850px

>>44482605

Symmetry is a must in a lot of designs as it's the simplest way to balance a space ship around the thrust without resorting to ballast tanks that take up mass more useful payloads could be using.

One thing that I haven't seen dealt with in hard science fiction is how having a massive chunk of armor on one side of the ship being blown up would imbalance and cause the entire space battleship to list whenever it powers its main thrusters, which would be a big problem with battle damage.

>>44482518

There's an interesting mod called the Kerbal Inventory System that allows you to take up parts in special containers and assemble them on the exterior of a ship while in EVA, and one thing I've found in early experiments in in-orbital spacecraft assembly is that you need to build a fucking cage or hollow container to contain whatever you're building because the simple act of placing an object onto another one will cause the object to fly off unless you can pin it against something in a process I want to dub "inter-orbital Kabedon Assembly".

>>44480863
>22th century

>>44482958
>Symmetry is a must in a lot of designs as it's the simplest way to balance a space ship around the thrust without resorting to ballast tanks that take up mass more useful payloads could be using.

Proper distribution of mass is a must. Aesthetic symmetry is not.

Symmetry will result in a greater need for ballast tanks, since you must compencate for masses to be placed where they will conform to a symmetrical shape as opposed to being placed where they are most balanced mass-wise.

>>44479295
That anon is probably an idiot who thinks LH2 is helium, however don't rockets use liquid helium to maintain pressure in the fuel tanks as fuel is expended? And btw it is possible to make helium from hydrogen using nuclear fusion, no idea of how economical it would be though.

>>44483663
For your first question: I honestly don't know, I'm not familiar with such a method.

For your second: yes it is possible to fuse hydrogen into helium. That's why helium even exists in the abundance that it does.

As far as economical: no, not yet. Maybe in forty-fifty years, but not yet.

>>44471489
Used future.

>>44483663

No because Liquid Helium is crazy hard to make, they do however use liquid nitrogen though to stop the hydrogen tanks from imploding as they are emptied of hydrogen.

>>44473122
>needs stimulating pictures to function

>>44471489
Modern-punk
Hard Sci-fi
Reality

>>44483663
>no idea of how economical it would be though.

It won't get economical on its own in a hurry.

But you might be able to squeeze out some extra cash form selling the helium from a commercial fusion reactor. A significant amount of the helium sold today was created as a by product of commercial fission power (I'm guessing beta radiation that slowed down and yoinked some electrons, but fuck knows).

>>44485403

They believe things without evidence. Don't bother.

Science Fiction is real. End of Story.

>>44485403

Helium comes from natural gas and other petrochemicals. As such, it is a fundamentally limited supply.

If you accept physics, that is.

>>44487597
....Ah, no. Most all our helium comes from some sort of radioactive decay, usually from uranium or thorium mineral beds.

>>44484524
They use liquid helium for that, last I checked.

>>44480482
It's not even that it needs a lot of energy-that's cheap-it's how to convert it into motion. You could be carrying all the energy in the universe in the tiniest, lightest possible battery, it won't do you jack squat unless you figure that out.

>>44488015
>....Ah, no. Most all our helium comes from some sort of radioactive decay, usually from uranium or thorium mineral beds.

Cite source. I've never heard this claim before.

File: 28636463.jpg (186KB, 890x1256px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 890x1256px

>>44472915
No fuck that. We're having Rocketfun and there's nothing you can do about it.

>>44488855
http://www.helium-corp.com/facts/heliumfound.html
Interestingly, we're both wrong in right ways-helium tends to collect in natural gas deposits for reasons given in the article, and is extracted by fractional distillation from natural gas, but more is produced year-round by radioactive decay instead of being an entirely nonrenewable resource.

File: 33549299.jpg (429KB, 1600x1200px)

429KB, 1600x1200px

>>44487597
>Helium comes from natural gas and other petrochemicals.

Fuck off with your bad science.

>tfw you just want to run or play in a campaign in a SS13/The Expanse inspired setting.

>>44489230
>>44489225
>The helium that we use today is found exclusively in natural gas deposits.

>Exclusively

>Natural Gas

Thanks! I knew i wasn't wrong.

>>44489225
>renewable

On the scale of millions of years, yes.

Coolest Sci Fi films from the last few years

Oblivion ("hard" sci fi - near future)
Jupiter Ascending. (far future / "extreme" sci fi / cyberpunk)

>>44492225
>Oblivion
>nuclear reactors exploding with a mushroom cloud
>hard sci-fi
No.

>Jupit-
No.

>>44492262
you missed my quotation marks around "hard" when you quoted me

>>44492312
The term has no place within a forgettable tom cruise action flick with an obvious twist.

>>44492380
its nothing to do with the actors or the storyline, only the technology.

Also did you watch jupiter ascending? or just write it off based on the cast and promotional poster? Its very well made and some great sci fi ideas. Also some very cool races.

With Sci fi films you can't be picky about actors, you just have to enjoy the setting and technology.

Also anyone see 2010 (1984, sequel to 2001)?
It has some great scenes, particularly the one where they slingshot around jupiter. A fairly hard sci fi setting.

Outland (1981) was also very cool.

>>44492439
>Also did you watch jupiter ascending? or just write it off based on the cast and promotional poster? Its very well made and some great sci fi ideas. Also some very cool races.
I wrote it off because it was a terrible movie. Since you're sticking to vague statements i will too. 2010 was decent though. Gotta love the Ballute scene. Have you seen Darkstar? You might like it.

>With Sci fi films you can't be picky about actors, you just have to enjoy the setting and technology.
I can't agree with that.

The closest we've gotten to a decent science fiction movie this decade are Dredd and Moon. Dredd is obviously silly, but Moon takes itself seriously despite the plot of moon mining being about as ridiculous as they come. Look up how much lunar regolith has to be mined per ton of He3 if you want to know what i mean. Net Loss doesn't even begin to cover it.

>>44492100
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957Natur.179..213C
The Earth produces 3000 metric tons of helium a year.
>>44491912
Read the rest of the article. You're not quite right either.

>>44492817
>The Earth produces 3000 metric tons of helium a year.

http://eolus.phys.northwestern.edu/CM_Theory_Group/Photos/Pages/QFS2009_files/Helium_Shortages_Chan-Richardson.pdf
>current annual world wide annual consumption of helium
is 1.7x108 m3

That's 30,000 metric tons per year.

Stop doubting your peers.

>>44492862
Should be
>1.7x10^8 m3

>>44492862
I'm not saying it isn't getting exhausted. That's not the same as nonrenewable.

>>44493053
Semantics? Already?

Be a man. With your logic, the only non-renewable resource in the universe is energy itself.

>>44493053
So you're saying that all we have to do is use a magnitude less helium per year and somehow extract every atom that escapes the earth and it'll be sustainable?

Does either of those seem like practical solutions to you?

>>44471489
Garbage

>>44482393
Great show.

Incidentally, I just heard a radio piece featuring Donald Kessler last week, as one does from time to time.

>>44472607
Historically, only money and murder are effective motivators. Disregard everything else.

File: station-skylon-orbit-1024.jpg (158KB, 1024x656px)

158KB, 1024x656px

>>44493087
>>44493238
>>44487597
>>44486006

Question for all of you. Why are you so intent on proving that your scientifically certified e-dick is so much larger than everyone's when you're in a science fiction thread.

Fuck, it's not even a discussion thread, OP specifically asked for art.


Second question: Let's say you're right and humanity is doomed. We'll run out of oil, earth will become an over-populated, over-polluted, sack of shit and we will never be able to feasibly leave it and colonize the galaxy.

Then what? Now that we've established that you're right: humanity is fucked and the stars are beyond our reach, what do we do?

>>44495574
Thanks anon. I wanted to say something along similar lines, but couldn't without drawing more fire.

>>44495984
Nice warship. What's it's deltaV and thrust?

>>44496269
Np, and thanks.

With it's current fuel loadout it's got 70,340 m/s dV with a TWR of 1.01, about 480.5 kN. With fuel it's about 66 tons.

Designed to stay within the sphere of influence of it's host planet, though it could easily leave.

>>44496602
Wow. That's torchship performance right there. What's the engines?

>>44473220
>expecting 'long-term investments' from a species so short-sighted that environmental destruction and pollution is still seen as next generations problem.

>>44496992
Looks like Fusion Bottle engines from Attack Vector judging by >>44496007

File: J7kYAal.jpg (287KB, 955x708px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 955x708px

>>44472614
It was also optimistic once and while.

I also like spacecraft being operated more like a cold war era strategic bomber than what some civilian faggot thinks surface warship operates.

>>44473017
Spheres are better.

File: fast erection switch.jpg (921KB, 2160x3840px) Image search: [Google]

921KB, 2160x3840px

>>44473322
>B-58 Hustler.

>>44480673
That flag is backwards and it's irrationally pissing me off.

>>44495574
What we do in a scenario like that is we revert to a level of population and technology that we can sustain, obviously.

>>44500890
you and yours first then.

Now, a serious answer please.

>>44501070
I am serious. We as a species do that, whether we want to or not. That's the definition of "unsustainable", after all. "Cannot be sustained".

File: DefenseSat.png (781KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 1600x900px

>>44499799
>>44496992
They're from the Near Future series of mods, if I remember right.

Simply called the "Magnetic Nozzle" (the four outer engines, and the "Plasma Thruster" (the one in the middle).

Both in the realm of science fiction. The Plasma Thruster can run off of electricity and virtual particles, so it's a "EMDrive-that-works" and VASIMR hybrid of sorts.

>>44500890
Population I can sort of agree with, though good luck implementing that in an ethical way, however any step back in terms of technology would be pointless and foolish to do.

I guess you could mean that we will simply revert back to a sustainable level because of free market forces, war, famine, and other natural balances.

>>44480489
Let's start with:

http://m.space.com/26713-impossible-space-engine-nasa-test.html

>>44501182
What is margin of error?

As much as I want that to work, I'm not holding my breath.

Every time they refine their tests, the amount of thrust detected, and the supposed space-time effects, become smaller and smaller.

>>44479462
AI, Fusion, Godhood, Space Elevators, actually.

Space Elevators are an impossibility, even with carbon nanotubes. By the time we make something stronger, they'll be pointless.

Plus were fairly close to AI, as computer capability doubles every two years, provided we don't hit a development wall.

Cold Fusion is theoretically possible, but we dint know how to do it safely yet though.

Godhood is relative, especially if we genetically engineer a sentient species and lord our power over them like Hellenistic dicks.

>>44501267
>Godhood is relative, especially if we genetically engineer a sentient species and lord our power over them like Hellenistic dicks.
Dibs on turning into a swan to fuck things.

>>44501267
>Cold Fusion is theoretically possible, but we dint know how to do it safely yet though.
Can you elaborate on what you think you know about this topic?

>>44501306
Settle down Zeus, though I'd love to build a space labyrinth to house an autistic cybernetic mutant monster so one of your bastard children can kill it in one on one combat.

Imagine the ratings!

>>44501322
Whoops, I didn't mean cold fusion. I just meant plain ol' fusion. Now I look retarded.

>>44501362
>>44501306
>tfw no sci fi version of Greek Mythology

>>44501399
Don't give this writefag idea's.

>>44501379
No, that happened when you took science fiction as fact.

The singularity is a myth based off one century of extremely cheap energy. Ray Kurzweil is an alkaline water swilling con artist.

>>44495574
Facts matter.

Will we make hard choices about the economy or about our lifestyles when we are led to believe that nothing is wrong and technology will save us from every single consequence of our actions?

Fuck no. It'll just make things worse. We're playing chicken with our future.

>>44501462
Fusion is possible though. Currently it's not reliable enough to consider, but give it a few decades and it might be feasible. We've made more progress in the past 100 years than in the rest of the 1000.

We can do flying cars, but we don't because it's dangerous, not cost effective, and plain stupid. Will the future be as imagined? No, of course not. But to deny evidence that at current rate of scientific progression, even with financial and cultural stagnation, were set for at least a somewhat bright future, provided we don't nuke ourselves.

File: DefenseSat3.png (891KB, 1600x900px)

891KB, 1600x900px

>>44501480
That's great and all but I was asking what do you propose we do.

File: Logistic-curve.jpg (70KB, 1024x682px)

70KB, 1024x682px

>>44501517
>Fusion is possible though. Currently it's not reliable enough to consider, but give it a few decades and it might be feasible. We've made more progress in the past 100 years than in the rest of the 1000.
So? It has an EROEI of 100:1 as opposed to oil at the turn of the century which was 1:100. We can't make a world on that.

>But to deny evidence that at current rate of scientific progression, even with financial and cultural stagnation, were set for at least a somewhat bright future, provided we don't nuke ourselves.
I don't think we agree on the terms of "scientific progression". We owe the existence of the modern world to discoveries made over a century ago. Oil is not something we can economically replace at our current demand. Only if we reduce energy use in all first world nations by approximately 90% will we have a technological future, and we have to start 30 years ago. Since we can't do that, we have to start today. This hour, this minute. Nobody is willing to sacrifice for the future, because they've been told that the god of technology has endless bounty, endless energy. The singularity may be the most deleterious idea to ever occur to us.

If technology is exponential, why doesn't 50 years ago look as transformative as 100 years ago? Why, if i were to go back in time, would people from 50 years ago not see anything i brought back as magical?

Look up the difference between an exponential function and a sigmoid one. Notice where we might be mistaken?

>>44501672
Reduce all energy use by countries like america by 90% starting right this second, so that we actually can be sustainable on renewable resources alone.

We can't make up the 18 or so terawatt difference between non-renewable energy and renewable energy on any global GDP. We have to reduce our use to the point where we feasibly can.

Nobody will do that. So i'm quite literally afraid that's that.

>>44501719
Except the average person has never heard of the singularity and is not under the impression that 'technology' will magically fix the future.

>>44501840
Nor is the average person under the impression that the future is something that needs to be fixed.

>>44501905
Which is why nobody is reducing their energy and resource use.

Shit, people don't even care that the low costs at the supermarket are only attained by fucking over the employees and safety and quality standards. That's how you can get a shirt that's crossed the globe three times for less than 20 dollars, and why the usa keeps getting salmonella outbreaks from their chicken.

Hobbes was right.

File: AnotherFighter.png (600KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 1600x900px

>>44501719
>Why, if i were to go back in time, would people from 50 years ago not see anything i brought back as magical?

You must be very young if you believe that to be the case.

Something as simple as an iPhone would amaze many of the most prominent computer scientists of the 1970s.

And that's just in a single field.

We know things today that would astound the worlds leading experts in physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, robotics, and heck, even mathematics has made respectable promise.

We've landed a probe on a comet, we've built histories largest space station with the help of the ESA, JAXA, and ROSCOSMOS, we have high resolution pictures of Pluto, some firefighters in the Middle East are getting jetpacks, not too long ago the first stage of a rocket landed itself, the world united to complete the Human Genome Project, we have cars that can drive themselves, and I can have a video chat in near real time with the woman I love with a device that weighs less than a kilogram.

Welcome to the future that was dreamed of 100 years ago, that wasn't possible 50 years ago, and 50 years from now will be just another blip in history.

>>44501744
So everyone walks everywhere, no one buys meat products at all, we reduce global shipping lanes to 1% of what they are now, stop mass producing medical products, shrink all agricultural pursuits by 60%, impose severe restrictions on who may have more than one child, force the remaining population to either have only one or no children, and find some way to force the 3rd world nations to stop industrializing.

Not happening.

But that's far from the end of the world.

But if you honestly believe that's what we're heading to, what are you doing about it? Other than cutting back your carbon footprint, and telling people to do the same.

What field of science are you working in that is going to make tomorrow better for everyone. What critical problems are you striving to find a solution for?

>>44502140
>You must be very young if you believe that to be the case.

Why did you bother with continuing to type after that? You've invalidated your whole argument.

>>44502140
What are you doing to bring back the dead?

Isn't that something people would like?

>>44502161
How so?

>>44502180
If your only rebuttal is that i'm a child, you must not have much to go on.

I'm at a severe disadvantage here. I both have to prove a negative to you, which i logically cannot, and i have to inform you of a great deal of different facts.

If you can't be reasonable, then we are both wasting our time.

>>44502140
>Welcome to the future that was dreamed of 100 years ago
You mean the one where we have half the solar system colonized and we're each on separate planets?

Or the one with the silly flying bikes and airships like some jules verne adventure?

>>44502180
He's probably saying that because it's a silly shot in the dark that gives off the impression that you need to resort to name calling.

As to the actual argument, I think you're pretty obviously right in that we can do all kinds of amazing shit that people a few decades ago didn't even think about. But the specific question here is whether it's the kind of shit you can power a civilization with once fossil fuels go bye-bye, isn't it?

>>44501961
>nobody is reducing their energy and resource use

So are you just ignoring the fact that many people are as efficient as practical with their energy use? Or that basically every piece of technology we use has been getting more energy efficient for decades?

>>44502245

I won't discount the inventions he lists, just that the discoveries that made those inventions possible we made a century ago. We haven't discovered a new source of energy since photovoltaics.

All of the growth has been in old branches. There have been startlingly few new branches. Quantum mechanics is probably the most recent thing that we've gotten use out of, and its widest application is the CMOS chip that keeps your BIOS settings when you turn off your PC.

File: Energy-consumption-per-capita-2003.png (56KB, 1427x628px)

56KB, 1427x628px

>>44502286
>So are you just ignoring the fact that many people are as efficient as practical with their energy use?
The people in the third world, yes. The red in this image is absolutely unsustainable.

>Or that basically every piece of technology we use has been getting more energy efficient for decades?
Unless you're saying that we can make 110% efficient machines, then that's really just an argument in my favor, isn't it? If a technology has 40% energy efficiency, then at most we can double it before hitting the thermodynamic wall.

>>44502291
The widest application of quantum mechanics is the condensed matter physics that made people understand semiconductors without which your computer would still be running on fucking vacuum tubes.

>>44502356
And transistors, yes. That's why we've seen such a reduction in size of certain electronics, and it gives people the sense that this should apply across the board.

But why would it?

>>44502356

We'd have manned telecommunications satellites if not for the transistor.

And no star wars prequels or special editions.

>>44502172
>pursuing a degree in science, ideally to reduce the cost of living and increase the standard of living for the global population is the same as bringing back the dead.

How is this even an argument?

>>44502205
It wasn't my only rebuttal, it was a statement based of an observation, read the rest of the argument.

What you have provided has led me to believe you have a poor understanding of the last fifty years of human history. Please, demonstrate that I'm wrong.

>>44502241
Well considering we already have silly flying bikes, we've had airships and submarines for a while, we also have remote controlled weapons, and communications systems that operate at near light speed, I'd say Verne was spot on.

Sure we're not colonizing other planets yet, but we also aren't making potions to make super soldiers, or building metal woman to take over society. It's almost like science fiction is a poor way to measure progress.

>>44502391
And thanks to those advances in electronics we can now perform surgery remotely, through a fiber optic cable, through the patients blood vessels. I have a 3D printer than can make parts to allow my to fix say, my office chair, on demand. I don't have to spend gas in my hybrid car (also possible thanks to advances in the fields of computer science, electrical engineering, and others) to go buy the replacement part for said chair. I built a small wind turbine in my back yard and got a loan to install solar panels on my roof. My office chair has a foot pedal system that I use to recharge the battery packs for my power tools while I'm listening to someone give a lecture from halfway across the world. We have built prosthetic limbs that can convey the sensation of touch to their user, and can be controlled via our thoughts. We have given individuals once confined to a wheelchair the ability to walk. We have and continue to cure diseases that ravage the world. Genetic engineering alone has saved countless lives.

Welcome to the future.

>>44502582
>pursuing a degree in science, ideally to reduce the cost of living and increase the standard of living for the global population is the same as bringing back the dead.
>How is this even an argument?
I'm asking if you consider any problem to be beyond the reach of technology. Follow?

>What you have provided has led me to believe you have a poor understanding of the last fifty years of human history. Please, demonstrate that I'm wrong.
How, exactly?

>Well considering we already have silly flying bikes, we've had airships and submarines for a while, we also have remote controlled weapons, and communications systems that operate at near light speed, I'd say Verne was spot on.
People can find ways of making nostradamus seem right too. All it takes is a sufficient imagination and stretching of events.

>It's almost like science fiction is a poor way to measure progress.
On that i agree fully.

>And thanks to those advances...
Yes, we have many fancy things. What of those is a new form of energy as cheap or cheaper than oil?

>>44492439
Jupiter Ascending was one of the most disappointing Sci-Fi films I ever saw. Not because of the acting (which was, at worst, tolerable), not because of the plot (which, though hilariously shallow, served largely to introduce the frankly gorgeous scenery and visual effects involved).

No, it was disappointing to me because they made a magic flight system based on roller skating, and had a protagonist who did roller derby, BUT SHE NEVER USED THE FLIGHT SYSTEM! What the fuck, man?

Imagine if, in Star Wars, Obi Wan was talking up Luke's father's lightsaber, but only Obi Wan used one, and Luke never did, despite being the Tatooine Fencing Champion.

>>44502665
>Yes, we have many fancy things.
Well, not "we". Just the 1% of humanity living in an energy-rich economy. People with toilets and whatnot.

>>44502706
1% of 7 billion is 70 million. That's less than the population of Germany.

>>44502336
I am referring to the absolutely enormous energy saving movement in the first world and the fact most people now take steps to reduce their electricity usage.

>>44502844
The what?

Show me statistics. How does the first world compare to the third? How much energy per capita do people use?

>>44502757
My fault for co-opting a stupid meme. 10%.

>>44502665
>I'm asking if you consider any problem to be beyond the reach of technology. Follow?

Try being outright with your questions next time. As far as what we'll be capable of in the future, who knows? We can only estimate the near future.

>How, exactly?
By demonstrating you have a respectable understanding of the last 50 years of human history. Let's start with what the honest expectations of the future were back in the 1970s. We'll restrict it to Western societies.

Unless you were asking how I came to the conclusion that you have a poor understanding of recent history, in which case:

>If technology is exponential, why doesn't 50 years ago look as transformative as 100 years ago? Why, if i were to go back in time, would people from 50 years ago not see anything i brought back as magical?

This statement demonstrates ignorance in regards to just how much the entire world has changed. Yes, somethings are the same, and a lot is incredibly familiar. The differences however, are astounding.

>Nostradamus
You made a statement about silly flying bikes and airships. We have silly flying bikes and airships. There's no stretching of events.

>On that i agree fully.
At least we agree on something.

>What of those is a new form of energy as cheap or cheaper than oil?
Nothing yet. Hence we're still looking. We do have an assortment of promising alternatives. I currently use a mixture of solar and wind in addition to gas. Now imagine if everyone had the same incentive to do so, and the means to make the transition.

>>44502913
It's more than 10%. Way more. The majority of the planet has access to telecommunication devices, medical aid, automobiles, and more. And it has had positive impacts on their lives.

>>44502913
10% of the world population is a bit more than half the number of facebook users.

>>44492225
Interstellar was pretty cool. Spaceship designs also fit the thread theme.

>>44503248
The Martian also has one of those spinning space ships. Pretty sure it has its thrusters pointed the wrong way in one scene though.

>>44503025
>Try being outright with your questions next time. As far as what we'll be capable of in the future, who knows? We can only estimate the near future.
If you don't believe in limits then i am at a much greater disadvantage than i thought. I don't think it's possible to convince you of anything.

>By demonstrating you have a respectable understanding of the last 50 years of human history.
Again, how? Anyone could just cite wikipedia and you'll likely just assert that i have.

>Let's start with what the honest expectations of the future were back in the 1970s. We'll restrict it to Western societies.
You mean like if i went back and told people in 1970 that in 2015 the united states of america would not have a manned space program, they'd think i was insane?

>This statement...
Not enough that people from 50 years ago would be incapable of understanding how anything i brought back worked, since they already knew all of the principles that the technology is founded upon. It's just a more advanced version. Notice how i am not attacking you personally for disagreeing with me?

>You made a statement about silly flying bikes and airships. We have silly flying bikes and airships. There's no stretching of events.
And Nostradamus predicted JFK's assassination too? When was the last time you rode a flying bike to work? When was the last time you took a cruise on an airship?

>Nothing yet. Hence we're still looking. We do have an assortment of promising alternatives. I currently use a mixture of solar and wind in addition to gas. Now imagine if everyone had the same incentive to do so, and the means to make the transition.
So over a century of all this great achievement and science and progress and computing and still nothing? How long should we wait before changing our ways of life? Until it's too late?

I'll drop the % argument until i get an actual figure. The fact is that the future, like stereo, is only available in certain areas.

>>44503248
Couldn't stand it. Too much crooning about nonsense, the quantum love thing only serves to line deepak chopra's pockets.

>>44503270
That spinning design ruined the ship for me. This is what it was meant to look like. >>44479221
Artificial gravity was supplied by putting the ship into a tumble during the transit. Rotating sections have too many issues to ever be practical compared to other methods.

>>44503323
Yeah, the thing with the huge rotating, vacuum tight bearing was a little silly, but I'll take what I can get.

File: protectorDetail.jpg (29KB, 400x368px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x368px

>>44503366
Stick with books and you won't have to settle nearly as often.

For example, the Expanse will never be as good as Protector.

>>44471489
So, a number of suggestions have been done ITT. I don't think it's any kind of "-punk," although it could fit cyberpunk. It's also not any kind of retrofuturism, although it could fit 70s or 80s retrofuturism. It's not "used future," although it could be. I don't even think it's necessarily hard sci-fi either, because it doesn't always strictly adhere to scientific principles, although it does at least lean on plausibility.

Is it just realism? Near-future? Industrial design? What do we call it?

>>44503722

Rocketpunk. A second space age is retro-futurism.

>>44503286
> I don't think it's possible to convince you of anything.
Never said that. Never even suggested it. I just admitted that I do not know what the world will be like 100 years from now, just like how the people 100 years ago had no idea what today would be like.

>Again, how? Anyone could just cite wikipedia and you'll likely just assert that i have.
Don't cite wikipedia, but feel free to cite other online sources, .edu preferably, and post those links here.

>You mean like if i went back and told people in 1970 that in 2015 the united states of america would not have a manned space program, they'd think i was insane?

We do have a manned space program, or are you telling me we don't have American astronauts on the ISS right now? Because Timothy L. Kopra and Scott J. Kelly would disagree with you. Now, they would call you crazy for suggesting that they're sharing the ISS with the Russians, or that the USSR would collapse in 1991.

>Not enough that people from 50 years ago would be incapable of understanding how anything i brought back worked.

This applies to all forms of knowledge. I could travel back four hundred years and grab a random average guy and bring him back to this time for a modern education and he'd understand just fine after a few language hurdles.

>It's just a more advanced version.
That's the whole concept of gradual progression. It applies to all fields of study, including the sciences.

>Notice how i am not attacking you personally for disagreeing with me?
>I don't think it's possible to convince you of anything.
>I'm asking if you consider any problem to be beyond the reach of technology. Follow?
>Yes, we have many fancy things. What of those is a new form of energy as cheap or cheaper than oil?

You are and continue to be as condescending as I am. We're both adults, which means we're just going to deal with it.

>>44503817
cont/
>When was the last time you rode a flying bike to work? When was the last time you took a cruise on an airship?
Never rode a flying bike, why would I want to when I can fly an airplane, or drive a car with AC and media players instead? As for the airship: an actual blimp, years ago, was boring. I do ride in a 400,00kg aircraft every year though, sometimes multiple times per year.

>So over a century of all this great achievement and science and progress and computing and still nothing?
What do you mean nothing? How do you not see all the wonders that have been accomplished within the last 50 years alone? You're so fixated on alternative energy (which is close to being realized, and in many places actually cheaper than oil and coal and gas.) that you've decided everything else is pointless when it is anything but.

>How long should we wait before changing our ways of life? Until it's too late?
We are changing our lifestyles, every day humanity is becoming more efficient and adapting to the increased global demand for energy. We are closer than ever to achieving energy dense storage options, developing a greater capacity for generating energy, and becoming more aware as a species of how important it is to reduce consumption and reuse resources.

Yes, we're not living the vision of Stanley Kubrick, (though considering almost everyone in that movie was either a woman imported for eye candy and service related labor, or a prominent and wealthy white male, I'd say we're actually doing better), but if Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, Boeing, LockheedMartin, and others have shown is that there is a growing demand and opportunity for commercial spaceflight.

>>44503749
It's not, though. We're talking about an aesthetic. Basically, modern day technology extrapolated a couple of decades (optimistically speaking) into the future. What the hell is "rocketpunk" even? Makes me think of 50s pulp scifi rockets, which is definitely not what we're looking for. Even if you're going to define a second space age as necessarily retro due to it being a revival of the earlier space age, that doesn't mean it would have the same aesthetic attached to it.

>>44503817
>Never said that. Never even suggested it. I just admitted that I do not know what the world will be like 100 years from now, just like how the people 100 years ago had no idea what today would be like.
They knew we wouldn't have perpetual motion machines.

>Don't cite wikipedia, but feel free to cite other online sources, .edu preferably, and post those links here.
What exactly are you expecting as proof?

>We do have a manned space program...
Fine. I'll amend the statement to "the usa has no ability to put men into space on its own in 2015"

>This applies to all forms of knowledge. I could travel back four hundred years and grab a random average guy and bring him back to this time for a modern education and he'd understand just fine after a few language hurdles.
So you don't believe in exponential progress or "sufficiently advanced tech being indistinguishable from magic"?

>You are and continue to be as condescending as I am. We're both adults, which means we're just going to deal with it.
You took those as insults? You directly said that the only reason i don't agree with you was because i was young and ignorant.

>Never rode a flying bike...
So it's not the future that verne and people from over a century ago envisioned, is it? You can make vague parallels, but that's it.

>We are changing...
Show me statistics. Show me some evidence that energy per capita has been going down at a steady rate in the industrialized world. Because i cannot find any basis for that.

>Yes, we're not living the vision of Stanley Kubrick...is a growing demand and opportunity for commercial spaceflight.
How have they done this? At most, those companies are just taking up nasa's slack. At worst, like virgin galactic, they are throwing away lives for a rich man's thrill ride. Just because bugatti veyrons exist doesn't mean we'll all get to own one someday.

As for predicting the future, that's the point of science. Our theories make predictions.

>>44503832
>though considering almost everyone in that movie was either a woman imported for eye candy and service related labor, or a prominent and wealthy white male

You have to realize how much this hurts your position.

File: youcispigtriarchywarmongers.jpg (40KB, 615x345px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 615x345px

>>44504506
>cis-white genderphobic racist white male detected

File: fucking stupid.jpg (44KB, 540x404px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x404px

>>44503832
>though considering almost everyone in that movie was either a woman imported for eye candy and service related labor, or a prominent and wealthy white male, I'd say we're actually doing better),

2001 was made in the 60's. Looking at it with a modern sociological outlook is just stupid.

>>44504225
>They knew we wouldn't have perpetual motion machines.
Yes, we can be certain that some things are impossible, like infinite energy. Doesn't mean we can create a perfectly accurate picture of the future.

>What exactly are you expecting as proof?
Peer reviewed studies that show that the most viable solution to our current problems are severe reductions in global energy consumption and the resulting loss of life and production. Preferably with tests easily repeatable.

>"the usa has no ability to put men into space on its own in 2015"

Also false, we could have easily continued using the shuttles, however we made the wiser decision to pursue other methods of moving cargo and people to LEO.

>So you don't believe in exponential progress or "sufficiently advanced tech being indistinguishable from magic"?
I believe that you can teach an ignorant man that it's not magic, it's science, given enough time and patience. Also, if you honestly believe you could take a cellphone or solid state drive, or laptop back fifty years and everyone would simply go "Oh, is see now." right away, I'd argue you are very wrong.

>You took those as insults?
Not insults, but condescending, yes.

>You directly said that the only reason i don't agree with you was because i was young and ignorant.
I don't care if you agree with me, never did. I just made an observation based of your actions, you were hurt by the statement that came from that observation. Allow me to apologize.

What I find ignorant about you is this belief that the world would be better off in the future if 30-50% of it's population cut energy use in all sectors by 90%. This is simply not the case. The lose in human life alone would be devastating. Is this irrelevant to you?

>So it's not the future that verne and people from over a century ago envisioned, is it? You can make vague parallels, but that's it.
You're right, it's better in ways they couldn't dream of at the time.

>>44504750
cont.

>Show me some evidence that energy per capita has been going down.
Never said it was, I said we're getting better at reusing materials (we are), at getting more energy out of available sources (We are), using what energy we have in more efficient ways (we are, but that does not mean net energy usage will drop, instead that saved energy it applied elsewhere) and that we're closer than ever to finding even better ones (we are). Stop focusing on reducing energy needs, it's not what we need and it's not the solution.

>At most, those companies are just taking up nasa's slack.
Hence the increased demand for reliable commercial space transport.

>At worst, like virgin galactic, they are throwing away lives for a rich man's thrill ride.
Do you have any idea how many men and woman have died in the pursuit of spaceflight? To say that Michael Alsbury threw is life away is to spit on him and everything he dreamed of and on the dreams of those who came before him.

>As for predicting the future, that's the point of science.
False. The purpose of science is to better understand our universe as it is, not predict what humanity is going to decide to do 100 years from now.

>>44504506
>>44504574
>>44504719
I simply said we're better off having qualified astronauts regardless of their race, gender, and social background.

That truth of that statement is not dependent on when the movie was made. That statement does not devalue 2001 as an artistic work. Stop acting like it does.

File: shipbreakers-opener-990.jpg (242KB, 990x660px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 990x660px

>>44504750
>Yes, we can be certain that some things are impossible, like infinite energy. Doesn't mean we can create a perfectly accurate picture of the future.
It doesn't need to be perfectly accurate.

>Peer reviewed studies that show that the most viable solution to our current problems are severe reductions in global energy consumption and the resulting loss of life and production. Preferably with tests easily repeatable.

Tests? Repeatable? How many global economies do we have?

I doubt you'll accept this, but here ya go: https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_syr_headlines_en.pdf

>Also false, we could have easily continued using the shuttles, however we made the wiser decision to pursue other methods of moving cargo and people to LEO.
False? The space shuttle could fly last year? I'm losing my patience.

>I believe that you can teach an ignorant man that it's not magic, it's science, given enough time and patience. Also, if you honestly believe you could take a cellphone or solid state drive, or laptop back fifty years and everyone would simply go "Oh, is see now." right away, I'd argue you are very wrong.
You base that on nothing.

>Not insults, but condescending, yes.
You started it, and i would assert that judging by your tactics and logic thus far, you are deserving of it.

>What I find ignorant about you is this belief that the world would be better off in the future if 30-50% of it's population cut energy use in all sectors by 90%. This is simply not the case. The lose in human life alone would be devastating. Is this irrelevant to you?
The choice is either Everyone dies, or some people don't live in opulent luxury. Not really a choice in my book.

>You're right, it's better in ways they couldn't dream of at the time.
If you have a myopic view of the world, sure.

I've seen enough. This discussion is over.

>>44471489
I believe it's called "realistic"

>>44504855
>That truth of that statement is not dependent on when the movie was made

It does when you fail to consider why decisions leading to result were made.

Do the rest of society a favor and don't pursue a job where critical thinking is paramount.

File: X_37B_OTV-2_01.jpg (48KB, 800x573px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x573px

>>44479084
But there is a reason why many satellites and spacecraft such as the x-37 are no symmetrical.
Say you only need one solar panel and only one engine, offsetting the engine allows you to place the solar panels in a better place that perfectly inline with the engine.

>>44505017
>two wings
>two tails
>engine at centerline.

The ignorance in this thread is extremely tiresome.

>>44504908
>If you have a myopic view of the world, sure.

well we do have the internet now so that's better in a lot of ways

>>44505180
No it's just made it worse because humans have a limit to their attention.

Fill it up with enough local issues and star wars and other shit and there's not enough time in the day for the sad shit like the child slave labor that keeps our prices low.

>>44505203
let's just ignore the easy acces to information and news as well as allowing people to communicate faster than ever before.

File: The Internet.jpg (2MB, 1080x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1200px

>>44505240
Oh is that why california had the whooping cough outbreak? Because access to information OBVIOUSLY means people have the time to pay attention to a literal exabyte of information?

>>44505041
look at the engine, realise that is not centerline...

>>44505281
I'm not wrestling with another pig today, thanks.

>>44505304
fine, be wrong then

>>44505264
well the fact that a whooping cough outbreak is newsworthy at all is a sign that things are definitely better. also what is your point exactly? would you mind paraphrasing it?

>>44471489
Poorly engineered.
If you have a spaceship that enters atmo while being an aerodynamic mess, you're gonna rip it in half.

Plus engineers put appearance like 3rd on the list of design. It's right after budget and functionality.

>>44505343
What is 4th?

>>44504908
>It doesn't need to be perfectly accurate.
Then why the whole Jules Verne tangent?

>Tests? Repeatable? How many global economies do we have?
What is scale-ability?

>but here ya go.
Something a bit more in-depth would be preferable, like the actual documents supporting this pamphlet. I'll just go find them myself and see what they're actually about.

>False? The space shuttle could fly last year? I'm losing my patience.
The space shuttle(s) were still operable when they were decommissioned in favor of pursuing more economical options. This is a fact.

>You base that on nothing.
I meant *couldn't, in case you were confused.

>You started it, and i would assert that judging by your tactics and logic thus far, you are deserving of it.

I started it? Have you not read this entire chain of discussion? But fine, whatever, I started it. Eye for eye. Now, let's move on.

>The choice is either Everyone dies, or some people don't live in opulent luxury. Not really a choice in my book.
Now you're being dramatic and making statements that have no basis on fact.

>If you have a myopic view of the world, sure.
Which a lot of people back then did, Verne and Wells and Burroughs included. Hence sexism, racism, and a whole assortment of other -isms.

>I've seen enough. This discussion is over.
You haven't seen anything, and it's too bad you don't have the patience to be rational.

>It does when you fail to consider why decisions leading to result were made. Do the rest of society a favor and don't pursue a job where critical thinking is paramount.

You'll be terrified to know that I'm currently pursuing my Masters in Computer Science then.

Never failed to consider why the actors were cast the way they were, just made a statement that we're better off that the future actually didn't turn out how they predicted.

>>44505203
>>44505304
Thank you for confirming that you are, in fact, ignorant and childish.

>>44505384
I have no more chance of convincing you than i would to dissuade a flat earther from their beliefs.

I am not so young as to think humans are capable of reasoning by default.

>>44505384
>Now you're being dramatic and making statements that have no basis on fact.

just like you've been doing this whole thread, funny how that works sometimes.

>>44505409
Obviously they aren't, otherwise you would be capable of holding an actual discussion.

You would also be capable of abstaining from discussion you find frustrating and unproductive, which this is clearly a case of.

Perhaps if you left for a while, gathered your sources, and returned here tomorrow we could have an actual debate.

If you'd like, I'll do the same.

>>44505460
So we don't have iPhones, solid state storage, wifi, ion engines (the engine that Spock called advanced.) and other amazing tech that demonstrates humanities ability to overcome challenges?

I'm not the one saying that the world as we know it is coming to an end. I'm the one saying it is a wise decision to pursue knowledge and be determined to make the future a better place, not a worse one.

File: index.jpg (225KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 2048x1365px

>>44505281
The engine being slightly offset on the X37B appears to be the result of it having originally been designed to have two engines then having been cut to one after the fuselages were already built. You can compensate for the offset through gimbaling so it's not a huge problem for a limited production experimental vehicle.

It remains to be seen what the engine configuration of the X37C will be if Boeing actually decide to make it.

>>44482908
Well, I know that ship is basically a fusion of SID from UFO and an Eagle Transporter from Space 1999.