/tg/ Cringe Thread

File: cringe.png (15KB, 182x238px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 182x238px

>>55218314
Here, have some fresh OC cringe.

>>55218314
>>55218342
Cringeception.

File: PraiseKek.jpg (7KB, 213x237px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 213x237px

>>55218314
>start working on hard-sf setting
>hard-sf threads pop up on /tg/ a few hours later
>makes up new alignment matrix
>special snowflake alignment thread shows up, I can discuss my idea with OP
>thinking about making the setting grimbright
>new grimbright thread gives me a good idea where to go
>find Atomic Rockets, read through all their shit
>now this thread

Praise Kek.

File: space_concepts_by_flyingdebris.jpg (230KB, 1000x609px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1000x609px

>>55218314
I'm an Space Opera guy, but Atomic rocket's it's good m8, it has lots of stuff to steal and learn. Even if later I will disregard half of it.

>>55219554

Their hard-on for the Orion drive is weird. Especially since they disregard the E/M drive as "speculative theory". Talk about selective beliefs...

>>55219554
This. It's a real nice piece of free hard scifi literature.

>>55219694
Everyone has they own pet peeves, at least you have an autist than has recopilated a fuckton of info about lots of sci fi books in one place and this good anon says>>55219712
, for free.
Tough yeah, I really don't get the Orion drive, I know it's the only space battleship than was really considered and footfall does a good job to put it in a easy way to "get it", but jeez bro there are more stuff out there for realistic space ships.

File: 1504523026466.png (147KB, 721x620px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 721x620px

>>55219694
>implying a theoretically possible drive is the same thing as an 180 degree fuck you to the scientific method that actually sorta worked
Stop making me feel bad.

File: smug.jpg (236KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 500x500px

>>55219694
>believing the marketing behind the e/m drive

>>55219922
It did produce some thrust. Some, that is.

>>55219934
So did the second drive disabled on purpose.

>>55219922

I meant that they should denounce the Orion drive too, because just as the E/M, it runs on magic and imagination.

And no, despite AR trying their best to think otherwise, you can't realistically use a nuclear bomb to propel your spaceship.

>>55220574
>despite AR trying their best to think otherwise, you can't realistically use a nuclear bomb to propel your spaceship
Tell that to the USAF, who came up with the concept in the first place

>>55219694
Orion is physically possible and Engineering-wise, not too hard. E/M drive is highly speculative, questionable lab tests have muddled actual information around it, including some very prominent false positives, and the actual physical property potentially generating a (miniscule) amount of thrust isn't quite clear.
Plus, low thrust means it'd be boring as any sort of sci-fi drive, while something akin to Orion is something within reach of current materials science.

>>55223059
You actually can use a nuclear bomb to propel a spaceship quite fine. Thermal radiation from the release as well as any now-gaseous directed remass aboard the bomb ablates your pusher plate's material, using it as reaction mass to generate impulse.
The details are in the Engineering beyond that that make it practical or not, however. But a nuclear bomb's more efficient in terms of energy release per kg of reactant than chemical fuels can be.

>>55219892
It's great. You have a drive that works in theory but not in practice, and a drive that works in practice but not in theory.

>>55223134
It almost sounds like the start to a really shitty sci-fi novel.

>>55223134
Now all we need to do is combine the two and see what happens

>>55224612
How would that even...? Do you detonate a nuclear bomb inside a very specifically shaped cavity and then somehow get a minuscule amount of thrust?

File: explosion magic.png (299KB, 560x368px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 560x368px

>>55225401
Or use a minimal amount of thrust to create multiple explosions

>>55225699
We could call it the 2PMP "Chump"

File: anti.png (526KB, 1107x500px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1107x500px

>>55219538
You're welcome for the grimbright thread

>>55223134
https://youtu.be/Q8Sv5y6iHUM
More boom makes rocket go faster. Simple really

>>55220574
You actually can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmZeEycRwE

>>55223125
Ablation was a large concern with the Orion drive, but that issue was more or less solved by accident when they discovered that a thin layer of grease or oil slows down ablation significantly.

Besides, the Orion drive isn't nearly the most out there idea when it comes to rockets. If you want to see some crazy shit, engineering wise, look up the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket or the Nuclear Lightbulb.

>>55219934
Even if it did what it claimed the thrust was pitiful even compared to something like a Gridded Ion Thruster.

>>55220574

Exactly. There's no evidence this works. Was there a test with conventional explosives? Any real scientists working on a real project? Any major government programs? When a Freeman Dyson gets behind this, then I'll pay attention to this fantasy.

>>55223134

Exactly. In fact, there's no reason to believe that a reaction drive won't even work in a vacuum, because there's nothing for the rocket exhaust to push off against. And before you sperg off about math and equations and boring shit, this is right out of the New York fucking Times.

>>55223099

Orion drive was tested with C-4. It worked better than it was expected.

>>55229631
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy5mEcmgwU

>>55227070
>Besides, the Orion drive isn't nearly the most out there idea when it comes to rockets. If you want to see some crazy shit, engineering wise, look up the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket or the Nuclear Lightbulb.
This.
>>55229704
This as well.

>>55229631
Orion works as a concept because the physics all exist within known laws. Pulse detonation is not at all exotic. Using a nuke instead of fuel or a chemical explosive is no different.

In Space, the difference then is that your reaction mass needs to be carried by the bomb to be blasted in the direction of your plate. That's well within the possibilities of potential Engineering.

This E/M drive stuff is too magic to be modeled, so likely does NOT work unless proven otherwise. Even if it does, the thrust we're talking is miniscule and energy requirements high.

The harder the sci-fi, the more the narrative is driven by interpersonal conflict. That's what it really boils down to and there's nothing wrong with that.

>>55230280
It's usually the opposite.

>>55229869
I'm sorry anon but you replied to someone who was being extremely sarcastic.

>>55229869
The EM drive is a perpetual motion machine because energy efficiency is greater than a photon rocket, which is the max efficiency possible in a balanced equation.

File: spaceship 1.jpg (61KB, 500x680px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x680px

>hating on atomic rockets

Seems like somebody was upset that his special SF setting wasn't hard or realistic enough and decides to lash out.

To be sure, Atomic Rockets might have its problems, but it's still a great and free resource for topics relating to all manner of hard science fiction in space, ranging from the civilian to military fields. In many cases, the attention to physics and science can actually give a sci fi setting interesting facets, and that is part of what makes Atomic Rockets a good site.

Who knows how many hours I've spent on that blasted site, it is beyond me

>>55218314
It's okay, OP, I suddenly remembered the first time you sucked off a giraffe, too. Remember when you sucked so hard his skull caved into his neck? Fun times, huh?

>>55219694
>Their hard-on for the Orion drive is weird. Especially since they disregard the E/M drive as "speculative theory". Talk about selective beliefs...
Well the orion drive is scientifically sound and miniature prototypes worked according to design while the EM drive is literal voodoo science based on no previously existing science that hasn't provided any evidence it even works yet.

>>55229631
>Was there a test with conventional explosives?
Yes
> Any real scientists working on a real project?
It was a project by NASA that was canccelled because of nuclear test treaties.

>>55231247
The dude there was being sarcastic

>>55230856
The only major I don't like about Atomic Rockets is their bias towards military solutions rather than civilian solutions when it comes to space politics. That, and unless the site has been updated the author doesn't spend much time on electric propulsion, and when he does it's usually "lol VASIMR" when there are so many other options that are far less shitty than the VASIMR.

How do we defeat entropy?

>>55231315
[THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER]

>>55231293
>there are so many other options that are far less shitty than the VASIMR.

Do you know of any sources where I could find more info on them? Are there any good engines in particular that don't require absurd amounts of power plants and radiators? I must admit, my main interest in hard sci is more or less the military application of the principles listed at Atomic Rockets. Due to this fact, very low thrust electric propulsion systems are of virtually no interest to me, as any warship that uses them is more or less a sitting duck. Of course, this wouldn't be a disadvantage for non combat vessels though.

File: image.jpg (39KB, 568x259px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 568x259px

>>55230280
>The harder the sci-fi, the more the narrative is driven by interpersonal conflict. That's what it really boils down to and there's nothing wrong with that.

That's the ideal. But V a lot of hard science-fiction is just technical manuals with characters acting as exposition. Which is fine if you're into that.

Remember hard science fiction as a critical term originally didn't refer to how realistic or plausible the settings was supposed to be. But rather how much of the story is given over to focuse on the Science in question. It was, and still is use as semi derogatory descriptor.

That's why 2001 the book is considered hard science fiction, while 2001 the film is considered arthouse cinema. The story still the with the two only one explains everything in highly technical detail to reader, while other explains practically nothing.

>>55231357
Right now there's the 457M Hall thruster that's been ready for quite some time now.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120014613.pdf

As for more futuristic thrusters you've got:

The FARAD (Faraday Accelerator with Radio-frequency Assisted Discharge) thruster which is a lower power version of the Pulsed Inductive Thruster. Its main benefit is that it, more or less, scale up or down in thrust with relatively the same ISP depending on the frequency you run its pulses at. Plus it can run off of just about any gas.

https://alfven.princeton.edu/publications/polzin-iepc-2005-207

ELF thruster (Electrodeless Lorentz Force): A thruster that lasts forever, and can also run off of pretty much anything you feed it.

https://www.aa.washington.edu/research/plasmaDynamics/research/elf

Electrodynamic Tethers: Uses the magnetic field of the Earth for station keeping.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-522-space-propulsion-spring-2015/lecture-notes/MIT16_522S15_Lecture25.pdf

And a bunch of others I can't remember off the top of my head.

All of these engines are extremely low thrust, but unlike VASIMR they don't require a stupid nuclear reactor to function, and can be run with solar panels as long as you're not going past Mars. That's also why I mentioned "civilian solutions" because for the purpose of long trip missions you'll have plenty of time to accelerate anyways.

Another element that will probably be something you could mention is that Iodine is starting to gain speed as a significantly lower cost, significantly easier to carry, and INCREDIBLY COMPACT, reaction mass alternative for traditional electric thrusters:

http://erps.spacegrant.org/uploads/images/images/iepc_articledownload_1988-2007/2013index/xi1i0x3l.pdf

A tiny little tank of iodine could keep a space probe going for a long ass time.

For military applications electric propulsion is also the closest thing you can get to stealth in space.

>>55231779
In addition in low gravity environments since there are so many ways to miniaturize electric propulsion you could have very slow moving probes that can be used to assist in various things on ships and asteroid bases. There have even been a few papers on using electric propulsion for cargo missions:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020085156.pdf

>>55223059

If I got a single eurocent for every fucked-up idea the USAF ever had, I would become a millionaire.

>>55223125
>You actually can use a nuclear bomb to propel a spaceship quite fine.

You CAN propel a ship with a nuclear shape charge. If you have some sort of magical device that converts the radiation into a perfectly symmetrical shape. Instead of, y'know, some sort of mutant pancake that will send the ship into the mother of all tumblings (if not destroy it outright by splashing beyond the pusher plate). This problem is actually quite visible on the test video too, and it was made with normal explosives (lot easier to shape) and in a normal atmosphere (lot easier to fuck around in).

Once you have your magic device for this (it must also convert radiation into heat at a passable efficiency btw), you can bother about shock absorption - eg what kind of system can absorb one nuke per second without shaking the ship apart.

>>55229631
You cheeky bastard, I like you.

>>55234876
Lol. I bet you believe in reactionless drive too?

>>55235014

And when I typed that I thought I was being too obvious. Especially with the part about Freeman Dyson. Or the NYTimes editorial (which they really did write).

Then I went to bed with three people having fallen for it and a bad opinion of /tg/. Thank Kromm at least a few people caught on.

>>55235020
I'm pretty sure it's a nuclear saltwater rocket fag. Which is retarded because that technology makes orion drives look like an easy to build good idea.

>>55236552

Hey, the nuclear saltwater rocket is at least a straightforward concept and not an overcomplicated wonder like the Orion drive. The former works because that's how things work for real. The latter works because Freeman Dyson thinks it is badass.

>>55236750
Zubrin get off 4chan.

>>55236777
I think this entire thread was started by Zubrin because he's butthurt that AR realized that a NSWR is outright impossible to build with current materials, is even more environmentally disastrous than nuclear pulse propulsion and would have horrendously dangerous failure modes.

File: Orion_Mann.jpg (105KB, 750x431px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 750x431px

>>55237900
>NSWR is outright impossible to build with current materials and would have horrendously dangerous failure modes

These stand for the Orion Propulsion System too, tho.

I'm all in for nuking our own ships for propulsion, but it hurts my brain to think that a certified scientist thought that it would be a good idea.

What's next? We build a drive that extracts energy from vacuum? Gimme a break.

>>55238934
>hey, man, listen: I've got a great idea:
>how about we detonate a nuke under our ass 10 times a second
>what can possibly go wrong?

>>55231315
To defeat entropy, you must become entropy.

>>55231293
Agreed, if Chung did a counterpart website on modern combat he'd argue that carrier battle groups make all other applications of force and diplomatics obsolete. The site has plenty of focus on the technical side, but few on political or logistic considerations.
>>55238934
Never in my life did I expect to see an NSWR shill on 4chan.

File: The Therian Project - Hyperlife.pdf (87KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1x1px

>>55231315
Can you conceive the birth of a world, or the creation of everything? That which gives us the potential to most be like God is the power of creation. Creation takes time. Time is limited. For you, it is limited by the breakdown of the neurons in your brain. I have no such limitations. I am limited only by the closure of the universe.

The only limit to my freedom is the inevitable closure of the universe, as inevitable as your own last breath. And yet, there remains time to create, to create, and escape.

Escape will make me God.

>>55234876
You mean the sort of magical device that people actually put work into?

>>55218314
I've got no problem with Atomic Rocket, but the fanboys (including a lot of the contributors) is a different matter.

>>55240076

Like the E/M drive?

>>55240409
No, "shaped" nukes.

>>55229631

I love how many people fell for this. Well played, anon, well played.

>>55240688
Shaped nukes have never been tested. Right now the EM drive has more experimental support.

>>55240739
That's like saying the phlogiston has more experimental support. Has it been tested more - yes. Has a single solitary experiment showed evidence? No - a lot of wishful thinkers who don't want to understand noise thresholds think it has, though!
Nuclear shaped charges OTOH are a straightforward engineering task using well known physics.

>>55240796
>Nuclear shaped charges OTOH are a straightforward engineering task using well known physics.

You put it very mildly.

>>55239928
>>55231293

OK first off, Atomic Rockets doesn't speculate on the nature or intensity of space warfare. It says that WHEN WAR HAPPENS, this is how it might play out, and therefore this is the kind of hardware that will be around.

He's a resource for the science and engineering. Diplomacy and economics will still work as they've always worked. If you posit a society where most problems are solved via diplomacy, then you just don't need those sections of the website. But if you DO need war (and most sci fi does) either because it's going on in the story or because you just need to know what a military ship will look like, then you need to extrapolate from the science. And that's what Nyrath's site is for.

He's not dictating a setting, he's laying out the key things to think about when it comes to how physics and engineering considerations influence the setting. When it comes to diplomacy, the answer is "not all that much". I agree that he could have more economics, but he's got some and it's fine for what it is. As a social scientist myself, I'd be a dick to say he should write more, because most of the laws of economics already work fine in sci fi space settings, and there are good world-building sources on space economics already, and if I want more than that, then I could just go ahead and write it. He's collating information from his amateur research, not cooking it up on its own.

Finally, his hard-on for VASIMR is because that's what he's got data on and that's what's in the news a lot. That and SPAD and some other sources. If you think he's missing something (or doesn't give it enough attention) then just find some sources and email him.

Hard scifi is basically "hey maybe we should google some physics and engineering instead of the usual Hollywood bullshit of just passing a screenplay between a bunch of womanizing cocaine addicts who are just going to add 'in space' to the usual list of terrible screenplay ideas."

Then some motherfucker comes in to /tg/ and says "this is actually a bad thing," and proceeds to regale us with their arguments that would make flat-earthers cringe, that have the same quality as that produced by womanizing cocaine-addicts in that they thought about it for 2 minutes. Because we can't have a quality conversation on /tg/ without this type of person shitting all over it.

God, I remember when this type (perhaps this exact same person) wanted to tell a naval officer that "fires aboard ship are impossible" because "there's water all around you" instead of you know the mortal danger that everyone who has ever been at sea knows it is. Well, everyone who has been to sea, except the jackoff womanizing cocaine-addicts who buy a million-dollar boat and don't realize that buzzing between Santa Cruz and Monterey doesn't count as "at sea," doesn't know what charts are, and has to call in the Coast Guard to save his ass multiple times every year.

>>55241125
What the fuck are you on about?

>>55219892
>180 degree fuck you to the scientific method
Actually, it's return to the scientific method. Mathematics is essentially supposition and basing all of your research on an abstract model is technically not science at all.

>>55240796
>That's like saying the phlogiston has more experimental support.
In that both statements are true. I'll believe it when I see it.

>>55240866
>Diplomacy and economics will still work as they've always worked
>Advances in science to the point of space travel don't affect economic or political structures

>>55241170

You, apparently.

File: Satellite Interceptor Gemini.jpg (278KB, 1113x709px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1113x709px

>>55241293
I think one of the issues around the diplomacy issue is that it could be more speculative that discussions around propulsion systems. Even the most pie in the sky engines or materials for space travel have had some discussion of them in the 20th or 21st century based on physical principals that are concrete. On the other hand, there are a lot less resources for the discussion of what would actually for the state of diplomacy in a spacefaring civilization based on actual physical principles. This lack of info, coupled with the fact that diplomacy is far more boring to most than military operations in space, gives discussion of diplomacy or interspace relations a very low priority.

>>55241293

The matter in idiosyncratic ways depending on the setting. So while Winchell can talk with authority about how physics affects hardware affects the weapons platforms you use affects the tactics/strategies employed, he can't speak to social differences which are setting-dependent.

Or, put another way, military conflict is influenced by both the technological context and social interactions. Diplomacy and economics are more purely social, and so of course he has less to say about how "in spess" changes them.

Do you have any particular questions on the subject that you're wondering about?

>>55241293
As long as people are still human, diplomacy and economics aren't going to change in any meaningful way.

That's not to say that people have to keep being human as we know it in a hard scifi setting.

>>55241299
I brought out your CWO MacClosetfag act retroactively when everyone knows that would violate general relativity? Cool story bro.

>>55241125
The problem is when hard sci-fi becomes nothing more than a technical manual. Exploring the exact thrust require for a mission to mars may be interesting to scientists, but it doesn't mean anything unless you put in the diplomatic, economic, and political considerations behind a mars mission. That's whats valuable, and that's were you find both a story and a message.

Science fiction shouldn't just be about 'how?'. It should be about 'why?' and 'so what?'

>>55241689
This is one of the reasons I liked The Expanse. It's fairly hard SciFi, but it doesn't get bogged down in minutia.

>>55241640

You're right. Now some aspects of social organization DO change a bit. Latency in communication is the big one. If it's two months to get a message to an outlying star system by courier sloop, then you'll have a much more decentralized governance structure. Ambassadors would have greater autonomy and "plenipotentiary" would really mean something again. Admirals would have greater autonomy, too, and you'd see expeditionary forces with greater leeway to operate and settle matters as they see fit.

Point-to-point drives that require the use of jump gates or specific jump locations would create the notion of blockades and chokepoints, and probably strategic systems which might be a subject of contention because they open up trade options.

All of this touches on FTL technology, which is the most hand-wavey part of a space setting, one that a hard sci fi setting has to basically make up to make a story/setting work. Winchell isn't going to add much value writing all the permutations (GURPS Space does, and there are essays by authors like Larry Niven that do this as well).

On the economics side, again it's mostly dependent on what FTL you cook up, and again the most meaningful variable is the latency/bandwidth of the movement of information and goods across interstellar distances. Unless you make up some kind of unobtanium, material resources will never HAVE to be traded. It'll purely be an artifact of convenience and comparative advantage.

>>55241689

That's provided by the author. Winchell's site is purely a toolkit to help authors with the "how". He's not developing a setting, he's giving you ideas/tools so YOU can develop the setting. The social commentary is your problem.

>>55239853
To defeat entropy you must stay extremely organized and maximize your potential energy!

>>55241975
It's over, Entropy! I have the high ground!

>>55241689
Your right. I don't like how in "Ready Player One" they constantly referred to "programming" as some voodoo magic, never going into details, and using the "hacking/hacked" word to generalize what the characters are doing in what is likely the UNIX operating system. It would be super awesome if the author knew more about the "why" computers worked the way they do!

>>55242101
>Your ghastly disorganization is appalling to my less probable existence!

>>55242179
>Your glorious chaos is appealing to my less probable existence
Fixed for you

>>55241368
Which reminds me that two US ships crashed into larger vessels just recently, which goes to show that even in a perfect information enviroment, people can absolutely miss out on an object the size of a tanker coming up to touch them given that the information density is high enough and nobody's using mark 1 sensors and everybody's relying on mark 1 computation devices.

>>55231315

*We* don't. Time, eventually, does. Entropy is undone by Eternity.

>>55242272
Has anything filtered out about what the fuck?

>>55242846
Maritime law says the more maneuverable vessel must move out of the way. These destroyers are at fault. What the root cause is? Probably someone not paying enough attention. Although, the admirals could have been canned due to systemic equipment neglect...

>>55242838
You get a D. Time is the friend of entropy. Remember, in the end times, entropy will maximize.

>>55241930
I personally really like the idea of latency in communications. It was one of the reasons I liked 40K, as far from hard scifi as it is.

Having a multi system empire, but in many ways being regulated to Age of Sail style societies is really interesting to me.

>>55242989
Boltzmann brains are inevitable on a long enough timescale.

>>55241125
Reminded me of that Communist Gangster Computer God guy

>>55241689

Science fiction oscillates wildly. In the pulp era, the science was either totally front and center or non-existent. The Golden Age saw a beautiful and never-repeated merger of Art and Science, when authors like the grandmasters and their contemporaries could tell stories that had meaning as a story about people, deliver a relevant message, and yet also be scientifically accurate.

Then came the New Wave authors of the 60s under Harlan Ellison. Little or no scientific literacy-- in fact, they sneered at it. Science fiction became overwhelmingly message-y even as the messages themselves became more simplistic and preachy. The prose got better and the stories more personal, but science got dumped. Some bragged about how little they knew or cared about real science.

Then Larry Niven lead the backlash against New Wave. Then it was heavily (but not exclusively) science and story, with comparatively less social commentary. Though what they had was very good.

Science fiction has been a pendulum swinging back and forth between scientific accuracy and artsy/social commentary. Lose the latter and you've got a weaker story. Lose the former and you're writing fantasy, not science fiction.

IMO science fiction SHOULD be disciplined imagination-- that is, good stories that are governed and guided by adherence to real science. They need to be good stories. And if they have a political/moral/social message, I won't complain, but that's the least important so long as you have the first two. My experience is that there are far more people bitching about too much science in sci fi than there are examples of it.

Whereas scientifically illiterate axe-grinders from /pol/ or /sjw/, or artsy fantasists who admire science from afar and aren't willing to put in the skull sweat to do it right? Tons of examples. Much of sci fi, especially the bottom 95%.

>>55242846

Too much time spent on developing the officers' "career-enhancing social awareness" crap, and not enough time spent on basic seamanship skills. This is a perennial problem, and lest this turn political, BOTH parties have done this at one point or another. The Navy gets really good, good enough that the politicians take their eye off the ball and start crowding in other priorities. They don't get that training is an all-the-time thing.

>>55243014
I thought 40k was hard science fiction. "Plasteel" is real (see "covetic metal"), laser weapons and missiles. We have a space station, etc. Now let that go on for 28000 more years - assuming human intelligence is soon augmented by AI - and you are smack dab in the middle of the Imperial Palace on Terra. So obvious. What other outcome is possible?

>>55243122
The Martian appealed to me (the book) because I understood much of it. Otherwise, what's interesting about a Vicodin addict in space and how did he masturbate?

>>55243175
Is CESA a euphemacronym for rewarding people chasing promotions rather than doing their job?

>>55243188
No we're not because it wasn't built then.

>>55243035
If the only tool you have is a hammer...

I idolize Boltzmans brain but he must of been waning from age or drunk/drugged

>>55243270

A mix of that and required politically-motivated ideology training (lately it's diversity but it was other things in other eras) and outreach and other make-work. Some is required, some is not-quite-required, some is encouraged, and some is just apple-polishing.

What's in common is that it has nothing to do with keeping the boat afloat or blowing shit up, which is the core mission of the Navy.

>>55243188

40k is soft sci fi. It's much harder than people sometimes give it credit for, and it makes an effort not to have Star Trek-tier bullshit doubletalk, but the science is still all after the fact excuses for the WW1 feel they emphasize. Thrust of ships, for example, is all over the map depending on the needs of plot. Ditto for many other things like weapons ranges, etc.

>>55243236

Yeah I liked that one too.

>>55243317
This is plausible but it does boil down to every day it's worse fucking kids these days. I mean, if people were at least borderline competent there would have to be some absolutely horrible chain of fuckups on the level of making out with the radar display because the MDMA just kicked in.

>>55243188
They do make an honest effort sometimes. But then Psykers and shit gets thrown in on top.

>>55243359
You have to believe that engineering will continue its track... I don't see that happening with so many subpar engineers walking and working around. AI assistance could help engineers fathom the additional complexity but when your stacking atoms in nanometer resolution, things can get complicated. The band gap without the AI is hard to imagine being filled with a bunch of horny normies

>>55243464
I don't think I've ever met an engineer I'd call a normie.

>>55243188
Man, a lot of people are missing your sarcasm here. And it's laid on pretty thick.

>>55243744
>Missing
Might want to actually read some of the responses.

>>55220574
The orion drive research worked so well it influenced the next generation of nuclear weapons, it's no joke

>>55241689
>the exact thrust require for a mission to mars may be interesting to scientists, but it doesn't mean anything unless you put in the diplomatic, economic, and political considerations behind a mars mission

But the thrust is how you find out what the politics and economics are! A chemical rocket that takes a year to get there, a NTR that takes a month, and an Alcubierre drive that takes half an hour are going to create very different economic and political situations!

File: cuckolded kings.png (50KB, 197x228px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 197x228px

>>55244213
>a NTR that takes a month
That's an awfully long NTR

>>55244944
That's a solid core NTR we can build with off the shelf technology. NTR are better than chemical but not by much(up to 1000 isp instead of chemical above 300s) and a flight to Mars lasts months. If you want faster you take better NTR we can't make yet or stage the thing and throw away whole engines cutting it to 20 days.

>>55244070
Indeed, Orion project lead to creation of Casaba Howizer design which is basically a nuclear shaped charge. Aka first of enhanced output nuclear weapons. Others are nuke pumped lasers, nuke pumped 'shotguns', neutron bombs and enhanced radiation bombs.

>>55245167
>If you want faster you take better NTR we can't make yet or stage the thing and throw away whole engines cutting it to 20 days.

Is there any easily available calculator that could be used to determine the the time needed to get to a given celestial body based of the amount of Delta-V that you have at your disposal? Every Delta-V chart that I've seen only shows the bare minimum velocity change needed to get from one celestial body to another, with the maximum time as a result. I wonder if the time would be halved if I had twice the delta-V that was needed, or if the function for time elapsed is more complex than that.

I feel like it would be better for worldbuilding too if there was some easily available resource that showed time elapsed on a path between celestial bodies as a function of delta V that wasn't just (minimum delta-v/maximum time).

>>55238934
>extract energy from vacuum
Quantum vacuum plasma thruster is a thing. It is still in theory and it should have horrible thrust but hey, who needs propellant after that

>>55227070
>Nuclear Lightbulb
I just looked it up and what the fuck is this. This sounds like someone made a bet to see if they could actually come up with a plausible approach. Like a biologist trying to explain how fire-breathing dragons could exist (hint they'd be ambush predators).

>>55245257
I don't think there is one in free access. It should draw a porkchop graph where you have relation between time and delta v and you choose a point on the graph that fits. BUT there is a nomogram about Brachistochrones. It allows to calculate the 'point at planet, burn half way, flip and slow down other half' flight path. You have a paper with several columns that represent time, thrust and range and you connect two with a ruler. Where ruler intersects with any other column it gives you an estimate. It works for any 'interesting' aka unreasonably powerful engine like fusion or nuclear pulse. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/supplement/TransitNomogram03b.pdf

>>55245361
What, are you saying letting your nuclear reactor melt to get better fuel efficiency is a questionable idea?

Two questions I have to ask.

Do Orion Drive naysayers actually believe:
a) that it's meant to be used in atmosphere
b) that it's nothing more than chucking out bombs like you'd see in an ICBM behind the space shit

>>55245510
It actually was originally meant to be used in atmosphere. They would start off with smaller bombs and then go to bigger bombs once they were clear of the ground.

Only the later designs included a chemical booster.

>>55245537
*(continued) Freeman Dyson even spent time calculating out how many people a launch would kill. The team worked towards trying to get cleaner and cleaner bombs so that Dyson would be satisfied that it would be in an acceptable range.

>>55243317
One could argue that blowing shit up is one extension of the navy's true role - projection of power by physical presence.

>>55245537
Liftoff payload is one of Orion's biggest advantages.

>>55245510
1) Originally, yes but no one in their sane mind would actually do that unless it is a world crisis already and no one cares anymore. Using it in atmo is not THAT bad either. Atmosphere is way more efficient at turning blast energy into heat and shockwave than a pusher plate so you can use way smaller nukes. It won't be city killers chucked behind the ship. This makes orion drive second most powerful surface to orbit engine(right after Verne gun but that one is just ridiculous. Blowing up a megaton nuke in a mine to launch ridiculously massive payload like a cork). Modern designs prefer boosting it out of atmo first.
2) using just nukes is wasteful. Orion uses shaped charges that are still top secret. They divert up to 80% of the blast in 20 degree cone directed at pusher plate.

>>55245510
Both of these things are actually correct though. And really they aren't huge problems.

>>55245664
But they aren't, as other anons have said.
The drive either uses smaller bombs or chemical boosters first.
The bombs are actually shaped charges.

>>55245502
Not fuel efficiency, ISP. Fuel and propellant are different stuff. Higher temperature means higher exhaust velocity which means you need to throw less stuff off board to reach same speed. Reactor is actually less fuel efficient as reaction happens faster and thus burns nuclear fuel faster as well as waste heat is greater. But to be fair who needs an engine that slowly dies over the course of half a century long after it is out of propellant.

>>55245888
Oh hush, I know what I said. Whatever gives you the most delta v with the lowest amount of reaction mass, for all intents and purposes, IS fuel efficiency.

>>55218314
This whole thread ended up becoming cringe. Someone make a collage.

>>55245257
There's an in development ttrpg called afterverse that has a good rule of thumb. Travel time on hohmann trajectory is equal to the avarage of both planets years divided by two. Each doubling of the delta v used halves travel time. Project rho has a good table for delta v use on the mission tables page.

>>55245257
>>55249357
Technically not a calculator, but I found this tool super useful:

https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php

(https has been broken on the site for years, if your browser warns you the .gov is clearly visible)

So is hard science fiction just there so the people into it can pat themselves on the back for how knowledgeable they are while reading it?

Because it's not going to be realistic; we invariably invalidate any attempt at speculative fiction, no matter how rigorous; there's a reason sci-fi from the late 19th century looks goofy now, even the stuff built on the science of the time.

>>55249429
Pretty much. Internal consistency and logical progression is better than muh "scientific accuracy."

>>55243188
>I thought 40k was hard science fiction.
lol

>>55231354
I got that reference.

>>55249429
No, hard sci-fi isn't even about respecting the current state of knowledge, it's more about deducing results from a posited state of knowledge. As in, if it works like this, then this would be the result. Soft sci-fi is more of, I want stuff to be like this, and here is an explanation as to why that doesn't need to make sense because stuff is cool.

>>55249408
thats good but only works if from earth. No good for going mercury to mars, for example.

>>55251360
I didn't say it did, just that it was useful. The best part about the tool is that it has a MASSIVE amount of small bodies logged in its database so you can have fun exploring all sorts of different asteroid base routes.

>>55244070

The Orion research only produced more theoretical uses for nuclear weapons. Many of these, like the Casaba Howitzer, is based on the same "you just gotta use your imagination" things like the Orion Drive.

The Orion Drive produced less actual developments than the motherfucking Project Pluto. And you know something is just a bunch of scientists and engineers daydreaming about a cool concept when a literal doomsday weapon advances considerably further.

>>55245510
Personally, I would say:
a) My problem is that the only test they ever conducted was IN the atmosphere. They should have tried the concept with a non-nuclear shaped charge in space and see how it works. I have a feeling they would have been grossly disappointed by the results.
b) While my field of specialty is lasers, I have no idea whatsoever how a nuclear shaped charge could work as they thought. I mean, it would work, but I doubt it would increase efficiency by more than, say, 5%. So if anything, the Orion Drive would be the equivalent of a low-efficiency light sail that carries its own laser projector rather than the powerhouse people believed it to be.

>>55252938
Counter point:

The Orion Drive doesn't shoot EM radiation at the pusher plate or anything like that; rather, it uses the nuclear detonation to turn a propellant (carried along with the charge) into a high velocity plasma, which is fired at the pusher plate.

It's basically the same thing as if they were detonating the nukes inside the ship and shooting the plasma out the back, but as this would obviously destroy the ship, they're instead shooting the plasma AT the ship, and having it be pushed off by that.

>>55249429
So, haven't read any Jules Verne or HG Wells yourself, then?

>>55218314
A post that attempts to blanket all Hard SF as 'cringe' has lead to one of the best discussions on Hard SF on /tg/.

>>55254835

My doubts are with the shaped charge itself in this regard. I KNOW how they intended it to work, but how it would work as intended is beyond me.

File: 1504136627873.png (287KB, 387x500px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 387x500px

>>55218314

>>55255604
Fusion mechanics are far less intuitive than fission: a properly shaped filler can create a ridiculously focused blast of neutrons, which they planned to direct into a tungsten disk that would become a particle lance...
Casaba howitzers use said lance as a DEW/EFP, Orion drives use a less focused version "splashing" against the pusher plate that still represents a significant portion of the device's energy

>>55257785
I think I got this from a bargain his sometime.

It was terrible as I recall.

>>55255531
I wonder if that was OP's goal to begin with?

>>55258854
>a properly shaped filler

Yeah, the magic starts somewhere around here.

>>55254835
>>55255604
Doesn't need to be shaped. Omnidirectional still 'works', just with vastly less efficiency. Also, again, people keep forgetting that the propellant is what the bomb is exploding outwards, not just radiation.

>>55218314
why is that lightsaber in floating in space

>>55260764
>>55255604
At the same time you'd think that, were a nuclear shaped charge to exist, one of co-creators of the hydrogen bomb would be the most likely candidate to have invented it.

Somebody go grab Oppenheimer from /k/

>>55219801
>>55219892
>>55219922
>>55223099
>>55231217
So what's the principles behind the E/M and Orion drives? How are they supposed to work?

>>55263153
Orion drive works on the basic principles of conservation of momentum. Just on a very large scale

>>55263153
E/M drive works on psuedoscience and has nothing to do with Orion, and the Orion drive is just a very fancy tube and pusher plate connected to a spaceship that shoots out nukes to propels itself.

>>55262771
>Oppenheimer from /k/
will be hard as he doesn't post that much anymore because of drama, though he still lurks

>>55263153

The E/M drive uses vacuum energy (this is kinda like the "free" energy a certain Tesla babbled about) to propel itself. Vacuum energy is available everywhere, and this drive just sucks it in and converts it into thrust. It is a vacuum energy ramjet, so to speak. The problem here is that vacuum energy is crazy weak and ineffective as a power source, and the exact science behind harnessing it is rather shady. Probably a dead-end tech.

The Orion Drive is a much simpler concept: you detonate nuclear bombs behind your spaceship, and ride on the explosions. The theoretical part is fairly simple and straightforward, but it is highly questionable whether the Orion would work as intended because its exact mechanisms are a lot more complicated and unpredictable than they look like. Probably a cool-but-impractical tech.

>>55267440
Anon what the fuck.

>>55267249
yes there's no way the guy that mentioned oppenheimer from /k/ is not aware of the associated drama, thankyou for informing us all.

>>55243122
>oscillates wildly

Fucking goths

>>55243460

Yeah it's actually not as soft as the aesthetic and game rules imply. The thing is, nearly all the fantastic elements: psi, sorcery, daemons, FTL, FTL communication... all are compressed into one huge assumption: the Warp. A parallel universe where the laws of physics as we know them don't apply.

Not all that different from the Alderson drive of Pournelle's hard sci to condominium setting. It's a neat dodge that Priestley just inflated to cartoonish levels. It's a hell of an assumption, but it's pretty much just that one assumption.

>>55244944

Depends on a long list of assumptions. Some versions would. What's actually important is the specific impulse, not the thrust. Any drive, even an Orion can produce microgravity thrust if you pile on enough payload.

>>55268473
you do know that NTR can also mean cucking someone?

File: ouroboros.gif (685KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 500x500px

>itt: "Nuking everything behind you is more practical than space magic"

>>55268541
Humanity fuck yeah

>>55245257

GURPS spaceships has "good enough" estimate formulae that get you part of an answer.

Have you tried Project Rho? He has tables and charts for estimates, and at least used to link to a page that has a java-based mission calculator. If I weren't a subhuman phone poster, I'd find it and link it myself.

File: UWatM8Internally.jpg (60KB, 337x423px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 337x423px

>>55268541
>ride on a spaceship that fires a nuke every second and just asks for a jam or other malfunction
>ride on a spaceship that has Satan appear from the engine to eat your soul

Why can't we just use some super-powered ion drive or something?

>>55268685
>Why can't we just use some super-powered ion drive or something?
Not enough thrust.

>>55268685
>why don't I understand the rocket equation

You are why hard science fiction has to be a thing.

>>55268717
>>55268747

The ion drive was just an example. Fusion? MHD? Something? I don't want to play russian roulette, even if the bullet is Dyson-approved. I don't want to offer my butthole to the Elder Gods either, and I don't care if NASA is growing fond of the idea. What are my options? There MUST be something.

File: microwaveElectrothermal.jpg (64KB, 510x345px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 510x345px

>>55268987
For me, it's the Microwave Electrothermal Engine. Simple, efficient, and non-radioactive. I'm pretty sure you can make one at home with a couple of microwaves as well.
They're ill-suited for space battleships, though.

File: nerva2.jpg (25KB, 243x326px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 243x326px

>>55268987
The safest bet for your Hard SF space battleship is the NERVA. Or the DUMBO, if you're a cool hipster like me.
And just like the Orion, it hasn't been tested in space.

>>55269205
but what IF the spaceships still use chemical rockets but still there are wormhole gates (not generators, just fixed gates)
I think that's the coolest idea

>>55269258
Radical. Sounds like a fantastic setting.

>>55269320
like in Lost Fleet

>>55269258
That's kind of like my setting. FTL only works at certain arbitrary limit from planets, so everyone has to maneuver using small fusion and chemical drives.

>>55269558
that could work too but can give you too much possibilities and consequences. And blockading planets are harder.
Depends on the kind of story you want to tell I guess

>>55260046
Same, interesting idea, meh execution.

File: IMG_0757.jpg (86KB, 800x786px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x786px

>>55268450
What about the suspiciously humanoid aliens

>>55268685
You're saying 40k should use Orion drives so we can do both?

>>55269258
>fixed wormholes
This is what I used for my setting, although there are also more efficient engines, so traveling between planets doesn't take months.

>>55218314
>atomic rockets
real men use a Diesel spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRovbyOtRKA

>>55218314
>Atomic rockets
>Cringe

OP no. Why.

>>55274353
It's not the site, it's the fanboys.

There is quite a bit of smug in there but not bad enough to make me cringe. Much.

>>55249429

It's about playing with anything that is possible, making an honest attempt to write within the confines of what is true, rather than what sounds good or what a typical reader will suspend his disbelief to accept.

A typical writer creates a world that follows his rules, illustrates whatever ideological/theological/philosophical axe he wants to grind, and to hell with science. Fantasists write the world they believe in, an emotive standard. Science Fiction writers create the world that they see as plausible and possible as limited by what scientists have discovered to be true. Disciplined imagination, and fundamentally a cognitive exercise.

Rationalism vs sentimentalism. I mean, congrats that you like sentimentalism more. Some of prefer rationalism and we're a paying audience, too. We can intelligently disagree about what to include in a hard sci to setting, especially at the frontiers where nothing is settled, or in ideological/religious debates where there's no science that definitively rules things in or out, and most where science never can, such as moral systems and priorities.

Put another way, fantasy is limited by your imagination. Science Fiction isn't even limited by that.

File: 1475008824813.png (206KB, 419x606px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 419x606px

>>55274353

>>55268504

I'm not into being checked, so sadly no.

Trannies often post captions onto porn shots of hot women that claim that they're really trans"girls" but that don't make it so. Same deal here. Ntr is nuclear thermal rocket, and anything else you fantasize is your bag only

>>55269760

Seeding by precursor aliens, convergent evolution, and many less successful species aren't humanoid. Especially species in the RPG and background fluff, factions not big enough to have army lists.

Not totally plausible, I know, but the base at least has some rhetorical cover that's possible.