Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => VB6 Mechanics => Topic started by: bean on April 19, 2012, 05:29:54 PM
-
Instead of Computerized automation I would rather see the introduction of organic technologies that allow for the construction of living parts that would not require maintenance or crew but would require the presence of "brains" organic components that control any living parts of the ship.
At low levels this would lead to hybrid ships that are mostly Human crewed but contain a few organic components
At high levels a race could move to having entirely organic ships that essentially become new species of organisms that serve what ever race created them.
Please don't. "Organic technology" will never work with life as we know it. See http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/BrainBugs.html, and scroll down to organic technology.
For one thing, the "organic" element would not add intelligence by definition. Particularly if you're using remote control, computers can already do the job. Also, organics are squishy, and they take lots of care. Radiation is a big problem, particularly if nukes are involved. Shielding humans is one thing, but the entire ship?
To put it simply, I wouldn't support putting squishy things (humans) on spacecraft if I wasn't a squishy thing.
Please don't go for this.
-
Please don't. "Organic technology" will never work with life as we know it. See hxxp: www. stardestroyer. net/Empire/Essays/BrainBugs. html, and scroll down to organic technology.
For one thing, the "organic" element would not add intelligence by definition. Particularly if you're using remote control, computers can already do the job. Also, organics are squishy, and they take lots of care. Radiation is a big problem, particularly if nukes are involved. Shielding humans is one thing, but the entire ship?
To put it simply, I wouldn't support putting squishy things (humans) on spacecraft if I wasn't a squishy thing.
Please don't go for this.
Read the article and point taken, I guess that hard science wasent really covered in my economics degree.
-
>> "Organic technology" will never work with life as we know it
You are a living contradiction of that statement. Despite Moores Law, it will be centuries before we can build a non-organic computer that can even approach the complexity of the human brain. Until very recently, a spider could produce stronger material by almost literally pulling it out of its' ass than we could manufacture using all our technology, and it's interesting to note that a lot of the new, stronger materials are in fact carbon based. Organic, in fact.
Organic tech is astonishingly powerful now, and we've barely scratched the surface. Sci-fi writers are terrible at getting technical details right, but there's nothing wrong with ascribing a high value to organic technology
-
While the human brain IS incredibly complex, you have to also understand how many different things the brain does at any given moment. It runs every tiny sub-component that makes up your body, while an inorganic computer can happily put all of its processing power behind a single task. And while neither is really significantly more resilient than the other, they both have different weaknesses and requirements.
Now, as an argument about 'biological automation'... That's kind of what we have going now. We use the crew to do certain tasks aboard a ship, like things that require intuition or fine-scale manipulation (because let's face it, the human hand is a fantastically designed manipulator), while for things like maintaining control over the reactors or plotting a course, or operating the weapon systems we have dedicated computers for each of those things. There really wouldn't be a significant advantage towards growing a brain to slot into a fighter instead of just putting a cockpit on it and letting a guy climb in. You'd still require the same life support systems, and if anything they'd have to be larger. The pilot can get out of his fighter, go take a bath and use the head, get some food, relax and then go to sleep. But a brain in a jar is stuck there running on what's effectively constant life support.
-
>> "Organic technology" will never work with life as we know it
You are a living contradiction of that statement. Despite Moores Law, it will be centuries before we can build a non-organic computer that can even approach the complexity of the human brain. Until very recently, a spider could produce stronger material by almost literally pulling it out of its' ass than we could manufacture using all our technology, and it's interesting to note that a lot of the new, stronger materials are in fact carbon based. Organic, in fact.
Organic tech is astonishingly powerful now, and we've barely scratched the surface. Sci-fi writers are terrible at getting technical details right, but there's nothing wrong with ascribing a high value to organic technology
And my brain is worse at crunching numbers then the computer I'm sitting at. Your point?
And you're misrepresenting my statements. I was speaking of organic technology in the sense of alive, not of materials that are organic in the sense that they contain carbon. None of your points deal with that concept. At all.
While the human brain IS incredibly complex, you have to also understand how many different things the brain does at any given moment. It runs every tiny sub-component that makes up your body, while an inorganic computer can happily put all of its processing power behind a single task. And while neither is really significantly more resilient than the other, they both have different weaknesses and requirements.
I'd make the argument that the computer is more resilient, or at least easier to harden. And I don't have to write letters to its family.
There really wouldn't be a significant advantage towards growing a brain to slot into a fighter instead of just putting a cockpit on it and letting a guy climb in. You'd still require the same life support systems, and if anything they'd have to be larger. The pilot can get out of his fighter, go take a bath and use the head, get some food, relax and then go to sleep. But a brain in a jar is stuck there running on what's effectively constant life support.
Not true at all. The human is also on constant life support, and the rest of the body takes up quite a bit of energy. On a fighter alone, it might be a dead heat. When you consider support facilities on the carrier (which nobody ever does) the jar wins.
-
I meant that the jar's life support in this instance is stuck crammed on the fighter constantly, which would increase its non-combat mass. The Carrier is intended to have life support stuck on it all over for the base crew, so adding a little more for the fighter jocks isn't very significant. It can even be exactly the same as all the rest of the life support, which means supply is easier. But that brain in the jar is going to need special care compared to Mr. Ima Fighterjockson, and will haul it with it everywhere it goes.
Now, if the thing piloting the fighter is in a UAV pod stuck in the carrier, we're cooking with gas. You get the best of both worlds: You've cut out the cockpit and reduced the mass of the fighter, and you've made it truly disposable. You could even do a tech tree to make them better: Longer maximum control range (I'd assume if the fighter flies out of range you'd just stop being able to order it around), better transmission speed (Less time between issuing and order and the order taking place), and reduced mass of the system. It'd certainly let you design carriers that are a little more interesting than a couple of hangar decks, some engines, a big fuel tank and some magazines.
Edit: Posted and immediately realized I mistyped something. Derp.
-
Systemes that are "alive" have some other problems too, they can get sick (flue, cancer, parasits?) , they constantly change dimensions, they age and maybe even get pregnant. They can be moody and undeterministic, the reliability of every single ship/system is even in question in comparsion to good old Metal and silicon. You can mass produce Bolts and Nuts with reliable performance and dimensions but can you be sure that your ships Kidney works as good as other ships kidneys?
Speaking of which, production is also easier on the logistics. Setting up a CNC mill (or any other part of Machinery) to produce a different machine parts and then dozens per hour is way faster then ordering 40k new eyes for the use in the fleet. A eye needs time to grow and develop and integrating the new components to your ship might be a headache.
Some biological systems thought have value say Algae for crunching Co2 into food and Oxygen (and by expansion Hydroponics as crew recreation, spices and airfiltering).
edit: The brainjar can, depending on task, be as small as a petridish if you use a rats brain or for the heck of it bees for stuff like Asteroid mining.
-
>> And my brain is worse at crunching numbers then the computer I'm sitting at
Nope. Your brain is vastly superior at crunching numbers compared to any existing computer. You don't automatically have concious access to those capabilities, but getting up, running around and playing catch is a monumental exercise in computation. IBM have apparently just won a contract to build a supercomputer with processing power perhaps comparable to the human brain, but it's going to weigh 200 tons, and need a medium sized power plant to run it. The human brain is around 2 kilos, and runs on yoghurt
>> I was speaking of organic technology in the sense of alive, not of materials that are organic in the sense that they contain carbon
"Alive" is a tricky concept, at best, and it's a a fallacy to try and separate the two. Carbons' unique properties make it perhaps the most versatile element in existence, and uniquely suited to supporting life, and all its' variations.
The great strength of organic systems is their adaptability. We have found life in the reactor vessels of nuclear power stations, living in hard vacuum on the Moon, and at crushing pressures at the bottom of the ocean floor, breathing sulphur and tolerating huge temperature gradients. "Organic" does not have to mean "squishy" ;D
-
I'm pretty happy about the idea of having super organic tech that can largely replicate inorganic tech. After all we already have the swarm and are happy with the current leap of faith around the physics of jump engines, shields and terraformers. Plus I really like the idea of having some cylon raider equivalents!
On the idea of automation I could see this as being a great tech line that can only be obtained through the salvage of a certain hostiles. This would work up from crew replacement, to full automation to included damage control and repairs. And at the end of it you could get basically cylon troops which would be substantially easier to shift around the galaxy.
-
I meant that the jar's life support in this instance is stuck crammed on the fighter constantly, which would increase its non-combat mass. The Carrier is intended to have life support stuck on it all over for the base crew, so adding a little more for the fighter jocks isn't very significant. It can even be exactly the same as all the rest of the life support, which means supply is easier. But that brain in the jar is going to need special care compared to Mr. Ima Fighterjockson, and will haul it with it everywhere it goes.
Yes and no. I don't see any significant increase in the mass of the fighter. Particularly if the supplies on the fighter are consumable, and the carrier refuels it. Plus, I see the pilot, cockpit, life support, and so on massing at least two tons. Do you really think that the brain in a jar is that heavy.
As for marginal penalty on the carrier, a good realistic estimate for life support is around 5 tons/person. That adds up, not to mention things like hanger bays.
Perhaps I should clairify my statement earlier, because some people don't seem to have understood it.
""Organic technology" will never work with life as we know it." was meant to be read as follows:
Organic technology referred to the use of living organisms to replicate high-energy technologies, such as those used in internal combustion engines, rockets, or in any application where a lack of reactivity is important. It was not meant to refer to all technologies ever called organic, nor to situations like life support. The "life as we know it" caveat was added to prevent people from using alien life in argument.
edit: The brainjar can, depending on task, be as small as a petridish if you use a rats brain or for the heck of it bees for stuff like Asteroid mining.
I think the intention was for human brains, not for any random brains you happen across. Good point on manufacturing, though.
>> And my brain is worse at crunching numbers then the computer I'm sitting at
Nope. Your brain is vastly superior at crunching numbers compared to any existing computer. You don't automatically have concious access to those capabilities, but getting up, running around and playing catch is a monumental exercise in computation. IBM have apparently just won a contract to build a supercomputer with processing power perhaps comparable to the human brain, but it's going to weigh 200 tons, and need a medium sized power plant to run it. The human brain is around 2 kilos, and runs on yoghurt
And this proves what? To put it more bluntly, my computer is better at solving orbital mechanics problems then my brain is. Full stop.
"Alive" is a tricky concept, at best, and it's a a fallacy to try and separate the two. Carbons' unique properties make it perhaps the most versatile element in existence, and uniquely suited to supporting life, and all its' variations.
The great strength of organic systems is their adaptability. We have found life in the reactor vessels of nuclear power stations, living in hard vacuum on the Moon, and at crushing pressures at the bottom of the ocean floor, breathing sulphur and tolerating huge temperature gradients. "Organic" does not have to mean "squishy" ;D
That is not what I meant. Living ships are always portrayed as some kind of organism, not a bunch of bacteria. And organisms of that size are squishy. Plus, find me an organism that routinely deals in pressures in the Megapascals, is grown to tolerances in a matter of days, and can use nuclear power as an energy source. And I find it hard to believe that any rational person would consider carbon nanotubes or spider silk alive any more then a silicon chip is alive.
I'm pretty happy about the idea of having super organic tech that can largely replicate inorganic tech. After all we already have the swarm and are happy with the current leap of faith around the physics of jump engines, shields and terraformers. Plus I really like the idea of having some cylon raider equivalents!
On the idea of automation I could see this as being a great tech line that can only be obtained through the salvage of a certain hostiles. This would work up from crew replacement, to full automation to included damage control and repairs. And at the end of it you could get basically cylon troops which would be substantially easier to shift around the galaxy.
I know that we have the swarm. The problem is that while I can accept that Steve probably didn't know better, I see no reason to encourage this foolishness. Why couldn't the swarm be some sort of self-replicating machines instead of being alive? The stats don't change, and it makes a lot more sense overall. But allowing what you want would probably break the game.
Edit: The more I think about this, the better I like it. In one of my games, I have a ship running around with captured components. That works a lot better if they're crazy AI rather then organic.
-
Without wading into the technology feasibility argument I really like the concept of diverging technical systems: one which moves toward robotics and another which moves towards biologics. Both of which would require proper salvaging operations to learn the new tech fields associated.
I am particularly fond of the idea of self-healing craft. I don't envision a flying squishy blob breathing and pooping but I do see possibilities for something built out of carbon composites and tended to by microorganisms that are able to patch up the damage while in flight. Not really a full biological arrangement, but organic-assisted tech.
-
>> ""Organic technology" will never work with life as we know it." was meant to be read as follows:
>> Organic technology referred to the use of living organisms to replicate high-energy technologies
Living organisms can generate electric fields strong enough to stun or kill, generate temperatures comparable with the surface of the sun, generate light without heat and survive pressures of around 100 MPa. And all of that is just the result of blind random chance. With a bit of intelligent direction, I see no particular reason a "living spaceship" would be impossible in some dim and distant future.
>> And this proves what? To put it more bluntly, my computer is better at solving orbital mechanics problems then my brain is. Full stop.
I'll have to disagree with you there. We can't use a brain for solving any arbitrary problems we'd like yet, but if we *could* interface with it properly, any human brain would be very superior at solving orbital mechanics problems, or any other large scale numbercrunching, to any existing computer. To take a similar class of problem, human pilots are still very much better at flying than fully automated systems. We use computers for some simple, repetitive tasks like constantly adjusting trim in some modern combat aircraft, because that plays to the strength of computers, which is great. But the human is still flying it.
Look at the trouble we have getting computers to perform a very basic function like walking. So long as you don't have some condition that otherwise prevents you from walking, anyone can do it. After decades of research, and millions of dollars, Hondas Asimo has finally mastered walking up stairs. Nearly
>> Plus, find me an organism that routinely deals in pressures in the Megapascals, is grown to tolerances in a matter of days, and can use nuclear power as an energy source. And I find it hard to believe that any rational person would consider carbon nanotubes or spider silk alive any more then a silicon chip is alive.
Any creature living full or part time at the bottom of the ocean experiences around 100 MPa of pressure, and for those that come up to the surface, they have to tolerate that pressure, and sea level pressure, in the same body. There are bacteria that "eat" uranium, because apparently they have managed to develop electrically conductive appendages
>> And I find it hard to believe that any rational person would consider carbon nanotubes or spider silk alive any more then a silicon chip is alive.
Neither nanotubes or spider silk are alive, but they rely on the magic carbon atom for their properties. Unless you're a pretty strict Cartesian Dualist, there's nothing remarkable about the components of life, of any sort. It's all in the arrangement, and carbon is just the most ridiculously versatile element. If you proposed an element with it's properties, you'd be ridiculed as a fantasist, yet there it is, being both a superconductor and an insulator etc.
>> Why couldn't the swarm be some sort of self-replicating machines instead of being alive?
Like, say... a carbon-based virus? Or a prion? :P
-
Ummm guys? Does it make sense to take this (biology vs. computer discussion) to a separate thread? If one of the main posters says "yes" I'll go ahead and tease the previous posts out....
John
-
I want to respond but this is an important upcoming feature thread that I don't want to derail further, so I'm going to suggest a split :P
-
Without wading into the technology feasibility argument I really like the concept of diverging technical systems: one which moves toward robotics and another which moves towards biologics. Both of which would require proper salvaging operations to learn the new tech fields associated.
I am particularly fond of the idea of self-healing craft. I don't envision a flying squishy blob breathing and pooping but I do see possibilities for something built out of carbon composites and tended to by microorganisms that are able to patch up the damage while in flight. Not really a full biological arrangement, but organic-assisted tech.
I have an answer for that one, too. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Nanotech.html
All of the issues with nanotech as manufacturing agent apply to microorganisms.
>> ""Organic technology" will never work with life as we know it." was meant to be read as follows:
>> Organic technology referred to the use of living organisms to replicate high-energy technologies
Living organisms can generate electric fields strong enough to stun or kill, generate temperatures comparable with the surface of the sun, generate light without heat and survive pressures of around 100 MPa. And all of that is just the result of blind random chance. With a bit of intelligent direction, I see no particular reason a "living spaceship" would be impossible in some dim and distant future.
Temperatures comparable to the surface of the sun? What organism does that?
And you obviously don't understand pressure to be making that claim. The organism is at the same pressure throughout. It's like the fact that you're under the equivalent of 10 meters of water right now in air pressure. Does that mean that if I cut an outline of you, and extended a column of water 10 meters up on it, and set it on you, you'd be just fine? If we put you on total liquid ventilation, we could put you at 100 MPa, too.
And an electric eel is not that impressive as a user of electricity.
>> And this proves what? To put it more bluntly, my computer is better at solving orbital mechanics problems then my brain is. Full stop.
I'll have to disagree with you there. We can't use a brain for solving any arbitrary problems we'd like yet, but if we *could* interface with it properly, any human brain would be very superior at solving orbital mechanics problems, or any other large scale numbercrunching, to any existing computer. To take a similar class of problem, human pilots are still very much better at flying than fully automated systems. We use computers for some simple, repetitive tasks like constantly adjusting trim in some modern combat aircraft, because that plays to the strength of computers, which is great. But the human is still flying it.
Look at the trouble we have getting computers to perform a very basic function like walking. So long as you don't have some condition that otherwise prevents you from walking, anyone can do it. After decades of research, and millions of dollars, Hondas Asimo has finally mastered walking up stairs. Nearly
And I don't think we know enough about the human brain to say that. Plus, even if I grant your arguement, there was a note in the article I linked too that points out that quantum computers work on a smaller scale.
>> Plus, find me an organism that routinely deals in pressures in the Megapascals, is grown to tolerances in a matter of days, and can use nuclear power as an energy source. And I find it hard to believe that any rational person would consider carbon nanotubes or spider silk alive any more then a silicon chip is alive.
Any creature living full or part time at the bottom of the ocean experiences around 100 MPa of pressure, and for those that come up to the surface, they have to tolerate that pressure, and sea level pressure, in the same body. There are bacteria that "eat" uranium, because apparently they have managed to develop electrically conductive appendages
The bacteria are changing the charge on the atom from +6 to +4. That has nothing at all to do with nuclear power. And I'm not sure where the "electrically conductive appendage" came from.
>> And I find it hard to believe that any rational person would consider carbon nanotubes or spider silk alive any more then a silicon chip is alive.
Neither nanotubes or spider silk are alive, but they rely on the magic carbon atom for their properties. Unless you're a pretty strict Cartesian Dualist, there's nothing remarkable about the components of life, of any sort. It's all in the arrangement, and carbon is just the most ridiculously versatile element. If you proposed an element with it's properties, you'd be ridiculed as a fantasist, yet there it is, being both a superconductor and an insulator etc.
Forgive me for asking, but what is your background in the sciences? There's nothing magic about the carbon element. All of its properties can be predicted by the electron configuration. And I would point out that silicon is one period below carbon.
>> Why couldn't the swarm be some sort of self-replicating machines instead of being alive?
Like, say... a carbon-based virus? Or a prion? :P
Or a silicon-based virus. Like a rogue AI. Or a Von Neumann probe gone wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe#Von_Neumann_probes
Ummm guys? Does it make sense to take this (biology vs. computer discussion) to a separate thread? If one of the main posters says "yes" I'll go ahead and tease the previous posts out....
John
I have no problem with that.
-
Ummm guys? Does it make sense to take this (biology vs. computer discussion) to a separate thread? If one of the main posters says "yes" I'll go ahead and tease the previous posts out....
John
Indeed, I feel another "fighters v missiles" thread coming on!
It sorat just comes down to do you want real-fi, sci-fi or sci-fantasy. Off course you can just use settings on the game set up to switch off any bits you don't like...
-
Indeed, I feel another "fighters v missiles" thread coming on!
It sorat just comes down to do you want real-fi, sci-fi or sci-fantasy. Off course you can just use settings on the game set up to switch off any bits you don't like...
That does seem to be the crux of the issue. I have no problem with sci-fantasy, but my bias is towards hard sci-fi, and when people try to pass things off as hard it bothers me quite a bit.
-
...comes down to do you want real-fi, sci-fi or sci-fantasy.
This is it.
I read through most of the article byron linked to regarding nanotech and what not and that article was great and all but it entirely missed the point: Aurora isn't real. It is realistic, but not real life. So what if there were technical inconsistencies in Star Trek and Babylon 5? They were fictional stories created for entertaining the general public. I say split the thread and the people who want to discuss the technical aspects of biotech can discuss and this thread can remain a discussion relating to Crew and staffing of spacecraft.
-
I'm in favor for a thread split.
About the Swarm, there's no definitive line on how "organic" they are. Since they're obviously constructed of TN materials, my interpretation was that the outer hull utilized TN armors, while the inner hull either used TN components suspended in a cytoplasm that carries materials, power, and smaller symbiotic organisms to adjust and repair them, or was internally wholly organic infused with TN elements to achieve needed strength.
Also, about the brain: My idea about that was differences in construction. Computers are better at crunching numbers, while human brains use what I call "pattern matching". That's why you have to practice to walk, to drive, etc. You build up a database of experiences, then compare expected actions to past events and make corrections. An example would be someone trying to lead a target in an FPS: with plenty of practice, they gain the ability to subconsciously and extremely rapidly compare the current target's speed with past targets, find a memory of a proper leading distance, match what's happening to the memory, and fire.
-
This is it.
I read through most of the article byron linked to regarding nanotech and what not and that article was great and all but it entirely missed the point: Aurora isn't real. It is realistic, but not real life. So what if there were technical inconsistencies in Star Trek and Babylon 5? They were fictional stories created for entertaining the general public. I say split the thread and the people who want to discuss the technical aspects of biotech can discuss and this thread can remain a discussion relating to Crew and staffing of spacecraft.
Claiming that Aurora isn't real so we can do whatever we want is missing the point. I'm arguing that, from a realistic perspective, self-repairing starships don't work. You are free to say "damn the science, full speed ahead" and I'm not going to stop you. At the same time, if you claim that they are realistic, I will argue the point.
-
I never did say it was realistic, but for the purpose of enjoyable game play concessions always need to be made. If there were no concessions then it would be like playing an application of real life. At that point I just turn off the computer and go outside.
In the meantime it would be nice to discuss the possibilities of biotechnology in Aurora and how it could be lobbied for in a way that could happen. If we stuck strictly to what we know to be possible we would be without Newtonian materials, hyperdrives, no jump gates, and a host of other things wouldn't be here for us either.
I like working with possibilities and molding them to an arrangement that is as believable as can be and still retains entertainment value.
-
I read that article about "brian bugs" (that guy is so proud of himself for re-inventing the concept of a "trope"), and it was the most smug, pedantic, and condescending thing I've ever read. It compared enjoying pulpy, mass-market science fiction to racism. It seems to think that all science fiction should be based only on the most solid scientific principles, which I think kind of misses the point entirely.
-
What's Fantasy today may be Reality tomorrow.
-
I read that article about "brian bugs" (that guy is so proud of himself for re-inventing the concept of a "trope"), and it was the most smug, pedantic, and condescending thing I've ever read. It compared enjoying pulpy, mass-market science fiction to racism. It seems to think that all science fiction should be based only on the most solid scientific principles, which I think kind of misses the point entirely.
Uh, "brain bug" or "ear worm" or other similar words have been used to describe "tropes" and "cliches" and "stereotypes" for a very, very long time. I read the article and don't remember reading the part where he claims he invented either. Additionally, are you a Star Trek fan to get so worked over about?
What's Fantasy today may be Reality tomorrow.
But probably isn't. That's the beauty of science fiction - it describes a possible future as it extrapolates from current knowledge. Science fantasy or futuristic fantasy is just like "classic" fantasy. It can definitely tell awesome stories and create wonderful worlds but to expect any piece to become reality is a little silly.
Hmm, maybe this should go to that other thread as well? Transfer all posts after the last one relevant to the Crew Accommodations.
-
Uh, "brain bug" or "ear worm" or other similar words have been used to describe "tropes" and "cliches" and "stereotypes" for a very, very long time. I read the article and don't remember reading the part where he claims he invented either. Additionally, are you a Star Trek fan to get so worked over about?
"Brain bugs" is my personal term for ideas which are implanted in the collective consciousness of sci-fi fans.
I'll admit that maybe he means "personal" to mean "preferred," in which case I withdraw the first line of my complaint. The rest (re: arrogance, pedantism, etc) stands.
As for whether I'm a Star Trek fan, I'd say not particularly. I like some of it, I dislike some of it.
My point of contention with the article is the numerous claims that anything that is seen as pandering or unrealistic is decried as "stupid" and inherently inferior to any sci-fi derived from rigorous scientific reasoning. If it's dumbed down or has mass appeal, clearly there is something wrong with it. That seems to be the thrust of the article.
I like hard sci-fi. A lot. I also like not-so-hard sci-fi. A lot. I don't understand why one has to be superior to the other.
As an aside, an analogous argument raises its head in the debate between PC and Console gaming, and it is just as insipid in that arena.
-
I only got the point that "multiple cooks make for a bad soup", in that specific article linked, along with "modern TV sci-fi writers don't know anything about actual science". But English isn't my native language so it's entirely possible that I'm not getting the full vibe of it.
-
I only got the point that "multiple cooks make for a bad soup", in that specific article linked, along with "modern TV sci-fi writers don't know anything about actual science". But English isn't my native language so it's entirely possible that I'm not getting the full vibe of it.
That might be it. You are right that the article makes those points, and there might be some validity to those claims, but the tone of the article is very snide, with a lot of subtle jabs at the education levels of the average television viewer, sci-fi fan, Americans, and others. It's at best off-putting, and at worst intentionally insulting people who don't agree with the author's narrow view on what constitutes "good" sci-fi.
-
I would like to remind everyone who is criticizing the article I linked to that it was for purposes of the section on organs. I neither endorse nor agree with the tone of the article. That doesn't mean he's wrong on science education, mind you.
What's Fantasy today may be Reality tomorrow.
Or it may not. Weren't we all supposed to have flying cars by now?
I never did say it was realistic, but for the purpose of enjoyable game play concessions always need to be made. If there were no concessions then it would be like playing an application of real life. At that point I just turn off the computer and go outside.
In the meantime it would be nice to discuss the possibilities of biotechnology in Aurora and how it could be lobbied for in a way that could happen. If we stuck strictly to what we know to be possible we would be without Newtonian materials, hyperdrives, no jump gates, and a host of other things wouldn't be here for us either.
I like working with possibilities and molding them to an arrangement that is as believable as can be and still retains entertainment value.
There are values between "anything is possible" and "real life". And I do understand that things need to be altered for gameplay.
Two things bothered me about the original suggestion. First, the biotech. Second, I personally don't like technology that you have to discover from others. The star swarm can be explained away as berserk Von Neumann probes. And as someone studying to be an engineer, I don't believe that there is any technology that is possible that we can't eventually discover.
-
Similarly, I've always hating the "take tech from the enemy to progress yourself" model. In particular, I'm reminded of Vindictus, the action MMO released by Nexon/devCat. It looks fine, and as a game it runs solidly, but after a while I realized that every piece of equipment you use is stolen. There's noob items that you can get for near-free, like a wooden shield and a rusted sword, but all the items you use after level 1 are crafted. And all of those are crafted from stolen items. You get "1x Broken Goblin Blade" and add "2x Iron Ore" to get "Veteran's Blade" or something similar. All of your equipment is something damaged from the enemy that's been spruced up with a bit of raw materials. In the game, humans are supposed to be a superpower in their own right, challenging certain gods, and yet all their equipment is looted.
Similarly, for Aurora, extremely very little should be purely stolen tech. We should be able to research everything except a few rare exceptions, like plasma warheads. Biological tech is certainly within the realm of human research. Profitable biotech, is another matter. In other games, they usually give it a size scaling with tech. Every 2 tech level reduces the size by 10%, for instance. At early tech, mounting a supercomputer (runs the ship without crew) might cost as much space as crew accommodations. At higher levels, a supercomputer may occupy 25% the space a crew might. Aurora doesn't have that sort of "each x level does y to the module" but it does have comparative technology. I could imagine a "bioengineering" module, and it would utilize a few different technology types. For instance, you may be able to research "Engineering efficiency" which is 2*HS at low tech, 3*HS at next tech, 4*HS next, etc. So at tech one, you might have a biocomputer that could occupy 50 HS and count as 100 crew. At tech two, you could have a biocomputer size 33 that would count as 99 crew, and tech three gives you a size 25 that counts for 100, etc. So, as you research more, you can trade out some crew for crazy organics. Similarly, it would have tech for hit-to-kill rating and upkeep rating and whatnot.
Naturally, the swarm would already have a massive level in this, so capturing swarm ships and deconstructing them could provide you with significant knowledge on biological vessels.
Maybe I should wander to the suggestions thread....
Oh, but back on original topic: I believe it could be done with human resources, especially in Aurora - after all you can design who new species at will - but it would prove a significant RP sinkhole before you started to see notable returns. And, logically, it would prove viable to study the swarm at length in order to gleam knowledge from their wrecks, instead of researching the area yourself.
-
What about racial type techonologies, similar to something from MoO? Crystalline tech, etc.
-
What about racial type techonologies, similar to something from MoO? Crystalline tech, etc.
I don't even like those. While there might be merit to the suggestion that we won't look down certain alleys until prompted, I find the current system annoying. In one game, I captured about a dozen grav survey vessels with a special technology, but still haven't gotten the tech. I would go with a very low-point racial tech that unlocks the main one, which is quite expensive. Even one sample is enough to unlock the gatekeeper, which is researched normally. Capturing more vessels unlocks the gatekeeper faster, but normal research works too. Or maybe we could have a checkbox to add them well up the standard tree if you want.
-
While it's off-topic, I'm with byron. I always found it odd how you had to complete an entire plasma torpedo launcher (close enough, you have to get all the prerequisites to build one) before being able to research them at all. I'd much prefer disassembling giving points, randomly distributed to the three areas needed. If you're lucky and get a few points in all three, then you can finish researching manually. Otherwise, you need to find and disassemble more to give your scientists the basics.
-
Ah, this is where it's gone.
>> I have an answer for that one, too. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Nanotech.html
>> All of the issues with nanotech as manufacturing agent apply to microorganisms.
I'd be real careful when reading Wongs stuff. He's a bright guy, but his ability to think for himself is limited. For instance, a lot of his issues with nano manufacturing have actually been solved, at least in concept, so either he hasn't bothered to do research and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about, or has done the research and is deliberately misrepresenting certain aspects to make his point (which is a perfectly valid rhetorical technique, but poor science)
>> Temperatures comparable to the surface of the sun? What organism does that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpheidae - Pistol shrimp. The snapping of the claw creates a cavitation effect, which when it collapses reaches quite staggering temperatures
>> And you obviously don't understand pressure to be making that claim. The organism is at the same pressure throughout
I do thanks, but you've forgotten whales, for example. The sperm whale is 1) an air breather and 2) regularly dives to depths of at least a couple of miles, and probably more, but we've never been able to definitively prove that
>> And an electric eel is not that impressive as a user of electricity
You rather miss the point. It's not that impressive compared to our current ability to manipulate electricty, but that it's been much better at it than us for most of the last 100m years or so, and without the benefit of any concious theoretical understanding of it.
>> Forgive me for asking, but what is your background in the sciences?
Trained as a chemist (not used it professionally for 15 years or so though).
>> There's nothing magic about the carbon element. All of its properties can be predicted by the electron configuration. And I would point out that silicon is one period below carbon.
That's so wrong, I hardly know where to start. The *physical* properties of the element, and the gross aspects of it's chemistry can be deduced by examination of the electon configuration - but not all of it's properties.
Carbon is the only element that will reliably form stable bonds to itself, allowing formation of long chains (branched and linear), as well as bonding with certain other elements to allow for functional groups. Its' allotropic forms lie at the end a lot spectra of physical properties; it is both very hard and very soft, superconductive and a good insulator, thermally conductive and insulating, transparent and opaque. If a sci-fi writer created an element with properties like that, they would be lambasted for using "unobtainium".
The most interesting aspects don't become apparent until you start looking at bond enthalpy data though. Carbon can form single, double and triple bonds to itself, and break them, all in standard conditions. It is virtually the only element that can release water as part of a reaction (and by that I mean true OH + H = H2O dehydration, not pre-existing H2O leaving a crystal lattice as in almost every other example) and that's a hell of an energetic driver for all sorts of otherwise near impossible reactions.
Silicon is not a good alternative, at all. Si - Si bonds are quite rare, and double / triple bonds even rarer. Si - O bonds are much more its' style, and that rules out almost every interesting reaction necessary for life. Si is too big to play nicely with other elements really, even if it is only one row below C
If you don't want to take my word for this, find a chemist whose word you will accept, and ask them. I assure you they'll essentally repeat what I've just said
All that said, the general point about bad writers using "organic tech" as a code for "superior tech" is well taken. I suspect it's more to do with them getting the gist of the amazing things organic systems can do, but not really understanding the details
>> Similarly, I've always hating the "take tech from the enemy to progress yourself" model
It has roots in real life. The Chinese probably invented gunpowder and metallurgy, but Europeans invented and refined firearms. The Byzantine fleet had Greek fire projectors capable of burning enemy fleets in the water, and dominated the Mediterranean, but the families of the operators remained on shore as hostages to "discourage" any tech transfer. Even in more modern times, nuclear bomb making secrets have been the subject of intense covert operations, and reverse engineering.
It probably gets a bit overplayed in 4X / RTS type games because it's such a useful game mechanic. It stops a small lead becoming a dominant one, and allows "no research, steal it all" as a valid strategy. Not that realistic, but fun. Mongol chariots + other cities = tanks by about 500 BC ;D
-
I'd be real careful when reading Wongs stuff. He's a bright guy, but his ability to think for himself is limited. For instance, a lot of his issues with nano manufacturing have actually been solved, at least in concept, so either he hasn't bothered to do research and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about, or has done the research and is deliberately misrepresenting certain aspects to make his point (which is a perfectly valid rhetorical technique, but poor science)
Or the issues are not as resolved as you think. And what are the issues that have been resolved, anyway? And even with those overcome, how does it compare to traditional manufacturing in terms of cost-effectiveness?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpheidae - Pistol shrimp. The snapping of the claw creates a cavitation effect, which when it collapses reaches quite staggering temperatures
That's not the organism manipulating or withstanding the temperature. Cavitation happens quite a lot, particularly on things like propellers on ships. And I've always read that the damage to said props from cavitation is entirely mechanical in nature.
>> And you obviously don't understand pressure to be making that claim. The organism is at the same pressure throughout
I do thanks, but you've forgotten whales, for example. The sperm whale is 1) an air breather and 2) regularly dives to depths of at least a couple of miles, and probably more, but we've never been able to definitively prove that
No, you either don't understand pressure or are misrepresenting it intentionally. When a sperm whale dives, its lungs do not remain at surface pressure. They are compressed to match ambient pressure, just as a human free-diving is. A pressure gauge between the lungs and the ambient ocean would read zero, or a very small number. Again, you're confusing absolute pressure with pressure differential, which is what is required for industrial use.
Edit:
I suppose that you could have misunderstood what I was asking for. The organism needs to be under significant differential pressure.
>> And an electric eel is not that impressive as a user of electricity
You rather miss the point. It's not that impressive compared to our current ability to manipulate electricty, but that it's been much better at it than us for most of the last 100m years or so, and without the benefit of any concious theoretical understanding of it.
And the standard by which technology is judged is what we've had over the last 100 million years, not what we have today. In that case, I need to find another career. Engineering is obsolete because we've become like gods, and farther advancement is unnecessary.
I'm not going to argue with you on chemistry, except to point out that equating "contains carbon" and "organic technology" is twisting my original meaning into a pretzel.
All that said, the general point about bad writers using "organic tech" as a code for "superior tech" is well taken. I suspect it's more to do with them getting the gist of the amazing things organic systems can do, but not really understanding the details
Amazing compared to what? An organic system is certainly elegant, but elegance only goes so far. It won't help you get past Mach 1, or into orbit. For that, large numbers are required.
Let's look at a comparison of organic and mechanical technology, namely that of power generation. Find the nearest internal combustion engine. Your car might be a good place to start. Somewhere on it there is a number given in horsepower. Now, find that many horses, and put them next to the engine. You should have the same total power output on each side.
(I am not actually endorsing stealing horses for this. It's a thought experiment.)
Now, a few key technological parameters:
1. Specific Power:
The engine in question is far, far lighter then the horses.
2. Reliability:
The engine runs fine nearly indefinitely when operated by an unskilled human with occasional maintainence from a moderately skilled human. If something does break, the same moderately skilled human can generally fix it fairly easily. The horses require more maintainence, and more skill both on the part of the operator, and on the mechanic (vet). Also, breakages take far longer to fix, and are more common unless care is taken. Also, the horse has a working life of maybe 15-20 years.
3. Shelf life:
The engine can be turned off and left between uses. The horses require near-daily attention, and have to be exercised to keep up their strength. They also require food, even when not being used.
4. Manufacturing:
The engine requires something on the order of days to weeks, and production can be expanded quickly. The horse takes several years, and production growth is on similar timescales. Also, it has to be trained.
I don't know about you, but I'd go with the engine.
And I know that I ignored bioengineering. The specific power of the horse might be multiplied by a factor of 10, but even so, all of the other disadvantages remain. If those are somehow removed, I'd venture that we're outside "life as we know it" which was included in my original statement.
-
Let's look at a comparison of organic and mechanical technology, namely that of power generation. Find the nearest internal combustion engine. Your car might be a good place to start. Somewhere on it there is a number given in horsepower. Now, find that many horses, and put them next to the engine. You should have the same total power output on each side.
(I am not actually endorsing stealing horses for this. It's a thought experiment.)
Now, a few key technological parameters:
1. Specific Power:
The engine in question is far, far lighter then the horses.
2. Reliability:
The engine runs fine nearly indefinitely when operated by an unskilled human with occasional maintainence from a moderately skilled human. If something does break, the same moderately skilled human can generally fix it fairly easily. The horses require more maintainence, and more skill both on the part of the operator, and on the mechanic (vet). Also, breakages take far longer to fix, and are more common unless care is taken. Also, the horse has a working life of maybe 15-20 years.
3. Shelf life:
The engine can be turned off and left between uses. The horses require near-daily attention, and have to be exercised to keep up their strength. They also require food, even when not being used.
4. Manufacturing:
The engine requires something on the order of days to weeks, and production can be expanded quickly. The horse takes several years, and production growth is on similar timescales. Also, it has to be trained.
I don't know about you, but I'd go with the engine.
And I know that I ignored bioengineering. The specific power of the horse might be multiplied by a factor of 10, but even so, all of the other disadvantages remain. If those are somehow removed, I'd venture that we're outside "life as we know it" which was included in my original statement.
This is, without a doubt one of the silliest "thought experiments" I have ever read. You are missing the obvious: The "Horse System" is perfect as nature has been refining that system for millenia and more. The horse grows itself, feeds itself, to a certain extent repairs itself, replicates itself and is/was freely roaming the countryside for people to collect and put to their own diabolical use. The waste produce of the horse is biodegradable and when the horse dies it is 100% naturally recyclable. Let's see you spread your internal combustion engine waste on your tomato garden.
Just saying, you need to use a better analogy.
-
This is, without a doubt one of the silliest "thought experiments" I have ever read. You are missing the obvious: The "Horse System" is perfect as nature has been refining that system for millenia and more. The horse grows itself, feeds itself, to a certain extent repairs itself, replicates itself and is/was freely roaming the countryside for people to collect and put to their own diabolical use. The waste produce of the horse is biodegradable and when the horse dies it is 100% naturally recyclable. Let's see you spread your internal combustion engine waste on your tomato garden.
Just saying, you need to use a better analogy.
I would hardly count the "Horse System" as perfect. Almost nobody ever goes out, captures a wild horse, trains it, and puts it to work. They're all raised by ranchers, with the associated costs. Nor is it a case of "put on the harness, and the horse does what you want". They have to be trained, and have minds of their own.
I also glossed over the fact that I've never heard of a horse-powered vehicle being able to go 60 mph for any length of time, much less all day. While the horse is, to a limited extent, self-replicating, the other disadvantages it suffers when compared to internal combustion engines vastly outweigh that factor.
And the waste of an internal combustion engine is good for your garden. Plants need CO2 and water, and when it dies, I can melt it down and use it for something else. Also, there's no health hazard, unlike a dead horse.
-
It is a perfect system in nature that humans bent to their will. The time it took to capture and train a horse to do your bidding is nothing compared to the time spent to discover minerals, build mines, develop metallurgy, smelt metals, build factories, build assembly lines, design engines, locate oil fields, build rigs, build refineries, transport fuel to dispensaries and put it in your tank.
The end product we have created is far more toxic than the decaying body of a horse on numerous levels. Mountain top removal, strip mining, bore mining, shaft mining, industrial pollutants, oil spills, emissions and a product that is extremely difficult to recycle. When the horse dies you can "dump it in a field" and come back in two weeks and nature has taken care of it's own.
-
It boils down to choosing between a compact system, easily manufactured yet needing maintenance, and a big system, able to propagate slowly and steadily yet needing the proper conditions to prosper. I'm sure it's possible to design an engine about the same power and size as a horse and requiring little to no maintenance, we just don't have any reason to do so.
Your horse system has adapted to specific Earth surface conditions and will be at a loss in a different environment. To get a living organism spreading in space would require a long evolution time, even with bioengineering or whatever. Living organisms evolve from generation to generation, which is the reason behind bacteria changing so rapidly while most mammals stayed about the same through centuries.
In a distant future relating to Science-Fiction, I doubt you need to worry about horse poop and tomato gardens. It's an era of automated mining and terraforming of entire planets, where pollution is but a distant memory from the past and energy isn't limited anymore.
I don't see what organic technology would add to Aurora, aside from the possibility of a new Star Swarm.
-
It is a perfect system in nature that humans bent to their will. The time it took to capture and train a horse to do your bidding is nothing compared to the time spent to discover minerals, build mines, develop metallurgy, smelt metals, build factories, build assembly lines, design engines, locate oil fields, build rigs, build refineries, transport fuel to dispensaries and put it in your tank.
The end product we have created is far more toxic than the decaying body of a horse on numerous levels. Mountain top removal, strip mining, bore mining, shaft mining, industrial pollutants, oil spills, emissions and a product that is extremely difficult to recycle. When the horse dies you can "dump it in a field" and come back in two weeks and nature has taken care of it's own.
Yes, the entire infrastructure to build engines is longer then training a horse. However, we can assume that that infrastructure is already in place. If dropped on a virgin world that has horses (don't ask me how), I would use the horses until I got something better, like an internal combustion engine. That's not the debate. The debate is which is a more useful source of power right now, engines or horses? If you think horses are more useful (I'm not going to say better, as that requires a definition of better) then go right ahead and try to prove it in real life.
As for pollution and such, I'm not sure what to say. It happens and we're stuck with it, unless we go back to horses. That may be your choice, but it certainly isn't mine. I'd have to say that, in general, it's worth it.
It boils down to choosing between a compact system, easily manufactured yet needing maintenance, and a big system, able to propagate slowly and steadily yet needing the proper conditions to prosper. I'm sure it's possible to design an engine about the same power and size as a horse and requiring little to no maintenance, we just don't have any reason to do so.
Horses need maintenance if they're going to do work. Things like horseshoes and deworming. Horses only take care of themselves in the wild. We can build a system that's significantly smaller then a horse, has more power, and can be maintained by anyone with a halfway-decent machine shop and a little training. We just don't, as it's more expensive then existing systems, and there's no need for it.
-
The point is, the system you chose to deride as being inefficient is, in fact, not inefficient but is just different in it's allocation of resources to produce and support it.
The ICE is a smaller and more compact energy system requiring a substantial infrastructure to produce. The horse system we speak of requires less infrastructure to produce but more resources to support. Maintenance, I would postulate, is a wash. We were raised in the heyday of ICEs and it is not difficult to learn to fix them as even the least knowledgeable of us still has a vastly greater working knowledge of machinery then anyone in the 15th century. On the flip side, that average 15th century person would have no problem handling a horse as that was the system they were raised with.
In its current incarnation the bio-system that is a horse isn't suited for space, the ongoing support system it needs to operate is too large where the ICE is front loaded and by the time it is operational it needs near 0 support. It is better suited for a space ship. I could argue the point that the quantity of support resources is actually even, just distributed differently.
Which is my point as to why it was the wrong analogy. For a comparative analysis you need to be fair and discuss a system far less complex than a mammal.
-
The point is, the system you chose to deride as being inefficient is, in fact, not inefficient but is just different in it's allocation of resources to produce and support it.
The ICE is a smaller and more compact energy system requiring a substantial infrastructure to produce. The horse system we speak of requires less infrastructure to produce but more resources to support. Maintenance, I would postulate, is a wash. We were raised in the heyday of ICEs and it is not difficult to learn to fix them as even the least knowledgeable of us still has a vastly greater working knowledge of machinery then anyone in the 15th century. On the flip side, that average 15th century person would have no problem handling a horse as that was the system they were raised with.
In its current incarnation the bio-system that is a horse isn't suited for space, the ongoing support system it needs to operate is too large where the ICE is front loaded and by the time it is operational it needs near 0 support. It is better suited for a space ship. I could argue the point that the quantity of support resources is actually even, just distributed differently.
Which is my point as to why it was the wrong analogy. For a comparative analysis you need to be fair and discuss a system far less complex than a mammal.
Ah. I think I see where you're coming from, except that it actually strengthens my case.
I'm not arguing for the superiority of the ICE over the horse per se. I'm arguing that organotech (living starships and so on) will never replace metaltech. The problem is that a horse is not organotech. And for organotech to compete with metaltech, you first need a fairly high level of metaltech. The infrastructure is already in place and the technology available. Which would you go for, farther development of ICEs or some sort of organotech which is going to require a couple orders of magnitude improvement to be competitive with metaltech to begin with? I can tell you where the market will go.
I resent the implication that I'm being unfair. I chose the most direct comparison I could, that of motive power. Horses and ICEs are largely used for the same things, moving stuff and farming. What would you suggest?
-
Well, a horse and an ICE are direct comparisons if were are talking only of energy producing systems with regards to moving a load. A space ship has far more components that do different things besides just locomotion. Which, as an interesting side note, an ICE is completely useless for space travel as is the horse. If we get really abstract I think a horse might actually be better at producing power in space. Think hamster wheel driving a turbine. ;D Even in 0g the horse can still move if anchored. It might not produce enough energy to run it's own life support system though. In it's current tech level I don't think an ICE can function at all due to the atomized fuel coalescing when trying to be delivered into the combustion chamber. Cooling and oil systems wouldn't work at all right now as they are gravity dependent systems but could be re-engineered easily.
Well, since each system is different there would be different possibilities for each. What are they? I don't have a clue. It would help if I was a biologist and not just some random dude that studies natural systems. To my untrained mind the most interesting system would be one of hull repair. Breach repair in an arrangement not totally unlike how coral is built: on the crystallized remains of the diseased. It's the one I like the theory of the most. The problem is that even if you get past the science of it and could come to an arrangement everyone agrees appears feasible the storage space required to support it would be a hard argument over just having a room filled with a couple spacesuits, a bunch of metal plates and a rivet gun.
-
Well, a horse and an ICE are direct comparisons if were are talking only of energy producing systems with regards to moving a load.
That is exactly how I was comparing them. I can't think of a more fair comparison then a basic mechanical operation that will always be needed, and can be done by either one.
A space ship has far more components that do different things besides just locomotion.
I'm aware of that. Also, a spacecraft's propulsion system is astoundingly ill-suited to replacement with organotech. Oxygen-hydrogen burns at about 3500 K, and other propulsion systems are even worse. The only thing that's remotely plausible is cold gas, and you never get anywhere with that.
The reason I was using ICEs and horses was because that was an excellent parallel, as mentioned above.
Which, as an interesting side note, an ICE is completely useless for space travel as is the horse. If we get really abstract I think a horse might actually be better at producing power in space. Think hamster wheel driving a turbine. ;D Even in 0g the horse can still move if anchored. It might not produce enough energy to run it's own life support system though. In it's current tech level I don't think an ICE can function at all due to the atomized fuel coalescing when trying to be delivered into the combustion chamber. Cooling and oil systems wouldn't work at all right now as they are gravity dependent systems but could be re-engineered easily.
I'd far rather have an ICE. It's smaller, lighter, and it doesn't use up oxygen when I'm not using it. Also, I think you're right about the horse not producing enough power for the life support. Though a turbine is something you use to drive a generator. You don't drive a turbine.
Also, aircraft engine function in a zero-G dive. I'm not sure about car engines, but it's been dealt with.
Well, since each system is different there would be different possibilities for each. What are they? I don't have a clue. It would help if I was a biologist and not just some random dude that studies natural systems. To my untrained mind the most interesting system would be one of hull repair. Breach repair in an arrangement not totally unlike how coral is built: on the crystallized remains of the diseased. It's the one I like the theory of the most. The problem is that even if you get past the science of it and could come to an arrangement everyone agrees appears feasible the storage space required to support it would be a hard argument over just having a room filled with a couple spacesuits, a bunch of metal plates and a rivet gun.
How fast does coral grow again? I'm going to guess not fast enough. That's the biggest problem with this. Humans take far longer to self-repair then it takes us to repair just about anything, and self-repair is the only advantaged touted by advocates of organotech. Also, organic systems take a long time to grow, and don't understand tolerances, both of which are important when dealing with spaceflight. We use metaltech for a reason. It works. And at the moment, organotech is far enough behind the market will never even give it a chance to catch up. Not that it could in the first place. It deals poorly with high pressures, high and low temperatures, reactive chemicals, and radiation. All of which are prevalent in space.
-
>> Or the issues are not as resolved as you think. And what are the issues that have been resolved, anyway?
Well, pretty much all the issues he raises are actually non-issues. The primary flaw is treating nanotech as scaled down macrotech, which it isn't, at all. TinyOS and an adaptation of the ATP cycle will allow for arbitrarily large groupings of nanofactories to co-operate in building just about any conceivable object from any conceivable material
>> And even with those overcome, how does it compare to traditional manufacturing in terms of cost-effectiveness?
Who knows? Maybe it won't prove to be that cheap, but it will always have applications. Nuclear power was originally supposed to deliver nearly free, unlimited electricity. It didn't work out that way, but it still has a place in the global energy mix, for all sorts of reasons
>> That's not the organism manipulating or withstanding the temperature
It very much is the organism manipulating the temperature, surely? If the shrimp wan't there, the temperature wouldn't happen - direct causation. Other organisms are capable of withstanding, even requiring, temperatures above 100c, and yet others thrive at well below freezing. Not all of those properties are present in one organism, but the class of organisms exhibits a great range of acceptable conditions, just like the class of technological objects possess a different but also varied set of capabilities
>> I suppose that you could have misunderstood what I was asking for. The organism needs to be under significant differential pressure.
This is pretty much the crux of my argument, it doesn't *need* to do any such thing. That's an engineers solution. It experiences very different pressures, and uses neat biomechanical tricks to avoid having to deal with the consequences, rather than hardening to deal with the pressure as a technological artifact would have to
>> Engineering is obsolete because we've become like gods, and farther advancement is unnecessary.
Hardly. But engineering is just one approach to problem solving
>> I'm not going to argue with you on chemistry, except to point out that equating "contains carbon" and "organic technology" is twisting my original meaning into a pretzel.
In chemistry, "organic" is defined to mean "containing carbon", however you personally choose to use it
>> And the waste of an internal combustion engine is good for your garden.
ICEs produce more than CO2 and H2O, even with a cat. Diesels are worse
>> and when it dies, I can melt it down and use it for something else
Same with any organic object; they are infinitely recyclable, with no infrastructure whatsoever required. I don't need a spanner to make something rot
>> Also, there's no health hazard, unlike a dead horse.
Dead horses (or other creatures) are only a health hazard if you leave them rotting in the street, or in a water source or similar. A broken ICE in a similar place would also constitute a hazard, for different reasons
>> Horses need maintenance if they're going to do work. Things like horseshoes and deworming. Horses only take care of themselves in the wild.
There speaks someone who knows nothing about horses. We shoe horses for our convenience, not theirs, as it increases their ability to put power down, like putting high performance tyres on the car run by your ICE. Just like the ICE, if you run it harder, it's more likely to blow up. In domestication, horses need care because we are asking them to perform tasks they are not optimised for
>> We can build a system that's significantly smaller then a horse, has more power, and can be maintained by anyone with a halfway-decent machine shop and a little training
But if you ever run out of spare parts, or even just people who know how to fit them, the system is useless once it inevitably breaks
>> I'm arguing that organotech (living starships and so on) will never replace metaltech.
Except it already is. Carbon fibre? Organic tech (see earlier note about definition of "organic"). Organic superconductors? Check. Organic lasers? Check. Organic TV screens? Check
>> Humans take far longer to self-repair then it takes us to repair just about anything
Handy to be able to self repair, so you can drag yourself over to your broken machinery and use external work rather than totally internalised resources to fix it, though
>> Also, a spacecraft's propulsion system is astoundingly ill-suited to replacement with organotech
And metaltech is equally astoundingly ill-suited to replacing the contents of the fridge. You pick the tool for the job. The spacecrafts' propulsion system is also astoundingly ill-suited to replacing the ships waste facilities. Again, you need to pick the tool for the job
>> And at the moment, organotech is far enough behind the market will never even give it a chance to catch up. Not that it could in the first place.
We'll see
>> It deals poorly with high pressures, high and low temperatures
For now that is somewhat true, although it is worth reflecting on the fact that very high grade heat shielding is in fact often organic, made of graphite or certain phenolic plastics with very good insulating properties, and the ability to withstand atmospheric re-entry, for instance
>> reactive chemicals
Try pumping hot acid through a metaltech pipe and see what happens. We use organic tech for that now.
>> radiation
Metal objects inside a reactor vessel break, due to neutron induced brittleness. Certain bacteria call it home, because their DNA is capable of constantly self repairing. But who'd want a near-pointless trait like that?
-
>> And even with those overcome, how does it compare to traditional manufacturing in terms of cost-effectiveness?
Who knows? Maybe it won't prove to be that cheap, but it will always have applications. Nuclear power was originally supposed to deliver nearly free, unlimited electricity. It didn't work out that way, but it still has a place in the global energy mix, for all sorts of reasons
I've never said that nanofabrication is useless. However, I believe that it's been grossly oversold. It has uses, all of which involve making things that are on the same scale it is. For macro scale manufacturing, the current processes will remain in use.
>> That's not the organism manipulating or withstanding the temperature
It very much is the organism manipulating the temperature, surely? If the shrimp wan't there, the temperature wouldn't happen - direct causation. Other organisms are capable of withstanding, even requiring, temperatures above 100c, and yet others thrive at well below freezing. Not all of those properties are present in one organism, but the class of organisms exhibits a great range of acceptable conditions, just like the class of technological objects possess a different but also varied set of capabilities
You seem to have a gift for missing my meaning. The organism does not use the temperature, which is a side effect of the cavitation bubble. The fact that instantaneous temperatures approach that of the surface of the sun means nothing in reality. It's in a very small area, so the actual energy content is tiny.
>> I suppose that you could have misunderstood what I was asking for. The organism needs to be under significant differential pressure.
This is pretty much the crux of my argument, it doesn't *need* to do any such thing. That's an engineers solution. It experiences very different pressures, and uses neat biomechanical tricks to avoid having to deal with the consequences, rather than hardening to deal with the pressure as a technological artifact would have to
This is absurd. Biomecanical tricks can only take you so far. For spaceflight, or anything approaching it, you need an engineer's solution. How do you propose to make some sort of space vessel using these biomechanical tricks. The burden of proof is on you.
>> Engineering is obsolete because we've become like gods, and farther advancement is unnecessary.
Hardly. But engineering is just one approach to problem solving
And another is? Waving your hands about "biomechanical tricks"? I'm getting annoyed with this disdain for engineering. If you have a better idea, tell us.
>> I'm not going to argue with you on chemistry, except to point out that equating "contains carbon" and "organic technology" is twisting my original meaning into a pretzel.
In chemistry, "organic" is defined to mean "containing carbon", however you personally choose to use it
And if I knew you were a chemist, I might have phrased that more carefully. That said, I believe the original intent (technology that is alive) was clear when the statement was made from the context.
>> Horses need maintenance if they're going to do work. Things like horseshoes and deworming. Horses only take care of themselves in the wild.
There speaks someone who knows nothing about horses. We shoe horses for our convenience, not theirs, as it increases their ability to put power down, like putting high performance tyres on the car run by your ICE. Just like the ICE, if you run it harder, it's more likely to blow up. In domestication, horses need care because we are asking them to perform tasks they are not optimised for
And the point is? We do maintain horses, for any number of reasons. You don't have to take care of a wild horse, but it's not going to do anything for you, anyway.
>> We can build a system that's significantly smaller then a horse, has more power, and can be maintained by anyone with a halfway-decent machine shop and a little training
But if you ever run out of spare parts, or even just people who know how to fit them, the system is useless once it inevitably breaks
Because "never breaks down" is a legitimate design criteria.
You never build a system assuming that the support infrastructure will go away. If we did, then it would be impossible to make any progress.
>> I'm arguing that organotech (living starships and so on) will never replace metaltech.
Except it already is. Carbon fibre? Organic tech (see earlier note about definition of "organic"). Organic superconductors? Check. Organic lasers? Check. Organic TV screens? Check
You're deliberately trolling now. I added (living starships and so on) explicitly to close this avenue of thought. To clarify: organotech refers to sci-fi type "living technology" The best example I can come up with off the top of my head is the Yuzzhan Vong from Star Wars, but I'm sure there are others. Carbon fiber does not count.
>> Humans take far longer to self-repair then it takes us to repair just about anything
Handy to be able to self repair, so you can drag yourself over to your broken machinery and use external work rather than totally internalised resources to fix it, though
Yes, but if it takes your living ship twice as long to heal as it takes for my ship to repair at the yard, who wins?
>> Also, a spacecraft's propulsion system is astoundingly ill-suited to replacement with organotech
And metaltech is equally astoundingly ill-suited to replacing the contents of the fridge. You pick the tool for the job. The spacecrafts' propulsion system is also astoundingly ill-suited to replacing the ships waste facilities. Again, you need to pick the tool for the job
And when have I ever implied that metaltech is in any way suited to replace the contents of the fridge? I think a few pages back I explicitly said that for uses related to life support, organotech is obviously the answer.
>> And at the moment, organotech is far enough behind the market will never even give it a chance to catch up. Not that it could in the first place.
We'll see
Based on the horse example, it would have to make at least two orders of magnitude improvement in specific power to be remotely competitive. Any sane investor would run away screaming.
>> radiation
Metal objects inside a reactor vessel break, due to neutron induced brittleness. Certain bacteria call it home, because their DNA is capable of constantly self repairing. But who'd want a near-pointless trait like that?
Because bacteria are remotely suited for structural use how?
-
Quote
>> Humans take far longer to self-repair then it takes us to repair just about anything
Handy to be able to self repair, so you can drag yourself over to your broken machinery and use external work rather than totally internalised resources to fix it, though
Yes, but if it takes your living ship twice as long to heal as it takes for my ship to repair at the yard, who wins?
I kind of liked this one: If the technology is eventually developed certain self repair in the field in twice the time would, indeed, be superior to returning to a navel yard for mechanical repairs as long as the travel distance to and from the SY was less then the 2-fold increase in repair time. Even if the healing system took longer there is something positive to be had in a system that would allow you to remain on post, although in a reduced capacity, and maintain your presence for defense and whatnot.
-
I kind of liked this one: If the technology is eventually developed certain self repair in the field in twice the time would, indeed, be superior to returning to a navel yard for mechanical repairs as long as the travel distance to and from the SY was less then the 2-fold increase in repair time. Even if the healing system took longer there is something positive to be had in a system that would allow you to remain on post, although in a reduced capacity, and maintain your presence for defense and whatnot.
This neglects the other drawbacks involved in it. I wasn't trying to put a hard number on the time difference, as I don't know those. Also, the self-repair mechanism must be close to the hull, and thus vulnerable to radiation. An enhanced-radiation warhead should disable it even if the other side loses. Plus, the self-repairer has to be fed, and how good of armor does it make, anyway? The equivalent of modern steel? Unlikely.
Wikipedia gives the growth rate for coral reefs as at most 9.8 inches per year. That's not very good for closing a hole, is it? To be useful, it's likely to take at least two if not three orders of magnitude improvement on that number. And that ignores all of the various bits inside which have to fix themselves as well.
-
>> For macro scale manufacturing, the current processes will remain in use.
Maybe. Every large scale creature uses nanoscale manufacturing techniques. Whilst the natural versions of those technique are undoubtably slower than, say, casting them in bronze, with a bit of intelligent development, we can probably learn to speed that up quite considerably, and make it work on a more suitable timescale
>> The organism does not use the temperature, which is a side effect of the cavitation bubble.
>> It's in a very small area, so the actual energy content is tiny.
The fact that it has acheived a startling high energy density with almost no energy doesn't earn it even a small salute? We need a whole plasma reactor or similar to get the effect
>> Biomecanical tricks can only take you so far. For spaceflight, or anything approaching it, you need an engineer's solution. How do you propose to make some sort of space vessel using these biomechanical tricks
Making a space vessel isn't that hard in theory. It needs to withstand whatever internal pressure you choose, withstand very low external temperatures, and either have an internal source of heat, or just cheat and hibernate the whole way. We have to build a (quite expensive) cryotube to do a job organic systems worked out millions of years ago. Getting into space is a different matter, 7 miles/s is currently beyond organic tech, but it's been beyond metaltech for most of history too. I wouldn't bet against it being possible to put a purely or mostly organic object in orbit
>> And another is? Waving your hands about "biomechanical tricks"? I'm getting annoyed with this disdain for engineering. If you have a better idea, tell us
Engineering is generally a quite linear method. Cause >> effect, and only that effect. Biology doesn't work like that. When the structure of DNA was worked out, everyone got excited becuase we'd soon be able to "read the book" on humans, and understand everything. Only it doesn't work that way. Genes are not single function. They can do multiple jobs in a single organism. They can do different jobs in different organisms. We share 60% of our genes with fruit flies apparently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/647139.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/647139.stm), but we have an endoskeleton, no wings, spherical lensed eyes, lungs. Very different, but built using a lot of the same instructions.
There's nothing wrong with engineering, but it's not the only possible approach
>> That said, I believe the original intent (technology that is alive) was clear when the statement was made from the context.
"Alive" is a tricky concept, as I said. In the last 3,000 years or so, the finest scientific and philosophical minds humanity has produced have failed to come up with a truly satisfactory definition. The problem is coming up with a definition that includes viruses and prions but excludes fire, for example. Being organic is a pre-requisite for all life we are aware of, but not all organic material is alive
>> And the point is? We do maintain horses, for any number of reasons.
You were representing shoeing and deworming as necessary for horses to be useful, which isn't the case. Doing those things makes them more useful to us, but they are not the basis of the horses utility, as you implied. Nor is domestication even an absolute requirement for utility. You can catch and kill a wild horse, and it's useful as food exactly as it is. You could never say the same for any ICE, however advanced
>> Because "never breaks down" is a legitimate design criteria
It's also an impossible one, as I'm sure you are aware. Entropy always wins, however long you stave it off. Organic systems do evolve, but only part of the population evolves. We can still find examples of what may be the earliest forms of life on Earth, right alongside more recently evolved examples, and they have survived for 4 billion years, largely unchanged today because they found a neat biomechanic trick for beating entropy : reproduction
>> To clarify: organotech refers to sci-fi type "living technology"
You're creating a false distinction. If it uses carbon as a necessary component, it's organic tech, by definition. It may also be alive, or not, but you have to be careful defining life. Consider a pencil. It has a wooden shell (organic, essentially sugar) and a graphite core (almost pure carbon, and hence organic). A pencil is clearly not alive. But if you put it into a bacterial digester which can break it down, and use those organic components to make new bacteria, you haven't changed the individual atoms, just rearranged them into a configuration we are pleased to label "life". If you extracted a carbon atom at random from the output, it would be impossible to say whether it came from the pencil or not. Life is not all that special, in that sense
>> Carbon fiber does not count
You are of course entitled to your opinion. The rest of science will hold its' own counsel
>> Yes, but if it takes your living ship twice as long to heal as it takes for my ship to repair at the yard, who wins?
Dependent on context. If I can heal in place, or in any random location I like, that's quite flexible. Going back to a yard introduces a locational constraint on your repair capabilities. If I destroy your yard, or even just deny you access to it, you have no options at all. Who wins then?
>> Because bacteria are remotely suited for structural use how?
An individual bacteria, not so much. But the trait could potentially be transferred to a more structurally useful organism. This is one of the fundamental strengths of organic tech, flexibility
>> Also, the self-repair mechanism must be close to the hull, and thus vulnerable to radiation.
That's an interesting use of the word "must" given that no organic self repair system we know of works that way. I've also already demonstrated that organic systems have the capacity (although it's not necessarily present in a given system) to be more resistant to radiation than any conceivable metaltech equivalent
>> Wikipedia gives the growth rate for coral reefs as at most 9.8 inches per year. That's not very good for closing a hole, is it? To be useful, it's likely to take at least two if not three orders of magnitude improvement on that number.
And certain species of bamboo grow a metre in 24 hours. Oh look, an improvement on your cherry picked number of two if not three orders of magnitude
-
The one thing that I think was missed long ago is this: Profit motive. Centuries ago it was established that if a person creates a metaltech (to use byrons term) object that person gets to lay claim to that object and directly profit from it more or less. Today we call it a patent. This created an environment fostering metaltech design and since then objects have been improved and refined in the name of making a better object for making more money.
Herein lies the problem. Byron keeps going back to insufficient development on Organotech as a reason to avoid using it and he is partially right. But it was only recently (I think 1982) when an individual plant gene was allowed to be patented. Organic technologies, in respect to food production, were only openly commercialized 30 years ago and that opened the door to the commercialization of new organic based technologies that no one had considered before. Our industrial and research capacities today are collectively much greater than 100's of years ago, but 30 years of applied research cannot possibly make up for the loss of hundreds of years of human ingenuity. We won't need to wait 100's of years to see results as organotech is advancing by leaps and bounds (or orders of magnitude X) due to this increased R&D capacity.
Bottom line: there has been a lag in commercial development of organic systems that is only recently being addressed. Give it a little time.
-
Maybe. Every large scale creature uses nanoscale manufacturing techniques. Whilst the natural versions of those technique are undoubtably slower than, say, casting them in bronze, with a bit of intelligent development, we can probably learn to speed that up quite considerably, and make it work on a more suitable timescale
We use nanoscale techniques because we are built on a nanoscale. A piece of steel is not.
>> The organism does not use the temperature, which is a side effect of the cavitation bubble.
>> It's in a very small area, so the actual energy content is tiny.
The fact that it has acheived a startling high energy density with almost no energy doesn't earn it even a small salute? We need a whole plasma reactor or similar to get the effect
What? No, it happens unintentionally all the time. Cavitation is also caused by things like ship's propellers. And I do find the ability to create and use cavitation bubbles impressive.
Making a space vessel isn't that hard in theory. It needs to withstand whatever internal pressure you choose, withstand very low external temperatures, and either have an internal source of heat, or just cheat and hibernate the whole way. We have to build a (quite expensive) cryotube to do a job organic systems worked out millions of years ago. Getting into space is a different matter, 7 miles/s is currently beyond organic tech, but it's been beyond metaltech for most of history too. I wouldn't bet against it being possible to put a purely or mostly organic object in orbit
And how does this organic vessel move? To get anywhere with any speed requires a metaltech engine.
Engineering is generally a quite linear method. Cause >> effect, and only that effect. Biology doesn't work like that. When the structure of DNA was worked out, everyone got excited becuase we'd soon be able to "read the book" on humans, and understand everything. Only it doesn't work that way. Genes are not single function. They can do multiple jobs in a single organism. They can do different jobs in different organisms. We share 60% of our genes with fruit flies apparently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/647139.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/647139.stm), but we have an endoskeleton, no wings, spherical lensed eyes, lungs. Very different, but built using a lot of the same instructions.
There's nothing wrong with engineering, but it's not the only possible approach
Because humans designed living organisms. You do know what they call people who work with genes? Bioengineers.
You were representing shoeing and deworming as necessary for horses to be useful, which isn't the case. Doing those things makes them more useful to us, but they are not the basis of the horses utility, as you implied. Nor is domestication even an absolute requirement for utility. You can catch and kill a wild horse, and it's useful as food exactly as it is. You could never say the same for any ICE, however advanced
Did you even look at the context. I was not discussing general utility. I was discussing utility as a source of motive power. And in those circumstances, shoeing greatly enhances the utility of the horse. An ICE can go without maintainence, too, and probably will last about as long.
>> Because "never breaks down" is a legitimate design criteria
It's also an impossible one, as I'm sure you are aware. Entropy always wins, however long you stave it off. Organic systems do evolve, but only part of the population evolves. We can still find examples of what may be the earliest forms of life on Earth, right alongside more recently evolved examples, and they have survived for 4 billion years, largely unchanged today because they found a neat biomechanic trick for beating entropy : reproduction
Do you not understand sarcasm?
>> To clarify: organotech refers to sci-fi type "living technology"
You're creating a false distinction. If it uses carbon as a necessary component, it's organic tech, by definition. It may also be alive, or not, but you have to be careful defining life. Consider a pencil. It has a wooden shell (organic, essentially sugar) and a graphite core (almost pure carbon, and hence organic). A pencil is clearly not alive. But if you put it into a bacterial digester which can break it down, and use those organic components to make new bacteria, you haven't changed the individual atoms, just rearranged them into a configuration we are pleased to label "life". If you extracted a carbon atom at random from the output, it would be impossible to say whether it came from the pencil or not. Life is not all that special, in that sense
Have you ever considered the fact that there might be a definition for the word "organic" besides the one taught in chemistry? Another one is "Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms" which is the one I have been using the whole time. I'm fairly sure everyone else figured that out after my first post.
>> Yes, but if it takes your living ship twice as long to heal as it takes for my ship to repair at the yard, who wins?
Dependent on context. If I can heal in place, or in any random location I like, that's quite flexible. Going back to a yard introduces a locational constraint on your repair capabilities. If I destroy your yard, or even just deny you access to it, you have no options at all. Who wins then?
This assumes the entire ship can self-repair. Any high-energy system will be (by you own last post) metaltech, so it will also need yard work. Ship repair involves more then sealing hull breaches.
>> Because bacteria are remotely suited for structural use how?
An individual bacteria, not so much. But the trait could potentially be transferred to a more structurally useful organism. This is one of the fundamental strengths of organic tech, flexibility
Maybe. Or maybe not. I'm not sure about the magnitude of radiation resistance of these things.
>> Also, the self-repair mechanism must be close to the hull, and thus vulnerable to radiation.
That's an interesting use of the word "must" given that no organic self repair system we know of works that way. I've also already demonstrated that organic systems have the capacity (although it's not necessarily present in a given system) to be more resistant to radiation than any conceivable metaltech equivalent
What do you mean? If it has to fix the hull, I'm going to assume that it's going to be part of it. Unless it's actually a biological damage control team, which we already have.
>> Wikipedia gives the growth rate for coral reefs as at most 9.8 inches per year. That's not very good for closing a hole, is it? To be useful, it's likely to take at least two if not three orders of magnitude improvement on that number.
And certain species of bamboo grow a metre in 24 hours. Oh look, an improvement on your cherry picked number of two if not three orders of magnitude
Coral was mentioned upthread by someone else. Also, it strikes me as being more suitable for starship hulls then bamboo.
As a warning, I'm very close to terminating this debate. You persist in misinterpreting my statements even after I've clarified them several times. I'm not sure if you're a troll or an idiot, but I'm going to give you one last chance.
-
The one thing that I think was missed long ago is this: Profit motive. Centuries ago it was established that if a person creates a metaltech (to use byrons term) object that person gets to lay claim to that object and directly profit from it more or less. Today we call it a patent. This created an environment fostering metaltech design and since then objects have been improved and refined in the name of making a better object for making more money.
Herein lies the problem. Byron keeps going back to insufficient development on Organotech as a reason to avoid using it and he is partially right. But it was only recently (I think 1982) when an individual plant gene was allowed to be patented. Organic technologies, in respect to food production, were only openly commercialized 30 years ago and that opened the door to the commercialization of new organic based technologies that no one had considered before. Our industrial and research capacities today are collectively much greater than 100's of years ago, but 30 years of applied research cannot possibly make up for the loss of hundreds of years of human ingenuity. We won't need to wait 100's of years to see results as organotech is advancing by leaps and bounds (or orders of magnitude X) due to this increased R&D capacity.
Bottom line: there has been a lag in commercial development of organic systems that is only recently being addressed. Give it a little time.
That's not the case, though it is an excellent point. When I say organotech, I mean living equivalents of metaltech. I do not mean biotech as the phrase is used today. The problem with organotech is that it is so far behind, and so much money will have to be poured into it to make a profit, no investor will touch it. Again, this is the living equivalent of an ICE, not a new drug.
-
Gentlemen: Please remember the rules - no flames!
Thank you,
John
-
Yes, lots of money will need to be spent and is being spent. Right now select few companies are spending ridiculous amounts of money on such endeavors. Monsanto, horns and all, is spending ludicrous amounts of money in bio-tech areas as we speak. Most of the R&D is being performed in University Labs under the guise of education and non-profit organizations to reduce expenses. Like metaltech we have to get a firm grasp on the core technologies to advance development. Baby-steps if you will. Bio-tech, GMOs, and the like are the precursors to perfecting living technologies for our own use. If we can engineer a plant gene to be 100% impervious to the effects of a specific herbicide on damaging it's ability to replicate how much of a stretch is it to engineer that same plant to be impervious to radiation damaging it's ability to replicate? and the now not so great of a leap to a applying that ability to non-plant species?
The thought makes me smile. One of the major drawbacks to space exploration is bringing along enough food, water and air for travel or bases. The size of the craft at current technologies is a limiting factor. If plants can be grown without need for radiation shielding that is a huge step in the right direction and also provides a renewable source of life support without the need for infrastructure to protect from radiation from that portion of the ship/base.
-
Gentlemen: Please remember the rules - no flames!
Thank you,
John
So far this is the most civil forum discussion I have ever participated in. ;)
Although, I really wish people would stop the multi-quote posts and just post a continuous thought instead of numerous line-by-line rebuttals.
-
Yes, lots of money will need to be spent and is being spent. Right now select few companies are spending ridiculous amounts of money on such endeavors. Monsanto, horns and all, is spending ludicrous amounts of money in bio-tech areas as we speak. Most of the R&D is being performed in University Labs under the guise of education and non-profit organizations to reduce expenses. Like metaltech we have to get a firm grasp on the core technologies to advance development. Baby-steps if you will. Bio-tech, GMOs, and the like are the precursors to perfecting living technologies for our own use. If we can engineer a plant gene to be 100% impervious to the effects of a specific herbicide on damaging it's ability to replicate how much of a stretch is it to engineer that same plant to be impervious to radiation damaging it's ability to replicate? and the now not so great of a leap to a applying that ability to non-plant species?
The thought makes me smile. One of the major drawbacks to space exploration is bringing along enough food, water and air for travel or bases. The size of the craft at current technologies is a limiting factor. If plants can be grown without need for radiation shielding that is a huge step in the right direction and also provides a renewable source of life support without the need for infrastructure to protect from radiation from that portion of the ship/base.
Again, there's a world of difference between biotech and organotech. However, that's not the main point. I have the perfect example of alternate technologies not being developed. The steam engine. At one point, steam powered automobiles were available. With sufficient money (considerably less then is required for organotech) it could be competitive with the ICE. However, nobody has been willing to spend that much. What makes you think that organotech will be different, particularly given how much more work there is to do, and how much less certain we are that it's even possible.
Also, I've stated that biotech is not useless, and a contender for things like life support. The radiation-resistant plants are a really good idea. The only possible problem is neutron activation, which would make them difficult to eat. Also, I believe that plants are significantly more radiation-resistant then humans, so I'm not sure it's needed.
-
Reading this discussion in a British accent is highly entertaining, especially the quasi-insults ("And another is? Waving your hands about "biomechanical tricks"?")
-
British accent. lol This whole time I have been reading the forums I do that. From my initial exposure to Aurora I knew Steve to be a citizen of the UK and have always read it with that dialect.
Vast resources were spent on steam engine R&D. It is still being developed on a massive scale even today. I think the major drawback on steam at the time you are thinking was efficiency at the sized needed for a auto. So much of the energy produced in a steam engine of a scale small enough for personal transportation was lost to heat that had to be vented that it rendered it impractical. It is a technology that scales well though. Larger containment systems that were able to capture and retain that heat and effectively "reuse" it were impressively efficient. Much to my chagrin it made it so efficient that we continue to use the modern day equivalent for a huge portion of our power world-wide. Millions (Billions?) of dollars have been spent on clean-coal research and methods to scrub emissions from coal plants. One of my favorite techs being actively developed right now in my home city has been algae CO2 farms. The emissions from coal burning plants are pumped through algae vats and the extremely CO2 rich air causes explosive algae growth. The algae is then refined for ethanol and the air being vented from the algae farms is vastly cleaner, neigh comparable to the air that was being fed into the combustion chambers initially.
-
So far this is the most civil forum discussion I have ever participated in. ;)
Although, I really wish people would stop the multi-quote posts and just post a continuous thought instead of numerous line-by-line rebuttals.
Unfortunately, this is starting to get quite vitriolic for these forums ;)
As John said, no flames. Or I break out the trout and start fish-slapping people.
-
Vast resources were spent on steam engine R&D. It is still being developed on a massive scale even today. I think the major drawback on steam at the time you are thinking was efficiency at the sized needed for a auto. So much of the energy produced in a steam engine of a scale small enough for personal transportation was lost to heat that had to be vented that it rendered it impractical. It is a technology that scales well though. Larger containment systems that were able to capture and retain that heat and effectively "reuse" it were impressively efficient. Much to my chagrin it made it so efficient that we continue to use the modern day equivalent for a huge portion of our power world-wide. Millions (Billions?) of dollars have been spent on clean-coal research and methods to scrub emissions from coal plants. One of my favorite techs being actively developed right now in my home city has been algae CO2 farms. The emissions from coal burning plants are pumped through algae vats and the extremely CO2 rich air causes explosive algae growth. The algae is then refined for ethanol and the air being vented from the algae farms is vastly cleaner, neigh comparable to the air that was being fed into the combustion chambers initially.
I am aware of industrial steam power (which is technically steam turbines instead of steam engines). I was speaking particularly of steam cars, for which my point stands.
And I apologize for any vitriol.
-
No apologies needed for me specifically. I have a fire-retardant internet suit.
So, how exactly would steam power work in zero G? The combustion of the fuel would be the same and heat created is no different. Without the stratifying effect of warmer air rising over cooler air could it even function? An ICE literally wouldn't work without a radical redesign in the fuel delivery system but a steam turbine might.
-
No apologies needed for me specifically. I have a fire-retardant internet suit.
So, how exactly would steam power work in zero G? The combustion of the fuel would be the same and heat created is no different. Without the stratifying effect of warmer air rising over cooler air could it even function? An ICE literally wouldn't work without a radical redesign in the fuel delivery system but a steam turbine might.
Where did that come from? It's not a problem, just surprising.
That said, I don’t see any problem with steam in space. A turbine would probably be used instead of a reciprocating engine, and I believe that's an option for space nuclear power.
Edit:
Something went wrong when I tried to post this.
That said, you're probably right about the suitability of an ICE for long-term operation in zero-G. At the same time, a normal steam engine would have similar problems. I don't believe that either has problems that render it impossible to design one for zero-G use.
At the same time, I can think of no reason to put either one in space. While it might be argued that the SSMEs contain a steam turbine as part of the turbopump, it feeds off of the fuel. For general use, ICEs would require oxygen, and the only option for steam that is a net energy gain and doesn't require oxygen is solar-thermal. It's not a bad idea, but solar panels work better.
-
Just a general observation: Technology allows us to change roles quickly.
As a human, we can't breathe underwater, fly, go in space, or sustain any kind of physical trauma. With technology, that all changes. Further, it changes on a temporary basis. We can grab SCUBA gear, or get in an airplane, or fly a space shuttle, or wear armor. A living organism is effectively static while it is alive; it can't change roles. Also, individually, each piece of technology can do the job better than an organism. Individually we can make submarines that outperform sperm whales, power plants that produce ridiculous amounts of energy, etc. Of course, you can't expect submarines to breed or colonize a planet, but at least their occupants can get out of the submarine and get onto an airplane or a spaceship and do the colonizing themselves, in their own lifetimes.
I'm a biologist and my own personal area of fascination is closed ecological life support systems (CELSS). I've done a lot of reading of NASA's research and the Biosphere experiments. I happen to think greenhouses are the way to go for big long missions. There's something to be said, though, for the simplicity and complete reliability of mechanical life support and I doubt any ship life support will run solely on plant/algae/fish with no mechanical backup. Small ships will most likely always be mechanical. If your living life support system gets out of balance, you're in trouble.
TallTroll, a quick side note: popular definition of the term 'organic' is quite different from the various scientific definitions. In general, we should clarify if our definitions vary from the popular definitions, especially if you specialize in a field. Serious problems have arisen in the past when scientifically trained people assume the audience uses words in the same way as the speaker. I understand and sympathize with the viewpoint of organic chemistry, of course, and have been through dozens of discussions about this in the real world (organic pesticide, organic food, organic medicine, organic this organic that). This is a conclusion I've drawn after a lot of hard experience. Almost nobody engages in a real-world, non-professional discussion involving the word 'organic' with 'carbon-containing' in mind.
-
Well, in theory if you can grow plants in space you could produce fuel for a combustion engine. Not practical, but possible. Where I was going with this is that they both operate on organic fuels. Stuff that doesn't need sophisticated facilities to produce. Probably more of a NA concept but a greenhouse could propel itself given there really isn't anything to slow down your movement once you get started.
Edit: that's hilarious that I was sniped on my idea while I thought up a response.
To someones defense: when I hear and use the term organic in daily conversation, as long as we are not talking about food, my assumption is a product that utilizes primarily carbon based materials that can be easily broken down by natural entities. This would included manufactured hard goods as well as living materials designed for specific industrial/commercial purposes.
-
... when I hear and use the term organic in daily conversation, as long as we are not talking about food, my assumption is a product that utilizes primarily carbon based materials that can be easily broken down by natural entities. This would included manufactured hard goods as well as living materials designed for specific industrial/commercial purposes.
Yea, I reread my last paragraph, came off as rather critical. Didn't intend it that way. I was thinking mostly of this chart that Bad Astronomy links to:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/19/scientists-are-from-mars-the-public-is-from-earth/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/19/scientists-are-from-mars-the-public-is-from-earth/)
-
Well, in theory if you can grow plants in space you could produce fuel for a combustion engine. Not practical, but possible. Where I was going with this is that they both operate on organic fuels. Stuff that doesn't need sophisticated facilities to produce. Probably more of a NA concept but a greenhouse could propel itself given there really isn't anything to slow down your movement once you get started.
Edit: that's hilarious that I was sniped on my idea while I thought up a response.
To someones defense: when I hear and use the term organic in daily conversation, as long as we are not talking about food, my assumption is a product that utilizes primarily carbon based materials that can be easily broken down by natural entities. This would included manufactured hard goods as well as living materials designed for specific industrial/commercial purposes.
The problem with this plan is that it's a really inefficient form of solar power. It would work, but it would be inefficient in the extreme.
Instead of taking solar through panels directly to the electric thruster, it would take solar (I assume) to plants to fuel to the engine to a generator to the thrusters. If you use artificial lights to grow the plants, it's even worse.
Generally, elaborate plans like this run into these sorts of problems. Rube Goldberg works great on TV. In real life, not so much.
And I am (and was) aware of the chemical definition of the word organic. It's just that I couldn't think of another word that conveyed what I had in mind without being exceedingly long and unweildly. Also, it was the word used in the original article I linked to.
-
It is extremely inefficient but the system may have benefits. Your fuel supply doubles as your life support systems and the combustion engines would create the fuel needed by the plants to grow. Kind of a miniature biosphere life-support fuel supply system.
Dude, I am grasping. I am at the limits of my learned facts and skills and into the realm of educated guesses based on my perception of logical theories.
To me the end goal of any biotech system is not efficiency, but longevity. The ability for systems to replicate and repair is the best feature. This would enable extremely long duration missions. In the realm of Aurora where you would not be traveling outside of a solar systems limits and remain near enough to the star to produce enough light to fuel your greenhouse you could run a base near indefinitely.
-
I doubt using plants as fuel will be a good idea. Ethanol fuel for spaceships? Still need energy input from somewhere. Nuclear is a better source. Energy input would come either from the sun if you're close, or from nuclear powered lighting - it's not really a perpetual energy machine, just a perpetual fresh-air 'machine'.
The advantage of closed ecological life support systems is that you preserve your original stores of oxygen etc. With mechanical life support, you will eventually run short on either oxygen or rebreathing agent such as lime. However, the break-even point is pretty high. You need infrastructure for greenhouses. The upside is you get fresh water, food and fish, possibly even tiny amounts of meat on ships with greenhouses. Also, green space for mental health. For space stations or huge ships, it will be an option - especially if you are close enough to a star.
-
It is extremely inefficient but the system may have benefits. Your fuel supply doubles as your life support systems and the combustion engines would create the fuel needed by the plants to grow. Kind of a miniature biosphere life-support fuel supply system.
That's how a normal closed-cycle life support system works. All you're doing is increasing the size of the system for no particular benefit.
Dude, I am grasping. I am at the limits of my learned facts and skills and into the realm of educated guesses based on my perception of logical theories.
Yes, you are grasping. At least you're willing to admit it. ;)
And really, that's fine. It's how you learn more facts.
To me the end goal of any biotech system is not efficiency, but longevity. The ability for systems to replicate and repair is the best feature. This would enable extremely long duration missions. In the realm of Aurora where you would not be traveling outside of a solar systems limits and remain near enough to the star to produce enough light to fuel your greenhouse you could run a base near indefinitely.
The problem is that, given that this is a spaceship, it's going to fail at about the same point anyway. Solar panels are quite reliable, and all the other bits are the same in both systems. Even if those don't break, the real limiting factor is going to be reaction mass. And given that this system is stuck near the sun (probably inside the asteroid belt), there just aren't enough places to go to be of any value. Canned life support is a better choice for those sorts of missions, much less plant-electric.
Lav:
That's pretty much my read on the situation. If you haven't already seen it, check out http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/lifesupport.php.
The break-even point is a matter of debate, and will doubtlessly change as more research is done. I wonder, is Aurora based closed-cycle systems?
-
In Astra Imperia I put in "Organic Armor" which merely self-repairs. It is not grown or anything like that. I used the term organic to differentiate it from the normal armor types.
-
That said, I don’t see any problem with steam in space.
Piiiiiggggss Iiiiinnnnnnn Spaaaaaaaaaccccccceeeeeeeee!!!
-
I doubt using plants as fuel will be a good idea. Ethanol fuel for spaceships? Still need energy input from somewhere. Nuclear is a better source. Energy input would come either from the sun if you're close, or from nuclear powered lighting - it's not really a perpetual energy machine, just a perpetual fresh-air 'machine'.
Errr chalk me up as stupid but plant matter as fuel? Wouldnt running out of fuel mean hat you are essentially left without life support food etc? After all you need a reaction mass thus that wonderful carbo-hydrates gets thrown into space.
I dont see a problem with steam in space. A turbine and good heater would be needed but after that it would work i say, still some serious engineering here.
Solar-thermics being less efficient the Photovoltaics? Depends on the task, if you need heat for some kind of process its a good choice (like certain forms of cracking Co2 into carbon and Oxygen). If you include a Sterling engine you may not get the same energy as from PV but you can include some kind of backup energy source like Nuclear-decay batteries. The Nasa is actualy developing (http://"http://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/PDF_FILES/09_NF_PPC_Schmidt.pdf") some "advanced" (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Stirling_Radioisotope_Generator") Stirling-generators. Iirc Solar-thermics (vacuum tubes) are ~70% efficient and depending on design Stirlings 15-30% which would sum up to a range of 10 to 21% add a 80% efficient generator and we get to 8 to 16%? Althought you could heat the sterling via mirrors which gets you 12 - 24%.
Err back to organics.
The problem with Living organics is that to enable stuff like self repair you need quite a couple of systems like circulatory systems that pump fluids carbon and stuff. The middle ground to that and sheets of metal are self-repairing plastics/ceramics, thus materials that either store pockets of theyr base material (say bubbles of UV cured resins) or depend on other much more complicated reactions like this selfhealing polymer (http://"http://abstracts.acs.org/chem/243nm/program/view.php?pub_num=134&par=POLY") described by the American Chemical Society. The self-healing is more limited then in true biological systems since the repairable damage limited in some way or another.
One problem i see with fully organic living systems is energy storage. Sugars/starch (/etc.) isnt much of an option since one would have to have tons of oxygen to use that power, carry around solvents etc. - it would be atleast a economic headache. I guess one could use some kind battery like system but i am not aware of any organism that does that unless you count potatos with electrodes ;)
-
Errr chalk me up as stupid but plant matter as fuel? Wouldnt running out of fuel mean hat you are essentially left without life support food etc? After all you need a reaction mass thus that wonderful carbo-hydrates gets thrown into space.
You're confusing fuel and remass (which isn't all that uncommon). Yes, you could use the ethanol iteself as remass. The problem there is that you also need the oxygen, and we were discussing internal combustion engines. The remass is whatever gets used for the electric thruster, probably one of the noble gasses. The biomass is fuel for the engine, which provides the energy. In modern chemical rockets, they are the same thing.
Solar-thermics being less efficient the Photovoltaics? Depends on the task, if you need heat for some kind of process its a good choice (like certain forms of cracking Co2 into carbon and Oxygen). If you include a Sterling engine you may not get the same energy as from PV but you can include some kind of backup energy source like Nuclear-decay batteries. The Nasa is actualy developing (http://"http://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/PDF_FILES/09_NF_PPC_Schmidt.pdf") some "advanced" (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Stirling_Radioisotope_Generator") Stirling-generators. Iirc Solar-thermics (vacuum tubes) are ~70% efficient and depending on design Stirlings 15-30% which would sum up to a range of 10 to 21% add a 80% efficient generator and we get to 8 to 16%? Althought you could heat the sterling via mirrors which gets you 12 - 24%.
Again, I was discussing converting light into electricity. The problem with solar-thermal is that you need a cold-side radiator, which I think is going to be almost as big as the mirror. As for RTGs, those are not secondary power sources. Given that they can't be turned off, why use solar?
-
The remass is whatever gets used for the electric thruster, probably one of the noble gasses.
I would argue using water for the reaction mass would be logistically better.
Yes, I know it doesn't work as well since it ties up more energy in intermolecular bonds instead of speed (and hence efficiency is lower) But water ice is semi-plentiful in systems. With a high density energy source like AM or nuclear fusion, a fleet tanker could pack ice mining equipment and refuel reaction mass from asteroids.
If you have DD fusion or even HH fusion, water ice contains your fusion power source as well!
If you are feeling adventurous, hydrogen might be an option as well. Scoop from gas giants sounds like a recipe for Fun though. Swing into a massive gravity well to scoop hydrogen from a gas giant while relying on your speed to get back out (and scooping will put drag on your ship... ^^)
-
They are catching up!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17855194
On the whole organics thing I do like Peter Hamilton's take on it in his Night's Dawn(?) trilogy. Seeding a ship and leaving it grow itself in the atmosphere of a gas giant might take time but not needed any infrastructure and being able to grow 100s at once isn't a bad trade off in my books. I seem to recollect that the ships then had weapon pods etc just bolted onto them which solves alot of the whole organic solution for everything issue.
-
[...]
You're confusing fuel and remass (which isn't all that uncommon). Yes, you could use the ethanol iteself as remass. The problem there is that you also need the oxygen, and we were discussing internal combustion engines. The remass is whatever gets used for the electric thruster, probably one of the noble gasses. The biomass is fuel for the engine, which provides the energy. In modern chemical rockets, they are the same thing.
Ah ok i see where i made a mistake. I dont see why one should use an ICE, Alcohol fuelcells (heck there are Diesel fuelcells that are 60% efficient) seem to be a better choice.
Again, I was discussing converting light into electricity. The problem with solar-thermal is that you need a cold-side radiator, which I think is going to be almost as big as the mirror. As for RTGs, those are not secondary power sources. Given that they can't be turned off, why use solar?
I wouldnt be surprised if your Photovoltaics have to be cooled as well somehow althought they could work as theyr own radiator. Only around 20% of the sunlight gets turned into Electric power so you have to deal with 80% that remain. Part of it will be reflected but another will just heat your pannels up.
The RTGs where just an example for backup power. You could also burn fuel (like the ethanol from your Horse / ICE discussion) as well as disolve Ammonia or caustic soda in water or whatever you like. Heck you could use the heat from composting your biodegradable waste. I agree thought that RTGs are more suited for Main Powersuply - they were a rather bad example.
Depending on how far i am from the star i would anyway switch from one form of power generation to another. For once i would use Solarwind power if i am in the inner parts of the system since catching electrons (and ions) form the solar wind needs only a antenna and some tinfoil. On the outskirts thought i would prefer to have trusty RTG or Traveling wave reactor althought i am normaly against fission reactors.
-
Ah ok i see where i made a mistake. I dont see why one should use an ICE, Alcohol fuelcells (heck there are Diesel fuelcells that are 60% efficient) seem to be a better choice.
That could work too. I'm not an expert in space power systems.
I wouldnt be surprised if your Photovoltaics have to be cooled as well somehow althought they could work as theyr own radiator. Only around 20% of the sunlight gets turned into Electric power so you have to deal with 80% that remain. Part of it will be reflected but another will just heat your pannels up.
The RTGs where just an example for backup power. You could also burn fuel (like the ethanol from your Horse / ICE discussion) as well as disolve Ammonia or caustic soda in water or whatever you like. Heck you could use the heat from composting your biodegradable waste. I agree thought that RTGs are more suited for Main Powersuply - they were a rather bad example.
Depending on how far i am from the star i would anyway switch from one form of power generation to another. For once i would use Solarwind power if i am in the inner parts of the system since catching electrons (and ions) form the solar wind needs only a antenna and some tinfoil. On the outskirts thought i would prefer to have trusty RTG or Traveling wave reactor althought i am normaly against fission reactors.
Backup power supply would probably be batteries. I'd imagine that the RTG and whatever thermal generator it has are well-matched.
And I'm under the impression that solar panels serve as their own radiators.
Solar wind power? I'd never heard of it, and despite a little bit of research, I'm still not sure exactly how it works.
The problem with proposing multiple power systems is mass efficiency. If a given system has enough power, then don't bother with anything else, particularly given that your power requirements will stay static or increase as you move away from the sun.
I would argue using water for the reaction mass would be logistically better.
Yes, I know it doesn't work as well since it ties up more energy in intermolecular bonds instead of speed (and hence efficiency is lower) But water ice is semi-plentiful in systems. With a high density energy source like AM or nuclear fusion, a fleet tanker could pack ice mining equipment and refuel reaction mass from asteroids.
If you have DD fusion or even HH fusion, water ice contains your fusion power source as well!
If you are feeling adventurous, hydrogen might be an option as well. Scoop from gas giants sounds like a recipe for Fun though. Swing into a massive gravity well to scoop hydrogen from a gas giant while relying on your speed to get back out (and scooping will put drag on your ship... ^^)
I really, really doubt that water would be a good choice for ion thrusters. Most of the ones I've looked at use noble gasses, which are far less reactive then water. For a thermal engine, on the other hand, it's a very viable option. The only qualm I have is that hydrogen might be too valuable, but in that case LOX is a good second choice.
And I really, really doubt we'll ever see D-D fusion as a power source. He3-D and D-T are much more practical. Take everything above to the 20th power for H-H.
They are catching up!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17855194
On the whole organics thing I do like Peter Hamilton's take on it in his Night's Dawn(?) trilogy. Seeding a ship and leaving it grow itself in the atmosphere of a gas giant might take time but not needed any infrastructure and being able to grow 100s at once isn't a bad trade off in my books. I seem to recollect that the ships then had weapon pods etc just bolted onto them which solves alot of the whole organic solution for everything issue.
How does a pigeon being able to detect magnetic fields help make living spacecraft? That's not a terribly difficult thing to do, nor does it require high energy.
Grow in the atmosphere of a gas giant? What's it made out of? Metallic hydrogen?
As for bolting on the high-tech bits, sure, it's possible. But why? Generally, those are the pacing items in ship construction. An organic hull really isn't really that big of a cost-saver. Also, the self-repair ability is very limited, given that all the gadgets must be replaced.
-
I've always been a bit confused by living hulls. Take a look at your own skin - it's very squishy and has a vulnerable and expensive support network of blood vessels and nerves just below the surface. Even a beetle's exoskeleton is very thin and not strong if you scale it up. Also, exoskeletons don't repair very easily compared to squishy skins like ours. I'll take a foot of steel armor any day. Finally, burns or injuries will cripple most living organisms such as a living hull and cause months of 'hospital' time for only a partial restoration of functionality. In the same time span during World War II we routinely rebuilt damaged ships completely and sent them back out into the battle lines.
-
A followup with a different idea: I think a far better solution for organic technology is to change from organic to nanobot handwaving. Nanobots could repair metallic armor in flight without the necessity to suppose the ship is alive. Nanobots could do molecular assembly of non-living ships from seeded material. Of course, nanobots seem further from reality as the years go on, but what can ya do.
-
Byron - Hyperspace - how are we going to do that - rub a genie's lamp and pray?? No but you don't see anyone else on this forum jumping on your acceptance of this in you "hard-fi" view of what the game should and should not include. Why? Because, unlike you, everyone else seems to be able to accept there is a simple difference of opinion over what constitutes a good sci-fi game and no arguing over current real world physics is ever going to change this.
Your retorts are quite frankly offensive, often appearning to be deliberately seeking to miss the point of the post and out of keeping with this forum. In future I would prefer it if you simply did not respond to anything I write unless you actually have something that adds to the discussion.
-
Solar wind power? I'd never heard of it, and despite a little bit of research, I'm still not sure exactly how it works.
Its from an alternate proposal for Dyson spheres which as its turns out is a quite viable way to produce power and can be setup with the current tech. The Satellite itself is called a "Dyson-Harrop satellite" (PDF) (http://"www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2010/pdf/5469.pdf"). New Scientist had an article (http://"http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19497-outofthisworld-proposal-for-solar-wind-power.html") on it which cought my eye.
As for organic armor: Tortoise and musel-shels come to mind but again the self-healing part is limited. I wouldnt mind selfhealing armor if its heavier the a compare-able metaltecharmor.
-
Solar wind and solar sails do seem to be viable propulsion production possibility. In other corners of the internet I have read about a number of craft proposals that used solar sails. The downside is that that are extremely thin and like a regular sail boat would be easily damaged my any impact. They produce relatively little power but the power generated is constant and requires fairly minimal complexity in the systems.
-
Byron - Hyperspace - how are we going to do that - rub a genie's lamp and pray?? No but you don't see anyone else on this forum jumping on your acceptance of this in you "hard-fi" view of what the game should and should not include. Why? Because, unlike you, everyone else seems to be able to accept there is a simple difference of opinion over what constitutes a good sci-fi game and no arguing over current real world physics is ever going to change this.
You forget that he said that he isn't arguing against putting or not putting the stuff in the game, he's arguing against others calling it realistic.
That does seem to be the crux of the issue. I have no problem with sci-fantasy, but my bias is towards hard sci-fi, and when people try to pass things off as hard it bothers me quite a bit.
Claiming that Aurora isn't real so we can do whatever we want is missing the point. I'm arguing that, from a realistic perspective, self-repairing starships don't work. You are free to say "damn the science, full speed ahead" and I'm not going to stop you. At the same time, if you claim that they are realistic, I will argue the point.
Also, entertaining thread is entertaining, despite me knowing nearly nothing about what everyone is discussing. :P
-
Byron - Hyperspace - how are we going to do that - rub a genie's lamp and pray?? No but you don't see anyone else on this forum jumping on your acceptance of this in you "hard-fi" view of what the game should and should not include. Why? Because, unlike you, everyone else seems to be able to accept there is a simple difference of opinion over what constitutes a good sci-fi game and no arguing over current real world physics is ever going to change this.
Your retorts are quite frankly offensive, often appearning to be deliberately seeking to miss the point of the post and out of keeping with this forum. In future I would prefer it if you simply did not respond to anything I write unless you actually have something that adds to the discussion.
???
Where did this come from? I apologize if I've been offensive. I did not intend to do so.
Hyperspace? Where did I suggest that?
I have never suggested that my hard sci-fi tastes are shared by everyone. However, I am allowed to hold them, and evaluate other people's suggestions based on them. This obviously differs from your tastes, but I'm OK with that. WRT your last post, all of those were points that struck me to be more along the lines of "it is realistic" which I obviously refuted, as I had stated I would.
You forget that he said that he isn't arguing against putting or not putting the stuff in the game, he's arguing against others calling it realistic.
I am against putting the stuff in, but I respect that others can hold different opinions. And thanks for digging out those quotes.
Lav:
Nanobots are significantly more practical, but I still really doubt their use. I think it will always be easier to bolt on new armor, even if the nanobots weren't destroyed in the battle.
-
Apologies Byron, wires crossed with tone I think. My reference to the birds article was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, I was not trying to argue any sort of evolutionary start point for use in an organic space ship (I was trying to lighten the tone of the thread) and I deliberately referenced the growth of organic ships to a sci-fi book at it is absolutely not something I see as realistic - just something I would really enjoy seeing in a game. Hopefully that explains why I responded as I did.
On another note I'm amazed we have gotten this far into an organics thread and nobody has raised the topic of ESP or other developments of the brain.....
-
Apologies Byron, wires crossed with tone I think. My reference to the birds article was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, I was not trying to argue any sort of evolutionary start point for use in an organic space ship (I was trying to lighten the tone of the thread) and I deliberately referenced the growth of organic ships to a sci-fi book at it is absolutely not something I see as realistic - just something I would really enjoy seeing in a game. Hopefully that explains why I responded as I did.
On another note I'm amazed we have gotten this far into an organics thread and nobody has raised the topic of ESP or other developments of the brain.....
Apparently so. I'm sorry that I don't take sarcasm well in this.
I guess my biggest problem with the "grow the starship" was growing it in a gas giant. The metallic hydrogen was the only thing I could think of that could work, and I'd rather have no armor at all then that. Doing it on a planet is much more sensible. (For the values of sensible found when dealing with living starships.)
And can we please not go there? Aurora is based on ships, not on people, and I'd like to keep it that way.
-
Unless they're telepathic starships... :P
-
Unless they're telepathic starships... :P
If we consider the starship as a whole, it is telepathic. It can communicate with others of its kind without outside aid.
;)
-
Apparently so. I'm sorry that I don't take sarcasm well in this.
I guess my biggest problem with the "grow the starship" was growing it in a gas giant. The metallic hydrogen was the only thing I could think of that could work, and I'd rather have no armor at all then that. Doing it on a planet is much more sensible. (For the values of sensible found when dealing with living starships.)
And can we please not go there? Aurora is based on ships, not on people, and I'd like to keep it that way.
Iirc. earths athmosphere consists out of 0.03% co2 which plants can use to grow biomass. Jupiter does not have co2 but 0.3% Methane so any organism would have a viable source for carbon. The problem i see is that stuff like potassium, oxygen, sodium and other elements would be scarce. Especialy finding a good ("universal") solvent would be a challenge unless alcohols are useful for that.
I could see spongelike structures that relie on melanin-like substance to be radiothropic like certain fungy. This would enable them to thrive from the radiation theyr Gasgiant gives off. But still as far as metals (etc.) go a gasgiant is a rather unfortunate place to be.
I can hardly imagine where a living spaceship could evolve (if starswarm are evolved) maybe some kind of lowgrav world like a moon of the formerly mentioned gasgiant.
-
Personal opinion, but i think with the ability now to do things like..
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-521-17-s&va=mouse+grows+human+ear
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1949073.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/896134.stm
it is early to tell what we can and will do with organincs in the future. We have barely scratched the surface. And the next decade i'm sure will see some great leaps and bounds. Will it lead to a spaceship...who honestly knows...none of us here, but it should be interesting to watch.
Things like this have always been impossible in the past, until we did it....
-Five
-
Heph:
The biggest problems are 1. It has to float the whole time, and 2. getting it out. Plus, I don't want my armor made of carbon.
Personal opinion, but i think with the ability now to do things like..
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-521-17-s&va=mouse+grows+human+ear
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1949073.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/896134.stm
it is early to tell what we can and will do with organincs in the future. We have barely scratched the surface. And the next decade i'm sure will see some great leaps and bounds. Will it lead to a spaceship...who honestly knows...none of us here, but it should be interesting to watch.
Things like this have always been impossible in the past, until we did it....
-Five
Again, there's a big difference between being able to manipulate genes and being able to use them in a manner that replaces high-energy technologies.
-
I feel I need to chime in here on something somebody said way back at the beginning...as a person who went to school to fix and fly airplanes/helicopters and with an absurd amount of family members that are either commercial or military pilots, the comment of people flying planes is...wrong...It has been for many years now. When you step onto a commercial jet and go for a flight, the (many) computers on board that same plane are VERY capable of TAKING OFF, FLYING TO THE DESTINATION, AND LANDING with absolutely NO ASSISTANCE FROM A HUMAN BEING....well..other then pushing the buttons to tell it to do so...You should hear me rage at the screen when people in a plane on any movie made in the last 30 some years call up ground control and scream 'oh my gooods, we all gonna die! what we do! what we do!'....ground controls response in the real world? Press button j-9, input code 4425, and LET THE frakk GO OF THE STICK. Just...let...go...Let the computer do its job. The reason why pilots are on board? Because there is always that one in a million chance that a 'wtfomgbbq' event may happen that the computer can not deal with, because it was not programmed for it. And for your statistics loving needs, I don't have them at hand and I'm too tired to a) go get my old textbooks, if they aren't at my ex's that is b) go googling...but you know the cause of most airplane crashes? HUMAN ERROR...not computer error...HUMAN...In fact, there have been more then what there should be incidents of where someone overrode what the computer was doing correct and caused the error in a desperate attempt to 'fix' what the computer was doing....
Even smaller aircraft have been leaning that direction as computers get their mighty on and get more compact....And the space shuttle? Guess what...its a giant hunk of computer...with people sitting in front of it...for the same reason pilots are on commercial flights...
Military aircraft? Guess what, same capabilities...people are just more random in combat is pretty much the only (minor) reason left why they haven't gone all hardware, that and the desire to have a person pull a trigger so, you know, the rogue ai's don't come get us (major (serious about that too ;) )). And ye gods, you have no idea how badly the armed forces would love to replace frail and slow people with fast and sturdy computers....damn their fears, the computers LOVE US I say...
Now, if you have the time, and are into it, I suggest reading a good book that would help explain all this in a fun filled action packed way...go find a copy of Michael Crichtons 'Airframe'....and then realize that the things that happen in the novel are based 100% in reality (well, with the plane at least (though unions can be pretty hard core))...from years back...
Computers, especially now days, are much better pilots then people are. And you shall say 'But we can train our brains to do many hard core things'...Well...sort of...some people have an in built ability to harness more then the 'standard' amount of brain power....we call them savants...and its not for naught that it was most of the time preceded by 'idiot' for many a long ages...because the brain being focused on...lets say math for this case....caused it to you know, NOT function properly or in most cases well...and usually NOT AT ALL...So one would have to balance the ability to do high order math quickly with the fact that you would be a near on vegetable....But, thanks to popular fiction we have the image of people, who, while odd, are still mostly functional...while in reality the people that can harness that kind of oompf are usually near veggie state...But what about the future we cry! What I say! We are dooomed...doomed I say!....as a race we are currently breeding for STUPIDITY. Why? Because smart people wait to have kids until they are financially set and are well prepared....and then its too late...or they have one....While people who think drooling on your shirt is high art start popping out kids from 19-20 onwards...So...ya...I'm going to bet in a thousand years from now, Idiocracy will be fact....which, I found that movie amusing because I saw it right after reading an article about the same damn thing they talk about in the movie with the smart vs. stupid breeding....
But back to my original point...me? I'm damn happy that there is a computer flying my plane when I step on a commercial flight :D And that was a long post, I blame it on being up to late....er..early...whatever... :P