Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: madpraxis
« on: April 29, 2012, 09:46:16 AM »

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
Posted by: bean
« on: April 29, 2012, 08:57:37 AM »

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. 
Posted by: Five
« on: April 29, 2012, 04:58:19 AM »

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
Posted by: Mel Vixen
« on: April 28, 2012, 07:13:36 PM »

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.
Posted by: bean
« on: April 28, 2012, 06:51:48 PM »

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.
 ;)
Posted by: Havear
« on: April 28, 2012, 06:33:34 PM »

Unless they're telepathic starships... :P
Posted by: bean
« on: April 28, 2012, 06:03:12 PM »

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.
Posted by: chrislocke2000
« on: April 28, 2012, 01:03:11 PM »

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.....
Posted by: bean
« on: April 28, 2012, 09:27:40 AM »

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.
Posted by: Tarran
« on: April 27, 2012, 02:08:16 PM »

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
Posted by: xeryon
« on: April 27, 2012, 12:31:52 PM »

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.
Posted by: Mel Vixen
« on: April 27, 2012, 12:19:33 PM »

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). New Scientist had an article 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.
Posted by: chrislocke2000
« on: April 27, 2012, 11:45:26 AM »

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.
Posted by: Lav
« on: April 27, 2012, 11:14:51 AM »

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.
Posted by: Lav
« on: April 27, 2012, 11:02:53 AM »

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.