Author Topic: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)  (Read 12845 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2012, 09:20:48 AM »
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.

Quote
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.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Lav

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • L
  • Posts: 27
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #76 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.
 

Offline Lav

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • L
  • Posts: 27
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #77 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.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #78 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.
 

Offline Mel Vixen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 315
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #79 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.
"Share and enjoy, journey to life with a plastic boy, or girl by your side, let your pal be your guide.  And when it brakes down or starts to annoy or grinds as it moves and gives you no joy cause its has eaten your hat and or had . . . "

- Damaged robot found on Sirius singing a flat 5th out of t
 

Offline xeryon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 581
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #80 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.
 

Offline Tarran

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 81
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #81 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
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 02:13:07 PM by Tarran »
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #82 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.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #83 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.....
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #84 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.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Havear

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • H
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #85 on: April 28, 2012, 06:33:34 PM »
Unless they're telepathic starships... :P
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #86 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.
 ;)
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Mel Vixen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 315
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #87 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.
"Share and enjoy, journey to life with a plastic boy, or girl by your side, let your pal be your guide.  And when it brakes down or starts to annoy or grinds as it moves and gives you no joy cause its has eaten your hat and or had . . . "

- Damaged robot found on Sirius singing a flat 5th out of t
 

Offline Five

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 86
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #88 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
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 921
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: Organic Technology vs. Computerized Automation (split)
« Reply #89 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. 
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman