PDA

View Full Version : Outer-Space Levels



B0b_P@ge
12th Jan 2008, 17:31
Here is an cliping from the Dx:Bible
http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/april02/dxbible/dx2/index4.shtm


Outer Space
Not as much activity as one might expect, though what activity goes on is largely controlled by Majestic 12.

Government and military space planes make regular flights to two relatively large orbiting space stations (international efforts owned by no single country). The stations are used by scientists and industry. However, the first mega-expensive resort hotel opened recently, a getaway for adventurous travelers with good connections and LOTS of money. (The hotel is a front for Majestic 12 operations of all sorts).

There are enough satellites in orbit that traffic is becoming a problem and accidents hardly make the news anymore.

As far as life on other planets goes, we still haven't encountered any, at least none that can be acknowledged publicly -- rumors continue to abound that we were visited by aliens a century or more ago and the governments of the world are keeping it secret.

The only acknowledged life on other planets is human life -- there's a small, permanent Moon base populated by scientists -- purely experimental stuff -- and a mostly robot-controlled lunar mining facility. And, mankind has explored Mars about as much as we explored the Moon in the 1960's. In other words, it's possible to get there but no one much cares. Far more interesting to most people is the asteroid field between Mars and Jupiter. It's currently mined by robots designed for the purpose, but Majestic 12 has big plans for the exploitation of the asteroid field's immense resources.

(NOTE: The DX1 design included a mission to a space station followed by a mission at the moon base. The objective was to stop "Ada," an AI that wanted to become a "benevolent" world dictator. Obviously, some of that content was folded back into the game in a slightly different way.) •
______________________________________________________

Wow! I wish they would of added it. Please add a space level in DX3 :D

Actually, one of my personal vendettas against DX:IW was that there wasn't any space levels even though the game was far into the future; Dx1 had an ocean floor level and it wasn't all that hardcore future... I mean, I still remember reading from Dx1 that the Chinese built a lunar mining base called: "Zhou Enlai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Enlai) lunar complex' and they had a mass-driver accident where they killed 2000 Africans when they miscalculated the lunar bases mined asteroids orbital- atmospheric re-entry.

DX:IW disappointed extremely in that aspect...... Don't let DX3 be another one ;)

jordan_a
12th Jan 2008, 17:45
In 50 years space travels will be established (think about Virgin Galactic) and it would be great to have some part of the history in space. Moreover, China is more and more interested in that area; along with russians, ESA and NASA we could have interesting plots.

B0b_P@ge
12th Jan 2008, 18:39
Yup, also corporations themselves are taking quite the interest as well. Google is offering 30 million (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071206-private-odyssey.html) to any person/corporation that meets its space challenge. NASA is giving 500,000 to anyone who (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20972) can build a robotic piece for the space elevator; moreover, there are plenty of other challenges out there along with "space tourists" which pay an upwards of 30million just to stay onboard the ISS.

But yea, like you said, governments and such are becoming very interested for whatever reasons. Be it military or economic expansion. I think space levels are totally appropriate for DX3, what do you guys think?

An awesome level that I could imagine would be to fight onboard an 'orbital particle cannon' space station to shutdown a timer... or better yet use it *grins wolfishly*.

jordan_a
12th Jan 2008, 18:50
It shouldn't be too unrealistic though. In order to be effective it has to be stressful but plausible, believable.

imported_van_HellSing
12th Jan 2008, 18:59
Orbital particle cannons = win, as Akira and the Command & Conquer games clearly show.

As for a space-based level in DX3, might be hard considering it's most probably a prequel.

Should we however get one, I have one simple request: don't forget about GRAVITY :mad2:. Most games, movies etc. forget about the fact that there's no gravity in outer space, or that gravity is low on the Moon etc. And don't give me bogus technology explanations - if we could control gravity, we could do anything, we would be gods.

So, if we have a level based on a Moon base, let's have Moon - gravity, if we have a level based on a space station, let's have weightlessness, or have part of the base be a spinning ring, providing an illusion of gravity. Or, have magnetic boots, but have no-gravity physics for objects.

One more thing: since DX focuses on conspiracies, why not use the old, fun "we didn't land on the moon" one :nut: - the Cassandra mod guys wanted to do that, with a level based in the abandoned facility where the fake moon-landings were supposedly shot by Stanley Kubrick, with cool ideas such as a giant underground shaft that was used for creating the weightlessness illusion etc. Would be extremely cool to see something like that. :cool:

gamer0004
12th Jan 2008, 20:21
I agree with the last part - that would be really great.
However, I wouldn't like a space-based level. The physics are very hard to do right to make it realistic, so it would cost an awful lot of time for the devs. Besides that, when there is no gravity people move by holding handles and pulling themselves forward. That's just not going to work in a game.
When there is less gravity it will just feel strange and some kind of device to have gravity feels unrealistic, whether there's a scientific explanation or not.

minus0ne
12th Jan 2008, 23:19
Why didn't you post this in the "Where do you want to go in Deus Ex 3?" topic? :confused:


But yea, like you said, governments and such are becoming very interested for whatever reasons. Be it military or economic expansion. I think space levels are totally appropriate for DX3, what do you guys think?
Well since we're on the verge (relatively speaking) of becoming a Fusion-powered world, don't you think all that Helium-3 on the Moon is looking mighty attractive? If there was gold on the moon, we couldn't afford to bring it back, Helium-3 on the other hand, is totally worth shuttling back and forth for. DX very astutely had lunar mining operations, much like we'll be seeing within the next twenty years.

An awesome level that I could imagine would be to fight onboard an 'orbital particle cannon' space station to shutdown a timer... or better yet use it *grins wolfishly*.
Orbital weapons don't really fit with DX, IMHO. What frickin' purpose would such a weapon have? There are already weapons capable of destroying continents (and there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy Earth a thousand times over). EMP missiles can destroy countries and infrastructure without killing people (directly). DX's Gray Death kills everyone who is not immune or doesn't get a dose of Ambrosia. Somehow a particle cannon would seem too outlandish and a bit gratuitous.

If they do include an outer-space location, it would have to serve the story, not vice-versa.

ThatDeadDude
16th Jan 2008, 20:39
Orbital weapons don't really fit with DX, IMHO. What frickin' purpose would such a weapon have?

Orbital weapons would have their uses, I think. Take a kinetic bombardment system a la the Tom Clancy's EndWar trailer (Orbital partical cannons really are pretty unlikely, KB is entirely possible). Though it would be extremely expensive, it gets around laws on WMD in orbit. Such a system would hit its target in such a short time that it would be uncounterable, yet would still potentially have the power of a small nuke. Just thinking about it, it would also have the benefit of being much easier to deploy secretly than anything of similar power, especially considering the amount of stuff in space as claimed in the DX bible. The projectiles would be just massive tungsten rods, which could theoretically be concealed fairly easily assuming a powerful enough launch system existed to get them up in the first place.

AaronJ
16th Jan 2008, 21:13
There was a moon level in DX, most of you know that. But remember what the developers said after DX's release.

"But we decided Deus Ex was an Earth-bound game."

That should remain true.

SageSavage
16th Jan 2008, 21:53
"But we decided Deus Ex was an Earth-bound game."

That should remain true.
I agree. Maybe it's the result of conditioning but everytime I think of outer space I get loads of classic scifi associations. One thing I love about Cyberpunk and other dystopic near future scenarios is that I don't think of it as classic scifi which got used and abused far too often already. SS was one of the welcome exceptions but I'd prefer if they'd keep it out of DX3.

B0b_P@ge
17th Jan 2008, 02:18
I agree. Maybe it's the result of conditioning but everytime I think of outer space I get loads of classic scifi associations. One thing I love about Cyberpunk and other dystopic near future scenarios is that I don't think of it as classic scifi which got used and abused far too often already. SS was one of the welcome exceptions but I'd prefer if they'd keep it out of DX3.

Clearly you haven't been exposed to enough 'cyberpunk' my friend. Neuromancer, Count Zero took place in space, Bladerunner had space-station building robots running wild on earth, Akira had an orbital particle cannon (SOL satellite), Bubblegum Crisis had episodes dealing with escaping a orbital prision, Aliens...self explanatory, RoboCop references an orbital defense platform 'accidentally discharging' and killing Ronald Regan ... overall original cyberpunk (80's - birthplace of cyberpunk) had references or even situations in space.....

So because 'The Matrix' didn't have space technologies,etc doesn't mean that anything that has it makes it less cyberpunkish and more 'classic scifi'.

Overall, I agree with a lot of opinions here, in summer if there were space levels, they'd:
(1) shouldn't be too unrealistic. In order to be effective it has to be stressful but plausible, believable.
(2) It would have to serve the story, not vice-versa.

SageSavage
17th Jan 2008, 05:25
No need for your "lesson", Mr Weisenheimer... I've seen/read every single one of your references and fairly more so don't tell me I don't know my stuff. I wasn't talking about satellites or orbital cannons. I was talking about outer space levels as in "on other planets" or "space ships" "zero gravity", "take off!" etc. I am fully aware of the fact, that all this isn't science fiction anymore, you know... Of course it could be also done in the near future but as I've said in my previous post, it's just nothing I associate with those stories. Neuromancer 's Freeside is the one that came this traditional settings the closest but it still plays a minor role in the books.


Q: So you know, we're not going to ask you about cyberspace. All we want to know is what you think about space -- outer space.

A: I invented cyberspace because traditional space travel as a metaphor, as it was in the books I read as a boy, wasn't doing it for me emotionally.

In Neuromancer, space travel is deliberately relegated to Vegas/Disney style operations, very lowball orbital real estate. They don't seem to look beyond that -- nobody ever goes anywhere.

We're also living in an age of increasingly sophisticated telepresence, I don't know what that does to the urge to colonize. You should get Stan Robinson in here -- he could tell you everything about what it takes to terraform Mars [laughter].

Is Mir still up there or has it fallen down already?
- http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/gibson_991026.html

foxberg
17th Jan 2008, 19:59
In my opinion, Space should be left for Space games: Quake, Doom and likes. The appeal of DX was that it happened on Earth, in the cities many of us could relate to.

AaronJ
17th Jan 2008, 20:30
In my opinion, Space should be left for Space games: Quake, Doom and likes. The appeal of DX was that it happened on Earth, in the cities many of us could relate to.

Full agreement here.

B0b_P@ge
17th Jan 2008, 22:21
No need for your "lesson", Mr Weisenheimer... I've seen/read every single one of your references and fairly more so don't tell me I don't know my stuff. I wasn't talking about satellites or orbital cannons. I was talking about outer space levels as in "on other planets" or "space ships" "zero gravity", "take off!" etc. I am fully aware of the fact, that all this isn't science fiction anymore, you know... Of course it could be also done in the near future but as I've said in my previous post, it's just nothing I associate with those stories. Neuromancer 's Freeside is the one that came this traditional settings the closest but it still plays a minor role in the books.


- http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/gibson_991026.html

I'm aware of all of that 'smart aleck', and I think Gibson nailed the hammer on the head with how space-tech should be seen in a cyberpunk world.

That's too bad your imagination is too limited to not enjoy space levels, I'm not here to argue with you about your shallow tastes, so you can "blast off" if you have nothing meaningful left to add, but Deus Ex should have at least a space level done if (1) it serves the story (2) its extremely believable and (3) taken in the style that William Gibson's portrayed space as. If it doesn't satisfy all three conditions then its completely not worth including and I would agree with you there, it should stay true to the cyberpunk genre and the Deus Ex universe.

I think Deus Ex3 should have space technology playing more important roles.

SageSavage
18th Jan 2008, 07:01
Nice way of arguing.:whistle: *blasts off and takes his shallow taste with him*

G.A.Pster
28th Jan 2008, 01:03
A space level would be cool, but keep is short I don’t want to be spending all my time in space.

RedFeather1975
28th Jan 2008, 04:24
Humanity running out of 'living space' and being forced to explore interplanetary colonization would be very interesting in a future Deus Ex game. Especially if it accurately showed how insanely problematic the task is and how humanity is not readily equipped to exist beyond the confines of earth yet.

B0b_P@ge
5th Feb 2008, 23:53
When I played DX1 for the first time I loved reading the datacubes, etc and I enjoyed how the news articles slowly talked more about space exploration. Until at a certain point where I had a gut feeling thinking yeah there might actually be a space level and I wanted it. Well as I played there wasn't one but the 'ocean lab' level satisfied that want. 8 years later after from when I first played it and I read that the dev's thought about having a space level and I was shocked! I was like, "yeah, I had a gut feeling they where planning of adding it".

tanonx
6th Feb 2008, 00:42
I thought it was blatantly obvious. And I was rather fearing that the whole thing would go downhill from there. Most games I've played with space segments just seem to lower their IQ while they're there. It's like they took a break to go 'Woo, lookit, we're in SPACE!!!' instead of further the plot.

Now, if it's plot relevent, it'll be there. It's not exactly as though that's a question. But if it doesn't need to be done, it shouldn't be. There wasn't a plot-useless scene in DX. Nobody decided 'Oh, hey, let's go here for no apparent reason. It sounds cool!", except the water base level, and even then debatibly so.

And for DX being an earthbound venture, I'd have to agree. With space being mostly a remote mining/science exploration thing, it'd seem the DX's verse has a low priority on space, and a heightening of one after a worldwide collapse, or, in some inane twist, before people began using space often enough to create probe accidents, just wouldn't make much sense to me.

Grunt
21st Feb 2008, 23:19
I, like many here, considers the first DX to be one of the greatest games ever, and, well, I thought the second one was better than many games, but in no way in the same league as the first. What made me a little disappointed with the first game was when I read, much later, about the missions in Siberia, Texas and some space-station-elevator-something that was cut out, I think it could've been a little more intreresting and varied if they had been added, but then again I never thought about when I was playing the game. Anyhow, if DX3 is set after the second game, could it not be set after the Illuminati ending, where the game ends (if I remember correctly) with a revived and hyperactive economy, state-of-the-art cities, all supervised from some space station named Ophelia. I know there's calls for no space missions or not to much of them or whatnot, but if they already added a big nasty space station, I think it would be a shame not to given a chance to blow it up, or atleast re-align it.

B0b_P@ge
24th Feb 2008, 05:01
I thought it was blatantly obvious. And I was rather fearing that the whole thing would go downhill from there. Most games I've played with space segments just seem to lower their IQ while they're there. It's like they took a break to go 'Woo, lookit, we're in SPACE!!!' instead of further the plot.

Now, if it's plot relevent, it'll be there. It's not exactly as though that's a question. But if it doesn't need to be done, it shouldn't be. There wasn't a plot-useless scene in DX. Nobody decided 'Oh, hey, let's go here for no apparent reason. It sounds cool!", except the water base level, and even then debatibly so.

And for DX being an earthbound venture, I'd have to agree. With space being mostly a remote mining/science exploration thing, it'd seem the DX's verse has a low priority on space, and a heightening of one after a worldwide collapse, or, in some inane twist, before people began using space often enough to create probe accidents, just wouldn't make much sense to me.


I, like many here, considers the first DX to be one of the greatest games ever, and, well, I thought the second one was better than many games, but in no way in the same league as the first. What made me a little disappointed with the first game was when I read, much later, about the missions in Siberia, Texas and some space-station-elevator-something that was cut out, I think it could've been a little more intreresting and varied if they had been added, but then again I never thought about when I was playing the game. Anyhow, if DX3 is set after the second game, could it not be set after the Illuminati ending, where the game ends (if I remember correctly) with a revived and hyperactive economy, state-of-the-art cities, all supervised from some space station named Ophelia. I know there's calls for no space missions or not to much of them or whatnot, but if they already added a big nasty space station, I think it would be a shame not to given a chance to blow it up, or atleast re-align it.

I agree with both of you. I understand the 'ground based' argument and I wish there could be some concession here. I agree, I don't want any fantastic or hardcore science fiction elements either, it would detract from the story(world crashing) but -imagine- if it could be done right, it would be something wonderful to further the Deus Ex feeling, story, the zeitgeist of the times, etc.

High places have always been seen as holy places throughout human civilization. Defeated armies and generals retreat to the mountains, mountainous cities stood almost impregnable(until recent century) and firm always viewed as the most secure, religious pilgrims go on religious retreats to mountains, the ten commandments(fundamental Judo-Christian) where given to Moses on the mountain, our ancestor(the monkey) always escaped from dangerous predators by climbing the highest tree(we all have that ingrained genetic instinct to go to higher places in danger), madman scientists/raiders/monks/hermits are usually found in ruined towers or forts high in the mountains, kings sit in chairs with platforms above everyone(symbolic), christian and chinese beliefs believe in heaven as quite literally above,etc etc... No matter what culture your from, the idea is fundamentally universal, biological and similar across all cultures; very high place can symbolize safety, saluted, enlightenment, power, and a closeness to God..... NOW, such symbolism is incredibly powerful and having 'space levels' accomplish this so... basically they go to the realm of Gods/celestial spirits/stars that all humans dreamed about since the dawn of time. Having space levels on the table for a possible level(s) in Deus Ex 3 promises that symbolism which could wonderfully augment a story. Denying a space level type is denying a possible very memorable/story brought about through the symbolism of it.

I mean imagine this:
JC Denton, onboard some sort of low-earth orbit platform, in a dark room with no lighting besides the glowing machinary/computer panels/etc and a large clear transparent floor(1) with the earths blue light entering the floor and lighting up the room while he is just about to fight some sort of boss(also you'd see that white gradient caused by the ionosphere at the side of the earth along); I mean, doesn't the idea of look like Gods & demons fighting in the heavens for the control of the world while below the world is crumbling and the victor of the fight comes down and sets the world straight(that sounds Deus Ex Machine like); also, wouldn't just the sight of it seem amazing.... earth lighting a dark cold room, glowing computer panels, faintly humming air vents and other life-support systems... in my books this seems very cyberpunkish to me. :D



(1) Assume the material can withstand orbital debris hitting it at hyper-velocities.

foxberg
7th May 2008, 19:08
I recently gave it another thought. I think space would be possible under certain circumstances. Read my post in this thread:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=76857

Blade_hunter
7th May 2008, 21:42
I agree with outa space levels it can happen on a space station, the moon
we can use the Mars planet if the human civ has a station on this planet ...
but I think the space station, or the moon can be more realistic and it adds more variety on this game In DX 1 we have normal levels with cities, monuments, castles, and the original level was the submarine station. this is one new good thing on FPS games, ok in UT I have a submarine base as a map, but it's a MP game ....
In a single player game, I loved to find why the station is on that state when at the first time I get in the station.
Some outa space levels should be fine and it adds more kinds of levels.

iWait
8th May 2008, 04:28
Well since we're on the verge (relatively speaking) of becoming a Fusion-powered world, don't you think all that Helium-3 on the Moon is looking mighty attractive? If there was gold on the moon, we couldn't afford to bring it back, Helium-3 on the other hand, is totally worth shuttling back and forth for. DX very astutely had lunar mining operations, much like we'll be seeing within the next twenty years.

No we're not. Cold Fusion is going to be out of our reach for awhile, and public opinion GREATLY discourages anything that has to do with radiation. In America and most countries that have access to Fission Power, it is illegal to build nuclear reactors. Plus nuclear fusion CAN cause radiation leaks if something goes wrong, and all it would take is one Churnoble type incident for most governments to heavily restrict fusion power. Also, if we do obtain cold fusion the helium-3 would be useless, because we could use various materials to produce power. You are also forgetting all the hippies, "Stop killing the moonrocks, man!"

Fen
8th May 2008, 10:36
If DX3 is a prequel, then no. The thing I liked about DX1 was that it felt like modern life, with some upgrades. We werent all walking around on the moon with our laser guns. We were in everday apartments and streets that had been parts upgraded with the current tech.

Blade_hunter
8th May 2008, 14:36
Laser guns and outer space levels can be used even if it's a prequel.
We have an international space station, and we try to build a moon base, in 2027 we have the sufficient technologies to make this. if we haven't the moon base the space station should be sufficient, and it can be interesting to explore.
For the laser guns, the blind laser is an actual gun, some weapons, if we are outside the station can't be used, like in underwater. but the proprieties of the projectiles aren't the same of course.
The space station isn't the only possibility, a space shuttle with a satellite can be an intersting short level.
We have some possibilities added with this kind of levels

B0b_P@ge
9th May 2008, 03:27
If DX3 is a prequel, then no. The thing I liked about DX1 was that it felt like modern life, with some upgrades. We werent all walking around on the moon with our laser guns. We were in everday apartments and streets that had been parts upgraded with the current tech.

I know, I agree completely. I absolutely loved that part, especially visiting Hong Kong; but there's nothing wrong with adding variety to the game like having one short space level, I mean DX1 had an ocean lab at the bottom of the ocean floor with plasma guns... if having space stations seems so sci-fi, then how come we currently have one huge space station 350 km above us floating in low earth orbit and zero ocean floor research stations? Also if I'm not mistaken, a plasma rifle is infinitely more complex & theoretical then a laser weapon, I mean, the energy required to heat up a specific material to be in a supercharge ion gas state (a.k.a: plasma state of matter) (remember there are 3 physical forms that matter can exist: liquid, gas, solid, well once you take advanced chem/eng/phys courses in university, you learn there is another state called plasma state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29)) AND on top of that, the energy required to power a magnet to keep the plasma from escaping is tremendous in comparison to a laser based weapon...... anyway, I agree completely with you about keeping it modern and realistic... but a game set in the future of a world similar to our own (but grimmer) should exist. I mean, haven't you already seen multi-millionares, industrialist tycoons, dot-com enterprising genius spend MILLIONS just to spend a couple of hours on the ISS? I don't know man, if DX3 takes place sometime 2030++, I would be disappointed if there's no space level.

Voltaire
9th May 2008, 14:18
I would like to see a space level. DX's traditional style is "free-roaming" so it would shake the game up a bit to have a submarine-style setup, with restrictions on that roaming. It might also mean some cool space-shots of future earth - i.e. wrecked.

Just so long as it's relevant to the plot, not merely a "toy" level.

jcp28
9th May 2008, 20:03
Space levels should definitely be included. Though a plain space station might do just fine, I personally like a level with the surface of the moon as a backdrop. Besides, a base is probably bigger than a space station. Then when you get into moon bases owned by other countries, shooting security forces on moon buggys while traveling from one base to the other. However, there should be soem restrictions on where you travel... you shouldn't be allowed to go flying over large mountains for instance. Also I wouldn't likr to take more than maybe an hour trying to get through any space levels.

rhalibus
12th May 2008, 05:51
I actually tried my hand at a space-based mod that took place 10 years after DX1, aboard a scientific survey ship orbiting Neptune...I created individual cabins, NPCs, an engine room and science lab, etc.

JC was posing as an exobiologist who was trying to get information about a mysterious sample the ship picked up on one of Neptune's moons.

The ship was then taken over by a larger pirate ship (ala Star Destroyer overtaking Princess Leia's Corellian Corvette) and you had to make your way to the main ship to find the sample. It ends with you having to escape the main ship before it destructs.

I spent a lot of time on scientific research, backstory, and (most importantly) multiple solutions...I've actually completed about 30% of it, with full vocal dialogue and NPC motivations...It was assumed that artificial gravity was developed, but I tried to stay logical to possible technology in the DX universe of 2062...

One day I may take a break from filmmaking and making a living to finish it, but I do believe that a space-station or a scientific moon base level might be really cool, if it were done with a lot of care for scientific plausibility...

B0b_P@ge
15th Aug 2008, 02:33
If you look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyeellOVlQ0) and look if you look 4:53 minutes into the video, I think that would be totally awesome scene for Deus Ex 3! :D

For people who never seen this. It's a scene from the anime called "Bubblegum Crisis Tokyo 2040" where they show a "space hook" (space elevator type structure); now, wouldn't that be an awesome idea to have in Deus Ex 3... even if you can't play the level, at least have a level with a space elevator :)

What do you guys think?

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 04:01
Should we however get one, I have one simple request: don't forget about GRAVITY :mad2:. Most games, movies etc. forget about the fact that there's no gravity in outer space, or that gravity is low on the Moon etc. And don't give me bogus technology explanations - if we could control gravity, we could do anything, we would be gods.
I can control gravity. *Moves a cup over.* Behold, I have changed the gravitational fields in the room!

...

Am I a god yet?

On a more serious note, it is about time some game has done space properly. We can have artificial gravity. It is called a "centrifugal force". If a physics engine works properly, you'll already have the effect. All you need to do is make sure that the characters can stand on a surface at any angle. Then you can simply model a big space station, give it a bit of a spin, and things will fall into their proper places. Quite literally.

P.S. And you cannot hear explosions in space. That's just another thing that drives me nuts in movies.

DXeXodus
15th Aug 2008, 04:15
P.S. And you cannot hear explosions in space. That's just another thing that drives me nuts in movies.

People have approached George Lucas before regarding this obvious error in his Star Wars movies and he basically said that it would of been a very boring movie if we had to watch space battles in complete silence. :D

gamer0004
15th Aug 2008, 05:14
I think that may actually be possible. To be able to hear sound there has to be oxygen, right? If a spaceship gets hit an opening will form and oxygen will be released. Because there is no oxygen at all in space all the oxygen from the ship would get out. However, what happens when oxygen gets in space?

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 05:35
Yes, I thought the error was proved erronous, last time I checked. Explosions (rapid expansion of gases and oxygen) can be heard, it's sonic booms (matter exceeded Mach 1, or the speed of sound. This creates dense areas of oxygen, which proceed to explode outwards) cannot be heard. And besides, if we can perfect nano-technology to the extent where it can be applied to the human body, I'm sure colonizing the moon shouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine.

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 06:55
People have approached George Lucas before regarding this obvious error in his Star Wars movies and he basically said that it would of been a very boring movie if we had to watch space battles in complete silence. :D
I'm not talking about Star Wars. Asking for proper physics in Star Wars is like asking for proper physics in Roadrunner. All the ridiculous flaws are part of what makes it interesting.

Yes, I thought the error was proved erronous, last time I checked. Explosions (rapid expansion of gases and oxygen) can be heard, it's sonic booms (matter exceeded Mach 1, or the speed of sound. This creates dense areas of oxygen, which proceed to explode outwards) cannot be heard.
Not going to work. Explosion will fling uneven clouds of gases in different directions. These will be expanding and rapidly cooling in vacuum. By the time it hits you, if it hits you at all, it will be a shower of liquid and frozen particles, not a compression wave. You might hear something, as a result of all that junk bombarding your ship, but it is not going to be anything like an explosion. It's not going to be modulated like an explosion and you'll not get a sense of a direction of the source. Sound you get when you suddenly get hit by hail while sitting in your car is a lot more like what you'd get. The effect will also be getting more dispersed over time the further you get form the source.

And again, that is assuming that you'll end up on the path of one of these clouds, which will not be traveling in all directions.

minus0ne
15th Aug 2008, 18:15
I can control gravity. *Moves a cup over.* Behold, I have changed the gravitational fields in the room!

...

Am I a god yet?

On a more serious note, it is about time some game has done space properly. We can have artificial gravity. It is called a "centrifugal force". If a physics engine works properly, you'll already have the effect. All you need to do is make sure that the characters can stand on a surface at any angle. Then you can simply model a big space station, give it a bit of a spin, and things will fall into their proper places. Quite literally.

Gravity (or the lack thereof) was done pretty damn well in No One Lives Forever (or the sequel, I forget, both games are awesome enough to turn my whole memory of them into one big amalgamation of 1960s acid flashbacks :D ).

If I remember correctly, there was a space station that had artificial gravity (centrifugally or by magnetic boots or floors I can't remember), which you, the player, get to turn off at some point, after which you'll float about merrily firing your retro 1960s laser gun at everything that moves. Now of course it was by no means a true approximation of zero-gravity, but it was pretty fun.

DX3 could actually do it properly: in zero-gravity, the lean-keys (Q and E for example) could double as axis-rotating keys (that rotate your body's orientation), and you'd have to find ways to use the momentum you gain from 'jumping' (pushing) from walls, floors, ceilings etc.

That's pretty much the most intuitive approach I can come up with, at the loss of being able to lean around corners in zero-gravity environments.


P.S. And you cannot hear explosions in space. That's just another thing that drives me nuts in movies.
That depends. If the observer is in an nearby pressured environment which is impacted by debris or gasses of the explosion, I'm pretty sure you'll hear something (not the explosion itself). If, on the other hand, you're out on a spacewalk and forgot your helmet, then no, you eardrums won't be receiving any soundwave from an explosion, unless that explosion is large enough to carry its own sound medium with it, either way you're... well, suffocating. I know that most movies are totally unrealistic on this point, but you can't flat-out claim that "you cannot hear explosions in space". Just that most sci-fi is totally blatantly unrealistic on this and many other points.

I assume the protagonist of DX3 will be smart enough to steer well clear of any explosions in space, though :p

I think that may actually be possible. To be able to hear sound there has to be oxygen, right? If a spaceship gets hit an opening will form and oxygen will be released. Because there is no oxygen at all in space all the oxygen from the ship would get out. However, what happens when oxygen gets in space?
Not specifically oxygen, any gas of sufficient density. Space actually isn't a vacuum, it just has a very, very thin atmosphere. Theoretically, it should be possible for a very sensitive 'microphone' to detect the minute pressure gradients of the few atoms still present in every cubic centimeter of outer space. Another reason I don't like generic false statements such as "you can't hear explosions in space".

Also, a laser-microphone would still be able to hear things in outer space. It's not science-fiction for someone on a spacewalk to eavesdrop on someone in (for example) the ISS with a laser-mic if he could just aim the laser through a window and onto a flat surface inside, and I wouldn't want to know what were to happen if you aimed it at an explosion in outer space, a lot of loud noise perhaps? :nut: (OK, well, I do want to know, and here's hoping Mythbusters will try on more space myths, which, granted, are very hard to accurately test).

Space levels for DX3 have a lot of potential (particularly space-elevators and a moon-base, both of which are becoming more and more plausible, fast - Helium-3 mooncake anyone?).

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 20:18
Also, a laser-microphone would still be able to hear things in outer space.
You could listen to conversations in another ship, using a laser microphone, but you couldn't hear that ship exploding, because whatever surface you were picking up the reflection from would come flying.

But the very idea of a laser microphone in DX would be great. I'm a bit tired of using the air ducts for spying on people.

Your idea on zero-G controls is reasonable. But I wasn't really thinking of UI part of the game mechanics. That can be worked out. What I'm more interested in is getting the engine to handle rotating stations properly.

Lets say you jump off a catwalk reasonably high above the "ground" level of the station. The catwalk level will have lower speed, and therefore, lower "gravity". Of course, once you depart it, the "gravity" goes out the window, and it is simply about you continuing motion in a straight line, while the catwalk curves away following its circular path.

At this point everything is fine. You could even throw in some drag from the station. The interesting question is what happens when you finally reach the ground level? First of all, the ground level will be traveling at a different speed. Second, it will no longer be "bellow" you, and you'll be flying at it at a considerable speed. Point is, you won't hit it legs "down", you will sustain considerable impact, and you'll have "horizontal" speed to boot. A bit like what you'd get when jumping off the train.

Now, here, something like Euphoria engine could handle the impact. It will give you a fairly realistic roll on the ground. But now, when you come to rest, the engine needs to figure out that you are now in "normal gravity". So unless you are dead, and ragdoll physics took over, the engine needs to figure out the new "up" direction using the normal forces that support the character, and then manage to play a proper "get up" animation.

None of this is impossible, and would look quite amazing if done right, but it would be quite tough to program.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 20:23
I'm not talking about Star Wars. Asking for proper physics in Star Wars is like asking for proper physics in Roadrunner. All the ridiculous flaws are part of what makes it interesting.

Not going to work. Explosion will fling uneven clouds of gases in different directions. These will be expanding and rapidly cooling in vacuum. By the time it hits you, if it hits you at all, it will be a shower of liquid and frozen particles, not a compression wave. You might hear something, as a result of all that junk bombarding your ship, but it is not going to be anything like an explosion. It's not going to be modulated like an explosion and you'll not get a sense of a direction of the source. Sound you get when you suddenly get hit by hail while sitting in your car is a lot more like what you'd get. The effect will also be getting more dispersed over time the further you get form the source.

And again, that is assuming that you'll end up on the path of one of these clouds, which will not be traveling in all directions.
Oh, I'm aware they're not the same, but I swore it was proven you can still hear explosions in space, just not sonic booms (as sonic booms cannot exist in oxygen-deprived environments).

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 20:51
Do you mean experimentally? I'd like to see a reference on that. To my knowledge, there was never an explosion of a craft in vicinity of another, occupied craft.

jcp28
15th Aug 2008, 21:19
Do you mean experimentally? I'd like to see a reference on that. To my knowledge, there was never an explosion of a craft in vicinity of another, occupied craft.

I'd assume that the craft was close enough that you may have a fairly high chance of hearing something. Of course, I don't think you'd have to go too far either for the sound to decrease dramatically for reasons mentioned above.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 21:21
Do you mean experimentally? I'd like to see a reference on that. To my knowledge, there was never an explosion of a craft in vicinity of another, occupied craft.


I'd assume that the craft was close enough that you may have a fairly high chance of hearing something. Of course, I don't think you'd have to go too far either for the sound to decrease dramatically for reasons mentioned above.
Haha, no... I was done in a vacuum to simulate the atmosphere on the moon. If I ever head NASA though... It's getting done for real.

"Why are all the people who pre-paid on the other ship?" BOOOOOOOM!

Kidding, of course. They'd all have to pre-pay for flights to the moon.

B0b_P@ge
20th Aug 2008, 02:20
Here is a question for everyone interested in this thread:

Name me a single video game that made an awesome space level? It was unique enough, memorable enough, awe-inspiring and most importantly fun?

I'm guessing when 'space levels' come to mind, boring, long, claustrophobic labyrinths come to mind. Is this true? Moreover, your scientific knowledge conflicts with the setting because it triggers the 'this is unrealistic or that'?

Well, I can name one. From the game Unreal Tournament 1999, the level "Forgone Destruction". I've attached a picture below. What made this so memorable was that, contrary to many other past games, this space level was so incredibly different. http://inoxx.planetunreal.gamespy.com/maps/face3-1024.jpg

http://www.bmb-clan.de/vwar/images/locations/ctf-face.jpg
First of all, the map is beautiful, especially when your storming the opponent and the huge earth is facing you! Or moon (and the site distracts you from the snipers hiding in the tower! Lol). Or when you fall off and you see yourself falling into earths orbit, hehe. Wow, how cool it was at the time. The map was -in my opinion- the funnest map in the entire game(next to the assualt-type levels) as well. I think for a lot of people, what made this map memorable was how incredibly fun it was.The mystic music made the level awe-inspiring, a space trance tune, excellent song, I even listen to it when I try to sleep in, it really gives the feeling of being on top of the world (or the highest place).

Another distant fav. was the level called: "Lavagiant"
http://www.bmb-clan.de/vwar/images/locations/ctf-lavagiant.jpg

Or "Morpheus"
http://ut.svela.net/images/maps/dm-morpheus.jpg

Bottom line is that space levels don't have to feel like that, on the contrary, they can be open-large environments, infact, what made these maps so unique was that they where large-open, non-clausterphobic, beautiful and FUN! It can be done! If a space level would exist in Deus Ex3, it would have to encompass all those facts in gameplay. It would need to be unique enough, memorable enough, awe-inspiring and most importantly fun!

DXeXodus
20th Aug 2008, 03:40
Well, I can name one. From the game Unreal Tournament 1999, the level "Forgone Destruction". I've attached a picture below.

That is an awesome map. I spent a good part of my high school days playing it with my buddies. Is it really called "Forgone Destruction" though? Is "Facing Worlds" just another name for it? Because I always call it "Face" or "Facing Worlds"..

gamer0004
20th Aug 2008, 05:06
Moreover, your scientific knowledge conflicts with the setting because it triggers the 'this is unrealistic or that'?


Bottom line is that space levels don't have to feel like that, on the contrary, they can be open-large environments, infact, what made these maps so unique was that they where large-open, non-clausterphobic, beautiful and FUN! It can be done! If a space level would exist in Deus Ex3, it would have to encompass all those facts in gameplay. It would need to be unique enough, memorable enough, awe-inspiring and most importantly fun!

I'm sorry, but DX isn't an arcade shooter. It should be realistic or at least believable, and large open environments in space simply aren't.

EDIT: the pictures look really nice though

K^2
20th Aug 2008, 07:37
You can build a realistic, large, open space environment. But then you really only have two options. You can go for a halo/ring-world approach, or you have to go weightless. Later can work a lot like the underwater sections in original DX. Limited jetpack fuel might work better than limited oxygen, though.

LatwPIAT
20th Aug 2008, 13:45
Limited jetpack fuel might work better than limited oxygen, though.

Except that in space, there is very little friction, so you'd only use fuel to change directions or momentum. You'd hardly use much for normal movement.

jcp28
20th Aug 2008, 15:32
I think gamer 0004 is right here. Space levels that are large and wide-open might work better in a different context. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of floating weightless outside a space station just to get around some obstacle I wouldn't be able to otherwise. If there are any open-space segments, they would have to be real short breaks on the path that you are traveling toward your goal.

The level would certainly have to be brief though. I don't want to spend all my time in space doing whatever when there are plenty of places to go on Earth.

B0b_P@ge
21st Aug 2008, 02:11
That is an awesome map. I spent a good part of my high school days playing it with my buddies. Is it really called "Forgone Destruction" though? Is "Facing Worlds" just another name for it? Because I always call it "Face" or "Facing Worlds"..

Opps, I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. The song is called: "Forgone Destruction", the level is called: "Facing Worlds"... again my bad. But yeah, me too man, I absolutely loved playing UT99 & DX1 back in my teens.


I'm sorry, but DX isn't an arcade shooter. It should be realistic or at least believable, and large open environments in space simply aren't.


Yeah, I can see your view and I agree. One of the appeals of these levels was that you could throw out the worry of 1) Radiation Overdosing 2) Going blind by looking at the sun(very serious danger in space) 3) Breathing in space 4) Freezing or burning in space etc, etc. and just worry about the gameplay. How this is done in DX3 is completely different matter. But I don't think space levels should be dismissed right away, I think there is still some room for a small level to fit in DX3.

Space levels fit in perfectly with the cyberpunk world as well. For example, wouldn't it be totally in line with the DX universe&feeling if you where to have on level on top of a multinational corporations or U.N. built space elevator?

http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/06_SpaceElevator.jpeg
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/space-elevator-286.jpg

As far as 'realism' is concerned, tell me what is realistic in DX? A lab on the oceanfloor, plasma rifles, soldiers that can jump from building to building? I'm not making fun of DX, I love it dearly, the point is that it was based on realism, yes we have the theoretical bases for nano-technology, plasma-based weaponry, or large structures built with super-high tensile strength materials (Ocean lab), etc BUT we don't have it now. Dx1 is based on the assumption that we perfected the engineering (Applying the science to create technology with such purpose) along with modern conspiracy theories to tell a engaging realistic story. Yes I want realism, I've been arguing for it in this entire thread, but I don't think we should be so imperious with restricting ourselves to ONLY realistic things. If we do we would lose the possibility of an interesting story or experience.

You see, it doesn't matter whether the level is realistic or not, it matters whether it can advance, play a part in the story, or to make the player feel something part of the universe. If it detract from that, then clearly its not worth of being in it. I would argue that one simple space level - done right - would be an excellent addition into the universe, especially since it was planned. (Read my first post in this threat) We should be more flexible and allow the game developers to be creative and allow them the freedom to grow DX3 into something worthy of a attaining the 3 in the title with an original and interesting story. (And god forbid nothing like Dx:iw)

http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/7/7b/SpaceElevator.jpg
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/space_elevator_station.jpg

TrickyVein
21st Aug 2008, 23:04
Space levels fit in perfectly with the cyberpunk world as well. For example, wouldn't it be totally in line with the DX universe&feeling if you where to have on level on top of a multinational corporations or U.N. built space elevator?



I really don't agree that such an idea would work itself into a cyberpunk theme. Reading about such a thing and alluding to it in game would work perfectly (a la the off world colonies in bladerunner), but actually donning a space suit and escaping the earth's atmosphere? Do you see this as gritty and underworldish? Is this really continuing the themes that we've seen in both Deus Ex titles? Need I remind you that EVERY SINGLE level in both titles has been on planet earth, during the night or the wee hours of the morning? In both titles we have a prevalence of filth and crime, and of lots of other people on screen? That most of each game consists of sneaking and working our way through some dystopic environment with our noses to the ground, looking for a secret passageway or extra multitool? Now you say that to be liberated from all of this would fit in perfectly with Deus Ex's theme?

I am not convinced.

Freddo
22nd Aug 2008, 01:21
In my opinion, Space should be left for Space games: Quake, Doom and likes. The appeal of DX was that it happened on Earth, in the cities many of us could relate to.
Agreed. Going to places in Deus Ex that actually existed was very cool, and gave the game a very realistic touch.

I don't want the game to get some kind of clean Star Trek feel to it. It should stay as a gritty earthly cyberpunk.

Sure, cyberpunk can be in space, but it's hardly ever done well, but instead tends to ruin the setting. At least as far as I'm concerned.

K^2
22nd Aug 2008, 01:36
In this context, a space station is still entirely reasonable. A modern space station is a sterile bucket with several scientists, engineers, and pilots on board. But this not need to be the case.

If we get to the point where we build huge space station, populated by thousands of people, these stations will need lower class citizens for maintenance. There will be plumbers, low grade mechanics, and janitors. Not to knock the importance of such professions, but these people will have much lower incomes, and these people will live in separate, poor sections of the station. Crime will also develop, resulting in a perfect cyberpunk underworld.

Basically, try thinking less Star Trek, and more Babylon 5. Probably, on a much smaller scale, but it gives you an idea. That is the kind of habitats that we are going to need in space if we want to properly explore it.

What a space station like this, with centrifugal gravity, gives you is a perfect setting where you can go between a 1G cityscape and a weightless outer space, which is basically what people want from a space level. It can provide very interesting gameplay, stunning visuals, remain true to the story line, and be entirely reasonable as far as science of it goes.

DXeXodus
22nd Aug 2008, 04:31
If we get to the point where we build huge space station, populated by thousands of people, these stations will need lower class citizens for maintenance. There will be plumbers, low grade mechanics, and janitors. Not to knock the importance of such professions, but these people will have much lower incomes, and these people will live in separate, poor sections of the station. Crime will also develop, resulting in a perfect cyberpunk underworld.

That is so true. It would make for a great Cyberpunk world. A space station of that size would almost be a whole game on it's own though. Here's hoping DX3 is a long game then :)

K^2
22nd Aug 2008, 05:35
I would not oppose the whole game taking place on a space station. But I guess, a lot of people want to visit some real places on Earth in the game. Split the difference? Have about half of the game on Earth, and about half, probably later half, on the space station. Most of that will run along the same line as the Terrestrial missions, but it will give devs a chance to include some missions involving EVA as well.

gamer0004
22nd Aug 2008, 05:42
Such a spacestation would be possible, but will never happen. Why have thousands of people in space? Have you got any idea how expensive that is? And what would you get in return? Nothing! Besides, people can't live in a weightless environment for long.
Rich people are the only ones who can pay for a little home in such a thing, but either their rooms would have to be really small or only Bill Gates can live in space. You can't bring many goods to space with you either. So it would be uncomforable, very, very, very expensive and a huge problem in terms of supplying the whole thing. It's not going to happen. Not now, not within 30 year, not ever!

DXeXodus
22nd Aug 2008, 05:53
Besides, people can't live in a weightless environment for long

You are going to get a lecture now.... :)

gamer0004
22nd Aug 2008, 13:15
This was true 2 years ago, and I think this is still true.

farmerbobconspiracist
22nd Aug 2008, 14:19
If DX3 does not feature a space-based level, then it should at least present a fair amount of backstory and substance as to what is going on in space.

When I read about the mass driver accident, I was actually surprised that the attitude was "well, that was disappointing." I know that with a population in excess of 9 billion, that the lives of 2,000 people aren't that important, but this was supposed to be a MAJOR space initiative with trillions of dollars invested... so I'd like to know more about what they're doing out there. It seems odd that with so many people wanting to participate in space travel today, that 50 years in the future, people wouldn't be able to care less.

And I have to say the whole grays explaination in Invisible War was god-awful. I didn't quite know in DX if they were aliens, manufactured entities, or derived from aliens; but the entire brushing off in IW of "nope, aliens don't exist. at all. nothing to see here, move along, it's just genetic research. there's no conspiracy. hey, did you know coffee shops are trying to dominate the world?"

Yeah. Sure. I rolled by eyes at that one. They passed up a great opportunity to deepen the conspiracy, but it seems like lazy-ass writers just took a short-cut to avoid explaining anything.

farmerbobconspiracist
22nd Aug 2008, 14:28
Such a spacestation would be possible, but will never happen. Why have thousands of people in space? Have you got any idea how expensive that is? And what would you get in return? Nothing!

Well, according to the link provided by the thread originator, not only is this incorrect, but it's actually true in the world of DX.

And, realistically, there would be plenty of opportunity for profit. Look at the ISS. They wouldn't be spending billions on that if they didn't realize they could reap possibly billions more from research done there.


Besides, people can't live in a weightless environment for long.

In a universe where people can TURN INVISIBLE due to tiny organisms in their bloodstream, you think it's impossible to manufacture a way to live in weightless environments for extended periods? :scratch:

Ooookay.

gamer0004
22nd Aug 2008, 16:36
Well, according to the link provided by the thread originator, not only is this incorrect, but it's actually true in the world of DX.

And, realistically, there would be plenty of opportunity for profit. Look at the ISS. They wouldn't be spending billions on that if they didn't realize they could reap possibly billions more from research done there.

In a universe where people can TURN INVISIBLE due to tiny organisms in their bloodstream, you think it's impossible to manufacture a way to live in weightless environments for extended periods? :scratch:

Ooookay.

It could perhaps be possible to create some kind of artificial gravity. But yes, people can't stay in a weightless environment for too long. I believe your muscles will weaken, which is why astronauts have to work out a lot. And then they still have to be replaced within a couple of years.
Sure, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think NASA knows best.
About the "...where people can TURN INVISIBLE due to tiny organisms in their bloodstream..." part: that's two persons, which indeed cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars. You can't compare that to a huge space station where more than 2000 people live.

And about ISS: please, you do not honestly think the US government is getting back more than like 1% of all the money they have ever invested in space travel? Space travel was all about prestige, showing off, trying to prove you're better than others (the Soviets, that is).

jcp28
22nd Aug 2008, 17:03
^

I personally don't think we are likely to see a huge space station by 2050. But that's just me.


On the other hand, you are kind of closing your mind to the possibility that nanotech or something else could be used in the future to reduce the effects of living in a weightless environment. I don't see the funding for it now, but at some point in the future, there will be more of an imperative for NASA to develop a way for humans to adapt better to a weightless environment. That just assumes it's cheaper to do that than to make artificial gravity of course(which it very well could be) but I agree that the funding would come from having competition to give us incentives.

But when it comes to the space station, I would think centrifugal force or whatever that is would be applied to make artificial gravity. I can't see having people spending long periods in space otherwisr.

farmerbobconspiracist
22nd Aug 2008, 23:29
It could perhaps be possible to create some kind of artificial gravity. But yes, people can't stay in a weightless environment for too long. I believe your muscles will weaken, which is why astronauts have to work out a lot. And then they still have to be replaced within a couple of years.

We're talking 50 years of progress. If you think in a universe where nano-tech exists that NASA (or some other scientific agency) can't figure out a way to counter-act or prevent muscular dystrophy (and, by association, musuclar atrophy) and calcium retention technology... no offense, but you're kidding yourself.

And, in case you're wondering, "but why dedicate money to solving these problems?!", as I said, it's got real-world potential. Find a way to prevent muscular dystrophy, and you can develop a method to prevent muscular atrophy. Find a way to develop a cure for osteoporosis, and bones will last long in space. These are real-world goals that we could actually meet within our lifetimes... and you think in a world like DX with NANOTECHNOLOGY that this won't exist?

Sorry, but that's absurd.


Sure, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think NASA knows best.

We're not talking about today, or tomorrow. We're talking 20, 30, or even 50 years and more down the line.


About the "...where people can TURN INVISIBLE due to tiny organisms in their bloodstream..." part: that's two persons, which indeed cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars. You can't compare that to a huge space station where more than 2000 people live.

1.) The point isn't how many people have it, the point is that it EXISTS. And, even in Deus Ex, nanotechnology was relatively common.
2.) By IW, it was common-place. It only took 20 years for augmentation to be available to much of the population.


And about ISS: please, you do not honestly think the US government is getting back more than like 1% of all the money they have ever invested in space travel? Space travel was all about prestige, showing off, trying to prove you're better than others (the Soviets, that is).

If you think that is the case, then why didn't we drop space exploration back in 1969? The USSR ended in 1991 - why are we still in space? China is a decade or two from being able to challenge us in the space frontier - so why are we in space? (These are rhetorical questions)

Perhaps because you're not looking at history, or the big picture. There's plenty of opportunity for scientific profit to be made in space, not to mention the grand prize of being first to militarize space (and don't think it won't happen). I think you might want to research this next time before you make such claims.

K^2
23rd Aug 2008, 02:01
Such a spacestation would be possible, but will never happen. Why have thousands of people in space? Have you got any idea how expensive that is? And what would you get in return? Nothing! Besides, people can't live in a weightless environment for long.
Rich people are the only ones who can pay for a little home in such a thing, but either their rooms would have to be really small or only Bill Gates can live in space. You can't bring many goods to space with you either. So it would be uncomforable, very, very, very expensive and a huge problem in terms of supplying the whole thing. It's not going to happen. Not now, not within 30 year, not ever!
I guess you entirely missed the part about centrifugal gravity. Cyclic motion requires centripetal acceleration, and it is indistinguishable from gravity, as postulated by General Relativity. The entire point is that there is gravity. Quite real artificial gravity that we already know how to make.

The station would be entirely funded by an appropriate space agency. There are many reasons to build large stations like that, from research, to extraterrestrial mining operations. That agency will sponsor the move of citizens from Earth to the station. But from there on, they will depend on their own economy. It is very similar to how the border lands were populated during various colonization and exploration effort. This is not much different.

Finally, yes, this might be a bit of a stretch from what reality will actually turn out to be, but this is Sci-Fi. It is scientific enough to be plausible, but it is a work of fiction, and most people understand that. People accepted the idea of nano augmentations, which are arguably less scientific, and this will work out fine as well.

gamer0004
23rd Aug 2008, 06:51
We're talking 50 years of progress. If you think in a universe where nano-tech exists that NASA (or some other scientific agency) can't figure out a way to counter-act or prevent muscular dystrophy (and, by association, musuclar atrophy) and calcium retention technology... no offense, but you're kidding yourself.

And, in case you're wondering, "but why dedicate money to solving these problems?!", as I said, it's got real-world potential. Find a way to prevent muscular dystrophy, and you can develop a method to prevent muscular atrophy. Find a way to develop a cure for osteoporosis, and bones will last long in space. These are real-world goals that we could actually meet within our lifetimes... and you think in a world like DX with NANOTECHNOLOGY that this won't exist?

Sorry, but that's absurd.



We're not talking about today, or tomorrow. We're talking 20, 30, or even 50 years and more down the line.



1.) The point isn't how many people have it, the point is that it EXISTS. And, even in Deus Ex, nanotechnology was relatively common.
2.) By IW, it was common-place. It only took 20 years for augmentation to be available to much of the population.



If you think that is the case, then why didn't we drop space exploration back in 1969? The USSR ended in 1991 - why are we still in space? China is a decade or two from being able to challenge us in the space frontier - so why are we in space? (These are rhetorical questions)

Perhaps because you're not looking at history, or the big picture. There's plenty of opportunity for scientific profit to be made in space, not to mention the grand prize of being first to militarize space (and don't think it won't happen). I think you might want to research this next time before you make such claims.

Please do not tell me I might not be looking at the whole picture. The first moonlanding is almost 40 years ago and since then, what have achieved?
A small space station and a couple of Mars landers.
Back then people thought we would have people at mars by now, we would have a moonbase, a huge spacestation and so on. And what do we really have? A small spacestation. Really, things don't happen that fast, even though it sometimes looks like it.
And even when people could possibly live in space for their whole live, who do you think would do that? You can't visit your familiy or friends anymore (unless they would come too, but there would be not enough room for them all), there is no nature at all, you can do nothing besides staying in your room and/or have some entertainment.

You're mentioning science. Yes, being able to do research on the galaxy is a huge advantage for physics, but for that they use sattelites or ISS. Why have a bigger spacestation while this one is sufficient?
The point is: a huge space station is terribly expensive and they couldn't get it back even if people will live in it and pay for it. It's of no (extra) use for science.
Men on Mars: yes, definately.
A moonbase: very likely.
But a huge space station: no!

The difference between the first to and the third is that men on a different planet has a huge symbolic value and is a bit useful. A moonbase is useful for something (forgot what it was) and is symbolic. A big spacestation is neither but more expensive! Yes, it would be awesome, but it's nothing special. I mean, we have the ISS, so it's frankly the same but more expansive. Just like the moonlandings after the first: there simply wasn't much interest for it anymore. After a while they just quit the whole project (which of course was partly due to the accidents) even though they had originally planned more.

In the '50s the Soviet Union still existed. Neither them or the US wanted the other to have any advantages
-> space race and arms race. And maybe those two would be combined. However, the only real weapons the experts think will be in space are some laser things to shoot down (nuclear) rockets...
When the SU collapsed, the US government still had the NASA. They cooperated with the Russians (which in fact had already begun during the Cold War) and built ISS. Why? Because it is useful and is symbolic. Showing the world those things are possible. That's what it is about nowadays. And a bigger space station doesn't fit in that idea.

farmerbobconspiracist
23rd Aug 2008, 11:45
Please do not tell me I might not be looking at the whole picture. The first moonlanding is almost 40 years ago and since then, what have achieved?
A small space station and a couple of Mars landers.
Back then people thought we would have people at mars by now


And we would, had the budget for it had been there. Let me guess, if I played word association and said Skylab, you'd be drawing a blank?

Even the most scientific minds were FRUSTRATED as hell from going to launching the most powerful and advanced rockets to babysitting astronauts on a dinky orbiting science lab the size of a bus.

But, guess what? The objective Kennedy set forth was to send a man to the moon and safely bring him back - not to then live on the moon, go to Mars, and conquer Alpha Centauri. Once we did that and saw the Soviets had no desire to go outwards, the budget was slashed into a mere shell of what it once was.

Progress is not the problem. We went from barely being able to leave the gravity of our planet to landing on the moon in the space of a decade, so don't sit there and tell me progress is slow because we don't know how to do it. It's slow because we don't WANT to do it. Unless another country challenges us to it, the objective of going to Mars is lackluster. Moonbase? Why? To please SETI?


And even when people could possibly live in space for their whole live, who do you think would do that? You can't visit your familiy or friends anymore (unless they would come too, but there would be not enough room for them all), there is no nature at all, you can do nothing besides staying in your room and/or have some entertainment.

So then why aren't the people living in Antarctica doing research routinely painting the ceilings and walls with their brain matter?

Isolation isn't a problem. It's dealt with on the shuttle and space station. There's astronauts/cosmonauts that have spent over a year in space without being with loved ones. They didn't go crazy.


You're mentioning science. Yes, being able to do research on the galaxy is a huge advantage for physics, but for that they use sattelites or ISS. Why have a bigger spacestation while this one is sufficient?

What makes you think it's sufficient? There's a reason the ISS is modular and keeps expanding...


The point is: a huge space station is terribly expensive and they couldn't get it back even if people will live in it and pay for it. It's of no (extra) use for science.


I don't know what you're saying by "couldn't get it back," but if you don't think rich men with deep wallets wouldn't pay out of the yoohoo to go there, you are again kidding yourself.

Like it or not, space tourism is indeed a profitable venture. It will happen.



But a huge space station: no!

Define huge. And with corporations having bigger profit margins that some countries GDP rating, you don't think they won't monopolize it for their own uses? Again, space tourism. For christ's sake, you'd NEED a space station that's fairly large for a space elevator... and guess what NASA and nearly every other space exploration entity says we need - that's right, as space elevator.


The difference between the first to and the third is that men on a different planet has a huge symbolic value and is a bit useful. A moonbase is useful for something (forgot what it was) and is symbolic.

Going to Mars is nothing more than being able to say "we did it, cross that off the list." It's not profitable. It's not cheap. It's not easy. If you want to exploit resources, you use machines and do so on the moon and then on asteroids - not Mars. If you want to establish space tourism venture, then you establish space stations, space elevators, and reliable and cheap transport. Really, Mars isn't profitable at the moment. When we get to the point where colonizing Mars is safe and possible, then we can look at it.

Moonbase? Irrelevant. Unless you have a soft-spot (and a damn big one) for SETI, you'll have little use for the foreseeable future. We have resources on earth we haven't mined yet, so going to the moon to do that isn't money-wise and is pointless. Using the moon as a staging area could be done, but it's cheaper and more useful to have a space elevator and platform.

Thus, both of these options are actually less than useful for our current situation.


A big spacestation is neither but more expensive!

Actually, cheaper.

Each time you double the distance, quadruple the price to get there. Rocket fuel is not cheap. Space elevators to get you into space are required for chemical fuel rockets in order to have fast-paced space exploration. I'm sorry, but NASA and a few thousand scientists back me up on this. We need it, or we can't afford it.

And, unsurprisingly, it's a few thousand times cheaper to have a rocket leave a space station than fight against the earth's escape velocity. The less fuel you have to burn, the more money you can save.


Yes, it would be awesome, but it's nothing special. I mean, we have the ISS, so it's frankly the same but more expansive.


Explain to me how a glorified research lab is anything remotely near same as a space elevator platform. You can't use it to get objects into space cheaply. You can't use it to expand into space cheaply.


Just like the moonlandings after the first: there simply wasn't much interest for it anymore. After a while they just quit the whole project (which of course was partly due to the accidents) even though they had originally planned more.

Accidents? No, it was due to funding. There's a reason why Skylab used LEFTOVER Saturn-5 parts and accessories and wasn't built from the ground up. NASA didn't have the budget.

And this was only mere years after Apollo...


However, the only real weapons the experts think will be in space are some laser things to shoot down (nuclear) rockets...

Lasers aren't going to work. Chemical lasers are the only reliable way to put up a space-born laser... and resupplying it would be a headache.

More than likely, it will be a kinetic-based platform. And, the United States has shown more than some interest in militarizing space before the Chinese do. With China all but glouting to the world that they figured out how to kill satellites (and that they're insane enough to use the technology), the United States wants to protect their interests. When the possibility of your enemy knocking out a $2 billion satellite with a $1.2 million missile is real, you tend to take notice. Militarization of space is a very real objective for multiple countries.


When the SU collapsed, the US government still had the NASA. They cooperated with the Russians (which in fact had already begun during the Cold War) and built ISS. Why? Because it is useful and is symbolic. Showing the world those things are possible. That's what it is about nowadays. And a bigger space station doesn't fit in that idea.

It was mostly political. They were also hoping that the Russians were bear some of the budget costs and help speed up deployment. Namely because it was faster and cheaper for the Russians to launch components.

That, and if they cut the Russians out of the program, we would have never heard the end of it. The powers that be realized with such an important program, that to keep relations warm, they needed the Russians. It's just like how we're even aiding them in THEIR requirements for START II.

gamer0004
23rd Aug 2008, 13:35
Oh I agree with you on the space elevator idea: that's almost a must for true space travel. And we would have to build a bigger space station for that, yes that's true.
But: they're not going to use it as a hotel! For the space travel purpose you need like what, 200 men? At most.
That's different than 2000 men. You have to feed them, have furniture, they need space and so on. It would hugely expand the costs. Because we first have to get the thing into space. For that we have to use rockets: which is expensive like you just said.
Besides, the whole thing would become very bulky. And you'd have to move it higher up so it doesn't crash onto Earth. And I don't think there are enough customers. People won't want to stay in space for more than 3 months at most, and even with space elevators it would be very expensive so there won't be many people who can afford it. It would be way more profitable if they built one small commercial part. Way more exclusive that way.

Jerion
23rd Aug 2008, 14:42
Haven't you guys ever seen Babylon 5?

Now think about Brown & Grey sectors, a.k.a. Down Below.

EXACTLY.

That sort of environment is what we need for a space level.

'Nuff Said.

B0b_P@ge
24th Aug 2008, 02:28
Wow, excellent discussion everyone! I enjoyed reading everyone's discussion and now it's my turn to get in on it....


I really don't agree that such an idea would work itself into a cyberpunk theme. Reading about such a thing and alluding to it in game would work perfectly (a la the off world colonies in bladerunner), but actually donning a space suit and escaping the earth's atmosphere? Do you see this as gritty and underworldish? Is this really continuing the themes that we've seen in both Deus Ex titles? Need I remind you that EVERY SINGLE level in both titles has been on planet earth, during the night or the wee hours of the morning? In both titles we have a prevalence of filth and crime, and of lots of other people on screen? That most of each game consists of sneaking and working our way through some dystopic environment with our noses to the ground, looking for a secret passageway or extra multitool? Now you say that to be liberated from all of this would fit in perfectly with Deus Ex's theme?

I am not convinced.

That's fair. May I ask, have you read Neuromancer? A great deal of ideas where respectfully borrowed from that book; do you remember when Icarus contacted you through all electronics? That's right out of Neuromancer, except in the book the A.I. contacted you from a hacked orbital comm-sat... You see, the A.I. supercomputer was located on some multi-national-corporate data-server located in high-earth orbit.

Neuromancer did an excellent job of portraying the way space based habitation and cyberpunk intertwined and it's the reason why I'm totally convinced a space-level would be perfect for DX3 (And was planned as my first thread states). The internet(Matrix) allows humanity to expand into the limitless dimension of 'inner-space' of data-networks and the human mind; outer space lows humanity to explore the infinite vastness of present-physical-space and so when these two concepts are combined a number of implications arise, one of which DX no doubt used is achieving the state of a becoming a God.

To answer your question, I absolutely can see a space level as what you mentioned. Genetic Engineering(GE) and cloning of human beings is strictly forbidden ... on earth but who can enforce such a rule in earths orbit? Especially when GE is used alongside to make a profit. In Neuromancer, many trans-national corporations had base of operations along earths high orbit just to escape international law; knowing this, can you imagine the amount of cyberpunknish ideas you can come up with with this? For instance, in the book, a powerful corporation called the Tessier-Ashpool had stations filled with nanoaugmented-GE-hitmans frozen on ice where if someone interfered with the corporations interests on earth, these hitman would be thawed and sent to the regions on earth that required attention.

B0b_P@ge
24th Aug 2008, 02:52
Now I'd like to address the issue of realism and plausibility.

If investment of money into technology would be an indicator of potential technologies in the future then let me ask you this: How much money has been and is currently spent on space-based technologies? I think we all would agree it's well into the multi-billions or trillions by a combination of international, public and recent private interests so we can safely assume space-exploration has a place in our future; the question is how much and when in a DX universe?

As far as history is concerned, from the 1950's to 1980's we witness the first space race where primary the only interested parties where nation-states who sponsored and developed technologies and benefited from their investments; with the end of the Soviet Union(SU) brought the race to an end; however, we are going to enter (if not already) into a second space race (if you haven't noticed it already) where it may shift to private-interests investing and benefiting its use, so orbital-flights or space hotels are the future, but if China has anything to do with it we can see states becoming once again interested as well. Also international-cooperative efforts will take(and are) place such as the recently formed European-Union coming into the picture and wanting to upgrade their economies. In context, sure we landed on the moon in 1960, but now 2004 we have rich&selfmade-multimillionaires paying close to 100,000,000 dollors for a space flight; whats possible in 2030, or 2040? The most important factor is the space elevator.

I totally agree with space exploration being very costly and dangerous but the space elevator(SE) would drastically change that. A SE would lower the costs per kilogram from around thousands of dollars per kilogram to 400$/Kg to 200$/Kg into space. The lifts would be constant, less-pollution and less-accident prone then normal rockets; moreover, space-planes could use the SE as a slingshot to launch space-plans into other destinations a lot cheaper(money & energy) then normal rockets. The space platform on top could house a station with no atmospheric drag, meaning no orbital decay problem and no orbit adjustment procedures which are costly by the way. IMHO, the space elevator is an important pre-requisite for accessing the space frontier.

The creation of a space elevator is very intertwined with nano-technology; if you can have nano-machines to alter the human body to give it super powers (example: jumping from building to building) then its almost assumed that the mass-manufacturing process of nano-carbon tubes would be discovered THUS allowing the construction of a space elevator. A SE would be completely realistic in a DX world, especially with the 'universal constructor'. :nut:

The idea goes full circle, if we could have a space-elevator then we could have space-levels.

Freddo
24th Aug 2008, 04:38
Lets say there is a space station level. How would the player get there? Steal a space rocket? Buy a ticket at the travel agency?

I can't really think of a good way which would feel "Deus Exish" to me. Who would the pilot/travel buddy be?

I think the transportation in the first Deus Ex was awesome with the cool black helicopter (and Jock), and that's how it should be in Deus Ex 3 too as far as I'm concerned (although not with Jock).

Deus Ex walked a fine line between present realism (exploring existing earth places, expanding current conspiracies and so on) and cyberpunk realism (nanotech and so on), and going to a space station puts the weight too far in one direction and ruins the setting.


Haven't you guys ever seen Babylon 5?

Now think about Brown & Grey sectors, a.k.a. Down Below.

EXACTLY.

That sort of environment is what we need for a space level.

'Nuff Said.
Babylon 5 is in the 2250s while Deus Ex is in the 2050s. 40 years from now. I think there's a difference between Science-fiction and Futuristic cyberpunk. Sci-Fi got space travels and blaster rifles while Futuristic is a tad more realistic. They don't match well.

Is there any good reason to include space stations besides it's "cool"? And lets say the player visit a space station like Mir that travels around the earth orbit. What exactly would he do there?

K^2
24th Aug 2008, 04:51
Anybody who tells you we'll have space elevators anywhere in the reasonable future is smoking something they shouldn't.

A space elevator is an example of a planet-scale megastructure. This is not a simple case of lacking materials, as some people want you to believe. We lack anything remotely close to the kind of resources it takes. From amount of material, to the work force, to technology, to energy.

Consider this, a perfect strand of steel will support a little over 100 km of its own weight. You need over 40,000 km. Now, do you think you can just run a cable up to a satellite, and get an elevator? No, you need a support structure. Otherwise the winds and Coriolis effect will tear everything apart.

A very generous estimate would require a pyramid over 200 km at the base of the structure reaching about 100 km off the surface, and a column reaching geostationary that can withstand tidal forces. Even if you just want to transport parts and do assembly in orbit, this is at least 100m across.

We are talking about many cubic kilometers of material that is about 500 times as strong as steel. Or 50 times as strong as some of the strongest materials. In addition, about 10,000 cubic kilometers of a material that is at least 10 times as strong as steel.

Now, this part is a very rough estimate based on the numbers above ans some conservation laws. My best guess is at least 10^22J of energy would be required just to get the material you need from raw form. This is roughly the entire solar input from one day. Or something like a decade supply of energy our entire civilization consumes. And I'm not even talking about energy requirements for actual construction here.

Construction itself is a nightmare. You won't be able to rocket that much stuff into space, so you'll have to use the tower you've already built to keep moving construction materials up. This is difficult enough when we are talking about 400m tall skyscrapers. How do you imagine this working when the construction will be happening of thousands of kilometers beyond Earth's atmosphere.

When you start saying things like, oh, they'll figure out how to do this kind of thing, you might as well say they'll launch space ships by magic. We have just as much understanding of the later as of technology that will be required to build a space elevator.

farmerbobconspiracist
24th Aug 2008, 07:01
Anybody who tells you we'll have space elevators anywhere in the reasonable future is smoking something they shouldn't.

And perhaps you need to do some research to see this isn't some fantasy that could never work.


A space elevator is an example of a planet-scale megastructure.

What the hell are you talking about? It is not a planet-scale megastructure.


This is not a simple case of lacking materials, as some people want you to believe. We lack anything remotely close to the kind of resources it takes. From amount of material, to the work force, to technology, to energy.


Quite frankly, that's bull****.

First, we do have the materials that can be used to build it.
Second, we do have the work force. Out of nearly 7 billion people, you don't think we could assemble a team of engineers able to do this? Talk about short-selling the human race.
Technology? It's there. In fact, the largest problem is getting the space elevator line anchored.
Energy? What nonsense is this? We have plenty of power, both electrical and chemical, to do this.


Consider this, a perfect strand of steel will support a little over 100 km of its own weight. You need over 40,000 km. Now, do you think you can just run a cable up to a satellite, and get an elevator? No, you need a support structure. Otherwise the winds and Coriolis effect will tear everything apart.

1.) Steel is unusable for a project like this. Which is why we're looking at carbon nanotubes (which we can make, and in quantity) and also diamond based.
2.) If you think the coriolis effect will be a problem, I suggest you re-look at proposal. There's a reason that the space elevator will be counter-weighted and placed in geostationary orbit. To counter-act it. Winds, however, are a problem. That's also why mobile base platforms have been suggested.


A very generous estimate would require a pyramid over 200 km at the base of the structure reaching about 100 km off the surface, and a column reaching geostationary that can withstand tidal forces.

Nonsense. 200 kilometer long base? Where did you dig this up? Scientists are recommending water-based mobile base platforms... do you think such a thing would be recommended if it needed a minimum of 200km? No.


Even if you just want to transport parts and do assembly in orbit, this is at least 100m across.


Not even that. No where near.


We are talking about many cubic kilometers of material that is about 500 times as strong as steel. Or 50 times as strong as some of the strongest materials. In addition, about 10,000 cubic kilometers of a material that is at least 10 times as strong as steel.

It does not need to be 500 times as strong as steel. Research indicates material 32 times the strength of the average steel alloy is needed. Guess what - carbon nanotubes have been shown to have a tensile strength in excess of 75 times that of steel. So, we do have the materials.

And I have to say, you're math is off. Incredibly way off.


Now, this part is a very rough estimate based on the numbers above ans some conservation laws. My best guess is at least 10^22J of energy would be required just to get the material you need from raw form. This is roughly the entire solar input from one day. Or something like a decade supply of energy our entire civilization consumes. And I'm not even talking about energy requirements for actual construction here.

10 to the 22nd power of... what? What measurement are you using? And, no, it wouldn't. Do you know how much power, exactly, in TW/h it will require per year to manufacture carbon nanotubes? No, you don't. So you speculating how much power would be required is nothing but waving hand nonsense. Do you take me for that much of a fool?


Construction itself is a nightmare.

So, obviously, we shouldn't do it?

What kind of attitude is that?


You won't be able to rocket that much stuff into space, so you'll have to use the tower you've already built to keep moving construction materials up.

I swear, you didn't do ANY research AT ALL.

First of all, one of the methods for erecting the space elevator USES the coriolis effect for a loop method.

Second of all, you honestly think that someone other than a complete neanderthal is ACTUALLY considering BUILDING STRAIGHT INTO SPACE like a set of steps. I suggest you re-look at the proposals (or more likely, actually look at them - period). That won't be done because it's a moronic use of resources and time.


This is difficult enough when we are talking about 400m tall skyscrapers.

Except, as I said, most scientists recommend using sea-based platform bases. Not only because it will keep the base away from population centers, but also because you could make it mobile if so desired.


How do you imagine this working when the construction will be happening of thousands of kilometers beyond Earth's atmosphere.

Here's a suggest: Google Brad Edwards and read what he says.


When you start saying things like, oh, they'll figure out how to do this kind of thing, you might as well say they'll launch space ships by magic. We have just as much understanding of the later as of technology that will be required to build a space elevator.

Let's see what magic you did here:

1.) Claimed to know exactly how much energy would be required to manufacture materials. That was laughable.
2.) Claimed that the base would need to be the biggest structure on the earth, which is preposterous and ridden with mathematical errors that seem straight out of the Bob Lazar School of Physics.
3.) Claimd that the coriolis effect would topple any space elevator... even though it's counter-balanced with an anchor and placed in geostationary orbit for THIS VERY REASON.
4.) That construction will consist of us literally just building up into space, like some bizarre steampunk science where we'll just build a staircase of bricks into space.

It seems like you're the magician here.

I'm sorry, but you come in here painting me as some sci-fi wank that thinks we'll be driving flying cars to Venus when YOU are the one lacking any credible information. I suggest you come back when you understand one iota of what you're talking about - which might just be a very long time.

B0b_P@ge
24th Aug 2008, 14:19
Anybody who tells you we'll have space elevators anywhere in the reasonable future is smoking something they shouldn't.


Will I don't mind disagreement on an issue, I do mind someone taking and making the issue personal. Please be more respectful. I don't think the Advanced Projects Office at NASA (http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code802/) would like to be considered a bunch of pot-smoking idiots, especially since they're the ones that do the research and approve projects like the moon-landing or mars-rover mission; moreover David Smitherman has been working real hard to prove the concepts or disprove (Depending on the findings) with various experts. I see by your post that you have your own disagreements and numbers and that's well fine. I on the other hand will take sides with Dr. Bradley Carl Edwards and the team of scientists,engineers & policy makes from NASA's APO. Please note this is not an appeal to authority argument because unlike you I've looked into my research on the topic(You can start here (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1690)) and have explored more in dept of nanocarbon tubes in my materials engineering course.



A space elevator is an example of a planet-scale megastructure. This is not a simple case of lacking materials, as some people want you to believe. We lack anything remotely close to the kind of resources it takes. From amount of material, to the work force, to technology, to energy.


Wrong, if use magastructure as an exploratory engineering term then a space elevator would be trans-orbital structures and thus wouldn't require as much resource as on a 'planetary-scale', an example of planetary-scale megastructure would a planetary orbital ring; now THAT would require resources on a planetary scale; moreover, as far as resources are concerned.......we're lacking Carbon? Last time I heard we have a global climate crisis because we're pumping too much carbon from the ground? We'll have work force problems in 2050 with overpopulation and automated mechanization of labour? And how much energy would it take to place a small asteroid in stable geostationary orbit from earths high-earth orbit?



When you start saying things like, oh, they'll figure out how to do this kind of thing, you might as well say they'll launch space ships by magic. We have just as much understanding of the later as of technology that will be required to build a space elevator.

I don't see whats so magical about it, in 2018 China will land on the moon, that's a fact (http://chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-11/04/content_491424.htm), in 2018 America will land humans on the moon again that's a fact (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/20/news/moon.php) they will also build a permanent lunar outpost in 2024, that's a fact, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/dec/05/spaceexploration.internationalnews) Russia will build a moon base in 2027, that's also a fact (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561846/Russia-enters-%27space-race%27-to-build-moon-base.html). We already had China testing space-weapons, we had Ronald Regan spend billions into the feasablitiy of space to ground weapons in 1980's... as far as I'm concerned, the future has space development in store whether we like it or not, and in a lot grander form then we except, I mean 104 billion dollars for landing on the moon again isn't magical money, it gets results.

Anyone who blows off space-tech in the year of 2050 as insignificant is clearly unaware of the current trends....

TrickyVein
24th Aug 2008, 16:41
In Neuromancer, many trans-national corporations had base of operations along earths high orbit just to escape international law; knowing this, can you imagine the amount of cyberpunknish ideas you can come up with with this?

Interesting - Corporations in philip k (can't spell d*ck here, herm)'s/ridley scott's universe Bladerunner employed slavery of replicant machines on off world colonies - no replicants were allowed back on earth - I could see this idea developing, of skirting ethical law and public awareness by removing corporate or other malpractice into space...

It would be great to see this third installment push some new ground.

K^2
24th Aug 2008, 18:33
Farmerbob, it's all very fun when you just read a bunch of articles and take their word for it. On the other hand, I have actually studied material resistances, physics of rotating systems, perturbed orbital trajectories, and numerous other related topics for many years.

There are many different ways you can build a space elevator. If you use support rings to suspend sections of your elevator, you can do it with steel. But this is an even bigger megastructure.

You can do it with carbon nanotubes if you start building from the top down, rather than from ground up, and use an exponential curve. But this increases the complexity of construction, amount of materials used, and makes it even less plausible.

And your comment on Coriolis effect is laughable. In order for Coriolis effect due to rotation of Earth to put something into orbit, you need to reach a Geostationary first. That's the reason they are building it that way. It also happens to be high school physics, so if you don't get that, don't even begin an argument.

Oh, and I specified exactly what that 10^22 is in units of. Happened to notice that little "J" there? If you don't know what that means, please, just be quiet. You are embarrassing yourself. And it does happen to be a very rough, lower bound estimate that assumes nothing but the tensile strength of the material. This doesn't give you the whole energy requirement, but you need at least that much. I have compared that estimate to some known materials, and it is in the right ball park. I see no reason for it to fail with nanotubes or any future material you might need.

As for folks at NASA, I have no respect for the current generation of their scientists, if you can even call them that. I've known quite a few, and extremely few of them are competent. The only thing they know how to do is get money for projects they are incapable of completing.

gamer0004
24th Aug 2008, 19:31
As for folks at NASA, I have no respect for the current generation of their scientists, if you can even call them that. I've known quite a few, and extremely few of them are competent. The only thing they know how to do is get money for projects they are incapable of completing.

Lolz. I guess there are some over there that are smart though. But it's government funded you know... Seriously, everything that's government funded works inefficiently. In Holland anyway (I have experienced it and know many people who have as well). Love my country.

farmerbobconspiracist
24th Aug 2008, 21:46
Farmerbob, it's all very fun when you just read a bunch of articles and take their word for it.

Yeah, like scientists. I guess they don't have any reputation to consider when writing a scientific article or paper, so they can just put down whatever the hell they want and the rest of the scientific world won't notice.

EXCEPT K^2! THANK GOD WE HAVE THIS SCIENTIFIC MYTH BUSTER AROUND! It doesn't matter that his math is atrocious, his research is wrong, and that his arguments are flawed... This man is dedicated to exposing the LIES of science. Just like the similar LIE that the moon doesn't have an atmosphere and isn't hollow.

I'm sorry, but your understanding on this subject still comes from the Bob Lazar School of Space Science.


On the other hand, I have actually studied material resistances

No, you haven't. Otherwise you would double-over laughing at anyone suggesting steel for use in the space elevator cable.

Yet you're the one advocating it.


physics of rotating systems

Doubtful again, since you still don't grasp the meaning of words "COUNTER-WEIGHT" and "ANCHOR." Add geostationary to that as well.


perturbed orbital trajectories

It's too bad you didn't study celestial mechanics instead - which is actually useful concerning a space elevator, is a recognized scientific field, and actually exists.



There are many different ways you can build a space elevator. If you use support rings to suspend sections of your elevator, you can do it with steel. But this is an even bigger megastructure.

No one that has a degree in any physics field would suggest that any part of the space elevator cable be made of steel.

You keep suggesting it. Because it shows how much of a quack you are in this regard.


You can do it with carbon nanotubes if you start building from the top down, rather than from ground up, and use an exponential curve.

Not required...


But this increases the complexity of construction, amount of materials used, and makes it even less plausible.

Again, the method you mention is NOT REQUIRED for a carbon nanotube space elevator.

I'm guessing you finally gave up on that damn stupid "200km base platform" and have decided to try something else?


And your comment on Coriolis effect is laughable. In order for Coriolis effect due to rotation of Earth to put something into orbit, you need to reach a Geostationary first.


I suggest you google "Brad Edwards" like I suggested earlier.

Then google "loop elevator."

Then research everything else you claim to know, because you obviously don't.


That's the reason they are building it that way. It also happens to be high school physics, so if you don't get that, don't even begin an argument.


1.) They aren't building it that way, because currently, there's no space elevator plans going on.
2.) You don't even understand the method they are using for construction, so I doubt you can claim you understand the physics of it.


Oh, and I specified exactly what that 10^22 is in units of. Happened to notice that little "J" there?

No I didn't, actually.


And it does happen to be a very rough, lower bound estimate

It's an imaginary number you pulled out of your ass.

You couldn't tell me a reliable figure as to how many kilowatts/hour are used in the construction of carbon nanotubes if your life depended on it.

By assuming you do... you show how readily you are to lie.


but you need at least that much.

No you don't...


I have compared that estimate to some known materials

Riiiight. I doubt you'd even be able to tell how many kilowatts per hour are required to make STEEL, let alone carbon nanotubes.


and it is in the right ball park

Bull****.

Show me facts.


I see no reason for it to fail with nanotubes or any future material you might need.


Maybe because your math and research here are from fairy tale lands?


As for folks at NASA, I have no respect for the current generation of their scientists, if you can even call them that. I've known quite a few, and extremely few of them are competent. The only thing they know how to do is get money for projects they are incapable of completing.

Translation: I know better than NASA. :lol:

For a man that can't even use google to look up and back-up his argument and has OBVIOUSLY not read the space elevator proposals by Brad Edwards... the only way you'd have met NASA scientists is if you got to clean the bathrooms in their facility or you strayed too far from the tour.

You're a fraud, and a quack. Please come back when you have some facts and an actual argument instead of ego and double-speak.

farmerbobconspiracist
24th Aug 2008, 21:51
moreover, as far as resources are concerned.......we're lacking Carbon?

For some reason when I saw that I thought, "let's use people."

Then I remembered Soylent Green.

K^2
25th Aug 2008, 03:14
I don't feel like I even need to answer most of the post. I suppose, I could post scans of my credentials, but this is a bit of an overkill. I'll simply answer this little bit, which should be sufficient. The rest, I'll treat as an ad hominem not requiring further response.

No one that has a degree in any physics field would suggest that any part of the space elevator cable be made of steel.
Steel can be used to construct a constant-width cable over 100km long that will not break under its own weight. If you want some extra strength, or if you want to increase spacing of rings I'll mention bellow, you can make it of a non-constant width.
Now, imagine a circular cable loop spanned all the way around the earth at altitude of 100km and made to spin at orbital velocity for that altitude. Due to ability of the cable to bend and stretch, even so little, it will be in stable equilibrium, require no support, and if some extra rotational velocity is given, can support something at 100km.

A cable can be constructed from Earth to the first ring built entirely from steel. The hub to which a cable is attach rides on top via mag-rail. A second ring is placed 100km above first one. A cable continues between hubs on first and second ring. Since that second stretch of cable is hangs from second ring, again, it only needs to support 100km of its own length.

400 rings later, you reach geostationary orbit. Entire structure constructed from no material stronger than steel.

We, of course, have no resources to build such a structure, but we don't need to, either. If we use better materials, and construct a single ring at 200-500km, and manage to keep a geosynchronized station at this level, we can launch everything we need using mag rail. This is a far more feasible design than any space elevator that involves a geostationary orbit.

But of course, launching the ring will be a huge challenge, which is why I don't think this will be our next step, either. Some form of a ground-based linear accelerator will replace rockets within next century. Such a device will be capable of launching a vehicle at almost enough speed for orbit. Only the last 1-2km/s will need to be achieved by rocket. A modern Space Shuttle is already capable of that without external fuel tank and boosters. The problem, of course, is in building a 2,000km long linear motor enclosed in an evacuated chamber, but this is an engineering problem that can be solved with resources we already posses.

farmerbobconspiracist
25th Aug 2008, 05:37
I don't feel like I even need to answer most of the post. I suppose, I could post scans of my credentials, but this is a bit of an overkill. I'll simply answer this little bit, which should be sufficient. The rest, I'll treat as an ad hominem not requiring further response.

1.) Posting your credentials, which are doubtfully adequate, would simply be an appeal to your authority and a free ticket to say what you want.
2.) For someone that replied with "Anybody who tells you we'll have space elevators anywhere in the reasonable future is smoking something they shouldn't" has ZERO room to talk about ad hominem attacks. You painted myself and others as dope smoking fiends that were blabbing on about technology whilst on their way to the supermarket for Cheetos. So screw you and the high horse you rode in on.


Steel can be used to construct a constant-width cable over 100km long that will not break under its own weight.

Steel tensile strength would not support that weight.


If you want some extra strength, or if you want to increase spacing of rings I'll mention bellow, you can make it of a non-constant width.
Now, imagine a circular cable loop spanned all the way around the earth at altitude of 100km and made to spin at orbital velocity for that altitude. Due to ability of the cable to bend and stretch, even so little, it will be in stable equilibrium, require no support, and if some extra rotational velocity is given, can support something at 100km.

A cable can be constructed from Earth to the first ring built entirely from steel. The hub to which a cable is attach rides on top via mag-rail. A second ring is placed 100km above first one. A cable continues between hubs on first and second ring. Since that second stretch of cable is hangs from second ring, again, it only needs to support 100km of its own length.

400 rings later, you reach geostationary orbit. Entire structure constructed from no material stronger than steel.

Why would we bother with some a complex and compounded system when we could simply use a lead cable to string up a nanocarbon tube cable to geostationary orbit? I'd like to know how you're going to get 400 rings in place and keep them there.


This is a far more feasible design than any space elevator that involves a geostationary orbit.

I severely doubt that. Namely because you're still working with launching vehicles and half-way building a space elevator. With the effort of making a 2,000km long accelerator and making a hybrid space elevator, you could actually make a space elevator. The main reason scientists and NASA want a space elevator is so they can cut-off launch costs of future space missions. Even with an accelerator, you're still going to have to pay for launching everything into orbit. You'd basically have nothing more than a glorified space station.

DXeXodus
25th Aug 2008, 06:24
This is no place for a pissing contest. Either take it to Private Message, talk like adults, or go away. Statements such as "So screw you and the high horse you rode in on" will not be tolerated. This is an informal warning.

K^2
25th Aug 2008, 15:09
Steel tensile strength would not support that weight.
Alloys with up to 8GPa exist. They aren't used much due to becoming brittle, but if you don't need your cable to bend, it's not a problem. At density of 7.8g/ml, this gives you over 100km at 1g.

Furthermore, if you are ready to enclose each ring within atmosphere in a vacuum chamber where the orbiting cable rides via mag rail, you can go even in increments of 30km, in which case a piano wire will work for your needs.

Your statement was that you cannot build a space elevator from steel. I'm proving to you that you can.


Why would we bother with some a complex and compounded system when we could simply use a lead cable to string up a nanocarbon tube cable to geostationary orbit?
Because you cannot. The naive computations ignore the winds, tides, oscillations, magnetospheric effects, etc.

As a simple example, for every launch by the space elevator, your anchor will lose a fraction of its momentum. This is proportional to the mass of the object you launch, and exact value is trivially derived from conservation of angular momentum. Naturally, you want to launch more mass than the mass of the anchor, because otherwise it is cheaper to not launch the anchor, and launch cargo instead by chemical rockets. How are you going to restore that momentum? Clearly, ferrying fuel up there is counter-efficient. So you have to pull on the anchor with your cable.

But herein lies the problem. If you pull, via cable, on an orbital object, that object goes to higher orbit, while its angular velocity drops. If this seems counterintuitive for you, just look at Kepler's Law. The angle is increasing as you pull, not decreasing. This is a self-destructive system. One can think of it as a second order Coriolis effect.

So, you cannot return momentum to anchor via cable, you cannot do it by rockets, and if you cannot restore its momentum, it's cheaper not to use it at all.

Now, I'm sure you'll start talking about loop method again. And I'll be happy to listen as soon as you explain to me how exactly you prevent the cable from burning in atmosphere. Also, once you point me to exact computations proving that such a system is actually dynamically stable. As much as I search, I cannot find any proof beyond static stability.

To demonstrate the point to a layman, grab something with a retracting cable mechanism. Many vacuum cleaners have that. Pull out the cable all the way, and hit the retract button/switch. What happens to the cable? It will go in, but also swing around more and more as it picks up speed. This is normal behavior for a cable being led into a guide at high velocity. It is a dynamic instability of such system. On the scale of a loop reaching the geostationary and having to hit exact spot on Earth this destructive effect would be difficult to counter.

I was actually solving the same problem in context of a dynamic support system for bridges, etc. Where a loop of cable is running between two hubs, one on the ground and the other attached to the bridge. This allows transfer of weight with a very light cable. The solution I got was dynamically unstable, so its up to engineering to figure out how to dampen the oscillations. I don't see why this would be any different for the loop cable method for space elevator, and I have no idea how to dampen oscillations on such a megastructure.

farmerbobconspiracist
25th Aug 2008, 18:19
This is no place for a pissing contest. Either take it to Private Message, talk like adults, or go away. Statements such as "So screw you and the high horse you rode in on" will not be tolerated. This is an informal warning.

And I won't tolerate being labeled as a drug addict by someone that doesn't even know me, simply because he disagrees with me and my opinion. Notice who the first one to throw personal insults in this thread was (check post #72 in this thread). Don't single me out.


Alloys with up to 8GPa exist. They aren't used much due to becoming brittle, but if you don't need your cable to bend, it's not a problem. At density of 7.8g/ml, this gives you over 100km at 1g.

Furthermore, if you are ready to enclose each ring within atmosphere in a vacuum chamber where the orbiting cable rides via mag rail, you can go even in increments of 30km, in which case a piano wire will work for your needs.

Your statement was that you cannot build a space elevator from steel. I'm proving to you that you can.

Yeah, and it would merely just be a strand of steel that wouldn't be useful as a space elevator - assuming it didn't:


a perfect strand of steel will support a little over 100 km of its own weight. You need over 40,000 km. Now, do you think you can just run a cable up to a satellite, and get an elevator? No, you need a support structure. Otherwise the winds and Coriolis effect will tear everything apart.

Your own words. I think you're grasping at straws here, and you realize that merely a strand of steel will not work for a space elevator. It won't support an elevator and anything it was lifting.


Because you cannot. The naive computations ignore the winds, tides, oscillations, magnetospheric effects, etc.


Translation: Reputable scientists are wrong and I'm right.


As a simple example, for every launch by the space elevator, your anchor will lose a fraction of its momentum. This is proportional to the mass of the object you launch, and exact value is trivially derived from conservation of angular momentum. Naturally, you want to launch more mass than the mass of the anchor, because otherwise it is cheaper to not launch the anchor, and launch cargo instead by chemical rockets. How are you going to restore that momentum? Clearly, ferrying fuel up there is counter-efficient. So you have to pull on the anchor with your cable.

The problem in this assumptive example is that you want to launch more mass than your anchor. Proponents are even suggesting using asteroid bodies... we're talking the possibility of hundreds of thousands of tons. We wouldn't be able to even lift anything that heavy with the space elevator cable with ANY material. Even a modest space station used as tethered anchor (read: unlikely) would be in the hundreds of tons. The ISS will weight in at an estimated 475 tons when completed. I doubt we'd be lifting anything near that much.


But herein lies the problem. If you pull, via cable, on an orbital object, that object goes to higher orbit, while its angular velocity drops. If this seems counterintuitive for you, just look at Kepler's Law. The angle is increasing as you pull, not decreasing. This is a self-destructive system. One can think of it as a second order Coriolis effect.

The anchor will be in a geostationary orbit... it will not go into a higher orbit because of its orbit and because of being tethered.


Now, I'm sure you'll start talking about loop method again. And I'll be happy to listen as soon as you explain to me how exactly you prevent the cable from burning in atmosphere. Also, once you point me to exact computations proving that such a system is actually dynamically stable. As much as I search, I cannot find any proof beyond static stability.


1.) The cable won't experience reentry heat because it isn't traveling at high velocity relative to the earth. Reentry heat is an aerodynamic heat. The problem is when you're traveling in excess of 20,000 miles per hour and suddenly hit atmosphere. No such problem exists in this application.
2.) It's not my duty to prove a negative. If you had done the proper google searches and have those wonderful scientific credentials you claim to have; I don't need to do this for you.


To demonstrate the point to a layman, grab something with a retracting cable mechanism. Many vacuum cleaners have that. Pull out the cable all the way, and hit the retract button/switch. What happens to the cable? It will go in, but also swing around more and more as it picks up speed. This is normal behavior for a cable being led into a guide at high velocity. It is a dynamic instability of such system. On the scale of a loop reaching the geostationary and having to hit exact spot on Earth this destructive effect would be difficult to counter.


1.) Relatively, the speed will not be that high to that of the rotation of the earth. This isn't something that would happen in hours or days, but weeks.
2.) That's one of the many reasons that mobile sea platforms have been recommended...


I was actually solving the same problem in context of a dynamic support system for bridges, etc. Where a loop of cable is running between two hubs, one on the ground and the other attached to the bridge. This allows transfer of weight with a very light cable. The solution I got was dynamically unstable, so its up to engineering to figure out how to dampen the oscillations. I don't see why this would be any different for the loop cable method for space elevator, and I have no idea how to dampen oscillations on such a megastructure.

Well, I'm sure that means it's completely incapable of working then. Since you seem to doubt so much the intellect of people that have a reputation to stake their word on, I don't know what to say to you. Someone that was once Director of Research at the ISR is hard to scoff at when he says "yes, this is possible, and this is how we can achieve it."

That said, the loop-elevator method is just ONE of the many proposals, and I only suggested it because you said the coriolis effect would make the space elevator impossible. The guide-line proposal that Brad Edwards seems to be the most popular and likely to work.

FrankCSIS
25th Aug 2008, 18:41
I'll leave the space elevator to those who "know" anything about it and get back on a few previous topics if no one minds.

I'll begin with the game scenario itself and move my way to realism later on if you still care to read. I easily see at least two ways of doing this. Like I mentioned in the Cyberpunk thread, if the game is set in a more distant future there is no problem with having a space colony that went wrong and corrupt, or an inhabited large space station filled with social problems and shady scenarios. If you wish for the game to take place before or around DX1 (which I would personally prefer), then you can use the pretext of a space station or moon base or whatever IN CONSTRUCTION as a way of visiting space and easily incorporate it in the scenario. Hell it could even be one of the very first levels.

Let's say the UN gets its thing together and decide to finally build upon a common objective to rally the nations together and spark the project of a much larger international space station built in sections and put together (much like we have now, but with money invested from much more states). Such a space station would require private funds and an entire industry would create itself around it. As a UN agent (whichever agency, not necessarily UNATCO) you would be called upon to visit and inspect the installation, or even plain simply work there on a semi-permanent basis. Instead of eventually going into space, you could actually start there, and sneak your way back on Earth when you uncover something really wrong with the project. It would be extremely easy to tie this together with, for instance, the Illuminati, because such a society would have both hands deep into such a project. There's hardly anything unrealistic with a scenario like this, and that's just one.

It was mentioned earlier that there was no reasonable need for a large space station in a reasonable future, and I tend to disagree. If we are serious about space exploration, which we really should be, a space station that can serve as both a landing/refueling base and a factory is absolutely necessary. One of the biggest issues with every single mission we've had so far was to leave and re-enter the atmosphere. Having a base either in orbit around the Earth or anywhere else would greatly facilitate further exploration, especially man-occupied missions. If you couple this base with a factory to produce your own ships/research then it creates the need for manual labor as well as housing, and now you've got yourself a pretty nice cyberpunk scenario.

For those who doubt people would accept to leave for such a station, or even for a moon base, I think you're all forgetting the large number of colonists that left everything behind for the New World, with no actual guarantee of even surviving the trip to get there. Of course the promise of large lands and freedom was a large motivation factor, but surely there are people out there who would feel more than blessed should they have a chance to participate in space colonisation. I know I would get involved should I get the chance.

As for the economical factor brought up several times, I think some of you seem to imagine the money spent on research and missions just magically vanishes in thin air. When the state pays a dollar to buy materials or to pay an engineer, the money doesn't suddenly disappear, it only changes hand. As long as you buy local and pay local the money invested never leaves your own economical bubble, and eventually comes back around one way or another. As long as you don't have to create additional credits for it (I'm thinking Iraqi war here), no one gets poorer by investing in R&D. You're simply using a part of the money already in circulation. Of course this means more time to achieve your goals, but it's a sustainable way of investing in space research.

Finally, I doubt we'll see an all-private consortium or corporation in a near future though, but a partnership with one or multiple states is not just a plausible scenario but already a reality. No one ever lost money with R&D, and most corporations investing in research usually found multiple ways to repay their investment times five or times twenty. Keep in mind that what seems like non-viable today is heavily subject to change at any given moment depending on technology outbreaks and on the will of state and private investments. The minute someone goes on with a major mission an entire industry will create itself around it. There are already companies right now researching to build ships specifically oriented on transportation of materials to space ports or planet bases, and those guys have currently no guarantee of ever seeing their money back. Imagine the private sector race when we do make the announcement for a lunar base or a much larger space station.

B0b_P@ge
25th Aug 2008, 19:45
Steel tensile strength would not support that weight.


Alloys with up to 8GPa exist. They aren't used much due to becoming brittle, but if you don't need your cable to bend, it's not a problem. At density of 7.8g/ml, this gives you over 100km at 1g.




Could you tell me the particular alloy your speaking of? I know stainless stell(AISI 302 - Cold-rolled) has 860 MPa, or 0.860 GPa.... well regardless, it's not the material measurment you'd want if your planning of building a static structure (Dynamic structure like armour or moving object, yes); especially a trans-orbital structure! In civil engineering you would use the yield strength because any stress applied beyond the materials yield strength would cause the material to deform plastically thus causing it to be more brittle, less predictable and more likely for catastrophic failure or ultimate failure; moreover, the yield strength is much lower then tensile strength (=0.52GPa) so your values - assuming you used tensile strength - are incorrect.

Assuming tensile strength isn't the issue, Nanocarbon tubes have a tensile strength of 63GPA and a density of 1.3 to 1.4 g/cm^3, that's smaller then stainless steels density of 7.92g/cm^3 and tensile strength of 0.86GPA.





Your statement was that you cannot build a space elevator from steel. I'm proving to you that you can.


The bottom line is that nanocarbon tubes specific strength is up to 48,000 kN·m·kg^−1 while high-carbon steel's (the best known material competitor, I still have yet to see your materials data) is 154 kN·m·kg^−1 ; meaning nanocarbon tubes are far superior by a large gap

I am not convinced.

K^2
25th Aug 2008, 22:00
Piano wire can exceed 3GPa, So if 0.8GPa is the best you could find, you didn't search right. Try searching specifically for the words steel and 8GPa. You'll find some references.

farmer, I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to prove that a loop of wire running through a hub on Earth is a dynamically stable system. This is a positive, not a negative. I can demonstrate to you a proof that similar system is dynamically unstable.

And yes, I am saying that I can judge certain projects better than people at NASA. I'm not saying everyone at NASA, because there are some really smart people in there. Unfortunately, they are by far a minority, and current administration there is not of that group. These are the people who have killed the Shuttle program, which is the only financially manageable way of performing space operations that we actually can achieve right now.

Shuttle was a program that actually worked. It allowed missions to be sent one by one, and it was far cheaper than using big rockets. The only two catastrophes in the program stemmed from gross negligence due to space flights becoming so routine. Nobody else has ever had anything even remotely close to being able to perform routine space flights. And what do they do? Cut that program, and spend money on bunch of smaller programs, some of which might give similar results decades down the road.

I have a few bridges to sell to NASA and anyone who simply takes NASA's word for anything. Again, that's not to say that everyone at NASA is a quack. Far from it. But you have to take everything they say with a big grain of salt.

On one final note, the cable in loop method moves rather rapidly through atmosphere. Not horizontally, but vertically.

As for using an asteroid as an anchor, first point me to one. Last I checked, there weren't a whole bunch of large asteroids just hanging around on geostationary or anywhere near it.

B0b_P@ge
26th Aug 2008, 00:56
Piano wire can exceed 3GPa, So if 0.8GPa is the best you could find, you didn't search right. Try searching specifically for the words steel and 8GPa. You'll find some references.


Piano wire (AISI 1060 steel) has a tensile strength of ~2.48Pa and nanocarbon tubes have a tensile strength of 63GPA; moreover, piano wires density is 7.8 g/cm^3 while nanocarbon tubes are 1.4 g/cm^3. You have proven nothing and I'm still unconvinced why piano-wire is superior to nanocarbon tubes?

You argue that your 'planetary-scale megastructure' space-elevator would be made out of 'pianowire' material. Then you argue that your idea wouldn't work so therefore the entire space elevator concept work wont work. I don't see any information from the current NASA purposed plan, or the one by Doctor Edwards nor about nano-carbon tubes mentioned either. No, it's only your concept as the standard if your concept doesn't work then the entire space elevator concept is garbage? Am I right?

You then claim that the entire National Aeronautical and Space Agency are a bunch of pot-smoking idiots? You further justify that comment with the fact that you 'judge certain projects better than people at NASA'? You also throw in the argument that the entire US Goverment is corrupt and inefficient with money as well?

Sadly to say there is no point continuing arguing, all you have done is proven how arrogant and egocentric you are, nothing else. I have a newsflash for you buddy, your space elevator won't work that's all you've proven. Period.

K^2
26th Aug 2008, 01:28
Bob, if you try reading only snippets of other people's posts, you'll get confused.

Carbon nanotubes are far superior to steel as material for tension cables. They are an order of magnitude stronger and several times lighter. No argument. I'm stating that even that isn't enough, because while they allow a construction of a cable, a cable won't save you. You need a tower-like structure, construction of which requires a very different kind of materials.

Piano wire was just common example of steel that is several times stronger than what you were quoting. There are even stronger alloys. As I said, it goes up to 8GPa. But yes, it is still 7.8g/ml.

Finally, the only reason I was suggesting a many-ring construction is to prove that a steel-only structure like that is possible. If you were to build one using carbon nanotubes, it would work even better.



I'm also stating that if you are planning to build a 40,000 km long cable, instead of sending it up to geostationarry, you could build a loop around the Earth from it and take it up to orbital velocity. Note, that takes significantly less energy. This loop would orbit at 500km with pretty much no friction. A number of cables to that altitude can be constructed from existing materials. I think, even Kevlar might work up to 500km, but I haven't checked that.

Now, put a rail station up there that rides on that cable via mag-rail, and use it to accelerate cargo using linear motor. Since you can launch both East and West from such station, you don't have a problem with losing momentum. Power can be provided from a ground-based electric plant (nuclear would be good). (Edit: The rail station is geo-synchronized, if it isn't clear. Its weight is supported by the cable, which moves much faster. The station is then attached to ground via 500km cables, some of which are used to carry power, some to move cargo up and down.)

Such a structure would be easier to build, since it does not require an anchor. It does not have problems the loop method has. It can be built up rather easily by adding more cables. Etc, etc. If we are ever going to see anything even remotely similar to space elevator, it will be built like this.

DXeXodus
26th Aug 2008, 04:06
And I won't tolerate being labeled as a drug addict by someone that doesn't even know me, simply because he disagrees with me and my opinion. Notice who the first one to throw personal insults in this thread was (check post #72 in this thread). Don't single me out.


I did not single you out. I was using your post as an example of what will not be tolerated. I know exactly who started this and who said what, but that is irrelevant. People will throw insults at you and they will be dealt with accordingly, but it is your responsibility to not get involved in an argument and name-calling on a forum. This is a place for debate and discussion amongst civilised individuals.

inseeisyou
26th Aug 2008, 05:48
dude make it so you can get control of the particle cannon and then use a laser pointer when you are back on earth to target the cannon and it unleashes an attack, obviously 1 hit kill, probablly destroy entire cities and you win the game is over. lolz sweet

iWait
26th Aug 2008, 07:14
Oh, god.

Where's the "I'm Puking" Emoticon?

Clucky
26th Aug 2008, 07:22
I find all this scientific speak so sexy! :rolleyes:

DXeXodus
26th Aug 2008, 07:33
Oh, god.

Where's the "I'm Puking" Emoticon?

If there had been one, I would of posted it already :)

EDIT: See below vv

Freddo
26th Aug 2008, 13:37
^^ I believe this is the one you're looking for:
Hehe, that explains very well I how feel about having playable locations in space in Deus Ex :D

drummindog
29th Aug 2008, 15:58
There was a moon level in DX, most of you know that. But remember what the developers said after DX's release.

"But we decided Deus Ex was an Earth-bound game."

That should remain true.

I agree, I think the game should be immersive, yet I also think there should be some things out of reach control-wise for the next hero in the saga---stuff being done behind the scenes by world powers much like what we saw in Deus EX. It seems pretty unrealistic to think one man can do everything well and save the world...despite what TV and movies want to portray. A Space mission would seem a little "out there" to me. Let's keep it earthbound unless maybe he was captured and blasted out there---and even then you have to make sure he is at a disadvantage somehow...he's not inherently an astronaut, is he?

Big Orange
7th Oct 2008, 17:16
Despite the final third of Neuromancer being set in space onboard Freeside, it is perculiar that space should be avoided at all costs in a video game. It would've been more apt if Bob Page was ascending into AI godhood onboard an orbital habitat, instead of some hole in the ground beneath an overrated USAF base (a tourists trap for conspiracy nuts).

dr_niz
9th Nov 2008, 20:54
I'd keep it on the ground. DX is all about a desperate world filled with engaging people. Toward the end, I felt a significant responsibility for the fate of the world. I think by leaving the planet, the game loses a bit of realism and desensitizes the player to the world's struggles.

I realize that's a bit philosophical but it seems true.

Roi Danton
9th Nov 2008, 23:38
I'd keep it on the ground. DX is all about a desperate world filled with engaging people. Toward the end, I felt a significant responsibility for the fate of the world. I think by leaving the planet, the game loses a bit of realism and desensitizes the player to the world's struggles.

I realize that's a bit philosophical but it seems true.


There i can´t agree. All astronauts who had the chance to leave our planet and to look down from space, realized how small our planet is and where more sensitive for the problems of mankind. They told us very often in interviews.

To make it realistic in space is another problem.

spm1138
9th Nov 2008, 23:48
It might be good for a level as a change of pace but I agree with the guy saying that a lot of the strongest environments were the familiar looking ones.

Really drives home the problem solving gameplay and makes the ingame logic intuitive because big chunks of it are consistent with real world logic.

IW may as well have been set on a series of space stations and it was weaker for it.

payne
11th Feb 2009, 22:54
first moon base of the century and guess what:

it will be a french territory




PS don't be a fool
:cool:

WhatsHisFace
11th Feb 2009, 23:23
IonStorm was going to have Area 51 be a moon base at first, but then they realized that was moronic. Because it is. No space levels, please.

FrankCSIS
11th Feb 2009, 23:47
It's a little moronic if you have to suddenly board a shuttle and go to the moon. I still think starting off in a really large space base and having to sneak back to Earth somehow would be a pretty neat way to start off, if there should be any space levels involved. Also a nice way to show the Earth and how it has changed from a more global perspective before entering its atmosphere.

AaronJ
12th Feb 2009, 00:56
As either Harvey or Warren said: Deus Ex is an Earth-bound game

spm1138
12th Feb 2009, 01:34
I guess Gibson's sprawl trilogy had Freeside.

A setting like that could work.

Looks like they're covering at least some similar stuff with the bunk-bed cities though.

Spiffmeister
17th Feb 2009, 04:48
How about, you're cybernetic, you're in stasis, and you get woken up to some random woman telling you to watch for some transmitter that's become unstable! Oh wait that ones taken...

No but really, mixed feelings about a space level, I don't think a space station/ship level would mix with DX3, but at the same time, it would be kinda cool :D .





PS: then the woman gives you some cyber modules to upgrade your rig.

Blade_hunter
17th Feb 2009, 11:26
SS2 :P

Since DX 3 is a prequel space elevators could be a bit too futuristic because they weren't in DX but the moon base and the international space station could match with the game, or even the MIR space station, imagine that station is always on activity and a powerful group can control communications and weapons with that station :P

The space station sounds to me like the submarine base, but some persons thinks we are in DX to catch terrorists groups and nothing more ...

Necros
2nd Mar 2009, 21:17
IonStorm was going to have Area 51 be a moon base at first, but then they realized that was moronic. Because it is. No space levels, please.

As either Harvey or Warren said: Deus Ex is an Earth-bound game
:thumbsup: What they've said.


Damn, didn't think I'd do this but hey, I can agree with them completely on this subject. :D

Jerion
2nd Mar 2009, 21:20
:thumbsup: What they've said.


Damn, didn't think I'd do this but hey, I can agree with them completely on this subject. :D

It's a rare thing, but it happens. :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
8th Mar 2009, 23:30
Here is an cliping from the Dx:Bible
http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/april02/dxbible/dx2/index4.shtm


Outer Space
Not as much activity as one might expect, though what activity goes on is largely controlled by Majestic 12.

Government and military space planes make regular flights to two relatively large orbiting space stations (international efforts owned by no single country). The stations are used by scientists and industry. However, the first mega-expensive resort hotel opened recently, a getaway for adventurous travelers with good connections and LOTS of money. (The hotel is a front for Majestic 12 operations of all sorts).

There are enough satellites in orbit that traffic is becoming a problem and accidents hardly make the news anymore.

As far as life on other planets goes, we still haven't encountered any, at least none that can be acknowledged publicly -- rumors continue to abound that we were visited by aliens a century or more ago and the governments of the world are keeping it secret.

The only acknowledged life on other planets is human life -- there's a small, permanent Moon base populated by scientists -- purely experimental stuff -- and a mostly robot-controlled lunar mining facility. And, mankind has explored Mars about as much as we explored the Moon in the 1960's. In other words, it's possible to get there but no one much cares. Far more interesting to most people is the asteroid field between Mars and Jupiter. It's currently mined by robots designed for the purpose, but Majestic 12 has big plans for the exploitation of the asteroid field's immense resources.

(NOTE: The DX1 design included a mission to a space station followed by a mission at the moon base. The objective was to stop "Ada," an AI that wanted to become a "benevolent" world dictator. Obviously, some of that content was folded back into the game in a slightly different way.) •
______________________________________________________

Wow! I wish they would of added it. Please add a space level in DX3 :D





I would like to see reference made to a future space program in DX3 - in so far as is realistic for the year circa 2030. What with advances in technology, it would be feasible to think that space exploration will be enhanced with the use of computers and robotics, as you suggest.
I also think we will see a growth in 'space tourism' - ie. trips to a moon lunar base and back perhaps. Tourism will certainly help to fund space projects.

So, yeah, as far as the game is concerned, there could easily be a space mission within the plotline. But I could live without it, all the same - I would be more interested in events on Earth.

Blade_hunter
8th Mar 2009, 23:59
Americans are building a moon base, we got a space station that's a good start no ?
Space tourism yes that's original ^^

K^2
9th Mar 2009, 04:08
US space program isn't in such a great shape right now. The Shuttle program is closing, and there is nothing to replace it. Id est, there will be a period of time when US will not even be able to bring its own crews to the ISS. They'll have to rely on other countries to ferry their spacemen.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Mar 2009, 08:54
^
The Russians, perhaps? :cool:

K^2
9th Mar 2009, 09:09
Russians are in a pretty bad shape also. They have some mighty good rockets left over from Soviet era, but there has been practically nothing new, except for some small commercial satellite scale stuff.

Overall, since the space race between USA and USSR ended, space programs have been pretty much dying. The only exception is Chinese program that has been picking up steam in the past few years. Maybe, it will become a sufficient threat to make US and Russia start investing into space program again. Then we might get back on track towards the Lunar colony, and such. As it stands, it looks grim even for a manned mission to the Lunar surface in the next 15-20 years.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Mar 2009, 09:17
I just wish all countries/humans could unite. Shared resources would be an ideal solution. Not just as far as space exploration is concerned, but everything...
Yeah, I know its just a dream to see humans live and work together... :o

SageSavage
9th Mar 2009, 11:10
I wish we could reverse globalization (=pseudo-unification) and build small working, base democratic communities instead. Just a dream though... Chances for something like that would be significantly higher if we were able to settle on other planets. (<- notice how I elegantly went ontopic :cool: )

Blade_hunter
9th Mar 2009, 11:17
The international space station is a project in common with many countries, no ?

René
9th Mar 2009, 13:49
I'm a big fan of space exploration so I hope agencies like NASA get the money they need to continue research. I think the human race is doomed so we'll have to leave Earth eventually! (a la Serenity) Hehe. You've all heard of the space elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) though, right? Could be cool!

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Mar 2009, 14:42
^
Yeah, all give praise to the power of the 'carbon nanotube'. :cool:

K^2
9th Mar 2009, 15:38
I wish we could just use our resources for health, technology and cultural activities instead of military crap and national "defense". :rolleyes:
I hope you realize that the main reason we have so much progress in health, technology, and in many respects art, is because of countless wars.

I'd like to see a world where we make progress without wars, but the grim reality of it is that people are only willing to give away a sufficient portion of their income to be used for research if there is a threat. Otherwise, they tend to think that things are good enough as it is.

I almost would like to see Apophis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis) pass through the keyhole in '29. We will make greater advance in aerospace tech in the seven years that follow than in all years prior.

Blade_hunter
9th Mar 2009, 16:05
I'm a big fan of space exploration so I hope agencies like NASA get the money they need to continue research. I think the human race is doomed so we'll have to leave Earth eventually! (a la Serenity) Hehe. You've all heard of the space elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) though, right? Could be cool!

Yes I've heard much about that a sort of belt around the Earth that provides a lot of energy with solar cells and even a start point for space ships that needs only ion thrusters and less energy to start

K^2
9th Mar 2009, 16:35
There is a number of different "space elevator" designs. Belt one is most structurally sound, but it is an unprecedented megastructure. It requires construction of essentially a 40,000 km long railway on orbit complete with stations and solar power collectors. Even if we manage to get enough rocket fuel to put all of that in space from Earth, I don't want to picture what will happen to the atmosphere.

Alternative way is to gather materials for it from somewhere else. Luna is a good place to mine for materials, but we are long way away from establishing stations of any sort there, let alone mining stations with magrail launchers.

Personally, I don't see space elevator as a feasible design in the near future. High altitude magrails are more likely to be constructed than a space elevator.

Blade_hunter
9th Mar 2009, 16:41
Yeah I've thought it was more suited in a sequel than a prequel IMO
for me the moon base can be cool and more feasible than the space elevator for a first space project

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Mar 2009, 17:16
Yeah I've thought it was more suited in a sequel than a prequel IMO
for me the moon base can be cool and more feasible than the space elevator for a first space project


Sure, but in terms of the game setting/year (circa 2030), it would be quite feasible to see signs of the early 'construction' of this technology going on...

K^2
9th Mar 2009, 21:48
Construction for space elevator? Way early either way. For the Moon base? Yeah, sure.

Blade_hunter
9th Mar 2009, 22:57
The problem with the beginning of a space elevator construction that doesn't put ourselves in space, that's an eventuality, but the moon base even by its classicism seems to fit with the DX 3 era.

K^2
9th Mar 2009, 23:27
The main thing is that we don't really even need the space elevator at this stage. It's not the next step.

Look, to achieve low orbit you need a little over 7km/s. That means at a constant acceleration you need a*d = 25,000,000 m²/s². Most cargo can be launched at 100G, easily. That means a 25km long mag rail is sufficient to launch objects into low orbit. All you'd need is a very small burn at the apogee to establish a circular orbit. Yes, construction of such a launcher would cost a lot, but after that, launching cargo would cost pocket change. You could build entire cities in space without breaking the budget.

The only thing that remains expensive is sending people to space, but if they don't need any equipment with them, and they'll spend a lot of time in space, on the stations, it is very manageable. Much smaller rockets can be used to perform this task. And since you can put as much cargo as you want in orbit, your next stage could be a Lunar base or mission to Mars.

Blade_hunter
9th Mar 2009, 23:33
Second what I've heard about space missions they want to use the moon as a start point to launch rockets to mars, because at some positions the moon is really close to Mars and the low gravity of the moon is a real advantage to take for rocket's fuel

K^2
9th Mar 2009, 23:39
The Moon is 1 second away from Earth. Trip to Mars requires traveling over 25 minutes. The position of the Moon makes no difference.

Gravity does make a difference, though. If you are planning a trip to Mars, your best bet is to assemble your ship on Moon's orbit. However, you still need to get stuff up there, so you'll need an intermediate assembly step on Earth's orbit. That is, unless you are planning to put factories on the Moon, and while that is where we are heading, we are nowhere near that yet.

Either way, you need a cheap way to put a lot of stuff on Earth's orbit, and a mag rail is by far the best way to do that.

Edit: Come to think of it, rather than starting from the moon, you'll get a lot more by starting from one of the Trojan points of the Moon's orbit. You have all the benefits of a stable orbit to do final assembly on away from Earth's gravity, but you also don't have to waste fuel on breaking away from Moon's gravity.

Blade_hunter
9th Mar 2009, 23:51
I agree the gravity have much in relation with that

K^2
10th Mar 2009, 02:42
That's a bold understatement.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Mar 2009, 11:48
The only thing that remains expensive is sending people to space, but if they don't need any equipment with them, and they'll spend a lot of time in space, on the stations, it is very manageable. Much smaller rockets can be used to perform this task. And since you can put as much cargo as you want in orbit, your next stage could be a Lunar base or mission to Mars.

Agreed, humans are expensive to send to space and our current physical limitations and needs don't solve that problem. I believe people won't be used to explore space in the future; we might do Mars but ultimately it makes sense to use robots instead and as time goes on, they will become more than just a metal-box-on-wheels kind of robot. Sophisticated human-like machines is the ultimate solution... or highly evolved transhumans that can cope with the demand of space travel and conditions.

Ninjerk
15th Mar 2009, 18:58
Any research installations on the moon would be subject to no, or at the very least different, laws regarding ethical research, torture, etc.

EDIT: I would think so anyways. This would satisfy the story, I think.

K^2
15th Mar 2009, 21:56
Agreed, humans are expensive to send to space and our current physical limitations and needs don't solve that problem. I believe people won't be used to explore space in the future; we might do Mars but ultimately it makes sense to use robots instead and as time goes on, they will become more than just a metal-box-on-wheels kind of robot. Sophisticated human-like machines is the ultimate solution... or highly evolved transhumans that can cope with the demand of space travel and conditions.
Not really where I was going with this. Yes, a human would be expensive to send to space, but once there, it would be extremely cheap to live and get around. So there will be a mass colonization of space, but it has to be preceded by construction of habitats, factories, and energy collection stations.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Mar 2009, 22:02
Not really where I was going with this. Yes, a human would be expensive to send to space, but once there, it would be extremely cheap to live and get around. So there will be a mass colonization of space, but it has to be preceded by construction of habitats, factories, and energy collection stations.

Yeah, exactly. So, if we use machines instead, we can save ourselves a whole load of time and expense not having to construct habitats, worry about food supplies etc. Mining equipment and scientific stations, yes, but not the typical requirements needed for human survival.

Also, I'd have thought that mass colonisation of space (by humans) would be pointless (for the forseeable future). What would we do up there? Its too far away to go anywhere remotely interesting and even if we did go 'somewhere', we'd probably die before we arrived and we'd definitely not exist for any intentional journey back to earth. Just seems to make more sense to get machines to do any long-distance exploration.

K^2
15th Mar 2009, 22:28
Well, to some point, we can increase population of Earth by having food and materials for construction sent down from space, but eventually, we'll overpopulate the planet anyways. We'll need a good way to get off the Earth and into the space. We can spread as much as we want to up there.

Ninjerk
15th Mar 2009, 23:23
Is there an established time frame for how long a human can survive in zero gravity? I thought I had heard something about astronauts getting taller after prolonged visits, and I'm wondering if there have been any trends in health problems for astronauts making long visits up there (e.g. heart problems, spine problems). I can only imagine we will have some problems since our bodies are "engineered" for operation in gravity.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Mar 2009, 23:30
Well, to some point, we can increase population of Earth by having food and materials for construction sent down from space, but eventually, we'll overpopulate the planet anyways. We'll need a good way to get off the Earth and into the space. We can spread as much as we want to up there.

"eventually", yes... but not for quite a while yet.
I don't think this idea would be an ideal solution to solve the increase in population though, not yet anyway.
So we should really use our time to design sophisticated robots/cyborgs to explore space. Seems like they've got MUCH more of a chance to find us a 'new home' than we have...



Is there an established time frame for how long a human can survive in zero gravity? I thought I had heard something about astronauts getting taller after prolonged visits, and I'm wondering if there have been any trends in health problems for astronauts making long visits up there (e.g. heart problems, spine problems). I can only imagine we will have some problems since our bodies are "engineered" for operation in gravity.

Well, apart from these problems - space is HUGE. Its more a question of time than anything else. We have to find something like Battlestar Galactica's "Jump" or Star Trek's "Warp Speed" if we are to actually do anything useful while we're up there, hehe.

K^2
15th Mar 2009, 23:41
Is there an established time frame for how long a human can survive in zero gravity? I thought I had heard something about astronauts getting taller after prolonged visits, and I'm wondering if there have been any trends in health problems for astronauts making long visits up there (e.g. heart problems, spine problems). I can only imagine we will have some problems since our bodies are "engineered" for operation in gravity.
There is no fixed frame. As we understand more we learn ways of stretching the time limit further. Right now, about a year and a half is the limit. Two years might be manageable, which is good news for any future missions to Mars projects. In the early days, 2 weeks would already result in severe problems, so we are making good progress.

However, these limitations all stem from the fact that we cannot construct large structures in space. If we could, we'd simply build stations with artificial gravity, and it wouldn't be a problem.

imported_Daniel_Smith
15th Mar 2009, 23:46
not a very good idea... i think we should hold cyberpunk on Earth...
it just reminds me some trash movie, smth like "Helloween 58: Massacre At The Parrallel Universe"

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Mar 2009, 23:49
We shouldn't forget the psychological stress of being in space. :(
I think for the Mars journey, scientists are going to use boost from a nuclear rocket - which gives astronauts a time frame of about a year (four months each way and four months on surface of Mars). Even so, a year is a long time. I think I'd go crazy, hehe. :nut:

But, yeah, humans are so limited. We should put the time and money into building sophisticated robots to do this.

GmanPro
15th Mar 2009, 23:51
Btw, Discovery is launching right now :cool:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Mar 2009, 23:54
Wow, thanks.
Just put Sky News on... but nothing! :(

GmanPro
16th Mar 2009, 00:15
Its in outer space now, last time I checked it was going about 17,000 mph. It took 10 minutes to leave the atmosphere

Ninjerk
16th Mar 2009, 00:20
There is no fixed frame. As we understand more we learn ways of stretching the time limit further. Right now, about a year and a half is the limit. Two years might be manageable, which is good news for any future missions to Mars projects. In the early days, 2 weeks would already result in severe problems, so we are making good progress.

However, these limitations all stem from the fact that we cannot construct large structures in space. If we could, we'd simply build stations with artificial gravity, and it wouldn't be a problem.

Is there a consolidated source of information for the health risks of prolonged exposure to zero gravity?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 00:25
Is there a consolidated source of information for the health risks of prolonged exposure to zero gravity?
NASA. :)

K^2
16th Mar 2009, 04:08
NASA isn't the best source, considering the fact that it is Russians who hold all the records for time spent in space. Unfortunately, the only other sources I could point you towards are in Russian. So I suppose NASA's site is as good of info as you'd be able to get, after all.


I think for the Mars journey, scientists are going to use boost from a nuclear rocket - which gives astronauts a time frame of about a year (four months each way and four months on surface of Mars). Even so, a year is a long time. I think I'd go crazy, hehe.
Considering the fact that nobody has a clue how to build a "Nuclear Rocket", this is a bit of a stretch. Yeah, maybe by the time we'll actually decide to try for such a mission we'll have some drives based on Nuclear energy.

Right now, we have to assume a chemical rocket. And we can build a rocket that will reach Mars, bring a crew to the surface, and then return to Earth. It would be a mother of a rocket, but we can build one with modern tech if we assemble it in Space.

Such a rocket would have to take path of least change in energy, which is an ellipse with a focal point at Sun, perigee crossing Earth's orbit, and apogee crossing Mars' orbit. Applying Kepler's Law of celestial motion, we get 8.5 months trip each way. Allowing for synchronization of orbits, return trip would have to take place roughly 14 months later. Only about 1 month could be spent on surface. That means that the whole mission will take up about 31 months, of which 30 months will have to be spent weightless.

This trip alone would require something like 20,000 tons of fuel. That's not counting the rockets that will put it all into high Earth orbit in the first place, and it is an extremely moderate estimate as well. A trip that would take up less time would require significantly more fuel.

I suppose, there might be some improvement derived from using an ion drive with a nuclear power plant. But that still needs a lot of work, and even then, the system will be extremely heavy.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 08:26
NASA isn't the best source, considering the fact that it is Russians who hold all the records for time spent in space. Unfortunately, the only other sources I could point you towards are in Russian. So I suppose NASA's site is as good of info as you'd be able to get, after all.

Exactly why I suggested NASA.


Considering the fact that nobody has a clue how to build a "Nuclear Rocket", this is a bit of a stretch. Yeah, maybe by the time we'll actually decide to try for such a mission we'll have some drives based on Nuclear energy.

Of course we have 'clues' how to build a nuclear rocket. That's why I said scientists are considering it... and exactly why it might be possible by the time the Mars mission comes to reality.

Anyway, anyway.... all these problems just prove to me that we shouldn't spend too much time sending humans into space. There are other paths (robotics) we should take that make much more sense. Either way, I think Mars is just about the limit for a pure human being... cue the transhumans and cyborgs to continue the journey. :cool:

K^2
16th Mar 2009, 09:39
Of course we have 'clues' how to build a nuclear rocket. That's why I said scientists are considering it... and exactly why it might be possible by the time the Mars mission comes to reality.
No, we really don't. I'm studying HEP, so I have a very good idea on what we can and cannot do with nuclear power. We have only two ways of releasing nuclear energy right now. Very slow controlled fission, or an uncontrolled explosion. Rocket propulsion can be best described as a controlled explosion. We have no idea how to control the rate of fission "burn" in the meltdown regime, and we have no idea how to even run a rapid fusion reaction without a fission process to provide extremely high temperatures for Deuterium-Tritium fusion and free neutrons for the Lithium->Tritium process. That's how the H-Bomb works, by the way. Hybrid reactors have a whole lot of difficulties of their own, and I'll just skip to the fact that there is not even an idea of how to organize a controlled nuclear reaction of any kind with anywhere near sufficient power output. It's not just a matter of improving what we have. Something fundamentally new is needed. We don't know what it is. In short, we don't have a clue how to make it work.

As for sending robots instead, we've been sending robots to Mars for a while. Part of the problem is the communication lag that can be as high as 40 minutes. We need robots that know what they are doing, and right now, we don't even have enough engineers that know what they are doing. So it might take a while. Getting humans up there might actually be faster.

Reasonable compromise is to send people only to orbit Mars. That is a lot easier to achieve, because a lander for Red Planet would have to be huge and have at least two ascent stages. If the only thing going down will be robots, they'll only need to bring a small rocket to bring some soil samples back. Lag, however, will be reduced to a fraction of a second, allowing almost real time control of robots on the surface.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 10:56
No problems, I have no wish to argue with your professional or academic prowess, I'm sure you are much more knowledgeable than myself regarding these issues.
However, I do try my best to keep up to date with this area of science and I did say 'clues' and not a finished product. We only need to Google 'nuclear rocket (to Mars)' to get some idea of the situation. For example: Steven Howe, director for Space Nuclear Research, envisions using a nuclear engine similar to one designed and tested in the 1960s called "Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application" (NERVA). Furthermore, a Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket (a mission design that uses nuclear reactors to produce thrust and electricity) has been developed during the past three years by Borowski and Leonard Dudzinski, aerospace engineers at the Glenn Research Center, etc.

Sure, there are still problems... but such is the nature of scientific research and often 'nothing proves to be impossible...'
General consensus is that even with the added costs of developing a nuclear rocket, the total cost savings would be billions. Chemical rockets are a dead end road because the chemicals weigh too much for the amount of energy they contain. We need to move beyond chemical rockets and nuclear designs could work outside of Earth's atmosphere.


As for sending robots instead, we've been sending robots to Mars for a while. Part of the problem is the communication lag that can be as high as 40 minutes. We need robots that know what they are doing, and right now, we don't even have enough engineers that know what they are doing. So it might take a while. Getting humans up there might actually be faster.
I absolutely agree... we need intelligent robots. We need a mixture of human and robot. Transhumans or cyborgs... however we wish to label them, they are our future. We cannot conquer space without them, our natural physical bodies moreorless dictate that. In the longterm, robotics will be a faster solution... getting humans anywhere in space (and surviving comfortably) is always going to be troublesome.

Yeah, communication lag is bad. However, even that problem could be rectified in the future, perhaps using some form of 'space bouy' trail system that will relay messages much faster from earth to Mars. In any case, we need to develop a much more reliable 'real time' system for future space missions beyond Mars. I'm sure we will...


Reasonable compromise is to send people only to orbit Mars. That is a lot easier to achieve, because a lander for Red Planet would have to be huge and have at least two ascent stages. If the only thing going down will be robots, they'll only need to bring a small rocket to bring some soil samples back. Lag, however, will be reduced to a fraction of a second, allowing almost real time control of robots on the surface.
Again, robots today are boxes on wheels. I'm thinking way beyond DX3 of course, but cyborgs don't need to rely on control from earthbound humans. Cyborgs are humans and can think for themselves. The only thing that is different is their physical bodies which are enhanced to endure conditions in space, together with problems of ageing etc. This would also solve the problem of having soil samples returned. We don't need to return any samples if we can analyse everything on the planet and just send that "information" back. Its all we need to answer our questions.

As I said, I think as pure humans we fight a losing battle. Machines are the answer... intelligent machines. The future simply is, the Omar. :worship:
Hehe. :D

K^2
16th Mar 2009, 11:30
There is little difference in getting a cyborg/transhuman into space versus regular human. You might be able to increase the G load several times, but it is not significant. You have to have something that is constructed in orbit or on location. Alternatively, why not simply grow a human in space? We really don't need to invent anything new to do that. A few embryonic cells can survive a very high-G launch just like most other cargo.

On the topic of nuclear rocket, consider this analogy. You have a steam engine. You want to fly. You say, in principal, it's possible. You just need a lighter, more powerful steam engine. But in reality, what you need is at least an internal combustion engine and preferably a turbojet. That is something conceptually different, and no amount of refinement will turn steam engine into a turbojet.

That's the stage we are at. What we have is essentially a steam engine. (Quite literally in NERVA's case.) The Vp for these rockets is extremely low. Lower than that for chemical rockets. That means, you have to bring more propellant than you need chemical fuel. Yes, the propellant is cheaper, but that's not really an issue. Ideal Vp for trip to Mars is actually very close to what you can achieve with Cryogenic Hydrogen. So unless you come up with a nuclear engine with extremely high Vp and thrust, there is little point to use anything else. And that would be a leap from steam engine to turbojet.

As I said, maybe something better will come up by the time people are ready to go to Mars. But smart money is on fusion becoming a primary energy source on Earth before that happens.

SageSavage
16th Mar 2009, 12:24
Alternatively, why not simply grow a human in space? We really don't need to invent anything new to do that. A few embryonic cells can survive a very high-G launch just like most other cargo.

Are you serious?

K^2
16th Mar 2009, 12:36
Absolutely.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 12:56
There is little difference in getting a cyborg/transhuman into space versus regular human. You might be able to increase the G load several times, but it is not significant. You have to have something that is constructed in orbit or on location. Alternatively, why not simply grow a human in space? We really don't need to invent anything new to do that. A few embryonic cells can survive a very high-G launch just like most other cargo.

On the topic of nuclear rocket, consider this analogy. You have a steam engine. You want to fly. You say, in principal, it's possible. You just need a lighter, more powerful steam engine. But in reality, what you need is at least an internal combustion engine and preferably a turbojet. That is something conceptually different, and no amount of refinement will turn steam engine into a turbojet.

That's the stage we are at. What we have is essentially a steam engine. (Quite literally in NERVA's case.) The Vp for these rockets is extremely low. Lower than that for chemical rockets. That means, you have to bring more propellant than you need chemical fuel. Yes, the propellant is cheaper, but that's not really an issue. Ideal Vp for trip to Mars is actually very close to what you can achieve with Cryogenic Hydrogen. So unless you come up with a nuclear engine with extremely high Vp and thrust, there is little point to use anything else. And that would be a leap from steam engine to turbojet.

As I said, maybe something better will come up by the time people are ready to go to Mars. But smart money is on fusion becoming a primary energy source on Earth before that happens.


I have to disagree on that one, there is a huge difference. It isn't just the 'getting them up there', its the cargo needed etc. Humans need more than robots to survive - including specialised exercise equipment, let alone the basics of food and water. Apart from that, humans have to return to earth within a reasonable time limit, not so with cyborgs... they can pretty much stay up there for as long as it takes to complete a mission. Seriously, humans are absolutely useless (physically and mentally) to perform such a feat. Space is HUGE... you know that. ;)

I'm against the grow humans in space idea. What about human rights? Anyone that wishes to become an astronaut (or anything else for that matter) should do so from personal choice and passion.

As for the rocket, okay neither of us can predict the future. For me, it will be possible one day to use better rocket power - be it nuclear or some other new technology.

SageSavage
16th Mar 2009, 13:06
Absolutely.

Then you obviously have no clue about child development, basic human rights or even elementary needs of children. The idea of raising a child in space, isolated of anything that comes close to a human's natural habitat is highly unethical and actually contributes to stereotypes about scientists.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 13:20
Not to side with K^2, obviously, but I expect he'll come back with the 'what you don't know... you don't miss' argument which has some validity. But generally I don't believe its an ethical solution. The only solution is using intelligent machines.
If we cannot make them intelligent enough to THINK like we do, then we go the cyborg route which seems the most feasible.
Transhumanism is the start of such an evolution... imo.

K^2
16th Mar 2009, 13:31
I have to disagree on that one, there is a huge difference. It isn't just the 'getting them up there', its the cargo needed etc. Humans need more than robots to survive - including specialised exercise equipment, let alone the basics of food and water. Apart from that, humans have to return to earth within a reasonable time limit, not so with cyborgs... they can pretty much stay up there for as long as it takes to complete a mission. Seriously, humans are absolutely useless (physically and mentally) to perform such a feat. Space is HUGE... you know that. ;)
Getting cargo to space is relatively easy and cheap. It's all about the G-factors. Things that can sustain higher G-factors can be launched for less. There are things you can literally fire out of a cannon into orbit. NASA has done some tests on that. It didn't turn out to be practical, but if you compromise with a 10-50 km long magrail, you can launch cargo very cheap. Naturally, you'd be able to assemble habitats out of blocks, and since you have no size or weight constraints anymore, you could make them rotate to provide artificial gravity, thereby taking out any time limit for spending in space. You'd be able to live there quite comfortably.


Then you obviously have no clue about child development, basic human rights or even elementary needs of children. The idea of raising a child in space, isolated of anything that comes close to a human's natural habitat is highly unethical and actually contributes to stereotypes about scientists.
I don't see why. Did you ask to be born on planet Earth as a Human? Probably not. Were your rights violated because you were anyways? Are you going to sue your parents now for conceiving you without consideration for what environment you are going to be growing up in?

I'm not proposing throwing these kids into vacuum. They would grow up in a large, comfortable, climate-controlled, very much Earth-like habitat in orbit, raised by small number of humans sent up from Earth. They'd receive prime education and training while there, and would get option of "returning" to Earth or remaining in space employed by space agencies and private companies.

You wouldn't have a problem with artificially grown children on Earth, would you? Nor would you have a problem with children conceived in space by people living there. So why do you suddenly have a problem with it when the two are combined?

SageSavage
16th Mar 2009, 13:55
I don't see why. Did you ask to be born on planet Earth as a Human? Probably not. Were your rights violated because you were anyways? Are you going to sue your parents now for conceiving you without consideration for what environment you are going to be growing up in?
I probably would be very mad at my parents when I was old enough to realize that they consciously decided for me that I have to live a life (or large and most important parts of it) under totally unnatural, isolated, extreme conditions - Yes! You wouldn't be allowed to raise children exclusively in a basement either. I can't be bothered to list you all the human rights that would be broken in this case.

Parents who allow such severe restrictions in the lifes of their children can't be called anything other than irresponsible.


I'm not proposing throwing these kids into vacuum. They would grow up in a large, comfortable, climate-controlled, very much Earth-like habitat in orbit, raised by small number of humans sent up from Earth. They'd receive prime education and training while there, and would get option of "returning" to Earth or remaining in space employed by space agencies and private companies.

So how big would that thing be? How many people will live there? What about peers? What about partners when they become adolescent? What about gravity? What about natural food? What about hobbies? What about all the things that define a society? What about the (almost) complete lack of fauna/flora? What about liberty of action? What about building a normal immune defense? What about necessary medical checkups for children?



You wouldn't have a problem with artificially grown children on Earth, would you?

I would. Not with the actual children but with the concept.


Nor would you have a problem with children conceived in space by people living there. So why do you suddenly have a problem with it when the two are combined?
I wouldn't have a problem with children living in actual colonies but that is very different from children living in space stations (of realistic proportions).

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 14:35
^
Yes and you pretty much illustrate a whole load of other reasons why humans are really best remaining on earth, our natural home... and let the robots conduct space exploration. Makes perfect sense to me in many ways. :)


@ K^2. Okay, say we pure humans actually go through the trouble of doing everything you say and lets suppose that we finally manage all the logistics and have humans in outer orbit... and/or spreading to Mars etc. The question I have to ask is 'what then?'. What would be the point of us spending all this time and money getting up there? And it has to be said, getting up there is a teeny-weeny (to almost pointless) equation of everything else we have to do to make the costs worth the effort. I really don't get what humans would achieve... not yet anyway. We need robots to pave the way first...

K^2
16th Mar 2009, 17:42
Fox, we are talking about a colony here, not a sardine can like ISS. A space station designed for 1000-10,000 people living on it, with hydroponic garden section near the center and normal Earth gravity on habitat levels. These children would be living in conditions better than children in most parts of the world, and in terms of isolation, they would be comparable to many boarding schools. Or do you think sending kids to a boarding schools is also a violation of their rights? And as I said, an option would be given for them to "return" to Earth upon reaching certain age. (18?) I just don't think a lot of them would chose that option. On Earth, they'd be no better than most people around. They'd have to compete for regular jobs with regular salaries. Up there, they'd be automatically elevated to a rather high paying bracket, given unique exciting jobs, and have a lot of forms of recreation and entertainment unavailable on Earth. I suspect that most would elect to work at least a decade before going to Earth.

MyImmortal, Humans, ultimately, have to learn to live in space. That's the point. We need to get to the point where getting off this rock and going to another planet or station to live/work would be as easy as moving to another country is now. This requires construction of self-sustained colonies as soon as possible. We have means of building these within next 50 years, but not of sending up enough people to populate them. In the worst case scenario, if there is a global war, asteroid impact, or something else that leads to destruction of our civilization, perhaps extinction, we'd have a backup there in space. Colonies would be in too delicate of an environment to participate in wars, they'd be isolated enough in event of a pandemic, and they lack gravitational field attracting large heavy objects.

SageSavage
16th Mar 2009, 18:16
Fox, we are talking about a colony here, not a sardine can like ISS. A space station designed for 1000-10,000 people living on it, with hydroponic garden section near the center and normal Earth gravity on habitat levels.

Very, very unrealistic - if you ask me. When do you think something like that could exist? 50 years from now? I doubt it. Also this isn't what I'd call a colony. It's just a temporary solution - a very unstable one, too.


In the worst case scenario, if there is a global war, asteroid impact, or something else that leads to destruction of our civilization, perhaps extinction, we'd have a backup there in space.
Not that anybody would care if we didn't...

steelle
16th Mar 2009, 18:40
Not that anybody would care if we didn't...

Actually, we care so much that we have already started genetic backup program on earth.

Check it out ----> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070209074207.htm

Granted its just for plants, but its not that unrealistic to think we won't want to have back ups for other things

Blade_hunter
16th Mar 2009, 18:45
In Earth we made some attempts to make a "biosphere" with an internal ecosystem, something isolated from the planet's life (no contact with earth), some projects about the mars planet are made to allow our life forms to live in mars. (even if some of them would take a lot of decades to be done)
we search planets that allow us to live on them.
A the space station is just the beginning to make artificial space colonies.
We try to do the same with submarines and even try to make submarine bases.

We send robots because we won't put our lives in risk and allow some exploration where our life forms can't go or can't survive longer.

Most impossible things were made; things that everybody says oh it's impossible
The fiction science begin each day to be true science ;)

And a space station isn't more unrealistic than a sub base because we can always send resources to the station, but the goal is an independent ecosystem

SageSavage
16th Mar 2009, 18:53
@steelle:

I was just being sarcastic. ;)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 19:00
K^2. I do not disagree that humans ultimately have to live in space (or at least travel in space), but this can wait. Its just that, at the moment, we 'have nowhere to go, nothing to do' kind of thing. We need intelligent machines to go out there FIRST and map space, search for habital planets, discover galactic phenomena that can threaten (or aid) our voyage and generally do all the long, arduous investigations and discovery before we even attempt to follow or check somewhere out. We're talking a l-o-n-g time too, only a machine/cyborg can enjoy anything like an "eternal life", or as close to it as we can expect, to achieve such a feat of discovery compared to our own life limitations. Generations on earth would have been born and died before the first cyborg discovery ship returned to us with their findings.
Judging by how VERY little we know right now, it doesn't make much sense to send humans very far at all. We need to know so much more before we get to THAT stage, surely? :scratch:

As for the destruction/extinction scenario. Asteroid impact can be dealt with - we'll know if one is coming and can deflect its path if it is on course for earth. Sure, war and disease is destructive, but will it kill every single one of us? I doubt it... and even if it did, those humans up there in space with nowhere to go are eventually going to run out of resources for survival, yeah? Even if resources are plentiful (independent ecosystem), there is still the question of 'what now?'.

This is why I say it is important that we have robots/cyborgs in space long before humans. We really need to find out so much more and we need to know where to go and what to do. I think that is a much more logical stance on space exploration in general. Furthermore, it wouldn't harm us to look after/manage the earth much better than we currently do. It's human folly to take the earth for granted. As the saying goes: "you don't know what you've got, til it's gone". :(

Mindmute
16th Mar 2009, 19:08
K^2. I do not disagree that humans ultimately have to live in space (or at least travel in space), but this can wait. Its just that, at the moment, we 'have nowhere to go, nothing to do' kind of thing.

There is actually is.
There's a lot of research, especially medicine-related that would benefict from a permanent low gravity environment, not to mention that the moon alone could be a very very abundant power source for us in the near-middle future.

And even without these things, we need to actually get people out there, to optimise the procedure and the living conditions, to actually have decent tests about it, rather than being limited to simulate the environment down here.
I think K^2 is thinking about a long term plan started in the near future, while you're thinking of a short term one where we prepare and have machines do a speedy mapping for us before jolting into space en-masse.


Not to mention possible "political" issues (this is no longer speaking about the near future). Let's imagine we actually have a first contact event, do you think that 70% of our population would be content with a machine being the greeter?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 19:25
There is actually is.
There's a lot of research, especially medicine-related that would benefict from a permanent low gravity environment, not to mention that the moon alone could be a very very abundant power source for us in the near-middle future.
And even without these things, we need to actually get people out there, to optimise the procedure and the living conditions, to actually have decent tests about it, rather than being limited to simulate the environment down here.
I think K^2 is thinking about a long term plan started in the near future, while you're thinking of a short term one where we prepare and have machines do a speedy mapping for us before jolting into space en-masse.

Not to mention possible "political" issues (this is no longer speaking about the near future). Let's imagine we actually have a first contact event, do you think that 70% of our population would be content with a machine being the greeter?

No, I'm actually thinking of short and long term at the same time. I said that it doesn't make sense for us to go 'very far'... not that it doesn't make sense to go to the moon or neighbouring planets in our solar system and do the tests like you speak of. Anywhere beyond that is nothing short of suicide until machines have answered some very important questions for us.

Not sure I understand your question about first contact event? Humans on earth will know about the history of any cyborg ship we sent out on a discovery voyage. Is that what you meant?

As for not being content with a machine being the greeter. We are organic machines in a way, so all intelligent life has a purpose. If we consider human cyborgs in the future, why wouldn't they deserve the same respect as you or I? Especially upon their return to earth... with so much knowledge to share with us, I'd personally be worshipping them, particularly if they had located a planet similar to earth. :worship:

Mindmute
16th Mar 2009, 19:35
If we consider human cyborgs in the future, why wouldn't they deserve the same respect as you or I? Especially upon their return to earth... with so much knowledge to share with us, I'd personally be worshipping them, particularly if they had located a planet similar to earth. :worship:


Honestly, that's the problem right there, I don't think we can assume that something more mechanical than biological will be as respected as we'd both like it to be.
I'd more willing to assume that until a vast majority of our population is modified (and that'll be a long time, considering all sorts of sociological and religious prejudice there still is regarding that sort of thing) that they'll be treated as little more than glorified slave labour.

I just can't see a great deal of the human population agreeing to letting a machine, who can't actively and creatively represent most of our ideologies to be the first being from our race to greet another race on an exploration mission. It seems much more possible that there will be a human team(s) spearheading the exploration process.
That's to add that exploration requires a LOT of decisive power and it'll be more technologically feasible to support a living, breathing, human team over a long ammount of time and distance, than to find a way to effectively send frequent signals to a group of machines.

facepalm
16th Mar 2009, 19:37
As for the destruction/extinction scenario. Asteroid impact can be dealt with - we'll know if one is coming and can deflect its path if it is on course for earth.


I seriously doubt our ability to detect dangerous asteroids in time, just take a look at the following article:

Space rock misses us by a hair (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7921279.stm)


The object, known as 2009 DD45, thought to be 21-47m (68-152ft) across, raced by our planet at 1344 GMT on Monday.


The object was first reported on Saturday by the Siding Spring Survey, a near-Earth object search programme in Australia.

That's 72 hours between detection and a possible impact.

The object in question was of course too small to cause an extinction level event, but the article raises serious questions about our readiness to intercept incoming space rocks in the future.

AaronJ
16th Mar 2009, 20:53
I have finally formed an opinion on this:

Yes, there should be a moon level. I'd like to see the mass driver and Ada play roles.

K^2
16th Mar 2009, 21:58
MyImmortal, you aren't even thinking on the same level. Map out the space? Find galactic threats? Our first step is to build colonies in asteroid belt. That needs to be done before we even start exploration of the outer planets, never mind other stellar systems.

A craft to traverse interstellar space needs to be truly gigantic. It cannot be a rocket. It has to be a very high thrust Deuterium-Deuterium fusion powered ion drive with a ram scoop. Such a structure would carry an entire colony on it to a nearby star with the voyage taking several years at extreme relativistic speeds.

We aren't going to be able to find habitable planets, other than perhaps Mars. Even Mars isn't exactly what I'd call habitable. Our first step in colonization of space should be in constructing colonies right there in space. They have to be self-sufficient, so they need to be constructed in areas where asteroids can be mined for construction and water. Water would be used for both life support and fuel. Giant solar power arrays would collect solar power, which could be used to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen to be used as fuel on various cargo ships and shuttles traveling between mining stations and from colony to colony.



Fox, we can build entire cities in space within 50 years, but we have to start working in that direction now. We have to build a magrail for delivering cargo to Earth orbit. Actual construction of such stations is almost trivial. There is no new physics or even engineering in it. The general structure is a combination of physics that goes into a suspension bridge and that of a nuclear submarine. The entire structure would cost roughly like the later. That is expensive, but not overly expensive. It can be done.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 23:12
Mindmute: Just to begin by saying that I have been talking about space exploration quite a way into the future, not just the DX3 time period. The conversation was extended beyond the game with my discussion with K^2 - you know how thoughts/ideas expand. ;)

But to answer your comments. The 'something more mechanical than biological' doesn't really make my hairs stand on end. Why not? Well, because no matter how mechanical your body might be, you're still a human being "inside"... ask anyone who has body modification now and they'll tell you the same. Its not our bodies that make us human; but our minds. Agree with that, or not?

Sure, just as we still see racism today, there will be prejudice from some and acceptance from others. But I'll be in the latter group. Why? Because, just like the Omar in DX:IW, I consider cyborgs every bit human beings. Just human beings that have modified themselves. And seeing as we are discussing technology that apparently will only be initially available to the rich and elite, I doubt very much that their group will be considered as glorified slave labour. Furthermore, I don't think it will take that long for a vast majority of population to be modified. Look at plastic surgery today... every bit a form of 'modification' and the demand is huge, and acceptance has been speedy.

As for the pure human population agreeing to letting a machine greet another race on a space mission , again... I'm discussing part human/part machine, but still human. I'm also considering the logic of being ABLE to travel vast distances to actually find other intelligent life in the first place (IF we are not alone in this huge universe). As I've said previously, we have to discover Star Trek/Battlestar Galactica technology in order to travel such huge distances comfortably and quickly. BUT we still need to know in which direction we ought to travel before we embark on such a journey... otherwise we could be travelling to 'nowhere', or not anywhere of particular importance. That's why we need to have a route mapped out for us beforehand. If pure humans demand that they greet another intelligent lifeform themselves then we can only do that when technology and knowledge allows us to. We won't be in a position to achieve such knowledge for a long time yet; so it makes sense to either send intelligent 'robots' out to get on with some real and beneficial exploration first OR to modify ourselves so that we can make that journey. Both scenarios suggest 'machine' in there somewhere.

Finally, regarding what you say about effectively sending frequent signals to a group of machines. By the same token, if it were pure humans out in space - how do you think they will be able to communicate with earth effectively? Obviously, the answer to that is to have discovered better methods of space communication. I expect we'll find the solution eventually. In the meantime, send out the robots or cyborgs as soon as possible, in different directions ideally. If we can't communicate with them, no matter. We'll see them return in, say, 100 or even 500 years from now - with information crucial to our own aspirations for space exploration. We require this knowledge first; and in 500 years we'll be ready ourselves to turn that knowledge into action.

That's how I see it all anyway... and just my opinion on the whole space exploration matter.

**

K^2: I'm not thinking on a different level to you. I'm discussing what you say regarding space exploration today AND I'm discussing the near and far future too. I didn't disagree that we shouldn't go ahead and build colonies in our vicinity, I'm saying that we shouldn't go too far. Or really that we CAN'T go too far because we don't have the technology, knowledge or physical capabilities yet to do so.
I never suggested travel to other stellar systems as of now either - I was talking about the future; as I'm doing with Mindmute above. Like I've said, I don't see pure humans managing it anyway, but machine-based lifeforms could... at least much more easier.

Perhaps it might be a clearer discussion if I simply ask you if you think a pure human or a transhuman or a highly advanced robot could travel the vast distances of space more efficiently? Bearing in mind the different type of vessel, payload and needs each would demand for such a journey.

**

@ facepalm. Sure, we cannot easily detect/deflect asteriods right now... but we will be able to in the future. I was talking about the future.




Enjoying this discussion... phew, lots to keep up with. :nut:

K^2
16th Mar 2009, 23:26
I think that whatever we use to explore and colonize space has to start out as a human. It has to be born of flesh and learn and develop bound by limitations of flesh. Then, if it is necessary to change the shell to travel further, it is fine by me. But it might not be necessary.

I don't know if you have heard anything about quantum teleportation. The idea is to move quantum state of matter from one location to another. It is like UC in sense that you need stock material on the other end, but there is no assembly or disassembly. It is true teleportation of state.

The most incredible part of the way that QT works is that the destination need not be real. It can be a quantum simulation. Furthermore, the QT can be built as a portal. You'd have a doorway between real world and a simulated one. That simulated world can be networked, and travel between the nodes would not take any time in your own frame.

I believe, that will become the mode of travel of the future, regardless of whether you wish to go into another town or go to a different star. Furthermore, there are some hints that superluminal communication might be possible, which would allow one to travel between stars like that instantly.

This is distant future, of course, but the basic technology for this already exists. If transhumanism does not completely displace humanity by the time this system is developed, it will cease to be. There will be no need to augment one's body. Most people will spend most of their time within the network, where their physical characteristics are not relevant. Any damage due to injury or illness could be repaired within that virtual environment without risks. Aging would not be necessary. Body could be modified to be whatever you want. Augmentation would become something of the past.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Mar 2009, 23:31
I think that whatever we use to explore and colonize space has to start out as a human. It has to be born of flesh and learn and develop bound by limitations of flesh. Then, if it is necessary to change the shell to travel further, it is fine by me. But it might not be necessary.

I don't know if you have heard anything about quantum teleportation. The idea is to move quantum state of matter from one location to another. It is like UC in sense that you need stock material on the other end, but there is no assembly or disassembly. It is true teleportation of state.

The most incredible part of the way that QT works is that the destination need not be real. It can be a quantum simulation. Furthermore, the QT can be built as a portal. You'd have a doorway between real world and a simulated one. That simulated world can be networked, and travel between the nodes would not take any time in your own frame.

I believe, that will become the mode of travel of the future, regardless of whether you wish to go into another town or go to a different star. Furthermore, there are some hints that superluminal communication might be possible, which would allow one to travel between stars like that instantly.

This is distant future, of course, but the basic technology for this already exists. If transhumanism does not completely displace humanity by the time this system is developed, it will cease to be. There will be no need to augment one's body. Most people will spend most of their time within the network, where their physical characteristics are not relevant. Any damage due to injury or illness could be repaired within that virtual environment without risks. Aging would not be necessary. Body could be modified to be whatever you want. Augmentation would become something of the past.

Fair comment to that question, thank you. :)

Yeah, quantum teleportation - similar to Trek's 'beam me up, Scotty' scenario. Its interesting stuff and I agree that if this should become a reality, it would solve a LOT of problems.

K^2
16th Mar 2009, 23:53
The core difference with the StarTrek's beam is that you need a physical portal. It needs to be a surface of quantum computer, essentially. A monolith crystal-like structure that interacts with matter and fields on its boundary in a very specific way.

I'm trying to come up with a very simple version of such system that would be capable of sending across very simple organic molecules. Right now, only the optical excitation of individual atoms is sent across. There are some interesting challenges involved, but it does seem to be doable.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Mar 2009, 14:15
Oooh, sounds interesting... even if some of what you say is too technical for my little brain to get around. :nut: :D

itsalladream
19th Mar 2009, 03:50
I'm trying to come up with a very simple version of such system that would be capable of sending across very simple organic molecules. Right now, only the optical excitation of individual atoms is sent across. There are some interesting challenges involved, but it does seem to be doable.

What exactly (or approximately) do you do for a living?


Its interesting stuff and I agree that if this should become a reality, it would solve a LOT of problems.

It may solve a lot of problems, but it would probably contribute to countless more problems. But don't think I'm against it.:thumb:

K^2
19th Mar 2009, 04:06
What exactly (or approximately) do you do for a living?
High Energy Physics. Though, I suppose, the part they are actually paying me money for is teaching tuition-paying undergrads.

Ninjerk
19th Mar 2009, 13:08
High Energy Physics. Though, I suppose, the part they are actually paying me money for is teaching tuition-paying undergrads.

What classes are you teaching?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
21st Mar 2009, 14:45
Wow, no answer.
Maybe he can't say.... classified information and all that. :eek:

:D

K^2
22nd Mar 2009, 00:31
Simply missed the thread. :p

I teach physics lab. Simple stuff: mechanics, electricity, and optics.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Mar 2009, 22:21
In other words, "Brainy stuff"... :D

K^2
26th Mar 2009, 22:24
Not really, no.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Mar 2009, 22:27
No? :(
Well those topics probably seem brainy only to me... :o

Do you enjoy teaching these subjects? And how much of it relates to space exploration, out of interest.

Ninjerk
28th Mar 2009, 15:35
No? :(
Well those topics probably seem brainy only to me... :o

Do you enjoy teaching these subjects? And how much of it relates to space exploration, out of interest.

I don't think the actual professors like teaching that subject. I'd guess he's doing it to offset his graduate tuition.

Romeo
29th Mar 2009, 08:05
Although I'm 100% for learning about our community (Especially a veteran of the community!) we probably should get back to topic before we get in trouble, hm Immortal? :rasp:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 08:07
It is on topic Romeo.... I was asking K^2 about space exploration. :p
Its okay, no need to apologise. A single red rose will suffice. ;)

:D

K^2
29th Mar 2009, 08:26
I don't think the actual professors like teaching that subject. I'd guess he's doing it to offset his graduate tuition.
Indeed. It's sort of fun, though. And most professors don't like teaching anything. They'd much rather be left alone to do their research. So would most graduate students, but undergrads pay tuition, so there you go.

What I do has nothing to do with space exploration, but without getting into details, anybody with sufficient background in Physics could understand any of the undertakings.

Anything Quantum, on the other hand, is in my domain. Most people, however, know even less about Quantum Mechanics than they do about black holes.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 08:35
I enjoy reading about quantum research - casually speaking of course. I'm no expert.
The most fascinating thing for me is where they split atoms and the two halves of that atom appear to know "where the other one is", kind of thing. Something like that... as if it identifies and is 'aware'... it fascinates me. :)
I think we are not sure if WE as the observer have something to do with this...

K^2
29th Mar 2009, 09:31
The most fascinating thing for me is where they split atoms and the two halves of that atom appear to know "where the other one is", kind of thing. Something like that... as if it identifies and is 'aware'... it fascinates me. :)
I think we are not sure if WE as the observer have something to do with this...
Actually, we know quite a bit now about how it works now. Maybe you've read an outdated text.

Imaging you have two particles, and when they are created they have opposite spins. If one is up, the other is down. But we don't know which is which. Worse, each is actually both up and down at the same time, but the part about them being opposite holds. That puzzled people, because if you measure one, and learn that it's up, the other immediately becomes down, no matter where it was in the universe. So some people thought that something between the two communicated information faster than speed of light.

What it really does, though, is more like there being two worlds. In one the first particle's up, in another it is down. And it's you that is sort of stuck between the two worlds until you check which way that particle is. Then you are in a world where a particle is just up (or down), and so the other particle has no choice but to be the opposite.

It gets a little hairy in terms of visualizing all that, but the math is solid.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 10:20
Yeah, I admit its been a good year since I read anything about quantum physics. :o

So, what you describe - does this imply some sort of parallel universe? Another dimension... or something? :confused:

Jerion
29th Mar 2009, 10:43
It actually makes sense to me, in a way.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 15:00
And this all comes down to 'dark matter' kind of thing?
You know, all that 'other stuff' we know nothing about, but know it "exists". :)

GmanPro
29th Mar 2009, 18:46
Lol, I'm waiting for some scientist to wake up one morning and go like, "hmmmm, I wonder what happens if I try .... this?" and BOOOM! The whole world blows up.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 19:10
Haha, funny thought. :D

K^2
29th Mar 2009, 22:03
So, what you describe - does this imply some sort of parallel universe? Another dimension... or something? :confused:
It implies multiple histories, yes. The distinction needs to be kept in mind because these histories cannot interfere with each other. So it's not like another world you can travel to. Just a knowledge that there is another you that made a different set of choices living at the same time and in the same place as you, completely unaware of choices that were made by you. Puts an interesting twist on all philosophy of life, doesn't it?

On topic of more space-exploration-related "other worlds", if there are other universes, and if there are links between them, we at least know exactly where to look for nearest one. A pathway between two universes has to be a giant rotating black hole. And what do you know? We have one in our own backyard. In the core of the Milky Way Galaxy. Only 26,000 light years away. We get there, we can figure a lot of new things out. Not that we wouldn't just to be able to get there.

Lol, I'm waiting for some scientist to wake up one morning and go like, "hmmmm, I wonder what happens if I try .... this?" and BOOOM! The whole world blows up.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_difference.png

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 22:31
It implies multiple histories, yes. The distinction needs to be kept in mind because these histories cannot interfere with each other. So it's not like another world you can travel to. Just a knowledge that there is another you that made a different set of choices living at the same time and in the same place as you, completely unaware of choices that were made by you. Puts an interesting twist on all philosophy of life, doesn't it?
OMG, yeah. You've left me feeling like I'm not, well... me anymore. :eek: Or that I'm me, but there are other me's out there I haven't met yet, lol. :D



On topic of more space-exploration-related "other worlds", if there are other universes, and if there are links between them, we at least know exactly where to look for nearest one. A pathway between two universes has to be a giant rotating black hole. And what do you know? We have one in our own backyard. In the core of the Milky Way Galaxy. Only 26,000 light years away. We get there, we can figure a lot of new things out. Not that we wouldn't just to be able to get there.

Yeah, last time I watched a space channel it was talking about the black hole so close to us. Could we actually go through a bh and come out the other side okay? Sounds like we'd get stretched and squeezed beyond recognition. Great for aching bones but not sure if it might be taking massage too far. :D
What about Time? Doesn't it kind of slow down to the point of being stuck in some kind of freeze-frame mode?

Funny pic. :thumb:

K^2
29th Mar 2009, 22:40
That's why you need a giant rotating black hole. Radius of event horizon increases linearly with mass, but gravity drops down as the square of radius. So a giant black hole can have moderate gravity and very low tidal effects. Reason you need it to be rotating is because that generates frame dragging, which allows you to dip bellow event horizon and come out again. If that black hole happens to be part of a wormhole, that would let you come out on the other side, which could be a different galaxy, a different moment in time, or even a different universe all together. Or it might be simply a black hole, and you'd be back where you started.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Mar 2009, 22:44
That's why you need a giant rotating black hole. Radius of event horizon increases linearly with mass, but gravity drops down as the square of radius. So a giant black hole can have moderate gravity and very low tidal effects. Reason you need it to be rotating is because that generates frame dragging, which allows you to dip bellow event horizon and come out again. If that black hole happens to be part of a wormhole, that would let you come out on the other side, which could be a different galaxy, a different moment in time, or even a different universe all together. Or it might be simply a black hole, and you'd be back where you started.

Oh, now I've learned something there because I thought all black holes rotated for some reason. :o

Yeah, I know about wormholes... sounds like the best way to 'pop out' somewhere else in a nice speedy manner. But its a one-way ticket, right? No going back?

K^2
30th Mar 2009, 00:11
Statistically speaking, yeah, I'm sure all black holes rotate a little bit, but when people talk about rotating black holes, they mean some serious rotation.

There is no reason why wormhole would not be two way.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 08:39
Okay, thanks.
Another question (I'm enjoying this, thank you), the BH's with the weakest rotation... is that because they have existed longer in time, or because the original implosion was smaller?

Thanks for the wormhole answer, I was kind of worried if it was only one-way because you'd have to be prepared for 'anything' then... including lonliness, possibly.

One more question I like to ask. Do you believe that the Universe is just an incredible, beautiful 'mistake', a chance happening? Or do you believe that it is too complex not to have a Creator? You don't have to answer this if you don't want to. :)

K^2
30th Mar 2009, 17:03
It's just conservation of angular momentum. If stuff that went in was moving relative to each other, the black hole will end up rotating. How much is enough, I don't know. I barely understand a simple Schwarzschild solution.

And to me, it would be far more incredible if the Universe wasn't there. Well, not to me, because I wouldn't exist, but you know. What would be there? Nothing? If there is nothing, then what's to stop something from happening? It seems to me that either something should exist or everything. Something existing would be incredibly specific, so it's only natural to expect everything to exist. And then there we are, somewhere in the habitable part of that whatever it is.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 17:07
And to me, it would be far more incredible if the Universe wasn't there. Well, not to me, because I wouldn't exist, but you know. What would be there? Nothing? If there is nothing, then what's to stop something from happening? It seems to me that either something should exist or everything. Something existing would be incredibly specific, so it's only natural to expect everything to exist. And then there we are, somewhere in the habitable part of that whatever it is.

Right. :cool:
Because the last stuff I read was about how the only reason everything exists is because we exist to witness it. Almost like making something not real like 'imagination' become real because it is imagined in the first place. Kind of hard to explain in words, lol. :o

K^2
30th Mar 2009, 17:40
That's another way to look at it. As for someone witnessing it, it's only the requirement because a universe with nobody to look around also has nobody to ask why it exists.

WhatsHisFace
30th Mar 2009, 18:01
Right. :cool:
The only reason everything exists is because we exist to witness it.
That is the worst logic I have ever witnessed.

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 18:11
Its not as bad as "No one drives in New York city anymore because there's too much traffic." :P

Anyway, back on topic. Is it true that time is just a measurment of speed, or rather of change? Which is why if you travel through space fast enough, in theory, you could time travel?

You know, there was actually a pretty good sci-fi book about that. I think it was called the Forever War. And its about soldiers who get on a ship and travel across unfathomable distances through space and when they come back its the far future and stuff is all different. Something like that, its been awhile since I read it. :scratch:

K^2
30th Mar 2009, 18:24
No. Your proper velocity is always the speed of light by magnitude. That has a time-ward component and a space-ward component. If the spatial component of your velocity is the speed of light by magnitude, then you aren't aging, because the time-ward component is zero.

This is a method by which interstellar travel is possible. If you have 100ly between two stars, and you travel at 99.995% of the speed of light, the distance will appear to be just 1ly, and you'll cover it in one year. From outside perspective, you'll take 100 years to get there, but you'll only age one year. So either way, it takes you a year to get there, but everyone else ages 100 years.

Of course, I'm neglecting acceleration. There are a few more caveats buried in there.

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 18:28
So the premise of the book isn't wrong then? Thats awesome. Its not 'really' time travel because you can't go backwards through time, but its close enough for me. Now we just need light speed capable ships ... lol. I won't hold my breath. Although, it might be more practical to just freeze your body so you wake up in the future.

K^2
30th Mar 2009, 18:39
I don't think we'll see light-speed capable ships any time soon, but interstellar drive might be closer than people realize. It'd be a behemoth of a structure, but all basic technology exists already.

Interstellar space is far from empty. It is filled with ionized hydrogen and some other trace elements. You wouldn't notice it while traveling at speeds we normally do in space, but once you get going, it becomes noticeable. The oldest idea, and you can see it in some sci-fi books, is to construct a ramjet. Hydrogen is gathered by the magnetic ion scoop, compressed into a supersonic flow, reaches extremely high temperatures, undergoes fusion, and generates a powerful jet that drives the craft. Unfortunately, it turns out that such a system generates too much drag.

A far more reasonable drive is the one that lets the hydrogen flow through it. Friction is then minimized. The fraction of deuterium naturally present in the flow would be diverted towards a Tokamak reactor and fused there. Energy derived from fusion would be used to accelerate the flow of hydrogen atoms using something similar to an ion drive or some other linear electro-static propulsion method. This would generate less thrust but also a lot less drag, allowing for much higher top speeds. It would still be a bit too slow to travel somewhere really far, but something like Alpha Centauri in a decade is quite achievable. If we can locate a planetary system around either Alpha Centauri A or B, it would be possible to use such a drive to deliver probes that will examine some of the planets.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 18:42
That is the worst logic I have ever witnessed.
Oh, I don't know... try reading some of your own. :p

No seriously, it wasn't as if I was saying that as if it were true, so it wasn't an argument of "logic".
I was discussing quantum theory, ie. that observation of a particle is accomplished only by an interaction between the particle and the observer.

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 18:45
Of course once you get into high enough speeds you gotta worry about colliding into floating objects. So a nav computer (to rip off star wars) to calculate safe paths would be another essential piece of technology I think. Also, you gotta figure out how to slow down the ship once it reaches such incredible speeds. I always laugh a little when in Star Wars the ships come out of hyperspace and slow down instantly. That would be some pretty serious whiplash...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 18:51
Let me introduce my good friend to both of you, private messages.
Don't encourage WHF to send me private messages! :eek:

Hehe, no seriously, were both only having a little fun really. Its all cool. :cool:

K^2
30th Mar 2009, 18:59
Of course once you get into high enough speeds you gotta worry about colliding into floating objects. So a nav computer (to rip off star wars) to calculate safe paths would be another essential piece of technology I think. Also, you gotta figure out how to slow down the ship once it reaches such incredible speeds. I always laugh a little when in Star Wars the ships come out of hyperspace and slow down instantly. That would be some pretty serious whiplash...
That's another nice thing about all that interstellar hydrogen. At high enough speeds, you can use it to maneuver a bit. Not a whole lot, but enough to avoid some objects in the way. And the Doppler shift should make any odd rock much more noticeable. Tiny rocks would have to be allowed to simply pass through the structure. So all of the systems would have to be rather redundant. Really small stuff should be picked up by the ion scoop, though. That will limit radiation and damage from the smallest of objects which are the most common.

Slowing down also isn't a problem. You simply use the same scoop you were using to redirect the flow of interstellar medium to generate drag. Since the star will also generate a flow of medium towards you once you enter the system, you won't have problems using it to slow down practically to halt. Probes would probably be sent out a bit in advance, so that they can go towards their own planets. Each one would probably carry a solar sail to help with the last bits of slowing down and to maneuver into planetary orbit. The probes will take images of the planets and send them to the interstellar drive which will take up some convenient orbit around the star and retransmit data from probes back to Earth.

It's really doable. Might take us a couple of hundred years to put together. There is a lot of space construction required. But for something that would let us take a close look at planets orbiting other stars, I think it is phenomenal that we are that close.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 19:00
You're the boss.

I am? :eek: :o

No, no. Hierarchy doesn't exist for me, I'm an Omar remember. ;) We're all equals here. :cool:

:D

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 19:02
What do you think of the idea I heard some astronaut suggest, that you could make a large solar sail to convert solar energy into thrust, and in theory you would be constantly gaining acceleration (if only a little bit at a time).

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 19:03
I am? :eek: :o

No, no. Hierarchy doesn't exist for me, I'm an Omar remember. ;) We're all equals here. :cool:

:D

So you're saying, Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others? :rasp:

K^2
30th Mar 2009, 19:05
Solar sails are great. The main problem is that it takes a really long time to change orbits. But for an unmanned probe sent to some distant object, it is a must. You do want to have a spare ion drive as well, though, and some serious solar panels to power the whole thing.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 19:07
What do you think of the idea I heard some astronaut suggest, that you could make a large solar sail to convert solar energy into thrust, and in theory you would be constantly gaining acceleration (if only a little bit at a time).

Well, I have to ask about "resistance" in space... there isn't any, is there?
So, if I was floating around up there now and just blew hard from my mouth - would I not travel quite a long distance/accelerate before I finally came to a stop?

*cough*... just asking... :o

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 19:09
So you're saying, Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others? :rasp:

Well, the Omar do have a Russian history, I guess. :D

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 19:09
Well, I have to ask about "resistance" in space... there isn't any, is there?
So, if I was floating around up there now and just blew hard from my mouth - would I not travel quite a long distance/accelerate before I finally came to a stop?

*cough*... just asking... :o

You wouldn't slow down without some force acting on you. Just don't expect to move very fast.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 19:11
You wouldn't slow down without some force acting on you. Just don't expect to move very fast.

That's what I mean/was asking... the problem isn't power to accelerate, because we need little power to do so. Kind of thing... :o

I thought I would move quite fast due to zero or little resistance in space. K^2, please answer this. :)

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 19:12
Wasn't there an episode of Futurama where Bender was shot out of a cannon in space and proceeded to float through the galaxy incapable of slowing down? Lol, off topic I know :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 19:13
Wasn't there an episode of Futurama where Bender was shot out of a cannon in space and proceeded to float through the galaxy incapable of slowing down? Lol, off topic I know :D

If we're talking about Bender... its 'never' off topic. :naughty:
He's the coolest robot, EVER!! :cool: :D

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 19:20
He's the coolest robot, EVER!! :cool: :D

QFT

imported_van_HellSing
30th Mar 2009, 19:58
Well, I have to ask about "resistance" in space... there isn't any, is there?
So, if I was floating around up there now and just blew hard from my mouth - would I not travel quite a long distance/accelerate before I finally came to a stop?

*cough*... just asking... :o

Not sure if you'd be able to blow in space. But, If I'm thinking correctly (not a strict mind here at all) you'd only get pushed with the same force you put into your blowing, which, considering your mass, would have very little effect.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Mar 2009, 20:08
No, of course not... it's a purely hypothetical situation. I'm just considering how much energy/power we actually need to travel vast distances. So, if we have enough power to reach top speed, from then on we can kind of 'coast/cruise' over a pretty vast distance due to lack of resistance...?

K^2
30th Mar 2009, 23:22
As I said, space is far from empty. There is a little bit of drag, but it is a very small effect if you are located far enough from any planets heavy enough to have an atmosphere.

Yes, effect of blowing would be very small, but some reaction is going to be there. Though, I strongly suggest studying it inside a capsule of some sort. ISS might be a good choice. There, you might even have a little race.

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 23:43
Lol, a zero G race. That would be great... :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
31st Mar 2009, 11:32
Yeah! :D

itsalladream
7th Apr 2009, 03:02
So, did you like, or abhor, the movie Contact?

What's your take on quantum computing? Working with bits can be confusing enough, even without a single bit being able to simultaneously represent multiple values.

GmanPro
7th Apr 2009, 03:07
TBH, I don't really remember the details of that movie. But I vaguely remember enjoying it. It was a long time ago after all...

itsalladream
7th Apr 2009, 03:35
Just reading back over some posts. Blowing in space? On the ISS? A race? Does the last person to finish have to eat the biscuit?:naughty: :thud:

K^2
7th Apr 2009, 03:56
What's your take on quantum computing? Working with bits can be confusing enough, even without a single bit being able to simultaneously represent multiple values.
It's not that confusing. Think of each qubit as an addressing bit. If you have 2 qubits, for example, your possible states are |00>, |01>, |10>, and |11>. Any number of these can be excited at once. So each of these states can be used as a classical bit in computing. That gives you access to 2^n classical bits, where n is the number of qubits. A computer with a few hundred qubits can store classical location of every particle in a known universe. However, currently, people have only been able to work with a little more than 10 qubits. The problem is decoherence. The more qubits you have, the more vulnerable your system is to interaction with outside world. And since you cannot get rid of interactions, you have to rely on quantum error correction algorithms, and these always reduce number of states you can actually use. Still, there is some promise in it. Quantum computers have potential to become ultimate encryption cracking systems because of their massive parallel computing capabilities. There are quantum algorithms for factoring of large numbers, for example. These can make RSA obsolete.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th Apr 2009, 23:12
Just reading back over some posts. Blowing in space? On the ISS? A race? Does the last person to finish have to eat the biscuit?:naughty: :thud:

Its an awesome discussion, hehe. I like to think of it as 'Quark, Strangeness & Charm'. ;)

K^2
8th Apr 2009, 00:58
Is that supposed to be some sort of a pun? Because Quark is a particle, but Strangeness and Charm are quantum numbers, so they don't fit into an "X, Y, and Z" kind of list together.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
8th Apr 2009, 09:18
Yeah, it was supposed to be a sort of pun. Sorry if it wasn't genius. :D

I generally know what Q, S & C are, but I guess I know them more from Hawkwind's song.
Lyrics:


Einstein was not a handsome fellow
Nobody ever called him Al
He had a long moustache to pull on, it was yellow
I don't believe he ever had a girl
One thing he missed out in his theory
Of time and space and relativity
Is something that makes it very clear
He was never gonna score like you and me
He didn't know about
Quark, Strangeness and Charm
Quark, Strangeness and Charm
Quark, Strangeness and Charm

I had a dangerous liaison
To have been found out would've been a disgrace
We had to rendezvous some days on
The corner of an undiscovered place
We got sick of chat chat chatter
And the look upon everybody's face
But all that doesn't not anti-matter now
We've found ourselves a black hole out in space
And we're talking about
Quark, Strangeness and Charm
Quark, Strangeness and Charm
Quark, Strangeness and Charm

Copernicus had those Renaissance ladies
Crazy about his telescope
And Galileo had a name that made his
Reputation higher than his hopes
Did none of those astronomers discover
While they were staring out into the dark
That what a lady looks for in her lover
Is Charm, Strangeness and Quark
And we're talking about
Quark, Strangeness and Charm
Quark, Strangeness and Charm
Quark, Strangeness and Charm

Love this song - good catchy tune too. :)