Kristopher

Re: Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits Need Not Apply!

I agree with you on that. I really like it when you give multiple cultures to a given race' date=' each culture representing a different nationality of said race. The only issue then, is coming up with all of those different cultures. Of course if you have over two dozen races, trying to come up with 3-5 cultures each may be quite a daunting task...[/quote']

 

See also, my work on my science fiction setting, and just the work to come up with the human cultures...

Re: Are single climate/habitat worlds really possible?

* blink * blink *

Where is the "matter of comprehension?

Blacksword is trying to see if the numbers will work.

"It does go beyond what we can comprehend", which is the second time someone has made that sort of comment in this thread.

Re: Are single climate/habitat worlds really possible?

Each tanker would provide for an area of ~4200 sq mi' date=' an area slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut. But in that same area there will be 217 million people, which means they can probably find a few people capable of unloading and delivering the food from the tanker. It does go beyond what we can comprehend, and I imagine the bigger issue is dealing with waste and providing clean water for such a population.[/quote']

 

Why do people keep trying to bring this back to a matter of comprehension?

 

It's just numbers. If the numbers don't work, the system is impossible. If they do, it's not.

Re: Are single climate/habitat worlds really possible?

Well, let's fiddle with some numbers.

 

Trantor at its height had a population of 45 billion people. The requirement is 2.3 kg of food per man per day. Multiplying it out, Trantor requires about 1x10^11 kilograms of food a day.

 

A supertanker has a DWT of about 550,000 DWT, which is about 5x10^8 kg.

 

So to supply Trantor, you'd need to have 200 of these space supertankers to arrive every day, minimum. And unload them.

 

Reading the novels, I can make a WAG that it would take about 2 days to travel from one of the 20 agro worlds to Trantor. If I haven't overlooked anything, this would mean you'd need 800 supertankers total, to ensure a constant daily arrival of 200 supertankers. This is 40 supertankers per agro world.

 

This is a bare minimum, just-in-time arrangement. You'd want to have several times this, as a safety reserve. This will allow Trantor to stockpile extra food.

OK, so 45 billion is do-able.

But... is a worldwide city only 45 billion people?

Earth's land area is 58 million square miles. We'll use the the population density of Singapore to be conservative (~18200 per square mile). That's 1,055,600,000,000 people. One trillion. Right?

So you've be looking at the no-margin just-in-time delivery of offworld food arriving on almost 4700 "tankers" per day, right?

Now take one of the very dense real-life cities as an example for density, and you'd have more like three trillion people, and about 14000 "tankers".

Re: Fiction resources for Solar HERO.

So do the Transhumanists. There's a bit too much faith and "of course a solution will be found" speculation in most Transhumanism for my tastes.

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

And RexMundi, it's not like I hate the idea of a far better heavy-lifter, or of Orion in particular. It would be awesome if the idea is as effective and economical and safe as you're making it out to be. Absolutely, beyond-words awesome.

But all the awesome in the world won't change the facts, whatever they are.

Re: Are single climate/habitat worlds really possible?

I can answer one of those questions. The unloading was done on the surface since Foundation universe spaceships are all landing-capable' date=' and possess the ability to float exactly the way a brick doesn't. One thing Asimov did was vastly underestimate the population required to occupy a planetary city, even assuming that that the city only occupied the land surface of a world like Earth. Coruscant has over a trillion people on it for just that reason. But even so, what difference does it make if it's ten million or a billion starships landing each day? It's the capital of a [b']Galactic Empire[/b]. The sheer scale on which it does everything is beyond our understanding.

Hardly. It's just numbers.

The question comes down to the limit on how much food you can unload and distribute each day -- it doesn't matter how many ships you have from across the whole of the galaxy, it matters how much each one carries, how many you can land at once, and how long it takes to unload and load each one. And that's just the food. Where are the medicines, and the parts, and the building materials, and the consumer goods, and everything else coming from, as well?

Re: Are single climate/habitat worlds really possible?

Depends on the assumptions. In Niven and Pournelle's THE MOTE IN GOD'S EYE, the circumstances are such that feeding even a small colony using food transport starships is flatly impossible. But this assumes that there are only a few thousand starships in all of human space.

 

In the Foundation trilogy, the galactic empire actually encompasses the entire galaxy (instead of just a segment as does the Star Wars empire). The Trantorian empire could easily support several trillion starships just to feed Trantor. IIRC Trantor had 20 agricultural worlds nearby whose entire output went to Trantor.

How many ships, of what size, were unloaded at Trantor each day, or hour? How long did that unloading take? Was the unloading done at orbital transfer stations, or on the surface?

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

Utter contempt? heh. Look Kristopher I'm not utterly contemptible about anything really (except maybe d20' date=' and sherbert). Pot calling Kettle Black here, as I have made several points as well, which are handwaved away as being the ravings of a Lunatic, yet I can use pretty much the same links you provide, to back my case as well. I've also, never called you a Hippy, or in fact, Never pointed a Finger at Any Poster, and said "YOU ARE A HIPPY!" [/quote']

 

Who is handwaving your comments away as the ravings of a lunatic?

 

You might not have called anyone here a "hippy" directly, but when people post concerns about Orion, and you say "the concerns about this are just hippy nonsense" (paraphrasing), then it's not that hard to draw the third leg of the triangle on that one, really. You've strongly implied that anyone who wonders about the radiological or other impacts of an Orion launch is "a hippy".

 

Your Point' date=' seems to be basically to get in the last word, and take a cheap shot at someone who doesn't agree with your opinion.[/quote']

 

no.

 

I could be wrong in that' date=' but that's how I learn things. Originally, I had felt that you were simply on the opposite side of the debate but you stooped to taking a personal shot at me ( I would have been fine with generalist commentary and crazy folks yelling at people to get off their lawn, that's generalist, not personal). Personal shots, aren't cool.[/quote']

 

No, they're not, that's why you were called out on them.

 

Even in the above rebuttal' date=' it's all personal attack. [u']One has to wonder why such utter contempt is being expressed towards someone who is on the board for the big show.[/u]

 

"Rubber and glue" rebuttals of that sort aren't really up to par for these discussions.

 

If you don't want people to ask why you're displaying contempt, don't display contempt -- in other words, when you dismiss the concerns about Orion as "hippy nonsense" (paraphrasing), you dismiss anyone who is concerned about the impacts of Orion as "a hippy". When you act like only idiots could hold a position, you're implying that people who do hold that position are idiots.

 

So' date=' let me see if I can" Link up Pretty likes", to factual observations not from myself (Since, if I don't link to wikipedia every other sentence, I'm supposedly of sub human intellect).[/quote']

 

No one has said or implied any such thing.

 

I'll keep to Wikipedia since it seems to be the Ark of the Covenant here for rebuttal.

 

Hardly. It's a quick and easy reference that we all understand the limitations of.

 

Project Orion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 Now. Freeman Dyson' date=' is apparently not a dumb man, having to take time off from advanced Studies to work on this stuff initially (From Princeton no less). Orion would have offered performance greater than the most advanced conventional or nuclear rocket engines now being studied. Cheap interplanetary travel was the goal of the Orion Project.[/quote']

 

Freeman Dyson is not dumb At all. However, he does like to... think big. Very, very big.

 

So let's break it down a bit' date=' so I can see where the negativity comes from.[/quote']

 

More like realism.

 

1. Can we do it. Yes' date=' we could have done it back in the 50's and 60's (leaning towards the 60's myself. "Our motto was 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'"~ Freeman Dyson[/quote']

 

I have serious doubts we could have done it in the 50s or 60s. Apollo was right at the very thinnest edge of our capabilites in its day. We weren't ready to go to Mars in 1965, or Saturn in 1970.

 

2. Is it Cheap? Hell Yeah. Gets rid of those pesky Nuclear Arsenals to. Shuttles about' date=' $6,000 per payload pound. A big Orion would be roughly $250.00 per Payload Pound, Per Launch. Fuels cheaper to. Roughly 175 Million per Launch. Shuttle burns up more money in gas.[/quote']

 

I would love to see a hard-headed breakdown of the estimated costs for Orion.

 

3. Are there "Bad Things" that can happen to you? Of course' date=' but then there is just as big a risk, with the conventional rockets as well. The folks in charge of the program, even after the disillusionment created by the fallout from the ground launch issues (no pun intended) showed that even with their most extensive launch schedule, the would have added less then 1% to the levels already being produced by the Super Powers testing in the 60's.[/quote']

 

Now that part simply does not add up, from what I can find. The entire 35 years of atmospheric testing amounted to 500 detonations. 500, over 35 years. For a single Orion launch, I'm finding cites for anywhere between 800 and 1200 detonations. So say about twice as many in a few minutes. And while they'd individually be smaller than some of the test detonations, they wouldn't really be that much "cleaner", in all likelihood. As pointed out, making a nuclear device smaller in yield does not scale down the output of radioisotopes automatically.

 

Those bad things could have been completely obliterated' date=' by the simple facts that they had also worked out a set up, to build the things and launch them from Orbit (would have needed two Heavy Lift (Saturn V or equal) launches to get it up there.[/quote']

 

We were, however, discussing Orion specifically as a heavy lifter.

 

4. Is there information on it other then Wikipedia? Yep. This shows the Good (which I like)' date=' AND the bad (Which I agree with by the way, I just consider it acceptable risk, like gasoline), in short, a very good, and heavily referenced for back tracking article: http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html

 

It's very easy to understate or overlook the full scope of the risks and complications, because they can be subtle. See also, Cancer's post about the effects of the still-lingering radioisotopes from atmospheric testing.

 

5. Why not? There seems to be piles and piles of science and Data saying it's good' date=' and one report, not even related to it, saying it would be the end of all life on earth (slightly exaggerated)?[/quote']

 

Why not?

 

Because it has the potential to go wrong in a way that few of humanity's projects have gone wrong? Ever watch film of a rocket launch failure? Now imagine the same thing, about 5 detonations into the launch, with the Orion tipping back into the last detonation... and the remaining 995 devices onboard being caught in that last blast and dusted into the atmosphere. Yes, absolute worst case scenario. But possible, and dangerous in a way that dwarfs the danger of any conventional rocket failure.

 

Because there are a lot of questions and unknowns about the effects and safety of 1000 atmospheric nuclear detonations in rapid sequence?

 

The concerns about this aren't from people opposed to all nuclear power, or use of the technology. They... we aren't the kind of people who were protesting the Cassini launch because of the RTG onboard.

 

6. We're Running Out of Room. Dysons quote above is a good thing to think. It's supported by Other Smart people' date=' with all sorts of degrees and such hanging on their walls, as you can see by following the links.[/quote']

 

You mean room for human beings?

 

An attempt to colonize the rest of the solar system isn't going to solve that issue, not in time to make a difference.

 

So' date=' aside from the fact I don't like Hippies, Nuclear Protesters[/quote']

 

This isn't about hippies and nuclear protestors. No one here is a hippy or an anti-nuclear reactionary. The more you come back to that, the more damage you do to your own case.

Re: The Puffin: A Personal Aircraft

If 0% can't drive...

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

You can side with the CDC report if you want. I'll side with the other side of the equation that has demonstrated time and time again' date=' that the risk is negligible at best. Want to know why I blew it off as they Think? Because they don't KNOW for sure (From the report itself we have: The CDC-NCI study claims that the fallout[b'] might have[/b] led to approximately 11,000 excess deaths, most caused by thyroid cancer linked to exposure to iodine-131.) Key Words. Might Have. One would think a study going from 1945 to 1980 would have more pages, but might have, possible, probable, and possibility are the words that crop up the most for it.

 

There's very GOOD reasons, for not going forward. I just happen to side with the very good reasons FOR moving forward. There's folks that for great reasons seek to constrain advancement, but I choose to side with the guys whose line of thinking, got out out of the caves and made sure we don't have to hunt things with sticks and rocks anymore.

 

66 Years. That's roughly the time it took us to go from wood and canvas, to the Moon. In the 38 Years since then, we've barely, done Anything, in effect, we've gone backwards, and I want to go forward so sue me.

 

Now if you want to make a point I'm more then happy to go back and forth over it. Just Don't paraphrase me by re-writing something I said (underlined above) in a personally derogatory manner (I speak in more of a Sling Blade style and manner and the above is clearly meant to look like something Lennie from "Of Mice and Men" would say), then get up on the high horse and call ME snide. Sure I'm anti Hippy, but I keep it generalist. Not personal. It's only snide, when you point fingers, and take other folks stuff out of context, and portray it, to a negative intent.

 

There is far more Radioactive junk spewed forth by Coal Plants, then any Nuclear Plant (other then the ones that broke). That's not counting, Volcanoes, and the Sun. If we were allowed to actually Build NEW plants, instead of being forced to run with OLD designs 50 Years out of date (A topic for another thread), we wouldn't have 90% of the issues we have now.

 

Things in Orbit are already exposed to Insane levels of Radiation, just from being up there. The Sun, spews it out all the time, and when it flares, it spews out LOTS more. A few Orions going up, to get to a place where the scared folks can't really come up with some vague reason, to build bigger and better things, aren't going to significantly impact anything on the surface of the big blue marble. It's not like they would launch out of Downtown L.A.

 

You naysayers can paraphrase and re-write all you want, but it's Going to happen. It's just that when it does, the Flag on the side of Orion, is probably gonna be Chinese or Indian. And they don't give a crap really, about following other folks namby pamby rules or what you happen to think. When you're out of Space to breath, you either Go find more Space, or you take it from someone else. I'd much rather it be us pulling the strings and with the initial claims to things, then them. At least WE'LL, bring the Hippies, Micro bus and all with us, because we take bullets, to defend their rights to belittle and bemoan folks they don't agree with. The Chinese, they just run 'em over with a Tank.

 

So, gimme an Orion, and a Star to guide her by, because that's just the first Step, to Project Daedalus, Longshot, or even Medusa (though that one seems a bit wonky even to me) and the even better Antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion, Bussard Ramjets and more. We've done the Crawl. Now let's Walk, so we can get to the Run. Besides. "I've got an Orbital Nuclear Battleship and the Will to Use it!" will beat out any "Can't we all Share?" argument any day of the week. Like Marcus in B5 (and was noted previously): It’s as I have always said, “you can get more from a kind word and a 2x4 than you can from just a kind word”.

I've already made my point. You keep ignoring it and blowing off the facts and saying "What? there's no problem, that's all just crazy talk!" Not being a mind-reader, I won't speculate (out loud) as to why you do.

And you'll please note that I'm not some "hippy", scared of all things with the words "nuclear" or "radiation" attached to them -- thus my comments regarding coal-fired power plants, the purely political opposition to breeder reactors and reprocessing, and so on. It's possible to be rational, pro-nuclear-power, and so on, and still wonder aloud at the utterly blase disregard for the dangers that's being expressed by proponents of projects like Orion.

One has to wonder why there's such utter contempt being expressed towards anyone who isn't on board for the big show, and why it is that anyone who stops to question is being broad-brushed as a "hippy".

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

Of course a fast breeder reactor can convert the abundant non-fissile U-238 into fissile plutonium-239.

The only reason there is a lack of plutonium is due to non-proliferation issues.

The voluntary US mortorium on fast breeders, reprocessing spent fuel rods, etc, is an accurate example of a restriction on nuclear techology that's fueled by FUD and irrationality.

I'll also add that given the far tighter regulations and limits on nuclear power plants, there's more radioactive crap added to the atmosphere each year by coal-fired power plants, or so I've read. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

11' date='000 Deaths, that they THINK, was cause be that. How many people were killed in CAR CRASHES during that period? How many people were wiped out in Hurricanes or other Natural Disasters in that period? Sure, you had some folks come down with Cancer that were exposed to insane radiation etc during testing, and the guy next to him, came down with [b']nothing[/b], and meanwhile, you had Just as many people die from Cancers the got from Exposure to the SUN, but I don't here the plaintive Wail of "Hyperbole!" and "Strawman Argument!" and "We need to Put out the Sun" coming from the VW microbus crowd.....

 

The fears, are Unfounded, the risks, Especially with the better science, and in comparison to the whole, are Less then that of walking across the street to go buy a cup of coffee. Huddle in the cave I'm going out to play with the Obelisk.

So you say "Well gee I heard that some guy got cancer and some other guy didn't." and the CDC says 11000 deaths from atmospheric testing alone. Which you then blow off as "they THINK" and by comparing it to accidental automobile deaths.

I think I'll go with the CDC's findings over your snide caricatures about "the VW microbus crowd". You're ranting about "THE STRAWMAN" in response to my comment, while continuing to engage in that fallacy, along with ad hominem and absurd exagerations about the other side's opinions.

All you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole, and casting doubt on your own position.

Re: Are single climate/habitat worlds really possible?

Hmmm, there has to be more. You've got the Dr. Who episode "The Long Game". There's even Apokolips from our good friend Jack Kirby, Cybertron from Hasbro, Jack Vance's Oikumene stuff. The Puppeteer Homeworlds in Niven's Ringworld material, Helior from Harrisons Bill the Galactic Hero. Sure there could be even more out there but those come to mind.

 

GRANTED. Trantor is one of the best ones, and certainly the footprint a lot of other stuff walked in along the way after it.

The Puppeteer worlds bring up something else I've been thinking of regarding the city-planets -- waste heat.

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

Completely' date=' because you're in more danger of radioactive issues from frequent flyer miles and over done full body imaging then what you would be from a couple of launches of some big Orions to start building a big Orion Launchpad on the moon. Seriously, no matter what's said FOR the project, all the Anti Orion people ever see, are the words, Fallout, Nuclear, Explosion, and Radioactive Mutant. Things go off all the time on this planet that spew far more gunk and cause far more fallout but because we make this one, it's bad? Seriously. Let's build it and find out. First Radioactive Mutant that shows up, I'll admit to being over zealous about the idea.[/quote']

 

Wait, so because the idea of radioactive mutants is silly, being concerned about the results of 1000 rapid-fire atmospheric detonations is silly? You're using hyperboly and strawman arguments to blow off any thought of legitimate concern.

 

Do you think that atmospheric nuclear testing was halted for no reason? The US CDC, the people who study deaths and disease for a living, estimate that about 11000 deaths were caused by atmospheric testing, most from thyroid cancer.

 

From 1945 to 1980, just over 500 atmospheric detonations were conducted. A single Orion launch would be twice that many in a matter of minutes.

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

And once it's in orbit' date=' or better yet, Once it lands somewhere where the Kaboom factor doesn't upset the hippies (like the moon), then it's a non issue what you propel it with. It's getting off the big blue Marble that's the real problem. Frankly, at it's Worse, the arguments against it are in the same category as those folks that were screaming at Columbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the earth. We could have done this, in the 50's, with 50's tech. Now, we supposedly have Better, so let's do it.[/quote']

 

So concern about setting off 1000 nukes in the atmosphere to launch one of these things is like being concerned that sailing too far will result in falling off?

 

And yet it's "the hippies" who are irrational?

Re: Fiction resources for Solar HERO.

Cowboy Bebop

I'd love a game in that setting, but the players in my group aren't interested.

Re: Are single climate/habitat worlds really possible?

Matter of scale. It's rare to find science fiction with an actual sense of scale.

There are orders of magnitude in scale and complexity and vulnerability between feeding NYC from across the US, and feeding a world of 60 billion from across galaxy.

Re: Lockheed Martin HULC Exoskeleton

Ow.

Re: Are single climate/habitat worlds really possible?

I would suggest that it's not a matter of logic at all -- such a world as Corruscant can only exist in space fantasy with non-rigorous worldbuilding and no sense of scale. Such worlds exist because they're "really neat".

Re: Star HERO with... not magic, really, but...

If you haven't already done so, maybe check out the site for the 'Eclipse Phase' rpg.

 

http://www.eclipsephase.com

 

As well as the game background itself, there is a healthy-sized 'Resources' section with links and documents regarding Transhumanism and related matters (incuding politics and economics).

 

Inspiration is a possibility.

I'll definately look into it. There's are multiple "transhumanist" movements in the game setting.

(Despite the timelines that real-life transhumanists like to give, they'd still be waiting around several hundred years in the future, in my setting.)

Re: Star HERO with... not magic, really, but...

It's hard coming up with an idea seed for a culture/government form that hasn't been used before.

I'm not necessarily looking for "villain" cultures.

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

We have tested PLENTY of Nuclear Kaboom things' date=' and not had any Radioactive Mutants running around, I say go for it. One, you won't know until you try. It's workable, easy, and by all accounts everything you just stated won't happen. The single biggest issue is Just the possibility of fallout in the magnetosphere, and even that's mostly avoidable. You've got more chances of being the progenitor, of a line of radioactive mutant zombies, by racking up frequent flyer mileage on Delta Airlines then what you do with the Orion stuff, and Orion's just the first step to the COOL stuff, and we've blown up more stuff on the ground and underground already another couple of Orions going up carrying everything we need to build on the moon so we don't scare the hippies, and it's all a non issue.[/quote']

 

Did you miss where the big Orion concept requires around 1000 detonations in the 200kt to 300kt range?

 

This isn't about your mythological hippies.

Re: Star HERO with... not magic, really, but...

The only thought I had was kind of a party-pooper, which is that dystopic settings should steer clear of making club-your-players-over-the-head statements. As compelling a picture of them as you might have in your head, do you want to have political discussions (or, vid your Laconians, discussions of dating philosphy) with your players?

Which is a real YMMV kind of caution, because that might well work perfectly with your group.

For bad guys who might work, what about old standbys like space communists, or limited access to immortality drugs, or armies of vat-bred genetic slaves swamping the frontier?

It's a mature group, and I don't plan to do any anvil-dropping. I'm not trying to present any outright dystopias, either, those are just the three easiest examples to present in short form so far.

One of the players is actually from a vaguely Stalinist world, a very minor power with three neighboring systems officially refered to as "protectorates".

Re: Orion Drive space battleship

Absolutely. But then again' date=' the EMP effects alone of the orbital detonations involved might annoy more than just the hippies.[/quote']

 

Hadn't even considered EMP...