View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jul 08, 2024 5:36 pm



Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
 Future technologies 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4074
Location: That quaint little British colony down south
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
It's mainly because I got ninja'd.
I was replying to this:
Exalion wrote:
Mirrors actually reduce light by... 20% I think.
So yeah, cut down the 'power poles' to a minimum, if you can't avoid them entirely.

EDIT: And lenses also absorb some of the light due to imperfections.


Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:19 am
Profile WWW
happy carebear mom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:40 am
Posts: 7096
Location: b8bbd5
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
Grif wrote:
refocusing a diffuse beam would be the job of a lens, not a mirror

Not necessarily, you could use a parabolic mirror.

But, this raises the question. Would you want a diffuse beam, or a pinpoint? I would think it would be more efficient that at the very end, on receiving, you'd want it diffuse to make the most of the surface area of your collection medium. I suppose in the meantime it'd be easier to control if it was thin, so perhaps you'd have refocusing devices during transfer, leading up to a diffuser.[/speculation without even a wikischolar degree]


Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:11 pm
Profile
REAL AMERICAN HERO
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:25 pm
Posts: 5655
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
Well, your overall beam you want to be as narrow as possible, because the longer distance it travels (without refocusing) the more diffuse it will end up being.

If you have a very specific lens width at a very specific distance, you can tightly refocus a diffuse beam back into a narrow one, and then have it sent on again for the next X distance.


Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:56 pm
Profile
happy carebear mom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:40 am
Posts: 7096
Location: b8bbd5
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
Laser powered devices do work, as shown. Coincidentally, the article mentions space elevators, another important technology.
Now that we have object-centric Lua, perhaps a space elevator could be made. All rockets with a certain presetname would be moved to the center of the space elevator column, dropped down to the station, forced to unload (you can do that in Lua, right?), then moved back up.

Addendum: Antimatter in lightning.


Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:32 am
Profile
REAL AMERICAN HERO
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:25 pm
Posts: 5655
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
A space elevator is one thing, but the simple fact is that the mass/energy equation does not work when lifting things off Earth. You have to impart some 17000 miles per hour of lateral motion to put an object in sustained freefall, which is REALLY not efficient.

Which is why producing spaceborne objects in space to explore space is going to be the first step of true space exploration.


Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:26 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:54 am
Posts: 139
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
Grif wrote:
A space elevator is one thing, but the simple fact is that the mass/energy equation does not work when lifting things off Earth. You have to impart some 17000 miles per hour of lateral motion to put an object in sustained freefall, which is REALLY not efficient.

Which is why producing spaceborne objects in space to explore space is going to be the first step of true space exploration.


so i assume we need to colonize a low gravity planet to mine materials off of? and then we can go from there?


Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:30 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 4886
Location: some compy
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
Not really, as lower gravity planets would have less matter to mine.
Its good that the laser powered devices work well enough now. Imagine it with near-100% photovoltaic conversion. Currently, the amount of energy in the lasers must have been pretty huge.


Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:06 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:54 am
Posts: 139
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
Geti wrote:
Not really, as lower gravity planets would have less matter to mine.

so would an asteroid be better? i just think a planet would be easier to build a refinery and factory? i mean sticking that all into a spaceship sounds EXPENSIVE as hell.


Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:38 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 4886
Location: some compy
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
When you're talking about mining a planet to pieces I dont think money comes into the equation too much, but i suppose asteroid belts would also be acceptable mining platforms.


Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:07 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:41 am
Posts: 712
Location: New York
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
Thought you guys might like this little weapon idea. The name alone is quite something:

Rods from God


Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:14 pm
Profile YIM
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 9:22 pm
Posts: 826
Location: Lookin' forward to mocking people on Jan 1st 2013.
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
An orbital kinetic strike weapon? That thing doesn't even need propellant, it can simply let the darts fall, and they'll do a shitload of damage, assuming they have some sort of guidance system.


Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:08 pm
Profile YIM
Loose Canon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 2992
Location: --------------->
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
Ah yes, Project THOR. Good stuff. The first country that can enact Project THOR will RULE the world.


Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:45 pm
Profile WWW
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 9:22 pm
Posts: 826
Location: Lookin' forward to mocking people on Jan 1st 2013.
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
Well, Thoristan ain't teh boss yet...


Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:46 pm
Profile YIM
Loose Canon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 2992
Location: --------------->
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
That's because they don't yet have an effiecient, plausible space elevator running yet.


Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:05 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:41 am
Posts: 712
Location: New York
Reply with quote
Post Re: Future technologies
"Ruling the world" isn't really a matter of weaponry anymore - even less a matter of large scale weaponry. Even with the recent advances in anti-ICBM technology, mutually assured destruction is still kind of a big deal. Simply put: having a new bigger bomb doesn't matter when the enemy still has enough to wipe you out enough.

Rather than a means of "ruling the world", I'm guessing Rods from God would serve as really expensive bunker busters.

It might have some use in bolstering mutually assured destruction related deterrnace. Although a large tungstan jart dropped from orbit is probably harder to intercept than a missile, this only makes getting the other guy a surer thing. It doesn't promise that their arsenal won't get to you. In this way, a country which developed this technology would not be able to threaten other countries from developing it themselves. Because they're harder to intercept, a world with many nations in possession of Rods from God could enjoy a heightened sense of deternece.

On the con-side: no radiation, so we would unfortunetly never get to have superpowers.


Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:19 pm
Profile YIM
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.
[ Time : 0.072s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]