|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I'm liking the direction this thread has taken after the finale. very good. We have an entire year before the next season soooo....
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Ice posted:Is "delta-v" something physicists actually say, or is it just a nerd term? It took me a while to figure out what people were talking about. Why not say "acceleration" or "change in velocity" or dV? Is it because you cant type a triangle? Acceleration and delta v are different, but related concepts. Delta v is just how much your velocity changes, while acceleration is how fast it changes over time. It's commonly used because for the most part, delta v relates directly to how much fuel you need to burn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
All I know about Delta V I learned from Kerbal Space Program. Kerbin is quite a bit smaller than Earth and I believe it requires around 3000 Delta V to reach orbit. If you're a real big nerd you can do the math yourself but there are mods for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
johnsonrod posted:We have an entire year before the next season soooo.... lock this thread, make new Expanse thread but then actually spend the whole year discussing Kerbal Space Program/Orbital dynamics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
etalian posted:lock this thread, make new Expanse thread but then actually spend the whole year discussing Kerbal Space Program/Orbital dynamics. do this. Also, I'm rewatching the show on my commute (subway) and I missed so many small details the first time around, like this:   Though, I've been trying to find something or answers to a question I had. The ice the Canterbury is carrying is from Saturns rings. (Ceres to Saturn, then back to Ceres, then back to Saturn says the mars guy) This is more a question about the ice in orbit around saturn. Does saturns magnetic field protect the ice from radiation from the sun? If not wouldn't the ice then be contaminated and be undrinkable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Optimus_Rhyme posted:This is more a question about the ice in orbit around saturn. Does saturns magnetic field protect the ice from radiation from the sun? If not wouldn't the ice then be contaminated and be undrinkable? Radiation doesn't work this way. Radioactive contaminated water on Earth occurs when radioactive material gets mixed in with the water, just blasting it with radiation doesn't make it radioactive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Optimus_Rhyme posted:This is more a question about the ice in orbit around saturn. Does saturns magnetic field protect the ice from radiation from the sun? If not wouldn't the ice then be contaminated and be undrinkable? I have it on good authority that the water is both pure and clean
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
A lot of people who failed high school physics and math
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
etalian posted:lock this thread, make new Expanse thread but then actually spend the whole year discussing Kerbal Space Program/Orbital dynamics. If anyone is still confused about the gravity slingshot race thing, it was basically this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8wm2zaILzE Keep an eye on the fuel in the upper right, he's only using the engine when that goes down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Optimus_Rhyme posted:
Nah. Stuff gets contaminated in two ways: 1. Actual radioactive material winds up in it. Like if you take a bunch of fresh water, and dump some radioactive stuff into it, like tritium, then don't drink that water because you'll be ingesting some tritium along with it and that's not good for you. 2. It absorbs some neutrons, transmuting some of its atoms into radioisotopes. Like, if you take some water, and bombard it with a bunch of neutrons, some of the hydrogen atoms will absorb a neutron and turn into deuterium (which is stable), and some of those deuterium atoms will absorb a neutron and turn into tritium (which isn't). But the fact that it takes two neutron-captures to turn some of the hydrogen into tritium (and it takes *three* captures to turn some of the oxygen into an unstable isotope of oxygen), means that in practice it's pretty difficult to neutron-activate water. Neither really applies to ice in orbit around Saturn, because free neutrons aren't just flying around the solar system willy-nilly; free neutrons decay pretty rapidly, there isn't a neutron source out there turning Saturnian water ice radioactive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
This thread taught me the combined mass of all asteroids in the belt is actually quite small, but still more efficient to mine as you actually get more surface/mass. How about the Saturn rings? Are there any big rocks there or is it mainly space pebbles? I'm also quite sad Europa isn't mentioned anywhere, as that moon is supposed to be the most likely candidate to live on (if we can ever reach it).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Saturn's rings are mostly ice. The biggest particles aren't that big AFAIK, measured in meters. edit: also, we're not allowed to land on Europa, everyone knows that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:edit: also, we're not allowed to land on Europa, everyone knows that. I don't... why's that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
Evernoob posted:I don't... why's that? There's an ocean under there. Anything we send will be meticulously sanitized to avoid contaminating it with biologicals. Edit: Oh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
Evernoob posted:I don't... why's that? All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:But even ignoring that, you think science never makes breakthroughs they don't understand at first? Totally happens. Oh god. Em Drive is the new Godwin when it comes to technology/space travel discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Those forums are legit
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:Oh god. I want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Those forums are legit Just joined, never leaving. Probably like GBS, but for smart people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:Oh god. Even if you think its another cold fusion scenario and the whole thing is a mistake, at the moment nobody can properly explain why the mistake is happening. That's the point. I'm not saying I necessarily believe the EM drive is anything more than bunk science, but even NASA themselves haven't yet figured out how to explain the results they see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Even if you think its another cold fusion scenario and the whole thing is a mistake, at the moment nobody can properly explain why the mistake is happening. That's the point. I'm not saying I necessarily believe the EM drive is anything more than bunk science, but even NASA themselves haven't yet figured out how to explain the results they see. Plus a lot of our current understanding of the universe is based on failed experiments. Figuring out why the EM drive acts in the way it does may pave the way for something else, even if the EM drive itself doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Even if you think its another cold fusion scenario and the whole thing is a mistake, at the moment nobody can properly explain why the mistake is happening. That's the point. I'm not saying I necessarily believe the EM drive is anything more than bunk science, but even NASA themselves haven't yet figured out how to explain the results they see. Meh. The spaceflight thread did this to death. Long and short of it, this is what a real EM cavity designed for rigorous, precise real-world applications looks like:  This is what the EM drive looks like:  Uncle Jam posted:It's copper sheeting. It isn't machined from a single slug of metal, which is going to basically ruin everything. I'm not trying to intentionally poo poo on their work: They did a good job with what they had, and if you built a cavity in your house just to confirm other equipment specs, like amp gain or something, it'd be pretty loving good. They have a good number of bolts but the copper isn't thick enough, its going to wave like a pie crust. You can actually visually see waviness which is really really bad because cavities can be terrible even when everything looks good to the naked eye, like when your terrible machinist had some hundred micron oscillation in his milling machine going on. As a general rule, any time someone is saying that there's this tiny experimental effect that's virtually indistinguishable from noise unless they do a lot of finagling with it, it's a safe bet that what they're seeing is noise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
BUT IT COULD PROPEL US TO THE MOON IN 5 HOURS
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Meh. The spaceflight thread did this to death. Long and short of it, this is what a real EM cavity designed for rigorous, precise real-world applications looks like: The whole EM thing reminds me of that funny decahedron roman materials website.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:As a general rule, any time someone is saying that there's this tiny experimental effect that's virtually indistinguishable from noise unless they do a lot of finagling with it, it's a safe bet that what they're seeing is noise. Like I said "I'm not saying I necessarily believe the EM drive is anything more than bunk science, but even NASA themselves haven't yet figured out how to explain the results they see." If it was so open and shut like you say, NASA would have just said "that's bullshit gently caress off" but they're at least taking it somewhat seriously, running tests. The whole thing's gotta be another cold fusion expiriment situation like I said, it would contradict so much of established science. I'm not saying I believe in it. I was very clear about that in my original post. You're missing the point. Demiurge4 posted:Plus a lot of our current understanding of the universe is based on failed experiments. Figuring out why the EM drive acts in the way it does may pave the way for something else, even if the EM drive itself doesn't work. This is what I'm getting at. poo poo, even Isaac Newton figuring out gravity was a "wait, what the poo poo just happened?" moment. Tons of science has been invented by accident and wasn't fully understood at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
loving Galileo was running gravity experiments off the leaning tower of Pisa and he figured out that small rocks hit the ground at the same time as big rocks almost a hundred years before Newton got bopped in the head. I'm still mindblown Neptune was found by observing the orbit of known planets, causing Verrier to go "hang on a minute" do a bunch of math and telling guys with telescopes to look in this area and they loving found it. The best mathematic magic I can muster is calculating 3-fase voltage off a triangle and that's still giving me a headache.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Like I said "I'm not saying I necessarily believe the EM drive is anything more than bunk science, but even NASA themselves haven't yet figured out how to explain the results they see." NASA as an organization is not reporting these results 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:NASA as an organization is not reporting these results They totally are though? https://hacked.com/new-nasa-tests-confirm-anomalous-emdrive-thrust/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/researchers-conduct-successful-new-tests-of-emdrive/ http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1440938#msg1440938 I mean, NASA hasn't come out and said "WE HAVE AN EM DRIVE THAT WORKS" because again, they don't know how it works. It probably doesn't work. But NASA is absolutely investigating it. Anyways at this point arguing about the EM drive is a derail. Demiurge4 posted:loving Galileo was running gravity experiments off the leaning tower of Pisa and he figured out that small rocks hit the ground at the same time as big rocks almost a hundred years before Newton got bopped in the head. I'm still mindblown Neptune was found by observing the orbit of known planets, causing Verrier to go "hang on a minute" do a bunch of math and telling guys with telescopes to look in this area and they loving found it. The best mathematic magic I can muster is calculating 3-fase voltage off a triangle and that's still giving me a headache. Math even more than science figures things out it can't prove yet all the time. Fermat's last theorem? 358 years between the conjecture and the proof. 358 years. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:They totally are though? "We are looking at this" does not mean the same thing at all as "reporting results", and again the one talking about it is A Guy That Works At NASA (AGTWAN) as opposed to NASA in an official capacity. Rationalwiki put it well: A stick in the mud no-fun fuddy duddy posted:The unfortunate effect of anyone from NASA looking at it at all was that the press and the hard-of-thinking took this as a NASA endorsement. This was not helped by completely unofficial news site NASA Spaceflight putting the story forward,[10] noting that "A community of enthusiasts, engineers, and scientists on several continents joined forces on the NASASpaceflight.com EM Drive forum to thoroughly examine the experiments and discuss theories of operation of the EM Drive" without noting that they had barred all skeptical discussion from said forum in case it scared away the experimenters or Shawyer (neither of whom were present in the first place).[11]
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
All I said was NASA hasn't been able to figure it out. Obviously I'm not saying NASA is endorsing it. NASA Eagleworks is absolutely investigating it though. Comeon dude you're trying really hard to make me into some bad guy so you can tell me I'm wrong. Give it up. I get that you're upset that some people misunderstood that as NASA's endorsement, but I'm very clearly not saying that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
EDIT: Actually, you're right. It's not worth a derail. Here's some content. You know one thing that bothers me? They have hand guns, which I assume are like modern-day guns in terms of mechanism. However, they make sci-fi pew-pew noises! I guess that's to help the audience to establish that one scene isn't "A bunch of guys shooting eachother" so much as "A bunch of guys shooting eachother IN THE FUTURE!" 48 Hour Boner fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:All I said was NASA hasn't been able to figure it out. The implication of that is that there's something to figure out. It's a shoestring experiment that dumps big power levels into the thing and observes microscopically small anomalous results from an inherently noisy setup. That *screams* "There's nothing here except noise which looks like a microscopically small anomalous result." So they're proceeding to try to account for that. In one of the tests, they measured thrust from the *control device*, the one that was literally supposed to sit there and do nothing, and it was the about the same degree as the thrust measured from the actual working unit. That is, again, an indicator that whatever results are being observed are purely an artifact of the experimental setup. What they are trying to figure out is "What are the flaws in this experimental setup that are leading to these nonsensical results and how do we eliminate them?" They are *not* trying to figure out "Gee, why isn't momentum being conserved?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:All I said was NASA hasn't been able to figure it out. Obviously I'm not saying NASA is endorsing it. You say the whole things gotta be another cold fusion though. The cold fusion experiment was a bunch of noise that got misinterpreted by two chemists, reported as fusion, was unable to be reproduced, and slowly faded out of the spotlight. You're right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The implication of that is that there's something to figure out. There is something to figure out; where the data is erroneously coming from. When it came to the cold fusion tests, there was a dump truck which carried radioactive material away from the facility at the same time they would do testing, so they got an erroneous spike of radiation. You guys are continuously ignoring the spirit of what I said and continuing to argue against some strawman that the EM drive is real and NASA says so, okay good for you but that has nothing to do with the price of tea in china. 48 Hour Boner posted:You're a little mistaken. There's NASA and then there's NASA Eagleworks. NASA Eagleworks is a tiny lab with a tiny budget and basically one guy doing all the experiments. It's not fair or even remotely representative of NASA to say that "NASA" is reporting those results. Eagleworks is the Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory which is part of the Johnson Space Center, NASA headquarters. No, not literally every single NASA employee is working on it, but I do not think its disingenuous to say "NASA is looking into it". If anything that's a pretty technical excuse to say "its not NASA, its NASA Advance Propulsion Physics Laboratory!" Which was created by NASA, as a part of NASA, to investigate propulsion technology for NASA. Again, this is a giant derail at this point. I'm glad you guys are really into science and debunking fringe science, but the only purpose was to set up an example of fringe science being investigated and unknown. There's dozens of other just as good examples though so loving let it go already. Lets get back to talking about the show this thread was supposed to be about. Cirofren posted:You say the whole things gotta be another cold fusion though. The cold fusion experiment was a bunch of noise that got misinterpreted by two chemists, reported as fusion, was unable to be reproduced, and slowly faded out of the spotlight. I know! That's the point. And its not that it was unable to be reproduced. It could only be reproduced at certain times of day, and they eventually realized why. I know more about this than you do! Tell me something I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
If you're going to put it on the same level as an experiment that revealed trucks sometimes carry radioactive material and some scientists are as sensationalist as the media, then you may want to refrain from describing the EM drive as a "breakthrough". Other wise, yes, glad we all like science. This hasn't been a long or terrible derail and if you liked this derail you might just like A.K. Dwendy's Yes, We have no Neutrons!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Comeon dude you're trying really hard to make me into some bad guy so you can tell me I'm wrong. Give it up. Not really but ok!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
48 Hour Boner posted:EDIT: Actually, you're right. It's not worth a derail. Here's some content.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
48 Hour Boner posted:You know one thing that bothers me? They have hand guns, which I assume are like modern-day guns in terms of mechanism. However, they make sci-fi pew-pew noises! I guess that's to help the audience to establish that one scene isn't "A bunch of guys shooting eachother" so much as "A bunch of guys shooting eachother IN THE FUTURE!" Slapping on a bunch of tactilol accesories, red dots, lasers, muzzle brakes and scopes on pistols, bullpups, and dubbing in funky pew-pew noises is pretty standard sci-fi futuregun fare. If you want to get really gun-  IMFDB.org is pretty good at picking out what is buried underneath all of that dressup (or airsoft props they're using).quote:Still doesn't explain the pew-pew sounds but I assume they'd at least sound slightly different from 'real' guns. Not the greatest quality but here's a gyrojet firing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYZq5frO4rk
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Zsinjeh posted:Not sure if this should be a spoiler since it's not exactly plot-related but in the books: They use recoil-less handguns with self-propelled miniature rockets/smart-ammo to make sure firing a gun won't make you spin around in zero-g. Also I seem to recall most of that ammo being made to make sure it won't pierce the hull of a spacecraft to avoid depressurization, unless that it supposed to be the intent. Still doesn't explain the pew-pew sounds but I assume they'd at least sound slightly different from 'real' guns. Thanks, I asked about this like 20 pages ago but it got buried in another discussion and I didn't get an answer. I was wondering the whole show if they were shooting bullets or lasers or what, because it kinda seemed like both. Recoil-less and cartridge-less guns is pretty believable and cool. I figured it'd be something special "to avoid depressurization" since that always comes up in sci-fi, as well it should. But then at the same time, should it really? Shouldn't any glass or any surface on a spaceship hull be pretty loving solid and bulletproof, since you don't want space dust or whatever to punch a hole through it when you're travelling at speed? So are bullets really a concern? I guess you wouldn't want to risk it either way. For that matter, do they have shields? I didn't get that impression, even of the Donnager, but it could just be another thing the show didn't explicitly spell out that the book went into more detail on. Travelling at super fast speeds using the Epstein Drive could get dangerous otherwise, no? What you'd really want is to avoid ricochets inside spaceships / space stations, if that would be possible. Not sure if smart rockets could do that, maybe self-destruct when they reach the target? darnon posted:Slapping on a bunch of tactilol accesories, red dots, lasers, muzzle brakes and scopes on pistols, bullpups, and dubbing in funky pew-pew noises is pretty standard sci-fi futuregun fare. If you want to get really gun- And they did use a ton of airsoft guns, yeah. But that makes sense trying to do fancy sci-fi on a budget, and they at least slapped some poo poo on each of them and painted them so its harder to recognize them as the base guns they are. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Re: gun-chat, I really don't think this is a spoiler since it's just basic information about the setting as we've already seen it, but I'll put it in spoiler tags anyway because there's so much blatant book talk going on. Nobody's got shields. Ship-mounted weapons mostly boil down to torpedoes/missiles at long range, railguns at medium range, and point defense machine guns at close range and/or as a missile screen. I don't remember lasers figuring into combat much, if at all. Maybe as part of missile defense. Debris from impacts and ricochets is a concern, many surfaces have some kind of anti-spalling treatment to keep the air from filling up with metal shavings the second combat starts. Even civilian ships have at least some anti-spalling material in their construction, presumably to deal with strikes from small debris.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:05
|
|
