|
I haven't understood more than five consecutive words in the last several pages, but I'm digging the gently caress out of it. This thread is hard sci-fi.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:
The chart doesn't have anything to do with the route taken, it only shows the minimum amount of energy required for the trip by summing the numbers along the path shown by the chart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:36
|
|
Wow, that's a really cool chart. Like, drat.
|
Zaphod42 posted:
Those aren't courses, they're just quantities. The point marked "Earth-Mars transfer" isn't a specific point you pass through, but if you want to go from Earth to Mars you need to total up the delta-v quantities to that point. If you want to go from Earth to Jupiter, you need to put yourself into an Earth-Jupiter transfer orbit; the map isn't saying you pass through an Earth-Mars transfer on your way there, it's saying that getting yourself into an Earth-Jupiter transfer orbit takes (1.4 + .38 + .92 = 2.7 kps) more delta-v than putting yourself into an Earth-Mars transfer orbit. Or if you like, by the time you've accelerated into an Earth-Jupiter transfer, you could already have gone to Mars if that's what you felt like doing. quote:Doesn't take into account possible slingshot maneuvers at least, but just for direct fastest travel time. Right? It's not taking into account slingshots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
withak posted:The chart doesn't have anything to do with the route taken, it only shows the minimum amount of energy required for the trip by summing the numbers along the path shown by the chart. Of course, but what I'm saying is that's interesting, because knowing how much energy is required usually depends upon the specific route taken. The point being that this only applies to direct path shortest-time hard burns getting straight from A to B. But unless you plot some fancy slingshot course, which would end up extending the travel time, then no matter your route that'll end up being the amount of speed needed (the actual energy depends upon the mass).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
It's the minimum energy required to get your orbit to touch their orbit, whether there's a planet there when you get there is an entirely different problem. I'll allow Scott Manley to explain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lb2eSp5c7A&t=460s
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Someone hand me the shotgun
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Doesn't take into account possible slingshot maneuvers at least, but just for direct fastest travel time. Right? You will notice that going to Venus requires less delta-v than any other planet. That's why a lot of outer-system space probes (such as Galileo and Cassini) start their journey by going in the "wrong" direction to slingshot around Venus, stealing velocity from the planet while using the minimum amount of fuel. Mars trips usually don't bother with this because the difference in delta-v is too small to be worth the wait.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Someone hand me the shotgun In keeping with the spirit of the thread you really should use a slingshot 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Oh no people are talking about something that I don't like, I'd better whine about it instead of just ignoring it. I just sold my brother and my dad on this show by telling them that it's one of the most realistic depictions of space I've seen in a sci-fi show. Especially how the asteroid belt is depicted. In most sci fi asteroid belts are like the chase scene in Empire Strikes Back, which is inaccurate to say the least. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
acumen posted:My girlfriend's been going through The Name of the Wind recently and I've thought about reading it once she's done. I've heard good things about the series, did it not get the goon stamp of approval? I gather that I'm in the minority on this, but I LOVE Name of the Wind and Wise Man's Fear. Names being part of magic is wholly unoriginal, but it's used sensibly and the treatment of magic as mostly scientific is fun. I just dug the setting and writing entirely, but I can see why others may not like it. I'd at least give it until shortly after Kvothe enters the university, if it hasn't grabbed you by then it's probably not your cup of tea. It doesn't hurt that Rothfuss seems like a friendlier and more charitable guy than your average author either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
What a great loving show. I really was skeptical when the pilot episode seemed like average low budget syfy fare, but literally every episode was better than the last and the story is very cool. Great world building, showing/not telling, pacing... just really cool overall and nice to have a new space show that's not a remake or based on already popular IP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
DONT CARE BUTTON posted:nice to have a new space show that's not a remake or based on already popular IP. Dark Matter and Killjoys are both new IPs. SyFy this past couple years seems to have remembered what it was founded to do and is course-correcting from the WrestleWrestleOriginalMovie days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Polaron posted:Dark Matter and Killjoys are both new IPs. SyFy this past couple years seems to have remembered what it was founded to do and is course-correcting from the WrestleWrestleOriginalMovie days. Nah, Syfy is just laying the foundation it needs to corner the SpaceWWE market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Polaron posted:Dark Matter and Killjoys are both new IPs. SyFy this past couple years seems to have remembered what it was founded to do and is course-correcting from the WrestleWrestleOriginalMovie days.  Actually, Dark Matter is based on a comic book miniseries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter_(comics)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
The bigger difference is The Expanse had a much bigger production budget than previous SyFy shows. SyFy for their previous strategy used the shotgun approach with piles of lower budget shows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:
More accurately, they published their pilot pitch as a comic book after failing to find a buyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
The reason for lack of laser weapons is really quite simple it is heat. They are also limited by coming from a single location (the enemy ship) making them easy to locate and counter. The military ships have automatic tracking, targeting, and counter measures. It is possible this could include anti-laser counter measures which rendered the weapon obsolete. There is only 2 types of laser weapons as far as physical damage. 1. Slowly heat targeted spot - This would easily be detected by the enemy ships on board sensors. They would immediately begin counter measures such as turning the ship or firing their own lasers at a nullifying wavelength. They could also have a coolant system able to overcome the excess heat. 2. Huge charging burst laser - The huge problem that any super charged plasma shot is going to be just as hot or hotter as it exits the laser cannon. This would be a single use last resort weapon that destroyed a chunk of the ship to fire or the ship would have to be specially designed around it. This would likely mean the entire ship would have to stop and re-position to fire each shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
MAGNETS BIATCH!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
X-Wing lasers don't use magnets!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:X-Wing lasers don't use magnets! They're not even lasers at all iirc, but like somehow-contained packages of tibanna gas or some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:X-Wing lasers don't use magnets! Wrong. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Magnetic_flashback_suppressor/Legends Longbaugh01 posted:They're not even lasers at all iirc, but like somehow-contained packages of tibanna gas or some bullshit. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/KX9_laser_cannon
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
But...but...tthose sources aren't can(n)on anymore!!! Yeah, but that article just uses the word laser a bunch, it doesn't go into the other bullshit where they're called "laser bolts" or "blaster bolts" or "turbolaser bolts" but actually work nothing like lasers in real life and use a loving gas they mined in Cloud City's clouds...
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Hey man, it says Moops ok? I don't make the rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:
Nah. You pulse it. The energy of the shot shows up in an instant, superheating the bit of hull it encounters and causing it to explode. A 100 megawatt pulse would be like setting off 25 sticks of dynamite on the hull, you're not cooling your way out of that. Present-day laser weapons are continuous-wave because we're not that good at making them yet. Again, you have really efficient fusion drives as a power source, you don't need to slowly heat the targeted spot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
It turns out shooting bullets through things is way cheaper, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
The Muffinlord posted:It turns out shooting bullets through things is way cheaper, though. There is also that. Just dropping clouds of shrapnel and dust in their flight path is pretty effective too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
I mean, if you can build cheap enough lasers, good for you, but it's difficult to build ships with enough armor to withstand relativistic-velocity metal slugs and also maneuver at a decent rate. Inertia's a bitch, it turns out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Lasers are one of those things with qualitative advantages that are hard to predict the effects of. For example, lasers can't be defended against with either point defense or by dodging out of their way since they come in at light speed. The best you can do is sort of roll around at random and that becomes ineffective within a light second or so. That means you can use a laser to knock out anything that isn't heavily armored on the enemy ship: optics, antennae, radiators, etc. from relatively long ranges assuming you have enough power. It also means that you can do real damage even when you can't merge courses with the enemy. Missiles and railguns aren't going to do much good when you can't physically make them intersect the bogey because the difference in your courses and speeds is too great. A laser is going to be much more forgiving since you just need to pass within a certain range but don't have to actually hit an intercept. It might be worthwhile to install a fairly expensive laser on a warship, even if its more or less useless in a fight to the death, just because you don't have to lug massive ammunition around for it all the time and because it gives you a better way to engage an enemy that doesn't want to be engaged. But this kind of speculation is really dependent on the engineering specifics of all the different competing systems. How fast, exactly, can a railgun accelerate a projectile to? I'm not talking theoretically but given your metallurgical constraints and power supply and the maximum barrel length you can build in your ship yard, what's the actual maximum capability? And how much ammo can you lug around and still meet your strategic mobility goals? Railgun ammo is necessarily going to weigh a lot, and missiles even more on a kg-hitting-target basis since they need propellant. What about the maximum focal power of your best high energy laser? Is your powerpack relatively more constrained than your delta v? If you can go fast and far efficiently but can't generate a lot of power, a projectile weapon starts to look more attractive than a laser. If on the other hand adding ammunition mass ruins your ability to carry out your strategic mission, a laser might be the way to go. There's no guaranteed best design. Different types of weapons are going to have their relative strengths and the engineering constraints and strategic needs of the moment will dictate what gets built. And if you happen to be a super-power, you're just going to throw all possible poo poo on your ships and drat the cost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Rail guns aren't really practical in a space fight because even a tiny course correction will make a shot miss you by thousands of miles at the ranges we're talking about, assuming a deep space engagement like we've seen in the Expanse. Proper battles are most likely to be fought around static objectives like space stations or in the orbit of planets where the ranges are, relatively, very short and this makes rail guns somewhat more practical because your maneuverability is limited inside a gravity well. This also means that static defenses are the most economical and efficient choice however and battleships are just really expensive coffins. Missiles are by far the best choice in both destructive power and mass because they can correct and at relativistic speeds they don't even need a warhead to do crippling damage to a warship. Anecdote; I think it was Scott Manley I saw a while back talking about asteroids impacting Earth and how nukes are impractical because even if you vaporize an asteroid, you haven't significantly changed the mass coming at you, it's just in smaller chunks. A large asteroid coming at you in car sized chunks would still heat up the atmosphere to something like 3000C as it burns up on re-entry. The best course of action is to park a rocket on the asteroid years in advance and nudge it gently, causing it to fly past millions of miles away, which goes back to why rail guns are impractical. Demiurge4 fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
I just discovered that the last episode was the season finale. That bums me out because I was wondering when the next episode would air. I think I'll like this show more once Season 2 gets going and it's for the same reason I didn't quite like Game of Thrones at first: Half of the first season is just getting into the setting. I'm not knocking it because it rewards a longer form of storytelling but there's no guarantee the show doesn't go to poo poo in the future. I also feel like Expanse took even longer to get moving than GoT did in its first season. I think I'll rewatch Expanse S1 and feel better about it now that the world is more familiar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:I just discovered that the last episode was the season finale. That bums me out because I was wondering when the next episode would air. Well, there are no guarantees either way but this show is also based on a series of novels where the consensus among readers is that the series has maintained a rather consistent level of writing and has so far not turned into poo poo. Now of course this doesn't mean much as there are those who'd argue that Game of Thrones did go to poo poo despite being based on a series of critically acclaimed novels... but then again there are many who say that A song of ice and fire did turn into poo poo after the third book so... hmm... My opinion is that the expanse novels are really fun and lend themselves towards the TV adaptation, which was also super fun, I think the emphasis on world building is also fine in this show cause the world itself is very interesting and thought provoking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
One thing about lasers is they don't have anything like the sort of force of impact a tungsten slug would. I can imagine that the same ablative/reflective armor the ships use to protect against cosmic rays could have reached a level of sophistication that lasers either bounce off the hull entirely or merely vaporize an outer layer of armor while failing to damage internal systems. There's also the question of whether a ships' power grid can support a sustained laser blast. Even if we accept the fusion drive = infinite power output thing people were bandying about above (which I don't), much of the equipment we've seen seems to rely on conventional circuitry. The Donager may well have the power output to run all systems and the railguns at once, but there's no reason to think its grid is set up for that kind of current. It could be that disabling nonessential systems was the only way to keep from blowing half the fuses on the ship. If we assume that an effective laser weapon would be even more of a power drain, then it's quite possible that -- fusion or no fusion --, there simply isn't a ship out there that's wired for lasers. If missiles and railguns are reasonably effective and don't require an expensive (and potentially quite heavy) augmented electrical system, then it could be that lasers would be quite effective, but they're still off the table for reasons of economy and practicality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Well, there are no guarantees either way but this show is also based on a series of novels where the consensus among readers is that the series has maintained a rather consistent level of writing and has so far not turned into poo poo. The Ice and Fire books are all great, even the ones people bitch about. Most of what's "wrong" with the last two books amount to narrative choices (leaving fan favorite characters out of Feast while introducing a bunch of new people all at once, for instance), pacing issues, and frustrating cliffhangers followed by loooong waits for the next book. The underlying story is solid though and there's no reason why an adaptation had to carry over the flaws of the books. I'd say the big issue with GoT is how much the adaptation started diverging from the books over time. It would have been fine for the show runners to plot their own course if they knew what they were doing, but pretty much everything they changed or added was awful. Instead of interesting bit characters like Vargo Hoat and Strong Belwas we got such thrilling original characters as sexposition whore and some guy named Locke. Most of the scenes they added were some combination of filler, gratuitous sex/violence, "shocking" reveals (fetus jars, sorceror-in-a-box, etc.) and melodramatic ("where's my dragons?") cliffhangers. People act completely out-0f-character in many of the new scenes and the dialog often seems like an overwrought parody of Martin's actual writing style. These problems were there from the start ( Ros and the pointless brothel scenes are the worst part of season one, the butchered Qarth plotline is the worst part of season 2), but became much more glaring over time because the show kept moving farther and farther from the source material. All this has me concerned about where The Expanse might be heading. If they've already diverged from the books a bit and seem likely to do far more of it next season, then a lot will depend on the quality of the new writers and how well they really "get" the source material. What do you say, bookreaders, have the changes/additions they've made so far worked or flopped? Should I be confident or worried?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:The Ice and Fire books are all great, even the ones people bitch about. Most of what's "wrong" with the last two books amount to narrative choices (leaving fan favorite characters out of Feast while introducing a bunch of new people all at once, for instance), pacing issues, and frustrating cliffhangers followed by loooong waits for the next book. The underlying story is solid though and there's no reason why an adaptation had to carry over the flaws of the books. I'd say the big issue with GoT is how much the adaptation started diverging from the books over time. It would have been fine for the show runners to plot their own course if they knew what they were doing, but pretty much everything they changed or added was awful. Instead of interesting bit characters like Vargo Hoat and Strong Belwas we got such thrilling original characters as sexposition whore and some guy named Locke. Most of the scenes they added were some combination of filler, gratuitous sex/violence, "shocking" reveals (fetus jars, sorceror-in-a-box, etc.) and melodramatic ("where's my dragons?") cliffhangers. People act completely out-0f-character in many of the new scenes and the dialog often seems like an overwrought parody of Martin's actual writing style. These problems were there from the start ( Ros and the pointless brothel scenes are the worst part of season one, the butchered Qarth plotline is the worst part of season 2), but became much more glaring over time because the show kept moving farther and farther from the source material. I mostly agree with you about Game of Thrones vs. A Song of Ice and Fire. The show is so anemic in comparison that it's hard to consider it the same story at all anymore. So far, at least, I don't get that impression from The Expanse. I need to go back and re-read Leviathan Wakes and probably re-watch season 1 of the show, but the changes that stood out to me the first time through largely made sense. It seems to me that there are three broad types of changes in the TV adaptation: changes for TV practicality, expanding on the source material, and do-overs. Some changes, like the spy, probably fall into more than one category, but let's roll with it. I'm sure there's been at least one significant expedience-based change, but I can't think of one off-hand. Introducing Avasarala early is a good example of expanding on the source material. She gives us a look at Earth that we wouldn't otherwise have, and, although we don't see it in the books, it makes sense that she in particular had a hand in Earth's decision-making during the events of the first book. Then there's do-overs, the changes that directly contradict the source material in significant ways. Almost all of the tension among the Rocinante crew falls into this category. I think these changes are where the book authors, who are apparently pretty heavily involved in the show, recognized things they wish they'd done better and decided to use the show as a second chance. Whether the changes really are an improvement is a matter of taste, but personally, I'm on board with them so far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Also the book writers are on the show's writing team which gives me a lot more home that even if things change it will remain true to the spirit of the source material.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
I read all the books and various short stories a couple of years ago, so when I watched the show now I didn't remember them all that clearly. I thought the show had adapted them really well though, and stuck very close to the books (apart from the fact that they were pulling in stuff from short stories and later books to use in season one, which was a good idea in any case). Then after the season ended, I went back and re-read Leviathan Wakes, and was rather surprised to see that the show had actually changed quite a lot. Not sure if that means I have a lovely memory for details or if they just did a great job adapting the story though.The story was broadly the same, as were the main characters and the setting, but lots of little details had been changed. There would be the same cool scenes and good bits of dialogue, but sometimes involving different characters or changed substantially. For example (very minor book spoiler), in the show Havelock got nailed to a wall and survived, but in the book that happened to some random Martian in the background and was only mentioned in passing. I'd say almost all of the changes from book to show were either improvements or necessary for practical reasons. The show is more compressed, with fewer things happening, some dialogue shortened or cut and some things just being briefly shown on screen or implied rather than a full-length explanation like the books give. This is obviously necessary though, and I thought it was handled very well. I wonder how much, if any, of book two they'll include in season two though, because there's a lot of stuff from book one that hasn't happened yet in the show. Have they said anything about that? The main change I didn't like was how the crew seemed almost like strangers to each other on the show, arguing over who should be in charge and being really surprised at the smallest revelations about each other's pasts. They had all been working together for years on a fairly small crew after all. Oddly enough Holden was far more reckless, arrogant and insufferable in the book, but the rest of the crew were more willing to listen to him and follow him. Overall I thought it was a great adaptation, and that the show is actually better than the books. The actors are especially great and all fit their roles perfectly, even the ones who don't physically look much like how their characters were described in the book. They'll probably end up changing lots of stuff when adapting the rest of the books, but I think any changes are likely to be improvements. In Game of Thrones they were often stripping out great dialogue, characters and storylines from the books to be replaced with worse material for the show, but I haven't seen that here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Tolkien's work in LOTR was adapted to a great series of movies but the movies are clearly an adaption with some liberties taken for the sake of the medium. The same with Martin and GoT. There's no way to really adapt the books as they are structured into an ongoing series (even with the author consulting, writing, and directing episodes). I mean, there's nuance and themes to explore when travelling endlessly through a wartorn countryside but it's not going to keep a flagship series running for 7 seasons. The books will still be there for whoever wants that deeper exploration but the show will likely be a far more popular bit of culture than the books will. That said, The Expanse looks to follow the GoT model but with a further emphasis on bringing all the books together to better tie the entire story together. GoT always seemed like the first couple of seasons were too concerned with establishing the show and sacrificed more of the material to get ratings and a full series committment. Thwomp fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:Also the book writers are on the show's writing team which gives me a lot more home that even if things change it will remain true to the spirit of the source material. The same was true for GOT/ISOIAF though, GRRM wrote several episodes himself and consulted on others; although I think much less so for each subsequent season where it started veering off from the books more and more. Which I guess supports your theory then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:All this has me concerned about where The Expanse might be heading. If they've already diverged from the books a bit and seem likely to do far more of it next season, then a lot will depend on the quality of the new writers and how well they really "get" the source material. What do you say, bookreaders, have the changes/additions they've made so far worked or flopped? Should I be confident or worried? They have combined some elements from book 2 into this season, some plot beats happen in a different order, and some "flavor" scenes have been added. Honestly I'm very happy how well they've captured the spirit of the books and hit the same major plot points without tilting windmills trying to slavishly reproduce the books scene for scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:The same was true for GOT/ISOIAF though, GRRM wrote several episodes himself and consulted on others; although I think much less so for each subsequent season where it started veering off from the books more and more. Which I guess supports your theory then. It's also interesting that his episodes are some of the very best of the series. He'd written TV before so he had a pretty good idea of what changes to make but he was also the original author so they fit in organically and never felt out of place. It's rather telling that the Martin penned episodes avoid most of the twists and shocks and bullshit of the rest of the series, stay quite faithful to the source material, and still make incredible TV. I wish the showrunners had been taking notes. I'm hoping the Expanse authors have the same ability to switch media (hell, if it started as an mmo...), and that their partners at SyFy don't gently caress it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:17
|
|