First Name:
Employer:
STR / END / AGI / PER / CYB / PSI (max of 8 for each)
HP: (20 + END x 3)
PSI: (5 + PSI x 10)
RAW: (Raw materials, needed to fabricate things.)
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers
Repair
Maintain
Research
Modify
Medical
Standard Weapon
Energy Weapon
Heavy Weapon
Exotic Weapon
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1:
Weapon 2:
Sidearm:
Armor:
Pack:
Grenade:
Inventory 1:
Inventory 2:
Inventory 3:
Inventory 4:
Perks:Code: [Select]First name : Alexis Swan
Employer : General Mechanics
STR 7/ END 7/ AGI 8/ PER 7/ CYB 7/ PSI 1/ (Maxes at 8!)
HP : 81
PSI : 60
RAW : 200
Skills.
Computers
Repair - 1
Maintain - 1
Research
Modify - 1
Medical
Standard Weapon : 2
Energy Weapon
Heavy Weapon
Exotic Weapon
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1 : Rocket Shotgun
Weapon 2 : Quad RPG
Weapon 3 : Quad Autocannons.
Weapon 4 : Lock on Missiles
Armor : Juggernaut
Pack: Shield
Grenade: Heat
Inventory 1: Ammo Maker
Inventory 2: Optics
Inventory 4: Recycler
Inventory 5: 10 Spare Ammo
Perk : Cyborg Body, Combat Engineer, Fast, Gifted
Code: [Select]Name: Richard Miller
Employer: Baystrasanto Healthcare
STR 4/ END 7/ AGI 6/ PER 6/ CYB 4/ PSI 1
HP: 81
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills:
Computers
Repair
Maintain
Research
Modify
Medical 5
Standard Weapon
Energy Weapon (-1)
Heavy Weapon (-1)
Exotic Weapon (-1)
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: HC Carbine
Weapon 2: Submachine Gun
Weapon 3: Engineer Repair Gun
Sidearm: Semiauto Handgun
Armor: Engineer
Pack: Energy
Grenade: Flashbang
Inventory 1: Medikit
Inventory 2: Painkillers
Inventory 3: Ammo
Inventory 4: Stim Hypo
Perks: Fast, Gifted, Doctor, Pharma Friendly
Code: [Select][First Name: Kyle Johnson
Employer: Integrated Samsoft
STR 3/ END 3/ AGI 7/ PER 7/ CYB 7/ PSI 1(max of 8 for each)
HP: 69
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers 4
Repair
Maintain
Research 1
Modify 1
Medical
Standard Weapon 1
Energy Weapon
Heavy Weapon
Exotic Weapon
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: HC Carbine
Weapon 2: Hand Cannon
Sidearm: Monoblade
Armor: Infiltrator
Pack: Stealth (Jammer considered to be in effect when activated.)
Grenade: Plastique
Inventory 1: "Rope"
Inventory 2: Recycler
Inventory 3: Optics
Inventory 4: Comm Device
Perks:Fast, Perceptive, Experimental Technology, Wetware]
Code: [Select]First Name: Mark
Employer: United Governance
STR 7/ END 6/ AGI 7/ PER 7/ CYB 4/ PSI 1
HP: 78
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers
Repair
Maintain
Research
Modify
Medical 1
Standard Weapon 3
Energy Weapon 2
Heavy Weapon 2
Exotic Weapon 2
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: Assault Rifle/Grenade Launcher
Weapon 2: Phased Pulser
Sidearm: Gravitic Hammer
Armor: Standard
Pack: Sensor
Grenade: Concussion
Inventory 1: Strength Hypo
Inventory 2: Comm Device
Inventory 3: Grappling Pistol
Inventory 4: 10 Spare Ammo
Perks: Gifted, Perceptive, Xeno Training, Hardened Veteran
Code: [Select]First Name:Robert
Employer: Walco Markets
STR:4 / END:6 / AGI:4 / PER:4 / CYB:4 / PSI:1 (max of 8 for each)
HP: 78
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers
Repair: 2
Maintain: 2
Research
Modify: 2
Medical
Standard Weapon: 1
Energy Weapon
Heavy Weapon
Exotic Weapon
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: Sub Machine gun
Weapon 2: Plasma Torch
Weapon 3: Engineer Repair Gun
Sidearm: Energy Pistol
Armor: Engineer
Pack: Assembler
Grenade: Camera
Inventory 1: Recycler
Inventory 2: Food maker
Inventory 3: Ammo maker
Inventory 4: Communication device
Inventory 5 and 6: Toolkit
Perks: Quartermaster, Replicator Expert, Gifted, Tough
Pending:Code: [Select]First Name: Aria
Last Name: Whitehaven
Employer: General Mechanics
STR 6 END 7 AGI 7 PER 5 CYB PSI 1
HP: 81
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers
Repair 1
Maintain 1
Research
Modify 2
Medical
Standard Weapon 2
Energy Weapon
Heavy Weapon
Exotic Weapon
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: Assault Rifle/Grenade Launcher
Weapon 2: Chaingun
Weapon 3: Engineer Repair Tool/Gun
Sidearm: Hand Cannon
Armor: Engineer Assault Armour
Pack: Ammo
Grenade: Standard
Inventory 1: 10 Spare Ammo
Inventory 2: 10 Days Rations
Inventory 3: Optics
Inventory 4: Tool Kit
Inventory 5: (Taken by Tool kit)
Perks:
General: Tough, Fast
Employment: Combat Engineer, Tinker
Code: [Select]First Name: Jake
Employer: Royal Holdings
STR 4/ END 4/ AGI 6/ PER 7/ CYB 6/ PSI [i]x[/i]+7
HP: 72
PSI: 120
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers 1
Repair 0
Maintain 0
Research 0
Modify 1
Medical 0
Standard Weapon 1
Energy Weapon 0
Heavy Weapon 0
Exotic Weapon 0
Offensive Psi 0
Defensive Psi 1
Utility Psi 2
Weapon 1: Psi-Amp
Weapon 2: HC Carbine
Weapon 3: Repair Gun
Sidearm: Semiauto Handgun
Armor: Engineer
Pack: -
Grenade: Flashbang
Inventory 1: Health Hypo
Inventory 2: Medikit
Inventory 3: Painkillers
Inventory 4: Rope
Perks: Gifted, Psi Training, Systems Analyst, Talent
Code: [Select]First Name: Sam Trennad
Employer: United Governance
STR 5 / END 6 / AGI 8 / PER 8 / CYB 3 / PSI 1 (max of 8 each)
HP: 78
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers 0
Repair 0
Maintain 0
Research 0
Modify 0
Medical 1
Standard Weapon 5
Energy Weapon 1
Heavy Weapon 1
Exotic Weapon 0
Offensive Psi 0
Defensive Psi 0
Utility Psi 0
Weapon 1: HC Carbine
Weapon 2: Sniper Rifle
Sidearm: Semiauto Handgun
Armor: Infiltrator Suit
Pack: Stealth
Grenade: Plastique
Inventory 1: 10 Days Rations
Inventory 2: 10 Spare Ammo
Inventory 3: Ammo Maker
Inventory 4: Health Hypo
Perks: Fast, Perceptive, Special Forces Training, Hardened Veteran
Code: [Select]First name : Alexis Swan
Employer : General Mechanics
STR 7/ END 7/ AGI 8/ PER 7/ CYB 7/ PSI 1/ (Maxes at 8!)
HP : 81
PSI : 60
RAW : 200
Skills.
Computers
Repair
Maintain
Research
Modify
Medical
Standard Weapon : 2
Energy Weapon
Heavy Weapon
Exotic Weapon
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1 : Rocket Shotgun
Weapon 2 : Quad RPG
Weapon 3 : Quad Autocannons.
Weapon 4 : Lock on Missiles
Armor : Juggernaut
Pack: Shield
Grenade: Heat
Inventory 1: Ammo Maker
Inventory 2: Optics
Inventory 4: Recycler
Inventory 5: 10 Spare Ammo
Perk : Cyborg Body, Combat Engineer, Fast, Gifted
Code: [Select]Name: Richard Miller
Employer: Baystrasanto Healthcare
STR 4/ END 7/ AGI 6/ PER 6/ CYB 4/ PSI 1
HP: 81
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills:
Computers
Repair
Maintain
Research
Modify
Medical 5
Standard Weapon
Energy Weapon -1
Heavy Weapon -1
Exotic Weapon -1
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: HC Carbine
Weapon 2: Submachine Gun
Sidearm: Semiauto Handgun
Armor: Standard
Pack: Repair
Grenade: Flashbang
Inventory 1: Medikit
Inventory 2: Painkillers
Inventory 3: Ammo
Inventory 4: Stim Hypo
Perks: Fast, Gifted, Doctor, Pharma Friendly
Code: [Select][First Name: Kyle Johnson
Employer: Integrated Samsoft
STR 3/ END 3/ AGI 7/ PER 7/ CYB 7/ PSI 1(max of 8 for each)
HP: 69
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers 4
Repair
Maintain
Research 1
Modify 1
Medical
Standard Weapon 1
Energy Weapon
Heavy Weapon
Exotic Weapon
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: HC Carbine
Weapon 2: Hand Cannon
Sidearm: Monoblade
Armor: Infiltrator
Pack: Stealth
Grenade: Plastique
Inventory 1: "Rope"
Inventory 2: Recycler
Inventory 3: Optics
Inventory 4: Comm Device
Perks:Fast, Perceptive, Experimental Technology, Wetware]
First Name: Sam Pull
Employer: United Governance
STR 6 / END 8 / AGI 6 / PER 8 / CYB 4 / PSI 0
HP: 84
PSI: 50
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers
Repair
Maintain
Research
Modify
Medical - 1
Standard Weapon - 3
Energy Weapon - 1
Heavy Weapon - 1
Exotic Weapon - 2
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: Assault/Grenade
Weapon 2: Submachine Gun
Sidearm: Energy Pistol
Armor: Assault
Pack: Ammo
Grenade: Standard
Inventory 1: Optics
Inventory 2: Ammo Maker
Inventory 3: Food Maker
Inventory 4: Medikit
Perks:
Gifted, Tough, Special Forces, Xeno TrainingFirst Name: Mark
Employer: United Governance
STR 7/ END 6/ AGI 7/ PER 7/ CYB 4/ PSI 1
HP: 78
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers
Repair
Maintain
Research
Modify
Medical 1
Standard Weapon 3
Energy Weapon 2
Heavy Weapon 2
Exotic Weapon 2
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: Assault Rifle/Grenade Launcher
Weapon 2: Phased Pulser
Sidearm: Gravitic Hammer
Armor: Standard
Pack: Sensor
Grenade: Concussion
Inventory 1: Strength Hypo
Inventory 2: Comm Device
Inventory 3: Grappling Pistol
Inventory 4: 10 Spare Ammo
Perks: Gifted, Perceptive, Xeno Training, Hardened Veteran
Code: [Select]First Name: Mark
Employer: United Governance
STR 7/ END 6/ AGI 7/ PER 7/ CYB 4/ PSI 1
HP: 38
PSI: 15
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers
Repair
Maintain
Research
Modify
Medical 1
Standard Weapon 3
Energy Weapon 2
Heavy Weapon 2
Exotic Weapon 2
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: Assault Rifle/Grenade Launcher
Weapon 2: Phased Pulser
Sidearm: Gravitic Hammer
Armor: Standard
Pack: Sensor
Grenade: Concussion
Inventory 1: Strength Hypo
Inventory 2: Stim Hypno
Inventory 3: Food Maker
Inventory 4: Bullhorn
Perks: Gifted, Perceptive, Xeno Training, Hardened Veteran
[Oh, did only read that as engineering tool - sure, will be changing it. Wait, so is there actually any use that I will gain out of the medi-kit and Painkillers, or are they redunant as well? ]
Code: [Select]First Name:Robert
Employer: Walco Markets
STR:4 / END:6 / AGI:4 / PER:4 / CYB:4 / PSI:1 (max of 8 for each)
HP: 78
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers
Repair :3
Maintain :3
Research
Modify :2
Medical
Standard Weapon
Energy Weapon
Heavy Weapon
Exotic Weapon
Offensive Psi
Defensive Psi
Utility Psi
Weapon 1: Sub Machine gun
Weapon 2: Plasma Torch
Sidearm: Energy Piston
Armor: Engineer
Pack: Assembler
Grenade: Camera
Inventory 1: Recycler
Inventory 2: Food maker
Inventory 3: Ammo maker
Inventory 4: Communication device
Inventory 5 and 6: Toolkit
Perks: Quartermaster, Replicator Expert, Gifted, Though
"If the fleet lasts long enough, but I doubt they are going to overlook those of us who survived the crash and any other crashes, they surely have ground forced as well who will be sent to make sure we're dead.Nearly every ship in the fleet is up there, they won't go down that easily. Besides, there'll be hundreds of ships like these landing everywhere. They won't have time to look for this one soon.
Code: [Select]First Name: Jake
Employer: Royal Holdings
STR 4/ END 4/ AGI 6/ PER 7/ CYB 6/ PSI [i]x[/i]+7
HP: 72
PSI: 120
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers 1
Repair 0
Maintain 0
Research 0
Modify 1
Medical 0
Standard Weapon 1
Energy Weapon 0
Heavy Weapon 0
Exotic Weapon 0
Offensive Psi 0
Defensive Psi 1
Utility Psi 2
Weapon 1: Psi-Amp
Weapon 2: HC Carbine
Weapon 3: Repair Gun
Sidearm: Semiauto Handgun
Armor: Engineer
Pack: -
Grenade: Flashbang
Inventory 1: Health Hypo
Inventory 2: Medikit
Inventory 3: Painkillers
Inventory 4: Rope
Perks: Gifted, Psi Training, Systems Analyst, Talent
[Okay.
Maxinum McDreich, you're on the clock starting 12:25 PM, PST. 24 hours, and then you're bumped back to the waitlist as opposed to the Pending list. A PM was sent as well.]
Armor: Engineer
Pack: -
Grenade: Flashbang
Inventory 1: Health Hypo
Inventory 2: Medikit
Inventory 3: Painkillers
Inventory 4: Rope
Perks: Gifted, Psi Training, Systems Analyst, Talent[Approved and waitlisted, with numbers corrected. I am pretty sure you don't want a Repair Pack when you already have a Repair Gun that serves the same purpose, so I left it blank for you to change as desired. Or not desired.]
[I'm not sure about your numbers there.
General Mechanics
+1 to Maintain/Repair/Modify, +1 STR
- Combat Engineer (Start with Heavy Combat Suit, +1 to Standard Weapons)
- Tinker (+1 Modify, price of mods is cheaper)
It looks like it should be:
Repair 1
Maintain 1
Modify 2
Standard Weapon 2
Aside from that, approved. I'm going to give all the other profiles a once-over just to be sure the numbers are right.
Bonus note: Your Commlink is currently broken.]
((Another engineer, sigh...))
Ammo by all means but the damage armour at least should go, it's more useful as RAW and we need to lighten the weight a bit unless two of you are going to drag it.I'd rather not. At the moment we can still carry it . Also, conservation of mass.
Code: [Select]First Name: Sam Trennad
Employer: United Governance
STR 5 / END 6 / AGI 8 / PER 8 / CYB 3 / PSI 1 (max of 8 each)
HP: 78
PSI: 60
RAW: 200
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Computers 0
Repair 0
Maintain 0
Research 0
Modify 0
Medical 1
Standard Weapon 5
Energy Weapon 1
Heavy Weapon 1
Exotic Weapon 0
Offensive Psi 0
Defensive Psi 0
Utility Psi 0
Weapon 1: HC Carbine
Weapon 2: Sniper Rifle
Sidearm: Semiauto Handgun
Armor: Infiltrator Suit
Pack: Stealth
Grenade: Plastique
Inventory 1: 10 Days Rations
Inventory 2: 10 Spare Ammo
Inventory 3: Ammo Maker
Inventory 4: Health Hypo
Perks: Fast, Perceptive, Special Forces Training, Hardened Veteran
Try to fix my communication devices.
[Explain it to me in depth, if you can.
[So as for the Plasma Torch, it's basically what that one padawan who though a lightsaber would be cooler if you somehow gave it steroids and then inserted a small sun?]
Where do you come in, you ask? Good question, soldier! You're a Space Marine. Earth's Finest, the first, last, and best line of defense against Galactic civilization. You and the rest of your squad crash-landed on Mars, and it is your job to sort out this Xeno mess.[We're totally space marines. And it's amazing.]
an explosion so big they can see it from earth.
I'm thinking find the planets biggest power production system then overload it, if they are as advanced as I think they are then it should have the " oh god what did I just do.... can I do it again? " effect.[Sadly, that won't work. Kai use fusion power plants, which are decidedly non explosive. In fact, they're more likely to implode than explode. This counts for pretty much every type of power generation in existence, save for Matter-Antimatter annihilation plants, or the very first drafts of nuclear fission plants. Sadly, the first is actually a net energy consumer*, and hence won't be build. The second is practically impossible, and a very bad idea.
(( Overloading It for a massive implosion works, either way sends the appropriate I'm going to kill you all message to the aliens. ))Implosions aren't massive. If you're lucky, you can manage to knock out the reactor itself.
an explosion so big they can see it from earth.
[That goal is completely acceptable and also hilarious to imagine.]
[Three things. One, what would we do with a nuclear power plant. Two, how much power does a smoke factory need. And three, there is psychicness. Don't try and be physics. Physics and psychics look alike, but can't stand each other.]We could use it to solve all our power needs, salvage it to make a dirty bomb, or trigger a runaway reaction(meltdown). It won't leave a big mark, but it will release quite a bit of radiation, and give those below something to think about.
[Oh, and you forgot Explosive Power Generators. Those are explosive by nature, but are usually pretty small. They're like ammo for laser weapons.]
(( Not really, it's a game not a science report xo I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to be realistic. ))I like realism. A lot. It allows me to make big assumptions like those above.
[It also leaves a lot of questions open. For instance, what kind of equipment are we talking? Naked eye, Hubble, something in between?]an explosion so big they can see it from earth.[That goal is completely acceptable and also hilarious to imagine.]
I was thinking naked eye, just because it's more impressive but that would probably destroy the planet and kill us.[There's probably a downside, too. I can't believe I just typed that.]
((From the base material, I don't think humans have fusion yet. Besides, it's unlikely that it will be used except in the largest holdfasts. After all, fusion requires a ton of energy to start. (Kai have cold fusion FYI) Windpower is useless on Mars (athmosphere is nonexistant). Solar is usefull, though unreliable.))
Mars was still in the first stages of terraforming. Ie, maybe liveable for bacteria, but not much more.
[We can use a factory, but we can use it for a short period of time, then sabotage it and run like crazy fuckers with tanks that we built in the factory.][This sounds like a plan.]
[We can use a factory, but we can use it for a short period of time, then sabotage it and run like crazy fuckers with tanks that we built in the factory.][This sounds like a plan.]
[So is fucking with gravity...]
((The problem with antimatter generators isn't getting antimatter, it's getting a net positive in energy. Which will be difficult, especially considering that it comes within a few hydrogen atoms of violating thermodynamics, even at optimal efficiency.))
[But it's theorized that black holes could strip away one part of the particle-anti-particle creation annihilation loop, so that's one way to do it.][Yes, because contained black holes are so much more practical than particle accelerators. Especially as it's tough to predict which pair will come out.
[Also, I have a hammer that screws with gravity. I've been saying this a lot, but it's not just that it screws with gravity. It's that I'm able to hold it, and use it as a weapon, and it screws with gravity. That's how advanced the tech is. And in all likelihood, I'm already beating physics over the head with it every time I use it, so other than the possibility of finding a place where it's primarily antimatter and harvesting it to use as fuel, physics already left the building in several different locations. This is really just a debate on whether it wants to jump out the window or not, too][The problem isn't possibility, it's efficiency. We don't know how energy-hungry that gravhammer thing is, and that doesn't really matter. Given that it takes power to get antimatter, the most important part of antimatter generators, thermodynamics would make it tough to get a net positive in electricity without very efficient antimatter generation and electrical production from said.]
Depends. It's a very mass efficient way to store energy,True, but that's energy storage, not an energy source.
and if you manage to procure antimatter without having to make it ...(Hawking rad, virtual particles)..I'm not entirely sure what virtual particles are, but Hawking radiation is unpredictable and requires a black hole...and it also happens to cause the decay of smaller black holes pretty quickly, so you'd need a large one for any kind of sustained antimatter-gathering thing.
Of course, you could also try to catch the fast neutrons by cladding the reactor with uranium, but that's a bit redundant, isn't it.Especially since I'm not sure what you would do with the nutrinos, yes.
Spoiler: Science (click to show/hide)
((OOC: There is a small fusion plant in East Anglia that produces as much power as it takes in. It is what the big plant being built in France (Or Switzerland? i cant remember) is based on. It cant produce any more than it is at the moment, as it isn't large enough.The Jet, which is the reactor you're referring to, has managed to output at most 65% of what it requires to power up. If this is different, please come up with an article funding the claim.
plasma and Ion based engines (in fact, any space engine that isn't chemical or solid fueled) require a hell of a lot of power. Fusion produces a hell of a lot of power. I didn't mean the reactor itself being the engine, i meant it powering the thing that is the engine, whether it be electromagnetic, plasma or ion based. Also, fission safer than fusion? Fission has a whole load of things that could go wrong with it, many of them ending in meltdown (something you REALLY dont want in space). Not to mention its fuel is radioactive in the extreme. Fusion has zero chance of meltdown, and its fuels are not radioactive (or, at least, nowhere near as radioactive as plutonium and uranium). The only fission based plants that are safe are ones based on thorium as a fuel.Fission is very, very stable. Core damage happens on a scale of 10-7 occasions per reactor per year. (Theoretical level for Third gen, which would be the ones incorporated in spacecraft.) Besides, there are many very safe nuclear reactor designs (And a few unsafe thorium designs). And only the bare minimum of core damage incidents end in reactor meltdown (There have been like, 3 over the entire history of nuclear engineering. ).
Not sure where you got 'Fusion is dangerous' from. If a fusion plant went critical, the only thing that would happen is that the sphere containing the reaction would shear off all the bolts holing it stationary, fire upwards half a mile, spinning several thousand times per minute, before coming crashing down again. Nowhere near as dangerous as a fission plant or antimatter.Why would it should up? Besides, the only thing that's spinning is the plasma, which in total amounts to less than 20 kg at all time. So no spinning either. At worst you get a massive shrapnel cloud as the magnets tear themselves apart. Followed by a cloud of liquid helium evaporating.
and, finally, there is such thing as a fusion-fission hybrid reactor. In fact, there are a few designs floating about in real life and i think one or two may have been built or are in the process of being built.))I'm going to need a source here.
I want a nano-bomb. All of the nanobots, tearing whatever they find into little pieces and making more of themselves. How's this for a best case scenario; we make a doomsday weapon, we fight our way to the queen or something(most of us would die on the way, of course), and then we set it off. Antimatter bomb, nano-replicators, even just a virus that the Kai have no immunity to.Repair gun is nanite based. Using them as weapon would be a very high class warcrime, and not that effective. After all, nanites can be destroyed with a microwave.
Fusion meanwhile requires a massive amount of energy to start. Once you have an event where the reactor is shut down, for whatever reason. (Much more likely than a core failure), your ship is lost, having no power for engines or lifesupport.Have a fission reactor as well, to start it and as a backup power source.]
[As for how fission and fusion could be used together...QuoteFusion meanwhile requires a massive amount of energy to start. Once you have an event where the reactor is shut down, for whatever reason. (Much more likely than a core failure), your ship is lost, having no power for engines or lifesupport.Have a fission reactor as well, to start it and as a backup power source.]
Also, remember, whether in real life of fiction, we dont really know if these problems will actually be problems in the future. In maybe 100-200 years, we'll probably have advanced nano-tech, fusion (Macro, micro and maybe even nano-scale fusion) and a whole host of other technology.
As for heat dissipation, it all depends on what type of fusion you use. Laser? Magnetic? Polywell? There is hot, medium and cold fusion on the table, plus the just as powerful breeder (self sustained) versions.All types of fusion involve, at some points, hypercooled magnets, superheated plasma or other waste heat producing installations. Also doesn't take away the fact that standard fusion and fission reactors are thermal reactors, relying on steam to create power.
As for Thorium fission reactors, they are just as safe as uranium and plutonium reactors. The only reason they never caught on after their successful invention in the 1950's is because you cant easily make weapons grade material out of the byproducts. But even is fission is very safe (and i agree it is far safe than the media would have you believe), the fuel and byproducts are heavy and highly radioactive (more-so than anything involved in fusion), both negative qualities, especially in space.Thorium is corrosive, which is a bad thing for nuclear power plants. But yeah, it's otherwise just as safe. It's also harder to get them to work. Uranium might be heavy, but you don't need much of it. (https://xkcd.com/1162/) . Besides, it's perfectly possible to design a reactor that doesn't need to replace it's fuel rods that often, allowing replacement when in orbit. (Hence, no problems with radiation). And thanks to their mass production of neutrons, fusion actually produces more danger during operation than fission. Luckily, neutrons are stopped easily, but it remains to be seen how much they irradiate their coolant.
Solar flares tend to knock everything out. And well, when your ship has space for two reactors, it's massively oversized anyway. Especially since Fusion gets more efficient the larger it gets, and hence constructing installations smaller than 2000 MW is generally not cost effective. Hence why fusion isn't really a compactable technology. Barring inventions to cold fusion or advanced plasma containment. ((Gravity could help here)) Problem is that the smaller it gets, the higher the chance for a violent runaway reaction. (Ie, nihil for any normal reactor, but a foothballsized device would either be horribly inefficient, or dangerous.)Also, remember, whether in real life of fiction, we dont really know if these problems will actually be problems in the future. In maybe 100-200 years, we'll probably have advanced nano-tech, fusion (Macro, micro and maybe even nano-scale fusion) and a whole host of other technology.
I prefer to keep it out of the magic territory.As for heat dissipation, it all depends on what type of fusion you use. Laser? Magnetic? Polywell? There is hot, medium and cold fusion on the table, plus the just as powerful breeder (self sustained) versions.All types of fusion involve, at some points, hypercooled magnets, superheated plasma or other waste heat producing installations. Also doesn't take away the fact that standard fusion and fission reactors are thermal reactors, relying on steam to create power.QuoteAs for Thorium fission reactors, they are just as safe as uranium and plutonium reactors. The only reason they never caught on after their successful invention in the 1950's is because you cant easily make weapons grade material out of the byproducts. But even is fission is very safe (and i agree it is far safe than the media would have you believe), the fuel and byproducts are heavy and highly radioactive (more-so than anything involved in fusion), both negative qualities, especially in space.Thorium is corrosive, which is a bad thing for nuclear power plants. But yeah, it's otherwise just as safe. It's also harder to get them to work. Uranium might be heavy, but you don't need much of it. (https://xkcd.com/1162/) . Besides, it's perfectly possible to design a reactor that doesn't need to replace it's fuel rods that often, allowing replacement when in orbit. (Hence, no problems with radiation). And thanks to their mass production of neutrons, fusion actually produces more danger during operation than fission. Luckily, neutrons are stopped easily, but it remains to be seen how much they irradiate their coolant.
Those fusion-fission hybrids are more similar to waste incinerators then reactors. They don't actually produce energy, for one.
[OOC: So how is the game going? And Ross (Fun fact, I can't help but think of you as looking like the guy from criminal minds :P) are you going to make a 'Beta Party' like in the adventurer game or like a HQ we can dick around in or what?]
They can't. Rewiring them for fuel production involves reducing the neutron escape from the fusion (and drop the fission stage), or just cut out the massive power draw from the fission and uses more enriched fuel (or a particle arcelerator)
The very principles of fusion disallows this without turning it into a very powerfull bomb. Fusion energy production Is function of the temperature, pressure and length. Length is based on how large the reactor is mostly. So if you make it smaller, you need to increase pressure and temperature. By principle, it becomes a bomb.
And yeah, I like thorium, but it's perfectly possible to design a nuclear reactor with the same safety. Using pellets for example. (When overheating, the surrounding material expands and stops the reaction.)
Lastly, a chaingun is not a machine gun. they dont have a high rate of fire (and in fact 800RPM is pretty fast, considering the general average size of the bullets). A chaingun usually fires bullets in excess of 20mm and are mainly used as armaments on warships, attack choppers (like the Apache), armoured vehicles (like the Bradley and the Warrior) etc.
Lastly, a chaingun is not a machine gun. they dont have a high rate of fire (and in fact 800RPM is pretty fast, considering the general average size of the bullets). A chaingun usually fires bullets in excess of 20mm and are mainly used as armaments on warships, attack choppers (like the Apache), armoured vehicles (like the Bradley and the Warrior) etc.
I take issue with this. The Vulcan is the high-caliber chain gun. The Malefactor is smaller caliber, and ought to have at least a 1500 RPM rate of fire.
Also, a note; you really fucking think they're going to be using steam to power space ships, regardless of how it's heated? No. They're going to have hyper-efficient thermovoltaic processes that use the waste heat and the heat caused by the reaction to produce the energy.
Also, remember whenever you talk about efficiency, or dangers, or miniaturization. We're several hundred years in the future. How much miniaturization has occurred in the past 60 years? And since technology tends to accelerate exponentially...
Yeah. That energy pack the good doctor has is probably a fusion reactor. Because a field that makes you invisible, and a hammer that looks at the equation for gravity and says 'lolnope' probably take shittons of energy.
Speaking of which, I wonder what type of batteries are used. Supercapacitors or flywheels?
Pretty sure you might be breaking the second laws of thermodynamics there. Or not. Nanomaterials can do all sort of weird things. Still, it does nothing to deny my original point, that fusion is by far not needed for spacecraft, and is in fact to large to be used on anything but the largest vessels. Also, there's always waste heat, and often quite a lot of, which you will need to get rid of.Also, a note; you really fucking think they're going to be using steam to power space ships, regardless of how it's heated? No. They're going to have hyper-efficient thermovoltaic processes that use the waste heat and the heat caused by the reaction to produce the energy.
Also, remember whenever you talk about efficiency, or dangers, or miniaturization. We're several hundred years in the future. How much miniaturization has occurred in the past 60 years? And since technology tends to accelerate exponentially...
Yeah. That energy pack the good doctor has is probably a fusion reactor. Because a field that makes you invisible, and a hammer that looks at the equation for gravity and says 'lolnope' probably take shittons of energy.
Speaking of which, I wonder what type of batteries are used. Supercapacitors or flywheels?
That is a good point. That sort of makes the 'heat' part of the argument redundant, as any heat would be used for power. Which means Fusion would in fact be a far better power source.
And yeah, miniaturisation. We've gone in less than 40 years from computers the size of a small school gym to a size barely visible to the naked eye. It is not impossible to think that a relatively stable power source would be miniaturised through the use of advanced materials and technology.
Pretty sure you might be breaking the second laws of thermodynamics there. Or not. Nanomaterials can do all sort of weird things. Still, it does nothing to deny my original point, that fusion is by far not needed for spacecraft, and is in fact to large to be used on anything but the largest vessels. Also, there's always waste heat, and often quite a lot of, which you will need to get rid of.Also, a note; you really fucking think they're going to be using steam to power space ships, regardless of how it's heated? No. They're going to have hyper-efficient thermovoltaic processes that use the waste heat and the heat caused by the reaction to produce the energy.
Also, remember whenever you talk about efficiency, or dangers, or miniaturization. We're several hundred years in the future. How much miniaturization has occurred in the past 60 years? And since technology tends to accelerate exponentially...
Yeah. That energy pack the good doctor has is probably a fusion reactor. Because a field that makes you invisible, and a hammer that looks at the equation for gravity and says 'lolnope' probably take shittons of energy.
Speaking of which, I wonder what type of batteries are used. Supercapacitors or flywheels?
That is a good point. That sort of makes the 'heat' part of the argument redundant, as any heat would be used for power. Which means Fusion would in fact be a far better power source.
And yeah, miniaturisation. We've gone in less than 40 years from computers the size of a small school gym to a size barely visible to the naked eye. It is not impossible to think that a relatively stable power source would be miniaturised through the use of advanced materials and technology.
Look at your basic fission generator. How much has that one been miniaturized. Now look at fusion. I mean, we were supposed to have that by now... Only thing that has been accelerating exponentially is the costs. It also doesn't help that size is a fundamental constraint of fusion power generator. It's a thing inherent in their design, and the principles by which they operate. Claiming "Magic" won't help there. (Because that's what you're doing).
No, i am not claiming 'magic' i'm leaving space for future technologies. you are basing our argument on the current understanding of the science behind these aspects of technology. These understandings could change in less than 100 years, let alone half a millennium or more.You're claiming magic though. There are more problems which you're willingly ignoring.
Not to mention the advent of super-tough materials. Nano-tech researchers state that eventually we could have nano-materials that are several hundred thousand times (if not several million times) stronger than high quality steel. If anything, materials like that would be able to allow fusion reactions in something about the size of a medium sized backpack or maybe even smaller. And I'm not even taking into account new reactor designs.Strength of the material is nonrelevant for fusion reactors. The important part is getting energy out of the reaction, which practically requires you to extend the fusion reaction. This is done by limiting the outflux of energy and heat, best done by increasing the size (Square-cube law). This is inherent in the design of all fusion reactors, barring the invention of cold fusion. Increasing temperature and pressure will help little, as that makes it much less unstable, and requires a far stronger heating mechanism.
And as for your argument about nuclear fission not being miniaturized, i think the reason there isn't so much the fact that we cant, its the fact that loads of idiotic green loonies cry whenever nuclear power is mentioned because of the media hype behind a small handful of accidents so many quality scientists and engineers wouldn't touch it with a 12 foot barge pole because their careers could end in the blink of an eye. That is also the reason nuclear power is so expensive at the moment.Fission has been miniaturized. Thermionic reactors and such. It's fusion that can't be miniaturized, because it's very hard to keep a fusion reaction going, and reach an energy profit.
And as for 'we should have fusion by now', that also comes back to idiots who dont know what they are talking about. Environmentalist look at the word 'nuclear' and go into a hissy fit and get the media on it as well with their lies and propaganda, so, again, scientists, engineers and politicians won't touch it. If fusion research actually had the funding it needed, we'd have fusion by now.Fusion has recieved more research funding than all other renewable technologies. Fusion has the massive funding it requires
Nuclear fusion research receives €750 million (excluding ITER funding*), compared with €810 million for all non-nuclear energy research combined,[51] putting research into fusion power well ahead of that of any single rivaling technology.* 10 billion, or the same amount the EU spent on fusion research before 1990
And nanomaterials can be interesting. They did an experiment with some early nano-gel material that is so light it flaps in the wind. But then they dropped the equivalent weight of 14 fridge-freezers on it and it held it like it was holding a feather. not even a flex or a bend. and this nano gel was only a few millimeters thick.It's also completely permeable for neutrons. Strength is not the issue, after all. Also, these nanomaterials rely completely on their structure for strength. High energy neutrons will mess that up rapidly, resulting in some sort of metal fatigue rapidly setting in.
[Don't want to be rude... but why are you guys talking about fusion reactors again?][Natural progression from antimatter power.]
Actually, we started with fusion power.[Don't want to be rude... but why are you guys talking about fusion reactors again?][Natural progression from antimatter power.]
No, i am not claiming 'magic' i'm leaving space for future technologies. you are basing our argument on the current understanding of the science behind these aspects of technology. These understandings could change in less than 100 years, let alone half a millennium or more.You're claiming magic though. There are more problems which you're willingly ignoring.QuoteNot to mention the advent of super-tough materials. Nano-tech researchers state that eventually we could have nano-materials that are several hundred thousand times (if not several million times) stronger than high quality steel. If anything, materials like that would be able to allow fusion reactions in something about the size of a medium sized backpack or maybe even smaller. And I'm not even taking into account new reactor designs.Strength of the material is nonrelevant for fusion reactors. The important part is getting energy out of the reaction, which practically requires you to extend the fusion reaction. This is done by limiting the outflux of energy and heat, best done by increasing the size (Square-cube law). This is inherent in the design of all fusion reactors, barring the invention of cold fusion. Increasing temperature and pressure will help little, as that makes it much less unstable, and requires a far stronger heating mechanism.
Also, neutron outflux. Can only be stopped by a sufficiently thick layer of neutron absorbant materials. So that poses a severe limit on reactor minitarization.QuoteAnd as for your argument about nuclear fission not being miniaturized, i think the reason there isn't so much the fact that we cant, its the fact that loads of idiotic green loonies cry whenever nuclear power is mentioned because of the media hype behind a small handful of accidents so many quality scientists and engineers wouldn't touch it with a 12 foot barge pole because their careers could end in the blink of an eye. That is also the reason nuclear power is so expensive at the moment.Fission has been miniaturized. Thermionic reactors and such. It's fusion that can't be miniaturized, because it's very hard to keep a fusion reaction going, and reach an energy profit.QuoteAnd as for 'we should have fusion by now', that also comes back to idiots who dont know what they are talking about. Environmentalist look at the word 'nuclear' and go into a hissy fit and get the media on it as well with their lies and propaganda, so, again, scientists, engineers and politicians won't touch it. If fusion research actually had the funding it needed, we'd have fusion by now.Fusion has recieved more research funding than all other renewable technologies. Fusion has the massive funding it requiresQuoteNuclear fusion research receives €750 million (excluding ITER funding*), compared with €810 million for all non-nuclear energy research combined,[51] putting research into fusion power well ahead of that of any single rivaling technology.* 10 billion, or the same amount the EU spent on fusion research before 1990
Still, even lead scientists don't expect commercial fusion before 2050QuoteAnd nanomaterials can be interesting. They did an experiment with some early nano-gel material that is so light it flaps in the wind. But then they dropped the equivalent weight of 14 fridge-freezers on it and it held it like it was holding a feather. not even a flex or a bend. and this nano gel was only a few millimeters thick.It's also completely permeable for neutrons. Strength is not the issue, after all. Also, these nanomaterials rely completely on their structure for strength. High energy neutrons will mess that up rapidly, resulting in some sort of metal fatigue rapidly setting in.
Do you honestly believe that the human race wouldn't have found solutions to the current problems in 500+ years? As someone said earlier, technological advancement increases exponentially. This century technology is set to increase 1000 times faster than the past 300 years put together. To put that into perspective, that is like going from horse drawn carriages to landing on the moon within 1 week of each other. Do you really think fusion technology, reactor designs and other things will still ahve the same problems they do today, in 100 years?Due to the current state of terraforming on Mars, I doubt that we're farther than a hundred years in the future. Besides, stop using the Sufficiently advanced technology argument. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicByAnyOtherName) And, exponential systems don't last. They fall apart rapidly. After all extrapolating (http://xkcd.com/605/) is fun and stuff, but in the end it's guessing. And well, it's all fun and games, but you can't ignore fundamental problems.
The strength of a Fusion reactor is massively important. It is one of the main reasons holding fusion technology back. They haven't found a strong enough material that can withstand the reaction. Hence, nano-materials (which could be designed to withstand neutrons and other bombardments, either through improving the nano-tech itself, or 'weaving in' some sort of resistance metal or material). The beauty of nano-tech is that, theoretically, they can do whatever you want them to do.The Strength of a fusion reactor is not important. After all, the plasma inside a reactor never actually touches the sides of reactor. Should it happen, then it will rapidly cool down and the fusion reaction will immediately stop, before any damage happens. The only thing a fusion reactors core lining needs is to whistand vacuum, and the neutron flow. These latter are subatomic particles, and hence nanomaterials* won't help you. Unlike what Hollywood would want you to believe, not every engineering problem can be solved by adding nano in front of it.
Fusion cannot be miniaturized at the moment, but in 500 years? New reactor designs, advances in materials and scientific understanding etc will have advanced sufficiently. I am not 'calling magic' on it, i am just leaving space for whatever will come about. Hell, if those guys at CERN can find the 'God Particle', maybe after the appropriate research we could play with the structure of things itself and make a materiel that solves all out problems with Fusion?The "god" particle is massively overhyped. In fact, it would more interesting if they hadn't found it. And as I said, it's a fundamental engineering problem. Can't solve it without inventing cold fusion of some sort. Also, neutrons are annoying particles. Can only be stopped by pure mass.
As for funding. ONLY 750 million Euros? for something thousands of times more advanced and complex than glorified windmills? That is nowhere near enough. If i had the money I'd pump in a minimum of £6-10 billion. 750 million euros.....pathetic amount of funding.Only 750 million euros in the EU alone, excluding the 15 billion ITER program. ((Costs rose a bit to much))
Finally, early nano-materials we have today are being tested in as many different environments (including radioactive environments) and they are promising signs that, if properly done, they dont suffer from the same deficiencies as traditional reactor materials.There are many different types of radiation. Still, while they might find a problem for metal deficits, they won't be able to miniaturize the particle shields much. You'd need a pure neutronium shield to get compact, one hundred procent capture rate.
EDIT: Just realised, once GWG starts playing, he better not get captured. the Kai would be interested in his Psi abilities, which could lead to some interesting capture sequences.First human capture in the first game, which is canon for this one, was a natural psychic.
I'm tired of the "In a few centuries people will have found a solution to Problem X" argument. It dodges the issue and gets used on problems that are rooted in the laws of physics rather than engineering problems. From the sound of it (and I trust 10ebbor10's judgement on this), the efficiency of fusion reactors at a given size is more of a fundamental issue than an engineering one. You probably could make mini-fusion reactors, but I don't think they'd work well.
I'm really tired of the "Technology Y can solve any problem" argument. It's wrong and stupid, for reasons that are obvious when you think about it for a moment. Can it solve problems rooted in, say, thermodynamics? No. In fact, most "wonder technologies" are limited to a relatively narrow series of problems in a single field.
I'm suspicious of any argument that hangs its basis on things we don't know for the same reason I'm suspicious of Intelligent Design's claims at being scientific, albeit on a smaller scale: It requires you to buy into their premise, which leads into their conclusion in a step or two. If you don't buy into the premise, though, it falls apart--and there's no proof for the premise. Sure, in 500 years they could have fusion reactors outputting as much power as modern Canada in pen-sized form...or fusion power could still be "just a couple decades away".
If we start by assuming that basic scientific understanding of the topic at hand is false, we might as well give up.-snip-And I'm tired of people assuming the human race currently knows everything about everything.
And people putting words into toher peoples mouths. No one has said 'X technology could solve all problems'.
The beauty of nano-tech is that, theoretically, they can do whatever you want them to do.Forgive my misinterpretation...
Why are you and Ebbor so certain that humanities understanding of science will not change in the next 500 years? Our understanding of science and its 'laws' have changed many times over the last 200 years. The fact of the matter is, we could debate fusion, nanotech etc until we are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is men (and women) far more intelligent than us know, to put it bluntly, fuck all about these technologies or where they could lead to in the future or even how they fit into our current understanding. People would be naive to think that the scientific laws are solid. CERN has already documented dozens of instances of interesting happenings that dont fit into our current understanding of the 'laws' of physics and science.To be perfectly blunt?
To say, as you and Ebbor are, that 'Oh, it isn't possible today so it wont be in 500+ years' is a ridiculous stance. I'm sure people 100 years ago never thought they'd have computers invisible to the naked eye, and materials that are waterproof etc.From what I'm reading of ebbor's statements, there are fundamental issues with the physics of fusion that prevent it from being efficient at small sizes. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but if I'm not no advances in technology are going to get around that, any more than advances in technology will get around the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Do you honestly believe that the human race wouldn't have found solutions to the current problems in 500+ years? As someone said earlier, technological advancement increases exponentially. This century technology is set to increase 1000 times faster than the past 300 years put together. To put that into perspective, that is like going from horse drawn carriages to landing on the moon within 1 week of each other. Do you really think fusion technology, reactor designs and other things will still ahve the same problems they do today, in 100 years?Due to the current state of terraforming on Mars, I doubt that we're farther than a hundred years in the future. Besides, stop using the Sufficiently advanced technology argument. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicByAnyOtherName) And, exponential systems don't last. They fall apart rapidly. After all extrapolating (http://xkcd.com/605/) is fun and stuff, but in the end it's guessing. And well, it's all fun and games, but you can't ignore fundamental problems.
QuoteThe strength of a Fusion reactor is massively important. It is one of the main reasons holding fusion technology back. They haven't found a strong enough material that can withstand the reaction. Hence, nano-materials (which could be designed to withstand neutrons and other bombardments, either through improving the nano-tech itself, or 'weaving in' some sort of resistance metal or material). The beauty of nano-tech is that, theoretically, they can do whatever you want them to do.The Strength of a fusion reactor is not important. After all, the plasma inside a reactor never actually touches the sides of reactor. Should it happen, then it will rapidly cool down and the fusion reaction will immediately stop, before any damage happens. The only thing a fusion reactors core lining needs is to whistand vacuum, and the neutron flow. These latter are subatomic particles, and hence nanomaterials* won't help you. Unlike what Hollywood would want you to believe, not every engineering problem can be solved by adding nano in front of it.
*After all, nano engineering is on the scale of individual atoms, and their strength lies in the grids in which they are arranged. High speed neutrons attack individual atoms, and hence can't easily be stopped. Self repairing nanomaterials might help, but they won't be able to stop the neutrons . After all neutrons, being the subatomic particles they are, can just fly through the gaps in the structure. (And no, you can't fill those up)
QuoteFusion cannot be miniaturized at the moment, but in 500 years? New reactor designs, advances in materials and scientific understanding etc will have advanced sufficiently. I am not 'calling magic' on it, i am just leaving space for whatever will come about. Hell, if those guys at CERN can find the 'God Particle', maybe after the appropriate research we could play with the structure of things itself and make a materiel that solves all out problems with Fusion?The "god" particle is massively overhyped. In fact, it would more interesting if they hadn't found it. And as I said, it's a fundamental engineering problem. Can't solve it without inventing cold fusion of some sort. Also, neutrons are annoying particles. Can only be stopped by pure mass.
For the same matter, who says we will still be using fusion in 500 years. 3 against one, the technology is massively outdated.
QuoteAs for funding. ONLY 750 million Euros? for something thousands of times more advanced and complex than glorified windmills? That is nowhere near enough. If i had the money I'd pump in a minimum of £6-10 billion. 750 million euros.....pathetic amount of funding.Only 750 million euros in the EU alone, excluding the 15 billion ITER program. ((Costs rose a bit to much))
QuoteFinally, early nano-materials we have today are being tested in as many different environments (including radioactive environments) and they are promising signs that, if properly done, they dont suffer from the same deficiencies as traditional reactor materials.There are many different types of radiation. Still, while they might find a problem for metal deficits, they won't be able to miniaturize the particle shields much. You'd need a pure neutronium shield to get compact, one hundred procent capture rate.
But the fact that the technology growth rate isn't slowing, and shows signs of actually increasing, we wont be seeing the technology crash for a loooooong time.This reminds me of something from Jared Diamond's Collapse, specifically when he mentioned that societies tend to collapse around their peak of prosperity and population.
Why would fusion be massively outdated? what could replace it? Anti-matter maybe, but that is iffy at best. I dont know enough about zero-point energy to comment on that. Cold fusion?Says the person whose argument is mainly based on Sufficiently Advanced Technology...
Still too little money. If it isn't funded properly, then it will always be 'only a few decades away' and never actually get here. it would be the same for any other technology.I find that doubtful. I mean, as long as there's one laboratory working on it, progress is going to move forwards.
QuoteAnd people putting words into toher peoples mouths. No one has said 'X technology could solve all problems'.The beauty of nano-tech is that, theoretically, they can do whatever you want them to do.Forgive my misinterpretation...
QuoteTo say, as you and Ebbor are, that 'Oh, it isn't possible today so it wont be in 500+ years' is a ridiculous stance. I'm sure people 100 years ago never thought they'd have computers invisible to the naked eye, and materials that are waterproof etc.From what I'm reading of ebbor's statements, there are fundamental issues with the physics of fusion that prevent it from being efficient at small sizes. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but if I'm not no advances in technology are going to get around that, any more than advances in technology will get around the Laws of Thermodynamics.
But the fact that the technology growth rate isn't slowing, and shows signs of actually increasing, we wont be seeing the technology crash for a loooooong time.This reminds me of something from Jared Diamond's Collapse, specifically when he mentioned that societies tend to collapse around their peak of prosperity and population.
I'm not saying we're on the brink of the "crash," but when it happens no one will see it coming.
QuoteWhy would fusion be massively outdated? what could replace it? Anti-matter maybe, but that is iffy at best. I dont know enough about zero-point energy to comment on that. Cold fusion?Says the person whose argument is mainly based on Sufficiently Advanced Technology...
QuoteStill too little money. If it isn't funded properly, then it will always be 'only a few decades away' and never actually get here. it would be the same for any other technology.I find that doubtful. I mean, as long as there's one laboratory working on it, progress is going to move forwards.
My point isn't that we're going to go into the Dark Ages again, it's that if there does come a point where we can't invent any more we won't be able to see it coming beforehand...and the decades before are probably going to have some of the highest technological growth rates in history.Maybe, but how would a technology crash happen? Once something has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. Unless you mean we come to a point where we cannot advance as there doesn't seem to be any route to progress through, then i dont see how it could happen.But the fact that the technology growth rate isn't slowing, and shows signs of actually increasing, we wont be seeing the technology crash for a loooooong time.This reminds me of something from Jared Diamond's Collapse, specifically when he mentioned that societies tend to collapse around their peak of prosperity and population.
I'm not saying we're on the brink of the "crash," but when it happens no one will see it coming.
Why shouldn't I avoid the question? You've been doing it this whole time with your "There's centuries in between now and then, they'll probably figure something out" argument.Don't avoid the question. What could replace it?QuoteWhy would fusion be massively outdated? what could replace it? Anti-matter maybe, but that is iffy at best. I dont know enough about zero-point energy to comment on that. Cold fusion?Says the person whose argument is mainly based on Sufficiently Advanced Technology...
Obviously. I was questioning how, even with the allegedly-small sum of three-quarters of a billion euros (not counting non-EU contributions or the ITER program), no progress whatsoever could be made on a subject that could be made if you gave it several billion annually.But only one laboratory would move things along much slower than a dozen laboratories with lots and lots of funding.QuoteStill too little money. If it isn't funded properly, then it will always be 'only a few decades away' and never actually get here. it would be the same for any other technology.I find that doubtful. I mean, as long as there's one laboratory working on it, progress is going to move forwards.
But if you're going to keep debating...keep in mind I have very little education on the subject.(Secret: I'm not entirely certain what's going on here either. My areas of "expertise" are more biology and sociology than physics. But I know enough to fake it, especially since the debate itself is informative.)
And Kahn, I think he means that society would crash(which it hasn't, in this game) and the secrets of [insert tech here] would be lost. Like Greek fire.Not what I'm trying to say, no.
[Can we go back to fightingBut scientific debate is so fun!aliensnatives?]
Irregardless is a word irregardless of your views on the matter. :p
But if you're going to keep debating...keep in mind I have very little education on the subject. But I think that gravity manipulation, similar to nanotech(possibly when combined), could solve a lot of problems. Localized hyper-gravitational field to yank the neutrons into a containment bay where they can be utilized for something or other at a later point. Nano material that uses lead and basically makes a literally solid sheet of it in a grid pattern so a millimeter of thickness is all that's needed.
Gravity fields could also be used for particle accelerators to cut down on costs(unlikely, and breaking the laws of physics....but so is gravity manipulation, as far as I'm aware.)
And Kahn, I think he means that society would crash(which it hasn't, in this game) and the secrets of [insert tech here] would be lost. Like Greek fire.
Why are you and Ebbor so certain that humanities understanding of science will not change in the next 500 years? Our understanding of science and its 'laws' have changed many times over the last 200 years. The fact of the matter is, we could debate fusion, nanotech etc until we are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is men (and women) far more intelligent than us know, to put it bluntly, fuck all about these technologies or where they could lead to in the future or even how they fit into our current understanding. People would be naive to think that the scientific laws are solid. CERN has already documented dozens of instances of interesting happenings that dont fit into our current understanding of the 'laws' of physics and science.Why are you so certain this takes place 500 years in the future? On a side note, the reason we assume that our current understanding of science is correct, is because otherwise you can't make any logical assumption. After all, each and every argument will devolve to "How can you be so sure that will still be the case?". You can get full on existentialist on this one after all. "What if we discover zero point energy next sunday", "What if mind over matter actually works, and climate denial is the best thing ever", "What if Santa Claus does exist and we develop a Christmas based economy"?
As it stands, at least in theory, nanotech (or one of its many sub-strata's) could solve many of the problems encountered by fusion. But not just in fusion. Nanotech could solve many problems in many areas from construction to science, engineering to healthcare.In theory, we'd have fusion in 1966. In theory, nuclear reactors are perfectly safe, cheap and can be build using of the shelf parts. In theory, humanity would have had a severe food crisis in the 1800, 1900, and 2000's (million death types). Watch out with theories.
Ebbor states that you couldn't have miniature fusion reactors without proper cladding (a matter of materials), higher pressure (which again comes down to what the reactor is made of) and higher temperatures (again, a matter of 'Can the materials take it?'). All could be solved in the future through synthetic materials. They are already making nano-materials that are more resistant and several hundred times stronger then steel and other materials usually used in reactors. In the next 100 years, nanotech specialists already predict we will have materials that are several hundred times, maybe even several million times, stronger/resistant than steel and other comparable materials, pretty much replacing the use of many natural elements and materials we use today.Cladding is a matter of total mass, not materials. Higher pressure comes down to the strength of it's containment field. And the temperature is not a matter of the strength of the reactor materials (the plasma never touches the sides, after all), it's a matter of can we keep the fusion material fusing long enough to actually get a net energy profit.
To say, as you and Ebbor are, that 'Oh, it isn't possible today so it wont be in 500+ years' is a ridiculous stance. I'm sure people 100 years ago never thought they'd have computers invisible to the naked eye, and materials that are waterproof etc.Sadly, by that statement you're saying that everything is possible. As said before, you need to either assume that what we know is correct, with some liberties, or that virtually everything is possible.
But the fact that the technology growth rate isn't slowing, and shows signs of actually increasing, we wont be seeing the technology crash for a loooooong time.Pride comes before the fall.
As for strength, the first fusion tests had to be postponed because the steel they were using kept melting.Solving one problem doesn't solve the others.
You may not be able to fill them up, but multiple layers of superdense nano-material overlapping so that gaps are blocked up by the next layer of material could work. Add in self repairing nanites, impregnating the nano-material with neutron-stopping/absorbing materials and/or including between the layers of nano-material layers of strong cladding and there, problem solved.The Scale of these gaps fails to be properly imagined by the human brain. While high density would work, it would severely collide with the idea of portable. Using multiple layers would be slightly problematic, due the fact that molecules naturally vibrate, and the slightest manufacturing error would be disastrous.
Nothing in science is ever completed is someone assumes it cannot be done before you have even tried.We tried pocket fusion. It looks pretty, but no more than that. Consumes quite a lot of energy too.
Why would fusion be massively outdated? what could replace it? Anti-matter maybe, but that is iffy at best. I dont know enough about zero-point energy to comment on that. Cold fusion?I don't know anything about zero point energy either. It's one of those buzzwords commonly found on free energy forums. But just imagine how little your average medieval person knew about particle physics. Cast that forward into the future.
Still too little money. If it isn't funded properly, then it will always be 'only a few decades away' and never actually get here. it would be the same for any other technology.Let me guess. It's never enough money, unless it's finished tomorrow, at 6 AM exactly? But still, there are things like that that can't be hurried. For the ITer, they needed 450 tons of special wiring. Worldwide yearly production when the project started was estimated at less than 5 tonnes.
I think tests with the most common types of radiation have shown fantastic results. From what I've read, they haven't tried the less common types....yet. And no one is saying you could not use some sort of impregnation on the nano-materials to give it some of the qualities of neutron/radiation blocking materials. And no one is saying you couldn't use some cladding alongside the nano-materials.QuoteFinally, early nano-materials we have today are being tested in as many different environments (including radioactive environments) and they are promising signs that, if properly done, they dont suffer from the same deficiencies as traditional reactor materials.There are many different types of radiation. Still, while they might find a problem for metal deficits, they won't be able to miniaturize the particle shields much. You'd need a pure neutronium shield to get compact, one hundred procent capture rate.
My argument is not: 'things will be smaller in the future'. My argument is that it could, which lays the groundwork for suspension of disbelief, because this is a game. Hey Ebbor, is there a scientifically viable way for cold fusion to happen organically? I doubt it.Plants actively abuse quantum physics for photosynthesis. It's unlikely, but possible. My point is, after all, not that this is impossible, but that it's not a certainty in this game.
But the GM said it goes, so it goes. So please, stop arguing, at least in the thread. I mean, I like knowing all this, but...you can't argue about what technologies will be available 300 years in the future. Because it's practically a certainty that our inherent understanding of the universe will have changed. Maybe someone will prove the second law of thermodynamics false in situation X. Or perhaps the speed of light can be exceeded if Y(Gravitic propulsion always seemed the most likely to me, since it continues to accelerate you irregardless of how heavy you get or how fast you're going. That or wormhole generators/pre-established gigantic space teleporters).The GM said that this is rather inspiring. So, no real reason to stop.
Climate collapse. Socioeconomical collapse due to resource crisis. Solar flare ...My point isn't that we're going to go into the Dark Ages again, it's that if there does come a point where we can't invent any more we won't be able to see it coming beforehand...and the decades before are probably going to have some of the highest technological growth rates in history.Maybe, but how would a technology crash happen? Once something has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. Unless you mean we come to a point where we cannot advance as there doesn't seem to be any route to progress through, then i dont see how it could happen.But the fact that the technology growth rate isn't slowing, and shows signs of actually increasing, we wont be seeing the technology crash for a loooooong time.This reminds me of something from Jared Diamond's Collapse, specifically when he mentioned that societies tend to collapse around their peak of prosperity and population.
I'm not saying we're on the brink of the "crash," but when it happens no one will see it coming.
On another note, when else would societies collapse? Since they tend to be constantly rising, the time before they collapse is their peak by nature.Really no way to do that effectively. The energy required to stop a very light, near lightspeed particle is enormous. If you can somehow get around that, you can just build a perpetuum mobile.
EDIT: Just thought of a way to contain those neutrons.GRAVITY HOORAY
[Ramble away, I'm fascinated. ]
(( Or you could just you know, put your hands up walk close and shout.... ))(( Have you donated your body to science, in the event of your untimely demise? Oh, ju~st asking for the protocol. No real reason, really. Go ahead. - Seriously thou, I would not risk that. Neither would I urge you to do it either. ))
Callsign: FuckinDreadnaught
STR 5/ END 8/ AGI 4/ PER 3 / CYB 1 / PSI 1
HP: 84
PSI: 60
RAW: 0
Skills
Medical - 1
Standard Weapon - 2
Energy Weapon - 2
Heavy Weapon - 3
Weapon 1: Turbolaser
Weapon 2: Stinger
Weapon 3: Mortar
Sidearm: Fluxgun
Armor: Dread MkMARS
Pack1: Energy
Pack2: Ammo
Grenade: Heat
Grenade2: Plastique
Inventory 1: Health Hypo
Inventory 2: Health Hypo
Inventory 3: 10 Spare Ammo
Inventory 4: 10 Rations
Perks: Veteran, PackratCallsign: PsiJuggernaught (Jon)
STR 3 / END 7 / AGI 3 / PER 3 / CYB 3 / PSI 8
HP: 81
PSI: 130
RAW: 0
Skills:
Standard Weapon - 1
Heavy Weapon - 2
Offensive Psi - 2
Utility Psi - 1
Weapon 1 : Rocket Shotgun
Weapon 2 : Quad RPG
Weapon 3 : Quad Autocannons
Weapon 4 : Lock on Missiles
Armor : Juggernaut Mk9
Pack: Shield
Grenade: Heat
Inventory 1: Psi-Amp
Inventory 2: Psi Hypo
Inventory 3: Psi Hypo
Inventory 4: Health Hypo
Perks: Talent, Psi TrainingCallsign JuggAlNaught
STR 5 / END 5/ AGI 5/ PER 7 / CYB 3/ PSI 1
HP: 75
PSI: 60
RAW: 0
Skills (max of 6 for each):
Standard Weapon - 1
Heavy Weapon - 3
Weapon 1 : Rocket Shotgun
Weapon 2 : Quad RPG
Weapon 3 : Quad Autocannons
Weapon 4 : Lock on Missiles
Armor : Juggernaut Mk9
Pack: Shield
Grenade: Heat
Inventory 1: Optics
Inventory 2: 10 Alcohol
Inventory 3: 10 Rations
Inventory 4: 10 Rations
Inventory 5: Food Maker
Perks: Enviro Resist, Food PrepCallsign: Dread Civilian
STR 5/ END 5/ AGI 4/ PER 5/ CYB 7 / PSI 1
HP: 75
PSI: 60
RAW: 0
Standard Weapon - 1
Heavy Weapon - 1
Repair - 1
Weapon 1: Plasma Torch
Weapon 2: Vulcan
Sidearm: Gravity Hammer
Armor: Dread MkMARS
Pack: Repair
Grenade: Camera
Inventory 1: "Rope"
Inventory 2: Recycler
Inventory 3: Optics
Inventory 4/5: Toolkit
Perks: Smuggler Background, Spatial AwarenessCallsign: Dread Reservist
STR 5 / END 8/ AGI 5/ PER 4/ CYB 7 / PSI 0
HP: 84
PSI: 50
RAW: 0
Computers - 1
Maintain - 1
Modify - 1
Standard Weapon - 1
Heavy Weapon - 1
Weapon 1: Plasma Torch
Weapon 2: Vulcan
Sidearm: Gravity Hammer
Armor: Dread MkMARS
Pack: Repair
Grenade: Standard
Inventory 1: Hand Cannon
Inventory 2: 10 Spare Ammo
Inventory 3/4: Toolkit
Perks: Systems Analyst, Cyborg Body[I don't think it's a matter of points, and if it were, it can be logicked as 'I already know a lot of this, understand I need to improve, and know how to glean information from the teaching session better than you whippersnappers'.]
[EDIT 2: Since the good doctor is now capable of pointing a gun and firing, do I have the thread's approval to replace his Standard weaponry with Energy and Heavy weaponry so as to match skills?
(( Lol at the rate your going I actually will just decide to shoot you all and leave, I already said I'm not going anywhere and I'm getting tired of being told I can't be trusted. I want them gathered up because it means if something happens I can respond quickly without having to wait for everybody else and hoping that they don't decide to run away and take half my heavies along with them and since if we're attacked I have no intention of fighting from the back of moving vehicles anyway it won't matter since we'll all drop straight off the vehicles to fight on foot.[IC, I trust you just fine. Disagree with you a lot, apparently, but I trust you. It's just OOC that I'm getting worried. Not going to act on it, since I have no reason in game, you haven't been subordinate or anything, but since you're saying you're going to shoot us all(and basically ruin the game for us), it's not helping. Besides, fairly sure the others trust you. I'm just paranoid.]
As long as your going to assume I can't be trusted I may as well assume none of you can be trusted either.))
(( Lol at the rate your going I actually will just decide to shoot you all and leave,
(( I only said that after you'd mentioned not trusting me. Multiple times, I'm sure you can see how that'd get a little annoying and I only said that specifically because you'd already mentioned it.[Yeah, I can see that, but it's still worrying.]
The hold fasts will not all be this welcoming to us, we need the firepower before we arrive and the funds to convince them to let us in. I'd rather show up in a position of strength then as a beggar on the doorstep, we'll get more recruits and be more welcome that way and will also have the resources and supplies to get more done.[I'm fairly sure those holdfasts are empty and abandoned. If they were occupied, they would be occupied by the Kai, since they're large enough and slightly more important than a first-gen abandoned terraforming plant.]
Plus building a solid reputation is going to be the most important thing for us in this war, we need the humans to believe we have a plan and that we will win, like Alexis does.[I disagree. The single most important thing in this war will be stealth; this isn't a lightly occupied enemy outpost. This is a full-scale invasion. We need to hit hard and get out whenever possible, and make sure we have as many advantages as possible]
Having 1-2 victories under our belt is a good start.
But how about a compromise? We have the supplies for 2 months so how about we head to the bank and depot first, we send in stealth man to scout it's security, if the security is light enough then we take it then and get what we need. If it's to heavy then we head to the hold fast and we'll have the information so we know what we need to get.[Well, most of the reason I want to go to the holdfasts first is they're close by. The administration one is actually on the way, or just barely out of it. I do agree we send in stealth team, but maybe we send in Kyle with another member of the team or a heavy or two for defense, while we're going through the administration holdfast. If the security is light at the bank, we hit it and let him scout the depot, if security is as heavy as I expect it to be, we head back to the small holdfast, get whatever RAW we can there, then plan something convoluted, unnecessarily complex, filled with awesome, and beat the shit out of the aliens in the depot. Or we do that then head for the small holdfast if it's not heavily guarded.]
Going to the hold fast is all well and good but it doesn't help if we buy supplies to take out an infantry army then run into armor or vice versa, information is the most important resource other then reputation, we can't plan an attack without the correct information. ))[So we carry the RAW until we find out what they have, then build whatever is needed. Simple.]
Convince him to join us and ask him how many more heavies are in the base.
(( Damn, well either way plan A remains the same. Blow it out of the sky. ))Might I suggest a position which is a little harder to pick off. I mean, know you're just cannon fodder for whatever High energy weapon they got up there.
Spoiler: PC Squad Members (click to show/hide)Spoiler: NPC Squad Members (click to show/hide)Spoiler: Inventory (click to show/hide)
(( Is the waitlist still going for this? ))
((...Should Ross make an OOC thread? I think he should.))
FD uses a health hypo on DC.
DC and DR repair the team beginning with the 3 jugs.
PJ, JN and Me stay still while FD's energy pack and the 2 packs from a rover are fitted onto us to recharge our shields. Focus the shields against kinetic weapons.
3 Jugs and FD focus our fire on the pair of undamaged enemy Jugs, use all weapons cycling through them 1 at a time aiming for the head. First Locks, then quad rpg then whichever weapon has better accuracy.
DC and DR use vulcans on the damaged Jug and it's partner to weaken it until Rolepgeek attacks then they move to suppress the assault units also aiming for the head.
My group of 4 uses any remaining weapons to suppress assault as well if the 2 jugs go down.
Use grenades if the enemy comes close.
((And its dead again.....))((Not quite.))