how to build massive starships in the future...

[mpilchfamily]

There waist has nothing to do with the waste of time they spent.

I make those kinds of mistakes all the time.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
http://www.merzo.net/

I think we've found the center of the nerdy universe!

:thumbsup: to those guys!

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: FallenHero
http://www.merzo.net/

I think we've found the center of the nerdy universe!

:thumbsup: to those guys!

we're at dork factor 9, captain!

 

[MrToilet]

intergalactic planetary, planetary intergalactic.... intergalactic planetary, planetary, intergalactic...

Another dimension, another dimension, another dimension, another dimension...

LOL

 

[Gunbuster]

We're going to need a space elevator before anything big gets built in space.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim

Originally posted by: mizzou
Was thinking about how the heck we will build massive starships in the future. Would it be easier to just go to find an asteroid somewhat close, somehow slap/imbed a giant engine on it (whatever the propulsion is) and then dig/mine the "decks" within the rock?

Something tells me that will never happen. What kind of structural integrity can you really expect from a massive piece of rock, not to mention all that extra mass that has to be propelled by the engines.

I think the general approach of modular design and assembly will persist. What will advance is the technology to make it happen like what are the panels made from, how they are assembled and reinforced.

Melt the exterior solid. Bore into it. Mine it. Live in it.

 

[SZLiao214]

How will we nuke the ships from orbit if they are already in orbit?

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

There is no point. We can't go far enough to not have a generational ship. Until we find a way to manipulate gravity and approach the speed of light, our travels will be pointless. Even then, idk if you'd want a large ship- general relativity says as you approach the speed of light you require an amount of energy approaching infinity- typically in the form of additional mass. Why add more mass to your starting point? Even if you could reduce the mass significantly, any cosmological field manipulations that may get around relative mass energies would require a lot more energy, and be probabilistically less stable or effectual across a wider range of effect. ie- you can nearly pinpoint a subatomic particle, but then you'd not be able to say anything about it's velocity or energy... in the same manner, field manipulation would inherently be less stable, or a higher power constraint if you specified a larger area of effect

 

[marketsons1985]

Originally posted by: mpilchfamily
There waist has nothing to do with the waste of time they spent.

I make those kinds of mistakes all the time.

You sure do

They're eating their ice cream over there.

 

[marketsons1985]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
There is no point. We can't go far enough to not have a generational ship. Until we find a way to manipulate gravity and approach the speed of light, our travels will be pointless. Even then, idk if you'd want a large ship- general relativity says as you approach the speed of light you require an amount of energy approaching infinity- typically in the form of additional mass. Why add more mass to your starting point? Even if you could reduce the mass significantly, any cosmological field manipulations that may get around relative mass energies would require a lot more energy, and be probabilistically less stable or effectual across a wider range of effect. ie- you can nearly pinpoint a subatomic particle, but then you'd not be able to say anything about it's velocity or energy... in the same manner, field manipulation would inherently be less stable, or a higher power constraint if you specified a larger area of effect

I think that's why the idea would have to be two fold.

1) For close travel, manipulate gravity (i.e. introduce the anti-gravitrons) to negate the force of gravity around the ship. *cough* intertial dampening fields *cough* Less energy needed to accelerate to close to c.
2) For far away travel, find a way to fold over space-time so that you can jump quickly between two point. Most likely this is creating some sort of large, stable wormhole that the ship can travel through.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: SZLiao214
How will we nuke the ships from orbit if they are already in orbit?

as long as your nuke's mass is minuscule compared to the ship, you can make it orbit the ship first, then fire thruster to make it hit the ship. It is still nuke from orbit.

 

[KIAman]

Won't ever happen until a need arises. If there is a desperate need, like a comet headed to earth sealing its destruction, I predict we will brute force the ship. Send up parts and people on individual boosters and construction the ship in space. Use up every non renewable resource to send stuff to space, construct ship in space and provide living requirements for as long as possible. Considering today's technology, we lack a significant roadblock; energy. We've got the people, processors, chemicals, alloys, etc. Just no reasonable compact energy source. This is assuming the desperate need.

If the desperation is not there, we would have to wait for technology to catch up to produce cheaper products before such an expenditure is ever considered. That means cheap high tech materials, processors, chemicals, energy source, etc.

 

[sdifox]

Far easier to build small unmanned crafts but lots of them and just send them out in all directions. Hit something, report back.

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

Originally posted by: marketsons1985

1) For close travel, manipulate gravity (i.e. introduce the anti-gravitrons) to negate the force of gravity around the ship. *cough* intertial dampening fields *cough* Less energy needed to accelerate to close to c.
2) For far away travel, find a way to fold over space-time so that you can jump quickly between two point. Most likely this is creating some sort of large, stable wormhole that the ship can travel through.

1) if a ship were in the middle of space, the effects of gravity from distant objects would be negligible. Thus, gravity plays no role in an acceleration towards C. Approaching C fundamentally requires infinity energy or a mass of 0 (a photon). I mentioned manipulating gravity in the sense that an inverse field of repulsion could be used to accelerate the ship, not to overcome external gravity forces, when isolated.
2) tweaking the relativistic effects on the spacecraft would be more fruitful than seeking a wormhole. I'm not sure one could be created from one end only... you'd need a lot of exotic matter w/ negative energy to pry a small wormhole open.

Best bets:
-Continually locally warp spacetime fabric in a tumbling effect- like piercing a rod through a ribbon shaped like a trig-wave. Your movement wouldn't cause so much time dilation, so you could travel somewhere an back without hundred of years passing.
-Find some way to make the spacecraft's mass 'imaginary' you could then travel faster than light.
-Get close to the speed of light, and your distance traveled will appear to be happening much faster by things around you

 

[Foxery]

On the bright side, we know that AnandTech threads require no energy, and never die.

 

[firewolfsm]

^ best post in a long time

and imaginary mass would mean the particles would never react with those which make up our world. It can't be done.

While it's fun to talk about, I don't think we'll ever fuck with relativistic effects on space ships. We may, in the distant future, approach relativistic speeds, but I don't think we'll ever create gravitational fields just to get there faster, or reverse time dilation or whatever crazy ideas you've had.

The most I can see happening is us finding a wormhole and using it.