RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 4 of 7«1234567»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Gameplay Discussions » Spaceflight Physics Concept (A Concept Prototype)
Spaceflight Physics Concept
schwarzwolfDate: Saturday, 23.08.2014, 22:38 | Message # 46
Astronaut
Group: Users
Germany
Messages: 40
Status: Offline
Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
Antimatter

I think Antimatter would have to be created by some kind of advanced particle accelerators. Yes, it will be difficult to create them, large facilities, etc. But it should be like this. A fuel very powerful but difficult to create. Aswell that we don't need much power for the warp engine would aswell mean, that we are talking about antimatter in very low quantities. So difficult to generate, to maintain, but high power output. In Star Trek as example, i aswell think, they are underestimating the antimatter a bit. But target would be, to make very fast, risky ships who are aswell expansive. And yes, they would need a lot of research. But we are even able to create antimatter today in very low amounts. In the future when we can build Alcubierre drives, i think it would be more as possible, that we could create larger amounts of it.

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
Wormholes

An idea for some immediate teleportation engine, with a high risk of course. Aswell a way to lure player to the black holes. biggrin

Quote "SpaceEngineer"
Metallic hydrogen phase transition engine.

Uhh, nice name. Ok, i know what metallic hydrogen is. biggrin

Quote "SpaceEngineer"
Actually they will be combined with engines (btw you are forgot about nuclear and fusion engines). Currently SHW ship editor uses fusion engines.

Uhh, well i have written about the fission reactor and the vasimir engine. Aswell the thrusters where mentioned from you already. The power of the vasimir engine can come from a nuclear engine and the thrusters can aswell be charged with nuclear ractors. For the fusion engines [Plasma engines (...or plasma from a fusion reactor)] Thats what i mean with fusion engines. I personally think about some system, who accelerates the plasma with magnetic fields like the ion engines. biggrin


Quote "SpaceEngineer"
This look like some pseudoscience thing.

The same thing NASA said until they tested one concept. They where surprised, even when the trust is very low. One of the reason i came with the 1 g by full zero point generator power. (I personally think, that the zero point generator and the quantum vaccuum engine are related in some concept. ;))

Quote "SpaceEngineer"
Diamagnetic dumping.

Hmm, i know Higgs Bosons as mass particles and gravimetric fields. Diamagnetic dumping is something completly new for me. Ok, i heard about electrogravity aswell, but if they do their job, it would be fine aswell. ^^

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
The fact that there is some experimental evidence to support the idea kind of takes it out of the realm of pseudoscience. They have a long way to go before being proven but there is some compelling evidence.

I would place it actually in the same category like alcubierre drive and zero point generators. Many of them violate the natural laws, but they have proven wrong before already and they are at least promising at some point.

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
Whether or not they'll be efficient when scaled up, provide enough thrust for large spacecraft, or even be practical remains to be seen and that's if they even work.

They have to be balanced of course. That they aren't the only and most powerful engine of all.
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Saturday, 23.08.2014, 23:22 | Message # 47
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote schwarzwolf ()
Aswell that we don't need much power for the warp engine would aswell mean, that we are talking about antimatter in very low quantities.


Which would be better done with the fusion engines since you won't be flying at FTL velocities nonstop.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
. In Star Trek as example, i aswell think, they are underestimating the antimatter a bit.


Not really.

If you read information on the Enterprise, in this case Enterprise-D, you would see how hungry for power it is.

I noticed in one episode they mention over 9 fusion reactors, however if we went off of pure antimatter it would take an astronomical amount to continue to run.

The ship generated about 12.75 billion gigawatts of power, simply while in orbit of a planet. Enterprise would have to consume nearly 142 kilograms of matter/antimatter mix (71 kilograms of each) every second. This equates to a staggering 12440 metric tonnes per day.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701-D%29

Antimatter in Star Trek is also generated in a cheat manner. Some field guides suggest they use normal deuterium and rip it apart into pure energy and use the replicator systems to manufacture all the antimatter they need. How this is done in an energy efficient manner is never explained and is most likely impossible.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
Aswell a way to lure player to the black holes.


How? Wormholes and black holes are completely different things.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
schwarzwolfDate: Saturday, 23.08.2014, 23:45 | Message # 48
Astronaut
Group: Users
Germany
Messages: 40
Status: Offline
Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
Which would be better done with the fusion engines since you won't be flying at FTL velocities nonstop.

With antimatter you could possible fly longer and faster, because of the high power amount. Yes, you have to create it first, but this should be duable with better technology. And if you want a ship who can accelerate very fast and fly a lot of maneuvers, it would be better with antimatter. The drawbacks are good for balancing.

And hat i mean, in Star Trek i think they power amount produced and needed is way to high for Space Engine. So we won't need as much antimatter. But it could have its drawback and its benefits. And variety wouldn't be bad, as long it is real variety, what can be archived with antimatter very well.

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
Antimatter in Star Trek is also generated in a cheat manner. Some field guides suggest they use normal deuterium and rip it apart into pure energy and use the replicator systems to manufacture all the antimatter they need. How this is done in an energy efficient manner is never explained and is most likely impossible.

Yes it is called charge reversing generator (or something like this. I only know the german term). It converts the deuterium to anti-deuterium. Donno if something like this would work in Space Engine. I am more thinking on large stations, or planetary facilities creating Antimatter with particle accelerators with a lot of power.
The ship has to carry all the antimatter it neads. So no reful in space.

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
How? Wormholes and black holes are completely different things.

Yust an idea because of the large gravity and space warp of a black hole. How it would work is another question. ^^
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Sunday, 24.08.2014, 04:10 | Message # 49
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote schwarzwolf ()
Yust an idea because of the large gravity and space warp of a black hole.


Wormholes have a repulsive gravitational effect. They may look similar to black holes, but they would function very differently.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
So no reful in space.


And how do you balance that for players who decided to fly too far for too long? Do they just get stuck?

With fusion reactors you can literally find fuel pretty much everywhere.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
With antimatter you could possible fly longer and faster, because of the high power amount.


Not really. Engines have a specific amount of thrust no matter what and the FTL system would have a specific amount of energy it can draw at once.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
So we won't need as much antimatter.


We still need kilos of the stuff. There just isn't enough floating around in space or around planets to power a ship. SHW came up with a figure of around 250 micrograms around Jupiter per (Earth) year. That is nowhere near enough to power a ship.

You still face the problem of finding a way to make the stuff in an efficient manner locally inside the ship. If the fuel source relies on going back to Earth to refuel and you are in some far off galaxy, you've got a game breaking problem.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
SHWDate: Sunday, 24.08.2014, 08:59 | Message # 50
Astronaut
Group: SE team
Pirate
Messages: 76
Status: Offline
I think, that we could use antimatter in game. Yes, you cannot refuel it anywhere, like fusion fuel, but it have very big specific energy and thrust. So it is not very good for completely independent space exploration ship, but it could be very useful for battleships and fast automated probes.

Also, player could get stuck even with fusion engine, it he is too stupid. Any engine need to be refueled and you must always think about nearest refueling place. So, player could get into situation, when it cannot find fusion fuel, because there is no gas giant near.





Your mind is software. Program it.
Your body is a shell. Change it.
Death is a disease. Cure it.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 24.08.2014, 13:59 | Message # 51
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote SHW ()
player could get into situation, when it cannot find fusion fuel, because there is no gas giant near

Fusion fuels could be found almost anywhere, not just at gas giants. Ice worlds, terras, and oceanias have surfaces/atmospheres composed largely of water. This could be easily processed into hydrogen. Helium-3, while most easily obtained from gas giants, could also be obtained by processing the surface materials of worlds without atmospheres, where excess amounts of helium have been deposited by the stellar wind. This would be a very inconvenient process, taking a long time, especially if you have to rely completely on solar power due to being out of fusion fuel, but it is still possible. You are only truly stuck if you run out of fuel in interstellar space smile





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Sunday, 24.08.2014, 14:18 | Message # 52
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Quote schwarzwolf ()
I think Antimatter would have to be created by some kind of advanced particle accelerators. Yes, it will be difficult to create them, large facilities, etc. But it should be like this.

It will have no sense in economical terms. Creating antimatter is too expensive process, it would require much more energy to create 1 gram of antimatter than it would be released after its annigilation. It is like very powerful and very expensive battery. It would have sense only if you have no other adequate propulsion technology, for example for sub-luminal ship. For SE game, where we have FTL drives and needed physical velocities of only few thousand km/s, fusion engines is a better solution.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
Wormholes
An idea for some immediate teleportation engine, with a high risk of course. Aswell a way to lure player to the black holes.

Wormhole will rip your ship apart. Its external space-time metric is equal to the metric of the Schwarzschild black hole. It must have a mass of few million solar masses to have low enough tidal forces up to its outfall in order not destroy any ship approaching to it. Small wormholes may be used only to transfer electromagnetic signals.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
Hmm, i know Higgs Bosons as mass particles and gravimetric fields. Diamagnetic dumping is something completly new for me. Ok, i heard about electrogravity aswell, but if they do their job, it would be fine aswell. ^^

This have nothing to do with gravity. It is just interaction of diamagnetic materials with strong magnetic fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vyB-O5i6E





 
schwarzwolfDate: Sunday, 24.08.2014, 14:24 | Message # 53
Astronaut
Group: Users
Germany
Messages: 40
Status: Offline
Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
Wormholes have a repulsive gravitational effect. They may look similar to black holes, but they would function very differently.

My idea is, that the wormhole is used to catapult the ship on high speeds and the gravity and space warp is used for getting the ship in some kind of strong enough warp for creating a wormhole. Ok, i am not a physican and it was more an idea to get a not so easy way for such a point to point drive. (No, i didn't had the idea, because peoples are scared by black holes. Really. :crazy:)

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
And how do you balance that for players who decided to fly too far for too long? Do they just get stuck?

Not every reactor should be for every purpose. So for long range exploration, a fusion reactor would be indeed better, you can refuel it and it has an average speed, or a zero point generator, a bit slower, but you don't need to refuel. The idea here is to include different reactor systems, with different advantages and disadvantages.
Is you want the player to not stuck, even if they don't take to much care, you can still implement a computer side control for the fuel and a warning and even a emergency stop, when the ship only has enough fuel to get back home.

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
Not really. Engines have a specific amount of thrust no matter what and the FTL system would have a specific amount of energy it can draw at once.

Antimatter has a very high power output. So you can fly further and faster, of course with one fuel load.

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
We still need kilos of the stuff. There just isn't enough floating around in space or around planets to power a ship. SHW came up with a figure of around 250 micrograms around Jupiter per (Earth) year. That is nowhere near enough to power a ship.

You still face the problem of finding a way to make the stuff in an efficient manner locally inside the ship. If the fuel source relies on going back to Earth to refuel and you are in some far off galaxy, you've got a game breaking problem.

I personally think, you shouldn't be able to find antimatter fuel drifting in space, and even not be able to create it on your ship. Antimatter reactors should have a good and long range without refueling and prove a high power output to make powerful ships and engines. But they should have drawbacks. And this is the missing ability to refuel without a facility.
So we have:
Zero Point Generator: Generates a relativly low power output, but will have infinite fuel
Fusion Reactors: Generates a average power output, but needs fuel, but can be refueled in space
Antimatter Reactors: Generates a high power output and needs very few fuel, but can only be refueled by facilities.

This is of course relative. All reactors should create enough power to power a alcubierre drive and you should be able to reseach the effectivty from each of the reactors.

An antimatter powered ship would be able to fly very fast to distance stars or even galaxies. But you will need something there to refuel it, if you want keep flying. So an idea would be, that the player is building a antimatter fuel facility on a planet in another galaxy to refuel the ship there. It would create something like a high speed tranfer route, but you need the facility there first. For the multiplayer mode, it could even be possible, that peoples build fuel stations and provide service to other players with antimatter ships. This could even boost trading between players. One of the reason antimatter shouldn't drift in space and ships shouldn't be able to generate them. Only larger facilities or stations with particle accelerators.

Quote "SHW"
I think, that we could use antimatter in game. Yes, you cannot refuel it anywhere, like fusion fuel, but it have very big specific energy and thrust. So it is not very good for completely independent space exploration ship, but it could be very useful for battleships and fast automated probes.

Yes, or fast ships between colonized areas, who prove antimatter fuel. Of course a battleship with antimatter would be strong, but not invulnerable. A heavy hit on an reactor related or near area, could destabilize the reactor and destroy the whole ship.

Quote "SHW"
Also, player could get stuck even with fusion engine, it he is too stupid. Any engine need to be refueled and you must always think about nearest refueling place. So, player could get into situation, when it cannot find fusion fuel, because there is no gas giant near.

You would aswell fly in some solid object, or go to deep into an atmosphere. or even crash with a shuttle. But this are the risks of the game. Your ship could aswell be destroyed. So there are risks. The only question is, how they be handled. Ideas would be some rescure ships from your homeworld, who would come to pick you up, and escape pods.

Quote "SpaceEngineer"
It will have no sense in economical terms. Creating antimatter is too expensive process, it would require much more energy to create 1 gram of antimatter than it would be released after its annigilation. It is like very powerful and very expensive battery. It would have sense only if you have no other adequate propulsion technology, for example for sub-luminal ship. For SE game, where we have FTL drives and needed physical velocities of only few thousand km/s, fusion engines is a better solution.

Well, with the time factor it could change the calculation somewhere. Sometimes its better to have a fast ship who is more expansive as a slow and cheap ship. Its the same in reality. Another question is, how expansive is it, in a time where an Alcubierre engine and even Zero Point Generator already works. In the future, creating antimatter could be aswell easier.

Quote "SpaceEngineer"
Wormhole will rip your ship apart. Its external space-time metric is equal to the metric of the Schwarzschild black hole. It must have a mass of few million solar masses to have low enough tidal forces up to its outfall in order not destroy any ship approaching to it. Small wormholes may be used only to transfer electromagnetic signals.

A long range communication array on motherships based on wormhole technology could be intresting. ^^

Quote "SpaceEngineer"
This have nothing to do with gravity. It is just interaction of diamagnetic materials with strong magnetic fields.

Ah, thx. Will have to take a look in this. ^^


Edited by schwarzwolf - Sunday, 24.08.2014, 14:36
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Sunday, 24.08.2014, 21:18 | Message # 54
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
Creating antimatter is too expensive process,


Not entirely true. You can get small amounts basically for free if you build collection facilities in orbit around planets that have magnetic fields. With solar and battery power you could power the containment field indefinitely. The only issue is on a yearly basis you only get a few micrograms, not really enough to power interstellar trips.

As SHW said, it could still serve some purposes for probes and shuttles.

Quote SHW ()
, you cannot refuel it anywhere


You could still refuel if you have an intake that lets the antimatter flow along a magnetic field into a storage tank. Once again though, you would need a very large Jovian world to get any decent amount and even then that isn't enough for much of anything.

Quote SHW ()
player could get stuck even with fusion engine, it he is too stupid.


This is why I think some form of an emergency jump and forced orbit around a planet/star would be a good feature for this. Getting stuck, although realistic, is game breaking and would frustrate people. There should be an ingame system to counteract this that is at least somewhat plausible.

Like HarbingerDawn said, fuel for fusion is literally everywhere and in great abundance. Fuel for antimatter reactors is not so plentiful. There is always the chance intergalactic space is full of antimatter particles, full being a relative term, or perhaps there are antimatter clouds. None of this really matters though since the fuel is not readily available to players.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
the gravity and space warp is used for getting the ship in some kind of strong enough warp for creating a wormhole.


If I am understanding this correcting, then I don't think it works like that.

Wormholes require the linking of 2 points in 3 dimensional space through a higher dimension connecting the 2 points and opening a throat between them. This requires vast amounts of energy and negative energy to force the throat open. Doing this safely for ships would require entirely new laws of physics and a mastery of classical physics and quantum mechanics. The technological level in SE is nowhere close to having the capabilities to do this and having such capabilities may be impossible.

A warp drive would use far smaller amounts of negative energy to create the bubble around the ship. Such small amounts would not be creating a bridge between 2 points, it would simply be shrinking the distance between point A and B. All of this could hypothetically fit in the space around a ship, meaning it is far more practical and plausible than creating and using wormholes.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
you shouldn't be able to find antimatter fuel drifting in space


There is antimatter floating in space. Antimatter is generated all the time in cosmic collisions and in some cases it gets trapped in the magnetosphere of planets. Jupiter is our largest closest antimatter collector that we could reach.

The biggest issue is you wouldn't even get 1 kilogram of the stuff per year. The amount of antimatter trapped around Jupiter is in the hundreds of micrograms range. You'll get nowhere real fast.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
WatsisnameDate: Monday, 25.08.2014, 03:40 | Message # 55
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
With antimatter propulsion we should be careful about what kind of antimatter we use. Electron/positron annihilation is not good because the products are high energy gamma rays which is difficult to convert to thrust. Proton-antiproton is better because a sizable fraction of the energy is released as charge particles which can be directed into an exhaust jet. But then your engine looks less like an antimatter drive and more like an ion drive, and raises the question of why we should be bothering with producing the antimatter in the first place.

The basic concept of an antimatter engine is at least grounded in very well understood physics. Cannot say the same for some of the others, like zero-point-energy engines (which like all "infinite energy" claims, seems like pseudoscience to me). Propulsion from quantum field effects is hard to believe too, but NASA and others are taking it very seriously.

Wormholes are a solution to general relativistic field equations but require some unusual mass configurations to stay open. Very curiously, the Kerr metric for a rotating black hole can be mathematically extended to look like a wormhole, but only in the vacuum solution. The passage of a single photon disrupts it, which is why "negative energy" is required to keep the throat open. You also still have the problem SpaceEngineer raised, which is the tidal forces. Alcubierre-style drives circumvent this by having the regions of strongest curvature outside of the ship. The tidal forces inside can be made very small.

I think the Alcubierre solution is our best hope for making a real "FTL" engine, as long as the necessary space-time transformations are actually possible.





 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Monday, 25.08.2014, 05:17 | Message # 56
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
(which like all "infinite energy" claims, seems like pseudoscience to me)


Not if you base the function of the engine in real physical laws. Make it so you get an equal exchange of vacuum energy per a designated amount of electrical energy, or have the electrical energy be converted into producing some effect or field. That way you have to put energy in to get work, and that energy could be provided by conventional means while producing unconventional effects like warp fields.

Since SE is a game and warp theory and zero point energy is a long way off from being fully understood there is a lot of room for interpretation and gameplay mechanics.

Quote Watsisname ()
You also still have the problem SpaceEngineer raised


Considering the level of technology required to create and maintain a wormhole this becomes a moot issue. If you have the technology to bend space to your will and connect 2 points from anywhere in the universe, I highly doubt you would be concerned with something so basic.

All 3 of you also ignored the possibility of other types of wormholes, including flat 2 dimensional wormholes.

Quote http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/what-would-you-see-traveling-at-warp-speed
A flat-face traversable wormhole would not distort the image of the remote space region or other universe seen through it because the negative energy density at the throat is zero as seen and felt by light and matter passing through it


That type of wormhole would be similar to the ones you see in the game "Portal". You could enter and exit it without any adverse effects(hypothetically).

Quote Watsisname ()
I think the Alcubierre solution is our best hope for making a real "FTL" engine, as long as the necessary space-time transformations are actually possible.


This is what I have talked to SpaceEngineer about quite a bit. The field equations and effects work fairly well within conventional physics. The issue is the requirement for the hyperdrive ring, negative energy densities, and ring topology.

This was part of the reason for some of my previous posts. If we adopt the field structure and use the ring setup initially, say the Alcubierre-White setup, then allow players to advance to "virtual" rings this would add an entire branch of technologies to develop in the game.

Realistically speaking all ships will most likely need the rings if the Alcubierre-White drive ever comes to fruition. Since SE is a game this gives the freedom to use the field setup without the physical requirements of the ring.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
WatsisnameDate: Monday, 25.08.2014, 10:43 | Message # 57
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Yes, as a game we may choose to take theoretical notions and implement them in believable ways. The more theoretical they are, the more freedom we have. E.g. with obtaining energy from the vacuum, we should not get an infinite quantity at a finite cost. We could actually use cosmological observations to quantify how much vacuum energy we can "harvest" -- it outweighs ordinary matter by about a factor of 14, but because it's evenly distributed, comes out to a few hydrogen atoms equivalence per cubic meter. A spherical region bounded by the Moon's orbit contains on the order of a kilogram.

As for wormholes and tidal forces, Space Engineer and I were referring to the most simple case of the mathematical extension to the Kerr metric. There are of course other possibilities which are very interesting, some of which are traversable, and there are many papers describing their metrics and associated mass distributions. I don't mention them because they tend to diverge from the realm of well verified physics more severely.

On that note I must emphasize here that we cannot arbitrarily bend space-time to our will. We must either obey the field equations, or invoke a system which is essentially magic. While it is trivial to propose any kind of space-time curvature (curvature tensor) we want, it is not trivial to propose one which corresponds to a plausible configuration of matter/energy (stress-energy-momenta tensor). Or, it may violate energy conditions, or violate outright laws (e.g. mass conservation). We must also preserve the speed of light locally, which places a huge restriction on wormholes unless they are taken as an initial condition.

Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
This is what I have talked to SpaceEngineer about quite a bit. The field equations and effects work fairly well within conventional physics. The issue is the requirement for the hyperdrive ring, negative energy densities, and ring topology.


Precisely. Provided the plausibility of the metric, it is a valid solution to the field equations and so it doesn't violate general relativity, despite many claims to the contrary I've seen elsewhere. What it does violate are some energy conditions, hence the requirement of exotic matter/energy or negative energy density. This may or may not be a problem, as some energy conditions are violated by things we are already pretty sure are real, like a small negative value for vacuum energy (cosmological constant). Either way, I don't see any reason to not adopt Alcubierre-style drives in Space Engine. I rather think they're really cool. smile





 
schwarzwolfDate: Monday, 25.08.2014, 13:52 | Message # 58
Astronaut
Group: Users
Germany
Messages: 40
Status: Offline
Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
Not entirely true. You can get small amounts basically for free if you build collection facilities in orbit around planets that have magnetic fields. With solar and battery power you could power the containment field indefinitely. The only issue is on a yearly basis you only get a few micrograms, not really enough to power interstellar trips.

As SHW said, it could still serve some purposes for probes and shuttles.

Intresting. Haven't even known this. Ok, it would do for probes and shuttles how told, but for ships, facilities would be good aswell. And yes, the engines would have a propose because of the high speed and power. In RL we have vehicles, cars, planes, ships, etc. who have a very high fuel consumation for a very high speed. Even if its very expansive. Something like this for spaceships would be logical aswell.

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
You could still refuel if you have an intake that lets the antimatter flow along a magnetic field into a storage tank. Once again though, you would need a very large Jovian world to get any decent amount and even then that isn't enough for much of anything.

Yes, theoretically. One of the reason the facilities who create antimatter are needed.
If the amounts are to small, we could possible ignore them and yust use the particle accelerators. Would be easier to code. ;

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
This is why I think some form of an emergency jump and forced orbit around a planet/star would be a good feature for this. Getting stuck, although realistic, is game breaking and would frustrate people. There should be an ingame system to counteract this that is at least somewhat plausible.

Hmm, yes but its a game and space is dangerous. Your ship can be hit by an asteroid aswell, you can go to low into orbit and burn up with a mothership, your shuttle can break by landing, etc. So it would never be secure. The question is, how it is handled. And if your ships goes boom or your engine is criticaly damaged, would get you stock aswell. wink

Quote "Watsisname"
With antimatter propulsion we should be careful about what kind of antimatter we use. Electron/positron annihilation is not good because the products are high energy gamma rays which is difficult to convert to thrust. Proton-antiproton is better because a sizable fraction of the energy is released as charge particles which can be directed into an exhaust jet. But then your engine looks less like an antimatter drive and more like an ion drive, and raises the question of why we should be bothering with producing the antimatter in the first place.

Uh, oh. This explains, why there are most time Antimatter or Anti-Proton reactors in sci-fi movies. Very intresting to know. biggrin

Quote "Watsisname"
The basic concept of an antimatter engine is at least grounded in very well understood physics. Cannot say the same for some of the others, like zero-point-energy engines (which like all "infinite energy" claims, seems like pseudoscience to me). Propulsion from quantum field effects is hard to believe too, but NASA and others are taking it very seriously.

Yes, thats aswell my thinking. Until we reach the possibility to create FTL flight and Alcubierre engines, it would be far easier to generate antimatter (what is already possible in low quantities today). And the space warp we can create today is extremly minimal, that the scientists aren't even fully sure, if its possible. I take this into account by wighting the antimatter engine. wink

Quote "Watsisname"
I think the Alcubierre solution is our best hope for making a real "FTL" engine, as long as the necessary space-time transformations are actually possible.

This of course. Without a Acubierre drive, the game wouldn't be complete. Should be aswell the primary drive for FTL.

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
All 3 of you also ignored the possibility of other types of wormholes, including flat 2 dimensional wormholes.

Well i was yust thinking about a risk and fast way to get to another point. A 2D wormhole how you describe this, would do exactly this. But i am not a physican, so i think its the work for the physican here on the forum to work out the physic behind it. wink

Quote "DoctorOfSpace"
This was part of the reason for some of my previous posts. If we adopt the field structure and use the ring setup initially, say the Alcubierre-White setup, then allow players to advance to "virtual" rings this would add an entire branch of technologies to develop in the game.

Realistically speaking all ships will most likely need the rings if the Alcubierre-White drive ever comes to fruition. Since SE is a game this gives the freedom to use the field setup without the physical requirements of the ring.

Hmm, yea my idea was aswell to have some other kind of alcubierre engines aswell.
So something like this:
1. fixed ring
2. retractable ring
3. emitters (i tought about emitters like in lost in space)

Quote "Watsisname"
Yes, as a game we may choose to take theoretical notions and implement them in believable ways. The more theoretical they are, the more freedom we have. E.g. with obtaining energy from the vacuum, we should not get an infinite quantity at a finite cost. We could actually use cosmological observations to quantify how much vacuum energy we can "harvest" -- it outweighs ordinary matter by about a factor of 14, but because it's evenly distributed, comes out to a few hydrogen atoms equivalence per cubic meter. A spherical region bounded by the Moon's orbit contains on the order of a kilogram.

Donno how this with the different dense should work, tought such particles would aim a balanced distribution.
But we indeed need to balance it. Its a game, so not all engines should look like the same, yust with another efficiency and name.
Therefore i tought about the effectivity in such way how mentioned before:
antimatter: high energy density - have to be created (because of to low quantities
fusion: medium energy density - can be found at many places
zero point energy: lowest energy density - infinite fuel

with this, you can decide, if you have a ship, you don't need to refuel, but who won't give you so much power, or a high power ship, you have to create the fuel for. And it would avoid, that there isn't a best engine all player would have in the future. Might be possible, that in reality if such engines exists, the zero point energy module would create nearly infinite power and would be even more powerful as a antimatter reactor, but this wouldn't be good for the game.

Its the same with the UFO theory. Such an ship would be nice. A large howering disc, using a powerful zero point generator and a electrogravimetric engine, who can run with FTL and with sublight, can land, etc.
The only problem, such a ship would completly break the game behind it. You simply could land on the planet, fly into space, fly with FTL all with one engine. The challenge of the game would drop to near zero. I would endorse this engine on a theoretical way, but not on a gameplay side way. An possibility would be to include some ships like this for GMs in the online game, and/or as unlockable cheat in the single player mode, or for a specific exploration mode.
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Monday, 25.08.2014, 13:56 | Message # 59
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
Space Engineer and I were referring to the most simple case of the mathematical extension to the Kerr metric.


I figured as much. Just thought I would put it out there that many other wormhole shapes are theoretically possible under certain conditions.

Quote Watsisname ()
I don't mention them because they tend to diverge from the realm of well verified physics more severely.


True but we are discussing things in regards to the game. I personally don't think wormholes should be added, at least not visible ones or ones ships could travel through. If they are ever added it should be quantum scale or controlled micro wormholes used only for communication.

Quote Watsisname ()
or invoke a system which is essentially magic


Funny you should say this. When you examine the equations and problems with wormholes and warp theory and the lack of evidence for exotic matter you are pretty much dealing with "magic".

Negative pressure/energy densities however do have some minor experimental evidence to support the idea.

Harold White has mentioned using some "tin can" like devices to generate a cumulative effect in a specific setup inside the thick rings.
In this roadmap image they show a crude layout of these "aggregate negative pressure generators"


It has also been mentioned such devices could be a major component in q-thruster technology and perhaps in the future the warp ring would be full of these devices. These devices would act like exotic matter but would be a physical object generating the field.

There are still some issues with the theory though. There is enough information however to use the physics in a computer simulation and a game. The downside to applying these physics is even with the energy optimizations the energy requirements are too high(around 65 exajoules just to turn the field on). The energy requirements could be adjusted for "fake" technology similar to what I have mentioned in my previous posts.

Quote Watsisname ()
I don't see any reason to not adopt Alcubierre-style drives in Space Engine. I rather think they're really cool.


Plus the current hyperfactor functions in many similar ways to an Alcubierre-White drive. It does need some adjustments if SE adopts the Alcubierre drive. Any of the issues in the math can be patched in with fake technology, guess work, or left out entirely until a real world solution is found.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
Its the same with the UFO theory. Such an ship would be nice. A large howering disc, using a powerful zero point generator and a electrogravimetric engine, who can run with FTL and with sublight, can land, etc.
The only problem, such a ship would completly break the game behind it. You simply could land on the planet, fly into space, fly with FTL all with one engine. The challenge of the game would drop to near zero. I would endorse this engine on a theoretical way, but not on a gameplay side way. An possibility would be to include some ships like this for GMs in the online game, and/or as unlockable cheat in the single player mode, or for a specific exploration mode.


If you want to read about the hypothesized propulsion technology behind UFOs

Quote
“Assuming they‘re in space, they will focus the three gravity generators on the point they want to go to. Now, to give an analogy: If you take a thin rubber sheet, say, lay it on a table and put thumbtacks in each corner, then take a big stone and set it on one end of the rubber sheet and say that’s your spacecraft, you pick out a point that you want to go to - which could be anywhere on the rubber sheet - pinch that point with your fingers and pull it all the way up to the craft. That’s how it focuses and pulls that point to it. When you then shut off the gravity generators, the stone (or spacecraft) follows that stretched rubber back to its point. There’s no linear travel through space; it actually bends space and time and follows space as it retracts. In the first mode of travel - around the surface of a planet - they essentially balance on the gravitational field that the gravity generators put out, and they can ride a “wave,” like a cork does in the ocean. In that mode they’re very unstable and are affected by the weather. In the other mode of travel - where they can travel vast distances - they can’t really do that in a strong gravitational field like Earth, because to do that, first of all, they need to tilt on their side, usually out in space, then they can focus on the point they need to with the gravity generators and move on. If you can picture space as a fabric, and the speed of light is your limit, it’ll take you so long, even at the speed of light, to get from point A to point B. You can’t exceed it - not in this universe anyway. Should there be other parallel universes, maybe the laws are different, but anyone that’s here has to abide by those rules.”


Link for more info

Some of the "science" doesn't work out, but it is an interesting read.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Monday, 25.08.2014, 14:24 | Message # 60
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
The ship generated about 12.75 billion gigawatts of power, simply while in orbit of a planet. Enterprise would have to consume nearly 142 kilograms of matter/antimatter mix (71 kilograms of each) every second. This equates to a staggering 12440 metric tonnes per day.

LOL. It will shine like a sun on orbit. It may be used to warm up Mars or Galilean satellites smile What, the ship have no heat radiators? It will melt himself within a few minutes.

Quote schwarzwolf ()
So there are risks. The only question is, how they be handled. Ideas would be some rescure ships from your homeworld, who would come to pick you up, and escape pods.

Each player simply will have many ships, with ability to directly control any of them (using FTL communication system). Or he may send "mayday" signal and wait for help from another player.

Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
This is why I think some form of an emergency jump and forced orbit around a planet/star would be a good feature for this. Getting stuck, although realistic, is game breaking and would frustrate people. There should be an ingame system to counteract this that is at least somewhat plausible.

No, rescue mission would be a great gameplay feature. Whether by your own second ship or by another player.

Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
We still need kilos of the stuff. There just isn't enough floating around in space or around planets to power a ship. SHW came up with a figure of around 250 micrograms around Jupiter per (Earth) year. That is nowhere near enough to power a ship.

Then the ideal place for antimatter collection station would be some white main sequence star with powerful stellar wind and a massive gas giant orbiting it with strong magnetic field. We have to design the scheme of such a station.

Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
or perhaps there are antimatter clouds

No:) They would immediately annihilate with interstellar gas and cosmic rays particles.

Quote Watsisname ()
Proton-antiproton is better because a sizable fraction of the energy is released as charge particles which can be directed into an exhaust jet. But then your engine looks less like an antimatter drive and more like an ion drive, and raises the question of why we should be bothering with producing the antimatter in the first place.

It is also possible to drive fusion reactions by small amount of antimatter. Annihilation is a sort of "heater" to start the reactions. Such method was used in the "Avatar's" Venture Star starship.





 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Gameplay Discussions » Spaceflight Physics Concept (A Concept Prototype)
Page 4 of 7«1234567»
Search: