Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

7 (33.3%)

No

2 (9.5%)

Get more info

11 (52.4%)

Delay with no action

1 (4.8%)

Total Members Voted: 21

[10ebbor10]

Spy drones would essentially be useless. Since there's no atmosphere in space, they wouldn't have a better resolution. They also wouldn't be faster, since they can only transmit their results at the speed of light. They would be easier to detect, and much easier to destroy. Also no to self replicating machines, we don't need Von Neuman probes.
A failsafe migh be in order though. Maybe we should build another telescope in Gaian orbit.

We don't need solar power. Fusion is more costeffective, more productive and safer. It also takes up less place.

I do like the idea of geographical survey of all planets. We should look into what lies at the bottom of Aquarius surface too.

As Terraforming process, let's try to introduce life again. Also look into the old weather sattelites we build to see the current Aries conditions.

[Unholy_Pariah]

We don't need solar power. Fusion is more costeffective, more productive and safer. It also takes up less place.

i wont argue with cost effective or more productive but safer?
every fusion generator i have seen in video games, movies,tv shows or read a brief description of in a science fiction novel either explodes violently or utilizes temperatures equal to the surface of a sun to produce the fusion reaction and requires immensely powerful shielding to prevent it from igniting the atmosphere...
solar power on the other hand merely ceases to function at night (not a problem if you use those solar lenses) or damages itself if the temperatures exceed safe levels and shuts down way before reaching atmospheric ignition temperatures.

still.. fusion powered ships would be very handy...

[10ebbor10]

We don't need solar power. Fusion is more costeffective, more productive and safer. It also takes up less place.

i wont argue with cost effective or more productive but safer?
every fusion generator i have seen in video games, movies,tv shows or read a brief description of in a science fiction novel either explodes violently or utilizes temperatures equal to the surface of a sun to produce the fusion reaction and requires immensely powerful shielding to prevent it from igniting the atmosphere...
solar power on the other hand merely ceases to function at night (not a problem if you use those solar lenses) or damages itself if the temperatures exceed safe levels and shuts down way before reaching atmospheric ignition temperatures.

still.. fusion powered ships would be very handy...

Every fusion generator you have seen in videogames, movies , tv shows or scientific novels is portrayed utterly and completly wrong. A real fusion reactor does in fact use temperatures almost ten times higher then the suns core. However, the pressure inside a fusion reactor is extremely low. This means that the worst that can happen is a minor implosion, safely containing the hot plasma as the reaction automatically stops. Standing inside a working fusion reactor would feel like a sunny day. (That is until you begin to suffer from decompression). As for igniting the atmosphere, forget it.

Never trust anything you see on television. Authors seldomly do real research, especially on sci fiction thingies.

[Unholy_Pariah]

wait a sec...
if i saw a running fusion reactor operating ten times hotter than the suns core how would i be able to stand inside it?
surely the temperature would vaporize me regardless of ambient pressure.. wouldn't it?

[10ebbor10]

wait a sec...
if i saw a running fusion reactor operating ten times hotter than the suns core how would i be able to stand inside it?
surely the temperature would vaporize me regardless of ambient pressure.. wouldn't it?

Nope. Since the exchange of heat between you and the matter is determined by the amount of matter that is touching For example, holding your hand on frying pan burns you, but a spark from a fire, which is much hotter, won't harm you at all. The pressure in a fusion reactor is so low that you could stand inside it whitout burning yourself( Not saying anything about fatal radiation, but not all types of fusion reactor produce that). This is also the reason that current generation fusion reactors don't melt ( Combined with the magnetic fields, of course).

There a difference between temperature and heat.

[Unholy_Pariah]

i think understand where you are coming from now

basically your saying that due to the lack of interconnecting matter inside the generator the amount of thermal energy transfer capable of causing harm is minimized so much that it is basically non-existent and therefore unable to heat surrounding objects let alone ignite the atmosphere or breach containment.

am i correct in this assumption?

[10ebbor10]

lies temperature and heat are the same thing

but yes i think understand where you are coming from now
basically your saying that due to the lack of interconnecting matter inside the generator the amount of thermal energy transfer capable of causing harm is minimized so much that it is basically non-existent and therefore unable heat surrounding objects let alone ignite the atmosphere or breach containment.

am i correct in this assumption?

More or less. It's not only the lack of interconnecting matter, but more the lack of matter at all. Fusion reactors typically* operate at extremely low pressures so that the amount of thermal energy they have is quite low. It's also spread out through the entire reactor (Note that due to the enormous temperatures the amount of thermal energy is still quite high. One of the things they want to test with the New ITER reaction is if it won't damage/melt the reactor core during prolonged operation.)

* Let's not talk about the american plans for fusion reactors, which involve taking an enormously small capsule of pressurized deuterium/tritium and then firing worlds largest laser at it.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

But what about thermal radiation? Is it really that low to be like "sunny day" I  doubt it

[Unholy_Pariah]

had to google tritium

wait a second... you have both an ocean covering an entire planet granting you plenty of hydrogen to put through your nano factories for deuterium + tritium and a giant ass laser in orbit, why are the rolls coming out so bad for its development?

[Maldevious]

wait a second... you have both an ocean covering an entire planet granting you plenty of hydrogen to put through your nano factories for deuterium + tritium and a giant ass laser in orbit, why are the rolls coming out so bad for its development?

Because they are rolls.

[Unholy_Pariah]

...stupid dice

on the bright side when you finally roll that 6 you're never gonna run outta fuel

i foresee severe depletion of Aquarius' ocean in the near future

[10ebbor10]

...stupid dice

on the bright side when you finally roll that 6 you're never gonna run outta fuel

i foresee severe depletion of Aquarius' ocean in the near future

Your average high power fusion plant barely uses 200 liter water/ month.  It's not like that a lot of fuel usage. I'm more worried about tritium, though I'm pretty sure we use He-3

But what about thermal radiation? Is it really that low to be like "sunny day" I  doubt it

The pressure inside your average fusion reactor is low. It might be a bit more, but a fusion reactor won't spectaculary explode. It probably won't even be able to completly unfreeze the near zero degree Kelvin basin it's submerged in. (In order to have the magnets operationg at peak efficiency)

[Ukrainian Ranger]

BTW why do you think that pressure in fusion reactor is low? Isn't fusion reaction requires extremely high pressure to work?

[10ebbor10]

BTW why do you think that pressure in fusion reactor is low? Isn't fusion reaction requires extremely high pressure to work?

Because that how it works. There are 3 variables to get a fusion reaction going. One is temperature, the other is pressure and the third is not important(I think it has something to do with magnetic fields). A high pressure fusion reactor would need less temperature (We 're talking about stellar core pressures however). However that is not technically viable in a tomakak reactor, so they decided to increase the temperature instead, and then lowered the pressure to prevent the reactor from melting.

To generate a plasma, the vessel is pumped down to high vacuum, a few grams of gas fuel is injected and then heated. Electric currents are fed through the coils, creating the magnetic field to contain the plasma. The measuring systems begin to monitor the plasma’s heat, density and shape – if it begins to cool off or become unstable, the magnetic fields or the heating systems are tweaked to keep the plasma running.

That's a few grams , and then you have to look at the size of the actual reactor. (Worlds largest fusion reactor, at the moment).
http://www.efda.org/fusion/fusion-machine/

How to light a fire:

The most efficient fusion fuel is a mixture of deuterium and tritium

•Temperature: between 100 and 200 million degrees Celsius
•Density: approximately 1 milligram per m3 (about one millionth of the density of air)
•Time: maintain these conditions for as long as possible

!

If the calculations are as simple as that(I doubt it), the felt temperature would lie between 100 and 200 degrees celsius. Not exactly a hot summer day, but no atmospheric  burning proportions either.

[Unholy_Pariah]

new plan...
FUSION BOMBS!!!

basically you just launch it at the target and when it gets in range it floods the fusion chamber with matter causing 150 million degrees of thermal energy transfer and... well you can guess the rest...

Edit: Don't you dare test them anywhere near the planets... hell don't even put the fuel in if its near a planet...