How can we make a realistic (but still fun) game about modern humans colonizing the rest of the Sol system. Any ideas?
>>44267666
satan trips omg
we can um, like um contact those one guys
>>44267666
>colonizing
>realistic
Best not get into that, it will infuriate quite a few people because they have based their lives on it.
Research stations where nothing interesting except astronomical observations occur is a remote possibility though. I don't know how you could make that fun, possibly having them roll for success on their data collection? Maybe a maintenance robot malfunctions and you need to perform a routine EVA to repair it and nothing goes wrong because it's routine and you either do everything right in space or die very quickly?
>>44267666
Space travel is boring. Really pretty to look out the window, mind you, but also incredibly boring.
The same goes for colonizing, most of the work (planning and material preparation) is done before you fire up the engines.
Then you just get to the place (every second of the trip is calculated and planned out) and follow the plan like a mindless drone.
>>44267666
>Space
>Realism
>Fun
Pick one. Space requires the most boring monotony and exacting adherence to routine in order to survive in it. If you fuck up, you die. Since FTL is strictly forbidden by the observed laws of physics, that will likely never change.
>>44267776
I forgot to add that none of these research stations would be on a planet, since that'd be retardedly expensive. A nuclear powered shuttle to some orbital installation is far more practical, engineering-wise at least. God knows if nuclear power will ever be publically accepted, i kind of doubt it.
>>44267666
Well if you start from todays technical position, a lot of the game will be spent on board of the ship and colonizing unit that are about to start terraforming the target planet (where mars would be the most obvious choice).
Most of the conflict and danger would come from the outer conditions beeing to harsh and thus leading to unexpected problems.
Most accidents in the exploration of space come from technical failure or things nobody on the engineering team did account for, or undererstimated them.
These technical problems, which would lead to serious problems demanding a solution, would lead to conflict between saving lives of endangered crewmembers or prioritizing the mission. As communications with the homebase take a while and might malfunction, sometimes decisions have to made without the consent of mission control.
Failure to support life for extended times and the lack of a way to get home might be a central challenge for the astronauts, who are pioneers whose only way to survive is to succeed with the plan and adapt to problems not accounted for in the plan.
After completing this first step and creating an inhabitable, stable base and even getting the planet terraformed to a point where it could sustain life two more points of gameplay open up:
-Exploring the new wildlands and make them ready for human population, with all the problems that come with this new yet familiar ecosystem (as most lifeforms were most likely introduced from earth and started to adapt to the new, slightly different conditions)
-Politics and problems of the new society. Interplanetary racism as in earthborn-marsborn problems might come up, criminals are always a problem. Beeing so far away from all established powers might make for a chance of radical groups to seize control over the young population and relations to earth might change.
>>44267666
It'd take more magic than i'd be able to stomach in a "realistic" scenario.
These days realism in books and movies is just a smokescreen to lure in people who want to feel smart for liking something. Like Don Marquis said: "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you."
>>44267915
The issue is that outside of hackneyed movies like The Martian and Gravity, even a single issue will spell certain death for all of the colonists. That's not fun for players, especially when everything leading up to that certain death would be dull routine jobs.
>>44267666
It's a horror game, one of survival through sheer force of will and technical expertise.
If you want an international effort (meaning more money and opportunity for some social issues) you can have them be setting up research stations/trying to colonize Mars. Each PC has a specific role and an area of expertise. They have to work together to ensure that the stations operate, but also to survive.
The game ought to have an "end point" where they return home.
The team has to successfully run experiments to justify the expense of keeping them there. They do not have the resources to run every possible experiment, so they have to decide how to allocate resources.
Each PC has a secret or covert, much smaller experiment they have to conduct without alerting the others. Succeeding means getting extra funding and care packages from home.
Their respective governments can issue missions to sabotage, spy, undermine, or encourage other people's experiments.
The missions with no danger involve boring, psychologically draining observation work.
The low danger missions include actual field work. Usually with robots, the danger being they lose the robots. These are psychologically neutral.
Mid danger missions include them actually leaving the modules, fixing equipment that might case Fire, things that require a human to go out and do. There shouldn't be many of these and they're similarly stressful, but succeeding on them reduces stress for everyone.
Highly dangerous missions shouldn't exist. These include going out on a rescue missions in bad conditions, being in some bad accident, or trying to put out Fire.These are very stressful and surviving them drives everyone's stress up.
Stress is raised by failed experiments, having to associate with someone you don't like, being ordered to undermine someone you do, approaching a deadline and being in danger, as well as not socializing enough.
Stress is lowered by getting care packages, messages from home and making friends.
>>44268005
So Space Station 13 then?
>>44268035
Except without the goofy magic or aliens.
Nobody is incompetent as a joke.
The crew starts with a very small number of people, probably double the number of Players.
Each successful experiment/mission can lead to higher chances of your country supporting the mission for longer.
If you reach something like 80%, they can justify sending more people. At this stage, you can swap out your PC for someone equally skilled, as they return home, or the character has the option to stay on mission for a while (but only if they've succeeded enough covert missions that their government is willing to break protocol for this).
Eventually, depending on how well they build/maintain the habitat and how well their missions go, their small habitat can become an actual permanent settlement.
>>44268093
>Each successful experiment/mission can lead to higher chances of your country supporting the mission for longer.
In what form? A resupply? Is this out in space or just the ISS?
But again, who is going to play a game that is 100% dependant on random dice rolls?
>>44268164
With funds. You'll get resupplied in any case, but sure, succeeding means you get *more* supplies instead of just the bare bones.
Also, who said anything about this being depending on dice rolls so much?
And it could work anywhere, though obviously far from Earth is pretty ideal.
>>44268093
>>44268005
So some scientific realism with zero political realism? i guess that's what it takes to make space fun. Even a game like Kerbal Space Program is only popular because of explosions and physics. It's popular for the same reason Goat Simulator is.
>>44268213
I was going off the idea of each nation having their own people do things and wanting to sabotage/spy on everyone else.
It seems reasonable enough.
I'm not really sure what you mean by a lack of political realism.
Is it that countries who don't like each other wouldn't be involved in this?
Because we can pretty much invent an explanation for anything.
Would help if people pointed out the problems, though.
>>44268194
>With funds. You'll get resupplied in any case, but sure, succeeding means you get *more* supplies instead of just the bare bones.
That's hard to swallow. The government funded it through to launch but then they'll sabotage it by depriving it of resources it needs?
>Also, who said anything about this being depending on dice rolls so much?
How would you make it work? Give the real players an actual machine to repair? Or "Roll for repair"?
>And it could work anywhere, though obviously far from Earth is pretty ideal.
The farther from earth is is the greater the chance of certain death from the tiniest thing going wrong, and it becomes impractical to make a ship to send them just supplies outside of LEO. It'd be far cheaper to just send the mission with everything it needs instead of piecemealing it based on performance. Sure, they get the reward resources, oh but in the two weeks it takes for them to get from earth to the station everyone died.
>>44267666
MoonBase-Alpha is a thing.
>>44268270
>I was going off the idea of each nation having their own people do things and wanting to sabotage/spy on everyone else.
>It seems reasonable enough.
You're not going to be alone in such a place. Space stations are too small. Where would you hide your covert experiment? There'd be no room for such a non-essential piece of penalty weight. The entire mission's success would be dependant on the ship's mass being a very specific figure. If every group secreted aboard some mass, the ship wouldn't make its destination and there'd be no means of changing that once its too late to stop.
>Is it that countries who don't like each other wouldn't be involved in this?
Because we can pretty much invent an explanation for anything.
Do you think this is happening or has happened on the ISS? If not, then what are you basing it on?
You can't sneak shit in space. Everything is too tightly controlled because that control is absolutely necessary for survival.
>>44268273
They always get the stuff they need.
But if they do well, get results, generate good PR, then they get more.
As for mechanics, I dunno. I think some kind of resource allocation, coupled with random chance that can be altered by strategic thinking would be best here.
The stuff they'd get would have to be abstractly defined into, I don't like, something like 5 categories. They can spend those either in secret, or together or something. Maybe a communal pool of resources. Yeah. And while they never oppose each other in a direct dice roll, they can take actions to affect each other.
I don't really see why the difference is an issue. Yes, they'd die if something went bad, but that's sort of the point of having Stress and calling this thing Horror.
>>44268330
I'm not sure what you think I mean by experiments. I was thinking shit like measurements, using available equipment to look into something while pretending it's for something else, you know, use the things already present to try and do something.
Part of the reason I said everyone should be a specialist in their own thing is to help obscure what they're doing. Yes, they can all do maintenance, repair, building, shit like that. But only one of them is a certified surgeon, only one has the necessary qualifications to test out the quantuum doohikey, etc.
>>44267666
I'm thinking you're going to have to rely on political intrigue being the main focus.
You have distances too vast to have places things like warfare between worlds to be anything but "invasion, success/failure, end". The effective shortness & decisiveness of any open conflict makes strategic alliances, claim on resources, trade agreements and such WAY more important to how things get done and stay done. Your character's physical stats are ever going to be largely irrelevant.
OR
You could just do something smaller scale that just happens to be in a space setting. Space travel wouldn't be the focus. Small town law enforcement murder mystery or something of the like. Probably going to have to deviate from crunchy systems and go much more narrative gameplay.
Unfortunately, you don't get to do seafarers in realistic space without warp tech or hyperspace.
>>44268394
>They always get the stuff they need.
>But if they do well, get results, generate good PR, then they get more.
To what end? Why would that be incentivized? If they do sub-par work without the unneeded supplies, then why were they considered unneeded in the first place?
>As for mechanics, I dunno. I think some kind of resource allocation, coupled with random chance that can be altered by strategic thinking would be best here.
I am unable to think of things that would also fit into the "realism" category. Having a lunch or whatever doesn't make a soil analysis or observation of a star more likely to yield results.
>I don't really see why the difference is an issue. Yes, they'd die if something went bad, but that's sort of the point of having Stress and calling this thing Horror.
Because there is no way that i can think of to make it both realistic and fair/fun to play. The most horror you could get would be the 15 seconds before you black out and die.
>I'm not sure what you think I mean by experiments. I was thinking shit like measurements, using available equipment to look into something while pretending it's for something else, you know, use the things already present to try and do something.
How do you figure the nations they represent would benefit from that and why the secrecy? What vital observations are they making?
I'm not trying to be contrarian. I figure that if we toss enough of these ideas against the wall that eventually we'll find good bits that survive the process.
>>44267833
>what are wormholes
>>44268643
No more proven to exist than bigfoot?
>>44268660
Uh oh now you've done it.
>>44268555
I haven't exactly thought about any of this before I saw the OP.
Game wise, these would be "rewards" for doing good work. Each nation allocating more budget to the project, maybe corporations getting on board and sending stuff. Other countries pitching in.
As for categories, I think abstract stuff like: Care Packages, Spare Parts, Data, Biological could work.
If things go wrong, the idea would be that they can fix it up enough to keep going, but in shittier conditions, or they pretty much die. I don't see this much different from needing a GM to not fuck the party with something they can't survive.
The experiments could be anything. Trying to find asteroids they can mine, studying gravitational effects, recording supernova, getting data from stars, soil samples, radiation reading, growing X in space, trying to figure out a disease. I don't think any of the experiments should be something concrete like building a coilgun or testing out a disease on your colleagues, but stuff that your nation would benefit in some degree from (since you're there) and wants to keep the others from knowing.
Here's a vague idea of how I imagine game-play.
They start with a budget of Resources.
They decide how many to commit out of some pool of available Primary Experiments. They decide how much to allocate for maintenance.
They also should decide how many should be kept back, for emergencies, or repairs.
This being done, it's now a matter of turns, in which they spend time doing stuff like leisure, work, socializing or spook actions. I figure we could keep it simple and stick to one action per turn.
Hmm. The more I think about it, the more this only works as a board game.
Nevermind.
>>44268760
Settlers of Titan?
Yeah, i've tried for years to think of a way to make a realistic space game that people would enjoy. I've found that you can only do it by stripping realism from the setting in one form or another.
You might like Attack Vector: Tactical. It is without a doubt the most realistic space game ever made. But hoo boy, osmium has nothing on that game's density.
>>44268865
Actually, now that I've thought about it, I basically described Battlestar Galactica : The Board Game.
Except nobody is Cylons and the goal is harder to reach.
I can't say I have much interest in "realistic" games. I mean, if everyone in my group where STEM graduates, then I'd maybe look into it, but it's still pretty much going to have to be "You all sit there, for months doing the same things over and over" or I pull something out of my ass that doesn't make sense in hindsight.
This is why I prefer Spelljammer. All the fun of space, ships, pirates, space pirates, none of that "realistic" tedium.
>>44268929
It is worrying that humans have no interest in space outside of esoteric things like how pretty it is or that it's a challenge to be beaten.
I guess that explains why we never went back to the moon.
I'm sad now,
>>44268957
But, anon, outside of beauty, research or challenge, what reason is there to do anything?
>>44267666
Read books about it from authors like KSR or Ben Bova.
>>44267666
Go back to the beginning.
Asimov's Lucky Starr series.
>>44268978
Economic incentive is all that has gotten us this far. We explore to exploit, that's why nobody lives in the deserts in great numbers, and why we never went back to the moon once ICBM's were invented.
>>44268957
>Implying the pursuit of knowledge, wanderlust, or determination to overcome everything isn't reason enough
Materialists pls go.
>>44269711
So you work for free?
>>44269747
I unfortunately need to eat in order to live, and living in the wild isn't satisfactory when it's already been pretty much explored and when the pursuit of knowledge requires civilization.
Technological apotheosis when.
>>44267666
>super advanced ai and robotics
>human space travel
literally pick one.
>>44269888
Then you can understand that governments too expect a return for their investment and that that fact is not necessarily caused by materialism, but by basic needs.
Find the part of the budget that nobody will mind parting with and we can get started.
>>44269969
Medicare and Welfare, this really isn't that hard of a question.
Also, cut subsidies into green energy (besides maybe solar) and fossil fuels and put it into nuclear and science (which I assume includes NASA)
>>44270023
>Medicare and Welfare, this really isn't that hard of a question.
For an objectivist. You think you'd last a single term? You think your successor wouldn't reinstate it? You'd be assassinated.
Be realistic.
>>44268681
Don't be rude to your mother.
>>44267666
Jovian Chronicles, man. There's a reason they spend all that time telling you the history of the setting.
Crank that realism setting up to Gritty if you want.
>>44270053
At the very least trim the fat from welfare and condense all programs into a single simple citizen's wage of some sort for citizens making under $10,000 per year; this citizen's wage then decreases to $0/year as their total income approaches $30,000 per year.
I've pulled the numbers out of my ass, but you get the general idea of what I'm saying.
Oh, and military spending could probably be cut a bit too. If I'm not mistaken, congress loves to buy more tanks and hardware and shit even though the military doesn't need it.
>>44267776
>whiny anti-space baby
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668.pdf
>>44270053
>For an objectivist
>Implying I was talking about cutting the entirety of medicare and welfare
>Implying Ayn Rand isn't retarded
I'm insulted to be honest, anon.
>ctrl-f gurps
>no results
For shame.
>>44270128
That's pretty fucking neat, anon.
Here, have a design document on oxygen carrying nanobots.
https://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Respirocytes.html
>>44270179
System doesn't matter when the premise is intrinsically boring.
>>44270142
You didn't explain yourself properly at all then. Don't be vague next time.
>>44270128
Ok.
>>44270122
>I've pulled the numbers out of my ass, but you get the general idea of what I'm saying.
That you've pulled the numbers out of your ass, yes. You could recover some money from it in this way, but not enough for a space program like this. Apollo wrecked the US budget and contributed to sinking the soviet economy.
>Oh, and military spending could probably be cut a bit too. If I'm not mistaken, congress loves to buy more tanks and hardware and shit even though the military doesn't need it.
Good luck with that. I'm no warhawk but that doesn't mean defunding the military would be politically easy or even possible.
>>44270202
>contributed to sinking the soviet economy
Not much. Gorbachev did the heavy lifting.
>>44270202
>Telling congress and the military to just be frugal and buy what they need, not what they want, is equivalent to defunding it
I may just be politically ignorant, but that doesn't sound right.
Is saying "Hey guys, you don't really need to buy a hundred more MBT's when not a single one has been destroyed in the past few years" really that taboo?
>But not enough for a space program like this
Hey, every little bit helps. So long as it gets NASA back in the black (space, that is) it'll be a huge step forward.
>>44267666
>science threads on /tg/
>X isn't possible according to all our experiments and observa-
>YOU'RE AN AUTIST AUTIST AUTIST AUTIST RETARD LOL WHY ARE YOU HERE IF YOU DON'T LIKE FANTASY LOL
Why do we bother?
>>44269969
Healthcare. Move to a single payer system and halve the expenditure per capita.
>>44270253
That reminds me, is anything truly impossible?
From what I understand of how science works on a logical, philosophical level, is that it can only prove that something is possible, not that it is impossible.
Finding a billion white swans doesn't mean that black swans don't exist and all that, only that they are exceedingly rare and extremely unlikely to exist at all.
>>44270245
>Telling congress and the military to just be frugal and buy what they need, not what they want, is equivalent to defunding it
What evidence makes you think they already don't? You think there aren't already politicians holding that part of the budget's feet to the fire?
>Is saying "Hey guys, you don't really need to buy a hundred more MBT's when not a single one has been destroyed in the past few years" really that taboo?
The response from the public would be immense. Soldiers are family members and it would look like the government was selling them out to fuel some "idealistic nerd's fantasies". It wouldn't work out for any politician that tried it. They'd last a term at best.
>Hey, every little bit helps. So long as it gets NASA back in the black (space, that is) it'll be a huge step forward.
Towards what exactly? Our "Destiny"?
>>44270266
What's the most populous country that has that system?
>That reminds me, is anything truly impossible?
The scientific method cannot be used to "prove something is impossible", regardless of subject. At best, it can only ever prove that something is very likely or unlikely.
This clashes with our natural perception of how the world "ought" to be. Thus humans seek out truths that don't exist to prop up their beliefs.
>>44270335
Second half meant for >>44270285
>>44270285
We don't know the limits of science. We could be approaching the end of what is possible. Or there could be entirely new frontiers we have not even imagined. Only time will tell.
>>44270266
>trying to reform America's insanely bloated healthcare system
SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!
>>44270353
Isn't that an excuse for literally any belief a person could hold?
>>44270288
>You think there aren't already politicians holding that part of the budget's feet to the fire?
Probably, but I haven't exactly heard much about those politicians, whoever they are.
>The... at best
I'm probably overestimating my fellow countrymen, but I don't think they'd consider "we're going to build less tanks and expensive weaponry that we don't really need right now" as selling out soldiers.
>Towards what exactly? Our "Destiny"?
Well, yeah? Pursuit of knowledge, wanderlust, and the desire to break our limits.
What's the point of living and meeting our basic needs if we're not doing so that we may answer a higher calling, whatever that may be?
>>44270368
Yes, including things like perpetual motion and free energy.
They're technically not impossible (they are only impossible according to our current knowledge), but only a fool would waste time and money trying to figure it out since they are so astronomically unlikely to be possible in the first place (again, according to our current knowledge, which happens to be pretty spot on with a fair amount of stuff)
>>44270023
>cutting medicine
It sounds like a great idea until you need to go to a hospital. Although in the US the healthcare system actually costs the government a shitload of money compared to other countries. But good luck trying to change it without being called the devil.
>cutting welfare
Sadly most welfare is actually stuff that people quite like, like state pensions for poor pensioners.
Then again, I'm relying on UK welfare statistics so maybe in the USA 99% of your welfare is autismbux. You do have a separate budget slot for veterans benefits after all.
>>44270378
>Probably, but I haven't exactly heard much about those politicians, whoever they are.
Exactly my point. They don't last long nor do they get any spotlight for their views.
>I'm probably overestimating my fellow countrymen, but I don't think they'd consider "we're going to build less tanks and expensive weaponry that we don't really need right now" as selling out soldiers.
I cannot say for certain what everyone thinks, but it seems likely to me. "Death Panel" hyperbole was popular for a time too. You can never underestimate people too much, in my experience.
>Well, yeah? Pursuit of knowledge, wanderlust, and the desire to break our limits.
Neil Degrasse Tyson calls those "Historically Ineffective Drivers" and i would agree with his assessment of history. Columbus was looking for a trade route, not the joy of discovery.
>What's the point of living and meeting our basic needs if we're not doing so that we may answer a higher calling, whatever that may be?
Good question.
>>44270411
He was being sarcastic.
>>44270408
Now you know why space gets so little attention from governments. They have bigger fish to fry.
>>44270442
forgot the picture.
>>44270442
>Neil Degrasse Tyson calls those "Historically Ineffective Drivers" and i would agree with his assessment of history. Columbus was looking for a trade route, not the joy of discovery.
I don't have an exceedingly high opinion of NDT, but those concepts being ineffective has no bearing on whether they are virtuous or not; them being historically ineffective only means that humans are more concerned with meeting immediate concerns rather than satisfying virtue, even if the two sometimes coincide.
>>44270459
But space ISN'T as astronomically unlikely to be viable as perpetual motion; the former is pretty much a nascent industry as is, and the latter can only be found in geocities websites written in comic sans.
>>44270122
The problem with cutting military funds in the US is that you'll lose jerbs, obviously, and eventually technical know-how, the specially trained workforce that can build it all, and the people that develop associated new technologies. Including those military stuff that eventually find their way to civilians, like, oh, little things such as the Internet or GPS.
>>44270554
Then at the very least reduce the budget for immediately unnecessary expenses so that their industries can at least be maintained, and don't cut funding to DARPA and the other eggheads in the first place.
>>44270534
>I don't have an exceedingly high opinion of NDT, but those concepts being ineffective has no bearing on whether they are virtuous or not; them being historically ineffective only means that humans are more concerned with meeting immediate concerns rather than satisfying virtue, even if the two sometimes coincide.
The issue is that humanity evolved only to be good at solving certain problems. Ones that exceed our lifetimes? We have little to no experience. What is the most expensive selfless project we've ever made? Art pieces?
>But space ISN'T as astronomically unlikely to be viable as perpetual motion; the former is pretty much a nascent industry as is, and the latter can only be found in geocities websites written in comic sans.
I would argue that space is about as difficult as it gets. Only Fusion is more difficult. The limits of chemistry means that it is very unlikely that this will change in the future.
>>44270663
>The issue is that humanity evolved only to be good at solving certain problems. Ones that exceed our lifetimes? We have little to no experience.
Now's as good a time as any to start learning then, isn't it?
>I would argue that space is about as difficult as it gets.
>Only Fusion is more difficult.
But in those two cases we at least know that it's possible, if not feasible. It's just a matter of an indefinite 20 years, rather than a complete revolution in scientific knowledge.
>>44270534
>But space ISN'T as astronomically unlikely to be viable as perpetual motion; the former is pretty much a nascent industry as is, and the latter can only be found in geocities websites written in comic sans.
Many people would argue that this foolish pursuit of an "EM Drive" is akin to believing in a perpetual motion machine. Thermodynamics is no less "certain" at this point than Conservation of Momentum is.
Do you think NASA should investigate this machine? It sure looks to be providing free energy maybe we should change the laws of thermodynamics?
Fuck. No. No little machine is sufficient to change a century's worth of observation.
>>44270715
>Now's as good a time as any to start learning then, isn't it?
How do we learn to evolve? This is basic human nature. You can teach people to suppress it, but will they listen? Do we not need laws to keep people in line already?
>But in those two cases we at least know that it's possible, if not feasible. It's just a matter of an indefinite 20 years, rather than a complete revolution in scientific knowledge.
The indefinite 20 years is a result of it requiring a revolution in physics. Most science fiction stuff would require totally new physics, and we've barely found any in the last century. Sure we've found a lot of novel derivations of old stuff, but hell, the last new energy technology we discovered was Photovoltaics nearly a century ago.
>>44270748
>Do you think NASA should investigate this machine? It sure looks to be providing free energy
Yes, because something is going on that hasn't been entirely explained by experimental error (unless I'm extremely behind the curve and it has)
>maybe we should change the laws of thermodynamics? Fuck. No. No little machine is sufficient to change a century's worth of observation.
I completely agree with you, but investigation into phenomena should not be put off solely because it disagrees with established science.
>>44270810
>How do we learn to evolve?
I meant in regards to learning how to solve certain problems that exceed our lifetimes.
>You can teach people to suppress it, but will they listen? Do we not need laws to keep people in line already?
Then the problem isn't to teach people to suppress it, but to change people so that they don't need to suppress it.
>The indefinite 20 years is a result of it requiring a revolution in physics.
But we keep getting closer and closer to figuring it out regardless, and eventually we will figure it out. The question is just whether it will take twenty more years, or two hundred more.
>>44267815
>Space travel is boring.
Ripping off Event Horizon and/or Das Boot will never stop being cool.
>>44270913
That one independent study a few months back showed that it's most likely an error resulting from the engine becoming hot, and that the drive doesn't work. The engine's measured thrust didn't disappear when power was cut off, but instead slowly decreased, exactly as you'd expect if it was an experimental error resulting from some sort of heating effect.
>>44270913
>Yes, because something is going on that hasn't been entirely explained by experimental error (unless I'm extremely behind the curve and it has)
Experimental error is always more likely than the conservation of momentum is wrong. They are testing such weak forces that a car driving by outside the building could trip their sensors. The only viable test is to put it in orbit and have it change the height of its orbit by several hundred miles. An ion thruster can do it, then the em drive can, if it works, which is about as likely as superluminal neutrinos were.
>I completely agree with you, but investigation into phenomena should not be put off solely because it disagrees with established science.
Cryptozoologists would agree. But i feel we must not have too open a mind, lest our brains fall out.
>I meant in regards to learning how to solve certain problems that exceed our lifetimes.
Herding cats doesn't even begin to describe the scope of that problem.
>Then the problem isn't to teach people to suppress it, but to change people so that they don't need to suppress it.
There are many people out there who would call you a Nazi for even suggesting it, but i know that is not the case because you seem like a good person.
>But we keep getting closer and closer to figuring it out regardless, and eventually we will figure it out. The question is just whether it will take twenty more years, or two hundred more.
The question is: Do we have that kind of time to dick around with? Or are we already on the clock?
>>44270913
>But we keep getting closer and closer to figuring it out regardless, and eventually we will figure it out. The question is just whether it will take twenty more years, or two hundred more.
See now, if there were fusion reactions in nature that are as small as what we're trying to do in our reactors, i would believe you. But what we're trying to do at the temperatures and scale we're trying to do it is unprecedented in the universe.
>>44271148
The Wendelstein stellarator worked just fine when turned on last week, we just needed to wait a bit until we developed advanced enough supercomputers to calculate the correct configuration.
>>44267666
The only thing I got is to recreate the movie Alien in the international space station. The only weapons are located somewhere in one of the soyuz capsules, but to get there you have to get past it.
Actually, if you go horror, putting it "in space" works for pretty much everything. Make The Thing but put it en route to Jupiter. Go bigger and more future, and have a slasher mystery happening in the tight confines of an interplanetary vessel. The twist should be that the ship's AI is completely on the level despite it's inherent creepiness.
>>44271098
>Cryptozoologists would agree. But i feel we must not have too open a mind, lest our brains fall out.
Excellent point, skepticism must balance out curiosity.
>Herding cats doesn't even begin to describe the scope of that problem.
Herding cats doesn't have a clear benefit, this does.
>There are many people out there who would call you a Nazi for even suggesting it, but i know that is not the case because you seem like a good person.
That would imply that social engineering isn't already a thing, even if it's unconsciously driven by independent agents (see the public's massive flip-flop of opinion on prohibition during prohibition)
Genetic engineering, and dare I say eugenics, is also a possibility; it must however be carefully shepherded so that we don't fall down the slippery slope, of which there are a lot of in regards to the topic.
And frankly, the idea that the human genome is so sacred that it cannot beget being tampered with and engineered, and that only natural evolution is fit to change it, is absolutely ludicrous.
>The question is: Do we have that kind of time to dick around with? Or are we already on the clock?
If we're on the clock we have to dick around with it regardless. To give a related example, if an asteroid is likely to hit Earth sometime soon, we're going to need to research possible solutions regardless if those solutions will take 20 or 200 years; we just need to hope they take less time than the asteroid takes to get here.
>>44271199
It's a starter motor. It's just another way of trying to get a reaction going. We're still no closer to engineering a material that can contain a plasma with a temperature of 5 billion degrees.
>advanced enough supercomputers to calculate the correct configuration
Assuming there is one. Fusion only checks mathematically when you make some pretty wild assumptions. Within the realm of possibility, but only just barely. It's a very "Spherical Cow" problem.
>>44268280
John Madden
>>44271291
>Excellent point, skepticism must balance out curiosity.
We need more people with that attitude.
>Herding cats doesn't have a clear benefit, this does.
You know what i mean. You'd be asking people to be happy with fewer luxuries.
>That ... absolutely ludicrous.
I agree. However, we both must be aware that our evolved system of morality finds the idea repugnant and that it would be met with severe reprisal. We also have to worry about whose standard humanity should be held to.
>If ...here.
We can handle an asteroid now. It would be expensive and we would need to see it coming from quite a ways off, but we can handle it. Not with nukes, but with a gravity tug satellite.
At the risk of being trolled for caring about something, we're running out of oil and we soon won't be able to make any big projects. Fusion is nice and all, but it'll never be as cheap as oil. Fusion is literally the most expensive way of generating electricity that we could ever conceive of, short of antimatter reactors.
Think about how many people are already convinced that the future is guaranteed because we'll make some nanotech superfusion Ai that fixes all our problems. How many of us are even willing to admit we've painted ourselves into a corner?
What keeps me up at night is the thought that humanity isn't keeping its eye on the ball because it's mentally rehearsing running the bases.
>>44271425
>You know what i mean. You'd be asking people to be happy with fewer luxuries.
It's not that hard to do, to be honest. Plenty of Americans were more than happy to do so during WW2, it's just a matter of really selling it and convincing the plebs. The only difference between an oppressive and authoritarian regime and pragmatic necessity for the good of the nation is how the citizen's view it.
>We also have to worry about whose standard humanity should be held to.
Preferably one that can be applied equally to all races, ethnicity, nations, or what have you, and is only concerned with things that everyone agrees are good (making humans stronger, less susceptible to disease, smarter, etc) without regards to modifying biological empathy or values.
>At the risk of being trolled for caring about something, we're running out of oil and we soon won't be able to make any big projects.
Exactly, which is why I'm extremely opposed to using petrochemicals for anything BUT actual industry, and especially not as fuel.
>How many of us are even willing to admit we've painted ourselves into a corner?
Because we haven't, at least not yet, but we're damn close to doing so.
>What keeps me up at night is the thought that humanity isn't keeping its eye on the ball because it's mentally rehearsing running the bases.
It's a very attractive thought, and a very serious problem.
>>44271538
>It's not that hard to do, to be honest. Plenty of Americans were more than happy to do so during WW2, it's just a matter of really selling it and convincing the plebs. The only difference between an oppressive and authoritarian regime and pragmatic necessity for the good of the nation is how the citizen's view it.
It's a lot easier to get people scared of a real country than a problem that someone could say is just a liberal scaremongering tactic to ruin the economy or some bullshit like that.
>Preferably ... values.
Is there such a thing? Is there anything that all people agree on always? You can't please all of the people all of the time.
>Exactly, which is why I'm extremely opposed to using petrochemicals for anything BUT actual industry, and especially not as fuel.
And yet OPEC has artificially lowered the cost of crude so they can price fix Shale Oil out of business and now everyone thinks everything's going to be fine because gas prices are low, and that low price is spurring over consumption of a limited resource.
>Because we haven't, at least not yet, but we're damn close to doing so.
It became a problem the moment our economy and population depended solely on it for its continued existence. We've only dug the hole deeper since then.
Here's some copypasta i wrote up earlier to drive home that fact:
The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2014 was $1.64 per kWh.
The world's electricity consumption was 18,608 tWh in 2012 or 18.61 trillion kWh
So we can calculate that the cost of replacing our -current- use, assuming zero growth for the time it takes to make it (a practical impossibility) puts the -lower- estimate cost at 29.22 trillion dollars. Even if other sources replaced half the grid, that's still 15 trillion dollars.
Any attempt at replacing the current infrastructure will only stifle the market further, because it will take such an immense amount of fuel, workers, resources, etc to finance.
>>44271658
>It's a lot easier to get people scared of a real country than a problem that someone could say is just a liberal scaremongering tactic to ruin the economy or some bullshit like that.
True, but what are you going to do, right? You just need to be more convincing than the opposition, or adopt a form of government that doesn't care what the plebs think in the first place.
>Is there such a thing? Is there anything that all people agree on always? You can't please all of the people all of the time.
In the case of western civilization, if we were to sell the idea of human genetic modification to everyone near universally, there are very few people I would imagine that would be opposed to making new-humans seven-foot tall super-men that are impervious to most modern diseases and have an average IQ of 120, all while maintaining the huge amount of personal variability of current humans.
Really, the only opposition anyone could have to something like that would be based entirely on principle.
>And yet OPEC has artificially lowered the cost of crude so they can price fix Shale Oil out of business and now everyone thinks everything's going to be fine because gas prices are low, and that low price is spurring over consumption of a limited resource.
Well that's just bullshit and is going to bite us in the ass later on, which is why getting oil under control is so important in the first place.
>Any attempt at replacing the current infrastructure will only stifle the market further, because it will take such an immense amount of fuel, workers, resources, etc to finance.
Perhaps, but wouldn't the renewed interest in nuclear power also increase research and development into it, thus possibly lowering the costs and making reactors even more efficient?
In any case, regardless of the cost, nuclear, solar, and possibly geothermal and tidal (but mostly nuclear) are really our only option in the long term.
>>44271793
>True, but what are you going to do, right? You just need to be more convincing than the opposition, or adopt a form of government that doesn't care what the plebs think in the first place.
As the side that wants to take away luxuries, How do you manage to be more convincing than the side that would give people more luxuries? How do you tackle that fundamental aspect of human nature?
>if ... humans.
Really, the only opposition anyone could have to something like that would be based entirely on principle.
...You're selling that to the same species that demands labels on all GMO things and thinks GMO's will cause planet of the apes style global doom? Not this generation. I cannot fathom such a thing, we can barely get the majority to vaccinate their children for god's sake.
>Well that's just bullshit and is going to bite us in the ass later on, which is why getting oil under control is so important in the first place.
How? I have wrestled with this issue and it would only be addressable in an autocracy, not a democracy. People vote down higher taxes for better fucking schools. They won't voluntarily turn over their cars for some generation they'll never meet.
>Perhaps, but wouldn't the renewed interest in nuclear power also increase research and development into it, thus possibly lowering the costs and making reactors even more efficient?
I didn't include the cost of mining the shitzillion tons of uranium or thorium we'd also need. There are fundamental energy requirements for building the things and digging up and refining the ores that can only be lowered by at most a factor of two, since we cannot make anything that is more than 100% efficient in general practice and most of our shit runs the gamut of 20-40% efficient.
>In any case, regardless of the cost, nuclear, solar, and possibly geothermal and tidal (but mostly nuclear) are really our only option in the long term.
For the Low-low cost of only 30 trillion dollars...
I'm scared.
>>44271320
All current designs, like JET, W7-X and ITER when it's finished, can contain plasma at high enough temperatures for fusion to occur, which isn't 5 billion degress by the way, tens of millions of Kelvin are enough. The plasma is thin and never touches the walls. The Sun's core has a temperature of about 15 million K, IIRC. Besides, we've already generated fusion power in the TFTR two decades ago using a realistic fuel mix.Your objections are quite behind the times. The real problem nowadays is sustaining the reaction for a long time and making the process commercially viable. W7-X is important because it will operate continuously for 30 minutes in 2016, an important stepping stone towards a commercial fusion reactor.
>>44272184
The only benefit of a fusion reactor is that hydrogen is plentiful in the universe.
Everything else is a negative.
I am sourcing from here the rest of what i post. It will take at least two posts: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/
A simple obstacle stands between us and fusion. It’s called the Coulomb barrier. Protons hate to get near each other, on account of their mutual positive charge and concomitant electrostatic repulsion. And they must get very close—about 10−15 m—before the strong nuclear force overpowers Coulomb’s vote. Even on a perfect collision course, two protons would have to have a closing velocity of 20 million meters per second (7% the speed of light) to get within 10−15 m of each other, corresponding to a temperature around 5 billion degrees! Even if the velocity is sufficient, the slightest misalignment will cause the repulsive duo to veer off course, not even flirting with contact. Quantum tunneling can take a bit of the edge off, requiring maybe a factor of two less energy/closeness, but all the same, it’s frickin’ hard to get protons together.
>>44272231
Yet our Sun manages to do it, at a mere 16 million degrees in its core. How does it manage to make a profit? Volume. The protons in the Sun are racing around at a variety of velocities according to the temperature. While the typical velocity is far too small to defeat the Coulomb barrier, some speed demons on the tail of the velocity distribution curve do have the requisite energy. And there are enough of them in the vast volume of the Sun’s core to occasionally hit head on and latch together. One of the protons must promptly beta-plus decay into a neutron and presto-mundo, we have a deuteron! Deuterons can then collide to make helium (other paths to helium are also followed). A quick and crude calculation suggests that we need about 1038 “sticky” collisions per second to keep the Sun going, while within the core we get about 1064 bumps/interactions per second, implying only one in 1026 collisions needs to be a successful fusion event.
Deuterons have an easier time bumping into each other than do lone protons, mainly because their physical size is larger. In fact, a deuteron’s relatively weak binding makes them even puffier than the more tightly bound tritium nucleus (go tritons!). At a given temperature, deterons will move more slowly than protons, and tritons more slowly than deuterons. All flavors contain a single proton—and so exert the same repulsive force on each other—but the increased inertia from extra neutrons exactly counters the slower speed, so that each has the same likelihood of trucking through the Coulomb barrier. Then we’re left with size. Deuterons are bigger than tritons, so D-D bumps will be more common than D-T bumps.
One more post of copypasta.
>>44272252
But there’s a catch. As soon as D and T touch, they stick together. Conversely, when D touches D, a photon (light) must be emitted in order for them to stick, which doesn’t usually happen. It is therefore said that D-T has a greater cross section for fusion than D-D. Estimates for the critical temperature required to achieve fusion come in at 400 million Kelvin for D-D fusion, and 45 million K for the D-T variety. But these temperature thresholds depend on the density of the plasma involved, so should not be taken as hard-and-fast. Still, we need our fusion reactors to be hotter than the center of the Sun because we do not have the luxury of volume and density that the solar core enjoys. Does this fact give you pause?
That'll do. You can read the rest on the site.
>>44272231
>>44272252
>>44272270
Shit. None of the exponents were formatted correctly.
>And they must get very close—about 10^−15 m
>A quick and crude calculation suggests that we need about 10^38 “sticky” collisions per second to keep the Sun going, while within the core we get about 10^64 bumps/interactions per second, implying only one in 10^26 collisions needs to be a successful fusion event.
>>44272231
I've read it years ago, accomplished scientists and engineers have addressed those concerns way before it was written, and if you bothered to read it, you'd notice it's objection to ITER is not that it doesn't work mathematically, but it's the expensive first step of a long development process and could suffer from mechanical problems.
I really have no interest in replying to someone who copypastes an article as his argument. My only advice is for you to read the "Flies in the Ointment" section again, which does have a good summary of the problems the ITER tokamak could face, and try to understand that math isn't the fucking problem.
>>44272481
I'm sorry, i don't take the word of a random stranger on 4chan more highly than someone who actually has demonstrable expertise in physics.
We're debating facts, not opinions or people. You have nothing to stand on.
>>44272529
But you ignore the thousands of scientists who support the current projects and say the math works based on one article, the point of which you seem to have missed? Okay, sure, but I didn't even realize I had to source the obvious. Maybe http://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines would convince you better than a random stranger? You might want to call them and ask them to stop if you're not convinced, the governments of all the richest nations of Earth are so sure it'll be such an important stepping stone that they're willing to spend at least twice as much taxpayer money on it as they did on the Large Hadron Collider.
Just please read what he said in "Flies in the Ointment" again if you can't believe a stranger on 4chan or won't bother finding out what the vast majority of physicists think. That's the real problem with fusion reactors, it's good criticism, but we've already passed the obstacle that is the Coulomb barrier decades ago.
>>44273009
Math rebuttal? No? Just nonsense preaching?
Please stop. We were having a civil discourse without unrestrained science worship. Argumentum ad populum is not how science works.
Go debate how star wars is the best movie in existence because so many people like it.
>>44273105
Well, if you truly believe the majority of physicists are preaching incorrect dogma and are not just trolling, there's really no way to convince you otherwise. Good night anon.
>>44273009
What makes scientists more honest than the common man? Is it the Ph.D? Does it bestow super powers of honesty and integrity?
http://www.nature.com/news/novel-amazing-innovative-positive-words-on-the-rise-in-science-papers-1.19024
>The most obvious interpretation of the results is that they reflect an increase in hype and exaggeration, rather than a real improvement in the incidence or quality of discoveries, says Vinkers. The findings “fit our own observations that in order to get published, you need to emphasize what is special and unique about your study," he says. Researchers may be tempted to make their findings stand out from thousands of others — a tendency that might also explain the more modest rise in usage of negative words.
Oh, well. Color me skeptical of claims by people who have everything to gain from the acceptance of their claims. Scientists are only human. You're delusional if you think they're an exception.
>>44273211
Maths. Maths would convince me. Not vacuous posturing or arguments from authority.
>>44273009
>Each fly translates into cost. In the end, it is unclear whether a fusion plant—even after the physics is tamed—would be economically viable, and attractive enough for investors to take on endeavors of this scale, complexity, and risk.
>>44273667
>I became interested in energy because I sensed that we are approaching a phase change in society as the age of fossil fuels begins to ebb. So much of what we have become can be attributed to cheap and abundant surplus energy. Our energy future is highly uncertain. Commercial fusion may come along decades down the road—mid-century at the earliest—but even then it is yet another source of heat that we can use to make electricity. Another step (mobile storage) must accompany fusion development to replace petroleum functions, and even then at significant disadvantage in energy density using current technologies. So yeah—I hope it helps us out one day. But I’m not sure we can wait that long
>>44273667
I was reading about some fusion stuff in Time like a month ago. I forget where, but apparently several different institutes have made very real advances in this department. I think the rough estimation was two years before the first one is up and running?
As for space, we're going to space. Between the salvage industry and the colonists to Mars leaving in 10 years, we're going to space, and it's going to be pushed by space trash and crazy rich people.
>>44273785
Sure. Hang on, i'm driving my flying car. Wait until i get my jetpack on to properly respond.
>>44273831
I like pessimism.
Seriously though, I feel you react the way you do because you underestimate how much money there is in space junk salvage.
>>44273984
Knowing the cost to lift a kilogram into orbit helps. You'll rapidly see that there's nothing in space worth the cost that we can't just get on earth.
But you want to believe it, so i'm at a severe disadvantage in terms of convincing you.
It doesn't matter either way. If it makes you happy to think that everything's going to be fine, then go ahead and believe it. I don't think less of you or the religious for doing so.
>>44273105
>>44273246
>A large proportion of people who are well versed in X say Y and Z relating to X
>Show me the X!!!
It's a sign of humility to be able to take the word of specialists in a field, rather than treating them all as unknowledgeable salesmen who are reading you a script. Food for thought.
>>44274096
>>44274096
Well, alright. Ignoring the fact that there are both independent investors and government bodies working hard to solve that issue, I did forget about the price of putting things into space. So at $709/lb (current price that it costs for private industry to put things into space by the pound), it's pretty expensive, but when your work nets you millions in already manufactured parts (this is where a lot of the profit comes from, besides a lot of these parts using materials that are pretty rare planetside gives another little boost to said profit), plus the potential for governmental incentives to go up there and prevent satellites still in use from getting destroyed is combined with fairly steadily lowering prices to go into space (God bless Elon Musk btw) I'm pretty sure you're still coming away with a tidy profit. I could be wrong, however.
>>44274316
>It's a sign of humility to be able to take the word of specialists in a field, rather than treating them all as unknowledgeable salesmen who are reading you a script. Food for thought.
Says who?
>>44274487
>when your work nets you millions in already manufactured parts
And you spent millions just to get it, you get a net loss.
>plus the potential for governmental incentives to go up there and prevent satellites still in use from getting destroyed
Even the ISS deorbits it's trash. it will always be cheaper to let satellites fall or just leave them up there. Kessler Syndrome isn't that likely, Planetes was just a good drama anime.
Elon Musk is trying to run away to mars because he knows as well as i do that the planet is fucked. He made the mistake of being too honest in an interview last week and now everyone is shitting on him for it.
http://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-third-world-war-would-ruin-mars-mission/
>>44268035
Boss being Shitcurrity or Narsie
>>44274641
>Says who?
Says anyone with a modicum of perspective and doesn't have a superiority-complex.
>>44274641
You're underestimating the worth of satellites. The cheapest satellite costs 50 million just to make.
Anyway, moving on, it would really, really, REALLY suck if WWIII happened.
>>44274852
So not you, then?
>>44274884
>You're underestimating the worth of satellites. The cheapest satellite costs 50 million just to make.
To make, yes. That is not its material cost, but the manufacturing cost.
It'll be worth maybe a tenth of that, but the spaceship to recover it will always cost more.
>>44274891
>I know you are but what am I?
It's past your bedtime, sweety.
>>44274884
>Anyway, moving on, it would really, really, REALLY suck if WWIII happened.
Die soon then, because it's an inevitability. That's why Elon Musk wants to make The Foundation on Mars.
>>44274884
>Anyway, moving on, it would really, really, REALLY suck if WWIII happened.
Au contraire, it might provide an opportunity to fix the clusterfucks that are Africa and the ME once and for all, one way or another.
>>44274953
Nope. We'll never have more than a billion people after the war. Technological civilization will largely end.
Only Hari seld- Elon Musk can save us from the ten thousand years of barbarism.
>>44274941
Musk is a pessimistic coward and he's not going to Mars, not because anyone will stop him, but because he is simply incapable of doing so in the first place.
He is a literal meme and nothing more than a celebrity to slightly autistic high schoolers and STEM undergrads.
>>44274918
That's weird, all i can see is the response code. Did you forget to hit Ctrl+V?
>>44274998
Ok badass. Now peel out on your harley.
>>44274987
>Implying WW3 will go nuclear
WW3 won't happen at all precisely because of the presence of nukes, but if it does (maybe if America finally got the SDI functional) happen I would put an upper bound of maybe 10% of the global population dieing; WW2 had a final casualty of like 3.4% after all.
>>44275010
What?
>>44275035
>Stating the obvious is being an internet tough guy
>H-how dare that ignorant luddite criticize lord Musk!
If Musk does go to Mars, you can be sure it's going to be with 90% of his stuff payed with NASA's money, and with 90% of the paint job taken up by the US flag.
His dream of setting up his own private little colony is just that, a dream, and rightfully so.
>>44275054
Nukes will be employed as a last resort in the final days of the resource wars. America will likely begin "annexing" any country with oil supplies and Nukes will be the only defense.
Ever see 6 billion people slowly starve to death? Just live long enough and you will.
>>44275152
It will just be Africans, Chinese, and Indians starving to death, so I don't see where this idea that technological civilization is doomed.
There will definitely be starvation in the western nations, but America is likely to be fine (assuming it wasn't obliterated in the initial nuclear exchange)
If anything, it'll just be a world ripe for conquest and expansion by the western nations able to feed themselves.
>>44274911
So you grab three and sell them at 4/5s the price. You're still saving the companies 20% in price and coming away with good, I dunno, 40 million in profit? That's also using the costs of the Falcon Heavy, which as the name suggests, is fucking heavy. My guess is if you're going up there for that you're not going to be using a beast like that.
>>44275193
>le sour grapes
The grapes don't even exist in the first place because Musk is a fool who has no idea what he's doing, and is only playing off the "eccentric rich guy is going to Mars!" shtick. Without NASA, his company would still be on the launch pad.
>>44275220
All industrial food production depends solely on cheap nitrates made from cracking natural gas and other petroleum products.
Without it, and without the fuel for Shipping Trucks, the crops will fail, people won't be able to get the food from agricultural centers to metropolitan centers before it rots.
Billions will die. It cannot be prevented. The universe has no escape hatch for the corner we've foolishly painted ourselves into.
Humanity is the guy who wins a million dollars in the lottery and is homeless by the next year.
Go ahead, refuge in the cargo cult of the singularity. Clinging to religion is all people have left.
>>44275223
You lose 10 million dollars. The material cost of the satellite is at most 1/100th the total cost of manufacturing. Space is a non-start.
>>44275260
No, you're just lashing out because all you've managed in life is being contrarian on a chinese cartoon board.
>>44275299
I don't understand your reasoning. 50 million is the manufacturing costs. You recover already manufactured parts, selling them at 40 million. Three of them gets you 120 million, so if it costs 80 million to get into space, you're still coming down with 40 million in profit?
>>44275361
Is it your plan to refurbish the satellite and send it back up again?
If not, then you're only going to be recovering the materials, and those are not worth 40 million dollars.
Nor is a budget refurbished satellite from god knows when going to be as valuable as a new satellite. Most of the cost of making a satellite is infrastructure and paying the experts who assemble it.
>>44275299
>Go ahead, refuge in the cargo cult of the singularity. Clinging to religion is all people have left.
Now look at what you've done, you scared all the crows away!
>>44275322
>Our savior Musk shall surely deliver us!
Listen bud, I love space exploration as much as the next guy, and planetary colonization gets me wet, but not if it's a fucking corp.
Musk will not, can not, and should not go to Mars just to satisfy his own ideological cravings. He has fooled himself and his devotees.
>>44275654
Then humanity is absolutely fucked.
Happy now?
>>44275809
>Baww, only the prophet Musk (pbuh) can save humanity!
Maybe you should reroute some of that fatalist pessimism and fanatical zealotry to something other than saying "shits fucked bruh and we can't fix it!"
>>44275879
I'm not religious, so i lack the faith.
>>44275879
Ignorance is bliss.
Stay ignorant, anon. You'll be better off not seeing it coming.
>>44276003
I see it coming, and you do too, but that's no excuse to give up.
>>44267666
You could just use Orbital:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtHYIrIPmE
The setting is ready to go whenever you are.
>>44267833
Its sad that you cant see ways to make realism fun. Thats the entire point of wargaming imo: Make realistic things like warfare or gun combat, or space exploration fun. If you can't work out systems that do this for you, I feel sorry for you. I can understand people get stuck in the D&D and fantasy mode, but there's a whole world of interesting and challenging gameplay in modern and futuristic settings / systems
>>44276088
There are problems that exist in this universe for which there are no answers.
Nothing. Nothing can be done.
>>44276098
>Its sad that you cant see ways to make realism fun. Thats the entire point of wargaming imo: Make realistic things like warfare or gun combat, or space exploration fun. If you can't work out systems that do this for you, I feel sorry for you. I can understand people get stuck in the D&D and fantasy mode, but there's a whole world of interesting and challenging gameplay in modern and futuristic settings / systems
Did you really need to say all this just to make yourself feel special?
There's nothing realistic about Traveller, don't make me laugh.
>>44276115
>There are problems that exist in this universe for which there are no answers.
>Nothing. Nothing can be done.
Sounds like quitter talk to me, son.
Lie down and die like the dog you are.
>>44276159
Weird, all i can see is the response code. Did you forget to hit Ctrl+V?
>>44276185
What the fuck are you on about?
>>44276159
>it's the perpetual motion guy again
Oh jeez. you just never quit, do you?
>>44276159
>he doesn't recognize a famous quote from Dune
What a faggot.
>>44276233
No idea who you're talking about, but I highly doubt (to an extreme degree) that perpetual motion is possible.
Still no excuse to be a defeatist worm though, senpai.
>>44276185
Anon, it doesn't matter what you're trying to say if nobody can understand you.
>>44276246
>Dune
>2deep4u pseudo-philosophical drivel
Sorry for not reading your shitty hipster sci-fi.
>>44276271
You're just a walking contradiction, then? "That's quitter talk lol memes"
Which is it, faggot?
>>44276293
Now everyone knows you're just trolling.
>>44276304
I said it's highly unlikely that perpetual motion is possible (and frankly not worth the effort to prove that it is), not that it's impossible; it's a subtle but important difference.
Now get off the ground and hold yourself high and make use of yourself instead of whining that everything is going to hell in a hand basket.
>>44276341
That's just quitter talk, son.
>>44276330
>implying I'm trolling
It's an enjoyable and entertaining story, but nothing more.
>>44276369
>BACKPEDAL BAAACKPEDAAAAL
>>44276350
Are you actually retarded, or are you just practicing for a play?
>>44276381
>MEMES
McDonalds is shitty foods, doesn't mean it's not delicious or enjoyable.
Dune is the McDonalds of classic sci-fi.
>>44276423
Weird, all i can see is the response codes. Did you forget to hit Ctrl+V?
>>44276444
Is this some fresh new pasta or something?
I'm sure this is supposed to be an insult, but for the life of me I cannot understand it.
Are you implying that I'm trying to respond to you with copypasta, but am forgetting to paste the pasta before replying?
>>44276474
Took you long enough.
>>44276568
It's a shitty jab regardless, since literally everyone can see what I replied with.
It's only funny to you, and you alone.
>>44276587
Sure. That's why you replied. Because it didn't bother you.
Done trolling yet? I'm sure /sci/ misses you.
>>44270554
> GPS
Uh... wasn't that NASA? On their shoestring budget, no less?
(And Internet comes mostly out of CERN if we're defining it from what we interact with. It's not just a question of linking together computers)
>>44270202
>space program
>doing anything to the US budget
>literally a fraction of every other budget
aylmao
Oh look it's this thread again. Have Lud-Anon and Hope Anon started fighting yet? Looks like they have.
>>44276629
Aww, they think they're witty.
Drop and build me a carbon harvester son.
![XZJDBUO[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/z95XNog.jpg "XZJDBUO[1].jpg")
>>44275299
>>44279617
NASA: Worth less to the average voter than chapsticks.
![KKSKqWf[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ChMLaJv.jpg "KKSKqWf[1].jpg")
99% of the posts in this thread
Can we talk about the original fucking topic, not whether or not you think it's possible? I don't think wizards and elves are possible too and I still play games about them.
>>44279672
Fucking this.
It's called fiction for a reason.
If it can't actually be done, or won't, then just make up reasons that it can and people will.
Dear God, have you all been so caught up in 'muh realism' that you can't make a modern-day fairy tale?
>>44279672
Fine.
>>44267666
The short answer: Yes.
The issue is honestly not that a sense of realism prevents fun, but that
a) Some think reality is unrealistic and that people are never "lucky" ever
b) Some people get hung up on whether you can't do something.
c) "Realism" somehow means we have to focus on toilet breaks only or something.
d) Realism means there is no conflict ever, of any kind
e) Games low on combat are boring
f) Human relationships take a back seat in most RPGs.
Consider the humble soap opera. Very much of the plot is driven by the characters and their relationships. Now consider Asimov's The Martian Way, or Planetes. Much of what happens in them is driven by people.
People cause conflict. Use this. People have histories, hangups, alliances.
The best space shows not only take place in spaace, the people make the show. BSG would've been stupidly boring without its soap opera parts.
On the other end, you'll probably want exploration, survival - just looking at empty space gets dull quick.
>>44279753
Before someone accuses me of dodging the 'realism' bit, we've discovered new materials and physical properties throughout the course of history that we thought weren't possible.
People thought shit was gonna hit the fan when we hit the sound barrier.
Maybe there's a secret method of teleportation or pseudo - teleportation that spacecraft use to expedite their voyage or send out a probe that they can teleport to.
Honestly.
I say realism comes along when you take the implications of your siruation, whatever the situation is, and then play them to the end.
'Realistic' CoC might just be that shit's fucked and we can only delay the inevitable.
>>44279629
>Hope Anon
I'm frankly flattered that I have a name.
>>44279808
>BSG
>realistic
>Planetes
>fun game
>>44279672
The original topic is realistic space exploration. What do you think realism is?
>>44270202
>That you've pulled the numbers out of your ass, yes. You could recover some money from it in this way, but not enough for a space program like this. Apollo wrecked the US budget and contributed to sinking the soviet economy
You uninformed fucking cunt.
I positively despise you.
Not only do you say the opposite of the truth, you are saying it like as if you actually knew what you were talking about misinforming people.
And hindering scientific progress at that.
FUCK. YOU.
The space program might have been hard on the US budget, but the economy benefited from it massively, because all the industry went into overdrive.
The collapse of the USSR had virtually nothing to do with the space race. It had more to do with shitty central planning, inefficient military with great expenses and america gaining a foothold in the major oil exporting regions faster than the USSR.
>>44280464
Are you five?
In that case, good job kid! :)
>>44267666
How can we make a realistic (but still fun) game about modern humans colonizing the rest of the Sol system
You can't, because there's nothing realistic about Humanity colonizing the system, or any other system. We're going to be on this rock until we go extinct. There's no hope of escape, at all. Physics and human nature will combine to keep us here forever.
>>44283948
>I'm a worthless pleb with no willpower or sense of drive, so anyone who isn't as pessimistic as me is a fool
Will you fight or will you perish like a dog?
>>44283892
Your case is weak and you're a ridiculous person. Planetes is a good story but would be an awful RPG, and BSG is just not about realistic space exploration.
And ironic shitposting is still just shitposting.
>>44284010
You're not supposed to take TTGL literally.
>>44284069
And people aren't supposed to be faggots, yet here you are.
There's a difference between understanding the near-inevitability of failure, and accepting it.
>>44284124
There are good evolutionary reasons for homosexuality, you know. And there's no failure in not doing difficult and pointless things for the tween cool factor.
>>44284150
>And there's no failure in not doing difficult and pointless things for the tween cool factor.
Besides the failure of merely existing, rather than living.
When were you broken, anon? When did the light go out?
>>44279649
>Worth less to the average voter
yeah
shit like microwaves and cordless tools and insulation is fucking worthless
>>44284225
>implying the average voter knows that
>>44281143
Don't forget a senile political elite. All the other problems could have been overcome if not for that I think. But (just e.g.) those morons couldn't even look at the Chinese example. Gorby and his enemies alike were unaware that anything was happening there before TIANMEN BAD (GOOD if you're a hardliner instead)! Unbelievable.
>>44284200
The reason nobody takes old adolescents seriously is because they're too young to have had comparatively profound thoughts and realizations. They're not dumb, they've just not had enough time yet. Thinking takes time, the older you get the more opportunity to do it you've had available to you. Now I'm not saying you're on the wrong track just because you're younger and all that, but you want an answer and I'm giving it to you. The word you're using have no connection to anything real: there's no "merely existing, rather than living" outside of the difference between say, a wooden chair and a badger. There's no "light". Space exploration for the sake of some "proof of willpower and being alive, not letting the lights of youth go out" kind of reason is not some grand or important thing people need in their lives for emotional satisfaction. Its absence won't net much existential satisfaction either, but at least it won't swallow resources that could be used in better ways. I could work all my life in order to afford the materials and manpower to build a pyramid in Nevada just for the sake of it if I wanted (I mean, not really, but just as an example), but doing so wouldn't really have anything to do with the validity of my existence or anything. I don't know, maybe it's because I'm somewhere between 20 and 40 and thus not young enough to have strange ideas like that, and not old enough to be having a mid-life crisis.
>>44284370
You forgot one very important thing; the slimmest chance of humanity not being doomed to die on this rock is worth the cost. Not only is it a matter of willpower and surmountING challenges for their own sake, it's a very worthwhile goal for anyone who cares about their descendants and beyond their lifetime.
>resources can be put to better use
To what? Prolonging the inevitable?
Anything less than immortality is a waste of time.
>>44284437
There's no threat in the foreseeable future that threatens to wipe us out, certainly not to the point where there's a point in rushing towards space colonization. And what does immortality have to do with space exploration? You can't expect to go to Mars and stumble on the Philosopher's Stone, even ignoring the fact that immortality isn't the topic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking down on you or anything, I'm just explaining that I think your ideas about what matters are going to develop as time goes by, just like mine are going to, and it has nothing to do with the disappearance of any metaphorical lights in my life.
>>44284540
>There's no threat in the foreseeable future that threatens to wipe us out, certainly not to the point where there's a point in rushing towards space colonization.
It's better to get started regardless before we NEED to, and possibly run the risk of not having enough time.
If it takes X years to get off earth, and we have Y years before Earth gets fucked, we should start ASAP to minimize the chance of X > Y
>And what does immortality have to do with space exploration? You can't expect to go to Mars and stumble on the Philosopher's Stone, even ignoring the fact that immortality isn't the topic.
I was more referring to the continued existence of humanity, thus its. immortality.
