Wolfy, you're slightly overestimating the danger of antimatter engines.
Bobby, you're dramatically underestimating the danger of all other engines.
NSWR will kill everything behind you very dead. Fusion drives will kill everything behind you very dead. About the only drive in Transcendence that isn't a weapon of mass destruction to the rear is the inertialess drive. And it's a planet cracker if you ram your ship into one.
Any interesting space drive is a weapon of mass destruction.
Traveling At the Speed of Light
-
- Militia Lieutenant
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:36 pm
- Location: RXDV Labs orbiting Mars
mhmkay... you guys are real astrophysicist or just a wiki-referrer?Wolfy wrote:Ok, I meant more of the extreme levels of energy burning you into a crisp more of a thing, but it does output high levels of radiation too.Ttech wrote:So you would be green and possibly growing extra arms, what's the harm?Wolfy wrote:Yes it would, not antimatter damage, but the fact that its producing way more energy than a normal chem drive would still makes it very dangrous to stand around...schilcote wrote:WRONG!Aeonic wrote:Antimatter propulsion would also kill everything in its wake, which is hard to emulate in-game.
Check out Bobby's Afterburner.
Also, I don't think antimatter would do that any more than a normal rocket would, all the antimatter is being used up in the drive.
and i never know that antimatter-matter collision will create radiation.
El-O-El! (LOL)Atarlost wrote:Wolfy, you're slightly overestimating the danger of antimatter engines.
Bobby, you're dramatically underestimating the danger of all other engines.
NSWR will kill everything behind you very dead. Fusion drives will kill everything behind you very dead. About the only drive in Transcendence that isn't a weapon of mass destruction to the rear is the inertialess drive. And it's a planet cracker if you ram your ship into one.
I am a quantum physicist, an astrophysicist, a nuclear physicsist, a roboticist, and a computer programmer. Intellectually, I pwn.Dalva wrote:mhmkay... you guys are real astrophysicist or just a wiki-referrer?Wolfy wrote:Ok, I meant more of the extreme levels of energy burning you into a crisp more of a thing, but it does output high levels of radiation too.Ttech wrote:So you would be green and possibly growing extra arms, what's the harm?Wolfy wrote:Yes it would, not antimatter damage, but the fact that its producing way more energy than a normal chem drive would still makes it very dangrous to stand around...schilcote wrote:WRONG!Aeonic wrote:Antimatter propulsion would also kill everything in its wake, which is hard to emulate in-game.
Check out Bobby's Afterburner.
Also, I don't think antimatter would do that any more than a normal rocket would, all the antimatter is being used up in the drive.
and i never know that antimatter-matter collision will create radiation.
[schilcote] It doesn't have to be good, it just has to not be "wow is that the only thing you could think of" bad
Well, I'm an ametuer, but still, I know more about those subjects than most pepole. I am a very good programmer, I have genetic algorithms to prove it (they don't quite[/1] work, but they're close). I know enough about atomic physics to construct a simple explosive, which is much more than most pepole do.
[schilcote] It doesn't have to be good, it just has to not be "wow is that the only thing you could think of" bad
Any reasonably educated person knows how to construct a simple nuke. It's the enrichment that's the hard part and that's engineering.
So, yes, you know more than an illiterate African tribesman or an illiterate migrant farmworker or a high school dropout or an English major. That's not very much.
So, yes, you know more than an illiterate African tribesman or an illiterate migrant farmworker or a high school dropout or an English major. That's not very much.
- Aury
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 5421
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:10 am
- Location: Somewhere in the Frontier on a Hycrotan station, working on new ships.
Pfft... the concept behind atomic weaponry is so simple a 5-year old could figure it out... (well at least I did at that age - after all, that is the age at when I was taught the underlying concepts )
Same goes for dual-layer dvds (though it was CD's back at the time when I had the idea)... I could I been so rich! D:
You do seem like a talented programmer though ^^
still, lets try plopping you out in the wilderness for a few weeks...
Same goes for dual-layer dvds (though it was CD's back at the time when I had the idea)... I could I been so rich! D:
You do seem like a talented programmer though ^^
still, lets try plopping you out in the wilderness for a few weeks...
(shpOrder gPlayership 'barrelRoll)
(plySetGenome gPlayer (list 'Varalyn 'nonBinary))
Homelab Servers: Xeon Silver 4110, 16GB | Via Quadcore C4650, 16GB | Athlon 200GE, 8GB | i7 7800X, 32GB | Threadripper 1950X, 32GB | Atom x5 8350, 4GB | Opteron 8174, 16GB | Xeon E5 2620 v3, 8GB | 2x Xeon Silver 4116, 96GB, 2x 1080ti | i7 8700, 32GB, 6500XT
Workstations & Render machines: Threadripper 3990X, 128GB, 6900XT | Threadripper 2990WX, 32GB, 1080ti | Xeon Platinum 8173M, 48GB, 1070ti | R9 3900X, 16GB, Vega64 | 2x E5 2430L v2, 24GB, 970 | R7 3700X, 32GB, A6000
Gaming Systems: R9 5950X, 32GB, 6700XT
Office Systems: Xeon 5318Y, 256GB, A4000
Misc Systems: R5 3500U, 20GB | R5 2400G, 16GB | i5 7640X, 16GB, Vega56 | E5 2620, 8GB, R5 260 | P4 1.8ghz, 0.75GB, Voodoo 5 5500 | Athlon 64 x2 4400+, 1.5GB, FX 5800 Ultra | Pentium D 3.2ghz, 4GB, 7600gt | Celeron g460, 8GB, 730gt | 2x Athlon FX 74, 8GB, 8800gts 512 | FX 9590, 16GB, R9 295x2 | E350, 8GB | Phenom X4 2.6ghz, 16GB, 8800gt | random core2 duo/atom/i5/i7 laptops
(plySetGenome gPlayer (list 'Varalyn 'nonBinary))
Homelab Servers: Xeon Silver 4110, 16GB | Via Quadcore C4650, 16GB | Athlon 200GE, 8GB | i7 7800X, 32GB | Threadripper 1950X, 32GB | Atom x5 8350, 4GB | Opteron 8174, 16GB | Xeon E5 2620 v3, 8GB | 2x Xeon Silver 4116, 96GB, 2x 1080ti | i7 8700, 32GB, 6500XT
Workstations & Render machines: Threadripper 3990X, 128GB, 6900XT | Threadripper 2990WX, 32GB, 1080ti | Xeon Platinum 8173M, 48GB, 1070ti | R9 3900X, 16GB, Vega64 | 2x E5 2430L v2, 24GB, 970 | R7 3700X, 32GB, A6000
Gaming Systems: R9 5950X, 32GB, 6700XT
Office Systems: Xeon 5318Y, 256GB, A4000
Misc Systems: R5 3500U, 20GB | R5 2400G, 16GB | i5 7640X, 16GB, Vega56 | E5 2620, 8GB, R5 260 | P4 1.8ghz, 0.75GB, Voodoo 5 5500 | Athlon 64 x2 4400+, 1.5GB, FX 5800 Ultra | Pentium D 3.2ghz, 4GB, 7600gt | Celeron g460, 8GB, 730gt | 2x Athlon FX 74, 8GB, 8800gts 512 | FX 9590, 16GB, R9 295x2 | E350, 8GB | Phenom X4 2.6ghz, 16GB, 8800gt | random core2 duo/atom/i5/i7 laptops
-
- Militia Lieutenant
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:36 pm
- Location: RXDV Labs orbiting Mars
just say "chemistry". no need for "atomic physics" stuff...schilcote wrote:...I know enough about atomic physics to construct a simple explosive...
and i think everybody can make an explosive. references are everywhere.
NUCLEAR explosive. 5-6 megaton difference. But I can also make smaller things like C4.Dalva wrote:just say "chemistry". no need for "atomic physics" stuff...schilcote wrote:...I know enough about atomic physics to construct a simple explosive...
and i think everybody can make an explosive. references are everywhere.
Well, the only thing anybody can be absolutely sure of is the programming skill, so let's stick to that.
!skill [=75,schilcote,programming]
Knoweldge is composed of two things: memory, and understanding. Understanding I have plenty of. Memory I am completely lacking in. Just because I can't remember the equations that drive these advanced sciences dosn't mean I can't understand them. If I had my computer and Wikipedia at my disposal, I could solve just about any problem.
Not to mention that all this is off topic anyway.
[schilcote] It doesn't have to be good, it just has to not be "wow is that the only thing you could think of" bad
-
- Militia Lieutenant
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:36 pm
- Location: RXDV Labs orbiting Mars
but you said "...a simple explosive..."schilcote wrote:NUCLEAR explosive. 5-6 megaton difference. But I can also make smaller things like C4.Dalva wrote:just say "chemistry". no need for "atomic physics" stuff...schilcote wrote:...I know enough about atomic physics to construct a simple explosive...
and i think everybody can make an explosive. references are everywhere.
Well, the only thing anybody can be absolutely sure of is the programming skill, so let's stick to that.
!skill [=75,schilcote,programming]
Knoweldge is composed of two things: memory, and understanding. Understanding I have plenty of. Memory I am completely lacking in. Just because I can't remember the equations that drive these advanced sciences dosn't mean I can't understand them. If I had my computer and Wikipedia at my disposal, I could solve just about any problem.
Not to mention that all this is off topic anyway.
LOL nuclear explosive is NOT a simple explosive!
Yeah, pretty much. Just two big chunks of fissile material and a way of keeping them apart untill you want to blow something up.Atarlost wrote:On the contraty, there is no explosive simpler than a gun type nuke.
[schilcote] It doesn't have to be good, it just has to not be "wow is that the only thing you could think of" bad