posted June 17, 1999 18:57            

Contributors
Bell, Blade Runner, Certhas, CormacMacArt, crusher, don Don, Ecce Homo, EnochF, feanor , Harel, Kris Huysmans, NotLikeTea, Spartan187, wheathin.

OPENING STATEMENTS

"I'd like to see as little of space as possible. Why? Civ is a historic game. SMAC is an SF game."

"I would really like to play with a few centuries of science fiction, while preparing the voyage to Alpha Centauri (which should last longer itself)."

ORBITAL LAYER(S)

"Orbit = a separate map superimposed on the global map, in which there are no special resources and the tiles of which produce nothing without improvement. Certain units will have the ability to "launch" themselves into space, and others will require a "rail launcher" or a space elevator to get into orbit. "

"To make orbiting close to real life, space should have two "levels". First the close orbit, where space shuttles, spy satellites and Mir hang around. Then we have the geostationary orbit, where communication (and future energy) satellites orbit to stay above the same spot over Earth."

"There must be differed layers : ground and sea units, air units, orbitals. Every layer must have its own zones of control. One area may have tree civilizations on it An example area: layer 1: a Mongol tank, layer 2: 3 Greek helicopters, layer 2: a German com sat"

"If CivIII is going to be the same time range as CivII, the abstracted space model used in SMAC would be sufficient, but if there's going to be more future-tech involved, and overlay will be necessary. "

SATTELITES/ORBITALS/SPACE STATIONS

"Get satellites into the civilization III game: researching the advance space flight will open options to research other, more specific space flight advances. Each time a specific space advance has been researched a civilization can start building the specific satellites."

"First you should be able to build satellites after "space rocketry" and after a few more tech. advances, be able to build space stations."

"Each satellite network needs at least one dedicated control center to be build in a city by choice. Multiple control centers can be built in different cities to provide back-up centers. If a control center gets destroyed, the civilization looses any benefits from the satellites until a new control center has been build.

If control center has been captured two things can happen. A) The loosing civilization has a backup control center and takes control from there. B) The loosing civilization has no backup center and looses control of the satellites to the capturing civ. "

"Types of orbitals:

• Orbitals that can't be moved after launch (labs, solar enery powerstadions, ...)


• Orbitals that can be normal moved after launch and don't need to refuel (defens sats, laser sats,...)


• High altitude fighters: They must return to base to refuel. (To atack orbitals, To bomb ground units,...)"


• Communication satellites ( or network): each satellite build will cover a specific area of the word map, increasing trade, science and happiness. The more communication satellites you build, the more area you cover.


• Spy satellites: provides high intelligence on cities, units, other satellites, etc (like the investigate city option for diplomats and spies).


• Fighter satellites: search and destroy enemy SAT's.


• Teleport satellites: teleporting units.


• Energy satellites: increases production, decreases pollution.
• Pillage Orbital: Destroys every terrain improvement in a distance of 1 when you press p.


• City Bomber Orbital: You can bomb the improvements of an enemy city.


• Ground Bomber Orbital: Can bombs enemy units when he is above them.


• Solar energy orbital: -1 maintenance for every building in the home city of this unit (because the energy is free). Every city can only have one Solar energy orbital


• Paradrop orbital: can stock units and drop them.


• Hotel orbital: +3 credit for the home city. You can only build a limited number of Hotel orbitals in every city.


• Carrier orbital: can stock space fighter units.


• Hydroponic station ( extra food )


• Habitat station ( extra pop suppost )
• Factory station ( +25% production )


• Ship-dock ( allow complex space-based wonders and reudce Sat building cost ).


• Maintenance station (reduce the very high maintenance cost of satellites)


• Ground units that can shut down orbitals.

"I think orbitals must be units and not improvements. "

"Space stations would be buildings, just like the different satellites."

"I wouldn't load the game up with satellite units, but a few wouldn't hurt. Spy satellites have obvious military uses as player-controlled units. Communications satellites would be nice to launch, but certainly not to control; they would make better "improvements" than units. Satellites are not built in cities, but in orbit, they require certain upkeep, and enemy space units ("pillaging in space) can take them out. "

COLONIZATION

"On my wishlist there are colonization of the Moon, Venus and Mars. Could these be Wonders, or maybe alternative world maps?"

"The Moon (and maybe other celestial bodies) would be separate, but simple, maps."

"Once a "moon map" is available, it would be simplicity itself to create a similar "Mars map." In fact, there would be nothing to stop us from making a Titan, Europa, Venus or Ganymede map."

"I think that robots will do the mining work in space. There must only be a few humans to control and program the robots. This means:

• The population of a space colony may not exceed 2.


• Only on Mars after the building of the terraform secret project. May the size be 4 (for every civilization).


• Robotic workers (supply crawlers) will do the mining work.


• Normally space colonies will only produce minerals (It needs food from earth cities).


• But after the building of the terraform secret project can mars colonies produce some food.


• And after the building of the resources market can you sell minerals for money."

"Have multiple planets.
We reach Alpha Centauri and start to colonize the planet. We would find new materials, allowing new technologies, allowing more regular space travel. Then we get to other planets, as do our opponents."

"You should be able to set up bases on the moon or Mars, although they would cost a very large amount of production and would take some time to reach their destination. After more tech. advances, you should be able to build wonders of the world that completely terraform Mars and/or the moon, allowing Mars or moon bases to be constructed at the same cost as settlers. After more tech. advances, constructing bases beyond our solar system and on Jupiter's moons and Pluto then becomes an option."

"Civ needs to stay Earth-(and near Earth orbit-) bound."

"Cities on the Moon and Mars should be a wonder. The wonder will give a VERY big pop bonus. Mars one will be bigger, but it will cost much much more.

Other possible wonder:

• The astroid liners ( A big production income )


• Terraforming ( Increase Mars pop bonus even more )"

"There shouldn't be to many planets available, perhaps about 20. With 4+ civs rushing for them this would mean ~ 5 planets per civ. Apart from planets, that would be managed the same way as earth, you could have smaller planets around other suns, that are not capable of supporting life, but instead are just mines or something like this."

"SMAC clearly killed Earth pop by the time the Unity got to AC in 2100, and it left in struggles that were already there in 2050. The game won't push past 2050 tech. That is the time-line.

"Therefor, massive colonization of the Moon and Mars and very unlikely, therefor maps of them are out of the question. The only possible ways out are small outposts with wonders, my suggestion."

"What about the ability to randomly create a solar system, along with randomly generated "world" maps? Maybe even customize a solar system. "Number of planets? 3-5, 6-10, 11-15." "Composition of planets? Mostly gaseous. Evenly distributed. Mostly terrestrial." You would begin to learn about the major planets in ancient times, when you discover astronomy. You might discover more planets upon discovery of, say, optics or lens crafting. Eventually you'd send out unmanned probes to gather data on the planets, as to whether they would eventually be "colonizable" or lend themselves to terraforming. Maybe you'll end up with a system of gas giants, or maybe you'll have a dozen moons and planets to colonize."

"We need a kind of automation for colonization. I'm thinking among the lines of planetary governors that manage a planet’s microcosmos."

"I wouldn't go any farther than a manned Mars landing, or a primitive Moon research base, at the most."

SPACE SHIPS/TRANSPORTATION

"I would like to see some massive space ships like the Star Destroyer available for usage."

"Along with several planets, I would love to have things like huge space stations in the space between the planets, and solar systems, acting as very small planets. Perhaps, later on, even a Deathstar."

"The transport type will depends on you technological progress. How better your technology how better units you can build too launch units to space.

• Oil rocket: Very slow, can only carry one unit, can only goes to the moon.


• Nuclear fusion rocket: Faster can carry 4 units. Can goes to the whole solar system.


• Teleport ship: Can goes to every place in the solar system in 0 turns. Can carry 8 units.


• Interstellar teleport ship: Very costly. When you launch one to AC then the game ends

These units have just like orbitals a launch option. You can choose about a list of destinations after you have pressed the launch button."

"Companies may institute Space Lanes (a possible tech) and then use them to establish semi-permanent Wakeways (another tech - lanes seeded with fuel). That way, spacecraft would no longer need to bring their fuel with them, decreasing their mass and production cost. "Seeder" craft, probably robotic, could maintain the Wakeways using material mined from comets or asteroids. Then mining or passenger craft could simply act as primitive ramjets, provided they never veer off the Wakeway itself. This isn't the Bussard ramjet working solely on interstellar hydrogen. This would be a cheaper ramjet that could only function along Wakeways."

ALIEN INVASION

"A race of aliens starts on the moon and while having the same tech they get different units. Eventually they produce a fleet of world ships and decide to pay you a visit. These aliens would be extremely hostile, with little chance of them liking you. They could appear on any foreign planet. They could also colonize a planet until its resources run out."

PLANETARY RESOURCES

"When planet resources become depleted it becomes a desolate wasteland. All land becomes either hills or mountains and all cities shrink to size one. Only years of terriforming would make the city radius healthy enough for it to support life again. Space cities should have the ability to horde terraforming points or production."

"Corporations will not be exploring the solar system for interesting data. They'll be after the valuable minerals contained in the asteroids and on the Moon. (Asteroid Mining should also be a tech; Call to Power got that much right.)

However, the mere act of dragging minerals back down the gravity well is not entirely practical, so corporations will soon begin to research Orbital Construction (which should also be a tech, leading eventually to space cities) so that orbital factories could manufacture goods from the materials gathered by mining asteroids. One could speculate that certain materials could be more easily produced in a zero-gee environment. Perhaps certain pharmaceuticals or chemicals or electronic components could be manufactured in zero gee that would be literally impossible to synthesize in Earth’s gravity.

These orbital factories could soon produce at such a rate that they could adequately supply Lunar Colonies (perhaps a tech unto itself), or at least give them the boost they need to become self-sufficient."

HUMAN MUTATION

"For that matter, by the year 3000, the term "human" might come to mean something entirely alien to our own experience. The progress of artificial intelligence, combined with new and complex modes of intelligence amplification, as well as new applications for nano-technology in the fields of medicine (specifically genetic engineering and neurology), may move the human species in whatever evolutionary direction its individuals choose for themselves."

THE ALPHA CENTAURI RACE.

TELEPORTATION

"The Star Trek's Concept of dematerialization and rematerialization invites many troublesome debates over the definition of self and death. A way around it would be worm hole like interdimensional(hyperspace) travel, but if we can have personal dimensional-travel gate system, we should already have found a way around light-speed limit."

SMAC/CIVIII RELATION

GAME ENDING

"After colonizing some planets we find some strange ruins on some of the planets, and get alien technology, and finally, we are the first civilization to travel to another dimension "

"My interest in Civilization started by possibility of simulating some historic and fictional situations to see what kind of directions or policy would be most effective. It is my belief that colonizing Jupiter should be the limit for Civ III, for I don't expect us to create a large habitat around Jupiter within 100 years"

"Why not make colonization of this solar system the "end-game" of civilization III and colonization of Alpha Centauri the goal of this "interim" game?"

[This message has been edited by smilo (edited June 18, 1999).]

posted June 18, 1999 12:05            

BTW, Smilo, add the space elevator to the list: all launchs cost nothing ( reduce 30% of cost of satellites, 20% for buildings, 10% of wonders ).

Now, about the summary: great one, really, but can't you put a new section: movement in space and unite my post ( in unity ) transportion and teleportion? Better to have a few big catagories and a lot of small ones.
Therefor, I put all the proposed movements ( and add a few.

Fuel units are a worth an accelerating worth. For example, you may burn 100 fuel units per turn. Therefor, engine 4 will move something like this:
First turn - 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 36, 36..
( unless we want to include the fuel needed to stop ).

I also introduce a new type of poplution: spatial popultion, a damage ot the farbic of space and time. Can endanger ships.

Harel's list o' engines :

Fossil fuel: Doesn't really exist, you know. No rocket really use fossil fuel, but an oxygen/hydrogen mix.

Rocket fuel: Hydrogen/oxygen mix.
Tech: 1960
Cost: High
Upkeep: 2 per fuel unit.
Enivroment: Bad.
Reliabiltiy: Low.
Speed: 1 G' acceleration, 20 fuel-units.

Laser-propulsion: A direct beam of laser gives energy to the targeted ship.
Tech: 2010
Cost: Low for ship, Very high for structure.
Upkeep: 15 per turn.
Enviroment: Clean
Reliability: Medium.
Speed: 0.1 G acceleration, as long as beam stays on ( +10 per turn ).

Electrical Ion drive: A compund plastic battary ( some pre-limanry models show a battary 20 times more powerful then even ion-lithium ones ), activing an electrical centerfuge that accelerate an Ion drive ( plasma of the Xeon noble gas ) to high speeds.
Tech: 2005
Cost: High
Upkeep: 1 per 25 fuel units.
Enviroment: Clean
Reliability: medium.
Speed: 0.05 G' acceleration, 600 fuel-units.

nuclear drive A uranium rode hitting up a Zinc-based engine ( a high-bulk matter, very good movement ratio ).
Tech: 1990
Cost: Normal
Upkeep: 1 per 5 fuel-units.
Enviroment: Very bad. Radio-active.
Reliabiltiy: Low.
Speed: 0.15 G' acceleration, 400 fuel-units.

Funnel ship This ship moves by sweaping lose hydrogen from space and burning it. Resemble a funnel. Mainly used with seed-lanes to offer good speeds.
Tech: 2010
Cost: Low.
Upkeep: None.
Enviroment: Clean
Reliabilty: Very good.
Speed: On seed-lane, 0.1 G' (+10). Solar system: 0.02 G' (+2). Inter-steller: 0.01 G (+1)

Catapult Using the force of a space elevator to hurl the ship by the centerfugale force of the planet.

Tech: requires Space elevator.
Cost: Low.
Upkeep: 10 for energy, single-time.
Enviroment: Clean.
Reliabilty: Maximum.
Speed: 30 k/sec when flung from earth. ( fixed speed ).

Solar sail: The solar-wind is filled with real-matter: neutrons, electrons and the like. The impact cause momentum. The high exposure-area of the solar sail allow a maxed impact of the wind.
Tech: 2020
Cost: Medium-high.
Upkeep: 0.
Reliabilty: Good.
Enviroment: Clean.
Speed: 0.05 G' ( +5 ) in solar-system. Intersteller: 0.

Heavy fusion drive: The "low"-tempture fusion of deutrium/tritium ion's in four million degrees, induced by elctro-magnetic pressure. This cause output energy by photons and neutrons. Possible for inter-steller flight.
Tech: 2030.
Cost: Medium.
Upkeep: 1 per 10 fuel-cells.
Reliabilty: Good.
Enviroment: Cause radio-activiy ( alpha radiation, cause neutron output ) but less the nuclear ones.
Speed: 0.2 G', 1250 fuel-cells.

Pure fusion drive: A high-tempture, spatial compressed enviroment where pure hydrogen is fusioned in a pseudo-tempture of 200 million C. The unity used this.
Tech: 2050.
Cost: 1 per 10 fuel-cells.
Upkeep: Medium.
Reliabilty: Medium.
Enviroment: Clean.
Speed: 0.5 G', 1000 fuel-cells.

Cold fission/fusion drive An engine which breakdown matter ( fission ), then fusion it, slowly transforming all matter to energy. Perfect for inter-steller ships.
Tech: 2100.
Cost: high.
Upkeep: 1 per 100 fuel-cells.
Reliabilty: Medium.
Enviroment: Clean.
Speed: 0.05 G', 3000 fuel-cells.

Hydrid engine: this engine elctrotize water molecule to oxygen and hydrogen, this mix them up again. Bit's of the water turn to energy, outputing energy to sastain the process.
Tech: 2020.
Cost: Medium-low.
Upkeep: 1 per 40 fuel-cells.
Reliabilty: Good.
Enviroment: Clean.
Speed: 0.05 G', 300 fuel-cells.

Matter/anti-matter drive: by turning anti-matter into a more effiecent process, the energy output by the annihilation of matter exceed the cost of creating the anti-matter, making a very powerful drive. Very useful for inter-steller drive.
Tech: 2075
Cost: Medium
Upkeep: 1 per 10 fuel-cells.
Reliabilty: Low.
Enviroment: Clean.
Speed: 0.9 G', 1200 fuel-cells.

Singularty drive: Like a black-hole, in quantum vacuum an electron and pozitron are created from the energy of the back-ground gravitional field ( Howking aura ). This is a great power indeed, which can move the unity with ease.
Tech: 2200
Cost: High.
Upkeep: for stablizing crystals, 7 per turn.
Reliabilty: Very low.
Enviroment: Cause spatial damage.
Speed: 1.0 G' ( +100 per turn ).

Continium-slide by using the force in the matter itself, and twisting mach-prinicple, you can create a ship that constantly move: perptura momentum. It will move by the force of her existance.
Tech: 2500
Cost: Medium-low.
Upkeep: 0.
Reliabilty: Maxium.
Enviroment: Clean.
Speed: 0.6 G' ( +60 per turn ).

16. Pseudo-gravity: Using temporal twists, you "virtualy" move, by not really passing by all the points along the way. Propeled by a singulary drive.
Tech: 2300
Cost: Very high.
Upkeep: For stablizing crystals, 50 per turn.
Reliabilty: Very low.
Enviroment: Massive spatial damage.
Speed: 10 G' ( no effect of inertia ), +1000 per turn.

Warp-drive: Using gravitional twisting of the fabric of the universe, you create a tunnel that allows you short jumps along the way. Propeled by a fusion/cold fission drive.
Tech: 2150
Cost: Very high.
Upkeep: 30 per turn.
Reliabilty: Low.
Enviroment: almost no spatial damage: the worm-holes are temportaly, and on a small scale.
Speed: +0.1 speed-of-light per turn, only for inter-steller.

Transfer point: in the origin of the universe, some particles were shattered. The principle of quantum physics dictates, that all movement inside the same atom is INSTANTENIOS ( this was proven in labs. An electron move between the four neuclons of a helium atom like the space between them doesn't exist, even after they were broken apart and hurlted 20 m' from one another ). Therefor, there are "connected" particles in the universe. by causing a very small portion of space to enflate by fabric twisting, we can "slip" a ship, and allow her to reach the other side INSTANTOUSLY.
Tech: 2750
Cost: Extreamly high, requires a special gateway.
Upkeep: 1000 per ship moved.
Reliabilty: Slight.
Enviroment: You tear up the cosmos.
Speed: A verticel 8.

[This message has been edited by Harel (edited June 18, 1999).]

posted June 18, 1999 12:36            

Ion drives are pretty feeble, though. I've heard them described as "acceleration with patience." They're fine for sending, say, a robotic probe to Alpha Centauri, but for humans, it's just not practical (yet). I mean, deceleration with ion drive would be a real bitch.

Okay, for the record, (since scientific concepts are often difficult to translate from one language to another), it appears that #9, the "heavy fusion drive," is what most Americans would think of as "cold fusion," i.e., "the low-tempture [sic] fusion of deutrium [sic]/tritium ion's, causing output energy by photons and neutrons." However, deuterium (hydrogen-2) won't fuse at low temperatures, and tritium (hydrogen-3) is in fact slightly unstable (radioactive) and would be more likely to begin fission, although tritium occurs so rarely that the chances of a dangerous nuclear tritium chain reaction are infinitesimal. Particle accelerators could fuse individual atomic nuclei, but not in sufficient numbers to begin a massive fusion reaction. Besides, the particle accelerators would end up expending more energy propelling the atomic nuclei than the meager fusion would provide. "Cold fusion" is impossible.

Let's move on, then, to #11, which is called the "cold fusion" drive but really isn't. In fact, the process described here, "an engine which breakdown matter, then fusion it, slowly transforming all matter to energy," is the very same strategy used in present-day hydrogen bombs. A simple A-bomb is used to begin a nuclear fission reaction, which creates the necessary heat to begin a fusion reaction. Thus, there's nothing "cold" about the fusion in this system. Referring to this as "cold fusion" is confusing the issue. This is not to say that the process, call it what you will, cannot be refined, but at the moment, the fusion reaction is just as uncontrolled, in fact less so, than the reaction in a nuclear fission bomb. There is as yet no way of harnessing all this energy to use it as a fuel source. That would be the necessary advance.

posted June 18, 1999 12:51            

BTW, the unity used an engine which controlled 2000 nuclear fusion explosion per minute, seazing the explosion with elctro-magnets and propeling it along the ship, striking a a slab in the rear of the ship. This cause the propulsion. You can control explosions.

posted June 19, 1999 01:18            

Thanks for the suggestion of combining teleportation with space movement. I deliberatly kept teleportation as a seperate entry as it is a contraversial subject. Some people really like it others ... well really hate it.

But, as new scientific experiments have proven that quanta can be teleported instanteniously from one place to another, I believe teleportation is actually becoming a real science. Therefore I can indeed combine space transportation and teleportation in one single subject.

Thanks for the advice.

By the way, It seems like we have a really interesting thread going on here. I learned a lot.

posted June 19, 1999 01:29            

What about energy from rolling of a metal cable by a sattelite in orbit. The cable will move at high speed through Earths magnetic field. As we have learned from our Physics teacher, conductors moving throug a magnetic field induces an electric current in the conductor. It has been done on an experimental level using the SPace Shuttle.

Hasel,
About the space lift. Could you elaborate on that a little more. Is it a very tall lift shaft ?
I always though that you could get stuff into orbit by using a very long cable. The cable would be rolled down by a sattelite in geostationary orbite. Once connected to earth, the cable would, at the other end, be connected to a high weight object. By using the centrifugal forces of the spinning earth you could keep the cable under tension. It would actually combine the benefits of a space elevator with magnetic energy.

posted June 19, 1999 05:01            

"Space elevators," sometimes referred to as "orbital tethers" or "star ladders," are all the rage in modern space science. The most famous SF example of one occurs in Arthur C. Clarke's The Fountains of Paradise, though the concept appears in several sources afterwards, including Stephen Baxter's The Time Ships.

posted June 19, 1999 11:44            

You can also launch ships this way: a ship is stuck to the cable, and then whip-flashed by a jerk, using the cable centerfuge force gotten from the planet gravity.
The energy cost is minimal: only requires to lift the ship into the elevator orbit.

posted June 20, 1999 04:05            

Carbon nanotubes article.

posted June 20, 1999 10:27            

Anyway, that's not the reason for my post. since Smilo took an intrest in Teleportion, I will now explain.

My last theortical propulsion system on my post is the Transfer-point, a teleportion model.

Teleportion is done by quantum links. Photons of the same frequency are connected with an instantous link. If you tune two photons, divide them and send them to different ways, every change of one photon will INSTANTOUSLY effect the other photon, regardless of distance. FTL communction, ofcoruse can derive on this.
The transfer of matter can be done by a similar princple: the electrons of an atom move past all of the atom nuclei parts, regards of distance. Split up the atom and send it parts into distant realms, and the electron and quarks ( moved by the color force ) will move inside this shatterd atom as no distance lay between them

Now, how can we use this to transfer a ship? Latest theortical reaserch say that atoms are not a fixed things. Trying to explain the quantum un-certenty rule, physics explain the atom ( or any particle ) as this: the fifth dimension is a "loop" dimension. Particles moving by it are moving side-ways by staying at the same place: they are moving in a very tight loop. Every particle is not a point, but a very narrow region filled with potenial energy. Like a ring ( which the fifth-dimension loop curl defines ), filled with the energy that creates the atom.

So, when you shatter an atom, you get two EXTREAMTLY small regions, bonded by instantous link. In the process of the universe creations, numerous atoms and electrons where shatterd. As matter condensed, you have places in space bonded by each other.

Now, let's say humanity masterd the infinital force of the quantum vacuum singularity engine, as the understanding of gravitonics technology. Since 1'g force is only equal to 10 watts, we can easily see the futuristic engines creating fields of millions, billions, maybe even trillions of G' ( since one singulary engine can create more power in a second then all current power plants in ther world do in a day ).

Now, think we take this extreamtly small region ( 1/1 with 30 zeroes mm, if you want an idea just how small this is ), and inflate it. GREATLY. Make it so huge, it now spanning several hundred meters of virtual space ( the space/time continium is very easy to twist... you will be suprised how easily ).

Move a ship in, using a gravitional field to stedy the bubble ( if the globe of space/time shattered, every matter in it implodes ), and just move ever so-slightly... and you are on the other side of the link, meters, kilometers, parsacs, maybe even in a different galaxy ( remember, since the big-bang matter has drifted apart greatly ).
Ala, long-range teleportion.
See value: wing-commander series ( that's your jump points people ).

posted June 21, 1999 19:51            

For example, exactly how space elevators work is beside the point as far as gameplay goes. They're a feasible outgrowth of future technology, indeed of current technology. They would probably be a kind of city improvement that each civ would be able to build once, like a palace, but which would cost a number of shield comparable to a Wonder.

And all this back-and-forth about fusion is equally irrelevant, as the game can simply designate "fusion" as a future source of energy and be done with all the speculative details.

Quite frankly, I'm feeling like quite an ass already having taken up so much valuable bandwidth in senseless debate. And that last message I posted was inexcusable. From now on, I'll just let it all slide.

*sigh*

posted June 22, 1999 09:48            

While it may be true that how a space elevator works is beside the point, I explained it beacuase Smilo asked for an alboration.

posted June 22, 1999 15:30            

Remain perfectly calm... remain civilized...

There. Whew.

posted June 22, 1999 16:57            

I'm an engineer so physics was part of my education, but not that big a part i'm afraid.

EnochF, Harel,
MARVELOUS, BRILLIANT. This is what CIV is all about : combine culture, science, arts and gaming. So please do continue your discussions. EnochF, don't lets thing slide by to easily, it great seeing the discussions going on.

But, it is true that this thread is becoming quite heavy and maybe missing the point a bit. There fore I'll setup another thread : the mining planets Syndicate. People can throw in ideas specifically concerning that subject. You guys can just go on in this thread. Please do, I really enjoy it.

posted June 22, 1999 17:36            

This is not a small thing. When you mistranslate a scientific concept, the concept you present appears flawed to everyone except for you.

Here's a perfect example:

"Teleportion is done by quantum links. Photons of the same frequency are connected with an instantous link. If you tune two photons, divide them and send them to different ways, every change of one photon will INSTANTOUSLY effect the other photon, regardless of distance. FTL communction, ofcoruse can derive on this."

Now, what you're describing here is the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox. Mind you, you don't know you're talking about the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox. You call it "quantum links." Unfortunately, "quantum links" is a meaningless technobabble phrase in English. Thus, all your English readers are unaware of the validity of your essential point.

The heart of the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox has to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. This is an aspect of the behavior of subatomic particles and their wave/particle duality. It has been said that "an electron moves as a wave but arrives as a particle." This seemingly contradictory statement actually describes the behavior of a single electron. Richard Feynman has described this as "the central mystery" of quantum physics.

The famous experiment, known as the Young double-slit experiment, goes like this: Aim a beam of monochromatic light at a screen with two narrow slits. The light will pass through both slits and then expand outward as a wave. The two waves will then interfere with one another, producing an observable interference pattern on a second screen.

This is to be expected of light. There is no paradox here. Yet the experiment also works if you send a single photon of light. And even more amazingly, the experiment shows that a single electron will somehow pass through both slits in the screen and interfere with itself! As impossible as it sounds, this experiment has been found to be repeatable.

And yet, if scientists perform the experiment again, this time placing a sensor in one of the two slits, the electron will no longer interfere with itself. It will be either be detected moving through the hole or not detected, and the interference pattern will not appear. This is also repeatable.

Now, the Copenhagen Interpretation says that electrons, when unobserved, move as waves, which are called "probability waves." Whenever the particle is observed, however, the particle goes through a process which in English is referred to as "collapsing the probability wave," after which it begins to demonstrate the behavior of a particle once again. This all has to do with indeterminacy theory. The reason a single photon or electron can interfere with itself is because, as long as we cannot know which slit the photon went through, it will behave as a probability wave.

If all of this sounds like complete bullshit to you, don't worry. Einstein thought the same thing. The Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox was pointed out by Einstein in an attempt to show that it was incompatible with natural law, that it broke the laws of physics.

It goes like this. In order to collapse the probability wave of a particle, one must know its momentum and position. Now, let's say an atom emits two electrons in opposite directions. In exactly opposite directions, so that to know the vector of one is to know the vector of another. Now, we don't know their momentum or exact vectors, only that they were emitted in opposite directions. Now, we wait. The two electrons drift apart. Now, we measure the momentum and vector of one of the electrons. As soon as we observe the electron, the probability wave collapses, and the electron immediately demonstrates the behavior of a particle once again. And so, instantaneously, no matter the distance, does the other electron. This process bypasses the speed of light entirely. Einstein hated it. He referred to the process as "spooky action at a distance."

Yet it happens. Modern SF authors are convinced that this process can be used to communicate faster than light, and they're probably right, though one would have to have quite a number of entangled particles to communicate a complicated message. And if you don't speak the language, no amount of entangled electrons will make you understood.

So, just because you know what you're talking about is no guarantee that you can communicate it intelligently in an unfamiliar language.

Oh, here's another minor point:
"Well EnochF i am not refering to C.Clark 3001 odyssey super-structure."

I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never read 3001.

In the brief argument about space elevators, you seemed to have gotten the completely false impression that we were suggesting a shaft structure. I believe you latched on to a question that smilo wrote: "Is it a very tall lift shaft?" In all our subsequent discussion, it is clear to an English reader that we are talking about a cable reaching from Earth to orbit. I mentioned that using currently technology, a cable could be constructed of carbon nanotubes made of buckminsterfullerene. I was right. A strand of carbon nanotubes does in fact possess the tensile strength to construct such a cable, and theoretical engineers are in fact discussing how to go about constructing one.

If you are such a big reader of science fiction, no doubt you are aware that this is exactly the device used in The Fountains of Paradise, a novel which I actually did refer to.

I will continue to correct any information you present here that is incorrect. I don't care whether the problem lies in bad physics or bad English. I'm not out to find you wrong. But you have posted wrong information. You've done it a lot. You're still doing it. It sounds like the problem lies in translation. After all, you stated the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox in such a way that I understood what you were talking about.

posted June 22, 1999 21:30            

'Do you know what "neutron output" is? radiation. The defination of radio-acitivy is the radiation emmiting from fissioned uranium and the like, emmiting, among other things two neutrons, which is the passive gamma radiation.'

Sorry, but radiation comes in three types: alpha particles consist of 2 protons and 2 neutrons, i.e. helium nuclei; beta particles consist of electrons or positrons; and gamma rays consist of photons.

Also, gamma radiation does not always involve the emission of neutrons. In fact, in the proton-proton chain, the process by which the sun fuses hydrogen into helium, there is an emission of gamma rays. Neutrons are indeed emitted in the chain reactions of uranium fission. However, the emission of neutrons is not radiation.

Now, once again, as above, you are probably not wrong. However, what you wrote is. Flat out incorrect.

posted June 23, 1999 12:33            

Specifcly about your posts:

* I mentioned that when you tune two photons to the same wave-length ( by passing them by a liqued prism ), they form a quantum-link ( ok, sorry, don't know a better name ), which connects the two photons in an instantous link, regardless of range.
When you send them by a fiber optic cable, any change of direction of one photon will automaticly cause the other photon to shift direction, regardless of the distance.
* No, it doesn't sound like bullshit to me ( comment of the first post )
* Einstien also said: "God doesn't play with dices". Hehe, was he wrong... :
I liked the response more: "Not only does he play with dices, he cheats too". Ok, ok, I am side-tracked.
* Another very strange anomoly: free drawing of energy from the background gravitional field. Ok, ok, I'll explain: atoms, when close by exchange photons which are created and absorbed without any energy cost. Meaning, a photon is just created without taking some energy from the electron. This is elctrodynynamics.
* Which reminds me: Smilo add another sort of engine to the next list. photon emmitor. By triggering a chain-action ( elctrodynamics is influnced by near-light kinetic speeds ). By high-accelerating particles, then holding them in a tight space ( an inertia field, maybe? ) you can create an area where photons will create without any limits ( tapping the gravitional field ).
* General knowladge: C. clark, in 3001, said that all humanity is centred in four huge sky-scrapers, each housing 250 million people. So huge it is, that it strech well beyond the rims of the stratosphere. A sort of a space elevator, just a very huge building.
I do say again: a solid shaft ( like Smilo said ) would collapse under the pressure. It needs to be elastic. And sorry, never was a big fan of Asimov so I hadne't read the foundian series much.
I highly recommand Kim stanely Robinson Mars trilogy, it has a great explantion of a space elevator, beside being a VERY good and solid hard-core SF.
* Neutron emmition is a form of radiation, and radio-active. The heavy hydrogen fusion engine is very radio-active due to neutron emmition links.

Ok, onward to Smilo challange.

* First off, about mining syndicates. Read C.J.CheerH "heavy time" nobel. While not being a favourite in my heard, it has a very good story revolving around a mining syndicate.
* Many ways to show up the astroid field. A map, a planet, city, etc. Here is what I suggest.
The process of mining is like this:
* Tracking an astroid.
* Mapping the composition.
* Drilling/Dragging the astroid to a refinary.
* Sending from rifanry back to Earth.

You will have a map, maybe like 32x32, not very big. You need to have four types of ship:
* Builder ship: builds your refinaries.
* Geologist ship: analyse possible useful astroid for chemical composition.
* Drill ship: breaks down the astroid, then haul it back to a refinary.
* Frieght ship: move minerals back to Earth.

MOVEMENT inside the belt always has a hazardous possiblity. Defined by your tracking tech, any moving ship has a change to be destroied by a fast astroid.

The map is dark, until a geolosit pass by the area and press "S" for scout. After one turn, the tile is now showing an astroid. Sending a drill and press "M". A drill can have up to 10 loads, and a single tile can have between 1-15 loads. Move back to the refinary. The refinary can transform up to 5 loads per turn ( maybe more ). They are repsented by blue shields at that base. Use a freight ship to pick them up ( up to 25 loads in one ship ). Press "E" for the freigth ship to move to Earth ( time is 5-15 turns, defined by your engine tech ).

Possible extra buildings:
* Radars: have a line-of-sight, in which ships have no chance to be destroied.
* Laser beams - ships in line-of-sight move twice faster.

posted June 23, 1999 13:00            

Harel, EnochF, I think I speak on behalf of most posters here when I say that you two should shake hands and agree to disagree. The longer this lasts, the more the argument will devolve into punctuation, and what does this accomplish?

posted June 23, 1999 13:36            

But, even my knowldage is limited: i suggest a look in one of the numerous sites of fusion engines on the net, which can tell you just why the deutrium/tritium fusion reaction is radio-active much better then I can.

posted June 24, 1999 13:03            

I would like to see less future in CivIII (well, just as much as CivII, but less than most people here are advocating)

Why? Civ is an historic game, and the future is a domain of SF, for the moment at least. Games that try to combine history and SF usually do a poor job at both.

Also, consider this. CivIII is one game in their "Sweep of Time" trilogy. SMAC is another game in the series. What would be the third? It could take place before Civ (unlikely, as there isn't that much to do before civilization exists), it can take place at the same time as SMAC (on earth, but unlikely since SMAC deals with the death of Earth) or it can take place after SMAC.

The third option looks most likely, but even the second is plausible. In both cases, planetary exploration, colonisation, mining, etc would fit in perfectly! These are all good ideas, but they belong in their own game. In Civ, they could only seem to be poorly grafted on. I look forward to seeing them eventually, but not in this game.

posted June 24, 1999 17:26            

However, sending 40 000 colonists to AC is an advanced project, which would require centuries of research and preparation, including colonization of the solar system. Why go to another solar system as long as most of this one is untouched?

posted July 01, 1999 13:44            

Okay. Concept #1: The Extended Game
There is an option to turn this off. Meaning that Civ III can be played just like Civ II, with the voyage to Alpha Centauri taking place directly after the Apollo missions. Of course, we all know the people who turn off the Extended Game are the world conquerors and deity players, but the option for Alpha Centauri will still be there.

But for those of us with loftier goals, there's the Extended Game, which consists of colonizing the habitable bodies of the solar system and exploiting resources. In Test of Time, you may end up in a conflict with aliens to keep things interesting. I don't happen to think aliens are necessary to keep players interested, but it would be an interesting twist. Maybe you'd discover microbial life living on Titan and develop the science of exobiology (xenobiology), which would come in handy when dealing with the more developed alien life on Alpha Centauri. The Extended Game would also include a number of future technologies based on extrapolations from present-day cutting-edge techs and possibly SF sources. Less emphasis on the military: we don't want this to turn into Robotech or Star Blazers, though a handful of space units are okay.

Concept #2: Multiple Maps
Test of Time already has multiple maps, four of them! It would be simplicity itself to take this concept and apply it to the colonization of the solar system! Let's say we have six base maps for an extended game. Earth, Moon, Mars, Titan, Ganymede, Alpha Centauri Planet. Each of these maps can be any size and randomly generated. The Moon map will always be the satellite of the beginning planet, but the Mars, Titan and Ganymede maps can be any size (or even not exist depending on how many planets were randomly determined to be in your solar system) and contain all manner of exotic terrain. The Alpha Centauri Planet map will always be the same size as the Earth map and will contain terrain not to be found anywhere in the other solar system maps.

posted July 01, 1999 18:56            

In any case, John (the same one who answers questions in Apolyton's Test of Time forums) was dropping hints about possible uses for multiple maps.

One of his suggestions really fired me up for designing scenarios: Time travel. Each map could represent the same planet at a different period in history!

Mostly this would be a scenario-related thing. But it's also another argument in favor of multiple maps, which means it's an argument in favor of colonization of the solar system.

posted July 10, 1999 20:31            

It wouldn't be all that hard to generate all the terrain, either. Most of the "space" terrain could be recycled from map to map. A crater is a crater, whether it's on the moon, mercury or on a asteroid. The only maps that would have to be really unique would be Mars, Titan, parts of Venus, and maybe Europa(Which could be a linked map with the surface and underwater)
And for the unimaginative pansies that can't handle creativity, you could just turn it off.

posted July 14, 1999 03:16            

quote:

---

nuclear drive A uranium rode hitting up a Zinc-based engine ( a high-bulk matter, very good movement ratio ).
Tech: 1990
Cost: Normal
Upkeep: 1 per 5 fuel-units.
Enviroment: Very bad. Radio-active.
Reliabiltiy: Low.
Speed: 0.15 G' acceleration, 400 fuel-units

---

I can't guess how to translate what I know (Isp = specific Impulse, the length of time one lb-mass of reaction matter can produce one lb-force of thrust) into "movement ratio" (huh?) "fuel units" (arbitrary) and "G" (strictly dependent on payload size). For reference, LOX-LH2 engine produces Isp of 600 seconds.

There are two basic forms (with variants): solid core and gas core. Solid Core typically uses a "bed" of fuel pellets coated with a carbide protective layer. Reaction mass (typically H2 or CO2 seeded with microscopic metalic carbide particals for heat transfer) is heated to conventional temperatures to produce Isp in the 800 sec (CO2) or 1000-1300+ sec (H2) range. The reaction is controlled by the concentration of pellets in the bed. This is little different from the NERVA engine built and tested in the 1960's. Snazzy future tech might produce somewhat higher Isp with superior fuel control & heat transfer.

Gas Core has the best potential for the forseeable future. UF6 gas in a fused silica/diamond sphere is the reactor. The reation mass would again be seeded H2 or CO2. Temperature limitations of fused silica (marginally possible with today's tech) yield an Isp in the 2000-3000 sec range. The biggest problem at present is isolating the unused fuel in heavy shielded tanks, temperature, and controlling the reactor. Fused silica with diamond protective layers (forseeable) might boost Isp to 5000 sec. Diamond reactor and engine parts (far but feasible future, 100+ yrs) could yield Isp as much as 20,000 sec.

Neither design has notable contamination of reaction mass with fission products, but malfunction or attack could release radioactive pollution. Non-military use would likely be confined to space only. In a less squeemish future society (as might be encountered in a Civ3 game) nuclear propulsion for military aerospace weapons platforms would be awesome.

(I'll correct the Isp figures if necessary when I get home)

------------------
*a friendly note from your favorite heretic