SPACE EXPLOITATION ver 2.0 hosted by Smilo

[dinoman2]

Don don, Harel, I conceed your point about food. However, smilo ALSO has a point about other materials. Unless we use ONLY sillicon or hydrocarbon based items in the future(which actually is possible considering the strength of advaced plastics, but it is also unlikely.) we will need to get our materials from somewhere other than Earth. And finally, even if we DO use arcologies, there will not be enough room on Earth's surface for humans. At the current rate of population growth, which is small compared with growth in recent history, the human population will reach 950 BILLION!!!! That's over 95 times our current population (and you thought New York was bad now....).

[Gordon the Whale]

Duck, everybody, here come some worms.

Harel, at one point, you said "I am a physics student, and a big reader and author of science fiction. You will NOT find me wrong." The two are not necessarily compatable; you may be quoting excellent Sci-Fi and still be dead-wrong physically. I am also a Physicist and reader of Sci-Fi, although I must admit I have very little knowledge of the cutting-edge theoretical physics that actually lets us do all the fun things we'd like to do... Or, it lets us in computer games anyways. But it bring sup a good point; Assuming there is Space Exploitation in Civ3, are we after Sci-Fi or reasonable speculation? I certainly don't think we should get into interstellar exploration. SMAC is clearly a game about the first interstellar craft launched from Earth, and the Big Boys want SMAC to come after Civ3. (I do wonder how they're planning to follow up SMAC, if that is indeed what they want to do. Not much of a game once humanity has reached transcendance, eh?) So we're stuck without an Interstellar Drive, except our one prototype, at the end of Civ3. It stops us from using fun clean fusion engines and warp drives and harnessing the Vacuum Fluctuation Force, as well as String Theory. Oh well. We don't really understand those things anyway. If we did, we'd be out colonizing the galaxy instead of playing computer games, eh? But if we stick to ion drives and chemical rockets and solar sails and laser sails and skyhooks, and stay in-system, we're standing on relatively sound scientific principle. In other words, I'm dead against going past the solar system in Civ3. Now, I think colonizing the moon, Mars, etc. would be a lot of fun. Even more than a lot of fun, it would be a lot of micromanagement. I'm a micromanager. When I have 200 cities, I'm still micromanaging. I don't actually think I've ever finished a game of Civ2. I've all but taken over the world, then left the last enemy to whimper in his one city, I've built the spaceship and waited to launch it until it will arrive on the last turn I'd get anyways. I've gotten scores over 200% in the 1700s. (and projected to hit 1000% in plenty of time.) But I never really get around to playing that last 50 turns or so... What would it be like if I was given another planet? Even if it was Mars, and not terraformed, that's so much SPACE to expand. And although I always think to myself "I wish I could colonize the rest of the solar system," I'm not sure I would actually like it if I could. I've not played CtP, so I don't know much about it's "streamlined interface," but before Civ3 goes into space, it needs to get really easy to control, and Firaxis has to do a lot of research. I don't think they should take anything anybody has said about ANY future technology as even remotely plausible without checking upon it, and I don't know if they want to spend all that ime when they've already GOT a sci-fi game.

In response to mixing history and sci-fi and gettting something that's good at neither, I have to say that tacking extra advances on to the end won't change the historical part. But it won't necessarily make a good Sci-Fi part. What I've heard about CtP is that it just gets silly. I don't want it to get silly. another problem with space colonization, and a continuing tech tree in general: How many Future tech do you discover in a turn? I can sometimes get about 5. Now, it's true, they do need to get harder as time progresses, but still. How many techs do you get from 1850 to 1950? You shouldn't have to get less from 2000 to 2100. But how can Firaxis come up with enough advances to do that? If the game can run to 2500, they've got to have as many Future advances as they had historical ones! Sure, we can project the Ion Drive. (there's one in space right now, as I recall) But we can't predict societal and economic techs, and without those, the game stops really being Civ. Sadly, the game has to end sometime, and I think the present is the best time to do it. However, linked map support, for all those customizers out there, is a must... Do it as an expansion.

That was a disorganized, rambling post, and I apologize.

[Harel]

Dino, i am getting annoyed.
950 billion?! Are you using your head?

Several FACTS.
Check it in the UN.org databse for popultion size.
Everyone loved SF movies like blade-runner, where the world popultion is over runned, mineral deplated. World is choas, destroied.

NEVER WILL HAPPEN.
You know why? Our society changed. Greatly. People, in every country in the world ( check it! Please! ) have less babies. MUCH. In old days a normal family had more then 6 babies. Do you know many people today that have that many children?
The growth rate of popultion is rising in primitve countries because of more advanced medine. However, is highly developed countries the growth rate is DECRESSING. Germany is exactly losing people every year: it's poputlion is shrinking. Same thing with Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and many east european countries.

According to all REALISTIC studies, the world popultion would reach a maximum level at 2070 at 9.8 billion people, and then will shrink constantly, at an increasing rate.
If anything, scientist predict that the future would have a problem with a TOO SMALL POPULTION. Goverments would give formal bonus to familes to bring children ( which they normally don't want. Children, in an go-getter economy are a pain in the side ). And, genetic cloning would probaly be used. Think when only a billion people, with futuristic technology, would start to spread along the galaxy. The amount of people left on earth will be far too small.

About smilo point for metals and oil. First off, oil will be gone in 20-30 years. Not depleted, just won't be used anymore.
If the highly un-likly event we won't get fusion power ( atleast deutrium/tritium "heavy hydrogen" fusion ), solar and wind power and increasing in effiency.
In, quite honstly, once we will master the technique, creating c-60 will be much cheaper then digging up iron, and only 100 times stronger and 5 times lighter .
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 28, 1999).]</font>

[Gordon the Whale]

BTW, about neutron emmission: It is radiation, just like the emmission of any particle is radiation. However, it's not Alpha radiation, that requires the emmission of an Alpha particle, or Helium 2+ ion. Beta radiation, however, is caused by the decay of a neutron, which has a halflife, as I recall, of about 12 minutes (or is it 12 seconds) once it's out of a nucleus. I don't know about a neutron and proton being different states of a nucleon... Certainly they are both nucleons, as "nucleon" is a word whoch refers to any particle found in the atomic nucleus. When undergoing Beta decay, a neutron does turn into a proton (as well as an electron and an electron neutriono). I hope that clears things up a little for anyone who cared, which may be very few...

[dinoman2]

(Dinoman backs down quickly)

Again, I conceed your point, Harel, but methinks the U.N. figures to be a tad unrealistic as well. Besides, why would ANYone trust the U.N. My figures were probably (way) incorrect as well, but yours were also (slightly) incorrect. Ignore all words in parentheses(joke).

P.S. If you want to know where I got my figures, check out the non-fiction book The Millenial Project, by Marshall T. Savage. The previous figures where but a blemish in a well thought-out book.

[Harel]

THE NEUTRON RADIATION

Ok, Gordon asked, EnochF asked, so i might just as well explain.
Neutron radiation, but itself is no, ofcourse, alpha radiation. I was refering to a deutritium/tritium fusion cell.
Proton and neutron ARE two states of a particle called neuclon, which is comprised by quarks. This may be a rarily-known fact, but it IS a fact in the end.
The proton is the original state of the neuclon: when an electron is forced to merge with a proton it created a neutron.

Why does a deutritium/tritium cell creates mass amount of alpha radiation?
A pure fusion cell fusion hydrogen to helium, and by the process convert 1/270 portion of the matter mass to pure energy.
4 hydrogen atoms, 4 proton and 4 electron are compressed into one helium: 2 proton, 2 neutron and 2 electron. 2 electros are assimilted into the neuclos and convert the protons to neutrons.
Notice, if a neutron can be thought as a neuclaon+electro then:
4 neucleon + 4 electron = 4 neuclon + 4 electron.
Radiation is comprimsed by energy which is lost due to ineffinecy. The process itself is 100% perfect, but some energy is lost in alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This is how our sun works. This fusion reacton requires an internel heat of atleast 50 million C, and at optimum of 200 million C.

Fusion of deutritium/tritium mix. Those mix are found in modern fusion reactors, a mix of 50%/50% each.
A modern fusio reactor is a half-a-meter radius cylnider made of high-tempure polymers and surround by high-power elctro-magnets.
Those magnets create a pressure by "defelcting" ( as elctro-magnets can repel just as they pull ) in a pressure which, in simple words, can lift off the ground 10,000 tons.
The pressured hydrogen ions are heated up to the point of 4-5 million degrees, were the fusion process takes place. Since the atomic links of deutrium and tritium are much weaker then a hydrogen, the fusion process can be done in a much lowered tempture.

one atom of deutrium and one of tritium are comprimised of a total of: 2 proton, 3 neutron and 2 electrons. With the extra neutron expled, they can convert to helium.
However: what can 4 neutrons create? 4 neutrons are 4 neuclons with 4 electrons. When two electros leave the neuclos, it's a helium atom. 2 proton, 2 neutrons and 2 electrons outside. alpha radiation.

In order to perevent radiation, and gain energy, those lose neutrons are used, by friction to generate energy.
Since the energy cost to maintian the mangtic field is so huge, and the energy created inside the cell is only suffiecnt to sustain the process, the only way to make fusion reacton energy effiecent is to use the energy from the neutrons, which will heat up ( and then be used in a steam-combine ) are the helium created earlier in the fusion process, cooled to liqued helium and stored around the cell to cool it further.
This matter will be heated by the neutrons.

Currently, the only reason why modern fusion reactons don't work is the lack of a more "neutron-trasnspernt" matter for the cylnider cell. Too many hit the cell and heat it up to critical levels. Reaserch into a better polimer is under-way and due to end in 15-20 years. And then, finally, we would have a working fusion cell.

world popultion: for dino

First off, the UN figures are true. The world doesn't really have x-files: the UN isn't lying to anyone. Those figures are for real.

For the last 200 years, number of babies per couple is dropping steadily, in a straight line. Think off Y=10-x. As time passes by, prosperity is being kicked down. This arrow is going down, with no intterptuon, at every place at the world, without one exception.
The discovery of anti-biotic medicine in the 1950 jumped life-longlivty into an astronomical high value. In 1940, life period was around 40. Today it's around 75. When medicne jumped up so high, so fast, growth jumped with it: people that should have died are still kicking with andrenalin.
However, the rate in which medicne jumped up is slacking now, and the toll of the lower birth-right is again in place.
Like I said, germany allready has a -0.9% growth rate, and so those several other countries.

Let's think about the USA. Every body knows, the US had 2.4 childern per couple. There is even an american TV comdey show called 2.4 childern.
BUT, if a couple has 2.4 children and they dies, how many childern are profit?
0.4. 2.4 -2 is 0.4
Now, let's think that the number was 1.9, not 2.4. Not very far from one antoher.
If the USA had 1.9, then all the medicne in the world won't help: in the end, the popultion would decresse.

About size:
Since the decreese in "childern-per-couple" is going down steadily, the only room for statistical error is just how much medicne would evolve in the next century.
With retro-active virus, which can implamnt new DNA streams, nano-medicne and what-not, the life period can just as well pass 100 next century.
So, the value flux, between 8.5 billion tops and 12, and the point in which is would start to lower: 2060 to 2090.
However, no matter what will happen, in the last days of the next century the poputltion would decreese, normally.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 30, 1999).]</font>

[Gordon the Whale]

Is there a club for people who don't know when to quit? I'd like to subscribe to a lifetime membership...

You are right, Harel, a Fusion reaction puts out all sorts of god-awful radiation, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, you name it. I'd misunderstood and thought you were trying to say that Beta-decay could create Alpha-particles.

I'm sure you know everything I am about to say, Harel, I just want to know how this fits with a single particle called a "nucleon" with multiple states... And I am going to have to pull out a textbook because it's been years since I studied Beta decay, or QCD.

Beta decay is the name for any reaction going between protons and neutrons, which of neccessity also include Electrons and Positrons, because charge must be conserved. The possible reactions are:

1) p+ + e- -> n0
2) n0 -> p+ + e-
3) n0 + e+ -> n0

There is also a neutrino in cases 1, and an anti-neutrino in cases 2 and 3. By e+ I mean a positron, as I don't know the code for an e with a bar over it.

Now, this could be interpreted as one particle which can flip between a + and 0 state with emmission or absorbtion of other particles. However, it's not a particle to begin with, per se, as they're both made up of quarks.

The proton is made of 3 quarks, Up, Up, and Down, and the neutron is made of 3 quarks, Up, Down, and Down. Up quarks have +2/3 change, Down quarks have -1/3 charge, so the proton (like everybody knows) has +1 charge, and the neutron is electrically neutral. So why are these the same particle? An interaction with a lepton (in particular, an electron or positron) will convert one to the other, but that's true of lots of things. But the electron is NOT "inside" the neutron... When a proton absorbs an electron and becomes a neutron, that up quark didn't just decide to hang out with the electron... They combined to become a Down quark, which is a fundamental particle and as such has NO constituent particles (Unless something has changed while I wasn't looking. Quarks are still fundamental particles, right?) Is your argument that a neutron is an alternate form of the proton based upon the fact that the proton is stable and the neutron isn't? Are sigma and lambda particles then also different forms of a proton? After all, if a proton absorbs a pion, it can become either one of those. Is a meson so different from a lepton? Neither is a virtual particle, they're both real. Leptons are fundamental, true, and mesons are made out of quarks, but so? Proton absorbs lepton to become neutron, proton absorbs meson to become lambda... Either way, one quark changes (lambda is Up Down Strange, as I'm sure you know) , and the product isn't stable. So are ALL baryons actually just different states of the proton? I fail to see why. You may just be repeating what you have been taught, which is a different way of looking at particle Physics. The argument may be more philosophical than physical (does it really matter whether they're the same particle anyways? They act the same regardless) but I don't understand how considering a "Nucleon" to be anything other than the name you give to the particles that exist in an atomic nucleus. If you had an atomic nucleus with Lambdas instead of neutrons, then darn it, those Lambdas would be nucleons! Of course, such nuclei would last approximately 2.6 * 10^-10 seconds, but who's counting?

I promise promise promise that even if you do reply again, I won't respond unless it has something to do with Civ3, which I realize this absolutely did not and I apologize to everyone who has to read it.

On the other hand, EnochF, give him a break. The world isn't made for native English speakers, you know, and neither is Civ3. Everyone should get their input. I bet we'd all do much worse if the thread was in Hebrew than Harel does in English.

[smilo]

Me as thread manager :
Enoch,Gordon,Harel

Ok I believe it's time to point something out to you girls/guys : if this is not going to be the thread with most replies, it is certainly going to be the longest and toughest one to read. It will be the most interesting one scientifically speaking BUT will aslo be the thread with the least valuable ideas for the upcoming civIII.

We will all understand how to build super-duper space engines, but we will not know how to incorporate it into the game.

So, please reread what you have written and give some opinions on how to get it into the game.

And .. Enoch,Harel you both are wrong : it is just a matter of time to be proven wrong after being right.

[EnochF]

Uhhhhh... Hebrenglish gives me a headache... I've got to sit down... wait, I am sitting down...

I think I'll go relax by reading my VCR manual...

[Harel]

Enjoy EnochF!
And if you finish it, i can mail you some new manuals from the new addition.
And some more.
Hell, I'll subscribe you myself!
Beacause, as long as you are occipied, we won't need to read your intersting, intrigiung and alluminating posts.

[Tornado7]

Ok, maybe I went a little overboard on the list of maps, but consider this: Most of those would be WAY smaller than the Earth anyway, which does make things a little easier to handle. I mean, most of the moons would be at best somewhere between small and medium in civII.
As for micromanaging, how about putting in a production quere, and stuf like that? In addition, you could combine alot of the basic city improvments together to simplify things in space. Not on Earth, though.
Just a thought.
M@ni@c's idea was a really good one too, and could probably be applied to a couple other bodies in the solar system as well. In addition, an future engineer unit could build some types of terrain improvments to help speed up the process, as well. Stuff like solar panels, hydroponic farms, etc.

[Harel]

Smilo, i am not so sure you are right... well, sure, we can show up all this great ideas and how they should be added to the game ( hey, i just thought about a FTL quantum displacement, and it could give you +1 to movement! ). Some of them may even be very good ideas.
But, let's face it: civ III would include less things from this thread then any other one. It's not SMAC, and not going to be. Beside, as thread master, no one expect you to add all this debates into the summary.

Not a single person here can say he didn't learn nothing: Don don post on nuclear engines told me some new things I didn't know, and who knows, maybe even I added a little to your information bank. Hell, maybe even EnochF learned something! ( I doubt it, thought ).

I don't think we should be critized and hushed. There are many long, unrelated debates over this forums: Maniac can tell you about our debates on the social modifactor channel, on the civilazation thread had so many arguments I have no idea what the sides are now, not to mention who is "winning".
We learn something here: this is community of people. We might be here to make a better civ III: but civilazation is, in the end, about us. We might as well learned something for ourself, and on ourselfs.

Besides, I think I told my opinion on BR request ( ways to implamnt the new ideas, like stirrup gives +1... ). If we are reduced to giving numbers and strict way in the civ II, nothing is going to change.

You know what? I prefer to just tell you how the ( pardon my tongue ) bloody fusion cell works: let Firaxis think of a new, unique way to add this to the game.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 01, 1999).]</font>

[dinoman2]

OK, here are some of my ideas.

1( Instead of using the ctp version of orbital maps, have a seperate map that you switch to, and that uses orbits for the various orbital colonies and space units.

Advantages: More realistic, less clutter on the regular map.

Disadvantages: Difficult to tell what's going on in space, more clutter on the space map.

2)I like the idea of using various maps for all the different planets.

Advantages: More room to grow, more difficult late-game conquering strategies, more interesting games.

Disadvantages: Takes up more memory space, difficulty of switching between maps.

Also, one question: How do you get those big fonts?

[Maniac]

Harel, I like unrelated debates, off course,the more the better, but if that is the only thing we do here, Civ3 is going to be a disaster.
If we don't interfere I think Civ3 will be Civ2 with new graphics( and even they won't be good if you have to take SMAC as an example).
So now and then we should do some serious work.

BTW, one of your interests is science. Don't you know a way to get rid of that nasty CO2?

Do you know a thread where Diodorus comes regularly? I desperatly need him at the SE thread. And I think I would annoy people if I posted everywhere :
"Diodorus Siculus needed at SE thread."

[Maniac]

Dinoman2 and Tornado7 : I think we may be glad if Firaxis gives us one extraterrestrial map.
BTW, do you really think you have the time and resources to colonize all that planets and moons?
Before a colony ship has reached Ganymedes you could have already built a new ship to reach AC or have conquered the world.

Another note about victory conditions : I don't think becoming supreme leader and winning a diplomatic victory should be based on how much population you have as in SMAC.
In SMAC it was possible to win a 'diplomatic' victory by only your own population. Bad.