Relevant:
https://imgur.com/gallery/ZUs4V
Also, lets get back on track somewhat before the thread is locked due to being irretrievably off-topic. Hint, Hint.
Printable View
Relevant:
https://imgur.com/gallery/ZUs4V
Also, lets get back on track somewhat before the thread is locked due to being irretrievably off-topic. Hint, Hint.
Spoiler
I was more commenting on how eugenics were run, drawing parallels to two of the most monstrously inefficient dictatorships in recent history.
It's theoretically feasible. There are no theoretical barriers to human eugenics. However, there are two major problems which would crop up in practice:
1. Time. Human generations are, roughly speaking, an order of magnitude longer than canine generations, meaning you'd need about 10 times as long for comparable change. Considering that the authoritarian regimes prone to trying eugenics have trouble consistently maintaining the previous regime's pet projects over a transfer of power, this is an absolutely crippling issue.
2. If you're trying to increase the size of a dog breed's eyes, you have to be able to accurately measure eye size and minimize environmental influences on it. This isn't too much of an issue for dogs, but it's trickier in humans. Selection for eye size (or other physical characteristics like height or maybe physical strength) isn't too tricky if you can keep the program running for a few centuries, but more ephemeral traits like intelligence or loyalty are difficult to measure objectively (not to mention more prone to cheating). This isn't helped by the fact that it is very difficult to truly standardize living conditions across a group of any size, even for authoritarian regimes. After all, that would mean forcing political allies to live in the same conditions as the proletariat. (And, you know, things like a black market where people can trade unwanted luxuries for more produce or vise versa. And the effects of different lifestyles, which are required for specialization to work.)
A successful eugenics program is unlikely to succeed unless it is either run by a stable authoritarian regime willing to subject itself to severe standards of control and either restricts itself to easily-measured traits or finds an accurate, foolproof method to measure more ephemeral traits...or it needs to be run by an authoritarian government with access to extremely detailed and accurate data about what genes do what and is capable of running detailed genetic tests on its entire population. Neither seems plausible, at least not without some extreme advances in science and technology.
Ninja'd by a mod. Sadly, I think the original topic has mostly run out of discussion.
The real question is what uses are there for a steam powered rocket if he can get it to work?
Clearly the best use of a steam-powered rocket ship is to simply leave it in orbit around the sun and spark philosophical debates.
There are some ideas of powering rockets using transmitted microwaves rather than chemical reactions. I think the idea is you beam power from a big ground station, and use that power to superheat the propellant which can then have a higher exhaust velocity than a chemical rocket. If the propellant is water, then that is technically a steam rocket, but I have no idea if water is useful in this case.
The downside is that the ground station needs to be enormous to overcome diffraction. I seem to remember estimates of a square kilometre or more.
Bonus awesome points if you're beaming power from an orbital solar farm instead of the ground.
The general idea of someone becoming a flat-earther in 2017, I kinda get. Question everything. Do not take anything for given. Anything that's proven, recheck the math. But the problem is staying a flat-earther for more than a month. It's relatively easy and inexpensive to check that one. A few years back, tech website The Register started a project to launch a paper airplane in space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_...sed_Into_Space It took a year of engineering, because the "paper airplane" part was the part they were interested in, and it was a fun ride reading the progress as it was happening. They weren't trying to prove the curve of the earth (they're techies interested in space, they've already done the math) but with the launch they got some pretty awesome video/stills from 17 miles up, clearly showing the curve. https://www.youtube.com/user/RegisterParis/videos
I guess you'd need to trust cameras, but they did it all for under 10K, and if you aren't worried about the paper airplane, you could probably do it cheaper.
Of course, that isn't going to stop rapper/flat-earther B.o.B. from trying to raise $1M https://www.gofundme.com/showBoBthecurve I find some sort of peace in the universe knowing that after two months he's only up to almost 7k. Though he could probably do it for that....
As for the guy launching himself, as mentioned he's a flat-earther for the publicity, trying to get someone to back his hobby and Evel Knievel fantasies. Seriously hope he doesn't hurt himself, but if he does at least he's doing what he wants to.
Flat earthers believe that airplane windows are elaborate computer screens meant to trick you. Not kidding.
Considering the Great Ice Ball Earth theory, I wonder how that particular variety of flat earther feels about climate change.
Not all of them. In fact, I suspect that what a flat earther pretends to believe depends exclusively on what is most convenient to the argument at hand. The thing about thought-free argumentation is that, like a child's "Why X?" game, there is always another "prove it" or "that's what they want you to believe" that they can throw out rather than confronting their tottering pile of BS.
GW
I remember trying that. In the end, I launched a superheavy, extremely unwieldy and inefficient first stage straight up for about 100K, then jettisoned it and went into orbit using chemical rockets.
That was probably one of the most wasteful launches I've ever done.
Back to the topic of why steam-powered rockets: While I believe it's not really practical for any serious use, if we could make it work it'd be a much more environmentally friendly solution to fueling a rocket than our current chemical mixes; steam is just water vapor, after all.
I don't have the math but I'd be shocked if it was ever practical, however; if it were possible to launch a steam-powered rocket into orbit I'm sure a nation-state would have tried it by now. So at this point it's never going to be anything more than a curiosity and a testament to human ... folly? Ingenuity? Both?
Respectfully,
Brian P.
I believe there's designs where you essentially fuse hydrogen and oxygen into steam, not sure if they're anywhere near viable though.
I suppose you could design the space capsule as a projectile from a ground-based steam-powered cannon. Get enough pressure and force behind the capsule to accelerate it to escape velocity, and voila. Whether anyone could survive such an acceleration on the other hand...
Don't use it for people. Use it to take up the heavy stuff you need (such as water) that won't care if you subject it to 1000 gs on the way up.
Mind you, I don't think you'd be able to orbit with a steam canon (the actual ground-based canon I've seen involves nuclear bombs detonated in an underground cavern plugged at the top with the payload), but separating the human and other delicate component payloads from the hardy, mass-heavy payloads is an idea that is bandied around often.
For example, an actual concern for the space elevator is how long the crawler spends outside of the magnetosphere's protection, and thus how dangerous that could be for a human in it - so it is suggested that humans would not ride the elevator, they'd still get blasted via rocket.
Grey Wolf
I now have a new idea for a campaign setting.
That's pretty much certain, considering how silly all of their explanations look put together. Look at CoolHardLogic's Testing Flattards* series for an example. Though the first episode focuses on the conflict between observed distances and expected discworld distances, and most of the really hilarious trainwrecking got put in the Testing Geocentrism series (geocentrism not being strictly required for a flat Earth, but a heliocentric diskworld would have even tougher-to-explain properties).
*Hey, I didn't name it. Also, fair warning, CHL is...not entirely respectful to those maintaining beliefs debunked when Greece was young.
One small problem: You would need some source of energy turning water into steam. The classic choice is burning coal. This has some byproducts which most educated people believe are more harmful than water vapor.
...You mean, they burn hydrogen? Yeah, that's pretty viable. The biggest problem is that the hydrogen tanks need to be pretty big.
Oh, a steam-powered mass driver? Interesting idea! Thanks for giving me an excuse to link Isaac Arthur's video on the subject. Okay, it's not about steam-powered ones specifically, but cut me some slack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Various
I'm... I'm... I think my brain just encountered and error and must shut down for a while...
(emphasis mine)
That's not necessarily true. We have more efficient fuels than those we use today; but the "practical" efficiency is also related to the refinement to the fuel and of the engine in question (and also the method of recollection for the fuels). IIRC, oil was known to be better than carbon long before we dropped the latter; but for practical/economic reasons keeping carbon around for a while was still better, despite the energy ratios. We are still in that moment of history where humanity has spent so many resources in oil refinement that it is still cheaper to produce oil based fuel than to research further in new energy sources; despite scarcity showing to be a problem today.
Ninja'd by factotum.
Also, if we managed to efficiently split water we could garner a better fuel (for general use) without the scarcity concerns. Not saying it's necessarily greener, tho.
Is this a legitimate belief? Do people actually think this, or is it a clear satire? I understand it's hard to tell, but does the person who posted it claim to be a believer, at least?
Because... that's great. A successful marriage of the most ridiculous claims of a flat earth together with a sphere earth that wouldn't work out all that well. Somehow it makes even less sense than an actual flat earth model, and it's flipping fantastic.
There was a company pushing this idea called escape dynamics. It is simply impossible to "heat to higher exhaust velocity than a chemical propellant" simply because modern chemical rockets are already limited by the heat of the propellant. If the "themal chamber" has to be hotter than the propellant, no further gains are possible.
The *real* advantage is using hydrogen as a propellant. It is the ideal exhaust product (having the highest exhaust velocity for any temperature) but not available for chemical exhaust (engines that burn hydrogen and oxygen typically run "fuel rich" to both cool the exhaust product down to avoid melting but also to salt the output with more hydrogen to increase efficiency. Expect ISPs to start around 800 (for those unfamiliar with rocket science, those numbers are in the "magic" range and likely enough for Single Stage to Orbit).
If I had such a beast, I'd look strongly into using both water and hydrogen. Start with water (Isp probably around 300) simply to have a smaller rocket (hydrogen's lack of density is outrageous, even in liquid form). Expect the laser/microwave/whatever to be so inefficient that cost of water/hydrogen simply isn't a consideration, but having a wildly more compact spacecraft would justify the water on its own.
This might as well be a 22nd century tech (and there is a good chance that space elevators will happen first and obsolete the idea), and don't expect one any time soon. I suspect Escape Dynamics was expecting the US Navy's laser programs to come along faster, they are probably the main issue in such tech (and while they may supply enough power, they really only care about doing so for milliseconds or less).
I guessed it was a parody at the 'Possibly hollow' comment.