TheShammySocialist Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324448880' post='2883160'] [b]demon wenches![/b] [/quote] Sounds like a good name for a college team mascot. Edited December 21, 2011 by TheShammySocialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Rise from the dead, this thread is needed. I'm not entirely convinced that the 'MagBeam' drive Centurius showcases somewhat in [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=82847&view=findpost&p=2929372"]this[/url] post is up to the task of getting ships up to speed for Mars missions. [url="www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/magbeam.html"]Nasa link[/url] A big problem seems to be focusing the plasma beam sufficiently over distances exceeding tens of thousands of kilometers, distances that are problematic with [i]lasers[/i], which are far easier to focus. I'm thinking that the 'within two decades' or whatnot prediction mentioned in the article is rather optimistic. Not to mention that aside from the initial reveal of this system, and the NASA page update in 2004 and 2005, there seems to be nothing more about the technology, no tests, no nothing. In [url="http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0410/16marspropulsion/"]this article[/url], it's mentioned that >A mag-beam test mission could be possible within five years if financial support remains consistent, he said.< No articles about tests visible from what I've found, though. And that stuff was 8 years ago. I remain unconvinced that this is truly a workable technology if it doesn't seem to have a place in NASA's budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) NASA had cuts in funding, as far as I know. Heavy cuts. I don't think it's just viability that causes things not being in the budget. Edited February 27, 2012 by Evangeline Anovilis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1330381340' post='2929478'] Rise from the dead, this thread is needed. I'm not entirely convinced that the 'MagBeam' drive Centurius showcases somewhat in [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=82847&view=findpost&p=2929372"]this[/url] post is up to the task of getting ships up to speed for Mars missions. [url="www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/magbeam.html"]Nasa link[/url] A big problem seems to be focusing the plasma beam sufficiently over distances exceeding tens of thousands of kilometers, distances that are problematic with [i]lasers[/i], which are far easier to focus. I'm thinking that the 'within two decades' or whatnot prediction mentioned in the article is rather optimistic. Not to mention that aside from the initial reveal of this system, and the NASA page update in 2004 and 2005, there seems to be nothing more about the technology, no tests, no nothing. In [url="http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0410/16marspropulsion/"]this article[/url], it's mentioned that >A mag-beam test mission could be possible within five years if financial support remains consistent, he said.< No articles about tests visible from what I've found, though. And that stuff was 8 years ago. I remain unconvinced that this is truly a workable technology if it doesn't seem to have a place in NASA's budget. [/quote] http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/magbeam/ Updated november 2011. You also clearly haven't been looking into the systems that are underneath MagBeam which have had a lot more research in the meantime. CNRP has a precedent of allowing things for civilian rp with little to no basis in the scientific community(most of your stuff being a major part of the things allowed) so I'd say that the systems undearneath MagBeam are more feasible than a lot of other things we've seen introduced in the meantime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Think the guy whose economy is based on mining things on the moon, and has huge swaths of island colonies is going to have a pretty insane time complaining about the drive. I would agree its not economical space technology, but your entire nation meets the same definition by an exponentially larger factor Lyn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 There are the problems with the supposed "Self-Focusing Effects in High-β Plasma Streams" and the existence of "magnetic field supported by the plasma currents acts to stabilize the plasma beam and further aid its long distance propagation", which forms the bedrock of MagBeam (and of which I'm skeptical of when applying to actual industrial scale), but since this wouldn't affect the tides of war unless we start going GUNDAM and start battles in space, I don't really see a big reason to oppose it. I mean, it's not like the usual slapping on of any and every slim theory to justify weapon wanks which nearly seems to match the NS crowd, and only shows the limits of a person's knowledge even with their supposed expertise of military technology. Now, 50 days does seem a bit too much (since we're not taking into account the effects such speed has on people), so maybe change it to 75 days or something to match it with what people would most likely be adaptive to? Also, when has economics been a factor, Triyun. We all know how people say we need common sense, but throw it out the window when convenient while saying we can't have any more rules, never mind that there is no real "common sense" to people knowing what budgets are like. Frankly, as much as I would like to force economics into CNRP, it's a dead end in the face of the gamey nature of CNRP, with realism being kicked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1330383438' post='2929505'] There are the problems with the supposed "Self-Focusing Effects in High-β Plasma Streams" and the existence of "magnetic field supported by the plasma currents acts to stabilize the plasma beam and further aid its long distance propagation", which forms the bedrock of MagBeam (and of which I'm skeptical of when applying to actual industrial scale), but since this wouldn't affect the tides of war unless we start going GUNDAM and start battles in space, I don't really see a big reason to oppose it. I mean, it's not like the usual slapping on of any and every slim theory to justify weapon wanks which nearly seems to match the NS crowd, and only shows the limits of a person's knowledge even with their supposed expertise of military technology. Now, 50 days does seem a bit too much (since we're not taking into account the effects such speed has on people), so maybe change it to 75 days or something to match it with what people would most likely be adaptive to? Also, when has economics been a factor, Triyun. We all know how people say we need common sense, but throw it out the window when convenient while saying we can't have any more rules, never mind that there is no real "common sense" to people knowing what budgets are like. Frankly, as much as I would like to force economics into CNRP, it's a dead end in the face of the gamey nature of CNRP, with realism being kicked out. [/quote] Well the system in Athenian use actually doesn't transport people, it's merely intended for cargo. That said I'm personally working from an one-way trip of 90 days. Edited February 27, 2012 by Centurius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 The original proposal by Winglee (the one who came up with the idea) said a round-trip from Earth to Mars in 90 days, with 11 days stop-over at Mars. But since you're going for 90 days one-way, you wouldn't need as concentrated and self-focused beam to achieve such a thing, and hence most of the problem with the original approach is irrelevant. ^ Summarizing discussion on IRC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1330382753' post='2929500'] Think the guy whose economy is based on mining things on the moon, and has huge swaths of island colonies is going to have a pretty insane time complaining about the drive. I would agree its not economical space technology, but your entire nation meets the same definition by an exponentially larger factor Lyn. [/quote] Way to miss my point: I'm talking about the scientific aspects, not its economic feasibility. [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1330383702' post='2929508'] Well the system in Athenian use actually doesn't transport people, it's merely intended for cargo. That said I'm personally working from an one-way trip of 90 days. [/quote] 90 days one-way sounds a lot more reasonable than the proposed 90d/round-trip that the guy had proposed. And as Kankou said, a lot less focus is required with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I think we should all take this personally and get butthurt well in advance and then start sharpening up our gayfairy knives, and be very bitter when doing this at the sheer cheek of the other guy who dared to speak up, and then unleash some sheer vicious name calling and other dick beating in some trollacious manner on IRC. Yes, this is aimed at everyone equally. Except Kankou, she'd be using a Smurf knife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel James Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 It takes 130-270 days to travel to Mars, depending on the spacecraft you use, so 90 days seems a bit excessive. In RP, it would be 18 days tops, but I don't know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 How lucky I am that backwards Vicidalia will never want to space. God has banished us from paradise to live on earth and trying to escape is a sin. Not to say I hadn't anything else to spend ressources on with people taking my stuff away left and right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Joel James' timestamp='1330391001' post='2929585'] It takes 130-270 days to travel to Mars, depending on the spacecraft you use, so 90 days seems a bit excessive. In RP, it would be 18 days tops, but I don't know [/quote] NASA likes to go slow to minimize costs. If you were in a rush, you could get there a lot faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel James Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 But heaven is not a physical place. Also, god never did describe what the boundaries of our exile were. Third, God reveals all things to us, so that means He told us this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 [quote name='Joel James' timestamp='1330422517' post='2929910'] But heaven is not a physical place. Also, god never did describe what the boundaries of our exile were. Third, God reveals all things to us, so that means He told us this [/quote] Blasphemer! But to be expected from someone accepting the Council of Basel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Take your silly religious debate out of the tech thread...srs bsns only, mhm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1330225721' post='2928385'][b]Highly Classified:[/b] Testing has begun on the creation of the Fairy Gay Bomb. The Fairy Gay Bomb is designed to increase homosexual desires within men. Ultimate weaponization shall be the goal of the program, particularly if it can be weaponized alongside drug addicting weapons and distributed over large areas. Mascurian Siberians will begin being used as test subjects for the Fairy Gay Bomb, so that its results can be confirmed before being used against the nation we'll use it against, we all know which one that is.[/quote][quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1330449732' post='2930047'] The development of the Operation Santorum bomb has been promising, but the system has required the development of a new strategic delivery system, capable of launching from bases in the Pacific and reaching North America. As such the prototype bomber to deliver this weapon is being developed, the pair of prototypes shall be code named Spirit of Rick Perry and Spirit of Newt Gingrich.[/quote]Triyun’s “Fairy Gay Bomb” is, for lack of a better word, impossible. How is this supposed to work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Anyone who takes this gayfairy bomb seriously needs their head examined. Why are you boys even cluttering up this thread with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 The Sacred Band of Thebes used homoerotic or homosexual relationships between soldiers to boost morale and fighting spirit. Also, if my forces were addicted to meth, there would be no doubt I would have their fierce loyalty if I constantly supplied it for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1330492154' post='2930482'] Triyun’s “Fairy Gay Bomb” is, for lack of a better word, impossible. How is this supposed to work? [/quote] Basically, it dumps a crapload of pheromones on men that would naturally be found in a horny woman. This gets the men really horny, and since other men are the only ones around (this was designed to be used in a combat situation), they go off to have sex with each other and stop fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel James Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1330514971' post='2930588'] Anyone who takes this gayfairy bomb seriously needs their head examined. Why are you boys even cluttering up this thread with it? [/quote] Don't know. Need to do something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1330514971' post='2930588']Anyone who takes this gayfairy bomb seriously needs their head examined. Why are you boys even cluttering up this thread with it?[/quote]I occasionally make the mistake of taking the mad ranting of Triyun seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1330406758' post='2929771'] Procinctia Armament is developing a slightly updated Polikarpov Po-2 Kukuruznik. Why re-imagine a 20’s vintage Soviet biplane? It’s not just because the Polikarpov Po-2 was notoriously difficult to detect with RADAR. . . Procinctia Armamen is looking for an aircraft easy to build in battlefield conditions. While significantly less efficient than heavy industries old-fashioned cottage-industry proto-industrial workshops can be established nearly anywhere. This will be an aircraft that can be built quickly yet effortlessly hidden from the prying eyes of satellites. To facilitate a modernized Kukuruznik a ‘new’ ShKAS variant lacking 48 ways of jamming was developed alongside the aircraft. The ‘new’ [i]Shpitalny-Komaritski rapid fire machine gun for aircraft[/i] only has five internal mechanisms prone to jamming – all easily clearable. [/quote]I’m working on a slightly modernized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_Po-2) Polikarpov Po-2! I have a few questions. . . How can I make an already stealth-ish wooden biplane yet more stealthy? What’s a better engine modern engine for a combat biplane? Are there any modern materials better than wood to build a stealth combat biplane from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1330976252' post='2934061'] How can I make an already stealth-ish wooden biplane yet more stealthy? What’s a better engine modern engine for a combat biplane? Are there any modern materials better than wood to build a stealth combat biplane from? [/quote] I say use battery-run engines, and maybe use plastic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1330977278' post='2934064']I say use battery-run engines, and maybe use plastic?[/quote]How sturdy is plastic compared to wood? How does plastic take flack? Can you get 82 kW at 1,650 rpm from a battery engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.