Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-31-2019, 10:19 PM   #1
DataPacRat
 
DataPacRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Niagara, Canada
Default Re: [Spaceships] SM+35 Toroid Station?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Spaceships has its realism problems, and you're hitting some of them, but the realistic answer is "you can't actually build something like that", so I assume you don't care about realism.
Deep time gives a /lot/ of room for robofactories to Von Neumann themselves up to at least sextillion-dollars-per-millennia levels, which would have been enough to make the first such station. I'm trying to think of what sorts of evolutionary pressures might have nudged variants of the basic design one way or another, but I'm still hesitant on even just finalizing that initial design, let alone trying to work out how to spread their offspring from one star system to another, let alone working out what resources would most likely be limited enough for those offspring to compete over.
__________________
Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Then again, maybe I'm wrong."
DataPacRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 10:31 PM   #2
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Spaceships] SM+35 Toroid Station?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DataPacRat View Post
Deep time gives a /lot/ of room for robofactories to Von Neumann themselves up to at least sextillion-dollars-per-millennia levels
Not talking about the economics. It's physically impossible to construct a station like that out of ordinary matter.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 10:36 PM   #3
DataPacRat
 
DataPacRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Niagara, Canada
Default Re: [Spaceships] SM+35 Toroid Station?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Not talking about the economics. It's physically impossible to construct a station like that out of ordinary matter.
What's the physical limit you're thinking of?

I've seen proposals for McKendree cylinders that are 1,000 km in radius (as opposed to this station's 650), which are supposedly the limits for carbon nanotubes; and this station is only rotating fast enough to generate a fifth of a gee, which should offer even more leeway.

(Edit: McKendree's paper can be seen at http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/nano4/....html#RTFToC17 .)
__________________
Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Then again, maybe I'm wrong."

Last edited by DataPacRat; 03-31-2019 at 10:56 PM.
DataPacRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 10:57 PM   #4
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Spaceships] SM+35 Toroid Station?

Stone armor isn't nanotubes. Aside from that, the big problem is that spaceships uses the wrong scaling law for a lot of things, and when you use the correct scaling law you wind up with something nonsensical.

For example, 1 EP appears to be about 100 W/kg, or 5e+21W in your case. The upper limit of solar panels is about 1 kW/m^2 and realistic value is about a quarter of that, so we need 5e+18m^2 of solar panels, or about a 1.2 million kilometer radius. Radiators have a similar limit.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 11:13 PM   #5
DataPacRat
 
DataPacRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Niagara, Canada
Default Re: [Spaceships] SM+35 Toroid Station?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Stone armor isn't nanotubes.
Stone armor isn't fire extinguishers or airlocks, either; as far as I can tell, Spaceships abstracts away structural supports as just being there anyway.

(Edit: Well, mostly; the current draft spends $300 quintillion on its "spin gravity".)


Quote:
Aside from that, the big problem is that spaceships uses the wrong scaling law for a lot of things, and when you use the correct scaling law you wind up with something nonsensical.

For example, 1 EP appears to be about 100 W/kg, or 5e+21W in your case. The upper limit of solar panels is about 1 kW/m^2 and realistic value is about a quarter of that, so we need 5e+18m^2 of solar panels, or about a 1.2 million kilometer radius. Radiators have a similar limit.
By EP, I'm guessing you mean a Power Point?

With a bit of GIF-fiddling, the amount of surface-area a Gaea station has to face the sun is about 1.4M km^2. (Including both mirrors to reflect sunlight, and panels to absorb power.) Which is undoubtedly less than your listed numbers.

But since I'm only buying a SM+35 Solar Panel to power the SM+35 Factory to get +1 HP, if that's a problem, I'm willing to nuke both in favour of a couple more Open Spaces, and just have some SM+31-or-smaller panels, factories, and the like.
__________________
Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Then again, maybe I'm wrong."

Last edited by DataPacRat; 03-31-2019 at 11:22 PM.
DataPacRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 11:40 PM   #6
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Spaceships] SM+35 Toroid Station?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DataPacRat View Post
Stone armor isn't fire extinguishers or airlocks, either; as far as I can tell, Spaceships abstracts away structural supports as just being there anyway.
Spaceships assumes that the armor functions as structural support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DataPacRat View Post
But since I'm only buying a SM+35 Solar Panel to power the SM+35 Factory to get +1 HP, if that's a problem, I'm willing to nuke both in favour of a couple more Open Spaces, and just have some SM+31-or-smaller panels, factories, and the like.
Try SM+22 (you have about 1/3,000,000 the area you need). Note that solar panels are in fact cinematic even in the normal size range given in Spaceships.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2019, 07:27 AM   #7
ericbsmith
 
ericbsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA. Near the river Styx in the 5th Circle.
Default Re: [Spaceships] SM+35 Toroid Station?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Spaceships assumes that the armor functions as structural support.
Not really. A ship can be built with as little armor as you want - including no armor at all - and still be assumed to have structural supports. What Spaceships assumes is that each component has enough structural support for itself, and the ship as a whole has enough structural support for all of it's components.
__________________
Eric B. Smith GURPS Data File Coordinator
GURPSLand
I shall pull the pin from this healing grenade and...
Kaboom-baya.
ericbsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2019, 08:01 AM   #8
DataPacRat
 
DataPacRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Niagara, Canada
Default Re: [Spaceships] SM+35 Toroid Station?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Try SM+22 (you have about 1/3,000,000 the area you need).
Can do. :)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
With 33,000 tones per square metre of load you'd need an 8-km-thick band of nanotube-reinforced polymer, or 1.5-1.7 km of flawless diamond or continuous nanotubes above and below to support the stone.
If it's that important for verisimilitude, then I can always make the 13th system of armor Nanocomposite instead of another Stone. (Looks like it'll add 700k dDR, and $150 quintillion; though I'm slashing the budget by a lot more than that by dropping the SM+35 factory.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
15 km thick armor seems...excessive for a habitat, as is any production of power points for industrial purposes (just use vast amounts of minifacs). In addition, such a habitat is a massive waste of resources, as you could use the same resources to make 1,000 habitats one-tenth the dimensions each that would have a total surface area ten times as large, allowing them to support ten times as many people. Such a complex of habitats could be connected through static structures that could support solar panels and radiators, and could support any industry that truly needed power points.
And that brings us into the station's actual design goals.

The original builders' purpose was to create what's effectively an offline backup system for their civilization, by placing a selection of stations in various out-of-the-way points in the galaxy; each of which could maintain itself, independently, for x million years, and maintain a population of baseline humans (or near-human equivalent) for the duration. I'm assuming that simply keeping an offline set of records of DNA and some vatfacs prepped doesn't meet their criteria. I'm trying to take some of the lessons of Biosphere 2 into account, and that keeping an active biosphere working for a long time requires more redundancies than is immediately obvious to account for various complex interactions. I'm also assuming that there are issues in most forms of active management of any such collection of ecosystems, so it all has to mostly run itself. (Plus or minus the occasional automated nudge, such as vatfaccing up some individuals of a species that's undergoing too much genetic drift; and with at least one release valve for any human-equivalents who are too curious to avoid poking their fingers into dangerous pies; and with a set of systems to rapidly increase the inhabitants' tech-level if galactic society vanishes for too long.)

Put another way, the purpose of the station isn't maximizing industry, or energy, or even population; it's maximizing absurdly-long-term ecological stability. There are plenty of arguments that could be had about the trade-offs between structural strength and biosphere acreage, but a Varleyian Gaea seems to both be possible without superscience and to provide a plausibly large area, so seems a good starting point.


For example, if I wanted to get a similar amount of acreage with a SM+34 station, I'd need at least 10 of the systems to be Open Spaces (and with fewer armour systems, the radiation protection would be roughly halved); and couldn't do it at all with a SM+33 station, even with all twenty systems being Open Space.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ericbsmith View Post
Not really. A ship can be built with as little armor as you want - including no armor at all - and still be assumed to have structural supports. What Spaceships assumes is that each component has enough structural support for itself, and the ship as a whole has enough structural support for all of it's components.
:thumbs-up:
__________________
Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Then again, maybe I'm wrong."
DataPacRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
sci fi, spaceships


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.