/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3550005]

/sci/, what will our spaceships look like in the future?

We eventually will build big ones, do we have an idea what they will look like? Will they be like our current space shuttles, or look like something out of science fiction?

[Anonymous No.3550048]

This is a difficult question to answer, though I, and many others, are fairly certain they won't look anything like what you see in science fiction.

If anything, future ships are far more likely to look similar to the Venture Star from avatar. (pic related)

[Anonymous No.3550053]

Dumping realistic starship concepts.

[Anonymous No.3550062]

[Anonymous No.3550060]

>>3550048
interesting

also, i've heard that if we could travel faster than light, that when we come back hundreds of years would pass for the real world if only months passed for us. how does this work?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550075]

[Anonymous No.3550080]

>what will our spaceships look like in the future?

If we knew that it wouldn't be the future

[Anonymous No.3550083]

>what will our spaceships look like in the future?

If we knew that it wouldn't be the future.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550084]

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550088]

[Satellife No.3550095]

[Anonymous No.3550099]

[Anonymous No.3550105]

[Anonymous No.3550109]

[Satellife No.3550111]

[Anonymous No.3550114]

>>3550060
Time Dilation.

Read the Forever War. The story deals with time dilation and the author even mentions some tidbits about spaceship design. At first, our ships are spindly. As energy density increased and our ships got more powerful and maneuvering became more important, the designs became more compact and solid to survive insane acceleration and combat with the Taurans. It might be the "hardest" military science fiction I've ever read.

If you're talking warships or other high-acceleration "torchships" then you can count on the decks being arranged like floors of a building so that acceleration provides the sensation of gravity.

[Satellife No.3550120]

[Satellife No.3550130]

>>3550060

While you are accelerating at an exponentially fast rate (even at >50% C), the effect of relative time dilation causes you to perceive time as "slower" relative to your own speed.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550135]

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550143]

I read about the self-replicating lunar factory in Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines and it really is a sounder concept than the usual NASA render + half-assed explanation.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550148]

>>3550143

*sigh*

[Anonymous No.3550155]

I can imagine them as being rather spindly, un-aerodynamic craft. Remember, you don't have to deal with gas-dynamics in the vaccuum. However, I could see them having either a) some sort of force-field projector, or b) some shield, perhaps made of ice, ala Arthur C. Clarke, to protect against the minutia of particles in space.
And they would carry probes or shuttles to be able to reach the surface of whatever it's traveling to. Unless we get some sort of fantastic propulsion system, you won't see starships landing anywhere but on asteroids.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550161]

[Satellife No.3550163]

>>3550143

Have you seen some of the things Boeing, SpaceX and Bigelow are working on? Add their ideas to the self-replicating lunar factory, and now you're cooking.

[Anonymous No.3550168]

>>3550114
Oh lawdy, I love me some Joe Haldeman :3
that's such a good book

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550176]

>>3550163

Only the Falcon 9 Heavy and the potential for a Falcon XX, and the Bigelow BA modules. I've heard they want to set up a lunar hotel.

It's just the beginning.

[Anonymous No.3550186]

>>3550155
Alastair Reynolds' lighthuggers were like that. They used shields of ice on the hull to protect against impacts. Granted, their method of propulsion was "hand-wavium" based even within the story's universe. Designed by incomprehensible posthuman intelligence.
>>3550168
Damn straight. Is it bad that I took away the wrong lesson from the books? I would volunteer for an interstellar war in an instant as a xenobiologist/biochemist... who knows if any space strike forces would need a lawyer or not. I'd still volunteer and we should have wiped those cloned Tauran abominations from the galaxy.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550191]

[Satellife No.3550189]

>"After launching two prototype space stations into orbit, space entrepreneur and pioneer Robert Bigelow is now setting his sights a bit higher. His latest vision: A quick-deploy moon base capable of housing up to 18 astronauts in inflatable modules on the lunar surface."

[Anonymous No.3550195]

No matter what shape they'll be, they won't be as bad ass as this.

[Anonymous No.3550199]

>>3550186
I would sign up, just to get out into the cosmos. I suppose there is a rather anti-war sentiment in it, what with Haldeman being a Vietnam vet and all.
What other writers do you like?

[Satellife No.3550210]

>"We want to go to the moon . . . and the expandable habitats are a good example of an enabling technology that will be leveraged to bring this vision to fruition," said Michael Gold, Director of Washington, D.C. Operations & Business Growth for Bigelow Aerospace, LLC, based in Chevy Chase, Md. "Our goal has always been beyond low Earth orbit."

>Gold said that Bigelow Aerospace has been aggressively establishing an international consortium of what the group terms as "sovereign clients" — along with hammering out the financial and legal structure, he said, for such partnerships to blossom, first in low Earth orbit and then beyond.

>"We need to make low-Earth orbit work first before we go beyond . . . but I believe we will," Gold told SPACE.com. "Once we've established a robust infrastructure in Earth orbit, created the economies of scale necessary to produce facilities in low Earth orbit . . . at that point, we've really enabled ourselves to look at a variety of options."

[Anonymous No.3550233]

My ship doesn't even have a real engine. It's propelled by math and dolphin mathematicians/bio-computers.

[Anonymous No.3550237]

>>3550195
Give us time and we'll catch up to the Minbari to create even better warships.
>>3550199
Heinlein, not because of the science but because it's superb fiction.
Arthur C. Clarke, he's one of the original masters.
Asimov, again because he's a master.

Newer shit I enjoy:
Alastair Reynolds. He's an ESA astronomer, pretty hard stuff, good stories.
Peter Watts. He's not a physicist or astronomer and he fails at being "hard" sometimes, but he takes the time to explore out-there concepts as realistically as possible for him. I like him.
Ben Bova is shit at writing characters, but his "Grand Tour" universe is a pretty realistic vision of the future.
Stephen Baxter, he's good at big, mind-fucking ideas.
Robert Anton Wilson. Not strictly a SF author nor very scientific, but he's thoroughly enjoyable, anti-authoritarian, and plain ol' psychedelic fun.

I'd join up with the UNEF from the Forever War because I'd imagine the universe, if filled with species capable of violent action, is a lot like prison. You kick someone's ass on the first day to get respect.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3550342]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.3550433]

>eventually
you forgot america has a aa+ credit rating, nuclear war is imminent

[Anonymous No.3550449]

Maybe in the year 3000. If we pass the 21st century.