Religions > Atheism > Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Clover" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2006 05:04:14 PM |
| Object: |
Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
It can be rather discouraging trying to sift through much that is called
"science fiction" these days. At least if you're a realist. Even that which is
not specified as "science fiction/FANTASY" often contains overabundant use of
the supernatural, for what reason I really can't say.
It seems that one can't even escape the trappings of religious delusion in a
genre that's -supposed- to be devoted to scientific speculation. There is
nothing even remotely scientific about psychic abilities or empathic connections
between dragons and riders. It's all just watered down witch-doctoring
pitifully disguised in the languistic garb of rationality.
Just about any science fiction story you pick up from your average bookseller
will contain at least a -hint- of some underlying supernatural reality -
religious hogwash, in other words. It's really quite annoying when one is
interested in -realistic- scientific speculation.
No psychic phenomenon has ever been scientifically verified on even the remotest
level - no remote viewing, no telepathy, no telekinesis - NONE of it. So why
does such crap keep showing up in "science" fiction? It's like the brainwashed
religious freaks can't even escape their own past when they've left their
religion behind - they've still got to keep clinging to "something" or another
about their former magical thinking worldview or they'll just simply -explode-.
Or some such. I can see it in stories which fall under "sci-fi/fantasy", but
not just plain "science fiction".
What science fiction stories (sans the "fantasy" qualifier) have you read that
truly seem to deserve the label? Even stories which involve futuristic
technology used to -trick- someone into thinking something "magical" was
happening would be better than those which treat magic alone as though it were
real.
Just curious...
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
"A disappearance is when someone has vanished.
A tragedy is when they were photogenic."
- a.t-c's Bo Raxo, paraphrased.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you look at the whole life of the planet,
man has only been around for a few blinks of an
eye. So if the infection wipes us all out,
that _is_ a return to normality..."
- Sergeant Farrell, "28 Days Later"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
11 Sep 2006 07:28:54 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Clover" <UncleClover@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:8hmbg25d9ad901uostagh952ae9c00qrss@4ax.com...
It can be rather discouraging trying to sift through much that is called
"science fiction" these days. At least if you're a realist. Even that
which is
not specified as "science fiction/FANTASY" often contains overabundant use
of
the supernatural, for what reason I really can't say.
It seems that one can't even escape the trappings of religious delusion in
a
genre that's -supposed- to be devoted to scientific speculation.
It's also about the human condition. And unfortunately, theists have made
religion part of the human condition.
Like disease is part of the human condition.
There is
nothing even remotely scientific about psychic abilities or empathic
connections
between dragons and riders. It's all just watered down witch-doctoring
pitifully disguised in the languistic garb of rationality.
It's fiction. It's often fun to follow those silly things to their logical
and inevitable conclusion.
Just about any science fiction story you pick up from your average
bookseller
will contain at least a -hint- of some underlying supernatural reality -
religious hogwash, in other words. It's really quite annoying when one is
interested in -realistic- scientific speculation.
Ok, that IS annoying. But it's not universal. Just blacklist those authors.
No psychic phenomenon has ever been scientifically verified on even the
remotest
level - no remote viewing, no telepathy, no telekinesis - NONE of it. So
why
does such crap keep showing up in "science" fiction?
Because SF likes to ask the question "What If". And if there's no telepathy
and telekinesis, then the answer to "what if" is a dull "Nothing".
The answer "All This Cool Stuff!" is much more entertaining.
It's like the brainwashed
religious freaks can't even escape their own past when they've left their
religion behind - they've still got to keep clinging to "something" or
another
about their former magical thinking worldview or they'll just
simply -explode-.
Or some such. I can see it in stories which fall under "sci-fi/fantasy",
but
not just plain "science fiction".
There's plenty of non-woo-woo SF out there.
What science fiction stories (sans the "fantasy" qualifier) have you read
that
truly seem to deserve the label?
Andromeda Strain, 2001, Diaspora, I Robot (The Asimov book), etc. There's
too many to list.
Even stories which involve futuristic
technology used to -trick- someone into thinking something "magical" was
happening would be better than those which treat magic alone as though it
were
real.
You're reading the wrong authors, I don't know what to tell you.
Just curious...
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
11 Sep 2006 05:32:46 PM |
|
|
Uncle Clover wrote:
It can be rather discouraging trying to sift through much that is called
"science fiction" these days. At least if you're a realist. Even that which is
not specified as "science fiction/FANTASY" often contains overabundant use of
the supernatural, for what reason I really can't say.
It seems that one can't even escape the trappings of religious delusion in a
genre that's -supposed- to be devoted to scientific speculation. There is
nothing even remotely scientific about psychic abilities or empathic connections
between dragons and riders. It's all just watered down witch-doctoring
pitifully disguised in the languistic garb of rationality.
Just about any science fiction story you pick up from your average bookseller
will contain at least a -hint- of some underlying supernatural reality -
religious hogwash, in other words. It's really quite annoying when one is
interested in -realistic- scientific speculation.
No psychic phenomenon has ever been scientifically verified on even the remotest
level - no remote viewing, no telepathy, no telekinesis - NONE of it.
Neither had been faster than light travel, teleportation, artificial
intelligence or extraterrestrial life.
If you wanted to be limited to a "verified phenomena", you can write
about builiding a Moon base or expedition to Mars - and thats all.
So why
does such crap keep showing up in "science" fiction?
Because people like to read it?
It's like the brainwashed
religious freaks can't even escape their own past when they've left their
religion behind - they've still got to keep clinging to "something" or another
about their former magical thinking worldview or they'll just simply -explode-.
Or some such. I can see it in stories which fall under "sci-fi/fantasy", but
not just plain "science fiction".
What science fiction stories (sans the "fantasy" qualifier) have you read that
truly seem to deserve the label? Even stories which involve futuristic
technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.
used to -trick- someone into thinking something "magical" was
happening would be better than those which treat magic alone as though it were
real.
Just curious...
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
"A disappearance is when someone has vanished.
A tragedy is when they were photogenic."
- a.t-c's Bo Raxo, paraphrased.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you look at the whole life of the planet,
man has only been around for a few blinks of an
eye. So if the infection wipes us all out,
that _is_ a return to normality..."
- Sergeant Farrell, "28 Days Later"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.
|
|
|
| User: "RichA" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
12 Sep 2006 05:52:43 PM |
|
|
Science fiction fell to pieces in the 1980s when the fantasists took
over from the hard scifi writers and started catering to the duller
classes out there. It's typified by Star Wars where instead of using
your BRAIN and technology to fight, escape, etc, you use "The Force."
It reminds me of a line from a movie that went, "Art doesn't belong to
the people, it belongs to the people who can truly appreciate it."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
12 Sep 2006 08:19:51 PM |
|
|
On 12 Sep 2006 15:52:43 -0700, "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
Science fiction fell to pieces in the 1980s when the fantasists took
over from the hard scifi writers and started catering to the duller
classes out there. It's typified by Star Wars where instead of using
your BRAIN and technology to fight, escape, etc, you use "The Force."
It reminds me of a line from a movie that went, "Art doesn't belong to
the people, it belongs to the people who can truly appreciate it."
I think reality was the cause of this move to fantasy. All the old
stories about rockets to the planets and stars became soft SF. We
knew more about what colonization of Mars is like, and how unlikely
interstellar empires are.
Since SF that we loved is now fantasy, (and the SF we loved included
Psi powers), our definitions changed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RichA" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
16 Sep 2006 01:56:41 PM |
|
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 15:52:43 -0700, "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
Science fiction fell to pieces in the 1980s when the fantasists took
over from the hard scifi writers and started catering to the duller
classes out there. It's typified by Star Wars where instead of using
your BRAIN and technology to fight, escape, etc, you use "The Force."
It reminds me of a line from a movie that went, "Art doesn't belong to
the people, it belongs to the people who can truly appreciate it."
I think reality was the cause of this move to fantasy. All the old
stories about rockets to the planets and stars became soft SF. We
knew more about what colonization of Mars is like, and how unlikely
interstellar empires are.
Since SF that we loved is now fantasy, (and the SF we loved included
Psi powers), our definitions changed.
"Unlikely" thanks to the liberals. If not for them, science fiction of
the 1960s and 1970s would now be reality. The leftlibs killed this
project;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
16 Sep 2006 02:26:37 PM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2006 11:56:41 -0700, "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 15:52:43 -0700, "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
Science fiction fell to pieces in the 1980s when the fantasists took
over from the hard scifi writers and started catering to the duller
classes out there. It's typified by Star Wars where instead of using
your BRAIN and technology to fight, escape, etc, you use "The Force."
It reminds me of a line from a movie that went, "Art doesn't belong to
the people, it belongs to the people who can truly appreciate it."
I think reality was the cause of this move to fantasy. All the old
stories about rockets to the planets and stars became soft SF. We
knew more about what colonization of Mars is like, and how unlikely
interstellar empires are.
Since SF that we loved is now fantasy, (and the SF we loved included
Psi powers), our definitions changed.
"Unlikely" thanks to the liberals. If not for them, science fiction of
the 1960s and 1970s would now be reality. The leftlibs killed this
project;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
Orion is totally inadequate to set up an interstellar empire even if
it worked as well as the most optimistic projections said it might. So
no. The liberals had nothing to do with making interstellar empires
unlikely.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "trotsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religiousdelusion |
16 Sep 2006 03:22:33 PM |
|
|
RichA wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 15:52:43 -0700, "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
Science fiction fell to pieces in the 1980s when the fantasists took
over from the hard scifi writers and started catering to the duller
classes out there. It's typified by Star Wars where instead of using
your BRAIN and technology to fight, escape, etc, you use "The Force."
It reminds me of a line from a movie that went, "Art doesn't belong to
the people, it belongs to the people who can truly appreciate it."
I think reality was the cause of this move to fantasy. All the old
stories about rockets to the planets and stars became soft SF. We
knew more about what colonization of Mars is like, and how unlikely
interstellar empires are.
Since SF that we loved is now fantasy, (and the SF we loved included
Psi powers), our definitions changed.
"Unlikely" thanks to the liberals. If not for them, science fiction of
the 1960s and 1970s would now be reality. The leftlibs killed this
project;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
I'm not sure if you know this, Rich, but video killed the radio star, too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Chomko" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
18 Sep 2006 10:33:18 AM |
|
|
RichA wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 15:52:43 -0700, "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
Science fiction fell to pieces in the 1980s when the fantasists took
over from the hard scifi writers and started catering to the duller
classes out there. It's typified by Star Wars where instead of using
your BRAIN and technology to fight, escape, etc, you use "The Force."
It reminds me of a line from a movie that went, "Art doesn't belong to
the people, it belongs to the people who can truly appreciate it."
I think reality was the cause of this move to fantasy. All the old
stories about rockets to the planets and stars became soft SF. We
knew more about what colonization of Mars is like, and how unlikely
interstellar empires are.
Since SF that we loved is now fantasy, (and the SF we loved included
Psi powers), our definitions changed.
"Unlikely" thanks to the liberals. If not for them, science fiction of
the 1960s and 1970s would now be reality. The leftlibs killed this
project;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
And despite liberals we still managed to get both Voyager spacecraft,
complete with RTGs, launched back in the 1970s. Explain why the
Voyagers were launched and Project Orion wasn't.
Eric
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rand Simberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
18 Sep 2006 10:34:42 AM |
|
|
On 18 Sep 2006 08:33:18 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
<pne.chomko@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
"Unlikely" thanks to the liberals. If not for them, science fiction of
the 1960s and 1970s would now be reality. The leftlibs killed this
project;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
And despite liberals we still managed to get both Voyager spacecraft,
complete with RTGs, launched back in the 1970s. Explain why the
Voyagers were launched and Project Orion wasn't.
Ummm...because an RTG isn't even a nuclear reactor, let alone a
nuclear bomb?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Chomko" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
18 Sep 2006 11:51:44 AM |
|
|
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 08:33:18 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
<pne.chomko@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
"Unlikely" thanks to the liberals. If not for them, science fiction of
the 1960s and 1970s would now be reality. The leftlibs killed this
project;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
And despite liberals we still managed to get both Voyager spacecraft,
complete with RTGs, launched back in the 1970s. Explain why the
Voyagers were launched and Project Orion wasn't.
Ummm...because an RTG isn't even a nuclear reactor, let alone a
nuclear bomb?
Right, just a nuclear battery, therefore the liberals approve...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
18 Sep 2006 06:19:05 PM |
|
|
"Eric Chomko" <pne.chomko@verizon.net> wrote in
news:1158598304.463722.136440@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 08:33:18 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric
Chomko" <pne.chomko@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
"Unlikely" thanks to the liberals. If not for them, science
fiction of the 1960s and 1970s would now be reality. The leftlibs
killed this project;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%
29
And despite liberals we still managed to get both Voyager
spacecraft, complete with RTGs, launched back in the 1970s. Explain
why the Voyagers were launched and Project Orion wasn't.
Ummm...because an RTG isn't even a nuclear reactor, let alone a
nuclear bomb?
Right, just a nuclear battery, therefore the liberals approve...
Shirley, you jest. Liberals were jumping up and down whining and
crapping their drawers about launching so many pounds of radioactives
that might explode or come down on some innocent whale's head or
something like that.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When liberals’ presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas,
liberals do not rush to read a book titled “What’s the Matter With
Liberals’ Nominees?'’ No, the book they turned into a best-seller is
titled “What’s the Matter With Kansas?'’ Notice a pattern here?"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Chomko" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
20 Sep 2006 01:54:39 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Eric Chomko" <pne.chomko@verizon.net> wrote in
news:1158598304.463722.136440@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 08:33:18 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric
Chomko" <pne.chomko@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
"Unlikely" thanks to the liberals. If not for them, science
fiction of the 1960s and 1970s would now be reality. The leftlibs
killed this project;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%
29
And despite liberals we still managed to get both Voyager
spacecraft, complete with RTGs, launched back in the 1970s. Explain
why the Voyagers were launched and Project Orion wasn't.
Ummm...because an RTG isn't even a nuclear reactor, let alone a
nuclear bomb?
Right, just a nuclear battery, therefore the liberals approve...
Shirley, you jest. Liberals were jumping up and down whining and
crapping their drawers about launching so many pounds of radioactives
that might explode or come down on some innocent whale's head or
something like that.
Right, the OP stated that Project Orion was cancelled due to liberals'
complaints about nuclear fallout, etc. I brought up that despite
liberals complaining we launched the Vovagers, therefore the OP's claim
about liberals was false given the counter example.
Eric
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When liberals' presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas,
liberals do not rush to read a book titled "What's the Matter With
Liberals' Nominees?'' No, the book they turned into a best-seller is
titled "What's the Matter With Kansas?'' Notice a pattern here?"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
16 Sep 2006 08:25:09 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com>
posting the following on 16 Sep 2006 11:56:41 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
"Unlikely" thanks to the liberals. If not for them, science fiction of
the 1960s and 1970s would now be reality. The leftlibs killed this
project;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
Orion is perhaps the least efficient engine that you can imagine. It
was discarded for very good reasons; the funding went into things like
ion engines (which work.)
Seriously, Orion was never a serious proposal.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
16 Sep 2006 08:29:50 PM |
|
|
: Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
: Orion is perhaps the least efficient engine that you can imagine.
Really? By what measure is it inefficient,
compared to other methods yielding comparable thrust?
I google it has pretty good isp, better than most
any viable alternative in the short term; literally
hundreds of times better than high-thrust alternatives.
: It was discarded for very good reasons;
Like, it violated the test ban treaty.
Which isn't exactly a criticism based on inefficiency, naict.
Pending your answer on how you measure inefficiency.
: the funding went into things like ion engines (which work.)
Really? Why don't we launch using them, then?
: Seriously, Orion was never a serious proposal.
Not serious?
Somebody didn't keep a straight face or something?
You have photos? 'Cause that'd be cool.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 01:42:43 AM |
|
|
Wayne Throop wrote:
Really? By what measure is it inefficient,
compared to other methods yielding comparable thrust?
The ratio of useful work done to available energy expended (the usual
measure of efficiency) is very low for Orion and this is
unfortunately coupled with the fact that the energy source for Orion
(fissile material) is very expensive. Even the smallest practical
Orion consumed enormous quantities of fissile material.
Even if these and other limitations were considered acceptable it
would likely have taken decades to get Orion into service, decades
which could have been better spent working on far more efficient high
Isp, high thrust nuclear propulsion options such as gaseous fission.
Assuming, of course, that there were actually requirements for such
propulsion options. Then, as now, there aren't any.
Jim Davis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 02:46:50 AM |
|
|
: Jim Davis <jimdavis2@earthlink.net>
: The ratio of useful work done to available energy expended (the usual
: measure of efficiency) is very low for Orion and this is
: unfortunately coupled with the fact that the energy source for Orion
: (fissile material) is very expensive. Even the smallest practical
: Orion consumed enormous quantities of fissile material.
Why is it bad to consume fissile material?
And why is it important to use a larger fraction of a million times
less energy (which is what you get by switching to chemical processes)?
It's efficient in delta-v-per-reaction-mass, is it not?
Which is the important measure in a rocket, is it not?
If not, why not?
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 10:57:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:46:50 GMT, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: Jim Davis <jimdavis2@earthlink.net>
: The ratio of useful work done to available energy expended (the usual
: measure of efficiency) is very low for Orion and this is
: unfortunately coupled with the fact that the energy source for Orion
: (fissile material) is very expensive. Even the smallest practical
: Orion consumed enormous quantities of fissile material.
Why is it bad to consume fissile material?
Well, first off, if you consume fissile material in the course of doing
something useful and/or fun, you're probably going to want to do it
again and again and again. Yes, the first few times you can probably
draw on existing stocks, but after that you're going to have to make
more.
Any plan that involves producing not just ordinary fissile material,
but bomb-grade fissile material, in such quantity that the diversion
of 0.001% of one year's production to the wrong people, would resuly
in a dead city, needs to be considered very carefully to say the least.
Second, an Orion-based interplanetary civilization, would consume
fissile materials in such quantity that we'd have to worry about
actually running out, in historic rather than geologic time.
It's efficient in delta-v-per-reaction-mass, is it not?
Yes.
Which is the important measure in a rocket, is it not?
No.
If not, why not?
Because there's more than one important measure in a rocket.
Energy efficiency, is also important. Energy, and power, are
not in fact available in infinite quantity for negligible price.
No, not even in an Orion.
And as it turns out, delta-V-per-energy, is inversely proportional
to delta-V-per-reaction-mass. There is a tradeoff in there, and
the optimum is never found by dialing Isp to eleven.
Indeed, trying to explain this to people seriously proposing to
develop 10,000+ second Isp thrusters, is one of the annoyances of
my professional life. So you'll forgive me for not spending too
much of my recreational down time on it.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
18 Sep 2006 12:27:10 AM |
|
|
: John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu>
: Any plan that involves producing not just ordinary fissile material,
: but bomb-grade fissile material, in such quantity that the diversion
: of 0.001% of one year's production to the wrong people, would resuly
: in a dead city, needs to be considered very carefully to say the least.
Yes, but again, that's not an *efficiency* issue.
There are many reasons not to do Orion; I'm just surprised
that "it's not efficient" was supposed to be one of them,
and by the claim "it was not a serious proposal".
: And as it turns out, delta-V-per-energy, is inversely proportional to
: delta-V-per-reaction-mass. There is a tradeoff in there, and the
: optimum is never found by dialing Isp to eleven.
By "energy", you mean the net useful energy after subtracting the wastage
(which in Origon is large), right?
: Because there's more than one important measure in a rocket. Energy
: efficiency, is also important. Energy, and power, are not in fact
: available in infinite quantity for negligible price. No, not even in
: an Orion.
Sure, not negligable. But is it actually worse off, in terms
of dollars-per-net-energy-after-wastage? Especially, enough worse
off for it to be "not a serious proposal".
: So you'll forgive me for not spending too much of my recreational down
: time on it.
Of course I will. I simply note that I'm still left puzzled as to
exactly why energy efficiency is important. Near as I can tell,
you're saying that *dollar* efficiency is important, and energy
efficiency is important only (or at least primarily)
in terms of expense. Is that right?
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
20 Sep 2006 08:12:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:27:10 GMT, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu>
: Any plan that involves producing not just ordinary fissile material,
: but bomb-grade fissile material, in such quantity that the diversion
: of 0.001% of one year's production to the wrong people, would resuly
: in a dead city, needs to be considered very carefully to say the least.
Yes, but again, that's not an *efficiency* issue.
If there are harmful side effects to [X], then the less efficient you
are at using [X] to achieve your goals, the more [X] you have to use
and the more of the harmful side effects you have to put up with.
So, yes, "[X] has harmful side effects", like say an increased risk
of suddenly vaporized cities, is an argument for using [X] efficiently.
There are many reasons not to do Orion; I'm just surprised
that "it's not efficient" was supposed to be one of them,
and by the claim "it was not a serious proposal".
Orion stopped being a serious proposal around 1960, on account of our
having then learned all the reasons it wasn't a very bright idea to
have ever seriously considered it in the first place.
: And as it turns out, delta-V-per-energy, is inversely proportional to
: delta-V-per-reaction-mass. There is a tradeoff in there, and the
: optimum is never found by dialing Isp to eleven.
By "energy", you mean the net useful energy after subtracting the wastage
(which in Origon is large), right?
Yes. Kinetic + potential energy of the spacecraft, to be specific.
: Because there's more than one important measure in a rocket. Energy
: efficiency, is also important. Energy, and power, are not in fact
: available in infinite quantity for negligible price. No, not even in
: an Orion.
Sure, not negligable. But is it actually worse off, in terms
of dollars-per-net-energy-after-wastage? Especially, enough worse
off for it to be "not a serious proposal".
: So you'll forgive me for not spending too much of my recreational down
: time on it.
Of course I will. I simply note that I'm still left puzzled as to
exactly why energy efficiency is important. Near as I can tell,
you're saying that *dollar* efficiency is important,
Dollar efficiency is another important thing. Again, there is no *one*
important thing, so you'll always be wrong if you say that [X] is *the*
important thing, but yes, dollars are high on the list of things you
want to be efficient in using.
The cost per joule of raw energy in the form of one-kiloton atom bombs,
is roughly an order of magnitude more than the cost of raw energy in the
form of wall current or chemical rocket fuel. So, if you are A: using
a form of raw energy that is more expensive than ordinary rocket fuel,
and B: using it less efficiently than an ordinary rocket, odds are you
are going to wind up wasting a whole lot of money.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
20 Sep 2006 09:42:12 PM |
|
|
: John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu>
: The cost per joule of raw energy in the form of one-kiloton atom bombs,
: is roughly an order of magnitude more than the cost of raw energy in the
: form of wall current or chemical rocket fuel. So, if you are A: using
: a form of raw energy that is more expensive than ordinary rocket fuel,
: and B: using it less efficiently than an ordinary rocket, odds are you
: are going to wind up wasting a whole lot of money.
And yet, it comes within 35 percent of a chemical fuel example.
Which is not nearly the ratio of percentage of energy use, let alone
percentage of energy use times energy cost. Unless I'm doing the
arithmetic wrong.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
21 Sep 2006 08:57:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:42:12 GMT, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu>
: The cost per joule of raw energy in the form of one-kiloton atom bombs,
: is roughly an order of magnitude more than the cost of raw energy in the
: form of wall current or chemical rocket fuel. So, if you are A: using
: a form of raw energy that is more expensive than ordinary rocket fuel,
: and B: using it less efficiently than an ordinary rocket, odds are you
: are going to wind up wasting a whole lot of money.
And yet, it comes within 35 percent of a chemical fuel example.
Which is not nearly the ratio of percentage of energy use, let alone
percentage of energy use times energy cost. Unless I'm doing the
arithmetic wrong.
No, but you are comparing a hypothetical mature, debugged, amortized
Orion transportation with a real second-generation kludge of an
ICBM-derived launch system with only a few hundred flights under
its belt. I thought I made it clear that was an apples/oranges
comparison.
But nontheless a relevant one, because if what you can hope to get
after all the trouble of developong Orion technology to such a level
of maturity, is less than you've already got in the land of chemical
rocketry, the argument for Orion looks particularly weak.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
20 Sep 2006 10:06:01 PM |
|
|
John Schilling wrote:
Orion stopped being a serious proposal around 1960, on account of our
having then learned all the reasons it wasn't a very bright idea to
have ever seriously considered it in the first place.
But it's a big FU to all the anti-nuke types, and Heinlein himself said that
stupid bureaucrats are the only reason we don't have nuclear-powered
spacecraft. And we're gonna need it if we're ever conquered by
semi-intelligent pachyderms.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 11:24:41 AM |
|
|
Wayne Throop wrote:
Why is it bad to consume fissile material?
It is not necessarily *bad* to consume fissile material. It is bad
to use only a small fraction of its available energy and waste the
rest because fissile material is very expensive.
And why is it important to use a larger fraction of a million
times less energy (which is what you get by switching to
chemical processes)?
I would have thought this would have been obvious. If one has much
less energy available it is important to use it much more
efficiently to acheive the same desired results.
It's efficient in delta-v-per-reaction-mass, is it not?
Indeed it is, but this is by no means the only consideration. For
chemical rockets where reaction mass and energy source are the same
delta-v-per-reaction-mass is very important. For nuclear rockets of
whatever description (including Orion) where reaction mass and
energy source are *not* the same the importance of delta-v-per-
reaction-mass is much diminished.
Which is the important measure in a rocket, is it not?
It is but by no means the only one as explained above.
Jim Davis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 11:45:37 AM |
|
|
:: And why is it important to use a larger fraction of a million times
:: less energy (which is what you get by switching to
: Jim Davis <jimdavis2@earthlink.net>
: I would have thought this would have been obvious. If one has much
: less energy available it is important to use it much more efficiently
: to acheive the same desired results.
The alternatives are "have lots of energy, use a small fraction",
and "have very little energy, use a large fraction". Why is it
important to avoid the former and do the latter?
For example, with current technology, a stirling engine can be made
much more efficient than an internal combustion engine, in terms of fuel
converted to useful work. And run quieter, and last longer, too. But if
the task you require of it is to run a helicopter, it is traditional to
use the less efficient, but higher power-per-mass method. I approve of
this tradition. Especially if I were contemplating a trip by helicopter.
: For nuclear rockets of whatever description (including Orion) where
: reaction mass and energy source are *not* the same the importance of
: delta-v-per- reaction-mass is much diminished.
Why? You still haven't explained the "why".
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 03:35:20 PM |
|
|
Wayne Throop wrote:
The alternatives are "have lots of energy, use a small
fraction", and "have very little energy, use a large fraction".
Why is it important to avoid the former and do the latter?
Firstly, those aren't the all the alternatives. There is the "have
lots of energy, use a large fraction" option (gaseous fission for
example).
Secondly, the ones that have "lots of energy" are extremely
expensive compared to the ones that "have very little energy".
For example, with current technology, a stirling engine can be
made much more efficient than an internal combustion engine, in
terms of fuel converted to useful work. And run quieter, and
last longer, too. But if the task you require of it is to run a
helicopter, it is traditional to use the less efficient, but
higher power-per-mass method. I approve of this tradition.
Especially if I were contemplating a trip by helicopter.
Not a good analogy. Internal combustion engines and Stirling
engines are relative close in efficiency (well within a factor of
2). Therefore the choice between them can be dominated by other
considerations (such as power to weight ratio).
Orions have thermal efficiencies about 3 or 4 *orders of magnitude*
less than chemical rockets.
Do you imagine IC engines would be used for any application if its
efficiency was 3 or 4 orders of magnitude less than that of
Stirling engines?
: For nuclear rockets of whatever description (including Orion)
: where reaction mass and energy source are *not* the same the
: importance of delta-v-per- reaction-mass is much diminished.
Why? You still haven't explained the "why".
Yes I did. I'll repeat it since you didn't grasp it:
The ratio of useful work done to available energy expended (the
usual measure of efficiency) is very low for Orion and this is
unfortunately coupled with the fact that the energy source for
Orion (fissile material) is very expensive. Even the smallest
practical Orion consumed enormous quantities of fissile material.
Jim Davis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 03:45:58 PM |
|
|
: Jim Davis <jimdavis2@earthlink.net>
: Firstly, those aren't the all the alternatives. There is the "have
: lots of energy, use a large fraction" option (gaseous fission for
: example).
They are, however, the alternatives that were under discussion.
Your claim was that it is, for some reason you haven't shared,
more impotant to be in the one category than the other. If that
wasn't your claim, what high-thrust, near-future technologies
do you have in mind, exactly?
: Secondly, the ones that have "lots of energy" are extremely expensive
: compared to the ones that "have very little energy".
Near as I can tell, that turns out not to be the case.
Why would nuclear pulse propulsion be more expensive in terms of delta-v
per given mass? Indeed the reverse seems to be the case; chemical
rockets and their infrastructure would be many times as expensive, to
deliver a given payload to, say mars. Such as an exploratory
expedition. Do you have references to the costs you are concerned with?
How many dollars per ton are we talking, exactly?
: Not a good analogy.
Shrug. It illustrates the folly of an inappropriate definition
of "efficiency". And you still haven't explained why delta-v per
reacion mass is the wrong one (though see below).
: Do you imagine IC engines would be used for any application if its
: efficiency was 3 or 4 orders of magnitude less than that of Stirling
: engines?
If you really really wanted to fly a helecopter, yes.
But more to the point, recall that the comparison is to chemical fuels,
which are six orders of magnitude less energy per fuel mass. So, four
orders of magnitude less energy-efficient, times six orders of magnitude
more energy, still yields a hundred times more efective.
: The ratio of useful work done to available energy expended (the usual
: measure of efficiency) is very low for Orion and this is unfortunately
: coupled with the fact that the energy source for Orion (fissile
: material) is very expensive.
Which still doesn't explain it, since you've pretty much merely
substituted dollars for reaction mass, but haven't said why the million
times more mass per unit energy is cheaper. Again, how many dollars
per ton of payload are we talking, exactly? Or even approximately.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rand Simberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 04:12:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:45:58 GMT, in a place far, far away,
throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
Near as I can tell, that turns out not to be the case.
Why would nuclear pulse propulsion be more expensive in terms of delta-v
per given mass? Indeed the reverse seems to be the case; chemical
rockets and their infrastructure would be many times as expensive, to
deliver a given payload to, say mars. Such as an exploratory
expedition. Do you have references to the costs you are concerned with?
How many dollars per ton are we talking, exactly?
: Not a good analogy.
Shrug. It illustrates the folly of an inappropriate definition
of "efficiency". And you still haven't explained why delta-v per
reacion mass is the wrong one (though see below).
Which one is the "right" one depends on what one is trying to
optimize. There is no obvious correct answer. Unfortunately, one of
the reasons that launch is so expensive is that engineers focus on
technical measures of efficiency (e.g., the Isp of the SSME) instead
of on cost efficiency.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Throop" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 04:17:08 PM |
|
|
:: It illustrates the folly of an inappropriate definition of "efficiency".
: (Rand Simberg)
: Which one is the "right" one depends on what one is trying to
: optimize. There is no obvious correct answer. Unfortunately, one of
: the reasons that launch is so expensive is that engineers focus on
: technical measures of efficiency (e.g., the Isp of the SSME) instead
: of on cost efficiency.
Yes, dollars in per similar goal out is almost always the right one.
I don't see that nuclear pulse propulsion is markedly worse than
alternatives. It is politicaly unacceptable, and a PR nightmare
in the current social climate, and arguably has unacceptable
environmental impact in some uses, and that's part of the "almost always".
But I don't see those as "efficiency" issues in this case.
Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Brazee" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 06:16:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:17:08 GMT, (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
Yes, dollars in per similar goal out is almost always the right one.
I don't see that nuclear pulse propulsion is markedly worse than
alternatives. It is politicaly unacceptable, and a PR nightmare
in the current social climate, and arguably has unacceptable
environmental impact in some uses, and that's part of the "almost always".
But I don't see those as "efficiency" issues in this case.
If you factor costs - don't forget that the lawyers will get their
money first.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rand Simberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion |
17 Sep 2006 04:39:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:17:08 GMT, in a place far, far away,
throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
:: It illustrates the folly of an inappropriate definition of "efficiency".
: (Rand Simberg)
: Which one is the "right" one depends on what one is trying to
: optimize. There is no obvious correct answer. Unfortunately, one of
: the reasons that launch is so expensive is that engineers focus on
: technical measures of efficiency (e.g., the Isp of the SSME) instead
: of on cost efficiency.
Yes, dollars in per similar goal out is almost always the right one.
I don't see that nuclear pulse propulsion is markedly worse than
alternatives. It is politicaly unacceptable, and a PR nightmare
in the current social climate, and arguably has unacceptable
environmental impact in some uses, and that's part of the "almost always".
But I don't see those as "efficiency" issues in this case.
And it's not at all obvious that Orion would have been low cost to
anywhere.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
