|
gfarrell80 posted:
Was gonna post "nuh uh, I'm not sure how you got that impression" but rewatched the scene and now agree with you that they overcooked the distance. Even if they had shown it as just after undocking, it would still have been the near-superhuman feat that characterized her extreme survival ordeal and escape.
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:It isn’t “explicitly” the point, though. Remember: the epstein drive isn’t just magically fuel efficient, it also has an extremely high thrust, which means that while direct-line trajectories are easily feasible, it also makes more traditional interplanetary trajectories much easier to plot and use, especially if you’re not in a rush or are going relatively short distances where direct-line trajectories aren’t necessarily worth it. Baron Fuzzlewhack is right. The breakthrough of the Epstein drive is near-magical efficiency, not thrust. Real-life we have no problem building rocket vehicles that would splatter a human inside, e.g., the Sprint missile from the 60's (anti-ballistic interceptor) that accelerated at 100 G's, reaching Mach 10 in 5 seconds and glow from the heat on the way up (not reentry). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)). In the Expanse world, this allowed constant-burn trips that would take weeks instead of years. And this opening the door to colonization of the Belt was made explicit in the Solomon Epstein invention flashback scenes in S2E6. (Also it allows ships where most of the volume is livable space instead of propellant.) Also consider that an increase in thrust would have been useless, since the ships were already acceleration-limited by the G tolerance of the occupants. While the Epstein drive couldn't increase the amount of acceleration, it increased the duration of it. vessbot fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jan 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Also while epstein drives can allow for constant low acceleration/deceleration in practice it's more of periods under thrust and periods on the float, again with breaks, in long trips. It makes life more comfortable that there are periods where they're thrusting enough for gravity comfortable to the occupants. If you constantly do just a tiny bit, there'll be no appreciable gravity and living in nothing but zero G is hard even on belters. I'm not sure I'm understanding your post right, but what I think I'm getting is a choice between 1) constant very-low acceleration, and 2) periods of higher acceleration punctuated by periods of float. Well, those aren't the only choices. There is also 3) constant higher acceleration, and you get there faster.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:the primary conceit of Jeffrey's drive is making travel fast enough to be plot-convenient and ships small enough to fulfill the space opera fantasy, we had nuclear drive designs during the cold war that could make establishing colonies on Mars and farther out possible, just not as convenient and cool as in the Expanse with little ships full of plucky little bands of heroes This is true at the plot device level, but also hashing out the details at the in-universe level (as well as comparing to real life) is part and parcel of the hard scifi experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
Baron Fuzzlewhack posted:
All that, and even if everything went perfectly right they still didn't aim to stop exactly where the destination station would be at the time of arrival, so they don't melt it with the exhaust.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Yeah but that's only usually done when you're in an emergency because it's at the very least uncomfortable, and in some cases very harmful, to the occupants. No, there is no mention in the books or TV show (or real life) of any harm or discomfort from long periods of acceleration. See Earthers spending their entire lives at 1G, or Belters their entire life (like on Ceres) at 1/3 G. Discomfort and harm comes from high amounts of acceleration (2 G, 3 G, 10G, etc.; or lower numbers for Belters) not duration. High amount G is what happens in emergencies/combat. High duration of 1 (Earther) or 1/3 (Belter) G is what happens during constant-burn cruise (as well as existence on planets and stations). vessbot fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jan 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2021 02:44
|
|
|
404notfound posted:These are some good points, I assumed that the nav system would aim toward where the dock would be at end of deceleration, but the deceleration dropping to 0 would also throw off that calculation, so chances are it would just miss. And if it does happen to be on a direct path that's not influenced by the acceleration, it would probably be far enough away or going slow enough that the collision risk is minimal. Like someone else pointed out recently, even in real life they specifically aim to arrive at some point with some offset from the destination station; then, once stabilized, proceed (with maneuvering thrusters, not main drive) at low rates for final approach and docking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:We're talking past one another here because when you say "higher" acceleration I'm not sure what you mean inherently. You're right, with too many relative words it's easy to get lost. Let's go back to your original post: A. You ended with "a tiny bit" that's nearly indistinguishable from zero G, and is too low for maintaining the entire trip. ("If you constantly do just a tiny bit, there'll be no appreciable gravity and living in nothing but zero G is hard even on belters.") B. As an alternative, you have a higher amount that "makes life more comfortable that there are periods where they're thrusting enough for gravity comfortable to the occupants." Let's call this one the "more comfortable" one. For this same amount, you say it would have to be interrupted with periods of float, for which there's no reason to say. I'd say what's most comfortable is what home planets or space stations are at, and obviously this does not need to be interrupted. C. In the later post, you introduce discomfort/danger from too much G. This is the emergency/combat case, that can only be sustained for limited times. It does need to be interrupted. D. For completeness' sake, let's bring in, as D, the even more dangerous levels, that require the juice I'd guess you were thinking of C, requiring interruptions, and misapplying that to B. B is the most common G level in the system. 1/3 G, which most spin stations are at, and is the constant-burn cruising G for long duration trips for Belter and mixed-crew ships. quote:Cruise yes, but they spend good portions of the trip on the float too. It is also true that they spend a lot of time on the float, but this is not any requirement of the Epstein/constant-burn travel paradigm. It's simply when they're not going anywhere, such as waiting for a rendezvous, or performing mining operations, or hiding out, etc. quote:It's going to be a very specific set of routes where you can constantly accelerate/decelerate within a certain amount of G, though. This is not true. You can take a given distance of trip, plan to acc/decelerate at any chosen G, and that would result in a certain time duration. (But you can reverse it and choose the time duration, which would then dictate the G.) (Since there are gravity sources around, of course the paths would have to account for them and curve around them, but they're far straighter curves than coasting trajectories. The higher the acc/deceleration, the straighter the path.) quote:If you're going at exactly .3 G acceleration and you slow down at the same rate with no breaks, there is exactly one length of trip that will cover. And things are usually different distances based on orbits. Yes, allowing for an unplanned early stop would dictate a lower-than-otherwise-chosen G, so it can be increased if you're partway down the trip and decide to do the early stop. Like the Canterbury which saw the emergency beacon, which was short of the destination, and decided to fly to it without having planned for this possibility. So we got the dramatic high-G burn on the juice to open the series with. But if we're not allowing for an unplanned stop/diversion, and just talking about a basic A to B cruise, there is nothing preventing constant .3G. vessbot fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jan 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
Now, Thread, if you can help me with the reason I came over. I want to get a Pur'n'Kleen sticker, and there are basic ones like this with simply the logo. And there are ones like this, with a round backdrop with writing in the style of a squadron patch. Was this second style actually seen in the show or any official materials? Or is it a fan creation?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Yes, and I admitted my mistake 5 posts up from yours. You're spending an awful lot of this post on a gotcha I just copped to! I hosed up there. I didn't mean it to be like points-scoring, but I can see how it came off that way. I started working on my post before, then finished it after yours where you admitted the mistake but I just went ahead with it anyway for completeness' sake of the details. Anyway, I'm not saying at all that "orbital mechanics won't apply at all." If you take a completely coasting trajectory (i.e., 0 G) you're only under the force of gravity (which may be the gravities of multiple nearby bodies) as in most IRL interplanetary travel. You're curving around every gravitational source. If you're applying some thrust at the same time, then you're under the combined forces of gravity and thrust. I said that in this case the path will be straighter than the coasting path. And the higher the thrust, the straighter the path. Under the (unrealistic, thought experiment) extreme of infinitely high thrust, and zero time of travel, then the path would be completely straight as gravity would have no time to act on the ship.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:as the show continues more and more characters are actually also Diogo, until the rocinante and the ships of the free navy, MCR, and UN are all completely staffed by diogo Nice, I'm envisioning this as a Rick and Morty type runaway loop. --- The talk about helmets a few pages ago, I can let it go as a standard Hollywood-ism to show us the heroes' faces. But something similar that bugs be more, is how the central command posts of virtually all ships are consoles that you stand around, where a standard part of the universe is the criticality of being in crash couches in case of sudden G's
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2021 07:13
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Totally. Quick math, after twelve hours at a one-gee burn you’re moving at 423 km/s relative to your starting velocity. If you impact a “stationary” micrometeoroid that masses one measly gram, that sucker is going to impart a whopping 89 megajoules unto your sorry tin can full of air and meat. If we're lucky it imparts a fraction of those joules making a pair of holes, and keeps the rest as it passes through. vessbot fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Mar 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
packetmantis posted:Regarding the Don Quixote stuff, I've felt that the show/books (much more apparent in the books, which is why I stopped reading them) have some gross libertarian undertones, in that helping people who don't "deserve it" is inherently bad. I missed that with Holden's idealism but I definitely noticed it with the Basic stuff on Earth. You mean the blithe caricaturization by the Martian fascist propaganda machine?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Whoa, that's crazy, i figured it was out in the belt, but that probably means it was old and busted because it was the earliest asteroid colony and once the further out ones got established all the effort was put into Ceres and any others. There was a really neat throwaway line in the book that I wish they'd kept: when they were sneaking around the maintenance tunnels, one of the characters remarked how cramped they are for a belter station. And another one replied in explanation, "the belters who built these tunnels weren't tall"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2021 05:13
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Oh! I completely missed that, that explains why Naomi didn't realize that Alex was close by because she was unaware he'd changed the ships IFF so just saw this random ship. She totally saw it and knew it was him, he chose that fake name because it was a previous in-joke and they had no way to communicate
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
gently caress me, I just got the reference in the podcast's name!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:like unequivocal proof of a superior alien intelligence is right there and everybody's pretty cool about it. Holden floats down into a literal alien superstructure and he's not like "HOLY loving poo poo" the entire time. ...but the seats don't recline a lot, and the Wifi is slow! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
TNG = Space Frasier
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
Also I'd be completely all over prequels with basic world type stories like season 1 (or the flashback segments) before the cataclysmic scale stuff in the later seasons.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
Also Bobbie herself said (in books, don't remember if also in show) that her experience on Earth showed her immediately that the Martian rah rah about training in 1G is next to meaningless in reality. Advantage: Amos. But he's a self taught asskicker from a rough neighborhood, while she's a trained terminator. Advantage: Bobbie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:Settling Mars was a foolish move all along. The Belt was always the future! Why you work so hard to crawl back down a hole you already climb up out of, bossmang? Top notch Beltalowda patter right here, double entendres and all  MikeJF posted:I mean the belters do build a bunch of mega-Behemoths when they get a budget between book 6 and 7. I think they said the Void Cities had populations in the hundreds of thousands? Watch the spoilers Beratna Edit I see your edit
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
Also, is there a fan support group that can't unthink this every time someone says Beltalowda?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:? Didn't edit? Oh...maybe as I was swiping up, my finger also activated the spoiler uncovering, and I didn't realize it was covered to begin with 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
A whiteboard (or even a sports tournament bracket) would have been helpful during the Slow Zone book
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
Inspector 34 posted:
Also I'm most of the first season through Ty and That Guy, and Wes has very insightful and touching observations on character development (both fictional and real), meaning of life, etc. Gotta admit I judged that book by its cover and this only makes all this things even more striking in comparison to what I'd thought would come out of this good looking simple minded jock
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
My 2 cents, a name that's a normal name which is after an inspiring character, and you can go ahead and appreciate it in the background, is OK. But going Khaleesi or something like that, is hyper-cringey and not doing the child (or, especially, later adult) any favors.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
Just be an Amos not a Prax, then it doesn't matter what your name is
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I have the kind of broken brain that I'm annoyed by kids named Khaleesi not because it's dumb but because Khaleesi is her title and not her name. I mean "Queen" is also a given name IRL so...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2021 19:01
|
|