Nuclear Winter

[r_rolo1]

@Willem

That I could agree on ... I would probably point for fallout drops as the best choice ( representing radioactive dust clouds in the higher atmosphere dropping to the ground ) as long as the thing was capped as a function of the number of nukes actually used and reversible ( no falling stuff of the sky ad aeternum )

And about the ship ... well, technically true, but there is no big physic impediment for that ( just our inability in making powerful enough engines and the non-nuclear space treaties ). Global warming from nukes is in another completely diferent league: it is physically impossible barring a barrage of nukes so big that the planet atmosphere can't dissipate the nuke blast power fast enough. And that is a hell a lot of nukes/hour ...

 

[Willem]

And about the ship ... well, technically true, but there is no big physic impediment for that ( just our inability in making powerful enough engines and the non-nuclear space treaties ).

Not even close. At the moment we don't have a clue how to send people that far out into space. In the game the crew uses some form of suspended animation, which we're not even close to being able to use. And we still don't know enough to be able to construct a viable colony ship that would carry a multi-generational crew to AC. Frankly I think sending a ship to AC in the game was too far-fetched to begin with. They should have just settled for colonizing Mars and left it at that. Once we make it out that way, we might learn enough to be able send out an inter-stellar craft, but not until then. They skipped some major steps in the process we need to go through.

As for unhealthiness from nuclear fallout being reversable, you do realize that radioactive particles have a half-life of thousands of years don't you? If people are getting sick because of radiation in the atmosphere, it's not going to go away anytime soon. If you have global unhealthiness because of nuclear weapons, that's going to represent alot of radioactive particles. Even Chernobyl only affected a limited area. So it's not going to clear up in any big hurry.

 

[r_rolo1]

Not even close. At the moment we don't have a clue how to send people that far out into space. In the game the crew uses some form of suspended animation, which we're not even close to being able to use. And we still don't know enough to be able to construct a viable colony ship that would carry a multi-generational crew to AC. Frankly I think sending a ship to AC in the game was too far-fetched to begin with. They should have just settled for colonizing Mars and left it at that. Once we make it out that way, we might learn enough to be able send out an inter-stellar craft, but not until then. They skipped some major steps in the process we need to go through.

You are assuming that a SS would take more that 20/30 years to get there ( hence the need of animated life suspension ). The game developers made the SS times far lower ... thant and the SS parts design ( EDIT: and more importantly, the fact that the SS is launched from the ground ) point to the direction of something closely related with the Orion project ( or, as likely , to it's nuclear cousin, the Project Daedalus or a hybrid of both ), that is definitely inside of the feasibility sphere of today's technology ( not that i think anyone in this world would pay for it ... and this only applies to Orion; Daedalus is still far from being feasible ) and that would take a low enough time to get to AC to not need a dormant crew

 

[Willem]

You are assuming that a SS would take more that 20/30 years to get there ( hence the need of animated life suspension ).

From the very article you linked to:

At 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships would require a flight time of at least 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri, not counting time needed to reach that speed (about 36 days at constant acceleration of 1g or 9.8 m/s²).

So yes, you would either need a dormant crew or a multi-generational one, neither of which we're capable of sustaining at this time. And since it would no doubt be a one-way trip, the crew list would have to be large enough to provide for sufficient genetic diversity to support a sustainable colony. I believe that's something like 5000 people. 1000 at least. That's a lot of people to take care of. We're not even close to being able to pull that off yet, and probably won't be for quite some time.

 

[r_rolo1]

That assumes that you don't want to pass 0,1 c to avoid relativistic effects ( especially the relativistic increase of mass, to cut fuel fees ). Pull that out and the trip becomes much shorter in time. not mentioning that other relativistic effects would start decreasing the perceived lenght of the travel.

 

[frizzy]

You might want to first discover a habitable planet there, before going to all the trouble.

 

[Willem]

That assumes that you don't want to pass 0,1 c to avoid relativistic effects ( especially the relativistic increase of mass, to cut fuel fees ). Pull that out and the trip becomes much shorter in time. not mentioning that other relativistic effects would start decreasing the perceived lenght of the travel.

According to that article, an Orion ship would only be able to achieve speeds up to 10% of the speed of light, Daedalus could reach up to 12%. So relativistic effects aren't really that much of a consideration. A ship using anti-matter propulsion could theoretically achieve a speed up to 50% of light, but we're a long ways away from being able to harness anti-matter as a propulsion fuel. And the current cost of $25 billion per gram for anti-protons, currently the cheapest form, would certainly be prohibitive. I'm sure it would take at least a few grams to power a ship to AC.

 

[Willem]

You might want to first discover a habitable planet there, before going to all the trouble.

That may not be too far in the future. I was reading an article recently about some new satellites that are going up, who's main purpose is to discover planets. In it, a scientist was saying we may only be a few years away from discovering an Earth-like planet somewhere. Though not necessarily in AC of course.

 

[Darad'en]

My reason for starting this thread was not to start a GW debat, but to point out a inaccurcy in the game. If the creator of this game decided that they desired nuclear weapons in the game they should be as accurate as possible. In regards to Sabo's comment, you could have placed in the game, that if you or AI escalates a nuclear war beyond the point of no return you would lose the game. This would have reflected the real world. If the game consist of human players, the nuke tec should not be possible.
It is really hard to have nuclear weapons in a game an still have a game.

I like nukes. I especially like to nuke my opponents with giant stacks coming toward my cities. *FOOM* Send in a cleanup crew to mop up any remnants ( if any are left ). Good times. And you, as well as everyone else have said it at least two or 3 dozen times in this thread... *game*. It's a game, and it's fun. Are you seriously going to let a piddly issue like global warming as a game mechanic toss a wrench in your fun? Nuclear winter wouldn't be much of a mechanic.

 

[kochman]

Lol, this is a funny thread.

Anyhow, I am with the OP on this one... clearly influenced by uncertain science, made to be bigger than it is, and caused by more things that we know cause it, if it even is caused by man... which is not proven... so, basically, this theory is in the game, overrepresented.

Re: travel to alpha centuri... one of the techs needed, nuclear fussion, has yet to be reliable attained and replicated. The key to getting your ships their, propulsion, depends on this, does it not? So, it might not be as far off as we suspect... one technological invention away perhaps?

 

[Darad'en]

I'd volunteer for long distance space travel in a heartbeat.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

I'd volunteer for long distance space travel in a heartbeat.

I might, well if they had the Avatar program in the next 20 years I'll be all for it!

 

[Willem]

The key to getting your ships their, propulsion, depends on this, does it not?

You should read the article about Orion. No we don't need fusion, we can use fission as well. We have the technology right now to build a nuclear powered space craft.

So, it might not be as far off as we suspect... one technological invention away perhaps?

It takes much more than just an invention. There's a great deal we still need to learn about extended trips in space. For one thing, being able to grow food on a space ship, and how to protect a multi-generational crew from exposure to radiation and confinement in close quarter for long periods. We also need to find a way to engineer a ship that can provide some sort of artificial gravity to avoid all sorts of health issues during a very long flight. Either that or we need to come up with a way to put someone into suspended animation and be able to revive them. Once we start making a few manned trips around our own solar system we'll probably learn about all that stuff, but until then we won't even be able to consider some inter-stellar flight.

 

[Quaczar]

I think the point he was going for was nukes->GW is physically impossible, but AC travel is physically possible. Its just not technologically possible yet.

 

[Willem]

I think the point he was going for was nukes->GW is physically impossible, but AC travel is physically possible. Its just not technologically possible yet.

Yes, well this discusssion has gotten completely off-topic anyway. Interesting though.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Yep, considering how most people hate to see "fantasy" mechanics in the game (except in mods of course) it's surprising to me there aren't more people complaining about the whole ship to AC thing in the game. I am pretty sure the reason this doesn't happen is that it's a pretty fun game victory and serves as a nice way to end games that go too long (time victories are anti-climax). When I was younger and played Civ 1 I didn't really understand the concept in the game and just assumed it meant sending a spacecraft to the moon.

I suppose it also gave the option of a sequel, which ended up being fairly successful too, to my knowledge.

Back around 1990 (and especially earlier in the century) people used to think all sorts of crazy future things would be possible in 2000 and beyond. Sid et al probably thought the ship to AC idea (by 2050) was less far fetched than they would say now.

Would Civ5 have the ship to AC again? Is it a permanent feature of the civ series?

 

[Willem]

Would Civ5 have the ship to AC again? Is it a permanent feature of the civ series?

I'd like to see it replaced with the colonization of the Moon, or maybe Mars with the Moon as a stepping stone, then possibly a sequel that deals with mankind expanding out into the whole solar system.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yep, considering how most people hate to see "fantasy" mechanics in the game (except in mods of course) it's surprising to me there aren't more people complaining about the whole ship to AC thing in the game. I am pretty sure the reason this doesn't happen is that it's a pretty fun game victory and serves as a nice way to end games that go too long (time victories are anti-climax). When I was younger and played Civ 1 I didn't really understand the concept in the game and just assumed it meant sending a spacecraft to the moon.

I suppose it also gave the option of a sequel, which ended up being fairly successful too, to my knowledge.

Back around 1990 (and especially earlier in the century) people used to think all sorts of crazy future things would be possible in 2000 and beyond. Sid et al probably thought the ship to AC idea (by 2050) was less far fetched than they would say now.

Would Civ5 have the ship to AC again? Is it a permanent feature of the civ series?

40 years is a long time. Travel to AC might not be out of the question then, it all depends on chance discoveries and where research incentives lie. It's no more fair to say it won't happen than to say it will. Unless it's cost effective we probably won't see a lot of space travel though, unless it's forced for survival.

 

[PieceOfMind]

To me, it's more about what's likely to happen, not just what's merely possible. Who gets around in flying cars?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

To me, it's more about what's likely to happen, not just what's merely possible. Who gets around in flying cars?

Oh. I get it now. GW -----> Nuclear winter (they are after all, the same thing). This caused a gigantic cloud cover over the entire world, and now everyone has to live in ridiculously tall structures supported by what seems to be narrow columns.

Flying cars are a must of course, because at those altitudes it's easier to just have them rather than building bridges between every single structure.

Well, the only thing that makes space travel *likely* in the near future is if doing so is found to give someone a competitive advantage (private industry would flock there) or something comes up such that a strategic advantage can be had (governments might go up there).

The only barricade to colonization in THIS system is cost after all. But that's one of the largest barricades in practice. I'd go so far as to say if Walmart found that traveling to AC within 40 years were the only way it could survive, it would be done .

But why design extremely fast ships and colonize other planets when it's not practical on a cost basis?