What is really realistic?

[atpollard]

This discussion has been moved from “LBB6 system generation questions” to avoid creating a lot of off-topic chatter.

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
Puking your guts out, losing your hair and dying young are realistic aspects of space exploration. I find REALISM in a game to be highly over-rated, give me a good "barely-plausible" setting any day.

Then I guess you're the ideal target audience for the OTU.

Your claim that "puking your guts out, losing your hair and dying young" are "realistic aspects of space exploration" is misguided at best though. Yes, there's lot of radiation out there, but it's only really a problem if you're caught with your pants down in outer space and nowhere near a storm shelter (and I'm sure that any starfaring society as advanced as the OTU would have their ships lined with nuclear-damper derived tech to remove that threat, or at the very least have radiation-hardened shelters and habitats). And I don't recall hearing about any real astronauts who are dying of radiation poisoning.

And yes, it's a risky business right now - but then so was flying and ocean travel when they first started. By the time the OTU is set, there's not so much serious risk involved in space travel (other than the perpetual threat of misjump and cold berth revival).

Then again, if there's one thing I've learned on this board, it's that people's opinions about what is realistic are usually very different to what actually is realistic. I just throw the realistic options on the table so people know what they are - feel free to ignore that if you have a TU that isn't based on reality. </font>[/QUOTE]Malenfant: Keep up the good work.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy talking about what is realistic, but I also recognize that we are very selective in our use of realism (and rightly so).

In spite of all of the current research, FTL travel is probably not possible. Even if near light speed travel becomes possible, it is a one-way trip with lots of temporal complications. A star empire is possible only with the use of 99.9% pure handwavium. The argument that a star faring culture would be able to solve these problems is the tail wagging the dog.

The conditions under which fusion occurs are so extreme that a fusion reactor would be a weapon of mass destruction – allowed nowhere near a planet and not the stuff of a “tramp freighter”.

The instances of populations on earth from different continents being exposed to each other is full of ecological disasters and the spread of new plagues. Alien life (if it exists) will probably be even more so. That means that the first explorers in space will likely find countless worlds hostile to human habitation.

Artificial gravity is also a technological improbability. That leaves linear or rotational acceleration as the only practical artificial gravity. What are the long term health effects of decades of exposure to artificial gravity? Another complete unknown given our current technology.

Not to step on anyone’s beliefs, but aliens did not build the Pyramids and there is no Stargate. Ancient advanced civilizations that fixed all of these problems and left the secrets lying around where we can find them are pure fiction.

To close the circle by returning to my original post:
Puking your guts out – could also be alien micro-organisms.
losing your hair – could also be the long term heath impacts of artificial gravity.
dying young – could also be the result of the unknown dangers of real interstellar space travel.

My only point was that Science Fiction is a lot more fun than reality, so we use reality where we can and quickly discard it where it doesn’t fit. Feel free to post your opinions or contradict my facts with your own knowledge.

 

[atpollard]

This discussion has been moved from “LBB6 system generation questions” to avoid creating a lot of off-topic chatter.

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
Puking your guts out, losing your hair and dying young are realistic aspects of space exploration. I find REALISM in a game to be highly over-rated, give me a good "barely-plausible" setting any day.

Then I guess you're the ideal target audience for the OTU.

Your claim that "puking your guts out, losing your hair and dying young" are "realistic aspects of space exploration" is misguided at best though. Yes, there's lot of radiation out there, but it's only really a problem if you're caught with your pants down in outer space and nowhere near a storm shelter (and I'm sure that any starfaring society as advanced as the OTU would have their ships lined with nuclear-damper derived tech to remove that threat, or at the very least have radiation-hardened shelters and habitats). And I don't recall hearing about any real astronauts who are dying of radiation poisoning.

And yes, it's a risky business right now - but then so was flying and ocean travel when they first started. By the time the OTU is set, there's not so much serious risk involved in space travel (other than the perpetual threat of misjump and cold berth revival).

Then again, if there's one thing I've learned on this board, it's that people's opinions about what is realistic are usually very different to what actually is realistic. I just throw the realistic options on the table so people know what they are - feel free to ignore that if you have a TU that isn't based on reality. </font>[/QUOTE]Malenfant: Keep up the good work.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy talking about what is realistic, but I also recognize that we are very selective in our use of realism (and rightly so).

In spite of all of the current research, FTL travel is probably not possible. Even if near light speed travel becomes possible, it is a one-way trip with lots of temporal complications. A star empire is possible only with the use of 99.9% pure handwavium. The argument that a star faring culture would be able to solve these problems is the tail wagging the dog.

The conditions under which fusion occurs are so extreme that a fusion reactor would be a weapon of mass destruction – allowed nowhere near a planet and not the stuff of a “tramp freighter”.

The instances of populations on earth from different continents being exposed to each other is full of ecological disasters and the spread of new plagues. Alien life (if it exists) will probably be even more so. That means that the first explorers in space will likely find countless worlds hostile to human habitation.

Artificial gravity is also a technological improbability. That leaves linear or rotational acceleration as the only practical artificial gravity. What are the long term health effects of decades of exposure to artificial gravity? Another complete unknown given our current technology.

Not to step on anyone’s beliefs, but aliens did not build the Pyramids and there is no Stargate. Ancient advanced civilizations that fixed all of these problems and left the secrets lying around where we can find them are pure fiction.

To close the circle by returning to my original post:
Puking your guts out – could also be alien micro-organisms.
losing your hair – could also be the long term heath impacts of artificial gravity.
dying young – could also be the result of the unknown dangers of real interstellar space travel.

My only point was that Science Fiction is a lot more fun than reality, so we use reality where we can and quickly discard it where it doesn’t fit. Feel free to post your opinions or contradict my facts with your own knowledge.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by atpollard:
Not to step on anyone’s beliefs, but aliens did not build the Pyramids and there is no Stargate.

What?! Nooo!

I was just flicking through LBB3 in an idle moment (where is that CD-ROM?) and came across the classic: "An air/raft can reach orbit in several hours" statement. Heh, good radiation shielding on them vacc suits, there.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by atpollard:
Not to step on anyone’s beliefs, but aliens did not build the Pyramids and there is no Stargate.

What?! Nooo!

I was just flicking through LBB3 in an idle moment (where is that CD-ROM?) and came across the classic: "An air/raft can reach orbit in several hours" statement. Heh, good radiation shielding on them vacc suits, there.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
Not to step on anyone’s beliefs, but aliens did not build the Pyramids and there is no Stargate.

What?! Nooo!

I was just flicking through LBB3 in an idle moment (where is that CD-ROM?) and came across the classic: "An air/raft can reach orbit in several hours" statement. Heh, good radiation shielding on them vacc suits, there. </font>[/QUOTE]"Only during periods of solar inactivity" is implied.

What's a few hundred rads between friends.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
Not to step on anyone’s beliefs, but aliens did not build the Pyramids and there is no Stargate.

What?! Nooo!

I was just flicking through LBB3 in an idle moment (where is that CD-ROM?) and came across the classic: "An air/raft can reach orbit in several hours" statement. Heh, good radiation shielding on them vacc suits, there. </font>[/QUOTE]"Only during periods of solar inactivity" is implied.

What's a few hundred rads between friends.

 

[jfetters]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
Not to step on anyone’s beliefs, but aliens did not build the Pyramids and there is no Stargate.

What?! Nooo!

I was just flicking through LBB3 in an idle moment (where is that CD-ROM?) and came across the classic: "An air/raft can reach orbit in several hours" statement. Heh, good radiation shielding on them vacc suits, there. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, in fact that is the method of transportation in the "Death Station" adventure. I read that when I was around 15 and I rolled my eyes then...

 

[jfetters]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atpollard:
Not to step on anyone’s beliefs, but aliens did not build the Pyramids and there is no Stargate.

What?! Nooo!

I was just flicking through LBB3 in an idle moment (where is that CD-ROM?) and came across the classic: "An air/raft can reach orbit in several hours" statement. Heh, good radiation shielding on them vacc suits, there. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, in fact that is the method of transportation in the "Death Station" adventure. I read that when I was around 15 and I rolled my eyes then...

 

[TheEngineer]

I'm not very sure about the pyramid thing, too ...

And regarding orbiting air/rafts, we all know from US 1960's nuclear test documentaries, that sunglasses protect against radiation ....

Besides, what does this "F" in SF actually mean ??

 

[TheEngineer]

I'm not very sure about the pyramid thing, too ...

And regarding orbiting air/rafts, we all know from US 1960's nuclear test documentaries, that sunglasses protect against radiation ....

Besides, what does this "F" in SF actually mean ??

 

[Malenfant]

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy talking about what is realistic, but I also recognize that we are very selective in our use of realism (and rightly so).

I think that's true (to varying degrees) for any good sf setting - we basically should be looking at reality and then filtering it through the axioms of the setting (i.e. the assumptions the designer makes about how the fictional universe works). That way you should end up with a consistent universe that makes sense, but with unrealistic fictional bits that make the setting what it is (like FTL)

My problem with the OTU is that it looks like MWM arbitrarily decided on the axioms of the setting - e.g. habitable planets around impossible stars, small worlds that have to be superdense to hold atmospheres, every system is populated, everything's an exception, and so on - and then threw in some realism (the tables and equations in the "astronomical data" part of CT book 6) as an afterthought.

In spite of all of the current research, FTL travel is probably not possible. Even if near light speed travel becomes possible, it is a one-way trip with lots of temporal complications. A star empire is possible only with the use of 99.9% pure handwavium. The argument that a star faring culture would be able to solve these problems is the tail wagging the dog.

I wouldn't call FTL impossible. I think it's quite likely that whenever we manage to truly understand gravity and space-time, we'll be able to figure out ways to deform the metric, make wormholes, and generally manipulate space-time so we can work around the lightspeed barrier. Though that would probably require a LOT of power to drive it, which isn't currently available.

The conditions under which fusion occurs are so extreme that a fusion reactor would be a weapon of mass destruction – allowed nowhere near a planet and not the stuff of a “tramp freighter”.

I disagree - I reckon we'll have a working fusion reactor within the next 25 years, if ITER gets off the ground properly. They'll be big and clunky, but I don't think it's impossible. Heck, we've got the technology to build these right now, it's just that the funding remains thin on the ground and governments (short-sighted beasts that they are) aren't really all that interested in it. And also, if a fusion reactor pops then at most it'll destroy the reactor only - it doesn't go up like an H-bomb, you just end up with hot plasma venting out and a small amount of radioactive tritium scattered about (nowhere near on the scale of Chernobyl).

Antimatter is a better power source (more energy density) but also vastly more dangerous - if that blows then you're talking about leaving a pretty huge crater in the ground...

The instances of populations on earth from different continents being exposed to each other is full of ecological disasters and the spread of new plagues. Alien life (if it exists) will probably be even more so. That means that the first explorers in space will likely find countless worlds hostile to human habitation.

I'd agree with that - I think "habitable worlds", if they have a compatible ecosystem, will be very dangerous to Terran life until cures for all the common diseases found there are created. If anything, I'd reckon that uninhabitable worlds might be safer for humans to live on because they don't have that threat! But it does underline how hostile the universe is.

Artificial gravity is also a technological improbability.

It might fall out of the mix when we figure out how gravity really works and how to manipulate it. But there are obvious practical problems - e.g. you can't really have grav plates on multiple decks on a ship unless somehow the field is zeroed at the base of each deck. And the ship moves then you have to compensate for the forward acceleration. And so on.

To close the circle by returning to my original post:
Puking your guts out – could also be alien micro-organisms.
losing your hair – could also be the long term heath impacts of artificial gravity.
dying young – could also be the result of the unknown dangers of real interstellar space travel.

True, it sounded like you were talking about radiation sickness

.

My only point was that Science Fiction is a lot more fun than reality, so we use reality where we can and quickly discard it where it doesn’t fit. Feel free to post your opinions or contradict my facts with your own knowledge.

Depends what you think is "fun" really. My preference is for realistic SF (Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, Alastair Reynolds, Jack McDevitt, Stephen Baxter, that sort of thing), the sort of stuff where the authors have done a bit of research and made the effort to make the universe feel realistic. Going back to what I said earlier in the post, they start with reality and tack on their setting assumptions to that. But there are also those who just start out by saying "OK, this is going to be the Napoleonic Wars in Space" or something, and for them that's what drives the setting and realism gets pushed to the backburner.

It's almost like the simulationism and narrativism arguments from some RPG circles - I think it's quite possible to have a "fun" universe to play in that is still realistic, others think that realism limits or even actually precludes "fun" and that the narrativistic aspect should take precedence. I've certainly seen no evidence that realism actually makes a game less enjoyable or exciting though - it does shift the fun aspects around since "anything goes" doesn't work anymore, but there's still fun and excitement to be had.

For example, in an unrealistic universe people might be able discover, land and walk around on a habitable planet and not worry about its diseases, and you have your standard stories of trading, looking for patrons etc. In a realistic universe, you could also have stories involving the outbreak of an alien disease on the colony, or an evacuation where there's an environmental breach or something like that. It just presents different opportunities - it doesn't all have to be highbrow like 2001: A Space Odyssey - the Alien movie was pretty gritty and realistic and was also very popular and entertaining too...

But all that said, "fun" is a subjective thing .

 

[Malenfant]

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy talking about what is realistic, but I also recognize that we are very selective in our use of realism (and rightly so).

I think that's true (to varying degrees) for any good sf setting - we basically should be looking at reality and then filtering it through the axioms of the setting (i.e. the assumptions the designer makes about how the fictional universe works). That way you should end up with a consistent universe that makes sense, but with unrealistic fictional bits that make the setting what it is (like FTL)

My problem with the OTU is that it looks like MWM arbitrarily decided on the axioms of the setting - e.g. habitable planets around impossible stars, small worlds that have to be superdense to hold atmospheres, every system is populated, everything's an exception, and so on - and then threw in some realism (the tables and equations in the "astronomical data" part of CT book 6) as an afterthought.

In spite of all of the current research, FTL travel is probably not possible. Even if near light speed travel becomes possible, it is a one-way trip with lots of temporal complications. A star empire is possible only with the use of 99.9% pure handwavium. The argument that a star faring culture would be able to solve these problems is the tail wagging the dog.

I wouldn't call FTL impossible. I think it's quite likely that whenever we manage to truly understand gravity and space-time, we'll be able to figure out ways to deform the metric, make wormholes, and generally manipulate space-time so we can work around the lightspeed barrier. Though that would probably require a LOT of power to drive it, which isn't currently available.

The conditions under which fusion occurs are so extreme that a fusion reactor would be a weapon of mass destruction – allowed nowhere near a planet and not the stuff of a “tramp freighter”.

I disagree - I reckon we'll have a working fusion reactor within the next 25 years, if ITER gets off the ground properly. They'll be big and clunky, but I don't think it's impossible. Heck, we've got the technology to build these right now, it's just that the funding remains thin on the ground and governments (short-sighted beasts that they are) aren't really all that interested in it. And also, if a fusion reactor pops then at most it'll destroy the reactor only - it doesn't go up like an H-bomb, you just end up with hot plasma venting out and a small amount of radioactive tritium scattered about (nowhere near on the scale of Chernobyl).

Antimatter is a better power source (more energy density) but also vastly more dangerous - if that blows then you're talking about leaving a pretty huge crater in the ground...

The instances of populations on earth from different continents being exposed to each other is full of ecological disasters and the spread of new plagues. Alien life (if it exists) will probably be even more so. That means that the first explorers in space will likely find countless worlds hostile to human habitation.

I'd agree with that - I think "habitable worlds", if they have a compatible ecosystem, will be very dangerous to Terran life until cures for all the common diseases found there are created. If anything, I'd reckon that uninhabitable worlds might be safer for humans to live on because they don't have that threat! But it does underline how hostile the universe is.

Artificial gravity is also a technological improbability.

It might fall out of the mix when we figure out how gravity really works and how to manipulate it. But there are obvious practical problems - e.g. you can't really have grav plates on multiple decks on a ship unless somehow the field is zeroed at the base of each deck. And the ship moves then you have to compensate for the forward acceleration. And so on.

To close the circle by returning to my original post:
Puking your guts out – could also be alien micro-organisms.
losing your hair – could also be the long term heath impacts of artificial gravity.
dying young – could also be the result of the unknown dangers of real interstellar space travel.

True, it sounded like you were talking about radiation sickness

.

My only point was that Science Fiction is a lot more fun than reality, so we use reality where we can and quickly discard it where it doesn’t fit. Feel free to post your opinions or contradict my facts with your own knowledge.

Depends what you think is "fun" really. My preference is for realistic SF (Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, Alastair Reynolds, Jack McDevitt, Stephen Baxter, that sort of thing), the sort of stuff where the authors have done a bit of research and made the effort to make the universe feel realistic. Going back to what I said earlier in the post, they start with reality and tack on their setting assumptions to that. But there are also those who just start out by saying "OK, this is going to be the Napoleonic Wars in Space" or something, and for them that's what drives the setting and realism gets pushed to the backburner.

It's almost like the simulationism and narrativism arguments from some RPG circles - I think it's quite possible to have a "fun" universe to play in that is still realistic, others think that realism limits or even actually precludes "fun" and that the narrativistic aspect should take precedence. I've certainly seen no evidence that realism actually makes a game less enjoyable or exciting though - it does shift the fun aspects around since "anything goes" doesn't work anymore, but there's still fun and excitement to be had.

For example, in an unrealistic universe people might be able discover, land and walk around on a habitable planet and not worry about its diseases, and you have your standard stories of trading, looking for patrons etc. In a realistic universe, you could also have stories involving the outbreak of an alien disease on the colony, or an evacuation where there's an environmental breach or something like that. It just presents different opportunities - it doesn't all have to be highbrow like 2001: A Space Odyssey - the Alien movie was pretty gritty and realistic and was also very popular and entertaining too...

But all that said, "fun" is a subjective thing .

 

[Mickazoid]

In My Traveller Universe, Air/Rafts are ABSOLUTELY not orbit-capable. IMTU, you'd be a class-one idiot to try it.

I ruled from the very start (11 years old? 12?) that open vehicles like air-rafts (and indeed, teeny little ships) aren't capable of spaceflight without turning their occupants into crispy burnt spaceman toast, whether due to atmospheric friction, radiation, or the occasional micrometeorite (which would be more like swiss cheese than toast, but you catch my drift).

My players and I have always enjoyed the sense of realism this imparts... it creates a healthy respect for space and the incredibly inhospitable process of tearing through the atmosphere at escape velocity.

As an historical example, a sailing ship will send a dinghy to shore if the surf isn't too strong... but it's not without risk. And you damn well don't want to be in a dinghy in a storm, even for a quick trip to the mainland.

In my Traveller Universe, the only time the 'surf' isn't too strong is on an airless world... and even then, gravity, micrometeoroids, should remain a major risk for trying to land on a world in the equivalent of a convertible car.

Down with orbit-capable convertible dinghies!

 

[Mickazoid]

In My Traveller Universe, Air/Rafts are ABSOLUTELY not orbit-capable. IMTU, you'd be a class-one idiot to try it.

I ruled from the very start (11 years old? 12?) that open vehicles like air-rafts (and indeed, teeny little ships) aren't capable of spaceflight without turning their occupants into crispy burnt spaceman toast, whether due to atmospheric friction, radiation, or the occasional micrometeorite (which would be more like swiss cheese than toast, but you catch my drift).

My players and I have always enjoyed the sense of realism this imparts... it creates a healthy respect for space and the incredibly inhospitable process of tearing through the atmosphere at escape velocity.

As an historical example, a sailing ship will send a dinghy to shore if the surf isn't too strong... but it's not without risk. And you damn well don't want to be in a dinghy in a storm, even for a quick trip to the mainland.

In my Traveller Universe, the only time the 'surf' isn't too strong is on an airless world... and even then, gravity, micrometeoroids, should remain a major risk for trying to land on a world in the equivalent of a convertible car.

Down with orbit-capable convertible dinghies!

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I wouldn't call FTL impossible. I think it's quite likely that whenever we manage to truly understand gravity and space-time, we'll be able to figure out ways to deform the metric, make wormholes, and generally manipulate space-time so we can work around the lightspeed barrier.

I'm not sure what you think we don't understand that would allow this. We can't directly study the metrics required for FTL, but we have some idea of what would construct them, and generally speaking they require things such as negative energy density which we have no reason to believe actually exist or even can exist.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The instances of populations on earth from different continents being exposed to each other is full of ecological disasters and the spread of new plagues. Alien life (if it exists) will probably be even more so. That means that the first explorers in space will likely find countless worlds hostile to human habitation.

I'd agree with that - I think "habitable worlds", if they have a compatible ecosystem, will be very dangerous to Terran life until cures for all the common diseases found there are created. </font>[/QUOTE]Broadly speaking, no alien virus will affect a human; humans are likely to be less closely related to alien life forms than they are to mollusks, and the number of viruses which cross over from anything more distantly related than birds is pretty much nil. The alien equivalents of bacteria and fungi will be a bit more of an issue, but typically will not be unusually efficient at attacking humans, and thus won't really be any more dangerous (or difficult to control) than terrestrial versions.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I wouldn't call FTL impossible. I think it's quite likely that whenever we manage to truly understand gravity and space-time, we'll be able to figure out ways to deform the metric, make wormholes, and generally manipulate space-time so we can work around the lightspeed barrier.

I'm not sure what you think we don't understand that would allow this. We can't directly study the metrics required for FTL, but we have some idea of what would construct them, and generally speaking they require things such as negative energy density which we have no reason to believe actually exist or even can exist.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The instances of populations on earth from different continents being exposed to each other is full of ecological disasters and the spread of new plagues. Alien life (if it exists) will probably be even more so. That means that the first explorers in space will likely find countless worlds hostile to human habitation.

I'd agree with that - I think "habitable worlds", if they have a compatible ecosystem, will be very dangerous to Terran life until cures for all the common diseases found there are created. </font>[/QUOTE]Broadly speaking, no alien virus will affect a human; humans are likely to be less closely related to alien life forms than they are to mollusks, and the number of viruses which cross over from anything more distantly related than birds is pretty much nil. The alien equivalents of bacteria and fungi will be a bit more of an issue, but typically will not be unusually efficient at attacking humans, and thus won't really be any more dangerous (or difficult to control) than terrestrial versions.

 

[Mickazoid]

Anthony - IMTU, the seeding of Humaniti by the Ancients included the required ecological adaptations, like bacteria and other life forms required for human survival... so any 'habitable' world that was seeded DEFINITELY has epidemiological risks associated. The ones that show no presence of Humaniti might be as you describe, but might not... and therein lies the drama.

"Science Officer's (cough) log... They brought it aboard... the biofilters couldn't... crew almost gone... cannot self-destruct. Setting the ship for a (cough) destruct course into the nearest star... can't..." [END TRANSMISSION]

 

[Mickazoid]

Anthony - IMTU, the seeding of Humaniti by the Ancients included the required ecological adaptations, like bacteria and other life forms required for human survival... so any 'habitable' world that was seeded DEFINITELY has epidemiological risks associated. The ones that show no presence of Humaniti might be as you describe, but might not... and therein lies the drama.

"Science Officer's (cough) log... They brought it aboard... the biofilters couldn't... crew almost gone... cannot self-destruct. Setting the ship for a (cough) destruct course into the nearest star... can't..." [END TRANSMISSION]

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Anthony:
I'm not sure what you think we don't understand that would allow this. We can't directly study the metrics required for FTL, but we have some idea of what would construct them, and generally speaking they require things such as negative energy density which we have no reason to believe actually exist or even can exist.

It's an assumption on my part, sure. In the past, when we've identified and understood fields we've usually found a way to use and manipulate them. Gravity of course is much harder to manipulate - we'd need to be able to bend, stretch, contort, or even punch through space-time itself to do that.

Truth is, we don't really understand gravity all that well right now. We understand it enough to be able to predict motions and so on, but what it actually is, and whether or not it can be separated from mass, inertia, etc is still somewhat unknown. But I'm confident that we'll find out someday - whether that'll be enough to allow us to actually manipulate it directly on the other hand is a different matter.

Broadly speaking, no alien virus will affect a human; humans are likely to be less closely related to alien life forms than they are to mollusks, and the number of viruses which cross over from anything more distantly related than birds is pretty much nil. The alien equivalents of bacteria and fungi will be a bit more of an issue, but typically will not be unusually efficient at attacking humans, and thus won't really be any more dangerous (or difficult to control) than terrestrial versions.

That's true... but then we don't really know anything about how varied life is in the universe. It might be that DNA and RNA are the only possible basis for life, in which case extraterrestrial life might be very compatible with our own. Or it may be that it's going to be totally different and that the only thing we have to worry about are macroscopic life (predators, etc) and particulates and other physical problems that can get inside our bodies and irritate skin and organs. Might it also be possible for alien diseases to provoke an possibly fatal immune system reaction by their mere presence in our bodies, and not by their actual symptoms?

I think it's likely that we'd be a lot more careful about explorating other habitable worlds than we were about our own in the past though. But given that we're still finding new diseases on our own planet that can infect us, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that we'd chance upon something that could affect us in some alien jungle on another world - even if most of the other diseases don't.

And I wouldn't rule out mutation either. Alien virii and diseases may not initially infect us, but given time (assuming the biologies are remotely compatible in the first place) they might evolve into something that does. We'd be a new niche for them to live in after all...

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Anthony:
I'm not sure what you think we don't understand that would allow this. We can't directly study the metrics required for FTL, but we have some idea of what would construct them, and generally speaking they require things such as negative energy density which we have no reason to believe actually exist or even can exist.

It's an assumption on my part, sure. In the past, when we've identified and understood fields we've usually found a way to use and manipulate them. Gravity of course is much harder to manipulate - we'd need to be able to bend, stretch, contort, or even punch through space-time itself to do that.

Truth is, we don't really understand gravity all that well right now. We understand it enough to be able to predict motions and so on, but what it actually is, and whether or not it can be separated from mass, inertia, etc is still somewhat unknown. But I'm confident that we'll find out someday - whether that'll be enough to allow us to actually manipulate it directly on the other hand is a different matter.

Broadly speaking, no alien virus will affect a human; humans are likely to be less closely related to alien life forms than they are to mollusks, and the number of viruses which cross over from anything more distantly related than birds is pretty much nil. The alien equivalents of bacteria and fungi will be a bit more of an issue, but typically will not be unusually efficient at attacking humans, and thus won't really be any more dangerous (or difficult to control) than terrestrial versions.

That's true... but then we don't really know anything about how varied life is in the universe. It might be that DNA and RNA are the only possible basis for life, in which case extraterrestrial life might be very compatible with our own. Or it may be that it's going to be totally different and that the only thing we have to worry about are macroscopic life (predators, etc) and particulates and other physical problems that can get inside our bodies and irritate skin and organs. Might it also be possible for alien diseases to provoke an possibly fatal immune system reaction by their mere presence in our bodies, and not by their actual symptoms?

I think it's likely that we'd be a lot more careful about explorating other habitable worlds than we were about our own in the past though. But given that we're still finding new diseases on our own planet that can infect us, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that we'd chance upon something that could affect us in some alien jungle on another world - even if most of the other diseases don't.

And I wouldn't rule out mutation either. Alien virii and diseases may not initially infect us, but given time (assuming the biologies are remotely compatible in the first place) they might evolve into something that does. We'd be a new niche for them to live in after all...