NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow nations, as more and more declare independance from their parent nations and move off to find new land, overcrowding becomes a bigger problem. If your nation suffers from the crammed-in blues, PLEASE read on.

Foe Hammer Space Mining and Construction Agency has just recently brainstormed an idea as big as the universe - literally! To solve all those pesky overcrowding problems, FHSMCA has proposed that nations join up, pool in money and supplies, and build a solar system.

Blueprints are already made -

http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/127594/0.jpg

If this project is accepted by the international community, we will first build a sun able to provide heat for the planets in that "system". The sun will be 1,500,000 miles in Diameter, a circumference of 4,710,000 miles. This artifical sun will have an output of lust under twice that of Sol's. For those of you not Astrologically-educated, Sol is the Sun's official name, and the sun puts off around 383,000,000,000,000,000,000,000kW of energy. This artificial sun will have an output of around 700,,000,000,000,000,000,000,000kW of energy, and the core would have a temperature of nearly two times 15,000,000°K.

After construction on the Sun has been finished, the nations involved in building the "system" will be allowed to create their own "planets". These planets can be giant-sized Death Stars, realistic planets created with numerous materials, whatever. Hopefully, once completed, this project will offer a whole universe of opportunities.

The estimated cost for the Sun is in the high hundred trillions to low quadrillions. This project will take hundreds of years to finish, and is possibly the biggest project in Nationstates.

If your nation would like to help in this project, post here and tell us what you can supply (money, materials, workers, etc.)

OOC Side note - The Kelvin Absolute temperature scale (K) is 459.67° lower than the Fahrenheit temperature scale, which means that 0°F is 459.67° hotter than absolute zero. So, the core heat of the artificial sun is 15,000,459.67° Fahrenheit.
Wow, you just learned something!

an interesting idea, though shoulding it be a solar system you are building? constructing a universe implies that you can leave this one, and no nation here can claim that. . . its hard enough to leave the galaxy.

an interesting idea, though shoulding it be a solar system you are building? constructing a universe implies that you can leave this one, and no nation here can claim that. . . its hard enough to leave the galaxy.
Bleh, I mess up terms when I think too fast. Yes, we're building a Solar System, not a Universe, but I don't think "An idea the size of the Solar System" would have been a good title.That's the only universe reference in the title.

Actually, Kelvin uses the same temperature scale(per degree, that is) as Celcius, not is Fahrenheit. 0°K is equal to -273.15°C, and 0°C is equal to 273.15°K.

A temperature change of 1° kelvin is the same as a change of 1° celcius; it is not is the same as a change of 1°F


And why are you building a sun? That's stupid; there are millions of suns avalible, many with planetary systems already installed. It would make more sense for nations to pool money to settle another planet or system; I can see several modern or near-future tech nations getting together and hiring a space nation or three to move them to another, somewhat Earth-like planet.

OOC Side note - The Kelvin Absolute temperature scale (K) is 459.67° lower than the Fahrenheit temperature scale, which means that 0°F is 459.67° hotter than absolute zero. So, the core heat of the artificial sun is 15,000,459.67° Fahrenheit.
Wow, you just learned something!

OOC Just a side note....absolute zero isn't 0 degrees (can't be bothered to find a degree symbol). Absolute zero is something like -274.6 degrees Celsius, which is *quick calculation in head* around -530 degrees Fahrenheit.....and I am pretty interested in this...if it weren't for the fact that I am not space tech :(. The furthest I have got is a probe to Pluto, manned mission to Mars, and plans for a colony of the Moon, most of which is not on these forums, btw.....but now I am blabbering :)

OOC Side note - The Kelvin Absolute temperature scale (K) is 459.67° lower than the Fahrenheit temperature scale, which means that 0°F is 459.67° hotter than absolute zero. So, the core heat of the artificial sun is 15,000,459.67° Fahrenheit.
Wow, you just learned something!

OOC Just a side note....absolute zero isn't 0 degrees (can't be bothered to find a degree symbol). Absolute zero is something like -274.6 degrees Celsius, which is *quick calculation in head* around -530 degrees Fahrenheit.....and I am pretty interested in this...if it weren't for the fact that I am not space tech :(. The furthest I have got is a probe to Pluto, manned mission to Mars, and plans for a colony of the Moon, most of which is not on these forums, btw.....but now I am blabbering :)

OOC: 0°C may not be absoloute zero, but 0°Kelvin is.

Ok, first, the Kelvin Scale's readings are offset from Fahrenheit by exactly 459.67 degrees. Therefore, the Fahrenheit scale's 0 degree point is actually 459.67 degrees Kelvin, and the Kelvin scale is based on absolute zero, meaning every reading is a positive value. If you have something at 1 degree Fahrenheit, then said object's Kelvin reading is 460.67. 2 degrees Fahrenheit is 461.67 degrees Kelvin, etc... Kelvin absolute temperature scale's zero-point is Absolute Zero. Just read this.
Absolute Zero is -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit.
Fahrenheit is 459.67 degrees Kelvin.
Get the point yet?
Don't make me use big words.

If you have something at 1 degree Fahrenheit, then said object's Kelvin reading is 460.67. 2 degrees Fahrenheit is 461.67 degrees Kelvin, etc...

That is not true. The scale is different. 0 Fahrenheit is 459.67 Kelvin, but the units do not have a one-to-one correspondence, so you can't just add and subtract the same amount from both. You have to use the formula for converting between Celsius and Fahrenheit to account for the difference in unit sizes.

If you have something at 1 degree Fahrenheit, then said object's Kelvin reading is 460.67. 2 degrees Fahrenheit is 461.67 degrees Kelvin, etc...

That is not true. The scale is different. 0 Fahrenheit is 459.67 Kelvin, but the units do not have a one-to-one correspondence, so you can't just add and subtract the same amount from both. You have to use the formula for converting between Celsius and Fahrenheit to account for the difference in unit sizes.
Ok, there's a problem there. Converting Celsius and Fahrenheit to get the ratio of Kelvin to Fahrenheit is not it. First, you use the Kelvin-Celsius formula, and THEN use the unit ratio formula of Celcius to Fahrenheit. *Picks up broom* Ok, now stop hijacking my goddamn thread.

You do realize that building a star system requires the resources of a star stystem (assuming no waste) ... right? So it's not so much building a system as... well... moving one. Which is kinda silly and very much clarketech. I don't think even EOTED can nanowank up one of those.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/scolopendra/jon_hertzfeldt.gifAdvisor Jon Hertzfeldt
Science Section
Federated Segments of Scolopendra

The project does seem a bit....colossal.

You do realize that building a star system requires the resources of a star stystem (assuming no waste) ... right? So it's not so much building a system as... well... moving one. Which is kinda silly and very much clarketech. I don't think even EOTED can nanowank up one of those.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/scolopendra/jon_hertzfeldt.gifAdvisor Jon Hertzfeldt
Science Section
Federated Segments of Scolopendra

Actually, it wouldn't really require the resources of a Star system. It's basically either creating an artificial sun over hundreds of years and with quadrillions of dollars and loooong work days, then letting whoever helped build giant artifical planets (Within reason, not just one year and *Poof*, the planet has been wanked to existance, but a few generations and hundreds of years or so later, and the planet can begin the long process of terraforming), or just finding a completely unpopulated, unused star system (Which would be a pain in the ass, based on the assumption that some completely modern n00b would suddenly jump into space, wank out a few fleets and say he owns the system) and begin to populate it, then create massive stations, eventually (after a hundred years or so, loooong f*cking RL time) begin to build a massive artificial planet with the help of many, many, many nations, spending many, many, many chucks of money. It's a great scientific experiment to see if it will work, but that all depends on how many nations we can get to hop on the band wagon, and how economically stable the test subj- err... contributers are.

Okay... let's try again.

Step one: Get several nontillion metric tons of hydrogen for the star.

Step two: Get several septillion to octillion metric tons of materials for the planet.

Step three: Build.

You can't make a star out of time and money. You need to move the resources from where they're not to where you want them. What are you attempting to do? Build a star system. What does that mean? There isn't one there already.

Even building a planet requires more resources--and more energy to move those resources--than makes sense. "Oh, okay, I made a planet. Let's mine it." If you were going to mine it... why build it and put the minerals underground under a massive gravity well so you have to work to get them out, eh? "Oh, okay, it'll be hollow and people will live inside." That means less resource cost but you still have to design it so the weight of the upper levels won't squish the lower ones, and, with less mass, it has less gravity. "Okay, artificial gravity." If it's through rotation, no gravity at the poles, and a hollow sphere is going to oblate and tear apart unless it's made of gundanium or some other such unobtanium. If it's through grav-plating or other such, then power is an issue... at which point building a few hundred thousand million space stations would've been cheaper, easier, and less vulnerable to attack.

It's not about money or time. It's about energy and efficiency.

--Hertzfeldt

Okay... let's try again.

Step one: Get several nontillion metric tons of hydrogen for the star.

Step two: Get several septillion to octillion metric tons of materials for the planet.

Step three: Build.

You can't make a star out of time and money. You need to move the resources from where they're not to where you want them. What are you attempting to do? Build a star system. What does that mean? There isn't one there already.

Even building a planet requires more resources--and more energy to move those resources--than makes sense. "Oh, okay, I made a planet. Let's mine it." If you were going to mine it... why build it and put the minerals underground under a massive gravity well so you have to work to get them out, eh? "Oh, okay, it'll be hollow and people will live inside." That means less resource cost but you still have to design it so the weight of the upper levels won't squish the lower ones, and, with less mass, it has less gravity. "Okay, artificial gravity." If it's through rotation, no gravity at the poles, and a hollow sphere is going to oblate and tear apart unless it's made of gundanium or some other such unobtanium. If it's through grav-plating or other such, then power is an issue... at which point building a few hundred thousand million space stations would've been cheaper, easier, and less vulnerable to attack.

It's not about money or time. It's about energy and efficiency.

--Hertzfeldt
double post... meh.

Okay... let's try again.

Step one: Get several nontillion metric tons of hydrogen for the star.

Step two: Get several septillion to octillion metric tons of materials for the planet.

Step three: Build.

You can't make a star out of time and money. You need to move the resources from where they're not to where you want them. What are you attempting to do? Build a star system. What does that mean? There isn't one there already.

Even building a planet requires more resources--and more energy to move those resources--than makes sense. "Oh, okay, I made a planet. Let's mine it." If you were going to mine it... why build it and put the minerals underground under a massive gravity well so you have to work to get them out, eh? "Oh, okay, it'll be hollow and people will live inside." That means less resource cost but you still have to design it so the weight of the upper levels won't squish the lower ones, and, with less mass, it has less gravity. "Okay, artificial gravity." If it's through rotation, no gravity at the poles, and a hollow sphere is going to oblate and tear apart unless it's made of gundanium or some other such unobtanium. If it's through grav-plating or other such, then power is an issue... at which point building a few hundred thousand million space stations would've been cheaper, easier, and less vulnerable to attack.

It's not about money or time. It's about energy and efficiency.

--Hertzfeldt
Which is why we had the back up plan, but this project was dropped due to many favoring the larger worlddisc option, which would still require a metric f*ckton of materials, but not as much as the amounts stated above.