So what you're really saying is that the Death Star was in actuality just a really really big Type-J Seeker with a massive mining laser . . .
Last edited:
Rare Earths and Interstellar High Tech
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
So what you're really saying is that the Death Star was in actuality just a really really big Type-J Seeker with a massive mining laser . . .
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Elements high in the periodic table can only be cooked when stars explode.
Stars must live and die many times, or be really big to start with , to make the really heavy stuff.
I remember reading a paper that claimed there may have been up to a thousand stellar lives to make up the elemental abundance our solar system contains. I'll try to dig out the source.
Stars must live and die many times, or be really big to start with , to make the really heavy stuff.
I remember reading a paper that claimed there may have been up to a thousand stellar lives to make up the elemental abundance our solar system contains. I'll try to dig out the source.
Basically anything heavier than Iron (26Fe) cannot be produced thru the thermonuclear fusion process in stellar cores. The temperatures required to overcome the coulomb force for nuclei that large actually are high enough to cause the nuclei in the core to begin to photo-dissociate (i.e. the nuclei effectively begin to fission instead).
Essentially, heavier nuclei are believed to be forged in supernovae, during which a very brief temperature-pressure spike during the detonation is sufficient to cause heavier nuclei to fuse, after which the nuclei are blasted away (thus dropping the pressure and immediately cooling them off) before they have time to photo-dissociate.
Thus the abundance of elements heavier than Iron tend to be very small as compared to those lighter than Iron.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
It's likely that elements heavier than iron form in the cores of older and dwarf stars and in part lead to their collapse and eventual explosion in novae. To make anything heavier than iron, the fusion reaction takes energy from the overall system rather than producing it. With enough gravity / pressure you could conceivably have these elements forming.
But, their amount relative to elements up to iron, as noted, would be much smaller. Hence their relative rarity.
But, their amount relative to elements up to iron, as noted, would be much smaller. Hence their relative rarity.
The costs of separating and refining minerals would likely decrease with higher TLs, though.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
I think that you have to start from some basis, and right now, Earth is all we have. We also have some data from the Moon's crust and a limited number of meteor impacts.
The question is, do you assume that the Earth's solar system elements represent an average solar system, or do you assume that Earth's element abundance ratios are unique, and can be ignored in other systems?
Given that
- we can spectrographically analyze other stars, and their metalicity varies widely,
- the accepted theory is that planetary abundance is the result of supernovae seeding the media
- the various metallicities are in specific trends of content which tends to indicate specific generational effects
It would be patently absurd to think that Earth's abundance is the only one; it's not unreasonable to assume similar stellar metallicity would result in similar patterns of elemental composition; different metallicity families of the parent stars should produce similarly familized sets of potential abundance sets.
Also, given the formation mechanics needed and predicted... A star with higher metallicity than Sol should have similarly higher rates of trans-ferric elements. A star with significantly lower should have lower abundances of trans-ferrics.
So, essentially, neither All are terran-like, nor should all be willy nilly totally random.
Przybylski's Star, which has lanthanide elements at 1000 to 10'000 times the abundance of these in the Sun, would be a candidate for having worlds with large amounts of the rare Earth elements. It's 110 parsecs from the Sun, so it would be within the range of Charted Space, too (though, obviously, Charted Space doesn't obey existing stellar data. Hmm... would that star be at the right angle to be in Mikhail Sector, the only sector at that distance from Terra still uncharted?).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
There is also the possibility that one day we may find evidence of the stable elements predicted beyond our periodic table...
And that has always been a mild curiosity of mine.
I'll also add that at higher tech levels, fusion technology should become sufficient capable of "synthesizing" or manufacturing heavy elements.
I'll also add that at higher tech levels, fusion technology should become sufficient capable of "synthesizing" or manufacturing heavy elements.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I agree, gravity generators in lasers can produce the the force needed to focus light, so they should be able to briefly mimic the conditions even within the largest of stars. Add damper technology to increase the strong nuclear force and you should be able to synthesise any element you care to.
The question is how much you can produce.
Artificial singularities are within reach of this technology too, but I'd put the TL of singularity cannons and reactors at way above TL15.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
So what your really saying is that the Death Star was in actuality just a really really big Type-J Seeker with a massive mining laser . . .
Sigh. The Empire is soooo misunderstood.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Can produce economically.
I've been using the term gravpress for that side of materials science, had been thinking about the interaction with that technology and nuclear dampers to create Bonded Superdense, had not considered the fusion 'maker' angle.
Perhaps still cheaper to mine/smelt/shape, but might be something fleets carry in their repair bays, to avoid 'for want of a rare element nail the kingdom was lost'.
I think we are getting to the point of developing a tech tree like the computer game Civ.
The predicted binding energies needed for much above #200 basically preclude their formation by any known natural process.
Even with dampers, there will still be a limit. Just a much higher one.
The tech most important, tho', appears to be that the OTU has NPAWS... which accelerate neutrons...
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Is there a list of these theoretical elements somewhere? Sounds like a huge arena for scifi to play in re: special properties.
Say, a space adventure game.
And of course their non-existence in nature does not preclude their existence in reality, might be something we use as a primary identifier of higher tech cultures, structures and/or ships.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
There was an article quite a while ago in one of the science fiction magazine on super-heavy elements, most of which have extremely short half-lives, on the order of milliseconds and less, with a theoretical "island of stability" around elements 250 or so, if I remember correctly.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I first learned of them in my nuclear chemistry course thirty years ago.
The only potential natural source would be a huge supernova event.
In the lab we are getting pretty close to being able to make them - give it fifty years or so
The only potential natural source would be a huge supernova event.
In the lab we are getting pretty close to being able to make them - give it fifty years or so
Current science estimates the island of stability is closer to element 130, though there may hypothetically be a second such island around element 164 (though that element would be too heavy to be synthesised using current technology).
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
130 is likely correct, the article was quite a while ago. like maybe mid-1980s?
Similar threads
