Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#31

Post by pwg »

kokojumbo wrote: post #18
rocket_surgeron wrote: post #11

> Good luck producing LCD array with same level of tech in some remote colony light years from advanced foundries. Any colony that can manufacture integrated circuits can easily manufacture LCD panels. The ability to manufacture integrated circuits will likely be seen as important as the ability to manufacture oxygen in any colony, so there will probably be an LCD "printer" as part of their standard list of abilities…

We are talking about transporting tons of equipment trough light years of radiation many times stronger then the one that is already frying computers in satellites and probes within heliosphere, heck even on Earth's surface it's enough to flip bits in RAM dies. The simpler and radiation resistant stuff you can pack on board of transport ship the less effort you have to put in shielding that equipment during transport…

> We are talking about transporting tons of equipment trough light years of radiation many times stronger then the one that is already frying computers in satellites and probes within heliosphere, heck even on Earth's surface it's enough to flip bits in RAM dies.

Your original post postulated a species who has solved that which for us, with our known physics, is unsolvable, that being faster than light travel and/or very near light speed travel.

And yet, with such incredible technical knowledge far beyond what our present day knowledge tells us you discount that this same species has not already solved the radiation shielding problem?

By the time your fictional species has solved the FTL problem, they are likely many decades/centuries past having already solved the radiation shielding problem.

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#32

Post by PaulHoule »

Teever wrote: post #23
PaulHoule wrote: post #14

Interstellar travelers get to use whatever kind of display they want. A key technology for space colonization is advanced manufacturing that lets a small population be self-sufficient. An outpost on the moon can probably be supplied from Earth but even to colonize Mars you would need an advanced industrial base even when the population is 10,000 so you need something similar to Eric Drexler's assemblers even if it is…

> we know think it is possible to slow down using the interstellar medium which greatly conserves fuel. Where can I learn more about this?

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail

and

https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2017/12/29/the-plasma-magnet...

The solar sail lobby thinks that magsailers overstate the potential of mag sails in the solar system (the very high solar wind velocities they quote happen only rarely) but the "interstellar brake" is model-changing. In some ways they are like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

but only for stopping and not requiring impossible H-H fusion.

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#33

Post by Gordonjcp »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #20
Gordonjcp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if we switch to silicon carbide (which could possibly still remain harder to manufacture process) In the 1980s I got a copy of the latest Cricklewood Electronics catalogue that had a whole page devoted to these newfangled SiC blue LEDs. Blue! Actually properly blue, too! They were 40 quid each, and indeed the text box where it gave the price said something like "£40 - yes, really, yes these are one of the most…

And for the past 10 years, almost every cheap electronic device has been permanently glowing blue because of them. EDIT: aren't modern blue LEDs based on GaN?

Yah, the first ones were a very different shade of blue and really expensive.

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#34

Post by LoganDark »

bee_rider wrote: post #25

FTL travel is a fictional concept. It is a really useful fictional concept because it lets characters outside of each other’s light cones interact, but involves ignoring the laws of physics as we know them. So, if we are to have FTL travel, that’s fine, but we can’t really discuss the engineering aspects of CRT vs LCD if we don’t know how to you’ve bent the laws of physics. If we suppose FTl travel is possible, 1 and…

> because FTL travel allows the traveler to go back in time

I'm actually curious, has FTL ever been observed in reality, even for just individual particles? My personal belief is that backwards time travel is impossible because the universe changes in-place, but I haven't actually done any research on the subject so I could be totally wrong.

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#35

Post by bee_rider »

LoganDark wrote: post #34
bee_rider wrote: post #25

FTL travel is a fictional concept. It is a really useful fictional concept because it lets characters outside of each other’s light cones interact, but involves ignoring the laws of physics as we know them. So, if we are to have FTL travel, that’s fine, but we can’t really discuss the engineering aspects of CRT vs LCD if we don’t know how to you’ve bent the laws of physics. If we suppose FTl travel is possible, 1 and…

> because FTL travel allows the traveler to go back in time I'm actually curious, has FTL ever been observed in reality, even for just individual particles? My personal belief is that backwards time travel is impossible because the universe changes in-place, but I haven't actually done any research on the subject so I could be totally wrong.

Information has not been observed to travel faster than light. What I mean by “FTL travel allows the traveler to go back in time” is, if one were to abuse the equations to get a traveler that is moving faster than light, some times would also end up looking negative.

But these are nonsense quantities that come about from abusing the equations, I mention it not because I think it is a practical concern but to highlight that we can’t just say “assuming FTL” without also being charged with ancillary crimes against the laws of physics!

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#36

Post by kokojumbo »

pwg wrote: post #31
kokojumbo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about transporting tons of equipment trough light years of radiation many times stronger then the one that is already frying computers in satellites and probes within heliosphere, heck even on Earth's surface it's enough to flip bits in RAM dies. The simpler and radiation resistant stuff you can pack on board of transport ship the less effort you have to put in shielding that equipment during transport…

> We are talking about transporting tons of equipment trough light years of radiation many times stronger then the one that is already frying computers in satellites and probes within heliosphere, heck even on Earth's surface it's enough to flip bits in RAM dies. Your original post postulated a species who has solved that which for us, with our known physics, is unsolvable, that being faster than light travel and/or…

>And yet, with such incredible technical knowledge far beyond what our present day knowledge tells us you discount that this same species has not already solved the radiation shielding problem?

Yes, that might be possible.

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#37

Post by qbrass »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #20
Gordonjcp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if we switch to silicon carbide (which could possibly still remain harder to manufacture process) In the 1980s I got a copy of the latest Cricklewood Electronics catalogue that had a whole page devoted to these newfangled SiC blue LEDs. Blue! Actually properly blue, too! They were 40 quid each, and indeed the text box where it gave the price said something like "£40 - yes, really, yes these are one of the most…

And for the past 10 years, almost every cheap electronic device has been permanently glowing blue because of them. EDIT: aren't modern blue LEDs based on GaN?

Silicon Carbide LEDs were the first true blue (not blue-violet) ones, but they were horribly inefficient.

Doped GaN made blue LEDs viable, and LEDs in general more available.

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#38

Post by yellowapple »

cf100clunk wrote: post #27
tjpnz wrote: post #15

CRT monitors are especially prone to electromagnetic interference. Even if you could control for that within your vessel there are all manner of things that could interfere with it from the outside.

''Humans, your puny CRT monitors are no match for our degaussing coil!''

I can't even begin to fathom the sheer joy and satisfaction of a ship-wide ZZZZZZZNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGG.

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#39

Post by yellowapple »

bee_rider wrote: post #25

FTL travel is a fictional concept. It is a really useful fictional concept because it lets characters outside of each other’s light cones interact, but involves ignoring the laws of physics as we know them. So, if we are to have FTL travel, that’s fine, but we can’t really discuss the engineering aspects of CRT vs LCD if we don’t know how to you’ve bent the laws of physics. If we suppose FTl travel is possible, 1 and…

> FTL travel allows the traveler to go back in time

People regularly say this, and I've yet to find a convincing argument for it.

The "backwards time travel" argument presupposes that an object is actually moving through space at a speed faster than light - i.e. with an imaginary Lorentz factor (1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) and all the shenanigans that entails. That presupposition ignores hypothetical approaches like wormholes and Alcubierre drives that outright shorten the distance to be traversed and thus don't entail actually moving at such speeds (and therefore keeping the Lorentz factor right around its normal happy 1).

Put differently: such an argument presupposes that a light cone is actually cone-shaped, whereas wormholes and Alcubierre drives throw a wrench in that, producing all sorts of lumpiness that keeps events within the same (really weird looking) light cone despite taking place at long distances.

Re: Why CRT in sci fi deep space ships actualy make sense

#40

Post by simne »

1+ for low resolution (up to 1024x768), because it is hard to create more than one tube in one case, because of limited throughput and charges interaction. Essentially, electron beams push off each other, so it is really hard, to create more than 3-4 electron beams in one case.

Really, each beam is cloud of charged particles, and if two such clouds intersect, they will scatter, and will cause image distortion.

So must feed all image through 3-4 beams. And even with so low number, it is not easy and have imperfections.

More read next.

2. no. tft lcd, essentially, is large dram chip (each Thin Film Transistor have some memory effect, and in few tft designs, display cells are just memory cells, so cpu could access them via memory-like interface, or via system bus). In lcd, neighbor cells are so disconnected, that real hi-res displays work as 3-4 or even more logical displays in one physical, and this solves throughput problem (some monitors just used 3-4+ physical connectors).

3. no. This is limited by throughput and charges interaction.

4. unfortunately, no. Analog computers defeated by digital, because it is really hard and expensive, to make analog precision better than ~1/10000, but digital could stack few bytes, and even on old 8080 easy achieve 24bit (10^-6), or 32bit (10^-9) or even 64bit (10^-18).

5. partially agree. Small transistors more prone to single events, but large more prone for accumulated dose, because appear radiation matter move effects.

So real rad-hardened computers have few alu-s and circuit, which could disconnect non-working alu and connect spare.

ps it may sound non-politely, but really good read on magnetic tapes is Donald Knuth, and fortunately, their mathematics is very similar for hdd-s.

Post reply on HN