| |
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:13:54 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> I think it might be cool to just start with what we *very* generally know
> about how real space is arranged so far, and then let imagination take over.
> That way we could still use some known real names and objects, but are not
> strictly limited to them.
If we start with the just the Moonbase, we can put off making this decision
at least until the second installation is started. If not longer.
> * How about we start with 100 parsecs (pc) / 326 light years (ly)? Too big?
> Too little?
Hmm. Do you mean 100 cubic parsecs? Or a sphere with a radius of 100
parsecs (that's 4.2 cubic mega parsecs).
> Which reminds me: if we use faster than light (FTL) velocities, what kind of
> velocity scale do we want to adopt?
Parsecs per hour? Which might not apply, depending on the technology.
> I also am not against someone wanting to do real research about "what's real"
> though I think that once we establish some sort of map, it should be "first
> come, first served" so that if someone finds out that IRL there's a huge black
> hole where we've put a densely populated set of solar systems, then the hole
> has to be relocated.
Agreed. Not that I expect it to be an issue.
> > > Maybe, if at all, were you thinking to label sections of space with more
> > > proper names, such as "Badlands", "Star Nursery", or after major nearby • stars,
> > > and other terms like that?
> >
> > Something like that. But I'm not feeling a strong opinion here.
>
> I'll go either way about this, just so long as we can agree and document where
> areas are. But please explain what you were thinking, as I'm curious. Start a
> new thread!
I wasn't thinking anything specific, except I wanted to avoid names like
"Space Station <3.45, 4.65, -2.56>".
Steve
|
|
| |
> > Which reminds me: if we use faster than light (FTL) velocities, what kind • of
> > velocity scale do we want to adopt?
>
> Parsecs per hour? Which might not apply, depending on the technology.
That sounds fast enough to me! I mean, on a bad morning, some people
get a headache *walking* from the bedroom to the bathroom!
It all comes down to distance and time (doh!). The further apart the
installations, the faster we need to go. Would a week/month's travel
between installations be about right? If so, work out v and s from t!
> I wasn't thinking anything specific, except I wanted to avoid names like
> "Space Station <3.45, 4.65, -2.56>".
This got me thinking about the way that towns and cities on Earth have
picked up their names. I mean, I live in Congleton which is from the
Roman meaning "Corner Town" as the town grew up in the inside corner
of a bend in a river. Just up the road, there's Newcastle-Under-Lyme,
from the time when a New castle was built (to replace the old one)
at the bottom of the hill where the old castle was (among a field of
lyme trees).
So Space Station <3.45, 4.65, -2.56> could well have that designation
and be nicknamed "Tertiary Trading Outpost" if it does a lot of trade
and is near a tertiary star system?
Whatever!
David.
>
> Steve
|
|
|
