 | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:44:14 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> After reading your post again Steve, it seems I ignored it. And I ignored
> Jonathan too. My apologies! Please forgive me.
No biggie. I wasn't clear on my post. I said:
> > > allow some
> > > generally description for the start of the name: "Station", "Planetary
> > > Outpost", "Free Trade Installation".
I meant each neighborhood would have a descriptive/category based on its
own peculiar nature. Not that every site would necessarily have the same
description. Or necessarily have different ones. But I think you all
picked up on that.
> I like your ideas now that I've read them again. And they can both work
> together. Steve, to nitpick here, instead of sub-id tags like "LD-2A" what
> about "LD-A2"? That way we could have a facility nicknamed "Alpha 1" or
> Jonathan's "Alpha 2".
That sounds cool. "Alpha 2" sounds better on the commbox than "2 Alpha".
:)
> BTW, for some reason I think of "Station" to mean something that includes
> civilian traffic and/or population, "Outpost" to be without civilian traffic,
> but "Base" to mean something more substantial than "Station".(1)
> (1) Originally, I had thought of these terms in relation to a planetary body,
> that is, "Stations" were only found in orbit or space, and "Bases" were only
> on planets, but due to the lack of words to fit all the possible kinds of
> installations, other nice short terms weren't to be found, or at least I've
> forgotten them.
I was thinking along the lines of your original thought. It could still
work: "Station Outpost" could be a remote installation in deep space, while
"Base Outpost" would be a remote, planet-side site. Actually, "Base
Outpost" is more of an oxymoron, since an outpost is explicitly not part of
a base.
But "Station" and "Base" probably aren't the best words to use for
identifying location. Base should be a big military thing, Station has a
lot of traffic, probably a mix of civ & mil, and Outpost is somewhere where
not a lot of people go, so there isn't much traffic of any type.
Let's see if I can find some synonyms. Here's a good one: outstation for
outpost.
Others:
Camp
Colony
Base
Post
Depot
Terminal
Waystation
(BTW, www.thesaurus.com is pretty sucky. All the above terms came from
MS-Word's thesaurus. Or my fevered brain.)
How about adding modifiers for location, such as "Surface", "Mobile" (in
space and maneuverable), "Orbiting" (going around a natural body)?
"Outworld" could mean either remote or off-planet.
Surface Base LD-A
Mobile Outpost LD-B
Orbiting Outstation LD-C
Other modifiers could be used for the purpose of the site. Such as a
observation post, a mining camp, a drydock station, or a trading
settlement.
> A downside of this idea is that over time is that as bigger and bigger
> installations continue to be made or added onto, some facilities could be
> downgraded from "Base" to "Station" (though sub-id's would remain the same).
I'd assume that as installations grew, they'd be upgraded. So a site which
starts out as a Station might grow over time, and become a Base. If a site
doesn't change, it wouldn't be downgraded. Just bypassed by other, more
active, sites.
> What do y'all think about that? Should that terminology be adopted, or are
> there other thoughts, or is this needless nitpicking?
Nitpicking can be fun.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
(Edited for cogency!)
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss responded:
> BTW, for some reason I think of "Station" to mean something that includes
> civilian traffic and/or population, "Outpost" to be without civilian
> traffic, but "Base" to mean something more substantial than "Station".(1)
> (1) Originally, I had thought of these terms in relation to a planetary
> body, that is, "Stations" were only found in orbit or space, and "Bases"
> were only on planets, but due to the lack of words to fit all the
> possible kinds of installations, other nice short terms weren't to be
> found, or at least I've forgotten them.
I was thinking along the lines of your original thought. It could still
work: "Station Outpost" could be a remote installation in deep space, while
"Base Outpost" would be a remote, planet-side site. Actually, "Base
Outpost" is more of an oxymoron, since an outpost is explicitly not part of
a base.
But "Station" and "Base" probably aren't the best words to use for
identifying location. Base should be a big military thing, Station has a
lot of traffic, probably a mix of civ & mil, and Outpost is somewhere where
not a lot of people go, so there isn't much traffic of any type.
Let's see if I can find some synonyms. Here's a good one: outstation for
outpost.
Others:
Camp
Colony
Base
Post
Depot
Terminal
Waystation
<snip>
> A downside of this idea is that over time is that as bigger and bigger
> installations continue to be made or added onto, some facilities could be
> downgraded from "Base" to "Station" (though sub-id's would remain the
> same).
I'd assume that as installations grew, they'd be upgraded. So a site which
starts out as a Station might grow over time, and become a Base. If a site
doesn't change, it wouldn't be downgraded. Just bypassed by other, more
active, sites.
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, Matthew Miller responded:
I'd think of Base to be something purely military/government. Outpost and
Station are either mixed or all civilian -- the difference being that an
Outpost would be more on the frontier.
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, Jacob Sparre Andersen responded:
(in regards to footnote 1 above)
This corresponds with my view (and use) of the words.
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald responded:
> How about adding modifiers for location, such as "Surface", "Mobile" (in
> space and maneuverable), "Orbiting" (going around a natural body)?
> "Outworld" could mean either remote or off-planet.
>
> Surface Base LD-A
> Mobile Outpost LD-B
> Orbiting Outstation LD-C
>
> Other modifiers could be used for the purpose of the site. Such as a
> observation post, a mining camp, a drydock station, or a trading
> settlement.
I like it, though in order to preserve "Alpha 1", should we wish to do so,
everything that has a letter should also have a number; so Surface Base LD-A
would really be Surface Base LD-A1. We could further modify the ID subcode to
mean "sector A, base number 1" or "sector A1", that is, if we want to
alphabetize the sectors.
I think that amongst the various major installations in any one sector,
there'll probably only be one (or less) of each type of major installation (in
the case of bases and stations), so that any possible ambiguity introduced by
just simply contacting the "Surface Base" is unlikely. Other minor
installations might have to be referred to in more detail though. But I don't
care.
But this also kind of depends on how big sectors are, and how they could be
subdivided and/or organized. We know about quadrants eh? How many sectors in
are in one? Are sections divisions of sectors?
Something else too: I think that "LD" might eventually be dropped from common
usage, at it'll be assumed. And it does not seem to add distinction amongst
the various installations.
--------------------------------
In lugnet.space, then Tom McDonald compiled:
Try this on for size (to let the nitpicking continue :-)
Would we all agree that "Base" should denote a comparably sizeable
military/government-only installation? I think so. So given this, and to
continue from this point (that we shouldn't use spaceterms interchangeably
because they are in such short supply, it would be inefficient, and that
we all would know what another person is saying) I've made a small chart
to denote what, I hope, combines what we've all offered/said. Steve
offered some more great terms to include, so here's a possible spread of
the terms:
Typical Planetary Disposition
Planet <----- Orbit ------ Star System ----------------> Deep Space
planetary- orbital- system- space- out-
(underground, asteroid- asteroid-
surface)
base station station station station
outpost outpost outpost outpost outpost (out-
port waystation waystation waystation is dropped)
colony colony depot
Typical Population/Staff Amount
Large and/or
Varied <---------------- Few and Specialized ---------> Unmanned
base port post outpost relay*
station waystation depot colony terminal
city terminal platform*
Typical Proximity To Friendly Systems
Same System <---------------------------------------------> Way Far Away
base base waystation colony outpost
metropolis port depot post
city station station station
port terminal
Personnel/Purpose
Military/Government <-------------------------------------> Civilian
base depot waystation colony Metropolis
outpost station City
post port
terminal
Footnotes to chart:
*Relay means installation generally automated and unpeopled, though
limited life support is possible, such as communications relays, listening
equipment, and telescopes.
*Platform means extremely limited supplies available, such as small
amounts of fuel, life support equipment, rations, and first aid supplies.
This rough chart is just to get interest going. I included two additional
terms just for fun: relay and platform. Find the real chart at
www.baylug.org/space/installations.htm which I'll be updating to reflect
decisions made in this group.
Something else to consider: it's not unheard of for an installation to
change title and function depending on which high-ranking officer is in
residence/command.
-Tom McD.
when replying, spamcake torpedoes.. away!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> Typical Planetary Disposition
> Planet <----- Orbit ------ Star System ----------------> Deep Space
>
> planetary- orbital- system- space- out-
> (underground, asteroid- asteroid-
> surface)
>
> base station station station station
> outpost outpost outpost outpost outpost (out-
> port waystation waystation waystation is dropped)
> colony colony depot
>
>
> Typical Population/Staff Amount
> Large and/or
> Varied <---------------- Few and Specialized ---------> Unmanned
>
> base port post outpost relay*
> station waystation depot colony terminal
> city terminal platform*
Yuck! I forgot that Lugnet substitutes spaces for tabs made with ^I. It
doesn't show up that way in the web interface message editing window though.
Oh well, do visit the website cuz that's much better lookin. (see prev post)
-Tom McD.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@spamcake.yahoo.com> writes:
> > Typical Population/Staff Amount
> > Large and/or
> > Varied <---------------- Few and Specialized ---------> Unmanned
> >
> > base port post outpost relay*
> > station waystation depot colony terminal
> > city terminal platform*
>
> Yuck! I forgot that Lugnet substitutes spaces for tabs made with ^I.
Nope, it doesn't! Tabs are actually preserved. If you do a "view source"
on this...
http://www.lugnet.com/space/?n=87
...you'll see that tabs are actually output correctly as "	" HTML entity
sequences. It's actually your browser which is converting the tabs to
spaces, but it's also an artifact of using a variable-width font (whatever
your default is, usually Times) rather than <PRE></PRE>.
However, if you simply click the "View Raw Message" link in the upper-right,
it brings you here:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/raw.cgi?lugnet.space:87
where you can see the exact whole message with a MIME type of "text/plain".
The reason a variable width font is used for messages rather than
<PRE></PRE> is not for beautification of the messages, but to ensure that
they fit on the screen. The default monospace font on most browsers is a
really really wide Courier, and 80 characters don't even fit in 640-wide
window.
> It doesn't show up that way in the web interface message editing window
> though.
I think this depends on how your browser renders the <TEXTAREA> tag.
Sorry about the confusion, in any case...
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 McSpamcakeBoy mentioned:
> I like it, though in order to preserve "Alpha 1", should we wish to do so,
> everything that has a letter should also have a number; so Surface Base LD-A
> would really be Surface Base LD-A1.
It could go that way, or LD-A could refer to the installation as a whole,
and LD-Ax would be specific models within LD-A.
If LD-A1 is the whole site, then the first model in the site would be
LD-A2, right?
> We could further modify the ID subcode to
> mean "sector A, base number 1" or "sector A1", that is, if we want to
> alphabetize the sectors.
We could, but I'd rather not. That could lead to post office readdressing,
if the sectors filled in later. My preference would be to apply the
letters to each installation, in order of chronological appearance. (I'd
also prefer that the first installation be a Moonbase. ;) If we manage to
get more than 26 installations,
> But this also kind of depends on how big sectors are, and how they could be
> subdivided and/or organized. We know about quadrants eh? How many sectors in
> are in one? Are sections divisions of sectors?
My preference is to not do sectors/quadrants/octants/whatever. Or at
least, not to (generally) use them as part of the name of installations.
> Something else too: I think that "LD" might eventually be dropped from common
> usage, at it'll be assumed. And it does not seem to add distinction amongst
> the various installations.
LD isn't supposed to distinguish between the installations. It's supposed
to unify them. In the same way that Datsville could have neighborhoods,
but all the neighborhoods would still be part of Datsville.
Steve
(going off to look at Tom's chart,
<http://www.baylug.org/space/installations.htm>)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 McSpamcakeBoy mentioned:
>
> > I like it, though in order to preserve "Alpha 1", should we wish to do so,
> > everything that has a letter should also have a number; so Surface Base LD-A
> > would really be Surface Base LD-A1.
>
> It could go that way, or LD-A could refer to the installation as a whole,
> and LD-Ax would be specific models within LD-A.
I your idea better.
> If LD-A1 is the whole site, then the first model in the site would be
> LD-A2, right?
I'd rather keep it that 1 means the first thing.
[...]
> My preference would be to apply the
> letters to each installation, in order of chronological appearance. (I'd
> also prefer that the first installation be a Moonbase. ;)
Good, and I agree. Duane hasn't been as vocal as we have but I know he wants
that base :-) I do too, and the moon is a great place to start. And again I'll
just say that I think the first installation should be the Alpha-1 Rocket
Base. Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
> > We could further modify the ID subcode to
> > mean "sector A, base number 1" or "sector A1", that is, if we want to
> > alphabetize the sectors.
>
> We could, but I'd rather not. That could lead to post office readdressing,
> if the sectors filled in later.
True. That could get ugly.
> > But this also kind of depends on how big sectors are, and how they could be
> > subdivided and/or organized. We know about quadrants eh? How many sectors in
> > are in one? Are sections divisions of sectors? If we manage to
> get more than 26 installations,
>
> My preference is to not do sectors/quadrants/octants/whatever.
My thinking behind using sectional units was only if someone ever wanted to
map out how space was being populated, or where their "cool spacebase" was, it
might be fun.
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?
> Or at
> least, not to (generally) use them as part of the name of installations.
True again, especially where mobile installations are concerned.
> > Something else too: I think that "LD" might eventually be dropped from • common
> > usage, at it'll be assumed. And it does not seem to add distinction amongst
> > the various installations.
>
> LD isn't supposed to distinguish between the installations. It's supposed
> to unify them. In the same way that Datsville could have neighborhoods,
> but all the neighborhoods would still be part of Datsville.
I get you now. I must've been under medication earlier.
-Tom McD.
when replying, umm.. yeah. spamcake. find it. remove it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 McSpamcakeBoy mentioned:
> >
> > > I like it, though in order to preserve "Alpha 1", should we wish to do so,
> > > everything that has a letter should also have a number; so Surface Base LD-A
> > > would really be Surface Base LD-A1.
> >
> > It could go that way, or LD-A could refer to the installation as a whole,
> > and LD-Ax would be specific models within LD-A.
>
> I your idea better.
>
> > If LD-A1 is the whole site, then the first model in the site would be
> > LD-A2, right?
>
> I'd rather keep it that 1 means the first thing.
>
> [...]
> > My preference would be to apply the
> > letters to each installation, in order of chronological appearance. (I'd
> > also prefer that the first installation be a Moonbase. ;)
>
> Good, and I agree. Duane hasn't been as vocal as we have but I know he wants
> that base :-) I do too, and the moon is a great place to start. And again I'll
> just say that I think the first installation should be the Alpha-1 Rocket
> Base. Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
<Clears Throat>
I agree. That was the first thing that came up in my mind. To begin with,
it would be easy to add on to, just add a baseplate.
I really don't have too much input as to the naming conventions used. I
just want to build. Has anyone had any luck in designing the docking port?
I started working on a couple of docking ideas the other night, and came
away with a battle droid. (How the two are related, I'll never know) Any
thoughts on how large a footprint we want the airlock to have? I've tried
to stay around 6 X 6, or 6 X 8.
You know Tom, I'm beginning to think that you're a pretty good guy, no
matter what Larry says about you. :-)
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:19:59 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
<radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> Good, and I agree. Duane hasn't been as vocal as we have but I know he wants
> that base :-) I do too, and the moon is a great place to start. And again I'll
> just say that I think the first installation should be the Alpha-1 Rocket
> Base. Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
Hmm. Would we have to mark it as mobile? ;-)
So what's the nature of Moonbase LD-A? Before we decide that, we should
decide on the background environment, so we'll know what's appropriate and
inappropriate. I'll take that to another thread, 'kay?
> My thinking behind using sectional units was only if someone ever wanted to
> map out how space was being populated, or where their "cool spacebase" was, it
> might be fun.
How big a chunk of space do you want to start with? And should use real
space-time, or just make it up? And what method of surveying do would be
best? Where would the origin be? Galactic center? Sol? Something
arbitrary?
I'm against using real space--there's too much research involved. But if
someone *wants* to do the necessary research, don't let me stop 'em.
> 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.
> when replying, umm.. yeah. spamcake. find it. remove it.
Oh no! He drew a blank! Is this the beginning of the end for McSpamcake?
Stay tuned...
Or was it a very subtle, obscure movie reference that I missed?
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:19:59 GMT, "Tom McDonald"
> <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> > Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
>
> Hmm. Would we have to mark it as mobile? ;-)
lol
> So what's the nature of Moonbase LD-A? Before we decide that, we should
> decide on the background environment, so we'll know what's appropriate and
> inappropriate. I'll take that to another thread, 'kay?
k
> How big a chunk of space do you want to start with?
Note below when you get there.*
> And should use real
> space-time, or just make it up?
Just to maintain some equality, should we stick with:
1 parsec = 3.26 light years = 30.8x10^12 km = 206,265 AU
I vote yes, just so we can come out somewhat consistent.
> And what method of surveying do would be
> best?
> Where would the origin be?
Note below when you get there.**
> Galactic center?
Hard to say based on current science, which has revised it's figures on the
diameter of the M0 (Milky Way) galaxy within the last few years. I suppose we
could leave that figure alone for awhile, unless we're going to be zooming all
the way across the galaxy in a matter of hours.
> I'm against using real space--there's too much research involved. But if
> someone *wants* to do the necessary research, don't let me stop 'em.
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.
* How about we start with 100 parsecs (pc) / 326 light years (ly)? Too big?
Too little?
** If you all want to see it, I've got a map from which we could possibly
start. It's from an old Star Trek Tech Manual which shows major stars (48 of
them in fact) in a sphere within 7 pc, 22.82 ly, centered round our own star
Sol (though the original Federation was much bigger than that, more along the
lines of 4kpc+). And it does not show any other objects, such as nebulae,
black holes, etc. As it's not very detailed, it'll leave plenty of room for
creativity. I don't want to imitate Star Trek (or any other established
paradigm necessarily, though I imagine it'll happen to a degree or two),
except possibly by convenience of adopting spacial measurements.
Which reminds me: if we use faster than light (FTL) velocities, what kind of
velocity scale do we want to adopt?
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. Unless, maybe, someone wants to go to the trouble of
staging an emergency mass-exodus of moving civilizations because a rogue black
star is approaching! That could be another story :-)
> > 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!
> > when replying, umm.. yeah. spamcake. find it. remove it.
>
> Oh no! He drew a blank! Is this the beginning of the end for McSpamcake?
> Stay tuned...
>
> Or was it a very subtle, obscure movie reference that I missed?
Hee, no movie reference intended. I sorta had a headache when I wrote that, so
the spamcake creativity section was temporarily distracted.
-Tom McD.
when replying, spamcake in pellet form was used in early '60's beanbag chairs.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > Good, and I agree. Duane hasn't been as vocal as we have but I know he • wants
> > that base :-) I do too, and the moon is a great place to start. And again • I'll
> > just say that I think the first installation should be the Alpha-1 Rocket
> > Base. Plus the cool name of "Moonbase Alpha" is applicable too :-)
>
> Hmm. Would we have to mark it as mobile? ;-)
Very funny! 8-)
> How big a chunk of space do you want to start with? And should use real
> space-time, or just make it up? And what method of surveying do would be
> best? Where would the origin be? Galactic center? Sol? Something
> arbitrary?
I think the centre of the galaxy would be a good idea, if only as it
will simplify the Maths! If we said that Earth was (0,0,0) then the
x,y and z axes would be moving all the time. For one season the Sun is at
(1,0,1) and the next it's at (-1,0,1). Having said that, it might
help if we always considered the sun to be at the origin (0,0,0) and
the x axis always points to the Earth. Except the whole universe then
starts rotating at one revolution per year?
> I'm against using real space--there's too much research involved. But if
> someone *wants* to do the necessary research, don't let me stop 'em.
I've just tried it and it's hard work. Just put the name of the
place you want to go into a computer and let it work out the route for you!
Just a thought.
David.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:00:10 GMT, "Mr D Leese"
<MRLEESE@genius1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > How big a chunk of space do you want to start with? And should use real
> > space-time, or just make it up? And what method of surveying do would be
> > best? Where would the origin be? Galactic center? Sol? Something
> > arbitrary?
>
> I think the centre of the galaxy would be a good idea, if only as it
> will simplify the Maths! If we said that Earth was (0,0,0) then the
> x,y and z axes would be moving all the time. For one season the Sun is at
> (1,0,1) and the next it's at (-1,0,1). Having said that, it might
> help if we always considered the sun to be at the origin (0,0,0) and
> the x axis always points to the Earth. Except the whole universe then
> starts rotating at one revolution per year?
It's too detailed for the discussion at hand, but I was wondering if it
would be practical to use several systems. For interstellar travel, use
galactic coordinates. For in-system travel, use solar coordinates. On a
planet's surface, use the local latitude/longitude. Basically, use the
nearest large gravity well as a reference point. ;)
Steve
| | | | | | |
