Subject:
|
Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:32:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4811 times
|
| |
|
|
(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!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
| (...) 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. (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
| On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 McSpamcakeBoy mentioned: (...) 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, (...) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
| (...) No biggie. I wasn't clear on my post. I said: (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Sep-99, to lugnet.space)
|
94 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
