Subject:
|
Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:13:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5610 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
| (...) 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. (...) Hmm. Do you mean 100 cubic parsecs? Or a sphere with a radius of 100 parsecs (that's 4.2 cubic (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
| (...) 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, (...) (25 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
