 | | Re: The LD environment (or, Datsville in Space) —Tom McDonald
|
| | | (...) If it's got a lot of good stuff then it's not a problem! (...) Good. (...) I agree. Less "magic" and more substance. I vote for no energy-matter converters (which includes transporters) at all, unless it is experienced in extremely rare (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The LD environment (or, Datsville in Space) —Duane Hess
|
| | | | | (...) Agreed (...) My vote is for the power cost. Large bases might have force field technology for protection, but would need a power generation facility to feed the hungry beast. Ships might also have them for defensive purposes, but could only (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The LD environment (or, Datsville in Space) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) It's definitely something to be decided. (...) Yep, make force-fields possible, but too expensive to be practical. (...) Oops. The world gov't deals with issues throughout the Sol system. Maybe there are colonies on other planets, but other (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The LD environment (or, Datsville in Space) —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | (...) One could also take parts from offical TLG models and use them in other creations. It would be like NASA cutting the launch pad for the SaturnV in two and using them for the Space Shuttle. The launch gantry for the Alpha-1 RB could become a (...) (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
