Subject:
|
Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:18:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8050 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
| (...) of (...) 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 (...) (27 years ago, 2-Oct-99, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
| (...) lol (...) k (...) Note below when you get there.* (...) 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. (...) Note below (...) (27 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
|
|
|
|
