Subject:
|
Re: The LD environment (or, Datsville in Space)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:58:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
576 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:38:40 GMT, "Duane Hess" <DNJHESS@ZDNETMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> > > My take on this project is it should stay closer to hard science fiction
> > > than to space opera, or Star Trek technology. More realistic ships,
> > > stations, and equipment. Fewer light sabres, transporters, and force
> > > fields. The only truly "fantastic technology" should be interstellar
> > > drives. There may even be different kinds of interstellar drives.
> >
> > The only item that I would miss is the force field technology. If
> > a plausible field generator is designed into the model, why not?
>
> The general answer to "why not" is because there's no clear way to get from
> what we've got today to <any specific future technology>. As more
> "fantastic technologies" are allowed into the environment, the less
> realistic the whole thing becomes.
So since we are going to use a technology that is only plausible by today's
standards, I'm assuming that FTL speeds are out of the question since
that is mathematically impossible.
How far are we going to go with this one? I like to have a certain degree
of reality included in my models, but I like to include a little fantasy
to make sure that things are spiced up enough.
Here's a write-up I created for use with the USS Powder River, the ship that
I enlisted the landing gear help for. Part is based on current (although
unproven) technology, part based on fantasy. You guess which is which.
The computer system aboard the USS Powder River is based on a
bioelectrical/crystalline architecture. This configuration is a very energy
efficient, compact system, which is vital to the ship’s deep space role.
A bioelectrical processor first analyzes information collected from the main
sensor array to determine which types of calculations are needed. All logical
calculations are passed to the central processing unit via carbon nanotubes
where it is parsed into a binary data stream. The data stream is fed to
individual rotaxane logic gates where the bulk of the calculation takes place.
The resulting data stream is reprocessed and sent back to the bioelectrical
processor for further analysis via an artificial neural network. The
bioelectrical processing unit uses fuzzy logic to make command or tactical
decisions based on a “best guess” scenario using past experiences and data
from the CPU.
All information is stored on rotaxane crystal platters within the central
memory core. If there is a shortage of space within the memory core, more
space can be “grown” with matter collected from space. The memory core is also
a very durable device able to self-diagnose and bypass damaged areas,
establishing new electrical pathways when needed.
>
> In the specific case of force field technology, it depends on what you have
> in mind. Are you thinking of giant screens that allow stations in deep
> space to have docking bays with wide-open portals, so ships can fly in, but
> air doesn't escape? Or structural integrity fields (aren't those pretty
> much the same as tractor beams?). Or Susan Richard's pseudo-solid,
> invisible force fields?
Possibly all of the above.
> There are a bunch of common future technologies we should sort through
> before we get too far. Not only should we have a basic idea of whether
> something is allowed or not, but there should be parameters around the
> usage of any specific technology. How big is an interstellar drive? How
> much does it cost to build one? How fast is it? How long does it last?
> How much does maintenance cost? Those kinds of questions.
Cost? Let me order some more $100 tiles from TLG and I'll get back with you.
> Various common super-techs:
> - Artificial gravity
> - Matter transmitters
> - Various energy beams
> - Force fields
> - FTL drives
> - Other forms of practical interstellar drives
> - Super-weapons
>
> Of course, this kind of discussion has to be balanced with the idea of not
> excluding anybody's work. :) The last thing we need to get into is a round
> of "we won't use that, it doesn't fit in".
I feel that the current discussion is already starting to get a little out of
balance. I'm OK with designing a standard docking port, but feel that it is
a little over the top to start putting constraints on my designs due to
imaginary maintenance and budget issues for imaginary technology.
> > > The political environment is an interstellar culture, in a period of
> > > exploration and colonization. There are currently a handful of independant
> > > planetary governments, possibly under an umbrella "United Planets"
> > > organization. Some of these governments are former colonies, some are
> > > alien species. There are also some organizations which are not tied to
> > > specific planets or governments.
> >
> >
> > How about rogue militias, rebel bands and the like? Fighters are a popular
> > ship design and there needs to be a use for them if only for intimidation
> > and Cold War rhetoric.
>
> There will always be outlaws, and some planets may not be very friendly to
> other governments.
>
> > I have a swelling Jar-Jar/Gungan species in my colony. :-)
>
> Can you put it in LDraw? No, really. Can you? Please? It's only one
> little piece. One weird, funky, oddly-shaped little piece. Well, two if
> you count the torso.
I hope you're joking, since I was.
>
> > > Earth maintains a presence throughout the Sol system. No other governments
> > > have any installations in our sphere of control.
> >
> > Does this refer to the "United Planets" organization?
>
> Good question. Is the UPO a powerful (ie, military/burueacratic) presence,
> or just a network of ambassadors?
>
> Is a UPO needed, or can we just stipulate a tradition of treaties,
> alliances, favors owed and debts to be paid?
>
> Steve
-Duane
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The LD environment (or, Datsville in Space)
|
| (...) Depends on where we want to go. If we want to set up a framework for a believable, interesting interstellar society, we've pretty much got to allow FTL technology. Even practical sub-light drive technology is way out there. (...) There's a lot (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The LD environment (or, Datsville in Space)
|
| (...) The general answer to "why not" is because there's no clear way to get from what we've got today to <any specific future technology>. As more "fantastic technologies" are allowed into the environment, the less realistic the whole thing (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.space)
|
27 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
|
|
|
|
