Subject:
|
Re: Space Station/Base Names (was Re: Space stations?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:08:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5705 times
|
| |
|
|
> > 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.
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 go. Would a week/month's travel
between installations be about right? If so, work out v and s from t!
> I wasn't thinking anything specific, except I wanted to avoid names like
> "Space Station <3.45, 4.65, -2.56>".
This got me thinking about the way that towns and cities on Earth have
picked up their names. I mean, I live in Congleton which is from the
Roman meaning "Corner Town" as the town grew up in the inside corner
of a bend in a river. Just up the road, there's Newcastle-Under-Lyme,
from the time when a New castle was built (to replace the old one)
at the bottom of the hill where the old castle was (among a field of
lyme trees).
So Space Station <3.45, 4.65, -2.56> could well have that designation
and be nicknamed "Tertiary Trading Outpost" if it does a lot of trade
and is near a tertiary star system?
Whatever!
David.
>
> Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
94 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
