Subject:
|
Re: Space Stations... (and Space Relations)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:14:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
714 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Mark Nelson writes:
> Well, I'm thinking that it is just in orbit around a planet, so it doesn't
> need propulsion, and that it does have gravity. And how far in the future? Why
> does it matter? :) As I said, this is Lego, it doesn't have to be realistic!
In the smallest of ways the year could matter, but it shouldn't stand in the
way of building. Personally I think it's a very small issue and I pretty much
don't care. It's something that could be discussed later.
And probly the only reason it could matter is if the planet that it orbits is,
of course, Earth itself. With Earth comes certain expectations of the future.
We have a technology base now in 2000 that we expect to be MUCH greater and
more fantastic in 3000. But also design philosophy plays a strong part in
this. For example, in the year 3000, we might expect artificial gravity in
just about every space station (via rotation or otherwise). But it doesn't
hafta have it if certain conditions are required.
The other reason I bring it up is that many stories pretty much start with a
year or at least a century so that the setting can be built in a reader's
mind, which means someone else might be curious (and you'd perhaps hafta
explain all this again :-)
Maybe each small group should have a rough sort of charter in order so that
everyone that participates knows the rules, and any repeated violation (I hate
to have to include this, but boundaries have a way of eliminating many
arguments before they start) would mean either a kind of probation or that no
further or limited input from that person would be accepted or at least
suspect.
> :) Also, why use forcefeilds? This thing could be armed with Global Defence
> Cannons that pop out of the roof! ;)
Personally, I've never used forcefields unless they could be built right, say
like using the fibre-optic elements for vertical light beams in a brig or
something like that. But I don't have any of those elements, and do quite
nicely without them thank you.
> Yep, what I'm thinking that all we have to do is make the outside, and we can
> fill in the details later. Hehehe! That reciently posted head would be
> something nice for the mess halls. :)
Yeah, that'd work.. essentially a big compartmentalized warehouse in space,
and then fill it in I guess.
> > What might be in order is for like-minded folks to get together and virtually
> > meet in smaller groups and have each group hash out make a station (or even a
> > universe) that fits a common paradigm. Later on, if timelines and universes
> > collide, stations can mate/merge temporarily or permanently.
>
> Yep. That would be a nice idea. How about something like each type of people
> makes a differant part of the station? Who cares how huge this is? :)
I don't think I've ever seen anyone object to how big a station is or can get.
One thing I would suggest about the station's command center is that it be
built somewhat last or at least later after a group is going good. But of
course some provision for it could be made now, because that's only wise. The
reason being is that I would imagine that more than one person would want to
build it.. and maybe it should happen that way. I think because it's such an
important room (and likely to be visited more than laundry station #4) the
group should vote on which person(s) build(s) it, or even decide amongst
several designs, adaptations, combinations or mutations thereof. Mainly about
this subject, I'm just saying, get as many people involved in it and
contributing so that none feel left out and everyone can be proud of something.
> Personaly, my view of the future has to do with antimatter
> drives, going almost lightspeed from planet to planet. Hey, those LCC'ens. :)
Heh.. I also subscribe to antimatter where applicable, but have no problem
with sublight. In fact, sublight technology is a great place to be because
you've got so much that's unexplored. And of course, that might change later
on if the groups wants.
Wanna start work on a group charter?
-Tom McD.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Space Stations... (and Space Relations)
|
| (...) ...When I write stuff, I try not to even mention Earth, and never mention a date or even locations in earth relative terms (usually something like CY 79 for Colony Year 79). This has a couple handy effects: 1 - I'm never wrong! don't you love (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jun-00, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Space Stations... (and Space Relations)
|
| (...) Well, I'm thinking that it is just in orbit around a planet, so it doesn't need propulsion, and that it does have gravity. And how far in the future? Why does it matter? :) As I said, this is Lego, it doesn't have to be realistic! :) Also, why (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jun-00, to lugnet.space)
|
41 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
|
|
|
|
