Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
QUOTE (DarthKev @ May 19 2010, 08:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not sure what books you're talking about, and can't be sure I've found it on Google since what you did say about it is pretty vague. If I'm going to use that or anything similar, I'm going to need to know what it's from.
I considered that name, but 'raptor' is already used as the name of a ship class, one not made by Atinoda. Other birds used are condor, accipiter, milvus, aquila, bateleur, and kestrel. The Kestrel is their most well-known design, perhaps Kestrel Shipyards?
Pretty sure it's a reference to the Discworld series. 'Fowl Shipyards' is fine, IMO, especially if you make the CEO a Mr. (or Ms.) Fowl.
QUOTE (Templar98921 @ May 19 2010, 03:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That it is.
QUOTE (DarthKev @ May 19 2010, 01:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's not about how efficient they are, it's a joke about their executives' smarmy (cheap, greedy, slimy) nature.
Ah, but would the customers see it (and how would the marketing executives think the customers would see it)? Snail are, after all, associated slowness at least as much, if not more, than they are associated with sliminess...
Hm, thinking more of it, that timeline... why the need to lock the Moon into geostationary orbit? One problem here is that of balance; that is, it is almost impossible to have the US strong enough to not have ganging up on them work, while at the same time not making the US so strong that they win. As it stands, it seems... fairly stupid of the USA, actually. Yes, they get an additional barrier to attacks, but at the cost of world-wide ecological and geographic chaos, including for the US itself. Certainly not something they'd be allowed to keep doing on a united, peaceful Earth.
Alright, names are finalized. You can see the list above. Now for an overview of ships made by Sol Shipyards.
Since this is pretty short, I'll give you an overview of Rendelli's ships, too.
I'll continue like this, giving basic overviews of the civilian ships produced by each group. Once done with that, I'll give you all closer views of ships, one by one. After that, we'll get into the military hardware.
Next update: Newton designs.
This post has been edited by DarthKev : 06 June 2010 - 05:50 AM
Gotta second LordInsane's statement about locking the moon into geosync. First, you'd have to apply enough delta V to move the moon. The moon's mass is 7.36 × 10^22 kilograms. F=MA, so you'd have to apply at least 7.36x10^22 newtons of force (a bit over) just to move it at all. Then, you'd need to get it into geosychronous orbit and apply a counterforce of what you applied previously to stop it in the correct orbit. The current power output of the entire planet's electrical grid wouldn't generate enough energy to accomplish this feat at the moment.
Now, you'd have to take into account the tidal stresses of having the moon in that close of an orbit. It would, quite honestly, rip the crust of the continental US to pieces, and devastate the entire planet's ecology.
Finally, to put the Moon in geosynch, by my calculations, would put it inside the Roche limit, tearing the moon apart and forming a pretty ring around our fair planet. It would be beautiful, but since every living thing on the planet would likely be dead... you get the idea.
Not quite. The moon is actually moving away from us and, because of that fact, will eventually enter a geosynchronous orbit all by itself. So, if we were to prematurely force it into geosync, we'd be pushing it further away, lessening the effect it has on our tides. Plus, this happens in the year 2942 AD, more than 900 years from now. I think we'd have some pretty efficient power capabilities by then.
Pushing it away from us wouldn't put it into geosynchronus orbit at all. Geosynchronous orbit for the Earth is 35,786 km. The moon is currently 384,000 km away. Geosychronous orbit means that the moon would have to be orbiting at an altitude where it makes one orbit every 24 hours, thus keeping it in the same place respective to the surface of the parent body. In the moon's current orbital altitude, it orbits once every 27.3 Earth rotations, not every 1. To push it further away would increase, not decrease, this orbital time. If you were to attempt to speed up the moon in an effort to force it into a geosynchronous speed while remaining in its present orbital altitude, it would be so much faster than escape velocity that it literally could not remain in orbit. Realistically, the only way to keep the moon in its current orbit and make it geosynchronous would be to slow down the Earth's rotation to 27.3 current days.
And, while the moon is getting further away from the Earth (actually due to tidal interactions creating orbital drag, since the Earth rotates faster than the moon orbits,) it is only doing so at the rate of about an inch per year. You might be thinking of synchronous rotation, which the moon already exhibits, where one side of a satellite mass is tidally locked to always face towards the larger mass.
Edit: Apologies. I originally posted the moon's distance in miles, and listed it as kilometers. Fixed.
This post has been edited by krugeruwsp : 19 May 2010 - 02:47 PM
Okay, I admit I (once again) misunderstood facts of reality concerning the matter I'm trying to describe. So there isn't a way to force the moon into geostationary orbit and keep us Humans comfortable on Earth. However, it's science fiction, who said it had to be possible? If you can think of better technobabble to explain how this happened, by all means. I, on the other hand, will use what I've thought up, no matter how impossible it is.
QUOTE (DarthKev @ May 19 2010, 10:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Er... why? I mean, you've already rewritten the timeline to take into account other criticism, so that can't be an issue not to drop it. As for rewritting descs, well, how many would be affected? As it is, it strains the suspension of disbelief somewhat, not necessarily only because of tidal and location issues, but also because the US seems to have made suspiciously little use of the stated immense advantage they gain.
Changing names and changing history are two very different things. Also, just because it's during WWIII, that doesn't mean the US did much fighting. Remember, they weren't a major player. In fact, they had a very minor role, mainly just protecting their shared borders with Canada and Mexico. They forced the moon into geosync as a defensive strategy to prevent anyone attacking them. They were involved in the war, yes, but only because they were forced to be due to the extent of the war.
QUOTE (DarthKev @ May 20 2010, 08:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You changed the history when you changed the name. Exactly how much would change if the geosync angle was just dropped? It isn't like geosync is necessary to get a US base on the Moon. Heck, given the described technologies and historical progression, it seems infeasible that there isn't a base on the moon. If it is the need to keep the US safe in the war, why the need for a Luna base? Why not simply launch a station into geosync orbit? As the timeline stands, the US apparently remained a not-major player despite 1) having given everyone else (well, everyone, really) a reason to hate them (handwaved away, depending on how far one is willing to stretch 'handwave') and 2) given themselves, as described in the timeline, a massive advantage.
This post has been edited by LordInsane : 20 May 2010 - 05:44 AM
QUOTE (krugeruwsp @ May 20 2010, 03:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You could always make the moon orbit 27.3 times faster. Geosynch can work like that.
QUOTE (LordInsane @ May 20 2010, 03:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A name is just a name. If I were to remove the moon base, however, that would be removing a major event in history. Additionally, if the US didn't take the moon, someone else would have eventually, giving them an advantage. Another factor is that if no one forces it into geosync, anyone placing a base would have a mobile strike base far enough away that any attack on it could be foreseen and planned for. If any other nation did this, they would have won the war, thus changing history. The only way to prevent that is to do the impossible, putting the moon into a geosynchronous orbit. The only other two options I see—not placing a base there or leaving the moon in its standard orbit—are improbable and history-changing respectively.
I really don't see how having the moon orbiting solely above the US provides any tactical advantage at all, really, even in terms of a moon base. The moon is 384,000 km away. That's a lot of room to fit ICBMs, satellites, and tons of other destructive materials in between. If you're planning on sticking a giant laser on a moon base to shoot everything down, why bother? It'd would be a lot cheaper, more practical, and much easier to simply slip a giant laser on a geosynchronous satellite or space station. If the US had developed the technology to move a mass the size of the moon, I'm pretty sure they would consider deflecting incoming high-velocity space rocks quite trivial. The ecologial disaster that doing this project would create would probably be enough to anger the entire rest of the planet into invading the US just to stop the project, if the people of the country didn't start their own revolution and slay every scientist involved in the first place.
I'm not just trying to be a stickler for realistic fiction here, I'm just pointing out that this is so far away from reasonable that I'd have to suspend my disbelief in lead-reinforced concrete. It's more practical to state that an evil megalomaniac super-villian developed this technology, and WWIII was fought to stop her from implementing it. I say her because I like the idea of a woman being the one to destroy the world instead of a moustache twirling guy.
I think you guys need to cool down a bit. He's listened to your criticisms, weighed his options, and chooses to carry on with his plan nonetheless. Continuing to insist he make changes to something he's decided not to change (and really probably won't have any significant effect on your gameplay experience anyway) is, I'm sorry to say, just being a bit annoying.
QUOTE (krugeruwsp @ May 20 2010, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The moon is 384,000 km away. That's a lot of room to fit ICBMs, satellites, and tons of other destructive materials in between. If you're planning on sticking a giant laser on a moon base to shoot everything down, why bother? It'd would be a lot cheaper, more practical, and much easier to simply slip a giant laser on a geosynchronous satellite or space station.
What Shli said.
This post has been edited by DarthKev : 20 May 2010 - 01:38 PM
Alright, let's go over the ships offered by Newton Electronics. First off, I should give you some information on who they are and what they do. They are the premier electronics manufacturers as well as the lead computer programming firm in the galaxy. They make it all; from kids' toys to supercomputers, from missile guidance systems to laser targeting grids. Their work is the best, albeit the priciest. Most ships don't come with anything of theirs (the price tag would be too big to bother considering) but as after-market additions, they're definitely worth considering.
Their own personal line of starships is pretty basic concerning the range of classes they cover, and is even more basic considering the few they sell to average civilians. We'll go over those first.
Okay, pretty basic, right? But with pirates everywhere, they've gotta protect what they have, so they've built their own line of combat vessels to escort convoys. They don't trust mercenaries too much.
So you've got civilian models at top and employees-only models above. In-game, Newton Electronics also offers a range of 'computer upgrades' that get rid of sensor interference, reduce system murk, or jam missiles. They also offer some Fluxdrive modifications to make long trips short and short trips seem like a spacewalk.
Next update: overview of Askan ships.
This is going back a ways, but ...
QUOTE (DarthKev @ May 18 2010, 08:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
... how about "Eagler Space Systems"? The idea is that "Eagler" would be the company founder's surname in-universe, and a good enough bird reference out-of-universe.
This post has been edited by StarSword : 20 May 2010 - 10:39 PM
Why'd you change your post? It was fine as-is.
I'll think about it. I'll have to come up with names for the others, too, if I use it, but I'll think about it.
I was hoping someone would post so I wouldn't have to double post. Oh well.
Askan Shipyards is most well known for their starfighter designs despite the fact they produce twice as many non-starfighter classes. Founded in the early 2200s AF, they are now owned by Jesse Kovacich, a man himself known for his peculiar tastes including drinking eggnog everyday. It should be noted that Askan's unique 'starfighter' class is something no other company has, a class of fighter designed to operate on its own for extended periods of time. As a result, none of their fighters have associated launch bays. Now, let's get into the civilian collection.
There are, of course, a few designs reserved for high-up Askan employees and executives.
It should be obvious Askan Shipyards produces more for warriors of space than for the merchants of the future. Indeed, they own the largest weapons manufacturing plant in the galaxy. Several times Sol Shipyards has urged Star Corps to investigate the possibility of Askan running an illegal gun-running operation and supplying pirates with ammunition and ordnance, and every time they've been denied. In truth Askan Shipyards is completely legit. Sol Shipyards is simply jealous of their wealth.
Next update: a follow-up of Askan with an overview of Eros Mining.
This post has been edited by DarthKev : 12 June 2010 - 11:07 PM