Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 462 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
What is the answer to life, universe, and everything?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: TCD
« on: January 17, 2019, 03:05:31 PM »

Steve's Great Crusade and its use of the new factory-built space stations to get around shipyard constraints has got me thinking about what creative uses that approach opens up. One immediate thought was fuel harvester bases with a single fuel tanker base to create an easy orbital gas station.

But now I'm wondering what else you could do. I was thinking about early game carrier stations, but I think they'd have to have the new commercial hangers rather than military hangers? That means normal maintenance applies to military ships, so tricky to make it work for fighters I'd have thought. Perhaps you could create an FAC carrier station with hybrid FACs with short ranges but decent maintenance lives.

Obviously the no armour, no shields etc is going to make your carrier stations horribly vulnerable, but you could load them up with CIWS to protect against stray missiles, and if the enemy gets beam vessels in range of your carrier you've probably lost anyway.
Posted by: Rabid_Cog
« on: January 17, 2019, 02:01:28 PM »

If all you can get from the Aether is raw elements, that could serve to explain. Pure, loose elements are kinda difficult to use. Energy states are all wrong, etc. Fine for gasses, they are loose atoms anyway (or bond on their own) but for more complex substances (especially proteins) the effort and energy required to synthesize them would make it quite difficult to use anyway. The energy calculation could still favour local 'real world' extraction and production, so you dont quite reach "post scarcity" for common goods.

Terraformer cant pull it out because it cant REACH the TN materials. There's a planet in the way. It can only reach the higher/lighter materials. Asteroid miners work the same way but they have a long pipe attached and are configured differently to target the heavier elements. Same basic principle as a planetside mine, same way a fridge compressor and a vaccuum cleaner work on the same principles.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: January 17, 2019, 05:02:58 AM »

I was referring more to conventional elements, like the ones in atmospheric gases that the terraformers harvest.  You can synthesize tons of chemicals with the basic gaseous elements in the atmosphere.  I suppose another part of this is there isn't much elaboration on what exactly the TNEs are and why they are special other than accessing the Aether.  I don't suppose trans Newtonian elements would be any better at making say, soap, than common elements.  100% of industry on Earth today is based on  conventional elements (or so we are led to believe :P), so having a giant portal into the next dimension that just poofs out the basic ingredients of literally anything you want to make seems a bit weird.

It depends whether it is more or less weird that terraformers can create entire atmospheres out of vacuum :)

Whether consumers have the equivalent of star trek replicators for non-TN goods is outside game scope (although it would explain why food production is a minor problem) and probably easier to rationalize than terraforming in VB6. However, as someone mentioned, it is fine to use your own background/lore for your own games.
Posted by: Vivalas
« on: January 16, 2019, 10:29:11 PM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=8497. msg112184#msg112184 date=1547678651
Quote from: Tree link=topic=8497. msg112183#msg112183 date=1547678266
As I understand it, TN ships exists in both universes at once.

Probably why regular materials are so irrelevant.  Guess it's impossible to pull TN materials through the terraformer, though.

Yes, both universes at once and yes, TN materials are present in such trace amounts, the terraformers can't access them.  It requires billions of years for them to coalesce in gravity wells.

I was referring more to conventional elements, like the ones in atmospheric gases that the terraformers harvest.  You can synthesize tons of chemicals with the basic gaseous elements in the atmosphere.  I suppose another part of this is there isn't much elaboration on what exactly the TNEs are and why they are special other than accessing the Aether.  I don't suppose trans Newtonian elements would be any better at making say, soap, than common elements.  100% of industry on Earth today is based on  conventional elements (or so we are led to believe :P), so having a giant portal into the next dimension that just poofs out the basic ingredients of literally anything you want to make seems a bit weird.
Posted by: dag0net
« on: January 16, 2019, 07:18:35 PM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=8497. msg112184#msg112184 date=1547678651
It requires billions of years for them to coalesce in gravity wells.

* dag0net goes starmining
Posted by: drejr
« on: January 16, 2019, 06:02:36 PM »

One possibility:

In Aurora, the superfluid vacuum theory turns out to be correct. Spacetime can be be described as a liquid with very low or no viscosity.

In the Aether, however, spacetime is condensed to the point where viscosity greatly increases, and the Aether can be described as a more conventional fluid.

Thrust applied in the highly condensed Aether drags normal material along like a ocean-going ship's propeller - which would give very little thrust in the atmosphere in which most of the ship exists.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: January 16, 2019, 05:00:45 PM »

This is all neat and all but I would probably modify the canon in my head a bit for my own games to something I find a bit more thematic and believable.
You are absolutely free to do that, it's even recommended! Loads of Aurora players have their own version of the "canon", some even change it from game to game.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: January 16, 2019, 04:44:11 PM »

As I understand it, TN ships exists in both universes at once.

Probably why regular materials are so irrelevant. Guess it's impossible to pull TN materials through the terraformer, though.

Yes, both universes at once and yes, TN materials are present in such trace amounts, the terraformers can't access them. It requires billions of years for them to coalesce in gravity wells.
Posted by: Tree
« on: January 16, 2019, 04:37:46 PM »

What exactly does it mean by "TNE ships travel mostly in the Aether".   Are these ships visible to the naked eye? Is anything in the Aether tangible to people in normal space? Or are ships kinda all like the TARDIS where they appear larger on the inside then out?
As I understand it, TN ships exists in both universes at once.

The amount of production implied by the amount of, say, iron or silicon or oil you could get in comparable masses to that of terraforming gasses would seemingly render most common goods post-scarce.   Perhaps supplementary explanation is needed about terraforming to explain why they don't just use the technology to create anything they want in a factory setting.
Probably why regular materials are so irrelevant. Guess it's impossible to pull TN materials through the terraformer, though.
Posted by: Vivalas
« on: January 16, 2019, 04:25:14 PM »

The lore is interesting, but there are a few confusing bits. 

What exactly does it mean by "TNE ships travel mostly in the Aether".   Are these ships visible to the naked eye? Is anything in the Aether tangible to people in normal space? Or are ships kinda all like the TARDIS where they appear larger on the inside then out?

The terraforming section also is a bit weird.   Being able to siphon conventional materials seemingly from thin air seems like a bit of a plot hole even in a world where TN elements eclipse conventional ones.   The amount of production implied by the amount of, say, iron or silicon or oil you could get in comparable masses to that of terraforming gasses would seemingly render most common goods post-scarce.   Perhaps supplementary explanation is needed about terraforming to explain why they don't just use the technology to create anything they want in a factory setting.

This is all neat and all but I would probably modify the canon in my head a bit for my own games to something I find a bit more thematic and believable. 
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: January 15, 2019, 05:44:20 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=8497. msg112093#msg112093 date=1547335240
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=8497. msg112089#msg112089 date=1547317854
Quote from: Tree link=topic=8497. msg112088#msg112088 date=1547315358
Can you still build components bigger than 500 tons on the ground? The lore says ships bigger than that can't handle the aetheric currents, so how does a sub-500 tons shuttle handle taking a 2500 tons engine from my factories to the orbital yard?

Maybe the engine itself is assembled in orbit.

I agree. . .

If we look at modern techniques at building large structures it makes sense that you build things modular and assemble them at the final destination.  You do this with most structures and large vehicles/vessels today.  I don't see why they would not do that in the future as well.

Modular construction is very effective and also good for upgrading, replacement, maintenance and repair etc. . .

I also think it is quite likely you have some sort of space lift capacity where you use a combination of anti-gravity and typical space lift technologies to get most stuff into orbit.

There can also be a combination of anti-gravity devices and strong tractor beams on the orbital space stations to act as space lifts or some such.

But I still think you bring up large pieces such as engines and other components broken down into modules.

Hi There First post after lurking forever.

One thing I have to say about this is the point that manufacturing in space is going to be cheaper in space.  (500 tons in space is 500 tons you don't have to carry on earth damnit)

Simply sending the raw material up to space and building whatever up there (what do you mean I can throw this piece of metal across the room?) would be cost savings in itself.

While building in the module would make sense on earth (See Airbus 380) "now" it wouldn't make sense in space if you have all the facilities in space (see "what do you mean I can throw this block of engines over the other side of the earth")

Yup. . .  said my piece and just wanna say super excited for C#


I agree with Hazard.

While true with modern day knowledge of physics since the energy it takes to launch something from earth into orbit is very expensive. But if the cost from hauling the thing from the surface to space is a minor one this is a moot point, we are after all talking about anti-gravity, tractor beams, space lift and the use of a "magical" trans Newtonian element to break the natural laws of physics. I would imagine the cost of lifting things up into space are roughly the same as transporting something in a shipping container and we do that for very little cost all around the Earth today.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: January 15, 2019, 10:36:22 AM »

While true currently, TN economies will have both vastly more capable lift and vastly cheaper per weight lift than modern day Earth.

TransNewtonian physics are just crazy like that. I mean, you actually have to work to create a ship slower than 100 km/s in space, even with the lowest tech TN engine. Modern day physics can't get that fast because it's an insane speed, we simply lack the engines at this time to make that viable.
Posted by: Lornalt
« on: January 15, 2019, 09:28:35 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=8497. msg112093#msg112093 date=1547335240
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=8497. msg112089#msg112089 date=1547317854
Quote from: Tree link=topic=8497. msg112088#msg112088 date=1547315358
Can you still build components bigger than 500 tons on the ground? The lore says ships bigger than that can't handle the aetheric currents, so how does a sub-500 tons shuttle handle taking a 2500 tons engine from my factories to the orbital yard?

Maybe the engine itself is assembled in orbit.

I agree. . .

If we look at modern techniques at building large structures it makes sense that you build things modular and assemble them at the final destination.  You do this with most structures and large vehicles/vessels today.  I don't see why they would not do that in the future as well.

Modular construction is very effective and also good for upgrading, replacement, maintenance and repair etc. . .

I also think it is quite likely you have some sort of space lift capacity where you use a combination of anti-gravity and typical space lift technologies to get most stuff into orbit.

There can also be a combination of anti-gravity devices and strong tractor beams on the orbital space stations to act as space lifts or some such.

But I still think you bring up large pieces such as engines and other components broken down into modules.

Hi There First post after lurking forever.

One thing I have to say about this is the point that manufacturing in space is going to be cheaper in space.  (500 tons in space is 500 tons you don't have to carry on earth damnit)

Simply sending the raw material up to space and building whatever up there (what do you mean I can throw this piece of metal across the room?) would be cost savings in itself.

While building in the module would make sense on earth (See Airbus 380) "now" it wouldn't make sense in space if you have all the facilities in space (see "what do you mean I can throw this block of engines over the other side of the earth")

Yup. . .  said my piece and just wanna say super excited for C#
Posted by: Desdinova
« on: January 13, 2019, 03:28:00 AM »

Linguist (of sorts) here: The -ium suffix in an element name would replace the -us declension. For example, it's uranium, not uranusium. Frigium and aestium would sound more natural.

This is true. Also aestas usually refers to intense heat, either fire itself or boiling.

Maybe Greek would be more elegant: thermogen and cyrogen gasses.

I like thermogen/cryogen gas. If you want to stick to Latin roots, maybe use calor (warmth)? Calorium.
Posted by: drejr
« on: January 13, 2019, 01:02:40 AM »

Linguist (of sorts) here: The -ium suffix in an element name would replace the -us declension. For example, it's uranium, not uranusium. Frigium and aestium would sound more natural.

This is true. Also aestas usually refers to intense heat, either fire itself or boiling.

Maybe Greek would be more elegant: thermogen and cyrogen gasses.
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54