Post by: Beersatron on November 16, 2009, 03:27:24 PM
I guess there are few things to take into consideration:
1. Not sure if you do this already, but when generating asteroids do you give them a mass and three dimensions? That would mean you could only do this to asteroids that are a certain size - depending on how many PDCs you install.
2. it needs to have maintenance storage and usage but probably give it a highly reduced failure rate?
2.1 possibly allow maintenance facilities so it can act as a harbor for patrol vessels?
2.2 let it be designated as a collier, tanker and supply vessel/station.
3. Allow shields? or just rely on the natural armor of the asteroid used - depending on the (Duranium/Volume-of-asteroid) ratio? When installing the PDC ignore any inherent armor level added to the design.
4. When converted to an OWP remove it from the acceptable list of locations to drop off planetary sensors and mines.
5. Do not allow it to be transferred through a JP, even one with a gate.
6. ensure that any movement by tugs is slow but let multiple tugs pull it - depending on size of the asteroid
Sound feasible?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 17, 2009, 10:38:25 AM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
I am re-reading the Starfire novel 'Crusade' and am at the part about Asteroids that have been converted into super OWP's. That got me thinking if it would be possible to tow an asteroid within a system to orbit of a planet. From there you could 'Install PDC' or equivalent and then tow it out to the location you wish to deploy it.A fascinating idea. Not sure I can find a way to make it work but still fascinating to look at the possibilities. There are two sides to the question I think. The first is can you 'hollow out' an asteroid and turn it into a floating PDC. The second is can you move asteroids around. The reason to split this into two sections is that either by itself would be cool even if you couldn't do the other. Assuming you could move asteroids, I think the simplest way to approach this would simply be to avoid the complexities of 'hollowing out' and treat the asteroid as any other system body and place several PDCs on it. That allows asteroid fortresses with the minimum modification to the rules.
I guess there are few things to take into consideration:
1. Not sure if you do this already, but when generating asteroids do you give them a mass and three dimensions? That would mean you could only do this to asteroids that are a certain size - depending on how many PDCs you install.
2. it needs to have maintenance storage and usage but probably give it a highly reduced failure rate?
2.1 possibly allow maintenance facilities so it can act as a harbor for patrol vessels?
2.2 let it be designated as a collier, tanker and supply vessel/station.
3. Allow shields? or just rely on the natural armor of the asteroid used - depending on the (Duranium/Volume-of-asteroid) ratio? When installing the PDC ignore any inherent armor level added to the design.
4. When converted to an OWP remove it from the acceptable list of locations to drop off planetary sensors and mines.
5. Do not allow it to be transferred through a JP, even one with a gate.
6. ensure that any movement by tugs is slow but let multiple tugs pull it - depending on size of the asteroid
Sound feasible?
Anyway - lets look at moving asteroids first. Asteroids in Aurora do have diameter and mass, just like planets and moons. However all system bodies have been given a minimum mass 0f 0.0001 Earths, so as the first stage of looking at this idea I removed that minimum. Low masses will now be shown on the system view in scientific notiation to two significant figures to allow for realistic asteroid masses.
The formula used by Aurora to determine mass in Earth equivalents is: Mass = ((Radius / 6380) ^ 3) x Density (where Earth is density 1)
So Mars, which has a radius of 3400 km and a density of 0.71 would be Mass = ((3400 / 6380) ^ 3) x 0.71, which is 0.107 Earth masses and matches up with the Wiki entry for Mars
Mercury has a radius of 2440km and a density of 0.98: Mass = ((2440 / 6380) ^ 3) x 0.98, which is 0.055 Earth masses and also matches up with the Wiki
Lets try an asteroid with a radius of 20 kilometers and a density of 1: Mass = ((20 / 6380) ^ 3) x 1, which is 3.08055E-08 Earth masses.
Now we getting into scientific notation in terms of Earth masses so lets convert to metric tons instead. Earth is approximately 5.9736E+21 metric tons so if we multiply this by the Earth mass equivalent of our 40 km diameter asteroid, we get 1.8402E+14 metric tons or 184 trillion tons. So we won't be moving that then
How about an asteroid 1 km in diameter? Mass = ((0.5 / 6380) ^ 3) x 1, which is 4.81336E-13 Earth masses, or about 2.9 billion tons. Starting to get into the type of range we can visualise but still way beyond anything an Aurora tug could move. As we are getting into sizes that don't relate very much to something the size of the Earth, lets just double-check that figure by calculating the mass of a sphere 1 kilometer in diameter with the same density as the Earth (5.5153 g/cm^3)
4/3 x PI x 50,000cm^3 x 5.5153 =2.88781E+15 grams, or 2.88781E+12 kilograms or 2.9 billion metric tons.
How about an asteroid 100 meters in diameter (glossing over the fact there are no tiny asteroids in Aurora). 4/3x PI x 5000cm^3 x 5.5153 =2.88781E+12 grams, 2.9 million metric tons. Hmm, still gynormous but lets start looking whether a tug could move a ship that big. Here is large, expensive tug but certainly possible for a decent size Empire. Lets assume it tried to move a base as large as the asteroid, which would be a size 58,000 hull.
Code: [Select]
Brooklyn class Tug 27200 tons 2630 Crew 3465.8 BP TCS 544 TH 6000 EM 0
11029 km/s Armour 1-80 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 5918% IFR: 82.2% Maintenance Capacity 80 MSP Max Repair 100 MSP
Tractor Beam
Ion Engine (100) Power 60 Fuel Use 70% Signature 60 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres Range 47.3 billion km (49 days at full power)The ship has 6000 engine power and the combined size of the ship and asteroid is 58,544. Towing speed is equal to Int((Engine Power/ Total Size) * 1000), which is Int(6000/58544)*1000) = 102 km/sSo to my surprise, this is starting to look possible for small asteroids. Bear im mind they are usually less dense than Earth as well so the actual towing speed would likely be slighty higher. If you can accept even slower towing speeds, the above ship could move a 200 meter asteroid (23 million tons) at 13 km/s. As I said earlier, there are no asteroids this small in Aurora. Adding them would be very straightforward though. They wouldn't contain minerals but they would be available to convert into some type of base, probably by building a PDC on them. The easiest way would be to ship in the parts then use engineers to assemble the PDC. Add some tracking stations and perhaps some troops and you have a semi-mobile base, probably with some serious armour protection. If it was handled that way, the only thing I would need to change would be the addition of small asteroids, the ability to tow them and perhaps some type of stationkeeping system so they could be deployed near jump points.
Steve
Post by: ShadoCat on November 17, 2009, 06:48:27 PM
If you get involved in moving asteroids, you're going to have to answer one question that I don't think this game needs an answer to:
How much damage does an asteroid do when it falls on a planet?
Post by: James Patten on November 18, 2009, 06:15:30 AM
Quote from: "ShadoCat"
How much damage does an asteroid do when it falls on a planet?
I think the hand-wavium aspect of trans-newtonian materials eliminates that problem. I notice that in the game if your ship's engines are destroyed that your movement stops, even relative to the sun. So I think you'd be able to tow an asteroid to a planet but it won't crash.
Something I've always wanted to do is have a mass driver receiving minerals at a spot somewhere near a jump point, especially in those systems where the jump point is far out on the perimeter of the system. That way your freighter doesn't need to make the long trip in-system.
Post by: Beersatron on November 18, 2009, 09:44:12 AM
I'm glad you think it could be workable though, should open up some possibilities, especially like what James mentioned in terms of using them as a mineral way station. Although you would get to the point were how much mineral storage capacity would a 'small' asteroid have that already has been hollowed out to fit a PDC or 3!
Post by: Laurence on November 18, 2009, 01:53:53 PM
Quote from: "James Patten"
Something I've always wanted to do is have a mass driver receiving minerals at a spot somewhere near a jump point, especially in those systems where the jump point is far out on the perimeter of the system. That way your freighter doesn't need to make the long trip in-system.
What a fantastic idea! You could even station a freighter at the JP and just have it go back and forth, dumping minerals on another asteroid in the second system, which could them mass driver it on to a planet (or another asteroid at a second JP).
Post by: ShadoCat on November 18, 2009, 08:00:46 PM
Quote from: "Laurence"
What a fantastic idea! You could even station a freighter at the JP and just have it go back and forth, dumping minerals on another asteroid in the second system, which could them mass driver it on to a planet (or another asteroid at a second JP).
I agree.
Hmmm,
Steve, can you use a mass driver through a jump gate?You could have a mineral transport system like Starfire's old ICN system.
Oh, Beer, you can store as great a quantity of minerals as you like. It's not like a small asteroid has a huge gravity well, just set them down gently enough that thy don't bounce off and continue to pile. As you pile more, the asteroids gravity will increase by a slight amount and make stacking easier. Having "too many" minerals stacked simply means that you now have an asteroid resting on a pile of minerals.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 19, 2009, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: "Beersatron"
I never thought about the real world size of an asteroid and how much mass that would be!Well if the original asteroid weighs a couple of million tons, then you could stack a lot of minerals on it
I'm glad you think it could be workable though, should open up some possibilities, especially like what James mentioned in terms of using them as a mineral way station. Although you would get to the point were how much mineral storage capacity would a 'small' asteroid have that already has been hollowed out to fit a PDC or 3!
Steve
Post by: Randy on November 21, 2009, 05:31:20 PM
Next logical question: Why not build a "PDC" with engines on it to push the asteroid around?
Post by: waresky on November 22, 2009, 04:50:47 AM
Code: [Select]
FNE BattleSky class Orbital Weapon Platform 339900 tons 26724 Crew 86047.4001 BP TCS 6798 TH 504 EM 1800
98 km/s Armour 15-433 Shields 60-240 Sensors 160/1200/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1641 PPV 468
Annual Failure Rate: 887% IFR: 12.3% Maintenance Capacity 164716 MSP Max Repair 4200 MSP
Flag Bridge Hangar Deck Capacity 20000 tons Troop Capacity: 1.6 Battalions Magazine 21238
Fuel Harvester: 10 modules producing 400000 litres per annum
Maintenance Modules: 2 module(s) capable of supporting ships of 400 tons
GECiv Ion Engine E0.2 (6) Power 112 Fuel Use 2% Signature 84 Armour 0 Exp 0%
Fuel Capacity 12,000,000 Litres Range 3150.0 billion km (372023 days at full power)
Gamma R240/8 Shields (30) Total Fuel Cost 240 Litres per day
Quad 300mm C10 Extreme X-ray Laser Turret (5x4) Range 600,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 96-40 RM 9 ROF 15 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 21
CIWS-320 ECCM-2 (20x10) Range 1000 km TS: 32000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
GB Fire Control S05 300-10000 H40 (5) Max Range: 600,000 km TS: 10000 km/s 98 97 95 93 92 90 88 87 85 83
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (30) Total Power Output 675 Armour 0 Exp 5%
RGM Size 10 Missile Launcher (10) Missile Size 10 Rate of Fire 40
RGM Size 6 Missile Launcher (12) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 25
RGM Size 2 Missile Launcher (12) Missile Size 2 Rate of Fire 10
RIM Size 1 Missile Launcher (24) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 5
RGM Size 24 Missile Launcher (2) Missile Size 24 Rate of Fire 90
A-Boat Missile Fire Control FC2016-R18 (40%) (2) Range 1,088.6m km Resolution 18
RIM Missile Fire Control FC240-R1 (40%) (8) Range 7.2m km Resolution 1
A-Ship 5k Missile Fire Control FC288-R100 (40%) (2) Range 864.0m km Resolution 100
A-Boat Missile Fire Control FC384-R18 (40%) (2) Range 207.4m km Resolution 18
A-Fighter Missile Fire Control FC480-R4 (40%) (2) Range 57.6m km Resolution 4
RIM-1 Guardian 167 (4000) Speed: 33,600 km/s End: 1.5m Range: 3m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 537 / 322 / 161
RGM-10 Maverick-T 167 (700) Speed: 19,200 km/s End: 85.9m Range: 99m km WH: 24 Size: 10 TH: 134 / 80 / 40
ThermalBuoy-T 32 45 (14) Speed: 0 km/s End: 1350d Range: 0m km WH: 0 Size: 12 TH: 0 / 0 / 0
RBM-2 SiegeArrow T 167 (900) Speed: 18,700 km/s End: 2.7m Range: 3m km WH: 12 Size: 2 TH: 162 / 97 / 48
RGM-6 Arrowhead T 169 (1400) Speed: 16,000 km/s End: 125m Range: 120m km WH: 12 Size: 6 TH: 122 / 73 / 36
AF 36 Active Search Sensor S1728-R5 (40%) (1) GPS 8640 Range 86.4m km Resolution 5
AS 36 Active Search Sensor S1728-R20 (40%) (1) GPS 34560 Range 345.6m km Resolution 20
BattleArea AS 50 Active Search Sensor S2400-R20 (40%) (1) GPS 48000 Range 480.0m km Resolution 20
XSEH 26 Active Search Sensor S1248-R1 (40%) (1) GPS 1248 Range 12.5m km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH5-160 (40%) (1) Sensitivity 160 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 160m km
BattleArea 8XL EM Detection Sensor EM50-1200 (40%) (1) Sensitivity 1200 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 1200m km
ECCM-2 (5) ECM 20
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
ive all ready to build this real monster..but my Emperor..r little..curious to know our "Mates" Naval Designer here..BEFORE send ALL at Mars..vacancy holydays Inn
Post by: Steve Walmsley on November 28, 2009, 03:38:56 PM
Quote from: "Randy"
Umm...
Next logical question: Why not build a "PDC" with engines on it to push the asteroid around? :)
Steve
Post by: Kurt on December 20, 2009, 09:21:01 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Randy"Umm...
Next logical question: Why not build a "PDC" with engines on it to push the asteroid around? :)
Steve
I’ve been thinking about the concepts raised in this thread, as they have re-awakened the B-5 fan in me <G>.
I have always wanted to be able to do something along the lines of B-5 in both Starfire and Aurora, and to have it make economic sense. The problem with the “towing asteroids” concept raised in this thread is that Aurora prohibits the establishment of manned colonies on bodies smaller than moons, at least for most races. To stay within that boundary and still be able to make a B-5 type station, I propose the introduction of a “Space Station”, which is a mega-project, in essence.
As I envision it, a Space Station is a civilian structure primarily and has two basic components, Structure and Modules. Structure contains connection points for modules, and also contains station crew, power, and maintenance areas. Modules are the reason for the existence of the station in the first place. While I suppose they could be built anywhere, it might make sense to limit them to locations close to warp points to justify the economic bonuses discussed below. So far I have thought of the following modules:
Population Module (PM): A PM holds living and work spaces for population, perhaps the same amount that can be transported in a cryo-transport module. Perhaps more, as this is supposed to be big. If it isn’t doing anything else, population on a station generates income at, say, five or even ten times what a standard planetary population would generate. This is due to a “Way-station” trade bonus.
Cargo Module (CM): A CM is exactly like the cargo modules used for freighters. They can be the same size, or as with PM’s they can be larger. Anything that can be transported in a freighter’s hold can be stored in a CM.
Mass Driver (MD): An MD is the same as a planetary mass driver. A station with an MD can either receive minerals or send them to another location within a system.
Troop Module (TM): Exactly like the PDC’s troop capacity.
Military Module (MM): This can mount offensive and defensive weapons. While its active defenses can cover the entire station, its armor covers only the module and it either cannot have shields, or the shields will attenuate if they have to cover the entire station.
There are other possibilities. Fuel refineries, research labs, shipyards, maintenance facilities, all are possible.
As I envision it, construction ships would be used to build the station’s structure, which would have to be built in place, while the modules could either be built (slowly) in place by construction ships or at planets by industry and then towed to their final destination and installed by construction ships once they arrive.
I’m sure there are other modules and ideas. I am not sure if the military modules are a good idea. These structures should be vulnerable, not mega-fortresses sitting on warp points, unless everyone thinks that that is a good way to go.
What does everyone think?
Post by: sloanjh on December 20, 2009, 09:43:31 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
What does everyone think?
Don't forget the beanstalk
Seriously, if your station anchored the top of a beanstalk, then you could have trade/loading/... advantages, at least comparable to the commercial spaceport. In fact that might be a cool civilian installation to be able to build one or more of for economic benefit - "beanstalk" (they'd have to be REALLY expensive).
John
Post by: James Patten on December 21, 2009, 06:36:25 AM
The Babylon station concept was originally intended to serve as an interplanetary meeting place, IIRC. Not hard to do when everyone has hyperspacial travel and can get to it from pretty much anywhere. Not so easy when everyone has to travel through jump points and "invade" someone's space to get to it.
Post by: ShadoCat on December 23, 2009, 12:03:28 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
I have always wanted to be able to do something along the lines of B-5 in both Starfire and Aurora, and to have it make economic sense. The problem with the “towing asteroids” concept raised in this thread is that Aurora prohibits the establishment of manned colonies on bodies smaller than moons, at least for most races. To stay within that boundary and still be able to make a B-5 type station, I propose the introduction of a “Space Station”, which is a mega-project, in essence.
...
What does everyone think?
I've always assumed that when we get into space permanently that planets will be less likely to hold people than space stations.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 26, 2009, 07:59:35 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"I do like the concept of a "city in space". The trick will be getting it to work within the Aurora mechanics. The station would presumably spin to maintain gravity, which would avoid the main reason for the inability to create inhabited asteroid colonies. (digressing for a moment, that might be one way to create asteroid colonies. You have to hollow it out first and find a way to rotate it. The max pop and industry would be determined by internal volume.)Quote from: "Randy"Umm...
Next logical question: Why not build a "PDC" with engines on it to push the asteroid around? :)
Steve
I’ve been thinking about the concepts raised in this thread, as they have re-awakened the B-5 fan in me <G>.
I have always wanted to be able to do something along the lines of B-5 in both Starfire and Aurora, and to have it make economic sense. The problem with the “towing asteroids” concept raised in this thread is that Aurora prohibits the establishment of manned colonies on bodies smaller than moons, at least for most races. To stay within that boundary and still be able to make a B-5 type station, I propose the introduction of a “Space Station”, which is a mega-project, in essence.
As I envision it, a Space Station is a civilian structure primarily and has two basic components, Structure and Modules. Structure contains connection points for modules, and also contains station crew, power, and maintenance areas. Modules are the reason for the existence of the station in the first place. While I suppose they could be built anywhere, it might make sense to limit them to locations close to warp points to justify the economic bonuses discussed below. So far I have thought of the following modules:
Population Module (PM): A PM holds living and work spaces for population, perhaps the same amount that can be transported in a cryo-transport module. Perhaps more, as this is supposed to be big. If it isn’t doing anything else, population on a station generates income at, say, five or even ten times what a standard planetary population would generate. This is due to a “Way-station” trade bonus.
Cargo Module (CM): A CM is exactly like the cargo modules used for freighters. They can be the same size, or as with PM’s they can be larger. Anything that can be transported in a freighter’s hold can be stored in a CM.
Mass Driver (MD): An MD is the same as a planetary mass driver. A station with an MD can either receive minerals or send them to another location within a system.
Troop Module (TM): Exactly like the PDC’s troop capacity.
Military Module (MM): This can mount offensive and defensive weapons. While its active defenses can cover the entire station, its armor covers only the module and it either cannot have shields, or the shields will attenuate if they have to cover the entire station.
There are other possibilities. Fuel refineries, research labs, shipyards, maintenance facilities, all are possible.
As I envision it, construction ships would be used to build the station’s structure, which would have to be built in place, while the modules could either be built (slowly) in place by construction ships or at planets by industry and then towed to their final destination and installed by construction ships once they arrive.
I’m sure there are other modules and ideas. I am not sure if the military modules are a good idea. These structures should be vulnerable, not mega-fortresses sitting on warp points, unless everyone thinks that that is a good way to go.
What does everyone think?
Back to the B5 concept. Rather than have new modules that are specific to a new 'space station' unit type, I would prefer to find a way to adapt existing modules or add new systems so that a space station is simply a different design of 'ship'. For example, the cargo module would just be a cargo hold and the troop module would be troop transport bays (with perhaps a new larger version of both). Military modules would just be regular systems. A mass driver would be a huge new system that could be installed on any 'ship' without engines. A new 'population module' would simply be a huge version of crew quarters. New research labs, etc. could have a large crew requirement that would be fulfilled by the population modules, although fitting that into the existing research model might be tricky.
Having said all that, perhaps the better way to go might be the hollowing out and rotating of an asteroid so that asteroid colonies are possible. That could still create a B-5 style situation.
Steve
Post by: ShadoCat on December 26, 2009, 04:43:59 PM
One method of creating an asteroid colony is to Drill its core out, spin it and then "inflate" it using nukes in the hollow core.
If you want to learn more about the topic, try:
The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space 3rd Ed. by Gerard K. O'Neill
Publisher: Apogee Books
ISBN: 1-896522-67-X
If you want, I can glean info from the book for you.
Here are some basic stats:
Cylinder: length: 20 miles, diameter: 4 miles, interior surface area: 500 square miles at 1G and could hold several million people.
I'd say that population limit is a bit low since you could build at least 5 stories under the inner surface without getting too high in G (probably wouldn't break 1.1G).
Note that I would allow commercial engines on it. No reason not to but the mass is going to be large enough that they would crawl from location to location.
You can put weapons on them if you wish but I wouldn't want to see it in combat. Any good hit might evacuate the whole thing (talk about collateral damage to population).
I would also like to see the ability to build facilities into it (factories, research centers, space ports, etc.) to give the populations something to do. I would however, require a greater percentage of the population to be devoted to "support".
I want the space colonies to be more expensive that the equivalent ground colony. The thing that makes space colonies cost effective with today's tech is the fact that we are restricted to reaction drives. That makes gravity wells (planets) expensive to get to/from.
I don't know why engines would prevent a mass driver from working (it just takes time to stabilize and make sure the calculations are correct).
In general, as you increase the radius, you decrease the spin speed needed to attain 1G, increase the surface area and widen the "sweet spot" around 1G. You also make it more fragile and less maneuverable.
Also, all of my comments are based on "Newtonian" materials. A station built with Duranium would be very expensive but would be much more robust.
Post by: Kurt on December 27, 2009, 11:54:02 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I do like the concept of a "city in space". The trick will be getting it to work within the Aurora mechanics. The station would presumably spin to maintain gravity, which would avoid the main reason for the inability to create inhabited asteroid colonies. (digressing for a moment, that might be one way to create asteroid colonies. You have to hollow it out first and find a way to rotate it. The max pop and industry would be determined by internal volume.)
Back to the B5 concept. Rather than have new modules that are specific to a new 'space station' unit type, I would prefer to find a way to adapt existing modules or add new systems so that a space station is simply a different design of 'ship'. For example, the cargo module would just be a cargo hold and the troop module would be troop transport bays (with perhaps a new larger version of both). Military modules would just be regular systems. A mass driver would be a huge new system that could be installed on any 'ship' without engines. A new 'population module' would simply be a huge version of crew quarters. New research labs, etc. could have a large crew requirement that would be fulfilled by the population modules, although fitting that into the existing research model might be tricky.
Having said all that, perhaps the better way to go might be the hollowing out and rotating of an asteroid so that asteroid colonies are possible. That could still create a B-5 style situation.
Steve
I understand trying tto remain within the existing mechanics as much as possible, but I was thinking of something very large scale. However, as you noted, you could just add larger versions of the cargo module and a larger "living" version of the luxury passenger accomodation.
This could probably all be done within the existing mechanics, at least mostly, but I'd also like to see some incentive for doing this. After all, a player will be spending a lot of resources to build something like this, and even if protected they would be relatively vulnerable, so there would have to be some incentive for doing this. I can think of several:
1. Economic: A per capita income bonus if located near a jump point, to reflect the income multiplier from trade facilitation;
2. Military: A maintenance free (or at least time-clock free) military base located where needed in a system (like PDC's on a planet currently);
3. Scientific: Research stations located at exotic locations (gas giants/deep space/Oort cloud, whatever) gain bonuses to research.
There are probably more as well.
Kurt
Post by: Morrigi on January 19, 2010, 09:08:40 PM
Post by: Rathos on January 19, 2010, 11:19:12 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Beersatron"I am re-reading the Starfire novel 'Crusade' and am at the part about Asteroids that have been converted into super OWP's. That got me thinking if it would be possible to tow an asteroid within a system to orbit of a planet. From there you could 'Install PDC' or equivalent and then tow it out to the location you wish to deploy it.A fascinating idea. Not sure I can find a way to make it work but still fascinating to look at the possibilities. There are two sides to the question I think. The first is can you 'hollow out' an asteroid and turn it into a floating PDC. The second is can you move asteroids around. The reason to split this into two sections is that either by itself would be cool even if you couldn't do the other. Assuming you could move asteroids, I think the simplest way to approach this would simply be to avoid the complexities of 'hollowing out' and treat the asteroid as any other system body and place several PDCs on it. That allows asteroid fortresses with the minimum modification to the rules.
I guess there are few things to take into consideration:
1. Not sure if you do this already, but when generating asteroids do you give them a mass and three dimensions? That would mean you could only do this to asteroids that are a certain size - depending on how many PDCs you install.
2. it needs to have maintenance storage and usage but probably give it a highly reduced failure rate?
2.1 possibly allow maintenance facilities so it can act as a harbor for patrol vessels?
2.2 let it be designated as a collier, tanker and supply vessel/station.
3. Allow shields? or just rely on the natural armor of the asteroid used - depending on the (Duranium/Volume-of-asteroid) ratio? When installing the PDC ignore any inherent armor level added to the design.
4. When converted to an OWP remove it from the acceptable list of locations to drop off planetary sensors and mines.
5. Do not allow it to be transferred through a JP, even one with a gate.
6. ensure that any movement by tugs is slow but let multiple tugs pull it - depending on size of the asteroid
Sound feasible?
Anyway - lets look at moving asteroids first. Asteroids in Aurora do have diameter and mass, just like planets and moons. However all system bodies have been given a minimum mass 0f 0.0001 Earths, so as the first stage of looking at this idea I removed that minimum. Low masses will now be shown on the system view in scientific notiation to two significant figures to allow for realistic asteroid masses.
The formula used by Aurora to determine mass in Earth equivalents is: Mass = ((Radius / 6380) ^ 3) x Density (where Earth is density 1)
So Mars, which has a radius of 3400 km and a density of 0.71 would be Mass = ((3400 / 6380) ^ 3) x 0.71, which is 0.107 Earth masses and matches up with the Wiki entry for Mars
Mercury has a radius of 2440km and a density of 0.98: Mass = ((2440 / 6380) ^ 3) x 0.98, which is 0.055 Earth masses and also matches up with the Wiki
Lets try an asteroid with a radius of 20 kilometers and a density of 1: Mass = ((20 / 6380) ^ 3) x 1, which is 3.08055E-08 Earth masses.
Now we getting into scientific notation in terms of Earth masses so lets convert to metric tons instead. Earth is approximately 5.9736E+21 metric tons so if we multiply this by the Earth mass equivalent of our 40 km diameter asteroid, we get 1.8402E+14 metric tons or 184 trillion tons. So we won't be moving that then :twisted:
Post by: Morrigi on January 20, 2010, 03:59:52 PM
Post by: Virex on January 21, 2010, 09:29:02 AM
Speed = 1000 * Total power/Total Size
Total Size = 1000*Total power/Speed
Total Size = 10* total power
Total Size = 15,000,000
Total Mass = 750,000,000 tons
Mass Asteroid = 742,065,600 tons = 7.42*10^14 grams
So the diameter of the asteroid would be: (3*mass/(4*density*Pi))^(1/3) = 31,788 com or roughly 318 meters
Post by: Morrigi on January 23, 2010, 04:34:49 AM
By the way, a nickel-iron asteroid of that size, going 100 km/s would end up creating an 8 mile wide crater on impact. Ouch.
Post by: Virex on January 23, 2010, 03:27:32 PM
Post by: Rogtuok on February 25, 2013, 02:31:15 AM
Me personally don't see any problem with actually moving any object size you just need enuff tugs fuel and time. Or you can build a Orion drive to move the object. It whoud be a blast.
Post by: wilddog5 on February 25, 2013, 03:10:50 AM
edit : sorry for the language got over excited by the prospect :-[
Post by: Rogtuok on February 25, 2013, 03:30:20 AM
Post by: Zatsuza on March 01, 2013, 10:23:57 AM
Quote from: Beersatron link=topic=1784. msg16987#msg16987 date=1258406844
OP *snip*
Yeah, frankly I'd love to do this too. Anyone ever read the Night's Dawn Trilogy or The Empire from the Ashes? Hell, even Homeworld had people towing/firing asteroids at orbital factories. A sufficiently large asteroid could be used as an anchor to a space elevator/ industrial station/ orbital habitat for example. Also I think it would be much cheaper installing some kind of industry/weapons or habitat in a mined-out asteroid than creating a PDC or orbital habitat from scratch.
I think you could probably do it as a subset of automated mining colonies-- after the colony is completely mined out give it a certain tag that allows colonization, but if asteroids and comets work the same as planets I can see people making tugs large enough to throw superjovians at people.
Hell, if it's a sorium gas giant you wouldn't even need to fuel it, it could fuel itself. :D and of course you'd be running into size problems with the asteroids I think-- basing a twenty-thousand ton PDC in an asteroid that used to house about 10k duranium for example. . .
Then again, you could have construction begin by converting said asteroid into a PDC with the minerals it already contains, but that strikes me as a bit complex.
Post by: ollobrains on March 10, 2013, 06:14:30 AM
Post by: Thundercraft on March 10, 2013, 08:53:26 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=1784. msg17002#msg17002 date=1258475905
…[snip]
So to my surprise, this is starting to look possible for small asteroids. Bear in mind they are usually less dense than Earth as well so the actual towing speed would likely be slightly higher…[snip]
As I said earlier, there are no asteroids this small in Aurora. Adding them would be very straightforward though. They wouldn't contain minerals but they would be available to convert into some type of base, probably by building a PDC on them…
If you add mineral-less asteroids this small, I assume you would have to add multitudes of them to be realistic. Already, turning on "Orbital Motions for Asteroids" can impose a performance hit on older machines. I can only imagine what this would do to performance if this means keeping track of countless tiny asteroids as well. And since they don't have minerals, they wouldn't have much purpose outside strategies such as this.
Wouldn't a simpler approach be to have the player create these tiny asteroids by doing something to the current large asteroids? Perhaps by mining or an option to break them into small pieces?
Quote from: James Patten link=topic=1784. msg17703#msg17703 date=1261398985
The Babylon station concept was originally intended to serve as an interplanetary meeting place, IIRC. Not hard to do when everyone has hyperspacial travel and can get to it from pretty much anywhere. Not so easy when everyone has to travel through jump points and "invade" someone's space to get to it.
I was thinking how much different Aurora might be if players were allowed to research interstellar travel tech beyond jump gates. That might make such a B5 station concept more realistic. If races and players could eventually learn to travel with the equivalent to warp drives or super-hyperdrives that work between systems (at tremendous expense in research and resources), that would radically alter strategies and game play. Even the ability to build jump gates on artificial jump point wormholes to connect systems would radically change things. But this could easily be a game setup option so that players who don't want this and prefer strictly jump gates could leave it turned off.
Post by: alex_brunius on March 10, 2013, 04:49:57 PM
Post by: ollobrains on March 10, 2013, 10:04:52 PM
Post by: Rogtuok on March 11, 2013, 02:06:36 AM
Post by: alex_brunius on March 11, 2013, 01:11:28 PM
It also adds a new game mechanic. By putting the defense right on your gate the enemy have to risk blowing it up rendering it useless.
And why does construction have to be limited and use different rules? Any station (including gates and shipyard) complexes should be possible to build with both construction ships and planetary Industry, and require enough minerals (no free gates).
I guess one of the first balance questions with such a system is, can space stations travel between systems? Another good related one is, shouldnt jump gates have a maximum ship size they can transport, which might be possible to expand by adding more generic jump gate modules to our now modular jumpgate space station.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on March 11, 2013, 02:04:43 PM
Post by: alex_brunius on March 11, 2013, 02:45:58 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on March 11, 2013, 03:05:52 PM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3630.msg35388.html#msg35388 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3630.msg35388.html#msg35388)
Post by: Thundercraft on March 11, 2013, 05:59:00 PM
I'm also reminded of the star gates in SG:Atlantis and SGU. But they don't call them "jump gates".
Quote from: Charlie Beeler link=topic=1784. msg61205#msg61205 date=1363032352
Perhaps Steve opinion will help…
This is what he said,
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=3630. msg35388#msg35388 date=1306663339
…the stablised jump point, rather than an actual physical jump gate, is how I tend to view it as well. Maybe I should make that canon. I'll give it some thought.
Notice the "tend(s) to view" and the part about still deciding whether or not to make this canon?
Also, there's more than one way to interpret that statement. It sounds like he either a) envisions them as a stable jump point with no physical component whatsoever -or- that b) he thinks of the jump point first and foremost when thinking of jump gates (allow jump gates to have some physical component).
Quote from: alex brunius link=topic=1784. msg61204#msg61204 date=1363031158
Which sounds more like technobabble excuses then how we would want the game to work imho. A Construction Ship building a "gate" at least gives me an impression that some physical construction is ongoing.
I'd agree that it does sound like trying to excuse things away. And "building" a gate does imply that something physical is constructed. Though, it really is Steve's game, so the way "we would want" many not have much weight. That said, it's usually impossible please everyone, so why not make more stuff like this an option that players can turn on or off? (I'm reminded of games like Dwarf Fortress with "init" text files which allows tremendous customization to suit all sorts of player preferences…)
Quote from: Rogtuok link=topic=1784. msg61180#msg61180 date=1362985596
A orbital station could have a module named orbital docking or something that whoud enable you to add som special mods like dry dock orbital factories and other things. Could make it something like building a PDC that you need prebuild the parts planet side until you got it up and running and from ther it needs minerals to add to the station.
Considering how sophisticated a simulator Aurora is, I'm surprised that this isn't already implemented. It's a much more realistic approach. It shouldn't even matter if players want to do something weird, like try to combine a shipyard with the capabilities of a Deep Space Tracking Station by combining the relevant modules. (I'm reminded of the Xpace game, where one could build whatever type of station one would want merely by designing it with certain modules. )
Space stations are the heart and soul of space exploration. Imagine in the real world trying to colonize mars or explore/exploit the asteroids or other solar bodies without a space station. But even in fiction they are important.
One can envision other uses for them besides shipyards, tracking stations, and refueling, too. Weapons platforms would be cool. Even something like financial/commercial stations or luxury stations that increase wealth would be nice.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on March 11, 2013, 09:10:48 PM
You can build all the space stations you want, they just have to follow the same rules as ships.
The only thing limiting space stations right now is maintenance rules.
ps. Just because populations are organized by body doesn't mean the facilities are on the ground. :]
Post by: ollobrains on March 11, 2013, 11:37:43 PM
Post by: alex_brunius on March 12, 2013, 06:33:17 AM
Perhaps Steve opinion will help...And in another place he wrote that one of the main uses for sorium is jump gate construction...
We are just trying to suggest that it might be smart to redo and implement space stations and jumpgates properly, given how central they are to almost all sci fi lore in games, books and movies. It's not easy to find a single story without either stations or physical jumpgates in Space.
Aurora for me is about generating and experiencing a sci fi story, and without space stations it's a bit of an immersion breaker for me.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on March 12, 2013, 07:46:06 AM
Some things to take into consideration.
Gate construction does not use any minerals/components in the current version of the game. Most of you have not been around long enough to remember that this was not always the case. It used to be that gate components were manufactured by your industry and only assembled by gate construction ships.
Back when the component feature of gate construction was removed there had been a growing push to have a way to target and destroy the gates. Instead of building a functional way for combat ships to destroy gates, Steve removed the components thus negating the argument that physical components could be destroyed.
Something else too consider. There is no limit to hull mass that can transit a jumppoint at any one time. This lends itself to the concept of stabilized wormhole better than a physical construct.
Yes most of this is just my opinion. It is based on something of the order of 15 years of interacting with Steve rules interpretation and programming support of same. I'm not perfect in my interpretation as Steve has pointed out over the years.
Your mileage may very.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on March 12, 2013, 09:13:07 AM
Quote
Aurora for me is about generating and experiencing a sci fi story, and without space stations it's a bit of an immersion breaker for me.:|
Code: [Select]
Harbor class Starbase 502,500 tons 2050 Crew 11545.2 BP TCS 10050 TH 7200 EM 0
716 km/s Armour 5-563 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 14 Max Repair 200 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 68
Habitation Capacity 50,000 Tractor Beam
Maintenance Modules: 30 module(s) capable of supporting ships of 6000 tons
Heliosys Stable Booster (30) Power 240 Fuel Use 1.73% Signature 240 Exp 3%
Fuel Capacity 2,000,000 Litres Range 41.4 billion km (669 days at full power)
UN PHALANX (6x6) Range 1000 km TS: 12000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
X-Band Navigational Scanner (1) GPS 1600 Range 12.8m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposesCode: [Select]
Agincourt class Citadel 12,500 tons 173 Crew 1361 BP TCS 250 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 5-47 Shields 0-0 Sensors 14/14/0/0 Damage Control Rating 11 PPV 0
Maint Life 9.91 Years MSP 1749 AFR 113% IFR 1.6% 1YR 32 5YR 485 Max Repair 40 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 60 months Flight Crew Berths 184
Hangar Deck Capacity 4000 tons Troop Capacity: 1 Battalion
Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres Range N/A
UN PHALANX (4x6) Range 1000 km TS: 12000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
Navigational Psidar (1) GPS 1600 Range 22.4m km Resolution 100
Psi Link (1) GPS 26 Range 3.6m km Resolution 1
Thermal Scope (1) Sensitivity 14 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 14m km
Magnetic Scope (1) Sensitivity 14 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 14m km
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposesCode: [Select]
Y203 Marathon - Copy class Fuel Harvester 135,750 tons 538 Crew 2695.2 BP TCS 2715 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-235 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
MSP 12 Max Repair 100 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Spare Berths 1
Cryogenic Berths 1000 Tractor Beam
Fuel Harvester: 50 modules producing 1400000 litres per annum
Fuel Capacity 6,000,000 Litres Range N/A
UN PHALANX (2x6) Range 1000 km TS: 12000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
X-Band Navigational Scanner (1) GPS 1600 Range 12.8m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Post by: alex_brunius on March 14, 2013, 08:42:53 AM
But thanks for reminding me that Aurora is pretty flexible so you can build alot of ships that behave similarly to how a starbase would, which is ofcourse good and something I acknowledge.
Also interresting to know some history on this matter, thanks for that Charlie.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on March 14, 2013, 02:11:24 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_Propulsion_Module
We're used to the dichotomy between a harbor/naval base and a ship. Harbors are fundamentally different than ships, but space stations are just ships without engines. But we have inertia cancellation and artificial gravity (presumably). We can put engines on a space station without even worrying about structural factors.
You're right though that we can't really build what people want, which is giant space military space stations to guard jump points. It's just not practical with maintenance rules :)
Various interpretations of self-maintenance modules have been proposed, I assume it's something on Steve's long term 'look at' list.
Post by: alex_brunius on March 18, 2013, 10:45:11 AM
We're used to the dichotomy between a harbor/naval base and a ship. Harbors are fundamentally different than ships, but space stations are just ships without engines. But we have inertia cancellation and artificial gravity (presumably). We can put engines on a space station without even worrying about structural factors.I mostly agree. But a space station is built to be deployed for much more extended times and also possible to keep building and adding modules while deployed, and while the station does have engines it's more for minor adjustments to keep a "stationary" orbit.
You're right though that we can't really build what people want, which is giant space military space stations to guard jump points. It's just not practical with maintenance rules :)
Various interpretations of self-maintenance modules have been proposed, I assume it's something on Steve's long term 'look at' list.
I think these are some of the most important properties that sets it appart from a spaceship.
Post by: Thundercraft on March 18, 2013, 10:43:44 PM
...I think these are some of the most important properties that sets it appart from a spaceship.
I agree. Modularity is important. And as long as maintenance is still a big issue, building ship "space stations" is impractical.
To be realistic, space stations should have some maintenance requirements. But I'm thinking they should not require quite as much or as regular maintenance as starships, what with the latter having huge engines and powerplants to move around at high speeds, traversing through jump points, etc. Starships would be much more complicated and go through a lot of extreme stresses on a regular basis.
Also, I'd really like to see small, un-manned weapons platforms. You know, like "Star-Wars" type space-based weapons systems. It seems downright silly to build something like the Jump Gate Defence "Base" (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4647.15/):
Imagine the crew of 15 sat there for years on end, waiting for their one chance to fire their 4 missiles and then probably perish. . . ;D
Post by: Conscript Gary on March 19, 2013, 02:33:11 AM
Post by: alex_brunius on March 19, 2013, 04:53:07 AM
Perhaps also there needs to be a cap on maximum allowed deploy time aswell for small crews, sitting isolated in a small space alone or with 5 others for years has proven to be mentally demanding driving people crazy.
It could for example scale of amount of crew so your allowed to set a maximum of 1 month deployment time per crew member (for both ships and space stations). Some examples:
10 crew = 10 months
100 crew = 8.3 years maximum allowed deploy time.
1000 crew = 83 years maximum allowed deploy time.
Another cool option would be if we could research AI/Computer techs and instead of crew add automated computer systems to smaller craft/drones fulfilling such roles as jumpgate guards.