Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 03:06:05 EDT
Okay, with the couple of chatters that I started with my Armageddon post, I am
deciding that I am not satisfied with the massive levels of interest in space
that FASA has developed. It may seem incredibly stupid to some, and even I
admit it is NOT -Street Level SR-, but it is, without a doubt, a really
interesting possibility.

I want to approach of a couple of questions that Deep Impact and Armageddon
opened up to me (and please note, this is only a few).


S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E
S

F
O
R

T
H
E

S
E
N
S
I
T
I
V
E

T
Y
P
E
S

Deep Impact first (I saw it first, and I do agree, it ranks -FAR- higher on
the believability scale).

Okay, power plants. I have targetted the Space Shuttle to be at the 100
Ton(nes) range, and as such, makes it possibly an approachable "Hull 1"
category vehicle. As such, it does gain the benefits of "ignoring minor
damage forms" that would come from most of the minor/micro meteoric nature
(hey, the current one has some shielding against this now). The -REALLY- cool
craft they came up with in DI had some really interesting possibilities, and
even reminded me somewhat of the vehicle concepts that Sagan and Asimov have
bounced around for over 20 years now. Controlled, micro-scale, nuclear
bursting from a shielding vent at the rear of the vessel. THIS could be some
impressive speed -AND- it could be controllable enough to work as feasible
thrust. Easily on par with what the Messiah (the name of the ship in DI)
could pull off (intercepting the comet at "MONTHS" time to spare).

Landing / Ground-Effect Maneuvering (Both Shows)
Okay, in DI, they used a very nifty grappling line system in order to secure
the "drop ship" portion of Messiah to Biederman (don't remember the other guys
name). I have been wracking my brains on exactly how to pull this off, even
to point of modifying the Design Systems in R2 to accomodate for such.
Winch/Crane is easy, Firelinking some grappling cables would require the Naval
Weapons Control Network that Jon Szeto has tinkered with. ESPECIALLY if you
wanted to guarantee certain degress of line control after the cables are
secure. Types of firearms/projectiles that are releasing these cables???

Both movies had their crews landing on the objects and using maneuvering
thrusters to stay in position. Okay, no problem. I followed that part
easily. Now what I didn't get was dealing with relative position in
accordance to Object Motion (aka, the Comet in DI or the Asteroid in
Armageddon). Both objects had a relative degree of rotation. From what
information I could draw out of both films, the Comet rotated far more than
the Asteroid did. The comet also had FAR greater effects when it did so than
the Asteroid (due to material composition and script determination ;) Back
OnT now ... what degree does Rotation vs. Gravity have to exist before
whatever is riding such an object is simply flung out into space?

Weaponry (Armageddon Here)
Okay, in one point of the movie, Rockhound (one of the characters) get's his
hands on a really neato as hell chain gun, which in SR could easily be
described as a Sight-Guided (FDDM?). Question, what kind of modifications
have to be made in order for a "Standard Propellant Firearm" to be utilizable
within a space (near-vaccum environment)? That is the -ONE- scene where I had
to do a double take and simply say "let the guy kill himself so we can get
back to the movie." The concept was nice, but WHY do you need a weapon like
that in those situations? What, was Armageddon a prologue for Independance
Day and the army just wanted to make sure the little green men could be made
into Tofue??? What the Hell?

(end gripe now)

Air Reclamation
Okay, something that I know that not as many may, is that there are some rough
drafts for a "Oxygen Reclamation" system. What kind of design cost and
requirements do you think this kind of device would have? Damn, I can't even
remember the name now. It's used on Submarines now too. The reason I am
asking is because using the rules for "EnviroSeal" as they stand in R2 would
simply NOT work in such an environment or at least for that long of a mission
parameter. For Armageddon yes, it would, but for DI, NOT a chance.

Types of Skills that would work.

Okay, in the games we have here in Lafalot (giggle), we've run around a few.
Things like "Zero-G Operations", which works against a given set of modifiers.
We've also argued that "Vector Thrust" could also work, with a new category of
such being added. That of "Variable Thrust Operations" (working with more
than just the resisting of gravity, but in a near-zero or true-zero
environment). With the addition of R2, we've also argued out the concept of
"Anthroform (Zero-G)" as a possible new concentration.

(BTW, a lot of this is already on Hacker House for longer perusal and further
debate concepts)

Since the last time or three this topic has been bounced around, do you folks
have any more ideas or possible ways of going at this? And as for one
possible alternative line this could be done/gamed out. In the SRComp (hush
for a second please MC23 ;) it mentions alternative character groups
(DocWagon, Corporate, Gang, etc.) What about the "corporate" connection for
this? For the purpose of keeping with SR, it would almost have to be
corporate, or a Corporate / Governmental approach to things.

Vehicle Concepts and even Envirosuits are a thought. The "Armadillo" from
Armageddon was really cool, but just a bit too much for me. I would LOVE to
see one of those things running loose in a game on Earthside though (loved
their definition of Off-Road Handling).

(and yes, an "End of the World" game has occurred to us just for the fun of
it)

Well???
-K
Message no. 2
From: Wiebke & Birger Timm <WiebkeT@********.DE>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 14:08:49 +0200
K is the Symbol wrote:

> OnT now ... what degree does Rotation vs. Gravity have to exist before
> whatever is riding such an object is simply flung out into space?

The forceF=(m*v^2)/r =(4*pi^2*m*r)/T^2
has to be less than than gravity, where F is the radial force (I'm not sure if
that's the correct word), m the mass of an object, v is the velocity and r the
radius, T is the rotation time (againg not sure about the word...for example 24
hours on earth) and everybody knows pi (which unfortunately isn't among the ASCII
characters).
But that's OT, isn't it?

BlueDrake
Message no. 3
From: roun <roun@***.NET>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:05:07 PDT
k wrote:
<snip>
| S
| P
| O
| I
| L
| E
| R
|
| S
| P
| A
| C
| E
| S

<snip>
| Deep Impact first (I saw it first, and I do agree, it ranks -FAR- higher
on
| the believability scale).
yuppers

<snip stuff that is over my head>
| Landing / Ground-Effect Maneuvering (Both Shows)
| Okay, in DI, they used a very nifty grappling line system in order to
secure
| the "drop ship" portion of Messiah to Biederman (don't remember the other
guys
| name). I have been wracking my brains on exactly how to pull this off,
even
| to point of modifying the Design Systems in R2 to accomodate for such.
| Winch/Crane is easy, Firelinking some grappling cables would require the
Naval
| Weapons Control Network that Jon Szeto has tinkered with. ESPECIALLY if
you
| wanted to guarantee certain degress of line control after the cables are
| secure. Types of firearms/projectiles that are releasing these cables???
how about a grappling gun which they have even now. not sure about the
stats but it would be something like the ranges for a heavy crossbow
maybe?? availability would be pretty good and they would be legal and easy
to get from a specialty climbing shop. i think the mechanism of firing
these would be along the lines of an underwater speargun. a sling or
pneumatic firing mechanism. you could just have huge versions of these
hooked up to weapons control network (WCN) with self adjusting tensioners
to keep them at a certain degree of pull, not too tight to snap, not too
loose to let the ship move.
keith, you are good at these things...you could probably brainstorm
something.

| Both movies had their crews landing on the objects and using maneuvering
| thrusters to stay in position. Okay, no problem. I followed that part
| easily. Now what I didn't get was dealing with relative position in
| accordance to Object Motion (aka, the Comet in DI or the Asteroid in
| Armageddon).
i am not up on astrophysics at all but i believe that the shuttle (or space
vehicle) would HAVE to be computer assisted to pull off landing on a moving
asteroid. to calculate the speed, vector, line, and positioning of such a
maneuver goes way beyond what we are capable of (imho). you could not just
fly this action by the seat of your pants unless you had to. especially on
the asteroid from armageddon. it was so jagged and convoluted and rotating
along 3 different axis' (how do you plural that word??). the one from deep
impact would be easier as it was more smooth and flat...comparatively.

|Both objects had a relative degree of rotation. From what
| information I could draw out of both films, the Comet rotated far more
than
| the Asteroid did. The comet also had FAR greater effects when it did so
than
| the Asteroid (due to material composition and script determination ;)
actually i think how the asteroid/comet was depicted in deep impact was
more accurate as the varying surface temperatures of objects in space do
vary by several hundreds of degrees based on whether they are in direct
sunlight or not. the explosions and hostile surface situation of DI was
what it would be like (again imho).

|Back
| OnT now ... what degree does Rotation vs. Gravity have to exist before
| whatever is riding such an object is simply flung out into space?
again, astrophysics i know nothing about but it seems that any sufficiently
large entity in space can have gravity if it spins fast enough. actually
it doesn't even have to be that large at all. as long as it has spin.
hell, the space shuttle could have gravity of a sorts (weak though) if it
was spun. not the right shape though to have gravity along one floor or
wall. look at mir. it is not very big at all (certainly not as big as the
comet/asteroid from both pictures. and yet it is built to spin so that
vertain parts of it have gravity, or pull.
reading that now i realize i have totally not answered keith's question
<grin> so as to surface gravity instead of just pushing you down against
the outside wall of a space station in spin, someone else waaaaay more
knowledgeable than i should answer.

| Weaponry (Armageddon Here)
| Okay, in one point of the movie, Rockhound (one of the characters) get's
his
| hands on a really neato as hell chain gun, which in SR could easily be
| described as a Sight-Guided (FDDM?).
wow....drool...yes that gun was bleepin great. OT didn't steve buscemi do
an excellent job playing someone who goes off the deep end cuz he thinks
the world is going to end???

back OT
| Question, what kind of modifications
| have to be made in order for a "Standard Propellant Firearm" to be
utilizable
| within a space (near-vaccum environment)?
i do not believe any modifications need to be made. the hammer hits the
tail end of the bullet and the impact sparks the reaction that makes the
bullet move (can you tell i know next to nothing about the mechanics of
bullets and guns....know how ta shoot 'em tho). just because they are in
space should make no difference. if anything the bullet would not vary
from it's course at all really as the gravity is not nearly as strong as
earth's and there is no atmosphere.

|That is the -ONE- scene where I had
| to do a double take and simply say "let the guy kill himself so we can get
| back to the movie." The concept was nice, but WHY do you need a weapon
like
| that in those situations? What, was Armageddon a prologue for
Independance
| Day and the army just wanted to make sure the little green men could be
made
| into Tofue??? What the Hell?
no kidding. neat gun but having it there made no sense. what...are they
going to find aliens on the asteroid piloting it to hit the
earth???......now there's an idea...<EGMG>

<snip>
| Air Reclamation
| Okay, something that I know that not as many may, is that there are some
rough
| drafts for a "Oxygen Reclamation" system. What kind of design cost and
| requirements do you think this kind of device would have? Damn, I can't
even
| remember the name now. It's used on Submarines now too. The reason I am
| asking is because using the rules for "EnviroSeal" as they stand in R2
would
| simply NOT work in such an environment or at least for that long of a
mission
| parameter. For Armageddon yes, it would, but for DI, NOT a chance.
well i know nothing about this either but how about this for an alternate
method. for a big enough ship taking a long trip to have a little garden
with species of trees and plants that have been altered/bred/genetically
manipulated to take in more co2 and spew out o2 in an even greater ratio
than todays plant/tree life.
as for what you are talking about.....i couldn't see these things
reclaiming more than 10%-20% of o2 from the air. but of course by 205X who
knows. as much as 50% maybe??? again, design and stats i leave to someone
else better at it than i. unless my players REALLY need it i usually just
say what it does and how much it does it and how much it costs. they don't
need to know how it works....hehehe....comes of having players who trust me
<HAHAHAHA>

| Types of Skills that would work.
|
| Okay, in the games we have here in Lafalot (giggle), we've run around a
few.
| Things like "Zero-G Operations", which works against a given set of
modifiers.
| We've also argued that "Vector Thrust" could also work, with a new
category of
| such being added. That of "Variable Thrust Operations" (working with more
| than just the resisting of gravity, but in a near-zero or true-zero
| environment). With the addition of R2, we've also argued out the concept
of
| "Anthroform (Zero-G)" as a possible new concentration.
sounds good. that is what the pools are for. low/zero gee simulation to
get skilled in moving about in it.

| Since the last time or three this topic has been bounced around, do you
folks
| have any more ideas or possible ways of going at this? And as for one
| possible alternative line this could be done/gamed out. In the SRComp
(hush
| for a second please MC23 ;) it mentions alternative character groups
| (DocWagon, Corporate, Gang, etc.) What about the "corporate" connection
for
| this? For the purpose of keeping with SR, it would almost have to be
| corporate, or a Corporate / Governmental approach to things.
why not use tired old ares (tired of being used <grin>) macrotech. they
bought nasa and your team are astronauts/or in training to be. this way
they would be taught skills that it is hard to learn ANYWHERE else. i
mean, who would know the skills neccessary for space?? damn few people or
organizations.

| Vehicle Concepts and even Envirosuits are a thought. The "Armadillo" from
| Armageddon was really cool, but just a bit too much for me. I would LOVE
to
| see one of those things running loose in a game on Earthside though (loved
| their definition of Off-Road Handling).
i actually think the armadillo could be made like in the movie. just not
as fast maybe. you wouldn't want to hit a large bump going too fast (of
course you have the directional thrudters which keep you on the
ground...BUT...)

| Well???
| -K
good ideas. hope this helped. now my question:

how many corps/countries do you people think have active space interests
besides ares. i mean the capabilities to lauch shuttles and or have
working space stations.

roun aka david
roun@***.net

<<please direct all flames to my email address above, NOT the list>>
Message no. 4
From: Iridios <iridios@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 00:46:33 -0400
roun wrote:
Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:05:07 PDT

> k wrote:
> <snip>
> | S
> | P
> | O
> | I
> | L
> | E
> | R
> |
> | S
> | P
> | A
> | C
> | E
> | S
>

<snip much stuff I don't want to comment on at this time>

> |Back
> | OnT now ... what degree does Rotation vs. Gravity have to exist before
> | whatever is riding such an object is simply flung out into space?
> again, astrophysics i know nothing about but it seems that any sufficiently
> large entity in space can have gravity if it spins fast enough. actually
> it doesn't even have to be that large at all. as long as it has spin.

Actually, I thought gravity was due to mass, not spin.

> hell, the space shuttle could have gravity of a sorts (weak though) if it
> was spun. not the right shape though to have gravity along one floor or
> wall. look at mir. it is not very big at all (certainly not as big as the
> comet/asteroid from both pictures. and yet it is built to spin so that
> vertain parts of it have gravity, or pull.

Spinning Mir, and any other space station, produces centrifugal force
(centripedal? I get those two confused). Centrifugal force is the 'tendacy' of
an object to move outward from the center of spin, thus pushing you down to the
floor. Gravity pulls you down. IIRC.

> reading that now i realize i have totally not answered keith's question
> <grin> so as to surface gravity instead of just pushing you down against
> the outside wall of a space station in spin, someone else waaaaay more
> knowledgeable than i should answer.
>

<snip more talk>

> i do not believe any modifications need to be made. the hammer hits the
> tail end of the bullet and the impact sparks the reaction that makes the
> bullet move (can you tell i know next to nothing about the mechanics of
> bullets and guns....know how ta shoot 'em tho).

Actually, you are pretty much right on target here, the 'reaction' that moves
the bullet forward, starts in a sealed container (shell casing) and then is
still contained (relatively) in the barrel until the bullet leaves said barrel.
A caseless round could be engineered to operate in a vacuum by including all the
reactant material in the propellant block.

<snip the rest>
<snip sig>

--"Any science, sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."
--Arthur C. Clarke

Iridios
iridios@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9489
http://members.theglobe.com/Iridios

-------Begin Geek Code Block------
GS d-(++) s+: a- C++ U?@>++ P L E?
W++ N o-- K- w(---) O? M-- V? PS+@
PE Y+ !PGP>++ t++@ 5+ X++@ R++@ tv
b+ DI++ !D G e+@>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
-------End Geek Code Block--------
Message no. 5
From: John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 00:30:38 -0500
>Actually, I thought gravity was due to mass, not spin.

All objects have gravity to a certain extent. However only large massive
bodies (like planets and moons) have enough to be perceptible by humans.
Jump too hard on the moon and you'll fly right off, gravity is too weak.
The moons gravity is one of the major factors that causes the ocean tides.

Centrifugal force can be used as a sort of pseudo gravity. The spinning of
the object (such as a spacestation) causes you to be pressed to the outside
wall. Its technically not gravity, but for all intents and purposes its
identical. Just dont spin TOO hard or you'll flatten the poor saps.

-Teeg
Layman
Message no. 6
From: roun <roun@***.NET>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 22:22:31 PDT
| > |Back
| > | OnT now ... what degree does Rotation vs. Gravity have to exist before
| > | whatever is riding such an object is simply flung out into space?
| > again, astrophysics i know nothing about but it seems that any
sufficiently
| > large entity in space can have gravity if it spins fast enough.
actually
| > it doesn't even have to be that large at all. as long as it has spin.
|
| Actually, I thought gravity was due to mass, not spin.
huh, as i said, astrophysics i know notting senor.

| > hell, the space shuttle could have gravity of a sorts (weak though) if
it
| > was spun. not the right shape though to have gravity along one floor or
| > wall. look at mir. it is not very big at all (certainly not as big as
the
| > comet/asteroid from both pictures. and yet it is built to spin so that
| > vertain parts of it have gravity, or pull.
|
| Spinning Mir, and any other space station, produces centrifugal force
| (centripedal? I get those two confused). Centrifugal force is the
'tendacy'
| of
| an object to move outward from the center of spin, thus pushing you down
to
| the
| floor. Gravity pulls you down. IIRC.
i was talking about artificial gravity which is centrifugal force, yes

| <snip more talk>
|
| > i do not believe any modifications need to be made. the hammer hits the
| > tail end of the bullet and the impact sparks the reaction that makes the
| > bullet move (can you tell i know next to nothing about the mechanics of
| > bullets and guns....know how ta shoot 'em tho).
|
| Actually, you are pretty much right on target here, the 'reaction' that
moves
| the bullet forward, starts in a sealed container (shell casing) and then
is
| still contained (relatively) in the barrel until the bullet leaves said
| barrel.
| A caseless round could be engineered to operate in a vacuum by including
all
| the
| reactant material in the propellant block.
well i am glad my guesses were right in this part at least.

roun aka david
roun@***.net

<<please direct all flames to my email address above, NOT the list>>
Message no. 7
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 01:27:05 EDT
In a message dated 7/5/98 10:48:42 AM US Eastern Standard Time, WiebkeT@**
ONLINE.DE writes:

> > OnT now ... what degree does Rotation vs. Gravity have to exist before
> > whatever is riding such an object is simply flung out into space?
>
> The forceF=(m*v^2)/r =(4*pi^2*m*r)/T^2
> has to be less than than gravity, where F is the radial force (I'm not sure
> if
> that's the correct word), m the mass of an object, v is the velocity and r
> the
> radius, T is the rotation time (againg not sure about the word...for
example
> 24
> hours on earth) and everybody knows pi (which unfortunately isn't among the
> ASCII
> characters).
> But that's OT, isn't it?
>
Okay, so what you are basically saying is that massive formula must be less
than or equal to the Gravity of the place? So if Earth Gravity is a "1", then
the formula must be equal to or less than a one in order to remain in place?

Okay, if that's true, then that ain't bad. I can deal with that ... I think
... :)

-K
Message no. 8
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 01:31:35 -0400
>> |Back
>> | OnT now ... what degree does Rotation vs. Gravity have to exist before
>> | whatever is riding such an object is simply flung out into space?
>
>Actually, I thought gravity was due to mass, not spin.

What you really want is something that accelerates objects toward the
"floor". This can be gravity, centrifugal force or plain old thrust. If you
were in a 5 meter cube with no windows, you would not be able to tell the
difference between the three.

>Spinning Mir, and any other space station, produces centrifugal force
>(centripedal? I get those two confused).

Spinning Mir produces centrifugal force on bodies in contact with Mir. In
order to get Mir to spin in the first place, you must apply centripetal
force to Mir. "The force exerted on the body that causes the body to move
with circular motion is always a centripetal force; the only centrifugal
force in uniform circular motion is the reaction force exerted by the body"
[Ohanian Physics: Second Edition, pg 149.]

In answer to the original question, figuring out what it takes to fling an
object off a rotating body, depends on a number of factors, including how
hard the object can hang on. The equation for centripetal force for pure
circular motion is F = ma = mv^2/r. In the equation, r is the radius of the
rotation, m the mass of the object and v is the velocity of object. Note
this equation assumes all of the mass of the object is clumped at the outer
rim of the radius. The equation gets more complicated if the mass is spread
throughout the circle (as it would be in the case of Mir), but this should
illustrate the purpose.

Basically, to avoid being flung off of the outside of the spinning object,
you would need to be able to resist the force F in some manner. If you were
hanging on to the outside, this would be the same as hanging from a
horizontal bar on earth. How well you could hang on would depend on how
strong you were, how much weight you were carrying and so on. If someone
started to pile extra weight onto you (i.e. more force), you would have to
fight harder to stay on the bar. In the spinning Mir situation, instead of
adding more weight to you, someone could make the station spin faster.

If you were on the inside of the station, however, the force on you would
still be directed outwards. If you stood on an out wall, this force would be
constantly trying to accelerate you outward. Thus, it does exactly what
gravity does on Earth. Naturally, the outer wall would absorb this force,
just as the Earth's surface absorbs the acceleration on you now. Viola,
artificial gravity.

Wordman
Message no. 9
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 01:34:22 -0400
>The moons gravity is one of the major factors that causes the ocean tides.

And, naturally, the Earth causes "tides" on the moon. The powerful gravity
of Earth has, over the eons, slowed the spin of the Moon to the point where
same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.

Wordman
Message no. 10
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 01:52:13 EDT
In a message dated 7/5/98 11:07:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time, roun@***.NET
writes:

> how many corps/countries do you people think have active space interests
> besides ares. i mean the capabilities to lauch shuttles and or have
> working space stations.
>
I can do this without spoiler spaces...

I know that Proteus has this potential now from their Arkobloks, which is just
way to cool IMO. Especially if those things are vaguely movable. Makes them
really nice. I also begin to get the idea that the question of "who has
access to space" needs to be defined out a bit more.

Apparently any Megacorp or even some Second tier's have the ability to put
satellites and stuff up, but the ability to put people??? I don't know about
that.

-K
Message no. 11
From: roun <roun@***.NET>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 22:57:49 PDT
| > how many corps/countries do you people think have active space interests
| > besides ares. i mean the capabilities to lauch shuttles and or have
| > working space stations.
| >
| I can do this without spoiler spaces...
|
| I know that Proteus has this potential now from their Arkobloks, which is
just
| way to cool IMO. Especially if those things are vaguely movable. Makes
them
| really nice. I also begin to get the idea that the question of "who has
| access to space" needs to be defined out a bit more.
|
| Apparently any Megacorp or even some Second tier's have the ability to put
| satellites and stuff up, but the ability to put people??? I don't know
about
| that.
|
| -K

yes i am talking about people and space stations. i wonder if anyone with
a campaign that is moderately canon has had manned space exploration to
mars??

roun aka david
roun@***.net

<<please direct all flames to my email address above, NOT the list>>
Message no. 12
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 02:03:43 EDT
In a message dated 7/6/98 1:00:05 AM US Eastern Standard Time, roun@***.NET
writes:

>
> yes i am talking about people and space stations. i wonder if anyone with
> a campaign that is moderately canon has had manned space exploration to
> mars??
>
Actually guy, you just trounced your own question. FASA has nothing "Canon"
concerning space of any real extent. As such, what you are suggesting isn't
truly possible. Neat yes, within SR Mechanics as they currently stand, NO.

-K
Message no. 13
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 02:59:30 EDT
In a message dated 7/5/98 9:14:54 PM, Teeg wrote:

>>Actually, I thought gravity was due to mass, not spin.
>
>All objects have gravity to a certain extent. However only large massive
>bodies (like planets and moons) have enough to be perceptible by humans.
>Jump too hard on the moon and you'll fly right off, gravity is too weak.
>The moons gravity is one of the major factors that causes the ocean tides.
>
>Centrifugal force can be used as a sort of pseudo gravity. The spinning of
>the object (such as a spacestation) causes you to be pressed to the outside
>wall. Its technically not gravity, but for all intents and purposes its
>identical. Just dont spin TOO hard or you'll flatten the poor saps.
>
>-Teeg
>Layman

Just a couple of minor points. No flames.

The first is that you can indeed "jump off" some moons -- really small ones,
smaller than Phobos -- but you can't do it off THE Moon, Luna. Gravity there
is (IIRC) 1/6 of Earth's, too great for you to achieve escape velocity with a
standing high jump. <g>

The second is that "artificial gravity" -- centripetal force -- isn't exactly
identical to the real thing. On small structures using spin for gravity, you
experience something called the Coriolis effect. This makes you dizzy if you
stand up too quickly, and distorts the trajectories of objects thrown (or
shot) in this environment. The bigger the structure, the less the Coriolis
force. For instance, we don't even notice it on Earth, even though the Earth
is spinning, because the place is so durn big. But it would be noticeable on a
small spaceship being spun for "gravity". Maybe a negative modifier for
anyone sufficiently stupid to fire a gun in this environment?

Smilin' Ted
Message no. 14
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 03:03:12 EDT
In a message dated 7/6/98 2:00:47 AM US Eastern Standard Time, Tuvyah@***.COM
writes:

> The first is that you can indeed "jump off" some moons -- really small
ones,
> smaller than Phobos -- but you can't do it off THE Moon, Luna. Gravity
there
> is (IIRC) 1/6 of Earth's, too great for you to achieve escape velocity with
> a
> standing high jump. <g>

1/8th actually IIRC.

> The second is that "artificial gravity" -- centripetal force -- isn't
> exactly
> identical to the real thing. On small structures using spin for gravity,
you
> experience something called the Coriolis effect. This makes you dizzy if
you
> stand up too quickly, and distorts the trajectories of objects thrown (or
> shot) in this environment. The bigger the structure, the less the Coriolis
> force. For instance, we don't even notice it on Earth, even though the
Earth
> is spinning, because the place is so durn big. But it would be noticeable
on
> a
> small spaceship being spun for "gravity". Maybe a negative modifier for
> anyone sufficiently stupid to fire a gun in this environment?


THAT was something else I was trying to remember, the Coriolis effect (I am
using your spelling on that one :). It would definitely have the potential
for action modifiers, especially when it came to thrown weapons or unarmed
combat (at least, IMO).


Of course, that is part of what we were trying to overcome with the "Zero-G
Operations" skill that we came up with...

-K
Message no. 15
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:51:58 EDT
In a message dated 7/6/98 6:00:07 AM !!!First Boot!!!, roun@***.NET writes:

> | I know that Proteus has this potential now from their Arkobloks, which is
> just
> | way to cool IMO. Especially if those things are vaguely movable. Makes
> them
> | really nice. I also begin to get the idea that the question of "who has
> | access to space" needs to be defined out a bit more.
> |
> | Apparently any Megacorp or even some Second tier's have the ability to
put
> | satellites and stuff up, but the ability to put people??? I don't know
> about
> | that.
> |
> | -K
>
> yes i am talking about people and space stations. i wonder if anyone with
> a campaign that is moderately canon has had manned space exploration to
> mars??
>

Here in Lafayette, I have placed Ares and Saedder Kruppe in the forefront of
Space Exploration within the Solar System.

Ares is constructing a Moonbase down by the southern pole (on the dark side)
and has a number of vehicles ... a lot of vehicular class craft, but a few
Hull 1 to 3 space vessels.

Saedder Kruppe has a facility in orbit which in about twenty years is going to
look something like the space station orbiting Earth from Star Trek. SK also
has the largest corporate vessel ... a Hull 7 carrier which carries vehicles
and cargo to and from the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars. This is in
addition to a number of smaller Hull 1 and 2 vessels also.

Aztlan / Aztrechnology have jointly constructed a Hull 10 Mass Driver in
space, and has it currently positioned just overhead of Tenochtitlan. This is
currently the only vessel they have at the moment. They do have the fastest
fighters capable of intra-atmospheric operations, the Tzitzimine fighters,
which are capable of speeds close to Mach 10 within the atmosphere ... and
they approach Mach 12+ when in space.

As for others, there are many orbital factories, some of which are supported
by more than one corporation ... there are also automated mining systems on
some of the asteroids which come close to the Earth, they spend a year mining
and then dump their cargo when they come within range of the Earth, and just
launch it towards the orbital factory to whom the mining drones belong to.

-Mike

Who has in the game had the UN declare the summoning of the Wild Hunt
intentionally and use of the Mass Driver against Earth itself as both Weapons
of Mass Destruction.
Message no. 16
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here) -Reply
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:51:14 -0500
> Back OnT now ... what degree does Rotation vs. Gravity have to exist
>before whatever is riding such an object is simply flung out into
>space?

Well, you aren't going to get a body that is rotating fast enough to spin
you off into space, because if it existed, it would spin itself to pieces. In
fact, you won't see anything of any size (meaning more than 100
meters or so, more or less) getting even close, because the big chunks
are made of smaller chunks held together by their (very small but not
zero) gravity. If the "effective gravity" (real gravity minus the cenrifugal
force) gets too low, then the escape velocity gets really low, and every
time a micrometeorite hits it, it will get smaller as all the shards drift off
permanently into space.

Now, it would be possible to take a nice solid piece of rock (or a
spaceship hull, for instance) and spin it up pretty fast. It will hold
together for centuries. Its just that a million years later you won't be
able to find it--it will be smaller and spinning slower (not friction, the
pieces flying off take some of it's angular momentum with it.)

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 17
From: Greg Symons <gsymons@******.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:20:34 -0400
>In a message dated 7/6/98 1:00:05 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
roun@***.NET
>writes:
>
>>
>> yes i am talking about people and space stations. i wonder if
anyone with
>> a campaign that is moderately canon has had manned space
exploration to
>> mars??
>>
>Actually guy, you just trounced your own question. FASA has nothing
"Canon"
>concerning space of any real extent. As such, what you are
suggesting isn't
>truly possible. Neat yes, within SR Mechanics as they currently
stand, NO.
>
>-K

I don't know about rules, but there is definitely some canon Mars
exploration. In Missions (? it's a book of adventures) there is a
scenario involving the Ares space program. I don't remember the
details offhand (I only read it in the store) but there was something
about a failed manned mission which discovered "something strange" on
Mars, possibly alien activity.

Also, in Dunkelzahn's will isn't there some mention of Mars, and
finding out what Ares knows? I think I recall someone mentioning that
on here at some point (I don't own Portfolio of a Dragon, so I can't
look it up).

Point being, if they don't have any rules for space now, I wouldn't be
to surprised to find them in something that's coming up (perhaps the
new corp book? Good place to expand on Ares' aerospace assets)

Greg


*********************************************************************
* *
* \ (__) Greg Symons <gsymons@******.temple.edu> *
* \\(oo) Seanchai/ and Follower of Bri\de *
* /-----\\\/ *
* / | (##) "Hearken closely and you shall hear the *
* * ||----||" sound of cows and bagpipes upon the heath" *
* ^^ ^^ *
*********************************************************************
Message no. 18
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:44:26 -0400
At 01:20 PM 7/6/98 -0400, you wrote:

<Snip>
>I don't know about rules, but there is definitely some canon Mars
>exploration. In Missions (? it's a book of adventures) there is a
>scenario involving the Ares space program. I don't remember the
>details offhand (I only read it in the store) but there was something
>about a failed manned mission which discovered "something strange" on
>Mars, possibly alien activity.

Yes it is Missions and that particular one directly involves Mars and Alien
activity. You play either reporters or AresSpace security guards. It can be
adapted very easily to runners. A very good one, IMO, since it involves a
lot of thinking, groundwork, investigation, MIB, and still gives you the
oppurtunity to blow up a lot of shit!

>Also, in Dunkelzahn's will isn't there some mention of Mars, and
>finding out what Ares knows? I think I recall someone mentioning that
>on here at some point (I don't own Portfolio of a Dragon, so I can't
>look it up).
>

Yeah, there are 3 pictures in there from NASA and you get 1% of Ares stock
if you can prove what's up with them. And all of the details of doing so
are found in... Missions! Easy, huh?

>Point being, if they don't have any rules for space now, I wouldn't be
>to surprised to find them in something that's coming up (perhaps the
>new corp book? Good place to expand on Ares' aerospace assets)

They don't have rules for them, but a lot can be interpreted from Corporate
Shadowfiles (ZO section) and the travel stuff from NAGRL. Suborbital
launches can put stuff in orbit with not a lot of trouble, instead of
carrying passengers.

Sommers
"Let a runner own 1% of Ares? Hmmmmm... talk about free samples:)"
Message no. 19
From: Wiebke & Birger Timm <WiebkeT@********.DE>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:48:05 +0200
K wrote:

> Okay, so what you are basically saying is that massive formula must be less
> than or equal to the Gravity of the place? So if Earth Gravity is a "1",
then
> the formula must be equal to or less than a one in order to remain in place?

Well I think so. I didn't try to fill in numbers. Only looked it up in a physics
formula book which we use at school...but books don't neccessarily have to be
right (many examples...) ;-)

BlueDrake
Message no. 20
From: William Ashe <wmashe@***.NET>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:15:29 -0700
o.k. as a real physicist ... at least that's what my degree says ...
personally I think I majored in beer drinking and personal flagellation.

Force of Gravity = G Mm/r^2
Force of circular motion = F=A/m=v^2/r (r is the TOTAL radius ... Re+Rh ...
total height from center of earth)

to stay in a circular orbit Fgü ... to go into elliptical orbits I have to
whip out my books and do energy conservation.

The above anaylsis is correct for any planet ... just punch numbers into a
calculator

***Halliday and Resnick*** has a good chapter on planetary stuff with only a
minimum of math.

If you want more... I'll pull out my books ... better to go offlist for that

Regards
Bright-Light
http://freeweb.pdq.net/wmashe/shadowrun.html (Fiction site updated)
Message no. 21
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 16:56:04 -0500
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, William Ashe wrote:
> o.k. as a real physicist ... at least that's what my degree says ...
> personally I think I majored in beer drinking and personal flagellation.

Well I didnt finish my Physics degree but i got through 3 years of it
before switching to Computer Science. It was Quantum Mechanics that sunk
me.

> Force of Gravity = G Mm/r^2
> Force of circular motion = F=A/m=v^2/r (r is the TOTAL radius ... Re+Rh ...
> total height from center of earth)
> to stay in a circular orbit Fgü ... to go into elliptical orbits I have to
> whip out my books and do energy conservation.

Looks right to me.

> The above anaylsis is correct for any planet ... just punch numbers into a
> calculator
> ***Halliday and Resnick*** has a good chapter on planetary stuff with only a
> minimum of math.

AH! the classic of college Freshman Physics books. I think we have
atleast 3 diferent editions of that text in my house (My dads, mine, and
my younger brothers:)). Still one of the best general physics references
and still coming out with new editions.

> If you want more... I'll pull out my books ... better to go offlist for that

I should still have my Analitical Mechanics text at home. It had LOTS of
stuff on rotational and orbital mechanics, say half the book :). But your
right we should go off list for the esoteric stuff.

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 22
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:51:49 -0500
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Wordman wrote:

> In answer to the original question, figuring out what it takes to fling an
> object off a rotating body, depends on a number of factors, including how
> hard the object can hang on. The equation for centripetal force for pure
> circular motion is F = ma = mv^2/r. In the equation, r is the radius of the
> rotation, m the mass of the object and v is the velocity of object. Note
> this equation assumes all of the mass of the object is clumped at the outer
> rim of the radius. The equation gets more complicated if the mass is spread
> throughout the circle (as it would be in the case of Mir), but this should
> illustrate the purpose.

Actualy it shouldnt get that much more complicated. All you have to do is
calculate the Center of Mass of the Object. The radius r is then messured
between the CM and the axis of rotation.

> Basically, to avoid being flung off of the outside of the spinning object,
> you would need to be able to resist the force F in some manner. If you were
> hanging on to the outside, this would be the same as hanging from a
> horizontal bar on earth. How well you could hang on would depend on how
> strong you were, how much weight you were carrying and so on. If someone
> started to pile extra weight onto you (i.e. more force), you would have to
> fight harder to stay on the bar. In the spinning Mir situation, instead of
> adding more weight to you, someone could make the station spin faster.

Just as long as the station itself can deal with the centrifical force.
It has to hold on to itself as well.

> If you were on the inside of the station, however, the force on you would
> still be directed outwards. If you stood on an out wall, this force would be
> constantly trying to accelerate you outward. Thus, it does exactly what
> gravity does on Earth. Naturally, the outer wall would absorb this force,
> just as the Earth's surface absorbs the acceleration on you now. Viola,
> artificial gravity.

Well unless you have a weak spot in the wall, say from weapons fire. THen
the outer wall might not absorb the force and you go flying <EG>.

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 23
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:26:43 -0300
At 14:51 08/07/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Wordman wrote:
>
>
>> If you were on the inside of the station, however, the force on you would
>> still be directed outwards. If you stood on an out wall, this force
would be
>> constantly trying to accelerate you outward. Thus, it does exactly what
>> gravity does on Earth. Naturally, the outer wall would absorb this force,
>> just as the Earth's surface absorbs the acceleration on you now. Viola,
>> artificial gravity.
>

Or you could do as in Clarke's Rendesvouz (sp?) with Rama... A cylindrical
ship rotating around it's own axis, making gravity on all internal walls. I
designed something along these lines, using a triple-cylinder layout...

Bira

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about SR In Space (Lots of Technical Requests Here), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!