Piper,Originally posted by Piper:
So it seems.
Yes, they're out there in the same manner that cyclop kittens and six-legged deer are out there.
And I wouldn't count on their numbers providing enough hulls for my navy.
Have fun,
Bill
Piper,Originally posted by Piper:
So it seems.
Lochlaber,Originally posted by Lochlaber:
I would have some questions about the differention or lack thereof. (snip)
Bill, you say that like it's a bad thing.Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
...why can't [Traveller] also have triphibious monkeys with laser beams shooting out of their behinds...?
Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
We know that nickel-iron bodies exist. Some of these have been quite large.Yes, they're out there in the same manner that cyclop kittens and six-legged deer are out there.
Current theories suggest that these are produced when a larger planetoid is fractured by a collision. The extent of break-up is subject to a number of factors.
The asteroid size distribution curve (copy of earlier link) may require some adjustment, but does indicate that smaller bodies are more common than larger ones.
We don't seem to have much data on sub-kilometer asteroids, and asteroid density can be difficult to calculate because of the irregular shapes.
I'm not advocating a 10,000 ship asteroid fleet, but I don't see anything that would prevent a limited number of hulls being produced.
Your view will, no doubt, differ.
Thanks for the numbers, Robject.Originally posted by robject:
...The average price per ton, then, is Cr280 for small starship hulls across relatively short distances.
Now a pessimistic version. Assume it takes 4 days to reach the source, 30 days to find a planetoid, and 10 days to return it. That's 44 days total, or Cr440,000.
Average price is Cr880 per ton.
Lochlaber,Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lochlaber:
I would have some questions about the differention or lack thereof. (snip)
Piper,Originally posted by Piper: We know that nickel-iron bodies exist.
Yes, and their very size works against portions of their core being uncovered and released as independent bodies. And they'll still be 'nickel-iron' in concentrations that more resemble nickel-iron ores.Some of these have been quite large.
Smaller bodies should be more numerous. It's also thermodynamically impossible for those smaller bodies to retain enough heat long enough to differentiate and produce NiFe in any meaningful concentrations. Numerous smaller planetoids does not equate numerous chances for planetoid hulls.The asteroid size distribution curve may require some adjustment, but does indicate that smaller bodies are more common than larger ones.
That is exactly what I'm proposing too; a very limited number of hulls. It will longer to find suitably sized planetoids of the right composition than just a few days and, as Anthony correctly points out, the chances that those planetoids will have the structural strength a hul requires is next to nil. I suggested ways around both those issues; i.e. 'carving' hulls out of larger, differentiated planetoids and 'smelting' hulls into tougher bodies of higher NiFe concentration. I've also pointed out that belts formed by shattered planets, instead belts made up of unformed planets like our own, should have an abundance of planetoid hulls thanks to the differentiation of the 'parent' planet.I'm not advocating a 10,000 ship asteroid fleet, but I don't see anything that would prevent a limited number of hulls being produced.
Robject,Originally posted by robject:
Because his effort is wasted here.
The apparantly common view on planet creation is the aggregation of mmterial, starting on a level of molecular attraction, proceeding growth up to 1 km, keeping a non-rigid structure, that is capable to take and compensate punches of further "assimilate" impacting pieces. Depending on impacts energy local heating/mealting processes can occur.Originally posted by Lochlaber:
I would have some questions about the differention or lack thereof.
1. What is the difference between the unformed planet and the formed planet? By this, when during the formation process would the failure occur. It couldn't be too early because then the material would have remained very small, much like water droplets in a fog. At the very least, the cloud would have had to be well into the process to have created planetoids such as Vega. As such, why couldn't a lot of the differentiation have already occurred?
Er, AFAIK the belt in our solar system exists because its objects are kept small by shepard Jupiter.
2. Given that observational data on the asteroid/planetoids is rather sketchy, are we sure about the idea that our asteroid belt was created by an unformed planet? By this I mean a planet still in the gasous phase. Also, how certain are we that this is the more prevalent method of planetoid formation in the universe?
Honestly, even if I like the basic idea to use a rock as starship and given that there are plenty of rocks around to use them the Traveller way, this would not convince me as an engineer
Given that our knowledge of how planetary systems is limited, both in scope and the fact we have only observed the results of 1 such system's formation, we continue to work with planetoid hulls. There is no reason to suspect that planetoids in other systems won't follow the OTU manner of formation. Ater all don't we have fusion power planets that fit inside 100 dton hulls, jump engines, anti-gravity, etc..
Robject,Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
Because his effort is wasted here.
Er... license for what? You take people as what they are. Poor presentation is irrelevant to whether or not a fact is true.Originally posted by robject:
Smarts don't give license in my book. Period.
Er... license for what? You take people as what they are. Poor presentation is irrelevant to whether or not a fact is true. </font>[/QUOTE]Ask anyone who has been on the receiving end of his keyboard.Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
Smarts don't give license in my book. Period.
Oh, I know that Consty has a grating personality and writing style. I just don't know what point you're trying to make about license.Originally posted by robject:
Ask anyone who has been on the receiving end of his keyboard.