Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[~Neri]

Research BFR's (Big Fucking Rocks), basically they are massive bullet shaped pieces of solid metal designed to be relatively cheap and cause massive damage to planetary targets and for kilometers around them, we could stick a propulsion unit onto them or build something to fire them.

[Unholy_Pariah]

Have you read about rods from god?
They operate on the same principle but their compact shape means can fit more projectiles in each dropper platform using missile rack mounts and we could tack manouvering fins on the side of the rods to increase accuracy.

[~Neri]

RFG's are basically lower power BFR's. In this case i'm referencing the BFR's from the Lost Fleet series, they are intended to be devastating to the point where several hundred can shatter a planet.

[Unholy_Pariah]

Oh, thats a lot of firepower.

[~Neri]

I'm pretty sure the average tonnage is several hundred tons, the ships launch them going at around .10 lightspeed towards the intended target. so its .10 LS + gravity + any built in propulsion.

I recommend the Lost Fleet series, great space battles.

[RadtheCad]

Some more long-term planning, here...

I'm assuming we control our drones with wireless signals.  In that case, we can't send them off to other planets while staying at this moon-  we'd get quite a bit of lag, so they'd have to be self-controlling in order to deal with anything.

>Check what kind of propulsion mechanisms we have, and how our drones propel themselves.  Do we require fuel?

>Check how our reactor works.  Does it require fuel?  How long is it going to last?

>See if we can figure out how reactor works

>check feasibility of turning our shell into a spaceship.  We'd definitely need more structural integrity to survive accelerations, that's for sure.  Not to mention docking bays for all our drones...


I assume everyone agrees being a spaceship would be better than being a satellite?

[10ebbor10]

Some sort of almagation of ideas+ own suggestions

Research:
1. Orbit to ground Ballistic weaponry
2. Distributed Computing
3. Spider Bot ground unit (Cheap)

Construct:
1. Naval Dockyard
2. Gravitational Survey Array
3. Another Mine
4. Solar Power array (we might need it)
5. More SCD's
6. Further station repair

We might want to think about building an orbital defense platform to store our drones in. Prevents them from taking up too much space in the hull

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Some sort of almagation of ideas+ own suggestions

Research:
1. Orbit to ground Ballistic weaponry
2. Distributed Computing
3. Spider Bot ground unit (Cheap)

Construct:
1. Naval Dockyard
2. Gravitational Survey Array
3. Another Mine
4. Solar Power array (we might need it)
5. More SCD's
6. Further station repair

We might want to think about building an orbital defense platform to store our drones in. Prevents them from taking up too much space in the hull

PTW and +1

[RadtheCad]

On the subject of orbital defense platforms-  are we sure we want this?  It would make us more static than before, and make it harder to keep everything together.  If we just add more hull space on to our current structure, we'll have less targets that can be hit by, say, debris, we'll have more immediate control, and we'll have a meatshield in case something big hits us.

 tl;dr:  -1 to building a whole seperate, vunerable structure we'll just leave floating in space.  Expand our own hull, if needs be, whilst increasing structural integrity.

[10ebbor10]

It's easier to move 2 separate stations, than move 1 massive station. Aerodynamics is not that important in space, but the forces arceleration excerts on a frame are. The smaller something is, the stronger.
 
Besides, we're not going to move anywhere anytime soon. Our station is both too large and way too heavily damaged to survive significant acceleration. Not to mention that we have no engine, nor any meaningful destination.

[RadtheCad]

If our station is so massive, and we have no means of propulsion whatsoever, how have we not fallen out of orbit yet?  It seems highly improbable that our orbit would have survived after whatever happened to that moon.  In any case, I still don't think that having a seperate, floating structure is a good idea.  We're an AI, so our structures are our sphere of influence;  but we're still bound by connections.  Having a free- floating structure like that, only controlled by wireless signals, is just begging to be stolen or sabotaged.

Besides, if we don't have any thrusters, it's better to keep our facilities close by and secure, no?

[Unholy_Pariah]

Some sort of almagation of ideas+ own suggestions

Research:
1. Orbit to ground Ballistic weaponry
2. Distributed Computing
3. Spider Bot ground unit (Cheap)

Construct:
1. Naval Dockyard
2. Gravitational Survey Array
3. Another Mine
4. Solar Power array (we might need it)
5. More SCD's
6. Further station repair

We might want to think about building an orbital defense platform to store our drones in. Prevents them from taking up too much space in the hull

PTW and +1

+1 insofar as the gravitational survey array becomes a full spectrum survey and surveillance sensor array. (e.g. gravitational, thermal, video, electromagnetic, everything.)

Besides, if we don't have any thrusters, it's better to keep our facilities close by and secure, no?

Close and secure yes, but we have limited space within our shell which is better suited to defensive and utility upgrades.
Also our lack of thrusters makes orbital drop weaponry unusable against anything not directly below us, hence the need for smaller platforms capable of altering their own orbital trajectory.

[RadtheCad]

Well, I seem to be going against popular opinion here.  Fine, I'll stop opposing the orbital platform-  but if we really don't have any thrusters, then I insist we get some.  Sattelites in real life have them for a reason;  as it is, we're sitting ducks if some kind of large object comes our way.  Like, say, a bit of shattered moon, or an asteroid.

If thrusters are against popular opinion, too, then I'd just like to advocTe more station repair and greater structural integrity.

[10ebbor10]

If our station is so massive, and we have no means of propulsion whatsoever, how have we not fallen out of orbit yet?  It seems highly improbable that our orbit would have survived after whatever happened to that moon.  In any case, I still don't think that having a seperate, floating structure is a good idea.  We're an AI, so our structures are our sphere of influence;  but we're still bound by connections.  Having a free- floating structure like that, only controlled by wireless signals, is just begging to be stolen or sabotaged.

Besides, if we don't have any thrusters, it's better to keep our facilities close by and secure, no?

Depending on the nature of our orbit (probably quite high) and the fact that the moon we're orbiting doesn't appear to have an atmosphere (enemy used laser weaponry, IIRC), orbital decay could be very, very small. Even more so considering our station is so massive. (The larger it is, the more energy you need to disturb the orbit.)

As for not being flung into outer space after the lundar destruction event, as long as the debris stays more or less together, our station would not be disturbed to greatly. Additionally, depending on our orbit, it's quite probable that the planet had a greater gravitational effect on us than the moon.

As for the communications issue, the idea was that we store our drone in said station. Most of the times these would be out and about, allowing us to save more space in the hull for more important facilities. Hacking issues exist just as much for drones wherether they'e stored in  our hull as in another station.

Third, we have subspace energy links FTL communicaton doesn't seem unlikely.

Fourth, distributing facilities is a good idea to prevent one hit for taking everything out.

Close and secure yes, but we have limited space within our shell which is better suited to defensive and utility upgrades.
Also our lack of thrusters makes orbital drop weaponry unusable against anything not directly below us, hence the need for smaller platforms capable of altering their own orbital trajectory.

Only true if we're in a geotationary orbit.

Well, I seem to be going against popular opinion here.  Fine, I'll stop opposing the orbital platform-  but if we really don't have any thrusters, then I insist we get some.  Sattelites in real life have them for a reason;  as it is, we're sitting ducks if some kind of large object comes our way.  Like, say, a bit of shattered moon, or an asteroid.

If thrusters are against popular opinion, too, then I'd just like to advocTe more station repair and greater structural integrity.

We probably have some sorts of thrusters, but don't expect much out of them. I honestly doubt we can massively influence our orbital trajectory.

[RadtheCad]

FTL signaing?  Well, that simplifies things greatly.  Anyway, my reasons for demanding/wanting greater mobility are the other planets mentioned by OP.  We want to find out the truth about ourselves-  and though we can inspect and manipulate this moon with our drones well enough, we'll have to move on eventually.  We'll run out of resources, for example.

In short, I think being mobile will be necessary for our goals in the long term, and I think that preparing for it now could be useful.  But obviously, I'm just a voice in the masses.  Good day.