« first day (969 days earlier)      last day (2561 days later) » 

12:00 AM
Indeed. The Verrisirs are a deeply spiritualist people. I guess you could call their form of government a Templar Council, which is basically a cross between a military junta and a theocratic oligarchy, where there's no division between the military, the state, and the dominant religion. Sort of like how Imperial Japan was run during WWII.
The Verrisiran nobility are basically what's left after their previous government, a semi-constitutional monarchy (i.e. like Belgium, but with the monarch having more powers) was overthrown by an atheist socialist revolution.
(which is ironic since the author of the book that led to the revolution was so furious that his writing had been twisted out of proportion that he gorged out his eyes, declawed himself and went into self-exile; he was trying to write a book on how the government could be more constitutional).
 
@SCPilot stinks to be that guy.
Which body writes the legislation?
What do they do for courts?
 
Hm....Well, the legislation is mainly that of their old constitution, but with what was added on later after the military successfully crushed the socialist infidel revolutionaries. For who writes the laws, mainly the military and spiritual leaders convene to discuss important laws, although it is the priesthood who mainly writes the laws, although the nobility does have a say in the matter, serving as representatives of the people.
For courts...Well, a military tribunal with a priest/priestess serving as inquisitor (please note inquisitor is a bit different in Verrisiran society than others; in their society an inquisitor is there as an added security guard. Inquisitors are quite powerful psionic warriors and usually wield a psi-sword, which is a bit similar to a lightsaber, except it uses psionic energy instead of plasma energy).

One thing about Verrisiran society is that they highly value charisma.
In their past, pack warlords needed to be charismatic to lead their people and get them to follow them in battle to expand. These same warlords eventually learned that charisma could also be useful in getting people to join your pack peacefully and could even get other warlords to swear fealty to you.
 
12:15 AM
I'd be curious to read their constitution. Have you written one yet?
 
But they're not stupid, charisma can be gained or lost depending on what you do. If you can't walk the talk, then you're going to lose a lot of charisma. This is why Verrisirs are big on risk taking and are quite curious about things.
No not really, but I do have some basic rights that are in it:
First, right of worship. While they do have their own religious beliefs, they are curious about other faiths and hope that by learning of other faiths, it will add to their spiritual nature. Besides, another race's faith might actually be the same as theirs, but different due to differences in meaning and views. It was because of this, that they are very curious about Christianity, since to them it actually supports one of their beliefs: their gods did not create the universe! More on that later
 
You've made it sound like there is very high religious homogeny. Kind of like Catholicism in Italy. It's super weird if you aren't Catholic.
 
Also, they're very anti-slavery. Slavery, to them, is a sign of extreme laziness. They do have some good relations with the Sacred Hrekan Imperium who practice a caste system, but the Verrisirs are always ready to be critical of their scaly humanoid snake friends (who are quick to counter with criticisms of the Verrisirs' warrior culture).
And yes, I'm not Catholic. Lol!
I was actually trying to go with something with State Shinto along with some qualities of Catholicism.
But without the ritual suicide.
The right to speak your mind, is also protected, even if it what you have to say makes you look like an idiot. Just try to be respectful of others. However, this is a bit of a problematic right since someone who talks big is expected to lead by example (going back to the importance of charisma). So to them, someone like Trump would have a lot of charisma and should be followed, although they would caution that there should a lot of caution and wariness involved (given that Trump has no
military or religious experience).
Right to bear arms.
.................

This is a warrior culture here people! Right to bear arms is no brainer in my opinion. of course you can argue with me on that I guess. ;)
Oh @Green, they've never had a geocentric system. To them, that sort of thinking is stupid...and heretical. Of course, their sun goddess is highly revered, so it makes sense they would have a heliocentric system at the very beginning.

Of course, this makes me wonder: would societies with the sun deity as the most powerful or central deity automatically have a heliocentric view of the universe?
Any thoughts on this?
 
12:51 AM
@SCPilot Possibly. The most prominent heliocentric religion I know is the Aztecs of Central America. Sadly, I don't know enough about them to say if they had a heliocentric universe.
I know they were really good astronomers but I don't know if they knew about the sun as the center of the solar system..
 
I see.
 
Hmmmmm.
Gentlemen? How could any species develop intelligence on Kepler 186f?
At least in comparison to my proposed fictional moon orbiting HD 37124 c?
 
1:33 AM
@SCPilot I like this world you've got going here.
 
2:28 AM
I was thinking about how there are so many different mains power connectors for different countries…
It would be funny to make up a “forign” plug for some out of the way country that the traveller encounters.
So what would be funny, not just another socket?
Although a different funny idea is to make a plug that really does match the “universal” socket, complete with funny shapes that match the holes.
 
 
5 hours later…
8:05 AM
An idea for a magic setting that might be hard to pull off:
9. Magical ether: A field like entity that permeates all of spacetime. Magical users are like being immersed in the magical ether and their specific body gestures (or other magical related things) will literally stir this ether creating flows as if a fluid is subjected to forces. Magical effects are then created when the flow are directed in various ways. Does not interact with science since it act as if it is nonexistent under any attempt to disprove its existence, that is, it only exists if one believe in it. Using such a setting will require clever thinking to figure out how a region aff
Well, it is still straightforward to came up with a science mechanism to mask it as long thermodynamics remains intact.
 
@Secret Read this (it's free and actually pretty good!) for an example of what you're talking about
 
8:18 AM
> Geological mana, like biological mana, has an owner, and therefore cannot be used by any human. Waste mana has no owner (null owner).

At the beginning of the story, waste mana is undetectable and unusable, although theory predicts both that it exists and that it obeys the same laws as biological and geological mana. As far as anybody knows, waste mana sinks back down into the Earth where it is presumably unrecoverable. It is theoretically possible to capture escaping waste mana using a specialised mana battery known as a "bilge".
Hmm, magic has ownership, that's an interesting way to impose the restriction criteria that defines magic
> Magic is a new science. It is expensive, but the cost is coming down. It is poorly understood, but understanding is advancing rapidly. Its applications are presently limited to specialist fields, small components of larger, mainly electromechanical systems, and well-funded Big Science research and development (e.g. NASA, defence contractors)... but this is changing...


Back to Ra
Uh...
I want an example where the magic violates Asmov 3rd law of magic
and coexists with science
Ra is not good enough (though I like that ownership idea)
Sorry misquote:
Clarke's 3rd law
IMO, in a setting where magic and science coexists, if the magic cannot violate Clarke's 3rd Law, then technically speaking there is no magic in the setting
 
@Secret It's literally impossible to violate Clarke's third law...
 
 
1 hour later…
9:31 AM
@Secret you can edit after you post, you know.
 
9:47 AM
@JDługosz That's true but there's a time limit, and it expired after I finished typing the "Ra is not good enough" line
 
@Secret that seems to be too short of a time limit.
 
In that case the likely explanation is that since in the past I tend to type too slow in between posts in chat rooms and the thing expires, I got used to that adaptation and assume I have expired without checking carefully that I can (probaby?) still edit it
Perhaps I should check more often
 
Maybe your original use is an example of Stigler’s Law
Anyway, I’ve since worked out a scenareo based on the second post I referenced just above.
 
10:03 AM
it is common to thought an idea is original, only to realise someone had already thought of it when revealed in conversations or from further reading (e.g. Your links and ra showed that my idea is not the first, and it is thought of in more depth than mine). This means the need for me to read more.
So I might have invoked stigler law by accident
This is one reason I like to share ideas with people, if it is unoriginal, then I get to learn more about how the founders analyse and work with said idea, (and to give them proper acknowledgement should I use them in my works), or if it is quite original (which is rare), then I can develop it further and it will represent new territory for inquiry
For me, worldbuilding is one of the many ways to ask an "what-if" question, often to explain why something that is impossible in reality is impossible. The thought process is also loosely based on prove by contradiction, that something that is impossible must have otherwise cause mayhem if it is possible, which we have not observed
If in rare cases it does not cause mayhem, then such impossible entity will be quite interesting to investigate further of its implications
So in a sense, worldbuilding is mostly used by me as constructing thought experiments to investigate philosophical questions
For example, me seeking and attempt to worldbuild for a counterexample for Clarke's 3rd Law is basically asking the philosophical question: What is the intrinsic property of magic (that is independent of the author's judification)
(meanwhile still reading the second link)
My focus might the reason why I am generally bad at plot development, because I tend to put the settings' consistency (and its implication to the world it resides in) as the first priority before thinking about the story
 
10:19 AM
@Secret I've tried to come up with counterexamples before and usually end up thinking about things like Doctor Who, before realising that that's sci-fi tech, not magic...
 
I knew that feeling, I have came up with 8 other possible mechanisms and types of magic in the past, but once I put science into the equation and let them interact, I have trouble finding anything that makes magic magic (not to mention at least 2 of them are already considered by some anime in some more sophisticated fashion)
 
@Secret As in, to me, one of the defining properties of magic is that is does what appears to be impossible. One of the defining properties of futuristic technology is that it can do things we never even thought of a century ago
 
Hmm, definition wise, they seemed to overlap quite heavily...
 
And that's the problem... I can come up with however many magical abilities you like, but if it seems physically impossible, then 'we have a technology that can open up a gateway to another universe' does the trick :/
 
My only newest primitive idea for something that might work is basically a magic that allows a finite process that violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics (proved in 2017 March to be a mathematical impossibility without an infinite process), but even if that works to violate Clarke's 3rd Law, it will introduce another very problematic problem to worldbuilding, the issue of consistency.

You see, something that violates science is easy to take care of (we just upgrade and refine our models to incoporate that new phenomenon), but mathematics is another story...
I cannot imagine how mathematically impossible phenomenon can exists in real life, let alone in fiction (which we usually rely on real life experience work out/speculate how concepts interact in a worldbuilding setting)
But then, I might be not entirely correct....:
If we factor in culture, religion and spirituality, then under worldbuilding settings they can become as physical as they can in a setting, and then maths will have no say whatsoever about them
 
10:34 AM
@Secret Exactly. Worse is that we have experiments that can do things like the delayed choice quantum eraser, yet going about doing that with actual magic would be harder
 
Well, about quantum, despite its basic rules involving hilbert spaces, can do really weird things that (afaik) no settings of magic have ever considered
for example in 2016, there's an experiment where you can basically superimpose A cause B and B cause A together, resulting in the overall result to have no information on the causality of events occured
Whereas as far my own knowledge goes, one of the iron rules I heard about magic is that "magic is a strict progression of cause and effect"
that is, in most settings, it often has a source, and a target
(but again I have not read a lot of fictional works yet, thus I stand to be corrected as I continue my reading)
But one thing I do learn from that example is that, reality is a lot stranger than any fiction we can came up of
which might be feeding back to the definition of "futuristic technology" itself
 
11:08 AM
@Secret also, have you read Greg Egan’s Oceanic? Not magic, but if you’re familiar with the idea of post-humans returning to a biological form.
 
12:01 PM
@Secret "I cannot imagine how mathematically impossible phenomenon can exists in real life, let alone in fiction" In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four Winston is coerced into believing that two plus two make five. One way to create a mathematical impossibility is in the mind of a man.
@Secret If magic breaks the conservation laws, then magic would be magical and not scientific. But a lot of fiction regularly violates conservation laws, often without realizing they are doing so, especially in a lot of old science-fiction.
 
12:43 PM
@Secret You may want to consider these "1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". In addition, I assure you that "Magic" has no universal rules, laws or anything. One creates a world were there is Magic and states the rules, if they feel so inclined and that is th
 
 
1 hour later…
2:02 PM
@a4android but mathematical impossibility describes most pseudoscience etc. Logic is a math, so most all irrational thought in general is covered too!
@EnigmaMaitreya the 4 or 5 percent includes a large quantity of nutrinos, so you can’t classify it as electromagnetic.
 
@JDługosz Agreed but what did you mean 4 or 4 percent? That is not a nit picking, I want to know what you mean vs a typo
 
2:19 PM
@EnigmaMaitreya I am not trying to link magic to physics, I am trying to investigate what makes magic magic and not science, technology etc. But everytime I look for such solutions directly, (apart from a few WSE links which explores this issue), almost always it is said that magic is purely up to the authors
 
Gentlemen?
To take down a fleet of 19 spacecraft, the majority of them being transports while 9 of them are military spacecraft, how many Battleship Orions do I need to keep them at bay?
 
EnigmaMaitreya: it is why I now tried to do it indirectly via worldbuilding.
Btw, this strong interest of the nature of magic really stems from watching The Librarians, because that show seemed to treat magic quite accurately to the folklores and myths in historical accounts, thus may offer insights into what is magic before the "the author determines it" mindset started to become widespread
 
So, gentlemen?
9 military spacecraft equipped with point defence lasers, nuclear pulse fusion engines, railguns, and swarms of drones vs a small group of Battleship Orions = who wins?
 
@Secret Because Magic, True Magic, can not exist in Physics.
 
@FutureHistorian What are the specs of a battleship Orion?
 
2:27 PM
@Secret IF I were to base Magic, The Force, Telekinesis, Levitation, Teleportation etc on something, then I would base it on Quantum Mechanics.
 
Battleship Orion? Well, it is a nuclear pulse fission spacecraft, has 500 20 Mt nuclear devices, 3 Mk. 127 mm (5 inch) naval cannons, 6 CIWS defence systems and 6 Casaba Howitzer nuclear lasers.
Also two hangars for hypersonic spacecraft.
 
@EnigmaMaitreya Ok let me put it in another way. In a historical cultural perspective, folklores, myths and legends often talked about supernatural forces of some sort, witchcraft, paganism, magic etc. Suppose for the moment that what all those folklores claimed are real, then how will phenomenon induced by them will differ from similar phenomenon by physical laws?
 
@Secret.
Oh and NOTE: The 9 military spacecraft, along with 10 transports/supply craft got to the Solar System in multistage antimatter torchships. So, at this point, they already ditched the antimatter first and second stages.
 
@Secret Yes, the Mist, the Ether, The Vapors etc. Again all of them can be allowed using Quantum Mechanics. I am going to search for the quote and hope to find it that explains why ... One should NOT take that as proof :)
 
So, with these specifications, who could win? The 9 military extraterrestrial spacecraft or the 4 Battleship Orions launched into orbit?
 
2:38 PM
I suspect it heavily depends on the strategy and formations the drones put ouot and the 9 millitary spacecraft. Typically (afaik) small ships are no match for large ships without a coordinated strategy. Given how the Battleship Orion are basically carrying a huge nuclear reactor, the large target of its pulse engine could be a weak point of attac.
One strategy that might work is to get the drones to distract the CIWS defense systems, and then get some of the millitary ships near the rear and then open fire
 
@EnigmaMaitreya typo. You said 5%; the figure I know is closer to 4.
 
The advantage of large ships is its huge defense and firepower, but its major disadvantage is its large target size and very slow
 
@Secret Yea just the white noise responses. Basically it boils down to the aspect that what a thing is .... is not known .... until it is observed. That coupled with a concern with "Chaos" theory is, that if one can see / know detail at its absolute finest level, then can there really be the concept of chaos. Now bring in thought. Just exactly what is thought. Perhaps that is the thing that provides the link to "Magic" Thought ... Quantum Mechanics .... changing things.
@JDługosz I felt confident it was just wanted to make sure.
 
@JDługosz My opinion, the D&D setting pushes it more towards Magic but honestly I can see how it may have a scientific basis. IF I had to choose, then I would choose Magic.
@Secret If you would like to see a better as in more in depth development of that idea you may want to read "Blood Music (novel)" : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Music_(novel) - It is also a good read :)
 
2:52 PM
So, @Secret? How long do you think we would last with four Battleship Orions defending against 9 military spacecraft (one of them is of equivalent size to the Orion)?
The majority are frigates, destroyers and there are two cruisers.
Just to use naval equivalents, since that is not how things work in a Space Force.
Technically, they are Light Space Dominance Vehicles (frigates), General Purpose Space Dominance Vehicles (Destroyers), Assault Space Dominance Vehicles (Cruisers) and Heavy Duty Space Dominance Vehicles (Battleships).
And there is only one Battleship the ETs have with them.
Match the remaining 8 spacecraft against four Battleship Orions.
Who would win?
 
I unfortunately don't have in depth experience on battle analysis nor millitary experience, thus I cannot answer further
 
Do you know someone on Stack Exchange who does?
Have either military experience or in-depth battle analysis experience?
 
not me, You have to ask others
 
Also, NOTE: The Orions are assisted by nuclear-armed satellites in low Earth orbit, along with some laser satellites.
 
3:16 PM
@FutureHistorian I don't think anyone has experience of fighting a war in space.
 
But at least someone with basic physics knowledge, and some military experience could come up with a hypothetical idea of how it could be fought.
 
Then ask someone with physics knowledge who has been in the army.
I think James used to work for some form of military but I'm not sure.
 
Oh.
Well, I wonder if @Green or @Mithrandir24601 could help.
Besides, we are talking about a realistic space battle up here, not some Star Wars copycat.
 
Blimey, this is a hard one - what tech do they have in terms of offence/defence?
 
Point defence lasers, railguns, swarms of AI drones, nuclear missiles for orbital bombardment, and for propulsion, nuclear pulse fusion (since the ETs already ditched their antimatter rocket stages).
Oh and also whipple shields for ballistic weapons protection and micrometeorite protection, along with magnetic shields for protection against radiation hazards.
 
3:23 PM
OK. First observation - 4 batlleships against 9 - it's not a big battle between loads of spaceships, but a 'small' skirmish (yeah, it's obvious, I know :P ). What's the objective - just keep the Earth surviving?
 
The Orions have to ensure that Earth can avoid being invaded by the ETs, while the ETs just need to secure orbital dominance to allow for a ground assault on Earth.
And NOTE: This is the 1970s, so for good measure, I am adding nuclear-tipped satellites into the equation.
 
Where did Earth get space battleships from in the 1970s?
 
The issue is, that after the Flores Incident, Project: Orion was never cancelled in this timeline.
 
I take it that, the only thing Earth knows about the ETs is that they're trying to take it over? (know your enemy and all that...)
 
Yes, but the ETs have been here on Earth since the 1960s, though the Americans and Guatemalans decided to cover-up the encounter.
Still, the Americans and Guatemalans shot their spacecraft from 1961 down because they believed it to be some experimental Soviet aircraft, which later turned out not to be the case.
14 years later, SETI detects near-relativistic anomalies in the Inner Oort Cloud rapidly approaching the Solar System. So, 3 months later, once UFO activity skyrockets, UNERU is born (which basically is just 1970s XCOM, but more realistic).
Thankfully for UNERU, Freeman Dyson had a few unarmed 4,000 US ton (3,629 tonnes for us, metric users) Orions, which were later armed at the request of the USAF, NASA, the Soviet Space Program and UNERU, so........
 
3:30 PM
So, if was just the 4 Orions (and no AI drones or nuke defence systems), the best thing for the Aliens to do for a start would be to get the Orions moving around the place - adds a bit of chaos and stretches them out a bit, in which case, an attack against multiple most-important cities would be the best bet. Adapting this to include the drones and nukes is the hard bit
Hang on - is it the Aliens with the drones and nukes, or the humans?
If the aliens have the drones, spread them out and simultaneously attack as many cities as possible and there's nothing that the humans can do
As in, go for the White House etc. in such a manner to force the Orions to defend, then attack the Orions when they're distracted using the Spaceships
 
Anyone else care to comment on this Q, help a newcomer understand that “how can life evolve on a world with water and 2 suns and vaugly different but not explained geology?” is too broad?
 
If it's humans with the drones and nukes, just swarm the aliens, blowing them up one by one - it doesn't really matter if it's a mess or not - there's only 9 of them, which isn't enough area to cover the entire planet...
 
Well, technically, the Orions have nuclear weapons as well.
But the ETs have drones and nuclear weapons.
In fact, I can say the the each Orion has 500 20 Mt nuclear weapons in their arsenal.
Multiply this by four of them.
 
Then I reckon that the ETs best strategy is to simultaneously attack various important places and cities
using the drones
Assuming the drones are actually able to cause damage
 
3:45 PM
And NOTE: The Orions are actually in orbit at this point.
So are the ETs.
None of the spacecraft are atmospheric (unless you count the suborbital planes inside their 10 additional transports/supply craft).
 
@FutureHistorian Hmm... OK, that might change things a bit...
I'd still go with the tactic of attacking as many places at once to force the Orions to move to defend themselves as a first step
 
@Mithrandir24601. sighs Here are the statistics for each Orion. projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/…
500 20 Mt nuclear weapons, 3 Mk-42 127 mm/5-inch naval cannons, 6 Casaba Howitzer launches, and 6 20 mm CIWS systems each Orion.
 
@FutureHistorian So the ETs definitely want to keep moving around - split into two groups (they outnumber the orions 2->1), with one group forcing the orions to move to defend somewhere else, the other group attacking at a convenient place and time
 
Well, they may have the numbers, but the Orions have more firepower.
So, who would win in such a battle, given the inexperience of 1970s humanity in space combat, vs the ETs?
 
Add in the drones and the numbers would start to tell
So I'd say the Aliens (assuming a very large number of drones)
 
3:57 PM
Well, 15,000 drones out of 300,000 drones are meant for orbital combat.
The rest are for atmospheric combat and suborbital combat.
Just so we are clear.
 
Yeah, I'd say the aliens, with the caveat that I'm no expert (by a long way) in warfare and have only studied medieval warfare in any detail
 
Oh no.......
Well, how long can the Orions last?
And how much damage can they inflict before being destroyed?
 
@Mithrandir24601 So if the aliens were armed with pikes facing an army of Orions armed with swords you'd be the man to ask?
 
Oh and NOTE: The Orions are assisted by at least 50 nuclear tipped satellites.
 
@Bellerophon That'd be more up my street :P
@FutureHistorian And what happens if the nuke misses - does it fall back down to Earth, causing damage there?
 
4:01 PM
Either that or they drift off into space.
Take your pick.
Besides, these are satellites armed with at least two nuclear missiles each.
Multiply by 50.
100 total nuclear missiles in orbit, each launched by 50 satellites against the ETs.
 
@FutureHistorian If they drift off into space, then there's no pressure on firing and missing
 
@FutureHistorian I can do that. I'm good at maths... oh, you already worked it out.
 
If those miss, chances are they either self-destruct if they are found to be heading for Earth OR they drift off into space.
Well, then.
 
While if they have a chance of hitting the ground, they'll only be used as a very last resort
 
Do it. @Bellerophon.
That is kind of the thing, @Mithrandir24601. They are aimed into space to avoid hitting Earth, or at least in the direction of the spacecraft.
 
4:03 PM
@FutureHistorian It is 100. 50*2=100.
I'm great at maths.
 
I know.
 
How many nukes does it take to destroy the spacecraft and how many for the orions? How many nukes do the aliens have and how much are they willing to use them?
 
100 nuclear missiles + the four Orions with their 500 20 Mt ones each missile, on top of that, the Casaba Howitzer nuclear lasers, and 3 Mk.42 127 mm (5-inch) naval cannons, along with 6 20 mm CIWS turrets each?
Well, the ETs are reserving their nuclear weapons for targeting major cities.
So, they are not going to detonate 100 kt nuclear devices in orbit.
 
Ah, OK
 
And @Mithrandir24601. They do not have energy shields, outside of using magnetic fields to anti-radiation protection.
 
4:06 PM
How many nukes to destroy a spacecraft?
1?
 
Well, probably 3 or four.
That good?
And NOTE: This is assuming the spacecraft is not directly hit.
This is assuming it detonates several metres away from the spacecraft.
Why? Because if it detonates when it hits the spacecraft, then yes, one shot.
Then again, the Orions have similar issues with railguns, so, it could be three to five shots before the Orions get completely destroyed by railgun fire.
So, in space combat, delta-v and acceleration are key.
The ETs have 200 km/s of Delta-v each spacecraft, while the Orions have 30 km/s of Delta-v.
 
I'd still say that the aliens would have a better chance than the orions, but it wouldn't be so easy
Also, the aliens would be more experienced at flying
 
Or in this case, it orbital manoeuvres.
 
Yeah.
A bad comparison would be looking at 9 veteran soldiers attacking 4 new soldiers on the new soldiers home ground
 
Agreed.
Still, the Orions can cause a lot of damage before the ETs get a chance to invade Earth itself.
 
4:12 PM
@FutureHistorian Yeah. I think if they have surface defence on top of that, then the result would be that the aliens would destroy all the orions, but wouldn't be able to capture Earth
 
Not to mention that the ETs at this point in the war have Lunar outposts and mining stations across the Asteroid Belt.
 
4:31 PM
So, with those factors in mind, who wins the Battle of the Orbit?
 
I'd think that aliens would destroy the orions, but in the process get destroyed by all the other defence systems. At this point, Earth would be able to nab some alien tech and things get really interesting :)
But again, I'm not an expert :P
 
Well, you forgot to account for something.
 
Oh dear...
 
As in: well, they have bases elsewhere in the Solar System by the time this battle happens.
>:)
So, they can just build more drones.
 
But once humanity gets the alien tech, are we able to hack the drones in any way? If the aliens have masses of drones originally, they can just swarm the Earth and wipe everyone out - there is that...
 
4:36 PM
And since 1973, there is a second wave of those bastards.
 
Or build our own drones for defence?
 
11 additional military spacecraft should be in our Solar System by 1980.
So, I am not sure a fifth Orion would be enough to delay the second wave.
 
But that's years! If humanity was clearly under threat, it wouldn't be too hard to massively up production and get at least 10 orions in the intervening years
 
Oh. Well, that is still expensive, though.
As in: how much does it take to build one Battleship Orion in modern money anyway?
Or 1975 money?
 
Expensive, of course. But it's either that or die...
 
4:38 PM
Agreed.
NOTE: The invasion of Earth officially becomes a full-scale war in 1980, but until then, the attacks on major cities are raids.
They are meant to weaken and/or test our capability to defend on the ground.
Still, by 1979, the Orions launch.
The initial ones, I mean.
 
Don't know how much orions would be, but a satellite is in the millions
 
Well, I am going to assume around 7.1 billion USD in 1979.
 
So even if each orion was a billion, 10 over the course of 5 years is doable
 
Either that or 20 billion in 1979 USD.
Well, check that.
1975 USD.
I am assuming 20 billion for construction of the hull alone, not to mention the weapon systems, and nuclear explosives, which add in a total of 50 billion USD per Orion by 1975 USD.
 
OK. I'm a bit off - about $350 billion each...
 
4:43 PM
In 2017 money, that would be 226,396,840,148.70.
Oh.....
350 billion USD in what time's money? 1975 or 2017 money?
 
(It's a tenth of US GDP)
Worse... 1968 money...
 
Oh.........
So, 350 billion in 1968 money = 541,091,954,022.99 in 1975 money, which is.....2.5 TRILLION USD IN 2017 MONEY!?
OH NO!
Well, if it is 540 billion USD in 1975 money, how many Orions can we build?
 
How much of the world's GDP are you willing to use?
(~$75 trillion)
 
Well, how many in total do four Orions cost?
Nevermind.
2.16 trillion USD at the time.
5.4 trillion for 10 additional Orions, @Mithrandir24601.
That would be 10.1% of Earth's GDP.
Or 10.08% if you want specifics.
@Mithrandir24601? Do you think 10.1% of Earth's GDP is too much?
 
5:35 PM
Anyone?
Or der Chat ist tot?
@Mithrandir24601? According to the Wikipedia article, you do realise that the world's GDP then was 15.2 trillion USD, correct?
@Mithrandir24601?
I just realised: 6,235,951,002,295.33 was the total world GDP in USD in 1975 money. In 1990 money, that is 15.2 trillion. In 2017 money, that is 28,235,992,044,835.51 USD.
 
5:56 PM
Some people just have another life next to this one. Maybe?
 
6:20 PM
Oh.
@dot_Sp0T? At least try to help.
 
@FutureHistorian Sorry, I don't feel even remotely confident in my background on the subjects you're touching there^^
 
@PedroEtCetera, there was some cleanup that needed to get done to that data. Here's the corrected topographies.
And finally, the completed map. I still need to figure out how to map the ocean depths to colors but I should have that figured out soon
@Mithrandir24601 I'd wonder how much of world GDP can you use? What's the maximum amount of money you could divert from the economy into these ships before you see crippling financial problems?
...or would the economy grow enough so that the world GDP just gets bigger to meet the demand for each Orion ship?
 
6:44 PM
@Green have you documented the process and your code? Because if so I would be delighted to add it to the list of tools I eventually would love to use
 
@dot_Sp0T Thus far, it's just been image manipulation in Gimp.
 
@Green document it
 
I am working on a tool that will turn those maps into physically correct wind and ocean currents but that's gonna take a while.
@dot_Sp0T The process is pretty specific to these data sets. I'll document what I can though.
 
@Green that would be amazing, we can always generalize and clean up afterwards. I'm still looking forward to your results
 
@dot_Sp0T Alright, I'll get a Medium post started. Should be fun.
 
7:00 PM
@Green? So, 6.24 trillion 1975 USD is the total world GDP at the time. So, 540 billion 1975 USD per Orion unit * four Orions constructed = ?????
Then divide the total cost by the world GDP and you get how much?
 
 
2 hours later…
8:57 PM
hey there @Mithrandir24601
 
if anyone here has ever been wondering if Star Wars: X-Wing is a fun miniature game > yes, it is, go buy it, now
 
hey as well @dot_Sp0T
 
@Shalvenay hello
 
how're things going?
 
Very well. I've just managed to occupy the telly and am now in the process of watching the latest Dr Who episode
I also got me a Z-95, an E-Wing and an Inquisitor's Tie today - which I will unbox and add to my collection :D
 
9:02 PM
heheh
 
All in all it's been a wonderful day
 
@Green that'd be awesome
 
9:22 PM
@Shalvenay it may be long in coming. I'll ping you and dot_spot when I'm done.
 

« first day (969 days earlier)      last day (2561 days later) »