Too many ships on the dance floor

Everything else

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Reliant121 » Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:36 pm

I think the difference, correct me if I am wrong, is that a terrorist group are disorganised and within reason chaotic. They dont really care if they lose a car, or...asset as termed. If it means killing the enemy dogs then its fine. A guerilla group would likely have the organisation and advanced knowledge to preserve their assets.
"He was the best of us. They struck without provocation, there was no reason. Animals! Brutal! They deserve no mercy! Strike them down, follow them back to their base and kill all of them, all of them! No mercy!" - Delenn
User avatar
Reliant121
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 12066
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Mikey » Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:21 pm

The difference doesn't matter, because Solka's being a dumbass. Here it is: IRA, Al-Qaeda, whoever - the cause is more important than anything, lives or material assets. If a terrorist for Al-Qaeda - one who truly believes in his cause - is tasked with performing a mission for that cause that requires sacrificing his car, he will sacrifice his car; whether it's a 1992 Toyota Corolla or a 2010 Bentley GT.

I already told you that I get it - he doesn't care about the lives he claims. If you bothered to read any posts but your own, you'd have read that. The point (as I RE-reiterate) isn't a choice between those kids or a possession; it's that the willingness to murder innocents IS INDICATIVE of the type of person who'd sacrifice material assets for his cause.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33084
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Coalition » Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:08 pm

Tyyr wrote:If a terrorist organization steals a ship you can be sure that the authorities will be on the look out for that kind of ship. If you steal a class X ship the next time a class X ship shows up somewhere unexpected people in charge will notice and investigate. Class X ships will be subjected to more intense scrutiny. It all creates heat that the terrorists will not want. Much easier to just hitch a legit ride on a ship or smuggle things randomly.


I'd pick a Class X ship that was among the most common vessels used locally. This causes lots of security headaches for Starfleet, or whoever is responsible for monitoring port security. This gives me camoflage, and as long as I only use it for smuggling, eventually the people watching will grow tired, and I can se it later. Who knows, I might even turn a profit with it, to be used as 'charitable donations'. The other fun idea is just stealing the ship, making a proclamation about an attack, stripping the ship for parts, and then dumping the remainder into a star. Security will be tight for several weeks/months whenever one of those ships shows up, and you've gotten yourself a bunch of spare parts, with nothing to worry about (except serial numbers on them).

Tyyr wrote:Given the capability of Trek sensors it'll take more than falsified papers to slip through security. Still, go back to my main point. Why bother with that when you can just use perfectly legit transports that you don't have to take any responsibility or ownership for?


A privately owned transport allows for some flexibility. Instead of being bound to a single route, you can divert a bit south of an island/system instead of north, to pickup/dropoff various passengers and materials. Of course, System traffic control will notice the difference, and likely ask you about it. Of course, for this you might want to have a separation of areas, so people don't seize the smuggling ship, and realize the Captain is also the leader of the terrorist group.

So a terrorist group might have a large transport, but they would do their best to separate it from their combat activities to avoid linkage/detection/seizure. You were right.
Relativity Calculator
My Nomination for "MVAM Critic Award" (But can it be broken into 3 separate pieces?)
Coalition
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:34 am
Location: Georgia, United States

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby stitch626 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:18 pm

Given the capability of Trek sensors it'll take more than falsified papers to slip through security.

Couldn't you just change the transponder? Change that and the engine signature and the ships could "look" like whatever they wanted it to, at least on sensors.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Deepcrush » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:26 pm

stitch626 wrote:
Given the capability of Trek sensors it'll take more than falsified papers to slip through security.

Couldn't you just change the transponder? Change that and the engine signature and the ships could "look" like whatever they wanted it to, at least on sensors.


Now just find the crew and personnel skilled enough to do it, get the codes needed from the owner, designer, builder and then pay for the operation. Shouldn't be much different then the IRA building their own Space Shuttle really, totally simple. (Yes, that is sarcasm)
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby stitch626 » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:33 am

Deepcrush wrote:
stitch626 wrote:
Given the capability of Trek sensors it'll take more than falsified papers to slip through security.

Couldn't you just change the transponder? Change that and the engine signature and the ships could "look" like whatever they wanted it to, at least on sensors.


Now just find the crew and personnel skilled enough to do it, get the codes needed from the owner, designer, builder and then pay for the operation. Shouldn't be much different then the IRA building their own Space Shuttle really, totally simple. (Yes, that is sarcasm)

Considering a trained starfleet crew could do it to the Defiant on the fly so that it looked like a Maquis ship, I can see it decently simple if the guys did their homework.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Mikey » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:37 am

Possible on a rare occasion, maybe, but not simple. That's like saying a good "A" mechanic at an auto shop could easily fix an M1 Abrams if he got a quick look at the manual.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33084
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Deepcrush » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:05 am

stitch626 wrote:Considering a trained starfleet crew could do it to the Defiant on the fly so that it looked like a Maquis ship, I can see it decently simple if the guys did their homework.


The key in that line is "Trained Starfleet Crew". I'm not shocked that a tank crew knows how to use a tank or that a pilot can fly a plane. Its another thing when a group of nobodies who have zero training or experience on things have the ability to get a hold of a ship. Only worse if they have to find some form of upkeep on the ship.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Lazar » Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:06 pm

Related question: Let's say I'm piloting a spaceship, and I'm approaching Planet X at .01 c from a distance of several AUs. Would I be able to settle into a stable orbit just using the planet's gravity, or would I have to turn my ship in the opposite direction of travel and fire my main thrusters in order to decelerate?

(It seems like they never really explained deceleration in Trek.)
"There was also a large horse in the room, taking up most of it."
User avatar
Lazar
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2232
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Deepcrush » Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:18 pm

.01c is still rather fast so breaking thrust would be required.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Captain Seafort » Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:29 pm

Deepcrush wrote:.01c is still rather fast


And then some. For comparison, even low Earth orbit is only 0.00003c, and a Clarke orbit is about a third of that.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14978
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Lighthawk » Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:07 pm

Also have to take into account just how much gravity your planet X has. Not that anything planet sized is likely to safely catch you at even relatively slow fractions of C, but it will make a difference.
Image
User avatar
Lighthawk
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:55 pm
Location: Missouri, USA, North America, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milkyway Galaxy, Local Group, Universe

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Tyyr » Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:09 pm

You have to break, any orbit you could conceivably attain with a gravity assist would be so extreme your grandchildren would be long dead and buried before your ship came swinging back around.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby Graham Kennedy » Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:49 pm

In theory you can orbit any planet at any speed. For any given body, the higher you want your orbital speed to be the closer you need to get. However, there's a slight problem with orbital speeds that high... the math isn't that hard... force needed for a circular orbit is F = mv^2 / r. That comes from gravity, which is given by G Mm / r^2.

So mv^2 / r = G Mm / r^2 The m cancels out and you get

v^2 / r = GM / r^2 We can lose an r from each side and...

v^2 = GM / r

r = GM / v^2

G is 6.67sx10^-11, M for Earth is 6x10^24 kg, so if we plug in 0.01 c = 3x10^6 m/s, we get...

r = 44.48 m/s

And so we need to orbit... about 45 metres from the center. I trust you see the problem!

In practice the fastest you can go and be in orbit would be when you were just skimming over the surface, with an orbital radius equal to the planet, about 6,700 km for Earth. That gives a speed of 7.7 km/s... but of course that nasty atmospheric friction would get in the way of that. Going up a hundred km or so solves that and doesn't change the speed much.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8132
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Too many ships on the dance floor

Postby SolkaTruesilver » Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:32 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:In practice the fastest you can go and be in orbit would be when you were just skimming over the surface, with an orbital radius equal to the planet, about 6,700 km for Earth. That gives a speed of 7.7 km/s... but of course that nasty atmospheric friction would get in the way of that. Going up a hundred km or so solves that and doesn't change the speed much.


Wait, what happens if you lose velocity while in close orbit to the earth? is there a potential of losing your escape velocity?
SolkaTruesilver
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to Other / General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests