> Wouldn't shooting bits of ships produce debris every bit as dangerous?
Dangerous, but probably not "every bit as dangerous." The KKMs would have
been accelerated to the highest speeds possible, and would retain that
speed. Ship hulks, not so much.
> The
> TNE and for that matter the earlier versions of Traveller are full of
> descriptions of space battle fields (Battle of Two Suns anyone) which are
> posted as dangerous due to debris, partly wrecked ships etc.
>
> As a plot hook (very Firefly) I am sure the imperium would not be happy
> with
> people salvaging wrecks and restoring them without their permission. Does
> the imperium/solomani etc have such a concept as a wargrave?
I would think that the government's first priority is to clean up the
debris to make the space lanes safer. There would probably be a great deal
of regulation on how bodies must be handled in order to hold a salvage
license. I'm thinking of the recently released accounts of when the Glomar
Explorer raised the Russian sub from the Pacific floor.
>
> Antony
>
> -----Original Message-----
From: Todd Kes
Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 4:53 AM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Space projectiles vs regulations
>
> How about Imperial Regulations concerning littering/environmental impact?
> Since the shots can travel a very long distance, it affects the Imperium
> as
> a whole, rather than just one solar system. Similar to if a planetary
> government affects Imperial Trade, then the Imperial Navy asks them to
> stop.
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Thu, 6/28/12, wrote:
>> 2. That said, I absolutely believe that people armed with ideas and
>> FF&S can find a way to make them work, at least in finite scenarios.
>> For example, ships moving through space have to get someplace: a
>> planet to land, a gas giant to refuel, etc., and they have only a
>> finite number of G-turns with which to do so, match vectors to enter
>> orbit, etc. So you could fire sheafs of projectiles to interdict the
>> paths they need to use, forcing them to do something else or risk
>> damage. Whether that's cost effective I don't know, but it's not
>> cheap. But if people are able to make these things lethal in these
>> scenarios, they will remain lethal to anyone else who blunders across
>> them again. Long before we put FF&S out, the TML and Xboat lists were
>> advocating projectiles, and where there's a will, there's a way.
>>
>> I find the idea very interesting to work out, "what would happen?"
>> given some assumptions, and that was the idea behind the "Top Laser"
>> thing we never got to do: let people simulate thousands of years of
>> operational evolution and see what they get.
>
>
Dangerous, but probably not "every bit as dangerous." The KKMs would have
been accelerated to the highest speeds possible, and would retain that
speed. Ship hulks, not so much.
> The
> TNE and for that matter the earlier versions of Traveller are full of
> descriptions of space battle fields (Battle of Two Suns anyone) which are
> posted as dangerous due to debris, partly wrecked ships etc.
>
> As a plot hook (very Firefly) I am sure the imperium would not be happy
> with
> people salvaging wrecks and restoring them without their permission. Does
> the imperium/solomani etc have such a concept as a wargrave?
I would think that the government's first priority is to clean up the
debris to make the space lanes safer. There would probably be a great deal
of regulation on how bodies must be handled in order to hold a salvage
license. I'm thinking of the recently released accounts of when the Glomar
Explorer raised the Russian sub from the Pacific floor.
>
> Antony
>
> -----Original Message-----
From: Todd Kes
Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 4:53 AM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Space projectiles vs regulations
>
> How about Imperial Regulations concerning littering/environmental impact?
> Since the shots can travel a very long distance, it affects the Imperium
> as
> a whole, rather than just one solar system. Similar to if a planetary
> government affects Imperial Trade, then the Imperial Navy asks them to
> stop.
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Thu, 6/28/12, wrote:
>> 2. That said, I absolutely believe that people armed with ideas and
>> FF&S can find a way to make them work, at least in finite scenarios.
>> For example, ships moving through space have to get someplace: a
>> planet to land, a gas giant to refuel, etc., and they have only a
>> finite number of G-turns with which to do so, match vectors to enter
>> orbit, etc. So you could fire sheafs of projectiles to interdict the
>> paths they need to use, forcing them to do something else or risk
>> damage. Whether that's cost effective I don't know, but it's not
>> cheap. But if people are able to make these things lethal in these
>> scenarios, they will remain lethal to anyone else who blunders across
>> them again. Long before we put FF&S out, the TML and Xboat lists were
>> advocating projectiles, and where there's a will, there's a way.
>>
>> I find the idea very interesting to work out, "what would happen?"
>> given some assumptions, and that was the idea behind the "Top Laser"
>> thing we never got to do: let people simulate thousands of years of
>> operational evolution and see what they get.
>
>