Polaris Map

A general area for the general things that generally happen in our server.

How do you feel about the Polaris map?

The map is good as-is.
6
21%
The map is fine with minor tweaks.
12
41%
The map needs a major overhaul.
11
38%
I want a different map entirely.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 29

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Nightwing » Tue May 10, 2016 11:32 am

I'll explain the problem with your logic when I get home and can scribble on a piece of paper~
Nightwing
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 am

Re: Polaris Map

Postby arokha » Tue May 10, 2016 11:38 am

Nightwing wrote:I'll explain the problem with your logic when I get home and can scribble on a piece of paper~


Let's talk about it on Discord instead of this mapping thread.
User avatar
arokha
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:54 am

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Zeke Sturm » Tue May 10, 2016 11:39 am

arokha wrote:No, the weight of an object is the RESULT of gravity. The mass of an object generates gravity.

mb, missed the terminology. Meant to say mass, not weight, thanks for catching that.

arokha wrote:... what thrust do you think is keeping the moon in orbit?

It doesn't. But the moon isn't in a constant orbit. It's just in a very distant one that was started optimally so the decay is insignificant for the moment.
Zeke Sturm
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 6:37 pm

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Aces » Tue May 10, 2016 12:08 pm

Nightwing wrote:An asteroid is far more dense than a space station, for instance. Just placing it in the same location as the current station is a great way to destroy all life on the planet below as the asteroid hurtles down and collides with it! The increased mass requires the asteroid be placed in a much more distant orbit, and even then needs to be accelerated around the planet to even begin orbitting in the first place.


Zeke Sturm wrote:Also, this

The problem with that becomes it won't just remain there, since gravity is affected by the weight of an object, which would certainly change if an object became much bigger, and also a rock. Not saying it'd be impossible to maintain an orbit, but it'd certainly be unnecessarily fucking difficult, given how much power would have to go into just jetting it away from the planet near-constantly.

I'll let Night post the relevant equations, he knows this stuff better than me


Zeke Sturm wrote:It doesn't. But the moon isn't in a constant orbit. It's just in a very distant one that was started optimally so the decay is insignificant for the moment.


Image

  • The density of an asteroid compared to a station is negligible in terms of gravitational force. We assume the station has artificial gravity because otherwise it makes no fucking sense that we're even attached to the floor. Asteroids are so weak with gravity IRL that even one the size of a MOUNTAIN has very little gravity.
  • Asteroids and satellites and other crap do not simply fall out of the sky. There's no friction in space. The only thing that causes even a slight amount of drag is variations in gravity and so help me god if either of you tries to use that as an argument I will slap the shit out of both of you for not knowing what you're talking about because that kind of 'drag' takes literally years to drag an object even out of low earth orbit, and millenia to drag an asteroid the size of, say, Mar's moons, out of orbit.
  • The moon is not falling toward Earth slowly. It's actually being thrown away because it's being flung around our planet faster and harder than gravity can hold onto it. One day the moon will be gone. Well, actually, no, because the sun will turn into a red giant and engulf the Earth before that even happens. But let's just say that was happening. The moon wouldn't crash into us Majora's Mask style. Actually, it'd be ripped to shreds when it hits the Roche limit, and then we'd have a ring around the planet. A big one.
  • An asteroid isn't going to do fuckall to a planet orbiting over it. If a big enough object is close enough to a planet, and I mean, super fucking close, it doesn't fall into it. It mostly gets ripped to pieces and creates a lovely ring around the planet.

Citation needed? Citation provided.
http://www.space.com/3373-earth-moon-de ... grate.html
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudent ... it-58.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit also http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut25-1.htm in case someone whines "Wikipedia is not a real source!" because their High School teacher said so.
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/saturn-rings/en/

Now I don't want to hear anything else about orbital mechanics unless someone actually knows what they are talking about and can provide sources to back it up. Otherwise, stop derailing the thread.
Last edited by Aces on Tue May 10, 2016 12:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: SCIENCE
User avatar
Aces
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:13 pm

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Aces » Tue May 10, 2016 12:26 pm

Now back on topic. I don't like the Café and Bar being separated. I much prefer they be one in the same. The remaining room can be stripped out to solve an issue Nightwing previously brought up of there being no construction sites to work with. In fact, there's a lot of open space where I can toss in blank empty rooms.

If the current game doesn't have some mechanics for building tiles on asteroid tiles, I'll add one.

Also, I think the whole elevator thing is stupid but that's just me. I liked the shuttles more. :(
User avatar
Aces
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:13 pm

Re: Polaris Map

Postby arokha » Tue May 10, 2016 12:31 pm

Aces wrote:Now back on topic. I don't like the Café and Bar being separated. I much prefer they be one in the same. The remaining room can be stripped out to solve an issue Nightwing previously brought up of there being no construction sites to work with. In fact, there's a lot of open space where I can toss in blank empty rooms.

If the current game doesn't have some mechanics for building tiles on asteroid tiles, I'll add one.

Also, I think the whole elevator thing is stupid but that's just me. I liked the shuttles more. :(


I do not have detailed maps of the other Z-levels, sorry. Engineering has an entire map construction site. FYI the room to the left of the bar is also marked as 'construction site'.

Not to say we shouldn't merge bar/caffeteria. Need a CC office somewhere. :0

Also FYI the enclosed asteroid areas, like the not-rock-wall areas, but that are completely surrounded, can typically be pressurized by just breaking the windows to them. There's usually enough air in the hallway to not kill you.
User avatar
arokha
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:54 am

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Nightwing » Tue May 10, 2016 12:42 pm

Zeke Sturm wrote:It doesn't. But the moon isn't in a constant orbit. It's just in a very distant one that was started optimally so the decay is insignificant for the moment.


Actually, the moon is currently experiencing negligible drag so its own velocity exceeds its centripetal force and it's moving away from the planet.

So! Firstly, I'll address this.

Arokha wrote:Centrifugal force has nothing to do with orbiting bodies.

Actually, Centrifugal (or Centripetal) force is everything to do with how a body orbits another. The force provides the necessary change in direction to allow the satellite to curve around the planet. Force too weak compared to velocity? Satellite's soaring off into space. Force too strong? Planet's getting an impact.

Arokha wrote:"Without applying force (such as firing a rocket engine), the period and shape of the satellite's orbit won't change."

Fundamentally, yes. In practice, it requires a lot more thought than that. How far away are you orbiting? The ISS is so close to the planet that it needs to be boosted higher again every month[1]. The reason for this is atmospheric drag.[2] However, for other satellites, there are many more reasons, including collisions (Virgo is hit by meteorites on a semi-frequent basis, each one causing a tiny change in its motion and requiring that it be readjusted), tides (I don't know if these have any bearing on the gas giant we're currently orbiting), radiation, even miniature collisions with dust particles in space (although this is negligible and only worth mentioning because it's there).Collisions with other asteroids are the major source of gravitational readjustment. Realistically, however, the biggest problem you encounter doesn't come from this.

It comes from centripetal motion in the first place. Observe the following:
[+]
ImageImage


These images show that the only thing fighting the force of gravity pulling down on the satellite is the fact that it's already moving at speed v that just so happens to be exact enough to create properly circular (or elliptical) motion. So we blow up the current space station and fly this asteroid into position. Now you have to get it up to speed to prevent it from plunging into the gas giant below. Guess what? Here's where the mass comes in! Not how you were thinking though; we're talking momentum! The principals of momentum state that it's harder for something of large mass to reach the same velocity of something with a lower mass. And not only is our station now bigger than before, but it also has an enormous hemi-spherical chunk of rock attached to it! Its mass has increased by quite a lot. This doesn't affect its centripetal velocity, but it does affect how long it will take to reach that velocity. So while you're expending much more energy than you would have for the station attempting to accelerate this hunk of rock around this planet, it's falling all the while (unless you expend even MORE energy with thrusters holding it up). And since it's falling, the force actually increases. This means it has to go FASTER STILL! So unless you manage to get it into place at exactly the right velocity, you've got one hell of an operation on your hands. More than that? You've got the fact that all these thrusters are taking up energy, and that due to being close to the planet (why wouldn't you be? There's gotta be a reason we're flying around a gas giant instead of Virgo Prime. It's so much more difficult an operation to get a station up around a gas giant that there has to be a good reason), you're experiencing greater atmospheric drag thanks to the increased surface area of the larger station, so it'll require reboosting MUCH more frequently. That uses even MORE energy! And energy costs money! Quite a bit for an operation this big.

So the ultimate question is, if Nanotrasen is busy producing space stations, why would they suddenly scrap one of their research stations in favour of a far more expensive asteroid base?

TL;DR It'd be way more expensive for Nanotrasen to perform such an arbitrary task when they've already got successful research satellites. Mass isn't a problem in centripetal motion directly, but accelerating a larger mass is, and the larger mass would pull the station out of orbit and require it to be boosted back more frequently, which are also very expensive tasks.

EDIT:
Aces wrote:Now I don't want to hear anything else about orbital mechanics unless someone actually knows what they are talking about and can provide sources to back it up. Otherwise, stop derailing the thread.

I'm a student at a high-ranking British university taking a course in Physics with Astronomy, sharing a house with a man taking a course in Aeronautical Engineering, which covers all forms of airborne travel from planes to rockets! I consulted with him before posting this.
Nightwing
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 am

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Demicus_Maximus » Tue May 10, 2016 1:03 pm

Derp, I meant minor tweaks. :P

But I think we can edit it a little, make medbay a bit more logical is my sticking point.

Personally I LOVE having bigger places to explore and get lost in. As a predator, bigger map = safety when I snag some poor snack who would rather not be chow~ Harder to find me~
Image
User avatar
Demicus_Maximus
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:09 am
Location: Virgo Sector Central Command

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Dhaeleena » Tue May 10, 2016 1:35 pm

Dhaeleena wrote:In all honesty, my thoughts on the map? I dont like it, at all. It has -some- things i -like- but nothing else, i find it needlessly BIG and massive, in all honesty, i don't like it being an asteroid. The 'station' can grow in all directions, with asteroid or with space, being surrounded by space instead of rock is the same, expansion will be the same. I see all the points Nightwing made and i share them, i feel the station is too big and will just difficult interation, as -will- do having two separate common areas, Our server isnt some massive 60+ constant pop wich this map looks like with its big department, i can only imagine our average 4 medical people working on THAT medbay even 1 or 2 some shifts, and our even lower security that doesnt even exists some rounds.I feel like i couldn't call the station a station anymore but i should call it Colony or Base with that map. I feel and i can visualize a lot of changes that could be done, things could be put closer together a lot more and rearranged without the need of taking away place for expansion, pretty much all departments on this map have walls or something that goes directly into space or the rock...anyways. My point is, in short, Map: Too big, Needlessly big in most aspects, not good for interaction and our pop size.

Dhaeleena wrote:Most scenes doesnt happens in the bar, they START in the bar, the bar is one of the more inportant places in station, is where you go when you are any kind of civialian personnel, is the point of reunion of everyone and is were you go to see WHO is active and who you might be able to scene with, if i have to wander through giant ass hallways, giant ass departments and more than one common area to just find 1 possible scene partner that might not even fit me im going to get crazy. In other case, i really Dont like the place being on an asteroid, i dont know why we cant just remove the asteroid and leave space, it wouldnt change much at all.


All of that and another question. Do we -NEED- the place surrounded by rock? Is it functional in any way? does it make any good? is it any diferent than just having space? Can we just have space?
User avatar
Dhaeleena
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:19 pm

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Aces » Tue May 10, 2016 1:41 pm

Nightwing wrote:TL;DR It'd be way more expensive for Nanotrasen to perform such an arbitrary task when they've already got successful research satellites. Mass isn't a problem in centripetal motion directly, but accelerating a larger mass is, and the larger mass would pull the station out of orbit and require it to be boosted back more frequently, which are also very expensive tasks.


Why would NanoTrasen boost an asteroid station back into orbit when they can, idk, pick an asteroid already in a stable orbit?
User avatar
Aces
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests