Power consumption. There is no "cost" as everything is replicated but there is a tremendous amount of power used to create matter.
Underground Living in Traveller
- Thread starter Peter Newman
- Start date
Power consumption. There is no "cost" as everything is replicated but there is a tremendous amount of power used to create matter.
1) Ships have power production limitations (see TNG episode where the ship had to stop using replicators for food in order to have max power for weapons and shields as using the replicators used up the anti-matter supply).
2) there are no anti-matter mines. Anti-matter is just a high powered "battery". You must create it first using a different power source. In short, there is STILL no such thing as a free lunch. "Post scarcity" in this context is just a meaningless buzz term. It doesn't change physics on board a ship (isolated, closed power system).
2) there are no anti-matter mines. Anti-matter is just a high powered "battery". You must create it first using a different power source. In short, there is STILL no such thing as a free lunch. "Post scarcity" in this context is just a meaningless buzz term. It doesn't change physics on board a ship (isolated, closed power system).
Yup. An anti-matter generator might be the most efficient means of generating power, but the AM element itself would need to be created in another facility. Once text I read suggested large solar arrays for powering the accelerator, so that after initial capital investment the ongoing costs were minimised and the AM was cheaper per unit.
Yes, the solar route seems to fit best. Especially in the Star Trek universe. Close to the star to capture maximum energy to produce the AM "fuel" for star ships and the like.
That book suggested using AM for a wide range of options, including in reaction drives HEPlaR-style. I used a modified design system for a while in my own setting that had AM injectors for HEPlaR drives, cutting fuel consumption by 75% (I got lazy, didn't feel like crunching the numbers, was unsure of the physics, so just picked a figure...).
Now that T5 has going back to the normal Manoeuvre Drive, this isn't much of an option.
Now that T5 has going back to the normal Manoeuvre Drive, this isn't much of an option.
75% has a nice ring to it. Does T5 use th MT M-drives or the MgT Grav drive?
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
I suspect that it will be sort of similar to what I have experienced in Alaska and elsewhere. In Alaska, while in the Army, we had some people who never really did adjust to the extreme daylight swings between summer and winter, and who had major problems in the winter. Same with the cold, some adjusted and some did not. I have some friends who simply cannot handle cold, even the Chicago-style, and disappear every winter, along with some friends who cannot handle Florida's heat and humidity in the summer.
Some people with do fine living underground, some will not, which is why you will also be having people look for what is "over the hill", "on the next island". in the "next system."
a) we are tough
b) we like paying heating bill
c) and anyway we retire in Florida
d) its cold but not thin tainted athmos
e) there is an underground town in Montréal, not the Under the Dome type but an underground network that link a lot of various commercial buildings (and few residential). Just consider your car as a pressurized ATV and you can go from your home with indoor garage to work where there is an underground parking, walk across (well walk under) the street to do your shopping pending theater time, take the subway to the theater, tunnel to restaurant after the theater, then the hotel room...enough said, in jeans and t-shirt while its -30 outdoor (and may as well be -300). If your starship is docket at Via Rail train station or the bus terminal you may even come from another planer in jean and t-shirt to do all this without using your pressurized air raft. So yes we enjoy underground living.
Have fun
Selandia
Last edited by a moderator:
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
From Trav terraforming references
Ummm - other than food supplies, I'd say much lower in the TL:
http://sometimesinteresting.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/derinkuyu_map.jpg
TL-2 to dig, TL 4-5 to seal and heat/cool/replenish air from tanks and/or electrical fracturing of water & CO re-absorption.
Ummm - other than food supplies, I'd say much lower in the TL:
http://sometimesinteresting.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/derinkuyu_map.jpg
TL-2 to dig, TL 4-5 to seal and heat/cool/replenish air from tanks and/or electrical fracturing of water & CO re-absorption.
Xerxeskingofking
SOC-13
i've visited that site. it's really impressive, in terms of how much effort it must have taken to make. An quite easy to defend, as well.
For a whole city (circa 1970) it isn't. That would be almost impossible today.
MikeinBallard
SOC-9
This appeared back in 2010: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-11/17/russia-domed-city-siberia. A domed city based on an abandoned mine. I would expect many cities like this in 3I and surrounding cultures.
epicenter00
SOC-13
I've never really liked that table in the MegaTraveller rules because it's too abbreviated and makes no sense if you think about it.
As you pointed out, if the "city" is not closed-cycle, then you can build an underground city at TL2 or TL3.
If the TL7 city is closed cycle, then the TL9 closed-cycle orbital city doesn't make much sense - the primary technology hurdle is to perfect the closed-cycle elements (I'm assuming the city doesn't necessarily have to be eternally closed cycle - just very little in the way of outside inputs required).
If the closed-cycle city becomes possible at TL7, then assumably the TL9 version is just TL9 because of the problem of getting materials and necessary construction infrastructure into orbit?
But that creates another problem ...
Why are underwater and under-ice cities at TL10? I can't really imagine undersea being that much more of a difficult environment than outer space.
It's substantially the same as the table in CT.
I think you mean Ontario, Montreal is in Quebec, but the city you are referencing is Toronto.
If you are in the 'burbs, you drive to the Subway Station, go downtown and ar underground..... Other than the location your description was fine. Also note I haven't been to that many eastern Canadian Cities/Towns and more might be set up like Toronto.
Ontario, Toronto? Absolutely not, it is Montréal I am talking about (I live there). But it may as well be Toronto for any canadian city with a subway system links as many building as $$ possible to the system for obvious and frosted reasons. The reason why I use the ATV to go all the way to a workplace with underground parking is because that way you do not have to go accross hostile open parking enviro when reaching an outlaying subway terminal. That way, no bulky Host-Env suit to carry around the rest of the day. Of course in a truely hostile enviro world you might well have underground ATV parking at every subway terminal.
have fun
Selandia
By the way,
after introduction of combat gases (generic for actually gaseous or dust or droplets in suspension...) large structures (usually fortification or national command post) were proofed against tainted environnement in the interwar years. Any planet with "rubber" gaskets, air filters and an energy source to provide sustained effective ventilation and extract Oxigen from water or from the tainted athmos could make it.
A tainted ath may still provide edible food croops so having the whole economic structure in protected enviro may not be needed.
have fun
Alain Tremblay
after introduction of combat gases (generic for actually gaseous or dust or droplets in suspension...) large structures (usually fortification or national command post) were proofed against tainted environnement in the interwar years. Any planet with "rubber" gaskets, air filters and an energy source to provide sustained effective ventilation and extract Oxigen from water or from the tainted athmos could make it.
A tainted ath may still provide edible food croops so having the whole economic structure in protected enviro may not be needed.
have fun
Alain Tremblay
Peter Newman
SOC-12
In Space you have to hold one (or so) atmosphere IN. Underwater (unless barely underwater) you have to hold dozens or hundreds (even thousands if you're very deep) of atmospheres OUT.
Maybe to do so simply takes slightly better materials technology, and thus TL 10 instead of TL 9? Crystaliron is TL 10. Maybe crystaliron handles pressure and or corrosion better than lower tech materials?
Similar threads
- Locked
