This one has bothered me for a while in my game setting and some others as well so I'll write up my thoughts here and try to sort it out.
So, let us assume that there is a way of working FTL which works with speeds of about 0,3-0,5 parseks an hour. It's drawback is that it doesn't work well in a gravity well. Previously I had specified that the limit a ship could approach an object in space was about 100 times the diameter of the object multiplied with it's surface gravity (a cheap ripoff from Traveller, I know). With average settled planets in this setting this would be about a million km.
Now then, concerning gravity wells, the largest in a solar system would naturally be the star(s). With our dear Sol this would be about a million kilometers, making it's base jump limit around 100 million kilometers, just short of Earth. However, when multiplied with the surface gravity of 27g this would create an almost 2,7 billion kilometer no-jump zone, about 18 AU, roughly around the orbit of Uranus.
Now, this makes interstellar travel a bit more slow. While it takes a few hours to make the jump from, say Alpha Centauri to Sol, it still would take quite a while to make the travel from Uranus to Earth on sublight. At light speed it would still make about two and a half hours to reach it.
Until now I've ignored the effect of the Sun in this, limiting myself only to planetary gravity wells but after doing a little study for another project of mine I realized that I cannot do this without proper explanation. It's paradoxical, isn't it? Why take some wells into account and not others? Are stars somehow different than planets, would this be a question of, say, densities? Star densities are way less than planetary densities, even Saturn is more dense than the Sun. It would make a more simple explanation to include the Sun gravity well into the accounts as well.
So, let us now consider the two models of gravity well jump limits with the stl technology available. Previously, starships were doing about 2-3 g tops, most ships around 0,5-1g. Courier ships and such might break for 8-10g but that would be it. That would mean that a 1g acceleration ship would accelerate to around 9,8 m/s squared. Let us say that fuel limits cap this acceleration to a delta-vee of 30 km/s. Travel from Uranus to Earth would take almost three years. Not really viable as I thought that the absolute travel time to a world 10 pc away would take about a day. Outer system colonies and stations would boom as trade hubs though, as merchant ships would want to minimize the travel time and just dump the cargo, get paid and leave. And faster in-system ships would then take the trade items further in-system.
Now then, ignoring the effect of the sun, a starship would appear around 1 million km from Earth. With 1g acceleration and a 30km/s delta-vee the ship would take about 9 h 15 min not including deceleration to reach Earth. A bit long still but more viable. In Earth's case, having stations in lunar orbit would be profitable since ships would then prefer to dock at the much nearer moon stations, leave the cargo there to the middle man and leave.
However, I thought a different solution. Increase the acceleration so that ships in-system would travel at around 0,1-0,3c. The solution I thought of is gravity drives which would be almost like warp drives in themselves. This would still make the travel from Uranus to Earth a long travel, around 12,5 hours on the average 0,2c speed, not including deceleration. With gravity compensators onboard (a technological item already included in the setting), inside the ship people would not notice the acceleration much. Which is good, since the planned 50-200g acceleration would squash a crew in an instant to tomato juice. I've planned that the grav drive would take it's power from fusion reactors onboard. This would however make smaller fighters less effective because of the space reactors require. Smaller ships would be mainly for maintenance, supply runs and crew transfer. On the other hand, ships built for battle would be huge.
This creates another problem. I've always liked the setting's emphasis on heroic fighter pilots fighting amongst large battleships and swarming the bigger ships with missiles. Emphasizing bigger ships would however make rebellions a much harder thing to do without orbital support and when the Imperial Navy kicks in, it's over. Then again, even a well-equipped fighter squadron defending a world would be doomed since the Imperial Navy has it's own fighter squadrons to deflect such attacks. And of course clever tactics will always be an advantage.
The appeal of having a large system to travel through before arriving at the inner system inhabited planets is largely of the chances of action along the way. While the journey of a million kilometers to a jump point might include some exitement, fast ships could intercept the pirate attacking around the jump limit and it is a little risky running that close to the planetary security. Not profitable. With a couple of light-hours to travel there might be "accidents" and the patrol is far away..
I'll have to think and see where this goes.
sunnuntai 26. lokakuuta 2008
tiistai 3. kesäkuuta 2008
Colonies, space
I covered previously colonies on the surfaces of other planetary objects. With this article, I will cover asteroid colonies and colonies in space.
Space and asteroid colonies have several advantages over planetary colonies. They can be (although slowly) moved, they can be expanded and they have plenty of energy coming from the sun. Depending on it's location it can be a center for manifacturing, processing, commerce or military. The versatility and adaptability of the space colony makes it a strong option. Also, space colonies are seldom very heavily populated (let us say seldom more than 1 million) and are probably shielded so that upon a catastrophic event the colony can be easily evacuated at least off-station for a short duration. Compartements can enhance the shielding and make it hard to do serious damage to the inhabitants.
The drawbacks are however that the colony will need oxygen and water. Oxygen can be generated from plants and through chemical processes. Plants require water, however, which has to come from somewhere. There may also be an alternative (backup or primary) nuclear power plant which will require fuel (hydrogen, helium, water, plutonium or similar). Also at least a part of the construction materials need to be imported, increasing the cost of building. Another drawback is the need of repairs. The colony needs constant repairs to stay operational, especially as older the colony gets. And the population growth has a very specific limit, after the water, air and space run out you have to either expand the colony or send people elsewhere.
The space colonies are usually present in science fiction around LaGrange points, in the asteroid belts and orbiting some planet on a stable orbit. The location of the colony also gives an indication of it's use.
Orbital space colonies are usually for commercial and military use. They may provide a port of call to off-planet traders, a base of operations for planetary security forces and such. Their industrial capacity is usually concentrated on ship and food manufacturing.
LaGrange colonies are usually built for their location. It is fairly easy to throw material from a planetary object to the LaGrange point and make it stay there. This makes, say an Earth L-5 colony a nice industrial center as they can get materials thrown from the moon, process it and sling it towards earth, for instance. Or sell it to traders passing back and forth. They are waystations but may also function as a way to ease the population growth issues on the planet below. These stations are usually huge and don't serve any particular reason except supporting the local population.
Asteroid colonies aren't usually very big. They might also be completely temporary, only existing until the asteroid the colony is built on (and the asteroids nearby) have been exploited. The colony usually has some installations on the surface of the asteroid but most of the habitation and basic operations are under the surface. Nevertheless, the population of an asteroid colony composes mostly from miners and engineers and possibly their family. The colony might not be for habitation at all, miners and engineers only being there for a certain tour of duty. Abandoned asteroid colonies are the favourite bases for space pirates and smugglers since they usually are pretty functional with some repairs, have all the facilities and have lots of space. If this is an issue, there might be regulations about blowing up abandoned space colonies every now and then.
Space and asteroid colonies have several advantages over planetary colonies. They can be (although slowly) moved, they can be expanded and they have plenty of energy coming from the sun. Depending on it's location it can be a center for manifacturing, processing, commerce or military. The versatility and adaptability of the space colony makes it a strong option. Also, space colonies are seldom very heavily populated (let us say seldom more than 1 million) and are probably shielded so that upon a catastrophic event the colony can be easily evacuated at least off-station for a short duration. Compartements can enhance the shielding and make it hard to do serious damage to the inhabitants.
The drawbacks are however that the colony will need oxygen and water. Oxygen can be generated from plants and through chemical processes. Plants require water, however, which has to come from somewhere. There may also be an alternative (backup or primary) nuclear power plant which will require fuel (hydrogen, helium, water, plutonium or similar). Also at least a part of the construction materials need to be imported, increasing the cost of building. Another drawback is the need of repairs. The colony needs constant repairs to stay operational, especially as older the colony gets. And the population growth has a very specific limit, after the water, air and space run out you have to either expand the colony or send people elsewhere.
The space colonies are usually present in science fiction around LaGrange points, in the asteroid belts and orbiting some planet on a stable orbit. The location of the colony also gives an indication of it's use.
Orbital space colonies are usually for commercial and military use. They may provide a port of call to off-planet traders, a base of operations for planetary security forces and such. Their industrial capacity is usually concentrated on ship and food manufacturing.
LaGrange colonies are usually built for their location. It is fairly easy to throw material from a planetary object to the LaGrange point and make it stay there. This makes, say an Earth L-5 colony a nice industrial center as they can get materials thrown from the moon, process it and sling it towards earth, for instance. Or sell it to traders passing back and forth. They are waystations but may also function as a way to ease the population growth issues on the planet below. These stations are usually huge and don't serve any particular reason except supporting the local population.
Asteroid colonies aren't usually very big. They might also be completely temporary, only existing until the asteroid the colony is built on (and the asteroids nearby) have been exploited. The colony usually has some installations on the surface of the asteroid but most of the habitation and basic operations are under the surface. Nevertheless, the population of an asteroid colony composes mostly from miners and engineers and possibly their family. The colony might not be for habitation at all, miners and engineers only being there for a certain tour of duty. Abandoned asteroid colonies are the favourite bases for space pirates and smugglers since they usually are pretty functional with some repairs, have all the facilities and have lots of space. If this is an issue, there might be regulations about blowing up abandoned space colonies every now and then.
keskiviikko 28. toukokuuta 2008
Colonies, surface
I seem to pace around certain ideas from time to time. I think it is a process of refining ideas for me. Anyways, today I thought about colonies.
In the legionverse science fiction setting of my creation, there are two types of human settlements: established worlds and colonies. The distinction between the two is that worlds have at least 100 million inhabitants (legal minimum set by Imperial Senate) and have a representative in the Imperial Senate as a consequence. Worlds also have the right to establish and govern colonies. People are free to establish colonies, but Imperial Law requires that the colony must be associated either with a specific world or be governed by the Imperial Navy. Illegal colonies found are immediately put under authority of the Navy.
Now, considering a colony. It is a permanent but relatively new settlement built by a relatively small group of people, a few hundred adults at most in the beginning. They probably have limited supplies, tools and a limited connection to the motherworld. Therefore the equipment they do have with them is concentrated to keep the colonists alive long enough that they can build shelter and start producing food (and oxygen, if needed).
Well-prepared (and/or funded) colonists might send an advance party to build the shelters for the colonists to inhabit. They might be robots, a group of volunteer colonists with the necessary skills or hired hands. What to send depends on technology and ease of travel to the location. Robots would be favoured if using humans is risky or expensive but humans probably would be used if robots are not trusted or if they are not flexible enough in their decision-making.
Now, let us assume that the colonists have shelter and have started producing food for themselves. The next goal would be to build a technical infrastructure. Let us assume that the planet the colonists have settled has natural oxygen and water so these are not required. To speed up food production, machinery will be needed and machinery will need power. Solar power would be easily obtained, but the amount of solar energy available would be limited. Nuclear or fusion power might be too difficult to build (and fuel), fossil fuels might not be available on the planet. If hydrogen is needed for powering vehicles or generators, there must be some way to separate hydrogen from water or a source of raw hydrogen (a gas giant, perhaps?).
The colony ship might be available for the colonists, at least if the colonists or the colony backer owns the ship. In this case, the colonists might dismantle the colony ship and strip it's high technology for their own use. This would provide the early colony with a power plant, sufficient fuel for a while as well as metal from the hull to use for reinforced shelter, possibly even surface-to-orbit weaponry from the ship's turrets or a minifactory for manufacturing spare parts. The ship would give the colony a good supply of essentials for building the core of industry on the planet.
Now, let us assume that the colony has survived the first cycle around their star (let us assume that this is roughly 0.5-3 years) and have means to produce food, electricity and can repair goods and might have some rudimentary transports, harvesters etc. Now new items appear. At this point, the colonists have been isolated for quite a while, only in the company of each others. Tensions might rise and the colony risking dispersement (which might be dangerous or simply divide the resources available). This would prompt to create a way to settle disagreements peacefully, by arbiter. The settlement would probably attempt to follow the customs of their homeworld but might, especially if exiles or otherwise unhappy with the rules back home, create something of their own. This would become the basis of government and society and the early days would shape the future society.
Another question is maintaining contact to homeworld, a vital requirement. While a colony should be as self-sufficient as possible, the colony needs additional colonists and resources to grow. Also, some spare parts might not be available on the planet and getting these would require contact with homeworld or trade relations elsewhere. This requires, however, that the colony has something to trade for the goods they need. The motherworld might require food, industrial metals or something else. The preparation to provide these to the motherworld will probably be a top priority, depending on what they can easily provide and what the world can offer. The motherworld would certainly fund operations to get more resources that the colony can provide and therefore fuel the colony's rapid growth.
In the legionverse science fiction setting of my creation, there are two types of human settlements: established worlds and colonies. The distinction between the two is that worlds have at least 100 million inhabitants (legal minimum set by Imperial Senate) and have a representative in the Imperial Senate as a consequence. Worlds also have the right to establish and govern colonies. People are free to establish colonies, but Imperial Law requires that the colony must be associated either with a specific world or be governed by the Imperial Navy. Illegal colonies found are immediately put under authority of the Navy.
Now, considering a colony. It is a permanent but relatively new settlement built by a relatively small group of people, a few hundred adults at most in the beginning. They probably have limited supplies, tools and a limited connection to the motherworld. Therefore the equipment they do have with them is concentrated to keep the colonists alive long enough that they can build shelter and start producing food (and oxygen, if needed).
Well-prepared (and/or funded) colonists might send an advance party to build the shelters for the colonists to inhabit. They might be robots, a group of volunteer colonists with the necessary skills or hired hands. What to send depends on technology and ease of travel to the location. Robots would be favoured if using humans is risky or expensive but humans probably would be used if robots are not trusted or if they are not flexible enough in their decision-making.
Now, let us assume that the colonists have shelter and have started producing food for themselves. The next goal would be to build a technical infrastructure. Let us assume that the planet the colonists have settled has natural oxygen and water so these are not required. To speed up food production, machinery will be needed and machinery will need power. Solar power would be easily obtained, but the amount of solar energy available would be limited. Nuclear or fusion power might be too difficult to build (and fuel), fossil fuels might not be available on the planet. If hydrogen is needed for powering vehicles or generators, there must be some way to separate hydrogen from water or a source of raw hydrogen (a gas giant, perhaps?).
The colony ship might be available for the colonists, at least if the colonists or the colony backer owns the ship. In this case, the colonists might dismantle the colony ship and strip it's high technology for their own use. This would provide the early colony with a power plant, sufficient fuel for a while as well as metal from the hull to use for reinforced shelter, possibly even surface-to-orbit weaponry from the ship's turrets or a minifactory for manufacturing spare parts. The ship would give the colony a good supply of essentials for building the core of industry on the planet.
Now, let us assume that the colony has survived the first cycle around their star (let us assume that this is roughly 0.5-3 years) and have means to produce food, electricity and can repair goods and might have some rudimentary transports, harvesters etc. Now new items appear. At this point, the colonists have been isolated for quite a while, only in the company of each others. Tensions might rise and the colony risking dispersement (which might be dangerous or simply divide the resources available). This would prompt to create a way to settle disagreements peacefully, by arbiter. The settlement would probably attempt to follow the customs of their homeworld but might, especially if exiles or otherwise unhappy with the rules back home, create something of their own. This would become the basis of government and society and the early days would shape the future society.
Another question is maintaining contact to homeworld, a vital requirement. While a colony should be as self-sufficient as possible, the colony needs additional colonists and resources to grow. Also, some spare parts might not be available on the planet and getting these would require contact with homeworld or trade relations elsewhere. This requires, however, that the colony has something to trade for the goods they need. The motherworld might require food, industrial metals or something else. The preparation to provide these to the motherworld will probably be a top priority, depending on what they can easily provide and what the world can offer. The motherworld would certainly fund operations to get more resources that the colony can provide and therefore fuel the colony's rapid growth.
keskiviikko 21. toukokuuta 2008
Huge Interstellar Empires And Why They Don't Last
Huge, interstellar, possibly galactic or even intergalactic empires are a usual sight in science fiction. Either they serve as an adversary to the freedom-fighting species around the galaxy, vicious militant aliens threatening earth or, in some cases, efficient and relatively benign and human-ruled.
In my previous entry I threaded upon the subject of FTL and interstellar society. Let us continue on that and assume that there exists, in the known space of this FTL travel society, an empire. This empire spans most of the known space. We shall assume that in this case, empire also means an autocratic monarchy. Let us call the supreme ruler emperor, although other titles might be as good. Even president, supreme chancellor or other superficially democratic titles. The fact remains that the emperor has control.
How does he have control? Either it is through religion, by controlling the clergy of the state religion (mandatory for all) and through the clergy promotes the emperor as divine or having a divine mandate to rule. It might be that his armed forces are superior to any other and he rules through threat of armes. He might distribute power to powerful warlords and form a sort of nobility (bureaucratic or martial) and have them rule far-off territories. This might cause the nobility to have more actual power (at least combined) than the emperor. And thus the Imperial Court would be a stage for intrigue, backstabbing and dark deals. And the emperor's spies would be everywhere. A theocratic empire keeps control through indoctrination. A theocratic empire does not happen overnight, though. It might be that the emperor is a figure drawn from a former religious leader slowly becoming a political and military leader. Or it might be that the emperor embraces a religion and the religion will be protective of it's most powerful patron. It also might be in this case that the religious leaders become very political. A theocratic feudal empire might even divide it's territories by diocese and set bishops and cardinals (or sheiks or whatever) to rule the territories directly.
How the system is created is equally important. Has the empire been created by conquest and assimilation or has it been a natural evolution of political power, ending in a stable (or somewhat stable) monarchy?
The creation by conquest has two major points. One is that the martial nobility is practically created by default. Military governors are appointed to conquered worlds even though they might be allowed to have some degree of autonomy and keep their local laws. There would be a garrison of imperial troops and possibly some ships in orbit, at least for a while. Military governors might eventually obtain a permanent and possibly hereditary claim to the world they administered or, to prevent such claims, the governors are cycled and replaced on a regular basis. In this case, powerful military leaders would gain much say in the Imperial court. This might be preferable to hereditary governors, since a military leaders might more often rise through the ranks by merit and skill rather than family influence. The second point is that the conquered territories are likely to harbor resentment towards the imperial authority and there would be a rebellion at any given moment on some world. Through assimilation, forced relocations and other harsh methods peace might be eventually obtained, but continued military presence on occupied worlds would cause a long-term strain on the imperial armed forces.
Natural evolution happens when a stellar state, probably under some sort of transition and crisis, hands over much power to a capable individual. This individual clears the crisis and as he does the job so well, more power is given to him. Alternatively, jealous powers might challenge him and force a civil war or political crisis. The leader would now have a good reason to gain absolute or almost absolute power "for the duration of the crisis". In the case of the Roman Republic, Caesar was assassinated quite shortly after winning the civil war, prompting another round of civil wars before Augustus, his legal heir, could assert his own authority. The civil war or other crisis to gain emergency powers could be faked or it could be manufactured and manipulated into happening, of course. But fact remains that evolution from a parliamentary (or other kind of plural rule) to autocratic is mostly triggered by a severe crisis, even though there might have been a slower move towards favouring strongman rule, possibly be long-term problems or recurring problems that need a swift hand.
Now, space. As with terrestial empires, geography (or should it be astrography in case of space?) and technology limits the boundaries of the empire. If distances between capital and outermost territories are long and the journey difficult, it will be a constant and expensive problem to keep the border territories. The border territories might even be partly or completely independent, serving as buffer states.
History has taught that if empires grow too large, they start to have management problems, bureaucratic expenses skyrocket and the society as a whole stagnates. And a stagnant society may be overrun by a less stagnant competitor or the empire might collapse under economic strain to several lesser states, ruled by the former governor or powerful warlords. Or (most probably) a collection of reasons, including the two mentioned.
In my previous entry I threaded upon the subject of FTL and interstellar society. Let us continue on that and assume that there exists, in the known space of this FTL travel society, an empire. This empire spans most of the known space. We shall assume that in this case, empire also means an autocratic monarchy. Let us call the supreme ruler emperor, although other titles might be as good. Even president, supreme chancellor or other superficially democratic titles. The fact remains that the emperor has control.
How does he have control? Either it is through religion, by controlling the clergy of the state religion (mandatory for all) and through the clergy promotes the emperor as divine or having a divine mandate to rule. It might be that his armed forces are superior to any other and he rules through threat of armes. He might distribute power to powerful warlords and form a sort of nobility (bureaucratic or martial) and have them rule far-off territories. This might cause the nobility to have more actual power (at least combined) than the emperor. And thus the Imperial Court would be a stage for intrigue, backstabbing and dark deals. And the emperor's spies would be everywhere. A theocratic empire keeps control through indoctrination. A theocratic empire does not happen overnight, though. It might be that the emperor is a figure drawn from a former religious leader slowly becoming a political and military leader. Or it might be that the emperor embraces a religion and the religion will be protective of it's most powerful patron. It also might be in this case that the religious leaders become very political. A theocratic feudal empire might even divide it's territories by diocese and set bishops and cardinals (or sheiks or whatever) to rule the territories directly.
How the system is created is equally important. Has the empire been created by conquest and assimilation or has it been a natural evolution of political power, ending in a stable (or somewhat stable) monarchy?
The creation by conquest has two major points. One is that the martial nobility is practically created by default. Military governors are appointed to conquered worlds even though they might be allowed to have some degree of autonomy and keep their local laws. There would be a garrison of imperial troops and possibly some ships in orbit, at least for a while. Military governors might eventually obtain a permanent and possibly hereditary claim to the world they administered or, to prevent such claims, the governors are cycled and replaced on a regular basis. In this case, powerful military leaders would gain much say in the Imperial court. This might be preferable to hereditary governors, since a military leaders might more often rise through the ranks by merit and skill rather than family influence. The second point is that the conquered territories are likely to harbor resentment towards the imperial authority and there would be a rebellion at any given moment on some world. Through assimilation, forced relocations and other harsh methods peace might be eventually obtained, but continued military presence on occupied worlds would cause a long-term strain on the imperial armed forces.
Natural evolution happens when a stellar state, probably under some sort of transition and crisis, hands over much power to a capable individual. This individual clears the crisis and as he does the job so well, more power is given to him. Alternatively, jealous powers might challenge him and force a civil war or political crisis. The leader would now have a good reason to gain absolute or almost absolute power "for the duration of the crisis". In the case of the Roman Republic, Caesar was assassinated quite shortly after winning the civil war, prompting another round of civil wars before Augustus, his legal heir, could assert his own authority. The civil war or other crisis to gain emergency powers could be faked or it could be manufactured and manipulated into happening, of course. But fact remains that evolution from a parliamentary (or other kind of plural rule) to autocratic is mostly triggered by a severe crisis, even though there might have been a slower move towards favouring strongman rule, possibly be long-term problems or recurring problems that need a swift hand.
Now, space. As with terrestial empires, geography (or should it be astrography in case of space?) and technology limits the boundaries of the empire. If distances between capital and outermost territories are long and the journey difficult, it will be a constant and expensive problem to keep the border territories. The border territories might even be partly or completely independent, serving as buffer states.
History has taught that if empires grow too large, they start to have management problems, bureaucratic expenses skyrocket and the society as a whole stagnates. And a stagnant society may be overrun by a less stagnant competitor or the empire might collapse under economic strain to several lesser states, ruled by the former governor or powerful warlords. Or (most probably) a collection of reasons, including the two mentioned.
tiistai 20. toukokuuta 2008
Time and Trade
Time is a difficult concept when discussing an interstellar society. Let us first assume an interstellar society with faster-than-light travel. This society has many settled worlds, space colonies and interstellar trade. A society that trades and otherwise intermingles between the stars has communications, treaties and other activity befitting a society, including possibly government, interstellar or planetary and/or both.
Now time becomes more significant. As a day, as currently understood, is a rotation of the planet Earth around it's axis. It can be possible for humans to adapt to different time cycles on other planets and time can follow either the local time (possibly having more or less hours in a day and such) or follow a specific calendar, such as the gregorian calendar on Earth. Or both. We can manage to follow GMT, EET and EST simultaneously, following, for instance Proxima-2 time and Terran Standard simultaneously should be no problem. As long as both are known.
But are they known? Let us assume that FTL is instantenous and takes us from one point in space to another in zero or nearly zero time from traveller point of view. Starship goes to jumppoint, disappears. In destination, starship appears. Simple. And if the time elsewhere (destination, departure point) stays the same, the ship returns when making the jump back, perhaps a few days later. Universal time is easy to maintain and no one gets confused. There might even be no official planetary times, just some adjustments to get the real feel of the planetary or station flow of time.
Let us now assume that the ship has travelled instantenously and there is a time lag of month per lightyear of distance. Much faster than speed of light. But a round-trip to Alpha Centauri takes almost 9 months on Earth while the traveller has been gone, from his point of view, a few days or a week or so. This is more confusing but it is possible to calculate. Travel also becomes a bit less tempting, as will trade. If taking care of immediate demands somewhere takes months at best, colonies on other starsystems tend to be very self-reliant and basically only ordering machine parts or other items not normally available in that system or planet. Trade focus is interplanetary and interstellar trade is more like spice trade in the 18th century, high-risk, high-gain. The items sought for might no longer be needed and the merchant is left sitting on a pile of useless goods. Still, zero-time travel from traveller point of view makes the trade reasonably profitable on goods that are always on demand. The merchant simply pops in, queries the planet for their needs. If none, he moves elsewhere to trade. Time on his ship passes more slowly than in the surrounding world meaning that he will have to synchronize his clocks after each jump. Time becomes more difficult to manage on other planets as well, as jump-ship time is out-of-date. If time lag can be accounted for exactly, time shouldn't be a problem. There would probably be several different calendars in use, one for each inhabited system or planet.
Third scenario. Let us assume that this FTL travel is not instantenous, say, jump time from Sol to Alpha Centauri takes a week in hyperspace. After this, ship arrives at edge of Alpha Centauri system and with good engines arrives at orbit of the inhabited inner planet(s) in a month or so. This cuts the travel time in short and creates incentive to systems to establish trading posts near the outer edges of the system. The planetary transports transfer the goods to the trade post and from the trade post, merchants never really entering the system. In this case there is also some lag, as the needs of a system or planet are known about a few weeks afterwards, but still less than the months. Time passes in this scenario as well, but less so and the time can be more easily managed.
Let us now assume two additional scenarios.
1) There is no FTL, but ships can achieve near-lightspeed speeds. A one-way trip to Alpha Centauri could take, say, 20 years from observer point of view. To the traveller, less time has passed. Far-flung interstellar colonies are practically self-sufficient. There is no interstellar trade, probably only supply ships and communications from government, if even that. Travel is mainly transportation of people for permanent settlement or possibly military expeditions, though even these might be rare. All time is system-local, probably based in colonization dates on the interstellar colonies. There might be estimates or even actual knowledge of current time back home, but it is probably used for reference if it is not useful for the settlers in some way.
2) The FTL time delay is determined by an unknown or possible random factor (quantum mechanics or such). If time delay is not noticed and there is no FTL radio, there is mainly local time, based on colonisation dates or some other notable event. Or it tries to maintain the Earth Standard (or equivalent) time.
A little on-off topic on this one, but hopefully enlightening on the matters of time, trade and interstellar space.
Now time becomes more significant. As a day, as currently understood, is a rotation of the planet Earth around it's axis. It can be possible for humans to adapt to different time cycles on other planets and time can follow either the local time (possibly having more or less hours in a day and such) or follow a specific calendar, such as the gregorian calendar on Earth. Or both. We can manage to follow GMT, EET and EST simultaneously, following, for instance Proxima-2 time and Terran Standard simultaneously should be no problem. As long as both are known.
But are they known? Let us assume that FTL is instantenous and takes us from one point in space to another in zero or nearly zero time from traveller point of view. Starship goes to jumppoint, disappears. In destination, starship appears. Simple. And if the time elsewhere (destination, departure point) stays the same, the ship returns when making the jump back, perhaps a few days later. Universal time is easy to maintain and no one gets confused. There might even be no official planetary times, just some adjustments to get the real feel of the planetary or station flow of time.
Let us now assume that the ship has travelled instantenously and there is a time lag of month per lightyear of distance. Much faster than speed of light. But a round-trip to Alpha Centauri takes almost 9 months on Earth while the traveller has been gone, from his point of view, a few days or a week or so. This is more confusing but it is possible to calculate. Travel also becomes a bit less tempting, as will trade. If taking care of immediate demands somewhere takes months at best, colonies on other starsystems tend to be very self-reliant and basically only ordering machine parts or other items not normally available in that system or planet. Trade focus is interplanetary and interstellar trade is more like spice trade in the 18th century, high-risk, high-gain. The items sought for might no longer be needed and the merchant is left sitting on a pile of useless goods. Still, zero-time travel from traveller point of view makes the trade reasonably profitable on goods that are always on demand. The merchant simply pops in, queries the planet for their needs. If none, he moves elsewhere to trade. Time on his ship passes more slowly than in the surrounding world meaning that he will have to synchronize his clocks after each jump. Time becomes more difficult to manage on other planets as well, as jump-ship time is out-of-date. If time lag can be accounted for exactly, time shouldn't be a problem. There would probably be several different calendars in use, one for each inhabited system or planet.
Third scenario. Let us assume that this FTL travel is not instantenous, say, jump time from Sol to Alpha Centauri takes a week in hyperspace. After this, ship arrives at edge of Alpha Centauri system and with good engines arrives at orbit of the inhabited inner planet(s) in a month or so. This cuts the travel time in short and creates incentive to systems to establish trading posts near the outer edges of the system. The planetary transports transfer the goods to the trade post and from the trade post, merchants never really entering the system. In this case there is also some lag, as the needs of a system or planet are known about a few weeks afterwards, but still less than the months. Time passes in this scenario as well, but less so and the time can be more easily managed.
Let us now assume two additional scenarios.
1) There is no FTL, but ships can achieve near-lightspeed speeds. A one-way trip to Alpha Centauri could take, say, 20 years from observer point of view. To the traveller, less time has passed. Far-flung interstellar colonies are practically self-sufficient. There is no interstellar trade, probably only supply ships and communications from government, if even that. Travel is mainly transportation of people for permanent settlement or possibly military expeditions, though even these might be rare. All time is system-local, probably based in colonization dates on the interstellar colonies. There might be estimates or even actual knowledge of current time back home, but it is probably used for reference if it is not useful for the settlers in some way.
2) The FTL time delay is determined by an unknown or possible random factor (quantum mechanics or such). If time delay is not noticed and there is no FTL radio, there is mainly local time, based on colonisation dates or some other notable event. Or it tries to maintain the Earth Standard (or equivalent) time.
A little on-off topic on this one, but hopefully enlightening on the matters of time, trade and interstellar space.
Space, revisited
Once, there was a blog. A blog where I thought, mainly for myself, stuff about space, universe and science fiction. Also some social science stuff and politics and philosophy. Then, I decided I should separate this "thoughty stuff" from the regular "I caught the cold today and feel slightly unhappy about some stuff".
The thoughty stuff happens here. The regular stuff happens elsewhere.
A slight disclaimer before I start. I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive spelling errors and some oddities in the typing. Native english speakers are however encouraged to send corrections and constructive criticism on the matter.
The thoughty stuff happens here. The regular stuff happens elsewhere.
A slight disclaimer before I start. I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive spelling errors and some oddities in the typing. Native english speakers are however encouraged to send corrections and constructive criticism on the matter.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)