X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

User avatar
PREDATOR490
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1790
Joined: 2006-03-13 08:04am
Location: Scotland

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by PREDATOR490 »

Should be pointed out that Asgard beaming technology can ease things considerably. Its been shown to beam entire buildings from orbit to space so using a stationed X304 to shuttle things while its hanging around wouldnt be that hard.

One of the more stupid things about the SG development is the lack of implementation of several BASIC technolgies they have had for a decent while - We can cobble together midway station, duplicate X304s complete with Asgard technology. But we havent figured out how to deploy basic energy weapons in the field beyond the ones we 'steal / borrow', personal shields or transporter technology the Asgard kinda gave us years ago. An orbital transport facility could potentially remove any need to shuttle things up and down via convential shuttle launches to the barest minimum.
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16432
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by Batman »

...once you get the orbital transport facility up there, which you again have to do the conventional way. Again, that leaves you with an orbital facility that is painfully easy to detect even if you managed to cobble together a cover story for how you got it there to begin with.
And frankly Asgard beaming technology is easier and cheaper than conventional rocket launches, but not all that much less noticeable (the transport beam is clearly visible) and to operate an orbital shipyard you'd have to use it all the time. I'm very much afraid people are going to notice.
Orbital shipyards may or may not be more efficient than ground-based ones depending on circumstances (as pointed out by others in this thread), but as long as secrecy is a concern and given SG Earth resources, building the ships in a secret facility in some mostly ignored desert or other is much easier to keep under wraps.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by Alyeska »

An orbital facility can be built using existing ships, if desired. Why use rockets when you have BC-304s available?

Thing is, they don't need to build them in space. Its a complication and waste of resources. Their design is ground based and the available technology allows fairly large ships to move to ground.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16432
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by Batman »

That was sort of my point? Of course you can move operations to orbit once you have 304s available. But since you already have the ability to build them on the surface and get them into orbit casually, why bother with an orbital shipyard?
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Skgoa
Jedi Master
Posts: 1389
Joined: 2007-08-02 01:39pm
Location: Dresden, valley of the clueless

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by Skgoa »

Simon_Jester wrote:
Skgoa wrote: If we want to look at the question from a realistic POV for a second, this is actually an excellent reason to construct anything in microgravity that is not meant to leave that environment. Engineers will always try very hard to get their crafts as light as possible... and structural mass that isn't neccessary in microgravity is an easy thing to reduce.
True, but this reasoning may not apply to warships, which will typically be built more heavily so they're not ridiculously easy to kill. Also to withstand relatively high accelerations, for much the same reason- you may find yourself needing to get well out of the way of an incoming ballistic projectile in a hurry.
I bolded the important part. I am not arguing for any specific position, as no answer to these questions can be found right now. I merely pointed out something that IMO should be kept in mind.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74

This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester
User avatar
sirocco
Padawan Learner
Posts: 191
Joined: 2009-11-08 09:32am
Location: I don't know!

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by sirocco »

Batman wrote:...once you get the orbital transport facility up there, which you again have to do the conventional way. Again, that leaves you with an orbital facility that is painfully easy to detect even if you managed to cobble together a cover story for how you got it there to begin with.
And frankly Asgard beaming technology is easier and cheaper than conventional rocket launches, but not all that much less noticeable (the transport beam is clearly visible) and to operate an orbital shipyard you'd have to use it all the time. I'm very much afraid people are going to notice.
Orbital shipyards may or may not be more efficient than ground-based ones depending on circumstances (as pointed out by others in this thread), but as long as secrecy is a concern and given SG Earth resources, building the ships in a secret facility in some mostly ignored desert or other is much easier to keep under wraps.
Once they got the first BC303, they could just have hollowed out an asteroid in the Kuiper Belt and build a secret facility up there. There's much stuff out there that next to nobody would notice it.
Future is a common dream. Past is a shared lie.
There is the only the 3 Presents : the Present of Today, the Present of Tomorrow and the Present of Yesterday.
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16432
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by Batman »

I wouldn't exactly call a shipyard 4 lighthours away 'orbital', really. :D Besides, the commute is going to be murder.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by Sea Skimmer »

sirocco wrote: Once they got the first BC303, they could just have hollowed out an asteroid in the Kuiper Belt and build a secret facility up there. There's much stuff out there that next to nobody would notice it.
That would also leave the vital facility wide open to attack unless it had its own defense force separate from that protecting earth guarding it around the clock. Its not like building this secret facility would be free either, any kind of shipyard is going to cost billions upon billions of dollars and the costs, and difficulty of keeping those costs hidden would keep going up too.

If you have a shipyard underground in Nevada, you can plausibly have workers at the site which had no idea what they are doing and assume they are working on other secret projects in a random government tunnel. Even relatively large metal structures can be explained away as being parts of submarines or internal guts of bunkers at that point. If you transport those guys into space then they all know what is going on, and they can’t be flown back home constantly, as is done for Area 51, to tell the wife and kids that nothing is going on. So now you not only need more money, you need to explain why thousands of highly skilled American workers are completely missing from society.

Really everything favors working on earth as far as I can see it. If you have anti gravity most of the advantages of space construction cease to matter, and the drawbacks are considerable. Gravity is actually useful for some stuff like preventing every last tool and wire and nut and bolt you are working with from floating away. it doesn't just give you air.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
aussiemuscle308
Padawan Learner
Posts: 201
Joined: 2011-01-20 10:53pm

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by aussiemuscle308 »

Batman wrote: the Stargate program is secret, and that most of Earth's industry is Earth's industry as we know it. What's easier to keep under wraps? .
...and yet they criticize other cultures for keeping the stargate a secret.

The x303 was also launched from surface in Prometheus pt1. and stolen from a secret military base. i find it highly unlikely these goons could keep a secret as big as the stargate program.
========================================
If you believe in Telekinesis, raise my hand.
User avatar
Xon
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6206
Joined: 2002-07-16 06:12am
Location: Western Australia

Re: X-303/304 landing ability in Stargate

Post by Xon »

Stolen by people who knew the project virtually inside out and where legitimately trusted for inclusion into knowing about all of the SGC's projects. The NID/Trust had the situation arranged from start to finish. Well except for the fact the Hyperdrive didn't actually work correctly.
"Okay, I'll have the truth with a side order of clarity." ~ Dr. Daniel Jackson.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ~ Stephen Colbert
"One Drive, One Partition, the One True Path" ~ ars technica forums - warrens - on hhd partitioning schemes.
Post Reply