why should we ? Melville obviously wants to treat things on his own, and well, mercs signing up for a covered ops know that payment and risk rise equally....
- - - Updated - - -
until now XR-H d11-102 (1122 K m radius)
Alien archeology and other mysteries: Thread 9 - The Canonn
- Thread starter Ian Phillips
- Start date
- Status
- - - Updated - - -
Another small one - scanning now:
nope, cause as he say there is Three different type of site, so far we found only two, that would mean that we have 3 (Or more) of One type, 2(or more) of Another type, and possibly 1 or 2 or 3 of Again Another type...
Good luck to find this CMDRs
- - - Updated - - -
oh damn.. all these landable body.. WE NEED TO FIND THIS GOD DAMN KEYY
Right - I'm off to read Moby - back in a mo'
Hang on a minute - I thought they were trying to cut back on out-of-game mechanics??
Thinking on this myself at present. There is no reason to think they do not, apart from Melville's proposal that they appear in clusters. We wont know if the clusters he refers too are singular sites spread across stars or if the clusters are confined to a system or even a planet until we find them, everywhere and anywhere is worth checking.
Right - I'm off to read Moby - back in a mo'
Hang on a minute - I thought they were trying to cut back on out-of-game mechanics??
It's worth a look at the new systems mentioned - not at the book
Well, we have a choice between looking at three system that have been stated to have 3 sites, or the existing five without that statement. Think I might go for one of the new ones
Is that a y class dwarf I see
see Ruins Site 5 - around a gas giant
Yep, Still waiting for his message there lol :')
It's worth a look at the new systems mentioned - not at the book
I think someone at FD is just having a little fun drawing a parallel between the obsessive characters of Prof Melville and Captain Ahab - not much more to it than that.
Well, we have a choice between looking at three system that have been stated to have 3 sites, or the existing five without that statement. Think I might go for one of the new ones
Probably best for now that we go with where we know there is something new as we need to reveal whatever system Melville is using to find them. I also wouldn't mind finding the the poi's of their wreckage.
Nah, this is just terminology getting mixed up. In the strict sense Tidal Locking just means that orbital period and rotational period are the same. The situation where the same side always faces the body being orbited (a la our moon) is a specific subset of tidal locking; 'synchronous rotation'. Synchronous rotation is the most well known form of tidal locking so it's widely taken as being what tidal locking is.
The first planet is tidally locked, but it's not in synchronous rotation.
Or we can always just say that the criteria is that orbital and rotational periods match!
as far as I remeber, our moon isn´t that precisely synchronous either, we can see from earth around 55% percent of the moons surface as the moon has a slight axial tilt too ???Nah, this is just terminology getting mixed up. In the strict sense Tidal Locking just means that orbital period and rotational period are the same. The situation where the same side always faces the body being orbited (a la our moon) is a specific subset of tidal locking; 'synchronous rotation'. Synchronous rotation is the most well known form of tidal locking so it's widely taken as being what tidal locking is.
The first planet is tidally locked, but it's not in synchronous rotation.
Or we can always just say that the criteria is that orbital and rotational periods match!
Last edited:
Michael Brookes
Game Director
- Status