Unknown Artefact (or artifact) Community Thread - The Canonn

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
So while the clock keeps on ticking, everyone keeps talking.
No-one is actually DOING anything.

All it takes is ONE UA taken to Paterson Enterprise at Sirius and sold on the black market.

If I had a UA myself, I'd have sold it there already this evening.

Reasoning behind this? We've already sold a UA and it didn't hit galnet.....

Col 285 Sector WA-L b9-3 ?

Uhhh what about it?
 
Simple thinking.

News: local shutle crash because UA is onboard.
Closest local planet is Waypoint.

UA has a GPS. Where do you take your GPS?
To the Waypoint.

Last day. Simple clues. Simple solution.
 
Simple thinking.

News: local shutle crash because UA is onboard.
Closest local planet is Waypoint.

UA has a GPS. Where do you take your GPS?
To the Waypoint.

Last day. Simple clues. Simple solution.
If the plump lady is indeed clearing her throat, why not?
 
News: local shutle crash because UA is onboard.

UA has a GPS. Where do you take your GPS?
To the Waypoint.

.


a) we don't know the shuttle had a UA on board.

b) I don't think we know that the UA has a GPS.

It reports the name of the nearest significant object. This could be a star 1000LS away.

A GPS tells you its own position. The Ua tells us the name of something its near. Similar...but different.
 
Last edited:
What about trying to use a Docking Computer on a UA? Using a docking computer while we have a UA? Or just simply boosting-boosting-boosting around Sirius? There's also the fact that the UA has "similar chittering to stations" from what I've heard, that could mean that the docking computer mistakes the two (thats why it boosted the ship in the news, UA was outside, it tried to reach it maybe)...

I still support these tests... They are safe and people have been popping these ideas last coupl'a pages...
 
With the galnet article, I read it before reading too much in here and honest, it just sounded like they galnetified bugs with the docking computer (a fair few other threads reporting bugs with their ship boosting into the station wall while using the docking computer)
 
I don't think we know that the UA has a GPS.

It reports the name of the nearest significant object. This could be a star 1000LS away.

A GPS tells you its own position. The Ua tells us the name of something its near. Similar...but different.

I agree.
I'm just trying to think real simple stupid as it may be the last day of the mystery ;-)
 
With the galnet article, I read it before reading too much in here and honest, it just sounded like they galnetified bugs with the docking computer (a fair few other threads reporting bugs with their ship boosting into the station wall while using the docking computer)

Yes - except for the links to Antares and SS1 - which were deliberately pointed out.
 
With the galnet article, I read it before reading too much in here and honest, it just sounded like they galnetified bugs with the docking computer (a fair few other threads reporting bugs with their ship boosting into the station wall while using the docking computer)

Hee hee, I forgot about that (having never used a docking computer, and no longer really paying much attention to other threads).

- - - Updated - - -

Yes - except for the links to Antares and SS1 - which were deliberately pointed out.

And we have no evidence that either of those ships had a UA on board either.
 
Last edited:
Well if we are betting on Sirius - Then I would guess that since 1.2 came out March 10th

On March 2nd the Sirius Survey finishes link

On March 12th they give a list of 9 colonial outposts - maybe thy found somthing on one of those while doing the research ? link

Hmmm..
There could be a testable link to the UA and SiCorp... The colonised systems changed their names, right? What if the UA Morses the original name or the new one? If it taps out the original name, perhaps we can rule out a SiCorp connection? If it taps out the new one, it doesn't help (we don't know where its getting its data from)

+rep for both of you!
I like it!
UA bearers, ^^^^^^ way to go!!!!
 
+rep for both of you!
I like it!
UA bearers, ^^^^^^ way to go!!!!

Umm, except why are Federation and Imperial convoys carrying the UAs around? [cue Sirius working in league with INRA theory, or even Sirius is front for INRA theory - see Mycoid virus, etc.]
 
Last edited:
I agree.
I'm just trying to think real simple stupid as it may be the last day of the mystery ;-)


I'm not trying to be grumpy - we've just been down so many side paths and I'm instantly wary of any plan that involves losing a UA - there are lots of these plans and we only have 2? UAs. We'd have to be awfully sure about it before selling/destroying/whatever one of them.

But hey - If a UA holder decides to do something like this - thats their right. Totally. And I'd back their decision - even if I disagree with it.
 
Umm, except why are Federation and Imperial convoys carrying the UAs around? [cue Sirius working in league with INRA theory]

And except (for the third time now), I've been there and deployed the UA there and docked at the station and checked that out too...

Check my sig if you want to see a video.... Ceos.
 
Last edited:
Umm, except why are Federation and Imperial convoys carrying the UAs around? [cue Sirius working in league with INRA theory, or even Sirius is front for INRA theory - see Mycoid virus, etc.]

That is just to discover where the UA is coming from. What happened after we don't know. Perhaps sirius sold the technology to fed and imps, later...
We are just trying to go to the source, first.
I mean: Sirius found it or built it, or both, then sold it. Follow the money.

- - - Updated - - -

And except (for the third time now), I've been there and deployed the UA there and docked at the station and checked that out too...

Check my sig if you want to see a video.... Ceos.

Yes, I know. But not in all of the new sirius colonies.

BTW, you are right, the answer must be in the sound. We just missed it. :(
I'm sure the solution MUST first come from the sound itself, and very easy too.
Then the sound should have taken us somewhere. Not just guessing like we are doing in the last 3 months... :(
 
Last edited:
And we have no evidence that either of those ships had a UA on board either.

Quite true - I think lots of us have been assuming that the 2 mysteries (UA and missing ships) are linked in some way - but there is no direct evidence of it at all.

If the UA is going to be explained tomorrow (if) it seems odd for Galnet to deliberately bring up the missing ships thing again. Its either accidental, coincidental or deliberate. If they just wanted to talk about docking computers - why bring up the link to missing ships?

Dunno - It might be coincidence - but....Dunno....
 
Quite true - I think lots of us have been assuming that the 2 mysteries (UA and missing ships) are linked in some way - but there is no direct evidence of it at all.

If the UA is going to be explained tomorrow (if) it seems odd for Galnet to deliberately bring up the missing ships thing again. Its either accidental, coincidental or deliberate. If they just wanted to talk about docking computers - why bring up the link to missing ships?

Dunno - It might be coincidence - but....Dunno....
It possible of cause that the missing ships is just set up for the introduction of some new game mechanic that will arrive either with 1.4 update or in the expansion pack and nothing to do with the UA announcement. bed time now.
 
Last edited:
If the UA is going to be explained tomorrow (if) it seems odd for Galnet to deliberately bring up the missing ships thing again. Its either accidental, coincidental or deliberate. If they just wanted to talk about docking computers - why bring up the link to missing ships?

Dunno - It might be coincidence - but....Dunno....

Generally I'd say there's far too many assumptions, and we have theories based on these assumptions coming out of our ears.

Nobody here knows that the UA is going to be explained tomorrow, therefore there is no "coincidence".
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom