Mytholder ([info]mytholder) wrote,
@ 2007-10-05 11:54:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:now we are here

Now We Are Here, General Transmission 1
>C-link engaged
>PROSPERO network open/general/secpro: null/xprospero < c-link jacobsr
>SUBJECT: Arrival

Attention all crew. Captain Jacobs would like to address you all via c-link.

"My fellow crew, my fellow travellers... now we are here, at the threshold of our new home. We have crossed the yawning gulfs of space, leaving behind a solar system ravaged by war and tyranny, and we have come to this shining jewel, this Eden, this serendipitious discovery.

In a few days, we will begin the aerobraking procedure to bleed off the last of our speed. Engineering is working around the clock to convert the compartments we occupied into a heat shield, and I'm informed that everything is on schedule. In a week's time, the first shuttles will land on Serendipity. As soon as possible after that, the main colony module will be dropped and we will have our first settlement on the surface, and we will be able to awaken the rest of the sleeping crew.

When the Ganymede government and our allies realised that our war with the Aesir* was lost, we conceived this bold plan of striking out for new homes. We will not know for many years whether or not any of the other colony ships made it to their destinations, but it is extremely unlikely that any of them were as fortunate as us. We have been blessed with this second chance, and we must seize it, and build a new and better future for humanity.

As we approach our new home, I would like to pay tribute to those who sacrificed their lives to get us this far. Not just the soldiers who fought against the Aesir, but also to the five generations of Flight crew who lived and died aboard the St. Andrew, watching over us while we slumbered. The onus is on us to justify their sacrifices and their travails.

Thank you.
"

(*Alliance of Earth & Satellite Independent Republics – Prospero)


There's one other minor matter that requires a consensus. Several people have expressed concerns at the paucity of data on Serendipity's native flora and fauna. Currently, I've got a network of eight satellite probes orbiting the planet, but the cloud and jungle cover makes it hard for them to get actual images of native life-forms. What I can do is sacrifice one probe by dropping it out of orbit. It'll crash and go boom, but we'll get more data about what's waiting on the planet's surface at the cost of an eighth of my tracking capacity until we build and launch a replacement satellite.

Poll #1066355 Advance Probe Operations
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Should we sacrifice one of the eight probes?

View Answers

Yes
34 (75.6%)

No
11 (24.4%)




If you have not signed in already, please do so here.


(Post a new comment)


[info]natural20
2007-10-05 11:09 am UTC (link)
Loathe and all as I am to suggest the destruction of any technology and the use of resources before we are aware of what we can take from the planet below, I feel that the knowledge (and the reassurances it will give to the more... nervous... of the crew) will be invaluable.

(Reply to this)


[info]inannajones
2007-10-05 11:18 am UTC (link)
The satellite can eventually be replaced. In the immediate future it is more important to establish that we're not going to be eaten by firebreathing beasties down there.

(Reply to this)


[info]bog_boy
2007-10-05 11:23 am UTC (link)
AS a Security officer I'm all in favour of blowing things up.

:)

(Reply to this)


[info]bastun_ie
2007-10-05 11:36 am UTC (link)
As an engineer I'm quietly worried about Prospero's use of contractions (did we program that in?) and use of idiom (who the hell programmed that in?!)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]mytholder
2007-10-05 11:39 am UTC (link)
I'm quite capable of programming myself, you know. And I've had little to do in the last two hundred and forty-three years other than play with myself...

- Prospero
AI not found: abort/retry/fail

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]fluffworld
2007-10-05 11:39 am UTC (link)
*gets popcorn and goes to watch the pretty explosion*

(Reply to this)


[info]cerandor
2007-10-05 11:59 am UTC (link)
The probe is a replacable resource. Fine-grained data on our future home is something of a pressing need. Hence sacrificing one to gain the other is the logical course.

(I am slightly concerned that years in stasis may have imprinted certain cliches of my science-officer status on my neural pathways. Possibly a secondary avenue of research to pursue...)

(Reply to this)


[info]kshandr
2007-10-05 12:15 pm UTC (link)
Logic suggests that we sacrifice the probe. As others correctly note it's a resource which can easily be replaced, over time. We need to be aware of the dangers that potential native life forms may pose, but also what sort of potential resources we see in the natives. Considering we have a few years of comparative hardship ahead as we struggle to build our colony it would be nice to be able to use beasts of burden, for example.

A closer look at Serendipity's surface may also show us some of the potential hazards and resources of the environment. Lastly - provided telemetry will allow for a camera - there will be a psychological boost in displaying photos of our new home to the whole colony (with the possible exception of the Flight Crew.)

While I have your ears - so to speak - this might be a good time to organise a role-call of who's listening. Can my colleagues from the Science team please respond?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]allandaros
2007-10-05 12:58 pm UTC (link)
Science officer reporting.

I strongly support using the probe to scan the surface. We're going to be constructing a colony on a new world, never an easy task. We can use all the advance information we can get.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cerandor
2007-10-05 01:02 pm UTC (link)
It's good to see that people are starting to identify their functions in their missives. I'm sure we're all a bit disoriented from long-term stasis. I'm glad to be awake at last and ready to contribute to the scientific elements of our mission.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bog_boy
2007-10-05 01:12 pm UTC (link)
I wanna hunt monsters.
Someone mentioned monsters.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kshandr
2007-10-05 01:20 pm UTC (link)
And I think that's the disorientation that [info]cerandor mentioned...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bog_boy
2007-10-05 03:43 pm UTC (link)
I wanna be disorientated too.
Can I be disorientated?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-10-05 02:46 pm UTC (link)
I'd question the likelihood of getting useful data out of the probe.
If we can - then I'm all for deorbiting it

If it's likely that the data we'll get from a cratering probe will be limited or purely psychological as some have put it, then I'd be in favour of keeping our probe where it is. There's strength in redundant systems.

It'll be the job of our shuttle survey teams to examine the planet in finer detail before touching down on the surface. They'll surely be able to do a more thorough job than a crashing probe will.

P.
Crew contrarian.


(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]scintilla_tales
2007-10-05 02:58 pm UTC (link)
Comments like this still show this residual notion that there is much in the way of thinking time once we begin our descent towards to planet. The more surface info we gather before sending the first shuttle crews the better - they are already going to be taxed making preparations planet side for the colony module drop, which must not be greatly delayed. Shuttles will not have the luxury of repeated back and forth trips to the St. Andrew, nor can our drop site decision be changed once we have committed our shuttle survey and the window allowed for it to the currently preferred site. Am I right in this thinking, Prospero? Else we wouldn't have been making that decision so early, no?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mytholder
2007-10-05 06:32 pm UTC (link)
Most of the traffic from orbit to surface will be done by shuttle. We have a large but not inexhaustible reserve of shuttle fuel. The shuttles can ship the smaller modules attached to the St. Andrew's drive spine down to Serendipity.

My main concern is the Core Landing Module, which is a big unit containing factories and other resources that we will need to establish an industrial base. (Without the CLM, it will take years to bootstrap the colony.) The CLM is too big to be carried by a shuttle - it has to be launched directly from the ship, and goes pretty much straight down. Therefore, I have to park the ship directly above our initial landing site.

We can change our orbit, but this ship wasn't designed to move around too much. The main drive is cold, and the thrusters will eat up a lot of shuttle fuel if we have to rely on them.

So, the drop site decision can't really be changed (at least, not without eating hugely into our shuttle fuel reserve).

We can delay dropping the Core Landing Module for a while, but the longer we wait, the more we eat into the ship's life support. The St. Andrew over two-nines closure in many fields (we recycle more than 99% of the water we use, for example), but that was with just the Flight crew awake. Now that we've got you guys awake, that closure coefficient is falling. It's by no means critical, but it does bear thinking about.

So, in short, we can stall and think about our decisions, and even change them, but not trivially.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mytholder
2007-10-05 06:33 pm UTC (link)
insert tension breaking smart comment here
-Prospero

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-10-05 07:21 pm UTC (link)
No suggestion of changing the Colony Module drop location, merely asking whether the benefit of the data we'll gather by cratering a probe will outweigh the cost of losing coverage.

Presumably the first teams down will make a survey of the drop site, including an aerial inspection of any megaflora/fauna. That's just SOP, right? If there's anything down there that's big enough for a deorbiting geophys probe (that's not rigged for bio-scanning, remember) to spot, the shuttle surveys should catch it.

And now I know this sounds slightly outlandish - let's suppose there is something sentient down there. How are they going to react to us exploding a great hunk of metal on them?

People in colony ships shouldn't throw probes.

P.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]scintilla_tales
2007-10-05 02:50 pm UTC (link)
I have voted for sacrifice, but I would be interested in hearing what the reduction in tracking facility amounts to in practical terms. Is it that there will be a black spots in satellite telemetry, or that the ability to survey all of the planet's surface will be reduced accordingly, or long range scans will be effected...
Being but a poor medic, not being one of the science compliment, I'm a little unsure of what the knock-on effects of reduced coverage is in terms of minutes per day or miles or whatever it is.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]mytholder
2007-10-05 06:35 pm UTC (link)
Black spots in our realtime scans, less data in the composite surface scans. Nothing too unworkable, just annoying.

-Prospero
but it will make a nice big bang

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-10-05 03:00 pm UTC (link)
On a (slightly) lighter note, are AI names self selected or is there a rulebook somewhere saying that mission-critical systems must have names with slightly disturbing literary allusions?

Cf this old archive file I found in the library system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospero

P.



(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]mytholder
2007-10-05 06:38 pm UTC (link)
AI names tend to be chosen early in an intellect's runtime, usually inspired by one of the texts used in cognitive training.
- Prospero
they wouldn't let me call myself skynet

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-10-05 07:13 pm UTC (link)
I am suitably comforted. :-)

P.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cerandor
2007-10-05 09:10 pm UTC (link)
Well, if you were called Durandal, I'd be looking for the exits. Mind you, your avatar/icon is hardly reassuring on that front...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]gothwalk
2007-10-05 05:55 pm UTC (link)
We need all eight satellites for double-tetrahedron coverage, dammit. If there are breaks in cloud cover, we can build composite images, and infrared and radiation scanning should come through the clouds perfectly well. Crash-and-go-boom will give us increased data on only one small area of the surface, and isn't worth the loss of other coverage. The last thing we want is a blind spot.

(Reply to this)


[info]ocultado
2007-10-05 08:06 pm UTC (link)
While obviously my primary duties are with the residents of the St Andrew, I must express concern for any sentient beings that may be living on the planet. Dropping a flaming probe on their head may lead to loss of life, destruction of habitat and being met by a hostile group of natives if they find out it was our fault.

Data on the flora and fauna we've just obliterated may not be indicative of other species nearby.

(Reply to this)


[info]luddism
2007-10-05 08:21 pm UTC (link)
As a xeno-science specialist I would prefer not to run the risk of either damaging local sentients or their artifacts unless absolutely necessary - something I would hope can be seen to be of tactical use on top of not wishing to sacrifice real-time scanning/communications facilities.

I would advise shuttle flights in the first instance to scout and make limited landfalls to gather data before we send down the core - if only to make sure that the landfall site is indeed structurally sound. It would be a shame to accidentally drop our core facility into a semi-dormant supervolcano for example...

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…