Talk:Space Race
From Acw
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
[[User:Admin|Boots]] 03:50, 30 June 2006 (EDT) | [[User:Admin|Boots]] 03:50, 30 June 2006 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | Gents, new issue is starting to develop. Namely that this page is becoming inconsistent with history entries for individual sites. We need a complete historical progression somewhere and I think this is probably the best place for it. Because this page will become very long, entries should be as concise as possible, dot points preferred. If more detail is available use a link. Can I ask everyone to try to keep this page in mind when altering, or inputing history on individual pages. <br> | ||
| + | Boots, if you feel this is not the appropriate location for a complete historical progression, can someone make such a page and link it to the front page. <br> | ||
| + | --[[User:Shaun|Shaun]] 03:51, 4 July 2006 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 07:51, 4 July 2006
Edited out of main article
- In 2103 the first German wormhole is created linking the moon with the asteroid belt. Effort is turned immediately into the production of a faster than light capable ship.
- In 2105 the Russians create their own wormhole
Reason
1) Wormholes canot be created within solar systems, we're writing that bit at the moment. 2) The Russians invented wormholes, hence their beign called 'Krasnikov tubes'. Again, we're workign on that.
Apologies, please bear with us while we get the skeleton of this stuff in there. The rest of this is good. Admin 00:27, 28 June 2006 (EDT)
Also noticed the confusion. Ark Ships are not FTL, they existed BEFORE FTL ships.
The chronology of the SBE FTL ship is wonky. The statement that they're the second to get Krasnikov technology (eight years after the Russians) doesn't match the timeline. Eckart von Kogel 03:48, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
The key is the phrase "stable and functional" - the Brits are the second power to get to an OPERATIONAL FTL drive.
Everyone else just has testing units. Feel free to find a better wording, I agree mine is not great.
Also, if the point-form timeline ever disagrees with proper written text, the written text is right.
Boots 03:50, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
Gents, new issue is starting to develop. Namely that this page is becoming inconsistent with history entries for individual sites. We need a complete historical progression somewhere and I think this is probably the best place for it. Because this page will become very long, entries should be as concise as possible, dot points preferred. If more detail is available use a link. Can I ask everyone to try to keep this page in mind when altering, or inputing history on individual pages.
Boots, if you feel this is not the appropriate location for a complete historical progression, can someone make such a page and link it to the front page.
--Shaun 03:51, 4 July 2006 (EDT)
