[ EPU Foyer ] [ Lab and Grill ] [ Bonus Theater!! ] [ Rhetorical Questions ] [ CSRANTronix ] [ GNDN ] [ Subterranean Vault ] [ Discussion Forum ] [ Gun of the Week ]

Eyrie Productions, Unlimited

Subject: "Has the plan for the AT&T changed?"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences Undocumented Features General Topic #2161
Reading Topic #2161, reply 2
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
22395 posts
Nov-25-12, 06:17 PM (EDT)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed?"
In response to message #0
 
   >After Unicron was defeated for a second time, and then finding out
>that the geth are constructing a new body for Unicron, has anyone
>thought about taking the AT&T battlestation out of mothballs? Having
>a fold-capable weapon capable of destroying a planet should come in
>handy for fighting an evil god the size of a planet.

At this point, to say the AT&T is "in mothballs" is a little like applying the same expression to a mummified pharaoh. I mean, you could technically take all the organs out of the canopic jars and put them back into the body cavity, but you probably still wouldn't get a viable government official out of the deal. :)

Admittedly, it's in better condition than the prototype, which was blown to smithereens in an unpublished-but-alluded-to battle during the early-2390s Corporate Wars that followed the fall of Largo (both Wedge Antilles and Wilhuff Tarkin made their names in that fight, which has been hinted at in Rogue Squadron), but still... by the early 2410s it's not what you would call a Going Concern. Which is not to say that, looking down the barrel of a Unicron attack, the Chief wouldn't quite like to have it back, but it's not really a feasible option. It would probably be quicker and cheaper to build a new one*, which would still take far longer than the time available.

>For that matter, has whatever technology allows the construction of
>the AT&T been used again, for the purposes of building artificial
>planets? If another situation like Krypton develops, and an entire
>planet needs to be evacuated, why not just evacuate them onto another
>structure the size of a planet?

Neither of the GENOM Armored Tyranny stations was actually the size of a planet (the reference to the AT&T in Crossroads being "roughly the size of Terra" is in error on several levels), though either one would still have been handy for the Krypton evacuation (even more so if transporter technology had existed at the time; without transporters on a very large scale, you're still limited by the shuttle bottleneck in that sort of mass evacuation). I would imagine that the series has been scrutinized extensively by space habitat engineers and naval architects in the years since the reorganization of GENOM. There's a limit to how much it can tell them, though, since there was nothing really revolutionary in the ATs' construction. They were just really, really large expressions of fairly-well-understood technologies.

And yes, that does mean the first one was officially designated "Armored Tyranny" and the second "Armored Tyranny and Terror". The whispered joke around MILARM Command was that if Largo commissioned a third one, it would be even larger and they'd have to come up with another T word to add - maybe Armored Total Tyranny and Terror, or, since Admiral Thrawn was reputed to be fond of wine, perhaps Armored Tyranny, Terror, and Terroir. ("Death Star" was a Salusian Intelligence Service codename which was technically only applied to the prototype, not the larger one that the WDF captured in the Second Battle of Zeta Cygni.)

--G.
* after Babylon 4 disappeared, the Babylon Foundation did consider this, but decided it would, er, Send the Wrong Message
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
 Has the plan for the AT&T changed? [View All] Zemyla Nov-25-12 TOP
   RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Peter Eng Nov-25-12 1
      RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Gryphonadmin Nov-25-12 3
  RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Gryphonadmin Nov-25-12 2
      RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? mdg1 Nov-25-12 4
      RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Zemyla Dec-01-12 5
          RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Berrik Dec-03-12 6
              RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Mephronmoderator Dec-03-12 7
                  RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? BeardedFerret Dec-03-12 8
                      RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Bushido Dec-03-12 9
                  RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Berrik Dec-08-12 10
                      RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Gryphonadmin Dec-09-12 11
                          RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? The Traitor Dec-09-12 12
                              RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Peter Eng Dec-09-12 13
                                  RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Gryphonadmin Dec-09-12 15
                              RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Gryphonadmin Dec-09-12 14
                                  RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Vorticity Dec-11-12 16
                                      RE: Has the plan for the AT&T changed? Gryphonadmin Dec-11-12 17


Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

[ YUM ] [ BIG ] [ ??!? ] [ RANT ] [ GNDN ] [ STORE ] [ FORUM ] GOTW ] [ VAULT ]

version 3.3 © 2001
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited
Benjamin D. Hutchins
E P U (Colour)