How has "First In" Held Up?

[Garnfellow]

Although I usually run CT or MgT games, when I need expanded system generation I usually pull out First In.

In the last 15 years, though, there have been a lot of advancements in our understanding of exoplanetology. It seems every week there is a new discovery.

So, in light of that how has the system generation sequence in First In held up? Are there any sections that could really use updating?

 

[Shonner]

In real life, there are no worlds within 1000 light years that are worth visiting so far. So maybe the rules should not be made more realistic.

 

[Hyphen]

In real life, there are no worlds within 1000 light years that are worth visiting so far. So maybe the rules should not be made more realistic.

http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/94.html

 

[aramis]

In real life, there are no worlds within 1000 light years that are worth visiting so far. So maybe the rules should not be made more realistic.

Alpha Centauri Bb, while too hot, may not be the only world in the Alpha Centauri system. It's earth sized, but surface temp is about 800° C. If it's tidelocked (and at 0.04 AU, that's not unlikely), it might even be habitable.

Whether or not it's interesting should be able to be determined by an interferometer imaging study.

 

[Shonner]

Alpha Centauri Bb, while too hot, may not be the only world in the Alpha Centauri system. It's earth sized, but surface temp is about 800° C. If it's tidelocked (and at 0.04 AU, that's not unlikely), it might even be habitable.

Whether or not it's interesting should be able to be determined by an interferometer imaging study.

But would you visit it?

 

[Lapthorn]

In real life, there are no worlds within 1000 light years that are worth visiting so far. So maybe the rules should not be made more realistic.

One of our main current planetary detection methods - detecting the pull from a world on its parent star (radial velocity) - is skewed towards detecting epistellar giants, so it would indeed be a mistake to gear Traveller system generation towards reproducing the current population of extrasolar planetary systems.

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

That said, even this method has detected a system with 3 worlds in the liquid-water zone - Gliese 667, "only" 24ly away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_667

Anyway, it's unlikely our current extrasolar planet sample is a fair reflection of the real distribution of star systems, given the skew in the methods used. Kepler, which uses a different method (stellar dimming as the planet passes between us and the star) has already found what might be a close Earth-analogue about 490ly away. That's despite the small odds on a planet happening to transit its parent star.

http://www.space.com/25530-earthsize-exoplanet-kepler-186f-habitable-discovery.html

In any case, why would you only want to visit planets similar to Earth?

 

[aramis]

But would you visit it?

If it turns out to have an oxygenated atmosphere, sure. The hab zone would be on the back, and not be photosynthetic...