• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

New Research on Planets indicates universe is full of them...

I tweaked the equation to give the right results, but there are also the temperature variations for length of day, latitude, axial tilt and so on... and a lot of atmospheres are too thin to moderate the huge variations much. The point I'm trying to make is mainly that so-called "habitable" planets often aren't, very.

The Ancients war was responsible for many more asteroid belts than might normally be expected, so the OTU materials claim. Could the Ancients have terraformed atmospheres to contain oxygen rather more often than the in the "real" universe?

On the other hand, given the amount of size larger-than-11000 miles diameter worlds turning up, and GG's close to their parent star, is there a decent system generation tool out there (preferably automated like Heaven and Earth, but giving physical results closer to Kepler, etc, data - or at least allowing us to generate similar systems by hand)?
 
I tweaked the equation to give the right results, ...

May I ask details of your tweak?

... but there are also the temperature variations for length of day, latitude, axial tilt and so on... and a lot of atmospheres are too thin to moderate the huge variations much. The point I'm trying to make is mainly that so-called "habitable" planets often aren't, very.

The Ancients war was responsible for many more asteroid belts than might normally be expected, so the OTU materials claim. Could the Ancients have terraformed atmospheres to contain oxygen rather more often than the in the "real" universe? ...

That's always been my excuse. I am mindful of the fact that the Traveller worlds are the "pick of the litter," the worlds in a given system that the humans found most appealing - therefore an inherent bias toward habitability. However, there are still more than I'd expect, and some in rather odd circumstances: iceworlds and waterless desert worlds with O2 atmospheres come first to mind. I can see life forming in the depths of an iceworld or managing to adapt as a world turned to desert. However, there's a world of difference between thriving on its own terms and just happening to be of the type and quantity to form an O2 atmosphere balanced for human needs. We're reasonably adaptable, but there are limits.

Anyway, given the Ancient tendency to think in the long term, the fact that they had similar O2 needs, and evidence that they'd altered at least one species to suit their interests, I figured they'd dabbled with a lot of the environments, perhaps by introducing varieties of lichen optimized for a particular planet's conditions and tweaked for greater output, or introducing algae and cyanobacteria on worlds that had not yet developed life.

...On the other hand, given the amount of size larger-than-11000 miles diameter worlds turning up, and GG's close to their parent star, is there a decent system generation tool out there (preferably automated like Heaven and Earth, but giving physical results closer to Kepler, etc, data - or at least allowing us to generate similar systems by hand)?

I'm rather curious about that myself.
 
Some of the LBB Book 6 (Scouts) and Grand Survey/WBH temperature ranges are pretty extreme as well...

I haven't cross-checked it against WBH to confirm that it's not just a glitch in the program, but I've noticed that Heaven & Earth quite happily (and rather frequently) generates worlds with average winter temperatures well below absolute zero. That definitely qualifies as "pretty extreme"...

I tweaked the equation to give the right results

I'll second the request for details of your tweaks.

is there a decent system generation tool out there (preferably automated like Heaven and Earth, but giving physical results closer to Kepler, etc, data - or at least allowing us to generate similar systems by hand)?

I'd be very interested in this as well. I've been working on my own automated Traveller tools lately and system/planetary generation is looming large in my sights, but I'm just not happy with the canon systems, so I've been planning to start from MgT's "hard science world creation" variant, then layer WBH over that while also tweaking heavily to produce more logical settlement patterns. Although, now that I'm writing it, I realize that you've asked for something to improve the physical side of the UWP, while I'm mostly dissatisfied with the social/technological side, but cleaning both up would be ideal in any case.
 
I haven't cross-checked it against WBH to confirm that it's not just a glitch in the program, but I've noticed that Heaven & Earth quite happily (and rather frequently) generates worlds with average winter temperatures well below absolute zero. That definitely qualifies as "pretty extreme"...

Lower than -273.15°C (-459.67°F)?
 
Lower than -273.15°C (-459.67°F)?

Yep! From the H&E details on a world with UWP C300210-A, orbiting an F2 IV star at 5.2 AU:

Code:
3.      Surface Temperature:
3a.     Stellar Luminosity: 2.0
3b.     Orbit Factor: 164.021
3c.     Energy Absorption: 0.9
3d.     Greenhouse Effect: 1.0
3e.     Base Temperature: 22.238 degrees C

...

TEMPERATURE WORKSHEET
---------------------

                      LATITUDE       BASE
HEX    BASE           TEMPERATURE    TEMPERATURE
ROW    TEMPERATURE    EFFECTS        FOR HEX ROW
1      22             12             34
2      22             8              30
3      22             4              26
4      22             0              22
5      22             -4             18
6      22             -8             14
7      22             -12            10
8      22             -16            6
9      22             -20            2
10     22             -24            -2
11     22             -28            -6

                               AXIAL TILT                            HIGHEST
HEX    SUMMER    AXIAL TILT    TEMP PLUS     DAYTIME    ORBIT ECC    TEMP FOR
ROW    PLUS      FACTOR        IN SUMMER     PLUS       PLUS         HEX ROW
1      20        0             0             39         0.0          74
2      20        0.25          5             39         0.0          75
3      20        0.5           10            39         0.0          76
4      20        0.75          15            39         0.0          77
5      20        1             20            39         0.0          78
6      20        1             20            39         0.0          74
7      20        1             20            39         0.0          70
8      20        1             20            39         0.0          66
9      20        1             20            39         0.0          62
10     20        1             20            39         0.0          58
11     20        1             20            39         0.0          54

                               AXIAL TILT                            LOWEST
HEX    WINTER    AXIAL TILT    TEMP MINUS    NIGHTTIME  ORBIT ECC    TEMP FOR
ROW    MINUS     FACTOR        IN WINTER     MINUS      MINUS        HEX ROW
1      -34       0             0             394        0.0          -359
2      -34       0.25          -9            394        0.0          -372
3      -34       0.5           -17           394        0.0          -384
4      -34       0.75          -26           394        0.0          -397
5      -34       1             -34           394        0.0          -409
6      -34       1             -34           394        0.0          -413
7      -34       1             -34           394        0.0          -417
8      -34       1             -34           394        0.0          -421
9      -34       1             -34           394        0.0          -425
10     -34       1             -34           394        0.0          -429
11     -34       1             -34           394        0.0          -433

Winter temperatures at the poles going down to -433C...

Now, granted, -433F is possible, but note that the first table in the temperature worksheet shows a Base Temperature of 22 and line 3e gives the planetary Base Temperature as "22.238 degrees C", so at least the Base Temperature column is C. The rest of the Temperature Worksheet should, therefore, also be Celsius.

There's definitely a bug here, although it's unclear whether the bug is that it ignores absolute zero or that it's applying Fahrenheit offsets to Celsius temperatures.
 
That nighttime minus on the last table can't be right - -394, looks like decimal point removal and rounding error - true value should be -39 not -394
 
That nighttime minus on the last table can't be right - -394, looks like decimal point removal and rounding error - true value should be -39 not -394

Looking further up the H&E output, I find:
Code:
SIZE RELATED DETAILS
9.      Rotation Period: 39.365 standard hours

ATMOSPHERIC RELATED DETAILS
7a.     Length of day and Night:  19.683 standard hours
7b.     Rotation-Luminosity Effects: 2.0
7c.     Daytime Rotation Effects: 2.0 +per hour of daylight, 59.048 absolute max
7d.     Nighttime Rotation Effects: 20.0 -per hour of darkness, 236.19 absolute maximum minus temperature

The nighttime minus should indeed be capped at -236 rather than -394. Applying that brings the total minus to -270 (-236 nighttime, -34 winter axial tilt modifier). With a base temperature of -6 for hex row 11, that gives us -276C at the poles on a winter night, which I suppose is close enough to absolute zero that we can call it a rounding error and hypothesize that, based on this single sample, the bug may be that H&E failed to cap the nighttime minus correctly. If this hypothesis is correct, then the problem is with H&E, not WBH.

Good catch to suggest that the nighttime minus was incorrect. I'll keep an eye out for daytime plus/nighttime minus values that are outside of their allowed range in the future.
 
That is all well and good, but it is still wrong.
H&E is based off of WBH which is based off of CT book 6 which has an incorrect temperature equation.
Also, a F2IV star's luminousity is certainly not '2'... its more like 14.7 or so.

The term for (1-albedo) should be (1-albedo)^.25, and the 374.025 should be revised to ~286.25 to get the proper ( close enough ) average surface temp for Earth.
This throws off by a fair amount, all of the numbers in WBH's tables.

And even this doesn't do much to make the standard UWP procedure any more realistic or even reasonable.
But to make needed changes ( and everyone likely has their own preferred methods anyways ), the results would not be compatible with the OTU.
 
That is all well and good, but it is still wrong.
H&E is based off of WBH which is based off of CT book 6 which has an incorrect temperature equation.
Also, a F2IV star's luminousity is certainly not '2'... its more like 14.7 or so.

The term for (1-albedo) should be (1-albedo)^.25, and the 374.025 should be revised to ~286.25 to get the proper ( close enough ) average surface temp for Earth.
This throws off by a fair amount, all of the numbers in WBH's tables.

Ouch... While I'd noticed that something was seriously wrong, I wasn't aware that it was such a broad, systemic issue.

And even this doesn't do much to make the standard UWP procedure any more realistic or even reasonable.
But to make needed changes ( and everyone likely has their own preferred methods anyways ), the results would not be compatible with the OTU.

Do you have any suggestions for decent systems for generating complete system and world details? OTU-compatibility is not a concern (Traveller, to me, is a system, not a setting, so OTU isn't a part of MTU), just so long as, when all is said and done, I've got a UWP along with the gory details of the worlds/systems.

The main reason I'm using H&E at the moment is simply because it's there and it spits out a ton of details, but I have plenty of things I want to do differently (imagine that), so I'll be starting on my own soon. I just need a good system to implement as a starting point and it seems that WBH may not be the system I want for that.
 
GURPS Space 4th edition.

Am I allowed to draw and quarter board members? What's the point of being a moderator if you can't. What? Yes, I'm outside my T5 area... nuts....

:devil:

If I open a thread in the CT area for fixing Book 6 (since everything uses that as the foundation, even T5), will you guys be serious about fixes?
 
And I have Rodge's permission for WBH errata, which would also impact TNE's WTH... which all rolls up into T5...
 
In all seriousness, the biggest world gen errata items made it into the MgT SRD - Dr. Thomas' notes on small worlds being denied atmospheres in the 2-9 range.
 
Oh, the wrong modifiers for reducing atmospheres? T5 goes the other direction, so I suspect that will make some unhappy. But I'm not advocating those changes as errata for Book 6. Should I?
 
Oh, the wrong modifiers for reducing atmospheres? T5 goes the other direction, so I suspect that will make some unhappy. But I'm not advocating those changes as errata for Book 6. Should I?

As at least an optional addendum in the errata - truth is, looking at the minimum molecular weight retained based upon 2300's system (which is less broken, but much much harder to use), breathable oxygen can't be retained on those sizes of world.

Looking at 2300, and noting that 1000km is 621 miles, and...
Size 2 = 1500-2500mi, size 2 Traveller is 4 in 2300...

A 2300 5000km world runs just a hair higher than middle of Traveller size three, and the tables only show O2 at density 1.4 De (Density in Earths)

6000km is into size 4 (on the low end 3728mi) ... and shows O2 retained at densities to 1 De.
7000km is in size 4 as well (on the high end, 4349mi) and shows retention at densities as low as about 0.75 De.

So, that really rules out any of the "breathable" atmospheres for size 1 and 2, and almost rules out size 3. You're also looking at surface pressures of at least 450mBar to have Free O2 retained.

So, yeah, it really should be errata/addenda.

Edit/Note: I'm using 2300 as a baseline because it's the most accessible source for that kind of planetological data, and shows that by 1986, GDW knew better than Bk6. Slightly smaller worlds than shown could have free oxygen, but only as a result of some special case of relatively contiuous generation.
 
Last edited:
Here is a procedure I've made to suit me. It is a portion used for the habitable zone.
Maybe it could be helpful.
https://sites.google.com/site/moukotiger/files/uwp_article.txt
-----------------------------------------------------

The Physical World; UWP
========================
..............<snipped stuff>.......................

I find that this hinders the suspension of disbelief for me and I have worked to create a variant that suits me better. While I would be among the first to deny that my variant is true to real world planetology, I feel that it produces worlds that follow known science more closely than the old procedure. It shows a better correlation between world size, atmospheric pressure, hydrographic percentage and average temperature than present methods.
I do not use ‘taint’ in my methods. As the only significant in-game effect of taint being a determiner for characters to wear filter/respirator masks when going outside, I feel that ‘taint’ is little more than background fluff that should be added by the worldbuilder to support the background. I prefer to see the atmosphere number as being a direct indicator of surface pressure and not of composition. Atmospheric composition is beyond the scope of this simple writing. Traveller generally treats atmosphere as being a “standard oxygen/nitrogen mix” anyways. One place where ‘taint’ can have a direct impact is by adding to the greenhouse factor of a world. However, that can be simulated easily after the worldbuilding process is complete by multiplying the temperatures by 1 plus the small amount that the greenhouse is increased. To increase the greenhouse factor by .08, CO2 released by volcanic action for example, multiply the calculated temperature by 1.08.
The UWP process described in MegaTraveller and DPG’s ‘World Builder’s Handbook’ specifically designates atmospheres as being nitrogen/oxygen mixes with possible taints for all atmospheres except vacuum, exotic, corrosive, and insidious atmosphere types. It also specifically lists the hydrographics percentage as being liquid water except for exotic, corrosive, and insidious atmospheres. The extended system generation also expects the main world to be placed in the habitable zone.


I’ve tried to avoid tables and special-case dm’s so that it should be very easy to use in a spreadsheet.

Step 1
Determine system presence, star type and size. Use your preferred method here.
The luminosity of the star(s) and the main world orbital distance are needed to calculate the ‘effective luminosity’ for the world.

Lum_effective = Lum_star/(dist_AU)^2

To be in the habitable zone, the effective luminosity should be between 1.5 and .5
Alternatively, you can just pick an effective luminosity within that range, closer to 1.5 for warmer and closer to .5 for cooler, and determine the orbital distance after picking your star, then placing the world there. Earth’s effective luminosity is ‘1‘.
From this, calculate the world’s temperature multiplier. The temperature multiplier is related to the world’s average surface temp which can be determined in later steps.

Temp_multiplier = Lum_effective^.25

This number will be used in determining the atm and hydro% UWP values

Example; A G6V star has a luminosity of .792 and the world orbits at .95 AU for an effective luminosity of .878 ( .792/(.95^2))
The temperature multiplier is .968 (.878^.25)
For comparison, Earth’s Lum_effective = 1 and Earth’s Temp_multiplier = 1

Step 2
For the basic size of the world, roll 2d6-2 for diameter in miles. If you further refine the value, keep it as a decimal number. For example, if you decide the world is 7,846 miles in diameter, then the value used in later steps would be 7.846
Decide on the density of the world in Earth_densities. This can be determined randomly as in the ‘World Builder’s Handbook or just pick a likely value. 1 Earth_density = 5.519 tonnes/m^3. For worlds in the habitable zone, this can be left as 1.
Now calculate the surface gravity. This value will be used in later steps.
Grav_surface = density * size/8

For example, this world has a surface gravity of .98 g’s ( 1 * 7.846/8 )

Step 3
For the amount of atmosphere the world has accumulated, roll 2d6-7+size. During system formation, larger bodies will accrete more material than smaller bodies. Use this, gravity and temperature to find the UWP value. Keep decimal places for more accuracy. This value will then be used to find surface pressure.
atmosphere = material_accumulated * Grav_surface/Temp_multiplier
Pressure_surface = (atmosphere^2)/49

I chose to use gravity and temperature in this manner because gravity prevents the loss of the atmosphere to space, therefore, stronger gravity means there is more gases retained. Also, surface pressure is proportional to gravity. High temperatures tend to allow gases to escape the atmosphere more easily, so the amount of gas in the atmosphere is inversely proportional to temperature and the temp_multiplier relates to the world’s blackbody temperature.
The determination of surface pressure simply gives a curve that matches ( somewhat ) the pressures given in ‘World Builder’s Handbook’ for each UWP step. A UWP value of ‘7' is equal to 1 atm of pressure.

For example; our world accreted 5.846 ( rolled 5- 7 + 7.846 )
This gives an ‘atmosphere’ value of 5.92 ( 5.846 * .98 / .968 )
For a surface pressure of ~.71 atm. ( ( 5.92^2)/49 )


Step 4
For the amount of water the world has accumulated, roll 2d6-7+size. During system formation, larger bodies will accrete more material than smaller bodies. Use this, Atm_pressure and temperature to find the UWP value. Keep decimal places for more accuracy.
hydrographic% = material_accumulated * (Atm_pressure^.5)/Temp_multiplier

I chose to use Atm_pressure and temperature in this manner because Atm_pressure prevents the evaporation of water into the atmosphere. Therefore, greater Atm_pressure means there is less water evaporated and more remaining in the oceans. High temperatures tend to allow water vapor to evaporate into the atmosphere more easily, so the amount of water remaining in the hydrosphere is inversely proportional to temperature and the temp_multiplier relates to the world’s blackbody temperature.

For example; our world accreted 8.846 ( rolled 8 - 7 + 7.846 )
This gives an ‘Hydro%’ value of ~7.70 ( 8.846 * .84 / .968 )
Water covers ~ 77% of the surface


Step 5
Determine average surface temperature.
Knowing the atmosphere value and hydrographic % can allow us to approximate the world’s albedo and greenhouse values. With this information, we can estimate the average surface temperature.

Temp_surface = 286 * (1-albedo)^.25 * Temp_multiplier * greenhouse value

Hydrographic % can be used to estimate a world’s albedo.
cloud% ~ hydro% * .7 cloud_albedo ~ .6
land% ~ 1-hydro% land_albedo ~ .15
sea% ~ hydro% sea_albedo ~ .05

albedo_world ~ (cloud% * .6) + (( 1-cloud% ) * ( land% * .15 + sea% * .05 ))

Our sample world has a cloud% of .77 * .7, or 54%, a land% of 23% and a sea% of 77%
Its albedo ~ .324 + ( .46 * ( .0345 + .0385 ), or ~ .356

Atmospheric pressure and hydrographics % can be used to estimate the base
greenhouse factor.

greenhouse_world ~ 1 + ((Atm_pressure^.5) * .05 ) + ( hydro% * .1)

Our sample world has a greenhouse factor of 1 + .042 + .077, or ~ 1.119

Our sample world’s average surface temperature is
286 * .968 * (( 1 - .356 )^.25) * 1.119 or ~278K

x-868xxx-x
very much like Earth, but with a slightly thinner atmosphere



There are a few things to keep in mind about this procedure.

This procedure rapids breaks down when used outside of the habitable zone and can give ‘odd’ results if used in the inner, middle or outer zones. This is because of the importance of liquid water in determining the composition of a world’s atmosphere.
Liquid water is important for removing CO2 from the atmosphere as part of the carbonate-silicate cycle where the CO2 is locked into the crust. If the CO2 that is locked in the crust of Earth were released, Earth would have a CO2 atmosphere with a pressure in excess of 60 atm. Because water is kept close to the surface by the ‘cold trap’ where temperatures force water vapor to condense in the troposphere, relatively little water is lost by UV disassociation. This disassociation allows for the hydrogen to escape the atmosphere. The height of the ‘cold trap’ can be estimated by use the adiabatic lapse rate of the atmosphere.
Venus’ ‘cold trap’ is at a very high altitude which allowed for the hydrogen to be lost after the water is broken down by UV rays. The oxygen recombined with other elements. With the water being lost, the carbonate-silicate cycle was broken and the CO2 remained in the atmosphere. Runaway greenhouse pushed the cold trap higher.
On Mars, in the middle zone, the carbonate-silicate cycle was broken by the fact that water is frozen into the crust. Liquid water does not exist to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, thus CO2 is the main component of the atmosphere of Mars.

Type ‘M’ stars might not have a habitable zone, and for those that do, the world will be tidally locked. A habitable zone around a type ‘M’ star will be extremely close to the star and being tidally locked will mean that the magnetosphere will be very weak if it exists at all; the atmosphere will be eroded away by the solar wind.... and then there are the flares.
These red dwarfs will have huge convection zones which will give them very active with strong magnetic fields. This will cause them to flare more often and more violently than the Sun.

For type ‘K’ stars, any world in the habitable zone will most likely be tidally locked.
 
One more thought - it's been discovered that the Titus-Bode relationship does NOT seem to hold up with the extra-solar planets discovered - or if it does, we're missing large chunks of mass in those extrasolar systems.
 
We are missing large chunks of mass in those systems. We simply do not have the ability to detect them. How often does Jupiter cross the sun?

Be very careful thinking that we know much about distant star systems - we don't.

We can detect very big planets and get a rough guess about their density and orbit, but there is a lot of detail missing. Worlds the size of the Earth, Mars and smaller are just too small.

Oh, and multi body orbital interaction based on gravitational attraction is a nightmare to solve.
 
If I open a thread in the CT area for fixing Book 6 (since everything uses that as the foundation, even T5), will you guys be serious about fixes?

I doubt I'd have any fixes to contribute, but I'd be serious about reading other peoples' fixes.

In all seriousness, the biggest world gen errata items made it into the MgT SRD - Dr. Thomas' notes on small worlds being denied atmospheres in the 2-9 range.

You mean the optional "Space Opera" and "Hard Science" world generation rules on MgT Core p.180? ("Space Opera" rules say no atmosphere at all for size 0-2 rules and no atmosphere 2-9 for size 3-4; "Hard Science" additionally reduces population for very small/large worlds and those with atmosphere other than 5/6/8 and makes starport size a 2d6-7+pop roll instead of 1d6.)

I actually took a little time last night and coded something up to generate basic UWPs using the MgT "Hard Science" variant. I can't decide whether I like the results or not. On the plus side, it brings down the tech and pop levels a bit and the pop adjustments for size/atmo take away Traveller's default "population is completely unaffected by how hospitable the world is" aspect. On the minus side, there's a serious drop in starport quality and quantity - I tend to get subsectors with more class X ports than class A and B combined. I definitely prefer a more "frontier" feel, but I wonder whether this might be going a bit too far in any context other than a survey/exploration or post-apocalyptic campaign.

My next intended step is to add in MegaTraveller's "Extended System Generation" and generate all the worlds/satellites in the system, then pick the most-developed as mainworld. Hopefully, having multiple chances per system to roll a starport will make for a more viable trade and transit network.
 
I doubt I'd have any fixes to contribute, but I'd be serious about reading other peoples' fixes.



You mean the optional "Space Opera" and "Hard Science" world generation rules on MgT Core p.180? ("Space Opera" rules say no atmosphere at all for size 0-2 rules and no atmosphere 2-9 for size 3-4; "Hard Science" additionally reduces population for very small/large worlds and those with atmosphere other than 5/6/8 and makes starport size a 2d6-7+pop roll instead of 1d6.)

I actually took a little time last night and coded something up to generate basic UWPs using the MgT "Hard Science" variant. I can't decide whether I like the results or not. On the plus side, it brings down the tech and pop levels a bit and the pop adjustments for size/atmo take away Traveller's default "population is completely unaffected by how hospitable the world is" aspect. On the minus side, there's a serious drop in starport quality and quantity - I tend to get subsectors with more class X ports than class A and B combined. I definitely prefer a more "frontier" feel, but I wonder whether this might be going a bit too far in any context other than a survey/exploration or post-apocalyptic campaign.

My next intended step is to add in MegaTraveller's "Extended System Generation" and generate all the worlds/satellites in the system, then pick the most-developed as mainworld. Hopefully, having multiple chances per system to roll a starport will make for a more viable trade and transit network.

I've done much of that work already myself for my Elestrial Concordat setting... but I tell you - the data set I pulled from current catalogues proved - uhm - interesting. Lots of size IV stars...
 
Back
Top