Spinward Marches 1112

[daryen]

As I have mentioned in another thread, I have been going through the Spinward Marches with the intention of collating a "definitive canon" listing of the sector.

While going through it, I ran into issues with several worlds, which I will detail in following messages. However, I also ran into some larger, overarching issues.

These are the major issues I found, and what I am doing to address them:
- All "independent" bases are type "M". There is no "J" or "G" listed, as they are used so inconsistently. So, instead of trying to come up with something new, I am just using "M" like in RSB.
I am currently keeping "Z", "N", "P", "Q", and "C" for now. (The latter three don't show up in the Spinward Marches, but will in the other sectors of the Domain.)
- Droyne worlds are a terrible hodge-podge. I am labelling them consistent with Aslan and Vargr: If they are unaligned, they get the allegiance "Dr". If they have another allegiance, they get a comment of "Dw".
- Capitals are inconsistently labelled, if at all. I am trying to make sure that the capital of each subsector is properly labelled, unlike in RSB.
- Since I can't make greek letters in notepad, I will simply designate Research Stations with "Rs".
- Ancient sites are listed inconsistenly in the various listings.
I am taking the stand that an ancient site is an ancient site. Therefore, if an ancient site is present in 1202 or 1117, it is present in 1112. These are usually irrelevant, but better to list than miss.
- Where appropriate, minority racial information will be noted. As a result, there are several Ax, Cx, Dx, Jx, and Vx notes that may not have appeared in all listing before. Jx notes the presence of Jokeereen.
[Edit]
- Removed the "Fl" trade code from worlds with atmospheres of D-F. "Fl" only applies to worlds with atmospheres of A-C. (There are none of these in the Spinward Marches, but there are some in Deneb and Trojan Reaches.)

 

[daryen]

Another annoying issue is duplicate names. In the Spinward Marches alone, there are seven duplicate names:
Kinorb 2202 2512
Aramis 2540 3110
Mirriam 0333 1315
Margesi 1020 3212
Heroni 2521 3017
Inthe 2234 2410
Natoko 2620 3209

While I knew about the first four, I didn't even realize the other three were in there until a sorted the world names to look for them. Since I can't rename them, I will note them with a (1) or (2) to show they are duplicate names.

 

[daryen]

And these are the "problem worlds" that I found.

*Uniqua 0129 E62556B-4 Ni 210 Na K9 V M9 D
This system is listed as having a M2D and M9D companion in the RSB. How a star evolves/devolves from an M2 to an M9, I will never know. So I just picked the one in IE.

*Andor 0236 C6957X5-9 Ag An Dw R 603 Im F3 V
*Candory 0336 C5936X4-8 Ni An Dw R 920 Im F6 V M3 D

These two worlds were originally outlined long before the Droyne ever "existed" in the game. As a result, it was only over time that they were changed into full Droyne worlds. However, despite being listed with a government code of "3" in RSB/1117, it is common knowledge at all times that these have always been Droyne worlds. Consequently, I wish to properly note that they are Droyne worlds in a way consistent with the rest of the Domain.

Retinae 0416 E8C69AA-5 Hi Fl Rs 910 Cs M1 V

There is nothing here, but we need to finally decide whether this world holds a billion aliens whose "natural" environment is an insideous atmosphere, or if a billion humans with an inappropriately low TL are somehow living there.

*Entrope 0720 E336AAA-C Hi 110 Da G6 V M1 D

For some reason all of the files on the internet give the PPG number for Entrope as "720". It should only be "110". I don't know where the "720" designation originally came from.

*Arden 1011 C5549CB-8 Hi Cp 810 Fa G4 V M5 D

I am listing Arden as the capital of the Federation of Arden. RSB only lists Arden as the captial for 1202, not 1117. But the fact of the matter is that it has been the captial of FA since its inception. Consequently, I list it as the capital in 1112.

*Zircon 1110 C792668-8 M Ni 624 Fa F0 V

The base on Zircon has been listed as several different things. I am just listing it as "M".

*Bowman 1132 D000300-9 S Lo Ni As 811 Cs M0 V

IE lists Bowman as having an additional planetoid belt; RSB does not. Unless someone can tell me what is said in the Beltstrike module, I am going to go with the older data here.

*Trexalon 1339 B361851-C Ri 923 Na M0 V
*Mithril 1628 E568000-7 Lo Ni 301 Bw F4 V

For some odd reason, these two worlds were left with dwarf main stars. I have no idea why these two worlds, out of the literally hundreds that were fixed, were left alone. I am going on the assumption that they were just missed. (This is consistent with the error rate I am seeing in RSB.) Consequently, both stars have been "promoted" from "D" to "V".

*Victoria 1817 X697772-3 Ag An R 112 Im K6 V

Is Victoria's TL a 2 or a 3? I don't know, so I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and give them the 3.

*Regina 1910 A788899-C A Ri Cp 703 Im F7 V M8 D M6 V

The original source material had the TL of Regina as A, but that was retconned to TL C with the SMC. I am going to go with the retcon of TL C.

*Craw 1939 C573645-3 Ni 923 Im G7 V

The government, law level and TL are completely different between RSB and IE. In this case, I am going with IE, as it makes more sense with the 1202 entry for Craw.

*Marastan 2231 D868772-5 Ag Ri Re 924 Im K7 V

The RSB made this world into a "Reserve World" (whatever that is). I will keep that designation.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by daryen:
And these are the "problem worlds" that I found.

*Entrope 0720 E336AAA-C Hi 110 Da G6 V M1 D

For some reason all of the files on the internet give the PPG number for Entrope as "720". It should only be "110". I don't know where the "720" designation originally came from.

Transposition of the hex cooridinate seems likely.

 

[Malenfant]

If you want a simple stellar fix without rerolling things, you could just replace all the primary and companion D stars with V stars of the same type (especially considering there's no such thing as an M D star anyway). It makes the systems a bit more rational at least.

 

[far-trader]

I like that fix Malenfant, simple, elegant even, and good enough right. Not perfect but if it's good enough for you it's easily fine by me

Stars for the star watcher! *****

 

[daryen]

What I have done with the data up to this point is twofold. First, I updated everything covered in RSB to its stellar data. As bad as it may be, it is still light years ahead of what was before. Second, for all of the areas in the Domain not covered by RSB, I update them using the implicit process used in RSB.

This gives a good enough basis to work from. If forced to live with it, while not great, it does work.

If I am successful in eventually moving things forward, I will then petition to have the stellar data either further fixed (with more proper "D" notation, or further D -> V conversions) or outright regenerated.

(After having gone through the entire RSB at this point, I am absolutely convinced that Mithril and Trexalon were simple mistakes. They are the only two stars not fixed in the entire Domain. They were typos, basically.)

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
If you want a simple stellar fix without rerolling things, you could just replace all the primary and companion D stars with V stars of the same type (especially considering there's no such thing as an M D star anyway). It makes the systems a bit more rational at least.

This is actually what I plan on doing, if I can get permission for it.

BTW, that was, for the most part, the RSB "fix". They only removed one dwarf, not both, but fundamentally all they did was promote the brightest (or only) dwarf into a main sequence star. Occationally, if the brightest star was a dim type M, they would promote the M to a F, G or K.

 

[Malenfant]

The problem with the RSB is that they kept the companion D stars. You'll need to get rid of those at the very least too. And the habitable worlds around the IIs and IIIs at the very least.

Or you may as well just regenerate all the stars using my revised tables but keep the systems described in any detail (like the Sword Worlds, where I did actually make them as workable as I could given the existing star types).

 

[Psion]

What's the problem with the companion D stars?

 

[Hal]

Fixes for worlds and why I did what I did...

While I'm not using T20 for much of what I'm working on, I am trying to start off with the Spinward Marches supplement as the primary guide in converting the sector data to something I can live with.

First - THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN was flawed from the start. It ignored star generation rules as presented in SCOUTS and MEGATRAVELLER. As noted, there are some inconsistancies for star types that make it just plain outright wrong.

Second - given world specifics such as diameter, atmosphere types, etc - some of the random worlds generated by Classic Traveller are just plain outright impossible. On worlds of a certain diameter or less, you can't retain an "earth standard" Atmosphere. On other worlds, they can't even retain water vapor, and as such should be classified as desert worlds. In other instances, we have worlds that are classified as desert worlds yet have an earth normal atmosphere. This too is impossible. If the water is capable of being near enough to the surface for plants and the like, the water is capable of transpiring into the atmosphere. In addition, water would also evaporate into the atmosphere if it was free standing in any way.

There are quite a few worlds that would need to be modified if you want to be reasonably accurate regards to regular science. If you want to look at a good URL for water for worlds, take a gander at

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

While the numbers don't seem like an awful lot, keep in mind the following:

In order for water to evaporate into an atmosphere, it has to have a "surface" to evaporate from.

In order for an oxygenated atmosphere to replenish its oxygen content, there has to be enough plant matter on the world or some other means of breaking down oxygen from water - as oxygen is highly combustable (ie it combines with other materials readily).

As a point of data: 70% of the Earth's biomass is comprised of Alge. The Alge provides as much as 90% of the earth's photosynthetic activity.

If you look at the above data - you will see that despite Earth having a reasonably plentiful biomass for landmass based plantlife - it still only provides up to around 10% of a world's photosynthesis. A desert world will provide less - not more when it comes to an Earthlike atmosphere in terms of photosynthesis capabilities. This is one reason why I honor the rules from GURPS TRAVELLER STARPORTS where it indicates that worlds with a hydrology rating of 40% or less strictly regulate and outlaw wilderness refueling from the planet's oceans and lakes.

All things considered? Making it so that you can't replenish via wilderness refueling on worlds less than 40% hydrographically speaking makes for a universe where ships must either do wilderness refueling from gas giants, or it must bring the fuel from the gas giant to the main world. Either way makes for unique and individual worlds where it isn't cookie cutter stamped and uniform with the rest of the universe.

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Hal:
Second - given world specifics such as diameter, atmosphere types, etc - some of the random worlds generated by Classic Traveller are just plain outright impossible. On worlds of a certain diameter or less, you can't retain an "earth standard" Atmosphere.

Okay.

On other worlds, they can't even retain water vapor, and as such should be classified as desert worlds.

Which worlds are these? Even worlds with atmospheres considered trace or vacuum, water is possible.

In other instances, we have worlds that are classified as desert worlds yet have an earth normal atmosphere. This too is impossible.

G:FI suggests that it might be possible for a world at about 90% of the HZ orbital radius to lose its water but not have a runaway greenhouse. Of course, I don't think the atmosphere would quite be earth normal, but it wouldn't be Venus.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Psion:
What's the problem with the companion D stars?

Ooo! Ooo! I know the answer to this one now!

The problem is that, unless the companion D is in a far, far orbit, its blowoff during the Giant -> Dwarf conversion will remove the atmospheres and hydrospheres of all planets around its primary.

 

[daryen]

Please note that my intention here is not to "correct" the Spinward Marches (or the rest of the Domain). (Not with this effort, anyway.) It is simply to collate the data given, address inconsistencies, and create a current understanding of canon.

Based on others' prior experience, I likely cannot do much about any UWPs. (But then, size/atmosphere issues are only one small part. Shipyards on worlds with 80 people, E atmospheres in general, etc. are just as problematic.)

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by daryen:
The problem is that, unless the companion D is in a far, far orbit, its blowoff during the Giant -> Dwarf conversion will remove the atmospheres and hydrospheres of all planets around its primary.

Right, but a far orbit is a possibility, and not specified by the system data.

And some systems (I don't know about in the Marches, but in general) have worlds with data consistent with having a closer dwarf companion.

 

[Hal]

Originally posted by Psion:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hal:
Second - given world specifics such as diameter, atmosphere types, etc - some of the random worlds generated by Classic Traveller are just plain outright impossible. On worlds of a certain diameter or less, you can't retain an "earth standard" Atmosphere.

Okay.

On other worlds, they can't even retain water vapor, and as such should be classified as desert worlds.

Which worlds are these? Even worlds with atmospheres considered trace or vacuum, water is possible.

In other instances, we have worlds that are classified as desert worlds yet have an earth normal atmosphere. This too is impossible.

G:FI suggests that it might be possible for a world at about 90% of the HZ orbital radius to lose its water but not have a runaway greenhouse. Of course, I don't think the atmosphere would quite be earth normal, but it wouldn't be Venus. </font>[/QUOTE]The point is - Earth's atmosphere is constantly replenished by its plant life. Free floating oxygen recombines with other elements all too readily. By Earth Normal Atmospheres, I'm talking about a breathable normal atmosphere that remains that way.
As for worlds that shouldn't retain water vapor - those are the worlds where the escape velocity is so low and the luminosity values of their suns are high enough that the water vapor escapes easily. GURPS FIRST IN has a somewhat hard to understand (by me anyhow) formula that shows which worlds are supposed to be waterless. (I have a rough and ready formula from another game that seems to fit almost perfectly the data from TRAVELLER 2300 AD worlds - but I don't know why it works and where it breaks down. Since it doesn't use the inverse square rule of luminosity, I think there is something wrong with it. For earth normal luminosity values however, it seems to work)

Keep in mind that there will generally tend to be water locked up as ice on worlds cold enough to retain ice. There will also be worlds perhaps, where water exists in sealed off reservoirs. The problem is, if the water is not sealed off, and the temperatures are high enough to cause the water to evaporate - you're looking at a loss of water through watervapor loss. If we're talking about a time period measured in billions of years - such worlds should not have any water at all unless it is frozen.

One world that I modified for my own campaign is Ianic in the Lunion subsector. As written, the world has a viable atmosphere (ie it replenishes itself to be oxygen breathing) yet has a VERY small surface ocean percentage and has a very small diameter. As such, it should NOT have a valid earth normal atmosphere. I doubled its diameter and had originally intended to up the water percentage value to 40%. I only left it at 4% to satisfy the die hard purists who believe canon should be preserved

If I were to modify that world as I see fit - I'm sure that I'd have heard people complain (as this was intended for use over the net for PBEM) that it wasn't canon. I might change it online just to spite the purists

In any event - Traveller NOW has the means to clean up its prior mistakes. As Constantine has shown in his revised system generation rules - it CAN be cleaned up. The real question is whether or not the clean up is only for those who run "IMTU" type campaigns or whether it will be cleaned up for OTU use. Personally? I prefer a cleaned up OTU because it gives the players a common and GOOD foundation to vary off of instead of requiring that people vary off of the incorrect values of OTU as it exists today.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Psion:
Right, but a far orbit is a possibility, and not specified by the system data.

Yeah, but if you look at the number of binary systems that have white dwarf companions, you'll see that there are vastly more of them in Traveller than there are in reality. In fact, just about every binary system in Traveller has a D companion, which is ludicrous. This is an artifact of the book 6 star generation system which for some odd reason decided it was vastly more likely that the companion star should be size D.

And some systems (I don't know about in the Marches, but in general) have worlds with data consistent with having a closer dwarf companion.

Sure, some systems are, but I don't think there are many where it's actually required that there should be a D companion. I'd say the ones that orbit A V and early F V stars might be more likely to have D companions because they're young stars that could have had slightly more massive companions that recently became D stars, but the vast majority of G, K, and M primaries won't have them.

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Hal:
The point is - Earth's atmosphere is constantly replenished by its plant life. Free floating oxygen recombines with other elements all too readily. By Earth Normal Atmospheres, I'm talking about a breathable normal atmosphere that remains that way.

Right, I am just saying that non-Venus like earth sized destert worlds would be possible. Not that their atmospheres would be breathable. (Again, I have always found it a head scratcher that Traveller assumes that alomst all earth sized worlds with atmospheres have breathable levels of oxygen. I use the WBH convention of including "low oxygen" as a tpye of tainted atmosphere a lot).

Keep in mind that there will generally tend to be water locked up as ice on worlds cold enough to retain ice. There will also be worlds perhaps, where water exists in sealed off reservoirs. The problem is, if the water is not sealed off, and the temperatures are high enough to cause the water to evaporate - you're looking at a loss of water through watervapor loss.

Probably true, over billions of years. Yet it's possible that some small amount of surface water is replenished from existing icecaps/glaciers, etc. Don't laugh; this is why most scientists beleive that Titan still has certain volatiles in its atmosphere.

One world that I modified for my own campaign is Ianic in the Lunion subsector. As written, the world has a viable atmosphere (ie it replenishes itself to be oxygen breathing) yet has a VERY small surface ocean percentage and has a very small diameter. As such, it should NOT have a valid earth normal atmosphere. I doubled its diameter and had originally intended to up the water percentage value to 40%. I only left it at 4% to satisfy the die hard purists who believe canon should be preserved

My quick-and-dirty solution to some strangeness that occurs at the low end of the size scale (which I mention in a thread that went totally ignored) is to read the size digit not as diameter, but mass expressed as eights of M(earth).

My primary reason for adherence to canon is to be able to use the setting and related resources with minimal retooling. If I can do that, I am happy. Make me start fresh, and I don't see the point of using the CT system or derivatives at all. (GT:FI is decent, though).

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Psion:
Right, I am just saying that non-Venus like earth sized destert worlds would be possible. Not that their atmospheres would be breathable. (Again, I have always found it a head scratcher that Traveller assumes that alomst all earth sized worlds with atmospheres have breathable levels of oxygen. I use the WBH convention of including "low oxygen" as a type of tainted atmosphere a lot).

Bear in mind though, that the book 3 atmosphere definitions (which I don't agree with) define them by how breathable they are, not by the actual pressure of the atmosphere (which would make more sense IMO). Thin atmospheres are ones that contain little O2, Standard contains earthlike (at sealevel) O2, and Dense contains more O2 than at Earth's sealevel. It's been argued that this renders low and high oxygen irrelevant as taints (particularly since the official definition of taint is simply something that requires a filter mask, which is irrelevant when you're faced with low or high O2 levels).

A better system would be to define the atmospheres by pressure (so thin is 0.4-0.7 atms, standard is 0.7 - 1.2 atms, or whatever you want to use), and define the O2 percentage separately -the TNE world tamers handbook defines that using the hydrographics percentage, which I think is the right sort of idea (you may want to include world age in there too). Then you can tell from that whether the atmosphere requires help to breathe by multiplying the O2 percentage by the atmospheric pressure and comparing that to Earth's O2 pressure.

Yet it's possible that some small amount of surface water is replenished from existing icecaps/glaciers, etc. Don't laugh; this is why most scientists beleive that Titan still has certain volatiles in its atmosphere.

Not that I've heard... I think most scientists believe that Titan still has things like methane and ethane in its atmosphere because they're actively being erupted from within by cryovolcanic activity. The wackier hydrocarbons in the atmosphere are the results of photolysis of the simply hydrocarbons by sunlight.

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Bear in mind though, that the book 3 atmosphere definitions (which I don't agree with) define them by how breathable they are, not by the actual pressure of the atmosphere (which would make more sense IMO). Thin atmospheres are ones that contain little O2, Standard contains earthlike (at sealevel) O2, and Dense contains more O2 than at Earth's sealevel.

Neither T20 nor WBH use that convention; in both, Thin, Standard, or Dense refer to atmosperic pressere. It just mudies it once you reach "A".

(particularly since the official definition of taint is simply something that requires a filter mask, which is irrelevant when you're faced with low or high O2 levels).

This I realize. But I am more than willing to futz with the equipment tables.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yet it's possible that some small amount of surface water is replenished from existing icecaps/glaciers, etc. Don't laugh; this is why most scientists beleive that Titan still has certain volatiles in its atmosphere.

Not that I've heard... I think most scientists believe that Titan still has things like methane and ethane in its atmosphere because they're actively being erupted from within by cryovolcanic activity.</font>[/QUOTE]I think we are talking about the same thing. The methane is, in theory, being replaced by ices. At least according to this link (which you gave me, IIRC):

http://cseligman.com/text/moons/saturn/pix.htm#titan

"One question about Titan's atmosphere is how it manages to maintain its concentration of methane. Theoretical calculations indicate that the loss of hydrogen gas to space, and the chemical reactions which convert methane and nitrogen into heavier hydrocarbons which sink to the surface of the moon, should remove all of the methane now in the atmosphere in a relatively short period of time (about ten million years, which seems like a long time, but is very short, compared to the age of the Solar System). As a result, there must be a continual replacement of the methane, presumably by the evaporation of methane ice from the interior."