T5 Star Systems - Using Current NASA Data?

[Wol]

Thanks for that.

I also note that all zones were deleted for class B stars of sizes III-V, but left in place for Ia,Ib, and II. (The charts showing which were the Inner, Hospitable, and Outer Zones). Was this because such stars would have eaten the planets to get to that size or just an oddball errat

regards

 

[whulorigan]

Thanks for that.

I also note that all zones were deleted for class B stars of sizes III-V, but left in place for Ia,Ib, and II. (The charts showing which were the Inner, Hospitable, and Outer Zones). Was this because such stars would have eaten the planets to get to that size or just an oddball errat

regards

Not sure if it is an errata issue or not, but i will take a guess.

Certainly some of the inner orbits would be forbidden due to the size (and temperature generated) by the star, and giant and supergiant stars would envelope many of the inner orbits as they expanded.

B-type stars have lifespans in the 10's-100's of millions of years, not billions, and burn thru their core fuel very quickly. It is very likely that B-type stars of sizes III-V are young enough not to have had time to form planets in the first place, whereas the slightly older Ia, Ib, and II might begin to form planetisimal/asteroidal belts just shortly (on astronomical timescales) before the star ends its life as a supernova.

But realistically even that is probably quite a stretch; most B-type stars probably would not have had time to form a planetary system at all (at best maybe some planetisimals and/or a series of asteroidal belts), unless perhaps a planet was a captured rogue body.

 

[aramis]

Thus the errata over time for the companion star generation tables in LBB6?

regards

Not so much. The "errata" to make it match is T20 and then T5.

Even then, there are fundamental flaws that have not been errata'd out...

Like the Titus-Bode Relationship. A few systems follow it; others we can't tell, and the lunar orbits of the jovians disprove it for moons.

It's a great game-fudge mechanic, but tis rather bogus physics-wise. (Random density fluctuations, accretion, and hill-sphere calculations don't always result in TBR compliant orbitals.)

Likewise, a few things that Astrodynamics used to say wouldn't happen, Traveller did as exceptional circumstances... like pentanary systems and hot GG. And now, they are documented as actually happening.

 

[Wol]

Thanks guys,

Much food for thought.

regards

 

[Mako]

Thanks for all the replies, and details.

Lots of great stuff shared, so I appreciate that.

 

[Hal]

Hello Folks,
Not that I suspect anyone REALLY wants to do this, but you might want to get your hands on GURPS SPACE - the latest edition for use with GURPS 4th edition. It has some stellar construction rules that might be worth looking at.

I'm also minded of the fact that in the early time period of the 2000's, I started working on a project to alter the star system of Ianic (Lunion subsector) from its M class star to a K class star, and bumping up the world's diameter. The reason? The atmosphere sort of required a larger mass world, and the fact that it was an earth like atmosphere made me think that an M class star couldn't deliver the energy necessary for such activity. In my mind's eye, when I think an M class star, I think of a VERY cold environment that slows down or inhibits the speed of chemical activity on the world - the kind of activity that photosynthesis requires to be successful.

Its nice to see that there is some effort to go back and retcon the star types for worlds in order to make the UWP more internally self-consistent.

I used to LOVE the WORLD TAMER'S HANDBOOK back in the day - right down to being able to determine temperatures within given latitudes was fun. Ah well... time to get back to browsing other threads...

Hal