• 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.

T5 Star Systems - Using Current NASA Data?

Mako

SOC-12
Just curious to see if the T5 rules include more updated information from NASA to create "realistic" Star Systems and planets?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-nasa-announcement-exoplanet-discoveries-133002500.html

I suspect the rules have been changed a bit from the old, CT rules, but just wanted to know if they've been tweaked to include some of the latest data and hypotheses, e.g. they now believe about 60% of stars include planets in their systems, as opposed to the 1% believed some time ago; and that perhaps 1% or more of the worlds are Earth-like in temperature and have liquid water.

I'd also like to know if they include rules for the possible greater likelihood of habitable zones being found around red dwarves, and that some rare star systems may even have 2 - 3 habitable planets in them, as opposed to only one?
 
T5 uses the updates from T20, plus a few more, but, at its heart, it's just a slightly updated CT Bk6 (in the same way that MT, TNE, T4, and T20 all used the book 6 core)
 
T5 worldgen does allow for tide-locked habitable worlds orbiting close to red dwarfs. Look for trade code Tz. Habitable zones are still a single orbit, so about the only way the rules as written will give you multiple habitable worlds is if you have suitable satellites in the HZ.

Another option would be a system with more than one star, each (potentially) with its own habitable zone.

(I've been spending quite a lot of time looking at worldgen recently with the intention to go with a more "realistic" system. Trouble is, you get a lot of systems where the best available world is some oxygen-less lump. As I understand it, you need active tectonics and the equivalent of reducing bacteria to get an oxygen atmosphere. M dwarfs can flare frequently, which will likely cook off your bacteria. In the end I went with unrealistic but interesting,)

Arthur
 
What aramis said: it is basically an updated Classic Book 6.

Having said this, I was looking at the travellermap.com raw data and it's been updated to the T5 format. A lot of the old "DM" (Red Dwarf) stars have been updated to M0 V - M9 V stars, the correct current classification. These really only leaves white dwarfs as "D" in the data, and at least in the Spinward Marches there was only a couple of those. This seems to contradict the T5 rules which just say to ignore the spectral decimal classification, leaving OD, BD (for blue dwarfs), AD, GD, KD, MD as the various dwarfs, but I'm not sure if I'm reading the rules correctly and I don't know enough about spectral classification to point to real-world examples.

There is some scope in the rules for 'hot' and 'cold' planets in HZ-1 and HZ+1 orbits respectively; planets which are habitable but out of the comfort zone.

There isn't a World Builders' Handbook for T5 yet and applying the MT version, Book 6 or Grand Census / Grand Survey temperature calculations generally yields planets that are far too hot or cold in the HZ-1 and HZ+1 orbits for human habitability.

But I think if you want to not get bogged down in calculations and play loose and fast a little with the science for the sake of a good game, that's fine.

... of course that undermines your objective to create a realistic generation system.
 
A lot of the old "DM" (Red Dwarf) stars have been updated to M0 V - M9 V stars, the correct current classification. These really only leaves white dwarfs as "D" in the data, and at least in the Spinward Marches there was only a couple of those. This seems to contradict the T5 rules which just say to ignore the spectral decimal classification, leaving OD, BD (for blue dwarfs), AD, GD, KD, MD as the various dwarfs, but I'm not sure if I'm reading the rules correctly and I don't know enough about spectral classification to point to real-world examples.

The T5 rules do technically say to ignore the spectral decimal classification for Degenerate Dwarfs (aka "White Dwarfs"), giving OD, BD, AD, FD, GD, KD, and MD as the various degenerate dwarf designators, but this terminology has nothing to do with real-world degenerate dwarf classification, and further gives rise to an ambiguity between "B-type" degenerate dwarfs, versus the explicit T5 designation of "BD" as "Brown Dwarf" (which are totally unrelated to degenerate dwarfs, and in the real world are designated by the spectral classes, L, T, and Y). This is likely to be an upcoming errata-update, and has already been pointed out on the errata thread.

In the real world, the spectral designators of all stars have to do with the chemical composition of their stellar atmospheres, which (in main-sequence and giant stars) just happen to correlate with color and temperature. The O-B-A-F-G-K-M model is entirely related to main-sequence and giant stars. The chemical compositions of degenerate dwarf surfaces/atmospheres is entirely distinct, and has its own series of spectral letters that have nothing to do with either color or temperature (DA, DB, DO, DQ, DC, DZ, DX), as chemical composition and color/temperature do not correlate in degenerate dwarfs. Degenerate Dwarf temperature is determined by a numerical designator "n" following the spectral classification detailed above, such that TK = 50,400/n. So a DA12 degenerate dwarf would have a surface temperature of 50400/12 = 4200K (i.e. "light yellowish-orangish").

Likewise, among main sequence stars, "hotter/bluer" stars are exceedingly rare, whereas "cooler/redder" stars are exceedingly common (~ 80% of main sequence stars are red dwarfs, as well as many giant stars). This relationship does not hold with degenerate dwarfs, the majority falling in the blue-white/white color-temperature range, with fewer in the yellow-white color-temperature range, and a rare few in the yellow-orange to pinkish-orange color-temperature range.

For game purposes (and since most Traveller GMs and players are not concerned about stellar atmospheric composition, but rather "what does it look like" and "what are its temperature and luminosity" for SysGen purposes), degenerate dwarfs' "color-temperature" was simplified in Traveller to just correlate to the main-sequence spectral designators most sci-fi fans are familiar with. So, in the real world, degenerate dwarfs are never classified as either "DO-DB-DA-DF-DG-DK-DM", or "OD-BD-AD-FD-GD-KD-MD".
 
Last edited:
I get confused between the various editions of Traveller it seems the description around Dwarf stars and subtypes seems to have changed over time. Googling he materail made it worse. Especially with type VI sub-dwarfs (are they smaller or bigger than Dwarfs?), white dwards red dwarfs and now degenerate dwarfs. Some literature also refers to all main sequence stars as dwarfs. More dwarfs than snow white. If someone can explain what happened ftom LBB 6 to T5 that would be a great help.
 
Wikipedia can help with the article on Stellar Classification..

The short answer is that our knowledge of stars has advanced a lot since Book 6 was originally published.

There are others in this forum with better knowledge than me; this is my understanding from an interested lay person's point of view.

"Red Dwarfs" are type M main-sequence stars (size V). In fact, all main sequence stars are referred to a "dwarfs". They are the most common observed star.

"Brown Dwarfs" are like super-sized Jupitors that haven't quite got the mass to start or sustain fusion, but the gravity pressure is immense and they do radiate.

On this bit, I could be wrong. But the way I have pieced it together, in Traveller, what were called "dwarfs" really refer to white dwarfs which are the remnants of red giants. Our own Sun will become a white dwarf after going through its red giant phase. They do have their own spectral classifications, but because for Traveller purposes all we're really interested in is their luminosity and ability to heat a planet (i.e. not much!) we're not really that interested in them.

There are others who have studied this more closely who might also reply.
 
I get confused between the various editions of Traveller it seems the description around Dwarf stars and subtypes seems to have changed over time. Googling he materail made it worse. Especially with type VI sub-dwarfs (are they smaller or bigger than Dwarfs?), white dwards red dwarfs and now degenerate dwarfs. Some literature also refers to all main sequence stars as dwarfs. More dwarfs than snow white. If someone can explain what happened from LBB 6 to T5 that would be a great help.

The issue is mostly one of terminology. As the science of stars evolved over the past 150 years, older and somewhat inaccurate terms got replaced by newer terminology, while the older terminology still floats around. Likewise, in some cases, a better understanding did not necessarily generate new terminology, and older terminology is still in use, although no longer being entirely clear or accurate.

I did an article on the TravellerWiki on this topic: https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Star
The terminology section is at: https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Star#History_.26_Background_.28Dossier.29

In the real world, all stars were at one time originally classified as either "giant" or "dwarf" based on their luminosity. As our knowledge of stellar dynamics increased, "dwarf" stars were placed on a region of the HR-diagram known as the "Main Sequence" (and are today generally known as such, since many "dwarf" stars of the O and B classification can approach luminosities comparable to giants). However, many of the dimmer stars (yellow thru red) are still called "dwarfs" colloquially, though they are properly main-sequence stars (and are very clearly much smaller than similarly-colored "giant" stars).

Some "main-sequence dwarf" stars were shown to have a dimmer luminosity than expected, and became known as "sub-dwarfs". Sub-dwarfs are also main-sequence stars (they form a spur off the main sequence on the HR diagram), but are dimmer and hotter (hence smaller) because they have a lower metalicity in their composition, most likely because they were formed at an earlier period of the Universe's history when the abundance of heavier elements was lower.

In the early 20th century, a new type of "dwarf" star was discovered that had a very low luminosity (and hence were much smaller than main-sequence dwarfs and sub-dwarfs). The first several examples of this new class happened to be white in color-temperature, and they thus became known as "White Dwarfs". However, as more stars of this class were found, it was discovered that they were not always white (although many to most tended to be blue to white in hue, with fewer as yellow-white and very few in the yellow-orange range). It was later shown that these were in fact the dead cooling remnants of a stellar core that was no longer undergoing fusion, the outer layers of the former star having become gravitationally unbound, and the core-remnant supporting its own weight entirely by degeneracy pressure (meaning that the atomic structure of the stellar material had essentially collapsed under its own weight and was being supported entirely by a quantum non-thermal pressure derived from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). This class of star is properly referred to as a "Degenerate Dwarf" (the "D" in their stellar classification stands for "degenerate", not "dwarf"), though they are often still referred to colloquially as "white-dwarfs" (though as mentioned above, they are not necessarily white in hue).


Astrographic Luminosity Classes

Suffix to spectral type
0 or Ia+ - Hypergiant
Ia - Bright Supergiant
Iab - Supergiant (intermediate)
Ib - Weak Supergiant
II - Bright Giant
III - Giant
IV - Subgiant
V - Main Sequence Dwarf
VI - Main Sequence Subdwarf

Stand-alone Designator or Spectral Prefix
D - Degenerate Dwarf (some older tables use VII as a suffix)
Concerning Traveller, one of the problems of many of the earlier stellar spectral classification tables was that they generated an anomalous overabundance of degenerate dwarf stars as companion stars, most of which were classified as "DM (or MD)" or "M_ VII". In reality, only about 6% of the stars we observe are degenerate dwarfs, most of which would have a color-temperature corresponding to main-sequence type stars O, B, A, and F. Very few would correspond to a main-sequence color-temperature of K-Type, and almost none of M-Type (although a few have recently been discovered). The Book 6 (and related) tables generated huge amounts of degenerate dwarf companions, most of which corresponded to "M-Type". One of the projects first initiated with the TNE:1248 stellar data and continuing with the T5 data is to rectify this problem. You will note that most of the former "D" type stars have been converted to M-type main sequence stars (in reality about 80% of stars are M-type main-sequence dwarfs).
 
Last edited:
Concerning Traveller, one of the problems of many of the earlier stellar spectral classification tables was that they generated an anomalous overabundance of degenerate dwarf stars as companion stars, most of which were classified as "DM (or MD)" or "M_ VII". In reality, only about 6% of the stars we observe are degenerate dwarfs, most of which would have a color-temperature corresponding to main-sequence type stars O, B, A, and F. Very few would correspond to a main-sequence color-temperature of K-Type, and almost none of M-Type (although a few have recently been discovered). The Book 6 (and related) tables generated huge amounts of degenerate dwarf companions, most of which corresponded to "M-Type". One of the projects first initiated with the TNE:1248 stellar data and continuing with the T5 data is to rectify this problem. You will note that most of the former "D" type stars have been converted to M-type main sequence stars (in reality about 80% of stars are M-type main-sequence dwarfs).

It's not a problem for Traveller. See adventure gaming.
 
Wikipedia can help with the article on Stellar Classification..

The short answer is that our knowledge of stars has advanced a lot since Book 6 was originally published.

There are others in this forum with better knowledge than me; this is my understanding from an interested lay person's point of view.

"Red Dwarfs" are type M main-sequence stars (size V). In fact, all main sequence stars are referred to a "dwarfs". They are the most common observed star.
Not quite.
All main sequence stars not in their red giant phase.

"Brown Dwarfs" are like super-sized Jupitors that haven't quite got the mass to start or sustain fusion, but the gravity pressure is immense and they do radiate.

Several class M9 and L0-2 dwarfs are thought to be large enough to sustain, but not enough to initiate, fusion.
EG: Gliese 569 - 116 Jupiter masses - but no evidence of fusion.

Universe Today notes that OGLE-TR-122b

On this bit, I could be wrong. But the way I have pieced it together, in Traveller, what were called "dwarfs" really refer to white dwarfs which are the remnants of red giants. Our own Sun will become a white dwarf after going through its red giant phase. They do have their own spectral classifications, but because for Traveller purposes all we're really interested in is their luminosity and ability to heat a planet (i.e. not much!) we're not really that interested in them.

There are others who have studied this more closely who might also reply.
The Size VII aka size D is the white dwarf.

For a while, the size VI Subdwarf was for over-hot under-mass main sequence stars.

Size V is for run of the mill main sequence stars before the red giant phase.

Size IV are larger stars - technically not main sequence - but aside from being larger, having shorter lives, being brighter, and ending in a bang... are very similar to Size V. They're expected to end in degenerate cores - neutron stars - rather than white dwarves.

Sizes O, I, II, III (and subtypes thereof) are bigger. They are expected to end in Neutron Stars and/or black holes.
 
I was looking at an article on Space.com of the Trappist-1 system, where you have 3 planets in the habitable zone of a very cool dwarf star, with a total of 7 rocky planets in orbit around it.

Given the orbital periods around the star are 6.1 Earth Days, 9.2 Earth Days, and 12.4 Earth Days, I was trying to figure out if all three planets would be tidally locked to the star, with only one side receiving light. Against that, given the closeness of the planets, and the near-synchronization of their orbits, I was wondering if the planets might be rotating enough to distribute temperature somewhat evenly.

Has any one looked at the system and done some number crunching?
 
I was looking at an article on Space.com of the Trappist-1 system, where you have 3 planets in the habitable zone of a very cool dwarf star, with a total of 7 rocky planets in orbit around it.

Given the orbital periods around the star are 6.1 Earth Days, 9.2 Earth Days, and 12.4 Earth Days, I was trying to figure out if all three planets would be tidally locked to the star, with only one side receiving light. Against that, given the closeness of the planets, and the near-synchronization of their orbits, I was wondering if the planets might be rotating enough to distribute temperature somewhat evenly.

Has any one looked at the system and done some number crunching?

Oooooh! Now there's a challenge. I'll crunch it based on MT World Builder's Handbook numbers and see how it turns out.
 
I was looking at an article on Space.com of the Trappist-1 system, where you have 3 planets in the habitable zone of a very cool dwarf star, with a total of 7 rocky planets in orbit around it.

Given the orbital periods around the star are 6.1 Earth Days, 9.2 Earth Days, and 12.4 Earth Days, I was trying to figure out if all three planets would be tidally locked to the star, with only one side receiving light. Against that, given the closeness of the planets, and the near-synchronization of their orbits, I was wondering if the planets might be rotating enough to distribute temperature somewhat evenly.

Has any one looked at the system and done some number crunching?
Yeah, they are all tidally locked, although there is a small chance that the outermost planet in the arrangement might be capable of breaking it, if it has a dense enough atmosphere. If so, then it could have a very slow 'reverse' rotation, like what Venus has. Probably about 20 days to turn once on its axis, based on its 18.8-day orbit.

If the other worlds have atmospheres, however, they would not necessarily have boiling and freezing sides, as convection can deliver quite a lot of heat to the dark side of such a world, according to most models. A bigger problem is the amount of stellar flaring that they are likely to be exposed to. Red dwarfs tend to be very active in that regard, an effect which is exponentially compounded by the fact that any potentially habitable worlds (by human standards) need to be so up close and personal with these stars.
 
Yeah, they are all tidally locked, although there is a small chance that the outermost planet in the arrangement might be capable of breaking it, if it has a dense enough atmosphere. If so, then it could have a very slow 'reverse' rotation, like what Venus has. Probably about 20 days to turn once on its axis, based on its 18.8-day orbit.

If the other worlds have atmospheres, however, they would not necessarily have boiling and freezing sides, as convection can deliver quite a lot of heat to the dark side of such a world, according to most models. A bigger problem is the amount of stellar flaring that they are likely to be exposed to. Red dwarfs tend to be very active in that regard, an effect which is exponentially compounded by the fact that any potentially habitable worlds (by human standards) need to be so up close and personal with these stars.

A sufficiently large moon could also break lock, as I understand it. Especially if close enough to tidelock the planet to the moon instead of the star.
 
A sufficiently large moon could also break lock, as I understand it. Especially if close enough to tidelock the planet to the moon instead of the star.
You're right, although after doing some checking with tables I have on the subject, it looks like that would only really be a possibility for the outer two worlds; the five inward ones are so deep in their host star's gravity well that their stable Hill spheres are overrun by their Roche limits -- that is, no moon can get close enough to them to maintain a stable orbit without being torn apart by tidal stresses in the process, assuming they aren't super-dense cannonball moons, or something like that.

Trappist-1g could squeeze a moon in at about the 35-70,000km range, however, and Trappist-1h has a Roche-Hill radius window of about 20-40,000km. I don't know how likely either situation is (who does?), but in those ranges you could certainly break the primary's tidal lock if the moons were massive enough.

The extra tidal flexing would likely add a quite a bit of heat to those outer worlds too. That might be enough to notch Trappist-1g up from freezing to habitable, since its orbit puts it in a position to get just a little less stellar flux than Mars does otherwise.
 
Thanks all for you comments. I have read the star wiki link. I will now re-read the rules with all this in mind for a better understanding.

regards
 
Some additional notes on your stellar comments, Aramis:

Several class M9 and L0-2 dwarfs are thought to be large enough to sustain, but not enough to initiate, fusion.
EG: Gliese 569 - 116 Jupiter masses - but no evidence of fusion.
Metallicity (the ratio of hydrogen and helium to everything else in a star) is the main factor in determining that. At Solar metallicities, the cutoff point for proton-proton fusion is about 80 Jupiter Masses, or anything dimmer than an M6.5V red dwarf. Stars with much higher metallicities will ignite at lower masses (perhaps as low as 68-70MJup), while low metallicity brown dwarfs will stay dormant at even up to 92MJup (as is the case with brown dwarf SDSS J010448.46+153501.8).

As metallicity generally tracks with age (the lower the older), overly-large brown dwarfs are almost certainly always cold, quiet, weird old objects, and very hard to spot if you don't know where to look. Probably a good place to stick a Zhodani forward base, 'lost' penal colony, dark money research project, or just plain old Ravenous Horror Rising from the Depths of Time Itself. I've been toying with the idea of putting one somewhere in the Lanth Rift.

For a while, the size VI Subdwarf was for over-hot under-mass main sequence stars.
There are two main categories of subdwarf, the overwhelming majority of which are the low-metallicity 'cool' subdwarfs. Lower metallicity stars burn at hotter temperatures for their mass (and smaller radius too, making them less luminous overall). The highest metallicity any cool subdwarf star will be is about 1/100th that of Sol, with some 'ultracool' subdwarfs observed to be as low as 1/100,000.

Cool subdwarfs are nearly always extremely ancient stars. In the Traveller sense, this would mean that any naturally-occurring worlds with oxygen atmospheres (Atm 2-9) orbiting a subdwarf would almost certainly feature some of the oldest biospheres in Charted Space, not a few of which would have been around since well before the Solar System was even an accretion disk. Bring sunscreen along if you choose to visit, though; subdwarfs overproduce in the ultraviolet range, so their worlds will be colder but extra cancerous, by human standards.

There are also things called blue subdwarfs, stars who operate at type O or B temperatures despite having masses about half that of Sol. They are believed to be the result of what happens if a red giant is stripped of its outer shell right before it begins fusing helium, leaving the blue core exposed. I imagine Imperial scientists would find any such star near Charted Space pretty interesting, if only for the fact that they give us a window on to what red dwarf stars are supposed to evolve into eventually, given a few hundred billion more years. They are probably also the only blue stars with any chance of hosting terrestrial planets.

Size IV are larger stars - technically not main sequence - but aside from being larger, having shorter lives, being brighter, and ending in a bang... are very similar to Size V. They're expected to end in degenerate cores - neutron stars - rather than white dwarves.
Not quite. That's kind of right, in that a few high mass subgiants are still defined that way out of habit, but the vast majority of subgiants are what is known as evolutionary subgiants, a stage between the main sequence (V) and red giant (III) phases. The Sun will become a subgiant in about 4.5-5 billion years, and will stay there for about a billion or two years before evolving into a red giant, and finally a white dwarf.

The nearest evolutionary subgiant to Terra is Procyon, I think. I count five in the Spinward Marches (Lanth, Tizon, Narsil, Gungnir and Jinx) according to the Wiki, four of which feature more-or-less breathable atmospheres. I would guess the middle three (all but Lanth and Jinx) are all fairly ancient ecosystems too, unless they were terraformed.

Sizes O, I, II, III (and subtypes thereof) are bigger. They are expected to end in Neutron Stars and/or black holes.
Type III red giant stars are not necessarily bigger than Sol, at least by mass. Most of them currently are, because very few stars of Solar mass are old enough to have reached post-Main Sequence yet (and virtually no stars smaller than Sol have); but there should be a few Type III's out there who evolved from early-universe G or F-type stars, and they should be at or significantly below Solar mass.

All type III stars will degenerate into basic white dwarfs; they simply do not have the gravitational oomph to go full-on black hole or neutron star. And for that we should all be very, very grateful.
 
...
Concerning Traveller, one of the problems of many of the earlier stellar spectral classification tables was that they generated an anomalous overabundance of degenerate dwarf stars as companion stars, most of which were classified as "DM (or MD)" or "M_ VII". In reality, only about 6% of the stars we observe are degenerate dwarfs, most of which would have a color-temperature corresponding to main-sequence type stars O, B, A, and F. Very few would correspond to a main-sequence color-temperature of K-Type, and almost none of M-Type (although a few have recently been discovered). The Book 6 (and related) tables generated huge amounts of degenerate dwarf companions, most of which corresponded to "M-Type". One of the projects first initiated with the TNE:1248 stellar data and continuing with the T5 data is to rectify this problem. You will note that most of the former "D" type stars have been converted to M-type main sequence stars (in reality about 80% of stars are M-type main-sequence dwarfs).

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

regards
 
Back
Top