The Hard Work of Terraforming

[Nathan Brazil]

In the context of the OTU, from the 'canon' sources, if you will, not too much terraforming has been done by human empires.
First, given the nature of the setting, there is plenty of real estate, so people live where it is easier to live. Since many ssytems have a 'livable' mainworld, terraforming is less attractive.
Second, the Vilani did not have the tech to do it as they only made it to TL11 (Mongoose list terraforming as TL12). It is only with the coming of the Terrans and achieving TL12 during the Interstellar Wars, that it becomes possible. Unless the Ancients were doing it. But then they were the last owners of the real estate that is Charted Space.

Hephaistos is [bold]one of the few completed terraforming projects in the Imperium.[/bold] Begun during the Interstellar Wars, the project was abandoned and resumed several times. The project was completed by the Hephaistos Company, chartered by the Imperium in 632. The planet was opened in 835, and sections were sold to several colonising groups. Although the project is officially complete, the company is still engaged in work to reduce the ocean and atmosphere. - Solomani Rim p.106

Finally the the time and technology implied on the section on Mars and the terraforming there, it will take thousands of years to thicken the atmosphere.
So terraforming can be done, just not within a timeframe that most governments can survive long enough to see completion.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

One thing I am curious about is about the retention of atmosphere and atmospheric water (water vapor). In another game, 2300AD, there was the concept of minimum molecular weight, which represents value of mass I guess. There worlds only kept elements in the atmosphere which met this value or else they eventually fly away into space. So, within the context of terraforming is some efforts for naught? If not constantly maintained, conditions will eventually revert to original state, right?

 

[Fritz_Brown]

On a light enough gravity world, it will be very difficult to retain an atmosphere. Water vapor is generally pretty heavy compared to regular atmospheric gases. It probably won't vent unless all other gases are already gone.

 

[rancke]

On a light enough gravity world, it will be very difficult to retain an atmosphere. Water vapor is generally pretty heavy compared to regular atmospheric gases. It probably won't vent unless all other gases are already gone.

However, for worldbuilding purposes the time-scale over which it is difficult/impossible to retain an atmosphere makes a lot of difference. On an astronomical scale, it means no atmosphere left unless someone terraformed the world recently. On a scale of millions of years, worlds terraformed by the Ancients could still have most of its atmosphere left. And on a scale of tens of thousands of years, worlds terraformed a few hundred of years may still have many thousands of years to go before it would become a problem. For a species like Humans, who cheerfully farm the sides of active volcanos, the fact that their many-times-great-grandchildren would be faced with serious problems won't even be a consideration for many.


Hans

 

[Shadowfax]

For a species like Humans, who cheerfully farm the sides of active volcanos, the fact that their many-times-great-grandchildren would be faced with serious problems won't even be a consideration for many.
Hans

Yeah, we even have 150 reactors churning out about 20tons/reactor/year of nuclear waste whose most rapidly degrading isotopes will become harmless after about 1000yrs. What nation has survived 1000yrs? Tell me that is safe. Esp. considering some of the nastier isotopes take 1-5 million years to become harmless!

Going back a bit in this thread, maybe that is the (or a) reason that there is terra-forming though, I mean the demand for habitable worlds must be very high in some sections of the universe and as long as there is a good supply of Pioneer/Colonist/Settler/Slaves, who have it worse elsewhere and are willing or forced to face the challenges of a harsh or sub-optimal planetary environment, there are going to be companies and governments ready to exploit them. Man can you imagine the sunk costs? There would have to be some incredible subsidies!

That is why I don't think that there are any barren rocks that are terraformed into gardens of Eden. It is probably more like a irrigation and reseeding project in a place like Mali or Mauritania, you know, some place where there is an atmosphere, but not enough vegetation. Or maybe some small planet with a good supply of potable water, but not enough nitrogen in the air or something like that.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, I can only see them terraforming if there is going to be a reasonable return on their investment sometime relatively soon (within 3 generations or so). A barren rock is too hard to transform, but just tipping off some planet that is almost right to begin with, could be very profitable.

 

[Dragoner]

I can see private terraforming firms, that turn a world into, or close as possible, a t-prime then set up a private corporation to run/sell land like in Little Fuzzy.

 

[flykiller]

Indeed, there's no need to terraform at all if robots are more useful than sophonts. An entire empire could be run on synthetics, directed by small groups of administrators sent from a bunch of garden worlds.

maybe that's the plan here on earth?

actually the best way to terraform is biologically. find plants and microbes that flourish in existing conditions while accomplishing what needs to be done, and they'll do all the work. recall that (according to the "experts") earth's atmosphere used to be all carbon dioxide until photosynthesis started.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

For a species like Humans, who cheerfully farm the sides of active volcanos, the fact that their many-times-great-grandchildren would be faced with serious problems won't even be a consideration for many.

Very good point. The timeline would be determined by the lightest important gas, I guess. Of course, this is also why humans would try something like terrraforming, despite how long it might take and the small return - hope springs eternal.

 

[simonh]

In the context of the OTU, from the 'canon' sources, if you will, not too much terraforming has been done by human empires.
First, given the nature of the setting, there is plenty of real estate, so people live where it is easier to live. Since many ssytems have a 'livable' mainworld, terraforming is less attractive.

The problem with this is that all we know is that worlds generated using the Traveller world generation process are often habitable and populated. The game system doesn't tell us how they got to be that way, or whether it involved terraforming.

Simon Hibbs

 

[rancke]

The problem with this is that all we know is that worlds generated using the Traveller world generation process are often habitable and populated. The game system doesn't tell us how they got to be that way, or whether it involved terraforming.

No, but the setting information does tell us that planetary scale terraforming is rare.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

The problem with this is that all we know is that worlds generated using the Traveller world generation process are often habitable and populated. The game system doesn't tell us how they got to be that way, or whether it involved terraforming.

Simon Hibbs

Advanced world definition in WBH had some tables to determine if the world has been terraformed in the past, dividing it in atmosphere, albedo and hydrography terraforming. The most likely to have been are those with marginal habitability.

 

[simonh]

Advanced world definition in WBH had some tables to determine if the world has been terraformed in the past, dividing it in atmosphere, albedo and hydrography terraforming. The most likely to have been are those with marginal habitability.

That's interesting. I'd have thought the best candidates for terraforming would be marginally habitable ones you could terraform into being highly habitable. After all they're half way there already. I'd have thought starting from scratch would be significantly tougher.

But fair enough. I think I might have a copy somewhere.

Simon Hibbs

 

[McPerth]

That's interesting. I'd have thought the best candidates for terraforming would be marginally habitable ones you could terraform into being highly habitable. After all they're half way there already. I'd have thought starting from scratch would be significantly tougher.

But fair enough. I think I might have a copy somewhere.

Simon Hibbs

The writers of WBH thought that the most likely worlds to have been terraformed were those not habitable that could be made marginally habitable, not far from your idea, but with a diferent goal (mínimum habitability).

Not sure if what's more ambitious, making marginally habitable worlds fully so, or making no habitable ones marginally so...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I think your return on investment is higher if you turn a worthless piece of rock into something livable than if you turn something livable into something comfy.

 

[imneuromancer]

The Culture Orbitals

Iain M. Banks' Culture novels have an interesting idea: Orbitals.

Basically, orbitals are small ringworlds. Think Halo, etc.

Once you get to that tech level, there is no need to live on planets anymore. Why terraform a planet when at the end of it you are pretty much guaranteed a non-standard day and non-standard gravity? And there is almost no way to cahnge those two factors.

Instead, an orbital will give you perfect day, gravity, ecology, and useful space.

Orbitals are maybe outside the tech level of the imperium, but an interesting starting point for thinking. For example, are asteroid-based orbital-like viable and cost effective??

 

[simonh]

I think your return on investment is higher if you turn a worthless piece of rock into something livable than if you turn something livable into something comfy.

On consideration, it also depends how you define terraforming. If it's defined as making a world habitable by humans through artificial intervention, then you can draw a meaningful distinction between doing that and using terraforming techniques to improve the conditions on an already habitable world. After all, you might use at least some such techniques on almost any habitable world, even the Earth itself, if only to tweak things like rainfall patterns.

Simon Hibbs

 

[aramis]

Iain M. Banks' Culture novels have an interesting idea: Orbitals.

Basically, orbitals are small ringworlds. Think Halo, etc.

Once you get to that tech level, there is no need to live on planets anymore. Why terraform a planet when at the end of it you are pretty much guaranteed a non-standard day and non-standard gravity? And there is almost no way to cahnge those two factors.

Instead, an orbital will give you perfect day, gravity, ecology, and useful space.

Orbitals are maybe outside the tech level of the imperium, but an interesting starting point for thinking. For example, are asteroid-based orbital-like viable and cost effective??

Are they? There are multi-megaTd structures in the OTU. Highports.

It's entirely possible to build them with FF&S 2 at TL15; Long Term LS is available at less than TL15. The structure needs to be rated for 1G tensile; that's doable, too. Won't be a 4-spoke ala 2001:ASO, but will probably look more like a bicycle tire.

 

[rancke]

Life support for space habitats is available very early. The Shionthy system is interdicted, yet houses 70 million people in space habitats at a TL of 8. I suspect that if I look for them, I'll be able to find belter populations with lower TL than that, but I haven't actually done so.


Hans

 

[rancke]

On consideration, it also depends how you define terraforming. If it's defined as making a world habitable by humans through artificial intervention, then you can draw a meaningful distinction between doing that and using terraforming techniques to improve the conditions on an already habitable world. After all, you might use at least some such techniques on almost any habitable world, even the Earth itself, if only to tweak things like rainfall patterns.

Both are considered terraforming but of different tech levels.


Hans

 

[JBHemlock]

Considering the age of the Imperium (and the First Imperium before it), I could totally see long-term terraforming projects having been done at least within the borders of the First Imperium. That would be an interesting thing: if the number of habitable planets in frontier areas like the Spinward Marches was lower, because they haven't been settled long enough to be terraformed.

As far as reasoning goes, I'll toss Bruce Sterling's Schismatrix out there. It's set something like 500 years in the future, and there's projects to terraform places like Europa not because it makes any sort of economic sense, but because the "nation" that decides to do it feels a philosophical compulsion to help lifeless places create life. I've always loved his Shaper/Mechanist stories because they give a good vision of how different spacefaring cultures (living in these hothouse habitats in his stories, but you can easily extrapolate that to people living in mostly-independent-but-part-of-the-Imperium worlds) can be.

Life support for space habitats is available very early. The Shionthy system is interdicted, yet houses 70 million people in space habitats at a TL of 8. I suspect that if I look for them, I'll be able to find belter populations with lower TL than that, but I haven't actually done so.

I totally agree. Once you have access to spaceships to haul around the gear needed to tunnel out asteroids and make them into habitats, the gear itself can be fairly low tech.