Thriving systems

[sgbrown]

Other than "Garden Worlds" which world types should have the highest chance of flourishing? (ie being both profitable and desirable)

In an exploration campaign, what are scouts looking for when they perform a survey to determine if a system is a high value system?

I'm hoping this isn't defined by cannon as I'd like to get fresh thoughts and ideas on it, to include any real world historical perspectives.

 

[Plankowner]

SIZ: 6-9 (Gravity 0.8-1.1)

ATM: 4-9 but 6 and 8 prefered (for humans anyway)

HYD: 6-8

Temperature: 290K-310K (Earth is 293K I believe)

Magma Core that produces a decent Magnetic Field for protection from Solar Radiation.

Star: G9v-F5v Color is important to people, so humans would prefer a yellow-ish sun.

Stable Climate: Circular Orbit but also a reasonable day/night time, again around 24 hours, but could be a bit shorter or a bit longer, figure 20-30 hours. Also, minimal axial tilt (<30 degrees) so that seasons are not too extreme.

Hows that for a start?

 

[kafka47]

Not Garden worlds, eh? Mars like planets assuming that they have trapped water under the surface. Lots of minerals underneath, low gravity hence easier escape velocity, close proximity to Gas Giants & Planetoid Belts.

 

[sid6.7]

well a scout probably looks for 3 things.


1. refueling potential(jump point)
2. colonization potential
3. mineral potential

I.E

gas giant
earth like climate and oxygen(easiest to colonize)
take your pick minerals near the surface(1km?)

 

[sgbrown]

Traped water with low escape velocity and close proximaty to resources. How much gravity would be "desirable" for TL 9-12 colonization? (Ie not using grav plates for all your habitat to get enough gravity.

[ December 20, 2006, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: kafka47 ]

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by sid6.7:
well a scout probably looks for 3 things.


1. refueling potential(jump point)
2. colonization potential
3. mineral potential

I.E

gas giant
earth like climate and oxygen(easiest to colonize)
take your pick minerals near the surface(1km?)

I think I see your points but have some follow on questions.

1) appears to be the first three rules of real estate - location, location, location. I can visualize this one resonably well.

What factors are important for 2 and 3 IYTU? What do you need for a thriving colony effort? Once again I'm prefering a TL9-12 answer vs the "just park the orbital near a fuel source and have fun." Is agriculture potential an issue? (Not necessarily limited to food, but certainly including food.) Does the type of star and the spectrum matter much?

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:

I think I see your points but have some follow on questions.

1) appears to be the first three rules of real estate - location, location, location. I can visualize this one resonably well.

What factors are important for 2 and 3 IYTU? What do you need for a thriving colony effort? Once again I'm prefering a TL9-12 answer vs the "just park the orbital near a fuel source and have fun." Is agriculture potential an issue? (Not necessarily limited to food, but certainly including food.) Does the type of star and the spectrum matter much?

To the last first. Type of star typically indicates age and thus amount of metals in the system and planets. At TL 9-12 a belt mining operation could be feasible, especially in the beginning.

Other planetary factors to consider, tectoically active but not too active. If the core is cold, I believe the palnet will have a very weak magnetic field. Weak magnetic field greater exposure to hard radiation from the sun. Too active and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions make the place more difficult to live on.

Even if the world is dead now, the previous presence of live, and hence reservoirs of complex organics (e.g., petroleum) are very vauble not for fuel so much as organic feed stock for plastics, and many other products as well. I call these paleorganics, which could also include diamonds and coal.

IMTU a thriving effort needs at least two of metals, minerals or argriculture readily available, OR a rare resource that can be exported for all three OR tourism.

 

[Golan2072]

Ore-rich planetoid belts in or near the habitable zone and close to a gas giant as well would be quite desirable for industry, especially if rarer heavy metals (uranium, lanthanium and so on) exist there in commercial qualities. Sure, you'll need pressurized habitats and life support, but you won't have a pesky grav-well to contend with, and you'll have micro-gravity conditions for various industrial applications. This would work especially well for the ship-building industry, as it'll save the costs of lifting the raw materials from the mine to the shipyard.

Earth-like worlds would usually be preferrable over Mars-like worlds, as living on a Mars-like world requires pressurazation and life support, but without the micro-grav advantages of a planetoid belt. The big advantage of Mars-like worlds over Earth-like ones would be:

1) Lower gravity, and thus cheaper access to orbit and easier to build beanstalks.
2) Much lower errosion and corrosion due to far lower oxygen and water.
3) Pollution, especially greenhouse gasses, are not a problem - but good for terraformation efforts.

Ofcourse, Mars-like worlds would probably be far more common than Earth-like ones.

 

[kafka47]

Escape velocity is one of the prime reasons that Mars is cited as a potential colony for Earth. Mars has 0.377 that of Earth. Higher TLs even with grav plates allow you to use things like Mass Drivers to get "cargo" into orbit faster.

Heck, even the Moon's gravity (0.166666667 of Earth) is enough to keep objects down but low enough to exploit resources effectively.

In Traveller, it comes down to cost, whereever it is cheapest, there will be an industry or people willing to try to make it work.

The Imperium may also create artificial demand, if the world was close to borders (think back in time when Pocket Empires surrounded the Imperium), there might have been needs for a world for strategic reasons that have long lapsed but because it is still on a "trade" route, its mineral wealth becomes suddenly profitable.

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
-clip-

Earth-like worlds would usually be preferrable over Mars-like worlds, as living on a Mars-like world requires pressurazation and life support, but without the micro-grav advantages of a planetoid belt. The big advantage of Mars-like worlds over Earth-like ones would be:

1) Lower gravity, and thus cheaper access to orbit and easier to build beanstalks.
2) Much lower errosion and corrosion due to far lower oxygen and water.
3) Pollution, especially greenhouse gasses, are not a problem - but good for terraformation efforts.

Ofcourse, Mars-like worlds would probably be far more common than Earth-like ones.

I had kind of assumed any Earth like world would be an automatic candidate for colonization - it's just a plesant place to live. The original question was about non-garden worlds because I didn't really think there'd be any debate about the desirability of garden worlds. Was that a poor assumption?

 

[sid6.7]

Originally posted by sid6.7:
well a scout probably looks for 3 things.


1. refueling potential(jump point)
2. colonization potential
3. mineral potential

I.E

gas giant
earth like climate and oxygen(easiest to colonize)
take your pick minerals near the surface(1km?)

well for 2 and 3 the next step would be
like someone said costs VS returns, which
since traveller is very cost driven would
be a motivating factor.

if something is gonna be a negative costs on
resources then you have to go back to
location is it important enough of a location
to try and develop it anyways?

im not sure what you mean by a TL9-12 answer?
regardless of TL the same rules apply location
and/or costs VS returns. a scout really wouldnt
make a final descision he would gather data and
take it back to a panel of folks for further
critic...true after 2-3 solid years of
exploration or more he would have a good idea
of whats gonna fly, which may effect how
he brings a report back(if at all)...

are you looking for someone to describe a
TL9-12 colony working with an "inhospitable"
planet in detail or something? if so then
you might want to give an example of said planet
and someone could work something up...

BTW MTU is fairly small and i'd say only
30% developed....i'm more of a single
world maker VS universe maker...

mines only about 48+ (sub-sectors) in size,
its shaped like a spiral arm one,
has 10+ bare bones empires,
and my (sub-sectors) are a tad larger then CT,
its not an "earth" universe either,
i only have 1700 systems in it too.

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by sid6.7:
-clip-
are you looking for someone to describe a
TL9-12 colony working with an "inhospitable"
planet in detail or something? if so then
you might want to give an example of said planet
and someone could work something up...

Sid, I'm not looking for a specific world at this point. I'm considering (but a long way off from being able to do it) developing an exploration campaign in an alternate TU set in 3D space. Some of the software programs out there handle generating random systems in 3D (Astrosynthesis, IFOS), but I'd like the development of these random systems to make some sense. ie I don't want to put a thriving system somewhere that's ugly with no resources just because a random number came up.

The upper TL of 12 is because of two factors:

1) Given sufficient TL, any location could be made a "good" location - TL 13 and higher seems exotic enough to me to start letting the "whims" dictate the where.

2) IMTU previous interstellar exploration occured during the TL 9-12 phase - so development should follow along the lines of what makes sense at that TL (Just like many US Cities are on rivers because they were used for transportation when the city was founded.)

The general considerations you listed earlier, 1) jump location, 2) colonization potential, and 3) mineral resources - make a lot of sense. I'm kind of hoping the thread will develop enough interest and debate to really flesh out what makes these workable.

 

[sid6.7]

okay i think i know where your going, correct me if i am wrong. your talking about when your rolling up a sub-sector you get some really weird systems that have people on them and there is no good explanation why a scout would have scanned the system and said "bring them in, this is good"
given whatever your roll turned out be for that system. cuase if they were "following" the river
so to speak...it makes no sense...

i think if you give me an example of a "thriving"
system where there are no resources becuase of
a bad random roll, would help me understand more
what you want to avoid or what you can't explain
away. maybe even the "sub-sector" your talking about?

how you answer this will help me answer you.
it will be either real short or longer depending
on what you say...

of course it would be ALL opinion and little fact
on my part...

 

[atpollard]

Come on people!

There must be a few xeno-ecologists and xeno-geologists out there with terra-forming and human resettlement experience that can give authoritative answers to Steve’s questions without needing to “guess” like sid6.7.

Just kidding.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Just as a note:
One major aspect of TL advancement is, that it help "us" to get rid of environmental contraints.
So, once there is tha vast amount of safe fusion power available it is no longer a serious problem to set up a local garden world environment even at uncomfortable places.

As environmental aspects become less important a motivation for a colony is perhaps mostly driven by commerical or political aspects.

Regards,

TE

 

[atpollard]

Steve,

Just my 2 cents:

Thick air and lots of water are the most important criteria for the candidacy of a planet for terra-forming and settlement. I can filter the air and alter it’s chemical composition easier than I can create it from scratch, so Nitrogen and Oxygen present in a normal or dense atmosphere are important (Toxic can be fixed easier than Very Thin). Water is critical for life, many industrial processes and agriculture – so I would look for a hydrographic high enough to allow agriculture. Temperature is the least important since a small steady MD could probably alter the orbit enough make is habitable.

Without thick air and lots of water, it would be better to stay in space. Build a habitat around a gas giant with a resource rich moon (or rings). I would personally choose a halo orbit around one of the LaGrange points between the moon and the gas giant. This offers the trade advantages of unlimited free fuel and an automatic high port.

Hope that was the kind of thing you were looking for.
Arthur T. Pollard

 

[atpollard]

As a follow up to the excellent posts made earlier on Star Types and Mineral resources, I recall that some stars collapse and are reborn. A young star that is a reborn old star could have LOTS of very rare heavy elements in the system. That would make colonization for mining and industry both desirable and profitable even without a world that is remotely habitable. Does anyone know more about recycled stars? Their Spectrum? Their Frequency of occurrence?

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by atpollard:
Steve,

Just my 2 cents:

Thick air and lots of water are the most important criteria for the candidacy of a planet for terra-forming and settlement. I can filter the air and alter it’s chemical composition easier than I can create it from scratch, so Nitrogen and Oxygen present in a normal or dense atmosphere are important (Toxic can be fixed easier than Very Thin). Water is critical for life, many industrial processes and agriculture – so I would look for a hydrographic high enough to allow agriculture. Temperature is the least important since a small steady MD could probably alter the orbit enough make is habitable.

Without thick air and lots of water, it would be better to stay in space. Build a habitat around a gas giant with a resource rich moon (or rings). I would personally choose a halo orbit around one of the LaGrange points between the moon and the gas giant. This offers the trade advantages of unlimited free fuel and an automatic high port.

Hope that was the kind of thing you were looking for.
Arthur T. Pollard

Arthur,

Last question first - yes these are the types of thoughts I'm trying to generate discussion on.

Re the orbital habitat - is it important that an orbital be in the "habital" zone? Or does even a TL of 9 render this a mote point?

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by Ptah:

Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
[qb]

IMTU a thriving effort needs at least two of metals, minerals or argriculture readily available, OR a rare resource that can be exported for all three OR tourism.

Okay - so if I have metals and minerals readily available in the rings of a gas giant - and a moon with in the hab zone that can support domed gardens but has a very thin atmosphere - under your system it could thrive.

Likewise if I have a mined out system that happens to be close to some major population centers in other systems but has some really good promoters that advertise the "high" life, I could end up with a system that's the equivalent of a Las Vegas.

But if it just has really could crops - without metals or minerals, it's proably just a minor system - same or just metals or just minerals. Unless of course the particular resource is rare within it's economic zone (2 to 3 jump radius?) or on a critical route.

This that a correct interpretaion?

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by sid6.7:
okay i think i know where your going, correct me if i am wrong. your talking about when your rolling up a sub-sector you get some really weird systems that have people on them and there is no good explanation why a scout would have scanned the system and said "bring them in, this is good"
given whatever your roll turned out be for that system. cuase if they were "following" the river
so to speak...it makes no sense...

i think if you give me an example of a "thriving"
system where there are no resources becuase of
a bad random roll, would help me understand more
what you want to avoid or what you can't explain
away. maybe even the "sub-sector" your talking about?

how you answer this will help me answer you.
it will be either real short or longer depending
on what you say...

of course it would be ALL opinion and little fact
on my part...

Actually - it was more like wanting to roll up the random physical characteristics - minus population and related world codes. Start with a balkanized garden world at oh say 6 to 7 Billion population just breaking into TL 9 and see where reasonable exploration would take it.

The types of things I picture running into are things like:

A route to a particular cluster can go through two different systems:

System A has a type G star with a far type M binary. Just outside the normal "habitable" zone, theres a cold - mars like world with a gas giant a little farther out.

System B is a type M star with a world approximately the same size and gravity as earth within the habitable zone. N2, CO2, and H20 atmosphere (trace O2) and liquid water. The world is a bit steamy due at 50 deg C average. Oceans near the equator are very hot - nearly boiling. Lots of storm activity due to high heat input. Additionaly it has exotic single celled plant life that is toxic to Terrestrial (or Vilani or whatever the main cluture is) life. (Think of some of the early assumptions of what Vensus would be and you're about there.) No gas giant or belts.

Location says an installation needs to be in at least one of them. Which one has the best chance of becoming a thriving colony in it's own right as opposed to just a high maintenance whistle stop? (After the initial logistics play out - government and other factors can easily change this, but given similar governments which one starts the best?)

Still kinda hoping to get open debate started here on these issues. I tend to learn more when folks are going back and forth on the details.