• 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.

Glisten

Status
Not open for further replies.

HG_B

SOC-14 1K
I have tried many times to envision this system. The most detailed look at it is in the GURPS pub. THAT many people stuffed mostly onto one belt (the outer belt being much less populated) would be a daunting prospect. Unless there were many large asteroids (unlikely due orbital mechanics) means that construction is on the surface of most.

Transportation would require huge numbers of craft. If jump shadows are in effect that cuts down on jumping directly to/from many parts. (I don't know how many AU' out the main belt is) There would be many Class A starports if there were 9 billion people scattered around the circumference . The outer belt is home to most shipyards too. So that adds more to the ports.

It would be nice to see a new treatment done on this with a view towards taking into account the actual scope and pop size coupled with the TL F.
 
THAT many people stuffed mostly onto one belt (the outer belt being much less populated) would be a daunting prospect. Unless there were many large asteroids (unlikely due orbital mechanics) means that construction is on the surface of most.

What sort of resources (rocks, their sizes, and their composition) are available within our own planetoid belt?

If jump shadows are in effect that cuts down on jumping directly to/from many parts. (I don't know how many AU' out the main belt is)

Yes, it depends where the belt is.
 
What sort of resources (rocks, their sizes, and their composition) are available within our own planetoid belt?

One of the things to keep in mind about asteroids (other than the large ones like Ceres, Vesta, et al) that has now been discovered by some of the probes we have sent to the belt is that many "asteriods" are actually "piles-of-rubble" held together by their own self-gravitation. I do not know if any criteria have been established for a "critical-size" under which asteroids are less likely to be solid and more likely to be a floating boulder-piles, but this may limit the number of asteroids that can actually be used as potential habitats.

As an aside, we can now say that the Sol System has two planetoid belts:

1) The Main Belt (from about 2-3 AUs)
2) The Kuiper Belt (from about 30-50 AUs) - Mostly icy bodies, including Eris, Pluto, Orcus, Varuna, Sedna, and Quaoar among some of the larger bodies.
 
One of the things to keep in mind about asteroids (other than the large ones like Ceres, Vesta, et al) that has now been discovered by some of the probes we have sent to the belt is that many "asteriods" are actually "piles-of-rubble" held together by their own self-gravitation. I do not know if any criteria have been established for a "critical-size" under which asteroids are less likely to be solid and more likely to be a floating boulder-piles, but this may limit the number of asteroids that can actually be used as potential habitats.

A down and dirty guess would be that when the object is massive enough to begin to become more uniformly spherical and less "lumpy", that might be the point. Excepting of course large metallic asteroids.
 
A down and dirty guess would be that when the object is massive enough to begin to become more uniformly spherical and less "lumpy", that might be the point. Excepting of course large metallic asteroids.


That would be my intuition as well.
But then the last 15-20 years of astronomical discoveries have taught me that my intuition is often wrong. :)
 
That would be my intuition as well.
But then the last 15-20 years of astronomical discoveries have taught me that my intuition is often wrong. :)

Certainly. Any given object might have recently (not human time scale) been part of a larger solid object and been sundered by a collision. Only close up observation or physical contact can tell us for use.
 
I'm frankly surprised no one has talked here about the Glisten:Library and Map article from Robert Parker that appeared in Traveelrs Digest number 15 (pages 26-28). It gave a detailed (and I guess cananical, being a GDP publication) explanation about it...
 
I have tried many times to envision this system. The most detailed look at it is in the GURPS pub.
I have that supplement, although it's packed away at the moment, so I'm going to go by memory here (as well as the TravWiki page on the system, which I think generally agrees with the book). In a couple of days I can dig her out and confirm or deny what I'm about to post here.

THAT many people stuffed mostly onto one belt (the outer belt being much less populated) would be a daunting prospect.
The Wiki (again, rumored to be based on the GURPS book) says that the outer belt has a population of around 3.3 billion people, or just less than 40% of the total system population. That's less -- but definitely not much less -- than the main belt.

Unless there were many large asteroids (unlikely due orbital mechanics) means that construction is on the surface of most.
Why would orbital mechanics dictate this? Our asteroid belt has over 25 bodies above 200km in diameter, and 3 that are over 500km in diameter (Ceres, Pallas and Vesta). And at just two asteroid belts and a gas giant in total, I would guess that Gliss System's potential for perturbations are much less than Sol System's.

Now by sheer numbers, the vast majority of asteroids are going to be smaller clumps of gravel. But in terms of overall mass, these big asteroids clearly have the lion's share of resources, and they are generally solid chunks of... whatever they happen to be (it varies). Vesta, for the record, is the densest known object in the Solar System.

Transportation would require huge numbers of craft.
That it does. And that is why the Gliss System's transportation authority is the de facto (if not de jure) government of Glisten.

If jump shadows are in effect that cuts down on jumping directly to/from many parts (I don't know how many AU' out the main belt is).
Well, it gets a little murkier here. The Wiki page (and I bet the book) says the inner belt occupies the Habitable Zone of a class G3V star, which would place it in generally the same orbit as Terra (Traveller orbit 3, or 1AU out). However, the Wiki page for Glisten (the world) claims that it is a K9V star, which would place the Habitable Zone around Traveller orbit 1 or 2. Jump shadowing might be a more likely deal with the latter, although that star is considerably smaller than the former, so maybe not. And, of course, those inner orbits are much tighter too, so anything on them is easier to reach anyway.

There's also the matter of that gas giant. It occupies the orbit immediately out from the inner belt, as well as immediately in from the outer one. This is going to affect the orbital dynamics of both belts considerably. Depending on the age of the system, there might be a lot of good real estate parked in the Lagrange points (for the inner belt) or in some sort of orbital resonance position (for the outer belt) of the gas giant.

At any rate, the Gliss System is noted for being a collection of isolated, semi-autonomous, highly variable societies federally connected by the transportation authority. A US of Rocks, if you will, with Glisten proper being the California (or Texas, or New York, or whatever you prefer) of all the rocks. This would make sense if, in fact, some parts of the system are much less convenient to reach than others.

It would be nice to see a new treatment done on this with a view towards taking into account the actual scope and pop size coupled with the TL F.
I thought the GURPS treatment was pretty good, although I concede there's always room for improvement. For what it's worth, here are two takes I have on the Gliss System:

Gliss is a T Tauri type star, a main sequence dwarf star that is less than 100 million years old. This would explain the rather... basic setup of the system, with the two asteroid belts being in reality a small accretion disc with a gap where a gas giant is plowing through it. The missing orbits ('donut hole') in the center of the system might be a bit of a mystery here, but perhaps it's explainable by early system catastrophe (like a gas giant forming and then getting dragged into the star right off the bat), or maybe the dust in there doesn't have enough mass to form decent accretion material.

The inner belt is the blasted remains of a casualty of the Ancients Final War. Yeah, I know... THAT trope; but it makes more sense here than in other cases. Consider the fact that it's a debris field orbiting the Goldilocks Zone of either a KV or a GV star, both of which are considered excellent candidates for hosting Earth-like systems. And, of course, Canon does at least imply that The Marches has more than its share of these cases.​

Either of these interpretations would make the system valuable to industry and researchers alike. A T Tauri Glisten would have a much higher metallicity than most systems, and as such it would have that much more exploitable resources. And astrophysicists would no doubt make a point of having observation posts all around the system, particularly if Gliss were at some unique critical junction in its evolution (say, for example, it was just beginning to fuse hydrogen in its core). This might even explain the confusion over Gliss's spectral class, as T Tauri stars are brighter and more bloated than they will be when mature.

Of course, an Ancients-wrecked terrestrial world Glisten should probably have more exploitable resources than a typical asteroid belt too, since it probably had more mass to work with from the start. And of course there's the possibility of the occasional artifact.
 
Why would orbital mechanics dictate this? Our asteroid belt has over 25 bodies above 200km in diameter, and 3 that are over 500km in diameter (Ceres, Pallas and Vesta). And at just two asteroid belts and a gas giant in total, I would guess that Gliss System's potential for perturbations are much less than Sol System's.
And let's not overlook the crucial fact about Traveller asteroid belts: they're not attempts at synthesizing realistic Real Universe asteroid belts; they're supposed to create plausible game environments where, for instance, tens of billions of people can live in (some) asteroid belts, including the ones in the Glisten System.

Now, realism is a very good way to get self-consistency, which is an important element in plausibility, so when realism can be used without ruining anything important, it should definitely be used. But when realism interferes with game requirements, realism can take a long walk off a short pier1.
1 TRAVELLER! Putting the fiction into Science Fiction! ;)
(Just my opinion, of course).


Hans
 
Now, realism is a very good way to get self-consistency, which is an important element in plausibility, so when realism can be used without ruining anything important, it should definitely be used. But when realism interferes with game requirements, realism can take a long walk off a short pier1.
1 TRAVELLER! Putting the fiction into Science Fiction! ;)
(Just my opinion, of course).

Personally I like that approach. :)
 

The inner belt is the blasted remains of a casualty of the Ancients Final War. Yeah, I know... THAT trope; but it makes more sense here than in other cases. Consider the fact that it's a debris field orbiting the Goldilocks Zone of either a KV or a GV star, both of which are considered excellent candidates for hosting Earth-like systems. And, of course, Canon does at least imply that The Marches has more than its share of these cases.​

Canon more than implies a high number of Hab Zone belts in the Marches, but I don't recall if it got into more recent Library Data than CT/MT. It would certainly help in this case, since it would likely increase the available mass in the Gliss Belt.
 
Canon more than implies a high number of Hab Zone belts in the Marches, but I don't recall if it got into more recent Library Data than CT/MT. It would certainly help in this case, since it would likely increase the available mass in the Gliss Belt.
Sorry, that was unclear writing on my part. What I meant was that Canon consistently associates the Final War with an excess of asteroid belts in The Marches in general, and not just in the habitable zones. Although it does stand to reason that HZ belts would be better candidates than most for local Alderaans.
 
Since the Ancients were rubbling each others' installations, projects, and populations, hab zone worlds would certainly have been on the list.
 
I'm going to suggest that we assume a different type of habitat as a basic of Glisten, or any belt. Sure, we'd like to have a billion people in or on rocks, but that's not going to be the simplest model. The simplest model is going to be the use of some resources (metal, carbon, etc.) to build habitats NEAR the resource-rich zones. Now, it can be TL 15 or whatever if you want, artificial gravity throughout or rotating stations, but there WILL be quite a few habitats.

Some will be Stanford Torii. Others will be larger -- something the size of Elysium is possible. A few may be hollowed-out asteroids.

There will be clusters for various purposes. Agro will be clustered when possible, taking advantage of one type of mirrors. Ore processing may be in other locations.

Transportation authority? Maybe. However, big habitats will reduce this to a degree, and some big habitats make sense. If Elysium could house and support a half-million people, habitats as large would certainly be clustered throughout the belt.

Assume that this isn't just a scrap belt, but a belt with a LOT of resources. Those resources lead to growth. Growth is easy when all you have to do is weave another station (see my suggestions on use of nanofacturing in Cirque -- discussed both in general and in the discussion of the played-out belt).
 
I'm going to suggest that we assume a different type of habitat as a basic of Glisten, or any belt. Sure, we'd like to have a billion people in or on rocks, but that's not going to be the simplest model. The simplest model is going to be the use of some resources (metal, carbon, etc.) to build habitats NEAR the resource-rich zones. Now, it can be TL 15 or whatever if you want, artificial gravity throughout or rotating stations, but there WILL be quite a few habitats.

Some will be Stanford Torii. Others will be larger -- something the size of Elysium is possible. A few may be hollowed-out asteroids.

There will be clusters for various purposes. Agro will be clustered when possible, taking advantage of one type of mirrors. Ore processing may be in other locations.

Transportation authority? Maybe. However, big habitats will reduce this to a degree, and some big habitats make sense. If Elysium could house and support a half-million people, habitats as large would certainly be clustered throughout the belt.

Assume that this isn't just a scrap belt, but a belt with a LOT of resources. Those resources lead to growth. Growth is easy when all you have to do is weave another station (see my suggestions on use of nanofacturing in Cirque -- discussed both in general and in the discussion of the played-out belt).

Why is building a new structure from scratch a simpler model than digging? The rules as written make it fairly cheap to mine out asteroids and construct comfortable habitation in them. I'm not saying there wouldn't be space-based habitats, but it strikes me that space-based habitats are more likely to grow up around services that space-based habitats can perform best, like ship construction, while the mining settlements are likely to grow up on/in the asteroids being mined (or in some cases grew up while the ores were rich and then transitioned to something else for survival when the veins on that particular rock played out).

Also strikes me like this is a good setting for ghost towns - small abandoned settlements that could not manage the transition when their little asteroid played out. Ought to be some interesting game opportunities there.
 
Why is building a new structure from scratch a simpler model than digging?

The problem is two-fold... and not entirely game derived.

Part the first: Asteroids aren't solid. Solid chunks of rock seem to not be what most of our asteroid belt is. At least, for anything below gravitational self-rounding. The impactor tests and radar returns imply strongly a lack of solidity.

Part the second: in the resource rich planetary remnant belts of the Marches, the density is FAR higher than we want to think about. For a G type Dwarf (like Sol), a mainworld turned into a belt is 1/4 the volume, and between 20 and 2000 times the total mass. In such densities, you don't want to be in the belt, you want to be near the belt, and send missions in, simply due to the much higher risks of crossing velocity impacts.

Note that the mass of our asteroid belt is estmated at under 3.6e21 kg, while earth is estimated to be 5.4e24 kg... 1500x the mass... and mars about 6.39e23 kg, or just about of 177x the mass. Of the entire belt.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/asteroid_belt.htm
 
...Part the first: Asteroids aren't solid. Solid chunks of rock seem to not be what most of our asteroid belt is. At least, for anything below gravitational self-rounding. The impactor tests and radar returns imply strongly a lack of solidity. ...

Not terribly surprising in retrospect. Absent some pressure to compact them, it'd make sense they're loosepacked rather than solid, and it would explain how they can accrete rather than shatter. However, I would have thought that the nickel-iron bodies would have been better candidates for mining than the rockpiles, and therefore more likely to end up as the site of a settlement. Are they aggregates too? Or are there just a lot fewer than we expected?

...Part the second: in the resource rich planetary remnant belts of the Marches, the density is FAR higher than we want to think about. For a G type Dwarf (like Sol), a mainworld turned into a belt is 1/4 the volume, and between 20 and 2000 times the total mass. ...

Not sure of your baseline here. 1/4 the volume of Sol's asteroid belt? And the mass figure, is that from the TA article? A different source? Is it specific to the Glisten system?
 
Part the second: in the resource rich planetary remnant belts of the Marches, the density is FAR higher than we want to think about. For a G type Dwarf (like Sol), a mainworld turned into a belt is 1/4 the volume, and between 20 and 2000 times the total mass. In such densities, you don't want to be in the belt, you want to be near the belt, and send missions in, simply due to the much higher risks of crossing velocity impacts.
No doubt TL15 dectection and avoidance systems help a lot. And force fields. :devil:

Be that as it may, people hollowing out asteroids and living in them is a well-established SF trope.


Hans
 
Not terribly surprising in retrospect. Absent some pressure to compact them, it'd make sense they're loosepacked rather than solid, and it would explain how they can accrete rather than shatter. However, I would have thought that the nickel-iron bodies would have been better candidates for mining than the rockpiles, and therefore more likely to end up as the site of a settlement. Are they aggregates too? Or are there just a lot fewer than we expected?



Not sure of your baseline here. 1/4 the volume of Sol's asteroid belt? And the mass figure, is that from the TA article? A different source? Is it specific to the Glisten system?
The masses of Earth and Mars are standard reference numbers; multiple sources. (Just google them.)

The 1/4 the volume presumes being in orbit 4 (mars orbit) rather than orbit 5 (asteroid belt median orbit), with similar thicknesses. Some will be orbit 5, and not 1/4 the volume. Some will be orbit 3, and probably 1/9 the volume.

Still, none of those are close enough to be in visual range of more than 1-2 additional bodies at a time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top