Everything I know about Jump I learned from MWM

[aramis]

Mass Shadow or Hyperspace Shadow is a common enough sci-fi term referring to the blocked off zone of hyperspace caused by a massive object. Jump shadowing is an extension of the same term.

Jump masking, well, to mask something is to hide it. System A masks system B.

 

[Antony]

A really interesting discussion. I particularly liked Antares. Just to complicate things, as an aging Red Supergiant on its way to supernova (in real life it may have already done so) its size is pulsating so presumably its 100D limit will be fluctuating as well.
Anyone know by what percent this stars diameter changes?

As for the main world I had this wild thought that it is not a true planet at all, perhaps the people should have dug deeper, it's actually a giant sublight starship thats parked around Antares to recharge for a future move into deep space.

 

[fusor]

A really interesting discussion. I particularly liked Antares. Just to complicate things, as an aging Red Supergiant on its way to supernova (in real life it may have already done so) its size is pulsating so presumably its 100D limit will be fluctuating as well.
Anyone know by what percent this stars diameter changes?

Presumably the pulsations are the "+/- 80 solar radii" in "822 +/- 80 solar radii"?

 

[rancke]

As for the main world I had this wild thought that it is not a true planet at all, perhaps the people should have dug deeper, it's actually a giant sublight starship thats parked around Antares to recharge for a future move into deep space.

And the biosphere is merely part of the ship's recreational facilities? With internal machinery to keep it alive when away from a source of sunlight? Nice idea. I'd be happier if it was parked a little closer to Antares, though. I still think that a mean temperature of -90 C is a bit low for deliberate placement.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

Presumably the pulsations are the "+/- 80 solar radii" in "822 +/- 80 solar radii"?

Bit of a presumption though since wiki entry doesn't define it. Might that not as easily be the error margin of the measurement? Can you dig up a better source for the measurement and the variability?

 

[fusor]

Can you dig up a better source for the measurement and the variability?

Given that we seem to be willing to accept that a rogue planet that just happens to have had a frozen nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere wandered coincidentally into a habitable orbit around Antares, I think using those values here is fine (the point being that pinpoint accuracy isn't really necessary given that we're taking so many liberties with reality already).

If you want to search for a more accurate value, be my guest.

 

[far-trader]

You were the one insisting on scientific accuracy over presumptions and vagueness, not me. I could care less but at least I know all measurements have an error factor and would never presume something from one vague source, especially one as "reliable" as wikipedia.

EDIT: And fwiw I did make an effort to dig up the info to try to answer the question. When I couldn't find something definitive (and only after trying) I suggested maybe you could try.

EDIT II: And it's not even about the accuracy, it's about the lack of a declaration of the variance in the measurement and your presumption about what it is with no evidence to suggest that is correct.

EDIT III: And it's quickly becoming again about your attitude.

 

[fusor]

Your problem is that you seem to think that "presuming" is a statement of fact, when it plainly isn't. There's no evidence behind the presumption and I never claimed that there was (I even put a question mark at the end of my presumption, for heaven's sake), but I think it's quite reasonable to assume that a variance in radius is at least part of that error bar. As I said, if you want to look for more accurate values yourself then by all means please do (and if you can't find it, then I guess we're left with that presumption).

Speaking of "attitude", perhaps you should phrase your "suggestions" more politely rather than just telling me to look up something for you when you show no evidence of looking for it yourself (in your initial post, at least)? And FYI, wikipedia is actually a pretty reliable source of information for scientific data like this.

And plainly you missed my point. Yes, I was in favor of scientific accuracy, but since we're assuming that there's a habitable planet here as a result of a very unlikely scenario, I don't see any point in being THAT accurate about the star any more.

 

[far-trader]

Your problem is...

My problem is much simpler than that. You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[fusor]

My problem is much simpler than that. You couldn't be more wrong.

Well, I guess that showed me.

Can we get back to discussing the topic please?

 

[rancke]

I wonder if the information on the Traveller wiki came from a canon source. There's is some material about that part of Charted Space that I'm not familiar with, so it could be the case.

However, it looks to me like most of the information on the Traveller wiki is from the real Wikipedia, so maybe it's not canon. If it isn't, I'd be inclined to look at Antares B as the location of the world. Antares B is a B2.5 V star, and I have no idea if it is any more likely to have planets, but at least it's a lot smaller.



Hans

 

[fusor]

Antares B is a B2.5 V star, and I have no idea if it is any more likely to have planets, but at least it's a lot smaller.

It isn't. It's still the same age as Antares A, which is too young to have planets, it just happens to be further back on its evolutionary path.

 

[captainjack]

I think using those values here is fine (the point being that pinpoint accuracy isn't really necessary given that we're taking so many liberties with reality already).

If you want to search for a more accurate value, be my guest.

Think that as you may, it is still reasonable to ask if they should be used. I mean, we have no idea if those numbers were someones personal quest to define Antares, a long decanonized third party product, or if it is referencing some actual GDW product where it is mentioned.

Besides, and god help me for paraphrasing this, as the good Dr Ganymede (of blessed memory) would say, saying a discussion is about fiction doesn't mean that all rules of evidence are out the window.

Quite a bit of the controversy here is due to the figures cited in that article. Its reasonable to ask where they came from, or why they are there.

 

[captainjack]

And the biosphere is merely part of the ship's recreational facilities? With internal machinery to keep it alive when away from a source of sunlight? Nice idea. I'd be happier if it was parked a little closer to Antares, though. I still think that a mean temperature of -90 C is a bit low for deliberate placement.


Hans

Not if it isn't human/terrestrial, perhaps.

 

[fusor]

Quite a bit of the controversy here is due to the figures cited in that article. Its reasonable to ask where they came from, or why they are there.

I think you're overstating it to call it "quite a bit of controversy" since it stems from one person who admits that he "could care less" claiming that wikipedia is "unreliable".

Maybe more accurate numbers are out there but as I said, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the +/- 80 radii at least partially reflects the pulsation that was mentioned (it sounds like the right kind of ballpark to me at least). That presumption could be right or wrong, but it's a presumption and I have never claimed it to be factually accurate.

If people are curious, there's nothing stopping them from searching for more information themselves.

 

[captainjack]

Obviously it's possible to ignore it. It's been ignored for over 30 years by writers and referees alike, myself included (Though I did include it as a minor plot point in one adventure I wrote for JTAS Online).{a lot of snippage}
Well, I think jump shadowing and jump masking have the potential to add significantly to the game. I've already mentioned adding seasons to star travel. Dan mentioned the tactical advantages of being deep inside a jump shadow. Hearing that the rival expedition just arrived at the solar jump limit and will reach the planet in 36 hours might add spice to a treasure hunt. Other suggestions would probably be variations on the same theme, but I think there's a lot of potential in those variations.


Hans

Consider this a placeholder, as your comments have given me a fair bit to think about, but need a bit more time than I have right now to do justice.

A few comments, though

[FONT=arial,helvetica]According to FT, 1 in 20 jumps is a free jump, i.e. affected by neither jump shadowing nor jump masking. [/FONT]

Is this correct ? It seems.....extremely low.


and

[FONT=arial,helvetica] Ignoring jump masking, a good guesstimate would be that more than 50% of mainworlds are inside a jump shadow. (See for yourself; grab a subsector listing with star types and count the number of KV and MV stars).[/FONT]

Well, this may be true, but it isn't an either/or situation. The MV stars, at the very least may all shadow their planets, but the actual inconvenience factor seems minor, even when considered economically. The jump shadows are small. Unless I'm missing something the actual expense of (say) one extra day of life support and M-drive is a fairly insignificant part of the expenses of a trip -especially if the overall expense is predicated on a 28 day support cycle. I don't see a 10-20% loss here.

BTW: I get that much of the merchantile system can be asumed to be broken for J3+ ships. It's part of what I worked on in MGT.

 

[captainjack]

I think you're overstating it to call it "quite a bit of controversy" since it stems from one person who admits that he "could care less" claiming that wikipedia is "unreliable".

You sir, are being unreasonable, and overly contentious; plus you are misquoting me. What I said was,

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Quite a bit of the controversy here is due to the figures cited in that article.[/FONT]

a very different observation. There is controversy, and it is in large part due to that article.
I can only assume this is due to lack of attention to my post in your hurry to ignore its content, or simply an attempt to make your point in a more dramatic and contentious manner.

I have to say that either reflects poorly on your reliability, dedication to scientific accuracy, or ability to contribute helpfully.

 

[fusor]

You sir, are being unreasonable, and overly contentious.

You're the one who made the inaccurate and hyperbolic assessment of the situation. If you feel it's "contentious" and "unreasonable" for people to disagree with you by pointing out the reality of the situation, then there's no point in discussing anything here. My posts speak for themselves, but if you and others want to misrepresent them or my "attitude" then good luck with that.

I have wasted enough of my time on this thread and on this board.

 

[captainjack]

You're the one who made the inaccurate and hyperbolic assessment of the situation. If you feel it's "contentious" and "unreasonable" for people to disagree with you by pointing out the reality of the situation, then there's no point in discussing anything here.

Yes, I do feel it is contentious and unreasonable for you to misquote me, and I feel your response is again evidence to the point.

[edit] Since Fusor has editited his last post so as to announce his departure from the board, I don't see a need to keep my response here: rather, I wish to congratulate him on finding a reasonable solution to a problem that clearly vexes him so: this board. Goodbye, and godspeed.

 

[aramis]

Think that as you may, it is still reasonable to ask if they should be used. I mean, we have no idea if those numbers were someones personal quest to define Antares, a long decanonized third party product, or if it is referencing some actual GDW product where it is mentioned.

Besides, and god help me for paraphrasing this, as the good Dr Ganymede (of blessed memory) would say, saying a discussion is about fiction doesn't mean that all rules of evidence are out the window.

Quite a bit of the controversy here is due to the figures cited in that article. Its reasonable to ask where they came from, or why they are there.

I do agree, that's one of Con's best sayings.

And I would like a reputable source for the variability of Antares; I thought the pulsations of red giants normally ran to several years, cycling collapse and pulse.

It's definitely making Antares look all that much more interesting a place to run...