Habitable Zone
- Thread starter Mindseye
- Start date
I don't have the book handy, but if Venus were just a little further out and Mars were just a little closer in, we'd have 3 potentially habitable worlds in our system. Mars actually might be okay as is with a decent greenhouse effect. So real-world data suggests that more than one habitable orbit per system should be possible. I'd say go with 1-3 possible habitable orbits for sun-like stars. The zone should become broader with hotter stars and narrower with cooler stars.
Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy has interesting commentary on taming Venus and Mars, due to their nearness to the hab zone. A huge, orbiting reflector to slightly magnify or focus the sun on Mars would help heat that world up, and the opposite kind of thing could help cool down Venus. Neither of which is sufficient by themselves to fix anything in reasonable lengths of time, but they could help.
Niven (I think) had the neat-o idea of guiding asteroids to these worlds. They'd be guided in order to either transfer momentum to the world, or to take momentum from it. The purpose is to move Mars in a bit and move Venus out a bit, a little closer to the hab zone.
Niven (I think) had the neat-o idea of guiding asteroids to these worlds. They'd be guided in order to either transfer momentum to the world, or to take momentum from it. The purpose is to move Mars in a bit and move Venus out a bit, a little closer to the hab zone.
archhealer
SOC-12
I actually fudge these numbers a bit, because I agree that most systems would likely be capable of mroe than one habitable planet. So if the zone is listed as 1+1d3, I roll 1d3 and add it, and say I roll a 2, then orbits 1, 2, and 3 are habitable. It also slightly increases the liklihood of native life, which, while unrealistically likely already in T20, makes for more interesting visits. Scouts DO tire of scanning a planet and logging "Yep, 'nother frozen rock. Moving on now."
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
On the other hand, if Habitable planets were more prevalent, IRL then we would have found evidence of intelligent life in thre Universe by now. However Traveller isn't Real Life, so this bears some consideration.
If the habitable zone were wider, then there wouldn't be quite so many populations on uninhabitable planets in Traveller. After all why go through all the trouble of building domes or Arcologies, or other artifical structures if there are three or more times as many habitable planets.
WHy build Gateway? Why inhabit Stoner? (JUst to name a couple of the obvious ones.) SImple Habitible zones are narrow.
If the habitable zone were wider, then there wouldn't be quite so many populations on uninhabitable planets in Traveller. After all why go through all the trouble of building domes or Arcologies, or other artifical structures if there are three or more times as many habitable planets.
WHy build Gateway? Why inhabit Stoner? (JUst to name a couple of the obvious ones.) SImple Habitible zones are narrow.
archhealer
SOC-12
Well, keep in mind, humans (even at modern TL here on earth) have a nasty habit of breeding exponentially. This means that, given a planet to run amock on, they'll max out it's resources in a few thousand years. And the bigger the overall population, and the more mobile it is, the faster they do it. (And do it, and do it... sorry, biology humor).
So, even with a lot of habitable planets, there's still going to be a push for space, such that less desireable places will be popped.
Also, many rather unpleasant places can have life, and be in the habitable zone. Life on worlds with exotic atmospheres? Possible, certainly. Won't be like we're used to, though.
Also, many frozen rocks could have valuable mineral deposits, unique atmospheric components, strategic importance, etc. that make them desireable anyways.
So, even with a lot of habitable planets, there's still going to be a push for space, such that less desireable places will be popped.
Also, many rather unpleasant places can have life, and be in the habitable zone. Life on worlds with exotic atmospheres? Possible, certainly. Won't be like we're used to, though.
Also, many frozen rocks could have valuable mineral deposits, unique atmospheric components, strategic importance, etc. that make them desireable anyways.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
As our own system shows, being in a wider definition of "Habitable Zone" does not necessarily lead to a world being habitable.
As for less desireable worlds being populated, this is, as noted above, a natural side effect of several aspects of human nature:
for some, it's simple living: "I can make a living doing X on that rockball over there, and it will be preferable to what I'm doing here."
The definition of "preferable" varies from person to person. For some it's just money, for others it will be "personal space", a concept ranging from "I won't need a breeding license" through "a house structure I can call my own" to "I don't even want to see my neighbor's *fence*!"
As for less desireable worlds being populated, this is, as noted above, a natural side effect of several aspects of human nature:
for some, it's simple living: "I can make a living doing X on that rockball over there, and it will be preferable to what I'm doing here."
The definition of "preferable" varies from person to person. For some it's just money, for others it will be "personal space", a concept ranging from "I won't need a breeding license" through "a house structure I can call my own" to "I don't even want to see my neighbor's *fence*!"
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Perhaps the tables should include a "terraformable zone"?
Similar threads
