Non OTU: LBB S3 Spinward Marches (re)mapping in 1105

[Spinward Flow]

• B. Planetary size: 2D-2.
• C. Planetary atmosphere: 2D-7+size. If planetary size is 0, the atmosphere must be 0.
• D. Planetary hydrographics: 2D-7+size. If planetary size is 0, then hydrographics must be 0; if atmosphere is 0. 1, or A+, then apply a DM of -4.
• E. Population: 2D-2.
• F. Government: 2D-7+population.
• G. Law level : 2D-7+government.

One simplification that you can use as a rule of thumb for these factors basically amounts to this for the available code ranges:

• Atmosphere = Size +/-5
• Hydrographics = Size +/-5
• Government = Population +/-5
• Law Level = Government +/-5

Tech Level is more complicated due to how it's calculated with more DMs in play, but the +/-5 "rule" makes for a quicker shorthand easy reference to spot outliers that break the LBB3 random world generation rules/guidelines.

So, for example, the highest population that can yield Government: 0 is going to be Population: 5.
For the densest untainted Atmosphere: 8 the smallest and therefore lowest gravity world you can have is Size: 3.
Needless to say, these kinds of wildly divergent results require rolling 2 or 12 on 2D in order to achieve those combinations, but they are still within the "permitted by RAW" boundaries.

I’ve found a few worlds that have bases which their particular class of starport would prohibit (according to the RAW)

LBB3.81, p10:

What you functionally wind up with for bases is:

• Naval Bases @ type A-B starports only
• Scout Bases @ type A-D starports only

Naval and Scout bases are not "limited" to only appear within Imperial territory, and there are quite a few notable examples of bases appearing outside the Imperial border within the LBB S3 Spinward Marches publication in multiple subsectors, so it's highly unlikely to be an error or a misprint when this kind of thing happens.

Scout bases, as "frontier" installations are more likely to appear on worlds with lower grade starport infrastructure facilities.
I'm personally convinced that the type A/B restriction for naval bases has to do with the availability of a shipyard capable of construction/repair/maintenance work, in addition to being "relatively free" of piratical activities (as per LBB2.81 starship encounter tables).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Eleventh step revision: Imgur Link (3602 × 5209 png image) (recommend opening in new tab)

This increment includes editing of the Sword Worlds Subsector UWP data to be compliant with LBB3.77 RAW standards.

---

Once again, lots of finicky little details to fix. Enos isn't an Amber Zone in LBB S3, for example. Sacnoth has a type B starport, not a type A. Lots of world sizes needing corrections. Some world populations (which even altered their trade codes) needing corrections ... so on and so forth.

A surprising number of Sword Worlds are tidally locked (Lk trade code) in orbit around their primary star, as detailed in the Travellerwiki pages for respective mainworlds. There were also a few more satellite (Sa trade code) mainworlds in orbit around other planetary bodies.

Quite a few revisions ago, I restored the Sword Worlds Express Route connections between Joyeuse and Gungnir+Mjolnir as it appeared in LBB S3.

Anyone now focusing on peer reviewing my edits will surely notice (now that it is becoming relevant) the adjustment of the Imperial Express Network away from Biter/Sword Worlds to instead run through Wardn/Lunion (which although an independent world outside the Imperial border, does have a Scout base in LBB S3). I'll have more to say about the reorganization of the Express Routes through Lunion subsector (the heaviest overhaul in the sector) in the next step revision.

---

Next time ... Lunion subsector!
Same jump point!
Same hailing frequency!

Wait, is that how this is supposed to go?

 

[bookwyrm]

I was wondering what you do with Main Worlds in Inner & Outer Orbits?

Also, I like the Thread, it's given me food for thought as to what to do with my neck of Known Space.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I was wondering what you do with Main Worlds in Inner & Outer Orbits?

To my knowledge, the T5 Column Delimited Format using Second Survey notation standards to be parsed by the Poster Maker function of Travellermap uses the Ho (Hot) and Co (Cold) Remarks and Trade Codes to notate when mainworlds are not present within the habitable zone of the star(s) of their system. Hot is obviously "too close" to the star and Cold is "too far" from the star.

When I go scanning for which worlds in a subsector are Satellites of other planetary bodies, I'm not exactly looking out for the Hot/Cold demarcation in the Travellerwiki pages, since most worlds in the Spinward Marches were just automatically assumed (because, pre-LBB6) in the habitable zones of the stars in their systems. However, if anyone knows of specific worlds in the sector that ought to be notated as such in the Sector Data file, please bring them to my attention here in this thread so that I can verify and update the sector data file appropriately for that world's data entry.

Also, I like the Thread, it's given me food for thought as to what to do with my neck of Known Space.

That's part of my motivation for doing this (although other priorities keep getting in the way daily!). I'm way behind on watching all the anime that has come out for the autumn season this past week, so I need to get caught up on that before falling even further behind ... so it's highly likely I won't be able to get around to Lunion subsector until next week.

However, it's the demonstration by example that INSPIRES which helps keep me motivated and tackling this project in manageable chunks that won't overwhelm me (or anyone else) if I tried to bulldoze the whole sector in a single session. Being able to SHOW YOUR WORK so that other people can see what is possible and learn how to do this kind of thing themselves means that more people can take their turn at doing this kind of spreadsheet editing and generate more locations that can be shared and mutually explored.

So thanks for the vote of confidence.
It's nice to know that what I'm doing has "meaning" beyond mere vanity.

 

[bookwyrm]

I know this is going back a little in the Thread, but Aramis is a Sub Sector Capitol that is a Hell World. Atmo. A with Hydro 0. Does T5 allow a -10 in the life zone, as it isn't marked with Ho for an Inner Orbit Planet? I know that in CT Inner Zone Planets are automatically Hydro. 0 no matter what the Atmo. is.

One reason I'm bringing this up is that I kind of ran into this same problem while working on fixing the Trade Codes in Gateway to Destiny, which turned into fixing some UWP problem, which also turned into crosschecking Star Types of the systems, and then discovering there were too many mistakes to actually be mistakes, and then checking for Inner & Outer Orbit modifiers. I felt like I was losing my mind a little. (I'm going with Iz & Oz for Main Worlds outside of the Life Zone)

Another problem I have is that T20 & G2D came out before T5, and Traveller Map is being updated to T5 standards, and I have no idea of what differences there are between the 2 systems System Generators, if there are any...

So basically, I'm doing something similar, changing the OTU I have to an MTU that makes sense to me.

I've also recently started to wonder if some planet UWPs are typos or if they were terraformed between the time of the Solomani Rim War and the 1105+ Golden Era... choices, choices.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Aramis is a Sub Sector Capitol that is a Hell World.

Since "Hell World" is a post-CT trade classification, I'm deliberately omitting it from my revamp of the Spinward Marches subsector to be closer to LBB S3.

According to the T5 survey parameters, a Hellworld requires:

1. Size 3+
2. Atmosphere 2, 4, 7, 9-C
3. Hydrographics 0-2

By that standard, Aramis/Aramis definitely qualifies with a UWP of A6B0556-B as recorded in LBB S3, p28 ... if you're using all of the later T5 codes.

Atmo. A with Hydro 0.

For a Size: 5 world, this is perfectly legal under LBB3.77 and LBB3.81, even before throwing in -4DM to Hydrographics because Atmosphere: A+. It's certainly an extreme case, but it is still within the bounds of straight up dice rolls possibility.

it isn't marked with Ho for an Inner Orbit Planet?

The Travellerwiki page for Aramis (SM3310) is completely silent on any kind of solar orbit location for the planet, so I'm presuming that the mainworld is just a hostile environment in the habitable zone.

then discovering there were too many mistakes to actually be mistakes
I felt like I was losing my mind a little.

I figure that almost all of the transcription errors fall into the "off by 1" category that can easily result from things like missed keystrokes on a number pad.

The really fun one, of course, is the mess made of the Express Network through Lunion subsector, with the J5 error between Tenalphi and Strouden.

I'm personally convinced that what was supposed to happen here was to bring the Express Network from Caladbolg/Sword Worlds to Wardn/Lunion and then link to Tenalphi/Lunion and Adabicci/Lunion ... with no spinward/trailing link between Tenalphi and Strouden at all. This would have then meant that the Imperial connection through Biter/Sword Worlds was also a mistake ... and the route connection between Adabicci and Ianic are also obvious mistakes, so quite the Cluster Fudge going on there.

But the J5 Tenalphi <-> Strouden error is the most interesting, because ... in the old subsector hex location system used for LBB S3, you have:

• 0107 Wardn. (the period indicates an independent, non-Imperial world)
• 0206 Tenalphi
• 0707 Strouden

In order to incorrectly link Tenalphi to Strouden (to trailing), instead of to Wardn (to spinward), you just need to confuse a single digit for the hex location:

• 0107 vs 0707

And depending on the font being used (which could have involved hand written notes for all I know) it can sometimes be very easy to confuse a 1 vs 7 depending on how it is written (and how tired/zombie brained) the person doing the data entry, typesetting and layout for publication is at multiple points during the production timeline. All it takes is a single transcription error confusing a 1 for a 7 (which is only an "off by 2" error on a number pad) and you've got the misprint we see in LBB S3 for the erroenous J5 link in the Lunion subsector.

Then there's the whole Biter/Sword Worlds vs Wardn/Lunion connection issue, where both worlds have type B starports, but only Wardn/Lunion has an IISS base in the system, which is just what you'd want for a link in the network chain between Lunion and Five Sisters susbsectors along the border ... as opposed to going through Biter/Sword Worlds which is a system controlled and held by a foreign (and not always friendly) polity, the Sword Worlds Confederation.

So it looks like there were (to my mind, anyway) multiple compounding little errors layering on top of each other that produced the mistakes in the Express Routes through Lunion subsector (at least 3, depending on how you want to count them) that resulted in such a "car crash" when published.

So yeah, mistakes upon mistakes until you feel like you're losing your mind a little ... right there with you.

 

[TamsinP]

I'm not sure, but I believe Aramis being shown as a subsector capital was taken away later, with the subsector being split between Regina, Rhylanor and Pretoria Duchies/subsectors for governance. However, I'm guessing that was a later retcon.

 

[mike wightman]

Aramis is the subsector capital but:

The Marquis of Ararnis: As an Imperial noble, the Marquis
Leonard Bolden-Tukera of Aramis holds his patent
directly from the Emperor, although the channels of
allegiance provide (and require) fealty to intervening nobles
between him and the Emperor. The Marquisate is a
hereditary position which, on Aramis, has made him ruler
of the planet.
The Marquis owes allegiance to the Count Knowln of
Celepina (in nearby Rhylanor subsector), who in turn owes
allegiance to the Duke of Rhylanor, one of several Dukes
in the Spinward Marches.
The Marquis, as head of the feudal technocracy of Aramis,
grants a variety of subordinate positions in city government
to citizens of Aramis and Leedor in return for money, pledges
of loyalty, and other services.

 

[TamsinP]

Yup, I was mistaken. From the Wiki for Aramis subsector:

"The Third Imperium, Domain of Deneb subsector capital of Aramis is Aramis (Spinward Marches 3110)
Aramis subsector is not a duchy itself but is split between three neighboring duchies.
The Towers Cluster is administered by the Duchess of Pretoria, the Aramis Trace by the Duke of Rhylanor, and the Scatters by the Duke of Regina.
The Marquis of Aramis is married to a member of the Tukera family, of Tukera Lines fame."

So, it has a subsector capital, but the subsector is divided between the three duchies.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Civil administration of a subsector is one thing.
Noble hierarchy and "chain of ranks up to the emperor" is something else.

I suspect that if Aramis had a higher population it would be a Duchy and overseen by a Duke ... but Aramis (the world) is trade classified as Non-industrial and Aramis (the subsector) is distinctly lacking in high population worlds (Junidy being the exception, but also at the "other end of the subsector").

In a lot of ways, the Aramis subsector has a lot in common with the Lanth subsector ... plenty of worlds, not a lot of people. The difference is that Aramis subsector has "more than their fair share" of Agricultural worlds and is kind of the "breadbasket" of the Spinward Marches when you zoom out from the Aramis subsector. I can easily imagine there being a cross-subsector demand for agricultural products from Aramis subsector inside the Regina subsector (4 Industrialized worlds, overpopulated places like Rethe) ... however, in order to transport such Agricultural goods at a competitive price with the Kinorb Cluster requires a J2 trader at the minimum in order to link up the appropriate world markets across the subsector boundaries between Aramis and Regina subsectors.

Could certainly offer plenty of adventure hooks for an enterprising Referee ...

 

[TamsinP]

I believe that a lot of the agricultural trade from Aramis subsector goes to the Vargr expanses (at least according to the Wiki, although I think I've seen mention of it elsewhere).

 

[Grav_Moped]

Agricultural goods at a competitive price with the Kinorb Cluster requires a J2 trader at the minimum in order to link up the appropriate world markets across the subsector boundaries between Aramis and Regina subsectors.

Could certainly offer plenty of adventure hooks for an enterprising Referee ...

TL-11: J2, 1G, 1KTd.
TL-15: J2, 1G, 5KTd.
Not much in between without going to HG.

Though I like the idea of a fleet of 1KTd freighters... those Z-Drive 5Ks are a lot cheaper to operate per paylod-ton.

ETA: assuming reasonably full holds. As one does, since the scale is far outside the LBB2-7 trade mini-game, and thus clearly referee fiat.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I believe that a lot of the agricultural trade from Aramis subsector goes to the Vargr expanses (at least according to the Wiki, although I think I've seen mention of it elsewhere).

Oh I'm sure there's cross border demand for agricultural products too, but that's Interface Line work, which brings a different set of challenges than simply running goods inside Imperial controlled space.

TL-11: J2, 1G, 1KTd.
TL-15: J2, 1G, 5KTd.
Not much in between without going to HG.

Actually, that's an incredibly important difference!

According to LBB S3, there are 2 shipyards where a TL=11 J2/1G 1kton starship can reasonably be constructed (Efate and Boughene, Pixie "doesn't count" for this) in the Regina subsector, along with Aramis in the Aramis subsector that are all TL=11+ with type A starports. So that's 3 shipyards at the "bookends" of the two respective subsectors (and Henoz/Rhylanor isn't that far across another subsector border, making 4 shipyards in the vicinity).

As for annual overhaul maintenance capacity, TL=11+ type B starports can be found at Uakye and Feri in the Regina subsector, along with Nasemin and L'oeul D'dieu in the Aramis subsector, in addition to the starports capable of construction, plus more in the Rhylanor subsector if you need to divert in that direction for some reason.

That's a broad enough support and supply base to be "within reach of tech support" for repairs and maintenance without needing to go out of your way to obtain those services. Having such an accessible supplier base means that 1kton starships can spend more of their time each year running goods along their trade routes and less time "off route" diverting to a faraway shipyard for maintenance and repairs.

By contrast, a TL=15 starship could only be built at Rhylanor and maintained at Rhylanor, which is a logistics problem. Sure, the 5kton starship would have a larger cargo hold and be capable of carrying more stuff ... but at J2 and "tethered" to the Rhylanor shipyard for repairs and maintenance, you're going to a LOT of an annual cycle just moving through the Rhylanor subsector to get out to the trade route operations. In other words, the "uptime" transporting goods between Aramis and Regina would be basically non-viable. You could probably run such a service between Aramis subsector and Zivijie/Rhylanor (another Industrialized world), but with Henoz/Rhylanor only 1 parsec away from Zivijie, why would you ever want to go all the way into Aramis subsector for a couple thousand tons of agricultural products a couple times per year before needing to return to Rhylanor/Rhylanor for annual overhaul maintenance.

I'll readily agree that ON PAPER ... in a vacuum(!) ... the 5kton Z-drive option LOOKS more compelling!
But as soon as you try to keep it operational and supported beyond the "near abroad" around the one starport that can maintain it coreward of Mora/Mora ... suddenly it stops being such a compelling option.

When the details of the map, however ... that calculus changes.
Being able to match the technological support base of the area you want to be operating in can make a HUGE difference in the logistics and overhead costs of running a commercial venture ... especially when you're limited to J2. There's a "limit" to how far you can go in a single year at J2. If you're spending 10+ jumps per year out of 24-25 just simply jumping out of the subsector you ought to be operating in to the only shipyard that can support the high tech built into your starship in a neighboring subsector, you're probably using something that is "too high tech" for where you want to be operating (and profiting) from.

Sometimes, lower tech with a shorter logistics tail is a superior option to maximal tech with an almost comically long and vulnerable logistics tail.

 

[Grav_Moped]

You can get J2 in almost any size at TL-11 in HG (give or take computer requirements). Probably more expensive, but maybe cheaper per payload-ton-parsec. Still, I prefer a big fleet of 1000-ton ships to somewhat fewer 5000-ton ships, or even fewer 10,000-ton ones just on an aesthetic basis. Might not pencil out, though.

 

[Kakistocrat]

However, LBB3.81, p7 does include the following:

Finally, the referee should always feel free to create worlds which have been deliberately (rather than randomly) generated. Often such planets will be devised specifically to reward or torment players.

So the OCCASIONAL “out of bounds” UWP results are “allowed” for … REASONS … but should not become a “norm” everywhere on a map.

The same quote is on page 8 of the 1977 edition, except that it has “impose” rather than “create”.

I’d added a few “don’t flag these as errors” cases in my code, when the accompanying text in Supplement 3 made the exceptions explicit, e.g. the high population worlds with a government of 2.

My personal preference would be to have such worlds “flagged for review” so that a case by case analysis can be performed. That way context and possible sector history/lore can be accounted for, in addition to the all too common “off by 1” errors that are so commonplace. Automated recognition of “that shouldn't be like that” when doing data cross-checks would be extremely valuable, since manual tabulation and proofreading EVERYTHING … one by one, in sequence … gets mind numbing very quickly.

Identify … then adjudicate.

That certainly makes sense. I’d originally made a HTML document with the sector data, then applied the relevant Consolidated Errata to the HTML; then wrote my code to parse the HTML to flag trade classification omissions/mistakes, and updated the HTML accordingly; then updated my code to check the UWP generation in the HTML, and again updated the HTML. I’d used HTML as my baseline because its formatting is handy for easily spotting changes visually — black text on alternating white and light grey backgrounds is the default, with green text for changes from the Consolidated Errata, purple text for my own changes (typically found by my code), struckthrough text (either green or purple) for original data that shouldn’t have been there (usually erroneous trade classifications), and emphasized text for rule exceptions.

I’ve since made a column-delimited Second Survey version of the updated HTML, and plan on updating my code so that it can parse Second Survey files as well as the particular HTML tabular format that I’ve used. (I’ve added some additional information in the Remarks column which will be recognized by the code; for example, L:HHHH represents “a link exists to the world in sector hex HHHH”, and L:HHHH=N/S represents “a link exists to the world in sector hex HHHH; that world is named N in subsector S of a neighboring sector”.)

I’m also expanding the “notion” of a Satellite to include “sub orbits” for things like orbital habitats in asteroid belts (Shionthy, Patinir, Macene, Bowman, Glisten, etc.) because it is not the “entire belt” in the solar orbit that is inhabited, but rather a “localized subset habitat” located within that solar orbit that is the “Mainworld” in much the same way that Regina is a moon of a gas giant in its star system (and is thus a sub orbit of a solar orbit).

I don’t understand the distinction here; is there some feature that the Sa code would represent only in some subset of all asteroid belt mainworlds? Does this represent a distinction that is given in the Travellerwiki entries for such worlds?

 

[Kakistocrat]

What you functionally wind up with for bases is:

• Naval Bases @ type A-B starports only
• Scout Bases @ type A-D starports only

Naval and Scout bases are not “limited” to only appear within Imperial territory, and there are quite a few notable examples of bases appearing outside the Imperial border within the LBB S3 Spinward Marches publication in multiple subsectors, so it's highly unlikely to be an error or a misprint when this kind of thing happens.

The instances that I’d found were of the “do not roll” variety: three naval bases associated with starports below class B, and one scout base associated with a class E starport. I didn’t compare the allegiance of a world to the allegiance of its bases.

I’m personally convinced that the type A/B restriction for naval bases has to do with the availability of a shipyard capable of construction/repair/maintenance work, in addition to being “relatively free” of piratical activities (as per LBB2.81 starship encounter tables).

Yes, that is certainly plausible.

 

[Kakistocrat]

Yup, I was mistaken. From the Wiki for Aramis subsector:

“The Third Imperium, Domain of Deneb subsector capital of Aramis is Aramis (Spinward Marches 3110)
Aramis subsector is not a duchy itself but is split between three neighboring duchies.
The Towers Cluster is administered by the Duchess of Pretoria, the Aramis Trace by the Duke of Rhylanor, and the Scatters by the Duke of Regina.
The Marquis of Aramis is married to a member of the Tukera family, of Tukera Lines fame.”

So, it has a subsector capital, but the subsector is divided between the three duchies.

The Consolidated Errata for both Supplement 3 and The Traveller Adventure stated that the note that Aramis is the subsector capital should be removed, so you weren’t mistaken about having seen it.

 

[Spinward Flow]

That certainly makes sense.

I have my moments.

I don’t understand the distinction here; is there some feature that the Sa code would represent only in some subset of all asteroid belt mainworlds? Does this represent a distinction that is given in the Travellerwiki entries for such worlds?

The Travellermap Sector data for the M1105 Spinward Marches does NOT follow this convention I'm introducing of specifying that the mainworld of a system with a *000***-* UWP will always be considered a Satellite of that belt in whatever solar orbit it is found in.

The reason that I'm "going the extra klick" to make this the case in the Sector data coding is mostly a matter of logical consistency for the way I think about these things.

Without the Satellite code at the sector level, there is an assumption that whatever the "major body" is within a particular solar orbit "must be" the mainworld. So if you're looking at a Terra-Luna in orbit around Sol situation, if Luna was the "mainworld" in orbit around Terra, which was in orbit around Sol, you would properly have to encode that as being a Satellite mainworld, because Luna is in a planetary orbit rather than a solar one and because Luna is the "lesser body" of the Terra-Luna pairing.

Now shift your assumption for where the "mainworld" ought to be from Terra-Luna into the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Yes, there will undoubtedly be some kind of planetoid hull somewhere (Ceres?) that has been mined out and used for habitat construction ... but unlike with a planet this will almost certainly NOT be the only singular habitat within the solar orbit of this particular belt. There would undoubtedly be constructed space stations and other habitats loaded up with commercial/industrial/residential services that ALSO orbit around the star within the "main" belt as the population spreads out and expands throughout the belt (think "urban sprawl" except on the scale of a swarm of satellites in a solar orbit). In other words, the population of the "mainworld" is going to be more ... distributed ... among multiple habitats in an asteroid belt (mainworld) and/or planetoid belt (anything but the mainworld) within a partciular star system. Yes, there will be some concentration of the population at specific hubs, but the reality is that the "true population" within a belt will be much more scattered and mobile than what you would have with an actual planet (Size: 1+).

So if you say that the bulk of an Asteroid Belt in a system at Orbit: 5.00 (for example) ... but then "one of the major population centers" within that belt just so happens to be on the "outer edge" of the orbital spread of that belt (say, Orbit: 5.30, just to illustrate the point) ... as a matter of System Survey do you "move the belt" out to Orbit: 5.30 in the survey records or do you keep the belt recorded as being in Orbit: 5.00 and classify the "major population center" as being a "satellite" of the belt all the way out at Orbit: 5.30?

What if there's TWO population centers/hubs within a particular belt (which there almost certainly will be once the population rises high enough)?

The point is that by definition, Asteroid Belt mainworlds are going to have their population(s) "sprawl" around the belt ... "giving you that down home feeling" at the various population hubs and dives scattered around the belt ... so what you wind up with is a case where ALL of the scattered habitats are in a variety of different orbits (around the star, rather than a planet, but still). Using the Satellite survey coding then enables a differentiation of detail for where the "orbital mass of the belt" resides (averaged around its solar orbit) and then using/repurposing the Satellite sub-orbit data to provide greater specificity and clarity for each of the habitats orbiting within the belt.

And then there's the dreaded UWP of *000*7*-0 with a Balkanized Government type, in which different "national camps" occupy different parts of a belt and get into territorial (claim jumping?) squabbles over resources and "territory" within a single belt.

Hope that (almost) makes sense.

three naval bases associated with starports below class B, and one scout base associated with a class E starport

Yeah, those cases could be suspect.
I can envision situations in which they would be legitimate (by fiat) as a result of catastrophe or a "die back" type of condition that causes the starport to fall into disrepair (so world trending downwards). Alternatively, you can go in the other direction where a world is undergoing a "population boom" and the infrastructure can't keep up with the demand for services due to overcrowding, so the starport got downgraded until there is enough investment put into starport infrastructure to bring it back up to snuff.

Both of these conditions require an "adjudication of history" for the world in question, which isn't exactly something you're going to get just from looking at a UWP code.

 

[Kakistocrat]

Without the Satellite code at the sector level, there is an assumption that whatever the “major body” is within a particular solar orbit “must be” the mainworld.

That depends upon how one defines “major body”. Book 6 defines a system’s mainworld as the world with the highest population, tiebreaking in favor of a world in the habitable zone, and tiebreaking that with the world that is “closest to the central star” (which I’ve interpreted as meaning the smallest orbit number, with a further implicit tiebreaking in systems with multiple stars to favor a world that orbits its primary star, or closest companion star to the primary star, depending upon where the tied worlds are found).

Now shift your assumption for where the “mainworld” ought to be from Terra-Luna into the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

[…]

So if you say that the bulk of an Asteroid Belt in a system at Orbit: 5.00 (for example) ... but then “one of the major population centers” within that belt just so happens to be on the “outer edge” of the orbital spread of that belt (say, Orbit: 5.30, just to illustrate the point) … as a matter of System Survey do you “move the belt” out to Orbit: 5.30 in the survey records or do you keep the belt recorded as being in Orbit: 5.00 and classify the “major population center” as being a “satellite” of the belt all the way out at Orbit: 5.30?

That level of detail is something that I might expect to find at the system level (e.g. the overviews of the Regina and Terra systems at the back of Book 6) rather than at the sector level. In the case of Sol’s asteroid belt, the main belt is divided into three major groups, with a smaller group closer to Sol than the inner main belt, and another smaller group farther from Sol than the outer main belt. If the asteroid belt as a whole were the most populous “world” around Sol, then I’d expect it to be Sol’s mainworld, even if its population were scattered over thousands of asteroids in all groups of the belt. I’d look at the system level data for finer-grained details on which populations were on which asteroid. (Unfortunately, that level of detail isn’t in the Terra system overview for the asteroid belt, where only a combined population digit of 6 is given for the entire belt.) For a system survey, I’d imagine that the “width” of the entire belt would be given as a range, e.g. Orbit: 4.80–5.40 (these numbers were picked at random), and each populated asteroid would have its own data, perhaps organized in belt groups (with belt groups having their own orbital subranges), and some of the specific asteroid data would be combined to determine the belt’s UWP.

The point is that by definition, Asteroid Belt mainworlds are going to have their population(s) “sprawl” around the belt … “giving you that down home feeling” at the various population hubs and dives scattered around the belt … so what you wind up with is a case where ALL of the scattered habitats are in a variety of different orbits (around the star, rather than a planet, but still). Using the Satellite survey coding then enables a differentiation of detail for where the “orbital mass of the belt” resides (averaged around its solar orbit) and then using/repurposing the Satellite sub-orbit data to provide greater specificity and clarity for each of the habitats orbiting within the belt.

Hope that (almost) makes sense.

So for asteroid belts, would the Sa code in the Remarks field also be accompanied by additional data, e.g. asteroid-specific name (and perhaps associated asteroid group name) for the asteroid with the highest population, individual stellar orbit number, local government digit when the belt is balkanized, &c.? Or would the Sa code appear unaccompanied, merely as a signal that there are more data of interest to be found at the system level, perhaps simply indicating that the belt’s population isn’t limited to a single asteroid within the belt?

 

[Spinward Flow]

So for asteroid belts, would the Sa code in the Remarks field also be accompanied by additional data, e.g. asteroid-specific name (and perhaps associated asteroid group name) for the asteroid with the highest population, individual stellar orbit number, local government digit when the belt is balkanized, &c.? Or would the Sa code appear unaccompanied, merely as a signal that there are more data of interest to be found at the system level, perhaps simply indicating that the belt’s population isn’t limited to a single asteroid within the belt?

Option 1: No. The remarks field does not have the space or the coding for that level of detail.

Option 2: Yes, unaccompanied ... merely as a signal that there's more data elsewhere to look up at the system level. It's then that system level info that spells out where the belt's population clusters, but you get that process (and set the expectations for it) rolling by using the Satellite code in the Sector data in the Remarks section.

Or at least, that's my approach to it.