T5SS: Parsing the Stellar Data

[DonM]

As the system used by Bearers of the Flame has copyright issues, we've developed a different system for consideration.

Below are some stars defined by the T5SS, first the raw data, and then one proposed system, and then a start of an explanation.

Deneb (Dene 1925) remains "A2 Ia"
Terra (Solo 1827) remains "G2 V"
Antares (Anta 2421) was "M1 Ib B3 V"; it would be "M1 Ib 13@/B3 V".
Regina (Spin 1910) was "F7V BD M3 V", it would be "@/F7 V+BD 16/M3 V".
Marhaban (Empt 0426) was "G4 V M0 V M2 V M6 V", it would become "@/G4 V 8/M0 V 15/(M2 V 6/M6 V)".
Castor (Solo 2339) starts as "A1 V M5 V M2 V M2 V M1 V M1 V", and could be "A1 V+M5 V 10/A2 V+M2 V 14@/M1 V+M1 V".
Capella (Solo 1440) starts as "G8 III G1 III M1 V M5 V" and could be "G8 III+G1 III 17@/M1 V+M5 V".

Basically, the primary is just stated, and if it's by itself, the mainworld orbits it. Other stellar components and their orbits are separated by a slash, and the @ sign indicates which grouping the mainworld orbits. IF the far element has multiple components (like Marhaban), the orbit numbers start over and the whole group is in parens. Close companions are indicated with + signs. The Capella close companions are both giants, and the second star is actually in orbit 2, so Capella could also be "G8 III 2/G1 III 17@/M1 V+M5 V", but that does not really convey the companion relationship.

Which leads to some related questions:
How annoying is the second listing compared to the existing star list?
Does the second listing provide any value?
Is there another format that could provide more information?
Is this even necessary or desirable?
Does Don need a vacation?
Who would pay for Don's vacation?

Ok, skip those last two questions, the rest are reasonably serious. Greg Lee remains convinced that notations like this will cause Referees to grow homicidal; I maintain that a good Referee already has some homicidal tendencies... Rob may present a separate system, and I'm open to changing this to something which conveys the information but would be more readable by folks.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

The Capella close companions are both giants, and the second star is actually in orbit 2, so Capella could also be "G8 III 2/G1 III 17@/M1 V+M5 V", but that does not really convey the companion relationship.

I will think about all these questions including the readability of the proposed format. But I want to contribute this straight away.

In relation to Capella, I prefer the notation "G8 III 2/G1 III etc" over "G8 III+G1 III etc.". As a Referee, if I want to add more detail to that system, what I really need to know is which orbits are swept clean from placing worlds. The + notation, doesn't immediately give the sense that Orbit 2 of G8 III is occupied by a star; as the rules stand, it is clear that Orbit 0 of each star is included in the surface of the star, and the first available orbit is Orbit 1. The + notation would imply that Orbit 1 and beyond are available; without historical editions of the rules or further astronomical knowledge showing that it actually occupies Orbit 2, this would be a reasonable assumption based on the rules, even though it defies common sense - how can two stars orbit each other inside orbit 0 when they are bigger than the distance to orbit 0? Even with the "2/" notation, the orbital distance chart on page 43 of the core rules would imply that Orbit 1 is available around the G8 III; surely two giants like this would preclude a planet orbiting the space between them? Neither notation would make this clear, and as they stand, the rules allow for this possibility.

 

[robject]

First, Traveller 5 places stars in close, near, far zones; sticking to those increases readability considerably.

It also makes the data easier to manage, since you won't have to fiddle with whether or not a particular far system starts at orbit 16 or orbit 17.

As if you don't have enough to do.

 

[robject]

Example.

>> Castor (Solo 2339) starts as "A1 V M5 V M2 V M2 V M1 V M1 V", and could be "A1 V+M5 V 10/A2 V+M2 V 14@/M1 V+M1 V".

First, put the mainworld system first, and don't use the @ if the first star is the mainworld's star.

M1 V+M1 V 14/A1 V+M5 V 14.10/A2 V+M2 V


Then, use a semi-positional notation, with * to mark the far star. Let close and near be ambiguous.

M1 V+M1 V *A1 V+M5 V A2 V+M2 V

 

[robject]

The best possible notation would be precedence rules that people can learn as a grammar, but that's outside our scope.

Here's an example of what I'm thinking. It's not complete.

Grammar rules tell us what words modify what words, and what the direct object is, and so on. In just the same way a notation can be rich enough that the way you write a star tells us everything you need to know about it without requiring a tag.

So for instance, omitting the star's number can indicate a companion star. Using lowercase can indicate a near star. It's primitive, and there are better ways of doing it, but this is a proof of concept.

So taking the example A1 V M5 V M2 V M2 V M1 V M1 V. If we write

A1 V M V m2 v M2 V M V M1 V

...we can read it and know that the second star is a companion, the third star is Near, the fourth is therefore Far, the fifth is its companion, and the sixth is Close to the Far Primary.

 

[Garnfellow]

I don't think you can copyright a notation format. It might be considered trade dress, but that seems a pretty big stretch.

Honestly, the proposed alternative is a little hard on the eyes.

 

[robject]

IN OTHER WORDS, all you need is an indicator for Companions and an indicator for Near stars, and you're done. The rest follows logically, and you can read it like you're reading this sentence.

 

[robject]

Ah, it's not quite enough. We still need a far star indicator, unfortunately, and I can't think of a way to do that without an external indicator. For now I'll use an asterisk, when needed, but you can use parentheses instead, or anything. A pity.

A7 V MV F7 V MV g7 v mv *K7 V MV M7 V m0 v

Can you read it? Primary has a companion. Close star has a companion. Near star has a companion. Far K7 has a companion, but its close star doesn't, and neither has its near star.

But now, in the ambiguous DGP-like example of

A7 V F7 V K7 V M7 V

The primary is obvious, and reading the grammar, we have a Close F7, a Far K7, and a Far Close M7 V.

I LOVE that you can interpret Imperial Encyclopedia data this way, without having to add a Christmas Tree of annotations... But also that a bare few annotations will clear up a read that is wrong.

 

[DonM]

Rob: none of your proposals gives orbital positions for Referees, as Ojno's post clearly states. If we're going to add anything to the stellar data, we might as well give the T5 orbit numbers from page 436. Those numbers are more specific, and more useful, than just close/near/far.

Ojno: Would "G8 III+2/G1 III 17@/M1 V+M5 V" work better for Capella, combining the two notations, and making sure no one accidentally sticks anything between those two giants? And, more to the point, is this string clear for what it's telling you?

 

[DonM]

I don't think you can copyright a notation format. It might be considered trade dress, but that seems a pretty big stretch.

Honestly, the proposed alternative is a little hard on the eyes.

That ship sailed. Are you preferring Rob's alternative? Do you have something else in mind? Is this even necessary?

 

[inexorabletash]

Deneb (Dene 1925) remains "A2 Ia"
Terra (Solo 1827) remains "G2 V"
Antares (Anta 2421) was "M1 Ib B3 V"; it would be "M1 Ib 13@/B3 V".
Regina (Spin 1910) was "F7V BD M3 V", it would be "@/F7 V+BD 16/M3 V".
Marhaban (Empt 0426) was "G4 V M0 V M2 V M6 V", it would become "@/G4 V 8/M0 V 15/(M2 V 6/M6 V)".
Castor (Solo 2339) starts as "A1 V M5 V M2 V M2 V M1 V M1 V", and could be "A1 V+M5 V 10/A2 V+M2 V 14@/M1 V+M1 V".
Capella (Solo 1440) starts as "G8 III G1 III M1 V M5 V" and could be "G8 III+G1 III 17@/M1 V+M5 V".

I want to propose a slight syntax variation; this is bikeshedding but IMHO improves readability

'=' instead of '/'
'/' is used instead of parens to define a dependent orbit (e.g. 16=X, 16/3=Y)
repeated '/' clauses instead of parens for companions-of-companions
'@' as a suffix instead of as a prefix

Deneb (Dene 1925) remains "A2 Ia"
Terra (Solo 1827) remains "G2 V"
Antares (Anta 2421) was "M1 Ib B3 V"; it would be "M1 Ib 13=B3 V@".
Regina (Spin 1910) was "F7V BD M3 V", it would be "F7 V+BD@ 16=M3 V".
Marhaban (Empt 0426) was "G4 V M0 V M2 V M6 V", it would become "G4 V@ 8=M0 V 15=M2 V 15/6=M6 V".
Castor (Solo 2339) starts as "A1 V M5 V M2 V M2 V M1 V M1 V", and could be "A1 V+M5 V 10=A2 V+M2 V 14=M1 V+M1 V@".
Capella (Solo 1440) starts as "G8 III G1 III M1 V M5 V" and could be "G8 III+G1 III 17=M1 V+M5 V@".

This conveys identical information as Don's proposal, so it's truly just a syntax change which may (or may not) be more readable. Thoughts?

 

[DonM]

From Ojno's post above, your Capella would be:

"G8 III+2=G1 III 17=M1 V+M5 V@"

If I'm understanding his suggestion and your proposal correctly.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

I'm going through the data concentrating on binary systems with an eye on Ag, Ri and Ga worlds. I'll let you know what I find.

But on general formatting, I have a few questions.

Pairing up companions makes sense, this makes life easier about what is intended. I like the + notation for companion pairs.

But can we get away with leaving aside which star or companion pair the main world orbits? This would be one less thing to put in the string we're trying to read, and leaves some variation up to the referee. Certainly, the referee needs the result to make sense; getting that low-tech Ag world orbiting the right star gives you some guidance. Giving up on listing which star gets the main world is also in the spirit of MOARN. If there is any need for "canon" location of a world, someone can just publish more details for that system and we can all hold a suitable ritual for canonizing that publication.

Secondly, do we need to go as far as specifying an orbit for close, near and far stars? How about just stick to close (c-), near (n-) and far (f-) secondaries? With the applicable prefix before the secondary or its companion pair. I would like to propose the following notation in this spirit:

Antares (Anta 2421) was "M1 Ib B3 V"; it would be "M1 Ib 13@/B3 V"
... or "M1 Ib f-B3 V"
Regina (Spin 1910) was "F7V BD M3 V", it would be "@/F7 V+BD 16/M3 V".
... or "F7 V+BD f-M3V"
Marhaban (Empt 0426) was "G4 V M0 V M2 V M6 V", it would become "@/G4 V 8/M0 V 15/(M2 V 6/M6 V)".
... or "G4 V n-M0 V f-(M2V n-M6 V)"
Castor (Solo 2339) starts as "A1 V M5 V M2 V M2 V M1 V M1 V", and could be "A1 V+M5 V 10/A2 V+M2 V 14@/M1 V+M1 V".
... or "A1 V+M5 V n-A2 V+M2 V f-M1 V+M1 V"
Capella (Solo 1440) starts as "G8 III G1 III M1 V M5 V" and could be "G8 III+G1 III 17@/M1 V+M5 V".
... or "G8 III+G1 III f-M1 V+M5 V" or "G8 III n-G1 III f-M1 V+M5 V"

The Marhaban example shows one additional notation - where a far star companion itself is a binary system, show this by enclosing that system in parenthesis; otherwise just leave parentheses out of it.

I think specifying companion, near, close and far is sufficient for a published product.

 

[rancke]

Is this even necessary?

I've been keeping quiet, but since you ask, no, I don't see the need. What does it matter if a straight list of stars is ambiguous? When the day comes when someone sits down to detail a star system, such ambiguity will provide him with greater latitude, which IMO is a good thing.

But another thought just struck me. If you do decide on a more precise syntax, how are you going to apply it to all the star systems in Charted Space? Are you going to sit down and examine each system separately and decide, then and there, abot near and far companions, and mainworld location and the rest of the details? Or are you going to automate the process and leave out the vetting of the resulting data? <insert 'scornful sneer' smiley>.

Automated data generation without final human vetting is a really, really Bad Idea. So if that's your plan (and I can't think of any other plan that would work (for certain values of 'work')), I think that it would be much better to leave sleeping dogs lie.

Of course, if you have a cunning plan, the case is different.


Hans

 

[whulorigan]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]It really is both more legible and MOARN to use bracketing to suggest Far and either Close or Near.

Group companions, bracket nears, and brace fars.

I still think truncating Companions, or perhaps lower casing them, would be better than parenthesis, though.

e.g. A1 V M5 V A2 V M2 V [M1 V M3 V]
And A1 V M5 V (A2 V M2 V) [M1 V M3 V][/FONT]

Be aware that in T5 their are four possibilities:

1) Companion
2) Close
3) Near
4) Far
​

Companion and close are not the same thing in the T5 ruleset.

"Companion" specifically means "so close that it is within Orbit-0 (almost touching)";

"Close" means occupying an orbit in the Orbit-0 thru Orrbit-5 range.


So perhaps:

1) Companion - Use the "+" or lowercase designator
2) Close - use Parentheses
3) Near - use brackets
4) Far - use braces
​

Optionally, a number with a slash "#/" could be used before an element if orbit-specificity is desired.

And I definitely think some notation denoting the Mainworld star should be retained (either the "@" or another designator).


However, I am not sure whether or not this is too close to the TNE:1248 notation or not.

 

[whulorigan]

But can we get away with leaving aside which star or companion pair the main world orbits? This would be one less thing to put in the string we're trying to read, and leaves some variation up to the referee.

I think it is important to retain some notation for a mainworld-star designator. I prefer knowing which star in the configuration is the mainworld-primary. It helps get my imagination going when I am visualizing the system.

Secondly, do we need to go as far as specifying an orbit for close, near and far stars? How about just stick to close (c-), near (n-) and far (f-) secondaries? With the applicable prefix before the secondary or its companion pair.
.
.
.
. . . where a far star companion itself is a binary system, show this by enclosing that system in parenthesis; otherwise just leave parentheses out of it.

I think specifying companion, near, close and far is sufficient for a published product.

This would be workable. And you could add the option that the (c-), (n-) and (f-) - or (c/), (n/) and (f/) - notation letters could be replaced by an orbit-number if more specificity is desired.

 

[aramis]

I'd prefer parents, brackets, and braces myself. In no small part, because it allows for situations like: (B5 II* M6 D)[(B2 V M6 D) M6 D]

 

[robject]

I've been keeping quiet, but since you ask, no, I don't see the need. What does it matter if a straight list of stars is ambiguous? When the day comes when someone sits down to detail a star system, such ambiguity will provide him with greater latitude, which IMO is a good thing.

But another thought just struck me. If you do decide on a more precise syntax, how are you going to apply it to all the star systems in Charted Space? Are you going to sit down and examine each system separately and decide, then and there, abot near and far companions, and mainworld location and the rest of the details? Or are you going to automate the process and leave out the vetting of the resulting data? <insert 'scornful sneer' smiley>.

Automated data generation without final human vetting is a really, really Bad Idea. So if that's your plan (and I can't think of any other plan that would work (for certain values of 'work'), I think that it would be much better to leave sleeping dogs lie.

Of course, if you have a cunning plan, the case is different.


Hans

This is more or less my position, as well. Setting down the orbit numbers especially seems like a Lose.

 

[whulorigan]

I'd prefer parents, brackets, and braces myself. In no small part, because it allows for situations like: (B5 II* M6 D)[(B2 V M6 D) M6 D]

This would be my preference as well, but I do not know how close it comes (or how much leeway we have) concerning the copyright issue of the TNE:1248 syntax. That is a question you will have to ask DonM about directly.

Here's another option based on that general syntax:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]1) Companion - Use the "+" sign between the two stars[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica] 2) Close - use Parentheses[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica] 3) Near - use brackets[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica] 4) Far - use braces[/FONT]

- Nest the parens/brackets/braces to whatever level necessary

- Make all of the stars LOWERCASE letters except for the star that the Mainworld orbits - Make it ALL UPPERCASE LETTERS.
​

 

[robject]

Here's another option based on that general syntax:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]1) Companion - Use the "+" sign between the two stars[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica] 2) Close - use Parentheses[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica] 3) Near - use brackets[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica] 4) Far - use braces[/FONT]

- Nest the parens/brackets/braces to whatever level necessary

- Make all of the stars LOWERCASE letters except for the star that the Mainworld orbits - Make it ALL UPPERCASE LETTERS.
​

Some clever ideas there that are worth looking at. My second-best choice is the bracket syntax, a la [FONT=arial,helvetica](B5 II* M6 D)[(B2 V M6 D) M6 D]. Although I think I just prefer some divider that splits the far system from the primary. And, as always, if the first star is the mainworld's star, don't clutter the space up with notation. Let that be the default.


[/FONT]