World Building.
- Thread starter Thanos
- Start date
Kepler
Hi,
I was watching a programme about the Kepler telescope last night (on catch up).
It seems there are tons of planets in the habitable zone, but the 3 examples they provided were all larger than Earth, the small was 1.4 E and the largest (described as a water world) was 2.89 E.
Are Traveller worlds too small?
Should the table encourage more letters?
Regards
David
Hi,
I was watching a programme about the Kepler telescope last night (on catch up).
It seems there are tons of planets in the habitable zone, but the 3 examples they provided were all larger than Earth, the small was 1.4 E and the largest (described as a water world) was 2.89 E.
Are Traveller worlds too small?
Should the table encourage more letters?
Regards
David
Some are (the ones that are too small to retain their atmospheres), some aren't.
There is a selection factor: these are (in many cases) the worlds humans have elected to settle on. That biases the table towards worlds with gravities humans can live with.
Just because larger worlds don't show up on the table doesn't necessarily mean no such worlds are inhabited. They could just fall below the granilarity of the tables and appear by writer/referee fiat only.
As an example, IMTU there's a world inspired by Jack Vance's Big Planet called Lebensraum. It has a size of around L, IIRC. A lot more than A, anyway. It's very low in heavy elements, so the gravity is tolerable anyway. And it has a LOT of land surface.
Hans
Its still extremely hard to detect and verify smaller bodies at the moment - even the large ones are only by special circumstances and the exception to what is expected to be there - so what we 'know' at the moment is the minimums in number...d'Agrillac said:
There are more small bodies in our own solar system than large - we've no reason to consider this not to apply in other systems (baring variances in system ages and stellar events).
Reality will almost invariable prove that the generally assumed speculation on number and nature of other worlds have been far and away too conservative. The presumption that our own solar system is still special in these regards prevails till proven otherwise.
Just as our realization of the number of stars, number of galaxies and other deep space objects rapidly expanded as astronomical tech and methods have allowed us to perceive more and more of the universe, expect the number and variety of extrasolar bodies to rise.
Keep in mind, in our own solar system 'backyard -
We still really don't know how many planets exist ('dwarf' and otherwise).
We still keep finding new moons around the known planets.
We still have no real hard numbers on the Trojan bodies in the orbits of the known planets.
We still keep finding new moons around the known planets.
We still have no real hard numbers on the Trojan bodies in the orbits of the known planets.
The nature of Astronomy depends on a lot of conjecture till we get 'up close' - we've yet to even 'see' Pluto in anything but fuzzy images... and every single planetary probe we have sent out has changed our knowledge of our own system in significant ways. It also helps to bear in mind that, outside our own system, even our estimates of distances and velocities have a large error metric (mass media generally ignores this, scientists don't) past a very tiny sphere of space relative to what we already know exists...
Dubious Traveller System Generation assumptions:
Titus-Bode Relationship: rendered invalid for moons by arrival of Voyager at jupiter; rendered dubious for larger bodies by proof pluto wasn't an oddball, and further decimated by the handful of 4-body and 5 body systems. (It takes 4 bodies to disprove it.)
retained atmospheres possible on any body over 500 miles diameter: exaggerated badly. The Lunar atmosphere, for example, is so thin as to be ignored except in the very longest terms. Breathable atmospheres are unlikely on anything under martian size, but surprisingly common given the Traveller world gen. Trek gets this one wrong, too, as does Firefly.)
Mainworlds inhabited: axiomatically true by default, if the definition is the most populous world in a system.The problem is that there is no link to resources nor to habitability.
starports not tied to population (except in MGT) so you wind up with high quality yards with almost no beings present, and major populations with no port. Broken only in the frequency of it causing the need for much explanation, and the number of low/no pop A-ports.
Major Trade ports include Yards: more of a problem. Most real seaports and airports do not include significant yard capability, even for repair. many huge trade ports lack repair facilities (drydocks or shop hangars), let alone construction facilities. Should have been a separate roll/code.
Higher populations have more restrictive law systems: not proven, but might be true. Certainly, the perceived case in the US is smaller towns tend to be less legalistic... but also tend to have much more social enforcement and somewhat more xenophobia.
Titus-Bode Relationship: rendered invalid for moons by arrival of Voyager at jupiter; rendered dubious for larger bodies by proof pluto wasn't an oddball, and further decimated by the handful of 4-body and 5 body systems. (It takes 4 bodies to disprove it.)
retained atmospheres possible on any body over 500 miles diameter: exaggerated badly. The Lunar atmosphere, for example, is so thin as to be ignored except in the very longest terms. Breathable atmospheres are unlikely on anything under martian size, but surprisingly common given the Traveller world gen. Trek gets this one wrong, too, as does Firefly.)
Mainworlds inhabited: axiomatically true by default, if the definition is the most populous world in a system.The problem is that there is no link to resources nor to habitability.
starports not tied to population (except in MGT) so you wind up with high quality yards with almost no beings present, and major populations with no port. Broken only in the frequency of it causing the need for much explanation, and the number of low/no pop A-ports.
Major Trade ports include Yards: more of a problem. Most real seaports and airports do not include significant yard capability, even for repair. many huge trade ports lack repair facilities (drydocks or shop hangars), let alone construction facilities. Should have been a separate roll/code.
Higher populations have more restrictive law systems: not proven, but might be true. Certainly, the perceived case in the US is smaller towns tend to be less legalistic... but also tend to have much more social enforcement and somewhat more xenophobia.
Is this true across all versions?
Mongoose fixed the starport/population linkage, and has an optional rule for a minimal impact on population for habitability.
Mongoose doesn't have extended system gen that I've seen, so the Titus-Bode isn't relevant.
Otherwise, yes for CT, MT, TNE, T4, T20, and T5. But I missed one:
Gas Giants are in the outer system - irrelevant in MGT... but real world data shows lots of Hot Giants well inside the habitable zone. All have allowed overflow of GG into the inner system, but it looks very much like GG's mostly in the outer zone may be fallacious.
steventirey1985
SOC-12
Note that by default, Mongoose did not fix the starport/population link. Its still just a 2d6 roll with no modifiers to determine the starport type.
Its only one of the variants (Hard Science world creation) that includes a DM for population. (Turning the roll into 2d6-7+Population). As a variant and not the default rules, I would assume any world that appears in a Mongoose Traveller book was not generated with that addition.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Firefly used terraforming. Could not part of the process include some form of "normalizing" gravity or manipulating core density to something close to human norm?
Not sure if real world examples apply. It's not like there is only one port per country. If there is only one port, doesn't it make sense that this is where the repair facilities are?
Cosmic, Most nations don't even have naval repair yards; a large minority are landlocked entirely, so irrelevant. Many nations have no significant air repair facilities, while some surprisingly small airports in other nations have extensive repair hangarage.
But a class A port isn't just repair yards, but construction yards - which are, for both air and naval, and presumably space, considerably harder. In the US, there are about 5 airports with what could be considered manufacturing fields, with 2 of them being otherewise backwaters; and about 7 shipyards of note, with 4 of those being not major commercial ports. One of the most extensive repair yards in the pre WW II era was not capable of manufacture; it was a forward operation base, with a then minor civil port.
The Port of LA isn't a class A - it lacks construction yards. The smaller (but still extensive) Alameda Naval Yard/San Francisco complex is a class A with about 1/3 the traffic... And Kenai is a Class B, maybe an A - it manufactures a ship or two a decade, but has full (if very limited capacity) repair yards. Heck, there's a single drydock for no bigger than 300', for major hull repair. It HAS been used to perform major overhauls (which require a construction yard, per Traveller rules), so it's a class A.
But a class A port isn't just repair yards, but construction yards - which are, for both air and naval, and presumably space, considerably harder. In the US, there are about 5 airports with what could be considered manufacturing fields, with 2 of them being otherewise backwaters; and about 7 shipyards of note, with 4 of those being not major commercial ports. One of the most extensive repair yards in the pre WW II era was not capable of manufacture; it was a forward operation base, with a then minor civil port.
The Port of LA isn't a class A - it lacks construction yards. The smaller (but still extensive) Alameda Naval Yard/San Francisco complex is a class A with about 1/3 the traffic... And Kenai is a Class B, maybe an A - it manufactures a ship or two a decade, but has full (if very limited capacity) repair yards. Heck, there's a single drydock for no bigger than 300', for major hull repair. It HAS been used to perform major overhauls (which require a construction yard, per Traveller rules), so it's a class A.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Marinette, Wisconsin has a shipbuilding facility that is building one of the types of the US Navy Littoral Combat Ship, along with the ability to do repair work on Lake boats and build other ships, and has a population of just under 11,000. Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin is home to one of the largest ship repair facilities in the Great Lakes, has two dry docks capable of handling 1,000 foot Lake boats, over the winter does refits and repairs to between 15 and 17 Lake boats, minimum cost of a refit is $1.5 Million, and has a population of slightly over 9,000. Chicago, South Chicago, and Burns Harbor, Indiana are all major Lake ports, along with Milwaukee, but have no repair or construction facilities whatsoever.
A shipyard basically assembles components into a finished ship. It is not going to be making the components in the yard. In Traveller, the power plants, maneuver and jump drives, sensors, computer equipment, life support equipment, weapons, and hull material are very likely going to be shipped in from elsewhere on the planet or from off-planet. To produce all of that material requires a large population base. To put a ship together is a different matter, requiring only enough skilled workers and a space to work. A yard that is able to build ships is also going to be, typically, able to repair them. A repair yard is not necessarily going to be able to build ships, Pearl Harbor Naval Base being a classic case in point.
What needs to be done is separate the size of the starport from ship construction and even repair. Not all planets are going to be building all of the components for a starship.
A shipyard basically assembles components into a finished ship. It is not going to be making the components in the yard. In Traveller, the power plants, maneuver and jump drives, sensors, computer equipment, life support equipment, weapons, and hull material are very likely going to be shipped in from elsewhere on the planet or from off-planet. To produce all of that material requires a large population base. To put a ship together is a different matter, requiring only enough skilled workers and a space to work. A yard that is able to build ships is also going to be, typically, able to repair them. A repair yard is not necessarily going to be able to build ships, Pearl Harbor Naval Base being a classic case in point.
What needs to be done is separate the size of the starport from ship construction and even repair. Not all planets are going to be building all of the components for a starship.
Hi,
With respect to real world places like Marinette, WI you probably should bare in mind that while the town may be a certain size, not all shipyard workers work in the town proper, but may work in adjacent surrounding areas, such as Menominee MI (across the river) and some of the other surrounding counties, etc. As such the actual population supporting these yards mat be a bit bigger than just the town that they are located in.
With respect to real world places like Marinette, WI you probably should bare in mind that while the town may be a certain size, not all shipyard workers work in the town proper, but may work in adjacent surrounding areas, such as Menominee MI (across the river) and some of the other surrounding counties, etc. As such the actual population supporting these yards mat be a bit bigger than just the town that they are located in.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Kinda my point. The nations in the real world are not a very good comparison to stellar systems. It's pretty easy to take the complex shipping industry, with air, ocean, rail, and so on, and pick and choose the pieces that will prove AND disprove any analogy.
And the small great lakes example would probably at best be an analogy of a spaceport or a starport with only small ship construction I'd think.
This does not mean I'm arguing against your points regarding construction - nor agreeing with them. Just talking about the repair facilities.
BTW When I said one port, I meant one starport. There may or may not be spaceports.
Last edited:
Cosmic: No, each port isn't a good comparison. Perhaps each state is. But still, the notion that the largest ports are the the shipyards is not congruent with real practices.
Sure, SEA-TAC is a large airport - but O'Hare is just as big, and doesn't have boeing's yards. LAX does more traffic last I checked. So does London's Heathrow. But Heathrow has no manufacturing, either.
Sure, SEA-TAC is a large airport - but O'Hare is just as big, and doesn't have boeing's yards. LAX does more traffic last I checked. So does London's Heathrow. But Heathrow has no manufacturing, either.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Not sure what your point here is?
Perhaps boats on big lakes would be a better analogy? Each lake represents a star system; building boats on the lake where it is to be used represents an in-system shipyard, and transporting boats across dry land represents importing spaceboats and starships from out-system.
Hans
Hans
Simply put: the inherent connection between quality of port traffic and having shipyard facilities is not commensurate to real practices. It's one of the flaws of the Traveller world generation.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Again, I am not arguing for or against your ship building / star port position but..
Why can't SEA-TAC represent the starport and O'Hare, LAX, and Heathrow represent space ports perhaps on the same world or on other planets of the same system?
A point against the use of real world examples of population. It's a lot easier to travel from a nearby city in the real world to work at a shipyard/port/whatever and there probably isn't already a similiar facility in the location they live in vs what is the distance and time travel for workers to go work at the starport in a nearby system - and they may already have a starport and spaceports in their own system. Even a facility hundreds (I know people that commute to NYC from Delaware), maybe even thousands (I've heard of people commuting between LA and NYC) of miles away is still just a job where you stay during the week but still can go home to your family on the weekends.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Issues I don't know if there is a canon answer to.
Who decides what size starport should be built?
Who decides if a starport should be upgraded?
Who pays for the starport to be built?
How is the starport built? Built from scratch with whatever equipment and resources the person in charge can gather from wherever they can get it or is it more like a kit with the equipment and materials shipped in all together?
Not saying the probabilities are likely, but based on my lack of knowledge, here are some more possibilities for those locations with starports that seam too large for their location.
The ever popular miss jump. Many many many years ago, a ship with the equipment, materials, and people to build a starport miss jumped to a relatively empty system. It was decided the best course of action was to go ahead and build out the starport and use it salvage the ship they came on and build one capable of getting home.
Upgrading the starport was part of a stimulus package for a world that was economically, technologically, faltering and population shrinking. It failed, the world continued it's decline.
Someone could care less where a starport is built. They just want the lucrative contract. Now all they have to do is grease some palms and get on the short list.
Oops. Accounting accident. The population is what? Oh well, the starport is built now. Update the system information.
Oops. Other accidents. That was supposed to be a D. D as in Delta you fool not B!
If you build it, they will come. The forward thinker builds before there is a need. What is it about this system that makes them think there will be growth soon? New mineral find? Plans for a nearby system to start colonizing?
Political pressure. We're not joining the Imperium unless you built us a proper starport.
Who decides what size starport should be built?
Who decides if a starport should be upgraded?
Who pays for the starport to be built?
How is the starport built? Built from scratch with whatever equipment and resources the person in charge can gather from wherever they can get it or is it more like a kit with the equipment and materials shipped in all together?
Not saying the probabilities are likely, but based on my lack of knowledge, here are some more possibilities for those locations with starports that seam too large for their location.
The ever popular miss jump. Many many many years ago, a ship with the equipment, materials, and people to build a starport miss jumped to a relatively empty system. It was decided the best course of action was to go ahead and build out the starport and use it salvage the ship they came on and build one capable of getting home.
Upgrading the starport was part of a stimulus package for a world that was economically, technologically, faltering and population shrinking. It failed, the world continued it's decline.
Someone could care less where a starport is built. They just want the lucrative contract. Now all they have to do is grease some palms and get on the short list.
Oops. Accounting accident. The population is what? Oh well, the starport is built now. Update the system information.
Oops. Other accidents. That was supposed to be a D. D as in Delta you fool not B!
If you build it, they will come. The forward thinker builds before there is a need. What is it about this system that makes them think there will be growth soon? New mineral find? Plans for a nearby system to start colonizing?
Political pressure. We're not joining the Imperium unless you built us a proper starport.
There is an extended system gen procedure in Mongoose Book 3: Scout - of a sort. It explicitly states that orbit placement under this system is strictly in order of increasing distance from the primary, with no other relationship between the orbital radii. From this, I would say that Titus-Bode has been effectively removed from the system.
I do have to admit, though, that the "extended" procedure is pretty minimal compared to previous versions. Which approach is better, as always in questions of this nature, is a matter of opinion.
Similar threads
