Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Wed 05 Dec 2012 00:25

I'm not so sure of that. Suppose they find a way to manipulate elements like magnesium to generate power. It wouldn't be an open flame, but many elements have exothermic reactions when exposed to water.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby Vandervecken on Wed 05 Dec 2012 01:44

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:We're seeing evidence of learned behaviors in various killer whale populations including what a particular group will hunt for food.


Did anyone else here at the Starfire boards see the video of an older Orca teach 4 or 5 younger Orcas to create waves that knocked a seal off its hiding place on a piece of Ice. That stunned me, but what came next really blew my mind. The older female, who was waiting on the opposite side of the ice, was right where the seal was washed off. Instead of killing and eating the seal, she nudged it back on the ice so that the younger Orcas could practice the technique a second time. That single video had me rethink what I thought I knew about the Orca level of intelligence and their relatives, the dolphins too.

Hmmm, just thinking about it now makes me want to re-read 'Startide Rising' again, by David Brin.
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby procyon on Wed 05 Dec 2012 01:59

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:I'm not so sure of that. Suppose they find a way to manipulate elements like magnesium to generate power. It wouldn't be an open flame, but many elements have exothermic reactions when exposed to water.


Neat idea, but I think it would be like the materials that are naturally reactive with out atmosphere. Like white phosphorus. If it will react with the atmosphere, which thankfully is rather abundant - it already has.

Crucis wrote:As for an aquatic race, I'm not so sure about them being an NPR, though I admit that that's a bias. I could see an amphibian race, but a purely aquatic race, I'm not so sure about that. Without the ability to use fire, I'm not sure how a race evolves into a tool using race.


I used to have the same issue. But in discussions with my family we came up with two ways around that. I'm sure there are more, these are just the two we came up with.

#1. Alternative materials/chemistry.
Over time they may come up with construction methods and materials that would not need 'fire' to employ. What they would be is a little tricky to come up with, but given intelligence and a couple hundred thousand years to tinker with it as they evolved - it wouldn't be impossible.

#2. Volcanic vents / Geothermal heat.
I kind of like this one because it lets them use materials I'm familiar with. Their first uses of metals and such would occur near volcanic vents. Piling particular rocks around very hot vents would still smelt some low melting point metals. In time they could advance in metallurgy and engineering to the point that the race taps active regions for power and heat to use in manufacturing.

And for dexterity and intelligence, something resembling our octopi could be a good starting point. With a little increase in intelligence, they are more than dexterous enough to accomplish nearly any task we can. Eight limbs might make them even more so.

Or whales that had some form of manipulative limbs.

Just some thoughts...
:D
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby Crucis on Wed 05 Dec 2012 02:02

Sigh. Could we get off of this aquatic race tangent and get back to sysgen related issues, please? :|
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby Vandervecken on Wed 05 Dec 2012 02:38

I like the Table that has the mass size directly correlate to the mass # of the world. It isn't hard to figure out that a mass 2 GG and mass 2 rocky world are very different real masses, but the one you presented is nicely scaled. I'd end the Jovian one at about 1.3 Mj and start Super-Jovians after that. But that is really a matter for you to make a final decision on.
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby procyon on Wed 05 Dec 2012 02:57

Vandervecken wrote:I like the Table that has the mass size directly correlate to the mass # of the world.


On this I definitely agree.
The current table is adequate for the game, but does leave something to be desired. Having a mass 2 gas giant, and a mass 2 T world as the same 'mass' - just never really made much sense to me. But it wasn't necessary in the game for anything other than planet type so it never mattered.

But your mass table could be applied to ANY region. And that is nice. And it wouldn't take much more space rule-wise than the current tables.

As an added bonus it could model some of the things we are detecting around distant stars.

You could easily make a chart for planet determination with all the masses you have given (except maybe 0...) with a percent chance for each to occur in each zone of formation. Then the combination of mass and zone would determine the planet. So you could randomly generate a HJ in the rocky zone if you happen to roll up a mass 5 planet from your chart in that zone. And so on.
You might even leave in the mass 0's, and have them as the percent chance of an asteroid belt in a given zone. Then you might randomly determine how many mass 0 bodies you have to colonize in that belt if you chose to not follow the current AB colonization scheme...

I don't know that I would replace all the existing charts. But one based off of this could be an impressive alternative.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby Crucis on Wed 05 Dec 2012 03:13

Vandervecken wrote:I like the Table that has the mass size directly correlate to the mass # of the world. It isn't hard to figure out that a mass 2 GG and mass 2 rocky world are very different real masses, but the one you presented is nicely scaled. I'd end the Jovian one at about 1.3 Mj and start Super-Jovians after that. But that is really a matter for you to make a final decision on.



Van, have you ever visited the Orionsarm website? They have some interesting stuff on planet types, though I find their type names rather confusing at times.

This is the link to their planetary types page.

http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/491c78b89879b

When it comes to Jupiters and Super-Jupiters, their cut-off for Jupiters is 8 Mj. Above that are Super-Jovians which go up to 13 Mj, which is supposedly a limit above which planets become brown dwarfs. 13 Mj is also mentioned in the wikipedia article on gas giants as the cutoff point above which planets start to burn deuterium and are brown dwarfs. I have no idea why the people at orionsarm picked 8 Mj as a cutoff point.

Is there some technical reason why you picked 1.3 Mj as a cutoff point, other than it being 1/10th of 13 Mj?



Regardless of those details, I have considered including different mass ratings for gas giants. I once considered splitting up the mass ratings for GG's so that mass A was too small to cause planets to degrade into AB's and mass B or larger automatically caused that to happen. But that would leave me with one mass rating for neptune sized planets (10-30 Me), then one for mid-sized GG's (31 Me to what?), like Saturn, then one for large ones like Jupiter. And then perhaps super-jupiters and brown dwarfs. It all starts to get a bit complex. Of course, I could just say that Jupiter was the bottom end of the mass rating that actually did include gas giants up to brown dwarf size. Still, I need to be concerned with not going over the top on an item that may not be worth excessive detail.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby procyon on Wed 05 Dec 2012 03:16

And to muddy the waters even more...

You could also throw in a varient of something we have used for a long time in our sys gen with the table of masses you have.

We add an extra roll to sys gen that isn't in standard SF. As it stands you are only limited by the orbitals and max distance from the star. We ignore that last part. For us it can go as far as it wants - sort of.

We have a roll the determines the total number of bodies around a given star (which varies by star type). This way not every white star with a 2 - 7 TB is a predictable copy with each system having the exact same total number of planets + AB.
So if we roll up that white star sys #1 has 5 bodies, while the next has 11 - they tend to be a little more unique.
(The fact I don't like tracking tons of I/F planets and moons means I have artificially lowered the chance for a high number of bodies in a system.)

Your table could do the same thing based on mass. Perhaps a given star could have a certain range of masses that occur around it. A RD system likely formed with less start mass in its disc (which is why the star is smaller) resulting in lower total planetary mass. Then you would subtract the mass of the planet from the total. So a RD system with a pair of large GGs in the first orbitals might not have anymore planets beyond that, while a white star with lower mass planets might have them out to distances well beyond 300 LMs (not that I personally like tracking those bodies...).

Just another thought.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby Crucis on Wed 05 Dec 2012 03:41

procyon wrote:
Vandervecken wrote:I like the Table that has the mass size directly correlate to the mass # of the world.


On this I definitely agree.
The current table is adequate for the game, but does leave something to be desired. Having a mass 2 gas giant, and a mass 2 T world as the same 'mass' - just never really made much sense to me. But it wasn't necessary in the game for anything other than planet type so it never mattered.

But your mass table could be applied to ANY region. And that is nice. And it wouldn't take much more space rule-wise than the current tables.

As an added bonus it could model some of the things we are detecting around distant stars.

You could easily make a chart for planet determination with all the masses you have given (except maybe 0...) with a percent chance for each to occur in each zone of formation. Then the combination of mass and zone would determine the planet. So you could randomly generate a HJ in the rocky zone if you happen to roll up a mass 5 planet from your chart in that zone. And so on.


I'm working on a way to deal with HJ's and HN's. And I'm thinking of having Gas Dwarfs (Type GD) replace mass 3 Type V planets, if for nothing more than a change in scenery.

You might even leave in the mass 0's, and have them as the percent chance of an asteroid belt in a given zone. Then you might randomly determine how many mass 0 bodies you have to colonize in that belt if you chose to not follow the current AB colonization scheme...


I think that this is something that I've already mentioned in the public Cosmic forum. It's been my intention to replace the ISF and Ultra/Solar version of AB colonization with one based on a limited number of Ceres/Vesta like planetoids. Probably 1d5 planetoids per asteroid belt, probably with a max population of Outpost. I think that AB populations are WAY out of control. This will place much more realistic limits (at least IMO) on AB colonization. Each planetoid would be placed like a planet, but for the sake of economic record keeping, all 1-5 planetoids would be pooled. (I might increase the # of planetoids to 1d10, but no more except in special circumstances.) Also, the asteroid belt bonus would go away. You would only get income on what you've actually colonized.


I don't know that I would replace all the existing charts. But one based off of this could be an impressive alternative.


The one problem with setting Mass 0 to moon is that unless I use negative numbers, it doesn't leave room for planetoids or satellites smaller than those moons considered large enough (i.e. 500 km radius or larger) to be considered "moons". Ceres, the largest planetoid in our own AB, doesn't come close to qualifying as a "moon" size wise.

I would slide the scale up so that the smallest bodies started at mass 0, but that would mean that Type T's would end up with a mass rating of something like 3 to 5. And that sort of makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's a weak excuse, but there seems to be something ... traditional ... to a Type T being mass 2 and ST's being mass 3.

For example, I could do this:

Mass 1: planetoids*
Mass 2: moons (i.e. those with radii of 500 km or larger)
Mass 3: small planets (old Mass 1) (less than 0.1 Me) (Mercury)
Mass 4: mid-sized rocky planets (old Mass 2) (0.1 to 2.6 Me) (Earth, Venus, Mars)
Mass 5: large rocky planets (old Mass 3) (about 2.7 to 10 Me)
Mass 6: 11 Me to 30 Me, small gas/ice giants (Neptune, Uranus)
Mass 7: 31 Me to 300 Me, medium sized gas giants (Saturn)
Mass 8: 301+ Me to 13 Mj, large gas giants (Jupiter) (would include so-called "super-jupiters")
Mass 9: above 13 Mj, Brown Dwarf "planets"

* NOTE: Mass 1 would also include small moons (i.e. those with radii less than 500 km), but Starfire doesn't track those, otherwise we'd be swamped with moons!!! And that doesn't even account for "moonlets". Jupiter alone has upwards of 60-70 satellites of all sizes. YIKES!!! :o

To be honest though, I'm a bit wary of the above table, though it would get the job done.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Different Titius-Bode Tables?

Postby Crucis on Wed 05 Dec 2012 03:55

procyon wrote:And to muddy the waters even more...

You could also throw in a varient of something we have used for a long time in our sys gen with the table of masses you have.

We add an extra roll to sys gen that isn't in standard SF. As it stands you are only limited by the orbitals and max distance from the star. We ignore that last part. For us it can go as far as it wants - sort of.

We have a roll the determines the total number of bodies around a given star (which varies by star type). This way not every white star with a 2 - 7 TB is a predictable copy with each system having the exact same total number of planets + AB.
So if we roll up that white star sys #1 has 5 bodies, while the next has 11 - they tend to be a little more unique.
(The fact I don't like tracking tons of I/F planets and moons means I have artificially lowered the chance for a high number of bodies in a system.)

Your table could do the same thing based on mass. Perhaps a given star could have a certain range of masses that occur around it. A RD system likely formed with less start mass in its disc (which is why the star is smaller) resulting in lower total planetary mass. Then you would subtract the mass of the planet from the total. So a RD system with a pair of large GGs in the first orbitals might not have anymore planets beyond that, while a white star with lower mass planets might have them out to distances well beyond 300 LMs (not that I personally like tracking those bodies...).

Just another thought.



procyon, to a certain degree, using the new TB table does change up the # of planets/AB's in star systems, rather than being stuck on 8-9. Still, I do understand what you're getting at, and it is an interesting idea.

But the thing is that protoplanetary disks do have a certain size based on stellar mass, that basically works out to R = 314 x M^0.5, with the result in LM. (M is the stellar mass in Solar masses, and 314 is a conversion factor merging known constants.)

using this formula, I actually reduced the disk size for red dwarfs from 200 LM to 150 LM, for example.

I do like the idea of scaling the masses of planets to the size of the star, but it's something that would have to be VERY carefully done so that it wasn't too complex. From what I've read, gas giants should be less common around red dwarf stars than they are for larger star types. But the planetary formation zone process doesn't work out that way with RD's. I suppose that one could include a die roll modifier for smaller or larger star types when rolling for planetary mass.

But again, I have to be careful not to increase complexity to greatly. I don't want to create too much complexity in areas where it's not all that important, only to lose the opportunity to add more variety in other places.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

PreviousNext

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests