crucis wrote:Cralis wrote:By request: Planet Types. Makes sense, no? I have them defined elsewhere (like the rules) but to make sense of these results I should have included them. So here they are!
I'm not going to repeat T, ST, G, V, H, B, or F because they are as defined in the ULTRA rules. Although currently H/F are the same as hot or frozen O1 worlds, and B is O2 worlds. (Hot, Frozen, Barren).
Actually, "currently" in Ultra, O1 = Cold and O3 = Hot, according to W6.06.
Blah, I used my notes. Probably a hold-over from Classic Starfire. But yeah, your right. I'll note it for the conversion.
crucis wrote:cralis wrote:What's the real difference between Type A and Type K? Also, I don't see any Type K planets in the "DETERMINE FINAL PLANETARY TYPE" Tables. (And a tangential note on those tables, in the mass 1 planetary type subtable, there's a type O3 entry that I suspect needs fixing.)
I've read where "experts" think that such "desert planets" would be essentially uninhabitable for humans due to the lack of plant life to produce oxygen. And not that I'm outright asking for this, but you might want to think about how such "desert" planets are able to sustain their atmospheres (whatever its composition may be). After all, if you were to go dump a major population on such a world, might that population not place some rather severe demands on a very limited and potentially non-reproducing, critical life-sustaining factor.
That would be part of the rules. What you've mentioned is already considered, and the only O/N atmosphere would likely be if there were any bodies of water. The other types don't even require water to be present (although it would be, in small amounts, probably underground).
PS. The difference between A and K is the temperature. Type-A have normal earth-like temperatures but insufficient atmosphere. Type-K planets have sufficient atmosphere, but they are too hot.
crucis wrote:cralis wrote:Type-N/SN: Ocean
These are Type-T or Type-ST worlds where the vast majority of the planet is covered with water (> 90%). These worlds will pretty much only have oxygen-based atmospheres simply because solar evaporation will create most of the atmosphere from the water.
Interesting. However, I think that you missed an opportunity, code-wise here... I suspect due to inertia. I edpect that you created the N/SN codes while the old O# codes still existed. However, now that H/B/F have replaced the O# codes, I would suggest using O and SO instead of N/SN, since "O for Ocean" is a solid mnemonic.
It has for years been generally accepted that "N" is an ocean world. I don't remember where I saw the proposed nomenclature - it was an international astronomy website - but I originally found it in a ST:NG technical manual and it had the address.
crucis wrote:cralis wrote:Type-GI: Gas/Ice
These are Type-G planets that have a different chemical composition. These will have more noble gases and other gases than simply H/He, although H/He is usually still a big part of their atmosphere. Otherwise, other than color, these are pretty much the same.
In this version the Type-I worlds are going to be Ice or Rock/Ice worlds like Pluto. They aren't as common, as most of what ULTRA calls Type-I will be Type-GI instead.
Exactly how is this version of a Type I world different from a Type F world? I see the Type F world as fitting this description to a "T".
Type-F worlds are entirely rocky. Type-I worlds are entirely or mostly ices, probably methane, ammonia, carbon monoxide, along with water ice. Similar to Triton, except more ice less rock. Type-Is were speculated way back when they thought Pluto (and other KBOs) were thought to be mostly water ice, methane ice, ammonia ice, etc., with a very small core. However, more recently they are beginning to think it is mostly water ice with a small radioactive rocky core. Either way in about 6 years we'll get some solid evidence.
crucis wrote:BTW, a potentially interesting planet type that you've overlooked, but actually made provision for in the above rules is the Type P ... Pre-Biotic planet. In the "RESIDUAL GEOTHERMAL HEATING", you use stellar age to help determine planetary temp. But you could also use this same stellar age to set habitable planet types as "pre-biotic", if the age was in the "Young" or perhaps "Aged" groups.
This is taken care of under my NPR rules.
crucis wrote:Oh, something else... Immediately under the "ATMOSPHERIC THICKNESS" header, you list the progression of atmosphere thinknesses as "vacuum -> very thin -> thin -> average -> thick -> dense -> massive". However, there are no "average" atmosphere thicknesses listed in the tables. They always seem to progress from thin to thick.
Ooops no idea how that slipped in there. Average doesn't exist. Fixing it after this post.
And in the "HABITABILITY FACTORS" table, I'd replace "Uninhabitable" with "Deadly". (Ultra uses the term "Death" environment, but I think that "Deadly" is a better use of the language. "Death" is a noun, "Deadly" is an adjective... and I think that an adjective works better and sounds better in this circumstance.)
Well, I'm tempted to move all the habitability stuff to the NPR section because it is a subjective value. What is habitable or deadly to one type of race, is the opposite for another. Etc.