--- DED <> wrote:
> I was on the TML back when the subject came up (once) and I recall that your observations listed
> here were mentioned then too. It was actually something that everyone agreed was true but no one
> really seemed to mind. A few people were interested in making corrections and started a project
> (or two or three) to do just that. I'm not sure what success they had, though with 11,000 worlds
> to worry about the odds are against them, especially since systems are randomly generated. In
> essence, the real world vs Traveller star locations was one of those rare situations that
> Traveller players are ok with.
>
> Maybe if Traveller started now instead of the late 70's more of an effort would be made to make
> Traveller star systems mirror reality. The Internet has made so much information readily
> available to the average joe (and jane) that it would be easier to plot systems. Of course,
> there's the whole 2D map vs 3D reality to contend with. ;)
>
> \_/
> DED
>
What bothers me the most is the fact that there was an almost cavalier attitude towards astronomy
in the beginning. But given that Traveller was born out of the "space cowboy" pulp science fiction
of the 50s and 60s this can almost be excused. Almost.
Besides RL star and constellation locations consider the following:
-Even though the majority of the star positions are incorrect, the positions of the various rifts
are correct to within a few degrees. Care to explain that inconsistency?
-Contrary to how they're depicted in the game, the Great and Lesser Rifts aren't areas of empty
space. Stars are rather dirty: constantly emitting charged hydrogen gas and other ionized
particles in their solar winds during their lifetimes, or spewing them out in giant waves in their
death throes. Over the period of several billion years this emitted gas will accumulate in
enormous clouds, of which the rifts are the most spectacular examples. This same phenomenon is
evident in regions of space where stellar density is rather low, so much so that stars in similar
regions in our neck of the woods, like the Abyss and the Outrim Void, would appear like headlights
haloed by thick fog.
-Giant stars (sizes I-IV) are generally not good places to put a habitable zone world. This is
acknowledged in some places, but not within the core rulebooks or WBH and WTG. A giant star is
simply a main sequence star in its death throes. Any main sequence star (size V) that exhausts its
hydrogen core, or close to it, will briefly go through a subgiant phase (size IV), and, depending
upon its initial size, will continue expanding to a size III (if category A-G), size II (small
category B), or size I (if large B or any Category O). This process of evolution usually destroys
nearby worlds, and unless its a long period star to begin with (a relatively long lived category G
or F that became a size III) the giant does not exist long enough to thaw other nearby planets and
bring them up to a habitable state.
-And if Trav space is supposed to be generic and nondescript, why did they superdetail the
Solomani Rim? The mistakes on the larger sector maps are mainly ones of nomenclature and therefore
fairly easy to fix: shift Canopus into the Hive Federation, move Spica into the Hinterworlds, and
create a new justification for naming Deneb. By contrast the Rim would require a complete
redesign: they placed Vega and Arcturus almost 70 to 90 degrees from their actual positions, added
stars that belong in neighboring sectors (like Castor, Alpha Indi, Theta Centauri and Epsilon
Cygni), and shifted other stars to incorrect positions (Alderamin, Sirius etc...).
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.