Sadly when you're relying upon a sample of 1 to create scientific or game data you're going to come up with some pretty kookie theories in hindsight.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 21:53, Derek Stanley [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
> Don't forget to take into account the inherent flaws of the Keplar system.
>
> 1 - It relies solely on the transit method, which means it's not going to see 90% of the systems out there because we need to be looking edge on to the planetary disk. Our own solar system is tilted roughly 90 degrees to the galactic plane.
>
> It requires 3 confirmable transits. This means something at the Earths orbit would take 3-4 years to confirm it's existence with Kepler and something at Jupiters orbit would require 36-48 years to confirm. The system is really weighted towards finding things orbiting inside of Mercurys orbit.
>
> Large objects are vastly easier to detect as they block more light so of course we're going to spot hot jovians first.
>
> When the Webb telescope has been operational for 15-20 years we may have a totally different view on exo-planets.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:44, David Nilsen [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My thought is simple. And it is based on the fact that I tried maybe harder than anyone to more "accurize" system generation by changing star types. Whether or not I went far enough or not far enough, the point is that I committed heresy against the Holy DGP Glitchy data swamp.
>>
>> It's just a game, and reality is just reality. I don't care how many times you revise the system to "catch up to" current science, you won't ever catch up, and there's an "official" universe that is just the way that it is. Marc could do some meta "which system generation system do I use" profile: "classic," "New 'realistic,'" "Current as of 28 March 2017," and so on, but it's wasted effort. Someday we'll all die and no one will care how Traveller generated systems. And even if you did, half of the players would say, "it's no longer Traveller." And the other half would say, "You Bastards! You're treating us as a bunch of Cash Cows(R) making us buy all the revised rules, but don't you ever be scientifically inaccurate!"
>>
>> The systems are already not where they really are, they're all in a plane, they're all spaced at perfect integer numbers of parsecs away from each other, there's no such thing as jump drive, computers and anything computer-related appears to be way off. Traveller is a game about Space Opera; harder-edged space opera of the Poul Anderson variety, but space opera. It has always tried to stand pretty close to actual science which is nice, but is not infinitely extensible. And it has finally officially been divorced from reality. Divorce sucks, but divorce happens. I admire the way Traveller tries to remain near real science, and admire the way Traveller players want to keep the official campaign stuff regularized, but you can't do both forever. Traveller is a game whose quality....really comes down to the place it holds in our hearts.
>>
>> It's why we pushed T2K into an alternative universe that diverged at Yeltsin, because we couldn't update the game's back-story every week. Same thing here, as science is speeding up to the rate where it's like current events.
>>
>> That's my barf. Feel free to hate me, I'd be disappointed if no one did.
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:25 PM, DED [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> No doubt that you've heard about the discovery of seven Earth-sized (0.4 to 1.4 T-masses) worlds around Trappist-1, an M8 V red dwarf that's a mere 40 light years away. Of the seven, three are considered to be within its habitable zone.
>>>
>>> No disrespect to the game's designers, but Traveller's system generation procedure has been taking a beating since Kepler kicked into high gear. Dozens of worlds have been revealed orbiting their parent star so close that they make Mercury seem like its out in the bleachers For me, this latest discovery is the last straw. It's bizarre enough thinking that an M8 V can have a habitable zone, but seven worlds orbiting within 0.065 AU? Traveller's closest orbit is 0.2 AU, but this is what astronomers are telling us.
>>>
>>> It's funny. All these years I've been trying to correct for the game's garden worlds that were placed around these pitiful cinders by goosing them up to something that actually puts out some heat, and now reality is saying that these snowballs actually have habitable zones with worlds in orbits we didn't think possible (at least by the game's rules). But if all planets orbiting close to red dwarves are tidelocked, as has been argued by some astronomers, does it matter? Are they really inhabitable?
>>>
>>> I'm at a loss as to what to do.
>>>
>>> If there are no set orbits and every star has a habitable zone (HZ), then you can put worlds wherever you want around any star you want. So there's no need for hard-coded rules. Want a cooler world? Push it towards the outer reaches of the HZ. Want a hot world? Push it towards the inner edge of the HZ and use black body temp calculations.
>>>
>>> I'm tempted to delete all stellar data from all systems I create because it all just seems meaningless. And Traveller's seemingly Keplerian orbits are now simplistic. I've struggled with modifying Nick Bradbeer's WTH spreadsheet to generate more accurate planetary temperature profiles, but now that too seems like a lost cause.
>>>
>>> So what is everyone doing about this in their TUs? Are you ignoring reality because it's too complicated to game, or are you working with an alternative system generating procedure?
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> \_/
>>> DED
>>> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>>>
>>
>
>
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 21:53, Derek Stanley [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
> Don't forget to take into account the inherent flaws of the Keplar system.
>
> 1 - It relies solely on the transit method, which means it's not going to see 90% of the systems out there because we need to be looking edge on to the planetary disk. Our own solar system is tilted roughly 90 degrees to the galactic plane.
>
> It requires 3 confirmable transits. This means something at the Earths orbit would take 3-4 years to confirm it's existence with Kepler and something at Jupiters orbit would require 36-48 years to confirm. The system is really weighted towards finding things orbiting inside of Mercurys orbit.
>
> Large objects are vastly easier to detect as they block more light so of course we're going to spot hot jovians first.
>
> When the Webb telescope has been operational for 15-20 years we may have a totally different view on exo-planets.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:44, David Nilsen [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My thought is simple. And it is based on the fact that I tried maybe harder than anyone to more "accurize" system generation by changing star types. Whether or not I went far enough or not far enough, the point is that I committed heresy against the Holy DGP Glitchy data swamp.
>>
>> It's just a game, and reality is just reality. I don't care how many times you revise the system to "catch up to" current science, you won't ever catch up, and there's an "official" universe that is just the way that it is. Marc could do some meta "which system generation system do I use" profile: "classic," "New 'realistic,'" "Current as of 28 March 2017," and so on, but it's wasted effort. Someday we'll all die and no one will care how Traveller generated systems. And even if you did, half of the players would say, "it's no longer Traveller." And the other half would say, "You Bastards! You're treating us as a bunch of Cash Cows(R) making us buy all the revised rules, but don't you ever be scientifically inaccurate!"
>>
>> The systems are already not where they really are, they're all in a plane, they're all spaced at perfect integer numbers of parsecs away from each other, there's no such thing as jump drive, computers and anything computer-related appears to be way off. Traveller is a game about Space Opera; harder-edged space opera of the Poul Anderson variety, but space opera. It has always tried to stand pretty close to actual science which is nice, but is not infinitely extensible. And it has finally officially been divorced from reality. Divorce sucks, but divorce happens. I admire the way Traveller tries to remain near real science, and admire the way Traveller players want to keep the official campaign stuff regularized, but you can't do both forever. Traveller is a game whose quality....really comes down to the place it holds in our hearts.
>>
>> It's why we pushed T2K into an alternative universe that diverged at Yeltsin, because we couldn't update the game's back-story every week. Same thing here, as science is speeding up to the rate where it's like current events.
>>
>> That's my barf. Feel free to hate me, I'd be disappointed if no one did.
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:25 PM, DED [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> No doubt that you've heard about the discovery of seven Earth-sized (0.4 to 1.4 T-masses) worlds around Trappist-1, an M8 V red dwarf that's a mere 40 light years away. Of the seven, three are considered to be within its habitable zone.
>>>
>>> No disrespect to the game's designers, but Traveller's system generation procedure has been taking a beating since Kepler kicked into high gear. Dozens of worlds have been revealed orbiting their parent star so close that they make Mercury seem like its out in the bleachers For me, this latest discovery is the last straw. It's bizarre enough thinking that an M8 V can have a habitable zone, but seven worlds orbiting within 0.065 AU? Traveller's closest orbit is 0.2 AU, but this is what astronomers are telling us.
>>>
>>> It's funny. All these years I've been trying to correct for the game's garden worlds that were placed around these pitiful cinders by goosing them up to something that actually puts out some heat, and now reality is saying that these snowballs actually have habitable zones with worlds in orbits we didn't think possible (at least by the game's rules). But if all planets orbiting close to red dwarves are tidelocked, as has been argued by some astronomers, does it matter? Are they really inhabitable?
>>>
>>> I'm at a loss as to what to do.
>>>
>>> If there are no set orbits and every star has a habitable zone (HZ), then you can put worlds wherever you want around any star you want. So there's no need for hard-coded rules. Want a cooler world? Push it towards the outer reaches of the HZ. Want a hot world? Push it towards the inner edge of the HZ and use black body temp calculations.
>>>
>>> I'm tempted to delete all stellar data from all systems I create because it all just seems meaningless. And Traveller's seemingly Keplerian orbits are now simplistic. I've struggled with modifying Nick Bradbeer's WTH spreadsheet to generate more accurate planetary temperature profiles, but now that too seems like a lost cause.
>>>
>>> So what is everyone doing about this in their TUs? Are you ignoring reality because it's too complicated to game, or are you working with an alternative system generating procedure?
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> \_/
>>> DED
>>> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>>>
>>
>
>