>> When the Webb telescope has been operational for 15-20 years we may have
a totally different view on exo-planets.
And THEN we can rewrite the Traveller system generation system once and for
all! :-)
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:52 AM, 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
>>
>
>
>
a totally different view on exo-planets.
And THEN we can rewrite the Traveller system generation system once and for
all! :-)
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:52 AM, 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
>>
>
>
>