I like Harold's reply.
When I saw the story multiple times on TV and read about it in the paper
and several magazines, the only thing I could think about was Traveller
system generation and how this would affect that.
Then I realized 1) what I said previously, and 2) not my job any more.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Harold Hale
[Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>
> I've been wondering when this would come up here...
>
> Trappist-1 doesn't actually break anything completely if you treat it like
> a large gas giant instead of a Sun-sized star for purposes of determining
> orbits. As an M8V star, Trappist-1 is approximately 8% the mass of and 11%
> the radius of the Sun. However, it's only slightly larger than Jupiter
> (while having 84 times the mass, starting nuclear fusion the natural the
> way that Gerrr...science intended requires a lot of pressure).
>
> So think Regina, not Terra.
>
> I'll grant you however the rules need a tweak, especially for stars at the
> lower end of the mass scale. Traveller rules don't take into account flare
> stars (at least they didn't as of 20 years ago). M-type stars are more
> subject to flares than stars like the Sun, and indications are that
> Trappist-1 might be one of them, though its flares have been observed so
> far as being very weak. Frequent flares and large magnetic fields around a
> star with close in planets can render those planets sterile hunks of rock
> and nothing more. At this point we don't know for certain if any of those
> planets around Trappist-1 qualify as anything more than hunks of rock in
> space, or if any of them could be terraformed into something more at some
> point in the very, very distant future, or if they are just fine "as is"
> (don't hold your breath).
>
> As far where on your friendly "Traveller Map" site you'll find Trappist-1,
> to be honest there's not a great candidate system for it, but one can
> approximate it as being located in the Weipu system, if you assume that the
> K8 V star there isn't actually a binary companion, but is simply a ship
> passing in the night.
>
> Don't panic and throw your star charts away, and always remember your
> towel.
>
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 7:47 AM, "
> [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>
>
>
> I tend not to use star system data in my games these days. The planets are
> where the players hang out on so that's where I concentrate my details.
>
> In the early days I used to love system generation, I had a fascination
> with astronomy. Not so much these days, I look at the worlds and the people
> and places on and around them. I also tend to fuzz over the time in between
> worlds, unless I want to make a situation of that. I had a bar fight break
> out between passengers just to keep the crew on their toes.
>
> I also like the design ideas behind the show Firefly, you want dozens of
> planets and hundreds of moons in your system, sure why not!
>
> Brett.
>
> ---In , <dedly@...> 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
>
>
>
>
When I saw the story multiple times on TV and read about it in the paper
and several magazines, the only thing I could think about was Traveller
system generation and how this would affect that.
Then I realized 1) what I said previously, and 2) not my job any more.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Harold Hale
[Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>
> I've been wondering when this would come up here...
>
> Trappist-1 doesn't actually break anything completely if you treat it like
> a large gas giant instead of a Sun-sized star for purposes of determining
> orbits. As an M8V star, Trappist-1 is approximately 8% the mass of and 11%
> the radius of the Sun. However, it's only slightly larger than Jupiter
> (while having 84 times the mass, starting nuclear fusion the natural the
> way that Gerrr...science intended requires a lot of pressure).
>
> So think Regina, not Terra.
>
> I'll grant you however the rules need a tweak, especially for stars at the
> lower end of the mass scale. Traveller rules don't take into account flare
> stars (at least they didn't as of 20 years ago). M-type stars are more
> subject to flares than stars like the Sun, and indications are that
> Trappist-1 might be one of them, though its flares have been observed so
> far as being very weak. Frequent flares and large magnetic fields around a
> star with close in planets can render those planets sterile hunks of rock
> and nothing more. At this point we don't know for certain if any of those
> planets around Trappist-1 qualify as anything more than hunks of rock in
> space, or if any of them could be terraformed into something more at some
> point in the very, very distant future, or if they are just fine "as is"
> (don't hold your breath).
>
> As far where on your friendly "Traveller Map" site you'll find Trappist-1,
> to be honest there's not a great candidate system for it, but one can
> approximate it as being located in the Weipu system, if you assume that the
> K8 V star there isn't actually a binary companion, but is simply a ship
> passing in the night.
>
> Don't panic and throw your star charts away, and always remember your
> towel.
>
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 7:47 AM, "
> [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>
>
>
> I tend not to use star system data in my games these days. The planets are
> where the players hang out on so that's where I concentrate my details.
>
> In the early days I used to love system generation, I had a fascination
> with astronomy. Not so much these days, I look at the worlds and the people
> and places on and around them. I also tend to fuzz over the time in between
> worlds, unless I want to make a situation of that. I had a bar fight break
> out between passengers just to keep the crew on their toes.
>
> I also like the design ideas behind the show Firefly, you want dozens of
> planets and hundreds of moons in your system, sure why not!
>
> Brett.
>
> ---In , <dedly@...> 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
>
>
>
>