I no longer use the star generation charts alone but rather create interesting worlds based on current astronomical knowledge of star types. The probability of variable stars, novas and pulsars. Dead stars are a possibility for my stuff, too. I find that the generation systems in TNE are quite accommodating to real-world astrographics--and it makes for a more fun session and more probable setting. I kinda do a transplant of current data into the systems of star types, likely orbits and habitable zones Using a system from 1977 can be easy and quick and, I feel, real-world physics can be translated into Traveller-speak somewhat easily, IMHO.
--- On Mon, 1/28/13, constantine_thomas_uk > wrote:
From: constantine_thomas_uk >
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 1:54 AM
--- In , "James" wrote:
> > - the apparent non-existence of rogue planets
>
> More "non-coverage", I think. As you say, Book 6 implied strongly that such worlds are out there, but since we hadn't actually found any in 1977, they would have been tough to characterize. I'm certain that had GDW issued rules for them we would be ridiculing those just as much as you now bemoan their absence.
The problem isn't with describing the rogues themselves. It's the fact that they would be in every 'empty hex', which means that one has to explain why they're not used to jump across 'gaps' on the map between systems (which also is part of the clusterfrak that is the 'empty hex jump').
We can find rogue planets with current technology (not very easily, but it's possible). The Imperium could certainly find them with TL 9+ tech. If you can jump to gas giants and terrestrial worlds within a system, you can deliberately jump to rogue planets if you know where they are. If you can do that, there are no 'empty hexes', and every world can be reached using J1 from everywhere else (it may take several J1s to cross a 'gap', but it becomes possible). Rogue planets will also have hydrogen (either because they're gas giants, or on their moons, or on their surfaces if they're rocky/icy bodies) so it's possible to refuel from them. I covered this in an SJG JTAS article in 2003.
The canonistas would have me believe that because none of the above is covered in canon, rogue planets must be very rare or non-existent in the OTU. Rogue planets exist as a result of being ejected from planetary systems when they are very young. If that's not happening, gravity must work very differently in the OTU. Obviously this is not a satisfying explanation, because it has consequences that are completely ignored elsewhere in the setting.
I would prefer to say that rogue planets exist in large numbers in the empty hexes, but they are unreachable by jump. For that to be the case, ships would have to be pulled out of jump by a mass at the other end (going back to the aforementioned 'empty hex jump' can of worms) and that mass must at least be stellar (over 0.08 solar masses). Rogue planets aren't reachable because their masses are less than 0.08 MS. I suggested an exception to handle in-system jumps, whereby any world within 1000 AU of a stellar mass could still be reachable by jumping to it.
> > - the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be preferentially found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
>
> Based on my own recent reading, I suspect this resulted from getting two generations of stellar terminology blended together. I gather astronomers now often use "degenerate star" for what Traveller and the last fifty years of popular science publications refer to as "dwarf stars", while the proper usage of "Dwarf" includes our own Sun and anything else that isn't a "Giant". Statements to the effect that X% of the stars in the Milky Way are Dwarf Stars are *really* easy to parse as the CT and MT stellar tables if you don't know that the terminology has sharpened.
No, it's nothing to do with that. It's actually because the DMs on the star generation table when a habitable mainworld already exists are borked - the tables should be extended to higher values because of the large DM, but they're not. As a result, you have to assume that the results corresponding to the highest values on the table should be applied to higher numbers. If you do that, a lot of habitable mainworlds will end up with F subdwarf (VI) or white dwarf primaries.
> > the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a lack of research on stellar evolution)
>
> Since I have no idea where the stellar characteristics table in
> Book 6 came from, I will not otherwise comment.
Neither do I, but they evindently thought that giant stars would be moree massive than the main sequence stars that they evolved from.
> > > - the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
>
> Perhaps you have a different definition of "Close" than Book 6 does?
Nope. Though i will correct myself and say that while some of those will be close, it's more the fact that there are so many companion stars that are white dwarfs. This may be more a TNE issue since a lot of the stars generated for that (e.g. in the Regency sourcebook) have this problem. I just opened it to a random page and of the 11 systems with companion stars listed in one subsector, ALL of them have white dwarf companions. But I think this stems from a huge overabundance of them generated by the tables in book 6.
> > - habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with lifespans too short to allow them to exist
>
> I think Dave's "Stamp collecting" explanation covers this one, plus the random nature of the CT/MT tables. Are those tables fixable? That depends on whether the average player is willing to accept a system generation chapter three times the size of the CT/MT/TNE chapters put together. The DMs and special cases get prohibitive after a while. There is a compromise, I'm sure, but would anyone actually be happy with it?
It's fixable. I've fixed it. See the revised Star Generation Tables on my worldbuilding page ( http://evildrganymede.net/rpgs/worldbuilding/ ). And the Stellar evolution essay there too, for that matterr.
--- On Mon, 1/28/13, constantine_thomas_uk > wrote:
From: constantine_thomas_uk >
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 1:54 AM
--- In , "James" wrote:
> > - the apparent non-existence of rogue planets
>
> More "non-coverage", I think. As you say, Book 6 implied strongly that such worlds are out there, but since we hadn't actually found any in 1977, they would have been tough to characterize. I'm certain that had GDW issued rules for them we would be ridiculing those just as much as you now bemoan their absence.
The problem isn't with describing the rogues themselves. It's the fact that they would be in every 'empty hex', which means that one has to explain why they're not used to jump across 'gaps' on the map between systems (which also is part of the clusterfrak that is the 'empty hex jump').
We can find rogue planets with current technology (not very easily, but it's possible). The Imperium could certainly find them with TL 9+ tech. If you can jump to gas giants and terrestrial worlds within a system, you can deliberately jump to rogue planets if you know where they are. If you can do that, there are no 'empty hexes', and every world can be reached using J1 from everywhere else (it may take several J1s to cross a 'gap', but it becomes possible). Rogue planets will also have hydrogen (either because they're gas giants, or on their moons, or on their surfaces if they're rocky/icy bodies) so it's possible to refuel from them. I covered this in an SJG JTAS article in 2003.
The canonistas would have me believe that because none of the above is covered in canon, rogue planets must be very rare or non-existent in the OTU. Rogue planets exist as a result of being ejected from planetary systems when they are very young. If that's not happening, gravity must work very differently in the OTU. Obviously this is not a satisfying explanation, because it has consequences that are completely ignored elsewhere in the setting.
I would prefer to say that rogue planets exist in large numbers in the empty hexes, but they are unreachable by jump. For that to be the case, ships would have to be pulled out of jump by a mass at the other end (going back to the aforementioned 'empty hex jump' can of worms) and that mass must at least be stellar (over 0.08 solar masses). Rogue planets aren't reachable because their masses are less than 0.08 MS. I suggested an exception to handle in-system jumps, whereby any world within 1000 AU of a stellar mass could still be reachable by jumping to it.
> > - the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be preferentially found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
>
> Based on my own recent reading, I suspect this resulted from getting two generations of stellar terminology blended together. I gather astronomers now often use "degenerate star" for what Traveller and the last fifty years of popular science publications refer to as "dwarf stars", while the proper usage of "Dwarf" includes our own Sun and anything else that isn't a "Giant". Statements to the effect that X% of the stars in the Milky Way are Dwarf Stars are *really* easy to parse as the CT and MT stellar tables if you don't know that the terminology has sharpened.
No, it's nothing to do with that. It's actually because the DMs on the star generation table when a habitable mainworld already exists are borked - the tables should be extended to higher values because of the large DM, but they're not. As a result, you have to assume that the results corresponding to the highest values on the table should be applied to higher numbers. If you do that, a lot of habitable mainworlds will end up with F subdwarf (VI) or white dwarf primaries.
> > the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a lack of research on stellar evolution)
>
> Since I have no idea where the stellar characteristics table in
> Book 6 came from, I will not otherwise comment.
Neither do I, but they evindently thought that giant stars would be moree massive than the main sequence stars that they evolved from.
> > > - the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
>
> Perhaps you have a different definition of "Close" than Book 6 does?
Nope. Though i will correct myself and say that while some of those will be close, it's more the fact that there are so many companion stars that are white dwarfs. This may be more a TNE issue since a lot of the stars generated for that (e.g. in the Regency sourcebook) have this problem. I just opened it to a random page and of the 11 systems with companion stars listed in one subsector, ALL of them have white dwarf companions. But I think this stems from a huge overabundance of them generated by the tables in book 6.
> > - habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with lifespans too short to allow them to exist
>
> I think Dave's "Stamp collecting" explanation covers this one, plus the random nature of the CT/MT tables. Are those tables fixable? That depends on whether the average player is willing to accept a system generation chapter three times the size of the CT/MT/TNE chapters put together. The DMs and special cases get prohibitive after a while. There is a compromise, I'm sure, but would anyone actually be happy with it?
It's fixable. I've fixed it. See the revised Star Generation Tables on my worldbuilding page ( http://evildrganymede.net/rpgs/worldbuilding/ ). And the Stellar evolution essay there too, for that matterr.