Traveller: The New EraTraveller_TNE Yahoo Groups Archive, 2005–2020

Thread: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Astronomical Errors

3 posts.

DED ·

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
 
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: ;
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:10 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Astronomical Errors

I am not a member of the original TML, nor was I online during the "good old days" of the mid 90s, so I don't know if this topic has been beaten to death or not. But I've been intrigued by the corrective work that was done for Alpha Crucis/Alpha Leonis, and I was doing a little research on RL bright star positions relative to Canonical Traveller maps, more out of curiosity than any practical application.

All I can say is I'm rather appalled at how incredibly inaccurate Trav maps are.

I've surveyed all of the significant bright stars marked on the Solomani Rim map (in this case the "corrected" map from Harold Hale's old website), and the positions of systems like Canopus and Spica, and compared them to stars charted in an actual star atlas with the Galactic Equator marked, and it appears that nearly ninety percent of them are out of their proper angular positions, and a sizeable minority of those have incorrect distances. I especially appreciate the fact that the RL Deneb would be located at a point 17 sectors spinward of Theta Borealis. Or that the RL Canopus is actually located to trailing in Hiver space, and is nowhere near Taurus. 

I'm guessing that the persons involved with the original Traveller cartography were basing their stellar positions by using the raw Right Ascension and Declination data from an old star catalog.

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Peter Gray ·



--- 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


DED ·

<<my post snipped>>

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.
 
*** I think that the setting (astronomy) wasn't so important to MM and the others at Traveller's creation as the game itself. It was pretty far down the list. The first sector that came out was the Spinward Marches and I remember wondering where it was with respect to Earth. It seemed arbitrary.

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?
 
*** Coincidence? =)
 
-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.
 
*** While "unrealistic" the rifts have always seemed to me to be just plot conveniences.
 
-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.
 
*** They may be bad for native life to develop on its own but humanity's lives are but the proverbial blink of an eye to a star. Even the lifespans of the Imperiums are very short compared to even to the shortest lived stars. From the game's perspective, they're quite stable and thus colonizable.
 
-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...). 
*** I think that it was a half assed attempt to reconcile the TU with reality without screwing up too much.
 
All of my answers are guesses. If you really want a bona fide answer, try hunting down MM and emailing him your questions or submit them through "Ask Avery" at the QLI website. Though, you might want to re-phrase the questions a bit to make them sound a bit more "polite". One should smile when pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. =)
 
\_/
DED