SFRPG

The forum for Science Fiction Role Playing Game inspiration and information! So Say We All!
It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:40 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:22 am
Posts: 64
Location: San Jose, CA USA
For gameplay needs, I think H Beam Piper's "4 Day Planet" handles a tidelocked planet pretty well.
If your PCs are just stopping by, you would put the weather in the 'sunrise' or 'sunset' part of the ~1000 hour day.

Just my .02 CrImps

_________________
The meek shall inherit the earth; the rest of us will go to the stars.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:44 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:22 am
Posts: 5314
rust wrote:
Cyborg IM1 wrote:
Resonance Locked worlds like Mercury. Mercury is locked in a 3:2 resonance with the sun. It turns 3 times for each 2 orbits, so every orbit and a half, it changes which face is sunward.

I once tried to design such a planet for a setting, but the details (e.g. the
weather patterns) turned out to be a true nightmare.


Yeah, atmospheric stuff is where I fall down. I do recall doing some research into what Earth would be like with a longer day length, and apparently (from what I could piece together) it wouldn't be too horrible. It'd not like we'd roast and freeze to death if the day and night were a week long each, but the day would get hotter and the nights would get colder. The weather patterns would change though.

I've got a huge excel sheet that plots solar insolation on Earth over the year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation - it's essentially this graph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Insol ... sphere.png ) but I'm blowed if I can remember what the heck it actually means now, I did it years ago and of course I didn't label things on it well :). I could probably piece together the meaning of the numbers again, but I think it plots the amount of radiation that hits the top of the atmosphere for a given axial tilt and rotation period. From that one could theoretically figure out surface temperatures (I think that's why I made the graph in the first place, but I never finished it).

_________________
SFRPG Owner/Admin
This post (or any other post I made here) may not be quoted or copied beyond the SF RPG boards without my explicit permission.
evildrganymede.net - visit the The Worldbuilding Hub
Check out my Youtube channel for all my streamed gaming videos!


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:26 am
Posts: 240
Location: The DED Zone
Wow, ok. That means A LOT of tidally locked planets. I'm not sure that I'm ready for that level of realism for MTU. I've upgraded many a star to eliminate Antarctic agricultural worlds and I've bumped up world masses to retain atmospheres, but this...

When I do the calculations from WTH it just makes these worlds useless. The twilight zone can be comfortable, but the temperature differential from the sun facing side to the dark facing side... wouldn't that lead to insane wind storms as the planet tries to find thermal equilibrium?

I guess a work around would be to bump up all the decent UPP worlds to better stars, but that would probably skew the stellar population distribution. The question then becomes, which is more believable for my Traveller groups: a surge in the population of tidally locked worlds or a dramatic shift in the stellar population distribution?

But if tidally locked worlds aren't as useless as I think they are, please enlighten me. :)

_________________
\_/
DED


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:42 pm
Posts: 2699
Location: Texas, USA
Skewing the stellar population may be the only thing you can do.

That is one of the big problems with Traveller in general, their "detailed" world building sucks and is VERY wrong in many ways; we just aren't going to have very habitable planets around red dwarf stars.

That is why I like the idea of expanding the Traveller hex size so that each hex represents "the best" world out of several star systems to pick from, then your stellar distribution can be as wacked up as you want since only the good systems are shown, not every system like Traveller assumes.

_________________
My friends call me Richard. You can call me Sir.
www.XmasDragon.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:54 am
Posts: 214
Cyborg IM1 wrote:
That is one of the big problems with Traveller in general, their "detailed" world building sucks and is VERY wrong in many ways; we just aren't going to have very habitable planets around red dwarf stars.

Hence why I don't use Book 6 from Classic Traveller or the World Builder's Handbook from MegaTraveller. Sorry, but Titus-Bode for orbits just doesn't cut it for me.

_________________
The Gray Book: My homage to E.G.G.

Star Trek: Alpha Quadrant: The game Mongoose failed to make. (File Updated 5/19)


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:06 am
Posts: 360
DED wrote:
But if tidally locked worlds aren't as useless as I think they are, please enlighten me. :)

I am far from an expert on this, so take what I say with with a fist-full of salt. :)

The worst of the thermal difficulties come from a 'standard' atmosphere like we have on Earth.

However, a thick, dense atmosphere might be better able to spread the thermal energy out at higher elevations ... what real harm if the world has a massive jet stream that causes weather fronts to pass through in hours rather than days like on Earth?

At the other extreme, a very thin atmosphere might have 600 kph winds almost all the time, but the lack of air mass means that they deliver very little real force ... it just feels like a breezy day on Earth. So build a 1 km diameter plastic dome over your farmstead to create breathable air pressure, sit on your porch sipping iced tea, and watch the plastic dome ripple in the breeze.

_________________
I really love Classic Traveller, especially without the Imperium ... There, I said it.
Now pass me a laser carbine and a couple of extra battery clips.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:44 pm
Posts: 138
Cyborg IM1 wrote:
That is why I like the idea of expanding the Traveller hex size so that each hex represents "the best" world out of several star systems to pick from, then your stellar distribution can be as wacked up as you want since only the good systems are shown, not every system like Traveller assumes.


One problem with doing this is it becomes harder to present navigation challenges like "rifts" since if it was important to cross a gap of generally habitable star systems, there would be much more likely to be something suitable for a refueling stop that would be more efficient than taking the long route around following more habitable systems.

Also, the larger the "hex", the more likely humanity would only settle desirable worlds (garden worlds, and resource worlds if such even make any economic sense).

I keep getting stuck up on how much realism to push vs. what makes an interesting playable setting. I have yet to be convinced that much star trade at all will make any economic sense (sure, information, and luxury goods, but commodities?).

Frank


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:06 am
Posts: 360
ffilz wrote:
I have yet to be convinced that much star trade at all will make any economic sense (sure, information, and luxury goods, but commodities?).
Frank

Depends a little on the rules of the game, but in Classic Traveller, it costs 1000 credits per Dton per parsec.
Shipping a water-like liquid (or anything with a similar density), that comes out to 14,000 kg shipped 1 parsec for 1000 credits.
Translating that to modern currency, that comes out to 14,000 kg shipped 1 parsec for about 4000 (euros).

That makes shipping costs about 0.4 euros per kg or 0.2 dollars per pound per parsec.

Let's ship coffee beans at 11,500 lbs per dTon ... or 0.35 dollars per pound per parsec.
[Retail price of coffee is about 4 dollars per pound, so a 9% premium (per parsec) for Interstellar Imported coffee.]

[At real world launch costs, it makes no sense (even to LEO). At Traveller ship costs, interstellar shipping costs are trivial.]

_________________
I really love Classic Traveller, especially without the Imperium ... There, I said it.
Now pass me a laser carbine and a couple of extra battery clips.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:44 pm
Posts: 138
I'm not convinced Traveller shipping costs are reasonable. And I guess if they are reasonable, then the cost of having a colony at a planet that was missing some vital resource would be minimal. But I also wonder how many star systems would actually be missing any resources?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:43 pm
Posts: 309
Location: Queens, NY
I would suppose trade in such case would be based around comparative advantage rather than a scarcity of resources.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited