Click to Download

    Star System Generator

    Version: 2.0
    Project: Random Planet-System Generator
    File Name: RefereeToolKit-StarSystemGeneration.pdf
    File Size: 487.67 KB
    File Type: application/pdf
    Updated: May 2, 2011 - 6:30pm
    Submitted: w00t
    Description:
    Star System Generation 5/2/2011
    The Planet Generation (more specific) will be coming out as I finish it up for the Frontier Space Toolkit.
    Comments:

    arakish's picture
    arakish
    April 28, 2011 - 10:48am
    First, I would like to say that this is a really nice stellar system generator.  One of the best I have seen.

    However, there are a few mistakes in this system that really jumped out to me.

    Page 8, 5.3.3 Feature Table:
    1) Ringed Moon - This is impossible.  A moon of a planet cannot have rings as the planet would have pulled the debris into itself.
    2) Glowing Moon - Another impossibility.  The moon would not "glow" but rather it would be more reflective (have a higher Visual Geometric Albedo) than normal.

    Page 9: You list 1000 kilograms = 1 ton = 2000 pounds.  It should read 1000 kilograms = 1 tonne = 2204.6 pounds.

    I know this system mentions it leans towards more randomness and science-fiction.  But the above mistakes just "blared" out, "Hey these are so wrong as to be science-fantasy instead of science-fiction."

    I mean no offense, I only wanted to point out mistakes.

    rmfr
    A good friend will come down and bail you out of jail.  A best friend will be in jail with you, saying, "Dude, we messed up."

    thespiritcoyote's picture
    thespiritcoyote
    May 6, 2011 - 1:05am
    1.) Moons of Moons , it has been discovered that one of the moons of our own system (Rhea) could have stable rings, and has a stable sub-satellite zone, though no significant body exists. Trojans are not fully understood, however, and there are theoretical possibilities there as well.
    2.) Can't find a good link, but there are a number of methods by which moon can generate it's own visible light. Most are technically arguable as an indirect sources of light, but a few methods are directly from the surface. The effect is about the same either way.

      Albeit that in both cases, observable proof suggests that it is rare, the mathematics state that it could be more common than we have examples for.
      Remember that recently it has been discovered that Jovians have formed in the region previously believed too close to a primary, and the math supporting habitable Jovian satellites was validated.

    3.) 2000 pounds = 1 short ton| Check Google's conversion function Wink
    with the change to Cargo Units = 1 Tonne, from 2,000lb = 1 Short Ton, the confusion is understandable.

    History has been objectionably observed to repeat the lesson, that all things imagined in fiction, regularly pale when compared to the realities of the observed universe. Random Generators will never fully reflect reality, furthermore, our ideas of what is likely, is likely to be forever changing, with new observations to adjust them by.
    ...so, take care in broad statements that something isn't possible, whereby a more accurate infinite improbability is the likely case.

    Oh humans!! Innocent We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".
    ~ anymoose, somewhere on the net...

    so...
    if you square a square it becomes a cube...
    if you square a cube does it become an octoid?

    w00t's picture
    w00t
    May 2, 2011 - 6:28pm
    Thanks for the suggestions. :-)

    Impossible and Suspend Disbelief are on the same ruler, I like a living frontier full of interesting stuff. The Feature Table is optional, I'll point that out. 

    I also have a new version that needs some review, would you mind helping? I'm sure you'll like this version, it's in a pretty format with some new tables. I'm thinking about submitting it to the Star Frontiersman. 

    arakish's picture
    arakish
    May 17, 2011 - 7:25pm
    Also found another mistake.  On page 5, you list 1.0 Galactic Standard Atmospheric Pressure = 1.033 kg/m3.  Kilograms per cubic meter is a density unit.  Pressure is measured in force per unit area, such as pounds per square inch (etc.), not mass per unit volume.  The value listed (1.033) is very close to bars (1.013).  Assuming you are using Earth as the basis, Earth's atmospheric density is 1.225 kg/m³.  Earth's atmospheric pressure is 1.013 bars, or 1013 millibars.

    Just thought you'd like to know.

    FYI: Currently, I am re-writing a project began back in 1983 called Stellar System Generator.  However, it is system independent, relying on true astrophysics watered down to a usable level.  It was revised several times up to 1997 when my family was killed.  Just found the printouts in some old fileboxes about three weeks ago and am updating it now.

    rmfr
    A good friend will come down and bail you out of jail.  A best friend will be in jail with you, saying, "Dude, we messed up."

    arakish's picture
    arakish
    May 17, 2011 - 7:35pm
    @thespiritcoyote

    Yes, I know of the Hill Sphere.  It is one of the basics in orbital mechanics.  However, such systems (moon of a moon (especially about jovians), or moon with rings) is inherently very unstable.  Although such could exist, it usually will not last for very long.  It would be much more stable about a terrestrial planet, but would still have instabilities due to precessions and perturbations.

    rmfr
    A good friend will come down and bail you out of jail.  A best friend will be in jail with you, saying, "Dude, we messed up."

    thespiritcoyote's picture
    thespiritcoyote
    May 18, 2011 - 12:51am
    @arakishIt's ok, I took the initial statement to mean it isn't possible. I was showing that being not-necessarily-probable, makes it less a mistake and more a sci-fi gimmick.

       I find the way those charts are designed, all the results have a potential of repeating for an unusual statistic grouping, being on a flat-bell, and frequently need to be rerolled or handpicked for variety, anyway.
    The sites I was reading on the satellite of a satellite topics, were stating that recent mathematics have shown a possibility for stability in certain conditions, just none we can observe existing, yet. It could happen. 
       That still doesn't make it much more likely to find any, so it could be rerolled or hand-picked to reduce the number occurring.

       The Frontier sector is however known to have held several dead or dying Type-II Society and higher ancients, any of which could have modified the terrain a bit to their liking, and that can easily allow for the statistic increase in unusual phenomenon in the Frontier, vs. the more probable results gained from a Cosmos-II style generator. (which I use for all my star-faring games frequently, because of the increased variety and more probable results.)

       I find this generator still fits the Star Frontiers nich well, in spite of... perhaps quite rightly because of... those easy to use flat-probability tables seeding unusual terrain. I wouldn't however recommend this generator to be used generically for just any setting, for that same reason.
    Oh humans!! Innocent We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".
    ~ anymoose, somewhere on the net...

    so...
    if you square a square it becomes a cube...
    if you square a cube does it become an octoid?

    thespiritcoyote's picture
    thespiritcoyote
    May 18, 2011 - 12:50am

    I found the corresponding information, though I am not sure how this one relates, or why it might have been preferred over other references.
       (the reason for a preference of short-tons over long-tonnes was relatively easy to figure out. Though it does make more sense, from an engineering perspective, to base it off the cubic meter/weight of pure water, so everything syncs up nicely in the same system, with little need for physics explanations or complex conversions.)

    Technical atmosphere (at)
    1 atm  1.0332

    ? 1.033 227 452 799 886 kgf/cm²
    ? 1.033 227 452 799 886 technical atmosphere

    Anyone have any idea why this number is possibly significant to a measure of 1.0 Atmospheres on a planetary scale, and what purpose there might be in using that data in a game? Cool

    Oh humans!! Innocent We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".
    ~ anymoose, somewhere on the net...

    so...
    if you square a square it becomes a cube...
    if you square a cube does it become an octoid?

    arakish's picture
    arakish
    May 18, 2011 - 10:12am
    @thespiritcoyote

    Your apology is not needed.  Going back and re-reading, I am the one who should apologize.  Thus, sorry for any confusion.  Instead of "impossible", I admit I should have said "highly improbable."

    Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.  I think I meant improbable, but typed impossible.

    Also, I prefer the tonne (1000 kg) over the two English measures of short ton (2000 lbs) or long ton (2240 lbs) because everything I mess with in astronomy, astrophysics, celestial mechanics, and orbital mechanics are in metric units.  Thus, tonne (a.k.a. metric ton) goes nicely with everything.

    BTW: What is kgf/cm3?  A typo?  Did you mean kg/m3?

    rmfr
    A good friend will come down and bail you out of jail.  A best friend will be in jail with you, saying, "Dude, we messed up."

    thespiritcoyote's picture
    thespiritcoyote
    May 18, 2011 - 5:59pm

    @arakishwell, we can blame it on faulty misinterpretations by spellchecker...Wink

    don't know, I copied it over because it didn't make sense to me either... found various topics on a search, that one was from wikipedia, but the numbers and notations were repeated as 1 atmTechnical atmosphere, and the physics were beyond me... so I couldn't determine the relevance of the 1.0332 apparently used in your sited mistake.

       If I knew why that number was selected for the generator, I might could figure out what the intent of use was for the information, better... even if there is a better way to do it, (like the tonnage), and that might help determine what other parts of the generator, or other influenced works, intended also. (like the cargo and Volume/Weight table, and ship construction and hull size in general.)

    What significance is there for 1 atmTechnical atmosphere1.0332 in planetary composition, and how might a scale of atmosphere be applied to a game use element... entry exit times? burn damage for atmospheric impacts? how long it takes some nut-ball in a heat-suit to make a Low-Orbit-Supersonic-Reentry-Jump? Elevation Extremes for Mountain Hiking? idk what to use planetary atmospheres for, that it is even a necessary inclusion to the data-block for the game... at the moment the inclusion of planetary atmospheres seems like trivial text to me...

    Oh humans!! Innocent We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".
    ~ anymoose, somewhere on the net...

    so...
    if you square a square it becomes a cube...
    if you square a cube does it become an octoid?