 November 17, 2010 - 5:44pm | Anyone ever notice that the Rim systems tend to be high habitable real estate star systems? Well at least the home systems for the Rim races are. Look at Osak! 5 inhabited worlds and many of those have moons being used for various purposes Capella and Fochrik have 3 inhabited world each. Just how much inhabitable real estate can we have in star system without stretching believability to D&D fantasy levels? Is the Osak system even possible or do we have to specify that some of those are inhabited by dint of domes and sealed habitat. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 November 17, 2010 - 7:40pm | Depends on the star type but probably two or three max an only one could be "earth-like". The others would be on the hot side if closer and the cool side if further away from the star. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 November 17, 2010 - 10:49pm | Back last spring when I was in the thick of simulating systems the most I ever got was three habitable worlds. One hot, one in the mid temps, one cold. The rim systems are what put me into working the science out of the simulation source code and it's source material, "Habitable Planets for Man" so that I could tweak the conditions and not have to wait forever for the simulations to stumble across the right match. -iggy |
 November 18, 2010 - 1:23pm | I don't recall, but do they say what kind of climate there is on these worlds? With today's technology (let alone SF tech) we should be able to survive anywhere with gravity that doesn't crush us to death and where the temperature and atmosphere won't destroy our buildings. Some environments will be easier to live in than others, but the baseline minimum would be access to the following: 1) At least some gravity (real or simulated with spin or acceleration) 2) energy, solar if you're near enough to the sun, or access to fissible materials, or futuristic power source that we don't have yet 3) either water, or hydrogen and oxygen. You really want all three, but water can be made into H and O, and H and O can be made into H2O. Food is a interesting topic in sci fi, but you can make it from naturally occurring hydrocarbons, grow plants in a greenhouse, grow plants hydroponically, raise seafood in tanks, and so on. I have to assume if anyone is going to this much trouble to live somewhere there is probably something valuable there too. |
 November 18, 2010 - 1:40pm | First, one must define "habitable". I've been researching this a bit for an article on terraforming I'm working on. By human standards, there is only one habitable world in this solar system: Earth. Most star systems will typically have no habitable worlds unless a planet has very Earth-like conditions, almost exact. The best option for multiple habitable worlds in a system is a gas giant's moons with the right conditions in the star's habitable zone. Something like Osak is highly unlikely given our current knowledge of planets and stars (which is being challenged with each new extrasolar planet discovered). For a game, you can do whatever you like; if you want to keep it in the realm of believability, something would have to be tweaked with regards to systems like Osak (maybe the Osakar can live in a wider range of climates; maybe Ancient tech is at play; etc.). Myself, I keep things down to one or two habitable worlds in a system, though there may be dome/enclosed colonies on uninhabitable planets. Long live the Frontier! |
November 18, 2010 - 2:02pm | Some one mention ancient tech? Dyson spheres perhaps? left by an unknown race labelled Dysons I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
November 18, 2010 - 3:34pm | If there was a Dyson sphere anywhere in the Frontier there wouldn't be any other planets around any other stars. The amount of material required to build a Dyson sphere is huge. It would require stripping all material from all the planets for many, many light years around. Just for numbers, a Dyson sphere the radius of the earth's orbit and only one meter thick (which is probably way, way to thin) with a mean density of that of iron (7.86 g/cm^3) would be more massive than all the planets, asteroids, comets, etc in the solar system combined (and most of that mass is in the form of Hydrogen and Helium, completely unuseful for building a Dyson sphere). It'd still be a fun idea though.  Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
November 18, 2010 - 5:55pm | If there was a Dyson sphere anywhere in the Frontier there wouldn't be any other planets around any other stars. The amount of material required to build a Dyson sphere is huge. It would require stripping all material from all the planets for many, many light years around. Just for numbers, a Dyson sphere the radius of the earth's orbit and only one meter thick (which is probably way, way to thin) with a mean density of that of iron (7.86 g/cm^3) would be more massive than all the planets, asteroids, comets, etc in the solar system combined (and most of that mass is in the form of Hydrogen and Helium, completely unuseful for building a Dyson sphere). It'd still be a fun idea though. very very cool idea and certainly a dyson sphere is absolutely unexplorable- or rather it would be a never ending dungeon crawl for the average RPG group due to the surface area I loved the NG star trek episode with the return of Scotty and the dyson sphere- very cool episode even if you didn't get to really see the inside of the sphere other than the enterprise flying over the inner surface from the high of a normal orbit, of course it was a pretty cool episode because they recreated the central bridge furniture from Kirk's enterprise and screen in an empty bridge background for when Scotty got a little drunk and asked the holo deck to show him his enterprise so he could remorsefully cry in his beer as it were. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 November 18, 2010 - 8:51pm | Getting back to the discussion of real estate in the Frontier I've always thought that aside from the high population worlds, most Frontier worlds would have maybe 1-10 settlements (either cities or established colonies) with 80% or more of the planet being surveyed but not fully explored. I think that somewhere in the core rules, they mentioned that going several kilometers from a settlement the characters would be in unexplored territory. As for habitable worlds, though realistically there should be very few habitable worlds in the galaxy, for game sake I like to have at least one world in any star system that is either a garden world, or a post garden planet where adventures can happen. I also think that there should be a chance on any habitable planet that multiple races to have evolved. Perhaps one dominate race, and a few races that have not reached the level of sophistication to be considered "superior races". "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
November 21, 2010 - 8:31pm | Domes & Terraforming are your friends. -Ellzii |
 November 23, 2010 - 9:24pm | Yes Domes, and also underground colonies. Orbital colonies? The bombing starts in five minutes. |
November 26, 2010 - 2:37pm | My take on habitable worlds vs. dome/underground/orbital colonies. A habitable world should be able to sustain a massive population, into the billions, regardless of how many actually live there. Habitable worlds have a sustainable ecosystem, and are generally self-supporting, needing little aid in the way of water, breathable air and food. Dome/underground/orbital colonies are limited in space and resources, to perhaps a few million, and face shortages of water, air and food, unless supplemented or completely supplied by outside sources. A planet that can only sustain the latter types of colonies cannot be considered a habitable world, and is generally not listed in the general guide. Just my 2 Cr... Long live the Frontier! |
 May 30, 2011 - 12:37pm | I think the Osak habitability is referencing a broader range than, "...sustainable ecosystem...", "...self-supporting...", "...needing little aid in the way of water, breathable air and food...", as the criteria. Dropping it to two habitable, and three hospitable, is a more plausible to the hard-science. Consider though, that with appropriate technology, a homeworld in system, and a projected methodical expansion, the difference is rather arbitrary for the Osakar, Humma, or Ifshnit, in their respective home systems. Unlike the Core Species, that started with lower populations and a broader 'playground', and need only concentrate High-populations on more narrow prime real-estate worlds, as considered Habitable, even if they regularly use hospitable worlds and less friendly environments, for smaller colonies. Oh humans!!  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? |
 May 30, 2011 - 5:25pm | Almost everywhere in the Frontier is habitable, whether naturally or artifically. As long as it's not on the surface of the sun, or next to a black hole, or anywhere near a neutron star, someone can build their "dream dome" there. Like the sayings go, "Anywhere you hang your helm is dome" or "Dome Sweet Dome". And then you have terraforming tech. Someone should do an article on that topic for SFM.  My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
June 1, 2011 - 11:27am |
I agree with Deryn_Rys and Captain Rags, on the same points where that is concerned. Those worlds listed as inhabited with populations, are not necessarily Habitable, but may be Hospitable, Terraformed, or even given Hostile Environment outposts or colonies. Compare this to the surface of the sun, a black hole or neutron star proximity, or Jovians, being Uninhabitable to any of the Core-Fore and their allies, or rather they could set up an extremely hostile environment outpost in such uninhabitable locations, but at such terrible risks if something failed in the support systems, the risks don't really outweigh the benefits, even for curiosity's sake. With all the Hostile and Hospitable real-estate, and plenty of established Habitable and Teraformable worlds still largely unexplored, some risks just are not worth it on large scales, hostile environment asteroid and moon outposts around the unmarked and theoretically abundant red and brown dwarf stars are probably the extreme of the frontier homesteader's justifiable risk. As far as tech level and exploitation ability, I see the Frontier being a Type I, capable of total planetary exploitation, and with effort, environmental reconstruction on a planetary scale, not a Type II, capable of total stellar exploitation and reconstruction... and certainly not a Type III capable of gaining any benefits of significance from risking a neutron star or black hole, or exploiting entire galaxy, or restructuring any galactic scale phenomena. Tens-of-thousands, if not Hundreds-of-thousands of years separate such civilization advancements... a long way off for the early Type I of the young Frontier, having come close to total collapse at least twice, and a mere few centuries old. The native Rimmers are not much better off than the Frontier, the only real advantage is they have their homeworld populations and systems to exploit, and a much tighter interstellar core bureaucracy to maintain. Age wise they are not much older as a society, and thus compare to the same early Type-I or late planetary/post-industrial/Type-'-na-' interstellar society. They have had more time to establish themselves in thier own home systems, and alter the planets there to suit themselves, as part of that home-advantage, but are not really any more technologicaly or socially advanced than the Frontier worlds. What Rim-worlds have been mapped, and where might they be placed for convenience? (Not-just SFman.) I can't seem to find any of the large numbers that used to be online. I saw something close to a full net-book atlas and encyclopeadia of known planets once, but can't find that either. I would prefer to use those that have been done and accepted by the larger community first, as opposed to adding more to the fan-diluted material, but I have a quick wip of Faire now, if it isn't already done. It's in need of some deformations, and currently simple silhouettes laid on the Global-Mercator_Latitude-Deformed-Hexes map. Oh humans!! 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? |
June 1, 2011 - 10:22pm | Captain Rags @ Captain Rags: Hmm, methinks habitable might just be the better word to use here instead of hospitable, although I will certainly defer to minds much larger than my couple of sputtering neurons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
June 2, 2011 - 12:02pm | I was pointing out that it isn't the same thing, and why using habitable when you mean hospitable, or even hostile... is what leads to the idea that there are five EuGaian-Nerean-Earth-like, worlds listed just because there are populations present. Worlds with biodiverse ecosystems capable of supporting advanced native life, are only potentially Habitable... then there is everything else, and simple generic categories like, Hospitable, Inhospitable, Hostile, and Uninhabitable are to generalize a difference. For more specifics you have to look up planet types categorization lists, there is no real standardized list just yet, just some that work better than others. I borrow that list of generalizations from about four different games that do try to make it simple. Habitable: means you can run around naked with the spouse, kiddies, and your dog, only offending the other nudists in the colony. Hospitable: means you can do the same only indoors, but you might take your spouse or dog for long walks, if you suit them up with survival gear first. Hostile: means there is not any going outside with your dog, unless you both bring your own airsupply and heavy suits, and your dog isn't going to like it out there anyway. ( you might have to chase the kiddies down to keep them from killing themselves tho', they aren't as smart as dogs, but neither are adults, really... I trust my dog's sense of Habitable better than my own.) Uninhabitable: means even if you stay indoors, you are probably a corpse. By a strict technical definition of the word, the first three are "habitable" or at least, degrees of habitability. it can be more complex, and I have no problem with that: http://arcbuilder.home.bresnan.net/PCLMaster.html I like playing the planetologist in the group, someday I will have a GM let me do a realistic planetary survey scenario, and not just another 'excuse-to-hunt-worms' trope rehash... Oh humans!! 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? |
June 2, 2011 - 9:31pm | @thespiritcoyote: Ah okay. I think I finally got it now. The way you broke it down and defined each allowed my 2 beefy neurons to absorb the info. Thanks TSC. My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
June 2, 2011 - 9:35pm |  I am not very concise on my first passes, it's a flaw.Oh humans!! 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? |
June 30, 2011 - 2:58pm | I think that like most things the situation here always comes down to realism vs. playability. while there is never a problem with inserting a little realism into our gaming, we should always consider that ultimately we are looking at a medium of entertainment, and one of the great draws of this game to steal from another source is the "exploration of strange new worlds" If we put too much realism into this, there shouldn't be as many habitable worlds as there are in the Frontier, not to mention races and cultures that have come to the same maturity level as each other. So for Game sake there should be at least one adventure friendly environment in each star system which while not really realistic allows us environments for our adventures. As for how to define the types of environments, why not simply look at the population index for a given system, worlds with heavy populations are more than likely garden worlds, with those with heavy industry possibly falling into the post garden world (greenhouse worlds) catagory. Lighter populations can either be unexploited garden worlds, or worlds that are or have been terraformed, or are marginal worlds where populations require some form of specialized environmental gear to function normally (perhaps the world has a tainted atmosphere requiring breathing masks, or the world might have a lightly corrosive atmosphere, or too little oxygen to make strenuous activity dangerous without artificial aids). Very light populations might point to marginal worlds with populations completely dependant on technology to survive (domed settlements on worlds with atmospheric extremes, or on marginal worlds where natural resources outway the risks involved in maintaining such a costly, and risky thing as building a completely sealed settlement). Realism and hard science have their place in Star Frontiers, but must be used judiciously or they can reveal the man behind the curtain and spoil the illusion that is the Wizard of OZ. "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
July 1, 2011 - 5:12pm | I don't see realism reducing the habitable worlds... but I don't see a call for realism in my breakdown either... seems to be a pretty simple, generic, and usable 'one tag word' system... I see the terms I have used in many RPGs and Sci-Fi, referenced in exactly the same way, so it seems to be pretty commonly defined terms also... heck, the Star Wars and Star Trek rpg's are more complicated than that... On the other hand, dropping such generic terms as 'garden world', 'water world', 'ice world', and 'desert world'... make it even more confusing in my mind, these terms are so generic as to have little meaning at all... earth is a 'Water World' by definition, being over two thirds water, the green-house of Venus could terraformed into a nice 'Garden-World', but even terraformed with a large northern ocean the arid martian atmosphere will likely be a 'Desert World'... As far as a delve into the frontier-by-the-numbers... realistically there should be more habitable worlds than are shown... realism in this case would improve the situation for viable adventure locations, rather than reduce it... On the subject of cultural and technological levels, there is not such an equality present in the write up to sugest the same maturity is present in all the races, I do not infer that they are all 100% natives to the region... far from it, most are either immigrants, riding coats-tails, or the remnants of a dying culture far older than the current frontier society... Fantasy locations like a 100% arboreal moon (Endor), or a 100% arid desert (Tatooine), 100% ocean (Kevin Costner), 100% Jungle (Avatar), I reject these as being necesary at the expense of the science-in-the-fiction... most of these have been stated by the original creators themselves, as having been misrepresented in popular consciousness, and were never intended to be 100% singular biome fantasy worlds... only that the singular biome was the main focus of representation necessary to the limited scope of the fiction, the rest of the world not seen 'on stage' should be considered more diverse than shown. with a Realism vs. Fantasy in debate... I reject them both and side with Science-Fiction... Oh humans!! 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? |
July 1, 2011 - 7:12pm | As far as a delve into the frontier-by-the-numbers... realistically there should be more habitable worlds than are shown... realism in this case would improve the situation for viable adventure locations, rather than reduce it... I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. The AD Frontier map shows 58 stars (many in binary systems) plus one neutron star. Based on standard stellar statistics, about 82% of those should be M dwarfs or brown dwarfs which are incapable of supporting a habitable planet (where we're defining habitable as "human habitable" and by implication habitable by the core four). That means that 47.6 of the stars should be M dwarfs or brown dwarfs. Rounding down that leaves 11 stars that aren't these small stars. That's already less than the number of inhabited systems. But we're not done yet. Of thouse original 58, another 7% or 4 stars are going to be K dwarfs and only half of those could support habitable planets so that leaves us 9 stars that could have habitable real estate. Finally another 5% (or 3 stars) would be some other class of star (O or B star, white dwarf, neutron star, etc) that couldn't host a habitable planet. Since we didn't coun't the existing neutron star we only knock off two more instead of three leaving seven. Based on a "by the numbers" reckoning, there should only be 7 systems in the Frontier that are capable of having habitable planets. But the Frontier has 18, an over density by a factor of over two and a half. So no, there wouldn't be more habitable planets, there would be far fewer. But don't let that cramp anyones style. It is fiction and you can do what you want.  Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
July 2, 2011 - 12:28am | interesting interpretation of my statements... I assume a number more like more like several hundreds of habitable worlds to be a realistic number within the realistically populated volume of space provided... yes other opinions are still valid... I made mention of this in another thread, my apologies for being less specific here... by the numbers there should be several thousand stars not shown on the map in order to justify the statements in the books that the colonists settled in a more dense region, closer to the center of their galaxy... this puts the number at just over 100 stars with habitable worlds that fall within the narrow criterion expressed with conservative density and as many as 400 stars with habitable worlds can still be within the realm of speculative plausibility, and not pass over into pure fanciful conjecture... so this depends on whether you assume the provided map is showing the entire picture, or just the part most relevant to the settled civilized frontier... and my statement that realism provides the benefits of more possibility, and more habitable and even hospitable worlds than shown on the map, stand on the intended interpretation... other interpretations based on less realistic assumptions would tweak this in favor of fewer worlds as mentioned, but if a less dense population of overall stars in the region is preferred then that is a consequence of such assumptions... A Comparison: Crowded Cluster, Sparse Association As I mentioned I don't assume a density level in the frontier sector to be less than that around Sol system even if assumed to be in a different galaxy altogether, rather I assume a cluster that is at least 50% to 150% denser and more populous... further I interpret 'habitable' less narrowly than; a planet that could support native sapience nigh-indefinitely... and allow for a definition of; that which could support comfortably, a biosphere compatible with sentient colonists, over the timespan of a civilization... this gets away from my original suggestion for the home-system real-estate quandary... Osak, Capella, and Fochrik have the homeworld advantage, and can more readliy populate or even terraform worlds that are merely hospitable under a natural evolution... this assumtion would also allow Sol to be represented with 3 to 5 colonies, above outpost level, given 500yrs of intra-stellar migration also... two planets, a dwarf planet, and a pair of outer-system moons, could be made to at least appear 'habitable' under casual observation, in that given timeframe... though two would be hospitable, and two hostile, and only one a true habitable in natural form... Oh humans!! 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? |
