Asteroids and ancients -moved from OT

[captainjack23]

I'm moving this here to avoid derailing another thread with OTU foo.

That said, and to possibly throw a wrench in, if your TU is OTU based, its always been surmised that the ancients final war is responsible for some asteroid belts -particulalry the anomolous ones. Which gives you a bit of a cover-all ....*

The Ancients would need enough energy to not only blow apart the planet but to also have each fragment going faster than the escape velocity of whatever is left behind. And then magically spread that material around the star as a belt, before it manages to re-coalesce as a planet through the gravitational attraction of all the bits. All of which is ridiculous overkill, considering that the aim of destroying a planet is to just wipe out whatever is there (heck, just wiping out whatever is there can be done much more efficiently and with less ridiculous energies by other means).

Thus my caveat. Like it or not, in an OTU close campaign its an issue. Your critiquing the OTU (again) isn't really what was asked for, or relevant.

You raised it as a previously mentioned possibility, and I'm pointing out how it's a ridiculous one. If you didn't want it discussed, you shouldn't have raised it yourself.

I pointed out that the OTU backstory explicitly includes it. It does. That you think it is absurd is not the point.

Edit: Fair enough. I really should know better when it comes to canonistas and anticanonista studies. Grognards, I swear.

According to the calculations here (in section 6), it would take about 25 trillion tons of antimatter to destroy an earth-size planet so thoroughly that it doesn't reassemble itself after being exploded (i.e. it forms an asteroid belt around the star).

[/quote]
On the same page, is the exact method used by the ancients-massively accelerating a smaller mass into collision- resulting in a small belt,[edit -wrong] with most of the mass scattered.
Not antimatter.

Pulverized by impact with blunt instrument

You will need: a big heavy rock, something with a bit of a swing to it... perhaps Mars.

Method: Essentially, anything can be destroyed if you hit it hard enough. ANYTHING. The concept is simple: find a really, really big asteroid or planet, accelerate it up to some dazzling speed, and smash it into Earth, preferably head-on but whatever you can manage. The result: an absolutely spectacular collision, resulting hopefully in Earth (and, most likely, our "cue ball" too) being pulverized out of existence - smashed into any number of large pieces which if the collision is hard enough should have enough energy to overcome their mutual gravity and drift away forever, never to coagulate back into a planet again.

A brief analysis of the size of the object required can be found here. Falling at the minimal impact velocity of 11 kilometres per second and assuming zero energy loss to heat and other energy forms, the cue ball would have to have roughly 60% of the mass of the Earth. Mars, the next planet out, "weighs" in at about 11% of Earth's mass, while Venus, the next planet in and also the nearest to Earth, has about 81%. Assuming that we would fire our cue ball into Earth at much greater than 11km/s (I'm thinking more like 50km/s), either of these would make great possibilities.

Obviously a smaller rock would do the job, you just need to fire it faster. Taking mass dilation into account, a 5,000,000,000,000-tonne asteroid at 90% of light speed would do just as well. See the Guide to moving Earth for useful information on manoeuvring big hunks of rock across interplanetary distances. For smaller chunks, there are more options - a Bussard Ramjet (scoop up interstellar hydrogen at the front and fire it out the back as propellant) is one of the most technically feasible as of right now. Of course, a run-up would be needed...

Earth's final resting place: a variety of roughly Moon-sized chunks of rock, scattered haphazardly across the greater Solar System.

Feasibility rating: 7/10. Pretty plausible.

Edit: I'm removing a snarky bit, and adding the note that I did misstate the result as being a belt. Thanks to Vile for pointing it out. It still suggests that there are ways to hammer a planet using the technology described-but obviously not to leave a result indistinguishable from a natural asteroid belt.
Which, possibly, was why they were tagged as anomolous. I don;t know, short of detailed description of why they were identified.

As to why planetbusting was used.....I'm not even touching that. I never liked the whole grandfather thing. Its just one theory, or possibly a coverup, IMTU.

 

[Vile]

Earth's final resting place: a variety of roughly Moon-sized chunks of rock, scattered haphazardly across the greater Solar System.

That's not an asteroid belt, though. Sounds more like a system with a lot of S-size worlds.

 

[captainjack23]

Earth's final resting place: a variety of roughly Moon-sized chunks of rock, scattered haphazardly across the greater Solar System.

That's not an asteroid belt, though. Sounds more like a system with a lot of S-size worlds.

Fair enough, but presumably some rubble would remain in the original orbit area -possibly velocity would be lost to secondary collisions, and further smashing would occur for those in a denser area.

Still, we don't have much of a description of why some belts are deemed anomolous in the OTU. Perhaps a distribution like that is the clue. Honestly, I don't want to try to justify something that is probably intentionally vague - it may be that the ancients are being overapplied to any odd situation by the scientists of the third imperium.

 

[EDG]

I pointed out that the OTU backstory explicitly includes it. It does. That you think it is absurd is not the point.

That doesn't invalidate me pointing out the physical flaws in what is claimed to be possible in the OTU. Besides which, the OP on that thread didn't even mention the OTU in the first place - you were the one that started that. Either way, it's still absurd.

In fact, it's not clear how one would even get a belt out of the "blow it up with antimatter" method. The result would more likely be what is described in the part you quoted - that the material would be spread out over the inner solar system, not in a tidy belt around the star. The planet is exploding after all - that means material is ejected radially from the explosion, not in some kind of torus around the central body. And if it has enough energy, it won't reassemble - it should just continue to fly outwards from the site of the explosion. Hell, if it has enough velocity it might even escape from the entire stellar system. But even though the planet is moving around the star while it's in the process of exploding, it's not moving anywhere near fast enough to smear that material around its entire orbit.

The point about asteroid belts is that they were never planets to start with, and that the collisional velocities of the bodies within them are such that fragmentation is the preferred outcome of the collision (and those velocities are kept that way because of the gravitational influence of nearby massive bodies like gas giants). That's why the asteroids haven't coalesced into planets in the billions of years since they formed - and more to the point, that's why any 'exploded planet' can't end up being a belt, because if that influence was there to prevent the belt from recoalescing afterwards then the planet wouldn't have formed in the first place!

And look ! Just one screen scroll down, on the same exact page, is the exact method used by the ancients-massively accelerating a smaller mass into collision- resulting in a small belt, with most of the mass scattered. Not antimatter.

Your reading comprehension appears to be somewhat lacking - nowhere in that section does it mention anything about forming a belt. It specifies that if the collision is hard enough, then everything will be blasted across the inner solar system - not tidily arranged into a star-orbiting belt. If it is not, then it will largely reassemble itself into a planet, because the velocities of the fragments would not be sufficient to scatter the fragments everywhere.

So even if the Ancients smashed a near-c rock into a planet to destroy it - which admittedly is a lot easier for them to do than getting a few trillion tons of antimatter, but still just as insane in terms of overkill - you'd just end up with bits of planet scattered everywhere in the planetary system, not a nice asteroid belt where the planet once was.

 

[EDG]

Fair enough, but presumably some rubble would remain in the original orbit area -possibly velocity would be lost to secondary collisions, and further smashing would occur for those in a denser area.

I suspect that your presumption is not valid. Given the energies involved I doubt that much material would survive in the vicinity of the orbit, let alone be "slowed down" by impacts. The explosion would be relatively instantaneous compared to the planet's motion around the star - material would spread out radially from the explosion site, and those fragments would only return to that orbital zone if and when they reached the outermost points in their new (probably highly elliptical) orbits.

Depending on the manner of the explosion, there may be a relatively large fragment left behind roughly where the planet was - assuming that the fragments from an impact site on one side of the planet are the most energetic - and the impactor (or the impact cavity) burrows through the entire planet with some of its energy being absorbed along the way - the material on the opposite side of the planet from the impact site would possibly be ejected with lower energy and may be able to hang around and recoalesce as at least a size S world after a few million years. Or maybe not.

it may be that the ancients are being overapplied to any odd situation by the scientists of the third imperium.

They're not good scientists then. An artificial intervention is only required if there is evidence for such (e.g. fossils found in an asteroid belt) - if they're overapplying The Ancients Did It explanation then that means they're applying it to situations where it isn't valid. And that would be Bad Science.

One would hope that the scientific community in the OTU (and I pity the poor schmucks, given the frakked up universe they live in) would be able to filter out that kind of thing.

 

[captainjack23]

Fair enough, but presumably some rubble would remain in the original orbit area -possibly velocity would be lost to secondary collisions, and further smashing would occur for those in a denser area.

I suspect that your presumption is not valid. Given the energies involved I doubt that much material would survive in the vicinity of the orbit, let alone be "slowed down" by impacts. The explosion would be relatively instantaneous compared to the planet's motion around the star - material would spread out radially from the explosion site, and those fragments would only return to that orbital zone if and when they reached the outermost points in their new (probably highly elliptical) orbits.

Depending on the manner of the explosion, there may be a relatively large fragment left behind roughly where the planet was - assuming that the fragments from an impact site on one side of the planet are the most energetic - and the impactor (or the impact cavity) burrows through the entire planet with some of its energy being absorbed along the way - the material on the opposite side of the planet from the impact site would possibly be ejected with lower energy and may be able to hang around and recoalesce as at least a size S world after a few million years. Or maybe not.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the info. It's possible, but unlikely that there would be a debris ring in the orbit, correct ?

it may be that the ancients are being overapplied to any odd situation by the scientists of the third imperium.

They're not good scientists then. An artificial intervention is only required if there is evidence for such (e.g. fossils found in an asteroid belt) - if they're overapplying The Ancients Did It explanation then that means they're applying it to situations where it isn't valid. And that would be Bad Science.

Yes, and in fact, as we both know, science is full of exactly that kind of behavior. Unless the human condition has changed remarkably, I suspect that that kind of shoehorning will always be with us....and, as likely as not, getting the interviews on ImperialFox Network and etc.

And frankly, given how glacial technological progress is, they probably are bad scientists. No issues there.

On the other hand, its never been a point that more than a very few belts may be the result of this situation; and mostly it is an observation that the areas known to have Ancient contact also have a higher liklihood of asteroid belts. And, IIRC, there is the kind of evidence you suggest in some of the asteroid belts, (no I don't recall where); the ancients as a solution is an attempt to explain the situation; possibly a bad one. Is there a better one that could explain why there are remnants of a habitable planet in a belt ?

 

[captainjack23]

Your reading comprehension appears to be somewhat lacking - nowhere in that section does it mention anything about forming a belt. It specifies that if the collision is hard enough, then everything will be blasted across the inner solar system - not tidily arranged into a star-orbiting belt. If it is not, then it will largely reassemble itself into a planet, because the velocities of the fragments would not be sufficient to scatter the fragments everywhere.

So even if the Ancients smashed a near-c rock into a planet to destroy it - which admittedly is a lot easier for them to do than getting a few trillion tons of antimatter, but still just as insane in terms of overkill - you'd just end up with bits of planet scattered everywhere in the planetary system, not a nice asteroid belt where the planet once was.

No, you're right about the result, but at least part of the discussion was if it was even possible, or practical. You suggested Antimatter, I pointed out that the stated mechanism, C planetoids, can work. So are we in agreement there ?

As to the result not looking like a belt ? Okay. I won't belabor that point, except to repeat that they are noted as odd. Perhaps that's exactly why. What is a belt ? Um. A belt is....in traveller....a belt. What you get when you roll. It has somthing to do with sub planetary sized bodies....possibly in an orbit. No way to know, really, so its up to the reader.

 

[EDG]

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the info. It's possible, but unlikely that there would be a debris ring in the orbit, correct ?

Not really. The only way I can think of that anyone would get a debris belt in the same orbit is to literally abrade or erode the planet to nothing over several orbits around the star (like a comet is abraded, and leaves bits of itself behind on its orbit).

Any kind of explosive event wouldn't work to form a belt though.

Yes, and in fact, as we both know, science is full of exactly that kind of behavior. Unless the human condition has changed remarkably, I suspect that that kind of shoehorning will always be with us....and, as likely as not, getting the interviews on ImperialFox Network and etc.

Psuedoscience is full of that behaviour. Some does occur in science, but is usually exposed pretty rapidly as not being objective, or being tainted by an agenda.

On the other hand, its never been a point that more than a very few belts may be the result of this situation; and mostly it is an observation that the areas known to have Ancient contact also have a higher liklihood of asteroid belts.

In a realistic OTU, those should probably be retroactively changed to just being intact but barren/blasted/radioactive/greenhouse worlds.

I think people make trouble for themselves by accepting errors made by the authors (whether they're made through their ignorance or through flawed assumptions) as being part of the setting, and by continuing to accept them even when their impossibility or implausibility is pointed out.

And, IIRC, there is the kind of evidence you suggest in some of the asteroid belts, (no I don't recall where); the ancients as a solution is an attempt to explain the situation; possibly a bad one. Is there a better one that could explain why there are remnants of a habitable planet in a belt ?

We're still left with trying to find an explanation for why that formerly habitable planet is now a belt though. There's not really any point in trying to solve a superficial problem like that while ignoring the fact that it shouldn't be a belt there in the first place.

 

[captainjack23]

Psuedoscience is full of that behaviour. Some does occur in science, but is usually exposed pretty rapidly as not being objective, or being tainted by an agenda.

Possibly in the physical sciences; in the bio and social ones, it is still quite an issue, particularly with regard to behavioral theory, historical development, and etc. "One theory fits all" thinking seems to be both persistant and problematic, and hardly limited to pseudoscience. One need not have a political or religious agenda to qualify: "I am a Very Famous Tenured Professor and I Am Going To Defend My Theory to The Death, Everywhere I can Extend it" seems common enough. I doubt that that has never been the case in Planetology, but if so, you're lucky as a science.

Perhaps I'm more cynical than you. Perhaps being a scientist in the US for the last few years is part of that. ( I do cardiac medical data modeling for the feds: I could have lost my job for mouthing off about Polar Bears. I Am Not Kidding)

In a realistic OTU, those should probably be retroactively changed to just being intact but barren/blasted/radioactive/greenhouse worlds.

In a realistic OTU, asteroid belts would be the least of the changes. right ?

I think people make trouble for themselves by accepting errors made by the authors (whether they're made through their ignorance or through flawed assumptions) as being part of the setting, and by continuing to accept them even when their impossibility or implausibility is pointed out.

..okay. If that's their goal, I guess so. On the other hand, gaming products that are constantly revising seem to have real problems; which would be one consequence of keeping up with explosive growth in physical sciences. Which is why, I think, Traveller hasn't ever been sold as "realistic" . "Closer to realism than fantasy", perhaps; "based on a snapshot of science" even; or more honestly, "based on harder fiction of a particular genre and period"; or even, "farther from fantasy than Star Wars".

And, IIRC, there is the kind of evidence you suggest in some of the asteroid belts, (no I don't recall where); the ancients as a solution is an attempt to explain the situation; possibly a bad one. Is there a better one that could explain why there are remnants of a habitable planet in a belt ?

We're still left with trying to find an explanation for why that formerly habitable planet is now a belt though. There's not really any point in trying to solve a superficial problem like that while ignoring the fact that it shouldn't be a belt there in the first place.

Again, that's never been clearly the issue. The comment is that there are more belts, not belts in weird places. And frankly, I'm not sure how specific the actual descriptions of the final war were in describing the results of planet busting. Any help here from canonmasters ?

Like I said, I'm not going to touch the motivation issue -well, perhaps a bit. Rubbling a planet may be needed if the goal is to absolutely positively kill one particular well hidden and defended near godlike being with unknown capabilities, as opposed to just killing his army/factories, etc.

In B5 , the Uber races were willing to do it to destroy ideas, and the collateral damage was as irrelevent to them as killing benign bacteria when fighting an infection. Centauri prime was threatened with rubblization simply because there was one "shadow corrupted" person on it.

For them, one surviving person with an idea can be an amazing threat, and rightly so if you look at history. It may apply to the final war.

 

[Jeff Hopper]

You know, considering the robustness of Ancient technology, I can easily see some Ancient enclaves surviving an initial Near-C Rock attack. I can also easily see Grandfather being thorough enough to make follow-up attacks on surviving enclaves at different times along the debris cloud's orbit to destroy those enclaves.

I know those would create what would not be considered a normal planetoid belt, but it would help to spread the debris around.

The results of a successful one-shot, one-kill Near-C Rock attack would look like what after 300,000 years? A thick swarm of hot asteroids? Something like the fanciful dense tumbling asteroid fields from Star Wars or Star Trek?

 

[kristof65]

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the info. It's possible, but unlikely that there would be a debris ring in the orbit, correct ?

Not really. The only way I can think of that anyone would get a debris belt in the same orbit is to literally abrade or erode the planet to nothing over several orbits around the star (like a comet is abraded, and leaves bits of itself behind on its orbit).

Actually, that sounds like a cool idea. Some sort of Ancient mega-machine that for unknown reasons starts scooping up huge chunks of planet and shooting them into space.

Or some sort of "force field" device that gets injected into the core of a planet, and expands to "hollow out" the world, until such point that tidal forces rip the planet apart.

 

[EDG]

In a realistic OTU, asteroid belts would be the least of the changes. right ?

It'd be one of the changes required to make it realistic. I wouldn't want to put any kind of value statement on it though.

..okay. If that's their goal, I guess so. On the other hand, gaming products that are constantly revising seem to have real problems; which would be one consequence of keeping up with explosive growth in physical sciences.

Planetary science was literally in its infancy when Traveller was first written in 1977 Viking had just landed on Mars, the Pioneers hadn't really told us much that was useful about Jupiter, and the Voyagers hadn't even got to Jupiter yet. Astrophysics was similarly largely based on earth-bound observations, and telescope technology was still pretty primitive. Even in 1983 (when Book 6 was published) not much had changed there - we were still trying to figure out what the Voyagers told us about Jupiter and Saturn, and some results were coming back from the Venera probes and Pioneer Venus.

So if there's one field in which Traveller looks like it was written in the stone ages, it's Astronomy.

Which is why, I think, Traveller hasn't ever been sold as "realistic" . "Closer to realism than fantasy", perhaps; "based on a snapshot of science" even; or more honestly, "based on harder fiction of a particular genre and period"; or even, "farther from fantasy than Star Wars".

If Book 6 hadn't existed, you may have a point - but they clearly tried to inject some realism into the game with the Astronomical Data in that. However, they got formulae wrong, the star generation was statistically broken, and they evidently didn't understand a lot of what they included (the star mass table for example - you don't need star masses for anything other than size V and VI stars because all the other star sizes listed there are derived from those). Nevertheless, with that attempt, Traveller became something that was sold as "realistic".

Again, that's never been clearly the issue. The comment is that there are more belts, not belts in weird places. And frankly, I'm not sure how specific the actual descriptions of the final war were in describing the results of planet busting. Any help here from canonmasters ?

If there's just "more belts", then that's down to planetary formation issues (because presumably, there'd be gas giants in appropriate places to cause and maintain those belts).

Like I said, I'm not going to touch the motivation issue -well, perhaps a bit. Rubbling a planet may be needed if the goal is to absolutely positively kill one particular well hidden and defended near godlike being with unknown capabilities, as opposed to just killing his army/factories, etc.

The motivation issue fails at square one for me though. If Grandfather didn't want his kids around, he could have just moved to somewhere else in the supposedly lifeless galaxy instead of starting a war of annihilation that wiped out and/or damaged entire biospheres. But then Grandfather was clearly psychotic anyway.

In B5 , the Uber races were willing to do it to destroy ideas, and the collateral damage was as irrelevent to them as killing benign bacteria when fighting an infection. Centauri prime was threatened with rubblization simply because there was one "shadow corrupted" person on it.

For them, one surviving person with an idea can be an amazing threat, and rightly so if you look at history. It may apply to the final war.

Using fiction to justify other fiction isn't exactly convincing... but you'll note that the minor races in B5 also thought that the Vorlons and the Shadows were frakking insane and told them to naff out out of the galaxy (course they only listened because the First One was there too - otherwise they would have just swatted them down and continued to destroy the galaxy).

 

[captainjack23]

Which is why, I think, Traveller hasn't ever been sold as "realistic" . "Closer to realism than fantasy", perhaps; "based on a snapshot of science" even; or more honestly, "based on harder fiction of a particular genre and period"; or even, "farther from fantasy than Star Wars".

If Book 6 hadn't existed, you may have a point - but they clearly tried to inject some realism into the game with the Astronomical Data in that. [snip] Nevertheless, with that attempt, Traveller became something that was sold as "realistic".

No, not really. I don't recall it being advertised as anything other than a game. And, unless you are older or had more to do with CT than I think you've said, neither do you. As well argue it they tried to inject some fascistic ideology due to Mercenary, or Nautical lore due to high guard, or 1980's MBA amorality due to merchant. So, book 6 exists, and I have a point and they were wrong....so ? Just shows how tricky, and often trouble causing it can be to, you know, show too much far behind the curtain.

In any case, it isn't binary, despite your attempt to paint it as such. One can model realism while not intending to achieve it, and still have a fine product that does what it intends to.

I really think that you paid too much attention to the old TML, and someone sold you a line of BS -so where does that come from, anyway ? An advert from GDW ? An email or statement from....anyone associated with creating or marketing traveller ? Perhaps a press release stating that it was intended to be utterly realistic and accurate ? Some bitter old Grognard on the list that you decided not to despise and instead believe ?

So, unless, as you always say, you can show me the proof, let's move on from the Realism Uber Alles argument, okay ? Otherwise, you may as well condemn it for not including elves. Okay, yeah Darrians. Dragons maybe ? Howbout for not being faithful to Tolkein's vision ? What a Hack that Marc is. Ignoring Tom Bombadil. Bastich.....

Again, that's never been clearly the issue. The comment is that there are more belts, not belts in weird places. And frankly, I'm not sure how specific the actual descriptions of the final war were in describing the results of planet busting. Any help here from canonmasters ?

If there's just "more belts", then that's down to planetary formation issues (because presumably, there'd be gas giants in appropriate places to cause and maintain those belts).

Exactly. So there are belts that don't fit what is expected: Scientist looks at a system, says...hmmm. Either we misunderstand planetary formation...or....oh hey. Look. Fossils ? The hell ?

So, then, you've successfully explained why they don't fit, and why they would stand out. And why scientists would strain at an explanation. Other than that you don't like the fiction, or the fictional conclusion presented, what is your point ? That they don't exist in the OTU ? I know they do, I've rolled them....That we shouldn't use the word Belt ? Okay, good. Lets agree to do that. What do you prefer ?

That they should...never have been mentioned ? Well, possibly, but let me know when you can operationalize that, okay ? I've got some way more important historical events or writing you may want to deal with first. Oh, say , "the protocalls of the elders of Zion". Or maybe the report downgrading the Al-Cada threat issued by the incoming administration in 2000 ? Yeah, lets start there. Its closer, anyway.

Hell, if we are limited to trivial fictional issues, we could start with a couple of Lucases Starwars scripts.....

Like I said, I'm not going to touch the motivation issue -well, perhaps a bit. Rubbling a planet may be needed if the goal is to absolutely positively kill one possibly well hidden and defended near godlike being with unknown capabilities, as opposed to just killing his army/factories, etc.

The motivation issue fails at square one for me though. If Grandfather didn't want his kids around, he could have just moved to somewhere else in the supposedly lifeless galaxy instead of starting a war of annihilation that wiped out and/or damaged entire biospheres. But then Grandfather was clearly psychotic anyway.

So, okay.....he's an alien, an unique alien, an unique supergenius alien with access to godlike technology, and probably with equally unique and alien morality and ethics, and probably sees the rest of everyone everywhere as bugs, except for his kids, which are dangerous bugs; but sure, lets call him psychotic and then complain that doesn't act logically. Hmmm. And so your position is that the scenario is unbelievable and foolish because his behavior is ...unbelievable because....it isn't the best way to do it...and he's ...crazy. OOoookay. Again, your problem with the scenario is ?

In B5 [snip]

Using fiction to justify other fiction isn't exactly convincing...

It's as sensible as using personal opinion to critique motivation, I'm sorry to say. And probably more so. Although, your proposition that Grandfather was psychotic goes a long way towards undermining your point that the whole scenario makes no sense, so thanks for that

Besides- if you can push through your apparent distaste for fictionalizing real questions (Aka allegory), my point is the issue, not the TV show or the funny rubber aliens. How exactly would one destroy an idea ? Or, in this case, a super intelligent, vastly powerful being who has had lots of time to plan, and was intended to think out of the box....He didn't just leave them and go away, possibly because he couldn't be sure that they wouldn't find him....and...well..wax him first, perhaps ? "If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don't talk. "

Or....the other side. Possibly because he decided that they were a Bad Idea? Perhaps he felt that their tinkering was likely to wreck everything, or simply just turn the galaxy into a living hell. That he had made a terrible mistake, was vastly outnumbered, and almost out-thought and needing to stop them now, irrecoverably, before they killed him and squabbled over the remains ?

And maybe he was just raised to clean up his toys before he went to bed.

I like the addition suggested above - shatter the planet, then smash the remains. Grind it down. Use nanotech to break up all the big bits. Throw antimatter dust at the remains; leave a system to fry anything that still moves with a solar flare. Whatever.

but you'll note that the minor races in B5 also thought that the Vorlons and the Shadows were frakking insane and told them to naff out out of the galaxy (course they only listened because the First One was there too - otherwise they would have just swatted them down and continued to destroy the galaxy).

Yes, and so, again, we see that crazy people don't always act as you think a rational person should. And so, their story is unlikely. Like WW2. Or jack the ripper. Or the guy with the tinfoil hats.

Why did he do it that way ? Dunno. Why did Hitler invade Russia ? Dunno. Why did the mental patient smash monitor that was filling his brain with Martian messages, during his sanity hearing ? Dunno. Why did jack the ripper make such a mess and leave messages (or not) ? Dunno. Same reason perhaps. CRAZY.


So lets cut to the chase here:

You dislike the story, and want to critique it. Okay, good. Stories generally need that. You could point out what a tired cliche of 70's SF we have in grandfather - or how the Mad Alien Supervillain is barely passable even in comicbooks any more; or how it was obviously a quick fix to the whole ancient issue before the whole publication strategy changed...or just condemn it as the lazy or poorly imagined writing or fanservice that it may well be, and frankly you'd be on the unassailable grounds of literary criticism .....and, and I know this important to you, I'd largely agree about the whole grandfather issue.

but...critiquing a fictional characters irrational motivation as proof of how broken this whole issue is, while simultaneously insisting he's mental ? And that the Belts that are artificial couldn't form because they....wouldn't form naturally ? And what logical reason would a crazy person have for doing it anyway ? Seems...less effective as an argument.

Now. Remember, I haven't insulted you, psychoanalyzed your motives or put words in your mouth, as you have repeatedly complained about me doing previously. Nor am I particularly baiting you: as you point out, you brought up the issue. And I haven't been any more dismissive of your ideas than you have been of mine or others. If, however, I am being Mr Facetious, hey, this situation, a completely hypothetical argument about the motivations of a non existent alien in a 30 year old gaming backstory deserves to be discussed lightly. Besides, I cannot help it. I'm a droll fellow, or so I know from one who knows me better than you - namely, myself.*

Fire back, and we can move on, perhaps to some other equally pleasant issue, like Empty Hex jumps and Lesbian Aslan.

Or, omit the firing back, if you're as tired of this as I suspect many of us are.

*yes, stolen from Henry V. My hubris knows no bounds.

 

[EDG]

No, not really.

Yes, really. The attempt at realism shows that the designers cared enough about it to try to include it there. Subsequent editions of Traveller have also included similarly detailed attempts (e.g. World Builders Handbook, and GT:First In) and the expanded system generation rules were also in MT and TNE. Expanded system generation and attempted physical realism have always been a part of Traveller, whether you admit it or not.

Exactly. So there are belts that don't fit what is expected: Scientist looks at a system, says...hmmm. Either we misunderstand planetary formation...or....oh hey. Look. Fossils ? The hell ?

I think you spectacularly missed my point, as usual. If, as I suspect, it is impossible to destroy a planet in such a way as to form an asteroid belt made up of its fragments that are scattered around its former orbit, then there can't be any "extra belts".

If there are just "more belts than usual" then it's because the systems there are arranged in such a way as to naturally produce more belts than usual (i.e. by having gas giants in the right orbits that would prevent planets from forming in what are now "belt zones").


I don't really care enough about Grandfather to argue with you further about it. Maybe Grandfather was so crazy as to personally go around scrubbing all of his descendants from existence and then he meticulously spread around the fragments of their planets around their former orbits for good measure.

Either way, the Major Races in Charted Space need to be very afraid of Grandfather. In fact, they should be making every effort to ensure that he remains trapped in his pocket universe - if not making more efforts to find a way to destroy it and him along with it. Because if he ever returns to Charted Space, the genocides that he would inflict would be beyond anything ever seen in the Traveller timeline.

I always thought that'd make a great campaign - the PCs uncover a very specific Grandfather-killing weapon (e.g. something tied to his specific genetic code or psionic signature) that one of the Grandchildren made but never got round to using before he was himself killed by him. And slowly they discover just how dangerous he is, and set out to track him down and destroy him. And ultimately they succeed (while being hunted down by Grandfather's agents/observers/cultists). For added irony - the weapon destroys every droyne and chirper in the universe as a side-effect too, in an unstoppable droyne-specific psionic blast wave spreading out through jumpspace at J1 speeds.

 

[Vile]

Nevertheless, with that attempt, Traveller became something that was sold as "realistic".

No, not really. I don't recall it being advertised as anything other than a game.

<nose clips in place, a few dabs of goose fat, and he dives in>

There seem to be few, if any, references within the CT rules regarding the intended level realism (or 'hardness') of the game. The question has either been scrupulously avoided, or it never occurred to the writers. I'm not sure when SF was split into 'hard' and 'soft' categories, but maybe CT is old enough to predate the concept. It seems to me (that's an IMO, there) that Traveller has been labelled as 'hard' by its fanbase and not by any official policy.

However, it is evident that some level of research into science and technology went into writing the rules (in some cases moreso than with MGT, it has to be said). There was clearly an attempt to make the rules as realistic as practicable (not the same as 'realistic as possible'). I could see how I would struggle writing LBB6, even with the magic of the interweb to help me. Nevertheless, I would venture to say that CT strives to be what we would consider Hard SF today, in some ways more successfully than in others. And I personally will do anything I can to make things more realistic IMTU, when I know better or when broken bits are pointed out to me.

Now, back on topic - if Ancients blew up worlds (crazy psychos), all those 'planetoid belts' not inside a gas giant's orbit should be replaced with a bunch (1D? 2D?) of S-sized worlds in ... oh no ... non-standard orbits!

Izzat right?

Dragons maybe?

The OTU has Dragonewts - scouts, warriors, priests and winged nobles, the whole shebang. One of these days one of those winged nobles is going to follow the path of the True Dragon ... :lol:

 

[EDG]

Now, back on topic - if Ancients blew up worlds (crazy psychos), all those 'planetoid belts' not inside a gas giant's orbit should be replaced with a bunch (1D? 2D?) of S-sized worlds in ... oh no ... non-standard orbits!

Izzat right?

I suspect you'd get a load of size S objects radiating out from the planet's former location (if it was completely shattered) - effectively they'd now be on extremely eccentric orbits around the star itself. Eventually - if the planet did not explode with enough force for the fragments to reach stellar escape velocity - the fragments would reach their aphelion and swing back in toward the star, presumably while being affected by the gravity of other planets. I think what you'd really get is a horrible mess of planet-crossing asteroids at all sorts of eccentricities and inclincations, flying around the inner system in nothing as ordered as a belt.

If I can figure out a way to do it gravsim I'll try to run a sim of it and see what happens.

 

[AKAramis]

EDG: it's pretty easy *IF* the grav-sim you have doesn't have the calculation flaw most of the free ones do...

find your stable orbital system. pick planet. edit so that you now have 10 chunks, say one at 30% mass, two at 20%, 3 at 10%, and 4 at 5%, and give them random adjustments of, say 1% of orbital velocity in a random direction.

All: It was pointed out several years ago (during the T20 playtest) that Book 6 didn't even use current tables for the time of its writing, but tables that were out of date by several years.

I suspect, as with most of the "realism" in early 1980's games, it was a veneer of realism, not a patina... an intentional "make it look like we know what we're talking about" rather than a genuine attempt to get it right by the model of the day.

 

[Stattick]

What the heck is "size S"? Is that something from a previous version of Trav, or something that's in the corebook, but not in the playtest?


*Soo hates being poor... less then a week now before I can afford the pdf corebook*

 

[captainjack23]

EDG: it's pretty easy *IF* the grav-sim you have doesn't have the calculation flaw most of the free ones do...

find your stable orbital system. pick planet. edit so that you now have 10 chunks, say one at 30% mass, two at 20%, 3 at 10%, and 4 at 5%, and give them random adjustments of, say 1% of orbital velocity in a random direction.

How bout tweaking the vectors so most of the crap is thrown out into extrasolar space ? What does that look like ?

What do we get when you whack a planet with another one, and then make every effort to maximize the damage ? Let me know if it can model that.

EDG: The problem here, is that you are using random, non-instrumental events to insist that intelligent meddling is impossible. Thus: a planet cannot naturally collide with another and produce a belt like that described by a non-natural, instrumental intervention; therefore, the belt cannot exist, and the mechanism of intervention is nonsensical.

So, from this, we see that as water cannot flow uphill under naturalistic conditions, a farm, on a dry plateau, cannot exist, and the concept of pumps is nonsensical.
(having weeded that damn farm in summer, for my grandfather, I am doubtful of the conclusion)

Alternately, your contention is this: A belt is observed that is impossible to explain by naturalistic models. Therefore, it does not exist. Now sit down, Mr. Gallileo.

I put to you that framing the dynamics of a natural event is grossly different than framing an event contaminated by intelligent intention. A natural planetary impact has no intent to kill anyone, and can be described fairly reliably. An attack intended to destroy, will likely have a very different profile, and result. Intent -by intelligent design-, is vastly different; it is still amenable to observational analysis, but not in the same way, or by the same logic that a naturalistic event is. Get it ? Mind screws up everything, even events with superficial similarities.

All: It was pointed out several years ago (during the T20 playtest) that Book 6 didn't even use current tables for the time of its writing, but tables that were out of date by several years.

I suspect, as with most of the "realism" in early 1980's games, it was a veneer of realism, not a patina... an intentional "make it look like we know what we're talking about" rather than a genuine attempt to get it right by the model of the day.

Thanks for pointing that out. It sounds like at best it was experimental, and at worst was essentially a fanservice. It's always a mistake in a story to try to put in explanations that doesn't advance the plot, or frills just to look clever. I'm coming to believe that about game design.

I guess we can just work from the assumption that perfect accuracy isn't as much a priority for the authors as it is for some of us, no matter how much we want it to be.

And I'm still pissed at Marc for ignoring Tom Bombadil. :evil:

EDG: And besides, you're just putting intent into their mouths so you can pillory it. Show me the ad copy, message or interview that states their intent being as you describe it. Or your Psionic registration card. One or t' other, please.

 

[captainjack23]

What the heck is "size S"? Is that something from a previous version of Trav, or something that's in the corebook, but not in the playtest?

Yeah, it's from an earlier version I think it means "Small" Which means that they are less than -I guess, 1000 miles diameter, but more than....0 ?

It speaks to a level of detail that MGT obviously, and intentionally, wanted to avoid. And I'm fine with that, let me add. The benefit of not really defining a size for aster/planetoids or describing belts in detail is thatfor 99.9% of those who play traveller, it avoids massive detail and opinion arguments like the one we're in here.

*Soo hates being poor... less then a week now before I can afford the pdf corebook*

If it wasn't piracy, I'd send you a copy of mine...... :?