Real data on star sytems

[sideranautae]

Does anyone know if any of the nearby star systems have been found to NOT have any gas giants? I'm starting to create my system gen tables. I know that they are found from the inner orbits all the way out.

 

[sideranautae]

I did find out this: "But gas giants aren’t missing; they just tend to cling to their parent stars in a close orbit. And this lack of distant gas giant planets is apparent across all sizes and types of stars."

So, my gen will have most GGs in the inner orbits. Inside the stars jump shadow. Interesting indeed.

So much for "High Guard".

 

[GypsyComet]

If true, and combined with EDG's recent discussion about the magnetic fields of gas giants, then the old DGP data for Spica is actually more correct than the rest. Irony.

Not that I care. I prefer a healthy dose of fiction in my Science Fiction. That the real universe does not appear to support the speculation of 40s thru 70s SF is only a concern to those who want it to be a concern.

 

[Reynard]

Using the Near Star List for 2300 and a few other sources at the time, I found many close stars make lousy homes for planets all flarey and such. It doesn't help they have yet to find any planets other than GGs around the stars in our neighborhood. That said, I let the flare stars sit and just used Traveller rules on the rest otherwise Earth would be so alone.

Not sure if it still exists but there was the Astrogator's Handbook ( www.scifi-az.com )with real data for the science fiction writers in mind.

 

[sideranautae]

It doesn't help they have yet to find any planets other than GGs around the stars in our neighborhood.

That's not correct. In the last few years MANY have been found in this area. They are harder to spot as they are much less massive.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I prefer a healthy dose of fiction in my Science Fiction. That the real universe does not appear to support the speculation of 40s thru 70s SF is only a concern to those who want it to be a concern.

Fair enough. But we are living in the golden age of astronomy RIGHT NOW and it seems a shame to ignore all of the amazing things discovered over the past decade.

Heck, only twenty years ago we thought we had discovered all of the major bodies in our own solar system - it was only a few mavericks like Mike Brown who suspected that there might be more large objects out in the Kuiper belt. And we didn't have any solid data about planets beyond our solar system until 1988 - we speculated that they might exist, but there wasn't any real proof until the exoplanet orbiting Gamma Cephei was detected and the discovery was confirmed. The first planet orbiting a main sequence star was not detected until 1995 (51 Pegasi). And the range of exoplanets found so far is simply mindboggling - we've found hot jupiters, carbon planets, planets orbiting pulsars, and even more amazing things. If you are at all interested in the universe beyond our world, this is an incredible time to be alive!

IMHO, it's a pity that the Traveller world generation system doesn't reflect this diversity. That's fine if you view it simply as a retro-SF game that sets out to capture the feel of pulp SF from the 1940s through to the early 1960s, but if you want to see it grow as the premier SF game it needs to simulate the full range of environments that we are discovering. Or else it risks being relegated to the position of a mere historical curiosity...

 

[sideranautae]

IMHO, it's a pity that the Traveller world generation system doesn't reflect this diversity. That's fine if you view it simply as a retro-SF game that sets out to capture the feel of pulp SF from the 1940s through to the early 1960s, but if you want to see it grow as the premier SF game it needs to simulate the full range of environments that we are discovering. Or else it risks being relegated to the position of a mere historical curiosity...

Correct. I'm trying to attract new players. Which is why I'm updating the game. The number of people who currently play Trav is miniscule compared to the major RPG's. It wasn't always thus.

 

[Prime_Evil]

It doesn't help they have yet to find any planets other than GGs around the stars in our neighborhood.

That's not correct. In the last few years MANY have been found in this area. They are harder to spot as they are much less massive.

In October 2012, the team running the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher (HARP) in Chile detected an Earth-sized planet orbiting Alpha Centauri B. This detection has not yet been confirmed and is still waiting for the Hubble Telescope to detect a planetary transit of the host star....

 

[Anonymous]

The trouble with updating a poorly aged system is you have to be pretty sure that what you're updating to is future proof or else in a few months or years it looks as dated as the system you had outgrown. If it's true that we're in the Golden Age of Astronomy then prepare to revise what you do today real soon.

Everything becomes dated once written down. Writing it down solidifies it in that moment and dooms it to stasis. Maybe some things improve with age but technology? No, not really.

EDG has put a lot of work into updating the 2300 Near Star List. Was it really worth it? You'd have to ask him but the new stars discovered broke the arms as written in the game and if you use them you need to rewrite the history of colonisation.

There is another aspect of this to ponder, as we discover new stars and their associated planets we're also seeing that the older data on known stars isn't accurate. Expect the information we have on our local stars to change in the next 10 years.

I agree with Gypsy Comet here, as much as I want my sci-fi based on what we know and can predict as accurately as possible the fact remains that at the moment, predicting anything further in the future than a generation is a fiction and with that, it can be whatever the players and GM want it to be.

 

[Prime_Evil]

The trouble with updating a poorly aged system is you have to be pretty sure that what you're updating to is future proof or else in a few months or years it looks as dated as the system you had outgrown. If it's true that we're in the Golden Age of Astronomy then prepare to revise what you do today real soon.

That's true to an extent, but I expect future discoveries will build on what we have discovered rather than replace our accumulated knowledge entirely. It's always possible that we may find something that completely invalidates everything that we know, but fairly unlikely. We're starting to develop a good picture of the distribution of planets within our galaxy and are starting to develop classification schemes for the different categories of exoplanets.

Traveller was designed at an interesting time when the current revolution in astronomy was just starting. So it's right at the cusp of a revolution in the way that we think about other worlds.

Everything becomes dated once written down. Writing it down solidifies it in that moment and dooms it to stasis. Maybe some things improve with age but technology? No, not really.

It's a truism that science fiction is really about the time when it was written than the time when it is set. But even at the time when it was written, Traveller was quite reactionary. GDW first published Traveller in 1977, but the main literary influences on it were from the 1950s and 1960s. The OTU was built on nostalgia for the kind of old-school science fiction reflected in the works of Poul Anderson, A. Bertram Chandler, E.C. Tubb, H. Beam Piper, et al - there's nothing wrong with that per se, but it is a mistake to assume that the official setting ever attempted to grapple with a realistic future. It's noteworthy that the game was released right at the time when the New Wave movement was winding down within SF, but it carefully avoids engaging with any of the ideas raised by that movement.

EDG has put a lot of work into updating the 2300 Near Star List. Was it really worth it? You'd have to ask him but the new stars discovered broke the arms as written in the game and if you use them you need to rewrite the history of colonisation.

This exercise has some inherent interest in its own right, but it exposes one of the great divisions within Traveller fandom - those who treat published canon as immutable and those who expect it to be updated in light of later discoveries. I don't blame the authors of the original 2300 AD game for getting some things wrong. They built a great game that used the data available to them to great effect. But should future versions of the setting stick with material that has been overtaken by subsequent discoveries or should it be revised in light of those discoveries? There's no right or wrong answer here - its largely a matter of personal preference.

But surely any claim to be a hard SF setting must be based upon a reasonable level of adherence to the state of scientific knowledge at the time of publication?

There is another aspect of this to ponder, as we discover new stars and their associated planets we're also seeing that the older data on known stars isn't accurate. Expect the information we have on our local stars to change in the next 10 years.

Certainly. And I'd expect future versions of Traveller set in our local stellar neighborhood to take these changes into consideration. But I think it's fair to say that most Traveller campaigns are set far enough away that discoveries about the nearest stars are not going to matter that much.

I agree with Gypsy Comet here, as much as I want my sci-fi based on what we know and can predict as accurately as possible the fact remains that at the moment, predicting anything further in the future than a generation is a fiction and with that, it can be whatever the players and GM want it to be.

The problem with this point of view is that it can lead to a failure of imagination. Traveller doesn't grapple with a realistic future - it completely ignores potentially transformative technologies such as biotech, nanotech, ubiquitous computing, cybernetics, etc. I don't think this is an accident. Futures that include these elements are unlikely to lead to kind of nostalgic SF setting that many players seem to prefer. But modern literary SF has moved on and there are dozens of authors producing excellent space opera now that has a contemporary feel - Alastair Reynolds, Peter F. Hamilton, Iain M. Banks, Neal Asher, Ken MacLeod, etc. Why can't Traveller simulate these kinds of futures too? Why must it be locked into a backward-looking vision built on the ideas of a previous generation?

 

[GypsyComet]

Why can't Traveller simulate these kinds of futures too? Why must it be locked into a backward-looking vision built on the ideas of a previous generation?

So start a new setting. Just as the Third Imperium setting is 50s to 70s SF, and 2300AD is 80s SF, there is no fundamental obstacle to creating a new setting that reflects this generation of SF and/or reality as we currently know it. BUT just like the 3I and 2300AD, that setting will be built on a set of assumptions that will not age well.

Accept that a setting is a snapshot. As already noted, 2300AD doesn't tolerate the changes in our understanding since it was first released, and the Imperium is built on the idea that our solar system is typical in many ways. Change either assumption and the settings break. Sometimes badly. The solution is to not change those assumptions. Create anew, and leave the nostalgia to its own devices.

 

[dragoner]

And remember, the biggest SF RPG by far, is Star Wars.

 

[Reynard]

The latest Star Wars game, as well as its predecessors, are prime examples of simplistic science fantasy with little to no real science most especially concerning world building. Star Trek and those associated RPGs run a close second. Traveller players and GMs at least make an effort to put a bit of real science in their fiction. This topic is an example. Won't see most Star War campaigns based on the real universe, any real universe.

 

[Reynard]

"That's not correct. In the last few years MANY have been found in this area. They are harder to spot as they are much less massive."

Problem again is these 'earth like' worlds are off the scale super terrans that are not really habitable. If the real data shows a universe of flare stars and super terrans then we are truly unique and alone. Traveller games are relegated to non-jump insystem campaigns which isn't bad in itself considering so many sci fi stories. Personally, I'll take a little Buck Rogers retro and explore a huge galaxy.

 

[Anonymous]

Sid, you may find this thread helpful: http://www.sfrpg-discussion.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=1358&p=18570&hilit=Gliese+581#p18570

 

[Prime_Evil]

So start a new setting.

This is exactly what I've been doing

Just as the Third Imperium setting is 50s to 70s SF, and 2300AD is 80s SF, there is no fundamental obstacle to creating a new setting that reflects this generation of SF and/or reality as we currently know it. BUT just like the 3I and 2300AD, that setting will be built on a set of assumptions that will not age well.

You don't think that it is possible to create a setting that advances at roughly the same rate as the SF genre itself?

For example, I appreciate the Third Imperium for what it is, but wonder whether the Fourth Imperium could grow into something different that reflects the differences between 'Golden Age' SF and contemporary SF. Leave the Third Imperium alone for the times when you want to play something based upon that style of SF, but do something different with the Fourth Imperium. I think it would be a wasted opportunity if the 1248 era ends up being just a rehash of what has gone before.

Accept that a setting is a snapshot. As already noted, 2300AD doesn't tolerate the changes in our understanding since it was first released, and the Imperium is built on the idea that our solar system is typical in many ways. Change either assumption and the settings break. Sometimes badly. The solution is to not change those assumptions. Create anew, and leave the nostalgia to its own devices.

While it's certainly true that every setting is a snapshot, the art of retcon is certainly alive and well in SF fandom

Also, I don't know that changing the underlying assumptions necessarily invalidates what has come before provided that the update is done with sensitivity to the 'feel' of the original.

For example, the assumption that our solar system is typical in many ways is not completely false - we are starting to get a better glimpse of the statistical distribution of different planet types and it is clear that early detection methods were biased towards large gas giants close to their stellar primary simply because they were far easier to detect. It takes time to detect smaller planets via the transit method - the earth takes a full year to occlude it's star from the vantage point of a distant observer and the dip in the star's light curve is so slight that you want to see it pass two or three times before you decide that it really is a planet. I can imagine retconning the Third Imperium setting to declare that a range of different exoplanet types are out there, but humans only tend to settle in those systems with characteristics similar to Earth. Each subsector might contain dozens of systems of minimal interest to humans because the difficulty of colonising them isn't worth the effort. Alternatively, you could declare that colonisation usually includes a terraforming phase that isn't reflected in the source material to date...

 

[sideranautae]

There is another aspect of this to ponder, as we discover new stars and their associated planets we're also seeing that the older data on known stars isn't accurate. Expect the information we have on our local stars to change in the next 10 years.

Not at all relevant to what I'm doing. I'm not foolish enough to base my game on Earth. Or, even this part of the galaxy. The most successful Space RPG doesn't either. Why walk into that trap? Think

That this idea causes extreme consternation amongst most Trav fans responding tells me, that from a Mktg standpoint, it is the right direction... :mrgreen:

 

[GypsyComet]

You don't think that it is possible to create a setting that advances at roughly the same rate as the SF genre itself?

That isn't Real Life? No, not really. Any SF setting depends on interpretation of the available technology and environment. That's what SF is about. As soon as that interpretation hits paper, you've locked those technological and environmental assumptions in place.

2300AD depends on a particular FTL technology and the arrangement of local stars to hang its setting on. Recent Astronomy discoveries change the arrangement of local stars, by adding a potentially endless and ubiquitous array of brown Dwarf stars and rogue planets between visible stars, that blows away the setting's assumption of Arms that intermix (and CAN intermix) only at or near Earth. The setting ceases to work, and in fact would never have worked. You can't simply "discover" Brown Dwarf stars halfway through the timeline since we're already finding them now, 300 years prior.

The Third Imperium depends on classic SF understanding of planetology and a "common biosphere" assumption. If you adjust the setting to account for what we have seen in exoplanets to date, the shirtsleeve worlds drop to a handful per sector, if that. Comprehensible alien life vanishes. Adventures go almost entirely indoors since most colonies are on airless rockballs. There are no friendly moons of gas giants, and nearly any gas giant is trying to kill you during a fuel skim in ways that make Jupiter look lazy. The entirety of the Three Imperiums' history becomes quite different.

This is why I generally support the updates that strengthen the settings (like removing most of the Dwarf stars from the Primary positions, stripping the tiny rockballs of their improbably air, etc) but really have no use for the updates that invalidate 35 years of work. If you are going to do that, go play in your own sandbox instead. Examine the technology and environmental limits anew, and come up with a setting that matches them.

 

[Anonymous]

That isn't Real Life?
<snip>

Good post!

 

[dragoner]

Traveller players and GMs at least make an effort to put a bit of real science in their fiction. This topic is an example. Won't see most Star War campaigns based on the real universe, any real universe.

True, but trav still misses the mark, and you know what? It's ok. It is like vehicle or spacecraft armor doesn't work the way the game supposes, or that the original iteration of T5 did away with turns and hit points in combat, until people exploded, so much for more realism. But usually when people say they are making it more real, they are just moving the handwaves around.