TL-16 Aslan world?

[Sigtrygg]

Who had a higher TL? The Mayans or the Iron-Age Celts? Mayans didn't have forges, the Iron-Age Celts did. They could have build forges. They had the tech to do so, just didn't develop them. Forges were developed from kilns. Mayans fired their pottery at much lower temperatures and therefore never developed the forge which is a requirement of ironworking. Traveller says that they are both the same TL, but without ironworking, many things are not possible, not just the making of swords and armor. Same with technologies like Jump Drives and gravitics.

BTW... Sig, Nice write up. Well explained and thought out.

Who advanced to the next TL, the iron age Celts or the Mayans? The Mayans, like many cultures, didn't make the breakthroughs, didn't synergise their discoveries to make more progress.
The Chinese never invented glass, as a result they could never invent the telescope or microscope, despite having the technological base to do so.

The history of science and technology is well worth studying - I was inspired by James Burke's Connections program and book.

Connections (British TV series) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MasterGwydion]

Who advanced to the next TL, the iron age Celts or the Mayans? The Mayans, like many cultures, didn't make the breakthroughs, didn't synergise their discoveries to make more progress.
The Chinese never invented glass, as a result they could never invent the telescope or microscope, despite having the technological base to do so.

The history of science and technology is well worth studying - I was inspired by James Burke's Connections program and book.

Connections (British TV series) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree completely, and that is the problem. If, we are going to use a game mechanic, like Tech Level, then it needs to mean something. If I see a TL-12 world, it should be jump-capable, no exceptions. If you want exceptions, then TL needs broken down by general fields of study or in some other way. That way, they may be TL-15 in Computers or FTL, but only TL-13 in Material Science. No idea what the divisions of study should be, but that would be the only way to make that workable. Another problem that would create or make worse, is that Mongoose would have to decide which technologies rely on which previous advances. They already do this to some degree, but this would increase that by a lot. So, maybe not a good thing. No idea.

Edit - This also only applies to civilizations developing in a vacuum. If a low-tech society has access to a high-tech society, the missing gaps in their knowledge go away and they can produce fully at the TL. Like the non-jumpdrive-having aliens. If they were given a jumpdrive and had the TL to build it, then they would have no problem doing so after an adaptation period.

 

[WHULorigan]

Edit - This also only applies to civilizations developing in a vacuum. If a low-tech society has access to a high-tech society, the missing gaps in their knowledge go away and they can produce fully at the TL. Like the non-jumpdrive-having aliens. If they were given a jumpdrive and had the TL to build it, then they would have no problem doing so after an adaptation period.

And this is also something to keep in mind when detailing worlds in contact with standard starfaring cultures, especially those which are Imperial (or other Interstellar polity) member worlds. An Imperial World that is TL4-5 will NOT necessarily look anything like Europe in the early 20th Century, because they will already know what can be done with the technology - they do not have to reinvent the wheel, they just have to apply what is already well-known using the technological infrastructure they have available at their given level. That means that a TL4 or TL5 automobile will likely be as advanced or as well-engineered as it possibly can be for that TL, presuming the world in question has the actual resources and/or finances to do so.

 

[MasterGwydion]

And this is also something to keep in mind when detailing worlds in contact with standard starfaring cultures, especially those which are Imperial (or other Interstellar polity) member worlds. An Imperial World that is TL4-5 will NOT necessarily look anything like Europe in the early 20th Century, because they will already know what can be done with the technology - they do not have to reinvent the wheel, they just have to apply what is already well-known using the technological infrastructure they have available at their given level. That means that a TL4 or TL5 automobile will likely be as advanced or as well-engineered as it possibly can be for that TL, presuming the world in question has the actual resources and/or finances to do so.

and will also have no "gaps" in their technological knowledge. (unless everyone else happens to have those same gaps anyhow. ) In addition to having access to higher TL stuff, just not able to produce it locally. So, stuff within a TL or two should be fairly easy to come by at the Starport and/or the major cities (depending on several factors)

 

[rinku]

Spot on.

But in addition, there may be local gaps that exists for local reasons, even when they know about the advance.

Particularly in the area of energy production and transportation. If hydro (or other liquids on fluid ocean worlds) or geothermal is easy to set up, most planets will likely prefer it to fuel based energy production. Higher tech levels just make them more attractive options, as materials science improves. Vacuum planets, especially tidally locked ones, will likely find Solar is more efficient than fusion. Planets with thinner atmospheres may find airships work better than helicopters or fixed wing craft. Dense atmosphere worlds might favour ultralight aircraft powered by muscles, at least for recreational use. Surface shipping may remain the cheap way to move bulk goods, even if grav vehicles have displaced aircraft. And there might be local conditions that discourage air travel of any kind.

Burning vegetation can always turn up as a local preference. Steam power isn't a bad option if you have plenty of water and stuff to burn, especially on a remote outpost.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I notice that there are no solar satellites that then "beam" the energy down to the surface of a planet or to a station. Or at least, there are no rules for "beaming" power.

 

[Condottiere]

I thought that's supposed to be microwaves.

 

[rinku]

Well, the rules we have are mostly about ships and stations, where that would mostly be a design detail for how deployed solar panels transmit their juice to them. Wires, microwaves. Not much practical difference except at long ranges (due to focal considerations). Although if the panels aren't securely attached they'd need independant thrusters to keep them in the same orbit, so I expect it isn't done often.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well, the rules we have are mostly about ships and stations, where that would mostly be a design detail for how deployed solar panels transmit their juice to them. Wires, microwaves. Not much practical difference except at long ranges (due to focal considerations). Although if the panels aren't securely attached they'd need independant thrusters to keep them in the same orbit, so I expect it isn't done often.

Satellites are often done, so why not a solar collector and transmission satellite? Satellite collects the solar energy and "beams" it elsewhere. I don't understand the comment about being securely attached? It is an independent satellite in orbit. Attached to what? Are you thinking of mirrors?

Although I guess you could put solar panels on a highport and beam power to the surface as well.

 

[boggo2300]

Who advanced to the next TL, the iron age Celts or the Mayans? The Mayans, like many cultures, didn't make the breakthroughs, didn't synergise their discoveries to make more progress.
The Chinese never invented glass, as a result they could never invent the telescope or microscope, despite having the technological base to do so.

The history of science and technology is well worth studying - I was inspired by James Burke's Connections program and book.

Connections (British TV series) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I LOVED that show!! never realied he wrote a book on the subject (mad scrambling to get a copy of it ensues!)

 

[rinku]

Satellites are often done, so why not a solar collector and transmission satellite? Satellite collects the solar energy and "beams" it elsewhere. I don't understand the comment about being securely attached? It is an independent satellite in orbit. Attached to what? Are you thinking of mirrors?

Although I guess you could put solar panels on a highport and beam power to the surface as well.

Everything is in orbit. Basic physics.

Each discrete object WILL need orbital corrections even if placed in the same orbit track, as light pressure, solar wind, space junk, upper atmosphere etc has their way. Even sending the microwaves is going to add a tiny thrust that will subtly push the two things apart, and if it's doing that constantly it will add up.

It's not difficult engineering, and I'm sure it's often done in the 3I, but Occam's razor would say it's simpler to have the solar panels physically attached to the station unless there's a local reason not to.

Optics and the inverse square law put limits on how useful a far power satellite can be, although that's probably not a big limit for a station, as you'd expect the power satellites would be in leading or trailing positions of the same orbit and not that distant. But again we get back to "why not simply attach the panels to the station, lose the transmission equipment and use cables?"

One of the issues with beaming power to a ground station is that satellite either needs to be geostationary (which may make it *quite* distant, but some worlds are small) or the system has to be able to cope with a giant EM weapon aiming at the same point as it passes overhead.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Everything is in orbit. Basic physics.

Each discrete object WILL need orbital corrections even if placed in the same orbit track, as light pressure, solar wind, space junk, upper atmosphere etc has their way. Even sending the microwaves is going to add a tiny thrust that will subtly push the two things apart, and if it's doing that constantly it will add up.

It's not difficult engineering, and I'm sure it's often done in the 3I, but Occam's razor would say it's simpler to have the solar panels physically attached to the station unless there's a local reason not to.

Station isn't big enough for the amount of power that they are wanting to beam to the planet. For just one reason of many.

Optics and the inverse square law put limits on how useful a far power satellite can be, although that's probably not a big limit for a station, as you'd expect the power satellites would be in leading or trailing positions of the same orbit and not that distant. But again we get back to "why not simply attach the panels to the station, lose the transmission equipment and use cables?"

See above

One of the issues with beaming power to a ground station is that satellite either needs to be geostationary (which may make it *quite* distant, but some worlds are small) or the system has to be able to cope with a giant EM weapon aiming at the same point as it passes overhead.

Or add a thruster and let it maintain its own position, powered by the solar panels that make up most of the satellite's volume. I doubt that would add much to the maintenance cost of the satellite which still has to be done per maintenance period anyhow. Then it can be geo-stationary, but not be in a normal geo-stationary orbit. It may not be in "orbit" meaning not in freefall. It could be in powered-flight.

 

[rinku]

Yeah, I'm only talking about powering the station itself here. Why bother having a power satellite for the station when you could save a bunch of money and effort and just attach the solar panels the power satellite uses to the station? I was responding to THIS post of yours, MG, in particular the bit in bold:

"I notice that there are no solar satellites that then "beam" the energy down to the surface of a planet or to a station. Or at least, there are no rules for "beaming" power."

Power satellite for a ground based facility? Sure. Some limitations as I discussed, but often a good idea. We agree that those rules aren't presented in the book that deals with starships and space stations. I pointed out why you'd rarely ever want to beam power from a satellite to a station - if you can collect the power there, you can collect it on the station directly.

 

[Condottiere]

There seem to be two ways that I have heard of to transfer energy.

One is by radio waves.

And the other is microwaves.

Though considering the energy involved, they would have to be very tight beam, not to collaterally fry the neighbours.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Yeah, I'm only talking about powering the station itself here. Why bother having a power satellite for the station when you could save a bunch of money and effort and just attach the solar panels the power satellite uses to the station? I was responding to THIS post of yours, MG, in particular the bit in bold:

"I notice that there are no solar satellites that then "beam" the energy down to the surface of a planet or to a station. Or at least, there are no rules for "beaming" power."

Power satellite for a ground based facility? Sure. Some limitations as I discussed, but often a good idea. We agree that those rules aren't presented in the book that deals with starships and space stations. I pointed out why you'd rarely ever want to beam power from a satellite to a station - if you can collect the power there, you can collect it on the station directly.

Not if the station were in the shadow of the planet. There are situations where this would become important.

 

[rinku]

Well, that's very situational. But sure... there are setups where the station parked at a gas giant's L2 point might be in enough constant shadow that it would need assistance. Highly, highly unlikely to come up with on smaller planets though.

But in a Traveller context, you'd just put a fusion reactor in those edge case stations.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well, that's very situational. But sure... there are setups where the station parked at a gas giant's L2 point might be in enough constant shadow that it would need assistance. Highly, highly unlikely to come up with on smaller planets though.

But in a Traveller context, you'd just put a fusion reactor in those edge case stations.

In a Traveller context, you'd never use anything other than Fusion or RTD. More power in less space for one, long duration no refueling with the other. Solar wouldn't actually even exist in Traveller except as an early fringe power generation technology before fusion was perfected.

 

[rinku]

Bold assertion.

Any form of power generation will be used as long as it's locally the most cost effective or practical.

Solar will always be practical in space as long as the site isn't too far from the star, and on a planet when fuel or power transmission is an issue. Remote sensors and cameras are commonly set up with solar/battery power to save the expense of maintaining a power line to them.

And... solar coating doesn't use any hull volume or fuel. Having some on a station reduces the size of the fusion plant and frees up space for other things.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Bold assertion.

Any form of power generation will be used as long as it's locally the most cost effective.

Solar will always be practical in space as long as the site isn't too far from the star, and on a planet when fuel or power transmission is an issue. Remote sensors and cameras are commonly set up with solar/battery power to save the expense of maintaining a power line to them.

Solar is practical for small things. In a world with fusion, using up your land area with MW solar panels is a very inefficient use of the land. If you consider that even on Earth now, one fission power plant? 1,000MW. Every satellite with solar panels in orbit currently, including the ISS? 5-10MW.

 

[rinku]

Rooftop solar in Australia currently generates around 8,000MW. No extra land use.