Venus - useful?

[EDG]

I don't see how that's a misconception at all. Lanthanum, being the handwavium material it is, shows up when and how a GM wants it to.

If realism is a concern, then no, you're wrong. Lanthanum is a real element, not a 'handwavium material' - and as a real element, it has limits to its distribution. If it was "trilithium" or whatever then sure, you'd have no limits because that'd be completely made up.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanthanum
http://www.webelements.com/lanthanum/


If realism isn't a concern, then I'm not sure why it's a big deal - make up whatever you like.

 

[Jeff Hopper]

There are people who enjoy games with a realistic setting and people who enjoy games where realism is not a concern (which I think is where Jeff is coming from), but neither approach is more valid or objectively more or less enjoyable than the other - it's all down to peoples' preferences.

Nope, not taking the bait.

 

[EDG]

There's no "bait" there, and I have no idea how you can even perceive that there is.

 

[Gee4orce]

Of course, Venus like worlds make excellent settings for discovering Ancient constructions. A radar sweep from orbit turns up some geometrical structures on the surface, which need further investigation - but even getting to them is going to be a risky endeavour.

...and needles to say, it turns out that when the place was built the world was a Garden...

 

[EDG]

Of course, Venus like worlds make excellent settings for discovering Ancient constructions. A radar sweep from orbit turns up some geometrical structures on the surface, which need further investigation - but even getting to them is going to be a risky endeavour.

...and needles to say, it turns out that when the place was built the world was a Garden...

IIRC there is mention that in the OTU Venus does have Ancient ruins on it (and maybe Titan too?). Can't recall where I saw that though (or if I'm thinking of something else).

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Of course, Venus like worlds make excellent settings for discovering Ancient constructions. A radar sweep from orbit turns up some geometrical structures on the surface, which need further investigation - but even getting to them is going to be a risky endeavour.

...and needles to say, it turns out that when the place was built the world was a Garden...

Interesting idea. How long would it take for a garden world to become a Venus? How long before the runaway greenhouse effect evaporated all the oceans, then all the water vapor split apart and the oxygen got absorbed by the rocks and the hydrogen escaped into space?

There is enough nitrogen in Earth's atmosphere, that a complete change to Venus might take a long time, but how long to move the Atmosphere from 6 to A or B?

Doc, any ideas?

 

[EDG]

Not offhand... maybe 300,000 years is reasonable but I'd suspect that this would be the lower end of the timescale. I don't think it'd be much faster than that anyway - the oceans have to boil off, CO2 has to be released back into the atmosphere, the temperature has to go up etc.

 

[Jeff Hopper]

There's no "bait" there, and I have no idea how you can even perceive that there is.

Ok then, even though we have been over this subject many times before.

A game universe is as realistic or unrealistic as the Referee wants it to be, hopefully in accordance to how much fun the players in that universe get out of the level of realism used. For some groups it is a level of high realism, for others it is a level of low realism. However for whatever level of realism is used, there are consequences to that choice. High realism games tend to restrict the number of possible configurations in the game universe in order to conserve the realism while low realism games tend to increase the number of possible configurations of the game universe (right up until playing the game is like playing tennis with the net down). Like all things, moderation should be applied in order to best provide an entertaining and fun session for all the players and the Referee.

In short, no absolutes on realism level, but the level should be what everybody in the game enjoy.

 

[kristof65]

I don't see how that's a misconception at all. Lanthanum, being the handwavium material it is, shows up when and how a GM wants it to.

If realism is a concern, then no, you're wrong. Lanthanum is a real element, not a 'handwavium material' - and as a real element, it has limits to its distribution.

Ok, so there is a misconception on my part, but not the one you seem to imply - I've long been under the impression that the lanthanum Traveller referred to was a handwavium element like trilithium. What you implied was that I was under the misconception that lanthanum couldn't appear in large veins.

You would have been better off saying "Common Traveller misconception #78651: Lanthanum is not handwavium, but a real element" in the first place.

 

[EDG]

(to Jeff) ...which is basically what I said. Though I disagree with this:

High realism games tend to restrict the number of possible configurations in the game universe in order to conserve the realism while low realism games tend to increase the number of possible configurations of the game universe

I have found that high realism doesn't "limit" the choices (with all the implications of that being a bad thing) - it changes the choices. It may close some doors but it also opens new ones. More often than not I find that being realistic opens ones' eyes to new possibilities that one hadn't considered before and wouldn't have even thought of or known about either.

 

[EDG]

You would have been better off saying "Common Traveller misconception #78651: Lanthanum is not handwavium, but a real element" in the first place.

I didn't realise that was the misconception in the first place (maybe I can call that Common Traveller misconception #78650?). I guess I just assumed that people would have looked it up or something or would have heard of it. Either way I added some links to my post so you can have a look at those if you're interested.

I don't know if it was just coincidence (I'm not sure if this was known in the 70s), but Lanthanum also happens to have hydrogen-storage properties - it's possible to push hydrogen into its atomic structure, which probably works quite nicely for firing up the jump grid.

(and if you play 2300AD, Tantalum is also a real element).

 

[kristof65]

Merely that if it was feasible, it was a no-brainer. Why? Because it's one of our closest neighbors, and it's roughly the same size as earth.

I guess it depends on what you think a "no-brainer" is. Mars is generally considered to be the much more obvious candidate for Terraforming because its current environment are a lot more similar to Earth's than Venus' (and vastly less hostile too). And it'd be easier to add atmosphere than take it away. Heck even Mars' seasons are the same as Earth's (even if its year is about twice a long) because the axial tilt is so similar.

So to me at least, Mars is a way more obvious "no-brainer" for terraforming than Venus.

I never said Venus was more of a no-brainer than Mars, or that it should be the first candidate for terra-forming in our solar system. Only that if we could do it, it makes sense to when it becomes appropriate to.

If you get to the point where Earth is overcrowded, Mars has been terraformed and on it's way to overcrowding, IF it's feasible to terraform Venus, too, then it's a no-brainer. Sure, it may rank down on the list of planets to be terra-formed in the sol system - but if it can be done, when the time comes to do so, it's a no-brainer.

 

[Jeff Hopper]

(to Jeff) ...which is basically what I said. Though I disagree with this:

High realism games tend to restrict the number of possible configurations in the game universe in order to conserve the realism while low realism games tend to increase the number of possible configurations of the game universe

I have found that high realism doesn't "limit" the choices (with all the implications of that being a bad thing) - it changes the choices. It may close some doors but it also opens new ones. More often than not I find that being realistic opens ones' eyes to new possibilities that one hadn't considered before and wouldn't have even thought of or known about either.

Except that it appears you skipped the important qualifying statements.

Like all things, moderation should be applied in order to best provide an entertaining and fun session for all the players and the Referee.

In short, no absolutes on realism level, but the level should be what everybody in the game enjoy.

While high realism may be what works for you, it may not necessarily work for everybody and cannot be applied to every situation.

 

[kristof65]

You would have been better off saying "Common Traveller misconception #78651: Lanthanum is not handwavium, but a real element" in the first place.

I didn't realise that was the misconception in the first place (maybe I can call that Common Traveller misconception #78650?). I guess I just assumed that people would have looked it up or something or would have heard of it. Either way I added some links to my post so you can have a look at those if you're interested.

Ok, fair enough - but I did say "*or whatever handwavium material your FTL system uses." I just figured that would imply I didn't know about lanthanum.

When the term was first used in Traveller, IIRC, I did try and look it up, and found nothing, since then I've never bothered. Of course, this was pre-internet and I just never bothered to follow up and look again, because I've never heard it referenced outside of Traveller.

I don't know if it was just coincidence (I'm not sure if this was known in the 70s), but Lanthanum also happens to have hydrogen-storage properties - it's possible to push hydrogen into its atomic structure, which probably works quite nicely for firing up the jump grid.

Interesting.

(and if you play 2300AD, Tantalum is also a real element).

This I actually do know, because I've long used Tantalum capacitors in my career.

Please tell me Muehsamite isn't a real element, though, because that's the one I made up for my FTL handwavium material.

 

[Infojunky]

(and if you play 2300AD, Tantalum is also a real element).

So since we are on this topic, is there a good chart somewhere showing the relative rarity of the elements?

 

[EDG]

While high realism may be what works for you, it may not necessarily work for everybody and cannot be applied to every situation.

I'm really not sure why you're arguing about this - I've never claimed that "high realism" would work for everybody, and I've been quite explicit about how I think different people are entitled to have different opinions about the levels of realism in their games, so really we're in agreement. Neither am I being confrontational about this - I'm not forcing either view over another.

Do you somehow feel that realism (or commentary about what the realistic options would be) is a threat to your gaming? Because it really isn't - I just offer those explanations if people require them or are interested in them, and perhaps some people may even be unaware of what the realistic options would be without me mentioning them. But if they don't care about that sort of thing, then they can obviously just ignore it all.

 

[RandyT0001]

Sure, but I think that you are just looking for an arguement and a way to discredit the idea. I'm willing to play along with that for my own amusement.

1) The environment of Venus is far more deadly to potential escapees (and their equipment) than an airless rockball. This will keep the prisoners more busy with just surviving than they would on an airless rockball.

How can they be busier trying to survive on a Venus planet than an airless rockball when the facility has already been built to provide a breathable atmosphere, water, temperature, etc? A deadly, kill you in a few seconds or one minute without protection environment can't be deadlier then another just because it has a higher temperture or greater pressure (might be quicker by a few seconds). Your original premise is just for storage of prisoners not requiring the prisoners to do work or mine.

2) Politics. A lack of a death penalty on the homeworld requires a prison where the worst, most hardened offenders cannot escape so that the citizens feel safe while claiming that life imprisonment is more humane than death.

Prisoners can't escape from low berths/ cold sleep on their own, they are unconscious. So put your hardened criminals there if the world has some aversion to a death penalty. It's cheaper and just as secure.

3) Beachhead/Testing Facility. You can test all of your hazardous environment gear on Venus with a ready made supply of expendible prisoners as guinea pigs. If an escape attempt is tried, they can monitor its progress right up until their protective gear fails - granting more data.

How many insidious atmosphere worlds have something really important enough that the Imperium or even a nearby world would choose to invade it. Even if it was the case why would you trust criminals/prisoners with some of your highest priced material, landing craft, vacc suits, etc. You're not going to evaluate the material on site while it is still being eroded by the enviroment. Wouldn't it make more sense to have specially trained people to test the equipment then bring it to a isolated suite on a station/ ship located above the insisdious atmosphere to sample and evaluate?

4)Grad student projects. There is an isolated population of people who nobody really cares about that has a very low chance of escape. Do your most sadistic sociology/psychology/medical experiment here. Traveller meets Dr Mengele.

(Come to think of it, this would make a great setting for a horror game done with Traveller. Oh, but that is "metagaming" - an apparently dirty word. )

So you build a prison to house an isolated population that nobody cares about on a world where the elements will defeat the protective housing in a short time thereby requiring constant and costly maintainance just to use the occupants as test subjects for genetic experiments and new drugs? I just can't understand how this is cost effective when other alternatives exist.

5) The irony of it. Don't think that is a good reason? Go look up the naming history of Iceland and Greenland. Remember that a hardened politician will believe that a voter would eat up the idea of a prison on a hellhole named after the Goddess of Love.

Irony is not based on logic or reason, it is a literary tool. Are you saying that it's logical that some world leader built a prison on a hellhole world because he has an extreme sense of irony.

6) Airless rockballs have surfaces that are easier to access than Venus. On any airless rockball all you have to do is land. On Venus you have to land in an atmosphere that is 92 times that of the Earth with a wind speed between 0.3 to 1.0 meters per second and a temperature of 460 degrees celcius (all Venus probes to date haven't lasted longer than 2 days on the surface, and they were designed for the environment).

Your original post had the prison underground. It was not about resource mining. Yes it is safer to land a ship on an airless rockball than on a planet where the atmosphere and environment is going to erode your ship's seals within a few hours, maybe a day, but that is still a huge expense to build on such a world just as a little extra deterent when it would probably be just as useful and probably cheaper to build weapon emplacements on the airless rockball to defend it from unauthorized ship landings. (But this is the best of the ones you provided.)

8 ) Since airless rockballs are easier to reach than the surface of Venus, they are more valuable for settlement and resource acquisition than Venus.

There are more airless rockballs than there are hot hellholes like Venus. I don't think that there's going to be a shortage of airless rockballs anytime soon that justifies the expense of building a prison on a hot hellhole.

7) Because its there (the driving force behind many ventures into hostile territory)

"Because it is there" is not a logical reason.

 

[RockViper]

We DO know what that kind of temperature and pressure does to mineral formation, through experiments in diamond anvil pressure cells and thermodynamic modelling. Venus' conditions aren't anywhere near so extreme that we can't figure that sort of thing out in the lab (or even recreate it).

A diamond anvil =/= actual atmospheric conditions, we know the chemistry and atmospheric conditions of Mars, but the blue berries were a complete surprise.

 

[EDG]

A diamond anvil =/= actual atmospheric conditions, we know the chemistry and atmospheric conditions of Mars, but the blue berries were a complete surprise.

My point was that we do have the means to simulate the extreme Cytherean surface conditions in the lab. Hell, we can simulate conditions deep in the Earth's mantle where the pressures and temperatures are much higher, and through that we can understand (broadly) what extreme temperatures and pressures do to mineral formation.

The 'berries' on Mars were an example of unpredicted (but not previously considered to be impossible) geochemistry in water-rich conditions, not a failure to understand how Mars' low pressure and temperature affect mineral formation. (if any readers have no idea what these "blueberries" are, see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hematite_blueberries_040319.html )

 

[EDG]

(and if you play 2300AD, Tantalum is also a real element).

So since we are on this topic, is there a good chart somewhere showing the relative rarity of the elements?

This should have everything you need
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

That also illustrates what I was saying about the rare earth elements:

However, in contrast to ordinary base and precious metals, rare earth elements have very little tendency to become concentrated in exploitable ore deposits. Consequently, most of the world's supply of rare earth elements comes from only a handful of sources.

This is also true for Lanthanum (being an REE), which is technically about as common as Lead in the crust, but since it doesn't occur in nicely concentrated "veins" or "ore deposits" it's a lot harder to extract in large quantities.