World Generation

[captainjack23]

Sure, but urban population densities can exceed 10,000 per square km. 19 of the top 20 cities right now do this ...

I think this is more than a bit misleading, because all of these population
centers need and have a much bigger and much less densely populated
"hinterland" area, without which none of them could exist.

[snip]
I am not sure whether the average Traveller technology could provide it
on the scale of billions of people - and how they would be able to pay the
life support costs of 1,500 Credits per person and month ...

The hinterland issue seems to assume that the population is spread out evenly - just using the below figure and the notation regarding urban densities, one could have one city supporting the entire population on 10% of the surface, with 90% of the planets surface open for hinterland. And that assumes not unusual modern density and space utilization. 10 archealogies, assuming double utilization of space and keeping modern denstities could spread could leave 95% hinterland.


As for the credit cost ? One should assume that there are some economies of scale between a ships limited lifesystem and a city+ suport space.

Size 1 (1600km diameter) = 8 million square km. Evenly spread, 10 billion would mean a little over 1000 persons per square km, or about the population density of Malta.

I mean, don't get me wrong: billion person arcealogies are frikkin HUGE and stress belief, but with cheap fusion power and gravitics and general whizz-bang high tech they are at least designable. And, I hasten to add, a size 1 or less planet with a size A population will only randomly occur 1/432 on any given roll. So, about 1 per eleven(11) subsectors. Not too frequent , I think ? In fact, if one does exist in the sandbox, the rest of the planets probably see it as a well known freakish and singular planet , the very stuff of good adventure. Or, ignoring it isn;t going to eat up much time, either if one cannot accept it.

 

[rust]

Or, ignoring it isn;t going to eat up much time, either if one cannot accept it.

Just to avoid a misunderstanding: While I would find such a planet un-
acceptable for my setting (no jump drive limit, much shorter history of
colonization, etc.), I have no such problems with it in other settings - I
just wanted to point out that a planet of this kind needs a bit more crea-
tivity to describe as plausible than the average run of the mill colony.

 

[rinku]

I am not sure whether the average Traveller technology could provide it
on the scale of billions of people - and how they would be able to pay the
life support costs of 1,500 Credits per person and month ...

Well, no one has so far mentioned high population asteroid belts like Glisten. In effect, a high population density rockball is the same problem, with most of the mineral resources concentrated in one spot. If you can support high populations in orbit, you should be able to support the same populations on a vacuum world. I'm postulating that it may even be an easier and cheaper task, as you can burrow into substantial volumes of rock and have everyone in one place.

 

[captainjack23]

Or, ignoring it isn;t going to eat up much time, either if one cannot accept it.

Just to avoid a misunderstanding: While I would find such a planet un-
acceptable for my setting (no jump drive limit, much shorter history of
colonization, etc.), I have no such problems with it in other settings - I
just wanted to point out that a planet of this kind needs a bit more crea-
tivity to describe as plausible than the average run of the mill colony.

Understood; mainly it was a general, soapboxy comment.