Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

[Avenio]

EDIT: Reliquary makes another good suggestion, and probably the most solid reason as to why you'd settle on a planet, but then you run into the issue of "Why don't you just mine asteroids for your minerals?"

It could be a matter of relative abundance. If you're looking for metals like iron or nickel it's definitely more feasible to mine asteroids than traipse down a gravity well, but if you're looking for heavier elements like uranium it may be more economical to mine on the surface of a planet or moon, since there might not be enough uranium in the asteroid belt to justify mining in and of itself. I'm no geologist, though, so I may be entirely wrong about that.

[Viticoma]

I was thinking of a good way to bring a Ft nation about that uses living crystals to produce most of its objects... kinda like Tiberium.

Any idea's to help me build on this idea?

[Volesia]

I was thinking of a good way to bring a Ft nation about that uses living crystals to produce most of its objects... kinda like Tiberium.

Any idea's to help me build on this idea?

You could go for a Scrin type nation and infect random worlds for later harvesting. Could make a good RP.

[Viticoma]

Yeah, but I don't want to be a Scrin knock off.

I was thinking of how I could use the idea of living crystals to weave my nations persona.

where our Seeders do this to planets before harvesting

[urlhttp://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/e5/4c/1de54cd7e86f0cfd7dc162764390efa8.jpg]example[/url]

[Volesia]

Yeah, but I don't want to be a Scrin knock off.

I was thinking of how I could use the idea of living crystals to weave my nations persona.

where our Seeders do this to planets before harvesting

[urlhttp://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/e5/4c/1de54cd7e86f0cfd7dc162764390efa8.jpg]example[/url]

I'm not saying you have to be the Scrin. You could easily make up your own alien race and roll with that.

[Viticoma]

Please see last post...


I don't want to be a Scrin knockoff

[StellarGate]

Please see last post...


I don't want to be a Scrin knockoff

Then make up your own race who found/made these living crystals and have to seed them and come back later. You're allowed to do that.

What types of planets wpuld these crystals need to grow? Would then need inhabited worlds? Or could you seed it on any rocky world?

[Viticoma]

well in essence I'm thinking it wouldn't matter it would just take longer for the crystals to grow... But for dramatic effect I think inhabited one would have the needed elements in greater abundance. Unihabited planets could produce a tiberium like effect which simply covers the surface, while special planets could produce an effect much like the provided picture.

[StellarGate]

well in essence I'm thinking it wouldn't matter it would just take longer for the crystals to grow... But for dramatic effect I think inhabited one would have the needed elements in greater abundance. Unihabited planets could produce a tiberium like effect which simply covers the surface, while special planets could produce an effect much like the provided picture.

Then you would certainly have to wait a while for the crystals to look like in the picture unless they have an insane growth rate. Seeing as seeding an inhabited FT world would be hard because sensors, ships and people living there would be... difficult to seed the crystals, you would certainly want to lay claim to most of your worlds and watch over them... either that or leave them be and watch in amusement as FT nations try to settle the world only for in a couple years the crystals to tear the world apart.

It would make for some interesting diplomatic conflicts if you had to leave these crystals alone with no guard, allowing others to come in and claim the worlds and then coming back to discover someone else is now in the star system where your special crystal is growing.

[Volesia]

Please see last post...


I don't want to be a Scrin knockoff

That's why I suggested you make up your own alien race. It's pretty common, you just need a base to work from.

[Viticoma]

Well for the rapid growth it would require a special blend of rare elements which would normally be found on a habitable planet... the planet wouldn't need to the inhabited per say. Plus once the crystals growth has started it will do so at an exponential rate as the crystals grow from its structure not from a central source.

[StellarGate]

Well for the rapid growth it would require a special blend of rare elements which would normally be found on a habitable planet... the planet wouldn't need to the inhabited per say. Plus once the crystals growth has started it will do so at an exponential rate as the crystals grow from its structure not from a central source.

Well it sounds like you have an idea of what you want these crystals to do, now what do you want of the rest of your society to do?

Do you want them to be protective of these crystals? Do they consider the crystal the best thing ever and see having to use anything else as inferior? What race are they? human? Something of your own creation?

[Vernii]

While Rethan/Rhustarim already beat me to it, as a fellow opponent of "planetary chauvinism", I feel the need to also weigh in.

There's still advantages a planet would have compared to a space habitat, unless your nation can build planet-sized space habitats.

Raw resources,

Asteroids and lunar soil for metals, minerals, silicates, etc; gas giant atmospheres and comets for volatiles and other gases. There is literally enough resources in our solar system in real life to support a population of trillions with first world standards of living, for milennia.

natural protection(thus no need for a potentially dangerous power source that could be vulnerable to sabotage)

Radiation shielding is cheap and easy, solar power is plentiful and easy to scale up in space, and sufficient for most civilian and industrial needs. Fission/fusion/various other exotic reactors can be used as needed.

and more...stimulating when compared to a space habitat(the environment for example,unless your space habitat is one giant holodeck)

You are thinking too small. The most common habitat in the Imperium of Vernii is an O'neill Cylinder, averaging 30-40 km length and 8-10 km diameter. This is a crappy scale comparison I made years ago (I should really do a better one but effort, comparing a ~30km Cylinder habitat to the SSD Executor, Babylon 5, Starfleet Spacedock, and an Island One (itself not particularly small either). And this is merely the most common habitat in Imperial territory (there are somewhere around 200 of them within cis-lunar space around Vernii), not the largest (that title currently goes to a dynamic support orbital ring encircling Vernii's moon, Selas, and housing some 250 million people at a population density approximately equal to the state of Massachusetts.

I don't see space habitats being cheaper though. A planet pretty much comes ready for habitation. No need for life-support systems, shielding, power or worry about the various dangers space would present to something with less mass than much of the things flying around out there.

Only if the planet is habitable from the start. Atmosphere, seasonal duration and intensity (and what the seasons even are), day/night/year length, climate, gravity, solar radiation, all of these are potentially huge issues, and with many of them, there's nothing you can do to change them that doesn't require immense effort. Contrast that to a habitat where the internal climate, terrain, day/night cycle, and gravity of each can be custom tailored to the owner's needs. It's entirely possible to build a McKendree Cylinder on the outer edges of a solar system that has the internal climate and terrain of the Brazilian rainforest if desired.

If we're talking about massive space settlements that could handle a large population, then space settlements make sense. But the resources for these things have to come from somewhere, and sooner or later you'll probably need new sources of material. I don't think asteroids will have everything you need.

Then again it all depends on what your FT is like. The more technologically reliant, the less your people will really need a planet, unless they want to be on a planet.

And from the wiki on asteroid mining:

In 1997 it was speculated that a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than $20 trillion USD worth of industrial and precious metals.[6][35] A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 kilometer (0.62 mi) could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron–nickel ore,[36] or two to three times the annual production of 2004.[37] The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of nickel–iron, which could supply the world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also be precious metals.

Space habitats would not be cheaper. Planets have an essentially self-maintaining supply system, whereas a space habitat must be constantly supplied. Without planetside development, space travel becomes impossible unless you build, essentially, a planet's worth of infrastructure in space.

And even then, you're still probably going to have to go down to planets now and then to get raw materials.

This is actually pretty wrong. If you're a spacefaring society, you're basically going to have a planets worth of industry in space anyway just to maintain that society. Hell, consider the average capital ship in NSFT, which generally seem to mass in the megaton to gigaton range. Just for the hull you need raw materials to be acquired and refined, molding, tooling (and the equipment and resources to produce both of those), quality control, the resources and machines to build the machines that install those parts (which are their own separate process and production line of course), and if you're doing this on a planet, at some point you're going to have to boost potentially millions of goddamn tons of starship parts off the surface of your dirtball.** And that's just for the hull and armor, god forbid someone try to do something like produce antimatter on an industrial scale on the surface of an inhabited world.

Either way you have incredibly complex and long support processes just to maintain spacefaring civilization, and planets add nothing but inefficiency to that.

Yeah, but I don't want to be a Scrin knock off.

I was thinking of how I could use the idea of living crystals to weave my nations persona.

where our Seeders do this to planets before harvesting

example

Just as an FYI, and don't let this influence your decision (because having enemies can be fun), but my government will absolutely loathe yours if it follows a policy of doing that to habitable* planets.

*Habitable being defined in this case as the type suitable for carbon-based, oxygen breathing lifeforms. It's important to remember that not all species share the same definition. Something like the Dwellers from The Algebraist would view Earth as a horrible, unlivable hellhole.

**Oh yea, and mustn't forget the energy needs of those processes as well, which have the same parallel production line of acquiring materials to build the machinery to collect and produce energy and then the machinery to convert it into electricity, transmit it, etc.

[Viticoma]

Noted

[SquareDisc City]

Denengrad, right, here goes.

AI government is sensible enough, but there's quite a bit you can go into.

What's the AI like? The most common, and easiest to work with, is something with broadly human thinking, communicating with others and being RPable like a character. An alternative would be to go for a very different sort of intelligence, more like a giant planning and automation system, that it might not even be known ICly if it's self-aware or not. You wouldn't be able to RP it as a character, but rather as a part of the background fabric of your nation. I've used AIs of both kinds in the UPT. And if it has one, what is the AI's self-image? Is it happy to adopt a virtual avatar, does it see itself as the hardware it runs on, or does it even regard itself as Denengrad? The last being analogous to how you or I intuitively perceive ourselves not as a brain controlling a body, but as our entire body.

What's the hardware like? Centralised or spread out? Classical, quantum, or something even more exotic?

Who develops it? Is development active, or a thing of the past? If Polity Central is under active development, who decides on the direction the devs take? Maybe PC now develops itself, fixing its own bugs. Maybe it's not meant to do that, and is hiding the fact from the people.

Worlds and systems you may have too many of. There are good reasons to be spread out, but there are also bad ones. It's the 15 forge worlds that I think are most in need of toning down; if you're not fully confident so many are needed, I'd reduce the number of such considerably. Also, I'd say a good principle is have only as many worlds and systems as you feel you can do justice. For me just making one "proper" map is quite a bit of work; I love doing it, but there's no way I'd want to do 29 planets at once.

Military is mostly OK I think. The Assassin Drones just seem like a load of Gorn though; I've seen the whole "let's be as cruel and sadistic as I can come up with" thing rather too often. It could be spun interestingly though when the drones run into enemies who just want to kill/destroy quickly instead of mucking about trying to scare people. I'm also a bit wary of the whole "quickly produce spaceships" thing - if the production rates are too quick, it makes losses irrelevant and can thus border on GMing.

FTL may be an issue. The Runcibles are limited to established routes, and ship FTL is slow, so your chances to RP. Perhaps you could have a Runcible "SuperGate" capable of sending stuff to destinations where no gate exists. It'd be a one-way deal (if you handwave a "no sending a gate through a gate" rule) so would have to be used with caution since anything sent by it may never return, but would let you join RPs as you desire.

On space habitats vs planets

Firstly I take big issue with the idea that "a planet pretty much comes ready for habitation". There are an awful lot of things that need to be right, that if any one of them is wrong means you can't go outside without protective equipment - and if you need environment suits to go out, you've lost one of the big advantages of a planet over a space station. For example, even with plenty of oxygen, too much carbon dioxide in the air will kill you. Then there's the local life to worry about. If you aren't machines, chances are only a world with life can have the atmosphere you require, and then there's always the risk some of that life is pathogenic. If the local life is sufficiently different that it's inedible to you and you to it, the risk of pathogens species-jumping is minimised, but then you're probably unable to take advantage of the planet for agriculture and stuck with the same sealed-environment growing techniques you use in space.

Meanwhile you're always stuck with the drawbacks of a planet. You're at the bottom of a gravity well; landing and taking off needs a lot of energy. Everything you build has to withstand gravity. The weather and the geophysics may be an issue. You don't get to pick the location entirely freely.

On the flipside, space habitats have their own drawbacks. The biggest, I feel, is they're ill suited to 'organic' expansion. On a planet, you can quite freely urban sprawl around, even start with just a single building if you need to and go from there. In space, if you're relying on centrifugal gravity you need to start with quite a big structure. You might build a cylinder one "slice" at a time, but even each slice is going to be a big thing. It's a lot of resources just to get started. Start too small, and the time may come when you have to build an entire new and larger habitat, and then you may have the issue that transport between them is slower and more expensive than going around on a planet. Or else you have say something that's very long and narrow, and transport within it gets to be a pain. (Of course, cheap teleportation makes this less of an issue.)

If you have full-on artgrav, you're freer to add modules to your space habitat as you go. Even then, I wonder if you might run into issues as it gets bigger.

Ultimately, though it may seem like a wishy-washy compromise, chances are most FT nations are going to have planetary settlements AND space habitats.

[Kyrusia]

ONSTARSYSTEMS
^{A General Guide on the Creation of Stellar and Planetary Systems}

---

---

Before we go anywhere with this guide, I feel I should describe exactly what the purpose for this guide is and what its purpose is not. To that end, as is common in many things, it is sometimes best to describe a thing by first defining what it isn't. This guide, for example, is not a syllabus or introductory course to astronomy, cosmology, meteorology, astrobiology, or astrophysics. This guide is not intended to be your "One Stop Shop for Space"; it is not meant to discourage further research or study into astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology as one delves into Future Tech and begins their career in world-building (in this case, a literal undertaking). Furthermore, this guide is not really meant to be something that one would want to immediately undertake or their "first step" into FT, as it were.

In short: this guide may be a bit dense. You have been warned.

Even so, this guide will not be entirely cumulative; I will provide links to further research and topics that are relevant (especially if I feel they are better explained elsewhere); after all, I am not an astronomer, cosmologist, or astrophysicist. I am merely a hobbyist who happens to enjoy Ye Olde Space. That being said, I often get asked for advice in the respective Future Tech channels regarding certain topics - especially involving stars and stellar physics - and felt that, given the current discourse in the Advice and Assistance Thread, a general guide to help players create more lush, full, and detailed stellar and planetary systems might be of use.

That is, after all, what this thread is: a general guide to help assist in world-building, particularly in designing stellar and planetary systems for roleplays, star-states, and other entities within the world of Future Tech. This guide is meant to help, primarily, players that have already gotten their feet wet and are now searching for more detailed assistance in order to make their stay within this community more detailed and alive; by no means do I mean to exclude newer players, but certain topics discussed in this guide are ones readily discussed between more experienced and veteran players of the community who are, simply put, already familiar with many of the topics at-hand. Newer players simply, more often than not, have yet to immerse themselves to this degree; that being said, as mentioned, I will be providing links to further research to assist in explanation - especially if someone else can explain a topic better than I can.

With this out of the way, however, let us begin...


What Are Stellar and Planetary Systems?^{[ LINK HERE ]}
When people begin the creative endeavor of attempting to craft a "star system", they often use the terms "stellar system" and "planetary system" interchangeably; this is not proper and is technically an incorrect generalization of two related, yet distinct, astronomical phenomena. Obviously, amidst more laymen's discussions, "star system" will due as a generalization, but given the nature of this guide, one need to understand the difference in order to better understand the creative process and assist in deciding, specifically, what the player desires to create.

Simply put, a stellar system is a system of one or more stellar objects (stars, Wolf-Rayet objects, black holes [of various types], etc.) gravitationally bound to one another or a common barycenter (a common center of gravity, not necessarily bound within the physical volume of any given stellar object). A star orbiting another star of significantly greater mass (a binary stellar system), for example; even a small-mass star orbiting an exceptionally massive black hole, as a further example, are stellar systems. The distinction between such systems and planetary systems is that, within a stellar system, one need not necessarily have massive, non-stellar, gravitationally bound bodies (such as planets, asteroids, etc.).

A planetary system, however, is a system of one or more stellar objects which have one or more massive, non-stellar bodies that are gravitationally bound to it. Our Solar System, for example, is a planetary system, as there are numerous massive objects orbiting a central star (technically, a central barycenter around which even the Sun orbits). Now, our star (the Sun), is also technically a part of a stellar system: the Sun, for example, orbits the Galaxy directly, with the general focus of its gravitational pull most likely located in-or-around Sagittarius A*, a theorized super-massive black hole in the center of the Milk Way's galactic nuceleus.

As, no doubt, you have deduced that a stellar and planetary systems are not mutually exclusive; a binary or otherwise multiple-star stellar system may, in fact, be within a planetary system. That being said, a planetary system is not necessarily a stellar system and a stellar system can exist as distinct from a planetary system (though a distinct planetary system free from a stellar body, and thus free from the accretion method of planetary creation, is unlikely to form naturally).

For the sake of covering only the most useful (and thus, even the most general) of topics, this guide will primarily concern itself with assisting in the creation of a planetary system, though the information contained will likely be useful in creating any stellar or similar system.

Please see the formation and evolution of the Solar System and the nebular hypothesis for further information.


The Birth of a System^{[ LINK HERE ]}
According to the widely accepted Solar Nebula Model (the presumed-correct, current model used to explain the evolution of planetary systems), most stars (and thus their accompanying systems) are formed from exceptionally dense, exceptionally-hot clouds of molecular hydrogen (and other elements) known as giant molecular clouds (or "GMC's"). These clouds of molecular hydrogen, helium, and other gases, due to their gravitational instability, eventually begin to coalesce around certain points of exceptional gravitation, forming stable systems of gas accretions, eventually collapsing into stars (and, usually, accompanying protoplanetary discs), eventually dissipating the giant molecular cloud. As for the time-table of such an event, if we take a star of similar mass, luminosity, and metallicity to our own Sun, the general projection of the amount of time required to form such a star is between 100 and 200 million years.

In the greater scheme of things, this process (parts of it as-of-yet still a mystery even to modern astrophysicists), may seem like a relatively pointless topic to cover when one is creating a system for use within Future Tech. In fact, the opposite is true: without even a rudimentary understanding of our star systems are formed, one cannot ever hope to create a "realistic" or, more correctly, a believable star system within the realm of fiction.

It's quite true, you can throw down a random star, sling some planets around it, and be done; that being said, it will be quite apparent that this is the process you have undertaken in designing the system. You may, for example, have a multiple star system and a planetary orbit bisecting the barycenter of that multiple star system simply because you lack the understanding of the high improbability of such a circumstance - even when taking the whole of the cosmos into account. As such, one should endeavor to at least have a basic understanding of how the tools of system crafting are made before you attempt to use them.


Colors and Counts: Star Selection^{[ LINK HERE ]}
Once the player has a general grasp of the process of how stars are formed, one can begin deducing - based on the composition and general environment of their hypothetical giant molecular cloud - what type of star or stars one will have as the heart of their system. Now, when discussing stars, we're generally working with what is called the "main sequence", or a general plotting of a given star based upon its brightness (or luminosity) and color and, more generally, how it produces energy within it and its mass. A general rule of thumb when working within this sequence is to understand that main sequence stars (or "dwarf stars") of greater mass will, generally, stay within the main sequence for a shorter amount of their lifespan before decaying into more "exotic" stars that are not along the main sequence (such as white dwarfs and supergiants).

Again, for the sake of brevity, this guide will discuss mostly only main sequence stars as based upon the Harvard spectral classification scheme (which is what most players within Future Tech base the judgements and classifications of their stellar bodies upon). This section will not discuss more exotic stars, such as neutron stars, quark stars, or black holes.

Within the Harvard spectral classification scheme, stars are classified based upon their effective temperature, conventional color and apparent color, solar mass (as in their mass in respect to the Sun), solar radii, solar luminosity, and hydrogen lines. Hydrogen lines, however, will mostly be left out of this guide; mostly because discussing quantum spin and the relation of line decay of a hydrogen atom is a bit beyond the purview of this topic, and is more or less one the "less necessary" end of things one needs to understand in order to comprehend this guide. All one need understand is that, the higher the effective temperature of a star, the greater percentage of hydrogen atoms which become ionized, and thus they will have weaker emissions. Understand that this is a very general statement; mapping stellar temperatures requires more than merely measuring hydrogen emission lines - calcium, for example. Even so, as I mentioned, this is not really a topic for this guide.

As many of us learn in secondary school, we can remember the Harvard spectral classification system (using temperature as a gauge) by a simple phrase: "Oh, be a fine girl/guy - kiss me!" This covers most of the main sequence stars we know of, excluding L-type, T-type, and Y-type red-brown dwarfs. Below is a general overview of each of the main sequence stellar ranges:

• O-type: Effective temperature of ≥30,000K; conventional color of blue; apparent color of blue; usually ≥16 solar masses; ≥6.5 solar radii; ≥30,000 solar luminosity (brightness); and comprise less than 0.00003% of the fraction of stars in the observable universe.
• B-type: Effective temperature of 10,000-30,000K; conventional color of blue-white; apparent color of high-saturation blue-white; usually 2-16 solar masses; 1.8-6.5 solar radii; 25-30,000 solar luminosity (brightness); and comprise around 0.13% of the fraction of stars in the observable universe.
• A-type: Effective temperature of 7,500-10,000K; conventional color of white; apparent color of blue-white; usually 1.4-2 solar masses; 1.4-1.8 solar radii; 5-25 solar luminosity (brightness); and comprise around 0.6% of the fraction of stars in the observable universe.
• F-type: Effective temperature of 6,000-7,500K; conventional color of yellow-white; apparent color of white; usually 1.04-1.4 solar masses; 1.15-1.4 solar radii; 1.5-5 solar luminosity (brightness); and comprise around 3% of the fraction of stars in the observable universe.
• G-type (Sun-type): Effective temperature of 5,200-6,000K; conventional color of yellow; apparent color of yellow-white; usually 0.8-1.04 solar masses; 0.96-1.15 solar radii; 0.6-1.5 solar luminosity (brightness); and comprise around 7.6% of the fraction of stars in the observable universe.
• K-type: Effective temperature of 3,700-5,200K; conventional color of orange; apparent color of light yellow-orange; usually 0.45-0.8 solar masses; 0.7-0.96 solar radii; 0.08-0.6 solar luminosity (brightness); and comprise around 12.1% of the fraction of stars in the observable universe.
• M-type: Effective temperature of 2,400-3,700K; conventional color of red; apparent color of light orange-red; usually 0.08-0.45 solar masses; ≤0.7 solar radii; ≤0.08 solar luminosity (brightness); and comprise around 76.45% of the fraction of stars in the observable universe.
• L-type (Sub-main sequence): Effective temperature of 1,300-2,400K; conventional color of red-brown; apparent color of scarlet/light red; usually 0.005-0.08 solar masses; 0.08-0.15 solar radii; 0.00005-0.001 solar luminosity (brightness).
• T-type (Sub-main sequence): Effective temperature of 500-1,300K; conventional color of brown; apparent color of magenta; usually 0.001-0.07 solar masses; 0.08-0.14 solar radii; 0.000001-0.00005 solar luminosity (brightness).
• Y-type (Sub-main sequence): Effective temperature of ≤500K; conventional color of dark brown; apparent color of almost black; usually 0.0005-0.02 solar masses; 0.08-0.14 solar radii; 0.0000001-0.000001 solar luminosity (brightness).
  _{In the case of L, T, and Y-type, sub-main sequence "stars", it should be understood that these are added purely for clarity in regards to the Harvard spectral classification scheme; these types are technically "substeller" in that, while massive, some cannot maintain fusion (while others can) or are within threshold limits of our understanding of initial star formation, thus complicating their classification beyond a purely spectral or emission scheme. That and, to be frank, very little is actually known about these substellar bodies, despite the first L-type being discovered nearly two decades ago.}

As imagined, there is a wide array of different stars one can choose from in building a system - based purely on temperature and color alone. Note that there are no "green stars"; there are purple ones, obviously, but things such as "green stars" are not naturally occurring within reality and will be covered elsewhere. Furthermore, keep in mind that each of the aforementioned stellar classification schemes have their own, further sub-classifications defining special circumstances, certain luminosities, and similar.

Now aside from merely the look of a system's star(s), the amount is a topic of much discussion. While systems with a singular star are common within Future Tech and science-fiction in general, binary and multiple star systems are also exceptionally popular. When deciding on the amount of stars in a given system, one needs to take into account, above anything else, the mass of their stars. It is not necessary, in this instance, to work with precision (Though I will personally applaud you if you do.), but you can work in relative measures - such as solar masses, as given above. Mass determines (amongst other things) the general force of gravity of a given massive body; the amount of mass for a given set of stars will go into determining the manner in which they orbit.

Below are several animations displaying the a minor selection of different orbital schemes for a binary star systems. Keep in mind that these are, by no means, the only schemes; the below is merely just a sample to give a general idea for players when one is attempting to select a given scheme or generate an idea for their star system:

A considerable degree of thought and contemplation should be given to the star of a player's system; more or less, the star of a system will be its most dominating feature and will not merely define the system, but the placement of anything and everything in that system - from planets to orbital habitats to jump-gates and shipyards.

Please see stellar classification and the main sequence for further information.


Hell or Habitable: Planet Selection^{[ LINK HERE ]}
In Future Tech - sometimes much to my own chagrin - planets (much less stars) are often thrown willy-nilly into orbit around respective stellar bodies with little thought put into determining the feasibility or habitability of such objects. For the sake of this guide, we will cover both; firstly, however, we must harken back to the nebular hypothesis and the creation of stars - specifically in order to cover the concept of a protoplanetary disc.

During stellar formation (though there is still much debate ongoing about this hypothesis), not all mass which has been attracted toward a gravitational well will collapse or "fall-into" the protostar, some portions of this mass will form what is called an accretion or protoplanetary disc: a collection of massive amounts of gas and debris capture around a star, tugged along by the protostar's immense gravitational pressure and knocked-about by a combination of stellar winds within the influence of the angular velocity of the star as its gravity tugs and captures more and more debris. During this process, much how stars are formed from giant molecular clouds, certain bits of matter become stuck together, growing in size and mass, and thus growing in their relative gravitational attraction, drawing ever more mass into itself. Eventually, a planet is formed.

Now, contrary to popular belief, a planet is not simply anything in space that isn't a star, comet, or asteroid. A planet is any object that is not a star, that is massive enough to be rounded (ie. spherical or oval-shaped) by its own gravity, is not massive enough to initiate fusion, and has cleared its relative orbital region of planetesimals. Anything not meeting these criteria is either a dwarf planet (such as Ceres and Makemake), a planetoid (though this term is somewhat out-dated), or are planetesimals (or, otherwise, comets, asteroids, and general space junk).

That being said, there are even different types of planets (both theorized and proven):

• Terrestrials: A planet composed of primarily silicate rock and/or metals. Examples include Earth, Mercury, Mars, and Venus. Sub-types include: barren planets, carbon planets, coreless planets, desert planets, ice planets, iron planets, lava or vulcan planets, oceanic planets, and others.
• Gas Giants: A planet not composed of primarily silicate rock and/or metals, but composed of gravitationally-bound gasses such as hydrogen, helium, argon, and sulfides. Examples include Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Sub-types include: carbon giants (or "carbon stars"), chthonians, eccentric Jovians, helium planets, hot Jovians, ice giants, super-Jovians, and others.
• Brown Dwarfs: A "planet" or "low-mass star" that is not massive enough to maintain prolonged hydrogen-1 fusion in its core. They have an upper limit of around 75-80 times the mass of Jupiter.
• Rogue Planets: Planets which do not orbit a central star, but orbit the Galaxy directly or otherwise orbit far outside of a star system with an external barycenter beyond the neighboring regions of the planet itself.

Keep in mind, this is hardly scratching the surface of planet types. Players are encouraged to do their own research in this area, but for the sake of brevity, the guide will now move-on and focus on determining planet placement within a star system.

Before we delve into a more complicated topic, if the player is wishing to design a system that lacks habitable worlds, this section can essentially be skipped from hereafter. Designing a star system with uninhabitable planets is far more simple than designing a system with one or more habitable worlds. Even so, when designing a system without habitable worlds one still needs to take into account orbital periods, masses, relative location, and composition of planets. Especially in the design of gas giants, one needs to determine a given range far enough from the host star that a rocky core was able to develop, but that the primary composition of attracted materials were gaseous or liquid, and not solid. Also, one need to take into account tidal forces which will further dictate planetary placement.

Moving onto habitable planets, however, one need to take into account the circumstellar habitable zone, or the region around a star in which, if a terrestrial planet (such as Earth) forms, it is both far enough from its host star not to burn, but close enough not to freeze. Such a region - the habitable zone - is generally understood to be the region of a star system in which life could naturally be supported in some form. Now, determining the habitable zone of a star is difficult - especially for a roleplayer or writer - and involves taking into account the mass of the host star, the mass of neighboring planets, the composition of the planetary system, the stellar weather cycle, and numerous other factors. To say the least, it is a labor intensive process... unless you use a calculator.

Keep in mind that this calculator is very simple and should not be used as the be-all, end-all of determining the habitable zone of a given system. It does, however, take-out most (if not all) of the math by calculating automatically the most important factors. Fiddling with the calculator a bit will help you determine an approximate star mass and luminosity, as well, in relation to its given habitable zone. Players will quickly notice, however, that over a stars life, its habitable zone does, in fact, shift. This should be taken into account when one determines where to place a naturally habitable planet. Even then, axial tilt, planetary mass, and size all need be determined (even in generality) to achieve a habitable, terrestrial planet; remember, seasons exist and greatly determine the likelihood of life developing on said planet.

If, however, a player wants a planet to be habitable outside of a this zone, then one need to determine one of two courses: either figure out a method of terraforming that is feasible and fits within the acceptable standards of Future Tech, or determine an exotic means (ie. handwave) as to why the planet is habitable.

Please see planets, planetoids, planetesimals, and circumstellar habitable zones for further information.


The Galaxy: Choosing a Neighborhood and Other Considerations^{[ LINK HERE ]}
Now that the player has designed one system, in the least, what to do with it? The next step in creating a star system is, first, to decide if the player wishes to decide more. A general rule-of-thumb in Future Tech is that newer players and players with less experience voluntarily constrain themselves to no more than three inhabited planetary systems, normally with a ratio of 1:2:3, or one fully-developed world, two planets undergoing active colonization, and three planets undergoing preliminary exploration and settlement. Opinions will vary considerably one this ratio, each depending on whom the player speaks to, but the general "Three Systems Guideline" is a good place to start, with considerations made for each system based on the player, the entity's or star-state's aesthetics and style of play, and whom the player desires to interact with on a regular basis within the Future Tech community.

Beyond this, the player needs to put thought into where in the Galaxy one desires to place their creations. In general, the Galaxy in the Future Tech is understood to be the Milky Way Galaxy, though names for it will vary depending on the culture the player creates. If the star-state is non-human, it is unlikely they would utilize human naming conventions, for example.

Even so, within Future Tech, the Galaxy is generally understood to be divided into four quadrants:

• Alpha Quadrant: Home to Sol System (Fractal Sol). Generally considered the home to "the Old Money" of the Galaxy and once the center of galactic politics. It is generally understood to be in the "south-west quadrant of the Galaxy". One of its predominant player-created features is the Raumreich Oversector, with a notable player being the United Star Empire of Valinon.
• Beta Quadrant: Generally considered the home to "the Nouveau Riche" of the Galaxy and has become a major center of galactic politics. It is generally understood to be in the "south-east quadrant of the Galaxy". One of its notable players is the Imperial Star Republic of Vocenae.
• Gamma Quadrant: Generally considered "the New Frontier", though it was once noted for being home to many eldritch abominations and cosmic horrors. It is generally understood to be in the "north-west quadrant of the Galaxy". One of its predominant player-created features is The TSAR, with a notable player being the Imperium of Vipra.
• Delta Quadrant: Generally considered "the Hellscape" or "Galactic Warzone", though it was once noted for being "on the edge" of civilized space and served as a primary frontier to the Gamma Quadrant. It is generally understood to be in the "north-east quadrant of the Galaxy". One of its notable players is the Star Empire of Huerdae.

In addition to the quadrants, the Galaxy can further be divided as "above-the-plane", "below-the-plane", and "the plane" itself, each referencing a position relative to the general elliptic plane and bulk of the mass of the Galaxy itself. Further, the Galaxy can be divided into "rimward" (toward the outer rim), "coreward" (toward the core), "spinward" (on the leading edge), "anti-spinward" (on the trailing edge), and "the belt" (or the generally ignored galactic habitable zone, generally stretching 10,000 light-years to either-side of Sol System's orbit).

When considering where one decides to place the primary bulk of their entity, a player need to place more consideration on how they intend to play their entity and whom they wish to interact most with, and less on the astrophysics of the matter. As mentioned, despite existing, the galactic habitable zone is more or less "handwaved" within the Future Tech community, allowing a player to lay claim to any given spot in the Galaxy that they desire to place their systems. Such being said, it should be noted that players should, firstly, create their own systems - as is the point of this guide. Popular Messier objects and systems (such as Alpha Centauri) have long-since been claimed and are now, generally, considered under the control of those whom play them; as such, there are very few unclaimed and commonly-known/popular "real world" systems and it is best for new players to create their own.

Please see the Milky Way Galaxy, galaxies, and State of the Galaxy for further information.


My Physics Are Broken: Exotics, Deviants, and Degenerates^{[ LINK HERE ]}
Want a green star? Want planets to be held in a stable orbit around a black hole? Want planets that make no sense? When all else fails, follow the Rule of Cool.

Ultimately, there is nothing stopping a player from having a green star, a degenerate star, a black hole, a diamond planet, or any other number of exotic and alien worlds and stellar bodies that violate or bend physics. Even so, as noted in the original post of the FT Advice and Assistance thread, a player should seek to reach a balance between "feasible" and "creative". Compromise, collaboration, creativity, and consistency go a long way in allowing a given player to have exceptionally unique and physically impossible creations, but they should not be abused.

If a player finds himself wanting to utilize something purely for it's novelty, and ignores any probable weaknesses that may come with it, it is likely to be ignored. If, however, that same player understands the inherent weaknesses of, say, having a pulsar planetary system and still desires to utilize it, it will likely be accepted. It's all a game of balance - as with anything in Future Tech and science-fiction in general. Players should strive to create both a fantastic and creative world, filled with lush details and considerable vibrancy, but balanced against scientific principles and the general standards of the community.

This guide is not going to detail all of the possible exotic stars and planets one could devise and use, though it will link a few of them. Ultimately, while this guide may serve as an introductory course to system creation, it should not be taken on face value. While I have attempted to be as general and broad as possible, utilizing both my understanding of the community and the science behind the topic, as stated, I am not an astrophysicist or astronomer. Players should do their own research and study what they like on their own time. Hopefully, however, this guide gives players somewhere to start in a more intermediate subject of discussion and world-building and serves to inspire and ignite players to devise their own systems and fill the Future Tech community with new, ever-more creative and exotic worlds.

Please see exotic stars, degenerate and compact stars, quark stars, and black holes for further information.

---

---

• Edit for January 29, 2014: Several edits have been made for both the sake of clarity and to correct certain mistakes regarding planetoids and minor planets. Also, a clarification regarding L, T, and Y-type substellar bodies has been added. Further, clarification (in a simple form) regarding Sagittarius A* and "orbiting the Galaxy" has been amended.

[Jovian Lunar Empire]

On space habitats vs planets

Firstly I take big issue with the idea that "a planet pretty much comes ready for habitation". There are an awful lot of things that need to be right, that if any one of them is wrong means you can't go outside without protective equipment - and if you need environment suits to go out, you've lost one of the big advantages of a planet over a space station. For example, even with plenty of oxygen, too much carbon dioxide in the air will kill you. Then there's the local life to worry about. If you aren't machines, chances are only a world with life can have the atmosphere you require, and then there's always the risk some of that life is pathogenic. If the local life is sufficiently different that it's inedible to you and you to it, the risk of pathogens species-jumping is minimised, but then you're probably unable to take advantage of the planet for agriculture and stuck with the same sealed-environment growing techniques you use in space.

Meanwhile you're always stuck with the drawbacks of a planet. You're at the bottom of a gravity well; landing and taking off needs a lot of energy. Everything you build has to withstand gravity. The weather and the geophysics may be an issue. You don't get to pick the location entirely freely.

On the flipside, space habitats have their own drawbacks. The biggest, I feel, is they're ill suited to 'organic' expansion. On a planet, you can quite freely urban sprawl around, even start with just a single building if you need to and go from there. In space, if you're relying on centrifugal gravity you need to start with quite a big structure. You might build a cylinder one "slice" at a time, but even each slice is going to be a big thing. It's a lot of resources just to get started. Start too small, and the time may come when you have to build an entire new and larger habitat, and then you may have the issue that transport between them is slower and more expensive than going around on a planet. Or else you have say something that's very long and narrow, and transport within it gets to be a pain. (Of course, cheap teleportation makes this less of an issue.)

If you have full-on artgrav, you're freer to add modules to your space habitat as you go. Even then, I wonder if you might run into issues as it gets bigger.

Ultimately, though it may seem like a wishy-washy compromise, chances are most FT nations are going to have planetary settlements AND space habitats.

The very things that allow you to do space habitats, and that show up as problems, are part and parcel with why long-term space habitation is a null idea. Unless you are a race that either (a) doesn't have any of the human-normal biological systems affected by microgravity or (b) is adapted to microgravity, perhaps being some kind of lunar creature or having spent aeons at space travel already, only artgrav or centrifugal acceleration is going to keep you healthy out beyond a few months to years. So even if you're constructing down-side habitation modules to get around the gravity problem, you'd might as well stay down there.

This is why terraforming is a big thing in even relatively hard Sci-Fi. That kind of engineering simply makes sense to attempt once you get to another world, because you probably don't care about the local life as much as you care about your own. Having said that, unless we're going with ideas of panspermia, I'd say there's a better-than-even chance that any indigenous life encountered is going to be completely incompatible on a biological scale. Different genetic marker chemical, different nutrients, different respiratory gas, and probably even different proteins (proteins being chiral, it's not hard to imagine life that uses all right-handed proteins, or all left-handed, or even just entirely different proteins).

Having said all that, unless you are landing on extraordinarily heavy worlds, or haven't developed exoskeleton/muscular augmentation tech yet, having to wear a hab suit outside is not such a heavy price to pay in the comparatively short term.

[Oppressorion]

This is why terraforming is a big thing in even relatively hard Sci-Fi. That kind of engineering simply makes sense to attempt once you get to another world, because you probably don't care about the local life as much as you care about your own. Having said that, unless we're going with ideas of panspermia, I'd say there's a better-than-even chance that any indigenous life encountered is going to be completely incompatible on a biological scale. Different genetic marker chemical, different nutrients, different respiratory gas, and probably even different proteins (proteins being chiral, it's not hard to imagine life that uses all right-handed proteins, or all left-handed, or even just entirely different proteins).

Man, the environmentalists are gonna kill us. Hmm...I might just put that in my Factbook.

[Rethan]

-snip-

Excellent post is excellent. Although I've been more focused on the creation of a species lately, a lot of the material I read recommends building their home first. Which necessitates even more reading.

God there is so much reading.

But now you've made it so much simpler and I can be lazy again! Truly you are a hero among men.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Technically unrelated, but I am making a stat block for my Cruiser and I was wondering if there was a way to make the table smaller with just two things to be filled out, because its really unnecessarily long and I don't want my ships stat block to look stupid :|

[Thrashia]

Technically unrelated, but I am making a stat block for my Cruiser and I was wondering if there was a way to make the table smaller with just two things to be filled out, because its really unnecessarily long and I don't want my ships stat block to look stupid :|

You mean a stat line? (In other words) You can look in my factbook and see if that strikes you as usable, under the ship section.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Technically unrelated, but I am making a stat block for my Cruiser and I was wondering if there was a way to make the table smaller with just two things to be filled out, because its really unnecessarily long and I don't want my ships stat block to look stupid :|

You mean a stat line? (In other words) You can look in my factbook and see if that strikes you as usable, under the ship section.

No, I mean with tables, when I do so they just end up being long when they shouldn't have to be, and it just makes a lot of unneeded space.

I thought a table would be a nice organized way of showing the stats but I can settle for something else if I can't get anything good out of it :|

[Lubyak]

Hello,

I've recently begun to develop a FT puppet, the Imperial and Federal Union of States, and am interested in getting further involved with the general NS FT community. I've read through the OP, and want to go about becoming involved as quickly as possible. I know FT tends to do things quite differently from the MT community that I've grown used to, but are there any general 'rules' beyond the standard Code of Bro that I should know about?

Also, is there any kind of pan 'tech base' that is used? Like items or directions in technology that are generally frowned upon by the community as a whole? Or any advice at all for a new player in terms of FT with regards to 'empire size' and other such things?

Cheers,
Lubyak

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Hello,

I've recently begun to develop a FT puppet, the Imperial and Federal Union of States, and am interested in getting further involved with the general NS FT community. I've read through the OP, and want to go about becoming involved as quickly as possible. I know FT tends to do things quite differently from the MT community that I've grown used to, but are there any general 'rules' beyond the standard Code of Bro that I should know about?

Also, is there any kind of pan 'tech base' that is used? Like items or directions in technology that are generally frowned upon by the community as a whole? Or any advice at all for a new player in terms of FT with regards to 'empire size' and other such things?

Cheers,
Lubyak

Hey Lubak

I'm busy, but I will come up for some advice if you need me

But as far as I am aware, since you seem to want to be a part of FT prime, it is clear that they don't want things like Vaxon (A friend of mine who was deleted, not going to get into) basically stuff that is either so stupid its not even funny, things that are over powered and I think generally things that if you can't at least hand wave it, then its bad, not sure on that one though.

[StellarGate]

Hello,

I've recently begun to develop a FT puppet, the Imperial and Federal Union of States, and am interested in getting further involved with the general NS FT community. I've read through the OP, and want to go about becoming involved as quickly as possible. I know FT tends to do things quite differently from the MT community that I've grown used to, but are there any general 'rules' beyond the standard Code of Bro that I should know about?

Also, is there any kind of pan 'tech base' that is used? Like items or directions in technology that are generally frowned upon by the community as a whole? Or any advice at all for a new player in terms of FT with regards to 'empire size' and other such things?

Cheers,
Lubyak

Glad to have you on board Lubyak! Seeing new FT players makes me happy.

First, there really is no overall tech base used by everyone, I personally base my tech from the Honorverse series. Some people create their ships and such from total scratch. There is a space Russia who uses space coal to run his spaceships (along with several other hilarious things I can't recall ATM.)

Items and such that are frowned upon? Well since your an II mentor, I think you know that god modding is frowned upon, in FT, depending on your tech, can be sometimes easy to do. As long as you work it out with your RP partner(s) it's probably fine. If you feel something needs some review as to its wankyness you can come here and as the opinion of everyone willing to give it.

Advice for new FT player? Start small. Not galaxy spanning empires or super clusters and such. Starting with 1 to about 3 systems is probably best and you can expand as you get into the grove if RPing. Settling colonies may seem like something you can do in the background, and you can if you wish, but sometimes having a conflict over a planet can be a good thing to add to your history. I personally started with 1 settled planet, since then I have settled and/or absorbed into my empire 25 worlds.

Can't really think of other rules then the rule of cool. Since NS FT is such a variety of people and nations, it's impossible to apply a rule to everyone. Some nations hate aliens and think humans are the best thing since sliced bread. Some are overly aggressive empires, some are ( though not a lot) clone copies of Star Wars/Star Trek. You just have to be willing to work with people to get to the end of the story.

Would write more but my psych class is starting.