Author Topic: BT Planets vs Real World Planets  (Read 3080 times)

KSilvereyes

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 5
BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« on: 21 August 2019, 19:35:04 »
So I have a few questions when it comes to planetary descriptions and coordinates...

1) What do you do with Arcturus, a real star that has coordinates in Hipparcos (or Henry-Draper, etc.) Catalog that puts it in a different location than the BT world.  Is there an Arcturus (BT) and Arcturus (ACT)?  Or shouldn't I worry about it at all?

The main reason is that I am using a 3d mapping program to map out the Battletech universe.  The planet as it stands is awesome, but almost two dimensional (I know... paper map and all).  If I add real world star systems, then I get a huge sphere that shows possible systems where a jump could happen, but nothing exciting exists.

2) Is it possible to add a different culture (say based on HALO, but without the aliens) since the Clans are technically a different culture.  They are human, but genetically better.

3) What do you do with the planets that are not in the "standard" Spectral Type?  Sometimes the safe Jump point is given, but a lot of times it's not.  I'm trying to figure out a standard way of telling where the safe jump point can be calculated.  As in the Lagrange point or something like that.  It would vary according to the luminosity of the star.

Just curious.
KSilvereyes

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #1 on: 21 August 2019, 20:08:50 »
So I have a few questions when it comes to planetary descriptions and coordinates...

1) What do you do with Arcturus, a real star that has coordinates in Hipparcos (or Henry-Draper, etc.) Catalog that puts it in a different location than the BT world.  Is there an Arcturus (BT) and Arcturus (ACT)?  Or shouldn't I worry about it at all?


To put it bluntly, FASA/CGL are gaming companies not astrologers. The map was made to provide a canvas for the game, not to be astronomically accurate.
That said, I have always looked at it as, when the first settlers got to "Proxima Centauri" or "Arcturus" they renamed them New Earth or some other name. So being that humans are so inventive :P the old names were reused.

The main reason is that I am using a 3d mapping program to map out the Battletech universe.  The planet as it stands is awesome, but almost two dimensional (I know... paper map and all).  If I add real world star systems, then I get a huge sphere that shows possible systems where a jump could happen, but nothing exciting exists.

Great idea, but the appeal would be limited. You would be adding a level of complexity that while cool would be outside the needs of the average player base.
So not likely to gain much traction.

2) Is it possible to add a different culture (say based on HALO, but without the aliens) since the Clans are technically a different culture.  They are human, but genetically better.

Not seeing where this is needed as there are many different culture already in the battletech universe. You have the core cultures of the Successor states, the many sub-cultures within those, and the many different culture in the periphery.
So I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for?
If all you are looking for a HALO type culture then my question would be why.
This is Battletech not HALO, if you want to play HALO using Battletech rule I'm sure it could be done, but that would be on you not CGL.

3) What do you do with the planets that are not in the "standard" Spectral Type?  Sometimes the safe Jump point is given, but a lot of times it's not.  I'm trying to figure out a standard way of telling where the safe jump point can be calculated.  As in the Lagrange point or something like that.  It would vary according to the luminosity of the star.

Campaign Ops.
SOLAR SYSTEM GENERATION
Page. 100: Stellar chart lists Safe Jump Distance (km)
page. 120: MATH GUIDANCE:Transit Times from zenith or nadir
And much more

Ogra_Chief

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #2 on: 21 August 2019, 20:50:37 »
First, welcome to the BT Boards KSilvereyes. These links may help you in your search:

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Category:Planets

http://iscs.teamspam.net/

As, for the BT map, it has a long and storied origin that would take awhile to detail. But, the short of it is, that it was orginally copied from FASA's old Star Trek game. Realizing they didn't have enough systems, they expanded it, but inadvertently or maybe not... inverted coordinates for said systems. As the game has progressed more systems have been added some/some not, corresponding with actual systems. Additionally, the map is off angle to galactic center, meaning you need to twist Terra by 30' from North to the right. There's more, but as I said, it's a long story.

Hope that helps, and yes CGL are not cartographers or rocket scientists.  :)

But, they try hard, too please the mean old curmudgeons that inhabit this neck of the internet. Again, welcome.
« Last Edit: 21 August 2019, 20:53:26 by Ogra_Chief »
BattleTech @CGL_BattleTech · Jul 17
Harmony Gold no longer has any say in our decisions, however, the original mechs have been redesigned enough to not cause problems.

General308

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #3 on: 21 August 2019, 20:57:16 »
You know this may be a different point.  But given the tech they had to work with how much of a pain must it have been to do the original maps?  Seriously that had to take a lot of time.

Besides we are in a different timeline/reality than the BattleTech canon anyways.

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4497
    • Tower of Jade
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #4 on: 22 August 2019, 08:27:29 »
So I have a few questions when it comes to planetary descriptions and coordinates...

1) What do you do with Arcturus, a real star that has coordinates in Hipparcos (or Henry-Draper, etc.) Catalog that puts it in a different location than the BT world.  Is there an Arcturus (BT) and Arcturus (ACT)?  Or shouldn't I worry about it at all?

Don't worry about it at all.

The main reason is that I am using a 3d mapping program to map out the Battletech universe.  The planet as it stands is awesome, but almost two dimensional (I know... paper map and all).  If I add real world star systems, then I get a huge sphere that shows possible systems where a jump could happen, but nothing exciting exists.

The BT star map is, and has always been, a 2d map. So when you put it into the 3d format and you get those big gaps you're seeing why they kept it 2d instead of 3d.

As for the big areas where nothing exciting exists, they were actually a plot point in several stories. Ships can move through them, but since (A) they're abandoned systems and (B) JumpShips could suffer an engineering fatality at any time, usually ships don't move through them. I can only think of a few times it's happened in the fiction.

2) Is it possible to add a different culture (say based on HALO, but without the aliens) since the Clans are technically a different culture.  They are human, but genetically better.

It's your game universe. Do whatever you like. CGL has dramatically cut back on the numbers of Game Rules Compliance Officers in their employ so you're free to do as you like. Era Digest: Age of War has several smaller factions that existed before the Great Houses and were later subsumed into a House. Any of the Handbook: House Whatever volumes has information on regional cultures in the Great Houses as well. I think House Arano: The Aurigan Coalition is the latest one, and it might be a good model because it talks about a small Periphery nation that didn't exist before 3020.

For some really fun (almost goofy) examples, you may want to check out Welcome to the Nebula California, War of the Tripods!, and Necromo Nightmare.

3) What do you do with the planets that are not in the "standard" Spectral Type?  Sometimes the safe Jump point is given, but a lot of times it's not.  I'm trying to figure out a standard way of telling where the safe jump point can be calculated.  As in the Lagrange point or something like that.  It would vary according to the luminosity of the star.

Just curious.
KSilvereyes

Rules for Hyperspace Travel are on pages 86-89 of Strategic Operations and cover most of what you're asking. For a more human friendly approach to the topic that provides details, look at the "AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES" fiction that starts on page 122. Page 134 has answers for the questions you're asking. Here's a quick quotation that you may find interesting.

Quote from: Strategic Operations, p. 134
JUMP POINTS
Where can you actually use a jump drive? Everyone’s heard that
JumpShips have to jump from and to “jump points,” but what are
jump points and where are they?

(snip)

... the points on the system’s
proximity limit intersected by the poles of the plane of the
ecliptic, which is the plane most of the planets are on. Generally,
these least-troubled jump points are “over the poles of the star,”
since stars tend to have an equator close to the plane of the
ecliptic...
Today, we call these the zenith and nadir points.

In fact, the zenith and nadir jump points are so preferred
that all other points are called “non-standard jump points,”
even their fellow proximity points.

The fiction is credited as a "Tharkad University lecture broadcast at the Lloyd Marik-Stanley Aerospace School. Used With Permission."

Far more detailed information re: stars is in Campaign Operations "Solar System Generation" section, pp. 98-133. For example, CampOps has the PRIMARY SOLAR STATS TABLE, which contains these data types: Spectral Class, Charge Time (hrs), Transit Time (days), Safe Jump Distance (km), Mass Mstar/Msun, Luminosity Lstar/Lsun, Radius Rstar/Rsun Temp (K), Lifetime (Million Years), Habitability Modifier.

Should give you everything you need. And NeonKnight created a Solar System Creation EXCEL Spreadsheet which may or may not be useful for you.
Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

KSilvereyes

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #5 on: 22 August 2019, 18:35:51 »
To put it bluntly, FASA/CGL are gaming companies not astrologers. The map was made to provide a canvas for the game, not to be astronomically accurate.
That said, I have always looked at it as, when the first settlers got to "Proxima Centauri" or "Arcturus" they renamed them New Earth or some other name. So being that humans are so inventive :P the old names were reused.
I get that and it actually makes a lot of sense.  Planets in different locations already have the same names... Bell (CC) and Bell (OA), Atreus (Clan) and Atreus (FWL), etc.  So I guess having two Arcturus wouldn't be too bad.

Great idea, but the appeal would be limited. You would be adding a level of complexity that while cool would be outside the needs of the average player base.
So not likely to gain much traction.

I guess I was thinking just within my group.  I like the idea of 3D mapping of the BT universe.  It's easier to see the whole picture and then zoom down to the system level.  Plus the ability to search for any system and have it show up planets and all is very useful.  But you are right... not everyone would be interested.

Not seeing where this is needed as there are many different culture already in the battletech universe. You have the core cultures of the Successor states, the many sub-cultures within those, and the many different culture in the periphery.
So I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for?
If all you are looking for a HALO type culture then my question would be why.
This is Battletech not HALO, if you want to play HALO using Battletech rule I'm sure it could be done, but that would be on you not CGL.

I guess I was thinking more along the line of insurrection among colonies and the creation of a military force specifically to deal with it, such as the OSTDs.  I love Star Wars, but don't want to play the star wars game.  I want to play Battletech, but there are no aliens in battletech.  I was reading the HALO books and thought, wouldn't that be neat and without needing aliens.  Just another way to make the game interesting after meeting all of those cultures.

Campaign Ops.
SOLAR SYSTEM GENERATION
Page. 100: Stellar chart lists Safe Jump Distance (km)
page. 120: MATH GUIDANCE:Transit Times from zenith or nadir
And much more

According to the rules, the luminosity value - the roman numeral at the end - should be "V" because that is a main sequence star.  However, a lot of the planets in Battletech are types "II", "III" and "IV". 
"Because of this, stars under these rules are assumed to be main sequence stars by default. However, BattleTech has placed habitable worlds around stars of different sizes, particularly giant stars (size class IV to Ia). A star system built around a giant star multiplies the Luminosity by a factor of 4 over the value listed in the Primary Stats Table, doubles the inner and outer radii of the life zone, and reduces the habitability modifier by 2.
Transit and recharge times are not affected by giant stars, though this is an unrealistic and arbitrary rule intended to prevent retroactive continuity changes to many published BattleTech planets (which orbit giant stars almost as often as not). In fact, this may mean (particularly in the case of M-class giants) that the habitable planet and zenith/nadir jump points are inside the bloated star, a detail that is deliberately overlooked when keeping transit times fixed."
- Campaign Operations, Pg. 116-117

So this is a little arbitrary and not detailed.  I want some realism for my gamers and that is one reason I am going to all this trouble.  Just me...

I have noticed that there are a lot of systems that are not detailed.  That have no information about them other than minor information.

In short, I was just curious what other people thought.
« Last Edit: 22 August 2019, 19:08:45 by KSilvereyes »

KSilvereyes

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #6 on: 22 August 2019, 19:24:46 »
Don't worry about it at all.

The BT star map is, and has always been, a 2d map. So when you put it into the 3d format and you get those big gaps you're seeing why they kept it 2d instead of 3d.

As for the big areas where nothing exciting exists, they were actually a plot point in several stories. Ships can move through them, but since (A) they're abandoned systems and (B) JumpShips could suffer an engineering fatality at any time, usually ships don't move through them. I can only think of a few times it's happened in the fiction.

I think it would be cool to "wander" into a system while doing a jump.  But I'm weird.  I get your point and you are right.  The books did say something about jumping to empty systems to recharge the jumpsail and jumping into an occupied system.

It's your game universe. Do whatever you like. CGL has dramatically cut back on the numbers of Game Rules Compliance Officers in their employ so you're free to do as you like. Era Digest: Age of War has several smaller factions that existed before the Great Houses and were later subsumed into a House. Any of the Handbook: House Whatever volumes has information on regional cultures in the Great Houses as well. I think House Arano: The Aurigan Coalition is the latest one, and it might be a good model because it talks about a small Periphery nation that didn't exist before 3020.

For some really fun (almost goofy) examples, you may want to check out Welcome to the Nebula California, War of the Tripods!, and Necromo Nightmare.

I'm learning all the time that there are no official Battletech games.  There are games using the rules, but the rules can be overturned for continuity or to advance the plot.  Or not used at all.  We simplify combat outside of the 'Mechs because that is not where they are supposed to be fighting.

Rules for Hyperspace Travel are on pages 86-89 of Strategic Operations and cover most of what you're asking. For a more human friendly approach to the topic that provides details, look at the "AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES" fiction that starts on page 122. Page 134 has answers for the questions you're asking. Here's a quick quotation that you may find interesting.

The fiction is credited as a "Tharkad University lecture broadcast at the Lloyd Marik-Stanley Aerospace School. Used With Permission."

I keep forgetting about Strategic Operations.  My head is getting sore from smacking it and saying "Oh, yeah."  I am going to read those sections again, as they may help answer some of the questions I have.

Far more detailed information re: stars is in Campaign Operations "Solar System Generation" section, pp. 98-133. For example, CampOps has the PRIMARY SOLAR STATS TABLE, which contains these data types: Spectral Class, Charge Time (hrs), Transit Time (days), Safe Jump Distance (km), Mass Mstar/Msun, Luminosity Lstar/Lsun, Radius Rstar/Rsun Temp (K), Lifetime (Million Years), Habitability Modifier.

Should give you everything you need. And NeonKnight created a Solar System Creation EXCEL Spreadsheet which may or may not be useful for you.

I've been using the charts in Campaign Operations and find they are missing a few things.  I guess that's where I've been adjusting the information to be more realistic.  Putting the Nadir/Zenith point inside the star's radius is a bit too much for me.  Finding a safe distance based on the luminosity of the star seems more realistic.

I like Battletech.  I love playing it.  But one of my characters is an explorer in his off-time.  He has to earn money to keep his Mercenary group from going bankrupt.  So he explores.  And finds new systems.  Needing ideas for new systems is what has got me into this pickle.  As I started to research star systems, I found information that I thought I could use for my systems.  Unfortunately, while realistic, they don't always mesh with Battletech.  A binary planetary system?  A binary star system with planets around each star?  It could make for an interesting story, in addition to fighting off hordes of 'Mechs.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #7 on: 22 August 2019, 19:30:05 »
Way back in college, I calculated a suspiciously convenient 3.45x10-6 gravitational field strength for jump points.  The current tables don't align to that 100%, but my college astronomy book had a table that seemed really close to whatever TPTB were using back in the day.  Of course, I don't have that book any more, and all the current tables are updated with new data.

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #8 on: 01 September 2019, 04:53:00 »
For whatever reason, the galaxy is always depicted in a left-handed coordinate system, with the sun's rotation around the center "to the left" (clockwise) instead of "to the right" (CCW)

Arcturus in the BTU is in the LC, about where is would be, if you swapped BTU "spinward" and "antispinward"... maybe you could correct just about everything in one fell swoop if you just said that the LC/FWL were "spinward" and the DC/FS were "antispinward" ?

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #9 on: 01 September 2019, 07:41:29 »
According to the rules, the luminosity value - the roman numeral at the end - should be "V" because that is a main sequence star.  However, a lot of the planets in Battletech are types "II", "III" and "IV". 

As star systems come along for review and publication, they tend to be converted to main sequence stars. However, that's not always possible. Touring the Stars: Mizar took some improvisation and novel calculations of the recharge times.

Quote
Transit and recharge times are not affected by giant stars, though this is an unrealistic and arbitrary rule intended to prevent retroactive continuity changes to many published BattleTech planets (which orbit giant stars almost as often as not). In fact, this may mean (particularly in the case of M-class giants) that the habitable planet and zenith/nadir jump points are inside the bloated star, a detail that is deliberately overlooked when keeping transit times fixed."
- Campaign Operations, Pg. 116-117

Yeah, there was no way to fix Betelgeuse. It was a worst case situation. The old transit time and recharge time rules for JumpShips are entirely linked to stellar type, so red stars have shorter distances and times than any other. That's perfectly reasonable for main sequence stars. However, Betelgeuse wasn't main sequence. It was a bloated red supergiant that encompassed a red dwarf's entire star system (or Sol's system out to the asteroid belt). It might've started life as an O9V star, which is also off the standard JumpShip charts. And, hey, somewhere in there is a habitable planet, close to a star burping out a mass of gas and dust equivalent to Sol's mass every year.

Scifi in the 1980s was so much easier before all these facts got in the way. :)

Anyway, the fix isn't so much in the improvised Campaign Operations rules for giant star jump and transit times, which is a bandaid for the problem. The fix is in fact checkers going through star systems as they come up for edit and changing them to main sequence stars.

I have noticed that there are a lot of systems that are not detailed.  That have no information about them other than minor information.

Quote
In short, I was just curious what other people thought.

I gave up on 3D maps for the Inner Sphere a long time ago. The fiction, especially descriptions of large scale wars and military advancements, are utterly 2D.

Beyond that, I wrote the Campaign Operations system generation rules to give as much realism as possible when creating your own planets and filling in the blanks. There are compromises in dice rolling to get more playable results, but the chapter is written to encourage players to take charge of results regardless of dice rolls and explains what are realistic results.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #10 on: 01 September 2019, 08:40:53 »
*snip*
Beyond that, I wrote the Campaign Operations system generation rules to give as much realism as possible when creating your own planets and filling in the blanks. There are compromises in dice rolling to get more playable results, but the chapter is written to encourage players to take charge of results regardless of dice rolls and explains what are realistic results.
And we're very thankful for all that hard work!  :thumbsup:

General308

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #11 on: 01 September 2019, 09:04:57 »
nevermind ;D

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #12 on: 01 September 2019, 10:59:04 »
https://www.space.com/35084-betelgeuse-red-giant-star-cannibal.html
https://cns.utexas.edu/news/famous-red-star-betelgeuse-may-have-swallowed-companion
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/did-betelgeuse-swallow-its-companion/


Betelgeuse is rotating anomalously quickly, and its disrupted structure is consistent with having absorbed a sun-mass companion within the last 100,000 years

perhaps Betelgeuse also has another long-period companion, being the one which is inhabited ?

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #13 on: 01 September 2019, 12:56:55 »
perhaps Betelgeuse also has another long-period companion, being the one which is inhabited ?

It's a still a dangerous environment. There's a cheesy alternative: Betelgeuse is named after the famous red giant, but is actually a little runt star that used "clever" naming to lure colonists. Like Promised Land.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #14 on: 02 September 2019, 00:18:11 »
It's a still a dangerous environment. There's a cheesy alternative: Betelgeuse is named after the famous red giant, but is actually a little runt star that used "clever" naming to lure colonists. Like Promised Land.
100 AU and the luminosity from the primary star drops to solar, twin sun scenario

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #15 on: 02 September 2019, 00:58:10 »
That would be one heck of a long year!

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #16 on: 02 September 2019, 01:18:49 »
Not sure, but I was under the impression that most habitable systems had a recharge station a the zenith and/or nadir points.
So the stars luminosity value would not be and issues.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #17 on: 02 September 2019, 01:24:32 »
I think it depends on era and location... front line worlds in the late 3SW have probably had them destroyed.

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #18 on: 02 September 2019, 10:36:35 »
That would be one heck of a long year!
http://export.arxiv.org/pdf/1901.05972

25-30% of all massive stars plausibly have widely separated companions orbiting at 1,000-200,000 AU (=3lyr)

Companions appear to have the usual distribution of masses, so a red dwarf orbiting Betelgeuse is perfectly possible

Think those radii ranges translate to companion orbital periods of around 10K to 10Myr

However the companion's planets might orbit the companion much more quickly and would have to be in the HZ

Betelgeuse has shed massive amounts of luminous material out to those kinds of distances, accounting for why the dim companion was overlooked into the early 21st century  ???

Definitely possible to account for the canon descriptions with a companion system at up to 1pc distance from the primary star


cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #19 on: 02 September 2019, 11:38:22 »
100 AU and the luminosity from the primary star drops to solar, twin sun scenario

The problem with red giants is that their luminosity varies rapidly over geological time scales. They burp out stellar masses of dust and gas, collapse, surge, wax, and wane. A red giant with Sol's mass might settle into a stable red giant for 100 million years out of a billion years of life as what astronomers call a red giant. That's not enough for life to evolve and survive for long.

Planets near Betelgeuse will have the following issues:
1. There's a good chance that Betelgeuse during its O9V main sequence phase of life blew away any proto-planetary disk material before planets could form. Class O stars are not good neighbors.
2. A planet within 100AU of an O9V star will have had about 10 million years to form and coalesce.
3. As Betelgeuse leaves the main sequence after 10 million years or so, it goes through a tempestuous phase where it blows off a good part of its mass and dims considerably. Any proto-planet is going to spend some time imitating Pluto before the star warms again into a red giant.
4. There's a good chance that the planet's illumination during Betelgeuse's red giant phase will be considerably different than during Betelgeuse's main sequence, so the planet will have gone through some special hell.

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #20 on: 02 September 2019, 22:32:54 »
The problem with red giants is that their luminosity varies rapidly over geological time scales. They burp out stellar masses of dust and gas, collapse, surge, wax, and wane. A red giant with Sol's mass might settle into a stable red giant for 100 million years out of a billion years of life as what astronomers call a red giant. That's not enough for life to evolve and survive for long.

Planets near Betelgeuse will have the following issues:
1. There's a good chance that Betelgeuse during its O9V main sequence phase of life blew away any proto-planetary disk material before planets could form. Class O stars are not good neighbors.
2. A planet within 100AU of an O9V star will have had about 10 million years to form and coalesce.
3. As Betelgeuse leaves the main sequence after 10 million years or so, it goes through a tempestuous phase where it blows off a good part of its mass and dims considerably. Any proto-planet is going to spend some time imitating Pluto before the star warms again into a red giant.
4. There's a good chance that the planet's illumination during Betelgeuse's red giant phase will be considerably different than during Betelgeuse's main sequence, so the planet will have gone through some special hell.
correct, all reasons to cue in on canon calling it Betelgeuse II, and (re-)interpret the 2 to mean a stellar companion, on a very wide separation orbit, of up to 1-3 lyr, which I think translates into a period of order 10Myr, once around over the lifetime of the primary so far?

The inhabited planet could orbit the companion, not the much better known and more spectacular primary

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4242
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #21 on: 03 September 2019, 11:26:44 »
The problem is that BT starmaps pinpoint the location of a given system to a fraction of a lightyear, and the position of Beteigeuze on the maps is pretty stable.
For a really interesting... thing... to explain, try Flannagan's Nebula. I just saw Sarna has so far dodged out of describing what that actually is.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #22 on: 04 September 2019, 01:45:24 »
The problem is that BT starmaps pinpoint the location of a given system to a fraction of a lightyear, and the position of Beteigeuze on the maps is pretty stable.
For a really interesting... thing... to explain, try Flannagan's Nebula. I just saw Sarna has so far dodged out of describing what that actually is.
Well neither the primary nor its hypothetical companion would move much

Presumably the star chart shows the Jump point for the inhabited system? Not the primary?

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Talk:Flannagan%27s_Nebulea

FN sounds like a dense cloud region near the Hyades cluster and Taurus molecular cloud, maybe something like the Pillars of Creation?  Something in which young new systems might be immersed?

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #23 on: 04 September 2019, 02:30:56 »
The problem is that BT starmaps pinpoint the location of a given system to a fraction of a lightyear, and the position of Beteigeuze on the maps is pretty stable.
For a really interesting... thing... to explain, try Flannagan's Nebula. I just saw Sarna has so far dodged out of describing what that actually is.


Not trying to quibble with coordinates but nobody cares about anything other than the BTU map anyway, nobody really cares exactly which way is antispinward

Anyway, the real Betelgeuse is 750lyr from Sol, along the dotted line towards the N in orion at about the position of the triangle

Very far from the best fit positioning of the IS "Betelgeuse", not even in the IS

canon is correct if B was named in gest, after a mini RD of exactly the same spectral class

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #24 on: 04 September 2019, 07:15:17 »
It's a still a dangerous environment. There's a cheesy alternative: Betelgeuse is named after the famous red giant, but is actually a little runt star that used "clever" naming to lure colonists. Like Promised Land.

I'd assume they did the same with Canopus because that's a hella hot star and when they got to Canopus to form the Magestry, found it was a radiation blasted hell, noped outta there, found somewhere much nicer and said THIS IS CANOPUS NOW.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

Thunderbolt

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • ex scientia, ad astra
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #25 on: 04 September 2019, 07:56:47 »
I'd assume they did the same with Canopus because that's a hella hot star and when they got to Canopus to form the Magestry, found it was a radiation blasted hell, noped outta there, found somewhere much nicer and said THIS IS CANOPUS NOW.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/calc?in_csys=Equatorial&in_equinox=J2000.0&obs_epoch=2000&lon=6h23m57.10988s&lat=-52d41m44.3810s&pa=0.0&out_csys=Galactic&out_equinox=J2000.0

261deg longitude, -26deg latitude, 310lyr distance

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: BT Planets vs Real World Planets
« Reply #26 on: 05 September 2019, 20:14:13 »
Very far from the best fit positioning of the IS "Betelgeuse", not even in the IS

canon is correct if B was named in gest, after a mini RD of exactly the same spectral class

I like that, actually. It gives a chance to fix a lot of issues about Betelgeuse's recharge and transit times.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.