Alternate Planets, Suns, Stars, and Solar Systems Thread
- Thread starter Pragmatic Progressive
- Start date
Great maps, thanks! Just one question - why does the annotated map have Ganymede near Earth
?
Since this is the best thread for it, Super Planet Crash created by Stefano Meschiari at Texas University is an entertaining little gimmick which also could let you check out how many planets one could cram into the habitable zone without them sling each other out of their orbits...
Well, the program only runs for up to 500 simulated years so it is not exactly proof if your desired star system is really stable in the long run but you can get at least get some indication if it's stable (i.e. are there only minor issues that one can ignore for the sake of the story/worldbuilding or would it even only take a few years to be flung out of orbit)
Plus for a geek like me it's kinda fun
Well, the program only runs for up to 500 simulated years so it is not exactly proof if your desired star system is really stable in the long run but you can get at least get some indication if it's stable (i.e. are there only minor issues that one can ignore for the sake of the story/worldbuilding or would it even only take a few years to be flung out of orbit)
Plus for a geek like me it's kinda fun
Great maps, thanks! Just one question - why does the annotated map have Ganymede near Earth
There's this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1036_Ganymed
Kind of neat that it includes Ganymed and Eros. Maybe it should include Cruithne?
Thinking about how epic such a small habitat would be as a setting raised an interesting question - how small would a world (or habitat) have to be for the curvature to be readily obvious to its inhabitants? Obviously in a terrarium such as that you can tell its the inside of a sphere due to the ground curving up in a noticeable, or looking up and being able to see the land above you. However on a larger sphere perhaps it wouldn't be readily appreciable? A slightly larger terrarium would have a broader strip of inhabitable land which might reduce some of the problems surrounding breathable air - certainly it would be less steep.
Still trying to think of how the gravity-gradient towards the axis would work in a practical sense as well - presumably if you skirted this region in air-routes the reduced gravity would allow considerably more efficient transport - or perhaps it wouldn't work like that!
In case anyone might find it useful this my attempt at producing a blank worlda style-and-scale sphere for Pluto maps. Being honest I don't think its the correct size having eyeballed it against Russia but I have reached the edge of frustration with it so if anyone fancies editing it please do!
New version of the Solar System map and PDN file
PDN file
http://fai.org.ru/forum/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=16661
PDN file
http://fai.org.ru/forum/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=16661
Just a snapshot but my WIP political map for Ethel 3 is pretty much complete, which took a surprisingly long time given that when your creating a world theoretically you should just be able to draw whatever borders you like! I will probably be making a thread on the ASB forum for this setting somewhen soon if anyone is interested as the material is starting to mount up a bit Hopefully I have captured the mixture of arbitrary straight lines drawn by a space-empire colonisation planner and several hundred years of dealing with the reality of geography and angry neighbours!
EDIT - This area is one of the most packed with small countries, it should be noted given how generally unfriendly to human life Ethel 3 is most of these "nations" have populations of about 100,000 or less. Although in general the further south you go the more people they support (very rough rule of thumb).
Hopefully I have captured the mixture of arbitrary straight lines drawn by a space-empire colonisation planner and several hundred years of dealing with the reality of geography and angry neighbours!EDIT - This area is one of the most packed with small countries, it should be noted given how generally unfriendly to human life Ethel 3 is most of these "nations" have populations of about 100,000 or less. Although in general the further south you go the more people they support (very rough rule of thumb).
I have been trying to create a "kit-list" of animal species that are likely to be required or used for terraforming and colonising an exo-planet. Obviously with different atmospheric compositions and the fact this would be in the future genetic modification is both likely and sensible. Still common domestic animals like pigs, cows and sheep seem almost certain, if only because a sizeable space-ship could carry them for fresh food in transit. Pollinators would also be vital so I imagine all colonial space-ships would have sizeable apiaries - that and nobody can deny honey is an awesome non-perishable food.
Last edited:
You should ask this in the Worldbuilding thread. Anyway, I don't think cows or other grazing animals would be a good choice, since they are inefficient with regard to space, food and water. A colony shop would mostly have smaller animals and possibly fish living in aquaculture.
Depends on the exoplanet. Does it already have atmosphere? liquid water? soil?
An alien ecosystem?
Okay, so that's a square- would using a different ratio for a rectangle make it more accurate?
So if you mapped from the inner circle, you would have the top and bottom of the map stretched horizontally. Therefore, if you squeezed (or maybe stretched?) the map horizontally with varying degrees depending on where you were squeezing, would it be more accurate? Could you do the same just by taking a square and making it an equirectangular, or even a robinson map?
Notes on donut worlds by Artifexian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4iIBKJHLA
I was trying to type a summary of the video, but my touchpad loves pretending I use it so it clicked submit and that broke, so now all of that is gone.
-Toroidal worlds will have: temperate high mountains and archipelagos hubwards, high grav at the poles but thin crust so lots of volcanoes, tropics on the outer edges.
Plus, a map of it, using red for lots of volcanics, green for tropics, seafoam for temperate- however, climate bands are very likely to be thinner because you'll need to have high rotation speed to avoid falling apart. You could also read it as a gravity map- green for lowest grav, seafoam for slightly higher, red for highest- though red would be slightly inwards.
So if you mapped from the inner circle, you would have the top and bottom of the map stretched horizontally. Therefore, if you squeezed (or maybe stretched?) the map horizontally with varying degrees depending on where you were squeezing, would it be more accurate? Could you do the same just by taking a square and making it an equirectangular, or even a robinson map?
Notes on donut worlds by Artifexian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4iIBKJHLA
I was trying to type a summary of the video, but my touchpad loves pretending I use it so it clicked submit and that broke, so now all of that is gone.
-Toroidal worlds will have: temperate high mountains and archipelagos hubwards, high grav at the poles but thin crust so lots of volcanoes, tropics on the outer edges.
Plus, a map of it, using red for lots of volcanics, green for tropics, seafoam for temperate- however, climate bands are very likely to be thinner because you'll need to have high rotation speed to avoid falling apart. You could also read it as a gravity map- green for lowest grav, seafoam for slightly higher, red for highest- though red would be slightly inwards.
Last edited:
Toroidal worlds are actually far easier to map than round ones. It's a square, with X and Y mapped directly to latitude and longitude (both 0-360 degrees). There is no directional distortion, and moving across the map is straightforward: if you move off the top, you reappear at the bottom at the same X coordinate, just as moving off the left or right will place you at the opposite side's same Y coordinate.