Return-Path: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 02:01:33 -0700 X-Sender: hwkwnd@johnny.poky.srv.net To: maelstrom@csnet.net From: hwkwnd@poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) Subject: Re: NET SF: Ground work [960222-1] I'm gonna clip most of the original letter so its less roomy in the digest. >First, how about some introductions? Nathan mentioned it would >be useful for someone to know about physics. Someone with knowledge >about biology, ecology, genetics, chemistry and various other >disciplines would also be useful. I'm Alan D. Kohler. At one time I was a physics major (don't wet your pants), the I joined the navy where I was a reactor operator, now I'm going back to school and am majoring in electrical engineering, so I have something of of a physics background. >General Technology >------------------ >Sticking to 'Hard SF' ideas, I can think of three solutions. The first >is hyperspace. Hyperspace is nice, easy and everyone understands it. >It has the disadvantage that it can mean players can go _anywhere_ >they want to, speeding off into the unknown to explore distant parts >of the galaxy the GM doesn't even have on his map. I'll reply to it in 2 parts: 1st: plausibiltiy/hard SF. There's a phenomonon in quantum mechanics called the "tunnel effect". In certain electronic devices (most namely the tunnel diode), subatomic particles appear to traverse a distance without ever existing inbetween. So perhaps we can base our drive on this effect - it would either be something like a hyperspace drive, or something like "Stutterwarp" in 2300 AD, namely a drive that is cycled very quicly, each time only skipping the ship a short distance, but overall it looks like the ship is moving FTL. I prefer the former approach, if for no more reason than the latter's been done in an RPG. Not that the former hasn't, but we can make it a little unique to our little system if we take a little care to detail it right. What I would like to propose is a variation on your standard hyperspace drive, which handles problem 2 in your original statement (i.e. players have a blank check about where they go). First, we could go on a concept similar to "Traveler/Megatraveller" - Travel is from point A to point B, you don't stop anywhere inbetween. Perhaps we could vary from this a little and say "if you shut off the drive, you'll emerge in normal space, but also nowhere near where you need to be." Also, a single "skip" is generally the shortest route between 2 points, thus if you stop, you will be buting yourself a longer trip (perhaps even longer than the initial trip would have been". To keep players from wandering where ever they please, perhaps we could say that any given trip takes a given "energy level" to complete. Thus small ships with small drives could only make short skips between specified points. The amount of energy could be based on a number of things, like perhaps mass of the stars being travelled between (if this is a factor, it's not likely you could ever skip to any point deep in space unless there was a "dead star" or somesuch out there.) as well as more esoteric and vaugely defined (i.e. GMs fiat) concepts like "dark matter". Perhaps most trips occur between 2 stars, but there exist in deep space, concentrations of some unseen, ethereal "dark matter" that doesn't interact with our universe in any way except perhaps its effect on hyperdrives. These points could become "way stations" connecting to stars that otherwise would be inacessible. Using the concepts set forth above would have 2 possible consequences (ok, I'm sort of extrapolating, but that's the heart of good SF) First, if we use the concepts that star mass has alot to do with star travel (i.e. the larger the total mass of the source and destination star, the less powerful drive it takes to make the jump), this makes large stars "conduits" to more distant points, where you could in turn jump to smaller stars. Larger stars with habitable planets (which would be more presumably more rare than smaller stars with habitable planents) would be very strategically important. A second possible development from this theory is a "hypersling" or somesuch. It is more powerful than a ships drive, and can be used to send ships to more distant points than a ships drive could. This would obviously be a very important military development, as well as a tool for exploration and colonization. The GM can use this as a tool to get his players where he wants them. The PCs can be flung into a frontier region where no slings exist. Then, they must explore that region of space, and the journey back (if they wanted to) would be more difficult if not impossible. Ok- I thought of a 3rd possible consequence of this type of a hyperdrive. Dark matter makes some unpredictibilties in the nature of hyperspace, and the trip to point A to point B is not nescessarily the same as point B to point A. This could develop "sargassos in space", star systems or regions where travel to ANYWHERE ELSE is beyond the capability of anyone's drive who is trapped there. Perhaps whole "pocket empires" could develop in such places, but the PCs have never heard about because nothing gets out. Perhaps major govenments or groups in the place could build a hypersling that would get the PCs out, but they could be quite happy with their little cubby-hole in space, where they reign supreme vice the empire/federation/whatever. Whew - I could go on, but I want to get everyone's feedback and see what they think first. >Aliens >------ > >Aliens can be the most interesting (when done well), and most embarressing >(when not) part of SF. Since we're having them, we need to decide on a >few basic principles. Most heartily agreed. >How common is life? Not intelligent life, just life. Assuming life is >common (say 1% of star systems have advanced life (ie animals and >plants, not necessarily 'intelligent' aliens) - note that there are >over 700 stars within just 50ly of Earth. 1% chance of life gives >about 7 habitable worlds ripe for colonisation right on our doorstep), >is safe enough, and makes for a somewhat more interesting campaign. Is this what we are going to use? If so, I'll use this in developing my model for the time it takes to colonise space 9when I get around to it). >How common is intelligent life? A much more tricky question. Breaking >my plan for working out the rules first, I'd say 2 or 3 alien civilisations >would (IMO) be best. Not too many to be improbable, but enough for some >interesting and diverse cultures. And remember, a single alien race can >have many diverse cultures within it, and maybe even genetically >engineered sub-races. Agreed. For a twist, we can borrow Niven&Pournelle's Saurons, who they thought were aliens, but turned out to be genetically engineered humans.... >How anthropomorphic is life? Some would be close to humans, others further. >Chlorine breathers are possible (Hydrochloric Acid for oceans...), >as are various other atmospheric conditions. Maybe one 'wierd' race, >and the rest all oxygen breathers might be the safest bet. Of course, >if large proportions of aliens don't breath oxygen, then a similar >proportion of those habitable worlds aren't going to be habitable >for humans. But that makes conflict with more dissimilar races less likely - strange, eh? >Also, how advanced are the aliens? More advanced than humans? Less? >It would spice things up to have a super-race (something like the >Xeelee if anyone has read Stephen Baxter, or the Planet Killers from >Greg Bear's 'Forge of God' and 'Anvil of Stars'). Perhaps there is a godlike race that is very aloof, or has reached a singularity. >Time >---- > >And what year are we setting things? 2200? 2300? 2400? Later? This >has a big bearing on how many colony worlds there are (once we've decided >just how quickly we can get between stars). Let me work on my model a little before we nail this down - but I would say if you want to allow for a good number of thickly populated worlds, on the order of 1000+ years in the future (2000? 3000?) Alan D. Kohler ---- Alan wrote: >1st: plausibiltiy/hard SF. There's a phenomonon in quantum mechanics >called the "tunnel effect". In certain electronic devices (most namely the >done in an RPG. Not that the former hasn't, but we can make it a little >unique to our little system if we take a little care to detail it right. I agree. We should try to avoid what has already been done. >First, we could go on a concept similar to "Traveler/Megatraveller" - Travel >is from point A to point B, you don't stop anywhere inbetween. Perhaps we >could vary from this a little and say "if you shut off the drive, you'll >emerge in normal space, but also nowhere near where you need to be." Also, Or perhaps you could get stuck in hyperspace because basically you're entering another dimension (5th? ?th? etc...), unless turning the drive some how triggers the vessel to re-enter. >To keep players from wandering where ever they please, perhaps we could say >that any given trip takes a given "energy level" to complete. Thus small >ships with small drives could only make short skips between specified >points. The amount of energy could be based on a number of things, like >perhaps mass of the stars being travelled between (if this is a factor, it's I think the more massive the star is, the shorter the trip should take. (More curvature in space-time.) Am I right? There could be different size drives like you suggested. Some vessels will be too small to have a certain drive. However, as technology increases, the size of the drives will decrease allowing smaller ships to make larger skips. We can get around that by saying the smaller ships cannot handle the stress put on it by the more powerful drive or until technology reaches to a point where small ships can handle more stress. >not likely you could ever skip to any point deep in space unless there was a >"dead star" or somesuch out there.) as well as more esoteric and vaugely >defined (i.e. GMs fiat) concepts like "dark matter". Perhaps most trips >occur between 2 stars, but there exist in deep space, concentrations of some >unseen, ethereal "dark matter" that doesn't interact with our universe in >any way except perhaps its effect on hyperdrives. These points could become >"way stations" connecting to stars that otherwise would be inacessible. Dark matter could be used to skip to and then skip to the next star. I would imagine where dark matter is located, outposts would be set up. What a tactical advantage to be able to skip somewhere without the presence of a star or similar large body (black holes). >A second possible development from this theory is a "hypersling" or >somesuch. It is more powerful than a ships drive, and can be used to send >ships to more distant points than a ships drive could. This would obviously >be a very important military development, as well as a tool for exploration >and colonization. The GM can use this as a tool to get his players where he >wants them. The PCs can be flung into a frontier region where no slings >exist. Then, they must explore that region of space, and the journey back >(if they wanted to) would be more difficult if not impossible. How would a hypersling work? Sounds good, but how is one implemented? >Ok- I thought of a 3rd possible consequence of this type of a hyperdrive. >Dark matter makes some unpredictibilties in the nature of hyperspace, and >the trip to point A to point B is not nescessarily the same as point B to >point A. This could develop "sargassos in space", star systems or regions >where travel to ANYWHERE ELSE is beyond the capability of anyone's drive who >is trapped there. Perhaps whole "pocket empires" could develop in such >places, but the PCs have never heard about because nothing gets out. >Perhaps major govenments or groups in the place could build a hypersling >that would get the PCs out, but they could be quite happy with their little >cubby-hole in space, where they reign supreme vice the >empire/federation/whatever. Definitely. Here's another question... Could a large body (star, black hole, dark matter, etc) actually pull a person off their desired course if it's nearby the desired path of travel? Perhaps the body could actually pull them in a heading towards it! >>Chlorine breathers are possible (Hydrochloric Acid for oceans...), >>as are various other atmospheric conditions. Maybe one 'wierd' race, >>and the rest all oxygen breathers might be the safest bet. Of course, >>if large proportions of aliens don't breath oxygen, then a similar >>proportion of those habitable worlds aren't going to be habitable >>for humans. >But that makes conflict with more dissimilar races less likely - strange, eh? However, the more conflict with those races who do share similar characteristics such as breathing oxygen!!! >Let me work on my model a little before we nail this down - but I would say >if you want to allow for a good number of thickly populated worlds, on the >order of 1000+ years in the future (2000? 3000?) Yes, we should have some thickly populated worlds, but there should also be large areas that are relatively unexplored or colonized to a small extent. About the year, shoot somewhere in the range of 2700-3000 or a little sooner. A lot it will have to deal with when interstellar travel begins. I think to make things interesting, humans should start interstellar travel later than a lot of the races - just beginning to bud in interstellar colonization. Awaiting your comments... -- maelstrom@csnet.net Return-Path: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 19:14:10 -0700 X-Sender: hwkwnd@johnny.poky.srv.net (Unverified) To: maelstrom@csnet.net From: hwkwnd@poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) Subject: Re: NET SF: Ground work [960222-2] OK, developing a few ideas further here, and attempting to answer questions: Before I start replying, I'm not sure if I made it clear what had in mind for the quantum "hyperdrive". A ship can either go to point A to point B with the drive it has, or it cannot. Where it still may be possible to go from point A to C and then to B, to go straight from A to B would require a bigger drive. This gives the GM a bit of control over where the PCs go, and also makes an interesting cross between the standard hyperdrive and sort of a wormhole concept. >>First, we could go on a concept similar to "Traveler/Megatraveller" - Travel >>is from point A to point B, you don't stop anywhere inbetween. Perhaps we >>could vary from this a little and say "if you shut off the drive, you'll >>emerge in normal space, but also nowhere near where you need to be." Also, > >Or perhaps you could get stuck in hyperspace because basically you're >entering another dimension (5th? ?th? etc...), unless turning the drive some >how triggers the vessel to re-enter. That's not too in keeping with hard SF. Not that I'm totally against the idea, but if we base this drive on a sort of quantum physics idea, the ship is like an excited electron (very broad analogy here, BTW). The ship has a certain energy level, if it maintains the drive on, it maintains that higher energy level. If it turns off the drive, the energy level drops until the ship returns to a "rest state", in this case, that means it comes out of hyperspace and settles into normal space. Flash of inspiration: if we are going to make this drive obey certain quantum mechanics principles, how about calling the place they exist in the interim "quantum space"? Flash of inspiration #2: Ok, I thought of a second way an Nth dimension can be possible, if you really want to get weird with this dark matter thing. In most places in the universe, normal space (herafter N-space) is the "basic level" a ship drops to if it shuts its drives off. But perhaps in zones where dark matter is prevalent, it's possible to skip past n-space, and drop into a lower energy level, perhaps called d-space. And since it's a lower energy level, you don't have to expend energy to get there, so there's no way of knowing if you actually have enough power to get back out of the "dark matter well". >>To keep players from wandering where ever they please, perhaps we could say >>that any given trip takes a given "energy level" to complete. Thus small >>ships with small drives could only make short skips between specified >>points. The amount of energy could be based on a number of things, like >>perhaps mass of the stars being travelled between (if this is a factor, it's > >I think the more massive the star is, the shorter the trip should take. >(More curvature in space-time.) Am I right? Makes sense to me. >There could be different size >drives like you suggested. Some vessels will be too small to have a certain >drive. However, as technology increases, the size of the drives will >decrease allowing smaller ships to make larger skips. We can get around that >by saying the smaller ships cannot handle the stress put on it by the more >powerful drive or until technology reaches to a point where small ships can >handle more stress. How about this variation if you want to make the size of the ship a factor: Since the ease and time of the trip may depend on the mass of the connecting stars, it may also depend on the very mass of the ship. (Dark matter outpost discussion snipped, but I agree with response there) >>A second possible development from this theory is a "hypersling" or >>somesuch. It is more powerful than a ships drive, and can be used to send >>ships to more distant points than a ships drive could. This would obviously >>be a very important military development, as well as a tool for exploration >>and colonization. The GM can use this as a tool to get his players where he >>wants them. The PCs can be flung into a frontier region where no slings >>exist. Then, they must explore that region of space, and the journey back >>(if they wanted to) would be more difficult if not impossible. > >How would a hypersling work? Sounds good, but how is one implemented? First off it occurs to me that there was sort of a contradiction when I suggested it, but an easy to fix one. A hypersling is basically a drive that is external to the ship, but it does not enter quantum space with the ship (sort of a stargate). Thus, huge reactors can be devoted to hypersling, and since they don't have to pay the "energy toll" for the mass of the reactors and the hypersling, their ability to cross larger barriers (longer distances or ability to go to a smaller star at the same distance) is drastically increased over a normal drive. Here's where the contradiction comes in. I suggested that if you shut off the drive, the ship drops out of quantum space (hereafter q-space) into n-space. However, the hypersling does not go with the ship, ergo, it doesn't work. But I said that it would be easy to fix, didn't I? Perhaps it takes a large amount of energy to actually "boost" the ship into q-space, afterword you just keep the drive going to make up for energy the ship looses to the surrounding q-space. A consequence of this is that older (pre-hypersling) ships are designed to pay a lower "maintainence cost" than would be required for a trip (they are only designed to keep the ship in q-space for an extended period during a trip that it's own drive could send it into, thus hyperslings would be nearly useless for such ships.) On the other hand, military and exporatory ships would have much larger maintenence drives than equivalent sized civilian ships, because they would use the hypersling more and for longer trips. >>Ok- I thought of a 3rd possible consequence of this type of a hyperdrive. >>Dark matter makes some unpredictibilties in the nature of hyperspace, and >>the trip to point A to point B is not nescessarily the same as point B to >>point A. This could develop "sargassos in space", star systems or regions >>where travel to ANYWHERE ELSE is beyond the capability of anyone's drive who >>is trapped there. Perhaps whole "pocket empires" could develop in such >>places, but the PCs have never heard about because nothing gets out. >>Perhaps major govenments or groups in the place could build a hypersling >>that would get the PCs out, but they could be quite happy with their little >>cubby-hole in space, where they reign supreme vice the >>empire/federation/whatever. > >Definitely. Here's another question... Could a large body (star, black hole, >dark matter, etc) actually pull a person off their desired course if it's >nearby the desired path of travel? Perhaps the body could actually pull them >in a heading towards it! Sure, especially if they are travelling an uncharted course, an unforseen pocket of dark matter make navigational computatios invalid, all bet are off! This sure makes exploration and trailblazing a risky business... >>>Chlorine breathers are possible, >>>if large proportions of aliens don't breath oxygen, then a similar >>>proportion of those habitable worlds aren't going to be habitable >>>for humans. > >>But that makes conflict with more dissimilar races less likely - strange, eh? > >However, the more conflict with those races who do share similar >characteristics such as breathing oxygen!!! I like it! >>Let me work on my model a little before we nail this down - but I would say >>if you want to allow for a good number of thickly populated worlds, on the >>order of 1000+ years in the future (2000? 3000?) > >Yes, we should have some thickly populated worlds, but there should also be >large areas that are relatively unexplored or colonized to a small extent. > >About the year, shoot somewhere in the range of 2700-3000 or a little >sooner. is that 2700-3000 "AD" or "years in the future"? If the former, I'm going to have a hard time justifying thickly populated worlds. A lot it will have to deal with when interstellar travel begins. I >think to make things interesting, humans should start interstellar travel >later than a lot of the races - just beginning to bud in interstellar >colonization. True, If we use the q-drive as it now seems to be developing (am I hogging the stage as far as that goes, or are my efforts appreciated?), the expansion wave could be in tendrils, leading to the frontiers being at many different distances in different directions. ome could be near alien empires, others in lonely, empty space devoid of any sentient life. I promise I'll pull out my GURPS Space tonight and start working up a population model. Oh, BTW, are we going to use any kind of standard system once we get to that point (FUDGE is generic enough for most purposes and would make conversion to other systems fairly easy). Alan D. Kohler ---- I normally will not go onto a third digest in a day (one it's hard for others to keep up), but this topic seems to be going along quite well... Anyway, Alan wrote: >Before I start replying, I'm not sure if I made it clear what had in mind >for the quantum "hyperdrive". A ship can either go to point A to point B >with the drive it has, or it cannot. Where it still may be possible to go >from point A to C and then to B, to go straight from A to B would require a >bigger drive. Quantum based drive. Knowing that helps. For some reason I skipped over the words "quantum mechanics"... Sorry. >That's not too in keeping with hard SF. Not that I'm totally against the >idea, but if we base this drive on a sort of quantum physics idea, the ship >is like an excited electron (very broad analogy here, BTW). Actually, a lot of theoretical physics are pointing to the fact they believe that there are many dimensions besides the 4 that we are familiar with. Their problem is that how can you prove something that you can't sense or respond to and that is unimaginable to the human mind. So with that in mind it is not necessarily breaking with scientific thought. However, I mentioned that because I did not understand your quantum drive because I misunderstood what you said. >The ship has a certain energy level, if it maintains the drive on, it >maintains that higher energy level. If it turns off the drive, the energy >level drops until the ship returns to a "rest state", in this case, that >means it comes out of hyperspace and settles into normal space. Got it. >Flash of inspiration: if we are going to make this drive obey certain >quantum mechanics principles, how about calling the place they exist in the >interim "quantum space"? Fine with me. Also, call the drive a "quantum drive". >Flash of inspiration #2: Ok, I thought of a second way an Nth dimension can >be possible, if you really want to get weird with this dark matter thing. >In most places in the universe, normal space (herafter N-space) is the >"basic level" a ship drops to if it shuts its drives off. Now we're pushing the sci-fi... YES! >But perhaps in zones where dark matter is prevalent, it's possible to skip >past n-space, and drop into a lower energy level, perhaps called d-space. >And since it's a lower energy level, you don't have to expend energy to get >there, so there's no way of knowing if you actually have enough power to get >back out of the "dark matter well". Dark matter really could make it treacherous to quantum jump (or should I say "Quantum Leap"! Just kidding...) >How about this variation if you want to make the size of the ship a factor: >Since the ease and time of the trip may depend on the mass of the connecting >stars, it may also depend on the very mass of the ship. Agree. >A hypersling is basically a drive that is external to the ship, but it does >not enter quantum space with the ship (sort of a stargate). Thus, huge >reactors can be devoted to hypersling, and since they don't have to pay the >"energy toll" for the mass of the reactors and the hypersling, their ability >to cross larger barriers (longer distances or ability to go to a smaller >star at the same distance) is drastically increased over a normal drive. Makes sense. However, quantum hyperslings should be costly to make until technology reaches a point where the cost and resources spent drops. >Here's where the contradiction comes in. I suggested that if you shut off >the drive, the ship drops out of quantum space (hereafter q-space) into >n-space. However, the hypersling does not go with the ship, ergo, it >doesn't work. No it does work. The sling throws it up to the necessary energy level. Once the excitable state the ship is in drops, then the ship will come to the resting level and appear in n-space. Yes? >Perhaps it takes a large amount of energy to actually "boost" the ship into >q-space, afterword you just keep the drive going to make up for energy the >ship looses to the surrounding q-space. A consequence of this is that older >(pre-hypersling) ships are designed to pay a lower "maintainence cost" than >would be required for a trip (they are only designed to keep the ship in >q-space for an extended period during a trip that it's own drive could send >it into, thus hyperslings would be nearly useless for such ships.) On the >other hand, military and exporatory ships would have much larger maintenence >drives than equivalent sized civilian ships, because they would use the >hypersling more and for longer trips. Yes, I think the drives working hand in hand with the slings is the ideal way to use technology to it's max. The drives would not drain the ship's energy supply to bring the ship into q-space since that already was accomplished by the sling. The ship can go much further since more energy is available to maintain the excited level to travel through q-space. >Sure, especially if they are travelling an uncharted course, an unforseen >pocket of dark matter make navigational computatios invalid, all bet are >off! This sure makes exploration and trailblazing a risky business... Yes and they can also slip into d-space. >>>But that makes conflict with more dissimilar races less likely - strange, eh? >> >>However, the more conflict with those races who do share similar >>characteristics such as breathing oxygen!!! > >I like it! I hoped some people would! >is that 2700-3000 "AD" or "years in the future"? If the former, I'm going >to have a hard time justifying thickly populated worlds. I meant AD, but that is so unrealistic. The least it could be is 1500 years into the future. If not 2000 years. Start at 1500 and work up. >True, If we use the q-drive as it now seems to be developing (am I hogging >the stage as far as that goes, or are my efforts appreciated?), the >expansion wave could be in tendrils, leading to the frontiers being at many >different distances in different directions. ome could be near alien >empires, others in lonely, empty space devoid of any sentient life. Yeah you're hogging the stage, but so am I in helping get the kinks and bugs out! I'm sure the efforts are appreciated. If not, we surely to get flamed sooner or later. :) The expansion will not be constant as you mentioned. That will make your job more challenging, but we need a rough idea. Details are not important. We're laying out a ground work, not developing the universe in detail yet. The q-drive we did need details just so we know what we're dealing with for the means of expansion. >I promise I'll pull out my GURPS Space tonight and start working up a >population model. Also, look into Ross Smith's planet generation system. If you would like a copy sent to you, just ask. >Oh, BTW, are we going to use any kind of standard system once we get to that >point (FUDGE is generic enough for most purposes and would make conversion >to other systems fairly easy). Right now, no systems. When we're all done, maybe we'll work on sources for FUDGE and GURPS. Many times I grab a source book which is well done, but it seems to fit the system in a strange, but nice fashion... like the plot and background was molded around the system. The system should be molded around the universe! FUDGE and GURPS are good systems to adapt to any setting so it should be workable. Lets not worry about that right now. That's in the FAR future... Well, that should be enough today... ...And please feel free to comment! :) -- maelstrom@csnet.net To Alan: Okay, I am sending you the Planet Generation system I mentioned to you. The system is not too simple (or unrealistic), but also it is not too complex (or realistic). The author of the system, Ross Smith, found a middle ground with the system. It's a great system, but I'm not sure how good it will be to use for our purposes. Perhaps we should take from both systems. Speaking of GURPS, I'm going to try to get my hands on a copy of GURPS space so that I can follow along what you're doing better. Everyone: If anyone else would like to a take a peek at the PG system, just send me an email and I'll send it your way. ---- Return-Path: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 01:44:39 -0700 X-Sender: hwkwnd@johnny.poky.srv.net To: maelstrom@csnet.net From: hwkwnd@poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) Subject: Quick update on the world population thing I'll write something more digest worthy tomorrow, but for today, I'll give you a summary of how my model's working so far. GURPS space assumes that in ideal situations, with modern medical technology, over 100 years, the world grows 10 times its population. Negative factors (too hot, too cold, etc.) produce straight negative modifiers, for example a hot world subtracts 2 from this number, so population on such a world would grow 8 times over 100 year. To make things easy on myself, I split everything up into 1 decade blocks (at least for the first 50 years). I assumed a universal, aggressive colonization scheme- basically, after the world is discovered, every 10 years a ship with 10,000 colonists arives over the first 50 years. For the ideal world with such assumptions, it would be on the same order of population as earth after 600 years or so - well, a little more than Earth today, weighing in at 33.2 billion. Population saturation would occur sometime soon after that, but that's not an issue I am going to deal with tonight. One of the easiest ways to guess what year would be appropriate is ask the these questions and fill in the blank - I've provided examples of each in parenthesis, not necesarily to be taken as recomendations. What year is mankind capable of reaching and exploring the stars (i.e. has q-drive) (Alan's guess: 2500) How fast does man explore the stars (for simplicity, 1 ly radius per year.) (This could be slowed down by several factors - geometry, the discovery of navigational hazards such as sargassos and d-space "pits", which would make exploration more careful, encountering hostile alien races, wars, etc, but we'll assume an average of 1 ly per year) How many years after finding a suitable planet does colonization actually begin (50) How far from earth do we want planets with earth like populations to occur (total guess here, say 100 ly) (then divide this by the exploration rate to get time, thus 100 years) How long does it take for the fastest growing worlds to reach earthlike population? (from my assumptions, 600 years) Add it all up 2500 AD - Q-drive - first exploration of nearby stars FTL 50 years - time to colonization of nearest stars 100 years- time between first colonization and colonization 100 ly away 600 years- time from first footfall to earthlike population --------- 3250 AD Alot earlier than I was expecting, but (fortunately for you), a lot closer to yours. Sound good? This is a very rough model, but doesn't sound like a half bad guess. Note, this is for the core worlds to be earthlike in population. The frontiers beyond this are VERY broad - remember 1 ly/year, 600 years before the campaign starts, thus exploration could be occuring 600 ly from the frontier (and 700 ly from earth). Of course, if you think that's too big, we can assume the afforementioned rate of exploration dropped significantly (due to internal tension and the reasons discussed above). Say after 100 years, things happen, expansion halves - to 1/2 ly radius per year. Thus the frontier is 300 ly from the outer core worlds, and 400 ly from Earth. As we discussed earlier, perhaps expansion is irregular- the frontier is 700 ly away in one direction, and 400 ly in another. I made a spreadsheet for the growth model that plots population over the 1st 50 years, and at 100 years, 200 years...600 years. You can enter different growth factors, colonization rates, etc. I'll be using it to develop an overall model as needed. I'm thinking perhaps the radius of the core should be only 50 ly away - but I need to go on to part 2 of my model, dealing with star densities, etc. before I'm sure about that one. But it only changes the time figure 50 years. Aww, heck with it, there's lots of good stuff there, if you wanna put it in the digest go ahead. Tired - need sleep - later Alan ---- Alan wrote: >I'll write something more digest worthy tomorrow, but for today, I'll give >you a summary of how my model's working so far. No problem. >What year is mankind capable of reaching and exploring the stars (i.e. has >q-drive) (Alan's guess: 2500) Not only would you need to know mankind's capability, but for the various alien races. >How fast does man explore the stars (for simplicity, 1 ly radius per year.) >(This could be slowed down by several factors - geometry, the discovery of >navigational hazards such as sargassos and d-space "pits", which would make >exploration more careful, encountering hostile alien races, wars, etc, but >we'll assume an average of 1 ly per year) The average can deviate whether there are clusters or just lone stars not belonging to any. We can work just with 1 ly per year and see how that goes. >How many years after finding a suitable planet does colonization actually >begin (50) On average perhaps. However, the importance of the system or the planet can cause colonization rapidly... or if not so important, more slowly. >How far from earth do we want planets with earth like populations to occur >(total guess here, say 100 ly) (then divide this by the exploration rate to >get time, thus 100 years) Not sure... >How long does it take for the fastest growing worlds to reach earthlike >population? (from my assumptions, 600 years) As long as there are no setbacks. >Add it all up Maybe I should get a calculator... :) >2500 AD - Q-drive - first exploration of nearby stars FTL >50 years - time to colonization of nearest stars >100 years- time between first colonization and colonization 100 ly away >600 years- time from first footfall to earthlike population >--------- >3250 AD Not bad! >As we discussed earlier, perhaps expansion is irregular- the frontier is 700 >ly away in one direction, and 400 ly in another. Works for me. >I made a spreadsheet for the growth model that plots population over the 1st >50 years, and at 100 years, 200 years...600 years. You can enter different >growth factors, colonization rates, etc. I'll be using it to develop an >overall model as needed. A spreadsheet should help. >Aww, heck with it, there's lots of good stuff there, if you wanna put it in >the digest go ahead. I think I might! :) -- maelstrom@csnet.net