In which I post about a TL9 solar system

[AlexanderHowl]

Just out of curiousity, why do you need power points? I am not seeing any high energy systems.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

You are still talking about a $1.36 quadrillion project. Let us be generous and assume a system population of 12 billion making $47,000 per capita. That translates to a GDP of $564 trillion/year. The nation would have to borrow 241% of GDP for just that one project, likely driving interest rates to 8% (at a minimum), meaning that the interest alone would be $109 trillion/year (19.29% of system GDP).

First, 12 billion is a rather large underestimate of how many people a well-managed planet can handle.

And now I will shoot that "well-managed" comment in the foot by noting that the US has a tax revenue of about 3 trillion USD, and a national debt of about 22 trillion USD, or a debt-to-revenue percentage of about 733%; so your assertion on the unwillingness of a nation to go into extreme debt, does not hold up to reality. Also, check Canada's national debt between the years 1975 and 1995.

Still, this is funded by Earth, Mars, and assorted associated asteroids, stations, etc.

It's probably at least closer to 180% of the EMA's tax revenue. ;)

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Just out of curiousity, why do you need power points? I am not seeing any high energy systems.

Mostly for the minifactories; also for station lighting (lighting a 20-mile cylinder would not be trivial, IMO, including adding Earth-like radiation); but also there's some anti-asteroid PD on the hull I keep forgetting to note. And also just for whatever general purpose comes up, like selling power to docked ships.

I should probably go over it again, to clear up things like that.

[AlexanderHowl]

12 billion for the system. If we assume that Earth has a Habitability of 8 and a RVM of +0 (average), then the maximum carrying capacity is 3.75 billion at TL9 (7.5 billion at RVM+1 and 15 billion at RVM+2). I am being generous and assuming an RVM+2 with 80% capacity (reflecting the very real fact that average fertility drops of a cliff the more wealthy a society becomes at TL7+).

Beyond carrying capacity, you divide average wealth by (actual population/carrying capacity). For example, if Earth is RVM+0, then we are 3x carrying capacity at 2020, meaning that per capita income will be $10,300, which is pretty close to nominal world GDP.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

I have made edits to Yutu Station.

How is the in-setting commentary? People seem to be ignoring it, so I'm wondering if it's worth adding.

I don't really want to argue with you about what you want in your setting. I think you have a broadly-based excess of space activity in your setting for TL9, but "Hey!" it's your setting and you can justify things if you want to.

If it's just the jocular AI instead of the Excessively Big Object, well once you get past basic SOD questiosn and accept that you can have a a really smart AI at TL 9 (which the rules allow if yous spend enough money) then it's fine for the AI to have lots of patience for dealing with organics and even bantering.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

12 billion for the system. If we assume that Earth has a Habitability of 8 and a RVM of +0 (average), then the maximum carrying capacity is 3.75 billion at TL9 (7.5 billion at RVM+1 and 15 billion at RVM+2). I am being generous and assuming an RVM+2 with 80% capacity (reflecting the very real fact that average fertility drops of a cliff the more wealthy a society becomes at TL7+).

Beyond carrying capacity, you divide average wealth by (actual population/carrying capacity). For example, if Earth is RVM+0, then we are 3x carrying capacity at 2020, meaning that per capita income will be $10,300, which is pretty close to nominal world GDP.

...Ok, I'm just going to drop you a link on Arcologies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqKQ94DtS54&t=351s

Another on Ecumenopolises:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJeYe-abUA&t=144s

One on Normal Borlaug, one of the most important people of all time, and almost entirely unknown. He saved human live on Earth by inventing wheat that's 2-3 times more nutritious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

And while I'm at it, here's a link on vertical farming:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming

China feeds about 4 people per acre, minimum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricu...p_distribution

Since there doesn't seem to be a cite on how much "permanently supports crops", while "4 people per acre" is the minimum, it also has to be the default.

The US is very inefficient on land area for food, but it is inefficient on land because it can afford to be; the US has about 4.25 times more land per person than China, and an even larger multiple of arable land. Meanwhile, only about 10% of Chinas' land can grow crops.

Given that the land area of the US and China are comparable, if the US farmed 10% of its land to the same efficiency standard, the US could also support 1.4 billion people.

That gets us to 2.8 billion people; 80% of your 3.5 billion figure, and we've only used about 23% of the arable surface area:

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/land.html

"But doesn't that link support the idea that we're overpopulating the planet?"

No, because decades ago, people came up with vertical farming, arcologies, and ecumenopolii. We just haven't built any yet (save for some experimental vertical farms) for one very simple reason:

First-world nations didn't need vertical farms, and so didn't build vertical farms. Since first-world nations are starting to need vertical farms, and since China is rapidly becoming a first-world nation (and thus has the money and knowledge to build vertical farms), and is also increasing in population - people are building vertical farms.

The bottom line is that, whenever you predict current capability against future problems, you will always predict disaster. However, future capability should also be accounted for. Especially future capability we already know how to do.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I don't really want to argue with you about what you want in your setting. I think you have a broadly-based excess of space activity in your setting for TL9, but "Hey!" it's your setting and you can justify things if you want to.

If it's just the jocular AI instead of the Excessively Big Object, well once you get beast basic SOD questiosn and accept that you can have a a really smart AI at TL 9 (which the rules allow if yous spend enough money) then it's fine for the AI to have lots of patience for dealing with organics and even bantering.

You seem to have missed a bit. :)

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

So I thought to myself, "what if I throw out an end-point objective?" Anyway, O'neill cylinders like this one mark the start of the transition between TL10 and TL11 in the setting.

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

With a lack of nitrogen, conventional explosives are also generally off the list.

You should be able to go oxygen-based with a little more research. TATP (acetone peroxide) has no nitrogen and has seen successful use as a high explosive (although its volatility gives it the monicker "Mother of Satan"). I'm no chemist, but I suspect that a motivated TL9 chemistry team could produce some more advanced and safer oxygen-based options.

Additionally, simply supporting the food requirements of a sizable population could require nitrogen in amounts that dwarf what you need for military explosives - you might be able to skim it from whatever is the least-recyclable nitrogen-containing waste in your food cycle.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Dustin

You should be able to go oxygen-based with a little more research. TATP (acetone peroxide) has no nitrogen and has seen successful use as a high explosive (although its volatility gives it the monicker "Mother of Satan"). I'm no chemist, but I suspect that a motivated TL9 chemistry team could produce some more advanced and safer oxygen-based options.

Additionally, simply supporting the food requirements of a sizable population could require nitrogen in amounts that dwarf what you need for military explosives - you might be able to skim it from whatever is the least-recyclable nitrogen-containing waste in your food cycle.

True; there are possibilities for conventional explosives.

Yeah, to colonize 1 Ceres, you pretty much need so much nitrogen that dragging over entire (small) asteroids becomes viable. I'm not sure if there's a size range of asteroids that nitrogen is likely to be in, though.

For that matter, given that conventional explosives are a possibility, at TL10, it is probably? possible to engineer crops which require less, or no, nitrogen.

[Anthony]

Not sure why explosives were even under discussion; assuming there's a use for explosives in the first place, there are plenty of binary explosives that use oxygen.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Not sure why explosives were even under discussion; assuming there's a use for explosives in the first place, there are plenty of binary explosives that use oxygen.

Dustin was referring to this post:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...62#post2339362