[Space] How habitable is my universe?

[David Johnston]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I was thinking of the other gravity problem: the one in which humans simply can't work in high gee.

Not an issue with this generation system. In all the systems I've seen, I've never seen a solid planet with positive affinity and gravity higher than 1.5 gs and I haven't seen many with gravity higher than 1.2.

[Pomphis]

High gravity requires lots of mass, which also attracts hydrogen, and suddenly we have a gas giant.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

There you go! You're another GM who doesn't want teh generation sequence to automatically put a colony on every rock or iceball with an Affinity above 0.

I am, too. For one thing, the type of star travel used will have such a huge influence on settlement patterns that the book's system simply can't be applied to everyone's universes as written. About the only time such an implementation would be useful would be for making a Traveller style universe.

[Pomphis]

Agreed. In fact, I must admit I never even really read those parts. I want rules to design the physical systems. Social aspects are setting dependent.

[Mgellis]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

There you go! You're another GM who doesn't want teh generation sequence to automatically put a colony on every rock or iceball with an Affinity above 0.

I'm with you on this. Give me rules that tell me what the planets are like and I'll put colonies there, or not, as it fits my campaign world. Having said that, I would not be surprised to see a lot of colonies in fairly inhospitable places, simply because the technology will make it possible and the opportunity for big profits will make the colony a viable concern.

In many cities today, it would be easy to spend almost all your time in your apartment, a subway, an office, or a place of recreation like a museum or a dance club, without ever spending much time outside. It also isn't that hard to create a small indoor park. It's not a big jump to assume people would be content to live in colonies that were self-contained networks of buildings where someone NEVER has to go outside (which is a good thing, as outside is...well...Titan or Mercury or Ceres or some other cheerful place).

If you have space habitats, the colony might move from asteroid to asteroid, mining one until the mine runs out of ore, etc., and then moving on to a new asteroid. All you have to do is deploy a solar sail and you're on your way. (Although, frankly, if you have a big asteroid you won't need to move very often. A 10-km. asteroid masses about a trillion tons. Even if only 1% of that is useful, a space colony with a few thousand people could live off the resources it would provide for a long time. And there are a LOT of 10-km. asteroids. And even more 10-km. cometary bodies in the Kuiper Belt.)

Mind you, I'm not sure I'd want to live in a place like this, but there are plenty of people who would probably love it.

I also agree some colonies will be outposts; they'll flourish for ten years or twenty years and then be abandoned. But others will endure. Either the resource they're mining won't go away--mining Helium 3 from Neptune means your colony on Triton will NEVER run out of a reason to be there--or they will become a center of commerce, etc. Individual mines will play out, but the warehouses and banks on (or in) Ceres will be there forever.

Mark