Mediocre System Bias [Space]

[AlexanderHowl]

So, as an experiment, I decided to create a completely average system using the rules from Space. The average system is created with a roll of '10' on every odd 3d and a roll of '11' on every even 3d, a roll of '7' on every 2d, and a roll of '4' on every odd 1d and a roll of '3' on every even 1d. Only rolls with any possibility of average success have been rolled. Prohibition against worlds within 0.15 AU of each other have been ignored due to the confirmed existence of such systems.

The results were the following:

Step 1: Random World
Step 2: (10,11)-Barren (Asteroid Belt)
Step 3: N/A
Step 4: N/A
Step 5: (10)-308 K (318 K)
Step 6: N/A
Step 7: (11)-Average (RVM+0)
Step 8: Outpost
Step 9: (10)-Standard (TL10)
Step 10: Affinity (0)/Carrying Capacity (1 billion)/(11)-4,000 people (PR 3)
Step 11: N/A (Outpost)
Step 12: CR 3
Step 13: N/A (Outpost)
Step 14: (10)-Class III Spaceport/(11) Government Research Station (4,3) PR 1-Public
Step 15: (10)-1 star
Step 16: (10,11)-0.35 solar masses
Step 17: (10, 2, 3)-4.0 billion years old
Step 18: M3 (Temp 3,400; 0.037 L)
Step 19: N/A
Step 20: I (0.035 AU), O (14 AU), R (0.933 AU)
Step 21: (11)-Conventional Gas Giant (1.166 AU)/Asteroid Belt (0.147 AU)
Step 22-23:
b. (10)-0.051 AU-(11)-Terrestrial Planet (Tiny)
c. (10)-0.086 AU-(10)-Terrestrial Plant (Small)
d. Asteroid Belt-0.147 AU
e. (10)-0.237 AU-(11)-Terrestrial Planet (Small)
f. (10)-0.403 AU-(10)-Terrestrial Planet (Small)
g. (10)-0.686 AU-(11)-Asteroid Belt
h. Gas Giant (Medium)-1.166 AU
i. (11)-1.982 AU-(11)-Gas Giant (Medium)
j. (11)-3.370 AU-(10)-Gas Giant (Medium)
k. (11)-5.729 AU-(11)-Gas Giant (Medium)
l. (11)-9.739 AU-(10)-Gas Giant (Medium)
Step 24:
h. (7,4,3)-4 moonlets, 3 major moons (Tiny), and 0 moonlets
i. (7,4,3)-7 moonlets, 4 major moons (Tiny), and 2 moonlets
j. (7,4,3)-7 moonlets, 4 major moons (Tiny), and 2 moonlets
k. (7,4,3)-7 moonlets, 4 major moons (Tiny), and 2 moonlets
l. (7,4,3)-7 moonlets, 4 major moons (Tiny), and 2 moonlets

I pretty much got bored at Step 24 and stopped because the system was completely uninspiring and did not reflect the systems that we are finding throughout the Milky Way (or even our own system). Of course, Space was published in 2006, meaning that it is quite outdated, so it is no wonder that it does not reflect what we are finding now. In the rest post, I will suggest some changes to Space to make it reflect reality.

[AlexanderHowl]

I would suggest the following two changes:

1. Large star adjustment: On Step 1, Step 7, Step 21, Step 23, and Step 24, add a modifier equal to the combined mass of the stars to any rolls (rounded down). The gravity wells of larger stars should attract more material than smaller stars, meaning that there will be more material leftover to create asteroid belts and planets.

2. Moon multiplier: On Step 24, increase the number of outer moonlets to 8d rather than 1d, in order to reflect the moonlets of Jupiter and Saturn.

3. Dwarf planets: Asteroid belts should have 1d-1 dwarf planet at RVM +0, 2d-2 at RVM+1, 3d-3 at RVM+2, 5d-5 at RVM+3, 6d-6 at RVM+4, and 7d-7 at RVM+5. That would allow for the creation of Main Belt and the Kuiper Belt.

What other changes would you suggest?

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I pretty much got bored at Step 24 and stopped because the system was completely uninspiring and did not reflect the systems that we are finding throughout the Milky Way (or even our own system). Of course, Space was published in 2006, meaning that it is quite outdated, so it is no wonder that it does not reflect what we are finding now. In the rest post, I will suggest some changes to Space to make it reflect reality.

I'm not sure why you expect the 'average' system from Space to look anything like our solar system, when we already know (and knew in 2006) that it isn't anywhere near average.

As for changing it to reflect the systems we've found more recently - we can be fairly sure they aren't average either, as our means of detecting planets bias what we can see. A system intended to produce 'realistic' systems should be capable of producing ours and those systems we've spotted, but it need not make them common.

[AlexanderHowl]

We really do not know what we do not know. Our system could be average, could be exceptionally poor, or could be exceptionally rich. However, we have to assume that we are average until we have the technology to reliably detect systems similar to ours (at least for G-type stars).

Right now though, Space cannot even create the Sol System. First, it does not allow for co-orbital asteroid belts like the Jupiter and Neptune Trojans. Second, it cannot create the moon systems of Jupiter and Saturn (either the number of moonlets, the moonlets between the major moons of Saturn, or the co-orbital moonlets of the major moons of Saturn). Third, it cannot account for the swarm of Tiny planets (by Space definitions) that exist within the Kuiper Belt. Fourth, it cannot account for Pluto and Charon (both of whom are technically Tiny planets) or the fact that Pluto has a major moon and four moonlets. When a system cannot approximate reality, the system needs to be replaced.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

We really do not know what we do not know. Our system could be average, could be exceptionally poor, or could be exceptionally rich. However, we have to assume that we are average until we have the technology to reliably detect systems similar to ours (at least for G-type stars).

We know we're not average because single G-class dwarfs are not the average type of stellar system. We might be pretty average for a solo G0-4 dwarf star, but I wouldn't be to sure on that either - the Sun's metalicity isn't average for a G2V from what I recall.

[Daigoro]

You could try the author's updated stellar creation system and see how it goes:

http://wordpress.sharrukinspalace.co...ect-of-worlds/

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I would suggest the following two changes:

1. Large star adjustment: On Step 1, Step 7, Step 21, Step 23, and Step 24, add a modifier equal to the combined mass of the stars to any rolls (rounded down). The gravity wells of larger stars should attract more material than smaller stars, meaning that there will be more material leftover to create asteroid belts and planets.

2. Moon multiplier: On Step 24, increase the number of outer moonlets to 8d rather than 1d, in order to reflect the moonlets of Jupiter and Saturn.

3. Dwarf planets: Asteroid belts should have 1d-1 dwarf planet at RVM +0, 2d-2 at RVM+1, 3d-3 at RVM+2, 5d-5 at RVM+3, 6d-6 at RVM+4, and 7d-7 at RVM+5. That would allow for the creation of Main Belt and the Kuiper Belt.

What other changes would you suggest?

Frankly I don't bother keeping track of moonlets or "dwarf planets" in asteroid belts. They have no practical use. The change I made was abandoning minimum separation.

[Polydamas]

Didn't the author say that the system was designed to give interesting systems, not representative ones? Systems designed so that if you roll a thousand systems you will get something similar to a thousand real systems tend to produce a lot of places that your characters will never visit (lots of cold dwarf stars ...)

My understanding is that right now, we can only detect an extrasolar system if it has certain specific properties. A system like ours would be hard to detect.

[Anders]

If I were to design a system in Space, I would first determine a world I wanted to place there and then generate the rest of the system randomly. Presumably you have some idea of what you want before you start. If not, that's a good place to start.

[AlexanderHowl]

And I would not have any complaints if the average system was interesting, but the average system is not interesting (see the first post). If the average system is not interesting, at least they could have made it possible to create the Sol System. In its current form though, it kind of fails at both.

It does not need to do much to improve things though. First, changing the Orbital Contents Table in Step 23 would be necessary. I suggest the following changes to the table (though keep the modifiers the same):

3-4: Empty Orbit
5-6: Asteroid Belt
7-8: Terrestrial (Tiny)
9-10: Terrestrial (Small)
11-12: Terrestrial (Standard)
13-14: Terrestrial (Large)
15-16: Terrestrial (Super) (Super Terrestrials have Step 6 Size Constraint of 0.091-0.117)
17-18: Terrestrial (Mega) (Mega Terrestrials have a Step 6 Size Constraint of 0.117-0.143)

After determining orbital contents, roll 1d (No roll is possible for Empty Orbit or Asteroid Belts). On a '6, there are the potential for substantial co-orbitals in the L4 and L5 points of the orbit. Roll again on the above table for the nature of the co-orbitals (-12 for Tiny, -10 for Small, -8 for Standard, -6 for Large, -4 for Super, and -2 for Mega). Co-orbitals possess identical mass, though there other features may vary.

On Step 24, roll 1d-2 for moonlets and 1d-4 for major moon (Terrestrial planets can have both). The new planetary size modifiers are +1 for Small, +2 for Standard, +3 for Large, +4 for Super, and +5 for Mega. The new planetary distance modifiers are no roll for within 0.5 AU, -3 for between 0.5 to 0.75 AU, -2 for between 0.75 to 1.5 AU, and -1 for between 1.50 to 3.0 AU. Moon size would be the following (minimum Tiny):

8-: Five Size category smaller
9-10: Four Size category smaller
11-12: Three Size categories smaller
13-14: Two Size categories smaller
15-16: One Size category smaller
17-18: Same Size category (moon may not exceed the mass of the parent)

The end result is a table capable of producing more interesting systems. There is a 50% chance if having a Standard or larger planet, and a decent chance for interesting co-orbitals and major moons for Terrestrial planets.