Satellite Elementals

[mrwigggles (OP)]

Does Aurora keep track on how planetary satellite are formed?

I was noticing in the few games that I've generated that Luna is a crap shoot for mineral even though it was formed with a cataclysmic impact, making Luna nearly identical to earth elemental composition when the event accrued. This strike me that it should have a always a similar catch of mineral that earth has, but it doesn't.

[Steve Walmsley]

Does Aurora keep track on how planetary satellite are formed?

I was noticing in the few games that I've generated that Luna is a crap shoot for mineral even though it was formed with a cataclysmic impact, making Luna nearly identical to earth elemental composition when the event accrued. This strike me that it should have a always a similar catch of mineral that earth has, but it doesn't.

Aurora creates a system abundance rating based on the age of the star plus a random element. Younger stars tend to have planetary systems with better mineral deposits. Each terrestrial body also has a multiplier if it is within the 'life zone' of a star. The mineral deposits are then generated based on the size of the body with larger bodies having generally more minerals and smaller bodies having generally better accessibility

Steve

[ShadoCat]

One way to explain the Moon's lack of minerals (compared to Earth's) is that the Moon mostly contains blown off crustal material.  

If the TN minerals are in or near the core, then the Moon wouldn't have a lot.

[plugger]

Goodaye,

Aurora creates a system abundance rating based on the age of the star plus a random element. Younger stars tend to have planetary systems with better mineral deposits. Each terrestrial body also has a multiplier if it is within the 'life zone' of a star. The mineral deposits are then generated based on the size of the body with larger bodies having generally more minerals and smaller bodies having generally better accessibility

This is a great explanation for geological survey potential.

On a related topic I've read (AAR TransNewtonian ...)

This was by far the most massive star in any of the known systems and would make a gravitational survey of Cardiff a very time-consuming task

So is it fair to say that the larger the mass of a star the more involved the gravitational survey and the greater the likelihood of jump points?

Cheers,
Plugger

[Father Tim]

So is it fair to say that the larger the mass of a star the more involved the gravitational survey and the greater the likelihood of jump points?

Cheers,
Plugger

Yes, that is both fair to say and true.  Buried somewhere in the Mechanics forum is a thread explaining it (with formulae) but basically, the higher the star's gravity the greater the number of Grav survey points that need to be acquired at each grav survey location, and the farther out from the system primary each survey location is.  So more time is spent travelling around to all the survey locations, and more time is spent at each location.  Truly massive stars can take two-three years to survey.

Due to Aurora's Starfire roots (where more massive stars had more warp points), higher grav stars are more likely to have more jump points.

[plugger]

Goodaye Father Tim,

O.K, thanks for the explanation.

Cheers,
Plugger