Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 14, 2020, 06:39:27 AM »

The tonnage/volume is for the transit of orbital habitats when towed in their compressed form. Once in position they expand significantly to accommodate much more volume, but as they are stationary at that point the extra size has no game play effect other than providing lots of space for the inhabitants. This compress and expand ability makes towing orbital habitats much easier and is the reason that colonists cannot remain on board during the towing process.

:)
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: February 14, 2020, 06:32:32 AM »

Quote from: SevenOfCarina on February 14, 2020, 04:17:25 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley on February 14, 2020, 03:35:37 AM
I did the math on how much volume would be required for a single colonist in a relatively small hibernation pod and realised that the cryogenic modules were far too small. In fact, all the various commercial modules were too small to be realistic, so I starting scaling everything up.

Speaking of size, I think the current habitat modules are also far too small to be realistic. A 250,000 dT habitat module houses 200,000 people, which is 1.25 dT per person, or about 17.65 cubic metres per person. A cube of that volume has a side length of just 2.60 metres, which is nowhere near enough for a person to not lose their sanity. And that's ignoring the fact that some of that volume must be allocated for life support, recreation, hallways, utilities, businesses, infrastructure, etc.

I think habitats should be around 1,000x as large as they currently are, at the very least.

Wait, is it?  Two hundred and fifty thousand tons displacement is five thousand ten-by-ten-by-ten metere cubes (at 50 tons = one 10m cube), which is forty people per cube.

Actually, yeah, that sounds fairly crowded.  My apartment is basically 5x5x3 meters, of which twelve would fit into a 10 meter cube.  Even at two people per such apartment, that's barely half the required population density.

I guess Orbital Habitats feature The Fifth Element-style hyper-efficient mini-apartments.

Posted by: SevenOfCarina
« on: February 14, 2020, 04:17:25 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on February 14, 2020, 03:35:37 AM
I did the math on how much volume would be required for a single colonist in a relatively small hibernation pod and realised that the cryogenic modules were far too small. In fact, all the various commercial modules were too small to be realistic, so I starting scaling everything up.

Speaking of size, I think the current habitat modules are also far too small to be realistic. A 250,000 dT habitat module houses 200,000 people, which is 1.25 dT per person, or about 17.65 cubic metres per person. A cube of that volume has a side length of just 2.60 metres, which is nowhere near enough for a person to not lose their sanity. And that's ignoring the fact that some of that volume must be allocated for life support, recreation, hallways, utilities, businesses, infrastructure, etc.

I think habitats should be around 1,000x as large as they currently are, at the very least.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 14, 2020, 03:35:37 AM »

Quote from: Garfunkel on February 13, 2020, 01:23:23 PM
It's fascinating to come back and read these old campaigns since Aurora has changed so much in the last twelve years  :)

What caused the divergence in size between commercial and naval designs? The first version of Aurora that I played already had it in so I wasn't around for that change.

I did the math on how much volume would be required for a single colonist in a relatively small hibernation pod and realised that the cryogenic modules were far too small. In fact, all the various commercial modules were too small to be realistic, so I starting scaling everything up.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: February 13, 2020, 01:23:23 PM »

It's fascinating to come back and read these old campaigns since Aurora has changed so much in the last twelve years  :)

What caused the divergence in size between commercial and naval designs? The first version of Aurora that I played already had it in so I wasn't around for that change.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 12, 2008, 09:18:46 AM »

Quote from: "??rgr?mr"
I know we had this discussion before, and if not for the eating of the posts I could link you to it. But at its height the Imperium Romanum had nearly 330 million souls in its borders.

I had pointed out before, even with quotes by Livy and others, only male citizens were counted in the official census. The rest were not counted, including female Romans. Roma had a population equal to the Han Empire of China and is the only time in history where Europe was equal to the Chinese population-wise.

So a transferred Roman Empire circa Trajan just after his Dacian and Parthian campaigns with a pop boost is viable.

Thanks, that sounds like a good option.

Steve
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: September 02, 2008, 05:41:24 PM »

Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Brian"
You could also try having a culture get transplanted onto several moons of a gas giant.  Say a federation of several states.  Each state would be a separate govt. but would share technology.  This would tend to give them a greater growth rate as well because of thier smaller individual populations.

Brian

This is A LOT harder to set up than it would seem. I've tried something similar.


I know.  The only problem that I had in the past was setting up the political relations between the individual states.  The planet atmosphere is just tedious to find the right number of moons with approximately the same gravity.  Then just edit the atmosphere.

Brian
Posted by: Erik L
« on: September 02, 2008, 04:11:43 PM »

Quote from: "Brian"
You could also try having a culture get transplanted onto several moons of a gas giant.  Say a federation of several states.  Each state would be a separate govt. but would share technology.  This would tend to give them a greater growth rate as well because of thier smaller individual populations.

Brian


This is A LOT harder to set up than it would seem. I've tried something similar.
Posted by: MWadwell
« on: September 02, 2008, 01:26:39 PM »

Quote from: "Haegan2005"
660 million population would make for a vast industrial complex. And the Romans tended to be militaristic. :)

Quote
Even 330 million is a decent population given enough isolation to grow. And if doubled (like Steve did with the others), that's even better


Take an existing nation....

For example: China's current population is 1330 million, and India's only a few hundred million behind (at 1147 million).


Or go a few years into the future. China's GDP is growing at 11%, and the US is currently growing at 2.2% - extrapolating current GDP's (and assuming the same growth rate), by 2017 China's GDP will be greater than the US's....
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: September 02, 2008, 07:32:24 AM »

You could also try having a culture get transplanted onto several moons of a gas giant.  Say a federation of several states.  Each state would be a separate govt. but would share technology.  This would tend to give them a greater growth rate as well because of thier smaller individual populations.

Brian
Posted by: Haegan2005
« on: August 30, 2008, 05:01:02 PM »

660 million population would make for a vast industrial complex. And the Romans tended to be militaristic. :)

Quote
Even 330 million is a decent population given enough isolation to grow. And if doubled (like Steve did with the others), that's even better
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 30, 2008, 03:52:58 PM »

Quote from: "??rgr?mr"
I know we had this discussion before, and if not for the eating of the posts I could link you to it. But at its height the Imperium Romanum had nearly 330 million souls in its borders.

I had pointed out before, even with quotes by Livy and others, only male citizens were counted in the official census. The rest were not counted, including female Romans. Roma had a population equal to the Han Empire of China and is the only time in history where Europe was equal to the Chinese population-wise.

So a transferred Roman Empire circa Trajan just after his Dacian and Parthian campaigns with a pop boost is viable.  :D



Cheers, ??rgr?mr


Even 330 million is a decent population given enough isolation to grow. And if doubled (like Steve did with the others), that's even better.
Posted by: Þórgrímr
« on: August 30, 2008, 12:04:58 PM »

I know we had this discussion before, and if not for the eating of the posts I could link you to it. But at its height the Imperium Romanum had nearly 330 million souls in its borders.

I had pointed out before, even with quotes by Livy and others, only male citizens were counted in the official census. The rest were not counted, including female Romans. Roma had a population equal to the Han Empire of China and is the only time in history where Europe was equal to the Chinese population-wise.

So a transferred Roman Empire circa Trajan just after his Dacian and Parthian campaigns with a pop boost is viable.  :D



Cheers, ??rgr?mr
Posted by: Strega
« on: August 30, 2008, 08:29:50 AM »

One possibility would be an empire that arrived several years before the British.  The Brits arrived what, five years before the Americans.  A medium sized civilization that arrived, say, 20 years ahead of the Brits might have time to develop enough to be a threat.  Or, a smaller civilization might have been given superior technology.
Posted by: zulustar
« on: August 27, 2008, 06:50:01 PM »

Hi there all,

My small contribution would be a trip over to :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Has a exhaustive list Empires through the ages with a list of population size, and a link describing their history [maybe a case of overkill here!!!].

Nice ticking over post by the way steve, good luck with the move.

Laters