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


Topic Summary

Posted by: Randy
« on: September 17, 2007, 12:35:40 PM »

I've seen systems with 600+ asteroids and close to 200 moons - but no stars so huge... :shock:
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 16, 2007, 07:10:51 AM »

Quote from: "kdstubbs"
Steve,
      what would be the expected life cycle of the M9-Ia class star, this has got to be either a very low density star with low temp (3500K up to 35,000K).  Given its obvious size, it could not live more than 50 million years--don't think intelligent life would evolve rapidly enough to make a difference--but it would be interesting--extreme pressure to move out

This star is 120 million years old, which is within the same sort of magnitude as you mentioned above. Most main sequence stars are several thousand million years old so it is comparatively very short-lived. The star is 30 solar masses so based on the volume it is very low density compared to Sol. Aurora doesn't rate stars for surface temperature though, just luminosity compared to Sol. In this case it is 141,000.

Steve
Posted by: kdstubbs
« on: September 15, 2007, 11:10:39 AM »

Steve,
      what would be the expected life cycle of the M9-Ia class star, this has got to be either a very low density star with low temp (3500K up to 35,000K).  Given its obvious size, it could not live more than 50 million years--don't think intelligent life would evolve rapidly enough to make a difference--but it would be interesting--extreme pressure to move out

Kevin
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: September 14, 2007, 01:19:32 PM »

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
That's a very good book. Reread it a few months ago.
I assume you've also read the sequel "The Gripping Hand" (not sure if the UK title is different).
Quote
There are three options here. Allow jump points inside stars, which will be extremely rare anyway, and destroy any ship entering that jump point from the far side. Allow jump points inside stars but allow shields to absorb the damage for a period of time (the Motie Option) or just wipe out those jump points during system generation


The Motie Option - sounds like a good movie title.

FWIW, I vote for that one.  OTOH it's probably the one with the most coding so it's probably not worth it.  OTGH it would put more "terrain" into Aurora - being able to duck into the local star if the bad guys are chasing you.

John
Posted by: Þórgrímr
« on: September 14, 2007, 11:01:45 AM »

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The habitable world has an orbital period of 2466 years. It also has an 18 hour day and an axial tilt of 70 degrees! Civilizations will likely rise and fall during one season :)

Steve


Thanks for that info. Now here is a thought, what if a race had evolved on that habitable planet where their 'year' was to them like our year? Imagine how long lived those boys would be! :shock:




Cheers,
Posted by: Pete_Keller
« on: September 14, 2007, 10:29:29 AM »

How big is the hyperlimit?

Pete
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 14, 2007, 10:09:36 AM »

[quote="
Posted by: Laurence
« on: September 14, 2007, 08:29:23 AM »

Quote from: "sloanjh"
But there might be Moties on the other side of one of those WP!!

John


Then for God's sake, keep them there!  :)

Laurence
Posted by: Þórgrímr
« on: September 14, 2007, 08:23:41 AM »

I say go for the destruction of the ships, since I am sure a star would generate far more energy than any set of measly shields could handle.  :D

Steve, any idea on what the orbital period is for that habitable planet in that monster system?




Cheers,
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 14, 2007, 07:27:51 AM »

Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Brian"
You might want to put a line of code deleting WP that are inside the star.  After all nobody should be able to use those points anyway.  In addition wouldn't the extra gravity stress make the star unstable.
But there might be Moties on the other side of one of those WP!!

That's a very good book. Reread it a few months ago.

There are three options here. Allow jump points inside stars, which will be extremely rare anyway, and destroy any ship entering that jump point from the far side. Allow jump points inside stars but allow shields to absorb the damage for a period of time (the Motie Option) or just wipe out those jump points during system generation

Steve
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: September 13, 2007, 11:01:45 PM »

Quote from: "Brian"
You might want to put a line of code deleting WP that are inside the star.  After all nobody should be able to use those points anyway.  In addition wouldn't the extra gravity stress make the star unstable.

Brian

But there might be Moties on the other side of one of those WP!!

John
Posted by: Brian
« on: September 13, 2007, 05:26:50 PM »

You might want to put a line of code deleting WP that are inside the star.  After all nobody should be able to use those points anyway.  In addition wouldn't the extra gravity stress make the star unstable.

Brian
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 13, 2007, 05:22:15 PM »

Not really sure where to post this but I just generated an amazing single-star system so I thought I would share :)

Steve
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53