GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Questions about the Firefly Universe

POSTED BY: VALDRON
UPDATED: Sunday, November 20, 2005 11:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5230
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, November 18, 2005 8:29 PM

VALDRON


I'm sort of interested in this little reality that Joss Whedon has created. So, here's a few questions.

1) Originally, I assumed that the firefly series took place in a human diaspora among the stars. Perhaps in a star cluster, but among multiple star systems. Now, however, its clear that the series takes place in a single solar system.

2) Just how big is this solar system? Is it a binary star system, or a triple star system? How many planets are in this system, and how does it work?

3) For instance, in our solar system, we've got three planet sized bodies occupying what's believed to be the habitable belt (Earth, Moon, Mars and Venus) there's one inside (Mercury), and there's a bunch of world sized bodies (Europa, Triton, Titan, Ganymede, Callisto, Io) way out in frozen territory around gas giants, and perhaps a handful way out in the Oort cloud where its really cold. But the Firefly universe has a crapload of planets.

4) How come most of them aren't iceballs outside the habitable zone? Or melting in the hot zone? Does the firefly system have a gigantic habitable zone? Or are there multiple habitable zones for a multi-star system? Or do they just stick a fusion generator in orbit around worlds no matter how far out, in order to give them local sunlight and heat?

5) More interestingly, where the hell does the technology and energy come from to do the apparent radical terraforming that we see on world after world? Or was this area fallow.

6) Even modest terraforming in the time allowed, it strikes me, may be beyond the apparent levels of technology that we see in Firefly. Think about the wealth, the cost, the resources and energy it would take to terraform thirty worlds in succession?

Anyway, is anyone thinking about these things? I'd dearly love to engage this discussion. Or to be directed to where this discussion is happening.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:21 AM

VALDRON


Do we even have any idea how many planets are in this star system?

I figure through the course of the series, Serenity must have visited at least twenty. Throw in another half dozen for core worlds.

Mal at one point makes a reference to 70 earths in the Galaxy. Can we assume he's talking this system only?

There doesn't seem to be interstellar space travel, suggesting that its particularly difficult and beyond the abilities of most expeditions.

So, does this suggest that the Serenity Universe contains other inhabited solar systems colonized by a human diaspora?

Anyone?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:30 AM

GROUNDED


There have been lots of discussions on these points. The general theme is: don't expect things to make scientific sense!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:33 AM

VALDRON


Bugger that. Any work of fiction has to have an underlying sense or logic. It's simply bad writing to change the rules or abandon the rules as you go along.

Otherwise, Mal could just pull out his gun and turn reavers into nympho virgin pixie cheerleaders.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:40 AM

GEEKMAFIA


There was a very good map posted in the blue sun room a little while back it was designed for an rpg based on the show/movie you can see it here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/sunroomitem.asp?i=5624&nid=8321
It caused a certain amount of debate which you can read below it.

This other map was posted in 2004 and was designed around the single-star system idea:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/sunroomitem.asp?i=1737
It features just stuff from the show but it give you another perspective.

I personally don't have any idea but i like the multi-star idea anyhow hope this helped.



011101000110100001100101001000000111001101101001
011001110110111001100001011011000000110100001010

Liu koushui de biaozi he houzi de ben erzi.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:43 AM

VALDRON


thank you very much

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:51 AM

VALDRON


I took a look. Many, many thanks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:54 AM

GEEKMAFIA


Nae bodgy
besides you should thank the ones that made them I just threw a link in here they did the hard work.



011101000110100001100101001000000111001101101001
011001110110111001100001011011000000110100001010

Liu koushui de biaozi he houzi de ben erzi.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:11 AM

VALDRON


Well, they're good work. Personally, I'd have to go with the multiple star hypothesis, simply because the 'marginal habitable' category doesn't give you earthlike conditions at all, but rather, ammonia atmospheres and methane seas.

For the record, I'm not prepared to accept the notion that multiple star systems can't have planets. Everything we're learning now about other solar systems suggests that planet formation is a lot more common and there are a lot more possibilities than we've factored in.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:19 AM

GEEKMAFIA


The multi-star idea does seem to work better IMO.



011101000110100001100101001000000111001101101001
011001110110111001100001011011000000110100001010

Liu koushui de biaozi he houzi de ben erzi.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:27 AM

THEREALME


Hi,

I was once a proponent of the multiple system theory, and fought for this idea using the tiny clues scattered throughout the series. If Joss had always thought of using one system, I suspect that he did not bother to tell all the writers.

The theory that I am currently operating under is that Joss didn't know or care about the science, and it has since been retro-fitted.

In the official role-playing game, they have a list of all Alliance worlds/moons. I think that they include all the places we have heard about, but I've not tried to cross-reference them. Let's see, there are... 40 with names, and three grouped under the name "border moons".

The best cannonical source has to be that quickly seen map that is mostly obscured by the Teacher at the beginning of the movie. It does not seem to support the multiple sun system idea, which I could otherwise go for.

One possible way to make this work is to have planet-sized moons orbiting superjovian planets in the habitable zone. You might get a bunch of those. Many folks have argued that "moons" are too small, but the definition of a moon is a body that orbits another non-sun body. A moon could be the size of the Earth, for example.

Anyway, I am afraid if you look too closely, the whole thing might fall apart.


TheRealMe, First Officer of the Sereni-Tree

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:29 AM

THEREALME


Hey, when the DVD of the BDM comes out, I'd be interested if anyone could get a screen capture of that solar system map behind the Teacher and post it here.

TheRealMe, First Officer of the Sereni-Tree

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:46 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Valdron:
3) For instance, in our solar system, we've got three planet sized bodies occupying what's believed to be the habitable belt (Earth, Moon, Mars and Venus) there's one inside (Mercury), and there's a bunch of world sized bodies (Europa, Triton, Titan, Ganymede, Callisto, Io) way out in frozen territory around gas giants, and perhaps a handful way out in the Oort cloud where its really cold. But the Firefly universe has a crapload of planets.



Actually, according to the astronomy class I took last semester, only earth/moon is within the solar system's habitable belt. According to the prof, mars may have been in the past, but the gradual loss of the sun's energy (over the last 4.5 billion years) has shrunk the habitable zone to just earth (and we're on the far end of that as it is). Apologies if you're smarter than me.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:53 AM

VALDRON


I'm not a physicist by any means, but it may well explain the amazing concentration of worlds in habitable zones.

In our solar system, the big rider is Jupiter, which acts as a cosmic vaccuum cleaner, scarfing up dust and debris, and riding. Jupiter and the other gas giants also corral most of the 'planet' sized bodies, leaving only a handful of inner system bodies (Earth and co), and a handful of trans-plutonians (Sedna and co).

The Serenity system on the other hand, may be quite inimical to Gas Giants. A Jovian body out at the distances of gas giants in our solar system may find itself perturbed or torn to pieces by the competing star systems. Its likely that there are only a couple of gas giants, and that by this time, they're largely black bodies between the stars in very eccentric orbits.

One effect of this is that most of what would be trans-plutonian or jovian 'small planet' bodies wind up flung into relatively close proximities around the orbiting stars. So everything gets jammed up into the habitable zones.

I'll bet we've got some fascinatingly unstable orbital dynamics going on, probably several double planet systems like Earth/Moon, trojan arrangements, etc.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:59 AM

VALDRON


I won't claim to be smarter than you. But the assessment of the habitable zone is more a term of art than science.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:00 AM

THEREALME


It is my understanding that the sun is getting gradually hotter, and that we will have an uninhabitable earth in about 100 million years.

This is not to be confused with the sun's red giant phase, which will begin in a mere 5 billion years or so, when all the hydrogen has been burned out of the core.



TheRealMe, First Officer of the Sereni-Tree

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:00 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Valdron:
Bugger that. Any work of fiction has to have an underlying sense or logic. It's simply bad writing to change the rules or abandon the rules as you go along.



You're right that the work of fiction has to have some sort of underlying sense or logic. But the sense that it has to have is internal. The world has to be consistent in the context of itself. This means that River can't just have a new "power" whenever the crew gets in a scrape. It means Serenity can't just sprout guns. It means the having established that laser weapons are expensive, and rare and inefficient, then they stay that way. In short, it must be true to itself.

But it's ludicrous to suggest that every little thing has to be scientifically possible. It is the story that is the point, not the science. Bad science fiction makes the science the point (I'm looking at you, Star Trek, TNG). Good science fiction integrates story with science. Great science fiction uses the science as a mere vehicle to tell the story. Star Wars was a prime example of this. When does Han ever expound on the hyperdrive? Never! It doesn't bloody matter! Because the story is the point! From a certain point of view, I can understand if you're having suspension of disbelief issues on the basis of the science of the thing. But regretably, I can't get on board with you because Joss is not telling the story of the technology of the 'verse. He's telling the story of the crew of Serenity. Stop watching the technology and the science and start watching the story!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:03 AM

VALDRON


Quote:

Originally posted by TheRealMe:
It is my understanding that the sun is getting gradually hotter, and that we will have an uninhabitable earth in about 100 million years.

This is not to be confused with the sun's red giant phase, which will begin in a mere 5 billion years or so, when all the hydrogen has been burned out of the core.

TheRealMe, First Officer of the Sereni-Tree



I'm not sure that's correct. 100 million years is a very very tiny sliver of time in the life cycle of the sun. It's already 5 billion years old.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:03 AM

JAYTEE


a gun that turns Reavers into Nympho Virgin Pixie Cheerleaders? LOL. I want one! Does it work on Republicans. I'd much rather have a planet full of Nympho Virgin Pixie Cheerleaders than one full of Republicans. Of course, Republicans aren't Reavers. Reavers are more brutal but honest about it :-)


Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:04 AM

THEREALME


A good story is a good story. But good science fiction requires that science figure into it somewhere. Otherwise, it is a thinly disguised police drama or western given the trappings of science fiction.

The science should not necessarily be the point of a good SF story, but it should be inegral to the story somewhere.

So, while I think that all of Firefly to date has consisted of good stories, I don't think it has all been good SF.


TheRealMe, First Officer of the Sereni-Tree

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:07 AM

THEREALME


Quote:

I'm not sure that's correct. 100 million years is a very very tiny sliver of time in the life cycle of the sun. It's already 5 billion years old.


Well, it may not be correct, but it made it into Astronomy or Scientific American or some such magazine that I occasionally read.

TheRealMe, First Officer of the Sereni-Tree

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:07 AM

JAYTEE


When it comes to suspension of disbelief in ST:TNG I always think of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Compensator, that wonderful "magic" black box (Deux Ex Machina) that allowed the Transporter to work despite the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:19 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by TheRealMe:
A good story is a good story. But good science fiction requires that science figure into it somewhere. Otherwise, it is a thinly disguised police drama or western given the trappings of science fiction.

The science should not necessarily be the point of a good SF story, but it should be inegral to the story somewhere.

So, while I think that all of Firefly to date has consisted of good stories, I don't think it has all been good SF.


TheRealMe, First Officer of the Sereni-Tree



Sorry, but I have to disagree on this point. To my mind, the "science" part of science fiction enables the telling of stories that couldn't otherwise be told. It's a device, a MacGuffin, nothing more. Stories (of any sort) are human stories. Making the science be the point just cheapens the human aspect. Who the fk cares if this droid has a bad motivator? What the fk does that even mean? It doesn't matter--it's just a device so Luke can have Artoo.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:20 AM

VALDRON


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
But it's ludicrous to suggest that every little thing has to be scientifically possible. .... But regretably, I can't get on board with you because Joss is not telling the story of the technology of the 'verse. He's telling the story of the crew of Serenity. .... Stop watching the technology and the science and start watching the story!/QUOTE]

With all due respect, and I certainly respect your views and opinions, do you really have the right to tell me how to enjoy the show? What questions I'm allowed or not allowed to ask? What premises may be examined?

It seems to me that if, as part of enjoying the show, I would like to examine various premises, and explore either the underlying logic or dynamics, or the extrapolated consequences of a particular premise, then, I've probably got a right to do so.

Now, I know that you didn't intend to be rude or offensive to me. But its very difficult for me not to take your attitude in this way.

Warmest regards and best wishes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:21 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by JayTee:
When it comes to suspension of disbelief in ST:TNG I always think of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Compensator, that wonderful "magic" black box (Deux Ex Machina) that allowed the Transporter to work despite the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.



This is a prime example of science overtaking the story. Why on earth would you need to explain how the transporter works? Who cares? It's just a device.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:21 AM

VALDRON


Quote:

Originally posted by Valdron:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
But it's ludicrous to suggest that every little thing has to be scientifically possible. .... But regretably, I can't get on board with you because Joss is not telling the story of the technology of the 'verse. He's telling the story of the crew of Serenity. .... Stop watching the technology and the science and start watching the story!



With all due respect, and I certainly respect your views and opinions, do you really have the right to tell me how to enjoy the show? What questions I'm allowed or not allowed to ask? What premises may be examined?

It seems to me that if, as part of enjoying the show, I would like to examine various premises, and explore either the underlying logic or dynamics, or the extrapolated consequences of a particular premise, then, I've probably got a right to do so.

Now, I know that you didn't intend to be rude or offensive to me. But its very difficult for me not to take your attitude in this way.

Warmest regards and best wishes.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:24 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Valdron:
Now, I know that you didn't intend to be rude or offensive to me. But its very difficult for me not to take your attitude in this way.



I certainly didn't mean any offense; I apologize if I came across that way (though I often speak without editing so this happens a lot).

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 7:31 AM

VALDRON


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by Valdron:
I certainly didn't mean any offense; I apologize if I came across that way (though I often speak without editing so this happens a lot).

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.



No problem. I had noticed that my 'snippy' reflex was acting up, and I worried that I might get defensive and insulting. I didn't think you really meant to be a prick, but you were just responding to a discussion you saw as irrelevant.

Well, I can appreciate Firefly on literary terms, and in terms of its acting, characterization, thematic resonance and all that good stuff.

But, I've got a secret geek, and I like to explore these other areas too. No harm no foul.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 8:39 AM

CAUSAL


Secret geeks come in a variety of flavors, I've noticed. I've got a massive geek side (or, one might say, an itty-bitty normal side), but my geek never expresses itself in terms of the technical aspect. I'd never buy a tech manual or any such thing. My geek side obsesses over the mythology. So of course I'll devour books and articles and such, and play the RPG and all that, 'cause I just can't get enough of the mythology. Explains why I'm also obsessed with Star Wars, Tolkien and Lost--good mythologies.

As far as the offense thing goes--well, I've been learning over the last few years that the way I think things in my head isn't always the way they sound to the hearer. Days past, I didn't give a damn. Figued it was the other fella's fault if I were misinterpreted. These days, though, I'm realizing that relational networks are what make the world turn, and you can't build one of those unless you give a care for the way you're perceived.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 9:18 AM

THEREALME


Well, I suppose I need to explain myself. I believe that science fiction is more than flying around in a space ship.

As a term, I believe that science fiction as a genre should deal with how science impacts our lives. Now, I don't insist that the stories need to be about science or (worse) non-scientific Star Trek technobable. Of COURSE the focus should be on the characters.

Let me give an example or two.

Heart of Gold was a good episode in my opinion. Great characters. Great conflict. I loved it. But it was not science fiction. The only things verging on SF were Rance's laser gun and hover vehicle, and these were not at all central to the story. He could have easily been in a car with a fancy pistol. This story could have been set in the old west or in a modern (relatively lawless) nation with almost no alteration. When you can strip away all the science/speculative elements and the story is essentially unchanged, then it is not really science fiction.

Now, the movie Serenity dealt with

Select to view spoiler:



brain surgery that resulted in mental powers, and with a controlling government using some kind of drug to try to control an entire population!



These elements WERE central to the story. So if you take out the scientific or speculative elements, the movie Serenity falls apart. In my mind, it is a good story AND good science fiction.


TheRealMe, First Officer of the Sereni-Tree

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:17 PM

VALDRON


Thinking out loud a bit here, and working on the model of a multi-star system, the gas giants in remote jovian orbits probably get bounced around real hard and wind up even further out, pursuing really eccentric orbits and stripped of their moons.

Meanwhile, the distribution of big moons, mercury/earth sized bodies tends to wind up clustered around the suns. Probably a lot of bodies in the habitable belts.

Now, we tend to see Mars as the smallest Earth norm habitable body. But actually, Mercury, is a bit denser than Mars, and thus its surface gravity is almost the same as Mars. If you stuck Mercury in an orbit between Earth and Mars, there's odds are that it might actually be able to hold an atmosphere and a viable biosphere.

Of course, we don't know what it takes to hold a viable atmosphere. Normally, we'd default and say Earth is the optimum size.

But then we've got Venus with 90% of Earth's Gravity, and 90 times its atmospheric pressure. So, that suggests that an Earth-level gravity is more than sufficient to hold an Earth level atmosphere, substantially less may be needed.

Over on Mars, we've got plenty of indications that its atmosphere was once much more genial and Earthlike. So, this may represent the lower range.

The differences between Earth, Mars and Venus suggest in part, different approaches to the Greenhouse effect. Venus has way too much greenhouse going on too close to the sun, Mars has too little greenhouse too far from the sun.

So let's estimate that the range of world sizes that could be terraformed run from surface gravities of 35% and up, and diameters of about 3000 miles and up.

In our Solar System, there's Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Titan, Ganymede and Callisto. We've also got a handful of 'also rans' in the form of Luna, Io, Europa and Triton. Or eleven bodies in all. Unfortunately, all but one are positioned really badly for Earth-type life, and only two are in a zone which might encourage us to even think about Terraforming.

But assuming that Serenity's system is a multi-star system, say four or five or six stars - Multiply Sol's 11 potential useable bodies, by the number of stars and you get something very close to the contingent of Planets given for the Serenity system.

Well, not quite. Earth's 'useable bodies' are on average, a fairly lightweight bunch. The Serenity worlds, particularly the smaller ones, would have to average out a lot denser.

Is this realistic.

Well, maybe it is. You see, Carbon, Gold, Iron, Uranium, all those heavier elements are probably not evenly distributed. Y'see, the most common element is Hydrogen, followed by Helium. Its the stuff that makes the stars themselves. In those star furnaces, fusion forges create the heavier elements from raw hydrogen. How does it get out into the Universe, into our pocket watches and our bodies? Very simple. Stars have to explode.

We are, all of us, made from the ashes of supernovas. Stars blowing themselves apart across half the universe, the dust of heavy elements being swept into new maelstroms, forming planets in the aftermath of the births of new stars.

I don't see any reason that this stuff should be distributed uniformly. So if the Serenity system is closer to a few supernovas, then expect it to be liberally gifted with heavier elements.

So the trick is to have so many habitable worlds crammed into habitable zones. How feasible is that.

Well, in our Solar System, three big ass heavy worlds, Earth-Moon and Venus come within 22 million miles of each other.

So if we assume a habitable zone roughly 70 million to 150 million miles wide for a star of our proportions (and it'll vary depending on the proportions and intensity of the star, but what the hell, we need a rule of thumb, and if we assume about 20 million miles reasonable separation is required for them all to maintain stable orbits, then we can pack five planet's of roughly Earth/Venus mass in relatively safely. That's pretty nice, but not quite good enough.

This is all seat of the pants stuff, so bear with me.

Any way to up that density? Well, conceivably, if they're smaller denser worlds, you might be able to pack them in a bit more tightly, say 15 million miles apart. Which would give you maybe six or seven. But I dunno.

There might be a few ways to cheat. For instance, you might pack a couple into the same orbit. In a planetary orbit, there are stable points, known as Lagrange Points 60 degrees before and after, where you're not going to get messed up with your primaries gravity.

In the Solar System, we've got two sets of asteroids in Lagrange points sharing space with Jupiter. They're called the Trojan asteroids, so who knows, this phenomena may be relatively common.

In the Serenity Solar System, which may be mass high and gas-giant poor, all that debris and does doesn't get swept up. Instead, it goes floating around and around, eventually knackering up into an Earth/Mars/Mercury sized body. Considering the higher densities of matter at the time of formation, its not unlikely that we might have been getting Trojan Worlds.

And of course there's our old favourite, the double planet system.

Throw in some Trojans, throw in some double planets, and the habitable zone may start getting crowded.

Any other options. Well, that's it for the plane of the ecliptic. On the other hand, if you've got a planet off the ecliptic, then you reduce the chances of that world mucking about the other orbits from once a year to once every few thousand or million years. So you may be able to get away with a few of those, especially if they're smaller roguish bodies.

And there may be cool things. For instance, there's a couple of Jovian moons whose orbits are so similar that they trade positions every few years. So who knows.

Of course, the question is, why is the Serenity system so gifted with habitable or terraformable worlds?

Well, my thinking is that they didn't just stumble on it. What was probably going on was that Earth was sending space probes every which way, and it stumbles over all sorts of star systems. One of these was a multi-star system with a wealth of planets in the habitable range, requiring in some cases, hardly any work to terraform. More than that, its rich in heavy elements, carbons, hydrogens, all the good stuff to make civilization worth living.

When Earth is going belly up, you're looking around for a new home, a place with wealth, a place with a lot of room to grow... Where you gonna go?

Its likely that the Serenity system wasn't the only one colonized in the diaspora. Probably colony and terraforming ships got dispatched to the closest solar systems, and to other likely prospects. So, the Universe, or our corner of it is probably teeming with human life. But its likely that most other systems are roping one, maybe two or three habitable worlds, and then eking out hardcase colonies on uninhabitable moons. You might need as many as thirty other systems to equal the number of inhabitable worlds that the Serenity system does.

It's likely that the Serenity system contains a substantial proportion of the human population of the Universe.

Next, terraforming?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:34 PM

STILLWATERS


Just as a matter of scale our sun is a yellow dwarf. So, if you had a sun that was 10 times larger than ours you'd have a habitable zone 10 times larger.

Also as far as the time it takes for terra forming. Once you've terra formed the first world, there would be no reason you could not work on multiple worlds at the same time. A large portion of the terra forming process is biological; seeding the body with things like algae, bacteria. Once you've gotten the temperature up to the point where you've got liquid water, the plants will do the work for you.

Shiny, lets be bad guys

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:56 PM

STILLWATERS


[quote: Now, we tend to see Mars as the smallest Earth norm habitable body. But actually, Mercury, is a bit denser than Mars, and thus its surface gravity is almost the same as Mars. If you stuck Mercury in an orbit between Earth and Mars, there's odds are that it might actually be able to hold an atmosphere and a viable biosphere.]

Just another observation but, it's been speculated that; If you swapped the orbits of Mars & Venus both world might well be habitable. Mars is smaller with a thinner atmosphere, that would not soak up so much heat in an orbit closer to the sun. Venus is about the same size as the Earth with a thicker atmosphere, that could hold in the heat at the outer edge of the habitable zone.

Shiny, lets be bad guys

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:58 PM

GIANTEVILHEAD


Most science fiction movies/shows/books are not only completely inconsistent with reality but are also inconsistent internally. Ships in Star Wars, Star Trek, and Stargate move at the speed of the plot. Hulls of Star Wars ships are capable of withstanding weapons in the hundred gigaton range but get smashed up by tiny fighters colliding with them. Weapon power within all those shows are all extremely inconsistent, one minute they’re in the gigaton range another they’re about as powerful as a WW1 artillery cannon. There are maybe 10 sci-fi movies and shows that are somewhat consistent with reality as well as consistent internally, the best one being 2001, the first Terminator is up there as well.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 20, 2005 4:13 AM

VALDRON


Quote:

Originally posted by Stillwaters:
Just as a matter of scale our sun is a yellow dwarf. So, if you had a sun that was 10 times larger than ours you'd have a habitable zone 10 times larger.



Not necessarily. This gets us into areas of quirky astrophysics but the larger stars are not necessarily more massive. Often larger stars are older ones whose cooling has allowed them to grow.

I believe that for our type of yellow star, there's an upper limit of about six times the suns mass. After that, physics produces a different kind of star and a different kind of stellar history.

Still, I think you are correct in that a more massive and more energetic yellow star would produce a larger habitable zone.

Quote:

Also as far as the time it takes for terra forming. Once you've terra formed the first world, there would be no reason you could not work on multiple worlds at the same time. A large portion of the terra forming process is biological; seeding the body with things like algae, bacteria. Once you've gotten the temperature up to the point where you've got liquid water, the plants will do the work for you.



Well, the key thing is water and jiggering a correct temperature.

Mars is practically a gimme, because it's apparently got useful water and carbon dioxide locked up at the poles. Hell, right now, the Martian ice caps seem to be losing more carbon dioxide ice to the atmosphere each year. This is an ongoing thing, rather than seasonal. Mars is apparently entering a warm phase. So it's almost as if Mars is terraforming itself.

The question will be if Mars has enough water and carbon dioxide to build up an atmosphere comfortable for us.

On the other side of the coin, Venus has way too much atmosphere and absolutely no water. So terraforming Venus is trickier.

Of course, we're sitting here trying to figure out how to terraform Mars and Venus from our privileged position on Earth.

Isaac Asimov wrote a story called 'The Martian Way' in which his Martian colonists went all the way out to Saturn's rings to harvest icebergs to restore water to their new planet.

But, if you're coming into a planetary system from outer space, that changes things. The first place you're going to be is the Oort Cloud (the halo of comets and ice in deep space beyond the farthest planet).

There's a theory which holds that Earth's oceans are actually from outer space. That our water comes to us from comets.

Well, if this is the case, and we're passing through the cometary region to get to the Serenity worlds, it strikes me that it may be simple enough to harvest those comets, perturbing their orbits and piloting them in to crash into the inner worlds. It would be messy, but you could ensure for each world, in a fairly brutal fashion a starting supply of water and cometary elements such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, etc.

The Oort cloud gives you all the ice and volatiles you're going to need, and you're going to be passing through anyway...

You could even manage the impacts and chemistries, if you wanted to thin out too heavy atmospheres, or thicken them up, slow down or speed up greenhouse processes.

Assuming that you've got the technology to fly through interstellar space, shake and bake technology for a bunch of worlds that are already showing the right characteristics should be accessible.

Some worlds will take fast and be easy, some will be slow. But you could do the initial set ups pretty easy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 20, 2005 9:41 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by TheRealMe:
One possible way to make this work is to have planet-sized moons orbiting superjovian planets in the habitable zone. You might get a bunch of those. Many folks have argued that "moons" are too small, but the definition of a moon is a body that orbits another non-sun body. A moon could be the size of the Earth, for example.

This is probably the most likely way in which that many habitable bodies could be in a single system. The habitable zones of most stars are probably not large enough to hold that many planets, but gas giants offer the possibility of extending habitable planets, not only packing them into smaller local groups but also providing them with heat. A gas giant’s gravity can cause considerable strain on moons that could keep a planet warm well beyond the sun’s ability to heat it. Light would still be a problem, as from that distance the sun might be very dim. We have gas giant moons in our solar system with atmospheres and considerable internal heating and possibly water oceans. Life would be very different on these planets and one imagines nothing like the sunny American West, but certainly if you’re looking for habitable planets outside of a stars habitable zone, gas giants are probably your best bet.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 20, 2005 10:10 AM

THEREALME


But the jovians could be IN the habitable zone as well

TheRealMe, First Officer of the Sereni-Tree

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 20, 2005 11:02 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by TheRealMe:
But the jovians could be IN the habitable zone as well.

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends a lot on our understanding of stellar dynamics. There is something called the T-Tauri phase in a stars evolutions, actually it’s a phase that occurs prior to the stellar formation. You can think of it as an explosion that occurs as a result of the last stages of collapse, accretion and subsequent ignition. During this phase the star radiates huge volumes of very high velocity wind. It's thought that all of the planets in our solar system may have at one time been gas giants, but following this T-Tauri phase the atmospheres of the inner planets where striped away. I don’t know how close a gas giant can form to a star or how far out the habitable zone can extend. So I don’t know for sure if a gas giant could exist in the habitable zone.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 20, 2005 11:19 AM

ALAND


This stuff about habitable zones is really a red herring IMHO. It refers to what could be habitable barring technological intervention. With sufficient technology, a giant frozen dog turd in deep space could be made habitable.

There are people on earth today who live in frozen wastelands, barren deserts, and under the ocean's crushing depths, none of which would generally be considered 'habitable' places. Apply technology on a sufficient scale, and you could set up shop pretty much anywhere you want.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL