worlds thread

[DeathByTheSword]

well if we are going to have more then one planet maybe we need some different kind of world. if you look quickly at fychics we need worlds around the same size as good old earth for the rest we can come up with some techs to help us....but i dont believe we will be ready to create extra or less gravity on a planet....so what kind of world do we have?
well 2 thinks come up in my mind

a green world ( similiar to earth ) and a not green world. they green world would have h2o and o2and an atmosfeer (not the right english word) and native flora and fauna. you can divide green worlds into:

wet world:
seas and oceans between islands and continents

not wet world:
one big continent with rivers and lakes but no seas what so ever

not green world will be barren might have H20 but is probably wont have an atmosfeer and so no O2 in the air. no atmosfeer would mean no pressure so wandering outside with out protective gear will be impossible. maybe some small flora and fauna in undergroundlakes or other closed off places. you can divide not green world into:

barren world:
no minerals or other rescources can be found

not-so-barren world:
some minerals and other rescources can be found

miningheaven world:
lots of minerals and other rescources can be found


this is what i can think of....maybe there are more...so please post down here

[Kuciwalker]

Here are some suggestions for the names:

Ocean World - Green Wet
Temperate World - Green Inbetween Wet and Not Wet
Forest World - Green Not Wet

Regarding the Not Green worlds, I don't think their names should be done by amount of minerals. An airless moon could have lots or no minerals.

[Jeremy Buloch]

Forest world hmmm a better name would be:

"Continental World"
I think Continental world because it would not just contain forests but land also.

And Ocean world:

"Oceanic World" or "Aquatic world"
I think it should be aquatic world because it would not only contain oceans it would also contain freshwater.

Temperate is good.

-J.B.-

[DeathByTheSword]

skywalker the names which i came up with arent important but the idea is...i dont think you will land on a airless barren with no minerals planet just for fun

[Jeremy Buloch]

Yes the Idea is good but we need to make a good name too, do we not? Are the names I suggested good enough? They sound more to the point and more accurate.
-J.B.-

[DeathByTheSword]

ok by me but i myself was thinking of the forest planet of endor (starwars VI) when i thought of green not wet.....but you are right that it would have open plains ans stuff so continental would be better

[Kuciwalker]

DBTS - even if it doesn't have resources, such a planet might serve as a useful outpost.

I said "Forest World" because I thought something like "Continental World" would sound awkward.

[DeathByTheSword]

skywalker i only can think of it as usefull for military outposts. but i catogrized them this way. because not green world will not have nutrients so what is lefts is minerals and enegry....and i believe in the future enegry will not be a problem

[Jeremy Buloch]

Ok since Continental is good what about Aquatic world?
-J.B.-

[targon]

I'm an artist (here), not a geologist, but I know that exact terrain/ocean balance is vital for things like:
1) Atmosphere composition
2) Temperature
3) Terrain formation

You see, hot magma at Earth's rifts may both give out and take back various substances, most notable water, oxygen and carbon dioxide. So "most rifts are covered by water" and "most rifts are in atmosphere" are dramaticaly different in sense of planetary evolution.
I also think that water (at least, hydrogen and oxygen, it's enough) must be unavoidable parts of any "M-class" planet, so planet without oceans at all is very strange. Only cataclysmic events (like 2H20 = 2H2 ^ + O2 heat dissociation for Venus or frozen hydrolithosphere of Mars) may do something odd with all these water.

[Kurilka]

But don't you think that the probability of earth-like planet is somewhat small?
I mean that there are a lot of such "extreme conditions" planets and not so many "normal" (from our point of view) planets.
The next point is that 2nd type of planets maybe is better for use and for life.

[DeathByTheSword]

targon if you are referring to continental worlds....i ofcourse has water but now where it says that oceans are needed for life to exist on a planet...

[Jeremy Buloch]

As far as we know, without water there is no life. Unless the planet is terraformed by an outside force such as Humans. In the normal natural way there has to be water then evolution takes place.
-J.B.-

[DeathByTheSword]

yes to water but no to the need of OCEANS

[Jeremy Buloch]

Yes Oceans aren't exactly needed. There is life in a pond is there not? Or in a puddle there is life. Microscopic mostly but its still considered life. Actually some microscopic life can exist in an enviroment without water or substance. Such as space. U.S. brought back some equipment from the lunar surface and found bacteria living inside it. So therefore it is possible to live without water. But to have life other than bacteria it is pretty clear that water is needed. Oceans aren't paticulary needed. Its only water with sea salt. Its not much different than a pond or a lake or etc. So I agree with DBTS.
-J.B.-

[targon]

Originally posted by Jeremy Buloch
Yes Oceans aren't exactly needed.

Unless you want some geological activity at platetary scale.
With uncovered rifts, always oxygen-hungry mantle will keep oxygen level really low (as it did during early stages of Earth history, hundreds and hundreds million years).
Of course, you may "switch off" all the geology (say planet has small core; or even initial metal content was so humble that core formation does't count). This means no mountains, no rifts, no continents other than "primal crust" created during heating accompanied planetary accretion. Someting like Moon but with atmosphere. Dull smooth ball.
Yes, you may also remove ocean water via some bizzare process (like Venus or Mars), but this can't be true for "M-class" as it's joined with very threating things like very high/very low temp.
Oceans also are very useful for maitaining of planetary themperature at near-constant value. You see, water eats much more solar readiation compared with terrain, and keeps that heat during long times. Oceans transfer heat via flows of enormous scale, which work like heat radiators for near-polar regions. They are planetary-scale conditioning system. Without oceans, equator regions will be fried while polar frozen.
So ocens are vital for any "M-class" plantet, IMHO. And thanks Nature, water is't especitaly hard thing to find in space. So completely ocean-less planets may be dramatical mistake.

[Blake]

I think the 3 things to classify [colonisable] worlds by are:
Size <- Random
Temperature <- Random
Water Coverage <- Determined from Size + Temperature + Random

Atmosphere density is mostly a function of size and temperature, the quality of the atmosphere mostly water coverage.

Altough the world generator should be able to generate any sort of world, I would broadly classify worlds as:

Water World: Less than 5% land. Warm and wet.
Jungle World: 5-20% land. Warm and wet, but with more land. Mostly long stringy island chains and the like. A diverse biosphere, but mostly variations on creepy-crawly jungle dwellers.
Earth-Type World: 20-50% land. Quite a lot of arid land in the interiors of continents, coasts are mostly fertile. A diverse biosphere.
Desert World: 50-80% land. The coasts are fertile, but most the land is desert.
Barren World: 80-100% land. Biosphere is likely to be poorly developed, with most the land being devoid of all but the hardiest life. The oceans and coasts harbor life.
Dead World: 100% Land. Too small or cold oceans to form and life to prosper, which is not to say life isn't there, but it's not too happy with it's lot.
Ice world: Stuck in a permament iceage, virtually all the surface is covered in ice or frozen rock. These places are downright miserable places to live, colonists like them least of all. They make for wonderfull prison colonies.
Too Darn Hot world: Too close to it's star and with a dense atmosphere, these worlds are extremely hot!. Mostly classified as "too hard" to colonise, altough with a nice solar shade the temperature can be reduced to acceptable levels.
Airless worlds: Small worlds, too small for atmpshere. Cloudless days, nights and eternities make these worlds great for observation platforms and mining.

[DeathByTheSword]

er..blake size is importent to large a world cant be landed on because of the gravity pull. to small a world would mean almost no gravity pull and would mean decreased immunity system and decreased bonestructure

[Blake]

And what was on the top of the list.

[DeathByTheSword]

ok then i dont understand what you mean with random....size cant be random

[Blake]

size of world = random
I mean it's not determined from any other parameter of the world, comprehend?

[DeathByTheSword]

oh ok then to all

[Jeremy Buloch]

Sounds good blake. I agree to the fullest extent.
-J.B.-