Comments on the Research System - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Science and Technology
  Comments on the Research System

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Comments on the Research System

Borodino posted 12-25-98 08:39 AM ET
I think I like it. It seems to incorporate a lot of suggestions, especially randomness. Has anyone tried the non-random option yet? Other comments, please?
albemuth posted 12-26-98 04:11 PM ET
I've tried the non-random option, but I prefer the random option. It adds to the game-play by forcing me to adapt my play to the research. It has a "goodie-hut" feel to it that helps to keep the game fresh. Plus, I like to be able to point and tell the scientists to go fetch. Sometimes they bring back the wrong stick, but that's where diplomacy comes in. Overall, the non-random option lessened the gameplay slightly. It was a nice option to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
riddler posted 12-26-98 09:46 PM ET
um...how DO you change the random or non-random option?
albemuth posted 12-26-98 11:31 PM ET
riddler: it's in the 'custom rules' at game start-up. I think that you can also change it in the game; check the menu options. Enjoy.
Kaboodles posted 12-27-98 04:07 AM ET
The random option is a logical step forward from the Civilisation method. You can't ask your wise men to discover mathematics when you don't know what it is!
Syndicate using the SMAC method in a crude fashion; you chose whether to research Assault, Heavy, etc, weapons, and when you discovered a new one, it gave you the next off the list.
Overall, I like the new system. But now that we've got a taste of something good, we want more! Maybe the Factions could have incentives for researching their logical tech paths, and penalties for their antithesis.

Kaboodles
Raman posted 01-11-99 07:26 AM ET
I use the non-random function by electing to choose my own research path in the "custom rules" section and prefere it because it seems to balance your faction's weaknesses. Otherwise, the AI will lead you through the path of least resistance, which is not always good. It also allows access to more secret projects. In one game, I nearly cornered the market with all the tech with four different bases researching different projects. This, I feel, is the key to success and can only happen if you choose your own tech path. The Hunter-Seeker algorithm is particularily important as it prevents others from stealing your tech or capturing your units. Longevity Vaccine will maintain good health in populus. By choosing my own path, I'm also aware of when it's time to begin a particular project. Can't wait to go higher than level 5!
Wen_Amon posted 01-12-99 02:46 AM ET
Excuse me, wiseman I need you to tell me how to ride these animals we call horses. how long will it take
Civ2 guy: 10 years
Real life wiseman: Ride the horses! Why didnt I think of that! I can just jump on and go! Whoopee!!!
Bottom line, randomness rocks.
Milamber posted 01-12-99 01:53 PM ET
Please note you do not tell your people to learn to ride horses it is just the fact you are an omnipotent being that you know it is called horseback riding. You would actually guide your wisemen that you need them to provide you with a way of moving faster.
That is one of the rules you see no direct intervention (cheating).
However in SMAC you are a mortal so the random method seems much more reasonable and it is good fun anyway.
CyberSpyder posted 01-12-99 11:21 PM ET
Err, you're a mortal in Civ2 also. Remember how you choose a tribe, and you become the leader of it? I don't think that some faroff godly thing would be proclaimed King or Czar or President or whatever.
Milamber posted 01-13-99 02:41 PM ET
Then how come you live for 6000 years. Or more if you choose to cary on.
Zorloc posted 01-13-99 05:11 PM ET
I always thought of it as a dynasty. So when I will it is Death the MMCCCIV that actually wins the Great^231 Grandson of the Original Death that started the Great Society of Death.
or something like that.
Grosshaus posted 01-15-99 02:22 PM ET
I like Moo1 system even more. There you decided how big percentage of research goes to one area. For instance 30% to ecology, 10% to military, 40% to knowledge and 10% to wealth. Or whatever one wants. Better than just deciding focus.
Milamber posted 01-15-99 03:00 PM ET
I like that sort of idea too, the percentage to each area is also implimented in Pax Imperia 2. however you can choose the topicso it isn't the same.
Celebrim posted 01-18-99 12:55 PM ET
With regards to this random tech being more realistic: Would it not also be more realistic to not play at all? After all, no real ruler no matter how absolute controls the tactical movement of each of his military units, or the building of each structure in his cities. And assuming that he is not completely absulute, he does not completely control taxes, laws, the societies moral complusion, dreams or desires. Would it not be more realistic to just let the AI play each faction and sit back and root for one of them? Or perhaps rule for only the first few years, and then let the AI take over. If we consider this to be a dynasty, why is there no risk that we are overthrown? Perhaps as a democracy we should except that are actions will be accepted with only a chance that is reflected by our popularity.
Basically, what I am saying is that sure, if you like the challenge, make the game harder on yourself, but do not then brag that that is a superior way to play the game.

Orii posted 01-19-99 05:26 PM ET
Sure, not playing is more realistic, but given that we will be playing (and I certainly will), random discoveries are closer to actual experience. Right now the US is focusing more on applied science opposed to theoretical, and possibly has less a military focus than it used to (such as during the Reagan era). We can say we want to try to get nanotech working, but maybe we get some better microchip-etching tech from the research before the micro robots start doing their thing.
I believe keeping things somewhat realistic is a good thing; we don't want completely unrealistic things happening. Imagine that Planet was a cube, military units could only attack within their home city's radius, and boat movement was free (could cross any ocean in one turn). You could play a game like that, but the more realistic scenarios somehow seem more fun.
Wen_Amon posted 01-23-99 03:13 AM ET
I love the tech in Pax. With over 200 techs, it was and still is a great game!
bonechewer posted 01-28-99 09:06 PM ET
Ok since u guys are arguing here... lemme solve 'part' of your 'un-realistic' problem.
If u ever bothered to read the datalinks, the real game allows you to rule 500 years until you retire. And try to remember your 8th grade science, "Year" is defined as 1 whole revelutioun around whatever that it is orbiting, which in this case is Alpha Centauri's (the solar system) primary star (or sun). So, we wouldnt' know exactly how long in earth years would that planet's 500 years be. Also, in the future, don't you think that we humans woulda develop some kinda treatment to allow us live longer? Long-livity vaccine, it could be merely an addition to that long-life technology.
As for the threat of being overthrown, well before they crash landed on the planet, these 7 (1)MOST-POWERFUL, guided their (2) CHOSEN CREW to the surface of the planet. Therefore Most powerful is one factor, and Chosen crew would probably be the people who share their beliefs with their leader and teach their children to never disobey him/her?
Milamber posted 01-29-99 01:11 PM ET
You do have longer life in one of the interludes it states that you dont want to go to the longlivity treatment.
Also if tese are not earth years then why do you start in 2200 which is what the earth date would be.
Tarot242 posted 01-30-99 01:03 PM ET
If I remember reading some of the documation correctly, a Chiron year is not all that much shorter than an Earth year. Plus, during the interludes, it mentions that you, as the leader, undergo "Longevity Treatments." The exact nature of these treatments are not really specificied, but one can assume it involves some genetic modification to slow aging and some cellular regeneration/re-vitalization. Or something. Besides, there ARE secret projects called "The Longevity Vaccine" and the "Immortality Dug," or somesuch. These obviously imply that at some point, the technology to dramatically extend the human lifespan becomes available to the general public of your faction and is probably available to you, as the leader, much earlier on.
zulu posted 01-30-99 10:52 PM ET
doesn't at the end of the game when you build the last project, the humans trascend or something and became one with the planet? (ie immortality through personality download)
Pudz posted 01-31-99 11:33 PM ET
i think then you go into a transendence mode, basically a god er something. and the date of the entry is like 181212127 year or something
Rubinelli posted 02-02-99 10:02 PM ET
In one of the quotes (I think it is the longevity vaccine's,) Morgan says that he would like to live forever, but would be glad to live for 1000 or 2000 years. Even 500 years would be ok.
Interesting useless fact: the Chironian year couldn't be much different from earth's, since it's got to have the same orbit diameter in order to be inhabitable.
Shadwhawk posted 02-03-99 01:46 AM ET
Actually, depending on the brightness/power of the star, the typical human-habitable area/liquid water at low atmospheric pressures varies. A star 10x as powerful would have a habitable zone out a whole lot further; thus its year would probably be a lot longer. A weaker star would have a habitable zone coser, meaning a shorter year.
And there are *3* stars in the Alpha Centauri system, two at about the same brightness as Sol. Depending on the orbital distance of the two primary stars and their average distance from Chiron, the habitable zone can vary greatly.
And remember, Chiron isn't habitable. It's hostile and highly toxic to humans. Chiron isn't any more habitable than Venus or Mars (well, ok, maybe more a bit more habitable than Venus).
Shadowhawk
Florgie17 posted 02-03-99 08:08 PM ET
Well genius (to person above) then why didn't they go to mars?
Wraith posted 02-03-99 09:11 PM ET
Hail,
> A star 10x as powerful would have a
> habitable zone out a whole lot further;
> thus its year would probably be a lot longer.
Actually, the energy distribution follows an inverse cube law. A star even ten times as powerful wouldn't have a very different habitable zone than Sol does, unless the planets atmosphere was rather different (ie. trapped much more or much less of the energy as heat).
I am not sure what effect the multiple stars would have on things, however.
Wraith
Lord Vetinari looked attentive, because he'd always found that listening keenly to people tended to put them off.
Jingo -- Terry Pratchett
futRtrubL posted 02-04-99 01:22 AM ET
Strange how a post on research turned to thread on imortality.
All the tech in SMAC seems to be totally new tech over improoving existing tech but ofcource mostly what a ruler would do is alocate between blue-sky and tried and true but they could choose what projects to fund, but this would be less significate in a free market as research is also done by corporations. As to the length of the Chironian year it is slightly longer than an earth year. Theoreticaly a star 10x brighter would have its habitable belt 10^0.5x or 3.3x further out this would lead to an orbital period of 3.3^3 or 33 years.
What's this about Mars and Venus being near the habitability of Chiron? Mars is not in the habitable belt though it might have once been, it has no aparent life either, Venus is worse. But Chiron is right in the habitable zone,closer to the center than earth and so MORE habitable than earth for LIFE if not humans, and it is covered in life.
Zoetrope posted 02-04-99 06:47 PM ET
Remember that a star 10 times as luminous and also on the main sequence is also more massive, so its gravity will cause planets to revolve faster, reducing their year.
Tarot242 posted 02-04-99 09:07 PM ET
Zoetrope: Keep in mind, too, that a planet that is both farther away from the star AND revolving faster will not really have longer years than similar planets in the Sol system. Think about it: a habitable planet will be farther away from a massive, hot star than the earth is from the sun. But, because the star is more massive, the planet will revolve faster, thus creating somewhat comparable years to earth's.
And at any rate, I think that the most massive stars on the main sequence lack planetary systems; most of the planetary matter would have either been sucked into the star during its protostar and formation period, or blown clear out of the system by solar wind during and after its fusion core started up. It stands to reason that more massive, brighter stars will have a much stronger solar wind.
Spoe posted 02-04-99 09:59 PM ET
"Actually, the energy distribution follows an inverse cube law."
This is wrong. The intensity of radiation from the star falling on a planets follows an inverse square law.
For a star 10X solar luminosity, a planet 3.16 AU from the star would receive the same amount of energy from the star as the Earth from the Sun (Even if your inverse cube law were correect, this would only be reduced to 2.15 AU).
Chirons closest approach to AC B(Chiron's primary in AC A) would be ~10 AU. Now, AC B is somewhat dimmer than the Sun, so you are looking at a less than 1% of the heat the Earth receives from the Sun. This is at the _closest_ approach. At the most distant, ~36 AU, it is less than 0.077%. Hardly noticable, I'd think. AC C(Proxima) doesn't have any measurable effect, being both very dim, and ~13000 AU from the rest of the system.
DanS posted 03-23-99 01:32 PM ET
Bringing this sci&tech thread to the top.
googlie posted 06-20-99 11:51 PM ET
here's another one pre crash - at least we can open these and maybe get some scientific discussion going
googlie
googlie posted 07-09-99 01:52 PM ET
bumping
Zoetrope posted 07-12-99 05:36 AM ET
OK, to elaborate my earlier point about year Y and distance D from the sun, the formula is:
Y cubed = k times M times D squared,
where k is a constant and M is the mass of the sun.
The distance D of a planet with a given insolation (incoming solar radiation intensity) is related to the luminosity (actual brightness) B of the sun by:
D^2 = c times B,
where c is another constant.
So, the year of a middle-of-the-range habitable planet is related to the brightness of the primary by:
Y^3 = constant times M times B.
Hope I got all that right.
Rakeesh posted 07-13-99 05:20 PM ET
Okay well all this super-ultra-quantum-physics computational stuff is over my head, but I'm pretty sure Chiron would have a similar length 'year' as Terra. The one thing about Terraforming that I don't get is.. if we can make synthetic fossil fuels why can't we 'synthesize' some oxygen for the atmosphere?
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Comments on the Research System
Borodino	posted 12-25-98 08:39 AM ET I think I like it. It seems to incorporate a lot of suggestions, especially randomness. Has anyone tried the non-random option yet? Other comments, please?
albemuth	posted 12-26-98 04:11 PM ET I've tried the non-random option, but I prefer the random option. It adds to the game-play by forcing me to adapt my play to the research. It has a "goodie-hut" feel to it that helps to keep the game fresh. Plus, I like to be able to point and tell the scientists to go fetch. Sometimes they bring back the wrong stick, but that's where diplomacy comes in. Overall, the non-random option lessened the gameplay slightly. It was a nice option to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
riddler	posted 12-26-98 09:46 PM ET um...how DO you change the random or non-random option?
albemuth	posted 12-26-98 11:31 PM ET riddler: it's in the 'custom rules' at game start-up. I think that you can also change it in the game; check the menu options. Enjoy.
Kaboodles	posted 12-27-98 04:07 AM ET The random option is a logical step forward from the Civilisation method. You can't ask your wise men to discover mathematics when you don't know what it is! Syndicate using the SMAC method in a crude fashion; you chose whether to research Assault, Heavy, etc, weapons, and when you discovered a new one, it gave you the next off the list. Overall, I like the new system. But now that we've got a taste of something good, we want more! Maybe the Factions could have incentives for researching their logical tech paths, and penalties for their antithesis. Kaboodles
Raman	posted 01-11-99 07:26 AM ET I use the non-random function by electing to choose my own research path in the "custom rules" section and prefere it because it seems to balance your faction's weaknesses. Otherwise, the AI will lead you through the path of least resistance, which is not always good. It also allows access to more secret projects. In one game, I nearly cornered the market with all the tech with four different bases researching different projects. This, I feel, is the key to success and can only happen if you choose your own tech path. The Hunter-Seeker algorithm is particularily important as it prevents others from stealing your tech or capturing your units. Longevity Vaccine will maintain good health in populus. By choosing my own path, I'm also aware of when it's time to begin a particular project. Can't wait to go higher than level 5!
Wen_Amon	posted 01-12-99 02:46 AM ET Excuse me, wiseman I need you to tell me how to ride these animals we call horses. how long will it take Civ2 guy: 10 years Real life wiseman: Ride the horses! Why didnt I think of that! I can just jump on and go! Whoopee!!! Bottom line, randomness rocks.
Milamber	posted 01-12-99 01:53 PM ET Please note you do not tell your people to learn to ride horses it is just the fact you are an omnipotent being that you know it is called horseback riding. You would actually guide your wisemen that you need them to provide you with a way of moving faster. That is one of the rules you see no direct intervention (cheating). However in SMAC you are a mortal so the random method seems much more reasonable and it is good fun anyway.
CyberSpyder	posted 01-12-99 11:21 PM ET Err, you're a mortal in Civ2 also. Remember how you choose a tribe, and you become the leader of it? I don't think that some faroff godly thing would be proclaimed King or Czar or President or whatever.
Milamber	posted 01-13-99 02:41 PM ET Then how come you live for 6000 years. Or more if you choose to cary on.
Zorloc	posted 01-13-99 05:11 PM ET I always thought of it as a dynasty. So when I will it is Death the MMCCCIV that actually wins the Great^231 Grandson of the Original Death that started the Great Society of Death. or something like that.
Grosshaus	posted 01-15-99 02:22 PM ET I like Moo1 system even more. There you decided how big percentage of research goes to one area. For instance 30% to ecology, 10% to military, 40% to knowledge and 10% to wealth. Or whatever one wants. Better than just deciding focus.
Milamber	posted 01-15-99 03:00 PM ET I like that sort of idea too, the percentage to each area is also implimented in Pax Imperia 2. however you can choose the topicso it isn't the same.
Celebrim	posted 01-18-99 12:55 PM ET With regards to this random tech being more realistic: Would it not also be more realistic to not play at all? After all, no real ruler no matter how absolute controls the tactical movement of each of his military units, or the building of each structure in his cities. And assuming that he is not completely absulute, he does not completely control taxes, laws, the societies moral complusion, dreams or desires. Would it not be more realistic to just let the AI play each faction and sit back and root for one of them? Or perhaps rule for only the first few years, and then let the AI take over. If we consider this to be a dynasty, why is there no risk that we are overthrown? Perhaps as a democracy we should except that are actions will be accepted with only a chance that is reflected by our popularity. Basically, what I am saying is that sure, if you like the challenge, make the game harder on yourself, but do not then brag that that is a superior way to play the game.
Orii	posted 01-19-99 05:26 PM ET Sure, not playing is more realistic, but given that we will be playing (and I certainly will), random discoveries are closer to actual experience. Right now the US is focusing more on applied science opposed to theoretical, and possibly has less a military focus than it used to (such as during the Reagan era). We can say we want to try to get nanotech working, but maybe we get some better microchip-etching tech from the research before the micro robots start doing their thing. I believe keeping things somewhat realistic is a good thing; we don't want completely unrealistic things happening. Imagine that Planet was a cube, military units could only attack within their home city's radius, and boat movement was free (could cross any ocean in one turn). You could play a game like that, but the more realistic scenarios somehow seem more fun.
Wen_Amon	posted 01-23-99 03:13 AM ET I love the tech in Pax. With over 200 techs, it was and still is a great game!
bonechewer	posted 01-28-99 09:06 PM ET Ok since u guys are arguing here... lemme solve 'part' of your 'un-realistic' problem. If u ever bothered to read the datalinks, the real game allows you to rule 500 years until you retire. And try to remember your 8th grade science, "Year" is defined as 1 whole revelutioun around whatever that it is orbiting, which in this case is Alpha Centauri's (the solar system) primary star (or sun). So, we wouldnt' know exactly how long in earth years would that planet's 500 years be. Also, in the future, don't you think that we humans woulda develop some kinda treatment to allow us live longer? Long-livity vaccine, it could be merely an addition to that long-life technology. As for the threat of being overthrown, well before they crash landed on the planet, these 7 (1)MOST-POWERFUL, guided their (2) CHOSEN CREW to the surface of the planet. Therefore Most powerful is one factor, and Chosen crew would probably be the people who share their beliefs with their leader and teach their children to never disobey him/her?
Milamber	posted 01-29-99 01:11 PM ET You do have longer life in one of the interludes it states that you dont want to go to the longlivity treatment. Also if tese are not earth years then why do you start in 2200 which is what the earth date would be.
Tarot242	posted 01-30-99 01:03 PM ET If I remember reading some of the documation correctly, a Chiron year is not all that much shorter than an Earth year. Plus, during the interludes, it mentions that you, as the leader, undergo "Longevity Treatments." The exact nature of these treatments are not really specificied, but one can assume it involves some genetic modification to slow aging and some cellular regeneration/re-vitalization. Or something. Besides, there ARE secret projects called "The Longevity Vaccine" and the "Immortality Dug," or somesuch. These obviously imply that at some point, the technology to dramatically extend the human lifespan becomes available to the general public of your faction and is probably available to you, as the leader, much earlier on.
zulu	posted 01-30-99 10:52 PM ET doesn't at the end of the game when you build the last project, the humans trascend or something and became one with the planet? (ie immortality through personality download)
Pudz	posted 01-31-99 11:33 PM ET i think then you go into a transendence mode, basically a god er something. and the date of the entry is like 181212127 year or something
Rubinelli	posted 02-02-99 10:02 PM ET In one of the quotes (I think it is the longevity vaccine's,) Morgan says that he would like to live forever, but would be glad to live for 1000 or 2000 years. Even 500 years would be ok. Interesting useless fact: the Chironian year couldn't be much different from earth's, since it's got to have the same orbit diameter in order to be inhabitable.
Shadwhawk	posted 02-03-99 01:46 AM ET Actually, depending on the brightness/power of the star, the typical human-habitable area/liquid water at low atmospheric pressures varies. A star 10x as powerful would have a habitable zone out a whole lot further; thus its year would probably be a lot longer. A weaker star would have a habitable zone coser, meaning a shorter year. And there are 3 stars in the Alpha Centauri system, two at about the same brightness as Sol. Depending on the orbital distance of the two primary stars and their average distance from Chiron, the habitable zone can vary greatly. And remember, Chiron isn't habitable. It's hostile and highly toxic to humans. Chiron isn't any more habitable than Venus or Mars (well, ok, maybe more a bit more habitable than Venus). Shadowhawk
Florgie17	posted 02-03-99 08:08 PM ET Well genius (to person above) then why didn't they go to mars?
Wraith	posted 02-03-99 09:11 PM ET Hail, > A star 10x as powerful would have a > habitable zone out a whole lot further; > thus its year would probably be a lot longer. Actually, the energy distribution follows an inverse cube law. A star even ten times as powerful wouldn't have a very different habitable zone than Sol does, unless the planets atmosphere was rather different (ie. trapped much more or much less of the energy as heat). I am not sure what effect the multiple stars would have on things, however. Wraith Lord Vetinari looked attentive, because he'd always found that listening keenly to people tended to put them off. Jingo -- Terry Pratchett
futRtrubL	posted 02-04-99 01:22 AM ET Strange how a post on research turned to thread on imortality. All the tech in SMAC seems to be totally new tech over improoving existing tech but ofcource mostly what a ruler would do is alocate between blue-sky and tried and true but they could choose what projects to fund, but this would be less significate in a free market as research is also done by corporations. As to the length of the Chironian year it is slightly longer than an earth year. Theoreticaly a star 10x brighter would have its habitable belt 10^0.5x or 3.3x further out this would lead to an orbital period of 3.3^3 or 33 years. What's this about Mars and Venus being near the habitability of Chiron? Mars is not in the habitable belt though it might have once been, it has no aparent life either, Venus is worse. But Chiron is right in the habitable zone,closer to the center than earth and so MORE habitable than earth for LIFE if not humans, and it is covered in life.
Zoetrope	posted 02-04-99 06:47 PM ET Remember that a star 10 times as luminous and also on the main sequence is also more massive, so its gravity will cause planets to revolve faster, reducing their year.
Tarot242	posted 02-04-99 09:07 PM ET Zoetrope: Keep in mind, too, that a planet that is both farther away from the star AND revolving faster will not really have longer years than similar planets in the Sol system. Think about it: a habitable planet will be farther away from a massive, hot star than the earth is from the sun. But, because the star is more massive, the planet will revolve faster, thus creating somewhat comparable years to earth's. And at any rate, I think that the most massive stars on the main sequence lack planetary systems; most of the planetary matter would have either been sucked into the star during its protostar and formation period, or blown clear out of the system by solar wind during and after its fusion core started up. It stands to reason that more massive, brighter stars will have a much stronger solar wind.
Spoe	posted 02-04-99 09:59 PM ET "Actually, the energy distribution follows an inverse cube law." This is wrong. The intensity of radiation from the star falling on a planets follows an inverse square law. For a star 10X solar luminosity, a planet 3.16 AU from the star would receive the same amount of energy from the star as the Earth from the Sun (Even if your inverse cube law were correect, this would only be reduced to 2.15 AU). Chirons closest approach to AC B(Chiron's primary in AC A) would be ~10 AU. Now, AC B is somewhat dimmer than the Sun, so you are looking at a less than 1% of the heat the Earth receives from the Sun. This is at the _closest_ approach. At the most distant, ~36 AU, it is less than 0.077%. Hardly noticable, I'd think. AC C(Proxima) doesn't have any measurable effect, being both very dim, and ~13000 AU from the rest of the system.
DanS	posted 03-23-99 01:32 PM ET Bringing this sci&tech thread to the top.
googlie	posted 06-20-99 11:51 PM ET here's another one pre crash - at least we can open these and maybe get some scientific discussion going googlie
googlie	posted 07-09-99 01:52 PM ET bumping
Zoetrope	posted 07-12-99 05:36 AM ET OK, to elaborate my earlier point about year Y and distance D from the sun, the formula is: Y cubed = k times M times D squared, where k is a constant and M is the mass of the sun. The distance D of a planet with a given insolation (incoming solar radiation intensity) is related to the luminosity (actual brightness) B of the sun by: D^2 = c times B, where c is another constant. So, the year of a middle-of-the-range habitable planet is related to the brightness of the primary by: Y^3 = constant times M times B. Hope I got all that right.
Rakeesh	posted 07-13-99 05:20 PM ET Okay well all this super-ultra-quantum-physics computational stuff is over my head, but I'm pretty sure Chiron would have a similar length 'year' as Terra. The one thing about Terraforming that I don't get is.. if we can make synthetic fossil fuels why can't we 'synthesize' some oxygen for the atmosphere?