posted 11-09-98 12:45 AM ET            

Which is immaterial as far as SMAC goes: the game is science fiction, and I'm prejudiced against astronomy anyway. (Will there be a double sun rise? Certainy there could be some cool features like this.)

All I can suggest is that Sid & Brian read a few basic physics texts before writing their next game, to avoid the lintany of errors SMAC has produced - to date:
Habitable planet around Alpha Centauri (binary star system)
Tachyon Beams (non-interacting theoritical particles as a weapon)
Singularity Lasers (Black holes that emit highly focused light???)

posted 11-09-98 12:55 AM ET            

I wonder if the planet's orbit would wobble between the two suns, or if it only orbits one of the suns and that the other is almost like another planet !!!

(Isn't there a 2nd planet in the system ???)

Apparently to date, scientists think they have found 12 out of our solar system planets in our real world ... are any of them around binary stars ???

As for the double sunrise effect, I think it would be cool, but the game progresses much too fast to be on a day by day basis (at least I hope so .. lol .. I don't want to play a 34298673498432 hour game !!! ... or do I ??? )

Anyways, even if the planet existed and there was life, it would have to be extremely adaptable life to be able to withstand all the differences in climate !!!

posted 11-09-98 03:11 AM ET            

I don't think time of day of tides will have much effect on gameplay, as this is not a real-time game .. each turn will go in rather large increments (probably nowhere what we saw in Civ 2 though), but in more than hourly increments which is what you would need to notice changes in lighting and tides !!! The binary's effect will have more effect on the type of soils and such things !!!

I'm guessing turns will start in a 2 to 5 year span .. then close to a question of months or even weeks eventually !!!

posted 11-09-98 05:28 AM ET            

It TENDS to be, because Proxima Centuari is so much less massive than Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B, that the AC A and AC B swirl around each other while Proxima Centauri orbits the other two at long distance. However, since Proxima Centauri's orbit may be eliptical, it would disturb the system of the other two whenever it got close (not to mention that binary systems unstable to begin with, with highly variable gravitational fields).

I'm no expert (I could ask my planetary science professor, who has a great deal of expertice, since I work as a preceptor in the lunar and planetary laboratory at the University of Arizona), but maybe the following could work:
Given the complexity of the system, the only planets that I would think could be stable enough to support life would have to orbit at a long enough range from the planet to not be adversely effected by the gravitational fluctuations. Unfortunately, this could easily place them outside the "habitable zone" (the area of a system where water would exist in liquid form if it was on a planetary body). Since Planet in SMAC has liquid water, it would have to exist in the habbitable zone, or have a REALLY profound greenhouse effect (which could be why the air is not breathable, mostly carbon dioxide). However, if the air was mostly carbon dioxide, making liquide water, it would NOT be in the humans best interest to make planet have more oxygen and less carbon dioxide, as this would reduce the greenhouse effect and freeze all of the water.

To have a truly earth like planet, but altered to be hotter than earth (the supposed climate of planet, with a greenhouse effect), it would have to exist inside the same habbitable zone type conditions that the Earth exists in. Since Alpha Centauri has TWO suns, you could have planet radical 2 AU away from the suns rather than 1 AU (assuming the same energy output, not really true, to have the approximately 1370 W/m solar constant we have here at 1 AU from Sol). However, I'm not sure how far away you would have to get (or whether you really would have to get far away) in order to have a stable orbit system (if planet's orbit is elliptical, it's not too conducive to life, as the "habbitable zone" tends to be rather thin. It would be far to easy to fly outside and back into the habbitable zone in a manner making life impossible).

Overall, it seems that it would be HIGHLY DIFFICULT to have an actual life-supporting planet in the Alpha Centauri system. However, SMAC maybe making a sci-fi assumption that Alpha Centauri only has one sun (or just ignoring the effects of having more than one) for the purposes of the game. Afterall, it's just a science FICTION game and has no need to conforming to reality. If anything, you could look at Alpha Centauri as simply a convention, since the system being traveled to could just as easily be Tau Ceti (sun-like star 11 light years away rather than the 3.4 ly for Alpha Centuari).

posted 11-09-98 05:54 AM ET            

Since you're in the field ... have you heard of the dozen or so planets found so far out of our solar system ???

posted 11-09-98 07:12 AM ET            

Having a habitable planet around Alpha Centauri is possible, just fairly unlikely as was so well pointed out already.

Tides with a binary star system could be fairly massive indeed (say 10 to 20 X earth tides) if the two member stars were fairly dissimilar in terms of energy output (one white dwarf, one approximiately the same as our sun) but close in terms of gravitation. Note I am no expert in this field its based on the increased pull of the double sun at 1.5 or so AU and an equivilent moon, with no moon tides would proabably be fairly close to the same but based on planetary rotation not lunar rotation.

Singularity lasers, hehe this one is a bit far fetched but it is believed that black holes would emit energy on some wavelength (dont ask me to explain read "A Brief History of Time") if you had a small enough black hole and used the energy output from that to drive the laser you would get rid of the problem with a generator (of course you would be toting around something with the mass of at least 100+ tons, not a fun thing to have to lift.) Another way would be to use the black hole for "slingshot" effect to accelerate the particles you are planning to lase and thus increase the eventual output.

Tachyon Beams, these are very farfetched but could be concidered to interact with not the physical matter of the target but any sort of electromagnetic, or gravatic shield (proabably by overloading and then shorting it out ) as they would be interacting with the energy of the shield (anyone know how possible this is? Last time I checked tachyons were pretty much theoretical.)

Living planet, ok this one is completely out in left field as unless you care to use some sort of undefined "mental" connection this is basically according to my understanding of biology impossible (of course this is hardly earth biology so one must keep an open mind.)

posted 11-09-98 08:15 AM ET            

Chiron (as I remember) orbits one star but the other binary partner is a reasonable distance away. (Working backwards about 10 times the distance from Chiron to the closer star?) so the effect isn't so clear cut, it's not orbiting the center of mass of the binary system.

The other point is that energy density from a star drops by a square relationship not linearly so if the 2 stars were next to each other the planet would need to be closer than 2 au to get the same light.

posted 11-09-98 08:14 PM ET            

The problem, as I see it, is whether a planet (given the high likelyhood of more elliptical or irregular orbits over millions of years in such a system) would remain in the habbitable zone for a sufficient number of *billions* of years to evolve advanced life. With such an irregular system, I would think you would have ample opportunities for "planet" to be knocked out of the habbitable zone for periods up to several thousand if not millions of years before returning to the habbitable zone (assuming it did return). The habbitable zone is a very thin volume of space around any given star and I would think a complex binary or possibly triple system would make it difficult to keep a planet with a suitable atmosphere *inside* the habbitable zone for enough billions of years to evolve life to the state that it is on "planet."

That I would think would be the major stubbling block for a real habbitable planet in the Alpha Centauri system. Conditions may be suitable for a life-bearing planet to be in the system at any given time, but conditions may not be suitable to a life-bearing planet *over time.*

If you have any data or ideas on this please share them (as I'm sure you will). It would be nice to know how such a system operates over time and whether you could have life evolve in such a system (how low or high is the probability, given a beginning of life, say 3 or 4 billion years ago, that it would still be around now?).

I will hopefully be able to ask the same question to some folk here and see if they have any answers.

posted 11-10-98 12:40 AM ET            

Life on A.C: Assuming that Chiron can set up a stable, near circular orbit (like earth) around A.C A (highly problematical with the disturbances of another star nearby, you may then have problems with temperature fluctuations, raising hell for early lifeforms. (although at 40AU, this would be less than devastating. Anyone know how bright A.C B is?). On the other hand, it is suspected that life on earth has started dozens of times, each time being knocked out by meteor strikes, etc). With the gravitational problems in A.C, stray cosmic material could well be largely eliminated. Life would only need to develop once, and, of course, is free to take its own direction.

A much better alternative possibility, of course, is that life on Chiron is the remenant of an ancient, collapsed alien civilisation (Brian did promise an indepth Sci-Fi plotline...) Having completed evolution elsewhere, and arrived (crash-landed !) on Chiron, coinsidentialy during a million year period of stability for the planet, only the strongest suited and most adaptive lifeforms would survive.
Curious alien artifacts scatter the landscape. That can't be a natural structure, surely? Well, seems pretty old...

Enter the MINDWORM!

posted 11-10-98 01:45 AM ET            

In most science fiction and/or hypothetical weapons discussions, the usage of singularities in laser weapons is NOT as a power source, but as a focal source. The problem with lasers (ok, not THE problem, but one of many) is that, while on a terrestrial scale they are "tightbeam", in any kind of "Deep Space" sense, they are hopelessly useless. Basically, any laser weapon made using current or foreseeable focussing technology is unable to maintain that "tightbeam" over sufficient distance to make them useful in space combat. At an engagement distance of about 1 light second ('prox 30,000 km), even the most tightly focussed laser spreads out to over a meter wide at target -- essentially a wopping big flashlight.

By comparison, kinetic energy weapons (railguns and missiles) maintain their damage potential over millions or even billions of kilometers (indeed, low thrust missiles, like ion engine powered ones, have BETTER damage capability over long distance).

To combat this unfortunate state of affairs, some science fiction authors have proposed a "miracle" focus to enable the "classic" space based laser battles of fiction to take place.

Finally, to bring the point back to "Singularity Lasers", because of the nature of Einsteinian space, gravity gradients can bend light -- and extreme gravity gradients (like those of a singularity) could feasibly bend light to a sufficient extent to make laser weapons functional at hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of kilometers of range -- of course, you'd need a WOPPING huge platform to be capable of pushing all that extra mass around. Easier to just stick to the (far more deadly) kinetic weapons.

posted 11-10-98 02:03 AM ET            

But thanks for the explaination, it does at least mean the singularity has some kind of purpose, which was more than I knew before.

posted 11-10-98 02:11 AM ET            

About the living planet thingy:

Sid might be referring to the Gaia theory used in Sim Earth (anybody remember that game?). It think it says that a planet can change it's temperature and atmosphere content in order to counter the heat building up from the sun (spanning a couple of billion of years) so it can keep it's ecosystem alive. So, could Gaia be able to protect it's ecosystem from a bunch of unfriendly Spartians nuking everything in their path?

Sim Earth:
Try this: Let civilization evolve to nanotech age, heat up the atmosphere until you have a desert planet, and then do nuclear tests ALL over your planet.
What happens is that a new race of robots replaces your former civilization.

posted 11-10-98 02:29 AM ET            

[Something especially effecitve against a planet, just accelerate a chunk of rock to sub-light and hit the planet with it. NOTHING survives.]

posted 11-10-98 03:36 AM ET            

Considering that if you have two sides that are both capable of going at such high velocities, any side that can use near light speed weapons is going to have a great advantage in combat. You wouldn't have to worry about "leading the target", you wouldn't have to worry about how long it took for the shot to get there. You press the button and in a fraction of a second, boom! The guy with the damn missle has to wait for it to get there.

Personally ion cannons, gauss cannons, and particle beams (especially particle beams) seem to be the most practical choice. They are both high velocity, reducing travel time and increasing acuracy, and are capable of doing an incredible amount of damage. They're a hell of a lot cheaper and low tech than lasers too. The U.S. government already has designs for prototypes of particle beams that would admittedly cost in the billions of dollars each. However, that's alot less than the decades of further research it would take to get laser weapons up to useful weapon abilities.

posted 11-10-98 11:44 PM ET            

[I did have another but have temporarily forgotten it]

Basicly, weapons have evolved like this: Stone, sling, arrow, crossbow, rifle/cannon, machine gun, missile, guilded missile, rail gun (planned but not yet operational).
We see weapons moving from slow to fast, and then employing strageties to improve accuracy, like exploding, firing multiple rounds and being able to curve in flight.

Defense has also evolved, from hiding behind rocks, to wearable armour, to hiding in full view (camoflage), to hiding behind hills (artillery) and finally stealth technology.

As well, the means of doing battle has changed. The closest thing to space combat would be naval warfare, which now basically depends on the exchange of aircraft and missiles to determine a winner.

Apply these directions to space combat and you get rail-guns and particle beams for defense, with stealth ships and missiles for attack, bringing these weapons into effective range.

posted 11-15-98 04:34 PM ET            

Who here hates the Spice Girls, Hanson, The Backstreet Boys, NSync, & all those other stupid bands??

Sorry, continue discussing the Real AC