On Battletech and Superfluous Background Data

One of the games I spent a lot of time on as a child was Mechwarrior 2: 31st Century Combat, which was part of the larger Battletech universe of tabletop wargames. It was my first exposure to the concept of mecha, even before I saw Star Wars and its Imperial walkers. It also introduced me to the idea of ammo management, which unfortunately I didn't fully grasp until much later.  Thanks to the modern marvel that is MechVM, I was able to break out our old disc and finally finish the game late last year, 18 years after I first played it.

"Overheating my mech?! Thermal shutdown failsafe?! What does that even mean?! Star Wars: Rogue Squadron lets me hold down the trigger for five minutes straight and absolutely nothing bad happened!" (Image source: Wikipedia)

Being a game from 1995, its environments left something to be desired, but I loved seeing all the different planets the missions took place on. One of the advantages of a tabletop gaming universe is that there tends to be a lot of superfluous background information, presumably to better immerse the players in the game and help them come up with original but authentic game scenarios. I've only briefly dabbled in the game, having purchased the starter set recently, but I've found some of what I've seen rather interesting.

Disclaimer: despite the awesome articulated war machine on the cover, contents are mostly rulebooks and scoresheets. The closest you get to this is the miniatures. And you have to paint the miniatures. (Image source: Amazon)

This sci-fi setting has no sentient aliens to speak of, so all storylines are human-centric. Consequently most of the planets have names with real-world origins, which I've always found more respectable than alphabet soup. Take a look at this doc for example. Note also that we don't get more than a page of background on any one planet, but at least (in most cases) we get some basic statistics and an image. Rather than all looking like Earth clones, the planets are quite diverse and visually appealing. (The artwork style looks similar to planetary art I've seen elsewhere; I wonder what software was used to create these pics.) The flavor text similarly paints a picture of colonization as a difficult endeavor, with settlers having to deal with a variety of hostile conditions. This is way more background than you'd get in most other media, with the possible exception of the Star Wars Legends continuity.

Also interesting to note is this map from the recent Mechwarrior Online multiplayer game: "Tourmaline Desert".

It's so beautiful, I got nothing snarky to say. (Image source: Mechwarrior Online)

Whereas most of the other maps have environments with real-world analogs, this "Tourmaline Desert" definitely shows some cookie-worthy creativity. From the red sky and twin suns to the massive crystal formations to the 97-Celsius ambient temperature, this feels like a hostile world. Can't speak for its plausibility though. Until I inevitably Wikipedia'd it, I had no idea what tourmaline was. Here on Earth, though, it's classified as a semi-precious stone, so it seems unlikely you could have that much tourmaline in one place. Doesn't mean those crystal formations couldn't be made of something else though. I'd definitely like to see more like this in video games. (Hopefully we will once No Man's Sky comes out.)

On a similar note, the brand new map, "Hellebore Springs" is a simple but appealing concept. Purple plants!

Image source: YouTube

Sure it's just a palette swap of trees and grass, but it's clear they're making an effort. Seems like you're more likely to see this kind of creativity in video games. I suspect that's because one way or another you're building everything from the ground up; in movies and live-action TV it's easier to use real-world locations for sets, and in books it's easier to not describe the planet at all (this happens too often).

More Cookies For This Guy

In high school I messed around a lot with Celestia, a freeware "universe simulator" that allows you to view pretty much any known object in the solar system, the galaxy, or the universe. The key appeal of Celestia is the ease with which one can code add-ons, many of which can be found here. In college I once coded an add-on that contained every star, planet, and moon in the Firefly verse, which I never uploaded because I knew nothing about creating planetary textures.

Still don't.

One that I've always remembered is this interpretation of the HD 40307 solar system. At the time it was made there were only three "Super-Earth" planets known around that star; now there may be as many as seven. Regardless, it wasn't that big of a stretch for modder "AVBursch" to add a hypothetical fourth planet.

Clockwise from top-left: HD 40307 b, hypothetical e, c, and d, dubbed Lemnos, Naxos, Thebes, and Samothrace respectively by the modder. (Image source: Celestia Motherlode)

None of these planets could be habitable, and this modder doesn't try to make them so. Instead he comes up with four inhospitable worlds that seem incredibly real. This is helped by the flavor text he provides in the readme file that comes with the add-on.

The innermost planet, Lemnos, is covered in molten metal seas and rivers, tidally locked to its star, with day and night temperatures of 1880 degrees F and 1232 degrees F respectively. Zoom in on the surface and you'll find that the sky is bright red.

Thebes, the next planet, has a thick atmosphere but is described as being too hot for clouds to form (though the model has clouds - they can be toggled on and off).

Samothrace, however, has a thick cloud layer like Venus, though you can still view the surface through the clouds. Its atmospheric density is 4 times that of Venus.

Naxos, the hypothetical planet, does not quite match with any of the planets that have been discovered in real life since this mod was created. It's described as having a mass of 5.51 Earths and a semi-major orbital axis of 0.422 astronomical units. Compare HD 40307 f, with a mass of 5.2 Earths and an orbital axis of 0.247 AU, and HD 40307 g, with a mass of 7.1 Earths and an orbital axis of 0.600 AU (give or take 1 or 2 Earths and 0.1 or 0.2 AU). Described as having "ocean of water that is kept liquid in spite of the surface temperature of 605 kelvin (630 F) because of the immemse atmospheric pressure", the description for Naxos is where I first heard the term "Pelagic" used to describe an ocean planet.

These planets would almost never be used as settings for any mainstream sci-fi media, unless Hal Clement were still alive (look him up). This modder made these planets just to be creative, and it's a shame there aren't more well-thought-out mods like this, where scientific accuracy and realism are the top priority. Why can't they all be like this?

Super Saturn

Outer space seems to be getting progressively more awesome every week.

Image source: Washington Post

Behold J1407b, and its rings, and its rings, and its rings, and its rings...

The rings surrounding this planet dwarf Saturn's by a factor of 200. Two. Hundred. They're literally big enough to blot out the sun. That's not hyperbole: if you put them around Saturn, they'd be visible from Earth, and much bigger than the disc of the moon or the sun.

When you put it like that, I'm actually really surprised this wasn't spotted a lot sooner. (Image source: Washington Post)

Ringed planets are a concept I've only seen sporadically in serious sci-fi. They seem to be much more endemic to "kiddie" stories, or birthday party supplies and the like. And there are those times when they get it wrong. Oh so very wrong.

I love this game but YEEARGGHITSSOWRONG

I've never seen anything like this in fiction. If anyone else has, let me know. But now that we've got evidence of this kind of thing, the onus is on writers to use the concept. I'm thinking of something along the lines of this game: characters duking it out in a universe full of asteroids and nothing else. Heck, if I can tear myself away from the Internet long enough I might write it myself.

Breaking: Search for Planet X Back On - If It Was Ever Off

Today I got my attention directed to a news article indicating that two planets, larger than Earth, may exist beyond the orbit of Neptune.

Image found here. Original creators: NASA/JPL-Caltech

My first thought was, "I gotta blog about this." Which is pretty shallow. But now that I'm over the coolness of this idea, I realize it isn't really news.

The gist of the article is that those Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs) out there, like Quaoar, Sedna, Haumea, Makemake, Orcus, Varuna, have some unexpected orbital parameters. For example, one would expect their orbits to be in the same plane as those of the major planets, with an orbital radius of 150 astronomical units (AU), give or take. But their orbits are inclined by as much as 20 degrees, and they are highly elliptical, taking these objects from 150 AU to as far as 525 AU. That's 525 times the distance from Earth to the Sun. 525 x 150,000,000 km = 78,750,000,000 km (roughly 48,700,000,000 miles).

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams (Image source: NASA)

The lead author of this new analysis, Carlos de la Fuente Marcos of the Complutense University of Madrid, suggests, "This excess of objects with unexpected orbital parameters makes us believe that some invisible forces are altering the distribution of the orbital elements of the ETNOs, and we consider that the most probable explanation is that other unknown planets exist beyond Neptune and Pluto", and that while additional planets may not be the only possible explanation of this data, "our calculations suggest that there are at least two planets, and probably more, within the confines of our solar system".

Hmm, if these are discovered, might I suggest we call them...Tyche and Nemesis?

The idea of a large planet, or even a small star messing with the Oort cloud and sending objects into the inner solar system, possibly even causing mass extinction events on Earth, isn't exactly new. But when a mainstream news release (reported by NBCNews) catches ahold of something like this, they tend to make it sound bigger than it is. I imagine some will take this to mean "There are planets beyond Neptune!" rather than "We have a small but significant bit of evidence that there are planets beyond Neptune." Much like how the news has reported the same thing over and over through the last decade: a planet that *may* be capable of supporting life *may* have been discovered. I wouldn't even interpret this to mean "There's a new hypothesis" but instead as "There's some new evidence for an existing hypothesis that isn't very well-known."

But that doesn't diminish the significance of this discovery. It reminds us again that the world (or more accurately, our understanding of it) is constantly changing. And I for one am excited at the prospect of more planets in our own solar system. Why should all the other stars have all the fun, right?

Aluminum Christmas Trees

I can still talk about Christmas in January because technically Christmas, as a season, lasts until Epiphany (that's where the "Twelve Days of Christmas" come from).

If you grew up with A Charlie Brown Christmas, you can probably guess from the title of this post where I'm going with this. If you didn't, I suggest you watch it at least once; you've still got a day or so before you have to wait until next year to do so.

Not pictured: explanation for selling fake trees outdoors. (Source: http://www.acartoonchristmas.com)

As a kid I was confused by the total absence of a normal green tree in that tree lot Charlie Brown and Linus visited, the closest thing being some kind of clipped branch. Growing up in my house, we had a fake (non-aluminum) tree, but it was green like a real tree, so that was ok. And while I can sympathize with the special's commentary on the rampant commercialization of a religious holiday, I remember our tree saved us money and maintenance; my folks are still using it after decades.

You may be surprised to learn that these aluminum non-green trees really existed even before this aired in 1965.

Source: Wikipedia

I look at that tree of a different color, and I begin to wonder whether such a thing could exist on another planet.
Imagine a planet though, with a cold climate (though not quite as bad as Coldstone), with forests of these things, with their colors (read, photosynthetic pigments) varying by climate zone, altitude, etc. They would really have aluminum integrated into their structure to make them more durable too. Of course, they might have some other metal that's less reflective; reflective plants probably wouldn't take in as much light or heat from the sun.

Tree colors are randomized here. As I've said before, what one would expect doesn't always correspond to what one finds in reality. Also, I think I've actually gotten worse at rendering planets.

For bonus points, maybe these evergreens bear bioluminescent fruit, so at night they really do look like Christmas trees strung up with lights!

I'm going to call this planet "Linus", as a tribute to the Peanuts gang for giving me this idea.

Merry Christmas, and have a good 2015.

Naming Exoplanets

With the USA midterm elections safely behind us, let's turn our attention to an election of an entirely different nature, probably less important but still worth getting informed about.

A few months ago, the International Astronomical Union announced its intention to begin a campaign to involve the public in naming extrasolar planets. And I'm not talking about the existing names like HD 40307 d.

My first reaction is, "About time." The IAU probably is best known to the general public for demoting Pluto to the status of "dwarf planet", so one could interpret this as an attempt to win back the crowd.

Now, of the hundreds of planets discovered so far, only 305 are being named by this campaign. (They are listed at http://nameexoworlds.org/). What's going to happen is, ideas will be submitted to registered astronomy clubs and non-profits worldwide, and in January these organizations will each select the top 20-30 planets they want to name, followed by the proposed names. We, the general public, will get to vote on the final ballot in April, and the results will be announced in mid-August 2015.

Now, I like that planets are getting human-readable names, even if they're only a fraction of all the planets we've found so far (makes sense; they probably don't want to waste names on unconfirmed planets that later turn out to be false positives). However, one of the conditions of the proposed names bothers me. Most of the conditions are what you would expect: maximum length of 16 characters, preferably one word, no intellectual property names, etc. I wonder, however, if a severe mistake is not being made by requiring names be "not too similar to an existing name of an astronomical object".

That's a problem.

It's common in fiction to name extrasolar planets after figures from classical mythology. I'm sure a lot of people hope to make that concept reality with the discovery of new worlds. Unfortunately, take a brief wiki walk here. Look at the names of the minor planets in our solar system; notice that a lot of the mythological names are taken. By glorified rocks. I know I've said before that the distinction between "planet" and "asteroid" is largely a matter of semantics, but only "largely". You can't deny that a world like Mars or Earth and an asteroid like Vesta or Juno are not the same thing. So we have a wide array of evocative names that we may not be able to use like Romulus, Remus, Hestia, Pandora, Janus, the list goes on and on and on and on!

We shouldn't be afraid to have more than one astronomical object with the same name. We aren't afraid to have countless Washingtons, Franklins, Springfields, or Greenvilles. Look at Georgia: is it a state, or a country? If we're going to force ourselves to be bound by decisions made by astronomers decades or centuries ago, then science is broken somehow. The organization that said Pluto is no longer a planet shouldn't be getting cold feet about reusing the name of a flying rock. If 51 Pegasi b can't have its unofficial name "Bellerophon" made official because it's already taken by an asteroid so obscure its size isn't listed on Wikipedia, something. is. wrong.

Maybe I'm overreacting. Look at that list of minor planets and you will see some duplicate names, like Dione, which is also the name of a moon of Saturn. So there is a chance the IAU will be happy to reuse these names. I sincerely hope so. This campaign has the potential to bring extrasolar planets into the public eye, and isn't that in the IAU's job description somewhere? It should be.

Interstellar and the Worlds Therein (Spoiler-Saturated)

So guess what movie I saw last weekend. Go on, guess.

Christopher Nolan's Interstellar is our generation's 2001: A Space Odyssey, for better *and* worse. A science-fiction film with highly realistic depictions of astronauts and space travel, with entertaining robots and a confusing and highly implausible ending. Only this film is much less "arty" than Kubrick's 1968 work, and in my mind, that makes it better.

For starters, though, it's misnamed. They should have called it Intergalactic, because the (absolutely gorgeous) wormhole leads to...somewhere in another galaxy. But the title they went with sounds more cerebral, and I'm ok with that, because it's that kind of movie. I also can't remember the last time a movie soundtrack relied heavily on a church organ, and that's a shame, because it is truly something to behold, making the exploration of space into something like a religious experience, beholding creation untouched by man.

The trailers were all tantalizing, promising memorable alien worlds. In the end, we get to see three, plus a black hole for good measure.

That's right, this movie tours a solar system where the primary is a black hole. The matter spinning around and falling into it seems to be what generates light and heat for the orbiting planets, but...that's either really creative or really stupid; I still can't figure out if it's done with enough class and the appearance of realism to pull off creative. From what I remember, black holes are small. As small as the Earth if not more so.

In the plot exposition we find out that astronauts have been dispatched through a new wormhole near Saturn to a dozen potentially habitable worlds in a quest to find a new home for the human race. It's not clear whether these are all in a single star system; a neutron star is also mentioned briefly. The wormhole is humanity's only means of traveling faster than light, from which you can infer that there is only one star system to explore. However, the mission of the Endurance only seems to be interested in three. Maybe I need to rewatch this movie; it'd certainly be good on Blu-ray.

So in order of appearance:


Miller's Planet

Mainly this will be remembered as the planet with ludicrous time dilation (1 hour Miller's Planet time = 7 years Earth time), serving to set up character drama when the protagonist leaves the planet after a few hours to find his kids are now adults and he has a grandson. I can empathize; I've occasionally sat down to play FTL: Faster Than Light for "just one game", and emerged to find the global political landscape completely unrecognizable.
Now I think these time-stretching shenanigans should be accompanied by lethal gravitational forces, although I've heard conflicting interpretations. Due to poor life choices, I am not a theoretical physicist, so I will not enter that debate. I guess what matters is, it makes a good story.

What confuses me more, however, is the terrain. All we get to see is an ocean that's about two feet deep, which is in and of itself bizarre (I'm going to assume the whole ocean isn't like that). More confusingly, somehow waves are generated about two orders of magnitude higher than that. We see two 200-foot mega-tsunamis within about 5 minutes local time. Are these waves triggered by the massive tidal forces from Gargantua, which has already been established as too close for comfort? Or do the waves start in deeper water and then gain height as the depth decreases? (If you've ever been in a wave pool, you may have noticed that the waves seem more intense in the shallows.)


Mann's Planet

Um...

Frozen clouds.

This planet is definitely the most creative of the three we see, and also the most insane. Most of the action seems to take place on glaciers that look like clouds, resulting in some bizarre topography. As I said before, I don't know if this could ever happen in reality. Most would call it "absurd" unless you're from Minnesota, like me, in which case you'd be more likely to call it "January." If it could happen, Christopher Nolan is the greatest. If not, well, he wouldn't be the first to pull a stunt like that. But even James Cameron's Avatar had superconducting unobtanium to justify Pandora's floating mountains.
We're also told there's a surface below, but given that the guy describing the surface clearly couldn't be trusted, there's no hard evidence.


Edmunds's Planet

Only glimpsed at the very end, this looks like a desert planet (or, a planet with at least one desert). It's implied that this planet could indeed sustain a human colony.

I was hoping for more screentime spent exploring alien worlds, but I'm not exactly surprised; not many sci-fi movies give front-and-center focus to their settings. This movie's just crying out for a companion book that describes the setting in more detail though; maybe it could tell us about the other planets that astronauts were sent to before the mission depicted in the movie.

But nitpicking aside, Interstellar is a good movie. Flawed both technically and philosophically, but worth seeing.