Planet Habitability

Have a feature request for GR? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Xbwalker
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 529
Joined: Jun 28 2008
Location: Las Vegas NV USA
Contact:

Planet Habitability

Post by Xbwalker »

As discussed in discord, a good way to make use of most of the planets would be habitability limits. Below are the species and limits in my humble opinion.

Mammalian Species - Barren to tropical. Thin to earth standard air.

Reptillian/Amphibious Species - Temperate to Tropical. Earth standard to thick atmospheres.

Robotic Species (if there are any in game later) - No limit on habitability, but perhaps offset that with a production bonus on lifeless planets to barren (more solar power.)

Insectoid Species - Anything aside from non-atmosphere.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by Balthagor »

This is a topic we've been considering lately, which is why the atmosphere limits appeared in the latest fast track. I'm happy to share some of the current designs.

The system is built on supporting specific atmosphere types for planets. They are as follows.
  • Earth standard
  • Gas
  • Thick
  • Thin
  • Dense
  • Violent
  • None
To be able to inhabit a certain atmosphere type, you need to know a technology with the tech effect to unlock that atmo type. We added region specific technologies (now that that's a supported mechanic) so that each race starts knowing a technology that provides them at least one compatible atmosphere type. How we distributed them is similar to what you suggested but has some differences;
  • OxN - mammals, lizards, insects, avian
  • Gaseous - plant/monstrous
  • Thick - Rock/Silica
  • Thin - Energy based, Gill bearing
What we call Earth Standard is, scientifically, a version of gaseous. Specifically Oxygen/Nitrogen. When we use the term Gaseous, we're not being specific, but it would be things like Clorine, Fluorine or Methane. Thin would be like a Mars atmosphere. Think would be more like Venus. Dense would be heavy particulates in the air, a form of air pollution. Violent is sort of a combination of gaseous and dense but with high winds and constant storms. There are no races native to dense or violent in the current design.

Each race has technologies that make it capable of inhabiting the first 5 types. Violent and None would never be colonizable, but the intention is to make them exploitable and also possible to fight on their surface. Some of those details are still being fleshed out.

Some of the race types I mentioned don't exist yet in the game but are in our design plans. I also didn't mention AI at all. They took some thought, but what we've decided is they start with access to both OxN and Thin. While they don't breathe, we believe it's fair to say they are "not equipped" for long term exposure to other gases, polluted air or the harsh conditions of a vacuum without doing some research. This still gives them a bit of an edge without becoming totally OP.

Also worth noting, in the procedural generation code and data files, we can specify what type of planets a race uses as it's starting type, so we can ensure that reptilians don't get ice worlds etc.

Thoughts?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by tkobo »

sounds like it would make invading some planets by some races un-explainable...

Whats atom short for by the way ? Is that typoed atmo ?
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by Balthagor »

Oops, yes. Typo.

Of the planned 15 races, 11 would begin with OxN as their starting planet type. It would mean the other 4 could not invade/be invaded until the aggressor had climbed the tech tree a bit. Those races would also have a harder time finding worlds to colonize initially, since landable worlds with atmosphere tend to be OxN type. The intention is for landable, non-colonizable worlds to still be exploitable in some way. we are reviewing that design over the next week or two.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by tkobo »

Robotic mining pods , that work like colony dome things, but house a robotic mining team instead of population ?
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Xbwalker
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 529
Joined: Jun 28 2008
Location: Las Vegas NV USA
Contact:

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by Xbwalker »

Balthagor wrote: Jun 02 2021 Oops, yes. Typo.

Of the planned 15 races, 11 would begin with OxN as their starting planet type. It would mean the other 4 could not invade/be invaded until the aggressor had climbed the tech tree a bit. Those races would also have a harder time finding worlds to colonize initially, since landable worlds with atmosphere tend to be OxN type. The intention is for landable, non-colonizable worlds to still be exploitable in some way. we are reviewing that design over the next week or two.
Considering folks don't start invading until they have advanced a good ways, I don't think this will be a big issue. By the time I get to the techs to allow me to land on hostile envorn worlds, I am also ready to be shot at :)
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by Nerei »

So I tried to write a reply and after hitting over 8 pages of texts and not being close to done I though I would try and write something short instead.
Yes this actually is a far condensed version with a number of omissions.
Also yes I know gameplay is the main priority but it does not hurt to try and look at things from a more scientific perspective.


I really do not see any reason to strictly stick to how terrestrial life is.
If we are dealing with fictive space lizards they do not have to be like terrestrial lizards.
Life on a different world does not have to be anything like it is on Earth. We might have more in common with yeast cells than with life on another planet.

That is ignoring the exceptions found on Earth.
Yes "modern" lizards are almost all ectotherms (or cold-blooded if you will but I hate that word). Tegus is one exception as these do have some ability to thermoregulate.
There are also notable historic exceptions. There are a number of late Palaeozoic and mesozoic reptiles that are endotherms. Ichthyosaurs is one example. At least some species of dinosaurs where also endothermic.
Make the lizards endothermic, give them a good layer of blubber and possible a good coat of something (e.g. feathers) and we probably have a specie that can do okay in colder climate.



That said there are some fundamental physical issues that are harder to get around.
Aquatic life on a Martian world is one.
Martian atmospheres does not support oceans. Yes Mars originally had as much water as the Atlantic Ocean but that was before it became what it is today (some of it also remains as ice).
The boiling point of water depends on the pressure and in the case of a Martian atmosphere we are at the point where the water basically goes from frozen to boiling with little in-between.

Also yes that means the water in your body will boil if exposed to a martian atmosphere. A breathing mask will not save you. On Earth we find these conditions at around 20km. On Mars we find it even at the bottom of the Hellas Planitia impact basin, the deepest point on Mars.

There is not much water to get in such an atmosphere either, not much that can qualify as weather besides dust-storms. Mars is so dry that NASA tests its Mars equipment in the Atacama desert in Peru. That is the driest place on Earth with some places not seing rain every century.

Martian atmospheres also have a problem with temperatures. Atmospheres equalise temperatures and Martian worlds has almost none of it. Temperature differences between the average day and night on Mars is comparable to the average yearly extremes in Hamilton, Ontario.

Getting a Martian atmosphere probably also requires the absence of a magnetosphere as that is a good way to prevent to solar winds from stripping it from the planet.
That also means you get your lifetime recommended dosis of radiation on Mars in a few years.

Basically Mars is an extremely dry, radioactive place that does not properly support liquid water and exposed lifeforms will see fluids like water boil from their bodies and that is a fundamental issue with martian worlds not just with Mars.a
Beyond extremophile bacteria hiding in a hole somewhere I see little chance of life on a Martian world unless it is highly augmented or genetically altered.



If you want aquatic life on an extreme world I recommend something like Europa. Naturally how well the engine handles a world covered in kilometre thick ice under which aquatic life would be found is another question.



If we look at Venusian atmospheres the problem is the exact opposite. Thick atmospheres are not very nice either.
For one having a Venusian and violent as separate atmosphere types seems redundant. The Venusian atmosphere is extremely violent and chances are similar worlds will be like that. The average winds of Venus are comparable to some of the worst super typhoons on Earth.

Basically the problem is a thick atmosphere absorbs a lot of energy. In the case of Venus around 97.5% of the energy is stuck in the atmosphere. An energetic atmosphere is what produces extreme weather.
Also that means beyond heat there is little to work with on the surface. Something along the line of photosynthesis will be hard particularly if we move the world further out to avoid a runaway greenhouse effect of doom.

Also where Martian worlds has extreme temperature variations Venusian worlds has very little. If you do not like the temperature in one place it will be hard to find a place you do like. The main temperature variant excluding things like volcanism will actually be altitude as the thinner atmosphere means less heating.

These worlds would likely require perfect placement in the HZ and no alterations to their climate basically throughout geologic time to be serviceable. If not chances are your temperature will fall out of what can sustain life. Most likely in the way too hot direction.



I like the idea of most life being based on oxygen respiration. That is the most efficient respiration type know from what I understand and as such would outcompete most alternatives.
The main competitor would probably be CO2 respiration if we want a usable gas at acceptable temperatures. There are examples of this among archaea here on Earth.
Mars and Venus actually have CO2 dominated atmospheres just very extreme cases. Saturns moon Titan has a nitrogen/carbon atmosphere though most of the carbon is in the form of methane. Still methane is one possible end product of CO2 respiration.

Also an advantage of a CO2 atmosphere is that it is probably not nice for oxygen breathing species. If your CO2 breathers likewise are anaerobic to the point where O2 is toxic to them (there are examples of this on Earth) then you got a decent limitation for colonization between these two without needing extremes of atmospheric pressure.

You could also explore the concept of say sulfate lithotrophs as inhabitants of your "dense" atmosphere worlds if we assume the nastiness of these worlds are driven by say extreme vulcanism. This is probably in the less realistic and more extreme category but really something like silica based life is probably in the extreme category anyway.

As mentioned Europa style worlds would also be and option if you want more divided from the rest of the galaxy though again if the engine really will like these is another question.


Finally again I know gameplay is the most important but I thought I would comment anyway.
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by tkobo »

Personally, i wish they had made all races the same atmos type, and all worlds have large bodies of water that surrounded the land masses.It would have simplified so much of the game design and logic wise. One thing i just cant get used to yet ,is moving the focus point of a map to its edges.Its just feels overly clunky,which a large water border would have gone a long way to fix.And then theres the whole thing about millions of people living on a world with no visible water sources....

I know this isnt coming,but i would have so loved it had it.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by Balthagor »

tkobo wrote: Jun 04 2021 Personally, i wish they had made all races the same atmos type...
Easily moddable btw. Remind me around the time of release, I might even get the ball rolling.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by tkobo »

Id probably pay for an "emperor of the fading suns" mod for Galactic ruler

Though you prob could not call it that :P
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by Nerei »

If we where to assume organisms like Cyanobacteria are likely to appear on worlds with oceans then chances are the vast majority of advanced life would use oxygen respiration.
Really that assumption is probably the main thing you need to argue for advanced life being oxygen breathing. Oxygen being the more energy efficient option will do the rest. It did on Earth.

I will however say that all worlds then just being Earth clones will be a bit monotonous.
With such a model however there will not be that many atmospheric limitations to colonization.
There is however still gravity to work with and as that was one of the things that was brought up in the dev video I think it might be interesting to look at.


One of the concerns with permanent human habitation on Mars (besides the above issues as well as quite toxic soil) is how the lower gravity will affect humans.
Moving far outside your typical gravity strength is likely not very nice.

If we imagine a fictive specie from a world with Martian gravity (about 0.38g) trying to colonize an Earth-like world then it would feel just a bit over a 150% weight increase.
Imagine carrying 1.5 times your own weight while doing your daily work. Probably possible with training but definitely not comfortable. Heavy work would likely be even worse.

Now lets send your fictive specie to Gliese 876d. This was one of the first "super Earths" discovered (In reality you do not want to go there as it is boiling hot but lets ignore that). Here the poor creature goes from 0.38g to a massive 2-3g.
The colonists will feel an effective weight increase of around 400-700%
This is now less about comfort and more about survival. Could this colony even sustain its own needs? I'd say that is fairly unlikely.
Being submerged in fluid might be a requirement to reduce the effect of gravity at least part-time.


Going the other way the effects are naturally less immediate. A creature that can move in 2g can also move about in 0.4g albeit probably with some difficulties. The problem though if they have human physiology is that you will see a degradation of muscle and bone structure. Again long term effects are not known but they could be nasty.
One relevant study have found that the human heart will be affected by low gravity and exercise did not prevent it.
It is probably possible to argue physical limitations for high gravity species going to low gravity worlds.
One thing is certain they will have a hard time going home to visit relatives after a few years at 1/5 their normal gravity.


One maybe less obvious effect of gravity is on space exploration.
Our fictive Martian gravity specie has a far easier time going to space. The escape velocity of Mars is less than half that of Earth (about 5km/s vs 11km/s). Low gravity also means less a smaller gravity loss and smaller requirement for engines.
For a super Earth dwelling specie though the numbers are less nice.
They might need 20km/s dv or more to get away from their home. Going to any moon they might have Apollo style would probably require a rocket the mass of a few US Navy super carriers. Higher gravity also means greater gravity loss as well as needing to dedicate more mass to high performance engines.

Technology would help eventually as would going with an unconventional idea like Project Orion. Naturally using nuclear weapons as propulsion might make space exploration a bit less popular...

Basically the low gravity species would have a decent head-start in space exploration and would likely have a far more developed space infrastructure than species on higher gravity worlds.


Having a moon to build infrastructure on would also be nice. Humanity might find our Moon is a great blessing when it comes to space exploration. The escape velocity is just 2.38km/s or less than half that of Mars. Launching and refueling spacecrafts from the Moon would be far more economical than from Earth. Having access to 3He would probably also be nice.


This problem is also why advanced space-faring species on gas giant is not exactly feasible.


Also one thing to consider when it comes to gravity and planetary size is atmosphere retention. A deeper gravity well is better at holding onto an atmosphere and a larger planet is more likely to have an active core that can maintain a proper magnetosphere that will prevent solar wind from gradually stripping the planet of its atmosphere.
You will be less likely to find a large atmosphere-less world than a small one.
It does however not always have to be the case. There are exceptions in our solar system. Titan (a moon of Saturn) has a more dense atmosphere than Earth despite being around 2% the mass of Earth and lacking a magnetosphere. It does however spend part of its orbit in the magnetosphere of mighty Saturn.
CeaganP
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 150
Joined: May 01 2020
Human: Yes

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by CeaganP »

My thoughts have been, with the races needing to climb the tech tree quite a bit to build or inhabit worlds without a similar starting atmosphere, they will also have pretty advanced technology. My assumption is they will have fusion strong ionic thrusters. In addition to the ability to create mass from energy. We already have examples that this is possible. I imagine an advanced race will have the ability to create specific gases at will which essentially nullifies the concern about fuel consumption. Due to fusion being self sustaining it requires very little fuel invested (half of it deuterium, half of it tritium) which are quite abundant as deuterium is hydrogen based and tritium can be created from the reactor as it's running.

The only next struggle is the efficiency of this fuel conversion to create mass from energy. In a gas giant, if we have a dense atmosphere it also retains a lot of energy, it wouldn't be entirely foolish to think future civilizations can harness some of this energy to better supplement the reactor. Now, with efficient fuel and energy production the next question is survivability. With a heavy investment of energy I don't imagine it would be too difficult to develop a station to which creates it's own magnetosphere. This helps with surviving harsh atmospheres or lack of atmospheres by producing our own which is more suitable for our race.

Exoskeletons are currently being developed here on earth, not nearly as advanced as they can be but we also do have limiting sources, when we have access to essentially limitless energy it would open up the possibility of an exoskeleton that manages pressurization and artificial structures to better benefit the wearer.

Some of these thoughts are more fleshed out but I feel like when considering advanced civilizations it is quite difficult to properly represent them because there is such a wide possibility on the technology they have discovered while venturing off planet and what their capabilities are on planet. Although I do agree it is difficult for space faring species to survive on other planets I don't think it is impossible. Our species is quite young, give us another couple thousand years and if we lived on the planet that long, I'm sure we would have figured something out.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Planet Habitability

Post by Nerei »

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Clarke's 3rd law.
Clarkes 3rd law is kinda interesting from a science fiction perspective. You can really justify most things with ultratech powered by handwavium. Yes it might appear crazy but it might not be worse than the Apollo Programme or the internet might appear to someone from the 11th century.


The problem with creating mass from energy is that you need an outside source for this energy. If you just bring along additional payload you might as well bring along what you need in the first place.
The obvious choice would be to say drag along photovoltaics and capture the energy of your star but that is not really feasible. At 1 AU you need a couple of km^2 photovoltaics absorbing 100% of the energy emitted by the sun for a year to get enough energy to produce 1kg of matter. Out near Jupiter our photovoltaic panel will be around 75% the size of the Island of Manhattan. Near the Kuiper belt we will need a photovoltaic panel a few thousand km^2 to get a kg of matter in a year.
Naturally there are also fancy ideas like say playing with quantum fluctuations but that brings some other issues.


The main problem I see is placing restrictions. Going back to Clarke you have given your parties their magic now make them use it the way you want them to.
Sure this is a computer strategy game not say a pen and paper game or novella so physically making restrictions is not hard but from a logical perspective there might be issues. Say you can convert matter into energy and back at will and it is not completely hopeless from an energy requirement perspective.
What are my restrictions?
What prevents me from building a self replicating matter converter that will gradually consume "worthless" worlds like Mercury or the Oort cloud? Have it make autonomous warships also and you will eventually have a near infinite force.
Having a couple of measly shipyards or a monster converting Mercury into warships I know what I am picking.


I think there are better options than ion engines. They are certainly better than chemical engines from a fuel efficienly perspective but they are probably not the top tier option.
The ion engines we currently have eject propellant at like 50-100km/s. However the speed propellant leaves a fusion rocket might be measured in fractions of c. A sufficiently extreme nuclear fission rocket might also approach this realm.
For the record I am not referring to nuclear thermal engines but more something like a nuclear salt water rocket.
You could also go for the simplest option for nuclear pulse propulsion and use a nuclear weapon project Orion style.

There is also the issue of how to power our electric engines. If we want any kind of mobility out of them we will need a power source that dwarves any nuclear power plant operational today. If the Saturn V had been running on electric engines it would have taken several hundred Hoover dams to run the rockets engines and get similar performance. The perfomance of our high performance salt water rocket might be measured in thousands of Kashiwazaki-Kariwas which means terrawatts of energy.
If we want to be realistic that means we need to drag along a massive set of radiators which adds weight and reduces performance of our engines. After all there are no rivers to dump waste heat into in space.
A fission or fusion rocket though dumps a significant portion of the waste-heat with the exhaust.


Another amazing part about nuclear fusion rockets is that we ideally want aneutronic fusion. Deuterium-Tritium fusion releases most of its energy as neutrons so flying spaceships with that is less than ideal.
However D-He3 or He3-He3 fusion is aneutronic so that would be the ideal choice for a nuclear fusion engine. There is a fairly decent amount of He3 on airless worlds like our Moon as the solar wind deposits it there.

Basically need a reason to go to airless worlds? Make better starships fly on a nuclear fusion engine and force players to mine those worlds for the fuel to power their interstellar fleet as finding He3 on terrestrial worlds in any significant quantity is somewhat harder.
Also aneutronic fusion does not produce neutron embritlement of the reactor core so reactor wear will be far lower.


The problem with terraforming planets like Mars or even Venus is not as such technology as much as it is money (time is also a major factor as in reality terraforming will take millennia). Technology will make the process near infinitely cheaper and faster but ultimately you could go a long way improving Mars with what we currently have.

Redirect and aerobrake comets in the Martian atmosphere to heat and increase its thickness. Detonate an ungodly amount of nuclear weapons on the poles to boil the dry ice there and if we are lucky we might have started a runaway process that will see CO2 trapped in martian rocks gradually get released. If we are further lucky that might result in the martian surface supporting liquid water.
Now add some million tonnes of cyanobacteria to our new oceans and we should get oxygen in the atmosphere. We can get inert gasses like nitrogen from comets also as we do not want too high concentrations of oxygen or CO2. Likewise we might find something on the surface that we could burn in some form of electric furnace to get inert gasses.
We still got some Mars specific problems like the lack of a magnetosphere making the surface far too radioactive and quite toxic concentrations of perchlorate though in theory that could also be a source of oxygen.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - GR”