Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Placid Reborn is a corporation dedicated to the self-determination and prosperity of the Intaki home system and its immediate surroundings? Read more here

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Planetary size comparison  (Read 5577 times)

Vizage

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #15 on: 03 Oct 2014, 09:43 »

Weren't most of these planets Terra formed by the initial colonist to new eden?  So Terran technology? I remember reading  about Terra forming and failed Terra forming (Caldari Prime. )

So would it be safe to assume at least some of these planets had their density/gravity augmented by early colonists?
Logged

Mizhara

  • Prophet of New Eden
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2545
  • The Truth will make ye Fret.
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #16 on: 03 Oct 2014, 10:02 »

Changing a climate I can see. Altering the density or gravity of a planet? That's so mindbogglingly beyond imagination that I doubt even Terran tech could pull that off.
Logged


Anyanka Funk

  • Guest
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #17 on: 03 Oct 2014, 10:39 »

If these planets were terraformed that would be easier to explain. Oris looks like it may have been a gas planet at one point.  Building a structural cage around the zero-gravity point to build on and using artificial gravity might be able to explain its size.

Gallente Prime and Caldari Prime look like they may have been ocean planets and the sparse terraforming may be due to only building on strategic points of the planets where the planets moons balance out the gravitational pull.
Logged

Alain Colcer

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 857
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #18 on: 03 Oct 2014, 12:23 »

I wonder how they hollowed out the super earths, though? I mean, any even remotely similar density to Earth would result in gravity that'd utterly crush human beings. Not to mention make it incredibly expensive energy-wise to escape the gravity well for space travel.

A planet like Orsi, that has a tiny tiny iron core, and is mostly composed of silicates and light elements, might not have enough weight to create a huge strength in gravity ......the only issue is just how much atmosphere it has.......must be very light indeed to be breathable and not cause health issues.
Logged

Aedre Lafisques

  • Terrible Caillian
  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
    • Aedre Logs. Writing
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #19 on: 03 Oct 2014, 12:37 »

Okay, I hadn't looked at their supposed sizes before. This is pretty ridiculous - This is the kind of thing we might have to ignore as automatically generated numbers...?

First of all, for Gallente Prime to have so many moons means the moons have to be small enough that they don't even affect tides (like ours does), so there's no way it accounts for counter-balancing of its entire gravitational pull.

It's not like there's a lack of planets out there with reasonable sizes (and gravities) one could far less expensively terraform, particularly if one can terraform just about anything, like proposed.

Historically, the Garoun Empire secured a unified empire over the entire continent (there is said to be only one?) pre-spaceflight from what I understand - which now seems a theoretically unlikely task at this surface area.

--This just seems like a clerical mistake to me - The circumference of the Earth is just slightly more than 40,000km, so maybe that's what was intended by these numbers!  Mistakes involving Radius vs Diameter vs Circumference could account for planets too small to retain atmosphere, too potentially?!  :psyccp: I'm boggling here.
Logged
Hangout Channel: Gallente Lounge

Louella Dougans

  • \o/
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • \o/
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #20 on: 03 Oct 2014, 13:12 »

historically, CCP's response to astronomical numbers being questionable has been along the lines of the Grand Galactic Inquisitor's comment here
Logged
\o/

Tamiroth

  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #21 on: 04 Oct 2014, 08:37 »

Interesting. Both Amarr Prime and Matar are low-G, Mars-sized worlds, while Gallente and Caldari Prime are high-G super-earths. Also, imagine the PITA that the early Amarrians went through to colonize Oris. The development of mechanical implants and exosketetons to compensate for the high gravity must have been a prority. 
Logged

Jace

  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #22 on: 04 Oct 2014, 08:43 »

I think I'll go with handwavy terraform.
Logged

Morwen Lagann

  • Pretty Chewtoy
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3427
    • Lagging Behind
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #23 on: 04 Oct 2014, 09:08 »

I'll stick with "CCP's decision not to hand-edit the datapoints for major population centers and instead leave it up to randomly generated values is fucking moronic and can go fuck itself," I think.
Logged
Lagging Behind

Morwen's Law:
1) The number of capsuleer women who are bisexual is greater than the number who are lesbian.
2) Most of the former group appear lesbian due to a lack of suitable male partners to go around.
3) The lack of suitable male partners can be summed up in most cases thusly: interested, worth the air they breathe, available; pick two.

Gaven Lok ri

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 300
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #24 on: 04 Oct 2014, 15:06 »

Its also not exactly clear how/when CCP decided which planets had populations. My memory is that 8 years or so ago no one knew that Oris had cities on it.
Logged

Mizhara

  • Prophet of New Eden
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2545
  • The Truth will make ye Fret.
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #25 on: 04 Oct 2014, 15:22 »

On the bright side, unless you're planning to bombard the place from orbit, it's a fair bet that you won't really have a need for it that can't be filled by vague muttering.
Logged


Kyoko Sakoda

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #26 on: 04 Oct 2014, 17:42 »

Guys, this is all part of the plan to prevent bunny hopping in Project Legion.
Logged

Aedre Lafisques

  • Terrible Caillian
  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
    • Aedre Logs. Writing
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #27 on: 04 Oct 2014, 17:57 »

I'll stick with "CCP's decision not to hand-edit the datapoints for major population centers and instead leave it up to randomly generated values is fucking moronic and can go fuck itself," I think.

:psyccp:

Well~  I'm not going to lose sleep over it I guess XD I don't expect them to 'change it or something'.
But for the moment, I kind of have to continue assume it is sort of a normal-place-as-described over data in this case...
I mean look at it~  (ノ -_-)ノ

Guys, this is all part of the plan to prevent bunny hopping in Project Legion.

^^^Haha~
Logged
Hangout Channel: Gallente Lounge

Esna Pitoojee

  • Keeper of the Harem
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2095
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #28 on: 04 Oct 2014, 18:14 »

I've pointed to the RNG in answer to the fairly ridiculous planetary numbers for years, and I'll point to it again here.
Logged
I like the implications of Gallentians being punched in the face by walking up to a Minmatar as they so freely use another person's culture as a fad.

Ollie

  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
Re: Planetary size comparison
« Reply #29 on: 05 Oct 2014, 06:37 »

I've pointed to the RNG in answer to the fairly ridiculous planetary numbers for years, and I'll point to it again here.

That and "scifi/space magic" for an IC explanation? :)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3