describing my star system - about 200 words.

[RJM Corbet]

Ok, here it is: instead of being so complicated, have your 2 (binary) stars and the planets orbiting them. But, in the (goldilocks) position where it's not too close to the heat from the stars (suns) to melt metal, or too far to freeze gas to ice, have a very big 'gas giant' planet orbiting, just the right distance from the sun(s), and have 12 'moons' orbiting that giant planet, the size of Earths and you won't even need terraforming.

But we're playing with you a bit here, Springs.

The reader won't really need all this stuff.

However I think they will still need you to have a reasonably clear idea in your own mind about it?

[springs]

Okay, I can see that (and have a stab at describing it) so what, about 1-2 AU out?

What about the other planets - the mid zone and outer zone, can they have seperate systems?

oh, and, um playing with my science questions might be mentioned in Chrispy's hobbies list, I just la-la along when it gets beyond comprehension

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by springs1971

Okay, I can see that (and have a stab at describing it) so what, about 1-2 AU out?

What about the other planets - the mid zone and outer zone, can they have seperate systems?

The planets can't really have systems. They can have moons. You can have as many moons as you like, orbiting a world, and they can be any size you like, planet size (many are) as long as they're reasonably smaller than the world they orbit around. Bigger bodies have bigger gravity.

Mars, for instance, is a possibility for terraforming, because it's still a reasonably comfortable distance from the sun. Not Venus, its VERY hot there. Or Saturn, where its much too cold. You've seen those liquid helium demonstrations?

If you're talking about living under domes, it extends your range a bit, but not that much.

[springs]

okay, so I've gone with what I'm most comfortable describing. I'll play with delivery later, that bit I'm more confident on, it's the science I'm not so sure of:

The seven central planets, each of those a seat of power for the Great Families orbited the largest star in the cluster, Ceaton-II. Three smaller systems formed the mid-zone of planets, dependent on and tied to individual Great Families for commerce and financial viability. Further out, scattered amongst the four systems near the fringe of the cluster lay the outer zone planets. Those that had been inhabited or terraformed had been so purely to extract any mineral wealth they held. Some, shaded green, were part of the Pettina empire. Most were red: in rebellion, struggling to hold their independence and aligned to the rebels.

The General looked around the table once more, and the room quietened, ready for him to begin. The chart zoomed in to a single planet, in the system nearest to Ceaton-II.

“With reference to the recent breach of security on Dignad - ”

[RJM Corbet]

Nothing wrong with that at all.

I'm sorry Springs, I didn't intend to be patronizing. After reading back through the thread I understand that you're well aware of the goldilocks zone, etc.

Your concept is actually quite detailed and perfectly adequate

It's fine, it's good, it flies. I need to get out more ...

[chrispenycate]

Of course you're allowed puppet strings from heaven; or geostationary orbit, at least. Might get a bit mobile with all the tidal forces in the multimoon system.

Oh dear, did I get over detailed again?

But I could, too, do Venus. Would take a rather big orbital parasol, with tens of millions of solar generating panels sending a maser beam of energy out to the cold depths of the system, and turning edge on on the nightside to allow energy to radiate into the depths of space.

Need to scoop out a few megatonnes of atmosphere first, and soft land a couple of comets to build up the water supply.

Yes, well, landing a ship on it (or taking off) does get a bit complex, admittedly.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

Of course you're allowed puppet strings from heaven; or geostationary orbit, at least. Might get a bit mobile with all the tidal forces in the multimoon system.

Oh dear, did I get over detailed again?

Oops ... nope

[Jammill Khursheed]

You're gonna hate me for this Springs

Now they are in different systems, the 'outer worlds' don't need to be all rough and terraformy anymore because they aren't far away from their star...

i.e. They could ALL be in the goldilocks zone of their own system, and are now just outlying in a political-influence sense... Plus the concept of the inner-planets raping worlds for minerals JUST because they aren't important to their ruling class, instead of because they aren't inhabitable, makes for a much more interesting point...

Fell free to ignore this next paragraph or two, but the whole 'proud rebels from a terraformed dust-bowl planet' thing is about as cliched in sci-fi as dwarves hating elves is in fantasy these days... Having the rebels come from planets with a comfortable climate and being rebellious JUST for political reasons is not only more interesting as a concept, without you having to put any more work into the political side of things, but would make your manuscript stand out amongst the throngs of terraformers as a repressed underclass...

You'd get over that cliche, and make the inner-planets more intriguing and (slightly) more callous seeming JUST by taking the reference to terraforming out of that one sentence... Of course, the act of terraforming might be important to your story (it might influence other technology, or P-off the aliens they don't know are there who can't breathe oxygen for all I know), but from the way the original posting was written the terraforming just seemed like a device to make those planets habitable that you don't need anymore now you're altered the make up of your empire...

Apart from that, the writing in the piece is good, and DOES NOT read like an info-dump because the characters are actually doing something for a reason, NOT just to tell the reader planet A is x amount of miles from sun B, so you've got nowt to worry about there... And the scene could be a hell of a lot longer before it started to drag if there is more you feel you need to put in there about the politics or the actions of the rebellion, so you've still got plenty of room to play around with...


Jammill

[springs]

Hi Jammill, good pick up in the rewrite, ty.

The outer zone aren't all terraformed, in fact the rebel planet is a lovely lush jungle world with a permanent base, and there is at least one terraformed satellite in the central zone outlined. It's more a political terminology. What I need to get across a little better is that where an outer zone world has been terraformed this has been done by the relatively richer central zone.

Ps, no I don't hate you for it.

[Jammill Khursheed]

That's cool Springs, I didn't think it was cos you thought I was being mean, just because you spent all those posts talking about moving the planets and then I noticed SOMETING ELSE on top of that I know what its like when you think you've finished the washing up and someone puts another teacup in, and you just moved a whole bunch of star systems around...


Jammill

[Vertigo]

Sorry, I missed this thread completely. For what it's worth I think you've gone down the right track. However you had gone about it, having so many inhabited planets in the one system would really be rather crowded. I think the star cluster approach in your second piece is far more believable.

[Phoenixthewriter]

I found this particular thread extremely entertaining. How everyone has such a broad understanding of this stuff is so far beyond me, that I keep it simple with FTL travel and bouncing around to other systems entirely.

I also stay far away from "Mass Effect" style world building. I will say this though, I greatly applaud everyone's knowledge here. Springs, you got a lot of great people on your side to help you with this.

Chrispen, your mind is a dangerous thing and I thoroughly enjoyed your "In depth" help.

[springs]

Phoenix I absolutely agree - I am so lucky to have the imput and goodwill here.
And ftl travel - that's my usual form - but I'm lucky to have been shaken and prodded to go to the next level and give some details - which is where this thread emanated from and its opened whole new lines of poSsibilities.

[Mirannan]

One way, I think, of getting habitable planets way outside the Goldilocks zone is to have a really big superjovian or brown dwarf (which shade into each other anyway) or even a really small red dwarf in an orbit at something like Saturn distance, and have this object have its own system of Earth-sized moons as well as the planets in the zone being present. Binary planets are a distinct possibility a la "Rocheworld".

The brown dwarf might well make outer-zone planet-sized moons habitable (if a bit dim) because such objects radiate a lot of infrared.

Using Sol system as a guide, with a little bit of luck three planets in the zone might be possible; if Mars was a bit bigger and Venus had faster rotation... And if all three were binaries that gives you six worlds, plus whatever brown dwarf moons there are.

A bit contrived, but possible. Incidentally, this produces two population centres - around the brown dwarf and around the sun. Just for fun, the dim light out by the brown dwarf might have some interesting consequences.

[Cosmic Geoff]

With my writing critic's hat on:
Sorry, this really doesn't work for me as it is. The block of textual description is rather eye-glazing. I'd imagine it done as follows: have the general pointing at the chart and describing each planet and saying stuff (perhaps rather biased or sarcastic) about its inhabitants as he makes points about the layout of the star systems and various political or economic matters. Other characters might interrupt.

With my amateur astronomer's hat on:
We now know quite a lot about planets of other stars, though not as much as we'd like. The number of planets known to exist in orbit among other stars now runs into thousands. IIRC some of these are in binary or multiple star systems.
As for life or habitability, most of our knowledge comes from our own solar system, and indicates that just ONE planet per solar system will be in the life-zone, with rampant naturally evolved life all over the surface. Elsewhere in the system, we think one might only find life clinging on in single-cell form underground. Or sustained artificially by application of technology.
As for life in a binary star system, we have to rely on hypothesis, but for a planet to exist in a stable life-zone (not too hot or cold, and not fried by radiation), the stars would have to be roughly similar to our Sun (i.e. not giants or dwarfs, and not fiercely hot), and quite a long way apart, so that the planetary orbits would not be perturbed (a technical term) by the other star over billions of years and so driven into the furnace or icebox zones. (Brian Aldiss's Helliconia novels IIRC are about the horrid effects of living in just such a world in the marginal case where life is not killed off altogether).

There are natural formations of stars for what you want to do. The next nearest stars to us are a triple system just over 4 light years away, but in star clusters within our Galaxy, where a large number of stars orbit around each other, they could be much closer than 4 light-years. There you could have one 'natural life' planet per star, plus colonised mining worlds, and still have twelve rival worlds within "credible" travelling distance of each other.
To sum up, a number of stars in a mutually orbiting star cluster, ~ 0.5 or 1 light year apart or whatever, each with one planet in the habitable zone, plus two or three others colonisable with the aid of technology. Go outside when it's dark and have a look at the Pleiades star cluster (visible with naked eye in decent conditions.)
Hope that helps.

Rather as an aside, have you come across the anime & manga "Five Star Stories"? It's set in a multi-star, multi-planet system, but rather than being SF, it's an excuse for an exotic S&S type fantasy with android girls, big fighting robots, etc etc.