Outpost Universe Forums
Off Topic => General Interest => Topic started by: dm-horus on December 07, 2005, 02:39:15 AM
-
Outpost 1
I dont know much about this game, so I put it to the forumites. Are there any details in Outpost 1 given about the structure/layout of the solar system gameplay takes place in? If so, give me details. If not, can anything from the story or cutscenes reveal more?
Outpost 2
All I can be sure of in OP2 is that New Terra is barren and cold. Most likely a moderate distance from its sun in a similar fashion to Earth or Mars. The solar system has a sun which we can only assume is main sequence yellow dwarf like ours. I cannot tell much else from cutscenes or story details (unless Im forgetting something).
Outpost Sequels
Have you thought of an interesting idea for a solar system in regard to another chapter of Outpost? Is there something youd like to see in an Outpost sequel? Aside from Genesis, what other ideas do people have?
-
(MUAHAHAHAHA!!! my termonology is spreading!)
I think it would be cool to have a binary (two star) system
-
A pulsar star would be interesting to. because you could have a disaster based on the pulsing star. Like a Ionizaion effect that shuts off the minimap or makes a fog of war. Maybe even cut power in half.
Perhaps even a Quasar, Nuetron star, Red giant, possibly in a nebula.
-
don't forget the red giant, either!
-
Perhaps even a Quasar, Nuetron star, Red giant, possibly in a nebula.
Already covered that lol
-
Outpost 1 has multiple solar systems you can choose from, each with their own probability of survival/success (hint: don't choose the ones with a 0% chance). So if you want to know more, you'll have to play it and look at them all.
As for Outpost 2, all I know is there is a gas giant somewhere that they used to fuel the starship.
-
a pulsar is a regular nutron star that emits radio waves and rotates very fast, so that the beam swings by earth every second or so, so it appears to pulse
and most of those stars wouldnt heat the planet up enough for a mars like world, and if the planet was close enough to a very low outpout star, like a class M, it would be titaly locked, like our moon is, so one side would get perpetual day and would be boiling, and the other side would be perpetual night, and would be freezing
what I think would be intresting would be to have a mars sized moon orbating another planet about 6 times or so the size of earth, the star would be very small, and the planet would be close to it, the big planet would be titally locked, but the moon would be habitable, and it would have intresting day night effects
-
Astronomers accually found 3 near-earth sized planets orbiting a puslar. they theroize that because the supernova would have obliterated them, they must have formed from the remains of the supernova particles. the plantes are as warm as earth (they lie in the path of the radio-sweep) but are so radioactive (because of the radio-sweep) that they are unlikely to even have hopes of sustaining life. Besides, they would be perpetually dark \:P
-
yes, pulsars and the like effectively have death-rays shooting from their poles and anything in their path is irradiated. these beams can extend far outside the solar system and can affect neighboring systems.
i used to be interested in pulsars and ive got some sound bytes of pulsars that spin so fast the "click" made by the pole swinging past earth that it becomes a single tone. i had heard that a planet was found around a double pulsar star system and nobody is quite sure as to how it got there. im thinking a captured planetoid of some sort as the system is far too violent to sustain planetary formation and any past novas from the stars would obliterate anything in orbit.
ive done simulations and from what i can tell, a co-orbital stellar/planetary system is impossible. stars are many orders of magnitude larger than any planet and if a planet were even 'close' to being on par with the mass of a star, it is likely that the planet would ignite and would effectively BE a star. also, from what i can tell it is impossible for a planet of such high mass to be close enough to a star to be co-orbiatl. its like if you tied a dumbell to a rope, held the end of the rope and started spinning on your center, the dumbell wants to go out as far as it can, not the opposite. the heavier the object, the farther out in the system it is likely to be. keep in mind, there is a barrier at which gravity becomes weak enough that mass and rotation win over and the planet is cast out of the system. there is effectively a "band" in which massive-scale planets can orbit safely. that band is far outside the boundary at which a system can be considered co-orbital. also be aware that even if there are only 2 bodies in the system (star and massive planet) it is still not considered co-orbital unless the center of rotation is outside of the surface of either body. if this confuses people, ive already got animation prepared.
-
yea, I dont think we should colonize any of those lol
-
what about colonizing a planet that has been thrown out of a star system? i dont know how probable that would be, but i know its never been done.
-
well it would have no atmosphere, its tempreture would be close to absolute zero, no obvious energy sources, any minerals would be heterogenous with the rock due to the lack of magma, so mineing would be very diffucult
just seems like a gloomy place to live
not to mention, it would be almost impossible to grow crops
-
What if an artificial star could be created for the outcast planet?
-
a bit too high tech for the outpost universe dont you think?
-
you never know, I mean, with an OP3, it could take place any number of years after the end of OP2, or be an entirely new game
-
makeing a star out of nothing
humerous idea, but even a fully developed civalazation would take hundreads, probly thousands of years to invent that technology, let alone a coloney that spent most of its last time doing a crash space program and fighting to survive
-
nonononono, you miss what I'm saying. You don't make it out of nothing, you use what resources are available. Here's the full thought process I had:
Hmmmm...planet with no star...how could it be colonized? Make a star! Let's see, New Terra survivors land on a different planet, become super-advanced over a long period of time...then screw up again, 'cause time travels in a spiral...but what about inconsistancies? Ah skrew it! Those will show up...let's see...a sun is basically a nuclear reactor...so an artificial star would just be a really advanced research combining space and nuke technologies!
um, yeah, it went something like that...
-
well yea, its sci fi, so you can do anything
im just saying on a liniar time scale, right after eden (or ply) launched from op2, they would not have the technology to make a star
-
beta, history repeats itself, thus time is not linear. However, the repeats are not the same distance, thus time is not circular. Hence, time goes in a spiral
-
what the hell are you talking about?
-
it's in responce to your "linear time" thing
-
I think OP3:Genesis is running paralle to the op2 story i think youll have to ask leeor.
You would need alot of Alpha Hydrogen to make a star. and then a means of compressing it to make the fusion happen.
A Rouge planet would be no more usefull then a Asteroid.
In a binary star system s*** would just fly all crazy like in there obital paths lol.
I think a planet in a Nebula would be the best.
-
but then you have to ask: how'd the planet get there? Nebulas are another result of supernovas
-
Not all nebulas are the reminats of a star. And as far as the hubble telescope is concerned there are planets and stars in some nebulas.
-
hold on, let me find that thing again...
"After a star with an initial mass of less than about eight solar masses has completed its core hydrogen burning it becomes a red giant:
Helium is now burning in the core, producing carbon and oxygen, while hydrogen burns in a thin shell surrounding it.
The star brightens by a factor of between 1,000 and 10,000.
The outer, hydrogen-rich envelope swells to enormous size. It may become as large as the orbit of the Earth, or even Mars.
The surface temperature of this extended envelope drops to about 5,000 to 6,500 degrees Fahrenheit, which is rather cool for stars, and makes the star appear red.
A strong wind begins to blow from the star's surface (akin to the Sun's solar wind, but much stronger), and, in the course of the star's red giant life, carries away most of the hydrogen envelope surrounding the star's central core.
During the final shedding of its envelope, when the mass loss is the greatest, the star pulsates -- the surface layers expand and then contract in repeating cycles -- with periods from several months to more than a year. Such pulsating stars are called long-period variables.
The envelope material ejected by the star forms an expanding shell of gas that is known as a planetary nebula.
Planetary nebulae typically have masses of about two-tenths that of the Sun, although some are considerably more massive. They expand at the "modest" speed of about 10 to 20 miles/second (about 35,000 to 70,000 miles/hour) and plow into the surrounding interstellar medium.
Planetary nebulae are illuminated by their central stars and display a variety of often beautiful structures. Some are spherical or helical, others have bipolar shapes, and still others are rather irregularly shaped. In a matter of a few tens of thousands of years, they intermingle with the interstellar medium and disperse.
On average, one planetary nebula comes into existence each year in our galaxy, the Milky Way. About 1,500 have been identified"
from http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/ste...ardeath_2a.html (http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_2a.html)
-
Isnt the Horse head Nebula a irregular shape tho.
The crab and Cats Eye nebula are the only 2 that i know of that have a symectrical shape. Beatleguist i dont know
-
don't say his name anymore!
there are so many neat ones out there
-
Cats Eye is the one i like.
But some Nebulas are said to be left overs that didnt form solar systems.
-
there is evidence that sometimes after novaing, a star will reform, weird
-
ya because the gas can be reused they have found evidents that new stars might forum other thjen the original.
-
which could also explain how stars and planets are in nebulas
-
you guys are getting primordial nebulae confused with stellar nebulae. the horse head nebula is a stellar nursery. it was once a vast field of gases but thru gravitational eddies, stars began to form. there is no evidence suggesting the horse head nebular was created by stars since the nebula itself is millions of times larger than our solar system. if you look at the picture of the horse head nebula, the points of light you see coming out the nebula are supermassive stars illuminating their stellar cocoon. a shroud of gas surrounding the newly born star which (due to the abundance of gas in the area) is several times larger than our entire solar system. the inside diameter of the cocoon alone is dozens of times the size of our solar system. compared to stellar nubulae which are created out of the dust of a nova'd star or the cast-off shroud of one. these nebulae are many orders of magnitude smaller than primordial nebulae, like the horse head nebula. the eagle nebula is another example of this. the cat's eye nebula is derived from a star gone nova and is many times smaller than the horse head or eagle nebula. stars can and do reform out of their own novas. it is believed that for our solar system to have the distrobution of elements it has now, our sun is at least in its 3rd generation. in other words, it has gone nova and reformed 3 times. this happens regularly throughout the universe. large nebulae can be so large that it is likely the bulk of their gas wont be concentrated in stars for billions of years. if you go on wikipedia and look at the pic of the horseh ead nebula, the points of light you see (that i referenced earlier) often contain groups of hundreds of stars. the horse head nebula is NOT small and cannot be compared in side to the cats eye nebula and other nebulae on that order of magnitude.
in reference to an earlier post, a planet that is cast into space would not lose its atmosphere simply becaus eit wasnt around a star anymore. internal heat generation and volcanic activity would not stop either. however, due to the lack of sunlight, the surface of the planet would indeed freeze and be uninhabitable. the end is the same, but the means are quite different.
also, binary star systems are VERY stable. the only disadvantage to being in a binary star system is that solar radiation is effectively doubled and the safe distance from the stars would also double depending on the types of stars in the system. for example, if one star were 'feeding' off the other (i wont go further into detail on these setups unless i need to right now), the stellar ribbon or 'funnel' would emit much more radiation due to the transit of stellar material from one star to the other. also, is a star is feeding off one it is likely because it is old and its fuel is running out. stars in this stage of life are usually hazardous and emitting large amounts of xrays and other radiation which would be bad for life.
-
I thought he Horse head nebula was different
-
The crab and Cats Eye nebula are the only 2 that i know of that have a symectrical shape. Beatleguist i dont know
beetlegiuse is a very large red supergiant (i like to call these hyper-giants) and its diameter is close to or bigger than mars' orbit. is it among the biggest stars we know of
binary stars that are absorbing matter from each other are likely to:
1: fuse into 1 star with 2 cores (if they are close) then go supernova type I
2: the one absorbing will go 'nova' and expel the stolen gas, repeating the prossess, or
3: both stars draw twoards each other and ahnnialate one another
Exciting, aint it?
-
figures it would be a fan of betaray that would know that, lol
-
lol, I still dont know why your such a fan of me lol
but yes, I even have a design for an energy source baised on the reactions that happon in a supernova
-
and how were you planning on harnessing that energy?
-
its really complacated, but it does have alot to do with my low frequency betaray projector (wich my nick is baised off of)
-
and you've had that nick for how many years now?
-
I came up with the design back when I was in 6th grade, im in 12th now
I started playing op2 under this nick not much after
-
beta's a year younger than me? I would have never guessed...
anyway, back to the original topic:
what about one with two planets on the same orbital, only on opposite sides?
-
so they could never see eachother?
very intresting, you could have it so that eden launched, and than ply was able to launch and follow them, and when eden got to the system they found one planet, and by the time ply got there the planets would have shifted and ply would land on the other, each thinking they were the only ones to survive
-
sounds like idealism. I dont think such a orbit has been found not even in moons.
-
well of corse they would have to be exact, and be highly unlikely (like almost impossible) but this is sci fi, our universe, we can do whatever we want, persionally I think it would be a pretty good premace both coloneys settleing in all comfortable, untill they develop the space program again and find out they are not alone, and they start sending invading forces at eachother
-
I think for something like that Eden would have to f*** some thing up big time for the 2 colonies to fight over one or both planets.
-
a star cannoy have 2 cores and there is no reaction in a supernova. a supernova occurs when the balance between the explosion of the already existant reaction inside the star takes precadent over the pull of gravity. essentially a star is in a delicate balance. a tug of war. the star wants to explode out and dissipate, but the pull of gravity due to its huge mass, keeps the explosion in a confined area. over time as nuclear material is used up and the star begins casting off much of its mass, the force gravity exerts weakens. when it gets to a certain point, the outward force of the sun overtakes the inward pull of gravity and the sun finally explodes (violently dissipates) in a nova. they are NOT caused by some new reaction inside the star.
also, it is impossible for 2 planets to orbit opposite sides of a star and not collide or orbit in such a way. the only way for this to happen is if one planet on an inner orbit has less mass than the one in the outer orbit and the one in the outer orbit just HAPPENS to have just large enough mass and fast enough orbit that they never see eachother. this is impossible. even if one planet weighed only 7 pounds more than the other, over the billions of years it takes for a solar system to form, eventually they would collide or be visible to one another. its impossible to have a planet setup like this.
stars are not solid objects. they are perpetually a plasma. therefore, two cores cannot exist simultaneously. thats like saying if i pour a cup of water into another cup of water, the two cups of water will still be seperate. its not possible. the two cores would merge, but only after a significant explosion. you are right about a parasite star exploding and reforming. there are several binary stars we know of that do this. so long as one is large enough, the explosion of the partner will not obliterate both.
-
I know that the orbits would never be that stable, gravaty fluxauations from the star, or a gas giant, even a metier impact would change the orbits so that the planets would be visible to one another
but like I said before, its sci-fi, so we can do whatever we want
btw, eden may do somthing to the star, perhaps doing somthing to increase its output to warm up their planet for terraforming, that would piss off plymouth alot
or mabe ply would do somthing this time around, you never know
-
I think it was a binary system that went super nova and The stars cores like became one or tore each other apart.
-
Plymouth's planet is going to crash into Eden's planet, so Plymouth tries to blow up Eden's planet, unaware that Eden lives on the planet. After the missiles impact, Eden finds a pice of wreckage with the Plymouth insignia on it. So then Eden finds out Plymouth is on the other planet and then two weeks later there's a huge army of Thor's Tigers surrounding a Plymouth mining outpost. When Plymouth finds out it's been destroyed, they start building up their own army and everything starts over again.
Then to tick Plymouth off Eden sends some scientists to Plymouth's planet and starts terraforming it.
-
I just thought of something:
why are the planet orbits, with the exception of pluto, in such good alignment? I mean, you can use the paths as lines and they would overlap into one line. Is it impossible for them to appear perpendicular to one another?
-
i dont think all the planets have a good alinment. I have the numbers of there Angles some where. Pluto and the 10th object planetoid have the more extreme angles and are very eliptical.
Plus some planets go the opposit direction on there orbits then earth to. Which is why planetary planet alingments dont happen very often.
They always have the perfect look in books and such but they always put pluto on the right one.
-
accualy it is possible to have a star with two distinct cores (tho its unlikely) the two binary sters must expand beyond their respective 'roche lobes' and the plasma will connect the two. however, if the two stars arent a nearperfect distace from each opther, the 'star' will go supernova, exceeding the solar mass limit. or they will just diffuse and become 2 stars again. it is possible because the helium in the cores wont mix with the shellar hydrogen. the helium sinks to the bottom (unless there is a heavyer element in the core)
at least thats how the textbook i got from school says
2 planets sharing the same orbit is feasible, since 3 of saturns moons share the same orbit at exactly 60deg from each other. Telsto, then 60deg later, Tethys, then Calypso all share the same orbit and never collide.
-
Grrr.... Tethys, the bane of my existance. Its game never wants to work right. ;)
Anyways, yeah, I have no idea what anybody is talking about anymore, so I'm jsut saying from now on I'm not saying anything else here. Toodles.
-
the main reasion why the planets orbit on the same plane and in the same direction is because all the planets condenced from the same cloud of gas, and the gas was spinning, the reasion why they are in the same plane is because the gasd would have its own gravity, keeping the gas from disapating (this also makes the planets and the sun) with the gas spinning, it would greate a gyroscopic effect that would flatten it into a disk, this would also make the gas dencer, thus increasing the gravity untill it condences into planets
pluto was probly a large icatoid that got caught in the suns gravity, so thats why it dosnt orbit on the same plane
-
Tethys is a moon around Saturn.
doesnt mean that they all are on the same plane i think most are at a angle of 5 degrees ours being 0 so we have a 0 point to go by. Most of them are 5 - 10 degrees.
-
that moon could be a capured comet
and of corse with all these huge masses and their gravatitional fields over billions of years the orbits cant stay that stable, discrepences have to occer
-
Considering the speed of a comet i dont think it would be. Most likely a rouge asteroid that was tossed out of orbit by Jupiter.
-
you never know, the comets that we have now are there because they moved fast enough that they didnt get captured, back when the solar system was formed, there must have been slower moving comets that got captured and turned into moons
-
Yes but comets are big hunck of Ice. Plus there not sphereical.
-
alot of the smaller moons arnt spereical, take Mar's two moons for example
now I admit I did not look up that particular moon, so it might not have been a comit, it might just be a chunk of rock so big that its gravity made itself a sphere
-
The making of a sphere usually happens when the rock starts to cool and makes a gravitational field.
Mars does have 2 irregual shaped more Demos Phobes. I dont know how these could be comets. Mars doesnt have as strong as gravitational feild as earth.
-
not all of them would be comets, astroids can be captured as well comits would evaporate if they were captured by Mars
your right about planets becoming sphereical while they are liquid, but it would be possible for them to become sphereical after they have formed
getting hit by other astroids, the energy of the impact if severe enough would liquify the mass and allow it to reform, that is how the moon was made, the astroid that hit earth probly wasnt sphereical, but when it hit earth it liquified, and much of it went back into space, where it cooled into the sphere that we know
-
Yes that is possible for the impact to do that. There are asteroids that are fused together and look like a figure 8.
-
yea with all that stuff flying around, what couldn't happon?
-
Nothing couldnt happen lol
-
exactly lol
-
but if nothing did happen would we really know if we did or not
-
would we know nothing? yes I bet alot of people know nothing
-
whoa. lots to cover here.... hmm. okay, here we go....
We know next to nothing about the inner workings of stars, much less how likely (or unlikely) rare core arrangements occur. that being the case, we look to akham's razor. there is not reason in physics why 2 cores that behave like a fluid (plasma to be precise) would retain seperate and distinct boundaries while maintaining a unified and cooperative co-arrangement. my analogy still stands: when you throw a cup of water into the ocean, you never see a cup-shaped chunk of water floating out to sea. they merge and become one structure. since we know so little about the inner workings of a star and nothing about their core, the structure could take on any number of forms. however, thru your wording you make it sound as though the two cores would be effectively indestructible and instead of joining into one system (with any myriad structure arrangement), would remain seperate yet joined in close proximity. even basic physics calls this an impossibility. when two stars collide (no matter what 'speed' they are moving toward eachother at) they always explode; in that their structures are torn apart and scattered in the local area. they eventually coalasce into a single star. if i take two cars and grind them into chunks the size of a postage stamp and then throw them into a ditch, i dont get a fully formed vehicle with two distinct and whole engines under the hood. this applies to stars as well. no part of a star is solid, so when a star is torn apart, the core goes with it. the core of a star is simply an area of plasma that is under different temperature and pressure tolerances, nothing more. the name "core" does not denote a firm (solid), material object but merely defines a boundary. there is no such thing as a star with two cores, period. stellar cores cannot migrate cohesively in the process of a stellar collision.
comets can be captured and are not entirely ice and gas. several moons of saturn and jupiter are thought to be comets. comets are a fact of existance in the universe and do not "go away" or even "lessen" over time. there is no speed limit for comets. the only thing that distinguishes a comet from an asteroid is that asteroids are typically more metallic than rocky. comets are typically composed more out of an aggregate of metals, rock, frozen gas and ice. a few thousand miles per hour makes little difference when something is hurtling thru space at 40,000 mph.
the orbits of the planets in our solar system vary greatly. pluto oscillates at up to a 30 degree angle from the solar plane. uranus sometimes does at up to 18 degrees. all the planets in the solar system have "irregular" orbits in that none of them would lie on top of eachother if you stuck them all the same distance from the sun. the earth does this as well. there is no such thing as a perfect orbit. all orbits are elliptical. that is a scientific fact that most highschool science teachers leave out of the lesson plan. those that say that the 'default' orbit type is a circle are uninformed, uneducated, ignorant or just plain silly. circular orbits can and sometimes do occur but only in specific circumstances and never in a solar system with a single star and multiple satellites.
gravity can shape planets of larger masses, but moons are often shaped largely by impacts. since smaller celestial objects often lack sufficient mass to properly "smooth" the surface or correct for areas of varying density, they are often left misshapen.
-
but horus, I can mix two cups of water into a bigger container and know which every bit came from :P
-
thats totally a yes and no answer.
but its still much more no than yes.
if you mix up two cups of water they dont stay seperated or defined as seperate. they mix up into one. just like the core of a star. stellar cores cannot behave that way.
no matter how much youd like it to, two masses of plasma combine and mix (are evenly distributed into eachother) upon collision. areas of the core can be arranged in defined lobes depending upon circulation and density, but they are not seperate of the core. i think maybe youre reading something wrong. or at least approaching the issue with such a broad stance that any idea you have is "sort of" right depending upon how you look at it.
taking your original comment literally, what you claim is impossible in physics.
-
2 become 1 that is it :P
wow that wasnt so hard to say
-
and none of that above contradicted anything I said lol
-
I think there is a screw driver in orbit of earth lol
-
probly lol, near earth space is filled with debries like that
-
I think mercury is the planet closest to a prefect circular orbit.
-
no, murcury's orbit is so elipitcall, it has a double sun rise: the sun comes up a little, comes back down then rises again. probably because it goes so fast.
I'd say venus has the least elptical orbit
-
horus: you freeze the cups of water and put them in a larger container. Then you have put them together without losing track of which is which :P
pluto has the worst orbit
-
the angle of the orbits
Earth is the zero point because we needed a place to start from.
mercury 7 degrees
Venus 3.4 degrees
Earth 0 gegrees
Mars 1.9 degrees
Jupiter 1.3 degrees
Saturn 2.5 degrees
Uranus 0.8 degrees
Neptune 1.8 degrees
Pluto 17.2 degrees
The tenth object which i cant remember the name of is even more extreme
Comets can become asteroids but there very very small. I dare say smaller then moons out there.
comets
Encke revolves around the sun ever 3.3 year and is always view able by telescope. First seen in 1984
Tempel2 revolves 5.3 years. Seen in 1983
Holmes revovles 7.1 years. Seen in 1986
Faye revolves 7.4 years. Seen in 1984
Halley 75-76 years. seen in 1986 wint show again till 2061.
-
and didn't Hally see it twice, dieing the second time he saw it?
-
yes that is true but i though some one else was born when it was seen.
was it daniel boone or the big guy with the bull
-
theres a lot of free orbit editors out there. google for em and download one and test making orbits. see how long they remain stable. most people dont know that any orbit can decay and throw the object into space. we lose something like 12 feet of our moon every year.
-
I think that, when the moon is lost, it will either fly into mars, or into the sun, lol
-
or the moon will become a 3rd or 4th planet or get stuck in the orbit that earth has. Just like Jupiter has a set of asteroids behind and infront of it that follow the orbital path of Jupiter.
-
by than though humanidy will eather cease to exist, or have advanced to a new plane of existance
-
Na we will have made the Jahpa Ie and traveled to new worlds with P-90s
-
no no no, the sun will have gone nova
-
the sun wont go nova for another 10 billion years or so, so weve got time
-
the sun has to become a red giant and so one first lol.
we will all have to go to mars WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-
the sun wont go nova at all. our sun is too small to go nova again. it will become a brown dwarf.
-
still the sun wont change for another couple billion years
mars... if humanidy survives that long, we will be colonizing another galixy before anything happonds to the sun
-
uh maybe colonizing this galaxy the others are to far away
-
you never know, it is 10 billion years
-
if we could safely freeze ppl and launched a colony ship now, we could prolly get to nearby galaxy in 10 billion years.
-
Why go to another galaxy when ours is bound to have some thing lol. Just seems pointless to waste the effort on going to another galaxy.
A brown drawf i dont know if there very hot at all but they do have some kind of light to them. so aleast some people could live on mercury or venus because its going to be Hot for a very long time because of its clouds.
-
the solar system would still be habitable but wouldnt be as friendly. keep in mind, the sun wouldnt simply shrink down to a brown dwarf. it would still go thru growing pains, expanding to the orbit of earth and casting off material until eventually consigning itself to a cold, silent death. mercury, venus and prolly earth would be obliterated. mars might cook or it might be warm and friendly(er). i think jovian moons would be the best shot in this case, only after the expansion the solar system would be cold and dark.
-
intresting :o
-
since i cannot seem to pull off a complete download of the op2 movies, i see some screenshots looking across the new terra surface that show an object in the sky. it looks bigger than a moon and looks like it might be a gas giant maybe? i cannot tell.
so im asking those who can view the cutscenes, if theres anything to suggest what kinds of planets/moons might be in the system?
-
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b7/Arklon/Randomness/ply11.png)
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b7/Arklon/Randomness/ply12.png)
-
2 moons. is there anything more in op1?