From: james vassilakos <jimv>
Subject: sfrpg: star names
To: nv91-asa@nada.kth.se (anders sandberg),
        rhiemeir@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (joerg rhiemeier)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:32:33 -0700 (PDT)

In looking through the data file provided by Anders (and,
indirectly, by GDW's 2300), I see the following stars listed:

Augereau
BPM_94172
Berthier
Botany_Bay_Dm+33_2277
Broward
C1
Catherine's_Star
Clarkesstar
D'Artagnon
DM+4_123_(Stark)
DM+17_2611_A(Klaxun)
DM+20_5046_Doris
DM+36_2393_Dunkelheim
DM+43_1953_(Pentapod)
DM-3_1123_Austin's_World
Davout
Denebola
Ellis_Ac-48_1595_89
Formalhaut
Groombridge_34_A
Groombridge_34_C
Groombridge_34_B
Haifeng
Henry's_Star_dm+38_2285
Hochbaden_dm+2296
Hunjiang
Iota_Horologii
Kapteyns_Star
Kimanjaro_dm+34_2342
King_dm+2_3312
Lacaille_9352
Lowne_1
Neubayern
New_Melbourne
Nyotekundu
Qinyuan
Queen_Alice's_Star_dm+46_1797
Red_Speck
Seurier
Van_Maanens_Star
Vogelheim
Xiuning

I'd like to keep the names that are real and purge those that GDW
made up, just so that there's no chance of any of GDW's
starsystem names appearing in the material we release online. If
one of you folks who are more astronomically inclined could agree
on which of the above are real vs which are GDW fabrications,
that would help alot.


Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:48:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: james vassilakos <jimv@cs.UCR.edu>
Subject: Re: sfrpg: star names

> In looking through the data file provided by Anders (and,
> indirectly, by GDW's 2300), I see the following stars listed:

I'll look through my notes to see if I can find the real names. Here are 
those I know off the cuff. 

> Botany_Bay_Dm+33_2277

This is DM+33 2277

> C1

I think this is the real name (a white dwarf).

> DM+4_123_(Stark)
> DM+17_2611_A(Klaxun)
> DM+20_5046_Doris
> DM+36_2393_Dunkelheim
> DM+43_1953_(Pentapod)
> DM-3_1123_Austin's_World

Just ignore the names after the code, they refer to important races or 
planets. The first part is real.

> Ellis_Ac-48_1595_89

AC-48 1595 89

> Formalhaut

The real one.

> Groombridge_34_A
> Groombridge_34_C
> Groombridge_34_B

Also real.

> Henry's_Star_dm+38_2285
> Hochbaden_dm+2296

DM+38 2285 and DM+2296

> Iota_Horologii
> Kapteyns_Star

Real names too.

> Kimanjaro_dm+34_2342

DM+34 2342

> King_dm+2_3312

DM+2 3312

> Lacaille_9352

Real name. 

> Lowne_1

Real, I think. 

> Qinyuan

This one is UV Ceti, if I don't misremember.

> Queen_Alice's_Star_dm+46_1797

DM+46 1797

> Van_Maanens_Star

Real name.


Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:48:42 +0200
From: Joerg Rhiemeier <rhiemeir@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
To: jimv@cs.ucr.edu, nv91-asa@nada.kth.se
Subject: Re: Star names

Most of the names are GDW inventions; they are just the names the
colonists gave to their planets, or nicknames.

Real are the following:

Denebola
Fomalhaut (often misspelled `Formalhaut')
Groombridge 34 A,B and C
Iota Horologii
Kapteyn's Star
Lacaille 9352
Van Maanen's Star

I remember having seen all of them on lists of stars near the sun or
in other astronomical sources, except Iota Horologii; but as the
constellation Horologium exists, I have no doubt that Iota Horologii
is real as well.

Denebola and Fomalhaut are AV stars; the rest (except Iota Horologii,
of which I have never heard) are MV stars.

Possibly also real are:

BPM 94162
Lowne 1

The DM numbers look real, but I am not sure.  The names associated
with them are not.  For example, DM+36_2393 might actually occur in
real star catalogues, but is definitely not called Dunkelheim.
The rest doesn't seem real to me.

Here some comments on some names:

Botany Bay: the bay where Sydney, Australia, is located.
Clarkesstar: probably named after Arthur C. Clarke.
D'Artagnan: one of the Three Musketeers.
Dunkelheim: a German name meaning `dark home'.
Hochbaden: German `High Baden'; Baden is a historical landscape in
           Germany.
Kimanjaro: apparently a misspelling of Kilimanjaro.
Newbayern: German `New Bavaria' (Bavaria: European country associated
           with Germany)
Red Speck: the archetypical nickname some bored scout assigned to a
           red dwarf.
Vogelheim: German `Bird's Home'.

Names like Catherine's Star or Henry's Star obviously are derived from
the names of individuals.

I cannot comment on all the Chinese-sounding names, but I guess none
of them are real.


Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:58:40 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: Joerg Rhiemeier <rhiemeir@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
Subject: Re: Star names

On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, Joerg Rhiemeier wrote:
> I remember having seen all of them on lists of stars near the sun or
> in other astronomical sources, except Iota Horologii; but as the
> constellation Horologium exists, I have no doubt that Iota Horologii
> is real as well.

Yes, I think it exists in the vicinity, I once looked it up in my 
astronomical atlas. 

> The DM numbers look real, but I am not sure.  The names associated
> with them are not.  For example, DM+36_2393 might actually occur in
> real star catalogues, but is definitely not called Dunkelheim.
> The rest doesn't seem real to me.

I think they are all real, although some might have other catalogue names 
too. The starmap is based on the 1950 Gliese catalogue.

The names I'm sure are made up are:

Augereau
Berthier
Broward
Catherine's_Star
Clarkesstar
D'Artagnon
Davout
Haifeng
Hunjiang
Neubayern
New_Melbourne
Nyotekundu
Red_Speck
Seurier
Vogelheim
Xiuning

I'll try to find the correct names in the Colonial Atlas (brilliant book! 
Several planets have very well thought out ecologies and climates). 

Mostly irrelevant for the sf game, but fun:

> Here some comments on some names:
> 
> Botany Bay: the bay where Sydney, Australia, is located.

In the game an Australian colony. The biosphere is unusual since there
exist *wheeled* creatures! (there is cute illustration of what looks like
a teddy with a big wheel instead of legs). They are preyed upon by other
creatures which hang from branches and have evolved a sharp spike instead
of legs; they just drop down on their prey, eat it, and crawl back into
the trees. GDW developed some rather interesting ecosystems on some
worlds... :-)

> D'Artagnan: one of the Three Musketeers.

French military colony.

> Dunkelheim: a German name meaning `dark home'.

Since the star is so weak, the colony (a penal colony) is in a continual 
red twilight.

> Hochbaden: German `High Baden'; Baden is a historical landscape in
>            Germany.

Mostly orbital colonies in the system, hence the 'hoch'.

> Red Speck: the archetypical nickname some bored scout assigned to a
>            red dwarf.

I think you're right! 

> Vogelheim: German `Bird's Home'.

Has an ecology where almost all higher animals look like terrestrial 
birds, adopted to most ecological niches. 

> Names like Catherine's Star or Henry's Star obviously are derived from
> the names of individuals.

I think in these cases they refer to the names of british regents which 
reigned as Britain explored the systems. 

Have fun everybody!


Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:18:35 +0200
From: Joerg Rhiemeier <rhiemeir@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
To: nv91-asa@nada.kth.se
Subject: Re: Star names and other issues

>> I remember having seen all of them on lists of stars near the sun or
>> in other astronomical sources, except Iota Horologii; but as the
>> constellation Horologium exists, I have no doubt that Iota Horologii
>> is real as well.
>
>Yes, I think it exists in the vicinity, I once looked it up in my 
>astronomical atlas. 

Is is a sun-like star (i.e., F5V to K5V) or smaller?

>> The DM numbers look real, but I am not sure.  The names associated
>> with them are not.  For example, DM+36_2393 might actually occur in
>> real star catalogues, but is definitely not called Dunkelheim.
>> The rest doesn't seem real to me.
>
>I think they are all real, although some might have other catalogue names 
>too. The starmap is based on the 1950 Gliese catalogue.
>
>The names I'm sure are made up are:
>
>Augereau
>Berthier
>Broward
>Catherine's_Star
>Clarkesstar
>D'Artagnon
>Davout
>Haifeng
>Hunjiang
>Neubayern
>New_Melbourne
>Nyotekundu
>Red_Speck
>Seurier
>Vogelheim
>Xiuning
>
>I'll try to find the correct names in the Colonial Atlas (brilliant book! 
>Several planets have very well thought out ecologies and climates). 

I think I must have a look at it some day, but I guess it's out of print.

>Mostly irrelevant for the sf game, but fun:
>
>> Here some comments on some names:
>> 
>> Botany Bay: the bay where Sydney, Australia, is located.
>
>In the game an Australian colony. 

I guessed that.  New Melbourne is also an Australian colony, isn't it?

>	The biosphere is unusual since there
>exist *wheeled* creatures! (there is cute illustration of what looks like
>a teddy with a big wheel instead of legs). They are preyed upon by other
>creatures which hang from branches and have evolved a sharp spike instead
>of legs; they just drop down on their prey, eat it, and crawl back into
>the trees. GDW developed some rather interesting ecosystems on some
>worlds... :-)

Weird!  These critters remind me at the rhinogradents.  The
rhinogradents are an elaborate scientific joke, which was inspired by
a poem by Christian Morgenstern (a late German poet whose fame is
based on his masterful surrealist doggerels).  They are a fictitious
group of mammals which have evolved peculiar specializations of their
noses.

One of them, the nasobeme, has a nose with four trunk-like protruisons
on which it walks.  Another critter catches flies with snot which
forms sticky threads hanging down from its enormous nose.  A third
example is an aquatic animal which uses its long trumpet-like nose as
a snorkel.

I guess the wheel of the Botany Bay critters is a bony disk.  A living
flesh wheel constitutes lots of trouble with blood vessels etc.

Another interesting concept are the laser eyes of the Pring, as
desribed by David Brin in _Sundiver_.  The ancestors of the Pring had
only one eye; nevertheless, they had spatial vision: they sent out
laser beams from their eye, and detected the phase of the reflected
light.  I don't understand how this works exactly (must be some kind
of visual radar), but it sounds very interesting.  The reason why the
Pring themselves have two eyes is uncertain; it is assumed that their
patrons, the Pila, modified them to make them look more familiar.

>> D'Artagnan: one of the Three Musketeers.
>
>French military colony.

Is France still a military dictatorship, as it is today?

>> Dunkelheim: a German name meaning `dark home'.
>
>Since the star is so weak, the colony (a penal colony) is in a continual 
>red twilight.

I have imagined something like that.

>> Hochbaden: German `High Baden'; Baden is a historical landscape in
>>            Germany.
>
>Mostly orbital colonies in the system, hence the 'hoch'.

I see the logic, but to me, it sounds silly.

>> Red Speck: the archetypical nickname some bored scout assigned to a
>>            red dwarf.
>
>I think you're right! 

What else could it be?

>> Vogelheim: German `Bird's Home'.
>
>Has an ecology where almost all higher animals look like terrestrial 
>birds, adopted to most ecological niches. 

To us Germans, `Vogelheim' sounds somewhat trashy, but never mind.

>> Names like Catherine's Star or Henry's Star obviously are derived from
>> the names of individuals.
>
>I think in these cases they refer to the names of british regents which 
>reigned as Britain explored the systems. 

If it is still a monarchy then.  A few days ago I had a dream that
Queen Elizabeth II had died and the monarchy was abolished; a TV news
speaker spoke about `John Major, prime minister of the British
Republic'.

>Have fun everybody!

BTW: What are the `Swimmers' like, which were mentioned in one of your
mails (or was it James, or someone else)?

And now to some other ideas.

Any campaign where humans live on different worlds (whether they
colonize them in the 21st, 22nd, 23rd century or were scattered by
aliens in the past) must deal with the problem of biocompatibility:
can humans eat local biomass, and if yes, why?  (I have discussed the
problem that different biospheres are probably incompatible
in this regard extensively with James.)

There are basically three solutions:

1) The humans (or the aliens which scatter them) bring along food plants
   and animals from Earth.

2) The planets did not evolve independently, but were terraformed from
   a single source (probably Earth, as Earth seems to have evolved
   naturally).

3) The margin conditions for biomelecules are much stricter than we
   assume them to be, such that Earth-like biochemistry is the only way.

Solution (1) means that those worlds will have two meshed biospheres,
one of which consists of creatures as we know them from Earth, while
the other might be as weird as possible on a garden world.  These two
biospheres interact in interesting ways, though there are no food
chains linking both (they are incompatible!).  Plants of both
biosphere compete for land, for example.  Other effects could occur by
animals of one biosphere mistaking plants or animals of the other
biosphere for similar-looking, edible members of their own biosphere.
This could influence the balance in subtle ways, and even lead to
extinction of otherwise healthy species!  (They decrease in number
because they starve or even poison themselves on things from the wrong
biosphere.)  Over long terms, the local species will develop ways to
tell compatible from incompatible things (as Earth animals can tell
biomass from stone, or frugivores can tell ripe from unripe fruit --
the latter is the reason why we humans have full-color vision).

Solution (2) restricts the diversity of lifeforms on the planet.
Unless we assume that someone terraformed everything in the galaxy
after Earth, the `Gardeners' (as I like to call theose who did the
terraforming) must have done their work fairly recently (a few million
years ago), because the galaxy shuffles its stars completely during
thousands of millions of years, such that neighbouring stars might end
up on opposite sides of the galactic disc.

Solution (3) does not sound convincing to me, as the margin conditons
can hardly be strict enough to allow humans to feed completely off
their new homeworld's native biomass.  Especially vitamins and similar
exotic ingredients constitute a problem.  I think any margin condition
srtrict enough to ensure compatibility would be stricter than what
actually holds on Earth.  We have organisms on Earth to which oxygen
is poisonous!  (Some bacteria fall into this group.)  There are things
on Earth which routinely eat things that could kill a man, and I think
there are even examples for the reverse situation.

I'd go with (1), which also has the advantage of allowing for more
exotic and fanciful critters than (2) or (3).  In some lucky cases,
there might be a few local lifeforms which are edible; but even then,
something will probably be missing, such that at least a minor patch
with a few species from Earth (or with synthesized ingredients) is
needed.

However, a few terraformed planets dropped in should make the matter
even more interesting.  Such planets could be inhabited by creatures
which died out on Earth, such as sabertooth cats, giant slothes, maybe
even dinosaurs.  However, the Gardeners probably have used organisms
from different worlds (unless the area they terraformed was only a
small speck around Earth with no other natural garden worlds, which is
rather unlikely).  Some planets might have weird mixtures of five
or even more different biospheres!

[These paragraphs will probably appear, in a more or less reworked
form, on the World Wrights' Web some day.]


Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:02:05 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
To: Joerg Rhiemeier <rhiemeir@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
Subject: Re: Star names and other issues

> >Yes, I think it exists in the vicinity, I once looked it up in my 
> >astronomical atlas. 
> 
> Is is a sun-like star (i.e., F5V to K5V) or smaller?

It is a G3 IV star, of roughly sun-like magnitude (slightly dimmer).

> >In the game an Australian colony. 
> 
> I guessed that.  New Melbourne is also an Australian colony, isn't it?

Exactly. I think its merely an outpost, a kind of refuelling station.

> Weird!  These critters remind me at the rhinogradents.  The
> rhinogradents are an elaborate scientific joke, which was inspired by
> a poem by Christian Morgenstern (a late German poet whose fame is
> based on his masterful surrealist doggerels).  They are a fictitious
> group of mammals which have evolved peculiar specializations of their
> noses.
> 
> One of them, the nasobeme, has a nose with four trunk-like protruisons
> on which it walks.  Another critter catches flies with snot which
> forms sticky threads hanging down from its enormous nose.  A third
> example is an aquatic animal which uses its long trumpet-like nose as
> a snorkel.

Fun! Another interesting adaption is the <creatures with an immensely 
long name deviced by M. C. Escher>; they are lizard-like and covered with 
bony plats. To move, they either walk on their legs (I think they have 
six humanoid legs) or roll into a ball and roll, using the legs to get up 
speed. 

The Rollers, the alien race I'm trying to write more about, roll somewhat 
like this (but they are elipsoidal, not lizard like).

> I guess the wheel of the Botany Bay critters is a bony disk.  A living
> flesh wheel constitutes lots of trouble with blood vessels etc.

Yes, that was the description in the book. And having the wheel removed 
or damaged makes the being very vulnerable. 

> Another interesting concept are the laser eyes of the Pring, as
> desribed by David Brin in _Sundiver_.  The ancestors of the Pring had
> only one eye; nevertheless, they had spatial vision: they sent out
> laser beams from their eye, and detected the phase of the reflected
> light.  I don't understand how this works exactly (must be some kind
> of visual radar), but it sounds very interesting.  The reason why the
> Pring themselves have two eyes is uncertain; it is assumed that their
> patrons, the Pila, modified them to make them look more familiar.

Another fun idea. That the Pila manipulated the Pring sounds quite
probable, judging from their conservatism. Actually evolving a laser 
might be hard, but could perhaps develop from photophrores or something 
like that. 

> >> D'Artagnan: one of the Three Musketeers.
> >
> >French military colony.
> 
> Is France still a military dictatorship, as it is today?

Even more, it is now officially ruled by an Emperor (Nicolas Ruffin I). 
In the timeline of the game, France became the big superpower after WW
III. Although it is declining quite a bit (especially in my games).

>>> Vogelheim: German `Bird's Home'.
>>
>>Has an ecology where almost all higher animals look like terrestrial 
>>birds, adopted to most ecological niches. 
>
>To us Germans, `Vogelheim' sounds somewhat trashy, but never mind.

Well, what do you expect from explorers? They actually later named all 
the planets of that system after birds. 

GDW have made quite a few mistakes, some rather funny. One they even
explained away in a silly way was the colony at Beta Comae Berenices,
which was intended to be called 'Nous Triumphe' by the French (they had
terraformed the planet), but when they held the official ceremony one
reporter mis-reported the name so it became called 'Nous Voila' instead,
and it stuck. Sometimes I wonder about how much contact with reality the 
people who wrote the game had, but they are quite accurate when it comes 
to physics and weapons.

>BTW: What are the `Swimmers' like, which were mentioned in one of your
>mails (or was it James, or someone else)?

Well, here is a short summary:

The Swimmers were originally a rather normal species, but in the past they
all underwent complex bionic surgery to achieve their current form.  Why,
and what they were originally is now one of their secrets, and they really
dislike beings trying to find out (which of course only adds to the
curiosity). 

Today they are aquatic, living in great tanks of a saline solution. They 
look like big white wasps without any wings or heads, with 
elongated bodies ending in stingers (used to feed their young by 
injecting nutrients into their eggs) and lots of very thin and supple 
legs/fibres which they braid together into manipulatory extremities. They 
have high bandwidth brain-computer links to the computers in and around 
the tanks, and seems to live mostly in a kind of virtual/enhanced 
reality. Some believe they are essentially "brains in a wat" with some 
external appendages left. Very little is known about their real culture 
since it exists inside their computers and minds, and is incomprehensible 
(perhaps by design) to other species with different sensory systems.

The Swimmers are strangely social/asocial; the inhabitants of one tank 
form a school, and work together as a whole, not unlike a small firm. The 
different schools compete with each other, but groups of schools form 
meta-schools which work together on a higher level against other 
meta-schools. And these meta-schools in turn are linked in even higher 
levels; essentially the entire race forms a kind of immense 
megacorporation where each division competes with the others - market 
economy driven to its logical (?) extreme. 

They are notorious for disliking doing anything they aren't experts in, 
becoming specialized seems to be a kind of racial goal. After a long time 
as participants in the galactic society, the Swimmers have specialized 
themselves into a kind of banking, trading and investment network, where 
they provide services to other species in exchange for technology, other 
services and money (in this universe, energy). They are not particularly 
popular, but at the same time very necessary for the economy (especially 
since they help standardize it quite a bit).

>Solution (1) means that those worlds will have two meshed biospheres,
>one of which consists of creatures as we know them from Earth, while
>the other might be as weird as possible on a garden world.  These two
>biospheres interact in interesting ways, though there are no food
>chains linking both (they are incompatible!).  Plants of both
>biosphere compete for land, for example.  Other effects could occur by
>animals of one biosphere mistaking plants or animals of the other
>biosphere for similar-looking, edible members of their own biosphere.
>This could influence the balance in subtle ways, and even lead to
>extinction of otherwise healthy species!  (They decrease in number
>because they starve or even poison themselves on things from the wrong
>biosphere.)  Over long terms, the local species will develop ways to
>tell compatible from incompatible things (as Earth animals can tell
>biomass from stone, or frugivores can tell ripe from unripe fruit --
>the latter is the reason why we humans have full-color vision).

In 2300AD, there are some examples of this. On Beta Canum Venaticorum, 
for example, local life has mirrored amino acids. Stray dogs simply 
starve to death in the wild, since they will not get any protein. 
However, there was one kind of bug which could get its nutrients from 
terrestrial plants (it probably didn't need amino acids, or could make 
them) which turned out to be a major pest. After all, not all biomass is 
incompatible.

>However, a few terraformed planets dropped in should make the matter
>even more interesting.  Such planets could be inhabited by creatures
>which died out on Earth, such as sabertooth cats, giant slothes, maybe
>even dinosaurs.  However, the Gardeners probably have used organisms
>from different worlds (unless the area they terraformed was only a
>small speck around Earth with no other natural garden worlds, which is
>rather unlikely).  Some planets might have weird mixtures of five
>or even more different biospheres!

This could happen when humans terraformed planets too - ecologists might 
reengineer old or add completely new species, especially if ecology has 
advanced so far that it becomes technology rather than science. 

Hmm, here is an idea: a planet designed as a zoo, with many different 
biotopes separated by some kind of walls/hinders (like the kilometer-high 
diamond walls in 'Men Like Gods'). Of course, over time some might fail...


