After the fall design help needed

[Ashtagon]

I'm developing a sci fi world. Dateline: 3000 AD (give or take a week). Briefly, the human race colonised the solar system before collapsing into barbarism. As part of this, Earth has become a far more hostile environment than before, with Mad max style deserts, oil scarcity, bioscience experiments gone feral, new wild life, enlarged and extra-dangerous forests and jungles, epic glaciars, etc. Mother Nature gone wild, as it were.

On earth, human civilisation is essentially a random smattering of high-tech outposts struggling against each other, barbaric tribes, and nature. The space colonies have to varying extents either collapsed or become self-sufficient.

But how can I reconcile difficult travel across Earth with any kind of inclusion of the space colonies into the setting?

[Malachi Lemont]

I would suggest having the campaign take place in one area as opposed to all across the reaches of space. If the setting is on Earth (which I highly recommend), then have some off-worlders occasionally run into the party and talk about the space colonies. You wouldn't have to have the party actually go there, unless that were the whole purpose of the campaign.

Also, I would suggest getting specific with where the campaign starts or ends. I've always thought futuristic Africa would be fascinating - or maybe India or the Middle East? We tend to think of America, Europe, and eastern Asia as futuristic anyways, so I would generally avoid those areas and set a campaign in the less-popular reaches of the globe. And since it's 3000 AD, you might be able to get away with only a token amount of research.

Did that make any sense? If you want, you can ignore what I just said. I just felt like you were looking for some feedback. Decide early on whether you want space travel to be a big part of your game. If it is, then consider its implications. If it isn't, then focus on what's going on here at home.

It's a big Earth. Plenty of campaigns to run here. You'll never run out of source material.

[Freddrick]

I'm developing a sci fi world. Dateline: 3000 AD (give or take a week). Briefly, the human race colonised the solar system before collapsing into barbarism. As part of this, Earth has become a far more hostile environment than before, with Mad max style deserts, oil scarcity, bioscience experiments gone feral, new wild life, enlarged and extra-dangerous forests and jungles, epic glaciars, etc. Mother Nature gone wild, as it were.

On earth, human civilisation is essentially a random smattering of high-tech outposts struggling against each other, barbaric tribes, and nature. The space colonies have to varying extents either collapsed or become self-sufficient.

But how can I reconcile difficult travel across Earth with any kind of inclusion of the space colonies into the setting?

Cool concept, sounds like something I would like to play in.

You need to ask yourself what part of the game you want to run. Do you want to run the game on earth or on one of the orbital colonies? If its on earth then follow Malachi's recommendations.

If you want to run the space game and the party needs to come to earth then this is my recommendation:
The spaceship used for traveling in space is not suitable for traveling on the planet. Just look at the shuttle, it is a very specialized vehicle that can go into space, function in space and come back down. It cannot get from point A to point B on earth without assistance.
Another option for the earthbound group getting into space is that it can only be done a certain locations, ex a city with a link to a space station, limit one per continent. This method still allows the group to get into space but only when you let them and they would still have to deal with traveling on earth to get anywhere.

Hope this helps.
Happy Gaming
-Freddrick

[Ashtagon]

How believable would it be to have one or more "beanstalks" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) survive the whoops-events, and for that to be the sole means of space travel? We could then have spacecraft that are able to reach orbital, but cannot do re-entry (except maybe as an "emergency crash landing"). Would that come across as refined handwavium?

[Fairy Lisa]

But how can I reconcile difficult travel across Earth with any kind of inclusion of the space colonies into the setting?

You can reconcile them. We use very different systems to get from Earth to Space/Space to Earth and from one place on Earth to another place on Earth. In some very unusual circumstances, you could have Cape Carnival in Florida, but no way to get to the West Coast except by stagecoach, provided Cape Carnival has enough fuel on site, already refined, and enough infrastructure leftover to still get a few rockets into space. Space to Earth usually just means dropping in, literally dropping in from orbit, and slowing down just enough to make the landing safe (unless people are not on board, then it just falls into the ocean to be recovered later).

If the Earth is in as much disrepair as you are implying though, your campaign would realistically only have a fixed number of trips left between the Earth and her Space Colonies before they were cut off from travel forever. In the real world, it is unlikely that if our civilization falls, the next one would be able to kickstart an industrial revolution because we already used up the easily retrievable energy sources. For a campaign though, maybe the PCs could do something about it, maybe that’s what you already have in mind.

[Freddrick]

This is what I had in mind, good find.

How believable would it be to have one or more "beanstalks" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) survive the whoops-events, and for that to be the sole means of space travel?

The survival chances depend on the "Event." If it is biological in nature then absolutly it could survive. Military in nature then it would depend on where the majority of the fighting took place, it may have some damage. If it was an stellar event like a comet then it would be destroyed but if it was a solar event then if the station was on the dark side then it could have been survived.

There are a few things to consider for your "refined handwavium."
1) How science minded is your group? How much suspension of disbelief are they willing to do?

2) For the beanstalk to really work they would have to be positioned on the equator, just like the article states. Are you ok with that? If you want them somewhere else then there is already some handwavium involved.

3)Why is it only one way? If there is an elevator up why can't there be one down? Remember the time involved in traveling to the station. Geosynchronous orbit is 22236 miles above the earth. Even if the elevator was moving at 200mph (I think this is a too fast) it would take 4.6 DAYS to get from the surface to the station. With it being almost 10 days round trip, deciding to go to space can be a major investment.

Again, hope this helps
-Freddrick

[Alcibiades]

I think a single surviving space elevator is a neat idea and pretty believable. It's not your only option, though. The colonies being self-suffiient doesn't mean they're necessarily utopian - a two-way trip to earth costs a lot of energy for a society as fragile as a space colony so maybe they only send expeditions when absolutely necessary, or when they can spare the resources. Maybe the ships that can undertake such a trip are limited, making such trips rare. Or maybe political reasons within their society prohibit all but a few visits.

It's very likely that the space colonies, being fairly prosperous societies, simply don't want anything to do with the wreckage that is earth, and the only visitors are adventurous types and scavengers.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Fairy Lisa
In some very unusual circumstances, you could have Cape Carnival in Florida, but no way to get to the West Coast except by stagecoach, provided Cape Carnival has enough fuel on site....

I think you mean Cape Canaveral. If there's a Cape Carnival, it's probably closer to New Orleans. :smalltongue:



As for a sole surviving beanstalk, that actually sounds like a cool idea. It would almost certainly have to be on the equator, and it might serve as a nucleus of surviving civilization, depending on how you want to use it.

Depending on what prompted the collapse, and especially whether the other beanstalks were deliberately targeted, you might situate your surviving beanstalk on Baker Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Island), which is fairly isolated and about as close to the actual equator as you could ask.


Originally Posted by Freddrick
Cool concept, sounds like something I would like to play in.

And I agree with this sentiment. I'd play a Maori shuttle pilot who's returned from one of the colonies to sail the Great Ocean around his ancestral homeland.


.

[Lord of Shadows]

...Dateline: 3000 AD...the human race colonized the solar system before collapsing into barbarism...Earth is a far more hostile environment than before, with Mad max style deserts, oil scarcity, bio-science experiments gone feral, new wild life, enlarged and extra-dangerous forests and jungles, epic glaciers, etc. Mother Nature gone wild, as it were.

On Earth, civilization is essentially a random smattering of high-tech outposts struggling against each other, barbaric tribes, and nature. The space colonies have to varying extents either collapsed or become self-sufficient.

Consider what forms of travel were available before the fall of civilization, and what could exist by 3000 AD. Almost all terrestrial transportation would probably be electric or other "clean" energy. The energy needed for such transport would be in short supply, except perhaps for solar and wind power. Hooking up to such power sources would probably not be cheap, and thus available only to the rich and/or powerful. Travel across the planet's surface for commoners would be full of danger, both from the bandits and scavengers and from the environment. Once one could catch a ride on a high-end transport, though, everything would be different. Think Hunger Games (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/?ref_=sr_2) here.

There would likely be some form of communication still possible between Earth and space, and even between points on Earth. The higher-tech places might have computer data links. The lower tech places might be limited to two-way radio. Some satellites would still be in orbit and could relay signals.

As far as planet-space-planet transport, by 3000 AD there would likely be space planes of some kind, such as are in development now. Considering that the Earthers have become a bunch of survivalists, space plane fuel would probably need to come from somewhere else. If the solar system has been colonized, that opens up a whole bunch of resources. There could be mining operations on comets, on the gas giant planets, on asteroids, and other sources of refine-able fuel for the space planes and other spacecraft. This could also provide them with oxygen and other necessities. Some space travel might still need rocket engines to move around.

The "Spacers" would not likely visit the surface unless it were for a good reason. There could be giant agri-ponics platforms in space, as in the film Silent Running (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067756/) that could sustain a certain population level. Between the mining and the food, some kind of self-sufficient Spacer society could develop, especially once they are confronted with the chaos back home.

How much contact the Spacers have with Earth would depend on now large a population was in space. If it's in the hundreds, probably not so much. If it's in the tens of thousands, then they might have "uses" for the home world: the occasional sorties for materials not readily available in space, or perhaps they deposit their criminals in certain remote areas creating dangerous gangs, trash dump, safaris, etc etc.

And of course like Palanan said, there would always be the oddball Spacer that wants to return to their homeland for whatever reason.

Adventures could include abandoned ruins (or outposts in space), derelict vessels (or spaceships), a rescue mission (on Earth or in space)... you get the idea.


.

[Palanan]

Anything more from the OP on this? Responses, perspectives, clarifications?

I had a couple more ideas during the past week, but not sure if the OP has abandoned the thread or not.

[Lord of Shadows]

I;m still alive. This project is on a back burner for a while. I've been on very low energy levels for months, finally found out why recently (chronic and extreme low levels of vitamin D). I'll get on this once I have energy again.

It sucks when the real world gets in the way of important things...

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. :smallsmile:

.

[Palanan]

Sorry you're not feeling well. Let me just add another thought here while I'm thinking of it:

Following up on my suggestion about a surviving beanstalk at Baker Island--it occurred to me that even though the island itself has barely any surface area to speak of, the atoll is on the exposed tip of a seamount with steep flanks descending into deeper water. Rooting the beanstalk would probably involve sinking a shaft deep into the seamount, probably several kilometers below sea level--and since there's no land around Baker Island for support facilities, the only permanent option would be a series of undersea platforms on the upper slopes of the seamount.

In time, and if the beanstalk had been a thriving commercial hub before the Fall, you could expect an undersea city to develop from those platforms, perhaps with upper sections at sea level for cargo transfer to surface vessels--essentially an outer metal atoll, encircling the inner reefs--and a series of deeper platforms circling the seamount further down. Depending on what you'd like to do with the setting and the last beanstalk, this could be a hidden refuge for higher technology, with a thriving enclave beneath the waves. Or, the seamount city could be partially or mostly abandoned, with only a few survivors camped out on the surface levels.

Either way, I modestly think it would make a great location.

:smalltongue:

[Ashtagon]

There's no good reason why Baker Island would be chosen. Yes, it is equatorial, but it fails the other important criteria: it should be close to a major population centre (or at least accessible), and have a good supply of water (ie. not deep inland). Ideally it should also be reasonably far from severe natural phenomena, but that's probably hard to find near the equator.

That Leaves:


South America

Quito, Ecuador
Georgetown, Guyana (to north)
Belem, Brazil
Macaba, Brazil

Africa

Libreville, Gabon
Nairobi, Kenya
Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania (to south)
Zanzibar, Tanzania (to south)

Asia

Singapore
Padang, Indonesia
Colombo, Sri Lanka (to north)

[Palanan]

Well, your world, your choice. You hadn't specified your criteria for the beanstalk locations.

If you want a beanstalk in equatorial Brazil, the best option is somewhere near Manaus, since that's a major urban center. You list "Macaba, Brazil" as an option, but I can't find this on the IBGE city site (http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/index.php); the closest match is Ribeirão da Macaba, which is in Tocantins and much too far south. If you meant Macapá, which is the capital of Amapá, bear in mind that's a far smaller city, and doesn't qualify as a major urban area--not compared to Manaus, anyway.

As for Quito, or any site in the Andes, it really depends on the details of beanstalk construction, and that in turn depends in large part on how far down the timeline (between 2013 and 3013) the beanstalks were constructed. If they're still centuries distant, built by some automated process that only Eric Drexler could dream up, with self-contained, kilometer-long nanobot sheaths or something like that, then the altitude or other factors might not be such a concern. But if these are built closer to our own time, by rugged manly men who need to breathe air while they're working, then starting construction at ten thousand feet in the Andes might be an issue. It all depends on how the beanstalks are built.

...and, also, whether it's done by some form of democracy, or by a tyranny or military dictatorship that doesn't care about public opposition. Again, if the society is close to ours in time and cultural outlook, locating a beanstalk near a major urban center will generate tremendous opposition, owing to very reasonable fears about what will happen if it falls. (That's another reason to choose somewhere extremely isolated, like a midocean island.)


Originally Posted by Ashtagon
...and have a good supply of water (ie. not deep inland).

Also, I'm not sure why being deep inland would preclude a good water supply. See: Grand Canyon, Great Lakes, Lake Baikal, Lake Victoria, etc.

For that matter, see Tulsa.

:smalltongue:

[Ashtagon]

Well, your world, your choice. You hadn't specified your criteria for the beanstalk locations.

If you want a beanstalk in equatorial Brazil, the best option is somewhere near Manaus, since that's a major urban center. You list "Macaba, Brazil" as an option, but I can't find this on the IBGE city site (http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/index.php); the closest match is Ribeirão da Macaba, which is in Tocantins and much too far south. If you meant Macapá, which is the capital of Amapá, bear in mind that's a far smaller city, and doesn't qualify as a major urban area--not compared to Manaus, anyway.


I meant the one near the mouth of the Amazon. Macapa. I know Manaus is also a major centre, but Macapa (or Belem) has the advantage of being on the coast.



As for Quito, or any site in the Andes, it really depends on the details of beanstalk construction, and that in turn depends in large part on how far down the timeline (between 2013 and 3013) the beanstalks were constructed. If they're still centuries distant, built by some automated process that only Eric Drexler could dream up, with self-contained, kilometer-long nanobot sheaths or something like that, then the altitude or other factors might not be such a concern. But if these are built closer to our own time, by rugged manly men who need to breathe air while they're working, then starting construction at ten thousand feet in the Andes might be an issue. It all depends on how the beanstalks are built.

...and, also, whether it's done by some form of democracy, or by a tyranny or military dictatorship that doesn't care about public opposition. Again, if the society is close to ours in time and cultural outlook, locating a beanstalk near a major urban center will generate tremendous opposition, owing to very reasonable fears about what will happen if it falls. (That's another reason to choose somewhere extremely isolated, like a midocean island.)

Also, I'm not sure why being deep inland would preclude a good water supply. See: Grand Canyon, Great Lakes, Lake Baikal, Lake Victoria, etc.

For that matter, see Tulsa.

:smalltongue:

Ultimately, I see the society as building the beanstalks as possibly being "nominal" democracies, but otherwise typical cyberpunk corporate dystopias (although those societies have long since collapsed or reformed).

As for water, there's good enough for a large city, and there's good enough to form a massive pipeline to the stars. Water, in massive quantities, needs to be available because it makes a wonderful source of reaction mass for spaceships (gotta do something with the rising sea levels). Inland centres and major rivers don't generally have unlimited water supplies, at least not without causing severe ecological disruption (and having to sift through annoying contaminants such as fish and carrier bags; sea water is generally simpler to clean up for reaction mass purposes).

Since the total height of a beanstalk has to reach slightly higher than geostationary orbit, there really isn't any place on Earth where they could be built and not expose the entire planet to a potential whiplash damage if it crashes. However, that length also ensures that as a safety mechanism, the beanstalk can be cut near the ground level, and centrifugal forces will then cause it to drift away from the Earth.

The construction technique probably involves building a space station in orbital position, then spooling a nanotube cable out to ground level (or possibly launching a vehicle from ground to orbital) and tethering the orbital station, which then assumes a station-keeping orbit directly above the ground base.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon
As for water, there's good enough for a large city, and there's good enough to form a massive pipeline to the stars. Water, in massive quantities, needs to be available because it makes a wonderful source of reaction mass for spaceships....

Water is also extremely heavy, and probably one of the last things you'd want to spend energy hauling up from a gravity well. If you have enough of a spacefaring presence beyond LEO to make a beanstalk viable, and if water's powering ships through interplanetary space, then by definition they're using a source of water that didn't rely on the beanstalk in the first place--meaning they're probably pumping from Europa or the like.

Again, this depends on the details of the timeline--how many decades or centuries these ships have been puttering around the system, as well as what sort of infrastructure has built up for the colonies: and whether, in fact, the various Earth governments are trying to enforce a "spoke and hub" trading economy, in which each colony is required only to trade with its parent government, with intercolonial trade nominally forbidden. This in turn brings up the issue of whether the groundside governments have any official presence out in the system--whether they have their own vessels for enforcement, or if they're simply issuing stern declarations and hoping the colonies, weeks or months away, are paying them any attention.

The timeline is critical here, in terms of how long the colonies have had to develop their own culture and infrastructure, and when the beanstalks went up, and all the interactions before and after.




Originally Posted by Ashtagon
Since the total height of a beanstalk has to reach slightly higher than geostationary orbit, there really isn't any place on Earth where they could be built and not expose the entire planet to a potential whiplash damage if it crashes. However, that length also ensures that as a safety mechanism, the beanstalk can be cut near the ground level, and centrifugal forces will then cause it to drift away from the Earth.

The engineers and project managers will certainly believe this, but try explaining it to a population base with no real science background.