Planet of Convicts - Subculture (Was: Short-Seasoned Planet)

[TheGlyphstone]

After a bit of poking around, question-asking, and general uncertainty, this seemed like the best place for this topic, it being of a strictly academic nature.

In a nutshell, I'm trying to create a planet for an RP (technically, an adventure arc for a sci-fi RPG) with some rather odd environmental conditions...specifically, I'm trying to have a world where seasons are shorter than 'normal' - one quarter of the year in spring, one quarter summer, one fall, and one winter, for however long one quarter of a year might be; what I want is shorter seasons, so that one solar year would, say, include two or more summer 'seasons'. I could always just say "aliens did it", but I want to base it at least partially in real astrophysics, hence my pleas to the learned minds of E. Axial wobbling? Elliptical orbit? Binary star system? I dunno.

TLDR: If I had unlimited power and wanted to modify Earth so that Spring/Summer/Fall/Winter only lasted for a month each, repeating three times before the planet finished a lap around the Sun, would it be possible?

[Caeli]

I'm no expert, but couldn't that be accomplished by having the earth move faster along its orbit? I'm assuming that the lengths of your days (determined by how fast the earth rotates) will not change, only your seasons; since seasons are determined by the tilt of the earth (on its axis) and its position along its orbit around the sun, shorter seasons of roughly equal length could be accomplished by making the earth move faster along its orbit.

Now, what I'm not sure about is whether being a certain distance away from the sun predetermines how fast you travel around it. But to my mind, shorter seasons would be accomplished by speeding up the earth, assuming that everything else (axial tilt, distance of orbit, etc.) remains the same.

Not sure about your TLDR, but if I try to think about it logically, I don't think it's possible. Might be different if it was a binary star system?

[Oniya]

With a standard planetary orbit (relatively low eccentricity), the seasons are due to axial tilt 'spreading out' the area that a given group of sunbeams lands on (insert traditional 'flashlight' demo here).  We're actually closer to the sun during the winter months than in summer.  Severe axial wobbling could give you the same effect, but I'm not sure how stable that would be in the long term.

A highly eccentric orbit would give you a greater variance in base temperatures (the overall average of both north and south hemispheres), but the times when the distance to the sun is closest would be shorter than the times when the distance to the sun is farthest, so the colder base temperature would last longer.

Binary stars would eclipse each other periodically, which would make the amount of solar radiation reaching the planet fluctuate - maybe if that was fast enough, then you'd have a faster set of 'seasons' (summer being when both suns were non-occluded, and winter being when one was eclipsed), but you'd have to set the planet far enough away that the dual sun didn't give you something like Tatooine.  I'm also not sure how stable the three-body orbit would be in that configuration.

Sorry, no real answers, but maybe a bit of data to chew on?

[gaggedLouise]

The seasons on earth do not depend on the actual stretch of the orbit, that is, they have nothing to do with the distance to the sun at given points in the orbit. The center of the earth is actually closest to the sun around New Year, and that means some parts of the surface are closest at that point too, even in the northern hemisphere, but of course that doesn't translate into warmer weather or more influx of heat. It's the tilt of the earth's axis that does it. Not easyu for me to explain either but it can be found in a decent book about geophysics. When the axis is titled away from the sun on the northen meuispehere, the sun is lower in the sky at noon and light comes in at a less sharp angle, so the rays will lose more heat. - I see Oniya nailed some of this too.

What you would need might be a planet whose axis tilt is changing over the course of a year. I'm not sure that would be stable in solar system terms. The direction of the axis of the earth is moving very slowly in a cruised circle around the polar regions of the sky. For the last thousand years or so it's been pointing very close to the Northern Star; in a couple thousand years time from now it will point at Vega. A full circle takes 26.000 years.

If the earth had no tilt at all but pointed at a straight angle to the plane of motion of the ecliptic (the "plane" where the planets are moving) we would basically have no seasons at all. But the shift in how many degrees it's tilted is very small during a turn of the 26.000 year cycle, the movement is around the sky, like a spinning top in a near circle, not up and down. I reckon a major variation in the size of the tilt (the declination of the axis) would have made the planet unstable a long time ago. It's hard to come up with anything that produces a double round of seasons but at the same time won't make the planet run out of orbit over time. Binary or triple star systems could work, but if the stars are both of them close enough to function as primary sources of warmth and light in a way that would sustain advanced life, then they would likely make the orbit of the planet unstable long before there were any intelligent beings or even large creatures on it.

[TheGlyphstone]

The simplest solution is to just have a very short 'year', yeah. If all else fails, I can go with that.

If a heavy axial wobble would theoretically work, I might go with that - I don't need to be too concerned with things like long-term stability, because the concept only needs to make sense on the surface, or enough where it works when you squint and tilt your head sideways - it's not going to be published or anything. :)

[Oniya]

The seasons on earth do not depend on the actual stretch of the orbit, that is, they have nothing to do with the distance to the sun at given points in the orbit. The center of the earth is actually closest to the sun around New Year, and that means some parts of the surface are closest at that point too, even in the northern hemisphere, but of course that doesn't translate into warmer weather or more influx of heat. It's the tilt of the earth's axis that does it. Not easyu for me to explain either but it can be found in a decent book about geophysics. When the axis is titled away from the sun on the northen meuispehere, the sun is lower in the sky at noon and light comes in at a less sharp angle, so the rays will lose more heat. - I see Oniya nailed some of this too.

Yes, that's the 'classic flashlight' demo I was talking about. :-)  When I brought up the distance to the sun, I was thinking of an orbit that is much longer and flatter than our solar system has - closer to a comet-style orbit.  The planetary orbits (with the exception of Pluto) are actually quite close to being circular, which is why our seasons have no real dependence on distance from the sun.  The problem with that is that the further you get from the sun, the slower you go, so the 'summer' caused by being exceptionally close to the sun would be relatively fast compared to the 'winter' caused by being at the farther end.

[gaggedLouise]

Venus has a 225-day year but its own rotation - its "day/night" time - is heavily locked to the sun, so a diurnal period lasts for many months on end - it's even slightly longer than a Venus year! I'm not sure but I 'd reckon that must be more likely to happen the closer a planet is to its mother star, and so, the shorter its year.

Venus' axial tilt is just 3 degrees, as against 23 degrees for Earth, so it's never had that factor driving any seasons either.

It might work to presuppose a "wandering star" has come near the solar system you're constructing at this (late) phase in its history, and is slowly spinning through it. Not strong enough, or close enough, to pull the inner planets out of their orbits, but still important enough to alter the seasons on some of them because there is now a secondary source of light. Well, that could mean some parts of the planet almost never experience full night anymore...  :D

[TheGlyphstone]

Hm....are trinary star systems possible? I'm picturing a reversal of the above situation that might result from two normal stars in a rotating orbit around a third star - a brown dwarf with almost no heat output, but enough gravity to keep a planet orbiting it in an elliptical path. If it works like I picture, that'd then give you two long summers and two short winters

[gaggedLouise]

Yes, triple star systems exist. Not that uncommon I think. I reckon the model you suggested now with a dark dwarf (a "dead star") at the centre would require it to be the heaviest star in the system, or it wouldn't be able to keep the two other stars in circular or near-circular  orbit around it. Not sure if you could have that unless there's some very special circumstances, normally a "sun-type" star would outweigh a tiny, dead black dwarf because the latter one has long since burnt all its gas fuel and/or suffered a severe explosion (a nova or supernova, which would kill any planet in the neighbourhood). So it couldn't really be the dynamic or gravitational center of the system. Unless it's something very special, a neutron star for example, but those are mostly formed after nova or supernova events.

[TheGlyphstone]

Would a neutron star be able to hold a planet in orbit without sucking it in and obliterating it in the process, since by design it'd need the planet between it and the outer orbiting star pair for these effects to happen? It'd have to be a wandering planet that got scooped up by the star after said supernova, but I imagine it'd be a fine line between capturing into a stable orbit and gobbling it up entirely.


On a momentary tangent, since Venus was brought up - if Venus had a more palatable atmosphere, would it produce a planet of perpetual spring/summer?

[Oniya]

Would a neutron star be able to hold a planet in orbit without sucking it in and obliterating it in the process, since by design it'd need the planet between it and the outer orbiting star pair for these effects to happen? It'd have to be a wandering planet that got scooped up by the star after said supernova, but I imagine it'd be a fine line between capturing into a stable orbit and gobbling it up entirely.

You'd have to have the right orbital distance.  Basically, the planet's speed around the star or star grouping would need to be equal to the escape velocity at that distance.

On a momentary tangent, since Venus was brought up - if Venus had a more palatable atmosphere, would it produce a planet of perpetual spring/summer?

The tricky bit would be the back-side.  Venus's temperature is fairly constant because of the heavy atmosphere keeping all of the sun's energy in.  A less 'greenhouse' like atmosphere might not allow for the part of the planet that faces away from the sun to warm up enough (in the manner of Mercury.)  The most habitable area would be the 'twilight' area.

[TheGlyphstone]

Maybe I should have been more clear - for 'palatable atmosphere', I meant something with more oxygen, and clouds of something other than sulfuric acid. The same sort of dense cloud cover, but with an atmospheric mix that could support human life.

[gaggedLouise]

Maybe I should have been more clear - for 'palatable atmosphere', I meant something with more oxygen, and clouds of something other than sulfuric acid. The same sort of dense cloud cover, but with an atmospheric mix that could support human life.

It's too dense to allow a planet of that kind (and that close to the sun) to support any advanced biology, at least the kind of evolution of life we know, anything in the way of the chain: marine life -> photosynthesis -> advanced green plants -> increased oxygen  -> larger animals -> intelligent life, etc. In the early times, the atmosphere of the Earth had next to no free oxygen and on the other hand, it's never been near as dense as the atmosphere of Venus is now. If Earth had had that kind of thickness to its cover it would have blocked the path to advanced life.Before the space age some astronomers thought Venus housed dinosaurs (or, um, similar creatures) but that's long since a gone idea.

But as a thought experiment: yes, if Venus had had a more earth-like atmosphere and kept the same low tilt of its axis, but also had a much shorter day/night period, it could, in theory, have had conditions of constant spring or summer.

[TheGlyphstone]

If it helps any, the final concept is for this planet to be a dedicated farmworld (or agri-world, in setting parlance), so I'm trying to figure out ways to either maximize the growing season, or give the planet as many growing seasons as possible in a single 'year'.

[gaggedLouise]

If it helps any, the final concept is for this planet to be a dedicated farmworld (or agri-world, in setting parlance), so I'm trying to figure out ways to either maximize the growing season, or give the planet as many growing seasons as possible in a single 'year'.

It could be better to locate it on a moon orbiting a large planet. The planet might be maybe half, or one-third, of the diameter of Jupiter, but it would be much closer to its mother star than Jupiter is. the moon would have a much more eccentric orbit than most of the big moons in the solar system, maybe tilted vs the planet's equator too; that would give it some obvious variations both in its distance to their mother star and in its angle to her, but still keep it close enough all the time to sustain a rich biological life.

[Oniya]

Perhaps a semi-nomadic culture with established farms that they move between as the optimal growing season permits?  To put it in Earth terms, a farmer with a place in Kansas packs up after fall harvest and flies to Australia for spring planting.

[TheGlyphstone]

It could be better to locate it on a moon orbiting a large planet. The planet might be maybe half, or one-third, of the diameter of Jupiter, but it would be much closer to its mother star than Jupiter is. the moon would have a much more eccentric orbit than most of the big moons in the solar system, maybe tilted vs the planet's equator too; that would give it some obvious variations both in its distance to their mother star and in its angle to her, but still keep it close enough all the time to sustain a rich biological life.

That could work.

As for the culture, the planet in question is also part of a galactic-scale empire, so I can put whatever sort of culture I want on it (at the moment, it's a combination farmworld/prison planet, staffed by death row convicts on commuted sentences)...but I like the concept of the rotating farms regardless.

[Shjade]

I'm curious as to the importance of having these seasons counted as a single year. What's the difference to farmers if they have 4 seasons in 4 months out of a 4 month year or 4 seasons in 4 months three times in a 12-month year? The farming's the same either way.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm curious as to the importance of having these seasons counted as a single year. What's the difference to farmers if they have 4 seasons in 4 months out of a 4 month year or 4 seasons in 4 months three times in a 12-month year? The farming's the same either way.

Only because a 4-month year would mean the planet was whipping around its parent star at an absurdly fast speed. Mercury's year-length is roughly 3 months, and no habitable world could exist that close to a star. A cooler, non-yellow star (letting the planet orbit closer) wouldn't help, because then the orbital distance would be larger. The dictionary definiton of a year is "one trip around the sun/star", not "a cycle of seasons".

[Oniya]

Either that, or the planet's moon goes around the planet slower.  The length of an earth-month was originally derived from the moon's cycle.

(Random, useless trivia)

[TheGlyphstone]

Still, I can't get around this by playing semantics with the definition of 'year' - a year may be 12 lunar months, but it also happens to be 365.25 solar days - the planet would have to rotate incredibly slow.

[gaggedLouise]

Either that, or the planet's moon goes around the planet slower.  The length of an earth-month was originally derived from the moon's cycle.

(Random, useless trivia)

The months have become longer over time: the moon is increasing its distance In the age if the dinos, or still earlier, the months were shorter, just 25 or 23 days. You can see this in fossilized corals from those distant ages. I remember how thrilled I felt when I first read of this.

Actually I think trhe rotation of the earth is slowing too, so in let's say 200 million years the number of days would be lower than 365 - and we'd have only, like eleven new moons a year?

[gaggedLouise]

Still, I can't get around this by playing semantics with the definition of 'year' - a year may be 12 lunar months, but it also happens to be 365.25 solar days - the planet would have to rotate incredibly slow.

yes, but Oniya and me are using "year" of course in a sense that relates to the length of an orbiting of the sun on whatever planet it is. So one Jupiter year is twelve Earth years, and so on. If the world we're talking of is a moon, then its year is roughly equal to the time its planet will take to orbit its (main) sun; after all that star is the ultimate source of its warmth and its seasons.

[TheGlyphstone]

True dat. So how would being a large moon around a planet - say, a gas giant - in the star's habitable zone affect its seasonal cycle?

[Oniya]

Now I think you're on to something.  Lunar periods are bit more variable (compare Deimos and Phobos to Earth's moon), and you could possibly arrange it so that the moon crosses between the planet and the star as many times as you want.  Behind the planet would be - if nothing else - a low light situation, not so good for growing - unless you have mushroom farms.  In front of the planet, you'd have more solar radiation -> better growing conditions.

[TheGlyphstone]

*scribbles notes furiously*

Year-round food production, if done right - depending on how much light reflects off the primary planet, it wouldn't be cold during the 'winter' so much as dark. Add some gene-tailored plants with accelerated development time...

[gaggedLouise]

True dat. So how would being a large moon around a planet - say, a gas giant - in the star's habitable zone affect its seasonal cycle?

Depends most of all on the way the orbits of the planet, and the moon, are inclined. Most of the planets in the solar system don't have heavily eccentric orbits - they are mathematically elliptic (as Kepler found, and a circle is a special case of an ellipse), but in reality they are not that far from circles, and they are not heavily tilted out of the plane of the ecliptic (the "disk" of the planetary orbits and the sun). Pluto was the one big exception, it's got an orbit that's both heavily eccentric and rises several degrees out of the ecliptical plane - and now we don't count it as a real planet anymore.

If you had a gas giant that had an orbit which wasn't fine and dandy in that way, though it could still be regular over time, from one orbit/year to the next - and a moon around it that had a rather oval orbit and maybe not in sync to the equator of that planet - then both planet and moon would have sizable variations in their distances, both between each other and to their sun from each of them respectively. That would affect the influx of heat and light, and it might create seasonal storms and heavy rain/snow etc. The climate on Earth is ultimately to do with adjustments between different blocks of hot and cold air, water and so on.

And if either planet or moon have a tilted axis, that would accentuate the seasons too. You could get  siutations where there are two overlayered, regular rhythmic systems - one to do with the axises - one to do with the changes in distance to the sun - these would interact, and the result could be a large number of seasons and possibly a double "agri cycle". Though it could just as well lead to long and uneven winters on some parts of the moon. For more precise answers I think you'd need computer modelling, but after all this is just means to be a sketch.

[gaggedLouise]

I think we quietly dropped the idea of a double/triple star system somewhere along the road, but it could be useful to avoid a situation where the moon would be plunged into total darkness every time it passes behind the planet - or through the shadow of the planet. With a huge gas giant, that becomes something one has to weigh in, even if the moon is far off the planet in much of its orbit. Even if a planet like Jupiter looks really luminous to us, or to someone passing in front of it, it would emit almost no visible light at all to its moons once they are out of sight of the sun, behind the planet or its shadow.

[TheGlyphstone]

It'd cut the 'dark season' in half, at least, since unless we went with a trinary star setup, there'd still be a period where one of the suns was eclipsing the other, or at enough of an angle so that it couldn't supply light/heat to the moon.

[Vekseid]

You're making this a lot harder on yourself than you need to. Just use a star with a high level of oscillation - a custom variable star that uses the schedule you set, or if you want to use known variable types, since those with month-long periods tend to be ridiculously bright, have your planet be a moon of a captured brown dwarf or something that's orbiting a cozy-safe distance away.

Edit: Actually, a BY Draconis variable would be perfect.

[TheGlyphstone]

...I hadn't thought of that, actually (mainly because I didn't know stars could oscillate their energy output the way you're describing). I suppose it would be a lot easier to just have a stable, axially rigid planet orbiting a star that oscillates. Huh.

[Oniya]

...I hadn't thought of that, actually (mainly because I didn't know stars could oscillate their energy output the way you're describing).

That would be these.

[TheGlyphstone]

So a variable star with a, say, 4-month cycle time peak-to-peak, and a planet with almost no axial tilt - would that produce a 4-month cycle of seasons, or would each season last 4 months? Just want to make sure I understand the numbers right, because I like this solution - the adventure plot I have right now calls for a planet, not a moon, so it'd be an easier and more elegant solution.

[Vekseid]

So a variable star with a, say, 4-month cycle time peak-to-peak, and a planet with almost no axial tilt - would that produce a 4-month cycle of seasons, or would each season last 4 months? Just want to make sure I understand the numbers right, because I like this solution - the adventure plot I have right now calls for a planet, not a moon, so it'd be an easier and more elegant solution.

You don't need to remove the axial tilt, necessarily - you could have 'true summer' and 'true winter' for exceptionally harsh - but thankfully short - periods.

Main issue with it being a four-month full cycle is that there is roughly a month-long lag as far as the intensity of seasons go - and this is true no matter how you make these seasons happen. Unless you use a larger star where the months would themselves be longer, you might just want to stick with a half-year cycle.

At the small size we're talking about, it's largely driven by the star's extreme rotational speed and sunspots. So the star would be somewhat oval in shape, and sunspots large enough that you could see them with the unaided eye. This also means that the period is an average - not in total.

[TheGlyphstone]

Variation can be worked with - and a half-year cycle is better than a full-year. Real-world seasons aren't always precisely the same length either.

[TheGlyphstone]

On to the next step, and rather than open an entire new thread for this, I'll repurpose this one.

Mentioned above, the population of the planet will (initially, at least) be almost entirely convicted criminals sentenced to a life of hard labor, imported from offworld and put to work. The one city on the planet is a fortified enclave that contains the processing depots, spaceport, and living quarters for all the staff and administrators needed to keep a planet running, while the rest of the surface is covered in farms of various types, connected by a network of rail lines that all lead to the central city (for transportation of crops and supplies). with no weapons other than things they might fashion out of farm tools, and basically left to govern themselves as long as they meet their harvest quotas and don't cause trouble. Assuming actual violent offenders are a minority (this is a society where failing to properly salute the mayor if he passes you on the street can earn a life sentence), what sort of self-governing culture might arise? I did some research into prison culture, but its applicability seemed limited by the omnipresence of guards in RL prisons, and the actual physical imprisonment - on this planet, the only way off would be through the spaceport, so the need for walls or cells is nonexistent.

[Oniya]

Don't know much about the culture, but you should keep in mind that all of the traditional 'ninja' weapons were basically derived from farm implements, because only samurai and nobility were allowed to carry swords.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, I expect melee weapons to be in abundance - it's not hard to convert that sort of thing. I'm more wondering how much of the traditional prison-gang culture would translate over, or if it would turn into something more approximating urban gangs with their territorial influence.

[Shjade]

Assuming actual violent offenders are a minority (this is a society where failing to properly salute the mayor if he passes you on the street can earn a life sentence), what sort of self-governing culture might arise?

Ask Australia?

[TheGlyphstone]

Ask Australia?

Hehehe.

[Shjade]

...but...but I was being serious. D:

[TheGlyphstone]

See, I don't actually no much about how Australian convicts governed themselves (though I'm certain it did not involve dragons). There's also the difference that they had to set up all the infrastructure themselves - dig the farms, smooth the roads, etc., where here it's built in place before the labor is shipped in. They have to maintain it, but it's pre-built.

[gaggedLouise]

The idea would be that the prisoners basically have to work because there is next to no import of foodstuffs (not for them at any rate), and they don't have the kind of weapons that would allow a fair share of them to survive through hunting in the wild? So they are obliged to work in the fields if they want to survive, and as long as the system works they're not supposed to have any means to stop their overseers from confiscating most of the produce: that's the idea?

I guess even if there are no guards around most of the time, the prisoner colonists might be suspicious, or afraid, of informers, people who could be reporting to the guardsmen class when these come around, or who have some sort of intermediary function. Most slave societies, and many internment systems, have "favoured captives" who get some favours by cooperating with the guards, by being appointed as overseers or report men while still remaining prisoners or slaves. The presence of such a layer, more or less overt, would stimulate gang culture because those guys tend to be both envied and loathed by the other captives. It would also lead to opportunities for duplicity, and 'double agent' tactics, working both sides of the street as gangsters use to call it.

If you want it violent and igneous, you could suppose that the rulers of the planet, in the local governing city or higher up, have permitted some kind of gladiatorial games to instill fear in the captives and provide entertainment. It's easy to us to think of Roman gladiator games as just entertainment, like boxing, but it was likely also a way of showing the ultimate cost of opposition to the ruling social order and striking a blend of terror and fascination into the hearts of people; don't attack your betters, or Caesar,  unless you want to die in the arena.  So if you have a planet filled with a convict population whose rulers are confident that these guys (only males?) are scum and also sure that they will never be able to rise and threaten them, then gladiatorial games or something like it would be logical - and they would provide opportunities for a revolt, even if the gladiators were not supposed to have free access to really good weapons.

[TheGlyphstone]

To a point - the other being that they're all technically on death row, commuted to life sentences; if they cause problems or fail to meet their quota, they can always have those sentences un-commuted and get shipped back offplanet to one various horrible form of death or another. As for hunting in the wild - here, there aren't any wilds. The entire planet is terraformed for maximum food production output...so yeah, the only way they eat is by working the fields, and working them well enough to produce the neccessary surplus.

I can definitely see an informant subclass...they'd be all over the place with the parent culture I'm using, actually. Some would be real spies, others believed to be spies, some might have been sent there because they spied on or for the wrong person...if paranoia and suspicion breed ganglike cultures, gangs it definitely will be.

Gladiatorial games, while a good idea, definitely wouldn't be a top-down cultural thing due to setting issues...venerating blood sports is a Very Bad Thing for reasons unrelated to the topic. I like the concept in a more localized format though - gangs ruling over select territories might hold fighting events for their own entertainment and to maintain a power structure. Incidentally, it's also gender-neutral, so Australia's not a horrible comparison in a lot of ways.

[gaggedLouise]

But seeing that they're all serving commuted death sentences, wouldn't it be both faster and safer for the ruler culture to have the executions, in case one or more of the workers have rebelled or broken the rules (and this would be bound to happen now and then!) - these executions carried out on the planet itself, perhaps even in public outside of the spaceport city? This would relieve them of the risks inherent in having to bring the condemned persons to a hi-sec jail (can't be many of these) and from there to a predetermined place - the spaceport - and then in a spaceship back to the parent culture. Much simpler to just kill them on the captives planet. You might feel this is not a pleasing aspect of the story or there could be some other reason, I respect that, I'm not into snuff myself, but it looks more likely to me that they would try to dispose of rebellious or difficult prisoners as soon as these have been caught. And would try to put them to death in a way that had a spectacle quality.

[TheGlyphstone]

Oh, they definitely will for serious criminals (the sort who re-offend on the planet beyond just slacking would be executed on-site) - it's just that sometimes here, being locked up until your 'death sentence' comes from being assigned to a penal legion and going to clear a minefield with your face is worse.

In fact, I'm starting to picture a very brutal sort of 'jungle justice' that prisoners might perpetuate among themselves...a slacker or troublemaker isn't just a danger to him/herself, but a potential risk of having that entire local community rounded up and used to drain the ammunition reserves of an enemy stronghold's defenders on some other war-torn planet.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Sounds like you'd be looking at a more feudal system.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, that's what it's turning into as I start to writing - a feudal social structure, though with the technology level of modern society (roughly). They labor to meet their quotas to avoid the wrath of the planet's true rulers, who otherwise never leave their fortified city with all its comforts - resentful, but impotent, and knowing any sort of uprising gets brutal retaliation.

[ReanimateMagnus]

Ooo I enjoy thinking about these things. You could technically have more than one summer if the orbit of the sun was influenced by lets say a gas giant between the said planet and was relatively closer to the sun than the plant. The gravity of the gas giant would pull it closer when it was near orbit so a sporadic summer that would appear at different intervals each year, this would have there the a summer, a fall/spring time two times a year and then either the summer would come again if the gas giant was there or if not then the first summer would be extended because of the gas giant position in orbit around the sun.