The Value of Bacterium
20 Jan 2022Starnemesis
So many of us head out to find new life on distant worlds. Though there are more profitable ways of making your way through the galaxy, this is one of the newest. What is it worth fly out to a planet and scan it? Is it worth landing on a planet to hunt for that ever-elusive bacteria? Data
So far in my trip to Beagle Point, I have collected almost 500 samples of biological life. 97.1% of these samples have been collected from sources that no one else has been to since I was the first person in history to step foot on those worlds. This makes them twice as valuable as they are normally. It will be no surprise to anyone that the majority (52.49%) of samples have been bacterial colonies. Although being the most common form of life that Vista Genomics will pay to get samples from, it is also can be the hardest to find, and spending hours to find something that might only be worth 50,000cr is a waste of time. On the few occasions that I have given up looking for a sample that is supposed to be on a world that I can't find, it is a bacterium. The next 4 most common genera are fonticula (8.92%), tussock (8.51%), stratum (8.09%), and fungoida (5.19%). The least common are clypeus (0.41%), fumerola (0.41%), recepta (0.62%), electricae (0.62%), and cactoida (0.62%). Another genus of note is the brain tree. I have only taken 6 samples (1.24%) from 5 planets, and I expect that all of these had been sampled before since there was a fleet carrier in the system. All of these percentages if this was representative of the entire xenobiology in the galaxy would have a margin of error of 4%.
The data is similar to the data collected by Canonn Research Group. I am yet to collect any samples of anemone, bark mounds, sinuous tuber, crystalline shards, so these have been removed from all data. Canonn have taken 250 times the number of samples of the same genera that I have and would have a margin of error that is less than 1%. There smallest number of samples are recepta (0.37%), fumerola (0.57%), clypeus (1.11%), electricae (1.11%), and aleoids (2.65%). The main difference is that I have cactoida in my lowest 5 while they have aleoida. Aleoida is my 8th lowest numbers of samples at 1.45% just above tubus and brain trees at 1.24%. Canonn has cactoida at 3.45% and the tubus at 4.01%. So these are all very consistent. The values that Canonn have fallen within my margin of error for the same samples. The discrepancy in my order simply comes down to the number of samples. The problematic one is the brain trees, which I will get to. The most common samples for Canonn are bacterium (28.04%), tussocks (12.23%), stratum (9.85%), fonticulus (7.55%), brain trees (7.11%), and frutexa (6.21%). Putting the brain trees aside, This is still really similar to my own data. I have fungoida at 5.19% while they have them at 5.66%. While they have frutexa in the top 5 at 6.21% while I have them in the middle at 3.91%. Once again, with the exception of bacterium, Canonn's values are all within my margin of error.
There are two things that really stand out in the data, brain trees and bacterium. I have a relatively low number of brain tree samples than Canonn. So what could be the reason behind this? The first possible source of the discrepancy is the time that the samples have been collected. The first recorded brain tree for Canonn was in 3306, and the first recorded sample that I could find was in 3303. The rest of the genera that I have found have only been recorded anywhere from 3307. All of my samples have only been from the last few months. So Canonn has had an extra two years of samples before they even started with other genera. This will skew their results towards an increase in the number of samples. Since mine have been collected at the same time, the data is a little better. However, it is only me looking for them and the brain trees occur in clusters of star systems. I have only come across one cluster, so that will skew my data lower.
Bacterium shows a huge difference in percentages. My data has almost twice the percentage as Canonn's. Part of this will be the margin of error that each data set has. Mine has 4% while Canonn is less than 1%. Most of my margin of error when on the low side is taken up by bacterium. Unusual, but that is the case. But why are they still so different? Part of this will come down to the commanders collecting the data. From the reports that I have seen from other commanders complaining about looking for bacterial colonies, it seems that most commanders don't spend much time looking for bacteria. Most scan the planet and then leave if it only has bacteria. Whereas I always try. This will increase the number of samples that are taken compared to Canonn. Alternatively, I might just be getting unlucky enough to find much more bacteria than other commanders.
Value
Based on Vista Genomics we know that some species are more valuable than others. Fonticula fluctus, Tussock stigmasis, Stratum tectonicas, Fonticulua segmentatus, and Concha biconcavis all have values over 800,000cr. Conversely, 4 different species of bacterium, 2 species of tussock, and Fonticulua campestris all pay less than 100,000cr. But does that mean that after you scan a planet you should ignore bacterium? Bacterium informem pays out at 426,200cr. That is certainly worth the effort. I have picked up 12 samples of Bacterium informem, 11 of those I expect a "First Logged" bonus. So while the Bacterium informem is only 4.35% of my bacterium samples, I expect them to be worth 20% of my payout when I can finally get them Vista Genomics. Well, how about we look at some more data on Bacterium.
| Species | Canonn % | My % | Value |
| Nebulus | 0.23 | 0 | 296,300 |
| Scopulum | 0.30 | 0.4 | 280,600 |
| Verrata | 0.46 | 0.4 | 233,300 |
| Omentum | 0.51 | 0.4 | 267,400 |
| Volu | 0.69 | 0.4 | 400,500 |
| Informem | 3.96 | 4.74 | 426,200 |
| Tela | 4.52 | 2.77 | 135,600 |
| Bullaris | 5.93 | 7.91 | 89,900 |
| Acies | 8.87 | 18.97 | 50,000 |
| Alycyoneum | 14.82 | 6.72 | 119,500 |
| Cerbrus | 15.12 | 14.23 | 121,300 |
| Vesicula | 18.02 | 26.09 | 56,100 |
| Aurasus | 26.59 | 17 | 78,500 |
So, if we use this weighted average for all genus, we get the following genus values in the table below. From this data we can work out the weighted average value of all genus. From this data I come up with a value of 205,200cr. This means that anytime I use the FSS that finds biological life, I can assign a value to that planet without even scanning the planet. To keep it simple, we will say that each genus on a planet is worth 200,000cr. With this information I can now decide if I want to fly out to a planet that is 500,000ls away from the main star for 800,000cr, or 1,600,000 if it is a new system. I can also decide if it is worth hunting for an hour on a planet for bacterium that is worth 106,508cr. Personally, I'm still going to scan any planet with biological life. But I will probably restrict myself to 10mins per 100,000cr to find the first sample of any genus. For now anyway.
| Genus | Average Value |
| Bacterium | 106,508 |
| Foniticulua | 108,774 |
| Fungoida | 156,673 |
| Tussock | 178,346 |
| Osseus | 213,835 |
| Tubus | 231,800 |
| Concha | 238,558 |
| Frutexa | 247,057 |
| Cactoida | 251,106 |
| Aleoida | 317,871 |
| Electricae | 339,100 |
| Fumerola | 407,852 |
| Stratum | 439,460 |
| Clypeus | 514,652 |
| Recepta | 633,408 |