ED Astrometrics: Maps and Visualizations

Orvidius

Orvidius
As per another thread, I've added a sector list spreadsheet. This includes names from the sector cubes, as well as the spherical name override sectors. The list includes everything that the script can find that follows the standard proc-gen naming conventions ("Foobar XX-X" for instance would add "Foobar" to the list).

Details include count of systems per sector, and their average coordinates.

 

Orvidius

Orvidius
This has spring from the Hunt for Trojans thread: Added a spreadsheet for Trojan bodies. That is, planets or moons that have a nearly identical orbit to another body. These should be stable at the L4/L5 Lagrange points, making them "Trojan" bodies.

There may still be some flaws in the data, but I spot-checked to make sure some of the known Trojans are included in the list, and I flew out to a random one near to my location and verified that the planets were at 60 degrees to each other, in the same orbital path.

Spreadsheet: https://edastro.com/mapcharts/files/trojan-planets.csv

As with any of the spreadsheets I post, feel free to let me know if you spot glaring errors, etc. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes it's the data. :D
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
Added stars to the Trojan Planets spreadsheet. Since it's still mostly planets, I'll leave the name of the report alone. The script takes considerably longer to run now, and does find more cases. The number went up from a little over 9000 bodies to exactly 11000 in today's run.

I have it re-running the report again now, since I wanted to tweak the column ordering, plus have it calculate radius(km) and Earth Masses based on Solar Radius and Solar Masses. Until that completes, the previous run with stars included is still available at the URL above.
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
Updated spreadsheet is up. What's cool is that I think it found some Trojan triples. That is, a large body, with smaller bodies at both the L4 and L5 lagrange points.. Might have to visit and verify at some point. That's assuming I can find them in the spreadsheet again... lol. I also spotted a case of trojan stars, in Blua Hypue TD-T e3-7 (12 and 13 are T Tauri). EDIT: Also Schee Flyuae ZE-A g1315, 14 and 15 are T Tauri, and in Aishaink QU-O e6-959, 2 and 3 are Y brown dwarfs, and so are 1 and 2 in Joorau PW-W d1-5. Both A 13 and A 14 are T Tauri in Grea Bliae CL-Y g2.

EDIT: Also found a case of possibly Trojan primary stars, but this will need verification. Eifogy XA-Q c8-5, stars B and C are M-class red dwarfs of around the same mass, so I don't think this is right. Their eccentricities are different too. I'll probably have to tighten the filter on this.

I also changed the drawing method on the Planetary Nebulae maps. It's still not a true heat map, but it will now be more apparent when the dots overlap since their brightness will add up a bit.
 
Last edited:

schlowi123

S
About these triplets, if you find them again, would you please let us (me) know the system name. I've been looking for them but couldn't find any with my algorithm. But than again, I'm rather strict with my limits which probably excludes quite some candidates. I allow just a delta of 0.00001 (and you had 0.1 if I remember correctly).
 

schlowi123

S
Thank you :) … I have them, too. Must have overlooked them before.

Btw. it seem that we've figured out how to identify binaries in connection with the trojan hunt :) … That's science! From "it's hard and not clear" to "I totally can tell you that … and more" 🥳
 

schlowi123

S
You have in your trojans file some (very few) entries with just 1 system body candidate. I've checked one of them and that wasn't a trojan.

I hope you don't mind that I put your work "under the microscope".
I use your data to find errors in my own program and may find some peculiarities in yours because of that.
I had initially a discrepancy of over 500 systems (when counting every trojan-system just once). That made me aware, that the difference in the argument of periapsis is NOT exactly 60 degrees. I allowed for a delta of 0.00001 and that was too strict. Now I allow just 0.0001. In nature that would be … well, natural … but I thought that ED is more "fixed".

The same is probably true regarding the difference in the argument of periapsis for binary systems.But I haven't checked that.
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
No problem at all! It always helps me tune the scripts when people can find problems in it. I might have to add some rules that if there's just one candidate, it can probably be safely omitted.

I've been using some rather forgiving variance ranges. With ED, I always feel like it's better to use loose tolerances, and tighten it up when it catches too many false positives.
 

schlowi123

S
After reducing the discrepancy from over 500 to 190 I figured out that the majority of these 190 is due to missing data in the EDSM dump I work with. I guess your data is more up to date than mine.

But I found two other things in your list that do not fit to trojans.

You include a number of moons which can not be trojans because the difference in the argument of periapsis is not close to 60 degrees:
Here are three examples:
Myriesly GR-N e6-833 => 1 a + 1 b => difference = 159
Eachaiv RB-P c21-21 => 8 d + 8 e => difference = 151
Byoi Thae VE-S b45-3 => 9 a + 9 b => difference = 165
There are more, but all in all very few compared to the number of trojans.

The other thing is so extraordinary that it will get it's own thread :)

And now I'm finished with examining your data. Thank you very much again, it helped me improving my algorithm :)
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
Yeah, I'm allowing pretty much any difference in Arg. of Periapsis that isn't almost exactly 180 degrees. I actually would have expected the AoP to be the same in Trojans, with the Mean Anomaly being off by 60 degrees, but it looks like the majority of cases in ED have the AoP rotated by 60 degrees. Since these orbits should be close to circular, technically they could have any AoP value as long as the Mean Anomaly compensates. So now I'm thinking a field trip is in order, to go verify one of these. They're probably all stupidly far away from me though. ;)

EDIT: Byoi Thae VE-S b45-3 isn't too far from the bubble, but I'm off in the other direction. The other two are in the core region, so even further from my current position.
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
FYI, I've moved the DW2 video and map to their own separate page, since DW2 is officially ending today. I think my scripts will update them for a few more days to make sure this week's data is included.
 

schlowi123

S
I see … but the mean anomaly is not available in the data and can't be calculated from the information we have.
But it makes sense.
So far I've include just matches with an AoP difference of exactly 60 degrees.
But than again, for the given examples, their orbital inclination does not match either and for two of them also not the orbital eccentricity. Can they still be binaries / trojans?
But isn't an "anchor" required for the latter? I can't see an anchor in these moon system. Not even in the ones that likely are fully scanned.
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
Yeah, they might still be false positives, definitely. It might be a case of my loose restrictions catching something that it shouldn't. If the physics are correct, technically the high mass ratios need to exist between the two bodies in the trojan pair, and also between the larger body and its parent body that they're both orbiting. But I also chose to leave the mass ratio out of my checks for now, just in case StellarForge cheats. ;)
 

schlowi123

S
Oh, I didn't mean to point out false positives in your data. I just try to understand the data and you certainly have a point so I've tried to figure out how to get that into my algorithm(s).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom