Is the Exclusion Zone of a Black Hole some multiple of the Schwartschild Radius?

[Shinkaze]

So I'm watching this rather interesting video on Photon orbits around black holes (i.e. what does a Blackhole actually look like anyways)

So this brings me a question. Now that I've visited Sag A* and also visited smaller mass Black holes as well I am beginning to wonder what the "Body Exclusion Zone" is that I am hitting keeping me from proceeding any closer to the black hole?

Is this the outside stable orbit of the black hole? (i.e. 2.6 Schwartschield Radi?) Is this the same or similar to the yellow line exclusion zone around stars?

It really begs the question of how exclusion zones are calculated and if they are arbitrary or representative of some point where the math flips our FSD's off.

Curious to hear people's thoughts on the matter.

 

[Orvidius]

Sadly, I don't think ED is that smart about black holes. It would be interesting to do some of the calculations,. However ED appears to have a basic exclusion zone radius that is just an additional percentage over the object's physical radius, for most objects that are over a minimum size. So this affects planets, stars, and Sgr-A*. For anything under some unknown minimum size, it appears there's a separate minimum for the exclusion zone, which comes into play for white dwarfs, neutron stars, and stellar remnant black holes. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm under.

Has anyone done any calculations on these? Or what the minima are?

 

[Shinkaze]

Sadly, I don't think ED is that smart about black holes. It would be interesting to do some of the calculations,. However ED appears to have a basic exclusion zone radius that is just an additional percentage over the object's physical radius, for most objects that are over a minimum size. So this affects planets, stars, and Sgr-A*. For anything under some unknown minimum size, it appears there's a separate minimum for the exclusion zone, which comes into play for white dwarfs, neutron stars, and stellar remnant black holes. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm under.

Has anyone done any calculations on these? Or what the minima are?

I'd be curious to determine how the radius is determined. I just noticed last night landing on a 1.12G planet that the exclusion zone was much tighter to the surface than on either Stars, or smaller dwarf planets, so I don't think it's entirely proportional based on size, but maybe it's not really mass either, because then the star would have a tighter exclusion zone than the 1.12G planet.

I think you are right though about the stellar remnants having some flat base number, they all seam to be similar size (visually, haven't really looked at the system stats). Sag A* though was definitely much bigger than a typical black hole. The lensing area was easily the size of a star.

 

[varonica]

Sadly, I don't think ED is that smart about black holes. It would be interesting to do some of the calculations,. However ED appears to have a basic exclusion zone radius that is just an additional percentage over the object's physical radius, for most objects that are over a minimum size.

I think the exclusion zone is based on gravity, that's why the neutron star exclusion zone is so far from the neutron star. It should be easy enough to work out.

 

[Zieman]

Now this begs some empirical data and some calculations.

 

[varonica]

Now this begs some empirical data and some calculations.

It indeed does, I think the exclusion zone will be distance from the centre of mass determined by gravitional field strength, so we should be able to test it easily enough.

 

[Orvidius]

An excuse to fly into some black holes? This could be interesting.

 

[vorchaeus]

I desperately want realistic black holes in E. I've been fascinated by black holes since I was about 12 years old, and I honestly got this game because of a youtube vid I saw where someone had explored their way to SagA*. I had no idea what was going on but I wanted to do the same. I've always been a little disappointed by the black hole modeling. It's got basic gravitational lensing but that's about it... no discernible event horizon shadow, no accretion disk. Forget space legs and atmospheric landings, I'd settle for realistic black holes!

(As an aside, I do love that neutron stars also gravitationally lens. That's pretty sweet. I suspect normal stars do as well, but they'd be much weaker and less noticeable.)

 

[Saool]

Sadly, I don't think ED is that smart about black holes. It would be interesting to do some of the calculations,. However ED appears to have a basic exclusion zone radius that is just an additional percentage over the object's physical radius, for most objects that are over a minimum size. So this affects planets, stars, and Sgr-A*. For anything under some unknown minimum size, it appears there's a separate minimum for the exclusion zone, which comes into play for white dwarfs, neutron stars, and stellar remnant black holes. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm under.

Has anyone done any calculations on these? Or what the minima are?

I agree with others that the EZ is not an additional percentage. The EZ on Red and Brown dwarves seems proportionality much further off their surfaces than say an A or O class star.

However I have no idea myself, what it is based off.

 

[Dr. Nagi]

I agree with others that the EZ is not an additional percentage. The EZ on Red and Brown dwarves seems proportionality much further off their surfaces than say an A or O class star.

However I have no idea myself, what it is based off.

That also goes for White Dwarfs and Neutrons. Compared to black holes where it is TINY!
I think heat also plays a role in the calculation, as that is the thing that damages our ships when we get too close.

 

[Orvidius]

That's the thing. Are the brown dwarfs hitting that "minimum" value (which could be different for stars versus planets), or is it factoring in a combination of mass and radius? Without some hard numbers, it's hard to draw any conclusions.

 

[Zieman]

My awesome sample of two M-class stars suggests that body size is more important than body mass.
0.65 solar radii, 0.44 solar masses star EZ is at 1.78 Ls while 0.60 solar radii, 0.46 solar masses EZ is at 1.67 Ls.
Also, it could be that the exclusion zone is actually calculated from the surface, equalling to "body radius"+formula - mass may play role in that "formula" part.

 

[Orvidius]

My awesome sample of two M-class stars suggests that body size is more important than body mass.
0.65 solar radii, 0.44 solar masses star EZ is at 1.78 Ls while 0.60 solar radii, 0.46 solar masses EZ is at 1.67 Ls.
Also, it could be that the exclusion zone is actually calculated from the surface, equalling to "body radius"+formula - mass may play role in that "formula" part.

It's a small sample set, but it's worth noting that the first one's EZ is approximately 18% over its physical radius, whereas the second one is about 20% more. The second one is also more massive, by about 4.5%, so mass probably does factor into it somehow. It's just a shame that the journals don't capture EZ radius when we scan things. That would have been cool, to have a huge data set from that.