Journey to the known unbeknownst records of the galaxy

For archival purpose:
An analysis revealed that the size of giants, super giants and dwarfs (that is normal star dwarfs, NOT white dwarfs) is NOT as it is in the real universe. E.g., are most M (Red giants) smaller than Sol or M (Red dwarfs) exist with radii much larger than Sol's.
A proper classification is not possible (see the discussion under the given link). Hence I just made up limits which shall not be passed as when a (super) giant or dwarf shall be considered as such.
  • The radius of giants needs to be larger than 23 solar radii (because of a classic book).
  • The radius of super giants needs to be larger than 420 solar radii (because of another classic book)
  • And finally, (regular star) dwarfs must be smaller than 1 solar radius.
If the star under question is smaller (or larger in the dwarf case) than that value it shall NOT be considered as record holding body.

I've updated the first post with this information.

Edit: However, the red "giant" in the above post which made me do this analysis shall NOT be removed. Thus it is now unique in a second way: it's the only "giant" star with a radius smaller than Sol's that is considered as a record holding body.
 
Last edited:
I'm back from vacation.

At first I want to point out that under the modified conditions for giant stars the actual M (Red giant) Star with the highest orbital inclination (value = 89.998833 degrees) would be Hypiae Phyloi AQ-N d7-127 A.

It has a radius of more than 29 Sol radii. So I would say it is a proper giant :) .

I will NOT visit it, because I visited already the M (Red giant) Star with the highest orbital inclination. If I start to re-visit old records every time the conditions change, I will never finish.

OK, at the time of writing the new EDSM data was downloaded and processed, but the following five entries are still with the data from 3305-05-18.
 
After many jumps I reached Smootoae PC-D c12-35 1.

This is a FOURfold record holder. It is the Metal-rich body with the shortest semi major axis and the smallest orbital circumference (this makes two records) and it is landable (another two records).

The value for the semi major axis is 18998.193270103446 km. This gives a circumference of 118975.40133737856 km.
Yes, dear reader, you read that right.

These values can't be right! Or can they? using the EDSM webinterface I've checked the numbers after mapping but it still shows "0.00 au". In the mid May data the exact value is 1.2699507867393732e-07 au.
The distance to arrival is 7.19 ls and in the orrery the orbit is an (almost) perfect circle!.

Is this another blunder in the data? I mean? A semi major axis of less than 20,000 km? That should be inside the parent star.

Or am I misunderstanding something? Please fellow data analysts, help me with this (again).

Not related: This is now the second time that a semi major axis record is correlated to a circumference record. I really need to check if this is always the case. If yes, I'm going to throw one of these categories out.
That may take a while though, because I'm a bit occupied with other stuff.

Anyway, this planet is moving so fast, that during the mapping process the probe stripes bend.

133789


I've never seen that before.

Anyway, here …

133790


… I've tried to get a nice picture of a simultaneous moon and sunrise … or … øhm … æhm … yes, that is what that is.
I like the strong contrast in just one image.
unfortunately I had to zoom out a bit, thus the moon appears a bit deformed, which it isn't in reality.

This landing is a good opportunity to repair my FSD. All those neutron boosted jumps wear it down. Fortunately I have five AFMU's. Totally useful these things. In my opinion you are just a real explorer if you head out into the black with at least two of them! … rofl
 
Auphaibs ZM-F b43-2 B was just a couple of jumps away from the last system (as were the following three, too).

I liked this record holding body since it gave me some time to relax. With a value of 828,093 ls is it the L (Brown dwarf) Star furthest away from the point of entry into the system.

This is a category we haven't had so far … and yes, as written in the mission statement am I visiting everything from up close. So I could eat dinner without further disturbances.

Otherwise, nothing spectacular (as also written in the mission statement).

133792
 
Auphairsts EE-S b10-0 B 1 is as unspectacular as it gets.

With a value of 89.99812796325034 degrees is it the landable (!) Rocky Ice world with the highest axial tilt. There is another Rocky Ice world with a sligthly larger value for this attribute but it is not landable.

Anyway, it can't be seen that this planet is basically rolling along it's orbit … or can it in this picture?

133794


Anyway, let's rather look at another sunrise.

133795


Maybe not spectacular, but exactly the reason why I take all the lonely hours upon me :)
 
Another body with a characteristic that has an interesting value.

The semi major axi of Plaa Briae SX-U d2-15 AB 3 deviates just 5.515495393737524e-09 from the Boltzmann constant (as usual ignoring the order of magnitude).

Just two other bodies come equally close:
Both times it is the semi major axis that has this value.
There seems to be another thing going on in the stellar forge. Because it seems not natural that such special values appearing just in one (or a few) characteristics. Anwyay, here is the body of interest of this entry.

133796


It is a bit funny in how far the actual appearance of such a planet differs from the picture on EDSM.
 
The final entry for today and with the 3305-05-18 data.

Pro Chruia KI-K d8-68 3 a is the Class III gas giant with the lowest gravity. It has a value of just 0.2829573341208086 g.

The second picture I took after stepping into a spaceship, a bit more than a year ago, was me, flying along the rings of a ringed planet. And that has never lost its fascination:

133798


The thing that is rolling around on said ring at the other side of the planet is actually the parent brown dwarf.
 
Of course! New data and new conditions made me go backwards. Fortunately I was just 28 jumps away from Drooteou NQ-X a14-1 B.
It is the T (Brown dwarf) Star with the highest orbital period. Its value is 2424048975872 seconds which are approximately 76866 years.
Hence I had to fly quite a while to get there. I value this, since this does not require my attention which allows me to clean the galley.

And then I arrived here …

133888


… and it was NOT business as usual, since I usually don't fly that close to such bodies. What I like is: the hue :) .
I also scanned everything in this system. Before, just the two stars were reported on EDSM. Of course, since there is nothing of interest in this system. It's just icy bodies and nothing else. Why should anyone do more than the honk?

But now, onwards now, the next body of interest is more than 70 jumps away.
 
The value for the semi major axis is 18998.193270103446 km. This gives a circumference of 118975.40133737856 km.
Yes, dear reader, you read that right.

These values can't be right! Or can they? using the EDSM webinterface I've checked the numbers after mapping but it still shows "0.00 au". In the mid May data the exact value is 1.2699507867393732e-07 au.
The distance to arrival is 7.19 ls and in the orrery the orbit is an (almost) perfect circle!.
I think I have solved that mystery.

As (somewhat) discussed in a different thread belong the orbital parameters to the binary system and NOT to the barycenter of said system. And all the orbital parameters for Smootoae PC-D c12-35 1 indicate that it is one of the partners in a binary system.

This is bad! Because many of the records depend on these parameters.
Even though it would mean a tremendous increase in the analysis time I've thought about excluding binary systems (as I did with too small giants). The problem is that for many binary systems just one of the planets is available in the database. Hence an algorithm could not find the corresponding partner and would register a regular planet.

AAGRHAGHRGAHGRHAG!

Hence, I may have to remove all of these (potential) records.

I'm sorry for the rant. But my huge project just seems to have become much smaller :(
 
For archival purpose; three things in one post.

I went through the parameters and decided the following:
- semiMajorAxis + circumference of the orbit + orbital period
=> I will use just the high-records values, not the low-records.
=> Planets will in this case likely NOT be in a binary system.
=> Stars still will be. But I think if stars orbit each other it always counts as a binary system.

- orbital eccentricity
=> I don't think that bodies in binary systems have high orbital eccentricites
=> If the above is wrong it will be interesting to look at anyway.

- orbital inclination
=> I've decided to throw this completely out since I can not determine if it is for a planet / star with respect to the main star.

- average orbital velocity
=> I'll drop this … but with a heavy heart since this was (somewhat) the reason why I started this whole endeavour and a bit of time went into reading up on the stuff to calculate it (well, mainly for the determination of the circumference).
=> But the binary system issue can not be solved, neither for low, nor for high values



I've also checked the semi major axis - circumference issue.

In practice it is true that if a body holds the record for the one, it (usually) also holds the record for the other.

In general however the following has to be considered.
  • One body holds the record for semi major axis and a second body has a semi major axis just a bit smaller.
  • If then the eccentricity of the former is (sufficiently) larger than the eccentricity of the latter, the latter will have a larger circumference than the former.
This happened at least twice in the data from 3305-06-04. Thus I will keep both, even though it means that for the vast majority of celestial bodies these two records are attributed to just one.


Something completely different:
I allow for smaller super giants. The cutoff was so far 420 solar radii and I lowered that to 230 solar radii. That should be impressive enough.

Well, now I need to implement the changes into the code and then run the analysis again.
 
While I jumped to and visited Pru Chruia CP-O b49-2 10 d and Pru Chruia CP-O b49-2 10 e the analysis with the new conditions was running. The above two binary moons would not have been registered under these new conditions but I wanted to include them, since they illustrate the above discovered problems.

So for the last time two Icy bodies that hold both records for the lowest orbital period and they are landable.

The interesting thing is, that these bodies hold these records also for ALL, in EDSM registered, bodies.

So another fourfold record holder. Or must it be multiplied by two? Or divided by two? … I'm confused.

The value of this orbital parameter is identical for both bodies and is 9.259259397232974e-06 days = 0.800000011920929 s. No other body in the galaxy has such a small value for the orbital period.

One (or maybe just me) may wonder how that is possible … well … it is probably not possible and another glitch in stellar forge … or at least in the EDSM data. Scanning and mapping did not change this.

I also wonder how I can be the first who scanned these planet for EDSM? How did they appear in the database if nobody has scanned them before?

Here I am on moon "D". It has green geysers.

134168


And here I am on moon "E". It has brown geysers.

134169


In both cases, the respectively other moon is looming over me. I stayed for the night and made a small detour in the name of science the next day.

And from tomorrow on, data from the new analysis will be used. Mainly quite a number of entries will have vanished.
 
It has been a while, but this has two reasons.
1.: Trojam hunting
2.: The distances increased.

But here I am looking at Blaea Free YK-V d3-0 A, the White Dwarf (DAV) Star with the highest orbital eccentricity:
134807


Well, actually I'm not looking at the white dwarf itself, because the glare is not nice. But I guess you can imagine where it is ;) .

Anyway, the value of this characteristic is 0.730991 which is unfortunately rather far away from 1. It equates to a heigth to width ratio of just 1:2. Not impressive, hence I don't post the Orrery screenshot.

Onwards, to the next record … I can promise you that much: it will be unimpressive, too :p
 
One if the luxury items I allow on board is my comic collection (estimated mass … øhm … 100 kg or so). I started collecting DC comics back in 3283 but stopped more or less gradually already 6 years later due to being a student. Anyway, that collection needed some re-packing which is a perfect task to be done while jumping.
Long story short: I have a bit of a backlog.

As promised, somehting unimpressive. The CJ Star with the highest orbital period is Dryiqeau NM-M d7-13 A. The value is 871554613247.97 seconds which is more than 27600 years.

It is also another start that tried to kill me. I should either get less close to these giants or get those heat sinks installes I've been thinking about for quite a while now.

Anyway, here I am at a position as far away as Gaia is from Sol …
134911


… it is rather large, indeed.
What I find much more fascinating though is the fact that it was discovered first by one of the great starfarers of our past: David Bowman! I wonder how (and why) he got this entry into Universal Cartographics database.

Onwards!
 
Myiesai AA-A h47 2 is the White Dwarf (DAB) Star with the highest (so far) known axial tilt. It has a value of 89.50231013517514 degrees. Seeing this Orrery picture of the (sub)system that belongs to it, …
134916


… one may imagine the high tilt. Because actually seeing the tilt is … well … at least I can't see it.

Nonetheless, I've landed on the moon to the closest planet of said white dwarf. The moon is really close to the planet. So the sight of this close body is impressive in itself. But here I look upon the white dwarf:
134917


I wonder what tales would be told in a civilization growing up with such something in the sky?!
 
Myiesoae AA-A h46 A is the Wolf-Rayet NC Star with the lowest age. It is just 2 Million years.
Well, the value itself is NOT a record. It literally pops up (at least) thousands of times for many types of stars. It seems this is the lowest age the stellar forge is able to create.
However, after having a quick look at the data, it seems that if just a single one of a whole class of stars has this low age THAT is uncommon. Just one other star type has just one star with an age of 2 Million years. All others have either many with that age (in which case I will not visit them) or the lowest age is higher or both. Btw. this is the case for many of the possible records which is the reason why they may seem missing in a couple of years, when I'm finished with this journey.

Anywyay, here is said Wolf-Rayet star:
134920
 
Right, Lyaiseae AA-A h0 A is the Wolf-Rayet O Star with the lowest absolute magnitude with a value of -10.69021!

Wait a moment. … Absolute magnitude? … wasn't there a … … … … there was! … O! M! G! That star is just 10,000 times less luminous than the whole galaxy!
Because low is actually high and vice versa.

But then again … there are other stars that shine even brigther.

Being so close, …

134954


… I should probably install curtains … imagining it … tihihi … than again, there is probably something in the windows that automatically dims too bright light. Otherwise I would probably be blind already.

Also: David Bowman has been here first … again!

And unrelated: this star made me aware of the fact that stars with an age lower than 2 Million years exist. The text in the system map reads " < 1 Million years". But in the data it has the value < 0 > (zero) … and zero is evaluated as … correct: False, hence it doesn't didn't show up. But then again … zero is boring in this case :p
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom