Nobel prize for the discovery of Dimidum (51 Pegasi b) - ED data incorrect

Just visited the first discovered exoplanet (you probably read about the physic nobel prize awarded yesterday for it's discovery) and recognized, that the data are not correct (51 Pegasi 1).

Was wondering a bit, as I thought that ED uses the data of the known star and planet catalogue?

Especially such a famous planet should be correct.

Didn't check all the data, but some examples (real data: http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/planet/51 Peg b/)

ED: 48,7 earth masses ; source: 146
ED: 46.668km radius ; source: >17,9 rEarth = 114.040km

...

Also the naming: in ED it is 51 Pegasi 1 and all the sources state 51 Pegasi b (you could also think about using the names, in this case Dimidum). Or are letters and numbers both possible for naming planets in astronomy and there is no right or wrong?

147096


Looks nice, though :)
 
Last edited:
No, I didn't read about it yesterday, I have other nerdy things I prefer to read, and that's just not on my list.

I've come to think of Elite as "Based On Real Data" like a Hollywood film is "Based on Actual Events".

I can live with that. I didn't come to Elite to become a space-nerd. I came to fly ships and have fun. Nerdery is not part of my definition of fun.
 
I've come to think of Elite as "Based On Real Data" like a Hollywood film is "Based on Actual Events". I can live with that. I didn't come to Elite to become a space-nerd. I came to fly ships and have fun. Nerdery is not part of my definition of fun.
That's probably a good attitude. But as far as I remember FDev advertised ED with using real data for their stellar forge, as far as they are known (and the rest is generated based on a physic model). So I'd expect correct data at least for prominent star systems. Anyone knows if they update their data with new discoveries from time to time?
 
That's probably a good attitude. But as far as I remember FDev advertised ED with using real data for their stellar forge, as far as they are known (and the rest is generated based on a physic model). So I'd expect correct data at least for prominent star systems. Anyone knows if they update their data with new discoveries from time to time?
They very likely did seed the Stellar Forge with real data, as accurate as available at the time of said seeding, and they have made updates to elements from time to time. Trappist-1 I believe was formerly called something else and renamed appropriately. Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster was also added if I recall - or at least a allusion to it was added, so it is certainly within their scope to do this if the real data conflicts with their model. As to how soon such a change would be made... I think they may have some other more pressing things to do first.
 
The questions are, though:
Is 51 Pegasi handmade or created by Stellar Forge? In the former case, which were the data known at the time the ED universe was created? In the latter case, hooray for Stellar Forge!
 
Also the naming: in ED it is 51 Pegasi 1 and all the sources state 51 Pegasi b (you could also think about using the names, in this case Dimidum). Or are letters and numbers both possible for naming planets in astronomy and there is no right or wrong?
There are two different, and opposing, systems of nomenclature at work here.

Real-world exoplanets are "numbered" using letters, starting with lowercase "b", in order of their discovery. Since we are not in a position to completely and thoroughly explore another star system, this is a reasonably logical way to go about it as it saves having to renumber everything when new inner planets are discovered, though it does mean that for many star systems, planets may well be "numbered" out of order. For example, if we discover another planet in the 51 Pegasi system, a small rocky planet in a very close orbit around the star for example, it wil be named "51 Pegasi c". But this would mean that in the "system map view" of the 51 Pegasi system, planet c would be in orbital position number 1, with planet b in position 2. Apparently the agreed-upon real-world nomenclature for exomoons is to give them roman numerals, again in order of discovery, though the system hasn't been impemented yet since no actual verified exomoons have been discovered yet. Thus, if two moons were found around Pegasi 51 b, the second one found would be Pegasi 51 b II - whether it was closer or further than moon I would be irrelevant.

ED uses a version of the standard sci-fi planetary numbering system, where stars are given capital letters beginning with "A", planets are then given numbers, beginning with "1", in order of their distance from the primary star. Moons are given lowercase letters, beginning with "a", in order of their distance from the planet they orbit. So in ED, that hypothetical second moon in 51 Pegasi would be called "51 Pegasi 2 a" (or "2 b"). You obviously cannot use this system unless you have reasonable confidence that an entire star sytem has been thoroughly explored and all planets have been detected. Note that ED "cheats" here, when you're out exploring: the planets always have fixed numbers, that do not change if you haven't discovered all the planets yet. So in a partially-explored system, you might have planets 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10 discovered and named - we magically know exactly where the "missing" planets are and what their names/numbers are, even though no-one has ever detected them!

You obviously cannot use both systems of nomenclature in the same universe, as that would cause confusion, especially as ED only shows capital letters in many instances. "51 PEGASI B" (with capital letter B) would be the name of a star, not a planet, using the standard ED nomenclature. So all the real-world planets placed into ED have been renamed or re-numbered to fit with ED's nomenclature. If you look in the TRAPPIST-1 system in ED, for example, you will notice that all the planets there are given ED-style numbers, rather than their current letter designations. The Earth-like world in ED known as "TRAPPIST-1 4" is the planet known in the real-world as "TRAPPIST-1 e".
 
Last edited:
That's probably a good attitude. But as far as I remember FDev advertised ED with using real data for their stellar forge, as far as they are known (and the rest is generated based on a physic model). So I'd expect correct data at least for prominent star systems. Anyone knows if they update their data with new discoveries from time to time?
True FD used some real world data in the stellar forge and some handwavium for the rest, based on educated guessing and real world science.
 
Just visited the first discovered exoplanet (you probably read about the physic nobel prize awarded yesterday for it's discovery) and recognized, that the data are not correct (51 Pegasi 1).

Was wondering a bit, as I thought that ED uses the data of the known star and planet catalogue?

Especially such a famous planet should be correct.

Didn't check all the data, but some examples (real data: http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/planet/51 Peg b/)

ED: 48,7 earth masses ; source: 146
ED: 46.668km radius ; source: >17,9 rEarth = 114.040km

...

Also the naming: in ED it is 51 Pegasi 1 and all the sources state 51 Pegasi b (you could also think about using the names, in this case Dimidum). Or are letters and numbers both possible for naming planets in astronomy and there is no right or wrong?

View attachment 147096

Looks nice, though :)
[/QUO
Just visited the first discovered exoplanet (you probably read about the physic nobel prize awarded yesterday for it's discovery) and recognized, that the data are not correct (51 Pegasi 1).

Was wondering a bit, as I thought that ED uses the data of the known star and planet catalogue?

Especially such a famous planet should be correct.

Didn't check all the data, but some examples (real data: http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/planet/51 Peg b/)

ED: 48,7 earth masses ; source: 146
ED: 46.668km radius ; source: >17,9 rEarth = 114.040km

...

Also the naming: in ED it is 51 Pegasi 1 and all the sources state 51 Pegasi b (you could also think about using the names, in this case Dimidum). Or are letters and numbers both possible for naming planets in astronomy and there is no right or wrong?

View attachment 147096

Looks nice, though :)
how is it incorrect inform this young high school drop out
 
They very likely did seed the Stellar Forge with real data, as accurate as available at the time of said seeding, and they have made updates to elements from time to time. Trappist-1 I believe was formerly called something else and renamed appropriately. Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster was also added if I recall - or at least a allusion to it was added, so it is certainly within their scope to do this if the real data conflicts with their model. As to how soon such a change would be made... I think they may have some other more pressing things to do first.
I get a headache just trying to read this
 
how is it incorrect inform this young high school drop out
The OP cited some incorrectness in the first post:

ED: 48,7 earth masses ; source: 146
ED: 46.668km radius ; source: >17,9 rEarth = 114.040km
Translation: Current real-world observations say that 51 Pegasi b is supposed to be 146 earth-masses, which also lines up with its official name "Dimidium" (which is Latin for "half", since it weighs half as much as Jupiter, at about 300 earth-masses). But in ED, planet 51 Pegasi 1 only weighs 48.7 earth-masses.

Likewise, our current best-guess as to the planet's size is about 114,040 km radius. But in ED, the planet is only 46,668 km radius.

Ordinarily in cases like this, my stock answer would be "ED is probably using old data", but in this case, the planetary mass of about 146 earth-masses is the "old data" - this planet was originally found by analysing the doppler shift of the starlight from 51 Pegasi, so when it was discovered, its mass was just about all we knew about it. So "using old data" cannot be the reason for the discrepancy.

My assumption would therefore be that whoever wrote in the planet data for ED, simply made a typo - they put "48.7" instead of "148.7". The radius would then be calculated by Stellar Forge algorithms from the planet's mass and Sudarsky Class, rather than be another typo. In other words, because the planet's mass is wrong, the radius is wrong too; correct the mass, and the radius will automatically correct itself.
 
Fly your geek flag, baby!

As far as I understand it stellar/celestial naming is consistent/standardized. However, bodies and stars that were discovered before standardization kept the names the discoverers gave them, or were given during a period of prestandardization where the naming scheme was based on discoverer names and catalogue number.
 
Top Bottom