That picture tallies with something I've noticed a few times on my current trip. I think I wrote this elsewhere but what I'm seeing is the lensing effect being quite strong very far out, even for relatively low mass black holes. Upon getting closer it virtually vanishes. For example, on my current trip I was heading towards a 25 mass black hole and could very clearly see the lensing effect from 5000 ls out but by the time I got within scanning range it was negligible. I don't know much about astrophysics but this is right, or is it likely a bug?
-
Greetings Commander, want a more instant approach to your questions and need for help? Check out the Galactic Academy Discord server!
Feel free to join the Galactic Academy Discord server by clicking here!
Guide / Tutorial Nutter’s explorers guide to the Galaxy
- Thread starter Nutter
- Start date
That picture tallies with something I've noticed a few times on my current trip. I think I wrote this elsewhere but what I'm seeing is the lensing effect being quite strong very far out, even for relatively low mass black holes. Upon getting closer it virtually vanishes. For example, on my current trip I was heading towards a 25 mass black hole and could very clearly see the lensing effect from 5000 ls out but by the time I got within scanning range it was negligible. I don't know much about astrophysics but this is right, or is it likely a bug?
Went to Pleiades and back yesterday. So I went looking for where to go next. Imagine my disappointment when I went to look at the Eagle Nebula, NGC6611:
Not so sure I want to go there now.
Update: Just in case I do, should I pack a repair kit? Just going to Pleiades put most of my kit to 98% (ASP with everything A class). Eagle Nebula is 30x further.
Not so sure I want to go there now.
Update: Just in case I do, should I pack a repair kit? Just going to Pleiades put most of my kit to 98% (ASP with everything A class). Eagle Nebula is 30x further.
Last edited:
Letter is class (colour).
Number is temperature (0 highest 9 lowest).
Roman numeral is luminosity (how brightly it shines)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification
Number is temperature (0 highest 9 lowest).
Roman numeral is luminosity (how brightly it shines)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification
Last edited:
So far as we can tell (earlier discussion upthread), the A, AB and B are analogous to the class subdivisions for supergiants (Ia, Iab, Ib);
Va - extremely luminous dwarfs
Vab - luminous dwarfs
Vb - normal dwarfs
What Vz means is ambiguous from the linked link, but my guess is that it refers to low metallicity Population II stars. This is possibly borne out by the odd distribution of B0 Vz stars which appear to be splattered onto the map without regard to the surrounding areas. Or that could be something else entirely.
I will investigate but it's gonna take a while to gather enough data.
ETA: preliminary investigations into M dwarfs of different types suggests that the whole thing is screwed-up and complicated. I've been flitting around red dwarfs near Lambda Andromedae and points galactic east, and so far it looks like there's a whole bunch of possibly hand-coded M
V systems around Sol and another group of M VA systems outside it - clearly I need to broaden the search further out to see whether M V, VAB, VB, VZ can be found somewhere in the wild. Still found no M9 V stars, only M9 VI. Even when the radius and/or mass of the M9 VI are higher than those of an M8 VA. ^^ Also found an M2 V with much lower mass, radius and temperature(!) than M3, 4 and 5 Vs, and other Ms as system primary when there are more massive stars in-system. All strange. NEED MORE INPUT, STEPHANIE.
Last edited:
So far as we can tell (earlier discussion upthread), the A, AB and B are analogous to the class subdivisions for supergiants (Ia, Iab, Ib);
Va - extremely luminous dwarfs
Vab - luminous dwarfs
Vb - normal dwarfs
What Vz means is ambiguous from the linked link, but my guess is that it refers to low metallicity Population II stars. This is possibly borne out by the odd distribution of B0 Vz stars which appear to be splattered onto the map without regard to the surrounding areas. Or that could be something else entirely.
I will investigate but it's gonna take a while to gather enough data.
ETA: preliminary investigations into M dwarfs of different types suggests that the whole thing is screwed-up and complicated. I've been flitting around red dwarfs near Lambda Andromedae and points galactic east, and so far it looks like there's a whole bunch of possibly hand-coded M
I've been moving around ~500Ly from Sol just going from G class stars and finding their terraformable ranges and I think there is indeed a relation between the luminisity of a star (VA vs VAB) etc and the terraformable range. The way it looks is that for each star type (G6VA lets say) there's a certain range that then gets changed via it's mass (or radius/temp).
I need to get more datapoints but in general:
- for a 'normal' G star terraformable range is ~0.7 to ~1.5 Au (350Ls to 750Ls)
- for a 'large' or luminous G class star terraformable range is ~1 to ~2 Au (500Ls to 1000 Ls)
- for a 'small' G class star terraformable range is ~0.5 to ~1.2 Au (250 Ls to 600Ls)
I'm focusing on this size since I think this will help most starting explorers since these ranges and the benefits for terraformable planets tells them that they can get large profits via an intermediate scanner (max spot 1000Ls) and a detailed surface scanner while still staying relatively close to home (>500Ly to avoid NPC pirates but <1000 Ly so they're close to home)
Jackie btw could you share once again the estimated parameter curves for the planets values? I'm guessing these firmed up a bit since you got some more datapoints.
(Looking at the Cartographics records holder will also give us an idea of how far out we need to estimate values ... for Ex: High Metal Content that are CFT range in mass from ~0.06 to ~4.1 so we know in a sense the value of a HMC CFT regardless of its parameters)
Last edited:
Yes. I was frustrated with giving glib "1/4 AU / 1/2 AU / 1 AU / 2 AU / 4 AU" answers to "where are the habitable zones" so I tried to pin it down more exactly through observation.
This proves inexact as there's a very high degree of variation even within the class subdivisions and there are some stars where the habitable zones are completely inconsistent for no obvious reason; also, I've found stars whose parameters are not at all consistent with their given class and/or size. Broadly I got some reasonable bands narrowed down for "where to find an ammonia planet around an M0" or "where to find an Earth-like world around an F6" and so on, but there are too many oddities for a universal solution.
This evening I started looking at main sequence M stars - as noted above the vast majority of M stars are "VA." I moved on to K stars and found that they're mostly "VA" with some "VAB." I found no K
VAB with n greater than 5. While I wasn't able to gather a huge amount of data it certainly looks as you say that the VAB stars are lighter and smaller than their VA counterparts of the same spectral class (equals temperature); so that fits with what we expected. I guess that for red dwarfs (small K, M) there's not enough distinction for VAB to be noticeably different, but for bigger stars there's enough variation, so we probably get VAB, VB more often in the brighter stars.Yes, easier to find and also less travel time. I have a lot of notes on what type of star class system had valuable stuff in; I'll need to organise them but should be able to get some approximate frequencies like "1 in 10 M star systems" or "1 in 2 G star systems" or whatever.
I haven't collected that many more recently, though I did find an interesting one - a uninhabited but terraformed earth-like world which returned only a low value, around that of an ordinary unterraformable water world. I wasn't expecting that and will look for more. I'll post up the graphs tomorrow if I get the chance to make ones with later data in them. While the curves I've got fit fairly well, by looking at the values info in Universal Cartographics they're not the ones the game uses!
More of a rough bodge that's bludgeoned into fitting. Yeah, someone's robbed my high mass water world of its Cartographics title but I found a huge ammonia world to compensate - its worth was almost that of a 2 earth mass earthlike world. There's a clear high-end value for gas giants at just over 4000 earth masses (~ 13 Jupiter masses) which is not strictly realistic as there's overlap between high mass gas giants and low mass brown dwarfs. There's some gargantuan high metal content worlds out there.
Here's the up-to-date version of my attempts to find habitable zones (with the VA versus VAB thing on the second page).
Here's my current base values on how much things are worth. Hasn't changed much; I should be able to do a new version now that UC is easier to use.
I've seen also that it's not just a question of distance. It depends also on the object that is at that distance being in the right range of parameters to allow it to become terraformable (Just came upon a great example of this of a system where there's a ~5.3 mass HMC world at ~2Au that's not terraformable but its moon that's 0.26 Mass is terraformable.
Sorry, the spreadsheet could be clearer: K. Min and K. Max are the lowest and highest observed distances of that object. B. Min and B. Max are boundaries where that object doesn't appear.
So for instance for a G0, looking at High Metal Content / Candidate for Terraforming;
B. Min 0.87 - I saw an HMC at this distance and it was not CFT, despite being of a mass that would ordinarily be CFT
K. Min 0.98 - I saw an HMC at this distance and it was CFT
K. Max 1.59 - I saw an HMC at this distance and it was CFT
B. Max 1.91 - I saw an HMC at this distance and it was not CFT, despite being of a mass that would ordinarily be CFT
It's been a slow process narrowing these bands down, and sometimes there are overlaps. Generally it's more accurate the lower the mass of the star.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Yes. There's some sort of similar relation governing many of the world types, I think. Metal rich versus High Metal Content, Rocky/Ice (Riceball!) versus Icy, Water World versus everything... and I think that satellites of planets are a special case somehow. And there's that weird thing where the last object in a system, or the last moon out from a planet, can be very massive.
Regarding habitable zones, from my observations, particularly around neutron stars and red super giants I feel like star type, brightness, slar mass even can be discarded as factors in determining where it will lie. I believe its just a function of the stars temperature and surface area with which it can radiate that heat which determines where the CTF's will be.
So I think we could discard star type from the equation (though it is a very useful guide) and just makes a chart of temperature vs solar radius to see where the sweet spot will be.
So I think we could discard star type from the equation (though it is a very useful guide) and just makes a chart of temperature vs solar radius to see where the sweet spot will be.
With the 1/2 update I notice this:
· Heat now primarily affects modules, only damaging hull once it reaches catastrophic levels
So does it make sense to bring an auto repair module with you while exploring now?
· Heat now primarily affects modules, only damaging hull once it reaches catastrophic levels
So does it make sense to bring an auto repair module with you while exploring now?
Yes, I think so. Though there is also a "shutdown and reboot" mode which repairs damaged modules at the (great) expense of healthy ones, available to all ships, which is probably better for patching up combat damage.
dude... ice planet with surface temp 2,464 degreesis it a record of some sort??
also the pressure... 535,460.56 atmospheres
edit already checked - not a record breaker... but single most impressive planet i have found in my travels. no Earthlike was as fascinating for me as this one is... i love it
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback. Because I'm close to kitting out my Cobra for an exploration, it's good to know about these little changes when I'm this side of the galaxy.
Hi All, sorry i've been neglecting our guide, i've been forced to return from my trip sooner than I had liked, I did reach my target but now rushing back and hope to land tomorrow...
I'll be passing over the Eagle nebula in about an hour, really glad to see the eagle, it means I'm nearly home, just under 8,000ly to go.
Lots of data aboard and 89% hull, all my own fault, flying into stars whilst looking at other screens!
Once I land I will tidy up this guide, thank you for all your input and research you have put into this guide.
Nutter
I'll be passing over the Eagle nebula in about an hour, really glad to see the eagle, it means I'm nearly home, just under 8,000ly to go.
Lots of data aboard and 89% hull, all my own fault, flying into stars whilst looking at other screens!
Once I land I will tidy up this guide, thank you for all your input and research you have put into this guide.
Nutter
I've got a general "heads-up" warning for anyone out exploring - Point Defence turrets, which are currently massless, are likely to mass 0.5 tons each once the 1.2 update goes on. Could make a noticeable difference to the jump range on a small ship, if you've got them fitted, so watch out you're not stuck somewhere that needs the absolute maximum jump range of your ship if you've got any fitted!
Just a quick question to someone who knows something... Is it ordinary for class M red giants to be small in size? Just found one with solar mass of 0.4. I guess it's just beginning to expand?
E: just looked at my previous posts in this thread, I'm beginning to look like a village idiot with my stupid questions but oh well
E: just looked at my previous posts in this thread, I'm beginning to look like a village idiot with my stupid questions but oh well
Last edited:
Just a quick question to someone who knows something... Is it ordinary for class M red giants to be small in size? Just found one with solar mass of 0.4. I guess it's just beginning to expand?
E: just looked at my previous posts in this thread, I'm beginning to look like a village idiot with my stupid questions but oh well
That's on the small side, but still reasonable, I think. Stars which begin life as "M" and "K" will still be on the Main Sequence as they're very long lived (and may never become red giants anyway if they're very small); a 0.4 solar mass red giant would have to be a larger star (probably "G" or "F" type) that had lost a considerable fraction of its mass somehow over time. There's various ways that happens.
The basic gist for giants is that an ordinary star is fusing hydrogen to helium in its core - when the hydrogen is running low you end up with a core of degenerate (it's only stopped from collapsing by quantum mechanical effects) helium that's too cold to fuse (it's extremely hot but not stupendously hot) and the hydrogen that's left starts fusing in a big shell around the core; the effect is that the star bloats up into a giant because more energy is being produced (pushing the outer layers further "up") but its surface temperature cools somewhat (because there's a lot more surface area) so the star gets bigger and appears cooler (i.e. shifts "down" the scale from e.g. "K" to "M.") At some point it may start fusing helium and other things, and supergiants are another thing entirely, but this has become complicated enough...