Your Own Exoplanet Systems & Screenshots

[DenisineD]

smjjames: I put 2-3 bodies at a time around the star then i make them explode into 500 bodies...then i restard it some years later.

After this, when i have the number of bodies that i want (since a lot get slingshot off from the system) every 100 yrs i add some Kms to the bigger bodies like 2000 km and more i add 400 km for 4 centuries then i reduce half for 5 other ones then half again for the 6 other ones...and etc till 3000 yrs

Oh and i use a gas giant for the star then at the end i put it to a star...like in the previous one i did use a 0.18 jupiter to make a 0.18 sun mass star...all the debries left i re-adjust their orbits the distance that i put X10 like 23.7 M km = 237 M km. I also put backt he eccentricity, angles, means, nodes and etc...it take a lot of time. Before changing the gas giant to a star i note all the info of each object: distance, eccentricity means, inclination and etc... Because without this...all the object go into a collision course with the star. I put all the info on an excel sheet. I put a number for each objects. Finally i put back the info on each object...starting by the one who s the most far till the closest one. Et voila you have an accretion disk solar system done all randomly.

ok why do i add km instead of mass? because 1 st each objects are random on the density. By doing this the mass will vary randomly for each object. so when i change the moons to planet, its when i know how big the planets will be. Yes the accretion disk act like 1000-2000 moons crashing together.

For each planet i multiply by 10 or change moon mass object into earth mass. For the moons who grow till a earth mass, i convert them into jupiter mass...but i divide by 2. So like i did have an object with 0.24 Earth mass, when i convert it it get to a 0.12 Jupiter mass.

I also did forget to say...when you switch your system from palnetary to star system...start with the planet (to the star) then you go to the last object (right after)

Why adding Km every 100 yrs? because we can t have billions objtects orbiting the star...it would take a lot of ressources on the computer...so it help on this side...

Why using jupiter mass object for the star? because the colision happens more frequently since the distance between object is more smaller and it add more ''randomness'' to your system

[smjjames]

I also did forget to say...when you switch your system from palnetary to star system...start with the planet (to the star) then you go to the last object (right after)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Also, what do you do with the objects that have been thrown out of the system never to return, or is that included in your cleanup phase?

[DenisineD]

For the object that have been thrown out...i delet them...so your computer run faster anyways they are not anymore useful.

When you switch from jupiter mass to star mass (sun mass) all the eccentricities get to 1 so all your futur planet will collide with the star.

I start with the star because its just to readapt every object to the gravity of the star (wich is not a planet anymore). I go to the last object after because i don t want to get mix out with all the objects who are the closest to the star...Ok here some pictures that i ll show you. I use my second simulation that i m doing to show it.

1st picture aka jupiter main star
We see here a ''star'' that turn out to be a 0.42 J mass gass giant who act like the main center of this solar system. When i ll turn it to a star it will be a 0.42 Sun mass star, so you must already see that all of the orbits will be going for a crash toward the new star.

2nd picture aka proto planet a info...we see the info of this ''planet'' wich is a moon with a mass of 2.94 moon mass for now (So if i would resize everything to a 1:1 solar system model the 2.94 moon mass will get to a 2.94 earths mass planet).For the density, i ll play with it when i will resize everything to make it more realistic, i only use this random density when i add some km to the diameter of the object.

It have a sma of 689 140 km. When i ll put back this system to is full size... The orbit will get to 6 891 400 km. So imagine if I start with the closest object or any random object in the accretion disk...i will get lost easily and maybe resize the sma of object i already resize and etc... Thats why i start with the most far object in the accretion disk immediatly after i did resize the center object (the star). The excel chart i made is really useful for this lol...since i did put all the info of each objects...except for the density. In fact you just resize the mass and the sma. You put back the eccentricity, the inclination, the peri, the node and the mean, for each orbiting objects of the accretion disk.

How do i manage to add kms each 100 yrs? well i do it like that. Objects over 2000 kms in diameter i add 400 km, 1500 to 1999 kms, 200 kms; 1100 to 1499 kms, 100 kms; 1000 to 1099 kms, 50 kms; 900 to 999 kms, 25 kms. And this, i do it the 4 first 100 yrs.

the next 5 centuries: 2000 kms and + i add 200 kms; 1500 to 1999 kms, i add 100 kms; 1100 to 1499 kms, i add 50 kms and 1000 to 1099 kms i add 25 kms.

The next 6 centuries: 2000 kms and + i add 100 kms; 1500 to 1999 kms, i add 50 kms; 1100 to 1499 kms, i add 25 kms.

The next 7 centuries: 2000 kms and + i add 50 kms; 1500 to 1999 kms, i add 25 kms

And for the last 8 centuries (normally there s not many objects left in the accretion disk): 2000 kms and + i add 25 kms.

PS Everytime you save...go on your left pannel (where you can click trail, label and etc...) and before saving Delet Dust, trail and impact marks...it reduce the size of your simulation and when you open it, your universe sandbox will not crash lol.

[DenisineD]

My jupiter (aka futur star) density is 14.6 gr/cm3...its the only density that i will keep when i ll put the system to its full size.

[smjjames]

Don't you end up with a bunch of absolute space points floating around when you delete the objects that got thrown out of the system?

When I delete objects, sometimes it spawns an absolute space point and even though I have posted about it, I'm not even sure if other people get that kind of thing as well.

Anyways, I'll just start with a star. I'm actually planning on doing an accretion thing for the Alpha Centauri system. Probably minus Proxima Centauri though because the habitable zone is so close in that any planetary formation I do with that one would severely restrict the speed of the simulation as a whole and because it's so far away from the main binary that its orbit takes hundreds of thousands of years, possibly over a million years. So, I don't think it'll affect the simulation as a whole very much.

[DenisineD]

For the points floating around: I have some but not as many object that i did delet...Like in the system that i m doing i only have 3 of thoses...while i did delet around 100 objects...+ many more when i explose object (since more than half get out of the system). When i make explode an object i make it explode in 500 objects...so it give an idea...

I prefer to start with a jupiter planet set as a reduce model of the star...because collision happen more often. I did try it with a star and lol it would have take million years to do the same haha. If you start with a star, you need to put bigger objects. I prefer to add some kms (wich give a random mass depending on the density) to my proto planet...because it replace the fact that the computers that we have are not enought powerful for billions objects accretion disk. Adding kms to the proto planets with a coordonate chart remove the flaw that there is only 2000 objects in your accretion Disk.

[shadowhunter388]

I like to think of this as a beginning of my planetary system (A weird bug which made me think of a nebula type thing being created)

[FiahOwl]

I like to think of this as a beginning of my planetary system (A weird bug which made me think of a nebula type thing being created)

A 12 million kg nebula?

[smjjames]

Denisine: How would you go about making a binary star system with your method? I tried your method with stars (Alpha Centauri A and B actually) and the timestep won't even go beyond an hour, even on red.

Or maybe I should say that I'm asking how would you set up the Alpha Centauri system binary (minus Proxima) so that the star masses equal the jupiter mass 'stars' that you use at first and can be reverted back? And how about the binary orbits themselves?

[DenisineD]

Shadowhunter388: lol the impacts marks are bigger than the planet? lol

Smjjames: I did use 2 jupiters planets (equivalent to stars) one equivalent to 0.42 sun and an other 0,11 sun (0.42 jupiter and 0,11 jupiter). I didnt make a close binary orbit. The smaller ''star' orbit at 121 M km wich will be in the full scale a 1 210 M km with an eccentricity of 0,21.

The orbits are stable maybe because they are enought far from each other to take many years to orbit each other (around 40 yrs). And i did put the time step to 1 hour. I did start with 1907 objects and now after near 600 yrs, i have (aproximatly) 1355 objects.

Before putting the accretion disk (exploding planets into 500 objects) i did select both ''stars'' (wich are for now planets) then on the right menu i select make a binary orbit then put a barycenter...et voila  
To change the eccentricity, i did put down a little the total velocity speed of the smaller ''star'' till i have the eccentrity that i want.

[smjjames]

I know how to set up a binary, I just wanted to see how you would do it with your method. Also, the closer the binary, the less stable it is for planets between them and to make a binary of any distance stable, just select both and balance them.

I should be able to backwards convert the binary since I already have a save with the two stars.

[DenisineD]

Ok well i know when i ll convert it to full scale i ll just put all the info of the orbiting ''star''...My accretion disk around the main star is not a huge disk...i think the most far object have an orbit radius of +/- 40.5 M km (405 M km full scale).

[vh]

Larger bodies in a smaller amount of space will speed the accreation disk time by a factor of several million times
It's not just the size of the disk, but the amount of mass in that area.

[DenisineD]

I know that. Its just there will be more space between objects...so it will take more time to catapult or collide objects...except if you put really big objects.

[smjjames]

It have a sma of 689 140 km. When i ll put back this system to is full size... The orbit will get to 6 891 400 km. So imagine if I start with the closest object or any random object in the accretion disk...i will get lost easily and maybe resize the sma of object i already resize and etc... Thats why i start with the most far object in the accretion disk immediatly after i did resize the center object (the star). The excel chart i made is really useful for this lol...since i did put all the info of each objects...except for the density. In fact you just resize the mass and the sma. You put back the eccentricity, the inclination, the peri, the node and the mean, for each orbiting objects of the accretion disk.

Hrm, I'm realizing that this is going to be much more complex with a binary since I'll have to make sure it's orbiting the right star, and of course, I'll have to set the binary itself to it's proper orbit once scaled up.

Also, I hope Dan gets a fix in for the eccentricity box soon because it will be a huge PITA to deal with since I can't type in a new number without it bugging out and an eccentricty of less than 1% is going to be a problem because if I move the slider too far, it bugs out.

[FiahOwl]

Intresting binary orbit mechanics

[FiahOwl]

Another system

[smjjames]

Math question here, denisine (or anybody else that can help out here), how would you handle making objects that have the 10^20 mass label into the 'moon' size level? I'm just not sure how resizing that size into a 1:1 solar system model would work. I get the resizing moon to earth and so on, but for the 10^20 mass thing, do I just slap on the moon mass label?

[FiahOwl]

Math question here, denisine (or anybody else that can help out here), how would you handle making objects that have the 10^20 mass label into the 'moon' size level? I'm just not sure how resizing that size into a 1:1 solar system model would work. I get the resizing moon to earth and so on, but for the 10^20 mass thing, do I just slap on the moon mass label?

10^20 kg? Find the mass of the moon in kg and do some 6th grade math

[DenisineD]

For really small objects i do it like that:

Imagine an object with a mass of : 0.79X10^20 kg

When i ll scale it, it will be an object of 7.9X10^20 kg

I only multiply it by 10

[smjjames]

I see, just wasn't sure what your method of dealing with those was. Also, it's mainly objects in the 100-300 km range.

[smjjames]

Heres my accretion system so far, the green objects/trails are objects less than 100 km in size. I've just done the first accretion stage with kilometer increase, so I'm hoping those get removed or something. Anyways, Centauri A already has a planet in a mercury type orbit with an orbit of 41.4 days, half the distance of mercury actually, even gave it an appropriate name. That one will probably be smaller than mercury though when I scale things up and it's still around.

I've got several 1 moon+ mass objects already, so there will be super earths in that system for sure. Also, I've got alot of long eliptical orbits around Centauri B still for some reason, thought they would have flattened out, or start to flatten out by now.

[DenisineD]

smjjames : Thats nice ! But with the 2 Stars that close, do you have many catapulted object when both stars get really close from each others?

I m doing a 3 rd simulation (just started) It have only one star a 1.25 solar mass (right now its 1.25 jupiter mass) I m still adding objects inside the orbit. I have 1268 objects.

[smjjames]

The closest they get is 1.12 AU, but yea, theres always a few that get catapulted, usually ones further out, or just kick them into higher orbits. However they exchange objects more often than not. Two of the bigger objects even changed parent stars at one point.

Because the mass is split between the two stars and because I've got lots of low diameter objects, I've been doing a modified instructions with objects 400-899 kms, 12 kms; 100-399 km, 6 kms for the 4 first 100 yrs. I'll follow the same pattern you did.

Also, I hope I don't end up with a hot earth or something. Not going to throw the system out if that happens as each one is unique (as exoplanet discoveries can attest to). The main inner ones look like they're pretty stable, but it looks like I'm either going to lose the ones with orbits further out eventually or they'll crash into each other or the star (hope not) or get into a much smaller orbit.

There is one large (1113 km in size) planet that is constantly swinging between the two stars. I wouldn't call it's orbit stable, but it's possible that it actually has a stable orbit, we'd just have to observe the trail for centuries to be sure. It does get swung out pretty far, but not so much that it would escape.

Since it spends its time further out than 1 AU (scaled up, thats 10 AU) out, I've appropriately given it the icemars texture.

Edit: Not sure what shifted the binary because Centauri B's closest is now 1.16 and the length has grown a little from 71.4 to 71.6 edit while typing: Okay, shifted back to 71.4, it usually shifts a little between 71.3 and 71.4 . I did remove a bunch of objects with diameters of less than 100km, of which Centauri A had more, so it's possible that there was a momentum shift from the sudden change as opposed to deleting something that has been thrown far out. Or maybe I triggered a sudden but brief stellar wobble change that has corrected itself.

[vh]

Heres my accretion system so far, the green objects/trails are objects less than 100 km in size. I've just done the first accretion stage with kilometer increase, so I'm hoping those get removed or something. Anyways, Centauri A already has a planet in a mercury type orbit with an orbit of 41.4 days, half the distance of mercury actually, even gave it an appropriate name. That one will probably be smaller than mercury though when I scale things up and it's still around.

I've got several 1 moon+ mass objects already, so there will be super earths in that system for sure. Also, I've got alot of long eliptical orbits around Centauri B still for some reason, thought they would have flattened out, or start to flatten out by now.

lol thats pretty nice, looks like you stuffed put something into a space-tornado i like the trail patterns. pretty.

[smjjames]

Yea well, I had LOTS of objects under 300km, most of them were in that highly eliptical orbit and were slowing the sim down because many were going close in to the stars. So I went and deleted them.

[vh]

when i do simulations like that, i try to keep all the objects in nearly the same orbits. Makes the simulation run much faster. the problem when you have all your objects spaced out; when you delete the ones close to the star, the ones that were not close to the star because close. it's all relative. I guess you just have to find a compromise. Also i wonder if we would see bode's law or theory or whatever it's called if you ran a simulation with an accreation disk; might try it later.

[smjjames]

Of course though, it's a binary and I deleted the ones which were swinging very close to the star. A whole bunch of them (nearly all of them at Centauri B) have highly elliptical orbits, however there is a 7.71 moon mass object that passes through the cluster focus (you know, where exploded objects return to) and is slowly sorting them out. The objects that are in the eccentric orbits are in the 400-899 km range, so the objects own masses help. Several are in retrograde orbits.

Not sure exactly why those kind of orbiting objects pretty much got sorted out at Centauri A and not so much at Centauri B.

I've still got 2,600 years (26 centuries) of sim time in the accretion planning to go, so if anything, I've got time as it's just past 500 years sim time.

As far as bodes law goes, I in fact have a planet about half mercury's size (or equivalent of) which is at a sma of 3.65 M km and has an orbit of 41.5 days, about half of mercurys. As far as the others go, I'm not sure and I'll admit that I did place one at approx the habitable zone for each star, but the orbits have definetly shifted around. I know I didn't do any explosion at the area of the mercury-like planet I mentioned, so I don't know whether bodes law was at play here.

Still though, it would be best to examine bodes law with a single star since the gravitational interactions in a binary are more complex and the two routinely exchange objects.

[vh]

if you still do

"I'm using Denisine's method here: http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1944.60.html

After a bunch of restarts, I've settled with and sticking with this accretion iteration. Still very early, not quite 11 years sim time. I'm waiting for more of the objects to clear out before I start a new round of object exploding.

Also, at the time of the posting that you quoted, I wasn't sure what the system escape velocity was, but I've gotten that figured out. I have a lot of long orbit objects and theres some outbound objects that aren't in an orbit, but the velocity is low enough that I'm going to see whether they'll eventually fall back in or not."

then bode's law doesn't apply. i'm pretty certain bode's law is caused by the accreation disk particles tuggin on each other. adding accreation rings farther and farther or closer and close can't and won't replicate this

thats also there the elliptical orbits came from, i think. solar systems tend not to form from planet explosion s:D

how far are your binaries relative to your accreation disk?

[smjjames]

At this point, I'm almost a thousand years in, sim time. Also, they're objects, not dust.

Anyways, the SMA is 2.15 AU with closest approach at 1.15 AU, furthest is 3.14 AU. The binary orbit has had a bit of oscillation over time, but not to a significant degree.

As far as bodes law goes, there is some stability close in, but have a gas giant equivalent object (had two, one got flung out recently) that keeps swinging around and has been trying to destabilize the inner orbits of Centauri B.

It was meant to be a simulation of the Centauri system, which get pretty close to each other, closest would be around Saturns orbit I think.

Planet exploding is really the closest thing we have to making an accretion disk at this time.

I might be seeing bodes law with the single star 'accretion disk', but too soon to really tell for sure.

As far as the elliptical orbits, the larger objects tend to pull the eliptical orbits so that they flatten out (or crash into the star/slingshot out) and I guess they were too scattered or something in Centauri B to erode them out. A single star would have plenty of objects to do the job though.