Universe Sandbox
Universe Sandbox Legacy => Universe Sandbox Legacy | Discussion => Topic started by: Darvince on August 29, 2010, 01:57:41 PM
-
Here is where you can post your own exoplanet systems and shots of them.
I have three so far.
They have different amounts of planets.
-
I know I made one that has about 8 of mine... can't find it. Stupid search.
-
Is it in the systems folder? ;D
-
No it's here. on the forums
-
Here's the links:
3 Systems (http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,623.0.html)
5 Systems (http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1295.0.html)
1 System (http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1301.0.html)
-
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1295.0.html was the one.
The first is broken. The third has 5 systems, and the fourth has 1 system.
-
So that's 9 systems. :)
-
Here's mine. Just made it in 3 minutes :P ;D
I got bored (as usual). It's from the Solar System - only dwarf planets and planets just with modified orbits n' stuff.
Solar System X :P
-
Interesting. :P
76 Draconis and 96 Tucana
-
rofl lol
-
yay lololol
-
MASSIVE RINGS. The outer one is 870,000 km (530,000 miles) from Neptune.
-
Very cool stuff, thanks for sharing.
I've included the 3 simulations posted in the first message in the last update (2.0.11). You can find them under the Community link in Open Simulations.
Find them here:
Universe Sandbox > Main Menu > Open > Community
-
Oh holy mother I'm popular wtf I can't stand it *dies*
-
Not yet....
well maybe.
-
I have a few systems in there. :P
-
Terraforming rules you all. Muahahahahahahaha... ha...
-
Awesomesauce
-
Okay, I merged some cloud maps within the terraformed planets/moons. Here is the result:
Also, you can have a free system of a sextuple system (2x2x2).
-
where'd you get the cloud maps and texture maps?
-
Celestia (edited the cloud maps with Paint.NET) and DeviantART.
-
Celestia is good for 372,890,523 objects but Universe Sandbox still is better cuz the orbits can change lol
-
I can change the orbits in Celestia.
So... *evil laugh*
-
So can I ;D ;D ;D
Darvince, can't haz the sekretz
-
How do you change the orbits? ???
PM me about how to change the orbits.
-
'sall about the Celestia files. ;D
(Haven't done it in a while, Naru can PM you)
-
Oh yeah >:] I meant in the program. :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
MUAHAHAHAHA
-
You can still do it with program. Just get Celestia-ED, it should have orbit modifiers I think.
-
Can I get the link?
-
Cool glitch and eclipse.
-
The Teapot system.
-
The Teapot system.
That's awesome. I didn't even know you could do that. :)
-
The method was in US1 so I thought I can do it in US2. :P
-
Epic crash image is epic. ;D
-
This planet has been impacted many times.
-
You maniac! Bombarding the Earth... with Earths?
-
You maniac! Bombarding the Earth... with Earths?
Welcome to the Universe.
-
Welcome to proplyds around planets
-
qrrbrbl zeeky dooky doog
-
I think the fiahkipz alliance would like this thread.
-
I think the fiahkipz alliance would like this thread.
FIAHKIPZ?
More like USAE.
-
A moonbuilder simulation! Essentially a random Moon generator.
-
Here is the outcome after a few.
-
lolwut
-
The planet of Illyea and her moon Kalestro orbit the nearby star of Nanner every 2.18 days. Object B112, a brown dwarf, orbits just 1 and a half million kilometers from the star. It is currently passing in front of the sun.
-
The planet of Illyea and her moon Kalestro orbit the nearby star of Nanner every 2.18 days. Object B112, a brown dwarf, orbits just 1 and a half million kilometers from the star. It is currently passing in front of the sun.
How is that planet not tidally locked?
-
The planet of Illyea and her moon Kalestro orbit the nearby star of Nanner every 2.18 days. Object B112, a brown dwarf, orbits just 1 and a half million kilometers from the star. It is currently passing in front of the sun.
How is that planet not tidally locked?
No idea, and that means it couldn't possibly have a moon.
-
The planet of Illyea and her moon Kalestro orbit the nearby star of Nanner every 2.18 days. Object B112, a brown dwarf, orbits just 1 and a half million kilometers from the star. It is currently passing in front of the sun.
How is that planet not tidally locked?
No idea, and that means it couldn't possibly have a moon.
Or rings.
-
I'm not sure, I think it could have rings...
-
recently formd planets much? ;D
i didn't try to be realistic, just threw in some objects.
-
Here is a random system i made using accretion disk mode. It took me many weeks to do it...well the computer was in charge alone lol ;D
I did try to make a first image to compare the system with our solar system...for the orbits. So here a screenshot showing the orbits. The whites ones are for our solar system and the red ones...well for the other system. I use the sun since i didnt want to remake all the orbits...but the star of the other system have a mass of 0.18 sun
Here also some little facts
Planet e
Mass: 8.18 Earths
Sma: 98.8 M km
Ecc: 0.26
Planet d
Mass: 0.63 Earth
Sma: 266 M km
Ecc: 0.51
Planet c
Mass: 38.1 Earths
Sma: 390 M km
Ecc: 0.23
Planet b
Mass: 22.2 Earths
Sma: 419 M km
Ecc: 0.51
Planet a
Mass: 0.19 Earth
Sma: 527 M km
ecc: 0.45
And the system is still on develloppement...more pictures to come.
-
I'm not sure, I think it could have rings...
I don't think the hill sphere would be big enough to allow rings.
-
Anyways, here is York star.
EDIT: When I first joined UnSB Community, This was the first thread I saw.
-
I'm not sure, I think it could have rings...
I don't think the hill sphere would be big enough to allow rings.
It wasn't until i reduced the size of the rings.
-
I'm not sure, I think it could have rings...
I don't think the hill sphere would be big enough to allow rings.
It wasn't until i reduced the size of the rings.
The rings would not last very long anyways.
-
they're newly formed from a starship collision.
-
they're newly formed from a starship collision.
The star would blow the stuff away, and also the rings are outside the roche limit from that picture. The rings could not coalesce into a ring system before being blown away.
-
...ok, they're artificial rings
and roche limit has nothing to do with them.
How do you even know its outside the roche limit. Illyea is a superdense planet composed of Nuetronium.
-
Here is a random system i made using accretion disk mode. It took me many weeks to do it...well the computer was in charge alone lol ;D
I did try to make a first image to compare the system with our solar system...for the orbits. So here a screenshot showing the orbits. The whites ones are for our solar system and the red ones...well for the other system. I use the sun since i didnt want to remake all the orbits...but the star of the other system have a mass of 0.18 sun
A question for ya, how do you make it in accretion disk mode? I'm not asking how to do it in general (place random asteroids around the star), but just wondering how you did it. Okay maybe I am asking in general, but hey.....
@Mudkipz: Speaking of the Roche Limit, it doesn't always seem to quite work, for stars at least anyway, usually the ones that I see in the roche limit of a star are objects that are slingshotting around the star, so I don't know if maybe they aren't in there long enough.
-
NK036 and planets (14!)
(http://i.imgur.com/YwRVw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/1hHgw.jpg)
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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) (http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3202/universesandbox20110627.png)
-
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) (http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3202/universesandbox20110627.png)
A 12 million kg nebula?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
Larger bodies in a smaller amount of space will speed the accreation disk time by a factor of several million times :D
It's not just the size of the disk, but the amount of mass in that area.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Intresting binary orbit mechanics
-
Another system
-
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?
-
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 :P
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :P i like the trail patterns. pretty.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
if you still do
"I'm using Denisine's method here: http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1944.60.html (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?
-
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.
-
Yeah, in the Epsilona Revoluta system, Revanobl keeps on getting tugged from a .29 Eccentric orbit to a .029 Eccentric orbit by Revoluta and Resisica Etani. Resisica Etani is 6.85 times the mass of earth, so that might be the problem. Resisica Etani and Revoluta are both in the habitable zone of Epsilona Revoluta, while Revanobl has a 25 M Km SMA.
-
I think I'll write an accretion disk guide.
-
Denisine wrote a pretty good description of it. Although I've made a few tweaks to the adding kms for things lower than 900 km. I'm going to fine tune it somewhat though since I had origionally adapted it to the fact that I had so many low diameter objects in the binary and the mass was split between the two.
-
So I started mine around a binary pair.
When finished, the pair will be separated by about 186 M KM.
B has lots of planets on the plane of ecliptic.
A is jut a mess
The largest body in the system is approx 8.00 Moon masses.
-
How closely separated are they right now? In the Centauri system right now, the closest approach is 1.16 AU (about 173.53 M km), which is a little closer than the distance yours will be when you put the system to solar size.
-
How closely separated are they right now? In the Centauri system right now, the closest approach is 1.16 AU (about 173.53 M km), which is a little closer than the distance yours will be when you put the system to solar size.
The binary is almost circular, right now they are about 18 M km away from eachother.
Literally every minute several objects switch stars.
-
Literally every minute several objects switch stars.
Expect that to happen ALOT, especially as the objects increase in mass. It'll slow down a little over time as things get ejected. Also, watch out for wrecking ball gas giants, they'll probably get ejected, but before that, they'll try to wreak havoc.
Anyways, the Centauri system passed the thousand year mark. Of the 17 named objects (all objects over 900 km), five of them are in the earth mass range. Translated into Jupiter masses, they range from 44 to 79 Earths, basically small Saturns and they're still growing. One is at 6.30 moon mass and another is at 4.19 moons, not sure if that would eventually make them small Neptunes or Super Earths. The rest of the named objects range from 0.53 to 0.080 moon masses. There are 67 planets/planetoids total, not counting the designated stars of course.
-
I just did a census and now we are down to 251 objects.
No, wait, make that 249. Two got ejecte- now it's 248.
Things are getting slingshotted out at 75 km/s!
EDIT: OMG SOMETHING GOT SLINGSHOTTED OUT AT 348 KM/S!
-
17 Years, and 80 objects.
Woah, wth.
-
Since your stars orbit so close to each other, the ejections are probably happening MUCH faster. It took a little longer for me, but every time the two stars get close to each other, alot of objects would either get ejected or kicked to a higher orbit.
It still happens even now, every time they get close to each other, either an object or two will exchange stars and one or two objects will get flung out or put it on a path that would get it flung out.
-
(http://i.imgdiode.com/rEQOKF.jpg)
a planet orbits a brown dwarf
-
Your cameras FOV seems a bit high in that screenshot, otherwise, neat screenshot.
An update on the Centauri system, it has passed the 2200 year mark and the system shows little sign of stabilizing back up. It was actually a really stable system until two gas giants flipped stars and started really messing things up. Later, one of the two got flung out, but the other wrecking ball of a gas giant is still around and also happens to be the largest in the system (it's now at 0.41 earths). I think the main problem is that I ended up with too many gas giants, six total now with one that is at about 8 Earth masses, not sure if that makes it a mini Neptune or a Super Earth. Not to mention the orbital dynamics involved with a binary.
In short, the system used to be stable and now it looks like a mess. I have 55 objects, not including the stars, so I hope some more stuff gets ejected during the next 800 years of sim time so I don't run out of letters, heh. Also, I was thinking of running it further after the 3000 year mark as it is to check for stability, but decided that the stability would be better tested in full scale.
Also, is there an easy way of getting a whole load of orbital information into Excel?
-
maybe copy paste it from xml file? no idea.
-
As far as moving the XML stuff to Excel, apparently the orbital data isn't in the XML, thought it would be.
Anyways, I've finished the Centauri System accretion. I thought I could maybe let it run for another thousand years of sim time to see if anything will stabilize into the habitable zones. Unfortunately, while plenty of objects go through the habitable zones, none of them stay within it. The system was actually stable for a long time until wrecking ball gas giants got swung around. The one main marauding gas giant got flung out near the end, so YAY for that :P
Also, for some reason, Centauri B's orbit got shrunk when I moved it outwards and made the system a binary.
Heres screenshots of it and a save for you guys to check out.
-
bump
-
You don't need to bump it unless you have a new system to share.
-
You don't need to bump it unless you have a new system to share.
But wouldn't a bunch of other people with systems to share want a place to share them?
-
I got quite a few. here are some.
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/UniverseSandbox-20120129-154324-91197.png (http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/UniverseSandbox-20120129-154324-91197.png)
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-01-29_00017.jpg (http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-01-29_00017.jpg)
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-01-31_00001.jpg (http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-01-31_00001.jpg)
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-01-31_00002.jpg (http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-01-31_00002.jpg)
-
Could you upload the last three images to the thread? They're thumbnail size for some reason. Go to additional options to do that.
-
the size of my last ones were messed up so I gave up editing them and made some new ones.
(http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-02-12_00005.jpg)
(http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-02-12_00003.jpg)
(http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-02-12_00014.jpg)
(http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-02-09_00001.jpg)
(http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-02-11_00003.jpg)
(http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa346/animalguy888/2012-02-11_00006.jpg)
two of them are not really exoplanets but are actually altered planets.
-
lol on the name of the second one. Also, don't the landing spots mess up the orbits? I've heard of the bug involving those where they act like a thruster stuck into the side of the object.
-
lol on the name of the second one. Also, don't the landing spots mess up the orbits? I've heard of the bug involving those where they act like a thruster stuck into the side of the object.
You have to give it a mass larger then the object it is on.
-
Gas Giants FTW!
-
Kol Celestia.
-
I WORKED FOREVER ON THIS SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and here are the planets
a gas giant larger than jupiter
an blue ice giant planet size of neptune
a planet with water vapor atmosphere
an earthlike planet the size of mars
an roasting hot planet
a blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
-
cool, did you make the textures yourself? maybe we could see the system with all the planets in orbit :)
-
Yes i made them myself with programs that make planet textures and here are pictures of all of them in orbit well not all since the system is so big i have to make one picture or inner planets in orbit
another in outer planets
And a pic of the central star in comparision to the sun
-
WOAH, nice.
-
It was probably used for testing purposes.
-
Probably named that people he didn't know a name for it. Or what Naru said.
-
Try and guess the diameter of the transiting planet in kilometers with transit method!
hint: Its smaller than neptunes diameter
Update:
Sorry i forgot the diameter of the star its the same diameter of sun
-
well, i can't be sure because i don't know the star's diameter, but i can guess that it's diameter is about 1/100th of the star's
-
You also nid to show three frames so that it is easy to see how quickly it's moving to estimate how far away it is with some maths.
-
Here is a system that I have been toying with. (the size of our moon is represented by the green circle for scale)
(http://i42.tinypic.com/n64b2f.png)
And some photoshopping work to show what it would look like with an Earthlike atmosphere:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/1o7edk.jpg)
Here is the original image for these mountains if anyone wanted to know where I found it. (http://aspenviews.clearpathtech.com/?tag=sunrise)
The view is from an earth-mass moon orbiting a currently unnamed planet of ~3 Jupiter masses. The planet has six moons large enough to be considered planets if they were independent, with the 2nd largest, a 0.9 earth-mass moon, visible to the right of the planet in the first picture. The "larger" rocky body is a submoon at a distance of just 33,000 kilometers, just under four times the distance that Phobos orbits Mars. Despite it's apparent radius, the submoon has a mass of only 6% of that which our moon has, and thus it manages to have a somewhat stable orbit around it's host. Though they aren't all visible, there are at least twelve moons orbiting this planet, including two pairs of moons suspended at L4 and L5 Lagrange points around the two largest moons.
The rest of the system isn't shown, other than another gas giant to the right in the first screen, but it's a triple star system, with a 4.5 solar-mass star, an orange dwarf at ~5AU, which this blue gas giant orbits, and a red dwarf that is nearly ~600AU away. The entire system has about 20 planets, though the orange dwarf "only" has 5 planets.
-
Nice system. But maybe you could show us more exoplanets and exomoons in the system
(http://i42.tinypic.com/n64b2f.png)
(http://i44.tinypic.com/1o7edk.jpg)
Here is the original image for these mountains if anyone wanted to know where I found it. (http://aspenviews.clearpathtech.com/?tag=sunrise)
[/quote]
-
I made another extrasolar planet system.
I didnt bother making a name for the star i couldnt think of 1.
In the inner system the planet B is a rocky world similair in size and mass to mars and is roasting hot
C is farther away than b. It is one and a half times earths mass. This might not be a super earth. its a little bit too close and its thick atmosphere has a greenhouse gas water vapor. So its a super venus.
Another possible earthlike planet in the system is D which is a big planet 17 times the mass of the earth that has liquid water and 20% land.
E which is the only gas giant in the system is outside of the habital zone a little bit but it has greenhouse gasses so life can soar through its atmosphere and feed on organic compounds. But i rly dont think it would be likley for life. There isnt liquid water and life needs that.
F is so cold liquid nitrogren is on its surface and G is the coldest in the outer belt of comets.
Soon i will include the moons of E
-
Nice systems. :) The textures of F and the object left of B on picture 2 look very interesting...
-
Here's A Planetary System With One Exosolar Planet.
One Of The Moons Are Earth Like.
The Star Is Only 2 Billion Years Old!
-
The view of the night sky on one planet in a system I made.
-
...
-
looks nice are those binary stars or just happen to be next to each other.
-
The two stars are binary stars. One is two times as massive as the sun(blue star) and the other star only has 50% the mass of the sun(beige star)
-
I made another extrasolar planet system.
I didnt bother making a name for the star i couldnt think of 1.
In the inner system the planet B is a rocky world similair in size and mass to mars and is roasting hot
C is farther away than b. It is one and a half times earths mass. This might not be a super earth. its a little bit too close and its thick atmosphere has a greenhouse gas water vapor. So its a super venus.
Another possible earthlike planet in the system is D which is a big planet 17 times the mass of the earth that has liquid water and 20% land.
E which is the only gas giant in the system is outside of the habital zone a little bit but it has greenhouse gasses so life can soar through its atmosphere and feed on organic compounds. But i rly dont think it would be likley for life. There isnt liquid water and life needs that.
F is so cold liquid nitrogren is on its surface and G is the coldest in the outer belt of comets.
Soon i will include the moons of E
Nice.
What tools did you use to make E's texture?
-
;D
-
Go See This Page On One Of My Websites With More Of My Simulations
http://www.mjduniverse.com/Universe-Sandbox-Sims.html (http://www.mjduniverse.com/Universe-Sandbox-Sims.html)
-
:) The Earth viewed from the moon.
-
Terraforming rules you all. Muahahahahahahaha... ha...
Where'd you get these textures from?
-
Celestia (edited the cloud maps with Paint.NET) and DeviantART.
-
Bumping.