Celestia Forums

well if you were surprised that the earth moves from the point of view of the moon, then you'll be shocked to know the moon doesn't actually orbit the earth so to speak. it is actually 2.3X more gravitationally attracted to the sun than to the earth and thus travels in its own orbit around the sun, ...

the moon crashing into the earth in celestia is not a misconception on the programmer's (chris') part. it's just a bug. i'm very sure chris knows the moon is moving away. this is fairly well-known among astronomers, and i'm assuming chris is an astronomer.

the colour is not what determines specularity. either the texture has a specular channel built in, or you have to use a seperate specular texture where reflectivity is given by levels of whiteness (i.e. white oceans, black land, and i like to have greyish ice).

don't worry if they're greyed out. mine were, too. but hitting ctrl+p and ctrl+v turn them on anyway.

A really good book about space elevators is Arthur C. Clarke's The Fountains of Paradise , though he never meant it to be an engineer's treatise on how to build one, his is the most accurate description of how one must work and what problems must be solved in order for it to work. I've downloaded yo...

after trying desperately to adapt what i know of solidworks to 3d studio max, i've decided instead to ask of you guys if someone could create a good space elevator model. should basically be a long shaft with a very large mass in the center. so maybe something like the deimos model with some structu...

the cloud bug really only happens if you fast forward very fast, not when you just set the time ahead. it's weird, to be sure.

love it. my only gripe is the spectral class. you have it as an F-type star, but neutron stars (and therefore pulsars) are variable, and thus are classified usually as either just 'variable' or as 'RR Lyrae' stars. don't know if you can change this.

ground based photos (the second one) are upside down and backwards remember. and the hubble photos (first one) are not. but then, who knows how the pictures are rotated afterward, and there's no telling how hubble was rotated when it took its photo. so... you can kind of do whatever you want i guess.

doesn't celestia do radius, not diameter?

Podsch?t


Added some comets to my system. If anybody wants to have and/or host this system, IM me on MSN - codyraskin@hotmail.com

well, also remember how parallax is measured. in order to measure any parallax, you use background stars that don't move appreciably during the year. so you have a natural bias in your sampling limiting your catalogues to only nearby stars. but i suppose this will be fixed soon with the interferomet...

the chandra observer only sees in xray, and any colour information in any of its pictures is added afterward for gradients and sometimes just to make it look interesting. thanks for the info, though, didn't realise it was only an 11km diameter. sounds like you added a quark star somewhere in your ce...

well for one, it looks like you don't have your galaxy rendering turned on. second, that's what your star database should look like. there's a specific sampling error (can't remember the name now) that limits our star catalogues to those nearest to us, among other things (interstellar dust etc..).

If I remember correctly Quark Stars are stars that form after the collapse of a neutron star, but does not full collapse into a black hole. The Quark Stars are held together (or prevented from collapsing further) by the subatomic quark partials (quarks are what make up atom) An item of that density...

i added a quark star to the system at about a half light year distance from the star. looking for suggestions on the colour. i made it purple since that seems like fun colour for a star made entirely of quarks to be, but i'm open to other opinions on what it should look like. 60km radius.

Anonymous wrote:Red giants last quite a bit longer than 1000 years.

a super red giant that has been so for all recorded human history isn't likely to is what i was getting at.

I agree that modelling galactic orbits over more than a few tens of thousands of years is not viable. On timescales shorter than that, I can't think of a serious reason why it wouldn't work for the bright stars. cos the bright stars are the ones with the briefest lifetimes. a bright star like betel...

Nice I like them...One pointer if you dont mind...expand the distance of the rings on the M class planet... i didn't know M class planets existed outside of star trek :wink: . but i purposely kept them short since the tidal forces of a small planet like that wouldn't tear anything apart beyond righ...

Depending on what you mean by "high concentrations", it sounds like it could be a system with high levels of heavy metals -- not friendly to unprotected carbon based life forms! let's say it has the same concetration as mercury, however recent volcanic activity has brought to the surface a thin ven...