Astrophysics and Physics 101

General discussion about Celestia that doesn't fit into other forums.
Topic author
Rassilon
Posts: 1887
Joined: 29.01.2002
With us: 23 years 3 months
Location: Altair

Astrophysics and Physics 101

Post #1by Rassilon » 12.03.2004, 03:13

Ok given the data we have in Celestia and my new found calculator thanks to brunetto_64 I am running into problems...Celestia doesnt provide enough information on each planet so I still have to spend hours in tedious maths to complete a system...but I promised myself I would for once come up with a close to specs system with a few flares in left field...

Ok well the first formula that I have is a planets mass...I first must find the volume correct? The volume is found by an earth to alien world ratio of radiuses correct? say one world is 5000 km and earth is 6378 km that would be a percent of say 0.78. Now I cube that...multiply by pi (3.14) and then by 4 and divide that by 3. OK now I find the density...Which I think is a guess more than a formula...What do I base this on? I havebeen told earth has a density of 5.52 per cubic centemeter. Is this correct? If so what do I base my density on? Material composition?

After that is found I then multiply volume by density to find my mass...

Of which mass I need to compute the correct orbits of my moons. And get a correct gravity.

Grant? Selden? Fridger? Where art thou? :)
I'm trying to teach the cavemen how to play scrabble, its uphill work. The only word they know is Uhh and they dont know how to spell it!

Bob Hegwood
Posts: 1048
Joined: 19.10.2003
With us: 21 years 6 months
Location: Germantown, Ohio - USA

Post #2by Bob Hegwood » 12.03.2004, 04:54

Mr. Rassilon,

Please remember that I'm Brain-Dead, but aren't you going to have to know the composition of the planet before you can make *any* assumptions about its mass or density?

In other words, if your new planet is made up primarily of hydrogen, then your formula isn't going to make any sense is it? Alternatively, if it's made up exclusively of nickel-iron, it's going to be a lot denser, yes?

Just thought I'd ask. :wink:

Take care, Bob
Bob Hegwood
Windows XP-SP2, 256Meg 1024x768 Resolution
Intel Celeron 1400 MHz CPU
Intel 82815 Graphics Controller
OpenGL Version: 1.1.2 - Build 4.13.01.3196
Celestia 1.4.0 Pre6 FT1

Avatar
selden
Developer
Posts: 10192
Joined: 04.09.2002
With us: 22 years 8 months
Location: NY, USA

Post #3by selden » 12.03.2004, 11:24

Well, I'm no planetary specialist.

Grant has made a few postings about papers that have been written on planetary composition versus size. Links to some of them have been collected on my Celestia Web page.

See the sections on Space Science (the research papers) and Planet Building (includes some software).
Selden

granthutchison
Developer
Posts: 1863
Joined: 21.11.2002
With us: 22 years 5 months

Re: Astrophysics and Physics 101

Post #4by granthutchison » 12.03.2004, 11:44

Rassilon wrote:The volume is found by an earth to alien world ratio of radiuses correct? say one world is 5000 km and earth is 6378 km that would be a percent of say 0.78. Now I cube that...multiply by pi (3.14) and then by 4 and divide that by 3.
You don't need the 4/3 and pi if you're using the ratio of the radii ... the ratio of volumes will be just the cube of the ratio of radii.

OK now I find the density...Which I think is a guess more than a formula...What do I base this on? I havebeen told earth has a density of 5.52 per cubic centemeter. Is this correct? If so what do I base my density on? Material composition?
Simplest thing is just to have a table of likely densities ... for Earth-like bodies, for Jupiter-like bodies, and so on, using the real-world value of the corresponding solar-system world. So your Earth density will be plausible for a range of terrestrial planets.

After that is found I then multiply volume by density to find my mass...
Might be easier to use "Earth densities" as your units, so you end up with a mass in Earth masses. Divide the planetary density by 5.52 before doing the sum.

Of which mass I need to compute the correct orbits of my moons. And get a correct gravity.
Surface gravity scales in proportion to the mass and inversely with the radius squared; so divide the number of Earth masses by the square of the radius in Earth radii, and you get the surface gravity in g.
The orbital period squared scales in proportion to the orbital radius cubed and inversely with the mass. You might use the Moon here ... express the orbital radius as a proportion of the Moon's, cube that figure, divide by the primary mass, take the square root, and you'll have the satellite's orbital period as a proportion of the Moon's orbital period.(Approximately ... since the Moon has quite a high mass it slightly jiggers the figures, but given the uncertainty in your density, the error won't matter.)

Grant

Cormoran
Posts: 198
Joined: 28.07.2003
With us: 21 years 9 months
Location: Slartibartfast's Shed, London

Post #5by Cormoran » 12.03.2004, 11:51

Rassilon,

You may also find this link useful, since it's written for a maths dummy like me, and also appears to be quite rigorous (though you'll have to get used to the RPG conventions, unless your familiar with the topic).

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/trisen/sol/2300ad/wg/

For the record, I never noticed any obvious inaccuracies with the systems you've designed. I will admit that I was too busy flying around them and enjoying the scenery for detailed analysis :)

Still working on Helliconia stc and ssc, between reading the Sector General series, weather continues drab.


Cheers,

Cormoran
'...Gold planets, Platinum Planets, Soft rubber planets with lots of earthquakes....' The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy, Page 634784, Section 5a. Entry: Magrathea

Topic author
Rassilon
Posts: 1887
Joined: 29.01.2002
With us: 23 years 3 months
Location: Altair

Post #6by Rassilon » 12.03.2004, 20:03

Thanks everyone...Next question is how do I find a star's mass if I have the Stellar class and Apparent Magnitude?
I'm trying to teach the cavemen how to play scrabble, its uphill work. The only word they know is Uhh and they dont know how to spell it!

Topic author
Rassilon
Posts: 1887
Joined: 29.01.2002
With us: 23 years 3 months
Location: Altair

Post #7by Rassilon » 13.03.2004, 14:19

I found a chart for the above...though I think I need a better chart!...

Any suggestions?

Also its it correct in assuming that Apparent Magnitude and distance would be all I need tro calculate a stars habitable zone? The calculator shown here: http://www.bumply.com/astro.htm#1 only uses luminosity...I have converted this to use apparent magnitude and distance to be compatible and easier to use with Celestia...I would think that the star type would also affect this would it not? I mean a star with apparent magnitude of 11 being a O supergiant and 1500 ly away wouldnnt have the same habitable zone as a red dwarf of similar values? or would it?
I'm trying to teach the cavemen how to play scrabble, its uphill work. The only word they know is Uhh and they dont know how to spell it!

Evil Dr Ganymede
Posts: 1386
Joined: 06.06.2003
With us: 21 years 10 months

Post #8by Evil Dr Ganymede » 13.03.2004, 17:17

Rassilon wrote:I found a chart for the above...though I think I need a better chart!...

Any suggestions?

Are you trying to figure this out for a specific star? If so, can you list what you know about it already (if anything) here?

It's not easy to link a mass to a spectral type. In fact, if the RECONS near star list is to be believed, you can get M1 V stars that are 0.5-0.6 solar masses! (I thought M stars could only be less massive than 0.3 solar masses)


Also its it correct in assuming that Apparent Magnitude and distance would be all I need tro calculate a stars habitable zone? The calculator shown here: http://www.bumply.com/astro.htm#1 only uses luminosity...I have converted this to use apparent magnitude and distance to be compatible and easier to use with Celestia...I would think that the star type would also affect this would it not? I mean a star with apparent magnitude of 11 being a O supergiant and 1500 ly away wouldnnt have the same habitable zone as a red dwarf of similar values? or would it?


Well, you need to know the luminosity of the star. If you can get that from the magnitude, then you're fine. I think it's much easier to use luminosity directly rather than magnitude.

An O supergiant would certainly not have the same habitable zone as an M5 V red dwarf. For starters, an O supergiant would be a very massive star, its total lifespan is probably only a million years or so at most, and it won't have planets around it (not enough time to form them, plus the stellar wind blasts away the dust disk around it). Its "habitable zone" distance would be hundreds of AU from the star because of the high luminosity.

An M5 V dwarf on the other hand would have a habitable zone that was very close to the star (withing 0.1 AU), because its luminosity would be much lower than Sol's. It would be able to have planets since its total main sequence lifespan would be much longer than the age of the universe, but if any are in the habitable zone it's likely that they'd be tide-locked to the star (like the Moon is to Earth) because they're so close to it. The worlds can still be habitable though, if they have a reasonably thick atmosphere (> 0.1 atm pressure, IIRC) to redistribute the heat around the planet.

Evil Dr Ganymede
Posts: 1386
Joined: 06.06.2003
With us: 21 years 10 months

Post #9by Evil Dr Ganymede » 13.03.2004, 17:24

Oh yeah, this might help you out a bit, Rass.

http://www.planetarybiology.com/downloa ... tances.pdf

(from http://www.planetarybiology.com/ - there's some excel spreadsheets there too)

Topic author
Rassilon
Posts: 1887
Joined: 29.01.2002
With us: 23 years 3 months
Location: Altair

Post #10by Rassilon » 13.03.2004, 18:33

Thanks! That information does clear it up for me quite well...

Heres what Ive been working on...Its still not 100% complete but you can get a somewhat working model of your solar systems with this calculator...Let me know of any math mistakes...Nothing is hidden as its all done in javascript and not php so you can view source and save a local copy to your hard drive...

http://www.celestialvisions.net/ssc.html
I'm trying to teach the cavemen how to play scrabble, its uphill work. The only word they know is Uhh and they dont know how to spell it!


Return to “Celestia Users”