Celestia Forums

As you all are aware, my last major system, 64 Huns, did not work out the way I'd hoped.

I have created a Quad system of stars hundreds of times bigger than the sun and millions (one is 2.22 billion) solar lumanosities. Here's some screenshots of 96 Can ABCD.













Here's the contents of 96 Can ABCD



After you've copied the contents, open Celestia, press enter, type 96 Can ABCD, and press enter again. You should see bright lights about 12620 light years away in celestia. Press G to go to the system. and enjoy. Also, you need to put 96 Can.stc into your extras directory.

44 views and still no replies. maybe nobody even liked 96 Can ABCD, or 64 Huns.

Celestial_Planets wrote:44 views and still no replies. maybe nobody even liked 96 Can ABCD, or 64 Huns.

May be.
I installed your stc file, and I found something I don't think real.
The 96 Can ABCD group is so luminous that it's the only Milky Way object visible very very far away from the galaxy (it disappears when farther than 323.21 Kp!!!).
I'm not expert in space dynamics, but I think that orbital speeds don't follow the actually known phisics laws, IMHO, but I can be wrong.
And your system is a kind of Solar system with 4 suns instead of 9 planets, nothing else.
Sorry, but neither I like it, nor understand what was your purpose, except to learn to write a working stc file, and this is OK (but not working in our Universe, I fear).
Sorry.
Bye

Andrea

Do you have a story to back this system up? I have found that people on this forum who give their addons stories get a much larger response! Your story could be anything, a question, a physics proposition/question, an actuall story, or simply a good addon to make screenshots for your desktop. Its a fine quadruple system! But is it anything other than a quadruple system?

I have to agree with Andrea. It works fine as a proof that you can write STCs that render correctly - but in terms of realism it fails badly. The stars are far too luminous and far too large and completely unrealistic. I suspect the orbits are unrealistic too.

So there's not really much anyone can say other than to acknowledge that you are able to show (unrealistic) stars in Celestia.

For those of you who want the file, you should look at this webste for 96 Can ABCD. I named it 96 Can.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/30be4374-4512-41b4-af61-2eafa57669cb/96-Can.stc

Hope you post any comments on what's wrong in this forum.

Malenfant wrote:So there's not really much anyone can say other than to acknowledge that you are able to show (unrealistic) stars in Celestia.

Think of it as a learning experience. You should have seen my first Celestia work (ehm, i *really* hope you haven??t).

As someone else wrote, giving it some context will help: otherwise, it is just spheres. If it is a realistic work, you need data. If it is fictional, a reason we can relate to.

Don??t take this as criticism, but as encouragement.

- rthorvald

There is an (theoretical) upper mass limit for stars. Current studies suggest this mass limit to fall somewhere between 120-200 SM. There are other studies that give a range of 150-300 SM. Additionally, the mass of a star (usually) is influenced by and commensurate with variables in it's environment (e.g., star clusters, gas densities, gravitational fields, older vs. younger stars, etc.). The Pistol star is believed to be bewtween 150 to 250 SM but, is also suspected of being 2 merged stars. I also suspect these limits are, somewhat, peculiar to individual types and spectral classes (just as the Chandrasekhar limit -1.4 SM- applies to a White Dwarf). Now, I'm certainly no expert and am severely lacking in the field of Physics but, even with these handicaps, understand the reasoning toward maintaining some semblance of realism. Stars are not like planets, which, for even more reasons, are easier applied to SciFi. Stars are fun, to me anyway but, though many theories within a reasonable framework can be experimented with, great care should be given when applying extremes.
Even the smallest amount of research on a project can reap millions in rewards.
A couple of interesting articles on this subject:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/05/text/
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/upper_limit_star_size.html
Post Script: When dealing with luminosities, don't forget the "Eddington Limit".