Binary Systems

[Kim Gowney]

Would it be possible to improve on the representations of some of the more well known and documented binary systems? Some of even the classic systems are not accurately portrayed (Groombridge 34, Alpha Gemini etc)
Obviously this is because the information is not avaialble in the Tycho or Hipparcos catalogues, this is also no doubt why many of the B stars are represented as a sort of "Unknown" being listed as OV? but in fact many are actually know as to spectral type, distance from primary etc, most of this information being in the Washington Double Star Catalogue,
I am no good at this sort of stuff, but others may well be, is there any way of using the WDS along with the current star DB's to get a better picture of the double star systems?
and to take it a step further, is there any way to treat some of the brighter systems as planets and thus actually see them in motion?
Just an Idea.


Posted under another name in Rassilions Forum

[billybob884]

you could make a very small planet with a radius of like 1, then make the 2 other objects obiting it at hte same distance, but in different positions around it.

[Rassilon]

Im currently working on the Castor system...A system of 3 sets of binary stars totalling at 6 stars all together...

[Rassilon]

btw this was posted in response to your query on my forum by selden:

If you want an accurate representation, right now the answer has to be no You can define objects in .SSC files as planets that look like stars orbiting the local star, but there are some problems with this approach. Emissive objects look like they're emitting light, but they only illuminate themselves. Only the central star casts shadows. They aren't visible from outside the planetary system. Also,  objects orbit around specific other objects, they don't orbit around a common center of mass. You'd have to make a fake (invisible) central object and define the visible objects' orbits carefully if you want them to be realistic -- always on the opposite side of the central (non)mass. Ras' has created several stellar systems with multiple stars in them, but I dunno how realistic they are. They do look nice, though! In addition, Chris has mentioned (in postings on Shatters) that the orientation of the orbits of objects around other stars are not currently referenced to the solar ecliptic, so their positions as seen from Earth aren't right. e.g. transits can't be seen. You also can define additional individual stars in .STC files, and they'll be visible from Earth, but they won't be orbiting one another. I hope this clarifies things a little. (written later -- of course maybe Chris could be persuaded to add some of the necessary features in future versions of Celestia, which is why I haven't responded to your posting on Shatters. )

[The Clickman]

My dream : see our Solar System as describe (and visible in the movie) in "2010, The year we make contact"

[Don. Edwards]

I was working on that for a while. I just kind of lost intrest and started to spin parts of it off in other directions. I still may go back and do it but don't cross your fingers. At least not to long.

[Dust_n_Gas]

Thanks for your replies people!

[Matt McIrvin]

There's been interest in improving the representation of multiple star systems for some time-- I think Chris expressed interest in it at one point.

At the moment, though, I think most of the multiples are just those where the components are listed as separate in the Hipparcos catalog, and the most that's been done to improve the representation is that the distances from Sol have been snapped to equal values. In some cases this has been done when it isn't appropriate; for instance, I think the modern consensus is that Mizar/Alcor in the Big Dipper are at significantly different distances and are not really bound companions, though Mizar is itself actually a complicated multiple star system.