Free planetarium

 
JFrombaugh
Observer
Observer
Topic Author
Posts: 1
Joined: 07 Jan 2017

Planets in the galactic core

07 Jan 2017 15:09

As anyone who has played No Man's Sky will know, reaching the galactic core is the main goal in the game. The so-called Core Worlds are also the most well-developed and prestigious planets in the Star Wars series.
 
But in real life, there exists the notion of the Galactic Habitable Zone, which states that only a small ring of the Milky Way Galaxy may in fact be hospitable to life as we know it, citing things like metallicty, radiation levels and supernova rates. One study actually disputed its existence, claiming that even with the higher rates of supernovae and bolide impacts, the chance of finding a habitable planet that could support life could be as much as 10x greater than in the outer galaxy simply due to the higher metallicity.
 
So, using the Milky Way Galaxy waypoint as a guide, I set out to find planets. And I found that apparently whoever designed Space Engine apparently looked into this research, because almost every time I would do a 10 ly radius search for stars in the galactic bulge (out to a distance of 5,000 ly from the center) I would almost always find at least one star with a planet that has life, and most of the time I'd find several, at least one of which has 2 or 3 planets with life. More than half of all star systems were also binaries, and many of them had a total number of planets in the double-digits.
 
Here are four interesting planets that I have discovered inside the core of the Milky Way galaxy. All of them have life except for #2:
1. A green desert planet located about 1,300 ly from the galactic center
2. An ocean moon with an ice cap

3. A planet very similiar to Earth but with rings and average temeprature of only 2C, that resides at about 4,000 ly away from the center of our galaxy
4. A "Frozen Titan" that by all metrics should not be habitable (it has a nitrogen atmosphere and a surface temperarture of only -187.1C!), yet it has "exotic multicellular" purple plant life.
Attachments
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 17-22-51-97.jpg
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 20-23-36-05.jpg
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 20-16-10-12.jpg
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 20-41-47-06.jpg
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 20-48-30-65.jpg
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 20-29-21-26.jpg
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 20-30-53-96.jpg
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 20-36-48-32.jpg
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 20-52-54-94.jpg
SpaceEngine 2017-01-06 20-59-24-23.jpg
 
User avatar
problemecium
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 64
Joined: 30 Dec 2016

Planets in the galactic core

07 Jan 2017 21:14

JFrombaugh wrote:
whoever designed Space Engine

That would be forum user "SpaceEngineer" ;) Welcome to the forum btw!
Note that galactic cores have a much higher star density than the periphery, as you can see looking around in space and also in the "Stars Found" area of the Star Browser. Within a given distance near the center, e.g. ten light-years, you'll find many more stars than you will doing the same search out near the edge. Consequently you're going to end up finding more habitable planets even if the probability of a given planet being habitable is the same.
Did you account for this? If not I'd be interested in a survey on whether SpaceEngineer considered this factor (or hear from him directly); I suspect he did not and that the rate of habitable planets is the same everywhere.
ᴩʀoʙʟᴇᴍᴇᴄɪᴜᴍ﹖
Formerly known as "parameciumkid."
 
User avatar
Xoran
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 378
Joined: 17 Jan 2017
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Planets in the galactic core

02 Feb 2017 10:25

The Galactic Habitable Zone is based on what humans can survive. Aliens might be able to survive the radiation in the core, or other extreme situations for humans, because they evolved to withstand them.
Space is too big to understand, so do not try to understand.
 
User avatar
DoctorOfSpace
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 643
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Location: SpaceX Mars Colony
Contact:

Planets in the galactic core

02 Feb 2017 15:30

Xoran wrote:
Source of the post Galactic Habitable Zone is based on what humans can survive.

Actually it is based on what Earth life can survive, and even the hardiest microbes would have trouble being blasted by tons of radiation.
The galactic habitable zone is also purely hypothetical currently, though I personally think it is reasonable.
CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor - RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 - GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SC Black Edition
Quando omni flunkus, moritati
 
User avatar
Xoran
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 378
Joined: 17 Jan 2017
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Planets in the galactic core

03 Feb 2017 02:03

Still, life probably exists outside of the GHZ, and we may be outside of their GHZ. Still, the rate of planets with life may be larger in the disk than in the bulge.
Space is too big to understand, so do not try to understand.
 
User avatar
Sion
Observer
Observer
Posts: 16
Joined: 04 Nov 2016

Planets in the galactic core

08 Jun 2017 11:35

Parameters got much harder for survivability alone.

I read somewhere now that red dwarfs would expose their planets to much more radiation from the proximity of their habitable zones to the star itself.

I assume the only logical option is to drop finding breathable worlds around Y-M Class stars , because the radiation would kill us before the atmosphere would.
 
Victorbrine Orionis
Observer
Observer
Posts: 14
Joined: 24 Jul 2017

Planets in the galactic core

24 Jul 2017 23:30

We find these specific parameters because one day we have the idea to go to these planets. However life rarely surrenders so it can exist virtually anywhere. Although there are still specific parameters.

Although the core of the Galazy is likely to be hotter and more radioactive. If you get closer to the core you'll end up bathed into the gamma rays of Sagitarrius A. And as you get closer to Sagitarrius A I think that stars are getting chaotic. So there is still a "GHZ" for all life in general, as near the center reigns heat, radiation and chaos. But that is just my opinion.

And for Red dwarfs, after all the planet mostly gets tidally locked when it's in the habitable zone. And there is no such thing as "twilight zone" actually, heat is almost evenly distributed on these kinds of planet while a giant permanent cyclone appears on the lit side (SE represents that quite well). Though then yes, Red dwarfs irradiate their planets, and don't forget regular flaring.

If that's the case then we can all forget Proxima b.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elemental and 12 guests