Do you learn with SE & its community?

28 Dec 2017 11:45

How many known stars and their positions are represented in SE?

The majority of known stars are taken from the Hipparcos Catalogue, a bit more than 110000 stars.

but is it perfectly accurate?

SpaceEngine doesn't have yet many standard planetarium tools, but they're in the TODO list. The recent implementation of analytical models for computing Solar System orbits it's a big leap in that direction.

As for accuracy, well it depends. I still giggle from time to time for this post (from the exoplanets news thread):

thank you Vladimir, for all the help. Funny story, using spaceengine we even corrected some of NASA's early press release images, since we noticed that Orion on their images looked different to ours (ESO), from Trappist-1 point of view. I checked trappist-1 position on the catalogue files of SE and it all looked correct, so we prompted them, and upon checking they had their coordinates for Trappist-1 wrong (they were using Uniview), and then corrected it! ;)

So yes, thanks once again!

SpaceEngine goal is also portraying what we know about astronomical objects. It tries to convey the sheer vastness of known universe in a mid-range gaming computer, and wow, it does the job to me

I'd say you definitely breathe Astronomy with SE, and every day a bit more to it. With a ludic experience too, even better a VR one... How much this can change your perception of science? For me it's like saying: This is the limit of the universe we know, feel it, touch it: What's yours, human?

John Wain · 29 Dec 2017 03:41

Mosfet, I agree with you about 'breathing astronomy' with this software, that's why I love it.

What I also forgot to mention - in regards to what you can learn with SE - is the spacecraft simulation and its painful realism. It destroys all your preconceptions about space flight that you might have from watching SF movies (here's an example of what I mean: in the beginning of this video, the Scimitar warship exits warp and makes a sharp turn to face the Enterprise E - in what is a very visually compelling and totally impossible maneuver, seeing that there's no 'air' to push against for this move: Enterprise VS Scimitar)

From what little I've been able to learn using Jarschel's Space School manual, I think the simulator is indeed one of the most complex and compelling functions of the game, if not one of the most fun due to the difficulty...

jadestar · 13 Jan 2018 11:42

I'd like to see magnetic fields, material composition of stars and planets, actual temperature variations, etc. The Anton Petrov videos make up for it though.

I'd love to see that incorporated somehow as well. As amazing as Space Engine is I always have to remind my self that it is the work of one developer. It's pretty amazing we have what we have but yes, more science please.

Anthro_Danielle · 22 Jan 2018 23:55

Hi John, thanks for jumping in, it's lovely to hear from you! Thank you for sharing your story RE recommending SE as a teaching tool, and I appreciate you providing examples of other resources that you might also consider in similar situations.

I absolutely agree with you on the power and impact that visualisations like this can have - I remember being enthralled by my astronomy infographic posters as a kid but if they could have been dynamic and interactive, oh my gosh I'm sure it would have blown my mind!!

What I also forgot to mention - in regards to what you can learn with SE - is the spacecraft simulation and its painful realism. It destroys all your preconceptions about space flight that you might have from watching SF movies (here's an example of what I mean: in the beginning of this video, the Scimitar warship exits warp and makes a sharp turn to face the Enterprise E - in what is a very visually compelling and totally impossible maneuver, seeing that there's no 'air' to push against for this move: Enterprise VS Scimitar)

I like the note about the 'painful realism' you experience as a user as preconceptions/expectations absorbed from popular stories and entertainment hit up against the physics of it, but then it sounds like correcting or updating your knowledge isn't just a painful/boring or dry kind of abstract/factual process, because the learning that you're doing is deeply experiential - you're 'breathing astronomy'. To me that sounds like a really powerful and effective mode of learning and it's cool to think about how that might let you develop your knowledge and extend and challenge yourself in new and different ways!

Anthro_Danielle · 22 Jan 2018 23:59

SpaceEngine doesn't have yet many standard planetarium tools, but they're in the TODO list. The recent implementation of analytical models for computing Solar System orbits it's a big leap in that direction.

As for accuracy, well it depends. I still giggle from time to time for this post (from the exoplanets news thread):

muitosabao wrote:
thank you Vladimir, for all the help. Funny story, using spaceengine we even corrected some of NASA's early press release images, since we noticed that Orion on their images looked different to ours (ESO), from Trappist-1 point of view. I checked trappist-1 position on the catalogue files of SE and it all looked correct, so we prompted them, and upon checking they had their coordinates for Trappist-1 wrong (they were using Uniview), and then corrected it! ;)

So yes, thanks once again!

SpaceEngine goal is also portraying what we know about astronomical objects. It tries to convey the sheer vastness of known universe in a mid-range gaming computer, and wow, it does the job to me

I'd say you definitely breathe Astronomy with SE, and every day a bit more to it. With a ludic experience too, even better a VR one... How much this can change your perception of science? For me it's like saying: This is the limit of the universe we know, feel it, touch it: What's yours, human?

Mosfet, great to hear from you as well! Thanks for joining in - I love the description of SE as a way to 'breathe astronomy', and how you discuss/address the multiple levels at which SE is working to represent and communicate different things - ie., there's the level of scientifically accurate models of objects that we can use to direct analysis and derive conclusions, but also the maybe more zoomed out level of conveying something about what the universe is like (ie., in scale, vastness, etc.), and this is something we might feel or apprehend differently, through directly seeing, experiencing, playing, feeling (which is interesting too, because it's not usually how we think about learning science!)... Is that a fair summary? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this topic!

Also - The NASA Trappist-1 catch is incredible and such a cool community story I absolutely love it :o

Anthro_Danielle · 23 Jan 2018 00:14

I'd love to see that incorporated somehow as well. As amazing as Space Engine is I always have to remind my self that it is the work of one developer. It's pretty amazing we have what we have but yes, more science please.

Hey jadestar! I know, it's hard to believe one person can do so much! It makes me feel a bit slack about my own work ethic and output haha.

In terms of the 'more science' that you'd like to see, it seems like this is something that alot of users are interested in, and that people spend time discussing, talking about, working out... Do you think that that community science 'work' feeds back into SE or the development 'work' in any way besides being a kind of game 'wishlist'? Or is that wishlist/todo list significant scientifically, too?
Hmm...not sure this is a fully formed thought on my part yet, just following the interesting thread... Is there science work that you as an individual/you as a group of users/community do to contribute to SE? I'd love to hear your thoughts!

A-L-E-X · 26 Jan 2018 17:04

Well in comparing it to SNPP I have to sadly say there are some inaccuracies

The belt of orion should be about 2.7 degrees wide but it comes out to closer to 2.2 degrees in SE.

Who is online