One minor nit is that the sun should be blue. :-)

Seriously though, this was much what I was thinking about as I read through the thread. I even went so far as I look through a pretty comprehensive system/planet generation document that was written with RPGs in mind.

This looks like an excelletn start!

Very good start, and very nice.

Nice. Shouldn't the life zone ratings of Londonium and Beylix be switched? Or Am I missing something?

Scratch that - I'm not reading it properly!

I dunno. I like it but I still hold that there's more than one star system and that the naration was just using off-terminoligy. It just dosent seem plausible to have a rough hundred habitable planets around one star, even with terraforming because A: The star would have to be huge to hold that many planets in a standard orbit. And B: If it were hot enough to get enough light and energy to the outer planets to keep them warm the inner ones would be burnt to cinders.

What I would suggest is a cluster of regular Sol type stars near to us now, perhaps a recently disipated nebula (by recent I mean in the last ten million years or so) that have all gathered up their own planets but are still in good proximity to eachother. This would allow for quicker travel between the systems and may explain some of the partially ripped up moons that we see Serenity fly by through the course of the show (gravetic conflicts from the various suns in close proximity). Thats what I think anyway.

Thanks y'all. One thing I'd correct on the next version - Silverhold should be 8 orbits away from St. Albans (as per the line "You're eight sectors from your jurisdiction" in The Message"). It originally was but got lost when I was shuffling around the positions of Persephone and Whitefall.

There's a longer discussion of my justifications for my choices in the "Solar System vs Galaxy" thread.

And yes the sun should definately be blue!

Hans

It seems good but like others have stated the proximity seems to be wrong for the planets. There is actually only a narrow band around each star which can sustain life, ours sustains earth and soon mars as this band moves furthes away from the sun. this is why experts say the most likely place for colonization is mars

no eliptical orbits?

I suppose the multi-system versus single-system drama could be dodged by not indicating orbits at all, just showing relative positions. Cool effort!

Little nit-pick: "Ita" moon, rather than "Ito" (#2)

paulbarthez re: your comment on orbit position. You're right that the life zone should be much smaller. The orbital positions are (somewhat) stylized for purposes of the map. In future versions the orbits containing the life zone might be further out from the sun but closer to each other.

re: Eliptical orbits - A good idea. I'm currently working on a more refined version of the map (in 3D) and I'd like to have some more interesting orbits, orbits that cross each other, asteroid belts, etc.

Hans

Thanks! Personally, I'm very much convinced that it's a single system. The Book intro is one of the things that got me into Firefly in the first place - the first time I heard it on Train Job, I was really impressed by that concept (I do electric space propulsion for a living, so I get into these things :)

I'll be using the map for my Firefly Neverwinter Nights campaign...saving image now :)

Very coolio my friend. I like the idea that Firefly takes place in a Solar System as opposed to some part of the Galazy.

You know, there may be more than one star around, or even systems very close together. Rogue planets. The outer 'Kuiniper' belt stuff. It can go on.

I love this geeky stuff. :)

I thought "system" as Book (and other I suppose) mentioned is meant to throw us off and let our imaginations go. Could be a complex system of multiple stars. Could be a tight cluster of stars that blur the line between system and cluster.

Astronomy is really startling us all the time. These giant extrasolar planets which we keep finding (since we can't yet detect smaller bodies or dark bodies far from a star) are so large that they often blur the line between gas giant and brown dwarf. And regarding nice eliptical or nearly circular orbits: study near earth object orbits and gas giant satellite orbits. You will see some orbits which are mechanically possible but almost (should I even say almost) fractal in their complexity.

I will not go totally crazy with Firefly science here, maybe some of you can point to other sources and better fora, but the writers also play very loose by mentioning that gravity can be altered on a planet wide scale when they mention that it's part of the terraforming process via Mal in Serenity. All I can say is, um, wow. I can't believe that would be possible. If it were, it would force the planetoid to change so much that would...just...wow. I mean, it seems to me that it would just as miraculous, maybe less, to increase the mass of a planetoid and have it gain gravity that way. Then it's orbit would change. Just...wow.

I really need a login. I'm gonna register as Anderlan.

For the sun look to look the same from all the worlds in only one system, they'd have to be in a belt, no?

Nice. This certainly makes a handy resource for role-playing.

The only niggle I have is that in one episode (either Bushwacked or Train Job - I forget which), Mal mentions that there are "...over 70 Earths..." which suggests that the series is set over multiple systems.

Otherwise, a useful piece of work.

Umm.. Are Jiangyin and Georgia supposed to be in the same orbital slot? Having them in the same one doesn't necessarily contradict orbital mechanics but it's highly unlikely. The gravitational Tidal forces from the gas giants would probably pull one of the two out of that configuration long ago in the system's development.

I think we need to assume that "system" by that time has become slang for galaxy or something. Because pretending you could ever terraform all these planets and moons in a single star system is silly and detracts from the otherwise awesome gritty reality of this show. I can handle the pretend gravity on the ship; that's a TV necessity. But I like to think of those terraformed colony worlds as earth-type planets ("over 70 earths..."). Just my 2-cents... --CosmicDJ

A good effort Hans...

I can understand the confusion that has occurred. Firefly keeps well away from the pseudo-science that plagues most space operas. We don't see wormholes/warp gates or hyperspace jumps.

However I can assure you that Firefly doesn't take place in a single solar system.

Firefly take place in the expanses of the milky way. How much of the galaxy is occupied is exactly known, but I can assure you it will be a tiny,tiny amount.

That said, it appears that the settled star systems are probably quite far appart. The vast majority of settled star systems are G type main sequence stars (like our sun).

All worlds have undergone a standard terraforming process that migrates standard "Earth" flora and fauna, which is why everywhere looks like Californian scrubland.
;-)

The Core systems may or may not be in the galactic core. Probably the "core" refers mostly to the fact that they have been settled for 200-400 years so are very well established...the core the the Alliance.

Serenity keeps well away from there and tends to keep to the newly colonised worlds on the alliance rim. These have only been colonised within the last few decades.

The edge of the galaxy remains uncharted and unsettled. Attempts to settle in extreme isolation have failed, presumably resulting in the feral brigands known as the Reaves.

I'll put my money where my mouth is as soon as possible and draw up my own impression of the galactic Firefly map.

what would be really interesting would be if there were only four gas giants all in the same orbit (in the habital zone) at the L3, L4 and L5 Lagrange Points with most of the habitation on their moons.