GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

About the planets of firefly

POSTED BY: KAYLEERULESALL
UPDATED: Friday, August 26, 2005 10:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3805
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:55 PM

KAYLEERULESALL


As some may recall, i posted a few days ago about the unlikelyness of a system with so many freakin' planets. well, a hobby of mine is astronomy, so i and a former professor of mine crunched some numbers. it looks that it is scientifically possible for a star, similar to the sun, to have approxamately 70 planets or moons with a rocky surface between 108 million miles and 714 million miles away from the star. this just happens to be the habitable zone for our star, if one where to expand it slightly, which would allow for any terraforming tricks, like greenhouse gasses in the upper atmosphere to increase surface temperature.

So, in conclusion, the firefly system could actually be out there right now...

------------------------------------------------
"There are two infinate things in our world. The universe, and Human stupidity. I'm not too sure about the first one." Albert Einstien

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:04 PM

GOPHERMUNCHER


cool beans. How exactly do you crunch numbers? what variables go into the crunching?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:13 PM

KAYLEERULESALL


basically what we did was see how far apart planets had to be from each other to not pull one another apart with thier gravity. once we did that, we established an average planet mass ( we used the mass of mars for planets and the mass of earth's moon for moons.) and realised we could cram about 70 of them in the space between 108 million kilometers from the sun and 714 kilometeres from the sun, as long as a large number of them were moons because by making a lot of them moons of other planets, they fit in alot better because moons are smaller, therefore less gravity, and they dont take up nearly as much space as planets do.

*takes breath*

and that was pretty much it. Now the kicker is probibilty. while this system could exist, its far more likely all the dust in the birth of the system would all congeal into about five, maybe 6 planets of decent enough mass to terraform. so the the colonists from Earth had to be pretty damn lucky to find a system like that in the first place!

------------------------------------------------
"There are two infinate things in our world. The universe, and Human stupidity. I'm not too sure about the first one." Albert Einstien

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:03 PM

COSMOLINE


Aren't a lot of the planets just big moons, though? There could be ton of them around a gas giant.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:32 PM

KAYLEERULESALL


thats exactly my point. makes it more possible to have them there if they are moons. they take up less space and such.

------------------------------------------------
"There are two infinate things in our world. The universe, and Human stupidity. I'm not too sure about the first one." Albert Einstien

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 12:50 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by KayleeRulesAll:
and that was pretty much it. Now the kicker is probibilty. while this system could exist, its far more likely all the dust in the birth of the system would all congeal into about five, maybe 6 planets of decent enough mass to terraform. so the the colonists from Earth had to be pretty damn lucky to find a system like that in the first place!


Most of the bodies would have to be moons of larger gas giants (or indeed moons of hapitable planets?), and captured bodies...

Thing is wouldn't that many bodies in such a comparitivly small area of space still be a problem. Okay they are far enough apart not to rip each other apart with gravity, but wouldn't they distabalise each others orbital path?
As a rather pedantic sidenote, why in night scenes in FireFly don't we see all these other planets, being so close together wouldn't you see them?

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 4:21 AM

KAYLEERULESALL


both very good points. they would be very close, and yeah, you might think that their proximity would make them go all crazy orbitally. which is partially true; except that nature has a great way of balancing things out. all the gravitational interaction would fuss with the orbits, but they would still be stable. they may be far more elliptical than regular orbits; some may even be closer to triangles with rounded off corners--but all the orbits would be stable. at least, one 19 year old girl with a passing interrest and a 62 year old biology professor with a telescope have found. we may be wrong, who knows? allthogh, we did do about 2 hours worth of research on orbital properties and gravity.

for the next quiestion, the answer would be yes if you were in a system of moons. for example, if you were arund a gas gant with lots of moons, would would see:
1. the gas giant
2.the moon you were going to/coming from/whatever
3. and other moons close by.

the thing is, those other moons would be far enough away to be little more than bright dots. but yes, that is one incongruity; occasionally there would be another moon close enough to see. but maybe not that often, which could ecplain why we havent seen that yet. Remember, space is big, folks.

about seeing other planets--well, yes and no. they wouldnt be as big in the night sky as you might think. the closest planet might appear to be about the size of an M&M held up at arm's length against the sky, and it would be pretty much a blurry disk, thanks to atmospheric effects. kinda easy to loose something like that in something like a whole sky. the farther ones would just appear as solid white spcks, as the other planets in our system appear to us here on Earth.

anywho, at this point, i personally would rather not pick it apart any more. im afraid if i do, it might ruin something for me. Thank you all for your interest, though; i appreciate the questions!

------------------------------------------------
"There are two infinate things in our world. The universe, and Human stupidity. I'm not too sure about the first one." Albert Einstien

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 4:52 AM

JEREMY757


There is nothing to say that it can't be a binary star with star #2 orbiting star #1 beyond its planetary rings and having its own planets orbiting it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 5:04 AM

KAYLEERULESALL


very true. mine was just one explanatiion. im sure others can work.

------------------------------------------------
"There are two infinate things in our world. The universe, and Human stupidity. I'm not too sure about the first one." Albert Einstien

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 5:06 AM

CITIZEN


Tnx muchly for the reply, you've got me interested so I may look in to it myself...
Just thought tho, that the average distance between bodies, based on 70 bodies in the habitable zone of 606 Million kilometers would be about 8 Million Kilometers, thats pretty close in orbital terms...
So some planets may appear quite large in the night sky.
Is all.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 5:14 AM

KAYLEERULESALL


maybe; we didnt really look into that part. still, with planets being (relitively) so small, and space bein so big...i dunno, could go either way, i suppose.


looks like you did 606/70=8...keep in mind lots of them are moons. that would make it more like 606/20, or something like that, seeing as moons typically are only several hundered thousand kilometers from thier planets.
------------------------------------------------
"There are two infinate things in our world. The universe, and Human stupidity. I'm not too sure about the first one." Albert Einstien

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 5:17 AM

NOSADSEVEN


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

As a rather pedantic sidenote, why in night scenes in FireFly don't we see all these other planets, being so close together wouldn't you see them?



Well, we do see some moons and a planet in the daytime sky outside the bar in The Train Job. (When Mal suggests to Wash that a "grand entrance would not go amiss." IIRC.



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 5:23 AM

KAYLEERULESALL


well there ya go!

------------------------------------------------
"There are two infinate things in our world. The universe, and Human stupidity. I'm not too sure about the first one." Albert Einstien

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 5:40 AM

CITIZEN


Oh yeah, forgot about that...
*is properly admonished*

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 5:54 AM

DIEGO


I think it may be a little easier to conceive of the Firefly system if we drop the "70 Earths" requirement. We've actually not seen very many worlds yet, and there's no reason besides Mal's statement to suspect a system with nearly a hundred habitable worlds. It would be very easy to reconcile the two if we considered the possibility that there are several other human colonized systems. They could all maintain communication with each other even if they were effectively isolated by interstellar distances. I also like the idea because it would multiply the possible diversity of cultures and governments in the 'Verse.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 5:59 AM

KAYLEERULESALL


i agree. i think the "hundreds of Earths" and "a whole galaxy of new worlds" refers instead to just the few planets in the system. i mean, were hearing this from space cowboys; safe to say there aint much education among them. they hear a fancy word like galaxy and use it cuz it sounds cool, not much carin if its really the most accurate term for thier little planetry system. thats my take on it, anyway.

while having more systems would make more sense, they are supposed to be able to get to all the planets in the 'verse. its a well known fact that there is no FTL in the 'verse, though, so getting to worlds in another system would take like 50 years or so, probably more. clearly, they cant be in multiple systems.

------------------------------------------------
When the stars shine bright through the engine's trail and the dust of another world drops behind; When my ship is free of the open sky, its a damn good day to my way of mind; Theres a barren planet you never can leave, theres a rocky valley where we lost a war; Theres a cross worn 'round a soldier's neck, theres a man's faith died on Serenity's floor, but i stood my ground and ill fight once more; Its the last oath that i ever swore

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 6:56 AM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:

Originally posted by Diego:
I think it may be a little easier to conceive of the Firefly system if we drop the "70 Earths" requirement.

Its possible that they are counting space stations and habitats on non-terraformed stellar bodies.

BTW Episode 7 of 'The Signal' (The Big Damn Podcast) did a piece on this subject:
http://serenityfirefly.com/

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 7:07 AM

JAEDE77


Did anyone catch on Train Job when the Alliance fellas were talking about the train heist, they said something about "oh, that's in the Georgia System"....?????

Maybe that's some sort of "sector" demarkation for the planetary system... but that sounds a lot like a hint that there's more than one planetary system...

Did anybody catch that? Wonder what that's about?


Quote:

Originally posted by KayleeRulesAll:
i agree. i think the "hundreds of Earths" and "a whole galaxy of new worlds" refers instead to just the few planets in the system. i mean, were hearing this from space cowboys; safe to say there aint much education among them. they hear a fancy word like galaxy and use it cuz it sounds cool, not much carin if its really the most accurate term for thier little planetry system. thats my take on it, anyway.

while having more systems would make more sense, they are supposed to be able to get to all the planets in the 'verse. its a well known fact that there is no FTL in the 'verse, though, so getting to worlds in another system would take like 50 years or so, probably more. clearly, they cant be in multiple systems.

------------------------------------------------
When the stars shine bright through the engine's trail and the dust of another world drops behind; When my ship is free of the open sky, its a damn good day to my way of mind; Theres a barren planet you never can leave, theres a rocky valley where we lost a war; Theres a cross worn 'round a soldier's neck, theres a man's faith died on Serenity's floor, but i stood my ground and ill fight once more; Its the last oath that i ever swore



“Can I suggest something that doesn't involve violence, or is this the wrong crowd for that?”
–Wash

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 7:42 AM

KAYLEERULESALL


I took that to mean that the Georgia system is the planet Erza, its rocky moons, and its ring system. its like a collective term for the whole system of bodies in orbit around Erza(which is the world they were actually on) since that whole area is a huge mining center.

its like calling jupiter and its moons the "Jupiter system." as to where they got the name Georgia if the planet's name is Erza, i got nuttin'.

------------------------------------------------
When the stars shine bright through the engine's trail and the dust of another world drops behind; When my ship is free of the open sky, its a damn good day to my way of mind; Theres a barren planet you never can leave, theres a rocky valley where we lost a war; Theres a cross worn 'round a soldier's neck, theres a man's faith died on Serenity's floor, but i stood my ground and ill fight once more; Its the last oath that i ever swore

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 8:29 AM

JAEDE77


Great points, Kayleerulesall, I was also thinking (probably too much) that "Georgia" may just be their radio-lingo-word for the letter "G"... so maybe the Alliance has an abbreviation for certain planet/moon combinations...

Hmmmm...

“Can I suggest something that doesn't involve violence, or is this the wrong crowd for that?”
–Wash

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 26, 2005 10:16 AM

CITIZEN


Okay this post contains spoilers, albeit little ones that have no real impact on the film:

Select to view spoiler:


The film sets out pretty firmly that there is only one system. It also sets out that there are very few main habitable planetary bodies, and so large moons of gas giants, unterraformed bodies and space stations must be included in the count...



Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL