[Desert Tyrant]

Good point. That system could have been named after a person since Capella is a surname...but I wonder why Wolf 359 and Ross 128 kept their old names. No reference to "nicknames" of any sort.

Wolf 359 at least is quite heavily used in fiction under that name. Changing the name would simply result in it having a less identifiable name.

I don't think so with all due respect.  The only time in fiction i've heard of W359 was ST:The Next Generations' Best of Both Worlds and the Shatnerverse novels.  Correct me if i'm wrong 

[Herra Tohtori]

...in a system with 6 stars, having a habitable planet is night impossible.

No it isn't. That's like saying that in a solar system of 8 planets it's nigh impossible to have a stable orbit solution on the habitable zone.

Considering the one example of a habitable planet, that indeed happens to be the case. It's a coincidence of relatively low probability, but then again there might be corresponding amount of solar systems with multiple bodies where there is no possible stable orbit on habitable zone, and the ones that do eventually happen to produce life on the planet on habitable zone.

Even more so, the planets themselves have moons on stable orbits. Jupiter has about 30 of them, I don't even remember the exact count any more, and at least four of them are so big they could be considered planets on their own.

Similarly, it is possible that six or even more stars could orbit each other, and have planets orbiting them without the other stars notably disturbing the orbits of the planets (and the moons around planets, and possibly even made satellites around the moons...). All it takes is that the distances between the six stars don't vary wildly. After all, distances in most multi-star systems are considerable. As an example, Alpha Centauri A and B are about 0.21 light years away from Proxima Centauri, which with very high probability is part of same system, ie. the stars orbit each other.

However, having six even sun-size stars (apparent diameter) on the sky of a habitable planet is nigh-on impossible. At the best you would have multiple full moon brightness stars on the sky and one or at max two day stars. Depending on the stars in question.

But it is possible. And with some probability somewhere in the universe it's actually happening, multiple times and many places. It's a big place you know.

[karajorma]

Capella Ha and Hb aren't going to be a problem. They orbit A and B at a distance of 11000AU, over a light year away from the main 2 stars.

Any planet orbiting Capella A would get knocked out of its orbit pretty quickly by Capella B. However since the two orbit each other it's possible AFAIK that a planet could obit both of them at a much larger distance. With two stars to warm it the habitable zone for humans would be much further out.


I've got no idea where stars 5 and 6 are. I've never seen any sign they even exist in any reference I've seen so far.

I don't think so with all due respect.  The only time in fiction i've heard of W359 was ST:The Next Generations' Best of Both Worlds and the Shatnerverse novels.  Correct me if i'm wrong 

Well surely that's a big enough mention on its own.

There's a list here though.

[TrashMan]

I didn't say it was impossible did I? Just that's is far more unlikely than a habitable planet in a single-star system.

That said, I still find it kinda hard to swallow. If a planet orbits both suns, then it would have to be VERY far away from both of them, or would eventually end up pulled into one.
And if it's that far away, chances are it's gonna be a frozen wasteland with no atmosphere, even with 2 suns. We're taking distances far greater than that from our sun to Pluto after all.

[terran_emperor]

Well...they have found planets orbiting Pulsars

[TrashMan]

I somehow doubt THAT planet is habitable...since well..you know what they say about pulsars and Gamma Ray bursts

[Admiral Nelson]

At one point I began integrating proper stars into the missions.  These stars were made by m2258734a.  Unfortunately, that fellow vanished long ago without completing the work.  Most of the FSCRP Warzone features correct star systems.

[karajorma]

And if it's that far away, chances are it's gonna be a frozen wasteland with no atmosphere, even with 2 suns. We're taking distances far greater than that from our sun to Pluto after all.

You're talking about that kind of distance. Not me.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/videos/spitzer/spitzer20070329/?msource=mm032907&tr=y&auid=2515817

[Herra Tohtori]

Weeeelll... Just some interesting stipulations:

Radiation power weakens by square of the distance, ie. if you go to double the distance, you get one fourth of the power from the star.

This means that if you have a star with absolute magnitude of 25 Suns, the habitable zone would be about 5 AU from thestar - AND the habitable zone would be about five times as wide as the one around Sun.


That means that chances for having a planet on stable habitable zone orbit around two stars that orbit each other go drastically low. The stars would need to be orbiting each other very close to each other and be bright enough to support habitable zone at a distance that isn't too badly disturbed with the gravitational oscillations (also called tides by the way) from the rotating system of two gravitational bodies, but if that would work out, then the system could be stable. Assuming that no other star from the system will pass close by and disrupt everything.

The other possibility is more interesting one.

If you have a star that has 0.01 times the brightness of the Sun (ie. red dwarf), the habitable zone is found at about 0.1 AU from the star. That's a minuscule distance at solar scale; it would with very high probability allow a red dwarf in multiple star system to retain planets around it on stable orbits; some could be on the habitable zone.

Same applies to all multiple star systems with stars (like Galaxies! we have a 100 billion star system right there!) at sufficient distance from each other - each star could, with more or less ease, have stable planetary orbits on the habitable zone. 

...yes, I know that with multiple star system, the definition is that the stars all orbit a local center of gravity, ie. each other.

This is an interesting toy. Try out the Four-mutual orbit - if each were a star, each could have planets around them, and each of them could have moons on stable orbits. If the mentioned orbits were close enough to the star, that is.

[Mobius]

There's a list here though.

Hey! That page mentioned Giordano Bruno! He lived not so far from here(eat this, Dysko!)

There's an error...

Descent: FreeSpace — The Great War, computer game. A player character is assigned to fly support in the "remote Wolf 359 system" if a certain mission is failed.

It happens in FS2, not FS1.

In the PlayStation game series Colony Wars (1997), Alpha Centauri was the first star system to be colonized outside of our own solar system.

But there's nothing about FreeSpace and Alpha Centauri...

Descent: FreeSpace — The Great War, computer game. Despite being an unpopulated system, Gamma Draconis plays a central role in the Galactic-Terran Vasudan Alliance's second war against the xenophobic Shivans.

Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War?!? Meh...

[karajorma]

That means that chances for having a planet on stable habitable zone orbit around two stars that orbit each other go drastically low. The stars would need to be orbiting each other very close to each other and be bright enough to support habitable zone at a distance that isn't too badly disturbed with the gravitational oscillations (also called tides by the way) from the rotating system of two gravitational bodies, but if that would work out, then the system could be stable. Assuming that no other star from the system will pass close by and disrupt everything.

Capella would require a large distance but only because Capella is so bright, less massive stars might not require such a large distance. Both A and B are more than 50 times brighter than the sun. According to this site the distance for the habitable zone for each component on it's own would be over 7AUs. Far enough that tidal forces wouldn't be as much of a problem as they would be closer in.

[TrashMan]

Interesting...very interesting.

[Herra Tohtori]

Yes, if the brightness changes by multiplier of N, the distance to habitable zone changes by multiplier of N^½, or Sqrt(N).

A star 50 times as bright as Sun would indeed have habitable zone at about 7.1 AU, and it would be 7.1 times as wide as the zone around Earth's orbit as well.

Although when considering habitability, you might want to consider the longevity of the stars as well. Giants burn bright and fast, they can have lives on the magnitude of millions of years, whereas Sun-sized stars can hold on billions of years. That means there's not much time for life to evolve. Colonization might be the only viable source of life for planets around a giant or supergiant.

Dwarves, on the other hand, can heoretically burn stable for tens of billions of years, possibly even hundreds of billions of years (but since the universe is not even that old, there's no empiric data about that old dwarves). The oldest observed star is a yellow dwarf like our sun (yes, it's a dwarf) and it's about 13.2 billion years old, whereas the universe itself is clocked at 13.7 billion years... That's some mighty old star, eh?

The problem with the dwarves, though, is that the habitable zone is often so close to the star that any planet there would be tidally locked...

[karajorma]

Yeah but I wasn't talking about life evolving around Capella, simply it possibly being suitable for human life when we arrived there.


If I was talking about life starting on a planet I wouldn't be talking about habitable zones or any of that nonsense. That stuff only applies when we talk about planets suitable for us to live on without any kind of special protection/equipment/genetic engineering.

[TrashMan]

It always is possible...I figure it depends on how the Suns orbit eachother

That said, does the gamma ray burst from pulsars have any max range?

[terran_emperor]

I never said the Planets that the planet's they found around Pulsars would be habitable, i merely said that they found them

[TrashMan]

I wasn't implying you did... I was just expanding upon it for discussions sake

[Wanderer]

Dunno why people bother thinking about bright stars.. given that essentially all stars are actually red or brown dwarfs - IIRC according to current knowledge - with only small minority of stars belonging to class K 'or better'. And we don't even know the true amount of the brown dwarfs ATM - as unlit stars are kinda difficult to detect.

Although when considering habitability, you might want to consider the longevity of the stars as well. Giants burn bright and fast, they can have lives on the magnitude of millions of years, whereas Sun-sized stars can hold on billions of years. That means there's not much time for life to evolve. Colonization might be the only viable source of life for planets around a giant or supergiant.

Dwarves, on the other hand, can heoretically burn stable for tens of billions of years, possibly even hundreds of billions of years (but since the universe is not even that old, there's no empiric data about that old dwarves). The oldest observed star is a yellow dwarf like our sun (yes, it's a dwarf) and it's about 13.2 billion years old, whereas the universe itself is clocked at 13.7 billion years... That's some mighty old star, eh?

Downside is that the star system that old probably haven't got all the elements the 'life as we know it' would need. Iron and other heavier elements for example would probably be kinda scarce is that system... Given that their formation IIRC requires more than one 'boom' (in addition to the big bang) - and of course the time needed for the remnants of that star to begin to collect to a new star. As i remember it the timing is kinda problematic as too young stars systems haven't probably has enough time to develop life and the too old stars lack materials needed for the life to develop - again talking about the life as we know it though as heavier elements are kinda critical catalysts in organic chemistry i see those as mandatory for any life.

[starlord]

Actually the star's alphabet notation is a criteria of their magnitude (their brightness). this way, you can find alpha centauris being the red giant in the centauris 3 stars cluster, while beta will be the less visible white companion to alpha and the extra star (the red dwarf) will be gamma. However, the stars are so close that to the naked eye, they form only one star: proxima.

You see, the arabic already named quite a few stars (as they hed great advances in astronomics), therefore instead of always using the nomenclatura, we name stars like aldebaran in the taurus, which is in fact alpha taurus, see? The same thing goes with known stars like betelgese or rigel in the orion, vega in the libra, capella, procyon, sirius (which is, as a note, the brightest star we can see, just 3rd in the most visible objects behind the sun and the moon), arcturus, etc...

I hope I have ... enlightened you? 

[Wanderer]

'K or better' was meant to reference stars of classes O, B, A, F, G, K... hence brighter being 'better'. Red dwarfs being class M and brown dwarfs being in M or even 'lower classes' like L or T.

And what exactly does the arabic names of the star systems have to do with anything?