Hi there! This is Val, I made the star chart. There's a little "about" blurb you can open in a modal on the site, but I wanted to mention that this demo uses the amazing GAIA DR3 dataset from ESA. I have a Python script that renders all 1.8+ billion stars into custom images, which is what I used for the skybox. The star positions and colors all use the GAIA data (save for a few bright stars not in the set). The data is amazing, and if you have any interest in doing some fun projects with open data I recommend checking it out: https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dr3
Just FYI the sizes of the planets, stars, and their orbits are not to scale at all. To get an idea of how empty space is, there are 63,360 inches in a mile, and 63,239 astronomical units in a light-year. So if you scaled everything down such that Earth was 1 inch from the Sun, Neptune would be 30 inches away and Alpha Centauri would be 4 miles away.
If you were using a 4k display and had the Sun and Alpha Centauri visible at opposite sides of the display, the orbit of Neptune would be in the same pixel as the Sun.
Mercury is orbiting partially inside the Sun, and Jupiter is nearly as wide as the Sun when it should be 1/10 as much, so the planet nodes should be scaled down 10x relative to the Sun.
Also, I did a top-down pixel measurement, where I could see the distance to Tau Ceti as well as the orbit of Neptune. The radius of Neptune's orbit was 32px, while the distance to Tau Ceti was 1152px, for a ratio of 36, when in reality, Tau Ceti is 11.9 ly away, while Neptune has an orbit radius of 30 AU, which means Tau Ceti is around 25,000 Neptune orbits away, so the planet orbit scale is too big (or distance to other stars too small) by a factor of ~694 (25000/36)
Edit: Since this was top-down, the vertical displacement didn't factor into the distance, which also contributed to Tau Ceti appearing too close on screen, so the error is slightly better than that, maybe a factor of 600.
Edit 2:
Tau Ceti is rendered at 3.652 pc × 3 world units/pc = 10.956 world units
Neptune’s orbit radius is rendered as 30.05 AU × 0.0065 world units/AU = 0.195325 world units
The rendered ratio is 10.956 / 0.195325 = 56.09 Neptune-orbit radii
The real ratio should be 25,067.5 Neptune-orbit radii
Another comparison: if you count the "solar system" as ending at Neptune's orbit (obviously it extends much further, but just for the sake of comparison), then you could fit ~4465 "solar systems" in between our sun and the closest star, Proxima Centauri.
Sure, but why does this need to be to scale. Isn't the point more to get the humans a way of understanding where things are relatively? Navigating the map makes it interesting in being able to interactively see where some of the stars are relative to each other. Seeing Regulus and Castor/Pollux from this perspective is much different than on terra firma.
Even sci-fi writers that try to get this right have a hard time wrapping their heads around it.
"It's called space for a reason."
When I saw the series adaptation of The Expanse, it was really obvious they played a lot of artistic license to make it exciting. A real space battle would be dots firing invisible dots at each other. "Close quarter battle" would be within something like 2000 kilometers, maybe more. That is close.
> When I saw the series adaptation of The Expanse, it was really obvious they played a lot of artistic license to make it exciting. A real space battle would be dots firing invisible dots at each other. "Close quarter battle" would be within something like 2000 kilometers, maybe more. That is close.
This is noteworthy because The Expanse tried to get this better than other scifi, say Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, or Star Wars (ok, space opera), where engagements take place at absurdly short ranges. In The Expanse you see the spaceships are really far apart, mostly dots to each other, and the engagements are (mostly) at really long torpedo ranges, with the exception of those cool scenes using PDCs. You get all those awesome shots where one spaceship sees the other as a tiny dot, then the camera zooms in dramatically to the other point of view. Cool!
And still, engagements are far too close range. But they "feel" long range in The Expanse, I think they got that visually right. I cannot blame them because I haven't seen anything any space combat in shows or movies that is even half as exciting and well done.
The Expanse also was (for me) the first to introduce the concept of a braking burn. Star Wars ships just stop without turning around - can’t unsee it. I think the way X-wing fighters “fly” also wouldn’t work at all, I don’t see any reaction mass coming out the sides.
Babylon 5 was the only show in the 90s that actually had any sort of physics based space combat (as opposed to Star Wars-style "they're really just airplanes but we're pretending it's space").
I don't think the Expanse authors were going for "hard sci-fi." There's, you know, fiction elements -- gates, aliens, magic. And the TV series is itself an adaptation of the books for a visual medium. Showing almost nothing would make for kind of boring TV combat.
I recently read The Mote in God's Eye and its (much later) sequel The Gripping Hand, which had very interesting long-distance space combat scenes with high powered lasers - which only move at the speed of light. There's a very real "fog of war" element where you might be VERY out of date with what's happening just due to radio transmission speeds / direct observation.
Tangent I'll throw in here, I never get the fabric folding gravity well diagrams as it seems to have a "down" direction, I guess it looks like it's down since it's a slice but the effect is an inward sphere?
> I guess it looks like it's down since it's a slice but the effect is an inward sphere?
Yes, gravity is a vector field: every point in space near a heavy body has a vector pointed at the center of the body with a magnitude of the field strength.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field
Whenever someone uses fabric sheet analogy, they need to shout that the X-Y of the sheet is a 2 dimensional analog of X-Y-Z space, and the Z direction of the sheet is the field magnitude, with the slope indicating direction.
All models are wrong, but some are useful (for understanding).
Other thing is I believe they say gravity is strongest at the center of the sphere/core but I would think the mass is split evenly away from the core eg. maybe 2/3 radius from the center where it's equal mass on each side. But probably doesn't make sense wouldn't be a ball.
Since the strength is represented by the slope of the sheet (not the depth), it should still line up. Underneath the ball at the very center the sheet will be level, to match as you say, that the field strength is 0 there. The exact shape will probably be wrong though since it's mostly determined by the shape of the bottom of the object.
Just a question - why do you classify Long Way with PHM - because there are aliens working with humans? I don’t see any other similarities. The technology IIRC (haven’t read in years) in the Becky Chambers book is closer to Star Trek than reality, and there’s not that much of an overarching plot - which is not to say a book cannot be good without one but it’s a big difference.
True less technical and space themed so maybe not fitting just a fun easy read
Oh yeah another series would be Nick Webb Constitution (Legacy Fleet), I think I got farther into that series but didn't finish it unlike Bobiverse, maybe I did finish this trilogy, I haven't read books in a while honestly. That was a good series though I remember the depiction of the space battles.
Trying to be better at being in the moment vs. watching youtube/scrolling a website at the same time kind of thing
Added to my kindle list, funny I tried to read Gravity's Rainbow as I heard it in a song, I did not get far, on the topic of reading, it is related to rockets but yeah
There is no down, yes. There is no looking at it from a top view either, since there is no bottom. 3d models like this video are helpful, but one must keep in mind that they are but a slice.
I doubt my opinion will be well-received by all, but I hope that creators like the author of the Bobiverse will be able to, affordably and within their own capabilities, create new forms of content, such as AI-generated long-form content, like entire TV seasons, as the technology matures. That series is fantastic.
It talks about the distances and times involved and how time compression and astrophage infection rates work out. As a fan of the book and the movie it was nice to see the actual 3D star chart of everything. (warning: there may be spoilers there)
For other software engineers thinking of following in Andy Weir's footsteps and writing a novel, I put together my guide to self-publishing using software tools and techniques here: https://frequal.com/forwriters/
Looks nice, but is it finished? I don't see a skybox or any of the more detailed information mentioned in the "about" dialog, and I don't see any effect from clicking the buttons along the top.
I allowed WebGL and disabled Enhanced Tracking Protection and my adblocker, and still only the star labels appear.
Thank you for making this whoever you are. There is a wonderful video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FT-oz9aZU4 that visualizes space travel and time dilation in Hail Mary. What I wished I had immediately after watching it was an interactive stellar chart.
You're welcome! I love that channel so much. Their videos and the blog post I link in the about section/citations on the starmap were inspirations for making this.
Very cool. On Voyager 2 we placed a map on the side of the probe that places the position of our sun based on an array of Pulsar stars (the map was designed by Carl Sagan). I noted in the PHM movie Rocky and Dr Grace made similar 3D maps (I think they were pulsars(?)). I guess pulsars form natural beacons that can be detected at large distances.
I'm at the point where if there's a computer display, or 3D model, or any asset in a movie, I want there to be a Kickstarter to pay the producers to open source the original assets. Even if it's a super restrictive license.
I want all of the War Games original graphics. I know people have come a long way. But I want all of them.
The "Hackers" movie. "Sneakers". "The Matrix". These individual assets deserve to be preserved! They're iconic. They're art, in their own rights!
Edit: oh interesting. Apparently it was mentioned in the book as being affected by the astrophage. I forgot that tidbit and thought it was just a Star Trek reference.
this is cool. My nit pick- aren't the petrova lines curving along the wrong plane? For example, in our solar system the line should start at the sun and should be pointed at where Venus used to be, but then curve towards where Venus is now (until gets to venus). Since the astrophage will course-correct over their journey and stay in the same plane as Venus' orbit.
It has been a little while since I read the book, but I think you have the cause of the curve wrong. These things are moving at such a high percentage of the speed of light that there isn't much visible curve from the movement of the planet. The curve is instead caused by them leaving the star at the pole (which leads to a different nitpick of the visualization since the curve isn't shaped to represent that). It's theorized that the Astrophage do this to make is easier to find their way as exiting the plane of the solar system reduces the chances of there being any occultation blocking their view of their destination.
It can be summed up as "Ken Meets Jesus", "Ken Goes to Space", "Ken is a bumbling moron", "Ken's first friend". "Ken's White Savior moment"
This appears to be the norm for US based scifi now. Glad I'm watching movies like The Wandering Earth and Alienoid instead.
It had a good premise. But it also fell apart immediately. Like, they only sent 3 people, 2 whom died on this UBER CRITICAL SAVE THE PLANET idea?
And Ryan Gosling's character is a fucking moron. You're supposed to be a molecular biologist, and you're basically a reddit-gag line?
Edit: lol -4 , like seriously, its a pretty bad show. I listed movies I compare it to. But no I get shit like "You must be fun at parties." Personal attacks, sigh.
Did Ken also get his catheter yanked out like in the book? I don't plan on watching the movie but that's the only thing I would even care a tiny bit if they included, because I just felt like it was such an odd highly specific bit and I want to know if they committed for the big screen.
> Edit: lol -4 , like seriously, its a pretty bad show. [...]
I don't think the downvotes are because you expressed the view that the film is bad.
It's mainstream science fiction using tech we don't have. It will never make a lot of sense. And then you decide to bring skin colour/race into the discussion. What do you expect?
> But it also fell apart immediately. Like, they only sent 3 people, 2 whom died on this UBER CRITICAL SAVE THE PLANET idea?
(I didn't downvote, you have a right to dislike a popular movie or book)
They explain why only 3 people (it's a bit contrived, but there's genetics involved), and why no more ships. It's an emergency, a resource and time-constrained mission on which a few things go wrong even before they depart. The world is on full emergency mode, rushing things and getting things wrong. The crew isn't even the initial pick, but there's an accident involved. The lead director believes she'll probably end up in prison after the mission launches. I don't know, it makes sense to me.
> And Ryan Gosling's character is a fucking moron. You're supposed to be a molecular biologist, and you're basically a reddit-gag line?
I think the meme-speak, which I also found a bit jarring, is simply Andy Weir's less-than-good writing style. I think Weir isn't a particularly good writer, but he managed to write an engrossing adventure which I enjoyed.
In-universe, molecular biologists and scientists in general do have sense of humor, enjoy memes, and are generally capable of doing and saying the dumbest things. So it also kind of works!