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.
FYI we have a up to scale model of the solar system in Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Solar_System
Come visit!
Here in Australia we have earths largest scale model of our solar system.
https://www.nsw.gov.au/visiting-and-exploring-nsw/locations-...
That looks really cool! I've visited scale models of the solar system in Eugene, Oregon[1] and Norwich, Vermont[2], but neither one is anywhere near that size.
[1] https://eugenesciencecenter.org/exhibits/eugene-solar-system...
[2] https://montshire.org/exhibit/exhibits/outdoor-discovery-tra...
That is awesome!
Wow. Such an awesome idea! Thank you, you made my day
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
The scale error = 25,067.5 / 56.09 = 446.9×
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct. However! That would be a terrible UX/UI experience. While showing distances on a linear scale is accurate, it fails to capture all the information a person in an interstellar ship may wish to see.
Something like logarithmic distances would better capture information like "Am I about to crash into the star or enter a nice orbit" while still showing the full picture of where you are in relation to where you're going and where you came from.
No idea of that's what happened here, just a thought, I'm not an expert in starship computer interface design.
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.
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.
As I understand it, there is no consensus on the size of our solar system. We can measure the orbits of the planets, but it is much harder to measure where the Kuiper Belt or the Oort cloud ends. Estimates on both of those vary greatly.
I suspect this lack of scale on the planets was intentional from a usability perspective, because otherwise the planets be bits of dark dust that would be really hard to find. Jupiter has 11x more diameter than Earth and the Sun is 109x larger. When you consider the size of the solar system (including the Oort cloud) the Sun itself is bit a spec of tiny dust.
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.
All of those authors usually have to resort to the idea of "shipping lanes" so if the heroes are stranded between two planets eventually someone else will pass close to them on the way from one of those planets to the other one. This is wrong in a number of ways (first of all, they keep going anyway) but without that and without magically powerful fuels plots would be "they launched from Mars to Neptune, forget about them for the next three seasons, they'll be there at the beginning of the fourth one".
> 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.
Lucas wanted to make a swords and sorcery epic in space, and that’s what he did. And he wanted to make space battles look like WWII dogfights, so he did that too. There’s no point trying to compare Star Wars with any sort of realism.
I really missed on watching Babylon 5 (it was during my time, but I unfortunately dismissed it as just another Star Trek wannabe, and only learned later this was unfair). I wish I had given it a chance. I cannot watch it now because of several reasons, and I'm not sure it would stand the test of time anyway, after having watched The Expanse.
>Real spaceships do not and will not have humans in the control loop except to specify a destination or target.
Jim Lovell would like a word.
That's how The Expanse generally worked, except when they needed to do things outside of normal circumstances.
Would dead-reckoning work or using some galactic sextant?
Yeah. Though they do have some nods towards realism, like how most combat systems are fully automated. PDCs fire automatically (at most they need a designated target, and for point defense they just fire), and even torpedos are assigned to targets using some touch screen and that's it, they are not fired using a joystick or similar nonsense.
> Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, or Star Wars (ok, space opera), where engagements take place at absurdly short ranges.
I think that is we could maneuver spaceships like cars and get from place to place in seconds then we would engage at close distance. The only reason for keeping far away would be to have time to react to missile launches and attempt to intercept them. But that's not different than what ships do at sea.
>The only reason for keeping far away would be to have time to react to missile launches and attempt to intercept them. But that's not different than what ships do at sea.
Yes, that's why you would do it in space, too. The only reason sci-fi media doesn't do it is that it would look boring onscreen. You're just sitting there in the dark then all of a sudden a tungsten rod moving at some fraction of c vaporizes your hull, or a cloud of goo attaches to your hull and you bake to death slowly because you can't evaporate heat well enough. And of course actual lasers in a vaccuum are invisible.
There was one particularly egregious scene in The Mandalorian. The protagonist had to fly from Planet A to Planet B without hyperspace for reasons, and he was waylaid by some kind of space patrol, and then he just "turns the steering wheel sideways," and bam, he's landing on a different planet!
Even by Star Wars standard that was absurd. What is this, a highway chase scene?
The books are more realistic than the show. The show takes liberties to look cool, I think, which is okay. Not only does it mess with scale a lot but it also adds a lot of sound and visual effects that would not be there.
> also adds a lot of sound and visual effects that would not be there.
Nah, they'll have regulations forcing them to add artificial sound generators like today's EVs
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.
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.
Agreed. It's not "rock-hard sci-fi." It's "medium-hard sci-fi."
The background world building was pretty good from a hard SF point of view. Fusion rockets are possible and the high performance ones in the series are at the edge of physical plausibility but possible. Some of the details, like spinning up asteroids, don't work, but the basic physics of humanity's solar system build-out is mostly sound.
The rest of it gets increasingly soft and fantastic. Which is fine, it's fun space opera.
[dead]
This is pretty cool. Has anyone ever seen a diy star projector for the home? Most of these toy star projectors like the Sega Homestar require placing the projector at the center of the room to point up. At the same time most of the small active projectors (like for movies) require a screen for the image to be better seen (they aren’t very bright). Ideally I would like something that could autocorrect the dimensions of things on the surface, so it would project distorted in a way that it would visually look non-distorted and also I would be looking for the cheapest projector that still manage a good bright for stars during the night, without requiring to put a screen on the home ceiling.
I’ve seen proper star projectors from Zeiss but my ceiling is not a dome - plus expensive and requires infinite amounts of power..
I am so happy this movie did great, the book was great
Similar to me books: Bobiverse, Long Way To A Small Angry Planet
I'm not a heavy reader
This site is cool, I want to get to know stellar navigation stuff for astrophotography watching a video like this where they pull up star charts to point the telescope at it pretty cool https://www.youtube.com/live/TexqPMQMyZg?si=oEnvrxW21-D0VXGV...
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).
The next thing they do after showing you the sheet is to roll a ball around the stretched part to demonstrate an orbit. Explaining how that analogy works starts to take more math than the actual field you’re trying to explain!
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.
Inside a solid uniform sphere, gravity is exactly equal to the gravity of the sphere of material under your feet, as though any mass at any "altitude" higher than you did not exist. It's a pretty standard calculus problem. (the opposite is true, inside a solid hollow shell gravity is exactly zero everywhere)
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
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.
According to the author, it's been optioned to Lord Miller Productions, the same group that adapted Project Hail Mary.
In the vein of popcorn scifi, expeditionary force books are fun.
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
it's like an inverse gas bubble underwater, or a liquid blob in gas in microgravity, but without phase border.
see, it's not that easy to explain or visualise.
Yeah I watched this video recently about slingshotting I can see how it works but yeah https://youtu.be/-CqBP-CtM0c?si=BdCiZwWgpAp07mgs&t=15
It's not like there is a "down" it's just you're looking at it from a top view?
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.
For anyone who enjoys this, exploration in "Elite: Dangerous" (for which you need to be neither elite nor dangerous, exploration is peaceful) might be enjoyable for you as well.
From the wiki: Elite Dangerous has a 1:1 scale simulation of the Milky Way galaxy based on real-life scientific principles, scientific data and theories. It includes around 400 billion star systems, modeled on actual galactic charts. Planets and moons rotate and orbit with 1:1 scale in real-time, thus constantly changing a system's environment
Elite would be a great game if it wasn't for the frustrating and terrible game design.
I can also recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FT-oz9aZU4 Time Dilation Visualized (by The Overview Effekt).
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/
Didn’t know he was a programmer!
This is great. Nice work.
The galaxy explorer/map in Elite: Dangerous is pretty good, I wish they would produce a stand-alone application of just the galaxy map, whether it's even close to correct or not, who knows, but it's enjoyable just to pretend you can move instantly between star systems and go exploringthe galaxy
I had sudden memories of playing Frontier: Elite 2.
I wanted to go to Sol, buy luxury goods...and take them to Barnards Star
I have a dim memory that one of my A-Level physics teachers (David Massey) was credited as a consultant on the Newtonian physics in F:E2.
The game came out at the start of my upper-sixth year so it often came up during his classes.
Yep, quick trip in your panther clipper to ross 154, park up and buy everything on the planet.
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.
"Thumbs" down
You mean up. Question.
Amaze!
Fist my bump
Glad to see it includes Wolf 359.
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.
Yeah, and it's one of the nearby stars in reality.
It's also sort of the subject - and title! - of this great short story: https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/macleod_12_17_reprint/
Anyone with a gaming rig and an interest in scale of a galaxy should check out elite dangerous.
Space engine too
This is so beautiful, this thread doesn't have enough praise! It's not easy to get this "right". Lovely!
Thank you!
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.
Cosmos : The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean - https://youtu.be/x-bJLG9_sUg?si=1K96fMX2T9iXu0zA&t=783
For the "how far?" https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2011/04/aa16141-...
We can get timing (rather than imaging) parallax...
> We find that with the first method a parallax with an accuracy of 20% or less can be measured up to a maximum distance of 13 kpc, which would include 9000 pulsars. By timing pulsars with the most stable arrival times for the radio emission, parallaxes can be measured for about 3600 ms pulsars up to a distance of 9 kpc with an accuracy of 20%.
(one kpc is 3261 light years)
Not only can they be detected at large distances, but measurements of how far can be done at greater distances than can be done with imaging ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFMaT9oRbs4&t=608s ).
Pulsars also have a rotational period that provides a reference point for interpreting arithmetic notation.
Wow. I knew that astronomers had mapped and measured a large number of stars in our galaxy; but I had no idea that the number was close to 2 billion.
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.
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!
Why does it show the asteroid belt and not the Kuiper belt?
Why is the path curved at the start?
[dead]
This was so mesmerising! Will show this to my nieces when they come visit. Kudos!
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.
oooph, been a while and I don't remember any of those details. Good excuse for me to re-read it!
Movie was awesome & will be watching again.
Love it. The grid is cool but I think it needs to be more transparent.
Pretty cool, I would suggest removing the z axis grids. Finding them very distracting
If, like me, you have an older android and are running Firefox, do not open this site!
Cool project
NICE!
cool project
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
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.
> The Wandering Earth
That's a movie you watch while drinking, take a shot every time you see something absurd
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.
> White Savior moment
???
White people doing anything good is actually bad. Duh.
/s, but I think I'm accurately describing the viewpoint you're responding to.
It’s a description of a common Hollywood trope (or used to be), like the ‘magical negro’ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro].
Hard not to see once you know about them, and they are indeed common.
But what should replace it? Good Nuanced writing? Good luck with that!
Chinese film having 100% chinese cast = good.
American film having a single white male lead = not good.
It’s a troll. Just flag and move on.
> 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?
You must be fun at parties.
As a european arthouse cinema snob I must say Gosling would have made a nice stand-in for Rocco Siffredi. Maybe.
> 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!
I think OP only watched the movie. The book is a bit better at showing the main character actually being competent at times. In the movie they (for obvious reasons, but they could have done perhaps once) skip him going down science rabbit holes.
[dead]
Elite Dangerous does it better. Pretty but idk.. get the AI generated feeling.
What specifically about this feels AI generated. It might be, IDK, but I'm not seeing any tells, so wondering if you could expand.
I'm not saying it looks AI generated, but AI made it possible to polish things to a level that very few people took the time to ever do themselves.
This is a great thing, but it's also a tell since we all saw the UIs people were building by hand pre-AI.
That said, I don't think it matters. What matters is whether it's low quality.
Since you built it, I am curious about the scientific accuracy of the movie, book and while taking the information GAIA DR3. I wanted to assume at least the stars part is science, but I think, there is a lot of fiction in that setting. Is this map the reality of what we know as science, since it came from GAIA DR3 dataset?
And, thank you very much. This is super cool and exciting. I wish such a one exists for Asimov's foundation universe (fiction).
Great map. Wish the star map in Starfield was this nice!
This is cool, can you add a focus on 40 Eridani view please?
Super cool! how long did it take to generate all those custom images?
Thanks! On my desktop it takes around 20 minutes to generate a full sky render with 1.8 billion stars (down to around 22 magnitude).
but why solar system is so out of scale?
Because it’s more cool and important.
This is really cool!
Feature request: can you add WASD navigation? Arrow keys are weird on different keyboards. On mine they're squashed into the corner and not fun to use. WASD is the OG OP way to navigate. (WASDQE, where QE are the vertical plane, if you're into Unreal Engine key bindings.)
I don't know if I'd say it's the OG way. Both HJKL and numpad predate WASD, I think.
I remember lots of old bbc games using zx;/ by default. in retrospect it was interesting how they defaulted to one hand for left/right and the other for up/down
Are you comparing game bindings to vim bindings? Isn't that an apples/oranges thing?
Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_keys#HJKL_keysNot if you play roguelikes.