Prev: Re: Stars (was: RE: [OFFICIAL] Background thoughts(Size of Human Space)) Next: Re: Stars (was: RE: [OFFICIAL] Background thoughts(Size of Human Space))

Re: Stars (was: RE: [OFFICIAL] Background thoughts(Size of Human Space))

From: Aaron P Teske <Mithramuse+@C...>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:01:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Stars (was: RE: [OFFICIAL] Background thoughts(Size of Human Space))


Excerpts from FT: 8-Sep-97 Stars (was: RE: [OFFICIAL] .. by EPICS: S. W.
Tours@stsci 
> >stars within 200 LY?  Or other types that might likely be capable of
> >sustaining a planet on which we could live?
>  
> <snicker>
> I don't know of any lists that have been divided up into spectral
types
> by distance. However, if you're feeling adventurous, find yourself a
copy
> of the "Sky Catalogue 2000.0, Vol 1, Stars to Magnitude 8.0".
[snip]

Alternately, you can check out the Near Star List in 2300 AD, which
lists all stars within 50 ly of Sol, and (if you buy the Kafer
sourcebook) 25 ly (I think) of the Kafer homeworld.  (There's a good bit
of overlap in there, though.)  All in all there are roughly 750 stars
listed there... it's based off the second edition of the Gliese Star
Catalog, IIRC, and some of the data changed in the third edition, but
what the heck.

Also, 2300 AD has a nice system for placing planets... they do some
fiddling with the temperature of the star to determine a 'life zone'
where temperatures on a planet's surface will be vaguely Earthlike.

Later,

		    Aaron Teske
		    Mithramuse+@cmu.edu 

Prev: Re: Stars (was: RE: [OFFICIAL] Background thoughts(Size of Human Space)) Next: Re: Stars (was: RE: [OFFICIAL] Background thoughts(Size of Human Space))