• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Joyeuse Primary Star Issues

Meteoric Assault

Marquis de Sharkbait
Admin Award
I have run the average temperature equation several times and there is no way life can be sustained at 545 Celsius (819 Kelvin) at 0.06 AU. I ran it at .3 AU and it was -233 Celsius (40 Kelvin). Was there an error in the two stars M3 V and companion M9 V. I have seen in the Traveller wiki a different primary star listed as F3 V?

Can anyone clarify for me before I push out my 11 year-old landgrab?

Just ran it at .2 AU and we are a bit warmer at -28.15 Celsius (245 Kelvin)
Ran it it from .15 Au to .19 AU... .17 AU it is at 289 kelvin (15.85 Celsius)

so at .17 AU its habitable...... Do red dwarfs solar flare?
 
Last edited:
I have run the average temperature equation several times and there is no way life can be sustained at 545 Celsius (819 Kelvin) at 0.06 AU. I ran it at .3 AU and it was -233 Celsius (40 Kelvin). Was there an error in the two stars M3 V and companion M9 V. I have seen in the Traveller wiki a different primary star listed as F3 V?

Can anyone clarify for me before I push out my 11 year-old landgrab?

Just ran it at .2 AU and we are a bit warmer at -28.15 Celsius (245 Kelvin)
Ran it it form .15 Au to .19 AU... .17 AU it is at 289 kelvin (15.85 Celsius)

so at .17 AU its habitable...... Do red dwarfs solar flare?

http://www.space.com/27304-x100-000-flare-unleashed-by-nearby-red-dwarf-video.html

So, Yes.
 

Yeah I am going with the F3 V + M4 V.....safety longevity margin is there...
Screen%20Shot%202015-11-12%20at%207.19.20%20PM_zpspv5vrr4k.png
 
Last edited:
Planetary data

Joyeuse Planetary Data:
(5762 miles Diameter)
Orbital Eccentricity: .019
Axial Tilt: 26%
Average temperature: 281.44 K (8.29 C)
Average Summer: 281.68 K (8.5 C)
Average Winter: 277.39 K (4.24 C)
Axial temp shift: +41.8% / - 24.8%
Orbital Year: 1259.35 Joyuese days (1212.63 Terran days)

Length of Day: 23.1 Terran Hours
Mass: 0.4177 M+
Gravity: 0.788 G
Escape Velocity: 8.2797 km/s
 
Although a large cohort of M-type stars are prone to flares (and I'll get to that), DG Canum Venaticorum is too unique a situation to be used as an example for the Joyeuse system.

DG CVn is a very, very young star, about 30 million years old, and as such it is almost certainly not even a Main Sequence (V) star yet. Rather, it would be a very small T Tauri type* -- a star so young it isn't even finished contracting yet, and as such is deriving most, if not all, of its energy output from gravitional collapse, rather than hydrogen fusion. This is also indicated by the fact that DG CVn is listed as having a diameter much larger than its luminosity would indicate (by about 50%).

As you can imagine, T Tauri stars will tend to vary quite a bit in luminosity, due to a variety of factors (influx of stellar material, obscuring dust, etc.). They also typically rotate extremely fast, and this will make them prone to flaring.

That said, pretty much all M-Type (as well as some late K-Type) Main Sequence stars start out plagued by flare activity, due to the fact that they are much more convective than their larger kin (in the case of the late K-Types) or fully convective (in the case of M-Types). This makes them quite a bit more 'jumpy' than larger stars when they're young, which in this case translates into massive flare activity.

They do calm down after a while though, and mature M-Types are much less prone to flaring. I'm not sure how long this takes, but my best guess would be between 4-8 billion years for M-Types, and a few hundred million to a billion years for K-Types. This would be enough to give other star systems a head start on creating life-hosting or human-friendly planets, but they still would be around.

When Barnard's Star (8-10 billion years old) issued a brief flare in 1998, this came as a surprise to most observers, as it was assumed the star was too old to do this. It is a very low-metal star, however, and also a bit small for a Main Sequence M-Type (M4V), so this will have affected the rate which it took to become fully quiescent. Metallic stars burn brighter than low-metal stars, so younger and more massive (or just more metallic) M-Type stars than Barnard's should move out of that phase quite a bit faster than it did.

Because of their small size, and the fact that they are still non-convective, M-Type stars are much more affected by sunspot activity than Sol-sized stars, regardless of their age. This will mean that any photosynthesizing life on planets orbiting those stars will have to put up with a much wider range of luminosity than we have to deal with here on Terra. That's not a deal-breaker for habitability, but it is an issue.

*Most sites list the T Tauri stage as lasting for only about 10-30 million years or so, but that's for brighter stars like the Sun or T Tauri itself. An M-Type star like DG CVn could take up to 100 million years or more to exit this phase, depending on its mass.
 
That said, I just noticed that there actually IS a problem with the Joyeuse system as it is originally stated: the fact that it has an M9V companion.

M9V stars are not stars at all, at least if you define a star as a massive, hydrogen-fusing body. They, along with the rest of the late M-Type stars (M7V and M8V), are usually considered too small to be able to initiate hydrogen fusion in their interiors, and as such are regarded these days as a class of brown dwarf. There are a few rare exceptions to this in the catalog, but they're usually older, and probably inaccurate, designations.

The problem is that without hydrogen fusion to keep them warm, all brown dwarfs gradually cool as they age. They start out hot because of the energy they created during their T Tauri phase, as I mentioned above, as well as from a brief fusion cycle sparked by a limited supply of lithium and deuterium at the beginning of their lives.

As the largest brown dwarfs, M7V-M9V stars retain their heat the longest, but still not that long by stellar lifetime standards. In other words, an M9V star like Joyeuse's companion isn't going to be any older than a few hundred million to a billion years.

And it's also going to flare. Even though they're not true stars, they still do that. Though that won't necessarily be a problem if it's parked way out in the orbital boonies.

In addition, most stars in a multi-star system come from the same stellar nursery, and as such are the same age. This is especially likely if the stars are young, like Joyeuse's companion clearly is. This would mean that the M3V primary is almost certainly a flare star too, and probably a pretty intense one, if it's less than a billion years old.

You obviously could work around this -- if you decided to go with this system as it stands -- by categorizing the M9V companion as a very lucky catch, thus giving the stars two different ages. If you go that route, you should plop it way the heck out in Far Orbit, since that's by far the most likely place it would be.

Alternatively, you could 'cool off' the companion to something like a much calmer (and older) L3V-Type brown dwarf. That's about what a larger M9V star should evolve into by 3 billion years or so, and that might be enough time to convince the M3V primary to dial down the 'flare' setting.
 
That said, I just noticed that there actually IS a problem with the Joyeuse system as it is originally stated: the fact that it has an M9V companion.

M9V stars are not stars at all, at least if you define a star as a massive, hydrogen-fusing body. They, along with the rest of the late M-Type stars (M7V and M8V), are usually considered too small to be able to initiate hydrogen fusion in their interiors, and as such are regarded these days as a class of brown dwarf. There are a few rare exceptions to this in the catalog, but they're usually older, and probably inaccurate, designations.
While I know you're trained in field, and IIRC working in same, everything I'm seeing says the opposite - The M7/8/9 are still usually considered to be typically fusing, while the L/T/Y categories are below fusion temps. (and, as of yet, the number of Y class candidates is under a handful - one is currently classed as T10, despite being the right temp for Y0, because of methane content.)

Examples of M9V stars include Wolf 359... Which reasonably appears to be a low level of fusion, not simple gravitational heating.

M9 brown dwarfs are mentioned, in context with some M9 stars, in Moore & Rees.

And the use of L, T, and Y classes is, at least to the layman, presented as a means of categorizing what are essentially stars too cool to fuse.

Patrick Moore, Robin Rees, Patrick Moore's Data Book of Astronomy, Google Books result
 
As far as T5SS, we defer to GT Sword Worlds, which is where the M3V M9V comes from.

Looking on the wiki, I have no idea where you're finding the F3V. I'm open to changes... but reluctant because of the GT effort, I know they considered the stellar data pretty seriously.
 
Yes... and tjoneslo confirms that was a transcription error from GT Sword Worlds that he has corrected.

Which is unfortunate... I was hoping the F3V had a source.
 
Yes... and tjoneslo confirms that was a transcription error from GT Sword Worlds that he has corrected.

Which is unfortunate... I was hoping the F3V had a source.

my Landgrab is an IMTU interpretation anyway... I guess I stumbled on interesting issue.
 
Last edited:
While I know you're trained in field, and IIRC working in same, everything I'm seeing says the opposite - The M7/8/9 are still usually considered to be typically fusing, while the L/T/Y categories are below fusion temps. (and, as of yet, the number of Y class candidates is under a handful - one is currently classed as T10, despite being the right temp for Y0, because of methane content.)

Examples of M9V stars include Wolf 359... Which reasonably appears to be a low level of fusion, not simple gravitational heating.

M9 brown dwarfs are mentioned, in context with some M9 stars, in Moore & Rees.

And the use of L, T, and Y classes is, at least to the layman, presented as a means of categorizing what are essentially stars too cool to fuse.

Patrick Moore, Robin Rees, Patrick Moore's Data Book of Astronomy, Google Books result
I'm sorry, Aramis, but I'm afraid that you must have misread the page you just posted, because it disproves what you said about Wolf 359, and otherwise confirms what I said above.

Specifically, it mentions Wolf 359 as being an M6V star (see Table 18.1 on the next page), and declares that it has a mass of 0.09 Sol. These numbers are both consistent with the minimum rating for a fusing (stellar) body. Later in the paragraph it also describes the M9V star DEN 1048-3956 as a brown dwarf, and notes that its mass is about 0.07. This, too, is consistent with the numbers for a non-fusing substellar object.

Most calculations put the minimum mass for hydrogen fusion at around 0.08-0.085 Sol, although if you fiddle with ignition temperatures you can reach lower theoretical masses. I suppose, also, that if you started out with a really slow-spinning body you could be able to initiate fusion at a lower mass, too.* That might be something Grandfather or one of his kids might fiddle around with for a lark.

Table 18.1 also throws in SCR J1845-6357 (M8.5V), which is another recognized brown dwarf, as well as DX Cancri and Teegarden's Star. Both of them are listed as M6.5V, which seems to be sort of a 'parking space' for uncertain cases. SIMBAD shows Teegarden's Star as an M8/9V brown dwarf, for example, but DX Cancri as an M6.5V red dwarf. There is some evidence that DX Cancri is very young, and thus punching a bit above its weight right now, so I would not at all be surprised if future data moved it down a bit, and it wound up a brown dwarf too.

If I were the evil dictator of astrophysics, I would do just what you said, and Pluto all those non-fusing objects down to the substellar L, T and Y categories (and as long as I was there, I'd do something about the mess that is late K star typing, too). And unlike Pluto, the laymen would hardly notice if I did it, right? But I'm not the ED of A, and nor am I well enough acquainted with him to petition him to do something about it, so we're stuck with the artifacts for now. Though I suppose we could just declare that sometime between now and the 57th Century someone finally got around to straightening things out.

Of course, that would mean adjusting the M-Type tables in Scouts for mass, luminosity, orbits, etc... Ugh.

*Actually, come to think of it, that second one is probably going to happen out there in the wild at some point in the future, once some marginally M7V brown dwarf spins down just enough to let gravity take over and do its thing. Hey, I think we just figured out a way to extend the length of the Stelliferous Era!
 
I'm sorry, Aramis, but I'm afraid that you must have misread the page you just posted, because it disproves what you said about Wolf 359, and otherwise confirms what I said above.

Specifically, it mentions Wolf 359 as being an M6V star (see Table 18.1 on the next page), and declares that it has a mass of 0.09 Sol. These numbers are both consistent with the minimum rating for a fusing (stellar) body. Later in the paragraph it also describes the M9V star DEN 1048-3956 as a brown dwarf, and notes that its mass is about 0.07. This, too, is consistent with the numbers for a non-fusing substellar object.

Most calculations put the minimum mass for hydrogen fusion at around 0.08-0.085 Sol, although if you fiddle with ignition temperatures you can reach lower theoretical masses. I suppose, also, that if you started out with a really slow-spinning body you could be able to initiate fusion at a lower mass, too.* That might be something Grandfather or one of his kids might fiddle around with for a lark.

Table 18.1 also throws in SCR J1845-6357 (M8.5V), which is another recognized brown dwarf, as well as DX Cancri and Teegarden's Star. Both of them are listed as M6.5V, which seems to be sort of a 'parking space' for uncertain cases. SIMBAD shows Teegarden's Star as an M8/9V brown dwarf, for example, but DX Cancri as an M6.5V red dwarf. There is some evidence that DX Cancri is very young, and thus punching a bit above its weight right now, so I would not at all be surprised if future data moved it down a bit, and it wound up a brown dwarf too.

If I were the evil dictator of astrophysics, I would do just what you said, and Pluto all those non-fusing objects down to the substellar L, T and Y categories (and as long as I was there, I'd do something about the mess that is late K star typing, too). And unlike Pluto, the laymen would hardly notice if I did it, right? But I'm not the ED of A, and nor am I well enough acquainted with him to petition him to do something about it, so we're stuck with the artifacts for now. Though I suppose we could just declare that sometime between now and the 57th Century someone finally got around to straightening things out.

Of course, that would mean adjusting the M-Type tables in Scouts for mass, luminosity, orbits, etc... Ugh.

*Actually, come to think of it, that second one is probably going to happen out there in the wild at some point in the future, once some marginally M7V brown dwarf spins down just enough to let gravity take over and do its thing. Hey, I think we just figured out a way to extend the length of the Stelliferous Era!

Well I am for one impressed.
 
Well I am for one impressed.
Hey, for the record, and since I'm on a roll with this system, I'd like to point out that you can probably keep Joyeuse warm out in a further orbit by assuming tidal forces from the primary are heating the planet up.

Also, as a world with a Standard atmosphere in an M3V habitable zone, Joyeuse is probably not locked with one hemisphere to the star, but in a slow reverse rotation, like Venus is. This is due to the planet's atmosphere interacting with the star's tidal forces as it orbits around it. According to a chart I worked out a while ago, this is a plausible scenario for any Earthlike planet in an orbit between 0.19-0.35AU of an M3V star. Even further, for denser atmosphere worlds.

That will play a role in heating Joyeuse up more than the rules in Scout say, though I can't say how much. It might even be enough to justify it being out at the 0.3AU orbit you mentioned, although I kinda doubt it. At the very least, it would still be fairly chilly at that orbit, I'll bet.
 
Hey, for the record, and since I'm on a roll with this system, I'd like to point out that you can probably keep Joyeuse warm out in a further orbit by assuming tidal forces from the primary are heating the planet up.

Also, as a world with a Standard atmosphere in an M3V habitable zone, Joyeuse is probably not locked with one hemisphere to the star, but in a slow reverse rotation, like Venus is. This is due to the planet's atmosphere interacting with the star's tidal forces as it orbits around it. According to a chart I worked out a while ago, this is a plausible scenario for any Earthlike planet in an orbit between 0.19-0.35AU of an M3V star. Even further, for denser atmosphere worlds.

That will play a role in heating Joyeuse up more than the rules in Scout say, though I can't say how much. It might even be enough to justify it being out at the 0.3AU orbit you mentioned, although I kinda doubt it. At the very least, it would still be fairly chilly at that orbit, I'll bet.

Given my limited knowledge and using the book 6 formula... I was very concerned for the habitability and sustainability. That said it does create the possibility for a set of a very 'travelleresque' solutions... i.e. sheltered habitats for solar flares, EMP protected infrastructure, etc... One should never doubt the adaptability of humans should they.

Later I will work the Landgrab for OTU consideration and approval, with the M3 V in mind.
 
Back
Top