The Serpo thread gave me this idea.

How is the work on mapping the universe or our galaxy comming along? Can anyone provide any links?

And how would one go about this? Make Earth [0,0,0] or the center of our galaxy? Or the center of the universe? The last one is probably impossible at this point, since we dont know exactly where it is, and it would be too much of a hassle to calculate based on that.

I always thought scientist should map the galaxy in accurate 3d. A 3d star map where every known star and planet and galaxy is mapped and located correct distances apart (to scale) and paths mapped in real time.

I have never seen this done anywhere it would be very involved.

Most of the star maps I ever see are 2d. It should by map in 3d IMHO since the universe is 3d and 2d pictures can not do it justice.

There is a programming problem to this. That is the sheer number of stars. Remember, in our own galaxy there is approximately 200 to 400 BILLION stars! The amount of programming to jot down all these stars, and then the memory space to retain this information, would be huge.

And that's only our own galaxy. Don't forget all the other 99 999 999 999+ other galaxies that are out there.

Other than that - yeah, it would be nice for visual purposes - but nothing new woud be learned from it.

Mapping eh? it is quite easy, actually. All you have to do is define a cubic sector metric system with sector 001 being the solar system. Hasn't anyone watched Star Trek in here? :-)

WHo has the money and time to do this? There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy which are constantly moving. Even if you could map them, keeping them in real time would be slightly more of a challenge.
And why would this be necessary? I'm sure there are people who have the ability to do this, but do not have the resources. Until human race is capable of interstellar travel, I don't think a realtime map of our own galaxy could exist. And there is much left to be discovered.

Originally posted by Yarium
There is a programming problem to this. That is the sheer number of stars. Remember, in our own galaxy there is approximately 200 to 400 BILLION stars! The amount of programming to jot down all these stars, and then the memory space to retain this information, would be huge.

And that's only our own galaxy. Don't forget all the other 99 999 999 999+ other galaxies that are out there.

Other than that - yeah, it would be nice for visual purposes - but nothing new woud be learned from it.

I cant see what your point is. So there's billions of stars out there, and so what? There are also a gazillion strange things on earth, yet they are being cataloged.

People likes to keep things organised and tagged.

Originally posted by masterp
Mapping eh? it is quite easy, actually. All you have to do is define a cubic sector metric system with sector 001 being the solar system. Hasn't anyone watched Star Trek in here? :-)

I was thinking about that too actually. Its a good way to do it.

Other planets could also have coordinates in the [x,x,x] way making it easy. But I guess this is a bit useless untill we become a space faring race.. *Sigh*

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
I cant see what your point is. So there's billions of stars out there, and so what? There are also a gazillion strange things on earth, yet they are being cataloged.

Can't see the point?

What exactly is the difference between cataloging gazillions of strange things on earth and keeping a realtime track record of billions of stars throught our galaxy.
You are trying to equate cataloging local phenomena, events, species, etc vs stars, planets, asteroids, gas clouds, etc in an area that is 28k light years in diameter.
Currently, NSF spends $190 million per annum on astronomy. That total is expected to drop by $30 million during this fiscal year. No one is spending the money or resources to catalog such an enormous amount of information that has relatively no use at the moment.

Im only talking about a map where planet have [x,x,x] coordinates and a name, maybe a Class tag, nothing else. 400+ billion stars IS a lot, but there's no way we can map them precisely with current equipment.

We have to start somewhere! It would take a large database, but operating it and finding harddrive space is really a minor problem here IMHO.

Well we have started, in a sense. There is a database on every star that we've taken the time to observe. We give them names such as EA31 or such and such. We toss it into a computer, and if any information on that star is needed, it can be pulled up like out of a filing cabinet.

In essence, we don't need a 3-d map, because we have the raw data already categorized. As Frosty said, there's almost no use for the data except when making observations on other stars (and looking for comparisons). We still know where the stars are, but it's in raw information - since anything greater than raw isn't needed.

If the raw information already exist then making a 3D map would be a whole lot easier. Could be a great learning tool as it would give people a much better vision of the galaxy and our place in it then any 2D map or coordinates ever could. There really isnt any need for a Planetarium Show either other then educational.

Plus it would just be cool

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If the raw information already exist then making a 3D map would be a whole lot easier. Could be a great learning tool as it would give people a much better vision of the galaxy and our place in it then any 2D map or coordinates ever could. There really isnt any need for a Planetarium Show either other then educational.

Plus it would just be cool

Yes it would be pretty cool! Imagine an IMAX experience flying through the galaxy where each star is mapped correctly. It would be neat.

Originally posted by Frosty
WHo has the money and time to do this? There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy which are constantly moving. Even if you could map them, keeping them in real time would be slightly more of a challenge.
And why would this be necessary? I'm sure there are people who have the ability to do this, but do not have the resources. Until human race is capable of interstellar travel, I don't think a realtime map of our own galaxy could exist. And there is much left to be discovered.

Glaciers movement, mountain lichen growth and techtonic movement also happen in real time.

Originally posted by SkyBlueTwo

Glaciers movement, mountain lichen growth and techtonic movement also happen in real time.

I think you do not comprehend the difference. These are local events and phenomena being tracked in small amounts by a few researchers. Not every tectonic area or mountain lichen is kept track of. Show me a realtime record of the amount of life in the oceans, and I will tell you that is a start.

Celestia is slightly disappointing. All the stars look the same, and I can't seem to get nedulae to show up. Also, the planets are really weird looking. Then I again it does have all the major sataleittes, such as Hubble and Galileo.
Haven't explored it too much.

Originally posted by mashup
Celestia is slightly disappointing. All the stars look the same, and I can't seem to get nedulae to show up. Also, the planets are really weird looking. Then I again it does have all the major sataleittes, such as Hubble and Galileo.
Haven't explored it too much.

One thing you got to remember is, that Celestia is made by a few people in there spare time for the fun of it, so it's going to be a little basic, but it continues to improve.

How are the planets weird looking? Last time I used it they all looked fine to me.

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by SkyBlueTwo

Glaciers movement, mountain lichen growth and techtonic movement also happen in real time.

I think you do not comprehend the difference. These are local events and phenomena being tracked in small amounts by a few researchers. Not every tectonic area or mountain lichen is kept track of. Show me a realtime record of the amount of life in the oceans, and I will tell you that is a start.

Most planets, stars and such rotate in a specific manner about a larger object. (Well, not stars usually) And that should make them easy to map, since they then only need a movement vector/equation.

jra

The planets just look weird. I'm not sure why, they just do. Mars in particular, probably because I've seen it in different ways.