• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Scifi space stations and suns

JirinPanthosa

Admiral
Admiral
In my current Babylon 5 viewing I just started, I noticed something that applies equally to DS9 and that it's weird I haven't noticed before.

In the station, no matter which way you look out, you see blackness and stars. Exterior shots seem to be equally lit. Shouldn't one side of the station be illuminated in not the other? Shouldn't the Bajoran sun not only be visible from the station, be even brighter because there is no dispersion of the light in the atmosphere?

One would think that the windows on the exterior of the station would be very shaded for this very reason, that the sun should be blinding, but then you should at least see a large circle.

Why is it the designers of scifi space stations never seem to think of it, or do they think of it and purposefully ignore it for aesthetics?
 
Not sure what you mean. In shots of DS9, it's always pretty clear that one side is brightly illuminated and the other is relatively shadowed, although it's a longtime Star Trek visual convention to have more fill light in the shaded areas than there would realistically be in space. But Babylon 5 tended to treat lighting in space a lot more realistically, with shots of the station generally showing very deep, black shadows on the side not directly lit by Epsilon Eridani, and with bright specular reflections on the parts most directly hit by the star's light.

The reason you don't see the star actually in the shot is just because the camera isn't pointing at it. Which is probably a good idea in space, since with no atmosphere to diffuse its light it would be pretty blinding (and maybe dangerous to the camera if the camera were actually physically present in space).
 
I presume you aren't counting the ubiquitous blue nebulae that seem to inhabit every part of space.

Oh, those. They were based on real Hubble photos, I think, but those photos were color-enhanced long exposures and close-ups. So there was a good deal of poetic license there. But I was talking about the lighting on the station and spacecraft.
 
Also with the star, depending on where in the solar system you are, the sun’s light would grow fainter the farther you got. It would be like here in Earth’s system, if a station was in Earth orbit you are going to get quite a bit of light. But if you were out by Pluto, the sun’s light is probable a little stronger than what we would see from Regulus here on Earth.

And in B5, the station seemed to be in Geosynchronous orbit of the planet, so the planet might block a lot of light. And in DS9, from what was said in “Emissary”, DS9 and the wormhole were way out on the fringes of the system.
 
And in DS9, from what was said in “Emissary”, DS9 and the wormhole were way out on the fringes of the system.

Not really -- it was only 160 million km out from Bajor's orbit, which is a bit over 1 AU (the Earth-Sun distance), so maybe c. 2 AU from B'hava'el, give or take. That corresponds roughly to the inner edge of our Main Asteroid Belt, although how much illumination you'd get there depends on how large and bright the star is. But since they didn't use any unusual color filters/processing to shoot Bajor scenes, we can assume their star is a G-type like the Sun.
 
And in B5, the station seemed to be in Geosynchronous orbit of the planet, so the planet might block a lot of light.
B5 should also enjoy planetshine, meaning that areas outside of the star should be better lit than they would be if they were simply in orbit of the star, like DS9.
 
Not really -- it was only 160 million km out from Bajor's orbit, which is a bit over 1 AU (the Earth-Sun distance), so maybe c. 2 AU from B'hava'el, give or take. That corresponds roughly to the inner edge of our Main Asteroid Belt, although how much illumination you'd get there depends on how large and bright the star is. But since they didn't use any unusual color filters/processing to shoot Bajor scenes, we can assume their star is a G-type like the Sun.

I think the line was that it was a 160m km trip (from Bajor's current orbital position to the location of the wormhole in the Denorios Belt. So yes it could be up to 2AU's but it could be closer than that depending on the heading.
 
Yorktown in Beyond was a pretty good idea. The station seems to orbit at roughly the same distance as Altamid and at the same orbital speed, always the same distance from the nebula.

The station rotates a lot faster than a planet giving the interior roughly even lighting during the day. Then simply polarising the transparent outer shell to simulate a night.
 
A station like DS9 could have been in orbiting in a LaGrange point of one of Bajor's moons, potentially putting it in constant eclipse, or often enough, especially if after being moved, it's primary facility is to remain near and within sight of the wormhole. Why light could be seen on the station could in fact be light reflected off other moons onto the profile of the station as Bajor's system has multiple moons.

I would imagine in the future of our own world there might be some impetus to have larger space stations moved to very high orbits if they were not at any of the lagrange points (which conserves stationkeeping fuel, depeniding on the point chosen) so they were not causing yet more light pollution to the night sky. Right now, barring passing airplanes, ISS the brightest object in the sky when it flies overhead, barring the Moon. A lot of large stations would be a bit unbearable.
 
Also with the star, depending on where in the solar system you are, the sun’s light would grow fainter the farther you got. It would be like here in Earth’s system, if a station was in Earth orbit you are going to get quite a bit of light. But if you were out by Pluto, the sun’s light is probable a little stronger than what we would see from Regulus here on Earth.

At the distance of Pluto the sun would still have over 100 times the brightness of the full moon on Earth. So even a space station orbiting there would still receive a considerable amount of light (though very little heat, compared to us). To get our sun's appearance down to the brightness of Regulus, you'd have to move out slightly over 2.5 light years, if my back-of-envelope calculations are correct.
 
At the distance of Pluto the sun would still have over 100 times the brightness of the full moon on Earth. So even a space station orbiting there would still receive a considerable amount of light (though very little heat, compared to us). To get our sun's appearance down to the brightness of Regulus, you'd have to move out slightly over 2.5 light years, if my back-of-envelope calculations are correct.
From what I've read, at the distance Pluto is farthest from the sun, the sun would appear to be 1/39th the size of what we see here on Earth (by comparison if you were looking at the sun from Jupiter, it would be about 1/5 the size of the full moon here on Earth). So while it may be brighter than the other stars, it would be a pinprick. The difference would be like using your car's headlights here on earth to see things with; if you are deep in the woods at night you might see the headlights of cars on the road, but those headlights don't give you any illumination to see your way through the woods!
 
From what I've read, at the distance Pluto is farthest from the sun, the sun would appear to be 1/39th the size of what we see here on Earth (by comparison if you were looking at the sun from Jupiter, it would be about 1/5 the size of the full moon here on Earth). So while it may be brighter than the other stars, it would be a pinprick.

Yes, but a very bright pinprick. Angular size and luminosity are two different issues.
 
Not really -- it was only 160 million km out from Bajor's orbit, which is a bit over 1 AU (the Earth-Sun distance), so maybe c. 2 AU from B'hava'el, give or take. That corresponds roughly to the inner edge of our Main Asteroid Belt, although how much illumination you'd get there depends on how large and bright the star is. But since they didn't use any unusual color filters/processing to shoot Bajor scenes, we can assume their star is a G-type like the Sun.

On the other hand, certain supposedly annual celebrations on Bajor do not fall on the same slots in a Paramount season aka Earth year, and Sisko seems to celebrate the third anniversary of Wolf 359 well in advance of what Earth years would dictate. Odds are that Bajor orbits its sun a bit closer than Earth does, then, and accordingly has a slightly dimmer sun that just happens to have roughly the same apparent color.

We still have a good reason to believe in the 1AU/2AU approximation from an independent source of comparison, regardless of the local value for AU. Namely, an impulse trip from DS9 to Bajor by a Danube class runabout in reasonable hurry sometimes takes 2 hours, sometimes 6 hours, a ratio of 1:3. This makes perfect sense if the spacecraft fly beelines through space (as impulse drive would allow them to do) and sometimes deal with a situation where Bajor and DS9 are at the same side of the sun (DS9 at 2 AU, Bajor at 1 AU, distance = 2 AU -1 AU = 1 AU), sometimes at the opposite sides (distance = 2 AU + 1 AU = 3 AU).

Yorktown in Beyond was a pretty good idea. The station seems to orbit at roughly the same distance as Altamid and at the same orbital speed, always the same distance from the nebula.

How could this setup work? Altamid isn't on the other side of the nebula, but surrounded by it from all sides, or else everybody would warp there from the unblocked side, a million times faster going than trying to brave the rubble. Why would two locations equidistant from the local sun be dissimilarly victimized by the rock cloud?

We don't quite know what keeps the immediate vicinity of Altamid rock-free. Perhaps it has defenses, and perhaps those fortresses around Yorktown also primarily shoot down maverick rocks? But having Altamid orbit the local star within a spherical cloud of rubble, while Yorktown orbits outside the same spherical rock shell, might work to our satisfaction. It's just that both locations seem to enjoy a great deal of sunlight (if anything, Altamid is the one without explicitly clear skies), while the rock cloud seems almost impenetrable to sunlight (just as it should if it is to be impenetrable to standard spacecraft).

So a setup where Altamid is the party blocked from a direct view of a sun is the better match for the visuals, which luckily enough generally show Altamid heavily overcast and IIRC never show an actual sun on the sky. But we can't put Yorktown inside a rubble sphere, and we can't easily have two suns due to the distance between Altamid and Yorktown being so short that our heroes can wade across in a couple of hours at 30 mph or whatever.

So basically we have Yorktown orbiting a star, barely "inboard" of another orbiter that is a vaguely nebulaic cloud of dense rubble, in the middle (or more probably a few thousand kilometers into the Yorktown-proximal inner edge) of which lies Altamid. Which is fine - Yorktown would be situated in this special spot on purpose (namely to study the rubble nebula, and Spock's political bullshit aside), while the advanced culture that once exploited Altamid may be responsible for that planet's special location and odd surrounings.

(Although we could also argue that this star is a busy cosmopolis with many inhabited planets, explaining how the Abornath weapon could find its way to not just one but two neighboring cultures, and indeed dictating this special placement for the Federation nebula-studying station even when at least two local worlds would have interests for or against hosting such a station! This would just assume that the long warp run during which Kirk and McCoy share their drink would be proceeding at a snail's pace, as is common close to stars anyway. And perhaps the "new" warp effect also is but a sign of the ship slowly pushing its way through the nebulaic neighborhood?)

The station rotates a lot faster than a planet giving the interior roughly even lighting during the day.

We see the source of light shift from the starboard side of the hero ship to her port side during the short time it takes for the ship glide from the edge of the station to her eventual docking point, inside a tight tunnel that doesn't as much as allow her to roll. So yes, lots of random shadows that come and go not just dozens but possibly hundreds of times per Earth day.

Then simply polarising the transparent outer shell to simulate a night.

No doubt. Although one wonders if the daylight mightn't be artificial, and generated by the outer shell, too. We never really see an external light source, after all (even though one does act on the hero ship during her approach), and the "reflection" of such a source on the station's outer shell might instead be the spot where the shell creates this fake daylight at that moment.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Last edited:
Indeed! The sun's brightness at Pluto is calculated to be 250x that of the full Moon on Earth.
We do have the “Family Photo” that Voyager 1 took in February 1990 out by Neptune. And the sun is brighter than the planets and other stars, but it is still nowhere near as bright as around Mars or Earth. And out by Pluto the suns light is calculated to be 1,600 times dimmer than here on Earth.
 
The sun is invisible in space due to the same law of physics that lets you hear ships engines.
 
I've always interpreted sound in space scenes as non-diegetic embellishment for the audience, like background music. Heck, most of the visuals in space scenes are figurative anyway -- it's not that bright in deep space, energy beams would be invisible with nothing to refract off of, ships would tend to be too far apart and too fast-moving to share the screen with each other, explosions would be brief flashes of light rather than billowing fireballs, etc. So you can't take any of it literally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkt
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top