The Talos IV sky and Forbidden Planet

[Timo]

It does sound likely that it's supposed to be a broken planet. Human wars merely destroy cities and cultures, but the Talosians wasted several planets!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

...It's interesting to compare the Talos schematic with this jewel from "Spock's Brain". We have nine planets portrayed as all being on the same side of their star, or orbits of weird shape that don't seem to follow Titius-Bode - all of which we may take to be artistic license. But what, then, is the purpose of the black symbology below, where the planets are portrayed at varying heights above a line, and at arbitrary distances from their star (for example, 6 and 7 actually swap places in this representation!)?

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x01hd/spocksbrainhd0287.jpg

Timo Saloniemi

 

[nightwind1]

Looking at Talos V, is that a moon or is the planet broken up? Looks like the latter to me.

Talos V is indeed a strange planet upon closer look:

What the heck does this show? Poor artistry, since it was never intended to be seen up close?

So THAT'S where Pacman came from.

 

[GSchnitzer]

I think the black planetary symbology at the bottom of Mike Minor's diagram indicates the degree of eccentricty of each of the planetary orbits. (I note that the wacky orbit of Sigma Draconis 9 is farthest away from the bottom line.)

By the positioning of the planets as they are, a quick peek at the dotted lines that connect some of the black dots to each other at this bottom part of the representation tells us that Planets 2 and 3 are actually co-planar, 1 and 5 are co-planar, 4 and 7 are co-planar, 6 and 8 are co-planar, and 9 does not share its orbital plane with any other planet. (I'm not sure the value of knowing that the eight orbital bodies collectively exist on only five planes, but I'm not navigating a starship. Maybe there's some value to it.)

This chart-at-the-bottom-of-a-chart reminds me of that famous graph by Charles Jospeh Minard which graphs Napoleon's troop sizes, direction, speed, and atmospheric temperature--all in one graph.

...It's interesting to compare the Talos schematic with this jewel from "Spock's Brain". We have nine planets portrayed as all being on the same side of their star, or orbits of weird shape that don't seem to follow Titius-Bode - all of which we may take to be artistic license. But what, then, is the purpose of the black symbology below, where the planets are portrayed at varying heights above a line, and at arbitrary distances from their star (for example, 6 and 7 actually swap places in this representation!)?

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x01hd/spocksbrainhd0287.jpg

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Again, it's not eccentricity you all mean; it's inclination, relative to the invariable plane.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That Chekov, talking on his cellphone when there is a crisis!!!!!

 

[GSchnitzer]

Yes, it's not the eccentricity ("out-of-roundness") I meant; it is indeed the orbital inclination. Apologies--and thanks for the correction.

Again, it's not eccentricity you all mean; it's inclination, relative to the invariable plane.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Thanks.

 

[Timo]

Curiously, none of the planets are shown to have zero inclination - that is, there is no ecpliptic to this system. Are we to understand that the star gave birth to a bunch of planets, and then tilted its own axis so as to disavow the lot?

And what does distance-from-left designate in the black diagram? Is is mean orbital radius, as opposed to the radius evident from the above picture (so that some of the planet pairs indeed swap places during their respective years!)?

Perhaps we're seeing the starship's actual current viewpoint to the system silhouetted in black (with the horizontal black line simply indicating the horizontal plane of the ship and having no significance vis-á-vis the star system), and the white schematic behind it is a rotated and three-dimensionalized projection of that silhouette to show the true layout (which is of greater utility to Kirk in his command decisions)? In that case, the system indeed is in a statistically really exciting super-syzygy arrangement...

Many thanks for the fascinating Minard diagram!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[GSchnitzer]

Well, even in our own solar system, there are no planets with zero inclination (well, except for Earth which we "arbitrarily" decided was the zero mark simply because we live here). If you work off of some other zero point--like the sun's own rotational equator, even our own solar system has no planets on that plane. In our own solar system, the sun's axis has tilted and has indeed disavowed all the planets orbiting it. So the Sigma Draconis system isn't unprecedented.

Another zero reference for the plane of a solar system is the "invariable plane." Since this is simply the mean of all the planets, I don't see how all the planets in the diagram can all be elevated above above the "mean" plane with none of them falling below it. (That doesn't seem like much of a mean.)

Mike Minor was a bit of an astronomy buff. I'm sure he had something in mind when he made the diagrams.

Curiously, none of the planets are shown to have zero inclination - that is, there is no ecpliptic to this system. Are we to understand that the star gave birth to a bunch of planets, and then tilted its own axis so as to disavow the lot?

And what does distance-from-left designate in the black diagram? Is is mean orbital radius, as opposed to the radius evident from the above picture (so that some of the planet pairs indeed swap places during their respective years!)?

Perhaps we're seeing the starship's actual current viewpoint to the system silhouetted in black (with the horizontal black line simply indicating the horizontal plane of the ship and having no significance vis-á-vis the star system), and the white schematic behind it is a rotated and three-dimensionalized projection of that silhouette to show the true layout (which is of greater utility to Kirk in his command decisions)? In that case, the system indeed is in a statistically really exciting super-syzygy arrangement...

Many thanks for the fascinating Minard diagram!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

It's just a bit funny not to choose the inclination of the median of the planets (four of them) as the arbitrary zero... And to give inclination data in a diagram that seems to mislead on other orbital data such as radius.

An interesting creation nevertheless. In some ways less elegant than the "The Cage" one where the orbits were indicated by 2D "tapes" rather than 1D "lines", but well designed to serve the story purpose: to show that Kirk has real trouble singling out the hideout of the brain thieves.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't see how all the planets in the diagram can all be elevated above above the "mean" plane with none of them falling below it. (That doesn't seem like much of a mean.)

A planet in a nearly circular orbit spends roughly half it's time below the invariable plane as it does above it. In the case of a perfectly circular orbit, it's exactly half the time.

Regarding the Spock's Brain diagram:

In the diagram the planets seem to be shown all nearly at positions of maximum displacement to one side of the invariable plane, which is what I think you were getting at GSchnitzer.

I think what's funny here is that the ascending nodes of the orbits seem to be nearly aligned. This causes their maximum displacements on one side of the invariable plane to be nearly aligned, by which I mean nearly collinear in space. It's also funny that the hypothetical moment depicted actually has the planets at these positions, all nearly aligned.

If these are the positions of the planets, even if the diagram is not to scale, then it suggests the possibility that there is some external force acting on the system.

 

[Noname Given]

It's just a bit funny not to choose the inclination of the median of the planets (four of them) as the arbitrary zero... And to give inclination data in a diagram that seems to mislead on other orbital data such as radius.

An interesting creation nevertheless. In some ways less elegant than the "The Cage" one where the orbits were indicated by 2D "tapes" rather than 1D "lines", but well designed to serve the story purpose: to show that Kirk has real trouble singling out the hideout of the brain thieves.

Timo Saloniemi

You know, I think when making it, the person realized it would be in the background for 5 seconds or less on screen. I don't thinl he expected it to be freeze framed; blown up in size and scrutinized for 'scientific accuracy' 45 years later. Given what it was used for, the detail that is there is (imo) amazing for a background 'prop'.

 

[GSchnitzer]

John:

Well, you are correct and I'm a bit of knucklehead: all the planets are shown on one side of the mean plane ("above" it)--which I said can't then be much of a mean. But you're right: all those planets when they reach the exact opposite points in their orbits will all then *below* the mean plane. So the line at the bottom is indeed the mean.

I don't see how all the planets in the diagram can all be elevated above above the "mean" plane with none of them falling below it. (That doesn't seem like much of a mean.)

A planet in a nearly circular orbit spends roughly half it's time below the invariable plane as it does above it. In the case of a perfectly circular orbit, it's exactly half the time.

Regarding the Spock's Brain diagram:

In the diagram the planets seem to be shown all nearly at positions of maximum displacement to one side of the invariable plane, which is what I think you were getting at GSchnitzer.

I think what's funny here is that the ascending nodes of the orbits seem to be nearly aligned. This causes their maximum displacements on one side of the invariable plane to be nearly aligned. It's also funny that the hypothetical moment depicted actually has the planets at these positions.

If these are the positions of the planets, even if the diagram is not to scale, then it suggests the possibility that there is some external force acting on the system.

 

[Timo]

To be sure, "Spock's Brain" is famous for introducing a backprojected main screen, replacing the earlier method of adding the graphics onto a blank screen in post-production. The camera thus spends significant time parading to the audience how the characters can now walk past the screen!

For an introductory graphic, this particular diagram probably underwent more scrutiny than most such things. Not that there would have been many graphics on the main viewscreen in TOS overall, though.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ATMachine]

Here's a relevant quote from Arthur C Clarke's 1951 book The Exploration of Space, which I assume was what Harvey Lynn passed on to Gene Roddenberry, in regards to the Talos group as a binary star system:

In one or two exceptional cases there is some evidence for bodies of planetary size revolving around other stars. The first to be discovered was in the system of the double star 61 Cygni, about eleven light-years away. This pair of faint stars has been carefully studied for over a century, and from the movements of one component the existence of a third body has been deduced. This object has about fifteen times the mass of Jupiter, or five thousand times that of Earth. It seems too small to be a sun and may therefore be a very large planet.

There is clearly no hope of detecting worlds as small as Earth by the gravitational disturbances they produce, but if we can discover even a few giant planets by this technique it is certainly a very important step forward. In particular, it refutes the old idea that there can be only one or two planetary systems in the Galaxy--for 61 Cygni is one of our closest neighbors. It would be stretching coincidence a little too far to expect a couple of solar systems within eleven light-years of each other if they were rare phenomena.

We have several times referred to "double stars" and perhaps a word of explanation is needed about these. Our own Sun is--apart from its planets--a solitary wanderer through space. Many suns, however, occur in pairs, revolving around each other under their mutual gravitation. The variety of these partnerships is immense. Sometimes the two stars are of identical types, but sometimes they are so disproportionate in size that an elephant waltzing with a gnat would not be an inaccurate comparison.

Systems of three, four, five, six, and even more stars also occur, with fantastic and beautiful combinations of color. There seems no reason why such multiple stars should not have planets, and indeed there are cogent arguments why they should. We do not know how double suns are formed, but whatever the process one would expect some debris to be left over and to condense into worlds. The orbits of such planets would be exceedingly complex, in some cases never repeating themselves again so that the conception of the "year" would have no meaning. The problem of contriving a calendar for such worlds would be an appalling one, but in compensation the inhabitants would have skies whose splendor we can scarcely imagine.

Let us imagine the sunrise on a planet of a multiple star. Coming up over the horizon is a double star of the Beta Lyrae type. The two components are very large and, unlike our own Sun, are not spherical. They are so close together that their gravitational fields distort them into ellipses, the longer axes pointing towards each other. Linking the two stars is a bridge of incandescent hydrogen, which sprays out from the central sun towards its smaller companion and then forms a vast, expanding spiral--a pin wheel of crimson flame larger than our entire Solar System. It is possible that many close double stars may be surrounded by such gaseous envelopes, which would no doubt make any nearer planets rather unhealthy. But at greater distances the fire-stream would be so dispersed that it would no longer be dangerous.

Very much farther away than the close double star would lie the other two components of this quadruple system. The dull red giant--most of whose radiation is in the infrared and so is invisible to the eye--eclipses its smaller but more brilliant companion. The eclipse is only partial, for the little white star can be seen shining through the tenuous outer layers of its giant companion, like the Sun through a bank of mist.*

(*In case it is objected that, since these two systems represent extremely unusual types of star, it is not likely that they would ever be found together, we would point out that almost every combination of stars is bound to occur somewhere in space.)

It may be wondered how we can possibly know these facts, since even in the greatest telescopes all stars are merely dimensionless points of light. In the case of double or binary systems, however, we can discover the shape and size of the components by analyzing the variations in brilliance as they alternately eclipse each other. The spectroscope, which enables us to measure the velocity with which the various parts are moving, fills in the remaining details.

I've also done a bit of browsing through a few astronomical papers from the much more recent past. It appears pretty well established that, if a binary pair has its components sufficiently distant, then planets can form which orbit around only one of the stars. Planetary formation around close binaries (i.e., when the planet in question orbits both stars) is another matter, and its feasibility appears to be currently a topic of intense research.

 

[Noname Given]

I've also done a bit of browsing through a few astronomical papers from the much more recent past. It appears pretty well established that, if a binary pair has its components sufficiently distant, then planets can form which orbit around only one of the stars. Planetary formation around close binaries (i.e., when the planet in question orbits both stars) is another matter, and its feasibility appears to be currently a topic of intense research.

FYI: Planet with two Suns discovered (link)

 

[T'Girl]

Just for comparison.

 

[throwback]

According to Wikipedia, the existence of a large planet in the 61 Cygni system has been disproven.

I find it interesting that the map for Talos is of the inner system. The outer system, the remaining six planets, are not shown. I think the fifth planet has a moon, and what I see is a slip-up on the part of the artist.

Star Trek: Star Charts makes a mess of the Talos system. They describe the system as a four-star system with five planets. The third planet is not ringed. The four stars are all M-type (red) stars. Red stars have been proven to have incredible magnetic activity, and they flare constantly. I doubt very highly that a system with four red stars could possibly support life.

(The more I study Star Trek: Star Charts, the more I like it less. It's riddled with errors, and the placement of stars is wrong in many cases. I have compared the distance of the real world stars and compared them to what is displayed in the book, and found that the stars are either too close to or too far from Sol.)

 

[Timo]

Just for comparison.

Note, though, that the "Spock's Brain" diagram is fundamentally different: the planets there aren't depicted as being at the extreme "rightmost" points of their orbits, with the star at the zero at left - so the angles of the lines pointing from the star to the planets have nothing to do with the angles of the orbits of the planets against the arbitrary horizontal line.

I find it interesting that the map for Talos is of the inner system. The outer system, the remaining six planets, are not shown.

Note that Spock says that "the solar system is similar to Earth's" - and not, say, that the planet is similar to Earth. I guess we can safely assume that planets from VI onwards are uninteresting gas giants, then.

I think the fifth planet has a moon, and what I see is a slip-up on the part of the artist.

OTOH, the art is drawn with the sort of precision/resolution that the cluster of three non-circular blobs representing the fifth planet is more likely to be a "feature" rather than a "bug". And the idea of a war that splits entire planets would have come to the artist pretty naturally...

It's riddled with errors, and the placement of stars is wrong in many cases. I have compared the distance of the real world stars and compared them to what is displayed in the book, and found that the stars are either too close to or too far from Sol.

That's too bad, as there was a lot of effort to position the stars using the most recent parallax data available.

Are you sure you are using the same data? Stars have "wandered" significantly within the past twenty years, with e.g. Deneb moving by a whopping thousand lightyears with new measurements. The two-dimensional Alpha/Beta maps rely on HIPPARCOS results.

Timo Saloniemi