deviant ART

[x]

Star and Sky Colour Chart by ~chaos-syndrome:iconchaos-syndrome:


Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Details
Submitted: Aug 9, 2007
File Size: 35.4 KB
Image Size: 35.4 KB
Resolution: 440×840
Comments: 11
Favourites & Collections: 6 [who?]

Views
Total: 989
Today: 2

Downloads
Total: 41
Today: 0

Thumb

Artist's Comments

Star and sky colours for stars between 2000 and 20000 K, based on blackbody spectra and Rayleigh scattering (for more information, see my essay on the subject at [link]).

Note that at low temperatures the blackbody approximation becomes progressively worse as molecules begin to form in the star's atmosphere, so anything below 3000 K should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Example stars are put on this diagram, but note that in reality the temperatures for stars much warmer or cooler than the sun are not particularly well known.

Since colour is subjective (there is no absolute definition of "red", "green" and "blue" because perception of colour varies with environment, person, etc.) these colours should not be taken as literal truth, but they should be qualitatively correct.

Hope some people find this useful.

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0

=onesixone:icononesixone: Aug 9, 2007, 5:45:39 PM
So... Is that with or without the Doppler's effect? :XD: Not that I know much on the Astrology side of things. I've always loved physics in high school, especially astronomy but I was always better at the theory than the maths ^^;

--
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity" ~Einstein

*Wicked-LandScapes Have you been wicked?
~chaos-syndrome:iconchaos-syndrome: Aug 10, 2007, 1:00:23 AM
No Doppler effect here... this is for stars which aren't moving relative to the observer (and in any case, it'd have to be moving pretty fast for you to notice a difference).

Besides, if you Doppler shift a blackbody spectrum you just get the colour shifted to a different temperature (hotter apparent temperature if it is moving towards you, cooler if it is moving away).
~SpikeValance:iconSpikeValance: Aug 10, 2007, 2:10:43 AM
Wow. This is an awesome job! :lol:

--
Event Horizon: Lord of Rings will seem a nursery rhyme :fuzzydemon:
~chaos-syndrome:iconchaos-syndrome: Aug 10, 2007, 7:52:41 AM
Thanks, thought you'd like it. :)
~SpikeValance:iconSpikeValance: Aug 10, 2007, 11:06:51 AM
I have a question: I think worlds around M-dwarf stars, even if habitable, could not be suitable for Human settle, because of too low content in UV rays humans need in Calcium-phosphate metabolism. I think they could suffer rachitism after living 2 years on such worlds. Do you agree or do you think such worlds could be suitable instead?

--
Event Horizon: Lord of Rings will seem a nursery rhyme :fuzzydemon:
~chaos-syndrome:iconchaos-syndrome: Aug 10, 2007, 2:03:44 PM
My view is that the number of worlds in the galaxy which humans could live on without needing massive engineering projects to make the environment survivable is one. Unfortunately it seems we've got a massive engineering project running on it to make its climate rather less suitable for us.

As for whether low ultraviolet levels on red dwarfs would be a problem, I don't know. Less ultraviolet means less ozone production in the atmosphere, which means a greater proportion of ultraviolet gets through. The health risks/benefits of flarebathing are another issue you'd have to think through.
~SpikeValance:iconSpikeValance: Aug 10, 2007, 4:24:20 PM
So you think instead M-dwarfs emit more UV-rays due to the absence of Ozone layer (and assuming flaring event)?
Anyway they're few habitable in the end

--
Event Horizon: Lord of Rings will seem a nursery rhyme :fuzzydemon:
~chaos-syndrome:iconchaos-syndrome: Aug 10, 2007, 4:35:52 PM
Not qute: the ozone would be in the planet's atmosphere, not the star's (should have made that more clear). So while the red dwarf emits less UV, the planet's surface would get a greater proportion of that UV than the Earth's surface gets of the Sun's UV. Whether that would get UV levels on a red dwarf planet up to values comparable to Earth's surface is another matter.
~SpikeValance:iconSpikeValance: Aug 11, 2007, 12:01:16 PM
Yes, I know ozone layer is on planet's surface. So more UV rays than on Earth, isn't it?

--
Event Horizon: Lord of Rings will seem a nursery rhyme :fuzzydemon: