User:GabrielVelasquez/101 errors of Stargen

101 Errors of Stargen:
Stargen is a random solar system generator, a planetary system generator, or a planet formation simulator.

(There are three other Stargens: the star field program, Aina’s Galaxy Generator and the Software company of no relation. So this refers to Burrow’s Stargen only.)

I know the author of Stargen-B wishes to thank all those that reply to his solicitation for suggestions at  http://www.eldacur.com/~brons/NerdCorner/StarGen/StarGen.html

He is always happy to receive suggestions and constructive criticism of this ever-evolving program. (the examples are from the Windows version and are not the same MAC seed outputs.) Here is just a few of those issues he has yet to address (WARNING, I take no responsibility for self-harm done through laughing fits):

___

(0) Getting Winstargen to work is a trying task of trial and error, so I’ll spare you the frustration by telling you that to get the random seed function to work you have to use that seed with the full solstation catalog first to, sort of, prime the program. Then you can use the same seed itself and the random generator part will work. You have to be careful with the “Earth-like” filters as well. (1) Earth has a temperature range of 58°C to –89.6°C, yet the Stargen output range of -12°C to 38.6°C for Earth without any explanation as to the variation.

(2) Besides the wrong range, the Day/Night and Max/Min temperatures also have no reference. If they are for all latitudes rather than specific latitude(s) the program is less suited to Science Fiction than it is to pure Fantasy. (3) 23 degrees Celsius and 400 degrees are not both Hot; 22.5+ is too broad a range for a temperature label. I suggested the "mean monthly average temperature" range part of the "Trewartha Classification System" a scientific climatological measurement system. But he will never make that change, (even though he specifically asked for such suggestions) owing to the fact the program is more than two-third parts someone else’s work, and he doesn’t understand it all of it. His program has temperature ranges that can be used to extrapolate more detail, and water percentage is another output. Together these two pieces of data are what basic climatology is based on, but he is too conceited to acknowledge even the possibility of one dimensional (each latitude) generalized climate range possibilities as part of the output of each planet.

(4) The category range for his HOT label is 21.5°C and above, but Stargen would categorize a planet with a maximum & average temperature of 21.5 as HOT even though this maximum is 17°C COLDER than his Earth Maximum of 38.6°C. He does not understand even his own reasoning on the parts that he added, and can’t because it’s false.

(5) There are temperature range outputs that are labeled as “COLD” which are almost the same as Stargen’s Earth output. Eg: -13.2°C to 29.8°C for the output 14301-1.135 (#4), “Cold” Planet.

(6) On a tidally locked planet it is moot to label the average, as for example "Hot" when the extremes are -178.5°C to 147.3°C, such as the one-face in the output system 40-Eri-10004.

(7) The Venusian in the system 5626-0.85 is labeled cold, icy, arid, and cloudless. 82-Eri-10010 #4 also has above that an unbreathably thin atmosphere. These are not Venusian by any definition I have read, not even Burrows’ own categorization parameters, and if they’re not completely of error could have had their own category.

(8) The label system completely ignores the atmosphere model, which in turn completely ignore the orbit effects, of a “tidally locked planet” on that planet’s atmosphere. The temperatures on these outputs are therefore false and/or completely useless as they are for a different planet, that is, one that is not tidally locked.

(9) If all or the majority of existing elements are melted or boiling, as in 1236-1.5 with a 4879.8°C minimum, then the whole planet is magma and needs its own category; another non-venusian Venusian?

(10) The system 153-1.5 has a large Venusian that has an average temperature of 5025.4°C, yet as typical of Stargen outputs the range of temperatures is wrong for that average, the minimum being 4917.3 °C and the maximum being 4921.6°C.

(11) If it were up to Burrows science would not progress beyond his level of understanding so that he could remain in his bubble where he believes that he knows everything. But to the great disappointment of those who trust in this intelligence, we discover throughout every planet of every output that he cannot even spell correctly: It’s Celsius, not Celcius.

(12) Any planet over 4,100 earth masses or 13 Jupiter masses (such as system 1423-1.5, which is 5857.271 Earth masses) would start to fuse Deuterium and should have its own category, the current scientific label is Brown Dwarf. Yes, this guy pretends to be scientific and forgets Brown Dwarfs.

(13) M-Dwarfs, T-Dwarfs, L-Dwarfs, and Jupiter itself have very close diameters, Jupiter nearing the upper limit. What I have read is that they instead get denser at that point instead of wider. Saturn is nearly as large as Jupiter, despite having only 30% of its mass. Extra-solar planet Gliese 229b is a 40 Jupiter mass Brown Dwarf with a diameter 84% that of Jupiter. The planet labeled Jovian in the Stargen output 1423-1.5 (Exospheric Temperature: 13.83°K) is twice the diameter of Jupiter and (that may be correct for a old star but not a gas giant) that should be corrected, and maybe having its own category. (14) If a planets lowest temperature gets nowhere near as low as its boiling point for water, such as the Venusian at the system 4992-0.99, there is no basis for the label “Boiling oceans” as there would be no condensation and so there would never be any oceans to boil.

(15) There is no reason that I can think of for the terrestrial in system HD-102365-38483 (incorrectly labeled HR 4523) to be “CLOUDLESS” when almost 20% of the temperature range causes “BOILING OCEANS” and the hydrosphere is 52.8%. That happens a lot actually and is proof that this program is badly patched together by Burrows.

(16) 61-Cyg-A-35016 has three one-face planets, all of them with a 0% hydrosphere, yet all of them are labeled as having boiling oceans. The first two are 100% neon, which may be an answer, but he doesn’t have a Neon Ocean planet category so that reasoning is false.

(17) I can see that Burrows must be using Resonance spin locking in the factoring of the day length when I look at an output like the terrestrial in 51128-0.78 which has a 2862.51 hour day, but I would say that is significant enough that Burrows should have a label like the Tidal Lock label at the planet heading, yet it is not always there.

(18) I have encountered some exospheric temperatures that make no sense because they go well below absolute zero. Example: “-1272.99° C Earth temperature” Absolute Zero is –273.15°C. Yes, I know the output is read differently, but the lack of clarity is bad enough.

(19) I’m not sure what error took place here but planet #7 in the system 38945-1.5 is not a GasDwarf, it has only 0.492 Earth masses, and the gas mass is 40% whereas his Gas Dwarf category definition says less than 20%.

(20) Planet #13 of the system 10705-0.99 has a similar problem. Burrows has it labeled as Sub-Jovian planet, when it in fact has 1 Earth mass. The sub-Jovians at 1984-1.5 are both near Earth masses. He would need to create new categories for these odd gaps. It’s sad because the program is obviously ignoring and hiding useful data in the output (that could be used to create new categories) in order to more broadly categorize the planets.

(21) WinStarGen 65-1.5 #13 is a rock 55 AU from the star and yet Stargen has generated a planet that has a 0% cryosphere. Something that far from its star would be mostly ice, not zero percent.

(22) This example is so bizarre; I’m not sure what went wrong here. The Venusian in the system 1826-1.5 #3 does not have the atmosphere to be a Venusian at 0.001 Earth gas masses, 4.603 earth masses total, yet it is able to have 1976.738 Earth atmospheres of pressure, and an average (atmosphere) temperature of 2959.1 degrees Celsius. My guess would be it was poorly categorized based only on temperature and boiling point, and the rest typical of Stargen.

(23) Ice planet outputs are rarely correctly categorized or labeled: The fourth planet in the system 9507 with a star mass range 0.7038 to 0.78751 the percentage of ICE varies from 99.9 to 12.1, but it remains labeled as an Ice Planet throughout that range. Burrows’ label system describes an Ice planet as having a surface that is 90% or more ice.

(24)You can get sillier than a planet labeled “Icy-Ice planet” but that is still pretty stupid. Burrows has such a pathetically huge ego that he can’t simply acknowledge this, he has to qualify it and say that a “tropical” Ice planet is sillier, but Stargen uses no such label, which makes it merely a fanciful ego defense.

(25) Burrows claims that planets go from Ice planet to Terrestrial, when the solar mass is increased, because there is at least part of the planet at some point above the freezing point of water. Unfortunately the program is not consistent in following even this simple check: ie. Global average TEMPERATURE (not just maximum) above freezing not being consistently categorized in outputs as Terrestrial but as an Ice planet.

(26) The category Ice planet itself is arbitrary: Output 12001-0.833702, planet #5 is labeled as an ice planet when the maximum temperature gets up to 31.5°C and the temperate day temperature is 7.9°C.

(27)The Hydrosphere percentage is completely misrepresented and misused. Burrows claims that the model tries to predict what percent of water exists in the three states of matter (gas/liquid/solid), but the Hydrosphere Percentage deceptively suggests the amount of surface that is covered by water without any account of mountains or canyons, or any tectonics. Mount Everest is 9 Kilometers up, and the oceans get as deep as 11 kilometers, that’s a 20 km surface variation. Earth would be completely (100% not 71%) covered in water were it not for tectonics, therefore the Hydrosphere percentage is fantasy.

(28) In the system 6589-1.17 the terrestrial is labeled as poisonous next to Ozone, yet the amount of Ozone is 0%.

(29) System 6648-1 the 4th planet is labeled as having a normal atmosphere and in brackets unbreathable.

(30) Improper breathable atmosphere ranges: On Earth medically the altitude limit of unassisted mountain climb is 25,000 feet where the pressure is 0.3815 atmospheres, whereas he has the minimum breathable pressure listed as 0.095 atmospheres. Medically, more than short term exposure of 100% Oxygen damages tissues. Also, for astronauts the minimum limit of atmospheres of pressure (where a 100% Oxygen atmosphere is needed to compensate) is considered one third of sea level, or 0.33 atmospheres. Again, far from his 0.095 Atmospheres, only 29% of the minimum.

(31) He must be using the Roche Limit formula in all those calculations so I don't understand why I'm not seeing planets that are outside the hillsphere radius but still inside (low density) the Roche Limit becoming asteroid belts, regardless of their size. This is geocentric thinking, an error that is too common amongst astronomers.

(32) The three comet belts at the end of the system ZET1-Ret-18184 are all a relatively narrow “radius,” yet it is possible to have a ring/belt hundreds of AUs wide (Hypergiant Stars).

(33) Speaking of comet belts, it should be possible to label the "asteroid belts" by their main elements by/into even basic categories like Carbonaceous, Nickel-Iron, Silicate, Stony-Iron, Icy (not necessarily the 13 or so scientific Asteroid classifications that exist).

(34) Once He fully incorporates the moon generation subprogram that is on-line He should not miss adding Rings to the planets where the moon falls in the Roche Limit. So far no rings just moons; again fantasy Jupiters.

(35) It’s nice to see a habitable planet-moon around a gas giant when I had the moon option checked off on-line but he completely forgets the tidal effects on planet volcanism and temperature destabilization when applicable. Just imagine IO as a binary planet and you’ll see what Stargen is missing.

(36) Rocks in the outer part of systems. Some asteroids can be thrown out of the system during its formation, but at that distance theories suggest that planets that formed in such distant orbits would be ice balls not rocks. Pluto, Charon, 90377-Sedna, 2003-UB313a/b, Quaoar, Eris, Varuna, Orcus, Ixion, Vesta, Pallus, Hygiea, etc are all Ice balls.

(37) From what little I know of astrophysics and cosmochemistry it is clearly possible to isolate the main gas (composition) of a gas giant planet through calculation regarding escape velocities and molecular mass. Using Stargens current model, when even tells you how much Ozone there is, it would then also be possible to label gas giants with their main gas as a characteristic. For example: Extra-solar planet gamma Cephei A b has been described as a Sulfurous Cloud Jovian (http://www.extrasolar.net/startour.asp?StarID=6).

(39) There are other characteristics of a planet that is generated that are notable enough to be part of a label, just as valid as "Tidally Locked." Some examples are: No/minimal Axial Tilt (no seasons), Extreme Axial Tilt (extreme seasons/temperatures), High Humidity (like boiling oceans), Low Humidity (for Earth-like health reasons), High Tides (Barycenter at/near surface, large moon), Weak/Strong Magnetic Field (Lifeless or eg. magnetotactic bacteria), Aphelion/Perihelion temperatures.

(39) A thorough analysis of the category (not label) parameters of Stargen reveals many gaps and false categorizations. Barren and Semi-Barren (not Rock). Martian, having less than 5% water, but with atmospheres. Ice and Semi-Ice (Tundra) Planets. Water Planets, Water dwarfs and Water Giants. Also, that which would be between a Gasdwarf and a Water Giant, etc.

(40) Asteroid Belts can have greater Mass than the Stargen limit of 0.01 Earth mass. It’s not an absolute limit as Stargen has it but completely relative, as for example a Hypergiant star’s Roche Limit would allow for an asteroid belt hundreds of AUs wide.

(41) “Terrestrial” is a scientific term used to describe the four inner planets of the Sol system, so Burrows is misusing the term when he classifies Earth-like planets as “Terrestrial” but excludes from this class his Martian, Venusian, and the Mercury-like “Rock” categories.

(42) Even thought the precision would be helpful, Stargen rounds off its output number to an absurd degree. For example, it is possible to have an output of –0.0°C and 0.0°C for the average temperature on the same planet by only changing the Star mass by 0.0001

(43) WinStarGen 3135-0.2 #9 is a Martian planet with a total mass of 0.497 Earths, and the surface pressure is 0.002 Earth atmospheres, so it seems absurd to me that the diameter for this planet is 1.1 Earth diameters.

(44) ETA-Cas-10, has a terrestrial with a thin atmosphere (not unbreathably thin), and it has a 95.7% & 155 mb Oxygen atmosphere (96 mb being his minimum), so the last label in brackets “Unbreathable” makes no sense at all. WinStarGen 2240-1.034 #4 is a better example of this error. (45) Finally got back into Stargen’s code and to my surprise I noticed the cosmic abundancy ratios for the elements is way off what they are supposed to because the model is so old it’s using the abundancy ratios for the Earth’s Crust, which is a completely different set of values (might as well be using the ratio of elements in the human body). And the Water molecule is listed among Hydrogen and Oxygen with it’s own abundancy ratio. Half of what is there is guessed at, incorrectly using for each element one-tenth of a percent.

(46) The source code for Stargen shows that the accretion model makes use of only 16 molecules mostly those that are in a gaseous state on Earth. None of the other elements of the periodic table or possible combinations of molecules are made use of and so you have to wonder just what the Rock Planets are actually made from in this program.

(47) Distance from primary is a good statistic to have but you don’t want to be putting the distance from a planet’s moon to the star in that category and calling the star the moon’s primary, when in fact it is the planet that is the moon’s primary.

(48) Stargen is using the same image for Rock planets that are tidally locked and those Rock planets (not one-Face) that are not. So there is no way to replace the image with an accurate animation. The tidally locked planets will rotate the just the same as those that are not tidally locked.

(49) I just turned a Martian type planet into a Terrestrial by raising the average temperature (ie. mass of star) to near Earths average. But this little planet has an unbreathably thin atmosphere. There is no Oxygen on this planet either, yet the little Earth icon makes it look like you have found something Earth-Like, “terrestrial”. (Winstargen 681-1.188)

(50) I found and instance of a negative inspired partial pressure, for an atmosphere that has only one element (Winstargen 3354-0.8 #3): Neon 100.0% 37 mb  (ipp: -26).

(51) "Molecular weight retained: 3003.9 and above." (WinStarGen 3354-1.5 #1). Holy Gold! - For anyone who understands that bit of output, this needs no explanation and it is pretty obvious that is a right messed up output. That is twelve times (12x) heavier than the heaviest elements. Since it’s a minimum, at the right temperature, there should be nothing there; which ironically fits with Stargen’s element usage. I shouldn’t miss that I have look at minerals and I there are very many that are much heavier than the outputs value, the highest I have found so far is Tillmannsite which is twenty thousand (yes, 20,106.29! (Ag3Hg)(V,As)O4).

(52) “Exospheric Temperature 62,621.63°K” (WinStarGen 34986-1.5 #1). Does that seem even remotely possible for a star that is 1.5 times the mass of the sun when THAT is the surface temperature for a star 111.9 times the mass of the sun (yes, one hundred and twelve suns!). This planet is roughly 8.83 times hotter than the surface of its primary (7,093.39°K). Regardless of the fact that the planet is only 0.366 AUs away, this little planet’s exosphere can’t be 8.83 times hotter than it’s own star’s surface.

(53) 3358-0.2 #3, Is a planet the is 100% Neon in atmosphere (use 3358-0.55 to verify, as the screwy atmosphere model is based on water temperatures) but it’s tidally locked so you would expect that would be no atmosphere at all because the minimum temperature goes well below the freezing point of Neon and it would all freeze out on the darkside, as people who have studied tidally locked planets would tell you. 100% of nothing.

(54) 3354-0.8 #3 is labeled as having a surface of 78.2% ice, but there is no basis for this as the atmosphere is 100% Neon and the temperature never gets as low as the boiling point of Neon, the molecular weight retained is only above waters molecular weight, and the temperature gets up to almost four times the boiling point of water, for that atmosphere. Again 78.2% of nothing.

(55) Sulfur, Calcium, Sodium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Zinc, and Aluminum have upper level cosmic abundancy figures, have large liquid ranges, in relatively midrange temperatures, but are not represented in Stargen in terms of Atmosphere and Oceans. For example, many Stargen output’s inner planets should have mention of Sulfur Oceans, since Sulfur is the 10th most abundant element and it has a liquid range of 113°C to 445°C. Another, Sodium is the 14th most abundant element with a liquid range of 98°C to 883°C, and makes possible “salt” oceans without actually having water on many Stargen output inner planets.

(56) Some of the most amusing Stargen outputs are like this one. WinStarGen 2675-1.05, A terrestrial with 40% Hydrosphere, yet the atmosphere is composed of this: Argon 92.6% (ipp: -4) CarbonDioxide 6.4%  4 mb  (ipp: -0) Krypton 0.8%  0 mb  (ipp: -0) Xenon 0.1%  0 mb  (ipp: -0) Neon 0.1%  0 mb  (ipp: -0) What makes this amusing, in case you didn’t notice, is that there is no Oxygen or Hydrogen, yet it’s got a 40% Hydrosphere! Even worse, ETA-Cas-10 is an output with a Water Planet that has a 100% hydrosphere, but there is an impossible 0% oxygen in the atmosphere.

(57) Stargen has listed as a parameter an upper limit of Oxygen Pressure for breathing that is 533 mb, and 96 mb as a minimum. So you have to wonder why the program doesn’t actually follow it’s own guidelines. In the case of WinStarGen 153-0.79, where the terrestrial has not unbreathably thin atmosphere, just a thin atmosphere, and an Oxygen level of 99.0% 144 mb (ipp: 82), but it is considered “Unbreathable” due to the amount of Oxygen: “Thin atmosphere (O2 - unbreathable)”

(58) The rock planet in the output WinStarGen 153-0.56 #1 is not tidally locked, it rotates yet has the label: Resonant Spin Locked - Low-G, Airless, 1-Face. But “One Face” in Stargen language (category parameters) refers to a Tidally Locked planet.

(59) Looking at it (WinStarGen 153-0.56 #1) more closely it rotates 17 times every 21 days. It’s simpler to say that this planet rotates 4 times every 5 days, but you can’t tell the truth here owning to the fact that Stargen is using 24 hour days for Earth. Why is that odd? Well in this output you can see that the output numbers have a 1/100th place of accuracy (1.24 Local days), but Stargen then makes the error of not using the accurate 23.933 hours/day for Earth (23 hrs, 56 min, 4.1 sec).

(60) The one-face planet in the output 153-0.698 changes to an ice planet if the star mass is increased by 0.001 (to 0.699). Nothing changes to cause this, the ice is well over 95% for both, and the mass (which is the main tidal lock factor) stays the same. If I were decreasing the star mass then okay maybe, but I’m increasing it, and so it is yet another of those Stargen things that makes no sense.

(61) Burrow definition of a one-face planet is this: “It consists of planets whose rotation is tidally locked such that the same side always faces their sun (much as the Moon always presents the same face towards Earth) and which have an atmosphere. Barren 1-face worlds, like our own Mercury, are listed as ‘Rock’.” But if you examine the “One-Face planet” in the output 3310-0.81 you will notice that it is not tidally locked, it is only resonance spin locked, it does rotate its face. Another set of category parameters created by Burrows that Stargen ignores.

(62) In the output 3310-0.81, what do these values really mean for an Asteroid Belt(??): Surface gravity, pressure, temperature, Equatorial radius, Eccentricity of orbit, Etc.

(63)The output 3310-1.15 has a terrestrial, so called, I don’t know why? The minimum temperature is 36.4°C, the maximum temperature 64.7°C. The average is at scorching 50.9°C, and that’s on top of having a poisonous 97.9% Nitrogen atmosphere. But there it is, that happy Earth-like looking logo (looking ridiculous) to show that it’s “Terrestrial.”

(64) I just realized that it is the height of stupidity to categorize planets based on the average global temperature and surface pressure because that still allows for ridiculously uninhabitable temperate ranges even if the global average is the magic 14°C. This is a scientific blunder as the Sahara desert is not “habitable” and the Arctic and Antarctica are not “habitable.”

(65) This one made me laugh when I found it. Every Stargen output has an exospheric temperature, the temperature at the “top” of the “atmosphere,” even rocks, with no atmosphere.

(66) If you use the seed number 2710 for the solstation Sol (our solar system) output you get a water planet, with a full temperature range (7.1 to 30.4) of 23.3(°C), while Earth’s full range in Stargen (-12°C to 38.6°C) is 50.6(°C). Who but Burrows would not consider such a mild temperature range not worthy of it’s own label. (Yet another planet cooler than Earth labeled Warm.)

(67) Molecular disassociation of water into oxygen gas and hydrogen gas occurs at 374°C (647°K), but that is not being factored in to the outputs of stargen, in neither the hydrosphere calculation or the exosphere evaporation process (WinStarGen 26449-0.858 #3).

(68) I just realized something bizarre while looking at “One-Face” planet, and then rechecking the category parameters: Atmosphere and tidally locked. That it includes all of the other categories except Rock Planet. In other words, any planet (“Martian,” “Ice Planet,” “Terrestrial,” “Water Planet,” “Venusian,” “Gas Dwarf, “Sub-Jovian,” “Jovian,” “Unknown”) that is also tidally locked will be categorized by Stargen instead as a “One-Face Planet.”

(69) WinStarGen 26456-1.258 #5 has an Average Temperature of 14°C because of a greenhouse gas increase of +59.2°C. But this is how the output actually compares to Earth using the other figures in the output and this basic formula: (R^2)*F=(d^2)*f. ((((1.258^0.74)*696000000)^2)*((0.000000056703)*(((1.258^0.505)*5780)^4)))/((1.797*149597876600)^2)= 947.2641493 W/m^2 Which is far far less than the “Solar Constant” is for Earth: (((696000000)^2)*((0.000000056703)*((5780)^4)))/((149597876600)^2)= 1369.88 W/m^2

(70) Now that I think about it a lot of planet outputs are listed with their increase in temperature from greenhouse gas effect, like Venus is listed as having a 595°C increase. But Burrows neglects to show the 33°C increase for EARTH, as though the Earth average of 14°C is just from insolation and there is no greenhouse effect.

(71) Confirmation, WinStarGen 26456-1.258, planet #3 is “AIRLESS” as in no atmosphere, but with an increase in the average temperature 56.6°C due to a greenhouse gas effect.

(72) Tidally locked planet’s orbits in Stargen outputs don’t make sense as they have ridiculously eccentric orbits and axial tilts.

(73) NASA has calculated that the core of Jupiter is 30,000°C. What with all the data that Stargen outputs for each planet, you’d think this little figure would not be missing.

(74) Notice that Nitrogen is 78.084% of Earth’s atmosphere but we don’t suffocate because it’s lighter than Oxygen; Carbon Dioxide on the other hand is heavier and people have been known to die from CO2 “landslides.” Helium and Hydrogen are the lightest elements and would float above Nitrogen and Oxygen, so the parameters for the toxicity of those gases in the atmosphere, and therefore the categories for poisonous atmosphere planets, is far from accurate.

(75) Just confirmed that Stargen is actually using a flux formula, incorrectly, for exospheric temperatures. This is the formula for the solar constant: ((star.radius^2)*(Stefan.Boltzmann.Constant*(star.temp^4)))/(distance^2). (((696000000)^2)*((0.000000056703)*((5780)^4)))/((149597876600)^2)= 1369.88 W/m^2 Whatever formula Stargen is using also multiplies this result by something slightly smaller than the mass of the star (98.77%), which throws off the result, as the star is already factored in twice (radius and temperature). Then the funny thing is that Stargen cheats by using this flux result as the exospheric temperature. But the Watts per square meter result and the temperature in Kelvins do not relate directly that way: It maybe 1273°K in the thinnest part of the atmosphere, but that this is 93% of the flux is a coincidence or a deliberate calibration point. The proof that this is wrong is back at point #52(WinStarGen 34986-1.5) where the exospheric temperature (62,621.63°K) of the planet is 8.83 times hotter than that of the photosphere, or surface, of it’s own star (7,093.39°K).

(76) In that example 62,621.63 is wrong as both temperature AND the flux because the correct flux is 42,270.9733 W/m^2. Right, say that it’s because it’s a temperature and not a flux and I’ll know you’d desperate because, once again, that’s the surface temperature for a star not 1.5 times, but actually 111.9 times the mass of the sun.

(77) If a planet has atmosphere constituents that are breathable and then the atmosphere is too thick, then fine, “Unbreathably Thick Atmosphere” is an appropriate label. But if there is nothing there for a person to breath, ie, no Oxygen, or it’s poisonous, then that label is ineffectual. It’s already unbreathable so the thickness of that atmosphere is beside the point.

(78) To say that the terrestrial in the output WinStarGen 34986-0.873 (#3) has an average surface temperature of 14.0°C and therefore Earth-like is a deception as it has a ridiculous orbital eccentricity of 0.122, (Earth’s is 0.017) which actually means that the distance varies from 0.645597 AU to 0.8250AU, and the insolation 2043.146 W/m^2 (44% more than Earth’s Perihelion PEAK) to 1251.131 W/m^2 (5.6% less than Earth’s aphelion LOW). Even with a thicker atmosphere this output planet has a LOWER greenhouse gas effect and can’t have the MILDER extreme temperatures that are displayed (Earth: -12°C to 38.6°C), -11.5°C to 38.1°C. I could do this for many planets that have even more extreme eccentricities and the temperatures would not add up correctly. WinStarGen 3119-1.0557 #2 has an eccentricity 0.410, which requires a much broader range than 33.5°C.

(79) What is the albedo of a Rock Planet based on? As noted above, Stargen uses a very limited number of compounds/elements, so there is no bases for the albedos that are listed. If there is no accounting for Aluminum at all in the program then there is no accounting of the positive feedback loops of something like Aluminum condensing and increasing the albedo (increasing the reflectiveness, thus lowering the temperature even further). Silicon is much more abundant and much more reflective in (condensed) pure form, but condensing Silicon is not accounted for either, nor Iron. ALBEDO refers to reflectivity: Can these “Rock Planets” in this program absorb and reflect anything when they are made of nothing.

(80) 31090-1.465 #6 has an extreme axial tilt of 39°, a long winter 3.5 times as long as earth’s, and is labeled Cold by its average temperatures, but it only has a 5.1% ice cover. A 5% global area for a planet means ice caps to 70°N and 70°S (50% is down to 26° latitude). These numbers fail to add up. A planet with these figures should have a cryosphere percentage much larger. Given summer melting is the other poles winter freezing, and given the “Cold” label range, etc: 90-39=51; 51° = 18.9% Cryosphere not 5.1%

(81) The WinStarGen output for Earth has a year that is 365.26 days, but has 16.23-hour days, so that it’s output says Earth’s year is 540.13 Local Days.

(82) Getting back to looking at the most basic elements of the Stargen outputs I noticed a scientific blunder. The formula that I found for the relationship between a planet’s period, a planet’s orbit radius, and the star’s mass is this: T^2=((4*pi^2)/G*M)*(r^3). This is Kepler’s Third Law, the Law of periods. As an example, WinStarGen 10140-0.6 #2 has the same period no matter what the star mass is changed to (and this may be what the random seed system is linked to, therefore understandably a constant), but then in relationship to the change in star mass the orbit radius should change proportionally, which it doesn’t. Another way to look at it is to say that a star 60% the mass of the sun (1.99e30 kg) would figure in Stargen’s calculations for orbit radius around a star that actually has a mass of 2.0853e27 kg, or 0.104% of the sun. For the G to cancel you have to convert the Stargen outputs to meters cubed and seconds squared Mstar=(4*(PI^2)*((149497876600m*0.445AU)^3))/(((3358.62days*23.933hrs*360sec)^2)*(6.67E-11))

(83) The wonderfully “Terrestrial” WinStarGen 26406-1.115 #3 was a real find. Always a pleasure to see that phony Earth-Like icon on the most un-Earth-like, uninhabitable outputs. The extreme minimum temperature on this planet is 53.5°C, where the average person would suffer from heat stroke (after-thought: and the uncalculated ipp for water would also be unbreathable).

(84) A major part of the point of the program Stargen is to randomly generate solar systems where “habitable” planets might be found. Burrows says much about the special outputs that his program produces and all the examples at the extreme limits of what are supposed to be habitable, and of course that special, fabricated three-habitable-planet output (compare the outputs for that actual seed number). Understanding the basic idea that the Arctic, Antarctic, and places like the Sahara Desert are in their harshest seasons not habitable (unless a spacesuit is included in your definition) is something Burrows has failed to do. Stargen leaves vague boundaries between planet types as though there are possibilities of habitability that are between say an Earth-like planet and an Ice planet, even those that are categorized as Ice planet but are close to the border. This is false, for if a hot planet does not have at least cool caps, or a cold planet at least a warm equator, then in their season (again without a spacesuit) these planets will kill their inhabitants. In case anyone thinks the Inuit of the Arctic are something that can be used as an example, that is weak reasoning for the Arctic on Earth is connected to other of Earth’s Climates, where animals that already exist there can migrate in and out of harsh seasonal places, and the Inuit can store food from those migrations. If you can’t step outside to find your food, then you may as well be in space, or in a spacesuit, and that is not “habitability.”

(85) The compiled program versions of Stargen have never produced moons, only planets and asteroid belts. With no moons habitable planets outputs are all moonless. Scientist are now saying that the Earth would not be habitable without the Moon, so what point is there in having an Earth-like category for planet outputs if they are not really Earth-System-like in that way and can never be without any moon(s). Again “Earth-Like” in Stargen is fantasy not sci-fi.

(86) In all the above temperature comments I neglected to mention that a 14°C average temperature is what Earth has, but that does not make some thing two degrees less then that “cool” because, although it is the global average, 14°C itself is cool. A whole six degrees (the parameter amount, +7.5, for Hot) below room temperature. In other words the Earth’s global average, by stargen generalized categorization parameters standards, is already cool, and something categorized two degrees less is actually a cool “cool planet.”

(87) Asteroid belt parameters are listed as less than 0.1% earth mass, but WinStarGen 2457-1.32208 #4 is an asteroid belt that does have a mass of 0.1% of Earths. Not to mention that this is the mass that is supposed to be spread around an orbit 1.67 AUs, 249678856045.4 m, 1.56878E+12 m circumference; 2.61E+21 g/m^3, using the 1290600m diameter as a constraint that’s still a dust belt.

(88) The water planet output WinStarGen 33422-0.989 #4 is labeled poisonous because of the pressure of Nitrogen, 3453mb, which is 347mb (globally) more than Stargen’s 3106mb maximum. But all of the ranges that Stargen uses, for different pieces of data, there are boundaries of habitability like the cool and warm label ranges, not to mention that there is no accounting of how much of that nitrogen is in the water of this water planet, and so I don’t believe this piece of data is as hard a line as that. But that is actually not the unbreathable factor for this planet, as the Helium and Nitrogen gases are a lighter molecular mass than Oxygen gas. This output actually has an Oxygen gas pressure that is 28mb less then Stargen’s minimum, and that is really the more relevant label.

(89) Rock planets in the hottest parts of an output solar system, with no atmospheres, in stargen outputs can have densities less than Earth. Back at #52 that same example works as well as any other (WinStarGen 34986-1.5 #1). The output says 5.34 grams/cc or 0.97 Earth densities, but the Molecular weight retained is of course the absurd 1779.2 and above. With no accounting of heavy elements then having a density is such a fraud.

(90) Water disassociates in to Oxygen and Hydrogen at 374°C, but the output WinStarGen 13-1.5 #5 has a boiling point for water that is 722.2°C. It doesn’t matter that the pressure is 4689.438 Earth atmospheres; bond energy is not the same as vapor pressure.

(91) That reminds me, Stargen must be mistakenly using the same water vapor pressure for all temperatures. This actually varies with temperature. At 0°C it is 4.6 mm Hg, but at 110°C is 1074.6 mm Hg. I see no evidence that this is being factored in (see next entry).

(92) You would think with all the detail that the atmosphere model puts out in the area of breathable gases that there would be some accounting of water vapor in outputs that are Hot Water planets, and although I have found many Hot Water planets, and water is listed in the code with its own abundancy factor, I have not seen any inspired partial pressures displayed for water vapor. The first planet in the output WinStarGen 10723-0.795 is a Wet one-face planet that actually does spin, with a two-day year, and it should have an inspired partial pressure for water, as it strongly suggests a Steam Planet category.

(93) WinStarGen 15-1.32370951 #6 (2.606 AU out) goes from an Ice planet to a Venusian, from a  -59.5°C to 636.3°C global average, 85.9% ice to zero ice, with just an increase of 0.00000001 to the star mass (1.32370952), skipping the terrestrial/Earth-like category with out any detectable reason.

(94) Scientists say that there is a detectable effect of excess hydrogen in an atmosphere and they call it an anti-greenhouse effect. That is to say at cooler temperatures hydrogen has a higher albedo. So it is possible for outputs in Stargen to have negative GHG effects, but why Stargen does this in any particular output (check CSV files, online) is a mystery because there is not enough Hydrogen in the atmosphere when it does occurs.

(95) Taking a closer look at this Gas dwarf category I notice that there are output errors with category parameters. WinStarGen 11271-1.1 #5 is a good example: In Stargen outputs a breathable atmosphere pressures can go as high in as 7.9 atmospheres, but in this output, which gets only as much heat as the Earth does, there are only 2.2 atmospheres of mass. It’s only that there are 7 Earth masses in total that this planet is not considered for the terrestrial category. But the total mass is not considered as a limit in any of the category parameter descriptions, with the exception the Sub-Jovian category where it has to have less than 20 earth masses. You’ll notice that the surface feature data (gravity/pressure) is not listed to hide this. The high gravity label is rarely used, and in thousands of outputs I’ve never seen the uninhabitably high gravity label in an output.

(96) Going back to land percentages. Stargen does this fake factoring of surface water and surface ice, and at that they are mutually exclusive. So an output for example that has a surface covered 90% by water (not a Water planet, which is at least 95%) and an ice surface of 10% might actually be completely covered by water and ice and there would be no land except what was covered by ice. Such a description, where there is no land to stand on, would obviously constitute a Water Planet, but Stargen doesn’t bother to consider the overlap. In case the obvious example doesn’t occur to you, Antarctica is an entire continent of land covered by ice, so it is possible to have a planet with all percent combinations of just water and ice, and Stargen is categorizing them wrong. This also renders that category ranges for the “WET” label useless.

(97) I’ve likely covered something like the issue in output #3 of Winstargen 13125-1, but this is a confluence of too many weird things to miss. This one-face resonant spin planet has the label “Wet,” which no other planet would where it also 100% water, as that’s a water planet (no “Wet Water Planets” in Stargen). But that’s hardly what is odd about this output. The boiling point of water on this planet is 294.1°C, but the average temperature is 796.1°C and the minimum of 723.8°C, so there is no (liquid/100%) water on this water planet. With a 100% cloud cover this output missed the Venusian category because it is resonant spin locked and happened to be far enough away to somehow still have H2O (s,l,g), but the program isn’t set up to identify what I did visually. As it is, it couldn’t even be called a Steam Planet as, again, water disassociates at 374°C to Oxygen and Hydrogen.

(98) Earth atmosphere is 0.033% Carbon Dioxide. This is the main green house gas on Earth; the other green house gases are present in relatively trace amounts (N2O=0.00005% & CH4=0.00002%). So the textbook increase in Earth’s global average temperature of 33°C comes mainly from Carbon Dioxide. Now in the #4 planet output of WinStarGen 52-1 there is a supposed to be a percentage of Carbon Dioxide of 1.5%, 45 times more than Earth, yet there is no greenhouse gas effect. A better example is WinStarGen 1-1.16 #3 where the Carbon Dioxide is almost 5% and there is no increase in temperature from the greenhouse gas effect.

(99) The correct surface gravity for Earth is 9.83 m/s2 not 9.802 m/s2. Also the escape velocity of Jupiter is 59.5 km/s not 62.3 km/s. Now these might seem to be minor variances, but when you are dealing with billions of billions of kilograms of mass (eg. 5.98e24 kg), and your atmosphere contents depends on them (ie. whether that atmosphere is poisonous or breathable or not), then those variations in those simple calculations can make big differences.

(100) A recent physics textbooks (530 HAL) list these attributes for Venus: Radius: 6,052 Km (not 5966.9 m), Density: 5.24 g/cc (not 5.47 g/cc), Rotation: 243 days (not 224.55 days), Gravity: 0.903 Earth gees (not 0.93), Surface Temperature: 477°C (not 691°C), Orbital Velocity: 35.02 km/s (not [(1.1e8 km x 2PI) /(224.55 x23.933 x60 x60)]= 35.724 km/s). I dare not check all of the statistics for the rest of the planets for fear that they would all be equally inaccurate. But again if this is Stargen’s level of accuracy even with real planets, then its outputs definitely are fantasy.

(101) In my analysis of Stargen I still come across odd outputs and it never ceases to surprise and disappoint me. Planet #15 in the output WinStarGen 20406-1.061 has an atmosphere pressure of 0.000 Earth atmospheres, 0 mb of pressure, and yet the boiling point of water is –87.5°C. In a vacuum the boiling point of water is absolute zero, -273.15°C, so this is way off. All you have to do is look at the boiling point for all of the first seven planets in the system to end up wondering what the hell.

(102) In case anyone thinks I have some items that are too similar or duplicated I’ll keep going. Stargen is missing an astrophysics figure known as the argument of perihelion. This is a failing as with this little figure, along with dividing the temperatures into respective seasons (axial tilt), would allow for a detailed set of climate figures, habitable or not, for each planet.

(103) System WinStarGen 1207-0.48 #1 is a gas giant that is more rock than gas.

(104) Here’s one that made me laugh, WinStarGen 2964-0.66 #2, “One Face” “asteroid belt.”

(105) Water planet at WinStarGen 14750-0.92 has an atmosphere pressure that is greater than the breathable limit, so it is actually mislabeled as only thick atmosphere.

(106) The core accretion model program that Stargen is built around is very outdated and needs a full revision with today’s information about the way nebulas collapse into solar systems. It also has to incorporate the formation of moons right along side of planets so that their common properties and mutual influences are correctly formulated. Stargen will never have proper moons (and therefore will never have even plausibly habitable planets) with its current accretion program.

(107) Through the Internet Burrows inflicts his errors on the rest of the world, almost as disinformation, and he'll say it’s (just) his hobby; well then it can be said it's his “hobby” to inflict his errors on the world through the internet (oooh, logic). Burrows likes to make excuses of the fact that the majority of the program he takes credit for was made by other people, taking no responsibility for the fact that it is badly understood and badly patched together himself. I’m still looking at outputs, and receiving the outputs of others doing their own testing, and will be adding to the list of errors. Anyone finding any others or wishing to expand on theses can send them to me at gabe69velasquez@hotmail.com, or better still, send them to the author Jim Burrows at brons@eldacur.com