[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . .

Hi Group,

Hey Kelly you're wrong about stars in the core. They're actually a lot
higher in metallicity than out here in the Galactic boon-docks. Why is this
so? More processing because the gas-cloud density is much higher. Stars in
the nuclear bulge, though, can be very old, low metallicity stars, but we
only see them because so many are now red-giants after +10 billion years of
life. The big, bright new stars are high metallicity, and the multitude of
stars we don't see easily - small main-sequence types - are also high
metallicity.  The first generation thing is probably a bit unlikely anyway
since there's good evidence that in the very early days of our Galaxy's
formation the first stars were super-massive objects [+100 solar masses]
that blew up in a few million years, so there was some metals around for the
first "dwarf" main-sequence stars.

----- Original Message -----
From: <KellySt@aol.com>
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: starship-design: Fermi, again . . .

>> ==Just got the percolation theory paper today, and it
>> doesn't seem to account for the comparative density
>> of stars closer to the center of the galaxy, as opposed
>> to where we are, out closer to the rim. This could be a
>> factor to consider. Colonization has a purpose, after all;
>> it's a search for more living space and/or resources,
>> and those are going to be more abundant and therefor
>> easier to get to at the center; there will be more
>> choices within a given radius of home.
>Actually it works out just the opposite.  In the galactic core the stars
>all first generation.  Nothing but hydrogen and helium.  Its only the newer
>star systems out here, which have a relativly full periodic table worth of
>elements making up the solar system.