Talk:Flannagan's Nebulea

This article is within the scope of the Planets WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of planets. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been flagged for review by the Project: Planets team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.

Misspelling?

Uh - this article's name seems to be misspelt (Nebulea instead of Nebula), but I'm away from my sources and can't check. Given that this is one of the original, very old articles on Sarna and nobody wanted to change the name before, maybe it isn't a misspelling after all. Can someone please look it up for me? Frabby (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

It is spelt Flannagan's Nebulea in Handbook Major Periphery States. - Dark Jaguar (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

Thanks. I still think it's wrong. Will raise this (and a few other instances - New Gangemede, New Hati, Heiligendreuz among them) on the BT forum shortly, and try to get an official ruling or correction. Frabby (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

No problem. It might be a misspelling, I just assumed it was a cluster of smaller nebula. - Dark Jaguar (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

I absolutely think you're right about it being a mis-spelling. And I think it is endemic to Øystein's graphical database, as the maps are the only place that particular spelling occurs. To be honest, I think the employment of his maps are a bit haphazard, in any case. Doing extensive word searches in ISP3 yesterday, for example, the search would find the target world on map pages, but outside the margins of the maps themselves (making them actually impossible to see). This, to me, indicates a simple mis-spelling could easily have been duplicated as a function of 'cut-n-paste'.

A Google and Wikipedia search also finds no definition for 'nebulea', though it does appear to be in limited use as a Latin variation of 'nebula'. Also, the fourth hit on a Google search for define Nebulea does return a particular source I've found rather credible for the last 10 years or so. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:42, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

Sorry was going to write something and realised that this is a spelling mistake and should be "Nebulae" - Dark Jaguar (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

But even then the plural seems wrong, as it is only one "nebula". And while I'm at it, nebula seems wrong too, it should rather be called a cluster. The real question is, do we treat it as a single system? -- Frabby (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

I do not think it is a cluster. I think it is a nebula (Flannagan's), with at least one multi-star system located within it. Apologies for being pedantic, but there is a difference: open clusters (the smallest of the clusters) have hundreds of stars co-located in a (relatively) dense location, moving (as a group) chaotically, while a multiple star system is two or more stars that collectively orbit around one barycenter. So, if we take TPTB's naming conventions as they use them, and only add scientific definitions to provide detail, I see Jamestown, Ishtar, and Samantha as planets orbiting different stars, where the stars themselves are part of the same multiple star system (i.e., orbiting a common point). So, unless I'm mistaken, TPTB never mention a cluster for this particular astronomical location, right? If not, we should avoid any use of the term 'cluster' ourselves in regards to the location.

I'm building an argument in the next discussion section below as to what I think our decision should be. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:18, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

At the heart of the issue is that the authors of various BattleTech publications - especially in the FASA era - simply threw out names that sounded cool in an astrological context, without realizing or caring what they actually said. Another drastic misnomer example is the NGC 99382 system, purportedly an uninhabited periphery system. Only... "NGC" denotes entires in the w:New General Catalogue of Clusters and Galaxies, which doesn't contain individual systems. Or Luyten 68-28 - Willem Jacob Luyten is long since dead and his catalogue is completed, and there is no 68-28 entry. Though in this case it could be argued that it is a cover name as the real name, if it is a known and catalogued star, would give away the location of this "secret system". Oh well. Got carried away... I'll stop ranting now. Frabby (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

HBS forum's discussion of Flannagan's Nebulea

To help resolve the above discussion as to what Flannagan's (mumble) actually is, and how the planets Taurus, Jamestown, Ishtar, and Samantha relate, I'm scrapping a discussion that was held on the HBS forums (on gruese's 3025 map thread). (I'm unsure how to link to specific posts with HBS' forum software, so the links will go to the specific page of the comment.)

---

• gruese ([1]): "We have one particular item that has a question mark attached to it, and I'd like to put it up for discussion: Flannagan's Nebulea (sic) is an object of some sort in the Taurian Concordat, but it's hard to say what exactly it is - this image from the Sarna.net article seems to imply that it's merely a region in which the systems of Ishtar, Samantha and Jamestown are located[.]
  "On the other hand, the article lists specific coordinates, which would contradict the region theory. This is complicated by the fact that the coordinates are identical to those listed for Renfield, which doesn't fit the images in the article. The sarna.net history on Flannagan's Nebulea shows different coordinates, which put it close to Taurus.
  So: What is it, exactly? Should we treat it as a separate system? Should we leave it out?"
  Revanche: Here gruese introduces the problem: what is the nature of Flannagan's Nebulea and the systems within the image? We should disregard gruese's concern here about the historical coordinates, as Sarna's policy on system coordinates is the SUC Kit's method takes precedence, and those are updated with the most recent canon maps released. There is no reason whatsoever to question that policy, at this point. Also, his concern's regarding Renfield sharing coords with the nebula are now outdated.
  • Spartakus ([2]): "I can help you out: Special Asteroid Support Force[.]
    "It says "Flannagan's Nebulea in the Hyades Cluster is a cloud of gas, dust and asteroids that surrounds the planet of Taurus, capital of the Taurian Concordat" The object of some sort in the map is actually the Hydes star cluster. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyades_%28star_clust...)
    "As Flannagan's Nebula is an object inside the Taurus system it's coordinates should IMHO be identical to the one of Taurus. Maybe @Frabby can put this on his to do list as well."
    Revanche: I like and dislike Spartakus' post here. He successfully identifies an object (the nebula) as something that surrounds the planet of Taurus. This is good, as a planet in a star system within a nebula would be described as being surrounded by such a feature. However, I choose to disregard his specific statement about the nebula being within the Taurus system; while technically true, my argument is the system is actually within the nebula, with attributes of the nebula being evident throughout the Taurus system. I choose to interpret this as a mis-statement of the nature of the nebula. I don't think it's reasonable to believe a nebula would exist only within the confines of an inhabitable star system.
    • Sterling: "From Sarna (Hyades Cluster Article)[.]
      "When they reached and explored the Cluster they found a plethora of rich worlds, hidden and protected by a dense gas and dust cloud. While penetrating this cloud an immense asteroid field was discovered, and the expedition lost some of their ships in this dangerous passage. This cloud of danger, named Flannegan's Nebulea, became the first and greatest line of defense for the colonists.
      "Flannagan's Nebulea is more than one belt in a single solar system (though they are unfortunately used interchangeably at times). It's bloody massive.
      "In theory, the "system" named for the nebula is simply the nav point for the most navigable entrance to the cluster, as so far as I know there is nothing within that "system" beyond the stellar debris that comprises the nubla."
      Revanche: Sterling is making all this gel for me. First off, yes, there is a cluster (Hyades Cluster). Without a map jumping out at me showing it, I'm just going to accept this as true (I'm sure there's a source). So, the timeline: the first exploration ships to the Hyades Cluster (a region of hundreds of stars) found a "dense gas and dust cloud" (nebula) encompassing numerous inhabitable/resource-rich planets. Also within the cloud was an immense asteroid field (orbiting the multi-star system, similar to the Oort cloud?), which resulted in the loss of several ships, presumably before a safe (thrust-based?) passage could be charted. So, cluster-->nebula-->immense asteroid field-->passageway-->systems. I like his conclusion that the waypoint is the safe external (to the system) JumpPoint before beginning a thrust-based passage into the (Taurus, un-named) multi-star system.
      • Spartakus: "You're right about the 'nebula' spanning more then the Taurus system, possibly the whole Hyades cluster. However, the 'entry point' doesn't fit. The systems within the Cluster are still lightyears apart. Too far for a dropship. Each system still needs it's own 'entry point'"
        Revanche: Here Spartakus corrects his previous statement about the nebula within a star system, so we're tracking there. However, he also brings up a valid point: maps depict distances of light-years and those maps show the planets of the Taurus region as being light-years distant, which means ships cannot reasonably traverse them from one single entry point without jumping.
        • Sterling: "Not necessarily. Just because one cannot jump from outside the cluster in doesn't mean one cannot jump within the cluster and nebula itself. Insert handwavium regarding the nebula having some disastrous effect on KF drives when making specific jumps here. Gravitational interference or some such comes to mind.
          "I.e. Jump to the Flannagans Nav point, maneuver through entry passage, continue jumping after clearing the worst of the asteroidal and nebular matter. By all accounts the entire cluster isn't filled with asteroids and nebular matter, instead the schmut zips concentrated in a border shell or some barrier layer.
          "This also makes sense in the context of the SASF, since if a ship can simply jump past the debris, how did they pose such a critical threat that the entire SLDF took years to punch through their defenses during the Reunification Wars?"
          Revanche: Okay, Sterling now introduces a concept where the planets are light years apart (as depicted and and accepted as canonical), but with a technical explanation that a jump is needed to approach an external entry point to the nebula, traverse the charted passage way and clear the technical hurdle, and then jump within the internal region. This explanation does justify the Special Asteroid Support Force's method of operations and the Star League's own trials to subjugate the TC. I much prefer the idea of one multi-star system, with DropShips traveling under thrust from the internal passage waypoint, but Sterling's idea does fit best with the distances depicted as lightyears.
          • Spartakus: "Soooo, I did a bit more research, including reading german reference books. Then I stumbled upon this piece of information:
            "Samantha [Calderon] converted her wealth into ships and supplies and lead an expedition of more than 2,300 people aboard 25 FTL capable ships to find a new, safe home. It took the expedition 22 months to travel from Aix-la-Chapelle to the unexplored Hyades Cluster; despite losing two Aquilla-class transports in the attempt, the expedition became the first explorers to successfully navigate through the dust, gas and asteroid fields that surrounded the cluster to discover the eight linked star systems within the cluster and the 37 assorted planetary bodies orbiting or being pulled between the various stars.
            "My own source (Geschichte der Inneren Sphäre pg.12) adds that the whole phenomenon was named after their chief navigator Flannagans Nebula'
            "What does that mean? Simple yet beautiful:
            "Within the Hyades Cluster is a system of 8 stars orbiting each other. (That is not pure fiction. Castor for example is really a six-star system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_%28star%29) ) It is surrounded by a dense asteroid field (like the Oort cloud surrounds Sol) which is called Flannagan's Nebulea. Within the system are 37 planetary bodies of which 10 are hospitable, 4 of them (Taurus, Samantha ,Jamestown, Ishtar) currently inhabited. No Jumppoint within the Nebula exists, so ships must jump to a point outside the Nebula and navigate through known passages, which are defended by the SASF. Once the Nebula is passed the dropship can fly directly to any of the 4 planets.
            Revanche: Thank you, Spartakus; you're making my pitch for me. He introduces several new tidbits I'm accepting as un-cited facts. However, there are some troubling concerns that I will follow up on my own, presuming they are Editor errors, rather than source (specifically the cluster being surrounded by dust, gas, and asteroid fields, which I'd prefer to be internal to the cluster and actually comprising the nebula). This is minor, though. What I do like: "eight linked star systems", i.e., a multiple star system (in orbit of a common barycenter). This is supported by the "37 assorted planetary bodies orbiting or being pulled between the various stars", which is the very description of a multiple-star system. Whoo period hoo exclamation point. (I'm getting froggy with all this analysis.) Now, his final para does mistakenly intersperse fact and fiction, but to tease the fiction out, he's saying: within the nebula is an eight-star system, with a combined 37 planetary bodies, 4 of which are inhabited. As soon as we define these bodies as part of the 8-star system, we can introduce thrust-passage and very short-distance jump-points (though they would be complicated by the multiple strong gravity sources). Great job, Spartakus.
            "What doesn't add up is the transit time for Taurus of less then 9 days which means the whole thing is smaller then Saturns orbit. Oh and Taurus named for a Victor Taurens, when the Hyades actually are in the Taurus constellation. I guess we can file this under early installment weirdness from a time before the internet."
            Revanche: I have no response to this, because I choose to ignore it. Every possible solution falls apart if we force this all to fit within a distance of Saturn's orbit, including the depicted maps as light-years. Like Spartajus, I'd rather let this go as being overwritten FASA data.
            • Spartakus: "Going back to the actual coordinates, this means all 4 planets and the nebula are not lightyears, but rather light minutes apart. Which is impossible to draw on a map with a reasonable scale and unfortunately on the @gruese map as well. All should share the same coordinates (that of the shared barycenter), but are never drawn that way. As the coordinates form sarna.net are derived from the drawn maps, they inherited the error."
              Revanche: Bingo. There it is. Now we have to discuss the alternate depiction of Taurus and its sister planets as co-located points on the large-scale maps. But this also provides strength to one set of coordinates to approach the multi-star system.
              • Frabby ([3]): "As for Flannagan's Nebula, the description does seem to indicate it should be seen as one giant single system. As such, it would conceivably have one single location on the map. The short transit times could be explained by pirate jump points within the 'nebula'."
                Revanche: Okay, then we get this newb-outta-nowhere who attempts to screw up the whole argument by conflating 'nebula' with 'star system'. We'll let that go and hope the masses correct his mis-sight. But, he did support my idea of the transit times representing pirate points, so he ain't all bad. (Hearty back pat, Frabby.)
              • gruese ([4]): "You're talking about a single system that lists Taurus, Jamestown, Ishtar and possibly others as in-system bodies, am I understanding you correctly?"
                • Frabby: "Bodies in the sense of individual suns within a larger multiple-star system. Works for me."
                • Spartakus: "Yes, that's what I had in mind."
                  Revanche: We see the consensus solidifying.
                  • gruese ([5]): "So, since everyone seems to agree on this, I'll work it in."
                    Revanche: Consensus achieved."
            • Sterling: "I'm still more on the side of individual systems (albeit extremely close by astronomical standards) as opposed to a single multistar complex, but without an official ruling I will concede that the concept is plausible in light of the existing description."
              Revanche: I can see why he wants to think that, but there are two arguments against it: 1) the quoted linked stars lead directly to a multiple star system; 2) if that is dis-regarded, then what argument can be made to support the specific suggestion that the Flannagan's Nebula graphic is a representation other than scaled to the default light-years? Without that, all ships must use jump points when transiting between the 4 (now singular) systems, after using thrust to traverse the safe passageway into the internal part of the nebula, a problem for JumpShips, yes? I like the multiple star system concept, with it's light minutes, thrust-based transits and opportunistic pirate points. JumpShips can wait at the singular external jump point, with DropShips and WarShips able to thrust through the passage, with the latter pirate jumping as appropriate. The other way (light-years apart within the nebula, means jumping is necessary, but all DropShips will have to be carried by WarShips, massively impacting trade and supply of the four worlds over huge swaths of the realm's history.
  • Tuhalu: "I dare say this is a case where the map is representative rather than perfectly to scale. That is, they are placed relative to each other on the map, rather than having a single dot for the Nebula with a cutout to show how they relate to each other."
    Revanche: support for Spartakus' explanation of the graphic being an embedded light-minutes representation on the light-years maps. That would lead to a possible explanation for the rings around the region: one represents the nebula (indicated), the other the debris (i.e. asteroid) field (un-indicated). At this point, I'm certain the outer ring does represent the nebula, and accurately as to diameter, while the objects within (including the internal circle) are representative rather than scaled.

The ultimate purpose of this discussion on HBS was how to represent the various planets and features on gruese's 3025 map program/database, so there are a lot of commonalities with Sarna's own Project: Planets. Throughout the conversation there were sidebars that directly dealt with coding suggestions and resolutions, which do not apply to my analysis here. However, a related sub-thread did develop:

• Wraith_81 ([6]): "I can probably workout a geographic center point between these six individual points, but would we not then want a graphical marker physically large enough to encompass this space? Also, how "fun" would the handling be for calculating the jump point? IIRC from previous discussions, the marker point on this map for Flannagan's Nebula was denoting the entry point for the cluster, which one would jump to and then navigate inward from there."
  Revanche: This is going where we cannot. We cannot take Volt's mathematical determination for the centerpoint of Flannigan's Nebula and represent it as the entry point to the internal nebular region. There has been no canon statement as to the location of the safe entry point (that I'm aware of), nor anything to suggest it was as simple as finding the center point. That will be made clear on each article affected by this discussion: any determined coordinates represent locations and not safe entry points (and with the argument that the embedded nebulae graphic is representative and not scaled, I'd even say we cannot use Volt's coordinates for the four internal systems at all). However, the conversation developed further:
  • Spartakus: "For the actual coordinates of the whole thing, I'd take any one taken from official maps with a grain of salt. I believe they are artifacts from trying to put all relevant objects on a map instead of making it one system."
    • Wraith_81: "See the large circle drawn around several systems in a follow-up post above. Checking the Sarna pages for Parian, Ina, Megaris, and Menion, All of those systems appear to be within the nebula / cluster in addition to the central four."
      Revanche: Wraith is referencing this image. I agree they represent systems within the nebula, but definitely interpret them to be outside the feature (the debris field) that protects the known four internal systems (Taurus, Jamestown, Ishtar, and Samantha).
      • Spartakus: "Parian, Ina, Megaris and Menion would be different systems. All of them are part of the Hyades Cluster, but they don't share a jump point but are far enough apart from each other to justify unique spots on the map."
        Revanche: I'm in almost complete agreement with Spartakus here; these systems are within the nebula (vice the cluster) but not within the navigational hazard as depicted by the representative, non-scaled image of the Taurian system. Their derived coordinates are solid.
      • Prussian Havoc ([7]): "While Sarna does give a graphic, I believe some artistic license was used in that depiction, separating the planets that are indeed surrounding only one Star, that it's singular-self is the heart of the nebula. As such @Spartakus' suggestion is a good one, that this be treated as one system, albeit a very unique one and note it as such."
        Revanche: Concur, though where 'Star' means the multiple star system on which their consensus had decided.
        • Wraith_81: " I'm pretty sure that they are four separate stars making a quartenary(?) system.
          "Sarna has Taurus listed as having a G3V star and the planet is in the 4th position; Ishtar has a G5 star and is also in the 4th planet position; Samantha has a G7V star and is yet again in the 4th planet position; finally Jamestown has a G1V star and its planet is in the 5th position."
          Revanche: I was thinking this was resolved, but for them, this was a multi-week conversation, so certain conclusions may have been forgotten. Nonetheless, there are between 4 and 8 stars in a overall quartenary (i.e. 4) system; in other words, up to 8 stars in 4 systems that are co-orbiting a common barycenter (much as seen in the Firefly and modern BattleStar Galactica extended canons). I'll work at nailing down the total number of stars.
          • Prussian Havoc: "So it sounds like the Star System that contains Taurus is also a Quadruple Star System, except with a different configuration and many, many more planets. I suggest if it is like Ari 30 (a Quad Star configuration) then the Taurus designation should trump all other considerations and be recognized by the naming convention for this Quadruple Star System."
            Revanche: Prussian is right, in a multiple star system, where Taurus is the primary body in the system. We'll need to latch on to this in our own (Sarna's) discussion about these four system articles. This matches with Frabby's determination of how systems are conventionally named.

Noted statement: Prussian Havoc ([8]): "While having Rules and Common Practices will give structure, rhyme and reason to your creation... it is how you handle possible Exceptions to those Rules that will imbue your creation with distinction, breathing Life... almost a Soul into what you manage to communicate (whether you intended to or not) to those who will make use of it."
Revanche: This is Be Bold done poetically. I feel, as Sarna, we can make an argument from presented facts, with the stipulation that until overturned by new information or official statements, this is our best guess. It resolves issues using Occam's Razor and can be adjusted (or thrown out) as additional facts are uncovered.

---

Discussion: