MY 2 pennies…
Star Wars was “a long long time ago” in a galaxy yada yada yada…
So, seeing as Star Wars was history and Babylon 5/Trek stuff is in the future, the chances of overlapping storyline is really slim.
-Too Darq to see
Personally, I can’t wait until somebody finds Arrakis. I need some damn Melange.
There’s a couple of other ways to stably put a planet into orbit around a binary star… One is to put the planet at the fourth or fifth Lagrange point of the system, in which case the two suns would always be separated by exactly 60[sup]o[/sup] in the sky. The other is to put the two stars close together, and the planet out at a significant distance from both, in which case the suns would always be close together in the sky. Offhand, judging from sunset scenes in the Star Wars movies, I’m guessing that Tatooine is in the last category, but if the planet’s that far away, you need some pretty large and hot stars to heat the planet. There’s also the possibility that the planet is in an unstable orbit, and has just been lucky so far, but this is unlikely in the extreme.
An interesting take on a planet in a binary star system may be found in Brian Aldiss’ Helliconia trilogy.
Actually, not exactly 60[sup]o[/sup]. If you look at the orbits of the Trojan asteroids (which are in Jupiter’s Lagrange points), you will find that they oscillate about those points. At times, some are quite far from the points. They also can escape from that orbit.
The problem with planets in Lagrange points is that they probably can’t form there. Or at least not very large ones. When the solar system formed, pretty much all the disk material at Jupiter’s distance from the sun ended up in Jupiter (the Tojan asteroids were captured from the main belt). I would expect the same to happen in a double star system.
Actually Epsilon Eri is at about the same lattitude as Orion’s feet, so unless they live in Alaska Americans can usually see it in the wintertime, when Orion rides high in the southern sky. Of course, it’s only about third magnitude or dimmer, so you probably will need binoculars if you live in a city. But it’s worth it if you’re interested–you get to see something that is rare in our skies: most naked-eye stars are giants and supergiants that are much further away; Epsilon Eri is a close sunlike star.
If memory serves, it’s actually a little bit dimmer than
our sun, so an Earthlike planet would have to orbit somewhat closer to its sun than ours does.
I applaud your precise choice of words. I’m the same way…I have to call surf guitarist Dick Dale’s creations “tunes” and not “songs” because they aren’t “sung”, only “played”. Though “Only” hardly seems like an appropriate word to use in this context.
Cervaise
A producer only has to pay, $88,614 for an original screenplay and treatment. For a full rewrite they only have to pay $23,611. For polishing a screenplay, $11,804. For lesser rewrites, even less, down to a minimum of $723 (source-Writers Guild of America).
With the exception of Crichton, Esterhaus and a few others, nobody gets paid that much to be a writer. OK some may get $250,000 or so, but there is a huge gap between the top few and the next tier. And most movies pay minumim (if that, see below) for rewrites unless they bring in a bigger name writer to save a floundering script. Less than one film in ten puts out a million for a script.
In all probabilty there is going to be a writers strike next May. There are three central issues currently in negotiation, “Creativity rights” this is going to be the stickler, residuals on electronic media and …unpaid rewrites.
There are currently 46 cases against 5 movie studios and assorted production compaines involving having writers rewrite for free their scripts. All 55 writers involved had to be suponenaed by their own union to testify because they were afraid that the producers wouldn’t ever hire them again if they volintarily testified. And these are just the known cases.
Writes are treated like dirt in Hollywood (they have to sign a contract when they write a movie stating that the movie production company, not the author is the “author” of the movie). THey are like kleenex as far as the producers are concerned and they rarely make over minimum.
Actually, Arrakis is one of the few planets listed in the Dune series that orbits a real star.
http://dune.servint.com/dune_terminology.htm#A
ARRAKIS
the planet known as Dune; third planet of Canopus
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/hr/2326.html
**
CANOPUS
Menelaus’s helmsman (also Egyptian seaport)
Other Names
Suhel; Suhail.
Alpha Carinae
HR 2326
HD 45348
Data
RA 06 23 57.1
Dec -52 41 45
V -0.72
B-V +0.15
Spectral Type F0II
Canopus is the 2nd brightest star in the sky. **
In the constellation Carina.
For excruciatingly detailed data on these and many other real-life stars, visit the Internet Stellar Database at http://www.stellar-database.com.
And I’m not saying that just because I built the site, either. 
Just to clarify, it would appear as if the Babylon 5 folks share the same mailing address with Spock.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/epsilon_vulcan_000804.html
What I want to know is, is the planet going to be named Vulcan? I sure think it should. Who decides?
Well, hell, they got the first space shuttle to be named Enterprise.
And another one named Endeavor after Rendezvous With Rama. And Discovery, of course, was the home of HAL 9000.
Arthur C. Clarke seems to have cleaned up in the naming department there, no?
I hold in my hands the September issue of Scientific American, which contains a list of all 44 planets known at the time of publication (outside our solar system) and the stars they orbit. Canopus, HD45348, is not listed. Sorry, melangophiles.
The article is interesting and specifically addresses the issue of planets around binary stars, which are easier to detect than those around single stars by one of the two available methods for planet detection. The older method (meaning, like, last year) was the detection of wobbles in stars due to the planetary attractions of large planets (actually, the direct observations are frequency shifts in the starlight due to the wobble). The newer method is measuring the change in the amount of light as planets pass in front of the stars. It has the potential to detect planets even down to only about twice the size of earth. There are problems, though, and not every star can be examined this way (the orientation of the planet’s orbit has to be correct, for example).
Anyway, I don’t want to repeat the whole article, so I’ll just refer you to it. It’s the September 2000 issue, pg. 58.
Unfortunately, this is all that’s available of the article online.
There are many stable orbits available.
In a binary system, the two stars orbit each other, first of all. There are two important numbers for determining the orbit, those numbers being the minimum and maximum distances between the two stars.
If a planet orbits the gravitational center of the binary system at a distance greater than about five times the maximum distance between the stars, it should have a stable orbit.
If a planet orbits one star at a distance less than about a fifth the minimum distance between the stars, it should be stable as well. (This would be the most likely, IMO; the Alpha Centauri binary, for instance, orbit each other with a minimum distance of about 11 AU, 11 times the Earth’s orbital distance.)
There are also at least two stable 2:3 resonance orbits, which are akin to the orbits of Neptune and Pluto about Sol. In this case, one of the binary stars and the planet in question would be in the resonant orbits, with the other star, almost certainly larger, at the center of the system.
A better question than “Is the orbit possible?” is “Will there be enough mass left in the system to produce planets after two suns have been created?” 99% of the mass of our solar system is in the sun, and something around 50% of the remaining mass is in Jupiter. After forming two stars, they may simply suck up all the mass of the system, leaving no planets.
LL