Scioly.org

I just got back from my state's Astro test and was probably the weirdest test I've taken in Science Olympiad.

Instead of an actual test we were given a computer simulation to find habitable planets. The program, which was sponsored by ASU and NASA Astrobiology, was the final for the college's Astronomy 106 class. When we started, there was a screen of over 600 'stars'. You click on one and you're given some data like parallax, apparent magnitude, peak wavelength, etc. From there you're supposed to calculate distance (easy), luminosity, and Temperature. Now came the tricky part. You click on the second screen and start imputing data for the planet. At first I thought, the gave you some background data, but nope. Nothing. After 20 minutes I was completely lost. The proctor told me that you have to use some of your 'funds' (we started with 50,000 USD) to purchase analysis on planets.

Anyways, it didn't go very well. Points were awarded for finding certain planets correctly and supposedly, there was one habitable planet among all ~600 stars.

Has anyone else had a test like this? I'm still trying to find it online but with no luck.

Well, weird tests like that make me feel slightly better about my tests, but I do wish people tried to cover the whole rules...and no, I haven't quite heard of a test like that astro124. I guess if I find anything I'll say.

Also glad to hear that Skink, if they can't figure out how to get the velocities, Tad posted a bit back (on March 1st) about it. As a reminder, just remember that speed is distance divided by time, planets orbit in circles (in simplified cases, so what's the distance around a circle? Parts a and b relate to this), and time is defined by orbital period (look to part c).

Just uploaded the test I wrote for MI Region 8 to the test exchange.

Based on the score distribution, it was probably a little too hard for a typical Regionals, but it's still good practice :)

AlphaTauri wrote:Just uploaded the test I wrote for MI Region 8 to the test exchange.

Based on the score distribution, it was probably a little too hard for a typical Regionals, but it's still good practice

Just for reference when I take it, what were the top raw scores?

Top was just under 40%. I was aiming for ~70%, but uh, that didn't happen...

So on the UT Austin regional test, #72 asks for an exoplanet detection method. The key says it's transit timing, however there is relative luminosity on the y-axis, not O-C minutes, the normal y-axis for transit timing. I have also seen transit timing with flux/luminosity on the y-axis, but it also shows several transit events, not just one. I think the answer should be transit photometry, is the test wrong or am I wrong?

Magikarpmaster629 wrote:So on the UT Austin regional test, #72 asks for an exoplanet detection method. The key says it's transit timing, however there is relative luminosity on the y-axis, not O-C minutes, the normal y-axis for transit timing. I have also seen transit timing with flux/luminosity on the y-axis, but it also shows several transit events, not just one. I think the answer should be transit photometry, is the test wrong or am I wrong?

Actually, the first mistake I see is in 59. The writer asks about what the LETTERS refer to, and J or H are presumably the 2MASS magnitudes. A color index is actually the difference you calculate between those...there's also an error in that it says exoplanets in the intro info for that set, but properly it says the in the question that the diagram involve brown dwarfs...anyway.

I think yeah transit timing notably uses the VARIATIONS of a transit, so I would probably accept "transit method" or "transit photometry". It is slightly vague when you actually look at it, though, because it does say that it's based off of "exoplanet light curve*S*"...so maybe it was supposed to be very tricky? I feel bad if points had to be debated though because of grammar >.>. Hope that helps. Also, http://images.iop.org/objects/phw/news/ ... -graph.jpg suggests you can have brightness on the y-axis (which makes sense, you're just clocking whether your transit as plotted is behind or ahead). O-C diagrams are just a useful thing for analyzing light curves, standing for Observed - Calculated. you don't need them I guess, but if you're curious then ask away.

Still, skimming the test overall good job I'd say to who wrote this relative to some of the bad tests out there.

AlphaTauri wrote:Top was just under 40%. I was aiming for ~70%, but uh, that didn't happen...

My partner and I (3rd in SEPA this year) just took it and got 58, though we probably could've managed our time better.

Nice test, AlphaTauri, but what are EGGs? I haven't been able to find what they are.

Magikarpmaster629 wrote:Nice test, AlphaTauri, but what are EGGs? I haven't been able to find what they are.

Is it something other than this?