11-26-2017, 10:19 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
I was wondering what everyone would think about changing the planet creation rules to reflect realism, at least for the purpose of moons. In the Sol System, Jupiter possesses 69 moons and Saturn possesses 62 moons, neither of which can be replicated by the current system (Uranus is also problematic because of its outer moonlets). In addition, Pluto possesses 5 moons, which cannot occur with Tiny terrestrial planets in the current system.
In order to create Saturn, we would have to allow for three major moons (Tethys, Dione, and Rhea are technically major moons because they are large enough to be tiny terrestrial planets with ice cores) and eighteen moonlets in the first group of moons and one major moon (Iapetus is technically a major moon because it is large enough to be a tiny terrestrial planet with an ice core) and thirty-nine moonlets in the third group of moons. Jupiter could be created with the current rules except that it possesses 41 moonlets in the third group of moons. I would suggest the following changes to the rules for gas giant moons. Within the first group of moons, gas giants possess 1d-2 major moons and 6d-12 moonlets (+1 major moons and +6 moonlets for medium gas giants and +2 major moons and +12 moonlets for large gas giants). Within the second group of moons, gas giants possess 2d-4 major moons (+2 major moons for medium gas giants and +4 major moons for large gas giants). Within the third group of moons, gas giants possess 12d-24 moonlets (+12 moonlets for medium gas giants and +24 moonlets for large gas giants). The other modifiers for gas giant moons would be unchanged. I would suggest the following changes to the rules for terrestrial moons. First, terrestrial planets are capable of having major moons and moonlets, just like Pluto (Charon is technically a major moon because it is large enough to be a tiny terrestrial planet). Second, terrestrial planets possess 1d-2 moonlets and 1d-4 major moons (+2 moonlets and +1 major moons if beyond the Snow Line). The other modifiers for terrestrial moons would be unchanged. |
11-27-2017, 07:22 AM | #2 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
Quote:
.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto They're serious about that "dwarf planet" thing and for good reason. Pluto's density is only 1.8 and that's less than half that of Mars and about a third of the Earth, Mercury and Venus. Pluto absolutely should not be put in to the same category as the 4 terrestrial worlds.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
11-27-2017, 01:49 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: Dec 2013
|
Re: Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
Quote:
|
|
11-27-2017, 01:54 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
Quote:
Last edited by David Johnston2; 11-27-2017 at 03:29 PM. |
|
11-29-2017, 05:53 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Pennsylvania
|
Re: Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
Quote:
The 2nd point is well defined; there is a gap of about 5 orders of magnitude of Λ (a body's measured ability to clear it's orbit, based on mass and size of the orbit) between the planets and dwarf planets, as well as Π (a similar value that's more theory based). It's the 1st part that causes the problems. Not that's poorly defined or inconsistent, but that's it can be hard to say a Kuiper belt object is in hydro-static equilibrium. |
|
11-29-2017, 06:13 PM | #6 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
I didn't like Pluto being a planet back in 1st grade 1981. It's pretty obviously "wrong".
And I don't think the rules were meant to include all the insanely tiny moonlets that the gas giants collected.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
11-29-2017, 06:32 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
Quote:
As to the new category that was pretty much unavoidable and it was for pretty much the same reason Ceres became the first of a new category (i.e. asteroid or planetoid) rather than being the "new planet" it was originally hailed as being.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
11-29-2017, 07:04 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Re: Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
Quote:
But I was also completely fooled by the Mercator projection into thinking Greenland was bigger than all of America, so... |
|
11-29-2017, 08:49 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
|
Re: Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
Quote:
|
|
11-29-2017, 09:44 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Changing Planet Creation Rules to Reflect Realism
Not only that, but the number will vary with the time taken to look for them and the quality of the instruments, and also over time as some are lost and others gained.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|