RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 1 of 11
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Kepler-10c incorrectly portrayed. (Kepler-10c)
Kepler-10c incorrectly portrayed.
Pds314Date: Tuesday, 03.06.2014, 12:15 | Message # 1
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 21
Status: Offline
The non-procedural planet, Kepler-10c is portrayed with slightly more than a feasible amount of mass and an accurate radius, and is also shown as an ice giant when in reality, it is almost certainly a very large rocky planet much some of the large procedural ones.

May I suggest lowering its mass to 17.2 Earth masses, and changing it from a Hot Ice giant to a Hot Desert, Hot Terra, or Hot Oceania. Additionally, I would suggest that the star's mass, temperature and radius be made accurate and that it not be so bright compared to the sun, when in reality it should be almost identical in brightness. This should lower the temperatures of the planets as well.

Also, I'm HIGHLY skeptical that Kepler-10b, the scorched desert that orbits closer in, would have such a thick atmosphere. I would guess that even with 2.2 G of gravity, the atmosphere would be evaporating into space too fast to be retained solely due to the fact that it is hot enough to melt tungsten in some areas of the planet.
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Tuesday, 03.06.2014, 12:35 | Message # 2
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Quote Pds314 ()
The non-procedural planet, Kepler-10c is portrayed with slightly more than a feasible amount of mass and an accurate radius, and is also shown as an ice giant when in reality, it is almost certainly a very large rocky planet much some of the large procedural ones.

Obviously, SpaceEngine have the data in its catalogs what was actual on the date of release (December 2013). It is not updated automatically.

Quote Pds314 ()
Also, I'm HIGHLY skeptical that Kepler-10b, the scorched desert that orbits closer in, would have such a thick atmosphere. I would guess that even with 2.2 G of gravity, the atmosphere would be evaporating into space too fast to be retained solely due to the fact that it is hot enough to melt tungsten in some areas of the planet.

No, calculations shows that this planet can hold massive atmosphere. SpaceEngine uses the model of thermal dissipation of the atmosphere, and it calculated what atmosphere is still there.





 
WatsisnameDate: Wednesday, 04.06.2014, 00:25 | Message # 3
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote Pds314 ()
would guess that even with 2.2 G of gravity, the atmosphere would be evaporating into space too fast to be retained solely due to the fact that it is hot enough to melt tungsten in some areas of the planet.


As you see, in physics we do not guess -- we do the work and find out. smile Just to back up SpaceEngineer's quote, let's prove his result for ourselves.

Escape speed from a planet is (2GM/R)1/2 = (2gR)1/2. Most probable speed for a gas molecule is (2kT/m)1/2. For Kepler-10b the escape speed is about 16.7km/s. Assuming an exobase temperature of 3000K, CO2 molecules would have an average speed of only ~1km/s.

Granted, gas molecules have a distribution of speeds with an exponential tail, but it's pretty evident from even a simple calculation that the planet can retain a massive atmosphere despite the heat.





 
SpaceEngineerDate: Wednesday, 04.06.2014, 08:02 | Message # 4
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Yes, planet will lose atmosphere within thousand of years, if most probable speed of molecules is 1/4 of the escape velocity, within millions of years - if it is 1/5 of the escape velocity, and within billions of years (ie will not lose it during the parent star lifetime) if most probable speed of molecules is 1/6 of the escape velocity.




 
Royu812Date: Wednesday, 27.01.2016, 04:18 | Message # 5
Observer
Group: Newbies
Pirate
Messages: 1
Status: Offline
Kepler-10c is so close to its sun that the atmosphere was ignited and burned up, why could that not be the most logic and explanatory awnser, is it it to simple of an awnser??
 
WatsisnameDate: Wednesday, 27.01.2016, 05:30 | Message # 6
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote Royu812 ()
Kepler-10c is so close to its sun that the atmosphere was ignited and burned up, why could that not be the most logic and explanatory answer?


Because it's wrong.





 
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Kepler-10c incorrectly portrayed. (Kepler-10c)
Page 1 of 11
Search: