Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 7 of 17«12567891617»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngineerDate: Sunday, 22.04.2012, 13:37 | Message # 91
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Quote (mustafa2812)
Maybe i need to be informed more about what a "hot" or "very hot" ice giant would be. Cause from my limited understanding, it doesn't make sense for ice to be hot.

As HarbingerDawn says, this is a scientific term that describes chemical composition of a planet, AND the phase state. Water and ammonia takes 50-80% of the mass of such planet, and has a form of solid crystals in the planetary interior due to giant pressure. The same for oceania planets. They're just an intermediate class between rocky Earth-like planets and ice giants. You can think of them as a small ice giants. Water still takes 50-80% of planetary mass, and has a form of solid ice modification called "ice-VII" deep inside the planet under giant pressure (ocean bottom is located at a 150-200 km depth and composed of ice-VII).

Quote (HarbingerDawn)
How could you have liquid surface water at >800K

Hot oceania may not have a sharp surface, it may look like dense vapor atmosphere, it gradually becomes a liquid water and then ice-VII as it sinks deeper and deeper. The same for hydrogen behaviour in gas gaints - it becomes liquid and then solid smoothly.

To avoid weird phrases the "ice giant" can be renamed to "neptune" - another common term for this class of planets. But then "gas giant" should be renamed to "jupiter". I don't like this, however it makes sense - single-word classname, similar to "terra" for Terra-like planets and "selena" for Selena-like planets. But then "desert" should be renamed to "mars" or "ares", "ice world" to "titan" of "ganymede" and so on...

*





 
DevonXDate: Sunday, 22.04.2012, 13:53 | Message # 92
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
Hmm I'm thinking of that if the problem is to find words because there isn't any words that can be used to describe the state of most of the planets i suggest that we make up new words that do. :P
 
mustafa2812Date: Sunday, 22.04.2012, 15:04 | Message # 93
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 121
Status: Offline
I would rather not have every planet in every galaxy in this universe to be named after planets in our solar system. I think we can all agree that that would be weird




PC specs: Windows 7 64 bit. Intel Core i5-2400 quad-core (3.1GHz, 6MB Cache). 6GB DDR3-1333MGz SDRAM[2 DIMMs]. 1 TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive. 3GB DDR3 NVIDIA GeForce GT 545.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 22.04.2012, 15:44 | Message # 94
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8713
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
To avoid weird phrases the "ice giant" can be renamed to "neptune"

Quote (mustafa2812)
I would rather not have every planet in every galaxy in this universe to be named after planets in our solar system. I think we can all agree that that would be weird

I also think that we should avoid using Sol system planetary names as class names, it doesn't seem right and sometimes implies similarities that don't really exist. I have always liked the name Ice Giant, I think it is very appropriate, and we should use it and not "Neptune" or similar.

I think that eventually we should rethink the entire way we classify planets, so we don't get caught up in what to call Titan-like, highly volcanic, or other worlds we haven't thought of yet. We should classify by bulk composition and surface environment. Something like the following:

Earth: Rocky-metalic, much surface water
Titan: Icy-rocky, some surface methane
Neptune: Icy-gaseous

Note: I don't think that any such class-scheme should use the parameters I described, this was just to illustrate the basic concept of composition and surface environment. Right now such a system is not needed, but as the planet generation models get more complex it will become necessary.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Sunday, 22.04.2012, 15:51
 
mustafa2812Date: Sunday, 22.04.2012, 20:28 | Message # 95
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 121
Status: Offline
I think that the reason we are having these problems right now is simply because no one has come up with a good classification of planets in real life yet. If space engine is supposed to be a simulator, then we are running into the same problems that the human race may run into in the future when we begin to discover more and more planets and can travel further into space. That being said, I think I'm satisfied with the name ice giant.




PC specs: Windows 7 64 bit. Intel Core i5-2400 quad-core (3.1GHz, 6MB Cache). 6GB DDR3-1333MGz SDRAM[2 DIMMs]. 1 TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive. 3GB DDR3 NVIDIA GeForce GT 545.
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Sunday, 22.04.2012, 22:39 | Message # 96
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
The problem with planet classification is... in the human mind. Nature has no classifications at all, it doesn't divide planets as giants and dwarfs, it doesn't divide humans into rich and poor, and so on. If we take any object that's represented in the Universe many times (planets and humans for example) and look at the statistics, we will not see distinct separated sets. Planet-sized changes are seamless, we can find celestial bodies of any size - from dust grains to brown dwarfs and giant stars. There is no clear separation between stars and planets, planets and asteroids, asteroids and dust grains, dust grains and two molecules of iron, connected to each other with the Van der Waals force. The same for humans - we find humans with differences in wealth- from zero dollars to billions of dollars.

*





 
HarbingerDawnDate: Monday, 23.04.2012, 02:44 | Message # 97
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8713
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
The problem with planet classification is... in the human mind. Nature has no classifications at all


Absolutely correct! I have been trying to tell people this for years, and I say it often. Humans like to classify things into discrete categories when no such boundaries exist in nature. They like to divide each other by "race" or "social class" when there is no intrinsic difference between those artificial categories, and as science has grown more influential people are abandoning those ideas.
But scientists themselves are often victims of this human failing and want to classify everything in the universe into strict groups, in biology, physics, astronomy, etc. We often expect the universe to fall into neat, organized, simple patterns that make sense to us, and then we find that it does not. Very often I hear of new astronomical observations, of extrasolar planetary systems for example, and I will read astronomers expressing their surprise at how remarkably complex it is, and that they did not expect it. I think to myself "Of course it is! You have at least 10^30 kg of material, of all different elements and molecular compounds, in a gravitationally complex environment, being strongly and irregularly irradiated by a nascent star, over a period of millions of years! How could you possibly expect the environment to turn out exactly as it did in a computer simulation?"
Nature follows tendencies and gradients, not strict hierarchies. That is why I suggested that we should eventually adopt a scheme in SpaceEngine of describing planets without using strict "classes". When a more complex and complete model for generating systems is implemented, we will have too many "types" of planets to have names for, and the naming system will become too cumbersome to use. So we will have to adopt a way of describing planets based of their composition and environment, so that every description follows the same pattern but can be unique to each planet.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
SnakeDate: Friday, 11.05.2012, 23:52 | Message # 98
Observer
Group: Newbies
United States
Messages: 9
Status: Offline
I know I am using BlackArk's idea here, but I would think it would be pretty cool to find a (ex: temperate terra with life) world that have civilizations that can be seen from the surface. B)

Like this: (but less robotic)

Attachments: 5991767.jpg(5Kb)
 
BlackArkDate: Saturday, 12.05.2012, 11:36 | Message # 99
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 137
Status: Offline
hello hello hello

So that's a thec planet eh billions or trillions of life forms on that plane

[Moderator Warning] Blackark, you have spammed this thread with 3 separate posts, all of which could have been put into your first post here. Also one of those posts was off-topic, so I have deleted it. I've merged your other message into this post. Please read the forum rules about posting, and take the time to check your English grammar, punctuation and spelling before posting, so that others here can better understand you.
 
gpaw5765Date: Saturday, 12.05.2012, 11:37 | Message # 100
Astronaut
Group: Users
Spain
Messages: 40
Status: Offline
Hello SpaceEngineer,

I've found this planet classificacion for gas giants and I've thought you may find it interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarsky_extrasolar_planet_classification

Perhaps you are already using some similar criteria to determine the color and appearence of gas giants?

[Moderator edit] : This post has been moved from this thread here





Check my Space Flight Simulator for Android!

Edited by gpaw5765 - Friday, 01.06.2012, 21:43
 
Joey_PenguinDate: Thursday, 05.07.2012, 03:50 | Message # 101
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 311
Status: Offline
Quote (Neon)
Titan class planets rich in organic with Methane lakes n atmosphere would be
interesting places, and from a gaming point of view, a good place to mine
for Organic Chemicals & flamable gasses. Io, would be great for Sulpurs
and other rich minerals found in and near volcanoes.

Don't forget to add more exotic worlds, like Carbon, Chthonian or Iron worlds. And don't forget the protoplanets. You can get some ideas for types of worlds from http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/491c78b89879b. As a matter of fact, your classification system is a lot like the NolWoCS.

EDIT: I read Lazarou_Monkey_Terror's comment, and it looks like the NolWoCS was based off of this. I actually recommend the other one now, as it is much more complete and diverse.
http://arcbuilder.home.bresnan.net/PCLMaster.html#Terrestrial_Group





Careful. The PLATT Collective has spurs.

Edited by Joey_Penguin - Friday, 27.07.2012, 00:14
 
TuskinDate: Thursday, 05.07.2012, 10:45 | Message # 102
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Canada
Messages: 94
Status: Offline
I always liked the Planet Classification used in Star Trek, they have some what of a Broad range.

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Planetary_classification
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Planetary_classification


Edited by Tuskin - Thursday, 05.07.2012, 10:47
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 05.07.2012, 11:23 | Message # 103
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8713
Status: Offline
The Star Trek style planet classes are generally not very descriptive (the class names tell you nothing about what kind of planets they cover), some are seemingly redundant, and some of the class systems are based more on habitability than on any intrinsic characteristics of the planets. It also doesn't help that there are multiple classification systems, none of which fit the criteria of covering all world types in the most complete but efficient manner possible, and having descriptive class names.

I love Star Trek, but even in that fictional universe the planet classifications always seemed quite inadequate to me.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
MrZombieBiscuitDate: Saturday, 14.07.2012, 16:54 | Message # 104
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Brazil
Messages: 33
Status: Offline
I was thinking of additions such as Young or Ancient to the terrain. An early planet has less surface features than an ancient one, it's just thinking about our Earth now and our Earth 2 billion years ago.

I think it would add some to the planet rarity chart and make for some interesting hunting smile

Edit: Another class I was thinking of is a "Atmosphereles Titan" of sorts. A planet that once was like Titan, but lost it's atmosphere due to solar winds. I was imagining a desert without an atmosphere, Like the Sahara on the moon.


Edited by MrZombieBiscuit - Saturday, 14.07.2012, 17:01
 
VoekoevakaDate: Saturday, 14.07.2012, 19:28 | Message # 105
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
♦ The color of rocky planets depend on their composition, and I don't know if it is implemented now in Space Engine. For example, a common mineral is silicate, found in Earth, Moon, which is generally grey, but can be associated with other conponents to be colores. Metallic planets could be also grey (Mercury). The red color of Mars shows the presence of oxyde iron. Theoritical carbon planets are black (a bit red).

♦ Here's a list of chemical liquids that can be found alone, or mixed, in planetary oceans, with the fusion and boiling points (note that in general, fusion and boiling points of every element or molecule increases when the pressure increases) :

- Ammonia (translucent) : Tf = 196K ; Tb = 238K (in some cold worlds, it may be possible that ammonia could replace water in assembling molecules of life)
- Argon (translucent) : Tf = 83K ; Tb = 87K (very rare, very close interval of temperature, the planet can't be under climate changes, and can't support life)
- Carbon disulfide (translucent, a bit yellow) : Tf = 162K ; Tb = 319K (very rare too, but possible)
- Ethane (black) : Tf = 90K ; Tb = 184K (present on Titan's oceans)
- Hydrazine (translucent) : Tf = 275K ; Tb = 387K (rare)
- Hydrogen (translucent) : Tf = 14K ; Tb = 20K (liquid hydrogen, also called "metallic" hydrogen, is supposed to be under the huge atmosphere of Jupiter and Saturn, under huge huge pressure)
- Hydrogen cyanide (translucent, a bit blue) : Tf = 260K ; Tb = 299K (rare, poisonous for humans)
- Hydrogen sulfide (translucent) : Tf = 191K ; Tb = 213K
- Methane (black) : Tf = 91K ;Tb = 111K (also found on Titan's lakes)
- Neon (translucent) : Tf = 24K ; Tb = 27K (very rare, close interval of temperature)
- Nitrogen (translucent) : Tf = 63K ; Tb = 77K (scientists have supposed that it is possible to fond nitrogen lakes on Triton, this is rejected now)
- Nitric oxide (translucent) : Tf = 109K ; Tb = 121K (very rare too)
- Phosphine (incolor) : Tf = 140K ; Tb = 185K
- Silane (translucent) : Tf = 88K ; Tb = 161K (possible in a planet with silicon-based life)
- Water (translucent) : Tf = 273K ; Tb = 373K (no comment)

(☺ Note that the colour of an ocean made of translucent liquid is not necessarily blue : it just reflects the colour of the atmosphere.)

♦ I'm amazed by the variety of planetary types existing on Space Engine, and, according to the scientists discoveries, there can be another types to implement :

- A planetary type that could be interesting to add in "chthonian planets" : that is an ancient Hot Jupiter with evaporated athmosphere. It remains only a rocky core, maybe with lava pools, silice and iron clouds, and raining peebles (famous example : CoRoT-7 b).
- Rogue planets were rejected by their solar system (gravitationnal chaos), and are wandering between stars, becomming very cold (~10K-20K). They can be gas planets, terrestrials or maybe just asteroids. Lost planets could also be "little" brown dwarfs, with maybe sattelites.


A chthonian planet.


A carbon planet.

♦ Last point : every planet with life is represented by a Terra with green forests. Research on exobiology shows that if a plants with life is highly exposed to light (around a young star), the forests will be cyan-blue. A planet with life, with a small light exposition (around red dwarfs, for example) will have black forests (when energy and light is rare, black leaves are the best way to commect good amounts of energy).






Want some music of mine ? Please go here !

 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
Page 7 of 17«12567891617»
Search: