New definition of by CrevanReaver

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

New definition of

POSTED BY: CREVANREAVER
UPDATED: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3043
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:40 AM

A committee of the International Astronomical Union has proposed a new draft definition of the term "planet" which would increase the solar system's total well above the current nine by including Ceres, Charon, 2003 UB313 and potentially many other trans-Neptunian objects.

Along with Ceres, Charon and 2003 UB313, a further dozen are likely to join them soon. This proposal does not automatically leave our solar system with 12 planets. Mike Brown, the discoverer of Sedna and 2003 UB313, has claimed that this definition could eventually comprise up to 53 planets in our system alone, with hundreds, or even thousands, not yet discovered.

In its exact wording, the proposed definition is:

Quote:
"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."

Under this definition, it's now completely plausible that the Verse's solar system could include hundreds of planets. They are simply very small planets that would have been considered spherical asteroids in the 20th century and in 2002, when Firefly first aired.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:43 AM

CHRISISALL

Terraforming, here we come!

I wanna go! Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:50 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
Under this definition, it's now completely plausible that the Verse's solar system could include hundreds of planets. They are simply very small planets that would have been considered asteroids in the 20th century and in 2002, when Firefly first aired.

Except only one planet is defiantly in the habitable zone and no more than three. Doesn't matter how many planets there are in total in our solar system, there’s still only single figures within the habitable zone. Namely Earth (defiantly) Mars (probably) Venus (possibly).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:00 AM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Except only one planet is defiantly in the habitable zone and no more than three. Doesn't matter how many planets there are in total in our solar system, there’s still only single figures within the habitable zone. Namely Earth (defiantly) Mars (probably) Venus (possibly).

With advanced enough terraforming technology, the habitable zone will not matter. My own theory has always been that they use gigantic orbital mirrors for extra heat and light. The orbital mirrors focus light on each planet, thus little problem with sunlight and distance. So for me, the habitable zone has never been much of an issue. It's that they used the term "planet."

The new definition simply explains how they were able to call them planets - apparently their definition of the word planet was different from ours.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:26 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
With advanced enough terraforming technology, the habitable zone will not matter. My own theory has always been that they use gigantic orbital mirrors for extra heat and light. The orbital mirrors focus light on each planet, thus little problem with sunlight and distance. So for me, the habitable zone has never been much of an issue. It's that they used the term "planet."

No a planet still has to reside within the habitable zone for humans to be able to exist on the surface unaided (without enclosures or suits). Orbital mirrors can extend that zone, and a larger hotter star will have a wider zone than ours to begin with, but the habitable zone is far from meaningless.

Orbital Mirrors have been proposed to help terraform Mars, to produce a thicker atmosphere by evaporating polar CO2. These mirrors would be roughly 250km across to magnify sunlight on the ice caps.

Think about it, in order to magnify sunlight on the surface of a planet you'll need a collection surface greater than the planets surface. Orbital mirrors aren't a magic wand that'll make Pluto green; they can probably slightly extend the habitable zone, but not make it irrelevant.

If the Firefly verse had the level of technology to do that they wouldn't have to worry about little things like death, and I think you'll probably find conditions on the rim would be a little less stark.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:35 AM

CREVANREAVER

By the way, here are the new categories proposed:

Planet: A round thing orbiting a star. More precisely: "A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."

Pluton: A planet orbiting beyond Neptune, taking more than 200 Earth years to circle the Sun. So far, it would include Pluto; Pluto's former moon, Charon; and "Xena" (2003 UB313).

Satellite: Anything orbiting a planet, as long as the mutual centre of gravity does not fall outside the planet. Includes several bodies much larger than many planets, such as Jupiter's moon Ganymede (diameter: 5262 kilometres).

Small solar system body: Anything orbiting the Sun that's not a planet or a satellite. Most asteroids and comets would be SSSBs. Currently called minor planets.

Unofficial categories of planet:

Dwarf planet: A planet smaller than Mercury (diameter: 4879 kilometres), which is the smallest uncontested planet. Would include the former asteroid Ceres; Pluto; Charon; and Xena.

Giant planet: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.

Classical planet: The four giant planets plus the familiar four rocky, terrestrial planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars.

The intro at the beginning of Serenity could now be:

"Earth-That-Was could no longer sustain our numbers, we were so many. We found a new solar system: dozens of dwarf planets and hundreds of moons -- each one terraformed, a process taking decades, to support human life. To be new Earths."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:21 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
With advanced enough terraforming technology, the habitable zone will not matter. My own theory has always been that they use gigantic orbital mirrors for extra heat and light. The orbital mirrors focus light on each planet, thus little problem with sunlight and distance. So for me, the habitable zone has never been much of an issue. It's that they used the term "planet."

I don’t know about that. You might be able to extend the habitable zone out. Clearly the Earth's atmosphere provides a degree of warmth that allows it to exist at the very edge of our sun's habitable zone. However, when nitrogen snow starts falling or the surface is molten, I think you’ve reached the limit of technology.

I see that Citizen has already levied this critism, so you can disregard this.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:33 AM

DREAMTROVE

I think the key to habitable planet is the balance of atospheric elements. We may end up being in a totally different geological niche, underground, in ocean trenches, whatever, on another planet.

The easiest way to make humans exist on a different temperature level is probably to alter humans. Artic squirrels are extremely similar to humans genetically, and yet can tolerate absurdly low temperatures. When you picture the scale of a terraforming project, human mods may seem more reasonable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:28 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The easiest way to make humans exist on a different temperature level is probably to alter humans. Artic squirrels are extremely similar to humans genetically, and yet can tolerate absurdly low temperatures. When you picture the scale of a terraforming project, human mods may seem more reasonable.

The problem with that is we're then creating new species to live on other planets, kinda makes the exercise a little pointless.

Also you can't really adapt Humans to be able to sustain temperatures lower than we can now anyway. People can survive in pretty cold climates with minimal technology, and much lower and you are looking at problems where biological life simply can't survive, or at least complex biological life.

The other problem is that people who are modded will be able to live in one place and one place only. Someone designed to live.

The reason why you want to terraform a planet is more than just getting Humans living there, you want to grow crops and raise animals, two things that go along way to producing a viable stand alone colony. That's why you terraform, to produce an off world independent colony. To get the same thing with 'mods' you'd have to engineer an entire eco-system, which I'd hazard a guess could actually be harder than terraforming.

If you're looking for an alternative to terraforming it's called life support technology.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:45 PM

DREAMTROVE

Not at all, Citizen

Marsaforming an individual human is easier than terraforming Mars, even if you have to do it a million times. And adaptability would not restrict them from returning to earth necessarily. Arctic squirrels are perfectly capable of living in our environment. Clifford D. Simak tackles this issue in "City". I don't think it's a serious problem.

The trouble with terraforming is how about you going to move a trillion tons of compressed gas? If the planet is close to habitable, would you be exterminating all native life? (it wouldn't be designed for multiple planets like our mod humans.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:51 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Another sci-fi book on human modification is Man Plus by Frederik Pohl, which I found to be a fun read. Speaking of Simak, I really enjoyed Way Station so I guess I should put City on my used book store list.

And I seem to recall a debate on the ethics of terraforming taking place in the Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson (Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars).

See, all we really need to do to plan for the future is read Nebula and Hugo award winners

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:07 PM

JOSSISAGOD

Wait, I'm confused. Do they mean, just in our System, or in our entire Galaxy all together? If they're talking just in the system, WEIRD!

Completely out of the loop JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:14 PM

FIREFAIRY

Quote:
SoupCatcher wrote:
Another sci-fi book on human modification is Man Plus by Frederik Pohl, which I found to be a fun read. Speaking of Simak, I really enjoyed Way Station so I guess I should put City on my used book store list.

And I seem to recall a debate on the ethics of terraforming taking place in the Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson (Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars).

See, all we really need to do to plan for the future is read Nebula and Hugo award winners .

Those actually look pretty interesting. I'll have to look those up.

but my personal favorite take on this whole subject is the way The Little Prince did it.

------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:51 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Not at all, Citizen

Marsaforming an individual human is easier than terraforming Mars, even if you have to do it a million times. And adaptability would not restrict them from returning to earth necessarily. Arctic squirrels are perfectly capable of living in our environment. Clifford D. Simak tackles this issue in "City". I don't think it's a serious problem.

The trouble with terraforming is how about you going to move a trillion tons of compressed gas? If the planet is close to habitable, would you be exterminating all native life? (it wouldn't be designed for multiple planets like our mod humans.)

You get to say "Not at All Citizen" when you've actually countered all my points

.

Mar's isn't the home of an arctic squirrel. WE can live in the same environment as an arctic squirrel, albiet with minor technology (like a coat). We, nor a Squirrel arctic or otherwise can survive on the surface of Mars, or Venus or any other Planet in our solar system without the aid of cutting edge life support technology. We're a fish out of water, and out of curiosity have you ever seen what happens to a Fish out of water, or for that matter a Human IN water? That's right they drown because there's a limit to adaptability.

So no, adaptability doesn't let someone 'designed' to live on Mars as it is now live on Earth. They'd need the same level of technology to survive on Earths surface as we do to survive on the surface of Mars, if that wasn't the case we'd be mucking around in space minus the space suits because we'd just 'adapt'.

You know what would be even easier the modifying all those people? Building enclosures that use bleeding edge life support technology.

But magic adaptability doesn't answer the questions of independent off world colonies. Mod humans can walk around on the surface of Mars, great, what do they eat? Rocks? To be an independent colony they have to grow their own food, with modded humans you'd have to design an entire modded eco-system for each planet to pull that off.

Or you can use transplanted Earth eco-systems in bio domes (which still won't make the colony stand alone for any sizable population) or you terraform. The whole point of Terraforming is creating independent off world colonies, which no modding Humans DOESN'T do.

And why is transporting trillions of tons of compressed gas the problem? Transporting gas is the most 'far out there' method, most terraforming methods use planetary resources, in fact the best ones use natural processes, not compressed gas.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:40 AM

CREVANREAVER

By the way, another thing to consider with the habitable zone issue. If many of the planets in the Verse are small enough then they could possibly all fit into the habitable zone. Most could be the size of Charon or smaller. As mentioned before, they could be so small that in 2002 they would have simply been considered spherical asteroids.

If this is the case, then main issue is of getting them to have Earth-like gravity.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:03 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
By the way, another thing to consider with the habitable zone issue.

Now you're talking

Quote:
If this is the case, then main issue is of getting them to have Earth-like gravity.

Of course we know they have Artificial Gravity and that this technology is cheap (every ship has it, and you don't need to be a billionaire to buy a ship).

We also know that the technology takes very little power to run (otherwise it would have shut down in OoG).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:35 AM

RABBIT2

Quote:
Wait, I'm confused. Do they mean, just in our System, or in our entire Galaxy all together? If they're talking just in the system, WEIRD!

They mean just in the Solar System.
They are though, beginning to find planet sized bodies orbiting other stars. I think the current number is round about Eighty. They are huge compared with anything in the Solar System.

--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:04 PM

KANEMAN

Terraforming is not the answer never will be. We would have to live in bio domes. Once you get a certain distance from a star. It's just to damn cold to go outside, grow food, herd cattle, etc. So humans will be in controlled atmospheric domes. So, get a clue you dorks.

RWE'ers eatsshitisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:56 AM

CREVANREAVER

And here is the final definition:

A "planet" (1) is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

A "dwarf planet" (2) is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

All other objects (3) orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of Trans-Neptunian objects.

1. The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
2. An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.
3. These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE