Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

G-type main-sequence star, yellow stars (Like the Sun, lifetime of ~10 bil. years)

3 (23.1%)

K-type main-sequence star, orange stars (Cooler than the Sun, more stable, slightly less massive, lifetime of ~20 bil. years)

4 (30.8%)

F-type main-sequence star, yellow-white stars (Slightly hotter than the Sun, less stable, more massive, lifetime of ~3 bil. years, very !!FUN!!)

5 (38.5%)

Other classes (Please specify)

1 (7.7%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Dariush]

-perpendicular moons are totally possible, just as planets orbiting perpendicularly to the ecliptic are possible. Technically, venus is 180° to everyone else, and we found 90° exoplanets just fine. Why no moons?

Moons cannot orbit perpendicular to each other. This isn't even a matter of knocking each other out of orbit, but of screwing with each other's gravity to such an extent that at least one will either crash or fly away into space.

-Planets orbiting only one of the suns of a binary system are also possible, assuming the stars are quite far apart and the planet quite close to her star.

You don't really know how binary systems work, do you? Stars cannot be exactly so far apart so as to keep each other affected by their respective gravities and simultaneously one star not affecting the planet orbiting the other one.

[10ebbor10]

So, the name for the planet will be Genesis. The mass will be 0.95 earth masses, slightly lower than Earth's mass. Some comments to the solar system model, we all generally agree upon:

- 0.6AU: Dwarf Rocky Planet. orbiting closely to the K star (directly around it, not around the couple). 0.65g, 0.008atm. Mostly carbon under high pressure. Graphite plains, solid diamond mountains, pitch black lava... A planet orbiting only around one star from the couple is impossible. It would have to orbit EXTREMELY close to it, so it would be utterly annihilated inbetween them. A planet orbiting 0.6 AU from this couple, couldn't be able to orbit around a single star anyway. Don't forget, these stars are very close together. No objections to the diamond part.

- 1.2-3.6 AU: Asteroid Belt, remnants torn apart by tidal forces from the stars. Highly eccentric orbit. Should be !!FUN!!

- 2.4 AU: Us, 0.95 earths, 0.65g, 0.80atm. Atmospheric composition yet unknown. Two moons  ((At least one orbit perpendicular to our planet's accos)) The planet is still forming, so the atmosphere is not there at all. The moons... hmm. Let's say one of them formed like our Moon, with roughly the same mass, in an equatorial orbit, while the other is a slightly smaller moon, that used to be a dwarf planet, but got catched in our planet's gravity.

- 4.8 AU: Generic Rocky Planet. 1.6g, 1.1atm. Lots of ice, mostly CO2 atmosphere. Too cold for liquid water, sadly. Thick co2 atm equals enough insulation for liquid water? also what about a Europan type under ice ocean? ((Like what 1900 scientists actually though of Venus. Life under a endless cover of clouds?))
          -Moon 1: 2.5km asteroid
          -Moon 2: 0.3km asteroid
          -Moon 3: 0.1km asteroid
No objections. Maybe this could be a target for future exploration.

-6.4 AU: Asteroid Belt. Debris left over from planet formation, held in place by gas giant gravity
No problems here.
- 9.6 AU: Generic Red and white Gas Giant. Neptune-sized. Mostly H2 and He. At least 6 notable moons. Small, but noticeable white rings.  I'd swap the size on these two

- 19.2 AU: Generic Blue Gas Giant. Saturn-sized. H2, He and CH4. Fairly noticeable orange rings (nothing like saturn though). At least 3 notable moons, probably more. I'd swap the size on these two

- 38.4 AU: Generic Dwarf Rocky Planet. 0.8g, 0atm. Completely and utterly frozen. At least 1 notable moon, probably more. Also Asteroid Belt with several planetoids. Like the Cuiper belt, right? Would make sense that something like that is in this system aswell.

Spoiler: Events (click to show/hide)

Biyearly (or much less often. Depends on the speed with which the suns rotate around each other) : Solar occlusion: One of the sun moves in front of the other, reducing the light the planet recieves by at least half. (More if one of both suns provides more light than the other. In that last case you'd get a strong and a mild iceage(should be limited to a part of the year).)
Actually, the two stars orbit around each other in the center of the system. The cycle shouldn't last longer than a week, or so, at best.it depends on how fast the stars orbit around each other. If the planet slowly catches on to shadow spot (similair with how we can see Mars making loops in the sky) it can take quite a long while.
Bi/ once a yea: Orbit intersects with asteroid belt. Asteroid showers occur
Should be quite !!FUN!! Looking forward to it.
Biyearly: The moon's orbit starts to block the sun on a daily basis. If properly synched up, this can come together with one of  the other events.
An eclipse shouldn't last much longer than on Earth, but it seems kinda plausible.It won't last much longer, but for a few weeks you'd have constant daily eclipse(Depends on the speed by which the moon orbits the planet.)
Also: Multiple times a year: Both moons line up, the gravitational pull is much stronger. Huge floods occur on the affected part of the planet, along with slightly increased geological activity.

I want to be god of realism. (Seriously, god of things that fall from the sky)

Is that alright?
Almost ready to start working on the planet!
So, the moon problem ahould be solved now: One larger moon, further away from the planet, in an almost perfect equatorial orbit. Formed like our Moon was likely formed: A big collision of protoplanets.
The second, smaller moon, in a perpendicular orbit to the other moon and the equator. Closer to the planet, so the moons appear to be roughly the same. Used to be a dwarf planet, catched by the planet's gravity into a weird orbit.
The moons line up once in a while, causing huge tides and floods. Is that alright? It should happen once in a while. As a second note, tides will be much smaller than usual when they're not aligned.

[GreatWyrmGold]

So, the name for the planet will be Genesis. The mass will be 0.95 earth masses, slightly lower than Earth's mass. Some comments to the solar system model, we all generally agree upon:

- 0.6AU: Dwarf Rocky Planet. orbiting closely to the K star (directly around it, not around the couple). 0.65g, 0.008atm. Mostly carbon under high pressure. Graphite plains, solid diamond mountains, pitch black lava... A planet orbiting only around one star from the couple is impossible. It would have to orbit EXTREMELY close to it, so it would be utterly annihilated inbetween them. A planet orbiting 0.6 AU from this couple, couldn't be able to orbit around a single star anyway. Don't forget, these stars are very close together. No objections to the diamond part.

- 1.2-3.6 AU: Asteroid Belt, remnants torn apart by tidal forces from the stars. Highly eccentric orbit. Should be !!FUN!!

- 2.4 AU: Us, 0.95 earths, 0.65g, 0.80atm. Atmospheric composition yet unknown. Two moons  ((At least one orbit perpendicular to our planet's accos)) The planet is still forming, so the atmosphere is not there at all. The moons... hmm. Let's say one of them formed like our Moon, with roughly the same mass, in an equatorial orbit, while the other is a slightly smaller moon, that used to be a dwarf planet, but got catched in our planet's gravity.

- 4.8 AU: Generic Rocky Planet. 1.6g, 1.1atm. Lots of ice, mostly CO2 atmosphere. Too cold for liquid water, sadly. Thick co2 atm equals enough insulation for liquid water? also what about a Europan type under ice ocean? ((Like what 1900 scientists actually though of Venus. Life under a endless cover of clouds?))
          -Moon 1: 2.5km asteroid
          -Moon 2: 0.3km asteroid
          -Moon 3: 0.1km asteroid
No objections. Maybe this could be a target for future exploration.

-6.4 AU: Asteroid Belt. Debris left over from planet formation, held in place by gas giant gravity
No problems here.
- 9.6 AU: Generic Red and white Gas Giant. Neptune-sized. Mostly H2 and He. At least 6 notable moons. Small, but noticeable white rings.  I'd swap the size on these two

- 19.2 AU: Generic Blue Gas Giant. Saturn-sized. H2, He and CH4. Fairly noticeable orange rings (nothing like saturn though). At least 3 notable moons, probably more. I'd swap the size on these two

- 38.4 AU: Generic Dwarf Rocky Planet. 0.8g, 0atm. Completely and utterly frozen. At least 1 notable moon, probably more. Also Asteroid Belt with several planetoids. Like the Cuiper belt, right? Would make sense that something like that is in this system aswell.

Spoiler: Events (click to show/hide)

Biyearly (or much less often. Depends on the speed with which the suns rotate around each other) : Solar occlusion: One of the sun moves in front of the other, reducing the light the planet recieves by at least half. (More if one of both suns provides more light than the other. In that last case you'd get a strong and a mild iceage(should be limited to a part of the year).)
Actually, the two stars orbit around each other in the center of the system. The cycle shouldn't last longer than a week, or so, at best.it depends on how fast the stars orbit around each other. If the planet slowly catches on to shadow spot (similair with how we can see Mars making loops in the sky) it can take quite a long while.
Bi/ once a yea: Orbit intersects with asteroid belt. Asteroid showers occur
Should be quite !!FUN!! Looking forward to it.
Biyearly: The moon's orbit starts to block the sun on a daily basis. If properly synched up, this can come together with one of  the other events.
An eclipse shouldn't last much longer than on Earth, but it seems kinda plausible.It won't last much longer, but for a few weeks you'd have constant daily eclipse(Depends on the speed by which the moon orbits the planet.)
Also: Multiple times a year: Both moons line up, the gravitational pull is much stronger. Huge floods occur on the affected part of the planet, along with slightly increased geological activity.

I want to be god of realism. (Seriously, god of things that fall from the sky)

Is that alright?
Almost ready to start working on the planet!
So, the moon problem ahould be solved now: One larger moon, further away from the planet, in an almost perfect equatorial orbit. Formed like our Moon was likely formed: A big collision of protoplanets.
The second, smaller moon, in a perpendicular orbit to the other moon and the equator. Closer to the planet, so the moons appear to be roughly the same. Used to be a dwarf planet, catched by the planet's gravity into a weird orbit.
The moons line up once in a while, causing huge tides and floods. Is that alright? It should happen once in a while. As a second note, tides will be much smaller than usual when they're not aligned.

Sounds good.

-perpendicular moons are totally possible, just as planets orbiting perpendicularly to the ecliptic are possible. Technically, venus is 180° to everyone else, and we found 90° exoplanets just fine. Why no moons?

Moons cannot orbit perpendicular to each other. This isn't even a matter of knocking each other out of orbit, but of screwing with each other's gravity to such an extent that at least one will either crash or fly away into space.

Clarke's 1st Law.
It was brought up that a sufficient mass difference would do the trick.

-Planets orbiting only one of the suns of a binary system are also possible, assuming the stars are quite far apart and the planet quite close to her star.

You don't really know how binary systems work, do you? Stars cannot be exactly so far apart so as to keep each other affected by their respective gravities and simultaneously one star not affecting the planet orbiting the other one.

Hypothetically, a planet could be very close to the star and the stars could be far apart. I agree that it's improbable and probably unstable.

[kaian-a-coel]

A planet orbiting only around one star from the couple is impossible. It would have to orbit EXTREMELY close to it, so it would be utterly annihilated inbetween them. A planet orbiting 0.6 AU from this couple, couldn't be able to orbit around a single star anyway. Don't forget, these stars are very close together. No objections to the diamond part.

-Mercury get as close as 0.3AU to the sun, nuff said.
-I agree to the fact that those stars are probably very close to each other, rendering the one-star orbit impossible. What I disagree upon is the generality of this impossibility, it's like saying planets cant have moons. duh. binary stars can be more than 10 AU apart, so a mercury-like planet is possible in such cases.

Thick co2 atm equals enough insulation for liquid water? also what about a Europan type under ice ocean?

I dont think that is enough CO2 for liquid water there. Europa have under ice ocean because it's a moon, and jupiter make extremely high tidal forces.

It should happen once in a while. As a second note, tides will be much smaller than usual when they're not aligned.

I agree. When they are not aligned, they probably cancel each other more or less, so we'll have cycles of large and tiny tides.

[10ebbor10]

And every so often both moons align with each other, and with the sun and then you get freaky things.

[Dariush]

It was brought up that a sufficient mass difference would do the trick.

One moon orbiting another is not perpendicular. Or rather it (probably) wouldn't matter in this case.

Hypothetically, a planet could be very close to the star and the stars could be far apart. I agree that it's improbable and probably unstable.

If two stars exert sufficient pull on each other to, you know, remain a binary system, then this very pull would cause the star to simply swallow the planet (which has much lower mass than a star) up. So no.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The tidal forces would never cancel out, if we get them perpendicular, but they might work at odds.

Aligning with the suns would be comparable to Noah's little problem.

It was brought up that a sufficient mass difference would do the trick.

One moon orbiting another is not perpendicular. Or rather it (probably) wouldn't matter in this case.

Not what was said.

Hypothetically, a planet could be very close to the star and the stars could be far apart. I agree that it's improbable and probably unstable.

If two stars exert sufficient pull on each other to, you know, remain a binary system, then this very pull would cause the star to simply swallow the planet (which has much lower mass than a star) up. So no.

I'm not exactly an expert on binary stars, and I agree with your principal, so I'll stop arguing on this point.

Why so many ninjas?

[10ebbor10]

((Depending on the planet it might be possible. (since the planet is much lighter than the other star, hence recieves less gravitational force))). However, it would be unstable and when the planet moves between the 2 stars it would be completely torn apart. Unless is orbits perpendicular to the ecliptical, but that's just silly.

[kaian-a-coel]

Hypothetically, a planet could be very close to the star and the stars could be far apart. I agree that it's improbable and probably unstable.

If two stars exert sufficient pull on each other to, you know, remain a binary system, then this very pull would cause the star to simply swallow the planet (which has much lower mass than a star) up. So no.

The hell are you saying? The planet would be close enough to its star for the gravitationnal pull of the other to be negligible before the first one's. It's the exact same thing for moons orbiting planets around stars. How many times will I have to remind you of that?

[10ebbor10]

In addition, the planet would most likely melt from the amount of heat it recieves.

[kaian-a-coel]

Mercury is fine last time I checked.

[Dariush]

The hell are you saying? The planet would be close enough to its star for the gravitationnal pull of the other to be negligible before the first one's. It's the exact same thing for moons orbiting planets around stars. How many times will I have to remind you of that?

...How can you fail to realize the simplest things.

If a planet is close enough to its star for the gravitationnal pull of the other to be negligible, the star it orbits would suck it in and obliterate it. Moons work because distance between planets and moons is much, much smaller than between planets and stars, and the mass difference between planets and moons is much, much smaller than between planets and stars. Also, what Ebbor said.

Not what was said.

...Then I'm missing it. Care for a quote?

[GreatWyrmGold]

(...there needs to be a major size or orbit difference to avoid them whacking each other out of orbit)

This implies that it's possible.

[kaian-a-coel]

(...there needs to be a major size or orbit difference to avoid them whacking each other out of orbit)

This implies that it's possible.

Completely.

...How can you fail to realize the simplest things.

*facepalm*
You know proportionnality? I am saying that if distance between twin stars is great enough, and the distance between the planet and its star close enough, it's possible. I stress it for the third time, twin stars can be even further apart than jupiter is from the sun. Even if jupiter was thrice as big, it wont disturb mercury's orbit.
And for the size difference, it's huge nonsense. Planets have millions of dust speck-sized moons. Don't tell me that the size difference between Saturn and the tiny dust forming its rings is smaller than the difference between the sun and jupiter.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I don't think it's likely. I'm also pretty sure the two suns are within a couple AU of each other. Besides, do we want to make travelling to the diamond world so difficult?