Planet or Moon?
- Thread starter batmagoo
- Start date
I believe the answer to this is "nope". This comes down to 'Has there been a canon description of the system somewhere, or some flavourtext that says it is or is not a moon?'. If the answer is no, then the matter is open for debate or your assignment. (Of course, you can freely ignore canon at your whim...)
I don't believe there is any way to infer from UWP the type of planet you've got (except where you get an asteroid belt).
Maybe I'm wrong? Someone pipe up and correct me, by all means!
I don't believe there is any way to infer from UWP the type of planet you've got (except where you get an asteroid belt).
Maybe I'm wrong? Someone pipe up and correct me, by all means!
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
A very rough rule of thumb could be if the UPP says size 3 or less it could be a moon.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
If you go by LBB6 then you can have size 9 moons.
Subtract 1 die from the world size to find the size of its satellite - size A worlds can have size 9 moons, although I'd be tempted to call it a binary planet instead
I went for 3 because the only real data we have are the sizes of the moons in our own Solar system
Subtract 1 die from the world size to find the size of its satellite - size A worlds can have size 9 moons, although I'd be tempted to call it a binary planet instead
I went for 3 because the only real data we have are the sizes of the moons in our own Solar system
Nope, can't tell. For awhile I thought Regina was a planet, but it's not.
Until you see an extended UWP or library data, it's anyone's guess.
Of course, one could probably guesstimate the probability that a mainworld might be a moon. It's probably more likely to be a planet in its own right. But that's a different thread.
Until you see an extended UWP or library data, it's anyone's guess.
Of course, one could probably guesstimate the probability that a mainworld might be a moon. It's probably more likely to be a planet in its own right. But that's a different thread.
If you're making your deciding factor a size of 3, then you're eliminating some of the planetary bodies in this system. (I know, a sample of 1 isn't a sample.)
I can agree with probability marking whether a body is a planet or a moon. But if a system has a sufficently large and violent parent star, the probability of the mainworld being a moon should increase. My thought being that a system with a big star would put out more hard radiation than a smaller one (as a rule), thereby requiring habitable worlds to live within the magnetosphere of a larger world. Smaller worlds would lack the protective magnetic field that a larger world possesses, and with increased solar output, these smaller worlds would be ravaged by the hard radiation of the parent star.
BUT, with all the new observations coming in, some of thses guesses and ideas could be proven wrong tomorrow.
I can agree with probability marking whether a body is a planet or a moon. But if a system has a sufficently large and violent parent star, the probability of the mainworld being a moon should increase. My thought being that a system with a big star would put out more hard radiation than a smaller one (as a rule), thereby requiring habitable worlds to live within the magnetosphere of a larger world. Smaller worlds would lack the protective magnetic field that a larger world possesses, and with increased solar output, these smaller worlds would be ravaged by the hard radiation of the parent star.
BUT, with all the new observations coming in, some of thses guesses and ideas could be proven wrong tomorrow.
OK, I deviated from the topic at hand there. LEt me try again.
If you set your planet/moon criteria as a size of 3, you're eliminating bodies like Ceres (maybe not a planet, but close enough for me), Quaoar, Verana, and Sedna.
Maybe it requres changing some of the notations in the UWP?
If you set your planet/moon criteria as a size of 3, you're eliminating bodies like Ceres (maybe not a planet, but close enough for me), Quaoar, Verana, and Sedna.
Maybe it requres changing some of the notations in the UWP?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I'm not suggesting all size 3 worlds in the OTU are moons, just that in our solar system 3 is the limit for moon size.
The jury is still out on how to classify Quaoar, Verana, and Sedna, but Ceres has never been classified as anything other than a large asteroid as far as I know.
I wonder what effects moons larger than 3 would have on planets like the Earth?
The jury is still out on how to classify Quaoar, Verana, and Sedna, but Ceres has never been classified as anything other than a large asteroid as far as I know.
I wonder what effects moons larger than 3 would have on planets like the Earth?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Don't panthalassic worlds have to be much larger than the Earth?
25,000km diameter may be closer.
Here's an interesting link
and here's another
25,000km diameter may be closer.
Here's an interesting link
and here's another
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
No, since Europa would be a panthalassic world and it is rather small for a planet.Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Don't panthalassic worlds have to be much larger than the Earth?
25,000km diameter may be closer.
Here's an interesting link
and here's another
Similar threads
