Sols planetoid belts

[Antony]

I was just wondering how using WBH people would classify the belts in the Sol system. In the main belt I know that since there are bodies like Ceres that the maximum planetoid body diameter is up to 1,000km but what about the predominate body diameter. Then which zone dominates using what proportions?

Then there are the other belts (the EK belt and the Oort cloud) Should I list Sol as having 3 belts. The EK and Oort would presumably be principally C-zone dominant with sized again up to 1000+km.

Any suggestions?

 

[Antony]

I was just wondering how using WBH people would classify the belts in the Sol system. In the main belt I know that since there are bodies like Ceres that the maximum planetoid body diameter is up to 1,000km but what about the predominate body diameter. Then which zone dominates using what proportions?

Then there are the other belts (the EK belt and the Oort cloud) Should I list Sol as having 3 belts. The EK and Oort would presumably be principally C-zone dominant with sized again up to 1000+km.

Any suggestions?

 

[Antony]

I was just wondering how using WBH people would classify the belts in the Sol system. In the main belt I know that since there are bodies like Ceres that the maximum planetoid body diameter is up to 1,000km but what about the predominate body diameter. Then which zone dominates using what proportions?

Then there are the other belts (the EK belt and the Oort cloud) Should I list Sol as having 3 belts. The EK and Oort would presumably be principally C-zone dominant with sized again up to 1000+km.

Any suggestions?

 

[Malenfant]

Technically Sol has one planetoid belt - the one between Mars and Jupiter. The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud aren't belts really - the Oort Cloud is a shell of material very far from the Sun and the KB is where stuff from that has accumulated near the edge of the solar system due to disturbance from planets/passing stars/random collisions.

I'd list Sol as having just the one belt myself. Certainly mention the KB and Oort Clouds though, but it's probable that a lot of other stars with planets have those too so you'd have to increase the number of belts for all stars by one or two if you want to cover those.

 

[Malenfant]

Technically Sol has one planetoid belt - the one between Mars and Jupiter. The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud aren't belts really - the Oort Cloud is a shell of material very far from the Sun and the KB is where stuff from that has accumulated near the edge of the solar system due to disturbance from planets/passing stars/random collisions.

I'd list Sol as having just the one belt myself. Certainly mention the KB and Oort Clouds though, but it's probable that a lot of other stars with planets have those too so you'd have to increase the number of belts for all stars by one or two if you want to cover those.

 

[Malenfant]

Technically Sol has one planetoid belt - the one between Mars and Jupiter. The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud aren't belts really - the Oort Cloud is a shell of material very far from the Sun and the KB is where stuff from that has accumulated near the edge of the solar system due to disturbance from planets/passing stars/random collisions.

I'd list Sol as having just the one belt myself. Certainly mention the KB and Oort Clouds though, but it's probable that a lot of other stars with planets have those too so you'd have to increase the number of belts for all stars by one or two if you want to cover those.

 

[aramis]

Considering the idea of a belt is that it is dense enough to present a reasonable hazard to navigation in an orbit (Beltstrike, for CT), I'd agree that the KB and OC are not dense enough at present knowledge.

That belts fill an orbit also rules out the OC; the KB seems pretty coorbital with the outter GG's.

Of course, the inclusion of Kuiper belts may drastically alter the history of the OTU...

 

[aramis]

Considering the idea of a belt is that it is dense enough to present a reasonable hazard to navigation in an orbit (Beltstrike, for CT), I'd agree that the KB and OC are not dense enough at present knowledge.

That belts fill an orbit also rules out the OC; the KB seems pretty coorbital with the outter GG's.

Of course, the inclusion of Kuiper belts may drastically alter the history of the OTU...

 

[aramis]

Considering the idea of a belt is that it is dense enough to present a reasonable hazard to navigation in an orbit (Beltstrike, for CT), I'd agree that the KB and OC are not dense enough at present knowledge.

That belts fill an orbit also rules out the OC; the KB seems pretty coorbital with the outter GG's.

Of course, the inclusion of Kuiper belts may drastically alter the history of the OTU...

 

[Malenfant]

Asteroid belts aren't dense enough to be a hazard to navigation either though. We've sent several probes through them without them being hit, damaged, or even going anywhere near an asteroid (unless targetted to do so).

Also, the OP isn't using Beltstrike to define asteroid belts, so that definition isn't particularly relevant here. I can't help him out on the WBH asteroid type definitions though as my copy of that book is 5,000 km away

.

 

[Malenfant]

Asteroid belts aren't dense enough to be a hazard to navigation either though. We've sent several probes through them without them being hit, damaged, or even going anywhere near an asteroid (unless targetted to do so).

Also, the OP isn't using Beltstrike to define asteroid belts, so that definition isn't particularly relevant here. I can't help him out on the WBH asteroid type definitions though as my copy of that book is 5,000 km away

.

 

[Malenfant]

Asteroid belts aren't dense enough to be a hazard to navigation either though. We've sent several probes through them without them being hit, damaged, or even going anywhere near an asteroid (unless targetted to do so).

Also, the OP isn't using Beltstrike to define asteroid belts, so that definition isn't particularly relevant here. I can't help him out on the WBH asteroid type definitions though as my copy of that book is 5,000 km away

.

 

[aramis]

Mal:

You're thinking N-space astrogation; I'm thinking J-space. Sorry, wasn't clear.

Still, by comparison to "Movie" belts, even bowman is thin. Just enough that jumping is only "likely" to drop you where you wanted, instead of almost guaranteed.

I don't think of in-system travel by much anything other than jump since TNE...

 

[aramis]

Mal:

You're thinking N-space astrogation; I'm thinking J-space. Sorry, wasn't clear.

Still, by comparison to "Movie" belts, even bowman is thin. Just enough that jumping is only "likely" to drop you where you wanted, instead of almost guaranteed.

I don't think of in-system travel by much anything other than jump since TNE...

 

[aramis]

Mal:

You're thinking N-space astrogation; I'm thinking J-space. Sorry, wasn't clear.

Still, by comparison to "Movie" belts, even bowman is thin. Just enough that jumping is only "likely" to drop you where you wanted, instead of almost guaranteed.

I don't think of in-system travel by much anything other than jump since TNE...

 

[Malenfant]

Well even in terms of jumpspace they're not a navigation hazard. OK, so a 100m diameter rock (which is fairly large for an asteroid belt) is going to have a 10km 100D limit around it, but that 100D bubble is still tiny compared to the distance between it and the next asteroid out. It's still very unlikely that a jump path would intersect any 100D limits if it went straight through the belt.

 

[Malenfant]

Well even in terms of jumpspace they're not a navigation hazard. OK, so a 100m diameter rock (which is fairly large for an asteroid belt) is going to have a 10km 100D limit around it, but that 100D bubble is still tiny compared to the distance between it and the next asteroid out. It's still very unlikely that a jump path would intersect any 100D limits if it went straight through the belt.

 

[Malenfant]

Well even in terms of jumpspace they're not a navigation hazard. OK, so a 100m diameter rock (which is fairly large for an asteroid belt) is going to have a 10km 100D limit around it, but that 100D bubble is still tiny compared to the distance between it and the next asteroid out. It's still very unlikely that a jump path would intersect any 100D limits if it went straight through the belt.

 

[aramis]

There are quite a few of them, and since most in-system jumps will be along the ecliptic, it's effectively an area solution rather than volume... but still, I suppose you're right, it's not a big issue in our orbit 4 belt. But it is still several orders more likely to cause a problem than is "normal space."

 

[aramis]

There are quite a few of them, and since most in-system jumps will be along the ecliptic, it's effectively an area solution rather than volume... but still, I suppose you're right, it's not a big issue in our orbit 4 belt. But it is still several orders more likely to cause a problem than is "normal space."