Is this alternate solar system possible?

[fredinno]

6 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Oh, please - enough with unobtanium MacGuffinity. That trope is definitely overused.

What do you suggest then? (I agree on the overuse)

[Bill Phil]

12 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Oh, please - enough with unobtanium MacGuffinity. That trope is definitely overused.

Okay, how about there's a fusion catalyst. But it's hard to use effectively, the reactors are complex, and it makes it hard to actually use the reactor for energy generation, adding to the problems. But it still makes it happen, prompting many to try and unlock fusion. 

Sure it'll happen faster, but it might still take a decade or much more.

[Scotius]

Aside from the obvious: wanderlust and thirst for knowledge? A looming ecological disaster for example - new Ice Age starting prematurely, due to gravitational interactions destabilising the Earth. Or overpopulation (severe one). It's already alternative universe - why not make it a world where Black Death and other disastrous epidemics never happened for some reason. Such situation could lead to a humanity numbers hitting close to ten billions way before it happened to us. We can deal with such situation thanks to syntethic fertilisers, widespread mechanisation in agriculture and transport network developed sufficiently to be able to distribute food somewhat efficiently. But civilisation at roughly mid-to-late XIX century development wise would be in deep trouble. Thus the pressure to shift excess population (that less "desirable" part of course - poor, convicts, minorities etc.), and\or secure additional sources of food from other planets.

 

As for the fusion catalyst - it would be highly desirable for us, but OP wants to start space colonisation in XIX century (if i read his first post correctly).

[Streetwind]

You can perfectly do manned exploration with chemical rockets. It's just a question of how motivated you are - how much you really, really want that manned exploration. In other words, how much money you are willing to throw at large launch vehicles, separate return stages sent ahead to the destination, long term space habitation technology and so on.

Besides, neither nuclear nor ions are really that much better. NTRs suffer from painfully low mass fractions of actively cryocooled zero boiloff LH2 tanks and heavy engines, which lowers their practical, realword dV to numbers quite similar to what storable chemical propellants offer. And unless your spacecraft can manage a significantly higher specific power than any working technology that is known to humanity today, an ion driven vessel actually takes longer to make an interplanetary trip than a chemical rocket on account of spending multiple months and thousands of m/s dV just for reaching escape velocity... before doing the same exercise in reverse at the destination. While both options are lighter, and thus cheaper to launch out of Earth's gravity well, the real killer propulsion technology that solves the issue of getting fragile humans quickly across large distances and back again has yet to be developed.

[Chakat Firepaw]

17 hours ago, fredinno said:

Only problem is that a Venus capable of supporting life like this would also have high sea levels (no ice, hotter water expands), meaning there is even less land available- worse, Venus' plates are relatively thin. Maybe having proper plate tectonics, water, and not being a hellhole would make this problem less of a deal, but Venus, is, unfortunately, very flat (don't tell her that though, she's ashamed of it). Here is what Venus' surface looks like (terrain): http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/sos/features/combined_venus_shaded_relief_lon_180_center.png

Good luck for any humans trying to build base there.

With this sort of variant system, I would expect the author to be quite willing to decide things like "the RL topography isn't good for the story so I'll change it."

17 hours ago, fredinno said:

Would a "Cooling Suit" be possible in the time period given? (Actually, yes, they would need to develop this to make proper spacesuits anyways.)

John Gorrie invented his ice machine in 1842, so the underlying technology needed exists.

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, Scotius said:

Aside from the obvious: wanderlust and thirst for knowledge? A looming ecological disaster for example - new Ice Age starting prematurely, due to gravitational interactions destabilising the Earth. Or overpopulation (severe one). It's already alternative universe - why not make it a world where Black Death and other disastrous epidemics never happened for some reason. Such situation could lead to a humanity numbers hitting close to ten billions way before it happened to us. We can deal with such situation thanks to syntethic fertilisers, widespread mechanisation in agriculture and transport network developed sufficiently to be able to distribute food somewhat efficiently. But civilisation at roughly mid-to-late XIX century development wise would be in deep trouble. Thus the pressure to shift excess population (that less "desirable" part of course - poor, convicts, minorities etc.), and\or secure additional sources of food from other planets.

 

As for the fusion catalyst - it would be highly desirable for us, but OP wants to start space colonisation in XIX century (if i read his first post correctly).

Only problem is that the black death catalyzed the end of feudalism and greater population growth.

A starving population would decline quickly too. Maybe just make it so the population boom itself is greater (maybe cultural impetuous to have more children)

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, Streetwind said:

You can perfectly do manned exploration with chemical rockets. It's just a question of how motivated you are - how much you really, really want that manned exploration. In other words, how much money you are willing to throw at large launch vehicles, separate return stages sent ahead to the destination, long term space habitation technology and so on.

Besides, neither nuclear nor ions are really that much better. NTRs suffer from painfully low mass fractions of actively cryocooled zero boiloff LH2 tanks and heavy engines, which lowers their practical, realword dV to numbers quite similar to what storable chemical propellants offer. And unless your spacecraft can manage a significantly higher specific power than any working technology that is known to humanity today, an ion driven vessel actually takes longer to make an interplanetary trip than a chemical rocket on account of spending multiple months and thousands of m/s dV just for reaching escape velocity... before doing the same exercise in reverse at the destination. While both options are lighter, and thus cheaper to launch out of Earth's gravity well, the real killer propulsion technology that solves the issue of getting fragile humans quickly across large distances and back again has yet to be developed.

Ion can still be used for cargo- saving lots of mass. NTRs might be able to use 0-boil off tanks, though this probably is too advanced for the time period. (Except later in the 20th century) Ion was developed in 60s, like NTR, so maybe it might still be able to be used, assuming lots of money to design it.

[fredinno]

Here is my version of this Alternate Solar System: Hopefully, it is somewhat more realistic.

(It contains all spherical objects in the Solar System, plus extra planets added in the alternate version)

Life on: Venus (1.3Gs within trailing Earth-Sun L5), Earth (1G, Binary), Luna/Moon (0.4 G, Binary), Mars (0.5 G (Slightly larger to help maintain magnetosphere, along with its moon), Minerva (0.8G, Highly Inclined Orbit between Earth and Mars), Laythe (0.8 G, like in KSP), Enceladus (0.013 G), Xandu (0.3G, more hydrocarbons than Titan).

Advanced Life/Aliens: Venus, Minervera, Mars, Earth (Duh)

 

Note: Juno is also is more like the moon, lacking volatiles due to sublimation.

Note: Europa is uninhabitable (Sorry, dude!)

Bellona and Ceres are both not habitable, BTW. Too low Gravity to maintain an atmosphere.

 

Also, Triton having a breathable atmosphere is impossible with its N2 ice. If it was, it would be a completely different moon.

Pluto-Charon's atmosphere freezes IRL and in this version, due to immense distance.

Edited December 7, 2015 by fredinno

[PB666]

26 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Here is my version of this Alternate Solar System: Hopefully, it is somewhat more realistic.

(It contains all spherical objects in the Solar System, plus extra planets added in the alternate version)

Life on: Venus (1.3Gs within trailing Earth-Sun L5), Earth (1G, Binary), Luna/Moon (0.4 G, Binary), Mars (0.5 G (Slightly larger to help maintain magnetosphere, along with its moon), Minerva (0.8G, Highly Inclined Orbit between Earth and Mars), Laythe (0.8 G, like in KSP), Enceladus (0.013 G), Xandu (0.3G, more hydrocarbons than Titan).

Advanced Life/Aliens: Venus, Minervera, Mars, Earth (Duh)

 

Note: Juno is also is more like the moon, lacking volatiles due to sublimation.

Note: Europa is uninhabitable (Sorry, dude!)

Bellona and Ceres are both not habitable, BTW. Too low Gravity to maintain an atmosphere.

 

Also, Triton having a breathable atmosphere is impossible with its N2 ice. If it was, it would be a completely different moon.

Pluto-Charon's atmosphere freezes IRL and in this version, due to immense distance.

 I particularly like the part about earth colliding with venus after 1000 solar orbits. Neccesity is the mother of all invention, nothing gets you Fredinnites motivated toward interstellar travel than having their homeworkd become a crematorium after a few thousand years. 

Of course after the collision bits and pieces would shower Minervera with moon sized asteroids, and so all you would have left is a cold barely lifeless mars. 

[More Boosters]

You can simulate this in Universe Sandbox. If you don't have the program, PM me with the exact orbital parameters for each celestial body and I'll do it for you.

[fredinno]

49 minutes ago, PB666 said:

 I particularly like the part about earth colliding with venus after 1000 solar orbits. Neccesity is the mother of all invention, nothing gets you Fredinnites motivated toward interstellar travel than having their homeworkd become a crematorium after a few thousand years. 

Of course after the collision bits and pieces would shower Minervera with moon sized asteroids, and so all you would have left is a cold barely lifeless mars. 

It's in Earth-Sun L5, making Venus- Earth Trojans- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_%28astronomy%29

EDIT: Darn, turns out only works for objects a lot smaller. My bad. Fixed version, now:

Venus really is a pain to make habitable, since Earth is already so close to the habitable zone edge. Venus is now 1.5 G and is orbiting in a polar orbit around the Sun near Earth and Minervera. Hopefully this is reasonably stable.

16 minutes ago, More Boosters said:

You can simulate this in Universe Sandbox. If you don't have the program, PM me with the exact orbital parameters for each celestial body and I'll do it for you.

When ChrisSpace comes, he'll do that- it's his project, this is just what I think it should look like to preserve as much habitability as possible.

[More Boosters]

9 minutes ago, fredinno said:

It's in Earth-Sun L5, making Venus- Earth Trojans- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_%28astronomy%29

EDIT: Darn, turns out only works for objects a lot smaller. My bad. Fixed version, now:

Venus really is a pain to make habitable, since Earth is already so close to the habitable zone edge. Venus is now 1.5 G and is orbiting in a polar orbit around the Sun near Earth and Minervera. Hopefully this is reasonably stable.

When ChrisSpace comes, he'll do that- it's his project, this is just what I think it should look like to preserve as much habitability as possible.

I am sorry I only read the OP no idea what you are talking about.

[KAL 9000]

What about Nibiru? What planets+moons does it have?

[fredinno]

53 minutes ago, KAL 9000 said:

What about Nibiru? What planets+moons does it have?

No idea, not said by OP, and not going to guess.

1 hour ago, More Boosters said:

I am sorry I only read the OP no idea what you are talking about.

I tried to create what I hoped would be a more realistic version.

[ChrisSpace]

Venus' average temperature would actually make parts of the water boil off on a particularly hot day, leading to a runway greenhouse effect.

Well, remember that when water evaporates into clouds IIRC, and clouds are much more reflective than the stuff under it, so having more cloud cover might keep the temperature stable.

The best solution is probably to put it in a trailing L5. It would be relatively close (just burn retrograde to Earth's rotation and orbit until you are in escape velocity) taking 365 days for a round flyby trip, and launch windows would always be available!

I'm actually trying to avoid Lagrange point planets, perhaps I could just move Venus' orbit further out?

Another thing that's important is internal consistency. For example, you've chosen to go with the Latin names of sun and moon, instead of the English ones; therefore, it would be internally consistent to also use the Latin name for our planet, Terra, not the English one. While the various names in different languages are all officially accepted as valid by the IAU, the inhabitants of your alternate reality must have a reason for preferring Latin, and that reason would obviously apply to all celestial bodies for which multiple common names exist. Perhaps history unfolded a little differently, the Roman empire lasted longer and became even more widespread than in our world, and thus Latin in general is a far more common and alive language? If that is the case though, beware of having celestial bodies that are not named in Latin. For example, Laythe would violate the naming conventions of even our IAU, and it would probably violate the stricter naming rules of your alternate reality even more strongly. Thus, having a body named Laythe in your system, while an amusing nod to KSP, is a breach of internal consistency unless you can believably explain why exactly the name isn't breaking the established rules of your world.

Some of the planets are named after (fictional) people in this alternate timeline, usually either the astronomer that discovered it or whoever was leading that astronomer's nation at the time (Remember that Uranus was almost named 'George' after the king that was in power back then).

As for the fusion catalyst - it would be highly desirable for us, but OP wants to start space colonisation in XIX century (if i read his first post correctly).

You did read it correctly. I'll probably start a second thread about what motivates this early space travel, but for this thread I'm just talking about the solar system.

With this sort of variant system, I would expect the author to be quite willing to decide things like "the RL topography isn't good for the story so I'll change it."

While I do like the idea of keeping the topographies the same as in OTL, I can change it if it is absolutely necessary.

Here is my version of this Alternate Solar System: Hopefully, it is somewhat more realistic.

(It contains all spherical objects in the Solar System, plus extra planets added in the alternate version)

I can't quite see most of the labels. Or planets. Do you think you can do a clearer version?

Life on: Venus (1.3Gs within trailing Earth-Sun L5), Earth (1G, Binary), Luna/Moon (0.4 G, Binary), Mars (0.5 G (Slightly larger to help maintain magnetosphere, along with its moon), Minerva (0.8G, Highly Inclined Orbit between Earth and Mars), Laythe (0.8 G, like in KSP), Enceladus (0.013 G), Xandu (0.3G, more hydrocarbons than Titan).

Advanced Life/Aliens: Venus, Minervera, Mars, Earth (Duh)

Note: Juno is also is more like the moon, lacking volatiles due to sublimation.

Note: Europa is uninhabitable (Sorry, dude!)

Bellona and Ceres are both not habitable, BTW. Too low Gravity to maintain an atmosphere.

Also, Triton having a breathable atmosphere is impossible with its N2 ice. If it was, it would be a completely different moon.

Pluto-Charon's atmosphere freezes IRL and in this version, due to immense distance.

Well I like all these ideas, but couldn't Europa keep itself warm enough geologically to keep an ocean if it were bigger?

I particularly like the part about earth colliding with venus after 1000 solar orbits. Neccesity is the mother of all invention, nothing gets you Fredinnites motivated toward interstellar travel than having their homeworkd become a crematorium after a few thousand years. 

Of course after the collision bits and pieces would shower Minervera with moon sized asteroids, and so all you would have left is a cold barely lifeless mars. 

I was actually thinking that there's a 10km wide comet that's going to impact Earth around the year 1950 unless it gets destroyed/deflected (which it does).

What about Nibiru? What planets+moons does it have?

well, this is all we know as of the 'present day' in this timeline:

It is suspected that there is an Earth-sized planet in Nibiru’s habitable zone, and radio transmissions have recently been detected coming from the system. These transmissions have yet to be deciphered.

I imagine this planet also has a moon and perhaps a Mars-like planet further out, so its inhabitants have some stepping stones for advancing space travel.

[PB666]

Here's a solution, redice the mass of jupiter by 90%, the place earth-1, earth-2 and earth-3 in orbits aeound jupiter, get rid of all other moons around jupiter, get rid of mars and venus leave mercury. 

[More Boosters]

In my experience with Universe Sandbox, massive objects other the primary tend to lead to unstable systems.

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

Here's a solution, redice the mass of jupiter by 90%, the place earth-1, earth-2 and earth-3 in orbits aeound jupiter, get rid of all other moons around jupiter, get rid of mars and venus leave mercury. 

No, then they'd be tidally locked, precarious situation for intelligent land based life.

[fredinno]

5 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

Well, remember that when water evaporates into clouds IIRC, and clouds are much more reflective than the stuff under it, so having more cloud cover might keep the temperature stable.

 

 

I'm actually trying to avoid Lagrange point planets, perhaps I could just move Venus' orbit further out?

 

 

Some of the planets are named after (fictional) people in this alternate timeline, usually either the astronomer that discovered it or whoever was leading that astronomer's nation at the time (Remember that Uranus was almost named 'George' after the king that was in power back then).

 

 

You did read it correctly. I'll probably start a second thread about what motivates this early space travel, but for this thread I'm just talking about the solar system.

 

 

While I do like the idea of keeping the topographies the same as in OTL, I can change it if it is absolutely necessary.

 

 

I can't quite see most of the labels. Or planets. Do you think you can do a clearer version?

 

 

Well I like all these ideas, but couldn't Europa keep itself warm enough geologically to keep an ocean if it were bigger?

 

 

I was actually thinking that there's a 10km wide comet that's going to impact Earth around the year 1950 unless it gets destroyed/deflected (which it does).

 

 

well, this is all we know as of the 'present day' in this timeline:

 

 

I imagine this planet also has a moon and perhaps a Mars-like planet further out, so its inhabitants have some stepping stones for advancing space travel.

"I was actually thinking that there's a 10km wide comet that's going to impact Earth around the year 1950 unless it gets destroyed/deflected (which it does)." How would they detect something so precisely back then? Just wondering.

 

"Well I like all these ideas, but couldn't Europa keep itself warm enough geologically to keep an ocean if it were bigger?"

Europa in this version is orbiting the Sun as a Trojan- I might be able to make it a bigger object if it has a high inclination orbit near Jupiter.

 

"Well, remember that when water evaporates into clouds IIRC, and clouds are much more reflective than the stuff under it, so having more cloud cover might keep the temperature stable. "

"I'm actually trying to avoid Lagrange point planets, perhaps I could just move Venus' orbit further out?"

No, Water Vapor is also a Greenhouse gas. One of the biggest problems with Venus is that Mars, Minervera and Earth are hogging all the space in the habitable zone. I might be able to bypass it by making Minervera a binary with Venus, but then Venus would no longer be very hot- maybe 30 Degrees average? With a "Punishing" 1.5G. <(See if anyone can get the reference.)

 

"I can't quite see most of the labels. Or planets. Do you think you can do a clearer version?"

The limited size of my scanner glass is a problem.

Here is a written version:

<Yet to post>

[ChrisSpace]

"I was actually thinking that there's a 10km wide comet that's going to impact Earth around the year 1950 unless it gets destroyed/deflected (which it does)." How would they detect something so precisely back then? Just wondering.

Two things: Firstly, I'm thinking that the comet flies close to the sun a few times before impact, so astronomers are aware of its existence a long time beforehand (like Haley's comet in OTL). Secondly, after lots of spaceships are coasting around the solar system its inevitable that one of them will eventually bump into the comet (I am still deciding whether or not I mean that literally).

"Well I like all these ideas, but couldn't Europa keep itself warm enough geologically to keep an ocean if it were bigger?"

Europa in this version is orbiting the Sun as a Trojan- I might be able to make it a bigger object if it has a high inclination orbit near Jupiter.

Really all I want is some kind of large-ish world with an advanced biosphere in a global ocean under an ice layer. It doesn't have to be Europa. Also, just wondering, why can't larger planets exist in Trojan orbits?

"Well, remember that when water evaporates into clouds IIRC, and clouds are much more reflective than the stuff under it, so having more cloud cover might keep the temperature stable. "

"I'm actually trying to avoid Lagrange point planets, perhaps I could just move Venus' orbit further out?"

No, Water Vapor is also a Greenhouse gas. One of the biggest problems with Venus is that Mars, Minervera and Earth are hogging all the space in the habitable zone. I might be able to bypass it by making Minervera a binary with Venus, but then Venus would no longer be very hot- maybe 30 Degrees average? With a "Punishing" 1.5G. <(See if anyone can get the reference.)

Minerva's atmosphere is really thick so it really isn't affecting the habitable zone. Wait, couldn't I just put Venus in the same orbit as Earth but on the exact other side of the orbit? Would that work?

"I can't quite see most of the labels. Or planets. Do you think you can do a clearer version?"

The limited size of my scanner glass is a problem.

Perhaps you should draw it up on a computer rather than by hand. Or perhaps I can just download your drawing and clearer-ize it.

[Bill Phil]

Venus being in the SEL-3 point isn't quite stable, either. It might eventually migrate to SEL-4 or 5.

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Venus being in the SEL-3 point isn't quite stable, either. It might eventually migrate to SEL-4 or 5.

It is already in SEL-Five. It's still unstable, since Venus is too big relative to Earth. I'm changing it to a Minervera-Venus Binary. This will result in tidal locking, but that is something ChrisSpace chose to ignore for the sake of story.

[fredinno]

'Two things: Firstly, I'm thinking that the comet flies close to the sun a few times before impact, so astronomers are aware of its existence a long time beforehand (like Haley's comet in OTL). Secondly, after lots of spaceships are coasting around the solar system its inevitable that one of them will eventually bump into the comet (I am still deciding whether or not I mean that literally).'

 

Still doesn't mean the tracking is going to be sufficient- even today, impact likelihoods decrease significantly by the time the object approaches Earth. By the time they know for a fact, it will be too late (or the comet would have hit anyways.) Maybe a post-impact world could work, where the world economy has fallen into a depression, Earth has fallen into a mini-ice age due to the dust, and crops are failing. Humanity would still survive intact, but it is enough to prompt space exploration.

 

'Perhaps you should draw it up on a computer rather than by hand. Or perhaps I can just download your drawing and clearer-ize it.'

I'm making a writtten version.

 

'Really all I want is some kind of large-ish world with an advanced biosphere in a global ocean under an ice layer. It doesn't have to be Europa. Also, just wondering, why can't larger planets exist in Trojan orbits?'

They can, just not how I made it- the trojan must be a lot smaller than the parent body- a Earth-Sized Europa would be a viable life-filled trojan of Jupiter, just all under the ice. Internal heating would keep it warm.

 

 

'Minerva's atmosphere is really thick so it really isn't affecting the habitable zone. Wait, couldn't I just put Venus in the same orbit as Earth but on the exact other side of the orbit? Would that work?'

No, that's not a stable position to be placed. Also, Minervera still needs to be in the habitable zone. I'm thinking of putting Mars in a highly inclined orbit, while Minervera takes Mars' position (due to its thick atmosphere, it absorbs more heat).

 

[silversliver]

I made the new moon and Minerva, what do you think?

 

[fredinno]

Cool, good job!