so if you capture an asteroid, does it count as adding a moon

[noobsrtoast]

its technically all still natural material, does it therefore still count as a natural satellite?

[samstarman5]

Yes. However, from gameplay perspective there are differences. As one can still move it and manipulate it, it doesn't fall within the same category of the Mun, Minmus, or Gilly.

But if NASA or the ESA were to take on an ambitious project to bring an asteroid into orbit in order to study it or use it as a foundation for a space station, it could actually be classified a natural satellite once it settled into a steady orbit.  As steady as all the other gravitational bodies in the solar system allowed it to have, of course.  Especially Tom.  Tom needs to cut down on those burritos.

[noobsrtoast]

Just now, samstarman5 said:

Yes. However, from gameplay perspective there are differences. As one can still move it and manipulate it, it doesn't fall within the same category of the Mun, Minmus, or Gilly.

But if NASA or the ESA were to take on an ambitious project to bring an asteroid into orbit in order to study it or use it as a foundation for a space station, it could actually be classified a natural satellite once it settled into a steady orbit.  As steady as all the other gravitational bodies in the solar system allowed it to have, of course.  Especially Tom.  Tom needs to cut down on those burritos.

well yea of course, in ksp all the orbits of the official legit moons are on rails, but i still like to classify my asteroids as moons, and what you have said to me justifies it well, therefore i name a new moon of kerbin, the rubble 

[Pulstar]

1 hour ago, samstarman5 said:

But if NASA or the ESA were to take on an ambitious project to bring an asteroid into orbit in order to study it or use it as a foundation for a space station, it could actually be classified a natural satellite once it settled into a steady orbit.

I was actually wondering about this when I saw the topic title. Is the method of formation the only criteria or do means by which it begun orbiting the parent body also count. I guess the international astronomical organizations are going to have another debate about that if a rock gets tugged into a (fairly) stable earth orbit by a spacecraft.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

How about a "semi-natural" satellite.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I'm gonna say no since it's not a "naturally occurring satellite."

You've directly intervened to place it there making it quite unnatural, in my opinion the use of the word "natural" here is being used to describe the origin of the object not it's make-up.

There is also the question of size, at what point does an object stop being "some junk or small rock in orbit" to being an official moon? I mean...can you consider a 10 inch rock that’s orbiting Jupiter a moon? If yes, then there could be thousands or even millions of moons out there.

[Octa]

Where to start? A "satellite" is something that orbits another object. I think we can more or less agree on this definition. The adjectives is where the fun starts:

What actually does classify a satellite as artifical or natural?

• The (main) material?
  • So all man-assembled satellites are artifiial and everything that is made of natural material (well, mostly rock) is classified "natural"? Then what's the difference between a rock that got captured from space and a rock launched from earth?
• The way it got into orbit? Tricky to classify in 2 categories, as i can instantly think of 3 scenarios
  • launched by humans (a sentient beeing that made that decision)
  • natural ways (gets a bit philosophical: The starting parameters after the big bang, the natural laws, plus some time lead to 1: the creation of a celestial body, 2: the creation of an asteroid and therefore 3: a situation where 1 and 2 cross their paths in such a way that 2 enters a stale orbit around 1)
  • not launched by humans, but manipulated by decision to attain a stable orbit
• its "source"?
  • artificial: made from material that without decisive manipulation, would have liked to stay where it was (down on the ground)
  • natural: stuff that came "from space" and got near earth by itself

Best wording i can think of that leaves little room for imagination would be "Artificially captured satellite of natural source" Then the satellite must be classified as either moon, asteroid, moonoid or space junk.

[Tex]

I stand by the old philosophy: It's a single-player game, play how you wanna.

If putting an asteroid in Kerbin's orbit makes it a natural satellite, then by all means it does. If not, then it doesn't. How you play is up to you, and that's the awesome thing about singleplayer games.

[Jaeleth]

No... It becomes an "unnatural" satellite... But if you turn it into a space station, it then becomes a supernatural satellite... Lol

[Snark]

7 hours ago, noobsrtoast said:

its technically all still natural material, does it therefore still count as a natural satellite?

Entirely depends on exactly what you mean by "count".   

Can you elaborate?

 

[cubinator]

My definition of a moon is an object which a) orbits a larger object that isn't a star or former star, and b) has a significant gravitational influence (i.e. you could land on it and stay on the surface using only the gravity of the object. 

To me, your redirected boulder might be an 'artificially placed natural object'. Which we can shorten to 'redirected meteroroid' because 'asteroid' is ill-defined, so the term 'meteoroid' would work better.

[nosirrbro]

1 hour ago, cubinator said:

My definition of a moon is an object which a) orbits a larger object that isn't a star or former star, and b) has a significant gravitational influence (i.e. you could land on it and stay on the surface using only the gravity of the object. 

To me, your redirected boulder might be an 'artificially placed natural object'. Which we can shorten to 'redirected meteroroid' because 'asteroid' is ill-defined, so the term 'meteoroid' would work better.

Meteoroid wouldn't work, because an asteroid is only a meteor once in enters the atmosphere. 

[suicidejunkie]

Put a giant laser on it, then you'll know for sure.

"That's no moon!"

[noobsrtoast]

5 hours ago, Maximus97 said:

I stand by the old philosophy: It's a single-player game, play how you wanna.

If putting an asteroid in Kerbin's orbit makes it a natural satellite, then by all means it does. If not, then it doesn't. How you play is up to you, and that's the awesome thing about singleplayer games.

fair enough

 

25 minutes ago, suicidejunkie said:

Put a giant laser on it, then you'll know for sure.

"That's no moon!"

hahahaha, awesome

9 hours ago, Pulstar said:

I was actually wondering about this when I saw the topic title. Is the method of formation the only criteria or do means by which it begun orbiting the parent body also count. I guess the international astronomical organizations are going to have another debate about that if a rock gets tugged into a (fairly) stable earth orbit by a spacecraft.

you ripped the words right out of my mouth

7 hours ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

How about a "semi-natural" satellite.

booooriiiiiing

[noobsrtoast]

7 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I'm gonna say no since it's not a "naturally occurring satellite."

You've directly intervened to place it there making it quite unnatural, in my opinion the use of the word "natural" here is being used to describe the origin of the object not it's make-up.

There is also the question of size, at what point does an object stop being "some junk or small rock in orbit" to being an official moon? I mean...can you consider a 10 inch rock that’s orbiting Jupiter a moon? If yes, then there could be thousands or even millions of moons out there.

actually, the only requirement an object needs to be a moon is that it is in orbit around a planetary body, though it is never specified whether it can be naturally formed but artificially placed in orbit, they never specify the exact conditions of objects getting into a stable orbit, vsauce has a great video about it, i just cant remember the title

6 hours ago, Octa said:

Where to start? A "satellite" is something that orbits another object. I think we can more or less agree on this definition. The adjectives is where the fun starts:

What actually does classify a satellite as artifical or natural?

• The (main) material?
  • So all man-assembled satellites are artifiial and everything that is made of natural material (well, mostly rock) is classified "natural"? Then what's the difference between a rock that got captured from space and a rock launched from earth?
• The way it got into orbit? Tricky to classify in 2 categories, as i can instantly think of 3 scenarios
  • launched by humans (a sentient beeing that made that decision)
  • natural ways (gets a bit philosophical: The starting parameters after the big bang, the natural laws, plus some time lead to 1: the creation of a celestial body, 2: the creation of an asteroid and therefore 3: a situation where 1 and 2 cross their paths in such a way that 2 enters a stale orbit around 1)
  • not launched by humans, but manipulated by decision to attain a stable orbit
• its "source"?
  • artificial: made from material that without decisive manipulation, would have liked to stay where it was (down on the ground)
  • natural: stuff that came "from space" and got near earth by itself

Best wording i can think of that leaves little room for imagination would be "Artificially captured satellite of natural source" Then the satellite must be classified as either moon, asteroid, moonoid or space junk.

thats an overly complex way of thinking about it, you get a cookie 

[noobsrtoast]

2 hours ago, Snark said:

Entirely depends on exactly what you mean by "count".   

Can you elaborate?

 

well in the official definition, its never specified how the object ends up in a stable orbit, this is probably an extremely pointless discussion but lets have it anyway, so if a man made rocket intervenes and pulls an object that was made naturally into a stable orbit around the earth, since its not specified how an object gets captured, does it still count as a moon

[kiwi1960]

wait ....what..... you..... caught.....an asteroid???????

You, sir or madam, are light years more advanced than I am!!! If I was wearing a hat, I'd remove it in your presence as a mark of respect!

The things people are doing with KSP these days simply amazes me... is there no end of human ingenuity in this game?

 

 

[noobsrtoast]

Just now, kiwi1960 said:

wait ....what..... you..... caught.....an asteroid???????

You, sir or madam, are light years more advanced than I am!!! If I was wearing a hat, I'd remove it in your presence as a mark of respect!

The things people are doing with KSP these days simply amazes me... is there no end of human ingenuity in this game?

 

 

youre a senior spacecraft engineer, asteroids have been around since .23, trust me im the noob here, i finally got around to it for the first time today

edit: viewed your profile to check if i was being trolled, youve been here since .25, my apologies if i came off rude, i just wanted to enforce the fact that im a total noob trust me, my apologies as well for making assumptions, i come from the bungie forums, im sure youve seen what a toxic place that is 

edit 2: i also just realized you have a medical condition preventing you from playing, im so sorry, i feel bad now my condolences 

Edited March 18, 2016 by noobsrtoast

[Snark]

20 minutes ago, noobsrtoast said:

well in the official definition...

Yes, that's my point, what "official definition" are you talking about?  Unless there's a contract for it, I don't think KSP has an "official definition" of anything in particular.

[noobsrtoast]

Just now, Snark said:

Yes, that's my point, what "official definition" are you talking about?  Unless there's a contract for it, I don't think KSP has an "official definition" of anything in particular.

 

im talking about the official definition in real life 

[Generic]

 

12 hours ago, samstarman5 said:

Yes. However, from gameplay perspective there are differences. As one can still move it and manipulate it, it doesn't fall within the same category of the Mun, Minmus, or Gilly.

But if NASA or the ESA were to take on an ambitious project to bring an asteroid into orbit in order to study it or use it as a foundation for a space station, it could actually be classified a natural satellite once it settled into a steady orbit.  As steady as all the other gravitational bodies in the solar system allowed it to have, of course.  Especially Tom.  Tom needs to cut down on those burritos.

Damn, an asteroid base in real life sounds awesome...

[cubinator]

2 hours ago, nosirrbro said:

Meteoroid wouldn't work, because an asteroid is only a meteor once in enters the atmosphere. 

A meteor is a space rock that is entering the atmosphere.

a meteorite is a space rock that landed on another body.

A meteoroid is a space rock in space that would become a meteor if it entered the atmosphere. It is the as generic as you can get without just saying 'space rock'. It works as well for tiny space rocks you could hold in your hand as with giant space rocks that would take a rocket to get off of. That's why I chose it over 'asteroid'.

[something]

From a personal point of view, I would consider the asteroid a temporary satellite capture. It is not a quasi-satellite as it orbits Kerbin itself (contrary to being in a resonant orbit) and its orbit is primarily affected by the Kerbin-Mun-Minmus system. For it to be a moon in the sense of game mechanics it had to be on rails. A moon has to have some sort of gravitational well, but asteroids do not have any influence, if I am not mistaken.

As for the reality part of the question: I am pretty sure that the IAU will come up with some definition as soon as it is needed, just as they did with minor- and dwarf planets.

 

 

 

[Edax]

I have no idea what the official determination on what a "moon" is.  When Sputnik was launched, it was consider Earth's second moon.  Early stories in the 60's referred to orbital spacecraft as moons.  Under that definition, then sure, a captured asteroid can certainly be consider a moon.  Indeed, Pluto has many moons, and their so small and have strange tumbling roations .

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Edax

[samstarman5]

5 hours ago, Generic said:

 

Damn, an asteroid base in real life sounds awesome...

It is awesome. Bunch of nice natural rock to protect inhabitants from cosmic rays and solar flares, and a good chance of ores and resources contained therein.  I wouldn't mind if it were possible to build into a KSP asteroid, but to build on it using claws is a big thing in itself.