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

[kiwi1960]

Just now, noobsrtoast said:

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 

That is what I meant.... although, I did get to play some today, an asteroid .... seeing one, let alone catching it, is a long term dream.

You may be a n00b in one or two ways, but if you have caught an asteroid, then you are hardly a "n00b" if you know what I mean.

 

Respect, sir.

BTW.... I would class any "moon" as ANY object that revolves around a larger body provided that object cannot be steered or moved away...

Meaning, if the object, Sputnik, for example, is placed into orbit and is stuck there... then its a moon...

However... the shuttle couldn't be a moon, and nor could a satellite with fuel and engines on board as that can move... (at least till it runs out of fuel)

Any object "captured" by gravity is a moon.... my two cents for what its worth.

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by kiwi1960

[noobsrtoast]

2 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

That is what I meant.... although, I did get to play some today, an asteroid .... seeing one, let alone catching it, is a long term dream.

You may be a n00b in one or two ways, but if you have caught an asteroid, then you are hardly a "n00b" if you know what I mean.

 

Respect, sir.

BTW.... I would class any "moon" as ANY object that revolves around a larger body provided that object cannot be steered or moved away...

Meaning, if the object, Sputnik, for example, is placed into orbit and is stuck there... then its a moon...

However... the shuttle couldn't be a moon, and nor could a satellite with fuel and engines on board as that can move... (at least till it runs out of fuel)

Any object "captured" by gravity is a moon.... my two cents for what its worth.

 

Such a kind human being, you  restore my faith in humanity

the asteroid isn't really for me, me and my dad are playing together on a multiplayer server and were supposed to finally have a full day to play on Sunday, so I tried my damnedest to learn how to catch one before that day so we could build a base, and I did it, surprisingly enough, 

I am pretty excited about building an asteroid base though, planning to get some more soon

edit: heres a picture of the asteroid, the base im making around it is going along really nicely: 

Edited March 19, 2016 by noobsrtoast

[AbacusWizard]

I will say this: any reasonable definition of "moon" (or "planet" or "star" for that matter) should depend only on the body's current state, not how it got there in the (distant or recent) past.

[KerikBalm]

Its a natural celestial body, but its not naturally a satellite... its artificially a satellite.

Maybe an "artificially captured satellite" is the best terminology, as "captured" implies it was captured rather than manufactured, and thus a natural object.

But from a game code perspective, they count as ships

[samstarman5]

10 hours ago, AbacusWizard said:

I will say this: any reasonable definition of "moon" (or "planet" or "star" for that matter) should depend only on the body's current state, not how it got there in the (distant or recent) past.

Exactimondo. From its inception to today, the solar system has always been in flux.  There is evidence that the gas giants started out a lot closer to the Sun, and most of their moons were likely dragged out with them as they drifted to their current orbits as the Sun settled down to its current stage, at least Jupiter's and Saturn's.  We as a species, not we now, may even get to see Triton go from being a moon to adding to Neptune's ring system, perhaps making it a lot brighter to see.  I see no reason to dismiss Man's little contributions, seeing as we were born here as much as any of the planets were.

[KerikBalm]

Well, there is a difference between dismissal, and drawing not distinction.

Under your logic, I'm not in a "room" its a "cave" because why should we make a distinction between a cave and a room formed by the action of humans?

[max_creative]

Reminds me of emiko station. Go @JustJim!

[suicidejunkie]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 4:15 PM, cubinator said:

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'.

In other words; aerobrake it, land it, and then launch it back in to orbit, and you can call it whatever you like.

[fredinno]

On 3/18/2016 at 4:11 AM, 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.

I think the smallest things are called moonlets or space debris....

On 3/18/2016 at 9:24 AM, 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.

Yeah, so? This thing is a moon. I doubt it has significant gravity to stay put on it http://www.space.com/16111-jupiter-smallest-moon-discovered.html

On 3/18/2016 at 1:57 PM, something said:

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.

Well, Methinks a moon could stay for quite some time in MEO...

[kerbiloid]

Humans' spacecrafts and orbital stations are just pieces of matter exhausted by the Earth biosphere as a side-effect of its vital activity. Aren't they natural moons?

[something]

Well let's rephrase it a bit. That asteroid is a satellite at least. We now need to determine whether it's natural or artificial.

Since it was brought to orbit with a space craft, it is neither.

 

[lajoswinkler]

Natural satellite. Not "moon", pls.

[RocketSquid]

"Moonoid"

Or, if you prefer, "Moonesque orbiting rock"

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, RocketSquid said:

"Moonoid"

Or, if you prefer, "Moonesque orbiting rock"

Isn't the correct term "moonlet?"

[magnemoe]

On 18.3.2016 at 8:53 PM, AbacusWizard said:

I will say this: any reasonable definition of "moon" (or "planet" or "star" for that matter) should depend only on the body's current state, not how it got there in the (distant or recent) past.

Yes, however I think its an lower size limit on Moons or is all the dust and junk in Saturn's rings independent moons?
If we move an km sized asteroid into stable orbit around earth it would be an new moon. 
However an huge space station build with parts would not be an moon anyway, it would just be stupid.

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

Isn't the correct term "moonlet?"

Yes, its the name of smaller stuff, not dust but not moon sized, 

[PrathamK]

A Satellite orbuts any celestial body, simply,  N-Body simulation is natural, while Attaching engines are artificial, if we could create own one, in specific orbit it may encounter kerbin and do a mün gravity brake to get in stable orbit. But mün can even eject it, thats the way of a natural satellite to be officially call Moon.

[tater]

Is a beaver dam "natural," or artificial?