Fingal

Do you include Mercury in that?

So do you agree the IAU's definition of a planet was just an exercise in shoehorning in a definition that fits a group of objects? Incidentally, other scientific disciplines aren't exactly embracing the definition. Certainly geologists and geophysicists don't feel compelled to pay the slightest bit of attention to it. What do you mean by that? Are you calling me and the geophysical word a "whiney little ....." just because we think the IAU are in error with their definition?

But why would they do that? I can't understand the point of it.

Mercury and Jupiter are both considered planets, yet Ganymede is not. But Jupiter has very little in common with Mercury, other than an aspect relating to orbits that takes no account of their physical characteristics.

Planet is a very old word that was given to things that were nothing more than points of light that moved against the background of stars. To try and find a retrospective scientific definition based on what we have since learnt about them that only includes those objects seems pointless and foolhardy.

What don't you understand?

It's clear to me too, it's just I don't understand why you'd do that unless you were trying to shoehorn reality into a historical definition of a cultural term that was made when we knew very little about the solar system.

Not if you gave them short power cables.

A minor point which doesn't remove the fact that this is an attempt to make a historical term somehow fit those bodies which were defined before we knew anything about them. It strikes me as pretty sloppy science.

Hardly. Many people disagree with the classification of planet that's been given, myself amongst them. It seems more of an attempt to get a historical term to fit what we've learnt since the term was used than it is an attempt to provide a reasonable definition. I couldn't care less about Pluto but I don't understand why Mercury are Ganymede are given different definitions yet Mercury and Jupiter are considered the same. The "cleared out the orbit" requirement seems more about fitting it into a historical definition, which is a bizarre thing to do.

I believe the hype train can be observed at around the 2:45 mark in this one(for Steam users only):

The biggest problem here though is that "planet" is a historic term, created when all we knew about them is that they moved against the background of otherwise motionless stars. It's not a phenomenon that's been observed then categorised, it's an ancient term that scientists, for some reason, feel the need to retain and define. Other sciences have the same problem. Defining intelligence or emotion is an ongoing argument in neuroscience and artificial intelligence and again these are old terms that we're trying to classify rather than making observations and then applying terminology that seems most appropriate.

I trained as a geologist, so from that perspective it's difficult to see how they aren't.

I'll go with the Star Trek method. If it looks like a planet on the viewscreen, it's a planet. Basically, if it has enough mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium and doesn't produce nuclear fusion, it's a planet.

The re-entry scene was possibly the most beautiful moment in cinema history. I can forgive anything for the sheer awesomeness of the capsule charging through the atmosphere ahead of the debris like Theoden leading the charge in Return of the King.

Having seen the recent screengrabs, I believe I will be crashing things a lot.

Well, I finally found the crashed flying saucer and I've got the little green tick for the anomalous signal detector, but the rest don't seem to work, the laser scan and magnetometer & orbital telescope scans from above. Surely this is close enough or am I doing something wrong?

Have you added contracts for any other mods? KAS would allow Apollo 12 style retrieval of parts that have been left on another planet for a specified time.

Rendezvous & docking maneuvers could be interesting. I also had a few ideas about sending Kerbals on geology traverses that might work well with the waypoint orientated missions. Mun & Duna have a few interesting spots I could create a realistic geological traverse for.

It'll be highlighted in blue in the VAB as well.

No, but once I've chosen other missions such as exploring a planet I tend to get less of those, which is a bit annoying if I have a cluster of them off to Jool and have to wait a year.

Enterprise was the best series.

Believe me, I won't ever again!

Yes, but so often they're more asteroid missions.

Is there any way to exclude certain mission types? I don't really enjoy anything with asteroids, but it does insist on offering me lots of asteroid missions!