Is this alternate solar system possible?

[ChrisSpace]

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

In that scenario the world would be much more focused on rebuilding than space exploration. And the technology at the time would be sufficient to know the comet might impact Earth, and as measurements become more and more precise the chance of an impact becomes higher and by that point the space programs are making plans even before the impact is 100% confirmed.

 

Quote

 

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).

 

 

If Minerva has a dense atmosphere with lots of greenhouse gases, why would it need to be anywhere near Mars?

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

Okay, cool. But again, why can't a Trojan be similar in size to its parent body? I'm quite curious.

 

Quote

 

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

 

 

Both of those are exactly how I planned them to look. Did you keep the moon's real terrain?

Edited December 9, 2015 by ChrisSpace

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

In that scenario the world would be much more focused on rebuilding than space exploration. And the technology at the time would be sufficient to know the comet might impact Earth, and as measurements become more and more precise the chance of an impact becomes higher and by that point the space programs are making plans even before the impact is 100% confirmed.

 

 

If Minerva has a dense atmosphere with lots of greenhouse gases, why would it need to be anywhere near Mars?

 

 

Okay, cool. But again, why can't a Trojan be similar in size to its parent body? I'm quite curious.

 

 

Both of those are exactly how I planned them to look. Did you keep the moon's real terrain?

The Moon could not look like that, as the craters would erode- not to mention less would form due to the atmosphere. It looks cool, but not entirely accurate.

 

Trojans can't be similar in size to their parent bdoies because this-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_(astronomy)

 

Still, the knowledge that the comet is about to hit Earth would be like Global Warming today- change is held back, as there is a chance that it will NOT happen. Also, who says the comet redirection will cause a pernament beginning to space colonisation, rather than temporary (Apollo Program?)

 

Minervera must still be in the habitable zone- but according to this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone#Determination_of_the_circumstellar_habitable_zone, it can be in the area of the "extended habitable zone". Large amounts are blocked off because of Jupiter and the asteroid belt, but that extended zone should make some extra room for Minervera. Thanks!

[ChrisSpace]

Still, the knowledge that the comet is about to hit Earth would be like Global Warming today- change is held back, as there is a chance that it will NOT happen. Also, who says the comet redirection will cause a pernament beginning to space colonisation, rather than temporary (Apollo Program?)

No, I never said the comet was going to be the catalyst for space expansion. It's really just a plot point to get more nations involved in space and expand the capabilities of the nations that are already in space.

Minervera must still be in the habitable zone- but according to this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone#Determination_of_the_circumstellar_habitable_zone, it can be in the area of the "extended habitable zone". Large amounts are blocked off because of Jupiter and the asteroid belt, but that extended zone should make some extra room for Minervera.

Most estimates on the thickness of the habitable zone assume the planet being used is similar-ish to Earth. For example, if we put a planet with 10 times the atmosphere of Venus further out than the HZ, it would still be too hot. If we put a highly reflective object closer in than the HZ, it would still be too cold. The only way to properly figure out how far Minerva would be from the sun is to figure things out for this specific scenario.

 

[fredinno]

7 minutes ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

No, I never said the comet was going to be the catalyst for space expansion. It's really just a plot point to get more nations involved in space and expand the capabilities of the nations that are already in space.

 

 

Most estimates on the thickness of the habitable zone assume the planet being used is similar-ish to Earth. For example, if we put a planet with 10 times the atmosphere of Venus further out than the HZ, it would still be too hot. If we put a highly reflective object closer in than the HZ, it would still be too cold. The only way to properly figure out how far Minerva would be from the sun is to figure things out for this specific scenario.

 

 

Did you read my link? Do it, then come back.

[ChrisSpace]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

 

Did you read my link? Do it, then come back.

Yes, I read the article. What did I miss?

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, ChrisSpace said:

Yes, I read the article. What did I miss?

This: "Given the large spread in the masses of planets within a circumstellar habitable zone, coupled with the discovery of super-Earth planets which can sustain thicker atmospheres and stronger magnetic fields than Earth, circumstellar habitable zones are now split into two separate regions—a "conservative habitable zone" in which lower-mass planets like Earth or Venus can remain habitable, complemented by a larger "extended habitable zone" in which super-Earth planets, with stronger greenhouse effects, can have the right temperature for liquid water to exist at the surface."

[ChrisSpace]

This: "Given the large spread in the masses of planets within a circumstellar habitable zone, coupled with the discovery of super-Earth planets which can sustain thicker atmospheres and stronger magnetic fields than Earth, circumstellar habitable zones are now split into two separate regions—a "conservative habitable zone" in which lower-mass planets like Earth or Venus can remain habitable, complemented by a larger "extended habitable zone" in which super-Earth planets, with stronger greenhouse effects, can have the right temperature for liquid water to exist at the surface."

Well Minerva is somewhere between 2.5 and 2.9 AU, which is inside some of the Extended Habitable Zone estimates. So I suppose that clears that.

[fredinno]

43 minutes ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

Well Minerva is somewhere between 2.5 and 2.9 AU, which is inside some of the Extended Habitable Zone estimates. So I suppose that clears that.

That's within the Asteroid belt, where it is impossible for planets to form because of Jupiter's gravity.

[ChrisSpace]

That's within the Asteroid belt, where it is impossible for planets to form because of Jupiter's gravity.

Did I ever say it formed there?

[silversliver]

12 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

Both of those are exactly how I planned them to look. Did you keep the moon's real terrain?

Yes because of this (semi-realistic) theory I developed:

The moon is a captured body.

It was formed beyond the snow line, between Jupiter and Saturn.

Because of that it had a lot of ice on the surface and no atmosphere.

Then it migrated to the inner solar system were it has been captured by Earth.

There the ice sublimated and formed a (temporary) atmosphere and bodies of liquid water.

I pictured this has happened around 100-200 million years before the actual time in the solar system.

This would explain various things:

• The craterisation is before the migration (no atmosphere so no protection against bolides)
• The tidal lock isn't (still) happened because of the "short" timespan since the migration and capture

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

Did I ever say it formed there?

No, during the time the planets were moving around and being arranged, Jupiter's gravity meant that objects collided with each other too hard, and the area that s the asteroid belt lost 99.9 Percent of its mass. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

Even if an object moveed there later, it probably would have eventually just shattered due to impacts with protoplanets. It's unlikely, really.

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, silversliver said:

Yes because of this (semi-realistic) theory I developed:

The moon is a captured body.

It was formed beyond the snow line, between Jupiter and Saturn.

Because of that it had a lot of ice on the surface and no atmosphere.

Then it migrated to the inner solar system were it has been captured by Earth.

There the ice sublimated and formed a (temporary) atmosphere and bodies of liquid water.

I pictured this has happened around 100-200 million years before the actual time in the solar system.

This would explain various things:

• The craterisation is before the migration (no atmosphere so no protection against bolides)
• The tidal lock isn't (still) happened because of the "short" timespan since the migration and capture

Large objects that far out still have atmospheres, like Titan- just composed mostly of nitrogen. Also, such a capture scenario is unlikely, as not only would a gas giant have to sling it into the inner system, the moon would also have to be captured by Earth, which would require it to absorb lots of orbital energy, possibly destabilising the system. Not to mention the lack of a Moon earlier would have made it much more difficult for fauna and flora to move onto land. Let's just keep things as simple as we can, ok? It's already filled with unlikely things, no need to make it more unlikely than it already is.

[silversliver]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Large objects that far out still have atmospheres, like Titan- just composed mostly of nitrogen. Also, such a capture scenario is unlikely, as not only would a gas giant have to sling it into the inner system, the moon would also have to be captured by Earth, which would require it to absorb lots of orbital energy, possibly destabilising the system. Not to mention the lack of a Moon earlier would have made it much more difficult for fauna and flora to move onto land. Let's just keep things as simple as we can, ok? It's already filled with unlikely things, no need to make it more unlikely than it already is.

Ok, keep it simple.

================================

And now Vulcan:

 

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, silversliver said:

Ok, keep it simple.

================================

And now Vulcan:

 

My version has a tail, but relatively faint, as most of the stuff that could evaporate off already has.

Edited December 9, 2015 by fredinno

[ChrisSpace]

And now Vulcan

How much time are you spending on this?

Also, micro announcement: Later today or tomorrow I'll begin posting statistics on the planets and moons for anyone who wants to simulate them.

[silversliver]

8 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

How much time are you spending on this?

Also, micro announcement: Later today or tomorrow I'll begin posting statistics on the planets and moons for anyone who wants to simulate them.

Very little, it's easier than it seems.

Also the statistic would be very useful to simulate some of the planets.

[More Boosters]

18 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

How much time are you spending on this?

Also, micro announcement: Later today or tomorrow I'll begin posting statistics on the planets and moons for anyone who wants to simulate them.

Yeah I've been waiting for this.

For atmosphere, let's just go with surface pressure eh? Universe Sandbox calculates atmosphere mass automatically.

[ChrisSpace]

Yeah I've been waiting for this.

For atmosphere, let's just go with surface pressure eh? Universe Sandbox calculates atmosphere mass automatically.

As much as i'd like to do that, my temperature calculation software has me stuck with the atmosphere's mass. If there is any way I can convert one to the other, pls let me know.

[More Boosters]

7 hours ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

As much as i'd like to do that, my temperature calculation software has me stuck with the atmosphere's mass. If there is any way I can convert one to the other, pls let me know.

Right, it involves the planet's gravity so let's go with that and see if you got a habitable pressure.

[silversliver]

Seems that I guessed right the diameter for Aurora.

Pics later.

Also it seems that I guessed wrong the diameter for Vulcan and very wrong the one for Eros.

About Vulcan there's an error. It's surface temperature can't be so low, you said that a good part of it's surface is molten and lava is around 1700-1800 °C at least. Also taken in consideration the distance from the sun and the 4x greenhouse effect the simulation says about a surface temperature around 3000-3500 °C.

Edited December 11, 2015 by silversliver

[ChrisSpace]

 

Quote

 

Seems that I guessed right the diameter for Aurora.

Pics later.

 

 

Just to give you an idea of what Aurora's surface is supposed to look like, here's one of the photographs taken on the first expedition there:

About Vulcan there's an error. It's surface temperature can't be so low, you said that a good part of it's surface is molten and lava is around 1700-1800 °C at least. Also taken in consideration the distance from the sun and the 4x greenhouse effect the simulation says about a surface temperature around 3000-3500 °C.

The temperature calculator I am using is here: http://www.astro.indiana.edu/gsimonel/temperature1.html

So if the temperature seems inaccurate then it's a problem with the calculator, or perhaps I plugged in the values wrong. Probably both.

Edited December 12, 2015 by ChrisSpace

[fredinno]

1 minute ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

Just to give you an idea of what Aurora's surface is supposed to look like, here's one of the photographs taken on the first expedition there:

What if Auora was actally a NEO, and the driver to move into space. It would be cool- it would also explain the fact that both the moon, and the impactor, are comets (well, a semi "Main-Belt Comet") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet

 

Hopefully the manned expedition is done once there is no risk to the Earth!

[ChrisSpace]

What if Auora was actally a NEO, and the driver to move into space. It would be cool- it would also explain the fact that both the moon, and the impactor, are comets (well, a semi "Main-Belt Comet") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-belt_comet

I have actually been thinking a lot about that. Unfortunately, it isn't doable. Aurora is, partially by design, far too large for humans to change its orbit regardless of what its orbiting. Also the reason i'm having it as a second moon is that I want it to be a 'stepping stone' between Lunar and Interplanetary travel, and if it is millions of kilometers away most of the time that causes problems. And another problem with having the impactor a 'Main Belt Comet' is that its tail would be less visible from Earth.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, ChrisSpace said:

 

 

I have actually been thinking a lot about that. Unfortunately, it isn't doable. Aurora is, partially by design, far too large for humans to change its orbit regardless of what its orbiting. Also the reason i'm having it as a second moon is that I want it to be a 'stepping stone' between Lunar and Interplanetary travel, and if it is millions of kilometers away most of the time that causes problems. And another problem with having the impactor a 'Main Belt Comet' is that its tail would be less visible from Earth.

The reason I think that would be a better solution is that Aurora is impossible to have under the current Earth-Luna System even with resonances and inclinations, because the Earth Gravitational Sphere of Influence is too small, and Luna too big to support a Moon for too long. Or at least that's what happened in my version of Universe Sandbox.

Edited December 12, 2015 by fredinno

[ChrisSpace]

The reason I think that would be a better solution is that Aurora is impossible to have under the current Earth-Luna System even with resonances and inclinations, because the Earth Gravitational Sphere of Influence is too small, and Luna too big to support a Moon for too long. Or at least that's what happened in my version of Universe Sandbox.

I was thinking Aurora only recently came into the Earth-Luna system within the last few thousand years. So it doesn't need to be perfectly stable, just stable for long enough for everything in the timeline to take place. If it originally formed further out that could also explain its high ice content.