A ninth planet?

[RuBisCO]

So I ran the numbers my self, we would need a spacecraft averaging 47 km/s top reach this theorized planet in 20 years, if it was at perihelion, which it probably is not, if it is at its 1200 AU aphelion, we would need a spacecraft averaging 285 km/s! A Dual-Stage 4-Grid ion engine propelled spacecraft with a specific impulse of 19300 would need to be 23-79% propellant by mass to get there in 20 years.  

[KSPNewbie]

On 1/20/2016 at 9:10 AM, Spaceception said:

Caltech researchers may have found a ninth planet (Which may be a Super-Earth): http://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/150119-new-ninth-planet-solar-system-space

They actually had an article about this in my local newspaper. But I don't understand where you got the second earth thing from. It's supposed to be a gas giant like Jupiter....

[Findthepin1]

25 minutes ago, KSPNewbie said:

They actually had an article about this in my local newspaper. But I don't understand where you got the second earth thing from. It's supposed to be a gas giant like Jupiter....

It can't be that big because if it were we'd know about it already. Through WISE and such. Its effect on the other objects limits its mass to about 10 Earths or a small ice giant. About 1/32 the mass of Jupiter. 

[KerikBalm]

8 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

The test ban treaties killed Orion, you call that progress? 

I call this, post PTBT, progress:

Caption: Atmospheric ¹⁴C, New Zealand[1] and Austria.[2] The New Zealand curve is representative for the Southern Hemisphere, the Austrian curve is representative for the Northern Hemisphere. Atmospheric nuclear weapon tests almost doubled the concentration of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere.[3] The delay of some years after the test ban of the peak on the Southern Hemisphere can be explained by the time for the propagation of carbon-14 from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere.

Treaties can always be re-negotiated, and if they wanted to, they could try and renegotiate for the permission to explode nuclear devices in spaace as long as the explosion is sufficiently far away

 

 

Edited January 23, 2016 by KerikBalm

[K^2]

35 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Austrian curve is representative for the Northern Hemisphere.

You'll have to explain that one.

[Pawelk198604]

Today I read an article about it in the newspaper "Fakt" is the most famous Polish tabloid, so I thought it's a hoax

Does is true? Does new planet is really possible?

 

I have heard stories about the planet Nibiru, probably inhabited by aliens, which has a very eccentric orbit and back to the center of the solar system every 20 thousand years? Could this be this planet?

I wonder if such planet X exist it need have nice speed ad perihelion

 

 

 

[legoclone09]

6 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

Today I read an article about it in the newspaper "Fakt" is the most famous Polish tabloid, so I thought it's a hoax

Does is true? Does new planet is really possible?

 

I have heard stories about the planet Nibiru, probably inhabited by aliens, which has a very eccentric orbit and back to the center of the solar system every 20 thousand years? Could this be this planet?

I wonder if such planet X exist it need have nice speed ad perihelion

 

 

 

It's not like the conspiracy theory Nibiru, it's hypothesized perihelion is 200 AU and hypothesized aphelion is 1200. It won't come anywhere close the the center of the solar system. If it was the Planet X conspiracy theorists talk about it would ruin the whole solar system in a blink (relative to the age of the solar system).

Edited January 23, 2016 by legoclone09

[Pawelk198604]

21 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

It's not like the conspiracy theory Nibiru, it's hypothesized perihelion is 200 AU and hypothesized aphelion is 1200. It won't come anywhere close the the center of the solar system. If it was the Planet X conspiracy theorists talk about it would ruin the whole solar system in a blink (relative to the age of the solar system).

 

Ruin how?

I must admit even trough i'm like KSP and love astronomy i'm not good at math

Can you explain?

[Nothalogh]

9 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I call this, post PTBT, progress:

Caption: Atmospheric ¹⁴C, New Zealand[1] and Austria.[2] The New Zealand curve is representative for the Southern Hemisphere, the Austrian curve is representative for the Northern Hemisphere. Atmospheric nuclear weapon tests almost doubled the concentration of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere.[3] The delay of some years after the test ban of the peak on the Southern Hemisphere can be explained by the time for the propagation of carbon-14 from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere.

Treaties can always be re-negotiated, and if they wanted to, they could try and renegotiate for the permission to explode nuclear devices in spaace as long as the explosion is sufficiently far away

 

 

Orion, as designed, would produce minimal fallout. It's not very comparable to weapons testing 

[Camacha]

On 20/01/2016 at 6:23 PM, Findthepin1 said:

Cool! This means there's an 0.007% chance of there not being a planet-sized object out there. Isn't this still a dwarf planet? It obviously hasn't cleared its orbit. Also, I thought something like this might happen. See here. Also also, 10 Earth masses isn't a super-Earth. That's likely a small ice giant.

 

If this thing turns out to be real, and it has not cleared its orbit, the whole Pluto/planet/orbit discussion is going to be held all over again. Obviously you cannot have a definition with a huge planet not being an actual planet, so it will be interesting to see what contrived definition will surface this time

[KerikBalm]

26 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

Orion, as designed, would produce minimal fallout. It's not very comparable to weapons testing 

Not if you went nuclear from the ground, as opposed to using chemical to get to orbit... I suggested both options, and mentioned the second is pretty bad, then someone seemed to deny the PTBT constituted "progress", so I had to show the progress... dramatically decreasing 14C atmospheric levels (as opposed to even more dramatic increasing levels)

[Nothalogh]

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Not if you went nuclear from the ground, as opposed to using chemical to get to orbit... I suggested both options, and mentioned the second is pretty bad, then someone seemed to deny the PTBT constituted "progress", so I had to show the progress... dramatically decreasing 14C atmospheric levels (as opposed to even more dramatic increasing levels)

There are two approaches to mitigate ground effect fallout, ocean surface launch, or a graphite coated launchpad.

As for chemical boosted Orion, that's like using a horse to get your car up to 20mph before engaging the engine.

 

And, again, you're trying to compare weapons testing to the use of pulse propulsion devices, it's disingenuous at best

Edited January 23, 2016 by Nothalogh

[legoclone09]

6 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

 

Ruin how?

I must admit even trough i'm like KSP and love astronomy i'm not good at math

Can you explain?

By ruin I mean the gravity from it will send all the planets into elliptical orbits and destabilize many of them, people have done it in Universe Sandbox, and there is probably a youtube video about it.

[Pawelk198604]

2 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

By ruin I mean the gravity from it will send all the planets into elliptical orbits and destabilize many of them, people have done it in Universe Sandbox, and there is probably a youtube video about it.

 

Thanks i forget about gravity force, thanks again

 

Edited January 24, 2016 by Pawelk198604

[Rdivine]

20 hours ago, Camacha said:

If this thing turns out to be real, and it has not cleared its orbit, the whole Pluto/planet/orbit discussion is going to be held all over again. Obviously you cannot have a definition with a huge planet not being an actual planet, so it will be interesting to see what contrived definition will surface this time

I've wondered, what if we hit that 0.007% of it not existing at all? There's always a chance  

[Spaceception]

21 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Not if you went nuclear from the ground, as opposed to using chemical to get to orbit... I suggested both options, and mentioned the second is pretty bad, then someone seemed to deny the PTBT constituted "progress", so I had to show the progress... dramatically decreasing 14C atmospheric levels (as opposed to even more dramatic increasing levels)

@Nothalogh I don't know where the Orion discussion began, but could you carry on in a existing Orion thread, or make one yourself?

[PB666]

On January 21, 2016 at 6:10 PM, K^2 said:

I haven't read the paper yet, but I'd like to think the sort of people who can build the model necessary to show the correlation would also do the work necessary to distinguish between a transit and periodic source. It's basically going to be the first thing that pops into anyone's head, so not doing the legwork to check for it before announcing that there is a planet there would be quite irresponsible. Not to mention, make it very hard for the paper to pass peer review.

But I reserve the right to flip on this once I actually get the time to read the paper in full.

There are not many referees out there capable of a proper critique of their logic, models and the algorithym that could solve the long term dynamics.  This is going to be critqued in the literature by someone else who either uses a different approach. 

[PB666]

On January 23, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Pawelk198604 said:

Today I read an article about it in the newspaper "Fakt" is the most famous Polish tabloid, so I thought it's a hoax

Does is true? Does new planet is really possible?

 

I have heard stories about the planet Nibiru, probably inhabited by aliens, which has a very eccentric orbit and back to the center of the solar system every 20 thousand years? Could this be this planet?

I wonder if such planet X exist it need have nice speed ad perihelion

 

 

 

Is a new planet possible, nope, newly discovered, not yet? Is a 5 billion year old ice wanderer possible?, sure. Can ther be even larger wanderers futher out?, sure. Relevance at some point becomes the issue. At its apogee this think would be traveling at residential speeds, which in the grand scheme of the galaxy is one close approach away from being extrasolar planet. 

"Does" correlates with making, its the action of something. "Is" or "being" correlates with existance, placement or state. For example ...... I am excited there might be a new planet. It is in the kuiper belt, but Mercury is a planet. For example you could say "Does the possiblility exist that we might discover a new planet" (the editor of some journal would be cringing at the unnecessay verbosity). The action is existance. "It exists", but becareful not to canonize it, as past attempts have resulted in many imposters, wars, etc. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by PB666

[Pawelk198604]

4 hours ago, PB666 said:

Is a new planet possible, nope, newly discovered, not yet? Is a 5 billion year old ice wanderer possible?, sure. Can ther be even larger wanderers futher out?, sure. Relevance at some point becomes the issue. At its apogee this think would be traveling at residential speeds, which in the grand scheme of the galaxy is one close approach away from being extrasolar planet. 

"Does" correlates with making, its the action of something. "Is" or "being" correlates with existance, placement or state. For example ...... I am excited there might be a new planet. It is in the kuiper belt, but Mercury is a planet. For example you could say "Does the possiblility exist that we might discover a new planet" (the editor of some journal would be cringing at the unnecessay verbosity). The action is existance. "It exists", but becareful not to canonize it, as past attempts have resulted in many imposters, wars, etc. 

So you say it's Rouge Planet???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet

 

Cool

 

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, PB666 said:

Is a new planet possible, nope, newly discovered, not yet? Is a 5 billion year old ice wanderer possible?, sure. Can ther be even larger wanderers futher out?, sure. Relevance at some point becomes the issue. At its apogee this think would be traveling at residential speeds, which in the grand scheme of the galaxy is one close approach away from being extrasolar planet. 

"Does" correlates with making, its the action of something. "Is" or "being" correlates with existance, placement or state. For example ...... I am excited there might be a new planet. It is in the kuiper belt, but Mercury is a planet. For example you could say "Does the possiblility exist that we might discover a new planet" (the editor of some journal would be cringing at the unnecessay verbosity). The action is existance. "It exists", but becareful not to canonize it, as past attempts have resulted in many imposters, wars, etc. 

They did an infrared scan who would show any gas giant out to 1 light year or something, at this distance the orbit would be pretty unstable over billion of years because you would sometimes get close as in 1 lightyear passes of other stars rotating around the milky way dozens of times. 
Ice giants like Neptune is possible, not gas giants.  

Pluto is smaller than the moon and significantly lighter as its mostly ice. 
http://pics-about-space.com/planet-pluto-compared-to-earth?p=1#
Shows the size of planets and large moons, also show know cupier belt dwarf planets. 

[KerikBalm]

On 1/23/2016 at 10:05 PM, Nothalogh said:

There are two approaches to mitigate ground effect fallout, ocean surface launch, or a graphite coated launchpad.

As for chemical boosted Orion, that's like using a horse to get your car up to 20mph before engaging the engine.

 

And, again, you're trying to compare weapons testing to the use of pulse propulsion devices, it's disingenuous at best

Maybe its because its outside of my field of expertise... but I don't understand how that is going to help much.

Would it not detonate more than one pulse unit on ascent? Water or a launchpad may do something to help with the first unit, but would be irrelevant for subsequent ones. There are two concerns for fallout, one is fallout in the immediate area, like the mistakes that were made with bikini atol. The other is global worldwide fallout. The PTBT was to prevent the 2nd, not the first. The text basically permits a nation to irradiate itself, its just not allowed for the radiactive stuff to go outside its borders.

High altitude detonations would affect the worldwide radiation levels. The pulse units, as far as I know, wouldn't be much "cleaner" than a standard nuke. As I understand it, relative to explosive power, bombs get "dirtier" as they get smaller. The Tsar bomba was "clean" relative to its size because it was mostly fusion power, whereas smaller weapons are boosted fission or pure fission. An orion wouldn't be going up with Tsar bomba pulse units...

Sure... 1 orion launch won't be equivalent to the entire cold war weapons testing program... but would they build one orion and then never use it again? No.

WWII and earlier steel would become even more valuable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel

[K^2]

I'm going to put my two cents in, as a nuclear physicist. Launching an Orion-like craft from Earth using nuclear pulse propulsion would be stupidly irresponsible. Orbital assembly is pretty much the only way to go with one of these, and even then, we want to be well clear of LEO before engaging NPP.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, K^2 said:

I'm going to put my two cents in, as a nuclear physicist. Launching an Orion-like craft from Earth using nuclear pulse propulsion would be stupidly irresponsible. Orbital assembly is pretty much the only way to go with one of these, and even then, we want to be well clear of LEO before engaging NPP.

Agree here, not only fallout but also that happen if something fails, say the bomb dispenser fails during gravity turn. 
An orbital assembled Orion has the issue that its only practical if you want an massive ship or high acceleration. 

[Just Jim]

15 minutes ago, llanthas said:

Sorry, but didn't we already rule out a Planet X decades ago?  "The orbits wouldn't work" was the explanation, I believe....  Now the 'orbits wouldn't work' without it?  Make up your minds!

This is what I keep asking..... all my life I've heard this same argument back and forth.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just want more proof.... a fuzzy picture would do nicely.  Just something more than math that seems to go back and forth over the years.

As for a name... I believe H.P. Lovecraft named it first:

Yuggoth... is a strange dark orb at the very rim of our solar system... There are mighty cities on Yuggoth—great tiers of terraced towers built of black stone... The sun shines there no brighter than a star, but the beings need no light. They have other subtler senses, and put no windows in their great houses and temples... The black rivers of pitch that flow under those mysterious cyclopean bridges—things built by some elder race extinct and forgotten before the beings came to Yuggoth from the ultimate voids—ought to be enough to make any man a Dante or Poe if he can keep sane long enough to tell what he has seen...
—H. P. Lovecraft, " The Whisperer in Darkness"  published in Weird Tales Aug. 1931

It's name is, and always will be, Yuggoth!!!

[K^2]

2 hours ago, llanthas said:

Sorry, but didn't we already rule out a Planet X decades ago?  "The orbits wouldn't work" was the explanation, I believe....  Now the 'orbits wouldn't work' without it?  Make up your minds!

You are thinking of Nemesis hypothesis of periodic mass extinctions, which is ruled out by the fact that the entire outer system would be thrown into disarray over time.

Nobody has ever ruled out Planet X, because that's absolutely impossible to do. We can rule out a very large planet, and we can rule out a bunch of orbits. But you can't rule out something of planetary size in the entirety of trans-Neptunian space. That's worse than finding needle in the haystack. It's like trying to prove it's not there.

Nine, on the other hand, has pretty decent support by now. It's more likely that we'll find it than that we do not.