Scary thought: Has Kerbin been demoted by .23.5?

[Tex]

The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, ( has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and © has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, ( has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], © has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and

(d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects [3], except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

Source: http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/

If what the International Astronomical Union is held is true, here is my question:

Because of the addition of asteroids has resulted in Kerbin's orbit becoming cluttered with many, many small bodies, has Kerbin been downgraded to a dwarf planet?

It certainly fits all of the criteria, and especially with the asteroids all orbiting in extremely close proximity to Kerbin, do you think that it has lost it's ability to be called a standard planet?

[Tw1]

This is something I've been wondering about too.

[NecroBones]

I think the answer is yes. Heh

[SargeRho]

Kerbin gravitationally dominates its orbit, so it's still a planet.

[r4pt0r]

saturn has not cleared its surrounding area right? is it not a planet?

[Tex]

Kerbin gravitationally dominates its orbit, so it's still a planet.

True, but read the definition. Kerbin's orbit isn't cleared anymore. Even asteroids gravitationally affect each other (at least IRL), so gravity doesn't play a part in it.

[Captain Sierra]

IRL there's plenty of asteroids that make flybys of the earth every year. Does this make US not a planet? Didn't think so. I don't think Kerbin is getting demoted any times soon.

[cantab]

No, because clearing the neighbourhood does not mean getting rid of every little bit of gravel - otherwise there'd be no planets at all.

[Tex]

Ah, but what about these large objects? Any ol' E-Class would cause widespread destruction and extinction on a hypothetically life-harboring Kerbin. The proportion of dangerous space bodies that are aligned in and about Kerbin's orbit is many, many times higher than there are around Earth's orbit. Of course it would be impossible to clear absolutely everything, but the things that are already there have to be taken into account.

I think I like the direction this thread is taking! Much critical thinking. Very answers.

[Kerbonautical]

This whole new classification system seems rather obtuse to me actually as it stands. As someone previously mentioned this complicates the status of Saturn, but it further complicates things by classifying anything that has failed to clear the debris field so far as not a planet, however most will likely clear the debris field in time, after all it's an ongoing process that we're still observing when offered the few opportunities to.

I don't claim to have a good understanding of all this sort of stuff, but couldn't for instance, Saturn be explained due to it's distance? whereas it is clearer at Earth where objects are moving considerably faster and so collisions would be more frequent and the process would happen much more rapidly than say, at the distance of Saturn. Leaving the conclusion that Saturn will likely clear the surrounding area in time, just not perhaps in our time as a species.

This is just me speculating of course, I'm sure there are some members here who can explain all this in a way that makes sense, but I can't wrap my head around the new category classification system personally.

[psyper]

Even earth IRL has trojan moons and asteroids in the same orbit and is still considered a planet. I think there is a percentage threshold of mass in ratio to the planet for it to be downgraded. Kerbin and earth are still planets

[Twreed87]

No. There are plenty of Near-Earth asteroids just like in KSP, and Earth is still a planet. You can tell because this patch is based off a real world mission. Therefore, if these conditions, introduced in .23.5, render Kerbin no longer a planet, the same would apply to Earth.

These asteroids are tiny. Now, if something like Dres was floating around the same orbit as Kerbin, it'd be a different story.

[Superfluous J]

The KSP definition of "Planet" is not the same as our definition here in reality.

KSP planets are on-rails entities whose parent sphere of influence is the local star (in the game's current state they are all orbiting Sun). KSP moons are on-rails entities whose parent sphere of influence is a planet.

[cantab]

Ah, but what about these large objects? Any ol' E-Class would cause widespread destruction and extinction on a hypothetically life-harboring Kerbin.

It's been discussed a few times that no, they won't.

The proportion of dangerous space bodies that are aligned in and about Kerbin's orbit is many, many times higher than there are around Earth's orbit. Of course it would be impossible to clear absolutely everything, but the things that are already there have to be taken into account.

Kerbin's vicinity seems more cluttered than Earth, but it would still take several quadrillion big E classes to come even close to Kerbin's mass. Even with unlimited computer resources, I doubt you could get that many in your game before the real-world Sun expands into a red giant.

[Arsonik]

If you install Real Solar System mod, track a bunch of asteroids, and then delete the mod.... The asteroids you tracked have a stable orbit similar to that of Jool around the sun. Have fun making asteroid fields.

[regex]

If you install Real Solar System mod, track a bunch of asteroids, and then delete the mod.... The asteroids you tracked have a stable orbit similar to that of Jool around the sun. Have fun making asteroid fields.

Or you could install a mod specifically designed to make asteroid belts. Or not, if you prefer the Mickey Mouse approach.

[Arsonik]

Nice regex! I don't ever check Adon Development. I only browse showcase for mod updates and the occasional new mod.

Thanks for sharing. Although I was pretty psyched when I found out you can force asteroids in my way

[benschwab]

Keep in mind that Kerbals don't use the International Astronomical Union definitions but rather those of the Kerbal Astronomical Society which has... different standards.

[regex]

Nice regex! I don't ever check Adon Development. I only browse showcase for mod updates and the occasional new mod.

Thanks for sharing. Although I was pretty psyched when I found out you can force asteroids in my way

No worries. I thought you might want a more permanent solution than twiddling the RSS install.

[HeadHunter67]

Any ol' E-Class would cause widespread destruction and extinction on a hypothetically life-harboring Kerbin.

I'm sorry, but that's blatantly incorrect. A Class-E asteroid is 18 meters. One that size hit Chelyabinsk last year. Far from wiping out all life on Earth, it didn't even wipe out all life in Chelyabinsk.

Just because small debris of this sort passes through Kerbin's orbit (much the same way as a number of relatively-sized objects pass through Earth's orbit without collision), does not mean Kerbin has not cleared its neighborhood.

[Mesons]

I'm sorry, but that's blatantly incorrect. A Class-E asteroid is 18 meters. One that size hit Chelyabinsk last year. Far from wiping out all life on Earth, it didn't even wipe out all life in Chelyabinsk.

Just because small debris of this sort passes through Kerbin's orbit (much the same way as a number of relatively-sized objects pass through Earth's orbit without collision), does not mean Kerbin has not cleared its neighborhood.

I agree. What should we define to be Kerbin's neighborhood, anyways? It's SOI? Unless you track an asteroid, they always disappear upon entering Kerbin's SOI, so making this choice would see Kerbin as a planet in the IAU's eyes. I think the problem with the IAU planet definition as it applies to Kerbin is that the planet definition is not as specific as it needs to be to objectively apply it to actual celestial bodies, real or imagined. Perhaps "neighborhood around its orbit" is defined in another IAU publication (or earlier in the one where this excerpt was found?), but in order to know where a body like Kerbin fits in that phrase needs to be well-defined as well.

I consider Kerbin a planet regardless of what the IAU says.

[boxman]

Source: http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/

If what the International Astronomical Union is held is true, here is my question:

Because of the addition of asteroids has resulted in Kerbin's orbit becoming cluttered with many, many small bodies, has Kerbin been downgraded to a dwarf planet?

It certainly fits all of the criteria, and especially with the asteroids all orbiting in extremely close proximity to Kerbin, do you think that it has lost it's ability to be called a standard planet?

There are even more asteroids in near earth orbit than there is in KSP. Just today there are at least two close encounters with asteroids of the size of 67-220meters~

[The Jedi Master]

It's the biggest thing in it's local system. It's a planet.

[G'th]

The qualifier of a clear orbit is meant to rule out objects that don't have the sufficient mass to make it self more distinctive from the piles of crap its floating in. IE, the exact situation of the Kuiper belt, which Pluto is a part of. This is why its called a dwarf planet, because its big enough to have be formed like a planet or a typical moon, but not large enough to really be that distinct from the thousands of other similarly sized objects around it. This is why Saturn isn't a problem, because the gas giant itself is very distinctive from the extremely small material (the largest bits are only meters across) in its rings. That, and Saturn's rings are a very different phenomenon from whats going on in the Kuiper belt.

Anyway, the way asteroids occur in the game seems to be more due to game limitations than anything else. There's no reason asteroids would only come near a single body in a solar system unless its some kind of super dense black hole, and at that point its going to be dragging everything in the system towards it. I don't think the way asteroids are presented should be taken as an accurate simulation, even with the Kerbal planets being way denser than they should be.

[FenrirWolf]

Keep in mind that Kerbals don't use the International Astronomical Union definitions but rather those of the Kerbal Astronomical Society which has... different standards.

lol ain't that the truth.