Author Topic: Chunks vs. Terrestrial Classification  (Read 1841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline praguepride (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • p
  • Posts: 51
Chunks vs. Terrestrial Classification
« on: April 01, 2010, 11:54:33 AM »
Just curious, scrolling through looking at Sol's system info.

Pluto is listed as a terrestrial with 0.08 gravity and a diameter of 2,302km

However, two moons are listed as being larger but still are defined as chunks. Perhaps this leads into the "Pluto shouldn't be classified as a planet" discussion but I'm just curious what the cutoff point was:

Triton - 0.18 gravity, 2,704km diameter
Europa - 0.15 gravity, 3,130km diameter

Now Io is the smallest "terrestrial" in Sol, so I'm guessing that with these stats:

Io - 0.18 gravity, 3,660km

the cutoff is 3,500km (to keep things round)

I have no idea if this means anything, but just noticed it and thought I'd ask.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11658
  • Thanked: 20379 times
Re: Chunks vs. Terrestrial Classification
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2010, 02:15:53 AM »
Quote from: "praguepride"
Just curious, scrolling through looking at Sol's system info.

Pluto is listed as a terrestrial with 0.08 gravity and a diameter of 2,302km

However, two moons are listed as being larger but still are defined as chunks. Perhaps this leads into the "Pluto shouldn't be classified as a planet" discussion but I'm just curious what the cutoff point was:

Triton - 0.18 gravity, 2,704km diameter
Europa - 0.15 gravity, 3,130km diameter

Now Io is the smallest "terrestrial" in Sol, so I'm guessing that with these stats:

Io - 0.18 gravity, 3,660km

the cutoff is 3,500km (to keep things round)

I have no idea if this means anything, but just noticed it and thought I'd ask.
The Sol System isn't an example of Aurora's system generation as I typed it into the database :). Pluto should probably be changed to a chunk.

Steve
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Chunks vs. Terrestrial Classification
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2010, 06:22:39 AM »
And you have to add Eris ;)^^
 

Offline praguepride (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • p
  • Posts: 51
Re: Chunks vs. Terrestrial Classification
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2010, 08:25:43 AM »
Doesn't Jupiter have a new moon too?
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: Chunks vs. Terrestrial Classification
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2010, 01:11:38 PM »
Technically, Earth has three new moons . . . the largest of which is barely 30 meters across.  #:-]
 

Offline AtomikKrab

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • A
  • Posts: 125
Re: Chunks vs. Terrestrial Classification
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2010, 12:35:38 PM »
then asteriod belt should be several thousand instead of what it is, minimum size rules are good... although i'd like to see ceres.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11658
  • Thanked: 20379 times
Re: Chunks vs. Terrestrial Classification
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2010, 09:16:49 AM »
Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
then asteriod belt should be several thousand instead of what it is, minimum size rules are good... although i'd like to see ceres.
The number of asteroids is a compromise between reality and playability. Ceres is there but it isn't specifically named. Look for a 900+ km diameter asteroid in the Mars - Jupiter belt. That is Ceres.

Steve
 

Offline AtomikKrab

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • A
  • Posts: 125
Re: Chunks vs. Terrestrial Classification
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2010, 08:45:21 PM »
Asteriod #3, it had some good minerals so dropped a mining colony and renamed it :)