|
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
|
|
| DevonX | Date: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 12:05 | Message # 31 |
 Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) Superterra - between 3.0 and 10.0 Earth's mass
Terra - between 0.5 and 3.0 Earth's mass
Subterra - between 0.01 and 0.5 Earth's mass
I like this idea allot. This makes it faster to find the planet you are looking for. But this should only be applied to planes that is already classified as terras, as a sub genre. (current classification)
Edited by DevonX - Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 12:08 |
| |
| |
| curiousepic | Date: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 14:54 | Message # 32 |
 Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
| I do like splitting terras into sub- and super-. But is there a programming reason you don't want two-word descriptors, like "very hot" and "arid terra"? I think many of us prefer this to using obscure words like "calid". I like "arid terra" for desert and "oceanic terra" for oceania.
When talking about whether a world is frozen or not - it would depend on the composition, right? Worlds with different atmospheres will have a frozen surface at different temperatures. So it might be best to not use "icy" and "frozen"; another reason to shift the scale and use "very cold". Also "cold/very cold oceanic terra" instead of "ice world" or "titan/titanian".
But again, do you not anticipate that changing the planet formation simulation will necessitate changing the classifications?
My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
Edited by curiousepic - Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 15:14 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 18:20 | Message # 33 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (curiousepic) But again, do you not anticipate that changing the planet formation simulation will necessitate changing the classifications?
Classification is needed for surface texture generation system. For now it has 6 different types:
star
gas giant clouds layer
terrestrial clouds layes
terra surface (terra, desert, oceania)
selena surface (selena, ice world)
asteroid
Combining them into one will make the shader too huge - it won't compile on some computers.
Quote (curiousepic) I do like splitting terras into sub- and super-. But is there a programming reason you don't want two-word descriptors, like "very hot" and "arid terra"? I think many of us prefer this to using obscure words like "calid". I like "arid terra" for desert and "oceanic terra" for oceania.
I simply dislike descriptions that are too long. It will be much better if any word in the description made special sense, for example "warm desert": "warm" is the temperature class, "desert" is the surface class. If we add double-word classnames, it will look like "very warm arid terra": "very warm" is the temperature class, "arid terra" is the surface class...
BTW, Mars is a desert, but not arid, because it has a lot of water in the form of ice. How do you suggest to name this planet?
Quote (curiousepic) Also "cold/very cold oceanic terra" instead of "ice world" or "titan/titanian".
I dislike that too. Naming of icy moon "cold oceanic terra" is wierd...
*
|
| |
| |
| Talisman | Date: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 19:25 | Message # 34 |
 Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 409
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) Gas giant (or Giant) - greater than 100 Earth's mass
Ice giant (or Subgiant) - between 10 and 100 Earth's mass
Superterra - between 3.0 and 10.0 Earth's mass
Terra - between 0.5 and 3.0 Earth's mass
Subterra - between 0.01 and 0.5 Earth's mass
Selena (or Dwarf) - between 0.0001 and 0.01 Earth's mass
Asteroid - lower than 0.0001 Earth's mass
Yes, I like this. And I think temperature classifications are fine. The more the better in my opinion.
Also, Frozen would be much better then cryogenic.
Also, I like the terra classifications, perhaps also have one for terra's (or desert) planets that have frozen over, some planets may be in a sort of ice age, where life is still suitable, they could be called "Ice Terra" or "Winter Terra" or Arctic, Boreal, or Glacial Terra.
I think there should be many more different planet classifications. 
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 20:12 | Message # 35 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (Talisman) Also, I like the terra classifications, perhaps also have one for terra's (or desert) planets that have frozen over, some planets may be in a sort of ice age, where life is still suitable, they could be called "Ice Terra" or "Winter Terra" or Arctic, Boreal, or Glacial Terra.
So, Mars should be called "Cool arid glacial subterra": it's cool, and has no huge amount of water, all the water is frozen (and enveloped with dust), and it's a small terrestrial planet.
Earth is a "Temperate normal (?) terra"
Venus is a "Warm arid desert"
*
|
| |
| |
| DevonX | Date: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 21:47 | Message # 36 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) Earth is "Temperate normal (?) terra" |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 22:56 | Message # 37 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (DevonX) Earth is "Temperate normal (?) terra"
Temperate habitable terra. I like the other names too ^^
How to name non-arid, non-wet, non-glacier, non-water, non-habitable, and all other "non" terras? "Normal" is bad a class name.
*
|
| |
| |
| DevonX | Date: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 23:59 | Message # 38 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
| non-arid: floressent or something like that, non-wet not shure what you are meaning by that. non-glacier: need to think about this one, non-water: dry ?, inhabitable terra. I think its just to find the right names on the non terras 
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 12:26 | Message # 39 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) How to name non-arid, non-wet, non-glacier, non-water, non-habitable, and all other "non" terras?
What would such a world be like? If it's not arid, then must it not be glacial/wet/water?
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| gpaw5765 | Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 13:52 | Message # 40 |
 Astronaut
Group: Users
Spain
Messages: 40
Status: Offline
| I think a good way to classify planets could be by using three attributes (Temperature, Composition and Size) and using one descriptor for each attribute:
Temperature:
Hot
Warm
Calid
Temperate
Cool
Cold
Very Cold
Composition:
Gas
Ice
Methane/Hydrocarbonic
Oceanic/Water
Oxygen/Fertile/Rocky/Wet
Iron
Desert/Barren/Arid
Size:
Giant
Subgiant
Superterra
Terra
Subterra
Selena
Asteroid
Using this system any planet and moon could be classified easyly, although more descriptors may need to be added for the "Composition" attribute. I particularly don't like the descriptors I've put for the Earth's composition, but I coudn't think of anything better. Of course some combinations would be impossible: for example a Gas Subterra cannot exist because the planet's gravity couldn't hold the atmosphere, etc.
In this classification, the main bodies of the solar system would be more or less like this:
Mecury: Hot Iron Subterra
Venus: Hot Iron Terra
Earth: Temperate Fertile Terra
Moon: Cold Desert Selena
Mars: Cool Desert Subterra
Jupiter: Cold Gas Giant
Saturn: Cold Gas Subgiant
Titan: Cold Hydrocarbonic Subterra
Uranus/Neptune: Very Cold Ice Subgiant
This system for planet classification has the advantage of being more flexible than having a small group of predefined planet types.
Check my Space Flight Simulator for Android!
|
| |
| |
| DevonX | Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 14:22 | Message # 41 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
| Quote (gpaw5765) I think a good way to classify planets could be by using three attributes (Temperature, Composition and Size) and using one descriptor for each attribute:
But this dont cover if the planet is habitable or not.
Quote (gpaw5765) Size:
Giant
Subgiant
Superterra
Terra
Subterra
Selena
Asteroid
I dont think you should use terra as a size parameter as the word terra defines the composition of the planet.
Edited by DevonX - Thursday, 29.12.2011, 14:33 |
| |
| |
| Chris | Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 16:53 | Message # 42 |
 Space Tourist
Group: Users
Denmark
Messages: 22
Status: Offline
| This planetary formation simulation is the feature i'm looking the most forward to seeing.
Along with the classification of planets you decide to use, you could add a single number to the terrestrial planets, to easily decribe the earth similarity.
I definately think the (ESI) would be useful for that purpose.
Once the more important work is done, and you start working on UI.
I think a good tool for the user would be to let them set their own weight exponents for the various properties of a planet.
The end result would be read as a single number like the Earth Similarity Index, tailormade for just the search the user has in mind.
Funny how interesting this cassification discussion is.
Temperature.
Hot, More than 127C. No chance of life.
Warm, 27C to 127C. Class for extremophiles.
Temperate, -23C to 27C. Habitable for man.
Cold, -73C to -23C. Class for extremopiles.
Very Cold, Less than -73C. No chance of life.
Class.Mass. Atmo. Composition. Surface Water.
Asterioid. Mass. Less than 0.0001. No Atmo. Composition. Silicate, Iron. Less than 50% Ice.
-Icy(Comet). Composition. Silicate, Iron. More than 50% Ice.
Selena. Mass. 0.0001 to 0.01. No Atmo. Composition. Silicate, Iron. Less than 50% Ice.
-Icy. Composition. Silicate, Iron. More than 50% Ice.
Subterra. Mass 0.01 to 0.5. Atmo. Composition. Silicate, Iron or Ice. Surface Water. 10% to 50% Water.
Terra. Mass 0.5 to 3. Atmo. Composition. Silicate, Iron or Ice. Surface Water. 10% to 50% Water.
Superterra. Mass 3 to 10. Composition. Atmo. Silicate, Iron or Ice. Surface Water. 10% to 50% Water.
Icy. Surface Water. More than 50% Ice.
Arid. Surface Water. Less than 10% Water.
Oceanic. Surface Water. More than 50% Water.
Ice Subgiant. Mass. 10 to 100. Atmo. Composition. More than 80% Water, Ammonia.
Gas Giant. Mass. More than 100. Atmo. Composition. More than 80% Hydrogen, Helium.
Class Terra = Atmo
Subclasses Icy, Arid and Oceanic are related to surface water availability, not interior compositon. Life or habitability is the objective.
Class Selena = No Atmo
Subclass Icy, related to interior compositon for Asteroid and Selena classes.
Using the above..
Mercury. Hot Arid Subterra.
Venus. Hot Arid Terra.
Earth's Twin. Temperate Terra with Life.
Mars. Cold Arid Subterra. Water may be present but not in liquid state.
Europa. Very Cold Icy Selena. Posibly an Oceanic microterra, certainly covered by an ice crust.
Titan. Very Cold Subterra. Pools of liquids present, not water.
Quote But the subdivision is based not only on mass, but on relative amount of various materials too (this info wll be generated by new planetary system generator). I.e. if Superterra has 15% of its mass in form of hydrogen-helium atmosphere, it becomes an Ice giant. This classification doesn't show composition of a planet, I.e. Titan and Mars will be called "Subterra", despite the huge difference in their nature. Venus and Earth will be called "Terra" too... I like to have a separate class called "Terra" for Earth-like planets, almost Earth's twins.
I'd separate Selenas from Subterras at the point where the mass is too low to retain a breathable atmosphere for man.
That way terra does become very common, if you want to reserve them for earth's twin's i understand.
But on the other hand terrestrial does mean solid bodies as opposed to gasseous bodies like Gas giants.
A way to go around the problem could be to create two classes Terrestrial and Gasseous, related to interior composition only, not mass.
Then put in the other classes we have above, accordingly.
Terrestrial
-Asteroid
-Selena
-Subterra
-Terra
-Superterra
Gasseous
-Subgiant
-Giant
I have no better idea how to separate Venus and Earth than to do it with a (ESI) or make the user read the detailed data window.
Can't think of a fitting class name or system.
Core i7 920 @2.67 GHz, AsRock x58 Deluxe, 3x2GB DDR3 1066MHz RAM, GeForce GTX 560 Ti DCII 1024 Mb VRAM, Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
|
| |
| |
| gpaw5765 | Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 17:59 | Message # 43 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
Spain
Messages: 40
Status: Offline
| Quote (DevonX) But this dont cover if the planet is habitable or not.
Wether the planet is habitable or not would depend on all 3 attributes being suitable for (human) life. The requirements would be:
Temperature: Calid, Temperate or Warm
Size: Subterra, Terra or Superterra
Composition: ? (not sure about this one, probably SpaceEngineer knows better the kind of composition we are likely to find on planets, and which ones would be suitable for life.
Quote (DevonX) I dont think you should use terra as a size parameter as the word terra defines the composition of the planet.
I'm using it to describe the size of the planet and not the composition. I think this is the way it is commonly used in astronomy when referring to extrasolar planets, as there's no information whatsoever on the composition of those planets.
Quote (Chris) But on the other hand terrestrial does mean solid bodies as opposed to gasseous bodies like Gas giants. A way to go around the problem could be to create two classes Terrestrial and Gasseous, related to interior composition only, not mass.
I don't think that's necessary, as Gasseous planets are impossible in planets as "small" as a Superterra (not enough gravity to hold the gas). Only possible Gasseous planets are Gas Giant and Gas Subgiant.
Check my Space Flight Simulator for Android!
|
| |
| |
| DevonX | Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 19:02 | Message # 44 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
| Quote (gpaw5765) Wether the planet is habitable or not would depend on all 3 attributes being suitable for (human) life.......
I still don't think its necessary to classify the planet on size more than the radius is already doing.
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 19:13 | Message # 45 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (DevonX) But this dont cover if the planet is habitable or not.
Life is an "option" for a planet - it will be mentioned in class description as words "with life". Also, additional words can be:
- With life
- Volcanic
- Tidal-locked
gpaw5765, Chris, you are close to system that I am search for!
I think composition reading should be based on minerals that can be found on a planet's surface, and data on the mean density of the planet. There are two rasons for this:
1) Actually we can't directly detect minerals in a planet's interior, only on its surface. We say that Earth has an iron core, because the mean density of Earth is about 5 g/cm3 - it can't be for example, ice. We say that Ganymede has a silicate core, because its mean density is about 2 g/cm3, and the surface is composed of ice - so its interior should be composed of ice and/or silicates.
2) In game, the player will not be interested on composition of planet's interior - so long as he cannot have access to it for mining. So his interests will be focused on the surface and not very deep in crust interior.
So there's the dilemma. For example, take a "Snowball Earth". This is a rocky planet with an iron core, with relatively small oceans on its surface (10-4 of the total planet's mass). Based on surface type classification, and if water is liquid, this planet should be classified as "Temperate silicate wet terra". But if all oceans are frozen, and all continents are covered with glaciers and snow, it will looks like an icy planet, and should be called "Cold icy arid terra" (here "arid" means that this icy world would have no hydrocarbonate "hydrosphere"). But this is confusing - the planet is "built" with iron and silicates; water or ice is only a small thin peel on its surface. The planet's mean density is about 5 g/cm3 - this immediately gives the idea that it cannot be an icy world. We should take into account the internal structure of a planet. So in the first example it will be "Temperate silicate wet terra", and in the second case a "Cold silicate frozen terra".
I suggest adding a class Supergiant or Superjovian for gas giant that is more massive than 3-5 Jupiters (by analog of Superterra). And maybe an adjective ("Terrestrial") is more suitable than a noun ("Terra"). So, the mass classes will be:
- Asteroid
- Selena / Dwarf
- Subterra / Subterrestrial
- Terra / Terrestrial
- Superterra / Superterrestrial
- Subgiant / Subjovian
- Giant / Jovian
- Supergiant / Superjovian
- Brown dwarf <-- this is actually a star
Temperature classes maybe like the current system or even as a more shorter version:
- Hot
- Warm
- Temperate
- Cold
- Very cold
Internal structure type ("Ices" is either water/ammonia/methane and other volatiles, and can be subdivided on several subclasses):
Core:
- Iron
- Silicates
- Ices
Mantle:
- Iron
- Silicates
- Ices
Crust
- Iron
- Silicates
- Ices
Surface types: This is the most difficult part. One can base this classification on most remarkable impurity to crust material ("ocean"). For example, Earth and Mars have silicate crust and water as an impurity, Titan has a water crust and hydrocarbons as an impurity.
- Water (either liquid and ice)
- Hydrocarbons
- Ammonia
- Carbon dioxide
- ??? (I know that many common substances can form "hydrosphere", according to temperature and pressure conditions).
We should notice that the same planet may have several impurity substances on its surface. For example, Mars has frozen water in the form of frozen seas, permafrost and ice caps, and frozen carbon dioxide in ice caps. Earth has either liquid and frozen water. Tidally locked planets can have exotic mixture of volatiles on its frozen dark-side.
Add here are the words that describe the agregate state of this impurity:
- Liquid
- Frozen
And abundance:
- Wet
- Arid
Next, maybe to add a classname for atmosphere?
- Crushing (Venus, gas giants)
- Dense
- Normal (Earth, Titan) - bad word
- Thin (Mars)
- Negligible (Triton, Pluto)
- No atmosphere
Additional class word - "temporary" or "periodic" or "sublimative". For example, Mars and Pluto have temporary atmosphere that freezes in winter on ice caps and sublimes in summer.
Maybe atmosphere classname should have additional words describing 2-3 its major components:
- Carbon dioxide
- Nitrogen
- Oxygen
- Water (wapor)
- Hydrocarbons
- Ammonia
- Helium
- Hydrogen
So, classnames of our planets (I'm not sure if gas giants should have a hydrosphere description):
Mercury: Warm iron-iron-silicate subterra, (no hydrosphere), (no atmosphere)
Venus: Warm iron-silicate-silicate terra, (no hydrosphere), crashing carbon dioxide atmoshere
Earth: Temperate iron-silicate-silicate voulcanic terra with life, frozen-liquid water ocean, normal nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere
Mars: Cool iron-silicate-silicate subterra, frozen water-carbon dioxide ocean, thin carbon dioxide periodic atmosphere
Moon: Temperate iron-silicate-silicate selena, (no hydroshpere), (no atmosphere)
Io: Cold iron-silicate-silicate voulcanic selena, (no hydroshpere), temporary sulfur-dioxide atmosphere
Jupiter, Saturn: Cold silicate-metallic hydrogen-gas giant, global liquid hydrogen-helium ocean, crashing hydrogen-helium atmosphere
Uranus, Neptune: Very cold silicate-ice-gas subgiant, global liquid hydrogen-helium ocean, crashing hydrogen-helium atmosphere
Europa: Cold silicate-water-ice selena, (no hydrosphere), (no atmosphere)
Ganymede, Callisto: Cold silicate-water-ice subterra, (no hydrosphere), (no atmosphere)
Titan: Very cold silicate-water-ice subterra, liquid hydrocarbons, nitrogen-hydrocarbon atmosphere
Triton: Very cold silicate-ice-ice selena, (no hydrosphere), negligible nitrogen-methane atmosphere
Pluto: Very cold silicate-ice-ice selena, frozen nitrogen, negligible nitrogen-methane periodic atmosphere
Some possible planets:
Gliese 581 c: Temperate silicate-water-water superterra, global liquid water ocean, normal nitrogen-water armosphere
Solaris: Temperate iron-silicate-water terra, global liquid water ocean, normal nitrogen-water armosphere
Carbon planet: Cold iron-silicate-hydrocarbon superterra, liquid hydrocarbon ocean + frozen carbon dioxide, dense hydrocarbons-carbon dioxide atmosphere
I think these are too long for descriptions, they should be shortened and simplified. Words like "desert", "arid", "wet" should be used somewhere. Also, I still hope use word "terra" for Earth twins...
*
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Norway 
United States 
Russian Federation 
Spain 
Denmark