|
General suggestions
|
|
| OMGspace_engine | Date: Friday, 13.11.2015, 00:17 | Message # 631 |
|
Observer
Group: Users
Brazil
Messages: 19
Status: Offline
| Hello, during the exploration of this amazing game, I think in some ideas to make this universe more diverse and intersting to explore.
(Sorry for my english, I tried to make my best  )
First of all, I think limiting the Universe to what the mankind knows is a little boring, here some physically possible planets that could be added to SpaceEngine without much effort(I think  ):
- Planets with multiple rings in diferent angles: It's totaly plausible to, during the formation of a planet, multiple impacts from different directions launch debbris in space in different angles, creating multiple, easily distinguible rings in differnt plans. Image to give an idea: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb201....233.jpg
- Fully metallic planets: Planets that(because of whatever), during it's formation accumulated only mettalic elements, giving to the planet reflexive properties and super flat plains with giant altitude gaps(cliffs)
- Water planets: different of oceanias, that have rocky cores, these planets are made entirely of water, with a core of ICE(or superdense water), giving to the planet an extraordinary transparency for strong lights
- Supergiant rocky planets: Very big Rocky planets(>150000km diameter), they are massive enough to create a baricenter outside the star they orbit(Like a Double star system but a planet and a star instead)
- Diverse atmosphere colors: Actualy ins Space Engine I have only found 3 basic atmosphere colors: Blue, Green and yellow(orange), it will be interesting if the planets have more diverse colors in the atmospheres
- Non spherical planets: Planets in a stage of formation where they have not acquired a spherical format yet, thet have the size and mass of a normal planet but are deformed like asteroids, the atmosphere exists only in the lower grounds(nearest to core)
- Procedural Planetary systems where the planets doesn't orbit all in the same plan(Solar system is an example, look to pluto and neptune)
I expect you like my suggestions and I sware they could be usefull for the improvement of this amazing Software.
Edited by OMGspace_engine - Friday, 13.11.2015, 00:20 |
| |
| |
| DeathStar | Date: Friday, 13.11.2015, 00:53 | Message # 632 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Users
Croatia
Messages: 515
Status: Offline
| Quote OMGspace_engine (  ) Planets with multiple rings in diferent angles: It's totaly plausible to, during the formation of a planet, multiple impacts from different directions launch debbris in space in different angles, creating multiple, easily distinguible rings in differnt plans. Image to give an idea: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb201....233.jpg
Planets' rings can only be around the equator, unless the rings were very recently formed. What causes this is(I think) unavoidable planetary oblateness which causes more mass to be concentrated along the equator, leading to all orbiting particles to drift towards the equator on the short timescale of a few million years.
Quote OMGspace_engine ( ) Fully metallic planets: Planets that(because of whatever), during it's formation accumulated only mettalic elements, giving to the planet reflexive properties and super flat plains with giant altitude gaps(cliffs)
I doubt such planets would be shiny and flat. They'd be just as cratered and rugged as other planets.
Quote OMGspace_engine ( ) Water planets: different of oceanias, that have rocky cores, these planets are made entirely of water, with a core of ICE(or superdense water), giving to the planet an extraordinary transparency for strong lights
It's plausible to have a planet with such composition, however it almost definitely wouldn't be any more transparent than a typical oceania.
Quote OMGspace_engine ( ) Supergiant rocky planets: Very big Rocky planets(>150000km diameter), they are massive enough to create a baricenter outside the star they orbit(Like a Double star system but a planet and a star instead)
Even if the star was just a measly red dwarf, the "planet" in question would still need to be so large that it would permit deuterium fusion - it wouldn't be a planet, but a brown dwarf. Also, I think that there's a limit to how large a rocky planet can get before becoming a gas giant.
Quote OMGspace_engine ( ) Non spherical planets: Planets in a stage of formation where they have not acquired a spherical format yet, thet have the size and mass of a normal planet but are deformed like asteroids, the atmosphere exists only in the lower grounds(nearest to core)
This isn't dependent on how old the planetoid is, but rather how massive it is. Once a planetoid crosses a rough limit in mass, it becomes a sphere in a relatively short amount of time.
Edited by DeathStar - Friday, 13.11.2015, 00:55 |
| |
| |
| OMGspace_engine | Date: Friday, 13.11.2015, 22:10 | Message # 633 |
|
Observer
Group: Users
Brazil
Messages: 19
Status: Offline
| Thank you for the reply, here's my defense( ):
Actually, astronomers estimate that, about 20 stars die and 20 new stars are formed per year, only in the Via Lactea, so, I think that we could find planetary systems in all stages of formation, enabling us to find planets with the formation that I explain(super deformed and with misaligned rings).
For the metallic planets with reflexive properties, if a planet is big and old enough, the constant windy atmosphere can cause the suspense particles to "polish" the planet surface, making it very reflexive because metals have intrinsic reflexive properties(Ok, the plains are unlikely, it was just an artistic concept).
For the Water planets, I mean not a full transparence, but a transparece in the planet "borders", imagine if you was looking for the star from behind the planet, the light, instead of a full cut in the luminosity, will suffer a "fade-out" to the core of the planet(I think it was not much clear, but is the best I can think to explain )
For the supergiant rocky planets: an rocky planet will never turn into a star(not even in a gas giant) because a simple reason: It's not made of gas, solids could be much more dense than any gas. For example, the element Lead, in the sealevel its just 12 times less dense than the sun's core(hidrogen), resuming, it's possible to exist rocky planets with hundreds of thousands kilometers in diameter
Edited by OMGspace_engine - Friday, 13.11.2015, 22:11 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 00:34 | Message # 634 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote OMGspace_engine ( ) It's not made of gas, solids could be much more dense than any gas. For example, the element Lead, in the sealevel its just 12 times less dense than the sun's core(hidrogen), resuming, it's possible to exist rocky planets with hundreds of thousands kilometers in diameter
You ignore the fact that hydrogen is extremely common, and planets form from clouds of gas and dust, so a giant rocky planet could not avoid accumulating a large hydrogen atmosphere and becoming a gas giant. So it is impossible to have super-giant rocky planets.
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
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 07:04 | Message # 635 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| Quote OMGspace_engine ( ) it's possible to exist rocky planets with hundreds of thousands kilometers in diameter
It really isn't.
Even if you suppose it somehow avoids building a gaseous envelope to become a gas giant (not plausible, as HarbingerDawn says), a rocky planet cannot grow larger than about 4 Earth radii (~50,000km diameter). Once it's that big, adding more rocky material to it will make it smaller, because it gets compressed more by gravity.
|
| |
| |
| JackDole | Date: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 18:47 | Message # 636 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1742
Status: Offline
| Quote Watsisname ( ) a rocky planet cannot grow larger than about 4 Earth radii
I would already be pleased if it would be possible to create Terras in SpaceEngine with 50000 km in diameter; but a radius of 14999.999511 Km and a mass of 10 Earth masses is the limit. One millimeter more, and there is an ice giant. 
Don't forget to look here.
Edited by JackDole - Saturday, 14.11.2015, 18:48 |
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 21:09 | Message # 637 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| That's because SE does not pretend that there aren't ices and volatiles available during planet formation, the point HarbingerDawn was making. In nature, 8-10 Earth masses is the upper limit of rocky planets because that's when they start growing into ice and gas giants. 8-10 Earth masses corresponds to ~2.4 Earth radii.
My point went a step further by examining what happens if you keep growing a rocky planet by adding only rocky material to it (something that never happens in nature). What you'll find is that you get up to about 4 Earth radii at ~1000 Earth masses. Beyond that, adding more mass will make it smaller. This proves that even some highly implausible planet forming process could not produce a rocky planet hundreds of thousands of kilometers in diameter. They simply cannot exist.
|
| |
| |
| Alek | Date: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 21:25 | Message # 638 |
 Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 326
Status: Offline
| Quote Watsisname ( ) They simply cannot exist.
Then why does Universe Sandbox spawn up to 1-jupiter-mass rocky planets under "random exoplanet" option? Universe Sandbox is realistic in this type of thing...Or supposedly, anyway
Living among the stars, I find my way. I grow in strength through knowledge of the space I occupy, until I become the ruler of my own interstellar empire of sorts. Though The world was made for the day, I was made for the night, and thus, the universe itself is within my destiny.
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 22:44 | Message # 639 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| There is a maximum size of a rocky planet, placed by physics. This is ~4 Earth radii. At that point, adding more rock makes it smaller.
There is a maximum mass of a rocky planet, placed by the natural planet formation processes. This is 8-10 Earth masses. At that point, it starts growing into an ice or gas giant.
1 Jupiter mass is 318 Earth masses. Universe Sandbox is not realistic in letting you create 1 Jupiter mass rocky planets unless you choose to disregard natural planet formation processes.
|
| |
| |
| JackDole | Date: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 23:18 | Message # 640 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1742
Status: Offline
| Quote Watsisname ( ) There is a maximum size of a rocky planet, placed by physics. This is ~4 Earth radii. At that point, adding more rock makes it smaller.
What if the planet has a lower density than the Earth? In the early universe, when there was not as many heavy elements, such a planet could have formed. He would probably not meet the definition of a rocky planets, but he could have a solid surface, and would be no ice or gas giant.
That's the kind of planet I need. For Jack Vance's 'Big Planet' and Robert Silverberg's 'Majipoor'.
Don't forget to look here.
Edited by JackDole - Saturday, 14.11.2015, 23:20 |
| |
| |
| Alek | Date: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 23:48 | Message # 641 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 326
Status: Offline
| Quote Watsisname ( ) Universe Sandbox is not realistic in letting you create 1 Jupiter mass rocky planets unless you choose to disregard natural planet formation processes.
But I said with the "random exoplanet"button, so it seems that a few have been actually discovered, since US^2 only uses it's database when using the "random exoplanet" button :-/
Quote JackDole ( ) when there was not as many heavy elements,
Yeah...Hydrogen was even more common then, meaning gas giants would have formed even more easily.
Living among the stars, I find my way. I grow in strength through knowledge of the space I occupy, until I become the ruler of my own interstellar empire of sorts. Though The world was made for the day, I was made for the night, and thus, the universe itself is within my destiny.
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 00:09 | Message # 642 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| JackDole:
Sorry, it just doesn't work out that way. Check the paper I linked a few posts ago, and particularly see Fig 4. (This is one of my favorite plots in the planetary sciences.)  The authors derive the mass-radius relationship for solid planets, where density decreases vertically up the scale (same mass in larger volume).
Let's start by considering a very high density planet made purely of iron. How big can it get? From the plot, we see the maximum size it can be is about 2.5 Earth radii. Beyond that, adding more mass shrinks it.
But what if we start building planets with a less-dense mixture of materials? Say we replace more and more of the iron with things like silicate rock, or water. This decreases the density, which increases the size for a given mass. Indeed, the plot confirms this. The plot also shows that these lower-density planets can attain a larger size before gravitational contraction shrinks them down again.
So, what is the lowest density world you can build which has a solid surface, and how big can you make it? This would be a water world (or water-ice world). From the plot, the maximum possible size of a water-world is between 4 and 5 earth radii, which would again weigh in at about 1000 Earth masses. This is totally unrealistic, because it still only takes 10 Earth masses to start gathering the hydrogen and helium that would be around in the early universe. Such large solid planets would never be expected to form in our universe, no matter what era we look at.
The largest planet with a solid surface you can possibly have which doesn't surpass that 10 Earth mass terrestrial-->ice giant transition, is a ~2.4 Earth radius water world. If you go less dense than that, then you are requiring that the planet be made up of more and more hydrogen and helium, and it really doesn't qualify as a solid planet anymore (let alone rocky).
This is why SpaceEngine does not create terrestrial worlds larger than ~2.4 Earth radii. It just doesn't happen in nature. And no matter how you might change the planet formation process to avoid the ice-giant transition, you still can't make solid planets arbitrarily large. The laws of physics hold you to no more than ~4-5 Earth radii.
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 00:41 | Message # 643 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| Quote Alek ( ) But I said with the "random exoplanet"button, so it seems that a few have been actually discovered, since US^2 only uses it's database when using the "random exoplanet" button :-/
They are not rocky exoplanets.
|
| |
| |
| JackDole | Date: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 00:50 | Message # 644 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1742
Status: Offline
| Quote Watsisname ( ) Sorry, it just doesn't work out that way
So no 'Big Planet', no 'Majipoor'? What a disappointment! 
Don't forget to look here.
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 00:52 | Message # 645 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| I'm sorry. I wish I could have real life ponies made of diamonds, damn the laws of biochemistry.
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Brazil 
Croatia 
United States 
Germany 