"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."
What in Trek becomes invalidated with these new definitions?
-The "penal asteroid" of Rura Penthe would simply be a planet, though Enterprise mostly rectified this anyway.
-How are comets classified here? We've seen any number of spheroid comets in the show.
-That "Rogue Planet" would still be one, though it still makes no sense how it could support life.
Mark
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Perhaps the FAU has used a different set of definitions.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The Rura Penthe reference was just a gaffe, anyway. Anything that's got Earth-like gravity and a breathable atmosphere is obviously a planet.
As for the others... meh. I'm not going to do any retconning to help the pinheads at the IAU. As far as I'm concerned, Sol V still refers to Jupiter!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Is it just my imagination, or did Trek manage to avoid ever saying that the Sol system had such-and-such many planets? I don't remember any such reference, nor did a cursory search find one.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
I remember the Worlds of the Federation book said the Sol system had 10 planets, although I don't think it identified the extra one. And of course it was completely non-canon anyway.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I don't think GR thought that more would be added, or any removed, so it was probably never mentioned. ENT would have been the only one to be new enough to add anything.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I think comets should stay comets, regardless of their shape. At least if we're referring to the "dirty snowball" type.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
How to tell the difference from a "snowy dirtball"? Would one measure the percentage of each to derive at a determination?
They should just up the size, but, grandfather in Pluto.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
quote:I don't think GR thought that more would be added, or any removed, so it was probably never mentioned. ENT would have been the only one to be new enough to add anything.
Then again, Asimov dropped a tenth planet into his Foundation universe just for the heck of it, in "Pebble in the Sky". And no, that planet wasn't the titular pebble - the planet played no role whatsoever in the story. It was just a natural assumption for Asimov to think that not all the planets would have been found in the 1950s yet.
Would matters have been any different in that respect in the 1960s?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I do not know, but considering his story lines were to be, mainly, set in other solar systems I do not think he really gave ours much thought, and those that were set in this one were on Sol. Had his stories been more oriented to our system things may have been different.
I guess this is a better answer than the last guess I made. After reading it again I wasn't all that happy with it. Why worry about the one people know about when your job is to explore(create) new ones?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...and those that were set in this one were on Sol."
That had to be hard on the characters' feet.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
But all the cool stuff happens at night anyway.
I mean, in modern TV scifi, it does.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Well, and the rest of their bodies as well.
Sol III.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
quote:As for the others... meh. I'm not going to do any retconning to help the pinheads at the IAU. As far as I'm concerned, Sol V still refers to Jupiter!
Sol V is jupiter no matter if Pluto is Sol VIII or not...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Not if Ceres was a planet (again).
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Well, now that the population clause is in effect for planethood (i.e. a planet cannot be one of a massive number of other bodies, i.e. it must've been a substantial enough development in the system to have largely cleared its neighborhood), Ceres is not a concern.
Since we have ascertained that Trek avoided mention of the number of planets in the Sol System . . . anyone recall any planets that were part of an asteroid belt or anything?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yeah, now. But the original proposal meant that Ceres would've become Sol V.
There was a planet in DS9 that was either inside or very close to an asteroid belt... was it Soukara in "Change of Heart"?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Although my original sentiment about not needing to rationalize changes in scientific standards for past shows, one thought did just occur to me...
Could a class-D planet(oid), like Regula I, mean "dwarf"? That might be strangely appropriate...
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Given that M = Minshara as re-estblished in Enterprise, and O = Oceanic per Voyager, it's not necessarily to far off these days. Classes L, Y, etc. might take some doing, though.
Mark
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
L is marginaL. Y is obviously deYmone.
A D-class world is generally considered to be a asteroid/moon type of deal. It COULD be a dwarf...but maybe it's more an intermediate stage: a dwarf that has "cleared its orbit" & is larger than other dwarves (dwarfs?) but isn't really large enough to cross the "classical" threshold.
i would like to note that geologic status seems to play a part in classing as well, & that Pluto is noted as being class C...perhaps for Cold...or Cut.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Except that Pluto's designation only comes from Star Charts... a good resource, to be sure, but non-canon and thus non-binding. I'd be happy to re-designate Pluto as a class-D. Pluto, Charon, Ceres, Xena... they're all best described as "essentially a great rock in space." Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Except that they're not. Pluto and the other KBOs are mostly frozen water and gases, with a rocky core. Ceres and the other bodies in the asteroid belt are all promarily rocky that formed from pyroclastic means, like the other rocky inner planets.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)