Free planetarium

 
User avatar
XBrain130
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 217
Joined: 26 Nov 2016
Location: Italy
Contact:

New planet classification

25 Jul 2017 02:10

problemecium wrote:
Source of the post and for another it seems inconsistent to categorize iron and carbon as fundamentally separate but lump all other minerals together.

Beside iron and carbon, aren't most planet-building minerals compounds of silicon anyway?
SpaceEngine's Italian Discord server: https://discord.gg/NhQbEbC
 
User avatar
SpaceEngineer
Author of SpaceEngine
Author of SpaceEngine
Topic Author
Posts: 453
Joined: 17 May 2016
Location: Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

New planet classification

25 Jul 2017 03:12

problemecium wrote:
Source of the post Earth: T1sm
Mars: T0s
Jupiter: G3h

This is interesting idea. But users must be familiar with this system somehow, they will go to Wikipedia and be surprised by not finding anything.

About separating to rocky and carbon planets: recent studies says that if a parent star have C to O ratio larger than 0.7, all its planets will be carbon-dominated, formed of carbids instead and silicates. So such distinction is robust.

Distinction with aquaria could be provided by presence of ice VII layer, but this will not work for a tiny worlds like Enceladus. So using an ice mass fraction > 50% is a good criteria. The same could be used for ferria: > 50% of iron, nickel and sulphur (siderophilic elements). Mercury will be ferria because of its huge metallic core, 60% by mass. To fix confusion, the surface/crust class provided, by criteria similar to the bulk class: rocky, carbid, icy/watery. So Mercury will be a rocky ferria.

Many planets has surface and bulk classes correlated, but some interesting examples broke this rule: Mercury (rocky ferria), Europa (icy terra - it has a water layer of only 50-100 km thick), snowball Earth (also icy terra). This was the most difficult part in the classification, this is why I'm not completed it earlier, in 2011. Maybe the surface class could be skipped if it matches the bulk class? Watery oceania looks too redundant (but watery aquaria does not).

Julian wrote:
Source of the post If the terms "gas giant" and "ice giant" need to be replaced, I think it would look better to have equivalents to "jovian" and "neptunian" used in all languages instead of "jupiter" and "neptune".

I am thinking of providing two "styles" of naming, with an option in the config or UI to switch terra to earth, jupiter to gas giant etc. the In the localization file, I made a full "grid" of a bulk classes and size subclasses, also with alternate names. In a case of gas giants, it's not correct to generate a name by merging a size prefix with a class name: "super" + "terra" = "superterra" works, but "super" + "gas giant" = "supergas giant" does not. So I provided this:

miniterra
subterra
terra
superterra
gas minigiant
gas subgiant
gas giant
gas supergiant


I don't like "jovian" and "neptunian", because they are adjectives. This will make my grammar code even more complicated. And then we must change "terra" to "terrestrial" as well as and all other classes.

XBrain130 wrote:
Source of the post Beside iron and carbon, aren't most planet-building minerals compounds of silicon anyway?

No, outer planets and moons are made mainly of water ice.
 
User avatar
XBrain130
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 217
Joined: 26 Nov 2016
Location: Italy
Contact:

New planet classification

25 Jul 2017 04:17

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post    
XBrain130 wrote:
   Beside iron and carbon, aren't most planet-building minerals compounds of silicon anyway?


No, outer planets and moons are made mainly of water ice.

Well yeah, I know that, but I wasn't considering ices as minerals there.
SpaceEngine's Italian Discord server: https://discord.gg/NhQbEbC
 
User avatar
SpaceEngineer
Author of SpaceEngine
Author of SpaceEngine
Topic Author
Posts: 453
Joined: 17 May 2016
Location: Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

New planet classification

25 Jul 2017 08:24

XBrain130 wrote:
Source of the post Well yeah, I know that, but I wasn't considering ices as minerals there.

Then in oxygen-dominated star systems the most abundant minerals are olivine Mg2SiO4 and pyroxene MgSiO3, and in the carbon-dominated systems they are olivine, pyroxene, silicon and titanium carbids SiC and TiC, and a pure carbon C in forms of graphene and diamonds.
 
User avatar
Gnargenox
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 362
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: 179° 56′ 39.4″ +0° 2′ 46.2″ @ 7,940 ± 420 pc

New planet classification

25 Jul 2017 10:11

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post >10-3 (ultrabaric)

Should be a positive, not a negative exponent.
CPU: AMD FX-8350 8 core processor 4GHz / GPU: GeForce GT 730 @ 1920x1080, 60Hz with 1GB adapter RAM / RAM: Patriot Signature 4GB 1600MHz 240-Pin DDR3 (only 2GB work, don't buy it) / Motherboard: MSI 970 Gaming MS-7693
 
User avatar
JCandeias
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 64
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Location: Portugal

New planet classification

25 Jul 2017 18:15

Well...

I personally prefer shorter categorizations, but that's kinda besides the point. I do have issues of a more technical nature, though. In Portuguese and in most (all?) Latin languages, the order of words is inverse to that English uses. So it's "Terra bla bla bla" instead of "Bla bla bla Terra". Also, in Portuguese long lists of adjectives not only don't sound well, they're gramatically incorrect unless they're separated by commas. So it'd have to be "Terra bla, bla, bla e (and) bla com (with) bla bla", and I'll bet other languages will show similar peculiarities.

A few examples taken from SpaceEngineer's examples, properly translated to Portuguese:

In English
Earth --> temperate inhabited mesobaric marine rocky terra


In Portuguese

Terra --> terra rochosa temperada, habitada, mesobárica e marinha


(I think "rocky", being the most basic subcharacteristic, should follow the main categorization, but that's debatable; it could also be "terra temperada, habitada, mesobárica, marinha e rochosa", although it doesn't sound as good. Note also that in this case, "terra rochosa temperada" lacks a comma. It could have one ("rochosa, temperada"), but the meaning is subtly diferent: without comma, all other adjectives refer to the rocky terra; with it, they refer just to the terra. The first option sounds better to me)

In English

Io --> cold volcanic infrabaric pyrolaky rocky subterra


In Portuguese

Io --> subterra rochosa fria, vulcânica, infrabárica e pirolacustre



Another problem arises when ices are involved. Let's see the case of Pluto:

In English

Pluto --> frigid volcanic infrabaric cryoglacial icy subaquaria


In Portuguese

Plutão --> Subaquária gelada frígida, vulcânica, infrabárica e crioglacial



This sounds a bit silly, because many of those words are near-synonyms. When you put in the same descriptor "gelado", "frígido" (or frio) and "glacial", you get a bit of a "well, duh!" reaction.

HarbingerDawn's version is a bit better in Portuguese translation because it avoids those long chains of adjectives, even if it's still not perfect. This suffers from the same "well, duh!" thing:


Plutão --> Subglácia gelada frígida com glaciares de azoto



But at least it avoids the need for filling the descriptor with commas.

There's something else, though: "gelado/gelada" (masc/fem, which is also an issue) is already implicit if you call something by a name that evokes glaciers. You don't get warm or hot glaciers, only icy ones. And it's clear that "glácia" is a made-up word that comes from "glaciária". That's one of the sources of the "well, duh!" reaction, althoug not the only one.
My addons are to be found at JCandeias' Ships

Current count: 2
 
User avatar
spaceguy
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 181
Joined: 30 Dec 2016

New planet classification

25 Jul 2017 18:59

So not only planetary classification is getting revised, I'm assuming planet generation is getting revised, correct?
Just need some clarification.
;x
 
User avatar
Mosfet
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 685
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Location: Italy

New planet classification

26 Jul 2017 10:20

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post I don't like "jovian" and "neptunian", because they are adjectives. This will make my grammar code even more complicated. And then we must change "terra" to "terrestrial" as well as and all other classes.

Just a note about Italian: "Gioviano caldo" is the term used in italian astrophisical journals in papers regarding hot jupiters, while I see the term jupiter is indeed used in english.
The "aggettivo sostantivato" (adjective-as-noun, I don't know if there's a translation lol) is pretty common in italian language.
About your terra, ferria choice, I don't see why you should necessarily change it. If "terra" was a proper name (which is, in italian: Terra=Earth) then your adjective I think it could be "terrian" or "terranian" :)
by the way, despite the identical translation, using "terra" as planet class is commonly used in italian, nothing silly:
"una nuova terra è stata scoperta" is "a new Earth-like planet has been found"
"Time is illusion. Lunchtime doubly so". Douglas N. Adams
My mods | My specs: Asus x555ub - cpu i5-6200u, ram 4gb, gpu nvidia geforce 940m 2gb vram | IRC freenode.net canale ##SpaceEngineITA
 
DeathStar
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Nov 2016

New planet classification

26 Jul 2017 10:45

I prefer Harb's system honestly. "with magma lakes" has a much better ring to it than "pyrolaky". BTW, the geologic term for "laky" would be "lacustrine", so maybe use that("pyrolacustrine" sounds less weird IMO).
 
User avatar
ettore_bilbo
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 67
Joined: 11 Nov 2016

New planet classification

26 Jul 2017 11:55

I don't know, I don't like very much this idea, i think is redundant and generate description extremely long and in some case a bit silly: "frigid mesobaric cryolaky icy subaquaria" it's incomprehensible for me :-D

in facts, every information can be quickly read in the lines below, it's matter of a single look...
in my opinion would be better use this classification in the lines of extended description, maybe with a different color...

for example:

Planet                    Earth
Class                     terra
life                         organic multicellular (inhabitated)
mass                      1 (normal)
pressure                 1 (mesobaric)
atmo composition    N2, O2, Ar (breathable)
temperature            15 °C (temperate)

etcetera...
 
User avatar
SpaceEngineer
Author of SpaceEngine
Author of SpaceEngine
Topic Author
Posts: 453
Joined: 17 May 2016
Location: Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

New planet classification

26 Jul 2017 12:44

JCandeias wrote:
Source of the post I personally prefer shorter categorizations, but that's kinda besides the point. I do have issues of a more technical nature, though.

We are decided to limit the classification to a 3 words: [temperature] [surface] [size-][class]. Sometimes it could be appended with additional info: volcanic, inhabited etc. Surface class will be a bedrock class (rocky, icy etc) or volatiles class (airless, marine, oceanic), I'm prefer volatiles.
JCandeias wrote:
Source of the post  In Portuguese and in most (all?) Latin languages, the order of words is inverse to that English uses. So it's "Terra bla bla bla" instead of "Bla bla bla Terra". Also, in Portuguese long lists of adjectives not only don't sound well, they're gramatically incorrect unless they're separated by commas. So it'd have to be "Terra bla, bla, bla e (and) bla com (with) bla bla", and I'll bet other languages will show similar peculiarities.

Word order could be changed by a localization config parameters, as I said in answer #12. Comma also could be considered by a parameter, or simply by adding it to a word translation: "cold" -> "fria,"
Is it grammatically necessary to end the list of adjectives with "e" and/or "com", or commas is enough? Maybe this will not be needed at all, if we limit the class description by 3 words?

JCandeias wrote:
Source of the post This sounds a bit silly, because many of those words are near-synonyms. When you put in the same descriptor "gelado", "frígido" (or frio) and "glacial", you get a bit of a "well, duh!" reaction.

Yes, but this must be used, for a logical reason. "Ice" does not always mean water ice, it could be CO2, methane, nitrogen ice. To avoid specification of substance, I suggested using a temperature prefix: "cryo-glacial" means glaciers of some cryo-substances (nitrogen/methane ices like on Pluto). This usually correlates with the planet temperature though, so "frigid cryoglacial aquaria" could be reduced to "frigid glacial aquaria".

Mosfet wrote:
Source of the post If "terra" was a proper name (which is, in italian: Terra=Earth) then your adjective I think it could be "terrian" or "terranian"

Using adjective "terrain" or "terrestrial" is not perfect in Russian, because text "Type: blabla" assumes that "blabla" must be a noun. Also, "terrain" does not have a direct translation to Russian, "terrestrial" usually translates as "earth-like". Although ferria and carbonia in a form of adjective (ferrian and carbinian?) has a direct translation - metallic and carbonian, but aquaria does not. Aquaria can be translatated only as "watery" - this is a bad description for ice worlds. So using nouns is better.

DeathStar wrote:
Source of the post BTW, the geologic term for "laky" would be "lacustrine", so maybe use that("pyrolacustrine" sounds less weird IMO).

Thanks! Do you know a terms for marine, oceaninc, deserty and airless?
 
User avatar
XBrain130
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 217
Joined: 26 Nov 2016
Location: Italy
Contact:

New planet classification

26 Jul 2017 12:49

SpaceEngineer wrote:

that would be desertic, I think
SpaceEngine's Italian Discord server: https://discord.gg/NhQbEbC
 
User avatar
Gnargenox
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 362
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: 179° 56′ 39.4″ +0° 2′ 46.2″ @ 7,940 ± 420 pc

New planet classification

26 Jul 2017 13:15

deserty = Xeric
CPU: AMD FX-8350 8 core processor 4GHz / GPU: GeForce GT 730 @ 1920x1080, 60Hz with 1GB adapter RAM / RAM: Patriot Signature 4GB 1600MHz 240-Pin DDR3 (only 2GB work, don't buy it) / Motherboard: MSI 970 Gaming MS-7693
 
User avatar
JCandeias
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 64
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Location: Portugal

New planet classification

26 Jul 2017 13:22

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post Word order could be changed by a localization config parameters, as I said in answer #12. Comma also could be considered by a parameter, or simply by adding it to a word translation: "cold" -> "fria,"

To simply add a comma to the word translation doesn't work. Picking up your examples again, Saturn would then be described as "Júpiter frio," and that's not good. You can't end a sentence with a comma.

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post Is it grammatically necessary to end the list of adjectives with "e" and/or "com", or commas is enough?

By using just commas you get an understandable sentence, but one that's a bit iffy, gramatically speaking. "Terra rochosa temperada, habitada, mesobárica, marinha" sounds as if the sentence is incomplete and someone forgot to append to it something else.

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post Maybe this will not be needed at all, if we limit the class description by 3 words?

It's possible, yes, but I'd have to see how it turns up to say for sure.

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post Yes, but this must be used, for a logical reason. "Ice" does not always mean water ice, it could be CO2, methane, nitrogen ice.

I know, but for a common Portuguese-speaker it's all basically the same thing. This may have to do with the language having developped in a warm climate (and being spoken in warm climates around the world). Eskimos have a ton of words for ice, and even English has quite a few more than Portuguese. We're quite limited in that.

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post To avoid specification of substance, I suggested using a temperature prefix: "cryo-glacial" means glaciers of some cryo-substances (nitrogen/methane ices like on Pluto).

I do think it's better to name the substance, or at least to call "unconventional" ices something like "non-water ices" or something of the sort. I'm pretty sure casual users would not understand the usage of cryo in that context. The only non-water ice that is referred to with some regularity in Portuguese is "gelo seco" (literally "dry ice") or "gelo carbónico", i.e. CO2 ice. Maybe dry ices would be a good designation for all those cryo-ices in other languages as well?
My addons are to be found at JCandeias' Ships

Current count: 2
 
DeathStar
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Nov 2016

New planet classification

26 Jul 2017 14:31

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Thanks! Do you know a terms for marine, oceaninc, deserty and airless?

Hmmm... The only term that comes to mind right now would be "pelagic" instead of "oceanic". Specifically, "pelagic" refers to the open oceans so it would probably be appropriate for planets entirely/mostly covered by oceans. As for the other three, not sure. I'll post if I come up with anything.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests