View Single Post
  #5  
Old August 19th 06, 08:59 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Thomas Lee Elifritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 403
Default Planetary Classification System(s)

Willie R. Meghar wrote:
Do you have a pet planetary classification system? If so, I offer
this thread as a place to post it.

Here's mine:

A planet is a compact, natural, physical object made of ordinary
matter in orbit about a more massive object or adrift in space. The
eight planetary classes are as follows:

Giant Class: (= 500 Earth masses & non-fusor)
Jupiter Class: (= 50 Earth masses 500 Earth masses)
Neptune Class: (= 5 Earth masses 50 Earth masses)
Earth Class: (= 0.5 Earth masses 5 Earth masses)
Mars Class: (= .05 Earth masses 0.5 Earth masses)
*Lunar* Class: (= .005 Earth masses .05 Earth masses)
Pluto Class: (= .0005 Earth masses .005 Earth masses)
Asteroid Class: ( .0005 Earth masses)


Since we've agreed the scale is arbitrary, I suppose this is as good as
any. The what's his name scale - the Meghar scale of planetary mass
classification, spanning eight full decimal orders of magnitude of
hydrostatic equilibrium. Fortuitously (our solar system is so special)
we have 10 planets at least, two of which are representative of 'belts',
the asteroid belt and the Kuiper Belt, or the trans-Neptunian planets.

Remarkably, we have no lunar class planets, nor any real giants.

I think the idea is to get past the old nine planets thing.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

The class between the Pluto and Mars classes can be named for any
object found in that class -- or it could be called the "Vulcan Class"
or anything else the IAU sees fit to call it.

The above system is simple and keeps our solar system reasonably close
to its traditionally accepted form. It allows flexibility in
describing any planetary system. For example, one could refer to all
sun orbiting bodies above the Pluto Class. One could refer to all
Asteroid Class planets simply as "asteroids" or "minor planets" etc.

Willie R. Meghar