Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aexalon" data-source="post: 3581174" data-attributes="member: 16283">I may have ignored an early participant ... rectifying that now, even if it means another sidetrack <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />With stationary you probably mean that their orbits are circular (unlike Alpha Centauri A & B's). With respect to any planetary bodies in-system, they could be considered unmoving. They do move relative to the stellar background, of course, but such movement also already results from the path your inhabited moon takes in the system.When you said "that revolve between them", do you mean in a figure-8 pattern? That type of orbit is notoriously unstable. And with an orbital period of 1440 earth days, that would also mean that the stars are fairly close for a wide pair, and that your planet would have a significantly larger energy input in the middle than on either end (up to twice as much). Not criticism, just informing you. Nothing magic can't explain away, if necessary.Nine times the size or nine times the mass? First there's the cube law, which (for example) means anything 3 times as big (in one dimension) has 27 times the volume. Then there's gravity, which compresses stuff the more there is of it. E.g. Jupiter's diameter is only ~18% bigger than that of Saturn (73% more volume actually, due to Saturn being flatter than Jupiter), yet is slightly over 3.3 times as massive.Nine moons, nothing wrong with that. All of'em orbiting the central planet (likely a gas giant too), you'd have quite a visual spectable. Note that inferior moons (those closer to the planet than your inhabited moon) can only be seen as entirely full against the background of the planet itself (depending on what you call "full" of course. If 90% will do, this might not be the case, and you might be able to see them being full-ish almost anywhere in their orbit). Superior moons (those further away) can only appear full on the other side of the planet. Again, requiring perfection in "fullness" would require x-ray vision to see through the planet, but the 90% rule could mitigate that as well. If you want to do something with that doom scenario, I'd suggest rephrasing it as a conjunction (i.e. a lineup of all moons on one side of the planet, preferrably including the sun as well ... think "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider"), instead of "full moons" which might very well be invisible. When viewed from your inhabited world when standing on the terminator (the edge between dark and light), you'd see a multiple eclipse towards where the sun is, and multiple full moons (and the full planet) directly opposite them in the sky. That would definately rock (maybe even literally).All this gibberish of mine presumes a somewhat physically realistic setup, of course ... which might not be (nor need to be) the case <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.</blockquote>

Verification