Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 19:18:23 -0500 From: Mike Lynch (Mike-Lynch@big44foot.com) Subject: Space1999: Planet Classes... Help. Now that I have the time to once again work on my web site (http://www.geocities.com/~alpha1999/) I've begun to touch up some of what I was working on regarding encountered planets, life forms, and technology (none of this has been uploaded yet). Being that I am not as well versed in astronomy as some of my fellow list members I call upon your knowledge. What are the various classes of planets and how are they defined? I know what an M Class planet is, but unfortunately I'm at a loss beyond that. If asked to classify the planet in Brian the Brain, AB Chrysalis, Kreno, or Psychon I would be unable to answer. I realize that the answer to this question is not a simple one, so I appreciate any assistance that can be offered. Mike
From: Atomic Possum (atomicpossum@toast4tag.net) Subject: Re: Space1999: Planet Classes... Help. Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 19:15:09 -0500 The term 'class M' was made up for the original STAR TREK series--it isn't a scientific designation. Actually, I don't think there are set classes for planets as there are for stars...since we basically (until recently) have only known about nine. Jon "Mr. Wonderful" Stadter
From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 06:55:19 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: Planet Classes... Help. I'm very happy that you have started working on the site again, Mike. All the major sites are rather different in approach to SPACE:1999, I think, perhaps reflecting different personalities. Your site is definitely one of the major ones, and very interesting too, I think. It's great that you are back developping again! Petter
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:20:34 -0500 From: Mike Lynch (Mike-Lynch@big44foot.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Planet Classes... Help. Well... so the old M Class is merely a Star Trek fabrication, eh? Well, that certainly opens a door, now doesn't it. ...I really could have sworn that planets had a system of classification just as stars do, but it does make sense that it would be hard to classify planets in any sort of manner when we only really know of the nine in our system... and even then we don't fully know all there is to know about each of them. Thanks - Mike
From: djlerda@juno4tag.com Subject: Space1999: Planet Classifications Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:31:06 EDT The textbook I used in my freshman astronomy class, "The Evolving Universe" by Donald Goldsmith classified the planets of our solar system into two types: the inner and outer planets. I believe this was just an author's convention. I am not aware of any official system of planetary classification. "Class M" was something Gene Roddenberry made up for Star Trek in order to save on production costs. By only visiting planets like Earth, they wouldn't need expensive space suits. David J Lerda
From: Jeff Doyle (jdoyle@computer44land.net) Subject: Re: Space1999: Planet Classes... Help. Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:34:27 -0700 Hey Mike, On Star Trek, only 2 plantetary classifications were used: Class M (similar to Earth) and Class K? (suitable for human life with use of pressure domes) - from ep. "Whom God's Destroy." I like this the concept of this system, but it will be for future use. The only classifications that I have heard of that makes any sense, is the distinction between terrestrial planets and gas giants. Inner and outer planets is a term that is occasionally used too, and draws the same distinction. Of course, Pluto/Charon are terrestrial (if ices are counted as terrestrial) but their orbit is off the plane of the ecliptic too far, and they are too small to be "true" planets (new estimates make Pluto not much larger than our own moon, and far smaller than Mercury). -Jeff