Sir, no offense, but I am finding you to be increasingly annoying. I have little patience with those trying to cramp my style, and even less if they happen to be real world scientists (I'm looking at you Einstein and DeGrasse). Please, knock it off.J.T.K. wrote:Plutonian, that you learn that your (M-class) moon is too close to the giant
Do not you know the tidal forces that are physically destructive
Look at IO (421,000 km) or Europa (670,000 km) around Jupiter
By cons, Titan (1,222,000 km) around Saturn is in the right distance ...
Tell us what is the distance of your moon
Saw the shadow on the giant, I'm afraid ...
On topic, Kepler-16b is defined in extrasolar.ssc as having a radius of 52500 km, and a mass of 110 Earths (0.333 Jupiters). The moon I posted, Darity, has a radius of 5140.8212 km, and orbits b at a distance of 233502.0 km, with a period of 1.2392 days.
Yeah, it is a bit close, as in real life, Darity would be a barren, volcanic dystopia, but as I said, I don't like reality cramping my style.
Personally, I prefer to use a rule of thumb where, when creating moons around planets, anything with an orbital period of less than one Earth day is inside the roche limit, and is thus most likely limited to a max radius of about 100 km, assuming said moon's guts are strong enough to keep it together.
I thought it was the other way around, meaning b was a bit too far from the two suns to be in the habitable zone? I heard that since that might be the case, any large enough moon around b could hypothetically be warmed up enough by tidal interactions with b to be able to support advanced complex life at decent temperatures in spite of the greater-than-desired distance from the two suns?Hungry4info wrote:You could have also mentioned that Kepler-16 (AB)b is too close to the star(s) to be habitable.
But this is a fictional creation.