I decided to give this new planet a try. Calling it Morpheus because I 
haven't seen the official name yet, and besides, this name makes sense to me 
because it is a Greek god of dreams or sleep. It's supposed to be about the 
size of the Moon, or a little less, but I don't know anything more than that 


What do you think about either my render here or the discovery? I read about 
it while browsing through space-related web sites, first, then saw it 
mentioned on TV news today. Here's one place that tells about it:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm

BTW, the bright speck along the left side of this image is the Sun. Nothing 
actually to scale here since the sun's disk would never be seen anyway. The 
planet is made from four multiplied functions used for isosurface; 3 
different crackle and 1 wrinkles. Stars are simply small-scaled granite.

Thanks for looking!
Bob Hughes

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'planet-X_morpheus.jpg' (38 KB)

Preview of image 'planet-X_morpheus.jpg'

I think this image translates the mood, Bob. I was quite excited when I read
the news. Morpheus would be a good name for it.
I must say that the sense of loneliness is overpowering. If ever mankind
leaves the solar system, this vision of the Sun will have a deep
psychological impact.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> I decided to give this new planet a try. Calling it Morpheus because I 
> haven't seen the official name yet, and besides, this name makes sense to me 
> because it is a Greek god of dreams or sleep. It's supposed to be about the 
> size of the Moon, or a little less, but I don't know anything more than that 

> 
> What do you think about either my render here or the discovery? I read about 
> it while browsing through space-related web sites, first, then saw it 
> mentioned on TV news today. Here's one place that tells about it:
> 
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm

I like your planet better than the one in the NASA illustration 
(although both are complete phantasy as far as surface structure is 
concerned).  But i think the sun - when visible in view - would appear 
brighter, the overall light level will be low so long exposure time 
would be necessary.

Concerning the discovery itself - it is quite likely that more similar 
sized objects exists out there but discovering them at that distance 
isn't easy (esp. considering the many much nearer bodies that will have 
similar apparent brightness).

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/ (Last updated 24 Jul. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

Thank you very much, Thomas. Didn't know I was setting a mood with this! Of 
course, the idea was to convey an extremely remote place in the process of 
throwing a planet scene together, just that I wasn't thinking it over much. 
The more found way out there the better, I guess, because it always fills 
that very empty space at least a tiny bit more.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message 
news:dci1bv$55u$1@chho.imagico.de...
>
> I like your planet better than the one in the NASA illustration (although 
> both are complete phantasy as far as surface structure is concerned).  But 
> i think the sun - when visible in view - would appear brighter, the 
> overall light level will be low so long exposure time would be necessary.

That's something I always fight about with myself. Whether or not to use 
film (camera), eyes, or something entirely unaffected by the usual 
abberations caused from light gathering things, for the virtual camera in a 
render. I tend to like the idea of lenseless stuff in space scenes but it 
would certainly make more sense to use either human eyes looking through a 
helmet/window or CCD camera with lens.

> Concerning the discovery itself - it is quite likely that more similar 
> sized objects exists out there but discovering them at that distance isn't 
> easy (esp. considering the many much nearer bodies that will have similar 
> apparent brightness).

Was reading about the Kuiper Belt. Its extent is supposed to be from about 
30 to 50 AU out from the Sun, whereas this new "planet" is twice that far 
away. Maybe that's how they've decided it might be something other than a 
Kuiper Belt object. I had forgotten about the large one called Sedna... and 
vaguely recall Quaoar... plus the vastness of the whole set of objects 
expected to be there which they say has much more in it than the 
better-known asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. But the more I read the 
more I wonder if it might very well be a very large Pluto-like Kuiper Belt 
"planetoid" instead. Orbits at a 44 degree angle to the ecliptic and might 
have a perigee a lot closer in (near Neptune?).

Still, right now anyway, it seems the discoverers and others following up on 
it could be determined to call it a new planet instead of consider it (and 
Pluto/Charon) a different class of objects.

Bob Hughes

Post a reply to this message

I reworked the surface, starry background and sun. Not necessarily for the 
better, unfortunately. Looking over the first version I really like the 
lumpy, melted ice cream look of it.

This one has conventional cratering mixed in, practically obliterating 
previous appearance. That's mainly because I made a mistake in the 
isosurface before but I've also added layered textures with very 
small-scaled normals this time, too. Yeah, mistakes can be good, if you 
agree with me that the first picture looked okay.

Rendered this at a resolution for wallpaper and thought maybe someone else 
would like to see it at this size.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Planet-X_Morpheus1600x1200.jpg' (413 KB)

Preview of image 'Planet-X_Morpheus1600x1200.jpg'

Bob Hughes nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-07-30 18:52:
> I decided to give this new planet a try. Calling it Morpheus because I 
> haven't seen the official name yet, and besides, this name makes sense to me 
> because it is a Greek god of dreams or sleep. It's supposed to be about the 
> size of the Moon, or a little less, but I don't know anything more than that 

> 
> What do you think about either my render here or the discovery? I read about 
> it while browsing through space-related web sites, first, then saw it 
> mentioned on TV news today. Here's one place that tells about it:
> 
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm
> 
> BTW, the bright speck along the left side of this image is the Sun. Nothing 
> actually to scale here since the sun's disk would never be seen anyway. The 
> planet is made from four multiplied functions used for isosurface; 3 
> different crackle and 1 wrinkles. Stars are simply small-scaled granite.
> 
> Thanks for looking!
> Bob Hughes
> 
> 
> 
Very dark! But that to be expected when you are that far away from the sun. More
realistic than the 
artist representation that I saw.

Alain

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" <omniverse@charter%net> schreef in bericht
news:42ec9f09$1@news.povray.org...
> Still, right now anyway, it seems the discoverers and others following up
on
> it could be determined to call it a new planet instead of consider it (and
> Pluto/Charon) a different class of objects.
>
I am no specialist on the matter, but personally i would favour it to be
part of a different class of objects, related to the Kuyper Belt. I suppose
there is no size limit there, although Jupiter-size objects are probably not
to be found.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" <omniverse@charter%net> schreef in bericht
news:42eca239@news.povray.org...
> I reworked the surface, starry background and sun. Not necessarily for the
> better, unfortunately. Looking over the first version I really like the
> lumpy, melted ice cream look of it.
>
> This one has conventional cratering mixed in, practically obliterating
> previous appearance. That's mainly because I made a mistake in the
> isosurface before but I've also added layered textures with very
> small-scaled normals this time, too. Yeah, mistakes can be good, if you
> agree with me that the first picture looked okay.
>
> Rendered this at a resolution for wallpaper and thought maybe someone else
> would like to see it at this size.
>
>
>
The Sun is OK, I think. I prefer a simulated view through human eyes, as it
were, to simulated exposure film.
The surface is not worse or better than the previous render, it is
different, and both are credible, imho.
In any case, it is much better than most of the artists' views we see,
including NASA's.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> I decided to give this new planet a try. Calling it Morpheus because I 
> haven't seen the official name yet, and besides, this name makes sense to me 
> because it is a Greek god of dreams or sleep. It's supposed to be about the 
> size of the Moon, or a little less, but I don't know anything more than that 

> 
> What do you think about either my render here or the discovery? I read about 
> it while browsing through space-related web sites, first, then saw it 
> mentioned on TV news today. Here's one place that tells about it:
> 
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm
> 
> BTW, the bright speck along the left side of this image is the Sun. Nothing 
> actually to scale here since the sun's disk would never be seen anyway. The 
> planet is made from four multiplied functions used for isosurface; 3 
> different crackle and 1 wrinkles. Stars are simply small-scaled granite.
> 
> Thanks for looking!
> Bob Hughes
> 
> 
> 

I thought the 10th planet was supposed to be called Rupert.


-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message