I spent all day working on planet design for "Stars and Finches". There's a lot to do! I had the idea of setting my planet around a dimmer star than our sun, so that "daylight" was basically twilight. That's what I was trying to research when I stumbled onto tidally-locked and hot eyeball planets, several of which we've found in the universe and seem to have some potential for hosting life.
So, my day was spent researching these planets and trying to determine how far mine should be from the sun to sustain lifeforms, what sorts of lifeforms these would be, if they have seasons, what length the years would be, and how large the sun would be in the sky, and what color. These planets tend to be blistering on one side and freezing on the other, with a band of hospitable water and land running between them. I learned some neat details too, like that water always runs from the cold side to the hot. Now, this sounds like it has potential for a fantasy world!
I researched them for a long time, because I'd really like the two extreme poles of the planet to have more livable temperatures. Apparently the hot side is constantly ravaged with wind and cyclones, and not much grows there. Not much grows on the icy side either. This would of course affect what creatures live there- you wouldn't have herbivores, so you wouldn't have creatures that eat herbivores, or wood to build houses or fires.
I think I can design flora and fauna that can withstand some conditions (such as plants with intense root systems that keep them ingrained in the harsh winds). Still, I'd like to find science to back up my decisions (I'm sure if the planet is at a certain distance, the sun wouldn't be so devastating, even if it makes the cold side more bitter. I just want to know what happens if I place the planet at different lengths- is that so hard?) I always try to be as accurate as I can when writing, and I'd prefer not to just say, "It's because magic" as an explanation if I don't have to.
Of course, as it was getting late, I stumbled across someone who said tidally-locked planets are something of a cliche. Strange, because I don't remember ever reading about a tidally-locked planet before. So I looked into that. I think this guy meant that they're a cliche in science fiction. I'm writing fantasy, so it shouldn't be such a big deal. Also, there were only five or six examples of tidally-locked planets in fiction that I could find (such as Remus from "Star Trek", which I tried to research but rgR didn't seem helpful from pictures I found on Google, so I'm not sure if it's actually shown as being tidally-locked in the movie). I wouldn't say five or six planets in popular media is much of a cliche. Not like, say, romance. Lots of cliches to be had there.
I also watched "Planet 51" this morning. You know, for research. It's a movie that came out some time ago and that I've always wanted to see, but never have. Their planet is Earth-like, but has rings, and like some planets in the universe, it rains rocks. That's a good thing to know- I probably shouldn't deliberately design a planet that rains rocks if I know it's already been done.
So, my day was spent researching these planets and trying to determine how far mine should be from the sun to sustain lifeforms, what sorts of lifeforms these would be, if they have seasons, what length the years would be, and how large the sun would be in the sky, and what color. These planets tend to be blistering on one side and freezing on the other, with a band of hospitable water and land running between them. I learned some neat details too, like that water always runs from the cold side to the hot. Now, this sounds like it has potential for a fantasy world!
I researched them for a long time, because I'd really like the two extreme poles of the planet to have more livable temperatures. Apparently the hot side is constantly ravaged with wind and cyclones, and not much grows there. Not much grows on the icy side either. This would of course affect what creatures live there- you wouldn't have herbivores, so you wouldn't have creatures that eat herbivores, or wood to build houses or fires.
I think I can design flora and fauna that can withstand some conditions (such as plants with intense root systems that keep them ingrained in the harsh winds). Still, I'd like to find science to back up my decisions (I'm sure if the planet is at a certain distance, the sun wouldn't be so devastating, even if it makes the cold side more bitter. I just want to know what happens if I place the planet at different lengths- is that so hard?) I always try to be as accurate as I can when writing, and I'd prefer not to just say, "It's because magic" as an explanation if I don't have to.
Of course, as it was getting late, I stumbled across someone who said tidally-locked planets are something of a cliche. Strange, because I don't remember ever reading about a tidally-locked planet before. So I looked into that. I think this guy meant that they're a cliche in science fiction. I'm writing fantasy, so it shouldn't be such a big deal. Also, there were only five or six examples of tidally-locked planets in fiction that I could find (such as Remus from "Star Trek", which I tried to research but rgR didn't seem helpful from pictures I found on Google, so I'm not sure if it's actually shown as being tidally-locked in the movie). I wouldn't say five or six planets in popular media is much of a cliche. Not like, say, romance. Lots of cliches to be had there.
I also watched "Planet 51" this morning. You know, for research. It's a movie that came out some time ago and that I've always wanted to see, but never have. Their planet is Earth-like, but has rings, and like some planets in the universe, it rains rocks. That's a good thing to know- I probably shouldn't deliberately design a planet that rains rocks if I know it's already been done.
Mom made grilled cheeses for the two of us, and in the afternoon, I searched for something I could turn into a model globe of my world. We used to have this Leapster globe, but Mom said we'd just donated it as they were cleaning the house to get ready for me coming back from the summer. Of course, after ten years, I only need it the week after it's gone. I texted Dad and asked if he wanted to turn a shopping trip into a daddy-daughter date after he dropped Jorja off at softball, but he found a small soccer ball once he came home and suggested we cover it in paper mache. Fun, but first I need to figure out where the mountains go so we can build the rises on my globe.
I worked on writing for a bit longer and played some Rise of Nations with Preston. Towards the end, we paused because Mom and Jorja had gotten the ice cream out. After that, we watched some "Bruno the Kid", until Mom and Dad came home. Oops. I guess we should have gotten Preston off to bed. He's gotten in his pajamas before we watched "Bruno" and for some reason I guess I assumed that meant he'd done all his pre-bed chores, like practice piano.
I stayed up a bit longer, reading Stockton some stats questions to help him study for his AP test tomorrow. I did some drawing as I waited for him to think through his answers. Today, Butch revealed a sneak peek at an upcoming character from "Bunsen Is a Beast". This was pretty exciting for me because this kid looks like he could be related to Mikey, and I love seeing family relationships in shows. Neither Timmy Turner or Danny Fenton have any confirmed cousins, so if this is Mikey's cousin, I just think that would be fun. Especially because Mikey has an uncle in the state penitentiary and I'd love to see that detail come back in this kiddo's life.
So, I drew him because I thought he looked neat. That hair was just as fun to draw as it looked.
This kid looks like a snob, but he's also cheering for the
same thing Mikey and Bunsen are. I am intrigued.
