@the2real4mafol

The number given to a planet typically refers to its location in relation to the the sun and other planets. Ceres being between Mars and Jupiter would be the fifth planet out from the sun. The number doesn't reflect the chronology of discovery. Ceres was discovered in the nineteenth century as was Neptune. With Uranus being discovered in the eighteenth century. The rest of the planets you learned about in school were known since antiquity.

It appears that both the Earth, and Mars suffered planetary impacts early in their history. The Earth however never ran into Mars. Earth has hit by a hypothetical planet named Theia early in its history. In the process of combining to form a much larger world a lot of mantle material was ejected from both into orbit around the new planet, and that material coalesced to make a very large moon.

Mars was likely hit by another planet early in its history, but it appears to have been more of a glancing blow. This would be explaining why the planet is currently lopsided. The southern hemisphere is is higher then the northern hemisphere. That planet didn't merge with Mars, and it didn't eject material into orbit to create any moons for Mars, or at least any moons that still exist. The moons of Mars were not created as part of that system. They are Asteroids that were captured by Mars, and it appears that Mars has captured many such asteroids in the past. The current moons of Mars aren't going to last very long on a cosmic scale for that matter. One is going to eject out of the system over time, and the other is going to crash into the planet.

Since we are on the subject it appears that the same has happened to the other two terrestrial planets as well. It seems that much of Mercury's mantle was blown off early in its history, and Venus seems to have taken a big whack too. So big in fact that it knocked the planet backwards literally. The planet rotates very slowly in the opposite direction to all the other planets. Well maybe not Uranus which may have been knocked on its side.

Anyway I hope that clears up any misconceptions you may have.

tuchunka

Thessia, blue women are hot

You forget Pluto (dwarf planet) was discovered in the early 20th century too

But, anyway I think it's very fascinating knowing about all of this, it really is. What I wonder is how we found out about all this? 

Im assuming any planet is habitable for the sake of discussion. In that case, any planet that has gigantic viewable planets in the sky :D

Pluto!!!! I dont care what they say! it will always be a planet to me!

If we're talking about fictional planets then Helliconia sounds like an interesting place to live.
Two suns in the sky sounds good to me. I wouldn't want to be there during the great winter though.

"Helliconia lies in a loose binary star system, which consists of a yellow-orange dwarf similar to our sun, Batalix (spectral class G4 [1] ), and a hotter and brighter white star, Freyr (Type A supergiant). Helliconia orbits Batalix, which in turn orbits Freyr. The Batalix-Freyr system is supposedly in the constellation of Ophiuchus, about a thousand light years from Earth.
Helliconia orbits Batalix in 480 days. Each day comprises 25 hours each of 40 minutes which in turn are each 100 seconds long. This is called the "small year". Helliconia and Batalix's orbit around Freyr, the "great year", is highly elliptical and takes approximately 1,825 small years which equates to some 2,592 Earth years."

Great series by Brian Aldiss, I can highly recommend it.

Cool thread.

I would live anywhere you can an easy lifestyle. I would like a variable climate like we have on this one, without the temperature extremes. Not too hot, because mosquitos hate me! So the climate must be seasonal.

When I say easy lifestyle I mean like those planets in Mass Effect or Star Trek where you have planets with hi-flying socialites going to parties all the time, or crusiing around the planet in expensive look flight vehicles.

Technically you can't answer this question because for us to be able to live on a planet, it has to be habitable for humans, and we have yet to find a planet that can sustain life.

Also, how are you going to live on Neptune? It may be cold but it's a gas giant composed almost entirely of Hydrogen and Helium. It's like saying I'm going to somehow live in the air.

@UltimateUnknown

Technically speaking the word habitable means capable of being inhabited. Thus if human technology allows humans to live somewhere. Then that place is indeed habitable. You are confusing the word habitable with hospitable. Which means a good place to live. Humans don't need a place to be good to live there. All they need is to be able to keep themselves alive, and it doesn't matter if it is happening naturally, or humans are making it possible through their own technology. You don't have a point.

As for Neptune that is exactly where people colonizing the planet Neptune would live. The density of those gases increase as you go deeper into the planet towards its solid surface. At a certain depth in a space suit you would in fact become buoyant. You would indeed float, and never fall all the way down to the surface. It would be like just laying on top of a pool of water. It would even be possible to make entire cities that would float at what to us would be a depth with a comfortable pressure. They are called Aerostat colonies if you are genuinely interested.

Oh and if you are going to argue that it wouldn't be practicable to do so don't even bother. The planet furnishes what life needs a abundance of in abundant quantities. The atmosphere is rich in the basic ingredients that a self contained colony would need to sustain a biosphere. The planet is rich in Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Water. Beyond that trace elements would be present as well. The planets temperature isn't even a major hurdle, because the planets winds would be a energy bonanza. Unlike the Earth they are nearly constant so they could turn wind turbines forever.

Imagination don't leave how without it.