Talk:Decapod 10

Did a bit of speculation here, based on a picture of the planet from orbit, seen twice in 2ACV05, which shows three bodies. They land on Decapod 10. There is one small, gray body (like the moon) and another large, orange body. From apparent size and the banding pattern in the atmosphere, I'd say it's definately a gas giant, and at that distance Deapod 10 is either orbiting it or about to collide with it. I call the first a moon of Decapod 10 because it is visible in the night sky (above PE ship, after Zoidy's erotic display failed), but it may be another sattelite of the same gas giant.

I'm tempted to go further and point out that this gives the planet two kinds of years, one for every orbit around it's gas giant (which would probably be shorter than an earth year) and another for the gas giant's orbit around the sun (which would probably be many earth-years long). This could cause there to be an incredibly complex seasonal cycle, which may have led to the unusuall development cycle of the Decapodians, but I fear that might be going too far. Reactions?

If I can get a screenshot of this, it'd be worth mentioning.

Iota Cancri
This is heavy OR, but I wonder if anyone's noticed this before: Iota Cancri, a star in the constellation Cancer, has the traditional name...Decapoda.

I think. Unless this is a long-term vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Cancer

Just thought it may be of interest. Lady BlahDeBlah 13:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cancer crab Decapoda Decapod 10 sounds plausable. - Quolnok 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt this is a coincidence. Futurama writers wouldnot make such a thing a coincidence. --SvipTalk 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be even more supported if Decapod 10 had a binary sun... does it? I don't remember it having such, but I could be wrong. --Buddy 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It only has one star, I'm afraid. But its name may still be derived from there. --SvipTalk 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the writers' affinity for scientific references, I'd say it's more likely than not that it was an intentional reference. I'd say it's worth a mention. --Buddy 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)