As astronomers study the stars they are finding that that vast majority (if not all of them) are comprised of two or more orbiting bodies.
This has left the question of our own system's "construction" increasingly exposed to questioning. There is a growing number of astronomers considering that we are part of a binary system and the heliocentric theory is just as flawed as the geocentric theory as the ultimate configuration of our system.
But, if it's not the sun that "everything goes around", what is it that "everything goes around" and mustn't there be a center?
Well, apparently, if the stars we are studying (once again, the vast majority like 80 to 90% if not more) are any indication, it is seemingly increasingly likely that what is in the middle of every system is actually ....
NO thing at all.
Things orbit other things without one clear center but a complex of hierarchies just like moons going around planets, which in turn are "moons" of other planets and which does not cause any tidally locked body to suddenly take off and orbit a larger body at random. Instead a sort of electromagnetic tidal locking seems to be taking place.
It's still safe to say the P-Type planets (Saturn, Jupiter, Pluto, etc.) orbit the central goings-ons and the Asteroid Belts are outside of the Mars-Sun binary conundrum.
However, the stars exhibit behavior of orbiting one another in spirographic or trochoidal motions. And it's possible for enormous things like big stars (ahem, or sun) to orbit much much smaller planets (ahem). One case in point is the latest studies of Sirius A and Sirius B (and theoretical Sirius C, an analog of Earth, at the barycenter of a binary pair). What's more, there seem to be a number of tiny bodies with a "pull" that are too small to be considered stars as we know them and we are now considering that some of these bodies may be planets. Of course, Newtonian gravity is incomplete, but this really questions much of what we know.
Stellar Metamorphosis theory even suggests planets are just old stars.
All this is to say ... Descent so far has done a good job of avoiding the issue.
In existing lore, the player ship approaches a body, and lands on it. The complexities of trajectories and orbits are not addressed.
I think this is the wisest way. I hope D:U keeps it like that.
To make the Descent universe "safe" from broken, controversial or newly re-controversial theory it is best to avoid making something as weird as a Flat Earth or geocentric determination (which heliocentrism seems set to join soon if modern astrophysics is any indication).
And so I just wanted to give a nod to the old way of Descent 1 - 3 where we just "are" at a setting all of a sudden and there is no weird narrative attempt to frame our entire universe or even where Earth is.
It leaves the controversy aside and means we can feel more immersed in the reboot.
If we must have an epic scene that says something old-fashioned like "Earth, the third planet from the sun" or something equally outdated, I hope that kind of narrative text/diagramming can be avoided lest we look like Columbus with his "map to India".