The Planetary Conditions Analysis Thread

[Omnigeek6]

I apologize in advance if this thread is bad and I should feel bad, but I felt like this would be nice to have.

This is meant to be a thread to speculate about potential conditions on different planets, including fictional ones you make in US. This includes planetary habitability.

For example: would a tidally locked "super-earth" be habitable? (In this case, habitability means that it could sustain extremophiles from earth, and possibly more complex organisms.

Another example: Our own solar system's ice giants may have extremely hot mantles consisting of liquid water, ammonia, and methane. Could life exist there?

[Darvince]

yay life

[Naru523]

For example: would a tidally locked "super-earth" be habitable? (In this case, habitability means that it could sustain extremophiles from earth, and possibly more complex organisms.

In a way, yes. While the day and night have both extreme conditions, the boundary where they meet (Terminator. It's where sunset/sunrise happens) has the right conditions. Gliese 581 g, whose status is unconfirmed, is a super-earth which is tidal-locked and scientists confirms that life can live in the termination line.

Another example: Our own solar system's ice giants may have extremely hot mantles consisting of liquid water, ammonia, and methane. Could life exist there?

Quite possible so. As said so, life needs heat, and with such heat coming from the core, it would be the right place. Then again, the atmosphere is very cold, so we don't know if their is such a life.

[atomic7732]

I'd love to make a meanignful reply but I'm quite tired at the moment... lol

[Omnigeek6]

I've heard that a planet with a decently thick atmosphere could be habitable more areas than just the termination line.

Another thing to note about habitable zones: taking greenhouse effects and geothermal heating into account moves the entire zone outward.

In addition, gas giants with habitable moons seem extremely likely, provided they orbit at the right distance from their parents.

A gas giant's magnetic field could fry life on a moon at the wrong distance, but it could also shield its moons from stellar wind, allowing moons with weak magnetic fields to still support life. In addition, tidal heating could allow a magnetic field to form, and, as we see from our own solar system, can make moons WAY too far out for liquid water to exist normally to be habitable.

[deoxy99]

Quite possible so. As said so, life needs heat, and with such heat coming from the core, it would be the right place. Then again, the atmosphere is very cold, so we don't know if their is such a life.

Just because our Earth is warm, does not mean other planets have to be to support life.

[Naru523]

Just because our Earth is warm, does not mean other planets have to be to support life.

Well, most lives do. It has to be the right place between hot and cold, thus a habitable zone. Of course their may be other ways life can form by other heat in planets..

[deoxy99]

Life's prerequisites can actually be random. Life doesn't need water. What if it uses sulfuric acid? Life doesn't need air. What if it breathes carbon dioxide (like plants)? Life doesn't need heat. What if it uses so little energy, it doesn't even need heat?

[Naru523]

Life's prerequisites can actually be random. Life doesn't need water. What if it uses sulfuric acid? Life doesn't need air. What if it breathes carbon dioxide (like plants)? Life doesn't need heat. What if it uses so little energy, it doesn't even need heat?

I said most. I didn't say that all life need it. Ofc that would be called "zones of physiological stress".

[atomic7732]

Life's prerequisites can actually be random. Life doesn't need water. What if it uses sulfuric acid? Life doesn't need air. What if it breathes carbon dioxide (like plants)? Life doesn't need heat. What if it uses so little energy, it doesn't even need heat?

The problem is, we know what we're made of, so why shouldn't this be the key to *some* life forms as well? Since we do not know that life can be made of sulfuric acid, we do not look for that, as with what we know, it's likely improbable.

More likely, there will be silicon and arsenic based life, the latter already confirmed. We tested these because groups on the periodic table have similar chemical characteristics.

Don't be so quick to say life doesn't need heat. You don't know that. The following sentence does make sense though.

[Darvince]

The problem is, we know what we're made of, so why shouldn't this be the key to *some* life forms as well? Since we do not know that life can be made of sulfuric acid, we do not look for that, as with what we know, it's likely improbable.

Since there is an infinite combination of elements, and with the recent discovery of dust acting like it is alive in the interstellar medium, there are most likely life forms made of sulfuric acid, at least somewhere.

There is also the possibility of life thriving within a star, given it needs that much energy. However, chemical bonds tend to break down at that temperature. Given these, there is a maximum temperature for life to exist, but not a lowest one, other than absolute zero.

More likely, there will be silicon and arsenic based life, the latter already confirmed. We tested these because groups on the periodic table have similar chemical characteristics.

Since arsenic can become bacteria, I would not be surprised if there was a planet with intelligent life and the life being arsenic. However, there isn't that much arsenic, so it would be hard to find a region with enough arsenic to make an entire planet of life.

Silicon, although with its similarities to carbon, does not mean that it can process oxygen. There is a possibility, though, of silicon being able to consume and produce different elements.

Don't be so quick to say life doesn't need heat. You don't know that. The following sentence does make sense though.

Life might not need heat, but then it would take tens, even hundreds of billions of years to develop. The balancing factor, though, is that in colder regions, a planet is calmer than if it is closer to the star providing heat.

Also, movement and all other processes are slower at colder temperatures.

[Naru523]

Since there is an infinite combination of elements, and with the recent discovery of dust acting like it is alive in the interstellar medium, there are most likely life forms made of sulfuric acid, at least somewhere.

There is also the possibility of life thriving within a star, given it needs that much energy. However, chemical bonds tend to break down at that temperature. Given these, there is a maximum temperature for life to exist, but not a lowest one, other than absolute zero.

I pretty much agree with you. Since we do not understand how other life works, it is only a possible way that life can be made. But if life would be in a star, it would actually be weird, but it is neither possible or impossible.

Since arsenic can become bacteria, I would not be surprised if there was a planet with intelligent life and the life being arsenic. However, there isn't that much arsenic, so it would be hard to find a region with enough arsenic to make an entire planet of life.

Silicon, although with its similarities to carbon, does not mean that it can process oxygen. There is a possibility, though, of silicon being able to consume and produce different elements.

We're probably the only system to have life, unless life developed without the means of water and is hidden in the atmosphere in another exo-planet. But, what is the chance to have life form?

Ways of silicon being produced into different elements could have been performed, but I don't know if it can do other stuff.

Life might not need heat, but then it would take tens, even hundreds of billions of years to develop. The balancing factor, though, is that in colder regions, a planet is calmer than if it is closer to the star providing heat.

Also, movement and all other processes are slower at colder temperatures.

True, since one of the main way life works is to have heat. Somehow it could have life since polar animals on Earth have parts which can counter the coldness.

Sometimes they can be, since most animals like us tend to not like colder temperatures (though I do adore coldness). Its probably because we cannot adapt the coldness and it makes us slower to work on.

[Hamster]

You guys (not Bla or Dan) can actually be factual with long informative posts? I'm excited about this!

[Naru523]

You guys (not Bla or Dan) can actually be factual with long informative posts? I'm excited about this!

Well, sometimes we can be helpful. Living life as a non-sensical poster.... no. 

[atomic7732]

There is also the possibility of life thriving within a star, given it needs that much energy. However, chemical bonds tend to break down at that temperature. Given these, there is a maximum temperature for life to exist, but not a lowest one, other than absolute zero.

Some where far above epsilon will be the lowest limiting factor, but will be based on how small an organism could possibly be. Can they be made of 10 atoms? Who knows? If they could, they'd only need probably half a kelvin to live.

Silicon, although with its similarities to carbon, does not mean that it can process oxygen. There is a possibility, though, of silicon being able to consume and produce different elements.

Do silicates not count as processing oxygen? SiO2 exists.

Life might not need heat, but then it would take tens, even hundreds of billions of years to develop. The balancing factor, though, is that in colder regions, a planet is calmer than if it is closer to the star providing heat.

Also, movement and all other processes are slower at colder temperatures.

I don't think life could exist with no heat given this fact: nothing moves at absolute zero. This means that there is no way for an organism to consume fuel to somehow reproduce. Since there is movement, and thus friction everywhere inside the visible universe, no matter how small it is, there is at least some temperature. Thus in my beliefs of energy needed for life, life can exist anywhere.

We're probably the only system to have life, unless life developed without the means of water and is hidden in the atmosphere in another exo-planet. But, what is the chance to have life form?

In an infinite universe, everything is infinite, everything happens infinitley. As you decrease the size of the universe, less is possible. In a near infinite (and still possibly infinite) universe, I think that life is significantly possible. How hard can it be to have a G star about 4 - 6 billion years old, with an earth mass planet orbiting within .8 - 1.2 AU? Not very.
The only reason we haven't found earth-like planets yet is because we haven't had the technology long enough to focus on enough stars to locate these low mass planets. Chances are Kepler has already found a few, but this is limited to planets in plane with ours. To confirm these, multiple transits are needed, and this takes years. Using radial velocity, the movements of these planets are very difficult to find over long periods of time, as the movement of the star is so insignificant. The distance decreases the influence of gravity as well as the speed of the exoplanet, and in turn the star.

[Omnigeek6]

Hi again!

I ran a little simulation in US and I have discovered that habitable planets could exist in a stable 2:3 resonance with 55 Cancri f. Cool, or what?


BTW, it should really be called 55 Cancri Af, since it orbits a star in a binary.

[atomic7732]

I really think they are done with that system. lol

[Darvince]

55 Cnc does nawt matter anymore.

[atomic7732]

I know. HD10180 pwned it epically. Gl581 had it there for two weeks before dropping back to e.

[Omnigeek6]

Hi guys, I'm here with another idea for a habitable planet around a red dwarf.

There seems to be a lot of speculation about planets tidally locked to their stars, and moons of gas giants which would be locked to their parents...

...but what about a planet tidally locked to its moon? Pluto and Charon prove that a binary planet is possible, so why couldn't a similar system of large enough mass to create a magnetic field exist in the habitable zone?

Such a pair of objects would be tidally locked to each other, and not to their parent star. This would allow more earth-like conditions, and make the planet's entire surface habitable.




Another topic: seasons, for anyone interested in habitable planets. Earth's seasons are created by its axis tilt, but on a planet with a more eccentric orbit, but a low inclination, the planet would have global winters and summers based on periapsis and apsis. Alternately, on a planet orbiting one star in a binary, the position of the other star relative to the planet could create seasonal effects. Although the temperature might not be changed much, the second star could still create a "midnight sun," which could have radical effects on the behavior of many organisms. Perhaps on a tidally locked planet orbiting an M star which itself orbited a G or F, the dark side of the planet would experience a seasonal thaw during which life could emerge from dormancy and make the most of the short time before freezing temperatures resumed, much like in Earth's tundra.

[atomic7732]

I'm thinking the force of the star would have, early in the lifetime of the system, destroyed the integrity of the spin, and along with fluid drag, the angular momentum probably created a Kozai-like effect that made them collide.