The beast wrote-
Which still leaves Brian hanging, though it brings up an interesting
question: does an M-class(whatevertheheckthatREALLYmeans) require a near
G0 star, or can you put a planet with heavy atmosphere in a further orbit
around a hotter star, or lesser atmosphere in a near orbit to a cooler one? I
seem to recall interesting speculations on radiation
other-than-light-heat, and year lengths. If this is TOO OT, let me know.
I would like a answer to this as well. I remember from some of my sci-fi
novels, a area of habitablity is a certain distance from each star, and the
hotter the star, the further away the habital zone is. For dim stars, the
habital zone is too close, and a planet will become tidelocked to the star,
meaning a habitable biospere would be imposible. Also, the next is pure
speculation, but I think a stable, breathable atmosphere would be imposible
too close to a star due to cronal discharge (solar winds and sunspot
discharges). The above is waiting for correction from somebody who actually
knows what they are talking about <G>.
G'day again,
> I would like a answer to this as well.
Well I don't claim to be an astrobiologist, but at least within my circles and
the papers I've read on the subject this is still a matter of very great
debate. Experimental work and a good number of thought experiments suggest
that tide locked worlds may be just great for life as they're so damn
constant. Think about it on Earth we have fluctuating day length, fluctuating
levels of radiation, fluctuating water levels (due to tides), fluctuating
seasons and climate on very short (daily) and immensely long (millions of
years) scales. Everything fluctuates for heavens sake!! Now while fluctuation
(at least in the last few billion years) obviusly hasn't been all bad for the
kind of life on this planet its actually much easier to get simple life to
flourish under constant conditions (look at all the labs around the world who
go for constant conditions to keep things going). There's nothing more
constant than a tide locked planet;)
Best article I saw on this was a year or so ago where a scientist was
arguing that maybe we're looking in all the wrong spots for life -
because we're at 1AU around a G star we assume other life will be too (not a
bad empirical assumption mind). However, put yourself in the mind of a being
from a K star on a tidally locked world. Why the heck would you bother looking
for life around G class stars? Any habitable planets would have to be so far
out due to the higher levels of radiation that they couldn't be tide locked,
so you get varying light levels and water levels (even without the moon there
would be some tides) just to name a few hazards. What kind of life could live
under such varying conditions? Heavens it'd have to be really simple to cope,
nothing too complex would ever be able to deal with that much variation in
radiation and biogeochemical media...
Thus with everything we only know a little bit about there's plenty of room to
let the mind run reasonably free on this one. So far the list of "possible
sites" runs to at least the following (though some are more marginal than
others):
- Terran like rocky planets
- Moons around giant planets (be they rock or gas)
- Tide locked planets
- Rogue planets (ones not tied to a solar system). Note these guys are
largely theoretcial I think, some one will surely correct me, but they could
support life as long as they had enough energy caught up in their
atmospheres, like a semi-self sustaining dynamo. OK its doubtful they'd
ever
evolve biomes etc, but given the time span of the games/histroy we're
considering you could plonk a "fully sealed" station/colony on one for
your purposes (they're unlikely to need to last for billions of years after
all)
As evidenced by the rogue planet stuff you don't even need to be solidly in
the habitable zone, but it helps at least;) It has as much to do with what you
base the ecology on. If you're willing to step away from the notion that life
HAS to be powered by solar energy then the universe is your oyster so to
speak. The vent communities and extremophile populations on Earth show that
you can get along just fine without ever needing solar radiation (it may even
be how life got its kick off on Earth... and my apologies to any who don't
believe in evolution here, I'm not trying to being insulting so just ignore
the last bit if it offends
you).
Sorry this turned out so long!
> Beth wrote:
> G'day again,
Remember this is an SF list. We have no problems with warp drives, so such
whacky theories as Evolution, a Heliocentric rather than Geocentric
Solar System, or even a near-spheroidal Earth should be OK.
OTOH so should Creationism, a Geocentric Solar System and a planar Earth.
Regardless, good manners such as yours are never out of place.
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:57:33 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
<snip> and my apologies to any who don't believe in evolution
> here,
No problem, after all, this *is* Science Fiction, right? <vbg>
.
And my apologies to anyone who is offended by my joke about my disbelief of
Beth's perfectly valid personal and professional belief.
Gracias,
From: <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
> Remember this is an SF list. We have no problems with warp drives,
OTOH so should Creationism, a Geocentric Solar System and a planar Earth.
Very good, except you put "evolution" where "creationism" should be and vice
versa. <g> Although since both of them are religious beliefs, this is probably
something best taken off list.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 22:38:27 -0500, "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> Although since both of them are religious beliefs, this is probably
Oh, lord, please don't start an evolution/creationism debate!!!
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 22:38:27 -0500, "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> Although since both of them are religious beliefs, this is probably
And, sorry, but that last message of mine was aimed at everyone!
Anyone on the list for any length of time will know my feelings on evolution.
I just saw this statement and immediately felt the need to defend my position.
I realized someone else will feel the same way, and that way leads to madness!
(For those that don't know, I'm a big believer that we were all placed on this
Earth by a 3 dimensional cartoonist named Bob. I'm a Bobist, though I'm
learning to tolerate heathen Frederites...)
[quoted original message omitted]
Space master RPG has a very good star system generation system that will give
planets, moons, atmospheres and much more, if anyone is interested I will dig
out my copy and pass on the info.
Paul
> -----Original Message-----
[quoted original message omitted]
There very easily could be habital planets around M class stars, if those
planets are moons of gas giants. Most star system generations systems can't
replicate what little we do know beyond our solar system.
Old Starguard edition has one (as does Star Wars 2250 A.D.) - if
someone with much 'stellar understanding' would like to check it for modicum
of reliability I can mail to them for comment.
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 12:17:48 -0000 "Paul Owen" <paul@gtns.net> writes:
> The thought I`ve had for a alien race run along these lines. A race
Depends on the star. Alarish is about 1 AU from its M star and would be tide
locked to the star if it wasn't orbiting a gas giant, but it gets only about
the same insolation as Jupiter does.
If you have a planet which gets a lot more energy than Earth, it's
likely not to support life--or at least, not life which is going to be
competing with us over the same real estate. And if we and they don't want the
same planet, we're not too likely to be fighting over it.
G'day,
> A planet that close to a star would
That depends how efficient they are at using the available energy sources.
Tide locked planets may have areas of high wind speed (due to temperature
differentials between the light and dark sides) and theat may not be as easy
to utilise. The "sunny" side may have large quotients of radiation that needed
to be toned down thus diverting energy to UV blockers rather than purely to
growth. On the "dark" side growth is likely to have some
contributions from waste/dead material blown round from the "sunny"
side,
but would more likely be based on geothermal energy and/or chemical
reactions (which aren't necessarily any more effcient than solar energy
sources).
> meaning the probablity of more hostile preditors.
Now I'm not saying you can't have lots of cranky predators roaming about, but
ecologically speaking your statement doesn't hold. Polar regions on Earth have
less solar energy reaching them than tropical regions, but polar bears are no
less hostile than jaguars;)
If you want aggressive predators I'd be more apt to say that conditions were
harsh on your planet (or at least in parts of it) and so generalist predators
were a common feature of its biota.
> This could give rise to a xenophobia
Why? Species aren't xenophobic, competive yes, xenophobic no - that
little
twist is a state that comes from sentient actions/justifications its not
a product of ecology. Its fine to say that as the species had to compete
strongly for resources (or on the slip side was always on the run from large
predators) that as it developed societies it acquired this characteristic (as
a general extention of "hey this is mine, sod off" or "fear of the unknown
threat"), but once again just a general "this means that" doesn't follow.
> (just like the KV)
Poor misunderstood KV, I've often wondered how many KV scientists sit there
saying "that race X is so xenophobic, almost as bad as the Hu'Mans";)
> The lifeform would also be able
I'd say they're more likely to be more tolerant of one extreme or the other, I
doubt there'd be too many "side spanning" species that didn't use
metamorphosis or technology to assist them (OK this is pure extrapolation
based on Earth, but its a start).
> Also, a race that evolved on a planet
Or may be likely to have mitigation measures in place... assuming the planet
didn't develop an ozone layer to rival ours etc. It may also depend on the
length/strength/form of their DNA equivalent, how easily its messed up.
Now despite all I've said I'm not trying to rain on your parade. You can
still use all you're ideas and make a great set of aliens - and in fact
feel free to ignore me as its just a pet peeve of mine that people go to such
great lengths to get the tech side of SF "so right", but ignore questions
about how sensible the biological side of things are, but that's just my peeve
and you shouldn't have to worry about it;)