| New Reply |
Could a superearth be hospitable (survivable?) for humans? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Sep23-12, 02:41 PM | #1 |
|
|
Could a superearth be hospitable (survivable?) for humans?
Yes, I know, a civilization able to send a colony space ship on distance of many light years wouldn't probably be very sensitive to a harsh climate...
Assumptions: - well within habitable zone; - there is some local life that was able to generate atmospheric oxygen; - you can pick a whichever place good place on its surface; - no cheating, no GMO humans; ;) - if any lucky but possible additional natural processes were needed please assume them but list them. With ex. 8 earth masses it should roughly (ignoring matters of density) it should have roughly twice earth gravity. Crushing, but not directly lethal for unprotected human. Do it have to be a water world? Would it have to have ultra dense atmosphere? (Could some lucky strike of a planet size object strip it of its volatiles, thus preventing appearance of water world with ultra dense atmosphere) How would look its plate tectonic? Would it be relatively flat because of gravity, or with such mass it would be so geologically active that mountainous landscape would anyway appear? |
| Sep23-12, 03:56 PM | #2 |
|
Mentor
|
Gravity, atmospheric density, winds, rain (or similar), type of rock... all relevant for surface structures. |
| Sep23-12, 08:19 PM | #3 |
|
|
|
| Sep23-12, 09:24 PM | #4 |
|
|
Could a superearth be hospitable (survivable?) for humans?
Don't forget protein chirality. There's a 50-50 chance that nothing growing or living there can be digested or metabolized at all.
|
| Sep24-12, 07:48 AM | #5 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| Sep24-12, 03:35 PM | #6 |
|
|
![]() From practical reasons one can bring his own species, so chirality would hamper habitability seriously. |
| Sep24-12, 04:49 PM | #7 |
|
|
|
| Sep24-12, 06:21 PM | #8 |
|
|
It's a bit more than chirality. All multi-celluar life on the earth using a particular amino acid code, and it's likely that any life on another planet would use a different code. It might be possible to break things down, but it's not clear how fermentation would work or whether it would work at all.
One other thing is that there are likely to be some interesting interactions between any bacteria you bring and any local organisms. There's an interesting paradox. A lot of the motivation for getting off the planet was because we had two superpowers in a life and death struggle. Without this sort of struggle, no one is interested in getting off the planet. With that struggle, you end up risking total war that destroys the planet. So to get into space, you need just enough conflict to force people off the planet, but not so much that it destroys the planet. |
| Sep24-12, 09:39 PM | #9 |
|
|
I'm still interested. The world is even less safe than it was in the Cold War and an extinction-level impact could always be right around the corner.
|
| Sep24-12, 11:15 PM | #10 |
|
|
|
| Sep25-12, 04:29 AM | #11 |
|
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
|
Some initial thoughts:
1) Twice Earth gravity is quite dangerous. It's analogous to walking around with a twin on your back. Any fall is going to have the potential for serious injury or death and I can't imagine the strain on the colonists joints and cardiovascular system. On top of that we have no idea what the long term health effects (especially during development) are for living out of Earth gravity. Astronauts spend a few months in freefall and have to fight of a plethora of problems, going from conception to adulthood is likely to be even more complicated. 2) A planet that massive is likely to have a much thicker atmosphere which in turn would heat up the surface no? 3) The chances of the local ecology being compatable are slim to nil. Bear in mind that we can't safely eat the majority (or close to I would argue) of organisms found on our own planet. We evolved to live in a very specific ecological niché, just because we've spread around the planet doesn't mean we can jump of it easily. Leaving aside matters of chirality it might not even opperate on the same fundamental biochemistry. On top of that even if the local ecology is close enough to be compatible with us then within minutes of stepping out the airlock a superantigen would probably kill everyone. If not that then some form of infection we have no immunity from. I'm sorry but space is not the New New World. You can't get there on the cheap with a brace of pioneers and hack out a society in the new fertile land. |
| Sep25-12, 05:19 AM | #12 |
|
|
It is unclear how biochemical processes might evolve under massive gravity. My guess is it would be different from earth. In fact, I doubt biochemical processes would evolve similar results to those on earth under identicaly initial conditions.
|
| Sep25-12, 07:58 AM | #13 |
|
Mentor
|
If it is completely different from life on earth, it might work the other way round, too - organisms on earth might digest it, and the species on earth (=the possible number of thing-digesting species) would outnumber the designed things by far. |
| Sep25-12, 08:04 AM | #14 |
|
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
|
|
| Sep29-12, 01:51 PM | #15 |
|
|
I'm more afraid of high atmospheric pressure which, pending on composition means: oxygen poisoning/ carbon dioxide poisoning /nitrogen anaesthesia. So -rephrasing my question - is some kind of stripping of atmosphere and hydrosphere a realistic scenario for some superearths? (I think about collisions) Should the landscape be flattened by gravity or not so much? (I'm curious because it might be possible that the most friendly place could be mountain ranges) |
| Sep29-12, 03:21 PM | #16 |
|
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
|
I only have time for a quick post from my phone but regarding mass it isn't analogous to bigger people, your body adapts to your size as it changes but in this case the mass of everything is different. I question the ability to adapt to that. Also falling 1 metre is as dangerous as falling 2 on earth as everything will accelerate faster.
Regarding bringing terrestrial organisms the complexity of biospheres is utterly non trivial. Throwing down some life in a world it is not adapting to is not going to give you a pop up biosphere. |
| Sep30-12, 06:58 AM | #17 |
|
|
The gravity problem would be a non issue for the body to handle. The traveling space craft would just have to be put into a spin to simulate the gravity on the 'new' planet for the last 6 months of travel time to bulk up Arnie style! The crew would have to consume a calcium rich food source to increase bone density also.
Damo |
| New Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Could a superearth be hospitable (survivable?) for humans?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Survivable Birth Defects and the Rise of Mutants | Biology | 4 | ||
| apparently, M62 is quite hospitable to life | General Astronomy | 0 | ||
| Humans | General Discussion | 2 | ||
| Humans God-like? | General Discussion | 10 | ||
| humans | General Discussion | 2 | ||