|
Desert with Life - a new planet class
|
|
| Jabberwockxeno6109 | Date: Tuesday, 23.04.2013, 14:28 | Message # 31 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 85
Status: Offline
| Sorry to necro this, but I feel this is an important topic.
Any planet in the game, no matter what the type, should have a chance of harboring life. We are but one planet, and we already have a vast amount of radically different organisms.
We even are still arguing and debating if certain things ARE life, such as viruses. It's very, very, very likely in the real world, there are "living" beings so radically different from us that we won't be able to classify them as alive.
To limit life to terra's in space engine is quite frankly an affront to the very purpose of the program.
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Tuesday, 23.04.2013, 15:30 | Message # 32 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Jabberwockxeno6109) To limit life to terra's in space engine is quite frankly an affront to the very purpose of the program.
Life is not limited to terras, it is limited to worlds with surface water, since all life that we know of requires water and SE characterizes worlds by their surface environments. By definition, all worlds with surface water in SE will be oceanias or terras. It does not make sense to implement life on any other class of world at present, until we either confirm a form of life that does not require water (don't hold your breath for that to happen in your lifetime) or until SE more fully models planets and takes interiors into account (again, that won't happen anytime soon).
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Spaceman7456 | Date: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 17:57 | Message # 33 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 68
Status: Offline
| Hi, I'm new to this software. I was curious, do you actually SEE life on life bearing worlds, or is it just a classification?
Core 17 3770k (3.5 GHz) - GTX 680 4GB (SLI), 256 GB SSD - 2 TB HDD - 16GB Corsair RAM
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 18:01 | Message # 34 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Spaceman7456) do you actually SEE life on life bearing worlds, or is it just a classification?
On terras you can see life (it can be different colors depending on the local conditions). On oceanias it is just a classification.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Spaceman7456 | Date: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 18:03 | Message # 35 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 68
Status: Offline
| Quote (HarbingerDawn) On terras you can see life (it can be different colors depending on the local conditions). On oceanias it is just a classification.
Wow, thats amazing.
Thanks!
Core 17 3770k (3.5 GHz) - GTX 680 4GB (SLI), 256 GB SSD - 2 TB HDD - 16GB Corsair RAM
|
| |
| |
| Jabberwockxeno6109 | Date: Thursday, 02.05.2013, 15:31 | Message # 36 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 85
Status: Offline
| Quote (HarbingerDawn) Life is not limited to terras, it is limited to worlds with surface water, since all life that we know of requires water and SE characterizes worlds by their surface environments. By definition, all worlds with surface water in SE will be oceanias or terras. It does not make sense to implement life on any other class of world at present, until we either confirm a form of life that does not require water (don't hold your breath for that to happen in your lifetime) or until SE more fully models planets and takes interiors into account (again, that won't happen anytime soon).
I would dissagree, and already made my argument as to why.
In any case, how much water should be nessacry? life lives in deserts here that have very little water, so why not have desert planets with life?
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Thursday, 02.05.2013, 15:40 | Message # 37 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Jabberwockxeno6109) life lives in deserts here that have very little water
But not zero water, and the water that is there comes from atmospheric moisture, which comes primarily from evaporation of surface water like lakes and oceans. A desert on a planet covered mostly by water cannot be compared to a desert planet.
Quote (Jabberwockxeno6109) how much water should be nessacry?
SE can generate life on planets that have nearly zero water coverage, maybe just a single small lake, so obviously not much. But again you can't generate life without there being at least some water present, and again SE only models surface conditions presently, so no world aside from terras and oceanias can be assumed to have water.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Jabberwockxeno6109 | Date: Thursday, 02.05.2013, 16:37 | Message # 38 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 85
Status: Offline
| Quote (HarbingerDawn) SE can generate life on planets that have nearly zero water coverage, maybe just a single small lake, so obviously not much. But again you can't generate life without there being at least some water present, and again SE only models surface conditions presently, so no world aside from terras and oceanias can be assumed to have water.
But it's reasonable to assume that even desert planets have SOME water. Whose to say it's not enough for life?
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Thursday, 02.05.2013, 16:40 | Message # 39 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Jabberwockxeno6109) But it's reasonable to assume that even desert planets have SOME water.
No it is not reasonable to assume that. Venus is a desert, and it has no water and is completely inhospitable. Mars may have water usable for life, but if so it would be underground, and I will say again for the third time that SE only characterizes the surface of planets. Making broad assumptions based on special cases is not a good idea, and as long as SE is a realistic program then it should be based on what is known to be true, not on speculation.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Jabberwockxeno6109 | Date: Thursday, 02.05.2013, 16:49 | Message # 40 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 85
Status: Offline
| Quote (HarbingerDawn) and as long as SE is a realistic program then it should be based on what is known to be true, not on speculation.
I think that's where we disagree.
I feel that for the very reason it is realistic, it should feature what is PROBABLE, and what is POSSIBLE in rare cases. SE has acid green atompshere on some planets, how realistic is that (Forgive my lack of chemistery knowledge, but would cause that, chlorine?)? We don't know of any planets like that.
The argument that just because we don't know of something existing in life, we shouldn't have it in SE, is IMO ridiculous. If we haven't seen/heard/detected it happening, and have reason to think it's not possible, THEN it should be excluded.
But there's no evidence that says it's improbable for a desert planet to not have enough water in the atompshere to support life.
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Thursday, 02.05.2013, 17:02 | Message # 41 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| I agree with your core argument, but again let me get back to this one point: we don't know that it's possible for life to exist without water, and while it might be possible for a desert planet to have enough water in its atmosphere to sustain life we know enough to say that it's probably rare among that type of world. A lot of work would have to be done to make realistic parameters for the generation of life on desert worlds, and by the end of that you'd end up with something where life was a couple of orders of magnitude rarer than on worlds with surface water and as such you'd be lucky to find a desert with life at all, and it just doesn't seem like the amount of work required to implement that at the present would be worth it for how rare such worlds would be, doubly so as they should look no different than current deserts.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Thursday, 02.05.2013, 17:29 | Message # 42 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| By the way, I think it's misleading to call Space Engine a realistic program, since we can be sure that 99.9999...% of the objects present in Space Engine have no real counterpart. I would rather call Space Engine believable in the sense that much of what's existing in Space Engine are examples of, to our best knowledge, what could be reality.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Thursday, 02.05.2013, 17:39 | Message # 43 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (midtskogen) I think it's misleading to call Space Engine a realistic program, since we can be sure that 99.9999...% of the objects present in Space Engine have no real counterpart.
Realistic =/= Real. Let's not get into another semantic argument...
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Salvo | Date: Thursday, 02.05.2013, 17:52 | Message # 44 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
| Quote (midtskogen) I think it's misleading to call Space Engine a realistic program
I agree with you, but is not our fault, we don't know how exoplanets looks like, we don't know how other kind of stars looks like, we don't know how many planets really have life on it, we are not even sure if one of them really have it, we don't know anything, so Space Engine can't be realistic, if realistic mean "looks like what is real", but it can become less unrealistic more things we learn about our universe 
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs
(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
Edited by Salvo - Thursday, 02.05.2013, 17:53 |
| |
| |
| Sabratha | Date: Tuesday, 21.05.2013, 01:52 | Message # 45 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
Poland
Messages: 9
Status: Offline
| Just to add my two cents, I think it would be valuable to differentiate between chemosynthetic unicellular life and photosyntethic unicellular life.
If we think about adding life to desert planets, it should be in the vast majority of cases chemosynthetic unicellulars. They don't need water.
Why? Because chemosynthesis is the most basic form of life that we know of. It is life that can thrive feeding on inorganic matter alone. Thus it can exist in harsh conditions - all you need is some hydrogen sulfide or hydrogen gas or methane or even ammonia. This can occur even within conditions with no oxygen whatsoever.
Here on earth we have several species of chemosynthetic microbes that can survive temperatures above 100 celsius (212 kelvin), very high pressure, total darkness and no oxygen.
So if you plan on having life on "high pressure desert" or "hot ocean" plantes, or cold planets rich in methane, then chemosythesis is the most likley (in some cases the only possible) way to go.
Another suggestion, the majority of planets that contain life should contain only unicellular life. More advanced forms of life need very particular conditions to thrive, hence should be much more rare.
Edited by Sabratha - Tuesday, 21.05.2013, 01:56 |
| |
| |
ENG
New site
United States 
Norway 
Italy 
Poland