Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby Crucis on Tue 06 Oct 2009 20:53

Note that I'm not saying that it's possible with a mutually TL'd moon to drag the planet into rotating. I'm saying that the science seems to believe that it may be possible for a planet TL'd to its star to still support life.


Wouldn't the livable area be restricted to just around parts of the equator? This might be like 10% of a normal T.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby tdh8192 on Sun 25 Oct 2009 17:56

A tide-locked type-T planet supporting life? Maybe, but not indigenous one.
- Tom
User avatar
tdh8192
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 16:01
Location: In orbit around Jupiter

Re: Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby BillW on Tue 27 Oct 2009 19:16

I would think that a planet TLed to its star would not have a very hospitable climate. Likely the drastic differences in temp between the hot and cold sides would create a lot of storms.
User avatar
BillW
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue 14 Jul 2009 22:31
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby Cralis on Tue 27 Oct 2009 19:34

BillW wrote:I would think that a planet TLed to its star would not have a very hospitable climate. Likely the drastic differences in temp between the hot and cold sides would create a lot of storms.


Interestingly enough, Fred has been showing me some research papers about that very subject. It turns out that supercomputer simulations have shown that under the right conditions a TL world in a water zone could have a shroud of quickly moving jetstreams that can redistribute enough heat to the backside of the planet to create a semi-stable habitable zone along the twilight zone.

The front of the planet would have massive hadley cells to push hot air up into the atmosphere, and the cold on the dark side would suck the heat right out of the jetstreams. With a sufficiently large atmosphere it was shown that air around the habitable zone, at least in valleys and depressions, the air could slow down to < 20 mph or so on average.

As long as the temperature stabilizes, the dark side isn't so cold as to freeze most of the water inside the dark side, and the storms are not massive wind, lightning, or firestorms, it may very well be possible to colonize the twilight zone.

Maybe Fred has that report saved so he can link it.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby Crucis on Wed 28 Oct 2009 14:20

Check out this link for the report (well really just an answer to a question that references a report):

http://www.treitel.org/Richard/rass/tidelock01.txt

This txt page is only a little over a page in length and isn't overly technical (i.e. it's easily understood by anyone here).

The concluding paragraph states:

In short, not only can such a tide-locked planet maintain an atmosphere, but it might even be habitable over much of its surface, with an active water cycle and maybe even a near-breathable surface.




Another "source" (I use the word loosely) is the Orion's Arm fictional universe site. As I understand it, Orion's Arm specializes in hard sci-fi, thus only including things within the OA universe that they feel are scientifically justifiable (or however you'd prefer to phrase it). OA does include the equivalent of tidally locked Type T planets in their universe, referring to them as "Vesperian worlds".

http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4922e224a740d

My point in mentioning Orion's Arm is not to cite them as an actual scientific source. Rather, if a hard sci-fi site such as OA feels that tidally locked planets can be habitable, then I don't feel unjustified in thinking that they're possible, because frankly, I suspect that their standards for scientific justifiability are probably stricter than my own (for Starfire's purposes, that is).
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby krenshala on Fri 30 Oct 2009 22:52

I'd definitely call that a reasonable argument for including them, Fred. :)
-- krenshala
None survive the harvest!

Yeah, I'm finally back (again)! Sometimes, life (and 9yo son's) don't leave you time to play SF and earn a paycheck. :/

No, really! Matt actually made me an admin here!
krenshala
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 2576
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:13
Location: Austin TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby Crucis on Sat 31 Oct 2009 01:36

It's worth noting that including tidally locked type T planets increases the likelihood of a Red Dwarf star having a habitable planet by about a factor of 100 (vs. Ultra's current rules) or about a factor of 17 (vs. ISF). That said, the Biosphere of Red Dwarves is still quite small.

I've considered making tidally locked Type T's into new planetary type, but then certain questions begin coming up. Can this new planetary type naturally develop its own NPR's? If "yes", then do those NPR's see normal Type T's the same way as their own TL'd worlds for colonization reasons? (And vice-versa, do races from normal T's see these TL'd type T's normally?) While it's easy to say that normal Type T races might see TL-T planets as being somewhat hostile, I'm not so sure that the reverse would be true.

In a lot of ways, it's just easier to not bother with creating a distinct planetary type for habitable tidally locked planets. Or they could be "minimally habitable" (i.e. cannot develop NPR's, possibly always a "Hostile" environment, possibly a distinct planetary type), unless the planet does have the MTL'd moon to turn it into a "normal" Type T, at which point it could develop NPR's.

It all starts getting rather complicated, though of course, I'm sure that some people wouldn't mind the detail...
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby Cralis on Sat 31 Oct 2009 11:33

Crucis wrote:It's worth noting that including tidally locked type T planets increases the likelihood of a Red Dwarf star having a habitable planet by about a factor of 100 (vs. Ultra's current rules) or about a factor of 17 (vs. ISF). That said, the Biosphere of Red Dwarves is still quite small.


The possibility also exists for this to occur with other stars as well, notably Oranges under your new table.

I've considered making tidally locked Type T's into new planetary type, but then certain questions begin coming up. Can this new planetary type naturally develop its own NPR's? If "yes", then do those NPR's see normal Type T's the same way as their own TL'd worlds for colonization reasons? (And vice-versa, do races from normal T's see these TL'd type T's normally?) While it's easy to say that normal Type T races might see TL-T planets as being somewhat hostile, I'm not so sure that the reverse would be true.

In a lot of ways, it's just easier to not bother with creating a distinct planetary type for habitable tidally locked planets. Or they could be "minimally habitable" (i.e. cannot develop NPR's, possibly always a "Hostile" environment, possibly a distinct planetary type), unless the planet does have the MTL'd moon to turn it into a "normal" Type T, at which point it could develop NPR's.

It all starts getting rather complicated, though of course, I'm sure that some people wouldn't mind the detail...


I've been chewing on this after reading the articles about the simulations. I've wondered about stability, and whether every such world would be the same (and I'm thinking that for some reason, some of these worlds would be uninhabitable...reasons ranging from the dark side being too cold to lock all the water in ice to magnetosphere being too small to protect the atmosphere from the stellar winds...especially that close).

However, I now believe that these types of worlds are possible. Now I'm just trying to determine the details.

COSMIC, on the other hand, doesn't have that problem. Your choices are to make them a new world type, or just make them "minimal" or something. The advantage of a new type is obvious, and necessary if you are going to have NPRs with a different chance of them being present. However, you could just make it a "minimal" or a special type of T world or something, and call it good. That would at least simplify things in the rules.

PS. As for NPRs, if the world is stable on order of a billion years, why not? I guess we'll need to determine whether they would be around that long.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby Crucis on Sat 31 Oct 2009 20:01

Cralis wrote:
Crucis wrote:It's worth noting that including tidally locked type T planets increases the likelihood of a Red Dwarf star having a habitable planet by about a factor of 100 (vs. Ultra's current rules) or about a factor of 17 (vs. ISF). That said, the Biosphere of Red Dwarves is still quite small.


The possibility also exists for this to occur with other stars as well, notably Oranges under your new table.


Yes, this is true ... HOWEVER.... it should be carefully noted that in Ultra, it's only an issue for Red Dwarves because the TLZ's were artificially set so that the Biospheres and TLZ's did not overlap for any star type except Red Dwarf, although this is quite unrealistic. Furthermore, if one carefully reads the old ISF sysgen rules, while the TLZ and Biospheres for Orange and Red star types also overlap, the specific language requiring a MTL'd moon for the planet to be a Type T only exists for Red Dwarf stars (an oversight, IMHO).

Thus, this being the case, the number of habitable planets only increases for Red Dwarf stars.


I've considered making tidally locked Type T's into new planetary type, but then certain questions begin coming up. Can this new planetary type naturally develop its own NPR's? If "yes", then do those NPR's see normal Type T's the same way as their own TL'd worlds for colonization reasons? (And vice-versa, do races from normal T's see these TL'd type T's normally?) While it's easy to say that normal Type T races might see TL-T planets as being somewhat hostile, I'm not so sure that the reverse would be true.

In a lot of ways, it's just easier to not bother with creating a distinct planetary type for habitable tidally locked planets. Or they could be "minimally habitable" (i.e. cannot develop NPR's, possibly always a "Hostile" environment, possibly a distinct planetary type), unless the planet does have the MTL'd moon to turn it into a "normal" Type T, at which point it could develop NPR's.

It all starts getting rather complicated, though of course, I'm sure that some people wouldn't mind the detail...


I've been chewing on this after reading the articles about the simulations. I've wondered about stability, and whether every such world would be the same (and I'm thinking that for some reason, some of these worlds would be uninhabitable...reasons ranging from the dark side being too cold to lock all the water in ice to magnetosphere being too small to protect the atmosphere from the stellar winds...especially that close).

However, I now believe that these types of worlds are possible. Now I'm just trying to determine the details.

COSMIC, on the other hand, doesn't have that problem. Your choices are to make them a new world type, or just make them "minimal" or something. The advantage of a new type is obvious, and necessary if you are going to have NPRs with a different chance of them being present. However, you could just make it a "minimal" or a special type of T world or something, and call it good. That would at least simplify things in the rules.

PS. As for NPRs, if the world is stable on order of a billion years, why not? I guess we'll need to determine whether they would be around that long.


Well, assuming that they're not spiraling into their primary, TL'd habitable planets only exist around class K and M stars ... spectral classes with greater life spans than our own star, Sol, a class G2 star, so I don't think that spectral lifespan will be an issue. If anything (and if one was going to be more detailed on this), habitable planets orbiting stars having longer lifespans should have a greater chance of NPRs than those with shorter lifespans.


Let me list out the options...

A. TL'd Habitables no different from non-TL'd habitables: This is clearly the simplest option. Of course, this option basically says that whatever environmental differences exist between TL'd and non-TL'd habitables are relatively insignificant, at least for the purposes of colonization costs and max population levels. NPR's would be determined normally. Hab Indexes would be determined normally.

B. TL'd Habitables being automatically defined as only "minimally habitable" environments, thus being considered as "Hostile" for all races. This is also a fairly simple option. No native NPR's, due to the nature of the environment, but minimally capable of supporting colonists. Colonization costs and max pop levels would be based on a "Hostile" environment. No Hab Index would be needed. And most likely such planets should have a unique planetary type code.

Also note that in this situation, if the planet did have a MTL'd moon, the planet could be changed from a "minimally habitable" TL'd planet to a "normal" Type T planet.

C. Option "C" would be a more complex version of "B" wherein the TL'd habitable would be capable of developing a life-sustaining ecosphere and higher life-forms, and eventually NPR's.

However, from the point of view of races from normal Type T races, this type of world would seem very inhospitable. Not as severe as trying to compare, for example, T-races and Hot races from Ultra. Perhaps somewhat (though not fully) like trying to compare races that think that Earth or Caladan (from the Dune series) is normal to races that might think that Arrakis (from the Dune series, as well) is normal. This isn't really a great example though, because races from TL'd hab worlds would probably develop in a number of ways that may not adapt well to normal type T worlds, and vice-versa.

For example, TL Hab worlds probably don't have the concept of night and day, since the planet never turns relative to the star. You'd have a dark side and a lighted side, and perhaps a sort of dusky ring region. How lifeforms, particularly NPRs, develop and adapt within such an environment, I don't know. Of course, life forms from TL hab worlds may be in for a shock when they encounter their first dawn or dusk, or experience their first night. I suppose that there could also be physical issues. (And I suppose that these issues would be experienced in reverse for "normal" T races that are used to day and night, if they were to try to colonize a TL'd hab world. After all, where do you place your colonies? In the dusky region? On the day side, if it's not too hot? And how do you adapt to living on a world that never has a day or night?) Of course, some of these issues would certainly be below our habitability "radar screen", but that doesn't mean that they're at least worth thinking about.

So, in option "C", how would the habitability difference between "normal" habitables and TL'd habitables work out? Well, I suppose that you could add +5 to the standard Habitability Differential when races from one type of habitable want to colonize the "other" type of habitable. This would probably end up meaning that you'd end up treating the planet as either Harsh or Hostile, since the +5 modifier would exceed the max allowable HD for Benigns.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Is a tidally locked Type T planet possible?

Postby Cralis on Tue 03 Nov 2009 10:09

Crucis wrote:
Cralis wrote:
Crucis wrote:It's worth noting that including tidally locked type T planets increases the likelihood of a Red Dwarf star having a habitable planet by about a factor of 100 (vs. Ultra's current rules) or about a factor of 17 (vs. ISF). That said, the Biosphere of Red Dwarves is still quite small.


The possibility also exists for this to occur with other stars as well, notably Oranges under your new table.


Yes, this is true ... HOWEVER.... it should be carefully noted that in Ultra, it's only an issue for Red Dwarves because the TLZ's were artificially set so that the Biospheres and TLZ's did not overlap for any star type except Red Dwarf, although this is quite unrealistic. Furthermore, if one carefully reads the old ISF sysgen rules, while the TLZ and Biospheres for Orange and Red star types also overlap, the specific language requiring a MTL'd moon for the planet to be a Type T only exists for Red Dwarf stars (an oversight, IMHO).

Thus, this being the case, the number of habitable planets only increases for Red Dwarf stars.


Not too worried about ULTRA right now. It isn't going to change...

In a lot of ways, it's just easier to not bother with creating a distinct planetary type for habitable tidally locked planets. Or they could be "minimally habitable" (i.e. cannot develop NPR's, possibly always a "Hostile" environment, possibly a distinct planetary type), unless the planet does have the MTL'd moon to turn it into a "normal" Type T, at which point it could develop NPR's.

It all starts getting rather complicated, though of course, I'm sure that some people wouldn't mind the detail...


Well I'm seeing this as more of a defining "hey COSMIC introduced this feature" thing.

Well, assuming that they're not spiraling into their primary, TL'd habitable planets only exist around class K and M stars ... spectral classes with greater life spans than our own star, Sol, a class G2 star, so I don't think that spectral lifespan will be an issue. If anything (and if one was going to be more detailed on this), habitable planets orbiting stars having longer lifespans should have a greater chance of NPRs than those with shorter lifespans.

Let me list out the options...

A. TL'd Habitables no different from non-TL'd habitables: This is clearly the simplest option. Of course, this option basically says that whatever environmental differences exist between TL'd and non-TL'd habitables are relatively insignificant, at least for the purposes of colonization costs and max population levels. NPR's would be determined normally. Hab Indexes would be determined normally.

B. TL'd Habitables being automatically defined as only "minimally habitable" environments, thus being considered as "Hostile" for all races. This is also a fairly simple option. No native NPR's, due to the nature of the environment, but minimally capable of supporting colonists. Colonization costs and max pop levels would be based on a "Hostile" environment. No Hab Index would be needed. And most likely such planets should have a unique planetary type code.

Also note that in this situation, if the planet did have a MTL'd moon, the planet could be changed from a "minimally habitable" TL'd planet to a "normal" Type T planet.

C. Option "C" would be a more complex version of "B" wherein the TL'd habitable would be capable of developing a life-sustaining ecosphere and higher life-forms, and eventually NPR's.


These are the things I see would be radically different:

1. Putting something in orbit would take a significantly higher tech to overcome the super-jet streams in the upper atmosphere. Thus, it is arguable how much space tech they could do and by when.

2. Costs of moving things onto and off the planet should also rise for the same reason.

3. And last, unless you assume the whole planet is relatively habitable, there would be a reduced limit due to portions of the planet being uninhabitable. Especially if the land mass is under the uninhabitable parts, and mostly water is at the terminus.

However, from the point of view of races from normal Type T races, this type of world would seem very inhospitable. Not as severe as trying to compare, for example, T-races and Hot races from Ultra. Perhaps somewhat (though not fully) like trying to compare races that think that Earth or Caladan (from the Dune series) is normal to races that might think that Arrakis (from the Dune series, as well) is normal. This isn't really a great example though, because races from TL'd hab worlds would probably develop in a number of ways that may not adapt well to normal type T worlds, and vice-versa.

For example, TL Hab worlds probably don't have the concept of night and day, since the planet never turns relative to the star. You'd have a dark side and a lighted side, and perhaps a sort of dusky ring region. How lifeforms, particularly NPRs, develop and adapt within such an environment, I don't know. Of course, life forms from TL hab worlds may be in for a shock when they encounter their first dawn or dusk, or experience their first night. I suppose that there could also be physical issues. (And I suppose that these issues would be experienced in reverse for "normal" T races that are used to day and night, if they were to try to colonize a TL'd hab world. After all, where do you place your colonies? In the dusky region? On the day side, if it's not too hot? And how do you adapt to living on a world that never has a day or night?) Of course, some of these issues would certainly be below our habitability "radar screen", but that doesn't mean that they're at least worth thinking about.

So, in option "C", how would the habitability difference between "normal" habitables and TL'd habitables work out? Well, I suppose that you could add +5 to the standard Habitability Differential when races from one type of habitable want to colonize the "other" type of habitable. This would probably end up meaning that you'd end up treating the planet as either Harsh or Hostile, since the +5 modifier would exceed the max allowable HD for Benigns.


This would probably be the easiest solution. Trying to simulate the real physiological changes isn't really possible...we don't go into that much detail. Unless you adopt the racial specializations and penalties in which case you could easily apply something to every race from that kind of planet.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10703
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Next

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests