Hospitable planets not hospitable?

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

So I was doing some research on a system to try and write some backstory for it. Having two temperate planets, I wanted to try to find out what life might be like on the surface. I noted the different aspects of the information available from the system map into a journal and then went over everything. When I went over the average surface temperature I wasn't sure what to make of it.

For one planet, I got 293K Surface Temperature listed in the stats. For American dummies like myself, that converts to a very comfortable 68 degrees Fahrenheit, or 20 degrees Celsius.

The other planet I got 335K Surface Temperature listed in the stats. That converts to a scalding hot temperature of 143 degrees Fahrenheit, or 62 degrees Celsius! I'm surprised the system doesn't have a tourism economy for sun-tanners.

I'm open to hear some suggestions as to what's wrong here or what I'm not seeing. Is this an "oops" in the games algorithms? Should I be taking everything I read on the system map with a cube of salt? Or is everyone walking around with self-contained air-conditioning devices these days?

Edit: For reference, the in-game system map says Earth has 288K Surface Temperature. I had begun to think maybe this planet had a lot of very hot deserts, not unlike the deserts on our own planet, but to me that would mean most the world is a desert if it has an average of 335K, though it certainly doesn't look like it (most of the planet is populated, the whole dark side is lit up at night).

 

[ozrix84]

Could be an oops moment, or by 3300 we managed to find out that 62 degrees is still habitable for life as we know it.

 

[Poseidal]

Those are the average temperatures. The 335K one will be more temperate towards the poles, sort of like Terra Nova (Heavy Gear). The equatorial region could be very parched.

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

Hmm I didn't think of it that way, good point. Though the planet doesn't resemble that in-game, I might have to look past that.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Edit: Also yes I realized the Surface Temperature listed is an average, but it still seems a bit peculiar all things considering. It would seem on the border for comfortable human life. Does everyone live under a dome in 3310? For reference the star in question is just over 6,100K, compared to Sol at over 5,700K. The planet is about 20% further from the star than Earth is from Sol.

 

[Poseidal]

Hmm I didn't think of it that way, good point. Though the planet doesn't resemble that in-game, I might have to look past that.

Spoiler

View attachment 39683

Spoiler

View attachment 39685

Spoiler

View attachment 39686

Yeah, I think all of the planets have some general looks to them (some are really hazy though, like Chione and Industry).

Though I always imagined hab-domes (like in Frontier and FFE) on less habitable planets, and it would be easier to do on a harsh Earthlike.

 

[WhosYourDaddyNow]

Those are the average temperatures. The 335K one will be more temperate towards the poles, sort of like Terra Nova (Heavy Gear). The equatorial region could be very parched.

+1, exactly my thoughts. Though from the images, I get the feeling that habitable planet "skins" don't take something like this into account, as you said.

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

Hab-domes seem reasonable but the thing that bothers me the most is that it is so similar to Earth (besides the mass/pressure of the planet) that I am having a hard time understanding the temperature. Perhaps the pressure has something to do with it?

 

[Han Brannigan]

Hab-domes seem reasonable but the thing that bothers me the most is that it is so similar to Earth (besides the mass/pressure of the planet) that I am having a hard time understanding the temperature. Perhaps the pressure has something to do with it?

A higher pressure means a denser atmosphere which means more energy retention - also how energy rich is the star?

 

[popuptoaster]

Habitable does not mean everywhere or shorts and sandal weather, it just means you COULD survive there, maybe in a cave or a dome or underwater or whatever. Also don't foegt that humans could well be augmented by biotech or genetic therapy in the year 3300 so the survivable range may well be greater anyway.

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

A higher pressure means a denser atmosphere which means more energy retention - also how energy rich is the star?

F type, with only a marginally larger solar mass than Sol.

For reference the star in question is just over 6,100K, compared to Sol at over 5,700K. The planet is about 20% further from the star than Earth is from Sol.

Not that much of a temperature difference while the planet is further from the star, so it shouldn't absorb so much of the radiation I would think?

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

Habitable does not mean everywhere or shorts and sandal weather, it just means you COULD survive there, maybe in a cave or a dome or underwater or whatever. Also don't foegt that humans could well be augmented by biotech or genetic therapy in the year 3300 so the survivable range may well be greater anyway.

This is why I showed the pictures. The pictures show a lush green landscape surrounded by seas, oceans, storms, and city lights everywhere. It's been pointed out this could be just a generic skin in which case I'll look past it but I wanted to hear what opinions people had about the temperature given it's circumstances being quite similar to Earth and the energy it receives from it's star.

 

[Han Brannigan]

F type, with only a marginally larger solar mass than Sol

Then it could be one of the following ( or a combination thereof ):
- denser atmosphere hence more energy retention
- more energy absorbing dark parts of surface

as well as accumulating after effects:
- more Co2 producing life forms
- less reflective snow/ice patches

I am however neither an astronmer nor a climatologist - but even with my meager knowledge i can find a workable reason so I guess there are about a million I did not think of ( volcanic activity ).

 

[Poseidal]

What star is it? It looks like an F, or hotter G from the picture. If it is an F, G0 or G1, it will be hotter than the sun so the same spot will be further out (as it is, but not by too much).

It would be nice to see visible desert areas on the planet models though.

EDIT: it is an F so...

Then it could be one of the following ( or a combination thereof ):
- denser atmosphere hence more energy retention
- more energy absorbing dark parts of surface

as well as accumulating after effects:
- more Co2 producing life forms
- less reflective snow/ice patches

I am however neither an astronmer nor a climatologist - but even with my meager knowledge i can find a workable reason so I guess there are about a million I did not think of ( volcanic activity ).

F star would be hotter than the sun with a comparable mass, so a planet at 1AU would be hotter there than here. Many F stars have Earth-likes maybe 1.5AU or even over 2AU away IIRC:

Spoiler

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

I have to say I have enjoyed this discussion so far and appreciate all the replies from everyone! You guys are giving me some great ideas that are perhaps making things easier to digest. While I'm sure the algorithims can't be perfect I'm sure there is some logic behind it. The planets "skin" I'm beginning to overlook as it'd be near impossible for them to have every planet look completely original and tuned to the specs of the stats.

However, my curiosity about the temperature and surface pressure has yet to be sated! So yes, a denser atmosphere will retain heat. The greenhouse gas effect is an example of this. Interestingly enough, this planet does have a very high C02 content of 0.6%! (It also says it's a terraformed planet with indigenous life; perhaps they were C02 spewing mermaids?) In addition the planet has silicate vapor geysers. This doesn't scream a whole lot at me besides the fact it does have volcanism but I'm not scientist.

So perhaps I'll have to go the route where I toss the visuals aside and say it's actually a pretty uncomfortable place to live with a high population and lots of smog. Still, sounds pretty terrible, who would want to live there!?

PS. At 6,100K, this F star is at the bottom of the totem-pole. Sol is 5,778 so it's only a bit over 322K difference (logged out of game so can't check exacts for the game star).

 

[Han Brannigan]

So perhaps I'll have to go the route where I toss the visuals aside and say it's actually a pretty uncomfortable place to live with a high population and lots of smog. Still, sounds pretty terrible, who would want to live there!?

Depends if you are a tree (for example) warm 'winters' and a high co2 concentration with a lot of water in the atmosphere ( warmer air can hold more water and there are Oceans on this planet ) is benign for you - think jungles so I have no problem with lush and green. Human citys of the scale the night side lighting seems to insinuate would require climate control however:
- Energy is (relatively) cheaper in ED then in 2015
- I imagine that there have been found and implemented a lot of climate control measures that are way less energy intensive then a classic AC unit.

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

Awesome points, +1 for everyone here.