Maybe the planet has proportionally very big molten metal core (think Mercury, but bigger diameter than Earth) resulting in extreme magnetic field, combine that with hihg-intensity solar radiation + right minerals on surface - you get crazy amounts of electricity making most of that Oxygen Ozone...?Maybe that a hint to scan or explore the planet further to find a bacterial or plant life that is converting everything it consumes to oxygen gas.
It does look unusually, but my ultimate not be out of place once all it's secrets are revealed.
I'm just making it all up as I go....
Hinky Habbies
- Thread starter Virgil Kyle
- Start date
Wouldn't that imply our world is about to spontaneously combust since Earth has about 20,95% oxygen in our air?
OR ...
Am I misinterpreting your post (bear in mind my native language is NOT English
if they are tidaly locked to their stars then i would agree but the ones tidally locked to planets themselves could concievably have interesting but habitable atmospheres
also a funny thought occurs you could wander about quite comfortably at 95% oxygen if you had a co2 tank as well but i would recommend a planetary wide smoking ban!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
it's an american colloquialism meaning something similar to weird.
also a funny thought occurs you could wander about quite comfortably at 95% oxygen if you had a co2 tank as well but i would recommend a planetary wide smoking ban!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
What does that mean, hinky?
Why don't you say strange or weird? I mean hinky, that has no meaning.
I don't want you guys using words with no meaning.
it's an american colloquialism meaning something similar to weird.
So long as the ambient pressure is no higher than about 1.6ATM... any higher and you are looking at the risk of CNS oxygen toxicity. Prolonged exposure, even at 1ATM, could lead to pulmonary O2 toxicity. Wouldn't need the CO2 tank either.
Definitely agree with the smoking ban though!
See, that's what I was thinking, that some of these planets just aren't physically possible. That planet with oxygen levels in the 97% range was only the most extreme example - I saw numerous planets that had over 15% oxygen levels. That really sticks in my craw
Why would 15% oxygen be odd? Earth is 21% oxygen and has been as high as 35% in geological history.
What you also need to consider is that it's not just the percent composition, but also atmospheric pressure. A 35% oxygen mix at 1 atmosphere is the same as 100% oxygen at 0.35 atmosphere in terms of reactivity and biological availability.
As to tidal locking, tidal locking of planets in the habitable zone would be very common for a star smaller than our sun. Both the habitable zone and the tidal lock region of a star move outwards as mass increases, but the habitable zone moves by a greater amount, so large stars have their habitable zones beyond the tidal lock region, and smaller stars have their habitable zone entirely within the tidal lock region.
Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking with that particular bit, to be honest. I think I was just plain misinformed on that. I will say I have researched and learned a bunch about this stuff since I made that post, and I have learned about the things you've just pointed out
Still, a 95% oxygen atmosphere?? I'm not sure what pressure it was at, to be fair, but I'm telling you, the Stellar Forge is making some strange planets, at least ones that are supposed to be human habitable.Particularly puzzling are planets that have supposedly been terraformed - most of them don't seem very friendly to humans, and they were made to be! I understand what you're saying about tidally-locked planets, by the way, and I don't contest any of it, but this actually directly relates to something I just found out with all of this. Let me explain...
I looked into this stuff last night, specifically to try to investigate this issue further. I went into the Galaxy Map, and limited the systems shown by population. That option is mixed in with the trade route visualization options, by the way, in case anybody wants to double-check my findings, which I would welcome. Anyways, I set the population parameters to weed out systems with lower populations. I set the minimum in the middle of the fifth hash mark from max, and I left the Max setting at, well... max, lol
. My thinking on this was thus: If it has a population higher than a few million, it either has multiple big stations (i.e. not outposts) or has inhabited planets. In fact, over 100 million seems like a safe bet that there's a human-inhabited planet, as it seems even big stations can only hold a few million people a piece (a lot of assumptions here, I know, but I can only work with the tools that are given me. Feel free to test my hypotheses yourself, please!). Anyways, I know this might filter out planets with lower populations that might be habitable (Chango in i Bootis, for instance), but think about it: If the systems have a fairly large population, then not only are the planets habitable, but one would think they'd be somewhat comfortable, right? To have so many people living there? Anyways, limiting it to large populations, in my mind, should assure that at least some of the results have decently Earth-like planets. Florida has a higher population than Alaska for a reason, after all, and it's not just socio-political and economic factors and such.What I found was pretty stunning. Out of all the results, I found three systems - three - with planets I wouldn't mind living on for any substantial period of time. Some of my criteria were personal, but even by laxer standards, the pickings were few. Yeah, most of them were livable, but not comfortable, methinks. Most surprising to me, however, were how many terraformed worlds were barely liveable, and how many seem to be poor choices for terraforming in the first place. In terms of this last point, I'm particularly thinking of all the planets that were... tidally-locked. I ruled out so many worlds on this characteristic alone. Admittedly, this was because of personal criteria, but, honestly, can you blame me? I know worlds like this could conceivably be habitable, or made habitable, by humans, but what would living on a planet like this really be like? One side in permanent day, the other in permanent night, a narrow band along the border between the two in permanent twilight - the weather patterns alone would be wacky as all get-out, right? How many of you, taking all the data into account, would want to live on any of these worlds for any considerable amount of time?
I guess what really sticks in my craw, in the end, thinking about all of this - Is it that hard, in the ED universe, not just to find a truly 'Earth-like' world, but to even engineer a truly 'Earth-like' world? Are planets we could live on without considerable technological assistance and personal adaptation (from 'Earth-normal', at least) that unbelievably rare, even when that's what we're trying to engineer?
Last edited:
Nice post sirYeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking with that particular bit, to be honest. I think I was just plain misinformed on that. I will say I have researched and learned a bunch about this stuff since I made that post, and I have learned about the things you've just pointed out
Particularly puzzling are planets that have supposedly been terraformed - most of them don't seem very friendly to humans, and they were made to be! I understand what you're saying about tidally-locked planets, by the way, and I don't contest any of it, but this actually directly relates to something I just found out with all of this. Let me explain...
I looked into this stuff last night, specifically to try to investigate this issue further. I went into the Galaxy Map, and limited the systems shown by population. That option is mixed in with the trade route visualization options, by the way, in case anybody wants to double-check my findings, which I would welcome. Anyways, I set the population parameters to weed out systems with lower populations. I set the minimum in the middle of the fifth hash mark from max, and I left the Max setting at, well... max, lol
What I found was pretty stunning. Out of all the results, I found three systems - three - with planets I wouldn't mind living on for any substantial period of time. Some of my criteria were personal, but even by laxer standards, the pickings were few. Yeah, most of them were livable, but not comfortable, methinks. Most surprising to me, however, were how many terraformed worlds were barely liveable, and how many seem to be poor choices for terraforming in the first place. In terms of this last point, I'm particularly thinking of all the planets that were... tidally-locked. I ruled out so many worlds on this characteristic alone. Admittedly, this was because of personal criteria, but, honestly, can you blame me? I know worlds like this could conceivably be habitable, or made habitable, by humans, but what would living on a planet like this really be like? One side in permanent day, the other in permanent night, a narrow band along the border between the two in permanent twilight - the weather patterns alone would be wacky as all get-out, right? How many of you, taking all the data into account, would want to live on any of these worlds for any considerable amount of time?
I guess what really sticks in my craw, in the end, thinking about all of this - Is it that hard, in the ED universe, not just to find a truly 'Earth-like' world, but to even engineer a truly 'Earth-like' world? Are planets we could live on without considerable technological assistance and personal adaptation (from 'Earth-normal', at least) that unbelievably rare, even when that's what we're trying to engineer?
Statistically speaking, the odds are in our favour that somewhere out there, planets exist that are suitable for human habitation without the need for terraforming, artificial environments or support technology. The problem is, what makes that probability weigh in our favour, also makes the chances of finding one astronomically small (no pun intended). But then, I'm basing that on the technology and knowledge we have now, today, in this world.
Having said that, I would assume that even by the year 3300, with the technological advancements portrayed in the ED universe, that finding such a world would still be an incredibly rare occurrence. And an incredibly valuable one I might add. In fact, I would hazard a guess that finding an Earth like planet, with liquid water, temperate climate and the right atmospheric pressure, gravity and breathable gases, would be the holy grail for any explorer, that would bring with it a not-unsubstantial pay cheque.
Under existing game mechanics, it would only be possible to sell that data to Universal Cartographics. Which is a shame, as I bet you could get a much higher price if you went to a corporation. Or the highest bidder (maybe that's a Pirate faction?). Or perhaps directly to the Empire? (Or Federation depending on your allegiance). Or simply kept it to your self. Image that, your very own holiday destination planet! I would call it 'Bob' just because
Perhaps this will be addressed in Gamma?Anyway, it's all incredibly fascinating stuff and who knows, perhaps you or I (personally, I intend to spend a great deal of time faffing about 'out-there' with as much scanning equipment as I can possibly cram into a Sidewinder*) may find such a planet and hit pay dirt. One thing I do know, is that I will have a lot of fun just looking!
* I just thought of a new piece of equipment that could be made available in outfitting for those not able to afford an intermediate or advance discovery scanner... Binoculars! 50cr. Bargain!
Nice post sir
Statistically speaking, the odds are in our favour that somewhere out there, planets exist that are suitable for human habitation without the need for terraforming, artificial environments or support technology. The problem is, what makes that probability weigh in our favour, also makes the chances of finding one astronomically small (no pun intended). But then, I'm basing that on the technology and knowledge we have now, today, in this world.
Having said that, I would assume that even by the year 3300, with the technological advancements portrayed in the ED universe, that finding such a world would still be an incredibly rare occurrence. And an incredibly valuable one I might add. In fact, I would hazard a guess that finding an Earth like planet, with liquid water, temperate climate and the right atmospheric pressure, gravity and breathable gases, would be the holy grail for any explorer, that would bring with it a not-unsubstantial pay cheque.
Under existing game mechanics, it would only be possible to sell that data to Universal Cartographics. Which is a shame, as I bet you could get a much higher price if you went to a corporation. Or the highest bidder (maybe that's a Pirate faction?). Or perhaps directly to the Empire? (Or Federation depending on your allegiance). Or simply kept it to your self. Image that, your very own holiday destination planet! I would call it 'Bob' just because
Anyway, it's all incredibly fascinating stuff and who knows, perhaps you or I (personally, I intend to spend a great deal of time faffing about 'out-there' with as much scanning equipment as I can possibly cram into a Sidewinder*) may find such a planet and hit pay dirt. One thing I do know, is that I will have a lot of fun just looking!
* I just thought of a new piece of equipment that could be made available in outfitting for those not able to afford an intermediate or advance discovery scanner... Binoculars! 50cr. Bargain!
It's really the reason I AM so passionate about this, and about the prospect of exploring out there as well, the concept of finding a new home out there amongst the stars
As I mentioned, I've found three I think would be decent thus far, in the Beta 3 capsule, although each has there detractors, of course. But yeah, finding that perfect place, out there...They say Elite: Dangerous has no end game, but that may just be it for me
After all, once you've found heaven, what else is there to do? At least, it kind of feels that way for me Oh, and thanks for the rep, by the way
I'm glad I could get so many people to have this kind of discussion - That's been the best part, for me I would think there could be ways to get a 95% O2 atmosphere. For example, if we were to terraform Mars, it might end up like that, particularly in early stages of terraforming:
1. The overall atmosphere is very thin, since the lack of a magnetosphere has caused most of its atmosphere to boil into space.
2. If you could introduce anaerobic photosynthetic organisms to Mars (with its thin CO2 atmosphere) they would convert CO2 into O2. Anything more than trace levels of oxygen in any atmosphere are almost certainly the result of life, because it's too reactive to be stable on astronomic time scales.
3. The atmosphere would become somewhat thicker. Unlike with CO2 on Mars which has a balance between the solid and vapor states, even a cold world like Mars is far enough above the boiling point of oxygen. So while CO2 has a cycle of sublimation and deposition, O2 would remain gaseous. Over time, the transformation of CO2 into O2 would cause the (dry) ice caps to lose mass, which would become increasingly high levels of atmospheric oxygen.
Why should "want" or "like" to live on such a planet have anything to do with it? It seems to me that the primary reason for dwelling on such planets is all about resource extraction.. something humans have always been willing to endure considerable discomfort and privations for.
Speaking of reactivity, such high O2 levels would only be even reasonably sustainable in an atmosphere with significantly lower pressure than our own, correct? Given that oxygen is so reactive, as we talked about earlier in this thread...
What does that mean, hinky?
Why don't you say strange or weird? I mean hinky, that has no meaning.
I don't want you guys using words with no meaning.
I think the meaning changed a little due to the popular NCIS TV series. Its Abbey Shuto, the delightful goth in the forensic lab, who on discovering something that seems a bit strange and out of kilter refers to it as something hinky.
'Wanting' and 'liking' to live somewhere has A LOT to do with it, particularly when you're terraforming a world to be 'Earth-like' in the first place! Not all planets would be inhabited (or terraformed, for that matter), in order to extract resources or the like. In fact, I would argue terraforming WOULD be a colossal waste of time and resources if all you want to do is strip mine some lifeless rock to begin with, not to mention it would severely cut into your profit margin! No, come to think of it, most worlds would be terraformed either to supply food and/or house the growing masses of humans spreading out amongst the stars. Some planets are actually classified as such in the galaxy map (in terms of agricultural systems).
And in general, but specifically for planets meant for such a purpose, wouldn't YOU want to live on a world that you could not only bear and live with, but would be fairly comfortable on, without having to wear an enclosed space or pressure suit whenever you were outside, among other possible inconveniences (such as the likely insane weather and crazy day/night issues on a tidally locked planet, for instance)? Do not underestimate how wonderfully 'habitable' life on Earth is, and how drastically it would effect every aspect of your life to live on even a 'somewhat habitable' world, as opposed to a world more closely mimicking Earth. Thus, the inevitable and strong human drive to create truly 'Earth-like' worlds must be understood and appreciated. Understanding this, if we are devoting the time and resources to literally change a world (through terraforming) to be as much like Earth as possible, should there not be more such worlds, at least terraformed ones, in ED than the THREE I have found in the Beta 3 capsule?
Last edited:
Fair points, though I suspect the reality lies somewhere between your viewpoint and mine..
Since you say "wonderfully habitable" when speaking of Earth, I'm guessing you live somewhere in the temperate zone? For much of our existence, humans have lived (and continue to) in what most modern Westerners consider truly marginal climates, with extremes of both cold and heat.. probably not all that different from what might be experienced on some of those planets. There are plenty of places right here on Earth that you or I would regard as hell, yet the locals living there are comfortable and satisfied with their lot, despite not having a lot of things you and I would consider to be essentials. Our species is a lot more adaptable, and capable of acclimating to sub-optimal conditions, than you might think. And we generally do so quite happily, at that.
Since you say "wonderfully habitable" when speaking of Earth, I'm guessing you live somewhere in the temperate zone? For much of our existence, humans have lived (and continue to) in what most modern Westerners consider truly marginal climates, with extremes of both cold and heat.. probably not all that different from what might be experienced on some of those planets. There are plenty of places right here on Earth that you or I would regard as hell, yet the locals living there are comfortable and satisfied with their lot, despite not having a lot of things you and I would consider to be essentials. Our species is a lot more adaptable, and capable of acclimating to sub-optimal conditions, than you might think. And we generally do so quite happily, at that.
I'll concede that it probably does lie somewhere between our viewpoints, but for the rest, consider that even the most extreme places on Earth do not hold a candle to most of these planets, unless you live in Siberia or Antarctica (some folks live in these places, I concede, but NOT the vast majority!). Even when considering the really extreme places on Earth, many of these places are decidedly MORE extreme, and in ways that cannot be replicated on Earth, at least outside of special, often artificial environments. I'm talking tidally-locked worlds, excessive atmospheric pressures and exotic atmospheric makeups, not to mention drastically different gravities. This is not to mention the seriously cold and hot worlds, outside of Earth extremes, even. Seriously, try my Galaxy Map search parameters, closely examine the results, and I think you'll see what I mean. I'll reveal the 'nice' worlds I have found: Circios 2, Slatus A 10, and Ngoloki Anaten 2. I think you'll see that even those worlds are a bit extreme, in different ways, but at least they aren't as outside of 'Earth-normal' as the others...
Last edited:
I think that would mainly depend on if there is life or not on the planet. Living organisms can produce large quantities of oxygen, so you get a balance between the rate they form oxygen and the rate that oxygen reacts with other things. A planet without life would lose oxygen steadily until there would be essentially none left. So you could have a thin oxygen atmosphere on such a planet, if it was young enough to still have free oxygen, or you could have an older planet with at least microbial life producing oxygen.
I believe I understand what you're saying, but I was thinking more along the lines of combustion. Don't want to light a match in a 95% oxygen environment at 1 atm
I suppose it's all tied in, though, right? If reactivity does depend on atmospheric pressure (which I didn't know until it was mentioned here), then I suppose my original concern (in terms of that specific issue, extremely high percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere) is moot... as long as the pressures jive realistically with oxygen percentage
Last edited: