Life in Pioneer

[FluffyFreak]

I think the best thing to do would be to define if a life has planets, and then define what the planet must be like.

So do a couple of tests to determine life like: "is in habitable/goldilocks zone" & "Is rocky/ocean world" & "Has ok initial atmosphere type".
Where the list of atmospheres is either already perfectly Earth-like or has some other common criteria.

Then modify the planet to be more Earth-like or otherwise life supporting, increase the temperature, change the atmosphere, etc.

Drive the planet to match life supporting status rather than just saying that a planet supports life when it's atmosphere and composition are completely wrong for it.

@baobobafet, there's a big difference between sayng a planet "has life" and "animating swarms of birds, insects and kamikaze micro-ships" ;)

[baobobafet]

[/quote} there's a big difference between sayng a planet "has life" and "animating swarms of birds, insects and kamikaze micro-ships" ;)[/quote]

No birds, no insects, microships are a "stand in" for a biological (or electro/chemical) response by the biosphere and would not be individualy targetable (to small)- same as antibodies, acids or enzymes. - No actual underlying intellect involved - other than perhaps survival Any seeming 'awareness' of your proximity, could be a simple evolved chemical defensive response by the biosphere (remember this is 'other worlds' we are talking about. who knows what strange biological anomaly are out there.)

So now it sounds easy right? Keep your nose clean and use proper protocols on visiting those biospheres and you can reap the rewards. You might even get invited into the diplomatic corps and negotiate treaties for the feds. ;)

or

'It's a trap!'
The biosphere might also function as flypaper or a pitcher plant, in that it may appear benign (even inviting), but may
generate acids and enzymes capable of digesting anything that enters within a certain kill zone in mere seconds.

[baobobafet]

[quote="FluffyFreak"]I think the best thing to do would be to define if a life has planets, and then define what the planet must be like.[quote/]

Drake equation stuff. I imagine a lot has changed - with all the possibilities of extremophiles.

[quote="FluffyFreak"]
So do a couple of tests to determine life like: "is in habitable/goldilocks zone". [quote/]

From what I know, this has also increased immensely in size.

Getting some logic into what is defined as a habitable (oxy) retaining atmosphere in the stats is a good start.
Gravity levels could be another important factor - including how they may affect the potential development of
plant or other organic and chemical processes.

[FluffyFreak]

It's not quite that simple, Earth didn't have any appreciable amount of Oxygen until life started for example. Which is why you need to decide that a planet has life, and then you change what the atmosphere is to match that decision.

[baobobafet]

Ah, defining what is life...
Latest I heard was that even pluto may have some complex organic chemistry goin on since it has a highly eliptical orbit that periodically (over the course of it's 248 year orbit) turns it's ice to water.
On earth there are many examples of life that can hibernate to endure hostile conditions, this is a likely survival mechanism used by any potential lifeforms out there.

[baobobafet]

Basic ingredient by general consensus required for life is water (which has oxy that can be employed by organisms) Therefore any world with water is automatically a candidate for life. Other organic 'soups' may harbor life - only not as we know it. (which is the really interesting part)

Just stuck me as funny defining what is considered life - always has to come before determining whether that life is intellegent or not.

If you can't define it. (ie: don't recognize it or see it) It doesn't make that lifeform any less alive or intelligent. :)

[baobobafet]

Assuming water is the sole ingrediant required for life (I consider this largely a leap of faith that could ultimately be proven wrong) (edit: What I mean by 'water' is that it's the sole known medium for life to form - after that it's probably a role of the dice whether actual life will evolve, other factors being complimentary)


One method to determine 'goldielocks' zones

1. Determine Types and Sizes of Suns that can appropriately and safely accomodate life in their vicinity. (rads etc.)

2. Determine the 'goldielocks' ranges and if any worlds falling within.

3. Does the world have a strong enough magnetic field to deflect/absorb radiation that is destructive to life as we know it? (edit: I would parse this a bit since there may be some life forms that have adapted to survive with hardened shells or that thrive in subsurface environments away from any harmful rads)

4. Check for elipical orbits of ice planets in the system that may have periodic thawing.

5. Check if other planetary bodies in the system can support satellites, moons.

6. Check if these moons can accomodate life in the vicinity of the larger planetary body. (rads etc.)

7. Check if the moons have ice/water
The geological stresses on satellites, moons, by the larger planet can allow such environs to convert ice (subsurface or otherwise) to water.
8. Does the magnetic field and the worlds gravity enable it to credibly sustain an atmosphere?

9. Does the lack of a significant atmosphere effect the ability of a life form to sustain itself?

Updated

Edit:
One I forgot, some worlds (like our moon) can be geolocked to always face the body they are orbiting, this can lead to temperature extremes between the front and back of such worlds. More importantly, it allows for a rim along the terminator to be not too hot and not too cold - and possibly a niche for life processes to occur.


There is some thought that the absence of a moon in our orbit could have drastically effected the evolution of life on Earth.
Day night cycle, stabilization effect of the moon on our planet and more importantly the tides. Prompting life to migrate out of the oceans and onto land. If this is true, it narrows the field for life that may be similar to us.

[baobobafet]

Other questions one might ask are;

How critical is the size of an iron core at the center of a world with it's property to generate protective magnetic fields
for life to evolve on a world?

Remember, Earth got 'lucky' early on by having been impacted by a planet the size of Mars that had a high iron content,
doubling the size of it's core.

Can life propagate and survive in the absence of magnetic fields?
From what I understand about primitive lifeforms, they were quite dependent on such fields, in fact they used built-in
microscopic iron magnets as a sensors for navigation before eyes evolved.

On the topic of geolocked worlds that always have the same side facing the host star (or planet)
If such geolocked worlds are far enough away from the host star/planet, perhaps the entire area facing the sun/planet could be warm enough to allow liquid water to exist.

I have also heard of such cases where (if there is an atmosphere) on a geolocked world, that convection winds could cause the entire planet to warm.

Edit: Regarding planets with iron cores, these should be hot molten iron cores since non rotating cores (dead cores)
will generate little if any in the way of magnetic fields.

[Ittiz]

So I was working on replacing the star icon graphics and I noticed that most of the O type stars load the wrong graphics. I looked in the code and found why in starsystem.cpp where it's loading B star graphics. Anyone know if there is any particular reason for this besides a lack of pngs?

[robn]

That code is old, before my time (so over three years) so I don't know for sure. Its probably just a lack of images.