The science behind materials in kerbol system!

[Daniel Prates]

On 12/02/2017 at 5:39 PM, ExtremeSquared said:

Every single body in the Kerbal system contains already contains biological life according to the game. That sort of calls into question any comparison you want to make to ours. Discovering life on eeloo is way more exciting than any precious metal.

Come to think of it, finding life in other bodies should be more explored in the game. Someobe should come up with a mod to cover that. Maybe experiment packs and randomly placed micro-life that yelds lots of science points.

[Greenfire32]

20 hours ago, Nathair said:

Which, as I pointed out way up there (and will repeat here) is exactly what it says in the wiki : "In Kerbal Space Program a biome is a geographic area on the surface of a celestial body typically corresponding with types of geology like mountains or craters. This is in contrast to the real meaning of the term in which biomes are biotic communities in contiguous areas with similar climatic conditions and organism populations. "

Demanding, against all evidence, that they actually meant BIOme in the strict technical sense of the word and not just "region" and that therefore there axiomatically is life on Eeloo is more than a little bit silly.

I think we're on the same side of the argument here, but whereas it seems your stance is that the issue should be taken seriously and that references to "biomes" should be replaced with "regions," my position is more in the "it's not a big deal" category.

I mean, if we're being honest here, then yes, "biome" isn't the right word and should instead be "region." I just simply think that at this point we've mostly kind of reached a point socially where we use the two terms interchangeably and while technically incorrect, the core concept is still communicated and understood across the board and therefore not a big deal--in most cases. Clearly there's some discrepancy in this thread, however I feel like it certainly isn't the rule, but rather the exception.

As I stated before it's a pretty similar argument to the whole "irregardless" word usage. Technically it isn't a word and the correct form is "regardless," but it's not a big deal and enough people use it that it may as well be added to the dictionary.

I feel "biome" and "region" are slowly coming to that point as far as the everyday man who isn't a scientist is concerned.

We are in 100% agreement on whether or not there is life in the Kerbol system other than on Kerbin. It's pretty clear that there isn't any, regardless (*wink*) of the game's usage of "biome" over "region."

[Nathair]

1 hour ago, Greenfire32 said:

your stance is that the issue should be taken seriously and that references to "biomes" should be replaced with "regions," my position is more in the "it's not a big deal" category.

Not at all. I was just trying to address the assertions that "Every single body in the Kerbal system contains already contains biological life according to the game" and "The game itself literally claims there is life on all the planets". I agree that the "Biome" abuse should be no big deal but I don't think people should be embracing that mistake and actively trying to further confuse the issue.

[Firemetal]

@cratercracker I like the idea of this. However these are just theories. There is no proof of this. And since this is about science, please post these in the Science and Spaceflight subforum.

As for suggestion, I think you should talk about Kerbals and there anatomy. That would be interesting.

-Fire

Edited March 2, 2017 by Firemetal

[W. Kerman]

24 minutes ago, Firemetal said:

@cratercracker I like the idea of this. However these are just theories. There is no proof of this. And since this is about science, please post these in the Science and Spaceflight subforum.

As for suggestion, I think you should talk about Kerbals and there anatomy. That would be interesting.

-Fire

Wait? I thought that was for IRL science not KSP science theories? Was I wrong?

[Firemetal]

8 minutes ago, W. Kerman said:

Wait? I thought that was for IRL science not KSP science theories? Was I wrong?

No. We talk about KSP here in general here as it is called "General Discussion". And to quote the Science and Spaceflight Subforum's description:

Quote

A place for all geeky and sciency discussions.

So I believe this stuff belongs in Science and Spaceflight and moderators have moved his "The Science Behind" threads there before. No offense meant, just saying to the OP, put your threads in the right sub-forum and if you don't know which one to choose, just choose the one that you think is more suitable and if it isn't, a friendly moderator will come along and move it for you. You know this W.Kerman but this was directed at the OP.

-Fire

[cratercracker]

8 hours ago, Firemetal said:

@cratercracker I like the idea of this. However these are just theories. There is no proof of this. And since this is about science, please post these in the Science and Spaceflight subforum.

As for suggestion, I think you should talk about Kerbals and there anatomy. That would be interesting.

-Fire

Although it sounds like a good suggestion,i will face some problems. If i post something into Science and spaceflight that would mean that i need scientificly approved content,otherwise i will face critique from scientific community.

And yes,i going to write something about kerbal anotomy.(though it would be an awful post,just like all of mine...)

[KerikBalm]

On 2/12/2017 at 3:22 PM, cratercracker said:

1.Moho

Moho formed closer to the sun than the rest of planets. And that means it is full of precious metals.

You may ask me “Why?” The answer is:The only place where metals form is supernovas and star cores and Moho was formed near a star and probably recieved some materia. So Moho theoretically filled with metals.rough your comments!

No. Forming near a small star has nothing to do with the proportion of heavy elements formed from a super nova that would have "seeded" the heavy elements in the system (and possibly caused the collapse of the "dust cloud" into a protoplanetary disk). All that happens when a small planet is closer to the star is that it loses the volatiles.

Quote

2.JoolJool has hydrogen, helium and chlorine in the atmosphere. Gas giants themselves are interesting places due to crazy pressures and temperatures, different material forms, some of those can be simple and easy to find but some are true rarity.

The only real rarities here would be metallic hydrogen, hydrogen, and helium. Hydrogen and Helium are cosmically abundant, but rare on earth and the non-gas giants (with helium much more rare, as hydrogen remains chemically bound to other elements)

Quote

3.Eelo Eelo is the most far planet in kerbol system. And that means it was formed close to iron stock. A lot of material that was not used during the formation of Kerbol system stayed there in the outer parts of  system where Eelo remains now. It could absorb some materials and make itself more valuable.

No, it doesn't mean that at all

Spoiler

4.Dres(?)Dres is small dwarf planet in between Jool and Duna. During the formation most Dres received a lot of siicates. But a lot of materials came from asteroid collisions that brought ices,silicates,metals and lots of other things.

Who cares? the same can be said for just about any rocky body. Earth and Mars are rich in silicates, as is Mercury... etc

Quote

5.Gilly

As how we know Gilly is a captured asteroid. But what was an asteroid doing so close to the sun? Perhaps maybe Gilly is a very old asteroid that was on its orbit and then pulled by the Eve's gravity. And probably very old asteroids can contain materials fromthe startof the solar system and some of them are precious or highly radioactive....

All asteroids are roughly the same age. There is no way that something "old" is highly radioactive, because of radioactive decay. That's why the only naturally occurring radioactive elements on Earth have half lives in the hundreds of millions of years, or are in the decay chain of one of those elements. Anything highly radioactive doesn't stick around long in the cosmic sense.

14 hours ago, Greenfire32 said:

We are in 100% agreement on whether or not there is life in the Kerbol system other than on Kerbin. It's pretty clear that there isn't any, regardless (*wink*) of the game's usage of "biome" over "region."

I'm going to disagree that its clear that there isn't.

An atmosphere that isn't in chemical equilibrium (ie O2 rich) is on of the things we'd look for when hunting for life. Laythe has that. Now small amounts of O2 can be formed from high energy rays disassociating water, but one wouldn't expect it to build up to the levels seen on Laythe. I consider it highly likely that laythe has some form of life.

Likewise, Duna is an excellent candidate. While Mars has many issues, Duna's atmosphere is over 6x thicker, and atmospheric pressure is well above the triple point of water. There is abundant ice (much more so than Mars has currently).

KSP doesn't have any experiments that can really answer if there is microscopic life or not, so I consider it open for individual RP as to whether or not Laythe and Duna have life.

Edited March 3, 2017 by KerikBalm

[cratercracker]

5 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

No. Forming near a small star has nothing to do with the proportion of heavy elements formed from a super nova that would have "seeded" the heavy elements in the system (and possibly caused the collapse of the "dust cloud" into a protoplanetary disk). All that happens when a small planet is closer to the star is that it loses the volatiles.

The only real rarities here would be metallic hydrogen, hydrogen, and helium. Hydrogen and Helium are cosmically abundant, but rare on earth and the non-gas giants (with helium much more rare, as hydrogen remains chemically bound to other elements)

No, it doesn't mean that at all

  Reveal hidden contents

4.Dres(?)Dres is small dwarf planet in between Jool and Duna. During the formation most Dres received a lot of siicates. But a lot of materials came from asteroid collisions that brought ices,silicates,metals and lots of other things.

Who cares? the same can be said for just about any rocky body. Earth and Mars are rich in silicates, as is Mercury... etc

All asteroids are roughly the same age. There is no way that something "old" is highly radioactive, because of radioactive decay. That's why the only naturally occurring radioactive elements on Earth have half lives in the hundreds of millions of years, or are in the decay chain of one of those elements. Anything highly radioactive doesn't stick around long in the cosmic sense.

10 hours ago, Firemetal said:

@cratercracker I like the idea of this. However these are just theories. There is no proof of this. And since this is about science, please post these in the Science and Spaceflight subforum.

As for suggestion, I think you should talk about Kerbals and there anatomy. That would be interesting.

-Fire

See? That is why i won't post any "The science behind.." Cause i am way too dumb to post anything!

[Firemetal]

6 hours ago, cratercracker said:

Although it sounds like a good suggestion,i will face some problems. If i post something into Science and spaceflight that would mean that i need scientificly approved content,otherwise i will face critique from scientific community.

And yes,i going to write something about kerbal anotomy.(though it would be an awful post,just like all of mine...)

Well you could post it in KSP fans works. And you and your posts are not dumb. I love the diagrams you put in some of the previous posts. And I still want the Kerbal anatomy science! Do it mate.

[cratercracker]

1 hour ago, Firemetal said:

Well you could post it in KSP fans works. And you and your posts are not dumb. I love the diagrams you put in some of the previous posts. And I still want the Kerbal anatomy science! Do it mate.

Alright! I will, but it would be hard! Also if you are interested in my drawings(such as diograms you've seen)here is my flag collection-

 

[ExtremeSquared]

On 3/2/2017 at 0:32 PM, Nathair said:

Not at all. I was just trying to address the assertions that "Every single body in the Kerbal system contains already contains biological life according to the game" and "The game itself literally claims there is life on all the planets". I agree that the "Biome" abuse should be no big deal but I don't think people should be embracing that mistake and actively trying to further confuse the issue.

Despite it's best-in-class physics, this is still very much a video game -- not a simulation. Misusing a scientific term with a real established meaning is a far greater crime than taking the game's claims that life is present everywhere literally. I don't see how people consider THAT a big deal, in an already silly video game.

Unlike other parts of language, pedantry is actually acceptable for scientific terminology.

Also, I love this game, and if I have to suspend belief for just a moment to cover up mistakes by the developers, I'm fine with doing that.

Edited March 4, 2017 by ExtremeSquared

[Nathair]

7 hours ago, ExtremeSquared said:

Unlike other parts of language, pedantry is actually acceptable for scientific terminology.

Certainly it is. As far as I am concerned, pedantry is perfectly acceptable concerning any part of language. What's more, as it's your game, you can maintain your own headcanon however you like! I was just confused by you so strongly asserting as fact what is just a part of your own imagined lore.

 

On 2017-03-03 at 3:07 AM, KerikBalm said:

An atmosphere that isn't in chemical equilibrium (ie O2 rich) is on of the things we'd look for when hunting for life. Laythe has that. Now small amounts of O2 can be formed from high energy rays disassociating water, but one wouldn't expect it to build up to the levels seen on Laythe. I consider it highly likely that laythe has some form of life.

Likewise, Duna is an excellent candidate. While Mars has many issues, Duna's atmosphere is over 6x thicker, and atmospheric pressure is well above the triple point of water. There is abundant ice (much more so than Mars has currently).

KSP doesn't have any experiments that can really answer if there is microscopic life or not, so I consider it open for individual RP as to whether or not Laythe and Duna have life.

And people keep starting threads saying "What would you like to see added next" when the answer is right there. Plus, since we're here anyway, swapping out the word "Biome" for a proper replacement term seems like an easy fix. 

[Human Person]

Nice to see how most of the comments are useful and interesting. Everyone could just have been rude or mean, but they didn't. That's why i love these forums.