Would Laythe really be habitable, Redux

[Brotoro]

Your momma emits radiation.

[little square dot]

Your momma emits radiation.

You assume too much.

[Danish_Savage]

You assume too much.

Well, actually she does. Everyone does.

Any way... Currently I think the question about Laythe being habitable is a question in whether you want to believe it or not, we simply do not have enough data.

So the question is, do you believe Laythe to be habitable. For me its a ''Hell yes''

[Deathsoul097]

@ Brotoro: The devs have said that ksp is scaled down by approximately 1/11. (Measurements however, remain the same. @_@ ) Because of this, EVERYTHING is scaled down by 1/11, magnetospheres, radiation belts, etc. Therefore it is perfectly realistic in KSP for these planets to have the same strength (Or power, whatever) Radiation belts and fields, only smaller.

As for everything else, I believe that laythe is habitable, but slightly inhospitable. E.G. The laplace resonance that exists between laythe, vall and tylo, along with tidal forces from jool, would be enough to heat the surface to just above freezing temperature. However this does mean quite a large amount of volcanic and tectonic activity. The oceans are most likely water containing salts (Which would decrease the freezing temperature), meaning that water would not be drinkable at first, but purifying it would be easy enough. The aforementioned tidal forces and tectonic activity would (most likely) create a suitable magnetosphere (When coupled with the atmosphere) to block out most radiation. This would make most of laythe's surface habitable, but probably not the uppermost regions of the land. This, coupled with a slightly high level of greenhouse gasses (Which I understand to be present, due to science reports and experiments on laythe's surface, along with the earlier discussion about jet engines) should be enough that a kerbal (Assuming that kerbals are in the least bit similar to humans) Should be able to survive with a decent gas-mask/respirator/air filter on the surface.

[Brotoro]

@ Brotoro: The devs have said that ksp is scaled down by approximately 1/11. (Measurements however, remain the same. @_@ ) Because of this, EVERYTHING is scaled down by 1/11, magnetospheres, radiation belts, etc. Therefore it is perfectly realistic in KSP for these planets to have the same strength (Or power, whatever) Radiation belts and fields, only smaller.

Do you have a source for where the devs claim that "EVERYTHING" is scaled down by 1/11? Certainly the distances and planet sizes of the Kerbol system were made small… but did the devs tell us that the radiation belts have the same strength as much larger planets, only smaller in size? I have seen lots of people ASSUME this, but I have not seen a definitive statement by the debs to this effect.

I, on the other hand, just go with what the game actually TELLS us, and work from there with the laws of Physics as I know them. We KNOW the distances. We know the masses from the orbital dynamics. We can deduce other things from there using Physics. I try to do so without introducing any more violations of Physics-as-we-know-it than is necessary.

For example, one thing we CAN'T get around, based on the hard data presented in the game, is that most of the bodies in the Kerbol system have an extremely high density, although the stuff we deal with on their surfaces does not appear to be made from unusual matter (judging from the densities we can calculate for them based on sizes and masses of the objects). The simplest explanation around this problem is to assume that there is some very dense form of matter in the cores of these bodies (be it black holes enclosed in force fields, some exotic quark matter, or whatever. Since it's deep inside the planets, the details of this stuff need not concern us). Given the existence of these super dense cores, we can explain the rest of the system, including the observed fact that Kerbol works as a star, without needing any other violations of known Physics. With all this in mind, there is no reason to expect an object with the size and mass of Venus to have an intense magnetic field like Jupiter (unless you want to make things increasingly unphysical by adding in some additional violation of Physics to get such a field).

Note: There are some people who want to explain away the observed planetary densities by changing the gravitational constant...but I'm not one of them. Not only is it just as extreme a change as imaging some super-dense state of matter inside the cores of the planets, it would also have far-reaching implications for the whole universe. Could you even get a universe anything like ours to exist with a much larger gravitational constant? Or would it immediately collapse after it's Big Bang? Would it be possible to make stars that could create heavy elements and return them to the interstellar medium for the later making of earth-like objects...or would they all just collapse into black holes, taking their lovely heavier elements with them? And does changing the gravitational constant mean that fundamental constants of the universe are going to have to "give" in consequence? Altering these constants in even tiny amounts could make chemistry and life as we know it impossible. It makes my head hurt. But the main reason I don't want to change the gravitational constant is that I hope in some future expansion module for the game, our plucky little kerbals will discover a nice wormhole that will allow them to explore a system of eight amazingly large planets, the third one of which is inhabited by nearly two-meter-tall giants. So I'd rather not mess with the fundamental constants of physics to keep that option open.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Brotoro

[Rokker]

Do you have a source for where the devs claim that "EVERYTHING" is scaled down by 1/11? Certainly the distances and planet sizes of the Kerbol system were made small… but did the devs tell us that the radiation belts have the same strength as much larger planets, only smaller in size? I have seen lots of people ASSUME this, but I have not seen a definitive statement by the debs to this effect.

Whilst he may have exaggerated that they said "EVERYTHING", it is nonetheless an informed assumption that is very likely.

I, on the other hand, just go with what the game actually TELLS us, and work from there with the laws of Physics as I know them. We KNOW the distances. We know the masses from the orbital dynamics. We can deduce other things from there using Physics. I try to do so without introducing any more violations of Physics-as-we-know-it than is necessary.

For example, one thing we CAN'T get around, based on the hard data presented in the game, is that most of the bodies in the Kerbol system have an extremely high density, although the stuff we deal with on their surfaces does not appear to be made from unusual matter (judging from the densities we can calculate for them based on sizes and masses of the objects). The simplest explanation around this problem is to assume that there is some very dense form of matter in the cores of these bodies (be it black holes enclosed in force fields, some exotic quark matter, or whatever. Since it's deep inside the planets, the details of this stuff need not concern us). Given the existence of these super dense cores, we can explain the rest of the system, including the observed fact that Kerbol works as a star, without needing any other violations of known Physics. With all this in mind, there is no reason to expect an object with the size and mass of Venus to have an intense magnetic field like Jupiter (unless you want to make things increasingly unphysical by adding in some additional violation of Physics to get such a field).

You say you don't wish to violate physics then suggest that all the planets have black holes in their center. Lets look at the physics of that. In order for all the matter of any of these planets to avoid falling into such a core they would need to be orbiting around it. These orbits would be insanely fast making the planets impossible to land on. At such high speeds you might not even have a solid mass of ground, the energy could easily be so high that chemical bonds break and its just a mush of elements. If they weren't orbiting, they would simply all be condensed and all the planets would be black holes. Honestly the most plausible explanation using physics is that this is a universe in which everything is scaled by 1/11.

Now, as for the magnetosphere thing, seeing as the mathematical definition of a magnetosphere is expressed in terms of planet radii and Kerbal System planets have radii that are 1/11 the size of realistic then the numbers are likely 1/11 the size of realistic.

Note: There are some people who want to explain away the observed planetary densities by changing the gravitational constant...but I'm not one of them. Not only is it just as extreme a change as imaging some super-dense state of matter inside the cores of the planets, it would also have far-reaching implications for the whole universe. Could you even get a universe anything like ours to exist with a much larger gravitational constant? Or would it immediately collapse after it's Big Bang? Would it be possible to make stars that could create heavy elements and return them to the interstellar medium for the later making of earth-like objects...or would they all just collapse into black holes, taking their lovely heavier elements with them? And does changing the gravitational constant mean that fundamental constants of the universe are going to have to "give" in consequence? Altering these constants in even tiny amounts could make chemistry and life as we know it impossible. It makes my head hurt. But the main reason I don't want to change the gravitational constant is that I hope in some future expansion module for the game, our plucky little kerbals will discover a nice wormhole that will allow them to explore a system of eight amazingly large planets, the third one of which is inhabited by nearly two-meter-tall giants. So I'd rather not mess with the fundamental constants of physics to keep that option open.

Now you are the one making assumptions just as you criticized others before for doing. Who ever said that the Kerbal Universe is the same as our universe. The Kerbal Universe is so different from ours that the only explanation could be that it isn't the same universe. In the Kerbal Universe we have densities much higher than even possible in ours. Stars form at much lower masses than in ours. Hell light doesn't even work the same way in the Kerbal Universe seeing as its just as intense after travelling through gas energy-wise and doesn't follow the inverse square law. The Kerbal Universe is most certainly not the same universe as ours.

[Brotoro]

You say you don't wish to violate physics then suggest that all the planets have black holes in their center. Lets look at the physics of that. In order for all the matter of any of these planets to avoid falling into such a core they would need to be orbiting around it. These orbits would be insanely fast making the planets impossible to land on. At such high speeds you might not even have a solid mass of ground, the energy could easily be so high that chemical bonds break and its just a mush of elements. If they weren't orbiting, they would simply all be condensed and all the planets would be black holes. Honestly the most plausible explanation using physics is that this is a universe in which everything is scaled by 1/11.

Did you even READ what I wrote? I said "black hole encased in a force field". This is the 'engineered planet' theory involving the Magratheans (who easily manipulate such things as black holes and white holes). I certainly did not suggest a naked singularity living inside a planet, so all your arguments against this are pointless. Or I suggested some other super dense form of matter (be it quark matter, pion condensate, neutronium... Take your pick from whatever many names such material has appeared under in speculative physics and science fiction). But, my other point is, since it's deep inside the planets, we need not be concerned with the details of what it is... Just take it as a given and go from there.

Also, I'm not sure how saying it's just scaled down by 1/11 solves ANYTHING. We know that the devs have given us a diminutive planetary system, but that doesn't explain how such a thing can exist with our laws of physics in play, since you still have to explain the densities somehow. One can't just reduce the distances and keep everything else the same...you would not get the behavior we observe in the game.

Now, as for the magnetosphere thing, seeing as the mathematical definition of a magnetosphere is expressed in terms of planet radii and Kerbal System planets have radii that are 1/11 the size of realistic then the numbers are likely 1/11 the size of realistic.

It's not the SIZE of the magnetospheres that is of concern here, it is the STRENGTH of the fields, since this is what feeds into the intensity of the radiation belts (which is why we care). Does that get reduced by 1/11 along with 'everything'? Or is the magnetic field generated by these much smaller planets supposed to be as strong as what is produced by a much larger planet like Jupiter (and if one contends that something the size of Venus is somehow making a magnetic field of such enormous strength, I want to know what unknown physics is being invoked to make it so).

Now you are the one making assumptions just as you criticized others before for doing. Who ever said that the Kerbal Universe is the same as our universe...

Again, I never said they were in our same universe. I SAID that I would prefer it if they were (rather than in a universe with different fundamental constants) simply because this would leave open the possibility of kerbals eventually being able to visit our solar system. But that would be much harder to do if they inhabit a universe with very different physical constants.

[Holo]

For topic like this, I like to take the position that the Kerbal solar system acts as if it is made of super-dense balls sometimes, and as if they were normal density but 11 times larger at other times. For example, orbital mechanics acts as if the planets were super-dense balls, and geophysics acts as if they were 11 times larger.

[Brotoro]

For topics like this, I like to take the position that the Kerbol system acts as if it is made of balls with super-dense cores, because that's the situation the devs dealt to me when they built a tiny planetary system for us to play in. That's the situation where Newtonian mechanics works (albeit with limited two-body gravitation), where my delta-V calculations work, where my orbital periods and transfer time calculations work, and where my rover distances vs. time work…in short, it's where I can apply Physics as I know it and get the observed results. I see no reason to imagine some other solar system of a different size where none of my Physics calculations give the observed results. The only Laythe I deal with is the one in the game universe that my kernels inhabit…I never deal with any other Laythe with some other imagined properties.

[Holo]

The reason to imagine a different solar system is because it turns out that very little of what we know about geology applies to planets built around black holes. Certainly, it works for physics calculations, but that's why I think of two solar systems which are used depending on what's useful, interesting, and compatible with reality.

Also, I did some calculations about the atmospheres of Kerbal planets once and I think they were inconsistent with the dense core model (permission to call it hardcore?). I'll have to check, though, so don't take this as an argument for or against yet.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Holo

[Dodgey]

I feel like this thread has gone slightly off topic. we know that the planets are scaled down due to gameplay reasons so we can just ignore the diminished volumes and distances, or at the very least scale them back up to realistic sizes. Now on the topic of if Laythe is habitablei think that we should first state what we mean by habitable; I.e could we survive for a short amount of time only or could we survive there for an extended amount of time without long term damage, from say radiation. Also we should list criteria that would need to be met to be able to call a place habitable; atmosphere, climate, resources ect.

[Decent Weasel]

On the subject of radiation and oxygen, most of our oxygen on Earth, as I understand it, has been split out by plants. Laythe hasn't got any plants - so is it possible the oxygen is split out from CO2 or water vapor by intense radiation flux? I mean, since that's not preferential like photosynthesis is, that could generate ozone and nitrogen oxides as well, both of which would be way too nasty to breathe...

[Dodgey]

Is that assuming that Jool has the same relative radiation as Jupiter? If so then that could be a possibility, meaning that the radiation could be a risk also. If Jool has relative radiation on par with say Saturn then algae in Laythes oceans could have slowly oxygenated the atmosphere over time.

[Decent Weasel]

Yeah, on that order of magnitude, at least. I was assuming that talk of high radiation meant high relative to the Earthlike conditions of Kerbin, where the oxygen in the atmosphere is presumably provided by photosynthesis.

[Dodgey]

I'm sorry are you saying that Jool is a representation of Jupiter?

Edit- I couldn't quite understand what you were saying.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Dodgey
I accidentally published the post after deleting part of it

[Pds314]

Remember that Jool's magnetic field is only effective at throwing charged slow moving particles into radiation belts. Penetrating radiation would be gone and thin lead would easily be enough to stop such particles.

Also, laythe, Jool, Kerbin, Duna and Eve all have strangely scaled atmospheres. If Laythe had a similar temperature to Earth, it should scale at about 10 km, much like Jool does. This means that the pretemperatureon the surface of any object other than Jool should cause the atmosphere to explosively expand. Laythe's new atmosphere would be only 0.32 atm at the surface and around 121 km high. Of course, if laythe had a temperature of around 115 Kelvins (-158 C) then its atmosphere would be as dense as it is now, but it would still only exert .32 atmospheres. Basically, we have a pressure, a scale height and a temperature that make no physical sense together. This means radiation must pass through somewhere between 3.2-8 tonnes of air per square meter on it way to the ground if it goes straight down. Judging by this, you would be quite safe as air stops alpha and beta radiation extremely quickly.

[Holo]

Remember that Jool's magnetic field is only effective at throwing charged slow moving particles into radiation belts. Penetrating radiation would be gone and thin lead would easily be enough to stop such particles.

Also, laythe, Jool, Kerbin, Duna and Eve all have strangely scaled atmospheres. If Laythe had a similar temperature to Earth, it should scale at about 10 km, much like Jool does. This means that the pretemperatureon the surface of any object other than Jool should cause the atmosphere to explosively expand. Laythe's new atmosphere would be only 0.32 atm at the surface and around 121 km high. Of course, if laythe had a temperature of around 115 Kelvins (-158 C) then its atmosphere would be as dense as it is now, but it would still only exert .32 atmospheres. Basically, we have a pressure, a scale height and a temperature that make no physical sense together. This means radiation must pass through somewhere between 3.2-8 tonnes of air per square meter on it way to the ground if it goes straight down. Judging by this, you would be quite safe as air stops alpha and beta radiation extremely quickly.

Yeah, some guy did some calculations a few pages back and worked out that at sea level radiation is bearable, but a few hundred meters up it rapidly expands.

[cesarcurado]

By kerbals, yes.

You can take them here and they can survive unlimited amounts of time inside the planet so yes.

[The Jedi Master]

Not by a human. My theory is that kerbals are far more durable than humans, and therefore can stand high concentrations of radiation.

[Wheffle]

There's oxygen (for whatever reason), there's liquid water (for whatever reason)... those two things alone would be huge hurdles on any other celestial body when it comes to habitability. The presence of oxygen suggests the existence of photosynthetic life somewhere on Laythe, which speaks well for the possibility of farming food.

Even if there are radiation problems, that's just one issue to deal with, and I'm sure it could be dealt with. Compared to any other planet/moon in the Kerbol system or our own system, Laythe is a paradise. Sure, it's probably not up to par with Kerbin or Earth, but come on, we've got people living on bases in Antarctica... I'm sure they could handle Laythe.

[quasarrgames]

Since we know Laythe has oxygen, it probably has photosynthetic microorganisms in its oceans. The water could block out any radiation the atmosphere didn't absorb, and it would be warm enough to support life.

That being said, photosynthetic microorganisms would need carbon dioxide to survive. that means that there must be some form of animal life on Laythe. This life would probably manifest itself as plankton that lived in the oceans, so they could eat the other microorganisms in the water. Who knows? There may even be fish in the water. Or even...

\\---\\---//--[]

//----[]--[]---\\

[]---//--//----//

\\---[]--\\---//

-\\-//----[]-//

--\\[]---//-//

--/________\

--[(O)___(O)]

--\________/

---\______/

----\____/

[Holo]

By kerbals, yes.

You can take them here and they can survive unlimited amounts of time inside the planet so yes.

Until life support gets added. Notice the world "really" in the title.

[Decent Weasel]

Dodgey: That's my assumption, yes. If you want to question it, this thread is full of material you can use

[czokletmuss]

Speaking about Laythe and radiation, here's my interpretation of how the avarage EVA in its orbit should look like if the radiation get implemented in KSP (I hope I didn't post it already):

http://youtu.be/IDMzsK3ROo0

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Is that assuming that Jool has the same relative radiation as Jupiter? If so then that could be a possibility, meaning that the radiation could be a risk also. If Jool has relative radiation on par with say Saturn then algae in Laythes oceans could have slowly oxygenated the atmosphere over time.

How can Jool have the Radiation of Jupiter when it is smaller than Earth?

I like how People are playing with their fantasies but they are drifting too far off sometimes

The KSP Universe is highly unrealistic but it is fun to play with it though.

Laythe would be habitable even if you need an oxygen mask. But Laythe is impossible to exist.

There is no matter in the Universe that provides almost the Gravity of Earth (9,78m/s² [Laythe 7.85 m/s²]) on something as big as 4-Vesta (0,25m/s²).

Correct me if I am wrong

Edited December 11, 2013 by MalfunctionM1Ke