Agree, far to much of that but I guess what I was getting at is just because a planet doesnât have life on it doesnât mean itâs un-inhabitable⦠you just have to be there at the right time as far as some of them are concerned.
From: [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 10:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: TNE - Stellar failure
> You're assuming that the imperium is only looking for habitable planets
> with life on them to put roots down on if I'm following you.
THAT'S clearly not true! "Look, an airless rock! Let's move 9 billion
people here!" :-)
> A planet
> could be a rock with an atmosphere and water and nothing more
> sophisticated than random strands of RNA. If the planet only has a 20,000
> year habitable window that's a lot of time in human standards. Lets face
> it a few billion years back you could have chucked down a human colony on
> Mars and started farming there... Possibly. :)
Just because I was curious, I looked this up. The oldest elements of Mars
surface supposedly formed 4.5 to 3.5 billion years ago. About 4 billion
years ago its tectonic plates stopped moving and it lost its
magnetosphere. By 3.5 billion y.a. it had extensive liquid water, and some
water lasted to "a few million" y.a.
So even Grandfather was too late for liquid water on Mars, to indicate
what an eye-blink that was. (Homo heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis, H.
neanderthalensis)
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:06 PM, "Mike West" <> wrote:
>>
>> I donââ¬â¢t know if I have the WTH around anywhere, so I canââ¬â¢t speak to
>> the tables easily.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the subject of M0-4 stars working, it is my understanding they can.
>> (Heck Mire has an M0V, and I donââ¬â¢t think anyone has tried to change
>> it.) It was just the dinky red dwarfs that were the issue (e.g. Alell).
>>
>>
>>
>> If I remember right, the problem with both giants and main sequence
>> stars O,B,A is that they just donââ¬â¢t last the couple billion years
>> required for life to develop. That said, it isnââ¬â¢t as necessary to
>> worry about the giants, a s a few habitable worlds around a giant is
>> cool for the type of SF that is Traveller.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike West
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>> [] On Behalf Of
>>
>>
>> I still have to loop back and finish looking at the earlier one, but I
>> think there's still something going on in 3 and 4 based on other
>> remarks
>> abo ut M0-4 being too cold, and giants being inadmissible.
>>
>> Is it your understanding the using the habitable zones table is
>> adequate,
>> or that there is something beyond that?
>>
>>
>>
>
From: [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 10:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: TNE - Stellar failure
> You're assuming that the imperium is only looking for habitable planets
> with life on them to put roots down on if I'm following you.
THAT'S clearly not true! "Look, an airless rock! Let's move 9 billion
people here!" :-)
> A planet
> could be a rock with an atmosphere and water and nothing more
> sophisticated than random strands of RNA. If the planet only has a 20,000
> year habitable window that's a lot of time in human standards. Lets face
> it a few billion years back you could have chucked down a human colony on
> Mars and started farming there... Possibly. :)
Just because I was curious, I looked this up. The oldest elements of Mars
surface supposedly formed 4.5 to 3.5 billion years ago. About 4 billion
years ago its tectonic plates stopped moving and it lost its
magnetosphere. By 3.5 billion y.a. it had extensive liquid water, and some
water lasted to "a few million" y.a.
So even Grandfather was too late for liquid water on Mars, to indicate
what an eye-blink that was. (Homo heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis, H.
neanderthalensis)
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:06 PM, "Mike West" <> wrote:
>>
>> I donââ¬â¢t know if I have the WTH around anywhere, so I canââ¬â¢t speak to
>> the tables easily.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the subject of M0-4 stars working, it is my understanding they can.
>> (Heck Mire has an M0V, and I donââ¬â¢t think anyone has tried to change
>> it.) It was just the dinky red dwarfs that were the issue (e.g. Alell).
>>
>>
>>
>> If I remember right, the problem with both giants and main sequence
>> stars O,B,A is that they just donââ¬â¢t last the couple billion years
>> required for life to develop. That said, it isnââ¬â¢t as necessary to
>> worry about the giants, a s a few habitable worlds around a giant is
>> cool for the type of SF that is Traveller.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike West
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>> [] On Behalf Of
>>
>>
>> I still have to loop back and finish looking at the earlier one, but I
>> think there's still something going on in 3 and 4 based on other
>> remarks
>> abo ut M0-4 being too cold, and giants being inadmissible.
>>
>> Is it your understanding the using the habitable zones table is
>> adequate,
>> or that there is something beyond that?
>>
>>
>>
>