New Rules For Habitable Zones

[alex_greene]

Just spotted this article on habitable zones around solar systems. This just made things a little more complicated for whoever's writing any kind of world building guides for Traveller.

New Rules For Habitable Zones

 

[F33D]

Just spotted this article on habitable zones around solar systems. This just made things a little more complicated for whoever's writing any kind of world building guides for Traveller.

Not really.

"The scientists cautioned that the habitable zone definition still does not take into account feedback effects from clouds, which will also affect a planet's habitability."

They aren't taking into account many variables. Well, back to square one.

 

[GypsyComet]

Well, back to square one.

Which, for Traveller, is the written space opera and "Hard SF" of the 20s through the early 70s occasionally punctuated by a movie or two. Lensmen to Star Wars.

Details are nice and all, but really, all you need to know is whether you need a suit, a mask, or an umbrella when visiting the place.

 

[F33D]

Details are nice and all, but really, all you need to know is whether you need a suit, a mask, or an umbrella when visiting the place.

Certainly. We know so little that it doesn't really matter.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

Is it just me, or does the article read like them redefining the habitable zone is actually changing whether or not exisiting planets are habitable?

Also, I was disappointed that there is almost nothing in the article about why they've changed where they think habitable planets would be, so there's nothing from which to draw our own conclusions.

 

[F33D]

Is it just me, or does the article read like them redefining the habitable zone is actually changing whether or not exisiting planets are habitable?

Also, I was disappointed that there is almost nothing in the article about why they've changed where they think habitable planets would be, so there's nothing from which to draw our own conclusions.

Yep. Reporters who don't have a strong science EDU sometimes write articles like this...

 

[AndrewW]

Try this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6674

 

[Nathan Brazil]

The Core Rules don't address generating habitable worlds per se, merely the mainworld, the choice piece of real estate:

"This is the garden spot of Ceti Alpha"

I still think that in many campaigns the current rules for world generation are fine. Not realistic, but fine. In a 3I campaign, I looked at "Star Presence" more as "Is there anything interesting in this hex?" In 2300, yea, more realism is desirable as you have essentially 800+ potential and actual star systems packed in 16 parsec sphere and the campaign's basis.

Either way, as far as the Core Rules go, isn't "habitable world" essentially taken account already by rolling for World Temperature along with the other "Goldilocks" parameters (atmosphere and hydrographics)? As long as you don't get Frozen or Roasting, you are on the track for habitable.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

Try this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6674

That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks!

Do you happen to know what they mean by "The new model indicates that, near the inner edge of the HZ, there is no clear distinction between runaway greenhouse and water loss limits for stars with T_{eff} ~< 5000 K"?

Wouldn't runaway greenhouse or water loss give effectively the same result: no habitable planet?