What would be the bare-minimum chemical, gravitational, geological,
You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math
What would be the bare-minimum chemical, gravitational, geological, ect requirements of a SUSTAINABLE habitable exo-solar planet? Presuming humans with roughly the technology you'd commonly find now? Also what would it look like?
Or in other terms, what would an exosolar planet with the most hostile conditions possible, still 'turn a profit' or otherwise be self-sufficient look like. I know we can keep 1000 people around in McMurdo with imports and if we really wanted to.
>>7784043
>chemical
Anything goes. Even if the planet is covered in hydrazine, that'd be a problem, but a solvable problem.
>gravitational
Literally anything below ~2-3 g's works great.
>geological
>etc
it's highly desirable for the environment to have a surface pressure below 10 bar, temperature below 60C (if there's atmosphere), and not contain a bath or liquid, gas and vapor corrosive or toxic matter.
>>7784057
Yeah that makes sense, thanks.
>>7784057
I'd say even 1.8Gs is still too high. It might work while you're in the spin thing NASA has, but you'd probably have a heart attack if you did anything physical because your heart now has to work much harder to pump the blood around your body.
>>7784137
I forget high G's do things more important than just make your bodyweight more.
I'm thinking of a definition of a sort of threshold where one might call a planet habitable or not. Life might be shitty, maybe it's -110F outside, or it's 34kpa outside with 10% oxygen, but you can go outside and weld some shit together and it's 'okay', it's tolerable, alltogether.
Obviously if it was like earth, with perfect temperature, perfect gravity but the atmosphere was 20% Hydrogen Cyanide and 60% Sulfuric Acid, it would not be self-sustaining.