https://www.nasa.gov/feature/promising-worlds-found-around-nearby-ultra-cool-dwarf-star/
I only heard about this on the news recently and they were all "best place to look for life" but then
>Although they orbit very close to their host dwarf star, the inner two planets only receive four times and twice, respectively, the amount of radiation received by the Earth, because their star is much fainter than the Sun. That puts them closer to the star than the so-called habitable zone for this system, defined as having surface temperatures where liquid water can exist, although it is still possible that they possess potentially habitable regions on their surfaces. The third, outer, planet’s orbit is not yet well known, but it probably receives less radiation than the Earth does, but maybe still enough to lie within the habitable zone.
Which doesn't sound anywhere near as promising. Am I right in assuming this system is important because the planets are earth-sized and within roughly the right area and therefore other systems might be similar, or is there really any chance for life to develop on them?
>>8049312
>for life to develop
No, it's way too hot for that.
But it's nice because it's a dwarf star. That'll be very useful to us in a couple billion years because dwarf stars burn extremely slowly. If we can find any way to inhabit it at all, we'll have a home for a very, very long time.
Personally I favor gravitational nudging into the habitable zone. We have billions of years to get it right, so there's virtually no way to fail.
>>8049312
being habitable is just the beginning, they need loads of water and carbon and all that other shit that only Earth has
>>8049338
>implying we won't have evolved to Gauna status by then
>nearby star
lel
>>8049317
>so there's virtually no way to fail
This is the kind of post that hopefully some Australian billions of years later digs up from the archive and makes a thread with meme arrows because everything went to shit
>>8049440
Space australians?
>>8049440
That's kind of what I'm aiming for. I want to be the guy that said it was impossible to fail.
>>8049317
Question
Why can't we live off white dwarfs? I mean they're not generating nuclear fusion but they're still radiating heat and light
>>8049561
You're thinking of brown dwarfs. White dwarfs do undergo fusion.
You'd have to be something other than biological to survive the near-fusion conditions on the surface of a brown dwarf.
>>8049565
>White dwarfs do undergo fusion
No they don't
>>8049573
Oh wait I was thinking of red dwarfs.
To answer your question, I don't know. I'm not sure that we have any way to know yet. Ultimately we're still just crawling out of the cosmic analogue of the primordial muck. There's no way for us to live on anything outside of our planet without the use of extremely advanced technology. There's no telling how we'll be able to utilize a white drawf yet.
Personally I think we're just going to end up using all non-fissile material to build orbit spheres.
>>8049312
>orbital period of a few days
>tidally locked
Nah, I'm good.
