Some exomoons could be habitable for humans

[alfa015]

Hello,

I would like to share with you the info we have so far about habitable exomoons:

1. We have detected 9 exomoon candidates, but none of them are potentially habitable.

2. A habitable exomoon would have a mass between 0.25 and 2 Earth masses.

3. The mass of the host planet has to be at least 3 times the mass of Jupiter, and it should not be tidally locked to the star.

4. A study has identified more than 70 gas giant exoplanets that could host habitable exomoons, but all of them are located far away.

5. Within 100 light years, there could be around 33 habitable exomoons orbiting Sun-like stars, 109 around K-type stars, and 121 in red dwarf star systems.

More info about habitable exomoons SPAM LINK DELETED

Do you think exomoons could be more habitable than exoplanets?
 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Strange
SPAM

[mathematic]

Question seems premature.  Exomoons have yet to be discovered.  The description of habitable applies just as well to exoplanets.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, alfa015 said:

Do you think exomoons could be more habitable than exoplanets?

!

Moderator Note

I think you should stop spamming links to your YouTube channel.

 

[Endy0816]

The ones around our own Gas Giants do tend to have some decent resources or novelties so similar exomoons would definitely be of interest.

Realistically travelers would have to be living in space already to reach that far. One that shared a similar atmospheric composition might even be forbidden from inhabitation as that could harm future research into native life.

[Ken Fabian]

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Realistically travelers would have to be living in space already to reach that far. One that shared a similar atmospheric composition might even be forbidden from inhabitation as that could harm future research into native life.

"Habitable for humans" rather than habitable in the sense of being able to support it's own biology. Habitable for humans is going to be a very narrow subset of "capable of supporting life that is like life on Earth".

Any native life would not only be of exceptional scientific interest it seems like a big assumption that human life would be compatible with the biochemistry. Surely life throws up more complex poisons and allergenic compounds than lifeless processes - besides the more obvious hazards like wrong atmosphere or getting eaten or parasitised. 

If we have the technology to get to the planets of other stars we won't need planets for survival purposes - but that urge to find new pastures, to occupy and possess, is a primitive one and I would not trust humans from Earth to restrain themselves if they are within landing distance of a world they thought they could conquer and occupy. Although humans with a long history of life in artificial habitats/spacecraft may not find planets or life supporting moons attractive.

[joigus]

21 hours ago, alfa015 said:

Do you think exomoons could be more habitable than exoplanets?

I think it depends as much on the exomoon as on the exoplanet, as well as its location with respect to the star, and the nature of the star itself in the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram. (dwarf, red giant, main sequence and where on it...) The moon would have to have a magnetosphere to protect it from the gas giant's "bully" magnetosphere. I think it would have to either have seismic activity of its own or a powerful energy source from strong tidal forces to the giant planet. IOW, a mechanism that pumps CO₂ to the atmosphere. If you want humans to live there, you need oxygen in the atmosphere, so you need something like cyanobacteria. Then there's the problem of surface gravity and atmospheric pressure. My favourite scenario for life is Earth-like planets, really. In what concerns complex life, let alone human life, my drive is to curb my imagination.

 

[Endy0816]

20 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

"Habitable for humans" rather than habitable in the sense of being able to support it's own biology. Habitable for humans is going to be a very narrow subset of "capable of supporting life that is like life on Earth".

Any native life would not only be of exceptional scientific interest it seems like a big assumption that human life would be compatible with the biochemistry. Surely life throws up more complex poisons and allergenic compounds than lifeless processes - besides the more obvious hazards like wrong atmosphere or getting eaten or parasitised.

Very true.

Quote

If we have the technology to get to the planets of other stars we won't need planets for survival purposes - but that urge to find new pastures, to occupy and possess, is a primitive one and I would not trust humans from Earth to restrain themselves if they are within landing distance of a world they thought they could conquer and occupy.

This does make you think. We have the Antarctic as an example where we have exercised restraint, but whether this will remain so is of course unknown.

 

Quote

Although humans with a long history of life in artificial habitats/spacecraft may not find planets or life supporting moons attractive.

Yeah, main thing is that they simply wouldn't be accustomed to the rigors involved or would consider the risks to be extreme compared with their controlled environments. Reasonable to assume by then that they could build habitats to suit any particular preference both in space and on lifeless bodies. Possible though that some might not find that as enough of a challenge.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Endy0816

[Airbrush]

On 6/20/2020 at 9:47 PM, Ken Fabian said:

...If we have the technology to get to the planets of other stars we won't need planets for survival purposes....

That's right, once humans have achieved the ability to travel to other stars, that means they were comfortable in their spacecraft for decades or centuries.  Local exo-moons or asteroids would be needed for water-ice, to make water, air, and fuel, and other minerals.  Nice place to visit but you wouldn't want to live there.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Airbrush

[Dord]

On 6/23/2020 at 2:06 AM, Airbrush said:

once humans have achieved the ability to travel to other stars

This is by no means a certainty, so may I suggest if humans...

[Airbrush]

15 hours ago, Dord said:

This is by no means a certainty, so may I suggest if humans...

Certainly the question is IF rather than when.  The question is about inhabiting exo-moons.  IF humans ever arrive at another star, they would probably be more comfortable in the ship they used to travel so far.  Why even try to live on the surface of an exo-moon?

[paulsutton]

On 6/21/2020 at 5:47 AM, Ken Fabian said:

"Habitable for humans" rather than habitable in the sense of being able to support it's own biology. Habitable for humans is going to be a very narrow subset of "capable of supporting life that is like life on Earth".

Any native life would not only be of exceptional scientific interest it seems like a big assumption that human life would be compatible with the biochemistry. Surely life throws up more complex poisons and allergenic compounds than lifeless processes - besides the more obvious hazards like wrong atmosphere or getting eaten or parasitised. 

If we have the technology to get to the planets of other stars we won't need planets for survival purposes - but that urge to find new pastures, to occupy and possess, is a primitive one and I would not trust humans from Earth to restrain themselves if they are within landing distance of a world they thought they could conquer and occupy. Although humans with a long history of life in artificial habitats/spacecraft may not find planets or life supporting moons attractive.

Surely even if we travel via a spaceship to other worlds or between worlds,  we would need to stop off places for resources etc.   I would assume our desire to explore the universe would include contact with other worlds.

I don't think the idea would be to take over and colonise other worlds,  Maybe we need to adopt something like the prime directive in Star Trek so there are sets of rules and values.

Given we have quite a lot of the things that appeared in star trek e.g video conferencing,  Padds (tablets / phones) communications (well the old nokia phone was a flip phone ),  then this would surely also include a legal and value system.

[Area54]

30 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

Surely even if we travel via a spaceship to other worlds or between worlds,  we would need to stop off places for resources etc.   I would assume our desire to explore the universe would include contact with other worlds.

Since, based upon our current understanding of physics, faster-than-light travel will be an impossibility then our visits to other worlds will be for the purpose of colonisation. Perhaps you imagine that the 'compression' of ship-time for near light speed travel would make it feasible to undertake exploration missions. However, by the time the explorers return the social and technological changes on the home planet would have rendered them curiosities.

[paulsutton]

I agree,  we would have to use any resources we find,  maybe if we cant tra

On 8/5/2020 at 11:30 AM, Area54 said:

Since, based upon our current understanding of physics, faster-than-light travel will be an impossibility then our visits to other worlds will be for the purpose of colonisation. Perhaps you imagine that the 'compression' of ship-time for near light speed travel would make it feasible to undertake exploration missions. However, by the time the explorers return the social and technological changes on the home planet would have rendered them curiosities.

If we can't travel faster than light, would we have to develop ship automation and find a way to put people in stasis so they are asleep for the journey or most of it.  Of course there is no prediction as to what could happen and yes by the time we get there,  humans back on Earth will have moved on technologically.,  

I think we need to look at having a base of exploration closer to home, learn more about the outer planets, how to extract minerals from Asteroids before we even think about interstellar travel.

 

[Area54]

On 8/6/2020 at 1:25 PM, paulsutton said:

If we can't travel faster than light, would we have to develop ship automation and find a way to put people in stasis so they are asleep for the journey or most of it.  Of course there is no prediction as to what could happen and yes by the time we get there,  humans back on Earth will have moved on technologically.,  

Automation would be essential, in my opinion. Developing it to an adequate level is unlikely to be a challenge given a century or two to develop. (Airline pilots are really only there to deal with emergencies and point out interesting things to see out the right hand window.) In terms of how you get people there, some options:

• Hibernation
• Generation ships
• Frozen embryos

We could update the technology - or at least the knowledge of the technology - via a radio link, but my concern was not technological differences, but cultural and pschological contrasts. It is a cliche that senior citizens are perplexed by i-phones, computers and on-line banking. Amplify that by the changes over a couple of millenia rather than a couple of decades and you have the potential for a move to suicide territory.

On 8/6/2020 at 1:25 PM, paulsutton said:

I think we need to look at having a base of exploration closer to home, learn more about the outer planets, how to extract minerals from Asteroids before we even think about interstellar travel.

Certainly, our ability to explore, exploit and colonise the solar system will be an essential prerequisite to interstellar travel. However, thinking about it is both essential and great fun. Plus, manned exploration will always be preceded by extensive robotic  probes. We can be thinking about those now, and we are:

• https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-is-getting-serious-about-an-interstellar-mission/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot

On 6/20/2020 at 9:46 PM, mathematic said:

Question seems premature.  Exomoons have yet to be discovered.

True, but there are several candidates.

[paulsutton]

On 8/7/2020 at 5:14 PM, Area54 said:

Automation would be essential, in my opinion. Developing it to an adequate level is unlikely to be a challenge given a century or two to develop. (Airline pilots are really only there to deal with emergencies and point out interesting things to see out the right hand window.) In terms of how you get people there, some options:

• Hibernation
• Generation ships
• Frozen embryos

 

Don't frozen embryos need a host to develop? Once we reach the destination.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, paulsutton said:

Don't frozen embryos need a host to develop? Once we reach the destination.

If we are envisaging a culture capable of constructing a craft delivering interstellar travel and self-repair over a period of centuries, it is not a stretch to consider an artificial womb for the initial physical development of the embryos and robotic/AI 'parents' for the subsequent mental and emotional development of the children.

[Ken Fabian]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

If we are envisaging a culture capable of constructing a craft delivering interstellar travel and self-repair over a period of centuries, it is not a stretch to consider an artificial womb for the initial physical development of the embryos and robotic/AI 'parents' for the subsequent mental and emotional development of the children.

I don't think anyone should ever do that to any children. Bad enough to raise generation after generation of kids by adult choice - or indoctrination - aboard a "generation ship". Makes me wonder what they will be for if the mission is being undertaken by AI with robots? Pets? Leave aside how complex the technological capabilities would have to be and how difficult to sustain in the absolute physical isolation of a multi-generational voyage and distance from the economy that designed and made it, that this will be a much diminished branch of humanity for a lot of generations - narrowed options, not widened, and utterly dependent on tech they likely cannot understand, and only follow recipes to try and reproduce.

I also don't think it will be possible to know beforehand if any target planet is suitable for being a target planet for occupation and conquest (any colonising being invasive) - or even if it is safe to breathe the air... for the humans or safe for that new world at large, exposed to the microbiome humans carry with them. Will it even be suitable for introducing potentially invasive terrestrial species, such as successful colonists might want for their gardens? The Trekkie vision seems to be of worlds with sentient occupants but would we even recognise them unless they use tech that is obvious? Any marine sentience with simple tech would probably not be visible at all.

Edited August 8, 2020 by Ken Fabian

[Area54]

48 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I don't think anyone should ever do that to any children.

That is an opinion, to which you are fully entitled. I offer my opinion that a sensitively developed and implemented AI, taking advantage of the improved understanding of developmental psychology we might reasonably anticipate over the next couple of centuries, would offer a vastly more human and humane upbringing than is available to many in this century.

 

48 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Makes me wonder what they will be for if the mission is being undertaken by AI with robots?

The same thing all children are for. The continuance of the human race. The difference would be that, unlike many children born to day, they would be intended, they would have extensive support, and they would have awesome opportunities.

 

48 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Pets?

I'm quite happy to give you the opportunity to withdraw a remark that is beneath you.

 

48 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Leave aside how complex the technological capabilities would have to be to and how difficult to sustain in the absolute physical isolation of a multi-generational voyage and distance from the economy that designed and made it.

If you wish to leave it aside why raise it?

 

48 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I also don't think it will be possible to know beforehand if any target planet is suitable for being a target planet for occupation and conquest - or even if it is safe to breathe the air... for the humans or for the world at large, exposed to the microbiome humans carry with them.

You will realise that your personal incredulity is not a persuasive argument. Interstellar colonistation, if implemented, will necessarily be a very long term effort. (I suspect that if we are unable to make truly long term plans then our species is doomed anyway.) Do you doubt the ability of purely robotic probes to thorougly investigate potential systems before humans are dispatched? Why do you ignore the possibility of robotic terraforming of barren planets prior to human settlement? Without effort I can imagine a handful of other approaches that address your reservations.

 

48 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

The Trekkie vision seems to be of worlds with sentient occupants but would we even recognise them unless they use tech that is obvious?

Strawman.

 

48 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Any marine sentience with simple tech would probably not be visible at all.

Why not? We couldn't, perhaps using von Neumann replicators, investigate a world's oceans in detail? The technological gap between 1520 and 2020 is vast, yet that is only half a millenium. Do you expect the advances to cease, or even reverse in say ten millenia?

Edited August 8, 2020 by Area54
Corrected plural of millenium!

[Ken Fabian]

Sorry Area54 but your excess credulity that technological progress will overcome all obstacles is naive. We will hit hard limits for what technology is possible, along with economic ones where great things are possible but unaffordable. Some grand space dreams, like Mars colonies, are - I believe - possible, but unaffordable; orders of magnitude too expensive. Hypothesising a high tech solution to every problem isn't going to do it and sometimes throwing more money at a problem just wastes money.

My remark about what the humans are for if the mission is run and done by AI and robots may have been flippant but any small, artificially raised population will not be in a position to step up, take charge and expect to be able to sustain tech levels that are currently far beyond our global civilisation. They will be dependent on - dependants of - tech they do not understand. Using tech we don't understand may appear quite normal but somewhere there are people who understand it - who design and refine and engineer the tech us users take for granted. It sounds like a recipe for a bunch of artificially raised kids to end up in an intractable bind, where the predicted success and growth - the awesome opportunities - are never achieved.

The level of living, working expertise needed to sustain a high tech civilisation - including a crucial lot of rare, genuine geniuses -  across thousands of disciplines and subdisciplines is something only large, healthy and wealthy populations - and the economic demand they create - can achieve and support. AI, robotics are another layer of complexity, no matter that from the end user viewpoint it appears to make things easier; the costs and complexities are just elsewhere, ie Earth. 

Like a library, those supports can aid people but no matter if I have the full specs on how to build nuclear power plants or mining robots I won't be able to do it. Not without the economy and infrastructure and population with skills and experience - and the current setup we have is wobbly; assuming it goes on for millennia and all the time getting more technologically advanced is no more than a correlation; there is nothing inevitable about it.

[Area54]

11 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Sorry Area54 but your excess credulity that technological progress will overcome all obstacles is naive. We will hit hard limits for what technology is possible, along with economic ones where great things are possible but unaffordable. Some grand space dreams, like Mars colonies, are - I believe - possible, but unaffordable; orders of magnitude too expensive. Hypothesising a high tech solution to every problem isn't going to do it and sometimes throwing more money at a problem just wastes money.

My remark about what the humans are for if the mission is run and done by AI and robots may have been flippant but any small, artificially raised population will not be in a position to step up, take charge and expect to be able to sustain tech levels that are currently far beyond our global civilisation. They will be dependent on - dependants of - tech they do not understand. Using tech we don't understand may appear quite normal but somewhere there are people who understand it - who design and refine and engineer the tech us users take for granted. It sounds like a recipe for a bunch of artificially raised kids to end up in an intractable bind, where the predicted success and growth - the awesome opportunities - are never achieved.

The level of living, working expertise needed to sustain a high tech civilisation - including a crucial lot of rare, genuine geniuses -  across thousands of disciplines and subdisciplines is something only large, healthy and wealthy populations - and the economic demand they create - can achieve and support. AI, robotics are another layer of complexity, no matter that from the end user viewpoint it appears to make things easier; the costs and complexities are just elsewhere, ie Earth. 

Like a library, those supports can aid people but no matter if I have the full specs on how to build nuclear power plants or mining robots I won't be able to do it. Not without the economy and infrastructure and population with skills and experience - and the current setup we have is wobbly; assuming it goes on for millennia and all the time getting more technologically advanced is no more than a correlation; there is nothing inevitable about it.

An argument from incredulity is never persuasive. I shall ponder whether or not to invest the time to respond in detail. In the meantime, I would ask what makes you feel your intellect is superior to that of von Neumann? Or do you think his proposal for autonomous, self replicating probes was entirely a lighthearted excursion into SF?

[Ken Fabian]

6 hours ago, Area54 said:

An argument from incredulity is never persuasive. I shall ponder whether or not to invest the time to respond in detail. In the meantime, I would ask what makes you feel your intellect is superior to that of von Neumann? Or do you think his proposal for autonomous, self replicating probes was entirely a lighthearted excursion into SF?

I think in the case of interstellar colonisation - with or without autonomous, self replicating probes - incredulity is entirely appropriate and persuasive. I think the onus is on those doing the proposing to provide extraordinary proof or at least sound reasoning for their extraordinary claims.

[Area54]

15 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think in the case of interstellar colonisation - with or without autonomous, self replicating probes - incredulity is entirely appropriate and persuasive. I think the onus is on those doing the proposing to provide extraordinary proof or at least sound reasoning for their extraordinary claims.

An average Cro-Magnon, confronted with the prospect of Roman roads, military power, aqueducts and similar would have been incredulous.

An average Roman citizen confronted with steam powered factories, rifled guns, railway systems and similar hallmarks of the Victorian era would have been incredulous.

An average Victorain confronted with computers, mobile phones, space probes and a thousand other remarkable pieces of current technology would have been incredulous.

Their incredulity did not stop any of these developments because, fortunately, there were Cro-Magnons and Romans and Victorians who were not average.

Given that history, it is first and foremost up to you to demonstrate that expectation of interstellar colonisation is actually extraordinary. While you are contemplating how best to do that I would appreciate an answer to my question on von Neumann probes.

Note to Moderators: if this is judged off-topic for the thread could the relevant posts be moved to a new thread?

Edited August 11, 2020 by Area54
Acknowledge possible off-topic content.

[Endy0816]

Agreed that most mega-projects while not feasible with purely human labor, are more than feasible with enough machines working for/with us. Think once we get automated transport and farming finished up, we'll be in good shape to consider more. These projects won't be free from opportunity cost, but that cost can be made smaller.

 

We do have private spaceflight taking off. Bit biased, but think tourism is going to be an important first step along with these ever larger satellite constellations.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/10/spacex-reveals-plans-for-a-texas-spaceport-resort-in-new-job-ad/

If we can get to the point where space station relocation is the norm for in-system colonization, we'll be better equipped to start looking at expanding outside the solar system.