Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on How to Terraform a Dead Earth

Parent

How to Terraform a Dead Earth

+3
−2

In the foreseeable future, a scientific community has discovered an alternate universe in which the solar system centers around a binary system of G-type suns, unlike the one G-type that ours orbits. The first planet is a diamond-crusted carbon planet twice as wide and eight times as massive as Earth, orbiting the second star from a distance of 1.1 million miles. The second planet is a Venus-like planet 175% as wide and five-and-a-half times as massive as Earth, orbiting both stars from a distance of 109 million miles. In the habitable zone is the third planet, an Earth-like planet 5800 miles wide with the following features:

  1. A gravity 75% that of Earth

  2. A retrograde rotation (suns rise from the west and set in the east) of 42 hours, a cycle that must be completed 827 times to make up one revolution (an "Asgardian" year)

  3. A single moon 3,474.2 miles wide and orbiting "Asgard" from a distance of 384,400 miles An axial tilt varying from 109.7 to 118.32 degrees every 1.4 million years

This alternate Earth is also more volcanically active, as indicated in the dimensions of its oceans:

  1. Shallow seas cover 40% of the oceans

  2. Deep seas cover 32% of the oceans

  3. Trenches and deeps cover 15% of the oceans

  4. Abyssal plains are the smallest feature of this alternate Earth's oceans, covering only 13%

The atmosphere consists primarily of carbon dioxide and methane, but it still has 2% as much oxygen as our Earth.

In every respect, it should have life. The problem with that is that it used to have life, but we have just missed a mass extinction severe enough to wipe the slate clean.

Image alt text

This is a map of "Asgard". The red presented at the bottom of the map is the cause of the crisis that wiped out all life--a large basaltic plateau representing a volume of 80,000,000 cubic miles and a maximum elevation of 9,800 feet. Such a series of eruptions would have released enough greenhouse gases to wipe out even the toughest of organisms. So this Earth-like planet is too extreme for our first wave of terraforming pioneers, blue-green cyanobacteria, to thrive. Through a combination of natural and manmade means, how do we cool down the planet and possibly dilute the acidity of the oceans to the extent of making cyanobacterial colonization possible?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (7 comments)
Post
+2
−2

Your question makes no sense due to its disregard of basic science.

The atmosphere consists primarily of carbon dioxide and methane

So did the early Earth's, and life was able to start here. This is clearly not a problem for some types of life.

Shallow seas cover 40% of the oceans

That's a great place for life. You've got generally warm water, sunlight, and minerals washing off the adjoining land masses.

Since you have liquid water on the surface, there are clearly places that aren't too hot or too cold for life, even just the life we know of here on Earth.

Deep seas cover 32% of the oceans

That together with your vulcanism is yet another habitat that we know life can survive in. Whole ecosystems have evolved on Earth around geothermal vents on the ocean floor.

Such a series of eruptions would have released enough greenhouse gases to wipe out even the toughest of organisms

This make no sense, and you give no justification for this conclusion. OK, so somehow a lot of CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere. That may have increased the temperature and CO2 content of the atmosphere. But, the end result still has liquid water on the surface, so it's not a runaway greenhouse situation like Venus. Some oganisms would have died out, but others would have been favored. Doing the same to Earth today might cause a mass extinction, but hardly a total extinction.

too extreme for our first wave of terraforming pioneers, blue-green cyanobacteria

Are you sure about that? And even if cyanobacteria as we have on Earth can't handle at least a few niches on this planet, they are certainly not the only choice for life, even oxygen-producing life.

The real problem you will have with building up oxygen if the planet never had much before, is that iron in the soil will bind with the oxygen for millions of years. Only after most available iron is oxidized, can you build up significant levels in the atmosphere. This is exactly what happened on the early Earth.

axial tilt varying from 109.7 to 118.32 degrees

How can an axial tilt exceed 90°? Think about it. After that, it's really just a 90°-N° tilt in the other direction with the poles flipped (which you already said is the case).

A single moon 3,474.2 miles wide and orbiting "Asgard" from a distance of 384,400 miles

So the moon is a bit larger and a bit farther than Earth's moon. How is the moon diameter relevant to 5 digits, though? This makes no sense. First, that level of precision is absurd for something that must have mountains and valleys. Second, I can't imagine what difference it would make if the moon was 3,474.0 or 3,475.0 miles wide instead.

orbiting both stars from a distance of 109 million miles

Huh? What? Even if you mean this to be the average distance to the two stars, that forces the stars to be implausibly close to each other.


Basically, you need to go back and re-think your world from a basis of science, unless you mean this to be a magic-driven place (in which case it's pointless asking what science tells us will happen).

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (8 comments)
General comments
Enfield‭ wrote over 4 years ago

"How can an axial tilt exceed 90°?" Well, how else can we have western sunrises and eastern sunsets? "How is the moon diameter relevant to 5 digits, though?" Our moon measures 3,474.2 kilometers. But since this is Asgard, which is the direct reverse of Midgard ("Earth"), it's an opportunity to explore a similar switch in measurement.

Enfield‭ wrote over 4 years ago

"Huh? What? Even if you mean this to be the average distance to the two stars, that forces the stars to be implausibly close to each other." That is the super Venus's distance to the two suns, not the alternate Earth's or the two suns'.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote over 4 years ago · edited over 4 years ago

@Enf: If any planet orbits two stars at 109 million miles, then the two stars must be absurdly close together. The distance between the stars must be a small fraction of this orbit radius, else a single orbit radius is meaningless. Let's say 10% to pick something. So the two stars are 11 million miles apart max? Again, go back to some basic science.

Canina‭ wrote over 4 years ago · edited over 4 years ago

Regarding the moon, the diameter is also largely irrelevant. The diameter and orbital radius (not even specified whether it's semi-minor or semi-major axis) plus the planet's radius allows deriving the angular size as viewed from the planet's surface, but that's about it. Mass and average density, along with orbital parameters (at least semi-minor and semi-major axis, or either plus orbital eccentricity), almost certainly matters a lot more to its interactions with the planet.

James Jenkins‭ wrote over 4 years ago · edited over 4 years ago

@Enfield RE: ""How can an axial tilt exceed 90°?" once you get past 90° your reference changes. There is nothing making one side or the other the top. Imagine it cycles back and forth across the 90° point, is it the 'top' the 'top' you saw when you first looked, or is it the 'top' from the cycle before you looked? The magnetic poles of Earth flip locations, the same is likely on your planet, do you use the North of today or yesterday as the 'top'?

Canina‭ wrote about 4 years ago

About "implausibly close together", I recalled something I saw in Nature, about a binary white dwarf system with an orbital period of 6.91 minutes. Wikipedia looks about right in putting the stars' radii at about 0.016 and 0.031 solar radii respectively, their semi-major axis at about 0.112 solar radii, and that's with a rapidly decaying orbit. Those numbers might help put a rough lower bound on how close a binary pair can be.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 4 years ago

@aCVn: Yes, I should have been more clear. Obviously stars can be that close if they will eventually merge. However, that will decay quickly. That means conditions were drastically different recently, and will be different again shortly. Such rapid changes are not good for starting life.

Canina‭ wrote about 4 years ago · edited about 4 years ago

@OlinLathrop "That means conditions were drastically different recently, and will be different again shortly. Such rapid changes are not good for starting life." Very much agreed.