If we want to find life on Saturn's moon Enceladus, we need to rule out Earthly hitchhikers

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,284
915
3,560
The search for life in our solar system (other than here on Earth) continues. A new study out now suggest there could be 24, superhabitable earths in the exoplanet realm. 'Some planets may be better for life than Earth', https://phys.org/news/2020-10-planets-life-earth.html

The paper cited is 'In Search for a Planet Better than Earth: Top Contenders for a Superhabitable World', https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2161 This study suggest that earth may not be the best place for life :)

Some observations from me on this study.

1. Stars that can live longer than our Sun can be better for life than our Sun.
2. a superhabitable exoplanet likely needs to be larger than earth size. The report mentions a super-
earth about 1.5 earth masses as a possible model.
3. a superhabitiable earth likely will have more liquid water than our earth does today.

This study shows that habitable earths orbiting class G stars (similar to our Sun) in the Milky Way,
apparently is an idea largely abandoned now because of the more than 4300 exoplanets documented,
not confirming habitable earths around other class G stars in the Milky Way. Astrobiology using the
assumption of abiogenesis for the origin of life is looking elsewhere today. 24 possible superhabitable
exoplanets are presented in this new astrobiology study.

At the present, only Earth is definitely known to have life on it today and in the past (e.g. fossil record).
 
Oct 5, 2020
2
1
15
The search for life in our solar system (other than here on Earth) continues. A new study out now suggest there could be 24, superhabitable earths in the exoplanet realm. 'Some planets may be better for life than Earth', https://phys.org/news/2020-10-planets-life-earth.html

The paper cited is 'In Search for a Planet Better than Earth: Top Contenders for a Superhabitable World', https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2161 This study suggest that earth may not be the best place for life :)

Some observations from me on this study.

1. Stars that can live longer than our Sun can be better for life than our Sun.
2. a superhabitable exoplanet likely needs to be larger than earth size. The report mentions a super-
earth about 1.5 earth masses as a possible model.
3. a superhabitiable earth likely will have more liquid water than our earth does today.

This study shows that habitable earths orbiting class G stars (similar to our Sun) in the Milky Way,
apparently is an idea largely abandoned now because of the more than 4300 exoplanets documented,
not confirming habitable earths around other class G stars in the Milky Way. Astrobiology using the
assumption of abiogenesis for the origin of life is looking elsewhere today. 24 possible superhabitable
exoplanets are presented in this new astrobiology study.

At the present, only Earth is definitely known to have life on it today and in the past (e.g. fossil record).
Why do you use the term "liquid water"? Isn't that redundant? Solid H20 is ice, not water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,284
915
3,560
Voluntaryist, to answer your question in post #3, I use the same terminology as the paper cited at the liebertpup.com link, 'In Search for a Planet Better than Earth: Top Contenders for a Superhabitable World'.

"4. Finding a Superhabitable Planet Do we have a candidate that would fit to be an MVP? For now, this question remains open because we cannot evaluate all items on our list. Current technology simply does not allow us, for example, to measure global temperatures on extrasolar planets anywhere close to the accuracy needed. Data are also currently lacking to calculate the PHI for any exoplanet. Nevertheless, we can say whether a planet is in the habitable zone with temperatures where liquid water could be present on the planetary surface..."

Consider abiogenesis. Is Enceladus a better place for abiogenesis to create life or are the 24 superhabitable exoplanets cited in the new study a better place for abiogenesis to create life on them? Both reports assume abiogenesis for the origin of life and look at very different locations with very different conditions.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY