Do you guys believe this moon could support life? - Page 7

Synapse · 2012-06-25, 04:24 PM

TBH I hope the artists ignore this thread. 90% of players are going to look at that sky and go "WOW, AWESOME" before being killed by some tanks.

Not only are astronomically correct skies more boring, even details like lighting are unlikely to be noticed by the majority of players.

Instead, you could have that same artist working on other great stuff, like a 4th continent.

PsychoXR-20 · 2012-06-25, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Synapse

Are you a scientist or something? Because you're directly contradicting lots of experts who are currently looking for life on Europa.

http://web.archive.org/web/200607030...7March2001.pdf

Just because it doesn't live on the surface doesn't mean life isnt possible there.

I said Earth life (aka trees and humans) It stands to reason that if there is life on Europa it would have adapted to its environment. I suppose I should have also said on the surface (where the game takes place). Any life on Europa would be in oceans under the surface of the moon.

Synapse · 2012-06-25, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by PsychoXR-20

I said Earth life (aka trees and humans) It stands to reason that if there is life on Europa it would have adapted to its environment. I suppose I should have also said on the surface (where the game takes place). Any life on Europa would be in oceans under the surface of the moon.

Earth life includes the rich ecosystems we have around our undersea volcanic vents, doesn't it?

Blackwolf · 2012-06-25, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by EVILoHOMER

http://www.planetside-universe.com/m...f47a317e44.jpg

Firstly I dunno what crazy orbit they're all following but that small moon would no way support life. It's far too small, it would have had it's atmosphere blown away by the closest star as it's core wouldn't have sustained heat for so long. Now if the moon is being pulled and stretched constantly then it would show signs of volcanic activity. The planets/Moons around it are far more likely to sustain life and yet they appear not to. They're all in same distance from the sun and would not have lost their heat to space any where near as fast as that small moon would have.

I just find the sky highly unrealistic.

My theory is that the large body is a gas giant, maybe about as far away from Auraxis as the asteroid belt is from Earth (making it considerably larger in the sky). The small terran like world orbiting it is a habitable moon that orbits that gas giant. It's size would be about the same as Earth is. The smaller moon in the lower right is one that orbits Auraxis itself.

Then again I know nothing of astrology.

PsychoXR-20 · 2012-06-25, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Synapse

Earth life includes the rich ecosystems we have around our undersea volcanic vents, doesn't it?

I'm so sorry that I didn't include the word surface in the original post you are quoting from. Fact is, a human being could not survive on the SURFACE of Io or Europa, Ganymede maybe, and Callisto probably.

Besides, this is not a debate on whether life could or could not exist on Europa, or whether life could exist on the surface of Auraxis. I don't care about that. You could make that gas giant twice as big and I still wouldn't have a problem with fighting on Auraxis. magnatron simply said that it was the magnetic field that was dangerous to life around Jupiter, I simply corrected him saying it's the radiation.

Rbstr · 2012-06-25, 06:05 PM

All of the Galilean moons are within Jupiter's magnetosphere and are protected from the solar wind. But they all lay within Jupiter's radiation belts. There's too much ionizing radiation on their surfaces for typical biological molecules to stay together.

Ganymede has a magnetic field of it's own and while it's not terribly strong (but three times more than Mercury's) in the theoretical Auraxis system a larger moon could possibly have a much stronger field and an atmosphere which would protect the surface.

Unless you're starting to put real numbers on masses and distances and sizes it's a feasible arrangement, if not particularly likely (asides lighting oddness). But the fun thing about space is that there's so much stuff that any possible arrangement is going to happen.

SztEltviz · 2012-06-25, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Synapse

...
Not only are astronomically correct skies more boring, even details like lighting are unlikely to ....

Boring?
BORING??

Galaxies collide and you will be in the middle!!

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/v...80x720_wmv.wmv

jepaul · 2012-06-25, 08:42 PM

Someone please tell me this thread is a joke. Please.

capiqu · 2012-06-25, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by Biohazard

I'm fairly certain that that is the moon, not a gas giant. it moves around far too much.

Nice , looks like 2 planets with one moon each. Both planets on the same orbit. The bright shiny moon moving around super fast would be Auraxis moon. The second object that looks like a planet with an atmosphere, land and oceans which appears to be suitable for habitation would be the moon of the larger planet. ???

PvtHazard · 2012-06-25, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Canaris

maybe Auraxis and those other planets are tidally locked in a similar orbit together in some beautiful yet randomly obscene planetary system ballet?

If Auraxis is tidally locked wouldn't that mean that one side of the planet would always be night and the other side will always be day,and there would be no day,and night cycle?

PsychoXR-20 · 2012-06-25, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by PvtHazard

If Auraxis is tidally locked wouldn't that mean that one side of the planet would always be night and the other side will always be day,and there would be no day,and night cycle?

If it's tidally locked to the gas giant, it could still have a day/night cycle, it would just be as long as the parents day (since as the planet orbits around the parent, when the planet is between the star and the parent, it would be day on the far side and when the parent is between the moon and the star it would be night on the far side). Just think about our moon, it's tidally locked to us, but when you see a full moon at night, that side of the moon is being lit, but when it's a new moon (no moon in the sky) the far side of the moon is being lit). Depending on the moon's inclination it might always be eclipsed by the parent, in which case it could take up to an entire orbit for the entire planet to see sunlight.

If it were tidally locked to the star, then yes, there would be no day/night cycle.

jepaul · 2012-06-25, 10:01 PM

Just announced bunny hoping and shooting while jumping will be allowed in game.

As well as insta kill knifes.

MasterChief096 · 2012-06-25, 10:06 PM

Its important to note that we have no idea if life could be possible on that moon. We have one example of life: Earth. In science, having only one example is pretty terrible evidence. You need to be able to run recurring experiments and generate huge amounts of data. Since we can't visit even our closest interstellar neighbors yet, we'll have no way of knowing which ways life is capable of manifesting itself. Assuming natural selection and evolution are the correct theories, if unicellular life originated underneath one of the gas giant's moon surfaces, it could have evolved and adapted via natural selection for billions of years similar to life on Earth. Instead of evolving to fit Earth's surface environments however, life evolved to fit Auraxis' surface environments. Since no details are offered on the biological make-up of the life forms of Auraxis, we can only assume that the trees are similar to Earth trees, when in reality their chemical and protein structures are probably vastly different. Perhaps arranged in a way that utilizes the massive radiation from the gas giant, or perhaps arranged in a way that makes that radiation harmless? It might not even be DNA that these things are based on, DNA is what we know life to be made of here on Earth. Its the most stable biological information molecule on EARTH. Not the most stable on other planets.