Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer. bit.ly/Astrumcore If you decide to continue your subscription, you’ll get a 50% discount
I think the real future would just be like the "void dwellers" of stellaris. where humanity just adapts to living in outter space in space station cities or something, finding a right planet to colonize is exhausting
Well of course it's the wrong time to "get on the planetary ladder," as we don't have any means of reaching another Earth. Even if it does become possible, it would still only be realized by our distant descendants.
I think you could tweak the title. "Why Earth 2.0 would suck for us", "Why Earth 2.0 is more like Earth 1.85". "Earth 2.0" s like Kepler 186 F would suck for humans. Our planet would probably suck for Keplerians. We are evolved for a day night cycle and life on a planet around a Sun like star. For Keplerians they would be specialized for possibly not ever going to sleep (since there would not be that particular circadian rhythm.) To life on such a planet we would be as strange to them as they are to us. Kepler would be, for us at most, Earth 1.85. Better than mars if it has oxygen at 1 ATM pressure... but no Earth 2. Even in fiction Vulcan is a desert hell compared to Earth... at least for us.
the good thing about tidally locked planets is energy generation, there is a whole side of the planet where its always sunny so we could easily farm solar energy. and in the ring we would have constant winds to power wind turbines. with all that electricity, melting ice would be easy
If I could go to visit some Earth-like planet, my biggest concern would be the microbiological life there. I don’t care if there are some dinosaur-style reptiles, but microbes and viruses and that kind of stuff would be something to think about. We have zero tolerance to them so maybe we would just be in our space suits even though everything looks good?
yea, but they would most likely not recognize us as a prey and wouldnt attack. They seem evolve to attack a specific group or a singular species and our immune system attackes everything it doesnt recognize. I still would take the chance tho lol
Parasitic life forms evolve to parasitise on certain species of hosts, so why would an absolutely alien life, which is probably even biochmically different, be dangerous to us? I am a microbiologist, and I find it rather unlikely. Also, the fact that you immediately associate viruses and bacteria with danger, even though even here on Earth 99.9% of them aren't dangerous to us humans (in fact many of them are necessary for our survival), tells a lot about society's germophobia and one-sided ways we are taught about microbial life
@@DataC0llect0r natives across the Americas actually just thought Europeans were just somewhat different people, who have bigger boats and too obsessed with gold.
I like the fact that we have finally gotten to the place where we can see planets outside our solar system only to realize we really do live on a gem inside the milky way
Well, Earth itself wasn't a nice place to be in for most of its existence. And it will return to that state in the future when life becomes impossible here again. We just perceive this "unique" moment because we exist to see it. And the other boring billions without our presence seem unimportant to us. So to say that we might never discover alien life, and that universe is teaming with life, may not be as contradictory as it seems.
"The Best Earth-like Exoplanet Has 4 Major Problems" 1. No McNuggets 2. Planet-wide edict to mount toilet paper so it spools off the bottom. 3. Sometimes denizens leave their turning signals on for miles past their last turn. 4. That smell.
Its crazy just how many things need to line up just to even have a shot at life - the right type of star - in the habitable zone - similar size to earth for good pressure/gravity - magnetic field (from liquid metal core/rotation) for protection - the right atmosphere to breathe/retain heat But then there could even be more things that we have that could be important: - having a moon to control tides - gas giants around it to suck up incoming meteors/comets? - still geologically active to renew the surface I know just by the numbers there are millions of perfect planets out there but its a lot of criteria to find one that's move in ready or close to it
so well said/written raptor.. all these epic sized requirements for our blue ball of beauty (despite so many ugly people making catastrophic decisions), to even have come about, has all the hallmarks of a very, very intelligent and creative Source.. imho, anyway..
You forgot something important, the planet would need a strong magnetic field and atmosphere to deflect UV radiation from the star. Some of these planets are simply too impossible to live on unless you’re in the shade 24/7.
@lesleyM84 I agree. The right sun, Goldie lock zone, right atmosphere etc..then look at living things the sheer design of their bodies..and the human brain, the nervous system, skeleton structure etc..points to a very very very smart source
You mean life as we know it. Keep in mind there are many places on Earth that are uninhabitable for us, but other lifeforms thrive. Just because a exoplanet has poor conditions for human or Earth life doesn't mean other lifeforms have not adapted to it.
The thing is we haven't actually _SEEN_ any exoplanets directly. We've only been able to infer their existence via the way starlight from their suns refracts / reflects around their atmospheres. We haven't been able to view planets outside our system with the same clarity that we can the distant worlds in this one.
People don’t seem to understand that most pictures of other planets are artists’ interpretations. More than a few times I’ve seen people commenting on how beautiful a planet is or how similar it looks to Earth but that’s not what the actual planet looks like, we basically have no idea what it truly looks like. They’re just complimenting a design by an artist.
@@rachelcookie321 but i think they based a planet's image from the wavelengths we receive from it. idk it's something ive read years before that astronauts analyze the planet's wavelength and through that they can interpret the image of the planet
@@beetleorangejuiceNobody really had a clue Pluto would look so interesting until we got pictures up close. Sometimes the whole story can't be told until then. Go look at official nasa artist renditions of Pluto before 2014 for proof. If we couldn't even image something in our own solar system properly. We aren't going to do it with interstellar exo planets. It's still going to be mostly guesswork.
@@beetleorangejuice light's wavelength changes as it goes through different elements. So we can what are the composition of exoplanets atmosphere is made of
Yes, many people rule out habitable-zone ice giants as candidates for life, because of no rocky surface, but they're actually good for the sustaining of life if you think about it. Unchanging climate, protection from stellar radiation, full of organic compounds and elements. If they're in the habitable zone, maybe their atmospheres would be similar to earth from the solar radiation stripping away helium and hydrogen leaving water, oxygen, carbon, and others. If life could start there... maybe not without panspermia.
I like the way you acknowledged the current futility of the entire discussion, without dismissing or belittling any of it. That humble eye to the future really is a very respectable and positive attitude to the benefit of science.
I've had a hard time taking all this exoplanet business for the past several years seriously when I read about all these potentially Earth-like planets having gravity too high for us, being tidally locked, orbiting unstable stars, and so forth. Still, there being planets that can be _explored_ is cool, but no one would want to try and live on them. The resulting missions would teach astronauts, astronomers, aerospace engineers, etc. more about space travel and moving back and forth between planets, which is of utmost importance anyway. I don't really see the point in the label called "super-Earths". They are literally all uninhabitable. What they could be useful for is setting up automated mining facilities with automatons and what not to mine metals and minerals for us. Human technicians and engineers would have to live on space stations. We know we can simulate Earth's gravity in space via centrifugal force, which Alex didn't bother mentioning (and he may as well have as he is covering the theoretical anyway). They should just be "rocky planets" or whatever.
@@Jason75913 Super Earth makes sense in that Earth is the largest rocky body in our solar system, and these planets are terrestrials even larger than Earth, so in the same vain as super Jupiters, we call them super Earths.
The painful part though… is the time between us and that planet Sure we CAN find a perfect Earth hundreds of lightyears away But both the time of humans having to fly there and the time dilation that comes from the limits of speed of light will make it all the more difficult for any of this to work
@@cewla3348if traveling at light speed, it would take 100 years to reach a planet 100 lightyears away, as a lightyear is how far light travels in a year. Even for the people traveling, it would still take more than 1 persons entire lifetime to reach it.
The gravity problem is probably why genetic manipulation will be important when we're read to finally colonize the stars. If we cannot wait for millions of years of evolution to fit a particular planet, we need to be able to customize our colonists to match their target.
Pretty sure we’d just use robots to do most of the work so that humans would do highly flexible and technicals work that is physically low effort. But… I guess genetic manipulation would be an option that further expands the worlds we can colonize? But then again, we’d have greatly expanded our ability to modify our gene expression using small molecules and mRNA expression manipulation rather than change our DNA, as the former options are far more flexible and allow for people to travel to other planets after a period of treatments.
Well you could also fairly easily deal with low gravity environments through spin gravity. However that is probably also why colonizing planets isn't really worth it compared to space habitats.
A fact that was overlooked: The rotation period of planets. Earth's plants, animals and people are adapted to a (mostly) 24-hour day with a clearly defined period of daytime and night, with variations depending on latitudes and seasons. Deviate from that and plants will struggle to grow, animals will have severely disrupted cycles of hunting, migrating, breeding, etc. and humans may well have their sleep/wake cycles thrown out of whack and impart a more psychological toll due to extended periods of darkness or daytime. It's certainly noticeable already if someone moves from say, ±30º latitude to +60º latitude, not far from the Arctic Circle. Sleep is already rather difficult in the summer when at 04:00 it's already bright and sunny, or in the winter the sun's out for like two hours and you miss it because you're at work. But we've more or less adapted to it on Earth. What about another planet or moon where the cycle becomes much more extreme. Even on our moon, it's 2 weeks of day and 2 weeks of night. Mars doesn't really have that issue as it's "day" is just 45 minutes longer than on Earth, albeit dimmer.
I think your description of high gravity living is wrong. It's not like you're carrying another person on your shoulders, gravity acts on all of you at once, it would be more like wearing armour or even just actually gaining weight. You also mention that athletes and bodybuilders could manage the gravity while an average person would struggle, and that's just not how it works; bodybuilders weren't born that way, and you can become more athletic with exercise; when you live in an environment you adapt to it. Bodybuilding simply exploits our adaptability, your body "adapts" to regular exercise. Manual labour builds muscle, desk jobs don't, but if you change your lifestyle your body will change too. Living in high gravity may be hard at first, but you will adapt over time.
not really, the thing is with gaining more weight on earth is that people tend not to become twice or triple their weight when becoming fat, and the fact that your muscles work less. With fat on earth some of the fat drops off to the side and hangs loose which while making your legs work a bit hsrder is not as bad as having so much more weight concentrated on your vital organs and hips/legs instead. Also your arms are still useful for lifting up stuff on earth.
@@floseatyard8063 that’s not the point though, he’s just saying that it’s just like having extra weight, and people will adapt to the gravity, and before getting sent there we can lift weights to get stronger
@Mickeyc1386 no they won't, the average person passes out at a few gs, even 2 gs would cause immense constant strain on your heart and organs aswell as making you super weak for the environment you're in
If we have the technology to visit such places, we will likely have the technology to live anywhere. Compared to crossing the vastness of space, growing plants indoors, or manufacturing water will be trivial. By the time we can reach Earth 2.0, we’ll have advanced beyond the need for it.
Thing is you hear a lot from Elon that he wants to terraform Mars, but doesn't think to try terraforming places on earth that would otherwise be inhospitable to life. We have a lot of land and a lot of people that would benefit from such a project and the best part about it is that we don't need to fly off planet for it to work. And as the other commenter said, before we get to the point of these great technologies we would hopefully not destroy our own planet/ourselves.
@@SEVENTEENPOINT1 Mars is more of a frontier to explore, well if possible. Evil elitists do not want to fix places on earth, because they do not want problems solved.
The sheer scale and size of the universe is crazy. It's hard to imagine the size of some of these stars, planets, and other things that occupy the comsos
Now take that scale of size against a Humpback whale. I'm the grand scheme of the cosmos, that 1 whale would be smaller than the smallest particle known to humans, the Muon. That 1 Muon, is So insignificant it would be undetectable. We as a species, on a rock in space, would be nearly as invisible compared to the rest of the Unknown Universe, the part that is too far for our Prehistoric Instruments to be able to see.
@@dirtybird437 ay! the big picture is made of pixels, and we're the only one that shines without fusion or friction. Our instruments are the best physically possible, because they use the best medium possible: light.
The thing that annoys me about these “Earth 2.0” stories is that it’s always just to distract from the fact that we’re refusing to fix Earth 1.0. It’s always seen as an escape for the wealthy, because that’s who’d be going there
The promise of Earth 2.0 isn't just about fixing Earth- it's also meant as a backup in case of disaster beyond our control, such as a comet impact or gamma ray burst.
@@-_wanderer well we don’t live in a B movie so that is extremely unlikely to happen. The only way our species comes to an end is by our own nukes or climate change and we’re actively amping both of those chances up thanks to the sh!t stirrers who constantly talk about “Earth 2.0”
To me, this video proves what a miracle planet Earth is. Humans and all other life forms on this beautiful planet were designed to live here. We are our planet and our planet is us. Excellent video!!!
I agree 100%. I don't think our bodies can live anywhere else outside mother earth. We as humans will probably die out when she does (if not sooner). Her death will definitely be the saddest 😢
@@grandzeweiterworth7628 Lol. Yahh! From what scientists say, mother Earth still have a few billion years left. Of course humans may die off long before that. However, we are an innovative species. So, maybe we can figure out this thing called gravity and go searching for another home. Time will tell.
@@michaelnafari2032 We can create artificial gravity in the form of spin gravity, just spinning a big circle. It just requires some fairly big structures to not make us nauseous but it works just as well as the real thing.
@@hedgehog3180 Very true! But! It does not compare to the real thing. I have watched many video on this very topic and there are many issues related to "spin gravity".
It is a mistake to say "designed". Life evolves to fit the environment that it finds itself in. If we were not perfectly adapted to live on earth we would not live on earth, it's really as simple as that. There is nothing amazing at all about the fact that we are perfectly adapted. In fact it is exactly what we would expect.
I get into this fight all the time, there is only Earth 1.0; there is no Earth 2.0. We haven't been able to identify how many specific variables are needed to be correct for Earth-like life to exist naturally, but we do know that if any of the known variables are a fraction different; life as we know it is impossible. And that's the thing, if we cannot exist naturally with no terraforming or evolutionary adaptions to exist, it's not Earth 2.0. And don't get me started on the distances....and "if" we can travel there.
There just isn't any Earth 2.0, period. Not in this galaxy, or any other. That is the nature of biological evolution: it evolves to survive on its own planet - not a different planet! This won't stop humanity however, because when we emigrate from the solar system it won't be in as meatsacks!
While an initial overview means that interstellar colonization looks impossible, that doesn't mean it is. While more pessimistic estimates put terraforming at around thousands of years time to complete, harder estimates not conducted by loose comparisons put it more around 200-350 years. Combine that with artificial wombs, embryo storage and ai advanced enough to raise children and you can conduct interstellar colonization. Considering the state ai is in now, and that given current trends, even accounting for limits on computation well be able to simulate every neuron in the human brain and their connections in 2080. Moving at 5% the speed of light, this allows for glacial, but possible interstellar colonization.
@@Megatherium1 Impossible is not the correct word. It's not a question of "if we can;" it's a question of "if we should." The "impossible" is the fantasy humans are creating and telling our children like "it's just a matter of time and tech before we reach Earth 2.0." No, that's a lie. We need to be honest. Honesty and realism are not skepticism or cynicism. We need to start saying that even with time and tech; we will never find Earth 2.0. Earth 2.0 is as mythical as Atlantis. 1) There are no planets within realistic travel. The fastest real world tech we have is the pulse fusion engine, if it works and is safe, its max speed based on the latest models and tests right now is about 180 km/s. That means it will take about 7000 years to reach the nearest star. And we already know there's nothing there for us. The nearest exoplanet with the highest ESI is Kepler 452b at 1,200 light years.....that's a 3 million year journey, and its ESI is only .88 which would is not a home for us and never will be. If we have to evolve, terraform, or require special technology to exist on a planet because we cannot naturally....that is not a home nor Earth 2.0. 2) But the scariest thing is the fact that people are calling exoplanets Earth 2.0 in the first place. There are so many problems here. a) If we can't care for Earth 1.0 why do we think it will be different on 2.0? b) Also calling it Earth 2.0 is humanity "claiming what is not theirs to claim." If life is possible, it will be there. Which means we are aliens there, and we are talking about these planets as if they are 'new homes' just waiting for us to come and take like the colonists of the 1500s. How did that work out for everyone? And if anyone thinks human nature is going to change and we are going to become some peaceful co-existing species, assuming we can even live there, you don't know human nature or history. It's not going to happen.
@@clinch4402 In an ideal scenario, with an atmosphere at one atmosphere composed of .8 nitrogen and .2 co2, the then expected time to conversion to a .2 o2 atmosphere is 200 years. That's ideal, but hundreds of years to terraform is in fact a reasonable estimate
Man, it probably ain't. We were specifically made for and by this planet. I think we just have to learn to appreciate our own planet more. It's quite literally perfect. I mean yeah eventually we're gonna have to move out of this planet and stuff, but considering how short current human lifespans are in comparison to traveling to those planets, I think we're better off just enjoying and taking care of this planet whilst we still can. I mean I'm not against researching the cosmos, in fact I think it's quite interesting; what I am against however, is people pointlessly hoping for a "planet B"
Thanks for the gentle reminder that there's no place like home! I hope you enjoy the cup of tea that this meager contribution will, no doubt, require you to make yourself, at home😉
Thanks for this. You said what I’ve been thinking all along. Not to mention travel time. Voyager’s have been cruising through space since 1974, they haven’t gone very far in the grand scheme of things. When I hear someone say “it’s ONLY 4 light years away” I just laugh.
4 light years however is not very far. With the technology not far above the current one(FFRE) we would be able to send the survey/terraforming ship on such distances. Human travel will require warp though
@@jimmcneal5292 4 light years not very far? With current tech estimates are 6000 years of travel. Going 100 times faster would be 600 years. Have fun waiting 6 millennia or even 6 centuries before receiving a reply as to what's there.
@@robo5013 with time humanity invents new types of propulsion, on top of that, the speeds we can travel increase roughly exponentially. My estimate is that we will break the light barrier in 500-600 years, and from there our expansion/colonization of the universe will start
I recently read "A City On Mars" by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith. It puts a lot of this stuff in context by explaining just how shockingly hard it is to settle the moon or Mars. When someone mentions an Earth 2.0, it had better be very close to an exact copy. Otherwise we're just talking about the moon or Mars or Venus etc many lightyears away, which is not only borderline unlivable, but we pay a ridiculous premium in travel time just to go somewhere likely worse than Mars or the Moon. At least in our local solar system we can do supply runs, and even so, those supply runs are immensely expensive and slow. Self-sufficiency on another planet is such a hard problem right now, it's just not happening.
Mathematically it is possible to warp space to "travel" greater distances then even light could. Whether its feasible and what means where that could be possible is still to be determined
@@LarryLonson it is easier to invent a way to plant a human brain in a robot like a robocop then board it to a regular spaceship and hope one day that mf will arrive in earth 2.0. 😂
One thing to be said about tidally locked planets and spin, they do spin, just in sync with their rotation. If you, theoretically, had a planet that orbitted in a few days (more likely with a gas giant or a very small red dwarf), they actually rotate every few days as well, and might generate hadley cells and an elecromagntic dynamo still.
I can't express enough how grateful I am for your channel. Your videos have helped me understand complex scientific concepts in an easily digestible way
problems to the earthlike exoplanets: - mass (its big/small planet so the mass is heavier/ligher, and you cant stand properly in it) - traveling (light years, what do you expect?) - no resources that is sufficient for humans (no food, no livestock, and lastly, undiscovered nature) - not the right star/not in the goldilocks zone (red giant, blue star, whote dwarf, and lastly the planet is either in the inhabitable zones (cold - outside of the goldilocks zone / hot - near the star) and there's more than that
the connection between our earth moon and sun is something very peculiar, and even if another planet is in a goldilocks zone, it still wouldn’t have similar tides to ours, would still possibly be habitable though, but our planet is just something special
When you start adding up all the variables that would make an exoplanet not just merely habitable, but also a healthy and relatively safe environment, there are many. All the factors mentioned in this video, as well as factors like how much oxygen in the atmosphere, weather extremes, does the planet have a large moon like earth, does the system have a Jupiter analog that could protect the planet from bombardment of asteroids and comets, what is the rotation of the planet, and so many more. The odds of finding something "turn-key" would be very low, considering all the important factors that must be within at least a small variance of earth in order for it to be comfortably habitable.
From what I've read Jupiter is more likely to fling something our way than protect us. Also, it is questionable as to whether we need the moon or not, although the tides going in and out might have been useful to early life and the existence of the moon was useful for early scientific discovery and having a rough calendar.
I think the fact that 75% of stars are red dwarfs just goes to show that we aren't alone in the fact that there were other neighboring life forms around us but we're just "late to the party" and we're what remains
Assuming the science is correct with a big bang about 14 billion years ago and generations of stars, supernova and neutron star combinations to get enough metals out there, we are likely early to the party. But the term should be why are we "alone in the galaxy" as opposed to alone in the universe. Even science fiction rarely can conceive of a device making travel between galaxies practical. Maybe even our imaginary engineering isn't developed enough, but I suspect its likely impossible except for perhaps some tiny dwarf galaxy near the Milky Way. I would imagine a super advanced Star Trek type civilization would have no way of getting to the Milky Way and would have zero idea of our existence (our planet obviously they would see the earth two million years ago if they were somehow able to make it out). But I suspect some things just are not possible. Even if we could go amazing speeds that will mean the ship will need maintenance and how are you going to do that a million light years between both galaxies?
How is this logic? Aren't red dwarfs small stars? I just watched a video proposing that red dwarfs will actually be the host to life on the order of trillions of years when they become hotter and other stars have died. Basically statistically being the only hosts at that point. But ofc this is beyond speculation and anything else can happen
I already bought some acreage on a _potentially_ habitable exoplanet that's been confirmed to at least have standing water and water vapor. And this nice framed certificate is proof that I'll _technically_ be a Scottish Lord once I'm able to relocate there and build a homestead. This couldn't possibly be some sort of interstellar scam, could it?
This is in the same vein as the whole "send us money and we will name a star after you and send you a certificate". I don't think future generations are going to be saying, "hey look, it's the John Smith star, right next to the Mike Johnson star" 😂
I always thought that settling on other planets would involve us adapting our physiology to suit that planet, either through cybernetic augmentation, genetic engineering or both. So if we ever became a multi-planet species, we would soon become multiple species. Once we adopt that approach, the number of planets we can potentially live on will drastically increase as the conditions for our existence become less restrictive.
99.9%similar to earth could still equate to an insurmountable variable. Our earth is just so harmoniously unique to us that even a slight deviation could become catastrophic. There's just no naturally occurring place like our home planet and it's about time we started showing it the love it wholly deserves. Great video!
Of course we have evolved in our environment and it isn't too much of a stretch to think that a lifeform on a super earth would evolve to suit its environment. For us, climbing would be a nightmare on a super earth. Playing golf would be a bit different too. And imagine what would be involved in launching a rocket from such a planet. Thanks Alex. Great discussion as always. I really enjoy your talks!
Yeah, for example: I could totally see a planet that is an exact copy of earth, just with double the gravity starting out the same way life on earth did with microscopic organisms in the ocean. Then those organisms just always live with that double gravity and when they finally enter land, they are just built for it. If life evolved on our moon, I’m sure they would find earth difficult to stand on😂
Us being on a 2x Super-Earth would just feel like being morbidly obese, at least at first. It would be the strain on the heart that messed us up. Carrying extra weight is not too hard, but our hearts would need to pump twice as hard to push blood to the brain, and they can't do that.
"The last thing any sane person would want to do" thanks for the laugh with my morning coffee. even if we could open a porthole in space to go to these planets instantly, what we can see is hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years old. by searching the cosmos, it's becoming ever more apparent how grand and unique our home world really is. thanks Alex.
You mentioned Kepler-186f, Kepler-452b and Proxima Centauri b, which are #49, #11 and #8 on my current list of most similar to earth exoplanets. But what about some even more similar like Teegarden's star b, TOI 700d, Kepler-1649c, Wolf-1069b, Gliese 1002b, L98-59f or Luyten b? Some might be a little cold, but a couple of them seem to have potential.
@@zimriel FIrst of all, it's possibly tidally locked. And even if it is, you don't know enough about conditions to dismiss it out of hand. That's just arrogance.
I tend to look at us and all living creatures as a part of the earth... We were born from the earth, and we live as a part of our living and breathing planet, and when we die we return to her. The unique stability of our solar system and the varied composition of the earth gave rise to cellular walls, cognitive abilities and consciousness... In essence; we are all a part of earth, capable of perceiving ourselves during a short time frame of stability in an extremely violent universe. A stability which we have not yet witnessed anywhere else.... Put it in that perspective and the earth (and all who that live on this planet) should become our most precious priority in life.
Partially true, but that's also probably what a lot of early humans though before venturing across the oceans to other continents and islands. We then evolved to the new conditions, creating the variety of humans you see today. Now very few people stay in the same town/village they were born in. I think a similar thing will happen with interplanetary travel, except instead of people adapting to the new environment due to evolution, it will be genetic engineering. Probably within a century or two, we'll have millions of people living on Mars and there's a good chance most of them won't be able to survive for very long on Earth. Terraforming can also help make planets much more similar to Earth.
@@Astra2 when we can't take care of-, or live in harmony with our own planet. How are we expected to terraform Mars? It is a very big ask from humanity that still understand so very little about the planet that gave life to us. We still have a long way to go and I think humans will continue to curiously explore the universe. And when the time comes and our existence is at stake we will more likely launch a "seed of life" mission to the most suitable planets we have found. With hope that our planet's legacy continue to live and develop. And unless we invent cryostasis or similar technology. We won't be there personally to perceive the results of those missions. But life and the earth's legacy might just continue somewhere out there due to our efforts. I think this is the more likely prospect for humanity. If we can't live in the Sahara desert, I have a hard time thinking we will survive Mars. We need to be able to create thriving conditions there for single-ticket missions. And since we can't handle our over-production of co2 in the atmosphere I have very little hope for terraforming mars in any near foreseeable future.
Much as what you say is true, the unfortunate truth is that the Earth can happily carry on without us. The way we are behaving now, we are not a viable 'part of Earth' we are a cancer, and the sooner we kill ourselves off, the 'happier' the Earth, and all its other inhabitants, will be.
Check your references, Astrum: tidal locking isn't a problem because of the star type, it's a function of surface fluidity and if there's something else orbiting the planet. Also, the challenges of a tidally locked world might be outweighed by the benefits: guaranteed solar collection, shield from solar flares, passive resource collection from condensation on the dark side, etc.
It is somewhat correlated with star type in that planets orbiting closer to their star are more likely to be tidally locked and smaller stars have habital zones closer to the star.
@@hedgehog3180 And you still believe in "habital zones"? "Habitable zones" are PR nonsense provided to the public by various space agencies to try to convince common people that their space exploration tax dollars are worth it. The fact is that life can exist pretty much anywhere around a calm star, depending on the circumstances. This "goldilocks zone" of which you speak is a ridiculous cookiecutter application of our own anthropic circumstances to the rest of the universe. Case in point: There's water ice on both Mercury and the Moon, it's just in places where the sun never shines.
Except red dwars are all dwars aka small... And if a planet has rotation it ll quickly lose it over the years... Its has everything to do with star x planet proximity which is given in red dwarfies.
regarding living in double gravity - it would be interesting to see how our physiology reacts to it. As soon as an astronaut leaves earths surface and reaches orbit (and their mass becomes less hindered by earths gravity) the human body starts to shed its skeletal mass, I believe the very first time you urinate in space it is full of calcium - when I last heard about this scientists were not sure why the body has this mechanism at all, but presumably in heavier gravity your body would look to increase its skeletal mass to handle the extra forces - one day we will find out!
We can't even work together as a species, we're completely delusional, if we think we can colonise those planets, if it's possible in the first place. We still wage work against other for recourses and fight for ideologies.
Mars has an earth-similarity-index of 0.8, I read. Surviving there without regular supplies from Earth is highly unlikely already. Most "Earths 2.0" are probably worse. And none of them can get new supplies from Earth.
I imagine if we were on a planet with higher gravity we could adapt to it. Kids that grew up there would probably be shorter and stockier. On a lower gravity world we could develop "lead suits" that we could wear that would add extra weight and also protect us from radiation. (I thought of this regarding a Mars colony)
The main issue here is the heart, on a high gravity planet it would need to pump much harder thus a higher pulse and that leads to slow irreversible damage. Even if you were extremely fit your heart can only get so strong and it would never be able to attain a resting pulse close the one it has on Earth.
Your channel is a gem. There are a few other good astro channels, but the bulk of channels that get promoted by YT's algo are mindmelting rubbish. Good to see that quality can prevail.
@@orionxo00 Currently no astro-related ones. For other topics, I watch channels like Broey Deschanel, The Financial Diet, Plastic Pills, Adam Something, Then & Now, Clark Elieson.
Even if we were to actually find another exoplanet lightyears away teeming with life, it would be better to just observe what alien life is happening over there than trying to colonize it.
If you're living on a comfortable interstellar traveling habitat you are interested in freely available resources that aren't stuck in a big ass gravity well.
Earth isn't going to remain as it is (i.e. habitable) forever. At some point, we may not have a choice, and will have to move on and colonize another planet.
The whole colonize hypothesis is a bit sci-fi and definitely representative of humanity of the last millennia. Observation is far more interesting and civilized.
@@jbtownsend9535 I don't see colonization of planets, the cost benefit isn't there. However, fleets of comfortable, full gravity, thick regolith shielding, loaded with tanks of frozen hydrogen peroxide, surrounded by swarms of drones, harvesting freely available resources, I can see that.
Honesty...I appreciate honesty. -In theory -Is not always the case. -far from the truth. -Non negotiable, not to mention, such things...ctc. are expression the deffine the seriousness of any proposition. This narrator is pretty honest, Thanks.
was hoping to see an comment like this , it was thought that it would be tidaly locked to the sun, but its only the rotational and orbital period which is locked 3:2. thankfully, its getting more and more attention :)
Most of this is unlikely to be a problem anyway though, it's sort of like an engineer during the wright brothers Era trying to solve the problem of pressurising the cabin on a modern airliner, by the time they get around to flying that high in the first place the other problems would've already been solved. Similarly just the process of getting to onother solar system would require that we figure out how to artificially satisfy all our needs on the ship for generations and negate the effects of zero gravity and the radiation of space. So we wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the planet we're going to could provide those things. Also the cost of settling another solar system would be so immense the only reason to even attempt it is to evade the death of our own sun, as figuring out how to teraform a less habitable body in our own solar system would still be significantly more feasible than getting to another one. With that being the case it wouldn't make sense to flee our own dying star and go to another one that's going to die one day, a white dwarf would be the best bet, and while any planet around a white dwarf would have a berren surface after the planetary nebula hit it this again wouldn't be a problem as by the time we are even able to try to reach one we would've already found ways to make a barren planet habitable in our own solar system long ago if it is indeed possible, and if there truly is no way to survive on the barren planets here in our own solar system then there would be equally no way to survive the trip to another solar system
honestly given how much time we have before the sun dies, we could practice terraformation on Venus rather than mars considering its similarity to Earth, ofc it would have its problems like its 91% gravity compared to earth, its weak magnetic field and insanely high temperatures and more. but it would ofc still provide a better practice to terraforming than Mars would be. tho i could be COMPLETELY wrong lol so if i am, do correct me
@Kaylathefoxo Venus would probably be the easiest on the larger scale although I'd worry about the global volcanism events. Personally I think the moon is the best bet, it's the closes so travel and time are less of an issue and it's a great puzzle for all the potential problems. If we can tackle the lack of resources, gravity, atmosphere, and magnetic field of the moon close to home then when we venture out further we'll be prepared for almost anything ahead of time. Better to figure out how to start a fire in your back yard than wait until you're in a real survival situation to try and figure it out
That is all based on questionable assumptions: that technology will always continue to develop endlessly and can solve any problem you may imagine sooner or later, and that the space colonisation is even ever practically feasible. I don't blame you, those are usual delusions in most people since industrial revolution. If you think more however, those are just assumptions, rooted in blind extrapolation of previous trends into the future. Also, how are generational space ships ethical? Is it ethical to condemn whole generations to life on a ship? That confirms my suspicion that any culture that views expansionism as its goal has to be inherently unethical at its core. Normal culture should seek sustainability and balance with its own environment, and use the resources it already has efficiently, not endless expansion. Again, it is all based on extrapolating the ideal that Western civilisation formed during times of colonialism and imperialism, directing them somewhere else and saying "well, now it is actually not that bad, cause we won't probably meet aliens to displace or enslave" ignoring that the real core problem of expansionist mentality is not simply how it treats indigenous people, but a much deeper one
A very good yet too short video on the subject of exo-planets. We know that there are planets outside that leave a bit of uncertainty regarding our "human factors" and how to accommodate eartlings to those planets.
Just because it was canceled after one season doesn't mean that the 1994-95 tv show "Earth 2" sucked. I mean, it might have; I don't remember it too well.
Really glad to hear you offering highly realistic and skeptical commentary on these topics. It is important. The sheer size of the Universe seems to suggest that there must be "lots more" for us out there. But the history of Earth suggests that random chance may have played an important role on the emergence not just of life on Earth, but of complex life. Life itself may be fairly common, but complex life may not.
this video has been my thoughts whenever i hear things like 'earth 2.0' - i knew there are mostly red dwarf stars in our galaxy and i consider life (as we know it) around those stars impossible. glad someone said it, cause everyone is always too enthusiastic about exoplanets even NASA
Just like stellar life, I'd say "stable" is very relative. We're better off than if we had an A type or hot F type, but I'd much rather we had a hotter K type or cooler G type star. Sol being a G2 makes me nervous.
I suspect if we do ever find highly advanced life out there, that K-type star systems will be where we find it, as the longevity of these stars is much greater, giving any civilization orbiting one much more time to advance. If we were to make the entire run without going extinct, we would have about another billion years before earth is no longer habitable. Yes, that's a lot of time, but I would think if any super advanced civilization is out there (like type-2 and up) they would need more than a billion years and change to get there. A K type star would offer this kind of longevity on the home planet, assuming the planet itself is stable.
I think that the temperature, water and stability of the star are the most important ones. Tidal lock can be mitigated with atmosphere and oxygen actually is not needed, as long as there is water we can send the anaerobic bacteria and they will create oxygen(actually such "terraforming"/ biosphere creation missions would probably be more of a norm rather than an execption)
Just my unscientific opinion, but I feel like tidal lock presents one of the biggest challenges to habitability. Things like gravity, atmosphere, etc while challenging could be overcome with the right technology. Even the rotation of the planet could be sped up or slowed down, in theory, with advanced enough technology. I think with tidal locking you are stuck. Two other factors I see as deal breakers are close proximity to a very active star, as well as a lack of giant planets in the outer orbits of a system to sweep up asteroids and comets.
@@100percentSNAFU it depends. If atmosphere can compensate and redistribute heat, then it's ok. On the other hand, atmosphere itself can't actually be easily fixed with tech, if it's toxic or there's none, the planet can't be colonized
This is a message we treat this earth better we have searched for years spent billions to search for another earth we haven't found anything close to earth lets love another and make a difference.
these type of videos never fail to make me impressed. Just wow! These videos are amazing, very good. These type of videos make me learn something more than my school 😂
The chances of life occurring as we understand it is incredibly small because there are just so many variables that need to fall perfectly into place. The planet size, the type of core it has, does it rotate and how frequently, what type of star does it orbit, etc etc. I’m certain life exists somewhere but I think it is much more rare than we yet realize.
Imagine building a ring settlement/city around a whole planet right on the permanent day/night line of a tidally locked planet. Maybe just a smidgen into the dark side - another sort of Goldilocks zone, if you will.
One crucial problem scientists rarely discuss is how the earth's own field interacts with the living organisms, humans included. There is a good possibility that a human leaving the earth beyond the moon might become adversely affected by the lack of that symbiosis (earth/human field), that and the cosmic rays, the radiation and micro meteorites. I surmise that humans leaving that filed will either go mad or acquire some form of cancer.
Given that people can be put in magnetic fields orders of magnitude stronger than the earth's without even noticing, I don't think the earth's magnetic field matters. And if it does, it wouldn't be hard to make wherever we live just as magnetic. Or are you saying that there's some other kind of field that we've been completely unable to detect and yet our lives depend on?
Thank you for debunking this unrealistic, escapist myth. Another essential consideration usually overlooked is this: The only reason we can even exist on Earth is because the ecological interactions of so many organisms (plants, bacteria, other animals) make our lives possible. Earth’s biosphere is only a biosphere (full of life) because of the interactions of SO MUCH other life! Barren rocks devoid of other life are not habitable by us. If any other terrestrial planet were habitable, that is, had the moisture, oxygen, plants, food, temperature regulation, etc.-that would mean there’s already life there creating these conditions. So, then, we’d be inserting ourselves into their ecosystems, which would undoubtedly be detrimental or even fatal to them. Besides, why do we humans even deserve another planet when we’re proving we can’t even care for our own? Let’s relearn how to sustain life here, and THEN, with that knowledge and that ethical system, then we can think about where else we might go.
As an ecological restoration graduate, I'd like to offer some perspective on this issue that I don't see talked about very much. Ignoring the immense challenges associated with moving and establishing civilization on an exoplanet, let alone finding a suitable candidate to begin with, there's one elephant in the room that is potentially the most inhibiting. Cost. The cost of establishing a civilization on an exoplanet would be unfathomable. My point is that instead of searching for this magical "Earth 2.0" that could maybe solve our problems, we should focus our efforts here, on a planet that has sustained life for billions of years. A planet that has and will continue to have everything we need, should we choose to do what's right and conserve it. The cost of managing, restoring, and conserving ecosystems here that are essential to our existence would likely be orders of magnitude more economical, feasible, and practical than exploration, even if conducted on a global scale. The amount of resources and effort involved with undertaking a planetary expedition could be instead used in furthering our understanding of earth and mitigating climate change and other human impacts on the planet. People are so quick to jump on the idea of going to another planet and I don't think they consider or realize what we DO have here on earth. I'm not by any means saying that cosmic exploration is unjustified or shouldn't be conducted, but the fact is that this is our home and the consequences of our mismanagement of our ecosystems up until this point will spell our demise LONG before we even get close to finding another planet and establishing civilization there. How much more fossil fuels do we have? How long before our atmosphere becomes toxic and life as we know it breaks down in the 'business as usual' scenario? These, along with the point Astrum made about light and photosynthesis on other planets, are some of the many critical and existential considerations to take into account in the context of exploration. What if we get to a planet that we predicted would have everything we need only to find out that it, despite having lots of raw resources and the building blocks, has not seen the billions of years of evolution and ecological development that have created our world as we know it? If that is the case, do you think that we have a solid enough understanding of our ecosystems and ecology that we could replicate the processes occurring on earth on another planet? I just think that the whole idea is pretty short-sighted when you consider everything I've just brought up. If nothing else, I'd encourage you all to learn more about earth and it's ecosystems, its ecology, and just how crucial these things are to our existence.
Very true. Amazing (and very depressing) that mine is your only 'like'. Just shows what we're up against - space dreaming is far more fun than the slog of fixing what we've messed up...
We still need to know about the universe. Knowing if there is life out there is a big discovery. Also meteors also need to be observed. So still we need to study space. We only have the rich to blame if they don't want to spend money on fixing Earth.
Not sure I fully agree with your statements regarding the temperatures of a tidally locked planet. Convection keeps the night and day sides from becoming such extreme temperatures. You get insane weather instead of insane temperatures.
but as he said any water vapor will freeze on the night side and stay there for good and never make it back or even in the middle. The day side and middle will be even dryer then the Sahara and the night side would be like Antarctica.
And a pre Main Sequence that makes this convo Moot. Long story short for about a billion years as it forms the star is hotter than it will be when fusion kicks in. Which means any habitable world that forms would be baked of it's water and either end up with little atmosphere or water, or a crushing 1000 times earths 02 at atmosphere after all the hydrogen blows off from the water vapor being baked into the atmosphere.
A planet almost exactly the same size as Earth orbiting a sunlike star in its goldilocks zone, that is the holy grail I am waiting for. Even if getting there is impossible, I would like to know it's out there.
the human body seem very adaptable to gravity. children born on these worlds would likely feel comfortable on them and be very strong. it is that first generation that really has rough time.
There are some adaptations that could happen within one life time but there are many that probably couldn't and we'd need to wait for evolution to do its thing.
Earth is in the "Goldilocks" zone BUT most of the places on Earth are not really that habitable. It's either too hot or too cold like the deserts, and the two polar regions. It still takes an effort to make it livable.
Very good point. I might also add that we are in a geological "Goldilocks zone" as well. There have been and will be again, periods of time where the average temperature of the earth is much hotter or colder and even fewer, of any, regions of the earth would be habitable.
For humans no but for life in general they are very habitable. It's almost impossible to find anywhere on Earth that isn't teeming with life, we've even found microbal life inside the Earth's crust and in the Chernobyl reactor.
I think lower gravity would be preferable even to the exact 1g. And the reason is that travel time. By the time they arrive, colonists would already somewhat adapt to 0g.
Yes, I always thought those super-Earths were pretty nasty. Here's a hypothetical - a Venus-like planet orbits far enough away from a red dwarf star to avoid tidal locking. It has an thick, hot atmosphere and is quite hot (though it would be much cooler than Venus). Over time, the young star's solar wind outbursts strip away enough atmosphere for the planet to maintain liquid water. It would be a dark, steamy world. I doubt that technological life will emerge on planets around red dwarfs. However, when M-type stars are older, their planets might be ideal for colonisation by advanced entities (probably some kind of AI) when they are forced to relocate from a doomed planet.
Nicely put together. The tidaly locked planet might not be so grim, there still might be atmospheric processes that exchange heat between "sun" and "dark" sides. Also the super earths have a problem with us leaving, at least with current technology. I'm not sure where the limit is, but 1G is close to difficult enough to leave but still possible.
Hearing about Alex McColgan's ancestry made me briefly hope to figure out the mystery of his accent - I figured hearing the background of a man with a British/Scottish/Swedish/Irish/South African/Chinese/New Zealand/Indian accent would shed some light on that mystery, but nope, still mystified
I feel like if we would be born in 2x gravity, we would develop much stronger muscles and adapt. But everyone would become more rapidly wrinkled 😂 more than that, I'm not sure if humans could adapt
That was such an interesting video, I had no idea of all the different factors that would go into play to live on another planet, thank you very much for this video. I really enjoyed it.
We will find a compatible planet one day. But it won’t be in the lifetimes of anyone watching this video. We have only begun the search. When a true earth like planet is found, scientists will look back to this time the same way as we look back on the science of the 1700s. (If we don’t destroy ourselves first, which is a real possibility also).
The 'rapid development of technology based on previous examples' theory can be a false parallel. And space travel is one of those areas where the parallel just doesn't work. We have been able to fly to the moon for 55 years, but still haven't managed to get any further - in fact we haven't yet even managed to repeat that feat. Whereas in much the same time frame in other technical fields, like computers for instance - expensive, but very simplistic mainframes to the very sophisticated computer in your pocket, and the system it is connected to - or flight - Wright Brothers to long-distance supersonic in even less time - we've made incredible progress. But, in space, the sheer difficulties of the physics and finances involved, put a pretty rigid cap on what progress we can make. Space is very, very difficult - it requires a huge amount of effort and money even to get much beyond geostationary orbit. The power of the rockets will increase, and the internal technology will develop at the same incredible rate as similar tech, but the physical facts of space exploration - distance, radiation, lack of gravity, cost - will stay the same.
Since red dwarfs are so prevalent and have a wide habitable zone, life adapted to the harsh conditions around a red dwarf may be more prevalent than around our relatively rare type of star
Another problem with super Earths is their surfaces would be much smoother than Earth's. So their oceans would be relatively shallow or, more likely, there would be no protruding land at all. Just a world of shallow waters, and maybe some damp areas on the tips of their highest mountains. It seems that the conditions needed to make technological life possible are pretty restricted.
The question of gravity on a super earth is actually a bit more complicated. The strength of gravity depends on density of mass, not just the amount of it. A planet could potentially be much larger than earth but have similar or even lower gravity at the surface if it was super rich in aluminum and silicates. A smaller planet with a much higher concentration of heavy metals in the core could have higher gravity at the surface. Remember that gravitational force falls off as the inverse square of the distance and on a larger planet you are further from the center.
@@Zeithri I'm referring to conditions that could spawn technological life. If the oceans are deep (possibly incredibly deep) then no advanced technological species can evolve (can't use fire). So the margin for error regarding the optimal amount of water on a super Earth is much lower than for Earth sized planets.
@@adamredwine774 A larger planet of low density would not be useful for intelligent life. It would either be largely icy, a water world or gaseous. There could be outliers, where solar systems form in molecular clouds with a bizarre proportion of elements. Generally, approximately Earth-sized rocky planets with both dry land and oceans would be proportionately more likely to produce intelligent life than other types of worlds. If we're looking for microbes, that's a different story. For all we know they could be within Mars, Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Triton, Ganymede, Pluto and Ceres. Intelligent life, though, must be able to access fire (or some wild chemistry that can break down almost anything). That means a mix of dry lands, wetlands and oceans. Sorry for talking so much. I love this topic.
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 ธันวาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dNTiBBthKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer. bit.ly/Astrumcore If you decide to continue your subscription, you’ll get a 50% discount
I think the real future would just be like the "void dwellers" of stellaris. where humanity just adapts to living in outter space in space station cities or something, finding a right planet to colonize is exhausting
Well of course it's the wrong time to "get on the planetary ladder," as we don't have any means of reaching another Earth. Even if it does become possible, it would still only be realized by our distant descendants.
I think you could tweak the title. "Why Earth 2.0 would suck for us", "Why Earth 2.0 is more like Earth 1.85". "Earth 2.0" s like Kepler 186 F would suck for humans. Our planet would probably suck for Keplerians. We are evolved for a day night cycle and life on a planet around a Sun like star. For Keplerians they would be specialized for possibly not ever going to sleep (since there would not be that particular circadian rhythm.) To life on such a planet we would be as strange to them as they are to us. Kepler would be, for us at most, Earth 1.85. Better than mars if it has oxygen at 1 ATM pressure... but no Earth 2. Even in fiction Vulcan is a desert hell compared to Earth... at least for us.
also humans living on super earth could slowly adapt or creatures would be built like dwarfs
the good thing about tidally locked planets is energy generation, there is a whole side of the planet where its always sunny so we could easily farm solar energy. and in the ring we would have constant winds to power wind turbines. with all that electricity, melting ice would be easy
If I could go to visit some Earth-like planet, my biggest concern would be the microbiological life there. I don’t care if there are some dinosaur-style reptiles, but microbes and viruses and that kind of stuff would be something to think about. We have zero tolerance to them so maybe we would just be in our space suits even though everything looks good?
Dont forget ass parasites.
yea, but they would most likely not recognize us as a prey and wouldnt attack. They seem evolve to attack a specific group or a singular species and our immune system attackes everything it doesnt recognize. I still would take the chance tho lol
Ask the Amazonians what they thought of the Spanish. We as a species would have the same thing happen.
Parasitic life forms evolve to parasitise on certain species of hosts, so why would an absolutely alien life, which is probably even biochmically different, be dangerous to us? I am a microbiologist, and I find it rather unlikely.
Also, the fact that you immediately associate viruses and bacteria with danger, even though even here on Earth 99.9% of them aren't dangerous to us humans (in fact many of them are necessary for our survival), tells a lot about society's germophobia and one-sided ways we are taught about microbial life
@@DataC0llect0r natives across the Americas actually just thought Europeans were just somewhat different people, who have bigger boats and too obsessed with gold.
I like the fact that we have finally gotten to the place where we can see planets outside our solar system only to realize we really do live on a gem inside the milky way
Seems that way because we evolved here. Other beings could have their own gems
Yet people think this all happened by accident smh 🤦
@@iamBlackGambit "hurr it's weird huh, I guess it all just kind of happened that way *shrug*"
-every academic ever
It’s probably not a gem if you’re an alpha centurion sea slug.
Well, Earth itself wasn't a nice place to be in for most of its existence. And it will return to that state in the future when life becomes impossible here again.
We just perceive this "unique" moment because we exist to see it. And the other boring billions without our presence seem unimportant to us.
So to say that we might never discover alien life, and that universe is teaming with life, may not be as contradictory as it seems.
"The Best Earth-like Exoplanet Has 4 Major Problems" 1. No McNuggets 2. Planet-wide edict to mount toilet paper so it spools off the bottom. 3. Sometimes denizens leave their turning signals on for miles past their last turn. 4. That smell.
There’s always a fucking catch!!
All these conditions would be intolerable to me.
Yuk! Wendy’s actually has nice chicken nuggets and I’m sure the best earth like exoplanet will have them.
Just watch star gate, they had chicken!
Imagine being on an habitable earth-like planet, but it overwhelmingly reeks 💀
@@Naz1Killer Anyone living in New Jersey could handle it.
Its crazy just how many things need to line up just to even have a shot at life
- the right type of star
- in the habitable zone
- similar size to earth for good pressure/gravity
- magnetic field (from liquid metal core/rotation) for protection
- the right atmosphere to breathe/retain heat
But then there could even be more things that we have that could be important:
- having a moon to control tides
- gas giants around it to suck up incoming meteors/comets?
- still geologically active to renew the surface
I know just by the numbers there are millions of perfect planets out there but its a lot of criteria to find one that's move in ready or close to it
so well said/written raptor.. all these epic sized requirements for our blue ball of beauty (despite so many ugly people making catastrophic decisions), to even have come about, has all the hallmarks of a very, very intelligent and creative Source.. imho, anyway..
You forgot something important, the planet would need a strong magnetic field and atmosphere to deflect UV radiation from the star. Some of these planets are simply too impossible to live on unless you’re in the shade 24/7.
@lesleyM84 I agree. The right sun, Goldie lock zone, right atmosphere etc..then look at living things the sheer design of their bodies..and the human brain, the nervous system, skeleton structure etc..points to a very very very smart source
Well, at least for life as we know it that is
You mean life as we know it. Keep in mind there are many places on Earth that are uninhabitable for us, but other lifeforms thrive. Just because a exoplanet has poor conditions for human or Earth life doesn't mean other lifeforms have not adapted to it.
The thing is we haven't actually _SEEN_ any exoplanets directly. We've only been able to infer their existence via the way starlight from their suns refracts / reflects around their atmospheres. We haven't been able to view planets outside our system with the same clarity that we can the distant worlds in this one.
People don’t seem to understand that most pictures of other planets are artists’ interpretations. More than a few times I’ve seen people commenting on how beautiful a planet is or how similar it looks to Earth but that’s not what the actual planet looks like, we basically have no idea what it truly looks like. They’re just complimenting a design by an artist.
@@rachelcookie321 but i think they based a planet's image from the wavelengths we receive from it. idk it's something ive read years before that astronauts analyze the planet's wavelength and through that they can interpret the image of the planet
@@beetleorangejuiceNobody really had a clue Pluto would look so interesting until we got pictures up close.
Sometimes the whole story can't be told until then.
Go look at official nasa artist renditions of Pluto before 2014 for proof.
If we couldn't even image something in our own solar system properly. We aren't going to do it with interstellar exo planets. It's still going to be mostly guesswork.
@@beetleorangejuice light's wavelength changes as it goes through different elements. So we can what are the composition of exoplanets atmosphere is made of
Yeah we have, there are several (very low quality and blurry) images of exoplanets
Imagine random alien watching our Earth ,and then saying "oh, it's impossible that life developped in this planet"
True. Most people don’t invert their argument and see what it’s like from the other perspective.
Probably cause water is toxic for that alien species
Would the aliens be able to see our satellites and space junk?
@@dukeofdawn4348 yeah it’d be nasty but who knows maybe they are nasty as well and litter their orbit space with water and debris to
Yes, many people rule out habitable-zone ice giants as candidates for life, because of no rocky surface, but they're actually good for the sustaining of life if you think about it. Unchanging climate, protection from stellar radiation, full of organic compounds and elements. If they're in the habitable zone, maybe their atmospheres would be similar to earth from the solar radiation stripping away helium and hydrogen leaving water, oxygen, carbon, and others. If life could start there... maybe not without panspermia.
I like the way you acknowledged the current futility of the entire discussion, without dismissing or belittling any of it. That humble eye to the future really is a very respectable and positive attitude to the benefit of science.
I've had a hard time taking all this exoplanet business for the past several years seriously when I read about all these potentially Earth-like planets having gravity too high for us, being tidally locked, orbiting unstable stars, and so forth.
Still, there being planets that can be _explored_ is cool, but no one would want to try and live on them. The resulting missions would teach astronauts, astronomers, aerospace engineers, etc. more about space travel and moving back and forth between planets, which is of utmost importance anyway.
I don't really see the point in the label called "super-Earths". They are literally all uninhabitable.
What they could be useful for is setting up automated mining facilities with automatons and what not to mine metals and minerals for us. Human technicians and engineers would have to live on space stations. We know we can simulate Earth's gravity in space via centrifugal force, which Alex didn't bother mentioning (and he may as well have as he is covering the theoretical anyway). They should just be "rocky planets" or whatever.
@@Jason75913 "Super-Earths" - yes, astronomers are bad at giving things names. Something like "Large rocky planets" would be much better.
@@Jason75913Just like stellaris! 🤣
And let's not forget just how far away they are, good luck getting there alive.
@@Jason75913 Super Earth makes sense in that Earth is the largest rocky body in our solar system, and these planets are terrestrials even larger than Earth, so in the same vain as super Jupiters, we call them super Earths.
The painful part though… is the time between us and that planet
Sure we CAN find a perfect Earth hundreds of lightyears away
But both the time of humans having to fly there and the time dilation that comes from the limits of speed of light will make it all the more difficult for any of this to work
@@FredrickWilhelm-ph1jb well, to the person it would be instant
Sad thing is also, we all people in the comments will never experience or see such thing as space travel.
@@cewla3348if traveling at light speed, it would take 100 years to reach a planet 100 lightyears away, as a lightyear is how far light travels in a year. Even for the people traveling, it would still take more than 1 persons entire lifetime to reach it.
Not for long.
@@FredrickWilhelm-ph1jbworking on it
The idea that there could be other intelligent life out there wondering if someone like us exists or if they're alone is crazy
Even if they existed we would be too far to even ever interact with them
theres got to be another replica situation somewhere out there with the same type of humans
@@rockjaw11 Hopefully. We eventually find them.
@@mariuszmoraw3571hopefully? The hell no
Lol, an alien out there is an "it" not a "they" (LOL)
The gravity problem is probably why genetic manipulation will be important when we're read to finally colonize the stars. If we cannot wait for millions of years of evolution to fit a particular planet, we need to be able to customize our colonists to match their target.
Pretty sure we’d just use robots to do most of the work so that humans would do highly flexible and technicals work that is physically low effort. But… I guess genetic manipulation would be an option that further expands the worlds we can colonize? But then again, we’d have greatly expanded our ability to modify our gene expression using small molecules and mRNA expression manipulation rather than change our DNA, as the former options are far more flexible and allow for people to travel to other planets after a period of treatments.
Well you could also fairly easily deal with low gravity environments through spin gravity. However that is probably also why colonizing planets isn't really worth it compared to space habitats.
well planet with similar earth size should have gravity between 0.9 to 1.1 to earth gravity
@@vkobevk ...okay.
A rather difficult move might be to find a way to integrate the human brain into a machine which is far more efficient than the organic body.
A fact that was overlooked: The rotation period of planets. Earth's plants, animals and people are adapted to a (mostly) 24-hour day with a clearly defined period of daytime and night, with variations depending on latitudes and seasons. Deviate from that and plants will struggle to grow, animals will have severely disrupted cycles of hunting, migrating, breeding, etc. and humans may well have their sleep/wake cycles thrown out of whack and impart a more psychological toll due to extended periods of darkness or daytime. It's certainly noticeable already if someone moves from say, ±30º latitude to +60º latitude, not far from the Arctic Circle. Sleep is already rather difficult in the summer when at 04:00 it's already bright and sunny, or in the winter the sun's out for like two hours and you miss it because you're at work. But we've more or less adapted to it on Earth. What about another planet or moon where the cycle becomes much more extreme. Even on our moon, it's 2 weeks of day and 2 weeks of night. Mars doesn't really have that issue as it's "day" is just 45 minutes longer than on Earth, albeit dimmer.
Or arctic. It already drives people insane, on earth. Life inside of artic circle even outside of polars also takes its heavy toll on mental health.
Living in places like Norway or Alaska are proof this wouldn’t be a problem for humans, or animals
I live close to the arctic circle and I hardly sleep at all during summer and practically hibernate during winter. But it's not that big of an issue
If we had the technology to travel thousands of light years, I think some artificial light and blackout blinds wouldn't be a big issue.
So tell me about astronauts, the ones that don't live on earth right now, in space.
I think your description of high gravity living is wrong. It's not like you're carrying another person on your shoulders, gravity acts on all of you at once, it would be more like wearing armour or even just actually gaining weight.
You also mention that athletes and bodybuilders could manage the gravity while an average person would struggle, and that's just not how it works; bodybuilders weren't born that way, and you can become more athletic with exercise; when you live in an environment you adapt to it. Bodybuilding simply exploits our adaptability, your body "adapts" to regular exercise. Manual labour builds muscle, desk jobs don't, but if you change your lifestyle your body will change too. Living in high gravity may be hard at first, but you will adapt over time.
not really, the thing is with gaining more weight on earth is that people tend not to become twice or triple their weight when becoming fat, and the fact that your muscles work less. With fat on earth some of the fat drops off to the side and hangs loose which while making your legs work a bit hsrder is not as bad as having so much more weight concentrated on your vital organs and hips/legs instead. Also your arms are still useful for lifting up stuff on earth.
@@floseatyard8063 that’s not the point though, he’s just saying that it’s just like having extra weight, and people will adapt to the gravity, and before getting sent there we can lift weights to get stronger
@Mickeyc1386 no they won't, the average person passes out at a few gs, even 2 gs would cause immense constant strain on your heart and organs aswell as making you super weak for the environment you're in
If we have the technology to visit such places, we will likely have the technology to live anywhere. Compared to crossing the vastness of space, growing plants indoors, or manufacturing water will be trivial. By the time we can reach Earth 2.0, we’ll have advanced beyond the need for it.
If we don't destroy Earth 1.0 before then - or, more likely, ourselves.
@@paulhaynes8045
What is this "we"? Aren't the mad-scientists and liar corrupt politicians more to blame than us?
Thing is you hear a lot from Elon that he wants to terraform Mars, but doesn't think to try terraforming places on earth that would otherwise be inhospitable to life. We have a lot of land and a lot of people that would benefit from such a project and the best part about it is that we don't need to fly off planet for it to work. And as the other commenter said, before we get to the point of these great technologies we would hopefully not destroy our own planet/ourselves.
@@SEVENTEENPOINT1
Mars is more of a frontier to explore, well if possible. Evil elitists do not want to fix places on earth, because they do not want problems solved.
@@yosefmacgruber1920🎉
The sheer scale and size of the universe is crazy. It's hard to imagine the size of some of these stars, planets, and other things that occupy the comsos
Now take that scale of size against a Humpback whale. I'm the grand scheme of the cosmos, that 1 whale would be smaller than the smallest particle known to humans, the Muon. That 1 Muon, is So insignificant it would be undetectable. We as a species, on a rock in space, would be nearly as invisible compared to the rest of the Unknown Universe, the part that is too far for our Prehistoric Instruments to be able to see.
@@dirtybird437 I would love to see some of the magnificent views out there.
@@dirtybird437 ay! the big picture is made of pixels, and we're the only one that shines without fusion or friction. Our instruments are the best physically possible, because they use the best medium possible: light.
The thing that annoys me about these “Earth 2.0” stories is that it’s always just to distract from the fact that we’re refusing to fix Earth 1.0. It’s always seen as an escape for the wealthy, because that’s who’d be going there
The promise of Earth 2.0 isn't just about fixing Earth- it's also meant as a backup in case of disaster beyond our control, such as a comet impact or gamma ray burst.
no the point oif looking for other earths is finding life
@@b1gmass943 yes, to know we're not alone.
And what are you going to do if something happens and earth is about to get destroyed?
@@-_wanderer well we don’t live in a B movie so that is extremely unlikely to happen. The only way our species comes to an end is by our own nukes or climate change and we’re actively amping both of those chances up thanks to the sh!t stirrers who constantly talk about “Earth 2.0”
To me, this video proves what a miracle planet Earth is.
Humans and all other life forms on this beautiful planet were designed to live here.
We are our planet and our planet is us.
Excellent video!!!
I agree 100%. I don't think our bodies can live anywhere else outside mother earth. We as humans will probably die out when she does (if not sooner). Her death will definitely be the saddest 😢
@@grandzeweiterworth7628 Lol. Yahh!
From what scientists say, mother Earth still have a few billion years left.
Of course humans may die off long before that.
However, we are an innovative species. So, maybe we can figure out this thing called gravity and go searching for another home.
Time will tell.
@@michaelnafari2032 We can create artificial gravity in the form of spin gravity, just spinning a big circle. It just requires some fairly big structures to not make us nauseous but it works just as well as the real thing.
@@hedgehog3180 Very true!
But! It does not compare to the real thing. I have watched many video on this very topic and there are many issues related to "spin gravity".
It is a mistake to say "designed". Life evolves to fit the environment that it finds itself in. If we were not perfectly adapted to live on earth we would not live on earth, it's really as simple as that. There is nothing amazing at all about the fact that we are perfectly adapted. In fact it is exactly what we would expect.
I get into this fight all the time, there is only Earth 1.0; there is no Earth 2.0. We haven't been able to identify how many specific variables are needed to be correct for Earth-like life to exist naturally, but we do know that if any of the known variables are a fraction different; life as we know it is impossible. And that's the thing, if we cannot exist naturally with no terraforming or evolutionary adaptions to exist, it's not Earth 2.0. And don't get me started on the distances....and "if" we can travel there.
There just isn't any Earth 2.0, period. Not in this galaxy, or any other.
That is the nature of biological evolution: it evolves to survive on its own planet - not a different planet!
This won't stop humanity however, because when we emigrate from the solar system it won't be in as meatsacks!
While an initial overview means that interstellar colonization looks impossible, that doesn't mean it is. While more pessimistic estimates put terraforming at around thousands of years time to complete, harder estimates not conducted by loose comparisons put it more around 200-350 years. Combine that with artificial wombs, embryo storage and ai advanced enough to raise children and you can conduct interstellar colonization. Considering the state ai is in now, and that given current trends, even accounting for limits on computation well be able to simulate every neuron in the human brain and their connections in 2080. Moving at 5% the speed of light, this allows for glacial, but possible interstellar colonization.
@@Megatherium1 Impossible is not the correct word. It's not a question of "if we can;" it's a question of "if we should." The "impossible" is the fantasy humans are creating and telling our children like "it's just a matter of time and tech before we reach Earth 2.0." No, that's a lie. We need to be honest. Honesty and realism are not skepticism or cynicism. We need to start saying that even with time and tech; we will never find Earth 2.0. Earth 2.0 is as mythical as Atlantis.
1) There are no planets within realistic travel. The fastest real world tech we have is the pulse fusion engine, if it works and is safe, its max speed based on the latest models and tests right now is about 180 km/s. That means it will take about 7000 years to reach the nearest star. And we already know there's nothing there for us. The nearest exoplanet with the highest ESI is Kepler 452b at 1,200 light years.....that's a 3 million year journey, and its ESI is only .88 which would is not a home for us and never will be. If we have to evolve, terraform, or require special technology to exist on a planet because we cannot naturally....that is not a home nor Earth 2.0.
2) But the scariest thing is the fact that people are calling exoplanets Earth 2.0 in the first place. There are so many problems here. a) If we can't care for Earth 1.0 why do we think it will be different on 2.0? b) Also calling it Earth 2.0 is humanity "claiming what is not theirs to claim." If life is possible, it will be there. Which means we are aliens there, and we are talking about these planets as if they are 'new homes' just waiting for us to come and take like the colonists of the 1500s. How did that work out for everyone? And if anyone thinks human nature is going to change and we are going to become some peaceful co-existing species, assuming we can even live there, you don't know human nature or history. It's not going to happen.
@@Megatherium1Pessimistic is millions of years for terraforming, optimistic is tens to hundreds of thousands.
@@clinch4402 In an ideal scenario, with an atmosphere at one atmosphere composed of .8 nitrogen and .2 co2, the then expected time to conversion to a .2 o2 atmosphere is 200 years. That's ideal, but hundreds of years to terraform is in fact a reasonable estimate
The challenge of landing in Kepler 452b isn't the 2x gravity but facing the inhabitants there that got used to it
When the dog-like inhabitant charges you down and starts mauling you, you'll really feel the gravity.
(Also the foreign microbes).
@@dagda1180 You know, it works both ways - microbes we would found hard to counter might have some difficulty getting jump on us in the first place.
I enjoy the Astrum channel as its videos are not too long, understandable and well presented. Thank you Alex
You mean they're not too long, not too understandable, and not too well presented? Just checkin'...
@@jonathanstewart351 I mean, this channel does seem to waffle a bit
To think that putting a "2.0" onto something has meant that it's an improvement.
Man, it probably ain't. We were specifically made for and by this planet. I think we just have to learn to appreciate our own planet more. It's quite literally perfect.
I mean yeah eventually we're gonna have to move out of this planet and stuff, but considering how short current human lifespans are in comparison to traveling to those planets, I think we're better off just enjoying and taking care of this planet whilst we still can. I mean I'm not against researching the cosmos, in fact I think it's quite interesting; what I am against however, is people pointlessly hoping for a "planet B"
It's not. Earth is perfect for living.
This ain’t Wall-e. If we fuck up our planet, we’re fucked… period
@@xtremejagy5959 i disagree
@@fabuxverchatura Yes. Earth is perfect for humans
Thanks for the gentle reminder that there's no place like home! I hope you enjoy the cup of tea that this meager contribution will, no doubt, require you to make yourself, at home😉
Thanks for this. You said what I’ve been thinking all along. Not to mention travel time. Voyager’s have been cruising through space since 1974, they haven’t gone very far in the grand scheme of things. When I hear someone say “it’s ONLY 4 light years away” I just laugh.
4 light years however is not very far. With the technology not far above the current one(FFRE) we would be able to send the survey/terraforming ship on such distances. Human travel will require warp though
@@jimmcneal5292you could send multiple generations of humans
@@jimmcneal5292 4 light years not very far? With current tech estimates are 6000 years of travel. Going 100 times faster would be 600 years. Have fun waiting 6 millennia or even 6 centuries before receiving a reply as to what's there.
Voyagers haven’t even gone one light DAY yet.
@@robo5013 with time humanity invents new types of propulsion, on top of that, the speeds we can travel increase roughly exponentially. My estimate is that we will break the light barrier in 500-600 years, and from there our expansion/colonization of the universe will start
I recently read "A City On Mars" by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith. It puts a lot of this stuff in context by explaining just how shockingly hard it is to settle the moon or Mars.
When someone mentions an Earth 2.0, it had better be very close to an exact copy. Otherwise we're just talking about the moon or Mars or Venus etc many lightyears away, which is not only borderline unlivable, but we pay a ridiculous premium in travel time just to go somewhere likely worse than Mars or the Moon. At least in our local solar system we can do supply runs, and even so, those supply runs are immensely expensive and slow. Self-sufficiency on another planet is such a hard problem right now, it's just not happening.
Problem #1. We'll never be able to reach it 😂
Mathematically it is possible to warp space to "travel" greater distances then even light could. Whether its feasible and what means where that could be possible is still to be determined
You funny to me 😂 ahahahaha
we could in the future
Killing the vibe man. Relax. Think positive you cry baby
@@LarryLonson it is easier to invent a way to plant a human brain in a robot like a robocop then board it to a regular spaceship and hope one day that mf will arrive in earth 2.0. 😂
One thing to be said about tidally locked planets and spin, they do spin, just in sync with their rotation. If you, theoretically, had a planet that orbitted in a few days (more likely with a gas giant or a very small red dwarf), they actually rotate every few days as well, and might generate hadley cells and an elecromagntic dynamo still.
I can't express enough how grateful I am for your channel. Your videos have helped me understand complex scientific concepts in an easily digestible way
His channel blows and he confuses all of us
problems to the earthlike exoplanets:
- mass (its big/small planet so the mass is heavier/ligher, and you cant stand properly in it)
- traveling (light years, what do you expect?)
- no resources that is sufficient for humans (no food, no livestock, and lastly, undiscovered nature)
- not the right star/not in the goldilocks zone (red giant, blue star, whote dwarf, and lastly the planet is either in the inhabitable zones (cold - outside of the goldilocks zone / hot - near the star)
and there's more than that
the connection between our earth moon and sun is something very peculiar, and even if another planet is in a goldilocks zone, it still wouldn’t have similar tides to ours, would still possibly be habitable though, but our planet is just something special
When you start adding up all the variables that would make an exoplanet not just merely habitable, but also a healthy and relatively safe environment, there are many. All the factors mentioned in this video, as well as factors like how much oxygen in the atmosphere, weather extremes, does the planet have a large moon like earth, does the system have a Jupiter analog that could protect the planet from bombardment of asteroids and comets, what is the rotation of the planet, and so many more. The odds of finding something "turn-key" would be very low, considering all the important factors that must be within at least a small variance of earth in order for it to be comfortably habitable.
From what I've read Jupiter is more likely to fling something our way than protect us. Also, it is questionable as to whether we need the moon or not, although the tides going in and out might have been useful to early life and the existence of the moon was useful for early scientific discovery and having a rough calendar.
Earth itself was thriving, lush world at some point - still unihabitable by modern humans. Clone it, make it what, 3% of CO2 instead of 0,4 and voila!
@@D.D.-ud9zt It protects us most of the time, at the risk of infrequent, but more pointed shot
I think the fact that 75% of stars are red dwarfs just goes to show that we aren't alone in the fact that there were other neighboring life forms around us but we're just "late to the party" and we're what remains
Assuming the science is correct with a big bang about 14 billion years ago and generations of stars, supernova and neutron star combinations to get enough metals out there, we are likely early to the party. But the term should be why are we "alone in the galaxy" as opposed to alone in the universe. Even science fiction rarely can conceive of a device making travel between galaxies practical. Maybe even our imaginary engineering isn't developed enough, but I suspect its likely impossible except for perhaps some tiny dwarf galaxy near the Milky Way. I would imagine a super advanced Star Trek type civilization would have no way of getting to the Milky Way and would have zero idea of our existence (our planet obviously they would see the earth two million years ago if they were somehow able to make it out). But I suspect some things just are not possible. Even if we could go amazing speeds that will mean the ship will need maintenance and how are you going to do that a million light years between both galaxies?
How is this logic? Aren't red dwarfs small stars? I just watched a video proposing that red dwarfs will actually be the host to life on the order of trillions of years when they become hotter and other stars have died. Basically statistically being the only hosts at that point. But ofc this is beyond speculation and anything else can happen
Trillions of years from now*, then apparently be sun-like for ~500 billion years
Dude you’re insane. This makes no sense Z
@@alluceoaveUh, no. The scientific term for this theory is the Fermi Paradox.
Could you do a video on the BepiColombo spacecraft? I haven’t seen anyone talk about it sadly, it’s an underrated little mission
I already bought some acreage on a _potentially_ habitable exoplanet that's been confirmed to at least have standing water and water vapor.
And this nice framed certificate is proof that I'll _technically_ be a Scottish Lord once I'm able to relocate there and build a homestead. This couldn't possibly be some sort of interstellar scam, could it?
Well-delivered! 😆
Definitely a scam as Scottish Lords are 'Lairds'
My honest reaction: 😑
This is in the same vein as the whole "send us money and we will name a star after you and send you a certificate". I don't think future generations are going to be saying, "hey look, it's the John Smith star, right next to the Mike Johnson star" 😂
😂
1:44 Before I watch the rest of this video, I know that one of these planets has hot mercury that rains sideways.
TLDR:
Earth: "Face it humies. Yo ass is stuck here"
Awesome video as always say man.
Thanks for all your content.
10:29 THAT AIN'T KEPLER THAT'S NAMEKIAN PLANET 🔥💯🗣️🥦
Hi Alex.
This video is one of the most informative and understandable explanations I've come across regarding exoplanets.
💚🌍
I always thought that settling on other planets would involve us adapting our physiology to suit that planet, either through cybernetic augmentation, genetic engineering or both. So if we ever became a multi-planet species, we would soon become multiple species. Once we adopt that approach, the number of planets we can potentially live on will drastically increase as the conditions for our existence become less restrictive.
99.9%similar to earth could still equate to an insurmountable variable. Our earth is just so harmoniously unique to us that even a slight deviation could become catastrophic. There's just no naturally occurring place like our home planet and it's about time we started showing it the love it wholly deserves.
Great video!
Of course we have evolved in our environment and it isn't too much of a stretch to think that a lifeform on a super earth would evolve to suit its environment. For us, climbing would be a nightmare on a super earth. Playing golf would be a bit different too. And imagine what would be involved in launching a rocket from such a planet. Thanks Alex. Great discussion as always. I really enjoy your talks!
Yeah, for example: I could totally see a planet that is an exact copy of earth, just with double the gravity starting out the same way life on earth did with microscopic organisms in the ocean. Then those organisms just always live with that double gravity and when they finally enter land, they are just built for it. If life evolved on our moon, I’m sure they would find earth difficult to stand on😂
Us being on a 2x Super-Earth would just feel like being morbidly obese, at least at first. It would be the strain on the heart that messed us up. Carrying extra weight is not too hard, but our hearts would need to pump twice as hard to push blood to the brain, and they can't do that.
FOR LIBERTY, FOR SUPER EARTH🦅🦅🦅
"The last thing any sane person would want to do" thanks for the laugh with my morning coffee. even if we could open a porthole in space to go to these planets instantly, what we can see is hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years old. by searching the cosmos, it's becoming ever more apparent how grand and unique our home world really is. thanks Alex.
2:50 goldilocks zone isn't the only factor starter. A moon outside of the habitat zone could have a "warm planet" from the tidal forces.
You mentioned Kepler-186f, Kepler-452b and Proxima Centauri b, which are #49, #11 and #8 on my current list of most similar to earth exoplanets. But what about some even more similar like Teegarden's star b, TOI 700d, Kepler-1649c, Wolf-1069b, Gliese 1002b, L98-59f or Luyten b? Some might be a little cold, but a couple of them seem to have potential.
Teegarden is a M star so its planet is tidally locked. That one can be dismissed out of hand.
@@zimriel FIrst of all, it's possibly tidally locked. And even if it is, you don't know enough about conditions to dismiss it out of hand. That's just arrogance.
Yes, but those planets don't fit into this video's narrative of "Muh all exoplanets bad" because of a few cherry-picked characteristics.
@@Transilvanian90yep!
I tend to look at us and all living creatures as a part of the earth... We were born from the earth, and we live as a part of our living and breathing planet, and when we die we return to her. The unique stability of our solar system and the varied composition of the earth gave rise to cellular walls, cognitive abilities and consciousness... In essence; we are all a part of earth, capable of perceiving ourselves during a short time frame of stability in an extremely violent universe. A stability which we have not yet witnessed anywhere else.... Put it in that perspective and the earth (and all who that live on this planet) should become our most precious priority in life.
Thank you. ❤
Partially true, but that's also probably what a lot of early humans though before venturing across the oceans to other continents and islands. We then evolved to the new conditions, creating the variety of humans you see today. Now very few people stay in the same town/village they were born in. I think a similar thing will happen with interplanetary travel, except instead of people adapting to the new environment due to evolution, it will be genetic engineering. Probably within a century or two, we'll have millions of people living on Mars and there's a good chance most of them won't be able to survive for very long on Earth. Terraforming can also help make planets much more similar to Earth.
@@Astra2 when we can't take care of-, or live in harmony with our own planet. How are we expected to terraform Mars? It is a very big ask from humanity that still understand so very little about the planet that gave life to us. We still have a long way to go and I think humans will continue to curiously explore the universe. And when the time comes and our existence is at stake we will more likely launch a "seed of life" mission to the most suitable planets we have found. With hope that our planet's legacy continue to live and develop. And unless we invent cryostasis or similar technology. We won't be there personally to perceive the results of those missions. But life and the earth's legacy might just continue somewhere out there due to our efforts. I think this is the more likely prospect for humanity.
If we can't live in the Sahara desert, I have a hard time thinking we will survive Mars. We need to be able to create thriving conditions there for single-ticket missions. And since we can't handle our over-production of co2 in the atmosphere I have very little hope for terraforming mars in any near foreseeable future.
I'd argue that it's more that life is inherently unstable that allows it to thrive.
Much as what you say is true, the unfortunate truth is that the Earth can happily carry on without us. The way we are behaving now, we are not a viable 'part of Earth' we are a cancer, and the sooner we kill ourselves off, the 'happier' the Earth, and all its other inhabitants, will be.
MY LIFE FOR SUPER EARTH!
YOU WILL NEVER DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE
Check your references, Astrum: tidal locking isn't a problem because of the star type, it's a function of surface fluidity and if there's something else orbiting the planet.
Also, the challenges of a tidally locked world might be outweighed by the benefits: guaranteed solar collection, shield from solar flares, passive resource collection from condensation on the dark side, etc.
It is somewhat correlated with star type in that planets orbiting closer to their star are more likely to be tidally locked and smaller stars have habital zones closer to the star.
@@hedgehog3180 And you still believe in "habital zones"? "Habitable zones" are PR nonsense provided to the public by various space agencies to try to convince common people that their space exploration tax dollars are worth it. The fact is that life can exist pretty much anywhere around a calm star, depending on the circumstances. This "goldilocks zone" of which you speak is a ridiculous cookiecutter application of our own anthropic circumstances to the rest of the universe. Case in point: There's water ice on both Mercury and the Moon, it's just in places where the sun never shines.
Except red dwars are all dwars aka small... And if a planet has rotation it ll quickly lose it over the years...
Its has everything to do with star x planet proximity which is given in red dwarfies.
regarding living in double gravity - it would be interesting to see how our physiology reacts to it. As soon as an astronaut leaves earths surface and reaches orbit (and their mass becomes less hindered by earths gravity) the human body starts to shed its skeletal mass, I believe the very first time you urinate in space it is full of calcium - when I last heard about this scientists were not sure why the body has this mechanism at all, but presumably in heavier gravity your body would look to increase its skeletal mass to handle the extra forces - one day we will find out!
It's unlikely our bones could manage twice our weight
@@pedrolmlkzkGiven humans can reach weights of several hundreds of pounds, I don’t think going from, say 190 lbs to 380 will destroy one’s bones.
Space Dwarves!
@@vikvavs55 Yeah, but people who are abnormally tall don't live very long or with much quality
We can't even work together as a species, we're completely delusional, if we think we can colonise those planets, if it's possible in the first place. We still wage work against other for recourses and fight for ideologies.
Mars has an earth-similarity-index of 0.8, I read. Surviving there without regular supplies from Earth is highly unlikely already. Most "Earths 2.0" are probably worse. And none of them can get new supplies from Earth.
I imagine if we were on a planet with higher gravity we could adapt to it. Kids that grew up there would probably be shorter and stockier. On a lower gravity world we could develop "lead suits" that we could wear that would add extra weight and also protect us from radiation. (I thought of this regarding a Mars colony)
I doubt lead suits will work against bone atrophy
We could do that at first and slowly evolve to live there. Each generation being more and more adapted
The main issue here is the heart, on a high gravity planet it would need to pump much harder thus a higher pulse and that leads to slow irreversible damage. Even if you were extremely fit your heart can only get so strong and it would never be able to attain a resting pulse close the one it has on Earth.
@@hedgehog3180 not really a problem, most likely people still would leave till 60s at least, and it's enough to leave all the offspring
Your channel is a gem. There are a few other good astro channels, but the bulk of channels that get promoted by YT's algo are mindmelting rubbish. Good to see that quality can prevail.
What other ones do you watch? I need recs please
@@orionxo00 Currently no astro-related ones.
For other topics, I watch channels like Broey Deschanel, The Financial Diet, Plastic Pills, Adam Something, Then & Now, Clark Elieson.
I've always thought that the tidally locked nature of most red dwarf planets made it near impossible for it to be inhabitable.
That's what Astrum said
Inhabitable means habitable? What a country!
@@worker-wf2em my bad
@@worker-wf2emWow! Attacking a whole country over a typographical error? Please don't bring that attitude into the Cosmos. 😅
@@randybaumery-u5rWow getting offended over an observation. Please don't continue to exist in any cosmos 🙄
Even if we were to actually find another exoplanet lightyears away teeming with life, it would be better to just observe what alien life is happening over there than trying to colonize it.
If you're living on a comfortable interstellar traveling habitat you are interested in freely available resources that aren't stuck in a big ass gravity well.
Earth isn't going to remain as it is (i.e. habitable) forever. At some point, we may not have a choice, and will have to move on and colonize another planet.
The whole colonize hypothesis is a bit sci-fi and definitely representative of humanity of the last millennia. Observation is far more interesting and civilized.
@@jbtownsend9535 I don't see colonization of planets, the cost benefit isn't there. However, fleets of comfortable, full gravity, thick regolith shielding, loaded with tanks of frozen hydrogen peroxide, surrounded by swarms of drones, harvesting freely available resources, I can see that.
@@jbtownsend9535very British way of doing things
Honesty...I appreciate honesty.
-In theory
-Is not always the case.
-far from the truth.
-Non negotiable, not to mention, such things...ctc.
are expression the deffine the seriousness of any proposition. This narrator is pretty honest, Thanks.
Very interesting video! Another great piece of work. Thanks, Alex!
Mercury is not tidally locked, though!
was hoping to see an comment like this , it was thought that it would be tidaly locked to the sun, but its only the rotational and orbital period which is locked 3:2. thankfully, its getting more and more attention :)
I'm not sure he meant that it was (and I'm sure he knows it isn't). When he mentions Mercury's year and day, that isn't a tidally locked relationship.
Most of this is unlikely to be a problem anyway though, it's sort of like an engineer during the wright brothers Era trying to solve the problem of pressurising the cabin on a modern airliner, by the time they get around to flying that high in the first place the other problems would've already been solved. Similarly just the process of getting to onother solar system would require that we figure out how to artificially satisfy all our needs on the ship for generations and negate the effects of zero gravity and the radiation of space. So we wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the planet we're going to could provide those things. Also the cost of settling another solar system would be so immense the only reason to even attempt it is to evade the death of our own sun, as figuring out how to teraform a less habitable body in our own solar system would still be significantly more feasible than getting to another one. With that being the case it wouldn't make sense to flee our own dying star and go to another one that's going to die one day, a white dwarf would be the best bet, and while any planet around a white dwarf would have a berren surface after the planetary nebula hit it this again wouldn't be a problem as by the time we are even able to try to reach one we would've already found ways to make a barren planet habitable in our own solar system long ago if it is indeed possible, and if there truly is no way to survive on the barren planets here in our own solar system then there would be equally no way to survive the trip to another solar system
Damn lol.... That was pretty well said lol
This comment was better than the video.
honestly given how much time we have before the sun dies, we could practice terraformation on Venus rather than mars considering its similarity to Earth, ofc it would have its problems like its 91% gravity compared to earth, its weak magnetic field and insanely high temperatures and more. but it would ofc still provide a better practice to terraforming than Mars would be. tho i could be COMPLETELY wrong lol so if i am, do correct me
@Kaylathefoxo Venus would probably be the easiest on the larger scale although I'd worry about the global volcanism events. Personally I think the moon is the best bet, it's the closes so travel and time are less of an issue and it's a great puzzle for all the potential problems. If we can tackle the lack of resources, gravity, atmosphere, and magnetic field of the moon close to home then when we venture out further we'll be prepared for almost anything ahead of time. Better to figure out how to start a fire in your back yard than wait until you're in a real survival situation to try and figure it out
That is all based on questionable assumptions: that technology will always continue to develop endlessly and can solve any problem you may imagine sooner or later, and that the space colonisation is even ever practically feasible. I don't blame you, those are usual delusions in most people since industrial revolution. If you think more however, those are just assumptions, rooted in blind extrapolation of previous trends into the future.
Also, how are generational space ships ethical? Is it ethical to condemn whole generations to life on a ship? That confirms my suspicion that any culture that views expansionism as its goal has to be inherently unethical at its core. Normal culture should seek sustainability and balance with its own environment, and use the resources it already has efficiently, not endless expansion. Again, it is all based on extrapolating the ideal that Western civilisation formed during times of colonialism and imperialism, directing them somewhere else and saying "well, now it is actually not that bad, cause we won't probably meet aliens to displace or enslave" ignoring that the real core problem of expansionist mentality is not simply how it treats indigenous people, but a much deeper one
A very good yet too short video on the subject of exo-planets. We know that there are planets outside that leave a bit of uncertainty regarding our "human factors" and how to accommodate eartlings to those planets.
A refreshing breath of factuality. Thank you.
Just because it was canceled after one season doesn't mean that the 1994-95 tv show "Earth 2" sucked. I mean, it might have; I don't remember it too well.
It did suck 😂
@digitalfootballer9032 Good to know. I only remembered that it existed, not whether I liked it or not. Kinda like Schrodinger's TV show.
Really glad to hear you offering highly realistic and skeptical commentary on these topics. It is important.
The sheer size of the Universe seems to suggest that there must be "lots more" for us out there. But the history of Earth suggests that random chance may have played an important role on the emergence not just of life on Earth, but of complex life. Life itself may be fairly common, but complex life may not.
this video has been my thoughts whenever i hear things like 'earth 2.0' - i knew there are mostly red dwarf stars in our galaxy and i consider life (as we know it) around those stars impossible. glad someone said it, cause everyone is always too enthusiastic about exoplanets even NASA
Not to mention that most yellow dwars are not more suitable then red dwarfs. Sun in outsider even among other outsiders, almost one of a kind.
Just like stellar life, I'd say "stable" is very relative. We're better off than if we had an A type or hot F type, but I'd much rather we had a hotter K type or cooler G type star. Sol being a G2 makes me nervous.
I suspect if we do ever find highly advanced life out there, that K-type star systems will be where we find it, as the longevity of these stars is much greater, giving any civilization orbiting one much more time to advance. If we were to make the entire run without going extinct, we would have about another billion years before earth is no longer habitable. Yes, that's a lot of time, but I would think if any super advanced civilization is out there (like type-2 and up) they would need more than a billion years and change to get there. A K type star would offer this kind of longevity on the home planet, assuming the planet itself is stable.
Humanity’s not ready to live Mass Effect just yet… great video! Makes you appreciate Earth all the more and why we must protect her
I think that the temperature, water and stability of the star are the most important ones. Tidal lock can be mitigated with atmosphere and oxygen actually is not needed, as long as there is water we can send the anaerobic bacteria and they will create oxygen(actually such "terraforming"/ biosphere creation missions would probably be more of a norm rather than an execption)
They would need sunlight to create that oxygen using photosynthesis. 10% or less of our sun's light wouldn't work.
@@robo5013 yes but I doubt planets that have less than 10% of our Sun's light are considered as colonization candidates
Just my unscientific opinion, but I feel like tidal lock presents one of the biggest challenges to habitability. Things like gravity, atmosphere, etc while challenging could be overcome with the right technology. Even the rotation of the planet could be sped up or slowed down, in theory, with advanced enough technology. I think with tidal locking you are stuck. Two other factors I see as deal breakers are close proximity to a very active star, as well as a lack of giant planets in the outer orbits of a system to sweep up asteroids and comets.
@@100percentSNAFU it depends. If atmosphere can compensate and redistribute heat, then it's ok. On the other hand, atmosphere itself can't actually be easily fixed with tech, if it's toxic or there's none, the planet can't be colonized
@@jimmcneal5292 Then that rules out tidally locked planets as the ones we see orbit red dwarfs which produce 10% or less of our sun's light.
This is a message we treat this earth better we have searched for years spent billions to search for another earth we haven't found anything close to earth lets love another and make a difference.
these type of videos never fail to make me impressed. Just wow! These videos are amazing, very good. These type of videos make me learn something more than my school 😂
The chances of life occurring as we understand it is incredibly small because there are just so many variables that need to fall perfectly into place. The planet size, the type of core it has, does it rotate and how frequently, what type of star does it orbit, etc etc. I’m certain life exists somewhere but I think it is much more rare than we yet realize.
Underrated TH-cam channel! 😊🌎
Looking for a truly Earth-like exoplanet is like searching for the right needle in a very loose grouping of a billion needles and they’re on the mars.
Imagine building a ring settlement/city around a whole planet right on the permanent day/night line of a tidally locked planet. Maybe just a smidgen into the dark side - another sort of Goldilocks zone, if you will.
And how much will that cost?
I like that idea. Could be powered by solar panels built into the sunny side and powering on the night side ice-melting stations.
@@paulhaynes8045 Saudis are already constructing a prototype of that type of city on Earth...
@@erkinalp what, on the margin between our permanent light and dark sides??
I really like Earth2; too bad it only lasted a single season. 😊
Napoli pizza 🍕
Even that show made it clear, earth 2 blows!
“Earth 2, we’ll take your kid!”
Loved the headsets though.
My name is Giovanni Gerogio, but everyone calls me Georgio 🎶🎼🎵
TaDam Tsss!
IPhone 7 📱
5:51
Sun:DING✨️
Red dwarf:....AAAAA💥
One crucial problem scientists rarely discuss is how the earth's own field interacts with the living organisms, humans included. There is a good possibility that a human leaving the earth beyond the moon might become adversely affected by the lack of that symbiosis (earth/human field), that and the cosmic rays, the radiation and micro meteorites. I surmise that humans leaving that filed will either go mad or acquire some form of cancer.
Scientists take that in consideration, they aren't dumb
No, not dumb, naive perhaps and well-funded by special and state interests.@@-_wanderer
Given that people can be put in magnetic fields orders of magnitude stronger than the earth's without even noticing, I don't think the earth's magnetic field matters. And if it does, it wouldn't be hard to make wherever we live just as magnetic. Or are you saying that there's some other kind of field that we've been completely unable to detect and yet our lives depend on?
There's currently no way to determine another planet's cell phone coverage through a telescope.
I just love scifi and space stuff. But if we being real, there is no way we humans will visit another star system.
Humans have to get better, not the planet...
exactly, but you kinda want to avoid genetic engineering, since what would be the point of colonizing it, if it wouldnt be humans
These micro-plastics aren't gonna poison themselves!
@@john-thejohn-johnson4403 and what is the point of humans colonising anything? I don't see anything good about it either
Yea what's so good about humans anyways ? Any intelligent life would do.
@@john-thejohn-johnson4403we would still be human just better,stronger, more intelligent or at least the next generation of humans would be.
Thank you for debunking this unrealistic, escapist myth. Another essential consideration usually overlooked is this: The only reason we can even exist on Earth is because the ecological interactions of so many organisms (plants, bacteria, other animals) make our lives possible. Earth’s biosphere is only a biosphere (full of life) because of the interactions of SO MUCH other life! Barren rocks devoid of other life are not habitable by us. If any other terrestrial planet were habitable, that is, had the moisture, oxygen, plants, food, temperature regulation, etc.-that would mean there’s already life there creating these conditions. So, then, we’d be inserting ourselves into their ecosystems, which would undoubtedly be detrimental or even fatal to them. Besides, why do we humans even deserve another planet when we’re proving we can’t even care for our own? Let’s relearn how to sustain life here, and THEN, with that knowledge and that ethical system, then we can think about where else we might go.
Absolutely agree. Hopefully the people who can't see this are just enthusiastic kids who haven't come to this realisation yet
Alex, c'mon, we can't even organize a proper waste sorting... Exoplanet 😂
As an ecological restoration graduate, I'd like to offer some perspective on this issue that I don't see talked about very much. Ignoring the immense challenges associated with moving and establishing civilization on an exoplanet, let alone finding a suitable candidate to begin with, there's one elephant in the room that is potentially the most inhibiting. Cost. The cost of establishing a civilization on an exoplanet would be unfathomable. My point is that instead of searching for this magical "Earth 2.0" that could maybe solve our problems, we should focus our efforts here, on a planet that has sustained life for billions of years. A planet that has and will continue to have everything we need, should we choose to do what's right and conserve it. The cost of managing, restoring, and conserving ecosystems here that are essential to our existence would likely be orders of magnitude more economical, feasible, and practical than exploration, even if conducted on a global scale. The amount of resources and effort involved with undertaking a planetary expedition could be instead used in furthering our understanding of earth and mitigating climate change and other human impacts on the planet. People are so quick to jump on the idea of going to another planet and I don't think they consider or realize what we DO have here on earth. I'm not by any means saying that cosmic exploration is unjustified or shouldn't be conducted, but the fact is that this is our home and the consequences of our mismanagement of our ecosystems up until this point will spell our demise LONG before we even get close to finding another planet and establishing civilization there. How much more fossil fuels do we have? How long before our atmosphere becomes toxic and life as we know it breaks down in the 'business as usual' scenario? These, along with the point Astrum made about light and photosynthesis on other planets, are some of the many critical and existential considerations to take into account in the context of exploration. What if we get to a planet that we predicted would have everything we need only to find out that it, despite having lots of raw resources and the building blocks, has not seen the billions of years of evolution and ecological development that have created our world as we know it? If that is the case, do you think that we have a solid enough understanding of our ecosystems and ecology that we could replicate the processes occurring on earth on another planet? I just think that the whole idea is pretty short-sighted when you consider everything I've just brought up. If nothing else, I'd encourage you all to learn more about earth and it's ecosystems, its ecology, and just how crucial these things are to our existence.
Very true. Amazing (and very depressing) that mine is your only 'like'. Just shows what we're up against - space dreaming is far more fun than the slog of fixing what we've messed up...
We still need to know about the universe. Knowing if there is life out there is a big discovery. Also meteors also need to be observed. So still we need to study space. We only have the rich to blame if they don't want to spend money on fixing Earth.
EXACTLY
Not sure I fully agree with your statements regarding the temperatures of a tidally locked planet. Convection keeps the night and day sides from becoming such extreme temperatures. You get insane weather instead of insane temperatures.
but as he said any water vapor will freeze on the night side and stay there for good and never make it back or even in the middle. The day side and middle will be even dryer then the Sahara and the night side would be like Antarctica.
And a pre Main Sequence that makes this convo Moot.
Long story short for about a billion years as it forms the star is hotter than it will be when fusion kicks in. Which means any habitable world that forms would be baked of it's water and either end up with little atmosphere or water, or a crushing 1000 times earths 02 at atmosphere after all the hydrogen blows off from the water vapor being baked into the atmosphere.
9:30 Super Earth could cause issues with any intelligent life leaving their host planet. What is the exit velocity needed to leave this Super Earth?
A planet almost exactly the same size as Earth orbiting a sunlike star in its goldilocks zone, that is the holy grail I am waiting for. Even if getting there is impossible, I would like to know it's out there.
That is called Venus, except that one does not have liquid water
@@erkinalpnot in Goldilocks zone
the human body seem very adaptable to gravity. children born on these worlds would likely feel comfortable on them and be very strong. it is that first generation that really has rough time.
Agreed. If double the gravity was the only flaw with a 2.0 planet, it would be the easiest downside to overcome out of all of them.
There are some adaptations that could happen within one life time but there are many that probably couldn't and we'd need to wait for evolution to do its thing.
K (orange) dwarf stars should be the main focus of future exoplanetary searches.
Earth is in the "Goldilocks" zone BUT most of the places on Earth are not really that habitable. It's either too hot or too cold like the deserts, and the two polar regions. It still takes an effort to make it livable.
Very good point. I might also add that we are in a geological "Goldilocks zone" as well. There have been and will be again, periods of time where the average temperature of the earth is much hotter or colder and even fewer, of any, regions of the earth would be habitable.
For humans no but for life in general they are very habitable. It's almost impossible to find anywhere on Earth that isn't teeming with life, we've even found microbal life inside the Earth's crust and in the Chernobyl reactor.
Life will still evolve to overcome such obstacles
People managed to cross the Bering Strait when the planet was colder, we can manage here just fine
I think lower gravity would be preferable even to the exact 1g. And the reason is that travel time. By the time they arrive, colonists would already somewhat adapt to 0g.
Unless they spin the space ship.
Interesting. I appreciate the frankness of the analysis. So much of science journalism this day is science fiction gone wild.
Yes, I always thought those super-Earths were pretty nasty. Here's a hypothetical - a Venus-like planet orbits far enough away from a red dwarf star to avoid tidal locking. It has an thick, hot atmosphere and is quite hot (though it would be much cooler than Venus). Over time, the young star's solar wind outbursts strip away enough atmosphere for the planet to maintain liquid water. It would be a dark, steamy world.
I doubt that technological life will emerge on planets around red dwarfs. However, when M-type stars are older, their planets might be ideal for colonisation by advanced entities (probably some kind of AI) when they are forced to relocate from a doomed planet.
Nicely put together. The tidaly locked planet might not be so grim, there still might be atmospheric processes that exchange heat between "sun" and "dark" sides. Also the super earths have a problem with us leaving, at least with current technology. I'm not sure where the limit is, but 1G is close to difficult enough to leave but still possible.
The wind speeds would be catastrophic though with the extremes of hot and cold relatively near each other.
1)extensive gravity
2)extensive atmospheric pressure
3)extensive asteroid collition
4)very long days and nights, lenthening upto months.
Hearing about Alex McColgan's ancestry made me briefly hope to figure out the mystery of his accent - I figured hearing the background of a man with a British/Scottish/Swedish/Irish/South African/Chinese/New Zealand/Indian accent would shed some light on that mystery, but nope, still mystified
He's Irish.
I feel like if we would be born in 2x gravity, we would develop much stronger muscles and adapt. But everyone would become more rapidly wrinkled 😂 more than that, I'm not sure if humans could adapt
not to mention everyone with chronic back problem. It would take many generations till we are adapted and evolved to live on that planet
We would eventually adapt but it would take thousands or even over a million years if we just rely on good ol natural selection.
That was such an interesting video, I had no idea of all the different factors that would go into play to live on another planet, thank you very much for this video. I really enjoyed it.
Planet burger
Real
I am hungry now
one way ticket pls
We will find a compatible planet one day. But it won’t be in the lifetimes of anyone watching this video. We have only begun the search. When a true earth like planet is found, scientists will look back to this time the same way as we look back on the science of the 1700s. (If we don’t destroy ourselves first, which is a real possibility also).
The 'rapid development of technology based on previous examples' theory can be a false parallel. And space travel is one of those areas where the parallel just doesn't work. We have been able to fly to the moon for 55 years, but still haven't managed to get any further - in fact we haven't yet even managed to repeat that feat. Whereas in much the same time frame in other technical fields, like computers for instance - expensive, but very simplistic mainframes to the very sophisticated computer in your pocket, and the system it is connected to - or flight - Wright Brothers to long-distance supersonic in even less time - we've made incredible progress. But, in space, the sheer difficulties of the physics and finances involved, put a pretty rigid cap on what progress we can make. Space is very, very difficult - it requires a huge amount of effort and money even to get much beyond geostationary orbit. The power of the rockets will increase, and the internal technology will develop at the same incredible rate as similar tech, but the physical facts of space exploration - distance, radiation, lack of gravity, cost - will stay the same.
@@paulhaynes8045 absolutely spot on
Nah fr. I'll probably be 100 years old by the time even a small step is done and that's the best case scenario
Since red dwarfs are so prevalent and have a wide habitable zone, life adapted to the harsh conditions around a red dwarf may be more prevalent than around our relatively rare type of star
Another problem with super Earths is their surfaces would be much smoother than Earth's. So their oceans would be relatively shallow or, more likely, there would be no protruding land at all. Just a world of shallow waters, and maybe some damp areas on the tips of their highest mountains. It seems that the conditions needed to make technological life possible are pretty restricted.
The question of gravity on a super earth is actually a bit more complicated. The strength of gravity depends on density of mass, not just the amount of it. A planet could potentially be much larger than earth but have similar or even lower gravity at the surface if it was super rich in aluminum and silicates. A smaller planet with a much higher concentration of heavy metals in the core could have higher gravity at the surface. Remember that gravitational force falls off as the inverse square of the distance and on a larger planet you are further from the center.
Just because it's a Super Earth doesn't mean that the sea will be shallow.
That's a very restrictive way of thinking.
@@Zeithri I'm referring to conditions that could spawn technological life.
If the oceans are deep (possibly incredibly deep) then no advanced technological species can evolve (can't use fire). So the margin for error regarding the optimal amount of water on a super Earth is much lower than for Earth sized planets.
@@adamredwine774 A larger planet of low density would not be useful for intelligent life. It would either be largely icy, a water world or gaseous.
There could be outliers, where solar systems form in molecular clouds with a bizarre proportion of elements.
Generally, approximately Earth-sized rocky planets with both dry land and oceans would be proportionately more likely to produce intelligent life than other types of worlds.
If we're looking for microbes, that's a different story. For all we know they could be within Mars, Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Triton, Ganymede, Pluto and Ceres.
Intelligent life, though, must be able to access fire (or some wild chemistry that can break down almost anything). That means a mix of dry lands, wetlands and oceans.
Sorry for talking so much. I love this topic.
It's kind of fun to imagine we would some day travel to an exoplanet ... but it ain't happening!
Earth on a dating app would be like "you look nothing like your profile pic"😅😂🤣