Trappist-1

karov · 2017-02-23 01:19:15

In fact all 7 are habitable by use of some optics - lenses/mirrors.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/na … gfuture%29

Strange/interesting nomenclature record, though - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trappists

Void · 2017-02-23 08:30:39

It is a very good find.

Perhaps the most valuable information is that say within 5-10 years, they will be able to have significant new information about the atmospheric conditions of these planets.

This particular find, excites me in more than one way.

#1, It proves that "Terrestrials" can form outside the habitable zone. These are truly near Earth size masses as I understand it.
Earth Mass +10% or -25%. I speculate that each of them could have Nitrogen dominated atmospheres.

#2, They supposedly formed further out, and migrated inwards, and now are likely tidal locked, and they will have internal heating from tidal interactions with each other, and likely carried volatiles with them when they migrated inward. This system is like Jupiter's system, but with 7 worlds of Earth size, instead of 4 small moon worlds. Also, of course since Trappist-1 shines, of course this will modify these worlds, in ways that Jupiter doe not modify it's moons.

#3, since they will all likely have tidal induced geothermal energy, even the ice coverings which could exist in the colder situations, will likely have underground Oceans/Seas/Lakes/Rivers, in a manner similar to Europa, our Antarctica, and our Greenland.

#4, If we presume a significant "Ice" shell for any of them upon formation, we can speculate that as they migrated inwards and became tidal locked, (It is thought), evaporation pits would form on the side pointing at the radiance off Trappist-1. So, we could have a situation where the 5 outer planets may be dominated by such a scheme today. Maybe not planet 3, but almost certainly 4, 5, 6, and 7.

For #4, such a layout conserves energy, and may help to provide the existence of liquid water. As stated in #3, geothermal energy should melt the bottoms of a layer off ice, say 2-10 miles deep. But if you have an evaporation pit on the "Sunward" side, then rivers off geothermal melted water should flow out from under the ice layer into the evaporation pits.

What becomes of such water if it pools in the bottom of the evaporation pit would be variable.

In the coldest cases, it would refreeze, and then slowly evaporate. So in that case you would have "Hot, lukewarm, or cold water springs", which would overflow and freeze and then evaporate.

In the next less cold case, then you could have ice covered liquid reservoirs, which possibly could remain liquid under the ice by several methods. 1) Geothermal energy. It is possible that lakes would have tidally generated geothermal energy to keep them liquid. 2) Normal visible light could penetrate the ice layer as in "Dry Valley Lakes" and keep the lakes liquid. For a infrared star's light this could be a challenge however, to have enough visible light. 3) Flare events could temporarily raise the temperatures on the surface to above freezing, and this would add liquid water to the lakes.

In the next cold case, I don't expect it to be very cold in the bottoms of evaporation pits. Since the general surface elevation of the evaporation pits will be much below (2-10 miles?) the typical ice cap surface, then the column of atmosphere will be much thicker. If the air pressure on the surface of the ice cap was 1 bar, then the air pressure in the bottoms of evaporation pits could be 2 bar, which would induce a much stronger greenhouse effect, even without special gasses.

*Note, if you did have a 2 bar thick atmosphere, this would be rather protective from U.V. and other radiation, which would be a plus.

So, I think that for planets 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the possibility exists for open water in the evaporation "Pits" on the "Sunward" side of the planets, if they indeed do have thick inventories of ice on their surfaces.

Therefore, as I see it planets 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have a strong possibility of habitability at this time, on parts of their surfaces.

*Not certainty, I am just saying that I think that under certain circumstances, these worlds will be much more habitable than it might be supposed when thinking of a more Earth familiar circumstance.

As for planet #2, I am going to suppose that it might be on average as warm as Earth. We could hope that the circulation of water and air on such a world would moderate it's climate, at least near the terminator.

As for #1, I guess, under certain circumstances it might be habitable, but I am going to guess that it will tend to overheat. I happen to like that story. I imagine an evolution that "Could" create a world I would like to visit.

An ideal outcome might be that the sunward side would be almost entirely shielded by clouds if the #1 world was "Wet". I would think it might be too hot on the day side for human comfort, even so. However the night side would be cool or cold, and with rain and periodic clear sky weather, where you could see the stars, and the other sibling planets. I have sometimes thought about being in a boat on a sea on the night side of such a planet, and looking up into such sky's, and then down at the reflections of the stars, in the wavy water.

Trappest-1 could be one heck of a place, but as I previously stated, the good news is that reality will likely be revealed for this "System".

Last edited by Void (2017-02-23 09:17:22)

karov · 2017-02-23 14:59:10

Smaller stars = smaller proplyds = smaller 'giants'.
TRAPPIST-1 is only 80-ish Jovian masses, i.e. just on the upper borderline of brown dwarf-hood.
The good news is that such stars are REALLY plentiful, massive majority.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-24 08:13:20

The surprising thing is that dim stars have narrow habitable zones, so I'm surprised that you can fit three Earth sized planets in them. The planets would be very close together, you could see one planet from the surface of another, and they won't appear as bright stars, but as worlds just like the Moon as seen from Earth. These planets would gravitationally affect each other too. The tidal forces should be fairly significant, both from the other planets and the fact that these planets would tug each other out of circular orbits, this would change the tidal forces from the central star as the distance changes, you would get the "Io effect" from that! Since all thes planets in close proximity would rule out circular orbits, then the planets cannot be completely tidally locked with their primary either! There are places on the planet where the star would rise and set, bobbing up and down over the same place on the horizon. Volcanoes would be quite prevalent I think, the oceans would tend to rise and set, probably all that volcanic activity would heat up the ocean on the dark side preventing it frm completely freezing.

Void · 2017-02-24 10:24:43

Yes.

Here is an article which may help to define what some of these worlds could be like:
http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/ … ough-life/

Planets Orbiting Red Dwarfs May Stay Wet Enough for Life

Red dwarfs, also known as M stars, are roughly one-fifth as massive as the Sun and up to 50 times fainter. These stars comprise up to 70 percent of the stars in the cosmos, and NASA’s Kepler space observatory has discovered that at least half of these stars host rocky planets that are one-half to four times the mass of Earth.

Recent findings suggest that planets in the habitable zones of red dwarf stars could accumulate significant amounts of water. In fact, each planet could possess about 25 times more water than Earth.

A nice diagram:
www.astrobio.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/cartoon.jpg

..................

I took a look at an older article, which is linked to within the above article:
http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/ … lien-life/

Red Dwarf Stars Might Be Best Places to Discover Alien Life

In his computer simulations, Hansen modeled red dwarfs half the mass of the Sun, with proto-planetary disks extending from 0.05 AU to 1 AU (one astronomical unit is the average distance from the Sun to the Earth) from the stars. The disks contained an amount of gas and dust equal to six times the mass of Earth. He then looked at how many planets developed after 10 million years. Of particular interest to Hansen were the so-called habitable zones of these stars, the areas where planets are potentially warm enough to sustain liquid water — and potentially life — on their surfaces. Red dwarfs are relatively cold stars, which means their habitable zones are closer than Mercury is to the Sun — just 0.1 to 0.2 (AU. Hansen found most of the resulting planetary systems comprise between four and six surviving planets inside 0.5 AU, although the largest number went as high as 10. In addition, the red dwarfs usually possessed one or two planets within their habitable zones, which extended from 0.23 to 0.44 AU. “A high frequency of potentially habitable planets makes it more likely that we could actually find one that is habitable,” Hansen said. Moreover, Hansen also found that planets in the habitable zones of red dwarf stars could accumulate significant amounts of water. In fact, each could possess roughly 25 times more water than Earth has as a whole. All in all, he noted these results “broadly support the notion that habitable planets are plentiful around M dwarfs in the solar neighborhood.”

So, that above modeling was done for a larger mass red dwarf. I wonder what modeling a 80 Jupiter mass star such as Trappist-1 would tend to show?

Reviewing the diagram again:
www.astrobio.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/cartoon.jpg

.............

Returning to the link that Karov originally posted:
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/na … gfuture%29

So the probability is that each of the worlds started out as Ice Worlds, and as they were drawn inward, starlight and tidal heating will have modified each of them from that.

Some of them may be tidal locked, particularly those closer to the star, but some of the close ones may rotate at speeds similar to our Mercury or Venus.

For each case there could be hazards which make them uninhabitable.
1) Atmosphere eroded.
2) Run away greenhouse effect, per the example of Venus.
3) Atmospheric collapse due to tidal locking and lack of sufficient solar energy.

#1 Trappist-1 is supposedly rather well behaved, not very much flare activity?
I also have problems with those who claim that red dwarf worlds will have their atmospheres eroded, simply because Venus has an atmosphere, without a geo-magnetic field. It has an induced magnetic field which protects it well enough. Logic says that the harder plasma is blown against the atmosphere of Venus, the stronger the induced magnetic field would be. So, I am not convinced that the atmospheres will be eroded away.

#2 Run away greenhouse? I am wondering if it could happen. If any of these worlds were too warm, then they would likely have reflective cloud decks. Since Trappist-1 is an infrared star, wouldn't its photo spectrum largely be effectively reflected back into space? Further, I don't know if this star has the U.V. to split the water in the atmosphere, as apparently happened to Venus. Maybe, but I think it is less likely than for a Venus like terrestrial around our sun.

#3 Atmospheric collapse? (Nice Video)
http://www.space.com/35782-trappist-1-p … video.html
Looking at that video, it seems to me that even the outer planets may have sufficient geothermal process, circulation of water under the ice, and atmosphere to prevent atmospheric collapse. It is also more possible that the outer planets might not be tidal locked. However the video seems to say that it is likely that all the planets are tidal locked.

.........

Carbon Dioxide cycle, on a pseudo-Europa terrestrial in the Trappist-1 system?

So, if we suppose that of the planets e, f, g, and h, any one of them might have an planetary ocean which is partially or totally covered by an ice layer, then we can wonder how CO2 behaves on those worlds.

I am going to speculate that typically CO2 will freeze as a solid on the night side, for any of these worlds if they are tidal locked. If they are not tidal locked, then as in Mars, CO2 may freeze at the poles of these planets. It will of course depend quite a lot on the nature of any atmosphere.

It seems that all of these worlds will be tidal heated, so, any ice layer is likely to have a water layer under it, at least in places.

So, if heavy CO2 ice accumulates on top of a floating layer of water ice, I would expect vertical convection. That is the CO2 would tend to be redistributed downward under the water ice, perhaps the ice pans will break, and turn over. And then there will be horizontal spreading, as well. Sort of a glaciation action, if there is not sufficient water under the ice to allow vertical turn over.

So, the CO2 should cycle in this manner freezing out on the dark side or polar surface ice, and being returned to the water table, and then being returned to the atmosphere on the day side or by "Sparkling Water" eruptions.

So, this would be another method by which the dark side is heated. As Carbon Dioxide vapor phase changes to CO2 fog and snow.

So, there should be a ice fog layer above the surface of the night side, at least in places, and that should be protective of heat loss, if the area is too cold to support ice fogs of water. Just speculation. Something like that happens on Mars in the winter of ice caps. Polar Hood?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2017-02-24 11:55:24)

Void · 2017-02-24 17:03:56

Karov originally said:

In fact all 7 are habitable by use of some optics - lenses/mirrors.

One of the weird worlds that I think could be very habitable would be a giant Europa with at least some of an ice shell on the sunward side.

In this case, I will specify one that is entirely covered in ice, and is gravitationally locked to Trappest-1. Under the eternal noon sun, perhaps the temperature being just a bit below freezing.

Since we believe that this world will be warmed in part by tidal heating, then just like Europa a deep ocean under the ice.

If we are wishing for a world, then the sea bottom will be exposed, to the water of the ocean. There will be no high pressure ice layer.

The only way to consider this world "Habitable" would be by the definitions which might qualify Europa.

However this world should not have dangerous radiation, except if Trappist-1 flares.

And as you mentioned mirrors, in this case we can build a house anywhere on the day side, and use simple stationary mirrors to heat that house. I suppose you might need fireproofing, in the case where a flare might elevate temperatures.

There would be at least two other forms off energy available to the inhabitants beyond solar. There would be wind, which of course is also solar driven. And down in the ocean, likely the lower layers would be saltier, and warmer.

Your minerals would have to come from the sea bottom, or the salt water itself, or asteroids and comets if there were any.

So, a tidal locked partially frozen water world, is very possibly much more useful than a "Water World" with no land or ice surface.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2017-02-24 17:16:31)

karov · 2017-02-24 17:43:28

Void,

in such compact system, it'd be quite easy to move volatiles down vs rocks and metals up ... the stellar gravity well, by using momentum exchange loops.

So excess/lack of water shall be balanced out.

Void · 2017-02-24 17:55:30

Yes, OK, Good!

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-25 12:12:53

It would be more feasible to build a ringworld around this star with seven solid worlds to build from, the habitable zone is much closer to the star, there would be less stress on the ringworld due to centrifugal force, and some of the planet's mass could be used to build a track that an inner ringworld could spin around on. Shadow squares even closer to the primary could provide a regular 24-hor day night cycle. This would be easier to build with this system, than a Niven style ringworld around a G-class star. prior to that, we could still use shadow squares, but in this case to shadow an entire planet. This would tend to bring the habital zone closer if we did that!

karov · 2017-02-25 18:04:54

Void wrote:

Yes, OK, Good!

and with ... optics, incl. josh storrs hall weather machine, the sunlit vs night side becomes question unsubstantial.

Void · 2017-02-26 11:59:08

Tom, yes, a ring world is something that could be tried. However, I might consider it to be vandalism, depending on the natures of the 7 or more ~Earth sized worlds. Even if their natures are in general requiring terraforming, I would think quite a long time before tearing them apart to make a Ring World, which by it's nature would not be as enduring as the 7 or more worlds.

After all Trappist-1 will likely last a Trillion years, and it is possible that these worlds will remain geologically active for very long time due to tidal forces.

Karov, yes, those things are true. For the "Dark Sides" as well, it can be remembered that wind power and geothermal power are very likely options even before the advanced methods you champion.

One idea I have considered in the past is how humans might convert an ice covered water world into a "Wood" covered one.
It sounds somewhat silly, but using your methods to enhance the worlds climate, and make it relatively stable, I might consider that possibility that humans could manipulate life forms, to make a "Tree", which grows into a floating wooden platform. Obviously with flotation bubbles inside. In order to inhibit wild fires, then this platform would only project above water in places. Perhaps having a shallow "Lagoon" inside each one.

One reason we do not have that on Earth, is that other organisms would evolve to be predators of such an organism, and of course there are strong tides and storms. In general, mangroves may be the closest that nature has ever come to such an organism.

The seas do not have very many organisms with cellulose, so to opportunities to develop such a floating community do not exist.

Also such organisms being pounded onto the shores of land would be doomed.

So, however if you could engineer such an organism, and if it could tolerate icy conditions, you could gradually "Grow" a surface of "Land" to replace the ice, as you used your H.W.M. to warm the environment and melt the ice.

Just a fun thought.

We do have the question, why do we want to build other worlds inhabited by "Humanoids"?

There is the Polyneasia idea. Populate "X" number of worlds, until it becomes virtually impossible for them to all be exterminated by some force. Then as one collapses culturally, another will be reviving. So basically an eternal (Subject to the aging of the universe), human civilization.

In the Polyneasia model, you could even populate a world with a deviation from our current type of human. Perhaps Pseudo-Neanderthals. Perhaps you would not even let them know how they came to be there. The objective would be to see if something new and useful might happen.

Then there can be the "Maximum Chimps and Typewriters Concept". Maybe if you make a gazillion ring worlds, with a gazillion Chimps with typewriters in each one, a wonderful new typed up idea will appear.

Of course then someone has to recognize that it is not banana's.

So, why would we do all of this?

Maybe for lack of anything better to do?

Last edited by Void (2017-02-26 12:19:36)

Antius · 2017-02-26 16:24:15

As of yet, we know little about these worlds. It is not reliably known that they are solid, they could be mini gas planets. Talking about terraforming is premature. But it is fun to speculate. The world on the outer edge of the zone is probably the best bet, as it is less vulnerable to stellar storms.

Jupiter's inner moon is subject to severe tidal flexing between the gravity of Jupiter and the other Galileans. The same thing could happen here.

At 2.5%C this star system is a millennia away. This is within the capability of fission fragment rockets.

Last edited by Antius (2017-02-26 16:26:40)

Void · 2017-02-26 22:17:07

True Antius...But maybe rocky planets per this article. At least 6 of them.
http://www.skymania.com/wp/2017/02/cool … tml/11848/

Where I have a topic about reviving a Mammoth like creature, you can find reading that indicates that they intend to build artificial wombs, and use skin cells from Asian elephants, to generate Egg cells, which they will place altered DNA into.

I mention this because apparently they have already gestated a mouse through about 1/2 of a mouse pregnancy, in such an artificial womb. Obviously they have a lot of work to do.

You mentioned a propulsion system. I will cite the artificial womb, and robots, to suggest that indeed, it might not be totally ridiculous to think that humans or a humanoid creature could be established on one of the planets.

I am holding out for some kind of a breakthough such as this: (Brace yourself)
Hydrino:
http://energyfanatics.com/2016/03/31/su … e-in-2017/

Now don't get me wrong, I think that the odds are that the Hydrino will prove to be false.
I am however puzzled about how the perpetrators could continue on with the idea for so long, if they did not believe in it themselves.

But I am not a Hydrino champion. I am only suggesting that until a unified theory of everything exists, we can suspect that some odd things may be found in the shadows.

Why do I like the Hydrino? Well, if somehow you could get energy from Hydrogen by converting it to dark matter, it is obvious that you could make a magnetic scoop starship, and travel anywhere with a readily available power supply.

But I don't think Hydrino's are going to be real.

But something else might eventually be real.

And when and if that happens, the idea of human travel to the stars will change greatly.

Last edited by Void (2017-02-26 22:30:55)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-26 22:48:10

Tom, yes, a ring world is something that could be tried. However, I might consider it to be vandalism, depending on the natures of the 7 or more ~Earth sized worlds. Even if their natures are in general requiring terraforming, I would think quite a long time before tearing them apart to make a Ring World, which by it's nature would not be as enduring as the 7 or more worlds.

A ringworld around Trappist-1 would be 3,436,932 kilometers in radius. If we made it 12,800 kilometers wide, the area of a cylinder of the same height as Earth from pole to pole is the same as a sphere the size of Earth. The circumference of Earth is 40,212 km, the Circumference of a ringworld that is 3,436,932 km in radius is 21,594,881, that is 537 times the circumference of the Earth, therefore it is 537 times the surface area of the Earth, For comparison, Saturn has 95 times the surface area of the Earth, if you could live on its cloud tops. So roughly it would have the surface area of 5.3 Saturns! You are not going to get that if you leave them as planets. Also the planets are tidally locked, only a small area of each planet, if any would be habitable for humans, the rest would be too cold or too hot. We could regulate the temperature of the ringworld through shading and active refrigeration, something we can't as easily do with a planet. But a ringworld has a lot of surface area compared to its mass to radiate heat from.

karov · 2017-07-12 08:36:46

http://nautil.us/blog/i-built-a-stable- … table-zone

SpaceNut · 2017-07-12 18:50:07

The equation is missing a complexity of communications factor as distance and speed to what is communicated tells us how soon the communications can occur but also with what complexity of signaling that it will occur under.
Morse code
analog modulated
analog Frequency modulated
laser modulated digital or high speed morse code.

karov · 2017-07-13 07:08:36

SpaceNut,

don't understand what you mean?

SpaceNut · 2017-07-13 18:30:45

To know if we have found Extraterrestrial Intelligence we would be looking for the tall tail signs of there communications as they would be looking in our direct for the same. These would be the indirect noise of life such as recieving a TV or radio signal and being able to decode what they are recieving.

Some of this has to do with the distance to what we are calling a possible as that is age and it is that age that would allow for creation of the technology for these modes of what we might be hearing if we did recieve it.

Where its electromagnetic waves or light its distance that will cause the not recieving a signal from the background noise as the power evel to make distance less of an issue is hugh.

c = d / t
where
c = speed of light (light's speed is always denoted as c)
d = distance traveled
t = time it takes to go that distance

We do know that there are ways to slow as well as speed up light and electromagnetic waves but all in all they are the same.

Since the only source of intense energy is the light from a sun then the only means to communicate and have it recieved would be by a blocking method as you try to establish a line of path to the objective in such communications.

http://www.popsci.com/have-we-detected- … stant-star

this is sort of what we would be doing but how do we decode what we are recieving is the question.

Void · 2019-01-26 18:12:40

Waking up this topic on Trappist-1, due to new information. And to complain just a little about science and the media.

https://www.space.com/43093-trappist-1- … phere.html
I don' t seem to be able to copy and paste from it, so, I will just say what I believe it says.

The inner most 6 planets are now believed to not have their primordial atmospheres, but evolved ones. This would indicate that they do not have a Hydrogen signature in their atmospheres similar to a gas giant planet. The seventh planet is undefined in this regard so far, at this time.

My recollection of science and the media reporting of it, has for some time emitted negative notions about Red Dwarf planets, such as;

-The habitable zone is so narrow, planets would rarely be in it.
-These planets will have Hydrogen atmospheres.
-These planets will have no atmospheres at all, as the solar flares will carry it all off into space.
-A recent one is that the planets, (or many of the planets), have so much water that they will not be suitable for life.

For Trapist-1 and it's 7 planets this is mostly wrong.

Of course some of the inner planets are likely to be hot.

3 are thought to have the equivalent illumination per heating as Venus, Earth, and Mars.

If these planets were rotating, then perhaps there would be a significant similarity. However, I expect that if they are tidal locked, that will change things. The Earth similar will be rather hot on its sunward bullseye, and rather cold on its far night side. The terminator might be relatively nice, but perhaps very windy in general. The Mars equivalent will be warm to hot on its sunward bullseye, cold of course on the night side, and it's terminator would be colder than the Earth similar one. In fact the terminator could be glaciated, but as you approached the sunward bullseye center, it should be habitable.

The Venus equivalent would be a wild card. If run away greenhouse, then too bad. But as the stars heat is mostly infrared, any cloud deck would tend to reflect this long wave radiation back into space? Maybe? I think? And should the night side be sufficiently cool, then there would be rain to the surface or at least verga. This could keep the planet cooler than you might think.

Could this work for the planets further in from the Venus similar planet? It seem very iffy, but who knows.

As for the planets that are on the cold outside of the habitable zone, I hold hope for them in the case where, solar flares which occur with many red dwarfs (And in this case seem not to carry off the atmospheres), for small periods of time will raise the temperatures of the sunward side of the planet and perhaps cause melting of ice. This then could lead to ice covered bodies of water, and maybe even some open water.

As for this one again:
-A recent one is that the planets, (or many of the planets), have so much water that they will not be suitable for life.
I think that even though some of these planets may be ocean covered, and the water so deep that pressure makes a kind of ice surrounding the core. I am going to speculate that that ice might circulate up and down from thermal effects, and would possibly be like glaciation on the surface of our planet where it would bring dirt and dissolved minerals up to the level where the ice turns to liquid water.

And I haven't even mentioned yet that these worlds may experience tidal heating of there solid and liquid parts. Which might make them very geologically active.

…..

Above, I may have veered a bit too optimistic, but I do want to make a point that when we listen to media representation of science, they tend to go to the sensational, and often to the dark view of possibilities. They are trying to make a buck after all, so maybe not much of the time are they careful not to exaggerate or push a notion too far without sufficient evidence.

I think we should be careful about what we are told about objects in our solar system.

I am very dubious about the solar wind carrying off the atmosphere of Mars. I think that free Hydrogen is easily carried off. And I suppose some Oxygen and Nitrogen.

But for the Hydrogen, we have the use of evidence that heavy water has been concentrated on Mars. And that seems to be a measured truth. But the question can be asked, how did heavy water concentrate on Mars? My opinion is that Hydrogen may come and Hydrogen may go. The sun apparently puts Hydrogen on the Moon, some maybe to trapped at the shaded poles. What about Mars? Does Hydrogen get injected into the Martian atmosphere from the Solar wind? I can't tell you for sure. I am guessing some does. So then is the Hydrogen on Mars from the formation period of Mars, some impacting asteroids? Could some of it also be from the solar wind? If so, then the proportion of heavy water on Mars to that of light water on Mars may be a false signal, as we would expect more heavy Hydrogen to be retained if it is from any source. I have already allowed that Hydrogen does likely get lifted off the planet by the Solar wind.

So then if I might be even partly correct the calculations of how much water Mars has lost will be exaggerated by an assumption that the Hydrogen reacting to the solar wind was all from the formation of the planet, and none was from the solar wind during 4.5 Billion years.
And if that is miscalculated, then there may be a lesser case for the Martian atmosphere having been stripped off by the solar wind.

And I add, if the solar winds are so damaging to planets without complete magnetic field protection, how is it that many of the Trappist-1 planets may have 25 times the water that Earth does by proportion?

The planets have UV flairs which should be able to shred the water, and the solar winds should be able to strip off the Hydrogen.

I guess that could leave Oxygen and then Ozone, but then how do those persist without protective Magnetic fields? We presume that the planets may have ineffective magnetic fields as they do not rotate as fast as Earth, and the solar wind may be 1000 times as strong as our solar wind at times.

There is more to learn obviously. We need more information. Maybe they have mega magnetic fields for some reason.

However, I expect that the answer could be that there will be an equally strong induced magnetic field in the upper atmospheres of these planets, that will protect them to some degree, such as occurs for Venus.

I wonder what the auroras are like on those planets?
Done.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-01-26 18:50:35)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-02-23 01:19:15

Trappist-1

#2 2017-02-23 08:30:39

Re: Trappist-1

#3 2017-02-23 14:59:10

Re: Trappist-1

#4 2017-02-24 08:13:20

Re: Trappist-1

#5 2017-02-24 10:24:43

Re: Trappist-1

#6 2017-02-24 17:03:56

Re: Trappist-1

#7 2017-02-24 17:43:28

Re: Trappist-1

#8 2017-02-24 17:55:30

Re: Trappist-1

#9 2017-02-25 12:12:53

Re: Trappist-1

#10 2017-02-25 18:04:54

Re: Trappist-1

#11 2017-02-26 11:59:08

Re: Trappist-1

#12 2017-02-26 16:24:15

Re: Trappist-1

#13 2017-02-26 22:17:07

Re: Trappist-1

#14 2017-02-26 22:48:10

Re: Trappist-1

#15 2017-07-12 08:36:46

Re: Trappist-1

#16 2017-07-12 18:50:07

Re: Trappist-1

#17 2017-07-13 07:08:36

Re: Trappist-1

#18 2017-07-13 18:30:45

Re: Trappist-1

#19 2019-01-26 18:12:40

Re: Trappist-1

Board footer