this is all caused by one large misconception, that any planet in the "habitable" zone (which is actually called the goldilocks zone) is habitable, which is not true.
may not be habitable to us, but it can to species if adapted. Can't just put mars or Venus in our habitable zone with their current problem. That's not a good argument. it can take billions of years for a planet to start to do anything regarding even fraction of life.
I think it's fair to type that some planets have their own separate habitable zones, where conditions are stable enough for life. A star might have a habitable zone for Earth-like planets, but not all lively-hood objects have the same characteristics as the Earth. Thicker atmospheres require a further placement from the star, varying of other percentages with the ingredients necessary for the chemical reactions. Some require completely different parameters to make them habitable. I suppose this can be a topic for another discussion.
Also, life using ammonia or methane as a solvent would have habitable zones further away from its star, because ammonia and methane are liquid at colder temperatures than water.
It’s also possible that on planets with different conditions from Earth, other forms of life could evolve to suit that environment, and so what might not be habitable to us could be habitable to them. Think about it - Earth is filled with water, and we’ve evolved to use water to suit that. But water is the universal solvent - to some alien life forms, water could be deadly and dissolve them, making Earth uninhabitable to them. Perhaps we can’t live on some “habitable” worlds because we aren’t suited for them, but they could have developed their own life forms that are.
Not habitable for "Earth's Inhabitants" at least. It's possible that there are lifeforms there that evolve in order to adapt in those planets' environment. As long as the environment is not very extreme, it's still possible for lifeforms to to exist and thrive.
Water worlds are perfectly habitable. Earth used to be one. It's just that *humans* can't populate a water world because they live on land. Also, there could be lots of rocky exoplanets that aren't too big, and we just have a harder time detecting small exoplanets. Edit: Atmospheres and oceans can help tidally locked planets have more even temperatures (tidally locked planets still aren't ideal, and red dwarfs still hve the problem of solar storms).
A little rough around the edges, but I liked the discussion! I even learned some fun stuff for my own little worldbuilding project! I would like to add, though, that just because a planet isn't exactly like Earth doesn't mean it can't be inhabited. *"Earth-like" and "Habitable" are not synonyms.* Any of these worlds in the habitable zones could feasibly be terraformed or have bio-domes, and serve as extrasolar colonies if and when we get ourselves off Earth for good. Likewise, just because a planet isn't habitable by our standards doesn't mean that life of some kind cannot exist on its surface; it might be very different from Terran life, but if conditions and components are present, it isn't impossible to imagine alien life arising on these worlds.
@@MajorCosmos_2048 No what?, Ohhhhhhhhh you're saying NO! To people who are saying that astrocat doesn't have great science videos, yea man, yep yep cool cool
The fact is, we don't know for certain yet because even the best telescopes and other devices can only tell us so much. That's why there is so much more emphasis right now on gathering information on them, as opposed to developing the technology to send and support a person there. While other countries may feel differently, the U.S. is a firm believer in "be prepared" and "know before you go". After all, even ten light years or less is a long way to go only to find out the destination isn't what you thought it was. When push comes to shove and things start getting less comfortable on earth, there will be more drive to move outwards. But realistically, barring sudden breakthroughs that make it easier and cheaper, our generations will be very lucky to see a manned Mars landing in our lifetime.
Ocean planets are not a problem, we can just live on ships. Same for tidally locked ones, those will most likely require some work, but people still can live there. Super earths are not a problem per se too, make it harder to get out, but not to get in. Even oxygen can be created via anaerobic bacteria. Toxic or no atmosphere, not enough water and radiation will be the major issues during colonization
I think super earths could actually be a huge problem. Lots of people can't maintain consciousness above 3Gs, and even then, one fall weighing 600 lbs is no joke.
Ocean planet has a bigger atmosphere and can be like Venus ... So I don't think this would be good (risk of runaway greenhouse too). Desert planet can be habitable in someway, but for primitive life maybe.
are you kidding?! tidally locked planets would kill u since their stars often have violent flares and even if u can live on some of them theres no way in hell i do that living on a small strip with eternal night and ice on one side and opposite on the other. not many people will sign up for that
They should refer to these as habitable zone planets or potential liquid water planets. Most of what we've been seeing are either: 1. Receive more starlight than Earth and are therefore most hot houses where only extremophiles could thrive on the arid and decidedly not moist surface (example: Venus over a billion years ago) 2. Receive much more starlight than Earth and are therefore literally hell (Venus after the resurfacing event and CO2 atmosphere) 3. Are super Earth's more than ~2 Earth masses and retain thick helium atmospheres that probably make surface conditions too hot. 4. Are much too large and not dense enough and therefore mini-neptunes with literally a significant fraction of their volume being gases 5. Are around M-type stars that may cause too severe flares and definitely will make the planet tidally locked (that may not be terrible though).
Just something to share; A rocky planet can have an extremely thick atmosphere, making a rocky world look like a gas giant but it actually has a surface. Plus, if it’s big enough, the pressure could be decent (So the atmosphere can be similar to Earths atmosphere.) Making it hospitable. If you’ve found anything against this, do let me know.
Venus is in the habitable zone but it's so hot there due to it's atmosphere that the Soviet Unions Vanera Probs which were built to resist the harsh climate & atmospheric pressure on the surface that they only lasted an hour before the equipment failed.
There is two different gilderock zones : conservative and optimist : The first is 0.9 to 1.2 UA the second between 0.6 to 2.5 the second one is for primitive life and venus lost his tectonic plates, causing a greenhouse effect and his magnetic field was defectueous.
Hello. I am not an AstroCat hater, but I really dislike the narration in the background. I like the planets having subtitles on their side with a good background music instead. I don’t know why did that change(I think it’s probably because of increased users from TikTok which had pathetically lost their attention span), but I just would like to say, do not please them. As a fan who watched this channel for more than 2 years, I have enjoyed the content in the past way more than the new ones. Like this comment if you agree with what I have said, if you don’t, please dislike it.
Based on our knowledge of animals and plants living in extreme conditions on this planet, it seems likely that whether an exoplanet is mostly land or mostly water, life can evolve and adapt to survive extreme conditions on them.
The Factors that makes a exoplanet habitable 1:Mass equal ore less more than earth 2:Gravity over equal and 2x more 3:Distance, in order for a habitable planet to exist, its distance must be 1.00 AU or 1.12 AU away from its star, 4:Size, the size of a planet must be 2x or equal to the size of earth, 5:Rotational Period, in order to find a habitable planet with day night cycle, is to had a 24 hours rotation, or 18 less, (without rotation the temperature wont stabilize in different sides)
And I'm pretty sure that's just the initial list. There may be many other factors that will lead to the planet being habitable for humans. You also forgot that it needs to have a strong enough magnetic field and radiation belts to reduce the stellar wind's stripping influence on the atmosphere, lest we don't get an atmosphere and thus won't be able to breathe outside of a spacesuit.
5:15 so planets outside the habitable zone could be habitable? 6:11 Destroyer/Observer/Creatir of Worlds. 7:12 phon 7:32 that’s what it has been leading up to
Planets of all sizes are going to be evenly distributed across the universe, and it is way too premature to conclude which size is the most common. Super Earths are just currently more easily found, because they are bigger and more massive. Moreover, I think we are only able to detect them around Red Dwarfs, since those stars are relatively small and dim. It's no coincidence that the first planets we detected were massive gas giants. Size and mass matters, because we cannot see exoplanets directly, we can only detect their gravitational influence, and occasionally a periodic dimming of the host star (If the passing planet has an atmosphere, the star's light spectrum will also change slightly during such transits).
It’s just that we haven’t discovered it yet, plus having intelligent life is just a bonus, all u need to be habitable is to have atleast some form of life
Another thing to note is that our sun is a yellow dwarf. Yellow dwarfs are pretty rare. And we don't know how important a star being one is towards it being safe for us. Red dwarfs for example will probably randomly kill us. Where as our sun is less likely to do that.
This is without keeping in mind our planet is in fact double planet system. Which is important part of supporting geological processes, magnetic field, which is important parts on supporting our atmosphere. Bruh
What most people miss about habitable planets is if they're habitable, where did they get their water? Usually, you find water past the snow line. So if they're habitable, where did they get WATER. Earth got water from by ice giants flinging water ice meteors towards Earth. So if there's no ice giant they're gonna be like mars.
These are the list that requirements order them for suitable for us: - It wouldn't be small because the gravity so weak that the molecules on their atmosphere would easily reach escape velocity. - It wouldn't be large because gravity pulls towards you. - The atmosphere won't be thin because the UV radiation would increase drastically and ozone layer would be also perish. - The atmosphere won't be thick because the atmosphere would prevent sunlight travelling towards the ground. - The planet wouldn't be dominated by oceans because it has less ideal colonies. - The planet wouldn't be dominated by land because it lacks of agriculture and transportation. - The temperature wouldn't cool or hot because the vegetation would destroyed. - The planet orbit wouldn't be elliptic because the natural disasters would kill you. - The daylight cycle would be similar to Earth in order to meditate the ratio of water and temparetures. - The planet wouldn't be tidally locked because of the temperatures. - The photosynthesis wouldn't be different on Earth because it lacks or overly of carbon dioxide. - The star wouldn't be red dwarf because the solar flares is strong and causing tidal locking. - The star wouldn't be white or blue dwarf because they use hydrogen too much that it is easily runaway the Goldilocks zone and also have shortened lifespan therefore can't evolve species much more complex. - The planet wouldn't have gas giant in the habitable zone because they disturbing smaller objects flings towards to candidate planets and also altered their orbit. - The planet must not contain very harmful microbiological life. - The planet must contain edible vegetation for humans. - The planet must not contain larger predators it won't kill many humans. - The atmosphere won't any have that could toxic to humans.
The biggest problem with finding another "home for humaity" is that any exoplanet we can survive on without needing spacesuits will likey already be inhabited. Otherwise how else will its atmosphere accumulate the oxygen we need? And the problem with setting foot on an already-inhabited planet, is extremely high likelyhood that the microbiology of that planet would wreak havoc on our bodies, killing us within weeks if not days.
I feel like some parts of the script are written by ChatGPT, idk what about this but they just feel a little unnatural. Especially the description, i REALLY doubt that there's actually gonna be discussions with leading experts on a semi professional space channel
@@dagestan7734 yeah I thinks he’s really being bias because he’s implying that land and water worlds are too hostile for life but that’s not true it depends on the spot in the habitable zone that’s supports life
While amazing we are able to find so many rocky planets both of the right size and within the habitable zone. This is more of a step one. Step two would be analyzing the atmospheres of these planets, which is something scientists have only just begun doing. Another problem is that we just don't know if life can exist on certain planets like either tidally locked planets or ocean planets. While the planet hunting front has been doing an amazing job, less than a millionth of the planets within our own galaxy have been found.
This what you talk about it’s a kind rare Earth hypothesis, just a hypothesis among others, because habitable planets could be very resilient, for example there is studies showing that’s possible atmospheric distribution in tidally lock red dwarf exoplanet that would make it habitable.
Fun fact, its beleved that both Venus and Mars are in the goldylocks zone, (albit in the extream areas). the fact that these guys exist should be evidence that we should be more skeptikle.
Perhaps not that soon in the future, otherwise it may dissuade newer generations from gaining space related interests that could help figure that stuff out
The "habitable zone" is a zone that is considered habitable based on what worked for life on Earth, particularly ideal for liquid water (as this is the universal solvent of all living things here). A planet may be in the habitable zone, but that doesn't mean it has the conditions life on Earth has evolved to survive in, such as: -An atmosphere with 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon and 0.04% other trace gases -An atmosphere thick enough to protect the planet's surface from harmful radiation -An atmosphere thin enough to prevent runaway greenhouse effects -Earth-like gravity -The presence of water at all -Photosynthetic systems But then again, we are looking for what supports our understanding of life. Who knows what else may be out there that evolved under other conditions we have not?
Thanks. It irks me that all and sundry exoplanets are hailed as "habitable", with caveats like "Oh, they have this one little drawback, but there may be ways to overcome it..." Sure! Tell that to Mars and Venus!
its more of the problem of that it needs to be Carbon habitable rather than just being habitable because any planet could be habitable with the way life could evolve, titan being one of them.
Clearly. The odds that everything went exactly the way we need them to go is extraordinary slim. However, these are the worlds that are the easiest to terraform and colonize. What, you thought humans could spread life on those worlds without putting any work into it?
The part in this video where I don’t know what screen the voice or whatever the voices saying wait, 45,000,000,000 km is funny also that is not quite Neptunes orbit either
I think switching Venus to Earth's location is gonna do some complicated stuff to the carbon and sulfuric acid (and therefore water) cycles. I'm not saying it would become habitable but if you can get it cool enough to stop baking the carbon out of rocks and maybe let the sulfuric rain reach the surface, weathering might actually start removing the CO2 atmosphere which could allow some of the sulfuric acid to convert back to water. At the very least you might have some semblance of the carbon silicate cycle start cooling the planet back to merely an absolutely terrible place to live rather than a vision of hell over a couple hundred million years or something.
There's definitely a lot less habitable planets than one would think, the habitable zone alone isn't enough for a planet to sustain life, otherwise Mars would have just as much life as Earth. On the other hand, there's some that believe Earth is the only planet in the entire universe that can sustain life, which is also untrue. I'd estimate only about 10% of "habitable" planets actually have life, and for most of them, it's microbial life, more advanced life like plants and fungi is super rare, animal life is even more rare, and intelligent life is ultra rare. The good news is, the universe is huge, so the odds that there are other planets with humanlike life are extremely high. Even within the Milky Way Galaxy and other galaxies in the Local Group. I bet there's an alien race in the Triangulum Galaxy whose inhabitants know of Earth but many thin it's not habitable or if it is, it's inhabited by giant bugs and can't sustain human life.
I have been saying this since they started finding these exoplanets. Until they find something like Earth around a Sun type star , then I take it with a pinch of salt. Also the fact they orbit in a few days also puts me off.
The problem is people only want to look at red dwarf because it is easier to find planets around from and they are the worst years that last days, tidally locked getting bombarded with solar flares.
i really dont know if people believe that some exoplanets are habitable. bcuz that not even what they tell us, these exoplanets are candidates to have life, being in the goldilock zone its just another detail in favor of their hypothesis, and also planets believed to hospitable arent even exclusive exoplanets or in the goldilock zone. like Europa and Titan.
Re: moving Mars to Earth's orbit? I think you might get enough CO2 in the atmosphere to allow liquid water on the surface somewhere other than the deepest canyons as the icecaps and other trapped CO2 and water escapes solid confinement. Where Mars would run into some pretty big issues is that it lacks tectonics. Maybe occasional volcanism (and moving it would certainly generate some off gassing but nothing to properly recycle crust). Therefore I predict Mars would end up with actually a bit much CO2 and go from being too cold and freezing out CO2, to too hot and potentially getting close to a moist greenhouse, though the low water availability near the surface should prevent an actual moist greenhouse. I think you'd see some water for awhile but I don't know that it would be stable in the long run.
If an exoplanet orbits in its star's habitable zone and has the right mass and composition, even if it is not habitable itself, it could still be turned into one by terraforming. It would take time and effort, but if a civilization is capable of reaching the stars, it is also fully capable of scouring around for an unlimited amount of resources to be used to modify any kind of environment. A planet has no water? You can drain it from interstellar comets or just send them to the planet themselves. A planet has too much atmosphere? Just suck the part in excess away or put some reactors to turn it into rocks or useful materials. The real obstacle could be the lack of a magnetosphere. That is a problem which is not really easy to solve. It would also be good to have or to be able to start plate tectonics, since that feature allows the planet to recycle itself on the long time.
A planet may even be habitable for complex life but this life's biochemistry is different enough from ours that we can't eat anything which lives there.
Since back then I don't really think many Kepler planets that was found on habitable zones are promising, because: - We don't know the masses of those planets. They could have large iron core or dominated by ice/water. While their radius are known, their composition is still unknown since there are no certain data of their masses. - Their radius are pretty big. Many of them are basically larger than Earth. This is related to point one, if it had large iron core it would have crushingly high gravity, if it had global super ocean then it would be way less than ideal to place colony, much less for mini ice giants. Even if it assumed with Earth-like proportions (70 percent rocks, 30 percent iron) it is still a problem because high gravity, though not as painful if it is an iron-dominated planets like Mercury. - The most promising ones I can think of are Kepler-186 f, Kepler-62 f and Kepler-442 b, based on their physical characteristics. Both Kepler-62 f and Kepler-186 f must have thick atmosphere if they have to retain habitability, since they located at the outer edge of their respective habitable zone. Kepler-442 b don't need as thick as Kepler-62 f and Kepler-186 f, but the way we don't know all of their atmosphere still remain a roadblock. Note: These all assume if they are terrestrial and not oceanic or mini ice giant planets.
Super ocean planet does not exist, Its impossible For a planet to be covered in Large quantity of water in the surface, Even if The planet is in goldilock zone It still cant. Water only cover 1% - 4% of a habitable Young Exoplanet and the remaining Of it are surface desert or Rocky Land, Its also highly unlikely for A young planet To have formed A stable atmosphere to form thick clouds and rain, basically It depends of the Location of The planet from the star and How stable is the Atmosphere, there is a Planet that has high water vapour rather than pure water, it theoretically possible Than super ocean planet Edit : Life Will always find a way basically to Live in high gravity, High metal planet don't have that High-gravity as near gas Giant, because Its dominated by iron and rocks, the core would be smaller Than the average core of gas Giant and also less denser to have too high gravity.
It's kinda weird to me this misconception... Like, did people really think we discovered planets with alien life? If that were to be true then you wouldn't be like "oh nice" but rather "WHAT?! this changes everything". I refuse to believe an important part of the population saw those headlines and really believed there were life in space, without doubting it considerably.
Exoplanetology in 2014: "Maybe we can find a new Earth :D" Exoplanetology in 2024: "The fact that Earth is habitable is a miracle of probabilities and coincidences. If we lose Earth, then humanity is doomed with no hope 💀"
I really think maybe we should first find a way to send people farther than maybe just the oort cloud and THEN can we start even thinking of landing anyone to any exoplanet
Gotta be careful about drawing conclusions about how common earth massed planets are from existing data, since existing data is still biased towards detecting larger objects. Other than that very good video.
It seems very likely that if we ever find a earthlike planet, the gravity will be too strong, and will have to wear some sort of powered suit just to walk around. Though if its like more than twice the size of earth, landing on it would probably instantly break your kneecaps. I been playing No Man's Sky, and finding a good looking earthlike planet on there is even hard; and that game is fictional. In that game you probably have to search at least a few hundred star systems to find a nice earthlike planet without bad weather, and with a nice moon is even harder; gravity isn't even a factor in that game to deal with (sure is low gravity, but I haven't seen any planets with deadly gravity yet).
Planets are messy. Terraforming is incredibly expensive in terms of resources and sometimes not even possible at all, and if you're going to build a habitat on the planet, you might just as easily, depending on other factors, build one in orbit or just anywhere.
Yeah because like after all It's just "Habitable" zones not a zone where it's completely habitable, it just meant that the temperature for an EARTH-like planet would be marked in that zone. There's other criteria to come for a truly "Habitable" planet. 🤓:Umm but it can be called as "Goldilock Zone"
Instead of 'habitable' they should be called 'not outright inhabitable at our first look'. Moreover, it wouldn't do us much good, as we can't reach any of those world in a decent amount of time, and won't be able to, for the foreseeable future. Except perhaps for discovering _alien_ life rather than a second home for humanity.
If you consider the potential of terraforming, then we don't have to find a perfect planet with the right amount of water and the right percent of gases in the atmosphere. We just need one that's in the habitable zone and can be changed to fit our needs.
this is all caused by one large misconception, that any planet in the "habitable" zone (which is actually called the goldilocks zone) is habitable, which is not true.
I love how we humans are such nerds. We named an astronomical concept after a children's story.
The OP need to pin this
They both have the same meaning bro.
@@michaelchance6125 goldilocks actually means just right though. The story was named after the word not the other way around.
may not be habitable to us, but it can to species if adapted.
Can't just put mars or Venus in our habitable zone with their current problem. That's not a good argument.
it can take billions of years for a planet to start to do anything regarding even fraction of life.
I think it's fair to type that some planets have their own separate habitable zones, where conditions are stable enough for life. A star might have a habitable zone for Earth-like planets, but not all lively-hood objects have the same characteristics as the Earth. Thicker atmospheres require a further placement from the star, varying of other percentages with the ingredients necessary for the chemical reactions. Some require completely different parameters to make them habitable. I suppose this can be a topic for another discussion.
Also, life using ammonia or methane as a solvent would have habitable zones further away from its star, because ammonia and methane are liquid at colder temperatures than water.
It’s also possible that on planets with different conditions from Earth, other forms of life could evolve to suit that environment, and so what might not be habitable to us could be habitable to them. Think about it - Earth is filled with water, and we’ve evolved to use water to suit that. But water is the universal solvent - to some alien life forms, water could be deadly and dissolve them, making Earth uninhabitable to them. Perhaps we can’t live on some “habitable” worlds because we aren’t suited for them, but they could have developed their own life forms that are.
Yup and that feature exists in universe sandbox
Not habitable for "Earth's Inhabitants" at least. It's possible that there are lifeforms there that evolve in order to adapt in those planets' environment. As long as the environment is not very extreme, it's still possible for lifeforms to to exist and thrive.
Scanning....
Water NO
Air NO
Biodiversity NO
There is no Planet B for any life form!
Water worlds are perfectly habitable. Earth used to be one. It's just that *humans* can't populate a water world because they live on land.
Also, there could be lots of rocky exoplanets that aren't too big, and we just have a harder time detecting small exoplanets.
Edit: Atmospheres and oceans can help tidally locked planets have more even temperatures (tidally locked planets still aren't ideal, and red dwarfs still hve the problem of solar storms).
We can still live in small floating cities or under ocean cities but underwater cities sounds depressing
@@hallooos7585 too expensive lol
3:05 did not expected that
Yeah
Ikr
That was a clip of amazing digital circus episode 1
That was funny
Then how are we going to find a new planet to live on in the future?
A little rough around the edges, but I liked the discussion! I even learned some fun stuff for my own little worldbuilding project!
I would like to add, though, that just because a planet isn't exactly like Earth doesn't mean it can't be inhabited. *"Earth-like" and "Habitable" are not synonyms.* Any of these worlds in the habitable zones could feasibly be terraformed or have bio-domes, and serve as extrasolar colonies if and when we get ourselves off Earth for good. Likewise, just because a planet isn't habitable by our standards doesn't mean that life of some kind cannot exist on its surface; it might be very different from Terran life, but if conditions and components are present, it isn't impossible to imagine alien life arising on these worlds.
We want ur voice, not an AI voice!!
Edit: Holy crap how is this the most liked comment 😭
And what happened he was doge before
Don’t force him to use his voice, he doesn’t have to
Just give them time
Agreed
Is AstroTalk is a human cat?
Astrocat got one of the best science videos
@@MajorCosmos_2048 No what?, Ohhhhhhhhh you're saying NO! To people who are saying that astrocat doesn't have great science videos, yea man, yep yep cool cool
hey dude science is cool but im focused on learning the periodic table @@ThatOneBtypeStar
best catboy for edging too
The fact is, we don't know for certain yet because even the best telescopes and other devices can only tell us so much. That's why there is so much more emphasis right now on gathering information on them, as opposed to developing the technology to send and support a person there. While other countries may feel differently, the U.S. is a firm believer in "be prepared" and "know before you go". After all, even ten light years or less is a long way to go only to find out the destination isn't what you thought it was. When push comes to shove and things start getting less comfortable on earth, there will be more drive to move outwards. But realistically, barring sudden breakthroughs that make it easier and cheaper, our generations will be very lucky to see a manned Mars landing in our lifetime.
Ocean planets are not a problem, we can just live on ships. Same for tidally locked ones, those will most likely require some work, but people still can live there. Super earths are not a problem per se too, make it harder to get out, but not to get in. Even oxygen can be created via anaerobic bacteria. Toxic or no atmosphere, not enough water and radiation will be the major issues during colonization
I think super earths could actually be a huge problem. Lots of people can't maintain consciousness above 3Gs, and even then, one fall weighing 600 lbs is no joke.
Ocean planet has a bigger atmosphere and can be like Venus ... So I don't think this would be good (risk of runaway greenhouse too).
Desert planet can be habitable in someway, but for primitive life maybe.
are you kidding?! tidally locked planets would kill u since their stars often have violent flares and even if u can live on some of them theres no way in hell i do that living on a small strip with eternal night and ice on one side and opposite on the other. not many people will sign up for that
@@magical_universe793 I was not talking about flares. As for climate dense atmosphere can help to make it less extreme
7:02
*Democracy intensifies*
Helldivers 2 theme intensifies
?
DIGITAL HALLUCINATIONS got me hahaha
They should refer to these as habitable zone planets or potential liquid water planets. Most of what we've been seeing are either:
1. Receive more starlight than Earth and are therefore most hot houses where only extremophiles could thrive on the arid and decidedly not moist surface (example: Venus over a billion years ago)
2. Receive much more starlight than Earth and are therefore literally hell (Venus after the resurfacing event and CO2 atmosphere)
3. Are super Earth's more than ~2 Earth masses and retain thick helium atmospheres that probably make surface conditions too hot.
4. Are much too large and not dense enough and therefore mini-neptunes with literally a significant fraction of their volume being gases
5. Are around M-type stars that may cause too severe flares and definitely will make the planet tidally locked (that may not be terrible though).
Just something to share;
A rocky planet can have an extremely thick atmosphere, making a rocky world look like a gas giant but it actually has a surface. Plus, if it’s big enough, the pressure could be decent (So the atmosphere can be similar to Earths atmosphere.) Making it hospitable.
If you’ve found anything against this, do let me know.
It’s in runaway greenhouse though so it’s completely inhabitable
The massive Gravity would kill us
@@mondiramaji791 If it’s big enough, its surface gravity could be actually pretty decent.
@@rexperverziff It could be further from its star.
@@Veriax549 but then the atmosphere would crush to death so still inhabitable
Venus is in the habitable zone but it's so hot there due to it's atmosphere that the Soviet Unions Vanera Probs which were built to resist the harsh climate & atmospheric pressure on the surface that they only lasted an hour before the equipment failed.
There is two different gilderock zones : conservative and optimist :
The first is 0.9 to 1.2 UA
the second between 0.6 to 2.5
the second one is for primitive life and venus lost his tectonic plates, causing a greenhouse effect and his magnetic field was defectueous.
Venus is even not the in optimstic habitable zone beginns at 0.85 au and the normal habitable zone beginns at 0.95 au
This gave me ideas for drawing earth like planets
i already do so lol
LOL I LOVE WHEN NEPTUNE JUST POPPED UP AND SAID "yay" 😭
What are you talking about?
Hello. I am not an AstroCat hater, but I really dislike the narration in the background. I like the planets having subtitles on their side with a good background music instead. I don’t know why did that change(I think it’s probably because of increased users from TikTok which had pathetically lost their attention span), but I just would like to say, do not please them. As a fan who watched this channel for more than 2 years, I have enjoyed the content in the past way more than the new ones.
Like this comment if you agree with what I have said, if you don’t, please dislike it.
Based on our knowledge of animals and plants living in extreme conditions on this planet, it seems likely that whether an exoplanet is mostly land or mostly water, life can evolve and adapt to survive extreme conditions on them.
0:59 start of ksp music
The Factors that makes a exoplanet habitable
1:Mass equal ore less more than earth
2:Gravity over equal and 2x more
3:Distance, in order for a habitable planet to exist, its distance must be 1.00 AU or 1.12 AU away from its star,
4:Size, the size of a planet must be 2x or equal to the size of earth,
5:Rotational Period, in order to find a habitable planet with day night cycle, is to had a 24 hours rotation, or 18 less, (without rotation the temperature wont stabilize in different sides)
And I'm pretty sure that's just the initial list. There may be many other factors that will lead to the planet being habitable for humans. You also forgot that it needs to have a strong enough magnetic field and radiation belts to reduce the stellar wind's stripping influence on the atmosphere, lest we don't get an atmosphere and thus won't be able to breathe outside of a spacesuit.
5:15 so planets outside the habitable zone could be habitable?
6:11 Destroyer/Observer/Creatir of Worlds.
7:12 phon
7:32 that’s what it has been leading up to
Even a planet that's "too far away" from it's parent star can be habitable if there's a strong enough greenhouse effect on the planet.
Planets of all sizes are going to be evenly distributed across the universe, and it is way too premature to conclude which size is the most common. Super Earths are just currently more easily found, because they are bigger and more massive. Moreover, I think we are only able to detect them around Red Dwarfs, since those stars are relatively small and dim. It's no coincidence that the first planets we detected were massive gas giants. Size and mass matters, because we cannot see exoplanets directly, we can only detect their gravitational influence, and occasionally a periodic dimming of the host star (If the passing planet has an atmosphere, the star's light spectrum will also change slightly during such transits).
It’s just that we haven’t discovered it yet, plus having intelligent life is just a bonus, all u need to be habitable is to have atleast some form of life
Glad that one of the biggest questions I had in mychildhood got answered
3:04 LOL
*DIGITAL HALLUCINATIONS*
3:05
Another thing to note is that our sun is a yellow dwarf.
Yellow dwarfs are pretty rare. And we don't know how important a star being one is towards it being safe for us.
Red dwarfs for example will probably randomly kill us. Where as our sun is less likely to do that.
There is no tooth fairy, there is no Easter bunny, and there are no habitable exoplanets
This is without keeping in mind our planet is in fact double planet system. Which is important part of supporting geological processes, magnetic field, which is important parts on supporting our atmosphere.
Bruh
What most people miss about habitable planets is if they're habitable, where did they get their water? Usually, you find water past the snow line. So if they're habitable, where did they get WATER. Earth got water from by ice giants flinging water ice meteors towards Earth. So if there's no ice giant they're gonna be like mars.
These are the list that requirements order them for suitable for us:
- It wouldn't be small because the gravity so weak that the molecules on their atmosphere would easily reach escape velocity.
- It wouldn't be large because gravity pulls towards you.
- The atmosphere won't be thin because the UV radiation would increase drastically and ozone layer would be also perish.
- The atmosphere won't be thick because the atmosphere would prevent sunlight travelling towards the ground.
- The planet wouldn't be dominated by oceans because it has less ideal colonies.
- The planet wouldn't be dominated by land because it lacks of agriculture and transportation.
- The temperature wouldn't cool or hot because the vegetation would destroyed.
- The planet orbit wouldn't be elliptic because the natural disasters would kill you.
- The daylight cycle would be similar to Earth in order to meditate the ratio of water and temparetures.
- The planet wouldn't be tidally locked because of the temperatures.
- The photosynthesis wouldn't be different on Earth because it lacks or overly of carbon dioxide.
- The star wouldn't be red dwarf because the solar flares is strong and causing tidal locking.
- The star wouldn't be white or blue dwarf because they use hydrogen too much that it is easily runaway the Goldilocks zone and also have shortened lifespan therefore can't evolve species much more complex.
- The planet wouldn't have gas giant in the habitable zone because they disturbing smaller objects flings towards to candidate planets and also altered their orbit.
- The planet must not contain very harmful microbiological life.
- The planet must contain edible vegetation for humans.
- The planet must not contain larger predators it won't kill many humans.
- The atmosphere won't any have that could toxic to humans.
The biggest problem with finding another "home for humaity" is that any exoplanet we can survive on without needing spacesuits will likey already be inhabited. Otherwise how else will its atmosphere accumulate the oxygen we need?
And the problem with setting foot on an already-inhabited planet, is extremely high likelyhood that the microbiology of that planet would wreak havoc on our bodies, killing us within weeks if not days.
7:10 isn't one of conditions to be considered a "Super Earth" being a rocky planet?
I feel like some parts of the script are written by ChatGPT, idk what about this but they just feel a little unnatural. Especially the description, i REALLY doubt that there's actually gonna be discussions with leading experts on a semi professional space channel
@@dagestan7734 yeah I thinks he’s really being bias because he’s implying that land and water worlds are too hostile for life but that’s not true it depends on the spot in the habitable zone that’s supports life
While amazing we are able to find so many rocky planets both of the right size and within the habitable zone. This is more of a step one. Step two would be analyzing the atmospheres of these planets, which is something scientists have only just begun doing. Another problem is that we just don't know if life can exist on certain planets like either tidally locked planets or ocean planets. While the planet hunting front has been doing an amazing job, less than a millionth of the planets within our own galaxy have been found.
1:00 might be red giant or smth
Does that look like normal star?
No is a red dwarf
@@Rii680 it’s*
@@Rii680 DogePro never and red dwarf like that
Red dwarf
@@simappersicrainer nah he never draw red dwarf (like that)
This what you talk about it’s a kind rare Earth hypothesis, just a hypothesis among others, because habitable planets could be very resilient, for example there is studies showing that’s possible atmospheric distribution in tidally lock red dwarf exoplanet that would make it habitable.
Fun fact, its beleved that both Venus and Mars are in the goldylocks zone, (albit in the extream areas). the fact that these guys exist should be evidence that we should be more skeptikle.
Science teachers should show these
Perhaps not that soon in the future, otherwise it may dissuade newer generations from gaining space related interests that could help figure that stuff out
The "habitable zone" is a zone that is considered habitable based on what worked for life on Earth, particularly ideal for liquid water (as this is the universal solvent of all living things here). A planet may be in the habitable zone, but that doesn't mean it has the conditions life on Earth has evolved to survive in, such as:
-An atmosphere with 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon and 0.04% other trace gases
-An atmosphere thick enough to protect the planet's surface from harmful radiation
-An atmosphere thin enough to prevent runaway greenhouse effects
-Earth-like gravity
-The presence of water at all
-Photosynthetic systems
But then again, we are looking for what supports our understanding of life. Who knows what else may be out there that evolved under other conditions we have not?
But bro the universe is gigantic. There's gonna be a LOT of habitable planets
Thanks. It irks me that all and sundry exoplanets are hailed as "habitable", with caveats like "Oh, they have this one little drawback, but there may be ways to overcome it..." Sure! Tell that to Mars and Venus!
"Beetlejuice" 💀
"Are you habitable because you're earth or are you earth because you're habitable" 🌍
its more of the problem of that it needs to be Carbon habitable rather than just being habitable because any planet could be habitable with the way life could evolve, titan being one of them.
Thalassa, Marica, Faunus and Earth: Nah, just us
Red dwarfs have to be like the age of Trappist 1 to actually have habitable planets
So basically we should be grateful for our planet and get our governments and industries to stop destroying it because this is all we have?
Clearly. The odds that everything went exactly the way we need them to go is extraordinary slim. However, these are the worlds that are the easiest to terraform and colonize.
What, you thought humans could spread life on those worlds without putting any work into it?
Hey im ur old subscriber I was interested that are you gonna upload music videos in ur second channel
The part in this video where I don’t know what screen the voice or whatever the voices saying wait, 45,000,000,000 km is funny also that is not quite Neptunes orbit either
I think switching Venus to Earth's location is gonna do some complicated stuff to the carbon and sulfuric acid (and therefore water) cycles. I'm not saying it would become habitable but if you can get it cool enough to stop baking the carbon out of rocks and maybe let the sulfuric rain reach the surface, weathering might actually start removing the CO2 atmosphere which could allow some of the sulfuric acid to convert back to water. At the very least you might have some semblance of the carbon silicate cycle start cooling the planet back to merely an absolutely terrible place to live rather than a vision of hell over a couple hundred million years or something.
What was your old name?
dogepro
Imagine how bad it smells on a planet with 21% Oxygen and 79% Ammonia
There's definitely a lot less habitable planets than one would think, the habitable zone alone isn't enough for a planet to sustain life, otherwise Mars would have just as much life as Earth. On the other hand, there's some that believe Earth is the only planet in the entire universe that can sustain life, which is also untrue. I'd estimate only about 10% of "habitable" planets actually have life, and for most of them, it's microbial life, more advanced life like plants and fungi is super rare, animal life is even more rare, and intelligent life is ultra rare. The good news is, the universe is huge, so the odds that there are other planets with humanlike life are extremely high. Even within the Milky Way Galaxy and other galaxies in the Local Group.
I bet there's an alien race in the Triangulum Galaxy whose inhabitants know of Earth but many thin it's not habitable or if it is, it's inhabited by giant bugs and can't sustain human life.
MORE VIDEOS OF MY FAV ASTRONOMY RUclipsR :D
I have been saying this since they started finding these exoplanets. Until they find something like Earth around a Sun type star , then I take it with a pinch of salt. Also the fact they orbit in a few days also puts me off.
The problem is people only want to look at red dwarf because it is easier to find planets around from and they are the worst years that last days, tidally locked getting bombarded with solar flares.
Technically próxima b is in a three body system so it's not always tidally locked (probably)
We'd survive but not thrive
Damn we really got a Catboy science channel before GTA6
i really dont know if people believe that some exoplanets are habitable. bcuz that not even what they tell us, these exoplanets are candidates to have life, being in the goldilock zone its just another detail in favor of their hypothesis, and also planets believed to hospitable arent even exclusive exoplanets or in the goldilock zone. like Europa and Titan.
Re: moving Mars to Earth's orbit? I think you might get enough CO2 in the atmosphere to allow liquid water on the surface somewhere other than the deepest canyons as the icecaps and other trapped CO2 and water escapes solid confinement. Where Mars would run into some pretty big issues is that it lacks tectonics. Maybe occasional volcanism (and moving it would certainly generate some off gassing but nothing to properly recycle crust). Therefore I predict Mars would end up with actually a bit much CO2 and go from being too cold and freezing out CO2, to too hot and potentially getting close to a moist greenhouse, though the low water availability near the surface should prevent an actual moist greenhouse. I think you'd see some water for awhile but I don't know that it would be stable in the long run.
It’s actually true, They are not habitable When you see BUT they don’t claim to be UNLESS we find one like Trappist
If an exoplanet orbits in its star's habitable zone and has the right mass and composition, even if it is not habitable itself, it could still be turned into one by terraforming. It would take time and effort, but if a civilization is capable of reaching the stars, it is also fully capable of scouring around for an unlimited amount of resources to be used to modify any kind of environment.
A planet has no water? You can drain it from interstellar comets or just send them to the planet themselves. A planet has too much atmosphere? Just suck the part in excess away or put some reactors to turn it into rocks or useful materials.
The real obstacle could be the lack of a magnetosphere. That is a problem which is not really easy to solve. It would also be good to have or to be able to start plate tectonics, since that feature allows the planet to recycle itself on the long time.
They should really call them "teraformable" instead of "habitable"
A planet may even be habitable for complex life but this life's biochemistry is different enough from ours that we can't eat anything which lives there.
Since back then I don't really think many Kepler planets that was found on habitable zones are promising, because:
- We don't know the masses of those planets. They could have large iron core or dominated by ice/water. While their radius are known, their composition is still unknown since there are no certain data of their masses.
- Their radius are pretty big. Many of them are basically larger than Earth. This is related to point one, if it had large iron core it would have crushingly high gravity, if it had global super ocean then it would be way less than ideal to place colony, much less for mini ice giants. Even if it assumed with Earth-like proportions (70 percent rocks, 30 percent iron) it is still a problem because high gravity, though not as painful if it is an iron-dominated planets like Mercury.
- The most promising ones I can think of are Kepler-186 f, Kepler-62 f and Kepler-442 b, based on their physical characteristics. Both Kepler-62 f and Kepler-186 f must have thick atmosphere if they have to retain habitability, since they located at the outer edge of their respective habitable zone. Kepler-442 b don't need as thick as Kepler-62 f and Kepler-186 f, but the way we don't know all of their atmosphere still remain a roadblock. Note: These all assume if they are terrestrial and not oceanic or mini ice giant planets.
Super ocean planet does not exist, Its impossible For a planet to be covered in Large quantity of water in the surface, Even if The planet is in goldilock zone It still cant. Water only cover 1% - 4% of a habitable Young Exoplanet and the remaining Of it are surface desert or Rocky Land, Its also highly unlikely for A young planet To have formed A stable atmosphere to form thick clouds and rain, basically It depends of the Location of The planet from the star and How stable is the Atmosphere, there is a Planet that has high water vapour rather than pure water, it theoretically possible Than super ocean planet
Edit : Life Will always find a way basically to Live in high gravity, High metal planet don't have that High-gravity as near gas Giant, because Its dominated by iron and rocks, the core would be smaller Than the average core of gas Giant and also less denser to have too high gravity.
It's kinda weird to me this misconception...
Like, did people really think we discovered planets with alien life? If that were to be true then you wouldn't be like "oh nice" but rather "WHAT?! this changes everything".
I refuse to believe an important part of the population saw those headlines and really believed there were life in space, without doubting it considerably.
7:03, “Planets you are more likely to find anywhere except our solar systems are called *Super Earths*.” *FREEDOM NEVER SLEEPS!*
well its also the fact that they are so many light years away we don't even know the current state of them either
Ok I lose my way of saying this animation is good the limit exploded, but anyways this is interesting 🎉!
Otherwise Super-earths can be super-cool for some life we don't know
The desert/glacier/habitable strip model for tidally locked planets is outdated.
Exoplanetology in 2014: "Maybe we can find a new Earth :D"
Exoplanetology in 2024: "The fact that Earth is habitable is a miracle of probabilities and coincidences. If we lose Earth, then humanity is doomed with no hope 💀"
Alternate title (if taken wrong): Earth is not habitable and here’s why:
I really think maybe we should first find a way to send people farther than maybe just the oort cloud and THEN can we start even thinking of landing anyone to any exoplanet
I feel like we should be calling them either potentially habitable or something similar rather than just habitable
Probably
This is literally true
Kerbal space program soundtrack
i like the old format better :(
New ai voice is needed for security. It’s understandable
What's your ai voice
How common is it for planets to have a magnetic field that's good enough for humans to be outside without a suit?
Mercury should 'donate' its magnetic field to Mars imo lol, would be put to better use
7:20 Thumbs Up
Gotta be careful about drawing conclusions about how common earth massed planets are from existing data, since existing data is still biased towards detecting larger objects. Other than that very good video.
You've got to watch "Atlas Pro" and his justification for thinking that exo-moons could have a better chance for exo-biology to exist than exo-planets
It seems very likely that if we ever find a earthlike planet, the gravity will be too strong, and will have to wear some sort of powered suit just to walk around. Though if its like more than twice the size of earth, landing on it would probably instantly break your kneecaps. I been playing No Man's Sky, and finding a good looking earthlike planet on there is even hard; and that game is fictional. In that game you probably have to search at least a few hundred star systems to find a nice earthlike planet without bad weather, and with a nice moon is even harder; gravity isn't even a factor in that game to deal with (sure is low gravity, but I haven't seen any planets with deadly gravity yet).
Mahal Ko Ang Iyong Videos!
The problem isn't the AI voice. It's the AI delivery. AI still can't nail pronunciation and a natural cadence.
I don’t see why if we have the technology to go to other stars we can’t just make wherever we want habitable
Mars and Venus are also within the Sun's "habitable" zone.
Dang bro i did not expect to see that vid😮
Planets are messy. Terraforming is incredibly expensive in terms of resources and sometimes not even possible at all, and if you're going to build a habitat on the planet, you might just as easily, depending on other factors, build one in orbit or just anywhere.
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
We found a habitable planet: YIPIIII
It's 100 trillion kilometers away: AWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Yeah because like after all It's just "Habitable" zones not a zone where it's completely habitable, it just meant that the temperature for an EARTH-like planet would be marked in that zone. There's other criteria to come for a truly "Habitable" planet.
🤓:Umm but it can be called as "Goldilock Zone"
Instead of 'habitable' they should be called 'not outright inhabitable at our first look'.
Moreover, it wouldn't do us much good, as we can't reach any of those world in a decent amount of time, and won't be able to, for the foreseeable future. Except perhaps for discovering _alien_ life rather than a second home for humanity.
We'll be lucky if we even see a type of plant species for those planets
If you consider the potential of terraforming, then we don't have to find a perfect planet with the right amount of water and the right percent of gases in the atmosphere. We just need one that's in the habitable zone and can be changed to fit our needs.