Skip to main content
Astronomy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If I remember correctly, most of the computer models using an earth-like planet showed that the necessary wind movement to keep heat transport going established itself quite quickly, forming large cyclonic systems but they weren't nearly as hurricane-like as predicted, it only took a constant moderate wind to keep plenty of heat moving around to warm the dark side and keep the sun-side cool (except for the subsolar point which was pretty horrible). $\endgroup$
    – Darth Pseudonym
    Commented Oct 6, 2023 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ Why would the star-facing side necessarily exceed the boiling point of water? I wouldn't expect a tidally locked planet orbiting the Sun at 100AU to overheat even on its sun-facing side, so by continuity it seems like some radius ought to give an equilibrium temperature that's conducive to life. $\endgroup$
    – RavenclawPrefect
    Commented Oct 6, 2023 at 18:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RavenclawPrefect indeed it wouldn't necessarily exceed the boiling point, but the argument holds true regardless. Water evaporates also way below the boiling point, and that's enough for all of it to eventually accumulate on the night side. $\endgroup$
    – leftaroundabout
    Commented Oct 6, 2023 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ @RavenclawPrefect It is impossible for a potentially habitable planet to 1) orbit a star at a distance off 100 AU, 2) be in the star's habitable zone, 3) be tidally locked, and 4) have even the least bit advanced lifeforms. 1) and 2) combined are incompatible with 3) and 4). if a planet orbiting a star at a distance of 100 AU is in the star's habitable zone, the star be 10,000 times as Luminous as the Sun. A star that luminous would would be about type B1V and should last on the main sequence for only tens of millions of years before becoming a red giant. Continued. $\endgroup$
    – M. A. Golding
    Commented Oct 6, 2023 at 21:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RavenclawPrefect Continued That is even more the case with stars many times as luminous as the Sun. Their habitable zones will be so far from those stars that their planets can not possibly be tidally locked. So there will never be a tidally locked planet orbiting a star at 100 AU. $\endgroup$
    – M. A. Golding
    Commented Oct 6, 2023 at 22:02