0
$\begingroup$

It's me again, I want to ask if it is possible to make a planet full of water but it has no life, the idea that it is a planet full of water with small islands in which there is no life, here is the data of the planet:

-Cultural name: Orzuu

-UCSN: P(Wa)-SG0-173;23;43 [If you're wondering, this is something I invented, because the IAU system, apart from the fact that I didn't find how it works well, didn't seem like what I was looking for, so I made my own system of nomenclature of celestial bodies P refers to the type of arm of the galaxy which in this case would be the Perseus arm, Wa refers to a squadron that is basically the division of Perseus, "SG0" refers to the type of celestial object in In this case a yellow star, then there are the coordinates that are "173.23.43" which I had to use a photo of the galaxy and then calculate from the center of the galaxy to where the star is]

-Star type: G0-1V

-Mass: 2.09×10^30 Kg (1.05 SM) [Solar mass]

-Radius: 716,571 Km (1.03 SR) [Solar Radius]

-Density: 1.33 kg/dm3 (0.96 DS) [Solar density]

-Luminosity: 4.71×10^16 (1.23 SL) [Solar luminosity]

-Temperature: 5599 K (5326 °C)

-Livable area: 1.58×10^8//2.82×10^8 Km (1.06//1.52 AU)

Solar system:

-Number of planets: 6

-Number of natural satellites: 246

-Number of dwarf planets: 2

-Number of gaseous planets: 2

-Number of rocky planets: 4

-Number of habitable planets: 1

-Internal system limit: 1.11×10^6 Km (7.4×10^-3 AU)

-Ice line: 8.06×10^8 Km (5.3 AU)

-Internal solar system: 4.8×10^4//5.28×10^8 Km (0.32//5.52 AU)

-External system: 1.008×10^9//1.57×10^13 Km (6.72//105×10^7 AU)

-Kuiper Belt: 1.01×10^10//1.23×10^10 Km (67.51//81.78 AU)

Star neighborhood:

-Location: 18 LY (LY refers to light years)

-Radius: 24060 LY

-Density: 0.004 E/LY3 (This is the density of the stellar neighborhood)

-Nearest star: 4841 LY

-Farthest star: 23925 LY

-Name: Becdos

-UCSN: P(Wa)-PLR-173°.23°.43° (IV)

-Mass: 4.6×10^24 Kg (0.77 EM) [Earth mass]

-Density: 5.01 g/cm3 (0.98 ED) [Earth density]

-Radius: 6116 Km (0.96 ER) [Earth radius]

-Atmospheric pressure: 6.8 atm

-Atmospheric density: 12.2 Kg/m3

-Nucleus fraction: 26%

-Gravity: 0.86 g

-Escape velocity: 10.1 Km (0.902 EV) [Earth escape velocity]

-Axial inclination: 27.4°

-Tropics: 0°-27.4°

-Polar circles: 62.6°-90°

-Albedo: 0.01

-Greenhouse effect: 24

-Observer height: 0.97 m

-Horizon distance: 3.45 km

-Semi major axis: 5.73×10^8 Km (3.82 AU)

-Orbital eccentricity: 0.052

-Perihelion: 5.43×10^8 Km (3.62 AU)

-Aphelion: 6.03×10^8 Km (4.02 AU)

-Axis: 14°

-Orbit period: 7 years (2659 days)

-Rotation period: 21 hours (1 day)

-Terrestrial composition:

=Ni 56%

=Na 29%

=Cl 14%

=ER 1% [Remaining chemical elements]

-Atmospheric composition:

=N 55%

=O 26%

=H 13%

=ER 6%

-Temperature: 10 °C (283 K)

-Do you have satellite?: Yes

-Quantity: 3

=Cultural name: Kiiotzar

=UCSN: P(Wa)-sPLR [IV]-173°.23.°.43° (I)

=Mass: 1.73×10^16 Kg (2.36×10^-7 MM) [Moon mass]

=Density: 1.24 g/cm3

=Radius: 15.6 Km (9×10^-3 MR) [Moon radius]

=Gravity: 1×10^-3 g

=Escape velocity: 1.2×10^-2 km/s (5.04×10^-3 MV) [Moon escape velocity]

=Albedo: 7×10^-3

=Orbital axis: 133°

=Semi major axis: 55702 Km (0.143 AUM) [Moon AU]

=Orbital eccentricity: 0.5

=Perihelion: 27851 Km (7.24×10^-2 AUM)

=Aphelion: 83552 Km (0.217 AUM)

=Orbital period: 1.73 days

=Rotating period: 1.73 days

=Maximum high tide: 0.004 m

=Minimum high tide: 0.004 m

=Terrestrial compound:

*Fe 61%

*Al 24%

*Au 15%

*ER 4%

=Does it have life?: No

=Does it have a tide lock?: No

=Is it round?: No

=Cultural name: Bex-tsaa

=UCSN: P(Wa)-sPLR [IV]-173°.23.°.43° (II)

=Mass: 6.34×10^15 Kg (8.64×10^-8 MM)

=Density: 2.78 g/cm3

=Radius: 8.68 Km (0.005 MR)

=Gravity: 0.001 g

=Exhaust velocity: 0.012 km/s (0.00107 VM)

=Albedo: 0.004

=Orbital axis: 33.2°

=Semi major axis: 20638 Km (5.36×10^-2 AUM)

=Orbital eccentricity: 0.005

=Perihelion: 20535 Km (5.34×10^-2 AUM)

=Aphelion: 20741 Km (5.39×10^-2 AUM)

=Orbital period: 0.391 days

=Rotating period: 0.391 days

=Maximum high tide: 0.005 m

=Minimum high tide: 0.004 m

=Terrestrial compound:

*Ni 42%

*Al 36%

*Na 17%

*ER 4%

=Does it have life?: No

=Does it have a tide lock?: No

=Is it round?: No

=Cultural name: Omazer

=UCSN: P(Wa)-sPLR [IV]-173°.23.°.43° (III)

=Mass: 1.23×10^17 Kg (1.67×10^-6 MM)

=Density: 1.13 g/cm3

=Radius: 29.5 Km (1.7×10^-2 MR)

=Gravity: 0.001 g

=Escape velocity: 2.4×10^-2 km/s (2.14×10^-3 MV)

=Albedo: 0.08

=Orbital axis: 54°

=Semi major axis: 516921 Km (1,344 AUM)

=Orbital eccentricity: 0.001

=Perihelion: 516404 Km (1,342 AUM)

=Aphelion: 517438 Km (1,345 AUM)

=Orbital period: 49 days

=Rotating period: 49 days

=Maximum high tide: 0.004 m

=Minimum high tide: 0.004 m

=Terrestrial compound:

*Ni 43%

*Al 30%

*Na 24%

*ER 3%

=Does it have life?: No

=Does it have a tide lock?: No

=Is it round?: No

-Does it have life?: No

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Wow that's a pretty big set of parameters; there could be more than a single inconsistency. What I'm considering as one is declared albedo of 0.01, while the planet is dominantly water-covered - there should be a cloud layer sufficiently raising albedo of the planet. Also this wall does not quite differ the planet's stats from its moons - is it so that your planet is 56% Ni (and relatively zero Fe)? And NaCl to compound another 40% - owch. $\endgroup$
    – Vesper
    Commented Apr 22 at 5:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think my brain just bugged out and crashed... $\endgroup$
    – Alastor
    Commented Apr 22 at 9:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Please don't include superfluous information in your questions, and please learn to use markdown formatting. Cutting and pasting from (presumably) some form-based website is a particularly poor way to convey useful and relevant information. $\endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    Commented Apr 22 at 10:07
  • $\begingroup$ I'd be interested to know what tool you're using to simulate your planetary system formation, because either it has a number of fairly important deficiencies, or your cutting-and-pasting has destroyed a load of important formatting or detail, or you've manually chosen some numbers that are not consistent with real-world physics. $\endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    Commented Apr 22 at 10:21
  • $\begingroup$ First I will start with Vesper, well the reason for this number is because it has a strong greenhouse effect and this is a product of water vapor, just like Venus has a large atmosphere but it is still hot, here it is due to that and the It has nickel and not iron, look it has iron, the components are not all that it is made of but its most common main components (Iron obviously has it because it has a nucleus like all the planets) but I don't count it. $\endgroup$
    – Idon'tknow
    Commented Apr 22 at 12:24

7 Answers 7

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

The inexplicable amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere points out to some weird shenanigans going on there. Why haven't it burn with the oxygen, or floated away into space?

Something must be generating the extra H, and I don't recall any chemical process that would do so, and not be rather inimical to life. One option is a chemical reaction between acids and metals in the crust. Maybe your oceans have an unusual % of HCl in them?

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I like that and it could explain a lot of things $\endgroup$
    – Idon'tknow
    Commented Apr 22 at 11:55
10
$\begingroup$

A planet with water but no life is 100% plausible. But your atmospheric composition is not plausible — a large amount of free oxygen without life is difficult to explain, and large amounts of both oxygen and hydrogen are simply impossible, with or without life.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ There are some theories which can result in abiogenic oxygen, eg. Titania may produce abiotic oxygen atmospheres on habitable exoplanets, Oxygen False Positives on Habitable Zone Planets Around Sun-Like Stars. Free hydrogen won't hang around on small worlds though, so I'll bet that its presence there in large quantities is a sign of a rather poor planetary formation simulation rather than a deliberate choice on the part of the OP. $\endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    Commented Apr 22 at 10:18
  • $\begingroup$ @StarfishPrime Free hydrogen on a planet with 26% oxygen in its atmosphere won’t escape into space, because it won’t last long enough. It will rapidly be oxidised to water. $\endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    Commented Apr 22 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ On the topic of Star Prime hydrogen, I put it since the planet has enormous amounts of water vapor, which is the reason why I gave it a 25 greenhouse effect because it has so much that it would make the planet somewhat hotter than it would be. Actually, although I thought hydrogen could be obtained through rain, since when the water evaporates it releases steam, but well, sorry if it's not very exact, I don't know much about these topics and I'm just starting to explain some things $\endgroup$
    – Idon'tknow
    Commented Apr 22 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Idon'tknow Steam is still water, just in its gaseous rather than liquid phase — it hasn’t broken down to oxygen and hydrogen. And the proportions are way off for that in any case — by mass water is about 89% oxygen and only 11% hydrogen. $\endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    Commented Apr 22 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ The issue is that the components are based on chemical elements, although steam water is just liquid water, it is composed of oxygen and hydrogen, that is why it is the issue of separating them and on the other hand, you are right that it is disproportionate but it is I did it based on what I read about the Earth's atmosphere since there seems to be more oxygen than hydrogen from what I read, but I could be wrong there $\endgroup$
    – Idon'tknow
    Commented Apr 22 at 17:36
6
$\begingroup$

With the caveat that since we've only ever seen life here, so all of these answers involve some speculation, there's a few things you might suggest.

Lack of Phosphorous (or some other vital piece)

Probably the simplest explanation, maybe your planet lacks significant amounts of phosphorous. Its important to life yet quite rare, and uncommonly common on Earth. Maybe your planet just lost the lottery on this or some other key element for life.

Incidentally this is also why there was an uptick of interest in Enceladus: https://www.space.com/saturn-moon-enceladus-phosphorus-found

Isaac Arthur has piece on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPU9jeQbTOU&t=545s

Too Little Time

We're pretty sure Mars could have had liquid water oceans on its surface for a time. But less sure if there was enough time for life to arise, but again we're still pretty unsure how that even happens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars#:~:text=The%20Mars%20ocean%20hypothesis%20proposes,in%20the%20planet's%20geologic%20history.

It Has The Pieces, But They Don't Mix

This is the technically within the letter of the law of "full of water but no life", so I'll include it. Titan got a knock recently in the search for life. It is thought to have large underwater ocean beneath an icy crust, so promising right? And tons of organic compounds on the surface, another component that Titan has in spades.

But it now seems unlikely the organics and the liquid water ocean manage to mix. Thus, hope for life on Titan has dimmed considerably: https://www.space.com/titan-ocean-saturn-moon-inhospitable-life-earth-study

Conclusion

Again though, you're asking a question that we don't really have all the answers to as humanity. It's definitely something that's possible, but you'll likely have to rely on some level of speculation.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ My problem lies more with a planet that had life, that is, a planet that achieved it but something happened that even extinguished the microorganisms, the only thing that occurs to me is the issue of volcanic activity and thus causing problems in the magnetosphere that although The atmosphere survived somewhat to maintain water, life did not and besides it already had very little phosphate and I thought that also unlike other living beings they had a DNA chain not very suitable for changes since it was a triple chain making these living beings more difficult to adapt $\endgroup$
    – Idon'tknow
    Commented Apr 22 at 1:22
3
$\begingroup$

It just hasn't happened yet

We lack data to know how inevitable life, but chances are that earth-like planets exist where life just hasn't happened yet. Perhaps in-opportune changes in climate cut off proto-life at an early stage. Perhaps the right random series of events haven't happened yet.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This is an important answer. I once read a book that described (briefly, obviously) the history of the Earth from its formation to today with a focus on how rugged life is. One of its conclusions is that life as a whole is a lot less fragile than people think. No, the book was not written by a creationist - quite the opposite - and yet the fact is that when the universe brings together chemical components similar to Earth, life will eventually happen. Period. And while it's easy to drive a species to extinction, it's very hard to destroy the tendency to life. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Apr 22 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that's why I ask, because I certainly want to maintain water but not life, since although life is difficult to exist, it is very resistant $\endgroup$
    – Idon'tknow
    Commented Apr 22 at 1:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JBH I wouldn't place to much faith on speculation, even speculation from a top scientist. I agree that once life gets its roots on a planet it's very difficult to uproot it, but I'm not convinced that life emerges from non-life as easily as having the ingredients and stir. If that would be the case, recreating life in a lab wouldn't be that hard. A lot of scientist want to believe that once you have the right conditions life will emerge with almost 100% probability, but their arguments are like those of the creationists: 99% faith, 1% cherry-picked evidence. $\endgroup$
    – Rekesoft
    Commented Apr 22 at 10:16
  • $\begingroup$ @rekesoft indeed, this is the spirit of my answer. Life may be common in the universe, perhaps even inevitable given the right planetary conditions, but also probably very contingent on the right things happening under very specific local conditions. Also, in the early stages it will be very fragile and minor changes or chance could erase things. As you point out, life isn't yet made in the lab. We make biomolecules, but have yet to get beyond that $\endgroup$
    – N Brouwer
    Commented Apr 22 at 11:34
3
$\begingroup$

No magnetosphere means the planet is constantly sanitized by solar radiation

I just went over all your stats and it looks like you didn't mention a magnetosphere of any significance. While this would also long-term strip the athmosphere (and thereby the water), the solar radiation would also deeply disinfect the planet over and over again.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't put it in because the truth is I don't know how to measure it in equations or just put "If it has it" but I was going to do it but then I started thinking about the issue of Mars, I'm not sure if I want that and more because I want it to be something that lasts millions of years and the truth is that something like this is not going to last $\endgroup$
    – Idon'tknow
    Commented Apr 22 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Idon'tknow ok, I don't know much about it either, but deciding whether your planet has one (of relevant strength) is important because otherwise the athmosphere will be stripped over time by solar winds (if the planet is in the habitable zone or closer). And a stripped athmosphere means less pressure so your water boils (to replace the athmosphere) and then gets stripped, slowly drying the planet (which likely happened to mars) $\endgroup$
    – Hobbamok
    Commented Apr 23 at 12:03
1
$\begingroup$

Yes, this would be easily possible. With our sample size of 1, we have very little idea of what exactly is needed for any kind of life. You wouldn't even need a super complex explanation for it.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I think yes. No calculation here. What you need to do is a planet with a thick layer of water, so water on the bottom would be iced by the pressure. For example, on Earth, it would be oceans deeper than 20 kilomètres. So because of the ice bottom, You will prevent mineral exchanges between water and rocks. You will not have any minerals in water, rendering life impossible.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .