Timeline for Can a planet without one or more moons be habitable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 7, 2017 at 1:19 | comment | added | WhatRoughBeast | "Animals that rely on the phases of the moon for parts of their lifecycle (i.e animals that breed only during a full moon) wouldn't do so well on such a planet," More to the point, animals which depend on lunar cycles simply would not evolve in the first place. | |
| May 14, 2016 at 4:15 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | The solar tide in the atmosphere exceed those of the moon because the diurnal heating is classed as a solar tide. The solar gravitational tide (which affects the oceans as does the moon's gravitational tide) is about half that of the moon. Thus the significant difference between spring tides and neap tides. If you just need tidal pools you can dispense with the moon. | |
| May 13, 2016 at 13:11 | comment | added | pluckedkiwi | While life occupying small niche environments may not adapt by virtue of lacking a continuous biome to move through, there should be no problem for most life to slowly move with the axial tilt - while significant on geological scales, it is largely irrelevant to life unless constrained. Generally speaking (excluding aforementioned niche dwellers), sea life will have no issues, land would only have issues if landmasses were small and they were unable to cross between them, and of course life around deep-sea vents don't care about the surface at all. | |
| May 12, 2016 at 22:38 | history | edited | Rob Watts | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Mar 15, 2016 at 13:15 | vote | accept | Split91 | ||
| Mar 14, 2016 at 21:54 | history | edited | Rob Watts | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 709 characters in body
|
| Mar 14, 2016 at 21:42 | history | answered | Rob Watts | CC BY-SA 3.0 |