2
$\begingroup$

I've been building my own story world with my friend which revolves around humans and different intelligent beings, and for one of the beings, I've come up with a planet and a solar system that is filled with mineral resources, and basically export of said resources is one of the ways they earn income.

For the planet itself, I've been thinking about a bit of a smaller planet than earth which is mountainous has less ocean coverage than the earth, and has many rivers and lakes which make agriculture possible. The planet is a bit closer to the sun making it be just a bit hotter than the earth, it has two moons one of them being 1.2x smaller than the moon and the other being not even half its size.

The planet is the second planet from the sun, the first planet is a little bigger than it, and the distance between the two is pretty big, this planet has a lot of iron/metallic minerals and has two moons which are just rocky moons

The third planet is a giant planet which is not too far from the inhabited planet, it's vulcanic and has geodes of minerals along with 8 moons with some of them being filled with oil

After that is a huge asteroid belt filled with precious minerals

After the asteroid belt, there are two other planets, the first one is a planet that's a bit bigger than earth and has an icy surface with some minerals. The next planet is a Neptune-like planet.

I wanna know would this work or am I asking too much with this many minerals?

Also, I'm pretty new to this so sorry if this is messy;-;

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking. $\endgroup$
    – Community Bot
    Sep 3, 2022 at 5:43

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Basically no. I'm not an astronomer but some things stand out as basic physics or chemistry problems. In rough order of decreasing unworkability:

Getting oil onto a moon at all requires way more serendipity than your suspension of disbelief has room for, let alone being "filled" with it. Oil comes from dead biological matter subjected to time and pressure. You would need your moon to have had a lot of hydrocarbon-based life for a long, long time - hence atmosphere retention, liquid water, a nitrogen atmosphere with fairly abundant carbon dioxide, and relatively infrequent calamities. (If they're literally filled with oil, you need magic to get it there. No naturalistic explanation will be plausible.)

Gas giant on an orbit near that of a habitable planet is problematic. If they are on separate orbits, like the planets in our solar system, the gravitation of the nearby gas giant will introduce eccentricity in the orbit of the smaller habitable planet, and the habitable planet will not stay habitable for long. This can be fixed by putting the habitable planet on a small orbit of the L4 / L5 Lagrange point of the star-gas giant system, which might be kind of cool - but that might also result in getting pulverized by other space rocks accumulating at the Lagrange point.

Two large, nearby moons will do really unpleasant things to a habitable planet in the form of violent earthquakes and frequent extreme tidal waves. If you make the moons smaller, make them more distant, or get rid of one of them, the problem goes away.

Your outer planets seem fine to me.

You might like to get inspiration from a video game with realistic astrophysics modeling. Universe Sandbox will let you set up What-If's and let them play out. Elite: Dangerous uses a well-grounded model to seed the galaxy with mostly-realistic star systems, and after climbing the learning curve you can visit countless procedurally generated, physically plausible star systems (although the actual gameplay is pretty unrealistic).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Titan has naturally occurring hydrocarbons, but has not (as far as we know) ever hosted any life. $\endgroup$ Nov 30, 2022 at 13:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jobah_HigherMind Methane and ethane are not oil, though, and AFAIK there is no nonbiological process known which is suspected to turn them into it. My mention of hydrocarbon-based life was not to imply that life is necessary for hydrocarbons, but that the kind of life that is needed is hydrocarbon-based, which has certain implications for the rest of the environment. $\endgroup$
    – g s
    Nov 30, 2022 at 16:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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