planets

tb0pwd1@corn.cso.niu.edu writes:
>Exactly.  It's the same faux pas as making a planet have one climet
>(pardon the brain fart: I know that's spelled wrong, but can't figure out
>how to spell it right) -- the snow world of Hoth.  Possible, but unlikely,
>for a life-bearing planet to be so homogeneous.
I always thought that was funny also. All ice planets are usually so cold
they're un-inhabitable.Even desert planets that are habitable wouldn't be
very likely (at least those that are nothing but sand and rock). There
would have to be oases and small seas at least.

Which reminds me, I saw an interesting program on what would have happened
if we had no moon. Supposedly, Earth Mark 1 (the original planet) was
mostly water, with small islands dotting the surface.When the planetoid
that helped to fomr earth struck, a lot of the water on Earth mark 1 was
blown of into space. The impact also helped to form a reducing atmosphere
that allowed life as we know it to form.

 They said cephalopods may be the sentient life form on a planet like
earth mark 1.  Also, the planet that hit us, hit us just right so that we
got a moon instead of a set of rings out of the process.

Another thing was, without a moon our planet's axis would move all over
the place and be very unstable. The moon acts as a kind of stabilizer for
us. Ultimately, the moon may be responsible for our planet being as
habitable as it is.

________________________________________________

The damage is done, and you'll see that you were wrong....