Re: planets

I saw that program, too. I was actually very disappointed by it :-),
because the planet the Kelen live on doesn't have a moon. On the
other hand, they are not native to that planet, so I suppose they
just haven't been there long enough for the climate to change
radically. (However long that would be.)

On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Barry Garcia wrote:
>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....
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
sylvia1@ix.netcom.com
http://home.netcom.com/~sylvia1/