If it developed in a ring or asteroid belt I could understand the need for movement. Also, has bacterial development been assumed possible in space by this particular idea sequence?
There’s evidence of bacteria surviving in space for at least a year. It’s not that much of a stretch to say this space life could be made indefinite with the right conditions and starting point
1 Like
If it used rockets to exit the planet, it already has propulsion, if it used geysers it doesn’t but it can still jump from rock to rock (has to have good eyesight and wait until it gets there)
I don’t think bacteria can survive, and even if they could, they would be able to switch to other asteroids only if two of those collided (every asteroid is like its own patch). How big of an organism can a single asteroid support, and would it be big enough to start moving between asteroids?
Oh no I’m not doubting survivability, more the ability to develop in the first place, which is why I wanted to clarify if we were assuming they could for the sake of this idea
1 Like
Perhaps people arent paying any attention to what you are saying because you lack even a modicum of politeness. People dont like to listen to someone who is rude.
What do you mean here?
The ability for life to be conceived in the first place was what I was doubting - the initial development of the first bacteria in space, hence me questioning if we were assuming it is possible as I am a little behind on this topic
1 Like
There isn’t water to make the warm little pond, so it requires a warm Enceladus
My idea was that life would start on a large moon around a gas giant, which would then be destroyed by tidal forces to result in a planetary ring with living cells in it. This seems plausible enough to me
1 Like
For this idea thread that seems fine, though if this were to be seriously implemented for the game another, less specific method would be required with more research
Anyway thanks for answering the question!
Asteroids are kilometers apart from each other in asteroid belts or planetary rings.
2 Likes
Actually curious about this, what is the substance that creates the planetary rings shape/substance then? Is it ice? I’d assume gas would just dissipate, but I could be wrong.
if i was intentionally asking troll questions i would have not posted it so as to not sound like @burgeonblas in the drawing the line discussion and if it is a troll question it is generally one that you already know the answer to not just asking for confirmation on whether or not they noticed that you said something
3 Likes
I apologize for accusing everyone. I don’t know why I got angry.
I summerised all the discussion
1) How does citations work
The first number inside the {wavy brackets} is the number of the post which you can see from the scroll in the right or change it from the address bar, the number after the :double dots is the number of the row(on computer)(not counting quotes, counting titles). If it was at the end of a long post, I counted from bottom to up and put a negative sign to indicate that. If it is from another thread, the thread name is given. If it is from this post, the number is given inside normal (brackets).
2) What is a space whale
It is a species that adapted to live in space, it can be intelligent but it can’t be built by intelligence (that wouldn’t be interesting to speculate). The concept was first discussed in the bioships thread{4:1,“So Bioships?”}, the modern discussion was started by willow{2:1}, the name was given by hhyyrylainen{24:1,“So flight?”}, and I declared myself dictionarist and made the definition{52:1}.
3) The discussion
3.1) How would life arrive to space in the first place?
3.1.1) Microscopic life starts in asteroids with low gravity
3.1.1.1) Please describe the emergence of life
- 3.1.1.1.1) The life appeared in the asteroids, or seeded there with panspermia
- 3.1.1.1.2) Life appeared in a moon, later that moon moved too close to its planet, and turned into a ring system. That is how the microbes ended up in asteroids.{75:2}{90:1}
- 3.1.1.1.3) Life appeared in a “warm Enceladus”{89:1}, then moved to the ring system via geysers{14:4,“So Bioships?”}
3.1.1.2) How would cells survive radiation?
- 3.1.1.2.1) Maybe cells can develop resistance to radiation by using something other than dna.
3.1.1.2.2) Maybe the asteroids can have magnetic field to protect the cells from radiation
- 3.1.1.2.2.1) It can be the ring of a gas giant, using its magnetic field.{38:1}
3.1.1.2.2.2) Maybe they can rotate to create a magnetic field{36:1}
- 3.1.1.2.2.2.1) How? They don’t have a rotating molten core{22:2}{37:1}{46:9}
3.1.1.3) How would the microscopic life survive without the atmosphere that would allow for liquid water{46:18}?
3.1.1.3.1) Maybe the cells don't need to be in liquid water
- 3.1.1.3.1.1) Any life in space would have a way to hold water inside itself, including microscopic ones{77:1}(by making a cocoon like structure?(3.1.1.5))
3.1.1.3.2) Maybe there can be atmosphere in asteroids
3.1.1.3.2.1) The asteroids may be hollow and carry air in pockets inside them {19:1}.
- 3.1.1.3.2.1.1) How could the creatures in those pockets exit the pockets without causing the gas to leak and killing themselves{24:1}? The asteroids could crash into each other and leak may happen that way as well{25:4}. And how did high pressure air get inside it in the first place?{46:5}
3.1.1.3.2.2) If they can be inside the magnetic field of a gas giant, they can keep an atmosphere.{38:1}
- 3.1.1.3.2.2.1) Would the asteroid’s gravity be high enough to hold that atmosphere? At that point, wouldn’t it be a moon?{39:1}(3.1.2)
3.1.1.4) How would asteroids have the correct temperature{29:1}?
- 3.1.1.4.1) They could be close to the sun{17:1}. This doesn’t mean an atmosphere{32:1}, but at least the temperature may get high enough{56:21}, at least on the side that faces the sun{31:1}, or maybe the asteroid rotates and this isn’t even a problem.
3.1.1.5) Microscopic life only survives in space if it is in a comatose state and covered with a cocoon-like layer{53:17}, and even then 32% of them die after 10 days{8:9}. How could they become active and still survive?
- 3.1.1.5.1) They are known to survive for up to a year, and with the right conditions, why couldn’t that be forever?{83:2}(How? what made them need to enter coma in the first place?)
3.1.1.6) If creatures start as microscopic, can they evolve to become big?
3.1.1.6.1) If a creature can’t get big enough in a single asteroid{84:4} to move to other asteroids(and why would it try that if it never did that before?), there won’t be complex life{8:-12,"So Bioships?}.
3.1.2) Aware stage creatures exit their planet
3.1.2.1) How would it exit its planet?
3.1.2.1.1) By evolving biologic rockets{46:-14}
3.1.2.1.1.1) How would it evolve?
3.1.2.1.1.1.1) It would pull and push air like lungs {56:-10}. Later, it would start to add fuel to the air and detonating it to increase air speed at the outlet.
3.1.2.1.1.2) Wouldn't that generate temperatures too high for life?{18:9,"So Bioships?"}
- 3.1.2.1.1.2.1) Not everything need to be made from living cells, the part that is subjected to high temperatures could be like nails or horns.{46:-10}
3.1.2.1.1.3) What could be a fuel?
- 3.1.2.1.1.3.1) Methane maybe. In space, carbon may be hard to come by so a better choice could be hydrogen generated by hydrolising water in comets.{4:2,"So Bioships?}
3.1.2.1.2) With geysers{7:1,"So Bioships?}
- 3.1.2.1.2.1) The creatures can use parachutes to increase surface area to be liften into space{46:-16}
3.1.2.1.3) By flying too high{3:4}
3.1.2.1.3.1) Flying like a bird or rising like a balloon couldn’t move the creature above the atmosphere {3:4}, or increase their speed enough to put them to orbit
3.1.2.1.4) By running as fast as the escape velocity{46:-18}
3.1.2.1.4.1) Could both these be true 1)the atmosphere in the mountains{4:1} allow that speed {1:85,“Some alien species that could exist (but don’t on earth)”}and 2) the atmosphere in low altitudes{46:-18} allow life to appear in the first place?
3.1.2.2) Why would it try to go to space in the first place?{8:5}{53:-14}? There is no benefit to being in space.
- 3.1.2.2.1) Deserts have life, even though they are deserts.{33:-3} It could be a place to hide{33:-1}(like corals are to fish) if the ground is full of predetors, some herbivores may evolve rockets and stay in the air for extended amounts of time. This could start an evolutionary arms race, where the predetors also evolve rockets, or not do that because its costly.
- 3.1.2.2.2) Plants make more energy out of atmosphere, an animal that steals chloroplasts{29:1,“Fungoid, Plantoid creatures?”} or has algee inside its transparent body{53:6} could create more energy out of sunlight{46:-6}{4:1}{5:1} than a creature that doesn’t rise that high(needs calculation), giving the creatures that got that high in the first place another reason to keep doing that.
3.1.2.3) Anything that wants to stay in air would almost certainly evolve wings, not rockets{53:-11}, and wings can never can exit the planet.
- 3.1.2.3:1) It has to fail to do wings{56:-9}, and go with the rocket design.
3.1.2.4) Why evolve to tolerate space-like conditions if there are no similar conditions on a planet?{53:-10}
- 3.1.2.4.1) It would evolve to survive in a weaker atmosphere as it (rocket creature) moves higher each generation
3.1.2.5) It would be easier for life to exit a low gravity planet, but wouldn't low gravity planets lose their atmospheres?{53:25}
- 3.1.2.5.1) If it is a moon of a gas giant{33:1}, it doesn’t have to be big enough to keep its core molten to make its own magnetic field to keep its atmosphere.
- 3.1.2.6)Can light sails be used in low orbit, and is there anything they could evolve from that is used in the planet[53:-12]?(unanswered)
- 3.1.3) Designed by a civilisation (engineered bioships)
3.2) Questions for aware stage creatures roaming in space
3.2.1) Could they land in a planet?{2:1}{53:-17}
- 3.2.1.1) If they go back and forth between the low orbit and the ground{46:-5}, they would be adapted to both enviroments. If they are always in orbit, they may lose adaptations that allow them to live in the planet{53:-18}. If they move between planets, they can either land in one of them(due to their possibly different enviroment), or only interact with the species in the orbit around those planets
3.2.2) How would they breathe in space?{3:-5}
3.2.2.1) Photosynthesis
- 3.2.2.1.1) The boundary between plants and animals is much less strict in space. Plants need to be mobile to collect materials, and animals need plants to turn their carbondioxide into oxygen. So everyone does photosynthesis{46:-26}, there are "plant/gatherer"s and "plant/carnivore"s.
3.2.2.2) Holding your breath
- 3.2.2.2.1) The most succesful carnivores or gatherers may survive without needing to carry their photosynthesisers, exclusively getting their oxygen from their prey{46:-25} or by hydrolising water{5:1}
3.2.2.3) Keeping the gas in
- 3.2.2.3.1) The respiratory gasses either always remaining dissolved in their tissues(the external shell that keeps the pressure also needs to prevent the gas from leaking slowly over the long run{56:-15}) , stored in an organ, or carried outside the body.{46:-22}
3.2.3) How would they reproduce?{53:20}
- 3.2.3.1) By budding{56:-15}
3.2.4) Isn't there too much radiation in space?{3:-2}{53:16}
- 3.2.4.1) The creature’s body can have a layer of lead, or more likely water to prevent radiation. The cells beyond this defence could be replaced with stem cells {1:-6} brought from inside this defence.
3.2.5) How would they survive in a vacuum?{3:6}{8:-4}{53:16}
- 3.2.5.1) A shell or exoskeleton to keep its tissues pressurised{46:27}
3.2.6) Isn't it too cold in space?{53:16}
- 3.2.6.1) No, an object placed next to earth in space would become 23 degrees celcius according to a calculation {56:-22} (but it would get colder if it was in the shadow of earth or started out with a liquid that started to boil)
3.2.7) The effect of body size on temperature
- 3.2.7.1) A lizard produces {56:youtube video} the same heat as the sun per volume. That could be less for space whales if they slow their metabolism as much as they can, which they would, see (3.2.11.1.1.2)
3.2.8) How to get colder
- 3.2.8.1) Reflective coating for approaching the star (doesn’t prevent body heat from building up)
- 3.2.8.2) Increasing the surface area{56:-2} (what if you had large leafs and everytime you photosynthesised it cooled you, and limited where you can do photosynthesis?)
- 3.2.8.3) Having water boil on you or in you
3.2.9) How to get hotter
- 3.2.9.1) Shivering or using brown fat cells, or with radioactive materials
- 3.2.9.2) Making your external side cold(to avoid radiating away the heat){56:-20} and keeping your temperature inside hot like a flask
3.2.10) They would quickly run out of materials to expel{3:-11}{6:2}, how would they move?
- 3.2.10.1) By using a solar sail {3:-10}
- 3.2.10.2)They could be biologic rockets and create and store their fuel {46:-10} in asteroids or orbital nests{33:-2}, they would plan their course beforehand{1:-3} and use the fuel accordingly{1:3}.
3.2.11) How would they generate energy?{3:-9}
3.2.11.1) With photosynthesis{3:-9}{53:5}. This is also discussed in (3.1.2.2.2) and (3.2.2.1.1)
3.2.11.1.1) How would photosynthesis generate enough energy to support an animal, doesn't it leave you with very little expendable energy?{3:-8}{53:12}{16:3,"Fungoid, Plantoid creatures?"}
- 3.2.11.1.1.1) Photosynthesis without an atmosphere blocking high energy wavelenghts could be more efficient.{46:-6}{4:1}{5:1}(needs calculation).
- 3.2.11.1.1.2) Space whale lifestyle is very sessile, just like being a plant{56:-6}. They don’t have to use their rocket fuel to accelerate all throughout the journey, if they did that their average speed would be less(even if the final speed is the same)[1]. They would use all the fuel(except the reserves) all at once, then hibernate{56:-7}. Solar sails don’t require that much movement too.
3.2.11.2) With radiosynthesism using radioactive materials {3:-8}{61:2}
- 3.2.11.2.1) Doesn’t uranium need to be enriched, and isn’t it non renewable?(unanswered)
3.2.12) How would they get the material to build their bodies in the first place?{3:-9}
- 3.2.12.1) Free floating asteroids
- 3.2.12.2) Asteroids in rings, which could have millions of times more accesible materials than the surface of a rocky planet{80:-1}
- 3.2.12.3) A planet, especially if they already started in a planet{46:-4}
3.2.13) Wouldn't their journeys last so long that they would become fossils by the time they reach their destination?{3:-1}
- 3.2.13.1) Maybe with a slow enough metabolism they can live for a very long time{1:2}(how?)
- 3.2.13.2) The journey inside the solar system lasts 100 days or so {32:-4,“So Bioships?”}
3.2.14) Don't the small objects in space be very fast and damaging?
- 3.2.14.1) They would need to have enough protection for that.{1:4}{46:-31}
3.2.15) The membranes for photosynthesis would need to be thin enough, but how does it survive against the conditions of space?{53:7}
- 3.2.15.1) The membranes may not touch space directly{56:5}. Is it the membrane of a chloroplast? I didn’t understand the question.
3.2.16) How could the surface area for photosynthesis increased to support animal life{53:9}?
- 3.2.16.1) With large leaf like structures that are covered with the same shell which keeps it pressurised
3.2.17) How would the organisms get the limiting nutrients, like nitrogen or phosphorus{53:14}?
3.2.17.1) If they started from a planet, their planet would have it. Other than that, it depends on the composition of the other bodies in the solar system.(needs elaboration, where do those elements tend to be?)
3.2.18) Why haven't we seen any large sized organisms survive in space before?{53:19}
3.2.18.1) We saw, they are humans with space suits, those adaptations just need to appear with evolution.
3.2.19) Moving inside a planetary ring
- 3.2.19.1) The asteroids are quite far from each other{92:1}{12:1,“So Bioships?”}. The species would need to have a very good eyeseight{84:2} (perhaps something like a telescope) to locate another asteroid and move there for resource extraction. It can use rockets or just jump{84:1}, as nothing would stop or slow it down
3.2.20) Can space whales go to other stars?
- 3.2.20.1) They would have no reason to venture into space{4:4}. If they go, that would be because of an accident or because their sun blow up, they survived but the sudden removal of mass made their former orbits too full of kinetic energy to stay in the solar system (but would such stars have long enough lives to allow for space whales to evolve?)
3.2.21) Would they ever leave their gas giant, its moons and rings?
3.2.21.1) With enough spare fuel, the gatherers(3.2.2.1.1) may run away from carnivores and move away from the gas giant to hide, knowing they can get back when the number of carnivores decrease and it is a good time to be a collector. They can stumble to other planets this way, and eventually the sun.
4) The programmability
4.1) Could space whales be achieved unintentionally, or would it needed to be coded for it to exist?
- 4.1.1) According to Buckly,{3:1} they would need to be consciously programed.
- 4.1.2) According to TeaKing{16:5}, playing in asteroids will not be added.
- 4.1.3) According to fralegend015{49:1} and Deus{53:1}, there will not be space whales.
- 4.1.4) Nigel{50:1} may or may not have suggested adding an easter egg that launches the creature into space.
- 4.1.5) I think if space was simulated in aware stage, some creatures could end up there.
-
unless it works like an ion drive, able to have a fast thrust but unable to send a significant amount of it in a short time ↩︎
4 Likes
Well, that’s certainly one way to lay out an argument. I’ll make one point and probably leave this debate altogether.
First, let’s assume that your reply to (almost) every point made above is accurate (There are some I do disagree with, and others I will concede, but that doesn’t matter here). I’ll choose a couple of them to make my point.
3.2.4) Isn’t there too much radiation in space?
- 3.2.4.1) The creature’s body can have a layer of lead, or more likely water to prevent radiation. The cells beyond this defense could be replaced with stem cells brought from inside this defense.
3.2.11) How would they generate energy?
- 3.2.11.1) With photosynthesis.
- 3.2.11.2) With radiosynthesis using radioactive materials.
3.2.14) Don’t the small objects in space be very fast and damaging?
- 3.2.14.1) They would need to have enough protection for that.
3.2.10) They would quickly run out of materials to expel, how would they move?
- 3.2.10.1) By using a solar sail
- 3.2.10.2) I’m ignoring this one point. I could argue about how it makes 0 sense and wouldn’t work all day, and it makes the argument more annoying to present, and really doesn’t matter.
Starting with these assertions:
- A space whale would need a large layer of lead or water to not die from radiation.
- It could generate energy with photosynthesis or radiosynthesis.
- They would need protection to not die from space debrie.
- They would need something like a solar sale to move.
Logically:
- It would need a thick layer of lead or water.
- It would need to be able to access light, or the radiation of space.
- It would need to have a thick outer layer to protect it.
- It would need to be very very large, and extremely thin.
Rearranging things:
- It would need a thick layer of lead or water.
- It would need to have a thick outer layer to protect it.
- It would need to be very very large, and extremely thin.
- It would need to be able to access light or the radiation of space.
Is it not clear that these things conflict? Sure you could make a counter to every point made, but when put together the argument still needs to be cohesive. And sure you could try to prove that these specific points don’t conflict or there are other ways for this to work, but that would be entirely missing the point. I could have made this same exact argument with so many other points up there.
And maybe, just maybe, with enough time, you could put together the perfect creature, one that makes full cohesive sense. We are only aware of one planet with life so life seems pretty rare to begin with. And then on top of that, you would need to add so many conditions and caveats and pure strokes of luck to make something like that possible, the probability of it ever actually happing is so absurdly low that it would not be unfair to call it impossible (This last paragraph goes out to a lot of debates on here. Underwater civs, I’m looking at you)
4 Likes
Even if you have gone really high using geyser, you are just going to fall.
If you don’t want to fall, you need to also give yourself speed in another direction
Layers from outside to inside: 1) A transparent but non living shell against the vacuum {56:10} 2)A thin layer of photosynthesising cells[1] 3)A thick layer of water 4)All the other cells, including stem cells to replenish the plant cells as they die.
Well maybe replenishing can’t be done fast enough.
The example was Enceladus, and the orbit would be around Saturn[2].
^
I ordered the layers what is the conflict in that? (Is it transparent shell?)
There are two big problems. One, there’s an assumption that all these traits will just perfectly cooperate with each other and exist without any conflict at all. Is it valid to assume that an exoskeleton made out of a transparent material can adequately shield against an external threat like radiation? How could this exoskeleton lead to feasible movement considering all known organisms surviving in space have to encase themselves in shells so thick that they are inflexible? How would the organism be able to adequately circulate water everywhere? How could such an exoskeleton be thick enough to protect against radiation but thin enough to allow a body plan with extensive surface area structures akin to leaves considering the animal’s photosynthetic nature? And how could it replenish that water?
Second, as @GameDungeon mentioned - even if each perfectly intertwined system could feasible coexist in the same animal, how could an organic, unplanned phenomena such as evolution lead to such an organism? You’re thinking “how can I make a creature perfectly planned for this specific niche?”You have a strategy, an understanding of whatever grand structure is needed to evolve a spacefaring organism, and a solid understanding of some of the obstacles a spacefaring organism would need to face.
Evolution, meanwhile, doesn’t think - it’s a naturalistic process. There is no specific objective in mind when it comes to evolution. There isn’t a plan to adapt to a specific niche; in the “eyes” of evolution, there is only what is present currently in the morphology of an organism, and what is immediately present in the environment.
This means several things. First, not everything is possible, given the fact that any adaptation has to be rooted in a pre-existing structure. Second, every single iterative step towards a specific adaptation has to make sense.
Theoretically, it makes sense that humans would benefit from wings; flying is universally useful, right? But we haven’t evolved wings. First, wings would have to come from a pre-existing structure, such as our arms. Second, the path to the evolution of wings and flight wouldn’t make iterative sense. Why would we lose density in our bones to become lighter if we are adapted to walking on land and are already so based on being relatively dense organisms? Why would we exchange our grasping abilities for a weaker grasper more suited to flight?
The same thing is there for any speculative adaptation for any organism in earth. It would make sense for plants to go to space, but there is just no way tolerances for space would emerge naturally because plant evolution doesn’t have a goal - it just adapts to the immediate environment. It would make sense if a motile organism grew photosynthetic capabilities but there is just no way we can do that without making major concessions to what already works.
As GameDungeon said - you might be able to design a perfect, hypothetical organism for a very specific niche. But that doesn’t mean evolution is able to do the same thing.
3 Likes