To date, I have not found the involvement of biologists in these areas and related topics, in all the papers I've revised. As far as I know, only scientists with physical background, have participated in these topcis that are largely Biological. I would really know which biologists, or at least, multidisciplinary teams have papers about those topics.
Yes Dr. Towe, I appreciate your advice.
e. g. CIRCUMSTELLAR HABITABLE ZONE concept:
Was suggested and likely almost printed in the way of thinking of 50's and even in today by Hubertus Strughold, a German medic physiologist who was brought after WWII to US (USAF SAM and NASA) to work on manned spaceflight related physiological issues.
-- In 1953 Strughold (the father of space medicine), introduces the term "Ecosphere"
-- In the same year, the astronomer Harlow Shapley called that zone as "Liquid Water Belt".
However, It seems that Strughold work and ideas during all 50's, influenced the:
-- Astrophysicist S.S. Huang 1959, 1960 HZ concept and ideas
-- Chemist S. H. Dole 1964 HZ concept and ideas
-- Astrophysicist and Astronomers I. Shklovski and C. Sagan 1966 HZ concept and ideas
-- Astrophysicist M. H. Hart 1978, 1979 HZ ideas
-- Astrophysicist D. P. Whitmire 1991 Hz ideas
-- Geoscientist J. F. Kasting 1993 HZ iconic concept and fascinating ideas
-- Physics Pierrehumbert and Gaidos, 2011 ideas
-- Astrophysicist R. Kopparapu et al., 2013 and Zsom et al., 2013, ideas
But... none Biologist...
Dr. Towe, I'm charmed, impresed and so interested in your papers, and the same with Dr. Kasting and Dr Seager papers. All of you are a living encyclopedia and a vital compass for me. You have contributed so much to the astrobiology, paleobiology, origin of life, etc., fields, but I wonder, why there aren't (apparently) biologists contributing like you? Mainly, in the delimitation of something actual and important for the space sciences like is the Habitability conditions beyond Earth. Why Biologists are ausent in this topic? What is going on with the relationship between Biologist and the Space sciences?
Dr Towe, I'm very sorry for the late of my answer. I'm writting a paper about it. In this days (this week), I going to do my best to write an answer which sintetize my way of thinking and I going to try to be clear and concrete (i dont know if "concrete" is used in english as in spanish). Thanks a lot for your time and for be interested in my question and opinion.
I'm writing right now something about this situation of Habitability, and Habitable Planet and Zone here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Habitable_Zone_Gallery?cp=re65_x_p2&ch=reg&loginT=i-C8BQfZSYGitMum-AzFHVshIo_PuIUrcAspwI5k49pfYqpLTeDTTA%2A%2A&pli=1#view=5318cea7d2fd64767d8b461f
After few amazing readings, lectures, discussions and coffee breaks, I can conclude that among all the habitability conditions that we could know and imagine (obviously just for the life we know), there are at least 3 extremely important for us (mainly) and for the most of the LIFE in Earth.
-- water (in its 3 states, although liquid is better),
-- a source of energy (Geothermal and its variants, Solar and Chemical), and
-- LIFE
A planet without Life will be uninhabitable (in a natural way) for us, could be habitable (in a natural way) for our microbial life, and could be habitable (in an artificial way), for us, by colonization-terraformation (and we need another house in order to survive as specie).
A planet with Life could be relatively habitable (in a natural way) for us, and very habitable (in an artificial way), but ethically uninhabitable, and likely dangerous by its microbial Life.
Then, an inhabited planet (if exist) isn't habitable, is just inhabited. The Oxford English dictionary say literally Habitable = “suitable or good enough to live in”
Very likely there isn't a "Habitable Planet" (for Us), so nor a "Habitable Zone". In order to understand better this, we need to think about that we need plants and animals to eat, to survive. Are we going to go to an inhabited (technologically habitable for us) planet, with our seeds of apple, sunflowers, grass, etc. and cows, chickens, pork, etc.??
A scientist who I admire so much said in one of his papers: "If the Sun were removed to some typical distance (∼30 light years) and were on the target list of our planet-hunters, it would probably still be listed as having no planets"
Ok, that is very bad, but then I wonder what’s going on with a typical distance of 20 ly, or 10 ly, or optimistically 4 ly? What chances we have to find life with certainty, if we are unable to detect life in our neighbor planets or nearby moons.
In my humble opinion we are not approaching, in an adequate way, to solve the problem and we are losing the compass. We need invest 90% of astrobiological founds, infrastructure and minds, in searching life and after, search for or made habitability (colonization-terraformation) in our neighbor planets or nearby moons.
Out there, could exist Life and inhabited planets, and a lot of "Tech-Habitable potentially planets" (for Us). But we need to be more precisely, humbles and careful with what we search. There aren't authorities in this topic. We need something like a multidisciplinary and international panel, to define the “what” and “how”. The "Habitable Zone" concept must be underused, mainly in the search of life and renamed as: Zone for the search of Surficial Liquid Water, and point . Now, I know that I'm not an important scientist, but I'm doing my best because I really want to find Life out there, is just that it seems that for imprecise or mistaken that a set of concepts might be (or are being used), they linger many years, I think because there are disconections between sciences, arrogance and historically we have many emotions when somebody come to tell us that the Earth isn't the center of the Universe.
Please I would like to know all the different opinions about this topic and about I wrote. At your orders, I remain.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Virology
- Virus