Talk:Habitability of natural satellites

Anthropocentrism
Am I being ridiculous thinking this page has a strong bias toward human life? Forget genuine aliens, even chemotrophs are evidently not considered "life". TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  21:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree -- even the assertion that solar satellites are incapable of supporting life is unproven at best, and evidently false at worst. If true, why is Europa, Enceladus and even underground Mars still considered as plausible locations for life to currently exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.235.104 (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. This assertion made by this article is ridiculous and unproven.     --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Seven Per Cent Solution

 * Another thing that a habitable moon would need is an atmosphere. It would need at least 7% of Earth's to retain most of its atmosphere for 4.6 billion years (Earth's current age) if it had a Mars-like density and an Earth-like atmospheric temperature structure ...

7% of Earth's mass, radius, gravity, atmosphere, what? —Tamfang (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To retain atmosphere, probably mass, but 7%? Mars is more massive, & has been steadily losing atmosphere, as I understand it: not 70% Earth?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Mars has no substantial magnetic field to retain its atmosphere. If it had one, its atmosphere would likely have been more dense and it may have been habitable. Wer900 (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but not on point...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I really meant is that despite its mass of only about 7% that of Earth, Mars would likely have been habitable like the Earth if it had had a substantial magnetic field. Therefore it is quite on-topic. Wer900 (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mars is 11% that of Earth, not 7%. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "What I really meant is" And the question wasn't habitability, but what, exactly, the 7% referred to, so not really on-topic.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that 7% could be a lower cutoff for a tidally locked moon, because the tidal heating would make the core liquefy and produce a strong magnetic field to protect against sputtering. Wer900 (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This article seems to be talking about to things at the same time.
This article seems to be talking about to things at the same time. In the top part it is talking about moon that might have life on them in this solar system, but in the bottom part it is talking about planets that are more earth-like in other solar systems. Both ones are good things to talk about but how shall we organize them? For example none of the moons in the top part fit the criteria in the bottom part. Tideflat (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TWO, not "to". 2601:41:200:5260:4435:FC16:8B3C:DC51 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Rename suggestion: "Natural satellite habitability"
This is a very bad fork of Planetary habitability at present. I'm tempted to say it's unneeded but there are certain issues that may be better covered on a separate page, particularly more complicated orbital arrangements and gaseous moons.

For consistency in naming, I suggest "Natural satellite habitability" as a starting point for this. Any objections? Listsshown (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that is a good idea, because then it matches planetary habitability name better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tideflat (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently I need to have ten article space edits and a four day old account to do a page move. I don't at present but you can go ahead and make the move if you like and maybe we can work on this page. Listsshown (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Tideflat (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Axial Tilt
This section makes a big fuss about axial tilt, without making any real link with effects, if any, on habitability. Is it trying to say that the climate of natural satellites are more stable like Earth than say Mars, because it doesn't really come across that way with awkward wording such as "Provided gravitational interaction of a moon with other satellites can be neglected" really detracting from the message. There is one mention of "moderate climate variations" on Earth, but no connection to habitability of either other planets or moons. Why is it assumed that stable climate is a criteria for life ? On Earth, life has survived radical climate variation, including Snowball Earth episodes, variations which were both rapid and not a direct result of axial tilt. I would think that orbit would play more of a role. Climate variation has been shown to stimulate evolution of life, forcing it to adapt to vastly different environments. .... --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On the exoplanet side. Axial tilt hasn't been a big fuss in fact It's better if the axial tilt is less dramatic (See Superhabitable planet). For Tidal locking newer measurements suggest that dense atmospheres could make wind systems that could evenly distribute the heat along the planet/moon's surface and could be beneficial for planets as they don't have to move (their leaves) and they have no down time (Aka night time). Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Habitability of natural satellites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229235157/https://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast22oct98_2.htm to https://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast22oct98_2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820014713/http://learning.berkeley.edu/astrobiology/2004ppt/jupiter.pdf to http://learning.berkeley.edu/astrobiology/2004ppt/jupiter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

New art
I made a new art piece of much better quality and being much more up to date. . Should we use it?--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Habitable exomoon into Habitability of natural satellites
Both topics overlap. The likelihood to find life in specific celestial bodies go at their dedicated articles, but if we talk from a general perspective there's no clear difference between "Exomoons" (natural satellites outside the Solar System) and "natural satellites" (all of them, in and out the Solar System). Even more so as by now, unlike exoplanets, there are no confirmed exomoon detections. Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 14:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Would similarly support a merge of Habitable exoplanet back to Planetary habitability. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)