Should there be a canonical "habitability" question?

Question

We get a lot of questions about planetary habitability (just to name a few). This search will give you these and many, many more. I enjoy answering these, as Astronomy is one of my passions and I've learned quite a lot about it. As such, I answer quite a lot of these questions. If I don't answer one, it's generally because there was at least one superb answer before me - often more than one, actually - which I then read, upvote, comment on, and move on.

On the answers I write to some of them, I find myself repeating a few key points:

• Calculating the habitable zone's inner and outer radii
• The lifetime of the central star and whether or not it could support life
• Calculating planetary temperature
• Investigating whether such a planet could form (if applicable)

. . . and so on.

Most cases have something unique about them - whether it be that the planet is shaped like something other than a sphere or whether it is entirely covered by snow - but most ask about whether or not the planet would be habitable, which can be analyzed by the points I listed above, as well as a number of other things.

This question led me to write a loooong answer that addressed a bunch of these, but there's still a lot that's left out.

---

The point of all this is that I'd prefer to write much shorter answers in the future and not have to rehash all of this stuff. All of it is necessary framework to consider, but I think that sometimes people see some of it in my answer, say "Bleah, math and too many words" and skip it to move on to greener pastures.

I'd like to create a canonical "general habitability" question and answer that can be referenced in the future, so I don't have to keep bringing up these points time and time again. It would mean I (and others) could be much more concise and focus on the essential aspects of future questions, allowing me (and them) to go into more detail on the minute aspects of each scenario.

I was going to cover all of the points I described above and more in an answer, with mathematics in the relevant sections and links aplenty. If it was needed, I could add in some points about moons and other objects, which would be helpful.

Is this question and answer acceptable, or should I not post it?

If so, I'll post it either today or tomorrow (most likely tomorrow).

---

By the way, we appear to have a habitation tag, which has been unfortunately only used on three questions (as of this posting). It should probably be used more!

---

There was an issue previously with this question. I only came across it now. I realized that there's a chance that this question will suffer the same fate, in which case I totally understand if mine is closed. Still, I think that it should be kept open because, unlike CAgrppa's question, the material covered in mine has been reiterated time and time again, and will certainly prove useful in the future.

Again, though, I understand if the community wants to close it.

---

The question has been split up into two questions: one about the star, the other about the planet. Others may be added if necessary.

---

There are now multiple answers on the planet question dealing with different aspects of the planet.

Answer 1

Absolutely.

While the existence of this question would not preclude the existence of other habitability questions, it would be useful to have it as a general guide to point people to. I would suggest it should be CW-ed so that it's easy for other people with knowledge to edit it and add bits to it - it just needs a bit of a check every now and then to make sure it hasn't become nonsensical.

Answer 2

I like the idea of having various canonical questions to point people to, but also want to raise a point of concern here. The question touches on and brings together several disciplines, which isn't at all bad by itself, but it is also very broad. The sheer length of the answer itself (even ignoring the images) is a good indication that maybe the question is trying to bite off too much. The answer is easily four screenfuls or so tall even on a high-resolution monitor, and even so, there are still parts of it that aren't filled out or fleshed out. On most sites in the Stack Exchange network, a question prompting an answer of that length would immediately fail the so-called "book test":

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

That's often a problem with canonical questions in general, especially for as broad (subject matter wise) a site as ours: answers risk getting overwhelming.

Instead, I think we should have several different questions (or at the very least, several different answers, each clearly labelled) each of which focuses on a different aspect. One of those could be "I have a planet at distance X from a star, how do I know its temperature?". Another could be "how does the luminosity of a star vary over its lifetime?". A third could be "what range of atmospheric compositions would allow life as we know it to form?". And so on.

That approach does have the downside that it doesn't offer as clear-cut a "close as duplicate" target for any given question. However, it's a lot more digestable for the person who wants an answer to their specific question.

Answer 3

Yes I think it could be useful to have that. Tim B asked questions like these already. As you said, the topic as already been covered in most angles possible and only the details are changing. Therefore it becomes repetitive.

After seeing the question on the main SE, I realize that it's a good idea as long as the scope is relatively focused. Right now, the answer lack consistency probably because the topic is too broad and some parts are just a series of ideas with no descriptions.

About habitation,: it does not feel appropriate. Habitability would suit better. Habitation is more a synonym of a house, the physical place where we live.

Answer 4

I think we get a bit too worked up about broad questions. Yes, they can be a nightmare to try to answer in one big chunk, but people do have broad questions that it would be good to be able to help them with. This is a perfect example - working out the habitability of an arbitrary planet around an arbitrary star (maybe for an arbitrary basis of life form) is an extremely broad topic, but clearly one that is of immense and enduring interest to users of WB.

The idea of a series of more sharply defined questions with CW answers covering such specifics as planetary temperature, radiation etc. is good but incomplete, in my view. What is missing is a top level question along the lines of "I need to work out if my planet is habitable. What specific aspects of the stellar system do I need to consider, and what Worldbuilding resources are available to help me?" with an answer linking out to all the more specific questions relating to particular aspects of habitability. I suspect it might be in danger of being closed as too broad, or perhaps too meta, but given the existence of the individual more specific questions and CWs it would be very valuable.

Come to think of it, I think the current structure of WB positively encourages the asking of rather repetitive questions on topics like this. The landing page lists "Top Questions" and has a prominent "Ask Question" button. What might be better is if the landing page featured "Favourite Topics" with links to canonical question / CW answers on key subjects like planet habitability, religion design, possibly a question on factors to consider when deciding the plausibility of force X being able to win against force Y which has different technology.

That way users would be steered to a set of well developed and maintained answers on such topics that could answer 90% of their queries without the need for additional questions, and the really odd corner cases would still merit a new question (and could potentially subsequently be referenced from the CWs making them ever more complete).

Answer 5

To quote @ArtOfCode, "Absolutely."

I absolutely think that there should be a "default answer" to these questions. It should provide general details, avoiding specifics.

For that matter, I do hereby propose that a whole set of these be made, so that people can have a base knowledge set.