It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Drake equation WRONG!!! All water on Earth came from space!!

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:46 PM
ok bare with me folks

all water on earth came from space!!!

you all know the drake equation right? and the extended drake equation?

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL < drake equation

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

Outcome of life elsewhere 1 in 1 (extended version)

if this is true and water is essential for life dosn't the Drake equation (extended) need revising ? this should include the possibility of a planetary body being bombarded by these ice comets .. because if water didn't form naturally as part of an atmospheric process... surely this cuts the odds signficantlly of life evolving elsewhere...

Unless of course icy asteroids are abundant in the formation of galaxies / solar systems etc .

so does the drake equation need a W = chances of planets recieving water form an outside source written into it?

thus the Drake equation needs a rewrite...


[edit on 14/9/07 by Quantum_Squirrel]

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:13 PM
As you may recall, it's defined as the frequency of potentially actively communicating sentient beings.

It doesn't consider the likelyhood of spacefaring beings.

Would be nice if someday, somehow we were able to set up a 'Galactic Internet'.

One might argue that it would require this to develop a 'Type 2' Civilization. Once this happens, sentient beings will be everywhere.

Edit: OK, I didn't really attempt to answer your question. The number of water planets must be quite small, but I still think they outnumber the communicating beings in any one galaxy.

There could be a substantial number of 'nearly sentient', or newly evolved beings, or types that are not 'technological'. They might even be extraordinarily developed in mind or body, but they're stuck on their planet.

It appears that evolution of sentience requires periodic extinctions, or at least those speed things along. More niches, intelligence trumps claws and teeth...

Generally, though highly evolved intelligences would require spacefaring so they could spread to other planets and eventually escape the tyranny of the extinctions.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by Badge01]

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by Badge01

your right, yes you are but my point is .. drakes calculation is calculating the possibility of life bearing planets in this equation . but the fact 'evolution' may not go they way they think it does , surely this adversley effects the equation if there is an element of chance involved in the creation of sentient species.

what if water does not hit these planets that are in the range of creating habitable life.. surely this effects the overall outcome of the mathmatics.

[edit on 14/9/07 by Quantum_Squirrel]

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:23 PM
Drake is not the probability of 'life', but communicating through space with other sentients (or potentially).

So lower forms will probably be very common throughout the galaxy.

We just need to find one other example of life (Europa?).

But there does not appear to be an abundance of spacefaring sentients.

(Or else, everyone is in 'stealth mode' due to some galactic threat (like the Borg)).

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:30 PM
again i sit corrected Drakes equation is indeed an equation that calculates the possibility of life that can communicate with other sentient beings over vast distances.. however i think it all boils down to the same thing .. life forming in the first place is surely a pre-requisite of this equation, which inturn effects it diversly. without one the is no other, no end result!!

life has to form in the first place for this equation to be brought into effect.

also if lower lifeforms are abundant according to this theory of water on earth .. do you really think life (in whatever form it may take) is as abundant as original predicted? maybe water arriving on earth was a freak if not rare occurence?

i welcome your input.....

[edit on 14/9/07 by Quantum_Squirrel]

[edit on 14/9/07 by Quantum_Squirrel]

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:24 PM
I was trying to say that due to sheer number of potential planets around billions of stars in our Galaxy, 'water planets' are probably rare, but not 'extremely rare'.

My hunch is that there are probably plenty (10,000?). If we have more than 10,000 planet bound sentients who can communicate actively (I.e. can generate several Gigawatts of excess power), I'd be surprised.

I tend to look upon the Galaxy like a typical PC 'Roleplaying game' of 'Space Adventure'.

In it, you start with a few dollars, and you go pick a crew and equip a ship which will barely get you into orbit (of course you have no fuel!).

Then you mine until you have enough money to 'buy' attributes so your 'crew members' aren't morons; you buy fuel and then start to transport parts for a Space Station.

From there, with lots more mining and finding clues and bonuses, you manage to get to the Moon.

It takes a LOT more money to get out of the Solar System, and a Star Drive is crazy expensive.

Only the most determined and clever game players make it even this far.

Indeed, if you pick the wrong crew, you might not have the 'Right Stuff' to get very far - you end up starting over a lot.

So to recap, yes it's key that water (or some kind of fluid/solvent) be abundant, I think. Any planets or beings that don't use it much would probably be 'extremeophiles' and outliers.

Yes, I think that this, and several other things need to be 'added' to the Drake Equation. (perhaps the need for a large moon?)

Good topic, btw.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:15 AM
drake has been asked many times about modifying the equation. He gets lots of suggestions from people about things to add. He says they are already covered

eg your one about getting water would come under ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life , using your logic we could add in a fatcor for every element needed oxygen, nitrogen, plate tectonics,CO2, ozone etc they are all covered already in the equation

its assumed planets would need water for life therefor no need to add an extra useless factor.

edit: badge there is no definitive proof planets need a large moon so why add it to the equation? . Even if we did need a moon you could still put it under "ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life"

[edit on 15-9-2007 by yeti101]

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 05:50 AM
I think that would be included in

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 06:15 AM
if earth is the only planet with water in the solar system and all the water came from asteroids there are two possibilities, either earth was targeted or these asteroids are incredibly common and bombard all planets, but don't have a large effect unless the planet is in a habitable zone.

if you believe the latter, then there is no effect on the equation, if you believe the former then it suggests highly complex thermoforming.

the latter is more reasonable in my opinion.

not that it matters anyway, if we could assign values to the various letters then we wouldn't need the equation to figure out how many communicable civilizations there are, we could just go around the galaxy and count them.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:23 AM
earth is not the only planet in the solar sytem with water, the diffirence is its frozen on every other planetary body e.g mars/moon/mercury- most of it has evaporated away from those planets over time

[edit on 15-9-2007 by yeti101]

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:52 PM
I only -suggest- that a large moon -might- be an important factor.

As you know the moon is a major factor of influence for the moderation of the climate on Earth.

So, like the 'habitable zone' in that chart someone linked to, the main idea is to moderate the conditions so it's not too hot, too cold, too windy, and so forth.

Though the terms could be included in the equation element 'Ne', it's more a specific so it may drop the final N somewhat.

Remember - we're just talking about ability to communicate actively

Moving on for a sec to 'space faring', if you tack that on to the paradigm, it gets MUCH harder to find the ideal (or even adequate conditions).

Too large a planet, even if it's got everything else in its favor, would have a gravity so deep the inhabitants would have a very tough time getting into Low Orbit.

If the planet has not had any major collisions, then the metals may still all be in the core and essentially unreachable by mining.

So, what I'm saying is that a 'habitable' planet may be a perfect 10 in all aspects except one, and they'd be stuck on planet. (of course the Drake Eq isn't about space faring...I'm just sayin').

[edit on 15-9-2007 by Badge01]

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by yeti101

I agree, this is my understanding; water is commonly found, it seems. The source of planetary water is thought to be 'comets', not asteroids, btw. They're like giant snowballs according to the show I saw.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:33 PM
the thing is nobody knows how big a factor the moon is in intelligent life evolving. The changes in climate of the earth with no moon would happen over millions of years if your talking about a complete flip of the poles- plenty time for life to adapt. It may not be a factor at all

best just to keep the equation Ne imo

[edit on 15-9-2007 by yeti101]

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by yeti101

No, they don't; I think you're quite justified. Just because the effects of the moon are an integral part of the circulation of the oceans, and movement of the tides, and that this water circulation is modulated, and steady-state is maintained, by that action doesn't mean that some other planet could not have 'evolved' other ways to moderate things.

I would think, though, that all things being equal planetary weather probably tends to be pretty hostile and chaotic. It very well could be that without a big heat sink (oceans) and a strong gravitational influence (Moon), any sentient life ends up living underground. (not very conducive to space flight, as it were.

Bear in mind that having a proportionally large, not too distant moon, might also be integral in getting off the planet.

The required sequence might be:
Low Planet Orbit-->Space Station--->Moon-refuel--->nearest planet's moon-->colonization of the solar system--->Deep Space. (My personal feeling is that it takes Galactic collaboration to get out of the local solar system - tapping the galactic Internet.)

Anyway, if one element is missing, could that be a stopper to getting off planet? Maybe the moon has only to be large enough to land upon and store fuel? Maybe without enough raw materials to make fuel on the moon, it's a project stopper?

That's terribly Earth-centric and anthropocentric, I think it gets the idea across, and that is there is probably a reasonably narrow window through which certain things happen. Again, diverging from the Drake Equation to talk about longevity via space faring.

new topics

top topics


log in