Orbital Period effects?

Does orbital period make a difference on whether or not a planet is suitable for life? What possible implications would that have on us if we were to colonize a planet that rotates the star in 6 days?

I can't imagine it has much impact on biology. I think we'd be fine. You're not going to age faster because your planet is rotating around it's star faster.

We could even still use earth calendars there, no reason the length of the year actually has to be tied to the literal physical orbital period.

I'm wondering how long a day lasts on these planets and how it would impact our sense of time. Would it "feel" like a normal earthday or would we get some kind of jetlag?

>tidally locked
>in close orbit around very active star
Nigga there ain't nothing living on these worlds. One side is cooked to all hell, the other is frozen, and the atmosphere is all stripped. NASA's just fishing for funds, as usual.

Theoretically life could exist on the terminator line and with a thick enough atmosphere, a little bit onto the side facing away from the star.

Since its tidally locked there aren't really days like there are on earth. So if life could be sustainable there you could very easily just use the earth 24 hour day and just live perpetually in a sunset/night/day/whatever. Might fuck a person up mentally though cause muh sunlight or whatever. It wouldn't be too different from living way far north during the winter where its night for 5 months straight.

Wouldn't stellar wind blow away their atmospheres and blast their surfaces with radiation?

Pretty much the best takeaway from this discovery is "earthlike planets are actually pretty common".

Depends on their magnetic field. The older that system is, the more likely it is everything is dead.

Are all of them tidally locked?

>Depends on their magnetic field
Not solely, right? The star is smaller, but the planets are also much closer to it than Earth is to the Sun. How powerful would a magnetic field have to be to provide adequate deflection at this distance, and is this actually geophysically feasible?

If the only data we have on them comes from watching the brightness and wobble of their star, how would we even know if they're tidally locked?

It's presumed they might be, due to how close to their parent star they are.

which doesn't really matter, venus is tidally locked, and still has even temperature throughout the whole planet. This whole "planets need to spin to sustain life" is pure bullshit.

>venus is tidally locked

But that's wrong...

Wouldn't matter as much as being tidally locked. That's pretty prohibitive for advanced forms of life.

>Does orbital period make a difference on whether or not a planet is suitable for life?

Interested in your question, I just called up information we have on planets where there is life, and have concluded that we only have one data point and can't generalize from that.

>Are all of them tidally locked?

Nobody knows if any of them are tidally locked.

>That's pretty prohibitive for advanced forms of life.

He guessed, in the abscence of any kind of data at all.

A day on Venus is longer than a year on Venus. So yes, it matters.

I thought that's Mercury that's like that.

Also how does that effect biology? That's what OP is asking.

So Venus is not tidally locked and has no bearing on OP's question.

>I thought that's Mercury that's like that.
Mercury revolves 1.5 in each of its years.

Neither it nor Venus are tidally locked on the sun.

yes it induces motion sickness

To me the biggest question it raises is how does it affect plant growth for food?

This isn't VR

Posted this in another thread, but this thread seems to be active right now, so:

What stresses me out is, if each planet is being pulled by the gravity of those around it, then how stable are these orbits? How are these planets not either being catapulted out of the system, or even worse, thrown into the star the orbit?
(I know the same is happening in our own solar system, but these planets are all so close to each other so the effect would be must stronger)

I think for an orbit of that distance (~ Mercury) in 6 days you would be traveling at about 0.02% the speed of light, so there would be some mild relativistic effects. You would age slower on that planet than you would on earth. I'm guessing there would be considerable perihelion advance as well, which would make forming a calendar tricky. It would also be very tricky to land on one of those planets, seeing as they are traveling very fast and are very close to one another. But I think if you had the tech to get there in the first place, that wouldn't really be a problem.

The speed of the planet would not really have a noticeable impact on the way you live there though.

On the other hand they're close enough together that they might interfere with each other in a way that some of them might not be tidally locked.

>if each planet is being pulled by the gravity of those around it, then how stable are these orbits?

Not very, their orbits probably have ridiculous orbital precessions like Mercury

>be swedish
>half the country is cronically depressed for a large part of the year
>don't see any sunlight for weeks on end during the winter
>imagine this only all year round and with toxic atmosphere, solar flares and no snow

I'd rather fucking die

Have we found habitable planets?

"Close, but no cigar."

That terminator line is bullshit considering the mass majority of each planet's land will be fried, arid, or frozen. That doesn't leave room for a sizable, scalable, and sustainable ecology.

That hypothesized extreme climate variation of tidally locked planets is based on old data from the 90's and has more or less been abandoned.

It turns out that a far more likely scenario is that the atmosphere of a tidally locked world will form a super rotation similar to Venus', and prevent either the night side from freezing over as well as the day side from baking into an arid wasteland. The day side and night side would remain withing a few dozen degrees of one another rather than having the atmosphere freeze out on the dark side as the day side fries.

In any case, even if the x-ray and UV flares make life on the surface impossible, just 5 meters underwater life would be shielded from the radiation, with small periodic die-offs of the top several meters as really bad flares hit, but considering life in the oceans of Earth lives in a range that goes far deeper than just a few meters I think any life in the water on these planets would be fine, assuming there are any oceans of course.