What have we learned about Pluto so far?

New Horizons has caught our attention, or at least it should have. Pluto is about 5,874,000,000 km from the sun, or 39.26 times as far from the sun as Earth is. The reason I say “about” is that the orbit is eccentric, and sometimes is closer to the sun than Neptune is, but it is an orbital resonance with Neptune, so it will never collide with it (unless something else disturbs the resonance). The space craft flew by Pluto at about 50,000 km, so think of the triumph of getting that accuracy. The cameras can see objects down to about a kilometer in size.

Pluto is actually smaller than our moon, and has only 18% of our moon’s mass, but because it is about 1/3 ice, it has more water than Earth. When Pluto gets closer to the sun, it has a weak atmosphere of nitrogen, and probably some carbon monoxide and maybe methane and argon. As it gets further from the sun, these gases snow out. The surface temperature varies, but is in the order of minus 230 degrees Centigrade. That much we knew.

Pluto has an interesting history, in that it was predicted by Percival Lowell in 1915 based on deviations found in the orbits of Neptune and Uranus. Neptune itself was discovered because the orbit of Uranus did not follow Newton’s laws exactly, but it would if there were another giant planet pulling on it. Accordingly, astronomers could predict where Neptune would be, they looked, and there it was. A triumph for physics. However, Neptune’s orbit was still not right, so Lowell predicted a further planet, calculated where it should be, and Clyde Tombaugh found it in 1930. Another triumph! Nevertheless, this shows an important fact, namely just because you can predict something that turns up, that does not mean the basis of the prediction was correct, as Pluto is far too small to account for what Lowell calculated. The discovery was a happy accident.

So, what have we discovered about Pluto? In my opinion, so far, not a lot, but that is mainly because most of the data will not come in for months. We have corrected Pluto’s size, but that is not a huge achievement. However, the images have given us a lot to think about. The one thing that has surprised us is that Pluto is geologically active, and far more so than anyone might have expected. I have seen statements that it must have been essentially resurfaced about a hundred million years ago. I am not too sure about that, as it is based on crater count, and I doubt anyone has any good data on collisions that far out. Furthermore, if the bodies out there are largely icy, and Pluto’s surface is mainly ice, then because collision velocities will be a lot slower out there, it is possible that collisions will not excavate a crater, but rather the energy will melt the ice, it will flow, then re-freeze, thus not forming a crater. Nevertheless, the mountains, canyons, and the flat areas are indicative that there has been significant internal heat. That could come from a number of sources, such as radioactive decay, collisions, one of which may have formed the moon system, and possibly even a little chemistry.

The heat may not have to be intense if it is uneven, because it would volatalise gases such as nitrogen, and that would create a lot of internal stress. Another form of internal stress may come from freezing water. If the outer layers are largely free of rock, that having sunk to the core, then because water expands a little on freezing, that “little” will be magnified into quite a change of length over the circumference even of a dwarf planet, and with nowhere to go, there could be considerable additional warpage. That is unlikely to account for all the mountains, etc, but it may add to the cause and magnify it.

What do we think we know about Pluto? Try this link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam/2015/07/21/the-weirdest-reason-pluto-didnt-become-a-real-planet/
Here, they argue Pluto grew in the region of Jupiter/Saturn, and with Uranus and Neptune, were thrown out into the outer solar system, where there is not enough material to grow. I don’t believe that, because I don’t believe the standard theory of planetary formation, which starts off by assuming that the dust accretes into planetesimals by some unknown mechanism, and these collide to form larger objects, and finally, planets. The reason the outer giants had to start in the Jupiter/Saturn region is that collisional probabilities are too low to get giants much further out under this mechanism. In my “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”, I argue the first step is actually based on physical chemistry, essentially the same mechanism as forming a snowball, and the planets form at temperatiures where the various ices assist. Ion this theory, Pluto, and the other Kuiper Belt objects formed by the same mechanism that Neptune formed, but because the temperatures were starting to get too low, accretion was slow, but because they were far enough away, they did not get “collected” by Neptune.

So, will we find out more? Basically, we now have to wait for more data, but in the meantime we should congratulate NASA on a truly great achievement. They still have “the right stuff”.

Martian water

To have life, a planet needs water. Mars, being cold, has ice. There is a water ice-cap at the North Pole, and presumably at the South Pole. Yet there are huge valleys consistent with once having had huge flows through them. A recent scientific paper in Science (vol 348, pp218 – 221) shows evidence that Mars once had enough water to cover an area equal to that of the whole planet to a depth of 137 meters. Since Mars is now a desert, where did it go? Some would be lost to space, but a lot probably sunk into the ground, and apparently there are large areas in the northern hemisphere where underground ice sheets have been located by radar.

Having said that, there has been a recent news item of water on Mars at Gale Crater. This might be misleading. What they appear to have found is damper soil, and this has arisen because the salt calcium perchlorate sucks water from almost anywhere and dissolves, and does so at very much lower temperatures. If you mix salt (sodium chloride) with ice, it dissolves in water from the ice and takes heat from the ice, and settles as a liquid at minus 20 oC. Calcium chloride takes the temperature much lower, and apparently, so does calcium perchlorate. Yes, water can be present on Mars, even at the lower temperatures if there is something dissolved in it that lowers the freezing point enough.

Now, one of the puzzles of Mars is that there is evidence of quite significant fluid flows, in the form of great valleys carved out of the land, and which sometimes meander, but always go downhill. There should have been plenty of water, but the average temperature of Mars is currently about minus 80 oC, and back in time when these valleys formed, the sun would have been only 2/3 as bright. Unless the temperatures can be over 0 oC water freezes, so what created these valleys? Carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas would not have sufficed, because if there were the necessary amounts available, the pressure and temperature would lead it to raining out, then as the temperature dropped with lower pressure, the carbon dioxide would frost out as a solid (dry ice). There was simply not enough heat to keep enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Finally, the evidence available is that Martian temperatures never got above minus 60 oC for any significant length of time over a significant area.

The other alternative would be to dissolve something in the water to lower its freezing point. That something would not be calcium chloride or calcium perchlorate, because there simply is not enough of it around, and if there were, there would be massive deposits of lime or gypsum now. So, what could it be? When I was writing my fictional book Red Gold, which was about fraud during the colonization of Mars, I needed something unexpected to expose the fraud, and I thought that whatever caused these fluid flows could be the answer. The problem is simple: something was needed to lower the temperature of the melting point of ice by at least sixty Centigrade degrees, and not many things do that. But, there is another problem. Some of the longest fluid flows start in the southern highlands, which will be amongst the coldest parts of Mars. The reason they start there is simple in some ways: that will be where snow falls, or even where ice that has sublimed elsewhere will frost out. So, why does it melt? It cannot be something like calcium chloride because even leaving aside the point that it may not take the temperatures low enough and there was not enough of it, there most certainly was not enough in one place to keep going, and solids do not move.

My answer was ammonia. Ammonia is a gas, and hence it can get to the highlands, and furthermore, it dissolves in ice, then melts it, as long as the temperatures are at least minus eighty degrees Centigrade. Thus ammonia is one of the very few agents that could conceivably have done what was required. Given that, why is ammonia never cited by standard science? The reason is that ammonia in the air would be destroyed by solar UV, and studies have shown that ammonia would only last a matter of decades.

I argue that reasoning is wrong. On Earth, after 1.4 billion years, samples of sea water were trapped in rock at Barberton, in South Africa, and this water had almost as much ammonia in it as there was potassium. The salt levels were very high, presumably because water got boiled off when the volcanic melt solidified and sealed the water inside, and if that were the case, ammonia would have been lost too, so my estimate that ten percent of the Earth’s nitrogen remained in the form of ammonia may have been an underestimate. Why would the ammonia not be degraded? There are two reasons. The first is that most of the ammonia would be dissolved in water and not be in the air. The second is, ammonia degraded in the upper atmosphere would react with other degradation products and form a haze that would act as a sunscreen that would seriously slow down the degradation. That is the chemistry that causes the haze on Titan.

So what happened to the ammonia on Mars? My answer was, ammonia reacts with carbon dioxide to form first, ammonium carbonate, and subsequently, urea amongst other things. Such solids would dissolve in water, and in my opinion, then sink into the soil and lie below the Martian surface. This would account for why the Martian atmosphere has only about 2% nitrogen in it, and it is only 1% as thick as Earth’s atmosphere. (Nitrogen would not freeze out.) The alternative, of course, is that Mars never had any more nitrogen, in which case my argument fails because there is nothing to make the ammonia with. Does it matter? As I noted in the novel, if you want to settle Mars, yes, it would be very helpful to find a natural fertilizer resource. As to whether this happened, something carved out those valleys, and so far suggestions of what are thin and far between.

If anyone is interested, the ebook is on a Kindle countdown special, starting May 1. Besides the story, there is an appendix that outlines the first form of what would become my theory of planetary formation.

Why do we do science?

What is the point of science? In practice, most scientists use their knowledge to try to make something, or solve some sort of problem, or at least help someone else do that. (Like most occupations, most junior ones turn up to work and work on what they are told to work on.) But, you might say, surely, deep down, they are seekers of the truth? Unfortunately, I rather fancy this is not the case. The problem was first noted by Thomas Kuhn, in his book, “The structure of scientific revolutions”. In Kuhn’s view, scientific results are almost always interpreted in terms of the current paradigm, i.e. while the data are reproduced properly, they are interpreted in terms of current thinking, even if that does not fit very well. No other theory gets a look-in. If a result does not conform to the standard theory, the researcher does not question the standard theory. The first effort is to find some way of accommodating it, and if that does not work, it may be listed as a question for further work, in other words the researcher tries to persuade someone else to find a way of fitting it to the standard paradigm rather than taking the effort to find an alternative theory.

According to Kuhn, most science is carried out as “normal science”, wherein researchers create puzzles that should be solved by the standard paradigm, in other words, experiments are set up not to try to find the truth, but rather to confirm what everyone believes to be true. This is not entirely unreasonable. If we stop and think for a moment, an awful lot of such research is carried out by PhD students, or post-doctoral fellows. The lead researcher has submitted his idea as a request for funding, and this is overseen by a panel. If you submit something that would not get anywhere within the current paradigm, you will not get funding because the panel will usually consider this to be a waste of time. On top of that, if you are going to include a PhD student in this work, that student needs a thesis at the end of his work, and that student will not thank the supervisor for coming up with something that does not produce results that can be written up. In other words, the projects are chosen such that the lead researcher has a very good idea as to what will be found, and it will be chosen so that it is unlikely to lead to too great an intellectual challenge. An example of a good project might to make a new chemical compound that might be a useful drug. The project might involve new synthetic work, there will be problems in choosing a route, but the project will not founder on some conceptual problem.

Natually, the standard paradigm clearly must have much going for it to get adopted in the first place. It cannot be just anything, and there will be a lot of truth in it, nevertheless as I mentioned in my first ebook, part 1 of “Elements of Theory”, any moderate subset of data frequently has at least two theories that would explain the data, and when the paradigm is chosen, the subset is moderate. If all that follows it to investigate very similar problems, then a mistake can last. The classic mistake was Claudius Ptolemy’s cosmological theory, which was the “truth” for over 1600 years, even though it was wrong and, as we now recognize, with no physical basis. If you wish to find the truth, you might follow Popper and try to design experiments that would falsify such a theory, but PhD theses cannot be based like that as it is too risky that the student will find nothing and fail to get his degree through no fault of his.

What brought these thoughts on was a recent article in the journal Icarus. The subject was questioning how the Moon was formed. The standard theory of planetary formation goes like this. After the star forms, the accretion disk that remains settles the dust on the central plane, and this gradually congeals into larger bodies, which further join together when they collide, and so on, until you get planetesimals (objects about the size of asteroids) then, apart from the asteroids, eventually embryos (objects about the size of Mars) which gravitationally interact and form very eccentric orbits, and then collide to form planets (except for Mars, which is a remaining embryo). All such collisions once planetesimals form are random, and the underpinning material could have come from a very large region, thus Earth was made from embryos formed from material beyond Mars and Venus. The Moon was formed from the splatter arising from a near glancing collision of a Mars-sized body called Theia with Earth.

If you carefully measure the isotope ratios of samples of meteorites, what you find is that all from the same origin have the same isotope ratios, but those from different parts of the solar system have different ratios. As an example, oxygen has three stable isotopes of atomic weights 16, 17 and 18. We have carbonaceous chondrites from the outer asteroid belt, a number of samples from Vesta, some from Mars, and of course unlimited supplies from here. The isotope ratios of these samples are all the same from one source, but different between sources. We also have a good number of samples from the Moon, thanks to the Apollo program. Now, the unusual fact is, the Moon is made of material that is essentially identical to our rocks, at least in terms of isotope ratios.

This Icarus paper carried out simulations of planetary formation employing the standard theory, and showed that since the Moon is largely Theia, the chances of the Moon and Earth having the same ratio of even oxygen isotopes is less than 5%. So, what conclusion do the authors draw? The obvious one is that the Moon did not form that way; a more subtle one is that planets did not form by the random collision of growing rocky bodies. However, they drew neither. Instead, they really refused to draw a conclusion.

I should add that I have in interest in this debate, as my mechanism outlined in Planetary Formation and Biogenesis has the planets grow from relatively narrow zones, although the disk material is always heading towards the star to provide new feed. The Moon grows at the same distance as Earth (at a Lagrange point) from the star and hence has the same composition. The concept that the Moon formed at either L4 or L5 was originally proposed by Belbruno and Gott in 2005 (Astron. J. 129: 1724–1745) and I regard it as almost dishonest not to have mentioned their work, which predicts their result provided the bodies form from local material. Unfortunately, the citing of scientific work that contradicts the standard theory is not exactly frequent, and in my view, does science no service. The real problem is, how common is this rejection of that which is currently uncomfortable?

You may say, who cares? It may very well be that how the Moon formed is totally irrelevant to modern society. My point is, society is becoming extremely dependent on science, and if science starts to become disinterested in seeking the truth, then eventually the mistakes may become very significant. Of course mistakes will be made. That happens in any human endeavor. But, do we want to restrict them to unavoidable accidents, or are we prepared to put up with avoidable errors?

Theory and planets: what is right?

In general, I reserve this blog to support my science fiction writing, but since I try to put some real science in my writing, I thought just once I would venture into the slightly more scientific. As mentioned in previous posts, I have a completely different view of how planets, so the question is, why? Surely everyone else cannot be wrong? The answer to that depends on whether everyone goes back to first principles and satisfies themselves, and how many lazily accept what is put in front of them. That does not mean that it is wrong, however. Just because people are lazy merely makes them irrelevant. After all, what is wrong with the standard theory?

My answer to that is, in the standard theory, computations start with a uniform distribution of planetesimals formed in the disk of gas from which the star forms. From then on, gravity requires the planetesimals to collide, and it is assumed that from these collisions, planets form. I believe there are two things wrong with that picture. The first is, there is no known mechanism to get to planetesimals. The second is that while gravity may be the mechanism by which planets complete their growth, it is not the mechanism by which it starts. The reader may immediately protest and say that even if we have no idea how planetesimals form, something had to start small and accrete, otherwise there would be no planets. That is true, but just because something had to start small does not mean there is a uniform distribution throughout the accretion disk.

My theory is that it is chemistry that causes everything to start, and different chemistries occur at different temperatures. This leads to the different planets having different properties and somewhat different compositions.

The questions then are: am I right? does it matter? To the first, if I am wrong it should be possible to falsify it. So far, nobody has, so my theory is still alive. Whether it matters depends on whether you believe in science or fairy stories. If you believe that any story will do as long as you like it, well, that is certainly not science, at least in the sense that I signed up to in my youth.

So, if I am correct, what is the probability of finding suitable planets for life? Accretion disks last between 1 to even as much as 30 My. The longer the disk lasts, the longer planets pick up material, which means the bigger they are. For me, an important observation was the detection of a planet of about six times Jupiter’s mass that was about three times further from its star (with the name LkCa 15) than Jupiter. The star is approximately 2 My old. Now, the further from the star, the less dense the material, and this star is slightly smaller than our sun. The original computations required about 15 My or more to get Jupiter around our star, so they cannot be quite correct, although that is irrelevant to this question. No matter what the mechanism of accretion, Jupiter had to start accreting faster than this planet because the density of starting material must be seriously greater, which means that we can only get our solar system if the disk was cleared out very much sooner than 2 My. People ask, is there anything special regarding our solar system? I believe this very rapid cleanout of the disk will eliminate the great bulk of the planetary systems. Does it matter if they get bigger? Unfortunately, yes, because the bigger the planets get, the bigger the gravitational interactions between them, so the more likely they are to interact. If they do, orbits become chaotic, and planets can be eliminated from the system as other orbits become highly elliptical.

If anyone is interested in this theory, Planetary Formation and Biogenesis (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T0QE6I )

will be available for 99 cents  as a special promo on Amazon.com (and 99p on Amazon.co.uk) on Friday 13, and it will gradually increase in price over the next few days. Similarly priced on Friday 13 is my novel Red Gold, (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009U0458Y  ) which is about fraud during the settlement of Mars, and as noted in my previous post, is one of the very few examples of a novel in which a genuine theory got started.

Discounted and new ebooks

Talk about getting something wrong. I had heard that there was a really good reason to discount my ebooks on Black Friday, and Amazon offers a means of discounting. Accordingly, I decided to get ready, I had plenty of time, after all (and Americans, please, contain your mirth here) I was going to set everything up for Friday December 13. Two things went wrong. The first was, oops – for Americans it appears Black Friday is something else. The second one was that I decided to discount my “Mars books”, but it turned out that I may have trouble with “A Face on Cydonia” because the KDP select period expires this week. Watch this space next week, but sooner or later it will be discounted.

Nevertheless, there will be discounts on the scientific ebook on my theory of planetary formation:

Planetary Formation and Biogenesis (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T0QE6I )

will be available for 99 cents  as a special promo on Amazon.com (and 99p on Amazon.co.uk – these are the lowest prices permitted on each case) on December Friday 13, and the prices increase daily for about 5 days until they reach normal price.

Also on the promo is my novel Red Gold, (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009U0458Y  ) which is about fraud during the settlement of Mars.  This ebook was written in the early 1990s, and to expose the fraud, a surprising discovery was required. The surprise was the discovery of what remained of the Martian atmosphere, which provided the nitrogen fertilizer necessary to make the settlement viable. The very first version that led me to the theory in the first book is outlined in the appendix, so this is one of the very few examples of how a theory got started. How important this is depends on whether the theory is correct, and I would love to know the answer to that one. A review, to help you decide: http://www.ebookanoid.com/?p=9819

Finally, and not on promo (because it has to be there for more days than it has) I have just published my latest ebook, Athene’s Prophecy ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GYL4HGW ). Below, I have copied out the first paragraph, which I think gives some idea of what the book is about:

Pallas Athene was in disgrace, but she felt that it was worth every gram of it for she had immortalized herself, starting over three thousand years before she was born. Yes, she knew that her career as a serious classical historian was over, and being consigned to this miserable cell was not exactly a career highlight, but on the bright side the cell did not have a means of evacuation. If it had, and if there were even a remote possibility that such an evacuation could have been reported as accidental, she was quite certain she would have been consigned to the depths of space. Instead, all they could do was to put her in a shuttle and return her to Earth tomorrow. They would also make certain that she would never be given permission to use the temporal viewer again.

Science in fiction II

In my previous post, I tried to show that science is a way of thinking, but that left the main issue of the title, “Science in fiction” more or less free of comment. On television, at least, there has been a glut of programs showing forensic science, with various level of realism, but the general rules of cause and effect are generally followed, and given that most of the audience would know nothing of forensic science before these programs started, and given their apparent popularity, I think this shows that if properly done, there is no reason to suspect that readers would be put off by science. The important point of such forensic science programs is that there is usually someone present, like the policeman, who knows nothing about it, and hence can be told what is going to happen. I think the concept of “No surprises!” is important. If the reader is told in advance what is going to happen, and why, the reader accepts it, provided the explanations are reasonably clear.

However, you cannot do that with a surprising discovery, and sometimes the story needs just that to drive the plot along. Thus in my novel Red Gold, which was about fraud during the colonization of Mars, I needed a very big surprise of considerable economic significance to expose the fraud. Up until the critical point, it was believed that colonization of Mars might be very difficult because the soil, or more specifically, the regolith, is rather nitrogen deficient. At the same time, the atmosphere of Mars has very little nitrogen in it. These are standard facts and are correct, as far as we have been able to find out. Rather remarkably, we have found very few nitrates, which is something of a surprise since we have found perchlorates, and it would be something of a surprise if chloride in the regolith was oxidized to perchlorate, and nitrogen did not convert to nitrates. The obvious conclusion is that there has always been very little nitrogen in the Martian soil, although there is a reason why that reasoning might be superficial.

Accordingly, one question is, did Mars accrete with almost no nitrogen, or did it have some, and that nitrogen has disappeared. This is important, because unless nitrogen is plentiful in what is called a reduced form, life is very unlikely to evolve. Suppose the nitrogen was there in the reduced form: that means there was a lot of ammonia around. If it were, as the atmosphere oxidized and carbon species turned into carbon dioxide, the ammonia would be slowly turned into urea, which would then be carried more deeply below the surface by water. Any urea or ammonia left on the surface would be oxidised to nitrogen, and would contribute to the residue in the atmosphere. The surprise could therefore be simply the discovery of urea, which would act as he fertilizer and make the settlement viable. The important point of this, at least for me, was that the story could have the settlement declared viable at a point where the fraudsters were building up a case to cash in on compensation when the settlement failed.

A feature of a genuine scientific discovery is that once you make it, in most cases it also explains a number of other problems that had been a puzzle. In this case, the problem is, where did Martian rivers come from, Mars is too cold for water to flow now, and when these rivers did flow, the sun was only about 2/3 as strong as now. There is significant evidence that Mars has never been above – 60  for any reasonable length of time. Had there been ammonia around, water can flow down to -80,  so the story can be given more credibility. This, admittedly, is something of a special case, but I think there are other options if we do not need to know too many genuine facts. Thus, if something ‘amazing’ only applies to one thing, it looks suspiciously like the proverbial ‘magic wand’, designed to do nothing more than get the author out of a plot hole.

For interested readers, on December 13, Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk will have promotional specials of both Red Gold and Planetary Formation and Biogenesis, the latter of which gives far more details of this theory.

Planets for alien life (3)

We have a suitable star, but will it have planets? Let me confess at once – I would generally be regarded as being a heretic on this subject, so be warned. The standard theory argues that they form through the gravitational attraction of planetesimals during the second stage of stellar accretion, but it has no mechanism by which planetesimals form, so there isn’t much more to be said about that. In my view, the planets formed in a completely different way, which involves the chemistry that should take place in the accretion disk and the material gradually heats up as it approaches the star.

In my proposal (more details in my ebook, Planetary formation and biogenesis) the four outer planets form the same way snow-balls form: the pressure induced merging of particles that melt-welds the ices into a larger body when collisions occur a little below the melting point of the ice. There are four major ices, with increasing melting points: nitrogen/carbon monoxide; methane/argon; ammonia/methanol/water; water. Bodies will contain the ices that have yet to melt, so all have water as the major component, and the water should hold the more volatile ices in pores. We then have four giants, in order Neptune, Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter. The satellites form the same way, and the internal chemistry of Saturn converts methanol and ammonia into some methane and nitrogen, which is why Titan (a Saturnian satellite) has an atmosphere, and the somewhat larger Jovian satellites do not. In the ebook I show that the planets are at positions that roughly correspond to the expected temperature profile in the disk when they are formed.

You may be skeptical at this point – where are such exoplanets? The reason why hardly any have been found is that they are difficult to find. Remember how long it took to find Neptune? However, one such system has been found: HR 8799. These planets are at 68 A.U. (1 A.U. is the earth-sun distance), 38 A.U, 24 A.U. and 14.5 A.U. and these distances are proportionately similar to those in our solar system, only more spaced out. The greater distances will arise from more energy being converted to heat, through a larger star (more gravitational energy produced per unit mass) or faster accretion (more mass per unit time). So, why is there only one such system discovered? One reason why these planets were detected is that the inner three are about 9 times bigger than Jupiter, and they have only just formed. Their temperature is about 1100 degrees, so they shine, and we can see them! This is rather exceptional. The two main means of finding planets are the Doppler effect, where the planet pulls on the star as it orbits, and its motion has a “wobble” that can be detected, or, with the Kepler telescope, the planet passes in front of the star, giving a transit effect. Both of these favour finding planets close to the star. The Doppler effect is bigger the larger and closer the planet because that gives it a bigger pull, while to observe a transit, the planet has to be on a line between the observer and the star. Close up, there is more angular tolerance because the star is so big, and there may be, say, 2-3 degrees tolerance. If the planet is as far away as Neptune, there is essentially no tolerance, and there is a further problem: a transit cannot happen more often than once the planet’s “year”. For Neptune, that is about once in 165 years. Kepler has been going only a few years and will soon stop.

The giants are hardly likely to have life as we know it, however giants are important because if the giants grow too big and are too close together, their gravitational interactions start to disrupt their orbits, which at first should become more elliptical, and then start moving each other around. The larger the giants, and the closer they are together, the more disruptive they are. Given sufficient time, they may throw one or more of the giants out of the system, while the Jupiter equivalent moves closer to the star, often becoming a star-grazing planet. If it did that, it would most likely totally disrupt rocky planets. So, the number of suitable stars must be reduced by the probability that the giants stay where they are. Since we cannot, in general, see giants in their proposed original positions, it is hard to estimate that probability, but as noted in the last post, the factor will be something less than a half.

There is still one further problem. If, around the Jupiter position, more than one planet started to grow, subsequent gravitational; interactions could lead to one of the bodies being flung inwards, where, if it is big enough, it may continue to grow. This could produce anything from a water world to a small giant. It is rather difficult to guess the probability of that happening. However, if I am correct, all of those with giants in the right position and which only formed one significant Jupiter-type precursor will be likely to have rocky planets in the habitable zone, and of course, a water world does not prohibit life (although there will be no technology – it is hard to invent fire under water!) There are still plenty of stars! 

Bloghop: Red Gold

I have been introduced to the “Bloghop” concept, where an author posts answers to ten standard questions, so here goes. Needless to say, some of my answers will hardly be standard! (I have also cheated a little by including a touch of the greater concept behind my writing, but then again, it is my blog so why not!)

1   What is the title of your book?

My latest is called Red Gold, and is set in 2075-76.It forms part of a “future history”, which starts in 2030 with Puppeteer, proceeds to the early 2050s with Troubles.

 Where did the idea come from for the book?

I started writing a futuristic novel in the 1990s, but it had far too much backstory, so I cut out some bits, and part of those cuttings led to the idea for Red Gold. The cuttings have actually provided material for five further books.

 3   What genre does your book fall under?

Science Fiction and Thriller, although the series itself will include two that would qualify as historical. The series goes to the 24th century before progressing back to the 1st as a “reboot”, and apart from two chapters, one in each book, they would be straight historical, dealing with the life of the main protagonist under the end of the Imperium of Tiberius, through Gaius Caesar, and the invasion of Britain under Claudius.

 4   Which actors would you choose to play your characters in a movie rendition?

I have no idea, but I would love Peter Jackson to direct, and Weta Workshops to do the special effects. With a bit of luck, they might let the author in to see some of what is going on. Part of “Lord of the Rings” was filmed opposite where I was working at the time, and I really wanted to see what was going on behind the huge “fence”.

 5   What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book?

Red Gold is about one man’s need to expose a fraud committed by his business partner during the colonization of Mars.

 6   Will your book be self-published or represented by an agency?

 It is self-published as an ebook.

 7.   How long did it take you to write the first draft of your manuscript?

About 8 months, I think. It was some time ago, because I abandoned it for a number of years.

 8   What other books would you compare this story to within your genre?

Obviously, nothing is exactly similar, but Kim Stanley Robinson’s Red Mars has a certain similarity in terms of genre.

 9.   Who or What inspired you to write this book?

The first of the futuristic novels was written to “see if I could make it”. To explain that, my first attempt at writing a novel was as an undergraduate in the 1960s. I was with a few female students who were going for a BA, and I could not resist saying that at least science was aimed at creating something, while all they were doing was criticizing. They should be doing, like writing novels. Their response was, I could not come up with a plot so . . My response to that was, of course I could; it was them who could not. So they challenged me, and I came up with one. They challenged me to write it, so I did. I posted it off, got four rejections and gave up. About 15 years later, I looked at it again, and the first twenty pages were awful, and nobody got past them. So I tried rewriting, and sent out query letters, but got no response. Then I tried self-publishing, on the basis that (a) I had some sort of platform because I was on nationwide TV from time to time, and (b) I was getting involved with an industrial venture, and I needed to clear the decks, so to speak. I did, but the venture also took off, and financiers forbade me to seek any publicity for anything. With no advertizing, no publicity, sales were only modest, so in the 1990s I decided to try again and see if I could make it.

 10.    What else about your book might pique the reader’s interest?

I got an agent, the book went to a major publisher, but the editor died and his replacement cleared his desk. According to this editor, my plot was too ridiculous. The book is about a fraud during the colonization of Mars, and it is exposed by an unexpected discovery, which involved where the atmosphere of Mars went. The colonization of Mars is hardly too ridiculous for SciFi, fraud is never ridiculous, which meant my science was ridiculous, and that was the prime insult. I then devoted myself to going deeper into this topic, and this ended up as my ebook “Planetary formation and biogenesis”. If Mars rovers ever find a deposit of nitrogen-rich organic material, this will be the first book to have predicted it.

Finally, something about Bloghop. To see more, go to http://www.colleensayre.blogspot.com