A world with binary suns and multiple satellites that can still be livable by a diverse (even lush) assortment of life forms - true or not?
Feel free to answer the question as asked or explore any of the expanded pondering for more targeted responses.
I'm clearing big blocks out of the way for a story I've been writing for a long time (previously
). Getting the details sorted for the type of world I'm most interested in building has been somewhat stickier than I'd hoped.
1. In the original images I had of this world, it had two suns
. Not right on each other like Tattoine, but definitely visible at the same time at certain points of the day. Then I decided it wasn't a believable world. Earlier this year, though, a study
was published saying twin-sunned habitable worlds are more possible than thought. The floodgates of potential opened again - it would change the world's colours, plants would behave differently, animals (including human-like forms) would need adjustments - which is so appealing that the words just want to spill and spill. I still desire a believable world, so guidelines would be really important to keep it disciplined. The study is clear about livable proximity. One or both suns can be further back and improve habitability with fewer strictures. Ideally: one would be almost as close as Sol is to Earth, the other somewhat higher and further back, and separated by the width of outspread arms at the peak of their shared time in the sky along the horizon.
A. How flexible can I be with their position in the visible sky without them eating each other or having major unpredictable effects in their solar system & impact on the world the story is on?
B. How much control do I need to surrender about having a real night of at least some few hours? How about seasons? Temperature?
C. Are there restrictions on what colours these suns can be?
D. I read an article a while back and lost it on the ways another sun would change the colours of plants and similar effects on living things - any thoughts on this or a link to that article would be vastly appreciated.
2. I'd already wanted multiple moons
and hadn't ever dumped that idea, because I know it's workable (with considerations). I would like one moon to have an organic chemistry in its atmosphere. The rest can be airless. I was thinking 3-7 satellites. Some can be shepherd moons or captured asteroids. I do want them to have tidal influence, and am open to other effects.
A. The world's water mass is 50% or less, with 30% of it in a semi-divided ocean. What are likely behaviours of that amount of mass when influenced by a higher number of satellites?
B. Does the organic chemistry moon have to be huge, like Titan? Can it be as close as Luna (or closer)?
C. How many moons are too many, world-effect-wise?
D. I read an article about how Earth may have been a little different when it had two moons before they crashed to become Luna, but lost that, too - again, a link to that or related thoughts much appreciated.
3. How will these things combine to effect weather and planetary activity
? I have a mega-continent, smaller continent, and sprinkling of islands in various sizes.
4. What size
does my world need to be in order to survive this arrangement? Must I have more water
Really, any links, studies, articles, whatever
on the topic of realistic multiple-sun/satellite scenarios/considerations for a livable world
will be helpful...including access to experts in this field (I am already planning on writing to the linked study's author with a boiled down question set).
I really wish there were lay-person accessible modeling software
or even a game that can show effect of adding and moving satellites and suns to a world and system. If you know of anything like that, I'm interested.
Thank you so much! All answerers go on the thank-you page.