this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
58 points (96.8% liked)

Quark's

1102 readers
1 users here now

Come to Quark’s, Quark’s is Fun!

General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FishLake@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Typo in title. ‘Inhabitable’ means it’s suitable for life, which is not what the study says. You meant to say ‘uninhabitable’.

[–] SevenOfWine@startrek.website 2 points 8 months ago

Article:

“It’s on the lower end of what we would expect,” said Jamey Szalay, a plasma physicist at Princeton University who led the study. But “it’s not totally prohibitive” for habitability, he added. ... “We don’t really know how much oxygen you need to make life,” she said. “So the fact that it’s lower than some earlier, wishful-thinking estimates is not such a problem.”

load more comments (1 replies)