Do you believe that Jupiter is a failed star? If it didn't fail would life be more suitable in other planets?

Question

I've read that most of the stars in the Universe are binary, or more, systems. It was also mentioned is Cosmos by Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan says that if Jupiter would have been only a couple dozen times bigger, which isn't much in this universe, it would have without a doubt created its own nuclear fission (or fussion?, I forget). And also Jupiter emits twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, that to me says FAILED star.

Answer 1

yes of course Jupiter is a failed star. But as you say yourself, it is a bit too light for that.

If it was a star, but still orbiting the sun together with the planets, this would mean that the outer planets would get lots more light and heat at times, and about the same as now at other times - probably not ideal for life. Not to mention the fact that the closer planets are gaseous giants.

however the conditions for life on some of Jupiter's satellite would vastly improve.

for us on Earth, at times of the year we'd have a very bright star in the sky (Jupiter is about 5x further from the sun than we are, and it would still be a much weaker star than the sun, so it would not be broad day light), and at other times of the year we'd see no difference because Jupiter wouldn't be visible.

Answer 2

In the sense that if a gas giant grows large enough it becomes a star, yes you could consider Jupiter a failed star, along with the other gas giants. All four of them together don't have nearly enough mass to form a star though, so it seems that perhaps the original solar nebula wasn't big enough to form a binary system.

The effect on livability of a solar companion in Jupiter's orbit would probably be negative, as the mass of the companion would make for fewer, if any, stable orbital regions in the habitable zone around the Sun.

Answer 3

i've read that before about Jupiter being a failed star---but i've only seen it once and never since.

i'm not so sure that life would be in as good a shape as it is now if we had a binary system. the outer planets are all gas giants except for poor pluto--and now its been stripped of its 'planetary' status.

i don't think the earth would've been able to support life, or any of the other inner planets had they been in the gravitational tug of war between the two stars in a binary system.

Answer 4

I learned that Jupiter was a failed star in a college astronomy class. As to whether more planets would've been habitable, who knows? Maybe. But then again, maybe Earth WOULDN'T have been habitable if our system had been a binary one.

I really enjoyed my astronomy class. It raised all kinds of interesting questions.

Answer 5

No!!!!Jupiter is nowhere near the size of a failed star.and if it were,there would not be any planets between Jupiter and the sun,because Jupiter the failed star would been sucked into the sun,due to the fact that the failed star would not be able to exert enough graity to orbit the sun.

Answer 6

Most are binaries, yes, but that doesn't mean that most are hospitable for life. In fact, most scientists think that binary star systems are more unstable and variable making it harder for life to form.

Answer 7

2010. Aurthur C clark

I think.
Or is it 2061?

In the book he claims that if Jupiter became a star, its moon Europa could support life. Its fiction, but europa is made of water. Still.. its fiction.

Answer 8

I wouold be interesting to have a binary star system

Answer 9

No the mass would need to be much greater. If you are wondeering about it check out this experiment at CERN

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14717643/from/RS.1/

Answer 10

u kno what i have never heard that one before
but it would make alot of sense