RE: OT-Stars and planets and such

G'day,

>A planet that close to a star would 
>have a highly energetic biosphere 
>(more energy from the star equals 
>more energy to be expended by
>the lifeforms?), 

That depends how efficient they are at using the available energy
sources.
Tide locked planets may have areas of high wind speed (due to
temperature
differentials between the light and dark sides) and theat may not be as
easy
to utilise. The "sunny" side may have large quotients of radiation that
needed to be toned down thus diverting energy to UV blockers rather than
purely to growth. On the "dark" side growth is likely to have some
contributions from waste/dead material blown round from the "sunny"
side,
but would more likely be based on geothermal energy and/or chemical
reactions (which aren't necessarily any more effcient than solar energy
sources). 

>meaning the probablity of more hostile preditors. 

Now I'm not saying you can't have lots of cranky predators roaming
about,
but ecologically speaking your statement doesn't hold. Polar regions on
Earth have less solar energy reaching them than tropical regions, but
polar
bears are no less hostile than jaguars ;)

If you want aggressive predators I'd be more apt to say that conditions
were
harsh on your planet (or at least in parts of it) and so generalist
predators were a common feature of its biota.

>This could give rise to a xenophobia 

Why? Species aren't xenophobic, competive yes, xenophobic no - that
little
twist is a state that comes from sentient actions/justifications its not
a
product of ecology. Its fine to say that as the species had to compete
strongly for resources (or on the slip side was always on the run from
large
predators) that as it developed societies it acquired this
characteristic
(as a general extention of "hey this is mine, sod off" or "fear of the
unknown threat"), but once again just a general "this means that"
doesn't
follow.

>(just like the KV) 

Poor misunderstood KV, I've often wondered how many KV scientists sit
there
saying "that race X is so xenophobic, almost as bad as the Hu'Mans" ;)

>The lifeform would also be able 
>to stand greater extreams
>of heat and cold (unless they just 
>habited the boundary between the
>light and dark side). 

I'd say they're more likely to be more tolerant of one extreme or the
other,
I doubt there'd be too many "side spanning" species that didn't use
metamorphosis or technology to assist them (OK this is pure
extrapolation
based on Earth, but its a start).

>Also, a race that evolved on a planet 
>close to a star would have a radiation 
>tolerance greater than anything terran, 

Or may be likely to have mitigation measures in place... assuming the
planet
didn't develop an ozone layer to rival ours etc. It may also depend on
the
length/strength/form of their DNA equivalent, how easily its messed up.

Now despite all I've said I'm not trying to rain on your parade. You can
still use all you're ideas and make a great set of aliens - and in fact
feel
free to ignore me as its just a pet peeve of mine that people go to such
great lengths to get the tech side of SF "so right", but ignore
questions
about how sensible the biological side of things are, but that's just my
peeve and you shouldn't have to worry about it ;) 

Beth