First rocky planet found outside solar system

[Tonitrus]

The tiny planet was discovered orbiting a star slightly smaller and cooler than our sun, about 500 light-years away. As the planet passed in front of its star, it eclipsed a small portion of the star's light, causing a dip in brightness.

This dip was enough to tell that a planet existed, and to estimate the planet's distance from its host star and its radius, which is about 80 percent larger than Earth's. But to learn its density, which would reveal whether it is a rocky or gas planet, scientists had to make a precise measurement of the parent star's velocity, which is slightly warped by the planet's small mass.

Once again, a supposed planet is not actually -seen-, but is only inferred by theory.

I remain: unimpressed.

After all, it could simply be a Borg cube, or a Vogon warship.

[Josquius]

I'm surrounded by Luddites!   

No, I think it would just make sense to have some sort of FTL drive before you send humans off to an uninhabitable piece of rock. 

Now, if it was in the liquid water zone with evidence of an oxygen atmosphere, I'd be screaming for a place on the ship for the benefit of my descendants.

They'd never make it.

And man will never move faster than 100 mph, its just madness! Why at that speed his skin would surely peel from his body!

[Neil]

I'm surrounded by Luddites!   

No, I think it would just make sense to have some sort of FTL drive before you send humans off to an uninhabitable piece of rock. 

Now, if it was in the liquid water zone with evidence of an oxygen atmosphere, I'd be screaming for a place on the ship for the benefit of my descendants.

They'd never make it.

And man will never move faster than 100 mph, its just madness! Why at that speed his skin would surely peel from his body!

Do you think that the technology exists right now to build a spaceship that could travel 500-light years, sustaining life the whole time?

[Agelastus]

Do you think that the technology exists right now to build a spaceship that could travel 500-light years, sustaining life the whole time?

No, except possibly by using an asteroid ship.

However, since I can think of only one current method to efficiently excavate the biosphere chamber/s, and since this method would have the unfortunate side effect of making them uninhabitable, then no.

[Josquius]

Do you think that the technology exists right now to build a spaceship that could travel 500-light years, sustaining life the whole time?

No, that was my point.
The technology to travel faster than 100mph didn't exist not too long over 100 years ago (or if we want to eliminate the potential for it in the steam engine then add another few hundred).
Never say never.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Do you think that the technology exists right now to build a spaceship that could travel 500-light years, sustaining life the whole time?

No, that was my point.
The technology to travel faster than 100mph didn't exist not too long over 100 years ago (or if we want to eliminate the potential for it in the steam engine then add another few hundred).
Never say never.

There are, however, significant differences in the physics for traveling 100mph, and the physics for traveling at the speed of light.

[Josquius]

There are, however, significant differences in the physics for traveling 100mph, and the physics for traveling at the speed of light.

Who mentioned FTL?
Getting up to a significant percentage of light speed is well within our current understanding of physics. Theoretically its even within our current technology.

[jimmy olsen]

The tiny planet was discovered orbiting a star slightly smaller and cooler than our sun, about 500 light-years away. As the planet passed in front of its star, it eclipsed a small portion of the star's light, causing a dip in brightness.

This dip was enough to tell that a planet existed, and to estimate the planet's distance from its host star and its radius, which is about 80 percent larger than Earth's. But to learn its density, which would reveal whether it is a rocky or gas planet, scientists had to make a precise measurement of the parent star's velocity, which is slightly warped by the planet's small mass.

Once again, a supposed planet is not actually -seen-, but is only inferred by theory.

I remain: unimpressed.

After all, it could simply be a Borg cube, or a Vogon warship.

The first extrasolar planet to be directly imaged happened last year IIRC.

[Neil]

Theoretically its even within our current technology.

Not at all.

[Valmy]

Theoretically its even within our current technology.

If it was within our current technology it would not be theoretical.

[swallow]

Do you think that the technology exists right now to build a spaceship that could travel 500-light years, sustaining life the whole time?

No, that was my point.
The technology to travel faster than 100mph didn't exist not too long over 100 years ago (or if we want to eliminate the potential for it in the steam engine then add another few hundred).
Never say never.

I wonder though if the focus is on travel now?  My Aunty lived from Horse and carriage times to well into the space age,but that was a time of exploring and trade and marking out new territories.  It seems to have slowed down now that maybe we're into valueing communication.  Never say never though - I suspect transport developmwnt will speed up again once resources get low

[Josquius]

Theoretically its even within our current technology.

If it was within our current technology it would not be theoretical.

Not really.
Costs, engineering, there being no point, environmental concerns, not having the necessary support technologies, etc.... are all reasons why we don't actually do it.

[The Brain]

Me travelling to Alaska to stalk and slay the vile beast is theoretical but certainly possible.

[DontSayBanana]

Theoretically its even within our current technology.

If it was within our current technology it would not be theoretical.

Hall-effect thrust ends up at near-FTL speeds. We've got the tech for the speed, but we don't have the tech for the acceleration to take place in less than several human lifetimes.

[Neil]

Theoretically its even within our current technology.

If it was within our current technology it would not be theoretical.

Not really.
Costs, engineering, there being no point, environmental concerns, not having the necessary support technologies, etc.... are all reasons why we don't actually do it.

Reaction mass is the reason why we can't.