My Pants Are A Dairy Factory! :w00t:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32876479/ns/technology_and_science-space/
QuoteFirst rocky planet found outside solar system
But surface temperature is far too hot to sustain life, scientists say
By Clara Moskowitz
updated 1:15 p.m. ET, Wed., Sept . 16, 2009
One of the smallest exoplanets yet discovered has just been confirmed as a rocky world, scientists announced.
The planet, called CoRoT-7b, is the first planet beyond our solar system with a proven density similar to Earth's, astronomers say. Most known exoplanets are large gas giants like Jupiter.
"We have indications that other exoplanets could be rocky, but it's the first time that the density of such a planet has been measured," said study team member Claire Moutou of the Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille in France. "We are really sure it's rocky."
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Though its terrestrial surface renders CoRoT-7b more similar to Earth than many other exoplanets are, it's still a far cry from a familiar setting. The planet orbits extremely close to its star — about 1.6 million miles (2.5 million kilometers), or 23 times closer than Mercury is to the sun. At this range, the planet's surface temperatures are scorching, with highs above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius) on the star-facing side.
CoRoT-7b's close proximity to its star means that the planet is likely to be tidally locked, with one side always facing its sun and the other side always in darkness.
"Probably the day side is very hot and is pure lava, boiling, and the other side probably is very cold, and it could be rocky with some mountains," Moutou told SPACE.com. "It's not possible that there is liquid water."
Crowded universe
CoRoT-7b was discovered in February 2009 by the CoRoT space telescope, a European collaboration. 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.
To make this measurement, astronomers used the High Accuracy Radial-velocity Planet Searcher, or HARPS, a spectrograph on the European Southern Observatory's 3.6-meter telescope at La Silla Observatory in Chile. The new data revealed that CoRoT-7b has a mass about five times that of Earth, making it one of the lightest exoplanets yet found.
With the planet's mass and radius, the researchers calculated its density (about 4.7 grams per cubic centimeter), which placed it in firm rocky territory.
"This is the first proof of the detection of a rocky planet," planet-formation theorist Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Washington told Space.com.
"It shows that rocky planets really are commonplace," said Boss, who was not involved in the new research. "The estimates are that about 30 percent of sunlike stars have these hot and warm super-Earths, and now that we know the density of one of them, it is easy to make the claim that most of the rest of them are probably rocky too. The evidence is becoming overwhelming that we live in a crowded universe."
Looking for life
Finding a rocky planet with an Earthlike density takes us one step closer to discovering another planet similar to our own. A twin Earth beyond the solar system could offer the best chance of finding life elsewhere in the universe, scientists say.
Although CoRoT-7b's lack of liquid water means it's unlikely to host life, the planet's discovery is still a promising sign. CoRoT and NASA's Kepler space observatory are both up there as you read this, seeking such a discovery.
"We are searching for any kind of exoplanets," Moutou said. "We're trying not to be biased by our own system, but of course we would be very interested to find a planet where life could develop. This one is not habitable, but some future planets of this kind could allow life to develop. This is our longtime goal, to find an analog to Earth."
The research team, led by Didier Queloz of the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland, described the results in a paper to be published in the Oct. 22 issue of the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.
More on extrasolar planets | CoRoT
© 2009 Space.com. All rights reserved
I thought they'd done this a while back.
So let's fire up a Space ship and get some scientists there! :cool:
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 06:54:07 PM
So let's fire up a Space ship and get some scientists there! :cool:
Why?
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2009, 07:00:44 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 06:54:07 PM
So let's fire up a Space ship and get some scientists there! :cool:
Why?
Because exoscientists are faggots, or at best timmays, and putting them on a planet with 2,000-degree highs would be executing them, in effect? :unsure:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 07:59:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2009, 07:00:44 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 06:54:07 PM
So let's fire up a Space ship and get some scientists there! :cool:
Why?
Because exoscientists are faggots, or at best timmays, and putting them on a planet with 2,000-degree highs would be executing them, in effect? :unsure:
Don't be ridiculous. Exoplanetology is a worthy scientific pursuit.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2009, 08:07:38 PM
Don't be ridiculous. Exoplanetology is a worthy scientific pursuit.
Then get on a ship; we will wish your grandchild's great, great, great, great, great, great grandchild luck in the career his ancestor chose for him. :D
I'm surrounded by Luddites! :huh:
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 09:35:23 PM
I'm surrounded by Luddites! :huh:
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. :P
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 16, 2009, 09:28:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2009, 08:07:38 PM
Don't be ridiculous. Exoplanetology is a worthy scientific pursuit.
Then get on a ship; we will wish your grandchild's great, great, great, great, great, great grandchild luck in the career his ancestor chose for him. :D
Human spaceflight is massively unwise.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 16, 2009, 09:38:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 09:35:23 PM
I'm surrounded by Luddites! :huh:
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. :P
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 16, 2009, 09:38:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 09:35:23 PM
I'm surrounded by Luddites! :huh:
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. :P
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.
My mind is made up! Don't confuse the issue with facts, reality and logic!! ;)
I think we need to construct sentient robots to explore the stars and carry our legacy onward. Some form of life may survive our inevitable self destruction.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 16, 2009, 10:08:53 PM
I think we need to construct sentient robots to explore the stars and carry our legacy onward. Some form of life may survive our inevitable self destruction.
It'll take more than a few thousand atomic explosions to make this planet uninhabitable.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2009, 09:43:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 16, 2009, 09:38:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 09:35:23 PM
I'm surrounded by Luddites! :huh:
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. :P
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!
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 06:04:04 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2009, 09:43:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 16, 2009, 09:38:59 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 09:35:23 PM
I'm surrounded by Luddites! :huh:
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. :P
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?
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2009, 06:08:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2009, 06:08:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 06:35:57 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2009, 06:08:51 AM
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.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 17, 2009, 07:17:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 17, 2009, 12:57:12 AM
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 07:31:03 AM
Theoretically its even within our current technology.
Not at all.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 07:31:03 AM
Theoretically its even within our current technology.
If it was within our current technology it would not be theoretical.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 06:35:57 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2009, 06:08:51 AM
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
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2009, 10:37:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 07:31:03 AM
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.
Me travelling to Alaska to stalk and slay the vile beast is theoretical but certainly possible.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2009, 10:37:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 07:31:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 12:13:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2009, 10:37:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 07:31:03 AM
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.
I imagine that filling up enough fuel might be of some difficulty for a voyage that requires you to travel at the speed of light.
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2009, 05:12:39 PM
Reaction mass is the reason why we can't.
How?
No way I can think of looking at reaction mass shows it to be a big problem.
The main problems are of course there being no point and the cost.
Assuming a civ 2 type scenario where we for some reason have to bankrupt ourselves to get to Alpha Centauri....Sure. You can make your spaceship which gets you there in 50 years. Thats within our capabilities using one of the many nuclear propulsion options.
The crew though will be long dead beyfore the 50 years is up. Thats not within our capabilities.
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2009, 12:32:02 PM
Me travelling to Alaska to stalk and slay the vile beast is theoretical but certainly possible.
No one has actually seen Katmai...just evidence of a slight drop in brightness when other objects pass in front of him. :rolleyes:
Beware the katmaiwock, my son.
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 05:31:56 PM
How?
No way I can think of looking at reaction mass shows it to be a big problem.
The main problems are of course there being no point and the cost.
Assuming a civ 2 type scenario where we for some reason have to bankrupt ourselves to get to Alpha Centauri....Sure. You can make your spaceship which gets you there in 50 years. Thats within our capabilities using one of the many nuclear propulsion options.
The crew though will be long dead beyfore the 50 years is up. Thats not within our capabilities.
Reaction mass is always a problem. In order to move forward, you need to throw something out the back. And it's a long way to have to go, especially if you have to accelerate and deccelerate the whole way.
As for nuclear pulse propulsion, it doesn't work.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 07:06:24 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 05:31:56 PM
How?
No way I can think of looking at reaction mass shows it to be a big problem.
The main problems are of course there being no point and the cost.
Assuming a civ 2 type scenario where we for some reason have to bankrupt ourselves to get to Alpha Centauri....Sure. You can make your spaceship which gets you there in 50 years. Thats within our capabilities using one of the many nuclear propulsion options.
The crew though will be long dead beyfore the 50 years is up. Thats not within our capabilities.
Reaction mass is always a problem. In order to move forward, you need to throw something out the back. And it's a long way to have to go, especially if you have to accelerate and deccelerate the whole way.
As for nuclear pulse propulsion, it doesn't work.
You could bring Jaron, maybe Tim as ballast.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 07:06:24 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 17, 2009, 05:31:56 PM
How?
No way I can think of looking at reaction mass shows it to be a big problem.
The main problems are of course there being no point and the cost.
Assuming a civ 2 type scenario where we for some reason have to bankrupt ourselves to get to Alpha Centauri....Sure. You can make your spaceship which gets you there in 50 years. Thats within our capabilities using one of the many nuclear propulsion options.
The crew though will be long dead beyfore the 50 years is up. Thats not within our capabilities.
Reaction mass is always a problem. In order to move forward, you need to throw something out the back. And it's a long way to have to go, especially if you have to accelerate and deccelerate the whole way.
As for nuclear pulse propulsion, it doesn't work.
Once you've escaped the gravity field, you wouldn't need reactant mass. Obviously when you get ther you'd need force to slow down.
Quote from: swallow on September 18, 2009, 02:18:29 PM
Once you've escaped the gravity field, you wouldn't need reactant mass. Obviously when you get ther you'd need force to slow down.
Solar escape velocity is 42.1 km/s. You could happily rocket up to that velocity, but you'd only be covering 1.329 billion kilometres every year. That means that your trip to this 500 light year distant planet would take you roughly 5 million years. Even a short jaunt to Proxima Centauri would take 32,000 years. How would you feed the passangers and crew for such a long period of time? How to keep them breathing? Keep them warm?
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 07:06:24 AM
As for nuclear pulse propulsion, it doesn't work.
How so?
Orion (yeah yeah, never going to happen, we're talking just theoretical an damn the hippies here though) is largely regarded as doable.
And why don't 'nuclear rockets' of a more realistically doable type work?
Quote from: Tyr on September 18, 2009, 03:18:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 07:06:24 AM
As for nuclear pulse propulsion, it doesn't work.
How so?
Orion (yeah yeah, never going to happen, we're talking just theoretical an damn the hippies here though) is largely regarded as doable.
And why don't 'nuclear rockets' of a more realistically doable type work?
Orion is undoable because of wear and tear on the pusher plate.
The other types don't work for voyages of that length because of their thirst for large quantities of reaction mass and insufficient power. Without the ramjet, man has no hope of reaching the stars.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 05:13:25 PM
Orion is undoable because of wear and tear on the pusher plate.
The wiki seems to disagree:
Quotecalculations and experiments indicate that a steel pusher plate would ablate less than 1 mm if unprotected. If sprayed with an oil, it need not ablate at all (this was discovered by accident; a test plate had oily fingerprints on it, and the fingerprints suffered no ablation).
Presumably for reaction mass along with crew quarters, the ideal combination would be an ice asteroid with a rock core.
Anyone know where there is one?
I support any attempt to shoot Tim 500 light years away.
Quote from: PDH on September 18, 2009, 06:05:35 PM
I support any attempt to shoot Tim 500 light years away.
Into a black hole.
Quote from: ulmont on September 18, 2009, 06:02:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 05:13:25 PM
Orion is undoable because of wear and tear on the pusher plate.
The wiki seems to disagree:
Quotecalculations and experiments indicate that a steel pusher plate would ablate less than 1 mm if unprotected. If sprayed with an oil, it need not ablate at all (this was discovered by accident; a test plate had oily fingerprints on it, and the fingerprints suffered no ablation).
I was more thinking about wear on the moving parts, but it seems, judging from your wiki source, that damage to the pusher plate is also a serious concern.
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 09:11:11 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 18, 2009, 06:02:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 18, 2009, 05:13:25 PM
Orion is undoable because of wear and tear on the pusher plate.
The wiki seems to disagree:
Quotecalculations and experiments indicate that a steel pusher plate would ablate less than 1 mm if unprotected. If sprayed with an oil, it need not ablate at all (this was discovered by accident; a test plate had oily fingerprints on it, and the fingerprints suffered no ablation).
I was more thinking about wear on the moving parts, but it seems, judging from your wiki source, that damage to the pusher plate is also a serious concern.
Well, definitely a serious concern, considering you're blowing up a nuclear bomb next to the pusher plate...