(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia3.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2F111205-Twin1Photo-hmed-0835a.grid-6x2.jpg&hash=d34e0b15b8d6623a31ad2feae651a5ab1392d146)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/uk-space-planet-idUSLNE7B501D20111206
QuoteBy Irene Klotz
MOFFET FIELD, California | Tue Dec 6, 2011 6:10am EST
(Reuters) - The most Earth-like planet ever discovered is circling a star 600 light years away, a key finding in an ongoing quest to learn if life exists beyond Earth, scientists said on Monday.
The planet, called Kepler-22b, joins a list of more than 500 planets found to orbit stars beyond our solar system. It is the smallest and the best positioned to have liquid water on its surface -- among the ingredients necessary for life on Earth.
"We are homing in on the true Earth-sized, habitable planets," said San Jose State University astronomer Natalie Batalha, deputy science team lead for NASA's Kepler Space Telescope that discovered the star.
The telescope, which was launched three years ago, is staring at about 150,000 stars in the constellations Cygnus and Lyra, looking for faint and periodic dimming as any circling planets pass by, relative to Kepler's line of sight.
Results will be extrapolated to determine the percentage of stars in the Milky Way galaxy that harbour potentially habitable, Earth-size planets.
This is the first detection of a potentially habitable world orbiting a Sun-like star, scientists reported in findings to be published in The Astrophysical Journal.
Kepler-22b is 600 light years away. A light year is the distance light travels in a year, about 6 trillion miles (10 trillion km).
GROUND TELESCOPES
Planets about the same distance from their parent stars as Earth take roughly a year to complete an orbit. Scientists want to see at least three transits to be able to rule out other explanations for fluctuations in a star's light, such as small companion stars. Results also are verified by ground and other space telescopes.
Kepler-22b, which is about 2.4 times the radius of Earth, sits squarely in its star's so-called "habitable zone," the region where liquid water could exist on the surface. Follow-up studies are under way to determine if the planet is solid, like Earth, or more gaseous like Neptune.
"We don't know anything about the planets between Earth-size and Neptune-size because in our solar system we have no examples of such planets. We don't know what fraction are going to be rocky, what fraction are going to be water worlds, what fraction are ice worlds. We have no idea until we measure one and see," Batalha said at a news conference at NASA Ames Research Center in Moffet Field, California.
If Kepler-22b has a surface and a cushion of atmosphere similar to Earth's, it would be about 72 degrees Fahrenheit (22 C), about the same as a spring day in Earth's temperate zone.
Among the 2,326 candidate planets found by the Kepler team, 10 are roughly Earth-size and reside in their host stars' habitable zones.
Another team of privately funded astronomers is scanning the target stars for non-naturally occurring radio signals, part of a project known as SETI, or the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.
"As soon as we find a different, a separate, an independent example of life somewhere else, we're going to know that it's ubiquitous throughout the universe," said astronomer Jill Tarter, director of the SETI Institute in Mountain View.
The Kepler team is meeting for its first science conference this week.
Find something closer. This one is impossible to investigate via robot.
and use metric, this is science after all
Read this today and just knew Tim would be posting it.
And yeah, it is rather annoying these kinds of things are always so far away. It doesn't make any practical difference but still, for sci-fi purposes...
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 06, 2011, 09:27:46 AM
and use metric, this is science after all
An excellent point. When I see non-metric being used in a science article, I have a hard time taking it seriously. The author comes off as a rube.
Quote from: Neil on December 06, 2011, 09:30:25 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 06, 2011, 09:27:46 AM
and use metric, this is science after all
An excellent point. When I see non-metric being used in a science article, I have a hard time taking it seriously. The author comes off as a rube.
Their audience is Americans (rubes) so they have to.
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2011, 09:28:50 AM
Read this today and just knew Tim would be posting it.
And yeah, it is rather annoying these kinds of things are always so far away. It doesn't make any practical difference but still, for sci-fi purposes...
Once Vladimir Putin invents eternal life we can start our trip. Granted I will probably kill myself 100 years in but whatever.
Looks like we have ourselves a Plan B. :w00t: Fuck global warming. :yeah:
Quote from: DGuller on December 06, 2011, 10:03:49 AM
Looks like we have ourselves a Plan B. :w00t: Fuck global warming. :yeah:
Our plan is an anti-conception pill?
I say we arm ourselves against an invasion from these xeno scum.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 06, 2011, 10:12:24 AM
I say we arm ourselves against an invasion from these xeno scum.
Honestly, they can't be that tough if they can be taken down by an intern with a crowbar. :P
Sure is big. 600 ly is a long way.
EDITED. The galaxy is much bigger then I initially wrote.
600 ly? Might as well be on the Moon.
Who'd want to live on the moon anyway, what with the overpowering cheese smell.
I'm so ready to colonize
Only 600ly away? That's not even a stone's throw away given the size of the Universe. Should be easy to get there!
Quote from: Josephus on December 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
I'm so ready to colonize
I rather not live on a planet with twice the gravity of Earth. That's a heart attack waiting to happen.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
I'm so ready to colonize
I rather not live on a planet with twice the gravity of Earth. That's a heart attack waiting to happen.
Depends on the density.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
I'm so ready to colonize
I rather not live on a planet with twice the gravity of Earth. That's a heart attack waiting to happen.
You'd get really strong. :showoff:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 06, 2011, 12:57:06 PM
You'd get really strong. :showoff:
And tame wolf like creatures, and trick the aliens into landing on the planet, and liberate humanity!!
I say we send Tim to investigate this planet. We can send him there in a spaceship powered by child-like naivety and spelling mistakes.
I demand that NASA cancell all science which will not produce a practical result in my lifetime.
Quote from: Viking on December 06, 2011, 03:54:04 PM
I demand that NASA cancell all science which will not produce a practical result in my lifetime.
done, they will devote no resources to traveling to this planet.
Quote from: Kleves on December 06, 2011, 03:49:08 PM
I say we send Tim to investigate this planet. We can send him there in a spaceship powered by child-like naivety and spelling mistakes.
We must conserve our Tim energy to loose upon our terrestrial foes. Air drop him into China. Collapse will rapidly follow after he convinces them to colonize the sun.
Quote from: Kleves on December 06, 2011, 03:49:08 PM
I say we send Tim to investigate this planet. We can send him there in a spaceship powered by child-like naivety and spelling mistakes.
I hear you can get to .9
c with a child-like naivety fission-fusion engine.
But what if it has too much global warming ? :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 06, 2011, 03:59:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 06, 2011, 03:54:04 PM
I demand that NASA cancell all science which will not produce a practical result in my lifetime.
done, they will devote no resources to traveling to this planet.
:lol:
There go my hopes for a unique retirement home in a warm location. :(
Quote from: KRonn on December 06, 2011, 06:26:26 PM
:lol:
There go my hopes for a unique retirement home in a warm location. :(
There's still plenty of volcanoes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2011, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
I'm so ready to colonize
I rather not live on a planet with twice the gravity of Earth. That's a heart attack waiting to happen.
Depends on the density.
I suppose it could made entirely of plutonium and then it would be poisonous and radioactive in addition to having extremely high gravity.
How would one measure the solidity/composition of a planet 600 ly away?
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 12:43:43 AM
How would one measure the solidity/composition of a planet 600 ly away?
You need to know the planetary radius and mass, we already know how large it is.
To find the mass, you measure the tug of a planet on it's star.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy
QuoteJupiter causes the Sun to change velocity by about 13 m/s over a period of 12 years, and the Earth's effect is only 0.1 m/s over a period of 1 year – so long-term observations by instruments with a very high resolution are required.[3][4]
And then from the mass one is able to guess at the planet's composition?
If you know the mass and know the size you can figure out the density. Saturn is huge but it's density is so low it would float.
If the density is low it's made of gas, if heavier then mostly water, if heavier still rock.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2011, 01:07:23 AM
If you know the mass and know the size you can figure out the density. Saturn is huge but it's density is so low it would float.
If the density is low it's made of gas, if heavier then mostly water, if heavier still rock.
Yes, I am familiar with density. But that doesn't tell you if there's liquid on it currently. I mean - if it's x heavy, it could be anywhere from all rock to a mix of liquid and heavier rock. I wasn't really talking about high-school level chemistry and physics. I was wondering if there's a way we can actually *tell* something useful about the planet's composition from this far away.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2011, 01:07:23 AM
If you know the mass and know the size you can figure out the density. Saturn is huge but it's density is so low it would float.
If the density is low it's made of gas, if heavier then mostly water, if heavier still rock.
Yes, I am familiar with density. But that doesn't tell you if there's liquid on it currently. I mean - if it's x heavy, it could be anywhere from all rock to a mix of liquid and heavier rock. I wasn't really talking about high-school level chemistry and physics. I was wondering if there's a way we can actually *tell* something useful about the planet's composition from this far away.
Astronomers have done spectral analysis of the atmospheres of hot jupiters, but I don't think it's yet possible for earth sized planets. It's theoretically possible with better equipment though.
Nice video explaining the discovery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aDykhzVT15w#!
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:38:02 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2011, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
I'm so ready to colonize
I rather not live on a planet with twice the gravity of Earth. That's a heart attack waiting to happen.
Depends on the density.
I suppose it could made entirely of plutonium and then it would be poisonous and radioactive in addition to having extremely high gravity.
No, it could never be made entirely of plutonium, and if you understood science, you'd know why.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2011, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2011, 01:07:23 AM
If you know the mass and know the size you can figure out the density. Saturn is huge but it's density is so low it would float.
If the density is low it's made of gas, if heavier then mostly water, if heavier still rock.
Yes, I am familiar with density. But that doesn't tell you if there's liquid on it currently. I mean - if it's x heavy, it could be anywhere from all rock to a mix of liquid and heavier rock. I wasn't really talking about high-school level chemistry and physics. I was wondering if there's a way we can actually *tell* something useful about the planet's composition from this far away.
Astronomers have done spectral analysis of the atmospheres of hot jupiters, but I don't think it's yet possible for earth sized planets. It's theoretically possible with better equipment though.
It's not like it's just a matter of better equipment. What you're talking about is a ridiculously difficult task, not just because of technology, but also because of physics.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2011, 09:30:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2011, 12:38:02 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2011, 12:35:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 06, 2011, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
I'm so ready to colonize
I rather not live on a planet with twice the gravity of Earth. That's a heart attack waiting to happen.
Depends on the density.
I suppose it could made entirely of plutonium and then it would be poisonous and radioactive in addition to having extremely high gravity.
No, it could never be made entirely of plutonium, and if you understood science, you'd know why.
For real. Nucleosynthesis-wise, it's like a planet made out of fluorine, except even dumber, and that's before even getting in to its instability.
I just thought of something really dense.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
For real. Nucleosynthesis-wise, it's like a planet made out of fluorine, except even dumber, and that's before even getting in to its instability.
I was thinking of the decay. Even if you started with a whole cloud of plutonium, by the time that the planetary formation process ran through, it would be be mostly decay products.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2011, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2011, 01:07:23 AM
If you know the mass and know the size you can figure out the density. Saturn is huge but it's density is so low it would float.
If the density is low it's made of gas, if heavier then mostly water, if heavier still rock.
Yes, I am familiar with density. But that doesn't tell you if there's liquid on it currently. I mean - if it's x heavy, it could be anywhere from all rock to a mix of liquid and heavier rock. I wasn't really talking about high-school level chemistry and physics. I was wondering if there's a way we can actually *tell* something useful about the planet's composition from this far away.
Astronomers have done spectral analysis of the atmospheres of hot jupiters, but I don't think it's yet possible for earth sized planets. It's theoretically possible with better equipment though.
It's not like it's just a matter of better equipment. What you're talking about is a ridiculously difficult task, not just because of technology, but also because of physics.
There are space telescopes that are planned which will be capable of that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 17, 2011, 08:38:39 PM
There are space telescopes that are planned which will be capable of that.
Yes, Tim. The word here is
planned. There is space tourism
planned. There are space elevators
planned. There were
plans for missile-destroying laser satellites. Plans don't necessarily come to fruition.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 18, 2011, 12:25:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 17, 2011, 08:38:39 PM
There are space telescopes that are planned which will be capable of that.
Yes, Tim. The word here is planned. There is space tourism planned. There are space elevators planned. There were plans for missile-destroying laser satellites. Plans don't necessarily come to fruition.
All space telescopes planned and built have successfully fulfilled their mission. There are no technical obstacles to the James Webb Telescope being built.
This is not true true of space elevators, nor ABM satellites.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 18, 2011, 12:30:58 AM
All space telescopes planned and built have successfully fulfilled their mission. There are no technical obstacles to the James Webb Telescope being built.
This is not true true of space elevators, nor ABM satellites.
Okay, better analogy: it wasn't technical hurdles that scrapped the Constellation rocket project.
The moral of Constellation is: don't count on technology until funding has been procured, and even then, it's not a lock until post-prototype line production starts.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 17, 2011, 08:38:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2011, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on December 07, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2011, 01:07:23 AM
If you know the mass and know the size you can figure out the density. Saturn is huge but it's density is so low it would float.
If the density is low it's made of gas, if heavier then mostly water, if heavier still rock.
Yes, I am familiar with density. But that doesn't tell you if there's liquid on it currently. I mean - if it's x heavy, it could be anywhere from all rock to a mix of liquid and heavier rock. I wasn't really talking about high-school level chemistry and physics. I was wondering if there's a way we can actually *tell* something useful about the planet's composition from this far away.
Astronomers have done spectral analysis of the atmospheres of hot jupiters, but I don't think it's yet possible for earth sized planets. It's theoretically possible with better equipment though.
It's not like it's just a matter of better equipment. What you're talking about is a ridiculously difficult task, not just because of technology, but also because of physics.
There are space telescopes that are planned which will be capable of that.
We'll see. I have my doubts. SDI was supposed to work too, but it turns out that it doesn't.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2011, 08:12:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
For real. Nucleosynthesis-wise, it's like a planet made out of fluorine, except even dumber, and that's before even getting in to its instability.
I was thinking of the decay. Even if you started with a whole cloud of plutonium, by the time that the planetary formation process ran through, it would be be mostly decay products.
Yeah, I meant nuclear instability--even plutonium-244 would be mostly gone by now.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 06:55:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2011, 08:12:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 17, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
For real. Nucleosynthesis-wise, it's like a planet made out of fluorine, except even dumber, and that's before even getting in to its instability.
I was thinking of the decay. Even if you started with a whole cloud of plutonium, by the time that the planetary formation process ran through, it would be be mostly decay products.
Yeah, I meant nuclear instability--even plutonium-244 would be mostly gone by now.
Oh. I thought you were thinking that a planetary mass of plutonium would most certainly be supercritical.
I dunno enough about fission reactions to know whether or not that would be the case--I don't think Pu-244 can sustain a nuclear chain reaction--although I expect that we can imagine the planet of 244 being created ex nihilo being staying molten for much longer than a comparable iron-nickel planet like Earth. (Though maybe not, since Earth's heating was generated by a uniformly distributed body suddenly experiencing massive frictional heating through the fall of iron and nickel into the core. An entirely plutonium globe might not differentiate like that.)
Now I keep using Pu-244, but that's because non-244 plutonium wouldn't last long enough to condense, let alone blow up.
It does make me wonder, though, that the Earth must have been significantly more radioactive in the past than at present.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 01:27:41 PM
I dunno enough about fission reactions to know whether or not that would be the case--I don't think Pu-244 can sustain a nuclear chain reaction--although I expect that we can imagine the planet of 244 being created ex nihilo being staying molten for much longer than a comparable iron-nickel planet like Earth. (Though maybe not, since Earth's heating was generated by a uniformly distributed body suddenly experiencing massive frictional heating through the fall of iron and nickel into the core. An entirely plutonium globe might not differentiate like that.)
Now I keep using Pu-244, but that's because non-244 plutonium wouldn't last long enough to condense, let alone blow up.
It does make me wonder, though, that the Earth must have been significantly more radioactive in the past than at present.
Radioactivity to be sure, but even more important is the heat.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 01:27:41 PM
It does make me wonder, though, that the Earth must have been significantly more radioactive in the past than at present.
We used to have natural nuclear reactors. :wub:
Quote from: The Brain on December 18, 2011, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 18, 2011, 01:27:41 PM
It does make me wonder, though, that the Earth must have been significantly more radioactive in the past than at present.
We used to have natural nuclear reactors. :wub:
I read about the one in Africa. It was pretty cool. :)