Whoop! :w00t:
Citation - MiM
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2106061,00.html?xid=gonewsedit
QuoteNew Planet Found: Could a Super-Earth plus Triple Stars Equal Life?
By Michael D. Lemonick Friday, Feb. 03, 2012
The search for exoplanets, or worlds orbiting other stars, is evolving so fast that discoveries that seemed exotic just a few months ago have become commonplace. Multiple-planet solar systems? Astronomers expected to find just a handful; now we know of more than 200. Planets orbiting double or even triple stars? It was big news when just one was announced back in September; we've already got several more examples in hand. In short, the unexpected is something planet hunters have learned to expect — and in most cases, these surprises have tended to expand the possibilities for finding worlds where life might thrive.
It's just happened again: astronomers from the Carnegie Institution of Washington and the University of California, Santa Cruz, writing in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, have announced the discovery of yet another new world that defies everyone's expectations. Not only does the new planet orbit one of the suns in a triple-star system — rare enough in itself — but the stars in this system have surprisingly low levels of the heavy elements planets are made from. Theory suggests that such stars shouldn't form planets in the first place, so if this isn't a fluke, there may be many more planets in the Milky Way than anyone thought. (See the best photos from space in 2011.)
That's not all: the new planet, called GJ667Cc, is just 4.5 times Earth's mass. That's big enough to qualify it for the astronomical label "super-Earth" but still quite small by exoplanet standards. Indeed, it's so small that GJ667Cc is thought to be made of earthlike rock rather than gas — even if those rocks had to coalesce from a smaller supply of raw material circling the parent sun. Beyond that, it orbits in its star's habitable zone: if there's water there, that water could be in life-friendly liquid form. GJ667Cc whips around its star once every 28 days or so; in our solar system, that would put it so scorchingly close to the sun that water would boil off. But the star in this case is an M-dwarf, much dimmer and redder than our own. Given its mass and its temperature, says co-discoverer Steve Vogt, of UC Santa Cruz, "I think it's going to be pretty historic. We've been gnawing at the bone of an earthlike planet in the habitable zone for years now, and I think we're just about there."
Actually, this isn't the first time he's said something like that. A bit over a year ago, Vogt and Paul Butler, of Carnegie, announced a similarly earthlike planet they called Gliese 581g, but other astronomers were (and remain) dubious about the legitimacy of the find. "We haven't backed off," says Vogt, "but that one will always be controversial, because it's a difficult measurement."
This one, he says, is a much more clear-cut case. Along with Butler, lead author Guillem Anglada-Escudé (now at the University of Göttingen, in Germany) and several others, Vogt combined data from three different ground-based telescopes, dating back 10 years, to come up with the solid signal of a planet. "We were basically able to say, stick a fork in this one and put it in a referred journal — it's done." (See photos of a new planetary nebula that dazzles astronomers.)
What's most exciting of all about GJ667Cc, though, is not just that it's a super-Earth in its star's habitable zone, nor that it was found in a solar system where planets have no right to be. It's that this new world is impressively close to our own Earth. The great majority of exoplanets known to date have been found by the Kepler space probe, but most of these are hundreds of light-years away. That's much too far away to search for even indirect signs of alien life — and that will continue to be true after the James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble's successor, launches in 2018.
But GJ667Cc is a mere 22 light-years away — practically next door — and while the planet can't be seen directly yet, it's not impossible that the next generation of ground or space telescopes could take readings of its atmosphere to look for telltale signs of life. And we have the technology today, says Vogt, "to send a Droid cell phone out there to take closeup images. It would take about 200 years, plus another 20 to send the pictures back." (See photos of the universe, to scale.)
Nobody's actually planning to do that, but the fact that it's even possible speaks volumes about how close astronomers are to finding and studying places in the universe where life might be thriving at this very moment. In the world of exoplanet science, the improbable things don't seem to stay improbable for very long.
Unless there are significant advances in medicine in the next few decades, we'll never live to see those cell phone pics. :(
Don't expect any funding for projects that take more than one lifetime to provide any results.
I doubt it's actually habitable. The planet is probably tidally locked, it's in a metal-poor system, and if it has an atmosphere, it's massive enough to probably have a lot of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere (also due to being in a metal-poor system).
So yeah, while water wouldn't insta-freeze or insta-boil away on the planet, I hope you're not planning to go camping there because you'll probably cook all the food at once. ;)
Quote from: Fireblade on February 04, 2012, 07:27:40 AM
I doubt it's actually habitable. The planet is probably tidally locked, it's in a metal-poor system, and if it has an atmosphere, it's massive enough to probably have a lot of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere (also due to being in a metal-poor system).
I think it's too close to its star for that.
It isn't 'habital'.
And if it was those poor bastards have been tainted.
Quote from: Neil on February 04, 2012, 08:28:03 AM
It isn't 'habital'.
Maybe it looks like a priest's habit?
It's not a habit, it's cool, I feel alive.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2012, 07:49:31 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on February 04, 2012, 07:27:40 AM
I doubt it's actually habitable. The planet is probably tidally locked, it's in a metal-poor system, and if it has an atmosphere, it's massive enough to probably have a lot of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere (also due to being in a metal-poor system).
I think it's too close to its star for that.
We've found far more massive planets much closer in that almost certainly have hydrogen atmospheres. "Hot Jupiters". :P
Quote from: Fireblade on February 04, 2012, 09:16:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2012, 07:49:31 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on February 04, 2012, 07:27:40 AM
I doubt it's actually habitable. The planet is probably tidally locked, it's in a metal-poor system, and if it has an atmosphere, it's massive enough to probably have a lot of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere (also due to being in a metal-poor system).
I think it's too close to its star for that.
We've found far more massive planets much closer in that almost certainly have hydrogen atmospheres. "Hot Jupiters". :P
I don't think it's really possible to guess. Too many variables.
Quote from: Neil on February 04, 2012, 09:25:19 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on February 04, 2012, 09:16:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2012, 07:49:31 AM
Quote from: Fireblade on February 04, 2012, 07:27:40 AM
I doubt it's actually habitable. The planet is probably tidally locked, it's in a metal-poor system, and if it has an atmosphere, it's massive enough to probably have a lot of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere (also due to being in a metal-poor system).
I think it's too close to its star for that.
We've found far more massive planets much closer in that almost certainly have hydrogen atmospheres. "Hot Jupiters". :P
I don't think it's really possible to guess. Too many variables.
Yeah, that's true. Spectroscopy on exoplanets at this time is a bitch. You can only really do it if it's relatively close and the planet transits from our point of view.
It's funny, in the article I read about that planet, the author mentioned the team detected another exoplanet around the star earlier, but it wasn't noteworthy enough to publish. Exo-planets are like finding a new insect now; nobody really gives a fuck if it isn't in the habitable zone or doesn't match up with some sci-fi trope. Otherwise, yo shit ain't getting published.
did they find a dyson ball yet
tee hee
Yeah, this thing is going to be tidally locked. I'm far more interested in the moons of extrasolar jovians, as far as red dwarves go.
Would a Jovian moon actually be able to support life? Wouldn't the planet block the sunlight a lot? Not to mention the radiation such a gas giant would emit.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2012, 04:47:43 PM
Wouldn't the planet block the sunlight a lot? Not to mention the radiation such a gas giant would emit.
You're thinking of katmai.
We could discover a habitable planet full of billions of nubile, Caliga-approved young ladies orbiting Proxima Centauri, 4-ish light years away...we still wouldn't even be able to imagine reaching it.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 04, 2012, 05:52:42 PM
We could discover a habitable planet full of billions of nubile, Caliga-approved young ladies orbiting Proxima Centauri, 4-ish light years away...we still wouldn't even be able to imagine reaching it.
The least they could do is broadcast their porn at us. :D
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 04, 2012, 05:52:42 PM
We could discover a habitable planet full of billions of nubile, Caliga-approved young ladies orbiting Proxima Centauri, 4-ish light years away...we still wouldn't even be able to imagine reaching it.
Yes we could. Orion Project, baby.
Quote from: Siege on February 04, 2012, 09:33:08 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 04, 2012, 05:52:42 PM
We could discover a habitable planet full of billions of nubile, Caliga-approved young ladies orbiting Proxima Centauri, 4-ish light years away...we still wouldn't even be able to imagine reaching it.
Yes we could. Orion Project, baby.
If we're lucky, Iran will graciously provide Israel with enough nuclear bombs to go to Proxima Centauri this year. :)
Anyway, the point is, I feel like I'm living in 1412.
So close, yet too far in time to see the New World.
Wow, I think I hit the nail in the head!
By the end of this century.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2012, 04:47:43 PM
Would a Jovian moon actually be able to support life? Wouldn't the planet block the sunlight a lot? Not to mention the radiation such a gas giant would emit.
Sure; yeah, but not to a significantly greater extent that the Earth blocks light on about half of its surface, and it's a lot better than a planetoid tidally locked to its star; it need not necessarily receive toxic levels of radiation--Titan doesn't, nor does Callisto (more or less).
i don't know.
Habitable planets worry me.
I just hope we end up as the evil european conquistadors and not as the noble and peaceful indians.
Quote from: Siege on February 04, 2012, 10:53:53 PM
i don't know.
Habitable planets worry me.
I just hope we end up as the evil european conquistadors and not as the noble and peaceful indians.
Habitability does not imply the existence of sentient life, let alone a technological civilization. In fact, we can be reasonably certain that there is no advanced culture 22 light years from Earth.
Ok, I will be back later, but you have to listen to this song, Jimi Hendrix- Fire.
Listen not only for Jimi's legendary guitar, but for the mindblowing drums and the bass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2OrKIGeZKw&NR=1&feature=fvwp
I should have gone to Vietnam.
I would have done great against the reds.
Quote from: Siege on February 04, 2012, 09:33:08 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 04, 2012, 05:52:42 PM
We could discover a habitable planet full of billions of nubile, Caliga-approved young ladies orbiting Proxima Centauri, 4-ish light years away...we still wouldn't even be able to imagine reaching it.
Yes we could. Orion Project, baby.
That can get you into space, but not between the stars. Moving between the stars is an entirely different and more difficult problem then getting from the earth to space.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 09:48:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2012, 04:47:43 PM
Would a Jovian moon actually be able to support life? Wouldn't the planet block the sunlight a lot? Not to mention the radiation such a gas giant would emit.
Sure; yeah, but not to a significantly greater extent that the Earth blocks light on about half of its surface, and it's a lot better than a planetoid tidally locked to its star; it need not necessarily receive toxic levels of radiation--Titan doesn't, nor does Callisto (more or less).
I think Calisto is the only one that doesn't receive massive daily dosage of radiation, though it is still fairly significant. How long would a moon be between a gas giant and the sun at a time? What would the ratio of the moon in the sun and moon not in the sun be? Using say the Sun, Calisto and Jupiter?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 01:18:25 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 04, 2012, 09:33:08 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 04, 2012, 05:52:42 PM
We could discover a habitable planet full of billions of nubile, Caliga-approved young ladies orbiting Proxima Centauri, 4-ish light years away...we still wouldn't even be able to imagine reaching it.
Yes we could. Orion Project, baby.
That can get you into space, but not between the stars. Moving between the stars is an entirely different and more difficult problem then getting from the earth to space.
You are mistaken.
The Orion Project let us achieve 50% of lightspeed.
Ok, maybe 25%.
Still, we can get there.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 01:35:10 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 09:48:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2012, 04:47:43 PM
Would a Jovian moon actually be able to support life? Wouldn't the planet block the sunlight a lot? Not to mention the radiation such a gas giant would emit.
Sure; yeah, but not to a significantly greater extent that the Earth blocks light on about half of its surface, and it's a lot better than a planetoid tidally locked to its star; it need not necessarily receive toxic levels of radiation--Titan doesn't, nor does Callisto (more or less).
I think Calisto is the only one that doesn't receive massive daily dosage of radiation, though it is still fairly significant. How long would a moon be between a gas giant and the sun at a time? What would the ratio of the moon in the sun and moon not in the sun be? Using say the Sun, Calisto and Jupiter?
How often is Earth's moon exposed to the sun? A lot; in fact, practically constantly.
I think you're imagining satellite systems as being insanely close to and constantly shadowed by their primary, when they aren't. Jupiter is not in constant eclipse of the sun.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2012, 01:36:56 AM
You are mistaken.
The Orion Project let us achieve 50% of lightspeed.
Ok, maybe 25%.
Still, we can get there.
That's bullshit. You couldn't even do half that. The best you could really do is .03 C, which is pretty quick, but would still take much, much longer then a human lifespan to arrive at another star (assuming you also want to stop there. That is if the damn thing works at all.
Science is like magic. What is needed is monolithic empires, ideological struggle, and triumph of the will. That will get us into space.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2012, 01:52:20 AM
How often is Earth's moon exposed to the sun? A lot; in fact, practically constantly.
I think you're imagining satellite systems as being insanely close to and constantly shadowed by their primary, when they aren't. The far side of the Jovians get more insolation on average, but the point is, the sun is not constantly eclipsed by Jupiter even on Io, which orbits Jupiter at an even greater distance than Luna orbits Earth.
I'm imaging that Jupiter is much bigger then the Earth. If the primary blocks out the sun for the moon for a quarter of the year it's going to get damn cold.
Why would a satellite that orbits its primary every 17 days be blacked out for a quarter of a year?
I mean, it's night here in the Western hemisphere. Neither one of us have frozen to death yet.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2012, 02:46:40 AM
Why would a satellite that orbits its primary every 17 days be blacked out for a quarter of a year?
I mean, it's night here in the Western hemisphere. Neither one of us have frozen to death yet.
We aren't blacked out for three or four days at a time.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 01:18:25 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 04, 2012, 09:33:08 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 04, 2012, 05:52:42 PM
We could discover a habitable planet full of billions of nubile, Caliga-approved young ladies orbiting Proxima Centauri, 4-ish light years away...we still wouldn't even be able to imagine reaching it.
Yes we could. Orion Project, baby.
That can get you into space, but not between the stars. Moving between the stars is an entirely different and more difficult problem then getting from the earth to space.
No, if it could work, it would be fine for interstellar travel. Sort of. You just coast, while the radiation flux from the atomic explosions damages the crew and instruments and the explosions themselves damage the ship.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 02:20:26 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2012, 01:52:20 AM
How often is Earth's moon exposed to the sun? A lot; in fact, practically constantly.
I think you're imagining satellite systems as being insanely close to and constantly shadowed by their primary, when they aren't. The far side of the Jovians get more insolation on average, but the point is, the sun is not constantly eclipsed by Jupiter even on Io, which orbits Jupiter at an even greater distance than Luna orbits Earth.
I'm imaging that Jupiter is much bigger then the Earth. If the primary blocks out the sun for the moon for a quarter of the year it's going to get damn cold.
Because the distances involved are very large, it's not as much of a factor as you might think. If you look at Io, for example, it's only blacked out by Jupiter for a few hours when Jupiter is transiting the Sun, in a 42 hour orbit. For Amalthea, which is closer still, it is only an hour and a half. Because of orbital eccentricity, I wasn't able to get Ganymede or Calisto to black out at all, although I'm sure they do at some point. Even so, the Jupiter transit is extremely brief.
Admittedly Jupiter is pretty far from the Sun, so it doesn't matter that much. I was thinking of a Jovian Giant much closer. Also, aren't moons around such a big object tidally locked?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 12:34:58 PM
Admittedly Jupiter is pretty far from the Sun, so it doesn't matter that much. I was thinking of a Jovian Giant much closer. Also, aren't moons around such a big object tidally locked?
It depends, but large moons that could bear life tend to be locked in the Solar System. A life-bearing moon in the Io-Europa range would certainly have some interesting skies, with long days, long nights and a spectacular view of the giant planet. Tidal locking to a planet shouldn't have much of an effect on the world, although tidal locking to a star would be disastrous.
Okay. These were just things I wondered about. I don't know much about this, so I'll defer to your and Ide's knowledge.
I do wonder what life would be like on a moon orbiting a gas giant in the habitable zone.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 04, 2012, 05:52:42 PM
We could discover a habitable planet full of billions of nubile, Caliga-approved young ladies orbiting Proxima Centauri, 4-ish light years away...we still wouldn't even be able to imagine reaching it.
I can imagine quite a lot.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 03:11:57 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2012, 02:46:40 AM
Why would a satellite that orbits its primary every 17 days be blacked out for a quarter of a year?
I mean, it's night here in the Western hemisphere. Neither one of us have frozen to death yet.
We aren't blacked out for three or four days at a time.
Well, like Neil said, the eclipses don't last that long. Each side will be in night for half its orbital period, but I assume we're talking about an Earthlike moon, with an atmosphere. That will moderate global temperatures quite a bit. Assuming Callisto distances (to get away from radiation) and velocity, an eight day night is no big deal.
Neil might know this, though: would the magnetosphere of an Earthlike moon afford sufficient/any protection from the radiation belts of a jovian? That is, could a larger moon be closer than Callisto and not be a deathtrap?
As for Siege, while it may have seemed like it to the casual observer some 30 years ago, we really aren't in the equivalent of 1412 when it comes to space travel.
There a few major problems that potentially will never be solved. I think most/all of them will be solved, but it still doesn't solve "the biggest" problem.
To break it down:
- The energy requirements are absolutely massive. To make a trip to our closest star you could do it in a "reasonable" time at 10% of light speed. This is thousands of times faster than the fastest spacecraft humans have ever launched; due to the laws of physics this means we will need millions of times the energy used in other craft. I've seen it projected that to accelerate a 1 ton object to 10% light speed will take around 450 petajoules (.45 exajoules.) That isn't an impossible to reach power generation goal, all of human society generates around 474 EJ per year. However in a form to power a space ship isn't a simple problem. The Tsar Bomba which is the most powerful device ever utilized by man only released 210 PJ, so we're talking about some force at least twice as strong as that to knock a one ton object to Alpha Centauri at 10% light speed. In reality even the lightest manned craft to make a journey like that will weigh several times that amount and of course require more energy. Further, this number is just to accelerate the craft, I'm being generous and assuming maybe some crafty means is devised to avoid the necessity to use some sort of fuel to slow the craft down. A few years ago some professor estimated that a realistically sized craft making the journey in a reasonable time would require more than 100 times the energy output of the entire world. This seems plausible because of how the math works, minor increases in weight or desired velocity ratchet up the energy costs.
- Long term radiation exposure would be very damaging to the crew. There is no easy solution for this, moving at 10% light speed you'd get to Alpha Centauri in 40 years, even if we're talking 50% lightspeed it would be 8 years in space, much of it in interstellar space. And of course moving that number up to 50% changes the energy requirements massively as well. Even going up in the shuttle there is some radiation exposure, not a huge deal for short trips or even longer stays in a space station, but 8 years in a craft going through interstellar space I don't know that the health effects would be so minor.
- In the same vein of long term radiation, other minor things present in all space travel would compound immensely on a long interstellar journey. Micrometeroids would slowly cause damage to the craft, long term weightlessness would cause health problems to the crew, further when you're talking about a ship perhaps moving at appreciable percentages of light speed bad things might happen when something that fast is plowing through the interstellar medium, which has lots of dust and gases in it.
- The health concerns and engineering concerns are simply not minor, and solutions are not necessarily right around the corner for any of those, but I don't see any reason they could never be solved. The energy requirements issue is a far bigger problem, but again, I'm not sure we can't ever generate the energy required. We probably could using far more advanced fission-electric or fusion-burst type engines than we can build today. Fission-electric engines have a problem in that they probably would not be able to get a craft to 10% light speed in a reasonable time span, and fusion type drives would require massive, potentially centuries away, improvements to harnessing fusion in this manner because current fusion reactions release much of their energy as neutrons which significantly lessen the amount of energy available to drive the ship. However, let's assume we can solve all the engineering and actual science problems, at best I think we're talking 300-500 years of progress before we're there. But once we are there we're faced with the simple truth that such a voyage will always have massive costs, so high that it is virtually impossible to conceive of anything that would justify the cost. The movie Avatar talked of unobtanium being the reason man traveled to that planet, and priced it at around $20m a kg, in reality assume some magical resource on a planet 4 light years away, it would have to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars per ounce to even come close to justifying the cost required to actually go get any of it. Further, of course, we know the periodic table and the universe well enough to know that it's pure science fiction that some element unknown to man exists in quantity on another planet, any further elements we discover will be of the variety currently in the high numbers of the table which are all transient elements that decay in sub-second periods of time after being created. Now, some naturally occurring alloy or something of that nature could exist on another planet that would have value to human beings and that might not be present in large quantities here on Earth, but any society advanced enough to perform interstellar mining activities would almost certainly have the resources to create just about anything they'd need on their home planet and wouldn't need to expend massive resources on interstellar mining operations.[/i]
Indeed physics is the problem. I see huge breakthroughs in biology/medicine the next few hundred years. I don't see as huge breakthroughs in physics. And building a fast interstellar ship with what we know seems difficult and expensive.
In The Coldfire Trilogy humanity expanded to distant stars in a big batch of "colony ships" launched from Earth with the goal of perpetuating humanity's existence. The author, in one of the few works of sci-fi/fantasy to observe the laws of physics as relates to space travel, describes the ships as not being able to move faster than the speed of light. So the hook is all the colonists were essentially in permanent "cryosleep" and the automated ship basically traveled from planet to planet performing analysis on its habitability for human life before landing and waking the colonists up.
Because of this the descendants of the original colonists know that in their case it took tens of thousands of years for the original ship to make its journey. Further, because the ships had no idea where they were going when they left, and because of the reality of how long it takes for communication to travel that distance, there is not ever any communication with Earth. There was no goal of establishing a linked human empire because it was just impossible, but instead creating new worlds where humans could be self-sufficient. Fulfilling some vague species goal of creating many different worlds of habitation to insure the species perpetuates (I guess until the heat death of the universe.)
So while even that fiction involves massive increases in technological sophistication in regards to space travel, I think the key really will be biological changes to humanity itself. Even then, if we ever do send people to other stars it'll be much more in this vein of establishing new, but not connected, human societies. There's just no realistic way to maintain significant ties to planets on other stars.
And something I've always thought, if you follow such a goal of just "creating new places for the species to exist" it actually doesn't make sense to even bother sending live humans.
Instead you send a ship with preserved human embryos that has the technological capacity to "grow" the humans using resources on the destination planet. That tremendously reduces your payload requirements, since you no longer require food, water, or any creature comforts to sustain an entire human crew for years. Since you're sending embryos you're also sending many potential humans at far less weight than real bodies.
Once the ship lands I'm positing some sort of robotic "parent" will be able to feed and raise the babies. Or, perhaps you grow an adult human with programmed human memory [spoiler](akin to how they did in the movie Moon)[/spoiler], so the first generation of humans will basically have manufactured memories/chidlhoods and then raise normal humans after that.
I had an idea once that potentially interstellar colonization could be funded as conspicuous consumption. That is, you send colonists out to prepare retirement estates/petty kingdoms for the richest people on Earth, who can buy hundreds of thousands of acres at ten billion dollars a pop. If you can load 100 billionaires onto a fission-fragment driven sleeper ship, you might could pay for it.
But you still need either changed people so that dimethyl sulfoxide or similar cryoprotectant isn't toxic, or a fictional cryoprotectant/vitrification agent that doesn't fuck you up, along with some other advances in cryonic techniques.
It would also help if life expectancy was in the hundreds of years or indefinite, but if you have working cryonics, that's probably the case.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 05, 2012, 03:48:27 PM
And something I've always thought, if you follow such a goal of just "creating new places for the species to exist" it actually doesn't make sense to even bother sending live humans.
Instead you send a ship with preserved human embryos that has the technological capacity to "grow" the humans using resources on the destination planet. That tremendously reduces your payload requirements, since you no longer require food, water, or any creature comforts to sustain an entire human crew for years. Since you're sending embryos you're also sending many potential humans at far less weight than real bodies.
Once the ship lands I'm positing some sort of robotic "parent" will be able to feed and raise the babies. Or, perhaps you grow an adult human with programmed human memory [spoiler](akin to how they did in the movie Moon)[/spoiler], so the first generation of humans will basically have manufactured memories/chidlhoods and then raise normal humans after that.
Why not the embrions without the manufactured memories?
The new humans would have to start from zero, they would be essentially cavemen, without even a language.
Wait a minute. What if this already happened? Here on Earth?!! (dramatic music plays)
I took a dump here on Earth earlier today. (porn music plays)
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
I took a dump here on Earth earlier today. (porn music plays)
German porn. :x
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
I took a dump here on Earth earlier today. (porn music plays)
A worthy contribution to our biological diversity.
Isn't today's army all volunteer and the WWII army almost completely draftees?
Quote from: sbr on February 05, 2012, 04:17:25 PM
Isn't today's army all volunteer and the WWII army almost completely draftees?
:)
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2012, 04:05:21 PM
Wait a minute. What if this already happened? Here on Earth?!! (dramatic music plays)
Yep. Our distant ancestors flew to this planet and soon after started losing their body hair.
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 04:18:15 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 05, 2012, 04:17:25 PM
Isn't today's army all volunteer and the WWII army almost completely draftees?
:)
:hmm: Not sure how this landed in the wrong thread.
Too far to be any good. We're better off colonizing the moon, like Gingrich says.
Tim should colonize the sun. Strap a Wil E Coyote rocket to his back NASA.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 05, 2012, 03:44:10 PM
In The Coldfire Trilogy humanity expanded to distant stars in a big batch of "colony ships" launched from Earth with the goal of perpetuating humanity's existence. The author, in one of the few works of sci-fi/fantasy to observe the laws of physics as relates to space travel, describes the ships as not being able to move faster than the speed of light. So the hook is all the colonists were essentially in permanent "cryosleep" and the automated ship basically traveled from planet to planet performing analysis on its habitability for human life before landing and waking the colonists up.
Because of this the descendants of the original colonists know that in their case it took tens of thousands of years for the original ship to make its journey. Further, because the ships had no idea where they were going when they left, and because of the reality of how long it takes for communication to travel that distance, there is not ever any communication with Earth. There was no goal of establishing a linked human empire because it was just impossible, but instead creating new worlds where humans could be self-sufficient. Fulfilling some vague species goal of creating many different worlds of habitation to insure the species perpetuates (I guess until the heat death of the universe.)
So while even that fiction involves massive increases in technological sophistication in regards to space travel, I think the key really will be biological changes to humanity itself. Even then, if we ever do send people to other stars it'll be much more in this vein of establishing new, but not connected, human societies. There's just no realistic way to maintain significant ties to planets on other stars.
Did you happen to see
Pandorum by chance?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 05, 2012, 03:44:10 PM
In The Coldfire Trilogy humanity expanded to distant stars in a big batch of "colony ships" launched from Earth with the goal of perpetuating humanity's existence. The author, in one of the few works of sci-fi/fantasy to observe the laws of physics as relates to space travel, describes the ships as not being able to move faster than the speed of light. So the hook is all the colonists were essentially in permanent "cryosleep" and the automated ship basically traveled from planet to planet performing analysis on its habitability for human life before landing and waking the colonists up.
Because of this the descendants of the original colonists know that in their case it took tens of thousands of years for the original ship to make its journey. Further, because the ships had no idea where they were going when they left, and because of the reality of how long it takes for communication to travel that distance, there is not ever any communication with Earth. There was no goal of establishing a linked human empire because it was just impossible, but instead creating new worlds where humans could be self-sufficient. Fulfilling some vague species goal of creating many different worlds of habitation to insure the species perpetuates (I guess until the heat death of the universe.)
So while even that fiction involves massive increases in technological sophistication in regards to space travel, I think the key really will be biological changes to humanity itself. Even then, if we ever do send people to other stars it'll be much more in this vein of establishing new, but not connected, human societies. There's just no realistic way to maintain significant ties to planets on other stars.
Just out of curiosity, how did they power the ship? I was thinking about something similar for an RPG, but ran into a major problem. How do they get electricity in the depths of space after several hundred years? Even the most efficient forms of energy ( like an anti-matter total conversion) would likely run out before you got there. I thought perhaps they could send some robots in small craft with highly efficient solar panels that power up when they get near a star. The robots then
build the people and the animals and plants when they find planet where you can do so. When not close to a star the machines stay powered down.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2012, 06:40:48 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 05, 2012, 03:44:10 PM
In The Coldfire Trilogy humanity expanded to distant stars in a big batch of "colony ships" launched from Earth with the goal of perpetuating humanity's existence. The author, in one of the few works of sci-fi/fantasy to observe the laws of physics as relates to space travel, describes the ships as not being able to move faster than the speed of light. So the hook is all the colonists were essentially in permanent "cryosleep" and the automated ship basically traveled from planet to planet performing analysis on its habitability for human life before landing and waking the colonists up.
Because of this the descendants of the original colonists know that in their case it took tens of thousands of years for the original ship to make its journey. Further, because the ships had no idea where they were going when they left, and because of the reality of how long it takes for communication to travel that distance, there is not ever any communication with Earth. There was no goal of establishing a linked human empire because it was just impossible, but instead creating new worlds where humans could be self-sufficient. Fulfilling some vague species goal of creating many different worlds of habitation to insure the species perpetuates (I guess until the heat death of the universe.)
So while even that fiction involves massive increases in technological sophistication in regards to space travel, I think the key really will be biological changes to humanity itself. Even then, if we ever do send people to other stars it'll be much more in this vein of establishing new, but not connected, human societies. There's just no realistic way to maintain significant ties to planets on other stars.
Did you happen to see Pandorum by chance?
I did. Creepy.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2012, 03:02:49 PM
Well, like Neil said, the eclipses don't last that long. Each side will be in night for half its orbital period, but I assume we're talking about an Earthlike moon, with an atmosphere. That will moderate global temperatures quite a bit. Assuming Callisto distances (to get away from radiation) and velocity, an eight day night is no big deal.
Neil might know this, though: would the magnetosphere of an Earthlike moon afford sufficient/any protection from the radiation belts of a jovian? That is, could a larger moon be closer than Callisto and not be a deathtrap?
I'm not sure how the presence of the giant would affect the dynamo, but it should provide some protection, barring some kind of magnetic recombination.
The geodynamo should still function; it's still rotating, after all, even if it's tidally locked to the planet, albeit more or less slowly than the Earth. I don't think it would stop convection, and we can assume an iron core since anything else would be surprising. On the other hand, it have to be at least Earth-sized, since we're right on the edge of a functioning convective core (at least, that's my understanding, based on my understanding of Venus--only slightly less massive--and its buoyant lithosphere that prevents proper heat transfer from the outer core to the surface, relegating geological activity to catastrophic surfacing events, which is bad for other reasons than a non-functional geodynamo anyway).
Speaking of giant moons, though, there's no reason an Earth-sized moon couldn't be captured by a jovian, is there? Obviously we don't see any in our solar system; afaik there's no planetary evolutionary reason to believe they can't, but I might be wrong.
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2012, 12:25:39 AM
I did. Creepy.
Yeah, but it was an interesting premise, and I didn't see that ending coming. Thought it was very cool.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 06, 2012, 01:28:39 AM
The geodynamo should still function; it's still rotating, after all, even if it's tidally locked to the planet, albeit more or less slowly than the Earth. I don't think it would stop convection, and we can assume an iron core since anything else would be surprising. On the other hand, it have to be at least Earth-sized, since we're right on the edge of a functioning convective core (at least, that's my understanding, based on my understanding of Venus--only slightly less massive--and its buoyant lithosphere that prevents proper heat transfer from the outer core to the surface, relegating geological activity to catastrophic surfacing events, which is bad for other reasons than a non-functional geodynamo anyway).
Speaking of giant moons, though, there's no reason an Earth-sized moon couldn't be captured by a jovian, is there? Obviously we don't see any in our solar system; afaik there's no planetary evolutionary reason to believe they can't, but I might be wrong.
The capture mechanism would probably work the best, but I can't say for sure what the effects of three billion years of close interaction with the forces of a large giant planet would have on a dynamo.
Well now I have a new movie to watch.
I haven't seen Pandorum, and I don't remember if the author of the Coldfire Trilogy ever expanded on the fuel for the colony ships. The three books are basically fantasy setting with a sci-fi origin story, so there is passing mention to the "original colonists" and such, but it isn't a major part of the books so it wasn't fully fleshed out.
Coldfire by C.S. Friedman. Never read her other stuff. That one was good. Gloomy though.