10 ms·

Three Planets in Habitable Zone of Nearby Star

133 points by Libertatea 13y ago

rgbrenner 13y ago
Link is broken (404). Here's an alternative: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130625073544.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130625073544.ht...
- DougWebb 13y ago
  Based on the artist's conception: we've discovered Tatooine! It sounds like there's two problems for anyone/thing living on these planets. First, they're closer to their star than Mercury is to our sun. Unless the atmosphere is pretty dense and there's a strong magnetic field, the radiation on the surface is going to be pretty intense. Second, one of the notes at the bottom of the article says the team believes the planets day and year are the same length, so one side always faces the star. That'll reduce the habitable area to a ring around the planet instead of the entire surface. We'd still be ok to put a colony there and we could probably generate lots of energy from the temperature differential, but it's much less likely that life would have evolved in that environment.
jvzr 13y ago
I'm getting a 404 error. Even the link posted on their homepage sends the same error.
GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
I'd like to see a simulation of how this system's orbits work. Amazing
- cryptoz 13y ago
  When the Exoplanet Explorer app gets updated with this data we're going to be in for a treat. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.burlock.exoplanetexplorer https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.burlock.ex...
cryptoz 13y ago
This is an amazing discovery! The star is only 22 lightyears away, and it's got three potentially habitable planets. That's astounding. This is probably going to be one of our first destinations, when humanity starts building interstellar craft. Of course, the discoveries are still very early right now and we'll probably find all sorts of Earth-like planets quite close. But three Super Earths in the habitable zone of a close-by star? That's almost as good as it gets. Edit: And surely this will be a focus of searching for life as well. A high concentration of life-capable planets in the same radio direction? Yes please. Also, I've often wondered if having a high density of habitable planets in the same system as your species would increase the chances and speed to becoming a spacefaring species. If you have a lot of places to go that are quite inviting and not that difficult to get to, you'll probably go.
- exratione 13y ago
  Seems unlikely to be the first choice of destination on that basis. By the time the technology exists to reliably transport people (or equivalent amounts of mass) to other planetary systems in a usefully short amount of time, then the technology will also exist to cost-effectively (a) make everything habitable for baseline humans via habitats and other forms of engineering, and (b) engineer sentient entities that can live comfortably in native conditions near anywhere in a star system. So whether or not the system has habitable zone planets will be irrelevant. Our descendants will go to the closest one first.
  - GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
    But it depends what is cheaper...
  - prawks 13y ago
    I think you're underestimating the importance of not living in bubbles for a) and opening a can of worms by assuming b).
    - nnq 13y ago
      and what would that can of worms be? :) ...really, if there is a "can of worms" to open here, we'll open it quite soon, well before any such voyage, by starting to do cosmetic-human-genetic-engineering, economic-oriented-human-genetic-engineering and warfare-oriented-human-genetic-engineering, and I'm pessimistic enough to bet on the third one as the first to crop up (nothing better than: "supper smart military engineers", "super smart, fit, sociopathic and fanatic - ie. unbreakable - spies" or any other such combos that I'm sure make up some twisted folks' wet dreams...).
Nursie 13y ago
So.... interstellar colonisation kickstarter project anyone?
Simple1234 13y ago
1.29326996 × 10 to the 14th miles = Nearby
- cryptoz 13y ago
  Some exoplanets discovered recently are 10,000 lightyears away. So indeed, 22 lightyears is absolutely nearby.
  - Simple1234 13y ago
    Kittens are gigantic, compared to protozoa. That doesn't mean we should describe kittens as cute, fuzzy, and gigantic. I would be ok with "only 22 lightyears away." But "nearby"? Most people have a hard time grasping the size of our galaxy. "Nearby" does not help promote a good understanding of the discovery IMHO.
    - cryptoz 13y ago
      I think it promotes understanding of the discovery, as well as future discoveries, actually. Those who don't know that our galaxy spans hundreds of thousands of lightyears may not have a conception at all for how far away, and comparatively, how close, some objects are. It's clear we're talking about planets around other stars, and this is almost as close as it gets, so calling it 'nearby' is a pretty excellent description I think.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Words like these are inherently relative and depend on context. If the context is protozoa, then a kitten is absolutely "gigantic". There's nothing wrong with that at all. The local grocery store is "nearby" for me, about 500 meters. I sit "far away from" the window in my office, even though it's still two orders of magnitude (and then some) closer than the store. Context. "Nearby" is absolutely an appropriate word to use for a distance of 22 light years when discussing exoplanets.
      - MrSourz 13y ago
rheide 13y ago
What would be the timeframe of reaching/colonizing these planets? With another 20 years of engine development, would it be possible to reach these planets in our lifetime? That would be a world-changing event.
- cryptoz 13y ago
  Yes it would be possible. Project Orion in the 1950s demonstrated that using nuclear pulse propulsion, you could accelerate to (max) 0.1c for intersteller missions. If we were to actually spend a little bit of money and effort on real space travel - which we're about to, if SpaceX and Plantery Resources succeed - I think it's completely reasonable to think that we will launch (and perhaps arrive) on these planets in our lifetimes. It's optimistic, sure, but it's possible.
  - rgbrenner 13y ago
    0.1c would make this a 220 year journey each way. So what you're really saying is: no, it's not possible reach these planets in our lifetime.
    - cryptoz 13y ago
      I was imagining we would also be researching biology at the same time, and would be able to live that long or sleep during the trip. If we're able to move at .1c I can't imagine we'll still die as quickly as people born in 1900.
      - rch 13y ago
        I saw a presentation on this at a DARPA meeting a couple years ago. It is exactly the kind of thing that could make long-term space travel possible. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/12/zombie-mouse-ma/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/12/zombie-mouse-ma/
      - chc 13y ago
        There's a huge gap between "20 years from now, we won't die as quickly as people born in 1900" and "20 years from now, people will live four times as long as they do in 2013." The former is quite likely. The latter is pretty far out there.
yohann305 13y ago
22 light years, in layman's terms equals 5 billion round-trips from San Francisco to Paris. . - SF to Paris (1 trip = 5831.79 miles) - double that for a round trip - 22 light years = 5.87849981 × 10^12 miles - Divide 22 light years by the round trip, yields total trip count.
- vlasev 13y ago
  Actually, it's WORSE. 1 light year = 9.454 x 10^15 meters 22 light years = 2.080 x 10^17 meters SF to Paris, round trip = 1.877 x 10^7 meters Number of trips = 1.108 x 10^10 In layman's terms, it's about 11 billion trips! Here's another way to get a sense of scale. The earth rotates the sun at an orbit with semi-major axis of about 150 million kilometers. Using some data you can determine that the orbit of Earth is about 9.398 x 10^11 meters in circumference. Divide the distance to the star by this number to get 2.213 x 10^5 years. That is, it takes the Earth about 220 thousand years to go this distance around the sun.
3rd3 13y ago
It should be easy to detect whether any radio signals come from that direction.
Fuzzwah 13y ago
For anyone who is interested in this, I highly recommend listening to the podcast of Richard Pogge's Astronomy 141 course at Ohio State Uni. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast141/#lectures http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast141/#lectures (iTunes link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/id559775126 https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/id559775126 ) Here's the overview: Astronomy 141, Life in the Universe, is an introduction to Astrobiology. The topics covered in this course lie at the interfaces between astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, and the earth and planetary sciences. We will learn about scientists' ongoing quest for answers to some of the most fundamental human questions: How did life originate on Earth? Is there life on other worlds? Are we alone in the universe? What is the long-term future of life in the universe?
codex 13y ago
The planets have three suns? Only three more suns to Nightfall!
shank8 13y ago
We define the word habitable to be the ability for a planet to have life on it. But that is by standards of Oxygen/Nitrogen breathing, H20 drinking lifeforms. Who's to say that there aren't carbon life forms that have evolved to live off elements that are toxic to us
- mehmehshoe 13y ago
  We have those life forms here already=) Microbes that eat arsenic. I am sure there are a lot more examples in extreme areas of our planet if there was a bigger budget to find them.
- Goosey 13y ago
  No one, but finding ETs is only half of the excitement. The other half is interstellar colonization.

133 points by Libertatea 13y ago

Link is broken (404). Here's an alternative: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130625073544.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130625073544.ht...

DougWebb 13y ago
Based on the artist's conception: we've discovered Tatooine! It sounds like there's two problems for anyone/thing living on these planets. First, they're closer to their star than Mercury is to our sun. Unless the atmosphere is pretty dense and there's a strong magnetic field, the radiation on the surface is going to be pretty intense. Second, one of the notes at the bottom of the article says the team believes the planets day and year are the same length, so one side always faces the star. That'll reduce the habitable area to a ring around the planet instead of the entire surface. We'd still be ok to put a colony there and we could probably generate lots of energy from the temperature differential, but it's much less likely that life would have evolved in that environment.

jvzr 13y ago

I'm getting a 404 error. Even the link posted on their homepage sends the same error.

GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago

I'd like to see a simulation of how this system's orbits work. Amazing

cryptoz 13y ago
When the Exoplanet Explorer app gets updated with this data we're going to be in for a treat. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.burlock.exoplanetexplorer https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.burlock.ex...

cryptoz 13y ago

This is an amazing discovery! The star is only 22 lightyears away, and it's got three potentially habitable planets. That's astounding. This is probably going to be one of our first destinations, when humanity starts building interstellar craft. Of course, the discoveries are still very early right now and we'll probably find all sorts of Earth-like planets quite close. But three Super Earths in the habitable zone of a close-by star? That's almost as good as it gets. Edit: And surely this will be a focus of searching for life as well. A high concentration of life-capable planets in the same radio direction? Yes please. Also, I've often wondered if having a high density of habitable planets in the same system as your species would increase the chances and speed to becoming a spacefaring species. If you have a lot of places to go that are quite inviting and not that difficult to get to, you'll probably go.

exratione 13y ago
Seems unlikely to be the first choice of destination on that basis. By the time the technology exists to reliably transport people (or equivalent amounts of mass) to other planetary systems in a usefully short amount of time, then the technology will also exist to cost-effectively (a) make everything habitable for baseline humans via habitats and other forms of engineering, and (b) engineer sentient entities that can live comfortably in native conditions near anywhere in a star system. So whether or not the system has habitable zone planets will be irrelevant. Our descendants will go to the closest one first.
- GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
  But it depends what is cheaper...
- prawks 13y ago
  I think you're underestimating the importance of not living in bubbles for a) and opening a can of worms by assuming b).
  - nnq 13y ago
    and what would that can of worms be? :) ...really, if there is a "can of worms" to open here, we'll open it quite soon, well before any such voyage, by starting to do cosmetic-human-genetic-engineering, economic-oriented-human-genetic-engineering and warfare-oriented-human-genetic-engineering, and I'm pessimistic enough to bet on the third one as the first to crop up (nothing better than: "supper smart military engineers", "super smart, fit, sociopathic and fanatic - ie. unbreakable - spies" or any other such combos that I'm sure make up some twisted folks' wet dreams...).

Nursie 13y ago

So.... interstellar colonisation kickstarter project anyone?

Simple1234 13y ago

1.29326996 × 10 to the 14th miles = Nearby

cryptoz 13y ago
Some exoplanets discovered recently are 10,000 lightyears away. So indeed, 22 lightyears is absolutely nearby.
- Simple1234 13y ago
  Kittens are gigantic, compared to protozoa. That doesn't mean we should describe kittens as cute, fuzzy, and gigantic. I would be ok with "only 22 lightyears away." But "nearby"? Most people have a hard time grasping the size of our galaxy. "Nearby" does not help promote a good understanding of the discovery IMHO.
  - cryptoz 13y ago
    I think it promotes understanding of the discovery, as well as future discoveries, actually. Those who don't know that our galaxy spans hundreds of thousands of lightyears may not have a conception at all for how far away, and comparatively, how close, some objects are. It's clear we're talking about planets around other stars, and this is almost as close as it gets, so calling it 'nearby' is a pretty excellent description I think.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Words like these are inherently relative and depend on context. If the context is protozoa, then a kitten is absolutely "gigantic". There's nothing wrong with that at all. The local grocery store is "nearby" for me, about 500 meters. I sit "far away from" the window in my office, even though it's still two orders of magnitude (and then some) closer than the store. Context. "Nearby" is absolutely an appropriate word to use for a distance of 22 light years when discussing exoplanets.
    - MrSourz 13y ago

rheide 13y ago

What would be the timeframe of reaching/colonizing these planets? With another 20 years of engine development, would it be possible to reach these planets in our lifetime? That would be a world-changing event.

cryptoz 13y ago
Yes it would be possible. Project Orion in the 1950s demonstrated that using nuclear pulse propulsion, you could accelerate to (max) 0.1c for intersteller missions. If we were to actually spend a little bit of money and effort on real space travel - which we're about to, if SpaceX and Plantery Resources succeed - I think it's completely reasonable to think that we will launch (and perhaps arrive) on these planets in our lifetimes. It's optimistic, sure, but it's possible.
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  0.1c would make this a 220 year journey each way. So what you're really saying is: no, it's not possible reach these planets in our lifetime.
  - cryptoz 13y ago
    I was imagining we would also be researching biology at the same time, and would be able to live that long or sleep during the trip. If we're able to move at .1c I can't imagine we'll still die as quickly as people born in 1900.
    - rch 13y ago
      I saw a presentation on this at a DARPA meeting a couple years ago. It is exactly the kind of thing that could make long-term space travel possible. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/12/zombie-mouse-ma/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/12/zombie-mouse-ma/
    - chc 13y ago
      There's a huge gap between "20 years from now, we won't die as quickly as people born in 1900" and "20 years from now, people will live four times as long as they do in 2013." The former is quite likely. The latter is pretty far out there.

yohann305 13y ago

22 light years, in layman's terms equals 5 billion round-trips from San Francisco to Paris. . - SF to Paris (1 trip = 5831.79 miles) - double that for a round trip - 22 light years = 5.87849981 × 10^12 miles - Divide 22 light years by the round trip, yields total trip count.

vlasev 13y ago
Actually, it's WORSE. 1 light year = 9.454 x 10^15 meters 22 light years = 2.080 x 10^17 meters SF to Paris, round trip = 1.877 x 10^7 meters Number of trips = 1.108 x 10^10 In layman's terms, it's about 11 billion trips! Here's another way to get a sense of scale. The earth rotates the sun at an orbit with semi-major axis of about 150 million kilometers. Using some data you can determine that the orbit of Earth is about 9.398 x 10^11 meters in circumference. Divide the distance to the star by this number to get 2.213 x 10^5 years. That is, it takes the Earth about 220 thousand years to go this distance around the sun.

3rd3 13y ago

It should be easy to detect whether any radio signals come from that direction.

Fuzzwah 13y ago

For anyone who is interested in this, I highly recommend listening to the podcast of Richard Pogge's Astronomy 141 course at Ohio State Uni. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast141/#lectures http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast141/#lectures (iTunes link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/id559775126 https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/id559775126 ) Here's the overview: Astronomy 141, Life in the Universe, is an introduction to Astrobiology. The topics covered in this course lie at the interfaces between astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, and the earth and planetary sciences. We will learn about scientists' ongoing quest for answers to some of the most fundamental human questions: How did life originate on Earth? Is there life on other worlds? Are we alone in the universe? What is the long-term future of life in the universe?

codex 13y ago

The planets have three suns? Only three more suns to Nightfall!

shank8 13y ago

We define the word habitable to be the ability for a planet to have life on it. But that is by standards of Oxygen/Nitrogen breathing, H20 drinking lifeforms. Who's to say that there aren't carbon life forms that have evolved to live off elements that are toxic to us

mehmehshoe 13y ago
We have those life forms here already=) Microbes that eat arsenic. I am sure there are a lot more examples in extreme areas of our planet if there was a bigger budget to find them.
Goosey 13y ago
No one, but finding ETs is only half of the excitement. The other half is interstellar colonization.