Bonam Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) So NASA just released the rest of the results from the Kepler telescope's initial data run. The full (106 page) report is here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1102/1102.0541.pdf On 2 February 2011, the Kepler team announced the results of analysis of the data taken between 2 May and 16 September 2009.[53] They found 1235 planetary candidates circling 997 host stars. (The numbers that follow assume the candidates are really planets, though the official papers call them only candidates. Independent analysis indicates that at least 90% of them are real planets and not false positives.[54]) 68 planets were approximately Earth-size, 288 super-Earth size, 662 Neptune size, 165 Jupiter-size, and 19 up to twice the size of Jupiter. 54 planets were within the habitable zone, including 5 less than twice the size of the Earth. In contrast to previous work, roughly 74% of the planets are smaller than Neptune, most likely as a result of previous work finding large planets more easily than smaller ones. The observed planet count versus size increases to a peak at two to three times Earth-size and then declines inversely proportional to area of the planet. Kepler's current best estimate, after accounting for currently known biases: 6% of stars host Earth-size candidates, 7% host super-Earth size candidates, 17% host Neptune-size candidates, and 4% host Jupiter-size candidates. Multi-planet systems are common; 17% of the host stars have multi-candidate systems, and 33.9% of all the planets are in multiple planet systems. As far as I know, these results show the first finds of Earth-sized planets within habitable zones of other stars. A few highlight planets from scrolling through the data table in the report: Kepler 1026.01: 1.77 Earth radii, surface temperature: -31 C Kepler 854.01 : 1.91 Earth radii, surface temperature: -25 C Kepler 701.03 : 1.73 Earth radii, surface temperature: -11 C Kepler 268.01 : 1.75 Earth radii, surface temperature: +22 C Kepler 326.01 : 0.85 Earth radii, surface temperature: +59 C I dunno about you guys, but I find these results super exciting. Edited February 6, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 So NASA just released the rest of the results from the Kepler telescope's initial data run. The full (106 page) report is here: ....I dunno about you guys, but I find these results super exciting. Yes, this story got more media attention than usual, because the Kepler inventory will help to focus the attention of many researchers on likely star-planet candidate systems. Kepler's orbit and source of photometric data favors the Rare Earth / habitability hypothesis, so I think it is a very conservative estimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 The distribution of planet sizes is also interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) The distribution of planet sizes is also interesting. Yea, "distribution" is an interesting aspect of this analysis, considering we have a sample size of one Earth and so called habitability zone for a very garden variety star. Carl Sagan wasn't the first to present this topic in popular media, but he did set the credible expectation that the universe would be "teeming" with life (mediocrity principle). It is not dependent on our ability to prove it. Edited February 6, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Yea, "distribution" is an interesting aspect of this analysis, considering we have a sample size of one Earth and so called habitability zone for a very garden variety star. Well, I think the reason the emphasis is on that particular type of planet is that it would potentially be habitable for us, and for other lifeforms of Earth origin. Of course, very different forms of life could exist on very different types of planets (or moons). All we can really know about these planets based on our current observation technology is an estimate of their surface gravity, a guess at their composition (rocky or gaseous), and an estimate of the surface temperature, and how long their year is. So the best we can do to look for something that might be habitable is to find a planet that is rocky, with comparable surface gravity and surface temperature to Earth, and extrapolating habitability zones from our star system to others is based on some pretty straightforward physics. Carl Sagan wasn't the first to present this topic in popular media, but he did set the credible expectation that the universe would be "teeming" with life (mediocrity principle). It is not dependent on our ability to prove it. Not dependent on it sure, but finding signs of life elsewhere would certainly be a huge milestone. To me though, of just as much if not greater interest, would be finding other planets that are suitable for human colonization. The technology to get there may not exist yet, but it will someday, and that day will only be sped along if we know for sure there is something to get to. Edited February 6, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Well, I think the reason the emphasis is on that particular type of planet is that it would potentially be habitable for us, and for other lifeforms of Earth origin. Of course, very different forms of life could exist on very different types of planets (or moons). OK...but I think that puts the cart before the ion rocket! Mars is technically habitable with a bit of expensive engineering and construction. All we can really know about these planets based on our current observation technology is an estimate of their surface gravity, a guess at their composition (rocky or gaseous), and an estimate of the surface temperature, and how long their year is. So the best we can do to look for something that might be habitable is to find a planet that is rocky, with comparable surface gravity and surface temperature to Earth, and extrapolating habitability zones from our star system to others is based on some pretty straightforward physics. Agreed, and this is a more classic approach than jumping straight to a narrow program like SETI to see if "they" are communicating just like "we" do. Find that rock...find some water...find some carbon....start with the basics. Not dependent on it sure, but finding signs of life elsewhere would certainly be a huge milestone. To me though, of just as much if not greater interest, would be finding other planets that are suitable for human colonization. The technology to get there may not exist yet, but it will someday, and that day will only be sped along if we know for sure there is something to get to. I am less interested in possibilities for human colonization than just the pure discovery science. We have been alive during a very exciting time for human exploration away from Earth, and previous assumptions were just turned upside down. There will be a lot more of that regardless of discovering a vacation planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Edited February 6, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) OK...but I think that puts the cart before the ion rocket! Mars is technically habitable with a bit of expensive engineering and construction. Well space itself (in orbit around a star, for example) is technically habitable with "a bit of" expensive engineering and construction, too. The point of finding a "habitable" planet is that humans could survive on its surface without being enclosed in an isolated, pressurized, and intensively thermoregulated environment. Agreed, and this is a more classic approach than jumping straight to a narrow program like SETI to see if "they" are communicating just like "we" do. Find that rock...find some water...find some carbon....start with the basics. Well, programs like SETI are valuable too. We have learned a lot from it despite its failure to detect anything. According to existing physics, electromagnetic waves are pretty much the only reasonable way to communicate over long distances. SETI has conducted a thorough search of electromagnetic frequencies for a great many star systems in our part of the galaxy and has found nothing. This suggests that this region of the galaxy does not have any alien civilizations that communicate long distance using currently understood physics. That means that any civilizations that may exist nearby, are either too primitive to yet use such communications, or else are advanced enough that they communicate through means that we cannot yet understand or detect. And that right there is valuable information in itself. If there are super advanced civilizations around, they have clearly made the deliberate choice not to communicate with us, and if there are primitive ones around, that choice will soon be ours to make. But a lack of civilizations at a comparable level of advancement likely means that any habitable planets we find won't be in a state of high demand and competition for ownership. I am less interested in possibilities for human colonization than just the pure discovery science. Well, I am interested in the pure science as well of course, but I am an engineer at heart, and it is the potential applications that most inspire me. I envision the day when humanity will inhabit this entire galaxy. We have been alive during a very exciting time for human exploration away from Earth, and previous assumptions were just turned upside down. There will be a lot more of that regardless of discovering a vacation planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Definitely. Edited February 6, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Well space itself (in orbit around a star, for example) is technically habitable with "a bit of" expensive engineering and construction, too. The point of finding a "habitable" planet is that humans could survive on its surface without being enclosed in an isolated, pressurized, and intensively thermoregulated environment. OK, but I'm sure that humans could not expect such an exoplanet paradise...there would be too many environmental and biological hazards. After all, we are Earthlings! Well, programs like SETI are valuable too. We have learned a lot from it despite its failure to detect anything. According to existing physics, electromagnetic waves are pretty much the only reasonable way to communicate over long distances.... OK again, but how many organisms on Earth communicate in the RF spectrum? SETI considers NASA's Pioneer 10 as one of its favorite targets, because it proves their methodology in the search for the origin and prevalence of life. We use the same signal integration technique in passive sonar systems, but it does not preclude thousands of other "biologics" in the same environment that we know to be there (as "noise") Well, I am interested in the pure science as well of course, but I am an engineer at heart, and it is the potential applications that most inspire me. I envision the day when humanity will inhabit this entire galaxy. Alas, I am old and must be satisfied with just our machines doing that for now. In the future we will catch and pass the Pioneers and Voyagers, and repeat the exercise with leaps in technology. Just stay out of the Romulan controlled sectors! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Very interesting indeed. I have always been of the belief that we will discover intelligent alien life in other solar systems using telescopes on earth or around earth's orbit, rather than what you see in Hollywood movies with us being visited by alien lifeforms or having radio signals bounced back at us etc.. It may even be in my lifetime that we have a telescope powerful enough to detect suitable planets and actually witness other alien species and/or civilizations on the surface! I don't really have any huge fascination with humans colonizing other planets, though it would be nice to have a backup. I'm more interesting in the scientific discoveries, and the possibility of visiting these planets. I'd be content though by simply watching these planets from afar and learning so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 OK, but I'm sure that humans could not expect such an exoplanet paradise...there would be too many environmental and biological hazards. After all, we are Earthlings! There are environmental hazards on Earth too and if the planet is relatively stable and has a breathable atmosphere and temperature ranges survivable to humans, we could adapt. As for biological hazards... that's a whole other issue, but it is quite likely that biologies from different planets would be unable to interact with each other at all, at least not for a long time, because they would be so very different. OK again, but how many organisms on Earth communicate in the RF spectrum? I don't know, I do know that some species can sense electromagnetic fields. Anyway, RF communication at high enough transmitting power to be detectable in other star systems is only done by humans. Alas, I am old and must be satisfied with just our machines doing that for now. In the future we will catch and pass the Pioneers and Voyagers, and repeat the exercise with leaps in technology. Just stay out of the Romulan controlled sectors! That goes back to my earlier point... if there really were "Romulans" out there (within a few thousand light years) or any civilization at a level of technology with which we could have that kind of competitive relationship, we would already know about it, due to SETI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 While all this is very interesting I think it should be remembered that anything and everything that's "seen" is based on a rather simplistic basis... Simply put, a common 3 dimentional basis, without factoring in the dimensions of time and distance... What any "telescope" of any current kind sees from anywhere IN our solar system OUTSIDE OF our solar system is what was there millions or billions of lightyears ago and NOT what is there now (human time concept)... It's also why SETI has not and in all likleyhood will not "make contact" unless it's something "out there" trying to "make contact" with us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Very interesting indeed. I have always been of the belief that we will discover intelligent alien life in other solar systems using telescopes on earth or around earth's orbit, rather than what you see in Hollywood movies with us being visited by alien lifeforms or having radio signals bounced back at us etc.. Yes, that is certainly most likely. It is quite possible that interstellar travel will never be carried out by fully grown humans at all. All our spacecraft may well be robotic and colonization might be carried out by robotic means that activate preserved human embryos and then raise and educate them. Flying around interstellar space with the systems needed to maintain a crew of living humans or comparable alien lifeforms would be very energy intensive compared to doing it with much smaller robotic craft. It may even be in my lifetime that we have a telescope powerful enough to detect suitable planets and actually witness other alien species and/or civilizations on the surface! Directly observing minute details on the surface of another planet with a telescope in our solar system is not physically feasible. The telescope would have to be thousands of kilometers across. It would be more feasible to send a robotic probe to nearby star systems (within perhaps a few tens of light years) which could transmit the information back, using currently foreseeable/designable technologies. For star systems farther away, we'll need to wait for some major technological progress before we can get such information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 There are environmental hazards on Earth too and if the planet is relatively stable and has a breathable atmosphere and temperature ranges survivable to humans, we could adapt. As for biological hazards... that's a whole other issue, but it is quite likely that biologies from different planets would be unable to interact with each other at all, at least not for a long time, because they would be so very different. Could be, but like so many other things, we just don't know. Our Earth-centric viewpoint is to be expected, but I expect the unexpected. I don't know, I do know that some species can sense electromagnetic fields. Anyway, RF communication at high enough transmitting power to be detectable in other star systems is only done by humans. Communications yes....RF energy...no, as several phenomena generate such energy (e.g. lightning). That goes back to my earlier point... if there really were "Romulans" out there (within a few thousand light years) or any civilization at a level of technology with which we could have that kind of competitive relationship, we would already know about it, due to SETI. Maybe, the displacement in time and galactic position is a challenge. Good thing there are 100 to 200 billion galaxies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 What any "telescope" of any current kind sees from anywhere IN our solar system OUTSIDE OF our solar system is what was there millions or billions of lightyears ago and NOT what is there now (human time concept)... Some stars are very close. The Alpha Centauri system is only about 2 light years away, and there is evidence of a planetary system around some of the stars there as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Some stars are very close. The Alpha Centauri system is only about 2 light years away, and there is evidence of a planetary system around some of the stars there as well. Proxima Centauri is closet at 4.2, which may sound close but it's still one hell of a road trip... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Some stars are very close. The Alpha Centauri system is only about 2 light years away, and there is evidence of a planetary system around some of the stars there as well. "Only"? You are right, however, everything is relative... 1. Proxima Centauri The closest star to our our own solar system will not always be closest, but it will be a long time before that happens. Proxima Centauri is the third star in the Alpha Centauri star system, also known as Alpha Centauri C. •Distance: 4.2 LY •Spectral Type: M5.5Vc (My Note: The Sun's Spectral Type is G2 so Alpha Centauri C (a "Red Giant") is a highly unlikely candidate for Earth like planets.) A light year is a way of measuring distance. That doesn't make much sense because "light year" contains the word "year," which is normally a unit of time. You are used to measuring distances in either inches/feet/miles or centimeters/meters/kilometers, depending on where you live. You know how long a foot or a meter is -- you are comfortable with these units because you use them every day. Same thing with miles and kilometers -- these are nice, human increments of distance. Even so, light years measure distance. For example, the closest star to Earth (besides our sun) is something like 24,000,000,000,000 miles (38,000,000,000,000 kilometers) away. That's the closest star. There are stars that are billions of times farther away than that. When you start talking about those kinds of distances, a mile or kilometer just isn't a practical unit to use because the numbers get too big. No one wants to write or talk about numbers that have 20 digits in them! ÂSo to measure really long distances, people use a unit called a light year. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second (300,000 kilometers per second). Therefore, a light second is 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers). A light year is the distance that light can travel in a year, or: 186,000 miles/second * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year = 5,865,696,000,000 miles/year A light year is 5,865,696,000,000 miles (9,460,800,000,000 kilometers). That's a long way! Using a light year as a distance measurement has another advantage -- it helps you determine age. Let's say that a star is 1 million light years away. The light from that star has traveled at the speed of light to reach us. Therefore, it has taken the star's light 1 million years to get here, and the light we are seeing was created 1 million years ago. So the star we are seeing is really how the star looked a million years ago, not how it looks today. In the same way, our sun is 8 or so light minutes away. If the sun were to suddenly explode right now, we wouldn't know about it for eight minutes because that is how long it would take for the light of the explosion to get here. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/question94.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 It may be theoretically impossible to travel at light speed, but at 50% speed of light it would take 8 years to get there. Not out of reach for new world explorers. If Columbus can do it in 1492, we can do it! But as far as deep space travel goes, there are other formidable problems, like intense radiation belts around the solar system that might make it practically impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 It may be theoretically impossible to travel at light speed, but at 50% speed of light it would take 8 years to get there. Not out of reach for new world explorers. If Columbus can do it in 1492, we can do it! But as far as deep space travel goes, there are other formidable problems, like intense radiation belts around the solar system that might make it practically impossible. True... Unfortunately human technology is at the 1/10 of 1% (maybe) stage of reaching light speed which is an awefully long way from 50% of light speed or even 10% which would make that travel time 80 years one way... Humanity would have to drop it's entire concepts of "time", "distance" and "space" to ever make what you are suggesting even remotely possible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 True... Unfortunately human technology is at the 1/10 of 1% (maybe) stage of reaching light speed which is an awefully long way from 50% of light speed or even 10% which would make that travel time 80 years one way... Humanity would have to drop it's entire concepts of "time", "distance" and "space" to ever make what you are suggesting even remotely possible... Actually, there are existing designs for spacecraft that can travel at reasonable fractions of light speed, 0.1c or so. This would be done using nuclear pulse propulsion (Project Orion), a presently undeveloped but feasible technology. In the near future, designs based on fusion propulsion will also become viable, such as the Project Daedalus design. Interstellar probe designs based on these concepts were meant to be able to travel to a nearby star system in periods of 50-100 years, not completely unreasonable. Further in the future, once we have developed a way to more efficiently produce and store anti-matter, spacecraft that can reach 0.5c or even a bit faster will become viable. The designs of these spacecraft are already foreseeable. Anyway, the presently viable Orion design can get a probe to a few of the nearest star systems in time, and if we had enough motivation to build and launch one, it could be done. Finding a habitable planet to explore would certainly go a long way to providing that motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Great news! This planets starting to get on my nerves a bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Actually, there are existing designs for spacecraft that can travel at reasonable fractions of light speed, 0.1c or so. This would be done using nuclear pulse propulsion (Project Orion), a presently undeveloped but feasible technology. In the near future, designs based on fusion propulsion will also become viable, such as the Project Daedalus design. Interstellar probe designs based on these concepts were meant to be able to travel to a nearby star system in periods of 50-100 years, not completely unreasonable. Further in the future, once we have developed a way to more efficiently produce and store anti-matter, spacecraft that can reach 0.5c or even a bit faster will become viable. The designs of these spacecraft are already foreseeable. Anyway, the presently viable Orion design can get a probe to a few of the nearest star systems in time, and if we had enough motivation to build and launch one, it could be done. Finding a habitable planet to explore would certainly go a long way to providing that motivation. From the minds of man, limited as that be... Edited February 6, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Actually, there are existing designs for spacecraft that can travel at reasonable fractions of light speed, 0.1c or so. This would be done using nuclear pulse propulsion (Project Orion), a presently undeveloped but feasible technology. In the near future, designs based on fusion propulsion will also become viable, such as the Project Daedalus design. Interstellar probe designs based on these concepts were meant to be able to travel to a nearby star system in periods of 50-100 years, not completely unreasonable. Further in the future, once we have developed a way to more efficiently produce and store anti-matter, spacecraft that can reach 0.5c or even a bit faster will become viable. The designs of these spacecraft are already foreseeable. Anyway, the presently viable Orion design can get a probe to a few of the nearest star systems in time, and if we had enough motivation to build and launch one, it could be done. Finding a habitable planet to explore would certainly go a long way to providing that motivation. Ahhh to dream of wonders yet unseen... Dream on my friend dream on... Edited February 6, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Great news! This planets starting to get on my nerves a bit Watch the stars - you are getting sleepy, watch the stars - you are getting sleepy --- escape, escape your earthly bounds and traval afar to some distant star... Edited February 6, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 ....Using a light year as a distance measurement has another advantage -- it helps you determine age. Let's say that a star is 1 million light years away. The light from that star has traveled at the speed of light to reach us. Therefore, it has taken the star's light 1 million years to get here, and the light we are seeing was created 1 million years ago.... Ahem....any star that is one million light years away would be in another galaxy. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter. Let's start with our own neighbourhood first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Ahem....any star that is one million light years away would be in another galaxy. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter. Let's start with our own neighbourhood first. Indeed, there are millions of perfectly good stars within a thousand light year radius of us, and likely millions of planets too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.