Watery Earth-like planet discovered

Link

EDIT: A better link

Astronomers announced this week they found a water-rich and relatively nearby planet that's similar in size to Earth.

While the planet probably has too thick of an atmosphere and is too hot to support life similar to that found on Earth, the discovery is being heralded as a major breakthrough in humanity's search for life on other planets.

"The big excitement is that we have found a watery world orbiting a very nearby and very small star," said David Charbonneau, a Harvard professor of astronomy and lead author of an article on the discovery, which appeared this week in the journal Nature.

The planet, named GJ 1214b, is 2.7 times as large as Earth and orbits a star much smaller and less luminous than our sun. That's significant, Charbonneau said, because for many years, astronomers assumed that planets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.

...

Charbonneau said it's unlikely that any life on the newly discovered planet would be similar to life on Earth, but he didn't discount the idea entirely.

The Article

I don't really understand how a planet with water on it could be too hot to sustain life...But whatever. That's pretty exciting news, even if no life is found.

GJ 1214b, seriously? Is that the best name they could come up with? These guys must have the most original GamerTags :P.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="FragStains"] And secondly, what does 'very nearby' mean? 234,000,000 light years? 100 meters? spazzx625

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="FragStains"] And secondly, what does 'very nearby' mean? 234,000,000 light years? 100 meters? spazzx625

I saw this on the elevator at work today...very cool indeed I wonder how long it would take to get something there or if it is even possible with current technology -sorry, the elevator screen was slim on details-rawsavon

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="spazzx625"] I'm looking for a better article with that info on it...I'm curious as well.jamejame

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]I saw this on the elevator at work today...very cool indeed I wonder how long it would take to get something there or if it is even possible with current technology -sorry, the elevator screen was slim on details-Jandurin

Thirdly, why waste resources on trying to discover something we can never physically investigate?FragStains

Thirdly, why waste resources on trying to discover something we can never physically investigate?FragStains

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Guess that answers my questions :(spazzx625

Yes. TV screen that gives the day's headlines -have seen them here (Dallas) and in Houstonrawsavon

[QUOTE="FragStains"]Thirdly, why waste resources on trying to discover something we can never physically investigate?Jandurin

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] Edited in a new link...And the answer is 42 light years...:?FragStains

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Guess that answers my questions :(spazzx625

I still think a lot of it is throwing money into the toiletspazzx625

You don't live relatively close to me even though in the scope of the world, we could be seen as relatively close since we're only a few hundred miles away.spazzx625

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]I still think a lot of it is throwing money into the toiletJandurin

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] Edited in a new link...And the answer is 42 light years...:?FragStains

Ok...keep spending the money, I'll keep tabs on how many man hours and money was spent until we get hard data on 'the big picture'. Then we can weigh those numbers in terms of spending that money on education, infrastructure, and energy conservation or spending it on 'understanding the big picture'.FragStains

Ok...keep spending the money, I'll keep tabs on how many man hours and money was spent until we get hard data on 'the big picture'. Then we can weigh those numbers in terms of spending that money on education, infrastructure, and energy conservation or spending it on 'understanding the big picture'.FragStains

spazzx625

[QUOTE="FragStains"]Ok...keep spending the money, I'll keep tabs on how many man hours and money was spent until we get hard data on 'the big picture'. Then we can weigh those numbers in terms of spending that money on education, infrastructure, and energy conservation or spending it on 'understanding the big picture'.EMOEVOLUTION

Link

EDIT: A better link

[quote="The Article"]

Astronomers announced this week they found a water-rich and relatively nearby planet that's similar in size to Earth.

While the planet probably has too thick of an atmosphere and is too hot to support life similar to that found on Earth, the discovery is being heralded as a major breakthrough in humanity's search for life on other planets.

"The big excitement is that we have found a watery world orbiting a very nearby and very small star," said David Charbonneau, a Harvard professor of astronomy and lead author of an article on the discovery, which appeared this week in the journal Nature.

The planet, named GJ 1214b, is 2.7 times as large as Earth and orbits a star much smaller and less luminous than our sun. That's significant, Charbonneau said, because for many years, astronomers assumed that planets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.

...

Charbonneau said it's unlikely that any life on the newly discovered planet would be similar to life on Earth, but he didn't discount the idea entirely.

spazzx625

I don't really understand how a planet with water on it could be too hot to sustain life...But whatever. That's pretty exciting news, even if no life is found.

I say we do more research on getting to places like that than finding them. Do more research with particle colliders, and perhaps we'll figure out some super source of nuclear or some unknown energy. If we have that, we could probably venture out farther.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="FragStains"]Ok...keep spending the money, I'll keep tabs on how many man hours and money was spent until we get hard data on 'the big picture'. Then we can weigh those numbers in terms of spending that money on education, infrastructure, and energy conservation or spending it on 'understanding the big picture'.FragStains

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="FragStains"]I'm going to keep an open mind...but I would bet all the money that I have that, in my lifetime, over $1,000,000,000,000 will be spent, and we will be no closer to visiting any planet than we are now. If the collateral 'damage' of spending that much money makes my life better than so be it. But let's not be naive and think that that was the intent of the research.FragStains

That's pretty cool, too bad it's so far away. And it has Boiling Water that will cook our flesh. :(

I say we do more research on getting to places like that than finding them. Do more research with particle colliders, and perhaps we'll figure out some super source of nuclear or some unknown energy. If we have that, we could probably venture out farther.

0diablo0

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="FragStains"]Ok...keep spending the money, I'll keep tabs on how many man hours and money was spent until we get hard data on 'the big picture'. Then we can weigh those numbers in terms of spending that money on education, infrastructure, and energy conservation or spending it on 'understanding the big picture'.FragStains

Many research programs have important byproduct inventions...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions1.htm

If we ever do visit there I hope they find blue elves so that way history can look back at Cameron and say "Holy Crap!"Wilfred_Owen

Lol smurfs.

[QUOTE="0diablo0"]

I say we do more research on getting to places like that than finding them. Do more research with particle colliders, and perhaps we'll figure out some super source of nuclear or some unknown energy. If we have that, we could probably venture out farther.

MrGeezer

Yes and no.

From the perspective of the people waiting back on the earth, it would take 6 years. But due to time dialation, a by product of the theory of relativity, from the perspective of the people on the space vessel, at 99% the speed of light their travel time would be almost instantanious. Infact, if you could reach near enough light sped ie 99.9 recurring% you could actually travel anywhere in the universe in a single human life time, well as far as light has been able to travel in it's 13.5 billion year history. It's just the earth probably would be gone by the time they got there!

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="0diablo0"]

I say we do more research on getting to places like that than finding them. Do more research with particle colliders, and perhaps we'll figure out some super source of nuclear or some unknown energy. If we have that, we could probably venture out farther.

slinkysi

Yes and no.

From the perspective of the people waiting back on the earth, it would take 6 years. But due to time dialation, a by product of the theory of relativity, from the perspective of the people on the space vessel, at 99% the speed of light their travel time would be almost instantanious. Infact, if you could reach near enough light sped ie 99.9 recurring% you could actually travel anywhere in the universe in a single human life time, well as far as light has been able to travel in it's 13.5 billion year history. It's just the earth probably would be gone by the time they got there!

When they find what a planet circling another star conists of they have to do it, at least the only way I've seen them do it, is when the light from that star passes through the atmosphere. When they say 'water' what they mean is 'water vapour' or gas. Though I haven't read the article yet and do not know if they used some other technique I'm not aware of. They can't 'see' liquid water on the surface of the planet. They can see water vapour in the atmosphere.

Humanity will one day build an F-zero track there called Big Blue.

Aside from robotic probes, it's never happening. Nearest star is about 3 light years away. Even if it were possible to send a ship there at 99% the speed of light, we're still talking about a round trip of almost 6 years. During which time the crew is completely cut off. And such a project would be insanely expensive, and would take a HUGE amount of time in research and development. We have a hard enough time getting more funding for space exploration now. Who's going to allocate the funds for the most expensive project ever performed, one which won't see any results for decades, and in which the people undertaking the mission are basically committing suicide? Robot probes, dude. It's that, or nothing. Even that's a stretch. MrGeezer

Yes and no.

From the perspective of the people waiting back on the earth, it would take 6 years. But due to time dialation, a by product of the theory of relativity, from the perspective of the people on the space vessel, at 99% the speed of light their travel time would be almost instantanious. Infact, if you could reach near enough light sped ie 99.9 recurring% you could actually travel anywhere in the universe in a single human life time, well as far as light has been able to travel in it's 13.5 billion year history. It's just the earth probably would be gone by the time they got there!

If they did travel it would be like 5 years passed to them, they'd return to earth and 50 years would have passed, yet the astronauts only aged 5 years.