Aliens! Planets! And something to intrigue Astronomers for the coming years.

Recommended Videos

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
Ok, no aliens...Sorry. Well, not the extraterrestrial kind anyhow. But planets! Who here follows current astronomy? New Goldilocks planets to observe!

News link; https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/22/thrilling-discovery-of-seven-earth-sized-planets-discovered-orbiting-trappist-1-star

A huddle of seven worlds, all close in size to Earth, and perhaps warm enough for water and the life it can sustain, has been spotted around a small, faint star in the constellation of Aquarius.

The discovery, which has thrilled astronomers, has raised hopes that the hunt for alien life beyond the solar system can start much sooner than previously thought, with the next generation of telescopes that are due to switch on in the next decade.

It is the first time that so many Earth-sized planets have been found in orbit around the same star, an unexpected haul that suggests the Milky Way may be teeming with worlds that, in size and firmness underfoot at least, resemble our own rocky home.

The planets closely circle a dwarf star named Trappist-1, which at 39 light years away makes the system a prime candidate to search for signs of life. Only marginally larger than Jupiter, the star shines with a feeble light about 2,000 times fainter than our sun.

?The star is so small and cold that the seven planets are temperate, which means that they could have some liquid water and maybe life, by extension, on the surface,? said Micha?l Gillon, an astrophysicist at the University of Li?ge in Belgium. Details of the work are reported in Nature.


While the planets have Earth-like dimensions, their sizes ranging from 25% smaller to 10% larger, they could not be more different in other features. Most striking is how compact the planet?s orbits are. Mercury, the innermost planet in the solar system, is six times farther from the sun than the outermost seventh planet is from Trappist-1.


Any life that gained a foothold and the capacity to look up would have a remarkable view from a Trappist-1 world. From the fifth planet, considered the most habitable, the salmon-pink star would loom 10 times larger than the sun in our sky. The other planets would soar overhead as their orbits required, appearing up to twice the size of the moon as seen from Earth. ?It would be a beautiful show,? said Amaury Triaud at the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University

The researchers hope to know whether there is life on the planets ?within a decade,? Amaury added. ?I think we?ve made a crucial step in finding out if there?s life out there,? he said. ?If life managed to thrive and releases gases in a similar way as on Earth, we will know.?

Astronomers reported last year what looked like three planets in orbit around Trappist-1, a star they named after the Trappist robotic telescope in the Chilean desert that first caught sight of the alien worlds. The telescope did not see the planets directly, but recorded the shadows they cast as they crossed the face of the star.

Any life that gained a foothold and the capacity to look up would have a remarkable view from a
The discovery prompted more sustained observations from the ground and space. Nasa?s Spitzer space telescope peered at the star for 21 days and, with data from other observatories, revealed a total of seven planets circling Trappist-1. The size of each planet was deduced from the amount of starlight it blocked out, while the mass was estimated from the way it was pushed and pulled around by other planets in the system.


The planets are on such tight orbits that it takes between 1.5 and 20 days for them to whip around the star. At such proximity, most, if not all, will be ?tidally locked?, meaning they show only one face to Trappist-1, just as one side of the moon always faces Earth. Some of the planets are thought to be the right temperature to host oceans of water, depending on the makeup of their atmospheres, but on others any hospitable regions may be confined to the bands that separate the light and dark sides of the planets.

Ignas Snellen, an astrophysicist at the Leiden Observatory in the Netherlands who was not involved in the study, said the findings show that Earth-like planets must be extremely common. ?This is really something new,? he said. ?When they started this search several years ago, I really thought it was a waste of time. I was very, very wrong.?


Astronomers are now focusing on whether the planets have atmospheres. If they do, they could reveal the first hints of life on the surfaces below. The Hubble telescope could detect methane and water in the alien air, but both can be produced without life. More complex and convincing molecular signatures might be spotted by Nasa?s James Webb Space Telescope, which is due to launch next year, and other instruments, such as the Giant Magellan Telescope, a ground-based observatory due to switch on in 2023. But there is only so much that can be done from afar. ?We?ll never be 100% sure until we go there,? said Gillon.


The conditions on planets so close to dwarf stars, which are known to release fierce bursts of x-rays and ultraviolet light, might not be the most conducive for life. But when the sun goes out in a few billion years, Trappist-1 will still be an infant star. It burns hydrogen so slowly that it will last another 10 trillion years, Snellen writes in an accompanying Nature article. That is more than 700 times longer than the universe has existed, so there is plenty of time yet for life to evolve.

David Charbonneau, a professor of astronomy at Harvard University who was not involved in the latest study, said a growing number of astronomers were getting excited about what he called ?the M-dwarf opportunity? ? the study of planets around such faint dwarf stars. ?It?s a fast track approach to looking for life beyond the solar system,? he said.

M-dwarfs outnumber sun-like stars 12 to 1 in the Milky Way. In previous work with Nasa?s Kepler planet-hunting telescope, Charbonneau and his colleague Courtney Dressing, found that one in four of M-dwarfs stars hosts a planet that is similar in size and temperature to Earth. With the Trappist-1 observations, astronomers now know that Earth-like planets circle nearby dwarf stars that can be studied with instruments already in the pipeline. ?This means we might be in the business of looking for aliens in a decade, and not, as others have envisioned, on a much longer timescale,? he said.

Anybody excited for what we might find? Anybody disappointed that they will be unable to lick the surface of these planets within their lifetime (Assuming no FTL travel becomes available during)?
Will it just be nothing? Ooooh, commence speculation!!!

...

*Tumbleweed*
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Can't say I'm excited, I don't expect anything in regards to life being found there. Or anywhere, anytime soon.

Having said that, it does seem an interesting set up for a solar system. In of itself, that's worth learning about.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Jul 8, 2011
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
These red dwarf systems... I wonder what they're really like? Besides "way more common than ours". Perhaps they're teeming with life and the only reason no interstellar civilization has ever come here is that they don't think it's possible to have life around a G-type star. But I can't help wondering if it's not really, really shnarsty being so close to a star, even a relatively small and cool star.
 

skywolfblue

New member
Jul 17, 2011
1,514
0
0
Undeadsuitor is right.

Tidally locked planets are not nice places.

Mars is harsh enough on life, but Mars is a veritable paradise compared to tidally locked planets. It's disingenuous to call tidally locked planets "Earth Like". "Mercury Like" is more appropriate. There aren't very many astronomers talking about life on Mercury, for good reason.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Pyrian said:
But I can't help wondering if it's not really, really shnarsty being so close to a star, even a relatively small and cool star.
being close to the star is probably the LEAST dangerous thing about those planets

like, they're tidally locked? So 45% of the planet is a scorched desert, hot enough to boil water, 45% is a pitch black antartica, cold enough so that liquid water can't exist, and the remaining 10% is a ring around the middle locked in perpetual twilight and constantly ravaged by planet-wide hurricanes, stronger than our cat 5's, formed by the combination of hot and cool air between the two sides.

BUT, the dwarf star emits light in the infrared spectrum (which we can't see) so it would be pitch black ANYWAYS.

and then the planets are close enough so that, when standing on the surface, the closest planet would be twice as big as our moon in it's sky. so you could see EVERY planet in the system on the horizon (if you could see).

the flora, if there is any, would be pitch black instead of green to absorb the infrared light.

any life living on these planets would be beyond metal
I've heard of fungi that can transform radioactive isotopes into biochemical energy... thin atmosphere, close proximity, extremely long days... could be looking at less solar irradiation and more ionizing energy capture?

Spitballing here. Not likely. I'm an advocate of the 'life is hard, we'll die lonely' school of contemplating the universe. If we had Star Trek, we'd know by now.

We'd have incontrovertible proof. Something. If life is easy and life could form on these worlds, and yet there's nothing like our noble selves that we know of... that's a fucking frightening scenario because it may mean terrible things like intelligent life is inherently self destructive, or something is purposefully snuffing it out, or it's hiding from us...

So pray we never find life on even (especially?) shitty worlds like these. Life being easy is a nightmare with few good possibilities... and a mountain of extremely terrible portends.

Dying lonely is better than dying fearfully.
 

ghalleon0915

New member
Feb 23, 2014
128
0
0
These are the kind of news that interest me and gets me excited...albeit it does show how hard it really is for life ( or should I say sentient life ) to develop. That is such a compact system, orbiting a dwarf. As someone mentioned, conditions on those planets must be extremely harsh that any living thing that does develop there would be....interesting to say the least. It shows how precarious the balance is for a planet to sustain life.

On a sidenote, I find it amazing that we have instruments that can detect things so astronomically far from us. Astounding is an understatement. Science is so cool.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
undeadsuitor said:
like, they're tidally locked? So 45% of the planet is a scorched desert, hot enough to boil water, 45% is a pitch black antartica, cold enough so that liquid water can't exist, and the remaining 10% is a ring around the middle locked in perpetual twilight and constantly ravaged by planet-wide hurricanes, stronger than our cat 5's, formed by the combination of hot and cool air between the two sides.
With no rotation, doesn't that mean no magnetic field, so nothing to stop solar winds from removing the atmosphere anyway?

Addendum_Forthcoming said:
We'd have incontrovertible proof. Something. If life is easy and life could form on these worlds, and yet there's nothing like our noble selves that we know of... that's a fucking frightening scenario because it may mean terrible things like intelligent life is inherently self destructive, or something is purposefully snuffing it out, or it's hiding from us...

So pray we never find life on even (especially?) shitty worlds like these. Life being easy is a nightmare with few good possibilities... and a mountain of extremely terrible portends.

Dying lonely is better than dying fearfully.
Or it might mean that life existing is common, but evolving intelligence is rare. Life existed for billions of years on our own world, and intelligent life evolved just once in that time, with no obvious false starts.
 

Nickolai77

New member
Apr 3, 2009
2,843
0
0
Undead suitor makes some good points. On tidally locked planets I don't think anything more biologically advanced that bacteria and single-celled organisms could survive. The planet that is not tidally locked I believe is the largest but sits on the edge of the goldilocks zone so likely to be cold. If it doesn't have a atmosphere it will just be another Mars.

Thaluikhain said:
Or it might mean that life existing is common, but evolving intelligence is rare. Life existed for billions of years on our own world, and intelligent life evolved just once in that time, with no obvious false starts.
I think one overlooked explanation for the Fermi Paradox is that there may well be plenty of intelligent species out there in the galaxy, but we're one of the few to ever advance to the stage of industrialisation and space-travel.

We owe humanity's technological advancement to the scientific method which was developed in around the 16th and 17th centuries under specific historical circumstances- it wasn't inevitable as I feel some people assume. If we hadn't invented the scientific method, human civilisation would have broadly continued how it had been going for the past 3000 years or so. There's nothing inevitable about developing science as a means of understanding the world (as opposed to religion or other philosophies) and I think it's quite likely that many other intelligent alien species in the galaxy may never develop technologies like radio waves or space travel which would make them detectable to us.


It's also quite likely that of those few species that do technologically advance to the level we have, many may also destroy themselves through nuclear war. From reading the history of the Cold War, it's scary how close the USA and USSR came to nuclear warfare on multiple occasions.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Thaluikhain said:
Or it might mean that life existing is common, but evolving intelligence is rare. Life existed for billions of years on our own world, and intelligent life evolved just once in that time, with no obvious false starts.
Well more correctly, we'd still see an archaeological record ... Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Universe 13.7bn

Now at best assuming our planet is pretty much the ideal place for intelligent life and other planets that have intelligent life also operate from a planet that offer the same benefits and diversity of ecological niches to inhabit ... rght distance away from a galactic central point to avoid the exponential likelihood of catastrophic celestial events ...


Intelligent life could, possibly, have a few billion on us. Which means if one of those three (of many terrible possibilities) above isn't a culprit, it means alien intelligent life is not extant anywhere near us ... because if you saw Earth as we look at foreign worlds, there could be no question that Earth would be a great, wondrous place for the emergence and sustainability of life.

So either no aliens, at all, were ever interested in this planet ... or they are no where near us ... or we are the most advanced species yet in our little corner of the galaxy. If you saw another Earth, and I mean *exactly like Earth*, with no population ... no pollution, only within 300 LYA. Don't you think you might send people to it? Within the next ten thousand years, let's say? Let's be generous ... 10,000 seems fair. We'd do it, wouldn't we?

Where else would you go to find life?

And if you're looking at it far enough away you might even look at Mars and nod your head, thinking; "Wow ... two planets with the highest likelihood of having life than anything we (as in us) have ever found, yet..."

Yet there are no alien settlements or ruins. There are no probes in the Solar system. There is no reports of organised noise in that sea of static ... no proof whatsoever anything has crash landed, experimented, mined, whatever, no manmade (alien) materials from manufaction or byproducts ... like uranium-235.

It's safe to say no one has visited us ... Despite being the greatest font of life and visibly being that greatest font of life.
 

Cycloptomese

New member
Jun 4, 2015
313
0
0
[/quote]I've heard of fungi that can transform radioactive isotopes into biochemical energy... thin atmosphere, close proximity, extremely long days... could be looking at less solar irradiation and more ionizing energy capture?

Spitballing here. Not likely. I'm an advocate of the 'life is hard, we'll die lonely' school of contemplating the universe. If we had Star Trek, we'd know by now.

We'd have incontrovertible proof. Something. If life is easy and life could form on these worlds, and yet there's nothing like our noble selves that we know of... that's a fucking frightening scenario because it may mean terrible things like intelligent life is inherently self destructive, or something is purposefully snuffing it out, or it's hiding from us...

So pray we never find life on even (especially?) shitty worlds like these. Life being easy is a nightmare with few good possibilities... and a mountain of extremely terrible portends.

Dying lonely is better than dying fearfully.[/quote]

This is both completely amazing and existentially depressing at the same time.

Edit: I did that wrong...
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Mar 3, 2010
1,580
1
3
... guh, so depressing, this thread!

I mean, I don't know if a planet, tidally locked, bathed in light from a red sun will have life teeming on it's surface, but I still think that this was a cool discovery.

And, logic be damned, I'll remain hopeful that there is life to be found there (and possibly in our own back yard as well).
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Nickolai77 said:
We owe humanity's technological advancement to the scientific method which was developed in around the 16th and 17th centuries under specific historical circumstances-
Hey? Humanity had advanced a hell of a way to get to that point. Advancement became more rapid, certainly, but it's not like it started them.

Addendum_Forthcoming said:
So either no aliens, at all, were ever interested in this planet ... or they are no where near us ... or we are the most advanced species yet in our little corner of the galaxy.
Certainly, yes. Not seeing that as evidence that humanity necessarily will doom itself before reaching the stars. It's not a promising sign, sure, but there could be many explanations.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Thaluikhain said:
Certainly, yes. Not seeing that as evidence that humanity necessarily will doom itself before reaching the stars. It's not a promising sign, sure, but there could be many explanations.
It's not about proof, it's about probability. Hence a 'mountain of terrible portends' and with very few decent possibilities available to us. It is better not to find complex alien life than it is to do so. In terms of shitty planets like these, definitely not. You do not want to find out life is easy ... otherwise it will truly be the Sickness Unto Death. No other despair like it as our species truly comprehends the overwhelming odds of how fucked we are.

Star Trek is terrifying.