NASA to Host News Conference on Discovery Beyond Our Solar System

[Davey-T]

1 minute ago, John said:

It's a big old Universe though

 

We can only look in our galaxy though, have to admit I like viewing stars that are known to have planets going round them.

Dave

[bejay1957]

Hmm, without a big gravity-well planet, that system could be a shooting gallery of asteroids/comets etc?

[LukeSkywatcher]

I look at every single star in the night sky as potentially having a solar system around it.

[John]

8 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

We can only look in our galaxy though, have to admit I like viewing stars that are known to have planets going round them.

Dave

I think the current estimate is between 10 and 40 billion potential Earth sized exoplanets in our galaxy.

[Davey-T]

1 minute ago, John said:

I think the current estimate is between 10 and 40 billion potential Earth sized exoplanets in our galaxy.

Does that mean finding an Earth like one is as much chance as winning the lottery 

Dave

[LukeSkywatcher]

What still puzzles me about this discovery is:

They claim that all 7 exo planets are "rocky", yet they cant tell what the atmospheres are made up of.

I'm no astro fizzycyst, but i thought it would be easier to discover what a planets atmosphere consists of, rather than what the surface is made up of.

[Davey-T]

Can they actually see them ? otherwise it's tricky to observe their atmosphere, are they just inferring their existence from star wobbles ?

Dave

[LukeSkywatcher]

3 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Can they actually see them ? otherwise it's tricky to observe their atmosphere, are they just inferring their existence from star wobbles ?

Dave

Good question. If they could see them, im sure they could image them. I think all they are going on is the "wobble" in the light from the parent star being blocked as each planet passes in front of it.

If thats the case.........pretty unexciting news.

Right now all they seem to be sure of is that there are 7 planets orbiting a parent star in a solar system 40 LY away.

[John]

7 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Does that mean finding an Earth like one is as much chance as winning the lottery 

Dave

One thing is for sure, the odds get a lot longer if we stop looking for them

[LukeSkywatcher]

3 minutes ago, John said:

One thing is for sure, the odds get a lot longer if we stop looking for them

What was the figure they said today...........

5000 exo planets discovered since 1995?.

Tip of the iceberg.

Its bit like going to the beach and saying "wow, look.........a grain of sand".

[ronin]

29 minutes ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

What still puzzles me about this discovery is:

They claim that all 7 exo planets are "rocky", yet they cant tell what the atmospheres are made up of.

I'm no astro fizzycyst, but i thought it would be easier to discover what a planets atmosphere consists of, rather than what the surface is made up of.

The rocky aspect is partially to do with the wobble, somewhere they can estimate the mass and then estimate the size, that gives them an idea of the density and so rocky or gassy. Did read what and how they arrived at the determinations, but cannot recall. Think the wobble (doppler) gives the mass and Kepler looks for transitting planets so the brightness dip gives the size.

The atmosphere is a lot more difficult, not sure they can actually do it at this time, think they just have ideas how to - they need the next generation of bigger telescopes for that. If you think about it the earth is 12700 Km diameter, the atmosphere is at most 100Km - using the idea of where space starts. The reality is there is not a lot of air/atmosphere at the height of Everest, 9Km. So the atmosphere is an very small percentage of the planets diameter.

[LukeSkywatcher]

"The rocky aspect is partially to do with the wobble, somewhere they can estimate the mass and then estimate the size, that gives them an idea of the density and so rocky or gassy".

You are correct. I could barely hear it, but did hear something along those lines as to just how they determined the planets were rocky and not gassy. 

I'l watch it back, but am not planning on buying a place there any time soon. Nice though as it may be to go to the beach in morning, and take to the ski slopes in the afternoon on any given day.......assuming i lived right on the terminator.

 

 

[Stub Mandrel]

Two thoughts:

First, 20, or even 10 years ago this would have been seen as a spectacular announcement.

Second, I suspect what we really need to know is the chance of rocky planets in the 'Goldilocks zone' acquiring a sizeable moon so their rotational axis remains at a decent angle to the ecliptic, they don't get tidally locked but they do have tides. I think life on earth is totally dependant on what the moon has done for us.

[Davey-T]

2 hours ago, John said:

One thing is for sure, the odds get a lot longer if we stop looking for them

Statistically I've only got slightly more chance of winning the lottery if I actually do it than I have if I don't do it 

Dave

[John]

4 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Statistically I've only got slightly more chance of winning the lottery if I actually do it than I have if I don't do it 

Dave

The odds on you winning will stay the same unless they change the way that the lottery is run.

Our ability to identify exoplanets and find out about their characteristics will improve over time just as it has since the first one was confirmed in the 1990's.

 

[LukeSkywatcher]

3 hours ago, Butroz said:

I quite liked this for easy comparison.

Come on............

They have no clue as to how these planets look. OK, they can guess the size. Planet E looks like a place to buy a villa on.

[furrysocks2]

3 minutes ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

Come on............

They have no clue as to how these planets look.

Re: surface appearance, I saw this graphic earlier and immediately thought to myself "I wish they wouldn't do that". Is there any basis for speculation?

[John]

They look like the artists impressions of hotels that are still being built that you get in holiday brochures. Any similarities to what you find when you actually get there are purely coincidental 

[johnfosteruk]

Just had a chance to start watching it now, interesting, it's not oxygen or water, but it does have great potential for study as I'm sure will the dozens of similar systems they'll discover in the coming years.

I think it's a little irresponsible of Thomas Zurbuchen to say 'when, not if' - imagine the newswires running that quote, the papers printing it by wrote and now the non astro type public have a complete misperception. (just being picky)

Lots of interesting science to come I'm sure, back to the video.

PS. put me down for a ticket for the Costa Del Trappisto

[LukeSkywatcher]

8 minutes ago, johnfosteruk said:

Just had a chance to start watching it now, interesting, it's not oxygen or water, but it does have great potential for study as I'm sure will the dozens of similar systems they'll discover in the coming years.

I think it's a little irresponsible of Thomas Zurbuchen to say 'when, not if' - imagine the newswires running that quote, the papers printing it by wrote and now the non astro type public have a complete misperception. (just being picky)

Lots of interesting science to come I'm sure, back to the video.

PS. put me down for a ticket for the Costa Del Trappisto

Im happy with the "when,not if". It will happen.

[johnfosteruk]

2 minutes ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

Im happy with the "when,not if". It will happen.

I firmly believe it will too, but surely your fizzycysts have a responsibility to stay away from hyperbole and anything that could be misconstrued. Even if you and I believe based on the data it will probably happen, we, and the proper science types, (and critical thinking folk in general) have a responsibility to keep it real and not overhype things. I'm struggling to think of how this instance could be harmful but you get the idea, state your hypothesis "this could be the case, very good evidence to suggest it could be etc and this is the experiment we'll do to determine if it is" 

Whereas "when, not if" lacks credibility.

Anyhoo, I'm tired and grumpy, bad couple of days etc so this is probably quite rant like in appearance, sorry

 

[johnfosteruk]

Most interesting bit for me is the chap answering the question about the orbital periods, talking about the resonance and stating that could be a sign of inward migration thus a good chance of water.

Went on to say we should know soon thanks to Spitzer obs that are coming.

I'll definitely be watching for updates.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Google have a dramatization of events as their doodle today, some liberties may have been taken with regards to scale.

 

[Geoff Lister]

Quote

1 hour ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Google have a dramatization of events as their doodle today, some liberties may have been taken with regards to scale.

 

The BBC1 Breakfast show gave a good indication of the 40 LY scale.

If the basic details under each planet are correct, the "Little Green Mens'" astronomers will not have needed to invent sophisticated optics for planetary and solar observation, but fast-tricking mounts should have been invented just after the wheel.

If they are into radio astronomy, they should know, in 40 years time, that we are on to them, and perhaps Stargazers Lounge will be welcoming some new members in about 80 years.

[Butroz]

14 hours ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

Come on............

They have no clue as to how these planets look. OK, they can guess the size. Planet E looks like a place to buy a villa on.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the illustrations are accurate representations - they're just to make the graphic look pretty.

What I believe they are claiming to have a good idea of is the size, mass and orbit of these planets.