Kepler Probe Begins To Find Exoplanets In Habitable Zone (And other cool cosmology stuff)

[stryper]

 

I love this thread...

 

I was wondering what you guys think about the news since the martian fossil meteorite (2009). When I google I find that there is a progression from suspecting there is water (and probable life) on Mars to pretty much confirming it.

 

Maybe I'm paranoid but it seems like they are kind of gearing up to tell us something - the drips of info and evidence on this just seem kind of, choreographed. The back and forth nature of the claims.... I'm not a conspiracy nut - but I feel that they know more than they are telling the public. What do you think about it?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

 

I think that if NASA/ESA do have evidence of life on Mars, they want to be really, really, really sure of what they have before going public. The last thing they want to do is say they have evidence of life on Mars, and then be proven wrong, or to have a repeat of what happened in 1996 with ALH 84001. I don't think they have anything that concrete yet, but they are finding more hints in that direction as more scientific work is done.

 

 

I'd agree.  I would also say they suspect...or the evidence seems to indicate, but nothing firm has been established yet. So they are "hiding" if you will, but only because they can substantiate what could be extrapolated from the current data.  

 

They need to be very cautious because this could be an explosive issue.  It is better to stick to saying what they can point to direct evidence for, then to present extrapolations.  Cause you know how the media gets things right all the time. 

[alpha centauri]

Here's a link to a cool video about our ultimate origins, building on Carl Sagan's premise that "we are made of stardust":

 

http://www.universetoday.com/99741/we-are-made-of-stardust/

 

***

Here's an article on the idea of "printing" a lunar base using materials once people arrive:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-3d-printed-moon-base-might-be-2013-02

 

***

And finally, a list of Russia's space exploration plans through the year 2020:

 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_n_ideas/article/russia-charts-its-space-frontiers-up-to-2020/475011.html

[bornagainathiest]

More great news from Kepler!

 

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-048

 

It is calculated that there are 300 billion red dwarf stars in our galaxy, including the 46 that lie within 17 light years of us.  An Earth-sized planet would need to be very much closer to it's host star than we are to our Sun, because red dwarfs are cosmic tiddlers.  They range from 50% to less than 5% of the Sun's mass, are much cooler and much less bright. 

 

However, what they lack in output, they more than make up in longevity.  Depending on their mass, a red dwarf star can shine for hundreds of billions or even trillions of years.  Long-lasting, stable conditions like this are ideal for the evolution of life. An Earth-sized planet, following a 'Goldilocks' orbit (not too hot, not too cold, but just right) around a red dwarf could well have a life-friendly ecosystem.

 

A red dwarf's longevity yields another plus, when it comes to toting up the chances of alien life.  The universe is 13.72 billion years old and our solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago.  Being low mass stars, red dwarfs are the easiest stars for nature to make (75% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are red dwarves), so the very first ones could have formed one or two billion years after the Big Bang.  This gives them a two or three billion year head-start over us.  Furthermore, these same, early stars will carry on shining steadily, long after our Sun has died.

 

Food for thought, huh?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[sdelsolray]

The first stars formed did so from disks which did not contain many of the elements found in carbon based life.  So I don't know whether life was capable of being formed (regardless of other conditions) until sufficient supernovas occurred to generate those other elements.  Of course, life might be possible without those elements.

[bornagainathiest]

The first stars formed did so from disks which did not contain many of the elements found in carbon based life.  So I don't know whether life was capable of being formed (regardless of other conditions) until sufficient supernovas occurred to generate those other elements.  Of course, life might be possible without those elements.

 

Oh I agree sdelsolray! 

 

There are many unknowns here. 

 

However, ancient planets orbiting metal-poor stars seem to be more common that we thought.  So, perhaps we'd better take open our minds to new possibilities?

 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/news/kepler20120613.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIP_11952

 

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-planetary-early-universe.html

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4938

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1620-26_b

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Oops!  Double post.

[stryper]

Geez, taking up bandwidth with double posts.      Some people.  

[sdelsolray]

 

The first stars formed did so from disks which did not contain many of the elements found in carbon based life.  So I don't know whether life was capable of being formed (regardless of other conditions) until sufficient supernovas occurred to generate those other elements.  Of course, life might be possible without those elements.

 

Oh I agree sdelsolray! 

 

There are many unknowns here. 

 

However, ancient planets orbiting metal-poor stars seem to be more common that we thought.  So, perhaps we'd better take open our minds to new possibilities?

 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/news/kepler20120613.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIP_11952

 

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-planetary-early-universe.html

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4938

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1620-26_b

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Any planets formed around first generation stars will also be devoid of most elements, particularly iron or other metals.  As such, they won't generate a magnetic field capable of staving off solar wind - big problem for organic life.  In addition, such planets would likely be gas giants or gas mediums - again not conductive to organic life, even in the Goldilocks Zone.

 

I suspect that carbon based life (or sulfur or silicon based life) could not arise until there was sufficient heavier elements in the protodisk for formation of a new star system and planets.

[stryper]

As I have said before I think our definition of life is a bit limiting. 

[Thought2Much]

sdelsolray, I'm pretty sure that there are also plenty of planets around second generation red dwarfs. But you are correct about the problems for life around first generation stars, not only for the reasons you've stated, but also because the elements that make up life itself wouldn't be present, so there would be nothing living for a magnetic field to protect.

[Thought2Much]

As I have said before I think our definition of life is a bit limiting. 

 

That may be true, but I think you would still need chemistry beyond what you would get with just hydrogen, helium, and a little lithium, which is about all you would find in a first generation red dwarf system.

[stryper]

Oh yee of little faith. 

[sdelsolray]

As I have said before I think our definition of life is a bit limiting. 

Self replicating molecules capable of mutation and subject to natural selection.

[stryper]

Ever wanna name a celestial body?

 

 

http://www.slashgear.com/scientists-want-help-naming-plutos-newly-discovered-moons-11268812/

 

 

 

[stryper]

ever wanna see how small and insignificant you are.....

 

 

 

http://scaleofuniverse.com/

[stryper]

http://thespacereporter.com/2013/04/researchers-watch-black-hole-wake-up-and-eat-a-super-jupiter/

 

Black hole "eats" brown dwarf.   That statement just has unfortunate implications all over it. 

[stryper]

 

As I have said before I think our definition of life is a bit limiting. 

Self replicating molecules capable of mutation and subject to natural selection.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/aliens-the-definitive-guide_n_2909012.html

 

 

Perhaps I should rephrase.  Life yes as you stated above.  Sentience though, is another matter. 

 

 

 

 

"There are three basic ingredients to become an advanced civilization," says Kaku, one of the leading physicists in the world.

 

"First, you have to have stereo eyes -- eyes of a hunter -- because predators are smarter than prey. That's why we say 'sly fox' and 'dumb as a bunny.' If you are a predator, that means you have to have camouflage and stealth. You have to be able to outsmart the prey.

 

"Second, you have to have an opposable thumb, a hand, a claw, a tentacle -- something by which you can manipulate the environment to create machines and, eventually, starships.

 

"And third, language. You have to be able to accumulate knowledge between generations. The knowledge you get from this generation has to be handed down in order to create vast civilizations capable of taking you to the stars."

 

 

Basically, you gotta look like us. 

[Thought2Much]

I'm not so sure I agree with Kaku on his first point. I don't think stereo vision is an absolute necessity for an effective predator (but it helps), and I could also see selective pressure creating a prey species that bands together intelligently to thwart predators. I don't think we've seen that on Earth, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. Why couldn't a prey species learn to pick up a stick to beat off a predator, or figure out how to fashion stone knives to cut things more easily, or learn how to strategize against future predator attacks?

[stryper]

I'm not so sure I agree with Kaku on his first point. I don't think stereo vision is an absolute necessity for an effective predator (but it helps), and I could also see selective pressure creating a prey species that bands together intelligently to thwart predators. I don't think we've seen that on Earth, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. Why couldn't a prey species learn to pick up a stick to beat off a predator, or figure out how to fashion stone knives to cut things more easily, or learn how to strategize against future predator attacks?

 

Exactly.   Sharks don't have stereo vision and they are dominate in the oceans.  

 

As to the prey species. I would argue we have seen that on earth.   Us.  We're not the fastest, strongest, have the best vision, no fur, etc.  Yet through cooperation and weapons we fend off predators and became part time hunters. 

 

So you could argue that it worked for us. 

[Thought2Much]

 

I'm not so sure I agree with Kaku on his first point. I don't think stereo vision is an absolute necessity for an effective predator (but it helps), and I could also see selective pressure creating a prey species that bands together intelligently to thwart predators. I don't think we've seen that on Earth, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. Why couldn't a prey species learn to pick up a stick to beat off a predator, or figure out how to fashion stone knives to cut things more easily, or learn how to strategize against future predator attacks?

 

Exactly.   Sharks don't have stereo vision and they are dominate in the oceans.  

 

As to the prey species. I would argue we have seen that on earth.   Us.  We're not the fastest, strongest, have the best vision, no fur, etc.  Yet through cooperation and weapons we fend off predators and became part time hunters. 

 

So you could argue that it worked for us. 

 

Good point. I also think once we started eating more meat, our brains grew bigger by leaps and bounds, which made us able to hunt better and build better tools, so it was a cycle that perpetuated itself.

[bornagainathiest]

Nuther Kepler update folks!

 

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-137

 

Goldilocks planets, perhaps?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Thought2Much]

Nuther Kepler update folks!

 

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-137

 

Goldilocks planets, perhaps?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Not one, not two, but THREE possible "Goldilocks" planets, two of which are in the same star system. Details here.

[bornagainathiest]

 

http://phl.upr.edu/press-releases

 

Only 0.18 to go! 

[Thought2Much]

A bunch of those planets might be habitable. Just not by us, necessarily.

[bornagainathiest]

A bunch of those planets might be habitable. Just not by us, necessarily.

 

Lemme see if I remember it right, T2M.  (Reaches back to memory patterns laid down almost fifty years ago.)

 

According to the United Federation of Planets, a Class M planet is Earthlike.  These new Kepler catches might rate a Class J, inhabitable by humans only via the use of pressure domes.  But as you say, they might just be home sweet home for other life forms. 

 

Or is that, 'zcrblz vott zcrblz'...?