Planet: Say hi to my three suns<br />Extrasolar world in triple-star system means more planets are likely exist<br />The discovery of a planet with three suns suggests that more extrasolar worlds—some possibly with life—are likely to exist.<br /><br />A NASA-funded astronomer discovered the new planet, called HD 188753 Ab and the first known in a triple-star system.<br /><br />"The sky view from this planet would be spectacular, with an occasional triple sunset," says Maciej Konacki of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. "Before now, we had no clues about whether planets could form in such gravitationally complex systems."<br /><br />The finding, reported in the journal Nature and made using the Keck I telescope atop Mauna Kea mountain in Hawaii, suggests that planets are more robust than previously thought.<br /><br />"This is good news for planets," says Shri Kulkarni, who oversees Konacki's research at Caltech. "Planets may live in all sorts of interesting neighborhoods that, until now, have gone largely unexplored."<br /><br />Multi-star systems are widespread in the Universe, accounting for more than half of all stars, according to a NASA press release.<br /><br />"Multiple-star systems have not been popular planet-hunting grounds," says Konacki. "They are difficult to observe and were believed to be inhospitable to planets."<br /><br />While some planets in such systems might have life, the new planet is a likely lifeless "hot Jupiter" gas giant that zips closely around its parent stars. <br /><br /><br />Fascinating. Guess this helps my Planet around Proxima, huh?
- Status
Let's name the planet Focus.<br /><br />Its where the suns rays meet.<br /><br />(too bad this ain't original with me)<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
My boys will have a ranch there.<br /><br />Where the sons raise meat.<br /><br /><br />(an oldy, but a goodie)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
At only 149 Ly away in Cygnus, right between Vega and Deneb (I always have to know where these systems are). This means Alpha Centauri is more hopeful, and perhaps somewhere to go in the future.
We assume that binary systems rarely capture a third sun, because such a capture has not been observed. Also the math indicates that such capture will be very rare. Neil
of course, they weren't expecting this planet, either. I am really dying for a subscription to Nature at this point. i constantly read articles and it seems like every new discovery is announced there.
The triple sunset that should not exist<br /><br />Mark Peplow<br />Meet the impossible planet. This world nestles inside a system containing three stars that, according to current theories, should have denied it the chance to develop.<br /><br />But Maciej Konacki, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, has been surveying complicated star systems to prove these theories wrong.<br /><br />Konacki's planet is in the triple-star system known as HD 188753, which lies about 149 light years from Earth, in the Cygnus constellation. The star at the centre of the system is very much like our own Sun. Its planet, which is at least 14% larger than Jupiter, orbits the star once every 80 hours or so, at a distance of about 8 million kilometres, a twentieth of the distance between Earth and the Sun.<br /><br />Two more stars, whirling tightly around each other, orbit the central sun at a distance that would put them between Saturn and Uranus in our own Solar System. <b>Konacki identified the planet by watching the way in which the three stars' orbits are affected by its gravity, using the Keck I telescope in Hawaii.</b><br /><br /> You shouldn't see it, but you do see it. <br /><br />Artie Hatzes<br />Thuringia State Observatory in Germany<br /> <br />The planet would be a very strange place to visit. "With three suns, the sky view must be out of this world," says Konacki, who likens it to the vista seen by Luke Skywalker in Star Wars as he watches two suns set from his home planet of Tatooine. And the discovery, reported in this week's Nature1, will certainly put planetary formation theories under pressure.<br /><br />Icy seeds<br /><br />Planets are thought to form from the dusty disks of material that surround young stars. Icy nuggets in the disk act as seeds that slowly accumulate enough dirt to build up into a planet.<br /><br />But many of the 161 candidate planets so far spotted outside our Solar System are 'hot Jupiters'. These are similar to our own system's giant
With that triple star system that new planet has, Iit'll never experience the goodness of night fall.<br /><br />Light all day... bad for alien vampires! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>
Nightfall possible when binaries and planet on opposite sides of central star.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
"NASA Scientist Finds World With Triple Sunsets"<br />http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe...un-071305a.html <br /><br />I have read this article on the NASA web site and will have to do a homework report on it! <br /><br />Why it says "The new planet, called HD 188753 Ab, is the <b>first known to reside in a classic triple-star system</b>" while later it says "Previously, astronomers had identified <b>planets around</b> about 20 binary stars and <b>one set of triple stars</b>"<br /><br />So is this the first known system to have a planet within a triple-star system, as the article states?<br /><br />Even worse, the Wikipedia says "This star system is only the <b>second</b> triple-star system known to have a planet orbiting it " <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_188753 <br /><br />Why do they contradict each other? 
I must manage this because I have to do a report on it...
I must manage this because I have to do a report on it...I am completely mixed up now! <br />So is the HD 188753 the first triple-star system with a planet? Does anyone know and would like to share your knowledge? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I have found 2 different articles discussing the same issue, but they both refer HD 188753 as the first triple-star system that has a planet in it.<br /><br />"It is the first extrasolar planet found in a system with three stars"<br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050713_triple_sun.html <br /><br />"First Planet Under Three Suns Is Discovered"<br />http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12716.html <br /><br />I am just puzzled!
so questions arise from this: <br /><br />which star does the planet orbit? or does it orbit around all 3? <br /><br />do 2 of the stars orbit around the 3rd one, ie, the other two stars orbit like planets around the "main" star? or do they all orbit each other, like 3 stars in a triad ring?<br /><br />the existence of mulitple-starred solar systems, populated with planets, seems to throw into question the standard model of solar system evolution --there is no central star about which the disk of gas and dust orbits and thus "accretes." unless the other two stars are "planets" themselves that "ignited," the model will need some ad hoc theories to keep it going. <br /><br />i'd like to know the redshifts of all 3 stars. anyone have that info?
<i>"...which star does the planet orbit? or does it orbit around all 3?</i><br /><br />All Extra-solar planets discovered to date are "Close in" to a host star. (I'm too lazy to go see which star it's actually orbiting).<br /><br />It is obvious that multi-star Solar System's act similarly to single star systems, so outlying planets which orbit all three stars is a given. (Note that our closest stellar neighbor is a likely exception because Proxima [Centauri] orbits at such a great distance [400 AUs] from Centauri A and B, the central binary pair.)<br /><br /><i>" the existence of multiple-starred solar systems, populated with planets, seems to throw into question the standard model of solar system evolution --there is no central star about which the disk of gas and dust orbits and thus "accretes." unless the other two stars are "planets" themselves that "ignited," the model will need some ad hoc theories to keep it going."</i><br /><br />In my opinion the standard model of star formation still works. Multi-star systems just collect more mass in their original accretion disc so that multiple proto-planets gather enough dust to become stars (just like you said). If Jupiter was about 80 times more massive, we would live in a binary Solar System.<br /><br />I don't think the standard model of Solar System formation really needs to be tweaked too much... <br /><br /><i>"I'd like to know the redshifts of all 3 stars. anyone have that info?"</i><br /><br />Negligible; they're in the Milky Way - too close to have appreciable redshift.
to address this:<br /> />>In my opinion the standard model of star formation still works. Multi-star systems just collect more mass in their original accretion disc so that multiple proto-planets gather enough dust to become stars (just like you said). If Jupiter was about 80 times more massive, we would live in a binary Solar System.<< <br /><br />then jupiter, the star, in this scenario, would orbit the "sun" as would the earth and venus, other planets, etc... so our other planets would not orbit both stars. the "jupiter star" would orbit the central sun just as it already does. jupiter at present is far more massive than the earth and its orbit is far far outside the orbit of the earth. why would a star need to be always inside the orbits of all of the "planets?" the thing is, at the point of "starhood" if jupiter is nearly that, or is what we think of as a proto-star, then there is little distinction between stars and planets, really, as they are a really a continuum of body-variants.<br /><br />if multiple proto-planets became stars, then they, too, would orbit the central sun as if they were planets, yes? could you explain it a bit more, then? what i'm thinking is why is it so that all of the non-star "planets" must have orbits entirely outside of all of the "suns?" why cannot a star exist outside of the orbit of a planet orbiting a central sun, as is happening in our system [with Jupiter as a stand-in as a "star"]? is there a site with computer models of possible combinations or variants of solar systems? <br /><br />i'd like to know the redshifts anyway. i'd like to see if they are different. <br /><br />and i think the main reason today, at present, why see the "close in" template for "extrasolar giant gas planet around star" is because that is the only type of planet we can discover at this time. we cannot see more a more distant body from the extrasolar sun because they are out of range of the current detection technique, yes? or no? there may be multipl
from the article:<br />"The triple sunset that should not exist <br /><br />Mark Peplow <br />Meet the impossible planet. This world nestles inside a system containing three stars that, according to current theories, should have denied it the chance to develop. <br /><br />But Maciej Konacki, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, has been surveying complicated star systems to prove these theories wrong."<br /><br />so it does exactly throw into question accepted models. the thing is, they are only going to discover more and more of these systems as instruments become more sensitive and techniques advance. and everyone is going to be so "baffled." <br /><br />it continues:<br /><br />"Two more stars, whirling tightly around each other, orbit the central sun at a distance that would put them between Saturn and Uranus in our own Solar System. Konacki identified the planet by watching the way in which the three stars' orbits are affected by its gravity, using the Keck I telescope in Hawaii. <br /><br />You shouldn't see it, but you do see it."<br /><br />so i assumed right before i read this part of the article: the planet is INSIDE the orbits of the other 2 stars that orbit the central sun. <br /><br />he says "you shouldn't see it, but you do see it." the only reason for this statement is because of the flawed models for stellar and solar system evolution that are supposed to be true. the reality is that we don't know really how solar systems form. we don't know. that is very clear. <br />
Hello,<br /><br />Does anyone know the answer?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />" "NASA Scientist Finds World With Triple Sunsets" <br />http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe...un-071305a.html <br /><br />I have read this article on the NASA web site and will have to do a homework report on it! <br /><br />Why it says "The new planet, called HD 188753 Ab, is the first known to reside in a classic triple-star system" while later it says "Previously, astronomers had identified planets around about 20 binary stars and one set of triple stars" <br /><br />So is this the first known system to have a planet within a triple-star system, as the article states? <br /><br />Even worse, the Wikipedia says "This star system is only the second triple-star system known to have a planet orbiting it " <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_188753 <br /><br />Why do they contradict each other? I must manage this because I have to do a report on it... "
I must manage this because I have to do a report on it... "Jean Schneider has been updating the Extra-solar Planetary Catalog for years:<br /><br />http://vo.obspm.fr/exoplanetes/encyclo/catalog.php <br /><br /> Bonzelite -<br /><br />I think Solar System's come in a wide variety of orbiting scenarios. A stellar black hole may have multiple suns in orbit and one of these stars could even have its own orbiting red dwarf star; along with their associated planets, moons and asteroids.<br /><br />Various planets would have orbits around the central stellar mass inside and outside the orbits of these stars. A system such as this would have to originate from a really huge accretion disc and cover an area several times larger than our Solar System.<br /><br />Also; see the above link for all answers concerning the Extra-solar planetary discoveries. IMO it's the best source for information and Jean is always updating it!
Bonzelite -<br /><br />We've had discussions in here before concerning the possibilities of wield orbiting scenarios, such as the "Figure eight" you mentioned. Most comments agreed that they couldn't possibly remain stable and were most unlikely to occur at all under any conditions.<br /><br />But that being said; look at the weird orbit of Mercury. It is the only body in the solar system known to have an orbital/rotational resonance with a ratio other than 1:1. This 3:2 resonance is due to the tidal force of the Sun on Mercury (like the tidal-lock Earth has on the Moon). <br /><br />I sure we'll run across other stable orbital peculiarities as we explore the Milky Way; but in my opinion, any kind of "Figure eight" type orbit is just too convoluted to ever exist.<br />
kingwinner, it looks like you've found contradictory reports from typically reliable sources. It doesn't look like you're going to get an answer here, so I'd keep googling and then if it is still in doubt, go ahead and explain that in the report. That's what I'd do, I can only suppose your teacher would approve of that approach.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>how about a planet that orbits over the poles of the sun, with the other planets orbiting roughly at the sun's equator or the ecliptic plane? <br /><br />or a planet that orbits in retrograde to all of the other planets.
A mass of material in orbit around a central mass, on a variety of inclinations and orbital radii will collapse to the Laplacian plane. This would include nebulae forming planets around a star.<br /><br />A star might capture a 'free floater' at some point in a random inclination, and roughly 1 in 90 of them would be in a strict polar orbit. <br /><br />It would be important for any such object to avoid colliding with an object in the equatorial plane.<br /><br />In the simplest collision to think about, hitting a body of the same mass with total disruption of both objects, the debris will mostly take a 45 degree inclination to the equator. Over time, due to oblateness of the sun (or particular star), the materials in the 45 degree orbit will spread around the sun (think about objects with slightly different orbital periods) eventually, the materials are experiencing mutual collisions all the way around the star. This implies collisions of objects with <i> relative</i> inclinations of + AND - 45 degrees (think about it). Continue the collisions, and you get a ring of debris in the plane of the suns equator. I concede this seems counterintuitive, but it will happen.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
yes, i understand what you say. over time, vast time, the collisions and particulate matter will eventually flatten out to roughly an equatorial orbit plane.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 171
-
-
US Congress will hold another UFO hearing this week. Here's how to watch
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
The US is now at risk of losing to China in the race to send people back to the Moon’s surface
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 12
-
NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab laying off 5% of its workforce
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
All astronauts still in good health on ISS, NASA flight surgeon says amid new tabloid rumors
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram