Solar system similar to ours found

Philotas · May 18, 2006

Using the ultra-precise HARPS spectrograph on ESO's 3.6-m telescope at La Silla (Chile), a team of European astronomers have discovered that a nearby star is host to three Neptune-mass planets. The innermost planet is most probably rocky, while the outermost is the first known Neptune-mass planet to reside in the habitable zone. This unique system is likely further enriched by an asteroid belt. [...] The outer planet also appears to be located near the inner edge of the habitable zone, where liquid water can exist at the surface of rocky/icy bodies. Although this planet is probably not Earth-like due to its heavy mass, its discovery opens the way to exciting perspectives. "This alone makes this system already exceptional", said Willy Benz, from Bern University, and co-author. "But the recent discovery by the Spitzer Space Telescope that the star most likely hosts an asteroid belt is adding the cherry to the cake." With three roughly equal-mass planets, one being in the habitable zone, and an asteroid belt, this planetary system shares many properties with our own solar system. "The planetary system around HD 69830 clearly represents a Rosetta stone in our understanding of how planets form", said Michel Mayor. "No doubt it will help us better understand the huge diversity we have observed since the first extra-solar planet was found 11 years ago." ESO: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-18-06.html Space.com http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060517_netpune_planets.html __ One step closer ET.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

alokmohan · May 18, 2006

It falls in habitable zone.Redeeming feature.

harmonicaman · May 18, 2006

It's quite possible that at least one of these new Extra-solar planets has an Earth-sized moon!

doubletruncation · May 18, 2006

I think the really exciting part about this is that it really demonstrates that people are able to measure much smaller planets with radial velocity than had been assumed to be possible (until the last year or so). Note that one of the Neptunes has a ~200 day period orbit, that has got to be the smallest radial velocity amplitude for a planet that has been measured so far! Previously people had thought that intrinsic stellar variations (e.g. convection) would prevent the ability to measure planets with signals smaller than 1 m/s, but I think they've shown that you can average out the stellar variations to measure planet signals substantially smaller than that. If they put a HARPS on a larger telescope it would even be possible to detect Earths via radial velocity. That's exciting because the Kepler mission should be providing lots of transiting planets that would have radii as small as Earth. I think when Kepler was designed they assumed that it'd be pretty much impossible to find the masses for the Earths that they find, but now it seems like it will be possible, which means you can hope to get densities for these things and then really see what they're made of. If there are water-worlds (super-earths covered in massive liquid water oceans thousands of kilometers deep) it should be possible to tell. That's neat I think! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

abq_farside · May 18, 2006

That is exciting news. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let who you are keep you from becoming who you want to be! </div>

Philotas · May 18, 2006

Yes, it`s probably one of our best candidates for alien life so far. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Philotas · May 18, 2006

Once "we" get those telescopes up and running, one should expect a rush of data about worlds like this. Going to be exciting times for sure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

robnissen · May 18, 2006

IMHO I think we should target as strong a signal as we can for some reasonable length of time (> 1 year?), at that star system. Who knows, if we do that, in 82 years we might have absolute evidence of other intelligent life in the universe. Note to self -- be sure to figure out how to be alive in 82 years. Of course, there is a paradox. If there was a civilization there, and it was advanced enough to receive our signal, it should be advanced to detect planets orbiting the sun. Thus, it should have already sent us a signal, But since it apparently hasn't sent us a signal, there must not be intelligent life there. But because there isn't intelligent life there, why are we wasting our time and money senting a signal there. But, they should have the same thought, so they would never try to contact us, so we should try to contact them. But if that is the case, they should also figure out that they should try to contact us. I'm getting a headache, never mind then (Emily Letelle, "what's all this talk about flea erections in China?" "that's free elections." "Oh, never mind then.")

silylene old · May 18, 2006

The larger planets could also have smaller moons in the habitable zone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

enigma10 · May 19, 2006

Considering how long life on our own earth was simply microbes, and only in the last seconds of the "hour" of life here has seen us develope to a level we can look beyond our own home here, should point to our first ET encounter most likley being with microbes. It would be nice to find habitable worlds though. In theory, we could "Seed" them or take a step further and colonize them. The idea of humans being on more than one planet sure would put a snag in all those "doomsday" prophets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

derekmcd · May 19, 2006

Never was a big fan of the '1 hour' analogy... I think we humans have the ability to make it a couple hours. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

qso1 · May 19, 2006

I agree that the most likely scenario for finding life outside earth is microbiological. IMO, that will be the most common life form with lesser common forms scaling up according to their complexity leaving human level intelligent life forms at the top of the chain of rarity if you will. In a story I wrote a year or so ago, one based heavily on realistic science. I have a scenario where astronomers discover the moon of a giant planet around Tau Ceti to be Earthlike. They cannot yet tell how Earthlike but just enough spectral info to know its more Earthlike than what Mars is. The year is 2016. The astronomers comment on it being the dream planet of sci fi. A planet long postulated by science fiction writers and even comic book writers finally coming true. Of course, since its just an interesting angle in my story, it still has yet to come true. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

alokmohan · May 19, 2006

It is theoritical speculation only .

qso1 · May 19, 2006

Of course. Thats all any of it is until proven otherwise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

mikeemmert · May 19, 2006

There's nothing wrong with science fiction, it's cool. Only nowadays, so-called "hard" science fiction is considerably more constrained than even the excellent stories of Larry Niven or Arthur C. Clarke (remember Clarke more or less invented geosychronous satellites). I hope to see a new generation of science fiction authors. Such people could possibly benefit from forums like this, to better constrain the stories. I don't know where restricting posts like this stands; I'm going a little bit off topic here, obviously. The conversation has just naturally led in this direction. Do you post in Science Fiction much?

qso1 · May 19, 2006

I understand, its easy to get a little off track and thats partly my fault for invoking my graphic novel activity. But the GNs are the only way I have to relate to these actual events because I write about some of the more dramatic possibilities and it is beneficial to research SDC posts because some of the folks here are actual scientists or professionals in the aerospace and space exploration fields. I post in sci fi occasionaly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

spayss · May 22, 2006

"It would be nice to find habitable worlds though. In theory, we could "Seed" them or take a step further and colonize them. The idea of humans being on more than one planet sure would put a snag in all those "doomsday" prophets. " The solar system in question is 41 light years away. The doomsday prophets would be long gone before you could reach this star. Voyager, hurling through space at it's present pace would get there in just under a million years.

dragon04 · May 22, 2006

The solar system in question is 41 light years away. The doomsday prophets would be long gone before you could reach this star. Voyager, hurling through space at it's present pace would get there in just under a million years. But even with our meager technology, we could send an Orion type ship there in 410 years. However, returning the data in less than that time is likely beyond our technological ability. I think the important thing is identifying "targets" for our descendents to approach and giving the present a reason to do so. On another note, after perusing the various extrasolar planet catalogs and such, I have yet to see any planet in an orbit in a particular star's "habitable zone" that doesn't have planetary bodies in closer orbits to the host star. Is there a reason for this? Or is there a link to theories of why, for example, the Earth could not be the "first rock from the Sun"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

spayss · May 22, 2006

How would you shield such a ship? How would you de-acclerate it? Our 'meagre' technology is much more meagre than we assume. Increased speed brings about all types of technological challenges. We can make all types of things 'go fast' but not with a human element aboard.

dragon04 · May 22, 2006

At .1c, shielding need would be negligible. And obviously, I wasn't referring to a manned mission. 41 light years would be a prohibitively long distance to travel and not find a place to live. As far as acceleration and deceleration goes, you simply need to have enough bombs to accelerate to .1c and then turn around and decelerate on the "targetside". If you wish to travel longer at .1c, you do so, and increase the rate of bomb detonation at a defined distance to the target. Deceleration of a ship that's not man rated is much less problematic. The real hurdle to overcome would be whether or not you could transmit data back to Earth over 41 light years, or whether your prob ship had to return to the "neighborhood" Worst case has an 800 year turnaround in any data we might retrieve. Which in and of itself makes a good argument for not doing that mission. My point is that it's possible. Today. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

spayss · May 23, 2006

It would be a lot longer than 800 years at .1c (an unobtainable speed at which shielding would be absolutely necessary). Increasing and decreasing speed and positining in orbit around a theoretic planet would take much longer. Where is this technology? the enginering? The materials? Theory is not echnology.

mooware · May 23, 2006

On another note, after perusing the various extrasolar planet catalogs and such, I have yet to see any planet in an orbit in a particular star's "habitable zone" that doesn't have planetary bodies in closer orbits to the host star. Is there a reason for this? Because we lack the technology to find such planets?

qso1 · May 23, 2006

Dragon4: Is there a reason for this? Or is there a link to theories of why, for example, the Earth could not be the "first rock from the Sun"? Me: As mooware mentioned in the post before mine here, we lack the ability to detect such worlds. I see no reason why an Earthlike world could not be the first rock so to speak. The only reasons its probably rare if occuring at all is that numerous planets form around a given star and odds are, one or two or maybe a few more will occupy orbits outside the habitable zone and between that zone and parent star. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

enigma10 · May 25, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It would be a lot longer than 800 years at .1c (an unobtainable speed at which shielding would be absolutely necessary). Increasing and decreasing speed and positining in orbit around a theoretic planet would take much longer. Where is this technology? the enginering? The materials? Theory is not echnology. <hr /></blockquote> First and formost, theory is technology being born. Without a theory on how something could work, you would never develope the technology based on it. Second. All current technology is still in infant stage for an interstellar travel of the magnitude discussed. To write off the possibility of such a journey never being obtainable hints at... well, lets just say a less than visionary persona. As far as some of the technology? Again, in infancy, and possibly replaced in the future with much better ideas... but here are some of the things... Induced plasma state of gas that not only repels on a molecular level, but induces zero friction. Though recently created, this as well as many other innovations in material composites and properties can lend toward making shielding for craft to make the trip. Solar wind braking when entering a solar system, coupled with reverse direction decelleration and gravity braking. (to slow down) Ion/nuclear/solar drives to reach extreme speeds. This is not including several other forms of propulsion in research and development right now. This also is not including gravity assist acceleration. In the end, im a firm believer that someday, we'll gain the ability to pick up voyager 1 for a momento before continuing our trip to the next earth listening to the vinal "johnny B good" along the way. Enigma10 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

phaze · May 25, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />to say that because there apear to be 3 gas giants the size of neptune, does not in any case indicate that the solar system in Puppis is like our own. to be like our own, there woudl have to be smaller rocky inner planets and at 800-1000 M kms. gas giants and further out. The title is media hype to get one's attention. No interior rocky planets have yet been found in ANY solar system, and that will not be directly observed utnil we have a large lunar or asteroidal reflector telescope.<hr /></blockquote> Hi. What are you talking about? Are you referring to the title of this thread or something else? I checked the articles linked... their titles and the text of the articles seems completely reasonable, spells out exactly what has been found and how. I didn't notice any of the posters in this thread taking outrageous liberties with the reported information. It really seems to be a very reasonable discussion. Headlines do tend to be sensational. They are usually designed to attract the attention of the reader and draw them into the story. (No big scoop!) They definitely can get a little crazy... millions of examples, but I couldn't seem to find one in this case. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Si we cannot say in any way shape or form, that a solar system like ours has been found. the 'stellar wiggle' method cannot find life bearing planets in the water zone, either.<hr /></blockquote> Here is a quote from the article: "With three roughly equal-mass planets, one being in the habitable zone, and an asteroid belt, this planetary system shares many properties with our own solar system." So... I would also say that you canin fact say that in some way, shape, or form this system is similar to ours. There are differences. But, if I'm to believe what's in the a

Solar system similar to ours found

Philotas

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

abq_farside

Guest

Philotas

Guest

Philotas

Guest

robnissen

Guest

silylene old

Guest

enigma10

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

qso1

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

qso1

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

qso1

Guest

spayss

Guest

dragon04

Guest

spayss

Guest

dragon04

Guest

spayss

Guest

mooware

Guest

qso1

Guest

enigma10

Guest

phaze

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page