[Tanada]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/could-g ... or-life-2/

Temperatures can be as hot as 160 degrees or as frigid as 25 degrees below zero, but in between — in the land of constant sunrise — it would be “shirt-sleeve weather,” said co-discoverer Steven Vogt of the University of California at Santa Cruz.

It’s unknown whether water actually exists on the planet, and what kind of atmosphere it has. But because conditions are ideal for liquid water, and because there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water, Vogt believes “that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent.”

The astronomers’ findings are being published in Astrophysical Journal and were announced by the National Science Foundation on Wednesday.

The planet circles a star called Gliese 581. It’s about 120 trillion miles away, so it would take several generations for a spaceship to get there. It may seem like a long distance, but in the scheme of the vast universe, this planet is “like right in our face, right next door to us,” Vogt said in an interview.

Now humanity has a Goal bigger than ourselves, will it help us unite as one species or be ignored?

[Sixstrings]

This artist's conception shows the inner four planets of the Gliese 581 system and their host star, a red dwarf star only 20 light years away from Earth. The four tiny planets in the background are the planets that have already been discovered. The closer, blue and green planet is 581G, the most Earth-like planet ever discovered
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316243/Is-GLIESE-581-g-new-Earth-Planet-20-light-years-away-support-life.html

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z111Gnm5RM

Now humanity has a Goal bigger than ourselves, will it help us unite as one species or be ignored?

This is exciting news. For one, since it's so close to us, it indicates that potentially habitable planets are very common. The temperature is right, the gravity's right, it probably has liquid water. If it has breathable levels of oxygen then that would be a real Eureka, but I don't think there's anyway astronomers can deduce that?

Also, I wonder if they're sure the planet has a magnetosphere?

The big downer of course is that even though this astronomically "like right there in our face, right next door to us," it's still TWENTY LIGHT YEARS AWAY. According to your article with current tech it would take "several generations" for a colony ship to arrive. I don't know if that's possible, to build a ship large enough to carry enough supplies to support a crew over generations. And would the 2nd generation go mad and wipe themselves out aboard ship? So many variables, when you're talking a trip lasting "generations" then the odds of mission-ending failure are astronomical. Of course, send out 3 of the same ships and the odds of one making it may be good.

It would have to be a massive ship; carrying satellites for the new planet so that the colonists would have GPS and communications. Would also have to carry an untold number of Soyuz-like landing pods to get the colonists and supplies ashore.

As impossible a task as it sounds, at least we now know that humanity may have an option. If that planet has breathable oxygen levels, then we're golden -- I would then be 90% sure of our species' survival, since given enough time we WILL make it to a planet we know to be habitable.

Now, the next question is.. how plausible is it to ramp up our speed? If we could get to 1/2 light speed then the trip would take 40 years (I think they'd age 20 years at half light speed).

EDIT -- Couple other problems I thought of:

With one side of the planet always facing its sun and the other side freezing cold, the global weather would be perpetually violent.

If there's life, there's probably not much of it -- life as we know it on Earth is very dependent on the interactions between Earth and the moon. Our own planet wouldn't be what it is if not for the moon.

Exposure to unknown viruses and bacteria could wipe out the colonists.

Ultimately, we'll never find a planet as perfect and gorgeous as the one we're already on. So it's worth saving.

[Rod_Cloutier]

This is amazing news, the first Earth sized exoplanet in the habitable zone around a star has been announced:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010 ... liese.html

They should name it 'Pandora' after James Cameron's epic film Avatar last year.

[Tanada]

Time dilation is very low until you exceed 75% or 80% of light speed IIRC, the trip would take 40 years at half and would seem to the crew as if it took something like 38. The effect is logarithmic and grows increasingly important as you approach unity i.e. light speed.

The virus/bacteria argument is valid for any inhabitable environment we will ever encounter.

From the article I got the impression the planet is not tidally locked by is tidally synchronized like Mercury is to our sun, it rotates three times with respect to the universe for every two orbits around the star. That makes the days very long, but not eternal day/night.

[Sixstrings]

They should name it 'Pandora' after James Cameron's epic film Avatar last year.

That's an unlucky name, as in "Pandora's box." I don't know if any of us will live long enough to find out if it even has a breathable atmosphere, much less if there's life. Could be just a hunk of rock like Mars.. which lost its atmosphere when it lost its magnetosphere, and for all we know the same thing could have happened on 581g.

But even if just a hunk of dead rock, the temperature and gravity are perfect. Or maybe it isn't dead and there's a colony ship on its way from there to us..

[careinke]

This is awesome news. I have always hoped we would discover extraterrestrial life in my lifetime. This brings us a lot closer to that goal.

[Poordogabone]

I've read that it is three times the mass of earth, I don't think that we would be able to tolerate 3 Gs for an extended period of time. Creatures living there would most likely have to be tiny to fight that kind of gravity, maybe the size of a squirrel. Also if we could build a space ship capable of whooshing at one million miles per hour, according to my calculation it would take us 13420 years to get there. That's quite a few generations.

[anador]

Just because the mass is three times larger is no indication of surface gravity by itself.

The physical size of the planet also contributes to the estimation of surface gravity. according to Wikipedia the gravity is between 1.2 and 1.7 gee, relatively comfortable for a person.

[Sixstrings]

according to Wikipedia the gravity is between 1.2 and 1.7 gee, relatively comfortable for a person.

1.7g would be good for people.. more muscle mass, stronger bones.

[Pops]

...according to my calculation it would take us 13420 years to get there. That's quite a few generations.

Yea, if anything arrived after 500 generations in a weightless spaceship it sure wouldn't be "us"...
In fact, if we could survive 500 generations in a spaceship why would we need a planet?

[Tanada]

I've read that it is three times the mass of earth, I don't think that we would be able to tolerate 3 Gs for an extended period of time. Creatures living there would most likely have to be tiny to fight that kind of gravity, maybe the size of a squirrel. Also if we could build a space ship capable of whooshing at one million miles per hour, according to my calculation it would take us 13420 years to get there. That's quite a few generations.

We were discussing flight at speeds of half of light speed or above, that is to say 93,000 miles per second aka 5,580,000 miles per minute aka 334,800,000 miles per hour, not a measly million or so.

Mass and gravity are related but not the way you express it, in this context they mean the planet has roughly three times the volume of the Earth, the surface gravity will be less than 3 times because based on its effect on the star it orbits we know it has a lower density than the Earth.

[Pops]

I understand the part about finding the invisible object by measuring the "wobble" of the star but how do they measure the rotation?

[highlander]

I understand the part about finding the invisible object by measuring the "wobble" of the star but how do they measure the rotation?

The same way they determined it was "habitable"

[efarmer]

I believe they infer from the relative masses of the star and planet and their distances, that the planet would be tidally locked to the star, like our moon is to earth. I.E. the gravity of the adjacent objects causes the smaller one to sync it's orbit to the larger, which is why we always see the same side of the moon as it rotates around us and rotates on it's own axis.

How they know it is actually rotating and is at 1:1 tidal lock and not a resonance is beyond me.
That is why I am going back to work on assembly language software and bludgeoning registers
now.

[Poordogabone]

We were discussing flight at speeds of half of light speed or above, that is to say 93,000 miles per second aka 5,580,000 miles per minute aka 334,800,000 miles per hour, not a measly million or so.

So you already used all of the energy harvested on the earth for the last 1000 years including all fossil fuels, nuclear, sun + all that remains in the ground, just to push your ship to that velocity, now how are you going to decelerate to orbit your destination planet? No problem, scotty always has a trick up his sleeve.

[Sixstrings]

So you already used all of the energy harvested on the earth for the last 1000 years including all fossil fuels, nuclear, sun + all that remains in the ground, just to push your ship to that velocity, now how are you going to decelerate to orbit your destination planet? No problem, scotty always has a trick up his sleeve.

Good point.. if you were travelling at light speed, then only the gravity of a black hole would be strong enough to pull you into orbit.

As for the 12,000 years someone mentioned, I thought I read in one of the articles it would take 200 years with current tech. Not true?

[Ludi]

"Space: you can't get there from here" by Neil de Grasse Tyson

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _21084303/

[Pops]

"Space: you can't get there from here" by Neil de Grasse Tyson

THE ASTRONAUT PEN

During the heat of the space race in the

1960s, the U.S. National Aeronautics and

Space Administration [NASA] decided it

needed a ballpoint pen to write in the zero

gravity confines of its space capsules. After

considerable research and development, the

Astronaut Pen was developed at a cost of

approximately $1 million U.S. The pen

worked and also enjoyed some modest

success as a novelty item back here on

earth. The Soviet Union, faced with the

same problem, used a pencil.

Man, is that us all over or what?

[Ludi]

And people wonder why the Space Age is over for the US.

[Sixstrings]

And people wonder why the Space Age is over for the US.

I saw a show on NatGEO about moon colonization. It must have been made before Obama canceled it all.. was pretty sad, to learn about all the work being done and knowing it's all been canceled. What was to be the lunar module will now be refitted as an escape pod for the space station.

And 1,200 NASA folks just got laid off the other day. But oh well, I guess our Republican president is right in his view that everything's best left to the private sector. (being sarcastic here.. ironically, Republicans have always been strong on space stuff and now a Democrat waltzes in and lays everybody off)