E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSETI Institute astronomer Laurance Doyle shows how Kepler-16b goes around its two parent stars.
Planet-hunters say they've detected the first world that's absolutely known to circle two stars, like Luke Skywalker's home planet Tatooine in the fictional "Star Wars" saga.
"Once again, what used to be science fiction has turned into reality," said Carnegie Institution astronomer Alan Boss, a member of the team for NASA's Kepler mission and a co-author of a paper on the discovery in the journal Science.
To mark the occasion, NASA invited John Knoll of Industrial Light and Magic, the special-effects company behind the "Star Wars" movies, to sit in on today's announcement. "When I was a kid, I didn't think it was going to be possible to make discoveries like this," Knoll told journalists.
Tatooine serves as the setting for the first movie in the series, released in 1977 and now subtitled "A New Hope." The saga's main character, Luke Skywalker, could watch a double-sunset as he toiled in the desert on his uncle's moisture farm, aided by his trusty robots C-3PO and R2-D2.
Luke probably couldn't stand on the surface of Kepler-16b, which orbits a red and an orange star in the constellation Cygnus, 200 light-years from Earth. It certainly wouldn't be a desert. The planet is most like Saturn in our own solar system — too cold for life as we know it, most likely with a thick, gassy atmosphere. "This one's just outside the habitable zone," the paper's lead author, SETI Institute astronomer Laurance Doyle, told me.
But if Han Solo were to park the Millennium Falcon on one of Kepler-16b's hypothetical moons, there'd be plenty of double-sunsets. In fact, because the two suns orbit each other, each sunset would bring a different configuration, with the small red sun occasionally crossing over the larger orange one. "You might get two eclipses every 41 days," Doyle said.
© Lucasfilm Ltd. & TM. All Rights Reserved
Luke Skywalker surveys a double sunset on the planet Tatooine in "Star Wars: A New Hope."
How the Tatooine planet was found
It's the complex crossings of the suns and the planet that tipped off Doyle and his colleagues to Kepler-16b's existence. NASA's Kepler space telescope, launched in 2009, stares at a 105-square-degree patch of sky in the constellations Cygnus and Lyra, looking for the telltale signs of something dark moving across a star. Kepler watches for periodic dips in the light coming from 155,000 stars. When those dips are detected, scientists use sophisticated software to figure out if the pattern could be caused by a planet.
One of the big challenges is that such dips can also be caused by one of the companions in a double-star system crossing over the other one. This is what's known as an eclipsing binary. The Kepler team has found hundreds of eclipsing binaries, including Kepler 16 — but scientists saw something extra in Kepler 16's pattern of dimming and brightening. "We saw extra dips in the light curve," Doyle recalled.
In the Science paper and 12 pages of supporting material, the Kepler scientists describe the painstaking process used to figure out what was behind those extra dips. They analyzed the pattern of the dips, as well as the varying lengths of time it took for objects to cross over each other (a method known as transit timing variation, or TTV). That resulted in a gravitational model demonstrating that the pattern could only be caused by a planet and two suns passing across each other repeatedly, as seen from Earth's point of view.
R. Hurt (SSC) / JPL-Caltech / NASA
It's theoretically possible for the Kepler-16 system's two suns to line up directly behind the planet Kepler-16b, as shown here.
The team found that Kepler-16b is almost exactly a third as massive as Jupiter, and three-quarters as wide — which makes it comparable to Saturn. It's somewhat denser than Saturn, but not quite as dense as water — which suggests it's half-gassy (with a helium-hydrogen atmosphere) and half-heavy (with an icy-rocky core).
Both of the two suns are smaller and dimmer than our own sun, and they orbit each other once every 41 days. The Kepler-16b planet is in a nearly circular orbit around both stars. It takes 229 days to make one circuit at a distance of 65 million miles — which is similar to the parameters for Venus' 225-day orbit. Because the twin suns are dimmer, Kepler-16b is colder than Venus, with an estimated surface (or cloud-top) temperature of -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit (170 to 200 Kelvin).
"You better have your long underwear," Boss joked.
Doyle said it was lucky that Kepler happened to be watching now. The orbital characteristics are such that the planet-sun transits won't be visible from Earth starting in the 2014 time frame. "In 2018, the primary transits will stop for 24 years. And in 2014, the secondary transits will stop for 45 years. Delay Kepler, and a lot wouldn't have happened," he said.
Looking back and looking ahead
The Kepler team says Kepler-16b is the first confirmed, unambiguous example of a planet orbiting two stars. Several years ago, astronomers wondered whether binary-star systems, which make up more than half of our Milky Way's stellar population, would be too unstable to harbor planets for long. Since then, theoretical models have shown that double-sunset planets could be far more common than previously thought.
There have been a number ofl tentative reports of double-star planets. Last year, astronomers reported detecting a "Tatooine planet" that orbited one of the stars in a binary-star system. That research team used a different analysis method known as astrometry.
Boss said the case for Kepler-16b was more solid, not only because it orbited two stars in a close-in binary system, but also because Kepler's transit observations were "rock-hard solid."
"With astrometric observations, you're always a bit uncertain if it's real," Boss said.
Beyond the "Star Wars" angle, Kepler-16b is significant because it shows once again that a wide variety of star systems can foster planets, and perhaps habitable planets at that. "This is an example of another planetary system, a completely different type that no one's ever seen before," Doyle said. "That's why people are making a big deal out of this."
William Borucki, an astronomer at NASA's Ames Research Center who serves as the Kepler mission's principal investigator, said the research "confirms a new class of planetary systems that could harbor life."
"Given that most stars in our galaxy are part of a binary system, this means the opportunities for life are much broader than if planets form only around single stars," Borucki said in a NASA news release. "This milestone discovery confirms a theory that scientists have had for decades but could not prove until now."
Doyle said Kepler-16b almost certainly will not be the last double-sunset planet discovered by the $600 million Kepler mission. When the numbers all added up, "I didn't feel like it's the end of 20 years of searching ... it felt like the beginning of something" he said. "I predict that in the next couple of months, we're going to have some more."
But time's running out for Kepler. Boss noted that the current mission plan calls for the telescope to be "out of business one year from now." That would be a shame, Boss said, because it looks as if it will take longer than expected for Kepler to get the data to identify Earthlike planets in Earthlike orbits around sunlike stars — which is the mission's prime objective. The reason for that is that the readings from alien suns are unusually noisy. "It turns out that most stars are not as quiet as the sun," Boss said.
Kepler's scientists are already talking about seeking an extension of the mission. That could be a challenge in this era of tightening budgets, but Boss argues that it could be a long time before NASA gets another opportunity to launch a planet-hunting mission.
"Kepler has become, in essence, our only Terrestrial Planet Finder," Boss said. "This is it, for the foreseeable future."
Extra credit: Doyle says that anyone with a good telescope (8-inch mirror or larger) and a CCD camera could record a Kepler 16 planetary transit next June 28 from China and other parts of northeastern Asia. The light from the star system would be seen to dip by about 1.7 percent, if observers train their telescopes on the stars at just the right time. "They'll be able to measure the next transit since the discovery of the planet," Doyle said.
More about weird planets:
- Q&A with planet hunter Laurance Doyle
- 'Super-Earth' just might support life
- Planetary six-pack poses a puzzle
- Probe finds planetary 'missing link'
- Planets spotted in changing orbits
- 'Invisible' planet spotted with new technique
- Looking for alien Earths? Here they come
- Cosmic Log archive on the Kepler mission
- Search for Kepler planets on msnbc.com
This report was last updated at 5:20 p.m. ET.
In addition to Doyle and Boss, the authors of "Kepler-16: A Transiting Circumbinary Planet" include Joshua A. Carter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Robert W. Slawson, Steve B. Howell, Joshua N. Winn, Jerome A. Orosz, Andrej Prsa, William F. Welsh, Samuel N. Quinn, David Latham, Guillermo Torres, Lars A. Buchhave, Geoffrey W. Marcy, Jonathan J. Fortney, Avi Shporer, Eric B. Ford, Jack J. Lissauer, Darin Ragozzine, Michael Rucker, Natalie Batalha, Jon M. Jenkins, William J. Borucki, David Koch, Christopher K. Middour, Jennifer R. Hall, Sean McCauliff, Michael N. Fanelli, Elisa V. Quintana, Matthew J. Holman, Douglas A. Caldwell, Martin Still, Robert P. Stefanik, Warren R. Brown, Gilbert A. Esquerdo, Sumin Tang, Gabor Furesz, John C. Geary, Perry Berlind, Michael L. Calkins, Donald R. Short, Jason H. Steffen, Dimitar Sasselov, Edward W. Dunham, William D. Cochran, Michael R. Haas, Derek Buzasi and Debra Fischer.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
This is awesome.
My questions has always been how in the French Flying Fu*k they (science community) comes up with this bullshirt? And has anybody set foot on these bodies to say what their gases make up are? People of planet Earth doesn't even known that UP is really UP or what makes DOWN, DOWN.
Figure that out, then the main question of WHY is the main question ask by a 3 year old will be answered. This IS really bullshirt.cum!
Your answer as to why is because we can.
And if you bothered to read the article or learn any little bit of science you would know that they are not just pulling this stuff out of no where. As for what gases make up the planet, you clearly never took a high school science class. Different gases give off different spectrum of light, that is one way to tell.
Josh - I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. I think, perhaps his point was, without "physically going there" how can we know for certain what we think is true, is true?
It might be true that X gas gives off Green light - HERE.
How do we know thats true - THERE?
We cant even possibly know what the environment is liker there, and if other factors may alter what we know to be true - to not be true there.
I think this way about archeology often.
I've often thought about what a future generation, 1000 years from now, would think if they found half the crap we produce out of plastic that isnt going to disappear from our dumps.
As they hold up a plastic McDonalds cup showing a scene from Trans Formers a future society concludes:
"this cup, this must have been created to show a traumatic showdown between an ancient human race and most likely an other-worldly alien race of space robots, we must then conclude the human's won this battle, as they created these cups to memoralize this great event"
This is really cool. The timing of the announcement is cool too as the Star Wars Saga is being released tomorrow on Blue Ray.
Interesting logic, Dirk. Because you don't know something, nobody else does, either. I truly hope you don't have a license to breed.
Jessica - I was trying to not get into the philosophical side of things because then you could start talking about what if everything we perceive is not actually there or that time and space are not real but internally perceived (Kant). You could start asking these type of questions about everything.
However, because of the distance, that planet could not even be there currently since we are looking 200 years into the past.
Once again, we are treated to the ill-informed opinions of people who think that because they don't understand something, no one else does.
With regard to the "how do we know if what we know scientifically on Earth also applies in space" argument, there are not different physical laws in different parts of the universe. If there were, we wouldn't even be able to launch probes, shuttles and rockets. We CAN do those things because physical laws, like gravity, are universal. Things don't suddenly become weird and magical a certain number of light years from our planet.
And if the universe is continually expanding, is anything really ever anywhere? Maybe Dirk can tell us...
Josh-3971771: they did not record the spectrum of light reflected from the planet, that's far too dim with present technology to see, particularly because the direct light from the stars would overwhelm the reflected light from the planet.
Jessica-1170252: We know about spectra because we know what causes them. It's quantum physics (although afaik we can't derive the spectra of elements more complex than Hydrogen from first facts). Sure, in principle the spectrum of Argon, let's say, could look like the spectrum of Oxygen in some other universe; but then it wouldn't be Argon and Oxygen in that universe, because spectra are related to chemistry. And in any case, you're not going to get that kind of difference in our universe. The spectra of stars other than the Sun has been understood for over a hundred years, and the spectrum of other class G stars looks pretty much like the spectrum of the Sun, regardless of where they are.
A plastic McDonald's cup is NOT going to be around in 1000 years. When ecologist say something is not biodegradable, that simply means that it's molecular structure will remain in that basic form for a very long time, but not the actual item itself. Meaning when they do soil samples in the future they will find "grains" of plastic mixed in among the silicon, quarts, etc.... Have you ever dug a beautifully prestine plastic item out of your back yard that someone buried 10 or 15 years before? No. Chances are it was discolored, brittle and in VERY bad shape. Its chemical bonds breakdown and it essentially becomes a manmade "dirt". Not nearly the bio-hazard people make it out to be. If we stored this cup in a dark vacuum devoid of UV light, Oxygen and Moisture, it MAY make it 1000 years.
As for the "how can we know for certain what we think is true, is true?" question. It is science fact not assumption. These are not "theories" they are dealing with in this instance. Observation of the universe around us and here at home allow us to make determinations that can be relied upon very specifically. For instance, If a baseball is thrown to a batter and he swings his bat and makes contact; Geometry, inertia, velocity, mass, resistance, surface area, and density ALL come into play. If we can measure particular specifics, we can get answers regarding other areas of interest. Speed and size are immediately measurable, as well as trajectory. By the interactions of the two involved objects we can determine Mass and density. Using all of the above information we can determine resistance and energy. If you bring water to a freezing temperature of 32 degreesF at normal atmospheric pressure, it will freeze. It doesnt work differently in China or South America. It is a Global Constant. The light spectrum is a Universal Constant. The reason your red socks are red is because the pigment the manufacturer uses reflects light mostly in the red visible spectrum. A crystal prism Splits light into all the visible colors allowing us to see this spectrum. The doppler effect google it) allows us to see if something is moving away or toward us. These are ALL universal constants. It doesnt matter if you're in Kansas or Kepler16b.
Ok well not for nothing, but I don't understand why the comments that jessica made seem so off the charts to some. While it is true that physical laws are considered to be true throughout our own solar system, it is also true that our entire knowledge of truth of these laws conforms only to our own little swath of space. Past that we are only guessing because we can't possibly explore it yet. What the telescopes do that see into these far away places is measure light given off from stars and wait for them to dim which shows a passing body. From that they can calculate size and even judge possible color of the light given off from this body to come to a "hypothesis" about that perticular bodies atmosphere given what we know about how the light spectrum is affected by our sun which is yellow. Now seeing that the planet is orbiting a red star and orange star which don't burn as hot as our own sun as the article states and could possibly be made up of different chemical reactions then our own sun (we have never explored another star to find out what chemical reactions make it work we only know about our own and how its chemical reactions effect the light spectrum) its more then plausible that scientist could be dead wrong with their assertations towards exoplanets. Thats the beauty of a hypothesis though. And Mike what you say about spectrometry is correct and sound but again it can only be true here in our own solar system currently. The science behind it only has one experimental group, our own sun and how light in the form of photons is perceived. We have no clue if a sun burning at a lower or higher heat or a different color affects the wave lengths of light emmitted as photons by each element. Since we have only this one test group it has to stay only a hypothesis until further testing correlates that information. A perfect example; a bowling ball will fall faster then a feather given its weight is greater. That was universally thought to be truth and all testing during this time proved this fact. That is until someone removed the factor of air and found that all objects fall at a uniform rate and it was air resistance that caused one to fall faster then the other. Basically, it can be true and law now given our current understanding but the whole game can change with more testing. I mean given the distance alone, who it to say those colors that are percieved are even the same that were emmitted? Lots of things can effect color such as the bending of space, the combining factor of multiple stars emmitting light back to us simultaneously, the exponetial decay of light over distance and time. All of these things are still as yet untested and in their infancy of understanding and to be honest it will take going there to confirm any of these laws and hypothesis as truth.
Actually, physical laws are considered universal, not just true for our own solar system. Of course, that in itself is a theory, but it remains accepted until proven otherwise.
Physical laws can not be universal simply because there is no agreement between them in the relation of very large bodies compared to very small bodies. Different laws apply for each and not even Einstein could theorize a way to unite the two into one universal law. That's something that scientists have been working on for ages. The relavency is that spectrometry is the study of the very small, where astronomy is the study of the very big. You need quite different calculations for each, and when combined with our current understanding of physics, you are only left with an estimation of what may be happening or a very good educated guess. Neither case represents fact but are great jumping off points to further experimentation. Because of this, anything could be true of these exoplanets and their enviroments. It might be interesting if NASA decided to send a probe to one of these places, preferably with a sun unlike our own like the ones in this article, even if it would take a ridiculous amount of time, because then we could actually see and test our theories in a real alien solar system and truely see if these laws are universal throughout the universe or just relagated to our own. The huge possibility with this would be potentionally narrowing down the search for life. If its found that our laws are unique here then we can serch for similar areas, that the laws coincide within, where "life as we know it" can exist which is a much smaller group. Likewise, if its found that these laws are universal galactically, then we would narrow our search anyway because then we would know exactly what to look for. Personally I'd be more excited if NASA did that then I would be if they put a man on Mars... just sayin'.
I just had to toss this in; from what little I know about cosmology, relativity and quantum physics the universe is a weird and magical place no matter where you're at.
Why is it Keplerwhatever!? Name it Tatooine! ...well, George Lucas would probably charge for it. :(
and then he would change it in a couple years.
Interesting issue: Generally speaking, the International Astronomical Union is in charge of approving names of celestial objects and features. But there hasn't been a process put in place for naming extrasolar planets. Instead, they're generally given a letter name attached to the name of their parent stars. For example, we have 51 Pegasi b as one of the first-ever extrasolar planets found. Stars that come into the spotlight because of the Kepler or Corot planet-hunting probes are given numbers, with the letter afterward. Thus you have the Kepler-16 system with two suns Kepler-16A and Kepler-16B. The planet that goes around those suns is called Kepler-16(AB)-b, or Kepler-16b for short. (The letters start with "b" by convention.)
Phew!
Anyway, some astronomers would like to see extrasolar planets get names, like Vulcan or Romulus. In fact, the other "Tatooine planet" that goes around one sun in a double-star system has been referred to as "Inrakluk." (If anyone can explain the etymology I'd love to hear it.) Other extrasolar planets have been given unofficial names such as Methuselah, Osiris or Bellerophon ...
Not Ceti Alpha 5?
@Josh-3971771: Karen Traviss? Is that you? ;)
Alan....
System Summary
Apparently sometimes referenced as "Inrakluk" by at least one astronomer as a reference to his name in reverse, the HR 7162, close-binary system is located around 48.9 light-years from Sol. It lies in the southwestern part (18:57:1.6+32:54:4.6, ICRS 2000.0) of Constellation Lyra, the Lyre -- south of Vega (Alpha Lyrae), southwest of Sheliak (Beta Lyrae) and Sulafat (Gamma Lyrae), west of Globular Cluster M56, northwest of Albireo (Beta1 Cygni), east-northeast of Iota, Xi, and Mu Herculis, and southeast of Theta Herculis. On October 21, 2010, astronomers submitted a paper which revealed the presence of a Jupiter-class planet around one of the stars of this close-binary system using precision astrometry, by tracking periodic variations in the position of stars over time (TSU press release; TSU's Automated Astronomy Group press release with links to related papers and articles; Ian O'Neill, MSNBC News, October 22, 2010; and Muterspaugh et al, 2010). (See an animation of the planetary and potentially habitable zone orbits of this system, with a table of basic orbital and physical characteristics.)
(If anyone can explain the etymology I'd love to hear it.)
Inrakluk = Kulkarni backwards;
Guessing Shrinivas Kulkarni, astrophysicist at Caltech?
Perhaps Asimov's Foundation has been found.
Alan, I believe Inrakluk gets it's name from Shrinivas Kulkarni... it's his name in reverse. And he works in the field of pulsars and extra-solar planets at Caltech.
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~srk/
I knew I could count on all of you for the rewsna!
Ha!
I tuned in here to read what was surely going to be alot of Star Wars jokes only to find it actually part of the article. Then a bigger smile and snicker came when I read, "half-gassy". That's when you just have ONE burrito at Taco Bell and skip the refried beans
Alan, after some quick research I found that Inrakluk is the backward spelling of Kulkarni which is used as common family names in India. It is believed to be a combination of two words, kula and karani (found on wikipedia). Kula means root of the family and Karani means one who maintains records or accounts. Some scientists name perchance?
No, don't call this one Tatoonie yet - if there's a habitable or near-habitable planet in there, that's the one that should be called Tatoonie. I'd only give this one the name if that was the last resort. We can do better!
Tatooine was actually a small moon orbiting a massive orange gas giant planet. So no, this isn't that planet.
You are mistaking Yavin 4 for Tatooine.
All planets should be named after me.
@MB - Star Wars lore fail. Anyway, I think we should wait to name planets till some larger milestone is achieved... say a more direct imaging or a very precise measurement so that we are extremely certain what the planet is made of and looks like. I would say we should wait till we visit, but that might be a while yet (sadly).
All these startling discoveries as of late. It seems we've tripled our understanding of the world and the universe in just a few short years. Maybe all this new knowledge will assist humans from destroying themselves.
And before the "We're spending too much money on this space crap" crowd start their bleeting, remember, the money to develop Kepler, keep it running, and interpret what it spits back is printed and spent here on earth. So byte me where?
Has anyone asked the public if they would donate to keep the Kepler going? I would in a heartbeat and I am sure there are many who would. We may be small donators but we might surprise you and be MIGHTY!!!!!
Diana, I'm advocating that we get to decide how our tax money is allocated. Give us check boxes on the tax returns that allow us to say what percentage goes to what. Give me 90% to NASA, 10% military, 0% Congressional raises.
Even if they let us choose where half our taxes go would be better than nothing.
Do you not remember George H.W. Bush proposing that very thing? He intended for pro-lifers to be able to dictate that none of their tax dollars go toward funding for abortions. It was pointed out to him that taxpayers might also dictate other choices, like yours, that might go against the Administration's ideals, and the propsal died very quickly.
No, I don't remember Bush coming up with this, but I sure wish it had gone through. We would find out real quick where America wants its money going.
"We would find out real quick where America wants its money going."
Beer and pretzels?
No thanks. Most Americans would not be up to the challenge, not that our current politicians (in any party) are doing a good job at that.
This is one of the most asinine single ideas I have EVER heard of. You "win" if you can call it that.
Our nation's economic power for most of the last century was based upon incredibly expensive research projects that most people would have absolutely no clue about, and would likely have voted "no" to. Leave those decisions to people who have a clue.
Like Congress?
Even 20% or 10% would be better than nothing. They already give you a box for contributing a $1 to the presidential campaign fund. Why not give us other choices?
I agree partly with both sentiments here.
Although the idea sounds nice and I would like it very much for myself, I agree with chouse that such things put a whole lot of faith in the American people.
Often, depending on the average American to not be an idiot is a losing bet. Also, using post 1.1 as an example, far too many Americans think that if they don't understand something, nobody does - and that it must be "bullshirt" as he put it. The anti-intellectual / anti-science crowd is way too big in this country of morons.
I also agree with you though Tony, that Congress is hardly a step above.
It's like "hmmm, what should we pick? The idiots? Or the morons?"
Why does pretty much every article get politics pulled into it?
Because most of these are funded with federal money.
I'm heading to Tachi Station to pick up some power converters!
You can waste time with your friends when your chores are done
You can waste time with your friends after you finish your chores.
LOL
Missed it by a bantha hair.
Lousy teenagers... blasting womp rats all to tarnation... filthy Jawas disassembling my tending droids... Gonna go out to Mos Eisley and get powerful drunk...
That's your uncle talking.
Is this geek humor?
If you have to ask, you lose the game.
Yeah pretty impressive. But the only thing that matters is that Han shot first!
Exactly!!! Sometimes it's nesassary for the good guys to shoot first and ask...I mean flip the bar tender a quarter for the mess. Greedo was a POS anyway.
Greedo never shot. Han gunned him down and the video proof was altered by Lucas.
Lucas is a politically correct pansy. You notice that Han really didn't get annoyed with Greedo till he spouted off about Jaba taking his ship. THAT sh1t wasn't happenin'!!!
Han clearly shot first, and Lucas can go to hell for daring to be such a wuss and editing that scene. Greedo was a merc/bounty hunter. When you're a starship captain and somebody like that comes up to you and aims a gun at you, you're well within your rights to cap them for that alone! Exactly why nobody really minded when he did it, other than the stench/mess. Greedo deserved to die that day - he pulled a dumb, and quite deservedly lost his life for it.
Spielberg can go there too for doing the same thing to E.T. (cops now carry walkie-talkies instead of revolvers).
Yeah, I hate the Ewoks they put in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Ah...Mos Eisley Space Port...you will never find a place filled with more scumb and villany..we must be causious...
He doesn't like you. I don't like you either. You just watch yourself. We're wanted men. I've got the death sentence on 12 systems.
These are not the droids you're looking for.
But is it a fast ship.
You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?
She's the one that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.
(A notorious gaff on the part of the script writers)
Writers tend to occasionally confuse movement, distance and acceleration.
"I find your lack of *knowledge* disturbing".
It made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.
LOOK IN D.C.
"(A notorious gaff on the part of the script writers)"
Yeah this one was clearly some writer pulling dialogue out of their butt and nobody else doing a reality check for it.
Almost as bad as Back to the Future's use of "jiggowatt". They claim it was due to some German scientist they used as a consultant having pronounced it that way, but I don't buy it. They dropped the ball AND screwed the pooch, all in one word. Even as a kid I knew the word was being horribly mispronounced, you'd think that somebody on the production would have had the balls to correct the error.
This little one's not worth the effort. Here, let me buy you a drink.
Except maybe Washington DC
You seem to be lost. Come with me, and we'll see if we can't find your mother...
"Kepler has become, in essence, our only Terrestrial Planet Finder," Boss said. "This is it, for the foreseeable future."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the COROT project doing exactly the same thing using slightly different sensing technology? i.e. examining periodic variations in the light spectra caused by gravitational "wobbling". Or is this comment meant to indicate that only the Kepler project is capable of locating a "terrestrial" sized planet because COROT's technology can't spot the small ones?
I'm not web searching for it, but is it space based or terrestrial based?
I'm pretty sure they're both satellites so I ruled out that interpretation.
One group is using observatories, or a mix of space and ground telescopes. Don't have time to look for it though. (but I have time to post. Go figure).
Kepler and COROT have similar capabilities ... COROT has a somewhat smaller telescope aperture, and I've seen reports that it can only look at a particular star field for five months before it has to turn to another. Kepler is staring at the same patch of sky all the time, which enhances data collection but obviously limits the breadth of its observations. My discussion with Boss had more to do with NASA's plans (or lack thereof) for planet-hunting probes. Here's more about the issue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43302704/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/frustration-lingers-over-canceled-exoplanet-hunts/
Thank you, Alan.
Wow. I'm just sitting here thinking how difficult that must be in terms of guidance and stabilization. Is it parked at one of the Lagrange points?
God knows
This planet would indeed be outside the classic Habitable Zone however it falls with in the expanded Habitable zone.
It could easily have a earth sized moon with a thick atmosphere which would make it potentially habitable.
When they find the planet of horny Amazon women you can call me.
I'll fly the ship.
Try Texas.
There's not as many as I'd like, trust me.
Death by snu snu? no thanks heheh :-D
Wait, what? Is there a known reason for this? And does it have any bearing on the ability for life to develop on Earth? If so, could we use this to narrow the focus on the search for E.T.?
Boss is saying that most stars have more variations in activity than the sun does, which makes it harder to pick out the characteristic pattern of brightening and dimming. A more variable sun might not be as conducive for life, since we meat creatures like to have things nice and steady. But that's just a surmise on my part.
I would guess that variations in activity refer to solar flares and the like.
If a planet is in the habitable zone and has a magnetosphere similar to Earth's it seems possible that the amount of radiation from the star could be buffered sufficiently to allow life to evolve.
One aspect of a more active star is that development in space might be severely hampered due to the lack of economic feasibility of military and commercial applications. Satellite technology is fragile and sensitive to intense solar activity.
OTOH, if the aliens are anything like humans, money is no object for military applications. If money becomes a problem simply gut less important projects like science, education and the environment...
re post #12
ThaPyngwyn, great point!
(sorry, thought this was originally attached to post #12)
Aint no way this planet's hotter than Texas....
Should have named it Figmentimaginus, here's an artist conception.
Cue stirring John Williams' music..... ;-)
/
I think a little of my brain power left forever after reading a few random posts...
they need to turn that camera to the center of the galaxies an find out what coming are way by 12-26-12 I would like to know if they don't mine. good day
As you're probably aware, Dec 21, 2012 marks the conclusion of the 13th b'ak'tun which is the end of the 4th world according to the Mayan calendar.
The date 12/26/12 refers to the date of the actual impact event. On the 21st gravity from the black hole sent by the Razellian imperial overlords residing in the center of the galaxy will have sucked all of the atmosphere from the Earth thus fulfilling the Mayan prophecy as recorded by the great Mayan emperor Wha'ta'boo'sha'ta.
No, everyone knows the world will end on December 31 or January 1, most likely the midnight between the two. And that end will happen each and every year and has happened every year in the past.
"which is the end of the 4th world"
end of an era, not world - BIG difference.
Really? How in the hell are they pushing it like this? The ONLY similarity is that it has two suns!!! Talk about milking public interest. This whole thing comes off as desperate and pathetic.
Next they are going to have an announcement of finding a planet that is like Hoth (from Return of The Jedi) because it is vaguely white in color (but is a gas giant the size of Jupiter).
It is the FIRST planet found in a binary system that orbits both stars. They won't make such a big deal out of it the next time they find one so you can go ahead and unbunch your panties.
Dirk,
HA! everyone in Mich. KNOWS that UP is the Upper Pennisula.
Hope this helps you now that you know EXACTLY where "UP" is....
Cool.
Can't help but wonder how many seasons there'd be in a year on a planet in a binary system.
on this planet apparently only one season. Winter
IIR the planet is outside the orbits of both stars which would mean both stars could be seen as a single albeit variable point source. Since seasons are due to planetary tilt as opposed to distance from the star the planet would still have hot and cold variations. However, because the temps are estimated at between -150 and -100F I wouldn't be harvesting the fall crops without a shirt on...
It sounds to me like in 10-20 years, this technology would be good enough to detect artificial satellites and anything else in orbit around a planet or star. Maybe our First Contact will be "morse code with mirrors" or something. Interesting article.
If we use morse code with mirrors, it would take 400 years to get a response.
If you're talking about regular satellites most of those are smaller than your average compact car. Most telescopes on Earth can barely see those even when they are in LEO. We may never have a technology sensitive enough to physically see something like that around another star.
OTOH, if you're referring to an Earth sized Death Star, I'm not sure I would even want to know it's there. Better to have it vaporize the Earth while I'm asleep. I'll never know what hit me.
Kinda cool, just hope the right wing bible thumpers don't cut more of the budget for this stuff! Dept of education, who the hell needs scientists, astonomers, engineers or educated people other than ourselves? Teabaggers would love to shut all this stuff down all in the name of the deficit! like our military, education is something that should always get more money, imagine what 600+ billion budget for educating people in this contry would do!