Scientists discover potentially habitable planets

http://news.mit.edu/2016/scientists-discover-potentially-habitable-planets-0502

by stillsut • 10 years ago

172 52 10 years ago

news.mit.edu

I thought planets in dwarf star habitable zones would be tidally locked / not rotating?

ccallebs• 10 years ago

They mention that in the article -- they postulate that there may be "sweet spots" with the correct temperature to be habitable. These would be located close to where the planet transitions from light to dark.

civilian• 10 years ago

And unfortunately, these spots would be very windy. There'd be a constant barrage of cold wind as the air in the hot side rose.

rubidium• 10 years ago

At a mere 40 light years away :) But seriously, that's a good find.

2 planets are orbit-locked. I've always thought those make the best for sci-fi fiction, since they're effective halo's in terms of habitability.

source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu... [paywalled]

Wikipedia already has some info on the telescope and findings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST

welterde• 10 years ago

Preprint of the paper: http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/es...

Via the ESO press release: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1615/

eddiecalzone• 10 years ago

Awesome! Let's strip-mine it!

Bluestrike2• 10 years ago

Lots of options a lot closer to home :).

rajandatta• 10 years ago

Brilliant. Love the approach of using Trappist to search for candidates and then be able to turn to instruments like the Hubble and other land based big guys. It'll be amazing to see what the Hubble can see at 40 light years.

_kst_2• 10 years ago

It's odd that the article doesn't mention the phrase "brown dwarf", which is what 2MASS J23062928-0502285 is. (See http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J230629..., linked from the article.)

The phrase "ultracool dwarf star" is descriptive, but both less familiar and less precise than "brown dwarf". Perhaps the author assumed the audience wouldn't know what a brown dwarf is, but a lot of us do (and the rest could have it explained easily enough).

ak4g• 10 years ago

"Brown dwarf" also doesn't command the same je ne sais quoi of "ultracool".

_kst_2• 10 years ago

Perhaps it isn't really a brown dwarf. According to http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/05/03/three_ea... :

TRAPPIST-1 is an M8 dwarf, only 0.08 times the mass of the Sun; just barely massive enough to fuse hydrogen into helium in its core. If it were much lower mass we wouldn’t call it a star at all (we’d say it’s a brown dwarf).

And the Wikipedia article on brown dwarfs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf

Brown dwarfs are substellar objects not massive enough to sustain hydrogen-1 fusion reactions in their cores, unlike main-sequence stars.

Apparently TRAPPIST-1 is an actual star, which makes it a (small, cool) red dwarf, not a brown dwarf. But it is near the dividing line.

(A brown dwarf with planets would be interesting, but they probably wouldn't be potentially habitable.)

kafkaesq• 10 years ago

The sizes and temperatures of these worlds are comparable to those of Earth and Venus, and are the best targets found so far for the search for life outside the solar system.

That's quite a variation in temperature. Especially since Venus generally isn't considered to be "habitable."

s_q_b4• 10 years ago

Venus could well have been habitable, but the runaway greenhouse effect stopped that. I'm sure there's thousands of types of planets out there "just like Earth, but..."

gboss• 10 years ago

There are altitudes within Venus' thick atmosphere that are actually quite reasonable, with it being proposed that humans would only need a simple oxygen mask to survive. The idea of setting up a "floating" colony in Venus' atmosphere has been proposed a few times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus#Aerostat...

hanniabu• 10 years ago

If we're going to make it to another planet that far away, we're going to either need to put our astronauts in some type of suspended state or be able to give birth and raise children on ships.

I wonder what the effects would be of a child forming in a womb, being born, and growing up in zero gravity conditions.

SEJeff2• 10 years ago

Very very early onset osteoporosis when they come back to somewhere with gravity?

prodmerc• 10 years ago

Growing up in zero G? I'm afraid the problems would be substantial. Not being able to walk, improperly formed skeleton and organs, extremely weak immune system, and I'm guessing much more...

s_q_b4• 10 years ago

Build a 1g spinning section, if that's what's needed for a generational ship. Such "slowboats" are going to need to be:

1. Incredibly expensive.

2. Massive beyond the scale of anything ever assembled in orbit.

3. Big enough to carry a self-sustaining colony, above minimum population size for genetic issues.

So, newborns in zero-g, not necessarily needed, if we're really going to the stars the old fashioned way.

siquick• 10 years ago

Is #2 because we don't have rockets powerful enough to launch these ships into space?

mrfusion• 10 years ago

Don't forget they might have habitable moons too!

CapitalistCartr2• 10 years ago

We won't go to the stars until we're actually IN space. Not visiting, but there permanently. When people are born, live and die without ever being dirtside on Earth; when they live in habitats made from lunar and asteroidal materials, we're there. When we've colonized this system we will be prepared to reach out to another.

Now imagine these people, who've lived all their lives in wonderful space habitats, worked in ships and on other planets and such. I don't think they'll be looking for another Earth. Why would they? They'll think their space habitat is far more comfortable.

As far as interstellar travel is concerned, I'm certain we will solve longevity well before we travel to the stars. FTL won't be the big obstacle it seems now. When your lifespan is several centuries, spending 30-50 years of it traveling across the stars is as reasonable as our ancestors crossing Europe, the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, or the American Continent to colonize a new land.

Since their colony ship is a fine habitat, they won't be looking for an Earth-like planet; they'll be looking for a Sun-like star. Of which there are many. Humans can spread out at a sub-light speed across our arm of the Galaxy. But most trips will be one-way. Each colony must be self-sustaining. The best find would be an asteroid belt in the habitable zone. Cheap resources!

blhack• 10 years ago

They'll think their space habitat is far more comfortable.

I really, really, really doubt that. People who spend most of their time living on oil rigs now, or people who lived large parts of their lives on ships, did not end up losing the desire for dry land.

CapitalistCartr2• 10 years ago

I don't see them as comparable. A space habitat several kilometers in size with plenty of interior enjoyable space, and managed, perfect weather is nothing like an oil rig. And its better than a cruise ship, and there are people who would love to live permanently on those, although not as crew. Since they aren't down this deep gravity well, they are already more than halfway to anywhere in the neighborhood. For them, visiting The Moon or Venus is vastly more practical. An afternoon spent in Zero G games is always available. Insect pests such as roaches and mosquitoes aren't a problem. Which is why traveling from Earth to the habitat will be subject to such a strict quarantine.

mappy• 10 years ago

I really, really, really doubt that.

I agree. And it goes beyond just being cooped up.

Having a planet's atmosphere to burn up flying space debris or at least being inside of a cave in an asteroid (as long as it is really a cave) can provide a lot of protection. A high-speed space rock could easily tear through the one foot of protective wall in your space station, and all of the pretty plants and oxygen in your biosphere will be dead from having been almost instantly frozen, even if you patch it up.

If we want colonization, we not only need orbiting stations/stations at Lagrangian points, we must be colonizing big rocks. Once you perfect your shields, it's another story, but we are nowhere near the energy requirements or technology of a ship or viable station that is safe for humanity to live in long-term. Even if I live to be 1000 years old, I'd never want to take my chances in a station or ship that isn't at least in orbit, protected by a large planet on one side, for any great length of time. And our orbit is filled with space junk- not very safe.

Now, if it were a Firefly-class ship, that'd be different. I'd live in that in a heartbeat. Or the original Enterprise or the Tantive IV.

perilunar2• 10 years ago

I don't think they'll even necessarily be looking for sun-like stars either - just energy and raw materials to make more habitats

flashman• 10 years ago

This is similar to the view of those in Iain M. Banks's "Culture" novels. They view living on a planet as hopelessly primitive and inefficient. Most of its mass is dead, useful only for the gravity it generates. Terraforming is artificial and arguably immoral. And you're subject to all sorts of astronomical and geological catastrophes... why wouldn't you live on one of the many lovely Orbitals?

stuff4ben• 10 years ago

Curious what an ultracool dwarf star would like like from an orbiting planet considering it emits radiation in the infrared band? What would the flora/fauna look like? How do they evolve in an infrared environment?

0xmohit• 10 years ago

Make habitable planets great again -- Trump for habitable planets.

ultrasandwich• 10 years ago

Trying to figure out a great Belgian Trappist beer goggle joke and just dropping the ball...

known• 10 years ago

80% of beneath the Oceans are NOT explored on Earth;

Scientists discover potentially habitable planets

Related Stories