Discovery of the First Earth-Like, Habitable Exoplanet Will Be Announced in May 2011

Conor108

...........maybe.

But still exciting stuff

The numbers are in, the data has been analyzed, and the date is now set: the discovery of an earth-like, habitable planet will be announced in May of next year. At least, that’s the conclusion reached by two professors at Harvard and U. of California, Santa Cruz, whose mathematical projections say that given the current pace of exoplanet discoveries, the finding of a suitable planet for life is right around the corner.

How does this math work exactly? The details, of course, are complicated and contain a lot of subscript variables and other mathematic acrobatics that we won’t get into here, but essentially they look at the properties of exoplanets discovered thus far by instruments like NASA’s Kepler observatory. From that data, they’ve devised what they term the “habitability metric,” a value representing a planet’s temperature and mass that determines whether or not it can support life.

What the habitability metric tells us, if we chart the values for all the planets already discovered, is that a) we’ve found a lot of planets thus far, mostly gas giants but some smaller icy rocks like Neptune, and b) with every planet we find we’re statistically closer to finding that orbiting chunk of debris with a habitability value of 1, or a match for Earth-like conditions.

Depending on how you want to weigh all that data, you can draw different conclusions. Following the long tail, we find that there’s a 66 percent probability we’ll find a habitable planet by 2013, and a 75 percent probability by 2020. But the median date of discovery is somewhat closer. To quote Arbesman and Laughlin’s paper: “Using a bootstrap analysis of currently discovered exoplanets, we predict the discovery of the first Earth-like planet to be announced in the first half of 2011, with the likeliest date being early May 2011.”

Linky

Plug

All we need now is a extremely large telescope to see it.

BULLER

Plug wrote: »

All we need now is a extremely large telescope to see it.

Nah, i'd say you'd need an overwhelmingly large telescope. That outta do the trick...

Plug

BULLER wrote: »

Nah, i'd say you'd need an overwhelmingly large telescope. That outta do the trick...

That has been cancelled because of the cost:( But still, a 60 metre telescope isn't too bad i suppose.

BULLER

Plug wrote: »

That has been cancelled because of the cost:( But still, a 60 metre telescope isn't too bad i suppose.

I know I was just kidding with ya. The European Extremely Large Telescope, which I assume you're refering to, is actually planned for only 42meters.
http://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/e-elt.html

100m telescope would take some shots.... :rolleyes:

dlofnep

Yup, 42 metres. I found a really good youtube channel today which discussed it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/sixtysymbols

Dave!

suhhweeeet

Mrmoe

It looks like they may have discovered the first Earth like planet already. Supposedly the chances of life are quite good.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth-like-exoplanet-possibly-habitable-100929.html

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Odds of Life on Newfound Earth-Size Planet '100 Percent,' Astronomer Says
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Managing Editor
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]posted: 29 September 2010
05:03 pm ET[/FONT]
This story was updated at 5:37 p.m. ET.

An Earth-size planet has been spotted orbiting a nearby star at a distance that would makes it not too hot and not too cold — comfortable enough for life to exist, researchers announced today (Sept. 29).
If confirmed, the exoplanet, named Gliese 581g, would be the first Earth-like world found residing in a star's habitable zone — a region where a planet's temperature could sustain liquid water on its surface.



And the planet's discoverers are optimistic about the prospects for finding life there.
"Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent," said Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, during a press briefing today. "I have almost no doubt about it."
His colleague, Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, in Washington, D.C., wasn't willing to put a number on the odds of life, though he admitted he's optimistic.
"It's both an incremental and monumental discovery," Sara Seager, an astrophysicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told SPACE.com. Incremental because the method used to find Gliese 581g already has found several planets (all super-Earths, more massive than our own world) outside their stars' habitable zone, along with non-Earth-like planets within the habitable zone.
"It really is monumental if you accept this as the first Earth-like planet ever found in the star's habitable zone," said Seager, who was not directly involved in the discovery.
Vogt, Butler and their colleagues will detail the planet finding in the Astrophysical Journal.
The newfound planet joins more than 400 other alien worlds known to date. Most are huge gas giants, though several are just a few times the mass of Earth.


Stellar tugs
Gliese 581g is one of two new worlds the team discovered orbiting the red dwarf star Gliese 581, bumping that nearby star's family of planets to six. The other newfound planet, Gliese 581f, is outside the habitable zone, researchers said.
The star is located 20 light-years from Earth in the constellation Libra. One light-year is about 6 trillion miles (10 trillion km).
Red dwarf stars are about 50 times dimmer than our sun. Since these stars are so much cooler, their planets can orbit much closer to them and still remain in the habitable zone.
Estimates suggest Gliese 581g is 0.15 astronomical units from its star, close enough to its star to be able to complete an orbit in just under 37 days. One astronomical unit is the average distance between the Earth and sun, which is approximately 93 million miles (150 million km).
The Gliese 581 planet system now vaguely resembles our own, with six worlds orbiting their star in nearly circular paths.



With support from the National Science Foundation and NASA, the scientists — members of the Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey — collected 11 years of radial velocity data on the star. This method looks at a star's tiny movements due to the gravitational tug from orbiting bodies.
The subtle tugs let researchers estimate the planet's mass and orbital period, how long it takes to circle its star.
Gliese 581g has a mass three to four times Earth's, the researchers estimated. From the mass and size, they said the world is probably a rocky planet with enough gravity to hold onto an atmosphere.
Just as Mercury is locked facing the sun, the planet is tidally locked to its star, so that one side basks in perpetual daylight, while the other side remains in darkness. This locked configuration helps to stabilize the planet's surface climate, Vogt said.
"Any emerging life forms would have a wide range of stable climates to choose from and to evolve around, depending on their longitude," Vogt said, suggesting that life forms that like it hot would just scoot toward the light side of that line while forms with polar-bear-like preferences would move toward the dark side.
Between blazing heat on the star-facing side and freezing cold on the dark side, the average surface temperature may range from 24 degrees below zero to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 31 to minus 12 degrees Celsius), the researchers said.



Are you sure?
Supposedly habitable worlds have been found and later discredited, so what makes this one such a breakthrough?
There's still a chance that further observations will dismiss this planet, also. But over the years, the radial velocity method has become more precise, the researchers point out in their journal article.
In addition, the researchers didn't make some of the unrealistic assumptions made in the past, Seager said.
For instance, another planet orbiting Gliese 581 (the planet Gliese 581c) also had been considered to have temperatures suitable for life, but in making those calculations, the researchers had come up with an "unrealistic" estimate for the amount of energy the planet reflected, Seager pointed out. That type of estimate wasn't made for this discovery.
"We're looking at this one as basically the tip of the iceberg, and we're expecting more to be found," Seager said.
One way to make this a reality, according to study researchers, would be "to build dedicated 6- to 8-meter-class Automated Planet Finder telescopes, one in each hemisphere," they wrote.
The telescopes — or "light buckets" as Seager referred to them — would be dedicated to spying on the nearby stars thought to potentially host Earth-like planets in their habitable zones. The result would be inexpensive and probably would reveal many other nearby potentially habitable planets, the researchers wrote.
Beyond the roughly 100 nearest stars to Earth, there are billions upon billions of stars in the Milky Way, and with that in mind, the researchers suggest tens of billions of potentially habitable planets may exist, waiting to be found.
Planets like Gliese 581g that are tidally locked and orbit the habitable zone of red dwarfs have a high probability of harboring life, the researchers suggest.
Earth once supported harsh conditions, the researchers point out. And since red dwarfs are relatively "immortal" living hundreds of billions of years (many times the current age of the universe), combined with the fact that conditions stay so stable on a tidally locked planet, there's a good chance that if life were to get a toe-hold it would be able to adapt to those conditions and possibly take off, Butler said.

nice1franko

Cross-post from paranormal (sorry) ...

Interesting post over on reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/dkw5a/does_anybody_else_think_its_interesting_that_in/

Does anybody else think it’s interesting that, in December 2008, Dr. Ragbir Bhathal detected an unnatural “laserlike” signal coming from Gliese 581e, then today we learn about Gliese 581g an earth-like planet that almost certainly supports life? (self.science)

Here’s an interview with Dr. Bhathal

Here’s a news story about the new discovery

I’m not saying there’s necessarily a connection, but it seems like an awesome coincidence.

Cork boy 55

Its only 20 light years away
So its quite technicaly possible for us to build a ship in the next century
which could achieve this speed (light speed) and reach it in 20 years.
We could send robots first to see if it will support live.

Its four times bigger than earth too!!!!!

there's a bright side and a dark side and a mixed zone.

But unlike Earth, this alien world has one side always facing its sun and the other side constantly in the dark. So in-between the two sides, between shadow and light, there could be an area where life could potentially thrive.

Cork boy 55

wylo

this is exciting stuff, just wondering though , what kind of technology could you have to see if theres life on it, is it possible to build a telescope that powerful that could look that closely at it to know if theres life? (i mean something even as simple as seeing green on it, and coming to assumptions its life)

Cork boy 55

wylo wrote: »

this is exciting stuff, just wondering though , what kind of technology could you have to see if theres life on it, is it possible to build a telescope that powerful that could look that closely at it to know if theres life? (i mean something even as simple as seeing green on it, and coming to assumptions its life)

We could pick up radio/televison waves from it if they are transmitting
Earth's radio and TV signals are being beamed into Space as we speak

from wiki

Indirect search


It is theorized that any technological society in space will be transmitting information, although this is arguable, as there are generally no human systems intentionally, randomly, transmitting information into deep space, so there is no guarantee that any other species would do so, either. Also, the length of time required for a signal to travel across the vastness of space means that any signal detected or not detected would come from the distant past.
Nevertheless, projects such as SETI are conducting an astronomical search for radio activity which would confirm the presence of intelligent life. A related suggestion is that aliens might broadcast pulsed and continuous laser signals in the optical, as well as infrared, spectrum;[26] laser signals have the advantage of not "smearing" in the interstellar medium, and may prove more conducive to communication between the stars. While other communication techniques, including laser transmission and interstellar spaceflight, have been discussed seriously and may well be feasible, the measure of effectiveness is the amount of information communicated per unit cost, resulting with radio as the method of choice

It raises an interesting question
If we go there and we find live at at lower evolved level than ours but intelligent e.g. stone age aliens
Should we colonise them or return to earth?

Sykk

Mrmoe wrote: »

It looks like they may have discovered the first Earth like planet already. Supposedly the chances of life are quite good.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/485014main_orbit_comparison_full_946-710.jpg

Make sure you look at this diagram! ^^ It's pretty nice. Read below first so you understand it!

Comparing the Gliese 581 to Our Solar System
The orbits of planets in the Gliese 581 system are compared to those of our own solar system. The Gliese 581 star has about 30% the mass of our sun, and the outermost planet is closer to its star than we are to the sun. The fourth planet, G, is a planet that could sustain life.

Conor108

As if there wasn't enough excitement swirling around the discovery of a potentially habitable planet circling the star Gliese 581 just 20 light years away, one of the scientists behind yesterday's announcement upped the ante during a press briefing yesterday afternoon, declaring "my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent."

Can open. Worms everywhere.

Its 20 light years away so wouldn't SETI have picked something up by now?

dlofnep

Conor108 wrote: »

Can open. Worms everywhere.

Its 20 light years away so wouldn't SETI have picked something up by now?

SETI won't pick up ALOT of things. It's just not broad enough to do so.

Plug

Conor108 wrote: »

Can open. Worms everywhere.

Its 20 light years away so wouldn't SETI have picked something up by now?

They would if they are intelligent, maybe they are more advanced than us and they have a different way of telecommunications. Or else there is nothing there:o

djhaxman

Conor108 wrote: »

Can open. Worms everywhere.

Its 20 light years away so wouldn't SETI have picked something up by now?

He didn't state what kind of life though, this planet may be at the same stage of development as the earth was 3.5 billion years ago or could have way more advanced life on it than us or most likely none at all.

It's an interesting discovery though. The Gliese system has been a bit of a goldmine for astronomers so far.

Edit : Didn't read Plug's reply

snowstreams

Are all the planets in the "goldilocks" zone of a red dwarf star likely to be tidally locked?
Being tidally locked like gliese 581 g means that the planet probably wouldnt be too hospitable.
The wind and weather on that planet would be extreme to say the least. But once the temperature is right, life could find a way to live.

Nehaxak

Depends what exactly you mean by "life".
Life survives in the most extreme of conditions on earth, not the most intelligent of life forms mind, but enough to reproduce and evolve.
I've absolutely no doubt that life will be found (or proven to exist) elsewhere on another planet in the universe, it's just a matter then of how intelligent that life is compared to our own.

Dave!

Good blog post by Phil Plait...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/29/possible-earthlike-planet-found-in-the-goldilocks-zone-of-a-nearby-star/

Rubecula

Is the planet four times the size of Earth or four times the diameter, or then again four times the mass?

Four times the size would give a higher probability of life as we know it than one four times the diameter which would be huge. Four times the mass would probably be four times the gravity and would be a heavy place to go to.

slade_x

Rubecula wrote: »

Is the planet four times the size of Earth or four times the diameter, or then again four times the mass?

Four times the size would give a higher probability of life as we know it than one four times the diameter which would be huge. Four times the mass would probably be four times the gravity and would be a heavy place to go to.

the average size it could be within a medium margin for error is above 3 earth masses, no smaller, probably not much larger, maybe not even in the order of above 4 or 5

Oh and could be anything up to twice the size of earth, earth having a diameter of approximately 12,000km. gliese g could be anything up to 24,000km across. its gravity would be close enough to earths

TheUsual

Ok.

1./ Is this planet capable of suporting any life and if so can humans visit it ? Telescopes will not tell you that. Venus and Mars will never suport life but may look ok from a long way off.

2./ If the life there is at a similar timeline to our own , radiowaves etc ?
thats why SETI was a failure. Life evolves past this quickly.

3./ Even if we see a planet that could support life and we could colonise, by the time we got there the planet would have changed so much. At sub-light speeds these places are so far away as to be unreachable in the next century or more. Imagine leaving earth in a ship like Noah's Ark and then 2,000 years later a faster Noah's Ark with a better engine catches up with you, wakes you up and says you are obsolete and should go home.

yawnstretch

Screw the scientific name. The planet is called Zarmina. Which is awesome.

What sickens me is how little 99% of the population seem to care. Too concerned with slagging politicians, moping about the economy or watching some retarded reality tv show.

Someone please rescue me from this planet.

djhaxman

yawnstretch wrote: »

Screw the scientific name. The planet is called Zarmina. Which is awesome.

What sickens me is how little 99% of the population seem to care. Too concerned with slagging politicians, moping about the economy or watching some retarded reality tv show.

Someone please rescue me from this planet.

Nailed it right there.

whynotdo

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

We could pick up radio/televison waves from it if they are transmitting
Earth's radio and TV signals are being beamed into Space as we speak

from wiki



It raises an interesting question
If we go there and we find live at at lower evolved level than ours but intelligent e.g. stone age aliens
Should we colonise them or return to earth?

Hi Cork boy this is the basis of the 'Prime directive' in Star Trek, i.e We should not.

Not at all trying to be fickle here but Gene Rodenberry Creator of Star Trek has been proven time and time again to have been a visionary, many of his ideas have become reality.

The shame is barring some HUGH breakthrough We are nowhere near having the technology to travel far:(

TheUsual

whynotdo wrote: »

The shame is barring some HUGH breakthrough We are nowhere near having the technology to travel far:(

Then again look at the speeds that humans travel at now compared to what was possible 60 years ago.
If we survive on Earth long enough then we will have the technology to move to the next planet/moon and setup a colony there.

Gravitational drives with infinite acceleration or tiny black hole engines would be my guess. Gravity is not well understood at all now.

whynotdo

TheUsual wrote: »

Then again look at the speeds that humans travel at now compared to what was possible 60 years ago.
If we survive on Earth long enough then we will have the technology to move to the next planet/moon and setup a colony there.

Hi TheUsual,very good point about the acceleration of speed over such a short period of time in humankinds history but interstellor travel everywhere i have searched is not even at the penny-farthing stage at the moment:(

Gravitational drives with infinite acceleration or tiny black whole engines would be my guess. Gravity is not well understood at all now.

There are some test projects such as Ikrass that are using Solar particles to fuel them,but that is really slow.
Hawkings still insists that gravity can form from'nothing'. if this was proven to be untrue then the big bang theory which is widely being questioned now by many scientists would not add up,imagine if that happened!:eek:
There are only two mainstream theories on how the Universe came to be,without the big bang We would be down to one!
Personally i am starting to take the big bang theory with plenty of questioning,a lot of it just does not stand up to scrutiny as i was first sold on it,but many projects are trying to fill in the blanks,i hope the full theory can be proven/unproven in our lifetime,i think with all the research it may well be.

I am not sure exactly what You mean by Gravitational drives,be interested if You have a good link to read up on it?

I know the two Voyager probes used the gravity of planets to get many for the price of one and eventually leave our Galaxy,but i don.t think that is what You mean,is it?

On a selfish note i want deep Space Manned exploration in My lifetime,too shorthinking and impatient for humankind to achieve 'sometime'!:)

cheers!

old_aussie

Must be May 2011 already

Rubecula

old_aussie wrote: »

Must be May 2011 already

I hope not, that makes me even older. ROFL

Gravity drives? How would that work? You produce artificial gravity and attract everything you pass by, your spaceship would be the size of a planet by the time you got anywhere.... with you in the middle.

slade_x

Rubecula wrote: »

I hope not, that makes me even older. ROFL

Gravity drives? How would that work? You produce artificial gravity and attract everything you pass by, your spaceship would be the size of a planet by the time you got anywhere.... with you in the middle.

objects massive enough noticably distort space and we see it through its bending effects of a light source behind it. every object with mass distorts space to some extent it just has to be large enough of a distortion so we can detect it

The theory behind a gravity drive would be that they could distort space so much that it would then start to overlap on itself so you would have two points practically occupying the same space. both points could be large distances apart and the procedure could be repeatable any number of times. Much like drawing two points on opposite ends of a sheet of a4 paper and then bending or distorting the paper so that the points will meet. in this analogy the paper is the fabric of space time

redt0m

So if we left today in a lightspeed ship and it took us 20 years to get there and if there was intelligent life there observing our ship the whole 20 years, would they see us leave here and arrive at their planet at the same time? Would our trip be instantaneous to them?

Conor108

redt0m wrote: »

So if we left today in a lightspeed ship and it took us 20 years to get there and if there was intelligent life there observing our ship the whole 20 years, would they see us leave here and arrive at their planet at the same time? Would our trip be instantaneous to them?

Think they'd see the journey lasting 20 years, but the people on the ship would experience the journey taking less than 20 years. I think.

NoQuarter

redt0m wrote: »

So if we left today in a lightspeed ship and it took us 20 years to get there and if there was intelligent life there observing our ship the whole 20 years, would they see us leave here and arrive at their planet at the same time? Would our trip be instantaneous to them?

The intelligent life there wouldnt see us for 20 years because the light wouldnt have reached them yet! so as soon as the light reached their eyes they would see us and we would be there?

Thats my take on it

BArra

i saw a doc on discovery by hawking recently, it in theory put a train track going around the world and had a train that travelled at light speed

those passengers on the train aged slower than those on the outside viewing the train pass around the earth

so 10 years on the outside of the train was only 4 for those inside the train travelling at light speed

Conor108

NoQuarter wrote: »

The intelligent life there wouldnt see us for 20 years because the light wouldnt have reached them yet! so as soon as the light reached their eyes they would see us and we would be there?

Thats my take on it

Oh yeah! That makes sense!

TheUsual

BArra wrote: »

i saw a doc on discovery by hawking recently, it in theory put a train track going around the world and had a train that travelled at light speed

those passengers on the train aged slower than those on the outside viewing the train pass around the earth
so 10 years on the outside of the train was only 4 for those inside the train travelling at light speed

No need for a theory, atomic clocks (the most accurate clocks we have now) have been placed on military jets and flown at high speed. When they landed the clocks showed that time experienced on the jets was slower than that experienced by the matched atomic clock on the ground.

One of the big problems with reaching extreme sub-light speeds in the future is not accelerating but slowing down as you need to be able to slow down to land on a far away planet. This is a huge engineering challenge as well, losing velocity is a different engine to getting there in the first place.

rccaulfield

redt0m wrote: »

So if we left today in a lightspeed ship and it took us 20 years to get there and if there was intelligent life there observing our ship the whole 20 years, would they see us leave here and arrive at their planet at the same time? Would our trip be instantaneous to them?

Good question. I'll try figure it out and get back to you. Time is experienced at different rates so as you say 20 years for the earth crew travelling at light speed cannot be 20 years for the observers.
An amazing thing is we can only go at say around 150,000 miles per hour at the moment yet light speed is 66 billion, 9.6 million mph. so in reality 20 light years distance should take us 754 million years. EDIT- MPH figure is wrong here as corrected below-Thanks Snowstream!!!

Alliandre

wylo wrote: »

this is exciting stuff, just wondering though , what kind of technology could you have to see if theres life on it, is it possible to build a telescope that powerful that could look that closely at it to know if theres life? (i mean something even as simple as seeing green on it, and coming to assumptions its life)

If there is life, it could be possible to detect it via it's spectroscopic signature. i.e. certain chemicals detected could indicate life. Actually seeing evidence for life on a planet is a long way off.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

We could pick up radio/televison waves from it if they are transmitting
Earth's radio and TV signals are being beamed into Space as we speak

Beyond a couple of light years TV/radio signals are going to get very noisy and difficult to detect, so there's no guarantee we would pick up anything form so far away.

snowstreams wrote: »

Are all the planets in the "goldilocks" zone of a red dwarf star likely to be tidally locked?
Being tidally locked like gliese 581 g means that the planet probably wouldnt be too hospitable.
The wind and weather on that planet would be extreme to say the least. But once the temperature is right, life could find a way to live.

It is likely that a significant fraction of planets in the habitable zones of M dwarf stars would be tidally locked. However, it doesn't mean there couldn't be life. If the atmosphere was thick enough, conditions might be ok. Especially if there was winds that transported heat from the bright side to the dark side.

Rubecula wrote: »

Is the planet four times the size of Earth or four times the diameter, or then again four times the mass?

Four times the size would give a higher probability of life as we know it than one four times the diameter which would be huge. Four times the mass would probably be four times the gravity and would be a heavy place to go to.

The minimum mass of the planet is 3.1 times the size of the Earth but could be as large as 4.3. The radius is estimated to be between 1.3 and 2 times the size of the Earth, depending on what exactly the planet is made of. The surface gravity could be between 1.1 and 1.7g.

Of course, this is assuming the planet actually exists. It's still hasn't been completely confirmed.

TheUsual wrote: »

Ok.

1./ Is this planet capable of suporting any life and if so can humans visit it ? Telescopes will not tell you that. Venus and Mars will never suport life but may look ok from a long way off.

Venus and Mars could quite possible support microbial life (Mars being way more likely than Venus).

I don't think we're anywhere near being able to tell it a planet is truely habitable. Just because it's orbiting in an area where liquid water could exist, doesn't mean there is any water. And there are many more conditions needed for life (especially intelligent life) other than liquid water.

snowstreams

rccaulfield wrote: »

...
An amazing thing is we can only go at say around 150,000 miles per hour at the moment yet light speed is 66 billion, 9.6 million mph. so in reality 20 light years distance should take us 754 million years...

I think you might have calculated out by a factor of 100. Lightspeed is 671 million mph. But that would still take about 89500 years to get there.

rccaulfield

snowstreams wrote: »

I think you might have calculated out by a factor of 100. Lightspeed is 671 million mph. But that would still take about 89500 years to get there.

Your right sorry-too little sleep and was rushing out the door- 670.6 million mph!

Mr Benevolent

If we focused as much energy on solving our planetary/civilisation problems as we do going to the Moon/Venus/Inhabitable Exoplanet X we'd have a much better life on Earth. I'm pro-space exploration but we are seriously getting ahead of ourselves.

Cú Giobach

Confab wrote: »

If we focused as much energy on solving our planetary/civilisation problems as we do going to the Moon/Venus/Inhabitable Exoplanet X we'd have a much better life on Earth. I'm pro-space exploration but we are seriously getting ahead of ourselves.

Ya, sure why bother with sport and art, why bother exploring the antarctic or the deep ocean, those museums must cost a few bob to keep going as well, lets get rid of them too.

One of the defining characteristics of the human race is our desire to explore, and understand the world and universe we live in.
Maybe we should spend less on ways to and finding new ways to kill each other and put that money into helping society and exploring our surroundings instead (there would be more than enough to go around).

TheUsual

Alliandre wrote: »

Venus and Mars could quite possible support microbial life (Mars being way more likely than Venus).

Not true at all, Venus is a runaway planet in terms of life. Pressure, temperature and the cloak of a permanent cloud make the planet a pure hell. Nothing we see here on earth can survive on Venus and nothing ever will. No scientist would ever argue as Venus being a planet for a colony.

Mars may have had microbial life at some stage in its development but it has no iron core now and never will again. This makes an atmosphere impossible as the solar winds would strip any man-made effort away.

slade_x

TheUsual wrote: »

Not true at all, Venus is a runaway planet in terms of life. Pressure, temperature and the cloak of a permanent cloud make the planet a pure hell. Nothing we see here on earth can survive on Venus and nothing ever will. No scientist would ever argue as Venus being a planet for a colony.

Venus is not a runaway planet in terms of life, it is a runaway planet in terms of trapped greenhouses gases, and undoubtedly yes, any organism we see on earth could probably not survive venus's harsh and extreme atmosphere. That does not preclude that any organism that we have absolutely no idea of or even a basis for a different type of biology could not survive there. we have absolutely no idea about any other life but that of on earth.

TheUsual wrote: »

Mars may have had microbial life at some stage in its development but it has no iron core now and never will again. This makes an atmosphere impossible as the solar winds would strip any man-made effort away.

Your statement make absolutely no sense, mars absolutely has an iron core, it is primarily iron among other elements like nickel and sulphur.

it also has an atmosphere which is primarily carbon dioxide (with very low quantities of argon, nitrogen and oxygen) although it is much much thinner than earths comparatively. Mars' atmosphere is suspected to be so thin because it either has an almost solid core or relatively none of it is left molten to facilitate the currents needed to drive a significant enough electric field to deflect charged particles.

Any man made effort to inhabite mars would be achieved through pressurised domes/ habitats

Rubecula

I have often wondered if future technology could kick start the core of Mars again and give it a magnetic field.

Far fetched I suppose, but who knows what the future holds?

Alliandre

TheUsual wrote: »

Not true at all, Venus is a runaway planet in terms of life. Pressure, temperature and the cloak of a permanent cloud make the planet a pure hell. Nothing we see here on earth can survive on Venus and nothing ever will. No scientist would ever argue as Venus being a planet for a colony.

Mars may have had microbial life at some stage in its development but it has no iron core now and never will again. This makes an atmosphere impossible as the solar winds would strip any man-made effort away.

Please note I said microbial life, not complex life. I'm talking about extremophiles, which have been found in what we consider to be inhospitable places on Earth.

There are a few astronomers who believe that there could be microbes present in Venus' atmosphere. It is a large stretch, yes, but not impossible. While the surface of Venus is to hot and the pressure is too high for life (as we know it), the atmosphere is not so inhospitable. At an altitude of 50km the temperature is around 70 degrees C and has a pressure of one atmosphere. The atmospheric composition there has been found to have some peculiarities, as hydrogen sulphide and sulfur dioxide coexist (they would normally react) so something must be producing them. While volcanic activity can produce these, the altitiude of these concentations does not fit with volcanic activity. Microbes also produce these chemicals, so there is a small chance that they do exist there. This is still contoversial, but not unproven.

Mars has an atmosphere, it's just not very thick and is not sufficient for complex life. While it does look like Mars might have been a habitable planet in the past (though this is still debated), there could still be microbes on Mars today, perhaps beneath the surface. There are some scientists who believe that the Viking experiments did find evidence of microbes, although this isn't widely believed. The "fossil" of a microbe in the meteorite ALH84001 is still being debated. And more recently, methane has been found on Mars. While this could be produced through volcanic activity, there has been no evidence of recent geological activity that would fit this, so it is possible that the methane is produced by microbes.

whynotdo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Ya, sure why bother with sport and art, why bother exploring the antarctic or the deep ocean, those museums must cost a few bob to keep going as well, lets get rid of them too.

Indeed,I forget who it was when asked "Why climb Mt Everest?"said "because it is there"

Many believe that as strong as the Gene's that
drive us to reproduce,We have a Gene to explore,the theory being We are Pre-programmed to to explore in order for the Species to survive even the death of our Sun.

Russia landed probes on Venus,They were built like a tank still only lasted long enough to barely photograph small sections before athmospheric pressures crushed the landers.
The surface looked Literally like how Hell is perceived by many.
hope i can find the CD i used to save My favouries folder to before reinstalling My OS as i had a few photo's from the surface of Venus on it .

maninasia

Alliandre wrote: »

If there is life, it could be possible to detect it via it's spectroscopic signature. i.e. certain chemicals detected could indicate life. Actually seeing evidence for life on a planet is a long way off.



Beyond a couple of light years TV/radio signals are going to get very noisy and difficult to detect, so there's no guarantee we would pick up anything form so far away.



It is likely that a significant fraction of planets in the habitable zones of M dwarf stars would be tidally locked. However, it doesn't mean there couldn't be life. If the atmosphere was thick enough, conditions might be ok. Especially if there was winds that transported heat from the bright side to the dark side.



The minimum mass of the planet is 3.1 times the size of the Earth but could be as large as 4.3. The radius is estimated to be between 1.3 and 2 times the size of the Earth, depending on what exactly the planet is made of. The surface gravity could be between 1.1 and 1.7g.

Of course, this is assuming the planet actually exists. It's still hasn't been completely confirmed.



Venus and Mars could quite possible support microbial life (Mars being way more likely than Venus).

I don't think we're anywhere near being able to tell it a planet is truely habitable. Just because it's orbiting in an area where liquid water could exist, doesn't mean there is any water. And there are many more conditions needed for life (especially intelligent life) other than liquid water.

This should be all termed 'life as we know it'. It's almost 100% likely that there are many different forms of life existing in different habitats and also likely that other types of life forms are more prevalent than ours ...all statistics really. Our type of life on Earth depends on water. Wow, what a coincidence, 70% of the Earth is covered in water!

You are basing your assumptions on an extremely small dataset i.e. the knowledge of Earth in the 21st century. Well that is kind of dumb isn't it...since there are billions of planets and dust clouds and stars and comets in the milky way alone.

In fact you are ignoring the development of silicon/AI based life forms as we are already on the way to artificially creating now!

TheUsual

slade_x wrote: »

That does not preclude that any organism that we have absolutely no idea of or even a basis for a different type of biology could not survive there. we have absolutely no idea about any other life but that of on earth.

Your statement make absolutely no sense, mars absolutely has an iron core, it is primarily iron among other elements like nickel and sulphur.

it also has an atmosphere which is primarily carbon dioxide (with very low quantities of argon, nitrogen and oxygen) although it is much much thinner than earths comparatively. Mars' atmosphere is suspected to be so thin because it either has an almost solid core or relatively none of it is left molten to facilitate the currents needed to drive a significant enough electric field to deflect charged particles.

Any man made effort to inhabite mars would be achieved through pressurised domes/ habitats

Wrong on both counts, Venus is as anti-life as any environment can be in the Universe. Nothing we know as life will exists there and the Russian priobe that was sent there melted. It's an obscene place for any kind of life. Forget it. The technology to survive there would be the same level as suviving the surface of our Sun.

And as for Mars you are wrong, the core is dead and it has no magnetism to deflect solar rays which make it another type of hell. The spinning Iron core we enjoy on Earth does not exist on Mars and so it makes no electro-magnetic defence. Even if we change the climate and add water, it will lose any atmosphere we build there. Mars is as dead and sterile as our moon. And always will be - if you disagree with then you need to do some reading.