Dozens more Kepler exoplanets discovered

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
Astronomers have discovered 41 new alien planets in one sweep by analyzing how each world gravitationally yanks on its neighbors.

The newly confirmed exoplanets were spotted by NASA's prolific Kepler space telescope, which has detected more than 2,300 potential alien worlds since its March 2009 launch. The new finds, announced in two separate papers, bring the number of verified Kepler worlds to 115 and the total exoplanet tally to nearly 800.

"Typically planets are announced one or two at a time — it's quite exceptional to have 27 announced in a single paper, or 41 in two," said Jason Steffen, an astrophysicist at the Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics in Batavia, Ill. Steffen is lead author of one of the studies.



more


Exoplanet Haul: 41 New Alien Worlds Found | Space.com
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Water, water everywhere
DR EMILY BALDWIN
ASTRONOMY NOW
In today’s Water in the Solar System session at the National Astronomy Meeting, compelling evidence was presented that suggests rocky planets hosting water may be commonplace throughout the Milky Way... ... many other stars like our Sun and a little larger, such as Vega and Fomalhaut, might build terrestrial planetary systems. More intriguing is the signature of water, suggesting that the frequency of habitable planets might be greater than previously conceived...
Water, water everywhere

Planet Found in Nearest Star System to Earth
16 October 2012
...astronomers have discovered a planet with about the mass of the Earth orbiting a star in the Alpha Centauri system — the nearest to Earth. It is also the lightest exoplanet ever discovered around a star like the Sun... ...only 4.3 light-years away. It is actually a triple star — a system consisting of two stars similar to the Sun orbiting close to each other, designated Alpha Centauri A and B, and a more distant and faint red component known as Proxima Centauri...
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1241/

wiki:

Current six potential habitable exoplanets ranked by similarity with Earth (Earth = 1.00).
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
I have to say that when we can't even send humans to Mars at this time spending billions globally looking for planets many light years away seems like a big waste of time and money. There are so many worthwhile things that funding could go to that would make immediate positive changes here and now. When we master long distance space travel then we can look for places to go.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,230
11,041
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I have to say that when we can't even send humans to Mars at this time spending billions globally looking for planets many light years away seems like a big waste of time and money. There are so many worthwhile things that funding could go to that would make immediate positive changes here and now. When we master long distance space travel then we can look for places to go.

Why master long distance space travel without a destination for motivation?
 

Johnnny

Frontiersman
Jun 8, 2007
9,388
124
63
Third rock from the Sun
Its all about motivation..... People are soo distracted in our society nowadays that weve become oblivious to their surroundings....

Or

Mabye Nasa knows of the existance of intelligent aliens, and they are just building us up for the grand finale with news of these almost earthlike planets, and water on mars so we wont be totally hysterical when they drop the heavy truth bomb on us....
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
I have to say that when we can't even send humans to Mars at this time spending billions globally looking for planets many light years away seems like a big waste of time and money. There are so many worthwhile things that funding could go to that would make immediate positive changes here and now. When we master long distance space travel then we can look for places to go.

If the space program didnt exist I doubt the government would put the money to better use. They never do. Plus the space program has led to dozens of spin off technologies which many of us use all the time. Without the space program they might not have been invented.

Plus the whole thing is just fascinating. It can help us learn more about how we came to be, or perhaps help us find other places where life could exist. Learning is never a waste of time.

Curiosity and exploration is part of human nature.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Assuming we had technology that could accelerate a space craft at 1G indefinitely, the result for the occupants would be normal gravity. (1G of acceleration would feel the same as earth's gravity)

Effectively acceleration is artificial gravity.

If that space craft accelerated at 1G half way to Proxima Centauri (2.1 lightyears) and then decelerated the final half at 1G, (2.1 lightyears), the trip would take 4 years and the occupants would experience normal earth gravity for most of the trip:

Acceleration: 9.8m/s/s
Distance: 19867533992419680m = 2.1 lightyears (to half way mark x 2 for the entire trip)
Time: 63675731.43642089s = 2 years (to half way mark x 2 for entire trip)
Freefall time/distance/speed Calculator - CalcResult

Speed at the halfway mark: 624,022,168 m/S which is impossible since that would be twice the speed of light (299,792,458 m/S).

I'm not a physicist or an expert in this area, but I believe this means that the time of 4 years would be the time experienced by the spaceships occupants, not the time experienced by the stationary observers on earth. Observers on earth would perceive a longer voyage time because of relativity's time dilation effect. But its the experience of the occupants of the space ship not the stationary observers that counts which would be 4 years. I am unsure of how long this trip would take from the stationary observer's viewpoint, taking into account relativity's time dilation effect.

So yes I believe its feasible to travel to other stars and habitable planets within a lifetime, given a spaceship which can accelerate at 1G indefinitely. We just don't have this technology yet....

FYI: The time to Gliese 581g (the nearest known Habitable Zone planet is 22 light years away) would be 9.2 years using the same technology. ( the further the distance, the longer the period of acceleration, the greater the peak speed, the greater the time dilation effect....)

wiki:

Interstellar traveling speeds

If a space ship is using constant acceleration over interstellar distances, it will approach the speed of light for the middle part of its journey when viewed from the planetary frame of reference. This means that the interesting effects of relativity will become important. The most important effect is that time will appear to pass at different rates in the ship frame and the planetary frame, and this means that the ship's speed and journey time will appear different in the two frames.

Planetary reference frame

From the planetary frame of reference, the ship's speed will appear to be limited by the speed of light—it can approach the speed of light, but never reach it. If a ship is using 0.5g constant acceleration or greater, it will appear to get near the speed of light in about a year, and have traveled about half a light year in distance. For the middle of the journey the ship's speed will be roughly the speed of light, and it will slow down again to zero over a year at the end of the journey.

As a rule of thumb, a constant acceleration ship journey time will be the distance in light years to the destination, plus one year. This rule of thumb will give answers that are shorter than the correct answer, but reasonably accurate no matter what the G force is as long as it is above, say, a half G.

Ship reference frame

From the frame of reference of those on the ship the acceleration will not change as the journey goes on. Instead the planetary reference frame will look more and more relativistic. This means that for voyagers on the ship the journey will appear to be much shorter than what planetary observers see. This is important. It means that a journey that appears to take decades or centuries to planetary observers will take years or decades to the journeyers. This difference makes space commerce feasible for the ship crew even though it looks unfeasible for those on the planet they leave behind. A journey from the sun to the galactic core at 1G constant acceleration takes 340 years as experienced by the ship crew and 30,000 years as experienced by Earth observers.[1]

This is something many readers don't understand well, so it bears repeating: The journey times as experienced by those on the ship are not limited by the speed of light. Instead what they experience is the planetary reference frame getting relativistic.

In the ship frame of reference the amount of acceleration applied will change the journey time: Larger accelerations will produce faster journeys. That same journey to the galactic core will take 244 years at 2G and just 110 years at 10G.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_acceleration#Interstellar_traveling_speeds
 
Last edited:

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Planet Found in Nearest Star System to Earth
16 October 2012
...astronomers have discovered a planet with about the mass of the Earth orbiting a star in the Alpha Centauri system — the nearest to Earth....

;-) What's so new about that? Anyone who remembers Jupiter II, Dr Smith and the Robot knows that's where they were headed....
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
If the space program didnt exist I doubt the government would put the money to better use. They never do. Plus the space program has led to dozens of spin off technologies which many of us use all the time. Without the space program they might not have been invented.
Sure it has created new technologies. Technologies created with public funds that become privately owned and then sold for profit to the original investors. If all the new advances were to belong to the public I might have a different view.

Plus the whole thing is just fascinating. It can help us learn more about how we came to be, or perhaps help us find other places where life could exist. Learning is never a waste of time.
I would rather you pay for your own fascination, I find it mildly interesting at best and don't see why I should pay for something that doesn't really interest me and will not teach us a whole lot because, let's face it, most of this is theory & conjecture not proven fact.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
I would rather you pay for your own fascination, I find it mildly interesting at best and don't see why I should pay for something that doesn't really interest me and will not teach us a whole lot because, let's face it, most of this is theory & conjecture not proven fact.

The government does some things with tax money that I dont approve of either. Its always going to be that way. We're never going to get a consensus on how tax dollars should be spent.

As for the conjecture or lack of proof, the only way to get it is to look for it and do tests. Thats what science is all about.

Sure it has created new technologies. Technologies created with public funds that become privately owned and then sold for profit to the original investors. If all the new advances were to belong to the public I might have a different view.

Regardless of who makes money off of these technologies society at large benefits from its use.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Regardless of who makes money off of these technologies society at large benefits from its use.
You miss the point. We taxpayers get fleeced to fund the research and development of these technologies and then our govt allows some corporation to hold patent rights and fleece us again so we can have the benefit of technology that would not be there if we didn't fund it in the first place. You may think it is ok for 3M or Boeing to use our money to develop a product it then sells back to us but I don't. Anything developed with public funding should, in essence, belong to the public not the corporation that already got paid by us to develop it.

We're never going to get a consensus on how tax dollars should be spent.

I think we could. Define what is an essential service to all citizens (roads, healthcare, education, military) and fund those programs fully. Anything that is not deemed essential to all citizens doesn't get any funding period