Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Find Sun's Twin

mroch writes "Space.com is reporting that astronomers may have found a solar twin -- a star almost exactly like our own Sun. Interesting tidbits from the article include: "The star, 18 Scorpii, sits about 47.5 light-years away in the constellation Scorpio, and has long-been suspected of being Sun-like. [...] The star burns slightly hotter than the Sun, at 5,789 degrees Kelvin compared to 5,777 degrees. It appears to rotate slightly faster than the Sun, taking 23 days to complete a rotation rather than the Sun's 25." It boggles my mind to think that we can measure temperature that exactly from 279,000,000,000,000 miles away, and that they are complaining over a 12-degree difference."

132 comments

  1. Measuring temperature at great distance by Frans+Faase · · Score: 5, Informative

    Distance actually does not matter with respect to the method used to measure the temperature, as long as you have enough light, and there is no disturbing medium in between. Both conditions seems to be met.

    1. Re:Measuring temperature at great distance by KDan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It boggles my mind to think that we can measure temperature that exactly from 279,000,000,000,000 miles away, and that they are complaining over a 12-degree difference.

      Indeed. Go read up on spectrum analysis methods of measuring black body temperatures. It's fairly straightforward actually, because stars are perfect emitters/absorbers (aka "black bodies").

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    2. Re:Measuring temperature at great distance by !the!bad!fish! · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... no disturbing medium ...
      What like this?

      --
      Kids today are tyrants. They contradict their parent, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers. - Socrates 400 BC
    3. Re:Measuring temperature at great distance by drakaan · · Score: 1

      Aaaaaand...she's slashdotted. Well, "exceeded bandwidth usage" anyway.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    4. Re:Measuring temperature at great distance by linzeal · · Score: 1

      More specifically, Wein's Law.

    5. Re:Measuring temperature at great distance by lars-o-matic · · Score: 2, Informative
      quibble:
      stars are perfect emitters/absorbers (aka "black bodies")
      "Perfect", they're not. Spectral analysis relies strongly on the presence of emission / absorption lines. That's how helium (from Greek word for "sun") was discovered: by its emission lines in sunlight. I'd call those "imperfections", even though they're the most useful features!

      Yes, you can measure temperature by the blackbody component of a spectrum, and a nice, hot plasma's spectrum has a very nice blackbody curve overall.

      "Go read up" -- them're fightin' words... :-)
      --
      je ne suis pas un fou
    6. Re:Measuring temperature at great distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      takes all of 10 visitors to barf out those free hosts...why even bother linking to it from here, no one will ever be able to visit that site again

    7. Re:Measuring temperature at great distance by KDan · · Score: 1

      Well, you can only fit so much into two lines targetted at a non-physicist :-P

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
  2. They use spectrometry to measure the heat by ObviousGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    They can determine the temperature by the wavelengths of light given off by the star.

    And those dozen degrees are in Kelvin. These aren't your ordinary units of measurement we're talking about.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by LittleBigLui · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, there's much difference between a delta of 12 degrees kelvin and 12 degrees celcius. OTOH, you USians (and UKians?) with your funny measurements probably measure temperatures in ounces, feet or hands or something. :)

      --
      Free as in mason.
    2. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by TheMidget · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      And those dozen degrees are in Kelvin. These aren't your ordinary units of measurement we're talking about.

      Speak about yourself, Bushlover! I'm a European, and am not using any stinky Fahrenheit!

    3. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by ottawanker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, 12 a degree difference in Kelvin is the same as a 12 degree difference in Celcius.

      Really, you shouldn't use the word 'degree' with the work 'Kelvin' as in the case used in the Story. It's preferable to write simply 5789 Kelvin.

    4. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by Bazzargh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Really, you shouldn't use the word 'degree' with the work 'Kelvin' as in the case used in the Story. It's preferable to write simply 5789 Kelvin.

      Since we're nitpicking... its kelvin, not Kelvin.

    5. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You'd be far more authoritative if you knew how to spell Celsius.

    6. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by fynfuqbg · · Score: 1

      with your funny measurements probably measure temperatures in ounces, feet or hands or something. :)

      or maybe the body temperaure of your wife?

    7. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by kwoff · · Score: 1

      Whether the measures are funny depends on how you look at it I guess, as 373K is as arbitrary as 212F for boiling water. Not to mention you have to memorize arbitrary names like nano and deci in the metric system.

      Temperature could be measured in fractions of an inch if you're looking at the wavelength of the light.

      (And a delta of 12K is the same as a delta of 12C.)

    8. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I know, I spotted that little mistake after I made my post..

    9. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1
      (And a delta of 12K is the same as a delta of 12C.)


      Exactly, that's why i found that whole "That's not your ordinary degrees, that's Kelvin" thing funny, because for me "ordinary degrees" = Celsius.
      --
      Free as in mason.
    10. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by Nos. · · Score: 2, Informative
      Whether the measures are funny depends on how you look at it I guess, as 373K is as arbitrary as 212F for boiling water. Not to mention you have to memorize arbitrary names like nano and deci in the metric system.

      Actually, if anything Kelvin is a lot less 'arbitrary' than Farenheit. Kelvin is based on Celsius, with the only difference being the 0K is absolute zero (there are no negatives on the Kelvin scale). Celsius is based on wanter. 0 for freezing, and 100 for boiling. Unlike F, which is loosely based on the body temperature of a feverish woman.

      So, if you look at it, Kelvin is anything but arbitrary when you are referring to state changes of water.

    11. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you USians (and UKians?) with your funny measurements probably measure temperatures in ounces, feet or hands or something. :)

      That's nothing! Germans measure the capacity of a condensator in bicycles!

    12. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by StarWreck · · Score: 1, Funny

      Measuring the temperature of a star is no problem, no matter how long the distance. All you need to do is compare the number of Linux users to the number of Windows users. If the solar system has more Windows users, the star is naturally going to produce more heat due to the pent up frustrations of end-users caused by Windows crashing on a daily basis. Our own Star is only a mere 12 degrees cooler because of the growing number of Linux users to have alleviated themselves of Windows Hell.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    13. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by turgid · · Score: 1

      Yes, and not just any old part of the body: he used her armpit. They had very smelly armipts in those days :-( It must have been a labour of love.

    14. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by drakaan · · Score: 2, Informative
      Celsius is based on wanter. 0 for freezing, and 100 for boiling. Unlike F, which is loosely based on the body temperature of a feverish woman.

      Well, unless I'm mistaken, water has different boiling and freezing points at different pressures..."less arbitrary" is probably not as good a description as "more consistent on earth at sea level".

      Kelvin, being based on Celsius, (which is arbitrary because it's boundaries are defined by the reaction of a substance that is only reliable under specific conditions...pressure of about 1 atmosphere) is arbitrary as well make 1,000,000 degrees kelvin equal to the temperature of the hottest observable radiating body in the known universe (or something equally sensible), and I'll agree that it's not arbitrary...for a while ;)

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    15. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by GeoGreg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, 1/100 of the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at sea level is more closely tied to a measurable physical quantity than the Farenheit scale, but the size of the degree is no less arbitrary. It's just an artifact of using a base-10 numbering system. If I were Babylonian, I might use a temperature scale where the boiling point of water is 60 degrees instead of 100. Here's the definition of the SI unit kelvin, courtesy of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology: The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water. Gotta love 1/273.16!

    16. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by __aaaaxm1522 · · Score: 1
      "these aren't your ordinary units of measurement we're talking about"?

      Yes. They are.

      An increment of 1 degree Kelvin is exactly the same as a 1 degree Celsius increment. The difference between the two scales is only where the 0 is.

      0 degrees Kelvin is absolute zero, or -273.15 degrees Celsius (approximately). 0 degrees Celsius is 273.15 degrees Kelvin. To convert between the two, simply add or subtract 273.15 depending on the direction of conversion.

      For example: 1 degree Celsius would be 273.15 K + 1 K = 274.15 Kelvin.

    17. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by mroch · · Score: 1

      Kelvin is the same scale as Celsius, except that it starts from absolute zero instead of the freezing point of water. A 12 degree Kelvin difference is only about 53.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

    18. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      And it should be plural. 5789 kelvins.

    19. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cause 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water makes so much more sense.

    20. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Yes, how sad it is to remember a standardized set of prefixes such as nano or deci. I mean, it could be useful and stuff.

    21. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you read this link, and learn about the Celsius scale?

      http://www.astro.uu.se/history/celsius_scale.htm l

      And when you've finished reading that, go look up more information in Google. Then, you'll have something to impress mommy with tonight.

      And to the idiots modding these people up as informative... STOP! They don't know what they are talking about!

    22. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by chaoticset · · Score: 1

      Temperature measured in hands would be pretty hardcore -- how much does mercury have to expand for its height to go up about 6 inches?!

      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
    23. Re:They use spectrometry to measure the heat by drakaan · · Score: 1
      So, "unless I'm mistaken" covers the freezing point, and I'm right about the boiling point.

      Oh, and *my* mommy can beat up *your* (AC) mommy! So there! (tongue sticking out, etc.)

      And to the other ACpedants bitching about the modding, log in and quit posting AC, then you can have your OWN mod points to rectify situations like this...

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  3. Measuring a star's temperature. by DjReagan · · Score: 4, Informative

    IIRC, the temperature is measured by the colour of the sun. That doesn't change the further away you get, so its just as accurate over long distances as short. However, there is the problem of dopler shift if the stars are moving away/toward each other.

    --
    "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    1. Re:Measuring a star's temperature. by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doppler shift should not be a problem, you can always determine the shift rate from the known frequency of certain absorption lines in the spectrum and reference your spectrum to those lines.

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    2. Re:Measuring a star's temperature. by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Informative
      IIRC, the temperature is measured by the colour of the sun. That doesn't change the further away you get, so its just as accurate over long distances as short. However, there is the problem of dopler shift if the stars are moving away/toward each other.

      True, with minor nitpicks. Temperature is indeed based on careful spectroscopic measurement of colour. However, intervening interstellar dust will slightly redden the appearance of more distant stars. (Shorter, bluer wavelengths are scattered more effectively by dust than longer, redder wavelengths.) Consequently, a correction must be made for this.

      Doppler shift is virtually a non-issue. A few kilometres per second will have an essentially negligible effect. Faster relative movement is readily corrected using known features of stars' spectra--hydrogen absorption lines, for instance, will always appear at the same wavelength, allowing a correction to be applied to the rest of the spectrum.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    3. Re:Measuring a star's temperature. by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      ... assuming the speed of light in vacuo is constant.

      (No, I'm not saying that it isn't!)
      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
  4. Earth's twin? by eggstasy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What do we know about that star and its surroundings? Is it likely to have inhabitable planets or is it bathed by lethal radiation from neighboring novas?
    How long before we can actually check these stars for Earth-like planets? Last I heard, we now had the ability to detect planets slightly smaller than Jupiter. Will we find, or even see, an inhabitable planet within a few decades?

    1. Re:Earth's twin? by Kickasso · · Score: 1
      Just point a big dish in its general direction and send them this message:

      APPLE UNVEILS IPOD MINI, XSERVE G5

      In 100 years time we will know the answer :)

    2. Re:Earth's twin? by chaoticset · · Score: 1
      How long before we can actually check these stars for Earth-like planets?
      The real question is how long it will be before we can create Earth-like planets to orbit new stars we find.
      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
  5. Self-serving false definition of fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Fascism:Extreme right-wing dictatorial government,belligerently nationalist,that merges state and business leadership"

    To make it more accurate, scratch "right-wing". This opens it up to the majority of fascist governments, which have in fact been left-wing. You have also left out the part about "stringent socioeconomic controls", which is another hallmark of left-wing fascist governments (with their higher taxes, and takeover of such economic sectors as health care where government has no business meddling).

    1. Re:Self-serving false definition of fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. That sig is so god damn old. I got it off some website and made it fit the 120 character limit as best i could. Left wing, right wing, who cares. That's an artificial division anyway. Extremists left and right more or less amount to the same. What matters is the corrupt and collusive behavior of powerful men, and how it infringes on people's rights. FWIW I am a european so it's not meant as an attack on whatever american political faction you favor the most.

  6. Kelvin, not degrees Kelvin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    nt

  7. Degrees Kelvin, not Kelvin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the National Academies Press

    "LORD KELVIN. Honored for his contributions to science and to the British realm, hailed as a genius, courted for his charm and wit, feared for his sharp tongue and intimidating manner - and ultimately ridiculed by his peers who labeled him a dabbler, a pretender of the worst sort. "

    "Charismatic, confident, and boyishly handsome, Thomson was elevated to the peerage by the Queen for his achievements. Indeed, his name survives in the designation of degrees Kelvin, the temperature scale on which absolute zero is defined. Lauded for his brilliance, Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, was Great Britain's unrivaled scientific hero."

    1. Re:Degrees Kelvin, not Kelvin by ottawanker · · Score: 5, Informative

      From The U.S. Metric Association

      The kelvin (K) temperature scale is an extension of the degree Celsius scale down to absolute zero, a hypothetical temperature characterized by a complete absence of heat energy. Temperatures on this scale are called kelvins, NOT degrees kelvin, kelvin is not capitalized, and the symbol (capital K) stands alone with no degree symbol. [In 1967 the new official name and symbol for "kelvin" were set by the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM).]

    2. Re:Degrees Kelvin, not Kelvin by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      Your link isn't normative, for reference, and I've always seen the plural of kelvin as kelvin. I can't find any examples in official documentation, but for example I can find examples of "zero kelvin" in NIST documents, and as we know zero takes the plural.

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    3. Re:Degrees Kelvin, not Kelvin by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      Here's the NIST link for spelling of SI units. According to this document, the only SI units that use irregular plurals in English are lux, hertz, and siemens, which are unchanged in the plural. All other plurals are to be formed using the standard rules of English pluralization. So the plural of kelvin is kelvins, and one would spell out a temperature as "300 kelvins", although NIST recommends using the symbol for scientific communication to reduce ambiguity.

    4. Re:Degrees Kelvin, not Kelvin by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      They don't follow their own norms then!
      However, it's worse than that - they fuck up grandly in places.

      5 million Kelvin ('K', no 's')
      physics.nist.gov/TechAct.2001/Div842/div842h .html

      ten million degrees Kelvin (degree, 'K', no 's')
      physics.nist.gov/TechAct.2000/Div842/div842h .html

      20 Kelvin ('K', no 's')
      http://physics.nist.gov/News/Update/960708.h tml

      10 million degrees Kelvin (degree, 'K', no 's')
      http://physics.nist.gov/News/Update/950109.h tml ...

      In fact I can find more fuckups than 'kelvins' on physics.nist.gov!
      And even some of those kelvins are actually Kelvins, thus fuckups too.

      20 Kelvins
      physics.nist.gov/News/Update/930517.html

      We don't need no steeenkin standards!

      I agree that the symbolic form is more appropriate for almost all cases. However, I have a techy bent.

      YAW

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    5. Re:Degrees Kelvin, not Kelvin by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      Heh. I can't say that I'm surprised. It's hard to keep people from writing whatever they are used to.

  8. Just as predicted by Sklivvz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    [C:\>net send all This is a joke!]
    So where's the news? It was already predicted somewhere else. Also, they predicted the failure of the Beagle...

    Nothing to see here move along... :-)

  9. hey idiot mroch by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "... and that they are complaining over a 12-degree difference."

    Who's complaining?

    Observation != complaint.

    for my 2 pence, this twin bit is just bunkum

    They are 0.3 billion years different in age (presumably USian billions)

    Which is almost 10% of their total age, that's like your human twin being born when you are 8 years old but you both weigh the same!

    It is a bad analogy.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:hey idiot mroch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no! It's in THEMian billions.

  10. oops I meant 4 years old by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    seeing as they are currently 50% through their expected lifespan

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  11. Does this have to be off-topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does this have to be off-topic? How about that planet in Star Trek that was just like Earth, but it was run by Nazis.

  12. Re:hey idiot DrSkwid - 40 years by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    god damn these robotic eyes

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  13. 50 closest, closest matches to the sun by nimblebrain · · Score: 5, Informative

    I like David Nash's list of 50 nearby sunlike stars within 50 light years.

    18 Scorpii is on there, as is the infamous Tau Ceti. 18 Scorpii was one of the four closest matches.

    --
    Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers :)
    1. Re:50 closest, closest matches to the sun by Red+Rocket · · Score: 4, Funny


      Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers :)

      Lots of people do this. Just the other day, a guy in traffic showed me the how he could convert the decimal number 4 into binary. :)

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    2. Re:50 closest, closest matches to the sun by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      Me and my 3 mates got kicked out of a pub for trying to order 4 beers once. On the way out the door I wondered if changing my order to 12 pints would make them more want my custom, but it didn't.

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    3. Re:50 closest, closest matches to the sun by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      "...the infamous Tau Ceti..."

      How is Tau Ceti infamous?

    4. Re:50 closest, closest matches to the sun by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      How is Tau Ceti infamous?

      geez, everybody knows that. ;)

      I think he's referring to Tau Ceti being the first solar system observed by SETI. SETI is just a bunch of whackjob kooks, doncha know, so everything they touch is tained and infamous.

      Or maybe Tau Ceti just has a colorful entry in the Guide. :)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:50 closest, closest matches to the sun by nimblebrain · · Score: 1

      Well, at 11.9 light-years away, it's the closest unary G-class star, so it has made its appearance in a number of science fiction novels (Transition, The Sails of Tau Ceti, Arthur C. Clarke's The Fountains of Paradise, C. Cherryh's Cyteen, etc. etc. etc.) and video games (System Shock, Marathon).>/p>

      It's not always the focus, but is even more often simply referred to as a colony. I guess too close = not exotic enough for some folks :)

      P.S. Whatever you do, for goodness sake's, don't flash 132 in binary at anyone :)

      --
      Binary geeks can count to 1,023 on their fingers :)
    6. Re:50 closest, closest matches to the sun by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't these things just make it famous?

  14. I don't believe it, how can they possibly know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They determine the temperature of a star, based on the light it gives off? That is bogus. What if something in between the star and Earth is changing the wavelength of the light? I can shine a light-bulb through a green sheet of plastic, and change it, but the temperature of the bulb doesn't change.

    1. Re:I don't believe it, how can they possibly know? by eXtro · · Score: 1

      You don't change the wavelength of the light, you just absorb the wavelengths which don't make up green.

    2. Re:I don't believe it, how can they possibly know? by PaSTE · · Score: 3, Informative

      Astronomers look at the spectrum of the star--the relative intensities of each wavelength of light produced by the star's heat. Assuming the star is a black-body radiator (which isn't totally true, but pretty darn close), using first principles you can solve for the temperature of such and object as a function of the peak wavelength of light radiated. See "Thermal Physics" by C. Kittel and H. Kroemer for a better discussion.

      Also, single wavelength filters (like your green sheet of plastic) aren't a natural byproduct of nature, and wouldn't be found between here and the aformentioned star. What would would find, however, is interstellar dust, or clouds of hydrogen, helium, lithium, and other light elements. When the light passes through these clouds, certain frequencies of light are absorbed, and certian frequencies are flouresced, but these frequencies are predictable, and the overall shape (and especially the peak) of the spectrum is not changed beyond recognition. "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by D. Griffiths and "Introduction to Astronomy and Astrophysics" by Zeilik and Gregory should help you out with spectra and spectral lines.

      --
      /*No comment*/ #No comment //No comment ;No comment 'No comment REM No comment !No
    3. Re:I don't believe it, how can they possibly know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That is bogus"?

      Ted! Dude! You should know better. If Rufus can send me and you back thru time in a phone booth man, then I think those awesome astronomers might have totally found a way to detect the temperature of a star by its colour, and accounting for the presence of interfering media by examining the absorption lines in the star's spectra. Like totally, dude!

    4. Re:I don't believe it, how can they possibly know? by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      What if something in between the star and Earth is changing the wavelength of the light? I can shine a light-bulb through a green sheet of plastic, and change it

      Wrong. Your filter can reduce the brightness at various wavelengths, but you CANNOT(*) change the wavelength. You can forget about brightnesses and calculate the temperature by measuring frequency behaviours.

      (*) Footote: Yes, there are a handful of materials that can double or halve the wavelength of light, but there is no way in hell an enormous windowpane of some obscure mineral is sitting between us and another star - and if there were then we would blatantly see frequency doubling or halving.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  15. Interseteller Probes by T.Hobbes · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm undoing my moderations to post this, but:

    does anyone here know what advances would be necessary to send probes & recover data about nearby star systems? Ion drives seem to be moving in the right direction, to use a phrase, but would they be sufficient in longevity & speed to make a multi-light year journey? And what sort of remote communication would be possible at such distances?
    A corollory to this is, does anyone know what (if any) systems the Voyager spacecraft are going to encounter, and when?

    1. Re:Interseteller Probes by turgid · · Score: 3, Interesting
      does anyone here know what advances would be necessary to send probes & recover data about nearby star systems?

      Would it be possible to use the sun for a gravitational assist to "slingshot" something at realativistic speeds, and out of the solar system, or would practical considerations (tidal forces, acceleration, heat) get in the way?

      How about a huge solar sail? Would an RTG be any use for on-board electrical supply, or even a very small fission reactor using plutonium or enriched U, or even used as an ion drive?

    2. Re:Interseteller Probes by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Well, given the problems that present launches have with getting to Mars, I think that some steps backwards in design need to be made. Pull out the design of Voyager and learn why it lasted this long, and improve on it, to make something that's durable, like Voyager, with more modren information gathering techniques.

      Unfortantly, i don't think that the Voyager craft will meet up any systems, at least not while under power, as I think they have about 20 years left before thier power is gone.

    3. Re:Interseteller Probes by jhoffoss · · Score: 3, Funny

      What I want to know is would it be possible to fly backwards around the sun faster than the speed of light and travel back in time?

      --
      Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
    4. Re:Interseteller Probes by ajagci · · Score: 1

      Pull out the design of Voyager and learn why it lasted this long,

      Let's see. Oh, look here: Voyager isn't attempting to crash at high speeds onto a planet with almost no atmosphere. Instead, we gave it a shove and it's just floating away passively now, far away from any body that could harm it. Maybe that could just be the reason???

    5. Re:Interseteller Probes by Uma+Thurman · · Score: 1

      The sun can't be used for a gravitational assist, at least not for an launch from something orbiting the sun. A gravitational assist transfers the momentum of a planet to the spacecraft. If we go around the back side of the planet, the planet drags the spacecraft in the direction that it's moving. Since we're already orbiting the sun, we're moving on average at the same speed and direction as the sun, so we can't gain any more momentum from the sun.

      --
      This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
    6. Re:Interseteller Probes by ajagci · · Score: 2, Informative
      From NASA:
      Eventually, the Voyagers will pass other stars. In about 40,000 years, Voyager 1 will drift within 1.6 light years (9.3 trillion miles) of AC+79 3888, a star in the constellation of Camelopardalis. In some 296,000 years, Voyager 2 will pass 4.3 light years (25 trillion miles) from Sirius, the brightest star in the sky . The Voyagers are destined--perhaps eternally--to wander the Milky Way.

      This answers the question of what advances are needed. Basically, we need either laser-powered solar sails, or we need antimatter propulsion. Even then, the trip would still take a long time and be enormously expensive.
    7. Re:Interseteller Probes by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Would it be possible to use the sun for a gravitational assist to "slingshot" something at realativistic speeds, and out of the solar system...?

      Did you just read Rendezvous with Rama? :)
      The answer is probably "no" because anything launched from Earth will be in orbit around Sol. If you're in orbit around a body, you're stuck in its gravity well. You'll always need to expend (or capture) some kind of energy to escape that well and that amount of energy is a fixed quantity. For example, the Voyager probes used a combination of rocket fuel and planetary gravity-assists to escape Sol's gravity well. Note that they were never captured in the gravity wells of the planets they received the assists from. Another interesting case is the Galileo probe which, although it was at one time captured in Earth's gravity well, took a couple of loops around Sol and then came back by Earth for a boost (twice, IRRC.)
      I've always wondered how much energy has been transferred from planetary motion to man-made spacecraft because of gravity-assist maneuvers. How much have their orbits changed? In a hundred thousand years, may Earth be in a position to be struck by an asteroid when it wouldn't have before? Or might it not be in that position when it would have before? Things to ponder when you start tinkering with the heavens.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    8. Re:Interseteller Probes by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That's rather interesting. I wonder...remember this story about the fact that we don't seem to need a leap second anymore? If the Earth transferred enough energy to other bodies, we would drop into a lower, faster orbit around the sun.

      That said, I seriously, seriously doubt we've transferred enough energy to tiny spacecraft to accomplish this.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Interseteller Probes by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      Hmm. The old rocketry problem - you need reaction material to throw out the back end in order to push yourself, but then you need more reaction material to lift the reaction material itself - really makes useful travel between stars difficult.

      Ion drives are better about that than rockets, but they still need fuel, so the problem is still there, just smaller. Given the very small acceleration of current ion drives, you'd want to be accelerating just over half the way there, then turn around and decelerate for the second half. (the deceleration will take less time because you'll mass less by then, having used about half your fuel). I'm not sure exactly how the math works out, but I think that cuts the useful range down to a couple light years at best. Another problem is that while chemical rockets burn all on their own, ion drives require electricity. You can't get enough electricity for free (solar) in between stars - you need to bring your own. This means going nuclear, but right now we can only get fission to work - and we can only get it to work for 50 years before replacing the fuel. That severely limits our range. Even if you could instantly accelerate to (and later decelerate from) a blistering 10 percent of lightspeed, you'd still only be able to go 5 light years.

      The only workable solution we have right now is to cheat and not send any fuel with the probe at all - use a solar sail. Sit a massively overpowered laser here and fire it at the probe for as long as we can keep the laser running, and that underweight little unmanned probe will accelerate nicely. Of course it'll probably still take decades to get to even the closest neighboring star, and it'll be going so fast that the only way to slow down will be to turn the sail around and dive into the star and hope its direction is reversed before it gets too close :) (full disclosure: I'm stealing this concept from "The Mote In God's Eye" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Good read.)

      Alternately, we might be able to get a fusion pulse engine working, maybe even within the next decade. It works by getting the reaction up to high pressure and then venting all hot stuff out the back. In other words, it doesn't require a sustained reaction, but it requires one where we extract enough power from it to start the next cycle. We're super close to this already. This provides lots and lots of acceleration, and should be efficient enough to make sending out a probe worth the effort.

      The communication is fairly easy - aim the signal right at our sun and send as usual - but due to the lightlag (several years!) it would mostly be one-way communication once the probe was more than a few years out. We'd be able to hear the probe - we'll just use a really big dish to pick up the signal - but the probe won't be able to hear us. The probe would have to be smart enough to do the whole mission without our help.

    10. Re:Interseteller Probes by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Various mars probes have failed not only in landing, but in thransit.

      It's better to over engineer it and make it so that it will endure more than you beleive it will encounter. It'll hit murphy's law anyway, but it may come out okay.

  16. billions by DjReagan · · Score: 1

    >(presumably USian billions)


    US and UK billions are now both 1,000,000,000. The UK changed some time ago in order to make financial reports and transactions across the atlantic a lot less ambiguous.

    --
    "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    1. Re:billions by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      ah, thanks for that

      makes me sad though

      was it really so difficult to say one thousand million?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:billions by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      At least you can still say one milliard.

    3. Re:billions by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      the USians had better start learning that one for when the national debt gets that high.

      So a trillion is what I used to call a billion.

      At least I now I can put the US $374 billion budget deficit into numbers.

      $374,000,000,000

      George W. Bush inherited a $127 billion fiscal surplus but ran through all of that and more in his first year. He has turned a $5.6 trillion 10 year forecast surplus into a $3+ trillion forecast loss-an almost unimaginable reversal of $9 trillion in only three years. And this, in an economy that has grown for ten of the last twelve quarters.

      USA #1

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:billions by Quikah · · Score: 1
      the USians had better start learning that one for when the national debt gets that high.
      Why? A milliard is a billion. Why would we need to use a UKian word for something we already have a word for?
      --
      Q.
    5. Re:billions by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      lol, my stupidity

      even though I saw the exponent I didn't link the two.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  17. Wrong distance... by understress · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, that distance would be more like 2.7862056^14 miles.
    186,000 miles/second x 60 seconds/minute x 60 minutes/hour x 24 hours/day x 365 days/year x 47.5 years.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, only stupid people asking questions.
    1. Re:Wrong distance... by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      Dude, if you're going to insist on filling your answer with so many digits of precision, you need your data to have that many to begin with.

      You have only 3 digits of precision in both your speed of light (186 000) and your distance in light-years (47.5), so it's 2.79 x 10^14 mi.

    2. Re:Wrong distance... by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      But he has even fewer digits of precision in the the "60"s, the number of seconds per minute and minutes per hour!

      (yes, I know.)

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    3. Re:Wrong distance... by understress · · Score: 1

      You are correct. That was a quick calculator calculation, and I just copied the answer from the screen.
      I should have known better, too early in the morning. I was just suprised that no one else had noticed the distance was so far off.

      --
      There are no stupid questions, only stupid people asking questions.
    4. Re:Wrong distance... by Nynaeve · · Score: 1

      It boggles my mind to think that we can measure temperature that exactly from 279,000,000,000,000 miles away
      What do you mean wrong distance? This is correct: 2.79 * 10^14 -- you only have three significant digits unless you specify the 47.5 light-year term with more precision.

    5. Re:Wrong distance... by understress · · Score: 1

      OK, i need to insert my foot into my mouth now. This just proves that I need to think more before posting.
      My thought process was after reading the article post was:

      - 279,000,000,000,000 miles?
      - Wow, light travels 186,000 miles per SECOND (roughly)
      - There can't be nearly enough zeros in that distance.
      - Calculate the value.
      - 2.79 * 10^14 sure sounds a lot bigger than 279,000,000,000,000 (at least to my feeble mind).
      - Post to Slashdot and look like an idiot!

      That said, my apologies to simoniker.

      --
      There are no stupid questions, only stupid people asking questions.
  18. Re:They use...: arbitrary names... by Zangief · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, these arbitrary names come after greek words. They used these words to refer to small things, so scientists, centuries after them, use these words to refer to powers of ten.

    If you are measuring in inches, you have to memorize arbitrary numbers, because there are 5280 inches in one mile, and 12 inches in a feet, which makes calculations cumbersome and prone to error.

    Metric system is intuitive, because every unit is a power of ten of a meter. This is the only thing arbitrary.

    Face it. Metric system r00lZ! Any other system sucks!!

  19. Lookie: by Kickasso · · Score: 1

    If we send a probe now, in the next X years we'll be able to send a better probe. It will go faster and arrive sooner than the first one.

    1. Re:Lookie: by turgid · · Score: 1
      It will go faster and arrive sooner than the first one.

      Why's that? Will the speed of light be increasing in the future? :-)

  20. The first one by Kickasso · · Score: 1

    isn't very likely to go at c. 0.0001c is more realistic :)

  21. Political Wings Explained:for the hard-of-thinking by turgid · · Score: 1

    "Left-wing" and "right-wing" are relative terms. The "right wing" is the Establishment and the "left wing" is the anti-Establishment. Therefore in a conventional Western democracy, "right wing" refers to capitalism (and liberalism?) where that is the Establishment, and "left wing" refers to radical alternatives like Communism, Anarchism etc. In SOVIET RUSSIA, by contrast, the Establishment was the Communist Party, and therefore the "right wing" in that particular country. This is completely off-topic but it's something I've been dying to shout about in public for years.

  22. Re:They use...: arbitrary names... by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 1
    You know, these arbitrary names come after greek words.

    In fact, nano is Italian and means dwarf.

    And if you go a bit further:
    femto and atto are Danish (I guess) and mean fifteen and eighteen (digits). Easy, isn't it?

    --
    Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
  23. Re:Political Wings Explained:for the hard-of-think by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative
    The "right wing" is the Establishment and the "left wing" is the anti-Establishment. Therefore in a conventional Western democracy, "right wing" refers to capitalism (and liberalism?) where that is the Establishment, and "left wing" refers to radical alternatives like Communism, Anarchism etc.

    No.

    "Left" and "right" have their origins in the seating arrangements of a pre-Revolution French parliament. Nobles sat on the right, commoners (or rather, their representatives, who weren't quite so common) sat on the left. Thus, generally, being on the right was to support the privileged class; being on the left was to support the common people and more equality.

    In their modern forms, the right supports (and usually hopes to join) the "privileged nobles" of the capitialist class, those to whom the state has granted control of the means of production; the left seeks a more equitable arrangement, supporting the rights and interests of the "common" laborers.

    Properly, "right" and "left" refer to economic arrangements. Using them to talk about the orthogonal political dimensions of legislated morality and foreign policy results in great confusion.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  24. Re:Political Wings Explained:for the hard-of-think by Uma+Thurman · · Score: 1

    There you go. That's why I spend quite a bit of time and mod points pointing out to idiots that when they trash the "damn liberals" they don't know what they are talking about. The Republican party in the US sure loves to conflate every boogeyman in the book.

    Liberal and proud.

    --
    This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
  25. Earth's twin, 300e6 years ago by RobertB-DC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What do we know about that star and its surroundings? Is it likely to have inhabitable planets...

    As cool as it is to find a star that's a twin to ours, it's incredibly unlikely that we'll find a planet even remotely similar to Earth.

    For one thing, the article notes that 18 Sco is 4.2 billion years old, while Sol is 4.5 billion years old. If everything else were exactly equal, it would be like stepping back 300 million years back in time. A quick Google finds that one of the more complex forms of life found 300e6 years ago on this planet was the Velvet Worm -- not a species known for its technology.

    But even that is unlikely, given the Earth's unusual formation. This planet has an unusual mix of minerals on its crust, plus plate tectonics to keep them mixed, and an iron core that's magnetic enough to keep out the sun's ionizing radiation. Plus, a moon big enough to stir up the oceans, and a tilt to generate asymmetrical solar heating... and all that apparently due to a one-in-a-million collision between a proto-Earth and a Mars-sized planet not long after Sol formed.

    I can't find the quote, but someone calculated the odds of finding another sentient species as tiny. It's not that it doesn't develop elsewhere in the galaxy... there are billions of chances, so surely more than one came up all 7s. It's just that the distances are so vast, and the chances of favorable development so small, that entire civilizations (or species) could rise and fall by the time their transmissions reach another civilization's satellite dishes.

    But still, at less than 50 light years, it would only take a few hundred years to get there and back. Are the generation ships ready yet?

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Earth's twin, 300e6 years ago by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      do we really know enough to assume that sentient life is only possible in conditions similar to earth? Can we rule out life developing in silicon compounds, plasmas, or even (as Cairns-Smith believes could have happened on Earth) clay?

    2. Re:Earth's twin, 300e6 years ago by SB9876 · · Score: 1

      The fact is that we really don't have any firm data on how easily life arises and how often it evolves intelligence. A 300,000,000 year difference in the age of the star is probably largely irrelevant to the probability that it has intelligent life versus our own.

      Life on our own planet spent the 1st 2.5-3.5^9 years on this planet being unicellular. Only in the last ~650^6 years have complex organisms been around to our knowledge. All of the genetic and fossil evidence seem to point toward the evolution of multicellular life as being something of a fluke - a stochastic event. Therefore it is quite possible that complex life on this planet could have easily shown up a full billion years ahead of schedule. Or it could have been just as likely that the Earth would be still covered in nothing more advanced than stromatolites.

    3. Re:Earth's twin, 300e6 years ago by mroch · · Score: 1

      Even if there are no little green men or other humanoids to talk to, it would be a monumentally important opportunity to be able to look back 300 million years and get a clue as to how life formed on our own planet.

    4. Re:Earth's twin, 300e6 years ago by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

      firs we quabble over a delta of 12 kalvin, now we fight over 300 million years.

      The way I see it why dont we go there an colonize the planet before any inteligent life forms so we dont have to have some giant war over it.

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    5. Re:Earth's twin, 300e6 years ago by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Velvet Worm -- not a species known for its technology.

      Don't forget the star is 12 degrees warmer, who knows what those Velvet Worms could have accomplished with an extra 12 degrees! :D

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  26. Re:They use...: arbitrary names... by drakaan · · Score: 1
    I guess everybody is just gonna let that "5280 inches in one mile" comment go, so...

    12in = 1ft

    3ft = 1 yd

    1760yd = 1 mi

    63360in = 1 mi

    Sometimes I long for the good old days of the dram and the cubit...

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  27. awesome.. by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    Now scientists just need to solve that little problem of us not being able to travel one light year yet, let alone 47 and we're good to go.

  28. metrics by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    It boggles my mind to think that we can measure temperature that exactly from 279,000,000,000,000 miles away, and that they are complaining over a 12-degree difference."

    Considering the fact that they used the same method to measure the temp of this new sun as they probably used to measure the tmep of our existing sun which is also considerably far away (albeit it closer to us) I'd say the measurements are just as accurate as they could be.

  29. wow! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    That's almost as amazing as finding one's "hand twin!" I know I'd pay good money to see twin stars showcased in some type of entertainment venue. Gosh.

  30. Re:Political Wings Explained:for the hard-of-think by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

    "This is completely off-topic but it's something I've been dying to shout about in public for years."

    You've had your chance to announce to the world that you're an ignorant fool.

    Congratulations.

    Welcome to my pile of -1s, you'll be in good company.

    YAW

    --
    Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
  31. Self Acronym Nazification by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


    Better catch this before someone else jumps on it -- IRRC should be IIRC.
    I apologize for any computer crashes, wars, or deaths this may have caused.

    --
    - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  32. What about tall structures. by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

    Don't we also affect spin by moving mass around on the earth? Building large buildings slightly slow the spin, while filling in sea level areas with fill-dirt from higher regions would counter-it. Of course, all of this should be an extremely small effect, right?

    --

    www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

    www.fairtax.org
    1. Re:What about tall structures. by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Don't we also affect spin...

      Nothing near to what the drag from the tides do. The tidal drag will slow Earth's rotation down until it's locked with Luna's orbit. One day, Luna will only be visible from one of Earth's hemispheres -- just as Earth is only visible from one of Luna's hemispheres.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  33. Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think it's going to turn out that what we call our sun is actually the twin, and that other star is the real sun.

  34. Re:Political Wings Explained:for the hard-of-think by turgid · · Score: 1

    Yipee! Once again slashdot fulfils it's purpose: an anonymous ranting ground for the frustrated and not necessarily well informed :-)

  35. Degree difference by omega9 · · Score: 1

    ...and that they are complaining over a 12-degree difference.

    Umm.. we are talking about kelvin here. It's not like they're measuring in F or C. That would truely be impressive.

    --
    I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
    1. Re:Degree difference by mabster · · Score: 1

      Umm.. we are talking about kelvin here. It's not like they're measuring in F or C. That would truely be impressive.

      What's the difference between measuring something in Kelvin and measuring it in Degrees Celsius? I mean, you just add 273.15 to the figure. It's no more or less impressive in terms of accuracy. Or did I miss a smiley somewhere there?

  36. Re:Heh by shaitand · · Score: 1

    It boggles my mind to think that there are people so damn anal about spelling and grammar they would waste breath to critic a perfectly readable post that has a perfectly clear meaning.

    It's not as if it MATTERS if the meaning is clear.

  37. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    critique ?

  38. Re:They use...: arbitrary names... by Squiffy · · Score: 1

    5280 ft = 1 mi

  39. Re:Heh by shaitand · · Score: 1

    bad spelling troll, begone.

  40. Hmm... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Are the babes on twin earth proportionally hotter to?;-)sorry, its all i got... yeah, i know...*gets up and leaves*

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  41. Earth's Twin by craXORjack · · Score: 1
    it's incredibly unlikely that we'll find a planet even remotely similar to Earth.

    It's already been found. Earth's twin is on the exact opposite side of the sun from Earth. That's why it has never been observed. It is inhabited by aliens who dress like japanese businessmen and Gamera sometimes flys there to rescue children kidnapped by flying saucers before their brains can be eaten. Get with the program.

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  42. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    bad spelling troll, begone.

    You forgot to capitalise the first letter of the sentence...

  43. So, which one is our sun? by Tukla · · Score: 1

    Mary-Kate or Ashley?

  44. 12 degrees by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    It boggles my mind to think that we can measure temperature that exactly from 279,000,000,000,000 miles away, and that they are complaining over a 12-degree difference.
    Yeah, but that's 12 kelvins, which is 21.6 degrees Fahrenheit (12*9/5).
    So it's less like the difference between a warm day and a cool day, and more like the difference between a warm day and a cold day.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    1. Re:12 degrees by adagioforstrings · · Score: 1

      Still, that's like two tenths of a percent of the temperature of the stars. IANAH (heliologist), but surely that's not a significant amount for whatever processes run on/in a star?

  45. unh-hunh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and i have trouble getting accuracy to within .01 from a distance of 3 meters, in the shop...
    they're certain that they are accurate to within better than 0.5%, from that distance, hunh?

  46. Kelvin....once again.... by KathleenLePirate · · Score: 1

    Okay, people keep repeating the "Kelvin degrees are different from Celsius or Farenheit" thing. Okay, a 12 degree difference in Celsius is exactly the same as a 12 degree difference in Kelvin.
    K = degrees C + 273
    So that -273 degrees C is equal to 0 kelvin.
    What I don't understand is why they are using Kelvin anyway. Kelvin is usually used for extremely cold stuff, not extremely hot stuff. The point of Kelvin was to be able to deal with temperatures as cold as absolute zero (( 0 kelvin )) without negative or complicated numbers.
    Maybe they want the heat to seem more impressive?
    Or perhaps they like to make silly slashdotters think kelvin is extremely different....

  47. Re: 12 degrees of separation by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1

    My comment was meant as a joke.
    Since it wasn't moderated that way, I can only assume that nobody on the planet except for me has a sense of humor.

    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  48. Re: 12 degrees of separation by adagioforstrings · · Score: 1

    Sorry, didn't detect the sarcasm. :-)