Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Asteroid Belt Discovered Around Our Sun's "Twin"

Posted by Hemos on from the making-it-visible dept.

loid_void writes "that the National Geographic is reporting evidence of a massive asteroid belt around a "twin" of our own sun has been found. Kim Weaver, a Spitzer Space Telescope scientist, said the finding marks "the first time that scientists have found evidence for a massive asteroid belt around a mature, sunlike star." "This region around the star is the sort of place where rocky planets [like Earth] may form," The star, dubbed HD69830, is some 41 light-years away--which, in space terms, is practically our own backyard. Part of the constellation Puppis, the star is a tad too faint to see with the unaided eye."

8 of 19 comments (clear)

  1. Could this be by perdu · · Score: 4, Funny

    The remnants of Alderaan!

    --
    You only use 2% of your DNA
    1. Re:Could this be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      What kind of a geek are you, Alderaan is in a galaxy far far away.

    2. Re:Could this be by fvbommel · · Score: 5, Funny

      What kind of a geek are you? Alderaan was in a galaxy far far away. (It was blown up a long, long time ago, you know)

  2. The elements have to go somewhere by redelm · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In a second-generation starsystem, there's a pile of heavier fusion products (Silicon, Iron, Oxygen) left over. They've got to go somewhere. Is it surprising they wind up in the same spot, having started from the same solar core strata?

    More interesting would be why why didn't coalesce into rocky planets. Perhaps the influence of gas giants?

    1. Re:The elements have to go somewhere by Stoutlimb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you think they didn't coalesce into rocky planets? There could certainly be some, but I doubt they would be habitable.

      I think there are some explanations for this. Either the asteroid field is more recent than ours, therefore denser. Either that, or that the configuration of planets in that system are keeping the asteroid field in place.

      Either that, or we are looking at a normal asteroid field for a star of that age and size. Our field could be unusually small, and how would we know it?

    2. Re:The elements have to go somewhere by helioquake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why do you think they didn't coalesce into rocky planets? There could certainly be some, but I doubt they would be habitable.

      ...maybe not yet. The timescale of these dusts and rocks to coalesce is hard to estimate. Someday (in a few hundred million years) some planets -- gas or solid -- may form out of them.

      I wouldn't be surprised if some planet searchers go after this star to see if its spectral lines "wobble", i.e., detecting the sign of an orbiting object(s) around the star (or have they done it?).

    3. Re:The elements have to go somewhere by FirienFirien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There could certainly be some, but I doubt they would be habitable. visibility can always be called into question too. An asteroid belt is small, sure, but it goes all the way round, and so may be easier to happen to spot. Planets are small AND only at one point in the orbit at any time.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
  3. Re:How massive? by some_schmuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    "It is thicker than the asteroid belt in our own solar system, which lies between Mars and Jupiter and packs nearly 25 times more debris."