Slashdot Mirror


Tatooine-like Planet Discovered

ATP writes "CNN is reporting that a planet has been discovered in a solar system with 3 suns. The observation brings into doubt the theory stating that planets form from the dust orbiting around a single sun. The discovery also resulted in a new method of searching for extrasolar planets-- until now most searching focused only on single-sun systems."

29 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. First Post Mind Trick by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Funny
    This is not the planet you're looking for.

    This is not the planet we're looking for.

    Move along.

    Move along.

  2. More changes for next release of star wars... by FrontalLobe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't let George Lucas see this. He'll want to change the next release of episode 4 and have Luke looking over 3 suns setting.

    "Really, I had always wanted it to be 3 suns, and now we have the technology to produce my original vision"

    --
    -FL
    1. Re:More changes for next release of star wars... by vought · · Score: 5, Funny
      As depressing as it is, I remember reading the Empire Strikes Back Trivia Guide, and the suns were Tatoo I and Tatoo II.


      I could have sworn that the third one was called Hervé.

    2. Re:More changes for next release of star wars... by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Two suns, three suns, that's not really relevant to the plot or character development.

      My concern is that in the next release Alderaan is going to shoot first.

      -Peter

  3. Tatooine has 2 suns... by isd_glory · · Score: 4, Informative

    Come on... even google knows how many suns there are.
    http://www.google.com/search?q=tatooine+suns

  4. A long time ago... by gringer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess the galaxy isn't so far away after all

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  5. Not really Tatooine-like... by Owndapan · · Score: 5, Informative

    As noted by The Register, the planet is not in a galaxy far, far away, but a mere 149 light-year jaunt through our own Milky Way.

    1. Re:Not really Tatooine-like... by metlin · · Score: 5, Funny


      Dude, I've trouble getting to the bathroom which at this moment seems far, far away.

      I'd say a 149 kajillion light years is definitely far, far away.

  6. Pitch Black by mesach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Might it be more like the planet in Pitch Black instead of Tattoine?

    --
    moo.
  7. The effects of 3 suns by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Imagine if such a planet were habitable (that is, a planet with three suns). Think about how much of our human existence is dictated by the cycles of our single sun. I wonder how different things would be with three suns.

    Would agriculture ever start? Would dwellings all be subterranean? Would concepts of work and play be utterly different? Religions would evolve differently. Would gender roles be affected?

    Does anyone know of a work of science fiction that delves into this, in the way that The Left Hand of Darkness explored gender issues?

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:The effects of 3 suns by bc90021 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, for as much of our culture that's dictated by the sun, a *lot* of it is dictated by the moon. Our calender is based first on the moon (months, a word that may have derived from moonths?), women's cycles are typically ~28 days (the length of the lunar cycle), tides are more heavily influenced by the moon than the sun, and a number of other things I can't think of right now. I'm not denying the sun's influence by any means - obviously, without it's warmth and light there'd be just about nothing on this planet. But don't understimate the moon, which is as important, if not moreso.

    2. Re:The effects of 3 suns by slashdotnickname · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder how different things would be with three suns.

      Appearances aside, not much.

      If the planet's environment is life-friendly, then it's only a matter of time before life evolves on it. Lifeforms will then thrive on the resources until a resource limit is met and competition (i.e. "survival of the fitest") kicks in.

      Because of the survival benifits that cooperation and intelligence have, some lifeforms will take an evolutionary path towards that... more complex behaviors will likely evolve, eventually leading up to societal-type levels of interactions and intelligence.

      Somewhere out there's a mass of stuff wondering what a world with only one sun would be like...

    3. Re:The effects of 3 suns by Infonaut · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Appearances aside, not much.

      You seem to be making the argument that essentially a habitable planet is a habitable planet is a habitable planet. Don't you think, though, that if Earth had three suns, life might have evolved in a vastly different fashion?

      I don't know the answer, but it does seem to me that many of the assumptions we take for granted about organic life and its development might not apply on a world with three suns. For example, on a "desert planet" like Tatooine, there may be no aquatic mammals. Assuming current speculation about the evolution of mammals on Earth is true, perhaps on a desert planet large-brained creatures might not ever evolve.

      My ignorance in matters of biology outstrips my knowledge of the subject by a wide margin, so I am just poking around curiously to see what others think.

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    4. Re:The effects of 3 suns by LPetrazickis · · Score: 3, Funny

      "If the planet's environment is life-friendly, then it's only a matter of time before life evolves on it."

      And you base this one what? An empirical basis of exactly 1 instance? Pretty presumptious of you.

      Not really. Since life evolved once, the probability of life evolving is greater than zero. Ergo, given arbitrarily sufficient time, the probability of life having evolved will approach 100%. Unfortunately, time required for life to evolve may exceed the lifespan of even the universe. The grandparent post is technically correct, but it's not a particularly useful form of correct.

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  8. Re:Name that star... by mesach · · Score: 3, Funny

    More like Mike, Robbie, and Chip :P

    --
    moo.
  9. Does it also contain.... by ribo-bailey · · Score: 5, Funny

    THE SPICE!!!???

  10. Yes by mcc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's called nightfall and it's by Isaac Asimov. It's not one of his better works-- it has some neat ideas in it, but it was originally a short story that was later extended to novel length and as a result it feels rather stretched. Perhaps the original short story is better, I don't know (I've only read the novel).

    1. Re:Yes by arimeq · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Short story is lot better. I read both short and novel version. Short version tells the story of final few hours before the Nightfall, while the novel begins earlier and ends after Nightfall. I definitely prefer original, short version - it keeps the tension.

  11. not like Tatooine... by Honor · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article:

    The planet, a gas giant slightly larger than Jupiter, orbits the main star of a triple-star system known as HD 188753 in the constellation Cygnus.

    Unless I missed something major when watching the movies, Tatooine isn't a gas giant...

  12. Tatooine? by vanyel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To me, Tatooine-like would be "that earthish desert planet", not "that gas giant with 3 suns"...

  13. Like Tatooine? by rampant+mac · · Score: 4, Funny
    Like Tatooine?

    No love for Pitch Black?

    Besides, Vin Diesel can kick Chewbacca's ass. He can do anything.

    --
    I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    1. Re:Like Tatooine? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Informative
      Be careful about that second link. Every time I open the page, Norton Personal Firewall catches an intrusion attempt:

      A computer with the IP address 0.0.0.0 sent information that is characteristic of the HTTP_ActivePerl_Overflow attack.
    2. Re:Like Tatooine? by Justin205 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think that means anything bad, actually...

      More info here.

      From reading that, I'm guessing the page just has a really long perl filename accessed from, perhaps, the ad script or similar.

      --
      "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
  14. Re:Too convenient by ogre7299 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you had done your research on this before speaking, you would find that except for one or two exceptions, all extrasolar planets have been indirectly discovered. They were discovered by using spectroscopy over a sometimes long period of time,depending on the planet's orbit. The shift in the spectral lines over time allows observers to calculate the radial velocity of a star with respect to the center of mass of the planetary system. This information in turn infers that there is a planet orbiting the star and certain characteristics such as mass of the planet, eccentricity of the orbit, and distance from the star. www.howstuffworks.com has a very simple description of extrasolar planet searching.

    Also, the Spitzer space telescope has directly confirmed the existence of already known planets that were discovered using the indirect method. It is possible with the Spitzer telescope rather than Hubble because stars put out much less light in the infrared than in the visible wavelengths.

  15. False Advertising by aykroyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Tatooine-like Planet Discovered," I read. Eagerly, I clicked the link. "They've found a way to tell just what the planet is like! Now that is news!"

    Oh, but wait... It's actually a story about a planet that was discovered in a solar system with three stars. What in the hell does that have to do with making the planet "Tatooine-like"? That's like calling every other planet in our system "Earth-like".

    *sigh*

  16. Uh, no. by jd · · Score: 4, Informative
    Most extrasolar planets have been discovered by the wobble of the sun, due to the planet's gravity. Most of the rest have been observed due to abnormal infrared images (gaps or unexpected reflections). Some have been detected by gaps in dust clouds, where they have swept paths clear. A few have been directly observed, though those are mostly extra-solar planets that have escaped their original system.


    With the exception of the one rock planet observed, ALL are gas giants and virtually all many times larger than all the Gas Giants in our own solar system combined. We are NOT talking something the size of Venus, here, we are talking something closer in size to our own sun. This does make a bit of a difference.


    To directly observe a planet the size of Earth at a resolution of 1 pixel at a distance of 100 light-years would require a radio telescope with a 1 Km diameter. The proposed Km radio telescope array would do this. Nobody has such a telescope (yet) so nobody is making this sort of claim (yet). But it could be done, it has been designed and (last I heard) it was being built. Once it is finished, planetary discoveries will be made much more rapidly and much more reliably.


    It is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, but such an array, in space, would be able to scan a lot of absorbtion frequencies, allowing you to not only detect such a planet, but know the composition of the atmosphere as well. A 1 mile diameter array in space would give you 6.25 pixels-worth of data - certainly enough to detect the existance of weather patterns and possibly enough to detect large moons (provided they are radio objects).

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  17. Re:Uhh... by syntaxglitch · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, it is somewhat surprising that a multi-star system would have a significant planet-forming debris cloud. Orbital mechanics tend to be relatively unstable in multi-star systems, so it's considerably more likely that the dust and debris would end up in unstable orbits and fall into one of the stars, instead of clumping up into a planet with a stable orbit. The fact that a planet can actually have a stable orbit in a system with three stars is actually somewhat surprising to me.

    As for the system being thrown together after forming seperately, that's highly unlikely. First of all, space is mostly... well, space. The chances against two star systems colliding at all, nevermind doing so in a way that forms a stable three-star system are, no pun intended, astronomical. Even if a stable three-star configuration formed, it's even more likely that the sudden change in orbital dynamics would promptly eject the planet from the system (not hard to do--actually, if memory serves me, Mercury is in the process of being very slowly ejected from our own solar system. The sun will probably die first, though).

    So, yes, lots of things could have happened... most of them probably even more fantastically implausible than the system forming as-is.

  18. Nightfall, the movie (late 1980's) by phlamingo · · Score: 3, Informative

    And even worse was a movie based roughly on the ideas in the story. I walked out of the theatre after about fifteen minutes. David Birney (almost as talentless as a Baldwin) as some kind of weird priest, using a hawk to blind a pretty volunteer so she could understand the coming darkness. Or something. I can't remember if Asimov was still alive at the time, but if he was, I suspect this movie killed him. Bleh.

    --
    I had forgotten how much cooler teenagers look when they are smoking. Oh, wait ...
  19. More information from Nasa by dibbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    More details here: http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/news/7_13_images.h tml. Nice animations too.