New Telescope Hunts for Earth Sized Planets

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Telescope Hunts for Earth Sized Planets

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday December 27, 2006 @05:55AM from the do-you-see-what-i-see dept.

TENxOXR writes "The French-led Corot mission has taken off from Kazakhstan on a quest to find planets outside our Solar System. The space telescope will monitor about 120,000 stars for tiny dips in brightness that result from planets passing across their faces. The multinational mission will also study the stars directly to uncover more about their interior behavior."

18 of 104 comments (clear)

Re:It's too easy by Hubertus_BigenD · 2006-12-27 06:02 · Score: 4, Funny

The rocket used a new experimental fuel consisting of a blend of Human pubic hair and Gypsy tears.
The telescope is called...... by 8127972 · 2006-12-27 06:05 · Score: 2, Funny

.....Interstellar Learnings of The Univers for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

--
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Planets or Plants? by tbcpp · 2006-12-27 06:10 · Score: 2, Funny

I really need to lay off the coffee or something, 'cause I read "looking for Earth sized Plants". I thought "Dude! that's one big plant". Okay, back to work now...

--
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
A time-saving tip by $RANDOMLUSER · 2006-12-27 06:14 · Score: 3, Funny

They shouldn't bother looking for any Pluto-sized planets - there aren't any.

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
1. Re:A time-saving tip by E++99 · 2006-12-27 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I wouldn't be too interested in having them wasting efforts in finding those as they'll probably have trouble holding an atmosphere to harbor life anyway.
  
  This kind of reasoning is ubiquitous, but it always bothers me. We only know of one kind of life (terrestrial life), but even that kind of life doesn't require a gaseous atmosphere. Only certain terrestrial species require an atmosphere. Even those species, such as mammals, reptiles, and birds, only require an atmosphere after birth, and get along just fine without it up until then. So on the one hand, assuming that all life is very similar to terrestrial life, I find nothing to suggest that an atmosphere is vital. But on the other hand, seeing that we only have knowledge of terrestrial life, extrapolating at all from that knowledge to the supposed "requirements for life" is not reasonable.
2. Re:A time-saving tip by E++99 · 2006-12-27 07:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No atmosphere == no liquid water.
  
  In fact, no atmosphere == no liquid anything.
  
  That's a good point, but it only applies to surface liquids. Now, I suppose that if there is literally *no* atmosphere, then over time you will lose whatever gas/liquid resources you start with. But as a matter of organism survival, any solid planet with geological processes is going have plenty of opportunity for subterranean liquid and gas.
3. Re:A time-saving tip by THE+anonymus+coward · 2006-12-27 10:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Europa is an example of something that has no atmosphere, but does have liquid water under the ice. You're right to think that there has to be something to contain the liquid, so that it doesn't boil off into space, but solid works just as well as gas for that task.
  
  --
  I guess thats all I have to say.
4. Re:A time-saving tip by bhiestand · 2006-12-27 23:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Although, besides breathing purposes, our atmosphere also protects us from harmful radiation from the sun, as well as protecting the planet from impacts from most stellar objects. Right, but what does that have to do with possible requirements for alien life? Certainly life as we know it, based on DNA/RNA, can not generally do well in an environment with excess radiation, but that does not mean that DNA is the only way to code life. Hell, a planet with a much higher concentration of lead, and lead on the surface, could result in creatures with an exoskeleton made of lead (or gold, for that matter).
  
  All of the above scenarios make it possible for life forms to exist on the surface of a planet, but why would we even assume we would find alien life on the surface of a planet, respirating atmosphere? The Earth is literally covered with subterranean and aquatic life. The quantity of aquatic life on Earth dwarfs that of us surface-dwellers.
  
  I would be extremely disappointed to discover alien life forms and realize they functioned in nearly the same way as those found on Earth.
  
  --
  SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Nice surprise! by Jugalator · 2006-12-27 06:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wasn't aware of this mission at all, and was just sitting here waiting for the James Webb Telescope, the Terrestrial Planet Finder observatories, or the Kepler mission.
Btw, of those, NASA's Kepler telescope is the earliest from the space agency, scheduled for launch in October 2008.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Russia is thriving... by bogaboga · 2006-12-27 06:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

When it comes to space launches, no nation beats Russia on cost, reliability and efficiency. One thing still bothers me...why haven't the US or EU nations been successful on this front? There are huge sums of money to be made but the Russians still beat us (the USA) in this game. Why?
Can we tell how much water is on these planets? by The+Living+Fractal · 2006-12-27 06:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Far as I know, the amount of water on the surface of the Earth is vital to life as we know it. The water keeps the temperature relatively even across the entire globe. This is especially important because it keeps the day side cool and the night side warm.

So say we find Earth sized planets? What's the next step? See how warm they are? If they are a certain temperature (where water is a liquid, a small temperature range in the grand scheme of things) then look a little closer?

TLF

--
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
1. Re:Can we tell how much water is on these planets? by Jugalator · 2006-12-27 07:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not sure if we can directly detect water signatures, but scientists can at least estimate the range from their stars, the type of star, and basic atmospheric composition. I guess these could be enough to make an educated guess of their temperature at least.
  
  Here's the news of the first atmospheric measurement by Hubble in 2001, and then keep in mind it's not even specially equipped for these things like these "next gen missions": http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/ 2001/38
  
  --
  Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
2. Re:Can we tell how much water is on these planets? by thue · 2006-12-27 07:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If the Terrestrial Planet Finder or Darwin gets built then we should be able to analyze the planet's atmosphere using passive spectroscopy. This could for example reveal whether the atmosphere contained O2.
  
  The Terrestrial Planet Finder is far more interesting than putting human boots on mars or the moon, IMO. Cheaper too. Unfortunately NASA doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to built it.
even if... by FudRucker · 2006-12-27 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

even if a planet was found that could support life we will never be able to get there, at least not until "Faster than light-speed" space travel is possible, will i highly doubt will ever happen...

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
60's tech, experience, and low wages by erice · 2006-12-27 07:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's a bit like outsourcing manufacturing to China except there is no learning curve. The Russians already have the expertise and infrastructure built in the Soviet era.

Sure, the Americans and Europeans have better technology but it isn't being used. The rockets that are flying are still 60's tech, mostly military derivations at at that. Maybe when SpaceShipThree and it's counterparts start getting into the game, it will be different. For now, no one does 60's space tech better than the Russians.
1. Re:60's tech, experience, and low wages by bogaboga · 2006-12-27 07:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sure, the Americans and Europeans have better technology but it isn't being used.
  Sure? So you think that the Americans and Europeans have better tech? I personally, I'm not sure. What I know is that we Americans kind-of blow our own trumpets, which is sad. The Russians on the other hand, just do their thing. Remember when they were the ONLY link to the ISS? They did not blow their trumpets one bit. If it were the Americans it would be a different story.
  They still have the biggest and heaviest airplane ever developed - even bigger than the A380, and this was almost 2 decades ago! . No body mentions this! In fact, I thought the Europeans were gonna borrow the design of the A380 from them. Apparently we only seem to thrive at complexity.
  The rockets that are flying are still 60's tech, mostly military derivations at at that.
  Ahh, so what has our 21st century tech achieved? Nothing! It appears to be a beacon of corruption, nepotism and bigotry. You probably would not even appreciate the fact that the ISS would be a failure if the Russians were not involved.
Two words, plus slashdot by silentounce · 2006-12-27 07:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Generation ship

--
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
Re:Recent Russian launch failures by Rolo+Tomasi · 2006-12-27 08:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Funny you should mention the Atlas, because it's using Russian engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(missile)

--
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?