Slashdot Mirror


Ocean Planets on the Brink of Detection

ZonkerWilliam writes "It seems, at least theoretically, that there may be 'ocean planets' out there in the galaxy. If there are, we are closer than ever to detecting them. The formation of such planets is fairly likely, reports the PhysOrg article, despite the lack of an obvious example in our own solar system. We may have a former ocean planetoid in the neighborhood, orbiting the planet Jupiter: the moon Europa. These water worlds are the result of system formation castoffs, gas giant wannabes that never grew large enough. If any of these intriguing object exist nearby, the recently launched CoRoT satellite will be the device we use to see it. The article explains some of the science behind 'ocean worlds', as well as the new technology we'll use to find them."

159 comments

  1. On these planets by Ice+Wewe · · Score: 5, Funny

    And on these ocean planets we shall find cloners. And when we find these cloners, we shall find the clone army. Long live the Jedi!

    1. Re:On these planets by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." -- Dan Quayle

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:On these planets by Nesetril · · Score: 1

      No we shall poison the Ancestor shark for some dark side points.

      --
      Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" - Luke 22:36
    3. Re:On these planets by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You really have to feel sorry for poor Quayle. He was (*is*) actually an intelligent fellow. He just can't speak in public to save his life.

      In this particular speech, he meant to say that where there's water, there's oxygen to be extracted. In this, he's quite correct. It would take a significant amount of energy, but it's perfectly feasible to extract breathable oxygen from water on Mars.

      It's just the way he put it that's outright hilareous. :)

    4. Re:On these planets by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Well, he did also suggest that this water would be found in the "canals" on Mars. Though perhaps that arose from his moments earlier gaffe of saying Mars and Earth had the same orbit and was just getting more and more flustered as he spoke.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    5. Re:On these planets by peragrin · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>Its as if millions of mp3 players cried out a Britney song and were suddenly silenced.

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:On these planets by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. The more Mr. Quayle spoke, the more nervous he got, and the worse his mistakes got. It's interesting to watch, because he knows he's not making any sense, but his attempts to make it better just make it worse.

      In Quayle-ese:

      Same Orbit == "Similar enough to be semi-hospitable to human life."
      Canals == "Channels through which water once flowed."

      At least he didn't have to speak on the possibility of microbial life on Mars. It would have been War of the Worlds all over again!

      "Not now, Martha! Them ALIENS are attackin'! The Vice Prezident sez so!" :P

    7. Re:On these planets by Thuktun · · Score: 3, Funny

      You really have to feel sorry for poor Quayle. He was (*is*) actually an intelligent fellow. MOUSEBENDER: It's not much of a cheese shop, is it?
      WENSLEYDALE: Finest in the district, sir.
      MOUSEBENDER: Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.
      WENSLEYDALE: Well, it's so clean, sir.
      MOUSEBENDER: It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese.
    8. Re:On these planets by tyme · · Score: 2, Funny
      AKAImBatman wrote:
      you really have to feel sorry for poor Quayle. He was (*is*) actually an intelligent fellow.
      I suppose that depends on the what the definition of "is" is.
      --
      just a ghost in the machine.
    9. Re:On these planets by Warg!+The+Orcs!! · · Score: 3, Funny

      or we may find Kevin Costner on a raft. I'm not sure which one is scarier.

      --
      Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
    10. Re:On these planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd wager we find pirates thar too yarr! They sail the oceans, the pirates do.

      They might even set up a bay...

    11. Re:On these planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just the way he put it that's outright hilareous.

      Is that like the archaic "potatoe" way of spelling "hilarious"?

    12. Re:On these planets by KristoferP · · Score: 1

      So what your saying is....it's a trap?

    13. Re:On these planets by grimJester · · Score: 1

      Full qoute: "Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

      In this particular speech, he meant to say that where there's water, there's oxygen to be extracted.

      Really? The part about canals strongly indicates he had no clue what he was talking about. He linked the water to canals, and talked about breathing without any mention of extracting oxygen. Is the extraction claim your own speculation or did he explain what he meant afterwards?

    14. Re:On these planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.htm - Quayle's history of this sort of thing

      http://www.thespacereview.com/article/106/2 - Details of Quayle's involvment with NASA

      He understood, he just couldn't explain it.

  2. Anyone for a swim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are these oceans water, liquid methane, or molten iron?

    2nd post? 3rd? 1st?

  3. Just the facts by flynt · · Score: 4, Funny

    It seems, at least theoretically, that there may be 'ocean planets' out there in the galaxy. If there are, we are closer than ever to detecting them.

    Nice to start the summary off with not just one, but *two* tautologies!

    1. Re:Just the facts by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nice to start the summary off with not just one, but *two* tautologies!

      Yeah, but the failed to mention that every day we move closer toward the future!

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Just the facts by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Funny

      You have to admit, it's better than two oxymorons.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  4. Water World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like water world. Only IRL.

  5. For all our sake... by Dark+Kenshin · · Score: 2, Funny

    I really hope they don't find any of them. If they do, we'll have hundreds of water world remakes and the level of pain that would bring is too much to bare.

    --
    "I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
    1. Re:For all our sake... by Nesetril · · Score: 1

      I think it's all but impossible to avert this calamity, since those remakes have smokers as a built-in audience.

      --
      Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" - Luke 22:36
    2. Re:For all our sake... by silentounce · · Score: 1

      You're like a turd that won't flush!

      --
      There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
    3. Re:For all our sake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope they don't find any of them. If they do, we'll have hundreds of water world remakes and the level of pain that would bring is too much to bare.
      One can bare ones breasts, or bear great hardships.

      "You keep using that word. I am not sure it means what you think it means"
    4. Re:For all our sake... by Nesetril · · Score: 1

      Uhuh, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that the original wording is hotter than the alternative. Say it ain't so.

      --
      Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" - Luke 22:36
    5. Re:For all our sake... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      the level of pain that would bring is too much to bare.
      One can bare ones breasts, or bear great hardships.
      I could have rejoindered(*), "Hear! Hear!" (or, more ironically, "Here! Here!") but instead I offer this thought:

      If one can bare one's soul, cannot one bare one's pain?

      True, "bear" is more apt in the GP's usage and "share" in mine, but I offer that neither his nor mine is a wholly erroneous usage.

      (*) Except for this verbifying of a noun. And that one, too.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    6. Re:For all our sake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that. COLONIZATION FOREVER!

      Captcha: breeder

    7. Re:For all our sake... by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      we'll have hundreds of water world remakes and the level of pain that would bring is too much to bare.

      Well, at least it will be less painful for the investors, who will be able to cut costs on the production by sending the cast and crew to another planet to film.

    8. Re:For all our sake... by noigmn · · Score: 1

      And the the article claims that a Frenchman named Alain Léger proposed the existence of such worlds in 2003. The movie came out in 1995. Could they really have taken that long to release it with french subtitles?

      --
      Slashdot is powered by your submission.
    9. Re:For all our sake... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      I really hope they don't find any of them. If they do, we'll have hundreds of water world remakes and the level of pain that would bring is too much to bare.

      What's worse is when you think about how amazingly vaste the entire universe is: It's entirely possible that there's a planet out there where, through sheer chance, the events of Waterworld actually took place-- whoah, I need to lie down for a sec.

      Deep breaths. Deep breaths.

      *shudder*

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    10. Re:For all our sake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too much to bare

      "bear". (Please don't use the word "bare" when referring to anything involving Kevin Costner.)

  6. Nitpick by whisper_jeff · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...we are closer than ever to detecting them.

    I know it's a nitpick, but of course we're closer than ever to detecting them. Guess what, we're closer to detecting them now than when you began reading this reply (by a couple seconds, but still closer).

    1. Re:Nitpick by lazlo · · Score: 1

      Unless someone's already found them. In which case we're further from finding them now than we have been since as long before they were found as we are past when they were found now. Yeah. That parses well.

      Of course, this all assumes that the terms "closer" and "further" are being used to measure a temporal distance. If I'm looking for my keys, I could have been closest (physically) to finding them this morning when I was in the kitchen where they're under the newspaper, even though in only a few minutes I'll go back to the kitchen and actually find them, thus making me currently closer (temporally) to finding them right now than I was this morning.

      Not that I actually think that's how the author meant it. It was probably meant to be just as bad as it sounds. But a similar statement could theoretically have been useful. Just not here.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    2. Re:Nitpick by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      I know it's a nitpick, but of course we're closer than ever to detecting them. Guess what, we're closer to detecting them now than when you began reading this reply (by a couple seconds, but still closer). You're older than you've ever been.
      And now you're even older.
      And now you're even older.
      And now you're even older.

      You're older than you've ever been.
      And now you're even older.
      And now you're older still.

              - They Might Be Giants, "Older"
    3. Re:Nitpick by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Why do I read comments under science threads? Why!!!

  7. A better name for the craft... by countSudoku() · · Score: 2, Funny

    CRo T. Satellite

    Of course, on said ocean planets inhabited by cetaceans one could exclaim:

    "Admiral, there be whales here."

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    1. Re:A better name for the craft... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      But what if... "It's a trap!"?

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    2. Re:A better name for the craft... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Sounds like crotch-rot satellite - doesn't inspire much confidence...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  8. The Good News... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    With global warming, we will have plenty of practice on surviving an "ocean" world when it comes time to send ships out to colonize these strange, new worlds.

    1. Re:The Good News... by Thuktun · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm pretty sure we already have plenty of experience surviving on an ocean world, since we already live on one. What we're not used to is surviving while sea levels rise, perhaps uncontrollably, which is probably what you meant.

      The projected maximum rise in sea level due to total melting of glaciers is around 80m. The average elevation of exposed land is about 2870m, which is about 35 times as high. Melting everything won't inundate the globe, but it will require relocation from low-lying areas.

    2. Re:The Good News... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you read the article, an ocean world is entirely water with a frozen core of water. Earth has a crust over a molten core that's cover with two-thirds of water. Technically, Earth is not an ocean planet. Assuming that you don't include the 40 days and 40 nights when God flooded the earth back in the days when building an ark on dry land was considered a stupid idea.

    3. Re:The Good News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you really sucked at reading that second link. And, yeah, 11 times as high is still a large difference, but I think population distribution is a far more interesting metric than average elevation of exposed land.

      What this has to do with the article, I'm not really sure.

    4. Re:The Good News... by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      Considering that the term "ark" meant vessel as a container rather than a conveyance such as a ship, building it on dry land was rather a good idea.

    5. Re:The Good News... by CptPicard · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but those planets have a nasty habit of screwing with the minds of the scientists who thought THEY were doing the research on that strange, new ocean world... on the other hand, I might not object to my darkest perversions becoming reality, if only I got to be alone on the research station :P

      (Think Solaris... not the OS)

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
  9. One example by ockancc1701 · · Score: 1

    The formation of such planets is fairly likely, reports the PhysOrg article, despite the lack of an obvious example in our own
    solar system.

    Hmm what about Earth then?

    1. Re:One example by Orange+Crush · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm what about Earth then?

      The Earth is a very large lump of iron and rock with just enough water for a few puddles to thinly cover 2/3 of its surface. The article is talking about whole planets composed almost entirely of water. Think of a bunch of melted comets that got smooshed together.

    2. Re:One example by Nesetril · · Score: 1

      So, it's like one giant game of Blitzball?! WOAH...

      --
      Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" - Luke 22:36
    3. Re:One example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No the article is talking about plants composed of 50% Rock %50 water by weight with an average depth of the water around 100 km, not entire orbs of floating water.

      The earth doesn't qualify as an ocean planet because it is composed of only 1 part water which covers 3/4 of the earths surface and we do not have an average of 100 km depth the Mariana Trench is only 10.91100 kilometers deep which is believed to be the deepest point in all the Oceans on Earth.

    4. Re:One example by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Minor nitpick, but by volume Earth is mostly Silicon, and by mass it's almost half oxygen. (Silicon makes up another quarter of the Earth's mass total mass).

      Earth is called a "water world" because it has a hydrosphere, though. The presence of water on a planet is by no means unique (Europa, Mars, most of the asteroids in our solar system), but the presence of water in abundance in the star's green zone hasn't been seen anywhere else. Earth is the only planet in the solar system where the *surface* temperature and pressure is in the appropriate range to find a lot of liquid water.

      There's a difference between a "water" world and an "ocean" world, though. A "water" world has a hydrosphere. An "ocean" world has no surface other than the hydrosphere. Europa doesn't even count, but if it were warmer it would be an "ocean" world.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    5. Re:One example by JShadow21 · · Score: 1

      Theres a mini game I could have done without remembering

    6. Re:One example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earth's not really a "water planet". If the earth were the size of the basketball, all the oceans covering it would be the equivalent of one drop of water.

      For terrestrial planets, the amount of water you end up with in the late bombardment phase of planetary formation seems to be basically a crapshoot. There are probably more than a few "waterworld" (in the Kevin Kostner sense) planets out there, but its much more likely to find these in the outer planets' moons, which have a much higher water content due to all the volatiles not having been driven off by the solar wind earlier in the planetary formation process.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. No ocean planets in our own solar system... by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Funny

    The formation of such planets is fairly likely, reports the PhysOrg article, despite the lack of an obvious example in our own solar system.
    Ummm...what about EARTH?
    1. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      *sigh* RTFA. An Ocean planet is 100% ocean surface with depths ~100 km. Earth is just a tiny surface puddle covering a slight majority of the surface.

    2. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by bouis · · Score: 0

      The oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface and are, on average, about 2 miles deep. Puddles my ass.

    3. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      No the article is talking about plants composed of 50% Rock %50 water by weight with an average depth of the water around 100 km, not entire orbs of floating water There can be land just not very likely it'll be above sea level but who knows maybe it'll be a huge mountain.

      The earth doesn't qualify as an ocean planet because it is composed of only 1 part water which covers 3/4 of the earths surface and we do not have an average of 100 km depth the Mariana Trench is only 10.91100 kilometers deep which is believed to be the deepest point in all the Oceans on Earth.

    4. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just after writing this I actually RTFA and felt a bit stupid. I had wondered why more commenters had picked up on the whole "Earth" thing. Judging from the fact my comment got modded up (so far, anyway), it goes to show some of the moderators don't RTFA either.

    5. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by David_Shultz · · Score: 1

      Ummm...what about EARTH?

      RTFA.

      Ocean planet == planet entirely/mostly composed of water. The Earth is .02% water, so not quite a water planet. These planets oceans would have an "average depth [...] on the order of 100 kilometers".

    6. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for Christ's sake, it's a relative term meant to put things into perspective.

    7. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by BrianH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interestingly, any truly "Earthlike" planets we find ARE more likely to be covered in water. We have oceans here on Earth only because we also have continents. While the exact origins of the continents are still debated, the one common theory is that they're remnants of the same impact that formed the moon e.g. the impact blew off much of the surface of the original Earth, and that our "continents" were formed from the portion of the original crust that wasn't destroyed. Since the new crust was formed from denser materials deeper in the planets core, the lighter original crust rode higher on the mantle than the rest of it. That original crust cracked apart, became the foundations (cratons) for the continents we have today...or at least kicked off a cycle of crustal formation that lead to the continents we have today. Comparable planets in our Solar System that did not experience similar impacts (Mars and Venus) have relatively flat surfaces and nothing resembling continents.

      What if that impact had never occurred? The Earths surface would be level, like the other terrestrial planets, and instead of the water settling into the lower basins (the oceans), it would cover the entire surface of the planet to a depth of several kilometers. Only a few of today's highest peaks would extend above that water level. Those peaks, in all likelihood, wouldn't exist either. Not only would the tectonics needed for their formation be absent, but a world without continents would have monster surface waves and erosion would scrub them below the waterline in a few million years. If there were ANY life here, it would be no more advanced than the fish which exist today.

      Unfortunately, if we DO ever get out into space and find "Earth-like" planets of comparable mass and temperature, they will probably be water-bound just as the Earth would have been.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    8. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      so 3.2Km verses ~100 for a water planet...
      yup, they're puddles. you don't grasp the enormity do you?
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    9. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by tygt · · Score: 1
      So the idea is that without the impact, we'd have a really nice, smooth, consistent crust layer?

      Would there not still be plate techtonics? A smooth crust requires the lack thereof, because colisions and subduction cause the crust to fold and thrust.

      Wouldn't there still be convection in the mantle? Unless you're going to freeze the Earth's mantle (freeze, as in solidify), the crust will be subjected to forces from within.

    10. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by BrianH · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the Earths convective mantle may be a byproduct of its plate tectonics, and not the other way around. Venus provides us with an excellent example of this, as it is in many ways a geologic twin of the Earth...minus the impact and big moon. Venus has a molten core and geologic activity (it's covered in volcanoes), but no tectonics. Why? Because there is no convection in the mantle. That's also why Venus has no magnetic field. The creation of a dynamo for an electric field requires a metal conductive core, rotation, and convection in the mantle. Magnetic analysis of the planet indicates that it has a conductive metal core, and its rotation, while slow, is sufficient to generate a field of some intensity.

      So why no magnetic field? No convection. Why no convection? Two possibilities. 1) The lack of tidal stresses from a comparatively large moon permitted its mantle to largely solidify already, as happened on Mars. 2) On the other hand, the LACK of tectonics may have deprived the core of a way to vent excess heat. Convection happens on Earth because the top of the mantle is cooler than the bottom, and the top is cooler BECAUSE it can let off heat through tectonics. It's a self perpetuating process. With Venus, the lack of tectonics deprived the mantle of any heat release sources other than volcanism. This would permit the Venusian mantle to get much hotter than the mantle on our own planet. The increased heat without outlet would lead to a mantle far more uniform in temperature...and a mantle that is uniformly hot will have no convection.

      So it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. Something fractured the early crust of our planet, permitting subduction. Subduction and tectonics in general introduced temperature irregularities into our mantle, which kicked off convection. Convection then drove tectonic activities by itself.

      A protoplanet under bombardment would have a fairly consistent mantle temperature once bombardment began to ease. Energy imparted from impacts would spread throughout the body, and cooling would occur uniformly at the outer edges of the planet where the molten material came into contact with space. The planet would then begin cooling from the outside in, resulting in a relatively uniform crust. Again, you merely need to look at all of the other terrestrial bodies in our own solar system to confirm the model.

      It appears that something "else" is required to kickstart plate tectonics. The only really major thing we can identify, that fits the models, is our moon. The giant impactor which blasted lunar material away from the Earth disrupted the mantles temperature and blasted away a signifigant portion of the lighter material which should have formed our crust. The glancing blow which the models suggest would have been required for the Giant Impactor theory would have also left the side of the planet opposite the impact relatively unscathed (aside from the many millenia of debris impacts which certainly followed). As an added bonus, the newly formed moon around the planet, comparatively large and in a tight orbit, would have induced tidal forces which helped (and still help today) to keep the mantle moving.

      No impact = No giant moon, no disruption of the even cooling of the surface, no disruption of the mantle, no convection, and no tectonics. Geologically, the Earth would be Venus, only covered in 1-2 kilometers of water and with a more temperate atmospheric blanket (it would probably be a far colder planet than it is today). Aside from a volcanic island or two, the planet would be a big orbiting ball of water.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    11. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'If there were ANY life here, it would be no more advanced than the fish which exist today.'

      That conclusion doesn't follow anything else you've said. Is there some reason you feel that being a land-dweller is prerequisite to being an advanced lifeform? I wouldn't even consider it a safe assumption that land dwelling creatures on earth (including man) are the most advanced to have evolved on our own planet. Unless of course you define 'advanced' strictly on the basis of tool usage and not on the basis of intellect, self-awareness, or communication.

      Obviously land provides more raw materials for the manufacture of tools and on earth the only manually capable creatures we have discovered dwell on land. Gee maybe the availability of materials to manufacture tools out of how has a direct relation to whether or not manually capable mutations succeed to pass on the gene!

    12. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by mi · · Score: 1

      Convection happens on Earth because the top of the mantle is cooler than the bottom, and the top is cooler BECAUSE it can let off heat through tectonics. It's a self perpetuating process.

      Friction and cooling should've killed it long ago — what is the energy source, that perpetuates it? Why has not the planet's core cooled yet?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by limecat4eva · · Score: 1

      Literalism kills artistry.

      --
      comma
    14. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by novus+ordo · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Sun has something to do with it?

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    15. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      What if that impact had never occurred? The Earths surface would be level, like the other terrestrial planets, and instead of the water settling into the lower basins (the oceans), it would cover the entire surface of the planet to a depth of several kilometers. Only a few of today's highest peaks would extend above that water level. Those peaks, in all likelihood, wouldn't exist either. Not only would the tectonics needed for their formation be absent, but a world without continents would have monster surface waves and erosion would scrub them below the waterline in a few million years.

      Let's grant all of that, but it still doesn't lead to this conclusion:

      If there were ANY life here, it would be no more advanced than the fish which exist today.

      Why? Sure there would be no whales, dolphins, and the like (no opportunity to leave the ocean, make mammals, then make ocean mammals that return to the ocean), but that is not the only form of intelligence in the ocean that could lead to -- or already possess -- sentience.

      Cephalopods may either be smart and short-lived, or not-so-smart and longer lived, but why is a smart and long-lived variety not possible, especially in a world lacking whales? Just because it isn't on our particular branch of the animal tree doesn't mean it can't be more advanced than fish.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    16. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      It appears that something "else" is required to kickstart plate tectonics. The only really major thing we can identify, that fits the models, is our moon.

      Hm. Is it too late already, or can we still find a suitable piece of space rock to hit Venus with, within the next couple of hundred years ?

    17. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

      The planet's core is a giant RTG. Most heavy materials like iron, nickel, and the radioactive metals are in the core. The longer lived radioactives like U-238 continue to decay and heat the core to this day. Mind you, I'm talking about decay not chain-reaction fissioning. While "natural reactors" are possible that isn't what is happening here.

    18. Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... by mi · · Score: 1

      Ok, thanks. So, the GGP is not quite right saying "it is a self-perpetuating process". Tectonic movements simply carry the RTG-produced heat to the surface — and our perpetuated by the decay, not by "self"...

      I take it, Venus does not have the internal RTG of the Earth's power?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  12. Definition please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nice to start the summary off with not just one, but *two* tautologies!

    It would help when using BIG words to link to their definitions

    It would help me and others like me to have to go to endless stupid meetings on a fucking Friday because some jackass superior (even dumber PHP) has to do something to feel superior to me. Even though, I sent this stupid fucking superior PHP the email he fucking requested stating exactly what I'm going to (read) say in this stupid fucking meeting.

    I'd go back to coding but they've sent everything overseas.

    --Stupid PHP

    1. Re:Definition please! by limecat4eva · · Score: 1

      When did "tautology" become a big word?

      You know, one of the biggest reasons Wikipedia makes me cringe is the excessive linking, since one editor or another invariably doubts we're intelligent enough to understand words like "meter" or "January."

      --
      comma
    2. Re:Definition please! by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they wouldn't have sent your job overseas if you had basic literacy in English, like knowing the definition of "tautology."

  13. but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm willing to bet these ocean planets are infested with sharks, alien sharks, alien sharks with lasers on their frickin' heads.

      -AC for a reason.

    1. Re:but... by dotoole · · Score: 1

      I for one am glad Bush had the insight to take steps to improve Human-Fish relations thus avoiding an intergalactic war. And you noobs called him imcompetant.... sheesh.

  14. watery worlds by symes · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Oh no! Reruns!

  15. Let's colonize these worlds! by Quaoar · · Score: 1

    But first we gotta make sure it has fresh water. I don't want to have to drink my own pee.

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    1. Re:Let's colonize these worlds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zonk already does.

      Still, piss still tastes better than Budweiser...

  16. Pilotless airplane! by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Drone! Drone!

    (sorry can't hear the word tautology without thinking about that guy)

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Pilotless airplane! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Lowering the bar for the rest of you who had no idea:

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail? blogid=5&entry_id=12853

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  17. Was predicted a while ago by bendodge · · Score: 5, Funny

    Before the Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, Dr. Russ Humphreys proposed that the plants were originally made of water, and made very accurate predictions of their magnetic fields based upon that theory.

    Look under the section "Water: The Raw Material of Creation" *tranquilizers recommended* http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/ 21_3.html

    (Please be sure to actually read is before axing my karma.)

    --
    The government can't save you.
    1. Re:Was predicted a while ago by grimJester · · Score: 1

      The field would decrease exponentially, that is, by a fixed percentage per unit time (Figure 3) . (Since readers of this Quarterly come from very diverse areas of science, I am italicizing and explaining the more technical terms).

      Thought this was funny. I have to start doing this on Slashdot as well, since only scientists specializing in astronomy and evolutionism know the meaning of words like "exponentially".

  18. Nothing like Water World, here's why: by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's like water world. Only IRL.

    No, allow me to explain:

    These things have to weigh less than 10 times what the Earth weighs, or they will become gas giants. Our sun weighs 332,946 times as much as the Earth. Only objects weighing at least three times as much as our Sun can turn into black holes. Only a black hole can suck as hard as Water World. Therefore, these water planets are nothing like Water World.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      These things have to weigh less than 10 times what the Earth weighs, or they will become gas giants. Our sun weighs 332,946 times as much as the Earth.

      How does one "weigh" a planet or star? Where do you put the scale?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by spun · · Score: 1

      Mass. Sorry, I meant "masses," not "weighs." Mass effects gravity, gravity effects orbits and such, we can tell from that. Don't ask me how, IANAAstrophysicist, but I do trust them to calculate this stuff correctly.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How does one "weigh" a planet or star? Where do you put the scale? Underneath it, duh.
    4. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by SVDave · · Score: 2, Funny

      How does one "weigh" a planet or star? Where do you put the scale?
      On the back of the topmost turtle turtle.

    5. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You put the planet into a tub full of water and see how much water the thing displaced. Duh
       
      Haven't you learn anything from 1st year physics?

      PS Code = sailors...hmmm

    6. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by treeves · · Score: 1
      And they say if you had a bathtub big enough, Saturn would float in it.

      Of course that much water in the vicinity of Saturn would be ice, but it's fun to think about a planet floating in a bathtub.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    7. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by David_Shultz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Only objects weighing at least three times as much as our Sun can turn into black holes.

      I know you were just making a joke (btw good one) but objects of any size can become black holes, including individual protons.

    8. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe parent was referring to stable black holes.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

    9. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by Agripa · · Score: 2, Funny

      How does one "weigh" a planet or star? Where do you put the scale?

      Just borrow Archimedes' Lever.

    10. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by AJWM · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know you were just making a joke ... but objects of any size can become black holes, including individual protons.

      No, he's referring to the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit - a neutron star above 3 solar masses will collapse to a black hole (or possibly a quark star), similar to Chandrasekhar's limit (about 1.44 solar masses) for forming a white dwarf. (Although because large stars blow off matter as they go through the changes, the starting mass for the star has to be better than about 8 solar masses.)

      A proton couldn't become a black hole, its Schwarzschild radius is far less than a Planck length. It's generally considered that the smallest mass that can become a black hole (radius equal to the Planck length) is about 21.77 micrograms, called the Planck mass.

      --
      -- Alastair
    11. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by dascandy · · Score: 1

      Same way as yo mamma - you measure how much gravity she creates.

    12. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass effects gravity
      gravity effects orbits

      "affects".

    13. Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Just borrow Archimedes' Lever.

      And that was the answer I was looking for! Well done, sir!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  19. The "God Ratio" by bhsx · · Score: 1

    I was trying to explain this theory about fifteen years ago to an x-girlfriend.
    The way I thought about it was:
    Heat(scale? strength?)of Star vs Mass of Planet vs Distance from Star
    I called it the God Ratio in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way. I have no idea what calculations I was playing with and was way off of any "real" science about it, but the basic gist is the same.

    --
    put the what in the where?
    1. Re:The "God Ratio" by bhsx · · Score: 1

      OK, now that I've RTFA it's not quite the same thing. My "God Ratio" was talking more about life on other planets. More precisely, the "God Ratio" dealt with planets with polar ice caps. The polar caps, imho are a necessary part of a stable planet.

      --
      put the what in the where?
    2. Re:The "God Ratio" by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      I thought you might be talking about the idea of Galactic Habitable Zones (which deals with characteristics of our solar system as well.) But it sounds more like you might be thinking of the Rare Earth Hypothesis which focuses more on the planet and the solar system they reside in. While there is a good deal of consideration given to glaciation, it focuses more on it's possible impact on evolution. It's a wonderfully interesting book, if you haven't read it. It also gives an equation based on the Drake equation.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    3. Re:The "God Ratio" by bhsx · · Score: 1

      Rare Earth Hypothesis is definitely what I was getting at, though I wouldn't have known it back then. Where was Wikipedia 15 years ago, huh?
      I could be happily married right now, but to a different woman(I am happily married)!
      It's funny in a way, in that her basic premise, which prompted my theory, was basically the Fermi paradox. "If there are intelligent beings from other worlds, we would know by now, we'd have proof..."
      My answer to that was my own version of the REH, which I'd never heard of; but would've loved to be able to access both sides of the debate via internet. Gopher just wasn't cutting-it for me I guess.
      Interestingly(or maybe not), we also had different definitions of "god." My definition at the time was "the cumulative knowledge and will to live of mankind," while hers was even more wishy-washy. Most of our friends were Gardnerian Wiccan, and none of them appreciated my explaining to then how Wicca works:
      Mind over matter being just another means of sticking-to, and attaining goals(I'd started-out getting more "psychological" than that, but at one point a good friend of ours[hers] started screaming at the top of her lungs[in my own apartment, nonetheless] about how EVIL I was[she wasn't kidding] and that I needed to shut-up before I destroyed everything magical[yeah, cause knowledge is evil and ignorance is bliss ya know]).
      Wow, that was rambling; but completely true.(and scary and hilarious at the same time)

      --
      put the what in the where?
    4. Re:The "God Ratio" by maxume · · Score: 1

      I knew a guy a few years back that thought that organized religion was probably a good thing as it stopped people from coming up with their own (potentially more out there)ideas.

      Just sayin'.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:The "God Ratio" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that when she became an ex?

  20. Atlantis! by tbcpp · · Score: 1

    Okay, everyone listen, this is important...when we get there and raise the city of Atlantis, don't even think about waking up the goth aliens.

    --
    Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    1. Re:Atlantis! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      don't even think about waking up the goth aliens

      And their queen; Marilyn Manson.

      Honestly, that was my first thought when I saw a Wraith queen for the first time "gaaaahhh!! Its Marilyn Manson!!!". Turned out that it was a different actor (actress even).

      But he'd be a great special guest star. I wonder if they've approached him about it?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Atlantis! by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

      Marilyn Manson may be a queen, but he isn't Goth. He's a heavy metal rocker who owes much of his act to glam and Alice Cooper.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    3. Re:Atlantis! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Marilyn Manson may be a queen, but he isn't Goth

      I didn't say he was a goth; he looks like a Wraith queen. Which also happens to look a bit like a disgruntled goth.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:Atlantis! by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

      Marilyn Manson doesn't look like a Goth, either. He looks like that homosexual death metal dude Mortiis.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  21. All these worlds are yours except Europa. by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Attempt no landings there.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:All these worlds are yours except Europa. by bendodge · · Score: 1

      My Linux NVIDIA Kernel installer is more insightful than that!

      --
      The government can't save you.
    2. Re:All these worlds are yours except Europa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well duh. You'd sink anyway!

    3. Re:All these worlds are yours except Europa. by SixDimensionalArray · · Score: 1

      Attempt no landings there. What, is that like General Order 7 of Federation Law and Talos IV or something?

      SixD
    4. Re:All these worlds are yours except Europa. by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's not Federation law, it's a higher power.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
  22. Dry land by C0y0t3 · · Score: 1

    is not a myth - I've seen it!

    (sorry)

  23. First Glance by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2, Funny

    I first read the title as:

    "Ocean Planets on the Brink of Destruction"

    Oh my... were screwing up those too huh?

    1. Re:First Glance by twostar · · Score: 1

      I read it as such and then got pretty confused when reading the write up.

  24. Ackbar said it best by User+956 · · Score: 1

    Of course, on said ocean planets inhabited by cetaceans one could exclaim: "Admiral, there be whales here."

    Or more likely, "It's a trap"

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  25. World by alexj33 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe we will someday find such a world- a peaceful pastoral world without war; a world without hate.

    Then I can picture us attacking that world, 'cause they'd never suspect it.

    1. Re:World by CptPicard · · Score: 1

      A more likely explanation would be to kill them in order to save them from evil Socialism; after all, their economy ought to be more "competitive" in order for our "investments" there to be more worthwhile. Fuck the harmony!

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
  26. Not for 3 more years by darthservo · · Score: 1
    Europa doesn't go aquatic until 2010. This of course is a result from Jupiter becoming a star, which we'll call Lucifer.

    After that, we can look at Europa. Just don't touch it.

    --

    Prove it.

  27. They are on the way to detection. by CelticWhisper · · Score: 3, Funny

    They have no chance to hide make their time.

    --
    Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
    http://www.tsanewsblog.com
  28. Find and complete Water World... by countSudoku() · · Score: 2, Funny

    then Ice World, Fire World, Forest World and Cave World, then fight the big boss, view the crappy finale video and bask in the glory of a game well played.

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  29. Us by alexj33 · · Score: 0

    All your oceans are belong to us....

  30. Re:hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's overLADIES thank you very much.

    I'm a Merman, you insensitive clod!

  31. Sea Monsters by sycodon · · Score: 1

    There, be Sea Monsters.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  32. What about earth-sized planets then... by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    If planets 10 x earth turn into planets with oceans a 100km deep it still
    doesn't explain how planets like Earth develop.

    The "best" theory I heard about that was the collision of Tiamat with Marduk,
    that had supposedly taken place in the solar system, Tiamat being one of those
    large 10 x Earth ocean planets and Marduk an extra-solar planet that came
    wandering in. The remnants of both planets formed the asteroid belt with
    huge chunks of water ice impacting the otherwise dry Earth.

    More important however is if they find extra-solar water planets whether they
    will actually let us know about them. Personally I think they sustainable
    development / Agenda 21 would not be too pleased for us know about planets
    like that, as they need us to focus on the fragile Earth without no alternative
    to escape to. The discovery of earth-like planets could shift our attention back into space and increase interest in faster than light travel to get there.

    1. Re:What about earth-sized planets then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it still doesn't explain how planets like Earth develop.

      How about
      Universe:~ God$ make earth
      gcc -o2 core.c
      gcc -o2 mantle.c
      gcc -o2 crust.c
      Universe:~ God$ cat earth theia > earth+moon

    2. Re:What about earth-sized planets then... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The "best" theory I heard about that was the collision of Tiamat with Marduk

      We just have to keep an eye out for those Nefilim who come back every 12,000 years or so.

      Did you by any chance read "The Twelfth Planet"?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:What about earth-sized planets then... by skoaldipper · · Score: 0

      If God truly used *nix for this creation, was he running it on a Sun system?

      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    4. Re:What about earth-sized planets then... by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      I did and I've heard the same thing repeated by people
      who have obviously too read Sitchin books. I find it
      appealing of sorts to follow his interpretation of
      the Babylonian creation tale (which is so much nicer btw
      than what you get in modern religious literature).

      http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Enuma_Elish.html

      Too bad people don't want to talk with me about the politics
      behind this. With us being directed down a earth-centric
      path of the sustainable-development fragile earth GW paradigm
      I'm really not sure whether they would want to distract
      from that by telling us that there are other possibly
      habitable worlds out there. Kind of detracts from Gaia's glory,
      the way I see them see it.

  33. Re:hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, will fuck one in the fin.

  34. Re:for the dumbass retards out there who didn't RT by exi1ed0ne · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You must be new here.

    --
    Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
  35. Brink of "Detection"? by Shinra · · Score: 1

    For a second there I thought it said "Destruction", and I thought of Waterworld. Actually though, the prospect of an ocean planet doesn't seem as far fetched as you might think. Take Star Wars or Star Trek, who both feature worlds that are either entirely or a +90% covered by water, like Mon Calimari or Kamino.

  36. We are all going to die! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Or something like that anyway.. Oh wait, superbowl is on TV.......

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  37. "under such a crushing weight, water has no choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "under such a crushing weight, water has no choice but to solidify"

    Ocean planets will do our bidding and solidify their peoples god given right to a democratic government OR ELSE

    OR ELSE what?

    OR ELSE they will become the oppressors forbidding or enjoment of BBQ, bourbon, and boobs. Forcing upon on use instead, their favored burka, bombs, and buggery

  38. Time to get my geek on. by Lendrick · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you know how far away you are from an object and how quickly you're orbiting it (assuming your orbit is roughly circular) you can use simple algebra to get a rough idea of its mass.

    Acceleration due to gravity is calculated as follows:

    a = G * (m / r^2) ...where a is the accelelration, G is the gravitational constant, and r is the distance between your two objects. Note that we're ignoring the acceleration of the sun toward the earth, which isn't technically correct, but this answer will be close enough.

    Since we're looking for the Sun's mass, we solve this equation for m.

    m = (a * r^2) / G

    The first thing we need to figure out is the value of a, or how fast things accelerate toward the sun. The earth is 1.5e11 meters from the sun, and travels in a (roughly) circular orbit once every 365.25 days (or 3.16e7 seconds). If you calculate the circumferance of the earth's orbit given the radius, you get 9.42e11 meters. The earth is moving at roughly 2.98e4 meters per second.

    The next step is to figure out how far the earth falls toward the sun every second. We can do this (again, roughly) without using calculus. Let's say that, for one second, the earth continues to travel in a straight line instead of a circle. If you subtract the earth's real orbital radius from this hypothetical one, you end up with the number of meters that earth falls every second, or a. Note that this isn't an exact calculation -- I would need to use calculus to do that -- but it's still "close enough". I'm an engineer, not a scientist, so be happy I used 3.14 for pi, as opposed to "about 3." :)

    The earth's new distance from the sun, if it travelled at a tangent for sone second, would be calculated using the Pythagorean Theorum, as follows:

    d = sqrt(1.5e11 ^ 2 + 2.98e4 ^ 2) = sqrt(2.25e22 + 8.88e8) = 150000000000.00296

    Subtracting the original distance from the sun, the earth has fallen about 2.96 millimeters in one second, which means that the earth is accelerating toward the sun at .00592 m/s. That's a. Now we just plug all that into the original equation:

    m = 0.00592 * 1.5e11^2 / G

    According to Google calculator:
    ((0.00592 (m / (s^2))) * (1.5e11^2) (m^2)) / gravitational constant = 1.9961037 × 10e30 kilograms

    Now, looking up the mass of the sun:
    mass of the sun = 1.98892 × 10e30 kilograms

    Voila, I've just calculated the mass of the sun with less than 1% error, and I didn't even need to remember any calculus. :)

    1. Re:Time to get my geek on. by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      Interesting, just looking at your first equation for acceleration, if I was to sit at one end of the bar drinking beer it would take me only 4273 and a half years to end up next to the cute blond at the other end of the bar, if we don't take into account her acceleration towards me, friction and all the other people sitting in between.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    2. Re:Time to get my geek on. by Lendrick · · Score: 2, Funny

      In that case, of course, her mass isn't negligible compared to yours, unless one or both of you have a serious eating disorder. :)

  39. Oblig Barry McGuire by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Tell me over again, my friend... you don't believe we're on the eve of detection?

  40. What about desert planets? by Rheingold · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd rather find desert planets... only there will we find the Spice.

    Wil

    --
    Wil
    wiki
  41. NASA Simulator for a water world by HoneyBeeSpace · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you'd like simulate a water world yourself, the EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.

    It is a very general GCM so included in the download are paleo-earth configurations. You can run a simulation of the earth from 750 million years ago when it was mostly covered in water (but also very cold) to see one possible scenario. As mentioned above, you can add CO2 and turn up or down the sun or any other GHG to see other scenarios.

    Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.

    1. Re:NASA Simulator for a water world by khallow · · Score: 1

      You know, Earth is still mostly covered in water.

    2. Re:NASA Simulator for a water world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you change continents and planet size?
      There are so many worlds which would be interesting.
      Have people done that?

    3. Re:NASA Simulator for a water world by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      I was going to ask the very same thing. I want to model Mars with more water!

  42. The "quotes"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... attributed to Quayle were made up by liberals.

    1. Re:The "quotes"... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Actually a world with (water) oceans is loaded with oxygen, and probably does have a lot in the atmosphere too.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  43. Ocean = Sea, Planet = World... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    ...that's right, my friends.

    Entire worlds filled with smart-assed killer whales called "Shamu", "Namu" and other oriental-sounding made-up names ending in "u" who all think it's jolly hilarious to splash you with water...

    Don't trust those sly, beady-eyed orcas - they've even got us all believing that they're mammals when we all *REALLY* know they're just bloody big fish!

    Wibble!

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  44. The real breakthrough is resolving power by heroine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Corot sounds like another space based IR telescope with an incrementally better mechanism to reject glare. The output is going to be an intensity graph over time, with small dips from planetary transits, the same thing we've been doing for many years.

    The real breakthrough is when we finally have enough magnification and resolving power to see living things on other planets. The great barrier reef is a living thing that can be resolved from beyond Mars orbit with today's technology. The first extrasolar life we see is going to be something like a great barrier reef.

    The trick is going to be making a telescope the size of the solar system. The mission is probably going to use 2 Hubble size telescopes on opposite sides of Mars orbit, with incredible magnification well beyond the diffraction limit of each telescope, and the highly diffracted images from both telescopes being combined in software to produce a corrected image with a virtual aperture the size of Mars orbit. Only with that kind of mission are you going to "detect" habitable, extrasolar planets.

    1. Re:The real breakthrough is resolving power by TheOrquithVagrant · · Score: 1

      Using optical interferometry to produce actual synthetic aperture images is turning out to be extremely difficult even with earth-based observatories with fiber-optic links between them. While ssing multiple telescopes in orbit like you suggest may be theoretically possible, but I'm seriously wondering about whether it'll be doable within any kind of foreseeable future. It's also going to take more than just two to produce actual images.
      A less technologically insurmountable potential way of getting extra-solar planet surface-resolving capability are solar foci telescopes, which would use the sun's gravitational lensing as the primary lens of a 800 AU long refractor. This is an incredibly cool concept that is actually on the drawing board already, although it's going to be a while before we see any of them launched.

  45. Water worlds of Star Maker by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

    When I hear talk of ocean worlds I am always reminded of the amazing speculation about them that Stapledon did in his books.

    In Olaf Stapledon's book "Star Maker" (see here also) he describes one water world .. I'm thinking of the world of the living ships, not the that of the dolphin-crab symbionts or the avians. Living ship-like beings, think a cross between a whale and a squid with natural deployable sails. The symbionts eventually develop technology and starships because there are a few islands that become the site of research. But even the world of the living ships have a few islands. However there are also avian races on true water worlds where flying fish have evolved into bird like things ... small bodies, small brains but group minds. Been a while since I've read it. Hmmmm ... must read it yet again. Bliss.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  46. Damn, mis-read the headline and got all excited... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    I thought that said "Open Planets"

    I thought there was some FOSP stuff going down for which I missed my ticket.

    Yeah, I could almost see it - a Free Open Source Planet...

    No taxes, free beer (as in free beer). Pi*d^2 virgins for every geek ("d" can be enhanced, check your email for details.)

    Everyone would have unlimited funds, thanks to a PayPal account, linked to a Nigerian bank account.

    Oh, forget it, humoring the masses is too tedious right now, the phone is ringing.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  47. Mermaids. Sigh. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    They're very pretty, but they have a terrible, terrible flaw. Listen to these guys' explanation.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  48. I thought ice was less dence than water by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    If were're talking about H20 I just can't see how there could be a core of ice. Core of rock sure, maybe ancoring down some ice but I don't see how a core could be mostly ice. The ice would immediately try to float to the surface.

    1. Re:I thought ice was less dence than water by mr_pins · · Score: 1

      The are 14 different solid phases of water, each with it's own
      crystaline structure and characeristc density.

      Ice I, which forms around standard temperature and pressure, is less dense than water.

      Under the pressure at a depth of 100 km, water will become solid (even well
      above 0 degrees celsius, given high enough pressure), and you can call that solid 'ice',
      but it won't be Ice I, it will be another form of ice, one denser than liquid water.