Water Found in Exoplanet's Atmosphere

anthemaniac writes "Astronomers have long suspected that water should exist in the atmospheres of extrasolar planets. Now they have evidence. Water has been discovered in a planet called HD209458b, which was previously found to have oxygen. From the article: 'The discovery ... means one of the most crucial elements for life as we know it can exist around planets orbiting other stars.' But don't go looking for little green men. You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star."

Comments

Straw poll:

[Anonymous Coward]

This discovery only reinforces the possibility of life outside our solar system; we've only discovered a few extra-solar planets, and at least one among those we've seen has life. So:

How many people now think that ETs of some form do exist?

Re:Straw poll:

[spun]

This discovery only reinforces the possibility of life outside our solar system; we've only discovered a few extra-solar planets, and at least one among those we've seen has life. So:

How many people now think that ETs of some form do exist?

It's a big universe. Chances are very good that other life of some sort exists. However, we have found no evidence of life yet, despite the presence of oxygen which would usually be considered a strong indicator of the presence of life.

"Despite the oxygen, the faraway planet is not one that would support life." -- www.space.com

Re:Straw poll:

[Anonymous Coward]

I've watched the astronomical community (from both the inside and as a layperson) go from not knowing for sure whether there were planets outside of the solar system to being able to routinely detect exo-planets with off-the-self equipment within 10 years.

I can't help but wonder how long it'll take till we have the same leap for detecting life once we know exactly what we're looking for. I'm hoping it'll be sooner rather than later.

Re:Straw poll:

[jimstapleton]

Actually, in areas of greater pressure (deeper under the clouds), there is still the possibility of life I would say.

Another thing is, we often make the following assumptions in terms of life forms, and we can be ceratain of none of them:

1) requirements of Carbon and Oxygen
-- Sulphur, Silicon, and any far-left or far-right non-noble element can handle the requirements here (namely something that can form long complex structures, and something highly reactive that nonetheless has stable compounds wherein it exists)
2) The life will be based on nucleic acids (RNA/DNA) and amino acids (proteins)
-- While these are more simple structures that could perform their tasks while remaining stable, there are other structures that could potentially store data and perform structural/chemical tasks.

Re:Straw poll:

[mattatwork]

There is a good chance, but it would most likely be microbial life (ie bacteria)...not something exciting like little green men. Bacteria can grow in soil, acidic hot springs, radioactive waste and in extreme cold condiations (ie space)...

Re:Straw poll:

[insanius]

anyone who doubts that there is ET life is either extremely ignorant or just a fool. seriously, i don't even see how in this day in age that there is even a debate about 'if?'. the real questions are 'what kind?', 'where?', 'how "intelligent"?'. we've known for some time now that new elements get created with every star and spread with their explosions and comets carry the ingredients for life light years way. Comets are intergalactic sperm, planets/moons are the eggs. In my mind it couldn't be more obvious.

Re:Straw poll:

[chuckymonkey]

I think that most scientists are aware of that and what they're actually getting at are planets that could support life similar to our own. Life that we could recognize and interact with, perhaps even coexist with in some unknown future. There are many unproven forms that life can exist in, however we probably wouldn't recognize them if we saw them so we naturally stick with what we know.

Re:Straw poll:

[CogDissident]

Besides, whats the use of finding a space buffalo if we can't kill it, eat it's flesh, wear it's skin, and turn the land it used to live on into farmland?

Re:Straw poll:

[trianglman]

Comets, in general are not interstellar bodies, much less intergalactic. Is it probable that a comet deposited the necessary elements on Earth for life? Yes, but those comets were created during the creation of our solar system; they didn't come from Alpha Centauri, etc. I also believe, just on odds, that there is other, probably intelligent, life in the universe and your questions are more accurate than "If"

Re:Straw poll:

[arktemplar]

In Cosmos, Carl Sagan has described such beings(hypothetical beings - if you want to nitpick), consider them to be similar to large gas bags, that feed on carbon matter in the atmosphere. If you consider it that flying whales post might actually describe them pretty well also - Such creatures were used by Arthur C. Clarke in one of his oddesy series books (forget which one), he even described a predator of sorts for them, interestingly for another descrpition (although not at all based on science or facts ) there is a similar set of creatures in Dan Dare (Yes, the same Dan Dare where venusians were large green things, and you could breathe on Venus)

Re:Straw poll:

[jelton]

"...we've only discovered a few extra-solar planets, and at least one among those we've seen has life."

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Mankind has found an extra-solar planet with evidence of life? I must have missed the headlines.

Re:Straw poll:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> Chances are very good that other life of some sort exists.

On what basis are you saying this? It doesn't simply follow from the universe being big if the chances of life appearing at any given location is small enough. How do you know that this isn't the case?

Re:Straw poll:

[KingKiki217]

I'm a Christian, and I find your argument ad hominem, off topic, and ignorant at best. If you aren't trolling, please keep in mind that a belief in a God, although shared by crazies and extremists, does not make one any less intellectually capable, any more than being a vegetarian makes a person evil because Hitler was one.

Re:Straw poll:

[Derosian]

I'm surprised you failed to mention the Fermi Paradox.

Re:Straw poll:

[Rei]

The Slylandro in Star Control II were like that as well -- a sentient gas giant species. They developed their intelligence not from toolmaking but from cooperative hunting, chasing small organisms into storm vortices much in the same way that whales use bubbles to trap krill into a bait ball. The more intelligent, cooperative Slylandro were able to thrive in more inhospitable areas and capture more elusive prey. However, after reaching sentience, their culture stagnated. Having no ability to make tools, they had remained confined to their planet and relatively unchanged as a species for millions of years before your character meets them.

Re:Straw poll:

[Grishnakh]

Maybe you should redirect your anger to all your fellow Christians who believe exactly as I said in my post. I'm just posting on my observations on the great majority of Christians in this country and how they behave.

Your Hitler comparison is flawed. Hitler was only one person, and most vegetarians are nothing like Hitler. However, a majority of Christians (at least in the USA; my apologies if you live somewhere else where Christians are not fundamentalist) do believe the earth is 6000 years old, that evolution is false, that Creationism should be taught in public schools, etc. So if you're one of the rare minority that doesn't believe this way, and doesn't try to push these beliefs on everyone else, then that's great. But you have to acknowledge that most of your co-believers are like this this.

Re:Straw poll:

[LotsOfPhil]

(warning, I use chemical symbols. You might want a periodic table).
I agree with you that there could well be life that is vastly different than what we are used to.

Another thing is, we often make the following assumptions in terms of life forms, and we can be ceratain of none of them:
1) requirements of Carbon and Oxygen
-- Sulphur, Silicon, and any far-left or far-right non-noble element can handle the requirements here (namely something that can form long complex structures, and something highly reactive that nonetheless has stable compounds wherein it exists)

But this doesn't make sense to me. When you say far-left and far-right, I assume you mean the periodic table. That means you are talking about Cl, Br, Na, K, etc. That doesn't make sense (they tend to only make 1 bond), so I figure you are talking about the p-block.
That means you are talking about B, F, C, Si, Cl and Br. What is special about carbon is that it forms 4 bonds. So, this means you are just talking about carbon and silicon. Let's throw out anything heavier (Ge, Sn) because they aren't that abundant.
Sure, there could be something based on silicon but... Look at CO2 (a gas) and SiO2 (silica, a solid). Carbon just seems like the best candidate for life to be based on. Nitrogen (or P) and boron (or Al) seem to be the best other candidates.

Re:Straw poll:

[chuckymonkey]

Don't forget that we have to subjugate some natives.

Re:Straw poll:

[zenkonami]

Which is unfortunate, really. Sure, it's easier to keep an eye out for what we know, but I think it's important to consider how faulty many of our ideas about life, and particularly intelligent life may be. Assumptions like:

* Intelligent life wants to talk to us
* Intelligent life has the capability to talk to us
* Intelligent life has similar desires and ambitions as we do (or desires and ambitions at all)
* Intelligent life is necessarily spacefaring

Granted, we get caught in the trap of how we define intelligent life, but there could be many drastically different, unimagined yet intelligent beings out there that are nothing at all like us.

Despite our somewhat clumsy (but nevertheless impressive) grasp on technology in what seems a very short space of time, other lifeforms may fit entirely different criteria that we would still classify intelligent.

Re:Straw poll:

[Dragonslicer]

I'm just posting on my observations on the great majority of Christians in this country and how they behave.

You've actually observed tens of millions of people? Most Christians in the United States, just like most people of any other group, would rather just live their lives and be left alone. The problem is that it's usually the crazy ones that get media time. For every right-wing religious nutjob you see on television, there are probably thousands of Christians that will agree with you that the person is a nutjob.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not Christian.

Re:Straw poll:

[NocturnalCritter]

It's already been argued here: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/1 9/1515205

Re:Straw poll:

[spun]

Because we know it exists in at least one location, and given the size of the universe, the odds are pretty good that the EXACT same conditions exist in at least one other place. Do you have any idea how many billions of stars are in our galaxy, and how many billions of galaxies are in the observable universe?

Certainly no one knows the exact odds of life beginning, but we know it happened at least once. We know that the structure of our universe seems to favor the development of autocatalytic systems, feedback loops, and homeostasis.

If you are saying, "no one knows for sure. Don't say you're sure the chances are good if you can't prove they are," then that is certainly valid. If you are saying, "I doubt any other life besides us exists," well, that's even more of a reach than my original position.

Re:Straw poll:

[Grishnakh]

I disagree. While the ones with media time are certainly a little more extreme (or else we'd have mobs of them in the streets demonstrating), most of the others, while more passive, actually support most of their positions. See the recent polls which found that 48% of Americans don't believe in Evolution. That's an indicator that, yes, tens of millions of people in the USA are in agreement with these so-called extremists. Heck, even here on Slashdot, "news for nerds", we have a very large contingent of Creationism-supporters that show up every time a related article pops up. It's not just a few backwoods yokels who are acting this way.

Re:Straw poll:

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have written "...and at least one among those we've seen has water."

But you knew that :)

Re:Straw poll:

[Rei]

Look at CO2 (a gas) and SiO2 (silica, a solid).

That's a misconception; the sort of silicon-based life that we're talking about are not precisely the same as carbon chains. In carbon chains, you typically have C-C-C-C-C... etc. In the equivalent silicon (actually silicone) molecule, you have Si-O-Si-O-Si-O-Si.... etc. Si-Si-Si... etc doesn't chain well, but Si-O-Si-O.. chains indefinitely. Compare a hydrocarbon-based lubricant with a silicone-based one, hydrocarbon solids (plastics) with silicone ones, etc. There's been a lot more research on the former so far; the latter can likewise be functionalized.

A few differences in the chemistry:

1) C-C-C-C-C... chains can freely rotate, while Si-O-Si-O... chains need a specific "joint" to do so.
2) Carbon more readily double and triple bonds, although removing Os from the Si-O chain can create similar (but not equivalent) effects.

There are all sorts of biologically interesting silicon compounds. The silicon equivalent of methane is silane. It's even more flammable than methane; it's hypergolic with our atmosphere (burns on contact). Its giving up of its hydrogen could be seen as equivalent to ATP and its phosphorus. Longer "silanes" scale like longer hydrocarbons -- their vapor pressure decreases the longer they get (silanes with 2-3 silicons make for good wood sealants). Zeolites are silicates (your typical silicon solids that you were picturing) but with various metal ions interspersed with them; they're excellent, highly selective catalysts. Probably the most biologically interesting (to me, at least) are silanols, which exist naturally in Earth's oceans (and probably predated life), and can form all sorts of catalytic groups, membranes, etc.

Re:Straw poll:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> Because we know it exists in at least one location

Which tells us nothing except that it is possible for life to exist. The fact that life exists here tells us absolutely nothing about the likelihood of life arising apart from its being greater than zero because for obvious reasons we are sampling from a biased distribution, being alive ourselves. :-)

> Do you have any idea how many billions of stars are in our galaxy, and how many billions of galaxies are in the observable universe?

As it happens, yes. But I also know that combinatorial explosions can generate numbers vastly larger than the number of things in the physical universe and the number of ways of arranging matter is described by a combinatorial explosion. Who knows how many of those combinations involve life, but it has the potential to be incredibly small. Small in a way that the size of the universe doesn't touch in bigness.

> If you are saying, "no one knows for sure. Don't say you're sure the chances are good if you can't prove they are," then that is certainly valid.

Looks like we're actually in total agreement.

Re:Straw poll:

[Dasher42]

Well, let's look at what the most common elements are in the universe. A quick Google shows:

Hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon, iron, nitrogen, silicon, magnesium, sulfur. There's your top ten, in that order. It's interesting that carbon, versatile as it is, is so very common. Considering that hydrogen and oxygen, hence water, rank even higher, I think that life as we know it has statistically higher odds of appearing, especially in conditions where water is liquid. The physics of these compounds is the same everywhere, assuming similar environmental conditions.

Now, life on earth has been through several mass extinctions and major evolutionary possibilities got cut off short. However, we have a lot of convergent evolution - for example, the similarities of fish, ichthysaurs, and dolphins being dictated by the properties of liquid water.

It might be interesting to consider the possibility that life out there will have some strong similarities, if superficial, to what we've seen.

Re:Straw poll:

[Enrique1218]

I agree as for sulfur but silicon is stretching things a bit. In contrast to carbon, silicon dioxide is a non soluble solid. The gaseous solublity properties of carbon means that it can distribute in water and in cells where it can be fixed into sugars and biological compounds by life. Silicon can't be distributed that way and thus least likely to be the basis of life. There are other reasons however it is suffice to say that silicon based life would have a smaller occurrence in the universe than that of carbon. Thus, with limited resources, the scientist will look first for the compounds ( carbon and oxygen) that they have the best evidence as supporting life. They are just relying on what know. I am sure that no one is making presumptions on the nature of life in the universe.

Re:Straw poll:

[Propaganda13]

One definition of alien - differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility. For all we know, real paranormal activity could be aliens trying to communicate with us.

Scientists aren't looking for intelligent life, they're just looking for life. Discovering an amoeba on a different planet would be a major find.

Re:Straw poll:

[largesnike]

I have wondered for a long time whether silicate-based life could have evolved. I imagined that it would occur on planets of very high surface temperature, such as those like mercury, but were large enough, or under enough gravitational wrenching to maintain a largely molten surface. Your post has suggested that this may not need to be so. I was wondering if you could speculate on a possible evolutionary path (my own chemistry is woefully inadequate for the task)?

Re:Straw poll:

[Rei]

The key seems to be evolution in a reducing atmosphere. Moderately low temperature, high pressure, and acidic would be good -- perhaps a subsurface ocean, like on Europa or Enceladus around a geothermal vent, not too close to the heat. The first requirement is abiotic production of silicone chains; these will naturally break down into silanols. Here's one possibility: volcanic hydrochloric acid reacts with silicon to produce cholorosilanes, which polymerize in the presence of water. These break down into all kinds of silanols. Concentrations of them will occur on the surfaces of silicate rocks; they act like acids, and readily hydrogen bond with the surface and with each other. You can get planar structures (membranes), linear structures, all sorts of 3d structures, all kinds of catalytic groups, etc. There will be a simple form of "competition" for substrates and for the other silanols clustered around the rocks. You now have a phase-space attractor; the scene is set for abiogenesis. For all we know, our carbon-based chemistry could have arisen atop such a silicon-based catalytic base, in the "scaffolding" model of abiogenesis.

Re:Straw poll:

[Anonymous Coward]

Back to Hitler and vegetables: if you both like lettuce, does that mean you are in agreement with Hitler that lettuce is good? Yes, it does. Does it mean you support Hitler in everything he says and does? Hell no.

It sounds like you dont want to believe that most christians in the USA or WHEREVER are normal people that have differing and sometimes overlapping opinions. Most dont give a shit if they teach evolution in school, and most DONT WANT creationism to be taught in school because they dont believe that federally-funded schools should be preaching to kids.

Of course, you probably have a personal anecdote of how all the christians in your area had a suicide party and messed up your lawn or some crap. Your mind is made up.

Re:Straw poll:

[Grishnakh]

You're absolutely wrong. If you don't believe me, here's a link to one of the aforementioned polls:
CBS poll

Before you say anything about the validity of polls, I think they're a lot more valid than some comments from random people like you on Slashdot who are trying to defend a position with no evidence whatsoever.

Anyway, the poll referenced shows 55% believing that "God created humans in present form", meaning they're Creationists. More importantly, 37% favor teaching Creationism instead of Evolution in schools, and 65% favor teaching both.

So your assertion that most Christians in the USA ("WHEREVER" is a totally different ball of wax; other places don't have nearly as many fundamentalists as the USA) "DONT WANT" creationism taught in school is obviously false. The percentage of Christians in the USA is certainly significantly less than 100%, with all the atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and others. Let's say it's around 75% for argument's sake; if 65% out of 75% believes both Creationism and Evolution should be taught, that's obviously a majority. And the 37% of the stricter Creationism-only group is still about half. Again, look at the significance here: HALF of US Christians want Creationism (only) taught in schools.

So no, my opinions are not based on any personal anecdotes, but instead large nationwide surveys.

Re:Straw poll:

[thesandtiger]

Er, no - it *might* have life. Unless I've missed the biggest news story in the history of all mankind, we haven't yet discovered life off of the Earth.

Re:Straw poll:

[evilviper]

This discovery only reinforces the possibility of life outside our solar system;

Yeah, that's the general idea here...

we've only discovered a few extra-solar planets, and at least one among those we've seen has life.

Umm... Would you care to fill me in on the news of the extrasolar planet where lifeforms have been discovered?

If you just mistyped and mean the Earth, well, 1 positive is a horrible survey, with basically an infinite margin of error... It could be one in 100, or one in 99999999999999999999999999, until you have another example, it's impossible to guess at the odds, unless you know EXACTLY what it takes for life to form (we don't) and approximately how many planets are likely to have those exact conditions where and when they need them (we don't know that either).

How many people now think that ETs of some form do exist?

I'd go out on a limb and say: Exactly the same number that did before they heard this story.

IMHO, I'm willing to be the stand-out and betting on no life of any kind outside of this planet. And if I turn out to be wrong, I'd still bet a hell of a lot of money that any such life will be simple, and we won't find higher lifeforms anywhere... That's right, no super-beings to come along and solve all our problems for us.

Re:Straw poll:

[Samah]

Seriously though, unless these so-called aliens have invested in billions of dollars worth of peanut butter, we have nothing to worry about! :)

Re:Straw poll:

[kestasjk]

I didn't understand it.. Mod it up!

Re:Straw poll:

[The_Wilschon]

Sulphur, Silicon, and any far-left or far-right non-noble element can handle the requirements here (namely something that can form long complex structures, and something highly reactive that nonetheless has stable compounds wherein it exists)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon#Silicon-based _life:

Under known conditions, silicon chemistry simply cannot begin to approach the diversity of organic chemistry, a crucial factor in carbon's role in biology.

Also, the article points out that long complex chains of silicon (silanes) are very unstable. Not a good foundational element for life at all.

Re:Straw poll:

[stor]

37% favor teaching Creationism instead of Evolution in schools, and 65% favor teaching both.

And 2% are a bit confused. :)

Cheers
Stor

Re:Straw poll:

[Cyberax]

The problem with silanes is lack of stable aromatic compounds - carbon seems to be unique in that sense, AFAIR. Si atoms just have a lot more degrees of freedom - they don't hybridize, they just oxidize/reduct.

Re:Straw poll:

[Grishnakh]

Whoops, I guess that was a little unclear, although the linked article actually presents it that way from the poll results. I imagine the poll questions were presented separately, with one being "status quo or creationism + evolution?" and the other being "status quo or creationism-only?". The strict creationists would choose the latter for both questions.

Re:Straw poll:

[the cheong]

By no means am I an expert, but I think it's very possible that life as we know it MAY be the only form of life.

According to some theories, as Earth's crust solidified and conditions stabilized, random collisions and reactions (aided by lightning) occurred throughout the entire surface. Imagine the countless number of interactions that occurred in a single second. Multiply that by hundreds of millions of years. For generations upon generations of these tiny random "experiments", only the most stable results "made it" and survived long enough to be part of the next generation of experiments. I have no grasp over the magnitude we are discussing, but I feel that only the very "best" choices would have survived the millions of generations to produce molecules such as amino acids.

With more complex components (i.e. cell membranes, DNA/proteins/enzymes, etc.) I agree that it's extremely difficult to imagine that these results were unique or "chosen". But the number of test collisions is large - after the hundred million years, add 4 billion years for evolution to take place.

In reality, I have no idea, so someone run the numbers and see whether or not the above statements are at least valid, if not sound.

Re:Straw poll:

[hcdejong]

"I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." (Calvin and Hobbes)

Re:Straw poll:

[Bloke down the pub]

You've actually observed tens of millions of people?

Indirectly, yes. Via that thing that you have every four years.

Re:Straw poll:

[jimstapleton]

Interesting, I thought of Clarke when I made that post due to the series.

I also thought of (Bova?) With Saturn Rukh.

Re:Straw poll:

[jimstapleton]

Good points there. Also (regarding the post you replied to), the point is a chemically reactive elements, with the far left/right stuff, moreso than the ability to double bond, though the double bonding elements could also be relevant.

Re:Straw poll:

[jimstapleton]

The problem with your logic is that you look at the earth as if it has had 4 billion years to experiement with new kinds of life.

As soon as the first kind took over, that experimentation would cease, because de-novo life would be very inadept at surviving, especially compared to something that has had time to evolve. De-novo life would not be able to get an ecological niche for itself and compete agains existing life, nor would it be able to go head-to-head against existing life on a more direct competition.

Re:Straw poll:

[jimstapleton]

It is not unreasonable that we would be able to communicate with a type of life other than our own. We may not be able to exist in the same environment, or eat the same foods, but that would simply reduce the likelyhood of wars.

Rather, we would use things like radios or the future equivalent to communicate.

Re:Straw poll:

[bhiestand]

Don't forget that we have to subjugate some natives. That is so 19th century! The new method is to convert them to our religion, build their economies, and convince them to tithe 10% of their incomes to Earth Church while selling their resources to us. It's really much more efficient this way.

Re:Straw poll:

[bhiestand]

37% favor teaching Creationism instead of Evolution in schools, and 65% favor teaching both.

And 2% are a bit confused. :)

Cheers
Stor While what you said is funny, it's a bit off. 37% wish they would ONLY teach Creationism in schools. 65% would accept it if they taught creationism alongside evolution. Most Christians will argue that they're in favor of teaching evolution in schools "in context". Of course this means teaching that "sure, some things evolve, but humans were made as-is by God. Praise Jesus! And even IF we DID evolve from some sort of primate, God was behind it." It's the overlapping 28% that scares me, because they have a much better chance of actually winning this round.

Luckily, 35% of our population is still somewhat sane...

Re:Straw poll:

[bhiestand]

You've actually observed tens of millions of people?

Indirectly, yes. Via that thing that you have every four years. Leap Year? The Quadrennial Defense Review? The Olympics? Watching Canada Lose at the Summer Olympics?

Re:Straw poll:

[Rei]

What didn't you understand? I'd be glad to explain.

Re:Straw poll:

[wilec]

"Besides, whats the use of finding a space buffalo if we can't kill it, eat it's flesh, wear it's skin, and turn the land it used to live on into farmland?"

Heck the way things are headed here it seems we would be more likely hunt it to extinction for sport then turn the real estate into mined out wasteland, tract housing, strip malls, airports, golf courses, off road vehicle parks, highways and parking lots. I would have included manufacturing facilities but we would most likely have outsourced all that to the Chinese Borg.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Re:Straw poll:

[Grishnakh]

Yep, these numbers worry me as well. It's hard to believe that so many people can't understand, at a completely basic level, what science is, and that it doesn't involve religion. Honestly, I read grown adults (pro-creationists) complaining that Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. Well no shit sherlock! It's not supposed to! Or the bit about evolution being "guided" by a god. That's an interesting idea, but it's simply not something to be addressed by science, just like the question of "is this action ethical?" is not a question for science. You'd think people would have learned these basic concepts in 4th grade.

Re:Straw poll:

[the cheong]

That's true, I didn't think of that. Plus, even at the very early stages such as the formation of amino acids, things could be very different depending on the environmental conditions. Like if there were insufficient levels of a certain substance, then other "amino acids" (which may be nothing like them at all, but a key component in the progress toward life) may form, since the most "stable" competitors do not have to be the substances we know.

Re:Straw poll:

[Bloke down the pub]

My bad. I should have written "that thing you used to have every four years".

Do your research...

[otacon]

I live on HD209458b you insensitive clod.

Re:Do your research...

[camperdave]

I live on HD209458b you insensitive clod.

Man, you must have some serious lag times.

Re:Do your research...

[EvilRyry]

I live on HD209458b you insensitive clod.

Man, you must have some serious lag times.

Seriously... I wonder how he managed to get first post?

Re:Do your research...

[Ice Wewe]

I live on HD209458b you insensitive clod.

Man, you must have some serious lag times.

Yeah, but does his ISP shape encrypted traffic? Don't want those damn Plutonians knowing what he does online!

Re:Do your research...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live on HD209458b you insensitive clod.

Man, you must have some serious lag times.

Seriously... I wonder how he managed to get first post?

You may also recall that Flux Capacitors grow like weeds on HD209458b.

Re:Do your research...

[otacon]

I'm actually on dial-up here, you should see what the broadband connections can do.

Re:Do your research...

[Colonel Angus]

Even so, I bet his wireless carrier's data rates are cheaper than Canada's...

Re:Do your research...

[AndrewNeo]

Actually, he got second post, so he must be on dialup.

Criteria for Life

[SuperKendall]

But don't go looking for little green men. You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star."

Where there is hot water, there are saunas. Where there are saunas, there are tourists. Thus this remote planet has life, and most likley drinks with little umbrellas (or "snotzwathctls" as the local dialect probably refers to them).

Re:Criteria for Life

[fractalVisionz]

Why do people always believe that there needs to be O2 and H20 for life to exist. Methane also allows for what we decided to be organic molecules to form. And quite frankly, I produce life and methane.

But seriously, I hate how we only look for life in an O2 rich place. We don't even know how we came to be, and we could have just as easily been made from NH3...

Re:Criteria for Life

[Rei]

We don't. I could dig up some papers for you on other potential biomarkers. They can be as esoteric as sharp lines on the surface that shift seasonally but whose spectral signature doesn't match up with materials that you would expect a phase change for.

Also, O2 is no sure biomarker. Europa has an abiotic O2 atmosphere, albeit extremely thin. A "water world" (earthlike planet with no solid surface, only a giant global sea) could do it: ionizing radiation from the star separates 2 H2O into 4H + 2O, which usually turn into 2H2 + O2. The 2H2 escapes; however, unlike on Europa, the O2 can't escape readily from such a massive body, and unlike Earth, there's not much for it to oxidize.

Re:Criteria for Life

[rbanffy]

But seriously, I hate how we only look for life in an O2 rich place.

Because it would be easier to invade, should the need to destroy WMDs ever arise ;-)

Re:Criteria for Life

[Anonymous Coward]

> or "snotzwathctls" as the local dialect probably refers to them

They also have something called djinnanth-onyx. It's a blob of superheated gas plasma, but to them its an awesome intoxicating drink.

Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, just the other day I said "Hey, remember HD209458b"? and everyone was like "Oh yeah, that's the 'Hot Jupiter', right?"

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, just the other day I said "Hey, remember HD209458b"? and everyone was like "Oh yeah, that's the 'Hot Jupiter', right?"

At least it wasn't 'Great Personality Jupiter.'

Re:Of course!

[ResidntGeek]

Or "Knows Music Jupiter".

Re:Of course!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This universe where big fat ping pong balls of a woman with skin blemishes are "hot" intrigues me. Do you have a brochure or mailing list?

Re:Of course!

[onkelonkel]

Re: your sig. That was me. Sorry, didn't you get the memo?

Re:Of course!

[boingo82]

Also RE your sig - that's not an internet thing. In the newspaper and publishing business we've been using one space for decades. Don't blame us if your middle-school teacher taught you wrong.

Boiling water? No problem!

[phyrebyrd]

Just think of all the marine life that lives in and around the thermal vents on the sea floor... Temperature isn't much of a challenge if you're determined enough!

SR388

[Anonymous Coward]

Water has been discovered in a planet called SR388, which was previously found to have oxygen.

Yeah, but it's full of Metroids...

Move along, nothing to see here people.

No little green men?

[DaveV1.0]

How about large, flying whales?

Re:No little green men?

[Ice Wewe]

What about the petunias?

Re:No little green men?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Flying whales? Aren't they supposed to be kind of floating like blimps?

Re:No little green men?

[LoofWaffle]

In line with this thread, I was thinking that HD209458b might be useful for a proper cup of tea.

Aaaaaahhhhhh......

[ricky-road-flats]

You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star.

Oh, *that* HB209458b...

Re:Aaaaaahhhhhh......

[otacon]

I was getting it confused with HD209458a for the longest time.

Re:Aaaaaahhhhhh......

[Mipoti Gusundar]

I am coming to America on a HB209458b.

Re:Aaaaaahhhhhh......

[Anonymous Coward]

No I don't. I remember it only as 0xd209458b and I distinctly resent Microsoft notations.

too hot for life

[wizardforce]

Temperature isn't much of a challenge if you're determined enough

"It might eventually be stripped entirely of its gas envelope, leaving behind a liquid core of lava." im pretty sure lava will be hot enough. water is everywhere in space- from the icy cold moons of the outer planets to comets and asteroids- they all have huge amounts of water... ice- the water in this planet is a gas, there needs to be liquid water for something to be alive.

Re:too hot for life

[Anonymous Coward]

you're an idiot, please stop posting. kthx

let me get this straight...

[physicsboy500]

FTA:

Because of the tight orbit, the star would cause immense tides on the planet that "blow away part of the upper atmosphere," explained Alfred Vidal-Madjar, who led the study out of the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris. As mass is stripped, the planet loses gravitational prowess, making it easier for more hydrogen to flee.

So that's a star and it's slowly killing that poor little planet

We've found something even bigger than water on a different planet

We've found the Death Star!!!

Re:let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the poor planet's problems can't possibly be due to it's star. We all know it has to be because the HD209458bians didn't reduce their carbon footprint. Now look what they have done!

Oblig.

[mstahl]

I, for one, welcome our new HD209458bian overlords.

Re:Oblig.

[Anonymous Coward]

These 'Obligatory...' posts are common enough now to be shortened into Internet Acronyms (IAs). For example, you might have written:

Subject: Ob.
Body: IFOWON HD209458 overlords.

This IA has the added benefit of sounding a bit like the phrase it's replacing.

Likewise, slashdot humor can get the IA treatment:

In Soviet Russia = ISR
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of = IABCO
But does it run Linux? = BDIRL?

and so on. Doing this would save precious bits, and would serve well as a in-joke for the Slashdot cognoscenti. Thus, I, Anonymous Coward, the most prolific poster on Slashdot, hereby recommend that IAs replace all standing Slashdot catch-phrases.

Re:Oblig.

[zcsteele]

IABCO of IA's!

ISR, IAs shorten YOU!

Re:Oblig.

[AmberBlackCat]

I, for one, welcome our new HD209458bian overlords.

And we thank you.

"Hi, I'm Troy McClure..."

[sczimme]

"You might remember me from such planets as HD209458b, the 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star, and from Earth, the deadliest planet of them all."

Oh, I see!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any water in Uranus?

Ta-da-boom!

Read this book: Rare Earth

[oni]

There is a great book that anyone interested in this question should read: Rare Earth.

It is a very well-researched book that goes into great detail on all the different terms of the drake equation (and a few extra terms) and shows what the best scientific evidence suggests are the actual values for those terms. The bottom line of the book is that single-celled life is probably incredibly common, it's probably everywhere. Life that's big enough for you to actually see is probably pretty rare. Intelligent life is very rare, and technological civilizations are practically a miracle.

Re:Read this book: Rare Earth

[Lane.exe]

Of course, given the size and age of the universe, the emergence of technological civilizations can still be both miraculous and "common" by our own finite, everyday standards.

Re:Read this book: Rare Earth

[oni]

civilizations can still be both miraculous and "common" Wait. Isn't "common" usually defined in terms of a ratio? dictionary.com definition 4 says: widespread; general; ordinary

So by that definition, even if there are billions of civilizations, if the ratio is 1/10000000000000 then I don't think you can call it common.

Anyway, the grandparent post asked, "who believes in ET" and I think that a scientific answer: ET is out there, but maybe not even in our galaxy. So we are very very unlikely to ever find any life that we can talk to. The question that people want to know the answer to is, is our universe like the one on Star Trek, with aliens everywhere. I think that the answer is no.

Re:Read this book: Rare Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent life is very rare, and technological civilizations are practically a miracle.

Yes, but given the sheer size of the universe, even incredibly rare things are extremely likely to occur more than once. So even if the book's guess is accurate, the answer to the OP's question, "How many people now think that ETs of some form do exist?" is "almost certainly". Of course, finding them is an entirely different matter...

Re:Read this book: Rare Earth

[Anonymous Custard]

So we are very very unlikely to ever find any life that we can talk to.

Kind of like on slashdot.

Re:Read this book: Rare Earth

[Lane.exe]

Yeah, but if we hypothesize one intelligent, technological civilization every 1,000,000 years for every 10 galaxies, that's still a whole lot of technological, intelligent civilizations. Apparently, the universe is really f'ing big. I recall when my astrophysics prof showed us a "map" of the universe and the "great wall" of galaxies.

HOT JUPITERS !!! its back

[unity100]

someone after the 'hot jupiters' article in in slashdot had had said that his/her favorite exclamation was going to be "HOT JUPITERS !!!!" . i wonder what s/he is doing now.

ah hey. theres a new meme for you.

Re:HOT JUPITERS !!! its back

[grimJester]

I have poured hot Jupiters down my pants.

Thank you.

Don't look for little green men

[omaha_boy]

Look for red-orange crystal based lifeforms called Tholians. Just because the planet is hot, doesn't necessarily mean it can't support life. Although it might be very nasty to us.

Life can easily exist

[Billly Gates]

Thermal resistant bacteria can survive temperatures are up to 600 degrees in sea vents along the ocean floors and hot springs in Yellowstone.

They just need to evolve in that environment.

Re:Life can easily exist

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing survives at 600 degrees F. That is the temperature of the vent, and is strictly a sterile environment near the opening. The stuff that lives around the vents lives where the cold seawater and the vent liquid mix.

Maximum temperature for microbial life at pressure is closer to 200 degrees F or 90C. Similar to Thermus aquaticus in yellowstone, an extremophile that lives above 70C.

Re:Life can easily exist

[lawpoop]

I'm asking for some discussion on this subject. A lot of people look at extremophile organisms and take that as evidence that life as we know it ( carbon-based DNA/RNA cells ) is hardy, and can arise in many places -- hot places, cold places, frozen places, boiling places, nuclear reaction chambers, outer space, solid rock, etc., etc.

Personally, I lean toward that idea that life can only *originate* in a small window of 'specs' ( such as 70-100* F, in water, with plenty of amino acids floating around ), and then once cellular metabolism is going, then life can evolve to survive in more extreme environments. It seems to me that DNA and other cellular metabolism machinery is too fragile to survive 'naked' in extreme environments, and can only arise in a small window of circumstances. Once life really gets going, then if can evolve defense mechanisms to survive in more extreme environments.

So I don't think we will find life in planets like hellish Venus or dried up Mars -- **unless** they had Earth-like conditions at some point in the past, where life originated.

Can someone more knowledgeable or opinionated chime in?

Re:Life can easily exist

[AJWM]

**unless** they had Earth-like conditions at some point in the past, where life originated.

Recall the "programming error" in the survey ramrobots of Niven's Known Space: you only need those Earth-like conditions at one spot, not over the whole planet. Maybe there's the local equivalent of a Mt. Lookitthat.

Re:Life can easily exist

[NeutronCowboy]

Read the article, it deals with your question quite nicely: "'It now appears that the deep-sea hydrothermal vent environments are akin to those under which life on earth first arose,' Adams said." In other words, this seems to be the place where life started, not the other way around.

To turn your question around: what makes the 70-100F range so special that life has to originate there? Liquid water? Exists in plenty of different fashions at different temperatures. Stable chemistry? Same. All in all, the vents are proof that life can *originate* in situations that are dramatically different from what we consider "requirements."

Re:Life can easily exist

[lawpoop]

Well, I'm not particularly attached to the 70* F, water, etc. I could go for undersea thermal vents. I just wonder if life is hardy, and capable of arising any old place, or if original life needs a special set of circumstances. The reason I chose 70* F and water is because of those experiments that showed basic proteins assembling when some scientist zapped electricity into water with amino acids. I may be wrong, but I believe that naked DNA and the basic amino acids and proteins can survive for a long time in 70* F water.

If we buy the theory that life somehow either was assembled or assembled itself out of simpler parts, my question is, in which environments can we find those simpler parts? We know what the simpler parts are -- DNA, amino acids and proteins. Can we find such parts in thermal vents? How long to they last in 200* F water versus 70* F water? The question is, how much time to they have to assemble themselves into life before they fall apart? Do they have more time in 70* F water than 200* F water? What about liquid water vs. liquid methane, or liquid ammonia?

For example, in what circumstances can naked DNA exist without breaking up? I know that radiation can be destructive for it, even in places where it is protected by the cell structure, such as human skin. Are we likely to find naked DNA in space, where the molecule is exposed to a lot of radiation? Would constant radiation bombardment accelerate the development of life by creating lots of broken DNA pieces? Is there a range of heat and cold than naked DNA can tolerate? How about DNA polymerase? Are there different types of DNA polymerase that are suited for different conditions?

I guess it all goes back to the question of how exactly did life originate. Was it naked DNA that manage to get wrapped up in protecting, replicated proteins? Or did amino acids perform basic replications that eventually developed DNA molecules? Does extremophile life have *extra* machinery to protect the basic replication and metabolism functions, or does it just have different amino acids, suited for their environment?

Re:Life can easily exist

[Deliveranc3]

Fook evolve, let's send a probe!

With everything we have that might survive there. Surely something might do so, and when we get enough tech we can send something that might make this sucker useful.

Re:Life can easily exist

[Frank Battaglia]

Why do you assume that the insides of the cells (DNR, proteins, etc.), the most complicated parts, formed first? It's very easy for a simple cell-membrane-like structure to form by itself. Get enough semi-polar molecules together and drop them in water, and you have yourself a membrane. A nice, safe, membrane that you can use to protect your simple proteins while they randomly combine. In other words, I don't think "naked DNA" ever was.

Re:Life can easily exist

[lawpoop]

The reason I talk about DNA evolving first is because they sort of are the definition of life. Sure, membranes can form, but they're not really alive until they start metabolizing and reproducing. So to have life as we know it, we have to have something moderately complex, i.e. proteins or DNA. Membranes alone are not life.

Sure, that membrane is a start, but does it really protect against radiation and heat that well? Or does it serve just as a container for DNA, keeping it from being all slutty and recombining with any other strand floating out there? How well does a membrane protect DNA from heat? And just how well do these lipids coagulate in extreme conditions?

Lots of heat and pressure...

[insanemime]

But don't go looking for little green men. Just tell the US government there's oil up there and see how well funded NASA becomes.

Re:Lots of heat and pressure...

[ScentCone]

Just tell the US government there's oil up there and see how well funded NASA becomes.

No, really. Does that little bit of sophistry have to get trotted out every time a topic like this comes up?

Let's try something else...

"Just tell Hollywood that the planet is really hot, and celebrities will donate millions of dollars and have concerts to raise money for NASA to save the bears that may or may not live there, including a really nice concert somewhere in a nice town in the Great Plains, which um... used to be under water, and later on used to be covered with ice."

There. Now that's some proper flamebait. Please practice, and get back to us, OK?

Re:Lots of heat and pressure...

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT YHL (badly)

HAND

Re:Lots of heat and pressure...

[ScentCone]

YHBT YHL (badly)

You're missing the point! I know it's a troll. I'm campaigning for newer, better, more entertaining trolling. I mean, if someone has to troll, can't they at least update their shtick? I'm just trying to help, here.

That's all well and good...

[Anonymous Coward]

But what happens when HD209458b is kicked out of the extrasolar planet club?

incomplete summary

[Darth]

The summary is incomplete. It tells us this :

But don't go looking for little green men. You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star."

but neglects to answer the very important question this raises :

Given what we remember about HD209458b, what colour little men should we look for?

My initial guess was red, but there's no guarantee HD209458b-ians can even get sunburned.

Re:incomplete summary

[LoofWaffle]

Political Correctness dictates that we call them HD209458b-Americans and not "little {insert color here} {insert gender here}"

Don't get too carried away!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sure bacteria live inside sea vents and even in nuclear reactor cores. Many of these don't even need oxygen (so using oxygen as an indicator of life is ill informed). Tube worms and other animals found near the vents don't live inside the vents, they live around them where the water is a lot cooler (way less than 100C).

Re:Don't get too carried away!

[thesandtiger]

Actually, using free oxygen in the atmosphere as an indicator of life is a good idea - if I remember correctly, unless there is some source replenishing it, doesn't free oxygen tend to bond with other stuff?

Sure it wouldn't be a slam dunk, but it'd be something that ought to be worth looking into.

Water for life as *WE* know it.

[mathx]

There are other systems of life possible, without water, so long as they meet our definitions of life. Im always suprised by this very anthropocentric ('terrapocentric'? :) approach for the requirements for life...

Re:Water for life as *WE* know it.

[gstoddart]

There are other systems of life possible, without water, so long as they meet our definitions of life. Im always suprised by this very anthropocentric ('terrapocentric'? :) approach for the requirements for life...

Well, of course it's life as *we* know it. We don't know anything else, and trying to seriously imagine something which is of a completely different nature than your own is, at best, wild assed speculation.

Sure, you could posit a life form based on damned near anything -- but without any actual science behind it, you would be pulling fancy sounding stuff out of your bum.

The way we think about the world is hugely constrained about the way we perceive of it. It's a little difficult to step outside reality as we know it and seriously speculate on anything. By the time you're talking about silicon based life being conceivable, that ends what you can then intelligently say about the topic. Sure, it's conceivable, but having entertained the notion it could exist, you can then say absolutely nothing and stay within the realm of science. Science fiction, maybe. But, I bet you'd be hard pressed to get a biologist to tell you what a silicon life form would look like, function like, or what kind of circumstances would be good.

However, the discover of water in almost any form allows to say that it is conceivable that life that we *can* speculate on (or at least, begin to try) could exist in those circumstances because we have exemplars here on earth of things which exist in crazy extremes. The Sheliac or the Vorlons, not so much. ;-)

Most importantly, detecting extra solar planets (let alone identifying oxygen and water) was considered pure fantasy. Who the hell knows what we'll discover over time.

Cheers

If old Sci-Fi has taught anything

[geekoid]

it's that people from Hot planets are red, or reptilian.
Also, there entire culture can be overthrown by 1 starfleet captian.

Re:If old Sci-Fi has taught anything

[hoggoth]

And that machine intelligence can be defeated by being asked to calculate PI to the last digit, or by explaining that "this statement is a lie."

Re:If old Sci-Fi has taught anything

[Legion303]

Any machine intelligence worth its salt (silicon?) would give the answer "2" when asked to calculate PI to the last digit (rounding errors may apply).

Re:If old Sci-Fi has taught anything

[hoggoth]

> Any machine intelligence worth its salt (silicon?) would give the answer "2" when asked to calculate PI to the last digit (rounding errors may apply).

I don't get it.
If you had said '"3" (rounding errors may apply)' I would get it.
If you are just saying any wrong answer, you might as well have said 4 or 42.

HD209458a

[MS-06FZ]

Can I get game output in that mode? Is it gonna be laggy?

We'll done Sherlock

[geekoid]

You've just pointed out the incredibly obvious. So obvious in fact, only the dimmest of individual would think otherwise..... oh sorry.

Re:We'll done Sherlock

[Hepneck]

Is it ironic that you took the time to point out the dimness of the previous post, but managed to misspell 'well'?

Re:We'll done Sherlock

[Stanistani]

It is not like rain on your wedding day on HD209458b...

There could be life

[Drakin020]

You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star."

That doesn't mean life cant adapt to their surroundings. Kind of like fish at the bottom of the ocean. Sure our human bodies could not survive down there for more than a second but sea life has managed to adapt to the extreme pressures

But can life evolve

[oni]

sure, you could take Earth-life and transport it there. but the other side of that equation is, can life evolve on that planet. There are a couple of theories about how life got started on Earth. One is that it came here on comets. Another (this is from Dawkin's book, The Blind Watchmaker) is that life starts in streams with silicate crystals in clay, and that's not something you're likely to find on a hot jupiter.

It turns out that evolution is easy, but genesis is hard. Remember, scientists have managed to make things evolve in a laboratory (or just take a look at what selective breeding can accomplish) - but NO SCIENTIST has ever managed to create life from non-life. Hell, we can't even do a test-tube baby without taking an egg from a woman (meaning, even having DNA is not enough).

So my point is, life can live on MArs or on the moon or on this hot jupiter, but I don't know if it can get started there.

Talk About...

[Nom du Keyboard]

You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star.

Talk about Global Warming! Al Gore should go and investigate it immediately.

Re:Talk About...

[Magic_Synthesis]

Give the man a break, he did invent the internet after all...

No don't

[Anonymous Coward]

it's overrated and incredibly dull. The summary you just gave is as much as you need to know about it.

Re:No don't

[oni]

it's overrated and incredibly dull. well then you're not an astronomy geek - and that's cool. Me, I loved the in-depth discussions of things like a star's habitability zone. If you're content to learn about this stuff from dumbed-down TV documentaries narrated by Patrick Stewart, then good for you. If you want more detail, then you want a book, and this is a good one.

Re:No don't

[nicklott]

Actually I am. I have a degree in Space Science and the discussions of habitability zones and stuff were what I wanted to get from my degree course but didn't so I was really looking forward to it. However Rare Earth turned out to be one of very few books I've never finished. 2/3rds of the way through I had to give up, the repetition was driving me crazy. Maybe I'll go back to it one day, but it's just not a book I can recommend.

Where's your imagination?

[Weaselmancer]

But don't go looking for little green men. You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star.

Why should that keep little green men from evolving? Read this. It's an article about life on our own planet that lives in the boiling water around volcanic jets on the ocean floor.

Perhaps

[Gr8Apes]

Perhaps we're the fortunate "Ancients" or "Progenitor" race should we ever start traveling the stars?

Re:Perhaps

[Viper Daimao]

and if we're unfortunate it will be the Shadows and Goa'uld.

Re:Perhaps

[Gr8Apes]

Remind me again, who are the Shadows? (It's been a while, and the reference is weak due to all the watering down of "shadows" in other stories)

Re:Perhaps

[Viper Daimao]

No problem, it's a pretty ambiguous word, Shadows

Re:Perhaps

[Rei]

Or we could be that "evil conquering alien race" that is so commonly depicted in sci-fi. Guess I should practice saying, "SILENCE BLATHERING TOADIES! We are your new masters now!"

Could have its advantages.

Re:Perhaps

[Dragonslicer]

I dunno, if some of the worst of the current political trends continue, we'll end up being the Vorlons instead.

Re:Perhaps

[rgravina]

They are from Babylon 5. It's an amazing sci-fi series, you really should watch it!

Re:Perhaps

[inviolet]

I dunno, if some of the worst of the current political trends continue, we'll end up being the Vorlons instead.

Vorlons? More like Vogons. You know, the fat, bureaucratic bullies who write horrible emo poetry and eventually demolished the Earth in order to build a useless bypass.

Re:Perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very unlikely that we're the first intelligent lifeform of many-given that planet earth is a relative newborn compared to the rest of the universe.

However, assuming we are the only intelligence out there, humanity could become a "johhny appleseed" of sorts, spreading life throughout the galaxy wherever we go, and letting evolution handle the rest. If we returned in a hundred millions of years or so-we might find the galaxy teeming with all sorts of interesting "aliens". . .

Re:Perhaps

[Gr8Apes]

Ahh, I wasn't a B5 fan. So that particular reference escaped me. Sound interesting though.

Re:Perhaps

[Gr8Apes]

But we'd do that under the guise of benevolence and for their own good. Great link btw, gave me a good chuckle.

Re:Perhaps

[shutdown -p now]

Why, obviously not! It'll be all about preaching Universal Rights of Sentient Beings to the oppressed aliens under their tyrannical governments, and will be called something fancy. Like "progressoring".

Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star.

No, I don't remember th...wait. Did you say HD209458 b ?

Nevermind.

Boiling Temp.

[Philotic]

Since when do temperatures hot enough to boil water preclude the development of life? On our very own planet there are bacteria living in very harsh conditions, such as along magma conduits and steam vents.

kind of like slashdot?

[MollyB]

You must be one of those Turing Machines I've heard of... nobody else here but us chickens! 8^)

How did this planet form in the first place?

[duffolonious]

Does it have a decaying orbit? Will the star it's orbiting eventually eat it? Was it a star itself at one point?

I'm curious why this wasn't even brought up in the article. I mean I suppose information isn't available, but I'm still curious what the physicists thoughts are on this one.

Re:How did this planet form in the first place?

[largesnike]

From TFA, it seemed to be that the proximity to the star produced tidal forces that were partly responsible for stripping the gases. We can deduce that (a) the orbit must be significantly elliptical, and (b) there must be significant deformation of the gas envelope, considering that there is also probably a very stong magnetic field (if its anything like Jupiter) for the stars solar corpulscular radiation to overcome.

On earth, the magnetic field actually works to prevent the erosion of the atmosphere. The arorae are evidence of the magnetic field battling the solar corpulscular radiation during times of coronal mass ejections. The same must normally occur on a hot Jupiter, unless there is such a deformation of the atmosphere that it rises beyond the protection of the field?

Will the star it's orbiting eventually eat it?
Probably not, unless there is a reason for the orbit to be decaying (such as encountering significant nebular material along its orbital path. If it did decay it would probably reach the planet's Roche limit and be pulled apart. It might form a nice ring system around the star, before the radiation blew it away.

Re:How did this planet form in the first place?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

it seemed to be that the proximity to the star produced tidal forces that were partly responsible for stripping the gases. We can deduce that (a) the orbit must be significantly elliptical

IANAA but I don't see the link between eccentricity of orbit and tidal forces. Surely you'll get high tidal forces just be being close to a massive body, whatever the shape of the orbit?

Is it normal for there to be a gas giant that close to a star? Is there something about Sol's "rocky balls close in/smaller rocky lumps/big gas balls further out/and what about Pluto?" arrangement that's special? I assume it's the different densities in the original disk that cause it - but if so why didn't that happen in HD 209458's case?

It might form a nice ring system around the star, before the radiation blew it away.

That would look awesome!

Re:How did this planet form in the first place?

[duffolonious]

From TFA, it seemed to be that the proximity to the star produced tidal forces that were partly responsible for stripping the gases. We can deduce that (a) the orbit must be significantly elliptical, and (b) there must be significant deformation of the gas envelope, considering that there is also probably a very stong magnetic field (if its anything like Jupiter) for the stars solar corpulscular radiation to overcome.

How can you deduce that it's elliptical orbit would make any difference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD209458b - not sure it's definitive, but that says "Eccentricity (e) 0.00" - a circular orbit, and it's so close (0.045AU) that even (semi-major axis 8.6 times closer to the star than Mecury is to ours) a Mercury like eccentricity would make little difference.

On earth, the magnetic field actually works to prevent the erosion of the atmosphere. The arorae are evidence of the magnetic field battling the solar corpulscular radiation during times of coronal mass ejections. The same must normally occur on a hot Jupiter, unless there is such a deformation of the atmosphere that it rises beyond the protection of the field?

Magnetic fields stop the "slow bleed" of our atmosphere - but we could still survive without it for a long time (millions of years). The magnetic field will pale in comparison to the gravitational forces of the star it's orbiting as well as the heat from the star's radiation. With this 'Hot Jupiter' it may make some difference, but I would guess it's negligable compared to the other forces at work.
Will the star it's orbiting eventually eat it? Probably not, unless there is a reason for the orbit to be decaying (such as encountering significant nebular material along its orbital path. If it did decay it would probably reach the planet's Roche limit and be pulled apart. It might form a nice ring system around the star, before the radiation blew it away.

Basically, it appears to be on the border of it's Roche limit, and so what you are saying is more or less happening even without it being in a decaying orbit. It's appears to be outside it's Roche limit (going by what Jupiter's is); although with how quickly it's losing mass, it's probably in some sort of gray area between its Roche limit and relative equilibrium. If it's loosing mass as quickly as stated in TFA (mainly it's atmosphere) it still begs the question: how did this star formed in the first place? The also predict the loss rate is "probably accelerating". I can only make the wild guess that this planet was much larger at some point in time - more able to compete with the star it was so close to; but now over a long period of time with a gradual loss of mass has killed it's ability to compete gravitationally and otherwise.

Re:How did this planet form in the first place?

[largesnike]

How can you deduce that it's elliptical orbit would make any difference

Well, I didn't deduce that the orbit is elliptical, but if it were elliptical then we would find a situation where the gravitational forces at one end of the orbit (the perihelion) are greater than at other ends (say, the apheion). This means that not only are there large forces, but that the forces are changing, by squeezing and molding the sphere. I believe this is the cause for all the vulcanism on Io. Yes, partly its proximity to Jupiter, but crucially its elliptical orbit.

Note also that both Venus and Mercury are tidally locked to the sun. This means that the large gravitational forces on these planets would be unchanging. Presumably for our hot jupiter this would also be the case. Therefore an elliptical orbit would be the only thing creating any change in the forces on the planet (I think).

Re:How did this planet form in the first place?

[largesnike]

Is it normal for there to be a gas giant that close to a star? Is there something about Sol's "rocky balls close in/smaller rocky lumps/big gas balls further out/and what about Pluto?" arrangement that's special? I assume it's the different densities in the original disk that cause it - but if so why didn't that happen in HD 209458's case?

I'm no planetary scientist, but I read somewhere that the Jovian planets form earlier than the terrestrials and begin to entrain a large amount of the protoplanetary disc materials into them, accounting for their generally large size. Apparently, there is, in a sense, to much of this material to gobble up, and in the process of becoming large, the friction from the un-entrained material causes a fall in orbit. This continues until there is no more gasses and dust to gobble up. In the case of one of these hot jupiters, this didn't happen until the planet was almost upon the star itself. In the case of jupiter it happened quite quickly, so its orbit didn't fall very far at all. Agin, I'm just reporting what I read, and probably not very well at that.

Re:How did this planet form in the first place?

[largesnike]

Well, I didn't deduce that the orbit is elliptical

I beg your pardon, I did say that, didn't I? I guess I was thinking that this might be a mechanism for getting some of those gases moving. I apologise for the leap of faith, and my bad memory.

Re:How did this planet form in the first place?

[duffolonious]

Sure. I'm not going to skim you for that. And your previous post brings up a good point - where's the instability? And me thinks they simply don't have enough info to adequately describe what is going on ... atm. This new upsurge in extrasolar planets over the last decade or so has been really interesting, and this planet seems to be kicking the discovery up a couple notches - I'm really curious to see what info will be discovered about this and other planets in the near term (next few years).

There, you see?

[smithmc]

  You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star

There, you see? Global warming is a problem everywhere these days!

Number of planets so far?

[Plekto]

I read somewhere that they are closing on 200 found so far, which is pretty remarkable. I suspect they'll send a probe to one within our lifetimes(though getting data back... yeah, slightly longer - maybe our great grandchildren)

Hot spandex babes from HD209458b

[edwardpickman]

Where's the downside here?

deadly gas found on Uranus

[Anonymous Coward]

Klingons suspected

Actually, it doesn't say much

[Moraelin]

Actually, this doesn't even say as much as you think.

For starters, heh... why is it any surprise that water exists? We already know that hydrogen is pretty much everywhere. (Just look at all those main sequence stars.)

And we already know that oxygen forms everywhere. Just look at the CNO cycle, again, pretty typical of main-sequence hydrogen-fusing stars. A percentage of it ends up staying oxygen -- or for that matter C, N or F, and occasionally all the way to iron and nickel -- so even a helium flash in a red giant will eject plenty of all those. You may need a super-nova to get higher than Fe, but C, N and O are produced everywhere.

And we already know that nebulas and clouds have those, so, you know, it only stands to reason that planets would end up having those too. Because they formed out of that darned cloud.

We also know that a planet could lose most of its hydrogen, if it's too small (e.g., Mars) or has a negligible magnetic field to protect it from solar winds (e.g., Venus.) But for a gas giant kind of planet, it would really not apply. So whop-de-do, a Jupiter-type planet contains water. Unlike, say, Uranus and Neptune which also contain water.

What this discovery _doesn't_ tell us, is to actually expect life there. In fact, it tells us not to, since the planet is heated to a temperature which would melt stone into fluid magma. Life may be adaptable, but not _that_ adaptable. At any rate, unless there's liquid water, you can't actually expect water-based life, so the discovery of water is kinda mis-leading there. The critical point in water is at 647 K (374 C or 705 F), so above that you're just not getting a liquid phase, no matter how hard you compress it, or not the same kind of liquid that you see when you get a glass of water. So at magma temperatures, bye-bye life.

So to recap, it just tells us that oxygen and hydrogen are found outside the solar system... just as we knew they would. Now that's a breakthrough.

Re:Actually, it doesn't say much

[TapeCutter]

Water may not be a big surprise however oxygen in the atmosphere (especially a hot atmosphere) will tend to bond with other atoms fairly quickly (oxidization). If O2 is still present in the atmosphere in large quantities after millions of years then it points to something constantly renewing it. Here on Earth that "something" is life, I have no idea what that "something" could be on the "hot jupiter" exoplanet.

Small observation

[MikShapi]

DNA as we know it melts at about 80 C.

Sure, you can have some small evolutionary deviation in primitive organisms such as bacteria, allowing them to survive maybe a bit more (such as the extremophile vent-dwellers that live in 90C), but you'd need some fundamentally different data-storage-&-access machinery and molecular-assembly machinery to facilitate something that resembles life, if you want to stray further outside that range.

maybe you (or a creative bacterium) can come up with a very small icebox inside a living cell - some way to prevent thermal (kinetic) energy from being transfered inside. And don't forget bacteria don't even have a cell nucleus to protect their beloved data store.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just an undergrad bio student.

"NO" to Colonisation

[Chicken_Kickers]

Perhaps my comments are off-topic but I strongly think that mankind should not colonise other planets or moons that have life or even potentially develop life. I have a dim view of human nature. We will never coexist peacefully for long with other life-forms before we start to subjugate or use them as food. Even if we manage to stay peaceful, our very presence will contaminate the alien biosystems. If we must leave Earth, then we should only settle on asteroids, man-made space stations or perhaps completely sterile moons. What right have we to shape the universe into our own paradise?

so they can't be green..

[mr_musan]

well I'd settle for little red men instead, they will make a nice colour combo when we find the green ones

Doesn't help

[Namarrgon]

if they're so far outside our light-cone that we'll never come into contact with them.

Assuming we can hold our civilisation together, it's still going to take us a friggin' long time to explore a single galaxy that's 100,000 lightyears across, with 200-400 billion stars in it. Even if there are thousands of intelligent races in the Milky Way, it might still take us a million years to find even one.

And if we're alone in this galaxy, the nearest one is 2 million lightyears away. Who's going to volunteer to check it out? You'll need more than a packed lunch. And most other galaxies are much further away than that.

Re:Doesn't help

[bhiestand]

And if we're alone in this galaxy, the nearest one is 2 million lightyears away. Who's going to volunteer to check it out? You'll need more than a packed lunch. And most other galaxies are much further away than that. I can have more than a packed lunch? I'll go! Just give me a large, Explorer Class spaceship and, say, 50 beautiful concubines, and a method to grow food/recycle oxygen and water, and the race will live on!

Re:"Yes" to Colonisation

[CmdrGravy]

What right do we need to exploit the universe for our own benefit ? The fact that it's there and we are able to exploit it are reason enough, luckily it's a part of human nature to explore our surroundings and make use of what we find so despite what you might want it's almost inevitable that this is what will happen.

Humans have managed to co-exist with each other for hundreds of thousands of years without any real problems so it's perfectly likely we could achieve the same harmony with other intelligent species.

OK so there will probably be times when it will come to war between us but then in the past various countries have been at war with one another for hundreds of years with largely positive outcomes in the end. Britain and France for example probably both benefitted in advances in naval technology from their various wars.

It may be that we come across weaker aliens than us who have something we really want and the chances are we will exploit them for all their worth and no doubt other aliens would look to treat us in a similar manner, we must be on our guard. You might say this is all too dreadful but in fact it's the spice of life and it's in our nature as much as eating wildebeeste crossing rivers is in the nature of the crocodile.

Carbon Lifeforms

[jlebrech]

All that is asuming that life can only exist as carbon based organism, maybe on such a hot planet that life can only live as a silicon form other type of living structure.

Just because every living creature on earth is carbon based, you shouldn't come to the conclusion that every living being in the universe is.

,Xenu
Galaxy Manager, Milkyway Sector (currently on vacation)

Excuse me i just woke up

[unity100]

.. I need to go and make myself a Hot jupiter.

The water that gets stripped off

[Bloke down the pub]

Where does all the water go after it gets blasted from the planet? Imagine there was a small rocky world further out, gradually sweeping it all up...

Brain, Ants, sand+weather = Earth tought -pattern?

[Barryke]

First of all; I'm not a environmentalist or anything. Actualy i dont even like them.

There are many unproven forms that life can exist in, however we probably wouldn't recognize them if we saw them so we naturally stick with what we know. Building upon above statement, I wanted to drop this note;

Brain - Braincells each perform a specific function. One cell isn't smart. Lots of them together exhibit a behavour.
Ants - A single ant performs a specific funtion. One ant isn't smart. Lots of them together exhibit a behavour.
Earth - A single grain of sand performs a specific function. One grain isn't smart at all. Lots of them together exhibit a behavour.

Now, taken into account how much grains of sand the earth has, and all the other interactions it exhibits (like weather) is it valid to say, maybe - just maybe, it could even have a thought-pattern?
However when existing it would be mostly chaos to our comprehension, but i beleive that thought-patterns are just something that comes foreward though lots of interactions and accompanying mutations/algoritms/interpretations.

It would exist outside of our realm of understanding and so we would not get to communicate with it. Except digging mines or changing the weather. It made me think.

There are many unproven forms that life can exist in, however we probably wouldn't recognize them if we saw them so we naturally stick with what we know.

(I'm not talking about a consciousness, selve-awareness is something different.) And i'm not trying to make an environmentalist point. Im looking at it technicaly. What are the odds?

Below the Surface

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever wonder if life exists below the surface of some planets? Think about it. Mars has water leaking onto it's surface.

Re:"Yes" to Colonisation

[bhiestand]

You are a Shadow. He is a Vorlon. The truth, of course, lies in the middle. Our society benefits from alternating order and chaos. The chaos forces competition and innovation, while the order allows us to rebuild and improve upon whatever was destroyed during the chaos. Perhaps we will evolve as a species to be more like the Vorlons. Perhaps we will be more self-motivated and decide to stop fighting and just try to improve things. Perhaps not. Either way, I think it's inevitable that we not only will destroy ourselves, but that we'll recover from it and continue to expand.

SiO2 is a solid, yes, but that's on Earth

[aggiefalcon01]

While you're right to state SiO2 is a solid, that's true on our planet (i.e. pressure, temperature, other chemicals in the environment). Is it constant, elsewheres?