Slashdot Mirror


Earthlike Planet Orbiting Nearby Star

The Bad Astronomer writes "Astronomers in Europe have announced the discovery of a planet with only 5 times the Earth's mass, orbiting a red dwarf star 20 light years away. It orbits the star so closely that it only takes 13 days to go around... but the star is so cool that the temperature of the planet is between 0 and 40 Celsius. At this temperature there could be liquid water. Models indicate the planet is either rocky like the Earth or covered in an ocean. While it's not known if there actually is liquid water on the planet, this is a really big discovery, and indicates that we are getting ever closer to finding another Earth orbiting an alien star."

617 comments

  1. Strange new worlds by richdun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a really big discovery...

    And that, my friends, is the understatement of the millennium.

    1. Re:Strange new worlds by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 1

      Definately. Due to it *relatively* close distance to us, the reasonably similar environment (or capable of supporting a similar environment) means that we could be looking at the first possible colonization project outside of our solar system some time in the future (probably later rather than sooner, mind)

    2. Re:Strange new worlds by vivin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Earth-like planet only 5-times the Earth's size...

      That's like saying "I'm dating this girl who's like Jessica Alba. She's latina, has dark hair, and is only five times Jessica Alba's size! So you see, she is plainly like Jessica Alba!".

      Heh.

      Disclaimer: I am very excited by this news; I'm just being a smartass!

      --
      Vivin Suresh Paliath
      http://vivin.net

      I like
    3. Re:Strange new worlds by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      And this! :)

      Earthlike Planet Orbiting Nearby Star

      Might just pop over there now..

    4. Re:Strange new worlds by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's like saying "I'm dating this girl who's like Jessica Alba. She's latina, has dark hair, and is only five times Jessica Alba's size! So you see, she is plainly like Jessica Alba!".

      But it's still a living, breathing girl. By the same token, other discovered extrasolar planets would like trying to have a meaningful relationship with a bulk freighter.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    5. Re:Strange new worlds by cubicleman · · Score: 2

      Cool....so this will be classified as a Class M planet, I believe?

    6. Re:Strange new worlds by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      "I'm dating this girl who's like Jessica Alba. She's latina, has dark hair, and is only five times Jessica Alba's size! So you see, she is plainly like Jessica Alba!"

      That would be Jennifer Lopez and her massive, 2.5 G caboose.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    7. Re:Strange new worlds by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      funny. I weigh ~140+-5lbs here on Earth out there I would weigh ~700+-25lbs, this is not "Earth-like" enough for me at all.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    8. Re:Strange new worlds by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      It's 5 times the size of earth. I don't think that would make it class M. Finding this one means we might be able to detect them soon though.

    9. Re:Strange new worlds by Delkster · · Score: 1

      If the mass of the planet is (supposedly) about five times that of Earth, how much would that affect gravity, and how would that in turn affect life there?

      Of course by the time we'd be able to move anything alive to such a distant location (if ever) we might well have the technological means to support our life there just fine, but we may be bound to the conditions of Earth much tighter than just by the existence of liquid water.

    10. Re:Strange new worlds by tsdw · · Score: 1

      this is the best part - "Models indicate the planet is either rocky like the Earth or covered in an ocean." Models also indicate that the planet either has oxygen or it doesn't, has plantlife or it doesn't, may be an error in calculation or may not. I mean come on

    11. Re:Strange new worlds by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Considering that the surface is 1.5 times higher than that of the earth, the universal gravitation equation says it should be about 2.2 times the gravitational force on the surface.

    12. Re:Strange new worlds by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      There are many more options for a planet to look like than being rocky or ocean-covered, and most planets found up to now, especially all other extrasolar ones, were neither rocky, nor ocean covered.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Strange new worlds by Tolleman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, that reminds me. If humans were to one day habitat that planet. We'd have to invent super push-ups. Imagine what gravity would do to all the boobies!

    14. Re:Strange new worlds by Paperweight · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your bubble... but smaller boobies would become more common because they don't sag as much. Smaller people would also become more common for the same reason. The human race adapted to this planet would look like dwarfs!

    15. Re:Strange new worlds by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      Sweet! 25 foot tall Jessica Alba!

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    16. Re:Strange new worlds by sctaylorcan · · Score: 1

      is only five times Jessica Alba's size! So you see, she is plainly like Jessica Alba!".

      Hey, hey, hey! It's faaaaaat Alba!!

    17. Re:Strange new worlds by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Only if it has roddenberries on it.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    18. Re:Strange new worlds by Mofraqi · · Score: 1

      hmmmm a planet the orbits a red dwarf, and may even be able to support life. Wow that kinda sounds like the book of Enoch and the Bible, maybe even the book The 12th planet by Zacharia Sitchin. Read up boys and girls you may be shocked!

    19. Re:Strange new worlds by Mofraqi · · Score: 1

      Oh im sorry i forgot to mention the solar activity due to start next march and be at its peak in 2011 or 2012. are you getting nervous yet? Lets see yet another mention of 2012 2012-end of Mayan calender 2012-Solar max 2012-Planets line up with galactic center. 2012-Predicted end of times by the Sumerians 2012-Predicted return of 12th planet (red) by the way by the sumariens 200?-Scientists predict comming Pole shift (its happened before) 2012-Chinese folklore The (red)Dragon`s tail will whip the earth. All these 2012 predictions were made thousands of years ago! kinda weird huh?

  2. Clone planets? by Chouonsoku · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... and indicates that we are getting ever closer to finding another Earth orbiting an alien star.
    I wasn't aware those existed. Except in alternate universes. In which case, we'll need the Professor to make us a box.
  3. NOT so fast.... by heauxmeaux · · Score: 5, Funny

    Turns out it's just Rosie O'Donnell

    --
    Beat 'Em and Eat 'Em
    1. Re:NOT so fast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you got modded down, but I found that damn funny.

    2. Re:NOT so fast.... by huckda · · Score: 1

      And the Red Dwarf is Donald Trump?

      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
    3. Re:NOT so fast.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...and you can wipe it with ONE SQUARE!!!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:NOT so fast.... by metushelach · · Score: 1

      And the larger planet orbiting the same sun is her "big" sister in crime - Kirstey Alley.

  4. Hi-rez imaging by pyro_peter_911 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hi-rez imaging of the planet shows that there's already three Starbucks stores, a bridge project sponsored by Ted Stephens, and fourteen RIAA lawyers looking for copyright infringers.

    Peter

    1. Re:Hi-rez imaging by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0

      Damnit and someone is already clogging up the internet tubes there with their home movies!

    2. Re:Hi-rez imaging by linzeal · · Score: 5, Funny

      So it is devoid of life, culture and civilization in other words.

    3. Re:Hi-rez imaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was funny enough to score a 5, don't you think?

    4. Re:Hi-rez imaging by celerityfm · · Score: 5, Funny

      I say nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

      --
      ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
    5. Re:Hi-rez imaging by gotgenes · · Score: 5, Funny

      So it is devoid of life, culture and civilization in other words.

      No, it's just devoid of intelligent life.

      --
      It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
    6. Re:Hi-rez imaging by celerityfm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Regret dawned after that post, as this came to mind:

      "It is of course well known that careless talk costs lives, but the full scale of the problem is not always appreciated. For instance, at the very moment that Arthur said `I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle,' a freak wormhole opened up in the fabric of the space time continuum and carried his words far far back in time across almost infinite reaches of space to a distant Galaxy where strange and warlike beings were poised on the brink of frightful interstellar battle. The two opposing leaders were meeting for the last time . . . and a dreadful silence fell across the conference table as the commander of the Vl'hurgs, resplendent in his black jewelled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the G'Gugvant leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green sweet-smelling steam, and, with a million sleek and horribly beweaponed star cruisers poised to unleash electric death at his single word of command, challenged the vile creature to take back what it had said about his mother.

      The creature stirred in his sickly broiling vapour, and at that very moment, the words `I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle' drifted across the conference table. Unfortunately, in the Vl'hurg tongue this was the most dreadful insult imaginable, and there was nothing for it but to wage terrible war. Eventually of course, after their galaxy had been decimated over a few thousand years, it was realised that the whole thing had been a ghastly mistake, and so the two opposing battle fleets settled their few remaining differences in order to launch a joint attack on our Galaxy -- now positively identified as the source of the offending remark.

      For thousands more years the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the planet Earth, where, due to a terrible miscalculation of scale, the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog.

      Those who study the complex interplay of cause and effect in the history of the Universe say that this sort of thing is going on all the time, but are powerless to prevent it.

      `It's just life,' they say."

      Indeed. RIP, Mr. Adams.

      --
      ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
    7. Re:Hi-rez imaging by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0

      Hey that's not fair, it takes at least some intelligence to get the foam on the latte.

    8. Re:Hi-rez imaging by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As far as I am concerned, an area without a Starbucks store is not habitable in any real sense of the word, and most definitely is not civilized.

    9. Re:Hi-rez imaging by Dr.+Donuts · · Score: 1

      Oh there's life, it's just not intelligent.

    10. Re:Hi-rez imaging by maxume · · Score: 1

      Really? You can over-roast the beans yourself and throw the money you save away...just like the real thing.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:Hi-rez imaging by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Why if I can just buy it? Triple Venti Latte my friend, that's what it's all about. Besides, they use very high pressure machines, those are tens of thousands of $$$

    12. Re:Hi-rez imaging by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and I use a french press, what's your point?
      (mine tastes better than yours too)

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    13. Re:Hi-rez imaging by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      I think he's just had so much bad American coffee he doesn't know what good coffee is. If you drink Royal Cup for a few days, Starbucks does actually taste pretty good in comparison.

      And yes I use a french press too.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    14. Re:Hi-rez imaging by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. I worked at a coffee-house which roasted their own beans, and you know what, there is no better coffee than from freshly roasted beans.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    15. Re:Hi-rez imaging by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Hi-rez imaging of the planet shows that there's already three Starbucks stores, a bridge project sponsored by Ted Stephens, and fourteen RIAA lawyers looking for copyright infringers.
      So... no intelligent life then?
    16. Re:Hi-rez imaging by maxume · · Score: 1

      I find wanton consumption distasteful; I prefer cheaper alternatives, especially when they are better. I don't dump milk in my coffee, but if I did, I wouldn't be all that thrilled about paying somebody a couple of dollars to do it.

      I don't have a problem with going to Starbucks in general, I just have a problem with holding them up as some sort of example of a place to get a great coffee drink, mostly because they are a place to get a consistent coffee drink and they charge a lot of money.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:Hi-rez imaging by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Do you carry your french press with you anywhere you go? That is the point, the place is civilized, when I can get my coffee in that place, and the best bet for a good coffee outside is Starbucks.

    18. Re:Hi-rez imaging by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Do you also take your french press everywhere you go?

      BTW, I am in Canada.

    19. Re:Hi-rez imaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not anymore, I did when had I my Bodum travel press. :-) I just haven't gotten around to replacing it.

    20. Re:Hi-rez imaging by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      starbuks is shit coffee, and a shit company. They largely pay below a living wage for coffee from the farmers.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  5. omg omg by drfrog · · Score: 5, Funny

    planet orbiting a red star?
    on the same day kryptonite is found

    coincidence?

    of course!

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
    1. Re:omg omg by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      No, I think they meant, In Soviet Russia, Red Star orrrbeeet plahnet.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:omg omg by drfrog · · Score: 1

      oh so it was rosie o'donnell

      --
      back in the day we didnt have no old school
    3. Re:omg omg by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      From here:

      "Superman hails from a long-dead planet, the planet Krypton. Krypton's Jupiter-like size and red sun kept the Kryptonian race weak, while on Earth Krypton's last son is the mightiest of all!"-Action Comics no.14

      Ok, the red sun already fits. But the Jupiter-size planet?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  6. Interesting, but... by Genocaust · · Score: 1

    Sliders, anybody?

    --
    It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
  7. americans are hungry by racecarj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Alien steak anyone?

    1. Re:americans are hungry by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      More like human steak for aliens following these directions...

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  8. Only 5X the mass of Earth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're saying, I'd weigh only 1000 lbs. there?
    Sweet!

    1. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by 644bd346996 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You forgot to account for the fact that the radius is 1.5 times that of Earth. The best estimate puts that planet at around 2.25 times earth gravity.

    2. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Only if the radius is the same as Earth's. The moon has roughly 1% of Earth's mass but 16% of its surface gravity because of it's much smaller radius.

      Remember: gravitational acceleration is directly proportional to the mass of the planet but inversely proportional to the square of the radius.

      If this planet is made of the same stuff as Earth, my guesstimate is that surface gravity would be something like 1.71 times what we're used to.

    3. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by Cromac · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do you know he didn't account for that? Maybe he's a 500 lb chair bound computer geek.

    4. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, gee, I'd weigh only 450 lbs. then. That takes a load off!

    5. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by pescadero · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whew! As long as it's below 2.5G, we're okay. I learned that from Spaceward Ho!

    6. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by b.b.rodriguez · · Score: 2, Informative
      FTA:

      The surface gravity is more than twice that of Earth's (22 m/s/s versus 9.8 m/s/s on Earth)

      No info on the atmosphere but its certainly exciting news.
    7. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by Jessta · · Score: 1

      Quite confusing.
      Only if you eat 800 volts of fish on the way.

      please note: If you state measure in incorrect units for the type of measurement you will create great confusion.
      Weight is measured in Newtons and Mass doesn't change no matter what planet you are living on.

      --
      ...and that is all I have to say about that.
      http://jessta.id.au
    8. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Pounds are also a measure of weight, so GP is not using an inappropriate unit. There is no American/Imperial unit for mass, which is why mass is always measured in SI/metric units.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    9. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean besides slugs and pounds-mass?

    10. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      How do you know he didn't account for that? Maybe he's a 500 lb chair bound computer geek.

      Hey, I think I'm getting an idea how we can reach this planet. I need a Macbook, a Dell running Linux, and a ticket for me and the geek to Redmond.
    11. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      You're confucing something there. Ballmer only does chairs. It's Mr. T who throws people helluva far.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    12. Re:Only 5X the mass of Earth! by asninn · · Score: 1

      This AP article actually claims that the planet's surface gravity is about 1.6 times that of Earth, so maybe he's really 625 pounds. ...wow, I shouldn't have pictured that.

      --
      butter the donkey
  9. More links: by Beolach · · Score: 5, Informative

    The BBC and Scientific American have good quotes from Stephane Udry of the Geneva Observatory, lead author of the scientific paper reporting the results. Others are already calling it "possibly habitable".

    Very cool news!

    --
    Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
  10. Link that's not blogspam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  11. Caturday reply to the news by steak · · Score: 5, Funny

    I threw this together in a couple minutes after reading this.

    http://x014.uploaderx.net/x/astronautcat.jpg

    [m]

    1. Re:Caturday reply to the news by huckda · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I'm not your cat ;)

      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
    2. Re:Caturday reply to the news by steak · · Score: 1

      not my cat, just one of many pictures of stupid cats that are also not my cats.

    3. Re:Caturday reply to the news by unity100 · · Score: 1

      thats a very handsome bloke you got there. huge head size.

  12. When do tickets go on sale? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, the temperature range indicates that it can probably be made hospitable for humans. Sure, we might have to bring a lot of our own oxygen and water to start with, but otherwise, we just need a colony ship. And, of course, the gravity is pretty strong (2.25 Gs) so we will have trouble with that. And, it being so close to the star, there might be a big radiation problem, forcing humans to go underground. But that wouldn't be too bad, because it would make gravity a bit less of a problem.

    What I think is the coolest thing is that this is the smallest extrasolar planet found so far. We are getting close to being able to detect earth-sized planets. Once we do, I think the number of potentially colonizable planets will go up quite a bit.

    1. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Of course, it is a 20 light year journey. Better buy some tickets for your children too :-)

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better buy some tickets for your children too :-)

      I hope there's a discount. Oh- plus I'll be a senior by then too. So it should balance out.

    3. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by icebrain · · Score: 1

      "Of course, it is a 20 light year journey."

      That's pretty close for a star. I suppose the biggest question is whether or not humanity as a whole will have the drive (and the balls) to try and colonize other solar systems--or even our own.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    4. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by celerityfm · · Score: 1

      Well, it'll definitely take balls. Generational transport or whatever it's called... there's a name for it.. I'll google for something else instead to make a joke.. here: Turns out it may not take balls after all!

      --
      ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
    5. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Well, it'll definitely take balls. Generational transport or whatever it's called... there's a name for it.. I'll google for something else instead to make a joke.. here: Turns out it may not take balls after all!

      I like you. You have balls. I like balls.
    6. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      What if we already have? ;)

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    7. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by Scott+Ransom · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, this is not the smallest planet yet found. The first extrasolar planets are still the smallest known: the planets around the millisecond pulsar B1257+12: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257+12

      The optical planet hunters often conveniently forgot this system (or dismiss it for various reasons).

    8. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gravity shouldn't be an issue for future generations, they'll be called heavy-worlder's! :)

    9. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by celerityfm · · Score: 1

      olo :P

      *nostalgic researching on your username*

      Huh I didn't know Christian Slater played your namesake in the radio series. No way.

      --
      ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
    10. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by Onan · · Score: 1

      And, it being so close to the star, there might be a big radiation problem, forcing humans to go underground. But that wouldn't be too bad, because it would make gravity a bit less of a problem.

      You have a pretty generous definition of either "underground" or "a bit".

      Its diameter appears to be around 20,000Km. To reduce net gravity to 1G, you'd need to go just over 10,000Km deep. Which is awfully close to being as deep as Australia is--from Europe. Reducing net gravity by 1% would require a couple orders of magnitude deeper excavation than humans have ever accomplished on Earth. And would, of course, have to be performed with only the tools that you've hauled five parsecs, in 2.25G of gravity.

      I'm not saying don't go, or don't be excited. You just might want to scratch this one bullet point off your pitch to nasa.

    11. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      *nostalgic researching on your username*
      Talk about nostalga...
      I started using this username for pretty much any web site I registered with back in high school. I'd been reading slashdot for a while before I registered this account... So probably middle of '99... Since when did I get old enough that the age of my slashdot account is pushing two digits??
    12. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by celerityfm · · Score: 1

      Shhhhhhhh! Nothing has changed, everything is the same. This is not broken. Time is an illusion, you know the rest.

      Is it the future yet?

      --
      ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
    13. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by celerityfm · · Score: 1

      Also I fail for forgetting to turn off Karma Bonus :P

      --
      ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
    14. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, your account number only contains two different digits.

    15. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Even more interesting, 22222222222222222222222 is a number. It is large and only contains one digit.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just jealous that your number isn't a palindrome

    17. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by Kpt+Kill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm no doctor, so I must ask... If someone who was in good shape... and I don't mean just not in bad shape, but an athlete or someone who works out constantly, would 2.25Gs be determental to ones health? Clearly you wouldn't want a 250 pound guy to weigh 2.25x more, but If someone was in peak shape to begin with, would the increased weight be bad for ones heart or other organs?

    18. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      I'm not a doctor either, but I imagine that it would be a pretty nasty strain on the circulatory system. Blood from your feet would have a rough time of it, getting back up to your heart. Blood from the heart would have more difficulty than usual getting to your brain. A 150 lb man's joints and muscles would suddenly need to cope with 375 lbs, instead. All day long. Every day. Knees would be exploding left and right!

    19. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Actually, 2.25 G's shouldn't be much of a problem. After all, we have a great many individuals who weigh twice the lean weight for their height: simply send fit and strong people. And load bearing engineer will need double the capacity, but that's not even an order of magnitude away, and very easily doable.

      --
      Be relentless!
    20. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by icebrain · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, an easier solution: Given that any ship we could make in the forseeable future (barring huge advances in physics) will take decades, if not a century or two to get there, we could slowly increase the artifical gravity (spinning) up to 2.25 g by the end of the mission. When you consider it would very likely be a generation ship (with 2-3 or more generations being born en route), the generation that actually lands will be perfectly comfortable in 2.25 g. They may also be built like tanks, but that just means if they ever experience 1 g, they'd make a hell of a football team.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    21. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

      Knees would be exploding left and right!

      Only if they're made from what used to be Mr. Garrison.
    22. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      In other words, it's slightly more doable than living in a volcano that required a journey of tens of thousands of years to get to.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    23. Re:When do tickets go on sale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, Lamarck? Your acquired traits theory called, and it wants reprieve from Mendelianism!

  13. This is worth sending a probe. by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We are currently developing technologies which allow a maximum speed of 0.6 X the speed of light.

    if you create a probe with an ion drive and send it off in the next 10 years we could be looking at surveys of the planet in question by 2070.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But then our probe's signal transmitter would also be 20 light years away =(

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It would still take 20 years for those radio signals to get to us though. I think it would be a pretty good idea to put together a project to push out a probe to likely locations to send a narrow beam signal back to us. It would have to have a power source capable of lasting that long though. Talk about building something to stand the test of time. Pioneer 10 gave up a while ago, and Voyager 10 probably doesn't have much life left in it. but to be fair these probes were not designed to last 30 years, they just happened to do better than expected. Perhaps if we carefully designed a probe enough of it might still be working by the time it got there.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Xinef+Jyinaer · · Score: 1

      He definitely included the fact that the single would have to travel 20 light years, in his calculations. 1.Sent in 2017 2.Arrive in 2037 3.?????? 4.Signals Return 2057 5.Government cover up of how the hell it turned to be alien porn 6.Data released in 2070 [ 7.Profit ]

      --
      Some days I just get bored and Troll post all the memes I can think of...
    4. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      as i said.. sent 10 years from now.. 20 light years at an average of 0.4 times the speed of light.. 2058 would be the arrival time.. then it communicates back data by laser.. 2078 would be the time we see the signals. of course this would require an international effort to prevent losing track of this project should a certain bloated government disappear *cough*.

      still, this is within the realm of practicality, and if it returns promising results it could usher in a new era of colonization.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    5. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      Well, I never was very good at math...

      Still, It is 20 light years away which makes any reasonable kind of controlling it impossible. It would have to be artificial intelligence surveying, which means we're not getting anything out of it beyond what we put in. But, the signal is already present, here on Earth, in the of observable phenomenons. Perhaps in less time than it would take for the probe to reach it's destination and send back it's information, we could have already developed methods of reading and interpreting these signals, much as we do today but even more precise and detailed. It might be that we could do our surveying here on Earth, with data that is only 20 light years older than when recieved it rather than..um insert-math-formula-here.

      I'm all for space exploration and if a human habitable planet (or even lunar-like conditions) were found to be present, I would certainly advocate sending us there. But just for a survey, I think we can stick to LEO.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    6. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      If the probe was only traveling at .6c top speed, it would take closer to 35 years to reach the planet, when you allow for some acceleration and deceleration time. That means that we could start getting close-ups about 55 years after launch.

    7. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      should a certain bloated government disappear

      as opposed to all of the other bloated governments out there?

      then it communicates back data by laser

      Please sit down and do the math. Do you realize the pointing requirements for what you suggest. With the best tech we have the laser would be swinging between Pluto and the Sun thinking it was right on target.

      still, this is within the realm of practicality, and if it returns promising results it could usher in a new era of colonization.

      right... and I might bang three supermodels this weekend (number selected only based on a low prime number).

      Science fiction is a wonderful thing to contemplate but keep your pants on. No such mission is feasible within the lifetime of anyone on this planet.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    8. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      What happens at .6?

      And do these technologies rely on say, a massive magnetic shield to protect the ship?

    9. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      And have enough power to send a narrow beam that can broadcast to a distance of 20 light years.

    10. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by ObjetDart · · Score: 1
      Science fiction is a wonderful thing to contemplate but keep your pants on. No such mission is feasible within the lifetime of anyone on this planet.

      Amen to that. Sending even a tiny probe, let alone a ship big enough to hold people, requires technology, not to mention energy expenditures, that is light years (pardon the expression) beyond anything we have or even think we might have in the next 100 years. Ain't gonna happen.

      Put another way, it would be easier to send a million people to Mars and build them big Martian cities to live in than it would be to send a single probe to a star 20 light years away.

      --
      I read Usenet for the articles.
    11. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by strider44 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "allow a maximum speed of 0.6 X the speed of light"

      ... something tells me you're not really a fan of the theory of relativity are you?

    12. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      ok then we use some other EM device.. all EM travels at c.

      wow.. did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today?

      or is it just because youre mad i suggested the US government would be the first to go in the next 100 years/

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    13. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      What happens at .6?

      Well, aside from going really, really, really fast, according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, as speeds approach the speed of light, time is "dilated" between the points. That is, discrete events (such as the ticking of a clock, and theoretically, the decay of a cell -- I don't know if that has been especially verified), will appear to occur more slowly when they are observed at speeds near the speed of light (relative to you -- if I fly by you at the speed of light while you remain still, discrete events at your point will appear slower to me, while events at my point will appear slower to you. Confused yet? I've never quite gotten my head around it).

      The theory was supported by an experiment in which a highly precise clock was flown quickly around the world in a jet, and "When the plane returned, the clock that took the plane ride was slower by exactly the amount Einstein's equations predicted" Quoted from

    14. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      If 1 year passed for you, but 1000 years passed for the stationary observer, but for the length of your journey the stationary observer's time seemed to be moving slow from your viewpoint...

      After you stop, then you have to wait 1000 years to see what happened to the stationary observer while you were traveling.

      I think that makes sense?

    15. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      i forgot where i picked up the information, but at that speed you start to run into drag and/or damage from small interstellar particles.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    16. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Xinef+Jyinaer · · Score: 1

      My bad for excluding the fact that it's traveling at relative speeds :(

      --
      Some days I just get bored and Troll post all the memes I can think of...
    17. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      How expensive is your AI probe? Just because we send a human doesn't mean it needs to be an american. Offer 50k/year for the immediate family of volunteers for the duration of the mission, you'll have 3rd world volunteers appearing all over the place.

    18. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by niktemadur · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As much as I love the idea, sorry to poop the party but we're forgetting the white elephant in the room: 3D interstellar billiards.

      Course correction on the way will be next to impossible, so we'd have to know the exact position of the planet, to the second, of the probe's arrival to the gravitational influence of the planet. Here we are, messing up martian probes with six months' travel time because of measurement glitches, and now this? We'll have to wait much longer for a manned mission.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    19. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      It's more than just the perception of the light; recall the experiment in which the clock inexplicably lost time -- this was after the flight had ended, and it was "behind" clocks that didn't fly.

      A textbook I read claimed that it was theoretically possible to travel for an extended period of time at lightspeed, and then return to earth in the distant "future," far younger (in earth years) than you would have been had you stayed on earth -- potentially, for example, giving birth to children, and then returning to find that they are older than you.

      The catch is that you perceive events in your frame of reference not at the accelerated rate, but at the rate that you would perceive them if you were standing still. So, you could leave Earth, age 10 years biologically at lightspeed, and then return to Earth a "century" later, though you would have only experienced what felt like 10 years.

      In any case, the literature suggests that there's something more to it than that, so I'd suggest reading some of it if you're interested.

    20. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      age 10 years biologically at lightspeed

      Sorry, I meant to say, "age 10 years biologically at a high fraction of lightspeed," the literature that I read indicated that the time dilation occurred at all speeds, but increased significantly at speeds "approaching the speed of light."

      You could find such a table online, probably, and look up exactly what the time dilation would be at 0.6X lightspeed.

    21. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      i like those screwups though... listening to excuses about and watching simulations of probe crashes because someone forgot to carry the 2 is much more entertaining than the 400 billion dollars we pay for war-o-vision.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    22. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      Time to dig out Project Daedalus.
      That study looked in some detail at navigation issues -- the probe has to locate the target star and/or planet mid-course and
      plan its own corrections.

      Propulsion is the big issue though. Maybe something like starwisp could work,

    23. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by shomon2 · · Score: 1

      No idea if that would work, but I wonder what ways exist of sending something very small and fast up there that combines with water or otherwise reacts to finding a "goldilocks" life capable zone to make a simple life form on arrival? Maybe assemble itself into colonies of laser producing mites that can send info back? Might be easier than plotting a way through the stars with ion propulsion, but it would mess with any existing life there and not much else... I'm not that bothered by what happens when it gets there, but wouldn't the concept of us sending "spores" into space be a big scientific challenge?

    24. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how many of those third world volunteers would be qualified? What about training costs, communication barriers, and so on?

    25. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      then it communicates back data by laser

      Please sit down and do the math. Do you realize the pointing requirements for what you suggest. With the best tech we have the laser would be swinging between Pluto and the Sun thinking it was right on target.

      Yes, please do sit down and do the math. The dispersion of the beam would be great enough that even if the center of the beam was pointed at Pluto - the other side of Pluto's orbit would still be deep within the beam. Laser beams are damm near perfectly parallel for most ordinary human purposes - but they aren't perfectly parallel. This matters over extremely long distances. (The laser beam they shoot at the moon to reflect off of the Apollo retroreflectors is over a mile wide by the time it reaches the moon.)
       
      Laser beam communication is still a dumb idea though - because even if Earth was at the center of the beam, we probably still couldn't collect enough photons.
    26. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      niggers cutting off your penis

    27. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'Yes, but how many of those third world volunteers would be qualified? What about training costs'

      It isn't as if they need a degree, they only need to be trained to perform experiments and deploy the specific equipment being used. They don't need to be able to operate the ships either. It isn't as if the probes can operate their craft, the craft operate on auto-pilot.

      Even if they did need degrees the biggest obstacle would be time. Remember, you could spend 3 or 4 million a pop on these volunteers and they would still be cheaper and more versatile than robots.

      'communication barriers'

      There are billions of people in third world nations, somehow I think we can manage to find interpreters among them.

    28. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      And yet we see stars as a point source!

      I don't argue that dispersion is a real effect but if it were a "significant" effect when we looked up into the nighttime sky we would see nothing but a blur of light. I'm no astrophysicist so correct me when I'm wrong.

      I still think that pointing is the bug-a-boo of laser telecom.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    29. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I don't argue that dispersion is a real effect but if it were a "significant" effect when we looked up into the nighttime sky we would see nothing but a blur of light. I'm no astrophysicist so correct me when I'm wrong.

      Need I point out that stars aren't lasers? Apples and oranges. Read the webpage I cited, or google up 'laser divergence' - it's a well known effect.
       
       

      I still think that pointing is the bug-a-boo of laser telecom.

      I can't control what you believe - but physics works independent of your beliefs.
    30. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aim isn't the issue. Yes, confining the light to a tight beam with a focal length near infinity would make it easy to miss across vast distances, but laser light does not have to be collimated, just as collimated light does not have to have a laser source (or be in any way coherent).

      Starlight appears collimated for all practical purposes because the emission sources are so far away that even an astronomical unit radius cross section of the light of any non-Sol star will still appear planar.

      But we know that stars are omnidirectional radiators of wide-spectrum EMR.

      The principal advantage of a laser is not collimation (since you'd get that from any source at a distance of tens of parsecs) but coherence -- all the radiant power is narrowed into a tiny portion of the EM spectrum. A good choice of emission frequency would [a] avoid sources of signal fade (absorption by interstellar matter) [b] avoid sources of noise (natural emissions from other astronomical objects) and [c] allow for sufficient power gain at the source such that a spreading lens or mirror (or dish) would be able to overlap the entire Sol star system yet still stay well above the SNR floor of receivers on Earth or in Earth orbit.

      The power budget for this would be substantial, but natural astronomical lasers (and irasers and masers) are known to work across megaparsec distances with power budgets which are tiny fractions of the stars in the source galaxies, or those roughly along the line of sight between the source and Earth. A well constructed artificial oscillator-driven source could deliver signal across tens of parsecs at a tiny fraction of that energy.

    31. Re:This is worth sending a probe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stars appear to be points because they are at large distances compared to the small cross sections of the roughly spherical wavefronts emitted by each of them that we have available here in the Sol system. The cross sections appear to be planar, so for all practical purposes, starlight is collimated.

      (Even the sun itself is effectively collimated since it has a maximum variation of less than half a degree of arc compared to a true point source located at the core of the sun, and Sol is much closer than a star that is tens of parsecs away).

      The major issue is that stars emit lots and lots of photons in all directions and at many frequencies. An artificial source with a (much!) smaller power budget would not be able to generate as many photons, but might be able to emit them all in a very very narrow frequency band and with greater directionality. Various energies in the line of sight between a source at tens of parsecs and the Earth limits both -- the signal will spread out spatially and also across the EM spectrum. These are forms of dispersion.

      With realistic SNR floors, the power budget to overcome dispersion would be large, but not beyond the ability of current power generating technology involving sub-gigagram masses (for tens of MWe).

  14. Re:Only one thing to do! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Funny

    You could send them in the third ark, but then who would sanitize our telephones?

  15. More information... by Barkmullz · · Score: 4, Informative


    The link in the blog seems to be broken. There is some more information about the planet (Gliese 581 c) on Wikipedia, MSN, and Space.com.

    --
    Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
  16. Just remember by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

    When we talk to these people, we don't discuss religion or politics, or work. That just leaves the weather and women. Nothing else matters. Got it?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Just remember by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I guess I'll have to settle for non-verbal research...*Charges up the Probulator*

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:Just remember by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      When we talk to these people, we don't discuss religion or politics, or work. That just leaves the weather and women. Nothing else matters. Got it?

      Sports?

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    3. Re:Just remember by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      No. It counts as religion.

    4. Re:Just remember by iamtheantipudge · · Score: 1

      Sports?

      You got something against women?

      "Al: ...A beautiful Martian babe with 3 hooters will come out. She'll say,'I can't speak*. I have no parents and I don't know what good sex is.'"
      Steve: " What's the third hooter for?"
      Al: " It's on the back for dancin"


      *interesting glitch

      --
      Fuck you for not taking back your lies. - pudge
    5. Re:Just remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sports? They'll probably insist on telling us all about Frungy.
    6. Re:Just remember by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Steve: " What's the third hooter for?"
      Al: " It's on the back for dancin"


      Cue the Detroit Grand Poobahs:
      "I know you wanna do it
      you know I wanna do it, too
      so get out on the dance floor
      we can make sandwiches"

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  17. The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long do you think it will take use to ruin the atmosphere and can we somehow one-up ourselves and ruin it from this distance!?

    1. Re:The real question is by SengirV · · Score: 1

      Don't you have some carbon offsets to go buy

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

  18. My Hope by Brad1138 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am not religious, I am an Atheist. I have no "God" to look forward to meeting (I don't believe anyone else does either but anyway). My biggest hope is that before I die we will have proof of alien life, hopefully a spaceship will land in Times Square so there will be know question about it. This is a very exciting time, every time Scientists make a new discovery like this I feel that much closer to my dream.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:My Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohhhh, isn't that such a warm and fuzzy sentiment.

      WTF does your atheism have to do with anything?

      I notice you wrote "Scientists" not "scientists" in the middle of a sentence. That indicates you're wrapped up in the "cult" of science, and aren't really the "atheist" you proclaim to be.

    2. Re:My Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no "God" to look forward to meeting (I don't believe anyone else does either but anyway).

      Actually I'm more looking forward to seeing Carl Sagan. Boy, will his face be red! Because he's in hell.

    3. Re:My Hope by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      I'm with you. I know how you feel, and I want to see that happen before I die, too.

    4. Re:My Hope by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? What does proof of alien life accomplish?

      I think a true atheist wouldn't capitalize "Atheist." Makes it seem like a religion by a different name.

    5. Re:My Hope by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Nobody said God hasn't created life on other planets(unfortunately, nobody can claim He has, either). He is omniscient and omnipotent, so He is fully capable of running more than just the Human race. One of the first things I do in RTS games is start colonies. The starting people would be The Chosen Ones.

      I think it is entirely probably that we aren't alone in the Universe. This planet only 20 lightyears away could certainly help us prove that along with other unimaginable benefits.

    6. Re:My Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carl Sagan was an atheist too. He hoped to find superior alien lifeforms that would come help us with poverty, disease, hunger, etc. If that isn't a search for God, what is?

    7. Re:My Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be really far from your dream.

    8. Re:My Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "hopefully a spaceship will land in Times Square"

      I don't engage in such simple tricks. I'm more subtle than that.

      (Besides, I didn't need a spaceship to get here, but that's another story...)

    9. Re:My Hope by Deltaspectre · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't work at all! Haven't you read Earth's entry in the Hitchhikers Guide? That's the perfect place to land for a visiting alien to be inconspicuous!

      --
      My UID is prime... is yours?
    10. Re:My Hope by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'I think a true atheist wouldn't capitalize "Atheist." Makes it seem like a religion by a different name.'

      It is. Atheism assumes without evidence. That is just as much a matter of faith as believing in creator(s). Both are picking ideas out of a hat and calling them truth without a shred of evidence. A truly scientific outlook is agnostic pending observation either way.

      Of course, the true idiots are those who actually claim a religion beyond simply believing in a generic idea of creation or lack thereof. Rather than making one large assumption without a basis in fact those ignorant fools are actually making dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands. Further, they make those assumptions simply because someone told them it was so. The someone was probably their parents, and ultimately someone passed the word down from a long time ago. Shh, don't tell anyone but you shouldn't take the word of a nut making proclamations that they conversed with a god if it supposedly happened thousands of years ago if you wouldn't accept that proclamation from uncle Fred tomorrow.

    11. Re:My Hope by dominique_cimafranca · · Score: 1

      ...and if the aliens said they were sent by God, what then?

    12. Re:My Hope by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      Ohhhh, isn't that such a warm and fuzzy sentiment.

      Funny how defensive people get when someone mentions "non religious thinking", also funny seeing them hide behind A.C.

      WTF does your atheism have to do with anything?

      It has to do with my vision of the universe we live in, and what I would like to see that would bolster my belief structure as well as being really cool :). The capitalized words in the middle of the sentence is more of an annoying typing habit I have, don't try to read to Much into it.

      aren't really the "atheist" you proclaim to be.

      Your right, I am secretly a Jehovah's Witnesses but I just don't know it.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    13. Re:My Hope by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is [a religion]. Atheism assumes without evidence. That is just as much a matter of faith as believing in creator(s).

      Hardly. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    14. Re:My Hope by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Then we'll have some wisdom to trade for their cure for cancer and a starcruiser.

    15. Re:My Hope by Boronx · · Score: 1

      ...Head for the hills, and if they gift you some blankets, don't bother.

    16. Re:My Hope by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      I don't have an Uncle Fred (and I've got 8 or so uncles, so if anybody would, I should, statistically speaking--I think), but if I did, and he said he saw God, and he was the same type of person that saw God in the Bible (plus a few other variables I don't care to list), I would consider believing him.

      Personally, however, I think that anyone today that saw God wouldn't say much about it. Theophanies are exceptionally rare in scripture, largely, I think, because it is such a personal and private event that most wouldn't really talk about it. Not that I would know. But based on the spiritual experiences I have had, I prefer to keep that sort of thing to myself. It's just bad form to do anything else, and I firmly believe that unless you are directly told to talk about it, spiritual experiences should remain under your hat. I *might* share something like that with my wife, but I'm not even sure about that. I think the most truly spiritual individuals are also fairly quiet about the actual experiences, while encouraging others to get to a point where those experiences might be possible.

      Of course, I also believe in God, so the atheists around here are just going to flame me for that. Before they do, I'd just like to say this: if you deny the possibility of God, then you are not being scientific. If you are denying the existence of evidence for God, and feel that there cannot be any evidence of God, then that's the same thing--non-scientific. If, however, you deny that there is credible evidence, but that there could be some evidence if there is a God, then you are being much more scientific. Of course it is also possible to say that a particular definition of God cannot possibly present evidence (some versions of the Christian Trinity are likely in this category), but to say that there isn't a definition that could present evidence, and use that as a basis for logical non-cognitivism is disingenuous, and lacks logical basis.

      As for aliens--I'd love to meet aliens too. What if we meet aliens and they look just like us? What would you say then? You do realize that while it is probable that certain characteristics would be necessary for matching capabilities, the probability that aliens would look like us at all is quite low--unless you posit a common seed/creator. Thus, while I suspect that aliens will look like us (and even have very similar DNA), if you are an atheist, then you pretty much have to bet against that. Evolution is irrelevant in this case--if you believe that Humans were created in God's image in a literal sense, then you will probably want to believe that aliens would be too. On the other hand, if I say that I am seriously contemplating this crap at 12:54 or so in the morning, you should probably ask me what I'm doing up still.

      Ack! I need more sleep.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    17. Re:My Hope by 246o1 · · Score: 1

      Pithy, but perhaps better is "Atheism is as much a religion as *avoiding* using stamps is a hobby," which it very well could be, or at least an irrational compulsion.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    18. Re:My Hope by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Atheism is more like not believing in stamps because you've never seen them. Believers are the ones who believe in the stamps despite the fact that they have never seen stamps and there exists no credible evidence to prove the existance of stamps.

    19. Re:My Hope by buswolley · · Score: 1

      That was really funny. Thank you.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    20. Re:My Hope by JohnPM · · Score: 1

      Now, be honest and quote your source. That's a Richard Dawkins quote.
      What am I thinking? This is slashdot...

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
    21. Re:My Hope by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
      Good point! On a related note, have you read Richard Dawkins' new book "The Philately Dissipation"? I believe there's a TV series to go along with it...
      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    22. Re:My Hope by asninn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Atheism is certainly not a religion, but I think that's just because it's not organised - it *is* a spiritual conviction (and I'm saying that as an atheist). A conviction based on considerations of plausibility, Occam's razor and so on, of course; a conviction that makes sense and doesn't just assert the existence of big bogeymen in the sky, flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns secretly controlling the world; and a conviction that (some? many? most?) people would probably be willing to abandon if presented with strong actual evidence[1] that it is not, indeed correct, but a spiritual conviction nonetheless.

      1. Given the claims typically made by religion, such evidence would have to be VERY strong indeed, and withstand a whole lot of attempts to deconstruct it over a very long period of time, but I think most atheists base their conviction on reason rather than irrational beliefs (like most "religious" people seem to do), and therefore, I think that most atheists would be able to willing to reconsider their conviction if provided with compelling, strong, well-tested evidence. But on the other hand, since I *am* an atheist, I think that all this is just a theoretical question, anyway. ;)

      --
      butter the donkey
    23. Re:My Hope by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      It's a cute quote, but a pretty bad analogy.

    24. Re:My Hope by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I am not religious, I am an Atheist. I have no "God" to look forward to meeting (I don't believe anyone else does either but anyway).

      That's very cute and all, but what does your personal belief have to do with the discovery of a planet?

      My biggest hope is that before I die we will have proof of alien life, hopefully a spaceship will land in Times Square so there will be know question about it. This is a very exciting time, every time Scientists make a new discovery like this I feel that much closer to my dream.

      I don't hope they land on Times Square, because I think that will create quite a big mess. I'd prefer if they sent some friendly messages first.

    25. Re:My Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Then again, most non-stamp-collectors don't spend any significant portion of their time and energy railing against stamp collectors or stamp collecting.

      If one ran across a non-stamp-collector who spent as much effort inveighing against philately as some atheists spend ranting against religion, one might reasonably conclude that, for that non-stamp-collector, non-stamp-collecting was indeed a hobby, or the functional equivalent of a hobby.

    26. Re:My Hope by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Favorite comment of the year so far. Kudos!

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    27. Re:My Hope by manifoldronin · · Score: 1

      Hardly. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
      Um...no... you don't make the decision about whether to collect stamps as a hobby based on logic or any objective evidence. You do that out of your own subjective and arbitrary reasons. On the other hand, atheists assert that there isn't a God, without any evidences. The only logical statement behind Atheism is "we don't need a God to explain anything," and that is a correct statement on its own, but "don't need something" is only good enough to get you as far as, well, "don't need," but not to the point of asserting the non-existence.

      BTW, in case you haven't figured out by now, I am agnostic. 8-)

      --
      Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
    28. Re:My Hope by darkwhite · · Score: 1

      You fail at analogies.

      --

      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    29. Re:My Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actively and vigorously don't collect stamps and take every opportunity to tell people who collect stamps how they're wasting their time and you propose alternatives to collecting stamps...

      Maybe you have a hobby after all.

    30. Re:My Hope by Theolojin · · Score: 1

      Hardly. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      Atheists believe a universal negative, i.e., there is no god. Since one cannot prove a negative, in order to be an atheist one must believe a negative without any evidence. This requires great faith, whether in one's intellectual abilities to discern and perceive things beyond one's ken or in blind hope that there really is not a god or in science or in whatever. Great faith is required to not believe in God.

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    31. Re:My Hope by lordholm · · Score: 1

      "the probability that aliens would look like us at all is quite low--unless you posit a common seed/creator"

      Um, like for example bats and birds?.

      There is a concept called parallel evolution. Species does not need to be related to develop similar features, they just need to be exposed to similar conditions. It is very unlikely that an alien would have EXACTLY the same appearance as a human. However, I would say that it is in-fact very likely that a number of space faring species would be bipedal, walk upright, have fingers (hard to develop a civilisation without them), and have the ability to speak (though not necessarily in a way that humans can pronounce, also difficult to develop a civilisation without complex languages).

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    32. Re:My Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/stamps/Santa Claus/g
      s/them/him/g

    33. Re:My Hope by Alsee · · Score: 1

      a pretty bad analogy.

      Why? The analogy seems absolutely perfect to me.

      Collecting stamps is a hobby.
      Playing golf is a hobby.
      Knitting is a hobby.
      etc.

      Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
      Not playing golf is not a hobby.
      Not knitting is not a hobby.
      etc.

      If someone does none of them, that person has no hobby.

      Believing/worshiping Zeus is a religion.
      Believing/worshiping Shiva is a religion
      Believing/worshiping Yahweh is a religion
      etc.

      Not believing/worshiping Zeus is not a religion.
      Not believing/worshiping Shiva is not a religion.
      Not believing/worshiping Yahweh is not a religion.
      etc.

      If someone does none of them, that person has no religion.

      There are a hundred different gods from Allah to Zeus, that you do not believe. A hundred gods you you do not believe and you consider fiction... exactly as an atheist does. An atheist simply does not believe a hundred-and-one.

      Someone engaged in one less hobby than you has no hobby. (Presuming you had only one hobby.)
      Someone engaged in one less religion than you has no religion. (Presuming you had only one religion.)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    34. Re:My Hope by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Atheists believe a universal negative.
      ...Great faith is required to not believe in God.


      Do you believe in pink elephants? No?

      Then obviously you have GREAT FAITH that there are no pink elephants.
      You have a pretty freaking weird religion there you pink elephant denier.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    35. Re:My Hope by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Since one cannot prove a negative, in order to be an atheist one must believe a negative without any evidence. This requires great faith

      I'm just wondering, do you believe in invisible pink forest elves? Or invisible pink cave elves? Or invisible pink sea elves?

      Great faith is required for you to believe a negative, to believe there aren't any invisible pink elves at all.

      Great faith is required to conclude that elves and unicorns and goblins and fairies and trolls and gremlins are ALL just a bunch of silly made up stories.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    36. Re:My Hope by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I think you have nailed this down completely. I agree that those who would have such a spiritual experience would even be advised not to talk about it even in a circle of like-minded people open to the concept of a divine visit.

      With people such as Joan of Arc being accused (in a modern context) of out right mental instability, I don't see how even an otherwise level headed individual having such an experience even being employable (including losing professional licenses) or to be considered a national security risk (aka losing security clearances), if they were public with such an experience.

      Even based on such experiences recorded in formal scripture (being non-specific here and not just sticking to the Bible), such visits by angels, God himself, or even alien beings (aka modern UFO stories) tend to be very private matters and not a public event. The only possible exception to this was the Christian Pentecost, which has its own group of skeptics and is its own unique kind of event.

      As far as the existance of God or not, it seems to be in the very nature of God that a plausable deniability is also evident in nearly all dealings of God with man. As such scientific analysis is nearly impossible other than to obtain your own theophany and have this god confirm or deny previous experiences.

      Regarding alien visits: I consider this to be another form of religion in many ways, but with God replaced by some super-advanced race of technological beings. The idea of technological civilizations existing in places within our Solar System (other than on the Earth) seems to be easy to disprove, which would require such a civilization that visits the Earth to be capable of advanced interstellar flight. And not just some basic interstellar flight such as a generation ship, but something like Star Trek where this civilization can visit another planetary system for lunch and return home for supper. From my perspective, this is something so bizzare that a belief in God is much easier to accept even from a very skeptical viewpoint.

      Even presuming that such alien beings might exist that are somehow capable of communication with us. Some have suggested that communication with such beings from another planet may not even be possible, although two groups of intelligent beings would, I believe, be able to eventually work out some sort of rudimentary communication system if they were committed to trying to exchange knowledge. What I would find interesting would be some comparative theology, which would have IMHO a tremendous impact if there were some similarities between this alien race and their spiritual beliefs and those of some particular religion that currently exists on the Earth. If they professed knowledge of Jesus or Muhammad, imagine the impact such a philosophy. Or even their own version of a Messianic figure like Kahless (from Klingon mythology).

    37. Re:My Hope by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I just thought of an even more amusing analogy...

      Atheism is as much a religion as not carrying the Ebola virus is a disease.

      Too bad most parents work so hard at deliberately and thoroughly infecting their children with whatever brand of religion their parents infected them with.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    38. Re:My Hope by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Sure you could insert anything into the blank. Although technically it only there aren't credible observations that already disprove the thing (there are credible physics observations that eliminate the possibility of Santa Claus) and if the existance of the thing isn't in itself illogical (Santa fails there again).

      Creation is neither illogical nor disproved by observation. Specific dogmas adhered to on Earth written by horny ignorant Hebrews, Arabs, and orientals; sure those are illogical. But not the concept of creation itself when you eliminate all the assumptions about a creator that come from those dogmas. Is it less likely, yup. Its one more variable, but if you can believe that the universe always was or sprung into existence on its own then it is only one more step to believe that a being intelligent and capable enough could have always been or sprung into existence on its own.

      Quite frankly neither sounds especially likely to me, I'm waiting for a third option.

    39. Re:My Hope by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      but what does your personal belief have to do with the discovery of a planet?

      It gives background for why I am excited each time we find another planet (the more earth like the better). Each time we find a planet it shows how many there are and increases the probability that we are just 1 of countless inhabited planets. I think most if not all of us want to know how we, and the universe, came to be. A religious person will look forward to seeing his "god" after he dies and learning all the answers. I don't believe there is any "god" to meet after death (that doesn't necessarily mean I don't believe in life after death). My answers for the universe will need to come before I die. Meeting an alien race could bring that answer, or at least bring us a lot closer to understanding it.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    40. Re:My Hope by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      This is another ridiculous aspect of religion, the idea that the more learned and knowledgeable a person is the more likely they are going to "hell". Please... Just believing that there is a "hell" and "devil" in this day and age is beyond me. It's like believing in witches during the Salem witch trials, and should have been left back in that age.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    41. Re:My Hope by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      There are a hundred different gods from Allah to Zeus, that you do not believe. A hundred gods you you do not believe and you consider fiction... exactly as an atheist does. An atheist simply does not believe a hundred-and-one.

      Well put, Thank you.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    42. Re:My Hope by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I think most atheists base their conviction on reason rather than irrational beliefs

      What "conviction" is this that you speak of?

      Real athiests are no more 'convinced' of the absence of religion than they are 'convinced' of the absence of beauty pageants for sauerkraut and peanut-butter sandwiches. We just don't care.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    43. Re:My Hope by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      'I think a true atheist wouldn't capitalize "Atheist." Makes it seem like a religion by a different name.'
      It is. Atheism assumes without evidence. That is just as much a matter of faith as believing in creator(s). Both are picking ideas out of a hat and calling them truth without a shred of evidence. A truly scientific outlook is agnostic pending observation either way.
      Atheism isn't that simple. There is the atheism that doesn't believe in the existence of any deity and there is the atheism that believes in the non-existence of any deity. The former, also known as "weak atheism", is not a religion. There is an absence of belief, and religion is defined by belief. The latter is also known as "strong atheism" and might be a religion, but since it doesn't describe me I couldn't care less.

      Agnosticism is different: it's a statement about what is known. There is the agnosticism that says we can't know one way or the other, also known as "strict agnosticism", and there is the agnosticism that simply says that we don't know, also known as "empirical agnosticism".

      A strong atheist can't be agnostic in any way. They already know.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    44. Re:My Hope by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      My source is the .sig I've seen on someone else's posts here at slashdot. Where *HE* got the quote from, I have no idea.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    45. Re:My Hope by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'doesn't believe in the existence of any deity' == 'believes in the non-existence of any deity'

      It has the same meaning, regardless of where you put the negative. There are atheists who are activists and atheists who are not but if you accept the possibility of a creator you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic. You can't have both reached a conclusion (atheism) and not have reached a conclusion (agnostic) anymore than you can be a theist and agnostic.

      Technically neither agnosticism or atheism is really a religion though. Technically a religion is a code of practices and behaviors not a code of beliefs. Atheists and agnostics do not follow any particular code of practices and behaviors because their beliefs don't support it.

      I think your distinctions rely on outdated concepts though. Once upon a time in the western world either you believed in 'God' in some form or you didn't (my experience is that most actually believe that the deity of other religions is the same deity). Anyone who did not believe in 'God' was considered an Atheist. That definition is one more or less pushed by religion with a us and them attitude. Atheists and Agnostics are two different and mutually exclusive things.

    46. Re:My Hope by mcvos · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you call a religion. If by religion you mean the practise of worshipping, then you're right (although in that case you might consider certain cases of fandom religion). But if you mean a set of beliefs about supernatural phenomena, then the belief that all of them are false is just as much a body of belief as the belief that some are true and some are false.

      In that sense, only agnosticism, where you're unsure about the existence of all supernatural phenomena, is not a religion. Although in a sense, you might consider the conviction that you cannot possibly know the truth about them (which incidentally happens to be what I believe), still a belief about those supernatural phenomena.

      In any case, atheistic fanatics like Richard Dawkins can get quite religious in their crusade against different beliefs.

    47. Re:My Hope by mcvos · · Score: 1

      It gives background for why I am excited each time we find another planet (the more earth like the better). Each time we find a planet it shows how many there are and increases the probability that we are just 1 of countless inhabited planets. I think most if not all of us want to know how we, and the universe, came to be. A religious person will look forward to seeing his "god" after he dies and learning all the answers. I don't believe there is any "god" to meet after death (that doesn't necessarily mean I don't believe in life after death). My answers for the universe will need to come before I die. Meeting an alien race could bring that answer, or at least bring us a lot closer to understanding it.

      I am a religious person, but I also look forward to finding as many answers as possible in this life. Whatever I believe about a life after death, I can't possibly be sure it's true, but I can be sure about things we discover in this life. If nothing else, it can tell us a lot about the nature of God's creation and God himself, should he indeed exist.

      Discovery of life on other planets will definitely not be an unwelcome shock to me. It will teach us a lot about the origin of life, and that can definitely change the way I see God, but I believe that that change will bring me closer to the truth.

    48. Re:My Hope by JohnPM · · Score: 1

      Fair enuf. In fact I was wrong, it is often misattributed to James Randi, but he attributes it to an anonymous reader of Swift magazine.
      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Randi

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
  19. 5 times Earth size! by yoprst · · Score: 1

    Even if the planet consists of zephyr, gravity must be a bitch here

    1. Re:5 times Earth size! by dominique_cimafranca · · Score: 1

      True enough! With gravity that strong, strange visitors from that planet would find it so easy to, er, leap a tall building in a single bound.

  20. Uninhabital new worlds by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1)It has 2.25G's,
    2)It's probably tidal-locked which means quakes so living underground is not easy
    3)The surface is probably soaked with radiation where it faces the sun and cold where it does not.
    4)If there is any atmosphere it is probably turbulent due to hot and cold sides.

    Even if I could travel a light-year a minute for a buck, I'd never consider trying to live there. Next?

    1. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's important because it has the potential for life. The little green men we may find there might even know of a location we could send ignorant assholes like you.

    2. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the idea that being tidal locked would subject it to frequent quakes? I don't see a connection there. Also, TFA says that there shouldn't be a huge temperature difference between the sides of the planet.

    3. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by SignalX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is good to see everyone has a positive attitude for space exploration. I must assume that, in your opinion, there is no good reason to go to Mars or the Moon?

      Also remember that were you got the information on gravitational pull and the atmosphere for this planet is speculative at best.
      1) 2.25 times that of our own gravitational pull would not be ideal for us to live but, it doesn't mean nothing could live there. I pull 2.25g's with my car on a dry skid pad, I have not died yet.
      2) Really?
      3) Yes the planet is closer to its sun that ours, but if this planet is like ours, the atmosphere filters out most of the radiation. The star closest to them does not spit out the magnitude of radiation that ours does due to its size.
      4) If there is atmosphere like ours with water in it, it will hold some of the heat as it passes out of its suns rays and therefore should be just as turbulent.

      Also some things to think about:

      Even if the planet is 2 times as big as our planet, it could be spinning faster than ours. This would help off set the gravitational pull on our bodies at the surface.

      No one is saying this is a planet to colonize, but with some of our technology and determination, it could be a waypoint in the stars for us to refuel and grab water before we continue our adventures further into space.

      Just my two cents,

      -X

    4. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the idea that being tidal locked would subject it to frequent quakes? I don't see a connection there. Ummm...good question...I don't see a connection either. Guess I was editing too fast. I meant to say:
      tidal lock leads to temperature variations
      being too close leads to quakes

      TFA says that there shouldn't be a huge temperature difference between the sides of the planet Yes, TFA said that, but it seemed an unsustantiated claim because they have no idea what the atmosphere -if any - might be like.
    5. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) So mice have thicker bones and birds run rather than fly.
      2) I don't think quakes are a big problem for life in general.
      3 & 4) Complex life forms live around thermal vents where the temprature varies by hundredes of degrees over a few inches. Our own biosphere is also a chaotic system where order "emerges" in the form of a dynamic equilibrium.

      "Even if I could travel a light-year a minute for a buck, I'd never consider trying to live there."

      I think you missed the point (or maybe you were aiming for cynical humour), we are a long way technologically from colonising the stars, so much so that we are only now infering the existance of interesting targets. We co-evolved with Earth's biosphere and it's very unlikely we will find a hospitable duplicate where we can lay around on a beach or picnic by a river. Given the huge technology gap, our species must first learn how to sustain the only hospitable biosphere we have for millenia before we can "consider" moving to another planet.

      "Next?"

      Yes, by all means keep this research going, great stuff!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mars? Sure. Moon? Sure. I can do things there. But 2.25 G's?? Ok, it's not immediately lethal, but it is rather limiting. The only way one could reasonably move around there is as in your car - belted into a seat in some kind of vehicle. I wouldn't dare walk around, for a simple fall could kill.

    7. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by 246o1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would be willing to bet that humans could live in 2.5 G. The human body is incredibly resilient, especially when it has grown up in a new environment. There are people living everywhere from sea level to several miles up, and in environments ranging from yearly average temperatures of over 30C to under 0C.

      This does raise an interesting point, however. A great deal of money and research time has been spent studying how human and animal physiology react to low- or micro-gravity, but I am not aware of any long-term studies of higher G's, such as raising monkeys in a giant centrifuge or somesuch. Sure, this would take a lot of money, but hopefully less than for sending things to space, and it is vital knowledge for space exploration (long-term acceleration or living on these planets are the two key reasons).

      The discovery of this planet provides some hope for those of us who hope the human race will escape Earth before we destroy it, or those who hope for Earth-similar life. And we can only expect the discovery of these planets to accelerate in the future, as out technology makes it easier to find them.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    8. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, sure it's not ideal, but since I was the first to call 'dibs', then you're sure gonna be disappointed when I get my shiny new as-habitable-as-Nevada planet.

    9. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by trewornan · · Score: 1

      It is good to see everyone has a positive attitude for space exploration. I must assume that, in your opinion, there is no good reason to go to Mars or the Moon?


      In general I have a very negative opinion of *manned* space exploration. It's pointless to send people to explore Mars when robots can do it for a fraction of the price.


      However the moon is another matter - it might be worth sending people there to mine Helium 3.


      However this really is an amazing and very important discovery. It looks like this planet could support life (unlike Mars) and if it can there's a very good chance it does. If it does support life it might be possible to pick up signs of this - for example an oxygen rich atmosphere, wouldn't that be incredible!


      Shame it's at least a 40 year round trip - I can't imagine anybody volunteering to spend most of their life travelling to visit a planet covered in bacterial gloop.

    10. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by pacman87 · · Score: 1

      there is a feasable approach - instead of accelerating and decelerating at G, start accelerating at G, and increase the acceleration rate such that you end up decelerating at 2.25g's by the time you arrive. after the 6 years mention above (slightly shorter due to the higher accelerations), the human body should be able to adjust.

    11. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Ummm... 40 years at what speed? And can I borrow your spacecraft?

    12. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Even if the planet is 2 times as big as our planet, it could be spinning faster than ours. This would help off set the gravitational pull on our bodies at the surface.

      Centrifugal force doesn't work that way, not to mention that, if it did, the planet would have to be spinning incredibly fast in order for the centrifugal force to offset its gravitational pull. Humans aren't that big, proportionally speaking, and you're talking about a planet five times bigger than Earth. Centrifugal force is related to your own body's inertia: it is the result of traveling very fast in one direction, and then changing that direction. In other words, your body wants to keep traveling in the same direction; that's the pull you feel when you spin on a merry-go-round.

      In order for centrifugal force to cancel out even a significant portion of gravity, the planet would have to be spinning at an appreciable fraction of its own escape velocity (for the Earth, you're talking 11.2 km/s, or about 7 miles per second.) Also, the necessary spin can only be found at the equator, where you're traveling at about 465 meters per second - a bit short of what you need to feel any appreciable effect. By that same token, the poles impart no tangential motion at all, which means you would feel the full effects of that 2.25 Gs. This also means that gravity would vary depending on your distance from the equator; pretty inconvenient.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    13. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      The toll 2.5 G would take on the cardio system would not be good. The effects of that are going to be a LOT bigger on the body than you think. Humans survive in 30C to under 0C temps because they can reshape their environment to some extent (put on clothing, build shelter, etc). How are you going to reshape the environment to reduce gravity?

    14. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by 246o1 · · Score: 1

      Humans growing up in 2.5 G would probably be significantly shorter, which would help a good bit. Though lifespans might decrease, I imagine the cardiovascular system could adapt just as the respiratory system responds to high altitude. However, before just throwing humans into this situation, we should (as I suggested) raise a generation or two of chimps in a large centrifuge, see what happens.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    15. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'all are freakin crazy!! Now I know that its part of the slashdot thing and all to be hot about space travel, but it aint gonna work.
      Telll you what, go pick up a friend whose a little heavier than you and carry him around for a while. You can't do it for six hours, dude! No way you are gonna do it for six years!

    16. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Zex_Suik · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new 2.5 ft tall, blind, alien overlords.

    17. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Rei · · Score: 1

      being too close leads to quakes

      No. Plate tectonics, volcanism, and settling lead to quakes. Tidal *stresses* can encourage those things, but tidal locking and tidal stresses are not the same thing.

      Yes, TFA said that, but it seemed an unsustantiated claim because they have no idea what the atmosphere -if any - might be like.

      True, but they can play the odds. Odds are high that, given how little radiation pressure this red dwarf will be putting out, it has at least some atmosphere. Probably a big one. Convection currents will transfer heat around the planet effectively. Look at how slow Venus's windspeeds are, how slow it rotates, and how little difference its dayside/nightside temperatures are. Now, its surface pressure is almost 90 atm, but even still, convection can move heat around pretty well in the case where a planet is locked or nearly locked.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    18. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by falsified · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As far as I see, the article only claims a chance for life to be on this planet. I don't see anything in there that talks about there being humans on this planet.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    19. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Rei · · Score: 2

      That makes no sense. If you agree (correctly) that robots are better at exploration for your dollar, then why suddenly change that opinion when it comes to mining? You think it's easier to navigate unfamiliar terrain (exploration) than familiar terrain (mining)? Think it's better to process random samples (exploration) than predictable ones (mining)? Etc. It's illogical. Robotic mining of the moon would be cheaper as well. Humans are just too darned expensive to keep alive offplanet, and will be until we can get launch costs down.

      As for Helium-3 itself, it's a red herring if I've ever seen one.

        * It's useless. And likely will be long after you and I are dead and gone. It's looking likely that it will be half a century before we can commercialize D-D fusion, barring a big upset from one of the little contenders (and if any of them work, we might as well skip straight to B-P fusion). He3 is incredibly hard to fuse, and the only benefit you get is lower neutronicity. Yet, the neutronicity isn't a bad thing! You can breed fuel with them, and since you get to choose what gets bombarded, you can guarantee that all of your induced radioactivity will have short half-lives.

        * It's extremely rare on the moon. We're talking parts per billion, and mixed in with parts per million He4.

        * We can make it here. Tritium can decay to He-3. We generally don't even save it, because He-3 just isn't in that much demand.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    20. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Venik · · Score: 1

      1)It has 2.25G's,

      This may be a problem for us, but 2.25Gs certainly does not exclude the possibility of indigenous lifeforms on this panet.


      2)It's probably tidal-locked which means quakes so living underground is not easy

      This really depends on the geological structure of this planet.


      3)The surface is probably soaked with radiation where it faces the sun and cold where it does not.

      My understanding is that the star emits little radiation. Otherwise the temperature of the planet would have been well above 40 degC.


      4)If there is any atmosphere it is probably turbulent due to hot and cold sides.

      Or it's possible that the planet rotates relative to the star fast enough not to cause any dramatic changes in atmospheric temperature. Besides, if the temperature on the planet ranges from 0-40 degC, then the planet's atmosphere would be far less turbulent then that of Earth, where temperature variations are more than twice that range.

    21. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Rei · · Score: 1

      Actually, centrifugal force *can* work that way, but it generally only does for small bodies like asteroids. There's even one double asteroid (Antiope) that is believed to have been split from a single body by centrifugal force.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    22. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surface gravity does not scale linearly with planet mass. Considering the way mass is divided over the earth's sphere, my guess is the surface gravity would be significantly lower than 2.5 G.

    23. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      1)It has 2.25G's

      And how did you get to that conclusion, in other words, how do you estimate the planet's radius? It seems that if you consider it to have about the same density as Earth, the gravity at its surface should be more like 1.7 G.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    24. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      Let's see..

      20 *light*years to the planet.
      20 *light*years back.
      40 *light*years round-trip.

      Hmm..

    25. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by AxminsterLeuven · · Score: 1

      I predict a load of really funny YouTube videos of chimps in centrifuges. There is something about the idea that is hilarious. I hope the Matt Groenings of the world feel the same.

    26. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by astroe · · Score: 1

      I would be willing to bet that humans could live in 2.5 G. The human body is incredibly resilient, especially when it has grown up in a new environment. There are people living everywhere from sea level to several miles up, and in environments ranging from yearly average temperatures of over 30C to under 0C. I think so too. That would certainly trigger a quick evolution of the homo sapiens towards another human species better adapted to life on that planet. Eveb people who live in different environments on Earth exhibit different features that allow them to adapt to their environment. I imagine that at least in the beginning the people who would colonize a 2.5G planet would become shorter, due to the fact that gravitational pull would make their upper body weight press harder on the ribs and pelvis.
    27. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by trewornan · · Score: 1

      I just think that for a large scale mining operation you're going to need people to deal with unexpected mechanical problems etc - it's an industry that's notoriously hard on equipment.

      As for He-3, I don't think fusion is as far away as you seem to believe and although no-one knows for sure its widely believed that there are very substantial quantities in the lunar regolith.

    28. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Garridan · · Score: 1

      He did say, "at least". That means, driving at the speed limit the whole time. No acceleration, no deceleration. Just *BAM*, we're movin', and 20 years later, *BAM*, we're here. No potty breaks.

    29. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by 246o1 · · Score: 1

      Point taken. Which is only good news, but I still think research into high-gravity survival is as important as low-G for future space efforts, besides being potentially interesting in general.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    30. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by init100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surface gravity does not scale linearly with planet mass.

      If the planet radius is constant, it does, at least according to Newton's gravitational laws. But gravity also is inversely proportional to the square of the planet radius (given a constant mass), so a low density planet (large, but low mass) has lower gravity than a high density planet (small, but high mass), and the gravity decreases faster with increasing radius than it increases with increasing mass.

      The planet in the article would have a gravity of approx. 2.223g according to my calculations.

    31. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by init100 · · Score: 1

      Telll you what, go pick up a friend whose a little heavier than you and carry him around for a while. You can't do it for six hours, dude!

      Carrying something in your arms or anywhere else external to your body exerts a much greater strain on the body than if the mass was contained inside your body. The farther away from the body, the greater the strain. Compare lifting a weight with your outstretched arm to carrying it in a backpack. It feels a lot lighter in the backpack. If it was carried inside your body, it would pose much less of a problem.

      We could take another example. My motorcycle helmet weighs 1.5 kg. I don't actually know how much my head weighs, but it is in the same order of magnitude. Keeping my helmet on in an upright position doesn't exert any noticeable strain on my neck, while it feels quite heavy if I lie down and lift my head.

    32. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1
      you're missing the point. they're not talking about it being a place we could colonise, they're talking about it being a place where life may have been able to evolve, and the exciting prospects that holds in the future of research in this area.

      also, you're a sneering prick.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    33. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      long-term studies of higher G's, such as raising monkeys in a giant centrifuge or somesuch. I smell a new reality TV series!
    34. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually i don't think birds would have any problem flying in high-G, since the air would also be so much heavier. They might even be able to be larger than birds on earth.

    35. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Dausha · · Score: 1

      "Even if the planet is 2 times as big as our planet, it could be spinning faster than ours."

      As the GPP said, the planet is likely tidal locked to its star. The planet has an orbit period of 13 days, which would make that its revolution rate. I'm not going to sit here and do the math that determines whether we're looking at a tidal locked planet. Even if we are not, it is close enough that its revolution rate will not be fast enough to significantly offset its gravity.

      As for living on 2.25Gs, you may manage to pull that driving, but pull that falling down the stairs and see what happens. The first humans would have an exceedingly difficult time not killing themselves stumbling around---which is something they would do a lot of because of the high gravity.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    36. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Filip22012005 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From Pubmed:

      ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1995 Jul-Aug;57(4):189-93.
      Effect of prolonged hypergravity on the vestibular system: a behavioural study.Sondag HN, de Jong HA, Oosterveld WJ.
      Vestibular Department ENT, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

      Golden hamsters were exposed to conditions of 2.5 times normal gravity (hypergravity, HG) for 4 months. During this period, tests were carried out to study equilibrium maintenance, swimming behaviour and open-field behaviour of these HG hamsters and of control hamsters living in a normal-gravity environment. The tests proved to be useful devices for detecting differences in perceptive-motor behaviour between HG hamsters and control hamsters. The HG hamsters had more difficulties in balancing on tubes and orientation during swimming. In the open-field study, the HG hamsters showed less locomotor activity than control hamsters. However, no differences were observed between the groups in washing, rearing and number of times having defaecation. These findings indicate that the daily transition from 2.5 to 1 g was not experienced as stressful by the hamsters, although performance on several perceptive-motor tasks was decreased, especially during the first weeks.

      --
      When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
    37. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by 246o1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that, it was interesting. Good to know we maybe possibly won't experience higher G's as stressful, psychologically.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    38. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      1) Uncomfortable for the first generation of colonists, the following generations could deal with it better, having been born into it, and thus built muscles for it.

      2) Isn't the moon tidal locked to Earth? Isn't mercury tidal locked to the sun? I thought neither had quakes (I'm asking the first, not as a sarcasm, but really because I thought it was true, but I'm not anywhere near certain enough to state it as fact).

      3) Only if it's tidal locked.

      4) Again, that is reliant on #2.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    39. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I would be willing to bet that humans could live in 2.5 G. The human body is incredibly resilient, especially when it has grown up in a new environment. There are people living everywhere from sea level to several miles up, and in environments ranging from yearly average temperatures of over 30C to under 0C.

      But temperature is noot quite the same thing as gravity. Due to having only 2 legs, humans are already badly built for Earth's gravity, leading to knee, hip, trombosis and a multitude of other problems. I'm sure humans can learn to function in 2.5 G, but they won't get very old there. And people raised on Earth moving to that planet will need some serious revalidation therapy before they will be able to function, if that's going to be possible at all.

      I think humans are better built for Martian gravity.

    40. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      Are you really sure you could do stuff on Mars or Moon? You'd require either a complicated spacesuit or a dome over your head sustaining a different atmosphere. A human being dropped off on Mars would freeze to death, die of overheating on Moon during the day or freeze during the night. Not to mention the lack of breathable air. 2.25Gs rather sucks, but if the planet's temperature is in the 0-40C range, you could definitely survive as you are. Though admittedly, I can't find any references as to whether this newly discovered planet's atmosphere is anything close to breathable.

    41. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      [Commander Chaos's sidekick] Robot Chicken did it! [/Commander Chaos's sidekick]
      I don't have a link, but one of the segments was "Monkeys in Outer Space" montage with big dramatic theme music showing all kinds of strange ways for apes getting killed in the race for space.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    42. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Chris+whatever · · Score: 1

      Resilient maybe but in the long run we would probably be stocky and small with huge muscle but small limbs to limit the effect of the gravity, on the plus side if the inhabitants of that planet travels back to earth, they would be a hell of a lot stronger than the strongest human being due to lower grav.

      kind of like small superhuman without laser or see through vision that is.

    43. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      Addendum - the article I read said it was 1.6G, not 2.25, which is even more reasonable.

      Also, the thing to remember is, 2.25G would make sense if it had the same radius as earth, a larger radius with the same mass will decrease the surface gravity because the surface is farather from the center of mass.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    44. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      One of the planned modules for the ISS was CAM (Centrifuge Accommodation Module). Basically, one of the tin cans with a centrifuge that could hold a number of small rodents or other items. But it was canceled. The funny thing is that it is sitting at NASA all built. Hopefully, somebody with intelligence will reconsider that major blunder. We need to know what what variations of G's we can tolerate and thrive on. Of course, just because a rat thrives at a set G level, does not necessarily mean that we will. But it is probably close.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    45. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Does this mean galactic Olympic tournaments would be weighted? I mean, if someone grew up and worked out on this higher gravity planet, wouldn't that be a little unfair to the Earth grown athletes?

      I'm just saying...

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    46. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, the moon has a large number of quakes. Fortunately, they are relatively small. OTH, if its core was heated and the land floated, it would have a LARGE number of LARGE quakes. But it does not mean that we could not live there.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    47. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by nschubach · · Score: 1

      "No potty breaks."

      When your vehicle is the size of a few buses, has built in facilities, and practically drives itself ... potty breaks are not a problem.

      Your problem comes when your kids want to stop and check out Yellow-Dwarf Park.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    48. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Professor Chaos, and his sidekick is General Disarray.

    49. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by BigDogCH · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone here believes humans are ALREADY on this planet. The discussion is about whether humans could live there. Remember, we are destroying this planet, and instead of trying to save it, we are looking for another one to live on.

    50. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as he's not a Republican, we can send him to Gitmo!

    51. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      If I were on the surface of that planet, I would weigh less than 300lbs. After a few months of living there, I'm pretty sure I would have adapted enough to be reasonably mobile. The only big problems I would have at first would be due to my extreme height. A generation of kids born and raised with that kind of gravity would have fewer problems. I really don't think 2.25G is that hard for us to adapt to, given all the other things we have handled as a species.

    52. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I smell a new reality TV series!

      Flinging Poop at the Stars?

      I think this might be a reality show I'd watch.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    53. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone here believes humans are ALREADY on this planet.


      Hah! You assume too much!
      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    54. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      AKA Dwarves?

      "Nobody tosses a dwarf!"

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    55. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very interesting! However, this doesn't necessarily apply to humans - strength-to-weight ratios and stuff. Remember that you can drop a mouse from 3 meters and it'll run away, do the same to a horse and it'll break lots of bones...

    56. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      > Shame it's at least a 40 year round trip - I can't imagine anybody volunteering to spend most of their life travelling to visit a planet covered in bacterial gloop.

      Not at all. The faster you go, the less time it will take you. If you went to close enough to the speed of light the whole way, then it could take only a few minutes to get there and back again. However everybody on earth would have aged 40 years. But to the spaceman it would have only been a few minutes.

    57. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by fritsd · · Score: 1

      I read something about high-gravity experiments in "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition" (a funny book if you can get hold of it). Look it up if you like. The centrifuged chickens apparently managed to live under high-G.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    58. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      You'd end up with a flattened hamburger bun shaped world, with super strong centipedes living on the rim. Cool!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    59. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      I spent more time looking for this comic than I should have, but I think it applies.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    60. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by AGMW · · Score: 1
      It would seem like a worthy experiment, but I don't think there's really any rush as this thing is 20 something light years away!

      My guess is that continued exposure to a higher g would mean a larger muscle mass and thicker bone structure. If we could build a ship to make the journey (whether it be just under light speed and take 30 to 40 years, or way under light speed and take a generation) we would likely want to impart some spin to the craft to provide some 'g' for the journey. Why not speed the spin up gradually during the journey to get the crew/passengers/monkeys/telephone sanetisers ready for the 'g' on arrival.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    61. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      I'm going to wager than given the planet's A) significantly larger surface area and B) the greater gravity there wouldn't be much need or want for stairs.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    62. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by AGMW · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Golden hamsters were exposed to conditions of 2.5 times normal gravity (hypergravity, HG) for 4 months.

      I, for one, welcome our new High-G Golden Hamster overlords

      [did I get that right?]

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    63. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Eagleartoo · · Score: 1

      Earth Grown Athletes would still win Basketball contests due to the bone compression their Gliese 581c breathren would face due to the gravity. But yeah tons of dwares =) would be cool!

      --
      -You have been modded appropriately-
    64. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by AGMW · · Score: 1
      ... trombosis ...

      Is that anything to do with Shatner's Bassoon?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    65. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by BinaryPower · · Score: 1

      They have a link to it at the bottom of their page. It's a little picture :)

      --
      Patience is a virtue. Acquire it as fast as you can.
    66. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Rei · · Score: 1

      Keeping humans alive costs ten to fifty times as much, in general, as the equivalent mechanical system. Worried about breakdowns? Double the cost of your mission and make a repair bot. Can't do it for double? Triple it. Quadruple it. 8x it. It'll still be cheaper than a manned mission.

      It doesn't matter what you believe; what matters is the state of the science. The "big" players out there, like ITER, openly admit that we won't have fusion power for half a century, and that's if everything goes right, and it's only for D-T fusion (which is far, far easier than aneutronic He3 fusion). The only hope for fusion power sooner and with more exotic fuels than D-T is if any of the "upstarts" that use a non-equilibrium plasma (like Bussard's Polywell) work. While all of the smaller-scale candidates are long-shots to say the least, they're cheap enough that the culture for funding could change and there's a small chance one of them might work. However, if one of them works, nobody would stop at He3-He3 fusion. The nonequilibrium devices all should scale up to B-P fusion, which is even better than He3-He3 fusion.

      In short, He3 mining is just plain pointless.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    67. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by AGMW · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Space travel is a luxury that earth can't afford.

      Hmmmmm. It may well be something that the Earth (ie the planet) can't really afford, but it is something the Human Species MUST do at some point if it wants to survive. More than that, it may be something the Human Species can only really afford to do in the next hundred years or so, because as the Earth fills up with more and more people, all the resources will end up being used, leaving nothing left to attempt to get at least some of our species to "safety".

      IMHO, the Human Species cannot afford NOT to do it, and we MUST do it soon or it may be too late!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    68. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      Hmm, 2.25Gs? I weigh 195lbs right now at 1G so at 2.25G I'd be walking around with 438.75lbs of weight.

      I can leg press that no problem. I can probably get off 5 sets of 10 reps of that in one day. However, 5 sets of 10 reps is barely enough to get my ass to the bathroom, forget the rest of my daily activities.

      I miiiiight be able envision humans adapting over many generations working up to 2.25Gs. But you'd need to work up to that kind of duress in increments. Send anybody right now, even our champion strongman competitors, and they'd probably die within a week from the tremendous stress on their heart and joints.

    69. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I don't even get that a surface gravity that high. Can somebody check me?

      Mass is 2.5 g. If we assume the same density as Earth, the radius would be 1.357 times Earth's. (1.357 ^ 3 = 2.5)

      Gravitational attraction is proportional to Mass, and inversely proportional to radius squared, which means attraction = 2.5 / (1.357 ^ 2) = 1.357. It looks like, holding density constant, surface gravity increases at the cube root of the mass increase.

    70. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      *Muffled sounds of attempting to speak, raising a finger with a slack jaw* ....ah.

      I... suppose I had fun going through all those comics to find that one. Yeah.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    71. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      This topic of discussion reminds me of Larry Niven's Jinxians. Humans who've grown up under higher gravity turning into short, musclebound freaks, while Flatlanders look like normal humans, and Spacers are tall, thin, and fragile.

    72. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      Some Earth athletes partake in "Altitude Training" where they take a trip to a high-altitude training locations to get their bodies to adapt to low oxygen levels. I believe world-heavyweight MMA champion Fedor does this.

    73. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by bopo · · Score: 1

      A great deal of money and research time has been spent studying how human and animal physiology react to low- or micro-gravity, but I am not aware of any long-term studies of higher G's, such as raising monkeys in a giant centrifuge or somesuch. Sure, this would take a lot of money...
      I totally read that as "Sure, this would take a lot of monkey..."
      --
      "Understand you're having a little Jimmy Page trouble."
    74. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      With the exception of 1) you just described Earth.
      Seriously, there are much harsher environments on earth where life exists.
      A little extra gravity is nothing compared to the Gobi desert or the water beneath the polar ice cap or Paris Hilton's crotch.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    75. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by AndersOSU · · Score: 0

      How are you going to reshape the environment to reduce gravity?
      Moonboots. Duh.
    76. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Well that, but another thing to consider: this bad boy is orbiting a red dwarf. Now, lets assume that we don't blow ourselves up anytime soon. Ok, now the sun will be GONE in 5-6 billion years. The planet will likely be uninhabitable within 2 billion years (and I'm just talking natural causes; we can accelerate that process if we're not careful).

      So despite that being a LONG ways off, they will (hopefully) be a need to vacate Earth eventually.

      Red dwarfs, because they burn so slowly, burn for a very, very long time. I've heard estimates that put these things with lifetimes that can reach a trillion years or more. If in two billion years we gotta be moved out from Earth, having a (relatively) close earth-like planet, orbiting a star with PLENTY of lifetime left, can only be a good thing.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    77. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by trewornan · · Score: 1

      Sorry - I don't need to allow for relativity much (or in fact ever) in my day to day life and didn't think about this but yes you're quite right.

    78. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by grumbel · · Score: 1

      When we have the tech to get to such a planet, the 2.5G wouldn't be an issue. Just slip into one of those nice Power Suits which we already have today.

    79. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by init100 · · Score: 1

      I used a planet mass of five times the mass of the Earth, and 1.5 times the radius (both according to TFA).

    80. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Slithe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If humanity is able to stabilize its population, then the Earth should not 'fill up'. In many places, birthrates are falling. Europe, Japan, South Korea, and (maybe) the U.S. and China have birthrates less than the replacement rate (~2.1 children per woman). One of the suggested explanations for this is the spread of women's rights in these countries. To combat overpopulation, the developed countries should offer incentives for reducing birthrates, such as offering billions of dollars in financial aid for every percentage decline in the growth rate of a third world country. The chief cause of environmental destruction is population growth, so if we can stabilize (or even reduce) the world population and switch to cleaner energy sources, a lot of our environmental worries should be solved. However, if the world population is reduced, one of the prime impetuses for outerspace colonization will be lost.

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    81. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new High-G Golden Hamster overlords
      Snowball knew you would come around to his way of thinking. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
    82. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      However, before just throwing humans into this situation, we should (as I suggested) raise a generation or two of chimps in a large centrifuge, see what happens.
      LOL, that mental picture just made my day.
      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    83. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Hamilton+Lovecraft · · Score: 0

      3)The surface is probably soaked with radiation where it faces the sun and cold where it does not. The surface of the earth is "soaked with radiation". A red dwarf puts out, proportionally, a lot more IR and a lot less UV than a yellow star like Sol, so if the average temp of the planet is in the 0-40 degrees C range, I doubt you'd even be able to tan there.

      --
      step 3: god dammit, it doesn't work
    84. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by BigDogCH · · Score: 1

      Good point, I didn't think of that!

      This is another reason to weed ourselves away from fossil fuels, since most everyone on here seems to be barely able to afford the commute to the office. I suppose in space you just need to get up to light speed, you don't need fuel to sustain that speed, though I am not sure how many gallons of regular unleaded that would take.

    85. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by StikyPad · · Score: 1
      I guess you didn't bother to read the second sentence:

      There are humans on this planet.
    86. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Except they weren't really in a 2.5g environment, since we don't have handy access to another planet with that gravity. They were in a centrifuge, where the RCF changes with respect to the radius, so as the hamsters moved "up and down," they would have experienced changes in "gravity," and the relative influence of the earth's own gravity. Since their perceived center of gravity would change rather unpredictably, it's no wonder they had trouble balancing and/or swimming.

    87. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by sbohmann · · Score: 1

      well, THAT wopuld be some real cruel and pointless animal testing.

      reminds me of the russian guy who transplanted some monkeys' heads to other monkeys' bodies, just to find out wether he could...

      and please don't say it made sense because of this planet's discovery - that thing is 20 lyrs away.

    88. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't dare walk around, for a simple fall could kill.


      A simple fall in 1.0g on Earth can kill. All it takes is one well (poorly?) placed lump of rock dinting the head and you're meat.

      2.5G would be a problem, but not insurmountable. But I suspect that the depth of the gravity well would be more of an issue than the surface gravity - it would be very expensive (in energy & reaction mass terms) to get anything from the surface up to orbit. For refuelling/ re-supplying an interstellar mission, a rich asteroid and/ or comet belt would be much more useful.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    89. Re:Uninhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, if you're too dumb or lazy to spell "uninhabitable", you certainly won't succeed in inhabiting an extrasolar planet. Kinda have to be smart for hard shit like that.

  21. And the designation is... by dominique_cimafranca · · Score: 3, Funny

    So should we classify a planet like this as Class "M"?

    1. Re:And the designation is... by n0dna · · Score: 2, Funny

      Leela: "Well, it's a type M planet, so it should at least have Roddenberries."

    2. Re:And the designation is... by 3vi1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, Minshara would be the correct designation... and the Vulcans would be the ones classifying it at this stardate.

      How come it's so easy to learn from Star Trek, yet I haven't a freaking clue what happened at work today?

    3. Re:And the designation is... by dominique_cimafranca · · Score: 1

      ...'coz your job don't got no curvy Vulcans and Borgs in catsuits.

      I believe it's called positive reinforcement.

    4. Re:And the designation is... by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

      Well atleast if it's a Class 'M' when the astronaughts land they should be able to survive on Rodenberries

      --
      In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  22. quick maths on gravity by quenda · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assuming its the same density as Earth, cube root of 5 is 1.7, so 1.7x the radius. Gravity is mass/r^2, 5/1.7^2 x earth, so 1.7 or 70% more. ie surface gravity only goes up with the cube root of mass, for a constant density, so 5x isn't as bad as it sounds. But if it has more rock, and less iron core, the surface might me much nicer.

    1. Re:quick maths on gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in other words, the average overweighted Americans after liposuction would be able to move around on this planet . On the other hand, they probably don't move much on Earth.

    2. Re:quick maths on gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignore the parent. He has no idea what he is talking about. The density is irrelevant as long as it can be assumed spherically symmetric, and can be treated as a point source as long as you are outside of the mass. The gravitational acceleration is then GM/r^2, so the gravitational acceleration there is 9.8m/s * 5/1.5^2 = 22 m/s, or 2.22 times that on earth.

      It is equivalent to going from 0 to 60 MPH in about 1.5 seconds.

    3. Re:quick maths on gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The density is irrelevant

      Except that radius is a function of density and mass. AC troll?
      r=1.5 would mean a much higher density.

    4. Re:quick maths on gravity by mrbiggenes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The star is only about 47%-56% enriched as our Sun in elements heavier than hydrogen, so it stands to reason that any planets that formed around the star are similarly deficient in heavy elements/metals. See the following web page about the star, but keep in mind it has not been updated with this latest planetary information:

      http://www.solstation.com/stars/gl581.htm
  23. How long to get there? by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1, Redundant

    20 light years. So that would take us 20 years to get there travelling at the speed of light, or slightly longer going not quite as fast?

    1. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So that would take us 20 years to get there travelling at the speed of light 20 years by the perspective of an observer on earth, instantaneously by the perspective of the traveller.
    2. Re:How long to get there? by s20451 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      instantaneously by the perspective of the traveller

      Unfortunately the traveller would not percieve the passage of time any more, having been transformed into raspberry jam by the accelleration forces.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Funny

      having been transformed into raspberry jam by the accelleration forces.
      I like to think of it as salsa, actually.
    4. Re:How long to get there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >20 years by the perspective of an observer on earth, instantaneously
      >by the perspective of the traveller.

      Don't think so. If that were the case, it could be 2,000,000,000 light years, and it would still be instantaneous. It doesn't make any sense. Of course, neither does the ability to travel at light-speed.

    5. Re:How long to get there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks you misunderstand relativity.

      Time always passes by at the same rate for an observer in a local frame of reference. If it takes 20 years for light to get there, and you're going damn close to the speed of light, you experience a little more than 20 years. The person on Earth also experiences 20 years, if he watched you go all the way. However, one of your years would seem to be about 2.3 years to someone On earth, assuming you were traveling at C.

    6. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't think so. If that were the case, it could be 2,000,000,000 light years, and it would still be instantaneous. It doesn't make any sense. Of course, neither does the ability to travel at light-speed.
      As you approach the speed of light, your perception of time changes with respect to a stationary observer. If you could actually achieve the speed of light (you can't) the transit time would be 0, no matter how much distance you had traveled.
    7. Re:How long to get there? by wbren · · Score: 1

      Two words: inertial dampers.

      --
      -William Brendel
    8. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      See here and here. When I put v=c into those equations, I get an infinite Lorentz factor.

    9. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      New, improved post with fixed link!: here

    10. Re:How long to get there? by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may not make sense, but if you can travel at light speed (and survive it), or close enough to it, then "instantaneous" travel from your own perspective is close enough to being true. The guy running the blog at the following link worked out that, at constant-g acceleration, you can get there in 3.65 years your time. Of course, you're going basically the speed of light, so you'll miss it if you blink. Plugging in half the distance into his formula and multiplying the result by 2 gives you the ship-time it takes if you accelerated there for half the journey and the decelerated for the other half. Comes out to 6.04 years. Give or take a bit (we were really only given one significant digit -- 20 light years away). Okay, now use his equation with a = c. You'll come out with...a very small number. http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=54

    11. Re:How long to get there? by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      I guess by the time the technology exists to travel that far in space, we'll have humourless holographic images of ourselves acting as the straightman of some man-cat-hybrid making jokes to the sexy female voice of the on-board computer, giving soothing but meaningless status announcements as we make our way along the unimaginably boring journey to the Red Dwarf, only to find it got bulldozed by Vogons several years before arrival.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    12. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      so you'll miss it if you blink.
      Right. You don't notice any time dilation yourself. As far as you can tell your clock is perfectly normal, but the rest of the universe seems to be moving really, really fast
    13. Re:How long to get there? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Two words: inertial dampers.

      Two other words: Relativity, and Acceleration.

      I've read[1] that if we accelerate consistently at 1G we'll reach 0.77 C in 1 year. However, as we continue to accelerate closer to C, we get more and more relativistic and things get screwy... screwy to the point that I'll estimate it would take about 6 years (that's 6 rocket years, not earth observer years) to get there, with 1G accel and 1G deccel. So, human travel would be extremely feasible.

      While a probe could accelerate much harder, I figure it would still take 50 years or so to get results from a probe to confirm it's worth sending people.

      1. http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/rocket.html

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    14. Re:How long to get there? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Comes out to 6.04 years.

      Thanks for doing the math. My 6 year (rocket time) guess was about right then... :-)

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    15. Re:How long to get there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...um... really, really slow.

    16. Re:How long to get there? by shaitand · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We don't have a people shortage, or even a crazy people shortage. Skip the probe and send volunteers. Promise enough funds to support their families for life and you will get cheap volunteers from third world nations that are throwing babies into rivers due to overpopulation. You can't lose.

    17. Re:How long to get there? by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Tell your mother she serves a mean rotten couch!

      ~Dave Lister, king of the cockroaches.

      --
      SRSLY.
    18. Re:How long to get there? by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Excellent idea... inertial dampeners... like those on the Enterprise...

      Maybe if Captain Kirk isnt busy saving the known galaxy, he can just beam us up and take us there at Warp Factor 8... that'll get us there in no time in his inertial damper equipped starship...

      :-)

    19. Re:How long to get there? by kitzilla · · Score: 1

      Raspberry jam? Not grape? Bummer.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    20. Re:How long to get there? by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, since you can only asymptotically approach the speed of light, it's meaningless to draw any inferences about what happens when you reach it based solely on Special Relativity. Also, note that Beta, your fraction of the speed of light, equals 1, and so most of the transformations for Special Relativity that depend on Gamma are being divided by zero, indicating that the law breaks down completely at the speed of light.

      The Calculus result after you take the limit is physically meaningless, in my opinion. It only tells you what's happening as you get close to the speed of light, not when you hit the speed of light.

      If you didn't understand what I just said, pick up a decent Modern Physics textbook and study the relations. Then argue away.

      --
      SRSLY.
    21. Re:How long to get there? by grnrckt94 · · Score: 1

      How do you know that perception of time changes? Have you ever traveled at the speed of light? How about you back that theory up instead of just claiming it as fact?

    22. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Calculus result after you take the limit is physically meaningless, in my opinion
      I agree, but isn't the whole discussion physically meaningless? You can't physically travel at the speed of light. But if you could, the time dilation equation tells you that your perceived time is 0. Yes this breaks other equations, but the whole thing is impossible to begin with.
    23. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      I have never traveled at the speed of light. Some other people have some theories that include formulas from which certain conclusions can be derived.

      Personally, I don't have an atomic clock or a particle accelerator handy to verify these theories, but other people have. And still other people have tested it in other ways. Now, either all these people are involved in a giant conspiracy or the theory matches reality insofar as ability to test it can confirm.

      Generally, I try not to invent giant conspiracies to believe in without some kind evidence. However, the existence of trolls and assholes is amply documented.

    24. Re:How long to get there? by dmsuperman · · Score: 1

      Well doesn't light travel at a constant speed? Though thinking about it, the speed itself is measured based on time and the perspective of time changes outside of Earth. My head hurts.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };: Go!
    25. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      You've got relativity giving you headaches, then there's quantum physics telling you that the universe doesn't really exist. It's enough to make you conclude: physics? f--- it.

    26. Re:How long to get there? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem isn't acceleration G forces. It's energy density. Even a "beamed core" antimatter annihilation system, to go 0.4 c with 100 mT of payload, would require about a thousand mT of antimatter. 10:1 antimatter/payload ratio. That's not even slightly realistic, even in the long term, and we're talking about only 0.4c.

      About the most we could realistically hope for is somewhere between 0.01c to 0.1c. Antimatter-induced microfusion, dusty fission fragment rockets, thermal rockets, nuclear saltwater rockets, various kinds of sails, etc, seem to be the most realistic options. But probably not during our lifetimes.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    27. Re:How long to get there? by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Of course, from the point of view of someone in your way, you would take far too long to hit the brakes...

    28. Re:How long to get there? by trentblase · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Only one man would give me the raspberry.

    29. Re:How long to get there? by Floody · · Score: 1

      I've read[1] that if we accelerate consistently at 1G we'll reach 0.77 C in 1 year. However, as we continue to accelerate closer to C, we get more and more relativistic and things get screwy... screwy to the point that I'll estimate it would take about 6 years (that's 6 rocket years, not earth observer years) to get there, with 1G accel and 1G deccel. So, human travel would be extremely feasible.


      An interesting trip it would be. At 0.77c, the visible spectrum (directly in front of the craft) would be blue-shifted to about 144-252nm. This is well above commonly labeled violet-red/400-700nm "visible light", and nearly encompasses the band thought of as "soft uv." "Hot infrared" (30 terahz or so) would appear as the violet top of the visible spectrum.

      Of course, a corresponding red-shift would be apparent when observing "aft" along the axis of motion, but lower frequencies are just not as exciting as higher (nor as dangerous). I imagine it would create some interesting earth-communications engineering problems though.

    30. Re:How long to get there? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      How could a rocket work in space anyhow? There's nothing to push against

      --

      FTHI not really a flame/troll, folks ... just a pre-Goddard media quote

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    31. Re:How long to get there? by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the traveller would not percieve the passage of time any more, having been transformed into raspberry jam by the accelleration forces. Sure if you accelerate too fast, keep acceleration around 1g and the voyage will be quite pleasant. Halfway there you turn the ship around and decelerate at 1g, nice way to have gravity the entire trip.
      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    32. Re:How long to get there? by tsdw · · Score: 1

      however since we don't have the technology to even come close to the speed of light it would be more like 200 years.

    33. Re:How long to get there? by salimma · · Score: 1

      At 1 g (9.8 m/s^2), you'll get to the speed of light in (3e8 / 9.8) ~= 3e7 seconds, or just short of one year.

      Doable, I'll say. If you can find a way to maintain an average acceleration of 1 g, that is -- the increase is mass is going to make the energy expenditure enormous!

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    34. Re:How long to get there? by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      Assuming instantaneous acceleration to lightspeed of course.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    35. Re:How long to get there? by Warg!+The+Orcs!! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wanted to mod you up but couldn't resist asking a question.

      What about space dust? INAA (I'm not an astro-physicist)but I don't think that the main problem is a lack of speed. Eventually we will work out how to go faster and faster. For me the problem is those little bits of rock and grit in the way. Even at 0.75C travelling in the not-quite empty vastness of space would be like standing in front of a machine gun going full-on.

      --
      Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
    36. Re:How long to get there? by jlebrech · · Score: 0

      Not to mention being transformed into a rasberry jam by the improbability-drive!

    37. Re:How long to get there? by IAmGarethAdams · · Score: 1

      ...um... really, really fast. 20 years just passed while you blinked. And that's if you're able to stop accurately enough for it only to be 20 years

    38. Re:How long to get there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It would be twenty years for a traveler at the speed of light, several thousand years for the people still on Earth. Meanwhile the planet is devastated by nuclear war and a new race of intelligent simians takes over. Didn't you ever watch the movie?

    39. Re:How long to get there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You eject mass. That's how we do it now.

    40. Re:How long to get there? by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Only if you believe in relativity!

    41. Re:How long to get there? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I agree, people are a resource we have an awful lot of here on Earth and I am sure that there would be no shortage of volunteers if someone were to actually build a vehicle capable of travelling to this planet I am sure that people would volunteer to crew it even with a high chance of their dying during the journey or whenever.

      The trick would be finding suitably qualified and mentally capable candiates from amongst the volunteers.

    42. Re:How long to get there? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      That's what the math proves. It's not circular reasoning - the reason we can say "you can't accelerate to the speed of light" is because so many equations throw divide-by-zero errors when the velocity is c.

    43. Re:How long to get there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP is correct.

      Two observers in inertial frames each percieve the other as moving sloooowly. The effect is symmetrical.

      The asymmetry that allows the traveller to come back younger than the people who stayed behind arises because the traveler spends some time in an accelerating reference frame.

    44. Re:How long to get there? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      100 millitons? That's not much at all. Or did you really mean MT rather than mT?

    45. Re:How long to get there? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      FTHI = for the humour-impaired, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    46. Re:How long to get there? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      the reason we can say "you can't accelerate to the speed of light" is because so many equations throw divide-by-zero errors
      I was went by the "energy required to accelerate rapidly approaches infinity" reason.
    47. Re:How long to get there? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      That's alright, all I understood was the word "hope".

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    48. Re:How long to get there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We don't have a people shortage, or even a crazy people shortage. Skip the probe and send volunteers. Promise enough funds to support their families for life and you will get cheap volunteers from third world nations that are throwing babies into rivers due to overpopulation. You can't lose.


      Yes! I agree wholeheartedly. I have been arguing this for years now, we should have had thousands of one-way manned probes launched by now, the data coming in would be amazing. The problem with our space programs is that the cost is prohibitive because people expect to return. We number in the billions, the sacrifice of a few thousand for space exploration is a pittance, the returns would be immense. We probably lose more people to car accidents every year than we'd ever consume in a one-way space program. However the value placed on the individual in western society is paramount, and has been crippling the progress of humanity for quite some time now. I would volunteer in a flash, I can't imagine a greater contribution to humanity, even if all I found at my destination was a cold lifeless rock.
    49. Re:How long to get there? by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

      You'd only turn to jam if you accellerated too fast. Assuming that somehow fule is not an issue it would make sense to accellerate at arround 1G building up to 2.25G thus allowing the astronaughts to adjust to there new gravety on the way, then part the way there flip the ship round and deaccellerate at 2.25G so that they would only experience weightlessness for the time it takes to go from orbit to landing.

      --
      In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    50. Re:How long to get there? by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there.

      --
      SRSLY.
    51. Re:How long to get there? by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 1

      That's the whole idea behind the deflector dish in Star Trek. It's supposed to deflect any kind of particles in the ships path around the ship to keep those small bits of dust from smashing through everything.

      -Ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    52. Re:How long to get there? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Arthur C Clark addressed this issue in Songs of Distant Earth, actually. I was impressed. His solution? Put a big chunk of ice in front of the spacecraft and let it ablate away as the craft encounters bits of space debris; in fact, the plot involves the need to obtain another ice shield.

    53. Re:How long to get there? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Metric tonnes.

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

      Yes, mT is deprecated, but so sue me :)

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    54. Re:How long to get there? by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      You go first.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    55. Re:How long to get there? by sxltrex · · Score: 1

      Why do you think they invented the deflector array? Do I have to think of everything?

    56. Re:How long to get there? by Jorgandar · · Score: 1

      If you just raised your sub-space deflector shields you should be able to approach warp 1 with no problem. it works on tv.

    57. Re:How long to get there? by alexo · · Score: 1


      > [...] having been transformed into raspberry jam by the accelleration forces

      So let's change the parameters a bit.

      Let's postulate a vessel that is capable of sustaining a 2g acceleration for half the trip (about 10 light-years) and then a 2g deceleration for the other half.

      How much subjective time will the journey take then?

    58. Re:How long to get there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He already volunteered, dumbass. Your turn!

    59. Re:How long to get there? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      You do of course realize that anything divided by zero is infinity?

  24. Jinx? by jkndrkn · · Score: 1

    Anyone else reminded of Larry Niven's fictional colony world of Jinx?

    1. Re:Jinx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or 'Doc' Smith's Valeria, where Van Buskirk hailed from, or Phil Foglio's Hoffman, the homeworld of Buck Godot...

    2. Re:Jinx? by ThesQuid · · Score: 1

      Actually, except for the gravity, it looks a lot more like the Puppeteer home planet. Uh-oh.

    3. Re:Jinx? by The+Bad+Astronomer · · Score: 1

      Heh-- I thought of Jinx as well, but my first thought was actually Mesklin. However, Mesklin was a much, much higher gravity world! Interestingly, if the planet is covered in an ocean, animals could still get pretty big due to buoyancy.

      --
      *** Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer http://www.badastronomy.com
  25. JEM? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    With the red star, it sounds like the planet JEM in Frederick Pohl's book of the same name.

    So when are we going to invent tactran so we can travel there? And are we going to have wild orgies under the gasbags?

    1. Re:JEM? by game+kid · · Score: 1

      That's a truly outrageous suggestion.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:JEM? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      If that's a NASA video of Gliese 581 c's inhabitants we have two options: a) let Sony BMG make first contact and get next year's pop superstar(s) or b) nuke the whole planet from orbit.

      Actually, there's a problem with option a) - the text is way too cerebral for today's mainstream pop audience.


      Hmm, maybe we can combine a) and b). We should send all Sony and BMG execs to ensure their total annihi-- the best possible record deal.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  26. HOLY SHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any evidence of global warming on their planet???

  27. 22m/s^2 gravity huh.. by laggist · · Score: 1

    ..then these new exoskeletons will sure come in handy for moving around..

    1. Re:22m/s^2 gravity huh.. by AttilaDHun · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have this one in case the Queen shows up.

      http://members.tripod.com/CORP_HICKS/loader.html

  28. caught myself doing bad addition.. deedeedee! by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    forgot to add the 10 years development time.. 2088.. still worth it imho. it's time for our species to look at long term goals, even if i'm too tired to remember to add the 10

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:caught myself doing bad addition.. deedeedee! by Kelz · · Score: 1

      Imho, its not the best idea to quote Carlos Mencia (Ned Holden) when trying to sound intelligent!

      Good information though. Curious, .6x light-speed? Who's developing that?

  29. A : ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Indeed quite unlike our windless, quake-free, constant-temperature planet.

  30. 5x the mass = impossible gravity by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0

    Sorry but no intelligent life there. Nothing that weighs more than a couple milligrams could ever have the energy to move around on its own with the gravity from that much mass. The eath has triple the mass of the moon and 6x the gravity or something like that. So 5x the earth's mass equals....like a freakin lot of gravity! I would weigh a couple thousand pounds there. Even a little alien chipmunk couldn't move around. I don't care if they would get their energy from food or the sun or magic or whatever, the amount of energy it would take to take a couple steps or even just slither around at 1 MPH would be more than the caloric energy of all the creature's matter being burned and sunlight doesn't give nearly enough either. So yeah, anything alive there is standing still and is very small which means it can't possibly be intelligent. And before you even say it, a couple feet down in a body of water, any organic cell structures would instantly be crushed from the pressure. Water magnifies gravitational pressure even more since it doesn't compress.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:5x the mass = impossible gravity by dorix · · Score: 1

      It's not as bad as you think. The exoplanet's diameter is 1.5x that of Earth, and since gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects, the surface gravity on the exoplanet isn't five times that of Earth's. The article says 22 m/s*s versus Earth's 9.8m/s*s.

      It's not a stretch at all to think that life could have evolved there under those conditions.

    2. Re:5x the mass = impossible gravity by MLease · · Score: 1

      So 5x the earth's mass equals....like a freakin lot of gravity!

      I wish you wouldn't toss around these fancy technical terms like that!

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    3. Re:5x the mass = impossible gravity by germansausage · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry if I sound like a dick, but pretty much everything you've said is wrong. Somebody else already 'splained the surface gravity being about 2.2g so I'll skip that bit.

      Gravitational pressure? WTF?

      I think you are confusing water pressure (which is equivalent to the weight of the water column above you) with gravity which is pretty much the same at the bottom of the sea as it is on the surface. I will also point out that life happily exists at the bottom of our deepest ocean trenches, 35,000 feet down, where the pressure is about 16,000 psi. The fishies down there are made of "organic cell structures" and are not "instantly crushed from the pressure". "How can this be?" I hear you ask. Because the cells are filled with water, which as you have stated correctly (about the only thing correct in you entire post) does not compress.

    4. Re:5x the mass = impossible gravity by trewornan · · Score: 1

      Organic cell structures usually contain water and as you point out water is incompressible (more or less) so how would they get crushed?

    5. Re:5x the mass = impossible gravity by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Well actually, water can compress nbut only very little, and with significant pressure (obviously too much pressure would tend to cause the water to change phase, rather than compress). The real reason why the cells are fine is that the water inside the cells is at the same pressure, so there is no pressure gradient.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    6. Re:5x the mass = impossible gravity by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing water pressure (which is equivalent to the weight of the water column above you) with gravity which is pretty much the same at the bottom of the sea as it is on the surface. I will also point out that life happily exists at the bottom of our deepest ocean trenches, 35,000 feet down, where the pressure is about 16,000 psi. The fishies down there are made of "organic cell structures" and are not "instantly crushed from the pressure". "How can this be?" I hear you ask. Because the cells are filled with water, which as you have stated correctly (about the only thing correct in you entire post) does not compress.

      Not entirely correct. If I drop a metal sphere filled with water into the ocean - it will implode (be crushed), because the pressure on the inside is less than the outside. The same is true of a flexible bladder.
       
      The fishes (at the bottom of the ocean) don't implode because the water in their cells is at the same pressure as the water they swim in.
  31. Rocky like Earth? by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Models indicate the planet is either rocky like the Earth or covered in an ocean.

    Last time I checked, the Earth's surface is 75% covered by water.

    1. Re:Rocky like Earth? by creativeHavoc · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually the article I read before (maybe the same one) suggested it would be rocky or "a frozen ice ball with liquid water on the surface." I suppose this would be seen as covered in an ocean. This however is not at all sembling an earthly ocean.

      --
      insight through the mind
    2. Re:Rocky like Earth? by maxume · · Score: 1

      The Earth is like a wet marble; maybe they are talking about quite a lot more water.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Rocky like Earth? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Agreed on the wet marble count. I just prefer more specificity and accuracy in comments and article descriptions. This newly discovered planet could be made up of mostly water, or it could be a water covered rock like our home.

    4. Re:Rocky like Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no, Rocky likes Adrian.

    5. Re:Rocky like Earth? by rm69990 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ummm...they're talking about rocky (eg. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) as opposed to Gas Planets (eg. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus). Whether or not there is water on the surface is completely irrelevent.

    6. Re:Rocky like Earth? by fan+of+lem · · Score: 1

      What that meant was "..rocky like the Earth or covered in an ocean (like the Earth in Waterworld)."

    7. Re:Rocky like Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Models indicate the planet is either rocky like the Earth or covered in an ocean."

    8. Re:Rocky like Earth? by Xanlexian · · Score: 1

      You are indeed correct. Earth's SURFACE.

      --
      "Congratulations, Boots. Your robot has become self-aware. You're a daddy now." -- Dr. Rho Bowman
    9. Re:Rocky like Earth? by asninn · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that "rocky" and "covered in an ocean" don't contradict each other, anyway, unless one were to believe that there is nothing below the ocean and that the entire planet consists of (pretty much) nothing but water.

      --
      butter the donkey
    10. Re:Rocky like Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >(like the Earth in Waterworld).

      Which would be the earth's past. Hell, just the other day on TV they said Nebraska used to be underwater. I fail to see how that's possible unless the entire continent was.

      The earth used to be smaller. Plate tectonics doesn't explain the continental shelf.

    11. Re:Rocky like Earth? by White+Yeti · · Score: 1
      The statement

      Models indicate the planet is either rocky like the Earth or covered in an ocean is about as useful as saying

      The vehicle is something between an inner tube and an Orion" As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.

      The other replies cover the rest of the territory... By the way, where can I get an advisory group of models?
    12. Re:Rocky like Earth? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I think the question is if the planet is covered by a shallow ocean (aka Earth and Mars) or by a deep ocean (aka Europa). If this planet is covered by an ocean as deep or deeper than Europa, there may be a rocky core but the entire surface is likely to be covered in water.

      There is some suggestion that life requires some sort of shoreline in order to develop, as the intertidal zones of the Earth seem to be one of the areas of huge biodversity, and may have even been where the first single-cell organisms were created from even more primitive chemical processes. It is from this intertidal zone that animals have gone both from the sea to the land and the other way around, and it has been argued that the difference between primitive humans and modern humans can be attributed to gaining enough intelligence to be able to navigate across the ocean and establish settlements on islands.

  32. Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I, for one, am beginning to sense the need for a revolt against the "grass is greener" bandwagon seeking to promote colonization of another planet in lieu of taking proper care of the planet that has always been here for us, Earth. Join me in this revolt by tagging stories inciting the thought of fleeing Earth like some kind of foreclosed duplex -- trashed and slashed -- for the chance at taking over a pristine ecosystem with the tag "theresnoplacelikehome".

    Thank you for your support.

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by icebrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't propose abandoning Earth like a "foreclosed duplex"--and we certainly don't advocate letting things go to hell here while we look for a new place to trash. The idea is survival--colonizing other planets helps ensure survival of the species.
      We could go completely green and make Earth a complete paradise--and then some rock could come along and kill all of us.

      And, chances are, the knowledge we would gain just from trying to build a "slowboat" colony ship (one that does not travel at an appreciable fraction of c) would be of immense value in helping preserve Earth's environment. Such a ship would be an entire self-contained, self-sufficient ecosystem, having to last hundreds, if not thousands, of years with no resupply and no dependable external power source. Creating such a system would lead to incredibly-efficient systems, and the lessons could be transferred to everyday engineering projects and other systems. Think water reclamation, ultra-efficient farming and food production techniques (solves hunger problems too!), clean, efficient sources of energy...

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    2. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The long-term survival of the species depends on leaving Earth to colonize other Earth-like worlds. Anyone who opposes this simply wishes the human race to become extinct.

      Also, the idea that we need to destroy any ecosystem we come into contact with is a false dichotomy. It's people like you who give rational environmentalists like me a bad name. I'm an environmentalist because I want to help save humanity, not because I think we shouldn't be allowed to survive.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    3. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by maxume · · Score: 1

      Leaving the planet looks to be quite hard. Leaving the universe is going to be a bit of a doozy.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Indeed, such a project could show us why GP is right, that there is no place like home, and that we are already on that slow boat. The colony ship would need 100% reclamation of all materials, with no toxic byproducts. This already rules out nearly all of our modern farming, manufacturing and other techniques. Our problem is how to decontaminate and sustain an already toxic colony ship, a much more difficult task, but one that needs the first steps to be taken. Colony ships seem to be the most likely first step.

      So if you value the Earth and want to see it become a sustainable habitat, I cannot think of a better project to encourage than interstellar colonization.

    5. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by ProzacGod · · Score: 1

      I've always made the observation that a colony ship serves no real purpose - as far as getting to the destination is concerned. By the time the so called "colony ship" gets to the destination planet, we will have probably increased our inter-solar travel techniques to the point that a future generation will actually beat them to the planet! So they leave and it takes them 3000 years to get to this new planet, but yet in 1500 years we figure out how to get there in 1/4 of the time.. But perhaps the benefit is in learning new environmental techniques, but not in the "hey-we'll-get-there-eventually" idiom. -Prozacgod

    6. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      Correct, it would require moving in another dimension

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    7. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then they would just pick up the passengers on the colony ship and they would get there faster. It's Win-Win.

    8. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      No, the benefit is in getting there ahead of the colony ship and throwing on a nice party for them when they arrive!

    9. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by koliebo · · Score: 1

      We could go completely green and make Earth a complete paradise--and then some rock could come along and kill all of us. Or the Vogons could decide to put in a hyperspace bypass...

    10. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read this book and find out why colony ships might not work out so well.

    11. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      But building that colony ship gives us insight in some things - for example how to build a really large starship. Just because the 8086 doesn't compare to the Athlon 64 doesn't mean it wasn't an important step on the way.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    12. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by asninn · · Score: 1

      Anyone who opposes this simply wishes the human race to become extinct.

      Wow... and YOU talk about others giving YOU a bad name? Here I thought saying "comparing others to Hitler (who was responsible for millions of deaths) is bad", and along comes Paulrothrock, accusing everyone who disagrees with him of wishing to cause *billions* of deaths.

      I'm rather speechless indeed.

      --
      butter the donkey
    13. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      Kim Stanley Robinson made a point about this (if I understood correctly) in the Mars trilogy. Basically, while it's plausible to send mere thousands of people away on colony ships you can't really evacuate the entire earth. The logistics don't work out - you just can't shift that many people. Perhaps it could be done, but barring crazy distant-future technology evacuating the earth would be like trying to evacuate africa and eurasia to England through the Channel Tunnel. I suspect that, given the capacity of the Channel Tunnel and the global birth rate, the population would increase faster than it could be evacuated. Anyone want to do some math?

      I can imagine a future where there are half a dozen space elevators running 24/7 loading colony ships, and people enter lotteries to win a place on the ships so their genes can get off-planet.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    14. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      It is of critical importance that they have sanitary telephones to use as well.

    15. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then on the Ship's centuries-long voyage, the crew will mutiny to turn back, and the Ship will drift aimlessly until Hugh Hoyland saves the day.

    16. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by powerlord · · Score: 1

      The trick is for the colonists to invest their money in a corporation back home, that can then purchase and outfit the follow-on expedition that can arrive ahead of them and take care of thing. Take this as the Manticore Gambit :)

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    17. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by Jotii · · Score: 1

      The point is not colonizing for the sake of colonizing, but in order to ensure the survival of our species. As someone pointed out, what if a rock decides to crash into Earth and kill everyone? That colony ship would then be very useful if we wanted to survive.

      --
      [sig]
    18. Re:Tag: theresnoplacelikehome by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      Think water reclamation, ultra-efficient farming and food production techniques (solves hunger problems too!), clean, efficient sources of energy... For what it's worth, famine is (for the most part) not caused by low food production, but by other human-controlled forces.

      I don't disagree with anything else you said, but I had to address this common misrepresentation.

  33. hmm by pak9rabid · · Score: 0, Troll

    so how long until the republicans start drilling for oil on it

    1. Re:hmm by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      If drilling for oil was the motive for planetary colonization, why would it be bad? I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but seriously. I wish Mars had oil. You can make and use oil in an abundant assorted methods.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  34. Don't they find our warp signature in 2063? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    and make contact in Bozeman, MT?

    1. Re:Don't they find our warp signature in 2063? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      if only... at this point i'd be the first one going .. "please take me away.. disect me i dont care"

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  35. gotta love this quote.. by Travy.b · · Score: 0


    "Models indicate the planet is either rocky like the Earth or covered in an ocean"

    Wow, they've really narrowed it down haven't they. Might as well say "we've no idea what it's composed of so we will just say it could be water or it could be land"

    1. Re:gotta love this quote.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to a gas giant, or covered with methane ice.

  36. H2G2 by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    And right now my Guide describes it as only "Harmless"! Let's go!

    1. Re:H2G2 by NCG_Mike · · Score: 1

      You have the old edition. It's "Mostly Harmless" in the current ed.

  37. Question... by p_trekkie · · Score: 1

    Has anyone found their real science paper on the matter? I searched the usual suspects to no avail and I'm getting mildly annoyed that they'd make a press release without also releasing the scientific paper at the same time or earlier....

    I don't doubt that they've done it, I'm just curious to find out how they came about it...

    1. Re:Question... by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      I admire the skepticism, but here it is:

      http://obswww.unige.ch/~udry/udry_preprint.pdf

      Dated April 25 so I guess it's not published yet.

    2. Re:Question... by p_trekkie · · Score: 1

      Excellent! Thanks!

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. I wonder how the sun would look... by ScaryMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The first thing that popped into my mind when I read the description, for some reason, was the world of Charn from the Chronicles of Narnia, with this huge, dim red sun in the sky.

    1. Re:I wonder how the sun would look... by dorix · · Score: 1

      Your post made me really hungry and I couldn't figure out why until I realized that I thought you were talking about a place with huge dim sum in the sky.

  40. Taking it to a whole 'nother level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good news, indeed... Before we know it we'll be getting shot down by women from other planets. I think that will really revolutionize the way we think about ourselves.

  41. Or perhaps... by camperdave · · Score: 1

    having been transformed into raspberry jam by the accelleration forces. I like to think of it as salsa, actually.

    Or perhaps, into tomato chutney.
    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  42. Probably not tidally locked. by AJWM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I haven't run any mathematical models, but given that there's a Neptune-mass (15 Earth mass) planet orbiting inside this planet's orbit (5.4 day orbit vs 13 day orbit), I'd guess that that's enough of a disruption to at least prevent a 1:1 tidal lock. There may be some kind of lock at another resonance (eg Mercury's 2:3 lock) but that would allow for rotation relative to the star and thus more-even heating.

    2.25 gees is uncomfortable but tolerable (carry someone your own weight piggyback and you're almost there), and largely irrelevant to any water-dwelling critters.

    However, the larger problem -- that I didn't see any of the articles explicitly raise -- it that there's likely a Venus-like greenhouse with the temperature much hotter than the 0-40C based on the equilibrium temperature of a rocky body at that distance from the primary. We can hope not, but we'd need a reason why not.

    Based on our system, anything Venus-size or larger has a thick atmosphere, except Earth, and Earth is an anomaly because it got whacked by something massive (Mars mass) late in its formation, blowing most of the volatiles -- and the material that makes up the Moon -- off the planet altogether. (However, such late-stage super-impacts may be not all that unusual; it could explain some other oddities of our system, such as Uranus's tilt.)

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by Dasher42 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Even if this planet has been whacked in the way Earth was, I think the amount of atmosphere this thing would have would be huge. Earth was smaller than Venus when it was hit. This means a very thick atmosphere may be reasonably expected, and together with the possibilities for tidal locking, I don't expect us to find paradise there. ;)

    2. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by niktemadur · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I read last week that the sensitivity of new instruments can now detect the chemical fingerprints of extrasolar planetary atmospheres. They should get on the ball with this baby as of yesterday. However, I don't know if 2.5 Earth masses is big enough for measurement, as many of these extrasolar planets have 5-6 or more Jupiter masses, and the instruments are probably pointed at these monsters.

      I'm a sucker for this kind of news, so I'll be waiting until somebody can measure and report results with a major presence of either CO2, nitrogen, methane, whatever's there. But then again, Gliese 581 is a red dwarf, has it gone through a red giant stage? If so, any atmosphere may have been blasted into deep space.

      Then again, maybe atmospheres can regenerate through the leaking of gases from beneath the planetary crust, volcanic-style, and with 2.5 G's, I would imagine it wouldn't drift into space on its' own very easily. If so, a red dwarf may be extremely stable, creating an exponentially longer window for life on systems like these than with a main-sequence system like our own. But obviously, this is completely speculative territory.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    3. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Informative

      Based on our system...

      Seems like a very big conclusion to leap to based on a sample size of one and even that single system contains an exception. Is there an underlying model which explains why planets above a certain mass must have dense atmospheres? Mars doesn't and I thought it's gravity was sufficient to stop heavier molecules escaping.

    4. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      I would actually like the tidal lock as there would at least be one side permanently protected from solar radiation.

      This or a decent magnetosphere that could protect the sunny side - and that could be the side-effect of having a Neptune sized object so close - a molten core and some rotation.

      The 2.25G is a deal breaker: It's barely possible to escape our 1G. Those poor creatures, if there are any, will remain stuck there for a long time.

    5. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red dwarf stars are born small and burn relatively stable for a looong time. It's sun-like stars that stay in the main sequence for just a few billion years and then turn into red giants. IIRC we have about a billion years left.

    6. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1) Red dwarfs are main sequence stars; they're not, and never have been, giants. Smaller stars form white dwarfs, while larger giants form neutron stars or black holes (or sometimes Wolf-Rayet stars)
      2) Yes, most planets do leak gasses, although the rates and gasses vary greatly, as does what is retained.
      3) Red dwarfs are extremely stable. They burn their fuel extremely slowly. Gliese 581 will be burning long after the sun given up.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    7. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by salimma · · Score: 1

      The Mars atmosphere can retain its CO2, and oxygen would be fine as well (as long as it is constantly generated by living organisms, as it has a tendency to bind with other molecules through oxidation) -- on the other hand, as far as we know, it cannot retain water vapour, and so it cannot sustain liquid water, which will eventually evaporate and then escape.

      This is where the lack of enough data causes problems. On the only planet that we know can support life, the more complex organisms all need both liquid water and oxygen. Is this necessary, though? Probably not.

      Still, given an energy source, relatively stable conditions and something that can be oxidized, you can probably find life if you know where to look. We have all those anaerobic archaic bacteria living off those heat vents after all.

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    8. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by AJWM · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mars is small compared to Earth or Venus, only half the diameter. Its gravity will keep heavier molecules escaping, but e.g. a CO2 molecule is nearly twice the weight of an N2 molecule (48 vs 28 AMU), and almost three times the weight of a molecule of water (18), ammonia (17) or methane (16). It also depends on the temperature (hence velocity) of the molecules.

      As for our system, it's not a sample size of one, it's a sample size of six planets of Venus size or greater. Yes, there's an exception, but we're reasonably sure we know why -- the same reason that we have a moon (formerly Earth's eighth continent ;-). We've got models of solar system formation, of course -- and some of those indicate that late-formation super-impacts may not be that rare -- but they're pretty much all based on our one known solar system and approximations of known physics. (Approximations being necessary to the modelling process.) There are a lot of unanswered questions both in planetary system formation and in planetary geology yet, that's another reason to learn whatever we can about extrasolar planetary systems.

      --
      -- Alastair
    9. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      ...it could explain some other oddities of our system...
      Face it, man. We're in the interstellar short bus.
      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    10. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      it could explain some other oddities of our system, such as Uranus's tilt.)

      Okay, okay, I guess it's time to clean some of that stuff out my wallet. Geez.

    11. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      2.25 gees is uncomfortable but tolerable (carry someone your own weight piggyback and you're almost there), and largely irrelevant to any water-dwelling critters.


      Pretty sure it's going to matter a hell of a lot to water creatures as the water pressure will be 2.25 times higher. I know that Earth has organisms surviving in much more extreme conditions, but fishing for them might require a slightly higher test line (posting from Minnesota here). I also believe that the human body, and most other organisms could easily adapt to a gradual increase of G forces, but to go from zero to 2.25 (after 20+ years at near light) is going to take more than a slight toll on whoever gets there first. And the cardiovascular system is going to have a hell of a time adapting. People might grow up looking like dwarves, but the heart would have to be significantly more hardy to withstand the pressures.

      I suppose a giant Babylon 5 esque ship might help by rotating everyone, but then every one's dizzy when they get there. :)

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    12. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Its gravity will keep heavier molecules escaping, but e.g. a CO2 molecule is nearly twice the weight of an N2 molecule

      ...but the predominant molecules in Venus' atmosphere are CO2 and H2SO4 so why is Mars not like Venus? Clearly there were different factors at play.

      As for our system, it's not a sample size of one, it's a sample size of six planets of Venus size or greater.

      No, it is a sample size of ONE SYSTEM. If you are trying to understand the conditions on planets in another system then you must consider events at the system level. For example why does Venus have a superdense atmosphere and the Earth and Mars do not? Is Earth the norm or Venus the norm? Does distance from the star make a difference etc. These are things which may depend very heavily on how the system is formed (unless you can show otherwise?).

    13. Re:Probably not tidally locked. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the planet is in a 2:5 lock with the bigger planet. I agree, it's very unlikely that it would get in a tidal lock with the star given what's going on.

  43. Except.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except we know from Star Trek: The Next Generation that the Progenitors seeded the primordial seas of thousands of worlds with fragments of their DNA -- not as a tribute to their greatness, but as a tribute to their existence. Which begs the question, what role does evolution really play in all of this?

  44. OFQ by orkysoft · · Score: 5, Funny

    (Obligatory Futurama Quote)
    From the Futurama episode Love and Rocket:

    Fry: Wow Bender, are you and the ship an item? I mean, I know you're both items but -- how can you date a ship anyway? It'd be like me dating a really fat lady. And living inside her. And she'd be all like -- <ship noises>
    Bender: Fry, in order for me to get busy at maximum efficiency, I need a girl with a big four hundred ton booty!
    Leela: Bender, dating your co-worker and primary mode of transportation is immoral, illogical and a violation of interstellar shipping statute 437-B.
    Bender: That's what makes it so nasty!
    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  45. Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    olo@Claris misspelling. Nicely done.

    Lovely image gallery, but you should have included some of this.

  46. I made an error by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    I was staring at that a while; I knew I did something wrong when I didn't get exactly 0. Of course you can't set a = c, a is an acceleration. Duh! I also lost my paragraphing because I posted as HTML.

    My excuse is that I hit submit instead of preview. I've been an anonymous coward for a long time (note the UID) so I was unaware of these quirks of membership. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted this before noting that there's no way that shouldn't have come out to exactly 0.

    Nevertheless, c happens to be a really really big number, so what I actually calculated in Newtonian Mechanics when setting a = c would be accelerating to light speed in one second, and then doing the same in one second on the other end. In relativity, T comes out to, survey says: less than 42 seconds, coming to a halt beside the target planet. Interestingly, even making the planet 10 times closer or 10 times farther only changes the result by a few seconds.

  47. All right. You asked for it. Here it comes. Ready? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, Red Star orbits planet.

  48. QUICK!!! by canipeal · · Score: 2

    Someone get Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, and a Mac ASAP!!

  49. Let's go! by PingXao · · Score: 1

    At 134 million mph (one-fifth the speed of light) we could get there in a quick 5 generations or so. At the current record of about 25,000 mph (achieved by Stafford, Young and Cernan on May 26, 1969, almost 38 years ago), it would take more than half a million years to make the journey. I was getting all set to pack but I think there's gonna have to be a breakthrough or two first.

    1. Re:Let's go! by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Doing a back of the envelope calculation of sticking to basic Newtonian physics, and assuming a 1-g continuous acceleration for a distance of 20 light years, I get a figure of about 35 years to travel that distance. Obviously there is going to be some significant time dilation when traveling at that speed, but the subjective time for those making the trip is going to be close to this figure.

      While that would still be a generation ship, it is possible for a younger individual born on the Earth to actually get to this place within their lifetime and be able to still savor the experience on this planet, although a return trip is out of the question. Of course, how you build a spacecraft that is capable of doing continuous acceleration for 35 years of subjective travel is something best left alone for science fiction novels, but at least raw physics other than the incredible energy source would allow something like this to at least be possible. Raw logistics would also be an issue in the sense that providing food and water to those involved in this trip would also be a problem, although a closed environment with heavy recycling may also be possible. Diverting some of the energy source to maintiaining this closed environment would be trivial in comparison to what is needed for continuous thrust.

      In short, while certainly some significant scientific breakthroughs and engineering challenges would be required to make this trip, you don't have to throw out Einstein and Newton in order to get this accomplished.

    2. Re:Let's go! by Hanners1979 · · Score: 1

      Bah, just tell the RIAA the planet is rife with piracy and we'll be there by lunchtime.

  50. 0.6c? by DietFluffy · · Score: 1

    We are currently developing technologies which allow a maximum speed of 0.6 X the speed of light.

    if you create a probe with an ion drive and send it off in the next 10 years we could be looking at surveys of the planet in question by 2070.


    Correct me if I'm wrong (IANARS), the Voyager 1's current velocity is 17.2km/s which translate to 0.000057c. This is currently earth's fastest spacecraft. Shouldn't we be thinking about breaking 0.00006c before 0.6c? And a 0.6c probe within 10 years? Are you kidding?

  51. Ah. by FMota91 · · Score: 0

    This is obviously some strange usage of the word "nearby" that I wasn't previously aware of.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1 bottles of beer on the wall. Take one down, pass it round... Oh, umm...
  52. WELCOME! by eXFeLoN · · Score: 1, Funny

    I for one welcome our 5 times more massive overlords!

    --
    My other sig is a knife wound.
    1. Re:WELCOME! by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      And in Soviet Cuba, Gliese 581 c dances sumo wrestler mambo around you!

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  53. An idea by bob7 · · Score: 1

    If this planet has 2.25 earth's gravity, then maybe we can adapt ourselves to it by traveling there in a ship with a centrifuge, and slowly increasing the speed of the centrifuge. By the time we get there (which with current technology, will take a lot longer than 20 years) we'd have adapted to handle the increased gravity. And as an added bonus, if we ever came back to earth, we'd be able to jump a lot higher.

    1. Re:An idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Centrifuge? What for? Why not accelerate at 1g when you start out, and slowly ramp it up to 2.25g during the journey? They need to start building the Bussard ramjet now, dammit!

  54. Superman by Mourice · · Score: 1

    First they found Kryptonite, now they've found a habitable planet with a red sun and stronger gravity.

    All hail the son of Jor-El!

    --

    No excellent soul is exempt from a mixture of madness. --Aristotle
  55. So close by geekoid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There is only one man who would dare give me the raspberry! Lonestar...

    us raspberry make no sense, give somone a raspberry is different.

    pfffttt!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  56. Tidally Locked? Not bloody likely by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 1

    The guy in this article makes the prediction that this planet is tidally locked with it's sun just as our Moon is with Earth, because...

    So I'm left wondering about this planet. Does it rotate once every orbit due to the gravitational interaction with its star? This is what has happened to every moon in the solar system; they spin at the same rate they go around their parent bodies, so they always show one face to their parent

    That is false. While many moons in the solar system are indeed tidally locked, they do not present a single face to their host planet at all times, with the exception of Charon.

    Similarly, none of the planets in the solar system present a single face to the sun, with the exception of Uranus (which has nothing to do with tidal locking)

  57. Wasted Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This effort would be better spent making sure this planet stays habitable.

  58. Ion drive not up to the task by StefanJ · · Score: 3, Informative

    No.

    The best theoretical ion drive I've read about has an Isp of 10,000 seconds. That translates into an exhaust velocity of 100 kps (rounding up a bit).

    Speed of light: A touch less than 300,000 kps.

    Plugged into the rocket equation:

    Mf+Mp / Mp = e^{300000/100) = 2.72 ^ 3000

    Well, the Windows calculator tells me that's 5.0899334329769958439246007097416e+1303

    That's the ratio of ("fuel" and payload) to payload.

    Um, even if I screwed up somewhere, and I'm off by a factor of a million, that ain't good.

    1. Re:Ion drive not up to the task by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Am I the only one surprised that the windows calculator can operate on numbers that large?

      That is a truly shockingly large number.

    2. Re:Ion drive not up to the task by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can't actually, because e ** 3000 is actually (1400 digits accuracy):

      # perl -Mbignum=lib,GMP -wle 'print 3000->copy()->bexp(1400)'
      76462009890547048893107276605024340318421060382097 39904015770939511479405329694452178158751510988990 22751927334209560258841046041916694763381601948513 33208591671846316714546999086571338467040821895616 00512632242469531130000771570539079966333597040748 95005608943159356943362186768569000673996237422469 83676805958343838279916847939939419978189486939905 22255238915965903715536496396998002201605682279830 63357145052867941450801206517227051639389182810712 48930175782155218734185526593078921985076184561065 58612859828338714231340970615580981571184690914779 92301193799347127432831601039656929945985978670740 97473369120894047100522362479910381449865785038220 72005720526333711290894654275171917981503749599966 86668684354335699993020654594747241225117547940224 00931978128976185078900754918018690245845972137874 92562694974258276350170139980892873355384934982358 57206017509243363539461766340529509286662457642009 75911114348269080840493417094756100943101902759942 58862287349720199248243834985732729368317682141372 35701768759454634567836239398333112477063181579695 73404335667625762476718164135105903855106196357934 85586417068640970482268103868634232880655115215674 69467580825664637765969847693166502439410210040651 11268218212233860158135542428372930615938681238344 02237728507600668177904587589873705226644397630612 721.5906715125241451712446552270781888765711121122 86655578827804232064633619314100231697667663098012 3

      (But maybe Math::BigFloat calculates the wrong result. If so, please file a bug report!)

    3. Re:Ion drive not up to the task by khallow · · Score: 1

      You're off by about 10^500. That really makes it feasible, uh huh. I think he's probably talking about light sails pushed by gigantic lasers say sited on the Moon. You know, like the ones you have in your car.

  59. ion drives and the speed of light by DietFluffy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We are currently developing technologies which allow a maximum speed of 0.6 X the speed of light.

    if you create a probe with an ion drive and send it off in the next 10 years we could be looking at surveys of the planet in question by 2070.


    Again, correct me if I'm wrong but according to http://nmp.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html, ion drives only deliver 10x the efficiency of chemical rockets. So to reach 0.6c, wouldn't an ion drive require more propellant than exists in the universe?

    1. Re:ion drives and the speed of light by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      i might have confused it with the intersteller ramjet conept.

      (on the other hand.. we could apply string theory and actually have propellant larger than the universe by building a FREAKIN HUGE trash bag and filling it by hand!)

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  60. If We Tell George He Could Rule An Entire Planet by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 0, Troll

    Do you think we could talk him into going there?

  61. That close to the star? by twifosp · · Score: 1

    That's really close. The chances of it supporting life (what we know if it, anyway) are propbably low. The planet will be bombarded by radiation and magnetic interference. Not to mention that close it'll be tidal locked like some of the Moons in the Jovian system, which would make dough out of the crust. That planet better have one hell of a magnetic field and atmosphere if it plans to support life.

    1. Re:That close to the star? by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 1

      That's really close. The chances of it supporting life (what we know if it, anyway) are propbably low. The planet will be bombarded by radiation and magnetic interference. Not to mention that close it'll be tidal locked like some of the Moons in the Jovian system, which would make dough out of the crust. That planet better have one hell of a magnetic field and atmosphere if it plans to support life.

      Tidal locking is no guarantee. There is no known planet that is tidally locked with it's host star. Not even Mercury, which was long thought to be, is tidally locked. Even if the planet were locked to it's sun like our Moon is to Earth, that does by no means rule out the possibility of life especially if it is an ocean-planet.

      A rocky planet of that size is likely to be quite geologically active, which means a magnetic field. We could assume, based on it's size, that this planet's magnetic field would be significantly larger and stronger than Earth's.

    2. Re:That close to the star? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      This is also a much smaller star that produces significantly less radiation than a G2-type star (aka our Sun), so the same reason why being so close makes the temperatures very Earth-like would be balanced out by the radiation of the star. In other words, it would be pretty much a wash in terms of the quantity of radiation that would be produced by this star compared to the amount we receive from our Sun under similar temperature conditions.

      What would be an issue is that the visible light coming from this star would be much stronger in the infrared end of the spectrum, and almost no blue light (hence the term "Red Dwarf" for stars like this). The impact of that on any native life forms on this world would be interesting to say the least.

      Due to being 5x the mass of the Earth, I would expect very active geological forces within the crust of this planet. Mars and Venus both show substantial volcanic activity, and there is no reason to presume that it wouldn't have a strong magnetic field.

      As for an atmosphere, being 5x the mass of the Earth would give a sufficient gravity well to keep most gaseous compounds at 40 C. I don't see this being a huge problem other than perhaps having too much of an atmosphere rather than too little. Not quite a gas giant, but hardly an airless asteroid either. Very likely to have a much more substantial atmosphere than even the Earth.

    3. Re:That close to the star? by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If anything I would expect a Venusian-like thick atmosphere. What that atmosphere is composed of though, well that's up in the air. Pun not intended.

  62. Sadly, it doesn't matter.... by blankoboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    if we find a habitable planet. We as a species are simply too corrupt and busy killing and trying to dominate each other to bother with spending money on technology that would get us there.

    One can only wonder where we could be in terms of technological advancement if we spent 50% of what is spent on military spending worldwide on sciences.

    Take me back to the cave with my spear and stones please.

  63. no matter what... by metalpres · · Score: 1

    you can pretty safely bet that if its covered with mountains or oceans has life or not the planet still likely has faster broadband internet service available at more affordable prices then anything you can get in the U.S.

  64. Seasons? by Ikcor · · Score: 1

    Don't blink, you'll miss summer.

    Seriously, what kind of life exists in such a static environment?

    1. Re:Seasons? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      have you ever heard of the equator? It doesn't have seasons. (Well... thats a bit of a stretch of the truth, but its not that far off.)

    2. Re:Seasons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alien life.

  65. Peace by alexj33 · · Score: 1

    Yes, I can picture it now- a world without war, a world without hate.

    I can also picture us attacking that world, 'cause they'd never expect it.

  66. New Earth like planet? by metalpres · · Score: 1

    i call DIBS!!!

  67. What if? by TooMad · · Score: 1

    If it is already inhabited then they could be twice as strong as us on average. With the higher radiation only things that could survive that extreme would remain and could better survive a radiation poisoned battlefield. The increased gravity would also mean stronger technology, airplanes would need stronger engines, spacecraft would need more thrust to break the orbit of their planet, all equipment would be better shielded against the radiation. If it is inhabited and they are on roughly the same technology level as us we had better hope they are friendly.

  68. Gliese 581 by skeptictank · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here is a link to more information about the star http://www.solstation.com/stars/gl581.htm.

    The star is a variable, so it may periodically hammer planets in a close orbit with massive flares. If the planet was covered in a sea that might offer enough protection from the hard radiation of the flares to let life develop. It's surprising that a planet in this new orbit wasn't disrupted by the Neptune size giant closer to the star.

  69. Um, yeah, *liquid* by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    temperature of the planet is between 0 and 40 Celsius. At this temperature there could be liquid water.


    Errrr, we have liquid water on earth at this temperature. More importantly, what is the air (if any) pressure. That will affect whether you have liquid water at 40C or not.
    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    1. Re:Um, yeah, *liquid* by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      He could be saying that there could be liquid water as opposed to...no water. Just a thought.

    2. Re:Um, yeah, *liquid* by Teancum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With 5x the mass of the Earth, the atmosphere would be something more akin to Venus than something more like the Earth or Mars. Still, this is something that would be interesting to try and speculate about in terms of a fictional story about going to this planet.

      Unless this planet also had a collision with a similarly sized planetoid (such as is speculated with the Earth and the current favored theory of the creation of the Moon) that would have stripped much of the original atmosphere away, I don't see how this planet could have a lower pressure atmosphere than found on the Earth and likely would be much higher.

      What would be interesting would be to find out what the density of this planet could be. A highly dense object (aka this huge mass and nearly the same size of the Earth) would have a huge surface gravity, but if this planet were mainly made up of water or other lighter compounds, it would be a "waterworld" that would be several times the size of the earth in terms of area and may even have Earth-like gravity on the surface.

      Regardless, nearly any possible model you could come up with here would have sufficient atmosphere to allow water in a liquid state at these temperatures. The only exception would be if the atmosphere was so dense like Venus that run-away greenhouse gasses would make the surface temperatures far too hot. Venus doesn't get that much more additional sunlight (measured in watts/cm^3) than the Earth, but it is much hotter than even the surface of Mercury.

  70. I, for one, ... by mybecq · · Score: 0

    I, for one, would like them to welcome their new yellow-dwarf overlords...

  71. Meanwhile in the Gliese 581 system... by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    Chief Astronomer Zantooli
    Emperor Clantos! I have disturbing news.

    Emperor Clantos
    Oh no. Not another android strike?

    Chief Astronomer Zantooli
    No your magnificence. Our automated tachyon telescope has locked on to a planet called Earth. It has detected our presence. Worse still, it has intelligent life and we are also detecting atom power weapons.

    Emperor Clantos
    Atom power weapons! My gods. They might use them against us! We must send a fleet of space troopers at once to confiscate them.

    Chief Astronomer Zantooli
    That's a bit risky. They might see them coming and kill a few of them. That won't do anything for your popularity.

    Emperor Clantos
    Hmm, you're right.

    Chief Astronomer Zantooli
    I suggest that we just vaporise the whole planet immediately. It's the safest way.

    Emperor Clantos
    Vaporise them!? Shouldn't we at least try to evacuate all their civilians first?

    Chief Astronomer Zantooli
    Not a good idea your magnificence. Again it puts our space troops at risk from enemy fire. Also, it would alert them and give them time to move their weapons somewhere else.

    Emperor Clantos
    But our people will surely complain about our killing so many civilians.

    Chief Astronomer Zantooli
    I'm not so sure. Who really cares about people so far away? If anyone kicks up a fuss we'll just say it's their government's fault for hiding the weapons amongst the population. Anyway, they use the same argument themselves all of the time when it comes to these people they call "terrorists". Whenever they detect them in an area, they just vaporise it without warning. If anyone complains about civilian deaths, they just blame it on the terrorists for "Hiding amongst the population".

    Emperor Clantos
    Hmmm. A clever transferral of blame indeed. These Earth people sound just like us. It's a shame we have to destroy them.

    1. Re:Meanwhile in the Gliese 581 system... by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Your subtle ability to convey messages is truly astounding.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    2. Re:Meanwhile in the Gliese 581 system... by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      I'll take that as a compliment on the possibility it may annoy you :)

  72. Tidal Lock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    >4) If there is atmosphere like ours with water in it, it will hold some of the heat as it passes out of its suns rays and therefore should be just as turbulent.

    A planet orbiting this close will likely be in tidal lock with one side always facing the star. This would have unplesant effects on any atmosphere.

  73. What this says for ET by drix · · Score: 1

    I think it's interesting that in our extremely nascent explorations outside the solar system, we've already managed to locate practically a clone of earth. As other articles I read about this point out, this has major implications for how many other planets must exist that have conditions that would support life, i.e. if you sample .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000001% percent of the population and are already finding things, there must be a whole lotta more places out there just like it. Which is fascinating, because it essentially presents you with the following dichotomy: either you believe in creationism, or you believe in aliens. There's really no in between. Either we occupy a special, god-given place in the universe, or life as we know it began through the random agglomeration of organic compounds billions of years ago, in which case it would be practically a mathematical certainty that the same thing happened elsewhere.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    1. Re:What this says for ET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of stars in the milky way are of this type, and if a random one like this has this many planets, then planets must be like algae in seawater out there!

      Also note that the Hot Neptune inside the current planet's orbit was supposed to make it impossible to form and remain there. neener neener.

    2. Re:What this says for ET by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Well, there's still the "the Bible doesn't tell us everything" variant. Nowhere does it say that God didn't have other projects...

      Of course, I am an agnostic, so I don't have any good arguments anyway (if I had I wouldn't be one).

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:What this says for ET by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      You're making a pretty huge assumption about the probability of life forming. Specifically, you're assuming that the major hurdle to the formation of life is a hospitable world, which may or may not be the case. Even if you've got an average of one Earth-like planet every hundred stars, given 1E20 stars in the known universe, you've got 1E18 Earth-like planets. If the odds of life arising on an Earth-like planet are worse than 1E18 to 1, you've got no reason to think there are other planets with life.

      Now, I personally think that the odds of life arising given a hospitable environment are much better than that, but I'm unaware of any reason aside from optimism supporting that belief.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  74. Semi-inhabital new worlds by stfvon007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about people that gain weight going from ~ 120lbs to say, 260. As its done over time, the body adapts and they are still able to walk around and live normally (although it does have adverse health effects) I think it is possible for people to adapt, but it will not be comfortable, especially for the first generation, and they will probably live a lot shorter. If this doesn't work however, It may however be possible to genetically engineer humans to live on high-G environments, increasing muscle mass, and bone density and thickness, as well as cardiovascular improvements.

    I am aware of one experiment of putting someone in a high-G centerfuge and subjecting him to 1.5G's. The experiment was terminated early, due to the participant having a mild heart attack. Keep in mind, the participant wasn't given time to acclimate to the new environment gradually, and the experiment was short in duration, lasting only about a week, as it was designed more towards seeing if a high-G environment could help astronauts overcome loss of muscle mass and bone decalcification faster than normal after returning to earth, rather than colonization of a high-G environment.

    --
    All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    1. Re:Semi-inhabital new worlds by Serengeti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "they will probably live a lot shorter."

      And not as old, either!

    2. Re:Semi-inhabital new worlds by eMbry00s · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember that having an extra 120 pounds of fat on you is very different from each organ weighing 2.5 times as much. Long-term low gravity is dangerous to the body because it makes your internal organs go in strange ways in relation to eachother. I'd wager that high gravity would have similar effects.

    3. Re:Semi-inhabital new worlds by vertinox · · Score: 1

      What about people that gain weight going from ~ 120lbs to say, 260. As its done over time, the body adapts and they are still able to walk around and live normally (although it does have adverse health effects) I think it is possible for people to adapt, but it will not be comfortable, especially for the first generation, and they will probably live a lot shorter.

      By the time we get someone out there, we will most likely be dealing with trans-humans who may have genetically enhanced bodies or perhaps humans who have replaced their organs with machines. I'm sure anyone that would consider colonizing the planet (or staying there) would have gone through strenuous training or genetic modification.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    4. Re:Semi-inhabital new worlds by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Long-term low gravity is dangerous to the body because it makes your internal organs go in strange ways in relation to each other.

      Chicks in low G will develop new curves? Cool!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:Semi-inhabital new worlds by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Chicks in low G will develop new curves? Cool!

      They will develop sagging breasts which is not new and definately not cool.

    6. Re:Semi-inhabital new worlds by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      sagging breasts [are] not cool.

      Um...yes they are. Hardly any women after 20 don't sag, unless they have mosquito bites or surgery. Besides, real women with real bodies rock!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    7. Re:Semi-inhabital new worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no, they really are not cool. You are probably just old and can only get old women so you have to adjust what you think is attractive so you don't cry yourself to sleep. Besides, any large breasted women on this planet would have breasts to their knees. Very attractive indeed. But it sounds like you are in to that...so maybe they could send you up their to populate that saggy breasted world.

    8. Re:Semi-inhabital new worlds by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between nice full breasts, and breasts that sag. It's okay, I wouldn't expect a slashdotter to know such things.

    9. Re:Semi-inhabital new worlds by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Well that's the other difference that doesn't change, no matter how many pounds you gain: Your heart is still pumping against the same gravity. The tissue in your body is still retaining fluids against the same gravity. Your brain, eyes, and other organs still weigh roughly the same. Barring computer simulations (which, if we knew all the relevant variables for, would probably be rather pointless anyway), the only way to find out what happens in higher G environments is to observe it.

  75. That's awesome by drix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Raise your hand if you feel you were born about 100 years too early.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    1. Re:That's awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not me. It may be debatable if peak oil will happen within 10 years, but it's a dead cert within 100.
      Tigers and snow leopards will be extinct by then.
      Either the population will continue to grow, and the whole world will essentially be reduced to suburbia and monoculture, or it will collapse into resource wars. Or both, in different parts.

    2. Re:That's awesome by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Well, I had this cool ass ASCII hand all ready to go, but the damn filter wouldn't let me put it in so consider it raised.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    3. Re:That's awesome by indytx · · Score: 1
      Raise your hand if you feel you were born about 100 years too early.

      You're assuming the Earth will be around in 100 years.

      --
      Make love, not reality television.
  76. water by zogger · · Score: 1

    Initially while you were selective breeding/ genetically engineering stronger and more adapted humans, you'd have to use powered exoskeletons for working, and then spend a lot of the rest of your time in a water environment. Floating does wonders in that gravity/mass/weight regard.

    1. Re:water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bollocks. There are plenty of people (most of them Americans) who are 100% overweight, yet they manage to stumble about quite effectively. 2.25G is in NO WAY a showstopper for human exploration. 20 lightyears is a much tougher challenge.

  77. I deny the exstence of God as God by lordholm · · Score: 1

    I deny the existence of God, and this does not need to be un-scientific.

    If the universe was created by some sentient being (I do not deny the possibility of this), then sure, some may call that God, I would just say that it is an alien life-form with great powers, not worth anything more than any other sentient being.

    Now, giving you a Star Trek analogy, the being Q could easily be seen as God. But he is not God, even if he is omnipotent. He is a sentient being just like you and me.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    1. Re:I deny the exstence of God as God by Skrynesaver · · Score: 1
      Starting @ the beginning,
      1. Assume the creative force that spawned our universe was a sentient being
      2. Assume this sentient being is eternal
      3. Assume that this eternal sentient being is interested in the activities of a species that evolved on one planet in this universe
      4. Assume that this interest is primarily in the ethics of this species
      5. Assume that mating and possesive ethics of this species are the primary interest of an eternal being with the ability to wield forces capable of creating a universe
      6. Assume that the individual beings that evolved on this particular rock have a continuation of conciousness after death
      7. Assume that the Eternal being decides to reward and punish those who behaved in a fashion that It found ethical
      8. ...
      After this add your prefered theology's creation myth, revelation myth and demons with pitchforks (optional)

      Alternatively shit happend and it's fascinating to try and work out how, I'm not a great fan of assumptions in explainations

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    2. Re:I deny the exstence of God as God by infiniti99 · · Score: 1

      True, those are a lot of ridiculous assumptions. On the other hand, the notion of things just happening without purpose is unsettling. My hope is that there is a purpose, and not just a purpose for the existence of the universe, but a purpose for humans as individuals. Without individual purpose, there isn't a compelling reason to live, in my opinion, other than perhaps to avoid facing the pain of death. The "why go on?" issue is a classic atheist dilemma.

      Humans have become too smart for their own good (and this point was echoed by comments in a recent slashdot story, about chimps evolving faster than humans). We're at the point where we can make decisions that seem to defy survival (see mass murders, couples choosing to not have children.. no I'm not saying these are equally severe :)). Other life-forms operate like good little computer processes, doing what they have been instructed to do. Humans, with self-perception, are not forced to play this game. We can laugh at the universe, and do whatever we damn well please, even if it is detrimental to ourselves or our species.

      I'd argue that if an individual willingly sticks it out, and does it not for fear of painful death, it is because of a hope or faith in something greater than the survival treadmill. With that in mind, your presented assumptions are quite inviting.

    3. Re:I deny the exstence of God as God by lordholm · · Score: 1

      "The "why go on?" issue is a classic atheist dilemma."

      Ehhh... and how is that a dilemma?

      Self-preservation is a central instinct, in-fact, few species would survive without it (this should be hard to deny). Making a purpose for your existence might also improve your survival chances when things start going tough.

      Why do you need to even hypothesize about a creator? Why do things need a purpose? Do a rock need a purpose to sink in water? It is a rather unfounded assumption that there must be a purpose for the world, or even for your existence. Just because humans that have seen a higher purpose have kept on fighting and survived in greater extent than those that have not does not mean that there is a higher purpose, just that you want to see a higher purpose.

      Even I, an atheist want to have a purpose with my existence, and I have chosen that that purpose should be to improve mankind and make the world a better place. That is why I went into engineering, and especially engineering with stuff that we send into space.

      And, yes we can laugh at the universe, and do whatever we damn well please as you said, however there is a very primitive sense of moral and ethics that is hardcoded in our brains, which makes us feel bad if we break these rules, that does not prevent you from doing this if you force yourself to ignore these feelings. So, yes we can, but we do not want to...

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    4. Re:I deny the exstence of God as God by infiniti99 · · Score: 1

      "The "why go on?" issue is a classic atheist dilemma."

      Ehhh... and how is that a dilemma?


      I'd argue that the pain of living does not justify the joy of living. Or further, even if you had nothing but 100% joy in living, I'd argue that since you'll eventually die anyway, there isn't much of a point to the temporary joy. Once you're dead, you'll no longer care if you had joy or not, because you won't be alive to think about that. This is a dilemma, because if you logically deduce that there is no reason to live.... well you're stuck choosing between survival instinct and logic. As a result, there are writings in atheist philosophy that address suicide.

      You're right though, just because we may imagine a higher purpose does not mean there is one. What I ended up proposing in my last message was a variant of Pascal's Wager. We continue to live, because there might be a higher purpose, even though there very well may not be. Well, that, and survival instincts are very strong. I certainly don't want to die, and suicide is the farthest thing from my mind. However, survival instincts are not necessarily logical.

      Continuing to live without the hope of a higher purpose is harder to justify, in my opinion. Wanting to help mankind is a noble effort, but, again, once we die, it won't matter. It doesn't matter that other people are better off because of our efforts, or that we are respected after death, or that we are written in the history books, because we won't be alive to know about it. Once we die, we are not just gone from the world, but the world is gone from us. Even though we may care for people and our species right now, I'd argue that once we die, their meaning will be the same as the meaning of characters in a dream that we just woke up from. A fun experience, but inconsequential. Death is worse than waking from a dream though, because we won't even get to remember the fun experience. Crap, I think I'm becoming a nihilist. :)

      I'd argue that to justify living, the higher purpose must be tightly coupled with an afterlife. If there is no afterlife, then having god(s) in the picture doesn't help anything. Sure, you could follow the rules of the gods to be a nice citizen, but that's not any better than having to follow the rules of nature and survival. If there is nothing to gain or lose by defying the rules, then just give the universe and the gods your middle finger. It's all the same.

  78. keep in mind by nanosquid · · Score: 1

    Many if not all red dwarfs are flare stars, which may pose a serious radiation problem for nearby life. If the planet is tidally locked, that might actually help.

  79. Go to a non-Starbucks coffee shop by Rix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You'll get better coffee, and they won't try to give you the vocabulary of a corporate whore.

    1. Re:Go to a non-Starbucks coffee shop by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. Tim Hortons sucks. Timothy's sucks even more. I think Coffee Time gets the Timothy's leftovers.
      Second Cup is Ok, but how do you get tripple shots there? Dimitri's is also good, but I only know where 4 of them are in Toronto, and 1 of those is owned by crappy owners, so there are only three and they are not where I am most of the time.

      Starbucks is the coffee that is consistently good and has many locations. It is also really fast and has a good selection.

  80. Seti @ Home by Stripsurge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would it be worth pointing a radio telescope at this thing?

  81. Obligatory quote by OricAtmos48K · · Score: 0

    In Klingon Federation sun like star orbits the planet !

  82. It wouldn't need to hit the planet... by Rix · · Score: 1

    The probe would have to be autonomous, anything beyond orbit of the star would have to be achievable by the probe's own logic. It might take intrasolar readings of the planet, which while remote would be far better than anything we could do from Earth.

    Attempting planetary orbit would probably be too risky. Better to leave it in solar orbit sending back data.

  83. Why only one? by Rix · · Score: 1

    Most of the cost would be in designing the probe, and getting it into orbit. Why send only one, which may fail en route? Send a dozen or so, and hope at least one survives. If more do, set them up as array antennas, or risk attempting planetary orbit with one.

  84. Proposed name by waynemcdougall · · Score: 1

    "possibly habitable" ?

    I propose the colonists use the name WeMadeIt

    --
    Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
    1. Re:Proposed name by rainhill · · Score: 0

      "possibly habitable" ?

      20 light years away, wake up man!

      we would need to beam ourselves there, still it would take 20 years.

      and dont tell me about bending and stuff...

    2. Re:Proposed name by Red+Weasel · · Score: 1

      I don't think so.

      We shall name it "This Land"

      And we shall thrive.

      --
      ..which just shows that the human brain is ill-adapted for thinking and was probably designed for cooling the blood-T P
  85. Raising monkeys in a centrifuge by waynemcdougall · · Score: 1

    Dr Eric Reed has already carried out important preliminary work in this area

    But of course Congress cut our^whis funding, just when it was most vital for the future of humanity. And just as I^dthe research team was off to the Cricket World Cup on in^w^w^w^w^wJamaica - a leading world source of centrifuge compatible monkeys.

    Oh, science, I pity you for your vicious poltical masters.

    Won't someone please think of the colonists' children?

    --
    Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
  86. Great by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    I think I've just figured out where the Simpsons are going next.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Great by n0w0rries · · Score: 1

      Well, I did the math. I'd be 924 years old if I was born on that planet!

  87. Strawberry Jelly? by dgbrownnt · · Score: 1

    But seriously, though, if we're off in la-la land supposing we can instantly accelerate to high relativistic speeds, I don't think it would be far-fetched to imagine someone made some inertial dampeners or something.

  88. If we colonize... by kc600 · · Score: 1

    Who do we send? I feel a spacecraft containing the world's finest public telephone sanitizers (in fact, all of them) would be most suitable to lead the way.

    1. Re:If we colonize... by Goffee71 · · Score: 0

      Someone who won't make fat or weight jokes, given their double gravity - they're just big boned okay!

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
  89. A Technological Victory by cordsie · · Score: 1

    A technology victory is in reach! I urge everyone to contact their local governors, and hopefully we can get enough cities building spaceship parts to launch before 2020.

    1. Re:A Technological Victory by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      A technology victory is in reach! I urge everyone to contact their local governors, and hopefully we can get enough cities building spaceship parts to launch before 2020.



      Technological victory is for wimps. Real winners do so by conquest. Or domination.

    2. Re:A Technological Victory by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      Well, I was going to post a weak witticism about cultural victories...but instead I'll just post the translated version:

      I get your joke.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    3. Re:A Technological Victory by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Technological victory sure shut up the Japanese about 60 years ago!

      (That one kinda bit us in the ass now though, didn't it?)

  90. New discoveries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20 years at the speed of light...
    To reach a planet where most humans wouldn't even be able to move.
    Coming down to the planet would be unthinkable since your weight would be 5 times what you weigh now and would kill you as soon as you try to breathe.

    1. Re:New discoveries... by Biff98 · · Score: 1

      According to another article I read, gravity is only 1.6 times that of earth.

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070425/ap_on_sc/habit able_planet

    2. Re:New discoveries... by robcraine · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gravity...

      OK. We know that F = G Mm/r^2
      So, if the Mass is five times bigger... and the radius is twice that of earth, the force will be 5/2^2 = 1.25G

      I don't think that we are able to accurately measure the size of the planet, but the site above quoted 1.5 times earth's radius. That would give us 5/1.5^2 = 2.22G

      Plug your own numbers in and take your choice

    3. Re:New discoveries... by Biff98 · · Score: 1

      Right...

      We don't know to a lot of precision the size & mass of the planet. The real point is that it's probably NOT 5 times Earth's gravity.

  91. Wrong by kentrel · · Score: 1

    The nature of statistics means that just because we find an "Earthlike" planet it doesn't mean we're any closer to finding another "earth".

  92. What to do... by az1324 · · Score: 1

    1. Announce plan to establish society there
    2. Get $$$$ from government to finance
    3. Defer results for many years
    4. Profit

    Halliburton are you available?

  93. Careful what you wish for... by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

    It might just come true...

  94. Big Picture by bkingaut · · Score: 1

    My guess would be it's very unlikely that we would find earth-like life on that planet.
    And it would be too much trouble to send humans there anyway.

    So how about we try something different (which I probably saw on star trek some time ago) and send some bacteria, microbes or anything that could evolve to human-like life?
    Imagine in millions of years our "children" find out about their past and their forefathers :D

    On the other hand our bacteria could destroy already developed life on that planet.

    A tough question at least for me.

  95. Overstatement by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    I'm as happy as the next guy to see progress on the extrasolar planet front, but I don't think this is much more than a next step along the way... so far.

    According to the stuff I was reading recently about Proxima Centauri, it's a lost hope as a place for earth-like life, mainly because it's a red dwarf, and hasn't been around long enough.

    1. Re:Overstatement by Jotii · · Score: 1

      Why would the age and type of star matter? The surface temperature is 0-40 centigrades, which indicates that the star emits enough energy.

      --
      [sig]
    2. Re:Overstatement by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      On age: evolution took a while here. On type: different types of stars have different lifetimes.

    3. Re:Overstatement by Jotii · · Score: 1

      I still cannot see how that would matter. Evolution took a while. So? We're the ones who are going to colonize it, and we're going to bring evolution with us. I highly doubt that the lifetime of the star is short enough for us to live there and eventually escape to another system.

      --
      [sig]
    4. Re:Overstatement by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      This thread is about other lifeforms existing on other planets, not our lifeform spreading to other planets.

  96. At last, a new challenge! by mtec · · Score: 1

    I can see the Dr. Evil making plans now.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  97. Climate by eggman9713 · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the climate over the year of this planet (13 days) is anything like the last two weeks' weather in the northeast US.

  98. Centre for the Destruction of Gliese 581 c by dodgyville · · Score: 1

    I am proud to announce the same day formation of the Centre for the Destruction of Gliese 581 c. A non-profit organisation committed to the pointless destruction of the fantastic new world.

    Our website is at:

    Centre for the Destruction of Gliese 581 c

    --
    apt-get install deathstar && deathstar alderaan && echo "You're far too trusting"
  99. From Zero 2 Hero in a day! by Ox0065 · · Score: 1

    The real issue perhaps with the gravity is the effect of living in zero gravity for the voyage to get there, and then transitioning to 2+G in a day! Perhaps using a centrifugal ship to gradually ramp up the gravity en-route. That'd give generations, wouldn't it? Then what if your signed up & three generations into the voyage & it turns out you're the weakest link, or there is a sudden realisation that your crew of super athletes should have been composed exclusively of lard asses... ...bummer dude!

    --
    thx e
  100. Labelling it "Earth-like" seems premature... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    Okay, so far all they know about it is its approximate mass and distance from its primary, and the length of its year (which is very much shorter than Earth's). The latter is approximately in the zone that would allow for temperatures such that water, if there is any, could be liquid, and suddenly it's Earth-like?

    There are a lot of variables that go into determining whether a planet would actually be habitable at all, much less Earth-like. How much atmosphere has it got? What's the composition of the atmosphere? *Does* it have any significant amount of water (liquid or otherwise)? How long is its "day" (i.e., rotational period)? (Does it even have a day/night cycle, or is it tidally locked?) How massive is its moon, and what's its orbital period? Does it even _have_ a moon?

    I'd expect suitable answers to these and many other questions before I'd be willing to call it "Earth-like".

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  101. Probably Tide Locked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That close to a major body, even it it is "merely" a red dwarf star, and a planet is going to be tide-locked, one way or another. (Mercury's eliptical orbit is the only reason it managed to escape the same degree of tide-locking that Earth's Moon has.)

    A tide-locked world, next to a star, isn't going to have a very large habitable zone. Any atmosphere could be expected to freeze solid on the dark side of the world. For starters.

    1. Re:Probably Tide Locked by Ihlosi · · Score: 2
      That close to a major body, even it it is "merely" a red dwarf star, and a planet is going to be tide-locked, one way or another.

      Don't forget the Neptune-mass object that's still inside the orbit of the super-earth. I would guess its gravity would prevent a complete tidal lock.

      A tide-locked world, next to a star, isn't going to have a very large habitable zone. Any atmosphere could be expected to freeze solid on the dark side of the world. For starters.

      The temperature on Venus is fairly evenly distributed even though Venus rotates very slowly. An atmosphere does have convection, which will counteract any temperature gradients.

  102. Unless there's a lot of metal... by CxDoo · · Score: 1

    ...it's not worth bothering, since at 2.25G it will never be profitable.

    --
    "Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
  103. HHGTTG by us7892 · · Score: 1

    Classic.

  104. Don't be afraid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luckily, they'll all be too hung over from the bi-weekly New Year's parties to invade us.

  105. Anyone else hear "Ohhh!" when you saw the news? by Immerial · · Score: 1

    Anybody else remember playing Spaceward Ho!? http://www.deltatao.com/ho/

    I think I'll have to dig it out again :)

  106. That is a false and outrageous comparison! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Five earths is WAY too low an estimate.

  107. Why go there? by constantnormal · · Score: 1
    -- when we might be able to image it by placing an array of Hubble-like telescopes in orbit around our sun, and coordinating the images from them to synthesize an aperture the size of the orbit of the Earth (or whatever sized orbit we place these telescopes into). That ought to be large enough to collect enough photons of information to provide useful images, albeit from 20+ years ago.

    If such an amplification is possible, then we should be able to gather loads of information about it long before we could ever send a probe to it.

    I expect that when we see the first detailed images of the surface, we will find an immense fiery inscription, saying "We apologise for the inconvenience".

  108. Let's not sit home and sustain the Agenda 21 fraud by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    "We co-evolved with Earth's biosphere and it's very unlikely we will find a hospitable duplicate where we can lay around on a beach or picnic by a river."

    You may be right in even though other planets may have beaches and rivers there are
    most likely indigenous life and other circumstances to contend with, for example the
    sun emitting a burst of harsh radiation every so often which the indigenous life can
    deal with but our species can't.

    However we should spend those thousand years experimenting on other planets and discovering
    the universe rather than sitting "home" sustaining the Agenda-21 fraud. What our
    species has to mature and rid itself of the scum holding us back. Fortunately w
    we're making a lot of progress in that area.

  109. Re:Only one thing to do! by crossb0nez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I admit not having had the time to scan through all the comments on this article- but it raises an interesting point in my mind, relating to another recently-discussed discovery, that being of the fellow that found "kryptonite" in a Serbian mine... if we have found kryptonite on Earth now, and it would appear (from the gravity/mass/star-type data) we have now found "Krypton" the planet... should we begin to search the midwestern US for a "really strong kid" ??

    --
    Rule of Acquisition #19: Satisfaction is Not guaranteed.
  110. Will food grow at 2.5G? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    Before we try more monkey games does anyone know if what kind of plants grow in high gravity?

    Also if there really was a ship that used rotation for artificial gravity couldn't the people or monkeys just live closer to the hub or outer rim as needed to experiment with gravity levels?

  111. Re:Let's not sit home and sustain the Agenda 21 fr by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "However we should spend those thousand years experimenting on other planets and discovering the universe rather than sitting "home" sustaining the Agenda-21 fraud."

    Never heard of A21, I will google it later but I think I get the gist and agree we should not "sit on our hands". However I think for the most part reseach on adapting to (say) mars can be done much more efficiently here on Earth. NASA's "great observertries" project has been an absolute goldmine for science. Autonomous scientific observation from space (both inward and outward) has been a great success and it is a shame it was so casually tossed aside by politics.

    Disclaimer: I watched Armstrong walk on the moon as a ten year old, and yes the world did stand together to watch one man. That was a different world, I don't think a game of golf on Mars would achive a similar reaction (if they were playing against martians it may be a different story).

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  112. Better FA at New Scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Fron TBFA

    Sunrises and sunsets on the planet must be spectacular. If you could stand on its surface, you would see its red host star looming 10 times wider in the sky than our own Sun appears.

    Team member Xavier Delfosse from Grenoble University in France says he hopes that spacecraft missions will probe the world for signs of life over the next decade or two.

    "On the treasure map of the universe, one would be tempted to mark this planet with an X," says Delfosse. "Because of its temperature and relative proximity, this planet will most probably be a very important target of the future space missions dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial life."
    It's twenty light years away, however. At present technologies it would take a long, long time to get there, and at 1/2 C (which may or may not ever be possible) it would take a lifetime to get there and back.

    -mcgrew
  113. 2.25G in a car? by Dan+Stephans+II · · Score: 2, Informative
    1) 2.25 times that of our own gravitational pull would not be ideal for us to live but, it doesn't mean nothing could live there. I pull 2.25g's with my car on a dry skid pad, I have not died yet.

    Is your daily driver a formula 1 prepped vehicle? If not I seriously doubt you pull more than 1G on a dry skid pad. (when you say "my car" I'm assuming you are speaking of the vehicle you regularly drive). One of the best production cars for skidpad grip is the Ferrari Enzo and it "only" pulls about 1.05G.

  114. Just ONE SQUARE!!! by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

    Damn, I'm glad I'm not her manicurist.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  115. How about from birth? by phorm · · Score: 1

    I would wonder how this test would work on creatures (or humans) reared from birth in a high-grav environment. I'd imagine that there may be some extra complications to being pregnant if one was initially low-grav native (although perhaps less if they started in high from a young age), but if a child were born and existed from day-1 under high-grav, he/she might very well have normal motor abilities and activities levels. It would also likely follow with the concept that many sci-fi books put forth (Niven/Weber/etc) wherein those natively frow hi-grav planets would end up with compensatory muscular/skeletal structures and possibly even other evolutionary differences over time. This would mean that on Earth, they would be damn strong - or at least rather solid - in comparison to the locals.

  116. First kryptonite, now this... by salotia · · Score: 1

    Yesterday we had kryptonite being found, today we learn about a large planet which is "earth like" and orbits a red sun (granted a red dwarf not a red giant)... I think we better start watching out for UFO sightings around corn fields.

  117. Atheists, Agnostics, etc. by alexo · · Score: 1

    >> It is [a religion]. Atheism assumes without evidence.
    >> That is just as much a matter of faith as believing in creator(s).
    > Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.


    There is a difference between "I do not believe that god exists"
    and "I believe that god does not exist".

    The first is a good fit for the stamps analogy, the second is not.

    1. Re:Atheists, Agnostics, etc. by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between "I do not believe that god exists" and "I believe that god does not exist".

      I think the difference is smaller than you think.

      I do not believe that there is a banana on my head.
      I believe that there is not a banana on my head.

      It's the same point with more or less conviction.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    2. Re:Atheists, Agnostics, etc. by alexo · · Score: 1

      > I think the difference is smaller than you think.
      >
      > I do not believe that there is a banana on my head.
      > I believe that there is not a banana on my head.
      >
      > It's the same point with more or less conviction.


      Not at all. You are just playing with semantics.

      The absense of belief in X is different from a belief in the absense of X.

      The banana, your head and the relationship between them are all well defined.
      There is no room for belief here, only facts and knowledge.

      Consider a slight change:
      I do not know if there is a banana on my head.
      I know that there is not a banana on my head.

    3. Re:Atheists, Agnostics, etc. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Consider a slight change:
      I do not know if there is a banana on my head.
      I know that there is not a banana on my head.
      You've lost the sense of the original quote which is - I couldn't care less about bananas.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  118. Null-value by phorm · · Score: 1

    I'd say it's more like calling black or white colors. In many cases, it may be more convenient to do so, but in actuality atheism is to religion as black is to color (that is to say, both tend towards being the lack of a particular value, or null-value).

  119. New hobby for my girl friend! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby

    Just last night as my girlfriend was hitting her crack pipe, she said "I need a new hobby!" I'm going to suggest she trade being a crack whore for not collecting stamps! I mean, even collecting stamps takes monsy so she'd still have to suck lots of cock, but NOT collecting stamps is free!

    What a hobby! I might take up not collecting stamps myself! Lots cheaper than computers (which is a hobby that some people liken to being a crack whore).

    Oh oh, I just found the fallacy in my statement, if she trades being a whore for not collecting stamps I'll NEVER get laid!

    As Roseadanna said, "never mind".

  120. New Planet Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Created a new video the community might enjoy watching: http://starlightlearning.com/newsinspace.html

  121. 2.25 G by AdamThor · · Score: 2, Informative

    WARNING: PEDANTIC

    Do you really pull 2.25g in your car?

    Let's give you the benefit of counting the Earth's gravity toward what you are feeling in your car on the skidpad. So you've got 1g straight down plus a lateral component N, and the total is 2.25.

    The vectors form a right triangle, so a^2 + b^2 = c^2, right?

    a = 1, b=N, c= 2.25
    a^2 = 1, b^2 = N^2, c^2 = 5.0625
    1 + N^2 = 5.0625
    N^2 = 4.0625
    N = 4.0625^.5 = ~2.01

    Sports cars with special tires pull lateral around 1.0 G. Formula 1 cars and other extreme ground effects cars pull 2 g and more, but most people are never in one of those.

    So, either
    1) I've screwed up my physics
    2) You've got a very uncommon car
    3) Even adding regular gravity to what you can pull on a skidpad, you're maxing out your automotive G's closer to sqrt(2) = ~1.4

    Well, that was fun. BTW, I agree with your point. 2.25G wouldn't kill us, tho I bet it would greatly reduce the lifespan of one's knees, hips and back. Certainly SOMETHING could live there tho. Probably alien warrior badasses who, should they come to Earth, could jump 50 feet and throw cars around like they were toys. That'd be cool, apart from how much it would suck. Hopefully we could get them hooked on television.

    --
    -- "Oh. This guy again."
    1. Re:2.25 G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a life-long Formula 1 fan, I can tell you that at slow speeds around a skidpad lateral g on an F1 car maxes out at 1.4 or 1.5g. The higher g's you are quoting are for higher speed corners where the aerodynamics can help. The highest g I've heard about on a skid pad was a contest where a sucker car (based on some type of formula car) got about 1.9g.

      In other words, the parent pulled that 2.25g out of his ass.

    2. Re:2.25 G by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Probably alien warrior badasses who, should they come to Earth, could jump 50 feet and throw cars around like they were toys.

      They might also run out of breath pretty quickly, being accustomed to much higher air pressures than we are.

    3. Re:2.25 G by Indiana+Joe · · Score: 1

      "Formula 1 cars and other extreme ground effects cars pull 2 g and more, but most people are never in one of those."

      Actually, Formula 1 cars can decelerate at 5g. Carbon-carbon brakes are amazing.

      --
      I can't decide if this post is interesting, funny, insightful, or flamebait.
    4. Re:2.25 G by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      I was thinking specifically of this quote, regarding the JGTC GT500 Xanavi 350Z: GT500 cars generate up to 2.3 sustained g and peak as high as 3.0g on some courses in Japan. In this environment the Z's could only muster 1.9g. from here: http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0504_sc c_nissan_350z/index1.html

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    5. Re:2.25 G by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

      In all these discussions of gravity, I've read no comments related to the mitigating effects of rotation. If the planet spins faster than ours, the equator might be closer to what we would presumably prefer. Of course, first things first... we need to see the thing from a shorter distance. Heh.

      --
      Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  122. wormsign? by blind_abraxas · · Score: 1

    Any wormsign? How's the spice production?

    mmmm, traveling without moving...

    --
    one two three four five ?!! That's the combination on my luggage!
  123. But when it comes to exploration: by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Will the Jesuits be the first to get there?

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  124. I was too skeptical to stay in science by heroine · · Score: 1

    Stories like this now instantly get accepted as fact as soon as they're released. It's a long way from the old days when these stories got bashed and tested over and over. Unless you accept everything the moment it's announced, you can't be in today's science.

  125. We now have somewhere to send the "B" ark..... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    We now have somewhere to send the "B" ark.....all we have to do now is build it and five away all the free seats.

  126. Why to screw up an other planet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too early for the human race to get to other planets.
    We have not even learnt how to take care of Earth - why would we want to screw up an other planet?

  127. Nearby... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    For very large values of nearby...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  128. Hypergravity Training? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article doesn't say, but if you crank up the gravity enough, does their fur turn gold and do they start shouting something about "Freeza" or "Cell" when their training is done? :-)

  129. Bark Bark ? by planetfinder · · Score: 1

    Maybe archeologists will soon find the remains of the B-ark that brought our ancestors here
    and we can salvage some of the necessary technology to build a new one.

    On the other hand something really bothers me about settling another planet with rejects of descendents
    of B-arkers. We also have to remember the fate of those that our ancestors left behind.

    I believe that the original erroneous criteria for B-ark passenger selection was that the person appeared to be useless.
    Because the end results were catastrophic and because we are B-ark descendants we need
    to come up with different selection criteria or at least be more careful in applying the original criteria.
    If this ends up qualifying everyone on the planet then we don't need to build the ark.

    A more useful criterion might have something to do with a genetically based predisposition toward control of others.
    But then again we might not need to build the ark because as in the previous case we all qualify.

    Maybe for the sake of the other remaining life forms on this planet we should just build the stupid ark and get out
    of here before we finish off the worthwhile life forms.

  130. The Math by dubiago · · Score: 1

    I, as I'm sure many geeks have, wondered what I would weigh on such a world.

    I came up with gravity being 2.145x what it is on Earth on Gliese C.

    So, unless I've made a mathematical error or bad assumption below (feel free to chide me for doing so), I would weigh over 400lb on Gliese C. I guess I'd better stop eatin' the junk.


    d_E radial distance from center of the Earth
    d_G radial distance from center of Gliese C
    m_E mass of Earth
    m_G mass of Gliese C
    F_gE acceleration of gravity on Earth
    F_gG acceleration of gravity on Gliese C
    gP Gravitational proportionality of Gliese C over Earth

    The size of Gliese C (per space.com) is 50% greater than earth
    d_E = r_Earth = 6,372,797 m
    d_G = r_Gliese = r_Earth * 1.5 = 9,559,196 m

    The mass of Gliese C (per wikipedia.org) is 4.83 earth masses
    m_E = 5.9736x10^24 kg
    m_G = m_Gliese = m_Earth*4.83 = 28.852x10^24 kg

    G = 6.6742x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2

    F_g = (G*m_1*m_2)/d^2 (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation)

    Find the gravitational acceleration on Earth,

    F_gE = (G*m_E)/d^2 = (6.6742x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2 * 5.9736x10^24 kg) / (6.37101x10^6 m)^2
    F_gE = 9.822 m/s^2 (already known, but I calculated it for giggles as a way to check myself)

    Find the gravitational acceleration on the Gliese C,

    F_gG = (G*m_G)/d^2 = (6.6742 x 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2 * 28.852x10^24 kg) / (9.559196x10^6 m)^2
    F_gG = 21.073 m/s^2

    gP = 21.073 m/s^2 / 9.822 m/s^2 = 2.145

  131. Imagine the irony... by KnowledgeKeeper · · Score: 0

    ...if finding of this planet caused all the important instruments being pointed that way celebrating new horizons while at the same time an asteroid crept upon our backs and caused a total extinction level event.

    Although it's not very probable, I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Not that we'd be able to do anything about it anyway considering our technological preparedness.

    --
    It is always better to be a first grade version of yourself than a second grade version of someone else.
  132. Really? That again? by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    Plate tectonics doesn't explain the continental shelf.

    Yes, something magical creating matter from nothing and violating the third law of thermodynamics makes much more sense. Scientists must have made up those GPS measurements that show it happening. Although you can evidence of prior eruptions of the hot spot that created Yellowstone National Park trailing up into Canada, it must have been something other than the plates moving as predicted. Of course the entire continent (planet?) must have been underwater, the earth must have gotten bigger but we have the same amount of water?

    Actually, the earth used to be larger before a planetoid knocked the moon from it, but it does get slightly larger from asteroids and comets hitting it's surface from time to time.

  133. Guess we have to start over. by default+luser · · Score: 1

    You know, we wouldn't be having this problem with high-G if we had picked Bulrathi instead of Humans in the first place!

    --

    Man is the animal that laughs.
    And occasionally whores for Karma.

  134. Cover up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm gonna make a claim without any kind of proof(just my gut feeling).
    My belief is that the government knows that alien life exists, which is
    part of the reason why they can already determine if a planet is
    "suitable for life".

    In addition, I think that revealing alien life exists would undermine all
    of this "search for other life", which is raking in tons of money. So the
    public is continually teased little-by-little thinking that progress is being
    made when we already know the answer. Of course, this is all done in the name
    of money.

    Anyway, like I said, no proof, but it's just my gut feeling.

  135. Have you ever been to a real coffee shop? by Rix · · Score: 1

    Do they even have them in Toronto? Real coffee shops are not chains. There's only one of each.

    If you think Starbucks makes good coffee, you don't know what it's supposed to taste like.

    1. Re:Have you ever been to a real coffee shop? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Oh, please, you haven't had the coffee at Starbucks here, what are you talking about? Maybe they suck where you are at? I also make my own coffee and I buy really expensive stuff, so it's good, but to go and have just coffee (not to a restaurant,) Starbucks, Second Cup and Dimitri's are the best places, and Starbucks is my favorite. Do you know what they say about arguing tastes? Don't.

  136. Re:Let's not sit home and sustain the Agenda 21 fr by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Please do google for Agenda 21. I suggest you start with the documenary "Global Warming Swindle"
    (which ridicules man-made global warming to be sure). You can find that on video.google.com
    at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022 478442170&q=global+warming+swindle

    I had a saturn iv and moon lander toy when I was a kid meaning I'm a little younger than you,
    however I'm sure I would BUY a television to watch the Mars landing.

  137. As you said... by Rix · · Score: 1

    Starbucks is consistent. It taste the same regardless of where you go. It's not very good, as Starbucks' "trademark" is overroasted beans, but it's better than McDonald's or gas station coffee.

    Are there no real coffee shops in Toronto? It's believable, I guess, Toronto is the armpit of Canada after all. Take a trip up to Montreal, I'm sure there's real coffee up there.

    Don't let price fool you, good coffee isn't necessarily expensive, and a lot of expensive coffee is awful. Starbuck's pricing is mostly marketing. It relies on people assuming it must be good because it's expensive.

    1. Re:As you said... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that I should buy my cup of coffee in Montreal or what? Doesn't that mean that I have to get there for each cup I have outside of my own house? That would make for some expensive java.

      You are being an elitist here, I am getting my good coffee on the street at Starbucks, you are telling me to go to Montreal for a cup. I've been in Montreal, I lived there for 2 years, there is Starbucks there too.

    2. Re:As you said... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      As someone who likes lighter roasted beans such as Kenyan AA, I abhor Starbucks. If you like that charred French roast taste than bon apppetit!

  138. Genetic engineering by warm+sushi · · Score: 1

    Don't know what you'd change exactly, but you might consider it if characteristics useful to that environment can be reliably added/induced.

  139. That was somewhat tongue in cheek by Rix · · Score: 1

    I imagine there are good coffee shops in Toronto, I was just poking at you. Starbuck's isn't good coffee. If you think it is, I can only conclude that you've never had good coffee. I don't know Toronto very well, so I can't tell you where to go to find it.

    You won't find it in corporate chains, at least not in North America. (Though there are places in the world where even free hotel coffee is excellent compared to North American faire.)

    1. Re:That was somewhat tongue in cheek by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As far as I am concerned Starbucks is good coffee, so we have come a full circle here since this thread is about differences in taste. From my point of view Starbucks is sign of civilization, but I do not mean to suggest that they have THE best coffee, but I like theirs.

  140. Re:UninhabitaBLE new worlds by Peyre · · Score: 1

    The point isn't that this is a place for us to live. The big deal here is that it's the closest we've found to an Earth-size planet yet, which brings us closer (we hope) in our search for extraterrestrial life. It's not that we're planning to live there--we're hoping to find life in places like that. More accurately, it's closer to the sort of place where we hope to find life. Personally, I don't find it all that exciting as a candidate for life. If I understand these things correctly, when the star expanded to a red giant it likely stripped off the planet's atmosphere. But it is exciting that we've found something so close to the Earth in size. Considering how hard it is to spot planets (by whatever method you use) from distances of light-years, that's pretty impressive.

  141. It isn't about taste by Rix · · Score: 1

    There are objective differences in quality that aren't subject to taste. The beans that Starbuck's uses are mid range; not crap, but not excellent either. All else being equal, they'd be just fine as commuter coffee. Unfortunately, they then burn those beans for the majority of what they serve. If you order thier "mild" blend, it's sometimes still drinkable, but a long way from quality coffee. They're still handy, because as you say they're everywhere, and most of the time not garbage.

    Tim Horton's uses lower quality beans, but they handle them more professionally. Unfortunately, they don't serve anything other than plain coffee, so you're out of luck if you like random crap thrown into it. *That* is a matter of taste, where as bean quality and roasting is not.

    For coffee on the go, both are acceptable, because of their ubiquitousness, not their quality. I personally keep one of those Starbucks cash cards, because there's one on my way to class and it's better than the campus coffee. And the employees are much nicer than Tim Horton's.

    There really is much better coffee out there. Go out and find it, when you're not in a rush, and enjoy it. Especially if you're making it at home, there's no reason to use Starbuck's beans. A quick Google tells me to suggest either Kensington Market or Roncesvalles (some sort of Ukranian district). I'd thought Toronto had a large Italian district as well, and that's probably also a good place to try.

  142. What if you didn't have to have an energy source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's an idea I found for the power problem. Can someone translate this for the masses? IANAP, but it looks like it may be possible to use quantum entanglement for energy transfer. Ion or photon propulsion and a few GW (maybe TW) of power will get you there provided it gets funded, created, and scaled up.

  143. You missed the Civilization reference. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    Technological victory sure shut up the Japanese about 60 years ago!

    ... please turn in your geek license.

    Besides, in Civilization terms, that was a domination/conquest victory. If you're planning to win that way and end up taking long enough to reach the modern age, you usually end up nuking the $h17 out of the other civs.

    Technological victory means that you manage to build a spaceship and send it off to Alpha Centauri before any of the other civs do. And, ironically, then wipe out mankind on Earth, as described in the "sequel" to Civilization, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

  144. 2.5 G? Only if it was 2002 all over again. by nkyad · · Score: 1

    Man, I can barely live with 2.5G of RAM. I wouldn't buy a cellphone with that little storage. I carry more that 2.5G in mp3 around all the time. No, no one should be forced to live with 2.5G. A 40G mandatory storage should be a basic human right.

    On the other hand, raising monkeys in a giant centrifuge? Now we are talking. The movie will be an instant YouTube hit.

  145. Nonsensical. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    We may learn how to get there 1/4th faster by learning from the experiences of the first travellers.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  146. Atheism is not believing. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    It is judging all the reasonable data and pehnomena we have and reaching a logical conclussion.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  147. And the water is sitting in top of what? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    R-o-c-k-s!

    Correct!

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.