Slashdot Mirror


Extrasolar Planet Could Harbor Life

BlueMorpho writes with a link to a Space.com article about a recently discovered extrasolar planet that may be able to harbor 'life as we know it.' Orbiting around the star Gliese 581 is a small rocky ball that might have the same liquid ocean and drifting continent configuration we're familiar with. The find may be unique in all of space exploration as this planet appears to be within a habitable band of temperatures for life, and is categorically not a gas giant. "The bottom line is exciting ...The conditions for life could be there, but is life itself? As yet, there's no way to know unless the planet has spawned beings that are at least as clever as we are. As part of the SETI Institute's Project Phoenix, we twice aimed large antennas in the direction of Gliese 581, hoping to pick up a signal that would bespeak technology ... Neither search turned up a signal."

65 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Oh my god, it's full of dupes. by ColonelPanic · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is categorically amazing! Gliese 581 has not one, but *two* planets capable of sustaining life as we know it!

    --
    "Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
    1. Re:Oh my god, it's full of dupes. by u-bend · · Score: 2, Funny

      OMG!!! Pink pony life forms?! In Soviet Russia, new extra-solar dupe life form overlords welcome you!

      --
      u-bend
  2. The best neighbors... by Chysn · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...are the ones you can't see even with a telescope.

    --
    --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
    -- See?
    1. Re:The best neighbors... by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope your neighbor turns out to be the goatse guy!!!!

    2. Re:The best neighbors... by Warg!+The+Orcs!! · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Hey, check this out - I've discovered a black hole....."

      --
      Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
  3. The trouble is by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The bottom line is exciting ...The conditions for life could be there, but is life itself? As yet, there's no way to know unless the planet has spawned beings that are at least as clever as we are. As part of the SETI Institute's Project Phoenix, we twice aimed large antennas in the direction of Gliese 581, hoping to pick up a signal that would bespeak technology ... Neither search turned up a signal." emphasis mine

    The trouble is that despite the planet's title sounding like a science fiction title, the former residents of Gliese 581 were at least as clever as we are, and the planet is currently recovering from a complete nuclear winter...
    1. Re:The trouble is by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well that actually got me thinking, though I may have my facts wrong.

      Doesn't SETI focus on a specific band of the EM spectrum that is not polluted by solar radiation and thus an obvious place for any sentient beings on another world to broadcast a signal that would allow themselves to be found?

      The follow up question being: Are we broadcasting such a signal at that frequency?

      Seems like if we're assuming whatever sentient beings out there think like us and thus we can deduce what they would do to be found, that only makes sense if it's something we would do in order to be found by other sentient life forms.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:The trouble is by beckerist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or...if I read your post correctly...it's more about the direction the signal emanates in. SETI has often been criticized because they are essentially looking for a whisper against the background of an airport. When we actually know WHERE to look, the strength of the signal required for us to actually notice is really very insignificant.

    3. Re:The trouble is by lahvak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While the number of planets in our galaxy is huge, the probability of a planet having a composition and climate similar to that of Earth's is extremely remote. Can you elaborate on that? Why would it be remote? Do you have any way to estimate the probability?

      On top of that, the probability of life forming on that planet is also very remote Again, can you justify this claim? I am not disputing your claim, I just have no idea how can the probability of this be calculated. I have seen people making this claim several times already, however, none of them ever seemed to care to support the claim with at least some estimate.

      and on top of that, the probability that life would have evolved along a similar timeline is also very remote. That I can agree with.
      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:The trouble is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes we do.

    5. Re:The trouble is by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Funny
      They've already visited. And they are more clever than we are. They don't try to post witty comments on /.

      Or maybe they don't want to communicate with us because they read slashdot.

    6. Re:The trouble is by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Funny

      To quote Calvin and Hobbes, "I think the surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."

      Seriously, if I were of a peaceful, technologically advanced society, I wouldn't want to communicate with Earth, either. Worst case scenario, the less friendly humans get ahold of alien technology and we start mucking up OTHER species' homes.

    7. Re:The trouble is by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seriously, if I were of a peaceful, technologically advanced society, I wouldn't want to communicate with Earth, either. Worst case scenario, the less friendly humans get ahold of alien technology and we start mucking up OTHER species' homes.

      Not to the Corporations rushing to patent alien genes and technology... no matter how loud the aliens call 'prior art' or obvious.

      I just hope the only time we hear from an alien race is when the earth is about to be destroyed to make way for an intergalactic highway and we failed to read the notice posted on some obscure planets noticeboard.
    8. Re:The trouble is by steveo777 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Probability of another earth-like planet? Prohibitive.
      1. Our sun's positioning in this galaxy is basically perfect. We're between two of the 'arms' of the milky way. Meaning we're nestled safely away from the gravitational chaos of other stars that may want to rip us out of our orbit around the center of our galaxy. So that rules out many places in our galaxy. Not saying there isn't a chance. I'm just saying that theoretically, the planets in there may be screwed some time in the future. Most other galaxy styles don't have a 'safe harbor' like this.


      2.Earth itself has so many favorable factors for it that it is astounding. The tilt of our axis makes for an optimal environment for life across our whole planet. I remember reading that many astrologers estimate that just a half a degree either way and we'd have much larger ice caps or a band of uninhabitable desert. Our elliptical, almost circular, orbit keeps us in the most comfortable spot. A million miles either way and we'd be toastier or colder. Life could still exist, but it would be less than 'ideal'.
      As I understand it, our ferrous core spinning at slightly different speed creates our Van Alen Belts to protect from solar wind.
      We have an asteroid belt that has protected us from undoubtedly billions of asteroids over the millennial of Earths existence.
      Our tidal locked moon pulls on the oceans causing the Earth to continue spinning at a proper speed to maintain life.

      How' that? When you consider all this, and the probabilities being of this happening elsewhere (or just 'enough')... you can pretty well give up hope. But there isn't any fun in that! I'm all for looking for hospitable planets. This universe is fascinating. What a waste to not explore?!

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    9. Re:The trouble is by toganet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look out, your anthropomorphism is showing. True, it is unlikely that humans would have resulted from adaptation to an environment different than our own. But that's how adaptation works.

      We may very well find "life" on planets that fall far outside your narrow definition of it -- but, as Dr. McCoy said, "not as we know it".

    10. Re:The trouble is by BakaHoushi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Alpha Centauri is NOT "some obscure planet." Honestly, if you Earthlings can't be bothered to take an interest in local politics, I've no sympathy at all.

    11. Re:The trouble is by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Our sun's positioning in this galaxy is basically perfect. We're between two of the 'arms' of the milky way. Meaning we're nestled safely away from the gravitational chaos of other stars that may want to rip us out of our orbit around the center of our galaxy.

      Actually, a recent study suggests that we are passing sideways through this galaxy.

      I'm not sure how relevant this is anyway, but let's move on.

      The tilt of our axis makes for an optimal environment for life across our whole planet.

      Irrelevant: we don't care what percentage of the planet is an optimal environment for life.

      Our elliptical, almost circular, orbit keeps us in the most comfortable spot. A million miles either way and we'd be toastier or colder. Life could still exist, but it would be less than 'ideal'.

      Irrelevant if it's ideal or not if it happens anyway.

      As I understand it, our ferrous core spinning at slightly different speed creates our Van Alen Belts to protect from solar wind.

      But that doesn't make life possible, it only makes it more convenient.

      We have an asteroid belt that has protected us from undoubtedly billions of asteroids over the millennial of Earths existence.

      We've been hit by some big mofos though, and there's still life here (albeit different from before.) Also asteroid belts may be very common, we're just now starting to be able to detect "earthlike" planets meaning those within an order of magnitude of earth's size or so, let alone rocks.

      Our tidal locked moon pulls on the oceans causing the Earth to continue spinning at a proper speed to maintain life.

      Given that we don't know if that is even necessary, since we have a sample size of one solar system and only one planet really well-known, I'm not sure why you bothered with that either.

      The problem with all of your assertions is that we have a sample size of one. The only planet we can be absolutely sure about bearing life is Earth. We can be pretty sure about some other bodies in the system, like our moon. But we haven't even done a good survey for life on any other planet in this system! There's definitely the possibility for life on Mars, but we haven't even checked there.

      For all we know, there might be some organizing factor (some initial constant, if you prefer) that means that most solar systems contain earthlike planets, and that most earthlike planets harbor life. We simply don't know, because our sample size is 1 planet, 1 moon, and we simply cannot draw any conclusions from that. When we've more completely cataloged a selection of other systems, then we will be able to speculate in an informed manner. Until then, it's just jerking off. If you want to know if there are or aren't aliens, no amount of speculation will help.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:The trouble is by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We also know that life exists presently in ecological niches that are far from "human ideal"; right here, there are life-forms in volcanic vents, in the depths of tar pits, at the tops of mountains and at both poles.

      The entire "life as we know it" argument needs to actually pay attention to life as we know it, because that includes residence in a considerable range of environments, and with some wildly varying nutritional and/or respiratory requirements.

      The good news is, no person's opinion on this matters one bit. If life is there, it is there, and that's the end of the story. We're not too far, technologically speaking, from being able to build an ultra wide-aperture space telescope that could trivially resolve continental details or better on a planet in the 50 or so light year range. That in turn will tell us a great deal about conditions there as recently in years as the distance in light years. A few centuries of progress should get us there (into space and building big science projects) easily, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to human history. So within a few generations, we'll know, and everyone will settle down.

      Just an IMHO, but my confidence is fairly high that not only will we find life of one kind or another, we'll find it most places that have had a stable geological history and some form of mostly medium to medium-low energy climate. Doesn't seem likely that life would find a foothold very often on planets that are mostly dead, like mars, lack an atmosphere, or are molten... but a nice mix of gases, some carbon (or who knows, maybe something else.. but we know carbon is handy), some energy exchange that isn't so violent as to kill off anything that might arise... water is important to us, but both hydrogen and oxygen are common elements, so that doesn't seem like it'd be much of a problem... yep, my money's on life FTW. :-)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    13. Re:The trouble is by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Doesn't SETI focus on a specific band of the EM spectrum that is not polluted by solar radiation and thus an obvious place for any sentient beings on another world to broadcast a signal that would allow themselves to be found?

      The follow up question being: Are we broadcasting such a signal at that frequency?

      The answers are, respectively, yes, and no. Though we have made a heck of a lot of noise at other frequencies, and the earliest of those signals are very roughly about 100 light-years out by now. They would be extremely weak and difficult to detect, though with a large enough space-based antenna system, it is certainly doable if they listen in the right direction. Signals that have gotten about 50 light years out are much more powerful; they've reached fewer stars, of course.

      I suspect that our "window" of using RF transmissions through the air will close within another century or so. There are better, more reliable things available to us such as fiber; almost incomprehensibly higher bandwidth by virtue of one fiber being able to lie next to another, not so easy when using RF, better availability, much more difficult to interfere with, more efficient in terms of energy required in use... RF just doesn't make a huge amount of sense for broadcast, and this is becoming more so every day. And I say that with a certain degree of regret, being an extra-class ham radio operator who grew up with the romance - no, really, I'm serious, romance! - of radio signals fading in and out from all over the world.

      Seems like if we're assuming whatever sentient beings out there think like us and thus we can deduce what they would do to be found, that only makes sense if it's something we would do in order to be found by other sentient life forms.

      It is what we'd do - we're not doing it for political reasons, not scientific or technical reasons. It has been proposed over and over that we broadcast; and has been turned down every time. The question is, do we want to invite visitors? It is one thing to be curious to see if you have neighbors, and to learn the answer without disturbing them or letting them know we're here; it is entirely something else to let them know we're here, or to invite them over - as unlikely as that seems given what we know of physics today. Considering that it is unlikely, it would be all the more intimidating if someone from the Sirius system, just to pluck one out of a hat, heard our signal and a day after they heard it there, they showed up here. The question is, what would they show up with if their physics are that good? All they really need is the ability to shove a few large rocks in our direction and they could go home snickering about those silly primates that used to live on Sol 3... that concerns a lot of people. Some earth species are quite aggressive and territorial, and man is one of them. Looking at our own behavior, it doesn't seem too conservative to think that the same might apply to someone else. So the politics are knotty.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    14. Re:The trouble is by hubie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you need to recheck some of your facts.

      Our solar system moves in and out of the spiral arms as well as up and down through the galactic plane. We go through the galactic plane about every 35 million years, and through the spiral arms about every 100 million years. Some postulate that these timescales coincide with various mass extinctions that occurred.

      The axial tilt of the Earth changes all the time. The tilt angle varies between 22 and 25 degrees over a period of about 41000 years. There is also precession of the orbit that happens on a 22000 year timescale. The changing tilt angle changes the severity of the seasons (length of seasons, ice ages, etc.), but it doesn't have anything to say about whether the planet could harbor life.

      There isn't anything magical about our molten core and magnetosphere. We usually expect large rocky planets to have them, so we find it unusual if a planet doesn't have a magnetosphere.

      I wouldn't say that the asteroid belt has protected us. The asteroid belt is basically a planet that either didn't form, or didn't survive. Its existence is probably one of the biggest threats to our survival on this planet. It is a race to see whether a large asteroid or comet hits our planet and wipes us out. Nobody doubts that it will happen again in the future; we just don't know when it will.

      The Moon actually causes a drag on the planet that is slowing down the Earth rotation. I don't recall hearing what an ideal rotation rate for the Earth is to sustain life.

      Once one gets their head around how many stars there are in just our own galaxy, many people consider it a given that there is life all around in the galaxy. Even if you take the most pessimistic odds for life to develop, once you multiply that by the number of stars out there it would seem to be very likely. The most famous statement of this is the Drake Equation. Of course, once you consider the extremely large distances between any two stars it is easy to come to the conclusion that all this life will not come in contact with each other (the intelligent life, that is).

    15. Re:The trouble is by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe they're way more clever than we are, and think that trying to communicate with other beings with radio waves is stupid.

      Oh, please, have you never chirped at a bird?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:The trouble is by jagdish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.
      - Arthur C. Clarke

  4. Space/Genetic Exploration by spentmiles · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder what we'll find fist: a) A planet as inhabitable by us as Earth. b) A way to genetically modify humans to adapt to currently inhospitable conditions. Maybe we'll be able to breath sulfurous air, like that found on XJ93832, which is otherwise a resort planet. I've been doing my own experiments with a homemade dutch oven. My subject/wife is quite an innovator. I think she's been altered at the genetic level several times.

    1. Re:Space/Genetic Exploration by MontyApollo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have wondered how well we could adapt to even an Earth like planet in terms of infectious agents like bacteria and viruses. Would we just have to accept higher mortality rates until our immune systems adapted over time?

      The medical science and technology might the easy part compared to interstellar travel though.

    2. Re:Space/Genetic Exploration by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      The odds of another planet harboring life that could infect us effectively are ridiculously low. Infectious agents are able to infect us that they've been around us long enough to figure out how to do it.

      --
      "'If one must live then one must die.' - oh, the truth must be funnier than this..." -- MammÃt
    3. Re:Space/Genetic Exploration by RsG · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not terribly likely that alien pathogens could harm us. Remember that most plain old fashioned terrestrial diseases are only able to infect a limited variety of hosts. HIV originated in chimps (our closest living evolutionary relatives), rabies is limited to mammals, the flu (which is versatile by viral standards) is primarily limited to mammals and birds, etc. Even diseases like malaria which spend parts of their life cycle in very different hosts (us and mosquitoes) are fairly specialized.

      Try and imagine dutch elm disease making the transition from trees to humans. Then remember that both host organisms are terrestrial - we're more closely related to trees than we would be to any alien. It's not totally impossible that some alien bacteria could, by some chance, find the human body hospitable (or vice versa), but it isn't very probable.

      Plus, the human immune system has a habit of attacking anything remotely foreign. That's why you get problems like allergies and organ rejection. If an alien organism is enough like us to pose an infection risk, then it's also most likely similar enough to trigger an immune response. And the diseases that we face today have had millions of years of evolution to prepare them for our immune system, whereas anything alien has not. So even if life elsewhere is very much like life here, it'll have the same catching up to do that we will. Admittedly pathogens evolve faster than their hosts, but then again these hosts have medical technology to make up the difference.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    4. Re:Space/Genetic Exploration by Control+Group · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's a flip side to this, of course. I have a strong suspicion that, were we ever to encounter life anywhere else, we'd turn out to be horrifyingly allergic to everything there.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    5. Re:Space/Genetic Exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      IAAMB (I am a Microbiologist), and I've heard this argument a million times from a million people that don't really understand the concept of pathogens. A few points worth mentioning:
      1. Highly infectious diseases behave that way because they jump from a species in which it has coevolved (HCV in humans, Influenza in birds, various other diseases in pigs, rats, insects, etc), and so become not-terribly-pathogenic and suddenly entered a situation where it can jump species to another host. The extreme death rate of these diseases is a direct consequence of the fact that they DIDN'T evolve in the presence of humans, and that the new host behaves in an entirely unfamiliar manner to the foreign viral strain. Killing every organism it comes across is a horrible way for a virus to survive - the ideal is to achieve a minimal killing rate such that it becomes endemic to the population, with only a small proportion falling ill and dying. As such, our hypothetical alien virus has the potential to behave in this manner, provided the alien host is biochemically similar to us in one or more of the modes of entry for the viral strain. Admittedly, this only gives the potential for a mutant strain that could mess you up, but it's the same idea as Influenza - most truly common strains can't hurt you, but repeated contact with it in close quarters can give rise to an infectious system. Now, the true argument here is that it's unlikely that these hypothetical alien species we run into will have similar cell-surface proteins or modes of entry into the body - but simply arguing that a virus cannot infect a species it's never seen is a naive and deceptive idea. The far greater danger is...
      2. Infectious microbes. The alien equivalent of bacteria, fungus, protozoa, worms, etc. It is quite likely that we will encounter a species which benefits from growing in a human-like environment, most likely some kind of warm, damp tissue bed. Find a rapidly growing strain of alien microbe which digests its food externally, mix well with a human mucus lining, and you very rapidly have the potential for a flesh eating species. Equally likely is that one of the common hormones fed out into the air by alien critters (think of the compounds produced by plants et al for communication) behaves as a carcinogen to the naive human metabolism, or acts as some kind of hormone mimic. Industry produces such compounds all the time, not to mention legitimate toxins on Earth - there's no way of saying that the air on a warm spring's day on an alien world wouldn't be lethal to us due to immediate and violent immune responses to the foreign contaminants. There are many possibilities about what alien organisms might do to us, and it's silly to think that just because we've never seen it, it won't cause some kind of mass physiological response.

    6. Re:Space/Genetic Exploration by DAtkins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, you may not get Space AIDS, but space hay-fever is gonna be a big problem. You know, until someone comes up with a space Claritin...

      In all seriousness, getting the flu isn't nearly as likely as simple anaphylactic shock.

    7. Re:Space/Genetic Exploration by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Viral particles are pretty specific, because they rely on the host to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them: the host supplies most of the DNA replication and protein synthesis equipment and all the natural resources.

      Bacteria, in contrast, do 80-100% of the work themselves. They can actively invade -- move in a directed manner -- and can physically attach themselves to cells and start doing damage. Helicobacter pylori, for instance (the bacterium that causes many ulcers) is shaped like a screw and physically screws itself into soft tissue, where it begins digesting them. Some bacteria can attack any animal that has an open wound, or others, like Clostridium perfringins, that causes gas gangrene, can do the same with any deep wound, regardless of species. I don't know of anything that can eat both plants and animals, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out about one.

      Anyway, all this misses a prime point: you need a digestive system that doesn't digest you. If it digests something entirely different, you're completely safe. An alien life form that doesn't use amino acid polymers for the structure of its digestive system, but can (for some reason) digest them into something it can eat, would dissolve humans, or any animals, like salt on slugs.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  5. Needless hype: good publicity or bad conditioning? by dtolman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    hey kids! Exciting news a planet could have life - assuming it has an atmosphere. And if it does have that atmosphere, it doesn't overheat the planet through greenhouse heating. And oh yeah, all we know about it is its orbit and mass. And it almost definitely doesn't have life. Aren't you excited?

    When the media flogs "science" stories like this, full of marginal ideas that probably aren't true are we just conditioning the public to ignore actual science as pie in the sky crap? Or does the break from Paris Hilton news stories have some tangible benefit to educating society at large?

  6. No Signals != No Life by s31523 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As part of the SETI Institute's Project Phoenix, we twice aimed large antennas in the direction of Gliese 581, hoping to pick up a signal that would bespeak technology ... Neither search turned up a signal.
    Because tiny microbes living in the soil always emit "signals". Technologically advanced life vs. life are two very different things. Jetson's like colonies would be nice to find, but honestly, we are more likely to find single cell organisms who haven't quite figured out how to build a radio tower.
    1. Re:No Signals != No Life by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, what if they don't use radio waves to communicate. I know it seems a little far fetched, but they could just have FibreOptic cables running all over the place. The only reason for radio waves is to broadcast stuff. If you have everything on demand, as i hope humans will within the next 40 years, then you don't have much use for radio waves. There's still things like cell phones that require radio waves, but I think the signal may be a little too weak to be picked up by our antennas. Also, we only invented radio less than 150 years ago. I'm sure if we found a civilization as advanced as we were in the 1800s, that it would be quite big news.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:No Signals != No Life by markbt73 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The secret is to bang the rocks together, guys.

      --
      "Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
    3. Re:No Signals != No Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only that, what if they don't use radio waves to communicate. I know it seems a little far fetched, but they could just have FibreOptic cables running all over the place. The only reason for radio waves is to broadcast stuff.

      This gets posted all the time, but it's a bit inaccurate. Radio communications isn't really what we're looking for. The brightest signals from earth are not FM stations or OTA TV channels, but RADAR. RADAR is useful in a wide range of tasks that any technological civilization will need, and is not readily approximated by any other technology. We may be phasing out broadcast television, but our radar signature has only gotten brighter and more powerful as we add radar onto planes and ships and satellites and weather stations.
        Any alien species, once it discovers radar, will not likely abandon it.

  7. Might be hell to live on... by jhsiao · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The planet is so close to the star that it's likely tidally locked so that only one side faces the sun and the other side is in eternal night. The temperature differential between the hot day side and the cold night side might cause the border to be under constant storm activity.

    A "year" where the planet rotates around the star is only 13 days. If tidally locked, a "day" is the same amount of time.

    The same tidal forces would also make any large oceans on the surface prone to immense tides. The strong tides may also result in more tectonic activity than on Earth.

    1. Re:Might be hell to live on... by dottyslashdottydot · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, if it's tidally locked, there will be no "immense tides" in the oceans. Tidally locked means the same face of the planet is always facing the star. Just like the same face of the moon faces the earth... the moon is tidally locked to the earth. On this planet, any oceans would be higher at the points closest and furthest away from the star, but unlike the earth, these 'bulges' would never move, and water levels wouldn't change much, therefore no tides, at least from the star alone. The other planets in the system would most likely have some sort of influence on that planet's oceans.

  8. Complete and Utter Failure by Rauser · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We twice aimed large antennas in the direction of Gliese 581, hoping to pick up a signal that would bespeak technology"

    The first interspace wardriving attempt thus ended in failure. The Gliesians must be hardwired.

    --
    The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load or unload go to the white zone. It's a way of life
    1. Re:Complete and Utter Failure by infinite9 · · Score: 2, Funny


      The first interspace wardriving attempt thus ended in failure. The Gliesians must be hardwired.


      Nah, they're just using appletalk just like Jeff Goldblume said. (hachoo)

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  9. Re:Needless hype: good publicity or bad conditioni by frogstar_robot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A planet of Earthlike mass in the habitable band would almost certainly have to have an atmosphere of some kind. Whether or not that atmosphere is breathable or not is another question altogether. From that distance, Venus or Mars would look pretty good to extraterrestial terran planet hunters. Masswise Venus is a near twin of earth but the surface conditions are straight out of Dante's Inferno. Mars is a shade too light to hold on to a thick O2 atmosphere and is basically a cold rusty desert. My guess is this place is apt to be more like Venus or Mars than Earth. Any chance we could talk Goldilocks into planet hunting?

  10. exciting time for astronomy by PMuse · · Score: 2

    This is easily the most exciting time period in the history of astronomy (to date). New discoveries of real interest (even to nonexperts) are being made monthly. What a marvelous time to be living!

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  11. Re:Quick... by PixelScuba · · Score: 5, Funny

    And now... Deep Thoughts ...by Jack Handey.

    "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."

  12. Re:Needless hype: good publicity or bad conditioni by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When the media flogs "science" stories like this, full of marginal ideas that probably aren't true are we just conditioning the public to ignore actual science as pie in the sky crap?
    No, we're also inspiring another generation of kids to enter scientific fields. Seriously, how much does stuff like this pique the interest of the next Goddard, or even the next rank-and-file NASA employee? Or maybe the next Branson, who is willing to spend a fortune of private funds on space-related activities (even if he does have a long-term profit incentive)?

    Sure, the hum-drum science of everyday research is important... but so too are the stories that inspire us.
    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  13. uh-oh by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    God help those poor bastards if they've got oil.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  14. They had their firewall on. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny

    No wonder SETI could not get any signal from them. They learnt their lessons. Last time they visited us on the Independance Day we uploaded a virus into their system. So they just set their modem "To ignore pings from the WAN side."

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  15. Re:So... by jae471 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    20 light years.

    At 10.8 miles/s -- the current speed of Voyager 1, 373,000 years (I rounded -- alot).

    If we can jack that up to .25c (a considerable feat), it falls to 80 years, but the crew will only age 79 years or so.

    Now, if we double that to .5c (a damn-near impossible feat), it becomes 40 years, with the crew only age 36 years, provided they don't become goo from the massive g force they will feel getting up to .5c.

  16. Let's be real... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gliese 581 is, as astronomical distances go, relatively close: only 20 light-years away. It's one of the few star systems which, if inhabited, might provoke conversation. A simple exchange, along the lines of "how are you?" followed by "fine, and you?" would require a mere four decades. Tedious, but not unthinkable.

    The actual exchange...

    EARTH: How are you?

    GLIESE 581: Sorry, we don't need Viagra. You can try the next planet over.

  17. Gliese 581 is an M class star this is bad for life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I haven't seen anyone mention this, but Gliese 581 is an M-class dwarf. There's serious concerns about the habitability this entire class of star. They have large magnetic fields and are subject to very large solar flares which could exterminate life within their solar system. More details available:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_dwarf#Habitability

  18. Atmospheric layers... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The real question about supporting life is not only breathable air, but also the surrounding belts that insulate a planet from intense radiation. Ozone layer, Van Allen Belts, and the like are just as - if not more important - than a breathable atmosphere.

    PLUS planet tilt.

    And distance.
    And possibly rotation speed.

    I'm not saying that life exists anywhere else...just that the odds are against it. Maybe.

  19. Re:kill the aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "i could care less about aliens, i really couldn't. "

    Ok, which is it? could you care less, or could you not care less?

  20. Not a problem by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Viruses are DNA specific, most can't even swap between species on Earth.

    Bacteria are slightly worse. The ones that cause us trouble tend to be highly specialized, which of course wouldn't be a problem on another planet. But there are also generalist. Most likely, our natural defense would have no trouble with those, but we could be unlucky.

    The defense is also the largest problem, we would not be a good food source for the native life, but neither would the native life provide the necessary nutrients for us. We would at least need a supplement of Earth based life forms. And the Earth based life forms would be unlikely to be able to compete with the native life forms, so a sustainable colony would be a challenge.

  21. Re:kill the aliens by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Funny
    kill the little green men, wipe them out, colonize.



    Well, I'm pretty sure the little green men will do one of the following:



    a) Disable our colony ships main computer with a computer virus written quickly by one of their hacker geniuses and then hit it with a nuclear warhead while our colonists are waiting for Windows to boot up again.

    b) Find out that a very common, harmless (to them) substance on their planet is highly toxic to us humans and douse any unwelcome visitor with it.

    c) Realize that their equivalent of the common cold is a deadly plague for humans.

    d) Send in the little green men in black to take care of the human invasion, then mind-wipe any innocent bystanders.

    e) Travel back in time and keep Earth from forming.

  22. Re:The Real Question Is... by kennylogins · · Score: 2, Funny

    If they're anything like us, they may have detected us about 35 years ago, but cut funding on the transmitter to build interstellar nukes. Cause yuo know, there's only one way to be sure.

  23. Re:Afraid by lahvak · · Score: 3, Funny

    If they are really clever, why would they watch our TV?

    --
    AccountKiller
  24. That means... by Mahjub+Sa'aden · · Score: 2, Funny

    That means we'll have to go there twice?

    Dammit. I've only got one FTL drive, and it took me a good twenty-five years of watching Star Trek to build that one!

    --
    What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
  25. Anthropomorphize much? by zoips · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'd be cool if someone would come up with a more interesting argument than we're perfect, everything here is perfect, so it's the only way to go. It's a good logical starting point, go with what you know, but claiming that life on Earth is the only way to go because that's how it works here is, well, basically begging the question, and last I heard, logical fallacies are bad.

    1. Re:Anthropomorphize much? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Hey! You're not allowed to use 'begging the question' correctly on Slashdot!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  26. SETI is a joke by dsanfte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SETI is looking for a ridiculously-strong, directed signal. Basically someone would have to have a transmitter with unheard-of wattage pointed right at the earth for us to detect it with the Aracaibo telescope.

    Basically, if the Aracaibo telescope were on Gliese and were pointed at Earth, it wouldn't detect us. Until the SETI project gets a better telescope, the fact that we didn't detect anything coming from Gliese when we pointed one of our ground-based radio telescopes at it only means they aren't stupid enough to spend a billion dollars to build a 20MW directional transmitter, point it right at the earth, and leave it blasting for thousands of years hoping we'd give a listen.

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
  27. Catholic church believes in alien life by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You won't believe this but...

    In 2001 a polish nun call Sister Faustina, who had died in 1939 I think, was made a saint (canonized). As far as I know canonization is an infallible statement that the person went to heaven and led a life of exceptional saintliness.

    In her diaries (which she was instructed to keep by her superiours) Jesus Christ appears numerous times. At one point he says that the universe is teeming with life, and it would be arrogant of us to think that it is only our planet that had life, or words to that effect.

    Now because she is canonized that effectively means that the content of her diaries, while not themselves being proclaimed infallible, are approved of nevertheless.

    The diaries also claim that Hitler was not the Anti-Christ, and that the Anti-Christ was already living. I would bet on Stalin.

    As a result of this nun and her visions of Christ the Catholic Church instituted the Feast Of the Divine Mercy on the sunday after Easter sunday. Apparently if we don't ask God for His mercy we must eventually glorify His justice instead (ie. eternal punishment). And that message was the purpose of Jesus's appearances. Google for "Saint Faustina" for more info.

    1. Re:Catholic church believes in alien life by buzzzz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is an acceptable theory as long as those who have faith understand that god reveals himself to different people in lots of different ways and accept that those other ways are equal to their own. Which is why we have religions that are so different.

      The western concept of God as being capable of taking on a human form and revealing himself is completely alien to my own religion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism. As long as all believers accept that while religions talk about god in human terms to make the idea easy to understand, if god really exists its form transcends our own understanding and thus all forms of faith are equal, our world will be a better place.

      Oh, what the hell. Just a rant.

    2. Re:Catholic church believes in alien life by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, broadly. Even Catholics, the most prescriptive of Christians, allow for that (again broadly speaking). For example an american bishop was excommunicated (excluded from the Church) in 1948 for insisting you could only go to heaven if you were a member of the *visible* Catholic Church, something the Catholic Church has never taught. You can only be saved through Jesus Christ (which it does teach), but technically you don't have to know the name "Jesus Christ" or have heard of the bible to be saved: but you do have to assent to His spirit, how ever it manifests.

      Also look at "Invincible Ignorance" for more loopholes.

      However, pantheism is not at all the same as the above. It's the belief that all is God. Which christians have always rejected. Rather christians believe that God divinises us by uniting himself to us (eventually so that we "enter in to the joy of God"), but we have to assent to that, an assent which means faithfully living to a basic standard of conduct, particularly when it comes to personal integrity - aka self-control, and not behaving like simple animals. The horrible irony of the Adam and Eve story is that the devil tempted them with "becoming like God", but God was going to do that anyway, the right way.

  28. Re:Afraid by rmadmin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thats theft of service! The MPAA and FCC would be all over them! :)

  29. Re:Gliese 581 is an M class star this is bad for l by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's serious concerns about the habitability this entire class of star. They have large magnetic fields and are subject to very large solar flares which could exterminate life within their solar system.

    Being that the planet is larger than Earth, the hope would be that it has a thicker atmosphere to help shield from magnetic storms. Any life may also be adapted to take cover during flair-ups.

    Actually, I saw a computer-generated show on I think Discovery channel about just such a world. They figured a tidally-locked earth-like planet would have a permananent red-spot-like storm on it's star-facing side.

  30. Re:Needless hype: good publicity or bad conditioni by frogstar_robot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Earthlike mass implies Earthlike gravity. A planet with a gravity well of that intensity at the range of temperatures encountered in the "habitable band" will hold on to most of the gases that accompany its formation as well as being able to capture some of the gases it enounters as it orbits (which will pile up a bit over the eons) as well as some fraction of ejecta from asteroid and comet hits. Note well, I didn't specify what sort of atmosphere. In the absence of life as we know it, we're talking things like CO2, N2, Methane, and whole other slew of things with similar molecular weights.

    Look at our own solar system. Mars and Venus and a whole slew of gas giant moons have atmospheres. Given the gravity and energy input from it's star, you really have to stand this on it's head. You'd have to justify why it wouldn't have an atmosphere.

  31. My argument against this reasoning by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My argument against this line of reasoning is always the same.

    Sure, space aliens from planet X that came to visit us would have to be be way more advanced than us. Sure they could wipe us out in a heartbeat.

    But, why would they bother?

    Why would a race so far advanced, bother to travel so far just to wipe ot some inconsequential race? There is nothing we would have that they would want. Any resources available on Earth they would be able to harvest from any number of other places closer and more convenient given their technology.

    It would be like you traveling from the US to Hong Kong to squash an annoying moth. Sure you *can* do it but why on earth would you ever bother? If you are going on such a trip it is far more likely that you are a scientist going to STUDY the moth than it is that you are going to kill it for no reason.