Slashdot Mirror


Carbon Dioxide and Water Found On Exoplanet

Off the Rails writes "The BBC reports that evidence has been found for both water vapour and carbon dioxide on a planet 63 light years away. The planet is a 'hot Jupiter' with a surface temperature of 1173K and an orbital period of just 53 hours. The gases were found spectroscopically once its orbit had been deduced from observation. NASA hailed the news as proof that Kepler will be able to do its job of finding planets capable of supporting life." Wikipedia also has an entry on the planet, dubbed HD 189733b.

151 comments

  1. Well.... by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our new 1173 Kelvin alien overlords!

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    1. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      There must have been a lot of SUV's to make the planet so hot!

    2. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I for one welcome our new 1173 Kelvin alien overlords!"

      {In_A_Homer_Simpson_Voice} "Mmmm.... Deep fried overlords!." {/In_A_Homer_Simpson_Voice}

    3. Re:Well.... by isBandGeek() · · Score: 1

      Just a computer running Vista, 'tis all.

    4. Re:Well.... by mog007 · · Score: 1

      The CO2 could be a big deal, but water? Seriously? Water? It's the second most abundant molecule in the fucking universe, and that's supposed to be a big deal? Am I missing something?

  2. Doxide? by dafrazzman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seriously?

    --
    My preferred name is frazz, but someone keeps taking it. If you see him, tell him I said hi.
    1. Re:Doxide? by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Did you bother to look up that word before complaining?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Doxide? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia agrees with him. He must be right.

    3. Re:Doxide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you bother to look up that word before complaining?

      Did you bother to read the summary before bothering to ask him if he bothered to look up the word?

      The BBC reports that evidence has been found for both water vapour and carbon dioxide on a planet 63 light years away. The planet is a 'hot Jupiter' with a surface temperature of 1173K and an orbital period of just 53 hours. The gases were found spectroscopically once its orbit had been deduced from observation. NASA hailed the news as proof that Kepler will be able to do its job of finding planets capable of supporting life."

      Oh, I forgot. This is slashdot, one cannot be arsed to read the summary before they flame (even if it's flame over a trivial typo which will be fixed in the article title by the time 99% of the people read this message).

    4. Re:Doxide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you bother to remember this is /.?

    5. Re:Doxide? by dafrazzman · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, I guess I foolishly assumed it was a spelling error. Then I googled it. Slashdot has the 3rd result (as of now). There's no wikipedia entry. Googling "doxide definition" gives no relevant results. Please, enlighten me on this definition. It appears you are in the know on this obscure term.

      --
      My preferred name is frazz, but someone keeps taking it. If you see him, tell him I said hi.
    6. Re:Doxide? by geekoid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      oh, I didn't look it up either, I was just yanking his chain. Apparently a level of humor too subtle for /.~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Doxide? by geekoid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      his = yours.
       

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Doxide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After a negative response to a completely unfunny "joke": blame the audience. Yeah, okay. Andy Kaufman you ain't.

    9. Re:Doxide? by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, Doxide. It's what you get when you use inline markup in your IronPython source code to generate HTML documentation ;)

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    10. Re:Doxide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, English is not my first language. Can you explain the humor in your joke?

    11. Re:Doxide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know the power of the Doxide!

    12. Re:Doxide? by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

      One cannot explain what does not exist, unless one is a theoretical physicist.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    13. Re:Doxide? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Doxide is what Jack the Ripper did.

  3. 1173K! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's really.um hot? oh wait, kelvin measure cold. no. wait.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:1173K! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, that's 1,651.73 Fahrenheit/899.85 Celsius according to Google. Almost cozy.

    2. Re:1173K! by d3ac0n · · Score: 3, Informative

      1175 K = 902 C = 1655.6 F

      Really damn hot.

      "That's LORD Kelvin to you!" - Adam Savage

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    3. Re:1173K! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you need is good suntan lotion.

    4. Re:1173K! by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 2, Funny

      1175 K = 902 C = 1655.6 F Really damn hot.

      Yeah, it is. Almost as hot as Bakersfield in August, even.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    5. Re:1173K! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1175 K = 902 C = 1655.6 F Really damn hot.

      Yeah, it is. Almost as hot as Bakersfield in August, even.

      Baaaaazing!

    6. Re:1173K! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1175 K = 902 C = 1655.6 F

      Really damn hot.

      "That's LORD Kelvin to you!" - Adam Savage

      It's nippy.

    7. Re:1173K! by Threni · · Score: 5, Funny

      640k ought to be enough for anyone.

      All we need now is some sodastream flavouring and we're sorted!

    8. Re:1173K! by thedonger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Suntan lotion won't stop you from getting baked; it will just leave your corpse without that nice, crispy skin. I say don't fight it and lather up with butter, salt, and pepper.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    9. Re:1173K! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know.
      It's just funny that in the public US media, Kelvin is usually only used when talking about temperatures close to absolute Zero.
      I was just being goofy given the usually media reference.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:1173K! by RodgerDodger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hotter than Hell, but considerably cooler than Heaven.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    11. Re:1173K! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Suntan lotion won't stop you from getting baked

      Nothing stops me from getting baked.

    12. Re:1173K! by Godji · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was going to give you a +1 Funny for the 640K reference (pure genius!), but then I wrote this to explain why I was going to do mod you up. Tough luck.

    13. Re:1173K! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honey gives a nice crispy crus... er tan.

      Plus it's kinda kinky!

    14. Re:1173K! by fireman+sam · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing stops me from lathering up with butter, salt, and pepper.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    15. Re:1173K! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it's a dry heat

    16. Re:1173K! by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      Or a light layer of brown sugar to get a creme brulee effect.

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
  4. They also observed by ChienAndalu · · Score: 0

    space aliens flying around in SUVs.

    1. Re:They also observed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Space Utility Vehicles? Man, I would love to get my hands on one of them, too.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:They also observed by EZLeeAmused · · Score: 1

      That explains the greenhouse gas (CO2) and global warming (1173K)

      --
      Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
    3. Re:They also observed by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      At this point, aren't they all SUVs?

      Those that have the capacity to reach orbit that is.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
  5. Doxide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an article from the BBC so I can only imagine that's how they spell Dioxide; just like vapour, colour, and staupping.

    1. Re:Doxide by CompMD · · Score: 3, Funny

      Doxide is what you get when Linux documentation geeks consume Doxygen.

    2. Re:Doxide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Apple documentation geeks consume Doxygen and produce Carbon Doxide.

  6. Really? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NASA hailed the news as proof that Kepler will be able to do its job of finding planets capable of supporting life.

    So the announcement about the discovery of a planet not capable of supporting life... is proof that Hubble's replacement will be able to find planets that will support life?

    1. Re:Really? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm not sure how they can extrapolate from a hot jupiter situation to a terrestrial world in the liquid water zone. We can only just barely detect terestrial planets as it is, and even when we can detect them it's only because of special circumstances.

      Is Hubble's replacement really that much better that we can safely say it is sensitive enough to do what Hubble can do, except a few orders of magnitude better?

      As a side note, the wikipedia article also mentions that methane was detected. Wasn't finding water and methane in the same place once the litmus test for life on exoplanets? Apparently that needs to be re-examined, or we need to imagine a way that life is possible in the 1000k temperature range.

    2. Re:Really? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How do you know this planet isn't teaming with life?
      --
        IP net address Finding

    3. Re:Really? by moteyalpha · · Score: 1

      The fact that the temperature curve is high is just a side effect of the huge rocket they launched at us at almost the speed of light. But they are 63 light years away and so I'm not scared of no stinking aliens, oh wait, if they are at near light and the image is 63 years old, they could be here any minute. Instead, I want to welcome .... On a serious note the correlation of three points of data is hardly enough to form any real conclusions, but it does allow the possibility boundaries to include the possibility that the gases are associated with life. I would think that enough carbon dioxide to register at 63LY must be massive.

    4. Re:Really? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Wasn't finding water and methane in the same place once the litmus test for life on exoplanets?"

      Methane & Oxygen.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Really? by Godji · · Score: 1

      This whole discussion leaves me to ask this one basic question:

      What is life? How do we define it?

      Let's get our terms clear, and then we can argue about whether we can find life elsewhere.

    6. Re:Really? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I'm sure "habitable (for us)" would have been a better description of what they hope to accomplish.

    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the word is teeming you fuckwit, and get rid of the fucking advert you're pasting into your posts as well.

  7. Awesome! by chrelad · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Cool, good find! Will definitely be keeping an eye on this one. Thanks again for the great article. Chrelad

  8. In a related story... by kaizendojo · · Score: 1, Funny

    .. Bush has ordered troops to liberate the planet and then declare "Mission Accomplished" in a desperate attempt to secure a 'legacy' *somewhere* in this galaxy.

    1. Re:In a related story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, flamebait much?

  9. Capable of supporting life? by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 3, Informative
    1173 kelvin = 1 651.73 degrees Fahrenheit

    NASA hailed the news as proof that Kepler will be able to do its job of finding planets capable of supporting life.

    I guess all you need to support life these days is water vapor and carbon dioxide. Never mind that the planet is hotter than the surface of some stars.

    1. Re:Capable of supporting life? by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah.... that was my thought too. If you start throwing ideas out there about "new life forms that would thrive in that temperature range" -- why not postulate about ones that don't require an atmosphere or "breathing" at all? Seems just as possible to me.

    2. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn in your card.

      You are confusing life with human life.

    3. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      NASA hailed the news as proof that Kepler will be able to do its job of finding planets capable of supporting life.

      So he isn't dead?

    4. Re:Capable of supporting life? by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

      The temperature of a gas giant has little meaning since it increases with depth.
      Since there is little to no "surface" there are just different temperatures at different altitudes.

      For example, there is perfectly comfortable weather on Venus at a certain altitude, around 50 km... just not at the surface.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Explodicle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering the top limit for hyperthermophiles here on Earth is 250 degrees F, it's not just human life that couldn't survive there. If we're going to assume it's life unlike anything we've ever seen before, then why do you think the presence of water or CO2 will help?

    6. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What NASA meant was that this shows that Keppler can successfully detect carbon dioxide and water on exoplanets, not that this planet in particular would be capable of supporting life.

      In some time they might find one that's a little cooler (though earth-size planets are still a lot harder to find than jupiter-size ones).

    7. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, we found stuff living at the boiling point of water here. Why is it so hard to keep an open mind for the chance that something more exotic than we have found so far on this hunk of dirt exists out there?

      As for hotter than the surface of some stars? That's a bit misleading. There are thermal vents on our planet hotter than the surface of some stars if you count the same stars you are referring to - and that's not exactly mind-blowing.

      In other news. Temperatures hotter than the surface of stars used in everyday dessert cooking!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    8. Re:Capable of supporting life? by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      PV=nRT

      Yes, water at 1600ÂF is just vapor here on earth, but it could be liquid (or ice!) on a gas giant.

      Or there could be large currents of cooler fluid at the poles, maybe.

      It probably isn't anything life could be sustained in, but there is more potential than has been ruled out.

    9. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we found stuff living at the boiling point of water here. Why is it so hard to keep an open mind for the chance that something more exotic than we have found so far on this hunk of dirt exists out there?

      Because the boiling point of water and 1173K are kinda far apart.
      At that temp, quite a few metals have trouble too.

      If we're going to lower the bar that far on what's needed to support life, then why not just assume life is everywhere? Even empty space and the surface of the sun should be infested.

       

    10. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is so wrong about life surviving in space?

      Isn't it possible that a life form could someday evolve the ability to survive in space, clean up cell-damage efficiently and live off radiation and eat up space rocks?
      It isn't out of the realm of impossibility, just unlikely.
      Something large enough can survive pretty much anything thrown at it, if it can repair the damage quickly enough.

      Think about it, this lifeform would barely require anything to move around.
      If, in emergency, it could release "something" just in case it needed to move out of the way from a planet or whatever else.
      Solar winds would be like an "all you eat" for them.

      It would probably be more likely to be developed by another life form artificially, though.
      The hurdles to go from a planet into space are extremely unlikely to be passed by a life form naturally, mainly on planets with large gravity. (such as Earth)

    11. Re:Capable of supporting life? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Kepler is a space telescope designed to look for planets that transit their stars from our point of view.

      It's been well established by ground telescopes that you can detect planets, including fairly small planets and ones in quite distant orbits using this method.

      It's now been established that you can get reasonable spectra of transiting planets through this subtraction method.

      Thus, Kepler, which detects planets that transit their stars, should be able to detect planets that are the right size and in the right orbit for life, and should ALSO be able to obtain spectra so their composition can be determined.

      Thus, Kepler should be able to detect planets where life is possible, or even likely.

    12. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      I am not saying that life HAS to be there. My point is that I am not going to rule it out based on things I don't understand that well.

      As for life in empty space? Give me a reason of why microbes could not exist on an asteroid floating in space?

      I kind of doubt that there would be enough of anything other than gasses on the surface of a sun, no matter how cool, which would lead me to think that there weren't enough elements present to form even the most basic of organisms, but hey, maybe one day in the future we will, yet again, make a new discover that will show us we were wrong in the past. I mean, we seem to do that a lot with new discoveries. Backtracking on previous "understandings" that is.

      Lets just not rule things out with too thick a marker eh?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    13. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      At that temp, quite a few metals have trouble too.

      There are five metals on that list that have a melting point lower than the boiling point of water. What's your point? Yes, it's really, really hot at 1173K. I get that, but I don't get why that HAS to rule out ANY form of life that we haven't discovered, imagined or conceptualized.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    14. Re:Capable of supporting life? by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      They're not saying that the planet in question will support life. They're saying that Kepler is able to determine, at inter-stellar distances, the components of the atmosphere. So if, for example, they point Kepler at a planet that happens to have a large amount of free oxygen (which would be a strong indicator of the presence of life), then Kepler would probably be able to say "Yes, there's oxygen there".

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    15. Re:Capable of supporting life? by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Well of course any life on Earth couldn't live there, it evolved on earth and as such is not accustomed to any other environment. Just as any life on this planet has evolved there and couldn't survive on Earth.

      The fixation with CO2 and other substances that are needed for life on Earth has always confounded me. I suppose they might be searching for life that is at least somewhat similar to what we're familiar with.
      But what would stop life from evolving on a planet without CO2? It may not be in any way similar to life as we know it, but it may still be life.

    16. Re:Capable of supporting life? by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      why not postulate about ones that don't require an atmosphere or "breathing" at all?

      No need to postulate.

    17. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be a planet full of hot bitches. They are probably hot-to-trot with cool dudes like ourselves.

    18. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Bartab · · Score: 1

      How the hell is Venus an example for something that starts out "The temperature of a gas giant..."

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    19. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Talar · · Score: 1

      NASA never said anything about this planet being able to support life. The good news is that the methods used in finding this planet and determine the atmospheric contents could lead to much more interesting finds in the future.

    20. Re:Capable of supporting life? by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      Usually we are interested in the surface temperature of a planet but if consider different levels in the atmosphere there is a large temperature range. The surface temperature of venus is [lots], the temperature of this exoplanet somewhere - but probably not at the surface since that is poorly defined for gas giants - is [bigger lots]. However, if you move up through the atmosphere of any planet it gets colder, so as there is a temperate atmospheric range somewhere above the surface of venus there also should be a temperate range somewhere in the atmosphere of this gas giant.

      Think of the two planets as cars if that helps.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    21. Re:Capable of supporting life? by BradleyAndersen · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there is no "comfortable weather" on Venus at any altitude, what with the incessant lightening storms and constant (real) acid rain.

    22. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      As Sagan said, "Characteristically, willy-nilly, we seem compelled to project our own nature onto Nature." I agree--who knows what could exist out there? At least that's how I like to think it.

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    23. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Kentari · · Score: 1

      PV=nRT

      Yes, water at 1600ÂF is just vapor here on earth, but it could be liquid (or ice!) on a gas giant.

      Nope, it couldn't 1600 degrees F is well above the critical temperature of water. You can't speak about liquids above this temperature, let alone solids. At the bottom of the ocean the pressure goes up to 1200 atmosphere, while the temperature is not much higher than 4 degrees C - it is still liquid.

      If you push hard enough, you might get something like metallic hydrogen, but by then you long left the realm of normal matter and temperatures where molecules form (which most scientists agree are needed for life). At least in space, where you can only reach those pressures by packing a lot of matter together, which tends to get really hot.

    24. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever hear of Black Smokers? Google 'em. They support life at much higher temperatures than that and at higher pressures as well.

    25. Re:Capable of supporting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bullshit. That doesn't mean water can't exist at that temperature. It just means water and water vapour are indistinguishable.

      At the bottom of the ocean the pressure goes up to 1200 atmosphere, while the temperature is not much higher than 4 degrees C - it is still liquid.

      So what? The temperature could be much higher. Indeed near geothermal vents, it is.

  10. Um No. by DarthVain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "NASA hailed the news as proof that Kepler will be able to do its job of finding planets capable of supporting life."

    Seeing as it can only seem to spot super massive planets the size of Jupiter or larger, this will likely not help one whit.

    Is it a good first step? Sure.

    So there is water vapor and CO2? Big deal. It is also over 1000 degrees K, a bit hot no? It is also not solid, sometimes a problem. It is also frickin huge, so unless you want to transform yourself into a diamond due to being crushed by unbelievable pressures, you may want to look else where.

    To my understanding (which may be limited) this stuff is figured out by observing the "wobble" of light from a star. This is apparently caused by small gravitational effects caused by planetary bodies. How they get composition I am not entirely sure. However it seems that unless your planetary body is of a significant mass, the "wobble" isn't as easily seen. Which is why we are getting news about a super massive hot Jupiter being proof that a technology will fulfill its roll in finding planets suitable for life.

    Perhaps they mean to do it by subtraction. Simply identify all those that are unsuitable, subtract that from the total, and what you are left are bountiful earth like paradises with green amazon women.

    1. Re:Um No. by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm of the opinion that spending billions of dollars on searching for ET life is silly, but in this article's [or the summary thereof] defense, it didn't say THIS planet was habitable. My reading was that they simply proved (presumably) that they were able to find out if water and CO2 exists on a planet.

    2. Re:Um No. by enharmonix · · Score: 1

      How they get composition I am not entirely sure.

      If I had to take a shot in the dark, I'd guess spectrum analysis. This is /. though so I naturally have not read the article before replying. :)

    3. Re:Um No. by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Okay, to give you a little more info (in a hurried fashion, as I am at work and should be peeking into a database right now)...

      Yes, they do discover most planets through the wobble method, however, when they have this information, they can actually start to look at the planets themselves. Once you know it's there, and you know the orbit, you can stop looking at the wobble and focus on where the planet is you see.

      As for working out composition, it's called gas chromatography. Here is a brief history of it :)

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    4. Re:Um No. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your understanding is incorrect.

      Kepler is designed to detect planets that transit their parent stars. That is, the planet passes directly in front of the star from our point of view. That causes the perceived brightness of the start to decrease a little when the planet passes in front.

      Kepler is expected to be able to detect Earth-sized planets. Since the planet passes directly in front of the star, you can measure changes in the spectra from the system as the planet passes in front. By subtracting the star - planet and the star + planet measurements, you can get an idea of the composition of the planet's atmosphere.

    5. Re:Um No. by Samah · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they mean to do it by subtraction. Simply identify all those that are unsuitable, subtract that from the total, and what you are left are bountiful earth like paradises with green amazon women.

      From "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe":

      It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    6. Re:Um No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Observing the parent-star wobble is the oldest way to find exoplanets, and is still a primary tool. In addition, it is now possible to observe the change in a star's spectrum as a planet passes in front of it. Decreases in the intensity of a certain spectral line can indicate that the planet's atmosphere is absorbing at that wavelength, and of course from wavelength you get chemical species.

      To my knowlege, that's how they can say that the planet has CO2 in its atmosphere, and the same technique may be one day used to detect oxygen, which would pretty unambiguously point to life.

    7. Re:Um No. by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.

      This is where that argument falls apart...

    8. Re:Um No. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Perhaps...

      However there remains the fact that they are trying to say their method is proof because of this find. The find being a super massive hot Jupiter.

      So I am calling BS.

      When they use the method to find a world, that is at least in the same category as earth sized, then I might start giving what they say some credence. As it stands, it doesn't really matter of they use a smelloscope to find the world, if it can only find the really big ones, it is quite useless if the purpose is to find habitable worlds.

    9. Re:Um No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnily enough, this passage came up when I was talking with my cousin last night. You're right, it falls apart. If, say, one third of the planets were inhabited then they wouldn't all be inhabited, but 1/3 of infinity is still an infinite amount. This never occurred to me until last night... wonder if Adams ever knew he was wrong.

    10. Re:Um No. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Well, no. The summary said NASA was hailing it as "proof."

      What the article says is:

      Although the agency is keen to stress the planet is far too hot to support life, it says the finding represents an important proof of concept, showing that it is possible to detect CO2 in the atmospheres of distant planets orbiting other stars, and that the same method could be used to look at planets which might support life.

      (bold mine)

      "Proof of concept" is a very different thing than "proof" and it turns out NASA wasn't even applying the term to detecting habitable planets anyway. As usual, the Slashdot summary is not only misleading but flat out wrong.

  11. The article says differently... by Suisho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Although they are keen to stress the planet is far too hot to support life, they say the finding represents an important proof of concept, showing that it is possible to detect CO2 in the atmospheres of distant planets orbiting other stars, and that the same method could be used to look at planets which might support life."

    1. Re:The article says differently... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Differently than what? The summary? No. The summary says the same thing. The only thing missing is stressing that this planet cannot support life. The summary does not claim that this planet can support life. Only that it demonstrates that Kepler will be able to find planets which can. Which is the same thing the article says.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  12. Error bars? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1, Interesting

    whats the point in putting error bars on spectrum if your just going to ignore them?
    spectrum of HD 189733b
    Surely the line has to go through those points, so either thier detector is broken and there should be huge error bars OR there is a major peaks at ~10, ~12, in fact the only place where the spectrum seams to be a reasonable fit is in the useless tail end where the error bars are huge.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  13. Kepler is not Hubble's replacement by StupendousMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    So the announcement about the discovery of a planet not capable of supporting life... is proof that Hubble's replacement will be able to find planets that will support life?

    Kepler will be a small telescope (about 1 meter) in orbit, with the sole mission of looking at a few fixed areas on the sky and searching for planets by the transit method: take thousands of pictures and look for stars which become dimmer for a few hours due to a planet crossing their disks. This small mission will launch in spring 2009 and is NOT a replacement for HST.

    The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is Hubble's replacement. It will be much larger (with a mirror around 6.5 meters in diameter) and carry out many, many different types of observations. This mission will launch, uh, some time around 2013, if all goes well.

    --
    Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
    mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
    1. Re:Kepler is not Hubble's replacement by Kratisto · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which it won't, because we're all going to die in 2012 when the Ancient Mayans, resurrected by the Antichrist, Barack Obama go to the LHC and use it to create black holes and stranglets.

      ... Right?

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    2. Re:Kepler is not Hubble's replacement by excesspwr · · Score: 1

      Kepler will be a small telescope (about 1 meter) in orbit

      Only a 1 meter orbit?

      *ducks*

    3. Re:Kepler is not Hubble's replacement by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Which it won't, because we're all going to die in 2012 when the Ancient Mayans, resurrected by the Antichrist, Barack Obama go to the LHC and use it to create black holes and stranglets.

      Duude! Where is that quest in Northrend?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    4. Re:Kepler is not Hubble's replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling the Webb Hubble's replacement is a nice PR trick as it does not cover the same spectrum. Astronomy will be loosing any space based observatories that cover the bluer and violet end of Hubble.

    5. Re:Kepler is not Hubble's replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, they shouldn't replace the Hubble. I mean... it's the Hubble! Replace it with Hubble II, that would be fine, because it's not changing the name. Everyone knows the Hubble is a huge orbiting telescope. James Webb is just kid I knew in high school who turned out to be an arsehole.

      Long live the Hubble!

    6. Re:Kepler is not Hubble's replacement by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      My failometer just redlined.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  14. Creative naming by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wikipedia also has an entry on the planet, dubbed HD 189733b.

    Notice that astronomers are not typically confused with the lives of the party.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Creative naming by Bemopolis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, notice that our stars are in HD. We're early adopters!

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  15. Proof? by crossmr · · Score: 0

    Proof would be when someone goes there and verifies the findings..

    1. Re:Proof? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      In this case, I think the word "proof" is being applied to the ability of the Kepler photometer to detect life-supporting compounds on exoplanets, not that the planets themselves can support life.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    2. Re:Proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof would be when someone goes there and verifies the findings..

      Volunteering?

    3. Re:Proof? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      But how can we be sure of that until someone goes there to check that it returned the correct results?

    4. Re:Proof? by utnapistim · · Score: 1

      But how can we be sure of that until someone goes there to check that it returned the correct results?

      Consistency; As our ability to measure remotely grows, we can do more tests. If the results are inconsistent, we'll have to come up with new theories.

      In other words, we can't be sure, but we can make reasonable assumptions.

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    5. Re:Proof? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Which isn't proof...proof is something which is 100% irrefutable.

  16. C02 and H20... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That exoplanet's got what plants crave!

  17. Are you sure? by TheNecromancer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are they sure that someone didn't spill soda pop on the lens, when they took the measurements? Hmm, this spectroscopic analysis seems remarkably like the spectrum of Pepsi.

    Unless, of course, our new alien overlords also drink Pepsi!

    --
    Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
    1. Re:Are you sure? by hansraj · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, our new alien overlords also drink Pepsi!

      At that temperature I doubt they would be "drinking" it.

    2. Re:Are you sure? by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Wait for the lawsuit from Coca-Cola.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    3. Re:Are you sure? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Hold on there! Might not be Pepsi. They haven't ruled out the presence of scotch yet.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  18. 1173K? by Maajid · · Score: 1

    I believe I speak for everyone when I quote a certain Ms. Hilton on this one: "That's hot!"

  19. Water vapor and carbon dioxide? Call Al Gore! by PrimeWaveZ · · Score: 1

    Maybe they fucked up their planet big time and bailed. Wonder where they went? Maybe we can get someone to educate them on the problems of abusing the environment and temper the fever their old planet has so they don't mess up another one.

    Or, maybe they just bought too many carbon credits from the Kang and Kodos Intergalactic Planting Company.

  20. And this is important why? by No2Gates · · Score: 0

    So we can find a water molecule on a planet a quadrillion miles away, but can't find Osama Bin Laden here on Earth? Yeah, THAT makes sense.

    --
    Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
    1. Re:And this is important why? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Thus proving that scientists are smarter than Dubya

  21. I for one welcome... by CountZer0(QAW) · · Score: 1

    ...our doxide and water vapour overlourds...

  22. So, when are they going to find something ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    ... really interesting?

    Water and CO2 are substances that pretty much form all by themselves, from very common elements. Wake me up when they find stuff that wouldn't occur on a "dead" world (oxygen/fluorine/chlorine, for example).

  23. now we can keep wrecking this planet without fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's terrific, what a break for us. hopefully, our new planet will have all the conveniences pre-installed before we have to move there.

  24. Quick! Look busy, Obama is coming by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    " NASA hailed the news as proof that Kepler will be able to do its job of finding planets capable of supporting life."

     
    Somebody's trying to avoid funding cuts from the new administration ;) I'm looking at you NASA.

    --
    If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
  25. CO2, if present, is the real news by swimsaturn · · Score: 2, Informative
    The presence of water vapor in an object like HD 189733b is not remarkable: water has been detected in the spectra of brown dwarfs, in the giant planets of our own solar system, and the transiting exoplanet HD209458b.

    Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a surprise: at the temperatures and pressures encountered in an exoplanet atmosphere of this type, all carbon should be present as methane (if cool enough) or carbon monoxide. Giant planet atmospheres are generally far too hydrogen-rich for CO2 to form in any appreciable quantity. So its detection requires an extra-ordinary explanation for its origin.

    Here is a Nature preprint from the same research group, describing H2O, CH4, and CO detection. I was hoping to find a research article (and not just a news story or press release) describing CO2 detection, but haven't found any yet...

  26. Happened a while ago. by Zelda+Death · · Score: 1

    The story should probably mention that this is just confirmation of findings from back in Summer of '07 (July 11, 2007 according to Wikipedia). Before I realized that I was staring at the article for a long time going "what? That happened years ago!"

  27. What I'd like to see is... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... molecular oxygen. Hereabouts, most of it is created by life. And since it is consumed by oxidization, its presence would be a good indicator of an ongoing process to replenish it.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  28. Obligatory by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

    I bet the women there are.... HOT!

  29. Re:Quick! Look busy, Obama is coming by east+coast · · Score: 1

    Well, one of the first things most people do when they get a new boss is try to justify their position in the company. This is especially true if there are blank pink slips in his hand. so this is a pretty typical response.

    Unfortunately I haven't seen anything where Obama is going to ditch crap government programs that don't have half the scientific return of NASA. And with the winking that the public did in the face of earmarks I don't expect anything to change as far as government waste.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  30. Enough SUV bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Commercial activity accounts for waaaay more emissions than SUVs. Consider the fact that the price of a barrel of oil collapsed along with the global economy, meaning the demand for oil has severely fallen off. What happened? Did everyone all of a sudden stop driving? I doubt it. The roads and the shops seem as crowded as ever. What happened was that global commercial activity, like manufacturing, has severely dropped off.

    1. Re:Enough SUV bashing by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That may well be true, but that doesn't take away the negative impact SUVs have on the environment. An SUV is far heavier and emits far more greenhouse gasses than a regular car.
      Just because other things are even worse doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about massive, unnecessary cars. Get a smaller car, use transit, get a bike, it does have an impact. If you constantly argue that anything you do has a smaller impact than other things, we'll never get anywhere.

    2. Re:Enough SUV bashing by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      You could've just said, "But I LIKE my SUV."

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    3. Re:Enough SUV bashing by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A hybrid doing a 100 mile round-trip five days a week creates more exhaust than an SUV driving 200 yards to get lardburger with fries. And extra lard.

      fixed that, you barrel-bellied tard.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  31. 640K by plisskin · · Score: 1

    640K should be enough for anybody. Wait. What?

  32. Great; let's go there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we travel 63 light years? Really slowly, that's how. If we're looking for life that far away, we should also be focusing on interstellar travel. It doesn't need to be FTL, but we could certainly get a lot closer to c than we are now...

  33. OLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note the date of JULY 2007.

  34. Space travel food problem solved by IDKmyBFFJill · · Score: 1

    Great, when we get there those aliens are already cooked.

  35. They didn't say THIS planet could support life! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it really not obvious what they were saying? Does it really need to be spelled out? Apparently, so here goes. They were able to identify a planet that has both water and carbon dioxide. It happens to be very hot, and thus this particular planet is unlikely to host life, however it is a proof of concept for the technique of doing spectroscopy on distant exoplanets. They are going to be fielding better telescopes in the future, which should be able to detect smaller and cooler planets that are capable of supporting life.

    Hope that makes sense!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:They didn't say THIS planet could support life! by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 1

      The context was misleading. I had assumed what you said was what they meant, but the summary still could have been worded better. Thanks for "spelling it out" though.

    2. Re:They didn't say THIS planet could support life! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had assumed what you said was what they meant, but the summary still could have been worded better.

      Lol, yeah, of course you did, but an "I understand it, but think the summary could have been worded better" post isn't as fun as an "I'm smarter than NASA" post, is it?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  36. Conditions by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Not so good for terrestrial life forms, but the inhabitants of Venus (if there are any) might like it.

  37. Cool ! - errr, I mean.... by bruceslog · · Score: 1

    I'd been wondering lately if water vapor and carbon dioxide could still exist in a familiar form at 1,600+ degrees outside of a highly contained lab.
    This is just the news I've been waiting for. ~

    --
    If it has tires or tits, it will give you problems.
  38. Re:Your Point Is? +1, Interesting by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Carbon Dioxide and Water + 100 tons per square inch atmospheric pressure != NO LIFE (look at the ocean floor)
    Carbon Dioxide and Water + 100 tons per square inch atmospheric pressure + 1173K = NO LIFE

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.