Slashdot Mirror


First Earth-Sized Exoplanet May Have Been Found

Adam Korbitz writes "New Scientist is reporting the extrasolar planet MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb — whose discovery was announced just last summer — may actually be the first truly Earth-sized exoplanet to be identified. A new analysis suggests the planet weighs less than half the original estimate of 3.3 Earth masses; the new estimate pegs the planet's size at 1.4 Earth masses. The planet orbits a small red dwarf star, some 3,000 light-years from here, at an orbital distance of 0.62 astronomical units, about the same distance as Venus from our sun. One significance of the planet's discovery is that it points to the probable ubiquity of smaller terrestrial planets in somewhat Earth-like orbits around red dwarf stars, the oldest and most numerous stars in the galaxy. Here is a video report from the discoverers."

5 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Re:GNAA by gravos · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although this may be the first Earth-sized exoplanet, 335 exoplanets are already listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia.

    Food for thought.

  2. ps June 2, 2008 by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Informative

    Using standard nomenclature, the star hosting the newly discovered planet is dubbed MOA-2007-BLG-192L with MOA indicating the observatory, 2007 designating the year the microlensing event occurred, BLG standing for bulge, 192 indicating the 192nd microlensing observation by MOA in that year and the L indicating the lens star as opposed to the background star further in the distance. The planet maintains the name but adds a letter designating it as an additional object in the star's solar system, so it is called MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb.

    Hello MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb. How are you? We're fine thank you.
    How's the weather? Would you like to play a game?

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  3. Re:GNAA by lorelorn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Not really. The detection methods currently used to find exoplanets mean that the larger and closer the planet is to its parent star, the easier it is for us to find.

    As our techniques become more sophisticated, we will be able to find more planets of a comparable size to our own. Those 335 can be thought of as the 'first wave' of discovered exoplanets. Large bodies close to their parent stars. These planets are interesting for what they can tell us about how solar systems can form.

    The next wave of discovered exoplanets will be smaller, say between the sizes of Venus and Neptune, and therefore far more interesting from the perspective of extrasolar life.

  4. Red Dwarfs & Life: the good and the bad of it by cmholm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Specifically, Earth biology wouldn't do well orbiting a red dwarf. Red dwarfs emit most of their energy via thermal convection, rather than (like our Sun) via radiation. This leads to lots of radiation bursts when convection cells reach the surface. At 1 A.U., no big deal. But, at an orbit close enough to keep - say - Earth as warm as it is orbiting the Sun, life would get hammered.

    This isn't to say that *something* wouldn't evolve. It's just that at a basic level, it wouldn't resemble anything we're familiar with. And, given how long a red dwarf stays in the Main Sequence, there'd be billions upon trillions of years to simmer the soup 'til it was just right.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  5. Re:Red Dwarfs & Life: the good and the bad of by Random+Walk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uhh.. pardon me, who moderated this insightful?

    All low-mass stars, including the Sun and ranging up to F-Type stars (about 1.7 times solar mass) have an outer convection zone (meaning that outside the core, and up to the surface, energy is transported by convection). There's nothing 'bursty' in that mechanism.

    Hard radiation of low-mass stars is generated in the corona, which is heated by magnetic reconnection events (the magnetic equivalent of a short), leading to sudden release of the energy stored in magnetic fields. This is what is called 'stellar activity': starspots, flares, X-ray radiation, ...

    Some red dwarfs are indeed much more active than the Sun, many are not. Activity is generally connected to the age of a star since magnetic fields are generated by a dynamo mechanism, and stars spin down slowly as they are aging, leading to a less efficient dynamo and a decrease of activity.