Super-Earths Discovered Orbiting Nearby, Sun-Like Star

likuidkewl writes "Two super-earths, 5 and 7.5 times the size of our home, were found to be orbiting 61 Virginis a mere 28 light years away. 'These detections indicate that low-mass planets are quite common around nearby stars. The discovery of potentially habitable nearby worlds may be just a few years away,' said Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UCSC. Among hundreds of our nearest stellar neighbors, 61 Vir stands out as being the most nearly similar to the Sun in terms of age, mass, and other essential properties."

Comments

mmmm

[JeanBaptiste]

61 virgins...... drool.....

Re:mmmm

[Daimanta]

How's that? I'm sure that it's possible to find at least 61 virgins on /. In fact, I think you are the right place if you're looking for virgins.

Re:mmmm

[JeanBaptiste]

I never said I was straight.

of course since it's the internet, I'm actually a 12/f/CA.

Re:mmmm

[TheEmpyrean]

61 Virgins? Can I trade them for 8 slutty broads that know what they're doing?

Re:mmmm

[Kugrian]

/me puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Re:mmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

sure. the diseases are a free bonus.

Re:mmmm

[Red Flayer]

Else you could teach the virgins what you like and help them develop their own tastes

FWIW, the two major inputs to their tastes are diet and sanitary practices. I heard vegans taste better.

(Just trying to think outside the box)

Re:mmmm

[kick6]

61 Virgins? Can I trade them for 8 slutty broads that know what they're doing?

I'll take a SINGLE slutty broad as long as she wants to sleep with ME. Everyone forgets that part.....

Yes, nearby

[elrous0]

Yes, a mere 28 light years away. So all we need to do is get in the fastest spacecraft we've ever built and we can be there in just about 150,000 years.

Who's coming with me?!?!?

Re:Yes, nearby

[The Archon V2.0]

Not so much a problem for the folks on the spacecraft, relativity can make the journey very manageable for them. They better not think about returning home to see Grandma though...

So space will be colonized by people with dysfunctional families?

Re:Yes, nearby

[beefnog]

What'd probably happen is about five years (as the travelers perceive it) after launch we'll develop faster-than-light travel and interrupt their journey. Or maybe just let them ride it out as a curious time capsule to cruise by and show buttcheek to.

Re:Yes, nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

What relativistic effects are you expecting at .0002c ?

Re:Yes, nearby

[jamesh]

Not so much a problem for the folks on the spacecraft, relativity can make the journey very manageable for them.

I think we're a long way off building a spaceship that can achieve the speeds where that effect would make any difference.

Re:Yes, nearby

[jbezorg]

So space will be colonized by people with dysfunctional families?

Sorry folks, planet's closed. The six legged moose like creature out front should have told you.

Re:Yes, nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

At .0002c, it would take about 14000 years to get there, but the lucky astronauts would only experience 13999.99972 years. Sign me up!

Re:Yes, nearby

[roc97007]

Why should space be any different?

Re:Yes, nearby

[Judinous]

We aren't as far off as you think. What's important is being able to constantly accelerate during the journey. Slow and steady acceleration wins the race. You're not going to do that with a chemical rocket, but with an on-board nuclear reactor and a few advancements in ion propulsion or vacuum propellers, we could make the trip. We could easily launch a probe to start making the journey in the next five years, if we allocated the budget to do so. Humans could make the trip as well, given the right accommodations--only a few years would be passing on-board. None of the technology to do this is very far-fetched at all, but we just aren't willing to spend the money.

Re:Yes, nearby

[CrimsonAvenger]

Slow and steady acceleration wins the race. You're not going to do that with a chemical rocket, but with an on-board nuclear reactor and a few advancements in ion propulsion or vacuum propellers, we could make the trip. We could easily launch a probe to start making the journey in the next five years, if we allocated the budget to do so. Humans could make the trip as well, given the right accommodations--only a few years would be passing on-board.

Not so few as you might think. At 0.01G, we're talking about 100 years as measured by clocks on the ship.

If we define "a few years" as "five or less", we'd need about 1.5G constant boost to reach 61 Virgo in "a few years". Which, by the by, translates to a mass ratio of about 2700 if we're using a photon drive, or a number that's the next best thing to infinity if we're using any drive we can foresee in the next couple decades.

Re:Yes, nearby

[AnotherUsername]

No guidance systems? Interesting idea...

Re:Yes, nearby

[KitsuneSoftware]

Unfortunately, it's a lot further off than you think. To accelerate to near the speed of light, regardless of the method, requires an enormous level of energy: for comparison, the space shuttle (68,000 kg) going at half the speed of light will have a kinetic energy of 9.455x10^20 joules. Again, for comparison, the total solar flux of the earth is about 1.75x10^17 watts, while total human power consumption is around 16x10^12 watts.

Re:Yes, nearby

[Penguinshit]

That's no moon...

Re:Yes, nearby

[Grishnakh]

If we stick with only 1.0G, then we wouldn't need artificial gravity for the people on board. We could maintain 1.0G acceleration on the way there, then spin the ship around (so the floor is pointing towards the destination) and maintain 1.0G deceleration for the second half of the journey.

The problem is, even if that means the people on board only experience 5-25 years, how much time will pass on Earth before we found out what this exploration team discovers there? (Remember, once they get there after however many years (hundreds? thousands?), they'd have to send their data by radio at light-speed, which would take yet another 28 years.) If we were to pony up the money to finance a mission like this, we, our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren would never find out the results, if any. We'd probably develop FTL in that time and have a colony already established on any viable planets in the 61 Virgo system before this team even arrived!

As far as I'm concerned, the only way any mission to another star system at low sub-light speeds makes any sense is if you're going to launch a "generation ship", a giant ship with an entire colony on board with everything needed to be self-sustaining indefinitely, so that this ship can travel from star system to star system, radioing back what it finds in each one and continuing until they find a place worth stopping at and establishing a permanent colony. But a ship like this would in itself be a major leap in technology, since we certainly don't have the capability to build such a massive space-based structure that can travel long distances through space, be self-supporting indefinitely, and able to handle any problems it might encounter (micrometeors?).

Re:Yes, nearby

[Gospodin]

That is an ion engine. My back-of-envelope calculations say that accelerating to .0002c and back to rest requires an Isp of about 5300 if you assume a mass ratio of 10:1. (Which is about as high as you can expect with current technology.) You can do a little better with staging, but not orders-of-magnitude better.

If you can improve your Isp to, say, 50,000, which is well beyond current technology, then you could accelerate to almost 0.002c. Relativistic effects won't be really evident until well over 0.2c (at that speed it's only a 2% time dilation). We're not close to rockets that can attain such speeds.

Improving the mass ratio is even less helpful, btw, since that's a logarithmic factor. An Isp of 50,000 with a mass ratio of 100 still only gets you to 0.004c. I suppose it's conceivable that an interstellar ship that needed almost no structure could have an extremely high mass ratio, but you can see how ridiculously high it has to be to matter.

The only way we're going to send starships at relativistic speeds is to use (i) some form of non-rocket propulsion, like solar sails or those reactionless Casimir-effect thrusters or some other exotic method, (ii) something with a truly enormous Isp. Current ion engine tech tops out at about 30,000 s, and even nuclear pulse tops out at 100,000 s.

Re:Yes, nearby

[Red Flayer]

for comparison, the space shuttle (68,000 kg) going at half the speed of light will have a kinetic energy of 9.455x10^20 joules. Again, for comparison, the total solar flux of the earth is about 1.75x10^17 watts, while total human power consumption is around 16x10^12 watts.

Protip: for easy comparison of VLNs, make sure they are in the same units (although anyone on slashdot should know that 1 Joule is equal to one Watt-Second).

But anyway, your numbers make the answer quite clear. We need a nuclear fusion reactor to propel our spacecraft, and it needs to have about 10,000 times the energy output of the sun. Quite doable. We know of stars with 100,000 times the energy output of the sun, we just need to harness one of those to the shuttle, shutter the front half of it, and we'll get plenty of energy pushing us forward.

Now we only need to figure out a way to get to that 10,000x star.

Re:Yes, nearby

[CrimsonAvenger]

If we stick with only 1.0G, then we wouldn't need artificial gravity for the people on board. We could maintain 1.0G acceleration on the way there, then spin the ship around (so the floor is pointing towards the destination) and maintain 1.0G deceleration for the second half of the journey.

The problem is, even if that means the people on board only experience 5-25 years, how much time will pass on Earth before we found out what this exploration team discovers there? (Remember, once they get there after however many years (hundreds? thousands?), they'd have to send their data by radio at light-speed, which would take yet another 28 years.) If we were to pony up the money to finance a mission like this, we, our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren would never find out the results, if any. We'd probably develop FTL in that time and have a colony already established on any viable planets in the 61 Virgo system before this team even arrived!

1G = 7 years internal time, 30 years as time is measured on Earth. So you'd be getting messages back with 60 years.

0.01G = 100-odd years internal time, 107 years as time is measured on Earth. Messages back about 210 years after departure.

Note that 1G sustained isn't going to be practical for a very long time, but that 0.01G sustained (for 100+ years) is a maybe within the century.

Note that if we launched a 0.01G ship day after tomorrow, then sometime around 2185 we launched a 1G ship, the 1G ship would get there first.

On the other hand, I don't think a generation ship is entirely beyond the realms of possibility within the next 50 years. Yes, it would require some incredible engineering to get it done. But it wouldn't require as much new technology as one might think - the sheer size allows you to get away with things that aren't practical in a smaller ship. Like lakes, fields, forests, that sort of thing.

Re:Yes, nearby

[CrimsonAvenger]

"If we stick with only 1.0G, then we wouldn't need artificial gravity for the people on board."

Considering their new home has five earth masses at the very least, they might as well get used to 5.0G. Ouch.

Umm, no. Five Earth masses at the same density as Earth means about 1.7G.

Double the density, and the planet pulls about 2.7G, but has stopped being Earthlike (density as high as silver?! ouch!).

Re:Yes, nearby

[CrimsonAvenger]

The problem here is that 1G sustained means your ship will be liveable by humans for those 7 years with no problem. 0.01G is not liveable at all; humans can't survive long-term in microgravity.

And of course it would be impossible to spin the ship, right?

Any ship big enough for a 100 year trip will be more than big enough to spin so that the rim of the ship experiences enough gravity to keep the crew healthy.

Not only that, 100 years is too long; no one will live that long (assuming you launch them when they're 20-25).

I take it you've never heard of the "generation ship" concept?

Humans can't live their entire lives (including their all-important formative years) in a small spacecraft with little social interaction.

And who ever suggested a small spacecraft? If I were designing it, it'd be 20 km long and 5-6 Km in diameter. With a crew of about 100,000.

A generation ship, however, could solve this problem (kids could very conceivably be raised on a giant ship with lakes and forests and a whole functioning mini-society), but as you said, this would require some incredible engineering. Lifting that much material into orbit really needs a space elevator, for starters.

So you DO know about generation ships! Great!

Hint: you don't build a generation ship from Earth. You start with an asteroid, and stock pretty much everything except the lifeforms aboard from other sources than Earth.

Note also that "incredible engineering" really means "expensive". It doesn't necessarily mean "difficult".

And this still doesn't address the gravity problem; those lakes and forests aren't going to work without artificial gravity.

Spin it. If it's six km in diameter, you have to spin it at 0.55 rpm to get 1G on the rim. And note that you have 360 km^2 worth of rim on the ship I described above. With a deck every 100 meters, we're talking a couple hundred thousand hectares at > 0.9G.

Alas, the likelihood of humanity building a generation ship is miniscule.

What passes for government here on Earth can't look far enough ahead. If we KNEW there was an alien species living there, and that they would be willing to give us the secret of FTL if only we sent someone there to collect, we'd still never get one built...

But the only real difficulty with doing so is the drive - the lifesystem, the physical structure, that sort of thing is almost trivial in comparison.

Re:Yes, nearby

[CrimsonAvenger]

A generation ship wouldn't just be an epic feat of engineering, it would be an epic feat of engineering that has no payoff for centuries (from the point of view of the population assigned to the ship, unless just being on the ship is a payoff for them) or millenia (from the point of view of the rest of the planet.) So, really, where is the huge investment going to come from? Epic engineering projects -- the Panama Canal, for instance -- do happen, but they happen because the people paying for them expect some substantial benefit that will start accruing in a reasonable time.

Yep. See my other comment, where I made rude comments about the likelihood of it ever being done.

That said, one must consider AGW at some point. If we're going to successfully deal with maintaining the climate of the planet at some idealized level (note, by the way, that I don't think that that is either necessary or desirable, but many people do), then we'll have to develop societal structures that allow us to think in very long terms (centuries, at a minimum).

Given that we develop such societal structures, the possibility of spending vast amounts of money with no payoff in sight for centuries becomes a lot more credible. After all, stopping AGW will require the expenditure of trillions of dollars, with no real benefit visible within the lifetime of any now alive.

The potential payoff of a generation ship? Well, if it works, it removes the current limitation on the potential lifespan of humanity (the lifetime of the Sun). And if one of them can work, then we can build another, and another.

Note that constructing one generation ship per millenium from every solar system with more than one billion population would be a relatively trivial undertaking, and would allow us to colonize every place in this galaxy within about half a million years.

Which might sound like a long time, but homo heidelbergensis (what used to be called archaic homo sapiens) lasted longer than that, so there's not much reason to believe that homo sapiens can't survive that long.

Re:Yes, nearby

[TapeCutter]

No mention of warp drive? Please deposit your geek card into the nearest shreader.

Re:Yes, nearby

[cusco]

My chip stopped working a couple days after I started playing around with that old radar set I found at the junk store . . .

Re:Yes, nearby

[Mycroft_VIII]

You wouldn't lift the whole mass of a generation ship from Earth, In fact the main mass would likely be a modified asteroid.
      You need an asteroid of about the right composition and size/shape.
Drill a hole down the center long ways and fill with mostly water and cap the end, then set spinning and focus sunlight on it with big mirrors. After a bit it gets hot and soft as the water inside boils providing the pressure to expand the now soft asteroid.
        There is a lot of fine tuning involved, but you wind up with a miles long and wide cylinder that's hollow and spinning(living space and artificial grav), just ad atmosphere and equipment and colonist and propulsion.

Mycroft

Re:Yes, nearby

[elrous0]

I don't think a generation ship is entirely beyond the realms of possibility within the next 50 years.

The main problem with that kind of effort isn't the engineering, it's the motivation. Yes, it might be possible to build something like that within a century, but that would mean many trillions of $, the concerted efforts of thousands of scientists, the work of dozens of countries pumping a significant portion of their GDP into a cooperative effort, etc.

Politically, that's pretty much impossible. You're never going to get that kind of effort without some sort of direct and real threat to humanity that absolutely requires a generation ship (like an earth destroying asteroid--the kind that would smash the planet to pieces, not just rip up the biosphere). And that's unlikely (even more unlikely that we would get enough advanced notice of such a threat to pull it off anyway).

It's a nice dream, but it's still just science fiction. I personally doubt that any of us will ever live to even see man walk on another planet in our own solar system. Any hopes of crossing the almost inconceivably vast distances of interstellar space is just fantasy right now, and would probably require some pretty radical long-term technological advancements in a very distant future (assuming human technological progress continues to advance and we don't blow ourselves up in the meanwhile). Sadly, I think the era of such dreams of space has come to an end. Sputnik initiated a brief shining period when it seemed like anything was within reach, but that only lasted about 20 years before reality came crashing in and budgets got slashed.

Re:Yes, nearby

[severn2j]

If you built an generation ship that could last indefinitely, why bother landing on a planet at all? Everything you need is on the ship. Also, by the time you get to the planet, would your colonists even want to move to a planet? Considering they have spent generations on a ship, it may be that planetary living has become a very alien concept..

fat

[dumuzi]

A more massive Earth is no good, if I go there I will be hundreds of pounds (unless the planet's radii are more then 2.5 and 2.7 times greater then Earths). I want a smaller Earth to visit so my BMI calculation will no longer show me to be obese. Let me know when you find something with about 0.8 of Earths gravity.

Some water would be nice too.

Fishy...

[chocomilko]

Hey! I thought it was supposed to be 70 Virginis.

Something tells me that these astronomers are keeping Virginis 1 through 9 to themselves. Grab your torches and pitchforks, kids.

Re:Fishy...

[Kratisto]

You're mistaken. Virgins one through nine ARE the scientists.

dissapointing

[jocabergs]

High gravity + Close to its star = big fat, sweaty alien women.

  I'll get excited when we find a planet about 93 million miles away from its star, the proper solar light properties for blue skin and near earth gravity. I've always had a thing for blue skinned alien girls.

Re:dissapointing

[Whiternoise]

Death by Snoo Snoo? "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised."

Wow, a confirmation

[MillionthMonkey]

Why is everyone surprised that super-earths are orbiting other stars? I've always wondered that.

Anyway in case anyone hasn't RTFA (or noticed the light-gray on white links at the top of the oklo.com page) you yourself can help them search for nearby earths by downloading the tool at http://oklo.org/downloadable-console/ while you're still unemployed.

Re:Wow, a confirmation

[zill]

Why is everyone surprised that super-earths are orbiting other stars? I've always wondered that.

Because the the term "super-earth" is intentionally used to misled the general public into thinking that those planets have a Earth-like habitat, which imply the possibility of colonization.

If the title was instead "Heavier than Earth rocky planets found outside of the solar system" no one would read it.

Re:Wow, a confirmation

[TropicalCoder]

There is nothing in the article to support the title, "First Super-Earths Discovered Orbiting Sun-Like Stars". First they say "These detections indicate that low-mass planets are quite common around nearby stars." and then later "The inner planet of the 61 Vir system is among the two or three lowest-amplitude planetary signals that have been identified with confidence". and finally, "The researchers said they cannot tell yet if HD 1461b is a scaled-up version of Earth, composed largely of rock and iron, or whether, like Uranus and Neptune, it is composed mostly of water."

I don't see anything in the article to justify calling these planets "Super-Earths", which is a stupid term anyhow, since there is only one planet Earth and we are on it.

Re:Wow, a confirmation

[Stupid McStupidson]

at least until we find something in the .8 to 2.0 Earth masses range which would be quite the news.

Wake me up when you find a .8 to 1.2 Earth masses with oxygen and water.

Super War

[Anonymous Coward]

I say it is high time we develop a warp ship capable of carrying the combined military might of the entire planet to this system.

We'll move quickly, from one "Super" Earth to the next, conquering indigenous peoples and enslaving them to toil in our mines until the planet is naught but a smoldering husk, a shadow of what used to be.

Then we'll see who is "Super".

Who's with me!?!

28 light years

[girlintraining]

Yes, a mere 28 light years away. So all we need to do is get in the fastest spacecraft we've ever built and we can be there in just about 150,000 years.

Well, maybe not us, but bacteria could. Or... maybe bacteria came from there, and landed here. Betcha didn't think of that.

Re:28 light years

[Hurricane78]

Bet that bacteria did not think about that either.

You know... cause they’re bacteria! ^^

Drake's Equation

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the estimation of Drake's equation getting better now with the discovery of more plants? Does anyone have an up to date estimate?

Re:Drake's Equation

[reverseengineer]

It's more like that the Drake equation has gone from an relation where all the variables are unknown to one where about half the variables are unknown. Advances in astronomy have allowed us to refine estimates of the number of stars in the galaxy, the fraction of those stars with planets, and the age of the galaxy. Studies like those the article refers to could potentially pin a value down on the "number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets." The very meaning of that variable, however, depends on what characteristics you would consider necessary to support life.

From the progress of exoplanet searches so far, it does seem likely that some planets will be found that could support life in an earth-like sense (terrestrial with liquid water, at minimum). So, maybe four variables with potentially supportable estimates (and exoplanet searching is in its infancy, so that estimate will develop over time).

But the other variables in the Drake equation? What fraction of "habitable" planets actually develop life? What fraction of those develop intelligent life? Intelligent life that sends out detectable signals into space? And what is the expected lifetime of such civilizations? Values we might assign to those variables would be pure conjecture, with our only evidence being our own anecdote of existence.

72-Virginis

[sanman2]

Osama Bin Laden may be hiding in neighboring star system, 72-Virginis

Re:72-Virginis

[Sanat]

You misunderstand... that one virgin 72 years old

Wait until Osama Bin Laden finds THAT out!