Slashdot Mirror


The Galaxy May Have Billions of Habitable Planets

The Bad Astronomer writes "A recent astronomical report (abstract in Science) came out stating that as many as 1 in 4 sun-like stars have roughly earth-mass planets. But are they habitable? A simple bit of math based on some decent assumptions shows that there may be billions of potentially habitable worlds in the galaxy. '... astronomers studied 166 stars within 80 light years of Earth, and did a survey of the planets they found orbiting them. What they found is that about 1.5% of the stars have Jupiter-mass planets, 6% have Neptune-mass ones, and about 12% have planets from 3 – 10 times the Earth’s mass. This sample isn’t complete, and they cannot detect planets smaller than 3 times the Earth’s mass. But using some statistics, they can estimate from the trend that as many as 25% of sun-like stars have earth-mass planets orbiting them!' Getting to them, of course, is another problem altogether..."

45 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. Getting to them has always been the problem by jpolonsk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's great that we could expand to many different planets. The leap between the Moon, Mars and an extra solar planet is so enormous though that the only thing this tells us is that we may be able to more closely identify where we should listen to for signals.

    1. Re:Getting to them has always been the problem by tom17 · · Score: 3, Informative

      So I suppose you haven't heard about the Golgafrinchans?

  2. NASA by ChrisBader · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet another reason not to cut NASA's budget

    1. Re:NASA by zero.kalvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That what bothers me the most. The trend around the world is to cut money where there is no immediate return, everyone wants a quick buck. A nation's future is in the investment they put in research and science. But who am i to be listened to, when big corps have a hold on all the elected officials ?

    2. Re:NASA by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Private spaceflight is a lot more promising than NASA is. Especially if the goal is to find new habitable planets. With private spaceflight, every dollar is a dollar towards a goal. With NASA its a nickel towards a goal and 95 cents spent on pointless bureaucracies.

      Cut funding to NASA, allow private space companies to use the R&D, blueprints and the like and watch us achieve heights that NASA never dreamed of.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:NASA by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Private spaceflight has a lot of inducement to figure out how to get stuff into earth orbit, and not very much at all to go anywhere beyond that. Trust me, I know NASA people, scientists and non-scientists. They are not pointless bureaucrats. They really want to go to the stars.

    4. Re:NASA by jokermatt999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you have any numbers to support this? Although government programs generally are horribly inefficient, do you have any actual data indicating that NASA is just as bad? You seem to be relying on the assumption that government programs are always wasteful inefficient messes to the nth degree. Private spaceflight seems like an interesting idea, and I know there are several companies already working towards it, but reaching another star is a long, long, long term investment. It seems to me that government funding is actually useful in cases where there is no immediate return for the investors. Otherwise, you're essentially relying on philanthropy, no?

    5. Re:NASA by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow... I wish I could be indoctrinated so to have that kind of confidence.

      Governments DO NOT have infinite money. They have a lot, but it is certianly not infinite.

      And, while the government is usually inefficient, it is not always so. Likewise, businesses can be inefficient and still stay in business, depending on the competitive situation.

      As far as A goes - it wouldn't stop corporate America or any other first world countries corporations, they could do the research on their own. Or are you suggesting there is something useful that the US government/NASA did, that corporate America can't? Maybe you are a fan of corporate welfare - lots of giving to those poor starving CEOs who can't afford to have caviar for more than two meals and a snack a day?

      For B... Capital is NOT a problem with corporate America, demonstration of profit is. They won't get that demonstration unless things here on the earth are seriously in the shitter (and it is too late), or the government finds the evidence first. Once something has a reasonable chance of profit, it will get investments.

      For C... That's actually a good point. Corporate America is superb at getting past inconvenient government restrictions... However it would be hard to hide anything space related, I suspect.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    6. Re:NASA by Unordained · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Government programs are /always/ plagued by waste and inefficiencies.

      a) Private, commercial ventures are also always plagued by waste and inefficiencies. Humans are involved. You get what you get.
      b) Just because there's waste doesn't mean it's 95% waste. That's like saying that because lightbulbs emit both heat and light, they're incapable of ever illuminating anything.
      c) Grandiose statements like this one, common on the right, are faith-based attacks. It's common sense. Everyone knows governments waste. Everyone knows governments are nothing but wasteful bureaucracies. It's obvious. Duh. The only good government is a tiny one. But not nonexistent, as that might be seen as disparaging the founding fathers.

      The underlying assumption is that you can only trust someone who wants to take your money for his own profit, because anything else is too good to be true. But not too much profit. So you can only trust someone who wants to take your money for his own profit in a suitably competitive market. You only trust greedy people. And then ...

      The only reason why they can sometimes get things done is because they have infinite money from stealing from taxpayers.

      d) No. They're not stealing. We're pooling our moneys to achieve a common goal, as we've agreed to do, through the system of laws we've previously agreed to. If you don't like it, go live in France. (I can say this because I got tired of being told to live in France when I bitched about our new motherland security overlords after 9/11.)

      Government restrictions.

      e) That's what it *does*. That is the function of government. All freedoms not taken away, we keep. You're complaining that they're doing their job? If not, we need to know the specific restrictions you disagree with; honestly, I trust them to have a better idea of what restrictions we need than I trust you. They have thousands of people looking at what can go wrong when some private individual decides it's perfectly safe to shoot a rocket off from his back yard to go colonize Mars. And those thousands of people? They're just private citizens, like you and me, raised in the same country, under the same flag, learning the same constitution, going to the same backyard BBQ's. They love freedom too. Freedom not to be blown up because of their neighbor's stupid belief that freedom only means something when they can be perfectly reckless.

    7. Re:NASA by lul_wat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A) The taxpayer-funded R&D from various missions is not available to them

      Why should taxpayer-funded R&D be given to a private company?

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    8. Re:NASA by dachshund · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With NASA its a nickel towards a goal and 95 cents spent on pointless bureaucracies.

      Sometimes bureaucracies really are pointless. Other times they're the only way you can manage something as vast and multi-generational as interplanetary/interstellar spaceflight. I fear that the pro-privatization Slashdot crowd will learn this to their chagrin in a decade or two.

      Right now there are functioning NASA probes at the edge of our solar system that are nearly as old as I am (a gracefully aging 34, thank you). Many of the original team members have probably left the organization, and yet scientific teams at NASA continue to diagnose problems and keep the things online. I'd love to see private space enterprise operate an unprofitable space probe for 33 years. Hell, I'd be shocked if a for-profit organization kept a legacy space probe operating for 10 years, absent massive government subsidies.

    9. Re:NASA by not-my-real-name · · Score: 2, Funny

      I take it you've never worked in big business.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
  3. Fermi's paradox. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would seem to make Fermi's paradox even more troubling. My bet is that abiogenesis is vanishingly improbable. It seems pretty reasonable to be fairly optimistic about every other term in Drake's equation.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Fermi's paradox. by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder what happens if we continue to expand our knowledge about exoplanets at the current rate but we don't discover life on another planet by the year 2100. Fermi's Paradox bugs the hell out of me. I can't see how we are unique... but I also can't see why the evidence of other civilizations wouldn't be obvious.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Fermi's paradox. by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would seem to make Fermi's paradox even more troubling. My bet is that abiogenesis is vanishingly improbable. It seems pretty reasonable to be fairly optimistic about every other term in Drake's equation.

      We won't really know until we can detect earth mass planets, but from what I've been seeing, I believe that our planet is the equivalent of hitting the galactic jackpot.

      Specifically, our huge moon. The impact that did that must of created a sort of 'second stirring', resulting in a climate different than that of Venus and Mars.

      I have no problems believing that habitable planets are more than a thousand ly apart, much less habitable planets that develop sapient, tool using life forms. Right now, that's outside of our detection range. Even SETI has a range of only like 60ly, if I remember right.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Fermi's paradox. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder what happens if we continue to expand our knowledge about exoplanets at the current rate but we don't discover life on another planet by the year 2100. Fermi's Paradox bugs the hell out of me. I can't see how we are unique... but I also can't see why the evidence of other civilizations wouldn't be obvious.

      There are loads of reasons.

      1. How long did it take for US to come about? That's a fairly long period of time for a planet to remain habitable. Cut that time down, and you drastically reduce the chance that something like 'us' will come about.

      2. What good is intelligence to life? To us, it is necessary, to life? Not really. Algae and bacteria do just fine (and bacteria in some sense can be considered immortal!) Life COULD be plentiful, and intelligent life could well be so rare that it is unique.

      3. Consider what we are able to see. We can basically see forms of electromagnetic radiation. That's not too useful for picking out little bits of information that would clue us in to someone else sending out information. Our emmanations are already decreasing (if considered per-capita) We can get more done with less power via directional antennas, better electronics, and now, fiber and direct access communications. We might just not see them.

      4. Interstellar travel cost compared to opportunity is well... astronomical. Barring imaginary physics, the only point to go to another planet/star is to colonize it.

      Think about it, we human beings are the absolute kings of colonization. We have set foot and abode on nearly every inch of this planet in some form or scope. And even if you argue that our grasp in some areas is tenuous, it certainly isn't due to lack of drive to colonize. We ARE wanderers and travelers, but to even consider something like interstellar travel is daunting to us. Is it so surprising that something which would restrict a human from traveling would also daunt another form of life?

      It's not too much of a stretch to consider that our existance is every unique even without resorting to some sort of religious justification.

      If it took our planet 4-5 billion years to produce 'us', and the universe is only 14 billion years old, we aren't dealing with much time for starting over. A single asteroid collission at the wrong time and the death of a human progenitor could very well mean 4 billion years of life development resulted in no intelligent life on Earth. It is not some sort of evolutionary goal.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:Fermi's paradox. by callmebill · · Score: 5, Funny

      Could be God. Consider: what is more unlikely? That before time there was an infinitely dense concentration of something that burst, creating everything we observe? Or that before time, there was something else that said, "I'll make something today" and created everything we observe? I don't consider either one more or less plausible than the other.

    5. Re:Fermi's paradox. by dcherryholmes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps true, but it is not a satisfying answer to Fermi's paradox. Tippler and others have made good arguments for colonization/exploration by robotic probes, which we also have no evidence of. Maybe it's evidence that strong AI is exceedingly difficult?

    6. Re:Fermi's paradox. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems pretty reasonable to be fairly optimistic about every other term in Drake's equation.

      Actually, there's one other you can be pessimistic about, and it has pretty depressing implications for us: the fraction of technological societies that get off-planet. Two big humps here:

      Agression: Any species that fights its way to intelligence and technological dominance of its planet will be about as aggressive as we are. A species that is not good at stepping over what's in its way to get the resources necessary for survival is a species that doesn't survive. This raises the question: can a dominant technological species avoid destroying itself with the advanced weaponry it develops (or even inadvertently by triggering an ecological collapse) before it gets off-planet? The jury is still out on whether we'll manage that...

      The Lotus-Eater Problem: About the time a dominant technological species starts to develop the necessary skills to get off-planet, it likely also start to develop the skills necessary to create *really good* simulations of reality that are "just like the real thing." Can a culture avoid the lure of just abandoning themselves in fantasies which can be made more exciting and fulfilling than anything in the real world?

  4. Law of Numerous Small by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Funny

    This just in: Smaller objects more common than larger ones.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  5. Nah, it's easy by bhcompy · · Score: 2

    Just use the EVE Gate

  6. Charles Stross has a great article on this. by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The High Frontier, Redux - Covers the true scale of the distance between planets, and the energy requirements of going between them. He estimates that sending an Apollo-sized capsule to the nearest star would take as much energy as is produced on Earth in a year.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    1. Re:Charles Stross has a great article on this. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The distances are astronomical (ha ha). There's no economic gain at this point to going to the stars. Heck, we've barely stepped off our own rock.

      Still, one would like to think that right now we're beginning the surveying aspects of future interstellar exploration, and as soon as the physicists deliver us bountiful amounts of cheap energy and some useful way around the speed of light, we will be better able to pick the targets.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Charles Stross has a great article on this. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Our materials technology has going to have to advance considerably. The only way some of the equipment like the Voyager probes have survived is because they are, relatively speaking, extremely simple with very low energy requirements.

      You start talking multi-generation biosphere ships or cryo ships you're talking about a huge set of problems that go hand in hand with maintaining an isolated spacecraft for centuries or thousands of years, without meaningful help or even raw materials to be used to fix problems. I'm not saying it isn't impossible at some point, but everything from the kind of materials we build ships out of to robotics and computer systems is going to have to improve radically. We're also going to have to have an economy that has freed up sufficient wealth to produce such a ship.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Charles Stross has a great article on this. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who said anything about it still working? The issue was about the energy requirements for getting objects to other star systems, not within any particular timeframe. Voyager will almost certainly survive until it reaches another star system; maybe not with any power, but it'll be an intact object (there aren't a lot of other objects floating around in interstellar space for it to collide with).

    4. Re:Charles Stross has a great article on this. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You start talking multi-generation biosphere ships or cryo ships you're talking about a huge set of problems"

      Agreed, the focus in these discussions always seems to be on how to move the spaceship but in reality that is a minor problem with several plausible solutions. When it comes to keeping the crew alive we don't even know how to keep a biodome on Earth from turning into a rotting cesspit after a year or two. Once we know how to do that we can perhaps use the technology to fix the (human) life support systems on "spaceship Earth" before we send a handfull of explorers to look at other planets.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  7. Teh maths by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

    But using some statistics,

    Uh oh...

  8. How many sagans is that? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...there may be billions of potentially habitable worlds in the galaxy.

    How many sagans is that?

    1. Re:How many sagans is that? by cindyann · · Score: 3, Informative

      5x10^-1sagans.

      sudo mod me funny

  9. Re:Fermi's paradox. --- Reapers, dude. by BLToday · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, there's the Jungle Hypothesis, the Zoo Hypothesis, and I'm sure a few other ones. While lack of proof isn't proof, there's also the possibility that intelligent life in this part of the galaxy only started recently.

    Or you know, Reapers.

  10. What a godawful headline... by ErikZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Galaxy May Have Billions of Habitable Planets

    Or, you know, less than that.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  11. Re:and I may... by eleuthero · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...only if you're from an ethnic group that historically demonstrates lactose intolerance.

  12. How big they are is only a portion of the equation by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can put an Earth-sized planet where Pluto is and that's not going to mean anything. Assuming they mean "habitable" from the perspective of humans, the appropriately-sized planet must also be at the sweet spot distance from the Sun for moderate temperatures, have a moon to stabilize rotation for normalized weather patterns, and also produce a strong enough magnetosphere to protect an atmosphere. This is completely ignoring a lot of other factors that come into play as well, but the bottom line is I think it's a little premature to start designating M-class planets.

  13. Re:... For various quantities of habitable by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Funny

    This reminds me of Geico commercials. "15 minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance." If you think about that sentence, it really doesn't say anything. The sentence would be true if 1 in 10,000 people who took 15 minutes to call Geico saved more than fifteen percent off their car insurance.

    My personal favorite example of such claims has always been "baked with real vegetables" on some snack crackers.

    In no way does that imply that the vegetables are ingredients. Merely that they were baked with real vegetables. Throw a carrot in the oven, and the statement becomes true. ;-)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  14. Re:Fermi's paradox. --- Reapers, dude. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apes or angels. If there is other sentient life out there the cosmological timescale makes it a high probability that most of it is either so primitive that it can't have an interplanetary impact of any kind, or so ludicrously advanced that it wouldn't give a rat's ass about a bunch of monkeys who are really impressed with how they can move things around by burning stuff. We're either going to be like a PhD looking at an ant hill or they are. Either way we're probably safe, unless we run into an adolescent god with a magnifying glass, like Trelane "The Squire of Gothos".

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  15. Paging Carl Sagan... by SiliconEntity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Shouldn't that be "billions and billions"?

  16. Let me see if I'm following the math here... by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You take a number which you don't know very well, so you estimate it. Then multiply it by a factor which you really don't know, so you just guess that. Next you multiply the result by another number which you may never know, so you just pull that one out of /dev/random, and multiply them all together.

    And wow, you get a result that you like! That's amazing!

  17. Re:Why do we assume we're unique? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's also recently been suggested by a study saying that about 1-4% of our DNA is Homo neanderthalensis - so even had THEY been the dominant species it's likely that 1-4% of their DNA today would be Homo Sapien.

    Either way you slice it, any of the intelligent species on Earth appear to have a common ancestor. So whether we killed off other intelligent forms of life and thats why there aren't any is moot: none of the other animal kingdoms have shown anything along the scale that humans have, or else we'd be competing with them like we did with Neanderthals. Or there'd be intelligent oceanic life, or something along those lines.

  18. Generational Ships by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With cryo-stasis ships, at least there's a reason to eventually settle somewhere. You want to wake up (or stop taking watches) and eventually start your new life. You can bear the hardships of the journey, because you have a personal goal that you intend to some day fulfill.

    The thing about generational ships, is that if they're really self-sufficient and comfortable enough that the early generations don't go mad, then what's the point of landing anywhere? You can say that humans need to expand, but the people onboard won't be able to meet that need, and they're just going to have to cope with such a limited existence. But if they succeed, then that culture will be passed down, so you'll have a whole population that is happy staying in their little box. How can you plan so far into the future and keep the plan intact?

    There's a Star Trek episode ("The World is Hollow And I Have Touched the Sky") where the people don't even know they're on such a ship, and the more I think of it, the more realistic and believable that seems. People wouldn't ever be able to stick to such a long-term mission in which they don't personally have any stake, so they might as well not be depended upon to achieve it, or even know it's happening. One single centralized authority with infinite patience (a computer) and a secret and tyrannical agenda, is about the only thing that could keep it going.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Generational Ships by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      given the choice to expand out into a entire planet I doubt there would be any society that would turn it down.

      Oh, I agree with that. It seems like an easy decision for the final 3 or 4 generations ("We're almost there! Keep going!" and "Yippee, we're here!"). But a few dozen generations before that? I can imagine people saying, "Why spend our energy on the acceleration/deceleration rockets? Let's pump it into the holodeck instead."

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:Generational Ships by flnca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought about his pretty often, and I think that the most reasonable form of generation spacecraft would be AI controlled, self-repairing, self-sustaining, and very huge, so that Earth-like landscapes could be built in them. A ship that is 1000 km wide and high, and 10,000 km long would not be much different from a planet to its inhabitants. Clarke's 1x4x9 ratio also would make a reasonable form factor. Such a ship can of course only be built when resources are mined from the solar system planets, especially the gas giants have plenty of matter to utilize. With an "army" of robots, such a thing would be comparably easy to build and to maintain. The ship would have to have automated mining facilities, factories and so on. To the people, it would be like an ordinary world. Many of them would not need to know they're on a spacecraft. But some staff should definitely exist (an order perhaps?) that knows about the journey. Also, the government of the ship could be such that it's clear to everyone they're on a spacecraft, but then provisions need to be in place to avoid mutinies, etc.

    3. Re:Generational Ships by Raenex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many of them would not need to know they're on a spacecraft. But some staff should definitely exist (an order perhaps?) that knows about the journey.

      Government should be open and transparent, and the people should be informed. It makes me sad that people would even propose such a thing.

    4. Re:Generational Ships by Sigmon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ya know... It's funny. As I was reading your post I began to imagine that similar thoughts must have gone through God's mind before he created the 'Heavens and the Earth' - assuming he did.

      Just listen to the discussion here... Some of us humans have so little faith in ourselves that we're talking about creating all-powerful computer systems to control people and societies - all toward our ultimate goal. God, of course, also has an ultimate goal I think... he didn't just create the self-sustaining generational ship to get us there (Earth) but he gave us free will. He is braver and has more faith in his creation than we are in ourselves methinks.

      Isn't that an interesting parallel? I can imagine God reading /. right now and saying to himself: "Yep... It's not as easy as it looks is it?... to create a self-sustaining world, put people on it and expect things to turn out how you'd like in the end."

  19. Habitability requires a Jupiter by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having a large gas giant to shield the Earth from excessive meteors is thought to be a major factor in the habitability of Earth. So even if we take those numbers at face value and assume that 25% of solar systems have an Earth-like planet, only those that have a Jupiter-like planet (1.5%) are candidates for life. Further assuming those two are independant variables, that drops the odds of finding life down to .375% without even accounting for other contributing factors like having liquid water or a significant moon.

  20. Target practice? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Voyager will almost certainly survive until it reaches another star system; maybe not with any power, but it'll be an intact object (there aren't a lot of other objects floating around in interstellar space for it to collide with).

    Unless, of course, it's blasted to bits by a Klingon.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org