Slashdot Mirror


NASA Discovers 7th Closest Star

Thorfinn.au says "Scientists using data from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) have discovered the coldest class of star-like bodies, with temperatures as cool as the human body. Astronomers hunted these dark orbs, termed Y dwarfs, for more than a decade without success. When viewed with a visible-light telescope, they are nearly impossible to see. WISE's infrared vision allowed the telescope to finally spot the faint glow of six Y dwarfs relatively close to our sun, within a distance of about 40 light-years. 'WISE scanned the entire sky for these and other objects, and was able to spot their feeble light with its highly sensitive infrared vision,' said Jon Morse, Astrophysics Division director at NASA Headquarters in Washington. 'They are 5,000 times brighter at the longer infrared wavelengths WISE observed from space than those observable from the ground.'"

137 comments

  1. Ninja stars by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    40 lightyears! I hereby dub these "ninja stars", for their ability to sneak up on us like this.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  2. Fail? by FunkyELF · · Score: 1

    Closest or Coldest?

    1. Re:Fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Closest. RTFA.

    2. Re:Fail? by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      Closest and very cold (for a star).

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    3. Re:Fail? by itchythebear · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, no typo.

      FTFA:

      The Y dwarfs are in our sun's neighborhood, from approximately nine to 40 light-years away. The Y dwarf approximately nine light-years away, WISE 1541-2250, may become the seventh closest star system, bumping Ross 154 back to eighth. By comparison, the star closest to our solar system, Proxima Centauri, is about four light-years away.

      additional info

      --
      If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
    4. Re:Fail? by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Based on how many cold dwarf stars we have found so far, there may be stars like this one within 2 LY or less. In which case they would make for a great candidate for a high speed interstellar probe.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    5. Re:Fail? by Marc+Madness · · Score: 0
      At 40 light-years, they are definitely not among the 7 closest stars to earth :
      1. 1) alpha-Centauri A: 4.2421 light-years
      2. 2) alpha-Centauri B: 4.3650 light-years
      3. 3) Barnard's Star: 5.9630 light-years
      4. 4) Wolf 359: 7.7825 light-years
      5. 5) Lalande 21185: 8.2905 light-years
      6. 6) Sirius: 8.5828 light-years
      7. 7) Luyten 726-8: 8.7280 light-years
    6. Re:Fail? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Both, smartass.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Fail? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      At 40 light-years, they are definitely not among the 7 closest stars to earth :

      I think there might be a difference between a star and a star system, but IANAA.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    8. Re:Fail? by magarity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Closest, yes. Coldest? Maybe - but what if they're inside Dyson spheres and just not radiating much to the outside universe?

    9. Re:Fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends how you count. Alpha Centauri is a triple star system, A and B are the binary central stars, with smaller Proxima orbiting at a further distance from the two (last I checked, Proxima was currently the closest to us of the three). Sirius is also a binary star system, but Sirius B, which is the significantly smaller companion, was only discovered a couple years ago.

    10. Re:Fail? by magarity · · Score: 1

      You've gone to a lot of trouble to format that response but not much into reading even the summary. There were 6 of these stars found within 40 light years. One of the six is at a close enough distance to place it 7th closest. You see, within 40 means that one was at 40 and the rest were less than 40. It would be pretty creepy if there were 6 nearly invisible stars neatly arranged around us at exactly 40 light years.

    11. Re:Fail? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Well... considering

      "The [Helios] probes are notable for having set a maximum speed record among spacecraft at 252,792 km/h (157,078 mi/h or 43.63 mi/s or 70.22 km/s or 0.000234c)."

      even our fastest probe is 1/4000 the speed of light, you might be a bit disappointed by the response time.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    12. Re:Fail? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You forgot Proxima Centauri, which orbits Alpha Centauri A and B, and is the third closest star to us.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Fail? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then that would be the most awesome finding ever.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Fail? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Yeah well, that's coming from a guy who never made the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...

      You're going to have to define what you mean by a high-speed interstellar probe first. If you mean conventionally fast, I'm going to point you at the voyager program, which is making pretty good time for normal definitions at 17 km/s, and could be out 2 light years in, oh, 34,000 years or so.

      If, on the other hand, you mean significant percentages of c fast (and to make the trip in a reasonable amount of time, you'd have to average at least .1c, which means you have to be capable of going significantly faster to make up for acceleration/deceleration phases), first you have to figure out how to actually get something going that fast. I'm aware that there are theoretical designs that might be capable of those kinds of speeds, but they're still in the very theoretical stage.

      Also, you're going to have to find some way to get around the 4-year delay in response times (hows that for ping time?). In short, just because you can say the number for how far 2 light-years is doesn't mean you can actually understand the distance, and just because it's a lot closer than anything else won't make it close enough to matter. Just because the moon is a lot closer than the sun doesn't mean you can jump and touch the moon.

    16. Re:Fail? by Marc+Madness · · Score: 1

      The closest is still approximately 9 light-years away, so my comment is still correct (assuming you overlook the fact that I conflated star systems with stars).

    17. Re:Fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlikely.
      A Dyson sphere must radiate as much as it receives (from the star inside) or its temperature will rise until equilibrium sets in.

      Using Sol as an example. Sun at 6000K, 600k mls diam, Dyson sphere at 93M mls rad and using Stephan's law for radiation:temp gives a surface temp on the outside of the sphere of about 230deg C. A bit warm and warmer than the article indicates.

      But that's the entire extent of my science on display...

    18. Re:Fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we couldn't possibly build something faster if we had the motivation to do it.

    19. Re:Fail? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll share with you a technique that has helped me immeasurably throughout my life: when I find a glaring mistake in someone's output, something that they just should not have overlooked, I first assume that I've misunderstood something and the mistake is actually mine and check again. 90% of the time, it saves me from looking like a jackass.

    20. Re:Fail? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      What if they constructed their Dyson sphere out of wormhole material and they shunt the energy output to the core of another star, effectively cloaking it? I mean as long as we're talking about shit far beyond our ken, we might as well dream big.

    21. Re:Fail? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Unless exotic physics delivers some new way of getting around the light speed barrier, what we're going to need to send probes to even the nearest stars is a craft far more rugged than one we've built now. I'm thinking self-repairing, with lots of raw materials sent with it so it can manufacture spare parts as needed. That, of course, is going to make it very f***ing heavy, which means we're going to need to have some really fantastical way to produce large amounts of energy (the closer you approach c , the more energy you require, and c itself is impossible to achieve, because it would require infinite energy). I'd say the construction of such a craft is a few generations away.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re:Fail? by Marc+Madness · · Score: 1

      Good tip. Although I might not otherwise have learned the consequence of making half-baked statements on /.

    23. Re:Fail? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      How much faster do you think we can make it? Oh... and it needs to stop or at least slow down when it gets to the star. Orbit would be nice but not absolutely necessary, I would think.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    24. Re:Fail? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      So is it alpha-centaury A the star nearest to Earth? How could I were so wrong all these years thinking the nearest one to Earth was Sun?

    25. Re:Fail? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Sure we could build something faster, but fast enough? We need something 2-3 orders of magnitude faster to be really useful. That's a tall order.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    26. Re:Fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree.

      They are probably harnessing the star's energy to send a massive kill ray to Earth in retaliation for the first season of Survivor reaching their planet last year. We'll all be fried in about 8 years, now.

    27. Re:Fail? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Seems like a good use for the theoretical moon base... wrap Luna in a MLA and most of the probe can be discarded at the end as reaction mass... it's a gun that fires to leave the probe in orbit. Its last act is to act as a repeater.

      OK, so I read a lot of science fiction, so sue me

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Fail? by vlm · · Score: 2

      Sure we could build something faster, but fast enough? We need something 2-3 orders of magnitude faster to be really useful. That's a tall order.

      No, not really. Helios was a fat-a** at about 820 pounds. A ham radio microsat sized probe plus an actual intention to "go fast" could probably go 3 orders of mag faster. You can get two orders of mag just by thinning the probe weight, maybe another if you go gonzo on booster and upper stage size and really fine tune the gravitational assists.

      I've often wondered if you combined the X-15 goal of "just go fast, that's all" with a space probe, just what would happen, exactly... Probably something the size of a saturn-5, launching a truly giant ion upper stage, launching a tiny little probe the size of AO-51 (two dozen pounds, more or less)...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    29. Re:Fail? by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Why even go that far? A simple, if rather large, laser is an amazing heat sink, and unless you're right in it's path it would be very very hard to detect.

    30. Re:Fail? by rmstar · · Score: 1

      Unless exotic physics delivers some new way of getting around the light speed barrier, what we're going to need to send probes to even the nearest stars is a craft far more rugged than one we've built now. I'm thinking self-repairing, with lots of raw materials sent with it so it can manufacture spare parts as needed.

      Which means - we won't be going anywhere near another star for the foreseeable future. We are, technologically speaking, like ancient Greeks thinking about sending someone to the moon. We cannot even lift from earth any amount of gear that comes even close to covering a useful setup for a mission like that.

    31. Re:Fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there an astrophysicist in the house?

      What if we had a series of what were basically rail guns set along a path for the probe. The probe would get a start from a plain rocket, but the real kick would come whenever it passed through a gun. Could we come up with positioning for the guns and flight path for the probe that would give it enough speed before achieving stellar escape velocity?

      As for decelerating, if we can send the probe off without using any on-board reaction mass, maybe something super efficient like an ion engine could slow it down enough.

    32. Re:Fail? by toastar · · Score: 1

      IDK, if you had a vasmir pushing at .1G for a year, you would be going about ~.1c, in that case you could be there in 20 years. I think this would be semi-reasonable.

    33. Re:Fail? by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      Will your 10 kilo probe have enough power and ability to obtain meaningful information and then send the information back?

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    34. Re:Fail? by kryliss · · Score: 1

      Self repairing would indicate probably "nano-bots" which in theory could take the broken... whatever and mend it back to original. Like the way our skin is repaired. A lot less material would be needed to take along...... Just my guess.. no data behind it.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    35. Re:Fail? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it doesn't really work that way. Very little of the speed of our fastest probes come from propulsion, primarily we slingshot them around the large planets. The weight doesn't matter as it's microscopic compared to the planet, the speed is almost wholly determined by the size of the sling. Unless you have a secret plan to make Jupiter grow 100 times bigger, we need something completely different. Nuclear pulse rockets is probably the closest, but even they will probably take hundreds of years and is a pretty much completely untested design. Like, if you want a probe to return data in your lifetime you'd better work on immortality first.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    36. Re:Fail? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IDK, if you had a vasmir pushing at .1G for a year, you would be going about ~.1c, in that case you could be there in 20 years. I think this would be semi-reasonable.

      Hmm, let's do a quick check of the numbers.

      According to Wikipedia, we can reasonably expect 5000 seconds Isp from a VASIMR, but let's assume ten times that, just for grins.

      So, one year (365.24 days) at 0.98 m/s^2 acceleration implies deltaV of 30925 km/s.

      30925 km/s @ 50000 seconds Isp translates to a mass ratio of 2566254356903250866674835623:1.

      So, a 10 kg probe (including drive and fuel tankage) would require 25662543569032508666748356229 kg of reaction mass. Which is about the mass of the Sun...

      So, no, this would NOT be even semi-reasonable....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    37. Re:Fail? by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Given the relatively high number of these previously-undetectable stars in just our local(ish) neighbourhood alone.. Might this explain the bulk of that 'missing matter' astronomers and physicists have been looking for?

    38. Re:Fail? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Use the sun?

      Highly eliptic entry vector perpendicular to the ecliptic, with the close bend of the shot a min safe distance for the probe to not get roasted?

      The sun's gravity dwarfs everything else in the system already, so a "wide" shot arc shouldn't pose too much problem.

      For shits and giggles you could get more thrust by deploying a mylar screen on the escape portion of the shot to gain accelleration. The same screen would act to retard the probe after it enters the target star's heliopause.

    39. Re:Fail? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      In that case I'd want to increase the diameter of the sphere, since that's a bit to hot. You can assume it's big enough for the ideal temperature for the species that constructed it. This can mean it's 27 C

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    40. Re:Fail? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      In that case I'd want to increase the diameter of the sphere, since that's a bit to hot. You can assume it's big enough for the ideal temperature for the species that constructed it. Thus it can have almost any temperature that species desires.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    41. Re:Fail? by eriqk · · Score: 1

      A Nicoll-Dyson beam!
      Although probably due to the cancellation of that show about a single female lawyer.

    42. Re:Fail? by WildBlueYonder · · Score: 1

      Well duh that's not reasonable, you didn't allot for enough fuel to slow down again once we arrived!

  3. Re:Cleaner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things like this make me wish Dr Bob were our only resident troll.

  4. Both? by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    They are (relatively) cold. They are also (relatively) close.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  5. Telescope? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm not sure that NASA is taking the most efficient path here: If you want to discover cold, distant objects, any marriage counselor who is a bit flexible about confidentiality should be able to provide you with dozens of them, without any of the trouble of sophisticated infrared astronomy...

    1. Re:Telescope? by magarity · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you're not bitter.

    2. Re:Telescope? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I've never been married, I was just going for the stock joke. I have observed some reasonably ugly marital decay processes, though...

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

      Huh! He's just stating the facts ...Jerkoff!

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

      I got a good laugh from this one (so did my wife). So did some of the coauthors of the actual paper ...

    5. Re:Telescope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, why don't you all just say it. PEOPLE SHOULD STOP GETTING MARRIED. That should do it.

  6. Re:Cleaner by Desler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bring back PizzaAnalogyGuy! He had real promise as an up-and-coming troll, but sadly fizzled out too quickly.

  7. missing mass? by maweki · · Score: 1

    does this explain the missing mass in the universe or did we allready account for what we found? Hundreds of 'em within a 40ly radius?!

    1. Re:missing mass? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      I was wondering that too... There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your string theory, Horatio.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    2. Re:missing mass? by malilo · · Score: 1

      I believe the amount of not-easily-visible ordinary matter in the universe has already been accounted for in our models. We knew sources like this were there. Even at the most optimistic estimates, it is dwarfed by the amount needed to throw off the galaxy rotation curves, the main (but certainly not only) circumstantial evidence for "missing mass" which in turn leads to the idea of dark (non-baryonic, non-interacting) matter.

      --
      "sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
    3. Re:missing mass? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      No, it does not. Allowances were made for brown dwarfs, and they do not in any substantial way bump up the amount of observed mass.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:missing mass? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Although, the allowances were educated guesses. Real data about the frequency of low-mass cold stars is always welcome, and will help refine models. Unless the actual number of cold dwarf stars is off by multiple orders of magnitudes, though, they aren't sufficient to explain the missing mass.

      I tend to think there are massive amounts of planet-sized objects, even smaller and more numerous than dwarf stars, that will be nearly impossible to detect. I don't think they will explain the missing mass, either; I just think it's reasonable to assume they're out there.

    5. Re:missing mass? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > does this explain the missing mass...

      No. Theory predicts these objects.

      > Hundreds of 'em within a 40ly radius?!

      They are very small for stars and don't really account for much mass.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:missing mass? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      My understanding, and I'm only going from memory here, is that even if you account for a very liberal number of brown dwarfs, it still doesn't account for anything but a fraction of the missing mass. I would imagine for them to make a significant impact they would have to be very very very common indeed. Maybe they are, and let's bloody well hope we can get an infrared telescope up into orbit which should be able to start answering the frequency of brown dwarfs out there. Still, I have a suspicion that unless galaxies are very densely populated with them, they will only have a modest impact on explaining the missing mass, though I'm sure if they did, every cosmologist would be wiping the sweat from the brows and sleeping easier for it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Colder than the human body? by Kenoli · · Score: 1

    pfft

    Some star.

    1. Re:Colder than the human body? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly... WTF I don't think it can be a "Star" without it being a big burning light. This is some horse crap. I feel like crying

    2. Re:Colder than the human body? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Jupiter is hotter than this...so is Jupiter a brown dwarf now?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  9. Already explained by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    It's the packaging material of the computers to do the mass calculation.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  10. More like the ex-wife star by macwhizkid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Closer than you're comfortable with, and colder than you can possibly imagine.

  11. oh snap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    too bad its not liquid. set up the universe's largest swimming pool.

  12. This is horrible news... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    It means that Sheldon Cooper will need to change the song he sings when he goes down the stairs and you *know* just how much he hates change!

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  13. Re:No Fail? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

    From TFA, The Y dwarf approximately nine light-years away, WISE 1541-2250, may become the seventh closest star system, bumping Ross 154 back to eighth

    Alpha Centauri is a single star system and this Y dwarf survey was out to 40 light-years. Ross 154 is 9.6 light-years and they think WISE 1541-2250 is just over 9.

    --
    Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  14. I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't it cool that we're working on launching an infrared telescope into space, which might discover that there are lots of such things all over the place? Oh wait, congress is suddenly saying that we can't afford it, even though it costs less than the air conditioning budget for 60 days of the Iraq occupation. (link)

  15. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    Do you want to be the one to tell a bunch of soldiers that they have to go without air-conditioning for two months?

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  16. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah but it already costs eight times more than Spitzer... and it's not even ready for launch yet!
     
    As much as I'd like to see James Webb completed the fact is that there is some dreadful mismanagement on the project. As long as people like you keep trying to draw attention away from the *FACT* that NASA has lost its way we will never see publicly funded, cost-effective, progressive science again.

  17. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by snookerhog · · Score: 1

    never let them see you sweat.

  18. Wow by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

    So, this star is cold enough to be the same temperature as the human body? I assume this is at the surface. How the hell does it sustain fusion/fission? It seems to me like its a borderline gas giant or something.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    1. Re:Wow by dxkelly · · Score: 1

      Or maybe our gas giants which are producing more heat then they receive from the sun are Y dwarf stars.

    2. Re:Wow by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I think one of the definitions of a brown dwarf is that there is no sustained fusion (I think the larger ones can have limited fusion reactions, but many orders of a magnitude less than even a dim, cool star).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Wow by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Interesting thought. Reminds me of 2010: The year we make contact. Which planets are they?

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    4. Re:Wow by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Then how exactly is it possible to call it a star at all? Its more like a lone gas giant with possibly a bunch of large moons.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    5. Re:Wow by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's a fuzzy definition, and I don't think there's ever been any consensus on calling them stars. Pretty much every article I've read on them refers to them as brown dwarfs (or M, L, Y or T dwarfs), so I'd fault the editor of that one for sloppy use of the word. I don't think you can call any object that doesn't have sustained fission reactions a star, and certainly not one radiating at around the same temperature as a human body.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Wow by dynamo52 · · Score: 1

      Stars do not use sustain fission.

      --
      Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
    7. Re:Wow by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I think you are getting things upside down here. Hight temperatures inside a star inhibits fusion, that is how a start gets at equilibrium.

    8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "How the hell does it sustain fusion/fission?"

      It doesn't. By definition, a brown dwarf is not massive enough to sustain the proton cycle, but they are massive enough to have burned their initial supply of deuterium. The larger ones are massive enough to have used up their lithium, too. The mass range is from ~13 Jovian masses to somewhere around 75 to 80 Jovian masses. Brown dwarfs are between super-Jovian gas giants and M-class main sequence stars. The definition on the low end is a little fuzzy,

      Basically, a brown dwarf is a failed star, massive enough to start burning deuterium, but not massive enough to sustain the proton-cycle. Once they burn up enough of their deuterium, their fusion goes out and they cool off.

    9. Re:Wow by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      It's the Fonz Star.

    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are getting things upside down here. Hight temperatures inside a star inhibits fusion, that is how a start gets at equilibrium.

      Maybe. Isn't it possible to have regions above the center of a star where fusion might be taking place? So fusion could always be happening, but at several places rather than only a central point. Indeed, traveling wavefronts from fusion centers might trigger other locations. A rather massive star would be necessary, of course.

    11. Re:Wow by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Very well, however a side effect of fusion is heat. So then the absence of significant heat seems like its possible there is no fusion.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    12. Re:Wow by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Why does nature have to have all these fuzzy edges and demarcations. It's almost like things just happened, rather than being planned.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    13. Re:Wow by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So what letter designation does Jupiter get?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:Wow by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's still a gas giant. I think there has been some debate on this, but at the end of the day they seem to be using Jupiter masses as sort of a cut off for planetary designation, though I don't think there's any hard fast rule. It's still an area of debate about what constitutes a gas giant, a brown dwarf or a star, and as usual, nature isn't making it easy.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Wow by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      In more massive brown dwarfs low rate fusion of deuterium (> approx 13 Jupiter masses) and lithium (>60 Mj) is possible. At the low end of brown dwarf mass the distinction with large gas planet is a little blurred, with neither sustaining fusion, being roughly similar in diameter etc.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    16. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then how exactly is it possible to call it a star at all? Its more like a lone gas giant with possibly a bunch of large moons.

      It is a used-up star. A small star had fusion, but ran out of fuel. Then it cooled down, and has now reached body temperature. It is too small to become something interesting like a supernova, neutron star or black hole.

    17. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think that fusion should be the primary distinguishing factor between a star and a gas giant.

    18. Re:Wow by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      It's not, in any meaningful sense. This is Science By Headline.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    19. Re:Wow by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Maintaining the entire surface area of a dwarf star (several times bigger than Earth) a hundred of times over the background radiation temperature requires some amount of heat. Certainly there is fusion going there.

  19. Distribution of the trail by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 2

    At what point do we start to see a picture of the small/cold tail of size distributions? One of the questions that interests me greatly is the frequency of rogue planets in the interstellar medium. If you could see a curve of brown dwarf sizes (weighted by the difficulty of detecting them), it would be fun to just naively extend the graph and see how common gas-giant sized objects would be relative to detectable stars.

    1. Re:Distribution of the trail by pz · · Score: 2

      This is one of the big questions for dark matter. Is dark matter really just non-luminous normal matter that we're just either really bad at detecting or really bad at estimating? Are the assumptions of the distributions of dark matter, as extended presumably from luminous matter, correct? Do more stars just burn out and go cold, rather than go nova, than we think? Sure, these are naive musings from someone with only a highly limited knowledge of the field, but they're fun to think about, and rarely get any expert discussion when you see articles about related new discoveries.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:Distribution of the trail by cpricejones · · Score: 1

      I.e., what is the failure rate of star formation? Maybe I'm missing something, but these Y dwarfs seem a lot like Jupiters.

    3. Re:Distribution of the trail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I suppose, if most of dark matter was just this cold stuff, spread everywhere, the sky would appear mostly black, with just a few points of light making it down to Urth.

    4. Re:Distribution of the trail by surveyork · · Score: 1

      I am not an astronomer, but I think that the sky would be very much like we see it today even if most of dark matter was made of brown dwarfs and other dark objects. Remember that the distances in space are huge.

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    5. Re:Distribution of the trail by surveyork · · Score: 1

      My bet is that most dark matter is made of (dark, duh) objects we haven't managed to see yet, whether they are brown dwarfs, cold gas, black holes...

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
  20. Huh. Reminds me of "Permanence" by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2

    He posits a large number of these dwarf gas giants, and a spacefaring civilization that lives around them: http://www.kschroeder.com/my-books/permanence

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:Huh. Reminds me of "Permanence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you so much for telling us about this book, I've just ordered it. :)

      He posits a large number of these dwarf gas giants, and a spacefaring civilization that lives around them:
      http://www.kschroeder.com/my-books/permanence

  21. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    even though it costs less than the air conditioning budget for 60 days of the Iraq occupation

    You are quoting a retired general, who is now making a living by selling "energy efficient" equipment to Pentagon... Are you really that gullible?..

  22. Support life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Room temperature? So could there be life on such Y Dwarves?

    1. Re:Support life? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      Depends on the gravitation force in the region that was room temperature. You would need a planet with a very close orbit with all the other neccessary stuff.

  23. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure - "Hey guys - you won't get AC anymore... because you won't need it - you are all going home!".

  24. The WHOLE thing? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 0

    WISE scanned the entire sky for these and other objects

    I don't think people realize how ludicrous this claim is. To scan the entire sky would require either a wide-angled telescope roughly the size of Mt. Everest and decades, or more likely an average-sized telescope and hundreds of years.

    The sky is big. Really fucking big. Your little telescope can scan at most like 0.000000025% of it at once.

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    1. Re:The WHOLE thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the good folks at NASA are probably lying to us. They probably didn't even send up a $300 million WIDE-FIELD INFRARED SURVEY EXPLORER specifically for the purpose of SCANNING THE ENTIRE SKY for infrared signals, and probably have no idea how difficult such a feat would be to achieve. They really should have contacted you.

    2. Re:The WHOLE thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The claim is not ludicrous. It's perfectly reasonable to scan the entire sky with one telescope. You don't need telescopes, even, if you're willing to accept a sufficiently low resolution. Just look up and around at night - you've scanned half the sky already, though your resolution is "visible to the eye". The higher the resolution, the longer the scan will take, but it's clear this isn't exactly the Hubble Deep Field in terms of resolution.

    3. Re:The WHOLE thing? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Actually it is more like 1/1500000th of the sky at one time. And now that it is done taking a unfathomable (to you) 1.5 million pictures, it has successfully taken a picture of the entire sky.

      Why would you just assume that NASA is lying about its capabilities. Presumably you read about the telescope or at least looked at some real info. Are you aware that when you are running a mission you don't use the $100 dollar telescope that parents buy for their kids? Did you realize that a telescope in space can take pictures at any angle it wishes?

      Or perhaps you didn't read the article, didn't do any research, and are talking out of your ass instead?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    4. Re:The WHOLE thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or else you wave your telescope across the entire sky on the first look and only see the brighter objects. Later you carefully look at smaller areas to try to detect fainter objects.

    5. Re:The WHOLE thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

      The "W" in WISE stands for "Wide-field". WISE has scanned 99% of the sky. It has a 47 arcminute field of view, and can take an image every 11 seconds. The sky is big, but it's not that big. Wide-angle telescopes don't have to be large; in the infrared, previous telescopes have been more limited by thermal noise, which is why WISE can do better without being huge.

    6. Re:The WHOLE thing? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think what people around have realized is just what a fucking moron you are.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:The WHOLE thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're and idiot.

    8. Re:The WHOLE thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or six months and a 16in infrared telescope.

  25. Re:Cleaner by Jeng · · Score: 1

    I always figured from their commercials that they were probably a scam.

    Seeing them here spamming the shit out of their shitty product it is obvious that it is indeed a scam.

    Thanks for confirming your product is a piece of shit.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  26. Planet X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finding one of these in our galactic neighborhood is quite exciting, and suggests there may be many of these even closer than Proxima Centari.

    Shouldn't we put more effort into determining if there are any close enough to effectively send a probe to within our lifetimes? While it's unlikely a planetary system surrounding such a star could support life, it would still be groundbreaking to reach a neighboring star system.

    Also, for 2012 nuts, this could mean there is such a heavenly body headed our way that we haven't yet detected! Let's fund the search for more of these!

  27. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about we tell them the bad news is, no more AC in their tents... the good news is they are going home.

  28. No it doesn't by pavon · · Score: 1

    At the start of the search for dark matter there were two major categories of potential mater; WIMPs and MACHOs. The later are large astronomical bodies made of standard matter that are just hard to see, like brown dwarfs, blackholes, and these.

    While hard to see directly, we should be able to observe indirect evidence of their existence due to gravitational lensing of objects behind them, and so forth. Since then many surveys of the sky have been performed, using these techniques. If these objects existed in the quantity needed to make up all the missing mass then we would have detected a far greater number of them than we did (at least 2 orders of magnitude more).

    So while they surely exist, they can't account for more than a small fraction of the missing mass problem, unless the universe has conspired to place them none of them between us and all the luminous mass in the universe.

  29. Re:Cleaner by m50d · · Score: 1

    Now you're making me wonder, whatever happened to the guy with the thai ladyboys?

    --
    I am trolling
  30. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to know there are still people gullible enough to believe everything they read on the internet. Energy costs != A/C costs.

  31. Chicken and egg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can put railguns that far away, you would be better off just sending the probe instead.

    1. Re:Chicken and egg... by kryliss · · Score: 1

      I was just going to say that.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
  32. nearly impossible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When viewed with a visible-light telescope, they are nearly impossible to see."

    Shouldn't that be just "impossible to see."? How could an 80-degree (F) object be seen *at all* through a visible-light telescope, with no nearby visible light source to reflect off of?

  33. We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the Death Star

    1. Re:We're doomed by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well, we know for certain that that isn't a moon!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  34. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not about being gullible. It's about throwing out a number that supports a point of view even if the poster knows that the number is wrong. You see tons of it around here, people using numbers and misinformation that is easily disproven but as long as it makes their "side" look good? Not many around here are grounded in the facts.
     
    Aside from that we could go down a long list of cause and effect but that's not going to get the JWST into space any sooner. Instead of attacking the cause of James Webb's problems the OP just wanted to throw a red herring in there. It doesn't really relate and it doesn't really support their cause but I guess they feel good thinking they're witty for saying it anyway.

  35. Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this help the Muslim people feel good about their contributions to science?

  36. Re:Cleaner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened to The Turd Report?

  37. Dyson Spheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they know they aren't gigantic Dyson spheres?

  38. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah right, "air conditioning".

  39. I can see the alternative news sites going batty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Niburu found!!! Millions of tin foil hats are temporarily tossed in the air. NSA brain scanning systems overload.

  40. Re:I wonder how many the Webb telescope would find by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Do you want to be the one to tell a bunch of soldiers that they have to go without air-conditioning for two months?

    No, I want to be the one to tell soldiers they can go home.

    Saving a whole bunch of money the US doesn't have in the process is just a plus.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  41. Can Humans "live" there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering we overcome travel,food, & gravity on the star-ground, can we make it our "home & live".

  42. Sounds like it could be Dark Matter by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    They found 6 of these things very nearby. How big are they? If there are enough of them they could make up for the missing matter that led to the theory of Dark Matter. Or at least reduce it by a large margin.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  43. Better have some good "sunblock" by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    "...like the way our skin is repaired"? And I don't suppose constant bombardment from interstellar particles at relative velocity close to c could possibly induce malfunctions "like" our melanoma?