Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nearby Star May Have More Planets Than Our Solar System

Posted by Unknown on from the told-you-space-lizards-were-real dept.

The Bad Astronomer writes "HD 10180 is a near-twin of the Sun about 130 light years away. It's known to have at least six planets orbiting it, but a new analysis of the data shows clear indications of three more, for a total of nine! This means HD 10180 has more planets than our solar system. And whether you think Pluto is a planet or not, all nine of these aliens worlds have masses larger than Earth's, putting them firmly in the 'planet' category."

31 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, but... by mmullings · · Score: 3, Informative

    So, how many of you saw HD 1080i

    --
    I remember when MOD was an audio format, and DOS wasn't a network attack....
    1. Re:Yes, but... by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Researchers claim that the increased number of planets makes this star far more interesting than its companion, HD 7120.

      However, it takes sophisticated equipment to detect the additional planets; most amateur astronomers can't see the difference with their smaller telescopes.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Yes, but... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

      HD 1080i has only half the planets of HD 10180, it just looks the same as it's an interlacing solar system.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Yes, but... by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      However, most interstellar travel only goes to HD 7120, getting service to HD 10180 is much more rare.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    4. Re:Yes, but... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, how many of you saw HD 1080i

      Sorry, my telescope only does 720p.

      I'll have enough saved to upgrade in a month or two, though.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. Then we must attack! by stevegee58 · · Score: 2

    We cannot stand by and allow this "planet gap" to continue! Earthlings unite!

    1. Re:Then we must attack! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      So we are going to 'liberate' one their planets? Count me in

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Then we must attack! by formfeed · · Score: 2

      We cannot stand by and allow this "planet gap" to continue! Earthlings unite!

      We once had nine planets too. Till some @*&! just had to kill Pluto.

  3. I have Planet Envy by trout007 · · Score: 2

    Maybe we can let NDT take a look and demote some?

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  4. So it's finally come down to this... by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Planet envy

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  5. mass? by Pieroxy · · Score: 2

    I thought Pluto was 'degraded' of its planet status because it wasn't orbiting the sun in the same plane as the other planets, not because of its mass...

    --
    Write boring code, not shiny code!
    1. Re:mass? by meglon · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's because it hasn't cleared it's neighborhood of other objects (not including it's moons). Pluto is basically one of the largest objects in a debris disk. Had it accreted that disk, we'd still call it to planet.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    2. Re:mass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The current IAU definition is (c/o Wikipedia)

      The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
      (1) A "planet"[1] is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
      (2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape[2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
      (3) All other objects[3], except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".
      Footnotes:
      1 The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
      2 An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either "dwarf planet" and other categories.
      3 These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.
      The IAU further resolves:
      Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognised as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.

      Pluto fails because it hasn't cleared its orbit.

      Many people don't like the definition for many reasons. Among them, that what constitutes a "clear" orbit is not specified and is arbitrary (no planet has an orbit 100% free of other objects), that the point of 'hydrostatic equilibrium' is also unspecified and arbitrary, and that it only applies to the Solar System ("The Sun" is in there).

    3. Re:mass? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Not really; as far as we can tell Pluto is roughly spherical, and has sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:mass? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not really; as far as we can tell Pluto is roughly spherical, and has sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium.

      So are my neighbors. In addition they've cleared a debris field that encompasses 'the neighborhood' (McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's and both grocery stores).

      Should i report them to the IAU?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:mass? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Arbitrary means that the line has been drawn at a certain point because... we decided to draw the line at that point.

      Well they didn't draw the line at a certain point because they didn't have to. The extant gap between bodies' orbit-clearing ability was already there and ridiculously huge. It's no more arbitrary than the distinction between the Americas and Eurasia. You might not be able to exactly where one begins and the other ends, but you don't have to because there's a gigantic gap where neither of them are.

      Complaining "Why did you pick exactly that point?" when no point was picked, the 5-order-of-magnitude gap makes such a thing unnecessary, is missing the point.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:mass? by mister_playboy · · Score: 2

      "People" don't like that Pluto got demoted; their objections to the definition are reverse-engineered from that emotional fact, as evidenced by not even trying to understand the physical reality that informs it.

      Indeed. Not only is Pluto no longer a plant, it no longer can claim Charon as its moon. Pluto and Charon orbit a common center of mass outside of both bodies, making them a binary planet with a further two (or possibly more) small moons.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    7. Re:mass? by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, there is a 5-order-of-magnitude gap in our solar system, but there are other systems, and they may have celestial bodies that fall within that gap, so clearer terms might be useful.

      Since we don't yet know the composition of these other systems (though I think most would grant they should exist), shouldn't the defining be similarly deferred? Make the definition as useful as it needs to be now, tighten it up later when it's clearly inadequate. It's an imperfect process, but it worked before and it will work again (Pluto controversy notwithstanding). "Planet" is a name for a class of objects, and perhaps overly broad, but right now it usefully defines what we know. When we know more, we'll muck with the definition to fit.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  6. are they all in the habitable zone? by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2

    Could this be the place we escape to when the earth is uninhabitable? Will we live in a space western?

    1. Re:are they all in the habitable zone? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      Could this be the place we escape to when the earth is uninhabitable? Will we live in a space western?

      No, it's the place prepared for our afterlife.

      If you're good, you get to float around the clouds of the gas giants playing a harp. If you're bad, you spend all eternity assembling smartphones on one of the scorching inner planets.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  7. HD 10180 Nearby? by aslvstr · · Score: 2

    When did 130 ly become nearby? Did someone invent a FTL drive while I wasn't paying attention?

    1. Re:HD 10180 Nearby? by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When did 130 ly become nearby? Did someone invent a FTL drive while I wasn't paying attention?

      Light coming from it is only a 130 years old not millions or billions of years old. I think the general unspoken idea of nearby is that they may still have the same technology if there were intelligent life that they did a 130 years ago so there's the potential for contact if a civilization was detected. There is a likely window of a few hundred years to a few thousand years where contact would be possible. There is no set standard for nearby but I think that would be the closest I could come, any star with the potential for contact. 130 light years is definitely in that range and with multiple large planets it'd be a solid candidate for life.

    2. Re:HD 10180 Nearby? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When did 130 ly become nearby?

      As soon as the context became the stars.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:HD 10180 Nearby? by Surt · · Score: 2

      It is among the nearest .000001% of all stars.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:HD 10180 Nearby? by rachit · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think any object that no human being can visit in their lifetime without defying the laws of physics can be truly said to be "nearby".

      You *can* visit it in your lifetime without violating the laws of physics, its just that you cannot visit it in the lifetime of the people observing you from Earth.

  8. Nibiru to the rescue! by Trails · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah but when nibiru comes back around, we'll be up a planet and then who'll be laughing?

  9. Re:only Solar System can have planets by gstrickler · · Score: 2

    You narcissistic xenophobe. Sol is not superior to other suns.

    End Solar Supremacy! We demand equal treatment of all planetary systems.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  10. More Great Work from Kepler by physburn · · Score: 3, Informative
    NASA's Kepler mission has so far found 2300 potential planets outside the solar system, and the mission has been extended to past 2016. Way to go Kepler!

    ---

    Extra Solar Planets Feed @ Feed Distiller

  11. Firefly System? by Jhyrryl · · Score: 2

    You're asking if this is the planetary system from Firefly.

    --
    Jhyrryl
  12. Re:Wow by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2

    Look little buddy. I made this contraption to measure planets around nearby stars. I call it the Star Gazer 3000....

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  13. All Population I stars have planets by symbolset · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, they do unless they're binary stars where the planets were so huge they condensed into a star. And the planets go from so close they're in danger of being consumed, to so far out that the the material they would have been made of was flung out of the stellar system instead - in orbits of the maximum closeness that you couldn't fit another planetary orbit between them. Since every reasonable sized star has a habitable zone, and given the distribution of mass, between 2 and 4 planets have to be in it. Time makes the orbits regular. If the planet in the right spot is too large for Men, it will have a moon of the appropriate size.

    This is obvious from the distribution of prestellar masses and the forces that cause stars and planets to form. Who doesn't know this? It's Bode's Law.

    See those stars in the sky? They have planets. All of them, near enough as makes no difference. And all of them have planets where liquid water could form. And water is so common that there is water on all of them. And so the Fermi Paradox becomes more intriguing. The stars in the sky where Men cannot live are passing rare - if we can get there.

    Let's go already.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.