Slashdot Mirror


Earth's Corner of the Galaxy Just Got a Little Lonelier

Hugh Pickens writes "Only four stars, including Barnard's Star, are within six light-years of the Sun, and only 11 are within 10 light-years. That's why Barnard's star, popularized in Robert Forward's hard-SF novel Flight of the Dragonfly, is often short-listed as a target for humanity's first interstellar probe. Astronomers have long hoped to find a habitable planet around it, an alien Earth that might someday bear the boot prints of a future Neil Armstrong, or the tire tracks of a souped-up 25th-century Curiosity rover. But now Ross Anderson reports that a group of researchers led by UC Berkeley's Jieun Choi have delivered the fatal blow to those hopes when they revealed the results of 248 precise Doppler measurements that were designed to examine the star for wobbles indicative of planets around it. The measurements, taken over a period of 25 years, led to a depressing conclusion: 'the habitable zone around Barnard's star appears to be devoid of roughly Earth-mass planets or larger ... [p]revious claims of planets around the star by van de Kamp are strongly refuted.' NASA's Kepler space telescope, which studies a group of distant Milky Way stars, has found more than 2,000 exoplanet candidates in just the past two years, leading many to suspect that our galaxy is home to billions of planets, a sizable portion of which could be habitable. 'This non-detection of nearly Earth-mass planets around Barnard's Star is surely unfortunate, as its distance of only 1.8 parsecs would render any Earth-size planets valuable targets for imaging and spectroscopy, as well as compelling destinations for robotic probes by the end of the century.'"

161 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. But can it detect a space station? by trout007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could be a local hangout.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:But can it detect a space station? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There is an interesting aspect towards Science Fiction... The fact that it is Fiction.
      fiction [fik-shuhn] Show IPA
      noun
      1.the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
      2.works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
      3.something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
      4.the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
      5.an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

        [reference.com]

      In other words Science Fiction is not real. They are stories created by someone. There isn't any strong evidence a Warp/Hyper Space Drive will work or Time Travel is possible. Or that most planets out of the solar system if they do have life chances are it will just be the equivalent of slime on the rocks. If we do find intelligent alien life we have a chance to be able to communicate with them.

      The vision of the future I see is closer to Red Dwarf then as of Star Trek. They are no Intelligent Aliens, In a couple of thousand years we may be able to colonize a few planet our of our solar system (to be a backup for humanity), over millions of years we would diverged in evolution. But this will be probably across 2 or 3 planets.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:But can it detect a space station? by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, and how much science fiction has become true within a century or two of it being written? Traveling to moon? Did that. Created giant subs capable of traversing the world's oceans? Did that. Went to Mars? We're pretty close. Cybernetics? Robotics? The author that came up with those lived to see them start to become real.

    3. Re:But can it detect a space station? by aled · · Score: 1

      Could be a local hangout.

      I don't know, I don't use Google+.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  2. Alpha Centauri by Meneth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What about Alpha Centauri? I suppose the binary nature of the star system could make it hard to detect any planets there.

    1. Re:Alpha Centauri by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      And hard to envisage habitable plants remaining stable for sufficiently long periods of time for complex life to evolve. Though if you're looking for somewhere to put people, planets without existing life are a much better bet.

    2. Re:Alpha Centauri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Binary star system with planets have already been discovered.

      Kepler-16b for example.

      Granted, not in the habitable zone. Until now.

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20106952-239/nasa-spots-first-planet-in-binary-star-system/

      http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0210/11planet/

      http://www.space.com/9388-surprise-discovery-planets-stars-system.html

    3. Re:Alpha Centauri by naroom · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too many mind worms.

    4. Re:Alpha Centauri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How big a telescope would need to be, in order to be able to find streetlights on a planet 10 light years away, either by looking for an artificial spectrum, or for a frequency of the order of 50Hz, assuming a continent-wide synchronised AC power supply.

      Assuming you just want a big telescope that can resolve something on the scale of a streetlamp, 10 light years away...

      We'll need the small-angle formula and the Raleigh Criterion. The first gives us the angular size of the streetlight; the second gives us the diameter of the telescope needed.

      The small angle formula tells us D=a*d/206265, where d is the linear size of the object, a is the angular size, in arcsec, of the object, and D is the distance to the object.

      We'll assume a linear size of 0.25 metres and a distance of 9.46e16 metres (10 ly). This gives us an angular size of 5.45e-13 arcseconds.

      The Raleigh Criterion tells us sin(theta)=1.220*lambda/D, where theta is the resolution, in radians, lambda is the wavelength of the light source, and D is the diameter of the objective.

      Assuming a wavelength of 550nm, we get a diameter fo the objective of 2.54e11 metres, or 254 gigametres. For comparison, the earth's diameter is about 12 megametres; the diameter of Venus' orbit is 216 gigametres, and the diameter of Earth's orbit is 302 gigametres.

    5. Re:Alpha Centauri by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      What about Alpha Centauri? I suppose the binary nature of the star system could make it hard to detect any planets there.

      No, since we know of the existence and orbital period of the two bodies, all it takes is a little extra number crunching to removes those wobbles from the data. It's pretty straightforward signal analysis. That the frequency of those wobbles will be different from the frequency of planetary wobbles just makes it easier.

    6. Re:Alpha Centauri by neoshroom · · Score: 3, Funny

      The problem with Alpha Centauri is that as soon as you put together all the parts to launch the rockets there, Civilization ends. Maybe we should go for a Diplomatic Victory instead?

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    7. Re:Alpha Centauri by jc42 · · Score: 1

      And hard to envisage habitable plants [around the two Alpha Centauri stars] remaining stable for sufficiently long periods of time for complex life to evolve.

      Actually, astronomers have published some fairly detailed analyses of this. The two stars (A and B) orbit each other at distances that range from about 11.6 AU to 35.6 AU, a bit farther than to our sun's distances to Saturn and Neptune. This would allow for long-term stable orbits somewhat farther than 1 AU from both stars (about 1.5 AU for A and 1.1 AU for B). Since A is brighter than B, it turns out that there's a wider "habitable zone" around B, but an Earth-like planet could exist for both.

      The Alpha Centauri system is estimated to be a bit older than our solar system, but "only" about 250 million years or so, which isn't very significant. So, unless there has been a close encounter with another star, planets there would have had roughly the same time as ours to develop life.

      But so far, nothing is known about any planets in the system, despite its nearness to us. There aren't any Jupiter-size gas giants, but we can't yet detect the effects of an Earth-size planet, even around the nearest stars. In particular, the two stars' orbits about each other is sufficiently inclined to our line of sight that transits by planets are unlikely, at least if the planets' orbits are in roughly the same plane. (Does anyone know if the two stars' planetary disks have been measured?)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  3. Don't need a planet to explore by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why can't people think about exploring interplanetary space, not planets, but just looking at what a foreign solar system looks like. Sure, it's nice to have planets to land upon, but it's not necessary if you only care about exploration.

    Now, if people wanted to 'spread the seed' so to speak (and as a pro-choice person, I don't necessarily endorse the idea), then yeah, it's a loss, but just to explore you don't need Earth type planets.

    How about the Earth sized moons in this solar system? Titan?

    1. Re:Don't need a planet to explore by forkazoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If a solar system has only one thing in it and that thing is mostly just relatively undifferentiated hydrogen, that's going to be less interesting that a solar system with a bunch of things in it. (Regardless of any ideas about colonizing or anything else.) It's certainly still possible that there is something fascinating in that solar system, but at the moment, it would have to be something we still can't detect, so it's hard to get as excited about. Planets are fascinating things. They have interesting geology and interesting compositions. They also imply that there is enough mass for things smaller than planets, like comets and asteroids as well.

    2. Re:Don't need a planet to explore by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but that is not the argument in this story, the argument is not that there are no planets there, the argument is that there are no Earth size (or larger) planets are not found within the 'habitable zone'.

      This doesn't mean there are no planets, there are no planetoids, there are no comets, there is nothing there. It means there are no planets like this one or bigger within the 'habitable range', which is another thing that we make various assumptions about.

      So to us 'habitable' means some range of temperatures for example, so that water would be in a liquid form. But this does not even mean at all, that there is no planet there, where there is water in liquid form that is not within the 'habitable range' from the star. Can't water be in liquid form due to other conditions, for example because a planet is too hot due to radioactivity and there is liquid water underground?

      They ruled out Earth type planets within 'habitable range' that's all.

    3. Re:Don't need a planet to explore by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Have you ever played Star Control II? If there are no planets to land on you're just wasting your time.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Don't need a planet to explore by Gripp · · Score: 1

      what exactly does being pro-choice have to do with ensuring the continued survival of our entire species? And why would you not endorse this idea? Common sense is there WILL come a day, sooner or later, where if we aren't able to habitate elsewhere our species will no longer exist. Why would any sane person ever think this is ideal? And please tell me you have nothing to do with nuclear controls =/
      and as for moons, that's great too, but short of *extensive* terraforming knowledge getting one to be outright habitable and self sustained is impossible. Keep in mind those small moons aren't exactly ideal due to the distance from earth and radiation from their planets. The best will be able to do in the foreseeable future is have artificial colonies that require earth assistance. Which leaves us back finding planets that are already habitable as our only immediate hope.

    5. Re:Don't need a planet to explore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what exactly does being pro-choice have to do with ensuring the continued survival of our entire species?

      the truth is, it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter because ...

      And why would you not endorse this idea?

      roman_mir actually does endorse the idea. his claim to be pro-choice is a ruse. read through his comment history and you will find he is a religious zealot, a following a religion that is very ardently anti-abortion. he is claiming to be pro-choice because he expect it will win him sympathy here on slashdot.

      as for 'spreading the seed' - he is all in favor of it, as long as it is done by a profitable company. he just doesn't want to pay for it, even if it means the species dies out as a result of his being a cheap bastard.

  4. Re:We're running out of planets! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    When the wise man points at the moon, the naive looks at the stars behind. Go to the Moon, extract water, create an atmosphere, grow plants. Nobody says it's easy. But the whole is likely to take less time than to go to a "near" star and find a "livable" planet...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  5. No planets around Barnard's Star? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Let's just build a 'tugboat' and take the earth with us and hope the core stays hot enough to keep us from freezing solid. Be ready for a very long night.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:No planets around Barnard's Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      It would be a lot easier to make an interstellar ship out of the moon. We just need to build a large base and then set of a huge nuclear explosion on the other side of it.

    2. Re:No planets around Barnard's Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It worked perfectly in Space 1999!

      No mod points sadly

    3. Re:No planets around Barnard's Star? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      For a moment there, I thought you meant on the other side of the moon from us, rather than from the base. I was already to go "nooooo, that'll crash it into the Earth, you fool!" Then I realised. And posted anyway. Ah well.

    4. Re:No planets around Barnard's Star? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, let's just blow up some nukes on the moon, and use it as a spaceship ;-)

    5. Re:No planets around Barnard's Star? by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

      I read a short story once where (based on my very limited memory of the story) a planet had lost its sun somehow and was near absolute zero on the surface. A small group of survivors lived underground in what they called 'the nest' and actually went to the surface periodically to gather some oxygen 'snow' to bring back down to the nest and boil into breathable air.

      I -probably- read this in Issac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    6. Re:No planets around Barnard's Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For a moment there, I thought you meant on the other side of the moon from us, rather than from the base. I was already to go "nooooo, that'll crash it into the Earth, you fool!" Then I realised. And posted anyway. Ah well.

      yes, that's the ridiculous part of the "nuclear powered moon-ship" plan.

    7. Re:No planets around Barnard's Star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's called "A Pail of Air" by Fritz Leiber from 1951.
      The planet was actually earth, which had been torn away from the Sun by a dark star passing through.
      It's a nice and rather short story and can be read in full here. http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/0743498747/0743498747___6.htm

    8. Re:No planets around Barnard's Star? by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      I think we should Blow Up The Moon
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
  6. Is it still a possibility? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

    Could this just mean that it eliminates any orientation other than either pole of the solar system facing Earth? Absolutely no planets seems so suspicious...

    1. Re:Is it still a possibility? by Dupple · · Score: 1

      You could still detect a wobble or deflection of light if a planet orbits around the equator or over the poles.

      --
      Watch those corners
    2. Re:Is it still a possibility? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Could this just mean that it eliminates any orientation other than either pole of the solar system facing Earth?

      No, if that were the case, you would still see the star "draw" a little bitty circle if anything sizable is orbiting it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Is it still a possibility? by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Looking for wobble rather than dimming of light due to transits or direct imaging would imply that there's nothing there at all.

    4. Re:Is it still a possibility? by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The barycenter of sun-earth is only 300 miles from the middle of the sun.

      Keep in mind that Barnard's star is only about a seventh of the sun, and much cooler, so the habitable zone is much closer. An earth sized planet in the habitable zone would have a much larger impact on Barnard's Star than Earth does on Sol.

    5. Re:Is it still a possibility? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Have we found any systems with only one planet yet? In our system I believe the barycenter is somewhere above the surface of the sun. That should be comparatively easy to notice.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Re:We're running out of planets! by eclectro · · Score: 1

    The moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold any usable atmosphere that you would think to create.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  8. Look at the bright side by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A lack of planet on a nearby star does not mean there is nothing around the star

    There might still be fragments of ice / rocks / whatever that humankind can use to construct an artificial planet of some kind

    Plus, the lack of existing planet means we get to create one, with our own design

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Look at the bright side by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Plus, the lack of existing planet means we get to create one, with our own design

      Thats what i was pondering.. i'd mod you up if i could.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    2. Re:Look at the bright side by cjsm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lack of planet on a nearby star does not mean there is nothing around the star

      There might still be fragments of ice / rocks / whatever that humankind can use to construct an artificial planet of some kind

      Plus, the lack of existing planet means we get to create one, with our own design

      Yea, make our own planet. Simple! This got modded 5 Insightful? Why not make another Earth in our own solar system? It would be way easier to do it here where all the resources are, instead of in a distant solar system. Or even easier, crash asteroids from the asteroid belt into Mars to create an Earth size planet. Why don't we do it? Because it would be freakin' impossible for any beings without near God-like technological powers.

      --
      This ad space for rent.
    3. Re:Look at the bright side by lxs · · Score: 5, Funny

      I do hope they'll add fjords. They give a planet character.

    4. Re:Look at the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why don't we do it? Because it would be freakin' impossible for any beings without near God-like technological powers.

      People not so long ago would have said that about many of the things we take for granted today. Try telling someone a couple of hundred years ago that we'd build aircraft that could carry hundreds of people at 2/3 the speed of sound to the other side of the planet in a few hours, or that we'd be able to pull a small device out of our pockets and talk instantly to someone anywhere on earth, or that we'd be able to send a sophisticated robot to Mars to explore and conduct science experiments. Creating an artificial planet isn't essentially that hard, it just requires a level of technology beyond where we're currently at. Get to a stage where you can send out self-replicating robots to collect and process asteroids for you, for example, and it might look a bit less daunting. And there's no particular reason to believe that we won't eventually develop such technologies.

    5. Re:Look at the bright side by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, make our own planet. Simple! This got modded 5 Insightful?

      The Mormon Moderation Front?

      Seriously, I can't think of anyone else who believe that humans will create planets. No, this is not flamebait or trolling - it really is the only ones I can think of that might see this as a possibility, although not while still human.

      And if there really are someone delusional enough here to think that we could create our own planet while being mortal humans, you really need to think about the scale here. It's not just huge, it's immense. We only scratch the surface of this planet.
      If we found Mount Everest sized rocks (~3x10^15 kg) in a solar system, we would need around 2 000 000 000, that is 2 milliard (or billion for those who use the short system) of them to create a planet with Earth's mass (~6x10^24 kg). Imagine the power and time needed to move one Mount Everest. Each Chomalungma sized rock is about 28 milliard (or billion in the short sytem) times the weight of the space shuttle.

      And we're not just talking scale here. Think about how you would adjust the orbital speed of the mass you assemble so it would stay in orbit as you add to it. Or how to cool it down from all that kinetic energy -- how long did it take Earth to cool down? Or how to survive the flares of Barnard's Star?

      Niven and Lucas make great space operas. But we have to admit to some limitations. Come back in a few million years, and whatever species have descended from us may have a different opinion. But us? No, we have no chance.

    6. Re:Look at the bright side by medv4380 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Interstellar travel will probably give us that Near God-Like technological power that you seem to think will be missing. Getting there will be much harder then moving a few rocks around. Though doing it in our own solar system might be considered dangrous. Changing the existing set of gravity wells could cause any number of problems, but who cares if it's an uninhabitable solar system.

    7. Re:Look at the bright side by dontclapthrowmoney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not make another Earth in our own solar system?

      I'd prefer them to use Barnard's star for beta testing the process.

    8. Re:Look at the bright side by Hunter+Shoptaw · · Score: 1

      Because it would be freakin' impossible for any beings without near God-like technological powers.

      So was fire and electricity at one point. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)"

    9. Re:Look at the bright side by invid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      By the time we have the technology to build our own planets, planets will be obsolete.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    10. Re:Look at the bright side by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is exactly what I came here to say.

      One thousand years ago, the peak of technology was a powder that would explode when ignited, that could propel a small projectile in a general direction a few hundred feet. Today, the peak of technology is dropping a laser-armed nuclear-powered semi-autonomous wheeled laboratory from a rocket-powered flying crane onto a precise target from 150 million miles away.

      By the time we have the capability to load up humans and send them 1.8 parsecs away before they (and any descendents) die, we might just have the technology to build an artificial planet, or at least a large structure capable of artificial gravity, a self-sustaining ecosystem, and harvesting materials from whatever asteroids are nearby. It does not need to be as big as the Earth or support as large a population, but it'll do for a while until technology improves further.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:Look at the bright side by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Getting there will be much harder then moving a few rocks around.

      Um, no. A planet isn't just "a few rocks". The scale is immense, and we're bound by the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

      Never mind where we would get the energy to accelerate and decelerate such masses from, it would likely take thousands of millions of years to assemble those "few" (thousands of millions) gargantuan rocks and have the new planet cool down enough to be ready for terra-forming.

      Getting there isn't even in the same fantasy as creating a planet. There are orders of orders of magnitude difference here.

    12. Re:Look at the bright side by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      capable of artificial gravity,

      You want some faster than light travel with that?
      Or perhaps telekinesis?

    13. Re:Look at the bright side by Stele · · Score: 5, Funny

      You want some faster than light travel with that?
      Or perhaps telekinesis?

      You read my mind!

    14. Re:Look at the bright side by Geeky · · Score: 2

      I think, given that you're writing in English, it's perfectly safe to say "billion" and not specify "short system" every time.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    15. Re:Look at the bright side by deoxyribonucleose · · Score: 4, Informative

      capable of artificial gravity,

      You want some faster than light travel with that? Or perhaps telekinesis?

      Inertia expressed as centripetal force will do just fine, thanks.

    16. Re:Look at the bright side by tarius8105 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Easier said than done. There would be a lot of new science required just for planet terraforming that does not exist today. An example, how to make the planet's core more active to support tectonic plates so that the rock material from crashing asteroids into the planet get recycled into larger rocks. Then there is calculating the right amount of liquid water needed to sustain the planet and somehow transport it whether its crashing comets into the planet. Altering the planet's rotation if its tidally locked, its axis if we want to have seasons (which I believe would be required), and potentially a moon with enough mass to exert influence to maintain them. The other issue is this isnt something that is currently completable in the average person's life time, it would be many generations down the line where they might be able to work on phase 2.

    17. Re:Look at the bright side by Drethon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah I mean what's with people who think humans can fly? There are just things that humans were not meant to do!

      Everything is impossible until you figure out how to make it possible...

    18. Re:Look at the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      capable of artificial gravity,

      You want some faster than light travel with that?
      Or perhaps telekinesis?

      Artificial gravity can easily be implemented with acceleration. Pretty much every amusement park out there have a "large" structure capable of artificial gravity. They usually create a gravity-like force out from the center but sometimes they create a transient gravity-like force, either upwards or downwards from earth to increase or decrease the real gravitational force you fell form the planet.

      Faster than light travel is a bit harder since traveling at light speed isn't supported by current models. If the models we use today turns out to be wrong it might be possible. We still havent figured out why we get anomalies like dark matter with the models so it's not impossible that there is something wrong with them. OTOH we haven't observed anything moving faster than light either so it's likely that the energy requirement for moving faster than light is too high for it to be possible to occur naturally or that things moving faster than light don't interact in a way that can be observed.

      Telekinesis is spiritual superstition and belongs to fantasy, not science fiction.

    19. Re:Look at the bright side by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah I mean what's with people who think humans can fly? There are just things that humans were not meant to do!

      Everything is impossible until you figure out how to make it possible...

      This isn't just a technical issue, unless Newton, Carnot and Einstein were all wrong in pretty radical ways.
      Scoffing at building a planet is more like scoffing at someone who says he can eat the moon. It's not just a question of getting and preparing the moon - there's not enough time for it to happen in.

    20. Re:Look at the bright side by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      And that's what probes are for, which is a good way to test the travel capability. Of course, even if we sent a probe today, we're talking a few generations before useful data is returned, and our probe technology isn't really good enough to scan a whole solar system for asteroids yet... so now's a good time to work on picking promising stars, confirming or ruling out suspicions, and exploring our own solar system. Heck, maybe we can get a viable small fusion reactor working productively, then we just have our interstellar ship grab asteroids from our own system on the way out as a source of both fuel (enough to offset the additional needs) and material for the destination. Unfortunately I do not know the math involved, and the equations will change as new technologies are developed, anyway... but here's hoping.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    21. Re:Look at the bright side by medv4380 · · Score: 2

      If you're going to limit yourself to only what we know now then we'll probably never even leave our solar system. So why bother yourself with an opinion about making worlds?

    22. Re:Look at the bright side by asylumx · · Score: 1

      If we ever have the technology to create our own planet, why wouldn't we do it right here in our own solar system? There's plenty of extra material floating around. Not to mention, if we have the tech and ability to create a planet we probably also have the ability that we could just push Mars closer or Venus farther out to get them into the habitable zone.

    23. Re:Look at the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even flying to another star would require divine technology. That of course will encourage some to think it is possible...

      End of the century my ass!

    24. Re:Look at the bright side by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I just want a big spinning thing.

      Structural engineering (and the related chemistry, metallurgy, and industrial engineering) technology will have to improve, of course, but it is reasonable to build a large spinning wheel as a habitat around a central weightless work area. It doesn't need to be nearly as much as Earth's gravity to be useful, and the subsequent generations that spend their whole lives on the craft will adapt (mentally first, then ever-so-slowly physically) to the altered environment.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    25. Re:Look at the bright side by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Saving all known life in the universe seems like a pretty important thing, the universe would be pretty boring without it.

      No, it wouldn't. Per definition, there would be no one to be bored.

    26. Re:Look at the bright side by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Planet? Not so hard really, use well targeted nuclear explosions to adjust asteroid orbits just enough to induce collisions... a lot of collisions.

      Oh, you mean a habitable one? That's going to be a tall order. A planet wouldn't be so hard to do, you just need to put enough matter together and gravity will do the rest... in a few hundred million years. The habitable part is much more tricky. You need water, plate tectonics, magnetic field, inert atmosphere, ozone layer, etc.

      On the other hand, we could build and design ourselves an artificial structure like an orbital which would do the job with a little less effort and time involved. We would need a lot more technology to do it, but not it's not inconceivable.

    27. Re:Look at the bright side by GrunthosThePoet · · Score: 2

      Planet? Pah! I demand a Ring World!

    28. Re:Look at the bright side by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is actually pretty much true.

      By the time we have the technology to smash together enough rocks that it can hold an atmosphere with its natural gravitational force, we won't need to live on a rock with enough natural gravitational force to hold an atmosphere.

      That godlike amount of effort could be spent doing something more practical.

    29. Re:Look at the bright side by evilviper · · Score: 1

      There might still be fragments of ice / rocks / whatever that humankind can use to construct an artificial planet of some kind

      You've completely missed the point. NASA has a hard-on for searching for signs of life on other planets, and an "Earth" in the next solar system would be a damn near perfect place to find life, or otherwise lend credence to the opposition (that says life is unique to Earth, or at least not the oh-so-common scenario which most contemporary astronomers claim that it is).

      If we just wanted to teraform a planet, we could do it closer to home... Mars and Venus for example. But that doesn't get NASA its samples of alien bacteria they're dying to find at this point.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    30. Re:Look at the bright side by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      Bruce Willis and most of his team are still alive, no problem!

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    31. Re:Look at the bright side by evilviper · · Score: 5, Funny

      capable of artificial gravity,

      You want some faster than light travel with that?

      No thanks, I had some neutrinos for lunch, and boy did they go right through me!

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    32. Re:Look at the bright side by n5vb · · Score: 1

      Everything is impossible until you figure out how to make it possible...

      It's not impossible -- it's just really, really improbable given the current state of our energy and propulsion technology, and there's not much big propulsion tech on the horizon that would seem likely to change that anytime soon. VASIMR is pretty promising for small manned spacecraft (and even more so for large robotic spacecraft) but it's basically in the realm of ion engines -- high efficiency, long run times, but relatively small thrust even compared to fuel/oxidizer engines. Even Orion-style propulsion would be a stretch for the kind of delta-V each individual rock would need to get it to where you're assembling your planet, and that's just getting them there, not even including controlled impact. (Granted, you could use the kinetic energy to heat up the mass so it melts and forms a core/mantle structure kind of like Earth's, and you'd have a hard time maintaining an atmosphere without a magnetosphere to shield it from solar wind, but that means waiting for the crust to cool..)

      So, not impossible. Just really really difficult and expensive on a scale humanity has never even approached, with engineering complexities several orders of magnitude beyond what we have any experience with. And we're not *that* good at getting subsurface oil out of the Gulf seabed and even worse at stopping it gushing out when the well blows out. Imagine how badly we could screw up a planet construction project. :p

    33. Re:Look at the bright side by computererds · · Score: 1

      I think some people need to learn about sarcasm. The people that modded it insightful instead of funny though...

    34. Re:Look at the bright side by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Now that is within the realm of possibility, as long as it's at a small enough scale that it's doable. We can probably work around how this differs from gravity (your head being lighter than your feet, coriolis effects, curvature going the wrong way), or adapt.

      Artificial gravity as in Star Trek, on the other hand, is not, at present, something it's even worth working towards. If we get a new set of physics, then we can revisit that -- just like human flight needed a new set of physics before it could become reality, so will we for this.
      Either that, or really strong mushrooms.

    35. Re:Look at the bright side by quenda · · Score: 1

      Good point. Maybe there was a planet, but the locals ripped it apart to build a Ringworld. There is no way to detect that from here with current technology.

    36. Re:Look at the bright side by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come one, artificial gravity is easy. You use a simple quantum graviton emitter to pull gravitons from the gbrain and emit them in concentration creating an artificial gravity field.

      Everyone knows that.... Wait, what year is it?

      never mind.

    37. Re:Look at the bright side by Shempster · · Score: 2

      Niven and Lucas make great space operas. But we have to admit to some limitations. Come back in a few million years, and whatever species have descended from us may have a different opinion. But us? No, we have no chance.

      We are hardwired for optimism, for better and for worse. And future milestone breakthroughs are very hard to predict. Some predict an accurate simulation of the human brain is only several years away. Strong AI shouldn't be too far off after that. Strong AI will expand the sphere of whats possible, technologically. But we human beings are most defintely very primitive. IMO, we have never possessed the type of ethical wisdom, nor moral courage that would allow our species to survive well into the future. As it is, the world's nations cannot restrain themselves from destroying the last remaining intact natural habitats (of this world) in the race for "scarce resources" for immediate term survival. Plutocracies control it all, and seemingly there is no way to break out of the destructive stupidity of how human civlization has chosen to conduct itself. That downer aside, we are wired for optimism. So we cannot give up hope. From fiction, sometimes great imaginations do accelerate (tehcnological) breakthroughs in the real world.

    38. Re:Look at the bright side by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      cjsm only excluded beings that did not possess god-like technological powers. So I guess we're OK, since Western civilization was considered god-like from the time of the conquistadors.

    39. Re:Look at the bright side by Drethon · · Score: 1

      No disagreement there but we went a really long time with nothing more than animal propulsion before we figured out other means. If humanity can survive for a long time into the future the the possibility exists of a similar drastic increase from present capabilities. Probability is likely against it but I'd rather shoot for the moon (or making one) and still be happy if I can at least get off the ground :)

    40. Re:Look at the bright side by Drethon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The idea of flight still applies. Flight of something that has all of its thrust propelling it forward seems impossible until we understood how a wing can produce lift. Yes the necessary forces to produce a planet in a sane amount of time are quite a bit different from that of a wing and may not exist at all. However we can't assume we know everything about how the universe works since our theories keep getting proven wrong (or incomplete). Unless we understand that there may be forces to the universe we don't know about yet, we will not recognize them when we finally see them.

    41. Re:Look at the bright side by prehistoricman5 · · Score: 1

      Get to a stage where you can send out self-replicating robots to collect and process asteroids for you.

      I'll pass on the self-replicating robots; we all know what happens next.

      --
      Fuck Beta
    42. Re:Look at the bright side by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      There might still be fragments of ice / rocks / whatever that humankind can use to construct an artificial planet of some kind

      The point is that there is nothing in the "life zone", where you find liquid water, so pretty unlikely there is any life in the system.Which is about the only thing that would justify the gigantic cost of going here.

      If we're going to build habitats from scratch, we have plenty of rocks in our own system, asteroids, moons, then the Kuiper Belt. As long a we can hold off from killing ourselves, we could house trillions in this system in the next few thousand years.

    43. Re:Look at the bright side by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doesn't sound like you appreciate the difficulties of doing an interstellar probe. It's not like silicon chips, in which we've seen astounding improvements. We simply can't do it, not now, and probably not in the next 20 years or even 100 years.

      Currently, our fastest escaping probe is Voyager 1, at about 17 km/s relative to the sun. At that rate, a probe will need about 70000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. Suppose the velocity we can give probes improves by a factor of 100, which is assuming a lot. (For one thing, gravity assists would be of little value.) That's still 700 years. We have no experience making machines that can last that long. Our civilization might not last that long. We need perhaps 1000 times the velocity, then we're talking only a 70 year wait.

      To achieve 1000 times the velocity is not a matter of 1000 times the fuel, it's 1000^2 times the fuel. It's even worse than that, if the probe has to carry its fuel. No matter how we accelerate the probe-- whether with on board ion drives, nuclear bombs, light sails, or something else-- that's such a huge amount of energy that none of these ideas are even remotely feasible. That means it will have to be slower, which puts us back to the problem of how to build something that can last the 1000 plus years such a trip will take. There are many other problems, such as communication, but the primary one is simply the distance. I wouldn't hold my breath for science fantasy either. It's not at all likely we will invent warp drive or some other means of FTL travel.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    44. Re:Look at the bright side by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Clearly it's not there yet, but we're already doing something that could be considered telekinesis.

    45. Re:Look at the bright side by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Nature abhors a pessimist...

    46. Re:Look at the bright side by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Oh my. We can barely put a tiny payload on planets in our own solar system, and you're daydreaming about building planets 6 light-years away. Do you have some fusion-rocket plans you're not telling us about?

    47. Re:Look at the bright side by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Quite the contrary... I fully understand how difficult anything interstellar is. I simply don't see that as a reason not to try. We can solve the intermediate problems such as asteroid mining, space-based habitats, artificial (centrifugal) gravity, and politics in the interim, but still keep an eye toward future targets. No, it will not be 20 or 100 years... probably at least another thousand, but there is no hard constraint that humans must be confined to the neighborhood of this one particular star.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    48. Re:Look at the bright side by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Creating an artificial planet isn't essentially that hard, it just requires a level of technology beyond where we're currently at. Get to a stage where you can send out self-replicating robots to collect and process asteroids for you, for example, and it might look a bit less daunting. And there's no particular reason to believe that we won't eventually develop such technologies.

      It's not just a matter of technology, but simply energy. In a discussion similar to this one, I did the math to figure out what it would take to move enough comets from the Kuiper belt to Mars in order to give it an atmosphere at earth like pressures. To do so in 10 years would roughly take an amount of energy measured in the total energy output of the sun (either one third or three days, I forget exactly). The amount of mass needed to make even a small planet will be several orders of magnitude larger than that. When talking on those scales, and the tech needed to even get to a different solar system, I wouldn't really say it "isn't essentially that hard". It will be hard to get to the level we even have that sort of energy to use, let alone put it to that specific use. It's like saying that destroying the Earth isn't that hard because one can theoretically calculate how much antimatter it would take to blow it up.

    49. Re:Look at the bright side by hemo_jr · · Score: 1

      Why make another planet, when you can make a ringworld or dyson sphere? There are plenty of rogue planets around, maybe some are close enough to Barnard's to be moved, if there isn't enough mass in orbit. Of course, this is a multi-generational project and if undertaken will probably be done by von neumann machines. But it is not theoretically impossible.

      Something to think about for when the sun expands to engulf the Earth's orbit.

    50. Re:Look at the bright side by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

      People not so long ago would have said that about many of the things we take for granted today.

      And those people were right, for dozens of generations to come. What we might achieve in 2300 is not relevant today. Sure, we must try to continue scientific and technologic progress. With both revolutionary discoveries and evolutionary practical solutions. But constructing a planet, as of now, is indeed totally out of reach.

      What we have to show for is just a single permanently inhabited construction in orbit, just one dozen of men on the moon in total and an growing but still insignificant number of unmanned landings on other bodies orbiting Sol. While I'm hopeful our descendents could create an artificial planet, I have to agree with GP that we, the humans alive as we speak, will most certainly not.

    51. Re:Look at the bright side by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You plan to have a CONCAVE planet?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    52. Re:Look at the bright side by AssholeMcGee+ · · Score: 1

      Star Trek had Genesis, this prompted scientist to ponder the possibilities of building such a device, I believe there are a few books on this (I have not read them tho), and I know there was a special on History or Discovery some years ago that talked about being able to build a device like this. They (they being the current genius minds, or scientists that were willing to explain how it is possible) claimed that the technology was here but there is a long problem solving list for scientist and researches to hammer out before it could be built let alone tested. I say knowing most on slashdot already know this!!! I have wondered if there are other earths out there could we find other humans, or find earths that are carbon copies of our own planets history, from the dinosaurs and up? Maybe they have not advanced to where we are at in technology and there is no way for them to signal back. I am pretty sure the reason NASA and other researchers/scientist come out with these reports is to keep others interested to aide in funding or gather more funding. Maybe inspire a new generation to find ways of building a Genesis device or even being able to build a Star Ship that would not require a hundred or so years to get to a planet near by.

    53. Re:Look at the bright side by deoxyribonucleose · · Score: 1

      A large structure capable of artificial gravity: yep, those should be concave. O'Neill cylinders, wheels, tori, bolas,

      Providing artificial gravity for a hollow earth would require some pretty funky super-physics, though... fine tuned control over space-time-curvature, perhaps? Exotic matter is still a hypothesis, though; and the energies required would probably make building an ordinary planet seem cheap.

    54. Re:Look at the bright side by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Inertia and gravity are two entirely differnet things. Its not "artificial gravity", because it isnt a force that attracts two objects based on their mass-- its a force that is entirely dependent on the momentum an object has when its velocity changes.

      Calling it "artificial gravity" might make sense when youre using it in a laymans sense, but its entirely different than being able to generate gravity which is on a whole other level of difficulty.

    55. Re:Look at the bright side by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      For anyone who doesnt get how mind-boggling of a technology jump we are talking here, consider that over the entire course of human history we havent even gotten thru the crust of the earth-- only 20 miles thick, but the deepest hole ever (Kola Superdeep Borehole) is only 8 miles down. Now keep in mind that the earth's radius is roughly 4000 miles, and that it gets exponentially harder to go deeper as you go ( due to gravity etc).

      And you think that anywhere in the near future we will be building planets? Get real. We have trouble enough exploring the depths of the one we have. Remember that the mariana trench-- considered an epic journey to visit-- is about 7 miles down.

    56. Re:Look at the bright side by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      We can talk about the potential of building planets when we manage to get anywhere near to puncturing the crust of the earth. Until then, its not even on the horizon of anything but science fiction.

    57. Re:Look at the bright side by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And on top of that, what exactly has thermodynamics to do with clumbing a few million rocks together to form a planet? Nothing?

      You impart an awful lot of energy into the countless big rocks by accelerating them, and once they reach their destination, that energy becomes heat according to the first law of thermodynamics.
      In addition, there will be extra heat created by the sheer gravitational pressure, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

      The result is something that won't be earth-like for a long time.

    58. Re:Look at the bright side by snooo53 · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but think about the sheer number of hobbies devoted to building or fixing yesterday's technology that are neither practical or efficient...but still fun! The way I see it, if we get to that point technologically, people are going to create a planet just because they can. Who wouldn't want to design their own planet??

      --
      The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
    59. Re:Look at the bright side by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So what? We simply know more now than they did then, so our predictions of 100 years hence should be much better than those made a century ago about now..

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    60. Re:Look at the bright side by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Simple. Just build an exponential chain of 3D printers, each one producing one twice as big as itself until you have one big enough to print a planet.

      P.S. does anybody know the current exchange rate between Ningi and Bitcoins?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    61. Re:Look at the bright side by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Star Trek had Genesis

      So did another well-known work of fiction.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    62. Re:Look at the bright side by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

      As long as we have an award winning designer to create the fjords. -Slarty Bartfast

      --
      There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
    63. Re:Look at the bright side by robertinventor · · Score: 1

      Surely much easier to create space habitats. Yes with self replicating robots you could make planets, but there isn't enough material in the asteroid belt, you would have to get material from the Oort cloud or from other planets e.g. Jupiter. - and what's the point since you can have many more humans and other life-forms living in a rotating habitat than on the surface of a planet, especially if the whole thing is artificial anyway.

    64. Re:Look at the bright side by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The fact that the colliding rocks heat up is no need to call for thermodynamic laws, it is ordinary physics.

      On the contrary. The first law of thermodynamics is why, when the rocks stop moving, the kinetic energy becomes heat. That's a direct result of the first law of thermodynamics, which states that the energy of the entire system must remain the same.

      The second law of thermodynamics come into effect because for each rock added, the total entropy increases. Heat is generated in the compressed center, and transfers outwards. This is very much a concern when trying to create an earth-like planet, and very much a result of the laws of thermodynamics.

      People on /. use the word "thermodynamis" to make their posts look more scientific (or more scientific correct). However most of the time they use it incorrect. Like my parent did and you did now ...

      Don't throw rocks when you sit in a glass house. You seem to me to only know of one or two applications of the laws of thermodynamics, and think that gives you a right and duty to correct others. Another example of a little knowledge being dangerous.

    65. Re:Look at the bright side by metaforest · · Score: 1

      The idea of flight still applies. [...]

      No. Sorry. It doesn't. We had observable examples of flight in birds, and insects, as well as related phenomena in the oceans. Our task was to understand the properties of aerodynamics as expressed in our universe and learn to adapt them to our needs.

      We have no examples of super-luminal phenomena.
      We have no examples of standard model smashing phenomena.

      Until we find such examples, we are not going to get very far in the solar system, let alone our galactic region.

      I'll tell ya though, a little place in my heart died when they discovered the source of the error in neutrino propagation timings. For a brief moment I had hopes that we'd found something... Too bad it turned out to be a faulty data cable.

    66. Re:Look at the bright side by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      Plus, the lack of existing planet means we get to create one, with our own design

      Yeah we'll build our own planet! With hookers and blackjack! In fact forget the planet!

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
    67. Re:Look at the bright side by tragedy · · Score: 1

      With the planet we're on now we have to deal with our heads being lighter than our feet (by unit of mass, anyway). So the differences are mostly just a matter of degree.

  9. It's Masters of Orion 2 all over again! by Madman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I'm seriously worried. Every time I played Masters of Orion 2 and I got situated in an area where the closest habitable planet was far away I always got my ass kicked by some civilization that was able to expand quickly. Our only hope is to start developing Deuterium fuel cells, and quickly!

    1. Re:It's Masters of Orion 2 all over again! by Boronx · · Score: 1

      But in the real world the civilizations don't all start on the same year, so this is a bonus.

    2. Re:It's Masters of Orion 2 all over again! by marcosdumay · · Score: 2

      Yep, we are some 2 billion years behind the median.

    3. Re:It's Masters of Orion 2 all over again! by someones · · Score: 1

      being psion never made anyone kick my ass.
      and after i got deathstars with self repair, wormhole generators or starconverters the game was won.

  10. Re:We're running out of planets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The other problem with the lack of gravity is the effect that it has upon humans. We could easily evolve into a supper tall species with brittle bones. If our space exploration continued that could be a major draw back.

    Obviously even if we found a habital world tomorrow, we could find ourselves a super tall species with brittle bones.

  11. And why should we be looking for "Earth-size" ? by futuregeek · · Score: 1

    Whats wrong with a differently sized, but habitable environment planet? And why do we assume that similar sized planets would have similar conditions? It could be entirely different. or even reverse of what we have here.

    1. Re:And why should we be looking for "Earth-size" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because if it's larger then gravity will make it uninhabitable, and if it's smaller then it can't hold an atmosphere, which again would make it uninhabitable.

    2. Re:And why should we be looking for "Earth-size" ? by davewoods · · Score: 1

      Uninhabitable by what? Humans?

      I forget what we are looking for, was it alien life, or a place for us to move when we get too crowded?

  12. Where is Han when you need him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Millennium Falcon could do that distance in less than 1.2 parsecs easy.

  13. Re:We're running out of planets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You say the 700C hellhole of burning sulphuric oceans is "a bit harder" to terraform?

    That is a bit of an understatement.

  14. Star Wars by IhlosiTravel · · Score: 1

    I guess Star Wars is not that fictional anymore?

    1. Re:Star Wars by IhlosiTravel · · Score: 1

      And what was your problem?

    2. Re:Star Wars by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      A wookie touched him when he was small.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  15. Re:We're running out of planets! by Zorpheus · · Score: 2

    The upper atmosphere of Venus is much more earth-like though. We just need to figure out how to build a floating colony that can withstand winds of 100m/s.

  16. Look on the bright side by paiute · · Score: 1

    Maybe the fact that we live in the boondocks of the Universe with no intelligent species within earshot is the only reason our miserable version of organized life has been allowed to survive so long.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Look on the bright side by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      with no intelligent species within earshot

      Including, I should add, on Earth!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  17. Make do with what we have by thomas8166 · · Score: 1

    For me, this is just another reason why we ought to be trying to clean up the mess we've made on our home planet instead of placing too much hope on a fallback habitable planet.

    --
    I make hardware RNGs, which give 2.5849625 bits of entropy per use in theory (actual performance dependent on usage).
    1. Re:Make do with what we have by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      We still need a fallback planet. We could keep this one in pristine shape and the Sun will simply eat it a couple of billion years from now. Of course, something like a massive collision or interactions with other stars could also well happen well before that.

      Never fear, we'll need to clean this planet up long before we can even think about colonization, but the relative costs of space exploration are actually pretty tiny if you look at the budgets, there's no need to cancel the manned space program to clean up the Earth.

  18. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only four stars, including Barnard's Star, are within six light-years of the Sun, and only 11 are within 10 light-years.

    What do you expect? This end of the Western spiral arm is somewhat unfashionable.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Ob by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Probably why we haven't been contacted by the galactic empire yet. They just don't like dealing with us back arm hicks...

    2. Re:Ob by Like2Byte · · Score: 2

      Only four stars, including Barnard's Star, are within six light-years of the Sun, and only 11 are within 10 light-years.

      What do you expect? This end of the Western spiral arm is somewhat unfashionable.

      What do I expect?

      What do I *expect*!?

      I *expect* a freaking restaurant!!

  19. Re:We're running out of planets! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    The moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold any usable atmosphere that you would think to create.

    Over millions of years, sure. It takes a little while to dissipate.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  20. Re:Say it isn't so!!!! by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

    Douglas Adams can't be wrong! This can only mean the ultimate answer isn't 42. Excuse me while I drown my sorrows in a pan galactic gargle blaster.

    Don't panic - Adams only wrote about Barnard's Star as like a roundabout. That means, even if there's no planet, there could be an intergalactic truck stop there.

    --
    No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  21. Creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Plus, the lack of existing planet means we get to create one, with our own design

    I wish you damn creationists would stop posting here!

    1. Re:Creationists by Hunter+Shoptaw · · Score: 1

      AH! I see what you did there! Good one.

    2. Re:Creationists by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      Somebody needs to mod this funny :D

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    3. Re:Creationists by lennier · · Score: 1

      Plus, the lack of existing planet means we get to create one, with our own design

      I wish you damn creationists would stop posting here!

      You should see the Deletionist faction.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  22. a probe? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    6 years is a little long to wait for control instructions. If we sent a probe, it'd either be 100% automated (not likely if we ever want to see it again) or we'd have technology to travel there faster or communicate faster. In the case of travel faster we would simply send humans. Why would we send a probe instead?

    1. Re:a probe? by gsaraber · · Score: 1

      Possibly because FTL travel wouldn't be safe for humans? or it puts limitations on what we can send. not to mention sending humans makes it a LOT more expensive and complex.
      I too would like to roam the galaxy in a space ship :) but probes are more efficient for now.

    2. Re:a probe? by deoxyribonucleose · · Score: 1

      Why would we send a probe instead?

      Because canned primates and their support structures increases mass astronomically.

  23. Habitable? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

    leading many to suspect that our galaxy is home to billions of planets, a sizable portion of which could be habitable

    I guess that depends on your definition of habitable.

  24. Sci-fi vs Science by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 1

    We all love the stories, but I'm curious what the last twenty years have suggested as we've become more detailed and accurate with some of our modelings and scientific theories. I *am* wondering what the actual state of science is currently. FTL is proposed to be impossible, but has science concluded that things like wormholes can actually function the way sci-fi suggests and frequently makes use of? Are there any physical properties that don't violate FTL laws, but work around them? Or have we decided that conventional acceleration is the only known way to actually move through space, both in theory and in practice?

    1. Re:Sci-fi vs Science by dak664 · · Score: 1

      I don' t think the Earth could provide the energy needed for interstellar flight as we know it, but in principle the only energy needed to move between (4 dimensional) points A and B is the difference in potential energy between the two points. In practice the only method of acceleration in space we have is to eject 4-momentum in the opposite direction, permanently losing that energy.

      We could do a lot if there were some way of manipulating gravity, e.g. a gravitational lens could pull ships about without wasting energy and could even gain energy when traveling towards a lower potential. Same for accretion of an asteroid belt into a habitable planet. Someday we might figure it out. Sadly Einsteins don't happen very often, especially in nanny states.

    2. Re:Sci-fi vs Science by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Oh you'd still lose a lot of energy, you don't get to win there.

      However, the great advantage of artificial gravity would be reactionless drives. That means we wouldn't have to carry around massive amounts of fuel that we're just going to eject from a big nozzle to keep us moving. If you were able to generate artificial gravity, you could have a nice compact energy source like a fusion or antimatter plant and manipulate space-time to create a gradient.

      You still technically need fuel for the plants, but the carried mass to energy ratio would be orders of magnitude more advantageous since you're not dumping it out the back to have something to push against.

    3. Re:Sci-fi vs Science by Synn · · Score: 1

      The problem with FTL isn't just the moving through space it's that it also allows for time travel. For example if I can open a wormhole up and instantly travel from A to B, then there are ways to exploit that to travel through time.

      That opens up the ability to create paradoxes which is a huge mess.

    4. Re:Sci-fi vs Science by dak664 · · Score: 1

      But where does that energy have to be lost? Grant me a really good spring and a capsule+spring can be launched with some initial energy which is recoverable in the spring upon landing, in fact even more than the launch energy if the target planet is more massive. Take off again and back to Earth with no energy expended. Well, Earth and the target planet get some added momentum away from each other, and some energy loss as a result. Wait half an orbit and that separation momentum gets transferred to the star pair with miniscule energy loss.
      .

    5. Re:Sci-fi vs Science by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The major issue with recovering that energy is generally the fact that you have different velocities that you need to attain to go into and out of the orbit of various objects. One reason that it is a gigantic pain in the butt to get probes to Mercury is that the delta-v between Earth orbit and Mercury orbit is even higher than the delta-v between Earth orbit and sending something into deep space. It's unlikely you'd be able to match up the necessary velocities without extensive energy utilization to make up the differences.

      Again, simply having a reactionless drive would make travel significantly more economical, and it would probably revolutionize escaping gravity wells as well, but it would still require an actual net expenditure of energy, and a sizable one at that. You might be able to use a "regenerative brake" trick to get some of the energy back, but that would probably end up increasing efficiency only moderately.

    6. Re:Sci-fi vs Science by dak664 · · Score: 1

      What is the point of orbits?

  25. That does not fempute! by dontclapthrowmoney · · Score: 1

    The more tried method (That humans have done on animals for several thousand years.) is genetic modificaton through selective breeding

    Oblig futurama... death by snu snu! http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/yttx80/futurama-death-by-snu-snu

    (Sorry, it was the first thing that came to mind.)

  26. Re:We're running out of planets! by SJHillman · · Score: 1

    The advantage of Venus over Mars is that is already has abundant oxygen in the atmosphere, just in a different state than we need it. It's also a lot closer to the sun, so solar power is much more efficient. I wouldn't expect non-domed cities anytime soon, but the materials and resources are there to fuel a domed or underground colony.

  27. Masters of Orion 2 by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Just restart the game, thats what I do.

  28. Don't go to Barnard's..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Barnards Star, Wolf and the Proxima Centauri group are all flare stars - thus not a clever destination for anyone. Most sensible is Lalande 21185 at 8 LY. Barnards is 6 LY.

  29. This could be a good thing by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    It is possible that is why we developed to this level and are not conquered by elsewhere.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. Re:We're running out of planets! by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    bacteria don't thrive that well at temperatures that melt lead.

  31. Re:We're running out of planets! by tnk1 · · Score: 2

    Yes, except the atmospheric pressure at the surface is gigantic and the solar energy that reaches the surface makes it about as bright as Mars. I'd also talk about the sulfuric acid rain, but due to the pressure, it actually doesn't rain below a certain level of the atmosphere.

    Venus *might* be habitable if we can strip off most of the greenhouse gasses and reduce the pressure, but it also doesn't have plate tectonics, its whole crust basically inverts when it is time to release heat from its mantle, so that is a big problem. Consequently, the planet also doesn't have much of a magnetic field.

    Venus is the planet equivalent of seeing what looks like a hot girl in a crowd, until "she" turns around and you realize it is a really ugly man with long hair and a beard.

  32. Results did not rule out Earth sized planet by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lack of planet on a nearby star does not mean there is nothing around the star

    And, even more to the point, a lack of a planet larger than ten times the Earth's mass in an Earth-like orbit, or two times Earth's mass in a close-in (ten day) orbit says nothing about the presence or absence of Earth- mass planets, unless you have a well-accepted theory showing that systems with Earthlike planets must also have Jupiter-like planets, which is a theory we don't have.

    That's according to what the actual article says-- ignore the Slashdot summary, it's wrong. http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2273

    And, worse, the mass detection limits are limits on m*sin(i)-- if the orbits are inclined, the planet masses that couldn't be detected would be even larger. (in the limit, if the orbit is face on, it wouldn't have detected planets regardless of how massive they are)

    Overall conclusion: This puts limits on planets around Barnard's star, but did not have the ability to detect, and thus did not rule out, Earth-mass planets.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  33. Really? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    Send a probe to another star by the end of the century, really! I'd like what they are smoking. At current technology, that would take about 8,000 years to get there. Using space sales, that might be reduced to 3,000 years. Using a nuclear pulse engine, that could be reduced to 300 years. Of course, they better develop deflector shields, too, because at the velocity of a nuclear pulse engine, a small particle has the potential to destroy the probe given the kinetic energy involved and as we all know, space is not empty.

    We would have to also develop some sort of AI to control everything, because at those distances, it isn't practical to send instructions via radio wave. The time to transmit and receive is much too long (it takes light 6 years to get here). Then again, such a system will need additional power, which increases the size of the on board reactor (solar panels just don't work well that far from a light source). Of course a bigger reactor requires a bigger pulse engine which means a bigger reactor. Or, it could go slower, but then that defeats the purpose.

    And of course, any computer system would need to be able to run continuously for centuries (if they go the solar sail route, they better plan for the Y3K bug).

    Theoretically this can all be done, but is it practical. What is the likely hood that a probe launched today, assuming all of the technological inventions that would have to occur, have occurred, would still be functioning in 3 centuries when it first arrives, if it even arrives?

    I'm all for funding of scientific research, but surely there must be something that provides just as much bang for the buck and is more practical and likely to succeed.

  34. Advertising by mbrod · · Score: 1

    Could be that they are hiding the habitable world. If I had neighbors like us thinking of visiting, I would.

  35. billion is a word by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    What is your resistance to using the work billion? It isn't a dirty word.

    Also, I agree with you mostly on this. They only way I can see people making a planet is by making self replicating robots that can mine the universe for energy and minerals and have them do all the work. If they can build themselves expoentially and are somewhat networked they could be "told" to go forth and multiply and make us a planet. It still wouldn't be a weekend endevour though.

    1. Re:billion is a word by arth1 · · Score: 1

      What is your resistance to using the work billion? It isn't a dirty word.

      No, it's an ambiguous word.

      1 billion (US, young people in the UK) = 1000^3
      1 billion (old people in the UK + most of the rest of world) = 1000000^2

      Unless you know for certain what everyone in your audience will think of as a billion, it is best avoided, or clarified, or you will be off by three orders of magnitude.

      I'd argue that the long system with exponents of a million makes more sense, because bi = 2, tri = 3, quad = 4 so it always matches the exponent. That is probably why the US won't use it. :)

    2. Re:billion is a word by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The disadvantage of the long scale is that the units are quite far apart, so describing values between is a little unwieldy. "Two hundred thousand million" rather than "two hundred billion". It's sort of like having inches and miles with nothing in between.

      I agree it's more intuitively logical, though.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:billion is a word by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The disadvantage of the long scale is that the units are quite far apart, so describing values between is a little unwieldy. "Two hundred thousand million" rather than "two hundred billion". It's sort of like having inches and miles with nothing in between.

      That's where the -ard ending comes in. In the long system:
      1000 million = milliard
      1000 billion = billiard
      1000 trillion = trilliard

      These were never used much in the UK, though, where people have preferred to say "thousand million" and "thousand billion".

      Either system can be unwieldy. What's easier of "one septillion logs" or "one tridecillion logs"?
      Answer: 10^42 is easiest, except when spoken.
      Or "one Catalog", but it is likely to be misunderstood :)

  36. Re:We're running out of planets! by DM9290 · · Score: 1

    The moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold any usable atmosphere that you would think to create.

    Over millions of years, sure. It takes a little while to dissipate.

    Are you sure it takes millions of years to dissipate and not maybe a dozen years? Did you just make that number up?

    --
    No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
  37. Re:We're running out of planets! by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

    We could build the colony inside some kind of baloon. The hull of the baloon could be made of some carbon-based polymer, which can be formed from the CO2 from the atmosphere.
    Hmm, let's build this ;)

  38. Dumb Headline / Summary by hi-endian · · Score: 1

    The whole "Earth's Corner of the Galaxy Just Got a Little Lonelier" and "an alien Earth that might someday bear the boot prints of a future Neil Armstrong" angle is kind of dumb. Seriously, once we start talking about interstellar distances, whether something is 8 vs 4 light-years away is really irrelevant. Using another post's numbers, if we can achieve a speed five times that of the Voyager probes, it's going to take us 1,400 years to get to alpha centauri. but if we double our speed, it'll *only* take 700 years. So unless you're Methuselah or Nicholas Flamel, that's about 10 times as long as you expect to live.

  39. 65p for 2? That's over a pound each in old money! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Proper (i.e. British) English used to use the long scale, where a billion was a million million (10 e12).

    By "used to", I mean up until about forty years ago. Of course, it was just an excuse for that Harold bastard Wilson to put up prices, like that new-fangled decimal money.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  40. The reason there aren't any planets there by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

    ....they were demolished for a hyper-space bypass..... ....those damn Vogon constructor fleets.

    --
    There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
  41. Kessel Run by Dabido · · Score: 1

    1.8 parsecs! Ptttthhhh! That's less than the Kessel run!!!!!

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)