Astronomers Find Planet Barely Larger Than Earth's Moon

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Astronomers Find Planet Barely Larger Than Earth's Moon

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday February 20, 2013 @08:41AM from the that's-no-planet dept.

The Bad Astronomer writes "A team of astronomers has announced the discovery of the smallest exoplanet orbiting a Sun-like star yet found: Kepler-37b, which has a diameter of only 3865 kilometers — smaller than Mercury, and only a little bigger than our own Moon. It was found using the transit method; as it orbits its star, it periodically blocks a bit of the starlight, revealing its presence (abstract). Interestingly, the planet has been known for some time, but only new advances in asteroseismology (studying oscillations in the star itself) have allowed the star's size to be accurately found, which in turn yielded a far better determination of the planet's diminutive size. Also, the asteroseismology research was not funded by NASA, but instead crowd funded by a non-profit, which raised money by letting people adopt Kepler target stars."

24 of 71 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Pretty amazing by Grayhand · 2013-02-20 08:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

It wasn't that long ago the first planets were found and now they are detecting ones around the size of the Earth's Moon. Imaging Earth sized planets will be the big breakthrough. There's talk of imaging planets similar to space shots of the Earth and other planets but I have my doubts I'll live to see that. It's not the technology it's the investment that would need to be made. Humans walking on Mars and a detailed photo of a distant planet would be the two I hope to live to see.
A planet or a dwarf planet? by maxwell+demon · 2013-02-20 08:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

A planet or a dwarf planet?
I mean, if Pluto is not allowed to be a planet, then why should such a small object be labelled as one?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
1. Re:A planet or a dwarf planet? by Nadaka · 2013-02-20 08:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  because the determining factor in excluding Pluto from the list of planets is not its size, it is that it has not cleared its orbit of other bodies.
2. Re:A planet or a dwarf planet? by medcalf · 2013-02-20 09:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Not really. "Cleared its orbit" doesn't mean no co-orbital objects. All planets have LaGrange point co-orbitals for example. Pluto is different in that it has a lot of co-orbitals, and some of them are almost as large as Pluto itself. Essentially, it's a KBO rather than a planet proper, by the current definition.
  
  --
  -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
3. Re:A planet or a dwarf planet? by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-20 09:19 · Score: 2
  
  So a particle the size of a grain of sand that has it's own orbit, clear of other bodies, would be a planet?
  Nope, gotta be heavy enough to get roughly spherical under its own gravity, too. No grains of sand in the planet club, we have to keep the riff-raff out, now don't we?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
4. Re:A planet or a dwarf planet? by mrtommyb · 2013-02-20 09:30 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Hi, I wrote this paper: We actually looked very carefully whether this planet has cleared its neighborhood. The smallest reasonable mass we can assume for this planet is 0.01 Earth masses. With this mass it would clear its orbit of other bodies. However, if it were much further away from its star (like at the distance Pluto is from the Sun) then it would probably be considered a dwarf planet.
5. Re:A planet or a dwarf planet? by letherial · 2013-02-20 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  Pluto is smaller then our moon, this one is just slightly larger...while i admit that the thought crossed my mind at first, and it certainty posses the WTF do we do about this kind of question, Pluto does things that other planets do not do, like the crazy orbit and crossing in the orbit of another planet. Pluto is not a planet and it cannot be categorized as one for a variety of reasons, not just its size, but the way it acts and also its formation. Its simply the way science categorizes things that makes Pluto incapable of being a planet, your attachment to it does not matter.
6. Re:A planet or a dwarf planet? by Chris+Burke · 2013-02-20 09:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Pluto is different in that it has a lot of co-orbitals, and some of them are almost as large as Pluto itself.
  To make it clear how big a difference it is, let's look at the ratio of the mass of the body in question to the mass of the rest of the objects in its orbit (discounting direct satellites).
  Of the planets Neptune happens to have the lowest such ratio. It outmasses everything else in its orbit by a factor of over 10,000.
  Meanwhile Pluto is outmassed by the other objects in its orbit by more than a factor of ten. It is less than 10% of the mass in its orbit.
  That's a five order of magnitude difference. "Clearing the orbit" isn't precisely defined... and it doesn't need to be. You don't need a precise definition of where exactly on the beach the ocean begins to know that Asia and North America are separated by the Pacific Ocean.
  And I suspect that such a large distinction isn't a cosmic accident, and that other star systems of sufficient age will show a similar trend. Unfortunately it's going to be a long time before we can test this hypothesis.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
7. Re:A planet or a dwarf planet? by osu-neko · 2013-02-20 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I mean, if Pluto is not allowed to be a planet, then why should such a small object be labelled as one?
  Shhh ... people might hear you and think you're making sense.
  We can't have that.
  One would hope not. It's annoying when ignorant drivel is modded "insightful" here. Just because "people hear you and think you're making sense" doesn't mean you actually are...
  I have respect for people who think Pluto should still be considered a planet... assuming they also think Eris should be a planet, and long before Pluto was demoted, were upset about the fact that Ceres is not considered a planet. It's the knuckle-dragging morons who are upset about Pluto but never were bothered by Ceres not being a planet that need to get a freakin' clue. If you had no problem with Ceres not being considered a planet, you shouldn't have any problem with the fact that Pluto isn't, either.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
8. Re:A planet or a dwarf planet? by bondsbw · 2013-02-20 10:57 · Score: 2
  
  And anything that orbits the sun, by definition, orbits your mom.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Re:NASA by mark-t · 2013-02-20 08:52 · Score: 2

The interstellar space age isn't going to begin for humanity for several centuries at the earliest, barring some sort of breakthrough that allows us to travel between locations faster than light takes to travel between them.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
enhermesenate? by jdastrup · 2013-02-20 08:53 · Score: 3, Funny

Below the caption of the artist's rendition: "Click to enhermesenate"

New word for the day
Re:NASA by houstonbofh · 2013-02-20 09:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is a lot of space travel we can do before we have to, or able to, go interstellar.
Re:NASA by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-20 09:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yup. If only NASA were gone, the crowd funders would have discovered the planet using data from their own frigging telescope, instead of NASA's Kepler. And call me when the "asteroid miners" produce anything but vaporware. Meanwhile, NASA is doing meaningful science.

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Asteroseismology? by Antipater · 2013-02-20 09:17 · Score: 2

This term struck me as odd. The side of me that cares about meaningless pedantry wants to know why it's "asteroseismology" and not "astroseismology", but Google isn't helping much. Anyone happen to know?

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
1. Re:Asteroseismology? by bizard · 2013-02-20 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  Largely because the field was pioneered by European and Australian astronomers.
Re:Planet or planetoid? by Platinumrat · 2013-02-20 09:21 · Score: 2

Incorrect conclusion there. Size is not the sole determining factor. Pluto was demoted (for want of a better word), because it had not cleared out it's orbit of of other significant bodies. Ie. there's a shit-load of stuff that shares the same orbit as Pluto and some of that stuff is larger than Pluto.
Neither by pavon · 2013-02-20 09:23 · Score: 2

These are simply exoplanets. No formal definition exists dividing them into further categories. There is still debate over where planets end and brown dwarfs begin, let alone the smaller end of things. As of 2006, when the definitions for planet and dwarf planet were created, we knew almost nothing about planets outside of our solar system. Trying to figure out how to categorize them at that point would have been putting the cart before the horse (although that didn't stop some people). But there was no reason not to go forward with classifying the things we already knew about.
Re:NASA by osu-neko · 2013-02-20 09:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

First asteroid mining, and now this. Once NASA is completely out of the way the Space Age can actually begin.
NASA is not standing in anyone's way. Someday NASA will be surpassed and ultimately be made obsolete, but it is not in any way an impediment. Quite the contrary, it's NASA's shoulders that this and the other accomplishments are currently standing up upon.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:Neat. by Nefarious+Wheel · 2013-02-20 10:48 · Score: 2

While there is high hope of finding Life elsewhere is slim to none...
Uh.... what?
That sentence crazily.

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Re:NASA by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2013-02-20 16:11 · Score: 2

The interstellar space age isn't going to begin for humanity for several centuries at the earliest, barring some sort of breakthrough that allows us to travel between locations faster than light takes to travel between them.
I think we're all generally assuming that something will eventually be discovered, hopefully sooner rather then later.
Re:NASA by tehcyder · 2013-02-20 22:52 · Score: 2

The interstellar space age isn't going to begin for humanity for several centuries at the earliest, barring some sort of breakthrough that allows us to travel between locations faster than light takes to travel between them.
I think we're all generally assuming that something will eventually be discovered, hopefully sooner rather then later.
You can't argue with cold, hard logic like that.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:NASA by tehcyder · 2013-02-20 23:52 · Score: 3, Funny

You don't understand: from the slashdot-libertarian's point of view, the very existence of NASA (government) creates a distortion of the pure free market. If it wasn't for socialism, we'd have been on the moon by during the reign of Queen Victoria in a cool steampunk style.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:That's... by tehcyder · 2013-02-20 23:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Best comment. +5 Informative, funny, and witty.
But sadly -5 Star Wars.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it