Slashdot Mirror
Unlikely Planets Found In Violent Star Clusters
astroengine writes "When it comes to forming planets, Mother Nature isn't very picky. Despite horrific conditions inside densely packed open clusters, stars apparently have no problem forming and hanging on to an orbital brood. That's the conclusion from a new study (abstract) that used data collected by NASA's now-dormant Kepler space telescope to hunt for planets in a one-billion-year old open cluster called NGC 6811, a collection of about 70 stars located about 3,400 light years away in the constellation Cygnus."
So far, the only place where planets haven’t been found yet is in globular clusters, an environment even more extreme that open clusters like NCG [sic!] 6811.
Aren't globular clusters very old? And, consequently, not very metallic? The lack of planets in them can hardly come as a surprise.
Ezekiel 23:20
Yeah, screw advancing the state of human knowledge and technology! Physics is for NERDS! Some may say that such advancements are the only purely logical purpose for the continued existence of our race as a whole, but how does that help ME?
This reminds me of some people in the past saying that a train would never exceed 30 miles per hour because the passengers would suffocate.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Skip TFA, folks. If this guy wanted to be read, he'd publish on this side of the paywall.
We will never travel faster than the speed of light. That, however, does not mean we can not reach distant star systems. It will simply be a very, very, long trip.
Don't be rediculous. Advancements and research in science is money much better spent than throwing young men around the world to kill and die. You wanna save money? Tell congress to stop funding presidential wars.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
So the real challenge is improving in-flight catering.
Blank until
Does anyone actually care about these other planets besides the folks who are trying to get more grant money from the tax paying middle class?
Yes, and there are a lot of reasons for this. Before I get to them, let me quickly note that the entire US budget on all research as a percent of GDP is generally around 3% http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guitotal.shtml, and space research fraction of that. The NASA budget is slightly less than a half of 1% of the federal budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA, and only a small fraction of that is devoted to planet searching. The cost of Kepler for its entire life is around 600 million dollars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft), which spread out over the course of its lifetime through the whole US population is about 25 cents a year per a person.
Now, let's examine why we care. The zeroth reason we care because its freaking awesome. Let me tell you how awesome this. In the early 1990s, one of the best computer games ever made was Masters of Orion II. In that game, in order to find out what planets were around other stars, you had to send probes to them. Now, we can see extrasolar planets from the comfort of Earth orbit. That's how far our technology has gone: that we can do this when it was considered implausible even for science fiction. Now, what other reasons are there? First, basic research is important. We don't know in advance how helpful any form of scientific research will be. But for much of the basic research, since there's always a massive set of steps between basic research and applied things, it isn't in the interest of any private enterprise to do such research. Basic research is what economists call a public good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good, and those need to be funded by the government in order for them to happen. Second, there's a concern about the Great Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter, a variant answer to Fermi's famous question. It is possible that there's something which wipes civilizations out just as they are getting advanced. If so, we need to figure that out before we trigger it, whatever it is. That means that there's a long term, but definitely practical goal in trying to find other planets and seeing what they are like.
We will never travel faster than the speed of light. That, however, does not mean we can not reach distant star systems. It will simply be a very, very, long trip.
That depends. There are theories that show that "warp travel" of varying definitions may be possible. I recall one in which maintaining a stable "warp bubble" for what is effectively faster than light travel was feasible. The problem is getting into the bubble itself, which required enormous energy - far more than maintaining it or traveling in it. There are other theories and studies under way. And given that there is still a lot of physics we don't understand (dark energy, dark matter, unification of quantum mechanics and relativity), it may be the answer is out there. The article below discusses one such idea that may be unrelated to the one I mentioned.
Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell