One In Five Sun-Like Stars May Have an Earth-Like Planet

The Bad Astronomer writes "A new study, looking at over 40,000 stars viewed by the Kepler spacecraft, indicates that 22% of stars like the Sun should have Earth-like planets orbiting them — planets that are similar in size to our home world and with a surface temperature hospitable for liquid water. There are some caveats (they don't include atmospheric issues like the greenhouse effect, which may reduce the overall number, or at cooler stars where there may be many more such planets) but their numbers indicate there could be several billion planets similar to Earth in the Milky Way alone."

Comments

Only 22% ?

[TechnoCore]

There's a 78% chance we're not living on an earth-like planet. It does however support life. Are their models really that good?

Re:Only 22% ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's a 71% chance that if you're on the Earth, you'll drown.

Re:Face it, folks

[Skarecrow77]

and these aliens had thunderbolt hammer that were really nuclear weapons, and they flew around in vimanas which were really flying ships from a floating castle mothership, in order to interbreed with earth's primitive dwellers by taking human form.

I love Ancient Aliens. one of the best shows on TV. Watching them come up with their wild pseudoscience theories is like watching a monkey discover how a cigarette lighter works.

Re:Face it, folks

[ackthpt]

Our planet Earth was terraformed. BY ALIENS!!!!!

And we are but fertilizer...

which explains a lot of what I see on Fox News

Maybe won't make any difference

[gmuslera]

If the speed of light is the absolute max speed in the universe, with no shortcuts in practice, getting somewhere outside of local star group won't be ever possible, and the same will be for everyone else, no matter how advanced they are, and how much similarities are between their culture and ours (at least, our culture willingness to go to space and communicate with others). And, of course, there is time, they should be at the right stage of their civilization, of the 4.5billon years of this planet just in the last 100 we were sending and trying to hear signals to/from somewhere else, and not sure for how much time we will be around. And if well could be earth-like planets "close", sending an expedition even to the closest solar system to just plant a flag is outside our reach, maybe for centuries (and getting there and back will take even more centuries)

The universe may be full of life and advanced civilizations, and we probably won't ever know that someone else is out there. Nor them.

Re:Maybe won't make any difference

[MightyMartian]

Unless, of course, y'know, we don't know everything there is to know about physics.

Re:Maybe won't make any difference

[Dr. Spork]

If we traveled at 10% the speed of light (fast but not requiring a breakthrough in fundamental physics), and built new exploration ships at each destination we colonize, it would only take a half a million years to colonize every single star in the Milky Way (source). That's an absolute eyeblink in comparison to the age of our galaxy. I don't think it will be long before we can launch ships that could reproduce themselves and keep colonizing. Our children's generation will be investing serious research money in AI robotic systems that do asteroid mining, smelting and refining of ores. Once we get a workable .1c spaceship design, I'm sure we'll have robots that could build the things in space, from materials harvested in space. I don't think we're talking about some sci-fi fantasy land. I think we're talking about the foreseeable future. And all this invites the question: if we're so far along the process to colonizing the galaxy, why haven't one of the countless probable civilizations beaten us to it? Or if they had, why is there no trace of their colonies? That's at the core of the Fermi paradox.

Drake Equation

[Continental Drift]

Quick, update the Drake Equation results to 100%!