Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kepler's Alien World Count Skyrockets

Posted by Soulskill on from the good-thing-we-launched-it-with-a-skyrocket dept.

astroengine writes "The number of known planets beyond the solar system took a giant leap thanks to a new technique that verifies candidate planets found by NASA's Kepler space telescope in batches rather than one-by-one. The new method adds 715 planets to Kepler's list of confirmed planets, which previously totaled 246, scientists said Wednesday. Combined with other telescopes' finds, the overall exoplanet headcount now reaches nearly 1,700. 'By moving ... to statistical studies in a "big data" fashion, Kepler has showcased the diversity and types of planets present in our galaxy,' said astronomer Sara Seager." In other exoplanet news, a recent study found that so-called 'super earths,' planets that are bigger than Earth but smaller than gas giants like Uranus and Neptune, are unlikely to be habitable to known forms of life. The higher mass traps significantly more hydrogen during the formation of the planetary system, which results in extremely high atmospheric pressure — high enough to be hostile to known life.

11 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. hostile ot all known life? by hedgemage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not a xenobiologist, but wouldn't a high-pressure hydrogen-rich atmosphere conceivably be home to organisms similar to those that live around deep sea volcanic vents? Will we be going to war with/conquered by giant tubeworms?

    1. Re:hostile ot all known life? by gatkinso · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How little you know, fetid human. pewpew!

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:hostile ot all known life? by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      I'm not a xenobiologist, but wouldn't a high-pressure hydrogen-rich atmosphere conceivably be home to organisms similar to those that live around deep sea volcanic vents?

      A hydrogen-rich atmosphere can better be phrased as "carbon/nitrogen/oxygen-poor." For example Neptune's upper atmosphere is 80% hydrogen and 19% helium. That leaves any life-supporting materials scattered and diffused too thing for life to be likely to exist in any shape resembling Earth biochemistry.

      Pressure isn't as big of a problem since you can find a nice pressure at the right distance from the center, but pressures and temperatures near the center are high enough that liquid diamond may be found. We're talking 1000x Earth's. That would also preclude any biochemistry we currently can predict & understand.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  2. Drake by NMBob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So which way is this shifting the Drake equation result? Up or down compared to what we thought the popularity of exoplanets were?

    1. Re:Drake by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Up, hugely up.

      The estimates for how many stars have planets is now up considerably from when he initially postulated it, because back then it was thought only a small portion would have planets.

      Now they seem to be quite plentiful.

      Not 25 years ago, the notion of finding an exoplanet was still pretty cutting edge, and hadn't yet happened. Now we're adding them at an amazing rate.

      Me, given the size of the universe and even what we've learned in the last 25 years ... the likelihood that there exists somewhere life on another planet seems almost certain, even if we'll never know about it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Drake by marsu_k · · Score: 2

      “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”

      From Clarke, but that was quoted at the beginning of some really brain-cancer-inducing movie somewhat recently. Perhaps this is why I cannot recall which movie.

    3. Re:Drake by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      It love your extreme specificity. "Up", "plentiful", "an amazing rate", "almost certain".

      My trip home from work will take "a few" minutes.

      His precision is orders of magnitude greater than that of the Drake equation itself, so by comparison he was incredibly specific.

      Not that that actually helps at all: the Drake "equation" is only useful as a thought exercise and is completely and utterly useless for any* kind of quantitative usage whatsoever (since several terms in it are completely and wholly unknown).

      *Well, you can use it to find weak upper-bounds, but that's about it, and not much help, and you don't need the full equation for that.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:Drake by symbolset · · Score: 2

      Up. Super Earths likely have moons. This is good because the habitable zone for many of the stars they orbit is close enough to tidally lock the planet, but not the moon.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Drake by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Drake forgot to divide his result by the number of Berzerker probes travelling the universe and annihilating potentially spacefaring civilizations.

      Common mistake. Happens to the best of us.

  3. Somebody sneezed on the scope by decipher_saint · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whoops

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  4. How Many? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

    How many skyrockets did the world count?

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.