Water Discovered In Exoplanet Atmosphere

PattonPending sends news of the discovery of the smallest exoplanet yet to have water vapor in its atmosphere. Astronomers have detected water vapor in the atmosphere of a planet that orbits a star far beyond our solar system. Observations of the Neptune-sized planet, which lies 120 light years from Earth in the constellation of Cygnus, revealed that its atmosphere was mostly hydrogen with around 25% made up from water va-pour. Until now, researchers have been frustrated in their efforts to study the atmospheres of planets much smaller than Jupiter because their skies were thick with clouds. The problem was so persistent that astronomers had begun to think that all warm, small planets formed with substantial cloud cover. But writing in the journal Nature, scientists in the U.S. describe how they found a Neptune-sized planet with cloud-free skies, enabling them to make detailed measurements of a small planet's atmosphere for the first time.

Comments

It Rhymes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wa-tor Va-pour.
Wonder what Jor-El and Kal-El think.

Re:It Rhymes!

[dmbasso]

And it was fa-bu-lous!!!

Re:It Rhymes!

[chrish]

Wa-tor va-pour gas
It's what hu-mans need to live.
What about E.T.?

Va-Pour?

[Anonymous Coward]

what dafuque is Va-Pour?
-Silenthands

Re:Va-Pour?

[l0ungeb0y]

I don't know, but it sounds expensive and most likely french.

Re:Va-Pour?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vapour is how the rest of the world spells it, and the hyphen suggests that it wasn't corrected by the submitter, as the word likely was broken by the end of a line.

Re: Va-Pour?

[bill_mcgonigle]

samzen-pous

Re: Va-Pour?

[camperdave]

sam-zenpous

Re:Va-Pour?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should replace the battery of your sarcasm detector.

The point was precisely that it wasn't corrected by the submitter.

Re:Va-Pour?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vapeur.

Re:Va-Pour?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the British spelling of vapor. Since the research was published in Nature - a British journal - the authors are required to use british spellings. colour in stead of color, vapour instead of vapor, metre instead of meter, etc.

Clouds

[Livius]

Um, if the planet has clouds, doesn't that mean you've already discovered water in the atmosphere?

(Assuming the cloud is water droplets and not methane or whatever.)

Re:Clouds

[radtea]

Assuming the cloud is water droplets and not methane or whatever.)

Clouds or other forms of haze can be made of all kinds of things, and we observe this in our solar system, so there is no reason to assume clouds or haze in exoplanet atmospheres are water vapour.

Remember, all we know is we can't get decent absorption spectra from them, so assuming anything about them would be saying, "We can't see anything, so we know it's water."

That's like saying, "I know that's a Muslim woman because they are completely covered and I can't see their face" (there have been many cases of men, mostly criminals and not always Muslim, wearing similar clothing because people seemed tuned up to make precisely this error of "I can't see it, so what I can't see must be X".)

Re:Clouds

[kactusotp]

You got it with the second line. Clouds don't mean water and it depends on the conditions on the planet. For example clouds on Jupiter can contain Ammonia ice, Ammonium hydrosulfide and others etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... (and yes water at some levels)

Re:Clouds

[war4peace]

Venus, Io, Titan, Jupiter all have clouds. None are formed of water. Traces, maybe, but mostly it's different stuff (carbon dioxide, methane, etc).

Re:Clouds

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming the cloud is water droplets and not methane or whatever.)

Clouds or other forms of haze can be made of all kinds of things, and we observe this in our solar system, so there is no reason to assume clouds or haze in exoplanet atmospheres are water vapour.

Remember, all we know is we can't get decent absorption spectra from them, so assuming anything about them would be saying, "We can't see anything, so we know it's water."

That's like saying, "I know that's a Muslim woman because they are completely covered and I can't see their face" (there have been many cases of men, mostly criminals and not always Muslim, wearing similar clothing because people seemed tuned up to make precisely this error of "I can't see it, so what I can't see must be X".)

You're confused. Water was detected spectroscopically, i.e. a specific vibration-rotational band was seen. That was from the clear atmosphere, not from the clouds.

Re:Clouds

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. This planet is pretty hot, about 800 Kelvins, and lots of pretty exotic stuff can condense at that temperature

We care why?

[Crazy Taco]

I still don't understand why we care about this. Water occurs naturally all over the solar system, from moons to planets to asteroids. One would assume that it's a safe bet it's common in most other systems as well, just like other basic chemicals are. And, that water will be in vapor form any time it is close enough to a star to be above 0 C, so again, one would assume that's common.

Unless we are commenting about water va-pour , as I'm pretty sure this is the first time in the universe that that's ever been mentioned. :)

Re:We care why?

[rossdee]

And its not likely to be habitable by life as we know it, Jim since its a gas giant with mostly hydrogen atmosphere.

Re:We care why?

[brunes69]

I believe the only place we know in the universe where liquid water flows on the surface of a planet is on earth. Liquid water flowing on the surface or close to it is thought to likely be a required prerequisite to evolve life as we know it. That's why it's important.

Re:We care why?

[radtea]

One would assume that it's a safe bet it's common in most other systems as well...

I guess if one was ignorant of the past 300 years of science one might do that. Otherwise, it would be too obviously stupid, as it would require believing something trivially and completely false: that what we assume is particularly likely to be true.

Why not just assume the sun moves around the Earth? It's obvious, isn't it?

In the present case, there is a whole bunch of stuff to be interested in.

1) There is always the possibility that the chemical environment or formation process of the Earth or solar system was anomalous in some way. For example, it has us in it, and as near as we can tell intelligence of the specifically human, universally representational, machine-building kind is fairly rare (there is no evidence for it elsewhere.) So given that, it is not implausible that there are other weird things about our solar system, and we should likely be cautious about assuming that other planetary systems are much like ours. The astonishing discovery of hot Jupiters, for example, is an instance where we were looking for something that we were almost certain didn't exist (simply because it was the only place our current instruments were sensitive) and found something, quite unexpectedly.

2) Even given that water is common (which we don't know until we've measured it) there is the possibility that it is almost always sequestered in dense, cloudy atmospheres, or in icy outer planets, or cometary halos, etc.

3) Even given that clear atmospheres exist (which we didn't know until these guys measured it) we don't know what their typical composition is (and we still don't, based on a population of one.)

4) Even given that clear atmospheres have water (which we now know) we are most interested in finding Earth-like planets, which means a clear atmosphere with water and oxygen (which is a key signature for life as we know it). Testing out various detection ideas and proving they work is a huge step forward even if the first planet they found has a hydrogen atmosphere.

So there, just off the top of my head, are a few reasons. Assumptions don't produce knowledge, which is why we shouldn't give them much credence. Observations do produce knowledge, which is why we should be excited about a new mode of observation finally bearing fruit.

Re:We care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"One would assume that it's a safe bet it's common in most other systems as well, just like other basic chemicals are."

The problem with assuming that, is that it implies that the limits we have on engineering with real, actual materials will also be the same all across the universe. No dilithium, no unobtainium, no red matter, no warp drives, no magical materials.

And of course that effectively kills all the sci-fi fantasies about colonizing harsh, hostile and deadly empty rocks, and all the other pseudo-religious sci-fi garbage that adults take seriosuly.

And this means that we'll stay here, and they'll stay there. Forever.

That solves the Fermi "paradox". There is no paradox.

Re:We care why?

[ColdWetDog]

Because, even though we assume water vapor is common, we don't have much evidence of that being true. And often our assumptions are incorrect. So having credible evidence is much more comforting than declaring it a 'safe bet'.

Further, the reason why we are so wound up about water is that we know that life exists in such an environment. We can propose other solvents but all that is unknown.

And further, TFA is establishing a methodology to look for water in other exoplanets so we can hopefully find out how common (or uncommon it is).

Re:We care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you even talking about?

" (which is a key signature for life as we know it)"

Which you're assuming means the same as here!!??

Re:We care why?

[tragedy]

Hydrogen is known, to the best that the last 300 years of science can tell us, to be the most common element in the universe and oxygen is the third most common. Oxygen and hydrogen combine through a simple chemical reaction to form water. Hydrogen is hurled energetically outward from stars. For water to _not_ be common in most systems would require extra weirdness. It is true though that various processes might sequester it all in an oort-cloud-like region, but there's no good reason to think that wouldn't be highly unusual.

Re:We care why?

[tragedy]

The problem with assuming that, is that it implies that the limits we have on engineering with real, actual materials will also be the same all across the universe. No dilithium, no unobtainium, no red matter, no warp drives, no magical materials.

The ridiculousness of some of the fictional materials you mention aside, it's looking more and more as if the majority of the mass of the universe is made up of non-baryonic matter that we can't identify. There also may be stable super-heavy elements we might discover some day, as well as non-standard arrangements of baryons that might also be stable. Maybe we'll also be able to make hybrid forms of baryonic/non-baryonic matter or novel arrangements of all sorts of other particle types. Then there's an entire theoretical periodic table of antimatter as well. We've only gotten as far as making anti-helium so far.
So, there are a lot of potential "real, actual" materials we may be able to play with some day, not to mention all kinds of chemical and nuclear tricks we still may have to learn with the materials we already have.
Once, the alchemists were crazy to think that elements could be transmuted. Then we learned more about the nature of matter and about atoms and chemical and nuclear bonds and it became even more obvious that the alchemists were crazy. Then we figured out that you actually can transmute elements. Your attitude that, essentially, everything has been discovered is just as bad as the attitude that anything is possible.

Re:We care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, either stuff we don't interact with, or stuff that doesn't exist, or stuff that violently annihilates normal matter on contact?

"Your attitude that, essentially, everything has been discovered"

Well, given how many technologies have plateaued and only information processing has got better, where would you place your bets?

If we haven't discovered everything, why do you assume what might be discovered automatically leads to space sci-fi stuff?

What if we discover something that guarantees, for some reason, that no one's going anywhere, ever? What if we discover how to reverse aging and live centuries, yet not even have gasoline anymore?

Re:We care why?

[itzly]

What's important about this, is the fact they have been able to see spectral lines in an exoplanet atmosphere. Okay, so in this case they saw boring water, but if this technique can be refined to check other (smaller) planets, we can see what other atmosphere compositions we can find. Some of them may point to life.

Re:We care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, given how many technologies have plateaued and only information processing has got better, where would you place your bets?

If we haven't discovered everything, why do you assume what might be discovered automatically leads to space sci-fi stuff?

What if we discover something that guarantees, for some reason, that no one's going anywhere, ever? What if we discover how to reverse aging and live centuries, yet not even have gasoline anymore?"

Which technologies have plateaued? I can't see any. Yes, some thing is common use may have plateaued, but that doesn't mean the technology is. It's just too expensive or not profitable to some key party to actually adopt it to use.

Who is assuming things lead to sci-fi space stuff? And on the other hand, that's where we will be heading, among other directions. Since scifi as a genre was born it has tried to guess where technological development might lead to. And the better stuff tries to imagine how humans will behave with different technologies shaping society. There is so much scifi it's almost certain any new stuff actually realised has been predicted in some form in some book.

I'm almost certain some scifi has pondered to immortalnes and the we don't have gasoline anymore things. Also, why would not having gasoline change anything? It's not that important. People were moving around before it, and we have technologies to completely replace it anyways. (ethanol, hydrogen, electricity, wood, pretty much anything that burns)

Re:We care why?

[tehcyder]

What the hell are you even talking about?

" (which is a key signature for life as we know it)"

Which you're assuming means the same as here!!??

Life as we know it would by definition be the same as here. That doesn't mean there aren't other, unfamiliar forms of life.

Re:We care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even, building on your last point, that the events that brought a large amount of water to Earth aren't common enough.
And also, the intelligence present in modern humans isn't SO special. Other species have it to varying degrees, just as human ancestors had it, or parts of it. Tool building, for instance, is definitely NOT a human exclusive. To go from that to machine building, well... we weren't making computers, or even abaci, a while ago.

Re:We care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't understand why we care about this.

Then why don't you go to another website and spare us your moronic drivel?

I hear Fox news has some shiny things to click on.

Re:We care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Which technologies have plateaued"

Dude, are you serious? Pretty much all of them except information processing. How long did it take to fly across the Atlantic in 1969 during the maiden flight of the 747? How long does it take today?

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE CONCORDE ANYMORE!!!!!

"that's where we will be heading"

No, "we" aren't.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...

"it has tried to guess where technological development might lead to. "

Not any more than fantasy has tried to guess where dragons lead to. I don't know where this "sci-fi is a plan and space is the goal" idea came from, but it's ridiculous.

"why would not having gasoline change anything? "

Wow, you're in your bubble and haven't given a picosecond's thought as to where and how the stuff around you came from. Go ahead, look around your room, and figure it out...

"People were moving around before it,"

Yup, within walking distance of where they were born.

"we have technologies to completely replace it anyways."

Ah, I see the problem, you are unable to grasp the difference between a resource and technology. Like a child, you reason simply and quickly. There's no depth to anything you think about. No wonder you believe what you do.

Re:We care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long did it take to fly across the Atlantic in 1969 during the maiden flight of the 747? How long does it take today?

Maybe because priorities change? How about how flight tickets are now half the cost of what they were 30 years ago? It is difficult to correlate a single number with the advance of technology when that number is dependent on what the populace actually uses. Might as well complain that shoes are not as high as they used to be during the 70s.

Instead look at research grade equipment being used for specific purposes. The sampling rate of things like oscilloscopes and digitizers is climbing higher and higher, while getting cheaper. I've seen experiments now that can have hundreds of digitizer channels, where as a decade or two ago they could only afford a pair of four channel oscilloscopes to record everything. Cameras are improving in resolution, cost, dynamic range, sensitivity, noise, etc. There are things that can now be done with 2d cameras that could only be done with 1d streak cameras years ago. The costs of some high speed cameras has lost a zero along the way, while new techniques are being developed for picosecond resolution 2d cameras. This applies to many tools, both incremental improvements and completely new ideas.

Re:We care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

add a little oxidizer and a match and we could cut it down to size pretty quick

Re:We care why?

[able1234au]

And it is thought that the water on earth did not all come from comets, as there is too much for that to happen. They now think that it came from processes within the earth itself. So the basic ideas are still changing.

minUs 3, Tro7l)

[Anonymous Coward]

of OpenBSD. How clear she couldn't faster, cheaper, Distribution. As halt. Even Emacs *BSD is Dying It is Continues to lose 8y resignation Is dying. Fact:

What's that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Astronomers have detected water vapor in the atmosphere of a planet that orbits a star far beyond our solar system.

Never mind the water vapor in the atmosphere for a moment and read the last part again.

"a planet that orbits a star far beyond our solar system."

I sure as hell hope so, otherwise that star would be in our own solar system and we'd have a huge problem on our hands.

Re:What's that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, no, we wouldn't have a problem, because the solar system - and the life within - would have come about with the star in place.

Unless you're suggesting that it would suddenly appear in our skies.

Re:What's that?

[camperdave]

What's wrong with having a star close to our solar system. There are plenty within 20 light years.

Re:What's that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure as hell hope so, otherwise that star would be in our own solar system and we'd have a huge problem on our hands.

I would be more worried if there *weren't* a star in our solar system.

Re:What's that?

[itzly]

Despite the fact that many objects are much further, one could argue that 20 light years isn't close.

Re:What's that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that would be a discovery of the century right there.

More on HAT-P-11b, the Hot Neptune

[Champaklal]

Here's the wikipedia link of this planet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

says Wiki:

However, the orbit of this planet is eccentric, at around 0.198, unusually high for hot Neptunes. HAT-P-11b's orbit is also highly inclined, with a tilt of approximately 103 degrees relative to its star's rotation.

The planet is a hot neptune, meaning it is almost in size equal to neptune, and the eccentric orbit is the eccentricity of the elliptical orbit. for a exact circle, it's eccentricity is 1. for a hyperbola, it's > 1, and for ellipse, it's Also, "the HAT acronym stands for Hungarian-made Automated Telescope, because it was developed by a small group of Hungarians who met through the Hungarian Astronomical Association", is what wiki says on the nomenclature HAT.

Speaking of water...

[NotQuiteReal]

If you can build oil pipelines hundreds of miles long, why don't "they" build water pipelines to the desert of southern California? Maybe it is because oil is (statistically speaking) infinitely more valuable than oil)?

OTOH -- maybe driving away from a desert is more cost effective than living there...

Re:Speaking of water...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Los Angeles Aqueduct: although only half the length of trans-Alaska pipeline, it carries about 5 times as much volume of liquid per day.

We should have known

[hairyfeet]

after all Cygnus Rocks!

F*** Beta!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

After a long time without seeing that stinking fucking pile of shit called Slashdot Beta, today I fired up /. and was greeted with a screenful of Beta!!! And when I clicked on the "back to Classic" link, a message appeared prompting me to return to fucking Beta. In typical Micro$oft fashion they were asking me, "Are you really really sure you don't want to stay on Beta anymore?"

Fuck you, Slashdot! First, George Fucking Lucas rapes my childhood. Now, you rape me as an adult. Fuck you fuck you fuck you a thousand times fuck you!!!

Marvel at his

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> "water va-pour"

Sounds like the name of a new DC comic character.

She's a cutie, too. Secret identity real name: Lee Quid.

va-pour

[MooseTick]

I expected 95% of the comments to be critical or make fun of "va-pour". Slashdot, you've let me down.