Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Spies Earth-Sized Exoplanet Orbiting Sun-Like Star

Posted by samzenpus on from the hello-brother dept.

An anonymous reader writes: NASA has announced that a new Earth-like planet has been discovered that may be the closest thing yet to a first true "Earth twin." Kepler 452b is located 1,000 light years away, is 60% larger than Earth, and orbits Kepler 452 at a distance similar to that between Earth and the Sun. "It is the first terrestrial planet in the habitable zone around a star very similar to the Sun," says Douglas Caldwell, an astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California.

18 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. 2 time the gravity thought by Eloking · · Score: 4, Informative

    2 time the gravity thought...

    --
    Elok
    1. Re:2 time the gravity thought by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      You did, in fact, "forget how to science" - he's right.

      From TFA, it's 1.6x the diameter of Earth, and 5x the mass of Earth.

      Which puts it about 2x the surface G, when rounded to two significant digits (1.95+).

      Note this world is rather denser than Earth - 5x the mass packed into 4x the volume. Should be a great place for heavy metal poisoning. Or toxic wastelands. Something like that....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:2 time the gravity thought by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm thinking the worst aspect of that higher gravity would be a much denser atmosphere. We certainly could survive in 1.6g environment, but we couldn't survive the crushing weight of that atmosphere.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:2 time the gravity thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thank you sir, I did not complete reading the article.

      "Should be a great place for heavy metal poisoning. Or toxic wastelands"

      Ahh we should feel right at home there then.

    4. Re:2 time the gravity thought by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      And I repeat: from TFA, mass of the planet is 5x Earth Mass. Diameter (and radius) is 1.6x Earth.

      Insert 5x mass and 1.6x radius into Gm/r^2, and you very quickly realize that:

      1) density isn't the same as Earth's. It is, in fact, a.25x Earth density.

      2) surface gravity will be ~2x Earth (1.95+g).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:2 time the gravity thought by daenris · · Score: 2

      Though as one of the questions during the briefing asked, they don't actually know the mass. They're pretty much guessing based on the size by using the distribution of a smaller pool of past planets that they do have mass estimates for.

      From the caption for figure 4 from their presentation: "While its mass and composition are not yet determined, previous research suggests that planets the size of Kepler-452b have a better than even chance of being rocky."

      http://www.nasa.gov/keplerbrie...

    6. Re:2 time the gravity thought by ChrisK87 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Note this world is rather denser than Earth - 5x the mass packed into 4x the volume. Should be a great place for heavy metal poisoning. Or toxic wastelands. Something like that...."

      Not necessarily. A planet with a larger radius retains heat better thanks to its lower surface area to volume ratio, and a planet with higher gravity will more efficiently separate its component materials by density, i.e. drawing metal elements into its core. And since the planet is retaining more heat, it will probably have had more resurfacing and tectonic activity than Earth did. So a denser planet does have more metals, but by being larger it is also going to have a lower proportion of it [metals present during formation] in its crust than a 1G planet.

      As to which effect dominates in this situation, that's a question for someone with an actual model of planetary evolution.

    7. Re:2 time the gravity thought by bledri · · Score: 2

      If 60% larger is "Earth-Sized," call me when they find something "Mars-Sized."

      OK, Kepler-138b is about the size of Mars.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    8. Re:2 time the gravity thought by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative

      from TFA, mass of the planet is 5x Earth Mass.

      I'm not sure what you were reading.... From the page linked to the summary:

      Scientists do not know if Kepler-452b can support life or not. What is known about the planet is that it is about 60 percent larger than Earth, placing it in a class of planets dubbed "super-Earths." While its mass and composition are not yet determined, previous research suggests that planets the size of Kepler-452b have a better than even chance of being rocky.

      So I'm not sure where you got 5 times the mass from.

      In fact, if we assume composition similar to earth, a planet 1.6 times the size of earth would have 4.096 (1.6 cubed) times the mass of earth

      Because gravitational pull falls with the square of the distance, we could divide 1.6 cubed times the mass of earth by the square of 1.6 gives us exactly 1.6 times earth's gravitational pull at the surface of the planet. Thus, assuming identical composition, surface gravity scales linearly with diameter. While it probably doesn't have absolutely identical composition to Earth, there is not yet any compelling reason at this time to speculate that its composition would be drastically different either. Certainly if its density were 25% heavier than that of earth, then the mass (and surface gravity) would be exactly as you described. According to the page, we do not know that information yet, however.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    9. Re:2 time the gravity thought by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe this is where Eddie Lacy is from.

    10. Re:2 time the gravity thought by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Note this world is rather denser than Earth - 5x the mass packed into 4x the volume. Should be a great place for heavy metal poisoning. Or toxic wastelands.

      Or gold mining! Yea, that's the ticket to get the prospectors out there to colonize the place. Interstellar gold rush!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  2. Too Far Away by lazarus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is 1400 light years away. It may be a good candidate for life, but we will never know. Even if we point SETI-type radio telescopes at it and monitor it for signals, they will have spent 1400 years getting to us and there is no guarantee that whatever civilization was there is still there. Chances of a "conversation" are nil.

    If we detect life-emitting organic compounds on it, it also won't matter. We'd never be able to verify their veracity because we cannot get there.

    Interesting discovery, but I can't muster up much excitement about this one.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:Too Far Away by tomhath · · Score: 2

      1400 years from now they will pick up the faint television broadcast signals of the Milton Berle Show and I Love Lucy. Then they will conclude that there is no intelligent life on Earth and point their antenna elsewhere.

    2. Re:Too Far Away by TwentyCharsIsNotEnou · · Score: 2

      Chances of a "conversation" are nil.

      Why? Even individuals had many productive conversations on this planet when it took weeks to get a reply via snail mail.

      Of course individual humans today couldn't have a conversation with 1000 year latency (at least form Earth's side - the aliens might live a lot longer). The invention of cryogenics of some kind, extreme life expectancy increases, or relativistic time dilation could fix that though.

      But as a civilisation, I don't see why we couldn't converse. Especially as civilisation ages - after 1 million years of technological growth, 1000 years mightn't seem that long.

      (See also "Dragon's Egg" by Robert L. Forward for some great sci-fi in this vein)

  3. Re:This planet is for cows. by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 2

    You are all cows. In space, no one can hear you moo. MOOOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU COWS!!

    You're a pal and a cosmonaut.

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  4. Re:im sure the news on Kepler 452b was grave. by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except, of course, at 1000 light years away ... there are no EM radiations from us which would have reached there.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Re:This planet is for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hi "sexconker (1179573)". Don't make yesterday's mistake of not ticking the "Post anonymously" box!

    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

  6. Re:im sure the news on Kepler 452b was grave. by cbhacking · · Score: 2

    That's actually not *entirely* true... humans haven't been making artificially modulated RF for a millennium yet, but artificial sources of EM (remember, *light* is EM) have existed practically as long as any form of civilization has. Cities are visible from space. Much less so when they're lit by candles and fireplaces than when they're lit by all the myriad electric sources found in modern cities, and there's a nearly-incomprehensible difference between LEO "from space" and interstellar "from space", of course. It also wouldn't tell the aliens anything about us (even if they had the sensors to detect those tiny motes of firelight, and distinguish them from natural sources) other than that we'd invented fire. Still, that's a lot, in some ways.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...