Scientists Discover Three Potentially Habitable Planets (mit.edu)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Discover Three Potentially Habitable Planets (mit.edu)

Posted by msmash on Monday May 2, 2016 @04:00AM from the quest-for-habitable-planets dept.

Scientists have discovered three Earth-sized planets that look ideally suited to search for signs of life beyond our solar system. A team of astronomers from MIT and the University of Liege detected three planets orbiting an ultracool dwarf star -- just 40 light years from Earth using a prototype telescope called TRAPPIST which is capable of looking at 60 nearby ultracool stars. NPR reports: The closest planet to the star orbits in about one and a half Earth days. From the planet's surface, the star would look like a reddish ball fixed to one spot in the sky. Scientists don't yet know the mass of the planets or what they're made of. Astronomers have discovered more than a thousand planets outside our solar system, but it's still rare to find ones that look promising in terms of habitability."These planets are Earth-sized, they are temperate -- we can't rule out the fact that they are habitable -- and they are well-suited for atmospheric studies," says Julien de Wit, a researcher at MIT.

70 of 122 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Discovered just in time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 04:09 · Score: 1, Funny

We finally have a safe place for transgendered individuals to use the toilet.
1. Re:Discovered just in time by Quirkz · 2016-05-03 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's only you. Trappist is an actual word already, referring to a type of monk. Those monks brew beer. Obviously you don't drink enough Belgian beer, or you wouldn't have any trouble with the word. I recommend you work on that.
  Speaking of beer, the mis-reading I had (and no, I'm not just joking, I really did misread this way) with the headline was that they discovered "three hobbitable pints". Presumably pint mugs full of beer, suitable for hobbits, like Frodo, Merry, and Pippin.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
2. Re:Discovered just in time by andphi · 2016-05-03 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  All pints are hobbitable, as long as the beer is palatable. I excuse, of course, O'Doul's and skunky yellow mystery fluids marketed as beer.
Trump, build that wall, now! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 04:10 · Score: 5, Funny

The earth needs a protective shell, before illegal aliens come from these worlds to take our jobs.
Financing? Not a problem. Just make the aliens pay for it.
1. Re:Trump, build that wall, now! by NatasRevol · 2016-05-02 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he could have Genesis sing for his campaign then!
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
2. Re:Trump, build that wall, now! by Tablizer · 2016-05-02 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Financing? Not a problem. Just make the aliens pay for it.
  They did, but we haven't figured out how to cash in Quatloo's yet. Trump may be a decent negotiator, but sometimes skips key details.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Ultra-cool dwarf? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 04:13 · Score: 1

detected three planets orbiting an ultracool dwarf star

Ultra-cool? So the dwarf star is like Verne Troyer - AKA Mini-Me?
Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 04:14 · Score: 1

ultracool dwarf star
Peter Dinklage?
That close to a dwarf star... by rahvin112 · 2016-05-02 04:15 · Score: 1

That close to a white dwarf start it's not going to have an atmosphere or any life if what we know about white dwarf star creation is at all true.
1. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by wierd_w · 2016-05-02 04:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Perhaps not entirely true.
  If these were originally hot neptunes, then the death of the parent star would have blown most of the atmosphere off allright, but would leave enough behind to be interesting.
  Definately a study candidate. This class of planet is predicted, but has not (to my knowledge) been confirmed to exist yet.
  There is also the potential for orbital migration after the star loses its cool and blows its top like that-- Objects that are analogous to our kuiper belt objects having thier orbits disturbed by the nova, then falling in on oblique angles, and getting captured at lower orbits.
  If we have learned anything at all from the population of extrasolar planets detected so far, it is that systems like ours are the minority, so theories based on how our system evolved need questioning. In many systems observed to date, very large planets have transmigrated closer to the star they orbit, for instance.
  These objects need not be giant balls of glass, just because their star went nova.
2. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by Rei · 2016-05-02 05:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Brown dwarf, not white. They're not stellar remnants (white dwarfs), they're minimal stars. So minimal, in fact, that unlike red dwarfs they don't even burn 1H, they only burn deuterium.
  That said, last I read there's one problem with dwarfs and life: at least with red dwarfs, the habitable zone is so close to the star that the radiation levels at the surface would be hazardous. Which would mean that LAWKI would need to be underground or underwater. Not a huge imposition, but still of relevance.
  
  --
  "I know you have questions." "That would be why I just asked them."
3. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by wierd_w · 2016-05-02 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Uhmm, before the nova both of those candidate classes would have not been habitable.
  Hot neptunes would have crushing pressure and denaturating temperatures.
  Kuiper belt analogs would have been balls of ice.
  Life would have a chance to start AFTER the nova. Dont expect anything more complex than germs.
4. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the amount of atmosphere and all doesn't it? TFS says that the star would be fixed at a single point in the sky - which is an ass-backwards way of saying "tidally locked" - so perhaps LAWKI it could evolve on the outward facing side - protected from radiation by a combination of the planet's mass and the atmosphere?
5. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by wierd_w · 2016-05-02 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  In the case of brown dwarf, then there is the potential for a very thick atmosphere on the candidate planet.
  A venus hothouse atmosphere with a very dim star could result in temperate climate conditions. Just not very bright.
6. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by Salgak1 · 2016-05-02 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Mind you, that makes sufficient energy input for complex life-forms unlikely. . .
  And thus, Donald Trump will ignore it as "low-energy" (grin)
7. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by Rei · 2016-05-02 05:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  There are lots of possibilities, yes.
  Then again, there are lots of possibilities everywhere. Including far more accessible locations in our own solar system ;) For example, we have Enceladus literally jetting out the contents of its ocean into space, just waiting to be collected - an ocean that models show is caused by rock serpentinization, meaning that it's being fed with minerals and hydrogen gas.
  I'm personally most curious about Titan (mainly for LNAWKI, though possibly LAWKI in the subsurface water layer). The complexity of the organic chemistry is amazing, and the "missing ethylene and acetylene / probably missing hydrogen / excess methane" problem is very interesting to say the least. Unless you have an idea of some sort of inorganic catalyst that could catalyze the decomposition of longer chain hydrocarbons with hydrogen at cryogenic temperatures! The fact that they've now shown that Ligeia Mare is almost pure methane, rather than accumulated ethane and longer-chain hydrocarbons like they assumed, just makes it all the more interesting. The ethane is going somewhere. (the boring answer would of course be "into the moon", but that still raises questions)
  If I was on a hunt for life, I'd start at Saturn. My dream mission would be:
  1) RTG-powered ion tug hauls a RTG-powered Titan aerial explorer and its attached ascent stage to Titan.
  2) Tug drops the explorer and attached ascent stage and stays in orbit, moving through Titan's exosphere, where it scoops gases for return (I've done the math, the thrust from the ion engine is well greater than the drag; also, most ion engines are very propellant-flexible).
  3) During the months while the tug is refilling, the explorer explores Titan (leaving its ascent stage behind on the surface) and collects samples from all over the moon - flying until its flight batteries are exhausted, landing (VTOL), collecting samples and transmitting data while the flight batteries recharge, then taking off again. The tug acts as its data relay.
  4) When both the explorer and tug are ready, the explorer returns to its ascent stage and re-ascends, then ditches the spent ascent stage. The tug takes care of maneuvering for re-docking so that the explorer (with its samples, minus any unneeded mass that it left behind) doesn't have to have an OMS.
  5) Re-docked, the tug makes a flyby of Enceladus with a carbon aerogel collector open. Additional optional collection flybies include the various rings (aerogel) and Saturn's exosphere (scoop). The scoop acts as a shield during flybies, the same way antennas are often used.
  6) The craft returns to Earth orbit. In addition to the collected samples, any gas from Titan's exosphere left in the tanks is itself a sample return.
  Yeah, that'd be a flagship mission and would require a couple tech demonstrators beforehand to advance the TRL. But... hopefully some day.
  
  --
  "I know you have questions." "That would be why I just asked them."
8. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by NatasRevol · 2016-05-02 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Panspermia anyone?
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
9. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  If we have learned anything at all from the population of extrasolar planets detected so far, it is that systems like ours are the minority
  That isn't remotely true. We don't yet have the technology to detect Earth-like planets around Sun-like stars within the habitable zone.
10. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by rahvin112 · 2016-05-03 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I don't think even a Jupiter size planet that close to a nova would survive. Nova's are immense releases of energy and the solar pressure is enough to blow planets to dust. I don't know how common planets are around white dwarfs but I have no doubt that unless the star captured the planets after nova'ing then the planets are very far away and even then probably took massive damage.
  Now in this case it's a brown dwarf, not a white dwarf so the situation doesn't apply here but I'm confident that the only way a planet could be within a dozen AU of the white dwarf would be if the star captured the planet after the nova.
11. Re:That close to a dwarf star... by Rei · 2016-05-03 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  TRL = Technology Readiness Level
  
  --
  "I know you have questions." "That would be why I just asked them."
Only 40 years?? by pablo_max · 2016-05-02 04:18 · Score: 2

Well.. I better get going now! Should not take too long. What 170k years? That's not bad. We can use one of those new 1700 generations ships!
1. Re:Only 40 years?? by npslider · 2016-05-02 04:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No problem...
  "It's 235,100,000,000,000 miles to Planet X, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses."
  "Hit it!"
2. Re:Only 40 years?? by OzPeter · 2016-05-02 04:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well.. I better get going now! Should not take too long. What 170k years? That's not bad. We can use one of those new 1700 generations ships!
  Well if you are going to do that .. you could call the ship "Red Dwarf" for luck. Just be careful of any cats you bring on as pets.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
3. Re:Only 40 years?? by pablo_max · 2016-05-02 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Damn. That has got to be the most obscure TV references I have ever seen. I wonder if there are more than 50 people what would not have to google it.
4. Re:Only 40 years?? by Holi · 2016-05-02 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When Red Dwarf is considered obscure on a site targeting nerds is when I really have to question how many nerds are actually here anymore.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
5. Re:Only 40 years?? by OldGoatDJ · 2016-05-02 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  I must be one of the 50. I got it immediately.
6. Re:Only 40 years?? by Tablizer · 2016-05-02 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  If we didn't have to spend so much on military machines, a nuclear-fueled star-ship that goes say 5% the speed of light is not that far-fetched.
  Still, 800+ years is rather far away from our perspective (slowing down is not trivial at those speeds).
  I wonder what kind of unmanned probes we could have by now if we didn't have to spend it on a military? If you don't have to worry about life-support and could afford redundant probes to deal with the risk of high-speeds, those things could be really fast, and we perhaps could be getting close-up data from the nearest star systems by now.
  If only we could fricken get along. This is why you humans can't have nice things.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
7. Re:Only 40 years?? by albacrankie · 2016-05-02 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  It would probably be better to send an advance party of experts to set things up properly. Marketing executives and nutritional scientists come to mind. (Do we need telephone sanitizers these days?)
8. Re:Only 40 years?? by Ogive17 · 2016-05-02 05:17 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  There are nerds of many types. Space/SciFi, computer hardware, computer software, robotics.. etc. You don't have to be an expert in every field to be a nerd.
  
  Besides my Fortan 90 class that I took in 1998 and very basic HTML that I learned from my Geocities webpage, I have very limited coding knowledge. Doesn't make me less of a nerd, just means I don't consume as much Mt. Dew or Doritos.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
9. Re:Only 40 years?? by Tablizer · 2016-05-02 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Send politicians: no matter what happens, it's a win/win.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
10. Re:Only 40 years?? by OzPeter · 2016-05-02 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  When Red Dwarf is considered obscure on a site targeting nerds is when I really have to question how many nerds are actually here anymore.
  I bet that right now Natalie Portman is silently crying into her hot grits.
  Maybe we *are* all cows.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
11. Re:Only 40 years?? by Tablizer · 2016-05-02 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  We're just grumbly neckbeards: if you are not the right kind nerd, we flame
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
12. Re:Only 40 years?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  If we didn't have to spend so much on military machines, a nuclear-fueled star-ship that goes say 5% the speed of light is not that far-fetched.
  Still, 800+ years is rather far away from our perspective (slowing down is not trivial at those speeds).
  I wonder what kind of unmanned probes we could have by now if we didn't have to spend it on a military? If you don't have to worry about life-support and could afford redundant probes to deal with the risk of high-speeds, those things could be really fast, and we perhaps could be getting close-up data from the nearest star systems by now.
  If only we could fricken get along. This is why you humans can't have nice things.
  The main problem would be that keeping a single machine working for 800+ years is not actually a solved problem.
  Additionally the economic gain from interstellar missions will be vastly lower than negative net return we get from military spending (militaries are a lose money to avoid losing even more money proposition) even over the timeframe of a complete mission.
13. Re:Only 40 years?? by Dunbal · 2016-05-02 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't get obscure sci fi references you're probably just a security guard class 4 and don't belong here.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
14. Re:Only 40 years?? by Dunbal · 2016-05-02 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Nerds can be smegheads. Just look at Arnold J. Well yeah ok he fails at being a nerd, too. More a nerd wannabe.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
15. Re:Only 40 years?? by Dunbal · 2016-05-02 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Same. 47 more to go (because OP obviously got it if he wrote it).
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
16. Re:Only 40 years?? by Place+a+name+here · 2016-05-02 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Go fast enough and it'll be 40 years... as far as you're concerned.
17. Re:Only 40 years?? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-05-02 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Damn. That has got to be the most obscure TV references I have ever seen. I wonder if there are more than 50 people what would not have to google it.
  I said "Damn." when I read that too. I couldn't believe it took that long for someone on /. to make a Red Dwarf reference.
18. Re:Only 40 years?? by Punko · 2016-05-02 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  umm, if you get really close to 'c' the trip is instantaneous for you.
  
  --
  If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
19. Re:Only 40 years?? by the+gnat · 2016-05-02 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder what kind of unmanned probes we could have by now if we didn't have to spend it on a military? If you don't have to worry about life-support and could afford redundant probes to deal with the risk of high-speeds, those things could be really fast, and we perhaps could be getting close-up data from the nearest star systems by now.
  Sorry, not even close.
  The estimate that I've seen for Project Icarus, which is one of the most thorough realistic concepts for interstellar exploration, was $100 trillion. (For comparison, global GNP is around $70 trillion, and US military budget is probably on the order of $1 trillion at most once you include stuff like the NSA - DoD alone is more like $700 billion. Some of which we do actually need for national defense.) That probe would have been unmanned and taken 50 years to reach Barnard's Star (only about 5 light years away), plus at least a 20-year development time. It required technology that, while theoretically possible, isn't even remotely close to working; it also required installing orbital infrastructure around at least one of our gas giants to mine the isotope(s) required for its particular flavor of fusion.
  If we restrict ourselves to current-day or very-near-future technology, we might be able to get something to a nearby star in a few centuries for a much smaller sum. I'm totally in favor of starting work now, but I think the political will for spending large amounts of tax dollars on such a project is near zero.
20. Re:Only 40 years?? by Tablizer · 2016-05-02 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  100T? That seems much higher than other estimates:
  http://www.centauri-dreams.org...
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
21. Re:Only 40 years?? by Trogre · 2016-05-02 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  You're joking right?
  More obscure than the Firefly references that popped up here a while ago? And that show ran for only one season.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Cyclotron by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 04:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

Even if the radiation is comparable to Earth levels I wonder how the potential magnetic field will behave when the planet orbits its star in just a few days. Radio interference would probably be severe or not?
Updated Report by npslider · 2016-05-02 04:26 · Score: 2

Lead researcher updates the original report stating, "After a technician realized they forgot to use the zoom button, an easy mistake considering the vast number of pretty lights and switches, an appalling discovery was made. The supposed planet has been re-identified". A short pause and a look of horror crosses the researcher's face, "That's no planet, it's a space station!"
The entire research team agreed that they all had a bad feeling about the turn of events.
Um, radiation? by WillAffleckUW · 2016-05-02 04:34 · Score: 1

At that visible spectra, are you sure those are "habitable"?
By what?
Your eyes would burn out.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Devil is in the details... by kwiecmmm · 2016-05-02 04:38 · Score: 1

Also from what I read they appear to be tidally locked, which probably means they aren't likely to be able to sustain complex life.
I am guessing NASA is interested because they might be able to sustain microbial life on them.
unjustified hopes by argStyopa · 2016-05-02 04:39 · Score: 1

Let's not get TOO carried away.
Venus and Mars are arguably in the 'habitable' zone in this system, and I don't see us busting down any doors exploring those like crazy. Sure, we've done some good work on Mars but budgetwise it's not a big priority...

--
-Styopa
1. Re:unjustified hopes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-02 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  This is something that has always bothered me about our plans for space exploration as a species.
  Our choices amount to "find a way to warm mars which is way far from the sun and has barely any atmosphere left and no water", or "cool down venus".
  Considering the options available, why isn't "cool down venus" the more realistic of the 2?
  I could imagine that with the high sulphuric acid content of Venus's atmosphere sending a huge amount of sodium bicarbonate which itself could be harvested from comets https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_source_of_neutral_sodium_in_comets would be an obvious choice.
  The process should produce a ton of water and we can scrub up the excess CO2 by splitting it right?
  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-carbon-dioxide/
  Sure the ground would be dirty sooty and stinky for quite awhile, but really isn't venus the better choice to teraform.
  Failing that, living in the atmo of venus itself might not be too bad of an idea. Venutian blimp anyone?
  http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html
2. Re:unjustified hopes by thinkwaitfast · 2016-05-02 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  If the sun 'went out' today, it would take a thousands of years for venus to cool down.
3. Re:unjustified hopes by wierd_w · 2016-05-02 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Amarid plastic (poly amide) is thermostable at venus's surface temperature, and is theoretically capable of being biosynthesized.
  It turns into "goop" when mixed with strong acids (it does not have a melting point. it is spun into fiber after mixing it with HCl, which then evaporates in the spinning process, leaving fiber.), and would turn into a gelatinous sea on the surface of venus.
  The process would take millions of years, but would punctuate venus' otherwise purpetual cycle of greenhouse heating by effectively sinking the carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid components of the atmosphere.
  Above the cloud haze layer, temperature and pressure are comparable to earth's surface. Only the acidic and dry conditions need to be accounted for in the engineered extremophile microbes. Both could be effectively handled with a sulphur respiration cycle based biochemistry.
  We are at a level of biotechnology that we could engineer such microbes and deliver them to the venusian atmosphere.
  We DONT (and wont) do this because the planetary society feels that barren, lifeless balls of hellishly hot acidic gas covering pools of molten lead and tortured silicates are still of scientific value, and need to not be disturbed. It is considered unethical (somehow) to contaminate these worlds with terrestrial life, engineered or not.
  Heaven forbid that humanity becomes the progenitor of life on another planet. Unthinkable.
  Now, with that in mind, I wonder why we send useless crap into space (like little metal figurines, and golden records) and not substantially more interesting things, like freezedried samples of microbes, tardigrades, and other interesting earth flora in sealed containers.
  Which would you be more excited (as a scientist) to get from another species: A metal figurine of unknown significance, or a well catalogued sampling of hardy lifeforms from a distant star system, ready for study?
  Really, I have to wonder about my species sometimes.
Ultracool? by sconeu · 2016-05-02 04:54 · Score: 1

I'm guessing that this star is Zaphod Beeblebrox's vacation spot.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:We need to travel faster by GTRacer · 2016-05-02 04:59 · Score: 1

Has anyone done a story wherein a civilisation launches a generation ship, expecting it to travel for a couple thousand years? But in the meantime, the group left behind develop FTL / wormhole generators / what have you and send a second group to the target planet to await the first?

--
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Re:Devil is in the details... by Rei · 2016-05-02 05:07 · Score: 2

Indeed, it's impossible with current technology to know. And the IAU explicitly rules out extrasolar planets as being planets in their definition of a planet. Which is made all the more humorous by the fact that they have an extrasolar planets working group ;)
Bonus points for inconsistency that "dwarf planets" aren't planets but "dwarf stars" are stars.
The IAU is such a joke.

--
"I know you have questions." "That would be why I just asked them."
Re:We need to travel faster by Dragonslicer · 2016-05-02 05:10 · Score: 2

I'm sure there have been plenty, but the first one that I thought of is the B5 episode The Long Dark.
Re:We need to travel faster by XxtraLarGe · 2016-05-02 05:16 · Score: 1

Has anyone done a story wherein a civilisation launches a generation ship, expecting it to travel for a couple thousand years? But in the meantime, the group left behind develop FTL / wormhole generators / what have you and send a second group to the target planet to await the first?
Yeah, you just did! I'm going to nominate you for a Nebula. It's even better than "If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love"!

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The 'light' from a red dwarf by shoor · 2016-05-02 05:32 · Score: 1

As I understand it, red dwarfs are the most numerous stars in the galaxy. (Also much longer lived, if the difference between 5 billion and 100 billion years matters to you.) Although they are smaller, cooler, and redder, if a planet is close enough, it will be in the temperature comfort zone for humans. But what kind of light would one see? Would it be perpetual sunset/sunrise? Would chlorophyll driven photosynthesis work?
I'm also thinking it's all very academic because by the time humanity has the technology to get there (if it ever does), things will be very different with us or our descendants (Who may not be biological descendants.)

--
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
1. Re:The 'light' from a red dwarf by wierd_w · 2016-05-02 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Would chlorophyll work?
  Probably, just not ideally.
  The spectra best utilized by green plants on earth are "red" and "Yellow" light, respectively. These spectra represent the bulk of the useful spectra recieved on earth, and are why green plants appear green. (they absorb nearly everything in the red spectrum, and most of the yellow, reflecting blue and some of the yellow, making a green colored surface.)
  The bulk of the visible light around a red dwarf will be "red". Photosynthetic earth plants will be able to make use of it, but inefficiently. (yellow light carries more energy per photon. Chlorophyll is able to absorb multiple red photons to make up for the difference in energy, and still catalyze the reactions needed, but less activity will be possible without a congruent increase in the total number of photons delivered.) Thus only some plant forms would be able to thrive there.
  This is assuming surface conditions suited to plantlife anyway.
  On a planet dominated by a heavy carbon dioxide atmosphere held temperate by greenhouse effects, sending oxygen respiring photosynthetic plants would have dire long term consequences for the global climate as the global average temperatures drop precipitously. Unless there is A LOT of dirty manufacturing and other carbon unfriendly activities conducted by humans to put the greenhouse gasses back, the planet will go into a botanically induced iceage.
  But yes. Chlorophyll should work with the light emitted from red dwarfs, just not efficiently.
freedom! by lord3nd3r · 2016-05-02 05:36 · Score: 1

Looks like we need to send some forced freedom their way! 'Murica, Fuck yea!

--
g0t b33r?
What a relief by Dunbal · 2016-05-02 06:01 · Score: 1

Oh. How wonderful. JUST 40 light years away. Fucking journalists. It might as well be in the next galaxy, we are never going there. Ever.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Form of the Telescope? by N3wsByt3 · 2016-05-02 06:38 · Score: 1

This is what a TRAPPIST looks like:
http://sr1.wine-searcher.net/i...

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Re:We need to travel faster by MachineShedFred · 2016-05-02 07:32 · Score: 1

Not quite an overtaking, but the Worldwar series by Harry Turtledove comes close in the last book - Humans go to the homeworld of "The Race" on a diplomatic mission in cryogenic freeze which takes a decade or two, and six months or so after they arrive, an FTL ship arrives from Earth startling the hell out of everyone.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:We need to travel faster by HiThere · 2016-05-02 07:37 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that was first. There was a story in Astounding in the early 1950's that had that theme. I can't remember the title, but it was in the issue with the cover that had an extremely tall and thing person standing next to an extremely short and broad person each holding up a set of clothes for someone of intermediate size. I believe the tag was something like "One size fits all".
And there may have been a Cordwainer Smith story about that, but I can't quite pull it out of my memory.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:We need to travel faster by nickersonm · 2016-05-02 08:28 · Score: 1

Close to that, a 1964 Twilight Zone episode involves a manned probe on a 40-year (relativistic ship-time) scouting mission - when he returns with his results, he finds out that the mission was long ago accomplished by technology developed after his departure.
Oxygen nitrogen atmosphere? by DigiShaman · 2016-05-02 08:37 · Score: 1

Do any of these planets have an oxygen nitrogen atmosphere like Earth? That's a very important discovery (specifically oxygen); because oxygen is highly reactive and must be replenished to hang around in large enough quantities. To my knowledge, only life cracks the bond of oxygen free via photosynthesis.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:We need to travel faster by Mageek · 2016-05-02 09:26 · Score: 1

One of Heinlein's early works, Time for the Stars is close. They send out slower-than-light torchships, find hostile natives on the last planet they explore that ends badly, and are rescued by FTL ships developed since the torchships left.
Road trip! by Chelloveck · 2016-05-02 09:35 · Score: 1

Scientists don't yet know the mass of the planets or what they're made of.
So in other words, scientists discover three planets which are "potentially habitable" in that we don't know enough about them yet to completely rule out the possibility.

--
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Re: We need to travel faster by Type44Q · 2016-05-02 10:26 · Score: 1

There's a variation of this in Clarke's Songs of Distant Earth.
terrible science journalism by 0111+1110 · 2016-05-02 14:38 · Score: 1

What the hell is an 'ultracool dwarf star'? Is that cool as in awesome? This is a brown dwarf. Not really a star at all. It has as much in common with Jupiter or Saturn as it has with a star. It is not large enough to fuse (standard) hydrogen into helium. Which is why it has that weird 2MASS designation based on the 2 Micron All Sky Survey instead of stellar catalog number like say Gliese 581 which is a real dwarf (or main sequence) star. Our star is also a dwarf star ffs. A yellow dwarf. 2MASS was a 2003 infrared sky survey that was searching for brown dwarfs like this one.
As far as the orbiting planets' ability to support life there is quite a bit of doubt as to whether even a red dwarf, which is a real star, allows for life supporting planets. So a planet orbiting a brown dwarf is probably even a more improbable location for life at least as we know it. Also if it is orbiting a brown dwarf is it really a planet or just a large moon like Titan?

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I'll take the one by jpellino · 2016-05-02 16:57 · Score: 1

with Cardassians but without Kardashians.

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Re:We need to travel faster by Quirkz · 2016-05-03 02:18 · Score: 1

"Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C Clarke.

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay