NASA's Planet Hunter Spots Record 1,284 New Planets, 9 In A Habitable Zone (networkworld.com)

coondoggie quotes a report from Network World: NASA's planet hunting space telescope Kepler added a record 1,284 confirmed planets to its already impressive discoveries of extraterrestrial worlds. [This batch of planets is the largest single account of new planets since Kepler launched in 2009 and more than doubles the number of confirmed planets realized by the space telescope so far to more than 2,300.] The discoveries were a result of an automated technique implemented in a publicly available custom software package called Vespa, which lets scientists analyze thousands of signals Kepler has identified to determine which are most likely to be caused by planets and which are caused by non-planetary objects such as stars. "Vespa computed the reliability values for over 7,000 signals identified in the latest Kepler catalog which identified 4,302 potential planets and verified the 1,284 planets with 99% certainty," said the Princeton researchers that developed Vespa. NASA said, based on their size, nearly 550 of the validated planets could be rocky like Earth. Nine of which orbit in their sun's habitable zone.

Comments

How close?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it would take like 50 zillion years to reach the closest one, right?

Re:How close?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and your point is?

Being negative for the sake of being negative?

Re:How close?

[Anonymous Coward]

How far is the nearest one? With even 60s tech we could have had an expedition half way to Alpha Centauri (About 5 light years distant) by now if we cared more about exploring than bombing each other over black sludge or whose society/deity is better. Admittedly sending such a long term expedition may not be recommended at this point as we have barely scratched the surface of possible propulsion methods but the idea that reaching the (nearby) stars is impossible is either uneducated or outright misinformation.

Stats

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA's Planet Hunter Spots Record 1,284 New Planets, 9 In A Habitable Zone

"Vespa computed the reliability values for over 7,000 signals identified in the latest Kepler catalog which identified 4,302 potential planets and verified the 1,284 planets with 99% certainty,"

Shouldn't that be "NASA's Planet Hunter Spots Record 1,271 New Planets"? If it's 99%, you'd expect 1% to be wrong.

Re:Stats

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what a 99% certainty means. the 99% certainty is the Confidence Interval (CI)

It means that if the same population is sampled on numerous occasions and interval estimates are made on each occasion, the resulting intervals would bracket the true population parameter in approximately 99 % of the cases. (From NIST)

Re:Stats

[Maritz]

If you expect the real total to be 1% less you're gettin' the wrong end of the stick buddeh. ;)

Stop [doing this]

[wonkey_monkey]

Why do the editors (I assume) keep putting stuff in [ ]s?

You don't need to identify every change you might have made to a submission (if that's what's happening). That kind of editing is supposed to be seamless. Highlighting it just leaves readers wondering if they're missing some significance.

Re:Stop [doing this]

[GrumpySteen]

The submitter put the brackets in, not the editors.

Re: Stop [doing this]

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat a [giant bag] of dicks.

Re:Stop [doing this]

[wonkey_monkey]

Then the editors should've taken 'em out.

Re:Stop [doing this]

[Hognoxious]

Like they take out the a-with-a-coolie-hat-bracket-TM-closebracket?

Re:Stop [doing this]

[Anonymous Coward]

You whine like a mule.

I didn't even notice the brackets until you pointed them out. They just aren't a big deal. I think your gripe is silly.

Re: This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

To piss you off.

Lets build a few generational ships already...

[Anonymous Coward]

500+ billion/year on military in the USA alone(likely 1 trillion globally?); Lets just agree on borders and to stop #$%#$ing around in each others affairs and start to look outward.
No shortage of humans; no shortage of volunteers willing to do one way trips(mars and I'm sure elsewhere) .

I still remember the years of delay after the challenger accident... Find the problem(or suspected problem) and continue; don't miss beat.. 10's of thousands die in motor-vehicle accidents, a few dozen astronauts shouldn't cause a delay.

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[AchilleTalon]

And here is the mandatory idiotic comparison with the USA military budget to try to justify anything stupid.

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[CRCulver]

Kim Stanley Robinson's recent novel Aurora is skeptical of the idea that generational starships would work. KSR is best known for his Mars trilogy of two decades ago, which was a vision of terraforming that was criticized for being too optimistic. In the years since, he has delved into the science of ecosystems and come to believe that "life is a planetary thing", an ecology can only be maintained over the long term at a planetary scale, and at the small scale of a generation starship, it would quickly break down.

Thus Aurora has the inhabitants of the ship freaking out at the increasing amount of salt dumped into their plant production as time goes by, the loss of certain vital nutrients, and so forth. And while you might think that the crew only has to survive the couple of centuries of the journey until they arrive at their destination, the novel has a twist that shows how settling another inhabitable planet might not necessarily possible. Whether this book is an example of a sadly pessimistic or merely realistic trend in science-fiction is up to you.

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[GrumpySteen]

While generation ships make for some compelling science fiction, the reality is that we have yet to be able to build a sustainable closed biosphere on Earth where we have a ton of advantages like gravity, sunlight, a magnetic field to protect from radiation, no concerns about explosive decompression and a distinct lack of large chunks of rock and ice floating around. Until we understand our own biology and ecosystem more fully, a generation ship wouldn't be a few dozen astronauts dying out of some larger number. Every single one would die.

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[serviscope_minor]

I read it and I didn't enjoy it. Actually, I gave up part way through, something I very rarely do, because I found it that bad.

One of the problems is that it's supposedly hard sci-fi, but the problem is it's written by someone who doesn't know the science. As a result while some other aspects were plausible, other aspects were not and were downright annoying.

For example, there was lots of noodling about the halting problem , but he clearly has no idea what the halting problem actually is. He seems to have latched on to is as merely "something hard". I think at one point he even equates path finding with the halting problem, probably via the route "path finding = travelling salesman problem", "travelling salesman problem = hard", "halting problem = hard", therefore "path finding = halting problem".

I also didn't find the "protien fragments" (peptides?) terribly plausible. The planet seemed to be covered with vast amounts of these incredibly pathogenic things which had no apparent source, no apparent activity until humans turned up, almost undetectably small (i.e. simple), and yet vastly more powerful than the human immune system which has evolved under continuous attack from all sorts of such things and worse. I mean we deal with peptides, proteins and etc all the time, and there's nothing comparable here to what's described in the book.

Double also, why didn't these also eat plants?

Triple also, if they were so paranoid (they were, hence the expossure suits), then why didn't they send down some mice first? I don't remember them doing that.

I did quite like how it slowly became clear that the book was from the point of view of the ship's AI, but that wasn't enough to save it especially as it wasn't plausible hard sci-fi with relation to the AI. So the suspension of disbelief broken, I started finding the characters annoying and unsympathetic then I stopped caring.

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[Maritz]

Our love of and emphasis on militarism and warfare is essentially what will prevent our species from progressing to the medium term future in a stable manner. So it's worth noting. It's also highly likely to be what ends civilization (roughly 1% or so risk of nuclear war per year).

Having said that, I'm not keen to start building 'generation ships' just yet. You've gotta walk before you can run. And we ain't even crawling.

But without wanting to be too doom and gloom - we aren't going to the stars. This isn't the species you're looking for. lol

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[Immerman]

In fairness we've only seriously attempted it once, and didn't fail all that badly.

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[CRCulver]

If I recall correctly, the "protein fragments" were prions, and the human immune system is famously susceptible to some prion diseases (reading about Creutzfeld-Jakob patients is a very sobering thing and you may not sleep well for days afterwards).

I also think the novel was fairly weak as a work of fiction. However, the whole point of the book -- like much science fiction -- is to explore a certain idea, and I think that the idea behind Aurora is a thought-provoking one.

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[Immerman]

Disclaimer: never read the book, just going from your descriptions.

In fairness, immune systems tend to only work against things very similar to what they're already accustomed to, with lots of help from symbiotic microbes that can adapt much more quickly. Unfamiliar pathogens tend to burn through populations like wildfire - for example estimates are that Europeans indirectly killed 70-90% of the population of the Americas before ever attempting any conquest, just by accidentally introducing new pathogens that, evolutionarily speaking, were not that different from what was already there. Of course the natives were pretty much biologically identical to Europeans, so the diseases were already highly optimized.

"Protein fragments" as a pathogen would presumably be some sort of protolife evolved to tear apart other proteins for raw materials - they might well find earth life to be prime raw materials, and our immune systems would have very little defense against them, not having had to deal with such pathogens on Earth since they were out-competed by cellular life probably a billion or so years ago. Alternately, they might act as passive toxins instead - in which case our immune system wouldn't even be a factor.

Either way though, you'd reasonably expect them to decimate *all* (or at least most) Earth life - after all on a cellular level we're all pretty closely related. Killing just animals (or humans) is the sort of thing you expect from a pathogen that's spent millenia optimizing for a particular host.

Re: Lets build a few generational ships already...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since then we've learned that there are a whole lot more things we don't know nearly enough about to make a generation ship work.

Re: Lets build a few generational ships already...

[Anonymous Coward]

bullcrap. its too many kids in poor nations who supply the midcreants.

china shows the way forward.

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[Applehu Akbar]

I found the novel well-written and quite interesting, but it did a poor job of defending its central premise, which was that there is some secret sauce that binds every living thing to the planet where it evolved. First of all the scenario starts in a tine as far ahead of ours of we are ahead of Columbus, with corresponding technological development: the whole solar system is settled, and a generation starship is sent out to Tau Ceti. If Earthly life were mystically bound to its home planet, the settled solar system would not exist to begin with.

The story opens as the ship reaches its target after seven generations on board. The ship's systems are wearing down, being designed for one voyage, and although it's the 26th century nobody remembered to bring the frozen DNA for genetic diversity, and inbreeding is taking its toll on the population. The crew finds two potential places to settle: a watery moon, somewhat Earthlike but with no complex life, and a dry Marslike moon. They start building a settlement on the wet moon, but after finding a single prion-like hostile organism, immediately give up. Instead of working on the prion problem, half the crew revolts and decides to take the ship back to Earth, leaving the non-defeatist half to settle the Marslike moon without the help of the ship's resources.

I suppose the moral of the story is that if you build a starship, don't crew it with people like this author.

Re: Lets build a few generational ships already...

[Immerman]

You're assuming that we need to understand all the parts to make the whole work, a position easily dismissed by... pretty much all of medicine and other technology more than a few hundred years old. Trial and error is an incredible teacher - deeper understanding mostly just speeds things up.

Re:Lets build a few generational ships already...

[serviscope_minor]

If I recall correctly, the "protein fragments" were prions, and the human immune system is famously susceptible to some prion diseases (reading about Creutzfeld-Jakob patients is a very sobering thing and you may not sleep well for days afterwards).

Yeah but it got it wrong for prion diseases too. The thing with prions is that they're a misfolded version of the protein which catalyses re misfolding. He talked about them needing salts and etc to replicate like life forms.

However, the whole point of the book -- like much science fiction -- is to explore a certain idea, and I think that the idea behind Aurora is a thought-provoking one.

Welllllll kinda. There's several aspects of things. There's the "tweak the world to reflect on human nature" style where there's a speculative element that's often more fantastical and then there's the very hard sci-fi of trying to speculate based on physical reality and what we know of science now. Aurora was more of the latter, except it got a lot wrong which really broke it for me.

Re:This is useless research

[butzwonker]

Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you? Twenty years ago we didn't even know that exoplanets exist and now we find more and more of them. Since when has record breaking research in astronomy been a waste of taxpayer dollars? What kind of ignorant wouldn't want to know in what kind of universe we live?

Re:This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you?

The answer might be in the first two words of your reply.

Re:This is useless research

[AchilleTalon]

Twenty years ago we didn't even know that exoplanets exist and now we find more and more of them.

We did know they exist, we just haven't observed any. Does a tree make sound if it falls in the middle of the forest and nobody is there to listen at it?

Agreeing on borders

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have to convince Russia and China of that. Force and threats are the only things that work. Personally, I think the US would do more with the lands called Siberia. Japan should logically extend to the islands north including Karafuto.

Re:This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to be kidding me. No, until fairly recently we did not know that exoplanets exist. For example, I have an older astronomy book that explicitly states that we don't know whether exoplanets exist, but that it might be possible.

We did know they exist, we just haven't observed any.

I conclude that your not a scientist (and not a philosopher either).

Re:This is useless research

[Maritz]

obvious troll. forgot to say 'Space Nutter'.

Re:This is useless research

[MacTO]

It is incredibly useful research, because you are much more likely to board the B Ark willingly if you know that the destination exists.

I hate these "new planet spotted" stories

[NotDrWho]

What they've spotted is NOT a planet, but the EFFECT ON THE STAR that's probably caused by a planet.

Re:I hate these "new planet spotted" stories

[Anonymous Coward]

What they've spotted is NOT a planet, but the EFFECT ON THE STAR that's probably caused by a planet.

THANK YOU!

Re:I hate these "new planet spotted" stories

[Anonymous Coward]

YES!!!! Talk about a leap of faith. Yes, the technology doesn't exist to actually see these objects (planets),
but we're pretty sure the effect we can measure is the result of an orbiting planet around that star.

Anyway, just 'cause a planet is in some zone doesn't mean it's habitable (another conclusion that annoys me).
The (a) reason life exists on Earth is because of the magnetic field which deflect most life-harming radiation.
The magnetic field is unique in our solar system and doesn't exist on mars, venus, mercury or any other moon
or planet (we don't know if mars had one at one time, there's no measurable evidence to support that).
The magnetic field is generated by the molten metal core we have - that has stayed molten long beyond its
time to do so. Why? Because of the incredible nuclear activity happening within the core. A long list of
unique circumstances must have happened to get those conditions.

Also, for life to evolve to what we have today, things have to be amazingly stable for very long periods of time
(no catastrophic surprises). Look at how fragile life, as we know it, really is. Too hot / cold / wet / dry / seasonable
temperature swings and it would have died out. That part may not be as rare as the magnetic field, though.

That's what makes Earth pretty rare. Not saying there's none other, but the number is really, really small.

CAP === 'reputes'

Re:I hate these "new planet spotted" stories

[lgw]

And?

All modern physics/astronomy/cosmology is about statistical analysis of likely causes of observations. From the Higgs Boson to an Exoplanet, it's all about the confidence interval.

And, really, when we find something that's the mass of a planet orbiting the star at the distance that planets do, not shining on its own, what else would you call it? Whatever it looks like, it's still a "planet".

Re:I hate these "new planet spotted" stories

[Anonymous Coward]

SCREW YOU!

Re:This is useless research

[LWATCDR]

Yet another example of why AC posts are more trouble than they are worth.
Honestly I would like to see a change to the AC post. You have to log in and you have to take the karma hit but you can hide your name.
Yes it would not protect anyone from a government court order but how often does that happen on slashdot.
Of course others will disagree but they can if they wish.

Re:This is useless research

[Salgak1]

No, the models SUGGESTED they existed. Actual proof of the existence of exoplanets was only confirmed relatively recently, and most have been discovered after 2004. . (1988 was the first confirmation, the "official" list is at the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia)

Re:This is useless research

[Goose In Orbit]

Why are taxpayer dollars funding research looking for planets that nobody will ever visit and will never make a difference to anyone?

Could say the same about the trillions spent on the military.

That said - it is at least making a difference to people... changing them from live people to dead people... (with apologies to Grant Naylor...)

Re:This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

I conclude that your not a scientist (and not a philosopher either).

I conclude that you're not an English major.

Re:This is useless research

[GLMDesigns]

I hope equally disparage other religions as well. Otherwise you would be a cowardly bigot.

Re:This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

Congreff shall have the power to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

Re: This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

So, he's not a bigot so long as he disparages ALL religions? As in, "All religious people or spritual believers are idiots"?

Why stop there? What about any other ideology besides your own? What about races? "Everyone who is not Hispanic is an idiot". There. I've covered every group except one.

News flash! You're a bigot. One of the worst and most dangerous on the planet.

Re:This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

I conclude that you don't know what "to know" means and aren't an English major either.

Managed expectations

[MBGMorden]

One thing to keep in mind - according to many charts Mars and Venus are in our own star's habitable zone. Neither seem to have life. Even Earth seems like it would have a much hard time at it if not for some specific factors (ie, a large moon to stabilize the rotational axis - a rare feature for a rocky planet).

If we're batting only 1 out of 3 planets in the habitable zone of our own star actually having life, I wouldn't hold out too much hope of there being life on any of these planets just because its in the habitable zone. My guess (and really that's all we can do until we get a larger sample size of planets having life vs not) is that a very tiny percentage of these planets even in the habitable zones actually harbor life.

That said - even if there was only life in the universe at a rate of one inhabited planet per galaxy, the universe as a whole would still have billions of inhabited planets - it's just that there'd be virtually zero chance that life from one would ever be aware of or affected by life on another.

Re: Managed expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

a bunch of h bomb powered lasers could do the trick.

one nuke per bit and the timing does the coding of the message.

well, maybe not the most useful idea, but it can give some guidance about the limits of how far we can communicate.

Re:Managed expectations

[Immerman]

Heck, if one out of three is representative, then we probably just discovered three more life-bearing worlds! Not that I'd buy that, but it's hardly an argument against. And finding planets in the habitable zone is interesting primarily because it reveals places to look more closely at as we develop the technology to do so. Plus, as many others have pointed out, the "habitable zone" is only tuned to Earth-like life on the primary planet - Gas giant moons potentially expand that range quite a bit, while alternate life chemistry expands it immensely, but is just too alien for us to realistically look for right now, when we don't even really know how to look for Earth-like life that isn't metaphorically jumping up and down in front of us. Even on Mars, the search for life has only been an afterthought tacked on using equipment designed for other purposes, and there could well be a thriving microbial ecology right under our noses - there's certainly enough tantalizing hints and inconclusive evidence. There might even be complex life sheltered deep underground, after all Mars was potentially Earthlike as recently as ten million years ago, before it lost its atmosphere, and even on Earth it's estimated that the vast bulk of life dwells deep underground where atmospheric loss might not even be noticed.

As for large moons around rocky worlds being rare, where's your data? We only have four rocky planets to judge by, and two of those are so close to the sun that they're almost tidally locked - not a situation conductive to holding on to a moon, even if they used to have one.

Re:Managed expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's why we need to do the next stage of the investigation: using new scopes to get planetary atmospheric spectra. Earth famously has a weird atmosphere beccause life makes it so; Mars and Venus are what you'd expect from lifeless chemistry.

Re:Managed expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

But then there are worlds that aren't in the "habitable zone" that might well harbor life: Europa, Ganymede etc. These don't get enough energy for the sun for life as we know it, but the tidal flexing from their host planet and the other moons does, giving them subsurface liquid water.

Re:Managed expectations

[Shadow IT Ninja]

Right, regarding gas giant moons within our own solar system, you have the possibility that some contain liquid water deep inside which could sustain some kind life. Outside our solar system, there might be the possibility of something like the situation in Nemesis by Isaac Asimov, where you have a gas giant, with a large moon, in the habitable zone of a star. The gas giant is not habitable but the moon is. I also wonder if some of the larger than Earth size planets detected in habitable zones might actually be binary planets. We only have the few rocky planets in our own system as a basis to judge how common it is to have moons, large and small. Then you have even more speculative possibilities like the one depicted in the Integral Trees and The Smoke Ring by Larry Niven, where a large rocky mass sustains a breathable atmosphere in an extended area around a neutron star orbiting in the habitable zone of a star. Life exists in free fall in this extended area. So there are various scenarios you can some up with that Kepler can not detect.

Re:Managed expectations

[rahvin112]

The problem of extrapolating a single data point (this star system) into many should be obvious to anyone that understand math and statistics at all.

Planets are abundant, we've finally confirmed this even in binary systems. Even Kepler (designed to hunt planets) has a hell of a time spotting earth size planets, though it can spot rocky worlds almost all of them are 2-3 times the size of earth and often on the close edge of the habital zone where they are easier to detect. We've never directly imaged one and we've never gotten even a single wave length of identifiable light from one so we have no idea of the chemical composition.

We are in the absolute infancy of looking for planets. Any extrapolation from data at this point is frankly guessing and not even good guessing because it's based on very limited data.

Re:Managed expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Venus has a habitable zone in the H2O clouds, above the sulphur and below a nice thick upper atmosphere, 25 degrees C there.

Mars life went underground 3 billion years ago. Earth has life in rocks deep underground, too.

There is life under the ice cap of Enceledus. There may be life under Europa's ice

Border disagreements

[Immerman]

Yep. Our side enjoyed a brief technological and industrial advantage, won some wars, and carved up the disputed territories to our liking with no consideration for the residents or political realities of the situation. Why cant the rest of the world simply accept that the current borders are where they should be and get busy making do with what we've left them?

Yeah, it'd be great if we could all sit down and talk things out to reach an optimum solution, but that's not remotely realistic, even if we were willing to give up *all* our ill-gotten gains. The wheel keeps turning, and those empires currently disadvantaged inevitably gain new strength and opportunities, while those empires in ascendancy inevitably begin to crumble from hubris and neglect. What possible motive would currently disadvantaged empires have to sit quietly on their hands when the opportunity to climb to ascendancy in their turn presents itself?

Re: This is useless research

[VAXcat]

Calling out the superstitious on the subject of their delusions is not being a bigot.

Re:This is useless research

[Applehu Akbar]

"We did know they exist, we just haven't observed any."

In science, you can't assume that anything exists until you can observe it. And the assumption that astronomers and astrophysicists made before Beta Pictoris was that planetary formation was a rare occurrence. And planetary formation in a binary or multiple-star system was thought to be impossible.

Re:This is useless research

[Applehu Akbar]

Congreff shall have the power to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has over the years defined the entire universe as being 'interstate commerce'. In 1942 in Wickard v. Filburn, it even defined a farmer's single field as being interstate commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

The first exoplanet was discovered in 1992, so 24 years ago, but your main point stands.

Re: This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

you have never taken part in any real discussion or you would know the value of anonymity.

entire armies of nastyballs wait for you to intimidate, if you say the truth and attach your name.

unions for starters...

Re:This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

UR r8t!

Re: This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

Marginalizing people based their beliefs, regardless of what they are is bigotry. So, you are not just a bigot, but a delusional bigot. If you make positive assertions about dark matter, abiogenesis, the Oort Cloud, a multiverse, or cosmic inflation, then you take a faith position which makes you a hypocritical, delusional bigot.

Vespa

[Dragonslicer]

The discoveries were a result of an automated technique implemented in a publicly available custom software package called Vespa

So which of these planets is Druidia?

Re:This is useless research

[idji]

Astronomy created wifi, which you may have used to post your nonsense. Exoplanet hunting is immensely valuable.
Why was James Cook sent to Tahiti to measure the transit of Venus so some stuffy elitist astronomers in Europe could know the distance to the Sun. He discovered New Zealand along the way...
Maybe looking at 1000's of other earths through telescopes will give us the clues we need to solve global warming if we have to do massive geoengineering.
Maybe the tech needed to see these planets will diagnose cancer in a family member of yours in 10 years time and save their life.
Those telescopes might incidentally see the asteroid that will destroy your community in 2032 in time to divert it...
What if those telescopes find LIFE on another planet. Are you going to say that makes no difference to all of humanity??
What IF the emdrive, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., really works on quantized momentum and reaching exoplanets becomes realistic?
You may have learnt at school that inner planets are small and rocky and outer planets are gas giants. We know that is wrong now. Our solar system is not the norm.
I'll stop now, but there are many more possibilities...
PS. You don't belong on this website.

Re:This is useless research

[stealth_finger]

"We did know they exist, we just haven't observed any."

In science, you can't assume that anything exists until you can observe it. And the assumption that astronomers and astrophysicists made before Beta Pictoris was that planetary formation was a rare occurrence. And planetary formation in a binary or multiple-star system was thought to be impossible.

Meanwhile, everyone else said yeah they probably exist, if there's planets around this star why not others? At every point in history we've thought we were unique in existence. From basically the flat earth being the only thing that exists, to earth being centre of everything, to the galaxy being all there is. Just add rare planetary formation to the list because theres a metric shit ton out there. Sooner or later life (or the signs thereof) will be discovered somewhere else and then that'll go on too.

Habitable Zone Caveats

[Anonymous Coward]

The Habitable Zone means liquid water, it doesn't mean fit for *human* habitation. For that, we'd need close to 9.8m/s gravity, breathable air, standard atmospheric pressure, radiation shielding, nutrient rich soil, non-insane temperature (a 200 degree F planet would still be in the "habitable zone") and also, yes liquid water.

Given this narrow set of requirements, I'd say we'd need to discover many thousands more habitable zone planets before we find anything worth calling Earth 2.0.

(On the other hand, habitable zone planets could potentially support -non human- life and are exciting in that regards. And saying that new "habitable zone" planets were discovered will add some spice to an otherwise potentially dull announcement, at least to the mainstream.)

Re:This is useless research

[ooloorie]

Astronomy created wifi, which you may have used to post your nonsense

Well, no, it didn't. But even if it did, it would be a lousy return on investment. That is, if private companies had spent a similar amount to funding for astronomy on development of wireless communications, they would have come up with much more than just WiFi.

Maybe the tech needed to see these planets will diagnose cancer in a family member of yours in 10 years time and save their life.

It might. Pigs might fly too. But that isn't a rational way of funding things. If we want better cancer diagnosis, the solution is to fund the development of better diagnostic systems for cancer. But we don't even know whether that's what people want; maybe they are more concerned about heart disease, or maybe they don't care and want better amusement rides. That's why people vote on what they want with something called "dollars".

Now, personally, I think that government funding for astronomy is so small that it really isn't anything to worry about right now; it is not where government wastes most of the money. That doesn't change the fact that your reasoning is spurious.

PS. You don't belong on this website.

In fact, it's people like you who are the enemies of reason and progress.

Re:This is useless research

[AchilleTalon]

I have no use of your conclusions.

Re: This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the GP, but let me assure you that you don't even know what "faith" means, my friend.

Re: This is useless research

[LWATCDR]

So? This is slashdot. So what if my karma drops? It does not effect my job or my life in any real way. Frankly I have gotten all kinds of nastyballs on Slashdot as it is including someone that had some some strange desire to tie me up in his basement and rape me.
Frankly I think it would reduce the number of crack pots on Slashdot.

Re: This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you're an apostate who should be burned alive and beheaded.

You must respect this, by your own admission, and not fight when it happens... Or are you a fucking bigot?

Re: This is useless research

[lgw]

Calling out the superstitious on the subject of their delusions is not being a bigot.

Only doing that for one religion is. Calling out a man for being lazy is not bigotry. Only ever calling out black men for being lazy is.

Re: This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, nigger.

Sincerely,
AC

Re: This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

Disagree. You can call out Scientologists as being nuts without painting other religions as so. Each religion has enough unique facets to allow one to state that those facets are what makes it silly without having to include others.

Re:This is useless research

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very surprising. You seem to be the kind of person who has no use for conclusions at all.

Re: This is useless research

[lgw]

Disagree. You can call out Scientologists as being nuts without painting other religions as so.

Yes, but that makes you bigoted against Scientologists. Not that I have a problem with that, mind you, but call it what it is.

What percentage are we not able to detect?

[tralfaz2001]

Given that the two methods of detection are planets that orbit in plane that is nearly our parallel to view axis (solar transit), or planets that are massive enough to wobble a star and orbit in a plane that is nearly perpendicular to our view axis, what our we not seeing. I would think these circumstances would be the exceptions rather than the rule. Can we extrapolate how many planets orbit stars, given that we can only detect these special cases?

None of them are habitable.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=62&ch=3&l=7#x

[7] Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.