NASA Finds Evidence Of 10 New Earth-sized Planets (usatoday.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Finds Evidence Of 10 New Earth-sized Planets (usatoday.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday June 19, 2017 @08:00AM from the new-horizon dept.

NASA said Monday it has found new evidence of 219 planets outside our Solar System. Ten of those exoplanets appear to be similar to the size of the Earth and orbit their stars in the habitable zone. From a report: The new planets' existence must still be double-checked. But Kepler's latest haul -- which includes a planet that is only slightly larger than Earth and receives the same amount of energy from its sun as Earth -- is the latest triumph for Kepler, which has spotted roughly 80 percent of the planets orbiting stars other than our sun. Because of their potential for hosting life, the 10 Earth-size planets are the most glamorous of the newly announced planets from Kepler. But those 10 were joined by an additional 209 more garden-variety planets that are unlikely to be hospitable to life because they are too gassy, too hot, too cold or otherwise unlike the only known planet to host life: Earth.

63 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yes, but SpaceX can find them faster and cheaper by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 08:02 · Score: 1

and I bet they would be even earthier sized
i love spacex and telsa so much
That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 08:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

We are now up to 24 exoplanets that are very similar to earth in terms of size and ratio of distance to star : star size. With 24, we are starting to get into statistically significant numbers. Close observations should start to give us an idea of whether life is common or if we are a very rare oddity.
Yes, life could evolve on other types of planets, but this is all we know for now and is the most sensible place to focus our efforts. So over the next few years I hope we spend a lot of effort looking at these two dozen planets to see what we can see.
FWIW, the closes planet of this type is "only" 4 light years away. The furthest 1402 light years away (far by even Star Trek standards).
1. Re:That makes 24 by Jhon · 2017-06-19 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  "FWIW, the closes planet of this type is "only" 4 light years away."
  https://www.space.com/32546-in...
  Might be able to get there in 20-30 years then 4+ years to get the data back to earth. If we "magically" had 'starshot' technology ready to go (we don't). Besides, I'm unsure we have the ability to send something that could transmit meaningful data across 4+ light years.
2. Re:That makes 24 by MightyMartian · 2017-06-19 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine laser communications would likely suffice, though 4ly means a lot of juice required. The technology probably exists, but just how much power is such a probe going to have to pack?
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re: That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  Ensign Crusher set the warp drives to 9.
  Captain Jean Luc Picard: Engage!!!
4. Re:That makes 24 by ShanghaiBill · 2017-06-19 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  just how much power is such a probe going to have to pack?
  It doesn't have to pack any power. Using a solar sail, it could exit the solar system at about 0.05c (80 years to go 4ly) just using sunlight. But it could be boosted to a much higher speed by also aiming earth or space based lasers at the sail. If we can get it up to 0.2c, that is only 20 years to destination.
  If the probe is small, the sail can also be small. Some proposals are for a probe the size of a pack of cigarettes, or even a postage stamp.
  Stopping at the other end of the journey is a much harder problem, but even a flyby could give us a huge amount of useful data.
5. Re:That makes 24 by Jhon · 2017-06-19 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind the juice required. How often have we built complex electronics that can continue working without maintenance for over 30 years? In even an ideal environment (never mind space)?
  Man I hope they can work out the kinks and get transmissions back in my lifetime... Unlikely, but it would be awesome (and I'm not suffering from dementia).
6. Re:That makes 24 by sconeu · 2017-06-19 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Voyagers 1 and 2 say hello.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
7. Re:That makes 24 by ShanghaiBill · 2017-06-19 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Voyagers 1 and 2 say hello.
  ... and that was over 35 years ago. We have learned a lot since then about rad-hardened electronics, redundant systems, memory scrubbing, etc. Building a probe that can endure a 20 year interstellar journey should not be difficult.
8. Re: That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  One important thing to keep in mind is that we have three earth-sized planets in the habitable zone in this solar system. Of the three, only one actually has life. One of them has runaway greenhouse gas effects which make it uninhabitable, the other has a very thin atmosphere which means it too is uninhabitable.
  Important to keep in mind before getting too excited at the idea that every single earth-sized planet may contain life.
9. Re:That makes 24 by Jhon · 2017-06-19 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  "Voyagers 1 and 2 say hello."
  You know, there's a great line in the book The Martian when asked about someone being on Mars without an MAV (which had the only radio backup). The answer was "One in three -- given empirical data" (this was the Arias III mission). Look at the list of solar system probes vs. those that are still working. The odds are not in our favor by a long shot.
  Also, Voyager's 1 and 2 have a big barrel of radioactive material (RTG) providing power and managed to navigate out of the solar system with a number of mechanical failures they were able to "work around". And those were while still within the solar system. I'm unsure how you are going to power something waffer sized for 30+ years...
10. Re:That makes 24 by techno-vampire · 2017-06-19 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't have to pack any power. Using a solar sail, it could exit the solar system at about 0.05c (80 years to go 4ly) just using sunlight. But it could be boosted to a much higher speed by also aiming earth or space based lasers at the sail.
  
  That's not even a new idea. Back in 1974, The Mote in God's Eye had an interstellar probe carried by a light sail come into a human-colonized system and reveal the Motie's existence to humanity. In fact, the space-based lasers that were used to launch it were so powerful that they changed the apparent brightness and color of the star they orbited enough to cause credulous colonists to found a new religion.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
11. Re: That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Venus and Mars are only arguably in the hab zone. Venus is at the inner edge, Mars at the outer.
  There is evidence that Mars had oceans for a billion or two years -- long enough for life to get started (although we don't know for sure yet if it did or not). If the planet had been a bit larger, it might still be habitable. (Venus might also have briefly had oceans, but its runaway greenhouse happened early on.)
  But I agree with your main point. An Earth-sized planet in the hab zone does not guarantee life, let alone complex life.
12. Re:That makes 24 by Kjella · 2017-06-19 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't have to pack any power. Using a solar sail, it could exit the solar system at about 0.05c (80 years to go 4ly) just using sunlight. But it could be boosted to a much higher speed by also aiming earth or space based lasers at the sail. If we can get it up to 0.2c, that is only 20 years to destination.
  This is all space-fantasy theory just like we can send nuclear-powered Orion space ships, except we've never built anything like it. It has a greener profile but it relies on equally unlikely theories that we can build huge sails many kilometers wide of materials so thin and light they're almost like air and have them travel for years at fractions of c without hitting anything that'll rip them apart. The biggest test we've done is 14x14m and the biggest non-fantasy use is that it might be enough to deorbit a satellite.
  
  Velocities of 0.05% the speed of light could be obtained by solar sails carrying 10 kg payloads, using thin solar sail vehicles with effective areal densities of 0.1 g/m2 with thin sails of 0.1 um thickness and sizes on the order of one square kilometer.
  The other alternative is lasers... but the world's probably most powerful laser weapon is 30 kWh, all those super high power lasers only deliver a burst of a few microseconds. To send one ton to Alpha Centauri in 40 years you need a 3.6 km sail and a 65 GW laser. Yes, a few million times stronger and not just for a burst. The world produces about 24 TWh a year, divide by 365*24 and you can power a 2.7 GW laser continuously. That is to say, all the power on earth isn't even 5% of what we need. Maybe the day we have fusion reactors, but then.... why not put one on the ship itself. Still going to be easier.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
13. Re:That makes 24 by 110010001000 · 2017-06-19 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  To a Space Nutter, fantasy is reality. They will just reply with "well we will construct it in space in our space factories".
14. Re:That makes 24 by newcastlejon · 2017-06-19 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  just how much power is such a probe going to have to pack?
  It doesn't have to pack any power...
  Of course it does. What's the point in sending a probe that can't report back with its findings?
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
15. Re:That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, life could evolve on other types of planets, but this is all we know for now and is the most sensible place to focus our efforts. So over the next few years I hope we spend a lot of effort looking at these two dozen planets to see what we can see.
  I would be cheaper to install you ET freaks in front of a giant mirror so that you can focus on what, evidently, is the most important thing in your universe.
16. Re: That makes 24 by Grishnakh · 2017-06-19 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Mars is 10.7% of the mass of the Earth, and a little over 1/2 the radius. I wouldn't call it "Earth-sized" at all. Venus is much closer.
  No one is "excited at the idea that every single earth-sized planet may contain life"; they're excited because now there's a couple dozen candidates, so it's possible that maybe one of those 24 has some kind of life.
17. Re:That makes 24 by ShanghaiBill · 2017-06-19 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it does. What's the point in sending a probe that can't report back with its findings?
  It is going to another star system, where there will be ... a star. So it can use solar power during departure, sleep during the 20 year transit, and then use star power at the destination.
18. Re: That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  Really? Nobody?
19. Re:That makes 24 by Hognoxious · 2017-06-19 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  .. or just "but Elon Musk!"
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
20. Re:That makes 24 by Gavagai80 · 2017-06-19 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Most probes aren't designed to work long-term because that's not their mission.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
21. Re: That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should better pick what hill you will fight for. Instead, you reply about how stupid space nutters is to a post that confuses units of energy and power, doesn't realize that lasers of many 10s of k W CW (as in not microsecond bursts) already exist and are off the shelf, and somehow fucked up the math enough to say 3GW is comparable to all the electricity produced in the world when it is more like a single large power plant. The GP seems to have gotten much more wrong than right.
  I'm not here to argue that large scale light sails are practical, just that for someone complaining about idiots' blind beliefs, you are quick to blindly support anyone supporting your own side.
22. Re:That makes 24 by newcastlejon · 2017-06-19 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  It is going to another star system, where there will be ... a star. So it can use solar power during departure, sleep during the 20 year transit, and then use star power at the destination.
  You'd be hard pressed to send a signal back over four light years using nothing but solar power.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
23. Re:That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry but you're oversimplifying pretty much everything. You can't just divide 4 light years by 0.2c and say we'll get something there in 20 years. The thing has to actually accelerate, which will take years just to reach whatever theoretical speed you want to pick. And a "flyby" at 0.2c? You'd pass a planet the size of the earth in 0.21 seconds at that speed. I have no idea how far away from a planet you can start probing for useful data (i.e., the kind that would detect atmospheric content and evidence of life), but I imagine we're talking about a handful of seconds to gather any data. I.e., you would have to plan on slowing down to get trapped in orbit. Deceleration takes as long and as much energy (and therefore as much time) as acceleration which instantly doubles the time for a one way trip. You're probably talking a lifetime to reach something 4 light years away and that assumes we could accelerate something to 0.2c, which I doubt.
24. Re:That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  For context: The Juno space probe that reached Jupiter last year was the fastest man made object ever. It reached a speed of 265,000 km/h which is 0.00025c. And that took 5 years to reach Jupiter which is only 0.00062 light years away.
  In others words, we're *many* orders of magnitude away from achieving 0.2c.
25. Re:That makes 24 by ceoyoyo · 2017-06-19 15:12 · Score: 2
  
  You be missin' some zeros. The world generates about 24,000 TWh/y currently:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  A typical nuclear reactor puts out around 1 GW. So you need 65 of them (or one with 65 times the capacity). Not trivial, but not exactly requiring engineering breakthroughs either.
26. Re:That makes 24 by ceoyoyo · 2017-06-19 15:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's not that hard. A Hubble-sized space telescope could see a kilowatt laser over 4 light years. The hard part is sending something big enough to generate that kind of power 4 light years.
27. Re:That makes 24 by religionofpeas · 2017-06-19 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  If the probe is small, the sail can also be small. Some proposals are for a probe the size of a pack of cigarettes, or even a postage stamp.
  How many useful instruments, including a transmitter capable of reaching us, can you pack in a postage stamp ? And how are you going to do a close flyby of the earth-like planet we would be interested in ?
28. Re:That makes 24 by religionofpeas · 2017-06-19 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  To send one ton to Alpha Centauri in 40 years you need a 3.6 km sail and a 65 GW laser.
  
  Plus a huge lens.
29. Re:That makes 24 by someone1234 · 2017-06-20 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  If we can hit the target with a laser (as in starshot), it could probably send that laser back (with data).
  Problem is, i doubt we can hit it with a laser.
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
30. Re:That makes 24 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-20 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Idiot. Speculating about a design that *could be done* using current technology isn't fantasy, even if that design will never be used due to things like communication requirements or colossal expense.
31. Re:That makes 24 by micahraleigh · 2017-06-20 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  "very similar to earth"
  
  Some of the details get hidden away here (e.g. for the purposes of click-bait).
  
  I read a similar article covered from a different place and it mentioned this very close size to earth is more like 30 times the size.
  
  I'm sure if you got off the rocket ship and weighed 30 times more you'd hardly be able to notice.
  
  The keystone cops experts come in and say, "well in astronomical terms it is very close". Which is exactly why astronomy has little personal significance to anyone (other than draining their pockets, of course, in the form of massive tax dollars).
Re: Yes, but SpaceX can find them faster and cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 08:27 · Score: 0

You forgot to sign your post.
-msmash, the future is here, booked my ticket to Mars last week.
Other links with details by Geoffrey.landis · 2017-06-19 08:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's the NASA link: https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/ne...
and here's the space.com story, with more details: https://www.space.com/37242-na...

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1. Re:Other links with details by scybolt · 2017-06-19 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you want a really entertaining way of learning about exoplanetology, I suggest checking out this music parody by acapellascience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Whole New Worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 08:29 · Score: 0

That's really incedible! If you want a very fun way to learn how NASA uses Kepler to find these planets, check out Acapella Science's rendition of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gai8dMA19Sw . It's so great I can't get the song out of my head.
Terrible news by FeelGood314 · 2017-06-19 08:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

This means what ever filter has prevented someone else from already colonizing our galaxy, being something we have already avoided, is a little less likely. That means that the thing preventing us from being the first to colonize the galaxy is probably still in our future.
1. Re:Terrible news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  No, it doesn't.
2. Re:Terrible news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  We already know "the thing". It is that the cost-benefit ratio of colonizing other planets makes it absurd compared to investing that money into dealing with population growth on this one.
  The only thing the future is needed to prevent the action is the time required for wistful Star Trek fans and scamming "taxpayers go broke validating my coolness" CEO's to grow up.
  We probably haven't been colonized by other planets because other planets never quite reach that level of economic stupidity and recklessness.
3. Re:Terrible news by FeelGood314 · 2017-06-19 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Three questions
  1. If we knew we were going to go extinct could we send a message to other potential civilizations warning them*?
  2. Would we?
  3. Has anyone left us such a message?
  
  *I'm thinking probes with messages written on them and a radio active material with a billion year half life. The probes don't have to go fast, they can take a million years to reach their destinations. They just have to last a billion or so years and be discoverable.
4. Re:Terrible news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure the filter is lack of interest. Once you reach the intelligence explosion, it's all navel-gazing.
5. Re:Terrible news by wonkey_monkey · 2017-06-19 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Err... what?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
6. Re:Terrible news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  OR the filter is that only basic organisms survive interstellar trips. Then there is no filter and then we are the descendants of extraterrestrial seeding. Maybe we will also find ourselves too fragile and end up sending similar probes to the planets we have found.
7. Re:Terrible news by Gravis+Zero · 2017-06-19 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  This means what ever filter has prevented someone else from already colonizing our galaxy, being something we have already avoided, is a little less likely.
  Oh God, does this mean our galaxy is viewed with the Clarendon filter?!
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
8. Re:Terrible news by 110010001000 · 2017-06-19 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  The "filter" that space nutters ignore is distance and the speed of light. Basic physics. You can never reach even the closest of these planets because you cannot accelerate anything to any significant fraction of C. The fastest we ever gone is 0.0002% the speed of light. This is reality.
9. Re:Terrible news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Spoken like the accountant you likely are. Or would love to be.
  People do not explore and put themselves in danger because of a cost-benefit ratio. They do it because they must. The reasons why they must vary a lot but one important reason is that they have a strong psychological need to do so.
  Kindly go back to your ledger and mutter about the kids on your lawn.
10. Re:Terrible news by Rob+Riggs · 2017-06-19 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  We've got plenty of individuals ready to go to Mars today. We've got .01% of the funding necessary.
  
  --
  the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
11. Re:Terrible news by WrongMonkey · 2017-06-19 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think that any sufficiently advanced species would want to colonize the galaxy? The whole assumption that advancement equals expansion is itself a primitive, imperialistic mindset. Most long term successful species establish a sustainable equilibrium with their environment.
12. Re:Terrible news by WrongMonkey · 2017-06-19 10:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Limitations based on the speed of light are only a problem for us because we have a such a limited lifespan. Its not hard to imagine a species that is biologically immortal (either naturally or technologically), for whom spending a few millennia on a interstellar journey is the equivalent to a long cruise at sea.
13. Re: Terrible news by ralphsiegler · 2017-06-19 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  We could accelerate a craft to 5% C or more with existing fission tech. Such a craft would have to be unmanned though, the tech we have could not support nor protect humans for a century long trip
14. Re:Terrible news by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  As far as Earth is concerned, that mindset is practically built into our DNA. Consider how we live today and you'll notice that while the lyrics has changed, the song is the same.
  But either way, any intelligent species, especially one superior to ours enough to stop trying to kill itself, will realize that the star they depend on will eventually wink out - taking most anything in the solar system with it. So while they may not find a purpose to colonize the galaxy, they would certainly see the benefit to learn how to colonize younger stars so they can keep going.
  In the case of humans, we would be driven to colonize the galaxy just to make sure someone else doesn't do it first. Wouldn't want a galaxy-spanning civilization to come knocking on our door after all. That's just the way humanity thinks.
15. Re:Terrible news by ceoyoyo · 2017-06-19 15:22 · Score: 2
  
  Hippie BS. If you give any species the opportunity to expand, they will. Species live in equilibrium because they do not live "sustainably." Many of their members, particularly the young, get eaten or starve to death.
16. Re:Terrible news by WrongMonkey · 2017-06-19 17:04 · Score: 2
  
  That is an oversimplification to the point of absurdity. I guess you've never heard of K verus r reproductive strategies? If your asserted claim were true, then the most technologically advanced human societies would have the fastest population growth rate. In fact, the opposite is generally true.
17. Re: Terrible news by Baron_Yam · 2017-06-20 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  And it is not unreasonable to accept that we could do 0.1c with a fusion drive.
  The problem is this - space is really, really big, and even at 0.1c you're going to be in the void for generations. It seems more or less impossible there's another 'Earth' waiting out there that is tuned to supporting our particular needs, so even another watery 1G nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere'd planet in the habitable zone of a calm yellow dwarf would mean a major terraforming effort and more generations living in enclosed environments.
  But that doesn't matter - If you can build a ship that can keep a genetically diverse population safe in interstellar space for hundreds (and more likely thousands) of years, you've built a ship you wouldn't want to leave. It'd be far easier to just enter an elliptical orbit around a red dwarf with a heavy disc of material, scooping up energy when close and raw materials for expansion when further out. And you could do that for trillions of years.
  In other words, once you can get to another planet, you wouldn't want to bother.
Unlikely to be hospitible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 08:43 · Score: 0

I share something in common with these planets.
I, too, am unlikely to be hospitable when I'm too gassy, hot, or cold.
Why wasn't this the first post? I came here looking for it, and you have all disappointed me. Slashdot has really declined. Reddit shitposting has far surpassed it these days.
1. Re: Unlikely to be hospitible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  Had to scroll down to the bottom to find this and agree. Leaving now. Bye bye.
Garden variety by wonkey_monkey · 2017-06-19 09:00 · Score: 1

more garden-variety planets
Err, surely it's the Earth-like ones that are more likely to be of garden variety...

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Garden variety by Hognoxious · 2017-06-19 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Was thinking the same. Note that the expression doesn't occur in the actual article, so it's probably msmanishbeau's attempt to say "common or garden", which doesn't particularly fit anyway.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
THE habitable zone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 09:56 · Score: 0

Confirmation bias. Idiots. Just like how "evil carbon" is a 100% certain doom to all life on earth. Can't you retards think for once? Go read an Arthur C. Clarke novel. Maybe life can exist in a sea of liquid methane.
1. Re: THE habitable zone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Ahh you're one of THOSE guys who think they're somehow the only smart person and nobody else gets anything.
  Habitable zone is a generally well understood term that refers to supporting human life. Boffins fully expect we will find microbial life we would deem extremophiles given we already have such things herein earth in places like thermal vents on the deep ocean floor.
2. Re: THE habitable zone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-19 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  THE habitable zone, douche fluid!