Scientists discover potentially habitable planets(news.mit.edu)
news.mit.edu
Scientists discover potentially habitable planets
http://news.mit.edu/2016/scientists-discover-potentially-habitable-planets-0502
54 comments
>They'll think their space habitat is far more comfortable.
I really, really, really doubt that. People who spend most of their time living on oil rigs now, or people who lived large parts of their lives on ships, did not end up losing the desire for dry land.
I really, really, really doubt that. People who spend most of their time living on oil rigs now, or people who lived large parts of their lives on ships, did not end up losing the desire for dry land.
I don't see them as comparable. A space habitat several kilometers in size with plenty of interior enjoyable space, and managed, perfect weather is nothing like an oil rig. And its better than a cruise ship, and there are people who would love to live permanently on those, although not as crew. Since they aren't down this deep gravity well, they are already more than halfway to anywhere in the neighborhood. For them, visiting The Moon or Venus is vastly more practical. An afternoon spent in Zero G games is always available. Insect pests such as roaches and mosquitoes aren't a problem. Which is why traveling from Earth to the habitat will be subject to such a strict quarantine.
Given the cost of every square foot of living space in a space habitat I imagine the conditions would be closer to that of a nuclear submarine than a oil rig.
The cost of living space in space is high now only because we have to propel it into space from our big gravity well. As soon as we start mining on for example the moon we will definitely see an exponential drop.
Just because you can bootstrap a computer to run arbitrary programs doesn't mean you're significantly closer to general AI.
Similarly, it's easy to argue that there will be incremental improvements in space technology, but it's very hard to argue that they will snowball into large-scale luxury platforms that can sustain human life indefinitely.
Similarly, it's easy to argue that there will be incremental improvements in space technology, but it's very hard to argue that they will snowball into large-scale luxury platforms that can sustain human life indefinitely.
On the contrary it's very easy to argue it. All you have to do is type some words on a keyboard. Actually doing it however...
The earth has a wide variety of resources important to comfortable human life. The moon has rocks and sand and sunshine. Moon mining is but one of the prerequisites to living cheaply in space.
Yes. We'll probably move into space only after we are good into autonomously turning water, organics and some rocks into comfortable habitat. Not earlier.
That is probably not too far away. We are getting very good into semi-autonomous transformations, and at turning anything into the materials we want.
That is probably not too far away. We are getting very good into semi-autonomous transformations, and at turning anything into the materials we want.
If this were true, one would expect life on earth to differ dramatically from what one observes today. A lack of necessary materials keeps billions of people in poverty.
Also because we're propelling it into space using disintegrating totem poles. Lofting it using something like a momentum exchange tether, launch loop, or space fountain would also make habitats of that scale much cheaper. Better materials science could also significantly reduce the necessary lift mass; inflatable shelters, for example, scale really well as they get bigger.
If that were the case their society would soon collapse after a few years.
The cost of every square foot of living space in x years is something we can't have the smallest idea about.
The cost of every square foot of living space in x years is something we can't have the smallest idea about.
> I really, really, really doubt that.
I agree. And it goes beyond just being cooped up.
Having a planet's atmosphere to burn up flying space debris or at least being inside of a cave in an asteroid (as long as it is really a cave) can provide a lot of protection. A high-speed space rock could easily tear through the one foot of protective wall in your space station, and all of the pretty plants and oxygen in your biosphere will be dead from having been almost instantly frozen, even if you patch it up.
If we want colonization, we not only need orbiting stations/stations at Lagrangian points, we must be colonizing big rocks. Once you perfect your shields, it's another story, but we are nowhere near the energy requirements or technology of a ship or viable station that is safe for humanity to live in long-term. Even if I live to be 1000 years old, I'd never want to take my chances in a station or ship that isn't at least in orbit, protected by a large planet on one side, for any great length of time. And our orbit is filled with space junk- not very safe.
Now, if it were a Firefly-class ship, that'd be different. I'd live in that in a heartbeat. Or the original Enterprise or the Tantive IV.
I agree. And it goes beyond just being cooped up.
Having a planet's atmosphere to burn up flying space debris or at least being inside of a cave in an asteroid (as long as it is really a cave) can provide a lot of protection. A high-speed space rock could easily tear through the one foot of protective wall in your space station, and all of the pretty plants and oxygen in your biosphere will be dead from having been almost instantly frozen, even if you patch it up.
If we want colonization, we not only need orbiting stations/stations at Lagrangian points, we must be colonizing big rocks. Once you perfect your shields, it's another story, but we are nowhere near the energy requirements or technology of a ship or viable station that is safe for humanity to live in long-term. Even if I live to be 1000 years old, I'd never want to take my chances in a station or ship that isn't at least in orbit, protected by a large planet on one side, for any great length of time. And our orbit is filled with space junk- not very safe.
Now, if it were a Firefly-class ship, that'd be different. I'd live in that in a heartbeat. Or the original Enterprise or the Tantive IV.
> and all of the pretty plants and oxygen in your biosphere will be dead from having been almost instantly frozen
This is a myth. If you remove the air from a spacecraft you don't instantly freeze, nor almost instantly freeze. Without air there is no means to conduct the heat away from your body, so you'll stay warm until you radiate your heat away.
The effects of sudden decompression are more an issue than freezing. The moisture in your mouth and eyes will start to boil off, the dissolved gasses in your body fluids will start to come out of solution. But if you can fix the decompression issue quickly enough most things will survive.
This is a myth. If you remove the air from a spacecraft you don't instantly freeze, nor almost instantly freeze. Without air there is no means to conduct the heat away from your body, so you'll stay warm until you radiate your heat away.
The effects of sudden decompression are more an issue than freezing. The moisture in your mouth and eyes will start to boil off, the dissolved gasses in your body fluids will start to come out of solution. But if you can fix the decompression issue quickly enough most things will survive.
Yep. There are effects that lead to some cooling, but it's not as dramatic as sometimes assumed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_exposure#Ebullism.2C_hyp...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_exposure#Ebullism.2C_hyp...
Expansion leads to cooling. Additionally the freezing point will lower with lower pressure.
This is similar to the view of those in Iain M. Banks's "Culture" novels. They view living on a planet as hopelessly primitive and inefficient. Most of its mass is dead, useful only for the gravity it generates. Terraforming is artificial and arguably immoral. And you're subject to all sorts of astronomical and geological catastrophes... why wouldn't you live on one of the many lovely Orbitals?
I don't think they'll even necessarily be looking for sun-like stars either - just energy and raw materials to make more habitats
It's odd that the article doesn't mention the phrase "brown dwarf", which is what 2MASS J23062928-0502285 is. (See http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J230629..., linked from the article.)
The phrase "ultracool dwarf star" is descriptive, but both less familiar and less precise than "brown dwarf". Perhaps the author assumed the audience wouldn't know what a brown dwarf is, but a lot of us do (and the rest could have it explained easily enough).
The phrase "ultracool dwarf star" is descriptive, but both less familiar and less precise than "brown dwarf". Perhaps the author assumed the audience wouldn't know what a brown dwarf is, but a lot of us do (and the rest could have it explained easily enough).
Perhaps it isn't really a brown dwarf. According to http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/05/03/three_ea... :
> TRAPPIST-1 is an M8 dwarf, only 0.08 times the mass of the Sun; just barely massive enough to fuse hydrogen into helium in its core. If it were much lower mass we wouldn’t call it a star at all (we’d say it’s a brown dwarf).
And the Wikipedia article on brown dwarfs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf
> Brown dwarfs are substellar objects not massive enough to sustain hydrogen-1 fusion reactions in their cores, unlike main-sequence stars.
Apparently TRAPPIST-1 is an actual star, which makes it a (small, cool) red dwarf, not a brown dwarf. But it is near the dividing line.
(A brown dwarf with planets would be interesting, but they probably wouldn't be potentially habitable.)
> TRAPPIST-1 is an M8 dwarf, only 0.08 times the mass of the Sun; just barely massive enough to fuse hydrogen into helium in its core. If it were much lower mass we wouldn’t call it a star at all (we’d say it’s a brown dwarf).
And the Wikipedia article on brown dwarfs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf
> Brown dwarfs are substellar objects not massive enough to sustain hydrogen-1 fusion reactions in their cores, unlike main-sequence stars.
Apparently TRAPPIST-1 is an actual star, which makes it a (small, cool) red dwarf, not a brown dwarf. But it is near the dividing line.
(A brown dwarf with planets would be interesting, but they probably wouldn't be potentially habitable.)
"Brown dwarf" also doesn't command the same je ne sais quoi of "ultracool".
At a mere 40 light years away :) But seriously, that's a good find.
2 planets are orbit-locked. I've always thought those make the best for sci-fi fiction, since they're effective halo's in terms of habitability.
source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu... [paywalled]
Wikipedia already has some info on the telescope and findings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST
2 planets are orbit-locked. I've always thought those make the best for sci-fi fiction, since they're effective halo's in terms of habitability.
source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu... [paywalled]
Wikipedia already has some info on the telescope and findings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST
Preprint of the paper: http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/es...
Via the ESO press release: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1615/
Via the ESO press release: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1615/
The sizes and temperatures of these worlds are comparable to those of Earth and Venus, and are the best targets found so far for the search for life outside the solar system.
That's quite a variation in temperature. Especially since Venus generally isn't considered to be "habitable."
That's quite a variation in temperature. Especially since Venus generally isn't considered to be "habitable."
Venus could well have been habitable, but the runaway greenhouse effect stopped that. I'm sure there's thousands of types of planets out there "just like Earth, but..."
There are altitudes within Venus' thick atmosphere that are actually quite reasonable, with it being proposed that humans would only need a simple oxygen mask to survive. The idea of setting up a "floating" colony in Venus' atmosphere has been proposed a few times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus#Aerostat...
I've always been intrigued by the idea of aerostats on Venus. Certainly the idea seems sound (at least in theory), and the fact that an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere mix would be a lifting gas on Venus greatly reduces the launch cost of bringing a dedicated lifting gas from Earth.
But gosh, imagine going to bed on such a habitat knowing that all that's keeping you from a hot and fiery end are your gas balloons and a couple of steel cables!
But gosh, imagine going to bed on such a habitat knowing that all that's keeping you from a hot and fiery end are your gas balloons and a couple of steel cables!
I can see the point of an observation and science platform, but not colonization. What resources would be available that would be worth the cost? Maybe you could manufacture rocket fuel, water and other useful materials from the atmosphere? I'd be interested to see a proposal on that front otherwise it's a bit pointless because you'd be so completely dependent on outside support.
I can see the point of an observation and science platform, but not colonization. What resources would be available that would be worth the cost? Maybe you could manufacture rocket fuel, water and other useful materials from the atmosphere? I'd be interested to see a proposal on that front otherwise it's a bit pointless.
If we're going to make it to another planet that far away, we're going to either need to put our astronauts in some type of suspended state or be able to give birth and raise children on ships.
I wonder what the effects would be of a child forming in a womb, being born, and growing up in zero gravity conditions.
I wonder what the effects would be of a child forming in a womb, being born, and growing up in zero gravity conditions.
Build a 1g spinning section, if that's what's needed for a generational ship. Such "slowboats" are going to need to be:
1. Incredibly expensive.
2. Massive beyond the scale of anything ever assembled in orbit.
3. Big enough to carry a self-sustaining colony, above minimum population size for genetic issues.
So, newborns in zero-g, not necessarily needed, if we're really going to the stars the old fashioned way.
1. Incredibly expensive.
2. Massive beyond the scale of anything ever assembled in orbit.
3. Big enough to carry a self-sustaining colony, above minimum population size for genetic issues.
So, newborns in zero-g, not necessarily needed, if we're really going to the stars the old fashioned way.
Is #2 because we don't have rockets powerful enough to launch these ships into space?
Anything we send up to LEO now is 1,000$+ per pound just from getting there. Now picture something large enough for X people plus their decedents to live in for 10,000 years including redundancy's and manufacturing base and you get some idea how much this would cost as a baseline right now. Now, we need to add however much fuel it takes to get it moving and slow down at the other end. 100% world GDP for Y years is the kind of figure's you end up with.
However, if we start building stuff from raw materials found in space these costs should drop dramatically. Honestly, we are looking at hundreds of years either way so it's sort of meaningless with our current lifespan.
However, if we start building stuff from raw materials found in space these costs should drop dramatically. Honestly, we are looking at hundreds of years either way so it's sort of meaningless with our current lifespan.
Well, really all three are due to insufficient launch capbility. We'll have to assemble the colony ship in orbit.
Really, we need to build the Orion nuclear pulse ship for heavy lift and intra-stellar transport.
Without a reworking of modern physics, the Alcubierre Drive for example, transport is going to take a loooong time.
Even if we didn't need a backup planet, this is the next phase is human exploration. It's inherently part of human nature to expand our prescense.
Really, we need to build the Orion nuclear pulse ship for heavy lift and intra-stellar transport.
Without a reworking of modern physics, the Alcubierre Drive for example, transport is going to take a loooong time.
Even if we didn't need a backup planet, this is the next phase is human exploration. It's inherently part of human nature to expand our prescense.
Very very early onset osteoporosis when they come back to somewhere with gravity?
Growing up in zero G? I'm afraid the problems would be substantial. Not being able to walk, improperly formed skeleton and organs, extremely weak immune system, and I'm guessing much more...
Rotate the ship fast enough to mimic 1G gravity... Solved!
What's the zero-G impact on the immune system? (genuine question)
Brilliant. Love the approach of using Trappist to search for candidates and then be able to turn to instruments like the Hubble and other land based big guys. It'll be amazing to see what the Hubble can see at 40 light years.
I thought planets in dwarf star habitable zones would be tidally locked / not rotating?
They mention that in the article -- they postulate that there may be "sweet spots" with the correct temperature to be habitable. These would be located close to where the planet transitions from light to dark.
And unfortunately, these spots would be very windy. There'd be a constant barrage of cold wind as the air in the hot side rose.
Curious what an ultracool dwarf star would like like from an orbiting planet considering it emits radiation in the infrared band? What would the flora/fauna look like? How do they evolve in an infrared environment?
Don't forget they might have habitable moons too!
Trying to figure out a great Belgian Trappist beer goggle joke and just dropping the ball...
80% of beneath the Oceans are NOT explored on Earth;
Make habitable planets great again -- Trump for habitable planets.
Now imagine these people, who've lived all their lives in wonderful space habitats, worked in ships and on other planets and such. I don't think they'll be looking for another Earth. Why would they? They'll think their space habitat is far more comfortable.
As far as interstellar travel is concerned, I'm certain we will solve longevity well before we travel to the stars. FTL won't be the big obstacle it seems now. When your lifespan is several centuries, spending 30-50 years of it traveling across the stars is as reasonable as our ancestors crossing Europe, the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, or the American Continent to colonize a new land.
Since their colony ship is a fine habitat, they won't be looking for an Earth-like planet; they'll be looking for a Sun-like star. Of which there are many. Humans can spread out at a sub-light speed across our arm of the Galaxy. But most trips will be one-way. Each colony must be self-sustaining. The best find would be an asteroid belt in the habitable zone. Cheap resources!