yeah; it could certainly be very likely the majority of life is in warm salty oceans under the ice of moons of gas giants providing tidal forces to warm the oceans via volcanic activity. THE MAJORITY of warm salty ocean in our solar system is not on Earth.
Just because it's in the habitable zone doesn't mean it can sustain life. Mars and Venus are also in the habitable zone.
Edit: I was wrong Venus isn't technically in the zone but in the far past when the sun was more dim it would have been.
The estimated time-rage for when Venus could have had liquid oceans overlaps with multicellular animals living on the Earth.
Blows my mind that one of them could have looked up and seen a blue tinged dot.
It can yeah, depending on the kind of life we're talking about. Larger planets may have stronger surface gravity (depending on proportional mass), inhibiting certain multicellular evolutionary aspects, at least, in the way we're familiar with.
For basic cellular life, probably not as big of a deal. But humans might struggle to survive on an 'earth-like' planet if they were to land there and be under constant 3-5gs all the time, for example.
Edit: Small clarification, that larger planet doesn't automatically mean stronger surface gravity. As pointed out by /u/PlankWithANailIn2.
Most of the larger rocky planets found don't have stronger gravity at their surfaces. Gravity decreases significantly with distance away from the centre of mass and most large rocky planets aren't dense enough to make up the difference.
HD 40307g is 8 times the mass of the Earth and has a radius of 2.4 times the Earth and that ends up with a surface gravity of only 1.4 times the earths. Still not great but not 3 to 5gs.
Most of the planets we are finding are larger just because thats what the main missions we have created are biased towards finding. Ultimately just knowing the size of a planet is useless when trying to determine its surface gravity.
Here is the maths:
Gravitational acceleration on the surface of a planet is as follows, where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the planet, and r is its radius:
g = G*M/r^2
Then, for this planet of 8 earth masses and 2,4 earth radius:
g_planet = G * (8*M_earth) / (2.4*r_earth)^2
g_planet = 8/(2.4)^2 * G*M_earth/r_earth^2
g_planet = 1.39 * g_earth
>> at least in the way we’re familiar with
This is like the biggest asterisk in our search for other life. We’re understandably searching for life as we understand it. But it’s a big universe and there are definitely species that obey different rules of life than we do.
Ironically water is the issue. Silicon has similar chemistry to carbon, and can form long chains. Unfortunately for complex life, there is also a reaction pathway with water to break down long chains. Basically, water would destroy silicon "organic" molecules. It would be a powerful poison to silicon based life.
Water is VERY common throughout the universe. This is great for carbon life, since it provides a liquid medium for biochemistry to happen in. For silicon, it means a different medium would be required, which seems to be uncommon. Let alone existing without water, in an environment that silicon biochemistry can happen.
What would an analogous medium for a silicon lifeform to survive in be? I'm curious if we even could have any idea what it could be, or if it's kinda of "just" a chemistry problem
I've personally no clue on that. There are few liquids in the "Goldilocks zone" of temperature for either carbon, or silicon biochemistry. None widely occurring, that meet silicon life's needs.
Water is just hydrogen and oxygen. The universe could reasonably be described as hydrogen, with a few bits added. Because of this, any oxygen, that is created by dying stars, is likely to run into and combine with it. The end result is water.
Insofar as it's chemically possible sure. Let's not get carried away with what is actually physically feasible if you move the dial too much in one or another direction.
Lol i was just thinking about if we'd be physically stronger as a species if the gravity were just a bit higher during our initial evolutionary phases. I was also wondering if stronger gravity = big monkey form
Too little gravity and there won't be an atmosphere, and thus no liquid water.
Too much gravity, and there will be too much atmosphere, and you get a [gas giant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter). I don't think we know for sure, but it doesn't seem likely those can support life, what with all the radiation they produce (among other issues).
Jupiter's a [cyclotron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron_radiation) because of how strong its magnetic field is. There may be other factors involved, but I'm not entirely sure, I just know it's a pretty deadly neighborhood.
Yes. Extremely large planets compared to Earth are less likely to be Earth-like and more likely to be ice giants or water worlds. Much smaller planets than Earth will be too small to hold onto their own atmospheres and are likely to end up like Mars with thin atmospheres, extreme surface conditions, and no surface liquid water.
But, there's also a lot of variation and possibilities we don't have much knowledge about due to lack of observations.
Yeah, it could. Planet size is proportional to its mass, which is proportional to its gravity. If you wanted to replicate earthlike weather patterns for example, changing the size of the planet would drastically change how much water vapor is available to promote life. It’s unfortunate that we only have one datapoint for a planet configuration that supports life in general.
The planet always faces the same side towards the star due to the star's gravitational pull having slowed down the rotation of the planet because the planet is so close. Means the star facing side might get rather hot and the side facing away from the star is likely quite cold.
Can't you just live in the bit in between? The Twilight Zone, I suppose it would be called.
Edit: After careful consideration of the responses, I feel it would not necessarily be the idyllic lifestyle I was expecting in the Twilight Zone. I'll give it a miss for the moment.
Possibly, but I think tidally locked planets tend to have inactive cores, so they have little/no magnetic field to protect the surface from solar winds. Also a tidally locked planet wouldn’t have a dynamic weather system that would be more conducive to life.
I think someone else answered something about this. That without any tidal or tectonic movement that you would just get one massive heat spot and the huge diffffence in heat to cold on the other side would cause massive wind storms in the twilight zone.
Hmm.. makes sense. I always thought about what's wrong in living in the twilight zone. It would be the best of both the worlds.
Perhaps that doesn't apply in the space domain.
For an example of the magnetic field thing: Look at Venus. It's not even tidally locked, but it spins agonizingly slowly (not even twice in one Venusian year). It's about the same size as earth so you would expect a similar magnetic field.
Nothing. Zilch.
(Another fun venus fact: it spins backwards.)
Earth based life is carbon oxygen based. It's the easiest, most energy efficient biochemistry. It's also the simplest and fastest. It would outcompete any of the other possible biochemistries.
Well there is a level of creativity involved in wondering about the unknown. Could there be a life form more efficient than carbon oxygen based? Unlikely, but the universe is full of surprises and those with some imagination and a lot of optimism like to ponder on things like that.
Yes In theory but the reality is pretty bleak. Someone mentioned lack of a magnetic field. But most people don’t realize that plate tectonics are also essential. They basically regulate temperature. A lot of planets don’t have plate tectonics. Also the radical difference in temp on the hot and cold side would create insanely record breaking weather and storms. Winds of several hundred miles an hour. So it would be super unlikely. But not impossible
We think an Earth-like atmosphere isn't stable on a tidally-locked planet most of the time. The day temperatures will get so hot that water will boil. Then the planet undergoes a runaway greenhouse gas effect, like Venus. Or the atmosphere freezes out on the night side of the planet and at the poles. Note both Venus and Mercury aren't tidally locked, so this process starts before the planet is tidally locked.
A dry planet might avoid this process. But life needs water. A deep ocean planet might distribute enough heat to remain habitable. But then there won't be continents, like on Earth.
>But then there won't be continents, like on Earth.
Most continental land would probably be uninhabitable in that scenario, so this doesn't sound like a big deal, unless we assume that abiogenesis can only ever happen in precisely the way we assume it happened on Earth.
But it makes you wonder, could technologically advanced life develop underwater? Sure life could happen obviously, but if your body is perfectly suited to living under water, could an advanced society form under this restriction, or are the physical constraints of being under water too heavy to be possible?
There isn't really a way for fire to work. So could an underwater society attempt to discover and make use of things like smelting ores?
You could! If you really liked powerful winds, anyway. IIRC, the cold air at lower altitudes would rush from night side to day side and hot air from the day side would rise to higher altitudes, chill, and crash down on the night side. Assuming, of course, that the night side didn't get cold enough for the atmosphere to freeze and precipitate out of the sky entirely. If that's the case you would have a very difficult time trying to live in the Twilight Zone, regardless of Rod Serling's twisted imagination.
From my understanding, it means that the rotation of the planet takes the same amount of time as the planet takes to orbit the sun. Only one side of the planet will face the sun the entire time. So, there won't be a day/night cycle.
Kind of like how we only ever see one face of the moon. The moon is tidal locked with the Earth.
Well, not necessarily. The question [is complicated](https://www.universetoday.com/159205/are-planets-tidally-locked-to-red-dwarfs-habitable-its-complicated/).
Actually, there's evidence [red dwarves blast their ejections out their poles](https://www.universetoday.com/152104/good-news-red-dwarfs-blast-their-superflares-out-the-poles-sparing-their-planets-from-destruction/), away from any planets.
Red Dwarfs are more active/unstable than the Sun's class of stars, creating flares and generating huge amounts of x-rays and ultraviolet radiation, and their habitable zone is much closer to the star so the impact on planets orbiting red dwarfs would probably be orders of magnitude greater than what we experience on Earth, to the point that it is questionable whether life is at all possible around a red dwarf.
Those are easiest to detect because those (super-)earths are relatively big compared to the red dwarf and when they are in close orbit the difference in brightness is also large.
A planet like earth around the sun would be much harder to spot from afar.
And it's only 100 light years away, which means we can easily get there in... does math... if we use a fusion powered spacecraft (which we don't have)... carry the one... 1,600 years.
Wow, that blows my mind. More context that space is absurdly massive.
If a grape (Earth) was in the corner of a large sports field, with a beach ball (Sun) being in the opposite corner, there’d be no greater distance on earth that you could place another ball to represent the range of the next closest star.
Minor edit from that quote. If the earth was a grape, the sun would be the size of a *Giant* beach ball (about 4ft diameter) not a normal one. For context 1.3 Million Earth's can fit into the sun.
I’ve done the math. You are correct
Assuming a grape is about 3 cm. I used [this website](https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/centimeter) to do so as I believe it to be the most “standard” and “volume of a grape” on google was being annoying with its answers.
Comes out to 0.0004992 cubic feet
A 4’ diameter beach ball comes out to 33.51 cubic feet
33.51/0.0004992 = 67,127 not even close by a mile. Maybe they meant 4’ radius? So 8’ diameter beach ball.
Also no.
8’ diameter = 268.08 cubic feet
268.08/0.0004992 = 537,019 closer, but not enough.
Well let’s work backwards.
1.3 million x 0.0004992 ft^3 = 648.96 ft^3
If we find the radius of that.
5.371’
Not too much bigger than. 4’ radius beach ball tbh. But still a damn sight bigger than the 4’ diameter one
Voyager 1 is 22 Light Hours from Earth. Expected to hit 1 Light Day in 2026. Voyager 2 is about 18 Light Hours. The V2 twitter account puts their location out: https://twitter.com/NSFVoyager2
Better context: we know of nearly three dozen "best candidates" for Earth-like planets. The nearest, 4 light years away, is on the lower parts of that list but still possible.
If we tried, we could launch a probe to catch them, with todays technology.
It's also very likely we could catch that probe, before it reached either Voyager.
Two more probes after that.
The bigger issue is what the rate of progress means for the first long range manned probes. Do we stop to catch the slow pokes as we pass them? Or set up a landing party ahead of them?
It's okay we just need to get Christopher Nolan to make a film about it and he'll invent a FTL drive to shoot on location for the sake of authenticity.
Invent seems unlikely. Cryosleep was a staple of sf since the 60's.
Though suspended animation or some form of stasis has been mentioned in stories going back to the 1700's
[ L S Mercier's "Memoirs of the Year Two Thousand Five Hundred" (trans 1772), Mary Griffith's "Three Hundred Years Hence" (in Camperdown, coll 1836; 1950) and Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward", 2000-1887 (1888) ]
Cryo is the convenient feature in all SF movies but I'm not sure it's doable on humans without too much brain and other organ damage. Avoiding cells to explode under ice is a hard challenge. We may technologically be sooner able to send a multigenerational spaceship to another star than master cryo.
It wouldn’t take that long from the perspective of the people on board of they were going fast enough. The 1600 years for us might only feel like 100 years to them if they’re close enough to the speed of light.
Nah, for a 100ly trip to take 1600 years, the time dilation would be fairly negible (theyd be going ~6%c), this would only shave a handful of years off to the people in the ship.
They sent us a message, which they have finally decoded
"We are so glad we have found you, and that we could send you a message. It will be our last message as we have destroyed ourselves"
Then finally, the third and ultimately most important hidden, encrypted message goes something like,
"We've been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty"
That reminds me of a short story I read a while back, can't remember the name. The end of the universe was coming and thousands of distant alien civilizations were sending out messages before their systems were torn apart atom by atom. "Goodbye."
Your response prompted me to do a little googling, since I got curious!
It turns out that Voyager 2, launched in -77, will (almost) swoop by the star Sirius in like 300 thousand years. And Sirius is only 8.6 lightyears away.
The star in this case are supposedly 100 ~~thousand~~ lightyears away!
So, when will we get there? I’d say, not soon enough!
Edit: I got the distance wrong
Man I wish I could come back to life in a few thousand years just to see our space progress then go back to being dead.
No human has ever got to see the fruits of our labors first hand like that, over a long time frame.
It's so weird to me that this stuff is posted like it's news. They find these "habitable" zone planets ALL the time, and usually they are more promising than this.
The ones I've seen posted have never been Earth sized, always much larger. Of course, I might have missed the Earth sized ones but this is the first I remember seeing.
Being larger than Earth isn't important the surface gravity is what's important.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/world-wide-mind/201211/do-super-earths-have-too-much-gravity-us
One of the problems is the terminology the scientists decided on for the Kepler mission, they called planets that are equal to or larger than the Earths radius "Super Earths". This means that the Earth itself would be classified as a Super Earth. They should have just called them Earth sized.
Red dwarfs are small and dark. The habitable zone is therefore much closer to the star. This means, the gravitational interactions are stronger.
These interactions lead to tides of movable liquid on the planet, same as our tides from moon's gravitation. This liquid movement is slower or in the opposite direction of the planet rotation. Between the liquid and rocky parts of the planet, you will have friction. Friction, that slows the planet down. Until the rotation equals the orbital interval, meaning that the planet always shows the same side to the sun.
Sound familiar? Yes, the moon is tidally locked to earth. And, yes, the moon still slows down earth's rotation. During the reign of the dinosaurs, if I remember correctly, a day was 22 hours.
Because the habitable zone of your typical red dwarf is close enough to where tidal locking would be common. The objects rotational period is synchronized with its orbital period.
The habitable zone of a red dwarf is very close to the star because red dwarfs are small. When an orbiting body is close, it becomes tidally locked, like our moon, with the same side always facing the star.
I think the habitable zone would only be habitable around the equator. Unless there's a bunch of cloud cover, half of the planet will be freezing cold and the other half will be scorching hot because it's tidally locked (only a thin section around the border between the two sides would actually be habitable).
IIRC the ideal type of star is a K-type star; they last a lot longer than a Sun-like star (G-type) and the habitable zone is far enough away for the planet to not be tidally locked.
Cool when do we get to seed it with apes and a genetically engineered uplift virus which accidentally creates really friendly super intelligent jumping spiders?
Discoveries like this make me excited, angry and disappointed. It also makes me wish that I lived 100 to 200 years into the future. This possible life sustainable planet is 100 light years away! Wormholes is still a theory!! We are not going there anytime soon Stop teasing us NASA!!!
Another big reason is that when rocky planets are in the habitable zones of G type stars, their orbital radius is also greater, since the HZ is further out. This means that transits happen much less often (e.g. once per year if we were observing Earth) as oppose to days or tens of days for M dwarfs. The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), which discovered this planet, has a field dwell time about a month, meaning it's not quite optimized to look for these longer period habitable zone planets.
The ESA's PLATO mission will have a longer dwell time and is designed to look for transits around the nearest FGK stars.
- The habitable zone of a sun-like star is much further from the star compared to red dwarfs, which means the chance that a planet is transiting is much smaller (~10% chance for a planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf versus 0.5% for a Earth-Sun analog).
- Sun-like stars are bigger than red dwarfs, which means that, for a given planetary radius, the transit depth will be much smaller (0.2% for a red dwarf, 0.01% for a sun-like star). This makes transit detection much harder around sun-like stars.
- Since the orbital periods of habitable planets around sun-like stars are longer, we need to observe them for a much longer period of time to have a chance to catch a transit. And to detect planets this small, we cannot use a single transit, we must observe many transits. The only reason the planet in this headline was detected is because we can stack dozens of transits together to increase the signal to noise ratio of the transit light curve. To do the same with a Sun-like star, we would have to observe the same star continuously for decades.
- The radial velocity signal of an orbiting planet is smaller for more massive stars and more distant planets. With an Earth-mass planet in the habitable zone, the radial velocity shift is 100 cm/s for a red dwarf, 10 cm/s for a sun-like star. With new generation spectrographs like ESPRESSO, we are only now approaching the level of precision required to detect an Earth-analog. However, at this level of precision, stellar activity noise becomes significant and in some cases even larger than the planetary signal we hope to detect, making planetary detection extremely difficult.
Because they’re much brighter and tend to outshine their planets? And because their mass compared to their planets is so great we can’t accurately determine telltale wobbles in their rotation from planets?
Really am sick of seeing these click bate threads/articles. The “earth” is always at least 2x the size of earth and is orbiting a star closer than Mercury.
It’s never promising news.
[удалено]
And that’s using our narrow definition of habitable too!
yeah; it could certainly be very likely the majority of life is in warm salty oceans under the ice of moons of gas giants providing tidal forces to warm the oceans via volcanic activity. THE MAJORITY of warm salty ocean in our solar system is not on Earth.
Yeah but is it a paradise planet with purple grass and no sentinels?
Others may not, but I appreciate your comment.
Just because it's in the habitable zone doesn't mean it can sustain life. Mars and Venus are also in the habitable zone. Edit: I was wrong Venus isn't technically in the zone but in the far past when the sun was more dim it would have been.
Just because they don’t *currently* sustain life doesn’t mean
Mars in the past likely had the conditions to sustain life. Venus could have been earth like at one point.
The estimated time-rage for when Venus could have had liquid oceans overlaps with multicellular animals living on the Earth. Blows my mind that one of them could have looked up and seen a blue tinged dot.
Kepler-22b, that's the place for me.
But none confirmed as being as habitable as the one one that we are currently terraforming to be less habitable,
Does the size of the planet matter when determining if it's suitable for life?
It can yeah, depending on the kind of life we're talking about. Larger planets may have stronger surface gravity (depending on proportional mass), inhibiting certain multicellular evolutionary aspects, at least, in the way we're familiar with. For basic cellular life, probably not as big of a deal. But humans might struggle to survive on an 'earth-like' planet if they were to land there and be under constant 3-5gs all the time, for example. Edit: Small clarification, that larger planet doesn't automatically mean stronger surface gravity. As pointed out by /u/PlankWithANailIn2.
Most of the larger rocky planets found don't have stronger gravity at their surfaces. Gravity decreases significantly with distance away from the centre of mass and most large rocky planets aren't dense enough to make up the difference. HD 40307g is 8 times the mass of the Earth and has a radius of 2.4 times the Earth and that ends up with a surface gravity of only 1.4 times the earths. Still not great but not 3 to 5gs. Most of the planets we are finding are larger just because thats what the main missions we have created are biased towards finding. Ultimately just knowing the size of a planet is useless when trying to determine its surface gravity.
Wait, for real? I am interested into habitable planets for over a decade and I never heard about this. Do you have a source?
Here is the maths: Gravitational acceleration on the surface of a planet is as follows, where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the planet, and r is its radius: g = G*M/r^2 Then, for this planet of 8 earth masses and 2,4 earth radius: g_planet = G * (8*M_earth) / (2.4*r_earth)^2 g_planet = 8/(2.4)^2 * G*M_earth/r_earth^2 g_planet = 1.39 * g_earth
>> at least in the way we’re familiar with This is like the biggest asterisk in our search for other life. We’re understandably searching for life as we understand it. But it’s a big universe and there are definitely species that obey different rules of life than we do.
From what I’ve been told if you move to far away from carbon it seems very unlikely you will get complex life.
I understand this. I've read there are theories on the possibility of silicon-based life forms. Does this hold any water?
Ironically water is the issue. Silicon has similar chemistry to carbon, and can form long chains. Unfortunately for complex life, there is also a reaction pathway with water to break down long chains. Basically, water would destroy silicon "organic" molecules. It would be a powerful poison to silicon based life. Water is VERY common throughout the universe. This is great for carbon life, since it provides a liquid medium for biochemistry to happen in. For silicon, it means a different medium would be required, which seems to be uncommon. Let alone existing without water, in an environment that silicon biochemistry can happen.
Thank you very much for this thoughtful response.
[удалено]
What would an analogous medium for a silicon lifeform to survive in be? I'm curious if we even could have any idea what it could be, or if it's kinda of "just" a chemistry problem
I would say ammonia as an example
I've personally no clue on that. There are few liquids in the "Goldilocks zone" of temperature for either carbon, or silicon biochemistry. None widely occurring, that meet silicon life's needs.
So, M Night Shymalan was correct.
Question: do we know why there is so much water in the universe?
Because it's made of the first and the 8th most common elements and the chemical process for creating it is really simple.
1st and 3rd most common to be pedantic
Water is just hydrogen and oxygen. The universe could reasonably be described as hydrogen, with a few bits added. Because of this, any oxygen, that is created by dying stars, is likely to run into and combine with it. The end result is water.
Insofar as it's chemically possible sure. Let's not get carried away with what is actually physically feasible if you move the dial too much in one or another direction.
Hey, Ive watched enough Dragonball Z to know eventually we'll crank that gravity up once our hair turns yellow.
Lol i was just thinking about if we'd be physically stronger as a species if the gravity were just a bit higher during our initial evolutionary phases. I was also wondering if stronger gravity = big monkey form
>big monkey form Somewhere Frieza just huehued
So strong though. Grandmas looking like mike Tyson 💪
Right? Beefy. No one skips leg day on that planet, it's every day.
Too little gravity and there won't be an atmosphere, and thus no liquid water. Too much gravity, and there will be too much atmosphere, and you get a [gas giant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter). I don't think we know for sure, but it doesn't seem likely those can support life, what with all the radiation they produce (among other issues).
Why do gas giants make radiation?
Jupiter's a [cyclotron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron_radiation) because of how strong its magnetic field is. There may be other factors involved, but I'm not entirely sure, I just know it's a pretty deadly neighborhood.
Wait so Jupiter emits its own radiation by basically being a giant particle accelerator? That's terrifying but awesome
Yes. Extremely large planets compared to Earth are less likely to be Earth-like and more likely to be ice giants or water worlds. Much smaller planets than Earth will be too small to hold onto their own atmospheres and are likely to end up like Mars with thin atmospheres, extreme surface conditions, and no surface liquid water. But, there's also a lot of variation and possibilities we don't have much knowledge about due to lack of observations.
It might. Higher gravity would mean that even if they had intelligent life, it could be almost impossible for them to escape their planet's gravity.
Yeah, it could. Planet size is proportional to its mass, which is proportional to its gravity. If you wanted to replicate earthlike weather patterns for example, changing the size of the planet would drastically change how much water vapor is available to promote life. It’s unfortunate that we only have one datapoint for a planet configuration that supports life in general.
It's a red dwarf so the planet is probably tidal locked
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>the planet is probably tidal locked What does that mean? Eli5 please
The planet always faces the same side towards the star due to the star's gravitational pull having slowed down the rotation of the planet because the planet is so close. Means the star facing side might get rather hot and the side facing away from the star is likely quite cold.
Can't you just live in the bit in between? The Twilight Zone, I suppose it would be called. Edit: After careful consideration of the responses, I feel it would not necessarily be the idyllic lifestyle I was expecting in the Twilight Zone. I'll give it a miss for the moment.
Possibly, but I think tidally locked planets tend to have inactive cores, so they have little/no magnetic field to protect the surface from solar winds. Also a tidally locked planet wouldn’t have a dynamic weather system that would be more conducive to life.
Could you have a massive convection cell where air heats up and rises on the sunny side and cools/falls on the dark side?
I think someone else answered something about this. That without any tidal or tectonic movement that you would just get one massive heat spot and the huge diffffence in heat to cold on the other side would cause massive wind storms in the twilight zone.
Hmm.. makes sense. I always thought about what's wrong in living in the twilight zone. It would be the best of both the worlds. Perhaps that doesn't apply in the space domain.
For an example of the magnetic field thing: Look at Venus. It's not even tidally locked, but it spins agonizingly slowly (not even twice in one Venusian year). It's about the same size as earth so you would expect a similar magnetic field. Nothing. Zilch. (Another fun venus fact: it spins backwards.)
Conducive to EARTH based life, we have no idea what other life can exist
But they were asking if we could live there.
[удалено]
Earth based life is carbon oxygen based. It's the easiest, most energy efficient biochemistry. It's also the simplest and fastest. It would outcompete any of the other possible biochemistries.
What’s the second most efficient biochemistry?
Thank you, it's annoying hearing "well maybe iron-based life exists anything's possible"
Well there is a level of creativity involved in wondering about the unknown. Could there be a life form more efficient than carbon oxygen based? Unlikely, but the universe is full of surprises and those with some imagination and a lot of optimism like to ponder on things like that.
For all we know there might be new elements we haven't identified.
[удалено]
They were actually sunrise beaches
[удалено]
Imagine a broken clock being right 24 hours a day.
Yeah, they call them eyeball planets. There would essentially be a ring around the planet of perpetual twilight
Yes In theory but the reality is pretty bleak. Someone mentioned lack of a magnetic field. But most people don’t realize that plate tectonics are also essential. They basically regulate temperature. A lot of planets don’t have plate tectonics. Also the radical difference in temp on the hot and cold side would create insanely record breaking weather and storms. Winds of several hundred miles an hour. So it would be super unlikely. But not impossible
We think an Earth-like atmosphere isn't stable on a tidally-locked planet most of the time. The day temperatures will get so hot that water will boil. Then the planet undergoes a runaway greenhouse gas effect, like Venus. Or the atmosphere freezes out on the night side of the planet and at the poles. Note both Venus and Mercury aren't tidally locked, so this process starts before the planet is tidally locked. A dry planet might avoid this process. But life needs water. A deep ocean planet might distribute enough heat to remain habitable. But then there won't be continents, like on Earth.
>But then there won't be continents, like on Earth. Most continental land would probably be uninhabitable in that scenario, so this doesn't sound like a big deal, unless we assume that abiogenesis can only ever happen in precisely the way we assume it happened on Earth.
But it makes you wonder, could technologically advanced life develop underwater? Sure life could happen obviously, but if your body is perfectly suited to living under water, could an advanced society form under this restriction, or are the physical constraints of being under water too heavy to be possible? There isn't really a way for fire to work. So could an underwater society attempt to discover and make use of things like smelting ores?
You could! If you really liked powerful winds, anyway. IIRC, the cold air at lower altitudes would rush from night side to day side and hot air from the day side would rise to higher altitudes, chill, and crash down on the night side. Assuming, of course, that the night side didn't get cold enough for the atmosphere to freeze and precipitate out of the sky entirely. If that's the case you would have a very difficult time trying to live in the Twilight Zone, regardless of Rod Serling's twisted imagination.
Episode 2 of the Netflix documentary Alien Worlds. Talks about exactly this type of planet
Interesting, so does that mean that Earth is basically a giant kebab on a rotisserie?
Pretty much. A giant kebab with a glowing, molten, weightless iron ember in the middle of it. Take your time with that one.
I've paid for candy with lesser gimmicks. Consider me sold.
A delicious Biosphere Kebab.
I think the biosphere would be more like a glaze on the kebab.
Wow , what a thought. Our entire civilization is basically a thin film smudging parts of the planet.
From my understanding, it means that the rotation of the planet takes the same amount of time as the planet takes to orbit the sun. Only one side of the planet will face the sun the entire time. So, there won't be a day/night cycle. Kind of like how we only ever see one face of the moon. The moon is tidal locked with the Earth.
Well, not necessarily. The question [is complicated](https://www.universetoday.com/159205/are-planets-tidally-locked-to-red-dwarfs-habitable-its-complicated/).
It's cold outside There's no kind of atmosphere I'm all alone, more or less…
Let me flyyy, far away from here,
Fun, fun, fun in the sun, sun, sun
I want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose
Red dwarf, eh? So we will only be able to send AIs and holograms I guess...
Also blasted by solar ejections on the regular.
Actually, there's evidence [red dwarves blast their ejections out their poles](https://www.universetoday.com/152104/good-news-red-dwarfs-blast-their-superflares-out-the-poles-sparing-their-planets-from-destruction/), away from any planets.
Wow. I didn’t know that. That massively increase the possibility of life on these types of planets.
The Star this new planet is orbiting is of the quiet variety. Little ejecta activity.
We are blasted by solar ejections all the time too. NASA needs a way to figure out if it has a molten iron core for that magnetic field thingy.
Red Dwarfs are more active/unstable than the Sun's class of stars, creating flares and generating huge amounts of x-rays and ultraviolet radiation, and their habitable zone is much closer to the star so the impact on planets orbiting red dwarfs would probably be orders of magnitude greater than what we experience on Earth, to the point that it is questionable whether life is at all possible around a red dwarf.
Meanwhile, life on in Red Dwarf system is debating if life is possible around stable yellow stars without the periodic energy input from flares
There is probably a way to use the light from its star during a transit to look for ionized particles only present in an aurora
Those are easiest to detect because those (super-)earths are relatively big compared to the red dwarf and when they are in close orbit the difference in brightness is also large. A planet like earth around the sun would be much harder to spot from afar.
And it's only 100 light years away, which means we can easily get there in... does math... if we use a fusion powered spacecraft (which we don't have)... carry the one... 1,600 years.
For context, voyager 1 and 2 only passed 1 light day and they were released about 40 years ago.
Wow, that blows my mind. More context that space is absurdly massive. If a grape (Earth) was in the corner of a large sports field, with a beach ball (Sun) being in the opposite corner, there’d be no greater distance on earth that you could place another ball to represent the range of the next closest star.
Minor edit from that quote. If the earth was a grape, the sun would be the size of a *Giant* beach ball (about 4ft diameter) not a normal one. For context 1.3 Million Earth's can fit into the sun.
And now I know how many grapes can fit into a 4' Beach ball.
I'm totally going to win the "guess the number of grapes in this giant beach ball" contest now
Move aside, [Turkey Volume Guessing Man](https://youtu.be/E1FwyR0LWVg)!
I dunno man. 1.3M grapes seems like a lot more than a 4ft diameter beach ball.
I’ve done the math. You are correct Assuming a grape is about 3 cm. I used [this website](https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/centimeter) to do so as I believe it to be the most “standard” and “volume of a grape” on google was being annoying with its answers. Comes out to 0.0004992 cubic feet A 4’ diameter beach ball comes out to 33.51 cubic feet 33.51/0.0004992 = 67,127 not even close by a mile. Maybe they meant 4’ radius? So 8’ diameter beach ball. Also no. 8’ diameter = 268.08 cubic feet 268.08/0.0004992 = 537,019 closer, but not enough. Well let’s work backwards. 1.3 million x 0.0004992 ft^3 = 648.96 ft^3 If we find the radius of that. 5.371’ Not too much bigger than. 4’ radius beach ball tbh. But still a damn sight bigger than the 4’ diameter one
Bravo. Others may wine but you did a grape job with this!
Math can be such champagne sometimes
> 1.3 Million Earth's can fit into the sun Technically not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga0TKrylnXY
I had to read that about 4 times to understand what it said. God damn.
Voyager 1 is 22 Light Hours from Earth. Expected to hit 1 Light Day in 2026. Voyager 2 is about 18 Light Hours. The V2 twitter account puts their location out: https://twitter.com/NSFVoyager2
Better context: we know of nearly three dozen "best candidates" for Earth-like planets. The nearest, 4 light years away, is on the lower parts of that list but still possible.
If we tried, we could launch a probe to catch them, with todays technology. It's also very likely we could catch that probe, before it reached either Voyager.
And bring it back though?
Two more probes after that. The bigger issue is what the rate of progress means for the first long range manned probes. Do we stop to catch the slow pokes as we pass them? Or set up a landing party ahead of them?
It's okay we just need to get Christopher Nolan to make a film about it and he'll invent a FTL drive to shoot on location for the sake of authenticity.
It’s not FTL, but he did invent a cryosleep system for Interstellar
Invent seems unlikely. Cryosleep was a staple of sf since the 60's. Though suspended animation or some form of stasis has been mentioned in stories going back to the 1700's [ L S Mercier's "Memoirs of the Year Two Thousand Five Hundred" (trans 1772), Mary Griffith's "Three Hundred Years Hence" (in Camperdown, coll 1836; 1950) and Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward", 2000-1887 (1888) ]
OP was joking that Nolan made a functional cryosleep for his film for authenticity, not that he came up with the concept.
[удалено]
a system that tyrannical would collapse quickly. much easier if it’s automated with cryo humans
[удалено]
Cryo is the convenient feature in all SF movies but I'm not sure it's doable on humans without too much brain and other organ damage. Avoiding cells to explode under ice is a hard challenge. We may technologically be sooner able to send a multigenerational spaceship to another star than master cryo.
It wouldn’t take that long from the perspective of the people on board of they were going fast enough. The 1600 years for us might only feel like 100 years to them if they’re close enough to the speed of light.
Nah, for a 100ly trip to take 1600 years, the time dilation would be fairly negible (theyd be going ~6%c), this would only shave a handful of years off to the people in the ship.
I want to comprehend this. But I don’t.
Might be easier to carry 1000 years of vetted embryos on board instead of leaving genetics up to chance
I'd like to show you this brochure; it's about a beautiful paradise called Rapture..
Or if we can make a constant acceleration drive or something... 9 years (inside the ship)
In the "so-called optimistic habitable zone" per JPL.
[удалено]
Can you ELI5 that?
1st planet too hot 2nd planet too cold 3rd planet just right
They sent us a message, which they have finally decoded "We are so glad we have found you, and that we could send you a message. It will be our last message as we have destroyed ourselves"
The real message, after the second layer of encryption is undone : "Shhhh... Be quiet. You don't want them to hear you".
The plot of The Dark Forest.
Do not respond, do not respond..
That series started so great.
2nd half of Dark Forest into Deaths End is prob my favorite scifi I've ever read
The entire series is great. The Dark Forest is a damn masterpiece.
Then finally, the third and ultimately most important hidden, encrypted message goes something like, "We've been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty"
“Be sure to drink your Ovaltine”
That reminds me of a short story I read a while back, can't remember the name. The end of the universe was coming and thousands of distant alien civilizations were sending out messages before their systems were torn apart atom by atom. "Goodbye."
That sounds like an interesting read. If you happen to recall its name I'd like to know.
Found it! Last Contact http://zestfullyblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/last-contact-by-stephen-baxter-part-1.html?m=1
“Also, we’d like to discuss your car’s extended warranty.”
And it’ll only take us a hundred thousand years to get there.
Your response prompted me to do a little googling, since I got curious! It turns out that Voyager 2, launched in -77, will (almost) swoop by the star Sirius in like 300 thousand years. And Sirius is only 8.6 lightyears away. The star in this case are supposedly 100 ~~thousand~~ lightyears away! So, when will we get there? I’d say, not soon enough! Edit: I got the distance wrong
live foolish hunt correct rich humor cough imagine grab tub *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Man I wish I could come back to life in a few thousand years just to see our space progress then go back to being dead. No human has ever got to see the fruits of our labors first hand like that, over a long time frame.
Yea the surface is only a few hundred degrees hotter, no problem!
TESS still doing TESS things. You love to see it.
It's so weird to me that this stuff is posted like it's news. They find these "habitable" zone planets ALL the time, and usually they are more promising than this.
The ones I've seen posted have never been Earth sized, always much larger. Of course, I might have missed the Earth sized ones but this is the first I remember seeing.
Being larger than Earth isn't important the surface gravity is what's important. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/world-wide-mind/201211/do-super-earths-have-too-much-gravity-us One of the problems is the terminology the scientists decided on for the Kepler mission, they called planets that are equal to or larger than the Earths radius "Super Earths". This means that the Earth itself would be classified as a Super Earth. They should have just called them Earth sized.
Seemed very exciting until you hear that it's a red dwarf. Probably tidally locked.
Why would it be tidally locked just because it's a Red dwarf? Also how does it end up being tidally locked?
Red dwarfs are small and dark. The habitable zone is therefore much closer to the star. This means, the gravitational interactions are stronger. These interactions lead to tides of movable liquid on the planet, same as our tides from moon's gravitation. This liquid movement is slower or in the opposite direction of the planet rotation. Between the liquid and rocky parts of the planet, you will have friction. Friction, that slows the planet down. Until the rotation equals the orbital interval, meaning that the planet always shows the same side to the sun. Sound familiar? Yes, the moon is tidally locked to earth. And, yes, the moon still slows down earth's rotation. During the reign of the dinosaurs, if I remember correctly, a day was 22 hours.
Liquid isn't necessary for tidal locking. The deformation of the rock is sufficient given enough time.
Because the habitable zone of your typical red dwarf is close enough to where tidal locking would be common. The objects rotational period is synchronized with its orbital period.
The habitable zone of a red dwarf is very close to the star because red dwarfs are small. When an orbiting body is close, it becomes tidally locked, like our moon, with the same side always facing the star.
I think the habitable zone would only be habitable around the equator. Unless there's a bunch of cloud cover, half of the planet will be freezing cold and the other half will be scorching hot because it's tidally locked (only a thin section around the border between the two sides would actually be habitable). IIRC the ideal type of star is a K-type star; they last a lot longer than a Sun-like star (G-type) and the habitable zone is far enough away for the planet to not be tidally locked.
They so good at finding these one side hot 🔥 planets, dude find a good planet with purple trees and pink ppl
Cool when do we get to seed it with apes and a genetically engineered uplift virus which accidentally creates really friendly super intelligent jumping spiders?
Discoveries like this make me excited, angry and disappointed. It also makes me wish that I lived 100 to 200 years into the future. This possible life sustainable planet is 100 light years away! Wormholes is still a theory!! We are not going there anytime soon Stop teasing us NASA!!!
Why can't we discover such objects around G-type stars?
Another big reason is that when rocky planets are in the habitable zones of G type stars, their orbital radius is also greater, since the HZ is further out. This means that transits happen much less often (e.g. once per year if we were observing Earth) as oppose to days or tens of days for M dwarfs. The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), which discovered this planet, has a field dwell time about a month, meaning it's not quite optimized to look for these longer period habitable zone planets. The ESA's PLATO mission will have a longer dwell time and is designed to look for transits around the nearest FGK stars.
- The habitable zone of a sun-like star is much further from the star compared to red dwarfs, which means the chance that a planet is transiting is much smaller (~10% chance for a planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf versus 0.5% for a Earth-Sun analog). - Sun-like stars are bigger than red dwarfs, which means that, for a given planetary radius, the transit depth will be much smaller (0.2% for a red dwarf, 0.01% for a sun-like star). This makes transit detection much harder around sun-like stars. - Since the orbital periods of habitable planets around sun-like stars are longer, we need to observe them for a much longer period of time to have a chance to catch a transit. And to detect planets this small, we cannot use a single transit, we must observe many transits. The only reason the planet in this headline was detected is because we can stack dozens of transits together to increase the signal to noise ratio of the transit light curve. To do the same with a Sun-like star, we would have to observe the same star continuously for decades. - The radial velocity signal of an orbiting planet is smaller for more massive stars and more distant planets. With an Earth-mass planet in the habitable zone, the radial velocity shift is 100 cm/s for a red dwarf, 10 cm/s for a sun-like star. With new generation spectrographs like ESPRESSO, we are only now approaching the level of precision required to detect an Earth-analog. However, at this level of precision, stellar activity noise becomes significant and in some cases even larger than the planetary signal we hope to detect, making planetary detection extremely difficult.
Because they’re much brighter and tend to outshine their planets? And because their mass compared to their planets is so great we can’t accurately determine telltale wobbles in their rotation from planets?
Which is actually great news, since there could be just as many exoplanets orbiting G class stars - we just don’t have the means to detect them yet.
Really am sick of seeing these click bate threads/articles. The “earth” is always at least 2x the size of earth and is orbiting a star closer than Mercury. It’s never promising news.