Astronomers see more planets than stars in galaxy

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — The more astronomers look for other worlds, the more they find that it is a crowded and crazy cosmos. They think planets easily outnumber stars in our galaxy and they are even finding them in the strangest of places.
And they have only begun to count.
Three studies released Wednesday, in the journal Nature and at the American Astronomical Society's conference in Austin, Texas, demonstrate an extrasolar real estate boom. One study shows that in our Milky Way, most stars have planets. And since there are a lot of stars in our galaxy — about 100 billion — that means a lot of planets.
"We're finding an exciting potpourri of things we didn't even think could exist," said Harvard University astronomer Lisa Kaltenegger, including planets that mirror "Star Wars" Luke Skywalker's home planet with twin suns and a mini-star system with a dwarf sun and shrunken planets.
"We're awash in planets where 17 years ago we weren't even sure there were planets" outside our solar system, said Kaltenegger, who wasn't involved in the new research.
Astronomers are finding other worlds using three different techniques and peering through telescopes in space and on the ground.
Confirmed planets outside our solar system — called exoplanets — now number well over 700, still-to-be-confirmed ones are in the thousands.
NASA's new Kepler planet-hunting telescope in space is discovering exoplanets that are in a zone friendly to life and detecting planets as small as Earth or even tinier. That is moving the field of looking for some kind of life outside Earth from science fiction toward plain science.
One study in Nature this week figures that the Milky Way averages at least 1.6 large planets per star. And that is likely a dramatic underestimate.
That study is based on only one intricate and time-consuming method of planet hunting that uses several South American, African and Australian telescopes. Astronomers look for increases in brightness of distant stars that indicate planets between Earth and that pulsating star. That technique usually finds only bigger planets and is good at finding those further away from their stars, sort of like our Saturn or Uranus.
Kepler and a different ground-based telescope technique are finding planets closer to their stars. Putting those methods together, the number of worlds in our galaxy is probably much closer to two or more planets per star, said the Nature study author Arnaud Cassan of the Astrophysical Institute in Paris.
Dan Werthimer, chief scientist at the University of California Berkeley's search for extraterrestrial intelligence program and who wasn't part of the studies, was thrilled: "It's great to know that there are planets out there that we can point our telescopes at."
Kepler also found three rocky planets — tinier than Earth — that are circling a dwarf star that itself is only a bit bigger than Jupiter. They are so close to their small star that they are too hot for life.
"It's like you took your shrink ray gun and you set it to seven times smaller and zap the planetary system," said California Institute of Technology astronomer John Johnson, co-author of the study presented Wednesday at the astronomy conference.
Because it is so hard to see these size planets, they must be pretty plentiful, Johnson said. "It's kind of like cockroaches. If you see one, then there are dozens hiding."
It's not just the number or size of planets, but where they are found. Scientists once thought systems with two stars were just too chaotic to have planets nearby. But so far, astronomers have found three different systems where planets have two suns, something that a few years ago seemed like purely "Star Wars" movie magic.
"Nature must like to form planets because it's forming them in places that are kind of difficult to do," said San Diego State University astronomy professor William Welsh, who wrote a study about planets with two stars that's also published in the journal Nature.
The gravity of two stars makes the area near them unstable, Welsh said. So astronomers thought that if a planet formed in that area, it would be torn apart.
Late last year, Kepler telescope found one system with two stars. It was considered a freak. Then Welsh used Kepler to find two more. Now Welsh figures such planetary systems, while not common, are not rare either.
"It just feels like it's inevitable that Kepler is going to come up with a habitable Earth-sized planet in the next couple of years," Caltech's Johnson said.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,838
39
91
Astronomers see more planets than stars in galaxy

i kinda figured that. nice to have official confirmation n all, but it almost made common sense.
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,903
0
0
The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,903
0
0
Thats what I always thought. Whats the use. Look thru a scope everyday hoping you might see a dust spec on a Super dome roof so that you can name it and your name written in a book.

Thats why I won't never be able to do such a work. I will explore more boobs on the beaches with it than stars cause theres no motivation. That dust spec will never be reached so what's the use

One other question. Is the OP taking the Piss or what? All thats missing there is Darth Vader and the Deathstar
 
Last edited:

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
Didn't we shut down our space program? So what are the chances we'd go crash another rock out there even if it were hospitable?
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,908
4,940
136
This is why I wonder so many people completely insist that it is impossible humanity is the only life in the universe. If the conditions required to be met for the support of life for one planet can happen, who's to say it would never ever happen for another? Considering the no doubt staggering numbers of planets out there a couple of them must surely have the same chances as Earth as had.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
I think as soon as we figure out how to bend space and time....we'll figure out there's lots of intelligent life out there ...we are not intelligent life compared to what we'll find...but we will be by then if we make it that far...that kind of intelligence has no need for war, lives totally efficiently with the resources they have,etc...I'd imagine they keep an eye on us now...because we're probably getting pretty close.....as In maybe a few thousand years away
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
I think as soon as we figure out how to bend space and time....we'll figure out there's lots of intelligent life out there ...we are not intelligent life compared to what we'll find...but we will be by then if we make it that far...that kind of intelligence has no need for war, lives totally efficiently with the resources they have,etc...I'd imagine they keep an eye on us now...because we're probably getting pretty close.....as In maybe a few thousand years away

not good. it would take millions of years to get there.

At G1 a group sets off for a 10 generation mission at near light speeds... this will take 100 generations on earth because of the time-dilation effect.

at G10 on earth we have advanced so much that it will now only take 5 generation, 50 on earth, to get to the new planet; unfortunately there is no way to communicate this to the first set of settlers.

and so on

The point being that the very moment that you set off into space on a multi-generational mission to a habitable planet you are all but guaranteeing that when you get there it'll be just as shitty as the place you just left AND all of your usable trade skills will be worthless.

You are essentially signing your family up for "anthropological artifact" status.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
Didn't we shut down our space program? So what are the chances we'd go crash another rock out there even if it were hospitable?

No, we shut down the shuttle program. The space program is still going, just being redirected. After all, we are still sending robots to mars and other places. We did just launch another rover just a little while ago.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Didn't we shut down our space program? So what are the chances we'd go crash another rock out there even if it were hospitable?

Actually, part of our space program includes missions like Kepler that is finding out all this information. We are learning FAR more from unmanned missions than we have from manned missions. Our technology, especially in areas such as robotics is increasing. And hopefully, one day we'll have the answer to "is there other life out there?" Or rather, we'll have confirmation of what is often regarded as most likely.

Further, as far as getting off Earth, using the laws of physics (as presently known), to get to the *closest* star to Earth in 50 years (one lifetime, assuming you don't send an infant), it would take as much energy as is used on Earth in a year by all of the societies - every bit of the nuclear energy, coal, oil, solar, wind, etc. - That amount of energy would be needed for a mission. To get to a star with a habitable planet would likely take at least an order of magnitude more energy. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across; the closest star is just a couple light years away. Thus, travel times are going to be greatly increased (a 20,000 light year away mission would take nearly 5000 years, if you use as much energy as is used on all of Earth by humans in a year) - if you want to get there quicker, you're going to need more energy.

Thus, it's not a matter of building a better rocket engine, or something like that - it's not a matter of engineering or refining our ability to produce "things." Missions to the moon or Mars as "practice" are NOT going to lead to the development of better rockets capable of this type of flight. In other words, you can refine and refine and refine your coal burning power generator, but no matter how much you work with coal, you're not going to develop nuclear power. It will take revolutionary new physics to get somewhere else.

Of course, we could gather fuel on the way, if we're able to gather up the few hydrogen atoms floating around in empty space & use fusion... But, we are multiple generations away from anything remotely close. Thus, manned space flight (at this time) makes no sense; there's nowhere to go except perhaps the moon & Mars, which would be little more than showmanship and would ultimately accomplish... nothing.
 
Last edited:

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,569
901
126
This is why I wonder so many people completely insist that it is impossible humanity is the only life in the universe. If the conditions required to be met for the support of life for one planet can happen, who's to say it would never ever happen for another? Considering the no doubt staggering numbers of planets out there a couple of them must surely have the same chances as Earth as had.

I'm just glad you didn't say 'intelligent life'. Still no proof that it exists anywhere.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136

At this moment in time, it just cost too much to get a sizable payload into orbit. If we were to colonize either the moon or mars, it will take a major development in propulsion to reduce the cost of getting large numbers of people into orbit so a sustainable colony can be set up on either. Right now it just isn't practical. We need something along the line of going from sail power to steam in the 19th century. Chemical rockets are not the answer. Not for long duration spaceflight.

you also have to consider shielding against radiation.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
At this moment in time, it just cost too much to get a sizable payload into orbit. If we were to colonize either the moon or mars, it will take a major development in propulsion to reduce the cost of getting large numbers of people into orbit so a sustainable colony can be set up on either. Right now it just isn't practical. We need something along the line of going from sail power to steam in the 19th century. Chemical rockets are not the answer. Not for long duration spaceflight.

you also have to consider shielding against radiation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE8PieLJttY&t=4m7s

You can't convince me that because it's hard and gives us the need to develop to solve the problem that it's a bad thing.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
i kinda figured that. nice to have official confirmation n all, but it almost made common sense.

Exactly. Our solar system seems to be completely average, other than the fact that Earth supports life. Made perfect sense that other stars would form planets in a similar manner.

I just read that SETI is now going to focus on star systems with planets around them to narrow their search.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
At this moment in time, it just cost too much to get a sizable payload into orbit. If we were to colonize either the moon or mars, it will take a major development in propulsion to reduce the cost of getting large numbers of people into orbit so a sustainable colony can be set up on either. Right now it just isn't practical. We need something along the line of going from sail power to steam in the 19th century. Chemical rockets are not the answer. Not for long duration spaceflight.

you also have to consider shielding against radiation.

We need to start working on the space elevator. We're almost there with carbon fiber technology, and water ice can be used as an effective shield against radiation.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE8PieLJttY&t=4m7s

You can't convince me that because it's hard and gives us the need to develop to solve the problem that it's a bad thing.

that is not what I'm saying at all.

We should continue with the robotic missions and the development of other propulsion systems, not to give up, just limit manned missions until the time we have a better way to orbit.
 
Last edited:

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
Thus, manned space flight (at this time) makes no sense; there's nowhere to go except perhaps the moon & Mars, which would be little more than showmanship and would ultimately accomplish... nothing.

I think that view misses the bigger picture. While I agree that the moon and Mars probably wouldn't give us much in the near term, you do need to start somewhere and the effort would undoubtedly lead to advances in many different fields like the Apollo program did. It would also allow us to develop technology for use in longer duration trips. But I agree that on the whole, I too prefer the robotic missions. Cheaper, safer, and you get tons and tons of data to sift through.

I agree with you, though, that we're not going to be an interstellar civilization any time soon. I know it is sci-fi, but the timeline of the Star Trek franchise, for example, was entirely too optimistic in my opinion. We're not 300 to 400 years away from having explored roughly 10% of the galaxy; we're thousands of years from that if it ever even happens.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
We need to start working on the space elevator. We're almost there with carbon fiber technology, and water ice can be used as an effective shield against radiation.

that's basically what I'm talking about, tho I don't think a space elevator will possible in the next 50 years or so. I hope I'm wrong tho.