"chances for life on this planet, 100%"

[Cogman]

Regarding things being impossible...I really am surprised at the lack of imagination at such things. Sure, make something going at near light speed seems ridiculous now, but who is to say what the future will hold.

100 years ago a cell phone would be seen as freaking amazing. 300 years ago it will be seen as sorcery. Talking to people on the other side of the world in real-time?!? Impossible!

Flying enormous machines around the world.....impossible! How can such a heavy object get off the ground, that's against the laws of physics.

Computers that you can carry?! Whatever. How can enough tubes fit in that? Pfft.

What we need simply hasn't been invented yet. Doesn't mean it never will.

Different technologies progress at different rates. I'm sorry that you can't see that. Our ability to traverse space is roughly the same as it was in the 1960. Computers were are unpredicted shock, however, not many things that WERE predicted came to pass. Flying cars? Fusion reactors? Talking robots? Nope.

 

[zsdersw]

Your objective scientific proof? You've just made a faith based statement. I rely on the laws of physics. You are wishing completely unencumbered by data.

.. as they're understood and observed now.

What is discovered in the future is way less certain.

 

[bfdd]

Cogman, things like space travel require these other technologies to advance first so they can push other technologies forward.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Your objective scientific proof? You've just made a faith based statement. I rely on the laws of physics. You are wishing completely unencumbered by data.

Laws which are far from complete. We only understand a fraction of how the universe works.

In the 1800's the laws of physics didn't allow for machines to fly through the air either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Laws which are far from complete. We only understand a fraction of how the universe works.

In the 1800's the laws of physics didn't allow for machines to fly through the air either.

Really? Could you reference laws which prohibited flight? Your optimism isn't a bad thing in itself but you need to understand how physics works. Laws don't "allow" anything. A thing happens or it does not at least at the macroscopic level. From consistent observations we may determine predictive rules that allow us to calculate values given similar conditions. Now there weren't laws that allowed planes to fly but why they can is that there is no prohibition against it. In the grand scheme of things what was needed was a tiny bit more power. That is not the case with accelerating masses. The rules are set and not one credible observation has ever suggested there is the smallest variance. The universe doesn't care about our ego. It just is.

 

[silverpig]

The will leave a strip of real-estate on the sides where liquid water COULD exist. They have no way of telling if water is actually there or not at this point.

Actually, there are ways of telling if there is water on the planet from here. I don't think they've done it yet, but it could be done.

 

[ProfJohn]

Just a thought...

prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine the idea of making a plane was essentially fantasy or science fiction.

When it comes to interstellar travel we are at that same point now. We can talk about and dream about, but until someone invents an energy source powerful enough to make it happen we are just creating fantasy.


BTW the worst part of this is that the first ships to travel between stars will most likely be so slow that by time they get to their destination a newer faster ship will have been created and will be waiting for them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We can talk about and dream about, but until someone invents an energy source powerful enough to make it happen we are just creating fantasy.

All you need is a million tons of antimatter or so and you are good to go.

 

[IronWing]

Nuke first, check for evidence of past life later.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nuke first, check for evidence of past life later.

It's the only way to be sure.

 

[coloumb]

"Physics of the Impossible" is a good read about the feasibility of space travel. We'd be further in our space travel if we'd just invest more into the technology. However, we'd rather invest a majority of our funds into making technology used for war purposes.

And you have to think outside the box with regards to what "life" would be on other planets.

 

[qliveur]

LOL@"100%"

Scotty I need warp speed now!

/thread

 

[Cogman]

"Physics of the Impossible" is a good read about the feasibility of space travel. We'd be further in our space travel if we'd just invest more into the technology. However, we'd rather invest a majority of our funds into making technology used for war purposes.

And you have to think outside the box with regards to what "life" would be on other planets.

Name a major advancement that has come out of NASA in the past 20 years despite the billions that have been thrown at them. This isn't the case of "Oh, their just underfunded." Their current annual budget is 17 billion dollars.

Don't get me wrong, the DoD has a much bigger budget. However, you have to remember they are doing things like mass producing rockets, tanks, ect. That stuff is expensive. NASA, on the other hand, has 1-2 rockets that they need to build and no requirements for mass product production. 17 billion dollars is a lot of money.

This isn't a "Throw more money at it." sort of problem.

 

[Sea Moose]

There's also a moral issue- even if we could send a ship there, it would take at least 1 generation to get there. This means that children would have to be born in space, and their lives would be predetermined. Advances in expanding human life spans look promising however, so this may not be an issue in the coming decades.

Our best bet is going to be an intelligent robotic probe. Probably the only way we're going to get to see the place up close, and it won't be within our lifetimes

This is nothing new. When ships set out from england in days of old, they were predetermining the children of people that set out.

I see it that it would be fanstastic to send a probe out, even if it takes 100 years its worth it.

Imagine if we could set up on another planet. We could leave religion behind and start a life with its bullshit

 

[zsdersw]

Name a major advancement that has come out of NASA in the past 20 years despite the billions that have been thrown at them. This isn't the case of "Oh, their just underfunded." Their current annual budget is 17 billion dollars.

Don't get me wrong, the DoD has a much bigger budget. However, you have to remember they are doing things like mass producing rockets, tanks, ect. That stuff is expensive. NASA, on the other hand, has 1-2 rockets that they need to build and no requirements for mass product production. 17 billion dollars is a lot of money.

This isn't a "Throw more money at it." sort of problem.

The problem with NASA isn't funding, it's a matter of goals. The president, once upon a time, set the goal of landing a man on the moon and NASA met the challenge. The technologies and materials they needed to develop, and not just for the moon landing, spawned a lot of advancements outside of NASA.

What has NASA been doing since then that has really forced them to push the envelope? Nothing.

We need a big goal for NASA to meet. Landing people on Mars is a good one, for starters. If NASA (and/or the private sector) can be consistently given more and more big goals, and somehow finds a way to meet them, we could be a lot further down the road toward interstellar space travel.

 

[Fritzo]

Name a major advancement that has come out of NASA in the past 20 years despite the billions that have been thrown at them. This isn't the case of "Oh, their just underfunded." Their current annual budget is 17 billion dollars.

Don't get me wrong, the DoD has a much bigger budget. However, you have to remember they are doing things like mass producing rockets, tanks, ect. That stuff is expensive. NASA, on the other hand, has 1-2 rockets that they need to build and no requirements for mass product production. 17 billion dollars is a lot of money.

This isn't a "Throw more money at it." sort of problem.

Are you serious? In the last 20 years, NASA's funding has produced advancements in the medical field such as body imaging, laser surgery, advanced cancer detection, micro-devices (pacemakers, transmitters, cameras, etc), and endless designs for new drugs.

They're also responsible for things like collision avoidance systems and wind shear detectors on planes, weather forecasts accurate 10 days out, global communications....all of these things are just off the top of my head. I could Google 100's more.

Oh---NASA also partnered with the NSF to find this planet that we're all talking about right now:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/gliese_581_feature.html

I do agree that this is not a "throw money at it" type of issue though. We need to advance dozens of technologies by leaps and bounds before we're smart enough to leave our solar system. It's as if we're on step two of a 500 step process.

On another subject, here's something else to consider---if humans went to another planet with life on it, it would most likely be deadly to them. The first thing to develop on a planet is microbes, and our bodies would have no defense against an infection from them. Simply breathing the air on another world could kill you.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes, an unmanned mission to an alien planet would obviously be the first step; to collect data on the biosphere, among other things.

 

[Cogman]

Are you serious? In the last 20 years, NASA's funding has produced advancements in the medical field such as body imaging, laser surgery, advanced cancer detection, micro-devices (pacemakers, transmitters, cameras, etc), and endless designs for new drugs.

BS. Look up most of those (Especially pacemakers which where first developed LONG before NASA came into existence) and you'll see that NASA was not involved in their development/creation. The ones that nasa was involved in the improvements of (Transmitters/cameras) Their contributions where OLDER than 20 years (Which is why I chose that number).

They're also responsible for things like collision avoidance systems and wind shear detectors on planes, weather forecasts accurate 10 days out, global communications....all of these things are just off the top of my head. I could Google 100's more.

They are responsible for SATELLITE communications. Global communication is by and large done through the wire and not satellite.

Now, I probably should have qualified my statement earlier as there are SOME major advancements that have come out of NASA (IG Satellite communications). But in the areas of space flight, which should be their bread and butter, they have been sorely lacking.

 

[Fritzo]

BS. Look up most of those (Especially pacemakers which where first developed LONG before NASA came into existence) and you'll see that NASA was not involved in their development/creation. The ones that nasa was involved in the improvements of (Transmitters/cameras) Their contributions where OLDER than 20 years (Which is why I chose that number).


They are responsible for SATELLITE communications. Global communication is by and large done through the wire and not satellite.

Now, I probably should have qualified my statement earlier as there are SOME major advancements that have come out of NASA (IG Satellite communications). But in the areas of space flight, which should be their bread and butter, they have been sorely lacking.

This is one of those "I said something stupid and am now going to try to defend it to save face" posts. NASA didn't invent the pacemaker, but it was the size of your fist before their research improved it in the 80's and 90's. Specifically, the mid 90's brought about many breakthroughs in this field. Here's a list I found:

Space exploration has had great benefits for heart patients here on earth. Much of the technology for advanced pacemakers was developed by NASA.

Astronauts who spend long periods of time in space often develop problems with their hearts and blood vessels. This was the motivation for NASA scientists to find ways to use aerospace technology for heart health. Some innovations that led to the development of the advanced pacemaker include:

• Bidirectional telemetry, the technology developed by NASA for two-way communication with satellites, enabled advanced pacemakers to respond to both the doctor and the cardiac activity of the patient.
• Microminiaturization technology from NASA was used to create the first single-chip pacemaker.
• Technology developed by NASA for the power systems of spacecraft led to the first rechargeable long-life pacemaker battery.

Advanced pacemakers from aerospace technology have had a huge impact on economic growth as well as health care. Sales of Pacesetter, Guidant, Intermedics and Medtronic advanced pacemakers have totaled in the billions and continue to grow annually.

http://www.satellite-orbits.info/ar...e-technology-spinoffs/advanced-pacemakers.php

NASA research came to a near standstill after Columbia broke up on re-entry, as they put most of their resources into fixing the shuttle program, so that has to be considered as well.

 

[Sureshot324]

Holy Horrible Article batman!

Seriously, 100% probability there is life? Yeah, right. No scientist in their right mind would throw out the 100% for an unknown. Stupid sensationalists.

It's not the article's fault the scientist said that, they're just quoting him. Scientists in this field kind of have to be overly optimistic to justify their existence, since they do so much work that amounts to nothing.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Holy Horrible Article batman!

Seriously, 100% probability there is life? Yeah, right. No scientist in their right mind would throw out the 100% for an unknown. Stupid sensationalists.

It's not the article's fault the scientist said that, they're just quoting him. Scientists in this field kind of have to be overly optimistic to justify their existence, since they do so much work that amounts to nothing.

Either way, it's still dumb to say this planet surely has life. Maybe it doesn't have any water. We don't know. Maybe it's in a much earlier or later stage of development than the Earth, and life is either billions of years from forming or has been extinct for billions of years. Liquid water is a necessity for life... on Earth. Other planets may have ammonia- or methane-based life. Of course this planet is much too warm for those things, so it follows that if it does have life, it would probably occur in water, like life on Earth.

All we know, really, is that this is a terrestrial planet and that water could exist. There could be some other factor that prevents complex life forms from developing. Perhaps there is life, but it's single-celled only and hasn't been able to develop past that, or maybe it just hasn't had enough time to do so.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

It's not the article's fault the scientist said that, they're just quoting him. Scientists in this field kind of have to be overly optimistic to justify their existence, since they do so much work that amounts to nothing.

With an estimated 200 billion stars in the universe, that means maybe 40 billion planets that have the potential for life, Vogt said. However, Ohio State University's Scott Gaudi cautioned that is too speculative about how common these planets are.

there's twice that many stars in just our galaxy.

fucking magnets, how do they work?

 

[dr150]

there's twice that many stars in just our galaxy.

fucking magnets, how do they work?

Good catch.

The author messed up the star count in our galaxy and used "universe" instead.

Our galaxy contains between 200 and 400 billion stars.

The Andromeda galaxy, which'll eventually be crashing into our Milky Way, has over 1 trillion stars. Or a galaxy at the core of a galactic cluster (i.e. Abell 2029) has over 100 trillion stars.

The universe is said to contain 10^24 stars.

 

[sandorski]

This is pretty cool, a step in the right direction for identifying habitual planets. I bet we'll keep discovering these at an exponential rate; there are suppose to billions of candidates out there. Next step is just getting there.

Heroin Planets?

 

[sandorski]

Good catch.

The author messed up the star count in our galaxy and used "universe" instead.

Our galaxy contains between 200 and 400 billion stars.

The Andromeda galaxy, which'll eventually be crashing into our Milky Way, has over 1 trillion stars. Or a galaxy at the core of a galactic cluster (i.e. Abell 2029) has over 100 trillion stars.

The universe is said to contain 10^24 stars.

Launch Nukes at Andromeda now. Hopefully by the time it gets close we'll have reduced it's size!!