Hubble's Exoplanet Pics Outshined by Keck's 140
dtolman writes "Scientists at the Keck and Gemini telescopes stole the thunder of Hubble scientists announcing the first picture of an extrasolar world orbiting a star. Hubble scientists announced today that they were able to discover an extrasolar world for the first time by taking an actual image of the newly discovered exoplanet orbiting Fomalhaut — previous discoveries have always been made by detecting changes in the parent star's movement, or by watching the planet momentarily eclipse the star — not by detecting them in images. Hubble's time to shine was overshadowed though by the Keck and Gemini observatories announcing that they had taken pictures of not just one planet, but an entire alien solar system. The images show multiple planets orbiting the star HR 8799 — 3 have been imaged so far."
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I did'nt catch that reference while reading New Sun - good eye. I was thinking of mentioning Fomalhaut system's role in the Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons, even though it's just a minor setting IIRC. Then I was going to tell people to check out the series because it's a fine one, but since you've mentioned The Book Of The New Sun, I'm just going to shut up and hope that more folks put it at the top of their reading lists, and then insert it again halfway down to catch what they missed before.
Re: (Score:1)
The Book of the New Sun is one of those very few stories that I finished and then immediately turned back to page 1 to reread to see what I had missed. Genius.
Of course, the Hyperion Cantos is also a favorite, so people should go read both!
List of fiction references (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
It's not likely there are any civilizations existing on Fomalhault b. It's too young, big, and far away from its parent. Even the moons are unlikely given its distance from its star relative to the star's temperature.
Very true. However, recall that Jupiter's presence (along with the other gas giants) gives wayward asteroids much larger targets than the small lumps of rock in the warmer zone. The discovery of Fomalhaut b just adds another promising similarity between that system and ours.
Re:Gene Wolfe fans rejoice (Score:5, Informative)
It's unlikely there's any civilizations on ANY exoplanets we've discovered, since they're all gas giants. Civilizations like ours are only likely on small, rocky, warm planets, which are currently undetectable to us as they're too small, and too close to their stars.
Of course, Fomalhault "b" is only a temporary designation; if smaller planets are detected closer to the star, then one of those would become "b" I imagine. But even so, it still isn't likely there'd be a civilization on one of those, since this star is so young, and so would any planets orbiting it. If the age of this star is correct, it didn't even exist when our world had dinosaurs on it, which wasn't really that long ago considering the age of our planet.
As for moons, however, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Fomalhault's gas giant planets had some moons. Our own gas giants have tons of moons, many of them just tiny asteroids really. Surely at least a few stray asteroids have been captured by these gas giants over the past 60 million years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not. It might be easier to name them in the order of discovery. If nothing else, that eliminates any possible confusion down the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Fomalhault "b" is only a temporary designation; if smaller planets are detected closer to the star, then one of those would become "b" I imagine.
Oblig Khan reference :
"THIS is Fomalhault B!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
On a molten hot planet, even if intelligent life somehow managed to evolve, how would it build a civilization or technology with just streams of lava to work with?
It's like dolphins. They appear to be pretty intelligent, perhaps second only to us on this planet. But they have no way of manipulating their environment (e.g., opposable thumbs), and are stuck living in the oceans, so even if they wanted to, their ability to create technology is quite limited compared to us. So, they just swim around and have
Re: (Score:2)
Actually sounds a lot like the parties down here in Miami, except that those opposable thumbs are usually using a Blackbeyy or iPhone while swimming around and having orgies.
Not that I ever get invited to those parties, mind you. I'm usually at home, trying to build a Finite Improbablility Machine using a hot cup of tea.
Amazing (Score:1, Insightful)
This is exhilarating news, that we are most likely not alone in the universe (and beyond). Our solar system is not unique!!
This whole galactic mess has some more meaning, today. We are like infants, opening our eyes for the first time -- how far we have to go (if we don't destroy ourselves soon).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
We hardly needed these to tell us there are other solar systems with planets in them. I mean they're nice and probably good for creationists or whatever, but other non-visual data proved a long time ago that our star-planet orbit configuration is far from unique.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why on earth (or whatever planet you live on) would this be good for creationists? It's good science, and indicates significant progress in astronomy. Of course, they don't count any data as against them but I can't imagine how that would help them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good as in "there you go, you ignorant idiot" :)
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Marklar!
Re: (Score:2)
Take a deep breath. The discovery of exoplanets isn't news. Even taking pictures of them isn't news.
It's news that we're finding them on stars kinda like our own, but these aren't earth-style planets.
So, it's pretty interesting, but you can push "pause" on the CD player with "Also Sprach Zarathustra" queued up.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking pictures of them *is* news. In fact, that's the point of these releases. These are the first direct images ever released. Before this, all evidence was indirect (oscillating plots of star brightness as the planet periodically eclipsed the host star, for instance).
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
These are the first direct images ever released. Before this, all evidence was indirect (oscillating plots of star brightness as the planet periodically eclipsed the host star, for instance).
Well, except for HD 189733b [wikipedia.org], 2M1207 b [wikipedia.org] and GQ Lup b [space.com].
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
HD189733b: not directly imaged, but has had a temperature map of it reconstructed from very careful analysis of the change in the light from the parent star as the planet transits in front of and behind it.
2M1207b: this orbits a brown dwarf, not a star.
GQ Lup b: not a planet by any reasonable stretch of the scientific imagination, unless you happen to have been a co-author of the original paper. Believe me: this one is dead, Jim, and was known by most of us to be so on arrival.
Re: (Score:2)
It has to be said that you can only go so far with metaphor. Looking at a plot of oscillating light curves is great for those of us who understand what they mean. There is something visceral that hits you in the gut when you can see the things with your own eyes in a photograph that could have been taken in your back garden.
Its why we do stupid things like send people into space instead of machines - it gets the thing into the brains of mainstream mortgage defaulters and their tax dollars are diverted into
Kind of a tautology (Score:2)
these aren't earth-style planets.
The reason we're able to see them is because of that fact - these are young planets. Still hot. We're photographing them in the near-infrared. Once they cool down (and become possible earth candidates) we won't be able to see them with current techniques.
But! We can see them now. Now it's a known skill, not a theoretical. From here on out it's refinement of that skill. Trying to see colder and colder planets. Getting better estimates of mass, rotation and compos
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
planets != habitable != life != intelligent life
Hell there is no reason to assume that intelligence is even the natural outcome of evolution, it didn't work during the era of the dinosaurs. When you take into account so many unknown factors, the existence of planets that we already knew would exist hardly makes it likely that we are not alone in the AU (we are ofcourse not alone in the universe, but what does it matter if we can never make contact with them). How many species are there in the AU well Drake
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Intelligence isn't a binary, yes-or-no trait. Dinosaurs were intelligent, just like lizards and birds and cats. They weren't very intelligent compared to us, but compared to an amoeba they certainly were. While you're sitting there thinking that you're so intelligent, there's probably some super-advanced alien race observing us, the way we observe mice or ants, and laughing at us for thinking we're intelligent.
Because of our limited technology for detecting exoplanets, the only ones discovered so far are
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the interesting / meaningful distinction is that humans design and create things, rather than simply "building" them. While some animals do make use of very basic tools, humans take it to a whole new level. The process for creating a microcomputer, for example, is far removed from actually performing the tasks we use them as tools to accomplish.
Definitely agree with the post above yours though -- intelligence (as we think of it) -- is not necessarily going to be the "final product" of evolution, or
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, from current observations [bbc.co.uk], it is -especially when it comes to punctuation.
Re: (Score:1)
Tell that to the weapons manufacturers. War is HIGHLY profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially for Vault-Tec! Have you reserved you slot? Do it today!
The Author (Score:5, Informative)
I think the discovery was made by the team led by Paul Kalas:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/index.html [berkeley.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
obligatory... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
It would be "That's no planet..."
I wish I could mod myself (-1: Pedantic)
Re:obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
That's no mod choice!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the contrary, if it's in Kecks [odps.org], it might be Uranus.
Are we sure it's a planet? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthugha [wikipedia.org]
Direct link to Hubble Press Release and pix (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Colonization (Score:5, Funny)
I wanna live on the left dot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Colonization (Score:5, Funny)
If you can get there, it's yours.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can get there, it's yours.
Sweet. I'm going to paint it pink and stock it with hippies.
Sorry (Score:5, Funny)
As deed holder via the International Star Registry, that includes a deed on any planets in orbit, I forbid it. Why, there might even be rich deposits of diamelles and/or Ginsu steak knives on that planet. I'm not giving it up without a fight.
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Funny)
As deed holder via the International Star Registry, that includes a deed on any planets in orbit, I forbid it. Why, there might even be rich deposits of diamelles and/or Ginsu steak knives on that planet. I'm not giving it up without a fight.
If it's interstellar war you want, sir, it's interstellar war you shall have! Have at you!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Gesundheit!
Re: (Score:2)
Alien vs Predator (Score:3)
Alien vs Predator made even more sense than the comparison in the headline...
Planets look like... (Score:1)
So planets look a lot like noise. They really aren't all that much different than the expected noise levels on the images. Especially on the first one from Fomalhaut.
Re:Planets look like... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Planets look like... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the "noise" obeys Kepler's laws, it's probably an image of something real.
Yes they do. (Score:5, Interesting)
So planets look a lot like noise. They really aren't all that much different than the expected noise levels on the images. Especially on the first one from Fomalhaut.
From far enough away, yes. Yes they do. For example, here's Earth from just outside the solar system, and the basis for Sagan's Pale Blue Dot.
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/601/PIA00452.tif [nasa.gov] (TIFF image)
That light blue pixel on the right is us. All of us. Taken from 6.4 billion kilometers away.
Deadpixel, indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ummm... that's the Eye of Sauron (Score:1)
This ain't no solar system... it's the all seeing Eye of Sauron! Creepy.
Mote in God's Eye (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
more like (Score:2)
Speck and Gemini telescopes stole the thunder of Hubble scientists announcing the first picture of an extrasolar world orbiting a star.
Seriously though, it is a shame that this will not get wider news coverage. Slashdot has had some interesting articles in the past few days, first the 11,000 temple and now this. This is slashdot after all, let us not dwell on the cosmic or profound. Queue the speck puns in 3... 2... 1...
The similarities are stunning! (Score:5, Funny)
In the hubble picture (Score:5, Informative)
In the hubble picture, does anyone else see the shadow of the Enterprise?
Re: (Score:2)
Zoom In (Score:2)
"Computer, Zoom in"
Great explanation from Gemini directors (Score:3, Interesting)
Finally! (Score:2)
I was an astrophysics major in college for about 2 years but gave up on it because it seemed so speculative. To infer the existence of a planet around a star from the 'wobble' we see in the position or spectrum of the star may be sound science but it hardly grabs the imagination.
THIS, on the other hand is truly awesome. Seeing is believing I guess. Unless some kid is dicking around with Photoshop -- or more likely GIMP.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing is, it grabs *my* imagination! To see something, we have been doing this since eyes evolved on animals. But to perform careful calculations and realize that the results imply the existence of a planet, well, that's what I call awesome.
overshadowed? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, the two works are complimentary, and it is thus no coincidence that they have been released at the same time. Hubble shows an old cold planet on the edge of a solar system, while Keck shows some very young hot infra-red emitting planets close to their star. The two discoveries help elucidate the workings of other solar systems - and each is just as valuable as the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, its a good day for armchair astronomers (and professional ones too).
Re:overshadowed? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, this hasn't stopped both groups trying to spin up their results in a perfectly understandable fashion. The downside is that many online press stories are showing very signs of confusion as to what's what, not at all helped by the blizzard of parallel press releases from various institutions on the HR8799 3-planet system result.
Indeed, the Gemini Observatory release shows images taken with their telescope showing just two of the planets, presumably because they don't want to cede any ground to the Keck, their rivals on Mauna Kea, where the third planet was found. Again, potentially very confusing indeed to the public.
As for the complementary aspect of the two discoveries, that's mostly the case and both discoveries are very important. But it's not true to say that one's (Fomalhaut) an old planet seen in reflected visible light while the others (HR8799) are young and shining in their own heat: both stars are roughly equally young and the Fomalhaut planet seems also to be shining in some mix of its own heat even in the visible (it's at 400K, possibly), plus perhaps some additional reflected light from a dusty disk around the planet (as opposed to the obvious disk around the star itself).
Also, I wouldn't say the HR8799 planets are close to their star: nothing like. They're out at the equivalent of Neptune's orbit and beyond, even though the Fomalhaut planet's a bit further out still.
Hope this helps allay your (understandable) scepticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway - its quiet exciting to see not just 1 but 4 objects that we can get spectra on (hopefully soon).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More specifically, comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. The infrared image shows the planets because they are still glowing bright in infrared because they were very recently formed, and thus "hot out of the oven". The article sa
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
See my post elsewhere in this thread, but this isn't true: if you read the Fomalhaut paper (as opposed to the PR), they're unsure quite what mix of reflected starlight, thermal self-emission, and additional reflected light from a circumplanetary disk makes up the light seen from Fomalhaut b, at both visible and IR wavelengths.
These objects are actually more similar than they are different, in my opinion.
As for HST still being king, well, yes and no: depends on what you're after. Ground-based AO has c
Re: (Score:1)
The referenced article says this: "Fomalhaut b, in the Hubble image, is much older (200 million years) [implying cooler], and glows only by reflected light from F
Re: (Score:2)
See my post elsewhere in this thread, but this isn't true: if you read the Fomalhaut paper (as opposed to the PR), they're unsure quite what mix of reflected starlight, thermal self-emission, and additional reflected light from a circumplanetary disk makes up the light seen from Fomalhaut b, at both visible and IR wavelengths.
These objects are actually more similar than they are different, in my opinion.
As for HST still being king, well, yes and no: depends on what you're after. Ground-based AO has caught up and exceeded HST in some domains already, while HST still wins in others. Ultimately we need ground- and space-based telescopes to get the most complete view: today it's HST and the 8-10m telescopes, tomorrow it's JWST and the 30-40m extremely large telescopes.
I somehow imagine that if they replaced Hubble with a current cousin in technological advances the King's cousin would reign supreme, across all fields of imagery.
Too bad we had to put so much into Iraq when just one month of cost could do wonders for earth orbiting telescopic research.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unclear of what you mean by "processing tricks". Describing adaptive optics (AO) as "processing tricks" is strange - a better description would be "getting a better mirror". The AO systems that I've seen details of work by manipulating a mirror in the light path so that a near-axis guide star (natural or artificial) maintains as small an image as possible ; since
Re: (Score:2)
Resolution is, as you say, the issue. And, aS YOU SAY (bloody CapsLock!), the atmosphere is o
Traffic routing (Score:2, Funny)
Nice pictures. That looks like an excellent spot for a hyperspace express bypass.
Alien Solar System? (Score:1, Insightful)
"pictures of not just one planet, but an entire alien solar system"
Isn't there just 1 Solar system? The one with the star Sol. All the rest are just planetary systems.
How is this outshined? (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be harder to take a photo of a single planet than an entire solar system? And if so, then the Hubble team's accomplishment still means a lot more.
Duck Dodgers... (Score:2)
You know, I bet if we follow THESE planets, we can't help but reach Planet X!
I don't know how you do it Dodgers.
Redo (Score:2, Funny)
Nifliik blinked, please retake it.
these discoveries (Score:2)
I really love these discoveries, because it means someday a game like Spore or Elite will have the actual stars, with the actual planets, with the actual atmospheres. These planets will all be named, etc. etc.
When I was playing Elite/Frontier years ago, I (and I believe scientist too) weren't even 100% sure extra-solar planets existed.
grammer gammer (Score:1)
Papers available at ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Wish I could discovery something (Score:5, Funny)
To "Discovery" something is easy: you just make a documentary about it that's too dumbed-down for people who like documentaries but still too boring for those who don't, and add lots of unnecessary and repetitive CG animation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but he died recently. Sadly this means Hollywood will only be releasing romantic comedies and musicals from now on.
In other news, Gillette's share price has skyrocketed...
Re: (Score:1)
How the [bleep] did you read it that way?
If you want to sleep until 2085, be my guest. I can help knock....I mean put you out that long, but I'll have to leave the waking part to the future experts.
Atmosphere is in the spectrum (Score:5, Insightful)
What they have right now can give a pretty accurate idea of the atmosphere on that planet. Pass the light from that dot through a diffraction grating and the spectrum will tell you which gases are present in what proportion in the atmosphere, and what is their temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, we don't have that for all the planets in our own Solar System.
Re: (Score:1)
The moon is too bright.
Try it at night, when it's not lit.
It's still too bright.
Use less sensitive optics.
Good idea!
And to make it interesting to slashdot:
To photograph the Moon landing sites in high detail, with cheap home made equipment, the bunch of moon-landing-deniers could each buy a small telescope, coordinate them across the net in real time, and use adaptive optics techniques to combine and sharpen the images, the same way the Keck team photographed those exo-planets.
I think, with a million home te
You're missing the science case. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That would be the most valid excuse I have heard so far. At least the conspiracy theorists could then have a unified goal.
Look at these reasons though:
July 2008 - http://blogs.discovery.com/cosmic_ray/2008/07/the-top-reasons.html [discovery.com]
6. Direct Observational Evidence
The six lunar lander descent stages left on the moon are about 15 feet across. Even the eagle-eyed Hubble Space Telescope can only see down to the width of a football field.
[just a comment from a poster, but still good info] - http://www.popularmech [popularmechanics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The correlation is 1 (otherwise expressed as "100%", "complete", "unblemished"). All known natural occurrences of life occur on "somethings orbiting a star". More, of the postulated locations of naturally-occurring life in our vicinity, all are either themselves in orbit around a star, or in orbit around an object itself in orbit around a star. I am not aware of any seriously proposed locale for the devel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)