Hubble Snaps Photo of Extrasolar Planet 232
iamlucky13 writes "Space.com has reported that a Hubble Space Telescope photo supports with a very high degree of confidence that a picture taken by the European Space Observatory does indeed show an extrasolar planet. As many readers know, planets outside our solar system are typically found by watching for wobbles in a star's orbit or for dimming caused by the planet crossing in front of its star. The ESO and Hubble images would represent the 1st and 2nd times that planets outside our solar system have been directly detected. The planet is about 5 times as massive as Jupiter and orbits a brown dwarf a little farther out than Pluto orbits our own sun."
Sounds like (Score:4, Insightful)
Still if we can get pictures of something five times bigger than Jupiter at this distance . . .
Its always such a disapointment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like a duck... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, we've found an object in space that's unlike any other planet we've seen, so we assume it's a planet?
Re:Probability (Score:5, Insightful)
If I have a random number between 0 and 100 (probability cone), I can be 99,1% sure it'll be within 0 and 99,1 (in orbit). I assume they can pretty exactly determine the "band" in which objects would stay in orbit.
Re:Probability (Score:4, Insightful)
So perhaps they've taken a number of (extremely lo-res, I'm sure) measurements of the path of body X around star Y, and found that given the degree of certainty of their measurements, then there's a 99.1% chance that body X's velocity is consistent with orbit, but an 0.9% chance that all the errors stacked up the wrong way and it's really just speeding by in a hyperbolic orbit or something like that.
Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actually I am wondering... (use tinfoil hat!) (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, take a normal commercial telescope and put an object 1 inch from the lens and see if you can get it to focus properly.
Furthermore, why waste the effort doing something so trivial. We have images of the moon with that crap lying about but the nutjobs don't accept those, what makes you think telescope images from earth would change there minds? The conspiracy nuts are just going to claim the telescope photos are doctored.
Re:Its always such a disapointment (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem, of course, is that NASA takes 80 billion photos of large, interstellar objects like massive galaxies, none of which actually show the large object as it actually appears (or, in most cases, DOESN'T appear). Then, they combine all their infrared and this radiation that radiation images into one big, purty, inaccurate public "photo" that makes everyone go "ooooh ahhhh" when, in fact, the object actually looks nothing like the photo the press was given.
Then, when people see the real pictures they go "what the hell is this pixelated blob? If this planet is so big and so close [relative to the aforementioned large object] why can't I see little green men waving to me on it?"
Here's why you don't wanna go (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, by the time the first explorers (that's you) arrive, there will already be 150 Starbucks franchises on the planet, the planet will be launching its own missions to further stars, and you will be turned back at the spaceport for not having the right Visas in your passport.
In fact, no matter how long you wait for a faster interstellar drive, a mission launched a short time after yours will arrive a short time sooner than yours. This will remain true until some physical limitation starts capping speeds, or until the travel time becomes small compared to the time between incremental improvements in drive speed.
The same is true for unmanned probes, unfortunately.
Re:Its always such a disapointment (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, NASA usually describes the process that was used to create a given image, but other publications copy the image witout including all the specifics. Is it NASA's fault that all the caveats are removed?