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."
Probability (Score:4, Interesting)
"University of Arizona astronomer Glenn Schneider, who led the new study, said he's 99.1 percent sure the object is in orbit around the brown dwarf."
How does one calculate the probability of accuracy and arrive at an exact figure like 99.1%? I mean, isn't this self-contradictory, or am i missing something?
Re:Sounds like (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine a upgraded Hubble or Hubble II.... the implications of photographing and analysing planets and their atmospheres (by measuring the light sprectrum or even photographing it) could be enormous. Imagine one snapping a Earth type.
Though it'd give fire to the people opposing interstellar travel ('why go there and waste a lot of money when we can photograph it safely from here?'). At least we'd be able to handpick targets for future interstellar probes, rather than firing them blindly at a star and possibly getting nothing. I am hugely fascinated by this, and it shows the value of Hubble and why we must keep it, and the design itself.
Bump on planet? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually I am wondering... (use tinfoil hat!) (Score:1, Interesting)
Can someone explain that to me?
Is it because they are only finding out by radiation instead of visual photography?? the moon has no atmosphere.. i just vant imagine tehre is no telescope orbiting our earth which isn't capable to take pictures from the moon in very high resolution?
Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Interesting)
Forgot what series it was (I think it was some six part BBC series) but the idea is to have a satellite array out in space, similar to how they have ground based arrays. They would be aligned via laser. They made it sound like this was something that was going to be done sometime around 2015, or so.
The implications were that they would then be able to see earth sized planets directly, and possibly even be able to analyze the atmosphere of the planet.
to put this in scale (Score:2, Interesting)
That far way? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Its always such a disapointment (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait until April to get excited... (Score:3, Interesting)
If the "planet" is still moving in concert with the star in a few months, then I'll believe it.
Re:Actually I am wondering... (use tinfoil hat!) (Score:3, Interesting)
They can find the planet because its a big ball of matter glowing in the ir/light/uv spectrum against a backdrop of cold dark space.
The lander is a tiny piece of cold painted metal against a backdrop of lunar rock. That makes it a bit harder to see... next time we need to paint those suckers with radioactive glow-in-the-dark paint so that every schmuck on Earth can see it with binoculars. That'll shut the nay-sayers up.
Re:Sounds like (Score:1, Interesting)
Take the second flight... (Score:3, Interesting)
Colonists gave up everything they own for a chance to colonize a new planet, but they get to be first.
Only thing is, right after they leave Earth, FTL travel is invented. So by the time they get there, planet is already fully colonized and they end up getting a raw deal.