Trio of Super-Earths Discovered

FiReaNGeL writes "A group of astronomers have now discovered a system of three super-Earths around a rather normal star, which is slightly less massive than our Sun, and is located 42 light-years away towards the southern Doradus and Pictor constellations. 'We have made very precise measurements of the velocity of the star HD 40307 over the last five years, which clearly reveal the presence of three planets.' The planets, having 4.2, 6.7, and 9.4 times the mass of the Earth, orbit the star with periods of 4.3, 9.6, and 20.4 days, respectively. 'The perturbations induced by the planets are really tiny — the mass of the smallest planets is one hundred thousand times smaller than that of the star — and only the high sensitivity of HARPS made it possible to detect them' says co-author François Bouchy, from the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, France. Clearly these planets are only the tip of the iceberg."

So...we found...?

[oahazmatt]

Trio of Super-Earths Discovered

So we found more oil?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel, it is ABIOTIC

Re:So...we found...?

[alxkit]

first we have to make sure that oil-producing GE microbes exist there

Re:

[BunnyClaws]

No, we won't drill for oil there but we will mine dilithium or latinum.

Re:So...we found...?

[Chris Burke]

[quote][quote]Trio of Super-Earths Discovered[/quote]

So we found more oil?[/quote]

Not just oil, but Super Oil!

Re:So...we found...?

[Chris Burke]

[hindsight=20/20]shoulda clicked preview, i say for the hundreth time...[/hindsight]

Re:So...we found...?

[AmiMoJo]

Isn't Super Earth like... Krypton or something?

Really short periods

[Some guy named Chris]

Why is it that most of the planets discovered have extremely short orbital periods compared to our own? Is it because those are the easiest types to detect, or is it because we are a cosmic oddity with our slow orbit around our star?

Also, I wonder if one were on one of these planetary speedsters, would you be able to tell you were whizzing around your star so fast.

Re:Really short periods

[Anti_Climax]

A short orbital period and a higher mass mean a greater possibility we can see the star shifting back and forth as the planet revolves around it. As our instrumentation and measurements get more accurate and precise we should be able to reliably infer the presence of smaller planets with longer orbital periods.

With how many large planets we're finding, it's pretty likely there are plenty of smaller earth like planets to be found when we gain the ability to do so.

Re:Really short periods

[Cinnamon Whirl]

From TFA: "This star also hosts a Jupiter-like planet with a period close to 3 years"

Not actually the same star as above, but it shows even longer orbital periods can be detected if the planet is large enough.

So, time for a REALLY long-baseline telescope?

[OmniGeek]

Gee, if we had a telescope array with a baseline of, say, the radius of the Moon's orbit, then we could resolve some REALLY small orbital perturbations, vastly improving our ability to identify planetary systems.

It occurs to me that such a system wouldn't even need to be (continuously) staffed after installation, just the occasional maintenance call.

I think I see an opportunity for a Lunar observatory project...

Re:

[nofx_3]

We like the moon!

http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/ [rathergood.com]

ok so it's an old meme but I kinda miss it.

Re:So, time for a REALLY long-baseline telescope?

[drerwk]

Two problems with your suggestion. 1) Baseline is not the limit of any planet searches. 2) Planet searches are done with optical frequencies.
You could put a radio telescope on the moon and do VLBI - but not an optical telescope.
The most difficult part right now of detecting planets using Doppler shift is a fixed frequency standard to compare the stars spectrum against - they are measuring centimeter/second movements of the star. Baseline has nothing to do with the current limits. AFAIK, the only optical interferometer of any note is at Keck - and I don't even know if it has been used yet. See this article: http://optics.org/cws/article/research/33693 [optics.org]

Re:So, time for a REALLY long-baseline telescope?

[Aaron Denney]

Why can't we put an optical telescope on the moon?

Re:

[drerwk]

When the GP talks about a long baseline, it is in reference to Very Long Baseline Interferometry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLBI [wikipedia.org] And the advantage is very high angular resolution. But to use VLBI you need to keep your (minimum three) telescopes phase locked. At radio wavelengths of a few cm and longer this is pretty easy to do. The signal can be recorded in a phase accurate manner. At optical wavelengths of a micron or smaller this is very hard to do. I know of no way at present to record optical signal

Re:

[endstar]

This is the idea behind the "Space Interferometry Mission, PlanetQuest" [nasa.gov]. You don't even need a very long baseline to make significant progress. If it goes forward (it has a troubled political history with NASA), it would be placed in an orbit around the Sun, trailing the Earth.

Re:

[naoursla]

There has been plans of creating interferometry telescopes that consist of multiple space craft separated by miles that use magnetic fields to adjust the disance between the spacecraft to focus the telescope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Interferometry_Mission [wikipedia.org]

Re:Really short periods

[Glith]

Because our primary method of detecting a planet right now involves looking at its gravitational effect on the star, and planets that have a lot of mass, are near to their star, and go quickly cause the greatest fluctuation in gravitational force.

Re:

[hedu]

Also, I wonder if one were on one of these planetary speedsters, would you be able to tell you were whizzing around your star so fast.

You would, from the observation of being really close to your star. Newton mechanics holds everywhere in the universe, or so we presume.

Re:

[RickRussellTX]

I think your answer is little too glib. If you were standing on such a planet and had no direct way to measure your planet's mass or the local sun's mass, how would you measure the length of a year? Would it be "obvious" that your planet's year was much shorter than an Earth year?

The answer is, you could observe the way the stars change around sunrise and sunset (or some other points in time fixed to the local sun, like solar midnight). The night sky will appear to rotate once over the course of a local sol

Re:

[RickRussellTX]

How would you know how close you are to the local sun?

Re:

[RickRussellTX]

And maybe the sun is larger, or smaller, than you are accustomed to.

Re:

[thesandtiger]

I would think it's easier to detect by the current methods - seeing transit across the stellar disc, seeing perturbations/wobbles would be easier if they happen more frequently. I bet, if we had the ability to see them directly we'd probably find a few on much longer periods that are less amenable to the transit/wobble detection method.

Or not. I mean, space is really fucking big. Even locally we have a hard time finding things that are "only" a bit further out than pluto...

Re:

[MozeeToby]

Short orbital periods are much easier to detect. Most planet hunting activity today is done by watching the parent star for changes in velocity. When a planet is close to the star the changes are both larger and faster, making them much easier to detect.

Re:Really short periods

[oodaloop]

One of the ways we detect planets (not sure about the HARPS) is the measurement of the wiggle the parent star makes. The more massive the planet and/or the faster it orbits, the easier it is to detect the wiggle. Basically, the star will move either side to side or back forth from our vantage point (depending on the orientation of the orbit compared to our position), and this slight movement is used to calculate the mass, speed, etc of the orbiting planets. If the planet is orbiting side to side from our veiw point, we measure the speed the star moves side to side. For back and forth, we measure the slight doppler shift in light as it moves towards and away from us. Since closer planets tend to orbit faster, most of the planets we've discovered so far are large, close, fast-moving ones.

Again, this is only one way this is done, and I'm not sure about this particular planet. I can't make heads or tails of the HARPS link in any case.

Re:

[QuantumFlux]

Also, I wonder if one were on one of these planetary speedsters, would you be able to tell you were whizzing around your star so fast.

When each season only lasts a day or two, I think you probably would!

Re:

[EnOne]

The wobble allows us to find a star with planets to start with. In order to get detailed information about the planets composition it needs to pass between it's parent star and the earth. That way scientists can tell the difference between a rocky type planet 'super-earth' or a gas giant 'hot-Jupiter'. For example some one looking from outside our galaxy looking in would only see earth appear along a fairly narrow axis once every 365.25 days. The closer we would be to the sun the both the wider the viewable

Re:Really short periods

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you do, don't try to answer this question by typing "really short periods" into Google. Trust me.

Re:

[LurkerXXX]

We know a planet is there by watching a star wobble as the planet orbits around it.
If the planet is out at the distance Saturn is from the sun, the planet only orbits once every 29 years. We'd be waiting more than a lifetime to verify the wobble is happening. Doesn't sound like fast progress, does it? Detecting close in planets is the most you can expect until our instruments get much better, or we've looking at them for a lot longer period of time.

Re:Really short periods

[shma]

As others have mentioned it is a selection bias. Part of this has to do with the detection method. What they do is look at spectral lines from the star to determine how fast it is moving as it 'orbits 'around the center of mass of the star-planet system (this is very close to the center of the star since the star is so massive, so it is more of a wobble than a straight orbit). The closer the planet is to the star, the larger the gravitational force, so the larger the velocity/ doppler shift. So it is easier to find planets with shorter periods. But even if we developed a new technique today that didn't depend on doppler shifts, we would still only find short period planets for the first few years. Why? Because you need to take measurements for at least a full period before you can determine with any accuracy that you're seeing a planet. So planets with 5yr or 10yr periods will not be confirmed right using any new technique, anyways.

And to add to another point made below, it is possible to have a planet with an orbital period measured in days which we could comfortably live on. A white dwarf star would be cold enough to allow for normal temperatures, even at distances closer than Mercury.

Re:

[Tim C]

A white dwarf star would be cold enough to allow for normal temperatures, even at distances closer than Mercury.

It's been a long time since I did any real physics work, let alone astrophysics, but wouldn't tidal gravitational forces pose a problem in that situation?

Re:

[shma]

I don't know how significant a problem it would be if you're talking about ocean tides. If you're asking if humans will feel the tidal force, it depends strongly on the radius of the planet, but we probably wouldn't feel anything. The relevant number is the ratio of tidal force to the planet's gravitational force, which goes like (r/R)^3 * M/m, where r and m are the planet's mass and radius, M is the star's mass and R is the distance from the star to the planet. Taking M/m to be roughly the sun to earth rat

Re:

[DerWulf]

Thanks for the very insightful post. Could you also explain the common comments about red dwarfs with small orbit planets: temperature might be okay but radiation would be a problem. Doesn't make sense to me since I assume that the power output would decrease in all bands, not only the infrared and visible light. Would a close orbit to a white dwarf (also?) pose radiation issues?

Re:

[maynard]

Here is what JPL says of the about the techniques used to find planets:

http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/library/exnps/ch04_1.html#4.4 [nasa.gov]

Based upon this I will offer these answers to your questions, though with the caveat that I am not an astronomer.

Astronomers are looking for perturbations in a star's light output intensity or in its lateral movement relative to other known stars.

What does this mean?

If a planet crosses the boundary between the star and us it should dim the light output. If this happens repeatedly a

Re:

[L4t3r4lu5]

Picture a ping-pong ball spinning around a light bulb which is in a shade the size of a football. It orbits the shade once every 5 seconds. You can only see the ping-pong ball when it obscures the light from the shade (oxymoron?), as you're some way away. This means that as long as you look at it for more than 5 seconds, you'll see it twice, and can estimate it'll be there again in another 5 seconds. Testing will confirm this.

Now, imagine that there's a tennis ball orbiting the same shade, but it takes 30

So what exactly is

[jimbobborg]

a super-earth? It is a bigger planet with Earth-like atmosphere, or it this just a bad translation?

Re:So what exactly is

[wile_e_wonka]

From TFA:

"With the advent of much more precise instruments such as the HARPS spectrograph on ESO's 3.6-m telescope at La Silla, we can now discover smaller planets, with masses between 2 and 10 times the Earth's mass," says Stéphane Udry, one of Mayor's colleagues. Such planets are called super-Earths, as they are more massive than the Earth but less massive than Uranus and Neptune (about 15 Earth masses).

Re:

[SQLGuru]

I expect to see aliens wearing blue suits, red capes, and red and yellow logos on them any day now......

Layne

Re:

[RickRussellTX]

I think they would less like Superman and more like Hoffmanites [airshipentertainment.com].

Re:

[Frequency Domain]

a super-earth? It is a bigger planet with Earth-like atmosphere, or it this just a bad translation?

I seriously doubt it. With the short orbital periods those things are right on top of their sun. I would expect them to be well roasted, not at all earth-like.

Re:So what exactly is

[Vectronic]

I think it just means its relatively solid, ie: non-gasious, plus they may deem it to be in the proper "zone" to become an earth-like planet (not too close, not too far)

Im not expert, but they (or at least one) may have an atmosphere of some sort, but I dont think anything that revolves around its sun that quickly, is likely to have "life", at least not intelligent life, they would have to be stupid yet productive, like insects...

Re:So what exactly is

[John Hasler]

> I think it just means its relatively solid, ie: non-gasious, plus they may deem it to be
> in the proper "zone" to become an earth-like planet (not too close, not too far)

With orbital periods of less than three weeks around a sun-like star they are going to be hotter than Mercury: far too hot for life.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

This depends on the star they are orbiting. These orbit a sunlike star, so yes they will be extremely hot.

However planets around very dim red dwarfs can be close and still potentially support life. Location alone won't dictate that however. You also have to have conditions on the ground and ingredients of life in the right amounts and a number of other factors. Bacteria are more likely than complex life because they can survive in a wider variety of environments, or so the thinking goes. However nature

Re:

[HungSoLow]

I am so sick of conclusions like this. How do you know what the upper (or lower) temperature limit to life is? I'm sure an alien species would find Earth inhospitable from a multitude of possible reasons. Why does Earth have to be the be-all and end-all for life? Sure it's very unlikely for such a planet to harbour life, because most things will be molten, but maybe under the surface? Maybe it has a particular mixture of atmosphere that allows a more stable environment in some parts of the planet? etc.. etc

Re:

[Johnny Mnemonic]

The current working assumptions are for life to be supported in a form that we recognize, it needs to be in temperature ranges where water can remain liquid. ie not too cold for consistent frozen water, and not too hot for consistent boiling temperatures. Water was chosen as the benchmark as it provides the primary mechanism for the chemistry of Earth life. There are other theoretical chemistries, but until we have a sample we won't know how realistic those alternate biological chemistries are.

Therefore,

Re:

[JebusIsLord]

With an orbital period that short, the tidal forces would be huge. This means that the planets most likely have a dark side and a light side (don't rotate). The back side, or even the twilight region, may be quite temperate.

Re:

[AC-x]

I'm not an expert either, but anything that revolves around it's sun that quickly must be much closer to it then, for example, mercury. Therefore I double any life exists insect-like or otherwise

Re:So what exactly is

[thegameiam]

It's a planet devoted to fighting crime, and supporting truth, justice, and the American way.

Re:

[alta]

I meant it to understand it's a 'solid' planet like earth, as opposed to a gaseous one like jupiter. I don't think we're close to guessing on an atmosphere yet.

Such a downer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time there's news of earth or super-earth sized planets, we always find that they're orbital period is like 5 days, which would mean the planet is completely scorched and incapable of supporting life or bearing liquid water. Such a downer....it doesn't matter what sized planet you have if its orbit places it so close to the star. Is this because the whole eclipse-detection method requires the planet to be close to its star so we can't actually detect planets further out from the star? I'm actually kind of tired hearing about "exciting" new of another planet being discover 5-30 million km from its star...that is not even close to being in the habitable zone people.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

which would mean the planet is completely scorched and incapable of supporting life

Sounds like it's perfect for Spring Break 20,000. Seriously if they trash the place, who cares? :P

So...

[SirLurksAlot]

What exactly makes these Earth-like? From the data it appears that their masses are several times greater than Earth and their orbital periods are much much shorter than Earth. Is it because the star they orbit is similar to Sol? Is there any indication of water or an atmosphere on any of them? Not that this isn't a cool find, but it seems that the use of the word "Earth" is just sensationalism. I would've been just as happy if they had simply said "three planets."

Re:So...

[oahazmatt]

Does it help to think of it as a project fork?

Re:

[SirLurksAlot]

Ah, a software analogy, all is right with the world again!

Re:

[wagnerrp]

These planets are in no way Earth-like, the 'super Earth' designation is just one of planet size. They are rather small in comparison to other extra-solar planets we have discovered.

We only know of these planets from watching oscillations of the star they are around, so there is no way to determine any sort of chemical makeup of the planet. That said, at 20days for an orbit, those planets are baked dry.

Re:

[BigGerman]

>> those planets are baked dry.

what if they always face their sun with the same side? If they are large enough, the temperate zone might be adequate to sustain Earth-like conditions.

Re:

[JLF65]

Err - except for a distinct lack of light. :)

Re:

[ParanoiaBOTS]

These planets are in no way Earth-like, the 'super Earth' designation is just one of planet size. They are rather small in comparison to other extra-solar planets we have discovered.

We only know of these planets from watching oscillations of the star they are around, so there is no way to determine any sort of chemical makeup of the planet. That said, at 20days for an orbit, those planets are baked dry.

Actually we can get a fairly decent idea of what the planet is composed of. Using a technique known as Absorption spectroscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy) we can begin to get an idea of what the planet looks like. As the planet heats up, it releases gases and particles into its own (albeit weak) atmosphere. Using absorption spectroscopy we can find out what those gases and particles are, and from that we can infer what the crust is like.

Re:

[mcvos]

These planets are in no way Earth-like, the 'super Earth' designation is just one of planet size.

Which means they are in one way Earth-like: they're (presumably) rocky, instead of gas giants.

Re:So...

[MozeeToby]

The planets found are "earth-like" because they are believed to be rocky, terrestrial planets. Right now, we can only detect such small, lightweight planets when they are very, very close to their star.

The fact that we see so many of them gives some hope to the idea that there are many terrestrial planets out there and that some of them would be in the habitable zone. We can't yet see planets that might support life so right now we look for planets that share some characteristics with Earth, in this case size.

Re:

[DarthVain]

A more accurate description would be "Rocky and not a gas giant".

I think the point is that in the past we could only detect large gas giants, and now we can see smaller ones.

If I remember correctly the observed light from a star will wobble due to planets orbit around it. Larger the planet, bigger the wobble, and easier to see. Something like that anyway.

Oh and they don't actually see them, its is more like they make observations that they exist. They can do calculations to figure out density, but thats abo

Re:

[rcw-work]

This is simply anthropomorphism emerging yet again. Consider the term "extraterrestrial"; note the implication that an alien is based on terra (land.)

I believe it implies the alien is from somewhere other than terra (Earth).

Re:

[DerWulf]

funny and interesting. Probably they would just 'see' in bands where the fog is transparent, like x-rays :-)

Seriously though, I think earth-like is basic sensationalism. It distracts a little from the great progress the planet hunters have made by going from detecting super Js to super Es which are almost two orders of magnitude smaller in less then ten years. They should just stick with "rocky" or "mercurian" until the day they find a planet where water could exist as a liquid.

DNA proven right once again!

[Anonymous Coward]

> ... and is located 42 light-years away ...

So that was why the answer to the ultimate question was 42 - and the ultimate question itself must be something like "Are we alone in the universe, and if not, how many light-years away is the nearest other life?"

Re:

[hansamurai]

Nah, still just 6 times 8.

Re:

[john83]

One of the best 'questions' I've heard suggested is from the dialogue between Marvin and Zem, a mattress, in Life, the Universe, and Everything: "I gave a speech once," he said suddenly and apparently unconnectedly. "You may not instantly see why I bring the subject up, but that is because my mind works so phenomenally fast, and I am at a rough estimate thirty billion times more intelligent than you. Let me give you an example. Think of a number, any number." "Er, five," said the mattress. "Wrong," said Ma

That close to a sun-like star...

[John Hasler]

---they can't be very Earth-like. "Super-Mercury" would be more like it.

Re:

[ucblockhead]

I gather what they really mean is "Rocky planet larger than Earth", which is something not seen in our solar system. Using the term "Earth" is sensationalistic, obviously.

42 light-years away?

[gmuslera]

Space race just found a new meaning for its life, its universe, and everything.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, since it depends on your point of view. For the inhabitants of the planet with a orbital period of 20.4 days, Sol is about 750 lightyears away, and the third rock has an orbital period of nearly 18 years.

Not good for much

[Tubal-Cain]

With masses 4-9 times greater than Earth, I can't see these planets being very useful. Too close to their star to be habitable, too heavy to send mined materials into orbit.

Re:

[niceone]

Ok, I'll be sure to tell my people when I get back there.

Re:Not good for much

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I think it's the "42 light-years away" that makes them less than useful.

Nothing Earthlike about these planets

[icebike]

The planets, having 4.2, 6.7, and 9.4 times the mass of the Earth, orbit the star with periods of 4.3, 9.6, and 20.4 days, respectively.

Anything orbiting a star in 4.3 DAYS is extremely close to the star, and could not possibly anything more than a cinder, probably at near rock melting temperatures.

Mercury has an orbital period of 88 days for comparison.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a thought about this. What if the star is some very small dwarf? What would be the habitable zone for life in that case? Anyone know? Somebody with a basic knowledge of astrophysics can probably do a quick calculation to estimate the surface temperature of a rocky planet given a red dwarf's size and temperature.

Re:

[Gavagai80]

If it's a red dwarf then the temperature can be right, but the radiation would prevent any life.

level of radiation

[tinkerton]

I haven't a clue about what level of radiation is still acceptable, except that I guess it's much higher than accepted.. Factors:

- Radiation can vary a lot along location, especially UV, and (primary)alpha and beta radiation is easily shielded. As for gamma, how much gamma radiation is there ten feet under water?

- Planets with tight orbits always have the same side to the sun due to tidal forces. This gives a wide range of temperature and radiation level to choose from.

- Radiation breaks down dna/rna and an

Re:

[infernalC]

Clearly, these planets do not satisfy the Earth-like gravity requirement of a class M planet [wikipedia.org].

Unsupportable assertion

[JSBiff]

"Clearly, these planets do not satisfy the Earth-like gravity requirement of a class M planet."

I've posted more details in another thread, but in summary, the Gravitational Force experienced at the surface of a planet is not just a function of the mass of the planet, but also of the size of the planet (specifically, the length of the radius of the planet). A planet with more mass than Earth can have the same gravity as earth, so long as the size is also larger (so it would have to be less dense than the ear

Re:

[xant]

I think "super" in this case means "bigger", or "more", than Earth.

Or it could be a cluster of Kryptons. I for one bow before Zod, our new ruler from Super-Earth.

Re:

[khallow]

My understanding is that the small stars can have surprisingly big star flares. The Sun has a lot of convection (and considerable mass) that might moderate how big a solar flare can get. Given how the planets were discovered (by perturbation of the star), it's likely that the star is low mass. Actually, we're told that the lightest planet is a hundred thousand times less massive (so about 400k earth masses). I don't know how many jupiter or solar masses that is, but it sounds to me like a very light star.

Re:

[khallow]

I stand corrected. Thought the Sun was heavier than that.

Re:

[icebike]

This is because the HARPS can't detect really small planets or really far away (from their sun) planets.

It uses perturbations of the star's movement to detect planets, and small or far planets just don't exert that much gravitational pull on the star.

Its a limitation of the tools at hand. Give it another 10 years.

Re:

[icebike]

They meant SIZED relative to earth. They used the term Super-Earths, which means Bigger than Earth.

Mercury would be a misnomer, because mercury is so tiny.

There is nothing in our solar system so large and so close to the sun. These are odd-ball planets, to say the least.

Can we ....

[PPH]

... swap Pluto for one?

42?

[sm62704]

Has anybody seen Trillian?

Clearly these planets are only the tip of the iceberg."

Like tips of icebergs? Then they're NOT like earth but more like Neptune?? Wait didn't the summary say they were really really hot?

Huh?

Life Discovered!

[Doc Ruby]

"Tip of the iceberg"? We found icebergs on a trio of extraterrestrial Super-Earths? That means water! That means life! That means green super-women, out there for the asking, who haven't heard how weird it is to have a space nerd boyfriend!

Unusable as is...

[MiniMike]

but maybe when we get there we could turn them into 20.3 Earth-sized planets in a decent orbit. We could also take the extra 0.3 and make a moon for each planet, or maybe something fancy like a ring. Who knows, by the time we actually figure out how to get there, we might be able to do this too...

Why are we surprised??

[ndoggac]

Why are scientists/people surprised when they find new exo-planets? Let's see, there are at least 200 billion stars in our own galaxy (possibly up to 400 billion), and it is 100,000 light years in diameter. The Milky Way has 5 spiral arms, our solar system is located in the shortest arm, and our capability to locate exo-planets barely extends outside our own spiral arm. The record find right now is 17,000 light years away. So we can only see planets in a very small percentage of our own galaxy, let alone

Re:

[dtolman]

Whose suprised? The first few planets last decade were suprises, because there was a real debate as to how rare planetary systems were. Now that we know they are common, its long expected that we will find Earth mass planets - the only question is when. The real suprises are coming when we look at overall systems (no one expected to find Jupiter+ massed planets in close orbits), or when we look at the atmospheres.

This is mine!

[KasperMeerts]

I declare these planets property of mine . Anybody trespassing on these planets will be orbitally bombarded.

Re:

[gardyloo]

Jeff Bezos? Is that you?

Did somebody say Super-Earths?

[cashman73]

I, for one, welcome our new Super-Earth Overlords!

Okay...

[Ihmhi]

...so we have Caprica, Sagittaron, and Picon. Three down, nine to go!

Sorry for not being funny, but

[drwho]

Sorry for not being funny, but I couldn't find an intelligent comment to attach this to, so it goes at at top level.

basically, my opinion is that it is within our reach to create a number of large telescopes that will exist roughly within the solar system, though possibly above and below the solar plane. These telescopes will be primarily automated, though a human team may need to be maintained ex-earth to do repairs and upgrades. All of these telescopes will be controlled by, and report to, all of the next generation super computers this race seems to be so good at creating (as opposed to high speed transportation systems). the ultimate goal is to be able to see the planets directly, and to observe and estimate the possibility for life as we know it (roughly). Where life does not exist, we seed it, though it may take generations to arrive, and thrive. This is our goal as a race, is to spread terran life as far as it can be spread. this is why the plants put up with us. It is our manifest destiny.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

"So lacking any evidence that planets are ubiquitous, and even worse that true Earth-like planets exist in the first place even though they can't yet detect them, they are ready to say that they must exist because they have now found some "smaller" hunks of mass orbiting a star?"

No. They say that it's a pretty reasonable conclusion that planets are ubiquitous, based on how ubiquitous they are in the small areas we've studied and given no reason to suppose the small regions we've studied should hold more pl

Re:Please tell us more oh wise one

[dtolman]

Interesting science they are doing over there. So lacking any evidence that planets are ubiquitous, and even worse that true Earth-like planets exist in the first place even though they can't yet detect them, they are ready to say that they must exist because they have now found some "smaller" hunks of mass orbiting a star?

This is sheer idiocy. Astronomers are finding planets all over our immediate vicinity in space - how more ubiquitious can you get than the current rate of discovery? It seems any star with metallicity has a planet or planet system around it. As for the second part - the only limitation in finding Earth sized worlds is detector sensitivity. Seeing how they can find individual objects larger than Earth, and comet sized and smaller debris (in bulk), it seems pretty obvious they will find planets with masses the size of Earth, or smaller, as soon as we can get the sensitivity down to that point.

Depends on the radius of the planets

[JSBiff]

The actual force of gravity at the surface of a planet is not just a function of the mass of the planet. It is also a function of the radius of the planet. So, if a planet had more mass than earth, but also had a radius that was the right size, it could have the exact same surface gravity.

I believe the function is something like:

G * ( [M1 * M2] /R^2)

Where G is the universal constant of Gravity, M1 is the mass of a test object, M2 is the mass of the planet, and R^2 is the average radius of the planet, square

Correction

[JSBiff]

"Square-root of 2 times the mass of the earth" should read "Square-root of 2 times the radius of the earth".

Also, more generally, if the mass of a planet is X times the mass of the earth, then if the radius is also Sqrt of X times the radius of the earth, the Force of Gravity will be the same.

Re:

[JSBiff]

I posted a comment in another thread with more details, but I'll point out, here, that the Force of Gravity is not just a function of mass, it is also a function of the radius of the planet. A planet could have 10 times the mass of earth, and yet have the same gravity at the surface, as long as the planet has Sqrt(10) times larger radius. A planet could even be less massive than earth and have the same gravity, as long as it was also proportionally smaller.