Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Space

There's an Earth-like Planet With an Atmosphere Just 39 Light-years Away (washingtonpost.com) 149

Posted by BeauHD from the hot-and-steamy dept.
Artem Tashkinov quotes a report from Washington Post: There are a lot of good reasons to be captivated by the exoplanet GJ 1132b. Located in the constellation Vela, it's a mere 39 light-years from Earth -- just a hop, skip and a jump in galactic terms. It's similar to Earth in terms of size and mass, and it dances in a close-in orbit around its star, a dimly burning red dwarf. And, astronomers recently discovered, it has an atmosphere. The finding, published in the Astronomical Journal, is the first detection of an atmosphere around a terrestrial "Earth-like" planet orbiting a red dwarf star -- and it suggests there could be millions more. Although the researchers call the planet "Earth-like," the term is only applicable in its broadest sense. GJ 1132b is so close to its sun that it more likely resembles Venus than Earth. Astronomers estimate its average temperature to be about 700 degrees Fahrenheit, and that's without taking into account the potential greenhouse effect of its atmosphere. It is also probably tidally locked, meaning that gravity keeps one side of the planet constantly facing the star, while the other is cast in permanent shadow. GJ 1132b would not make a cozy home for life -- at least, not life as we know it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

There's an Earth-like Planet With an Atmosphere Just 39 Light-years Away More

There's an Earth-like Planet With an Atmosphere Just 39 Light-years Away

Comments Filter:

  • Translation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DatbeDank ( 4580343 ) on Saturday April 08, 2017 @02:07AM (#54197073)

    We found a planet let's imply it can support life! But wait it's not really able to do that since the surface is hotter than hell. But it's really close to us and orbits a geriatric star.

    Isn't that really cool guys?!?!

    Guys?

    crickets

    • I was just going to reply and say that the surface temp is over 300C, way higher than what can support life. Not really sure why then there's any real significance to this story. Just another planet discovery. And it's not like that matters more than the fact that we're quicly destroying the only planet our species will ever live on.

      • It is important when you think about it:
        By the time we get to this planet, we all will evolve to tolerate 700 degree days!
        This is obviously the Republican agenda!
        WOW! Aren't those guys insightful?!

    • Re: Translation (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Worst slashdot article EVER. Title says Earth-like. Everything good as you start reading, gets progressively worse. Oh, Venus-like more than Earth. Read a little more. Final sentence drops the bomb, probably can't even support life. WTF Earth-like planet is this? This is Mercury-like or Venus-like. I'm done with this site.

    • Isn't that really cool guys?!?!

      Actually, yes. Yes it is. Very cool.

      As for the rest of your post, maybe you should go back and re-parse at least the summary.

    • Depending on the atmosphere content and wind speed it might take long enough for heat to conduct to the other side that the temperature is livable. I would want to look for sheltered valleys away from trade winds on the cold side. Given that current engine tech tops out around 1%C with 10%C needing major R&D to achieve i don't expect any exploration within the next 1,000 years (baring FTL).

    • 700 F is well within the "lake of sulfur"-range. I'm not sure we can really claim it's "hotter than hell".

    • Another translation - of YOUR reply:

      I do not get it. I presumed the title meant that it might support life. Guess I should read the content before jumping to conclusions.
      Damn the media! Stop leading me on! Stop making me look like an idiot, and work your titles more content-relative!

      Oh, wait. The title IS accurate for the content.....

  • Great, I'll warm up car. If we leave now, we should be there in about 700k years!

  • "...would not make a cozy home for life -- at least, not life as we know it."

    Since we've moved on from that boring place we call the moon and are heading to Mars, I'm struggling to believe we care about "cozy" with any venture beyond our planet. Radiation isn't exactly a warm blanket to snuggle up with.

    • I really can't understand what the fascination with Mars is. Even building some kind of habitat in the middle of the ocean, or under the ocean, or under a desert, buried in Antarctica, etc. is far far preferable to what Mars will ever be. Why throw money away on it? Send robots there, yes. Live there? Just seems crazy.

      • Mars can be "terra formed".
        It probably only takes 100 - 200 years to do so.
        It is in our solar system.
        It likely once had life.

        or under the ocean, or under a desert, buried in Antarctica
        In your eyes ... not in mine. Why should I live "under ground" on earth when I have a desert sky on Mars? I would love to see a sunrise or sunset on Mars ... underground in Antarctica: no chance.

        • No way. Planetary astrobiology is a well-established science and basically Mars is not capable of supporting life. It has no atmosphere and more critically has no carbon cycle and never will have one because it has no tectonic activity.

          • You are wrong.
            Actually most scientists believe that Mars once harbourded life.
            The atmosphere has more CO2 than Earth (in total, not in percentages) ... no idea about what magical carbon cycle you are talking. Tectonics has nothing to so with life on earth.

            Heat up mars by 20 degrees C, and I guess life evolves by itself.

            • You are wrong. Carbon cycle [nasa.gov]/plate tectonics is necessary for life. Read "The Life and Death of Planet Earth" which was co-authored by the founder of planetary astrobiology (or whatever it's called, I can't remember the exact name).

              • Mars is not Earth.
                Mars has more CO2 in total in the atmosphere than Earth has.

                Life on Mars does not "need" a carbon cycle. Perhaps it will die when all the CO2 is "consumed" as in deposited somewhere. But, plate tectonics per se is not needed to have a life cycle or carbon cycle. Actually plate tectonics is sucking away CO2 ... but only in the sense that limestone etc. gets sucked down into the earth. It is not necessary to "replenish" the CO2 levels.

                I doubt the current earth "needs" a carbon cycle. It was

          • No way. Planetary astrobiology is a well-established science and basically Mars is not capable of supporting life. It has no atmosphere and more critically has no carbon cycle and never will have one because it has no tectonic activity.

            You are explaining why Mars would have to be terraformed, not why it couldn't be. However, the energies, materials, and times needed to do so are what one would expect on remodeling a planet. If we gather the needed material to give Mars an atmosphere from ridiculously nearby comets in the oort cloud, the energy needed to do that in a century is measured in days total energy output of the sun. Once you're working on those scales, restoring the atmosphere or even creating some sort of shield to prevent its l

        • Mars can be "terra formed".

          No magnetosphere. Its terraformable. Your oxygen would float odd into space, and

          • The relevant question is "How fast would a Martian atmosphere dissipate?" If we could charge it up once and have it last a million years, that would be good enough to make practical use of the Martian surface.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Greyfox ( 87712 )
            I've been wondering if you could just push a bunch of mass from the asteroid belt to it and start one up. Granted, we won't be pushing mass around like that any time soon, and the hippies would still complain that we're "disrupting the planet's natural ecosystem", but that sounds like a fun project to me.

            • I've been wondering if you could just push a bunch of mass from the asteroid belt to it and start one up.

              There is a limit to how fast you can deliver mass to the planet. The arriving mass heats the atmosphere and removes appreciable amounts of it. Between deliveries (impacts larger than the Chixulub impact), you need time for the heat to dissipate.

              Which blows, if you'll pardon the pun, Mr Angel's couple of centuries time scale out of the water. The time to collect a large proportion of the asteroids and g

          • Slam an asteroid into Mars and the outgassing will make you an atmosphere and melt ice for water. Add a magnetosphere and a large mirror orbiting the sun to increase sunlight and it's livable.
            • Sure, lets just order a magnetosphere from Home Depot. Classic Space Nutter.

            • Slam an asteroid into Mars and the outgassing will make you an atmosphere and melt ice for water. Add a magnetosphere and a large mirror orbiting the sun to increase sunlight and it's livable.

              Thing is that we'd essentially need about a thousand comets the size of Halley' Comet to give Mars a thin but breathable atmosphere. Where to find such comets and how to move things that big, is one hell of a problem.

          • It takes millions of years to strip the atmosphere ...
            And you can create an artificial magnetosphere. There was an article/story about it here on /. a few weeks ago.

          • Mars can be "terra formed".

            No magnetosphere. Its terraformable. Your oxygen would float odd into space, and

            Once you're bothering to create an atmosphere to terraform it even on a time table of centuries, the losses due to such are trivial. With the energy requirements to build such an atmosphere, creating some sort of magnetosphere or block from solar wind would also be doable.

        • ...Why should I live "under ground" on earth when I have a desert sky on Mars? I would love to see a sunrise or sunset on Mars ... underground in Antarctica: no chance.

          Speaking of no chance, in another 200 years we'll likely be living underground no matter what planet we're on.

          We'll fuck up the environment and atmosphere so bad on this planet we'll have no choice but to go underground, and your fantasies of a Martian sunrise will be aglow with enough radiation to ensure we'll be living underground on that planet too.

      • The only reason I can think of is that it will be a good way to practice terraforming that we can use later here on Earth.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Raenex ( 947668 )

        I really can't understand what the fascination with Mars is.

        Manifest destiny. To spread humanity beyond planet Earth, to other planets, and ultimately to other stars. You could ask, "Why?", and the likely answer is evolution instilled the desire for life to spread. You could be a nihilist about the whole thing, but others have loftier goals for humanity.

        • Other stars are too far, and going through insane amounts of trouble just to add an extremely inhospitable desert to the Earth isn't really worth it. If humanity ends here on Earth, then a Mars colony isn't going to last much longer.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Raenex ( 947668 )

            Other stars are too far, and going through insane amounts of trouble just to add an extremely inhospitable desert to the Earth isn't really worth it.

            Same could be said about explorers, and the immigrants that followed, crossing an ocean to discover and settle the Americas. But I don't think we should go crazy getting to Mars and beyond. If we just keep taking baby steps we'll get there eventually.

            If humanity ends here on Earth, then a Mars colony isn't going to last much longer.

            If a life-ending asteroid impacted the Earth, Mars could stand a chance as a backup. But even if humanity lasted on Earth until the Sun made it inhabitable, it would be a sad legacy if we never spread our wings beyond our home planet.

            • it would be a sad legacy if we never spread our wings beyond our home planet.

              Yeah, well, unless the aliens are watching who's gonna know?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Raenex ( 947668 )

                Yeah, well, unless the aliens are watching who's gonna know?

                And if we all decided to collectively commit suicide nobody would know, either. I don't think "who's gonna know" is a compelling argument. If your approach is a form of nihilism then there's nothing to discuss. You'll find that approach compelling, and I will not.

            • Same could be said about explorers, and the immigrants that followed, crossing an ocean to discover and settle the Americas.

              The Americas weren't exactly an extremely inhospitable desert, like Mars is. The explorers had breathable air, potable water, fertile ground, moderate temperatures, and no deadly radiation.

              If a life-ending asteroid impacted the Earth, Mars could stand a chance as a backup

              Our ancestors have survived billions of years here on Earth, going through multiple large impacts. At least some people will survive the next big one, and if you're really desperate, we could build a huge bunker in a mountain, with supplies for a few decades, for a fraction of the price of a Mars colony.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Raenex ( 947668 )

                The Americas weren't exactly an extremely inhospitable desert, like Mars is. The explorers had breathable air, potable water, fertile ground, moderate temperatures, and no deadly radiation.

                And yet, for all practical purposes, it was extremely dangerous and "not really worth it".

                Our ancestors have survived billions of years here on Earth, going through multiple large impacts.

                Yes, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that we'll encounter one we won't survive. But my ultimate argument is for humanity to have loftier goals beyond merely surviving on Earth until the Sun makes the planet inhospitable.

                • And yet, for all practical purposes, it was extremely dangerous and "not really worth it".

                  The explorers and immigrants went back, so it was clearly worth it. On the other hand, very few people are attracted to living in Siberia, the Australian outback, the Gobi desert, or Antarctica, all much more pleasant than Mars.

                  But my ultimate argument is for humanity to have loftier goals beyond merely surviving on Earth until the Sun makes the planet inhospitable.

                  I suggest we wait another 1000 years. Either we've completely collapsed, in which case having a colony on Mars wouldn't have helped, or we're much more advanced, in which case a Mars colony will be easier to establish.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Raenex ( 947668 )

                    The explorers and immigrants went back, so it was clearly worth it.

                    They had to get there in the first place without knowing it was "worth it". And other than the fact that the immigrants made the judgment to go back, looking at it from a detached perspective it's hard to make a rational case that it was "worth it" on any individual level.

                    On the other hand, very few people are attracted to living in Siberia, the Australian outback, the Gobi desert, or Antarctica, all much more pleasant than Mars.

                    And yet there are people living in all those environments now. It must be "worth it", then. And there are plenty of people who alive right now who would be willing and desire to be a colonist of Mars. So by your own standard, it would be "

                    • They had to get there in the first place without knowing it was "worth it"

                      Columbus mistakenly thought the Earth was smaller. He wasn't exploring new land, he was taking a shortcut to the East. After they realized what happened, they decided it was worth it to go back.

                      And there are plenty of people who alive right now who would be willing and desire to be a colonist of Mars. So by your own standard, it would be "worth it".

                      They haven't tried it yet. I'm pretty sure the novelty will wear off quickly once they get there. But hey, as long as they're using their own money to get there, I'll be cheering for them.

                  • On the other hand, very few people are attracted to living in Siberia,

                    I can put some numbers on that.

                    The price that my wife was paid to move to work in Siberia was a 50% pay increase (compared to the same job in European Russia), and the possibility to retire on 3x normal pension at 50, to anywhere else in Russia. Both her mother and several friends had followed precisely that track. It's a price (for central government) to pay to get people to live there, but not exactly a massive price.

              • The most widely accepted hypothesis for Earth's moon is that it resulted from a collision of Earth and another body. No macroscopic life survives that, probably no life at all.

              • One impact extinguished the dinosaurs.
                If the next impact is big enough no person or land living mamal as big or bigger as a human will survive.

        • You know the most interesting thing about manifest destiny is that it doesn't exist. It's just a made up thing.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Raenex ( 947668 )

            You know the most interesting thing about manifest destiny is that it doesn't exist. It's just a made up thing.

            It exists as I laid it out. Maybe for you evolution, instincts, and drives are just a "made up thing".

            • You've just asserted something is true without proof.

              Manifest Destiny is a faith - a faith that I, and many others, do not share.

        • When I read your comment it makes me feel really sad. If you are so completely blind as to how sick the human species is and to how appalling the destruction that the species is causing to it's home planet that you can speak of things like some kind of higher destiny or evolution with regard to spreading to another planet, you are truly lost.

          I can only give you a hint and say that evolution and manifest destiny, for a species that was not competely fucked, would not involve mass destruction of a precious w

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Raenex ( 947668 )

            When I read your comment it makes me feel really sad. If you are so completely blind as to how sick the human species is and to how appalling the destruction that the species is causing to it's home planet that you can speak of things like some kind of higher destiny or evolution with regard to spreading to another planet, you are truly lost.

            And when I read your comment it makes me sad, but also somewhat disgusted, too, for your self-loathing. For you are so blind as to believe that humans are somehow unique in our desire to do what life does, which is go forth and prosper, often at the expense of other life. It's just that we're really good at it. You think the universe is some kind of sterile and pristine place that humans should not touch, or that we are "destroying" this planet.

            Newsflash for you buddy, the "planet" has gone through much wor

            • Nature is cruel [wikipedia.org]: "More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct."

              And at some point in time, humans will be one of the 99%. Big deal.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Raenex ( 947668 )

                And at some point in time, humans will be one of the 99%. Big deal.

                To quote myself from elsewhere in this thread: "You could be a nihilist about the whole thing, but others have loftier goals for humanity." And: " If your approach is a form of nihilism then there's nothing to discuss. You'll find that approach compelling, and I will not."

                • We're almost the same. You're a nihilist regarding 99% of the species. I include the other 1% as well.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Raenex ( 947668 )

                    You're a nihilist regarding 99% of the species.

                    No, as I said, I believe we should strive to be better stewards of the planet. I'm just putting things into perspective, and don't believe we should flog ourselves into paralysis over it.

                    I include the other 1% as well.

                    Congratulations, and good bye.

            • OMG HTF can you even speak of prospering when this is happening [wikipedia.org]? If you think it's some minor thing now, check back in .2K years when the human population has quintupled and every conceivable thing that can be burned will have been burned, not to mention the unimaginable social chaos and mass suffering that will no doubt exist.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Raenex ( 947668 )

                OMG HTF can you even speak of prospering when this [Holocene extinction] is happening?

                I already told you.

                If you think it's some minor thing now, check back in .2K years when the human population has quintupled

                Current projections show populations starting to level off.

                not to mention the unimaginable social chaos and mass suffering that will no doubt exist

                Conditions have generally improved for people as technology has increased. Anyways, you can wail and gnash your teeth all you like, I'd prefer to see humanity go beyond planet Earth and try and make the best of it.

        • But it isn't going to happen. You cannot live on Mars. In fact, we cannot live anywhere else than Earth. Everything within traveling distance is not habitable. You can have all the goals you want, but that won't make them happen.

      • In about 5 billion years, the sun will be a red giant with a diameter about the size of Earth's orbit. Earth will not be a good place to live then; Mars seems like a much better bet.

        Earth's moon, Mars, and Titan are the likeliest targets for extraterrestrial colonization. Why choose just one?

        In a thousand or ten thousand years technology is going to be a great deal more advanced than it is now. Setting up a civilization in one of those places isn't going to seem as terribly difficult as it does now.

        • In a thousand or ten thousand years technology is going to be a great deal more advanced than it is now

          Or maybe not. Civilizations have busted before.

        • "In a thousand or ten thousand years technology is going to be a great deal more advanced than it is now."

          And this is the crux of the Space Nutter argument. They have seen technological progress in their lifetime due to the advent of digital computers. They then project that progress to everything. Why, in a thousand years my iPhone will be smaller than a pin and contain 2 billion pentabytes of memory! We will be traveling at lightspeed, or even faster. Why wouldn't we? Things always progress forever, righ

        • In about 5 billion years, the sun will be a red giant with a diameter about the size of Earth's orbit.

          True. But irrelevant.

          In another billion years, the Sun will be some 5% brighter than presently (something it has done every billion years for the last 4 billion years). Some time about then, the amount of water vapour that puts into the atmosphere will reach a point of feedback that will boil the oceans in a few million years. Because the largest part of the greenhouse effect that makes the Earth habitabl

    • Seems to me that Mars has possibilities. Even terra-forming seems potentially possible.
      Such an endeavor would take a long time, so the sooner we start, the better!

  • There might be a goldilocks zone, plus temperature differentials are a source of energy.

  • Please stop calling it "earth like" when it isn't.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      It's Life Jim! But not as we know it.

    • Yup. "Rocky and roughly the right size" is a long way away from "Earth-like". Let's reserve that term for when we find something that is, you know, like Earth. As an absolute minimum requirement I'd propose that an "Earth-like" planet must have conditions somewhere on the surface that allow an open pool of water to remain a liquid. Ideally I'd reserve the term to be used for a planet on which you could stand naked and take a deep breath without dying, but until we find a planet like that I'll go with "liq

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        I think "earth like" should mean it has the potential to have life as we know it. It doesn't have to have life but there is enough there that we could terraform it and move in. This would include size, gravity, position in orbit as relative to star to harbor life, and liquid iron core with magnetic field. Actually having water on the surface would be a plus but not necessary. With a big enough oort cloud we could import water and even make a atmosphere.

  • One of the important things for evolution is cycles.

    If you have a primitive lifeform ready-to-evolve, but the food that it uses to grow is too sparse to sustain a growing population, everybody dies. Game over.

    If you have a primitive lifeform and the environment is just perfect for these lifeforms, they will explode to a uniform big soup of life, but as everybody lives, there is not really an incentive to evolve. Sure there might be competition, but the genes that are slightly better will not overpower the whole population. They might gain a bigger share than initially, but they will not take over the whole group.

    For evolution to happen, the situation needs to be "plentiful" at some points in time, and scarce in others. This is what happens when you have a moon that runs around the planet every 30 days, inducing a tide every 12 hours, causing more and less light during the night in a 30 day cycle, a slightly tilted rotation of the planet. 24hour days, seasons. 11 year solar cycle.

    This causes a large sample of individuals to arise during plentiful times. Then when things get really harsh, the better individuals survive and the others die off.

    • If you have a primitive lifeform and the environment is just perfect for these lifeforms, they will explode to a uniform big soup of life, but as everybody lives, there is not really an incentive to evolve

      As the population grows, they'll exhaust the food supply, and the population will crash again. There are your cycles.

  • There are earth like planets in this system too, doesn't mean we could live there

  • Maybe I read the title wrong; it seems to imply some distant planet's atmosphere is 39 light years away from that planet.

  • At warp 5 we can get there in about 3 months, and at high warp perhaps a few hours. It'll be just like how it was with transatlantic travel in the 19th and 20th centuries!

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close