Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Earth Space

Earth-Size, Habitable-Zone Planet Found Hidden In Early NASA Kepler Data (phys.org) 71

Posted by BeauHD from the lost-and-found dept.
A team of transatlantic scientists, using reanalyzed data from NASA's Kepler space telescope, has discovered an Earth-size exoplanet orbiting in its star's habitable zone, the area around a star where a rocky planet could support liquid water. Phys.Org reports: Scientists discovered this planet, called Kepler-1649c, when looking through old observations from Kepler, which the agency retired in 2018. While previous searches with a computer algorithm misidentified it, researchers reviewing Kepler data took a second look at the signature and recognized it as a planet. Out of all the exoplanets found by Kepler, this distant world -- located 300 light-years from Earth -- is most similar to Earth in size and estimated temperature.

This newly revealed world is only 1.06 times larger than our own planet. Also, the amount of starlight it receives from its host star is 75% of the amount of light Earth receives from our Sun -- meaning the exoplanet's temperature may be similar to our planet's as well. But unlike Earth, it orbits a red dwarf. Though none have been observed in this system, this type of star is known for stellar flare-ups that may make a planet's environment challenging for any potential life. There is still much that is unknown about Kepler-1649c, including its atmosphere, which could affect the planet's temperature. Current calculations of the planet's size have significant margins of error, as do all values in astronomy when studying objects so far away. But based on what is known, Kepler-1649c is especially intriguing for scientists looking for worlds with potentially habitable conditions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Earth-Size, Habitable-Zone Planet Found Hidden In Early NASA Kepler Data More

Earth-Size, Habitable-Zone Planet Found Hidden In Early NASA Kepler Data

Comments Filter:

  • The star is class M (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16, 2020 @02:16AM (#59953576)
    M class stars are highly energetic in the UV and X-Ray spectra and with large solar flares. This will strip any atmosphere and surface water quickly from the planet and as the planet is close to the star this will tidally lock the planet so one side faces the star at all times. This is a scenario for a non habitable planet.

    • Re:The star is class M (Score:5, Informative)

      by Thorfinn.au ( 1140205 ) on Thursday April 16, 2020 @02:37AM (#59953606)

      M class stars are highly energetic in the UV and X-Ray spectra and with large solar flares. This will strip any atmosphere and surface water quickly from the planet and as the planet is close to the star this will tidally lock the planet so one side faces the star at all times. This is a scenario for a non habitable planet.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] for the details on why these stars will not have habitable planets, but as they comprise 80+% of the stars out there these systems will be found regularly and always disappoint.

      • they comprise 80+% of the stars out there these systems will be found regularly and always disappoint.

        Like the Kardashians

      • They only "disappoint" if you go into the consideration with a hope for an Earth-like planet. As is, the system probably has as 90% as much human-habitable surface as any other stellar system, including the Solar system.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Does it support Popplers?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      On the other hand, nothing stops the first several kilometers of the subsurface from being a cradle for life, in fact that is one of the scenarios for the origin of Earth life.

    • This is not Star Trek but real science, I feel sorry for all the people answering ... o ... oh ... wait ...

      • This is not Star Trek but real science

        Too many people (footnote) can't tell the difference.

        footnote "Too many" defined as more than two.

  • Why can't we watch all the nearby stars for long periods of time? Periods meaning earth-like transits.

    Instead of a constellation of internet satellites, can we have one of space telescopes that are watching specific stars for transits? When one passes out of view, the next satellite takes over?

    Of course this may be expensive, but is it possible for a constellation of small, far out satellites, instead of giant ones like Kepler, J Webb, etc?

    • Re:watch all the nearby stars (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday April 16, 2020 @07:33AM (#59954324) Homepage

      You're looking for ridiculously small variations in output. Like the sun is 100 times the radius of the Earth meaning 10000 the area. So you're looking at a drop of 0.01% for the very brief period Earth is directly in the path of the sun. If your satellite isn't sensitive enough to register that reliability, it doesn't matter how many observations you have. So here bigger is better.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        You're looking for ridiculously small variations in output.

        Right. In more detail:

        Why can't we watch all the nearby stars for long periods of time? Periods meaning earth-like transits.

        Well, of course, we'd like to. That's a lot of telescope time, though.

        Instead of a constellation of internet satellites, can we have one of space telescopes that are watching specific stars for transits?

        To find a planet requires high accuracy for a period of multiple years (for a planet at Earth's distance), and you have a 1% shot of an Earthlike planet being at the right angle to detect. So, you're talking a hundred space telescopes to detect one planet.

        When one passes out of view, the next satellite takes over?

        No. The accuracy required is too high; you can't match the detectors. The transit dimming is only 100 micromagnitudes deep. It has to be the same detector and

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          To find a planet requires high accuracy for a period of multiple years (for a planet at Earth's distance), and you have a 1% shot of an Earthlike planet being at the right angle to detect. So, you're talking a hundred space telescopes to detect one planet.

          ..and, to clarify, the way we currently deal with this (on Kepler or TESS) is to have one telescope looking at a lot of stars, not one telescope dedicated to staring at at just one star.

      • Your point is pretty mood, as that is exactly how 1/3rd of all planets are detected.

        It is called "the transit method"

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      The gigantic international war machine is why. NASA for instance gets 0.45% of the US budget and has stayed near that level since the 1980s. The Pentagram (not counting the Black Budget or the alphabet soup of intel agencies) on the other hand has reliably been sucking down 40-55% of the budget every year since the 1950s.

      All NASA budgets since its founding combined: $650 billion
      US military budget just last year: $750 billion

      • The massive Pentagon budget includes huge health care and pension funding for veterans. But keep nursing those daddy warbucks delusions if it justifies your beliefs

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          Less than a quarter of its budget, so even after subtracting that we still spend more on the Pentagram than twice the next largest military budget in the world (and that's only if you pretend that China spends $0 for pensions and benefits). Are you really all such cowards that you need to impoverish the entire fucking planet buying war toys?

      • Also the $750 billion military spending, if accurate, is itself dwarfed by spending on social programs like Social Security (over a trillion by itself), Medicare, Medicaid, etc. This year the big expense will be Coronavirus, clocking in at multiple trillions.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are self-funded programs and not budget items. You can argue about the mechanisms of them, but they're not discretionary items like the military or space program. All other "social programs" combined don't approach the budget of the Pentagram.

    • You've described the motivation behind the TESS mission [wikipedia.org], less the decade or so of optimisation, detail engineering, cost-benefit analysis and associated work that went into it before it launched 2 years ago. To the day, coincidentally.

      To get part-per million stability you need for transit measurements you need thermal stability, electrical stability, optical stability, pointing stability. All of those are incompatible with a very small satellite. If you know better, feel free to apply to NASA (or ESO, or J

  • Because this one's fucked lol
    • Good luck traveling 300 light-years in your lifetime.
      • Fair point.
      • Just have to maintain a constant acceleration of 1g. Then it will only take 11.1 years to travel 300 light years. Of course 302 years will have elapsed on Earth.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

          Just have to maintain a constant acceleration of 1g

          That's the hard part. The easy part of course is inventing the magical unicorn, rainbow and fairy dust engine that can both do this as well as have fuel left over to also do it on the other end to slow down... Should only take you a couple weeks to design it. Let us know when you have the prototype ready.

        • Just have to maintain a constant acceleration of 1g. Then it will only take 11.1 years to travel 300 light years. Of course 302 years will have elapsed on Earth.

          Besides the (wrong) calculation, I doubt our friend to be mass-less :-)

          • Why would he have to be massless, that just effects the energy requirements? And unless you mean rounding issues, wrong how? None of the calculators I found disagree.

          • There is nothing wrong with the calculation.

            Hint: constant acceleration.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

        Good luck traveling 300 light-years before the heat death of the universe.

        Fixed that for you... Funny how people's minds just shut down around big numbers.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )

          Fixed that for you... Funny how people's minds just shut down around big numbers.

          So did yours... Voyager I will take about 5 million years to travel 300 light years. That's not even a tenth of the time since the dinosaurs. And Voyager is not the best we can do, even without getting into fission/fusion/antimatter concepts.

  • .. I hoped we would find Earth 2 within 5 years. It's already 2020 and we're still only finding them around red dwarf stars?? Come on, when will we finally find something ~1 AU from a yellow, main sequence stable star with a radius ~6000 km?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by amorsen ( 7485 )

      We are not looking for 6Mm radius planets 1AU from yellow dwarves. We do not have the technology to spot them. Both the dip in the light and the gravity wobble are too small to measure with current instruments. Even for Alpha Centauri, it seems.

    • Back in 1996... .. I hoped we would find Earth 2 within 5 years.

      Did you have a rational basis for this hope?

      If so, what was it?

  • "A team of transatlantic scientists"? (Score:4, Informative)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Thursday April 16, 2020 @05:36AM (#59954064)

    Do they only work on board ship or something? Perhaps it was a transatlantic team of scientists?

  • if we hopped aboard the space shuttle discovery, which can travel 5 miles a second, it would take us about 37,200 years to go one light-year. So, 37,200 x 300 = oh shit.

  • Twice the size of Earth? (Score:3)

    by blastard ( 816262 ) on Thursday April 16, 2020 @07:32AM (#59954318)

    "This newly revealed world is only 1.06 times larger than our own planet."

    If it is 1 times larger than the Earth, it would be twice as large, and this one is 1.06 times larger. Or did the author mean to say it was 1.06 times as large as our own planet. The graphic in the article seems to show that it is 1.06 times the size of the Earth, not 2.06 times like the author, Felicia Chou of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, states. The author is probably more focused on science, than writing.

    And yes, size matters. (:

  • If we send a message, will future generations even remember we sent it before the reply comes?

  • It seems like almost every exoplanet that we find in the habitable zone which might otherwise have any chance of being able to support life as we know it are all so close to their parent star that they are tidally locked to it, which would make the side facing the sun too hot, and the side facing away too cold. There may be a habitable zone at the day-night terminator, but I honestly don't find that notion as exciting as the prospect of another actually earth-like planet being found.

    • The more exoplanets we discover, the more that the "rare earth" hypothesis as a solution to Fermi's paradox looks to be the correct explanation. We are approaching 5,000 known exoplanets, and none really look like fantastic candidates for life. The few rocky planets in the habitable zones we've found seem to be tidally locked, or orbiting a start that appears to have characteristics hostile to life.

      There's almost certainly habitable planets in the universe, but if they are all 10,000+ light years away, they

  • There are a ton of factors that make a place livable.

    The Fermi paradox is all you need to know that we were put here special.
  • oh wow, another new planet that is habitable. amazing, never discovered before.
  • It's able to support life... and is MUCH closer (hence, the name). They should be launching probe drones toward each of these as soon as they're discovered. It'll take long enough to get there as it is...

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close