The Astronomy Thread
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Commander Chris Hadfields use of social media (twitter/youtube/reddit) has been phenomenal... i swear this man has generated more interest in space than anything done by NASA/CSA in the last 10 years easily
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...AL|online-news
Feels bad man. It was really, really important to get another year or two out of Kepler to find actual Earth analogues.
Feels bad man. It was really, really important to get another year or two out of Kepler to find actual Earth analogues.
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
It's not just that we're blind for a few years. It's that to confirm Earth-like planets around Sun-like stars, it was imperative that it last another year or two. It needs to see at least 3 transits before it can confirm a planet candidate, and it will fall short of that for Earth-like planets/orbits.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,924
- 28,676
Yea, its definitely a setback, but luckily the work its already done is saved, so we dont need to start from scratch when the next one goes up.
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 17,091
- 13,619
It requires long term observation to ensure that false positives can be ruled out. For instance, if you're looking at a star and see something that could represent a planet, you need to make sure that you detect it again (ie, it's orbiting vs. just some random passer by). This is part of the reason why it has been easier to find the "freak" planets that orbit the sun at a very fast rate.
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
Totally dependent on the type of star it is orbiting. And my understanding is that it was just short of the time required to observe a planet like Earth orbiting a Sun-like star three times, but perhaps I'm wrong on that. From the New Scientist article I posted before:
Near as I can tell, it's been up there and observing for 4 years, with some windows where it was in safe mode. So I'm not sure why exactly it was short on time.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
There's a lot to look at. Billions and Billions, man!
Plus my geometry might be shitting with my head, but the further away you look the faster (to the observer) the transit would be, right? So you have to guess that there's a transit there to begin with and then you have to stare at the star for months to even have a chance at catching it. And if the orbital plane is off from our own that makes it even more difficult/unlikely.
To a layman like myself it seems like the odds of finding specific transits would be vanishingly small, while the odds of just finding "ooooh, a transit!" would still be unlikely, but more reasonable.
Plus my geometry might be shitting with my head, but the further away you look the faster (to the observer) the transit would be, right? So you have to guess that there's a transit there to begin with and then you have to stare at the star for months to even have a chance at catching it. And if the orbital plane is off from our own that makes it even more difficult/unlikely.
To a layman like myself it seems like the odds of finding specific transits would be vanishingly small, while the odds of just finding "ooooh, a transit!" would still be unlikely, but more reasonable.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,924
- 28,676
You are correct about orbital planes. For every planet we find, there are likely THOUSANDS of planets with orbital planes that make them undetectable by kepler or any future similar project.
You are incorrect about transit times. Thats more a function of how big a star is and how fast the planet orbits. How far away the target sun is will have no noticeable effect.
Generally. If a planet transits once, it will transit again. Other methods can detect planets that are not on the orbital planet, but these methods are generally very difficult and time consuming in comparison. Kepler was exceptional for its ability to mass canvas such a large area so quickly. The successor to kepler will be far more powerful and be able to survey a much larger area with greater accuracy, making detection of life-supporting candidates much better. Kepler was a stunning success and we definitely need to get a new hotrod version up there asap. Optics have advanced an amazing amount since the first one was launched, and kepler has showed us that there is a lot to find.
You are incorrect about transit times. Thats more a function of how big a star is and how fast the planet orbits. How far away the target sun is will have no noticeable effect.
Generally. If a planet transits once, it will transit again. Other methods can detect planets that are not on the orbital planet, but these methods are generally very difficult and time consuming in comparison. Kepler was exceptional for its ability to mass canvas such a large area so quickly. The successor to kepler will be far more powerful and be able to survey a much larger area with greater accuracy, making detection of life-supporting candidates much better. Kepler was a stunning success and we definitely need to get a new hotrod version up there asap. Optics have advanced an amazing amount since the first one was launched, and kepler has showed us that there is a lot to find.
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 17,091
- 13,619