The Astronomy Thread

Jozu · May 22, 2013

William Buryucki (sp?), an awesome scientist/astronomer working on the mission (as well as many before it) has stated that even if Kepler has gone dark, there is still TWO YEARS worth of additional data to be analyzed (that Kepler produced) and they could possibly find the evidence they were looking for. So all hope is not lost. And from what im hearing, hopefully the TESS or whatever its called gets launched in 2017-18 and we can go back and start studying some of these systems again. Either way, there are unexplored opportunities which are unforeseen. It sucks being "blind" for 3+ years, but once we get that new scope up, and the ESA launches their CHEOPS, all will be well in the realm of planet hunting.

Brad2770 · May 23, 2013

How accurate will these new planet hunting methods be compared to what we have now?

Eomer · May 23, 2013

Kepler was the first satellite purpose-built to find planets, which is why it founds hundreds and hundreds of them. Otherwise most other satellites/telescopes that have been able to find planets are only able to do so because of flukes or unique circumstances. Even Kepler can only find the tiny fraction of planets that occlude their star from Earth's perspective (no idea what that ratio is, something like one thousand to one?).

I don't really have an answer for you, other than I would imagine that Kepler's successor TESS will probably be an order of magnitude or two better than Kepler was, as it will be scanning most of the sky instead of a small patch of it. And it's primarily going to be scanning nearby stars as well. Otherwise planet finding until that is launched will go back to flukey/unique situations on traditional telescopes.

Brad2770 · May 23, 2013

I really like the fact that we are able to find planets, but this stuff will not get super exciting for me until we can actually tell what kind of atmosphere it has (On the smaller, "earth-like" planets). I am really looking forward to the day they can say for certain "This planet is 90% like earth and can very easily sustain life". I hope something like that happens when I am still alive.

Eomer · May 23, 2013

James Webb and some of the very large ground based telescopes being built should be able to do some spectroscopy on exo-planet atmospheres. So you'll see that start to happen within a decade, but likely it will only be possible on very large planets, very far aware from very dim stars, at least initially.

Tripamang · May 23, 2013

Eomer_sl said:
James Webb and some of the very large ground based telescopes being built should be able to do some spectroscopy on exo-planet atmospheres. So you'll see that start to happen within a decade, but likely it will only be possible on very large planets, very far aware from very dim stars, at least initially.

New Scientist had an updated Drake equation that put the figure at 10 possible planets within range of James Webb that could potentially have life and one suspected but not confirmed one 6.5 light years away that we know of.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-upgrade.html

Eomer · May 23, 2013

hmmm. I suppose it's time I registered to see those articles.

Eomer · May 23, 2013

Jesus christ, can you just post the text of that? I registered, logged in, and it continually asks me to register or log in again when I click on the article. Well played New Scientist, well played.

Szlia · May 23, 2013

Question for astronomists: Kepler is looking at a specific area of the Milky Way, but how is it oriented relative to the orbiting plane of the earth? My question being: does the earth occludes our sun from the point of view of the planets we observe? As in: could intelligent life on these planets see our planet using the same process we use to see theirs? Wouldn't it be amusing if that was the case and a bit of a bummer if we are likely to be invisible from the places we observe?

TheBeagle · May 23, 2013

Szlia_sl said:
Wouldn't it be amusing if that was the case and a bit of a bummer if we are likely to be invisible from the places we observe?

I think I wold like us to remain invisible for as long as possible. We are most definitely, as a species, not ready for primetime.

fucker_sl · May 24, 2013

Szlia_sl said:
Question for astronomists: Kepler is looking at a specific area of the Milky Way, but how is it oriented relative to the orbiting plane of the earth? My question being: does the earth occludes our sun from the point of view of the planets we observe? As in: could intelligent life on these planets see our planet using the same process we use to see theirs? Wouldn't it be amusing if that was the case and a bit of a bummer if we are likely to be invisible from the places we observe?

i don't think there is any reason why we should not be able to see each other. Our sun and out sun are the only 2 major variable factors and our "light of sight" should be the same but opposite. I'm probably missing something however so i'll go with "no idea"

i got another question tho. As Eomer said the next step is doing some spectroscopy of planets so we can have an idea about what kind of atmosphere or general composition the planet has. And this is already a big step

but actually "seeing" enough details of one of the closer planets to check for civilizations? Any idea how far we are from that ? i'm a complete ignorant in this field but guess a lot considering we are talking about definition dozen of order of magnitude higher

Eorkern · May 24, 2013

Imagine if we could sustain humain life in space (reproduce/kid/growing up and all the food stuff etc...) on the way to a planet we know can be live-able, do you think peoples would be up for it ? Damn I just got that crazy sci-fi idea...

Eomer · May 24, 2013

fucker_sl said:
i don't think there is any reason why we should not be able to see each other. Our sun and out sun are the only 2 major variable factors and our "light of sight" should be the same but opposite. I'm probably missing something however so i'll go with "no idea"

No, it doesn't work like that at all. As far as I understand it, the orientation of solar systems has little or nothing to do with the galactic plane or anything else. The orbit of planets can be at all sorts of angles, for example our solar system's plane is 60 degrees off the galactic plane. So we could well be looking at a star and seeing planets transiting in front of it, while if those planets were looking at our star they could be looking "down" on it and never see anything pass in front of it.

Szlia_sl said:
Question for astronomists: Kepler is looking at a specific area of the Milky Way, but how is it oriented relative to the orbiting plane of the earth? My question being: does the earth occludes our sun from the point of view of the planets we observe? As in: could intelligent life on these planets see our planet using the same process we use to see theirs? Wouldn't it be amusing if that was the case and a bit of a bummer if we are likely to be invisible from the places we observe?

Yeah, I have no idea, I don't know actual astronomy well enough to give an answer. This is a diagram for the FOV of Kepler:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_FOV_hiRes.jpg

But how Earth's orbit relative to the Sun would appear to Kepler stars looking back at us, I have no idea. However, it would appear that Kepler is looking "up" or "down" relative to the plane of our solar system to avoid either looking at the Sun or the Kuiper or asteroid belts:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler...nd_orientation

Which would indicate that no, none of the Kepler candidates would be able to see Earth using the transit method.

TheBeagle · May 24, 2013

Eorkern_sl said:
Imagine if we could sustain humain life in space (reproduce/kid/growing up and all the food stuff etc...) on the way to a planet we know can be live-able, do you think peoples would be up for it ? Damn I just got that crazy sci-fi idea...

Read Arthur C. Clark. The Rama series.

Eorkern · May 24, 2013

I don't like to read books, please don't neg me.

gogusrl · May 24, 2013

TheBeagle_sl said:
Read Arthur C. Clark. The Rama series.

I'm still hoping to wake up one day and read on reddit that they found something like that.

Regarding Kepler, why aren't we looking for Dyson Spheres or shit like that ? Considering the age of the universe, the amount of possible "habitable" planets and extrapolating from our own speed of scientific advancement, there's no way some civilization didn't get big enough to leave their mark on an entire galaxy in almost 14 billion years. Think about it, if we don't fuck ourselves up, in 100.000 - 1.000.000 years you could say we could colonize the entire galaxy, and that would definitively leave a mark. More than enough time has passed for someone else to have done it first, we just have to look for thesigns.

Pancreas · May 24, 2013

What will be really weird... is if the early attempts at inter-stellar travel rely on deep sleep or mobile biospheres to deliver living humans to a new planet. And in the interim, faster technology is developed that essentially allows people to leapfrog over the slower ships. If the disparity in travel times is great enough the "pioneers" could wind up being greeted by planets already populated with people.

Brad2770 · May 24, 2013

Pancreas_sl said:
What will be really weird... is if the early attempts at inter-stellar travel rely on deep sleep or mobile biospheres to deliver living humans to a new planet. And in the interim, faster technology is developed that essentially allows people to leapfrog over the slower ships. If the disparity in travel times is great enough the "pioneers" could wind up being greeted by planets already populated with people.

I thought this was the Fermi Paradox, but I was wrong. i cant remember what it is called, but there is some sort of equation, based on how fast technology is growing now, that even if we were to leave now or 100 years from now, we wont reach the closest star until the 2200's or 2300's. I know someone will chime in with it.

The later we leave, the faster we will get there, but no matter what, we will end up getting there at the same time.

Kinkle_sl · May 25, 2013

Brad2770_sl said:
I thought this was the Fermi Paradox, but I was wrong. i cant remember what it is called, but there is some sort of equation, based on how fast technology is growing now, that even if we were to leave now or 100 years from now, we wont reach the closest star until the 2200's or 2300's. I know someone will chime in with it.

The later we leave, the faster we will get there, but no matter what, we will end up getting there at the same time.

Fermi paradox is just what gogusrl just described... the statistical improbability that we haven't encountered aliens yet based on the Drake equation. As to growing technology outstripping travel time, I'll just mention that our own space travel is significantly behind what we're capable of already. We still run on chemical rockets whereas we've had the knowhow to pull off nuclear and even fusion (a bit sketchy) powered spacecraft for years and years. Theoretically, we're already capable of building spacecraft that could potentially reach Alpha Centauri in 50~ years at 1/10 the speed of light (other difficulties aside). We just... don't. Cause the commies'll get us.

Torrid · May 25, 2013

gogusrl_sl said:
why aren't we looking for Dyson Spheres or shit like that ? Considering the age of the universe, the amount of possible "habitable" planets and extrapolating from our own speed of scientific advancement, there's no way some civilization didn't get big enough to leave their mark on an entire galaxy in almost 14 billion years. Think about it, if we don't fuck ourselves up, in 100.000 - 1.000.000 years you could say we could colonize the entire galaxy, and that would definitively leave a mark. More than enough time has passed for someone else to have done it first, we just have to look for thesigns.

Dyson spheres are ridiculously impractical. For one, it would require more matter than in all of the planets and asteroids in the solar system. And secondly, why build an enormous solar panel when you can just make your own fusion reactors?

As for colonizing the entire galaxy, I have to ask why a species would want to do that. What's the point. If your population reaches a 1:1 birth to death ratio as ours will soon (hopefully) and no longer has population issues, and you have several colonies already so that your eggs are in multiple baskets so to speak, and resources are unlimited as they would be with asteroid mining, then why would you deliberately exile yourself from your people? The amount of effort to set up a colony would be enormous-- and you would need a certain number of breeding pairs and such as well, so there would have to be a reason beyond "it's not colonized yet."

Pancreas_sl said:
What will be really weird... is if the early attempts at inter-stellar travel rely on deep sleep or mobile biospheres to deliver living humans to a new planet. And in the interim, faster technology is developed that essentially allows people to leapfrog over the slower ships. If the disparity in travel times is great enough the "pioneers" could wind up being greeted by planets already populated with people.

This is a common theme in science fiction actually.

The Astronomy Thread

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Avatar of War Slayer

Trakanon Raider

Avatar of War Slayer

Trakanon Raider

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Trakanon Raider

Trakanon Raider

Member

JunkiesNetwork Donor

shitlord

Bronze Squire

Trakanon Raider

JunkiesNetwork Donor

Bronze Squire

Molten Core Raider

Vyemm Raider

Avatar of War Slayer

shitlord

Molten Core Raider