http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/nasakeplernews/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=16
5 Hot Jupiters from just the first 6 weeks of observation data. Awesome.
5 Hot Jupiters from just the first 6 weeks of observation data. Awesome.
Kepler discovers 5 previously unknown planets
- Thread starter 2552
- Start date
garyw
O-F Administrator
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,547
- Reaction score
- 347
- Points
- 173
- Location
- East Sussex
- Website
- blog.gdwnet.com
- Preferred Pronouns
- He/Him
I disagree. It shows that hot jupiters are a lot more common than our own somewhat cooler Jupiter. This shows that our solar system is quite unusual in construction, it also shows that the tool is working and the more information we have on planets around other stars the easier it becomes to target those systems that might have life bearing planets.
---------- Post added at 21:54 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------
For now but it becomes a wonderful catalyst to drive science, drive exploration, get the next generation interested in a decaying space programme and maybe revitalise it to the point that, space becomes more accessible and then from that who knows.
Every journey, even one of 4 light years begins with a single step.
Nerull
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Not sure it really means that hot jupiters are more common.
Remember, Kepler works by detecting the change in light when a planet passes in front of its star. If you were looking for Jupiter from another solar system, you would only see it every 11 years. Earth, only once a year. Hot jupiters often have very short orbital periods, in the range of a few days. The chances to detect one are much, much higher.
Remember, Kepler works by detecting the change in light when a planet passes in front of its star. If you were looking for Jupiter from another solar system, you would only see it every 11 years. Earth, only once a year. Hot jupiters often have very short orbital periods, in the range of a few days. The chances to detect one are much, much higher.
Deltafang
Terrestrial Planet Finder
Though it might not be completely known yet, the solar system with the most planets so far only has 5. Kinda strange in my opinion, that our solar system has a large 8. Not only that, but we've been neatly split into terrestrial and jovian planets number wise. The thing that really kicks me in the head is the fact that Neptune is out at almost 30 AU and most of the exoplanets we've found have smaller orbits than Earth does.
Every time someone tells me that there's no point in getting excited about these things, I feel depressed. I mean, I feel like if I don't get excited, who will? Sure, they may not immediately provide any real scientific gain, but the search for life is a serious goal in the future especially when we expand outward. I doubt we'll find any intelligent life for light years around, but even microbial life is enough to let us know we're not alone in the universe.
Every time someone tells me that there's no point in getting excited about these things, I feel depressed. I mean, I feel like if I don't get excited, who will? Sure, they may not immediately provide any real scientific gain, but the search for life is a serious goal in the future especially when we expand outward. I doubt we'll find any intelligent life for light years around, but even microbial life is enough to let us know we're not alone in the universe.
TSPenguin
The Seeker
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2008
- Messages
- 4,073
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 63
The reason why we mostly find large planets with a short orbit is due to our way of detecting them and the timespan we do our observations in.
Wobble observations can only detect planets that orbit (more or less) within the observation period and only if they have a large enough pull on their star to fall within our measurement accuracy.
Light dips, like Kepler searches for, require the planet to pass in front of the star. So its plane has to be aligned really well with our observatory, the further away the planet, the more accurately it has to be aligned. And of course it has to actually pass in front of its star while we are looking. That is why Kepler is so important, it watches the stars for a fairly long time, allowing planets with a greater orbital period to be detected.
Suffice to say, we would not be able to detect much of our own solar system. Yet!
Wobble observations can only detect planets that orbit (more or less) within the observation period and only if they have a large enough pull on their star to fall within our measurement accuracy.
Light dips, like Kepler searches for, require the planet to pass in front of the star. So its plane has to be aligned really well with our observatory, the further away the planet, the more accurately it has to be aligned. And of course it has to actually pass in front of its star while we are looking. That is why Kepler is so important, it watches the stars for a fairly long time, allowing planets with a greater orbital period to be detected.
Suffice to say, we would not be able to detect much of our own solar system. Yet!
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,814
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
Why not launch an array of sattelites into Earth's L5 or something that will form a very spread interferometric telescope - like a big mirror with many holes in it. Would it resolve planets a few light years apart?
Deltafang
Terrestrial Planet Finder
I suppose it would. Aren't NASA and the ESA trying to get clearance to build telescopes like that? What kind of resolution are we looking at? A well-shaded view of a specific system? That would be nice. We should be able to see the wobbles caused by gravitational disturbances as well as transits easier too, wouldn't we? We'd have to be staring for a pretty long time as well as double and triple checking or measurements.
I often wonder how exactly we could make a telescope that with direct imaging powerful enough to see extrasolar planets the same way we can see our planets with terrestrial telescopes. They'd probably have to be a multitude of satellite telescopes spread across our solar system, right? Seems like a lot of work to me. :hmm:
I often wonder how exactly we could make a telescope that with direct imaging powerful enough to see extrasolar planets the same way we can see our planets with terrestrial telescopes. They'd probably have to be a multitude of satellite telescopes spread across our solar system, right? Seems like a lot of work to me. :hmm:
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,814
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
As i understand it, the size of the mirror defines resolution, the fill defines brightness - a mirror with a lot of holes in it will have the same resolution as the full one, only less bright. If that is right, the problem is in holding satellites steady wrt each other, which should be doable away from major gravity sources. Beyond the belt maybe, or even Earth L5, no idea. Thus, a mirror with effective diameter in many kilometers could be made, and with proper detector, can resolve planets, no?
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Khimki
- Website
- tigerofsiberia.livejournal.com
Making a huge parabolic mirror out of swirling mercury in a lunar crater sounds like a much more realistic project to me. Imagine the implications of keeping distance and attitude of many satellites in relation to each other with precision of visible (or even infrared) light wavelength order!
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,814
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
Satellites we can launch now, going to the Moon is once again a definition of impossible.
Deltafang
Terrestrial Planet Finder
Hmmm, that sounds very possible. I'll need to write that down somewhere for memorizing.
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Khimki
- Website
- tigerofsiberia.livejournal.com
Well, but searching for terrestrial exo-planets supposedly takes some sweating, no? BTW, I was simply quoting head of IKI RAN L. Zelyony.
---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------
Sounds pointful. I'm thinking of a dragonfly-eye-like micro-adjustable optical receiver...
Our current methods of exoplanet detection are actually pretty primitive. So yes, we're going to detect far more high mass short period planets then we are are low mass, longer period planets.
And while the system with the most planets we have found is five, that's only the detectable planets in that system. Keep in mind the only major planets in our system are Jupiter, Saturn Uranus and Neptune, and out of those only Jupiter and maybe Saturn could be detectable.
I think the field of exoplanet research is in dire need of better detection methods. It is highly unfortunate that the Terrestrial Planet Finder and other such telescopes were denied funding.
As for an acessable habitable exoplanet, I suspect it would be quite a large incentive for space exploration. The possibility of extraterrestrial life is not something to be taken lightly, and I think any nation with enough funding would be extremely eager to make first contact with any inhabitants (or to claim the planet as their own).
And while the system with the most planets we have found is five, that's only the detectable planets in that system. Keep in mind the only major planets in our system are Jupiter, Saturn Uranus and Neptune, and out of those only Jupiter and maybe Saturn could be detectable.
I think the field of exoplanet research is in dire need of better detection methods. It is highly unfortunate that the Terrestrial Planet Finder and other such telescopes were denied funding.
As for an acessable habitable exoplanet, I suspect it would be quite a large incentive for space exploration. The possibility of extraterrestrial life is not something to be taken lightly, and I think any nation with enough funding would be extremely eager to make first contact with any inhabitants (or to claim the planet as their own).
Similar threads
