NASA Announces a Single Star Is Home to At Least 7 Earthlike Planets

[Fencers]

Neat. Though I doubt it will be possible for humans to travel beyond this solar system... like ever.

[Puupi]

Neat. Though I doubt it will be possible for humans to travel beyond this solar system... like ever.

Why do you doubt it?

[SirCowdog]

If we can ever figure out instantaneous communication, like with quantum entanglement or something similar, then it would be one way to overcome the limitations of how fast a human being's body can be accelerated. Space exploration will be done remotely, with human-shaped drones and virtual reality.

[Tijuana]

Who Knows.. In 500 years we may have a real "Miss Universe" contest.

The Klingons will never win.

- - - Updated - - -

Neat. Though I doubt it will be possible for humans to travel beyond this solar system... like ever.

That EM drive though...google that up, yo.

- - - Updated - - -

Space is unimaginably vast. The speeds you have to go to get anywhere are mind boggling. The Asgard O'neill class ship was shown travelling over 200 light years *per second* while towing an Earth ship (Prometheus) in season 6 of SG-1. That works out to over 6 billion times c. It was implied that towing slowed them down significantly too. The Asgard have been shown to be able to go between galaxies in an hour before in the series. That's just mind bogglingly fast. Granted, they don't move in real space (their ships go through hyperspace), but still.

I talked to someone once that believed the plot of Star Wars would work if the Millenium Falcon's top hyperspace speed was 0.5c.

I always felt like Star Wars tech wasn't really that advanced. They just seemed to have mastered energy in such a way that it was meaningless. But, they seem to lack all kinds of modern tech that we have ourselves, even in the 1970s when it was made. But then, in other ways, they have things like C3-PO. It kinda doesn't make any sense. But, it makes more sense than Star Trek I guess.

[Zantos]

How can you even begin to quantify this probability?




The reason we are doing it this way, and the reason why it's not 'beyond ludicrous' or a 'waste of time and effort' is that you cannot search for something if you have no idea what you're looking for. We look for life like ours because we understand it well enough that we'll know it when we see it. Astronomical research isn't just looking at pictures, it requires data and interpretation of that data in light of what we know.

We will know when we see it as long as it is identical to ours. How can I begin to quantify the probability? Look at the diversity in the life on our own planet. Look how drastically different it evolved just within the same planet under the same conditions. There are no 2 species that are 100% identical.

Now take that, and toss in a different planet with an entirely different environment and it becomes more clear just how it could develop in a different way.

Could they find life by going off a check list that was created by looking at humans and our planet? Sure. However, its not too likely given how it didn't happen on our own planet.

[Fencers]

Why do you doubt it?

I think we will be dead.

[Orange Joe]

So It seems people are using the wrong terms in this story.

The sun has 7 earth sized planets that orbit it. Only 3 of them are earth like. (in the habitable zone)

[Garnier Fructis]

We will know when we see it as long as it is identical to ours. How can I begin to quantify the probability? Look at the diversity in the life on our own planet. Look how drastically different it evolved just within the same planet under the same conditions. There are no 2 species that are 100% identical.

Now take that, and toss in a different planet with an entirely different environment and it becomes more clear just how it could develop in a different way.

Could they find life by going off a check list that was created by looking at humans and our planet? Sure. However, its not too likely given how it didn't happen on our own planet.

The point of asking you if you can quantify the probability was to make you aware of how silly it was for you to talk about probability and likelihoods. Also, the thing you're missing in your argument about the diversity of life on Earth is that all life on Earth is fundamentally similar.

[Fargus]

I always felt like Star Wars tech wasn't really that advanced. They just seemed to have mastered energy in such a way that it was meaningless. But, they seem to lack all kinds of modern tech that we have ourselves, even in the 1970s when it was made. But then, in other ways, they have things like C3-PO. It kinda doesn't make any sense. But, it makes more sense than Star Trek I guess.

What, because it doesn't look "advanced" ? I'll take the grit and power of a star destroyer in a fight over the "sleek" looking Enterprise-D any day.

Just remember that in Star Wars, ships can go from one side of the galaxy to the other in just a few days, and are capable of building space stations that can destroy entire planets. They also are capable of super advanced concepts like planetary shields, FTL communication, etc. To say that they lack the modern tech that we have today is a completely stupid thing to say.

[Splenda]

I'm not expecting us to find life or anything, but I still think it's a really neat discovery. Good read.

[mvaliz]

I'm just glad to see that this is getting VERY popular on social media! In this time we need something positive that's science-based and rewards the exploration of knowledge. ^_^

[Kelathos]

The EM drive could (in theory) evolve into something spectacular the way gunpowder was discovered, understood, and eventually refined into modern propellants. We can hardly imagine where the discovery will take us in the (distant) future.

[Logwyn]

So It seems people are using the wrong terms in this story.

The sun has 7 earth sized planets that orbit it. Only 3 of them are earth like. (in the habitable zone)

Which planets are earth sized again?

[Orange Joe]

Which planets are earth sized again?

All 7 are earth sized. 3 of the seven are in the habitable zone to have liquid water on the surface.

[Cerilis]

It must be a trap.

[Logwyn]

All 7 are earth sized. 3 of the seven are in the habitable zone to have liquid water on the surface.

What are the names of the said planets and which 3 are in the habitable zone?

[Gorgodeus]

That's jumping way past conclusions here, because all they really know about the planets are their general location. Not even if they have water, elements to sustain life, or even some form of viable atmosphere.

It's akin to saying that our solar system has 3 "earthlike planets", based on the relative size and distance to the star of venus, earth, and mars.

Except out solar system does not have 3 "earthlike planets". 2 of the requirements are 1. the planet is a rocky planet, and 2. has liquid water.

Neither Mars nor Venus have liquid water.

The surface of Venus is extremely dry. During its evolution, ultraviolet rays from the sun evaporated water quickly, keeping it in a prolonged molten state. There is no liquid water on its surface today because the scorching heat created by its ozone-filled atmosphere would cause any to boil away.

Mars is currently in the middle of an ice age, so liquid water cannot exist on its surface at the present time. However, the planet seems to have been warmer and wetter in the past.

[Atrea]

What are the names of the said planets and which 3 are in the habitable zone?

Trappist 1-e, Trappist 1-f, Trappist 1-g.

[Logwyn]

Trappist 1-e, Trappist 1-f, Trappist 1-g.

Who I quoted said "the sun". Not the other stars. Confusion abounds!

[Atrea]

Who I quoted said "the sun". Not the other stars. Confusion abounds!

I think in this instance, the person was talking about Trappist-1, as they mentioned it having 7 Earth-sized planets.
Sol has 8 planets, only two of which would be considered "Earth-sized", although Venus, Earth and Mars all exist within the "habitable zone".

"the sun" is kind of misleading though, but the context clues are there...