First potentially habitable Earth-sized planet confirmed: It may have liquid water.
83 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;44571973]Maybe it's just the atmosphere and i'm not doubting that it might have water but it looks like a desert planet.[/QUOTE]
We don't know what it looks like, and unfortunately there's no real way to find out right now. All we can do is determine its size/distance from its star, sometimes even its atmosphere contents.
I'm also always dumbfounded at how many possibilities there are and how vastly different life on other worlds may be compared to our own. I'd love to see how lifeforms live on other planets, what kind of plants and animals there are and how they survive among eachother.
My Dads fiend in NASA say they are already launching some nukes and sewage rockets to prepare it for Colonisation
[QUOTE=Leg of Doom;44574387]My Dads [b]fiend[/b] in NASA say they are already launching some nukes and sewage rockets to prepare it for Colonisation[/QUOTE]
That does sound quite fiendish!
The whole sandy-yellow in what appears to be the "artist's impression" makes it out to look like some sort of desert world, though being so close to the outer edge of the Goldilocks zone it'd probably be a pretty cold world whilst still being warm enough for liquid water.
But even if it has liquid water on the surface, one of the other important factors is whether it has the right kind of atmosphere, not just having oxygen present but having the right balance of oxygen and nitrogen (I would say "non-interactive gases", but some lifeforms need to "fix" nitrogen to produce proteins), since if the concentration is too high it could potentially be toxic, and if too low it'd be harder to breathe. Ideal concentration for oxygen seems to be about 21% for Earth-life.
Another thing about those Alcubierre drives is if it was even possible, it would destroy everything in its path uponstopping. You would have to stop outside the solar system and go in under less lethal means which could take decades depending on where it is. Sort of like a galactic no wake zone.
We'd probably be better off with Krasinov tubes or Einstein-Rosen bridges.
However, would it be possible in physics to stretch the fabric of spacetime in such a fashion that a tubular area in front of a craft would be extended across space, to the point where travelling through the resultant warp tube would seriously reduce travel time? Presumably the extended area would eventually snap back to normal length after a time if spacetime is "elastic" enough, and it'd require more energy to make a wider tube, but would it be feasible?
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;44572345][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_ship]It's not necessarily impossible to get human beings that far away from Earth[/url]. The trip would last far more than a single human lifetime, that much is for sure.[/QUOTE]
Imagine being in any of the intermediate generations before arrival. You will never see earth, nor will you ever see the destination. Your only purpose in life would be to stay alive until you get kids, so a further generation could get there. How are you supposed to motivate someone that it's for the "greater good of humanity" when they haven't even been to Earth.
[QUOTE=ironman17;44574914]We'd probably be better off with Krasinov tubes or Einstein-Rosen bridges.
However, would it be possible in physics to stretch the fabric of spacetime in such a fashion that a tubular area in front of a craft would be extended across space, to the point where travelling through the resultant warp tube would seriously reduce travel time? Presumably the extended area would eventually snap back to normal length after a time if spacetime is "elastic" enough, and it'd require more energy to make a wider tube, but would it be feasible?[/QUOTE]
Doesn't seem like it right now. Once agin the issue with negative energy densities.
[QUOTE=kirderf;44574984]Imagine being in any of the intermediate generations before arrival. You will never see earth, nor will you ever see the destination. Your only purpose in life would be to stay alive until you get kids, so a further generation could get there. How are you supposed to motivate someone that it's for the "greater good of humanity" when they haven't even been to Earth.[/QUOTE]
Or being the generation that finally arrives, realizing that you have no idea how to function when there are things like weather and natural disasters, not knowing how to farm the land or what resources could be used for building.
[QUOTE=kirderf;44574984]Imagine being in any of the intermediate generations before arrival. You will never see earth, nor will you ever see the destination. Your only purpose in life would be to stay alive until you get kids, so a further generation could get there. How are you supposed to motivate someone that it's for the "greater good of humanity" when they haven't even been to Earth.[/QUOTE]
It is why we should invest in cryogenics or life extension to avoid such a problem. The way it'd work would involve most of the folks into stasis and having rotating shifts of crew to man the vessel, with a dozen or so year-long shifts that cycle through on rotation, with the next shift awakening about 6 months before the previous shift is scheduled to go back into cryosleep, ensuring there are always two shifts worth of crew working together. (Example: Shift A and B take the first shift as they trek out of the solar system, 6 months later Shift A is sent into cryosleep whilst Shift C wakes up, then 6 months later Shift B enters cryosleep to make way for Shift D, and the cycle goes on until Shift K goes to sleep and Shift A reawakens to work alongside Shift L)
It'd require a lot of power to keep thousands, if not millions, in cryosleep, but it'd mean that you wouldn't need to have loads of hydroponic gardens to produce food for the entire crew. Just enough regular produce for two active shifts and stockpiled surplus for emergencies. AND it would minimize the risk of intermediary generations not living to see the New World, though that could probably be solved via a one-child policy to make sure there are enough cryopods to go around.
[editline]18th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Falubii;44575004]Doesn't seem like it right now. Once agin the issue with negative energy densities.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully we'll eventually find, or maybe even invent, a particle for that, assuming we learn the secrets of what bosons are made of and how to assemble particles so tiny. And that shit would need tech far more miniaturized than nanomachines, likely even deeper than femtotechnology (femtotech involves manipulating the stuff inside subatomic particles, in measurements about a million times more precise and tiny than nanotech). So probably either attotechnology (1000 times smaller than a femtometer) or zeptotechnology (1000000 times smaller than a femtometer) will be the key to creating the much sought-after Minovsky particles.
Speaking of which, we already probably have a very rudimentary form of picotechnology in the form of particle accelerators, smashing charged atomic and subatomic particles into things to make shit happen. Kind of like banging rocks against things but on the picoscale.
[QUOTE=Plattack;44575064]Or being the generation that finally arrives, realizing that you have no idea how to function when there are things like weather and natural disasters, not knowing how to farm the land or what resources could be used for building.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm kinda assuming if we ever get to the point that we can do such a mission, a proper education system that doesn't involve having other people lecture you would be created.
[QUOTE=ironman17;44575132]It is why we should invest in cryogenics or life extension to avoid such a problem. The way it'd work would involve most of the folks into stasis and having rotating shifts of crew to man the vessel, with a dozen or so year-long shifts that cycle through on rotation, with the next shift awakening about 6 months before the previous shift is scheduled to go back into cryosleep, ensuring there are always two shifts worth of crew working together. (Example: Shift A and B take the first shift as they trek out of the solar system, 6 months later Shift A is sent into cryosleep whilst Shift C wakes up, then 6 months later Shift B enters cryosleep to make way for Shift D, and the cycle goes on until Shift K goes to sleep and Shift A reawakens to work alongside Shift L)
It'd require a lot of power to keep thousands, if not millions, in cryosleep, but it'd mean that you wouldn't need to have loads of hydroponic gardens to produce food for the entire crew. Just enough regular produce for two active shifts and stockpiled surplus for emergencies. AND it would minimize the risk of intermediary generations not living to see the New World, though that could probably be solved via a one-child policy to make sure there are enough cryopods to go around.
[editline]18th April 2014[/editline]
Hopefully we'll eventually find, or maybe even invent, a particle for that, assuming we learn the secrets of what bosons are made of and how to assemble particles so tiny. And that shit would need tech far more miniaturized than nanomachines, likely even deeper than femtotechnology (femtotech involves manipulating the stuff inside subatomic particles, in measurements about a million times more precise and tiny than nanotech). So probably either [B]attotechnology[/B] (1000 times smaller than a femtometer) or [B]zeptotechnology[/B] (1000000 times smaller than a femtometer) will be the key to creating the much sought-after Minovsky particles.
Speaking of which, we already probably have a very rudimentary form of picotechnology in the form of particle accelerators, smashing charged atomic and subatomic particles into things to make shit happen. Kind of like banging rocks against things but on the picoscale.[/QUOTE]
I laugh when I see "science" questions in trivia that just say to translate those prefixes into an actual number. I guarantee more than half of scientists have no clue what the hell yocto or zepto is. /rant
[QUOTE=OvB;44574839]Another thing about those Alcubierre drives is if it was even possible, it would destroy everything in its path uponstopping. You would have to stop outside the solar system and go in under less lethal means which could take decades depending on where it is. Sort of like a galactic no wake zone.[/QUOTE]
I remember hearing that it couldn't even be stopped because any signals that would be sent to shut the drive down wouldn't be able to reach the front of the warp bubble.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;44572110]I'm still convinced we'll find a planet perfectly suited for us, get there, and find out it's already taken.[/QUOTE]
When has that ever stopped us before?
[QUOTE=ironman17;44574914]We'd probably be better off with Krasinov tubes or Einstein-Rosen bridges.[/QUOTE]
Doubt we will ever use either successfully.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;44572611]Not impossible, just extremely slow. Even at 0.99c it would obviously still take 500 years. If you built a massive 'ark' spaceship, it would make the difference between survival and extinction of humans after Earth is gone, even though it'd take five hundred years.[/QUOTE]
if you somehow accelerated a ship to near light speeds wouldn't time appear to move slower inside the cabin of the ship so the crew only experience a small fraction of the time it would take to get there?
[QUOTE=asb44;44577393]if you somehow accelerated a ship to near light speeds wouldn't time appear to move slower inside the cabin of the ship so the crew only experience a small fraction of the time it would take to get there?[/QUOTE]
A more accurate description for what what the crew experiences would length contraction. Moving at those speeds the distance to their destination would be greatly reduced.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44578244]A more accurate description for what what the crew experiences would length contraction. Moving at those speeds the distance to their destination would be greatly reduced.[/QUOTE]
They would also get really heavy and probably explode or something
[QUOTE=Sio;44578287]They would also get really heavy and probably explode or something[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't notice anything different. E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 only means that it becomes more and more difficult to accelerate the object.
Can't wait to hear more about this. Super fascinating.
[QUOTE=uberKAOS;44571902]Your avatar fits
[editline]17th April 2014[/editline]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cXEdmQu.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
hot damn, it even looks like it's looking at the picture as a hologram and it's glowing on his face
[QUOTE=kirderf;44574984]Imagine being in any of the intermediate generations before arrival. You will never see earth, nor will you ever see the destination. Your only purpose in life would be to stay alive until you get kids, so a further generation could get there. How are you supposed to motivate someone that it's for the "greater good of humanity" when they haven't even been to Earth.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? That ride across the universe wouldn't be enough? See all of those worlds "close" up. Certainly worth it if you're into that sort of thing, and after the first generation, parents would just have to teach their offspring why they are where they are and to appreciate what's there, just like any shitty situation people have been caught in over history. I agree with the cryo idea better though, but just for that one notion I'd have to say passing all those solar systems to be pretty amazing, although I suppose it'd get old after so many years.
[QUOTE=zach1193;44580952]Are you kidding me? That ride across the universe wouldn't be enough? See all of those worlds "close" up. Certainly worth it if you're into that sort of thing, and after the first generation, parents would just have to teach their offspring why they are where they are and to appreciate what's there, just like any shitty situation people have been caught in over history. I agree with the cryo idea better though, but just for that one notion I'd have to say passing all those solar systems to be pretty amazing, although I suppose it'd get old after so many years.[/QUOTE]
You must not understand how far away everything is in space.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44573559]According to the theory behind the idea. It would require a negative energy density (which doesn't exist) and it would wreck causality. Also I don't think the word "think" is by any means an absolute claim. I don't [I]think[/I] it will work.
Ah yes when confronted with facts just rate dumb okay.[/QUOTE]
Facts? you just spouted things, no sources at all. you literally said it's what you "think"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.