How do you react to this newly discovered "goldilocks zone" planet?

Like this

I dont see anything too crazy in there? I mean the temperature made me scratch their head like uhh “how do they know that?”. But then again maybe there is a way to figure that out and i don’t know it.

Otherwise it seems pretty reasonable, i mean they thought gliese 581d was going to be just like this plant until they actually figured out its proper orbit, if this planet does indeed follow an orbit in the habitable zone why couldnt the things it say be possible?

@uberbatman Using the inverse square law and star classifications (based on color, which has successfully been linked with temperature), astronomers can calculate the intensity of the stellar energy at a give distance from the star. There is invariably a point between that star and the edge of Space where water could remain liquid, called the thermally habitable zone. “Life zone,” if you’re feeling melodramatic.

I think it’s funny how finding a planet zillions of miles away that just might possibly have liquid water (or any water) punts some people to the conclusion that the place must be habitable, and that they thus must go completely bonkers at the announcement.
Hmph. “New Earth” indeed.

@Nullo Main part of my point. The thing blatantly ignored in the article are all the other factors that go into a planet’s habitability, such as an iron core to create a strong magnetic field to deflect the suns most harmful rays (upon further research I realize that as a larger planet it is more likely to have this, but the fact that this was ignored was still bothersome), a moon of larger than usual size relative to the planet to control tides and absorb meteor impacts, gas giants to protect from the bulk of meteor impacts, a tilted axis to regulate the seasons, and placement among the less star-dense areas of space, which is the real clincher – obviously most of the stars are concentrated in the densest part of galaxies, right? So where are we? Right at the edge of one of the Milky Way’s arms, where the star concentration is far less dense. That’s why such ideas as 1 in 5–10 stars having a habitable planet orbiting them is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. As you get nearer and nearer to the core of the galaxy or even the center of an arm, radiation and other factors become unbearable.

According to the article, however, the scientist only claimed that 1 in 5–10 could have a planet in the habitable zone; it’s unclear whether the more rash statement that all these planets would then be habitable is to be attributed to the journalist or the scientist, but I guess I’ll give the scientist the benefit of the doubt.

All in all though, I have to assume they’re either terribly misinformed (which would be sad indeed) or simply trying to get more people interested in the field (for purposes of funding) through slightly untrue measures.

@Hobosnake Yep, we have a pretty sweet setup. Almost as if it were… designed like that. :D

I’d say that nine times out of ten it’s going to be the journalist who gets carried away, not the scientist. Leastways, I’ve never heard of a scientist publishing a retraction.

Most science is funded via grants, leaving the scientist free to do research and hire people to find him more grants.

@Hobosnake If we really wanted to inhabit other planets without some kind of massive terraforming project, the only thing we would solidly NEED is a source of water. We can build things to deal with the suns rays, we don’t need tides, and we don’t need seasons.

Sure its probably not the type of place a lot of us would want to live, but the only thing we NEED, is water, and it could have it.

It’s the arrogance of human thinking to believe that we’re all special snowflakes – down to our own geocentrism.

However, there are more stars – more galaxies in the universe than we could possibly count. The fact that one planet has life is proof that life on a planet is possible, and there’s no reason to automatically believe we’re unique in that respect.

@Nullo ahhh thanks for explaining that. I had a feeling there was a way to calculate that but i had no fucking clue :P

@Seek_Kolinahr I think you just made the same mistake I almost made. They aren’t arguing about whether or not such a planet could hold alien life, but whether or not man kind could set up some kind of colony and actually survive on such a planet.

@tedd Oh. Well, in that case it’s far too early to tell such things. I don’t even think we have the equipment to determine what an atmosphere is made up of at that distance. All we know is it has sufficient gravity to hold one.

Could it be habitable? Sure. Could it be habitable to humans? Nobody knows that.

@Seek_Kolinahr and @tedd actually I’m more arguing both, but yes I do realize that many factors could be overlooked in a terraforming project, but I’m still unconvinced that anything at all close to us would be close enough to earth’s conditions for even our engineering to solve. Even if this planet does turn out to be a candidate for terraforming, it’ll be one hell of a trip to get there, especially when you take these points into account.

@Hobosnake Especially considering that we haven’t even left high Earth orbit in I dunno how many decades. We could be developing a lunar colony!

@Nullo What’s the point in developing a colony on a body that doesn’t have an atmosphere or gravity suitable to normal life? Talk about your wastes of energy.

@Seek_Kolinahr Because we can then use it as a springboard. That lack of gravity would make it an excellent launch point, and the lack of atmosphere would be perfect for astronomy. There may even be mining opportunities on the moon, room for industry. if so, we might be able to move the whole operation there.

I’m upset that different news outlets are giving different stats on the planet… is it 20 light years away or 20,000… that makes a big difference… other than that I happy that we will have more movies on space colonization… and maybe an update to Sid Meier’s Alpha Centari

It’s a very cool discovery, but remember that it’s a planet with an orbital period of 37 days that is tidally locked. Not very hospitable.

@talljasperman Meh… I could go without another Pandorum. It was intriguing, but I kinda hated it.

@Rarebear I think they were talking about a certain area of the planet for which the lock is less extreme (think about Alaska here, but kind of the opposite, noting their “eternal sunset” idea) That was my understanding of it at least.

@Rarebear Ah, but you could have beautiful sunsets forever! Think of the entrepreneurial possibilities! :D

Come to think of it, if the panels could stand the heat, you sure could generate a lot of solar power on the sunny side of a day/night-locked planet.

@Hobosnake If you could maintain an atmosphere, you could probably generate a lot of powerful winds, too.

@Hobosnake I know. What’s amazing is not that they found this planet, but that they found this planet using ground based technology.

@Rarebear Was it ground based? In either case it’s impressive, though, good point.

@Hobosnake Yes. I actually asked Pamela Gay, who is a professional astronomer at Southern Illinois University this exact question. I had just gone to a lecture on the Kepler mission the night before and I was wondering if this was a Kepler find. She told me that it was ground based data.

Let’s start making colonization plans.

@mattbrowne I claim all of the beachfront property!

@Nullo – Better bring some nice presents for the natives ;-)

@mattbrowne Seeds from the spaghetti tree sound good?

@mattbrowne @Nullo

I want a hamster-frog.

@mattbrowne I love the irony of the fact that the one with darth vader as their avatar is the one talking about interplanetary colonization.

Yes :-)

@Hobosnake Oh, that’s just my avatar’s Halloween costume. :D

@Seek_Kolinahr We’ll set our finest engineers to the task.
In the meantime, check out this Swiss spaghetti orchard.