Even More Extra-Solar Planets

It’s difficult keeping track of this topic. Different observatories are making new discoveries, and the number of new-found planets keeps growing — to the increasing consternation of the creationists. They hate the idea that there are probably of millions of worlds out there, some of which may harbor life. The very thought is blasphemous to them, as it detracts from the glory of what their magic designer — blessed be he! — hath wrought here on earth.

Our last post on this topic was back in September: Fifty More Extra-Solar Planets Discovered. It was based on a news release from the European Southern Observatory. Their estimate was that 40% of stars similar to the Sun — Class G stars, about one in thirteen of the main-sequence stars in the solar neighborhood — have at least one planet lighter than Saturn.

But the news keeps coming. Here’s an article from about a month after that from NASA: NASA Survey Suggests Earth-Sized Planets Are Common. They say, with bold font added by us:

Nearly one in four stars similar to the sun may host planets as small as Earth, according to a new study funded by NASA and the University of California.

The Europeans said that 40% of such stars had a planet lighter than Saturn. NASA says 25% of them have Earth-sized planets. That’s a lot of potentially habitable worlds, or if not strictly habitable by us, at least they may have life of some kind. NASA’s article continues:

The study is the most extensive and sensitive planetary census of its kind. Astronomers used the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii for five years to search 166 sun-like stars near our solar system for planets of various sizes, ranging from three to 1,000 times the mass of Earth. All of the planets in the study orbit close to their stars. The results show more small planets than large ones, indicating small planets are more prevalent in our Milky Way galaxy.

They may be the right size, but they orbit their stars too closely. Let’s read on:

The research provides a tantalizing clue that potentially habitable planets could also be common. These hypothesized Earth-size worlds would orbit farther away from their stars, where conditions could be favorable for life. NASA’s Kepler spacecraft is also surveying sun-like stars for planets and is expected to find the first true Earth-like planets in the next few years.

But none have been found yet. We continue:

[Andrew Howard of the University of California, Berkeley, lead author of the new study] and his planet-hunting team, which includes principal investigator Geoff Marcy, also of the University of California, Berkeley, looked for planets within 80-light-years of Earth, using the radial velocity, or “wobble,” technique.

They measured the numbers of planets falling into five groups, ranging from 1,000 times the mass of Earth, or about three times the mass of Jupiter, down to three times the mass of Earth. The search was confined to planets orbiting close to their stars — within 0.25 astronomical units, or a quarter of the distance between our sun and Earth.

But what about Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone? Here’s more:

The research provides a tantalizing clue that potentially habitable planets could also be common. These hypothesized Earth-size worlds would orbit farther away from their stars, where conditions could be favorable for life. NASA’s Kepler spacecraft is also surveying sun-like stars for planets and is expected to find the first true Earth-like planets in the next few years.

Well, okay. They’re estimating. There’s more information in that article, but we have some late-breaking news. NASA just issued a press release: NASA Announcing Kepler Discoveries at Science Conference. It says:

NASA will host a news briefing at 8 a.m. PST, Monday, Dec. 5, to announce new discoveries by the Kepler mission.Kepler is the first NASA mission capable of finding Earth-size planets in or near the “habitable zone,” the region in a planetary system where liquid water can exist on the surface of an orbiting planet. Kepler is detecting planets and possible candidates with a wide range of sizes and orbital distances to help scientists better understand our place in the galaxy.

Ah, now perhaps we’re getting somewhere. Moving along:

The briefing will provide an update on the statistical findings since Kepler’s Feb. 1, 2011, science data release and introduce a new confirmed planetary discovery.

Skipping a lot, we’ll end with this:

A live stream of the Kepler Science Conference will be available at this link.

So you can watch the news conference live on Monday. It ought to be interesting.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 Responses to Even More Extra-Solar Planets

  1. Thanks for the link. We’ve been looking for a new home. Since my wife and I are both retired, commuting is no longer an issue. We’d like to find a place with a smaller chance of cosmic collisions, although that might be hard to judge at this distance.

  2. I’ll be keeping an eye on the Bad Astronomer blog for this one! Thanks for reminding me though.

    By the way, observing a transit in the habitable zone is no small feat. Not only from a perspective of the technology, but also the geometry. Check out: http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/what-percent-of-planets-are-in-the-position-that-they-could-be-viewed-edge-on-fr/1232#1232

  3. The Kepler announcement should garner some mainstream press coverage, which will undoubtedly result in a response from at least one of the big three creationist outfits.

    It’s amazing how we’ve progressed from simply discovering exoplanets to doing population studies of them. Our data might be somewhat skewed by the nature of our detection methods, but still, it’s really astonishing that we’re doing this at all.

  4. I knew there was a pony in that pile of horse manure!

    Punchline to an old joke.

    As a long-time reader of science fiction (I used to sneak into the adult section at our library, although all the librarians knew me and turned a blind eye, to read science fiction I have always “believed,” as in faith, that ET was out there.

    Many years later I have the same faith in ET, although I have modified my belief that ET will be anything like us. ET won’t have the same DNA and, therefore, won’t be able to eat us. ET won’t have the same psychology and, therefore, will probably not even recognize us as “sentient” beings. ET definitely won’t have the same physiology as us. ET won’t have the same mathematics or language or emotions (if any) as us.

    Gasp, ET will be totally ALIEN!

    But, perhaps more to the point is our very, very brief existence. Nearly 4 billion years of “nothing” then here we are in an instant, then gone. The same might be true throughout the galaxy. Sort of makes me long for a Klingon invasion!

  5. Doc Bill says:

    ET definitely won’t have the same physiology as us. ET won’t have the same mathematics or language or emotions (if any) as us.

    They’ll have the same math, and they’ll be interested in their own survival, but we won’t have much else in common. They won’t come here to eat us or to kidnap our women. I really don’t know why they’d come here at all.

  6. SC said:

    I really don’t know why they’d come here at all.

    Same reason that we would go there. Because they can.

  7. In case you’ve forgotten, the news conference is this morning. It hasn’t started yet. It’s scheduled to begin at 8:00 PST. That’s three hours off the Eastern time zone, so when it’s 8:00 in California it’ll be 11:00 on the US Atlantic coast. Viewers in other countries will have to figure it out for themselves.

  8. Doc Bill: “ET won’t have the same DNA and, therefore, won’t be able to eat us.”

    I don’t know enough to argue the point, but I wouldn’t be too sure. Since DNA molecules formed the way they did on earth, it may be the most likely way for a self-replicating molecule to form, given similar conditions.

    And would ET need to have the same DNA in order to eat us? Wouldn’t it just have to have a need for the same basic chemical nutrients — amino acids, carbs, fats, etc.?

    I’m not losing any sleep over it, though.

  9. “ET won’t have the same DNA and, therefore, won’t be able to eat us.”

    You can eat stuff that never had DNA in it to begin with. It’s not the presence of DNA that makes food edible. Refined sugar, for example, has no DNA in it. Neither has distilled alcohol.

  10. Gabriel Hanna says: “You can eat stuff that never had DNA in it to begin with.”

    Maybe they can eat us. But it seems like a long way to go for a snack.

  11. The news conference starts in 6 minutes. There are already over 100 people at that link, and they’re chatting. This might be a waste of time, or it could be fun.

  12. Ah, NASA.
    Certain people should pay more attention to their work.

    NASA | Earth Science Week: Climate Change & The Global Ocean