The Space Thread

[Miekenstien]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/substantial...ous&yptr=yahoo

Seems to open more likely that string theory could be right. Conceivable that our 2d reality is our membrane in the dimensions that we can perceive.
http://www.branebrain.com/

"A much more likely possibility is a membrane theory of gravity. This " theory of everything " states that gravity is not a leaking closed-loop string, but that all strings are actually Planck-length tubes of our membrane itself."

[rocwell]

Astronomers find SIXTY new planets orbiting stars near our solar system - and say some 'could be like Earth'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ar-system.html

[rocwell]

Yooo

NASA has found an entire solar system that could support alien life

[rocwell]

A possible surface of one of the planets

[Miekenstien]

I was super excited for this news but had to go to sleep last night. Degrasse-tyson was on rogan yesterday speculating that they would tell us they found planets with the proper chemical dispositions to support life as we know it.

[Ebonhawke]

I was super excited for this news but had to go to sleep last night. Degrasse-tyson was on rogan yesterday speculating that they would tell us they found planets with the proper chemical dispositions to support life as we know it.

With current technology however, it would apparently take approximately 700,000 years to reach the Trappist-1 system.

[Miekenstien]

With current technology however, it would apparently take approximately 700,000 years to reach the Trappist-1 system.

yeah, come on new physics and the em-drive

[Ebonhawke]

Or the Infinite Improbability drive

[rocwell]

“Finding another Earth-like planet isn't a matter of if but when.“

[DanH]

“Finding another Earth-like planet isn't a matter of if but when.“

Also a matter of "how far." Which is really the crucial consideration.

[Joey]

“Finding another Earth-like planet isn't a matter of if but when.“

Also a matter of "how far." Which is really the crucial consideration.

I think the other consideration here, is what might they mean by "Earth-like".. do they mean "Terrestial Planet" which means it's rocky and not gassy? Or do they mean "rocky with water oceans and with fully developed photosynthesizing forests and plant life and has Oxygen and Nitrogen in the Atmostphere etc etc."? Or perhaps they just mean in terms of Size, proximity to its Parent Star, Rotation, and Tidal similarities. I suppose all are matters of "if not when" still, but I think the distinction is important when getting people excited about these things, especially considering how much our specific sun affects everything on our planet; who knows if a Dim Red Dwarf star (which make up about 85% of the 100 Billion stars in the Milky Way) would even support photosynthesis.

[Miekenstien]

who knows if a Dim Red Dwarf star (which make up about 85% of the 100 Billion stars in the Milky Way) would even support photosynthesis.

it should but it would be much closer to the sun and without a giant magnetic field and atmosphere the solar winds would sterilize it.

[DanH]

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/...n-new-planets/

Local piece on some hardware for the JWST that will help with researching systems like TRAPPIST. I helped design/analyze the unit shown in the picture (specifically the box-looking bit at the front of the panel - a three mirror focusing system) - the unit is used to track ridiculously accurately the direction the JWST is pointing, because it needs to be held very still to capture good data, so slight drift is a disaster.

[Miekenstien]

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/...n-new-planets/

Local piece on some hardware for the JWST that will help with researching systems like TRAPPIST. I helped design/analyze the unit shown in the picture (specifically the box-looking bit at the front of the panel - a three mirror focusing system) - the unit is used to track ridiculously accurately the direction the JWST is pointing, because it needs to be held very still to capture good data, so slight drift is a disaster.

"That is critical because the shutters on the cameras will be open for long periods of time to collect enough light to produce sharp images of distant objects. Any movement will result in blurry, useless pictures."

similar to the hubble deep field? if so, why can't hubble just focus on that one star for a week?

[Miekenstien]

also dan, your real work is more valuable and important to humanity than your knowledge of the cba. lol