Comments on: Three "Super-Earths" Found Orbiting One Star

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:18:42 +0000

@Contra

You have a very refined sense of humor (the alternative being that you actually believe what you wrote in which case we should rather be looking for intelligent life on Earth instead of in space).

By: Contra

Contra — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:42:53 +0000

All of you sound like a bunch of school girls reacting gitty over the new cute guy in school. What all of you pseudo scientists fail to realize is that this is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to the truth and the actual existence of Nibiru (Planet X) that is fast approaching and causing all the solar flares due to the electromagnetic pull to our sun. WAKE UP!! stop bickering over a bunch of futile nonsense as to what colors or details of pictures of these ficticious mega earth's are and start holding forum regarding the coming destruction of our own planet as described by many sources dating back from the Mayan calendar to even the bible. All you super geeks are well versed and learned in an area of foolishness. Of course there are other life forms in the universe as well as other dimensions. How lame we are to believe we earthlings are the only ones. Know your own origins and true history. We were created by these very beings!! That too is even in the bible. I weep for the intelligent ignorance of our people. You all are so smart that you are complete morons. I mean that. Get a clue

By: Terragen

Terragen — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:06:59 +0000

The fact things are a few times the mass of earth doesnt tell me much about their composition, and thus, their diameter and density. I can't wait until these future discoveries!

By: Tyler Durden

Tyler Durden — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:51:40 +0000

@Aodhhan:

What the hell, man? Was that really called for?

Obviously you have no idea how to READ THE POST because if you'd read that guy's post you'd notice that he is advocating that we * explore more places * not that we stop exploring.

His entire argument is that we're being too narrow-minded in simply looking for Earth-like life and should keep an open mind so that we might someday find forms of life that are entirely unlike our own.

I happen to agree with that sentiment, although I still say that finding Earth-like planets should be top priority because we're going to need a backup sooner rather than later.

By: Aodhhan

Aodhhan — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:26:14 +0000

You're right Joe. We should be little cowards and hole up in our own little spot of the galaxy. We shouldn't try to learn new things and stretch our imaginations. We should allow fate to control us and wither away until our planet dies.

I hate Christopher Columbus for finding out you cannot fall off the edge of the earth, and Darwin for exploring other worlds. Damn them all! They could have brought back disease and pistulance. They could have let monsters follow them back from their travels. What on earth were they thinking?

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:51:56 +0000

We really must get past looking for life as WE know it. One day we may be quite surprised to find other forms of life thriving in environments hostile to us. Things in the universe may be more like characters from Doctor Who.

By: Aodhhan

Aodhhan — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:23:29 +0000

Okay, is someone really bashing the artist conception/impression picture?
If this is the case, why would you stop with the obvious… there are at least 5 other problems with the picture you didn't mention… as is the case with most impressions.
The point is, it isn't meant to be perfect… it is meant to grab attention and display the story.

I actually feel sorry for you; all the things this article covers and you decide to make a comment on a picture. LAME.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:37:02 +0000

hopefully some of them have intelligent life in it. =)

By: pantzov

pantzov — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:02:52 +0000

"Does every single star harbor planets and, if yes, how many?"

it doesn't seem likely. ie: class O stars have very strong solar wind. it is believed that they "evaporate" all of the material in their protoplanetary disks before it has time to coalesce.

By: Timothy Bladel

Timothy Bladel — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:52:49 +0000

you guys can be no fun. dare to fream and yea we have no idea what the effects of other stars have on there planets. I like the picture. Just imagine three earths right next to each other but one problem is if it was human we prob just find away to destroy at least 2 of them.

By: Learner

Learner — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:13:35 +0000

Steve… that sounds awfully fast. to orbit a star in 4 days. Maybe it's a mis-print. The planet would have to be moving "warp" speed, and have a tremendously strong magnetic attraction to that star, to not whip right out of orbit, like a sling-shot.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:56:12 +0000

Im intrigued as to how a 4.2 earth massed planet would orbit a star in 4.3 days without being torn apart due to the gravitational forces exerted on it. One would have to suspect that a huge iron core exists.

By: Topcat

Topcat — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:47:16 +0000

As Hall said, this is a K-type start. Which means its less massive then our Sun, it has less luminosity…almost like a Red Dwarf Star. So putting these planets close to the star may be like us living where Mercury is in our Solar System.

With that said, I'm both excited and disappointed about seeing new planets or even ones called "super-earths". Sure, they may sustain life but all we can do now is look for other Earth size/type planets. I mean, it takes us 3-4 months just to send a lander/orbiter to Mars and its the closest planet to us.

By: Al Hall

Al Hall — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:19:19 +0000

We must also remember that all stars aren't created equal. One star may 'emit' a lot less energy than another.. Hence, the "habitable" as we know it, zones will be different from one system to the next.

By: Al Hall

Al Hall — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:14:21 +0000

There are probably countless other planets that orbit far out. The problem is that it probably takes years, decades, or even centuries to complete one orbit. So that won't help with our current way of detection.. From what I understand.

By: law mc

law mc — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:41:09 +0000

can they only detect planets that are orbiting rather close to their parent star??? wouldnt those be rather poor grounds for life?

By: Learner

Learner — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:30:57 +0000

If I'm not mistaken, what the article is saying, is that with the instruments now in place to "find" other systems, they only need "time" to calculate gravitational pulls on stars, indicating the presence of planets in orbit around those stars. Projecting the likelihood of many earth-like planets, is almost a sure thing.

If life does exist on other earth-like planets, would the planet have to be within a reasonable distance from it's star, to sustain "life" as we know it, with the properties of life-building elements known, relative to our understanding of the universe, or could "life" exist somehow, outside of our present scope of knowledge of organic life?

Anyone have a theory?

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:54:07 +0000

You would think that an artist so good at painting planets would know better.OH WAIT!!Thats the flash from the camera!!!! Silly me.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:51:25 +0000

WOW!So many planets out there!Too bad we may never get to any of them……………

By: Mike J

Mike J — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:42:17 +0000

Which planets would be detectable in a distant system identical to our solar system?

By: Nancy Atkinson

Nancy Atkinson — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:42:44 +0000

Hi all-
Thanks for noticing the mistake. This is the first planetary system found to have 3 "super-Earth" sized planets (as opposed to the Jupiter-like planets that are "easier" (relative term!) to find. The text in the article has been changed to correct the discrepancy.

Thanks,
Nancy

By: Andy C

Andy C — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:41:19 +0000

DDecker,

I thought that too. I've had a look at the JPL site, and although it's possible that it's a question of confirmation, these are the systems with 3 or more planets (excluding this latest finding):

55 Cancri: 5
HD 160691: 4
Gliese 581: 3
Gliese 876: 3
HD 37124: 3
HD 69830: 3
HD 74156: 3
PSR 1257: 3
Upsilon Andromedae: 3

By: John Mendenhall

John Mendenhall — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:37:12 +0000

True.

By: Jorge

Jorge — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:30:58 +0000

Wow. Great news! I'm betting on the detection of an Earth-sized planet until the end of the decade.

I do, however, have an increading beef with these "artist impressions". Can the geometry of light and dark be any wronger?

And blue seas?! White clouds? At that distance from the star? These planets are scorching hot, way hotter than Venus or Mercury. Wereas they are probably massive enough to hold on to atmospheres, I'm guessing they would be severely depleted of hidrogen and other lighter elements. Plus they are probably tidally locked, which in itself would create atmospheric conditions completely different from any Earth equivalence.

If there's anything certain regarding this illustration is that the actual system won't look anything like it.

Still, three massive planets so close from the star and eachother would be quite a sight in eachother's skies.

By: DDecker

DDecker — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:55:47 +0000

I don't think that this is the only system with at least 3 planets. I thought there was one with 4 or more.