First possible habitable planet found

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

First possible habitable planet found

Postby Dark567 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:38 am UTC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 07492.html

Unlike the article title, we're not sure its really habitable, it just has all the right conditions to be habitable(distance from star, circular orbit, correct size). Cool stuff.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby SummerGlauFan » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 am UTC

I was watching a news report today, and they claimed it was three times the earth's mass, which I think may mean too high a gravitational field for complex life-forms.

Unless it was talking about another newly discovered planet, in which case awesome because it means two planets discovered in a day!
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Sourire » Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:40 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:I was watching a news report today, and they claimed it was three times the earth's mass, which I think may mean too high a gravitational field for complex life-forms.

Unless it was talking about another newly discovered planet, in which case awesome because it means two planets discovered in a day!

I'm not exactly an astrophysicist, but doesn't that have every bit as much to do with the actual radius of the planet as well as it's mass (if not moreso due to the maths involved?)
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Soralin » Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:18 am UTC

Well, if it's 3x as massive as Earth, and if you assume it has the same density as Earth, then it would have 3x the volume as Earth. Volume is proportional to radius3, so it's radius would then be cube root of the volume times as much, so cube root of 3 is about 1.4422. A spherically symmetrical object can be treated as a single point at it's core with the same mass, and gravity drops off with the square of distance, so gravity at the surface would be less by 1.4422[sup]2[sup] times as much, which would be about 2.08.

So, gravity due to the extra mass would be 3x, gravity at the surface level, due to extra distance would be 1/2.08. Put them together, and surface gravity would be about 1.4422g, for a planet of 3x the mass that has the same density as Earth. Uncomfortable for life from Earth, but not uninhabitable, or too high for complex life. If it has a different density though, that number could be different by quite a bit.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Qaanol » Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:47 am UTC

Hey guys I found this planet that I think might be habitable! It’s right over…oh, wait.

Seriously though, let’s starting building colony ships right now. It’ll jump-start the economy on earth, we can send them out accelerating up to near-light speeds, decelerate them just as fast, and in a few decades (their time) they’ll each reach a new star system. They can explore the planets at their leisure, and go to another star if no planets there are suitable. What could possibly go wrong‽
wee free kings

User avatar
Habz
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:55 am UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Habz » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:29 am UTC

Seems that the planet is tidally locked. That already would make the living conditions there quite... interesting...?

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby SlyReaper » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:56 am UTC

It might be possible for life to have found a niche on the day-night terminator line. I don't imagine there would be much liquid water though - it would boil on the day side, then settle as ice and snow on the night side.

Still, it's exciting because it means we're getting to the point where we can detect Earth-sized planets in biosphere orbits. We can even detect the atmospheric composition of an exoplanet if the conditions are right. If we spot something with a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere, that'll be a dead giveaway that there's life out there.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Ulc » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:04 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:It might be possible for life to have found a niche on the day-night terminator line. I don't imagine there would be much liquid water though - it would boil on the day side, then settle as ice and snow on the night side.


According to the article, there is a fairly large line of habitable zone around the day/night line. But yes, coupled with the 1.45G (if assuming same density as earth) it would likely make life look very strange to us.

And getting off the planet and into space would be a mighty task indeed.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

User avatar
majikthise
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:28 am UTC
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby majikthise » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:48 am UTC

Also- the larger the planet radius, the wider the strip of perpetual twilight (ie. habitable zone).
Is this a wok that you've shoved down my throat, or are you just pleased to see me?

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Soralin » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:52 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:It might be possible for life to have found a niche on the day-night terminator line. I don't imagine there would be much liquid water though - it would boil on the day side, then settle as ice and snow on the night side.

If your tidally locked planet had some large oceans, you might actually end up with something largely habitable. Water would evaporate on the sunlit side, carrying away heat, in evaporating, it would cause an increased air pressure, causing winds that would continuously blow from the day side to the night side. As it moved from the day side to the night side, the water would condense out, raining or snowing down. And as it rains out on the night side, and evaporates on the day side, you now have the situation where there's more water on the night side, and since that water is going to equalize it's level, it's going to end up flowing back toward the day side. Which means there would be a continuous water current, bringing cold water flowing back toward the day side.

So, you have a continuous hot air current flowing from dayside to nightside, and a continous cold water current flowing the other way, from nightside to dayside. And the greater the difference in temperature between the two sides, the stronger the currents would become, better able to equalize the temperatures.

In other words, you now have a planetary scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe :)

I remember seeing something on this before, it would still have more of a temperature difference than a planet which isn't tide-locked, but not enough that you'd have water freezing and boiling on the same planet for example. I did find this at least:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitabili ... rf_systems
The planet would need an atmosphere thick enough to transfer the star's heat from the day side to the night side. It was long assumed that such a thick atmosphere would prevent sunlight from reaching the surface in the first place, preventing photosynthesis, but now this pessimism has been tempered by research. Studies by Robert Haberle and Manoj Joshi of NASA's Ames Research Center in California have shown that a planet's atmosphere (assuming it included greenhouse gases CO2 and H2O) need only be 100 mbs, or 10% of Earth's atmosphere, for the star's heat to be effectively carried to the night side.[2] This is well within the levels required for photosynthesis, though water would still remain frozen on the dark side in some of their models. Martin Heath of Greenwich Community College, has shown that seawater, too, could be effectively circulated without freezing solid if the ocean basins were deep enough to allow free flow beneath the night side's ice cap. Geothermal heat might help keep the lower parts of any ocean liquid.[citation needed] Further research—including a consideration of the amount photosynthetically active radiation—suggested that tidally locked planets in red dwarf systems might at least be habitable for higher plants.[3]

Ah and this, which is what I think I saw before: http://www.treitel.org/Richard/rass/tidelock01.txt

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby lesliesage » Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:55 am UTC

I refuse to read any articles about the planet that don't refer to it as "M-Class."

User avatar
dedalus
Posts: 1169
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:16 pm UTC
Location: Dark Side of the Moon.

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby dedalus » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:58 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Still, it's exciting because it means we're getting to the point where we can detect Earth-sized planets in biosphere orbits. We can even detect the atmospheric composition of an exoplanet if the conditions are right. If we spot something with a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere, that'll be a dead giveaway that there's life out there.

So the Martians are going to have to find even better ways of hiding from our telescopes...
doogly wrote:Oh yea, obviously they wouldn't know Griffiths from Sakurai if I were throwing them at them.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Plasma Man » Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:11 pm UTC

This is an excellent piece of astronomy, well done to all involved. It's interesting that the planetary system in which this one orbits looks like our own, maybe that could be used to help speed the search for other exoplanets by concentrating on other, similar systems.
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

Levelheaded
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:42 pm UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Levelheaded » Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:36 pm UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:I was watching a news report today, and they claimed it was three times the earth's mass, which I think may mean too high a gravitational field for complex life-forms.


Neutrally buoyant life doesn't experience gravitational loading...aquatic life shouldn't have much trouble, it's where life developed first on earth. Plus, if atmospheric pressure is high enough, air density might even be high enough to give land dwelling life enough buoyancy to survive in significantly higher gravity.

Not to mention that even terrestrial life can survive increased gravity - an experiment at University of California raised a flock of chickens in a centrifuge at 3g.

Spoiler:
https://www.amherst.edu/users/D/ndarnton/extra/biophysics

Ah, the golden years of scientific inquiry.

To quote from Great Mambo Chicken & the Transhuman Experience by Ed Regis (Addison Wesley, 1990), pp. 54-55:

There was the hyper-g work done on chickens, for example, by Arthur Hamilton ("Milt") Smith in the 1970s. Milt Smith was a gravity specialist at the University of California at Davis who wanted to find out what would happen to humans if they lived in greater-than-normal g-forces. Naturally, he experimented on animals, and he decided that the animal that most closely resembled man for this specific purpose was the chicken. Chickens, after all, had a posture similar to man's: they walked upright on two legs, they had two non-load-bearing limbs (the wings), and so on. Anyway, Milt Smith and his assistants took a flock of chickens – hundreds of them, in fact – and put them into the two eighteen-foot-long centrifuges in the university's Chronic Acceleration Research Laboratory, as the place was called.
They spun those chickens up to two-and-a-half gs and let them stay there for a good while. In fact, they left them spinning like that day and night, for three to six months or more at a time. The hens went around and around, they clucked and they cackled and they laid their eggs, and as far as those chickens were concerned that was what ordinary life was like: a steady pull of two-and-a-half gs. Some of those chickens spent the larger portion of their lifetimes in that goddamn accelerator.

Well, it was easy to predict what would happen. Their bones would get stronger and their muscles would get bigger – because they had all that extra gravity to work against. A total of twenty-three generations of hens was spun around like this and the same thing happened every time. When the accelerator was turned off, out walked ... great Mambo chicken!

These chronically accelerated fowl were paragons of brute strength and endurance. They'd lost excess body fat, their hearts were pumping out greater-than-normal volumes of blood, and their extensor muscles were bigger than ever. In consequence of all this, the high-g chickens had developed a three-fold increase in their ability to do work, as measured by wingbeating exercises and treadmill tests.

I haven't had a chance to track them down, but supposedly these are the references:

Smith, A. H, "Physiological Changes Associated with Long-Term Increases in Acceleration." In "Life Sciences and Space Research XIV", edited by P.H.A. Sneath. Berlin:Akademie-Verlag, 1976.

Smith, A. H., and C. F. Kelly, "Biological Effects of Chronic Acceleration." Naval Research Reviews 18:1 (1965)

Smith, A. H., and C. F. Kelly, "Influence of Chronic Acceleration upon Growth and Body Composition." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 110: 413 (1963)


Keep in mind that this is life developed here on earth in 1g.

Assuming similar composition to the earth, this planet shouldn't have gravity more then about 2x the gravity on earth, so I would say this is far from a deal breaker - if anything it's an amazing find with great potential.

Also keep in mind this is the first one we've found. At the rate we're finding exoplanets, we'll almost certainly find ones that are a closer match.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby mmmcannibalism » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:32 pm UTC

Levelheaded wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:I was watching a news report today, and they claimed it was three times the earth's mass, which I think may mean too high a gravitational field for complex life-forms.


Neutrally buoyant life doesn't experience gravitational loading...aquatic life shouldn't have much trouble, it's where life developed first on earth. Plus, if atmospheric pressure is high enough, air density might even be high enough to give land dwelling life enough buoyancy to survive in significantly higher gravity.

Not to mention that even terrestrial life can survive increased gravity - an experiment at University of California raised a flock of chickens in a centrifuge at 3g.

Spoiler:
https://www.amherst.edu/users/D/ndarnton/extra/biophysics

Ah, the golden years of scientific inquiry.

To quote from Great Mambo Chicken & the Transhuman Experience by Ed Regis (Addison Wesley, 1990), pp. 54-55:

There was the hyper-g work done on chickens, for example, by Arthur Hamilton ("Milt") Smith in the 1970s. Milt Smith was a gravity specialist at the University of California at Davis who wanted to find out what would happen to humans if they lived in greater-than-normal g-forces. Naturally, he experimented on animals, and he decided that the animal that most closely resembled man for this specific purpose was the chicken. Chickens, after all, had a posture similar to man's: they walked upright on two legs, they had two non-load-bearing limbs (the wings), and so on. Anyway, Milt Smith and his assistants took a flock of chickens – hundreds of them, in fact – and put them into the two eighteen-foot-long centrifuges in the university's Chronic Acceleration Research Laboratory, as the place was called.
They spun those chickens up to two-and-a-half gs and let them stay there for a good while. In fact, they left them spinning like that day and night, for three to six months or more at a time. The hens went around and around, they clucked and they cackled and they laid their eggs, and as far as those chickens were concerned that was what ordinary life was like: a steady pull of two-and-a-half gs. Some of those chickens spent the larger portion of their lifetimes in that goddamn accelerator.

Well, it was easy to predict what would happen. Their bones would get stronger and their muscles would get bigger – because they had all that extra gravity to work against. A total of twenty-three generations of hens was spun around like this and the same thing happened every time. When the accelerator was turned off, out walked ... great Mambo chicken!

These chronically accelerated fowl were paragons of brute strength and endurance. They'd lost excess body fat, their hearts were pumping out greater-than-normal volumes of blood, and their extensor muscles were bigger than ever. In consequence of all this, the high-g chickens had developed a three-fold increase in their ability to do work, as measured by wingbeating exercises and treadmill tests.

I haven't had a chance to track them down, but supposedly these are the references:

Smith, A. H, "Physiological Changes Associated with Long-Term Increases in Acceleration." In "Life Sciences and Space Research XIV", edited by P.H.A. Sneath. Berlin:Akademie-Verlag, 1976.

Smith, A. H., and C. F. Kelly, "Biological Effects of Chronic Acceleration." Naval Research Reviews 18:1 (1965)

Smith, A. H., and C. F. Kelly, "Influence of Chronic Acceleration upon Growth and Body Composition." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 110: 413 (1963)


Keep in mind that this is life developed here on earth in 1g.

Assuming similar composition to the earth, this planet shouldn't have gravity more then about 2x the gravity on earth, so I would say this is far from a deal breaker - if anything it's an amazing find with great potential.

Also keep in mind this is the first one we've found. At the rate we're finding exoplanets, we'll almost certainly find ones that are a closer match.


That article just made my day.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Vieto
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Vieto » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:56 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Levelheaded wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:I was watching a news report today, and they claimed it was three times the earth's mass, which I think may mean too high a gravitational field for complex life-forms.


Neutrally buoyant life doesn't experience gravitational loading...aquatic life shouldn't have much trouble, it's where life developed first on earth. Plus, if atmospheric pressure is high enough, air density might even be high enough to give land dwelling life enough buoyancy to survive in significantly higher gravity.

Not to mention that even terrestrial life can survive increased gravity - an experiment at University of California raised a flock of chickens in a centrifuge at 3g.

Spoiler:
https://www.amherst.edu/users/D/ndarnton/extra/biophysics

Ah, the golden years of scientific inquiry.

To quote from Great Mambo Chicken & the Transhuman Experience by Ed Regis (Addison Wesley, 1990), pp. 54-55:

There was the hyper-g work done on chickens, for example, by Arthur Hamilton ("Milt") Smith in the 1970s. Milt Smith was a gravity specialist at the University of California at Davis who wanted to find out what would happen to humans if they lived in greater-than-normal g-forces. Naturally, he experimented on animals, and he decided that the animal that most closely resembled man for this specific purpose was the chicken. Chickens, after all, had a posture similar to man's: they walked upright on two legs, they had two non-load-bearing limbs (the wings), and so on. Anyway, Milt Smith and his assistants took a flock of chickens – hundreds of them, in fact – and put them into the two eighteen-foot-long centrifuges in the university's Chronic Acceleration Research Laboratory, as the place was called.
They spun those chickens up to two-and-a-half gs and let them stay there for a good while. In fact, they left them spinning like that day and night, for three to six months or more at a time. The hens went around and around, they clucked and they cackled and they laid their eggs, and as far as those chickens were concerned that was what ordinary life was like: a steady pull of two-and-a-half gs. Some of those chickens spent the larger portion of their lifetimes in that goddamn accelerator.

Well, it was easy to predict what would happen. Their bones would get stronger and their muscles would get bigger – because they had all that extra gravity to work against. A total of twenty-three generations of hens was spun around like this and the same thing happened every time. When the accelerator was turned off, out walked ... great Mambo chicken!

These chronically accelerated fowl were paragons of brute strength and endurance. They'd lost excess body fat, their hearts were pumping out greater-than-normal volumes of blood, and their extensor muscles were bigger than ever. In consequence of all this, the high-g chickens had developed a three-fold increase in their ability to do work, as measured by wingbeating exercises and treadmill tests.

I haven't had a chance to track them down, but supposedly these are the references:

Smith, A. H, "Physiological Changes Associated with Long-Term Increases in Acceleration." In "Life Sciences and Space Research XIV", edited by P.H.A. Sneath. Berlin:Akademie-Verlag, 1976.

Smith, A. H., and C. F. Kelly, "Biological Effects of Chronic Acceleration." Naval Research Reviews 18:1 (1965)

Smith, A. H., and C. F. Kelly, "Influence of Chronic Acceleration upon Growth and Body Composition." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 110: 413 (1963)


Keep in mind that this is life developed here on earth in 1g.

Assuming similar composition to the earth, this planet shouldn't have gravity more then about 2x the gravity on earth, so I would say this is far from a deal breaker - if anything it's an amazing find with great potential.

Also keep in mind this is the first one we've found. At the rate we're finding exoplanets, we'll almost certainly find ones that are a closer match.


That article just made my day.


Indeed. We now have a planet in which we can raise our very own SupermanChicken.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Sharlos » Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:55 pm UTC

Hypothetically, do we have the technology to get off the surface of a planet with 2g gravity? Or if Earth's gravity was twice as strong, would the Apollo program been successful at that time or would they have needed a greater development of technology?

This idea made me consider the idea of a planet of intelligent and technologically advanced species that was planet-bound.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby SummerGlauFan » Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:59 pm UTC

Vieto wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:
Levelheaded wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:I was watching a news report today, and they claimed it was three times the earth's mass, which I think may mean too high a gravitational field for complex life-forms.


Neutrally buoyant life doesn't experience gravitational loading...aquatic life shouldn't have much trouble, it's where life developed first on earth. Plus, if atmospheric pressure is high enough, air density might even be high enough to give land dwelling life enough buoyancy to survive in significantly higher gravity.

Not to mention that even terrestrial life can survive increased gravity - an experiment at University of California raised a flock of chickens in a centrifuge at 3g.

Spoiler:
https://www.amherst.edu/users/D/ndarnton/extra/biophysics

Ah, the golden years of scientific inquiry.

To quote from Great Mambo Chicken & the Transhuman Experience by Ed Regis (Addison Wesley, 1990), pp. 54-55:

There was the hyper-g work done on chickens, for example, by Arthur Hamilton ("Milt") Smith in the 1970s. Milt Smith was a gravity specialist at the University of California at Davis who wanted to find out what would happen to humans if they lived in greater-than-normal g-forces. Naturally, he experimented on animals, and he decided that the animal that most closely resembled man for this specific purpose was the chicken. Chickens, after all, had a posture similar to man's: they walked upright on two legs, they had two non-load-bearing limbs (the wings), and so on. Anyway, Milt Smith and his assistants took a flock of chickens – hundreds of them, in fact – and put them into the two eighteen-foot-long centrifuges in the university's Chronic Acceleration Research Laboratory, as the place was called.
They spun those chickens up to two-and-a-half gs and let them stay there for a good while. In fact, they left them spinning like that day and night, for three to six months or more at a time. The hens went around and around, they clucked and they cackled and they laid their eggs, and as far as those chickens were concerned that was what ordinary life was like: a steady pull of two-and-a-half gs. Some of those chickens spent the larger portion of their lifetimes in that goddamn accelerator.

Well, it was easy to predict what would happen. Their bones would get stronger and their muscles would get bigger – because they had all that extra gravity to work against. A total of twenty-three generations of hens was spun around like this and the same thing happened every time. When the accelerator was turned off, out walked ... great Mambo chicken!

These chronically accelerated fowl were paragons of brute strength and endurance. They'd lost excess body fat, their hearts were pumping out greater-than-normal volumes of blood, and their extensor muscles were bigger than ever. In consequence of all this, the high-g chickens had developed a three-fold increase in their ability to do work, as measured by wingbeating exercises and treadmill tests.

I haven't had a chance to track them down, but supposedly these are the references:

Smith, A. H, "Physiological Changes Associated with Long-Term Increases in Acceleration." In "Life Sciences and Space Research XIV", edited by P.H.A. Sneath. Berlin:Akademie-Verlag, 1976.

Smith, A. H., and C. F. Kelly, "Biological Effects of Chronic Acceleration." Naval Research Reviews 18:1 (1965)

Smith, A. H., and C. F. Kelly, "Influence of Chronic Acceleration upon Growth and Body Composition." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 110: 413 (1963)


Keep in mind that this is life developed here on earth in 1g.

Assuming similar composition to the earth, this planet shouldn't have gravity more then about 2x the gravity on earth, so I would say this is far from a deal breaker - if anything it's an amazing find with great potential.

Also keep in mind this is the first one we've found. At the rate we're finding exoplanets, we'll almost certainly find ones that are a closer match.


That article just made my day.


Indeed. We now have a planet in which we can raise our very own SupermanChicken.


Wow. That was quite interesting!

Habz wrote:Seems that the planet is tidally locked. That already would make the living conditions there quite... interesting...?


What this actually means is that we have found Ryloth, homeworld of the Twi'leks.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:52 pm UTC

Tell me, would finding the planet of the Twi'leks be a bad thing?
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Dark567 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:04 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:Tell me, would finding the planet of the Twi'leks be a bad thing?

Absolutely not. I believe they were known for their sexual prowess, so thats a pretty big plus.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby stevey_frac » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:20 pm UTC

With even a modest bit of training, a human could easily adapt to 1.5g to 2g.

That would be akin to putting putting between 100 to 200 lbs on my shoulders, something that I do on a regular basis, then do squats with. The human body would adapt to the stresses placed on it within a matter of a few months. You'd find your core stabilizing muscles would become thicker and stronger, especially your lower back. Your leg muscles would get stronger. You bone density would increase, and your tendons would grow tougher.

It'd probably suck until you got adapted, and you'd find people tripping more often then here until then.

The worst part would be that anyone who went to such a place, would have to experience a long term session of zero-G, something that is known to deteriorate muscle. Upon landing, an untrained individual, with deteriorated muscle would have to take things really easy, eat lots of protein, calories, and calcium until their muscles and bones adapted.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby BlackSails » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

stevey_frac wrote:With even a modest bit of training, a human could easily adapt to 1.5g to 2g.


Lifespan will be shortened, because of the increased stress on the cardiovascular system.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby stevey_frac » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:33 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
stevey_frac wrote:With even a modest bit of training, a human could easily adapt to 1.5g to 2g.


Lifespan will be shortened, because of the increased stress on the cardiovascular system.


Blood pressure would definitely be higher... But hey, we were starting to live to long anyways. Have you SEEN all the 80 year olds around lately? It's creepy.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Diadem » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:37 pm UTC

Yeah, higher gravity would definitely shorten our natural lifespan. But I hope that by the time we are doing manned spaceflights to other solar systems our medical science is advanced enough to tackle that problem.

And of course within a few generations we'd be quite adapted to it. Natural selection is kind of cool like that.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:39 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
stevey_frac wrote:With even a modest bit of training, a human could easily adapt to 1.5g to 2g.


Lifespan will be shortened, because of the increased stress on the cardiovascular system.

No mention of the elevated rate of accidents.
I think with sufficient training though, it's likely that a human could survive just fine at elevated g. I dunno if 1.5 is too high, or what the range is, but my guess is with a few years training it'd be possible for most people to live just fine. It'd be interesting though, shorter, stockier people would definitely be at an advantage over taller, skinnier people. George Castanza's dream job?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:40 pm UTC

The more fat you have the worse it would be.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby stevey_frac » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:47 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:The more fat you have the worse it would be.



Well. Yes, and no. If you were morbidly obese, that would be bad. But people who have more body fat are actually able to get stronger faster then those that are very slender. Ideally you'd want men with between 15% and 20% body fat, so that they'd be able to grow muscles faster upon landing. Once you start getting down to 10% body fat, you'd start having issues putting on muscle mass. Anything below 10% and that's basically a no go.

Check out this dude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwNlUTekYWA

He's got a fair bit of fat. And yet, i'd bet he'd do just fine in 2g.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby BlackSails » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:48 pm UTC

You would also want people who are as short as possible.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:02 pm UTC

Huh, hadn't thought of it like that. Slender people wouldn't have the stores to burn to enable their hearts to take the heightened strain, and they'd have to consume massive amounts of food, which would come with its own risks, in order to make the muscle development occur.

Neat, I learned me somethin'.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:05 pm UTC

Yeah, by short and stocky, I don't mean 4 and half feet and weighing 300 lbs. Generally speaking, smaller people will fare better, and 'sturdier' folk will fare better. Higher cross section of muscle and all that. Also, sturdier bones break less.

My legs are pretty slender, and I'm still a little top heavy from climbing and a summer on the water; I probably wouldn't fare very well. A friend of mine plays rugby, he'd be perfect at about 5'5, 160lbs.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3916
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Dauric » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:07 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:Huh, hadn't thought of it like that. Slender people wouldn't have the stores to burn to enable their hearts to take the heightened strain, and they'd have to consume massive amounts of food, which would come with its own risks, in order to make the muscle development occur.

Neat, I learned me somethin'.


It's more that at 10% - 20% body fat every movement at 2G is light to moderate exercise which strengthens and builds more muscle. Below that the person would have to carry weights to get the same level of exercise, above that it overstresses the muscles and joints resulting in constant injury rather than exercise.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:08 pm UTC

6'3" 215, I'd probably not be a good candidate.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:20 pm UTC

Again, I don't think anyone really knows what the limits are. In 1.5g you'd be walking around with approx 320 lbs of pressure on you at all times, and that'd probably be fairly stressful. On the other hand, carrying loads of that caliber isn't unheard of; I'm sure with even a reasonable amount of training you could put on the requisite muscle mass, and lose some of the dead weight, to make it a go.

I mean, people train for marathons at altitude; the body's fairly adaptable within reason.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby The Reaper » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:22 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:You would also want people who are as short as possible.

Wouldn't the word you're looking for be "stocky", not so much "short"?

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby SummerGlauFan » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:23 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Oregonaut wrote:Tell me, would finding the planet of the Twi'leks be a bad thing?

Absolutely not. I believe they were known for their sexual prowess, so thats a pretty big plus.


:D Aayla Secura FTW.

Oregonaut wrote:6'3" 215, I'd probably not be a good candidate.


I'm up there with you, 6'3" and 220 lbs. I do, however, have quite a bit of lower body strength (an impromptu leg-press competition in a weight-training class led to me winning by doing 700 lbs at 80 reps. Granted, two hours later I could barely stand, but I won. :) )

@Izawwlgood (you ninja): I bet the best way to acclimate oneself would be for relatively short periods of activity with longer periods of rest. Walking around for 10-12 hours with an extra 200 lbs of weight would probably be unhealthy at first.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:24 pm UTC

I'm just imagining the Lollypop Guild now.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby stevey_frac » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:30 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Oregonaut wrote:Huh, hadn't thought of it like that. Slender people wouldn't have the stores to burn to enable their hearts to take the heightened strain, and they'd have to consume massive amounts of food, which would come with its own risks, in order to make the muscle development occur.

Neat, I learned me somethin'.


It's more that at 10% - 20% body fat every movement at 2G is light to moderate exercise which strengthens and builds more muscle. Below that the person would have to carry weights to get the same level of exercise, above that it overstresses the muscles and joints resulting in constant injury rather than exercise.



Not quite.

The body is self-regulating to a large extent. Muscle is expensive, caloric-ly to build and maintain. If you are at a low body fat%, your body "knows" this, and "thinks" that food is scarce. And the last thing you want to do if food is scarce is be packing on muscle. This is why in order to build muscle quickly, you must be eating a caloric excess. That's why body builders go through bulking and cutting cycles. They eat more to grow muscles, then cut fat off.

Same thing with power lifters. They are generally heavy set guys, with around 15% body fat, because at this body fat level, your body is more 'willing' to grow muscle.

We are quickly approaching the limit of my knowledge on the subject. I believe it has something to do with how body fat regulates hormones. Similar to a gymnast being unable to get pregnant because she has too little body fat, a man with too little body fat won't be able to pack on muscle the same.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:31 pm UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:@Izawwlgood (you ninja): I bet the best way to acclimate oneself would be for relatively short periods of activity with longer periods of rest. Walking around for 10-12 hours with an extra 200 lbs of weight would probably be unhealthy at first.

An extra 200 lbs is an exaggeration here, that'd be, for me, subsisting on a 2.2ish g world. For 1.5g, I'd need to acclimate myself to an additional 70-90lbs, and I've definitely done long hikes with 50-60 lbs of gear on my back. I'm not saying if you dropped one of us on a 1.5g planet right now we could be rock climbing and playing basketball in a matter of days, but 1.5, which despite seeming a little high, seems within the range of human survival.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby stevey_frac » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:36 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:@Izawwlgood (you ninja): I bet the best way to acclimate oneself would be for relatively short periods of activity with longer periods of rest. Walking around for 10-12 hours with an extra 200 lbs of weight would probably be unhealthy at first.

An extra 200 lbs is an exaggeration here, that'd be, for me, subsisting on a 2.2ish g world. For 1.5g, I'd need to acclimate myself to an additional 70-90lbs, and I've definitely done long hikes with 50-60 lbs of gear on my back. I'm not saying if you dropped one of us on a 1.5g planet right now we could be rock climbing and playing basketball in a matter of days, but 1.5, which despite seeming a little high, seems within the range of human survival.


In a couple of days, no. In a month, provided sufficient protein was available, and people were willing to eat a bit more then usual, and not scared of getting a bit fatter, that'd be no issue.

And to be fair, if you could drop me on a 1.5g planet right now, I'd do fine. I can squat 1.5 times my body weight (equivalent to 2.5g loading), so 1.5g's would be around 60% of my 1RM squat weight, and i'd be more then comfortable to walk around at that loading.

With about three months of training, virtually any young person could get to the same level.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: First possible habitable planet found

Postby SummerGlauFan » Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:38 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:@Izawwlgood (you ninja): I bet the best way to acclimate oneself would be for relatively short periods of activity with longer periods of rest. Walking around for 10-12 hours with an extra 200 lbs of weight would probably be unhealthy at first.

An extra 200 lbs is an exaggeration here, that'd be, for me, subsisting on a 2.2ish g world. For 1.5g, I'd need to acclimate myself to an additional 70-90lbs, and I've definitely done long hikes with 50-60 lbs of gear on my back. I'm not saying if you dropped one of us on a 1.5g planet right now we could be rock climbing and playing basketball in a matter of days, but 1.5, which despite seeming a little high, seems within the range of human survival.



Oh, no doubt survivable. I was just thinking of the best way to acclimate someone to the extra weight. I remember when I first started doing long-distance hikes, and the extra weight the first time made me realize just how out of shape I was. :lol:

stevey_frac wrote:
Dauric wrote:
Oregonaut wrote:Huh, hadn't thought of it like that. Slender people wouldn't have the stores to burn to enable their hearts to take the heightened strain, and they'd have to consume massive amounts of food, which would come with its own risks, in order to make the muscle development occur.

Neat, I learned me somethin'.


It's more that at 10% - 20% body fat every movement at 2G is light to moderate exercise which strengthens and builds more muscle. Below that the person would have to carry weights to get the same level of exercise, above that it overstresses the muscles and joints resulting in constant injury rather than exercise.



Not quite.

The body is self-regulating to a large extent. Muscle is expensive, caloric-ly to build and maintain. If you are at a low body fat%, your body "knows" this, and "thinks" that food is scarce. And the last thing you want to do if food is scarce is be packing on muscle. This is why in order to build muscle quickly, you must be eating a caloric excess. That's why body builders go through bulking and cutting cycles. They eat more to grow muscles, then cut fat off.

Same thing with power lifters. They are generally heavy set guys, with around 15% body fat, because at this body fat level, your body is more 'willing' to grow muscle.

We are quickly approaching the limit of my knowledge on the subject. I believe it has something to do with how body fat regulates hormones. Similar to a gymnast being unable to get pregnant because she has too little body fat, a man with too little body fat won't be able to pack on muscle the same.


IIRC, the point to having higher percentage of body fat while trying to build muscle is so that your body has a calorie source to burn that isn't protein. If your body burns too much protein, you don't have protein for muscles, or even worse your body starts cannibalizing muscles.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Xeio and 13 guests