Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You gotta be really dense as well as weird. Claiming sarcasm afterward is a poor defense.
Ummm... So you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it? Only realize that's what it is after it's explained to you? No defense is required, Posters here know when a joke is placed in front of them. The majority will appreciate it. The rest don't matter.
I guess I will be the first poster in this thread that actually has something to say about the topic.
All the "Habitable Zone" means is that liquid water can exist. Depending upon the radius, mass, temperature, and luminosity of a given star, a distance can be determined where temperatures will be between 0°C and 100°C. Liquid water can be found anywhere temperatures are between 0°C and 100°C. That is all it means.
It does not mean that a planet within the "Habitable Zone" is even remotely habitable by humans or any other life form as we know it. Only that liquid water can exist.
So lets take a closer look at the star Kelper-62.
It is a spectral type K2V solo star in the constellation Lyra, 1,200 ± 180 light years distant from Sol;
It has a mass of 69% ± 2% M☉, with a radius of 64% ± 2% R☉, a luminosity of 21% ± 2% L☉, has a surface temperature of 4,925° ± 7° K, 14.7% less than our sun;
The star also appears to be older than Sol, anywhere from three to eleven billion years old. The approximate lifespan of main sequence stars can be calculated based upon their mass, as follows:
Lifespan = 10,000,000,000 years x (mass^-2.5)
Which in this particular case is approximately 25.3 billion years. So the star is still relatively young, but probably still older than Sol.
The metallicity of the star is 37% ± 4% less that of Sol.
As a result of that above information, the "Habitable Zone" of the star can be calculated to be anywhere from 41.2 M km (+99.9°C) to 76.0 M km (+0.1°C). Earth's mean surface temperature is +14.6°C. For a planet in the Kelper-62 system to have the same temperature it would have to be 68.55 M km (42.6 M miles) away from its star. Which would be just inside the orbit of Mercury in our solar system.
Now lets look at the planets in the Kepler-62 solar system:
The first three planets are clearly inside the "Habitable Zone";
Planet "e" is only 63.8 M km (39.6 M miles) from the star which places it in the "Habitable Zone" and gives the planet a mean surface temperature of 25.2°C (77°F), assuming the albedo (0.3) and infrared emissivity (0.77) is the same as Earth; and
Planet "f" is outside the "Habitable Zone" at 107.4 M km, assuming the albedo (0.3) and infrared emissivity (0.77) is the same as Earth, planet "f" would have a mean surface temperature of -43.1°C (-46.0°F).
It also also unlikely that the planet will be tidally-locked with the star at that distance. Any planet within 34 M km of the Kepler-62 star would be tidally-locked. The fact that planet "e" is 1.61 ± 0.05 M⊕ is a good thing. First, because the star has fewer "metals" (anything heavier than hydrogen or helium) than our sun means that the planets will likely be correspondingly less dense. Since Kelper-62 is a K2V type star, that means like our sun, it will have bouts of solar flares and CMEs. Any planet that does not have a strong magnetic field will eventually have its atmosphere stripped off by solar winds, like what has happened to Mars. The fact that planet "e" is 1.61 ± 0.05 M⊕ means that it probably does have a strong magnetic field.
The low luminosity of the star (21%) would make everything appear much dimmer on planet "e." Plants would be darker in color in order to absorb as much sunlight as possible. It would still be much warmer than Earth, due to the higher output of infrared by the star.
Why would it be? What, you expect earth-like planets to be just past Pluto?
Why has this thread pulled out all the weirdies?
I'm a weirdo based on that post? Did the settlement just get a computer? And yes, I expect Earth like planets just past Pluto. I don't consider "just 1,200 light years" right around the corner based on our fastest means of travel.
I'm a weirdo based on that post? Did the settlement just get a computer? And yes, I expect Earth like planets just past Pluto. I don't consider "just 1,200 light years" right around the corner based on our fastest means of travel.
Forget stellar travel. It is not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. Even travel to Proxima Centauri (4.24 light years away) is not going to happen in your great-grand-children's lifetime.
I'm a weirdo based on that post? Did the settlement just get a computer? And yes, I expect Earth like planets just past Pluto. I don't consider "just 1,200 light years" right around the corner based on our fastest means of travel.
I went back and reread the article thinking I had missed something, and I hadn't. Where did someone (anyone) say those planets are "right around the corner"?
If your speaking about the headline of the article it is, again, tongue in cheek. Why is it that people that post here can't pick up on the subtleties of the typed word?
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Interesting this was also posted on another newspaper though they claimed that the planets could be water worlds completely covered in oceans.
'Earth-Like' Planets Discovered By NASA's Kepler Telescope Could Host Liquid Water, Agency Says Kepler-62e and f take 122 and 267 days, respectively, to complete one orbit around their star, which is just 20 percent as bright as the sun. While nobody knows what the two exoplanets look like, a separate modeling study suggests they're both probably water worlds covered by endless, uninterrupted global oceans.
"There may be life there, but could it be technology-based like ours? Life on these worlds would be under water with no easy access to metals, to electricity, or fire for metallurgy," lead author Lisa Kaltenegger, of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in a statement.
"Nonetheless, these worlds will still be beautiful blue planets circling an orange star — and maybe life’s inventiveness to get to a technology stage will surprise us," she added.
My question is how did they reach that conclusion or thought process about them possibly being water worlds? I mean we don't even know what Pluto's surface looks like and it's much closer how do they infer so much about these far off planets?
Interesting this was also posted on another newspaper though they claimed that the planets could be water worlds completely covered in oceans.
'Earth-Like' Planets Discovered By NASA's Kepler Telescope Could Host Liquid Water, Agency Says Kepler-62e and f take 122 and 267 days, respectively, to complete one orbit around their star, which is just 20 percent as bright as the sun. While nobody knows what the two exoplanets look like, a separate modeling study suggests they're both probably water worlds covered by endless, uninterrupted global oceans.
"There may be life there, but could it be technology-based like ours? Life on these worlds would be under water with no easy access to metals, to electricity, or fire for metallurgy," lead author Lisa Kaltenegger, of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in a statement.
"Nonetheless, these worlds will still be beautiful blue planets circling an orange star — and maybe life’s inventiveness to get to a technology stage will surprise us," she added.
My question is how did they reach that conclusion or thought process about them possibly being water worlds? I mean we don't even know what Pluto's surface looks like and it's much closer how do they infer so much about these far off planets?
The planet Kepler-62f is not in the habitable zone of Kepler-62. Only Kepler-62e falls in the habitable zone. The other Earth-like exoplanet that Kepler found is Kepler-69c, which is in the habitable zone of the star Kepler-69.
They can infer a planet's atmosphere by its spectrum. When the sunlight from its star reflects off the exoplanet's atmosphere certain wavelengths will get absorbed, while others will be reflected. From that spectrum we can tell the chemical composition of a planet's atmosphere. And yes, we do know that Pluto has a thin atmosphere of primarily nitrogen.
However, the Kepler space telescope does not have that ability, it uses the a transient dip in the light-curve of stars to locate exoplanets. The doppler spectroscopy must be done by ground-based telescopes to confirm Kepler's discoveries.
Another method used to determine the composition of a planet is by determining its density. Earth's density averages 3.2 ounces per cubic inch (5.5 g/cm^3). The density of fresh water at freezing (32°F/0°C) is 0.58 ounces per cubic inch (1.0 g/cm^3). Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that a low density Earth-like planet might be covered with water, or at the very least be metal poor in comparison to Earth.
However, the Kepler space telescope does not have the ability to determine density. It can only suggest the mass of an exoplanet by measuring its diameter as it transits its star. Both Kelper-62 and Kepler-69 are metal-poor stars, in comparison to Sol, and Kepler-62 is only one fifth as bright as our sun. So it is just as possible that both of these exoplanets could have both oceans and continents, similar to Earth, and just be lacking in other heavy metals (like their parent stars).
In short, they have absolutely no idea whether either of these planets contains water. Only that the exoplanets are at the right distance to support liquid water. When the James Webb space telescope is launched around 2015 or 2016 it will have the ability to actually take spectroscopic images of exoplanets and determine the composition of the atmosphere, if any.
The planet Kepler-62f is not in the habitable zone of Kepler-62. Only Kepler-62e falls in the habitable zone. The other Earth-like exoplanet that Kepler found is Kepler-69c, which is in the habitable zone of the star Kepler-69.
They can infer a planet's atmosphere by its spectrum. When the sunlight from its star reflects off the exoplanet's atmosphere certain wavelengths will get absorbed, while others will be reflected. From that spectrum we can tell the chemical composition of a planet's atmosphere. And yes, we do know that Pluto has a thin atmosphere of primarily nitrogen.
However, the Kepler space telescope does not have that ability, it uses the a transient dip in the light-curve of stars to locate exoplanets. The doppler spectroscopy must be done by ground-based telescopes to confirm Kepler's discoveries.
Another method used to determine the composition of a planet is by determining its density. Earth's density averages 3.2 ounces per cubic inch (5.5 g/cm^3). The density of fresh water at freezing (32°F/0°C) is 0.58 ounces per cubic inch (1.0 g/cm^3). Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that a low density Earth-like planet might be covered with water, or at the very least be metal poor in comparison to Earth.
However, the Kepler space telescope does not have the ability to determine density. It can only suggest the mass of an exoplanet by measuring its diameter as it transits its star. Both Kelper-62 and Kepler-69 are metal-poor stars, in comparison to Sol, and Kepler-62 is only one fifth as bright as our sun. So it is just as possible that both of these exoplanets could have both oceans and continents, similar to Earth, and just be lacking in other heavy metals (like their parent stars).
In short, they have absolutely no idea whether either of these planets contains water. Only that the exoplanets are at the right distance to support liquid water. When the James Webb space telescope is launched around 2015 or 2016 it will have the ability to actually take spectroscopic images of exoplanets and determine the composition of the atmosphere, if any.
I see, so it's nothing more than speculation at this point? Also, I did know that we had information on Pluto's atmosphere we just don't have information on what the surface might be like or look like. Thanks for the info though.
I see, so it's nothing more than speculation at this point? Also, I did know that we had information on Pluto's atmosphere we just don't have information on what the surface might be like or look like. Thanks for the info though.
I would describe it as "educated speculation."
After all, the assumptions being made are based upon actual observations. It is not made up out of thin air. If the star had more metallicity than our sun, for example, then it would be likely that any planets around that star would be denser. If an exoplanet has more density than Earth (5.5 g/cm^3) then it most likely has less water, or no water.
But you are right, it really is nothing more than speculation at this point without additional information. We will be able to determine, roughly, the atmospheres of exoplanets with the deployment of the James Webb space telescope, but we will not be able to determine what the surface of any exoplanet looks like. For the time being that will have to remain in the realm of "educated speculation."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
