|
Title: A new Earth? Post by: JediMormon on April 25, 2007, 02:41:17 AM I just found this article. Thought it's got some interesting implications, could a colonization effort be possible in the future? I've quoted it below, but here's the link: http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=636132007 (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=636132007).
Quote AN EARTH-LIKE planet which could be covered in rivers, lakes and oceans and may support life has been discovered outside the solar system. The new world, 20.5 light years away, orbits a region with the right temperature to allow liquid water on its surface. Scientists believe it is only one-and-a-half times larger and five times more massive than Earth, making it the smallest known extra-solar planet. But the really exciting discovery is that the planet is in the habitable zone of its parent star, Gliese 581. Also known as the "Goldilocks zone", this is the narrow orbit in which temperatures are not too hot, not too cold, but just right for surface water to exist as a liquid. The habitable zone varies according to the star's heat output, and Gliese 581 is much smaller and colder than the Sun. So, even though the planet - known only as Gliese 581 C - is 14 times closer to the star than the Earth is to the Sun, it lies in a region where rivers and oceans are possible. Dr Stephane Udry, from the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland, who led the European astronomers who announced the find yesterday, said: "We have estimated that the mean temperature of this super-Earth lies between zero and 40C, and water would thus be liquid. Its radius should be only 1.5 times the Earth's radius, and models predict the planet should be either rocky - like our Earth - or covered with oceans." The vast majority of planets already discovered orbiting stars outside the solar system are giant gaseous worlds the size of Jupiter or bigger. Life as we know it could not exist on these. But the new planet is highly unusual because it is so small, and therefore probably rocky. Given its size and location, it is likely to have an atmosphere. Scientists have also calculated the planet has about double the Earth's gravity. Any creatures living there would, be twice as heavy as they would be on Earth. The planet, which has a 13-day orbit - or year - was discovered using the European Southern Observatory's 3.6-metre telescope at La Silla in Chile. Astronomers employed a method of long-distance planet-finding that looks for the "wobble" on a star caused by the gravity of a large object orbiting it. By measuring the wobble motion, shown as shifts in the star's light spectrum, astronomers are able to calculate a planet's orbit and mass. Gliese 581 C is certain to be a key target for future missions dedicated to the search for extra-terrestrial life. "Liquid water is critical to life as we know it," Dr Xavier Delfosse, a member of the team from Grenoble University in France, said. "On the 'treasure map' of the Universe, one would be tempted to mark this planet with an X." COROT, the first space telescope designed to search for Earth-like rocky planets around stars other than the Sun, was launched by the European Space Agency (ESA) last December. By 2020, at least one space telescope should be in orbit with the capability of detecting signs of life on planets light years from Earth. MAELSTROM IN SPACE THE Hubble Space Telescope has captured images of the tumultuous central region of the Carina Nebula where a maelstrom of star birth - and death - is taking place. The image, one of the largest panoramas taken with Hubble's cameras, has been issued to mark the 17th anniversary of its launch. The 50 light-year-wide view of the nebula shows star birth in a new level of detail. The landscape of the nebula is sculpted by outflowing winds and scorching ultraviolet radiation from the monster stars that inhabit this inferno. In the process, the stars are shredding surrounding material that is the last vestige of the giant cloud from which they were born. The nebula contains at least a dozen brilliant stars that are estimated to be at least 50 to 100 times the mass of our Sun. ~ The Mormon Jedi Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 25, 2007, 02:51:28 AM Hmmm, too bad it's so high-gravity. But still, an amazing find!
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Mortographer on April 25, 2007, 03:55:56 AM Dude...that...is...AWESOME!! :woot:
Oh, and extra gravity is not a problem! Imagine doing workouts over there, come back to earth and you could like carry your car over your shoulder or something. But, wait...20.5 light years away?!? You realise that we're probably going to be long-long-LONG dead before anyone from here gets there. What if there is a civilisation there? That would be sooo cool! We could like abduct them and do all the things people on earth think aliens are doing to them!! Anyway, seriously, that's pretty nifty. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: The Old Man on April 25, 2007, 05:59:51 AM What if there is a civilisation there? That would be sooo cool! We could like abduct them and do all the things people on earth think aliens are doing to them!! How do you know they don't do exactly those things to us? :borg: :rolleyes: That discovery is simply - as Mortographer already said - awesome! No matter how far away this planet is. Its existence could already change some people's minds by proving that life in different regions of our galaxy might be more than sci-fi. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 25, 2007, 06:10:16 AM Cool n ow we can destroy this one :pinch:
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: deathbear on April 25, 2007, 02:20:06 PM yeah cool, let us call it....Vulcan?
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 25, 2007, 05:13:44 PM Cool n ow we can destroy this one :pinch: Heh, pessimist. If we're so predestined to destroy things, why do you even bother to complain about it? Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: DaSeitz on April 25, 2007, 05:43:33 PM It is the smallest planet ever found but it is still much larger than earth. Those small inhabitable Planets could be out there in amazing numbers, but our telescopes are not advanced enough to find them. Lets build bigger ones and resume work on nuclear powered propulsion for spaceships. Time to start Star-trekking. :borg:
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Jan on April 25, 2007, 06:32:57 PM DAMN...too bad they found my residence for my older days... :wheelchair:
Guess my last calm days are counted... :< Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: corebrach190 on April 25, 2007, 07:27:04 PM Ok then some one has probably already posted but what the heck
the planet has bean there 4 3billion years so what eva life is there has evolved to withstand the gravity and live under groung due to the fact the BBC sed that it takes 40 years to go around the sun imagen that 40 years of day light ow the sunburn must be bad whell so the life there can then be very advaced and genetic engernering can fix the problem of us getting crusht on that planet :D :D :D Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Mortographer on April 26, 2007, 12:18:42 AM Ok then some one has probably already posted but what the heck the planet has bean there 4 3billion years so what eva life is there has evolved to withstand the gravity and live under groung due to the fact the BBC sed that it takes 40 years to go around the sun imagen that 40 years of day light ow the sunburn must be bad whell so the life there can then be very advaced and genetic engernering can fix the problem of us getting crusht on that planet :D :D :D I'm not exactly sure what you mean, it takes the Earth exactly 1 year to go around the sun...that's what defines a year!! This planet goes round its sun in 13 days, so yes, that would seem to be alot more closeness to the star-but consider that its sun is alot smaller and colder so it might not actually experience any more radiation. Also, we would be fine on a double-gravity planet, we just would be really uncomfortable and halve half the stamina for a couple years, but at the end come out fine (and really muscular-seriously, imagine how in-shape you would be after coming back to Earth!(except, of course, you would probably lose all of it on the journey back)). Oh, and if you grew up there, you wouyld probably be alot shorter! Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 26, 2007, 02:33:43 AM Ok then some one has probably already posted but what the heck the planet has bean there 4 3billion years so what eva life is there has evolved to withstand the gravity and live under groung due to the fact the BBC sed that it takes 40 years to go around the sun imagen that 40 years of day light ow the sunburn must be bad whell so the life there can then be very advaced and genetic engernering can fix the problem of us getting crusht on that planet :D :D :D Considering how unlikely it is that life even evolved on earth, I find it highly highly highly HIGHLY unlikely that anything even somehow closely RESEMBLING life would turn up anywhere in the galaxy; much less in the universe! Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Cpt Ryan on April 26, 2007, 09:24:21 AM i hate to burst peoples bubbles here, but doesnt the fact that this new sun is both smaller & colder mean its going to die sooner than the sun we already have?
but yeah this is a cool discovery, (actually saw this in the Sun newspaper BTW lol). Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: DaSeitz on April 26, 2007, 01:01:41 PM Smaller suns burn their fuel much slower than bigger stars, therefore they endure longer.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 26, 2007, 07:06:25 PM But with hire legals of gravity and less watter can be problems. More gravity = hire levels of arthritis and broken bonds. Less H2O less life support. If the planet is the biggest one in that solrsystim it will pull more objects in to it.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 26, 2007, 07:34:00 PM Not to mention the impracticality of colonizing a planet 20 light years away...
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: The Old Man on April 26, 2007, 08:38:21 PM Perhaps the existence of this planet will make scientists work harder on possible solutions for high-speed space travel. Now there's at least a place where we could want to go to. B)
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 26, 2007, 10:16:10 PM Nope Nasa has ben order by Press Bush to spind most of its munny on going back to the moon in sted of reashering space fisics and new ways to keep humans in spase for longer and longer times with out letting thare bodys tern in to jello.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 26, 2007, 10:37:37 PM Not that that's a bad decision, though. The moon doesn't deserve to be neglected, and it is much more practical.
Heck, you can't say it goes against "Trek" ideals of far-reaching stellar travel, either. After all, the moon is heavily colonized in Star Trek... Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 26, 2007, 11:06:53 PM Yeh but we cut funding to the hubal telisope and funding from alot of other worth olits thay should not have. I mean we have the international spase station we dont need to refulling stations that close to each other.
Well all so cut funding from sinding manned spase shuttals up wish is much more inportent to seeing how people can safly live in space for long times. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 26, 2007, 11:10:29 PM Actually, a space mission within the next few months is going to repair hubble.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 26, 2007, 11:19:22 PM Waw I am inprested. The last I heird of the Hubild was bush saying hubales to exspisive and we need to junk it. Mabby this new congress have overterned that polasy :woot:
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Prowannabe on April 26, 2007, 11:46:56 PM The Hubble is quite expensive, just think about fixing something over 100 miles above you; they need to prep a shuttle and get a team of experts to repair the Hubble and come back down and wait until it breaks again and now we can make digital telescopes many times better with better repair systems; i.e. backup systems, auxiliary systems, and repair software too actually tell you exactly whats wrong with it and it would be smaller specially with MEMS technology; its still a little experimental though, but they use MEMS in the new mirror televisions. :borg:
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 27, 2007, 03:43:01 AM Well its cheaper than bilding a new one. The huble is still usefule it still can find new things.
Yes but if something works for what its need for way thow it away? The hubale has systoms that tell you when thares a problom and what it is and it has a serton amont of softwhare repar proticals. Is that what the voses in yoe head told you? J/K Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 27, 2007, 05:13:14 PM We are building a new one; the James Webb space telescope will be deployed in 2011.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 27, 2007, 09:34:57 PM Space in a big place. you can have 100 telescope and still not see every thing the Hubble is still useful.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: The Old Man on April 27, 2007, 09:44:11 PM Nope Nasa has ben order by Press Bush to spind most of its munny on going back to the moon in sted of reashering space fisics and new ways to keep humans in spase for longer and longer times with out letting thare bodys tern in to jello. Wasn't it Bush who talked about colonizing Mars until 2020? At least this was the last announcement (in which he also talked about going back to the Moon) of him I can remember. So how does it come they cut NASA's budget? I'm just asking. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 27, 2007, 10:26:31 PM Mars makes sens theirs anoff resoreses their to start a self sustainable habituate. after that speech the white house put out a announcements about these cuts.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 28, 2007, 12:30:52 AM Space in a big place. you can have 100 telescope and still not see every thing the Hubble is still useful. Still useful, but it's not like the US govt can just call in repairmen to fix every little problem. They have to launch an incredibly difficult and dangerous and expensive mission involving many spacewalks to fix it. Besides, space is a harsh place. Something can only operate up there for so long. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on April 28, 2007, 08:27:52 PM I hate to bust ewms buble but he talking out of his A**
1:Huble: how do you know fixing its cheaper than building a new one? Gimme a link. Besides its not as if we are desperate for cash. I Think that building a new telescope and putting it in a rocket is cheaper(and safer) then sending astronauts up to fix the telescope. 2:about the new planet: Has any one ever heard of a Generation ship? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_ship) the speed of light IS ALMOST attainable. assuming we get close to it then it would only take 20 years In OUR TIME. Relativity would assure that anyone embarking on this voyage would be much less than 20 years older when they arrivedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity) 3:Palosy it a *************************************************************er Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 28, 2007, 10:04:58 PM Indeed. I doubt we'd even actually need to colonize this planet.
Earth is quite sufficient. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 28, 2007, 11:16:13 PM Well I don't know between the bees and globule worming and "PEOPLE THAT THINK GLOBULE WORMING IS A NORMAL ACERENTS. I don't hold much hope for the human race.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 29, 2007, 12:06:12 AM Perhaps, then, you are a fool.
Blaming humanity for the works of nature can hardly pass as rational. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 29, 2007, 12:56:06 AM and about %60 of the USA + all our political leaders.
You still have not given me any reasons to support you point. the Idea that it is a natural phenomenon has bean proven wrong by NASA. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm - Bush http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 29, 2007, 02:31:03 AM Hahaha, you make make me laugh.
Ooooo, because 60 percent of US citizens think it, it MUST be true!! :lol: Do you know how educated the American people on major issues?! Is this some kind of joke? 75% of the public can't even name any Supreme court justices, much less think for themselves on any major issues! Oh, and our POLITICAL LEADERS have a working understanding of our climate! Oooooooo!! They MUST be right! It's not like they may be under POLITICAL PRESSURE, or anything like THAT! :lol: You can't reasonably expect me to take you seriously when you use things like this to justify your point! To quote the conclusion of one of the acticles you linked to: Quote As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries. Quite with the "earth is doomed" rhetoric, ewm. -edit- Oh, and you still haven't watched the video my sig links to, have you, ewm? I encourage you to do so, with the open mind your sig refers to. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 29, 2007, 02:44:37 AM Are you blind? or are you trying to act like you are? I gave you 3 links that talk about globule worming and you go looking for any thing that contradicts my findings.
Well if you are trying to ignore the facts their nothing I can do. If you you are trying to do it get me to say I wrong I will I have no pride worth the furthering in your hypocritical delusions. The facts are out their you just have to be man consider them. This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Wag TV, Wad TV is whare you get your information?? I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. By: Gerry Spence Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 29, 2007, 03:14:01 AM On the contrary, neither of them truly have any standing.
It's not as if scientists are in agreement over this, and the rest smacks of politics, which is not to be mixed with science in any way. (I'm looking at you, Al Gore...) It is unfortunate that the video went down. It presented points much more succinctly and accurately than I could. Bloody shame. Unfortunately, it's far too late and I'm far too tired to find either the points in it or the video itself. Indeed, the facts are out there, and I could say the same to you. Oh, and the video is from BBC, actually. I do not know at theis point what part Wag/Wad/whatever TV had in it's production. Oh, and I have a personal dislike of link-spamming. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 29, 2007, 03:34:45 AM Quote On the contrary, neither of them truly have any standing. The FACTS disagree and so do I.Ummm Quote It's not as if scientists are in agreement over this, and the rest smacks of politics, which is not to be mixed with science in any way. (I'm looking at you, Al Gore...) agreement on global warmingDelegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases. Text above comes from link below. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html Quote It is unfortunate that the video went down. It presented points much more succinctly and accurately than I could. Bloody shame. other sores you can use.Well if your point is valid their should be Its not Spaming. Its my pont of vouw Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on April 29, 2007, 06:39:52 PM just for a laugh, some Irony
a Global Warming conference in northern U.S.A. was canceled recentley due to- a blizzard :lol: Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on April 29, 2007, 07:46:50 PM Quote On the contrary, neither of them truly have any standing. The FACTS disagree and so do I.Untrue, but there's no point in saying anything more if you're not gonna listen. Quote Quote It's not as if scientists are in agreement over this, and the rest smacks of politics, which is not to be mixed with science in any way. (I'm looking at you, Al Gore...) agreement on global warmingNot exactly. A surprisingly large amount of scientists on the UN global warming committee/panel/whatever disagree with the assertion that human have significantly contributed to global warming. Quote Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases. Text above comes from link below. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html Indeed they did. However, it was never satisfactory and is now out of date. It puts too much strain on developed countries and not nearly enough on developing ones. It needs to be revised to be more equal, and also more stringent. Quote Quote It is unfortunate that the video went down. It presented points much more succinctly and accurately than I could. Bloody shame. other sores you can use.Well if your point is valid their should be Its not Spaming. Its my pont of vouw I believe you misunderstood. I did not intend to refer to this particular incident, but rather the practice as a whole. just for a laugh, some Irony a Global Warming conference in northern U.S.A. was canceled recentley due to- a blizzard :lol: :D Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on April 30, 2007, 01:46:28 AM there are many people (me +other scientists) who think that this is just a cycle. after all weren't people screaming about another ice age several decades ago
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 30, 2007, 01:49:49 AM I lison But from what I have read from NASA, NOWA, and every uther goverment organisation + all most all news out fits from all over the world + evry oganisation I know conected with sinents tific reserch.
2Look it up man http://unfccc.int/2860.php 3.Not true china is on the for one is on the for frunt of resherch and devlipments. Well will all have to make scrifises but if we do nuthing agin the deavlping world will get the werst of it 1st with thay are starting to now. I am oppined to Ideas. 4. Agin I disagree we are posing in the rite place. Duhhh Globle worming is not cleer cut. wether patters are eratic with is a simptom of global worming - eleno. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on April 30, 2007, 02:02:37 AM Impresive to bad its all politics. how about a new rule: only neutral sources i.e.wikinow back on topic: who here thinks we should colinize, this new Planet? I think that the biggest problem would be staying fit for 20+ years and then adjusting to 2x gravity Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 30, 2007, 04:19:59 AM Wicapedea is options many facks but its hard to tell whats what.
No way it would take take a generational ship to get their and I cant even see how we could survive the human body floats a part with out gravity. Not to minion the morel implication of having kids in a ship.... Side note: Red you never replied to the other thread. Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on April 30, 2007, 10:18:21 PM your not listening. we reach close to speed of light and for 20 years we fly to this planet. when we get there we colonise this planet. simply don't have children while en route. also ships can be built with a rotating ring to provide gravity. over the 20 years gradually increase the speed of thisring until it is 2x earth gravity. perfect. also, wtf did you mean by" Not to mention the moral implications of having kids in a ship"?
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 30, 2007, 10:29:10 PM If you study fizics you would know the human body would be crushed like a tin can at even a 10th of that speed. We do not have anersha dampers.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on April 30, 2007, 10:30:21 PM so we invent them. along with alot of other stuf we need for this journey. like co2 recyclers(or better yet a ton of plants)
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on April 30, 2007, 10:42:34 PM "invent them" I did not ever think I would say this you woch to much star trek. You should read the fizics of star trek by Steven knockings.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Jan on April 30, 2007, 11:01:14 PM As I think that this planet is the object in space which will come into major focus they are going to launch a "probe" to it in the next couple of years before launching any kind of crewed mission. How long do you think will it take with the latest engines technology to reach this planet?
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on April 30, 2007, 11:08:49 PM 100 years give or take a decade
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Dominus_Noctis on April 30, 2007, 11:23:47 PM Adama man,
It takes "us" seven years to get to jupiter; around eleven to get out of the solar system: why did you choose one hundred years to get to this new planet? (the solar system is 79 AU's across: around 8 light HOURS in diameter). Given that we even manage to go twice as fast (even though the speed of these spacecraft would kill our astronauts/cosmonauts) the journey to a planet 20.8 light YEARS away would take 24,125.64 years (that's twenty-four THOUSAND years) Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on May 01, 2007, 12:06:29 AM (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/portal/head_nasa_gsfc.gif)
The Question (Submitted February 11, 1998) I am 8 years old. Could you explain what a light year is and give an example that I can understand or relate to. The Answer A light year is the distance that light travels in one year. The speed of light is 186,287.5 miles per second. You can find out the number of seconds in a year by multiplying the number of seconds in a minute (60) by the number of minutes in an hour (60). Then multiply that by the number of hours in a day (24), and multiply that by the number of days in a year (approximately 365.25). So we've got 60 x 60 = 3600 seconds in an hour 3600 x 24 = 86400 seconds in a day 86400 x 365.25 = 31,557,600 seconds in a year. So a light year is about (I've rounded off a bit) 5,878,786,100,000 miles. That's almost 6 trillion miles. The distance from the earth to the Sun is 93 million miles. The distance to the nearest star is 4.3 light years, and the distance to the Andromeda galaxy is 2 million light years. The universe is a big place ! Jim Lochner for Ask an Astrophysicist http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980211a.html Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on May 01, 2007, 09:11:51 PM he mustve missed the part were it said"please put this into terms an 8 year old can undersatnd". I didn't learn multiplication unltil 3rd grade! as to Dominus noctis. it was an (uneducated) guess
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on May 01, 2007, 09:15:03 PM Well its on NASA home page that tell you he is not dumb kid. The 8y old Jim Lochner mst be some kinda prodagy.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on May 01, 2007, 09:16:36 PM you missed it. an 8 year old was asking the question. while NASA responded with the gibberish
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: ewm90 on May 01, 2007, 09:19:34 PM Well The responder may no have had thare stario engections yet. Those pepole are over worked I whould nt be abule to type if I had thare job.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Dominus_Noctis on May 01, 2007, 10:38:28 PM Sorry 'bout that Admiral :sweatdrop:, guess I didn't have my midday cookie: I wasn't trying to be a jackarse, I just thought it was kinda funny as whenever we talk about other planets we sort of assume we can see and visit them in any reasonable amount of time. (Even Alpha Centauri is 4.3? lightyears away)
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on May 02, 2007, 01:14:43 AM on another note. what about first colonizing this solar system. much easier(relatively)
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Cpt Ryan on May 02, 2007, 12:35:25 PM well other than mars & our moon, what else is there to colonise?
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: RedShirt on May 02, 2007, 04:00:55 PM The moons of Jupiter and Saturn, Titan in particular.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Mortographer on May 03, 2007, 12:06:13 AM I just read an interesting article in The Scientific American discussing methane levels on Mars and Titan, and how they are many times what they should be given the known sources of prodution and rate of escape, indicating, perhaps, some form of microbial life.
Title: Re: A new Earth? Post by: Admiral Adama on May 03, 2007, 10:25:59 PM I thought that we already prved there were microbes on mars
Powered by SMF 1.1.3 |
SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com |