NASA confirms 'super-Earth' that could hold life

[Cute Prince101]

NASA confirms 'super-Earth' that could hold life

The New Super-Earth Planet : Kepler-22b

IN another step toward finding Earth-like planets that may hold life, NASA said today the Kepler space telescope has confirmed its first-ever planet in a habitable zone outside our solar system.

French astronomers earlier this year confirmed the first rocky exoplanet to meet key requirements for sustaining life. But Kepler-22b, initially glimpsed in 2009, is the first the US space agency has been able to confirm.

Confirmation means that astronomers have seen it crossing in front of its star three times. But it doesn't mean that astronomers know whether life actually exists there, simply that the conditions are right.

Such planets have the right distance from their star to support water, plus a suitable temperature and atmosphere to support life.

"We have now got good planet confirmation with Kepler-22b," said Bill Borucki, Kepler principal investigator at NASA Ames Research Center.

"We are certain that it is in the habitable zone and if it has a surface, it ought to have a nice temperature," he told reporters.

Spinning around its star some 600 light years away, Kepler-22b is 2.4 times the size of the Earth, putting it in class known as "super-Earths," and orbits its Sun-like star every 290 days.

Its near-surface temperature is presumed to be about 72 degrees Fahrenheit (22 Celsius). Scientists do not know, however, whether the planet is rocky, gaseous or liquid.

The planet's first "transit," or star crossover, was captured shortly after NASA launched its Kepler spacecraft in March 2009.

NASA also announced that Kepler has uncovered 1094 more potential planets, twice the number it previously had been tracking, according to research being presented at a conference in California this week.

Kepler is NASA's first mission in search of Earth-like planets orbiting suns similar to ours, and cost the US space agency about $600 million.

It is equipped with the largest camera ever sent into space - a 95-megapixel array of charge-coupled devices - and is expected to continue sending information back to Earth until at least November 2012.

Kepler is searching for planets as small as Earth, including those orbiting stars in a warm, habitable zone where liquid water could exist on the surface of the planet.

The latest confirmed exoplanet that could support life brings to three the total number confirmed by global astronomers.

In addition to French astronomers' confirmed finding of Gliese 581d in May, Swiss astronomers reported in August that another planet, HD 85512 b, about 36 light years away seemed to be in the habitable zone of its star.

However, those two planets are "orbiting stars smaller and cooler than our Sun," NASA said in a statement, noting that Kepler-22b "is the smallest yet found to orbit in the middle of the habitable zone of a star similar to our Sun."

"The Europeans have also been very active, actively working on confirming our candidates," said Natalie Batalha, Kepler deputy science team lead at San Jose State University.

"They have already confirmed two that are published and they have got another batch that are on the preprint servers so those will be, I'm sure, in the published literature soon," she added.

"So we are just thrilled about this. We need all telescopes observing these candidates so we can confirm as many as possible."

A total of 48 exoplanets and exomoons are potential habitable candidates, among a total of 2,326 possibilities that Kepler has identified so far.

The top rankers are listed in an online catalog that indexes bodies outside our solar system, available online at : Anonym zu phl.upr.edu/

News Source : Anonym zu www.news.com.au/technology/nasa-confirms-super-earth-that-could-hold-life/story-e6frfrnr-1226214705333

Added Note : Congratulations to the discovers & NASA, Wow This Is Great News that there is Life Out there beyond our Solar System, & what a beautiful picture of the new planet, looks habitable to me, now they need to send a robot like they did with Mars to discover more interesting facts about this new Kepler-22b planet

 

[RefixnarcisM]

Nice planet. Got some good temperature and water either. Wonder when NASA will investigating this planet deeper, need more information.
Thanks for sharing this my dear Cute Prince101.

 

[gb2000ie]

Excellent, great to see Kepler starting to really achieve it's goals!

B.

 

[garth33]

Excellent, great to see Kepler starting to really achieve it's goals!

B.

Yes! HERE - HERE!! Great to see a big investment pay off like this!:thumbs up:

wow...think about it...so far away and what is happening on that planet at this exact moment in time. 600 light years away...in the "zone" at 72f - wow! What kind of creatures and world is that?? It almost blows your mind.

...and what are we doing at this moment in time?:worried: Posting on a gay internet site that may or may not include fr** videos:blushing:

what would their equivalent be?

peace buddies,
g

 

[Cute Prince101]

Nice planet. Got some good temperature and water either. Wonder when NASA will investigating this planet deeper, need more information.
Thanks for sharing this my dear Cute Prince101.

Thanks Guys for all your Kind Comments

@ RefixnarcisM : Aww that's alright you're always welcome anytime, I'm always to share some wonderful & great news with you & everyone here my dear lovely friend RefixnarcisM:heart: and yeah it sure is a nice planet that has got some good temperatures & water and I'm not to sure when they will investigate this planet more deeper maybe sometime in the near future or future & no worries my dear:heart: i will try my best to get some more information about this planet once NASA posts more results and i will share them all here with everyone on this thread post of mine I promise :hug:'s

 

[etilit]

does NASA exist?

 

[Cute Prince101]

does NASA exist?

Thanks my dear friend etilit:heart: for your kind comments, & yeah NASA sure does still exist & i think they will still be around in the future as well I hope.

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

I wonder how many people are under the impression that the artist's impression of what Kepler-22b POSSIBLY looks like is an actual photograph?

I note that the new planet has a radius about 2.4 times that of earth. Assuming it's rocky like our planet (which it would have to be to support our kind of life), that would make it's surface gravity about 2.4 times our own. If there are any humanoids there, they are likely to have fantastically well developed bodybuilder physiques in order to simply be able to move around under their gravity.

Fantastic physiques... hmmmm... might be worth a visit.

 

[gb2000ie]

I
I note that the new planet has a radius about 2.4 times that of earth. Assuming it's rocky like our planet (which it would have to be to support our kind of life), that would make it's surface gravity about 2.4 times our own.

Actually - no it wouldn't!

Sphere's of matter act like point sources of mas at the centre of the sphere, so the bigger radius counter-acts the bigger mas. If you look at the surface G on all the planets in our solar system, they are all very close to the same, even massive Jupiter.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

To follow up a little, you can calculate the g for any planet from the following equation:

g = GM/r^2

where:
g = acceleration due to gravity (i.e. how strong gravity is, on the planey, on earth g is approx 9.8ms^-2)
G = the Gravitational constant (approx 6.7x10^-11)
M = the mass of the planet
r = the radius of the planet

(r^2 is how you write r squared when you can't use superscript on the 2)

So, the difference in radius has a very large effect because it is below the line, and squared.

B.

 

[garth33]

I wonder how many people are under the impression that the artist's impression of what Kepler-22b POSSIBLY looks like is an actual photograph?

I note that the new planet has a radius about 2.4 times that of earth. Assuming it's rocky like our planet (which it would have to be to support our kind of life), that would make it's surface gravity about 2.4 times our own. If there are any humanoids there, they are likely to have fantastically well developed bodybuilder physiques in order to simply be able to move around under their gravity.

Fantastic physiques... hmmmm... might be worth a visit.

Rock Pillow BOOBIE
on Kepler-22b!!

I have a start to the hip hop song I think...:rofl:

 

[garth33]

To follow up a little, you can calculate the g for any planet from the following equation:

g = GM/r^2

where:
g = acceleration due to gravity (i.e. how strong gravity is, on the planey, on earth g is approx 9.8ms^-2)
G = the Gravitational constant (approx 6.7x10^-11)
M = the mass of the planet
r = the radius of the planet

(r^2 is how you write r squared when you can't use superscript on the 2)

So, the difference in radius has a very large effect because it is below the line, and squared.

B.

Thanks...actually my point wasn't what the planet might look like because of course we don't know and whatever life was on it didn't have to look like us or even close. What life is on it (if there is) would be so wonderfully suited to the unique situation of their evolution it's really presumptious of us to even try to compare it to ourselves...just my 2 cents.

g

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

To follow up a little, you can calculate the g for any planet from the following equation:

g = GM/r^2

where:
g = acceleration due to gravity (i.e. how strong gravity is, on the planey, on earth g is approx 9.8ms^-2)
G = the Gravitational constant (approx 6.7x10^-11)
M = the mass of the planet
r = the radius of the planet

(r^2 is how you write r squared when you can't use superscript on the 2)

So, the difference in radius has a very large effect because it is below the line, and squared.

B.

I wasn't going to get all scientific and technical for this board, but since you have now done so I feel it's necessary to justify my earlier claim:

Your formula g = GM/r^2 is correct. However I think you overlooked the fact that M, the mass of the planet, is also going to vary with r.

Consider two planets, one twice the radius of the other. The larger one will have 8 times the volume of the smaller. If the densities are the same, the larger one will also have 8 times the mass of the other.

The r^2 term on the bottom then means you have to divide by 4 when calculating the surface gravity from g = GM/r^2.

The nett result is therefore that the gravity on the surface of the larger one is twice that on the surface of the smaller.

Sorry to get "heavy" about this.

 

[gb2000ie]

I wasn't going to get all scientific and technical for this board, but since you have now done so I feel it's necessary to justify my earlier claim:

Your formula g = GM/r^2 is correct. However I think you overlooked the fact that M, the mass of the planet, is also going to vary with r.

Consider two planets, one twice the radius of the other. The larger one will have 8 times the volume of the smaller. If the densities are the same, the larger one will also have 8 times the mass of the other.

The r^2 term on the bottom then means you have to divide by 4 when calculating the surface gravity from g = GM/r^2.

The nett result is therefore that the gravity on the surface of the larger one is twice that on the surface of the smaller.

Sorry to get "heavy" about this.

Did you just make a gravity pun? How attractive

I don't see how your example is relevant though, you are assuming a doubled radius, when in fact, you should be assuming a doubled mass.

The formula for calculating the volume of a sphere is V = (4/3)*Pi*r^3

That means that the equation for the radius is:

r = cuberoot(3V/4Pi)

Ignoring the constants, that tells you that the radius grows as the cube root of the volume, while gravity falls off as the inverse square of the radius.

An inverse cube can't cancel out an inverse square!

So - you have a planet that is 8 times the mass of the earth, if you assume constant density, it will have about 2 times the radius.

that means g = G(8Mearth/(2rearth)^2)

Lets plug in the numbers:
Mearth =~ 6x10^24kg
rearth =~ 6400km = 6.4x10^6m
G = 6.7x10^-11

That gives g on the 8earth-mass planet to be 19.6ms^-2, or about double that on earth. So, 8x increase in mass only gives a 2x increase in g, assuming constant density.

Hence, it is not at all reasonable to assume a 2.5x increase in mass would yield a 2.5x increase in g.

For fun, lets do the math and see what g would be on Keppler-22b if we assume constant density with earth (and lets not ignore any constants).

Assuming constant density, we know that a planet at 2.5x the mass of the earth would have 2.5x the volume, so, given the volume of the earth is about 1.08x10^21m^3, then the volume of Keppler-22B must be about 2.7x10^21m^3.

This would give the radius as about 8.6x10^6m.
The mass of the planet would be 2.5 times that of earth, so: 1.5x10^25kg

Plugging these two numbers into our formula for g on the planet we get:

g = 13.6 ms^-2

Or, about 1.4 times g on earth.

So, in short, if we assume that Keppler-22B is made of the same kind of stuff the earth is, gravity will be just a little higher, but nowhere near two and half times as high.

BTW - this is fun! It's been too long since I've had a chance to put my physics degree to any kind of use at all

B.

 

[Tjerk12]

gb2000ie you are the best! I intended spending my holiday next year in the Keppler area. My weight is about 75 kilo's, so a diet of about 22 kilo's would be sufficient to move freely on this planet.
For me it is a long time ago that I had the possibility to use my (old) knowledge. Thanks!

 

[gb2000ie]

gb2000ie you are the best! I intended spending my holiday next year in the Keppler area. My weight is about 75 kilo's, so a diet of about 22 kilo's would be sufficient to move freely on this planet.
For me it is a long time ago that I had the possibility to use my (old) knowledge. Thanks!

ROFL - what a great take on the numbers

B.

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

I don't see how your example is relevant though, you are assuming a doubled radius, when in fact, you should be assuming a doubled mass.

The formula for calculating the volume of a sphere is V = (4/3)*Pi*r^3

That means that the equation for the radius is:

r = cuberoot(3V/4Pi)

OK, we are both reasoning correctly, just starting from different assumptions, that's all.

The quoted article states that Kepler-22b is "2.4 times the size of the earth", without making it clear whether "size" refers to radius, mass, volume or something else. I happened to have read another article on this, and it did in fact state "2.4 times the radius of earth".

So sorry, Tjerk12, you would have to lose a fair bit more than 22 kg by dieting before you would be able to move about comfortably on the surface of Kepler-22b.

 

[hariabcdef]

vow nice one:heart:

 

[gb2000ie]

OK, we are both reasoning correctly, just starting from different assumptions, that's all.

The quoted article states that Kepler-22b is "2.4 times the size of the earth", without making it clear whether "size" refers to radius, mass, volume or something else. I happened to have read another article on this, and it did in fact state "2.4 times the radius of earth".

So sorry, Tjerk12, you would have to lose a fair bit more than 22 kg by dieting before you would be able to move about comfortably on the surface of Kepler-22b.

Nuts - didn't notice that rather salient detail!

I'm used to seeing the results from the Doppler method, and for planets discovered that way we know their mass, not their radius.

So - lets do the math again

First, lets calculate the density of the Earth:

D=M/V

D = Density
M = 6x10^24kg
V = 1.08x10^21m^3

So, the earth has a density of about 5.6x10^3kgm^-3.

We know the radius of Kepler-22B is 2.4 times that of earth, so that makes it about 1.5x10^7m.

The radius lets us calculate the volume of Kepler-22B using:

V = (4/3)*Pi*r^3

Plugging in the numbers that gives a volume of 1.4x10^22m^3 for Kepler-22B.

Combining that volume with the density we calculated earlier, we can calculate a mass for Kepler-22B using:

M = VD

M = mass
V = 1.4x10^22m^3
D = 5.6x10^3kgm^-3

Giving a result of about 7.8x10^25kg for Kepler-22B.

Now we have all the pieces to calculate g on Kepler-22B using:

g = GM/r^2 = 23.2ms^-2

Or, about 2.4 times g on earth.

Which is a REALLY long was of proving that jeansGuyOZ was exactly right

So - LOTS of weight for Tjerk12 to lose before he heads there on his hols

B.

 

[spazattack]

Wicked cool!