[The Scientist (OP)]

I've heard that the exoplanet has almost the same atmosphere as Earth. So are we going to transport humans to there? What do you think? Thanks!

[Foolosophy]

I've heard that the exoplanet has almost the same atmosphere as Earth. So are we going to transport humans to there? What do you think? Thanks!

Another superb question from THE Scientist.

Where is this exoplanet that you refer to?

What do you think?

[graham.d]

An exoplanet is any planet outside the solar system so usually a long way off. There have been several hundred such planets detected so far. They are very hard to detect and even harder to resolve because of the presence of their associated star. The fact that we have now been able to verify the existence of solar systems other than our is proof that our system is not unique, though it was generally assumed that uniqueness was very unlikely. I don't think we have much knowledge about the atmosphere of such planets. In fact, because they are so hard to detect, the ones that have been detected tend to be very big like Jupiter.

We are not able to verify the exeistence of any exoplanets that could support human life with our current technology so transporting humans there is not a consideration. Also we have not to technology to do so even if such a planet were discovered. They are many light-years away.

[Foolosophy]

An exoplanet is any planet outside the solar system so usually a long way off. There have been several hundred such planets detected so far. They are very hard to detect and even harder to resolve because of the presence of their associated star. The fact that we have now been able to verify the existence of solar systems other than our is proof that our system is not unique, though it was generally assumed that uniqueness was very unlikely. I don't think we have much knowledge about the atmosphere of such planets. In fact, because they are so hard to detect, the ones that have been detected tend to be very big like Jupiter.

We are not able to verify the exeistence of any exoplanets that could support human life with our current technology so transporting humans there is not a consideration. Also we have not to technology to do so even if such a planet were discovered. They are many light-years away.

The wobble in many stars has been measured.

So far, due to the sensitivity of the measurements only large Jupiter size planets orbiting fairly close to their sun have been detected and verified.

As far as I know, there have been no earth size planets detected and no confirmation of atmospheric composition (ie presence of methane, oxygen, water, etc - and no temperature measurements)

So planning a trip to one of these exoplanets will not happen soon considering how long it would take just to leave our own solar system let alone travel to another one.

Lets just see if we can get to Mars and set up a basic base there first

[rosy]

So far, due to the sensitivity of the measurements only large Jupiter size planets orbiting fairly close to their sun have been detected and verified.

I think this was true until quite recently... but not any longer. There's at least one known, small, rocky planet out there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7868100.stm

On the other hand.. given that Mars is really very close to us (on the scale of these things) and we haven't got there yet, the probability of our going to a planet in orbit around even a star which is a relatively near neighbor to our sun before the human race wipes itself out seems to me to be vanishingly small.

If we were to set up a space ship to travel to a distant planet, it'd have to be a ship which could support several generations of humans, presumably by being totally efficient in recycling resources, and would in effect be a colony all of its own.. to the extent that the planet it was aiming for would, arguably, be a bit of an irrelevance, except perhaps in terms of needing some source of energy because presumably the (probably nuclear) energy source would be exhausted eventually. There might also be a bit of a problem with the limited gene pool on the ship...

[Foolosophy]

So far, due to the sensitivity of the measurements only large Jupiter size planets orbiting fairly close to their sun have been detected and verified.

I think this was true until quite recently... but not any longer. There's at least one known, small, rocky planet out there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7868100.stm

 

What size is this terrestial planet? How far away?

How was it determined that this orbiting body was not a gas giant like Jupiter?

[The Scientist (OP)]

An exoplanet is any planet outside the solar system so usually a long way off. There have been several hundred such planets detected so far. They are very hard to detect and even harder to resolve because of the presence of their associated star. The fact that we have now been able to verify the existence of solar systems other than our is proof that our system is not unique, though it was generally assumed that uniqueness was very unlikely. I don't think we have much knowledge about the atmosphere of such planets. In fact, because they are so hard to detect, the ones that have been detected tend to be very big like Jupiter.

We are not able to verify the exeistence of any exoplanets that could support human life with our current technology so transporting humans there is not a consideration. Also we have not to technology to do so even if such a planet were discovered. They are many light-years away.

Is there a name for the exoplanet then?

[Foolosophy]

Is there a name for the exoplanet then?

What do you think?

Regards

Foolosophy (circa 2011)

[graham.d]

Is there a name for the exoplanet then?

You refer to THE exoplanet but there are several hundred exoplanets that we know about and probably many trillions we don't. I don't know if any have been named but I'm sure you can find out on Google.

[rosy]

What size is this terrestial planet? How far away?

How was it determined that this orbiting body was not a gas giant like Jupiter?

If you follow the link you'll know as much as I do. I don't think this particular planet is much of a prospect as an alternative home planet - it's very near its sun and very hot.
I'd imagine its size and mass can be determined and the density would suggest a rocky rather than gas-giant type composition, but I'm guessing. There's a gas giant in orbit about the same star.

Is there a name for the exoplanet then?

The one in the BBC article is called Corot-Exo-7b but as graham.d says it's one of many.

[Foolosophy]

What size is this terrestial planet? How far away?

How was it determined that this orbiting body was not a gas giant like Jupiter?

- it's very near its sun and very hot.
I'd imagine its size and mass can be determined and the density would suggest a rocky rather than gas-giant type composition, but I'm guessing. There's a gas giant in orbit about the same star.

Is there a name for the exoplanet then?

The one in the BBC article is called Corot-Exo-7b but as graham.d says it's one of many.

The only thing that can be determined by the stars degree of wobble is the force needed to creat this wobble.

Properties of the orbiting planet cannot be directly measured.

It could be a smaller high density terrestial planet but the same degree of wobble can be induced by a larger lower density gaseous planet.

I agree that you would be guessing

[Foolosophy]

Is there a name for the exoplanet then?

You refer to THE exoplanet but there are several hundred exoplanets that we know about and probably many trillions we don't. I don't know if any have been named but I'm sure you can find out on Google.

Google?

You mean it is possible to conduct peer reviewed research and serious literature analsyis via Google?

interesting

[rosy]

The only thing that can be determined by the stars degree of wobble is the force needed to creat this wobble.

Indeed, but if you bothered to follow the link I posted before making sweeping pronouncements you might have noted that this particular exoplanet was not discovered from the wobble of the star it's orbiting with, but rather from the observed dimming of the light from the star as the planet passes between it and the telescope. Since the planet is described by the scientists as "rocky", they presumably have some basis for this statement. It's not my area of expertise, but presumably at least some information on the size of the planet can be obtained from the extent to which observed light is dimmed. I have not read the primary research, but the level of detail we're talking about here is quite sufficiently explained by a popular science article.

You mean it is possible to conduct peer reviewed research and serious literature analsyis via Google?

Of course he doesn't. On the other hand we're not talking about peer reviewed research or serious literature analysis, are we? We're talking about information which is readily and reliably available from all sorts of sources which are much more accessible to the general public because they provide more explanation of the background (for example simple lay person's description of how the research was conductd) and, more to the point, is not concealed behind a pay-wall.

[Foolosophy]

The only thing that can be determined by the stars degree of wobble is the force needed to creat this wobble.

Indeed, but if you bothered to follow the link I posted before making sweeping pronouncements you might have noted that this particular exoplanet was not discovered from the wobble of the star it's orbiting with, but rather from the observed dimming of the light from the star as the planet passes between it and the telescope. Since the planet is described by the scientists as "rocky", they presumably have some basis for this statement. It's not my area of expertise, but presumably at least some information on the size of the planet can be obtained from the extent to which observed light is dimmed. I have not read the primary research, but the level of detail we're talking about here is quite sufficiently explained by a popular science article.

Yes this stellar transit dimming effect caused by an orbiting body is a very recent astronomical technique.

Combining this technique with the stars wobble, you could estimate the body's size and density.

I will foolow your link in the near future - I've put this task in my diary - probably early September 2011.

Regards
 Foolosophy

[CliffordK]

I think this was true until quite recently... but not any longer. There's at least one known, small, rocky planet out there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7868100.stm

between 1,000°C and 1,500°C
Whew, that is TOASTY.

Venus has a temperature of about 464 °C (867°F), which some people consider to hot to consider.

given that Mars is really very close to us (on the scale of these things) and we haven't got there yet, the probability of our going to a planet in orbit around even a star which is a relatively near neighbor to our sun before the human race wipes itself out seems to me to be vanishingly small.

If we were to set up a space ship to travel to a distant planet, it'd have to be a ship which could support several generations of humans, presumably by being totally efficient in recycling resources, and would in effect be a colony all of its own.. to the extent that the planet it was aiming for would, arguably, be a bit of an irrelevance, except perhaps in terms of needing some source of energy because presumably the (probably nuclear) energy source would be exhausted eventually. There might also be a bit of a problem with the limited gene pool on the ship...

I agree.

If we are planning on colonizing other worlds, we should first plan on colonizing:

• The Moon:  It is close, and a good stepping point.  Also an excellent place for a permanent space base.
• Callisto, and possibly Ganymede: We will inevitably want to access resources from Jupiter, the Asteroid Belt, and the Trojans/Greeks.  A colony on Callisto will be vital for mining the area for valuable resources.
• Venus: Initial Cloud Colonies could be setup relatively easily.  The test of our engineering skills would be cooling and terraforming the planet.  It is the one planet that could become the most "earth-like" if it was adequately cooled & had the CO2 sequestered.
• Mars: Personally I'm not too attracted to that Hot Rock, but there would be some benefits of colonizing it.

COROT-7b is about 489 ly away.

The Helios I&II Probes have set the machine speed record to date of 252,792 kph (on the approach to the sun).

With the speed of light being about 1,079,000,000 kph

So, if we could attain the speed of the Helios probes while going away from the sun rather than towards it, then it would only take us about 2,087,213 years to get to the Corot system.

To put that into perspective, virtually all of the modern human development has been during the last 10,000 years, with a large part being in the last 200 years.  Homo Sapiens have been on earth for 100,000 to 200,000 years, and the divergence from monkeys/apes to the modern humans has been on the order of 5-10 million years.

If we've only been able to visualize exo-planets for a decade or so, I'd at least recommend spending a century or more hunting for a good place to go, as well as spending a significant amount of time learning about colonization of the nearby planets within our solar system.

And perhaps improving our travel methods... before planning a 2 million year trek across the galaxy.

Now, the other phenomenon to consider is the "Goldilocks Phenomenon". 

The more I read about Earth, the more I am convinced that the only type of planet that we will find that has an 80% Nitrogen 20% Oxygen, 0.04% CO₂ atmosphere, with liquid water oceans, and an average temperature of 70 degrees...  will be one that is Already supporting life.

Furthermore, it is likely that any planet with a fully developed ecosystem will be mutually toxic with respect to earth's ecosystem.