Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

BREAKING: New potentially habitable exoplanet found around Teegarden's star

  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 caballerodiez91

caballerodiez91

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2017

Posted 18 June 2019 - 03:39 PM

Astronomers have discovered a potentially habitable exoplanet around Teegarden's Star.

 

Teegarden is an old red dwarf star 12 light-years away in the Aries constellation.

 

The exoplanet found, called Teegarden b, has a minimum mass almost identical to Earth.

 

It orbits within the star's habitable zone.

 

And it has a 60% chance of having a temperate surface environment.

 

Surface temperature should be closer to 28°C assuming a similar terrestrial atmosphere.

 

Teegarden b is the exoplanet with the highest Earth Similarity Index discovered so far: 95%.

 

This means that it has the closest mass and insolation to terrestrial values.

 

Source: https://www.youtube....h?v=eNGXerXGnjo


  • Procyon, TiSaph and rkelley8493 like this

#2 sg6

sg6

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5247
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 18 June 2019 - 04:08 PM

Teegarden is a red dwarf, the planet has therefore to be close in for the habitable zone and very likely tidally locked therefore and a red dwarf actually throws out a lot of radiation. Which at the distances involved means likely to never be habitable.

 

Also how many terrestrial earth like planets have we found so far. I have lost count of the number of "Earth 2 found" that I have read. And one of these second earths had a surface temperature to melt lead. Someone has an odd idea of another earth.


  • Procyon, Steve Cox, dgordontx and 1 other like this

#3 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4006
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 18 June 2019 - 04:17 PM

That's interesting... but sg6's points are also valid. There's habitable and there's habitable... and this one does indeed have likely problems that would make that... unlikely.

 

Turns out there are a lot of little check-boxes that all must satisfy to support ~life, as we know it~  An earth-like ~similarity index~ of 95% is not to be confused with a high probability of life!

 

Nevertheless --- interesting!    Tom


  • Procyon, TiSaph and Earthbound1 like this

#4 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4006
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 18 June 2019 - 04:24 PM

Oh... part of the problem in seeking habitable exoplanets is instrumentation/capability bias. In this case, we find them mostly orbiting little dwarf stars. That's because, almost entirely because, only such close orbits and light-weight stars generate sufficient perturbations to detect earth-mass planets. More favorable candidates would be sun-like... but the perturbations and other signatures render them beyond our capability to detect. [There may be, probably are, plenty of such... but beyond our instrumentation to detect.]    Tom


  • Dave Mitsky, bumm, havasman and 2 others like this

#5 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 18 June 2019 - 04:56 PM

Here is another relevant paper on this topic:

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04720


  • jcj380 likes this

#6 Spikey131

Spikey131

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 776
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017

Posted 18 June 2019 - 09:05 PM

Wishful thinking, anyway. We have no ability to transport live humans anything close to 12 LY.
  • havasman, TOMDEY and Dynan like this

#7 Edd Weninger

Edd Weninger

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1065
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2014

Posted 19 June 2019 - 01:05 AM

The most wishful thinking in 1919 would never have imagined we would have millions of people comfortably flying almost anywhere in the world they desire.

 

Cheers,


  • Phil Cowell, Cpk133 and PartlyCloudy like this

#8 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5791
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 19 June 2019 - 06:24 AM

The most wishful thinking in 1919 would never have imagined we would have millions of people comfortably flying almost anywhere in the world they desire.

 

Cheers,

Many people just over 100 years ago, said people would suffocate in a train traveling at over 30 mph.


  • Earthbound1 likes this

#9 vdog

vdog

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 938
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2018
  • Loc: California Central Valley, U.S.A.

Posted 19 June 2019 - 08:43 AM

We can't get there (or anywhere similar) . . . yet.

 

The question is whether will we completely destroy ourselves before we achieve the level of technology required to do so.


  • havasman, dgordontx and Dynan like this

#10 Araguaia

Araguaia

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2018
  • Loc: deepest, darkest Brazil

Posted 19 June 2019 - 09:51 AM

The most wishful thinking in 1919 would never have imagined we would have millions of people comfortably flying almost anywhere in the world they desire.

 

Cheers,

 

And 50 years ago, we expected we would all have flying cars by now, and a base on Mars.


  • Dave Mitsky, Miguelo, BFaucett and 1 other like this

#11 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4006
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 19 June 2019 - 09:05 PM

And 50 years ago, we expected we would all have flying cars by now, and a base on Mars.

Yeah... The one thing we aren't good at predicting is... the accuracy of our predictions.

 

I believe the reason we don't see the Space Aliens... is because it is just way way way way way tougher to pull off directed space travel, or even directed space communication... than we optimistically think.    Tom


  • Jon Isaacs, Phil Cowell, Keith Rivich and 2 others like this

#12 TiSaph

TiSaph

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 421
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2017

Posted 19 June 2019 - 09:14 PM

This star is mag 15 - how much aperture do you need to see it?

#13 starcanoe

starcanoe

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Gulf Coast, Panhandle of Florida

Posted 20 June 2019 - 06:58 AM

Wishful thinking, anyway. We have no ability to transport live humans anything close to 12 LY.

 

Its a heck of a lot easier than thousands of light years....or gawd forbid millions of them...



#14 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 20 June 2019 - 07:49 AM

We might also might want to be careful about visiting a planet in the habitable zone of a star like this:

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03698



#15 John Fitzgerald

John Fitzgerald

    In Focus

  • *****
  • Posts: 5757
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2004
  • Loc: ROR Obs. near Pettigrew, AR

Posted 20 June 2019 - 08:16 AM

I think most habitable planets are likely located around late K type or early G type stars.  Tidal locking and flares are large negatives. We should  look for habitable zones similar to or slightly closer  than ours. Slightly closer than Venus out to about 10 fo 15% farther than earth.  I personally believe that M type to early K types don’t really have a habitable zone as we know it, at least not habitable for higher animals.


Edited by John Fitzgerald, 20 June 2019 - 08:17 AM.


#16 Araguaia

Araguaia

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2018
  • Loc: deepest, darkest Brazil

Posted 20 June 2019 - 09:13 AM

Habitable zone is an outdated concept.  Our star system has one planet with a habitable surface, but at least three, possibly many more, habitable ocean worlds with ice on the surface and internal energy sources.

 

Life, even complex life, is far more likely to arise in these far more common worlds.  They can occur anywhere where icy bodies orbit a larger mass.  Any star will do.  Maybe even rogue planets and stellar remnants have them.


  • Procyon likes this

#17 John Fitzgerald

John Fitzgerald

    In Focus

  • *****
  • Posts: 5757
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2004
  • Loc: ROR Obs. near Pettigrew, AR

Posted 20 June 2019 - 12:15 PM

This star is mag 15 - how much aperture do you need to see it?

Probably 12 inches and a fairly dark site, for visual.


  • Procyon likes this

#18 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18559
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 20 June 2019 - 10:23 PM

It orbits within the star's habitable zone.

 

Additionally important is that Teegarden's Star appears to be a stable red dwarf without large solar flares or other violent activity that would threaten the planets in the goldilocks zone.  Next steps would be to determine if these planets had atmospheres and are geologically stable.  Nice when we find candidates like this in the local neighborhood.

 

https://www.aanda.or.../aa35460-19.pdf


Edited by BillP, 20 June 2019 - 10:26 PM.

  • Procyon, EricTheCat and PartlyCloudy like this

#19 Spikey131

Spikey131

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 776
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017

Posted 20 June 2019 - 10:45 PM

The most wishful thinking in 1919 would never have imagined we would have millions of people comfortably flying almost anywhere in the world they desire.

 

Cheers,

True.  

 

Also true, that those imagining air travel in 1919 only had the current state of technology in their way.

 

Those imagining interstellar travel in 2019 have Einsteinian physics in their way.


  • City Kid likes this

#20 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18559
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 20 June 2019 - 10:52 PM

True.  

 

Also true, that those imagining air travel in 1919 only had the current state of technology in their way.

 

Those imagining interstellar travel in 2019 have Einsteinian physics in their way.

 

I'm sure Einsteinian physics, like most everything else, will be replaced one day as we discover more.  No one in 1919 envisioned anything even remotely close to the reality of 2019.  Similarly, no one today has sufficient imagination to say what 2119 will be like, except that it will likely be nothing like what we can even remotely imagine!


Edited by BillP, 20 June 2019 - 10:53 PM.

  • Phil Cowell and Procyon like this

#21 Spikey131

Spikey131

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 776
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017

Posted 21 June 2019 - 12:32 AM

Einstein’s insights did not replace Newton’s.  They refined them.

 

While anything is possible, it currently seems unlikely that interstellar travel something we will achieve in the next 100 years.


  • Dave Mitsky, Jon Isaacs, Procyon and 1 other like this

#22 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 77202
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 21 June 2019 - 01:07 AM

Einstein’s insights did not replace Newton’s.  They refined them.

 

While anything is possible, it currently seems unlikely that interstellar travel something we will achieve in the next 100 years.

 

:waytogo:

 

Einstein's (and others) insights made interstellar travel much more difficult but even under Newonian physics it's essentially impossible. 

 

Jon


  • Procyon likes this

#23 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4192
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 21 June 2019 - 01:57 AM

Einstein’s insights did not replace Newton’s.  They refined them.

 

While anything is possible, it currently seems unlikely that interstellar travel something we will achieve in the next 100 years.

Eventually Einstein's theories will be called Einstein's laws.

 

Any future physics will have to incorporate the insights of his discoveries, just as his incorporated Newtonian physics.


  • Jon Isaacs and Procyon like this

#24 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 06:45 AM

Actually, a theory does not become a law and a law does not become a theory.

 

Natural laws such as Newton's laws are descriptive but not explanatory.   Natural laws describe how nature behaves but do not provide a mechanism as to why nature behaves that way.  Hubble's law is Hubble's law no matter what mechanism explains it.

 

Theories propose a mechanism to explain why nature behaves the way it does.  So it is the Big Bang theory not the Big Bang law.  Einstein's theory is that - providing mechanism. 


  • areyoukiddingme likes this

#25 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5791
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 07:58 AM

And 50 years ago, we expected we would all have flying cars by now, and a base on Mars.

But we didn’t see the full impact of the Internet. Some we hit others come out of the blue. SSTO is now very close with Skylon and the SABRE engines so it was just the trigger new technology that springs things free. Conventional rockets have been too costly and research into alternatives are just becoming feasible. Ion driven systems have proven themselves. Research isn’t always a fast as some anticipate. Compare how quickly we are sequencing genomes now compared to the first human sequencing. Look also at the capabilities of the CRSPR-CAS9 that can leverage that sequencing. There’s quantum computing and it’s capabilities (ask a cryptographer). We are getting cures for some cancers, what was a death sentence can now be treated as a chronic disease. 

The world changed and money was redirected elsewhere on other priorities. It just means things take longer not that they aren’t going to happen.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics