Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Tau Ceti IV may be habitable. Submitter read this story. It doesn't end well   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Tau Ceti, light-years away, planetary habitability, Astronomy & Astrophysics, spectrographs, University of Hertfordshire, Mauna Kea, rocky planet  
•       •       •

3899 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Dec 2012 at 9:06 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-19 08:55:18 AM  
I imagine children and adults can adapt, somewhat uncomfortably, to living on a planet 4.3 times the size of Earth... but can newborn baby breathing muscles handle that?
 
/some day, we're gonna go one of these places.
 
2012-12-19 09:09:21 AM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-19 09:09:36 AM  
KHAAAAAAAAAN!!!

0-media-cdn.foolz.us
KHAAAAAAAAAN!!!
 
2012-12-19 09:10:20 AM  
whoaa
 
2012-12-19 09:10:24 AM  
Wait til we get there and discover it's actually Ceti Alpha V. 

www.comics101.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-19 09:10:53 AM  
Story referenced in headline is "The Locusts" by Larry Niven and Stephen Barnes.
 
2012-12-19 09:14:05 AM  
Just because a planet is bigger doesn't automatically make the gravity greater. The planet might be less dense. Also gravity decreases with distance from the center of mass, so if you were standing on the surface of that planet you will be much further from the center of the planet than you would be on Earth
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-19 09:14:30 AM  
Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?
 
2012-12-19 09:16:29 AM  

ZAZ: Story referenced in headline is "The Locusts" by Larry Niven and Stephen Barnes.



Don't care.
 
Botany Bay...!?
 
BOTANY BAY!?!?!?
 
2012-12-19 09:17:22 AM  

NowhereMon: Just because a planet is bigger doesn't automatically make the gravity greater. The planet might be less dense. Also gravity decreases with distance from the center of mass, so if you were standing on the surface of that planet you will be much further from the center of the planet than you would be on Earth



Fair point, though I tend to assume any place we eventually consider going will be composed in a similar manner as Earth.
 
2012-12-19 09:17:36 AM  
We may reach it by the year 2525, if man is still alive.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-19 09:18:54 AM  
 
2012-12-19 09:21:59 AM  

incendi: I imagine children and adults can adapt, somewhat uncomfortably, to living on a planet 4.3 times the size of Earth... but can newborn baby breathing muscles handle that?
 
/some day, we're gonna go one of these places.


4.3 times the mass does not mean 4.3 times the gravity. Assuming constant density, gravity increases as the cube root of mass. So about 1.5g.
 
2012-12-19 09:24:03 AM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7494012/81384804#c81384804" target="_blank">vpb</a>:</b> <i>Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?</i>

Pssht. Warp drive and we'll be there by lunch.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-19 09:24:41 AM  
It's been used in a number of stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Ceti_in_fiction
 
2012-12-19 09:25:20 AM  

tricycleracer: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7494012/81384804#c81384804" target="_blank">vpb</a>:</b> <i>Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?</i>

Pssht. Warp drive and we'll be there by lunch.



Dunno about lunchtime, but we'll be there after the opening theme plays and a commercial break.
 
2012-12-19 09:28:03 AM  

LazarusLong42: 4.3 times the mass does not mean 4.3 times the gravity. Assuming constant density, gravity increases as the cube root of mass. So about 1.5g.



That certainly seems more feasible. We should still centrifuge some babies to see what happens.
 
/I do not actually support centrifuging babies.
 
2012-12-19 09:30:44 AM  
How big of a telescope would you need to image these planets? I know it wont be a single instrument but it seems to me that that long baseline interferometry might provide a "reasonably" sized instrument (read: one in earth orbit. one on the moon, earth sun lagrange points etc).

Seems to me that investment might be worth it but I dont know how to calculate how "big" of an instrument you'd need.
 
2012-12-19 09:32:14 AM  
Not to thread jack but. Isn't there a Goldielocks planet where Roddenberry said Vulcan was?
 
2012-12-19 09:38:52 AM  
Can we send a telescope on a crash course with that planet and constantly send pictures back to see if there is life there or not? I mean how long would it take to get a good picture if we sent one? If we can see it from the ground then from space I would imagine in 50 years we could easily tell if it is in fact have life on it.
 
2012-12-19 09:40:01 AM  

TNel: If we can see it from the ground then from space I would imagine in 50 years we could easily tell if it is in fact have life on it.



Astronomers have a  very loose definition of "see".
 
2012-12-19 09:48:14 AM  
it's not alpha ceti, dolts...it's tau ceti. geeez.
 
2012-12-19 09:48:17 AM  

Copperbelly watersnake: We may reach it by the year 2525, if man is still alive.



Or in the year 252525, when humankind is enslaved by giraffes.
 
2012-12-19 09:51:14 AM  
Dan Simmons was right!
 
2012-12-19 09:55:07 AM  
Let's go fight the Taurans. The only downside is that when we come back, everyone will be gay and speaking 30th century English.
 
2012-12-19 09:56:10 AM  

incendi: TNel: If we can see it from the ground then from space I would imagine in 50 years we could easily tell if it is in fact have life on it.


Astronomers have a  very loose definition of "see".


"It lies 11.9 light-years away in the constellation Cetus (the Whale) and is visible with the naked eye in the night sky."

I'm sure it's just a dot but hubble and the like can take some really deep images of space I can't see why we cant collison course one of those for it for giggles. I know they are expensive and all but it would be awesome to get a good pic of life on another planet and see how far along they are to us (if they are planning on world domination or if we should plan on world domination).
 
2012-12-19 09:57:09 AM  

vpb: Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?


Nuclear pulse propulsion in less than 130 years, give or take a decade. With the increasing lifespans, that is pretty reasonable in a few decades.
 
2012-12-19 10:08:21 AM  
but thees ees the gardeen spot of Tau Ceti IV!
 
2012-12-19 10:09:48 AM  

pkellmey: vpb: Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?

Nuclear pulse propulsion in less than 130 years, give or take a decade. With the increasing lifespans, that is pretty reasonable in a few decades.


ship would be dead long before it got there. just remember - there are no Circle K's in space and no NAPA auto parts stores. One mishap or collision with space debris or fire and everyone is dead, dead, dead. or space madness hits and one or more of the crew goes insane and kills everyone.

why are there people that think 100+ year space voyages are remotely feasible??
 
2012-12-19 10:13:42 AM  

frepnog: pkellmey: vpb: Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?

Nuclear pulse propulsion in less than 130 years, give or take a decade. With the increasing lifespans, that is pretty reasonable in a few decades.

ship would be dead long before it got there. just remember - there are no Circle K's in space and no NAPA auto parts stores. One mishap or collision with space debris or fire and everyone is dead, dead, dead. or space madness hits and one or more of the crew goes insane and kills everyone.

why are there people that think 100+ year space voyages are remotely feasible??



Maybe with some sort of hibernation technology.
 
2012-12-19 10:16:20 AM  

TNel: incendi: TNel: If we can see it from the ground then from space I would imagine in 50 years we could easily tell if it is in fact have life on it.


Astronomers have a  very loose definition of "see".

"It lies 11.9 light-years away in the constellation Cetus (the Whale) and is visible with the naked eye in the night sky."

I'm sure it's just a dot but hubble and the like can take some really deep images of space I can't see why we cant collison course one of those for it for giggles. I know they are expensive and all but it would be awesome to get a good pic of life on another planet and see how far along they are to us (if they are planning on world domination or if we should plan on world domination).


I think they're referring to the star - not the planets.
 
2012-12-19 10:18:09 AM  

TNel: "It lies 11.9 light-years away in the constellation Cetus (the Whale) and is visible with the naked eye in the night sky."



The star is visible. The planets are a whole 'nother story. What they saw is not even a dot - it's a statistical analysis of slight color changes of the star caused by it moving at different speed caused by the pull of it's orbiting bodies.  Even if a planet passes in front of it in our plane, we don't see the planet or silhouette of the planet, we see a brief diminishment of the magnitude of the star's brightness accompanied by a very slight change of frequency of the light emitted. All those hubble deep field views are seeing things that are very, very far away, but also very, very large and very, very bright.
 
That being said, there's no reason but money why we can't shoot a probe over to take some pics. It'll take a while to get there, and cost a shiatload, but it's very technically possible.
 
2012-12-19 10:18:26 AM  

RexTalionis: Maybe with some sort of hibernation technology.


HIbernation won't protect your cells/dna from the intense radiation.
 
2012-12-19 10:18:31 AM  

NowhereMon: Just because a planet is bigger doesn't automatically make the gravity greater.



Somehow I read this as "...make the gravity gravity-er."

It's time for more coffee.
 
2012-12-19 10:18:41 AM  

RexTalionis: frepnog: pkellmey: vpb: Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?

Nuclear pulse propulsion in less than 130 years, give or take a decade. With the increasing lifespans, that is pretty reasonable in a few decades.

ship would be dead long before it got there. just remember - there are no Circle K's in space and no NAPA auto parts stores. One mishap or collision with space debris or fire and everyone is dead, dead, dead. or space madness hits and one or more of the crew goes insane and kills everyone.

why are there people that think 100+ year space voyages are remotely feasible??


Maybe with some sort of hibernation technology.


same problems still apply. asteroid. comet. general space debris. seal failure. Murphy's law, man. If it can go wrong, it will.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-19 10:18:56 AM  

pkellmey: vpb: Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?

Nuclear pulse propulsion in less than 130 years, give or take a decade. With the increasing lifespans, that is pretty reasonable in a few decades.



Maybe, but I think that is for an unmanned fly-by assuming you are talking about Daedalus.  It also assumes that the space between here and there is free from anything much larger than dust.   
 
Oh, and I left out a zero.  It should have been ~210,000.
 
2012-12-19 10:19:07 AM  

incendi: pull of it's orbiting bodies



goddamnitsomuch
[bobtheflowersguidetopunctuation.jpg]
 
2012-12-19 10:19:52 AM  

RexTalionis: frepnog: pkellmey: vpb: Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?

Nuclear pulse propulsion in less than 130 years, give or take a decade. With the increasing lifespans, that is pretty reasonable in a few decades.

ship would be dead long before it got there. just remember - there are no Circle K's in space and no NAPA auto parts stores. One mishap or collision with space debris or fire and everyone is dead, dead, dead. or space madness hits and one or more of the crew goes insane and kills everyone.

why are there people that think 100+ year space voyages are remotely feasible??

Maybe with some sort of hibernation technology.


It depends on the size and configuration of the ship, but there are a lot of realistic options that would make it possible. Apollo mission sizes were not meant for long distance missions.
 
2012-12-19 10:20:11 AM  

wjllope: RexTalionis: Maybe with some sort of hibernation technology.

HIbernation won't protect your cells/dna from the intense radiation.



Then let's send AI sealed in the shielded bowels of the ship.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-19 10:23:26 AM  

incendi: TNel: "It lies 11.9 light-years away in the constellation Cetus (the Whale) and is visible with the naked eye in the night sky."


The star is visible. The planets are a whole 'nother story. What they saw is not even a dot - it's a statistical analysis of slight color changes of the star caused by it moving at different speed caused by the pull of it's orbiting bodies.  Even if a planet passes in front of it in our plane, we don't see the planet or silhouette of the planet, we see a brief diminishment of the magnitude of the star's brightness accompanied by a very slight change of frequency of the light emitted. All those hubble deep field views are seeing things that are very, very far away, but also very, very large and very, very bright.
 
That being said, there's no reason but money why we can't shoot a probe over to take some pics. It'll take a while to get there, and cost a shiatload, but it's very technically possible.



Because any technology we sent now would be long obsolete by the time it got there, it also probably wouldn't work since it would be a couple of hundred thousand years old by then, and people that far in the future would probably have sent probes that passed ours on the way and got there long before ours.
 
2012-12-19 10:23:28 AM  
Until we find a way around that whole speed of light thing, it really doesn't matter what we find and how close it may or not be,
 
2012-12-19 10:26:36 AM  

vpb: Because any technology we sent now would be long obsolete by the time it got there, it also probably wouldn't work since it would be a couple of hundred thousand years old by then, and people that far in the future would probably have sent probes that passed ours on the way and got there long before ours.



Those are all great reasons why we shouldn't, but not reasons why we can't.
 
2012-12-19 10:27:18 AM  

Fizpez: How big of a telescope would you need to image these planets? I know it wont be a single instrument but it seems to me that that long baseline interferometry might provide a "reasonably" sized instrument (read: one in earth orbit. one on the moon, earth sun lagrange points etc).

Seems to me that investment might be worth it but I dont know how to calculate how "big" of an instrument you'd need.


I have seen somewhere that to see an exoplanet as well as, say the Hubble shot of Pluto (which is hardly great resolution), you would need a telescope the size of the moon. From what I understand having a large baseline in an array system helps with getting more detail on bright objects that are easy to see, and doesn't help much with darker objects (of course such large baseline systems would be good to track the motion of the star and infer potential objects orbiting it in extreme detail).
 
2012-12-19 10:32:09 AM  

TNel: incendi: TNel: If we can see it from the ground then from space I would imagine in 50 years we could easily tell if it is in fact have life on it.


Astronomers have a  very loose definition of "see".

"It lies 11.9 light-years away in the constellation Cetus (the Whale) and is visible with the naked eye in the night sky."

I'm sure it's just a dot but hubble and the like can take some really deep images of space I can't see why we cant collison course one of those for it for giggles. I know they are expensive and all but it would be awesome to get a good pic of life on another planet and see how far along they are to us (if they are planning on world domination or if we should plan on world domination).


Hubble is solar powered. somewhere past the orbit of saturn it would not be able to draw enough energy from the sun to take pictures. not to mention the antenna's arent built for "deep space" transmission.

also given that it has taken voyager 1 30 years to reach the edge of our own solar system i doubt the fesability of moving a telescope in space to a point where being closer would produce a better image. It would be much more fesable to build a telescope with a bigger mirror that can tae higher resolution pictures.
 
2012-12-19 10:37:01 AM  

TNel: I'm sure it's just a dot but hubble and the like can take some really deep images of space I can't see why we cant collison course one of those for it for giggles. I know they are expensive and all but it would be awesome to get a good pic of life on another planet and see how far along they are to us (if they are planning on world domination or if we should plan on world domination).


...and to the embarrassment of the unsuspecting subject of this alien photograph, he was singing his planet's version of "Ice, Ice Baby", pretending his thermos was a microphone, while sitting in cloud car traffic.
 
2012-12-19 10:37:53 AM  
Well shiat.  Now The Race is going to come invade us.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-19 10:38:22 AM  

RexTalionis: wjllope: RexTalionis: Maybe with some sort of hibernation technology.

HIbernation won't protect your cells/dna from the intense radiation.


Then let's send AI sealed in the shielded bowels of the ship.



I think that would work.  But you still have the problem of time of travel.  We will likely get results back quicker by waiting for better technology and launching a faster probe.
 
2012-12-19 10:38:52 AM  

NowhereMon: Just because a planet is bigger doesn't automatically make the gravity greater. The planet might be less dense. Also gravity decreases with distance from the center of mass, so if you were standing on the surface of that planet you will be much further from the center of the planet than you would be on Earth



that's heavy dude
 
2012-12-19 10:39:46 AM  

RexTalionis: frepnog: pkellmey: vpb: Only 12 light years, that'll only take us, what?  21,000 years to get there?

Nuclear pulse propulsion in less than 130 years, give or take a decade. With the increasing lifespans, that is pretty reasonable in a few decades.

ship would be dead long before it got there. just remember - there are no Circle K's in space and no NAPA auto parts stores. One mishap or collision with space debris or fire and everyone is dead, dead, dead. or space madness hits and one or more of the crew goes insane and kills everyone.

why are there people that think 100+ year space voyages are remotely feasible??


Maybe with some sort of hibernation technology.


Lets pretend that we had Nuclear Pulse driven ships right now and launched a manned mission to the planet today that would take 130 years. In 50 years we would have a faster, cheaper, more reliable technology to take us there in less time. So in 50 years we launch another mission that gets there in 50 years. The first ship would arrive at the planet after we have already established a colony, 30 years prior.

I don't believe 100+ year missions are feasible either. Now a 50 year or less mission is another story.
 
2012-12-19 10:40:51 AM  

incendi: LazarusLong42: 4.3 times the mass does not mean 4.3 times the gravity. Assuming constant density, gravity increases as the cube root of mass. So about 1.5g.


That certainly seems more feasible. We should still centrifuge some babies to see what happens.
 
/I do not actually support centrifuging babies.

 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report