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.

(BBC)   Astronomers have discovered a new class of planet called the "Mega-Earth," which is 2x the diameter of Earth, and over 17x its mass. A mere 560 light-years away   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 35
    More: Cool, Earth, Kepler Telescope, Center for Astrophysics, American Astronomical Society, Earth mass, designations, cubic centimetres, rocky planet  
•       •       •

1027 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Jun 2014 at 8:05 AM (12 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-03 07:31:56 AM
Engineers still can't get us to Mars and back.
 
2014-06-03 07:45:16 AM
Astronomers can say whatever the fark they want because no one is going to call them on their bullshiat.
 
2014-06-03 08:04:09 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Astronomers can say whatever the fark they want because no one is going to call them on their bullshiat.


doglover: Engineers still can't get us to Mars and back.


"This morning, astronomers discovered a planet, currently identified as 9758-E and orbiting a star in the nearby Hyades cluster. The planet, which is about 0.73 Earths in diameter, is unique in that it's in a relatively stable orbit in the Goldilocks zone of planet development, and astronomers say that the planet's surface is nearly 28% gold, mixed with smaller percentages of iron and silica--wait, I'm getting word that there is now a race on between the top 12 private space agencies as they seek to be the first to conquer long-term spaceflight..."
 
2014-06-03 08:16:13 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Astronomers can say whatever the fark they want because no one is going to call them on their bullshiat.


At least this lie is plausible because this so called "mega-earth" is less than 6000 light-years away.
 
2014-06-03 08:27:44 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Astronomers can say whatever the fark they want because no one is going to call them on their bullshiat.


Except, you know, other astronomers...
 
2014-06-03 08:39:43 AM
Hey Subby, that's almost as big as YOUR MOM!


/Yeah I got nuthin'
 
2014-06-03 08:44:17 AM
roughly 4 times the force of gravity on the surface of the planet?  I'm not going to go explore it, thanks.
 
2014-06-03 08:46:16 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Astronomers can say whatever the fark they want because no one is going to call them on their bullshiat.


Except for you, way to stand up for us man.
 
2014-06-03 08:59:03 AM
Some jupiter sized thing had its atmosphere stripped away and then wound up around a more stable star maybe?
There seems to be a disturbing number of unattached planets out there. Its not impossible that one wandered from one host to another.


doglover: Engineers still can't get us to Mars and back.


They could, we just haven't paid them to.
Most of the technology exists just waiting for a bidder.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

/Fortunately as manufacturing technology evolves the price keeps going down.
/If government doesn't fund it, eventually a private organization or business will.
/I wonder what people will think about their almighty politicians then...
 
2014-06-03 09:07:52 AM

reillan: roughly 4 times the force of gravity on the surface of the planet?  I'm not going to go explore it, thanks.


You are no Super Sayan.
 
2014-06-03 09:10:20 AM
From the surface:
payload153.cargocollective.com
 
2014-06-03 09:56:12 AM

archnem: AverageAmericanGuy: Astronomers can say whatever the fark they want because no one is going to call them on their bullshiat.

Except, you know, other astronomers...


But what if they are all in it together like climate scientists?
 
2014-06-03 10:00:14 AM
Do they have Jesus?
 
2014-06-03 10:04:39 AM

BalugaJoe: Do they have Jesus?


They have Mega-Jesus, he's like the Bill Brasky of holy people.

/He actually ate the money lenders at the temple
 
2014-06-03 10:05:54 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-03 10:25:42 AM

doglover: Engineers still can't get us to Mars and back.


That's only because people who share your closed mindset are in charge.
 
2014-06-03 10:56:35 AM

doglover: reillan: roughly 4 times the force of gravity on the surface of the planet?  I'm not going to go explore it, thanks.

You are no Super Sayan.


I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.

I wouldn't mind exploring it if it weren't for the fact that we have a hard time leaving Earth with its gravity....

And why aren't spaceports on mountains?  Wouldn't the less atmosphere up there would make for less fuel to get into orbit?  I mean, one thing I've learned in KSP is to reduce fuel consumption as I climb higher into the atmosphere, so wouldn't a higher launch altitude = less fuel to get into orbit?  I can see wind and gravity turns being an issue with that thought...
 
2014-06-03 11:06:47 AM
Stay away, Earthlings!

d75822.medialib.glogster.com
 
2014-06-03 11:49:39 AM
5 light years or 5 hundred, who cares?  Not getting there........
 
2014-06-03 11:52:13 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 5 light years or 5 hundred, who cares?  Not getting there........


not with that attitude
 
2014-06-03 11:58:36 AM

skeevy420: doglover: reillan: roughly 4 times the force of gravity on the surface of the planet?  I'm not going to go explore it, thanks.

You are no Super Sayan.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.

I wouldn't mind exploring it if it weren't for the fact that we have a hard time leaving Earth with its gravity....

And why aren't spaceports on mountains?  Wouldn't the less atmosphere up there would make for less fuel to get into orbit?  I mean, one thing I've learned in KSP is to reduce fuel consumption as I climb higher into the atmosphere, so wouldn't a higher launch altitude = less fuel to get into orbit?  I can see wind and gravity turns being an issue with that thought...


For that matter, we should build a spaceport in space...

www.neutralzone.de
 
2014-06-03 12:05:59 PM
Will mega Americans be the first to colonize mega Earth?

cdn01.dailycaller.com
 
2014-06-03 12:38:08 PM

Teaser: Will mega Americans be the first to colonize mega Earth?

[cdn01.dailycaller.com image 628x267]


the-void.co.uk
 
2014-06-03 12:51:11 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Lt. Cheese Weasel: 5 light years or 5 hundred, who cares?  Not getting there........

not with that attitude


Attitude won't get you to the speed of light or shield you from deep space radiation.
 
2014-06-03 01:04:25 PM
If its twice the diameter and 17 times the mass what makes it "earth like"?
 
2014-06-03 01:08:13 PM

Teaser: Will mega Americans be the first to colonize mega Earth?

[cdn01.dailycaller.com image 628x267]


We did, about 170 years ago. We call it Texas.
 
2014-06-03 01:25:57 PM

mikefinch: If its twice the diameter and 17 times the mass what makes it "earth like"?


I thought it was FTFA, but it's because the planet is, unexpectedly, NOT a gas giant.  At that size, it should have retained a large enough atmosphere to be a gas giant, not an extremely large lump of rock.
 
2014-06-03 01:28:55 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 5 light years or 5 hundred, who cares?  Not getting there........


1. It's not an expected planet.  We were expecting planets of that size to be gas giants, not rocky earthlike planets.
2. It may be at least close enough to get better spectral analysis over time, unlike farther planets.  Which means we at least have a better chance of determining if there's anything of biological significance there -- long shot given the temperature, but would be fascinating if we started seeing more complex molecules in the spectral emissions.
 
2014-06-03 02:12:33 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Attitude won't get you to the speed of light or shield you from deep space radiation.


You are aware that there are many differences between an interplanetary mission, and an interstellar one, right?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-06-03 02:27:52 PM
Twice the diameter of Earth and 17 times the mass means twice the density.  Is this planet made entirely of solid iron?
 
2014-06-03 02:34:18 PM

skeevy420: doglover: reillan: roughly 4 times the force of gravity on the surface of the planet?  I'm not going to go explore it, thanks.

You are no Super Sayan.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.

I wouldn't mind exploring it if it weren't for the fact that we have a hard time leaving Earth with its gravity....

And why aren't spaceports on mountains?  Wouldn't the less atmosphere up there would make for less fuel to get into orbit?  I mean, one thing I've learned in KSP is to reduce fuel consumption as I climb higher into the atmosphere, so wouldn't a higher launch altitude = less fuel to get into orbit?  I can see wind and gravity turns being an issue with that thought...


Depends on what sort of savings you're wanting. Less fuel on the rocket seems probable, but it seems you'd need the same if not more net fuel to get the rocket up to the mountain spaceport to begin with. Plus you'd need vehicles to haul all the stuff and people up there to prep for launch.
 
2014-06-03 05:25:07 PM

Electromax: skeevy420: doglover: reillan: roughly 4 times the force of gravity on the surface of the planet?  I'm not going to go explore it, thanks.

You are no Super Sayan.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.

I wouldn't mind exploring it if it weren't for the fact that we have a hard time leaving Earth with its gravity....

And why aren't spaceports on mountains?  Wouldn't the less atmosphere up there would make for less fuel to get into orbit?  I mean, one thing I've learned in KSP is to reduce fuel consumption as I climb higher into the atmosphere, so wouldn't a higher launch altitude = less fuel to get into orbit?  I can see wind and gravity turns being an issue with that thought...

Depends on what sort of savings you're wanting. Less fuel on the rocket seems probable, but it seems you'd need the same if not more net fuel to get the rocket up to the mountain spaceport to begin with. Plus you'd need vehicles to haul all the stuff and people up there to prep for launch.


I agree but then I thought that the fuel and energy consumed would be far more flexible to get up the mountain. Electric trams, that sort of thing. Rockets have no such flexibility. They ride on one long-ass controlled explosion. The question is whether the energy flexibility is worth such remote infrastructure. Perhaps if it were frequently used.

I'd be concerned with weather though. Tall mountains tend to be turbulent. We like to launch from places where that isn't a problem. NASA has lots of weather delays because turbulence screws up the navigation. And a tiny nudge off course becomes a big deviation quickly.

In the end I'd say that it is worth the extra rocket fuel to build more simplicity into the system. The fewer the variables the greater the chances of success
 
2014-06-04 02:16:06 AM

elchupacabra: mikefinch: If its twice the diameter and 17 times the mass what makes it "earth like"?

I thought it was FTFA, but it's because the planet is, unexpectedly, NOT a gas giant.  At that size, it should have retained a large enough atmosphere to be a gas giant, not an extremely large lump of rock.


This is fark. You think i read these articles?

And just because a planet is rocky we describe it as earth like? So mercury through mars are "earth like"?
 
2014-06-04 06:04:09 AM

Best Princess Celestia: That's only because people who share your closed mindset are in charge.


Closed mindset?

I've got a practical plan to get us up and running in space while simultaneously going for world peace and creating a utopia. All I need is the keys to the kingdom. A few simple philosophical changes to the way the government is running now and voila! We're back in business. The NASA business.

When I end the drug war and dump all that funding into space exploration and education instead, non-stories like this will be too numerous to justify publication.
 
2014-06-04 12:52:39 PM

mikefinch: elchupacabra: mikefinch: If its twice the diameter and 17 times the mass what makes it "earth like"?

I thought it was FTFA, but it's because the planet is, unexpectedly, NOT a gas giant.  At that size, it should have retained a large enough atmosphere to be a gas giant, not an extremely large lump of rock.

This is fark. You think i read these articles?

And just because a planet is rocky we describe it as earth like? So mercury through mars are "earth like"?


... Fair enough on that point, but I think they're saying the composition is much closer to earth composition than to, say, Neptune.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report