It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NASA’s Jim Kasting "We are surrounded by dozens of habitable planets".

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:30 PM

My guess is that the Black Budget Projects already know where these planets are and have probably even visited them already

While I'd agree that we've probably got some black budget projects that are 30-50 years in advance of public technology..., I can't believe that interstellar travel is in our bag of tricks...even with the possibility of having downed ET tech....

A 40% variance (10-50) is what one would call a "wild guess"...not exactly a scientific estimate....

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Gazrok]

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by gortex

Sounds like you put a lot of importance on names and positions. For all you know, I know more than him.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:32 PM
If you think about it rationally it is highly likely , we only have to look at our own solar system .
We have gas giants and rocky planets in our solar system , one Earth , Venus and Mars are likely to have been Earth like in the past , so possibly three earth like planets around our unremarkable Sun .
So far due to our limited technology we have detected some 400 gas giants around other suns , we cannot see the Earth like planets because they are to small for us to see , that doesn't mean they are not there though.
Add to that the suspected Avatar like moons that may exist around Extra Solar planets and you have a whole lot of places for ET to live .
Avatar like Moons

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
A 40% variance (10-50) is what one would call a "wild guess"...not exactly a scientific estimate....

Exactly, it's a wild guess, but I think 40% understates how wild a guess it is. The math I would use is, high limit divided by low limit, so the high limit is actually 500% as large as the low limit using that math!

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:14 PM
On Earth there is life in existence that does not need sunlight or oxygen.
It's energy comes from chemicals.

If life can be so easily adaptive even within our own biosphere.
Who says it needs a rocky surface to begin with.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by gortex

actually his guess isnt really based on anything. we have no data about terrestrial sized planets in the HZ.

everyone knows we need to do a tpf mision. I thought the occulter mission was recently given $200million to conduct a feasibility study? Also before we launch any type of mission like this we need to know the best place to point it.

Missions like kepler and sim lite will answer this question then we do a tpf type mission. Unfortunately nasa seems obsessed with sending people into space which is extremely expensive. I'd prefer more funding for space telescope missions to find out whats out there.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by yeti101]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by gortex

actually his guess isnt really based on anything. we have no data about terrestrial sized planets in the HZ.

Maybe not terrestrial planets YET but at least we've found Corot-9b a jupiter-like planet with an orbit similar to that of Mercury.
According to this report from Scientific American:

The newfound world circles its star at about 60 million kilometers, leaving it with a relatively mild temperature that Deeg's group estimates to be between minus 20 degrees Celsius and 150 degrees C, depending on its atmospheric makeup. For comparison, many exoplanets are so close to their stars that their temperatures exceed 1,000 degrees

Even more, if this kind of planets have a nice Moon, it could very well have surface properties within the current known set of properties needed for the development of carbon-based lifeforms. (Nice! Avatar FTW!)

NOTE: the estimative given by the nasa dude it's not based on his personal beliefs, it stems from CURRENT STAR FORMATION THEORIES. according to these, planet -even rocky, terrestrial- is an almost inevitable consequence, excepting cases for very very compact star-nursery clusters, where the wind from the birthing stars wipes most of itselfs and neighbours remaining accretion discs and gassy clouds.
When you start studying astronomy this is one of the most astonishing conclusions you get to, the fact that life it's not a spark of statistical paroxism but a part in the development of the universe.

And the DRAKE equation was a thought experiment, in wich the values given where based on estimates we now know are not so accurate.

VERY interesting subject S&F for the OP!.


posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:44 PM
An earth-like planet doesn't necessitate that life will be on it, BUT it does mean that we could live on it...
I don't think there is physical life outside our little marble.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:59 PM
To extend previous post:
This is from Wired:
Corot9b report from Wired

If this Jupiter-like planet has a moon, that satellite’s rocky surface could be habitable, says Sara Seager of MIT. But a planetary system closer to Earth would offer a better chance of searching for the tiny gravitational tug of such a moon, Seager adds.

And HERE's the link to the original Paper from Nature (needs subscription)

This is one of my favourite areas of astronomy (the other being Cosmology) and this is a very exciting moment in the history of exoplanet research.
We just have to wait for the KEPLER results to start pouring in.
And i think the next 15-20 years a lot of discoveries will be made that will change the way we (officially) see the universe.

Peace & Meat


posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:12 PM

Originally posted by trueperspective
An earth-like planet doesn't necessitate that life will be on it, BUT it does mean that we could live on it...
I don't think there is physical life outside our little marble.

Could you elaborate on why you don't think there is life elsewhere?
I don't see anything in nature that comes just once, if there is one ocurrence of a phenomena, at least to the extent of most of our observations, it will happen again.
This is not a Law, because it depends entirely on our capability of observing any phenomena, but it's kind of a "guideline".

There's a recent paper called "The Imperatives of Cosmic Biology" that studies the whole schema of life in the universe from a very interesting point of view, and agreeing to the current knowledge of Cosmic History (nothing new age, just what we know about the Universe).

I STRONGLY reccomend anyone interested in the subject to read it, its not very technical, almost anyone with a basic grasp of astronomy can understand it, and it poses a exquisite view of the universe. Click ahead!.

Cheers without Greers


posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:29 PM
You know when ever I hear a NASA scientist or exec say things like this these days it makes me wonder. Are they now saying things like this because they know that the current administration is not in favor of many of the NASA projects. Which is more than likely on the future budgetary chopping block. They could be trying to muster up as much public support for ANY type of mission in the future just to keep that cash flow coming.

[edit on 4/1/2010 by CaptGizmo]

[edit on 4/1/2010 by CaptGizmo]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by gortex

Just one problem, all those "earth like" planets are completely silent which most probably indicates that there are no advanced civilizations on them. But who knows, radio silence ?

[edit on 1-4-2010 by rhines]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by rhines

I can imagine an intelligent life form on another world could have advanced past the use of radio waves. Maybe because they had in the past a violent encounter with aliens drawn by it.

Or they never developed radio communication in the first place.

Look at dolphins, they are known to be very intelligent but they do not have the ability to build or use anything.
Us humans usually discard anything old. Anyone still has a cassette deck, video tapes or even eight tracks ? If someone from 1990 gets his hands on an eight track but without the tools to listen, would he be able to anyway without any technical background. He is considered intelligent.

Would a race as a 100.000 years more advanced then us still remember it's workings ?

Maybe they use mind waves and so did not ever create anything radio like.

Don't radio waves need a lot of time to get to other stars and so on ?
Our radio waves disintegrate over time.

All of those planets ? We only identified about 400 planets and the Earth like planets are just a minority.

Who knows ?

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:35 PM
Who knows, 300,000 years ago a group could have built a space ark, taken 12 generations to get here and are now influencing us here for their benefit.

I think the religions call them Demons. We can't see them, but they are here. The churches know about the take over and they work with these aliens, keeping humanity obedient while "protecting" us from knowing the truth.

They feel the truth will make us come unglued as a society, much like the Roman Catholic Church today.

If these demons were here to help us, they would not do so using stealth and deceit. Those things can only mean trouble for us.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by win 52

It is weird that several bible texts tells us that these "demons" or watchers in the book of Enoch. Spread mostly science.
That we got split up because we were capable of the unimagined. ( Tower of babel ).
That we should follow without doubt ( unquestioned IMO )

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:12 PM
This is a good thread. Thanks for sharing, OP. A few thoughts:

- they say "Terrestrial", not "Earth like". Or, that is the language that SHOULD be used. There are myriad deviations from Earth that i could think of that would be terrestrial, but not Earth like. If Mars had more hematite, it might look blue to a TPF. This would definitely be a false positive.

- "Earth like" is a broad term. We interact with what we can sense. Our sensory organs are VERY narrow in function. What about Schumann Resonance? Is there an electrical heartbeat? Positioning of other planets....what about that? Is there a set of laws, like musical spacing, that determine planet spacing and size?

- we are unsure how gravity interacts with massive terrestrial planets. I know there are massive terrestrial planets...could life form on a planet with significantly more gravity?

- why narrow our search to terrestrial planets?

- is it not possible that money isn't made available soley for the sake of keeping the burgeoning human knowledge base somewhat in check? I will drag my feet when planning a purchase for my kids that i am not ready for (like my oldest sons first nerves couldn't take it

There are a lot of questions. I wish they would build the telescope.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:58 PM

“What we really need … are telescopes called Terrestrial Planet Finders,” said Kasting. TPF’s can work in the visible or infrared spectrum. A visible spectrum TPF probably requires an aperture of 8 m, which is more than three times bigger than the Hubble telescope. The technology to build such devices exists. But the money does not.

How much could one of these super telescopes cost? The money is out there alright..

I have $23 I can chip in...lets start a TPF fund

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by PhotonEffect

I will match your $23 ..........the fund now stands at $46 .
Might have to check Ebay

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:29 PM
..... they know the answer, they just ant going to tell you

"For me to know, and for you to find out"

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in