It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

NASA to Reveal "Big News" From Planet-Hunting Spacecraft Thursday

page: 10
59
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Summary:

The Kepler is doing it's job! The two planets they have confirmed are indeed gas giants, not rocky as a poster above had said. They are slightly smaller and less dense than Saturn.

The interesting tidbit is that they have reason to believe there is a super-earth, possibly in the habitable zone. It will take some time to confirm this. If it is confirmed, the super-earth would be about 1.5 times the size of our Earth. This would be the smallest confirmed exo-planet if it turns out to be true.

Very cool. They hope to have more information in the coming weeks. Either way, it sounds like it will be a couple of years before the really exciting stuff is understood.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Well it is great news indeed what NASA had just announced (science-wise), but not 'big' enough for the public interest to fill, or at least for many members of ATS I guess.. Our understanding of 'big' is much more 'bigger' than NASA's 'big'
I think we made some great expectations, which turned out to be little disappointing to some..NASA is just a spoonfeeder to me..



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I just hope that the stuff NASA tells us now, is what they could of told us a while back, and the stuff they know right this second is more mind blowing than what we would have liked to have been told.

heres wishing!



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Have read a few posts ITT referencing NASA not giving us full information etc etc.....I thought it was a really great question that one guy asked in how NASA should handle the media and visa versa....these discoveries are huge, they have massive implications both social and economically, and I give NASA kudos to not just jumping to conclusions and instead taking their time and allowing the Scientific Process to take place before coming to conclusions.

Exciting time to be alive.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Elepheagle
 
they said the Earth like planet's orbit was 1.6 days so it would be to close to it's star. The planet would be way to hot to live on.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeff68
reply to post by Elepheagle
 
they said the Earth like planet's orbit was 1.6 days so it would be to close to it's star. The planet would be way to hot to live on.



Yeah -- some people confuse the term "Earth-like" with "habitable", as if Earth-like means liquid oceans and a thick atmosphere.

However, Earth-like simply means rocky and relatively nearly earth-sized. For example, Mercury is technically an "Earth-like" planet.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
A question to those more mathematically inclined that I: If a sphere has 1.5 times the radius of another sphere, does that make the diameter of the larger sphere 3 times the size of the smaller sphere (or does the diameter remain 1.5 times that of the smaller sphere)?

Regards,
An Inquiring Mind



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The planets are definitely not habitable, by our standards, as NASA also mentioned they glow from their own heat.

reply to post by organite
 

Just because some people inflated the definition of big doesn't degrade the fact that scientifically it is indeed big news. When one hypes up their expectations and definitions they're only setting themselves up for disappointment. The fact that they were holding a teleconference should have been a clue as to how substantial the news was for average civilians. If it was astonishing news the findings would've been presented differently, I presume.

[edit on 8/26/2010 by Three_moons]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by misinformational
A question to those more mathematically inclined that I: If a sphere has 1.5 times the radius of another sphere, does that make the diameter of the larger sphere 3 times the size of the smaller sphere (or does the diameter remain 1.5 times that of the smaller sphere)?

Regards,
An Inquiring Mind


It's easier if you put actual numbers in and see what happens:

If sphere "A" has a radius of 1 unit, then it has a diameter of 2 units.
If sphere "B" has a radius of 1.5 units, then it has a diameter of 3 units.

So the radius of sphere B (1.5 units) is 1.5 times greater than the radius of sphere A (which is 1 unit)
AND
the diameter of sphere B (3 units) is ALSO 1.5 times greater than the diameter of sphere A (which is 2 units)

The volume, on the other hand, would be 3.375 times greater, or the cube of the ratio between the radii (i.e. the ratio between the radius of spheres A and B is 1.5 --- and --- 1.5^3 = 3.375)




[edit on 8/26/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

the diameter of sphere B (3 units) is ALSO 1.5 times greater than the diameter of sphere A (which is 2 units)

The volume, on the other hand, would be 3.375 times greater, or the cube of the ratio between the radii (i.e. the ratio between the radius of spheres A and B is 1.5 --- and --- 1.5^3 = 3.375)


Asked and answered, thanks.

I have no idea how I wasn't able to retain a lick of knowledge from Geometry



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by misinformational
A question to those more mathematically inclined that I: If a sphere has 1.5 times the radius of another sphere, does that make the diameter of the larger sphere 3 times the size of the smaller sphere (or does the diameter remain 1.5 times that of the smaller sphere)?

Regards,
An Inquiring Mind


It's easier if you put actual numbers in and see what happens:

If sphere "A" has a radius of 1 unit, then it has a diameter of 2 units.
If sphere "B" has a radius of 1.5 units, then it has a diameter of 3 units.

So the radius of sphere B (1.5 units) is 1.5 times greater than the radius of sphere A (which is 1 unit)
AND
the diameter of sphere B (3 units) is ALSO 1.5 times greater than the diameter of sphere A (which is 2 units)

The volume, on the other hand, would be 3.375 times greater, or the cube of the ratio between the radii (i.e. the ratio between the radius of spheres A and B is 1.5 --- and --- 1.5^3 = 3.375)




[edit on 8/26/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


why can't you just say its 150% the size of earth. one whole earth plus another half an earth. you get picture.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DOADOA
why can't you just say its 150% the size of earth. one whole earth plus another half an earth. you get picture.

His question was basically:
"Does the diameter of a sphere grow at the same proportion as its radius"

to which I answered "Yes it does" and told him it's easy to see if you input actual values for the radii.

I also pointed out that the volume of a sphere does NOT grow at the same proportion as its radius. it grows at a proportion that is equal to the cube of the radius.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DOADOA

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by misinformational
A question to those more mathematically inclined that I: If a sphere has 1.5 times the radius of another sphere, does that make the diameter of the larger sphere 3 times the size of the smaller sphere (or does the diameter remain 1.5 times that of the smaller sphere)?

Regards,
An Inquiring Mind


It's easier if you put actual numbers in and see what happens:

If sphere "A" has a radius of 1 unit, then it has a diameter of 2 units.
If sphere "B" has a radius of 1.5 units, then it has a diameter of 3 units.

So the radius of sphere B (1.5 units) is 1.5 times greater than the radius of sphere A (which is 1 unit)
AND
the diameter of sphere B (3 units) is ALSO 1.5 times greater than the diameter of sphere A (which is 2 units)

The volume, on the other hand, would be 3.375 times greater, or the cube of the ratio between the radii (i.e. the ratio between the radius of spheres A and B is 1.5 --- and --- 1.5^3 = 3.375)




[edit on 8/26/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


why can't you just say its 150% the size of earth. one whole earth plus another half an earth. you get picture.


Applause. That's how I approach match, take the easy road.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
The real "Big News" is the stuff they havn't published.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join