NASA live: Astronomers discover Earth-like planets believed to have oceans

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


cnn isi saying 3 planets

3 new planets could host life


www.cnn.com...

Scientists announced Thursday the discovery of three planets that are some of the best candidates so far for habitable worlds outside our own solar system -- and they're very far away.

NASA's Kepler satellite, which is keeping an eye on more than 150,000 stars in hopes of identifying Earth-like planets, found the trio.

Two of the planets -- Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f -- are described in a study released Thursday in the journal, Science. They are part of a five-planet system in which the candidates for life are the farthest from the host star.

The host star -- the equivalent of Earth's sun -- takes the name Kepler-62, where the individual planets are designated by letters thereafter.




posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


No it will be sharks with lazer !!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
It's really a shame that the government is looking to trounce planetary science soon,


Last year, the President asked for a brutal $300 million dollar cut to planetary sciences. In this year’s budget, planetary science gets $1.2 billion, which Casey Dreier from The Planetary Society reports maintains that huge hit (even though Congress originally approved more money for it).


www.slate.com...

Hopefully Congress doesn't allow this to happen, so we can continue to make progress.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Well I think that was the most pro life NASA news conference I've seen , I'm properly exited by this now

I just wish they'd hurry up and get the James Webb Space Telescope up there , 2018 seems an awfully long wait



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Or now we can say why they never land and walking down the stairs to greet us .... splash



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by goou111

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by goou111
 


Wow you have a lot to say about this topic.....Pretty interesting


I had written out a nice response 4 times and kept timing out when I would post it so Im still working on it but thanks


Also happening to me...i type in notepad and then copy/paste into my reply. LOL



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Covertblack
So the first alien we encounter will be a whale.


The Whale Mothership is enroute as we speak to talk to 2 Humpback whales to see what is going on. I hear tale that one of them is called Gracie.

We may be in trouble now...



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
It seems that SETI is homing in on the Kepler 62 planets are we looking at a prequel disclosure here?
edit on 18-4-2013 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Covertblack
So the first alien we encounter will be a whale.


It will only be an Alien if it comes here


Nice info , OP



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Could take a while to get there (or from there)


The five planets of the Kepler-62 system orbit a star classified as a K2 dwarf, measuring just two-thirds the size of the sun and only one-fifth as bright. At seven billion years old, the star is somewhat older than the sun. It is about 1,200 light-years from Earth in the constellation Lyra.

A companion to Kepler-69c, known as Kepler-69b, is more than twice the size of Earth and whizzes around its star every 13 days. The Kepler-69 planets' host star belongs to the same class as our sun, called G-type. It is 93 percent the size of the sun and 80 percent as luminous and is located approximately 2,700 light-years from Earth in the constellation Cygnus.


www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 



Kepler-62f is only 40 percent larger than Earth


I wonder if the mass of this planet is bigger than ours,because of it's size? And if so would life be smaller or shorter then we are, if life exists there that is..?
edit on 18-4-2013 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


ROFL Littled~ That's funny
SnF OP great find.... I can't help but think of the movie WaterWorld with that one actor with the webbed feet..... I loved that movie....

I kinda wanna go and take a katamarang around that world..... Adventurous! YES PLEASE!



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


I'm coming with you , I like to fish... can I use u as bait ...?
edit on 18-4-2013 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 

link
From L to R: Kepler-22b, Kepler-69c, Kepler-62e, Kepler-62f, and Earth
edit on 18-4-2013 by goou111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0bserver1
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 



Kepler-62f is only 40 percent larger than Earth


I wonder if the mass of this planet is bigger than ours,because of it's size? And if so would life be smaller or shorter then we are, if life exists there that is..?[


Yes, assuming a similar composition, then it'd have greater mass and therefore stromger gravity than Earth.

As to potential life there, impossible to say really since we don't know if life on Earth is typical of that on other planets. But I assuming parallel evolution I think there's no reason why lifeforms should be any different in basic size and shape to that on Earth, albeit with different bones structure etc to deal with the higher gravity - perhaps stouter and more musculer. On Earth, with it's weaker gravity, they would seem 'superhuman' - as indeed we would on Mars.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Of course a 'water world' need not be all water. Even with no large land masses such as on Earth (which is itself almost a water world - 70% is water) volcanism and tectonic activity could still produce island arcs, for example, protruding above the surface, and in turn providing an environment for life as we know it to evolve.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
The most revealing thing I notice is that scientists who believe in the big bang and evolution are trying to fins life as we know yet can't seem to accept that the 'zone' is irrelevant if evolution from matter in the big bang of nothing is true.

This search (in the wrong places) by this belief system proves evolution less likely anywhere. if anyone see what I am trying to figure out.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by goou111
everytime I take more than 2 minuts to write something I get timed out wtf



Try first writing your words on a document on your desktop and then copy and paste it on the ATS. It would then be mere seconds and you could overcome being timed out.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
see i,m on the theory that why does life have to only exist in this habitable zone?

they,ve already found life here on earth that they thought was impossible so why are they still saying that life isn,t possible just cause it aint the right distance from its star?

just cause its different from us means nothing.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Thank you for the post. There is a good video that NASA made on there web page. This is a good thing for science.

NASA's Kepler Discovers Its Smallest 'Habitable Zone' Planets to Date





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join