Goldilocks Planet May Be Dawn of 'Second Age of Discovery'
Astronomers are over the moon after hearing of a new "Goldilocks" planet that may be capable of sustaining basic life.
Twenty light years away in the Libra constellation, this celestial treasure, called Gliese 581g and depicted in this NASA/National Science Foundation image, has the perfect conditions for water: not too hot and not too cold, but just right, as in the Goldilocks fairy tale. "This is really the first Goldilocks planet," remarked one of the planet's discoverers, R. Paul Butler. And it's likely the first of many.The report notes, "That a system harboring a potentially habitable planet has been found this nearby, and this soon in the relatively early history of precision [radial velocities] surveys, indicates that [X], the fraction of stars with potentially habitable planets, is likely to be substantial." It concludes that they could very well be "on the threshold of a second Age of Discovery."
The findings must now be confirmed by other astronomers, to make sure it's not a complete fluke. Then we can all start designing rocket ships to get us there.
Exciting!!
Posted by: Jon Lee Hart | Sep 30, 2010 10:14:53 AM
Did some further reading. The planet has an orbital period of ~37 days, and is most likely tidally locked to its sun (which, incidentally, is a red dwarf). This means that half of it would be blazing hot at all times, and half would be freezing cold. The only habitable part would be the twilight area on either side of the terminator. Its predicted mass is roughly 3-4 times that of Earth.
Of course, none of these conditions preclude the possibility of life evolving on the planet. They just mean that living there would be difficult (for us at least).
So, yeah. Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Posted by: Rich | Sep 30, 2010 10:20:44 AM
I wonder how we could exploit that planet for monetary gain?
Hmm...I'll have to put my thinking cap on!
Posted by: Snarky | Sep 30, 2010 10:58:20 AM
And at our current level of space travel it will ONLY take us 300,000 years to get there.
Posted by: D.R.H. | Sep 30, 2010 11:12:50 AM
We need to remember that 20 light years away doesn't in any way mean humans can get there in 20 years. Very, very fast, the speed of light, and the amount of energy needed to accelerate people to anywhere near it would be humongous.
I think there are two constituencies for this Goldilocks planet nonsense. First, the scientists who play this up and who need to keep their names out there so their source of funds doesn't dry up.
But second, and much more dangerous, is the large fraction of the human race that thinks we can trash this planet and move on to the next one.
Posted by: tominsf | Sep 30, 2010 11:16:32 AM
The fact that the planet is in the temperature zone for liquid water to exist does not mean that there is liquid water there. And based on the fact that it's tidally locked, it's extremely unlikely that this planet is in any way habitable by humans. But it does at least demonstrate that there are planets in the correct temperature zone, and some of those are eventually going to have water the other conditions that would make life supportable.
Posted by: Jon | Sep 30, 2010 11:35:57 AM
"Then we can all start designing rocket ships to get us there."
Humans. Bringing wars, pollution and environmental despoiling to a planet near you!
Posted by: Christopher | Sep 30, 2010 12:28:21 PM
We should send Bear Grylls there with a camera.
Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Sep 30, 2010 12:31:34 PM
"Just right," this planet is not. Go there, would not be my first choice.
(I thought Yoda-speak seemed appropriate for a space story...)
Posted by: Ryan | Sep 30, 2010 12:31:41 PM
Rich: It's not only tidally locked to its star, it's "three to four times the mass of earth"...meaning a 150 pound human is going to weigh 450 to 600 pounds on that planet. Going for a nice morning jog there might be a tad difficult.
Posted by: Bruce Garrett | Sep 30, 2010 12:41:42 PM
We need faster than light (FTL) travel. Making stable and controlable worm holes with a way of safely traveling through them or creating a warp drive are the only things I can think of.
Posted by: ravewulf | Sep 30, 2010 1:19:24 PM
Yeah!
Bruce: No, the mass of a planet is only the first factor. You also need to know its radius. Were it 4x mass and 2x radius, the gravity would be the same.
Posted by: anon | Sep 30, 2010 1:38:19 PM
Yeah, while these guys are contemplating their wormholes (a purely hypothetical concept never observed in nature - i.e. one step from fantasy), I hope that the rest of our planet's population spends its time figuring out how to fix our present overpopulation problem, and how to stop pollution and the squandering of our finite resources. Because, you know, the reality is that we're stuck here until we destroy ourselves.
I hope that, but I don't really expect it.
Posted by: tominsf | Sep 30, 2010 2:07:27 PM
@ Ravewulf, I'm guessing by wormhole you mean some type of gravitational propulsion system that bends the fabric of space, essentially "pulling" your destination torward you, instead of traveling in a linear, point A to B fashion? The power source or fuel needed for something like that is anyones guess. Zero point energy? Matter/anti-matter collision?
Posted by: Joel V | Sep 30, 2010 2:23:57 PM
@Joel: I like matter/antimatter annihilation, personally... it's so classically "Star Trek." Although, if you like Romulan tech, you can always go with an artificial singularity.
Posted by: Rich | Sep 30, 2010 3:17:23 PM
"The planet has an orbital period of ~37 days, and is most likely tidally locked to its sun. This means that half of it would be blazing hot at all times, and half would be freezing cold."
Not necessarily true. If the planet has oceans, those could serve to transport a lot of heat from the sunny side to the dark side of the planet, drastically broadening the temperate zone. And since the world has several times the surface area of the earth, the total amount of land and sea within its temperate zone could be roughly the same as the amount of temperate land and sea on earth.
Also, if the planet has a substantially thicker atmosphere than earth's, that would serve to more efficiently transport heat from the sunny side to the dark side. A really thick atmosphere would even refract light, meaning that there would always be sunlight visible even quite far onto the "dark" side of the planet.
A large moon in a fairly close orbit could also reflect a great deal of light onto the "dark" side of the planet.
This is a major discovery. We haven't identified any earthlike planets in orbits where water could be stable on the surface before now, using the radial velocity method that's been employed for the past decade or so to detect extrasolar worlds. The fact we're starting to tease such planets out of the data we've gathered implies that earth-mass planets in water-stable orbits are *extremely* commonplace. There could be millions of earthlike planets in the Milky Way alone.
And that doesn't even pull into consideration earthlike *moons* of gas giant worlds in orbits where liquid water would be stable. There could potentially be even more earthlike moons than there are earthlike planets.
Posted by: Jacknasty | Sep 30, 2010 9:29:05 PM
This planet is in the habitable zone. But it doesn't mean it is habitable by anything, even attuned to the increased gravity. The planet could have a surface that is a sea of molten magma.
Posted by: Lynn David | Oct 1, 2010 12:05:14 AM
The possibility that this planet could harbour life of some kind is intriguing. Could they at this moment be looking at our planet located in what would pass for their "Goldilocks Zone" thinking it's too small and cold yet thinking hmmmmmm the perfect place for some strip malls, freeways and landfills........
Posted by: Darrell | Oct 1, 2010 10:35:14 AM