Hubble: First Water Detected on Planet in the Habitable Zone

[lettherebehouse]

[LNS]

I’d smash the ass off that Jasmine cosplay hoe.

[Robceltsfan]

Rob, do yourself a favor and let one or two of those buttons go.

Another one that won’t show his face.

[LeBronMonsterDunk]

Rob got anally gaped ITT IMO.

[Robceltsfan]

Rob got anally gaped ITT IMO.

And another one.

[elartman1973]

First Water Detected on Planet in the Habitable Zone

11 September 2019

With data from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, water vapour has been detected in the atmosphere of a super-Earth within the habitable zone by University College London (UCL) researchers in a world first. K2-18b, which is eight times the mass of Earth, is now the only planet orbiting a star outside the Solar System, or exoplanet, known to have both water and temperatures that could support life.

The discovery, published today in Nature Astronomy, is the first successful atmospheric detection of an exoplanet orbiting in its star’s habitable zone, at a distance where water can exist in liquid form.

First author, Dr Angelos Tsiaras (UCL Centre for Space Exochemistry Data,CSED), said: “Finding water on a potentially habitable world other than Earth is incredibly exciting. K2-18b is not ‘Earth 2.0’ as it is significantly heavier and has a different atmospheric composition. However, it brings us closer to answering the fundamental question: Is the Earth unique?”

The team used archive data from 2016 and 2017 captured by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and developed open-source algorithms to analyse the starlight filtered through K2-18b’s atmosphere [1]. The results revealed the molecular signature of water vapour, also indicating the presence of hydrogen and helium in the planet’s atmosphere.

The authors believe that other molecules, including nitrogen and methane, may be present but they remain undetectable with current observations. Further studies are required to estimate cloud coverage and the percentage of atmospheric water present.

The planet orbits the cool dwarf star K2-18, which is 110 light years from Earth in the constellation of Leo. Given the high level of activity of its red dwarf star, K2-18b may be more hostile than Earth and is likely to be exposed to more radiation.

K2-18b was discovered in 2015 and is one of hundreds of super-Earths — planets with masses between those of Earth and Neptune — found by NASA’s Kepler spacecraft. NASA’s TESS mission is expected to detect hundreds more super-Earths in the coming years.

Co-author Dr Ingo Waldmann (UCL CSED), said: “With so many new super-Earths expected to be found over the next couple of decades, it is likely that this is the first discovery of many potentially habitable planets. This is not only because super-Earths like K2-18b are the most common planets in our Milky Way, but also because red dwarfs — stars smaller than our Sun — are the most common stars.”

The next generation of space telescopes, including the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope and ESA’s ARIEL mission, will be able to characterise atmospheres in more detail as they will carry more advanced instruments. ARIEL is expected to launch in 2028 and will observe 1,000 planets in detail to get a truly representative picture of what they are like.

Professor Giovanna Tinetti (UCL CSED), co-author and Principal Investigator for ARIEL, said: “Our discovery makes K2-18b one of the most interesting targets for future study. Over 4000 exoplanets have been detected but we don’t know much about their composition and nature. By observing a large sample of planets, we hope to reveal secrets about their chemistry, formation and evolution.”

“This study contributes to our understanding of habitable worlds beyond our Solar System and marks a new era in exoplanet research, crucial to ultimately placing the Earth, our only home, into the greater picture of the Cosmos,” said Dr Tsiaras.

link

Thoughts?

God definitely created more than one earth-like planet. I bet there's crazy Avatar type planets out there--not sure about aliens, but definitely awesome alien flora.

Dude. Shut up about god..give that crap a rest

[Shill Jackson]

Rob is correct in that we are at baby step level of space travel.
We are at the equivalent of a canoe if you compare water travel to space travel.
In just 66 years we went from Kitty Hawk to the moon.
Who knows what discoveries are around the corner.

[LeBronMonsterDunk]

Rob is correct in that we are at baby step level of space travel.
We are at the equivalent of a canoe if you compare water travel to space travel.
In just 66 years we went from Kitty Hawk to the moon.
Who knows what discoveries are around the corner.

Except in the past 50 years we have done WORSE than going to the moon as far as manned space travel is concerned.

[Robceltsfan]

Rob is correct in that we are at baby step level of space travel.
We are at the equivalent of a canoe if you compare water travel to space travel.
In just 66 years we went from Kitty Hawk to the moon.
Who knows what discoveries are around the corner.

Except in the past 50 years we have done WORSE than going to the moon as far as manned space travel is concerned.

There hasn't been much effort made to expand our horizons. In time, humanity will make space exploration more of a priority.

[Alex_Murphy]

Rob is correct in that we are at baby step level of space travel.
We are at the equivalent of a canoe if you compare water travel to space travel.
In just 66 years we went from Kitty Hawk to the moon.
Who knows what discoveries are around the corner.

Except in the past 50 years we have done WORSE than going to the moon as far as manned space travel is concerned.

There hasn't been much effort made to expand our horizons. In time, humanity will make space exploration more of a priority.

There hasnt been much effort? I guess not.

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was created in February 1958 to develop space technology for military application. On July 29, 1958, Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, establishing NASA. And I guess theres only been 833 total number of crewmembers of all 135 space shuttle missions, with some individuals riding multiple times and 14 astronauts killed during the Challenger and Columbia accidents.

But I guess you're right, Throb. Hasnt been much effort.

[Robceltsfan]

Except in the past 50 years we have done WORSE than going to the moon as far as manned space travel is concerned.

There hasn't been much effort made to expand our horizons. In time, humanity will make space exploration more of a priority.

There hasnt been much effort? I guess not.

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was created in February 1958 to develop space technology for military application. On July 29, 1958, Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, establishing NASA. And I guess theres only been 833 total number of crewmembers of all 135 space shuttle missions, with some individuals riding multiple times and 14 astronauts killed during the Challenger and Columbia accidents.

But I guess you're right, Throb. Hasnt been much effort.

Correct....not much effort. NASA's budget for FY2019 is a little over $22 billlion....or 0.48% of the total federal budget.

Back in the 60's, when there actually WAS effort being put forth, as much as 4.41% of the federal budget was going to NASA.


Stick to talking about what you had for lunch, kid.

[Robceltsfan]

Here's a pretty graph to look at if any of my numbers or words confused you.

[Bush4Ever.]

Rob is a handsome man.

But he should let at least one of those buttons go.

[Robceltsfan]

Rob is a handsome man.

But he should let at least one of those buttons go.

It was a meal in Cinderella's Castle...I was trying not to look like a slob that day.

[Bush4Ever.]

It was a meal in Cinderella's Castle...I was trying not to look like a slob that day.

Why do you assume that the relationship between monies and space advancement is linear?

Maybe we simply knocked off the easy work but the hard work is prohibitively difficult.

We could spend the entire federal budget on helping you dunk a basketball (in the normal way)...but it simply isn't going to happen.

[Alex_Murphy]

Rob got Throbbed ITT.

[Robceltsfan]

It was a meal in Cinderella's Castle...I was trying not to look like a slob that day.

Why do you assume that the relationship between monies and space advancement is linear?

Maybe we simply knocked off the easy work but the hard work is prohibitively difficult.

We could spend the entire federal budget on helping you dunk a basketball (in the normal way)...but it simply isn't going to happen.

It's probably not exactly linear....but it also isn't being made a priority by making it less than half a percent of our budget.

Less money = less effort towards whatever the cause is.

[Alex_Murphy]

Here's a pretty graph to look at if any of my numbers or words confused you.

What you fail to realize is that as technology improves objectives like complex space missions become more efficient requiring less budget. The spike in this graph occurred in the 50s and 60s at the space program's infancy stages and beginning. Hearts minds and money were poured in to defeat Russia's and other international space programs.

For example, as this concept, well, it may confuse you. But it costs less today by today's capital standards to build a Kia sorento than it did in the 70s to build a Ford T bird although the Kia would have more horsepower compared to a 70s engine.

#Throbbed!

[Bush4Ever.]

It's probably not exactly linear....but it also isn't being made a priority by making it less than half a percent of our budget.

Less money = less effort towards whatever the cause is.

That doesn't really anything to do with the relationship between money spent and advancement.

You can still correlate the two, regardless of the magnitude of money spent overall.

In my lifetime, NASA has had a budget of more than 660 billion dollars (1985 onward---in 2014 dollars per Wikipedia).

Even under the assumption that NASA is valid (outside of national defense purposes and the like), what exactly have we gained in that time that justifies involuntarily pulling 660 billion dollars away from other places it could be used by people in life?

[Robceltsfan]

It's probably not exactly linear....but it also isn't being made a priority by making it less than half a percent of our budget.

Less money = less effort towards whatever the cause is.

That doesn't really anything to do with the relationship between money spent and advancement.

You can still correlate the two, regardless of the magnitude of money spent overall.

In my lifetime, NASA has had a budget of more than 660 billion dollars (1985 onward---in 2014 dollars per Wikipedia).

Even under the assumption that NASA is valid (outside of national defense purposes and the like), what exactly have we gained in that time that justifies involuntarily pulling 660 billion dollars away from other places it could be used by people in life?

You're moving the goal posts now. Nobody is trying to justify anything.

I personally think space exploration is an important aspect of furthering our technology and potentially furthering our resources. So I'm fine with money being dumped into the space program. But to say that more money wouldn't equal more "effort" is silly at best. More money would equal more scientists, more experimentation, more missions, more explorations, etc.

Less money would yield less of all of that, obviously.