Set Course for TRAPPIST-1, Make 12 Parsecs Joke Now
February 22, 2017 10:45 AM   Subscribe

Astronomers have never seen anything like this before: Seven Earth-size alien worlds orbit the same tiny, dim star, and all of them may be capable of supporting life as we know it, a new study reports. The exoplanets circle the star TRAPPIST-1, which lies just 39 light-years from Earth — a mere stone's throw in the cosmic scheme of things. So speculation about the alien worlds' life-hosting potential should soon be informed by hard data, study team members said. Major Discovery! 7 Earth-Size Alien Planets Circle Nearby Star posted by chavenet (80 comments total) 49 users marked this as a favorite
 
Take my love, take my land,
Take me where I cannot stand.
I don't care, I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.


Sorry. This is basically the implausible planetary system from Firefly so now I have the shitty theme tune lyrics in my head, and I didn't want to suffer alone.

But kidding aside, this is a very cool find. Here's hoping they are able to send a probe out there and we get to take a look at it up close in 80+ years.
posted by Artw at 10:49 AM on February 22, 2017 [17 favorites]


I was half-way through a post about the story, but this is fine. Here's the paper in Nature: Seven temperate terrestrial planets around the nearby ultracool dwarf star TRAPPIST-1.

And this post by the Bad Astronomer is pretty informative - especially look at those gorgeous transit light curves.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:49 AM on February 22, 2017 [6 favorites]


(My Facebook feed is awash with "The Firefly 'verse is REAL!")
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:50 AM on February 22, 2017 [4 favorites]


TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf named for Belgium's Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope, not Belgium's Trappist beers.

But that won't stop us from naming its planets Chimay, Orval, Rochefort, etc. Nor should it.
posted by nickmark at 10:50 AM on February 22, 2017 [60 favorites]


(My Facebook feed is awash with "The Firefly 'verse is REAL!")

If it's any consolation the Enterprise theme is slightly worse.
posted by Artw at 10:51 AM on February 22, 2017 [4 favorites]


This is cool! But a bit disappointing to see that they're all tidally locked and dim.

Maybe this is why there are no advanced alien civilizations. Life arises everywhere, but it's just too hard to get off your first planet in time.
posted by danny the boy at 10:54 AM on February 22, 2017 [4 favorites]


But that won't stop us from naming its planets Chimay, Orval, Rochefort, etc.

It's going to be nearly impossible to immigrate to Westvleteren, isn't it.
posted by uncleozzy at 10:54 AM on February 22, 2017 [14 favorites]


Oh I can get the rest of the bad titles out of my system too:
"Everything about this story is cool."
"Now all they need is Snow White."

As for tidally locked and dim, this bit in the NYT article is nice:

For a person standing on one of the planets, it would be a dim environment, with perhaps only about one-two hundredth the light that we see from the sun on Earth, Dr. Triaud said. (That would still be brighter than the moon at night.) But the star would be far bigger. On Trappist-1f, the fourth planet, the star would be three times as wide as the sun seen from Earth.

As for the color of the star, “we had a debate about that,” Dr. Triaud said. Some of the scientists expected a deep red, but with most of the star’s light emitted at infrared wavelengths and out of view of human eyes, perhaps a person would “see something more salmon-y,” Dr. Triaud said.

posted by RedOrGreen at 10:56 AM on February 22, 2017 [6 favorites]


TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf

Not one of the astronomers had even heard of any of the albums in its collection.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:57 AM on February 22, 2017 [35 favorites]


I think just NASA discovered the showroom system for Magrathea.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:58 AM on February 22, 2017 [22 favorites]


Trappist.One
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:03 AM on February 22, 2017 [2 favorites]


Put me on the first rocket headed thataways.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:03 AM on February 22, 2017


NOT TRAPPIST
posted by davejay at 11:05 AM on February 22, 2017 [6 favorites]


Make 12 Parsecs Joke Now

Sorry, I only know one.
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:07 AM on February 22, 2017 [8 favorites]


But a bit disappointing to see that they're all tidally locked and dim.

This seems like it's potentially an artefact of our observations, though. It sounds like we can observe these planets specifically because of the size and brightness of the star they're orbiting, as well as its proximity. If it were bigger and brighter, and accordingly had a solar system more like our own, it appears it would be much harder to make these observations in the first place. So it's not clear what we're learning about the types of potentially habitable planets out there.

Also, I don't, personally, find it disappointing that any reality of other life in the universe may be weirder and less like our own existence than we tend to imagine. That seems like the cool bit.
posted by howfar at 11:10 AM on February 22, 2017 [5 favorites]


perhaps a person would “see something more salmon-y,”

Two be-spacesuited lovers on an alien planet, holding hands and singing to each other:

"Salmon-y enchanted evening..."
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:10 AM on February 22, 2017 [7 favorites]


Something something. Admiral Ackbar. (but seriously, this is so cool!)
posted by jeribus at 11:10 AM on February 22, 2017 [2 favorites]


Put me on the first rocket headed thataways.

For 700,000 years.....
posted by anastasiav at 11:11 AM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


Inevitable Tweet
posted by Myeral at 11:11 AM on February 22, 2017 [2 favorites]


"tidally locked and dim", yeah, you know, we have plenty of that here already. They will have some big, big eyes, or big, big brains to interpret visual data. This is exciting news, and I welcome our new big eyed bat, overlords.
posted by Oyéah at 11:17 AM on February 22, 2017 [4 favorites]


I'm trying to come up with something cool to say and failing.

They should've sent a poet.
posted by nubs at 11:17 AM on February 22, 2017 [3 favorites]


Put me on the first rocket headed thataways.

For 700,000 years.....


Hellooooooooooo, introvert heaven!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:17 AM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


For 700,000 years.....

This is acceptable.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:18 AM on February 22, 2017 [6 favorites]


Was curious about how photosynthesis might work in IR.
posted by meehawl at 11:29 AM on February 22, 2017 [2 favorites]


It's interesting to think about what watching the sky would be like on such a (tidally locked, close to the star) planet. The sun would be constantly at a fixed point in the sky, while the stars would drift slowly past it. One could imagine a "stardial", a possibly-handheld tool used to tell time by comparing the position of the stars and the sun (which would presumably be safe to look at directly, being so much dimmer than our own). How would plants have evolved differently on Earth if the sun never moved? With no day/night cycle, would animals have ever evolved periodic sleeping? How far onto the dark side of the planet would life venture?
posted by NMcCoy at 11:30 AM on February 22, 2017 [11 favorites]


Great. Seven more planets for us to destroy.
posted by mykescipark at 11:35 AM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


I love that every successive discovery raises the bar for what counts as cool. It used to be that merely discovering a planet orbiting around another star was exciting news. Then it was Earth sized planets. Then they had to be in the Goldilocks zone.

Now we appear to require multiple Earth sized planets (we don't know, but let's hope), in the Goldilocks zone, relatively close by to make it worth having a press release. We are so jaded about this and it's completely awesome. Yay, science.

(Next up: does it have life? No? Well then, go away and come back when you find a planet that does. Geez. Wasting my time here...)
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 11:37 AM on February 22, 2017 [7 favorites]


Cool. Something to check out with newer, bigger telescopes coming online soon.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:38 AM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


Fascinating!
posted by Space Kitty at 11:39 AM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


This is really neat!
Artist's illustration of the surface of a planet in the TRAPPIST-1 system, which hosts seven roughly Earth-size worlds.
Go home, NASA press office. You're drunk.
posted by eotvos at 11:42 AM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


I love the idea that the neighboring planets would appear in the sky at times, larger than the moon is to us.
posted by maxwelton at 11:43 AM on February 22, 2017 [10 favorites]


Had a little viewing party at our department for the press conference, and I had just given my final PhD talk an hour earlier about modelling water-rich super-Earths, so needless to say I'm pretty excited about this...!

Amaury (second author) was playing it pretty cool and pretending he didn't have any idea what the press conference would be about. "All the rumours flying around really make one wonder what it could be," he said, smiling wryly. I'm pleased I've never had to keep quiet about something under embargo because I would be TERRIBLE at it.
posted by dashdotdot dash at 11:44 AM on February 22, 2017 [23 favorites]


But that won't stop us from naming its planets Chimay, Orval, Rochefort, etc. Nor should it.

To be determined by each planet's Specific Gravity, surely.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:45 AM on February 22, 2017 [20 favorites]


TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf star

I liked him better when he was part of Chimay Grand Cru
posted by Kabanos at 11:48 AM on February 22, 2017 [10 favorites]


Another good blog post by Franck Marchis. And here's an arstechnica article which mentions orbital resonances between the planets. "The ratios of the time it takes for neighboring planets to orbit are all ratios of integers: 8/5, 5/3, 3/2, 3/2, and 4/3. Integer ratios provide interactions that help prevent the sort of planetary chaos that can launch planets out of the exosolar system or send them spinning into the host star."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:50 AM on February 22, 2017 [4 favorites]


Integer ratios provide interactions that help prevent the sort of planetary chaos that can launch planets out of the exosolar system or send them spinning into the host star."

Firefly? There's your Space: 1999 reboot right there!
posted by Quindar Beep at 11:57 AM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


The first option, I mean. The second one would be a really short series, I imagine.
posted by Quindar Beep at 11:57 AM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


(Next up: does it have life? No? Well then, go away and come back when you find a planet that does. Geez. Wasting my time here...)

Intelligent life or GTFO!
posted by briank at 12:00 PM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


Thank the 7 Lords of Kobol.

(so say we all!)
posted by prepmonkey at 12:01 PM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


I can hardly wait another minute for the James Webb scope to get launched & into use.
posted by Devils Rancher at 12:06 PM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


Thank the 7 Lords of Kobol.

(so say we all!)


Betsy DeVos will not be president in our voyage to the new worlds after we break this one. Don't even invoke that fictional universe.
posted by girlpublisher at 12:07 PM on February 22, 2017 [6 favorites]


But that won't stop us from naming its planets Chimay, Orval, Rochefort, etc. Nor should it.

Can we just launch all the vile, vomit-reeking Oka in their direction, please? Ugh.

But seriously. They shall be called Liesl, Friedrich, Louisa, Kurt, Brigitta, Marta, and Gretl.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:09 PM on February 22, 2017 [9 favorites]


A caller asked a question about names for the planets, and the response seemed... political. He said something to the effect of, "let's just stick with a-f for now." Can anyone shed light on this?
posted by slipthought at 12:11 PM on February 22, 2017




Welp, found answer to my own question, naming conventions from the International Astronomical Union (IAU)
posted by slipthought at 12:45 PM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


Seven planets in an ultrastable configuration around an ultra-safe star? I'm not saying it's aliens, but IT'S ALIENS.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:45 PM on February 22, 2017 [5 favorites]


> "... around an ultra-safe star"

Well, except it's ... not, really. The news reports are playing up the pros of this kind of system for potential life, which exist, but they're not mentioning the cons, which are considerable. (Have to run off for a few minutes now, but I can explain when I get back.)
posted by kyrademon at 12:52 PM on February 22, 2017


Greg Nog: "TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf star

sounds like somebody's got a lil crush
"

Dwarf star? HAS to be a crush. I mean, they are SO attractive.
posted by Samizdata at 12:52 PM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf star

sounds like somebody's got a lil crush


I want to tell you about my friend the dwarf star
posted by FatherDagon at 12:59 PM on February 22, 2017


Look at the orbital periods on those planets : between 1 and 12 days to circle (?ellipse) the star.

"Say, those guys are comin' pretty fast!"

I wouldn't want to move there, I'm afraid I'd let go and fly off.
posted by Roentgen at 1:10 PM on February 22, 2017


Also, I don't, personally, find it disappointing that any reality of other life in the universe may be weirder and less like our own existence than we tend to imagine

Of course. As I said: very cool! The disappointment is that this, despite what the reporting would suggest, doesn't also serendipitously increase humanity's long term chances of survival (aka finding another home outside the sol system)
posted by danny the boy at 1:18 PM on February 22, 2017


OK, so, I'll preface this by saying that *so* much about all of this is still unknown, and is going to be continue to be unknown until we look at a lot more systems. Even saying "habitable zone" is making assumptions that life elsewhere is going to show up for reasons somewhat like what life around here did, which is a pretty good theory for a lot of reasons but far from proven. So this is a super-awesome discovery which could tell us a LOT.

But based on current assumptions, there are reasons this kind of system might be good for life, things we currently think might not matter either way but we're not sure, and reasons this kind of system might be inimical to life. And that last one, unfortunately, is kind of a biggun and I haven't seen many people talking about it.

Things we think are good for life, and this system fits them well: Planets that are small and rocky, but large enough to maintain an atmosphere, the right distance from their star that liquid water can exist on the surface

Things we think are good for life, and we don't know about this system: Magnetically active planets, which might also be important for maintaining an atmosphere. Are any of these planets magnetically active? We don't know yet.

Things we think probably don't matter either way but we're not 100% sure: Tidal locking, tidal heating, orbital period, moon interaction with the planets ... how much do these affect things? We think life can exist with set-ups considerably different than we've got on earth, but to what degree?

And finally, things we think are bad for life, and this system fits them well: Radiation. This star is a type that's a *lot* more active than ours, and that could be a problem. Like, a blast-away-the-atmosphere-of-the-planets, sterilize-the-surface type problem. It's a big deal, and I'm not seeing talked about much.

Only way to find out more, though, is to look more!
posted by kyrademon at 1:21 PM on February 22, 2017 [15 favorites]


Make 12 Parsecs Joke Now

FOURTEEN! ಠ_ಠ

...wait, that can't be right...
posted by Greg_Ace at 1:50 PM on February 22, 2017


Life arises everywhere, but it's just too hard to get off your first planet in time.

SO FAR. The universe is fairly ... young? I dunno ...

No joke, that's always been my belief--microscopic (and larger) life is "everywhere" in the universe and keeps getting snuffed out. Is there an actual theory anywhere that I could read more about (or an SF novel ... maybe I should write one ... life going extinct via multiple planets ... )?

I'll add Geerat Vermeij: Historical contingency and the purported uniqueness of evolutionary innovations

TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf star

sounds like somebody's got a lil crush

I want to tell you about my friend the dwarf star


Honestly, I wanted to make similar joke, but all I could think of was Davy Jones and Paul Williams (for hours.) (#NOTSIZEIST)
posted by mrgrimm at 2:17 PM on February 22, 2017


This star is a type that's a *lot* more active than ours, and that could be a problem.

Do we know that TRAPPIST-1 is variable, or are you just presuming that it's consistent with many other stars of its class?

Also, what a sucky acronym. TRAnsiting Planets and PlanetesImals Small Telescope? If you're going to use internal letters you might as well have called it TRALALA or something.(*)

(*) TRAnsiting pLAnets and pLAnetesImals Small Telescope
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:22 PM on February 22, 2017 [3 favorites]


but seriously, this is so cool!

Indeed, it's literally ultracool!

For 700,000 years.....

With 1970s technology, 0.1 c is feasible. Nuclear pulse propulsion has very high specific impulse and exhaust velocity. So, you can get to the 'verse in a few hundred years if you happen to have hundreds of small nuclear bombs lying around. The technology exists; all that is required is the VILL to use it.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:27 PM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


With 1970s technology, 0.1 c is feasible.

It would also be interesting to learn what types of biological effects accelerating to and traveling at significant fractions of c would have.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:33 PM on February 22, 2017


> Things we think are bad for life, and this system fits them well: Radiation. This star is a type that's a *lot* more active than ours, and that could be a problem.

So people are furiously working on this stuff, of course.

A couple of very smart people I know wrote up this paper on bio-fluorescence, for example: Biological fluorescence as a temporal bio-signature for flare star worlds. Isn't that a beautiful idea? Oceans full of life forms that absorb radiation by fluorescing - when the star flares, the entire ocean lights up for a brief interval.

From the abstract: "Photoprotective biofluorescence, "up-shifting" UV to longer, safer wavelengths (a proposed UV protection mechanism for some corals), would increase the detectability of biota and even uncover normally hidden biospheres during a flare. "

(Yes, TRAPPIST-1 is an M8 dwarf, and I believe it's an active one.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:33 PM on February 22, 2017 [3 favorites]


Here's a link to the raw light curve plots for the star - quite variable. Happy to provide if you hit a paywall (sorry).
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:46 PM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


There's also this study:

Strong XUV irradiation of the Earth-sized exoplanets orbiting the ultracool dwarf TRAPPIST-1

From the abstract:

"[T]he relatively close-in Earth-sized planets, which span the classical habitable zone of the star, are subject to sufficient X-ray and EUV irradiation to significantly alter their primary and any secondary atmospheres. Understanding whether this high-energy irradiation makes the planets more or less habitable is a complex question".
posted by kyrademon at 2:48 PM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


> "A couple of very smart people I know wrote up this paper ..."

Oh, hey, you know Lisa too? I lived across the street from her for two years. :)
posted by kyrademon at 2:56 PM on February 22, 2017 [1 favorite]


Would X-ray radiation be amenable to attenuation by any biological or organic molecule or process? UV and visible light can be absorbed by fluorescing molecules, in which a photon can be absorbed, transferring an electron to an excited state which then relaxes via radiative and non-radiative processes. X-rays, to my knowledge, are generally of high enough energy that they simply break the organic bonds, damaging the molecule and removing the radiative relaxation pathway. It seems like a UV flux could be tolerated, but an X-ray flux would be too damaging for biological organisms as we know them.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:05 PM on February 22, 2017


ヘ( ^o^)ノ\(^_^ )

AM EXCITE.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:08 PM on February 22, 2017 [2 favorites]


64 comments and I'm the first to come up with "IT'S A TRAP!"?? (Unless multiple previous Akbar jokes have been posted and deleted; if so, just kill me now)
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:19 PM on February 22, 2017


If it's any consolation the Enterprise theme is slightly worse.

It really isn't
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:44 PM on February 22, 2017


It's going to be nearly impossible to immigrate to Westvleteren, isn't it.

Verily, I am among my people.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:06 PM on February 22, 2017


multiple previous Akbar jokes

I just don't think Akbar jokes are great. (NOT IT'S A TRAP-IST)
posted by Jon Mitchell at 7:11 PM on February 22, 2017


How do you feel about Jeff jokes?
posted by Greg_Ace at 8:14 PM on February 22, 2017 [3 favorites]


Send some Australians there. Can't be any more hostile than where we live now.
posted by um at 10:07 PM on February 22, 2017


I wouldn't want to move there, I'm afraid I'd let go and fly off.

Probably best if you don't calculate the speed you're traveling right now.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:50 PM on February 22, 2017


The Google Doodle celebrating the discovery is super cute.
posted by Fig at 3:30 AM on February 23, 2017 [3 favorites]


My first reaction to the news was that it's the most adorable planetary system ever. It's all itty-bitty! It's got all the planets in the same way a newborn has all the fingers and toes!

My second reaction was existential: How did this fragile, delicate system come about? The seven planets we know of so far are all locked in a perfect resonance, so close together that they accelerate each other with each passing and yet only interacting in a stable, repeating sequence. This could be explained by the proto-planetary dust field condensing very intricately to form the planets exactly at the points of gravitational stability, but then it would have to remain perfectly isolated from any outside interference to prevent the whole thing falling apart. We look at our solar system and see the scars of rogue planetoids, colossal collisions and Jupiter's powerful influence slinging things around the system, but TRAPPIST-1 seems to be quiet and orderly, perfect orbits around a gentle star.

TRAPPIST-1 seems to be a very precious thing, and it's changed what I thought solar systems are. The best part is that we stumbled across it having barely to look, which makes me wonder what we will find next...
posted by Eleven at 3:47 AM on February 23, 2017 [5 favorites]


"That would still be brighter than the moon" is a vast understatement, if the star would appear 1/200 the brightness of the sun. An overcast day at noon is about 1/200th the brightness of a clear day at noon on Earth. The full moon on a clear night is 1/500,000th as bright as a clear day at noon.
posted by Nothing at 4:21 AM on February 23, 2017 [4 favorites]


he seven planets we know of so far are all locked in a perfect resonance, so close together that they accelerate each other with each passing and yet only interacting in a stable, repeating sequence.

One of the articles I read mentioned that it's thought that the planets formed further out, but interaction with dust and debris in the planetary disk would have slowed them and dropped them closer to the star — a process which might have continued if not for the fact that they fell into the orbital resonances, which stabilized their orbits. As they fell inwards and their orbits changed, and the ratio of the orbits changed, it's not unlikely that they would have hit on an orbital resonance at some point.

(Also, only the inner six are known to be involved in orbital resonances; the orbit of the outermost is not yet known accurately enough to say whether it's in an orbital resonance with any of the others.)

but then it would have to remain perfectly isolated from any outside interference to prevent the whole thing falling apart.

I am no expert on orbital mechanics, but my understanding is that the orbital resonances tend to stabilize the system against minor perturbations. A significantly large outside influence could disrupt that, of course, but it can withstand smaller ones.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:37 AM on February 23, 2017 [2 favorites]


TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf named for Belgium's Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope, not Belgium's Trappist beers.

The hell it's not. If these people are even 1% similar to the research scientists I know, the missing link in this article is just that the "Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope" is ALSO named for Trappist beer.

Also, what a sucky acronym. TRAnsiting Planets and PlanetesImals Small Telescope?

Exactly. If the axiom "researchers gonna pick goofy acronyms to amuse themselves" doesn't convince you, the tortured etymology here should be all the proof you need.
posted by range at 5:57 AM on February 23, 2017 [6 favorites]


Exactly. If the axiom "researchers gonna pick goofy acronyms to amuse themselves" doesn't convince you, the tortured etymology here should be all the proof you need.

Other acronyms in the field include BEER, SPECULOOS (that's even the same group!), and at least three BATMANs (I learned about two of them just now!). The more tortured, the "better" the astronomy acronym, is the feeling.


The best part is that we stumbled across it having barely to look, which makes me wonder what we will find next...

This is the most exciting thing to me as well. This is one of the closest stars to Earth. It's TRAPPIST-1, meaning, the first planet the survey has announced. They've only just got started. We've only just gotten to the point where we can detect planets this size around stars this small -- and they're common as dirt.

Maybe this means that dirt is universally common, too.
posted by puffyn at 8:20 AM on February 23, 2017 [1 favorite]


> Maybe this means that dirt is universally common, too.

If only dirt were as common as planets, eh?
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:16 AM on February 23, 2017


Can't energy dynamicism also be a driver for life and evolution, though? Obviously there's a range, but I think the most popular current theory of life is it started at hydrothermal vents, which are not exactly the gentle calm ponds under a warm sun of the first origin of life theories.
posted by tavella at 10:01 AM on February 23, 2017


NMcCoy: "With no day/night cycle, would animals have ever evolved periodic sleeping? How far onto the dark side of the planet would life venture?"

I'd bet all the way to the most anti-lightward. Life after all exists at the bottom of the ocean and beneath the ice in Antarctica. If there is an atmosphere there will be some sort of life at/near the anti-sunward point.
posted by Mitheral at 6:41 PM on February 23, 2017 [1 favorite]


There was a professor of something-something and Planetology from MIT on the radio tonight talking about this and the search for extrasolar planets in general. One thing she said, and with a bit of maybe hesitation (?) making it clear she was going beyond what the science currently shows obviously, was that they are starting to talk about the possibility that essentially every star in the galaxy has planets. So in a scant two decades we've gone from the existence of extrasolar planets being completely unknown to a few here and there to it not being beyond the realm of reason to suggest that to a first approximation every single star you see in the night sky has planets orbiting it.

Obviously it is too early to say definitively that this is true but she made it clear that it's not something you'd be laughed at for suggesting at this point.
posted by Justinian at 2:32 AM on February 25, 2017 [3 favorites]


« Older Shakeup at the Oscars   |   Theory 7: Putin is named Vladimir Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments