Space exploration and technology

[Vyom]

There is another theory that this whole universe can be a part of Black hole itself which consumed enough matter and is the world inside a black hole.

That is actually vicious thinking.

 

[divya]

That is actually vicious thinking.

technically that can be possible when the constraints of time and space breakdown.... and with enough matter, this theory arises from what we say prior to big bang like it finds similarities in as a black hole is formed and how our universe got started....

Though there are no theories or mathematical equations to proove that we are in a black hole but many scientists have this assertion that it can be quite possible

 

[Vyom]

technically that can be possible when the constraints of time and space breakdown.... and with enough matter, this theory arises from what we say prior to big bang like it finds similarities in as a black hole is formed and how our universe got started....

Though there are no theories or mathematical equations to proove that we are in a black hole but many scientists have this assertion that it can be quite possible

In Physics, or more generally in science, we do not rely on possibilities, we rely on plausibilities. An assertion that has no mathematical foundations cannot even come to the discussion table.

Moreover, what do we mean by something being inside the black hole? You can think of black holes as mere mathematical artifact, for it has so far played no major role in our understanding of the observable universe. The following are the only specific knowledge we have of the black hole:

- Some scientists believe that there is a massive black hole at the center of Milky Way, and that is it.

- We claim that massive stars die to become black holes (But we fail to explain how the distribution of black holes is so spurious. We should be observing many more black holes (or their presence) than we currently do.)

- The black hole bends everything towards it, including light. Which means the gravity at its center is infinitely strong, which can only lead to "nothingness". This nothingness is actually the complete destruction of all kinds of information, even the destruction of imagination. Because we have absolutely no perceptible or conceivable ability to think of a place with infinite gravity - the singularity.

The story of we being inside a massive black hole is as good as the universe being part of highly advanced alien software.

 

[Vyom]

technically that can be possible when the constraints of time and space breakdown.... and with enough matter, this theory arises from what we say prior to big bang like it finds similarities in as a black hole is formed and how our universe got started....

Though there are no theories or mathematical equations to proove that we are in a black hole but many scientists have this assertion that it can be quite possible

In Physics, or more generally in science, we do not rely on possibilities, we rely on plausibilities. An assertion that has no mathematical foundations cannot even come to the discussion table.

Moreover, what do we mean by something being inside the black hole? You can think of black holes as mere mathematical artifact, for it has so far played no major role in our understanding of the observable universe. The following are the only specific knowledge we have of the black hole:

- Some scientists believe that there is a massive black hole at the center of Milky Way, and that is it.

- We claim that massive stars die to become black holes (But we fail to explain how the distribution of black holes is so spurious. We should be observing many more black holes (or their presence) than we currently do.)

- The black hole bends everything towards it, including light. Which means the gravity at its center is infinitely strong, which can only lead to "nothingness". This nothingness is actually the complete destruction of all kinds of information, even the destruction of imagination. Because we have absolutely no perceptible or conceivable ability to think of a place with infinite gravity - the singularity.

The story of we being inside a massive black hole is as good as the universe being part of highly advanced alien software.

 

[divya]

In Physics, or more generally in science, we do not rely on possibilities, we rely on plausibilities. An assertion that has no mathematical foundations cannot even come to the discussion table.

Agreed but this theory does not have the mathematical formulation as of now. It is more like a perception. you need a perception first then only mathematical formulation comes. I am not saying it as a fact but what many scientist percieve.

Moreover, what do we mean by something being inside the black hole? You can think of black holes as mere mathematical artifact, for it has so far played no major role in our understanding of the observable universe. The following are the only specific knowledge we have of the black hole:

- Some scientists believe that there is a massive black hole at the center of Milky Way, and that is it.

well blackholes cannot be seen per se. the presence of massive black hole at the center of every galaxy is mathematically proved.

- We claim that massive stars die to become black holes (But we fail to explain how the distribution of black holes is so spurious. We should be observing many more black holes (or their presence) than we currently do.)

Because we need another massive object at the right distance so that it does not get engulfed inside near a black hole to actually detect it.

- The black hole bends everything towards it, including light. Which means the gravity at its center is infinitely strong, which can only lead to "nothingness". This nothingness is actually the complete destruction of all kinds of information, even the destruction of imagination. Because we have absolutely no perceptible or conceivable ability to think of a place with infinite gravity - the singularity.

The story of we being inside a massive black hole is as good as the universe being part of highly advanced alien software.

well aint the theory of big bang starts with singularity? Well the big bang also starts from there. When we talk about multiple dimensions and relate them with black holes we also assert that the physics laws as in this universe may or may not be applicable to the parallel one. At the same time the only way to travel across is the cosmic hole which forms the binding strings between the parallel universes. But existance of such cosmic holes have not yet been detected as of now but there is mathematical formulation for them just like black holes which were just formulations untill lately.

 

[Vyom]

Agreed but this theory does not have the mathematical formulation as of now. It is more like a perception. you need a perception first then only mathematical formulation comes. I am not saying it as a fact but what many scientist percieve.

That is why I said that it is not worthy of discussion. Perceptions cannot be the premise to any formal discussion or even serious discussion, until it matures on some facts or at least some idea more pragmatic.

well blackholes cannot be seen per se. the presence of massive black hole at the center of every galaxy is mathematically proved.

I have always thought, that this is a conclusion of astronomical observations alone. Could you give me some reference in this regard?

Because we need another massive object at the right distance so that it does not get engulfed inside near a black hole to actually detect it.

The fact that black holes engulfs everything actually should make our task of locating them more easy. Another way is to look for the unique radiation pattern that they send. So actually, the problem is not of locating them.

well aint the theory of big bang starts with singularity? Well the big bang also starts from there. When we talk about multiple dimensions and relate them with black holes we also assert that the physics laws as in this universe may or may not be applicable to the parallel one. At the same time the only way to travel across is the cosmic hole which forms the binding strings between the parallel universes. But existance of such cosmic holes have not yet been detected as of now but there is mathematical formulation for them just like black holes which were just formulations untill lately.

The theory you mentioned says we are inside a black hole. There is massive difference in being inside a black hole and begetting from a singularity. The cosmic holes are also mathematical artifacts, and we can always be missing something or another in mathematical equations. Mere mathematics cannot prove something in totality, and neither can mere observation.

 

[divya]

That is why I said that it is not worthy of discussion. Perceptions cannot be the premise to any formal discussion or even serious discussion, until it matures on some facts or at least some idea more pragmatic.

Same cannot be said about black holes. black holes were just a theory before they were actually discovered.

I have always thought, that this is a conclusion of astronomical observations alone. Could you give me some reference in this regard?

Refer discovery channel documental named "How the universe works" to start with and then watch into the universe with stephin hawkings. if aint satisfy you then i will have to do some labor of actually finding links..... any ways let me know..
The concept comes from the balance of stars at a specific distance from the center... there are no stars in the vicinity of blackholes as they are engulfed and rest of the galaxy rotates around it. there should be a central force to do so. The size of the black hole are thus calculated by the size of the galaxy.

The fact that black holes engulfs everything actually should make our task of locating them more easy. Another way is to look for the unique radiation pattern that they send. So actually, the problem is not of locating them.

Actually the problem is when they have engulfed everything which they have in their gravitational influence. Once that is done there is no way to detect that. Black holes only radiate when they feed if i am not wrong (I am not 100% sure on this around 90% sure). So its hard to detect them in that case.

The theory you mentioned says we are inside a black hole. There is massive difference in being inside a black hole and begetting from a singularity. The cosmic holes are also mathematical artifacts, and we can always be missing something or another in mathematical equations. Mere mathematics cannot prove something in totality, and neither can mere observation.

Well even black holes were mathematical equations some time back. we observed them quite later then we postulated mathematical equations. Cosmic holes have existance in maths as long as from the time of Einstein.

As far as singularity is concerned even black hole starts its engine with a singularity when it actually becomes a black hole where it is the brigtest place inside.


I would advise you to try and download the documentaries i previously mentioned, they are really good on the issue in consideration.

 

[Vyom]

Same cannot be said about black holes. black holes were just a theory before they were actually discovered.

Yes, but a theory that evolved from foundations of advanced mathematics of modern physics. You only get to see the success stories of mathematics, there are failed stories as well. Suppose if we were not able to discover black holes akin to the mathematical theories, then what would have been the credibility of such a theory?

Refer discovery channel documental named "How the universe works" to start with and then watch into the universe with stephin hawkings. if aint satisfy you then i will have to do some labor of actually finding links..... any ways let me know..
The concept comes from the balance of stars at a specific distance from the center... there are no stars in the vicinity of blackholes as they are engulfed and rest of the galaxy rotates around it. there should be a central force to do so. The size of the black hole are thus calculated by the size of the galaxy.

No I did not mean that I do not know that this theory is not supported with mathematical calculations. But when you say they are mathematically proven, it is a totally different thing. Let me give an example. Take a programming algorithm that employs binary search to find an element from a set of elements. Now, just like in every other case, our calculation require that we make some initial assumptions, and use them as axioms. How do we make those assumptions and still come to the correct answer? The answer is that we know the nature of the problem, we know the exact requirements and we know the real world-model of the problem. The mathematics that we apply to sub-atomic physics (the micro level) and to diametric sizes of the physical world (the macro world), both employ numerous calculations and mathematical items. Then we make numerous assumptions as well and many of these are used as axioms, which may not be consistent with actual meaning in the natural world. That is the problem that we face with the world when we stretch our limits to its very boundaries, because those boundaries are so "far" that we cannot say with total assurance that the assumptions used to proceed in a mathematical model is entirely correct or not.

Always, take such theories with sacks of salts. Even Einsteins relativity theories has been challenged by many counter mathematical equations, that is why they had to make numerous experiments to establish his principles, and I believe they are still doing it.

Actually the problem is when they have engulfed everything which they have in their gravitational influence. Once that is done there is no way to detect that. Black holes only radiate when they feed if i am not wrong (I am not 100% sure on this around 90% sure). So its hard to detect them in that case.

That is not how it works. A black hole takes millions of years to engulf objects and still million of years to radiate energy. There is no meaning of a black hole sitting alone in corner for no one has the maths to make any perceptions of what that would mean. Stars are always in galaxies and all observable galaxies are too big so they must be having plenty of black holes for us to observe.

Well even black holes were mathematical equations some time back. we observed them quite later then we postulated mathematical equations. Cosmic holes have existance in maths as long as from the time of Einstein.

I know, but check my above comments.

As far as singularity is concerned even black hole starts its engine with a singularity when it actually becomes a black hole where it is the brigtest place inside.

Singularity is a mathematical concept, can you or anyone else proceed in its domain any further?

I would advise you to try and download the documentaries i previously mentioned, they are really good on the issue in consideration.

I have seen those documentaries on Discovery itself, long time back, and eventually I also noticed how they use fancy maths to make some sensational claims as well.

 

[The Messiah]

There is another theory that this whole universe can be a part of Black hole itself which consumed enough matter and is the world inside a black hole.

Anyone can spout numerous theories about anything. one must bring forward evidence to support there theories.

How do you know you're not dreaming and in your mothers stomach still waiting to be born ?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

New molecule could mean better rocket fuel

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/New_molecule_could_mean_better_rocket_fuel_999.html

Swedish scientists say they've discovered a molecule that could lead to new rocket fuels that are 20 percent to 30 percent more efficient than now.

Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) discovered the new molecule in the nitrogen oxide group and dubbed it trinitramid, a release from the Swedish Research Council reported Wednesday.

More efficient fuels translate into bigger rocket payloads, the researchers said.

"A rule of thumb is that for every 10 percent increase in efficiency for rocket fuel, the payload of the rocket can double," Tore Brinck, professor of physical chemistry at KTH, said. "What's more, the molecule consists only of nitrogen and oxygen, which would make the rocket fuel environmentally friendly.

"This is more than can be said of today's solid rocket fuels, which entail the emission of the equivalent of 550 tons of concentrated hydrochloric acid for each launch of the space shuttle."

"As mentioned, what is specific to this molecule is that it contains only nitrogen and oxygen. Only eight such compounds were previously known, and most of them were discovered back in the 18th century," he said.

The scientists have managed to produce enough of the compound in a test tube for it to be detectable and subject to analysis.

"It remains to be seen how stable the molecule is in a solid form," Brinck said.

 

[Tshering22]

Cool news! This means now rockets and space shuttles can afford to carry more payload and hence even more possibilities of further commercializing space launch business. I would like to know what happened to that experiment they were doing with pure hydrogen though. Any luck?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

China to explore Mars with Russia this year

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/China_to_explore_Mars_with_Russia_this_year_999.html

China's first Mars probe is expected to be launched in October this year in a joint operation with Russia after a two-year delay, state media reported Sunday.

The probe, Yinghuo-1, was due to blast off in October 2009 with Russia's "Phobos Explorer" from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan but the launch was postponed, the official Xinhua news agency said.

Quoting an unnamed expert at the China Academy of Space Technology, the report said the blast-off had been pushed back to October this year. It added that China planned to launch a Mars probe on its own in 2013.

According to previous reports, the orbiter is due to probe the Martian space environment with a special focus on what happened to the water that appears to have once been abundant on the planet's surface.

China has already begun probing the moon and this will be the next step in its ambitious space exploration programme, which it aims to be on a par with those of the United States and Russia.

It currently has a probe -- the Chang'e 2 -- orbiting the moon and carrying out various tests in preparation for the expected 2013 launch of the Chang'e-3, which it hopes will be its first unmanned lunar landing.

It also became the world's third nation to put a man in space independently -- after the United States and Russia -- when Yang Liwei piloted the one-man Shenzhou-5 space mission
in 2003.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Russia Plans To Build Carrier Rocket For Mars Missions

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Russia_Plans_To_Build_Carrier_Rocket_For_Mars_Missions_999.html

Russia's Khrunichev research center plans to develop a new super-heavy carrier rocket that will be used to launch piloted spacecraft to Mars.

"The super-heavy carrier rocket will be based on the design of the Angara rocket and its modifications - Amur and Yenisei," Anatoly Kuzin, deputy general director of the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, said.

Angara rockets, designed to provide lifting capabilities between 2,000 and 40,500 kg into low earth orbit, are expected to become the core of Russia's carrier rocket fleet, replacing several existing systems.

The rockets have a modular design similar to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), based on a common Universal Rocket Module (URM).

Russia will start testing first Angara rockets in 2013, while the first piloted mission to Mars under a unified Moon-Mars program is expected to be launched in 2037.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/science/03planet.html

Kepler Planet Hunter Finds 1,200 Possibilities

Astronomers have cracked the Milky Way like a piñata, and planets are now pouring out so fast that they don't know what to do with them all.

In a long-awaited announcement, scientists operating NASA's Kepler planet-hunting satellite reported Wednesday that they had identified 1,235 possible planets orbiting other stars, potentially tripling the number of known planets in the universe.

Of the new candidates, 68 are one-and-a-quarter times the size of the Earth or smaller — smaller, that is, than any previously discovered planets outside the solar system. Fifty-four of the possible exoplanets are in the so-called habitable zones, where temperatures should be moderate enough for liquid water, of stars dimmer and cooler than the Sun; four of these are less than twice the size of Earth, and one is even smaller.

Astronomers said that it would take years to confirm that all these candidates are really planets — by using ground-based telescopes to try to measure their masses, for example — and not just double stars or other strange systems. Many of them might never be vetted because of the dimness of their stars and the lack of telescope time and astronomers to do it all. But statistical tests of a sample of the list suggest that 80 to 95 percent of the objects on it were real, as opposed to blips in the data.

"It boggles the mind," said William Borucki of the Ames Research Center, Kepler's leader.

At first glance, none of them appears to be another Earth, the kind of cosmic Eden fit for life as we know it, but the new results represent only four months worth of data on a three-and-a-half-year project, and have left astronomers enthused about the chances they will ultimately reach their goal of finding Earthlike planets in the universe.

"For the first time in human history we have a pool of potentially rocky habitable zone planets," said Sara Seager of M.I.T., who works with Kepler. "This is the first big step forward to answering the ancient question, 'How common are other Earths?' "

Mr. Borucki noted that since the Kepler telescope surveys only one four-hundredth of the sky, the numbers extrapolated to some 20,000 habitable-zone planets within 3,000 light-years of Earth. He is the lead author of a paper that has been submitted to The Astrophysical Journal describing the new results.

In a separate announcement, to be published in Nature on Thursday, a group of Kepler astronomers led by Jack Lissauer of Ames said they had found a star with six planets — the most Kepler has yet found around one star — orbiting in close ranks in the same plane, no farther from their star than Mercury is from the Sun.

This dense packing, Dr. Lissauer said, seems to violate all the rules astronomers thought they had begun to discern about how planetary systems form and evolve.

"This is sending me back to the drawing board," he said.

Summarizing the news from the cosmos, Geoffrey W. Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley, a veteran exoplanet hunter and a mainstay of the Kepler work, said, "There are so many messages here that it's hard to know where to begin." He called the Borucki team's announcement "an extraordinary planet windfall, a moment that will be written in textbooks. It will be thought of as watershed."

Kepler, launched into orbit around the Sun in March 2009, stares at a patch of the Milky Way near the Northern Cross, measuring the brightness of 156,000 stars every 30 minutes, looking for a pattern of dips that would be caused by planets crossing in front of their suns.

The goal is to assess the frequency of Earthlike planets around Sunlike suns in the galaxy. But in the four months of data analyzed so far, a Kepler looking at our own Sun would be lucky to have seen the Earth pass even once. Three transits are required for a planet to show up in Kepler's elaborate data-processing pipeline, which means that Kepler's next scheduled data release, in June 2012, could be a moment of truth for the mission.

Habitable planets, in the meantime, could show up at fainter stars than our Sun, where the habitable, or "Goldilocks," zone, would be smaller and closer to the star and planets in it would rack up transits more quickly.

Attention has been riveted on Wednesday's data release since June, when Kepler scientists issued their first list, of some 300 stars suspected of harboring planets, but held back another 400 for further study. In the intervening months, Mr. Borucki said, some of those candidates have been eliminated, but hundreds more have been added that would otherwise have been reported in June this year.

Astronomers have cracked the Milky Way like a piñata, and planets are now pouring out so fast that they don't know what to do with them all.

In a long-awaited announcement, scientists operating NASA's Kepler planet-hunting satellite reported Wednesday that they had identified 1,235 possible planets orbiting other stars, potentially tripling the number of known planets in the universe.

Of the new candidates, 68 are one-and-a-quarter times the size of the Earth or smaller — smaller, that is, than any previously discovered planets outside the solar system. Fifty-four of the possible exoplanets are in the so-called habitable zones, where temperatures should be moderate enough for liquid water, of stars dimmer and cooler than the Sun; four of these are less than twice the size of Earth, and one is even smaller.

Astronomers said that it would take years to confirm that all these candidates are really planets — by using ground-based telescopes to try to measure their masses, for example — and not just double stars or other strange systems. Many of them might never be vetted because of the dimness of their stars and the lack of telescope time and astronomers to do it all. But statistical tests of a sample of the list suggest that 80 to 95 percent of the objects on it were real, as opposed to blips in the data.

"It boggles the mind," said William Borucki of the Ames Research Center, Kepler's leader.

At first glance, none of them appears to be another Earth, the kind of cosmic Eden fit for life as we know it, but the new results represent only four months worth of data on a three-and-a-half-year project, and have left astronomers enthused about the chances they will ultimately reach their goal of finding Earthlike planets in the universe.

"For the first time in human history we have a pool of potentially rocky habitable zone planets," said Sara Seager of M.I.T., who works with Kepler. "This is the first big step forward to answering the ancient question, 'How common are other Earths?' "

Mr. Borucki noted that since the Kepler telescope surveys only one four-hundredth of the sky, the numbers extrapolated to some 20,000 habitable-zone planets within 3,000 light-years of Earth. He is the lead author of a paper that has been submitted to The Astrophysical Journal describing the new results.

In a separate announcement, to be published in Nature on Thursday, a group of Kepler astronomers led by Jack Lissauer of Ames said they had found a star with six planets — the most Kepler has yet found around one star — orbiting in close ranks in the same plane, no farther from their star than Mercury is from the Sun.

This dense packing, Dr. Lissauer said, seems to violate all the rules astronomers thought they had begun to discern about how planetary systems form and evolve.

"This is sending me back to the drawing board," he said.

Summarizing the news from the cosmos, Geoffrey W. Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley, a veteran exoplanet hunter and a mainstay of the Kepler work, said, "There are so many messages here that it's hard to know where to begin." He called the Borucki team's announcement "an extraordinary planet windfall, a moment that will be written in textbooks. It will be thought of as watershed."

Kepler, launched into orbit around the Sun in March 2009, stares at a patch of the Milky Way near the Northern Cross, measuring the brightness of 156,000 stars every 30 minutes, looking for a pattern of dips that would be caused by planets crossing in front of their suns.

The goal is to assess the frequency of Earthlike planets around Sunlike suns in the galaxy. But in the four months of data analyzed so far, a Kepler looking at our own Sun would be lucky to have seen the Earth pass even once. Three transits are required for a planet to show up in Kepler's elaborate data-processing pipeline, which means that Kepler's next scheduled data release, in June 2012, could be a moment of truth for the mission.

Habitable planets, in the meantime, could show up at fainter stars than our Sun, where the habitable, or "Goldilocks," zone, would be smaller and closer to the star and planets in it would rack up transits more quickly.

Attention has been riveted on Wednesday's data release since June, when Kepler scientists issued their first list, of some 300 stars suspected of harboring planets, but held back another 400 for further study. In the intervening months, Mr. Borucki said, some of those candidates have been eliminated, but hundreds more have been added that would otherwise have been reported in June this year.

One of the sequestered stars was a Sunlike star in the constellation Cygnus that went by the name of KOI 157, for Kepler Object of Interest. It first came to notice in the spring of 2009 when the astronomers saw that it seemed to have five candidate planets, four with nearly the same orbital periods, and in the same plane, like an old vinyl record, Dr. Lissauer recalled. Two of them came so close that every 50 days one of them would look as large as a full moon as seen from the other, Dr. Lissauer calculated.

"I got very interested in this system," Dr. Lissauer said. "Five was the most we had around any target." Moreover, the planets' proximity to one another meant that they would interact gravitationally. In the fall, a sixth planet — the innermost — was found.

By measuring the slight variations in transit times caused by the gravitational interference of the inner five planets with one another, Dr. Lissauer and his colleagues were able to calculate the masses and densities of those planets. These confirmed they were so-called super-Earths, with masses ranging from two to 13 times that of the Earth. But they were also puffy, containing a mixture of rock and gas, rather than being pure rock and iron like another super-Earth, Kepler 10b, a hunk of lava announced last month at a meeting in Seattle.

Dr. Lissauer said, "It suggests that most super-Earths may be more like Neptune than Earthlike."

Alan Boss, a planetary theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said the Kepler 11 system, as it is now known, should keep theorists busy and off the streets for a long time. "This system," he wrote in an e-mail message, "certainly belongs in the pantheon of exoplanet systems: six planets lined up in a plane pointing toward us, waiting patiently for billions of years for humankind to develop sufficient technical capabilities to detect them."

Mr. Borucki said the growing ubiquity of small planets as revealed by Kepler was a welcome relief from the early days of exoplanet research, when most of the planets discovered were Jupiter-size giants hugging their stars in close orbits, leading theorists to speculate that smaller planets might be thrown away from those environs by gravitational forces or even dragged right into their stars.

"Those little guys are still there," he said, "and we're delighted to see them."

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Earth-Size Planet Candidates Found In Habitable Zone

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Earth_Size_Planet_Candidates_Found_In_Habitable_Zone_999.html

NASA's Kepler mission has discovered its first Earth-size planet candidates and its first candidates in the habitable zone, a region where liquid water could exist on a planet's surface. Five of the potential planets are near Earth-size and orbit in the habitable zone of smaller, cooler stars than our sun.

Candidates require follow-up observations to verify they are actual planets. Kepler also found six confirmed planets orbiting a sun-like star, Kepler-11. This is the largest group of transiting planets orbiting a single star yet discovered outside our solar system.

"In one generation we have gone from extraterrestrial planets being a mainstay of science fiction, to the present, where Kepler has helped turn science fiction into today's reality," said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. "These discoveries underscore the importance of NASA's science missions, which consistently increase understanding of our place in the cosmos."

The discoveries are part of several hundred new planet candidates identified in new Kepler mission science data, released on Tuesday, Feb. 1. The findings increase the number of planet candidates identified by Kepler to-date to 1,235.

Of these, 68 are approximately Earth-size; 288 are super-Earth-size; 662 are Neptune-size; 165 are the size of Jupiter and 19 are larger than Jupiter.

Of the 54 new planet candidates found in the habitable zone, five are near Earth-sized. The remaining 49 habitable zone candidates range from super-Earth size - up to twice the size of Earth - to larger than Jupiter.

The findings are based on the results of observations conducted May 12 to Sept. 17, 2009, of more than 156,000 stars in Kepler's field of view, which covers approximately one four-hundredth of the sky.

"The fact that we've found so many planet candidates in such a tiny fraction of the sky suggests there are countless planets orbiting sun-like stars in our galaxy," said William Borucki of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., the mission's science principal investigator.

"We went from zero to 68 Earth-sized planet candidates and zero to 54 candidates in the habitable zone, some of which could have moons with liquid water."

Among the stars with planetary candidates, 170 show evidence of multiple planetary candidates. Kepler-11, located approximately 2,000 light years from Earth, is the most tightly packed planetary system yet discovered.

All six of its confirmed planets have orbits smaller than Venus, and five of the six have orbits smaller than Mercury's. The only other star with more than one confirmed transiting planet is Kepler-9, which has three. The Kepler-11 findings will be published in the Feb. 3 issue of the journal Nature.

"Kepler-11 is a remarkable system whose architecture and dynamics provide clues about its formation," said Jack Lissauer, a planetary scientist and Kepler science team member at Ames.

"These six planets are mixtures of rock and gases, possibly including water. The rocky material accounts for most of the planets' mass, while the gas takes up most of their volume. By measuring the sizes and masses of the five inner planets, we determined they are among the lowest-mass confirmed planets beyond our solar system."

All of the planets orbiting Kepler-11 are larger than Earth, with the largest ones being comparable in size to Uranus and Neptune. The innermost planet, Kepler-11b, is 10 times closer to its star than Earth is to the sun.

Moving outward, the other planets are Kepler-11c, Kepler-11d, Kepler-11e, Kepler-11f, and the outermost planet, Kepler-11g, which is half as far from its star as Earth is from the sun.

The planets Kepler-11d, Kepler-11e and Kepler-11f have a significant amount of light gas, which indicates that they formed within a few million years of the system's formation.

"The historic milestones Kepler makes with each new discovery will determine the course of every exoplanet mission to follow," said Douglas Hudgins, Kepler program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington.

Kepler, a space telescope, looks for planet signatures by measuring tiny decreases in the brightness of stars caused by planets crossing in front of them. This is known as a transit. Since transits of planets in the habitable zone of sun-like stars occur about once a year and require three transits for verification, it is expected to take three years to locate and verify Earth-size planets orbiting sun-like stars.

The Kepler science team uses ground-based telescopes and NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to review observations on planetary candidates and other objects of interest the spacecraft finds. The star field that Kepler observes in the constellations Cygnus and Lyra can only be seen from ground-based observatories in spring through early fall. The data from these other observations help determine which candidates can be validated as planets.

 

[Someoneforyou]

NASA's Kepler Spacecraft Discovers Extraordinary New Planetary System

UNITED STATES - 4 FEBRUARY 2011

Scientists using NASA's Kepler, a space telescope, recently discovered six planets made of a mix of rock and gases orbiting a single sun-like star, known as Kepler-11, which is located approximately 2,000 light years from Earth.

"The Kepler-11 planetary system is amazing," said Jack Lissauer, a planetary scientist and a Kepler science team member at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "It's amazingly compact, it's amazingly flat, there's an amazingly large number of big planets orbiting close to their star - we didn't know such systems could even exist."

In other words, Kepler-11 has the fullest, most compact planetary system yet discovered beyond our own.

"Few stars are known to have more than one transiting planet, and Kepler-11 is the first known star to have more than three," said Lissauer. "So we know that systems like this are not common. There's certainly far fewer than one percent of stars that have systems like Kepler-11. But whether it's one in a thousand, one in ten thousand or one in a million, that we don't know, because we only have observed one of them."

All of the planets orbiting Kepler-11, a yellow dwarf star, are larger than Earth, with the largest ones being comparable in size to Uranus and Neptune. The innermost planet, Kepler-11b, is ten times closer to its star than Earth is to the sun. Moving outwards, the other planets are Kepler-11c, Kepler-11d, Kepler-11e, Kepler-11f, and the outermost planet, Kepler-11g, which is twice as close to its star than Earth is to the sun.

"The five inner planets are all closer to their star than any planet is to our sun and the sixth planet is still fairly close," said Lissauer.

If placed in our solar system, Kepler-11g would orbit between Mercury and Venus, and the other five planets would orbit between Mercury and our sun. The orbits of the five inner planets in the Kepler-11 planetary system are much closer together than any of the planets in our solar system. The inner five exoplanets have orbital periods between 10 and 47 days around the dwarf star, while Kepler-11g has a period of 118 days.

"By measuring the sizes and masses of the five inner planets, we have determined they are among the smallest confirmed exoplanets, or planets beyond our solar system," said Lissauer. "These planets are mixtures of rock and gases, possibly including water. The rocky material accounts for most of the planets' mass, while the gas takes up most of their volume."

According to Lissauer, Kepler-11 is a remarkable planetary system whose architecture and dynamics provide clues about its formation. The planets Kepler-11d, Kepler-11e and Kepler-11f have a significant amount of light gas, which Lissauer says indicates that at least these three planets formed early in the history of the planetary system, within a few million years.

A planetary system is born when a molecular cloud core collapses to form a star. At this time, disks of gas and dust in which planets form, called protoplanetary disks, surround the star. Protoplanetary disks can be seen around most stars that are less than a million years old, but few stars more than five million years old have them. This leads scientists to theorize that planets which contain significant amounts of gas form relatively quickly in order to obtain gases before the disk disperses.

The Kepler spacecraft will continue to return science data about the new Kepler-11 planetary system for the remainder of its mission. The more transits Kepler sees, the better scientists can estimate the sizes and masses of planets.

"These data will enable us to calculate more precise estimates of the planet sizes and masses, and could allow us to detect more planets orbiting the Kepler-11 star," said Lissauer. "Perhaps we could find a seventh planet in the system, either because of its transits or from the gravitational tugs it exerts on the six planets that we already see. We're going to learn a fantastic amount about the diversity of planets out there, around stars within our galaxy."

A space observatory, Kepler looks for the data signatures of planets by measuring tiny decreases in the brightness of stars when planets cross in front of, or transit, them. The size of the planet can be derived from the change in the star's brightness. The temperature can be estimated from the characteristics of the star it orbits and the planet's orbital period.

The Kepler science team is using ground-based telescopes, as well as the Spitzer Space Telescope, to perform follow-up observations on planetary candidates and other objects of interest found by the spacecraft. The star field that Kepler observes in the constellations Cygnus and Lyra can only be seen from ground-based observatories in spring through early fall. The data from these other observations help determine which of the candidates can be identified as planets.

Kepler will continue conducting science operations until at least November 2012, searching for planets as small as Earth, including those that orbit stars in the habitable zone, where liquid water could exist on the surface of the planet. Since transits of planets in the habitable zone of solar-like stars occur about once a year and require three transits for verification, it is predicted to take at least three years to locate and verify an Earth-size planet.

"Kepler can only see 1/400 of the sky," said William Borucki of NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., and the mission's science principal investigator. "Kepler can find only a small fraction of the planets around the stars it looks at because the orbits aren't aligned properly. If you account for those two factors, our results indicate there must be millions of planets orbiting the stars that surround our sun."

Kepler is NASA's tenth Discovery mission. Ames is responsible for the ground system development, mission operations and science data analysis. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., managed the Kepler mission development. Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colo., was responsible for developing the Kepler flight system, and along with the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, is supporting mission operations. Ground observations necessary to confirm the discoveries were conducted at the Keck I in Hawaii; Hobby-Ebberly and Harlan J. Smith 2.7m in Texas; Hale and Shane in California; WIYN, MMT and Tillinghast in Arizona, and the Nordic Optical in the Canary Islands, Spain.

Source : NASA

 

[Someoneforyou]

 

[prahladh]

Why is it only artistic impressions are released when it comes to these discoveries.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Why is it only artistic impressions are released when it comes to these discoveries.

These planets are thousands of light years away.

 

[The Messiah]

Why is it only artistic impressions are released when it comes to these discoveries.

Even if we saw the real image it would be thousands of years old.