The most interesting thing I find about the search for exoplanets is that there are so many with orbital planes that allow us to see them transit their stars, I wonder how many stars have planetary systems that don't transit from our perspective.
+Ross Betts , the probability of transit is [star radius]/[star-planet distance]. For an Earth-like planet orbiting a Sun-like star, this is 0.5%. That means that the transit method (as effective as it is) misses 199 out of every 200 Earth-like planets around Sun-like stars. We can get those 199 planets by directly imaging them.
thank you for the reply, seems then that there must be a great many planets out there that we need the new telescopes being proposed for us to find them.
Fascinating! By the time this is launched, the apparent component separation will be increased, making it easier to observe the system. ESPRESSO and soon James Webb should be online as well, and will be able to add supporting data!
The spectrum of an earth analog grows in brightness toward the near-UV, producing more photons and a unique Rayleigh scattering signature. Why does the multi-spectral camera cut off at 400 nm just as this distinguishing feature is developing?
I hope it gets approved -- good luck! Forgive me if I missed it in the video, but when will we know if it gets approved and if it does, when will it launch?
it’s funny to see these older vids when now we know at least 2 planets orbit proxima centauri, 1 in the habitable zone and maybe a 3rd planet... and that we also think that at least one jupiter sized or bigger planet orbits both alpha centauri a and b due to the wobble of both stars
+Skg SEE ALSO ALSO: On November 4, 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs within the Milky Way.[71][72][73] 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[74] The nearest such planet may be 12 light-years away, according to scientists.[71][72] That's from the wikipedia entry on the Milky Way galaxy, which is about two years behind.
Thanks for your answers guys, I've been thinking about my question and finally it seems it's a stupid one (if there are any) Kepler only detects transiting planets, so it cannot say if a star doesn't have planets. Only that it doesn't have transiting ones... Or the answer could be calculating the chances for a system to have its ecliptic plane at the right angle with us to have planets that Kepler can detect, then compare it with the rate of detected systems with planets within the Kepler "zone" of the sky (a small one since it's pointed in one direction in Cygnus)
+Skg I created man a safe distance from eternal life pure gold good at the bottom of my heaven on a 1% success rate, intentionally small if he had been any bigger he would have been dangerous. prlog.org/12442559 Aliens do not exist all that is there so that you could be there.
If green is the habitable zone, what is the darker green just inside it, and, why-isn't there a larger zone outside it, also, darker green... even smoothly, greener-vs-darker-vs-black...(?)
+Raymond K Petry Darker green means it's possible for earthlike life to develop, but towards the star because of the increased solar energy (meaning increased radiation, greater chance of greenhouse effect, etc.) that area is not promising. The smaller dark green belt farther from the star shows how quickly the chances of life developing decrease the farther you get from the star and the less solar energy you get. --Yes, you could fade the green into dark green into black, but using bands signifies in part the guesswork still involved. You want more precision, I suspect, than is currently possible.
1. The inner darker green are equatorial desert planets nice at the poles 'til thermal runaway destroys their more-temperate zones in worldwide forest fires (cf Venus); 2. More importantly the broadly-missing-outer-dark-green zone is where submini-gas-planets like erstwhile Mars form and support life billions of years 'til their atmospheres collapse and waste away in the solar wind... such planets are habitable first, So, where they exist we should be monitoring them firstly... a very important 'green-alien' zone...!
thousands that have been discovered, and hundreds of billions yet undiscovered, or more. And that is just in our galaxy. There are hundreds of billions of other galaxies.
Thank you SETI. Always engaging and interesting talks. Great work as always.
The most interesting thing I find about the search for exoplanets is that there are so many with orbital planes that allow us to see them transit their stars, I wonder how many stars have planetary systems that don't transit from our perspective.
+Ross Betts , the probability of transit is [star radius]/[star-planet distance]. For an Earth-like planet orbiting a Sun-like star, this is 0.5%. That means that the transit method (as effective as it is) misses 199 out of every 200 Earth-like planets around Sun-like stars. We can get those 199 planets by directly imaging them.
thank you for the reply, seems then that there must be a great many planets out there that we need the new telescopes being proposed for us to find them.
Fascinating! By the time this is launched, the apparent component separation will be increased, making it easier to observe the system. ESPRESSO and soon James Webb should be online as well, and will be able to add supporting data!
Very interesting. Thanks.
Good luck to all involved!
The spectrum of an earth analog grows in brightness toward the near-UV, producing more photons and a unique Rayleigh scattering signature. Why does the multi-spectral camera cut off at 400 nm just as this distinguishing feature is developing?
I hope it gets approved -- good luck! Forgive me if I missed it in the video, but when will we know if it gets approved and if it does, when will it launch?
Exciting project, will you be using Boinc to help on data crunching? like SETI at home, as i would love to help out on this.
it’s funny to see these older vids when now we know at least 2 planets orbit proxima centauri, 1 in the habitable zone and maybe a 3rd planet... and that we also think that at least one jupiter sized or bigger planet orbits both alpha centauri a and b due to the wobble of both stars
Fascinates me how can you even possibly Emagine there is no other planets like Earth?
What's planet?
Good luck, I wish you success.
We need really, really BIG telescopes on the Moon. Then we could see some planets. And who knows what else.
Invading space aliens?
Anyone knows if, following the Kepler telescope's results, we have statistics on the probability of planets around stars?
+Skg I believe it's rapidly approaching 1.
+Skg SEE ALSO ALSO: On November 4, 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs within the Milky Way.[71][72][73] 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[74] The nearest such planet may be 12 light-years away, according to scientists.[71][72]
That's from the wikipedia entry on the Milky Way galaxy, which is about two years behind.
Thanks for your answers guys, I've been thinking about my question and finally it seems it's a stupid one (if there are any)
Kepler only detects transiting planets, so it cannot say if a star doesn't have planets. Only that it doesn't have transiting ones...
Or the answer could be calculating the chances for a system to have its ecliptic plane at the right angle with us to have planets that Kepler can detect, then compare it with the rate of detected systems with planets within the Kepler "zone" of the sky (a small one since it's pointed in one direction in Cygnus)
+Skg I created man a safe distance from eternal life pure gold good at the bottom of my heaven on a 1% success rate, intentionally small if he had been any bigger he would have been dangerous. prlog.org/12442559 Aliens do not exist all that is there so that you could be there.
yep, every star has at LEAST one planet.
If green is the habitable zone, what is the darker green just inside it, and, why-isn't there a larger zone outside it, also, darker green... even smoothly, greener-vs-darker-vs-black...(?)
+Raymond K Petry Darker green means it's possible for earthlike life to develop, but towards the star because of the increased solar energy (meaning increased radiation, greater chance of greenhouse effect, etc.) that area is not promising. The smaller dark green belt farther from the star shows how quickly the chances of life developing decrease the farther you get from the star and the less solar energy you get. --Yes, you could fade the green into dark green into black, but using bands signifies in part the guesswork still involved. You want more precision, I suspect, than is currently possible.
1. The inner darker green are equatorial desert planets nice at the poles 'til thermal runaway destroys their more-temperate zones in worldwide forest fires (cf Venus);
2. More importantly the broadly-missing-outer-dark-green zone is where submini-gas-planets like erstwhile Mars form and support life billions of years 'til their atmospheres collapse and waste away in the solar wind... such planets are habitable first, So, where they exist we should be monitoring them firstly... a very important 'green-alien' zone...!
if there is "another Earth" out there, then it's already taken....
Cool! Build it!
all very interesting ya'll
A/V guy asleep at the switch again?
Astronomer states thousands of Planets in The Galaxy?
thousands that have been discovered, and hundreds of billions yet undiscovered, or more. And that is just in our galaxy. There are hundreds of billions of other galaxies.
Alpha Centauri is 80000 human years away. Exoplanet science is so boring , we made a graph that means there is a planet.
im from alpha centuri figure that one out
HI MOM
☆☆☆☆☆