/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #9682486

12KiB, 535x535, 1522643255981.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Seeing planets in different solar systems

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 02:24:33 2018 No.9682486 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>9682925 >>9683960 >>9684987

Back then, it was hard to see some stars. But after our technology improved, we could see stars millions of light years away. Is there a way to make a satellite that could also see planets in different solar systems? Is there a project trying to succeed that mission? This would help us see if there planets are life like just like Earth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 02:44:12 No.9682522 Report

Quoted By:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transiting_Exoplanet_Survey_Satellite

the latest

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 02:55:26 No.9682542 Report

Quoted By:

asshole

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 07:23:39 No.9682925 Report

Quoted By:

>>9682486
KEPLER
TESS
James Webb
Also Google "Exoplanet Search"

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 18:50:35 No.9683955 Report

Quoted By: >>9683982

Where have you been for the past 20 years? We discover new exo-planets all the time. The James Webb Telescope might be capable of directly imaging some exo-planets in nearby systems.

Not that it really matters at all. Until we develop FTL or near-light speed travel, everything outside of our solar system is beyond our reach. That's even assuming FTL travel is even possible, we still don't know if it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 18:52:25 No.9683960 Report

Quoted By: >>9683992 >>9683995

>>9682486
So far we can only detect a planet by the wobble of the host star(s).

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO conservative_haitable_nearby.png, 76KiB, 1693x632

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 18:57:48 No.9683982 Report

Quoted By: >>9683994 >>9684050 >>9684063 >>9684066

>>9683955
ALT is possible and would still open up several star systems.
Also, the problem of aging and resources would be somewhat mitigated by the need to cryogenically preserve the crew for accelerating up to ALT without the g-forces killing the crew in an efficient manner.
Although, without FTL, we will always be trapped in our Local Group, but that still gives us a HUGE range.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:01:50 No.9683992 Report

Quoted By: >>9684000

>>9683960
This is not true. We can also detect them when they transit in front of their parent star, and block some of the light.

I think, but I'm not positive, that we have also actually seen planets. Not well enough to resolve them into a disc, but well enough to see that they're a different point of light.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO optimistic_habitable_nearby.png, 94KiB, 1681x811

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:02:29 No.9683994 Report

Quoted By:

>>9683982
Cont.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:02:38 No.9683995 Report

Quoted By: >>9684000

>>9683960
>only
wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:03:43 No.9684000 Report

Quoted By:

>>9683992
>>9683995
My mistake forgetting about that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:19:17 No.9684050 Report

Quoted By: >>9684057

>>9683982
>cryogenically preserve the crew
Why not just have cryopreserved fertilized zygotes, and have a robotic system grow them on site? You would have to have humanoid-looking robots to raise the first generation and would run the risk of some Lord of the Flies level shit going on, but you could pack a larger population into the same payload, the same population into a smaller payload, or somewhere between the two. Cryopreservation of unfertilized zygotes is proven, and while artificial wombs may be a bit ahead of us, viable, non-destructive cryogenic preservation of a human seems much further off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:21:41 No.9684057 Report

Quoted By:

>>9684050
Because I selfishly want to be able to experience an exoplanet for myself, as I'm sure many other people do too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:26:06 No.9684063 Report

Quoted By: >>9684075

>>9683982
>Also, the problem of aging and resources would be somewhat mitigated by the need to cryogenically preserve the crew
Ah yes, the problems with your hypothetical fantasy science-fiction technology can be solved with more hypothetical fantasy science-fiction technology

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:27:17 No.9684066 Report

Quoted By: >>9684069 >>9684075

>>9683982
>muh habitable zone
Mars and Venus are also in the habitable zone. It doesn't mean shit. There are so many variables that go into determining whether or not a planet would be habitable (by our standards), there likely is not a single planet within hundreds of thousands of light years like Earth

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:28:18 No.9684069 Report

Quoted By: >>9684075

>>9684066
>hundreds of thousands
Hundreds or thousands*

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:30:00 No.9684075 Report

Quoted By: >>9684089 >>9684106 >>9684501

>>9684063
>Cryogenics is science-fiction technology, yet occurs naturally anyway.
Mhm, sort of like those digital computers. :^)
Oh no, wait, we have those now!
Also, you can reach C without having to go stupidly fast (g-forces killing the crew fast), it just isn't as efficient.

>>9684066
>>9684069
>Science is inexact and can never improve on its predictions!
Oh shit, I guess we should've stopped at Copernicus. :^)

Gosh, you're a bunch of scared retards, eh?
Don't like the thought of transhumanism? Awh, poor babby.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:35:35 No.9684089 Report

Quoted By: >>9684110 >>9684355 >>9684359

>>9684075
Cryogenics is nothing like digital computers. We are nowhere near having the technology to safely preserve and "thaw" out people. It would require a non-toxic antifreeze agent that can penetrate EVERY SINGLE CELL in the human body. The people that have already been "preserved" like this are listed as legally dead for a reason: they're fucking dead. There is no way to thaw them, there never will be because they were not preserved with this concept in mind. Cryogenically freezing people is absurd science fiction.

Furthermore, planets within several light years are not a "reasonable" distance away considering it would take 30,000 years for us to travel only a few light years with current technology. Faster-than-light travel, or even travel to other stars within a few lifetimes, is completely outside of any reasonable technology. Nobody here is "scared," you're just a fucking retard who takes his viewpoints on science from movies and video games instead of the truth. The cold, hard truth is that we are stuck in this solar system for the foreseeable future. We still haven't even developed the means to put people on other planets IN OUR OWN SOLAR SYSTEM, let alone another one. Maybe when we develop propulsion system that allow us to travel to Pluto in a few days instead of 10 years you can come here and talk about your stupid Star Trek bullshit technology. In the mean time, fuck off and read an actual textbook instead of comic books.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1517955522335.png, 37KiB, 586x578

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:41:24 No.9684106 Report

Quoted By: >>9684115

>>9684075
>W-what do you mean space travel doesn't work like it does in Star Wars?
>Y-you guys are j-just scared of change!
Kek. This is what happens when Millennials think that listening to Le Black Science Man and Bill Nye the Mechanical Engineer Guy is the same as actually studying science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:42:46 No.9684110 Report

Quoted By: >>9684119 >>9684124 >>9684137

>>9684089
>We are nowhere near to having the technology to create a digital computer...
t. Everyone to Ada Lovelace.
People who play Nostradamus really piss me off, considering how much technological profession we've made in the last few hundred years. - Most it made in the last two centuries.

Lol, you do know speed isn't the reason for us not having explored our solar system, right? It's mostly money, as you can accelerate someone at 8-9 g without rendering them unconscious.
For instance, If you limited your acceleration to 10 g, or about 100 m/s2, then one gets 3,000,000 seconds, or about 35 days to reach the speed of light (or thereabouts).
So, the issue isn't speed, friendo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:43:49 No.9684115 Report

Quoted By: >>9684137

>>9684106
That's not even comparable, you retard. Reaching c isn't the issue, it is surviving it that is the issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:46:31 No.9684119 Report

Quoted By: >>9684137

>>9684110
Fyi, 10 g is when most people are rendered unconscious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:48:11 No.9684124 Report

Quoted By: >>9684147

>>9684110
You're right, the issue is getting shit TO THOSE SPEEDS. Are you fucking dense? As of right now, chemical propulsion (i.e. rockets) are basically all we have for space travel. It is incredibly inefficient, and getting enough rocket propellant into space to accelerate something to even 1% the speed of light would be virtually impossible. Other proposed forms of travel (plasma, ion propulsion, solar sails) have not been tested or proven yet, and are basically only useful for long-term unmanned probes because of the pitifully small amount of thrust they generate.

You are a fucking brainlet. Go back to watching Star Wars movies and fantasizing. Saying "durrrr it would only take 35 days to reach light speed at 10G!" is absolutely irrelevant if you don't have enough fuel to maintain a 10G acceleration. And by the way, the closer you get to light speed, the more energy is required to accelerate something further. You would know this if you actually took a single physics class in your life instead of watching videos about stupid pop-sci shit on YouTube and the Discovery Channel. That shit is designed to rake in public support from the average braindead retard (like yourself) that is too fucking stupid to know that what they're saying is either Grade A bullshit, or some incredibly impractical/irrelevant that it doesn't even warrant discussion.
>tl;dr
If you want to improve the human race, kill yourself. The average IQ will increase.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:51:10 No.9684137 Report

Quoted By: >>9684155

>>9684115
>Reaching c isn't the issue
Then show me a single space probe that has reached a speed anywhere near it
>>9684119
>>9684110
No, actually. Most people go unconscious at 5 Gs. Trained fighter pilots with special flight suits can withstand 6-9 Gs for periods of several minutes. 42 Gs instantaneously can kill you, and 10 Gs over a period of a few minutes or more will also kill the average person. This dipshit talking about his fantasy Star Wars spacecraft is so fucking stupid it's unbearable

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:53:20 No.9684147 Report

Quoted By: >>9684311

>>9684124
>What is a ramjet?
>What is nuclear propulsion?
>What is a solar/magnetic sail
Awh, babby being too scared again.
t. Whole-Of-You-Cunts

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 19:55:21 No.9684155 Report

Quoted By:

>>9684137
Fine, 6-9, even 4-5 is reasonable.
Although, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the numbers.
Heck, even at 1G you'd almost reach c in five years from the pilots frame of reference.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 20:58:26 No.9684311 Report

Quoted By: >>9684325

>>9684147
>What is a ramjet?
Bussard Ramjets aren't actually practical. They have to be unfeasible large.

>What is nuclear propulsion?
A rocket, in which case you're at the mercy of the rocket equation. Why don't you calculate what size of rocket you would need to accelerate constantly at 10 G for 35 days?

>What is a solar/magnetic sail
Solar sails produce minuscule amounts of thrust. They won't be accelerating a spacecraft at 1 G.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO shrug.jpg, 82KiB, 384x313

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 21:04:45 No.9684325 Report

Quoted By: >>9684385

>>9684311
>Bussard Ramjets aren't actually practical. They have to be unfeasible large.
Also the density of interstellar hydrogen is lower than the assumption made back when the concept was first proposed, I know.

>Why don't you calculate what size of rocket you would need to accelerate constantly at 10 G for 35 days?
True, you'd still need a shitload of individual "devices" even if you didn't go with a singular rocket.

>Solar sails produce minuscule amounts of thrust. They won't be accelerating a spacecraft at 1 G.
I didn't mean you complete the whole journey with one.
Conventional rocket into orbit.
Then you would need some form of massive propulsion, perhaps slingshot it around Sol, or a planet and then you activate the solar/magnetic sail.
Although, I'm not sure if that would be enough to maintain C after X amount of light-years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 21:15:54 No.9684355 Report

Quoted By: >>9684359

>>9684089
>Furthermore, planets within several light years are not a "reasonable" distance away considering it would take 30,000 years for us to travel only a few light years with current technology. Faster-than-light travel, or even travel to other stars within a few lifetimes, is completely outside of any reasonable technology.
Project Orion is 1960s tech and the larger Orion ships would have been able to hit .1c. That's enough to get to Proxima Centauri in less than a lifetime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 21:18:19 No.9684359 Report

Quoted By:

>>9684355
R E K T
>>9684089

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 21:27:36 No.9684385 Report

Quoted By: >>9684395 >>9684442

>>9684325
>True, you'd still need a shitload of individual "devices" even if you didn't go with a singular rocket.

Now you're getting it. All of your proposals are infeasible.

>Then you would need some form of massive propulsion, perhaps slingshot it around Sol, or a planet and then you activate the solar/magnetic sail.
Firstly slingshots only work when you're already above escape velocity. One with the Sun is quite pointless. A gravitational assist with a Jupiter will net you a few 10s of km/s, nothing on the scale of what you propose.
Secondly solar sails are useless outside the inner solar system.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO puffed_cheeks.jpg, 23KiB, 180x240

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 21:35:02 No.9684395 Report

Quoted By:

>>9684385
We're going to need absolutely gargantuan vessels that'd be required to fuel up on hydrogen after every jump.
I guess that means you'd have two classes of vessel: Interstellar, passenger and vessel liners that ferry smaller interplanetary vessels from system to system. Interplanetary, vessels that operate within a system, but do not have enough resources to leave the system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 22:05:35 No.9684442 Report

Quoted By: >>9684450

>>9684385
What about if you used a pre-seeding method for the ramjet? And overcome the electrostatic repulsion of fuel by timing it's arrival at the pre-seeding point a short while before the ramjet is due at that point.
Although, that would mean that you would have to require wholeheartedly on the Earth to keep funding (and therefore fueling) your travel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 22:07:05 No.9684450 Report

Quoted By:

>>9684442
This could also be used for delivering a pre-planned amount of other resources, such as nutrition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 22:25:25 No.9684501 Report

Quoted By: >>9684534

>>9684075
>>Cryogenics is science-fiction technology, yet occurs naturally anyway.
>Breathing underwater is impossible, yet it occurs naturally anyway

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 26814771_746941115500164_5948176 (...).png, 261KiB, 370x472

Anonymous Thu 19 Apr 2018 22:41:09 No.9684534 Report

Quoted By:

>>9684501
You could genetically engineer it.
Or, y'know, just use scuba gear, like a normal person.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO niyufnhitbeda5ggaczu.jpg, 17KiB, 800x450

Anonymous Fri 20 Apr 2018 02:34:12 No.9684987 Report

Quoted By:

>>9682486
There is one, granted a spec, but that is a image of a planet in another solar system.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches