Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
UM-Bot

Milky Way has 100 million life-giving planets

133 posts in this topic

A group of astronomers has estimated the number of habitable planets in our galaxy for the first time.

As the number of extrasolar planet discoveries increases, so too does our overall understanding of the nature and distribution of planetary bodies in our galaxy. It has long been speculated that there could be many more habitable Earth-like worlds spread out across the cosmos but determining exactly how many has remained something of a challenge.

Read More: http://www.unexplain...-giving-planets

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the real answer is..............*drumroll*......1

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would bet life exists in our own solar system. they say liquid water is needed. so they concentrate on Mars when better alternatives exist such as the icy moons of Jupiter or Saturn. moons with liquid water - oceans under miles of frozen ice. instead of going to Mars get to these moons, its easier to land on a moon than plummeting through a atmosphere like Mars. If we're looking for life why are we still looking on Mars when every expert says liquid water is needed and Mars doesn't even have a puddle.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're looking for life why are we still looking on Mars when every expert says liquid water is needed and Mars doesn't even have a puddle.

I would have thought the answer to that is blindingly obvious.

Firstly there is huge evidence that Mars was once covered in large oceans, making it a logical place to look for life.

Secondly it is far easier and far FAR cheaper to look for life a few centimetres below the surface of Mars than it is to look for life many kilometres below the ice on a distant moon in the outer solar system.

There simply is not yet the funding nor the technology to look for life on the moons of Jupiter or Saturn.

Put simply scientists are looking for life in the places where they CAN look for life. When the funding and technology are available they will expand their search and continue to look for life where they CAN look for life.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do find complex life I only have two questions; how much of it is there and how delicious is it?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i would bet life exists in our own solar system. they say liquid water is needed. so they concentrate on Mars when better alternatives exist such as the icy moons of Jupiter or Saturn. moons with liquid water - oceans under miles of frozen ice. instead of going to Mars get to these moons, its easier to land on a moon than plummeting through a atmosphere like Mars. If we're looking for life why are we still looking on Mars when every expert says liquid water is needed and Mars doesn't even have a puddle.

I think we concentrate on Mars because it is relatively close and once had large ammounts oof surface water and an oxygen atmosphere so is a good candidate for showing signs of past life. Europa is very intriguing but is hard to get too and when we do we will be separated from the liquid water by several miles of ice. That said, there are several proposed missions to Europa, like NASA Europa Clipper and the NASA/ESA EJSM/LaPlace that are being studied right now for launch in the future. Also, Jupiter puts out massive amounts of radiation and is hard on orbitting spacecraft making missions there even more expensive.

Edited by Merc14
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do find complex life I only have two questions; how much of it is there and how delicious is it?

Two questions that will lead rather rapidly to your demise.

You really need to ask a third question given that it is possible for something to taste delicious and still be deadly poisonous.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought the answer to that is blindingly obvious.

Firstly there is huge evidence that Mars was once covered in large oceans, making it a logical place to look for life.

Secondly it is far easier and far FAR cheaper to look for life a few centimetres below the surface of Mars than it is to look for life many kilometres below the ice on a distant moon in the outer solar system.

There simply is not yet the funding nor the technology to look for life on the moons of Jupiter or Saturn.

Put simply scientists are looking for life in the places where they CAN look for life. When the funding and technology are available they will expand their search and continue to look for life where they CAN look for life.

I think we concentrate on Mars because it is relatively close and once had large ammounts oof surface water and an oxygen atmosphere so is a good candidate for showing signs of past life. Europa is very intriguing but is hard to get too and when we do we will be separated from the liquid water by several miles of ice. That said, there are several proposed missions to Europa, like NASA Europa Clipper and the NASA/ESA EJSM/LaPlace that are being studied right now for launch in the future. Also, Jupiter puts out massive amounts of radiation and is hard on orbitting spacecraft making missions there even more expensive.

in reply to your good selves, i can see the points made, but you would still think instead of looking for past life on a dry and somewhat hostile planet like Mars, they'd throw everything including the kitchen sink at the icy moons. were surely the strongest possibility for life would exist. how many rovers have gone to Mars how many probes/satellites in orbit. surely if the will was there they CAN and could look for life on the icy moons.

Mars as become boring for the masses, findings might be rewarding for the experts but its the public who pay the taxes. capture the public's imagination and the money for vast space exploration in my lifetime would become available. the ultimate goal has to be - finding life and something more than a microbe. something more complex. something people can relate to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 million planets :hmm: Of course that's just a guestimation. Maybe Neil D. Tyson can zip around the galaxy in his ship and get a more accurate count. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

in reply to your good selves, i can see the points made, but you would still think instead of looking for past life on a dry and somewhat hostile planet like Mars, they'd throw everything including the kitchen sink at the icy moons. were surely the strongest possibility for life would exist. how many rovers have gone to Mars how many probes/satellites in orbit. surely if the will was there they CAN and could look for life on the icy moons.

Mars as become boring for the masses, findings might be rewarding for the experts but its the public who pay the taxes. capture the public's imagination and the money for vast space exploration in my lifetime would become available. the ultimate goal has to be - finding life and something more than a microbe. something more complex. something people can relate to.

Let's face facts, space in general is boring for most of the populace. Unfortunate but true. Right now we don't have the technology to get below the ice on Europa, hell, we can't get below the ice down in Antarctica to explore Lake Vostok so imagine doing it on Europa remotely. i know many are studying the problem but Europa needs to be studied more before we try and get beneath the ice. The Europa Clipper seems like a not too expensive mission that would provide us a lot more insight into what is going on at Europa and I'd love to see NASA fund that and get it on its way before the end of the decade. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/details.php?id=6002

Edited by Merc14
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Europa and Enceladus appear to have plumes of water vapor, jetting out from the oceans beneath their icy exteriors. It may not be necessary to penetrate the ice to study these oceans, and any life they may contain. A fly-by mission, like the Europa Clipper may be able to fly through and analyze the plumes.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we keep looking to Mars for our "roots". Maybe there is some hidden indication the there was human life on the Mars and we just aren't being told.

Hey - if we can have UFO conspiracy theories, why not this one! :sk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how these huge numbers get tossed out as though someone actually counted.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how these huge numbers get tossed out as though someone actually counted.

Yes 400 billion divided by 100 million and you have the average amount of habitable planets revolving around each star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Both Europa and Enceladus appear to have plumes of water vapor, jetting out from the oceans beneath their icy exteriors. It may not be necessary to penetrate the ice to study these oceans, and any life they may contain. A fly-by mission, like the Europa Clipper may be able to fly through and analyze the plumes.

exactly. it'll give us more than Mars.

Let's face facts, space in general is boring for most of the populace. Unfortunate but true. Right now we don't have the technology to get below the ice on Europa, hell, we can't get below the ice down in Antarctica to explore Lake Vostok so imagine doing it on Europa remotely. i know many are studying the problem but Europa needs to be studied more before we try and get beneath the ice. The Europa Clipper seems like a not too expensive mission that would provide us a lot more insight into what is going on at Europa and I'd love to see NASA fund that and get it on its way before the end of the decade. http://www.jpl.nasa....ils.php?id=6002

oh yes space is boring - yet when TV science shows are on Live TV prime-time such as star gazing Live on the BBC it attracts large viewing figures. so the possibility exists to capture the large percentage of public's imagination. and that's were it fails.

imagine going to Europa and finding life. complex life. NASA beaming back this type of image from Europa.

35.jpg

Or this image from Mars. people don't want to see a bloody rock.

mars+rock.jpg

okay i might be getting into the realms of fantasy but you get my point. i fear the budget of NASA will get smaller and smaller as the years roll on and missions to Europa will become even more less likely.

At least Europa Clipper is encouraging, and should be interesting. lets hope it finds something which encourages faster exploration Europa etc...

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly. it'll give us more than Mars.

And you know this how exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

exactly. it'll give us more than Mars.

oh yes space is boring - yet when TV science shows are on Live TV prime-time such as star gazing Live on the BBC it attracts large viewing figures. so the possibility exists to capture the large percentage of public's imagination. and that's were it fails.

imagine going to Europa and finding life. complex life. NASA beaming back this type of image from Europa.

Or this image from Mars. people don't want to see a bloody rock.

okay i might be getting into the realms of fantasy but you get my point. i fear the budget of NASA will get smaller and smaller as the years roll on and missions to Europa will become even more less likely.

At least Europa Clipper is encouraging, and should be interesting. lets hope it finds something which encourages faster exploration Europa etc...

I hear what you are saying and am not in disagreement but Europa is a tough nut to crack mostly because of who it is in orbit around, namely Jupiter. That said, I think we'll have probes on their way or even at Europa before the end of the decade because it is an interesting target. I wouldn't bet on some advanced species living there but maybe something like our black smokers with their speicalized life could be possible. How huge would that be?

Getting to the bottom of that hoped for sea will be massively difficult, however, and will require tech that hasn't been invented yet. You have to pierce miles of ice and then deploy a submersible that can navigate completely autonomousy, do science at great depths and pressures and somehow communicate through all that water and ice back to earth with Jupiter buzzing away in the background. This is a monumental task to say the least.

Edited by Merc14
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 million planets :hmm: Of course that's just a guestimation. Maybe Neil D. Tyson can zip around the galaxy in his ship and get a more accurate count. :yes:

I love how these huge numbers get tossed out as though someone actually counted.

Both your posts give the impression that you think scientists just pull these figures out of mid air.

It is not necessary to count every single planet, nor is it necessary to "guestimate" in order to make an estimation. Knowing how many stars there are in the galaxy, knowing what percentage of those stars have been surveyed, knowing what percentage of those stars have planets and knowing what percentage of those planets are suitable for life enables extrapolation.

Is this number an estimate... yes. Is it a guestimate... no, it's more than that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both your posts give the impression that you think scientists just pull these figures out of mid air.

It is not necessary to count every single planet, nor is it necessary to "guestimate" in order to make an estimation. Knowing how many stars there are in the galaxy, knowing what percentage of those stars have been surveyed, knowing what percentage of those stars have planets and knowing what percentage of those planets are suitable for life enables extrapolation.

Is this number an estimate... yes. Is it a guestimate... no, it's more than that.

so in other words ...

oh you aren't actually offering a contradiction to what i've said at all

nevermind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes 400 billion divided by 100 million and you have the average amount of habitable planets revolving around each star.

So 4.000 habitable planets per star in average?

Funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 4.000 habitable planets per star in average?

Funny.

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this 4000 planets per star contradict the habitable zone that was discussed here a few months ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:clap:

Did you noticed that your math was wrong?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not my maths, I didnt conduct the survey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this 4000 planets per star contradict the habitable zone that was discussed here a few months ago?

Forget the 4k as this value is a product of a wrong formula by taniwha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.