When 581d was first discovered in 2007, many scientists regarded it as too cold to be potentially habitable. In the years since, however, atmospheric-modeling studies have suggested that the planet may indeed be able to support life as we know it — provided 581d is warmed by a greenhouse effect.
To determine if this the case, researchers will likely need to study the planet's atmosphere directly. That sort of work could be years off, since it would probably require the development of new and advanced telescopes.
- Gallery: A World of Kepler Planets
- Kepler Reveals Lots of Planets: Some Habitable?
- Planets Large and Small Populate Our Galaxy (Infographic)
Copyright 2012 SPACE.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add CommentI still don't understand the intense search for a habitable planet. By the time we develop the technology to live in space for centuries, if not 1000's of years, traveling to another planet, why on would we need a planet? Who wants to be stuck on a planet when you can explore the galaxy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does 'habitable' mean? Life as we know it?...some bacteria or a multi-celled organism? Quintillions of planets in the Universe probably have life. No planet will have life as we know it...it will be some continuum between 'a lot' like our life to 'not as much'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLife based on DNA might be versatile...especially at the bacteria-level. What's vital are the seminal conditions in which which life can begin and then be able to evolve to adapt. Evolution will take it off on tangents.
sparcboy: "By the time we develop the technology to live in space for centuries, if not 1000's of years, traveling to another planet, why on would we need a planet?'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo true. Inter stellar travel would require such a vast generation infrastructure that they would be civilizations unto themselves. By that time man will be manipulating matter and energy at the quantum level. No idea why we'd go to a planet other than to wave as we went by. Our technology will know everything about it long before we got there and the building blocks we need...subatomic particles will be the same everywhere.
In a couple thousand years i doubt if man will be 'location' dependent for anything. Earth, our solar system, etc. will be historical but largely irrelevent. Physical 'stuff' will be produced from anything. The restrictions will be as they are now... the physical properties of matter and energy.
As I understand, without a single large moon to stabilize planetary axial rotation it is likely to shift significantly, so that given locations on the planet do not provide a stable, seasonal climate. Complex life forms are unlikely to develop in wildly varying climatic conditions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comments here regarding space travel remind me of the movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey. We had colonies on the Moon back then, found a funny looking monolith, and sent a mission to Jupiter to figure out what the darn thing was. If only that frigging HAL 9000 had worked right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince then our technology has gone backwards. So, I predict that, in about 1000-years, we will be throwing bamboo spears harvested from Alaska at rusty ICBMs we don't understand.
Not only do you have the problems of no lunar stabilization (unless a moon or moons are later discovered for these planets) - but think of the gravitational problems involved. A "super-Earth" that is up to 4 times the size of our planet would make life for we "puny" humanoids very unbearable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just don't think that there is a planet yet that would be a true "Class M" (nod to Gene Roddenberry) planet for us to visit. But all of this will be a moot point anyway when the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy sucks us and all the other stars in.
That is why I just say, sit back and enjoy the ride!
Martin: "Since then our technology has gone backwards'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, 2001 Space Odyssey was a movie. Our technology is far in advance of anything I grew up with during the Apollo era....otherwise you'd be using snail mail to post your comments to a monthly hand type-set magazine.
Those concerned by the mass of these worlds need to remember that surface gravity is not the same thing as mass or 'size', meaning that a planet of 4 Earth masses does not necessarily have a surface gravity 4 times what we experience on Earth. Density and radius are other factors in the equation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Wikipedia:
" g = m/r2, where g is the surface gravity of an object, expressed as a multiple of the Earth's, m is its mass, expressed as a multiple of the Earth's mass (5.976·1024 kg) and r its radius, expressed as a multiple of the Earth's (mean) radius (6,371 km). "
"The exoplanet is found about 600 light-years away, and it orbits a star very much like our own sun."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat may be fine but we will likely never get that far.
Add the fact everything is spreading ever farther apart
Though it's fun to discover none the less.
kienhau
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes we won't be going, However, as for 'everything is spreading ever farther apart'...that's only on the grander level. Local 'stuff' is more varied...thus why our Galaxy and Adromeda will collide in a few billion years. Stars in our own galaxy can become closer or farther depending on a few variables.
Missed the point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, there are a lot of variables to habitability that we don't have the information to determine yet, for instance, perhaps toxic elements exist in the atmosphere. But it's likely that a number of the planets listed have moons stabalizing climates, we just can't see items of that size yet. It's also an assumption that a planet 5 times the size of earth gives a significantly greater gravitational pull than that of Earth.
But, the Industrial revolution wasn't that long ago, to suggest that space (whatever) is that far off as thousands of years seems a little far fetched to me. Overpopulation and overpollution may focus most of the minds on such solutions at some point in the nearer future. Wasn't so long ago we were inferring that stars existed by monitoring wobbles of stars and suggesting gravitational pull.
You say "it's likely that a number of the planets listed have moons stabalizing climates," but based on the sample of planets found in our Solar system (for which the presence of moons can be reasonably determined) and the method by which our moon is thought to have been formed from collision with another rocky protoplanet, it seems hardly likely at all to me. Do you have some basis for your assessment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo matter how many billions of unfortunate souls might wish move to a better 'New World', we were already granted and wasted that opportunity right here on Earth. Even if all our collective efforts were used to send humans to some other, much less welcoming 'New World', only a 'lucky' few could go, leaving wistful billions behind to suffer the horrible consequences of our mismanagement of reproduction and resource consumption.
By the time we get to another star, we may not want to visit except for scientific research. Barring major breakthroughs in ftl propulsion, we will likely spread slowly through the outer planets, Kuiper belt, and the trillions of objects in the Oort Cloud, building colonies as we go. Eventually reaching and moving into the Oort clouds of our neighboring star systems and proceeding on, passing the inner systems by, except for exploration and possible mining. Those spaces between the stars may be where we need to look for alien life forms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAssuming comparable densities, the surface gravities of 2 planets will be in proportion to the ratio of the cube roots of their masses, not the masses themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is one very important thing that did not get mentioned. Since Gliese 581G is a red dwark like 70% of all stars in every galaxy, it means planets would have to be extremely close to their parents in order to gather enough heat for liquid water. But red dwarfs are very unstable and are prone to violent releases in radiation. So 581G whizzing around its parent in 30 days clues that athought the temp may be correct, the radiation would toast any and everything. Ummm....just sayin'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood point!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a few other issues mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf#Habitability