Hubble finds hints of water on 5 alien planets

Hubble finds hints of water on 5 alien planets

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has detected water in the atmospheres of five planets beyond our solar system, two recent studies reveal.

The five exoplanets with hints of water are all scorching-hot, Jupiter-size worlds that are unlikely to host life as we know it. But finding water in their atmospheres still marks a step forward in the search for distant planets that may be capable of supporting alien life, researchers said.

"We're very confident that we see a water signature for multiple planets," Avi Mandell, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., lead author of one of the studies, said in a statement. "This work really opens the door for comparing how much water is present in atmospheres on different kinds of exoplanets — for example, hotter versus cooler ones."

Ok, first it was only "Gas" giants then it was possible "Rocky" planets like Earth. Now, they say water on some of those planets.

Whats next?

Possible signs of "Pollution"?

Thoughts?

SLAYER69

......Whats next?

Thoughts?

Beer or Wine, I hope ....S&F

Well as much as I love the news and it's very hopeful? I am bothered by something here.

They say they are VERY confident of water signatures for planets light years away and that we're literally seeing back in time, for their sheer distance. What we see, isn't even there anymore as we're seeing it.

Given all this and that 'very confident' posture ....why is it we're still speculating about water-ice existing, perhaps even on or just beneath the surface, for South Pole of our own Moon? That's a short flight away and we've had men on and around it...yet we aren't "Very confident" either way about a very basic feature so close.

I guess the science is just so advanced, my bunny brain vapor locks.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That made me laugh. I agree. I wonder when they'll finally stop talking about going to one the ice moons in our own solar system and look for oceans beneath the ice and start doing so?

Still, it is an interesting possibility

Wrabbit2000
Well as much as I love the news and it's very hopeful? I am bothered by something here.

They say they are VERY confident of water signatures for planets light years away and that we're literally seeing back in time, for their sheer distance. What we see, isn't even there anymore as we're seeing it.

These planets are not that far away. The farthest one is about 1000 light years away, so we see the light as it was only 1000 years ago. I doubt the planet changed drastically over such a short period of time -- at least not the presence of water.

The other planets listed are even closer -- WASP 12b is 870 light years (LY) away, WASP 19B is 815 LY, XO 1b is 560 LY, and HD 209458b is only 154 LY away. Those planets overall geology almost certainly would not change during that time.

Given all this and that 'very confident' posture ....why is it we're still speculating about water-ice existing, perhaps even on or just beneath the surface, for South Pole of our own Moon? That's a short flight away and we've had men on and around it...yet we aren't "Very confident" either way about a very basic feature so close.

I guess the science is just so advanced, my bunny brain vapor locks.

I'm not sure why they couldn't be so sure about our Moon, but I wonder if it has something to do with the method they use to analyze the makeup of those exoplanets.

Astronomers can tell what the atmosphere of a planet consists of by analyzing the spectrum of the light of the planet's parent star shining through the atmosphere of those planets (basically, there is a fraction of time that the spectrum changes as the planet transits in front of its star, and that is the time the star is shining through the atmosphere).

So if that's how they can analyze exoplanets, maybe that virtual lack of an atmosphere on the moon is what prevents astronomers from using that same method. Or maybe not. I'm just speculating.

Water seems to be common in the universe (after all, it's only two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bonded together), so it's no big surprise they detected some in exoplanets. But it's a nice discovery, because to us water instinctively means "earth-like", "supportive of life", etc.

Wrabbit2000
Well as much as I love the news and it's very hopeful? I am bothered by something here.

They say they are VERY confident of water signatures for planets light years away and that we're literally seeing back in time, for their sheer distance. What we see, isn't even there anymore as we're seeing it.

What could happen to a planet in a few years' or few hundred years' time? Planets in the Solar System (including Earth) existed for billions of years, and any change happens over millions of years. So when we look at an exoplanet, say, 200 light years away, we see it pretty much "now".

Soylent Green Is People
So if that's how they can analyze exoplanets, maybe that virtual lack of an atmosphere on the moon is what prevents astronomers from using that same method. Or maybe not. I'm just speculating.

Sounds like reasonable speculation. I'm wondering when we'll get a Phage ruling on this?
LOL

reply to post by wildespace

What could happen to a planet in a few years' or few hundred years' time?

Lots of things.
Industrial revolution and atmosphere pollution.
Changing the atmosphere composition in that way would make those alien worlds a very good candidate for more in-depth observation.

reply to post by wildespace

What could happen to a planet in a few years' or few hundred years' time? Planets in the Solar System (including Earth) existed for billions of years, and any change happens over millions of years. So when we look at an exoplanet, say, 200 light years away, we see it pretty much "now".

Any change on planets within our Solar System take millions of years...we think. We're not even sure about that. However, how this works or what forces may be at play 1,000 light years from Earth is so far into pure guesswork, we've invented our own Rosetta Stone to make sense of a language that has no reference. That is to say, we can only look to our own small group of planets to compare direct observation with absolute confirmed fact for an idea of how close the two actually come.

Speaking of that.....What are the surface features and characteristics of all our system planets? We don't know, last I checked. It's still exploring and guessing ...even as some are crossed by probes almost touching distance for optical clarity. Guess work is still the best that can be done.

So.... It's assuming to rather great heights that the reality and forces we know to exist in this one tiny piece of an unimaginably large universe are constants and will be found roughly the same, everywhere else. I'm not assuming that...quite the opposite, in how I come to question things.

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by wildespace

 

What could happen to a planet in a few years' or few hundred years' time?

Lots of things.
Industrial revolution and atmosphere pollution.
Changing the atmosphere composition in that way would make those alien worlds a very good candidate for more in-depth observation.

Right. But the question raised was [paraphrasing] "how do we know the water is still there since the light from these planets is old". The answer is that the light is not that old (1000 years old or less for the planets listed), and the water is almost certainly still there.

What you say is correct, but it was not exactly what was asked.

Wrabbit2000
Any change on planets within our Solar System take millions of years...we think. We're not even sure about that. However, how this works or what forces may be at play 1,000 light years from Earth is so far into pure guesswork, we've invented our own Rosetta Stone to make sense of a language that has no reference. That is to say, we can only look to our own small group of planets to compare direct observation with absolute confirmed fact for an idea of how close the two actually come...

It would be quite the coincidence that a planet we happen to analyze has water for only the very brief time in its history that we had the capability to analyze it. Not that coincidences don't happen, but it would be highly unlikely.

I mean, we could sit here all day coming up with "what if" scenarios. Those can certainly be fun and thought-provoking (and useful), but in the end I think we will find that the best way to proceed with further exploring the data from these planets is making the assumption that the water on that planet lasts more than 1000 years. If we don't, then there would be so many "what ifs" to explore that virtually nothing will move forward.

SLAYER69
Thoughts?

Its called slowly programming the sheeple to accept that there is definite life out there in our Milky Way.

At the same moment that they eventually find proof of other Earths, there will be a programmed alien invasion (Operation Blue Beam).

As expected, the frightened sheeple will get behind the elite and gladly usher in the NWO.

Then these planets will be populated with humans hence reducing the population here to 650 million as stated on the Georgia Stones when they admit that they have had UFO technology since the days of Roswell.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Let's see...what was the new instrumentation they put on Hubble that would allow these recent discoveries where none such were made at any point of its tenure since its launch in1990?

OH! I keep forgetting that there is a progression to their tales that they tell us. Remember when Saga would tell us that water was really scarce in the known universe and we should feel privileged because we had a major share of it and if we were to find it elsewhere life could possibly be there also.

It is really rather funny. How many years did they tantalize us with images of Mars showing obvious water soused terrain but kept denying that any was there. And then they go out and find oceans of water here there and yonder. Of course, it is necessary for the folks in the street, but to those of us huddle over our computers keeping up and even forward thinking some of their "discoveries," the wait for other shoes to drop from the centipede of disclosure indeed gets tiresome.

CosmicDude

SLAYER69

......Whats next?

Thoughts?

Beer or Wine, I hope

....S&F

Actually, they kind of did already:

Deep Space Alcohol

Astronomers have located a gigantic cloud of methyl alcohol surrounding a stellar nursery. The cloud measures half a trillion km across (300 billion miles), and could help astronomers understand how some of the most massive stars in the Universe are formed. It’s methanol, not ethanol, so you wouldn’t want to drink it if you could reach it.

Read more: www.universetoday.com...

WATER + HEAT = WEATHER = RAIN.

Gotta be something in it surely?

I recall them mentioning that one of the moons in our own solar system possibly had oceans underneath it's icy exterior. I don't understand why they just don't send out probes and find out for sure, why does it seem it's more interesting finding water particles in an atmosphere of a planet that's 1000 light years away.

~Sovereign

Aliensun
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Let's see...what was the new instrumentation they put on Hubble that would allow these recent discoveries where none such were made at any point of its tenure since its launch in1990?

OH! I keep forgetting that there is a progression to their tales that they tell us. Remember when Saga would tell us that water was really scarce in the known universe and we should feel privileged because we had a major share of it and if we were to find it elsewhere life could possibly be there also.

It is really rather funny. How many years did they tantalize us with images of Mars showing obvious water soused terrain but kept denying that any was there. And then they go out and find oceans of water here there and yonder. Of course, it is necessary for the folks in the street, but to those of us huddle over our computers keeping up and even forward thinking some of their "discoveries," the wait for other shoes to drop from the centipede of disclosure indeed gets tiresome.

A splendid reply sir!

SovereignEve
why does it seem it's more interesting finding water particles in an atmosphere of a planet that's 1000 light years away.

Because they already know, but they're not gonna tell us.

SLAYER69

Ok, first it was only "Gas" giants then it was possible "Rocky" planets like Earth. Now, they say water on some of those planets.

Whats next?

Possible signs of "Pollution"?

Thoughts?

What's next?

This may be a very real possibility in less than a decade:

ATS: Astronomers Detect First 'Clear Signs of Civilization' Beyond Earth - How will you react?

This stuff is my field of study.

SLAYER69
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

That made me laugh. I agree. I wonder when they'll finally stop talking about going to one the ice moons in our own solar system and look for oceans beneath the ice and start doing so?

Still, it is an interesting possibility

When taxpayers are willing to increase NASA's budget.