50 new planets

8/2/2019 50 New Planets

1/46

agoFifty new alien worlds revealedThe European Southern Observatory's

"ESOcast" focuses on dozens of planet discoveries.

By Alan Boyle

European astronomers have announced the discovery of more than 50 new

planets beyond our solar system, including 16 that are just a notch above our

own planet in mass. They say their record-breaking findings suggest that more

than half of the stars like our sun possess planets, and that many of those

worlds are less massive than Saturn.

The pick of the litter is a planet that's already been in the spotlight: HD 85512

b, a world at least 3.6 times as massive as Earth that's located 36 light-years

away in the constellation Vela. HD 85512 b is the only one of the 16 super-Earths on today's list that is located in its star system's habitable zone. That's

the area around a star where scientists believe water could exist in liquid form,

which would make a rocky planet potentially livable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HD 85512 b's status came to light a couple of weeks ago in a paper submitted

to the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, but the team behind the discovery

provided more details about that super-Earth and the dozens of other worlds in

papers presented today at the Extreme Solar Systems II conference in

Wyoming.

The findings came from the team behind the High Accuracy Radial Velocity

Planet Searcher, or HARPS, which is installed at the European Southern

Observatory's 11.8-foot (3.6-meter) La Silla Observatory in Chile.

"The detection of HD 85512 b is far from the limit of HARPS, and demonstrates

the possibility of discovering other super-Earths in the habitable zones around

stars similar to the sun," University of Geneva astronomer Michel Mayor said in

today's news release from the ESO.


2/46

Super-Earths, which range from Earth's mass to worlds 10 times more massive,

are of particular interest to planet-hunters because it's thought that they could

be even more conducive to the development of life than our own planet. When

the search for extrasolar planets began more than 15 years ago, thetelescopes used for the task could only detect giant planets like our own solar

system's Jupiter. Since then, the techniques and tools used for the search have

become much more sensitive.

HARPS, for example, can detect the slight gravitational wobble caused by

planets as small as Earth, if they have incredibly close-in orbits. HARPS'

observations of 376 sunlike stars has led the team to conclude not only that

more than half of such stars are surrounded by planets (maybe as many as 70

or 80 percent), but also that about 40 percent of sunlike stars have at least oneplanet less massive than Saturn.

advertisementadvertisementadvertisementOne of the team members, Lisa

Kaltenegger of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy and the Harvard

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, told journalists today that the latest

round of findings marked a new age in the search for habitable planets.

"We are actually entering an incredibly interesting time in our history," shesaid.

Keeping track of the habitables

ESO's Markus Kissler-Patig said the discovery of HD 85512 b could be one of

the first entries in "a good catalog of habitables" marked for further study.

Kissler-Patig is the project scientist for the ESO's European Extremely Large

Telescope, or E-ELT, which is slated to be built over the next decade at a cost

of 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion).

HD 85512 b "is in the zone where we can directly image it," Kissler-Patig said,

and that means astronomers could theoretically analyze its atmosphere for the

signatures of life, such as the presence of oxygen, methane and water vapor.


3/46

The HARPS team members were able to figure out the minimum mass and

orbital characteristics of HD 85512 b, but they couldn't determine its density,

composition or the nature of its atmosphere which means astronomers will

have to wait for the completion of E-ELT or similar high-resolution observing

instruments to confirm that the world is truly habitable.

Francesco Pepe, a colleague of Mayor's at the University of Geneva, said that

the HARPS team's discoveries include 10 worlds described in papers submitted

to Astronomy and Astrophysics, including HD 85512 b, and 49 planets reported

today at the Wyoming conference. Eight of the new planets were detected as

part of the Swiss-led CORALIE search effort in Chile, he said. The ESO says this

is the largest number of extrasolar planets reported at one time.

Pepe said the findings pointed up a fresh mystery for planet-hunters to ponder:the existence of a "planet desert" between low-mass worlds and gas giants.

Relatively few planets have been found at a level around 30 times the mass of

Earth. "It may point towards different formation mechanisms" for planets like

Earth and Neptune vs. planets like Jupiter and Saturn.

HARPS isn't the only instrument engaged in the search for extrasolar planets:

Two space telescopes, NASA's Kepler and the European Space Agency's Corot,

are detecting planets by looking for the telltale dimming of their parent stars.

Kepler and Corot can determine how big a planet is, but they can't tell howmassive it is. In contrast, HARPS can determine the mass but not the size.

Unfortunately, Kepler can't be used to confirm HARPS' discoveries, nor can

HARPS confirm Kepler's. The good news is that the William Herschel Telescope

in the Canary Islands is being outfitted for a HARPS North instrument that will

begin operation next year and facilitate the follow-up of Kepler detections.

advertisementadvertisementadvertisementToday's revelations bring the

official tally of extrasolar planets to 645.

Other findings from the Extreme Solar Systems II conference:

Over at the "Dynamics of Cats" blog, Steinn Sigurdsson quotes Kepler team


4/46

members as saying they have identified 1,781 candidate planets, with up to 27

of those confirmed. Among the reported candidates are 123 potential worlds

that are less than 1.25 times as wide as Earth, and 121 that are in the nominal

habitable zones of their parent stars.

Jon Lomberg

An artist's conception shows storms on a brown dwarf.

Astronomers say they have observed brightness changes on a failed star,

also known as a brown dwarf, that may indicate a storm grander than any seen

yet on a planet. The stormy brown dwarf is known as 2MASS 2139.

"We found that our target's brightness changed by a whopping 30 per cent in

just under eight hours," the University of Toronto's Jacqueline Radigan said in a

news release. "The best explanation is that brighter and darker patches of its

atmosphere are coming into our view as the brown dwarf spins on its axis."

Radigan is the lead author of a paper being presented this week at the

Extreme Solar Systems II conference.

More about alien planets:

Previously: Super-Earth on the 'edge of habitability'

Interactive: How scientists search for other worlds

'Invisible' planet discovered using new technique

Background: Looking for alien Earths? Here they come

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5/46

Authors of The HARPS search for Earth-like planets in the habitable zone, I

Very low-mass planets around HD20794, HD85512, HD192310" include F.

Pepe, C. Lovis, D.D. Sgransan, W. Benz, J. L. Bertaux , F. Bouchy, X.

Dumusque, M. Mayor, D. Queloz, N.C. Santos and S. Udry.

Authors of "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets XXXIV.

Occurrence, mass distribution and orbital properties of super-Earths and

Neptune-mass planets" include M. Mayor, M. Marmier, C. Lovis, S. Udry, D.D.

Sgransan, F. Pepe, W. Benz, J. L. Bertaux , F. Bouchy, X. Dumusque, G. Lo

Curto, C. Mordasini, D. Queloz and N.C. Santos.

advertisementadvertisementadvertisementAuthors of "High amplitude,

periodic variability of a cool brown dwarf: Evidence for patchy, high-contrast

cloud features" include Jacqueline Radigan, Ray Jayawardhana, DavidLafreniere, Etienne Artigau, Mark Marley and Didier Saumon.

Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page,

following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also

check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet

and the search for other worlds.

.Browse: space, featured, planets, exoplanets, harps, habitable-planets.older

3daysago

Scientists balk at telescope bailout

newer

8hoursago

Robot base jumps from wall

Most popular posts

207 comments, including:

This is great news, it may not be very long before we find a planet that will

support human life.

older

3daysagoScientists balk at telescope bailout


6/46

newer

8hoursagoRobot base jumps from wall

Most popular posts207Fifty new alien worlds revealed

9hoursago1916-ton NASA satellite set to fall

5daysago89Who'll get hit by a falling satellite?

3daysago242Was there a fork in our family tree?

4daysago120Astronauts' tracks and trash show up in moon photos

6daysago.Discuss this postJump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4.more2bits

Until we stop making such a mess of this one who cares?

2 votes#1 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:16 PM EDT

Kyle-3120596

I think its more of a reason to care...

22 votes#1.1 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:35 PM EDT

cjsks

What Kyle says may be true, however I'm not as much interested in finding a

new home for humanity, as I am in just answering the question are there other

earth-like worlds out there, that have their own life or technological

civilizations?

Everything in the universe doesn't have to exist solely for our benefit.


juliop

The article is ridiculous. With 3.6 times the mass, a 200 lb man would way 720

lb and would probably die in a short time of landing. The immediately added


7/46

stress to his heart and blood system would prohibit any human from living on

it.

#1.3 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:59 PM EDT

cgtrav

juilop,

It's not all about us. They are looking for worlds that may sustain life not

necessarily us.


cjsks

Juliop, not true.

I'm trying to find the formula now. The greater mass of the planet results in an

increased force of gravity, but you also have to factor in the larger radius...

being further from the center of the planet reduces the effect of its gravity.

Assuming similar density, I think you'll find that a man weighing 200 lbs would

weigh somewhere between 250-350 lbs. In otherwords, your body could adapt.

That's a very rough guesstimate though. Maybe someone else can provide the

calculation? If not, I'll try to figure it out later tonight.


cgtrav

juilop,

It's not all about us. They are looking for worlds that may sustain life not

necessarily us.


8/46

#1.6 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:26 PM EDT

cjsks

(Thanks Dan Webster). Looks like the force of gravity would be about 54%greater on this planet.

Mass is estimated to be 3.6x greater, so assuming similar density to Earth (big

assumption), radius would be about 1.53x Earth's...

Therefore, a man weighing 200 lbs on Earth would be about 308 lbs on this

planet.


John Williams-nam-vet

Going to our moon is about 236,000 miles away. What this article is about is

possible planets at 216 TRILLION miles away...be very very very long time for

us to figure out how to get there at 216 TRILLION miles away.

Warp speed Scotty..aye captain!


Alan Boyle

Cjsks, you are correct, we went through this exercise when I first wrote about

that super-Earth ... gravity would be roughly 1.4 to 1.5 times Earth's.


Michael (Astronomy.FM)

juliop - the weight of your 200 lb man (as measured on Earth) is not only

dependent on the mass of the planet, but also its radius.


9/46

If said world has 3.6 times Earth's mass, but is a largely ice or water world, its

surface gravity would only be 1.25 that of Earth - your 200 pound Earthman

would weigh 250 pounds.

Of course, calling the weight of a person a "ridiculous" concern, when

discussing visiting an object that is well beyond our ability to get anything to

anyway, is putting the cart before the horse.


Michael (Astronomy.FM)

(Oops - I waited too long to respond and several other excellent posts came inbefore me - apologies for duplicating those posts.)


Bluelake

We know these planets exist in part because their inhabitants have been

visiting earth for thousands of years. Sooner or later they will make themselves

known to us. Unfortunately or fortunately I don't think we will be around whenit happens. Our brains may not even have the capability to comprehend the

event. If the universe post Big Bang is approx. 14 billion years old then you can

bet the farm there are civilizations millions or billions of years older than

earth's. Their methods of travel and exploration may also be way beyond

human comprehension. No reason however, to stop searching...


Jack-2510943

All pointless. No way to get there. Won't be a way for far to long to matter. The

money and effort would be better spent on an international effort improving

space travel so humans can actually get someplace else in a decent amount of

time.


10/46

#1.13 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:38 PM EDT

starfox7000

"HD 85512 b, a world at least 3.6 times as massive as Earth that's located 36

light-years away in the constellation Vela"

So what. Do you people know how far 36 light years is from Earth. We have

problems even sending people to the Moon!!!

#1.14 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:40 PM EDT

Bill Thomas-2852155

I've read some remarks from other posters at MSNBC who seem so out oftouch, they could probably be visitors from one of these planets! That would

explain a lot!


Alan Boyle

Interesting that the 100-Year Starship conference is just a couple of weeks

away. Coincidence?

http://www.100yss.org/


Rick-3608408

Oh, since We FU_KED this world up so badly we are looking for another one

that We can FU_K UP, that's real bright ........

1 vote#1.17 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:28 PM EDT

10tacle

Hey Rick: what exactly are you doing with your life then? Posting a comment
http://www.100yss.org/http://www.100yss.org/


11/46

with a computer that requires electricity and is made in large part from

petroleum-based plastics? Are you running purely on solar/wind power? Do you

drive a car to work? Well DO you? What is your premise for the argument that

we have F'd up this world? My woods and backyard and running creek water

are clean. My air is clean. Everywhere I go hiking in national forests I see

nature. Animals flourish. In other areas like South America, we are STILL findingnew species of animals and plants.

I for one don't particularly care to go back to the days of mankind living in

caves and using stone tools and risking life to get food to survive. On the other

hand, the last three decades have seen vast improvements in environmental

concerns in balance with advancement in technologies compared to the three

decades prior to that. In short, we can do both. Knee-jerk reactions like Biden

supporting a 1-child policy ala China and other draconian, fascist policies aren't

the answer.


UrOpinionIsValid

Extraordinary find... I've followed these discoveries since the first candidate

planets were found and im very interested in what out scientist and

technological advances can do for us to look further in-depth at the life

containing capabilities of these planets. I hope i live long enough to see these

discoveries and who knows what else. And thank you 10acle for putting Rick inhis place. However his opinion is his opinion, let him be fooled by his own

means.


pope-4086306

Amazing... what an exrodinary find. We should be inspired to know about the

possiblity of what may be out there. I would like to still be here to see what

other life form may exist, and to know we are not alone. More than that I hope

this stirs the imagination and creativity of the next generation. We were

inspired to go to the moon, send a rover to mars & to "seek out life & boldy go

where no one has gone before" thank you Gene Rodenbery. Imagine how this

can inspire our children. What may they dream, and accomplish? I want them

to reach for the stars instead of ordinary or wose a video game about killing

zombies.


12/46

#1.20 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:21 PM EDT

GreenTimer

Bluelake # 1.12,

I think you're mixed up. WE are the the aliens from far off planets. We defeated

the original inhabitants and took over. I believe they were long faced skinny

creatures with great big slanted sad eyes, and they had very smooth, rubbery

bodies that appeared to have no bones. People claim to see them every now

and then, (especially in Nevada) but so far, nobody has actually captured one.

#1.21 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:33 PM EDT

christopher pinola

several years ago I read an article in Popular Science that we have the tech. to

travel at the speed of light, but we don't have a vehicle that could withstand

the pressure. Please correct me if I am wrong about what I read, or thought I

read. I may have misunderstood what I was reading.


Paul J. Linke

Conspiracy Rhetoric of Man Kind

Hi,

What has taken us so long?

Instead of getting real pictures, we are still getting \


13/46

Conspiracy Rhetoric of Man Kind

Hi,

What has taken them so long, telling us something we have known for more

than 40 years.

Unfortunately there is no distance given for this other solar planet, it could be

anywhere. I only assume that it is at least a thousand light years away from us.

My question on this subject is; why is everybody concerned about size and

gravity. And on the same note, why can't we get more information on "Gliese"

which is comming our way. Or why don't we know anything about our next

nearest star "Alpha Centaury" (only 4.3 light years away). There is plenty of

ancient knowledge of other worlds within a 100 light years, why don't we know

anything about them? And most importantly; why don't we make any efforts to

find out. We talked about this in the 70s, we could be there by now. Is it

possible that we did, but everything is classified for a reason.

#1.23 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:49 PM EDT

.advertisementadvertisementadvertisementBigAl Las Vegas

This is great news, it may not be very long before we find a planet that will

support human life. When we do the first thing we should do is build a bigspace ship then load it up with all the right wing Republican nut cases and shot

it off toward their new home........We'll even give them their own government

headed by, Perry, Bachann and Palin, Bon Voyage.



14/46

Brokinarrow

Thanks for adding politics into a science article...


C Wood-3018442

Wait!!! Can't we leave the GOP here and the rest of us go? It would be nice to

let them finally realize what they are doing to the planet as they slowly(or not

so slowly) kill themselves off.


cgtrav

Palin can then say "I can see Alpha Centauri from here".

(yes I know she never said the Russia comment).


juliop

Of course it would be ridiculous. Who would pay the taxes so you loafers can

guzzle your beer and buy your cigarettes and watch that ridiculous wrestling

program. JEEZUZ......you wouldn't be able to afford cable! GET RID OF THE

RICH .......I KNOW YOU COULD GET OBAMA TO SHARE THE 8 MILLION HE MADE

SO FAR IN POLITIC AND GET HILLARY AND BILL TO SHARE THEIR 80 MILLION.

Not bad for a lil olde governor making $40,000 a year eh? See you complain

about republicans and getting rich working. You forget about your good olde

boys using you and the democrats to feather their nest and then having toforget about you. Now explain to me why you old democrat lefties are not

complaining about your union bosses making millions, the Clintons making

millions and Obama who didn't have a thin dime, working his political ass to be

worth $7.7 million dollars?


15/46

I would be very interested in understanding how these ole home folks, make

millions on your backs and you people don't say boo! How many jobs did they

create making all that money? How many businesses did they start? How many

people did they help? And what about all the money they have in off shore

accounts? Get them to start explaining. And remember that Hillary carried the

bag for Bill at the Ross Law Firm. She gets half, that's right, half, $40,000,000.And if you think she didn't have her eyes on that prize when she married Billie

boy, I have a bridge to sell you.

You dems think you can go out and slander the rich republicans. Start with

cleaning your own house and then you can come back and tell the republicans

what to do.

Republicans work. They start businesses. They employ people. They sendsocial security and medicare taxes for the democrats to waste. They pay taxes

so the government can pay the unemployed. How many companies and jobs

have Obama and the Clintons started and how many people do they employ.

All right, you liberal big talkers, give me some facts and details. How did

Obama make $8 Million and how did the Clintons make $80,000,000.

Speak up.


cjsks

Take the political BS elsewhere, this is a science article.


Amused In The Midwest

Republicans work. They start businesses. They employ people. They send

social security and medicare taxes for the democrats to waste. They pay taxes

so the government can pay the unemployed. How many companies and jobs

have Obama and the Clintons started and how many people do they employ.


16/46

You should visit Kansas if you think this is true. But bring a towel, because you

are ALL wet.

It's all politics cjsks, who do you think pays for your telescopes so you can look

at places we'll never visit in your lifetime. At least I hope we wont. Who wants

to jack up another planet or life-form with our greed and insecurities.


cjsks

Yes, discussions on the space program are often political, but the above

discussion (if you want to call it that) was off topic, and made no reference to

the article or the space program.

Nice try though.


Chris-537131

This thread shows the political thread that runs through even the space

program.

Here's a genuine fact for you: In 2010 the U.S. government spent more money

on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan that for the entire NASA budget.

There are lots of people surfacing these days who 1) have no critical thinking

skills beyond choosing between a Big Mac and a Whopper, 2) who see science

as entirely bogus based entirely on their self-observation that what scientists

report is not something they are educated enough to understand, 3) who are

so institutionally paranoid that they trust no one in government or science.

These people are under the delusion that their uneducated and ill-informed


17/46

opinion is just as valid as the results of years of science that they cannot even

begin to comprehend.

There is a lot of politics involved in all science these days, including NASA. It's

too bad because there are a number of very exciting things going on thesedays and the right wing idiots who post on here have no idea how to appreciate

it.


Eric-4085576

@Chris, bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself.


Bluelake

Chris-I second Eric's post. Well said.


yakfitguy

On any monitored comment site, you political partisan losers would have had

most of your comments deleted by now.

Get a life.


Tarzan-3462832

But who would provide tax dollars for all the government handouts for the

remaining liberal democrats. You would starve in short order if all the

taxpayers left Earth.


18/46


10tacle

LOL Tarzan! So true, especially considering half the households in the US paid

ZERO federal income taxes last year after deductions. The overwhelming

majority of them vote Democrat of course.

Wait!!! Can't we leave the GOP here and the rest of us go? It would be nice to

let them finally realize what they are doing to the planet as they slowly(or not

so slowly) kill themselves off.

@Cwood: I was actually thinking the same thing, except in reverse. But I have

a better idea right here on this planet - specifically in this nation: why don't yousocialist liberals take your blue states on the West & East coasts and north

mid-west and keep your dwindling unions, jobs, Obamacare, big nanny state

government, and high taxes. We'll take the red states everywhere else and

keep the job growth like foreign car plants, the low taxes, the military, the

agriculture, and the guns.

Good luck. And no, we won't loan you people anything when you can't pay your

own socialist bills. And that includes food. Go ask China and Russia for

everything.

#2.13 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:07 PM EDT

Brian-2358014

Heck Big Al, give it to the Muslims! Then the Left Wingnuts can go with them

and "celebrate diversity" together.


crimony300sx

all i know is that i am smarter in my sleep than any so called educated liberal

democrat is on thier best day. These people are living proof that educated

idiots do exist.


19/46

#2.15 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:28 PM EDT

Scott-E83

@Chris 53713

Your thoughts are shared by many

#2.16 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:54 PM EDT

DarnThatDream

Chris wrote:

In 2010 the U.S. government spent more money on air conditioning in Iraq and

Afghanistan that for the entire NASA budget.

Nonsense. C'mon, a little skepticism would keep you from falling for that kind

of junk. Regards....

#2.17 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:25 PM EDT

.advertisementadvertisementadvertisementmaga

I agree more2bits - but I still think it is fascinating what we are currently and

what future generations are going to discover.

1 vote#3 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:25 PM EDT.skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City

That's just amazing! The term "Super Earth" makes me wonder if a world is

three or four or ten times the size of ours and could have atmosphere and

could sustain life would it be likely that the lifeforms, if any, would be larger as

well?

I'm sort of using reverse logic on this one. I'm under the impression that small


20/46

land masses, like small islands, etc. tend to small smaller versions of some

animals. Could it be that a drastically LARGER planet could support larger

animals and plants?

I'm afraid I'm not explaining this very well. Perhaps somebody will be able toread between the lines and respond (no politics or religion please).


cjsks

Hard to say... who are our resident astrobiologists? :)

The variety of size of life on Earth doesn't seem to have much to do with the

size of the Earth itself or even it's surface gravity, so I don't see a direct

correlation.

Our size and stature has more to do with natural selection. i.e., What do we

hunt or what hunts us, quality of diet, are we plant eaters (look at giraffes,

brontosaurus), etc... Any number of factors.


MikeyMike

Good questions skip, and though I'm not an exobiologist, I might be able to

provide some food for thought. Here on earth sometimes the biggest animals,

such as the now extinct Moa of New Zealand or the ancient "elephant bird" of

Madagascar have evolved on remote and isolated islands, so island size does

not seem to constrain evolved size, though these are admittedly large islands.

More significantly, large planets "ten times the size of ours" would have much

stronger gravity, which would more likely be a limiting factor for size.



21/46

Kyle-3120596

skip Nicholson, you are correct, a larger planet will have larger animals but not

necessarily for the reason you are thinking. The smaller land masses on earth

tend to have smaller animals because there is not enough natural resources

(food) to sustain larger ones, or large populations. However, on a "super-earth"planet (that's a name I don't like, they only mean 'larger than earth') the

gravity would be much greater. Any living thing on this planet would need to

be larger (or in a form unlike anything we've yet discovered) to compensate for

the extra gravity. There would likely be more animals around the size of insects

as well, since a small enough animal would be pretty much immune to the

effects of heavy gravity thanks to its low mass.

For the record, I'm a student in physics but don't have any degrees in

astronomy, physics (yet), or biology.


Alan Boyle

Skip, there has been some research suggesting that super-Earths are better

when it comes to tectonic activity and the ability to hold onto an atmosphere.

I've added a link to a story about that in the item, and Scientific American had

a great article specifically on ths subject, written by Kepler team member

Dimitar Sasselov, if you can find that. I don't think it got into the little vs. biganimal question, though.

Here's the msnbc article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34230212/ns/technology_and_science-

space/t/super-earths-may-be-superior-fostering-life/


cjsks

Mikey, keep in mind that larger planets have a larger radius and the further

away you are from the center mass, the lower the effect of its gravity. Also, if

the planet is larger but not as dense, difference in mass would be less than the

difference in size.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34230212/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/super-earths-may-be-superior-fostering-life/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34230212/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/super-earths-may-be-superior-fostering-life/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34230212/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/super-earths-may-be-superior-fostering-life/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34230212/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/super-earths-may-be-superior-fostering-life/


22/46

So while gravity on a "super-earth" would likely be greater, probably not as

many times greater as you might think. For example, while Neptune is several

times larger than Earth, if you could stand on it's surface, your weight would

only be roughly 10-20 lbs greater. Gas planets obviously are not that dense,but you get the point.


MikeyMike

From the other article (Thanks for that link Alan)

Whether made of rock or ice, Sasselov says Super Earths will be only 1 or 2times the actual size of Earth because they become densely compressed as

they gain mass. This higher density will result in greater gravity. Sasselov says

the most massive Super Earth would have about 3 times the gravity of Earth.

Tests of human resistance to vertical G-force, where the blood is pulled down

to the legs, have found the typical person can tolerate up to 5 Gs before losing

consciousness. So while you might feel much heavier walking on a Super Earth,

the extra gravity wouldn't be beyond what human explorers could endure. Of

course, any life that evolved on a Super Earth would be adapted to the greatergravity, just as a human feels comfortable on the 1 G surface of Earth.

#4.6 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:03 PM EDT

skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City

Thanks folks that is all very interesting and very helpful. I can't wait to meet a

giant from a "super earth". Hey weren't those guys from that old TWILIGHT

ZONE episode, "TO SERVE MAN" giants? Maybe they came from a super earth?

It's just one of those things I wonder about when I read about a planet possibly

being able to support life and that the same planet is multiple times larger

than the earth. Would the life-forms, if any, be proportionally larger?


23/46

Just one of those things that rattle around in my tiny little monkey/lizard brain

from time to time.

#4.7 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:44 PM EDT

chad-1841583

I'm afraid I'm not explaining this very well. Perhaps somebody will be able to

read between the lines and respond (no politics or religion please).

Here's the problem as I see it (and I'm sure this will be quite unpopular.

We can't ignore the "religion" hypothesis when discussing science (and issueslike this.)

Beliefs have consequences people. The last time I checked ... America is the

most religious (technically advanced) nation on the planet. And, what does this

get us?

A constant and blatant discrediting of our scientists. We are at the bottom of

the barrel in math and science. We are in a downward spiral in NASA funding.

Politicians look at scientific opinion as though it is just "hearsay" and not

particularly relevant. CERN and other B I G science programs ..... you guessed

it, not happening in the states. Evolution, the cornerstone of our understanding

of biology? Well pretty soon, only in particular states.

The list goes on and on people.

Again, beliefs have consequences for all of us.

I understand that correlation does not equate to causation, but at a certain

point, we must be honest with ourselves. We can bury our heads in the sand to

this phenomenon of American ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy all we


24/46

want. Sure, we can call it "politics" or "economics" or whatever else we want to

make ourselves feel better. But it is only going to get worse.


atypical.georgian

I'm no expert, but it would seem to me that the higher gravity of a larger

planet would eventually lead to life that is smaller than us rather than larger.

Just a theory, but food for thought.

#4.9 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:51 PM EDT

Amused In The Midwest

You're right, until both sides learn to respect and accept the other. That is not

impossible. Each validates the other if the mind is open.

#4.10 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:58 PM EDT

lngsd

Alan, -maybe slightly off topic- but I've read about the potential importance of

tectonic plate activity on Earth as far as keeping our atmosphere/planet what it

is. Besides size, I wonder if anyone has researched the idea that our Moon's

gravitational effect has influence on keeping our planet active. An extreme

example is what Jupiter does to Io. Venus, though it's hard to tell under the

clouds, doesn't appear to have active plate tectonics and it's virtually the same

size as the Earth.... only difference is the lack of a major satellite.

#4.11 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:47 PM EDT

Alan Boyle

Lngsd, there's been a lot of discussion about the impact (so to speak) that the

moon's presence has had on Earth's development ... not only in terms of the

tidal effects but also the mere fact that there was something big enough to

almost exactly cover the sun. (Remember the beginning of "2001"?) You'll

probably enjoy this Astrobiology essay from a few years back:


25/46

http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?

option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507

#4.12 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:31 PM EDT

DarnThatDream

Guys, Earth has life which ranges from microscopic to about 30 meters, so

what do you mean when you speculate that life on another planet would be

bigger/smaller than life on our own? Regardless, survive!

#4.13 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:34 PM EDT

.advertisementadvertisementadvertisementmaga

BigAl,

While I find your post kind of funny - I think the following saying fits this bill:

"You know you have created God in your own image when you find that He

hates the same people you do."

3 votes#5 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:26 PM EDT.cjsks

"We are actually entering an incredibly interesting time in our history..."

I could not agree more. Kepler, HARPS and other instruments are really starting

to churn out these discoveries. It should only be a matter of time until we find a

habitable earth-like exoplanet right in our own cosmic backyard. The idea that

they can directly observe some of these for signs of life, like oxygen, methane,

water vapor, perhapes even CFC's?? ...amazing.

7 votes#6 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:29 PM EDT.David-2553803

50 new planets, we should leave them alone because we've done nothing but

screw up the one we are on !
http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507


26/46

#7 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:32 PM EDT

DarnThatDream

Cheer up. The jury's still out.

#7.1 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:37 PM EDT

.MikeyMike

Childhood's end...

2 votes#8 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:35 PM EDT.Kyle-3120596

Very good news. Good thing there's still somebody out there doing science for

the sake of science.

#9 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:45 PM EDT.Rontron

At a distance of 36 light years HD 85512 b is safe from humans for many years

to come.


DarnThatDream

Some of my best friends are humans.

#10.1 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:52 PM EDT

.twiddly

hey, wait! this just doesn't jive with creationism, which really oughta be given

equal time here, right?

everything in science is just a theory, after all...


27/46

could we please have Palin or Perry or Bachmann chime in?


Toasty McGrath

Science is just a communist plot to turn us into godless socialists.


j-no1

If anyone is suggesting that there is intelligent life somewhere other than here,that's just crazy talk. Everyone knows that the invisible guy impregnated a

virgin, who in turn, gave birth to an omnipotent being. Intelligent life

somewhere other than earth, puhleeze.


C Wood-3018442

Are you implying there is intelligent life here on earth? Where?


cgtrav

We were created by the Q.

(let's see who gets that reference)


Pirate C

Religion is just a Communist plot to turn us all into Punch drinking Zealots....!


28/46


yowza-4085363

So if there's life on other planets, does Jesus have to do the whole crucifixionand resurrection thing all over again?


Frank Glover

Toasty, many gods, but only one science.

#11.7 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:40 PM EDT

Mike Maxwell

@yowza-4085363: Aslan does.

#11.8 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:59 PM EDT

Aceinvesting

We wouldn't have been created by the Q, but rather simply are the Q.

#11.9 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:13 PM EDT

.MikeyMike

Warp factor 6 Sulu, engage!

3 votes#12 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:52 PM EDT.Bighand-3184635

Is it a fair question to ask:

If an earth-like planet is 3.6 times greater than earth, is the gravatational force


29/46

relative to its size?

#13 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:53 PM EDT

ANON-FISH

Yes, the gravitational force felt on the planets surface would be greater than

that on Earth.

They don't give all the information in this article needed to calculate an

approximate gravitational force.

Given the Earth's mass is 5.9722 1024 kg you can expect that 3.6 times thatwould be a sizable difference.

#13.1 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:41 PM EDT

cjsks

You have all the info you need to come up with a reasonable estimate... I just

can't seem to run the calculation properly.

If we assume density of the "super-earth" equals Earth's, so mass is 3.6x

Earth's (based on being 3.6x larger), we know Earth's mass = 5.973610^24

kg, therefore "super-earth" mass = 2.1505 x 10^25. But I'm not sure how to

calculate radius, which is needed to know how many times greater is the force

of gravity on super-earth. (Very generally speaking, force of gravity on super-

earth should be greater than 1x but less than 3.6x earth's.)


Dan Webster

The formula for the volume of a sphere is

V = 4 * * (R^3) / 3


30/46

If we're assuming the two have the same density (a big "if", of course!) and

using "e" for earth and "se" for super-earth,

V_se = 3.6 * V_e

Plugging in and cancelling the constant bits from each size leaves

R_se^3 = 3.6 * R_e^3

so the ratio of radii is the cube root of 3.6, or (assuming my trusty calculator is

working correctly) about 1.53


cjsks

Awesome, thanks!


Bighand-3184635

Beautiful!

Okay, most humans will pass out at a roughly 3.5 to 4.0G-force. Highly trained

aero-nauts (space nuts) go la-la at 5.0G's. How then could it really be feasable

to compare it to earth at all? We could not live there, and plants we need couldnot grow there. There might be mineral or fuels, but we could never get it.

That place is a drag...


31/46

#13.5 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:59 PM EDT

cjsks

Bighand, a rocky planet with this mass comes out to roughly 1.5G, not 3.5 -

4.0G. So you might feel a bit sluggish, but you wouldn't pass out. Moreover,

you would get used to it.


Bighand-3184635

I did it wrong...

If that's the case, let's go mess up another planet. Whose driving?

#13.7 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:21 PM EDT

DarnThatDream

I would speculate, if we assume that the planet is solid, that the density would

be greater than Earth's. After all, Earth is the densest member of our solar

system even though Mercury is composed of an intrinsically denser mix of

elements. The additional compression due to Earth's larger mass is what

makes it denser than Mercury. These factors would make the radius of the

newly discovered planet smaller and the surface gravity greater than the

computations above.... I think.

#13.8 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:17 PM EDT

.advertisementadvertisementadvertisementRustyboy-FL

A place for a new life form. Teausbaggicus.

#14 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:09 PM EDT

Toasty McGrath

Known better by its shortened form, "Texas."


32/46


Aceinvesting

Was that a spell?

#14.2 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:12 PM EDT

.Jitesh Naidoo

With every new discovery on "space the final frontier" one can only marvel at

the wonderful creative power of the force that designed all of this. Could any of

this majesty ever happen by chance, what is the statistical probability of this

happening, everything in its place and operating in perfect harmony.

1 vote#15 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:17 PM EDT

Doug-950479

Yes, it's all in the image of His sublime balance of meatballs, spaghetti and

sauce


Kyle-3120596

Jitesh I hope you know that we can all see where you're going with this. I also

hope you know that religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Yes, it could happen by chance (it did). The statistical probability of our

universe laid out the way it is, is indeed very low, but if it wasn't laid out like

this, it would be laid out in a similar fashion I'm sure, maybe one or two atoms

in a different place or maybe galaxies switched, or a whole different set of

galaxies, planets and stars.

Instead of saying, "God put all this here as is,"


33/46

wouldn't it make more sense to say, "God created the universe"? Studying

science IS studying God. Don't turn away from all of His beauty He has created!

It is out there for us to study and admire through the gift of Science that he has

given us!

For the record, I'm not a religious person, however the above viewpoint is how I

have heard many religious persons explain how science and religion are not

mutually exclusive.

#15.2 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:41 PM EDT

C Wood-3018442The statistical probability of it happening like this? That's like flipping a coin a

thousand times and then asking what was the probability of the coin landing as

it did for those flips. You could compute it, but why? It happened exactly the

way it happened.


Pirate C

Make it so, Ramen.....


Aaron-2000616

Yes, it's all in the image of His sublime balance of meatballs, spaghetti and

sauce

He who boiled for our sins reached out with His noodly appendage...


.John-541517


34/46

Darn, that means Obama will be letting millions more illegal aliens in and

giving them amnesty.

1 vote#16 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:40 PM EDT.John Pollard-1781907

I am NOT an expert, but -

with all this new empirical and observational data why isn't there a rewriting of

the Drake equation? Drake's equation was formulated a long time ago and now

there is actual data that could be used to make a new version - has this been

done? And if not - why?

Someone who knows more about astrophysics than I do will have to answer

this question!

#17 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:56 PM EDT

CM-6969

The Drake equation is simple enough to update easily when new data comes in

- just replace some of the old guesses with actual figures when new data is

available. Nowdays, the only guesses left are: What percentage of earthlike

planets are in the "habitable zones", what percentage of habitable planets

actually originate life, and what percentage of life bearing planets develops

intelligent life.

Replacing those final guesses will take a lot more time and a lot more

investigation.

#17.1 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:06 PM EDT

Frank Glover

The Drake Equation tried spell out the factors you would have to know on order

to make an estimate of how common technological civilizations are in this


35/46

galaxy

Observations like these, show more and more that the factor:

fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets

...is a very comfortably large number. Not that many years ago, we could only

make educated guesses about how common extrasolar planets of any kind are.

If planets were rare, the rest wouldn't matter. Now we have nice, hard data.But...

f = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

...and all following factors, still have values we can only guess at. We don't

currently have evidence of so much as a microbe that didn't come from Earth.

Finding even the simplest life elsewhere in this solar system would suggest

that life isn't a very rare phenomenon, and we could then give a tentative

value to f(sub)t that means something.


Alan Boyle

Frankly, the Drake Equation is more of a conversation starter than a rigorous

algorithm, but the habitability of planets is generally incorporated in the

equation. You can plug in your own numbers using our handy-dandy DrakeEquation calculator:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30609189/ns/technology_and_science-

space/t/figure-odds-finding-et/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30609189/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/figure-odds-finding-et/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30609189/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/figure-odds-finding-et/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30609189/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/figure-odds-finding-et/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30609189/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/figure-odds-finding-et/


36/46

.advertisementadvertisementadvertisementHeaveto

The greatest way of deflating the human ego would be to find intelligent life on

another Planet-------I can hear now all the reasons the religious nut heads

would conjure up-- for their existance!!

#18 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:08 PM EDT

Frank Glover

Religions evolve (as little as some of them may like that word) or die, just like

anything else. Indeed, the Catholic Church lately has been out ahead of the

curve on this question.

They'll work out a way to incorporate this into their belief systems (anythingelse is admitting their god isn't big enough to incorporate the Universe, and

what faith would do that?), it's just possible some new religions could start.

What such a discovery might do to mainstream religions, unlike others, is at

the bottom of my list of concerns about this.

And it depends on how it happens. Does some ET make a bold appearance on

Earth like Michael Renne? Or is it just radio signals of unquestionably artificial

origin, likely not even intended for us, from a world a hundred light years

away.? If the latter, we'll get over it after just a few weeks of headlines. Nopanic, no nothing....

But the question would then be...should we deliberately signal them, now that

we know where to point our antennas? And almost any country could easily

take it upon itself to do so.

And if interstellar travel becomes not just possible, but practical, somereligions will see it as a missionary opportunity. A chance to spread 'The Word.'

Let's hope ETs don't think the same way. If interstellar conflict is possible at all,

I'm convinced it'll be over what we call religious/philosophical/political issues,

not resources. There's no material stuff here that isn't just as, or more

abundant elsewhere. But hearts and minds to win, are another story...


37/46

#18.1 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:18 PM EDT

MikeyMike

Ramen preserve those poor aliens when the space bound Jehova's Witnesses

and the Mormon's start knocking on their doors at 8:30 A.M. on a Saturday

morning.


Doug-950479

But the question would then be...should we deliberately signal them, now thatwe know where to point our antennas?

Yeah, we would just send an imitation of whatever we had received from them

- in a hundred years or so they'd get it, then we'd wait another hundred to hear

back from them, etc...

#18.3 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:47 PM EDT

.rishi devanoor

Well, I still donot beleive that on Earth (Aliens coming from external cosmic

world), the Pyramids were built in conglomeration with Aliens. I guess till we

see Aline in real we cannot trust the fact that Aliens do exist.

#19 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:10 PM EDT.BrainCandy-3328906

The only thing I hate about these reports on new found worlds beyond our solar

system is that we still can only detect planets that are significantly larger in

mass than worlds our own size. The very large population of planets that could

(and most likely do coexist around the same stars as these newly discovered

planets) aren't detectable by current techniques used in planet finding.

#20 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:13 PM EDT


38/46

MarkD-555

The Kepler mission finds the bigger planets first, the smaller ones take more

orbits to confirm. It just has to stare at stars a few more years.


.rishi devanoor

Well, I still donot believe that Aliens exists and people believing the fact that

Pyramids were built in conglomeration with Aliens by Humans many years

before.

May be we need to really wait for day when Aliens will land their space ship on

earth after having travelled several light years or from far remote place onearth itself and talk to us,..lolz,..

Till then I would suggest Obama should fuel these fantacy theories of Aliens

and their existance.

-rD

#21 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:16 PM EDT.rishi devanoor

Well, I still donot believe that Aliens exists and people believing the fact that

Pyramids were built in conglomeration with Aliens by Humans many years

before.

May be we need to really wait for day when Aliens will land their space ship on

earth after having travelled several light years or from far remote place onearth itself and talk to us,..lolz,..

Till then I would suggest Obama should fuel these fantacy theories of Aliens

and their existance.


39/46

-rD

#22 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:19 PM

EDT.advertisementadvertisementadvertisementMike-2283408

BigAl Las Vegas

Nice to see you could sneak away from the coming out party there in Vegas.

You forgot Al Gore; need someone to save the ozone. Obama too; there will be

need for universal health care, homosexual marriage and job stimulus plans.

You forgot all the other left wing save the whales, but murder the babies

crowd. It's only about 216 TRILLION miles away. If you start your trip today you

might get there in time before you evolve again.

#23 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:42 PM EDT.Robert Saffel

You are all forgetting one point, gravity is not based on the size or how dense

alone you must add in the rotation speed as well, larger planet faster rotation,

more gravity, larger planet with slower rotation less gravity.

#24 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:44 PM EDT

cjsks

Robert, incorrect. All you need to calculate gravitational force is mass of object

1, mass of object 2, and the distance between them (radius).

F = G*m1*m2/r^2

("G" is the universal gravitational constant).


CM-6969

Faster rotational speed would counteract gravity, so faster rotation would lead


40/46

to lower surface gravity - except at the polar regions. But there is a limit to how

fast a planet could rotate and still remain stable without loosing mass, and in

most cases the rotational speed isn't enough to make a big difference in

gravity, even at the equator.


Mike Maxwell

There was an interesting SciFi story decades ago, maybe in Analog. A very

massive planet rotating very fast, so that your weight was strongly proportional

to the latitude. Humans were able to tolerate the high latitudes only be being

immersed in fluid (so they floated). There was an intelligent life form, shaped

something like a flat centipede, indigenous to the higher latitudes.

#24.3 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:04 PM EDT

Frank Glover

Robert, rotation has nothing to do with gravity, save for the fact that

centrifugal force slightly counteracts it. You are in fact very slightly lighter at

Earth's equator, than at the poles. It's a very slightly oblate spheroid because

of this. (it's a also part of why you want to launch into orbit from as near the

equator as you can, taking advantage of that rotation) Jupiter, being a gas

giant and rotating in about 11 hours, is visibly more oblate than a sphere to theeye.

Mike, you're referring to Hal Clement's 'Mission of Gravity.' It involved a very

massive, very rapidly rotating, super-Earthy planet that was still two Earth

gravities at its equator (humans could walk and function there for short times,

only in 'powered armor' type spacesuits), increasing to 700 gees at the poles.

The centipede-like beings were hired to travel overland to a high-latitude

region area to recover data from an important science probe that crashed

there. (We see them again in the subsequent novel 'Star Light')

The author was quite careful about working out the physics of the story, and I

believe there's an appendix wherein he explains his calculations.


41/46


MikeyMike

Thanks Frank, it's nice that somebody on here knows what the heck they'retalking about.


.Kathy Kramer-3900485

Oh, I get it. This new planet is where they intend to send all the baby boomers

- the poor ones that is. Then they won't have to worry about medicare or

social security (or continue to hope that the boomers who are LIVING TOO

LONG will just die off).

#25 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:45 PM EDT.Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4.Leave a

Comment:

Name:

Email Address (will be verified, but never shown):

You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.

You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.(XHTML

tags allowed -

a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)

You are posting this comment to a publicly viewable discussion.


42/46

Newsvine Privacy Statement

As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here

for more info...Browsefeatured, science, space, john-roach, images, innovation,

nasa, daily-dose, video, technology, energy, new-space, whimsy, on-the-fringe,mars, environment, participation, planets, automotive, cosmic-log, spacex,

japan, 3-d, hubble, archaeology, electric-road-trip, books, shuttle, holiday-

calendar, physics, earthquake, robot, moon, astrobiology, atlantis, religion, oil-

spill, sun, image, sts-135, volt, evolution, doomsday, genetics, aliens,

politics..Alsoadvertisementadvertisementadvertisement..Alan Boyle

Science editor at msnbc.com, author of "The Case for Pluto," winner of the

National Academies Communication Award for Cosmic Log in 2008. Alan Boyle

covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and spacescience and exploration for msnbc.com. Check out Cosmic Log's archives by

following the links below, and see Boyle's full biography at http://bit.ly/boyle-

bio

Alan Boyle Blogroll

Bad Astronomy

CollectSpace

Cosmic VarianceCurmudgeons Corner

Discovery News

The Daily Grail

EarthSky

GeekPress

Habitable Zone

HobbySpace Log

LiveScience

The Loom

NASA Watch
http://bit.ly/boyle-biohttp://bit.ly/boyle-biohttp://bit.ly/boyle-biohttp://bit.ly/boyle-bio


43/46

NASA Spaceflight

Out of the Cradle

SciDev.net

Science Blog

ScienceBlogs

Science Quest

SciAm Observations

Seed Magazine

Slashdot Science

Space.com

Spaceflight Now

Space Fellowship

The Space Review

Transterrestrial Musings

Universe Today

Unmanned Spaceflight

Uplink by Miles O'Brien

Planetary Society Blog

Science News

Popular Mechanics

Popular Science

Science Insider

NASAEngineer.com

EurekAlert

Nature: The Great Beyond

Space Daily


44/46

Space Politics

The Case for PlutoAlan Boyle's first book tells the story of Pluto's ups and

downs as well as the discoveries of other dwarf planets in our own solar system

and even more alien worlds beyond. Buy "The Case for Pluto" .....Jim Seida

Jim Seida is a senior multimedia editor at msnbc.com. Fourteen years ago, he

helped create multimedia storytelling for an online audience as one of the core

group of multimedia producers at msnbc.com. He thrives on field work and

telling stories about people with video, still and audio gear.

..John Roach

John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. From climate change andmass extinctions to human evolution and deep space, his writing explores life

on Earth and its place in the universe. He was a staff writer at the

Environmental News Network for several years and has contributed to National

Geographic News for more than a decade.

..Nidhi Subbaraman

Nidhi is the tech and science intern at msnbc.com.

..Archives

2011

September (22)August (61)July (70)June (82)May (86)April (69)March

(94)February (67)January (82)2010

December (118)November (62)October (82)September (63)August (62)July

(54)June (83)May (51)April (31)March (35)February (36)January (35)2009









45/46

(45)June (56)May (8)Older

12/2003 to 6/20065/2002 to 12/2003Most Commented

6-ton NASA satellite set to fall (191)

Fifty new alien worlds revealed (207)

Was there a fork in our family tree? (242)

Who'll get hit by a falling satellite? (89)

Astronauts' tracks and trash show up in moon photos (120)

Scientists balk at telescope bailout (91)

Is Apollo's past spoiling our future in outer space? (60)

How a 9/11 memorial got to Mars (32)

Other blogs

The Body Odd

Red Tape Chronicles

PhotoBlog

Gadgetbox

Technolog

Daryl Cagle's Cartoon Blog

Open Channel

InGame

top stories

Perry assailed by rivals, forced to defend record

Video: Obama: We cant sit back and squabble

Plan to fund Obama jobs program murky

Djokovic beats Nadal in marathon Open final

Buffett picks another little-known successor

USDA to ban six new E. coli strains from meat supply


46/46

Insulin nasal spray may slow Alzheimer's

'All My Children' star Mary Fickett dies at 83

Video: Tapes reveal Jackie Kennedys candid thoughts

Fifty new alien worlds revealed

2011 msnbc.com

msnbc.com About us Contact Help Site map Careers Terms & Conditions MSN

Privacy Legal Advertise Login &

settingsNew comment notificationsShare this on FacebookShare this on

TwitterEmail this

to a friend

Show tools......

50 new planets

Documents