Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of interest , although dimmer, are there any potential hazards simply due to the proximity of a dim star?
> are there...hazards simply due to the proximity of a dim star Tidal locking [1]. Similar to how our moon shines at us ass first all the time, the planets around TRAPIST-1 would be expected to have one face locked to their star. Instead of an equatorial belt bookended with loops of temperate zones, as we have on Earth, we should expect, climatically, an "equatorial" face and a "polar" face separated by a tropic-to-t…
Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
91–100 of 754 posts
Re: Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
#92Wiki says "TRAPPIST-1 is an ultracool dwarf star that is approximately 8% the mass of and 11% the radius of the Sun. It has a temperature of 2550 K and is at least 500 million years old." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST-1 Too young star for alien life hopes?
In the Q&A session they said it's difficult to constrain the age of the long-lived ultraviolet dwarf stars once they finish the active early phase, as their lifecycle progresses so slowly. They live for more than a trillion years, compared to stars like our sun which are larger and burn through their fuel in less than 10 billion years. It's somewhat counterintuitive, but the bigger a star is, the faster it uses up it…
> it's difficult to constrain the life of the long-lived ultraviolet dwarf stars
What's the upper bound on their estimate for TRAPIST-1's age?
Re: Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
#93Re: Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a constant 1g of acceleration, you could travel there, from the traveler's point of view, in ~2-3 years. (And in ~40 years from a stationary observer's point of view.) Mind you, a constant 1g acceleration (Or accelerating any human-carrying spaceship to relativistic speeds, really,) is about as plausible as a spaceship driven by pixie dust and unicorn farts.
Not according to public research on theoretical designs that have been about for decades . Unless you consider them unicorn farts! I'm only a coder though so I have no knowledge of this domain tho. I think the problem is simply it's too expensive to build space ships that probably won't work at all :( wasnt NASAs budget slashed ?
> Not according to public research on theoretical designs that have been about for decades.
Which ones? Do you have a link? The only one I remember is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls... but it's more a general idea that a detailed blueprint that only need some money to get built.
Re: Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's estimated that it will still be around in 4-5 trillion years, so, if we can get there, and it's habitable, that gives humanity a little longer lease in the universe.
Source on the 'trillions of years' number?
"Common" knowledge; the brighter the star the faster it burns. Sun-like stars last billions of years, dwarf stars last for trillions, the real giants last for millions.
Re: Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
#96To get a spacecraft there it would take: Accelerating at 1g the 1st half, and decelerating at 1g the 2nd half, the traveler would experience 7.3 years of time. For observers it would take 41.8 years at a max speed of 0.998c If you had a near perfect hydrogen -> helium fusion engine, it'd take about 6 million tons of fuel (about the mass of the Pyramids of Egypt or 2,000 Saturn V rockets)
Honestly that amount of mass seems doable (the hard part being a near perfect fusion engine of course).
Just curious about your calculations though. Did you take into account the fact that you could eject spent helium and therefore lower your mass in transit? Assuming most of the mass is fuel, I would imagine by the time you're arriving there would be very little mass left to decelerate.
Re: Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
#97To get a spacecraft there it would take: Accelerating at 1g the 1st half, and decelerating at 1g the 2nd half, the traveler would experience 7.3 years of time. For observers it would take 41.8 years at a max speed of 0.998c If you had a near perfect hydrogen -> helium fusion engine, it'd take about 6 million tons of fuel (about the mass of the Pyramids of Egypt or 2,000 Saturn V rockets)
How many Saturn V rockets have we launched in total?
Re: Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
#98To get a spacecraft there it would take: Accelerating at 1g the 1st half, and decelerating at 1g the 2nd half, the traveler would experience 7.3 years of time. For observers it would take 41.8 years at a max speed of 0.998c If you had a near perfect hydrogen -> helium fusion engine, it'd take about 6 million tons of fuel (about the mass of the Pyramids of Egypt or 2,000 Saturn V rockets)
We don't have any spacecraft that can go that fast, do we?
If I understand our capabilities correctly we can't even escape the solar system without using gravity assist boosts from other planets, let alone sustaining thrust for a long period.
Re: Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of interest , although dimmer, are there any potential hazards simply due to the proximity of a dim star?
Actually they are fewer. A dim star has less high energy radiation and a lower probability of harmful solar flares.
More radiation = more mutations = healthier/faster evolution!
Re: Seven earth-sized planets discovered circling a star 39 light years from Earth
#100They're only one Kessel Run away!
Or, maybe our Zyra.