Live data from Hacker News

Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

nasa.gov

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#131
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ufos have to come from somewhere, right?

Yeah, flawed lenses and windows, and unreliable witnesses. No need for FTL there.

Yeah, that, or advanced technology is suppressed and only a select (controlled) few can research it. And these phenomena are glimpses of what is possible, but not ready for global introduction.

Since 1984 is becoming a reality, Aasimov's works also have terrifying parallels with our current society... Just look at what happens with atom reactors in real life and the same is outlined in aasimov's works. Plus everything is sugar coated with religious bullshit, that only few can see through.

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#132
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gravity is only about 1.25 g, according to Wikipedia. Density matters. The earth and Saturn have about the same surface gravity.

Comparing rocky planets, density doesn't really matter at all. The range of possible densities for rocky planets is tightly constrained. What matters is the fact that surface gravity scales sub-linearly with regards to a planets mass. M = 4/3*pi*r^3*d r = (4/3*pi*d/M)^(-1/3) a = GM/r^2 a = GM(4/3*pi*d/M)^(2/3) a = G(4/3*pi*d)^(2/3) * M^(1/3)

We know that it's not (primarily) rocky though because the radius is 2.6 that of earth, but the mass is only 8 times. So it's about about 46% as dense as earth.

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#133
post #127
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's really close so far as these things go. With the nearest star being 4ly, this can be reached with essentially the same tech level if we'd want to visit that with a rover or generational ship one day

> this can be reached with essentially the same tech level I'm not so sure about that. I mean, at the moment both are impossible, but it's much easier to imagine traveling 4ly than 124ly. 4ly can be reached in a single lifetime if you accelerate a shop to .9c, which is technically possible. 124ly is going to be a multigenerational undertaking no matter what. The 248y communication lag is also a much bigger obstacle t…

Fair points. It's all guesses about the unforeseeable future, but I would estimate that a multigenerational ship is in arm's each if we really wanted to, whereas accelerating so much as an orbiter (let alone a lander, or a whole rover, or a live person) to 0.9c probably requires a tech level we don't have due to the fuel requirement for deceleration. Maybe a fly-by could work, then burst back the results with some enormous amount of energy, but that's a lot of cost for very little information.

When making a generational ship, for safety we'd still want to do years of testing on orbit to see whether a chosen ecological system really does form a closed loop. Water recycling on the ISS is 98% efficient according to NASA, so with refuelings from ice moons every couple decades (solar system hopping) that should be covered. Ion engines are apparently also a thing (still sounds like science fiction to me, but they've been in production on space missions for a long time apparently!), I don't know what kind of longevity those have though, or whether refueling is realistic (might requires landers with expansive equipment for refinement of elements). Things like floor space, the way that I see it, that's a matter of cost more than a matter of ability, so having enough privacy so you don't kill each other is within our current tech level – again, iff we'd really care to do this. Hence I'd say we can do this nearly today, and then it also doesn't matter much if you need 400 years for 4ly or 12'400 years for 124ly.

On the other hand, by 10k years from now, I would think we can make a 0.9c human-sustaining craft, so maybe you're right that we'd rather choose to wait a thousand years and see where things stand then rather than putting effort into launching a generational ship next century, whereas with a 4ly target the generational ship is much more likely to be faster. Maybe you're right that this distance difference does matter. Not for ability so much as for psychological "would we spend that effort given the perspectives" reasons

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#134
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get the rover there? It would take thousands of years. Or maybe millions of years? With the current tech

If you're traveling as fast as voyager 1, it would take over 2 million years to get there.

The Voyagers didn't have today's ion engines. I don't know how much that gains us, though, as the main speed gain was by leeching momentum from planets' momenta, rather than from the hydrazine thrusters it carries

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just need a 1g rocket. Will take only a few days to get there. Life on earth will be 1000 years ahead once we are back though.

The problem is when you work out the math on rocket that can sustain 1G for multiple days with any Earthly isp you realize the math just doesn't work. Even if you go nuts and plug in a number like 1 million seconds (our best chemical rockets are more like 450 seconds) for the isp it is still nowhere close to feasible using only the mass of our solar system. As long as you are stuck flinging mass out of the back of yo…

>The problem is when you work out the math on rocket that can sustain 1G for multiple days with any Earthly isp you realize the math just doesn't work.

>our best chemical rockets are more like 450 seconds

If we're talking about leaving the Solar system, and 1G rockets, why on Earth would you ever even think about primitive chemical rockets? Obviously, nuclear rockets are a mandatory first-step before getting close to that level of technology.

And given that we already have nuclear power plants, as well as designs (untested) for nuclear rockets, why even bring up chemical rockets?

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#136
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is Faster Than Light travel even possible? I'm asking in a serious way. I have always read that its impossible, at least within our current knowledge. the only semi-plausible theory I've ever heard is that Blackholes might one day yield some way of traveling quickly across the universe but nobody has shown anything substantiated around that or anything else.

FTL travel being impossible is basically the one thing where I completely irrationally reject the science :) It's just too depressing for me to accept. There's gotta be a loophole. There's just gotta be...

The science clearly says FTL is possible: Einstein himself postulated wormholes (known now as Einstein-Rosen bridges), and warp drive has been proven to be possible (though not too practical yet) by Miguel Alcubierre and Sonny White.

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is Faster Than Light travel even possible? I'm asking in a serious way. I have always read that its impossible, at least within our current knowledge. the only semi-plausible theory I've ever heard is that Blackholes might one day yield some way of traveling quickly across the universe but nobody has shown anything substantiated around that or anything else.

There's no realistically plausible solution I've ever heard of, that is, ones that don't require millions of years of setup and entire stars worth of energy production. But that's with our current understanding of physics. While our current models seem nearly perfect and therefore nearly complete, there was a time they thought that about Newtonian physics. Perhaps some detail we need to understand dark matter or dark…

>While our current models seem nearly perfect and therefore nearly complete

Huh? Where did you get this idea? Our physics is clearly nowhere near complete. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are at odds, which is why physicists have been looking for a unified theory for ages. Each one only works at certain scales, and not at the other end, so obviously something's wrong with them. The whole "dark matter" thing looks like BS too, and alternate theories like MOND don't require it. There's nothing complete at all about our understanding of physics.

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#138

I picked up a random book in the science section of the city library today and opening it to a random page I started reading about an exciting "goldilocks" exoplanet discovery from 2015. Apparently this was the first exo-planet which had a positive spectroscopic identification of water in the atmosphere. It was a rocky world, 2 billion years old, 8 times Earth's size (mass?), on a 33 day orbit around a red dwarf. K-s…

Maybe you mixed up the dates slightly?

K2-18b (name of the exo-planet) orbiting star K2-18 was discovered in 2015 but the water was not detected until 2019.

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#139
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get the rover there? It would take thousands of years. Or maybe millions of years? With the current tech

If you're traveling as fast as voyager 1, it would take over 2 million years to get there.

Would it melt before then? Interstellar space is extremely thin, on the order of 1 atom per cubic centimeter (estimates vary). But, as we learned when Voyager finally left the solar system a few years ago, it is hot as hell. More than 54,000 degrees F according to National Geographic:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/interstel...

Re: Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18B

#140
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTL travel being impossible is basically the one thing where I completely irrationally reject the science :) It's just too depressing for me to accept. There's gotta be a loophole. There's just gotta be...

It's super easy, barely an inconvenience. Bend space time to create a wormhole.

Wormholes are tight. So tight in fact, that it's not entirely clear that traversable wormholes can exist.
Post reply on HN