Live data from Hacker News

Seven-Planet System Detected

livasperiklis.com

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#42
post #23
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just three years at warp 9 =)

It's strange to realize that even at Warp 9, it still take a very long time to get anywhere much. In the TV shows and movies, they never seem to spend more than a few days at a time going anywhere at warp speed.

Most of the time they're moving at the speed of plot. It's a log scale I think so warp 9.9 is much faster than warp 9. Except whenever they remember the terrible idea they had part way into The Next Generation when they put a speed limit on space travel.

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#43
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, unreachable without FTL travel.

What does that even mean? Of course it is reachable without FTL travel. Besides time dilation which could make it a subjectively short trip, there is also cryogenics and other life extension techniques that could get us there. If you accept any ship could get there, you might as well consider that space travel isn't the only technology that will advance.

> there is also cryogenics and other life extension techniques that could get us there.

You are aware those don't actually exist?

People assume they will exist, but we have nothing to base that assumption on except "it would be cool".

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#44
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just replace solar with stellar.

This seems like yet another case of unnecessarily Earth/Sol-centric terminology, much like "apogee" being Earth specific such that you have to use "apoapsis" if you want to be generic. I mean, do we really need a new word for every planet, the sun, a star in general, a black hole specifically, and galaxies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsis#Terminology We should declare terminology bankruptcy to wipe out our existin…

When talking about orbits it's very useful to be able to make a distinction between apogee and lunar or solar apoapsis.

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#47
post #42
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange to realize that even at Warp 9, it still take a very long time to get anywhere much. In the TV shows and movies, they never seem to spend more than a few days at a time going anywhere at warp speed.

Most of the time they're moving at the speed of plot. It's a log scale I think so warp 9.9 is much faster than warp 9. Except whenever they remember the terrible idea they had part way into The Next Generation when they put a speed limit on space travel.

The TNG scale have a asymptote at Warp 10. The TNG scale come from a draw, and actually have a very complex formula derive from these hand draw graph, but can be approximated to a exponential scale below Warp 9.

TOS (and Enterprise) uses other scale with a much more simpler math exponential formula, were the same Warp factor is less quick that in TNG scale.

Actually the TNG scale is because Rodenbery like to give the impression that the ships are more fast that in TOS but he like to avoid using Warp 10 and huger numbers.

You can check it in http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Warp_factor , appendices section.

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#48
post #4

the entire system lies within one Earth orbit Perhaps little chance of life as we know it.

Not necessarily, if the star is smaller and cooler than ours.

It's not, it's slightly larger and more massive than the Sun. Only the outermost planet is within the habitable zone, but it's a gas giant.

Re: Seven-Planet System Detected

#50
post #10

Kepler 62 seems interesting

Agreed! What I found most interesting about this article is that our own solar system seems fairly unique (I know, small sample size). Kepler 62 is the only one that has an Earth-like planet at about the same distance from the central star, and even in that case that particular planet is the outermost one in that system. I guess I always assumed that due to various physical laws that other star systems would be pretty similar to ours in regards to planet-types (hot-rocks vs middle-ground vs gas-giants vs coldies) at various orbits, but there seems to be much more at play here (star size, etc, etc). Truly fascinating.
Post reply on HN