Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

59% Positive

Analyzed from 3088 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#years#helium#speed#life#light#more#probe#atmosphere#solar#earth

Discussion (96 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

danieltk76•19 minutes ago
i do hope in my lifetime we find other animals on other planets
mekdoonggi•about 2 hours ago
We should build a solar lens telescope. By the time we're ready to use it, we'll have a bunch of candidates to point it at.
PxldLtd•about 2 hours ago
There's a project that's going well from NASA for this. Still a moonshot but they've progressed through the early stages well so far.

https://www.nasa.gov/general/direct-multipixel-imaging-and-s...

neom•28 minutes ago
Great in depth youtube video on this project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go-50Dpzs20
Something1234•34 minutes ago
What would a 25km resolution of earth look like
holoduke•28 minutes ago
Enough to see cities
bradley13•38 minutes ago
Wow. 25km resolution of the exoplanet's surface.

Of course, getting the telescope into place, steering it, etc. - that's the hard part.

echelon•about 1 hour ago
I wonder about all the extraterrestrial AI swarms that have already imaged earth.

Surely it has happened. They must have all spotted our planet millions of years ago and must be watching us with a continuous high-resolution feed. They've seen our dinosaurs. Their interest will really be piqued when they finally see us invent electricity, though that might be some time in the future for them.

Perhaps even gravitational lensing is primitive to them. Perhaps they're able to break and manipulate physics and peer directly into our light cone, breaking the speed of light. Perhaps through direct wormholes they're already here - computronium in the very oxygen atoms that surround us. In rock silicates, in the air you breathe, in your hemes, in your brain. Calculating.

But perhaps we're the only intelligent species in the entire universe. That is also a possibility. Some big names in astrophysics, such as David Kipping, suggest strongly that we should not rule out that hypothesis. I find his suggestions haunting and beautiful at the same time. You need to watch his videos, and this is a good start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEmYU8Y_rI

And finally, it may be that we're all just a historical simulation. Or maybe that's ascribing too much importance to ourselves. Maybe we're just a slop simulation on some AI's plaything, existing for no reason at all. Background NPCs with self-importance, ephemeral existences. But procedural generation at scale isn't really all too different from the laws of the physical universe itself.

The scale of the universe fills me with awe. Every time I think about it, my worries about random algo-rage and clickbait fades away to nothing. It deeply contextualizes our short time here.

conductr•about 1 hour ago
This comment encapsulates how poorly we humans are at accepting unknowns. For me, that explains a lot of our belief systems. The fact we can’t just take the unknown but instead have to fill in the blanks with what ifs. and create a narrative like we know anything about the unknown thing. It helps us feel like we understand it more. That’s literally how religions and a lot of other things get created, it’s a pattern, then the logical person sees the patterns and say it’s a simulation. A quite predictable filling of another blank.
awfulneutral•24 minutes ago
If they let me watch the videos of our dinosaurs, I would happily let them use my hemes for their calculations.
imjonse•about 1 hour ago
>But perhaps we're the only intelligent species in the entire universe. That is also a possibility. Some big names in astrophysics, such as David Kipping, suggest strongly that we should not rule out that hypothesis

They may be planted by alien AI to lull us into false sense of security.

myrmidon•about 2 hours ago
There is no "building" such a thing. All we could do right now is send the "telescope probe" >500AU away, on the opposite side of the sun from the observation target, then hope it still works 80 years later or so when it gets there.

Edit: My point is that you can't "build" such a thing and later point it somewhere-- you have to fly the camera part of the "telescope" about 3 times as far as voyager 1 went, exactly opposite of your observation target, and it is not gonna stay there for too long either.

As long as we improve rapidly at both drone-building and exoplanet target selection, it is not really gonna be worthwhile because both the drone hardware and the target will be hopelessly obsolete before we even get halfway to the observation point.

kurthr•about 1 hour ago
Well, there is a way to do it slowly, the probe(s) just need to be in a 500AU circular orbit. At that distance power and thrust are an issue, and RTGs seem like a better choice than solar. Certainly, takes longer to get to orbit than fly through a point for a pic, but you would get a lot more pics.
myrmidon•about 1 hour ago
First: Orbital period out there is over 10000 years.

And if you circularize (which is expensive to do in delta-v), you minimize the time window you have for observation (because you're basically pointing your speed vector straight to outside of your observation cone).

sgt•about 2 hours ago
In theory we can then get 100 meter resolution on alien worlds. That would be insane.
mekdoonggi•about 2 hours ago
According to AI, an equivalent would be roughly when Google maps shows you 10mi/20km reference scale.

Turning off the labels, aliens would probably assume that the world is naturally full of green stuff that is dealing with some strange grey infestation.

dTal•40 minutes ago
Even on that scale, major roads and agricultural grids are clearly visible. The mark of abstract intelligence is unmistakeable.
peddling-brink•about 1 hour ago
Spectral analysis at that resolution would be much more telling.
HPsquared•about 2 hours ago
On that scale, we really do look like mold.
jvanderbot•about 1 hour ago
A kilometer scale telescope contract would exercise all the right pipelines for massive orbital buildout like in-situ assembly, multi-lift cadences, and big-old infra. And it'd look cool as hell in the night sky during assembly.
jcims•about 2 hours ago
The wild thing is that, if I understand it correctly, if you were floating in a spacesuit at the same spot you'd also see that resolution (likely highly distorted) with the naked eye.
JumpCrisscross•about 2 hours ago
> if you were floating in a spacesuit at the same spot you'd also see that resolution (likely highly distorted) with the naked eye

…would you? The lensing would occur right at the apparent surface of the sun.

jimbokun•about 3 hours ago
48 light years is in our back yard.

Close enough that we could probably develop a probe to get there in the next few centuries and check it out. What are the current popular candidates for propulsion systems capable of accelerating to near the speed of light?

andy_ppp•about 2 hours ago
Probably more likely that we work out how to fold spacetime than we get there in anything like a high enough percentage of the speed of light - the fastest object we ever made travelled at something like ~0.064% * C so we are looking at ~750 years with current technology and presumably we'd need to switch on the probe in 3/4 of a millennium and figure out how to slow it down and get it into some sort of orbit around the planet.

750 years is hard for me to get excited about even as a vampire.

fellowmartian•about 1 hour ago
It’s highly unlikely we’re ever getting FTL. We should become comfortable with that and let go our fantasies. Let theoretical physicists chug away at this, we should get underway with projects that are possible with known science.
dempedempe•35 minutes ago
Even if FTL is achievable (which I agree, highly unlikely), it's still extraordinarily slow on cosmic scales. The closest star is a little over 4 ly away!

And probing the universe outside the Milky Way? Forget about it.

isodev•about 1 hour ago
It would help if our science wasn’t distracted by things like global warming and nazi governments though. There are definitely ways we can help the process * right now *
behnamoh•11 minutes ago
The entire universe seems to be inside a giant black hole, anyway, and the more it goes, the more evidence is found to support that. Might as well find a black hole and visit other universes than explore our own.
forinti•12 minutes ago
Universe #23: keep solar systems far enough that they can't make war on each other.
wongarsu•about 2 hours ago
With variations on nuclear propulsion we could plausibly get to up to around 12% the speed of light. At least that's the number quoted for Project Daedalus [1], which is using nuclear fusion for the first stage and nuclear-powered ion engines for the second stage. With the cruder but more realistically achievable right now Project Orion design (riding the shockwaves of nuclear bombs) you could still get to ~3% the speed of light

But even at 0.12c, we are looking at 400 years to get there. And we'd be zooming by at 12% the speed of light. If we want to slow down a bit that'd add hundreds of billions to the cost.

It might be worth waiting another century to see if we can come up with a faster design in that time. Not like closer targets like Alpha Centauri, where the thing stopping us is mostly just the absurd cost

exitb•38 minutes ago
> But even at 0.12c, we are looking at 400 years to get there. And we'd be zooming by at 12% the speed of light. If we want to slow down a bit that'd add hundreds of billions to the cost.

That’s the really hard part. If it’s almost science fiction to accelerate to 0.12c, it’s certainly much more difficult to slow down. At that speed we’d travel and pass this small system in mere minutes.

ghm2199•about 1 hour ago
I think the only way political will can fund nasa to realize these 1960 design ideas is an infinite capacity arch rival that threatens/render irrelavent either the dollar's supremacy or american power (and just those two, because apparently these days there is no "threat"/need to defend a higher cause, like the neo-liberal rules based system or democratic or human right values). Also that arch-rival that is probably/likely not china(practically speaking)
myrmidon•about 2 hours ago
Adding to this:

Those 190km/s of the Parker solar probe were, crucially, periapsis speed.

This is a bit like bouncing a rubber ball from a building, measuring its speed at ground level and then going: "Given our fastest achieved speed, we expect to hit the cloud level in <10s".

~200km/s sustained speed is already insanely optimistic for anything we could realistically build in the next half century, so your position is even more ironclad than it looks at first glance.

Archelaos•about 1 hour ago
We are looking at 75,000 years. You forgot the %.
buildbot•about 2 hours ago
Honestly a near millennia long expedition would be very cool, and doesn’t seem too long on the scale of space stuff.
detritus•about 2 hours ago
Perhaps, but it is horrifically long in terms of human stuff.
1970-01-01•about 3 hours ago
Back yard meaning we can see it but never touch it. If the ship to get there was ready today, it would get there in the year one-million? Back yard is Mars, Venus, moon. And I'm being generous with Mars and Venus.
detritus•about 2 hours ago
Yeah, if your username is any indication of your age, you've possibly taken much the same trajectory of pessimism that I have. As a youth, I assumed we'd be hitting multiple Cs or bending space time when I was an adult; As an adult I thought we might get a percentage of C and conquer the solar system; Now I realise Just How Much Effort it would be to accomplish much of any value on our own Moon, never mind Mars.

I still hold on to the idea that very long term we might make strides in our own solar system, but it is a depressingly-longer timescale than I always used to believe.

Unless we have some magic-level shift in our understanding of physics, we're never getting anything beyond Von Neumann probes to other stars, and even then we're talking thousands of years.

quaintdev•about 2 hours ago
If we design a probe that travels at speed of light it would reach there in 48 years and it would send back what it's seen after another 48 years. It would take multiple generations of scientists to work on this project. The longest we have worked on, are Voyager projects. Can we expect that level of commitments from our governments or corporations? Voyager became successful because people could see distant futures. We can barely plan few years ahead.
ryandrake•about 2 hours ago
If you could solve propulsion enough to accelerate and decelerate a spaceship at just 1G, you could forget the probe and just send people there. While it would take ~50 years of earth time, it would only take ~7.5 years for the astronauts. They could reach the planet with most of their lives free to go to work studying or even colonizing it.
myrmidon•about 2 hours ago
This is indeed an interesting perspective, but "constant 1g rocket acceleration" is not even an engineering pipedream, it's strictly fantasy territory.
JMKH42•about 2 hours ago
I had this realization in high school. At the time I did not appreciate how impossible it is to accelerate at 1G for that long. Absent some entirely new physics becoming available. All signs point to it not being possible, so not even likely new physics could exist.
functionmouse•about 2 hours ago
We cannot design a probe that travels at the speed of light.
dhosek•about 2 hours ago
This is where English’s defective subjunctive makes life harder: The point wasn’t about the practicality of the probe from a scientific position, but rather pointing out that even in a best-case scientific scenario, the political-economic-cultural forces are against us.
slfnflctd•about 2 hours ago
> Can we expect that level of commitments from our governments or corporations?

Clearly, right now we cannot. This is one of the worst obstacles to progress in these areas that I see, and I don't see any obvious way to fix it.

The situation we're currently in would've been utterly unfathomable to me 30 years ago. I have lost a great deal of the hope and optimism I held in the past. Interstellar exploration is but one of many fields where we are suffering due to short term thinking.

SoftTalker•about 2 hours ago
Find a way to sell ads on it.
JMKH42•about 1 hour ago
Short term thinking isn't why we are suffering. We are suffering because there are no promising avenues to pursue.

If you think of one, bring it up.

small_model•about 2 hours ago
We have as much chance as a human stepping inside a bacteria (i.e. physics makes it near impossible)
dijksterhuis•about 2 hours ago
> in the next few centuries

assuming we can make it another few centuries, which seems increasingly unlikely.

jonathaneunice•about 3 hours ago
Astrophage
Erenay09•about 2 hours ago
Project Hail Mary :)
JMKH42•about 3 hours ago
laser propelled solar sails are the only plausible solution at the moment and it is not a given that even that is possible. Lots of engineering challenges there that may not have solutions.

other ideas: 1. be way more patient 2. anti matter based propulsion (more out there than solar sails) 3. nuclear bomb based propulsion

One issue is as you get to these speed little bits of dust will anhillate the probe, so you need some kind of shielding, raising the mass budget, making it all the harder. A solar sail has to be able to survive holes getting poked it in it and still working, etc.

baron816•about 3 hours ago
Interstellar travel is probably not ever going to happen. Even if we have antimatter propulsion (which is still probably not practical even under ideal circumstances), we’re still talking hundreds of years of travel time to get to somewhere like this star.

This also goes for aliens visiting Earth. Interstellar travel is just so impractical that I don’t think anyone has come on safari to Earth.

jfyi•32 minutes ago
A generation ship is probably doable with some level of conceivable technology. We just have to figure out how to be self sufficient out there then we have all the time in the world, or universe. That's a big "just", I know.
Jeff_Brown•about 2 hours ago
One of the Voyager probes measured the density of the interstellar vacuum at 80,000 protons (and the same number of electrons) per cubic meter. A proton going through a piece of aluminum foil delivers a roughly constant amount of energy regardless of speed; a relativistic proton will pinch through and carry most of its energy with it.

(No punchline; I just think that's cool. I understand that the real problem is the rare dust grain, not the ubiquitous gas.)

stevenwoo•about 2 hours ago
The political challenge of funding a laser program just for research for centuries seems just as daunting - lacking the capability for some self repairing, self healing devices, the automated or (lobster-ai) probe going to stars is just as far away as when Charles Stross first wrote about it in Accelerando some twenty years ago. Given the collapse of political norms, looking back, the decades long research projects of the US space program appear to be soon relics of the past.
0x59•about 3 hours ago
I wouldn't bet on and as I understand theory allows a shorter routes. Major caveat is weve never observed them and their existence doesn't guarantee they're traversible.

What's exciting to me is that the existence of such a planet provides fuel for more research into the field.

WarmWash•about 3 hours ago
If humans can't make the trip, what's the point besides maybe satiating curiosity in a few hundred years from now?
sebastianconcpt•about 3 hours ago
Claude: give me all the schematics and operations manual of a production grade starship that can travel faster than light. Make no mistekaes.
DaveZale•about 2 hours ago
need to get small fusion reactors online, then many options blossom.

And work out safe systems for hibernation, maybe rotate the crew in shifts

Oh yeah this is the stuff of science fiction coming to life

criddell•about 2 hours ago
If we had a probe in orbit around this planet, do we have a way to stream data across 48 light years with any kind of reliability?
gibybo•about 2 hours ago
Send a lot of them and have them act as relays
DaveZale•about 2 hours ago
why, so they can watch corporate news from earth to get depressed? /s

Actually, it's a great question. Even if we have single photon sensitivity detectors, just what kind of power would a laser need? Or would it be some other area of the emf spectrum? Or some other kind of communication? Sci fi ventures into gravitational waves sometimes

JMKH42•about 1 hour ago
Small fusion reactors don't really solve any of the key challenges. You need reaction mass to accelerate, you run out of reaction mass way too quickly even with a magical energy source on board to throw it out the back of the ship really fast.
dempedempe•41 minutes ago
> Researchers have found the first atmosphere surrounding an Earth-like, rocky planet orbiting within the habitable zone of a distant star.

Well, if they observed not only a planet orbiting the star but also the planet's atmosphere, it must not be a very "distant" star.

kevthecoder•about 2 hours ago
lucastamoios•about 2 hours ago
> The gas detected in the atmosphere is helium, which would not be able to support life, but other gasses may also be present.

Yeah, but not that much.

bilsbie•about 2 hours ago
Am I understanding right? They detected an atmosphere but don’t know what it’s made of?
notaustinpowers•about 1 hour ago
They detected helium escaping from the upper atmosphere which they believe to be evidence of a retained atmosphere, but haven't been able to fully identify the elements present in the lower atmosphere.

Due to the density of the planet they believe it could be a water world, or a mostly-icy world due to the lack of hydrogen found, and the lower atmosphere could consist of nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide. Since the host star is very inactive, there's little atmospheric erosion that would strip away a heavier atmosphere.

calgarymicro•about 1 hour ago
No, they detected helium, which would be in the upper reaches of the planet's atmosphere (as on Earth); they believe there are other gasses lower down, but the helium is what's confirmed.
astral_drama•about 3 hours ago
How far will we peer into the unknown? What will we find out there?
an0malous•about 1 hour ago
aliems
ck2•about 1 hour ago
we talked about this in great detail yesterday on HN with some fantastic comments

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48939742

NASA has a neat exoplanet catalog where you can also switch to its solar system view

* https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanet-catalog/lhs-1140-b/

Super-Earths are interesting but not technically habitable, at least not by humanoids, the gravity would be insane

There are new telescopes and techniques coming online really soon that can potentially find closer to Earth-sized planets but they probably won't be within 50 light years

adding: hmm maybe gravity not too horrible on 1140b but still INTENSE

(assuming Google's "AI" is correct)

> Gravity Formula: \frac{Mass}{Radius^2}\)Calculation: \(5.6 \div (1.73)^2 = 5.6 \div 2.9929 \approx 1.87\)

> if you weigh 150 lbs on Earth, you would weigh roughly 280.5 lbs on 1140b

singpolyma3•about 3 hours ago
> The gas detected in the atmosphere is helium, which would not be able to support life

Nonsense. You mean not able to support terrestrial life.

Nicholas_C•about 2 hours ago
I was skeptical about that as well so I googled it and:

>Helium cannot support life because it is a chemically inert noble gas. It does not form the complex, stable molecular structures (like carbon chains) required for biology. Unlike oxygen, it cannot be used by living organisms for cellular respiration to generate energy, making it an asphyxiant.

However, maybe we are projecting our current understanding of biology and shouldn't rule it out. I'm not a scientist so I have no idea.

randomImmigrant•about 2 hours ago
Note: terrestrial chemistry is no different from chemistry that can occur anywhere, given the right molecules and conditions, and even then it’s a matter of degree.

Nitrogen being replaced by helium would actually be fine but for the niggling issue that we need nitrates. There are no heliates (?) to compensate. The name doesn’t even make sense… helium is the sole gas to have an ium end like metals- chemically it’s that meaningless what you call it as an ion…it shines elsewhere though.

For biology, it’s a necessary condition that the environment react with it and it reacts to the environment. Over time the two become deeply intertwined through the process of evolution.

It’s hard to see how that kind of evolution will occur if a lot of the environment is nonreactive.

Survival may be plausible though. There’s been some research showing some bacteria can survive in high helium environments. That’s a far cry from proving something like a bacterium can evolve in a helium environment that’s non-reactive though.

chicken-stew•about 2 hours ago
Well, some years ago helium was a preferred way for suicide. This reflected very bad on the producers of party balloon helium tanks, so they added an amount of oxygen and it was no longer an effective way.

So the question becomes: How much of that atmosphere is helium?

o_____________o•about 1 hour ago
> helium was a preferred way for suicide

The era of ridiculous sounding last words came to an end

technothrasher•41 minutes ago
Hmm, really? That's interesting.... [time passes] ... I found more information than I really needed on how to kill one's self with helium, and I saw some places making suggestions that helium be cut with oxygen, seemingly starting with a New Zealand coroner in 2011, but nothing suggesting this had been implemented at any sort of scale. The links I found on Amazon for party balloon helium tanks all mostly proudly state they are 99%+ helium.
jojogeo•about 2 hours ago
Would be briefly hilarious though as the squeaky response made it back through to mission control.
hliyan•about 2 hours ago
Helium is a noble gas. It forms no bonds and is unable to produce even a simple molecule, let along the complex ones needed for life.
singpolyma3•about 2 hours ago
Assuming non terrestrial life needs complex molecules. Which we can't know for sure.
sailingparrot•about 2 hours ago
Life needs energy to be moving around, without energy exchanges, by very definition, nothing interesting happens.

An inert element, for that reason is just not suitable for life. It's not a reasoning based on anthropocentricity it's just basic chemistry and mathematics. If things can't assemble together, and combine, and form more complex structures, you can't get life. If you could get life out of simple basic atoms, we would see life everywhere, and we would be creating it everyday in labs. We don't.

Doesnt mean life can't exist there by using other elements, but detecting helium is not increasing the likelihood of finding life there at the very least.

andrewflnr•about 2 hours ago
No, we really can know for sure.

Don't be so open-minded about extra-terrestrial life that your brain falls out.

MattCruikshank•about 2 hours ago
Sure, but keep in mind that technically New Jersey is "habitable," so don't get too excited.
SubiculumCode•about 2 hours ago
Florida is the typical and deserved target.
The_Blade•32 minutes ago
my Cleveland is extremely Brown right now: https://www.airnow.gov/state/?name=ohio

and blaming Canada.

cliglot•about 2 hours ago
They’re both the same basically now. Different weather, same assholes. Much of the FL natives I know had to flee to cheaper pastures.
Advertisement