NASA Announces 1,284 New Exoplanets

[Elheru Aran]

FTL or even near-FTL is a boondoggle anyway; the only thing that we need to be realistically concerned with, as far as space travel goes, is in-system exploration... and even that is probably at least a century away. We're more likely to start building orbital habitats (small ones) and Moon bases before then. The fact of the matter is that the only thing that's really going to drive expansion of the human race into space is the population reaching critical levels, and that'll take a while yet (depending on your interpretation of what is 'critical'). The cost is simply too high for the great majority of the world otherwise.

[Broomstick]

Maybe it's just me but I don't really see how we are ever supposed to "go into space" when it comes to stuff further out than our own solar system. I mean, even assuming we solve all the myriad of myriads of problems associated with long distance space travel and somehow find the money to what than? What use is there of a colony of 50 people on a place that is decades away in terms of radio delay? I just don't really see any practical way to expand into space by colonizing planets.

Well, there is the notion that by sending colonies to distant planets we will decrease the chances of our species being entirely wiped out by some cosmic accident, lethal plague, etc.

We're not going to ever transport millions of colonists out to another planet, any more than Europe ever exported 300,000,000 people to North America. What would happen was a small number of people (and possibly stored sperm/ova/zygotes) would be shipped out and the increase in numbers would come from old fashioned reproduction once the founders get out there.

At present (and perhaps forever) this would only be possible after being able to develop truly long term self-sustaining space habitats. It would presumably be after we expanded into our own solar system, which would also reduce the chances of our species being wiped out by a cosmic accident, etc.

Meanwhile, this is basic science research and not directed towards any immediate goal. Yes, it's easy to shrug and say it's not relevant, but a lot of modern tech has grown out of what was once basic research and "useless" knowledge.

[Knife]

Indeed. That another continent existed really didn't help the Neanderthal's. It would take thousands of years of walking or thousands of years of creating civilizations that could build boats to go to the other continent.

That being said, NASA needs a swift kick in the ass and get out of LEO we've been stuck in for 40 something years.

[jwl]

Maybe it's just me but I don't really see how we are ever supposed to "go into space" when it comes to stuff further out than our own solar system. I mean, even assuming we solve all the myriad of myriads of problems associated with long distance space travel and somehow find the money to what than? What use is there of a colony of 50 people on a place that is decades away in terms of radio delay? I just don't really see any practical way to expand into space by colonizing planets.

Space travel isn't the only potential future application though. For example, if telescopes get good enough in the future to e.g. tell detailed atmospheric composition and temperature, studing exoplanets might give us additional data points to tell us things about our own. There are only so much you can work out from looking at Mars and Venus. At that point, we might be able to use that knowledge for geoengineering and even terraforming.

[jwl]

Maybe it's just me but I don't really see how we are ever supposed to "go into space" when it comes to stuff further out than our own solar system. I mean, even assuming we solve all the myriad of myriads of problems associated with long distance space travel and somehow find the money to what than? What use is there of a colony of 50 people on a place that is decades away in terms of radio delay? I just don't really see any practical way to expand into space by colonizing planets.

Well, there is the notion that by sending colonies to distant planets we will decrease the chances of our species being entirely wiped out by some cosmic accident, lethal plague, etc.

I don't really buy that. If you can make a self-sustaining colony on another planet you can do the same on earth for much cheaper and it would be able to survive pretty much the same things. For example plague. Make an airtight self-sustaining colony on earth where only the "crew" are allowed in (like you would have on another planet) and normal earth diseases can't spread there. Allow it to work in low light conditions (like on Mars) and it could survive an impact winter.

[Broomstick]

Planet-killer impact events are best survived by being on a different planet than the one impacted.

And yes, you could have a self-contained "colony" on Earth itself, but by setting up shop on another planet entirely you have additional time and distance as a barrier.

It's one solution, not the only one.

[Ralin]

And redundancy is a good thing, from a "guaranteeing survival" perspective.

[Zixinus]

The problem with going to another worlds like Mars is that they are fundamentally uninhabitable. They do not even have magnetic fields to protect them from solar wind and charged particle radiation. Building habitats on them will require complete self-sustainment which is going to be a mayor undertaking when something as basic as water will be hard to get. It would be easier to build them on less-habitable parts of Earth (which we are producing fairly well) than on another planet. Terraforming them, if even possible, will be a centuries-long undertaking of well-paved solarsystem. There is no way to offload millions of people, or even hundreds of millions, on such worlds.

[Knife]

So, you're saying we shouldn't go somewhere because it's too hard? Seems counter intuitive to human nature.

[Terralthra]

There's no particular reason to settle other worlds, and many reasons not to. Long-term, it's much easier to build self-contained, self-sustaining space colonies and orbit them wherever you need.

[Broomstick]

The problem with going to another worlds like Mars is that they are fundamentally uninhabitable. They do not even have magnetic fields to protect them from solar wind and charged particle radiation. Building habitats on them will require complete self-sustainment which is going to be a mayor undertaking when something as basic as water will be hard to get.

You would not build them ON Mars, you'd build them IN Mars, underground, where the soil can protect you from radiation.

And yes, a completely self-contained environment is a challenge. What the hell do you think long-term bases on Antarctica and the long-term missions on the various space stations have been about?

It would be easier to build them on less-habitable parts of Earth (which we are producing fairly well) than on another planet. Terraforming them, if even possible, will be a centuries-long undertaking of well-paved solarsystem. There is no way to offload millions of people, or even hundreds of millions, on such worlds.

The point is not to offload millions of people, it's to "offload" a small population that can serve as a lifeboat for the human race.

Terraforming would probably take centuries, if possible at all. So what? Human beings have undertaken multi-generational projects before - as an example, many cathedrals in Europe were finished by the children or grandchildren of the people who started the buildings.

To quote the late President John F. Kennedy:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

You know, sailing out of sight of land, across oceans, was hard. Humans did it anyway.

Space is hard. We're still doing it 54 years later. We'll keep doing it barring a collapse of civilization. Life isn't about things being easy, it's about overcoming the hard stuff.

There's no particular reason to settle other worlds, and many reasons not to. Long-term, it's much easier to build self-contained, self-sustaining space colonies and orbit them wherever you need.

Well, planets have gravity which may be necessary for long term health over a life span, and a lot of dirt to use as radiation shielding. But I suppose you could use things like asteroids.

[SpottedKitty]

Right now, we don't know how we might be able to do it. We might not always not know. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out?

"Not because they are easy, but because they are hard" is just as true today as it was in 1962.

[Knife]

Gravity and access to some natural resources are always going to trump the 'space colony' bit. Even if you can't breath outside of either, you can go outside in Mar's and mine some ice, iron, various chemicals, that you just can't do in space.

[Zixinus]

So, you're saying we shouldn't go somewhere because it's too hard?

Not at all. I'm simply saying that it will not be a solution to overpopulation problem as "send the excess off here".
That would be somewhat possible if there was FTL and with planets that are already habitable more or less.

Creating space colonies, on planets or in, will be simply step made in order to gain more access to the solar system's resources.

You would not build them ON Mars, you'd build them IN Mars, underground, where the soil can protect you from radiation.

I know, I'm just pointing out that Mars will always be less habitable than Earth. See above about the rest of your post.

[Terralthra]

There's no particular reason to settle other worlds, and many reasons not to. Long-term, it's much easier to build self-contained, self-sustaining space colonies and orbit them wherever you need.

Well, planets have gravity which may be necessary for long term health over a life span, and a lot of dirt to use as radiation shielding. But I suppose you could use things like asteroids.

Rotating habitats solve gravity, living on the inside of a big steel and concrete habitat solves radiation shielding for the most part.

Gravity and access to some natural resources are always going to trump the 'space colony' bit. Even if you can't breath outside of either, you can go outside in Mar's and mine some ice, iron, various chemicals, that you just can't do in space.

You can go outside in space to harness asteroids and comets. And you can also send drones out to grab either and nudge them into orbits that intersect yours.

Gravity (and atmosphere) is also a great reason not to colonize planets. Fully half of the delta-v necessary to get to Mars from Earth is just getting to LEO.

[Guardsman Bass]

Habitats will go wherever other mission imperatives (exploration, economic/industry, etc) require people, even if it's not an ideal place to put them. It's not like real-life settlements were in the best possible places either.

Because of that, I would bet on Mars before orbital habitats. There's no economic basis for building them yet other than "people with the necessary money want to live there", and those folks are outnumbered by the folks who want to try out a Mars colony first. And at least with the Mars colony you don't need to invent a bunch of microgravity mining/processing/manufacturing techniques quite yet, making ISRU easier.

[jwl]

To quote the late President John F. Kennedy:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

You know, sailing out of sight of land, across oceans, was hard. Humans did it anyway.

Space is hard. We're still doing it 54 years later. We'll keep doing it barring a collapse of civilization. Life isn't about things being easy, it's about overcoming the hard stuff.

The question isn't about whether people are going to do it anyway, the question is whether a colony on Mars is an efficient way of "civilisation backup", as opposed to one on earth or even the free-floating space colonies Terralthra mentioned.

Gravity and access to some natural resources are always going to trump the 'space colony' bit. Even if you can't breath outside of either, you can go outside in Mar's and mine some ice, iron, various chemicals, that you just can't do in space.

Why is gravity an advantage? All it means is that you need a huge amount of fuel to haul any resources off-planet, and the gravity of the planet pulls all the valuable heavy elements to the core. That's why asteroids, not planets, are the future of commercial space stuff.

[Ralin]

Why is gravity an advantage?

It's useful for things like "Having bones." Lack of gravity causes all sorts of potential health problems, and we're probably just scratching the surface of them.

[Broomstick]

Not at all. I'm simply saying that it will not be a solution to overpopulation problem as "send the excess off here".

Um... who said anything about an overpopulation solution? I certainly didn't!

There's no particular reason to settle other worlds, and many reasons not to. Long-term, it's much easier to build self-contained, self-sustaining space colonies and orbit them wherever you need.

Well, planets have gravity which may be necessary for long term health over a life span, and a lot of dirt to use as radiation shielding. But I suppose you could use things like asteroids.

Rotating habitats solve gravity, living on the inside of a big steel and concrete habitat solves radiation shielding for the most part.

Rotating a large object imposes significant stresses and will require constant maintenance and a supply of fuel to remain stable.

And you need a LOT of steel + concrete to provide adequate shielding, and additionally a planet with an atmosphere - even one as tenuous as Mars - provides some protection from impact with stuff that's floating up there, because the "vacuum" of space is actually somewhat dirty. It's not perfect protection, but it is some.

Now, what you say about the problems of leaving a gravity well do carry some weight (ha-ha) but it's not the only factor.

Why is gravity an advantage? All it means is that you need a huge amount of fuel to haul any resources off-planet, and the gravity of the planet pulls all the valuable heavy elements to the core. That's why asteroids, not planets, are the future of commercial space stuff.

Gravity is an "advantage" because it seems to be required for long-term human health. On average, people lose 1-2% of their bone mass each month they live in space. Some individuals on long-term missions have lost 1/5 of their bone mass. That is despite mandated exercise on equipment designed to impose stress on the body. Astronauts can take 2-3 years to recover the bone mass lost in 3-4 months in space, and at some point there's likely to be a point of no return. This greatly increases the risk of fracture, including fractures of things like the lumbar vertebrae, which can be crippling in effect. That's in adults - no one knows what the effect would be in growing children but it's pretty clear from medical studies and histories down here on the ground that imposing stress like standing on bones is required for normal limb development in people. Heart muscle atrophies in microgravity. There's probably other problems, but I don't want to turn this into a book.

So yes, it's an issue that a lot of fuel is required to leave a planetary surface but all the advantages of simply staying in microgravity mean little if living there is incompatible with long-term survival of human beings, or is incompatible with normal (or even viable) human development from infancy onward.

[Terralthra]

Well, planets have gravity which may be necessary for long term health over a life span, and a lot of dirt to use as radiation shielding. But I suppose you could use things like asteroids.

Rotating habitats solve gravity, living on the inside of a big steel and concrete habitat solves radiation shielding for the most part.

Rotating a large object imposes significant stresses and will require constant maintenance and a supply of fuel to remain stable.

Really? What's the fuel source for the Earth's rotation? It seems to be pretty stable, having only slowed by 1 part in nearly 90,000,000 over the past century.

And you need a LOT of steel + concrete to provide adequate shielding, and additionally a planet with an atmosphere - even one as tenuous as Mars - provides some protection from impact with stuff that's floating up there, because the "vacuum" of space is actually somewhat dirty. It's not perfect protection, but it is some.

Now, what you say about the problems of leaving a gravity well do carry some weight (ha-ha) but it's not the only factor.

A lot compared to what? How much concrete and steel do you need to protect humans from radiation on Mars? Effectively no magnetic field, no ozone layer, no thick atmosphere, means that Mars' surface is nearly as prone to cosmic rays as circumterran space.

Why is gravity an advantage? All it means is that you need a huge amount of fuel to haul any resources off-planet, and the gravity of the planet pulls all the valuable heavy elements to the core. That's why asteroids, not planets, are the future of commercial space stuff.

Gravity is an "advantage" because it seems to be required for long-term human health. On average, people lose 1-2% of their bone mass each month they live in space. Some individuals on long-term missions have lost 1/5 of their bone mass. That is despite mandated exercise on equipment designed to impose stress on the body. Astronauts can take 2-3 years to recover the bone mass lost in 3-4 months in space, and at some point there's likely to be a point of no return. This greatly increases the risk of fracture, including fractures of things like the lumbar vertebrae, which can be crippling in effect. That's in adults - no one knows what the effect would be in growing children but it's pretty clear from medical studies and histories down here on the ground that imposing stress like standing on bones is required for normal limb development in people. Heart muscle atrophies in microgravity. There's probably other problems, but I don't want to turn this into a book.

So yes, it's an issue that a lot of fuel is required to leave a planetary surface but all the advantages of simply staying in microgravity mean little if living there is incompatible with long-term survival of human beings, or is incompatible with normal (or even viable) human development from infancy onward.

Heart muscles and bones atrophy in freefall, yes, but again, there's no reason habs have to have freefall internally. Habitats designed to rotate to provide apparent gravity were designed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and no real questions have been brought up about the practically or efficacy of the designs. I recommend (as I always do) reading The High Frontier, by Gerard K. O'Neill.

[Broomstick]

Really? What's the fuel source for the Earth's rotation? It seems to be pretty stable, having only slowed by 1 part in nearly 90,000,000 over the past century.

A planet is not an artificially constructed habitat in space. There's no way we're going to replicate the stability of a large planet's rotation in a relatively small space habitat.

A lot compared to what? How much concrete and steel do you need to protect humans from radiation on Mars? Effectively no magnetic field, no ozone layer, no thick atmosphere, means that Mars' surface is nearly as prone to cosmic rays as circumterran space.

The difference between Mars and outer space is that you can burrow into the Martian surface, dig down a hundred feet if you want/need to do, or utilize a natural cave system, or expand one. In space you have to construct all that covering. On a planet's surface you can burrow into a mountain and thus put a kilometer of rock over your head pretty quickly.

Heart muscles and bones atrophy in freefall, yes, but again, there's no reason habs have to have freefall internally. Habitats designed to rotate to provide apparent gravity were designed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and no real questions have been brought up about the practically or efficacy of the designs. I recommend (as I always do) reading The High Frontier, by Gerard K. O'Neill.

Have any of them ever been built?

How well are people going to deal with the coriolis forces inherent in an artificial, rotating space habitat? I'd feel a lot more secure about promoting that solution if we had any real-world experience of it at all. Maybe we should build a few, see how they work out, see how compatible they are with people. So far, though, not one has been built that I'm aware of.

[Purple]

Honestly I think I need to ask the obvious question. A solution for what? Life is not about overcoming difficulty for the sake of doing so. It's about a pursuit of happiness that involves overcoming difficulties that stand in the way of that pursuit. So what is the realistic motivation that could produce any of these things?

[Knife]

So, you're saying we shouldn't go somewhere because it's too hard?

Not at all. I'm simply saying that it will not be a solution to overpopulation problem as "send the excess off here".
That would be somewhat possible if there was FTL and with planets that are already habitable more or less.

Fair enough. It's not a solution, at this point, to over population.

Really? What's the fuel source for the Earth's rotation? It seems to be pretty stable, having only slowed by 1 part in nearly 90,000,000 over the past century.

Please, we know adjustments will have to be made. The ISS needs thrusters to adjust it's position in orbit due to drag on crap floating up there and it isn't even spinning causing torque on the structure. Even in higher orbit, there is still some stuff floating, including just hydrogen atoms, to slowly build up drag and any station would need to adjust from time to time. Is it a huge issue? No, but lets no pretend it isn't there.

A lot compared to what? How much concrete and steel do you need to protect humans from radiation on Mars? Effectively no magnetic field, no ozone layer, no thick atmosphere, means that Mars' surface is nearly as prone to cosmic rays as circumterran space.

The thing is, you can go outside and have cubic meters of Martian dirt all around you to dig into for shielding. Hell, it was already delivered to you, some assembly required but no transportation costs. It's all right there for you.

Heart muscles and bones atrophy in freefall, yes, but again, there's no reason habs have to have freefall internally. Habitats designed to rotate to provide apparent gravity were designed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and no real questions have been brought up about the practically or efficacy of the designs. I recommend (as I always do) reading The High Frontier, by Gerard K. O'Neill.

Granted, I really want them to start experimenting on this. Things like the Bigalow inflatable habs are really important. The rotating hab on the now defunct Nautilus would have been a good way to experiment with this. I read at one point they were going to put on on the ISS but can't find anything about it any more. That said, the biggest reason they want to try it is because no one knows exactly what would be the best size and rotation to do this. We really don't know at what speed and what radius will be 'normal' for a human. Yes we know at what speed and what radius is one gee, but no idea what other affects, if any, there are let alone with different sizes and speeds.

[jwl]

Why is gravity an advantage? All it means is that you need a huge amount of fuel to haul any resources off-planet, and the gravity of the planet pulls all the valuable heavy elements to the core. That's why asteroids, not planets, are the future of commercial space stuff.

Gravity is an "advantage" because it seems to be required for long-term human health. On average, people lose 1-2% of their bone mass each month they live in space. Some individuals on long-term missions have lost 1/5 of their bone mass. That is despite mandated exercise on equipment designed to impose stress on the body. Astronauts can take 2-3 years to recover the bone mass lost in 3-4 months in space, and at some point there's likely to be a point of no return. This greatly increases the risk of fracture, including fractures of things like the lumbar vertebrae, which can be crippling in effect. That's in adults - no one knows what the effect would be in growing children but it's pretty clear from medical studies and histories down here on the ground that imposing stress like standing on bones is required for normal limb development in people. Heart muscle atrophies in microgravity. There's probably other problems, but I don't want to turn this into a book.

So yes, it's an issue that a lot of fuel is required to leave a planetary surface but all the advantages of simply staying in microgravity mean little if living there is incompatible with long-term survival of human beings, or is incompatible with normal (or even viable) human development from infancy onward.

Bone mass under normal conditions degrades at such as speed that without solving this problem people would struggle getting to mars anyway.

Incidentally, this problem is almost solved, or at least much closer to being solved than the problem of hauling stuff out of a planet's gravity well. See this:

Here's the paper he was looking at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .1647/epdf

[Terralthra]

Really? What's the fuel source for the Earth's rotation? It seems to be pretty stable, having only slowed by 1 part in nearly 90,000,000 over the past century.

A planet is not an artificially constructed habitat in space. There's no way we're going to replicate the stability of a large planet's rotation in a relatively small space habitat.

Because...? I really don't understand here. Space is a near vacuum, and the habitats I'm talking about will mass in the tens of billions of tonnes. What's going to stop them spinning once started?

A lot compared to what? How much concrete and steel do you need to protect humans from radiation on Mars? Effectively no magnetic field, no ozone layer, no thick atmosphere, means that Mars' surface is nearly as prone to cosmic rays as circumterran space.

The difference between Mars and outer space is that you can burrow into the Martian surface, dig down a hundred feet if you want/need to do, or utilize a natural cave system, or expand one. In space you have to construct all that covering. On a planet's surface you can burrow into a mountain and thus put a kilometer of rock over your head pretty quickly.

Excavating an underground complex is a huge expenditure of energy that must be generated, and since there's no fossil fuel reserve on Mars, you have to bring all that energy with you. Yet more rocket ships from Earth. Then growing food underground is a huge expenditure of energy, ongoing. Load up the rockets, Sally, the people on Mars need to eat.

Space habitats have near-unlimited energy from solar arrays absorbing constant sunlight, and can grow food in near-ideal conditions year-round.

Heart muscles and bones atrophy in freefall, yes, but again, there's no reason habs have to have freefall internally. Habitats designed to rotate to provide apparent gravity were designed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and no real questions have been brought up about the practically or efficacy of the designs. I recommend (as I always do) reading The High Frontier, by Gerard K. O'Neill.

Have any of them ever been built?

I'm pretty sure that you'd know if a 20 kilometer-long space habitat was orbiting in L4 or L5.

How well are people going to deal with the coriolis forces inherent in an artificial, rotating space habitat? I'd feel a lot more secure about promoting that solution if we had any real-world experience of it at all. Maybe we should build a few, see how they work out, see how compatible they are with people. So far, though, not one has been built that I'm aware of.

There have been lots and lots of research on how humans deal with coriolis force on the levels we're talking about. O'Neill discusses them, at length, in the book he wrote on the topic. Maybe, if you're curious about space habitats and the practical problems thereof, you could try picking up the book and reading it instead of asking me to explain it to you.

Really? What's the fuel source for the Earth's rotation? It seems to be pretty stable, having only slowed by 1 part in nearly 90,000,000 over the past century.

Please, we know adjustments will have to be made. The ISS needs thrusters to adjust it's position in orbit due to drag on crap floating up there and it isn't even spinning causing torque on the structure. Even in higher orbit, there is still some stuff floating, including just hydrogen atoms, to slowly build up drag and any station would need to adjust from time to time. Is it a huge issue? No, but lets no pretend it isn't there.

The ISS needs station-keeping because it's literally in Earth's atmosphere. All proposed long-term space habitats would orbit L4/L5. Is it going to slowly build up drag? Sure, miniscule amounts. If the largest concern you can really raise regarding space habitats is eventual hydrogen atom drag slowing down the tens-of-billions-of-tonnes cylinder, maybe it's time to pack up the argument.

A lot compared to what? How much concrete and steel do you need to protect humans from radiation on Mars? Effectively no magnetic field, no ozone layer, no thick atmosphere, means that Mars' surface is nearly as prone to cosmic rays as circumterran space.

The thing is, you can go outside and have cubic meters of Martian dirt all around you to dig into for shielding. Hell, it was already delivered to you, some assembly required but no transportation costs. It's all right there for you.

See above. Building an entire complex underground for colonization is a massive energy expenditure, and that expenditure is ongoing, since you then have to provide light to all the plants you're growing for food.

Heart muscles and bones atrophy in freefall, yes, but again, there's no reason habs have to have freefall internally. Habitats designed to rotate to provide apparent gravity were designed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and no real questions have been brought up about the practically or efficacy of the designs. I recommend (as I always do) reading The High Frontier, by Gerard K. O'Neill.

Granted, I really want them to start experimenting on this. Things like the Bigalow inflatable habs are really important. The rotating hab on the now defunct Nautilus would have been a good way to experiment with this. I read at one point they were going to put on on the ISS but can't find anything about it any more. That said, the biggest reason they want to try it is because no one knows exactly what would be the best size and rotation to do this. We really don't know at what speed and what radius will be 'normal' for a human. Yes we know at what speed and what radius is one gee, but no idea what other affects, if any, there are let alone with different sizes and speeds.

There have been studies done on coriolis force and centrifugal forces' effects on the human body. Many of those findings are summed up in the book I already mentioned, which should be required reading before entering this debate. These issues have already been brought up and debated, literally before everyone in this conversation save perhaps Broomstick were born. Before you try to poke holes and nitpick, maybe read the fuckin' books?