NASA confirms super-Earth that could hold life

[Githyanki]

I'm sure, 20,000 years from now our descendants will colonize it without the thought it was the first exo-planet to be Earth-like; even the thought, "Earth-like" will have no meaning for them as they will probably have been born from a place not of Earth nor would they have any knowledge of Earth.

[iquestor]

I saw this release a few days ago. I'm not that excited about Kepler-22b. It's 600 light years away. Until we figure out a way to fold space-time, we aren't going to be traveling there to confirm whether or not if this planet can support life. I was much more intrigued by the discovery of planets in the Gliese 581 system that could possibly contain life. Gliese 581 is only 20 light years away. There's a chance of us actually being able to view this system in our lifetimes.

We can at least analyze the atmosphere (if it exists) of 22b and if there is life its very possible we can tell from this analysis.
as far as G581 -- 20 light years is as bad as 600. There is no way we will go or send a probe to 581 (or even Alpha C) in the next 50-75 years unless we are the recipient of alien technology, or we make a giant breakthrough in warp drives. I'd be very surprised if humans themselves make it past mars in the next 50, or 100 for that matter. which is sad to me.

[Extrasolar]

If this planet is more massive than Earth then the surface air pressure should also be higher. Doesn't that increase the boiling point of water? If "habitable zone" is defined as a liquid water zone then the zone should depend on the mass of the planet also. I would say the more massive the planet is the further away from the sun will its habitable zone be.

Excellent point. Not to mention the effect of radioactive decay within the planet or other internal mechanisms. Crust thickness, planet density. Someone needs to come up with the equation that can predict the totality of all the possible effects. The theory of habitability (lol).

I saw this release a few days ago. I'm not that excited about Kepler-22b. It's 600 light years away. Until we figure out a way to fold space-time, we aren't going to be traveling there to confirm whether or not if this planet can support life. I was much more intrigued by the discovery of planets in the Gliese 581 system that could possibly contain life. Gliese 581 is only 20 light years away. There's a chance of us actually being able to view this system in our lifetimes.

I agree, but this is (I think) making news because of the type of star rather than the type of planet. There are much closer planet candidates that reside in their stars 'habitable zone'.

[publiusr]

The fact that the planet is more massive than Earth could mean that it holds one or two moons.

That's what I'm hoping, that this object is actually two objects--an Earthlike Moon orbiting a larger SuperEarth...

[whimsyfree]

That's what I'm hoping, that this object is actually two objects--an Earthlike Moon orbiting a larger SuperEarth...

There are numerous gas giants in stars' HZ which would be more suitable objects for that brand of wishful thinking.

Excellent point. Not to mention the effect of radioactive decay within the planet or other internal mechanisms. Crust thickness, planet density. Someone needs to come up with the equation that can predict the totality of all the possible effects. The theory of habitability (lol).

Numerous papers have been published on the topic. I don't see how it can be a rocky planet (by which I mean a planet which is at least 99.9% rocks and metal by mass) with a mass less than 10.

[RetepO]

I've just registered with BAUT and I regret to see this thread fade away. The posts are all fascinating and contributed by people who have evidently studied the topic of planets and life, but most seem to be tackling a very broad subject one parameter at a time. Does anyone know of any work in the literature that tries to deal with the subject of life on habitable planets that are more massive than Earth?

[Githyanki]

Another thought, it just how old is the star? In about 2 billion years, Earth will have an atmosphere similar to Venus's; with our instruments, we'd think Earth was Earth-like then.

[willstaruss22]

bigger earth bigger gravity much thicker atmosphere i would say not habitable.

[swampyankee]

Speculation is fun.

We need somebody with some formal experience in biomechanics to step in. I don't, so I'll consider my speculation ill-informed.

> I think tetrapods are an evolutionary accident. Given the sample size, who knows?

> Larger land-based lifeforms are more affected by gravity, especially by falling, than are small ones. Drop a mouse down a well, it walks away. For the same drop, a cat is stunned, a man is killed, and a horse splashes (iirc, this is from JBS Haldane).

> I don't think that extraterrestrial biologies will permit things like bones that are orders of magnitude stronger than terrestrial equivalents (actually, both bone and wood are quite good structural materials -- Geoffrey Dehavilland's use of wood, vs aluminum, in the Mosquito did not require miracles of design).

So, do I think that intelligent aliens are possible under 10 times Earth gravity? Sure. First, they could evolve in a marine environment, where gravity is not a structural constraint. Second, I don't see a particular need for an intelligent creature to be largely vertical, as are humans. Pressure is not going to be a constraint as long as it permits complex chemistry. I know Earth biochemistry works at about 1100 bar, because stuff lives at the bottom of Challenger Deep, so my WAG is that some form of biochemistry would be possible at ten times that pressure.

Gravity is a constraint, but not a preventive. Pressure isn't even a major constraint.

[whimsyfree]

Pressure is not going to be a constraint as long as it permits complex chemistry. I know Earth biochemistry works at about 1100 bar, because stuff lives at the bottom of Challenger Deep, so my WAG is that some form of biochemistry would be possible at ten times that pressure.

WAG? I thought that stood for "wives and girlfriends". At 10 times that pressure water would be in the form of one of the dense high pressure ices. I don't know if biochemistry can take place in such a medium, but it seems to me you could just as well propose life on Jupiter or Uranus. They have the elemental ingredients for life and zones with Earth-like temperatures too.

Gravity is a constraint, but not a preventive.

How to you propose to test your hypothesis that there is intelligent life on this planet?

[swampyankee]

WAG? I thought that stood for "wives and girlfriends". At 10 times that pressure water would be in the form of one of the dense high pressure ices. I don't know if biochemistry can take place in such a medium, but it seems to me you could just as well propose life on Jupiter or Uranus. They have the elemental ingredients for life and zones with Earth-like temperatures too.



How to you propose to test your hypothesis that there is intelligent life on this planet?

I didn't hypothesize that there was life; I speculated that there is no particular reason there couldn't be. Terrestrial biochemistry does work to 1100 bar, although there are changes in the behavior of some reactions relevant to biology. As for the other issue? Do note, too, that liquid water can exist at 11000 bar; it just needs to be warmer than about 320 K -- see the phase diagram.

[whimsyfree]

I didn't hypothesize that there was life; I speculated that there is no particular reason there couldn't be.

That doesn't seem scientifically interesting to me. Life that we can detect (or can detect us) is interesting to me; whimsy about life we will never meet, not so. I can't be certain, but I doubt the first contact will be with creatures that live in the depths of a panthalassic super-Earth. It's just such a bad base for space exploration and communication.

Do note, too, that liquid water can exist at 11000 bar; it just needs to be warmer than about 320 K -- see the phase diagram.

Thanks for that.

[ZunarJ5]

Speculation is fun.

We need somebody with some formal experience in biomechanics to step in. I don't, so I'll consider my speculation ill-informed.

> I think tetrapods are an evolutionary accident. Given the sample size, who knows?

> Larger land-based lifeforms are more affected by gravity, especially by falling, than are small ones. Drop a mouse down a well, it walks away. For the same drop, a cat is stunned, a man is killed, and a horse splashes (iirc, this is from JBS Haldane).

> I don't think that extraterrestrial biologies will permit things like bones that are orders of magnitude stronger than terrestrial equivalents (actually, both bone and wood are quite good structural materials -- Geoffrey Dehavilland's use of wood, vs aluminum, in the Mosquito did not require miracles of design).

So, do I think that intelligent aliens are possible under 10 times Earth gravity? Sure. First, they could evolve in a marine environment, where gravity is not a structural constraint. Second, I don't see a particular need for an intelligent creature to be largely vertical, as are humans. Pressure is not going to be a constraint as long as it permits complex chemistry. I know Earth biochemistry works at about 1100 bar, because stuff lives at the bottom of Challenger Deep, so my WAG is that some form of biochemistry would be possible at ten times that pressure.

Gravity is a constraint, but not a preventive. Pressure isn't even a major constraint.

Perhaps something else to add to your list; the chambered manner in which plants transfer fluid from roots to branches could be a useful circulatory adaptation to high gravity animal life.

[Noclevername]

Life that we can detect (or can detect us) is interesting to me; whimsy about life we will never meet, not so.

If by "we" you mean those of us alive today, probably not. But don't rule out the possibility of some future generation of humanity or post-humanity doing so. We have a long future ahead of us, assuming we don't kill ourselves off.

In either case, instead of "whimsy" you could call it rather, a thought-experiment.

[CARREEN]

The fact that the planet is more massive than Earth could mean that it holds one or two moons.

Two Moons, means always Moonlight ? If always moonlight probably there have no Sun.

[eburacum45]

Two Moons, means always Moonlight ? If always moonlight probably there have no Sun.

Moonlight is reflected sunlight; if there is no sunlight, there is no moonlight.