TRAPPIST-1

>this must be the same ampled up to 11
that's not how orbital mechanics works.

considering that it would take 39 years to get there constantly accelerating at the speed of light, and the fact that only light can travel that fast, i say its pointless. look closer, towards our system NASA.

It's closer to 5 and a half years for the travelers if you don't count speeding up or slowing down.

>40 light years away

We could find signatures of life but never ever be able to know what it looks like. It would literally mean eons of speculation...

...

They have been there for millions of years, if it did not happened its not gonna happen. I guess the gravitational forces interacting between them have ended up in a awesome balance where no one collides with another one.

that NASA conference said that this red dwarf was older, and thus has fewer flares and shit
you might e confusing trappist with Alpha Centauri

>would probably see the other planets in the sky like we see the moon
If there is water on the planet the bound orbit will possibly cause a permanent hurricane on the sun side and torrential rain on the night side. You would never see anything but clouds except (perhaps) centered in the eye of the storm.

It's fueling my hunger for better optics like James Webb.

It's been a long fucking time since I studied anything astro related.

1. Wouldn't the close orbit to the star and other planets cause a tidal lock? Thus making the planets uninhabitable.

2. Don't red drawfs emit fuck tons of radiation on shit that's within close orbit? Thus preventing any chance of atmosphere developing?

Seems like sensationalism as the odds of anything living on those planets seems really skewed.

>Just look at the stability of the Galilean moons of Jupiter, this must be the same amped up to 11

Orbital resonances can result in very stable systems, and generally if they result in an unstable system the system breaks down on the order of a few hundred to a few thousand years. The Trappist-1 system is 500 million years old.

This hypothesis is old and has been all but proven incorrect. it's far more likely that an earthlike tidally locked planet would form a super-rotating atmosphere similar to Venus which would continually transfer heat from the day side to the night side, resulting in relatively stable temperatures across the entire planet except for the poles.

>2.
They emit more IR radiation than our sun, so while the visible light would be lower heat could be similar.
Not sure on other types of radiation.

>no gas giant bros to shield them from comets
literally fucking nothing

Tidal lock is not the death sentence people once thought it was, and even then it was only considered less-than-ideal rather than putting life completely out of the question.
A tidally locked planet is likely to form a super rotating atmosphere that would stabilize temperatures between the day and night sides, keeping the entire planet temperate rather than having an extremely hot day side and a correspondingly cold night side.

The heightened influx of UV and X-ray radiation from flares would not be good for a planet's atmosphere but again is not a death sentence. Even without a magnetic field it's likely that these large terrestrial tidally interacting planets would remain geologically active enough to replenish their atmospheres as they are worn away, and of course there's a good chance these planets could have magnetospheres as well.

It seems like sensationalism because this is a sensational discovery. SEVEN earth-sized planets orbiting a single star, and three of them are within the conservative habitable zone, with the outer two probably capable of harboring life under their frozen exteriors. Further, the system is close enough that we can analyze the atmospheres of these worlds directly, giving us our first insight into exoplanetary weather, atmospheric composition, etc.

>implying Jupiter hasn't done more damage by tidally fucking with the asteroids and comets in our solar system than it has helped by flinging others away.

Gas giant bros are a meme.

feels bad that i dont have a cute trap bf to exoplanet with.

Tidal locked planets can form super atmospheres? That's cool as balls. Do we know of any planets that have this?

>it's closer to 5 and a half years if you don't worry about the most important parts of the journey

Pretty sure Trappist was the subject, but it might have just been wrong.

In any case, it having been that way in the past isn't much better for the prospects of life.

...

made me lel

They can from super *rotating* atmospheres, which essentially means the atmosphere goes around much faster than the planet.

Venus rotates extremely slowly and has a super-rotating atmosphere.

We don't want a venus though. It's the least useful real estate in the solar system.

>tidal lock is fine bro
>meanwhile venus

Yeah no.

Cite?

And keep in mind I was talking about a water rich world so comparison with Venus seems rather odd.

...

I think that since there is no way to get a return on investment for sending anything there that it will never happen.

If you cant pay back the money it takes to do what you want to do + profit inside 20 years then no one will give the money to do it.

yay capitalism.

are we doing this?

template

>If they weren't stable they would have hit each other long ago

That's where the other 12 went.

>The heightened influx of UV and X-ray radiation from flares would not be good for a planet's atmosphere but again is not a death sentence.
Especially if the planets originally started out further from the star. From Nature:

>Gillon says that the six inner planets probably formed farther away from their star and then migrated inward. Now, they are so close to each other that their gravitational fields interact, nudging one another in ways that enabled the team to estimate each planet's mass. They range from around 0.4 to 1.4 times the mass of the Earth.

The news coverage has been bugging me. All we know is there's five to seven rocky planets within the habitable zone, but it's being treated like this means they're earth like with CGI pictures showing oceans and clouds.

Habitable zone just means if Earth was there the temperature would be right for water to not be completely frozen or steam. Venus, Mars, and the Moon are in Sol's habitable zone but are very uninhabitable. There's a lot more conditions that need to be met than just distance from the Star, and we don't have any of that for TRAPPIST's planets.

>All we know is there's five to seven rocky planets within the habitable zone
We know that these planets are larger than Earth and from that comes a lot of conjectures. With such since comes the larger gravity that could maintain both an atmosphere and also water. At the same time we already know that these are rock planet and not gas giant so the accretion process did not run amok. with deep enough waters life could survive the occasional X-ray bursts.

Venus lost its waters.

Mars is too small to retain its atmosphere in view of the solar wind.

Moon is even smaller and had no chance to keep any atmosphere.