Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

32 Exoplanets Discovered By Chilean Telescope

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the that's-just-for-starters dept.

Space 146

the4thdimension writes "An article on CNN notes that 32 exoplanets have been discovered using a new Chilean telescope. The telescope is capable of detecting movements of 2.1mph (comparable to a slow walking pace). These 32 new planets give the telescope a total of 75 planets it has discovered, out of the 400 discovered using all methods employed by astronomers. This places the HARPS system as the world's foremost exoplanet hunter."

cancel ×

146 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Many more to come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800177)

From TFA: They have "tons" more planet they haven't reported yet. Incredible finds

tons??? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800233)

I want to know how many Jovian-mass-equivalents' worth they've got in their backlog.

Re:tons??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29802499)

How many Libraries of Congress is that?

39 days to Mars... (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800197)

Um, just how long is the trip to the nearest habitable exoplanet again?

If it's less than my remaining life expectancy, get me a ticket.

Re:39 days to Mars... (4, Funny)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800283)

As soon as we find a habitable exoplanet, we'll let you know.

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801395)

If davidwr is a telephone sanitizer, we don't necessarily have to wait that long...

Re:39 days to Mars... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29802893)

ummm man.. they already found 13 inhabitable (in theory) planets outside of our solar system.. They have nearly the same makeup as earth but we cant reach them due to being billions of lightyears away.

Re:39 days to Mars... (5, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800407)

Um, just how long is the trip to the nearest habitable exoplanet again? If it's less than my remaining life expectancy, get me a ticket.

While that's out of the question, an unmanned nuke-powered probe could possibly survey such a system in one life-time if sufficiently funded.
     

Re:39 days to Mars... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800599)

Um, just how long is the trip to the nearest habitable exoplanet again? If it's less than my remaining life expectancy, get me a ticket.

While that's out of the question, an unmanned nuke-powered probe could possibly survey such a system in one life-time if sufficiently funded.

which will never happen as long as Obama can buy votes with a health care plan. hey, after social security the Democratic party needed a fresh new face on how to get people dependent on a government program so that running for office on the platform of discontinuing that program is political suicide. so we get the mess known as social security that will collapse under its own weight, and soon, if it is not reformed, yet no one has the balls to reform it because it would mark the end of his or her career in politics. nice going. why you guys think health care will be any different when these people have already shown their true colors is amazing to me. it's like that definition of insanity, you keep doing the same thing expecting a different result, because THIS time you're all hopeful and THIS time you want change blah blah blah... idiots.

Re:39 days to Mars... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800805)

Tell me, is there any kind of physical sensation associated with having an abnormally low IQ? Is there like a numbness or heaviness inside your head? Or is the affliction completely transparent to the sufferer?

Re:39 days to Mars... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800869)

It's pretty much the same feeling you get when you reply AC. Ooooh, I'm getting it now...

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#29803781)

I've always imagined it feels the same way as fasting for, say, 4 or 5 days, except instead of the pain from the hunger there's a kind of blissful self-confidence...

uh-oh, was that detailed enough to raise suspicions?

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800853)

Off-topic garbage like this reminds me of another right-wing lunatic I know who managed to turn a conversation about stop signs into a foaming-at-the-mouth rant about the federal government.

Re:39 days to Mars... (2, Funny)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801213)

To be fair stop signs don't seem like the most stimulating conversation.

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

PaganRitual (551879) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801649)

You've made a powerful enemy today, sign.

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801973)

To be fair stop signs don't seem like the most stimulating conversation.

Some friends were talking about how they'd gotten ticketed for running stop signs on their bikes because the cops were enforcing them. Sorry if it bores you what other people are talking about, but then they didn't really ask your opinion about how interesting the conversation seemed. Come to think of it, neither did I.

Re:39 days to Mars... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29803191)

Spoken like someone who is fresh out of mouth foam.

Re:39 days to Mars... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801283)

If it's "garbage" and "lunatic" and "foaming-at-the-mouth" then you should have no trouble explaining why the mismanagement of Social Security has been a good thing, why the reluctance to reform it has been a good thing, and why we should reward the government for the job they have made of Social Security by giving them more power over health care. If you are the calm rational one in this discussion then that should be very easy for you. So how about a little less hand-waving and name-calling and a bit more explaining why I am wrong?

Think of it like any other business or organization. Let's say I hire Acme Inc. to handle my accounting, and they do a terrible job. I mean they really screw it up, they mismanage my accounts, they fail to correctly handle the taxes, and they generally do a poor job and create a lot of problems for me. If I hire them a second time, and a third time, and get the same results, might it be reasonable to conclude that this is an incompetent organization that should not be trusted with more responsibility? Would you call that conclusion the rantings of a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic?

Let's look at the government. First, they don't understand this basic principle that every citizen understands, which is that you get into financial trouble if your expenditures constantly exceed your revenue. So we have record deficits and no relief of those in sight. We have programs like Social Security that were originally supposed to be a bit like insurance for retirees. The original program that loosely resembles insurance became an entitlement because this change was politically expedient (it put incumbents back into office). That alone is non-ideal but isn't really so bad, except that there is a shortage of money. Left alone, the Social Security program absolutely will collapse into bankruptcy. The sooner we deal with that, the easier it's going to be, yet we are in no hurry. No one seems to care that this is headed towards a scenario where younger people like me will pay all their working lives into a system that they will never see a dime from, and further, no one seems to care that taking action right now might prevent this ugly scenario.

So you see this kind of incompetence, or maybe you have some magical ability to ignore it. Then you want to give this same organization more power, more authority, and more money so they can regulate health care. Do you honestly believe they will handle the more complex issue of health care better than they handled the simpler issue of Social Security? Or have you even thought this through? Let me guess, you see no connection between rewarding incompetence and mismanagement with more money and power, and getting more incompetence and mismanagement? It reminds me of those women who stay with abusive men that beat them up every day, because they think maybe THIS TIME he'll change.

If you understand anything at all about government, you will understand that once government gets into the health care industry, it is never getting back out. These questions need some good, solid, no-bullshit answers before we accept this. If the questions make you uncomfortable then you can call me names for asking them if that makes you feel better, but please don't pretend to be the level-headed voice of calm reason if you are going to go that route.

Re:39 days to Mars... (2, Insightful)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801413)

*snore*

To borrow a phrase, on what planet do you spend most of your time?

It was big government that put a man on the moon.

It was big government that built the interstates. You're welcome.

It was big government that gave you the police department and firemen. You're welcome.

It's big government that puts men and women in uniform to go off and defend this country, but I don't hear Fox-News-watching sheep like yourself railing against the incompetence of government-run programs like the US Marine Corps or the socialised medicine that they receive.

This "all government is evil" bullshit is really getting tiresome. Why don't you take a look at government run health care systems around the world before you foam at the mouth with your anarchist hatred for the institutions of civilisation? Why don't you open your brainwashed eyes and see that there is only one industrialised country in the world (the USA) that thinks it's okay to leave people without health insurance or to let people go bankrupt because they get sick? Why can't you get it into your pointy little head that health care is as fundamental a human right as protection from the police or fire department? Why can't you see that Glenn Beck is bat shit insane?

Re:39 days to Mars... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801069)

I agree, if Obama or any politician gave a shat for that matter we would be OUT of Iraq, OUT of Afghanistan, and focusing on domestic programs like our space program (though the military is hard at work on the other black space program that no one gets to see, maybe that's why the public one is such a joke?)

in conclusion Obama is just one man and hardly determines the space programs fate by himself.

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801541)

which will never happen [star travel] as long as Obama can buy votes with a health care plan.

The last I saw it was about 50/50 in the polls if you factor in the electoral college. If it's populous bribery, it's not well-thought-out bribery. Plus, the backlash raised a lot of sour notes that will leave political scars no matter the final outcome. Ignoring whether I agree with healthcare or not, your premise is questionable unless the prez is looking at different polls and newspapers than the rest of us.
     

Re:39 days to Mars... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800751)

It would take like 50,000 years just to reach Proxima Centauri with our most advanced technology. There is no way in hell we could reach another star in a single human lifetime.

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801189)

the Orion nuclear pulse system I heard made it doable in 50years. Though I'm not sure what observer that was based on...

Re:39 days to Mars... (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801767)

The only reason to send an unmanned craft, is to scout out the habitable planets.

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802791)

No. If Bush III is president, it would be used to deliver a preemptive nuclear strike against possible terrorists there...cuz the CIA will have definite proof they will have weapons of mass destruction, but that for reasons of national security, nobody can be allowed to see/verify it...

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29803079)

Yes, you have hit on the best reason NOT to explore space. While normal people are spreading out, staking out claims, and making babies for the next generation - our troglodytes, neanderthals, predators, psychotics, and assorted other riffraff will be riding along on the very same spacecraft that normal people are using. And, you can't stop them, because they look just like normal people!

Life's a bitch, aint' it?

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

shadowofwind (1209890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801089)

The point isn't to visit. The point is to find interesting planets and study them from afar, and possibly send probes eventually. Moving information is more fundamental than moving a particular flesh body around.

Re:39 days to Mars... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801273)

scientists already discovered 13 inhabitable planets outside of our solar system. It's just that we can't reach them due to them being billions of lightyears away.

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

Haxamanish (1564673) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802347)

scientists already discovered 13 inhabitable planets outside of our solar system. It's just that we can't reach them due to them being billions of lightyears away.

Links please, we'd like to find out for ourselves if we can or cannot get there.

Re:39 days to Mars... (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801981)

Define 'lifetime'. If we can fix the largest impediment to human space travel: human bodies, we might be able to send you on the slow train to every planet in the galaxy, given a sufficiently advanced system suspend function on your quantum brain.

Great (2, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800229)

That's all we need. More planets.

Re:Great (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800319)

I know! What's the Galaxy coming to?!

Re:Great (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800433)

if those planets knew what's good for them, they'd hide

Re:Great (1)

ThorofAsgard (1644263) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800643)

Well hopefully they're large enough to not suffer Pluto's fate of being demoted to a "dwarf planet".

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801053)

AVERAGE JOE: Well, a dwarf planet is still a planet, right?
ASTRONOMER: No, it's a "dwarf planet". It's one thing.
AVERAGE JOE: Oh, so you mean it's not a real planet like dwarf stars aren't really stars?
ASTRONOMER: No, dwarf stars are stars but dwarf planets are not planets!
AVERAGE JOE: You're just making this up aren't you?
ASTRONOMER: I wish I were...

Re:Great (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801655)

"Dwarf astronauts" will really throw 'em off.

A telescope made out of Chile? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800285)

So, what's the refractive index of kidney beans, tomato sauce, and meat?
I was told that I had to have a passport to go Hungary, but that's fine, so I ate Turkey... yup, the whole country

3.5km/h (5, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800317)

the instrument detects movements as small as 3.5 km/hr (2.1 mph), a slow walking pace

So let me get this straight: If this thing were observing a star system 50 light years away, that's 4.7x10^14 kilometres ... and this thing can detect relative movements as small as 3.5km/hr?

Consider me impressed.

Re:3.5km/h (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800479)

In other news, Chile has experienced a dust storm recently.

Re:3.5km/h (4, Funny)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801137)

Sadly, most slashdotters won't be impressed until it can detect the jiggle of the breast of an Orion slave girl.

Re:3.5km/h (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801575)

Sadly, most slashdotters won't be impressed until it can detect the jiggle of the breast of an Orion slave girl.

You mean until we verify the jiggle first-hand (pun intended).
   

Re:3.5km/h (1)

ThePsion5 (1037256) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802471)

Well, depending on the distance to the exoplanet, the local gravity, and the voluptuousness of said Orion slave girl, 3.5km/hour may well be within the capacity of the young woman's mammaries.

Sadly, by the time those wonderful images reach humanity the young slave girl will be far past her prime, so it would serve as nothing more than a cruel tease to those who know that the funbags in question will no longer be so young and perky.

Re:3.5km/h (1)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 4 years ago | (#29803801)

Detecting speed over distance is different from detecting distance over distance. The distance involved doesn't really matter if you're looking for wavelength shift and comparing it at different times to detect wobble.
Still very neat.

Stars to Planet Ratio (0)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800331)

Planets seem to be everywhere we look. Right now the ratio between stars to planets in the milky way is about 1 billion to 1(if we use the 400 billion star estimate on the wikipedia page and the 400 stars in the article).

While the ratio will certainly continue to come down as we find more planets, I have to wonder if we are going to end up at the other end of the ratio before too long with a billion planets to a star. It just seems like ever star has multiple planets if we stare at them long enough.

Re:Stars to Planet Ratio (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800497)

Its not going to happen. planets orbit stars, we don't have a single example of a start with a billion planets. The one system we have (almost) sufficiently mapped has 8 planets and a handful of smaller rocks of note. Some of the other systems we have identified could have more planets than that, but we don't have the ability to detect smaller/farther planets at the moment.

Re:Stars to Planet Ratio (1)

Evan Meakyl (762695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800745)

we don't have a single example of a start with a billion planets

Just change the definition of the word "planet", and you're done!

Re:Stars to Planet Ratio (2, Insightful)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800957)

Clearly the parent poster was commenting that the ratio is currently stars/planets > 1 (more stars than planets) and he was wondering if the ratio would invert stars/planets 1 (more planets than stars). If we continue to find planets at some point we may find that 90% of the stars we CAN see well enough have more than 1 planet and it would be a safe bet at that point to say that there are more planets than stars.

I don't think he was suggesting that each star could ever have more than a billion planets. Sorry if you were just being sarcastic or trolling and I didn't get it.

Re:Stars to Planet Ratio (2, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802451)

Its not going to happen. planets orbit stars

So what would you call a rocky body the size and shape of (say) Earth or Mars that doesn't orbit a star? The IAU's inane mal-definition aside[*], I suspect most people would call it a planet (possibly with the qualifier "rogue" tacked on). I don't think we have much idea how many such bodies exist, but it's not beyond the bounds of reason to think that there's are many, many times as many as there are stars.

[*] I don't really give a rats ass how they classify Pluto--it's clearly a different type of body, and I'd be happy if they called it a Megacomet instead of a Planet, but the IAU's definition is still idiotic: there's no classification for bodies which don't orbit a primary, just to start with, and we can't tell if exoplanets are planets or not without going there, and most damning of all, they define Mercury as being more like Jupiter than it is like Ceres, which is simply brain-dead.

Re:Stars to Planet Ratio (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800627)

Naah. Sure they may begin to discover more and more planets, but at a certain point the number of planets around each star begins to decrease [nationalgeographic.com]

Re:Stars to Planet Ratio (4, Informative)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800791)

Right now the ratio between stars to planets in the milky way is about 1 billion to 1.

That's a ridiculous statistic. By that measure, the ratio between Diet Coke drinkers and humans is 3.5 billion to 1, because my wife and I are the only people in my group of friends who drink the stuff, and there are 7 billion people on the planet.

And yet somehow the Coca Cola company keeps making it, just for us...

A better statistic is the ratio of the number of planets discovered and the NUMBER OF STARS SEARCHED FOR PLANETS. As of 2003, this fraction was at least 10%, and given observational limits may prove to be as high as 100% -- it could well be that ALL sunlike stars have planets.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306524 [arxiv.org]

Re:Stars to Planet Ratio (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802749)

it could well be that ALL sunlike stars have planets.

We are collecting data points like mad and its not looking good for extraterrestrial life. If ET life existed we would be seeing evidence of it along with the planets right now. Either oxygen spectra from atmosphere or evidence of engineering elsewhere in the galaxy. If life exists it may not use similar metabolic processes to us and it may not be intelligent.

Re:Stars to Planet Ratio (2, Insightful)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 4 years ago | (#29803289)

We are collecting data points like mad and its not looking good for extraterrestrial life.

This news is all about revising a term in the Drake Equation [wikipedia.org] upward. That can't make ET life less likely.

As for spectra, the vast majority of planetary IDs give no information about the planets apart from their orbits and masses. And as far as I know, the few spectra we have are for Jupiters, not terrestrial planets.

So your dreams of bug-eyed-monsters are as alive as they ever were.

teeny weeny shift (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800345)

The telescope is capable of detecting movement 2.1mph (comparable to a slow walking pace).

It's amazing that such a small shift in spectrum line displacement can be detected. It doesn't make intuitive sense that a mere walking pace will produce a detectable shift. That's precision stuff. It's amazing what astronomy technology has been able to do with indirect information.
   

link to ESO Press Release (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800361)

Well, the "new Chilenean telescope" the summary is referring to is actually the 3.6m telescope of the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Chile, which started operation in 1976...

and here is the link to the ESO Press Release [eso.org]

Ridiculous claim (1, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800417)

The device can detect slight wobbles of stars as they respond to tugs from exoplanets' gravity. ... The instrument detects movements as small as 3.5 km/hr (2.1 mph)

I guess it could be possible to isolate certain frequencies in the oscillation to filter out solar storms and such which would easily affect its diameter at a rate faster than walking speed. But you'd have to watch it for centuries to gather enough data. At least. Geez, doing the trig (like 10^-22 radians per second) my intuition tells me you'd have to be watching that star for billions of years..

Re:Ridiculous claim (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800593)

Perhaps 2.1 mph is below the necessary precision to detect planets, and star storm effects are also below that. Thus, the displacement ranking may be something like:

    planetWobble > starStorm > scopeThreshold

But that's merely speculation that could explain your puzzle. I don't have the real answer.

Also, star storm movement may be canceled out by throwing some of the star "back-ward". For example, when you spit out a spray of water, your body moves back slightly due to the motion conservation laws of physics. The total net motion of the body-spit system (eww) is the same.
   

Re:Ridiculous claim (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800693)

Oh, good point. You're probably right about the precision of the scope.

From the eso.org project site it looks like they're actually using radial velocity (doppler shift) to measure the wobble so the arc calculation doesn't mean anything. It seems like that would be almost more difficult though. Picking out planetary-year-long wobbles from other low-frequency phenomena like sunspot activity and solar cycles sounds impossible.

Re:Ridiculous claim (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801693)

I expect that sun-spots (star-spots) wouldn't change the position of the absorption and emission lines in the spectrum, only make some darker or lighter.

Re:Ridiculous claim (1)

spitzak (4019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802563)

I think the worry is that the sunspot or solar storm is going to produce a velocity of the gas that is greater than "walking speed". So it would shift the lines by that amount.

I think they must be averaging over a long enough period and for the entire star that this is not a worry, however it does seem like this noise would swamp any such observations.

Re:Ridiculous claim (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29804071)

It could be that expelled gas has a different-enough spectrum that they know to ignore it. I expect that they'd decide on what the most stable lines/frequencies are based on general stellar observation. Or, at least ignore periods that have "double lines", which is what you'd get if the ejected material is the same as the surface material. (Such research may open up areas of stellar weather analysis outside of planet-hunting.)

Re:Ridiculous claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801763)

Unlikely as it sounds it really does work this way. Of course you have to correct for trivial little things that affect the velocity of your observatory relative to the star of interest. Things like the Earth's rotation about its axis, orbit around the sun, the orbit of the moon...

See this link for some more information:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/afoe/HD89744.html

Re:Ridiculous claim (4, Informative)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800893)

They're not measuring the side-to-side motion of the stars, that's impossible^H^H^H^Hvery difficult to measure, as your trig suggests.

They're measuring the Doppler shift of features in the star's optical spectrum, as it moves toward us and away. It's the world's most impressive police radar gun.

Walking pace... at what range? (2, Interesting)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800507)

That "walking pace" stat could be very impressive if it were given with the proper qualification information.

For example, if it could detect an object moving at that pace over the course of a year at 1 light year away... I would probably not be as impressed if it could do it from 50 light years in a matter of minutes.

Re:Walking pace... at what range? (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800651)

I'd be astounded if you could build a device that could measure the velocity of a person walking across the room.

Re:Walking pace... at what range? (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800875)

Can I cover the person in mirrors?

Re:Walking pace... at what range? (1)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800919)

That's easy... it's called a watch and a ruler. Now I'm no watch maker, nor can I create an accurate ruler without one to use for refrence, but if you'll let me give you velocity in strides per "one thousand" count... then I can measure velocity.

Re:Walking pace... at what range? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801321)

Mod parent up. The impressive figure in the article is completely meaningless. And I seriously am curious.

ESO Press Release (3, Informative)

mene (1660015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800511)

More details can be found in the Press Release [eso.org] of the European Southern Observatory. They have been using a new instrument called HARPS on the "old" ESO 3.6m telescope, which has ben around since 1976.

Re:ESO Press Release (2, Informative)

kamakiri (944887) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800539)

More details can be found in the Press Release [eso.org] of the European Southern Observatory. They have been using a new instrument called HARPS on the "old" ESO 3.6m telescope, which has ben around since 1976.

And HARPS [wikipedia.org] has been operational since 2003.

!Chilean (4, Informative)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800557)

This is a telescope operating in Chile, it is only partially funded by the Chileans.

Funded by

  • Swiss National Science Foundation
  • Federal Office for Education and Research
  • La Région Provence, Alpes et Côte d'Azur
  • Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers INSU
  • European Space Organization

ESO=European Southern Observatory (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800917)

Not "Space Organization." It's not directly related to the European Space Agency.

Re:!Chilean (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801625)

Does this mean they have to divy up the planets? "Four for you, three for you, three plus two moons for you; oh, and you small donors and magazine subscribers get the asteroids to split amongst yourselves..."

Re:!Chilean (2, Insightful)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802639)

Yea, the suckers are sufficiently stupid to fund our telescopes. We are getting some very nice hardware for nothing.

It was holding one of the the clearest and most unpolluted skies over their head that made them cry uncle and beg to built it, and they just keep on coming. Not our problem they f***ed up their environment to the point that no one in the northern hemisphere can see the stars anymore.

Just wait, in 50 years Chile is going repo those telescopes and charge by the star. It is all an elaborate plot by Chile to take over the Universe.

Re:!Chilean (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802721)

I'm pretty sure that in 50 years those telescopes will be worthless, so uh yeah I guess they could steal them at that point. I doubt anybody would care.

Re:!Chilean (1)

jalvarez13 (1321457) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802759)

LOL!! I'm chilean and I couldn't stop laughing... good one

Re:!Chilean (1)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#29803219)

Chile Puede!!!!!!!!!!

OMG, there's lot of planets out there (0, Troll)

jfdawes (254678) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800589)

Slow News Day.

Seriously, are any of these 32 new planets at all interesting? It was great that we've figured out how to detect the existence of these planets, but even the chilean team doesn't bother to single out any of them as being out of the ordinary.

Now that VASIMR [slashdot.org] technology seems to be coming of age, isn't it time to do a survey of everything within say, 20 light years to find stuff that may be potentially habitable?

Re:OMG, there's lot of planets out there (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800887)

are any of these 32 new planets at all interesting?

Define interesting.

Re:OMG, there's lot of planets out there (1)

jfdawes (254678) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801047)

Interesting: engaging or exciting and holding the attention or curiosity.

Sure. Some of these may be "interesting" to a limited set of people, but for the most part they are about the same as the other couple of hundred planets already discovered.

There's a lot of planets out there. They were expecting to find a bunch of them. This is not news.

I'm pretty sure if there were interesting planets in the 32 they are announcing, they would have pointed them out.

Re:OMG, there's lot of planets out there (2, Interesting)

jfdawes (254678) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801153)

Re:OMG, there's lot of planets out there (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#29803311)

One day winter, one day spring, one day summer, ooh no time for autumn

Re:OMG, there's lot of planets out there (1)

Opyros (1153335) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802437)

OMG, there's lot of planets out there

No, no — the line is "Oh my god, it's full of planets!"

In the background (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800601)

Deep within the structure of the telescope, someone asked "does anyone know if this spider is poisonous?"

Also news from (3, Informative)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800689)

You can also find the story on Physorg News [physorg.com] and Space.com. The discoveries where not all at once BTW, the HARPS telescopes been running since 2004, and found the 32 planets over that period, using just 100 nights observing time per year.

---

Extra Solar Planets [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

we've been here for millions of years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800795)

& somehow managed to frig up our perfect environment to a likely beyond salvage state, in less than 300. remarkable, no? the lights are coming up all over now.

this same post was deleted by robbIE's patentdead corepirate nazi hostage censorship devise earlier today. what a pathetic bot he's become.

that's right, & now we're getting a new planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29803071)

freaking earthbounders, always lamenting that there's nowhere left to hide. like they've never seen star trek & believe we're stuck here so we shouldn't wreck the place any further. how narrow mindead they are. at least maybe 100's of us will 'escape' prior to the big flash, maybe.

Enemy Planets (2, Funny)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800829)

The larger question is, how many of these are enemy planets? I'm going to say at least half, if not more.

Re:Enemy Planets (1)

nrgy (835451) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801011)

Indeed, I'm almost certain the system lords have recognized the value of these planets and have dispatched units to the area.

Re:Enemy Planets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801105)

It depends on who the president is. Me, I'm voting for Harrison Ford.

Re:Enemy Planets (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801731)

This is why gaming addicts shouldn't be astronomers :-)
   

Errata (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800911)

"An article on CNN describes that 32 exoplanets have been discovered using a new Chilean telescope. The telescope is capable of detecting movement 2.1mph (comparable to a slow walking pace)."

  • HARPS is a spectrograph [wikipedia.org] , not a telescope.
  • It's not Chilean, it's a European instrument mounted on a European telescope that are currently installed in a Chilean observatory.
  • The HARPS can detect Doppler shifts as small as 1 m/s. That's 3.6 km/hr. Why CNN would round that to 3.5 km/hr beats me--but then to convert that value to 2.1mph instead of 2.2mph, is beyond me.

Re:Errata (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801781)

HARPS is a spectrograph , not a telescope.

Note that they are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. Spectrograph readings can be made using "regular" telescopes when the right equipment is hooked up to them. A fancy prism, more or less. Whether this specific instrument is a dedicated instrument or not, I don't know.
   

Sounded like a LOT at first (0)

eball (1315601) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801039)

I initially read that headline as "32 exaplanets" and thought "Holy Jesus, how on earth did they find that many planets?!?" It makes a lot more sense now...

PLUTO (1)

DoninIN (115418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801135)

Did it find pluto back? I heard we lost Pluto a while back.

32 new names (1)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802055)

let the flamewars begin.

Re:32 new names (1)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802361)

Well, I'll be pissed if the second habitable planet isn't named "Earf".

Re:32 new names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29804347)

I always thought Earl made more sense

How many potential planets? (1)

MSesow (1256108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802103)

Has anyone seen anything about what percentage of the total stars in the galaxy could have planets, or even of those how many would have rocky planets? I have seen estimates that anywhere between 20% and maybe as high as 60% of sun-like stars could have rocky planets, but then I cannot find an estimate for what kind proportion of stars are sun-like (although Wikipedia indicated that 7.6% of main sequence stars fall into the same spectral category as the sun, but then how many stars are in their man sequence?). I have also read things about how many stars have been found with planets, and how many have been looked at, but I would assume that they are using some bias about what stars to look at in order to save time and work.

Do they have stargates on them? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29803279)

Do they have stargates on them?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>