Distant planet judged possibly habitable

On Apr 24, 4:52 pm, wrote:
Distant planet judged possibly habitable
Astronomers report finding the most Earth-like planet outside our
Solar System to date.http://www.world-science.net

While I'm not an astronomer, I find it absolutely
amazing how scientists are able to determine a small planet
only 50% larger (by their calculations) has an atmospher
that contains a surface temp of between 0-104F from
20.5 ly away.

I looked on my star charts for Gliese 581 and couldn't even find it.
Is this a relatively new found star?
Or perhaps it goes by a different nomenclature on my star chart?
Or perhaps further, maybe it wasn't deemed an important star
because it was a red drawf?

That said, I find the red drawf stars to be an interesting phenomena
in itself, as they are extremely long lasting stars, with very low
luminosities, and it's theorized red drawfs make up the majority
of all stars by a rather large margin.

-----------------------

On a far sci-fi aside...
ironicly or not, this fits in perfectly to the big bug eyed alien
theories,
as any creature born unto a low light sun would need extra sensitive
eyes.
However, our sun light on earth (or even normal lighting conditions
for
humans) would probably be blinding to them.

HJ Every Beer Bar the guys are straight Go into a Cock Tail bar and you
got big problem Needle Nevada has a Cock Tail Bar that Cactus
Saul is its best customer drinking Shirley Temples our of his boots
Bert .

"Charles D. Bohne" wrote in message
news:jas133piadj25qtoq0j8om55a5bon9ephb@pasoschwei z.de...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:51:59 -0700, "Hagar"
wrote:

Never learned that ridiculous
lingo, but my all time favorite to this day is: 10-beers.

It's never too late to learn something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-code
C.

These days they just say: "Book 'em Danno".
10-derly
10-tacles
10-able
10-acious
10-dency
10-derloin
10-dril
10-ement
10-sile
10-nis
10-or
10-se
10-nt
10-ure

Art Deco wrote:
"Home of the auk fake award really Big Whoppers"

Charles D. Bohne wrote:
Lt. Gen Bohne



On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:51:59 -0700, "Hagar"
wrote:


Never learned that ridiculous
lingo, but my all time favorite to this day is: 10-beers.

Lt. Gen Bohne
It's never too late to learn something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-code
C.

Bart Devo

Correct: My gay laming crossposting silly nano diaper coffeeboys
See:
http://www.arthure212.bravepages.com...s/IMG_1447.htm


MCP More Crap Please

I vote Deco ANUS....AS BEING THE BIGGEST ASSHOLE ON USENET!!! :-)

"We can repair them, we have the technology, to remove the alien Gray
giant anal probes from their auk clueless asses, bring in the Bookman
coffeeboy trained deprober."

In article . com,
studio wrote:

snip

I looked on my star charts for Gliese 581 and couldn't even find it.

What kind of charts were those? Unless they're quite large-scale and
'deep' I wouldn't expect them to show such a faint star: see below.
According to SIMBAD its J2000 position is RA 15:19:27, Dec. -07°43'20".

Is this a relatively new found star?

No; SIMBAD lists references to it going back to 1926. Of course its
planets weren't discovered until fairly recently.

Or perhaps it goes by a different nomenclature on my star chart?

Could be; among its other designations are HO Librae, BD-7 4003, Wolf
562, and Hipparcos 74995. My "Starry Night Backyard" planetarium program
displays it as TYC5594-1093-1.

Or perhaps further, maybe it wasn't deemed an important star
because it was a red drawf?

Most likely because it's too faint to see without a sizable telescope:
it's of the eleventh magnitude, a hundred times dimmer than the faintest
stars you can see without optical aid.

--
Odysseus

On Apr 27, 5:09 am, Odysseus wrote:
In article . com,

studio wrote:
I looked on my star charts for Gliese 581 and couldn't even find it.

What kind of charts were those? Unless they're quite large-scale and
'deep' I wouldn't expect them to show such a faint star: see below.
According to SIMBAD its J2000 position is RA 15:19:27, Dec. -07°43'20".

Yes, they apparently aren't exactly the most detailed maps.
I can imagine how tricky (if not impossible) it is to represent a 3D
universe on a 2D piece of paper.
I find even the computer 3D modeling of space a rather difficult thing
to manipulate precisely from my amature level.

Or perhaps it goes by a different nomenclature on my star chart?

Could be; among its other designations are HO Librae, BD-7 4003, Wolf
562, and Hipparcos 74995. My "Starry Night Backyard" planetarium program
displays it as TYC5594-1093-1.

Don't you just love how 1 star can be called 5,6,7,8 different names?
The closest I could come to finding GL-581 on my star map was
it's nearest star GL-570 which is about 5.2ly away.
And then I can't help but wonder...where's GL-571-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9?

What I'm mainly interested in is the "near stars" within say 200ly.
All the known near stars, not some of them.
What's frustrating is how all the maps I find on the Internet vary so
much
because of all these varying designations, or no designation at all
because
they simply aren't listed.

In article .com,
studio wrote:

snip

Don't you just love how 1 star can be called 5,6,7,8 different names?
The closest I could come to finding GL-581 on my star map was
it's nearest star GL-570 which is about 5.2ly away.
And then I can't help but wonder...where's GL-571-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9?

Here's the catalogue, which you can either browse online or download for
local searching & manipulation:

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/star-catalog/cns3.html.

What I'm mainly interested in is the "near stars" within say 200ly.
All the known near stars, not some of them.

Although that's just a tiny chunk of our Galaxy, there are an awful lot
of stars in that volume. The hundred nearest known stars are all within
about 25 light-years of here. Extrapolating to 200 LY suggests that the
list you want would comprise more than 15,000 stars (many of them yet
undiscovered at present). The expanded Gliese catalogue linked above
ostensibly goes to 25 pc (~80 LY), as of 1991, and contains something
like four thousand entries. Here's a grab-bag of less ambitious listings
from my bookmark file:

http://www.cosmobrain.com/cosmobrain/res/nearstar.html
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/extra/nearest.html
http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/nearest.html
http://www.r-clarke.org.uk/nearest.htm
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010318.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/distances/nearest.html
http://www.astronomynotes.com/tables/tablesc.htm

Googling will doubtless find you many more such pages.

What's frustrating is how all the maps I find on the Internet vary so
much because of all these varying designations, or no designation at
all because they simply aren't listed.

Simbad is an excellent source for cross-referencing designations:

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/Simbad

--
Odysseus

On Apr 29, 10:25 pm, Odysseus wrote:
In article .com,

studio wrote:
What I'm mainly interested in is the "near stars" within say 200ly.
All the known near stars, not some of them.

Although that's just a tiny chunk of our Galaxy, there are an awful lot
of stars in that volume. The hundred nearest known stars are all within
about 25 light-years of here. Extrapolating to 200 LY suggests that the
list you want would comprise more than 15,000 stars (many of them yet
undiscovered at present). The expanded Gliese catalogue linked above
ostensibly goes to 25 pc (~80 LY), as of 1991, and contains something
like four thousand entries. Here's a grab-bag of less ambitious listings
from my bookmark file:

I didn't think there were that many stars within 200ly.
However I did already know of the 116 known stars within 20ly.
I find the nearby stars fascinating subjects by themselves, without
overwhelming
myself too much with the vast distances and goings-on of everything
else.
It would be nice to be able to see all of their locations without the
distraction of the
multitude of background stars that are further away that many maps
tend to have.

Thanks for the helpful links though, I'll check them out.

In article .com,
studio wrote:

snip

I find the nearby stars fascinating subjects by themselves, without
overwhelming
myself too much with the vast distances and goings-on of everything
else.
It would be nice to be able to see all of their locations without the
distraction of the
multitude of background stars that are further away that many maps
tend to have.

The Atlas of the Universe is the best site I know of for putting things
in perspective, so to speak, over a wide range of scales:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/index.html
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/20lys.html
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html

--
Odysseus

Yes I've been at that Web site...and those were the initial star
maps I have, and was complaining of that didn't show Gliese 581.
Otherwise, I like how they format their maps, even though they are
simplistic.
It would be better if they used a (.gif or Java script possibly?), so
that when
someone puts the mouse curser on any of the stars, a pop-up would tell
more about it.

On May 2, 3:40 am, Odysseus wrote:
In article .com,

studio wrote:

I find the nearby stars fascinating subjects by themselves, without
overwhelming
myself too much with the vast distances and goings-on of everything
else.
It would be nice to be able to see all of their locations without the
distraction of the
multitude of background stars that are further away that many maps
tend to have.

The Atlas of the Universe is the best site I know of for putting things
in perspective, so to speak, over a wide range of scales:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/index.html
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/20lys.html
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html